EcoService Models Library (ESML)

Compare EMs

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 Criteria

Comparing:

EM-333
EM-604
EM-718
EM-843
EM-938

Add EM to Compare:

EM Identity and Description

EM Identification

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-333	EM-604	EM-718	EM-843	EM-938
EM Short Name em.detail.shortNameHelp ?	Evoland v3.5 (unbounded growth), Eugene, OR, USA	Chinook salmon value (household), Yaquina Bay, OR	WESP: Riparian & stream habitat, ID, USA	Mourning dove abundance, Piedmont region, USA	OpenNSPECT v. 1.2
EM Full Name em.detail.fullNameHelp ?	Evoland v3.5 (without urban growth boundaries), Eugene, OR, USA	Economic value of Chinook salmon per household method, Yaquina Bay, OR	WESP: Riparian and stream habitat focus projects, ID, USA	Mourning dove abundance, Piedmont ecoregion, USA	OpenNSPECT v. 1.2
EM Source or Collection em.detail.emSourceOrCollectionHelp ?	Envision	US EPA	None	None	None
EM Source Document ID	47 ? Comment: Doc 183 is a secondary source for the Evoland model.	324	393 ? Comment: Additional data came from electronic appendix provided by author Chris Murphy.	405	431
Document Author em.detail.documentAuthorHelp ?	Guzy, M. R., Smith, C. L. , Bolte, J. P., Hulse, D. W. and Gregory, S. V.	Stephen J. Jordan, Timothy O'Higgins and John A. Dittmar	Murphy, C. and T. Weekley	Riffel, S., Scognamillo, D., and L. W. Burger	Eslinger, David L., H. Jamieson Carter, Matt Pendleton, Shan Burkhalter, Margaret Allen
Document Year em.detail.documentYearHelp ?	2008	2012	2012	2008	2012
Document Title em.detail.sourceIdHelp ?	Policy research using agent-based modeling to assess future impacts of urban expansion into farmlands and forests	Ecosystem Services of Coastal Habitats and Fisheries: Multiscale Ecological and Economic Models in Support of Ecosystem-Based Management	Measuring outcomes of wetland restoration, enhancement, and creation in Idaho-- Assessing potential functions, values, and condition in a watershed context.	Effects of the Conservation Reserve Program on northern bobwhite and grassland birds	“OpenNSPECT: The Open-source Nonpoint Source Pollution and Erosion Comparison Tool.” NOAA Office for Coastal Management, Charleston, South Carolina. Accessed (11/2022) at https://coast.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/tools/opennspect.html
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 report	Published journal manuscript	Webpage

Software and Access

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-333	EM-604	EM-718	EM-843	EM-938
EM Software Access info Exit em.detail.modelAccessInformationHelp ?	http://evoland.bioe.orst.edu/	Not applicable	Not applicable	Not applicable	https://coast.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/tools/opennspect.html
Contact Name em.detail.contactNameHelp ?	Michael R. Guzy	Stephen Jordan	Chris Murphy	Sam Riffell	Not reported
Contact Address	Oregon State University, Dept. of Biological and Ecological Engineering	U.S. EPA, Gulf Ecology Div., 1 Sabine Island Dr., Gulf Breeze, FL 32561, USA	Idaho Dept. Fish and Game, Wildlife Bureau, Habitat Section, Boise, ID	Department of Wildlife & Fisheries, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS 39762, USA	NOAA Coastal Services Center, 2234 South Hobson Avenue Charleston, South Carolina 29405-2413
Contact Email	Not reported	jordan.steve@epa.gov	chris.murphy@idfg.idaho.gov	sriffell@cfr.msstate.edu	Not reported

