EcoService Models Library (ESML)
loading
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.
EM Identity and Description
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-186 ![]() |
EM-392 |
EM-397 ![]() |
EM-469 |
EM-863 ![]() |
EM-876 |
EM Short Name
em.detail.shortNameHelp
?
|
FORCLIM v2.9, Western OR, USA | EPA H2O, Tampa Bay Region, FL,USA | Wetland shellfish production, Gulf of Mexico, USA | Yasso07 - SOC, Loess Plateau, China | SLAMM, Tampa Bay, FL, USA | Neighborhood greenness and health, FL, USA |
EM Full Name
em.detail.fullNameHelp
?
|
FORCLIM (FORests in a changing CLIMate) v2.9, Western OR, USA | EPA H2O, Tampa Bay Region, FL, USA | Wetland shellfish production, Gulf of Mexico, USA | Yasso07 - Land Use Effects on Soil Organic Carbon Stocks in the Loess Plateau, China | SLAMM (sea level affecting marshes model), Tampa Bay, Florida, USA | Neighborhood greenness and chronic health conditions in Medicare beneficiaries, Miami-Dade County, Florida, USA |
EM Source or Collection
em.detail.emSourceOrCollectionHelp
?
|
US EPA | US EPA |
US EPA ?Comment:Marine and Coastal Fisheries: Dynamics, Management, and Ecosystem Science |
None | None | None |
EM Source Document ID
|
23 ?Comment:Related document ID 22 is a secondary source providing tree species specific parameters in appendix. |
321 | 324 | 344 |
415 ?Comment:Secondary sources: Documents 412 and 413. |
417 |
Document Author
em.detail.documentAuthorHelp
?
|
Busing, R. T., Solomon, A. M., McKane, R. B. and Burdick, C. A. | Ranade, P., Soter, G., Russell, M., Harvey, J., and K. Murphy | Stephen J. Jordan, Timothy O'Higgins and John A. Dittmar | Wu, Xing, Akujarvi, A., Lu, N., Liski, J., Liu, G., Want, Y, Holmberg, M., Li, F., Zeng, Y., and B. Fu | Sherwood, E. T. and H. S. Greening | Brown, S. C., J. Lombard, K. Wang, M. M. Byrne, M. Toro, E. Plater-Zyberk, D. J. Feaster, J. Kardys, M. I. Nardi, G. Perez-Gomez, H. M. Pantin, and J. Szapocznik |
Document Year
em.detail.documentYearHelp
?
|
2007 | 2015 | 2012 | 2015 | 2014 | 2016 |
Document Title
em.detail.sourceIdHelp
?
|
Forest dynamics in Oregon landscapes: evaluation and application of an individual-based model | EPA H20 User Manual | Ecosystem Services of Coastal Habitats and Fisheries: Multiscale Ecological and Economic Models in Support of Ecosystem-Based Management | Dynamics of soil organic carbon stock in a typical catchment of the Loess Plateau: comparison of model simulations with measurement | Potential impacts and management implications of climate change on Tampa Bay estuary critical coastal habitats | Neighborhood greenness and chronic health conditions in Medicare beneficiaries |
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 | Peer reviewed and published |
Comments on Status
em.detail.commentsOnStatusHelp
?
|
Published journal manuscript | Published EPA report | Published journal manuscript | Published journal manuscript | Published journal manuscript | Published journal manuscript |
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-186 ![]() |
EM-392 |
EM-397 ![]() |
EM-469 |
EM-863 ![]() |
EM-876 |
Not applicable | http://www.epa.gov/ged/tbes/EPAH2O | Not applicable | http://en.ilmatieteenlaitos.fi/yasso-download-and-support | http://warrenpinnacle.com/prof/SLAMM/index.html com/prof/SLAMM/index.html | Not applicable | |
Contact Name
em.detail.contactNameHelp
?
