EcoService Models Library (ESML)
Home
Search EMs
My
EMs 
Learn about
ESML
View ESML Data Maploading
Compare EMs
Which comparison is best for me?EM Variables by Variable Role
One quick way to compare ecological models (EMs) is by comparing their variables. Predictor variables show what kinds of influences a model is able to account for, and what kinds of data it requires. Response variables show what information a model is capable of estimating.
This first comparison shows the names (and units) of each EM’s variables, side-by-side, sorted by variable role. Variable roles in ESML are as follows:
- Predictor Variables
- Time- or Space-Varying Variables
- Constants and Parameters
- Intermediate (Computed) Variables
- Response Variables
- Computed Response Variables
- Measured Response Variables
EM Variables by Category
A second way to use variables to compare EMs is by focusing on the kind of information each variable represents. The top-level categories in the ESML Variable Classification Hierarchy are as follows:
- Policy Regarding Use or Management of Ecosystem Resources
- Land Surface (or Water Body Bed) Cover, Use or Substrate
- Human Demographic Data
- Human-Produced Stressor or Enhancer of Ecosystem Goods and Services Production
- Ecosystem Attributes and Potential Supply of Ecosystem Goods and Services
- Non-monetary Indicators of Human Demand, Use or Benefit of Ecosystem Goods and Services
- Monetary Values
Besides understanding model similarities, sorting the variables for each EM by these 7 categories makes it easier to see if the compared models can be linked using similar variables. For example, if one model estimates an ecosystem attribute (in Category 5), such as water clarity, as a response variable, and a second model uses a similar attribute (also in Category 5) as a predictor of recreational use, the two models can potentially be used in tandem. This comparison makes it easier to spot potential model linkages.
All EM Descriptors
This selection allows a more detailed comparison of EMs by model characteristics other than their variables. The 50-or-so EM descriptors for each model are presented, side-by-side, in the following categories:
- EM Identity and Description
- EM Modeling Approach
- EM Locations, Environments, Ecology
- EM Ecosystem Goods and Services (EGS) potentially modeled, by classification system
EM Descriptors by Modeling Concepts
This feature guides the user through the use of the following seven concepts for comparing and selecting EMs:
- Conceptual Model
- Modeling Objective
- Modeling Context
- Potential for Model Linkage
- Feasibility of Model Use
- Model Certainty
- Model Structural Information
Though presented separately, these concepts are interdependent, and information presented under one concept may have relevance to other concepts as well.
Compare Criteria:
Show Criteria
Hide CriteriaEM Identity and Description
EM Identification
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-103 | EM-119 |
EM-321 
|
EM-491 |
EM-812
|
|
EM Short Name
em.detail.shortNameHelp
?
|
Birds in estuary habitats, Yaquina Estuary, WA, USA | Landscape importance for wildlife products, Europe | Erosion prevention by vegetation, Portel, Portugal | EnviroAtlas - Crops with no pollinator habitat | Wildflower mix supporting bees, CA, USA |
|
EM Full Name
em.detail.fullNameHelp
?
|
Bird use of estuarine habitats, Yaquina Estuary, WA, USA | Landscape importance for wildlife products, Europe | Soil erosion prevention provided by vegetation cover, Portel municipality, Portugal | US EPA EnviroAtlas - Acres of pollinated crops with no nearby pollinator habitat, USA | Wildflower planting mix supporting bees in agricultural landscapes, CA, USA |
|
EM Source or Collection
em.detail.emSourceOrCollectionHelp
?
|
US EPA | EU Biodiversity Action 5 | EU Biodiversity Action 5 | US EPA | EnviroAtlas | None |
|
EM Source Document ID
|
275 | 228 | 281 | 262 | 400 |
|
Document Author
em.detail.documentAuthorHelp
?
|
Frazier, M. R., Lamberson, J. O. and Nelson, W. G. | Haines-Young, R., Potschin, M. and Kienast, F. | Guerra, C.A., Pinto-Correia, T., Metzger, M.J. | US EPA Office of Research and Development - National Exposure Research Laboratory | Williams, N.M., Ward, K.L., Pope, N., Isaacs, R., Wilson, J., May, E.A., Ellis, J., Daniels, J., Pence, A., Ullmann, K., and J. Peters |
|
Document Year
em.detail.documentYearHelp
?
|
2014 | 2012 | 2014 | 2013 | 2015 |
|
Document Title
em.detail.sourceIdHelp
?
