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-105 |
EM-422 |
EM-541 |
EM-592 | EM-629 | EM-904 |
|
EM Short Name
em.detail.shortNameHelp
?
|
Benthic habitat associations, Willapa Bay, OR, USA | HexSim v2.4, San Joaquin kit fox, CA, USA | InVEST fisheries, lobster, South Africa | APEX v1501 | SolVES, Pike & San Isabel NF, WY | Drag coefficient Laminaria hyperborea |
|
EM Full Name
em.detail.fullNameHelp
?
|
Benthic macrofaunal habitat associations, Willapa Bay, OR, USA | HexSim v2.4, San Joaquin kit fox rodenticide exposure, California, USA | Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Trade-offs Fisheries, rock lobster, South Africa | APEX (Agricultural Policy/Environmental eXtender Model) v1501 | SolVES, Social Values for Ecosystem Services, Pike and San Isabel National Forest, CO | Drag coefficient Laminaria hyperborea |
|
EM Source or Collection
em.detail.emSourceOrCollectionHelp
?
|
US EPA | US EPA | InVEST | None | None | None |
|
EM Source Document ID
|
39 |
337 ?Comment:The HexSim User's Guide (Doc 327) was used as a secondary source to clarify variable relationships. |
349 ?Comment:Supplemented with the InVEST Users Guide fisheries. |
357 | 369 | 424 |
|
Document Author
em.detail.documentAuthorHelp
?
|
Ferraro, S. P. and Cole, F. A. | Nogeire, T. M., J. J. Lawler, N. H. Schumaker, B. L. Cypher, and S. E. Phillips | Ward, Michelle, Hugh Possingham, Johathan R. Rhodes, Peter Mumby | Steglich, E. M., J. Jeong and J. R. Williams | Sherrouse, B.C., Semmens, D.J., and J.M. Clement | Mendez, F. J. and I. J. Losada |
|
Document Year
em.detail.documentYearHelp
?
|
2007 | 2015 | 2018 | 2016 | 2014 | 2004 |
|
Document Title
em.detail.sourceIdHelp
?
|
Benthic macrofauna–habitat associations in Willapa Bay, Washington, USA | Land use as a driver of patterns of rodenticide exposure in modeled kit fox populations | Food, money and lobsters: Valuing ecosystem services to align environmental management with Sustainable Development Goals | Agricultural Policy/Environmental eXtender Model User's Manual Version 1501 | An application of Social Values for Ecosystem Services (SolVES) to three national forests in Colorado and Wyoming | An empirical model to estimate the propagation of random breaking and nonbreaking waves over vegetation fields |
|
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 journal manuscript | Published journal manuscript | Published report | Published journal manuscript | Published journal manuscript |
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-105 |
EM-422 |
EM-541 |
EM-592 | EM-629 | EM-904 |
| Not applicable | http://www.hexsim.net/ | https://www.naturalcapitalproject.org/invest/ | https://epicapex.tamu.edu/manuals-and-publications/ | Not applicable | Not applicable | |
|
Contact Name
em.detail.contactNameHelp
?
|
Steve Ferraro | Theresa M. Nogeire | Michelle Ward | E. M. Steglich | Benson Sherrouse | F. J. Mendez |
|
Contact Address
|
U.S. EPA 2111 SE Marine Science Drive Newport, OR 97365 | School of Environmental and Forest Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA | ARC Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia | Blackland Research and Extension Center, 720 East Blackland Road, Temple, TX 76502 | USGS, 5522 Research Park Dr., Baltimore, MD 21228, USA | Not reported |
|
Contact Email
|
ferraro.steven@epa.gov | tnogeire@gmail.com | m.ward@uq.edu.au | epicapex@brc.tamus.edu | bcsherrouse@usgs.gov | mendezf@unican.es |
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-105 |
EM-422 |
EM-541 |
EM-592 | EM-629 | EM-904 |
|
Summary Description
em.detail.summaryDescriptionHelp
?