EM Description

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-333	EM-604	EM-718	EM-843	EM-938
Summary Description em.detail.summaryDescriptionHelp ?	Note: A more recent version of this model exists. See Related EMs below for links to related models/applications. ABSTRACT: "Spatially explicit agent-based models can represent the changes in resilience and ecological services that result from different land-use policies…This type of analysis generates ensembles of alternate plausible representations of future system conditions. User expertise steers interactive, stepwise system exploration toward inductive reasoning about potential changes to the system. In this study, we develop understanding of the potential alternative futures for a social-ecological system by way of successive simulations that test variations in the types and numbers of policies. The model addresses the agricultural-urban interface and the preservation of ecosystem services. The landscape analyzed is at the junction of the McKenzie and Willamette Rivers adjacent to the cities of Eugene and Springfield in Lane County, Oregon." AUTHOR'S DESCRIPTION: "Two general scenarios for urban expansion were created to set the bounds on what might be possible for the McKenzie-Willamette study area. One scenario, fish conservation, tried to accommodate urban expansion, but gave the most weight to policies that would produce resilience and ecosystem services to restore threatened fish populations. The other scenario, unconstrained development, reversed the weighting. The 35 policies in the fish conservation scenario are designed to maintain urban growth boundaries (UGB), accommodate human population growth through increased urban densities, promote land conservation through best-conservation practices on agricultural and forest lands, and make rural land-use conversions that benefit fish. In the unconstrained development scenario, 13 policies are mainly concerned with allowing urban expansion in locations desired by landowners. Urban expansion in this scenario was not constrained by the extent of the UGB, and the policies are not intended to create conservation land uses."	ABSTRACT:"Critical habitats for fish and wildlife are often small patches in landscapes, e.g., aquatic vegetation beds, reefs, isolated ponds and wetlands, remnant old-growth forests, etc., yet the same animal populations that depend on these patches for reproduction or survival can be extensive, ranging over large regions, even continents or major ocean basins. Whereas the ecological production functions that support these populations can be measured only at fine geographic scales and over brief periods of time, the ecosystem services (benefits that ecosystems convey to humans by supporting food production, water and air purification, recreational, esthetic, and cultural amenities, etc.) are delivered over extensive scales of space and time. These scale mismatches are particularly important for quantifying the economic values of ecosystem services. Examples can be seen in fish, shellfish, game, and bird populations. Moreover, there can be wide-scale mismatches in management regimes, e.g., coastal fisheries management versus habitat management in the coastal zone. We present concepts and case studies linking the production functions (contributions to recruitment) of critical habitats to commercial and recreational fishery values by combining site specific research data with spatial analysis and population models. We present examples illustrating various spatial scales of analysis, with indicators of economic value, for recreational Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) salmon fisheries in the U.S. Pacific Northwest (Washington and Oregon) and commercial blue crab (Callinectes sapidus) and penaeid shrimp fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico.	A wetland restoration monitoring and assessment program framework was developed for Idaho. The project goal was to assess outcomes of substantial governmental and private investment in wetland restoration, enhancement and creation. The functions, values, condition, and vegetation at restored, enhanced, and created wetlands on private and state lands across Idaho were retrospectively evaluated. Assessment was conducted at multiple spatial scales and intensities. Potential functions and values (ecosystem services) were rapidly assessed using the Oregon Rapid Wetland Assessment Protocol. Vegetation samples were analyzed using Floristic Quality Assessment indices from Washington State. We compared vegetation of restored, enhanced, and created wetlands with reference wetlands that occurred in similar hydrogeomorphic environments determined at the HUC 12 level.	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. "	"This open-source version of the Nonpoint Source Pollution and Erosion Comparison Tool is used to investigate potential water quality impacts from climate change and development to other land uses. The downloadable tool is designed to be broadly applicable for coastal and noncoastal areas alike. Tool functions simulate erosion, pollution, and the accumulation from overland flow. OpenNSPECT uses spatial elevation data to calculate flow direction and flow accumulation throughout a watershed. To do this, land cover, precipitation, and soils data are processed to estimate runoff volume at both the local and watershed levels. Coefficients representing the contribution of each land cover class to the expected pollutant load are also applied to land cover data to approximate total pollutant loads. These coefficients are taken from published sources or can be derived from local water quality studies. The output layers display estimates of runoff volume, pollutant loads, pollutant concentration, and total sediment yield. Requires MapWindow GIS v.4.8.8 (open source software)"
Specific Policy or Decision Context Cited em.detail.policyDecisionContextHelp ?	Authors Description: " By policy, we mean land management options that span the domains of zoning, agricultural and forest production, environmental protection, and urban development, including the associated regulations, laws, and practices. The policies we used in our SES simulations include urban containment policies…We also used policies modeled on agricultural practices that affect ecoystem services and capital…"	None identified	None identified	None reported	None identified
Biophysical Context	No additional description provided	Yaquina Bay estuary	restored, enhanced and created wetlands	Conservation Reserve Program lands left to go fallow	No additional description provided
EM Scenario Drivers em.detail.scenarioDriverHelp ?	Three scenarios without urban growth boundaries, and with various combinations of unconstrainted development, fish conservation, and agriculture and forest reserves.	No scenarios presented	Sites, function or habitat focus	N/A	No scenarios presented