|
Intertidal habitat utilization patterns of birds in a Northeast Pacific estuary | Indicators of ecosystem service potential at European scales: Mapping marginal changes and trade-offs | Mapping soil erosion prevention using an ecosystem service modeling framework for integrated land management and policy | EnviroAtlas - National | Native wildflower Plantings support wild bee abundance and diversity in agricultural landscapes across the United States |
|
Document Status
em.detail.statusCategoryHelp
?
|
Peer reviewed and published | Peer reviewed and published | Peer reviewed and published | Peer reviewed and published | Peer reviewed and published |
|
Comments on Status
em.detail.commentsOnStatusHelp
?
|
Published journal manuscript | Published journal manuscript | Published journal manuscript | Published on US EPA EnviroAtlas website | Published journal manuscript |
Software and Access
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-103 | EM-119 |
EM-321
|
EM-491 |
EM-812
|
| Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | https://www.epa.gov/enviroatlas | Not applicable | |
|
Contact Name
em.detail.contactNameHelp
?
|
M. R. Frazier ?Comment:Present address: M. R. Frazier National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, 735 State St. Suite 300, Santa Barbara, CA 93101, USA |
Marion Potschin | Carlos A. Guerra | EnviroAtlas Team | Neal Williams |
|
Contact Address
|
Western Ecology Division, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Pacific coastal Ecology Branch, 2111 SE marine Science Drive, Newport, OR 97365 | Centre for Environmental Management, School of Geography, University of Nottingham, NG7 2RD, United Kingdom | Instituto de Ciências Agrárias e Ambientais Mediterrânicas, Universidade de Évora, Pólo da Mitra, Apartado 94, 7002-554 Évora, Portugal | Not reported | Department of Entomology and Mematology, Univ. of CA, One Shilds Ave., Davis, CA 95616 |
|
Contact Email
|
frazier@nceas.ucsb.edu | marion.potschin@nottingham.ac.uk | cguerra@uevora.pt | enviroatlas@epa.gov | nmwilliams@ucdavis.edu |
EM Description
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-103 | EM-119 |
EM-321
|
EM-491 |
EM-812
|
|
Summary Description
em.detail.summaryDescriptionHelp
?
|
AUTHOR'S DESCRIPTION: "To describe bird utilization patterns of intertidal habitats within Yaquina estuary, Oregon, we conducted censuses to obtain bird species and abundance data for the five dominant estuarine intertidal habitats: Zostera marina (eelgrass), Upogebia (mud shrimp)/ mudflat, Neotrypaea (ghost shrimp)/sandflat, Zostera japonica (Japanese eelgrass), and low marsh. EPFs were developed for the following metrics of bird use: standardized species richness; Shannon diversity; and density for the following four groups: all birds, all birds excluding gulls, waterfowl (ducks and geese), and shorebirds." | ABSTRACT: "The study focuses on the EU-25 plus Switzerland and Norway, and develops the methodology proposed by Kienast et al. (2009), which uses expert-and literature-driven modelling methods. The methods are explored in relation to mapping and assessing … “Wildlife Products” . . . The potential to deliver services is assumed to be influenced by (a) land-use, (b) net primary production, and (c) bioclimatic and landscape properties such as mountainous terrain, adjacency to coastal and wetland ecosystems, as well as adjacency to landscape protection zones." AUTHOR'S DESCRIPTION: "Wildlife Products…includes the provisioning of all non-edible raw material products that are gained through non-agriculutural practices or which are produced as a by-product of commercial and non-commercial forests, primarily in non-intensively used land or semi-natural and natural areas." | ABSTRACT: "We present an integrative conceptual framework to estimate the provision of soil erosion prevention (SEP) by combining the structural impact of soil erosion and the social–ecological processes that allow for its mitigation. The framework was tested and illustrated in the Portel municipality in Southern Portugal, a Mediterranean silvo-pastoral system that is prone to desertification and soil degradation. The results show a clear difference in the spatial and temporal distribution of the capacity for ecosystem service provision and the actual ecosystem service provision." AUTHOR'S DESCRIPTION: "To begin assessing the contribution of SEP we need to identify the structural impact of soil erosion, that is, the erosion that would occur when vegetation is absent and therefore no ES is provided. It determines the potential soil erosion in a given place and time and is related to rainfall erosivity (that is, the erosive potential of rainfall), soil erodibility (as a characteristic of the soil type) and local topography. Although external drivers can have an effect on these variables (for example, climate change), they are less prone to be changed directly by human action. The actual ES provision reduces the total amount of structural impact, and we define the remaining impact as the ES mitigated impact. We can then define the capacity for ES provision as a key component to determine the fraction of the structural impact that is mitigated…Following the conceptual outline, we will estimate the SEP provided by vegetation cover using an adaptation of the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE)." | DATA FACT SHEET: "This EnviroAtlas national map estimates the total acres of agricultural crops within each 12-digit hydrologic unit (HUC) that have varying amounts of nearby forested pollinator habitat. The crop types selected from the U.S. Department of Agriculture Cropland Data Layer (CDL) require (or would benefit from) the presence of pollinators, but crops may have no nearby native pollinator habitat. This metric is based on the average flight distance of native bees, both social and solitary, that nest in woodland habitats and forage on native plants and cultivated crops." "The metric was generated using the ESRI ArcMap Neighborhood Distance tool in conjunction with a blended landcover grid, which included the 2006 National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD) and U.S. Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service Cropland Data Layer (CDL). Pollinator habitat is defined as trees (fruit, nut, deciduous, and evergreen) for nesting and associated woodland for additional pollen sources. Crops that either require or benefit from pollination were selected and a distance measure of 2.8 kilometers (the average bee species’ foraging distance from the nest4) was used to assess presence or absence of nearby native pollinator habitat. The total area of crops without nearby pollinator habitat was summarized by 12-digit HUC boundaries taken from the NHDPlusV2 Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD Snapshot)." | Abstract: " Global trends in pollinator-dependent crops have raised awareness of the need to support managed and wild bee populations to ensure sustainable crop production. Provision of sufficient forage resources is a key element for promoting bee populations within human impacted landscapes, particularly those in agricultural lands where demand for pollination service is high and land use and management practices have reduced available flowering resources. Recent government incentives in North America and Europe support the planting of wildflowers to benefit pollinators; surprisingly, in North America there has been almost no rigorous testing of the performance of wildflower mixes, or their ability to support wild bee abundance and diversity. We tested different wildflower mixes in a spatially replicated, multiyear study in three regions of North America where production of pollinatordependent crops is high: Florida, Michigan, and California. In each region, we quantified flowering among wildflower mixes composed of annual and perennial species, and with high and low relative diversity. We measured the abundance and species richness of wild bees, honey bees, and syrphid flies at each mix over two seasons. In each region, some but not all wildflower mixes provided significantly greater floral display area than unmanaged weedy control plots. Mixes also attracted greater abundance and richness of wild bees, although the identity of best mixes varied among regions. By partitioning floral display size from mix identity we show the importance of display size for attracting abundant and diverse wild bees. Season-long monitoring also revealed that designing mixes to provide continuous bloom throughout the growing season is critical to supporting the greatest pollinator species richness. Contrary to expectation, perennials bloomed in their first season, and complementarity in attraction of pollinators among annuals and perennials suggests that inclusion of functionally diverse species may provide the greatest benefit. Wildflower mixes may be particularly important for providing resources for some taxa, such as bumble bees, which are known to be in decline in several regions of North America. No mix consistently attained the full diversity that was planted. Further study is needed on how to achieve the desired floral display and diversity from seed mixes. " Additional information in supplemental Appendices online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/14-1748.1.sm |
|
Specific Policy or Decision Context Cited
em.detail.policyDecisionContextHelp
?
|
None identified | None identified | None identified | None Identified | None identified |
|
Biophysical Context
|
Estuarine intertidal, eelgrass, mudflat, sandflat and low marsh | No additional description provided | Open savannah-like forest of cork (Quercus suber) and holm (Quercus ilex) oaks, with trees of different ages randomly dispersed in changing densities, and pastures in the under cover. The pastures are mostly natural in a mosaic with patches of shrubs, which differ in size and the distribution depends mainly on the grazing intensity. Shallow, poor soils are prone to erosion, especially in areas with high grazing pressure. | No additional description provided | field plots near agricultural fields (mixed row crop, almond, walnuts), central valley, Ca |
|
EM Scenario Drivers
em.detail.scenarioDriverHelp
?
|
No scenarios presented | No scenarios presented | Different land management practices as represented by the comparison of different grazing intensities (i.e., livestock densities) in the whole study area and in three Civil Parishes within the study area | No scenarios presented | Varied wildflower planting mixes of annuals and perennials |
EM Relationship to Other EMs or Applications
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-103 | EM-119 |
EM-321
|
EM-491 |
EM-812
|
|
Method Only, Application of Method or Model Run
em.detail.methodOrAppHelp
?
|
Method + Application | Method + Application | Method + Application (multiple runs exist) View EM Runs | Method + Application | Method + Application (multiple runs exist) View EM Runs |
|
New or Pre-existing EM?
em.detail.newOrExistHelp
?
|
New or revised model | New or revised model | New or revised model | New or revised model | New or revised model |
Related EMs (for example, other versions or derivations of this EM) described in ESML
em.detail.relatedEmHelp
?
