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-68 |
EM-98 
|
EM-838 | EM-985 |
|
EM Short Name
em.detail.shortNameHelp
?
|
Fodder crude protein content, Central French Alps | PATCH, western USA | Eastern meadowlark abundance, Piedmont region, USA | Atlantis ecosystem assessment submodel |
|
EM Full Name
em.detail.fullNameHelp
?
|
Fodder crude protein content, Central French Alps | PATCH (Program to Assist in Tracking Critical Habitat), western USA | Eastern meadowlark abundance, Piedmont ecoregion, USA | Lessons in modelling and management of marine ecosystems: the Atlantis experience |
|
EM Source or Collection
em.detail.emSourceOrCollectionHelp
?
|
EU Biodiversity Action 5 | US EPA | None | None |
|
EM Source Document ID
|
260 | 2 | 405 | 463 |
|
Document Author
em.detail.documentAuthorHelp
?
|
Lavorel, S., Grigulis, K., Lamarque, P., Colace, M-P, Garden, D., Girel, J., Pellet, G., and Douzet, R. | Carroll, C, Phillips, M. K. , Lopez-Gonzales, C. A and Schumaker, N. H. | Riffel, S., Scognamillo, D., and L. W. Burger | Fulton, E.A., Link, J.S., Kaplan, I.C., Savina‐Rolland, M., Johnson, P., Ainsworth, C., Horne, P., Gorton, R., Gamble, R.J., Smith, A.D. and Smith, D.C. |
|
Document Year
em.detail.documentYearHelp
?
|
2011 | 2006 | 2008 | 2011 |
|
Document Title
em.detail.sourceIdHelp
?
|
Using plant functional traits to understand the landscape distribution of multiple ecosystem services | Defining recovery goals and strategies for endangered species: The wolf as a case study | Effects of the Conservation Reserve Program on northern bobwhite and grassland birds | Lessons in modelling and management of marine ecosystems: the Atlantis experience |
|
Document Status
em.detail.statusCategoryHelp
?
|
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 journal manuscript |
Software and Access
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-68 |
EM-98
|
EM-838 | EM-985 |
| Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | https://noaa-fisheries-integrated-toolbox.github.io/Atlantis | |
|
Contact Name
em.detail.contactNameHelp
?
|
Sandra Lavorel | Carlos Carroll | Sam Riffell | Elizabeth Fulton |
|
Contact Address
|
Laboratoire d’Ecologie Alpine, UMR 5553 CNRS Université Joseph Fourier, BP 53, 38041 Grenoble Cedex 9, France | Klamath Center for Conservation Research, Orleans, CA 95556 | Department of Wildlife & Fisheries, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS 39762, USA | CSIRO Wealth from Oceans Flagship, Division of Marine and Atmospheric Research, GPO Box 1538, Hobart, Tas. 7001, Australia |
|
Contact Email
|
sandra.lavorel@ujf-grenoble.fr | carlos@cklamathconservation.org | sriffell@cfr.msstate.edu | beth.fulton@csiro.au |
EM Description
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-68 |
EM-98
|
EM-838 | EM-985 |
|
Summary Description
em.detail.summaryDescriptionHelp
?