EM Relationship to Other EMs or Applications

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-333	EM-604	EM-718	EM-843	EM-938
Method Only, Application of Method or Model Run em.detail.methodOrAppHelp ?	Method + Application (multiple runs exist) View EM Runs	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	Application of existing model	New or revised model	New or revised model

Related EMs (for example, other versions or derivations of this EM) described in ESML

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-333	EM-604	EM-718	EM-843	EM-938
Document ID for related EM em.detail.relatedEmDocumentIdHelp ?	Doc-183 \| Doc-47 \| Doc-313 \| Doc-314 ? Comment: Doc 183 is a secondary source for the Evoland model.	Doc-324	Doc-390	Doc-405	None
EM ID for related EM em.detail.relatedEmEmIdHelp ?	EM-12 \| EM-369	EM-603 \| EM-397	EM-706 \| EM-729 \| EM-730 \| EM-734 \| EM-743 \| EM-749 \| EM-750 \| EM-756 \| EM-757 \| EM-758 \| EM-759 \| EM-760 \| EM-761 \| EM-763 \| EM-764 \| EM-766 \| EM-767 \| EM-732 \| EM-737 \| EM-738 \| EM-739 \| EM-741 \| EM-742 \| EM-751 \| EM-768	EM-831 \| EM-838 \| EM-839 \| EM-840 \| EM-841 \| EM-842 \| EM-844 \| EM-845 \| EM-846 \| EM-847	EM-940

EM Modeling Approach

EM Relationship to Time

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-333	EM-604	EM-718	EM-843	EM-938
EM Temporal Extent em.detail.tempExtentHelp ?	1990-2050	2003-2008	2010-2011	2008	Not applicable
EM Time Dependence em.detail.timeDependencyHelp ?	time-dependent	time-stationary	time-dependent	time-stationary	time-stationary
EM Time Reference (Future/Past) em.detail.futurePastHelp ?	future time	Not applicable	past time	Not applicable	Not applicable
EM Time Continuity em.detail.continueDiscreteHelp ?	discrete	Not applicable	Not applicable	Not applicable	Not applicable
EM Temporal Grain Size Value em.detail.tempGrainSizeHelp ?	2	Not applicable	Not applicable	Not applicable	Not applicable
EM Temporal Grain Size Unit em.detail.tempGrainSizeUnitHelp ?	Year	Not applicable	Not applicable	Not applicable	Not applicable

EM Spatial Extent

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-333	EM-604	EM-718	EM-843	EM-938
Bounding Type em.detail.boundingTypeHelp ?	Geopolitical	Geopolitical	Multiple unrelated locations (e.g., meta-analysis)	Physiographic or ecological	Not applicable
Spatial Extent Name em.detail.extentNameHelp ?	Junction of McKenzie and Willamette Rivers, adjacent to the cities of Eugene and Springfield, Lane Co., Oregon, USA	Pacific Northwest	Wetlands in idaho	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	100,000-1,000,000 km^2	Not applicable