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-103 | EM-119 |
EM-321
|
EM-491 |
EM-812
|
|
Document ID for related EM
em.detail.relatedEmDocumentIdHelp
?
|
None | Doc-231 | Doc-228 | Doc-282 | Doc-283 | Doc-284 | Doc-285 | None | Doc-400 |
|
EM ID for related EM
em.detail.relatedEmEmIdHelp
?
|
None | EM-99 | EM-120 | EM-121 | EM-162 | EM-164 | EM-165 | EM-122 | EM-123 | EM-124 | EM-125 | EM-166 | EM-170 | EM-171 | None | None | EM-784 | EM-793 |
EM Modeling Approach
EM Relationship to Time
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-103 | EM-119 |
EM-321
|
EM-491 |
EM-812
|
|
EM Temporal Extent
em.detail.tempExtentHelp
?
|
December 2007 - November 2008 | 2000 | January to December 2003 | 2001-2015 | 2011-2012 |
|
EM Time Dependence
em.detail.timeDependencyHelp
?
|
time-stationary | time-stationary | time-dependent | time-stationary | time-dependent |
|
EM Time Reference (Future/Past)
em.detail.futurePastHelp
?
|
Not applicable | Not applicable | future time | Not applicable | past time |
|
EM Time Continuity
em.detail.continueDiscreteHelp
?
|
Not applicable | Not applicable | discrete | Not applicable | discrete |
|
EM Temporal Grain Size Value
em.detail.tempGrainSizeHelp
?
|
Not applicable | Not applicable | 1 | Not applicable | 1 |
|
EM Temporal Grain Size Unit
em.detail.tempGrainSizeUnitHelp
?
|
Not applicable | Not applicable | Month | Not applicable | Year |
EM Spatial Extent
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-103 | EM-119 |
EM-321
|
EM-491 |
EM-812
|
|
Bounding Type
em.detail.boundingTypeHelp
?
|
Physiographic or ecological | Geopolitical | Geopolitical | Geopolitical |
Point or points ?Comment:This is a guess based on information in the document. 3 field sites were separated by up to 9km |
|
Spatial Extent Name
em.detail.extentNameHelp
?
|
Yaquina Estuary (intertidal), Oregon, USA | The EU-25 plus Switzerland and Norway | Portel municipality | conterminous United States | Agricultural plots |
|
Spatial Extent Area (Magnitude)
em.detail.extentAreaHelp
?
|
1-10 km^2 | >1,000,000 km^2 | 100-1000 km^2 | >1,000,000 km^2 | 10-100 km^2 |
Spatial Distribution of Computations
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-103 | EM-119 |
EM-321
|
EM-491 |
EM-812
|
|
EM Spatial Distribution
em.detail.distributeLumpHelp
?
|
spatially distributed (in at least some cases) | spatially distributed (in at least some cases) | spatially distributed (in at least some cases) | spatially distributed (in at least some cases) | spatially lumped (in all cases) |
|
Spatial Grain Type
em.detail.spGrainTypeHelp
?
|
other (habitat type) | area, for pixel or radial feature | area, for pixel or radial feature | other (specify), for irregular (e.g., stream reach, lake basin) | Not applicable |
|
Spatial Grain Size
em.detail.spGrainSizeHelp
?
|
0.87-104.29 ha | 1 km x 1 km | 250 m x 250 m | irregular | Not applicable |
EM Structure and Computation Approach
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-103 | EM-119 |
EM-321
|
EM-491 |
EM-812
|
|
EM Computational Approach
em.detail.emComputationalApproachHelp
?
|
Analytic | Logic- or rule-based | Analytic | Analytic | Numeric |
|
EM Determinism
em.detail.deterStochHelp
?
|
deterministic | deterministic | deterministic | deterministic | deterministic |
|
Statistical Estimation of EM
em.detail.statisticalEstimationHelp
?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Model Checking Procedures Used
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-103 | EM-119 |
EM-321
|
EM-491 |
EM-812
|
|
Model Calibration Reported?
em.detail.calibrationHelp
?
|
Unclear | No | No | No | No |
|
Model Goodness of Fit Reported?
em.detail.goodnessFitHelp
?