|
ABSTRACT: "Here, we propose a new approach for the analysis, mapping and understanding of multiple ES delivery in landscapes. Spatially explicit single ES models based on plant traits and abiotic characteristics are combined to identify ‘hot’ and ‘cold’ spots of multiple ES delivery, and the land use and biotic determinants of such distributions. We demonstrate the value of this trait-based approach as compared to a pure land-use approach for a pastoral landscape from the central French Alps, and highlight how it improves understanding of ecological constraints to, and opportunities for, the delivery of multiple services. Vegetative height and leaf traits such as leaf dry matter content were response traits strongly influenced by land use and abiotic environment, with follow-on effects on several ecosystem properties (e.g., fodder crude protein content), and could therefore be used as functional markers of ES." AUTHOR'S DESCRIPTION: "Variation in fodder crude protein content was modelled using…traits community-weighted mean (CWM) and functional divergence (FD) and abiotic variables (continuous variables; trait + abiotic) following Diaz et al. (2007). …The comparison between this model and the land-use alone model identifies the need for site-based information beyond a land use or land cover proxy…Fodder crude protein for each pixel was calculated and mapped using model estimates...This step is critically novel as compared to a direct application of the model by Diaz et al. (2007) in that we explicitly modelled the responses of trait community-weighted means and functional divergences to environment prior to evaluating their effects on fodder protein content. Such an approach is the key to the explicit representation of functional variation across the landscape, as opposed to the use of unique trait values within each land use." | **Note: A more recent version of this model exists. See Related EMs below for links to related models/applications.** AUTHORS' DESCRIPTION: "PATCH (program to assist in tracking critical habitat), the SEPM used here, is designed for studying territorial vertebrates. It links the survival and fecundity of individual animals to geographic information system (GIS) data on mortality risk and habitat productivity at the scale of an individual or pack territory. Territories are allocated by intersecting the GIS data with an array of hexagonal cells. The different habitat types in the GIS maps are assigned weights based on the relative levels of fecundity and survival expected in those habitat classes. Base survival and reproductive rates, derived from published field studies, are then supplied to the model as a population projection matrix. The model scales these base matrix values using the mean of the habitat weights within each hexagon, with lower means translating into lower survival rates or reproductive output. Each individual in the population is tracked through a yearly cycle of survival, fecundity, and dispersal events. Environmental stochasticity is incorporated by drawing each year’s base population matrix from a randomized set of matrices whose elements were drawn from a beta (survival) or normal (fecundity) distribution. Adult organisms are classified as either territorial or floaters. The movement of territorial individuals is governed by a parameter for site fidelity, but floaters must always search for available breeding sites. As pack size increases, pack members in the model have a greater tendency to disperse and search for new available breeding sites. Movement decisions use a directed random walk that combines varying proportions of randomness, correlation, and attraction to higher-quality habitat (Schumaker 1998)." | ABSTRACT:"The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) has converted just over 36 million acres of cropland into potential wildlife habitat, primarily grassland. Thus, the CRP should benefit grassland songbirds, a group of species that is declining across the United States and is of conservation concern. Additionally, the CRP is an important part of multi-agency, regional efforts to restore northern bobwhite populations. However, comprehensive assessments of the wildlife benefits of CRP at regional scales are lacking. We used Breeding Bird Survey and National Resources Inventory data to assess the potential for the CRP to benefit northern bobwhite and other grassland birds with overlapping ranges and similar habitat associations. We built regression models for 15 species in seven different ecological regions. Forty-nine of 108 total models contained significant CRP effects (P < 0.05), and 48 of the 49 contained positive effects. Responses to CRP varied across ecological regions. Only eastern meadowlark was positively related to CRP in all the ecological regions, and western meadowlark was the only species never related to CRP. CRP was a strong predictor of bird abundance compared to other land cover types. The potential for CRP habitat as a regional conservation tool to benefit declining grassland bird populations should continue to be assessed at a variety of spatial scales. We caution that bird-CRP relations varied from region to region and among species. Because the NRI provides relatively coarse resolution information on CRP, more detailed information about CRP habitats (spatial arrangement, age of the habitat (time since planting), specific conservation practices used) should be included in future assessments to fully understand where and to what extent CRP can benefit grassland birds. " | Models are key tools for integrating a wide range of system information in a common framework. Attempts to model exploited marine ecosystems can increase understanding of system dynamics; identify major processes, drivers and responses; highlight major gaps in knowledge; and provide a mechanism to ‘road test’ management strategies before implementing them in reality. The Atlantis modelling framework has been used in these roles for a decade and is regularly being modified and applied to new questions (e.g. it is being coupled to climate, biophysical and economic models to help consider climate change impacts, monitoring schemes and multiple use management). This study describes some common lessons learned from its implementation, particularly in regard to when these tools are most effective and the likely form of best practices for ecosystem-based management (EBM). Most importantly, it highlighted that no single management lever is sufficient to address the many trade-offs associated with EBM and that the mix of measures needed to successfully implement EBM will differ between systems and will change through time. Although it is doubtful that any single management action will be based solely on Atlantis, this modelling approach continues to provide important insights for managers when making natural resource management decisions. |
|
Specific Policy or Decision Context Cited
em.detail.policyDecisionContextHelp
?