Spatial Distribution of Computations

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-333	EM-604	EM-718	EM-843	EM-938
EM Spatial Distribution em.detail.distributeLumpHelp ?	spatially distributed (in at least some cases)	spatially lumped (in all cases)	spatially lumped (in all cases)	spatially lumped (in all cases)	spatially distributed (in at least some cases)
Spatial Grain Type em.detail.spGrainTypeHelp ?	area, for pixel or radial feature	Not applicable	Not applicable	Not applicable	area, for pixel or radial feature
Spatial Grain Size em.detail.spGrainSizeHelp ?	varies	Not applicable	Not applicable	Not applicable	30 m

EM Structure and Computation Approach

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-333	EM-604	EM-718	EM-843	EM-938
EM Computational Approach em.detail.emComputationalApproachHelp ?	Numeric	Analytic	Numeric	Analytic	Analytic
EM Determinism em.detail.deterStochHelp ?	stochastic	deterministic	deterministic	deterministic	deterministic
Statistical Estimation of EM em.detail.statisticalEstimationHelp ?	Other or unclear (comment)	Conventional (frequentist) statistics	Conventional (frequentist) statistics	Conventional (frequentist) statistics	Conventional (frequentist) statistics

Model Checking Procedures Used

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-333	EM-604	EM-718	EM-843	EM-938
Model Calibration Reported? em.detail.calibrationHelp ?	Unclear	No	No	Yes	Not applicable
Model Goodness of Fit Reported? em.detail.goodnessFitHelp ?	No	No	No	No	Not applicable
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	Not applicable
Model Uncertainty Analysis Reported? em.detail.uncertaintyAnalysisHelp ?	No	No	No	No	Not applicable
Model Sensitivity Analysis Reported? em.detail.sensAnalysisHelp ?	No	No	No	Yes	Not applicable
Model Sensitivity Analysis Include Interactions? em.detail.interactionConsiderHelp ?	Not applicable	Not applicable	Not applicable	Unclear	Not applicable

EM Locations, Environments, Ecology

Location of EM Application

Terrestrial location (Classification hierarchy: Continent > Country > U.S. State [United States only])

EM-333	EM-604	EM-718	EM-843	EM-938
North America United States Oregon	North America United States Oregon Washington	North America United States Idaho	North America United States North Carolina Georgia Alabama Maryland New Jersey South Carolina Pennsylvania	None

Marine location (Classification hierarchy: Realm > Region > Province > Ecoregion)

EM-333	EM-604	EM-718	EM-843	EM-938
None	Temperate North Pacific Northeast Pacific Cold Temperate Northeast Pacific Oregon, Washington, Vancouver Coast and Shelf	None	None	None

Centroid Lat/Long (Decimal Degree)

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-333	EM-604	EM-718	EM-843	EM-938
Centroid Latitude em.detail.ddLatHelp ?	44.11	44.62	44.06	36.23	Not applicable
Centroid Longitude em.detail.ddLongHelp ?	-123.09	-124.02	-114.69	-81.9	Not applicable
Centroid Datum em.detail.datumHelp ?	WGS84	WGS84	WGS84	WGS84	Not applicable
Centroid Coordinates Status em.detail.coordinateStatusHelp ?	Estimated	Estimated	Estimated	Estimated	Not applicable

Environments and Scales Modeled

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-333	EM-604	EM-718	EM-843	EM-938
EM Environmental Sub-Class em.detail.emEnvironmentalSubclassHelp ?	Rivers and Streams \| Forests \| Agroecosystems \| Created Greenspace	Near Coastal Marine and Estuarine \| Terrestrial Environment (sub-classes not fully specified)	Inland Wetlands	Grasslands	Aquatic Environment (sub-classes not fully specified) \| Near Coastal Marine and Estuarine \| Terrestrial Environment (sub-classes not fully specified)
Specific Environment Type em.detail.specificEnvTypeHelp ?	Agricultural-urban interface at river junction	Yaquina Bay estuary and ocean	created, restored and enhanced wetlands	grasslands	Coastal and non-coastal
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 finer than that of the Environmental Sub-class	Ecological scale corresponds to the Environmental Sub-class	Ecological scale is finer than that of the Environmental Sub-class