|
Richard T. Busing | Marc J. Russell, Ph.D. | Stephen J. Jordan | Xing Wu | Edward T. Sherwood | Scott C. Brown |
Contact Address
|
U.S. Geological Survey, 200 SW 35th Street, Corvallis, Oregon 97333 USA | USEPA GED, One Sabine Island Dr., Gulf Breeze, FL 32561 | U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Gulf Ecology Division, 1 Sabine Island Drive, Gulf Breeze, FL 32561, USA | Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100085, China | Tampa Bay Estuary Program, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701, USA | Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, 1120 NW 14th Street, Clinical Research Building (CRB), Room 1065, Miami FL 33136 |
Contact Email
|
rtbusing@aol.com | russell.marc@epa.gov | jordan.steve@epa.gov | xingwu@rceesac.cn | esherwood@tbep.org | sbrown@med.miami.edu |
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-186 ![]() |
EM-392 |
EM-397 ![]() |
EM-469 |
EM-863 ![]() |
EM-876 |
Summary Description
em.detail.summaryDescriptionHelp
?
|
ABSTRACT: "The FORCLIM model of forest dynamics was tested against field survey data for its ability to simulate basal area and composition of old forests across broad climatic gradients in western Oregon, USA. The model was also tested for its ability to capture successional trends in ecoregions of the west Cascade Range…The simulation of both stand-replacing and partial-stand disturbances across western Oregon improved agreement between simulated and actual data." Western Oregon forested ecoregions (Omernick classification) were Coastal Volcanics (1d), Mid-coastal Sedimentary (1g), Willamette Valley (3), West Cascade Lowlands (4a), West Cascade Montane (4b), Cascade Crest (4c), East Cascade Ponderosa Pine (9d), and East Cascade Pumice Plateau (9e). | AUTHORS DESCRIPTION: "EPA H2O is a GIS based demonstration tool for assessing ecosystem goods and services (EGS). It was developed as a preliminary assessment tool in support of research being conducted in the Tampa Bay watershed. It provides information, data, approaches and guidance that communities can use to examine alternative land use scenarios in the context of nature’s benefits to the human community. . . EPA H2O allows users for the Tampa Bay estuary and its watershed to: • Gain a greater understanding of the significance of EGS, • Explore the spatial distribution of EGS and other ecosystem features, • Obtain map and summary statistics of EGS production's potential value, • Analyze and compare potential impacts from predicted development scenarios or user specified changes in land use patterns on EGS production's potential value EPA H2O is designed for analyzing data at neighborhood to regional scales.. . The tool is transportable to other locations if the required data are available. . . . | ABSTRACT: "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 … commercial blue crab Callinectes sapidus and penaeid shrimp fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico." | ABSTRACT: "Land use changes are known to significantly affect the soil C balance by altering both C inputs and losses. Since the late 1990s, a large area of the Loess Plateau has undergone intensive land use changes during several ecological restoration projects to control soil erosion and combat land degradation, especially in the Grain for Green project. By using remote sensing techniques and the Yasso07 model, we simulated the dynamics of soil organic carbon (SOC) stocks in the Yangjuangou catchment of the Loess Plateau. The performance of the model was evaluated by comparing the simulated results with the intensive field measurements in 2006 and 2011 throughout the catchment. SOC stocks and NPP values of all land use types had generally increased during our study period. The average SOC sequestration rate in the upper 30 cm soil from 2006 to 2011 in the Yangjuangou catchment was approximately 44 g C m-2 yr-1, which was comparable to other studies in the Loess Plateau. Forest and grassland showed a more effective accumulation of SOC than the other land use types in our study area. The Yasso07 model performed reasonably well in predicting the overall dynamics of SOC stock for different land use change types at both the site and catchment scales. The assessment of the model performance indicated that the combination of Yasso07 model and remote sensing data could be used for simulating the effect of land use changes on SOC stock at catchment scale in the Loess Plateau." | ABSTRACT: "The Tampa Bay estuary is a unique and valued ecosystem that currently thrives between subtropical and temperate climates along