|
AUTHOR'S DESCRIPTION: "In this paper we report the results of 2 estuary-wide studies of benthic macrofaunal habitat associations in Willapa Bay, Washington, USA. This research is part of an effort to develop empirical models of biota-habitat associations that can be used to help identify critical habitats, prioritize habitats for environmental protection, index habitat suitability (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1980; Kapustka, 2003), perform habitat equivalency and compensatory restoration analyses (Fonseca et al., 2002; Kirsch et al., 2005), and as habitat value criteria in ecological risk assessments (Obery and Landis, 2002; Ferraro and Cole, 2004; Landis et al., 2004)." (491) | ABSTRACT: "...Here, we use an individual-based population model to assess potential population-wide effects of rodenticide exposures on the endangered San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica). We estimate likelihood of rodenticide exposure across the species range for each land cover type based on a database of reported pesticide use and literature…" AUTHOR'S DESCRIPTION: "We simulated individual kit foxes across their range using HexSim [33], a computer modeling platform for constructing spatially explicit population models. Our model integrated life history traits, repeated exposures to rodenticides, and spatial data layers describing habitat and locations of likely exposures. We modeled female kit foxes using yearly time steps in which each individual had the potential to disperse, establish a home range, acquire resources from their habitat, reproduce, accumulate rodenticide exposures, and die." "Simulated kit foxes assembled home ranges based on local habitat suitability, with range size inversely related to habitat suitability [34,35]. Kit foxes aimed to acquire a home range with a target score corresponding to the observed 544 ha home range size in the most suitable habitat [26]. Modeled home ranges varied in size from 170 ha to 1000 ha. Kit foxes were assigned to a resource class depending on the quality of the habitat in their acquired home range. The resource class then influenced rates of kit fox survival," "Juveniles and adults without ranges searched for a home range across 30 km2 outside of their natal range, using HexSim’s ‘adaptive’ exploration algorithm [33]." | AUTHOR'S DESCRIPTION: "Here we develop a method for assessing future scenarios of environmental management change that improve coastal ecosystem services and thereby, support the success of the SDGs. We illustrate application of the method using a case study of South Africa’s West Coast Rock Lobster fishery within the Table Mountain National Park (TMNP) Marine Protected Area...We calculated the retrospective and current value of the West Coast Rock Lobster fishery using published and unpublished data from various sources and combined the market worth of landed lobster from recreational fishers, small-scale fisheries (SSF), large-scale fisheries (LSF) and poachers. Then using the InVEST tool, we combined data to build scenarios that describe possible futures for the West Coast Rock Lobster fishery (see Table 1). The first scenario, entitled ‘Business as Usual’ (BAU), takes the current situation and most up-to-date data to model the future if harvest continues at the existing rate. The second scenario is entitled ‘Redirect the Poachers’ (RP), which attempts to model implementation of strict management, whereby poaching is minimised from the Marine Protected Area and other economic and nutritional sources are made available through government initiatives. The third scenario, entitled ‘Large Scale Cutbacks’ (LSC), excludes large-scale fisheries from harvesting West Coast Rock Lobster within the TMNP Marine Protected Area." | ABSTRACT: "APEX is a tool for managing whole farms or small watersheds to obtain sustainable production efficiency and maintain environmental quality. APEX operates on a daily time step and is capable of performing long term simulations (1-4000 years) at the whole farm or small watershed level. The watershed may be divided into many homogeneous (soils, land use, topography, etc.) subareas (<4000). The routing component simulates flow from one subarea to another through channels and flood plains to the watershed outlet and transports sediment, nutrients, and pesticides. This allows evaluation of interactions between fields in respect to surface run-on, sediment deposition and degradation, nutrient and pesticide transport and subsurface flow. Effects of terrace systems, grass waterways, strip cropping, buffer strips/vegetated filter strips, crop rotations, plant competition, plant burning, grazing patterns of multiple herds, fertilizer, irrigation, liming, furrow diking, drainage