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-148 ![]() |
EM-193 | EM-195 | EM-260 | EM-414 | EM-964 | EM-1011 | EM-1012 |
EM Short Name
em.detail.shortNameHelp
?
|
InVEST - Water provision, Francoli River, Spain | Cultural ecosystem services, Bilbao, Spain | C Sequestration and De-N, Tampa Bay, FL, USA | Coral taxa and land development, St.Croix, VI, USA | SAV occurrence, St. Louis River, MN/WI, USA | EcoSim II - method | WMOST method | CMAQ community multiscale air quality model |
EM Full Name
em.detail.fullNameHelp
?
|
InVEST (Integrated Valuation of Envl. Services and Tradeoffs) v2.4.2 - Water provision, Francoli River, Spain | Cultural ecosystem services, Bilbao, Spain | Value of Carbon Sequestration and Denitrification benefits, Tampa Bay, FL, USA | Coral taxa richness and land development, St.Croix, Virgin Islands, USA | Predicting submerged aquatic vegetation occurrence, St. Louis River Estuary, MN & WI, USA | EcoSim II - method | Watershed Management Optimization Support Tool (WMOST) v1 method | Science Algorithms of the EPA Models-3 Community Multi-scale Air Quality (CMAQ) Modeling System |
EM Source or Collection
em.detail.emSourceOrCollectionHelp
?
|
InVEST |
None ?Comment:EU Mapping Studies |
US EPA | US EPA | US EPA | None | US EPA | US EPA |
EM Source Document ID
|
280 | 191 | 186 | 96 | 330 | 448 | 477 | 478 |
Document Author
em.detail.documentAuthorHelp
?
|
Marques, M., Bangash, R.F., Kumar, V., Sharp, R., and Schuhmacher, M. | Casado-Arzuaga, I., Onaindia, M., Madariaga, I. and Verburg P. H. | Russell, M. and Greening, H. | Oliver, L. M., Lehrter, J. C. and Fisher, W. S. | Ted R. Angradi, Mark S. Pearson, David W. Bolgrien, Brent J. Bellinger, Matthew A. Starry, Carol Reschke | Walters, C., Pauly, D., Christensen, V., and J.F. Kitchell | United States EPA | Byun, D.W. and J.K.S. Ching |
Document Year
em.detail.documentYearHelp
?
|
2013 | 2013 | 2013 | 2011 | 2013 | 2000 | 2013 | 1999 |
Document Title
em.detail.sourceIdHelp
?
|
The impact of climate change on water provision under a low flow regime: A case study of the ecosystems services in the Francoli river basin | Mapping recreation and aesthetic value of ecosystems in the Bilbao Metropolitan Greenbelt (northern Spain) to support landscape planning | Estimating benefits in a recovering estuary: Tampa Bay, Florida | Relating landscape development intensity to coral reef condition in the watersheds of St. Croix, US Virgin Islands | Predicting submerged aquatic vegetation cover and occurrence in a Lake Superior estuary | Representing density dependent consequences of life history strategies in aquatic ecostems: EcoSim II | Watershed Management Optimization Support Tool (WMOST) v1 User manual | Science Algorithms of the EPA Models-3 Community Multi-scale Air Quality (CMAQ) Modeling System. |
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 | 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 | Published journal manuscript | Published journal manuscript | Published EPA report | Published EPA report |
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-148 ![]() |
EM-193 | EM-195 | EM-260 | EM-414 | EM-964 | EM-1011 | EM-1012 |
https://www.naturalcapitalproject.org/invest/ | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | https://ecopath.org/downloads/ | https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?Lab=NHEERL&dirEntryId=262280 | https://github.com/USEPA/CMAQ/blob/main/DOCS/Users_Guide/README.md | |
Contact Name
em.detail.contactNameHelp
?