|
None identified | AUTHOR DESCRIPTION: "Comprehensive habitat and viability assessments. . . [more rigoursly defined] can clarify debate of goals for recovery of large carnivores"; Endangered Species Act and related litigation | None reported | None identified |
|
Biophysical Context
|
Elevation ranges from 1552 to 2442 m, on predominantely south-facing slopes | Great Plains to Pacific Coast, northern Rocky Mountains, Pacific Northwest | Conservation Reserve Program lands left to go fallow | N/A |
|
EM Scenario Drivers
em.detail.scenarioDriverHelp
?
|
No scenarios presented | Population growth, road development (density) on public vs private land | N/A | No scenarios presented |
EM Relationship to Other EMs or Applications
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-68 |
EM-98
|
EM-838 | EM-985 |
|
Method Only, Application of Method or Model Run
em.detail.methodOrAppHelp
?
|
Method + Application | Method + Application (multiple runs exist) View EM Runs | Method + Application | Method Only |
|
New or Pre-existing EM?
em.detail.newOrExistHelp
?
|
New or revised model | New or revised model | New or revised model | Application of existing model |
Related EMs (for example, other versions or derivations of this EM) described in ESML
em.detail.relatedEmHelp
?
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-68 |
EM-98
|
EM-838 | EM-985 |
|
Document ID for related EM
em.detail.relatedEmDocumentIdHelp
?
|
Doc-260 | Doc-269 | Doc-328 | Doc-337 | Doc-405 | Doc-456 | Doc-459 | Doc-461 |
|
EM ID for related EM
em.detail.relatedEmEmIdHelp
?
|
EM-65 | EM-66 | EM-69 | EM-70 | EM-71 | EM-79 | EM-80 | EM-81 | EM-82 | EM-83 | EM-403 | EM-422 | EM-831 | EM-841 | EM-842 | EM-843 | EM-844 | EM-845 | EM-846 | EM-847 | EM-978 | EM-981 | EM-983 | EM-990 | EM-991 |
EM Modeling Approach
EM Relationship to Time
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-68 |
EM-98
|
EM-838 | EM-985 |
|
EM Temporal Extent
em.detail.tempExtentHelp
?
|
2007-2009 | 2000-2025 | 2008 | Not applicable |
|
EM Time Dependence
em.detail.timeDependencyHelp
?
|
time-stationary | time-dependent | time-stationary | time-dependent |
|
EM Time Reference (Future/Past)
em.detail.futurePastHelp
?
|
Not applicable | future time | Not applicable | Not applicable |
|
EM Time Continuity
em.detail.continueDiscreteHelp
?
|
Not applicable | discrete | Not applicable | Not applicable |
|
EM Temporal Grain Size Value
em.detail.tempGrainSizeHelp
?
|
Not applicable | 1 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
|
EM Temporal Grain Size Unit
em.detail.tempGrainSizeUnitHelp
?
|
Not applicable | Year | Not applicable | Not applicable |
EM Spatial Extent
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-68 |
EM-98
|
EM-838 | EM-985 |
|
Bounding Type
em.detail.boundingTypeHelp
?
|
Physiographic or Ecological | Physiographic or ecological | Physiographic or ecological | Not applicable |
|
Spatial Extent Name
em.detail.extentNameHelp
?
|
Central French Alps | Western United States | Piedmont Ecoregion | Not applicable |
|
Spatial Extent Area (Magnitude)
em.detail.extentAreaHelp
?
|
10-100 km^2 | >1,000,000 km^2 | 100,000-1,000,000 km^2 | Not applicable |
Spatial Distribution of Computations
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-68 |
EM-98
|
EM-838 | EM-985 |
|
EM Spatial Distribution
em.detail.distributeLumpHelp
?
|
spatially distributed (in at least some cases) | spatially distributed (in at least some cases) | spatially lumped (in all cases) | Not applicable |
|
Spatial Grain Type
em.detail.spGrainTypeHelp
?
|
area, for pixel or radial feature | area, for pixel or radial feature | Not applicable | Not applicable |
|
Spatial Grain Size
em.detail.spGrainSizeHelp
?