systems, and manure management (feed yards and dairies with or without lagoons) can be simulated and assessed. Most recent developments in APEX1501 include: • Flexible grazing schedule of multiple owners and herds across landscape and paddocks. • Wind dust distribution from feedlots. • Manure erosion from feedlots and grazing fields. • Optional pipe and crack flow in soil due to tree root growth. • Enhanced filter strip consideration. • Extended lagoon pumping and manure scraping options. • Enhanced burning operation. • Carbon pools and transformation equations similar to those in the Century model with the addition of the Phoenix C/N microbial biomass model. • Enhanced water table monitoring. • Enhanced denitrification methods. • Variable saturation hydraulic conductivity method. • Irrigation using reservoir and well reserves. • Paddy module for use with rice or wetland areas." | [ABSTRACT: " "Despite widespread recognition that social-value information is needed to inform stakeholders and decision makers regarding trade-offs in environmental management, it too often remains absent from ecosystem service assessments. Although quantitative indicators of social values need to be explicitly accounted for in the decision-making process, they need not be monetary. Ongoing efforts to map such values demonstrate how they can also be made spatially explicit and relatable to underlying ecological information. We originally developed Social Values for Ecosystem Services (SolVES) as a tool to assess, map, and quantify nonmarket values perceived by various groups of ecosystem stakeholders.With SolVES 2.0 we have extended the functionality by integrating SolVES with Maxent maximum entropy modeling software to generate more complete social-value maps from available value and preference survey data and to produce more robust models describing the relationship between social values and ecosystems. The current study has two objectives: (1) evaluate how effectively the value index, a quantitative, nonmonetary social-value indicator calculated by SolVES, reproduces results from more common statistical methods of social-survey data analysis and (2) examine how the spatial results produced by SolVES provide additional information that could be used by managers and stakeholders to better understand more complex relationships among stakeholder values, attitudes, and preferences. To achieve these objectives, we applied SolVES to value and preference survey data collected for three national forests, the Pike and San Isabel in Colorado and the Bridger–Teton and the Shoshone in Wyoming. Value index results were generally consistent with results found through more common statistical analyses of the survey data such as frequency, discriminant function, and correlation analyses. In addition, spatial analysis of the social-value maps produced by SolVES provided information that was useful for explaining relationships between stakeholder values and forest uses. Our results suggest that SolVES can effectively reproduce information derived from traditional statistical analyses while adding spatially explicit, socialvalue information that can contribute to integrated resource assessment, planning, and management of forests and other ecosystems. | ABSTRACT: "In this work, a model for wave transformation on vegetation fields is presented. The formulation includes wave damping and wave breaking over vegetation fields at variable depths. Based on a nonlinear formulation of the drag force, either the transformation of monochromatic waves or irregular waves can be modelled considering geometric and physical characteristics of the vegetation field. The model depends on a single parameter similar to the drag coefficient, which is parameterized as a function of the local Keulegan–Carpenter number for a specific type of plant. Given this parameterization, determined with laboratory experiments for each plant type, the model is able to reproduce the root-mean-square wave height transformation observed in experimental data with reasonable accuracy." AUTHOR'S DESCRIPTION: "Therefore, a relation between C˜D and some nondimensional flow parameters is desirable to characterize hydrodynamically the L. hyperborea model plants for predictable purposes." |
|
Specific Policy or Decision Context Cited
em.detail.policyDecisionContextHelp
?
|
None identified | None identified | Future rock lobster fisheries management | None identified | None | None identified |
|
Biophysical Context
|
benthic estuarine | No additional description provided | No additional description provided | No additional description provided | Rocky mountain conifer forests | No additional description provided |
|
EM Scenario Drivers
em.detail.scenarioDriverHelp
?