Florida’s west-central coast. The watershed is considered urbanized (42 % lands developed); however, a suite of critical coastal habitats still persists. Current management efforts are focused toward restoring the historic balance of these habitat types to a benchmark 1950s period. We have modeled the anticipated changes to a suite of habitats within the Tampa Bay estuary using the sea level affecting marshes model (SLAMM) under various sea level rise (SLR) scenarios. Modeled changes to the distribution and coverage of mangrove habitats within the estuary are expected to dominate the overall proportions of future critical coastal habitats. Modeled losses in salt marsh, salt barren, and coastal freshwater wetlands by 2100 will significantly affect the progress achieved in ‘‘Restoring the Balance’’ of these habitat types over recent periods…" | ABSTRACT: "Introduction: Prior studies suggest that exposure to the natural environment may impact health. The present study examines the association between objective measures of block-level greenness (vegetative presence) and chronic medical conditions, including cardiometabolic conditions, in a large population-based sample of Medicare beneficiaries in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Methods: The sample included 249,405 Medicare beneficiaries aged >=65 years whose location (ZIP+4) within Miami-Dade County, Florida, did not change, from 2010 to 2011. Data were obtained in 2013 and multilevel analyses conducted in 2014 to examine relationships between greenness, measured by mean Normalized Difference Vegetation Index from satellite imagery at the Census block level, and chronic health conditions in 2011, adjusting for neighborhood median household income, individual age, gender, race, and ethnicity. Results: Higher greenness was significantly associated with better health, adjusting for covariates: An increase in mean block-level Normalized Difference Vegetation Index from 1 SD less to 1 SD more than the mean was associated with 49 fewer chronic conditions per 1,000 individuals, which is approximately similar to a reduction in age of the overall study population by 3 years. This same level of increase in mean Normalized Difference Vegetation Index was associated with a reduced risk of diabetes by 14%, hypertension by 13%, and hyperlipidemia by 10%. Planned post-hoc analyses revealed stronger and more consistently positive relationships between greenness and health in lower- than higher-income neighborhoods. Conclusions: Greenness or vegetative presence may be effective in promoting health in older populations, particularly in poor neighborhoods, possibly due to increased time outdoors, physical activity, or stress mitigation." |
Specific Policy or Decision Context Cited
em.detail.policyDecisionContextHelp
?
|
None Identified | None reported | None identified | None | None identified | None identified |
Biophysical Context
|
Coastal to montane, Pacific Northwest US (Oregon) forests. | Not applicable | Estuarine environments and marsh-land interfaces | Agricultural plain, hills, gulleys, forest, grassland, Central China | No additional description provided | No additional description provided |
EM Scenario Drivers
em.detail.scenarioDriverHelp
?
|
Two scenarios modelled, forests with and without fire | Land Use, EGS algorithm values, | Shellfish type; Changes to submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) | Land use change | Varying sea level rise (baseline - 2m), and two habitat adaption strategies | No scenarios presented |
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-186 ![]() |
EM-392 |
EM-397 ![]() |
EM-469 |
EM-863 ![]() |
EM-876 |
Method Only, Application of Method or Model Run
em.detail.methodOrAppHelp
?
|
Method + Application (multiple runs exist) View EM Runs ?Comment:Related document ID 22 is a secondary source providing tree species specific parameters in appendix. |
Method + Application |
Method + Application (multiple runs exist) View EM Runs ?Comment:Ten runs; blue crab and penaeid shrimp, each combined with five different submerged aquatic vegetation habitat areas. |
Method + Application | Method + Application (multiple runs exist) View EM Runs | Method + Application |
New or Pre-existing EM?
em.detail.newOrExistHelp
?
|
Application of existing model | New or revised model | New or revised model | Application of existing model | Application of existing 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-186 ![]() |
EM-392 |
EM-397 ![]() |
EM-469 |
EM-863 ![]() |
EM-876 |
Document ID for related EM
em.detail.relatedEmDocumentIdHelp
?