|
Montse Marquès | Izaskun Casado-Arzuaga | M. Russell | Leah Oliver | Ted R. Angradi | Carl Walters | Naomi Detenbeck | D. W. BYUN |
Contact Address
|
Environmental Analysis and Management Group, Department d'Enginyeria Qimica, Universitat Rovira I Virgili, Tarragona, Catalonia, Spain | Plant Biology and Ecology Department, University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU, Campus de Leioa, Barrio Sarriena s/n, 48940 Leioa, Bizkaia, Spain | US EPA, Gulf Ecology Division, 1 Sabine Island Dr, Gulf Breeze, FL 32563, USA | National Health and Environmental Research Effects Laboratory | U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Mid-Continent Ecology Division, 6201 Congdon Blvd., Duluth, MN 55804, USA | Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, British Columbia, Canada, V6T 1Z4 | NHEERL, Atlantic Ecology Division Narragansett, RI 02882 | Atmospheric Modeling Division National Exposure Research Laboratory U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 |
Contact Email
|
montserrat.marques@fundacio.urv.cat | izaskun.casado@ehu.es | Russell.Marc@epamail.epa.gov | leah.oliver@epa.gov | angradi.theodore@epa.gov | c.walters@oceans.ubc.ca | detenbeck.naomi@epa.gov | bdx@hpcc.epa.gov |
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-148 ![]() |
EM-193 | EM-195 | EM-260 | EM-414 | EM-964 | EM-1011 | EM-1012 |
Summary Description
em.detail.summaryDescriptionHelp
?
|
Please note: This ESML entry describes a specific, published application of an InVEST model. Different versions (e.g. different tiers) or more recent versions of this model may be available at the InVEST website. AUTHOR'S DESCRIPTION: "InVEST 2.4.2 model runs as script tool in the ArcGIS 10 ArcTool-Box on a gridded map at an annual average time step, and its results can be reported in either biophysical or monetary terms, depending on the needs and the availability of information. It is most effectively used within a decision making process that starts with a series of stakeholder consultations to identify questions and services of interest to policy makers, communities, and various interest groups. These questions may concern current service delivery and how services may be affected by new programmes, policies, and conditions in the future. For questions regarding the future, stakeholders develop scenarios of management interventions or natural changes to explore the consequences of potential changes on natural resources [21]. This tool informs managers and policy makers about the impacts of alternative resource management choices on the economy, human well-being, and the environment, in an integrated way [22]. The spatial resolution of analyses is flexible, allowing users to address questions at the local, regional or global scales. | ABSTRACT "This paper presents a method to quantify cultural ecosystem services (ES) and their spatial distribution in the landscape based on ecological structure and social evaluation approaches. The method aims to provide quantified assessments of ES to support land use planning decisions. A GIS-based approach was used to estimate and map the provision of recreation and aesthetic services supplied by ecosystems in a peri-urban area located in the Basque Country, northern Spain. Data of two different public participation processes (frequency of visits to 25 different sites within the study area and aesthetic value of different landscape units) were used to validate the maps. Three maps were obtained as results: a map showing the provision of recreation services, an aesthetic value map and a map of the correspondences and differences between both services. The data obtained in the participation processes were found useful for the validation of the maps. A weak spatial correlation was found between aesthetic quality and recreation provision services, with an overlap of the highest values for both services only in 7.2 % of the area. A consultation with decision-makers indicated that the results were considered useful to identify areas that can be targeted for improvement of landscape and recreation management." | AUTHOR'S DESCRIPTION: "...we examine the change in the production of ecosystem goods produced as a result of restoration efforts and potential relative cost savings for the Tampa Bay community from seagrass expansion (more than 3,100 ha) and coastal marsh and mangrove restoration (∼600 ha), since 1990… The objectives of this article are to explore the roles that ecological processes and resulting ecosystem goods have in maintaining healthy estuarine systems by (1) quantifying the production of specific ecosystem goods in a subtropical estuarine system and (2) determining potential cost savings of improved water quality and increased habitat in a recovering estuary." (pp. 2) | AUTHOR'S DESCRIPTION: "In this exploratory comparison, stony coral condition was related to watershed LULC and LDI values. We also compared the capacity of other potential human activity indicators to predict coral reef condition using multivariate analysis." (294) | ABSTRACT: “Submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) provides the biophysical basis for multiple ecosystem services in Great Lakes estuaries. Understanding sources of variation in SAV is necessary for sustainable management of SAV habitat. From data collected using hydroacoustic survey methods, we created predictive models for SAV in the St. Louis River Estuary (SLRE) of western Lake Superior. The dominant SAV species in most areas of the estuary was American wild celery (Vallisneria americana Michx.)