|
No scenarios presented | Rodenticide exposure level, and rodenticide exposure on low intensity development land cover class | Fisheries exploitation; fishing vulnerability (of age classes) | No scenarios presented | N/A | No scenarios presented |
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-105 |
EM-422 |
EM-541 |
EM-592 | EM-629 | EM-904 |
|
Method Only, Application of Method or Model Run
em.detail.methodOrAppHelp
?
|
Method + Application |
Method + Application (multiple runs exist) View EM Runs ?Comment:The HexSim User's Guide (Doc 327) was used as a secondary source to clarify variable relationships. |
Method + Application (multiple runs exist) View EM Runs | Method Only | Method + Application | Method + Application |
|
New or Pre-existing EM?
em.detail.newOrExistHelp
?
|
New or revised model | Application of existing model | Application of existing 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 ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-105 |
EM-422 |
EM-541 |
EM-592 | EM-629 | EM-904 |
|
Document ID for related EM
em.detail.relatedEmDocumentIdHelp
?
|
None | Doc-328 | Doc-327 | Doc-2 | None | None | Doc-369 | Doc-424 |
|
EM ID for related EM
em.detail.relatedEmEmIdHelp
?
|
None | EM-403 | EM-98 | None | None | EM-626 | EM-628 | EM-896 | EM-897 |
EM Modeling Approach
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-105 |
EM-422 |
EM-541 |
EM-592 | EM-629 | EM-904 |
|
EM Temporal Extent
em.detail.tempExtentHelp
?
|
1996,1998 | 60 yr | 1986-2115 | Not applicable | 2004-2008 | Not applicable |
|
EM Time Dependence
em.detail.timeDependencyHelp
?
|
time-stationary | time-dependent | time-dependent | time-dependent | time-stationary | Not applicable |
|
EM Time Reference (Future/Past)
em.detail.futurePastHelp
?
|
Not applicable | future time | future time | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable |
|
EM Time Continuity
em.detail.continueDiscreteHelp
?
|
Not applicable | discrete | discrete | discrete | Not applicable | Not applicable |
|
EM Temporal Grain Size Value
em.detail.tempGrainSizeHelp
?
|
Not applicable | 1 | 1 | 1 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
|
EM Temporal Grain Size Unit
em.detail.tempGrainSizeUnitHelp
?
|
Not applicable | Year | Year | Day | Not applicable | Not applicable |
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-105 |
EM-422 |
EM-541 |
EM-592 | EM-629 | EM-904 |
|
Bounding Type
em.detail.boundingTypeHelp
?
|
Physiographic or Ecological | Physiographic or ecological | Geopolitical | Not applicable | Geopolitical | Not applicable |
|
Spatial Extent Name
em.detail.extentNameHelp
?
|
Willapa Bay | San Joaquin Valley, CA | Table Mountain National Park Marine Protected Area | Not applicable | National Park | Not applicable |
|
Spatial Extent Area (Magnitude)
em.detail.extentAreaHelp
?
|
100-1000 km^2 | 10,000-100,000 km^2 | 100-1000 km^2 | Not applicable | 1000-10,000 km^2. | Not applicable |
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-105 |
EM-422 |
EM-541 |
EM-592 | EM-629 | EM-904 |
|
EM Spatial Distribution
em.detail.distributeLumpHelp
?
|
spatially lumped (in all cases) | spatially distributed (in at least some cases) | spatially lumped (in all 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
?
|
Not applicable | area, for pixel or radial feature | Not applicable | other (specify), for irregular (e.g., stream reach, lake basin) | area, for pixel or radial feature | Not applicable |
|
Spatial Grain Size
em.detail.spGrainSizeHelp
?
|
Not applicable | 14 ha | Not applicable | homogenous subareas | 30m2 | Not applicable |
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-105 |
EM-422 |
EM-541 |
EM-592 | EM-629 | EM-904 |
|
EM Computational Approach
em.detail.emComputationalApproachHelp
?
|
Analytic | Numeric | Numeric | Numeric | Numeric | 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-105 |
EM-422 |
EM-541 |
EM-592 | EM-629 | EM-904 |
|
Model Calibration Reported?