|
Doc-22 | Doc-23 ?Comment:Related document ID 22 provides tree species specific parameters in appendix. |
None | None | Doc-343 | Doc-342 | Doc-412 | Doc-413 | None |
EM ID for related EM
em.detail.relatedEmEmIdHelp
?
|
EM-146 | EM-208 | EM-224 | None | EM-604 | EM-603 | EM-466 | EM-467 | EM-480 | EM-485 | EM-857 | None |
EM Modeling Approach
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-186 ![]() |
EM-392 |
EM-397 ![]() |
EM-469 |
EM-863 ![]() |
EM-876 |
EM Temporal Extent
em.detail.tempExtentHelp
?
|
>650 yrs | Not applicable | 1950 - 2050 | 1969-2011 | 2002-2100 | 2010-2011 |
EM Time Dependence
em.detail.timeDependencyHelp
?
|
time-dependent | time-stationary | time-dependent | time-dependent | time-stationary | time-stationary |
EM Time Reference (Future/Past)
em.detail.futurePastHelp
?
|
past time | Not applicable | future time | past time | Not applicable | Not applicable |
EM Time Continuity
em.detail.continueDiscreteHelp
?
|
discrete | Not applicable | discrete | discrete | Not applicable | Not applicable |
EM Temporal Grain Size Value
em.detail.tempGrainSizeHelp
?
|
1 | Not applicable | Varies by Run | 1 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
EM Temporal Grain Size Unit
em.detail.tempGrainSizeUnitHelp
?
|
Year | Not applicable | Year | Year | Not applicable | Not applicable |
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-186 ![]() |
EM-392 |
EM-397 ![]() |
EM-469 |
EM-863 ![]() |
EM-876 |
Bounding Type
em.detail.boundingTypeHelp
?
|
Physiographic or ecological |
Geopolitical ?Comment:Extent was Tampa Bay area in example, but boundary can be geopolitical or watershed derived. |
Physiographic or ecological | Watershed/Catchment/HUC | Watershed/Catchment/HUC | Geopolitical |
Spatial Extent Name
em.detail.extentNameHelp
?
|
Western Oregon, north of 43.00 N to Washington border | Tampa Bay region | Gulf of Mexico (estuarine and coastal) | Yangjuangou catchment | Tampa Bay estuary watershed | Miami-Dade County |
Spatial Extent Area (Magnitude)
em.detail.extentAreaHelp
?
|
10,000-100,000 km^2 | 1000-10,000 km^2. | 10,000-100,000 km^2 | 1-10 km^2 | 1000-10,000 km^2. | 1000-10,000 km^2. |
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-186 ![]() |
EM-392 |
EM-397 ![]() |
EM-469 |
EM-863 ![]() |
EM-876 |
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) ?Comment:Computations at this pixel scale pertain to certain variables specific to Mobile Bay. |
spatially distributed (in at least some cases) | spatially distributed (in at least some cases) | spatially distributed (in at least some cases) |
Spatial Grain Type
em.detail.spGrainTypeHelp
?
|
area, for pixel or radial feature | area, for pixel or radial feature | area, for pixel or radial feature | area, for pixel or radial feature | area, for pixel or radial feature | other (specify), for irregular (e.g., stream reach, lake basin) |
Spatial Grain Size
em.detail.spGrainSizeHelp
?
|
0.08 ha | 30m x 30m | 55.2 km^2 | 30m x 30m | 10 x 10 m | Census block |
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-186 ![]() |
EM-392 |
EM-397 ![]() |
EM-469 |
EM-863 ![]() |
EM-876 |
EM Computational Approach
em.detail.emComputationalApproachHelp
?
|
Numeric | Analytic | Numeric | Numeric | Analytic | Analytic |
EM Determinism
em.detail.deterStochHelp
?
|
deterministic | deterministic | deterministic | deterministic | deterministic | deterministic |
Statistical Estimation of EM
em.detail.statisticalEstimationHelp
?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-186 ![]() |
EM-392 |
EM-397 ![]() |
EM-469 |
EM-863 ![]() |
EM-876 |
Model Calibration Reported?