…” AUTHOR’S DESCRIPTION: “The SLRE is a Great Lakes “rivermouth” ecosystem as defined by Larson et al. (2013). The 5000-ha estuary forms a section of the state border between Duluth, Minnesota and Superior, Wisconsin…In the SLRE, SAV beds are often patchy, turbidity varies considerably among areas (DeVore, 1978) and over time, and the growing season is short. Given these conditions, hydroacoustic survey methods were the best option for generating the extensive, high resolution data needed for modeling. From late July through mid September in 2011, we surveyed SAV in Allouez Bay, part of Superior Bay, eastern half of St. Louis Bay, and Spirit Lake…We used the measured SAV percent cover at the location immediately previous to each useable record location along each transect as a lag variable to correct for possible serial autocorrelation of model error. SAV percent cover, substrate parameters, corrected depth, and exposure and bed slope data were combined in Arc-GIS...We created logistic regression models for each area of the SLRE to predict the probability of SAV being present at each report location. We created models for the training data set using the Logistic procedure in SAS v.9.1 with step wise elimination (?=0.05). Plots of cover by depth for selected predictor values (Supplementary Information Appendix C) suggested that interactions between depth and other predictors were likely to be significant, and so were included in regression models. We retained the main effect if their interaction terms were significant in the model. We examined the performance of the models using the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve. AUROC is the probability of concordance between random pairs of observations and ranges from 0.5 to 1 (Gönen, 2006). We cross-validated logistic occurrence models for their ability to classify correctly locations in the validation (holdout) dataset and in the Superior Bay dataset… Model performance, as indicated by the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve was >0.8 (Table 3). Assessed accuracy of models (the percent of records where the predicted probability of occurrence and actual SAV presence or absence agreed) for split datasets was 79% for Allouez Bay, 86% for St. Louis Bay, and 78% for Spirit Lake." | ABSTRACT: " EcoSim II uses results from the Ecopath procedure for trophic mass-balance analysis to define biomass dynamics models for predicting temporal change in exploited ecosystems. Key populations can be repre- sented in further detail by using delay-difference models to account for both biomass and numbers dynamics. A major problem revealed by linking the population and biomass dynamics models is in representation of population responses to changes in food supply; simple proportional growth and reproductive responses lead to unrealistic predic- tions of changes in mean body size with changes in fishing mortality. EcoSim II allows users to specify life history mechanisms to avoid such unrealistic predictions: animals may translate changes in feed- ing rate into changes in reproductive rather than growth rates, or they may translate changes in food availability into changes in foraging time that in turn affects predation risk. These options, along with model relationships for limits on prey availabil- ity caused by predation avoidance tactics, tend to cause strong compensatory responses in modeled populations. It is likely that such compensatory responses are responsible for our inability to find obvious correlations between interacting trophic components in fisheries time-series data. But Eco- sim II does not just predict strong compensatory responses: it also suggests that large piscivores may be vulnerable to delayed recruitment collapses caused by increases in prey species that are in turn competitors/predators of juvenile piscivores " | ABSTRACT: "The Watershed Management Optimization Support Tool (WMOST) is intended to be used as a screening tool as part of an integrated watershed management process such as that described in EPA’s watershed planning handbook (EPA 2008).1 The objective of WMOST is to serve as a public-domain, efficient, and user-friendly tool for local water resources managers and planners to screen a widerange of potential water resources management options across their watershed or jurisdiction for costeffectiveness as well as environmental and economic sustainability (Zoltay et al 2010). Examples of options that could be evaluated with the tool include projects related to stormwater, water supply, wastewater and water-related resources such as Low-Impact Development (LID) and land conservation. The tool is intended to aid in evaluating the environmental and economic costs, benefits, trade-offs and co-benefits of various management options. In addition, the tool is intended to facilitate the evaluation of low impact development (LID) and green infrastructure as alternative or complementary management options in projects proposed for State Revolving Funds (SRF). WMOST is a screening model that is spatially lumped with a daily or monthly time step. The model considers water flows but does not yet consider water quality. The optimization of management options is solved using linear programming. The target user group for WMOST consists of local water resources managers, including municipal water works superintendents and their consultants. This document includes a user guide and presentation of two case studies as examples of how to apply WMOST. Theoretical documentation is provided in a separate report (EPA/600/R-13/151). " | Models-3 is a flexible software system that provides a user-interface framework for CMAQ air quality modeling applications and tools for analysis, management of model input/output, and visualization of data. The Models-3 framework relies on two modeling systems to provide the meteorological and emissions data needed for air quality modeling. With this data, the Models-3 CMAQ modeling system can be used for urban and regional scale air quality simulation of tropospheric ozone, acid deposition, visibility, and particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10). The meteorological and emissions modeling systems that are provided with the current release of Models-3 will be described in this document. However, CMAQ is designed as an open system where alternative models can be used to generate the data. |
Specific Policy or Decision Context Cited
em.detail.policyDecisionContextHelp
?