em.detail.calibrationHelp
?
|
Yes | Unclear | No | Not applicable | No | Yes |
|
Model Goodness of Fit Reported?
em.detail.goodnessFitHelp
?
|
Yes | No | No | Not applicable | Yes | Not applicable |
|
Goodness of Fit (metric| value | unit)
em.detail.goodnessFitValuesHelp
?
|
|
None | None | None |
|
None |
|
Model Operational Validation Reported?
em.detail.validationHelp
?
|
No | No |
Yes ?Comment:A validation analysis was carried out running the model using data from 1880 to 2001, and then comparing the output for the adult population with the 2001 published data. |
Not applicable | No | Unclear |
|
Model Uncertainty Analysis Reported?
em.detail.uncertaintyAnalysisHelp
?
|
Yes | No | No | Not applicable | No | No |
|
Model Sensitivity Analysis Reported?
em.detail.sensAnalysisHelp
?
|
No | Yes | No | Not applicable | No | No |
|
Model Sensitivity Analysis Include Interactions?
em.detail.interactionConsiderHelp
?
|
Not applicable | No | 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-105 |
EM-422 |
EM-541 |
EM-592 | EM-629 | EM-904 |
| None |
|
None | None |
|
None |
Marine location (Classification hierarchy: Realm > Region > Province > Ecoregion)
| EM-105 |
EM-422 |
EM-541 |
EM-592 | EM-629 | EM-904 |
|
None |
|
None | None |
|
Centroid Lat/Long (Decimal Degree)
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-105 |
EM-422 |
EM-541 |
EM-592 | EM-629 | EM-904 |
|
Centroid Latitude
em.detail.ddLatHelp
?
|
46.24 | 36.13 | -34.18 | Not applicable | 38.7 | Not applicable |
|
Centroid Longitude
em.detail.ddLongHelp
?
|
-124.06 | -120 | 18.35 | Not applicable | 105.89 | Not applicable |
|
Centroid Datum
em.detail.datumHelp
?
|
WGS84 | WGS84 | WGS84 | Not applicable | WGS84 | Not applicable |
|
Centroid Coordinates Status
em.detail.coordinateStatusHelp
?
|
Provided | Estimated | Provided | Not applicable | Estimated | Not applicable |
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-105 |
EM-422 |
EM-541 |
EM-592 | EM-629 | EM-904 |
|
EM Environmental Sub-Class
em.detail.emEnvironmentalSubclassHelp
?
|
Near Coastal Marine and Estuarine | Terrestrial Environment (sub-classes not fully specified) | Near Coastal Marine and Estuarine | Agroecosystems | Forests | Near Coastal Marine and Estuarine |
|
Specific Environment Type
em.detail.specificEnvTypeHelp
?
|
Drowned river valley estuary | Agricultural region (converted desert) and terrestrial perimeter | Rocky coast, mixed coast, sandy coast, rocky inshore, sandy inshore, rocky shelf and unconsolidated shelf | Terrestrial environment associated with agroecosystems | Montain forest | Near Coastal Marine and Estuarine |
|
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 corresponds to 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 |
Scale of differentiation of organisms modeled
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-105 |
EM-422 |
EM-541 |
EM-592 | EM-629 | EM-904 |
|
EM Organismal Scale
em.detail.orgScaleHelp
?
|
Species | Individual or population, within a species | Individual or population, within a species | Not applicable | Not applicable | Species |
Taxonomic level and name of organisms or groups identified
| EM-105 |
EM-422 |
EM-541 |
EM-592 | EM-629 | EM-904 |
|
|
|
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-105 |
EM-422 |
EM-541 |
EM-592 | EM-629 | EM-904 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
<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-105 |
EM-422 |
EM-541 |
EM-592 | EM-629 | EM-904 |
|
None |
|
|
|
None |
Home
Search EMs
My
EMs
Learn about
ESML
Show Criteria
Hide Criteria