em.detail.calibrationHelp
?
|
No | No | Yes | Yes | No | Not applicable |
Model Goodness of Fit Reported?
em.detail.goodnessFitHelp
?
|
No | No | No |
Yes ?Comment:For the year 2006 and 2011 |
No | No |
Goodness of Fit (metric| value | unit)
em.detail.goodnessFitValuesHelp
?
|
None | None | None |
|
None | None |
Model Operational Validation Reported?
em.detail.validationHelp
?
|
Yes | No | No | No | No | No |
Model Uncertainty Analysis Reported?
em.detail.uncertaintyAnalysisHelp
?
|
No | No | No | No | No | No |
Model Sensitivity Analysis Reported?
em.detail.sensAnalysisHelp
?
|
No | No | No | No | No | No |
Model Sensitivity Analysis Include Interactions?
em.detail.interactionConsiderHelp
?
|
Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable |
EM Locations, Environments, Ecology
Terrestrial location (Classification hierarchy: Continent > Country > U.S. State [United States only])
EM-186 ![]() |
EM-392 |
EM-397 ![]() |
EM-469 |
EM-863 ![]() |
EM-876 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marine location (Classification hierarchy: Realm > Region > Province > Ecoregion)
EM-186 ![]() |
EM-392 |
EM-397 ![]() |
EM-469 |
EM-863 ![]() |
EM-876 |
None | None |
|
None |
|
None |
Centroid Lat/Long (Decimal Degree)
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-186 ![]() |
EM-392 |
EM-397 ![]() |
EM-469 |
EM-863 ![]() |
EM-876 |
Centroid Latitude
em.detail.ddLatHelp
?
|
44.66 | 28.05 | 30.44 | 36.7 | 27.76 | 25.64 |
Centroid Longitude
em.detail.ddLongHelp
?
|
-122.56 | -82.52 | -87.99 | 109.52 | -82.54 | -80.5 |
Centroid Datum
em.detail.datumHelp
?
|
WGS84 | WGS84 | WGS84 | WGS84 | WGS84 | WGS84 |
Centroid Coordinates Status
em.detail.coordinateStatusHelp
?
|
Estimated | Estimated | Estimated | Provided | Estimated | Estimated |
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-186 ![]() |
EM-392 |
EM-397 ![]() |
EM-469 |
EM-863 ![]() |
EM-876 |
EM Environmental Sub-Class
em.detail.emEnvironmentalSubclassHelp
?
|
Forests | Terrestrial Environment (sub-classes not fully specified) | Near Coastal Marine and Estuarine | Terrestrial Environment (sub-classes not fully specified) | Agroecosystems | Inland Wetlands | Near Coastal Marine and Estuarine | Terrestrial Environment (sub-classes not fully specified) | Created Greenspace |
Specific Environment Type
em.detail.specificEnvTypeHelp
?
|
Primarily conifer forest | All terestrial landcover and waterbodies | Submerged aquatic vegetation in estuaries and coastal lagoons | Loess plain | Esturary and associated urban and terrestrial environment | urban neighborhood greenspace |
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 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 |
Scale of differentiation of organisms modeled
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-186 ![]() |
EM-392 |
EM-397 ![]() |
EM-469 |
EM-863 ![]() |
EM-876 |
EM Organismal Scale
em.detail.orgScaleHelp
?
|
Species | Not applicable | Species | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable |
Taxonomic level and name of organisms or groups identified
EM-186 ![]() |
EM-392 |
EM-397 ![]() |
EM-469 |
EM-863 ![]() |
EM-876 |
|
None Available |
|
None Available | 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-186 ![]() |
EM-392 |
EM-397 ![]() |
EM-469 |
EM-863 ![]() |
EM-876 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
<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-186 ![]() |
EM-392 |
EM-397 ![]() |
EM-469 |
EM-863 ![]() |
EM-876 |
None |
|
|
None | None |
|