|
No | No | No | No | No |
|
Goodness of Fit (metric| value | unit)
em.detail.goodnessFitValuesHelp
?
|
None | None | None | None | None |
|
Model Operational Validation Reported?
em.detail.validationHelp
?
|
No | Yes | No | No | No |
|
Model Uncertainty Analysis Reported?
em.detail.uncertaintyAnalysisHelp
?
|
No | No | No | No | No |
|
Model Sensitivity Analysis Reported?
em.detail.sensAnalysisHelp
?
|
No | No | No | No | No |
|
Model Sensitivity Analysis Include Interactions?
em.detail.interactionConsiderHelp
?
|
Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable |
EM Locations, Environments, Ecology
Location of EM Application
Terrestrial location (Classification hierarchy: Continent > Country > U.S. State [United States only])
em.detail.relationToSpaceTerrestrialHelp
?
| EM-103 | EM-119 |
EM-321
|
EM-491 |
EM-812
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marine location (Classification hierarchy: Realm > Region > Province > Ecoregion)
em.detail.relationToSpaceMarineHelp
?
| EM-103 | EM-119 |
EM-321
|
EM-491 |
EM-812
|
|
None | None | None | None |
Centroid Lat/Long (Decimal Degree)
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-103 | EM-119 |
EM-321
|
EM-491 |
EM-812
|
|
Centroid Latitude
em.detail.ddLatHelp
?
|
44.62 | 50.53 | 38.3 | 39.5 | 29.4 |
|
Centroid Longitude
em.detail.ddLongHelp
?
|
-124.06 | 7.6 | -7.7 | -98.35 | -82.18 |
|
Centroid Datum
em.detail.datumHelp
?
|
None provided | WGS84 | WGS84 | WGS84 | WGS84 |
|
Centroid Coordinates Status
em.detail.coordinateStatusHelp
?
|
Provided | Estimated | Estimated | Estimated | Provided |
Environments and Scales Modeled
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-103 | EM-119 |
EM-321
|
EM-491 |
EM-812
|
|
EM Environmental Sub-Class
em.detail.emEnvironmentalSubclassHelp
?
|
Near Coastal Marine and Estuarine | Aquatic Environment (sub-classes not fully specified) | Terrestrial Environment (sub-classes not fully specified) | Terrestrial Environment (sub-classes not fully specified) | Forests | Agroecosystems | Scrubland/Shrubland | Terrestrial Environment (sub-classes not fully specified) | Agroecosystems |
|
Specific Environment Type
em.detail.specificEnvTypeHelp
?
|
Estuarine intertidal | Not applicable | Silvo-pastoral system | Terrestrial | Agricultural landscape |
|
EM Ecological Scale
em.detail.ecoScaleHelp
?
|
Ecological scale is finer than that of the Environmental Sub-class | Ecological scale is finer than that of the Environmental Sub-class | Ecological scale is coarser than that of the Environmental Sub-class | Ecological scale is finer than that of the Environmental Sub-class | Ecological scale corresponds to the Environmental Sub-class |
Scale and taxa of organisms modeled
Scale of differentiation of organisms modeled
em.detail.nameOfOrgsOrGroupsHelp
?
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-103 | EM-119 |
EM-321
|
EM-491 |
EM-812
|
|
EM Organismal Scale
em.detail.orgScaleHelp
?
|
Guild or Assemblage | Not applicable | Not applicable | Guild or Assemblage | Species |
Taxonomic level and name of organisms or groups identified
taxonomyHelp
?
| EM-103 | EM-119 |
EM-321
|
EM-491 |
EM-812
|
|
None Available | None Available |
|
|
EnviroAtlas URL
| EM-103 | EM-119 |
EM-321
|
EM-491 |
EM-812
|
| None Available | Percent GAP Status 1 & 2 | Average Annual Precipitation | GAP Ecological Systems, The Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD) | None Available |
EM Ecosystem Goods and Services (EGS) potentially modeled, by classification system
CICES v 4.3 - Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (Section > Division > Group > Class)
em.detail.cicesHelp
?
| EM-103 | EM-119 |
EM-321
|
EM-491 |
EM-812
|
|
|
|
|
|
<a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.epa.gov/eco-research/national-ecosystem-services-classification-system-nescs-plus">National Ecosystem Services Classification System (NESCS) Plus</a>
fegs1Help
?
(Environmental Subclass > Ecological End-Product (EEP) > EEP Subclass > EEP Modifier)
fegs2Help
?
| EM-103 | EM-119 |
EM-321
|
EM-491 |
EM-812
|
|
|
|
|
|