Scale and taxa of organisms modeled

Scale of differentiation of organisms modeled

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-333	EM-604	EM-718	EM-843	EM-938
EM Organismal Scale em.detail.orgScaleHelp ?	Not applicable	Other (multiple scales)	Not applicable	Species	Not applicable

Taxonomic level and name of organisms or groups identified

EM-333	EM-604	EM-718	EM-843	EM-938
other Fish Species Red-Legged Frog Osprey Western Terrestrial Garter Snake Little Brown Myotis Belted Kingfisher Wood Duck Northern River Otter Great Blue Heron Roughskin Newt Pacific Water Shrew American Beaver Mink Western Pond Turtle Killdeer Northwestern Salamander	Species Chinook salmon (Onchorhyncus tshawytscha)	None Available	Species Mourning dove	None Available

EnviroAtlas URL

EM-333	EM-604	EM-718	EM-843	EM-938
Dasymetric Allocation of Population, GAP Ecological Systems, The National Hydrography Dataset (NHD), Percent Natural Land Cover in Stream Buffer , Hectares of Vegetable Crops, Employment Rate	Dasymetric Allocation of Population	Total Annual Reduced Nitrogen Deposition, Carbon Storage by Tree Biomass	GAP Ecological Systems, U.S. EPA (Omernik) ecoregions	Average Annual Precipitation

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-333	EM-604	EM-718	EM-843	EM-938
[Ecosystem] Regulation & Maintenance Maintenance of physical, chemical, biological conditions Lifecycle maintenance, habitat and gene pool protection Maintaining nursery populations and habitats	[Ecosystem] Cultural Physical and intellectual interactions with biota, ecosystems, and land-/seascapes [environmental settings] Physical and experiential interactions Physical use of land-/seascapes in different environmental settings	[Ecosystem] Regulation & Maintenance Maintenance of physical, chemical, biological conditions Lifecycle maintenance, habitat and gene pool protection Maintaining nursery populations and habitats Water conditions Chemical condition of freshwaters Mediation of flows Liquid flows Flood protection Hydrological cycle and water flow maintenance Mass flows Mass stabilisation and control of erosion rates Mediation of waste, toxics and other nuisances Mediation by biota Filtration/sequestration/storage/accumulation by micro-organisms, algae, plants, and animals	[Ecosystem] Regulation & Maintenance Maintenance of physical, chemical, biological conditions Lifecycle maintenance, habitat and gene pool protection Maintaining nursery populations and habitats	[Ecosystem] Regulation & Maintenance Mediation of flows Liquid flows Hydrological cycle and water flow maintenance Mediation of waste, toxics and other nuisances Mediation by ecosystems Filtration/sequestration/storage/accumulation by ecosystems

<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>

(Environmental Subclass > Ecological End-Product (EEP) > EEP Subclass > EEP Modifier)

EM-333	EM-604	EM-718	EM-843	EM-938
Forests (21) Composite (8) Presence of environmental class/subclass Site Characteristic Indicator Agroecosystems (22) Composite (8) Presence of environmental class/subclass Site Characteristic Indicator	Near Coastal Marine/Estuarine (113) Fauna (4) Fish Site Indicator	None	Grasslands (23) Fauna (4) Birds Stock Indicator	None

EcoService Models Library (ESML)

Compare EMs

EM Variables by Variable Role

EM Variables by Category

All EM Descriptors

EM Descriptors by Modeling Concepts

Comparing:

EM Identity and Description

Comment:

Comment:

Related EMs (for example, other versions or derivations of this EM) described in ESML

Comment:

EM Modeling Approach

EM Locations, Environments, Ecology

Terrestrial location (Classification hierarchy: Continent > Country > U.S. State [United States only])

Marine location (Classification hierarchy: Realm > Region > Province > Ecoregion)

Centroid Lat/Long (Decimal Degree)

Scale of differentiation of organisms modeled

Taxonomic level and name of organisms or groups identified

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)

<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>

(Environmental Subclass > Ecological End-Product (EEP) > EEP Subclass > EEP Modifier)