|
20 m x 20 m | 504 km^2 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
EM Structure and Computation Approach
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-68 |
EM-98
|
EM-838 | EM-985 |
|
EM Computational Approach
em.detail.emComputationalApproachHelp
?
|
Analytic | Numeric | Analytic | Analytic |
|
EM Determinism
em.detail.deterStochHelp
?
|
deterministic | stochastic | deterministic | deterministic |
|
Statistical Estimation of EM
em.detail.statisticalEstimationHelp
?
|
|
|
|
|
Model Checking Procedures Used
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-68 |
EM-98
|
EM-838 | EM-985 |
|
Model Calibration Reported?
em.detail.calibrationHelp
?
|
No | Unclear | Yes | Not applicable |
|
Model Goodness of Fit Reported?
em.detail.goodnessFitHelp
?
|
Yes | No | No | Not applicable |
|
Goodness of Fit (metric| value | unit)
em.detail.goodnessFitValuesHelp
?
|
|
None | None | None |
|
Model Operational Validation Reported?
em.detail.validationHelp
?
|
Yes | No | No | Not applicable |
|
Model Uncertainty Analysis Reported?
em.detail.uncertaintyAnalysisHelp
?
|
No | No | No | Not applicable |
|
Model Sensitivity Analysis Reported?
em.detail.sensAnalysisHelp
?
|
No |
Yes ?Comment:No results reported. Just a general statement was made about PATCH sensitivity and that demographic parameters are more sensitive that variation in other parameters such as dispersadistance . Reference made to another publication Carroll et al. 2003. Use of population viability analysis and reserve slelection algorithms in regional conservation plans. Ecol. App. 13:1773-1789. |
Yes | Not applicable |
|
Model Sensitivity Analysis Include Interactions?
em.detail.interactionConsiderHelp
?
|
Not applicable | Unclear | Unclear | 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-68 |
EM-98
|
EM-838 | EM-985 |
|
|
|
None |
Marine location (Classification hierarchy: Realm > Region > Province > Ecoregion)
em.detail.relationToSpaceMarineHelp
?
| EM-68 |
EM-98
|
EM-838 | EM-985 |
| None | None | None | None |
Centroid Lat/Long (Decimal Degree)
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-68 |
EM-98
|
EM-838 | EM-985 |
|
Centroid Latitude
em.detail.ddLatHelp
?
|
45.05 | 39.88 | 36.23 | Not applicable |
|
Centroid Longitude
em.detail.ddLongHelp
?
|
6.4 | -113.81 | -81.9 | Not applicable |
|
Centroid Datum
em.detail.datumHelp
?
|
WGS84 | WGS84 | WGS84 | Not applicable |
|
Centroid Coordinates Status
em.detail.coordinateStatusHelp
?
|
Provided | Estimated | Estimated | Not applicable |
Environments and Scales Modeled
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-68 |
EM-98
|
EM-838 | EM-985 |
|
EM Environmental Sub-Class
em.detail.emEnvironmentalSubclassHelp
?
|
Agroecosystems | Grasslands | Terrestrial Environment (sub-classes not fully specified) | Grasslands | Aquatic Environment (sub-classes not fully specified) | Rivers and Streams | Inland Wetlands | Lakes and Ponds | Near Coastal Marine and Estuarine | Open Ocean and Seas |
|
Specific Environment Type
em.detail.specificEnvTypeHelp
?
|
Subalpine terraces, grasslands, and meadows | Not reported | grasslands | Multiple |
|
EM Ecological Scale
em.detail.ecoScaleHelp
?
|
Not applicable | Ecological scale corresponds to the Environmental Sub-class | Ecological scale corresponds to 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-68 |
EM-98
|
EM-838 | EM-985 |
|
EM Organismal Scale
em.detail.orgScaleHelp
?
|
Community | Species | Species | Not applicable |
Taxonomic level and name of organisms or groups identified
taxonomyHelp
?
| EM-68 |
EM-98
|
EM-838 | EM-985 |
| None Available |
|
|
None Available |
EnviroAtlas URL
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-68 |
EM-98
|
EM-838 | EM-985 |
|
|
|
|
<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-68 |
EM-98
|
EM-838 | EM-985 |
|
|
|
None |