|
None identified | Land management, ecosystem management, response to EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy | Restoration of seagrass | Not applicable | None identified | None | Not applicable | None provided |
Biophysical Context
|
Mediteranean coastal mountains | Northern Spain; Bizkaia region | Recovering estuary; Seagrass; Coastal fringe; Saltwater marsh; Mangrove | nearshore; <1.5 km offshore; <12 m depth | submerged aquatic vegetation | None, Ocean ecosystems | None | NA |
EM Scenario Drivers
em.detail.scenarioDriverHelp
?
|
IPPC scenarios A2- severe changes in temperature and precipitation, B1 - more moderate variations in temperature and precipitation schemes from the present | No scenarios presented | Habitat loss or restoration in Tampa Bay Estuary | Not applicable | No scenarios presented | N/A | None | NA |
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-148 ![]() |
EM-193 | EM-195 | EM-260 | EM-414 | EM-964 | EM-1011 | EM-1012 |
Method Only, Application of Method or Model Run
em.detail.methodOrAppHelp
?
|
Method + Application (multiple runs exist) View EM Runs | Method + Application | Method + Application | Method + Application | Method + Application | Method Only | Method Only | Method + Application |
New or Pre-existing EM?
em.detail.newOrExistHelp
?
|
Application of existing model | New or revised model | New or revised model | New or revised model | New or revised model | New or revised model | New or revised model | New or revised model |
Related EMs (for example, other versions or derivations of this EM) described in ESML
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-148 ![]() |
EM-193 | EM-195 | EM-260 | EM-414 | EM-964 | EM-1011 | EM-1012 |
Document ID for related EM
em.detail.relatedEmDocumentIdHelp
?
|
Doc-307 | Doc-311 | Doc-338 | Doc-205 | None | None | None | None | None | None | None |
EM ID for related EM
em.detail.relatedEmEmIdHelp
?
|
EM-344 | EM-368 | EM-437 | EM-111 | None | None | None | None | None | None | EM-1019 | EM-1020 | EM-1021 |
EM Modeling Approach
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-148 ![]() |
EM-193 | EM-195 | EM-260 | EM-414 | EM-964 | EM-1011 | EM-1012 |
EM Temporal Extent
em.detail.tempExtentHelp
?
|
1971-2100 | 2000 - 2007 | 1982-2010 | 2006-2007 | 2010 - 2012 | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable |
EM Time Dependence
em.detail.timeDependencyHelp
?
|
time-stationary | time-stationary | time-stationary | time-stationary | time-stationary | time-dependent | time-dependent | time-dependent |
EM Time Reference (Future/Past)
em.detail.futurePastHelp
?
|
Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | both |
Not applicable ?Comment:method description |
Not applicable |
EM Time Continuity
em.detail.continueDiscreteHelp
?
|
Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable |
discrete ?Comment:Modeller dependent |
discrete | continuous |
EM Temporal Grain Size Value
em.detail.tempGrainSizeHelp
?
|
Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | 1 | 1 | Not applicable |
EM Temporal Grain Size Unit
em.detail.tempGrainSizeUnitHelp
?
|
Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Day | Month | Not applicable |
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-148 ![]() |
EM-193 | EM-195 | EM-260 | EM-414 | EM-964 | EM-1011 | EM-1012 |
Bounding Type
em.detail.boundingTypeHelp
?
|
Watershed/Catchment/HUC | Geopolitical | Physiographic or Ecological | Physiographic or Ecological | Physiographic or ecological | Other | Not applicable | Geopolitical |
Spatial Extent Name
em.detail.extentNameHelp
?
|
Francoli River | Bilbao Metropolitan Greenbelt | Tampa Bay Estuary | St.Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands | St. Louis River Estuary | Not applicable | Not applicable | United States |
Spatial Extent Area (Magnitude)
em.detail.extentAreaHelp
?
|
100-1000 km^2 | 100-1000 km^2 | 1000-10,000 km^2. | 10-100 km^2 | 10-100 km^2 | Not applicable | Not applicable | >1,000,000 km^2 |
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-148 ![]() |
EM-193 | EM-195 | EM-260 | EM-414 | EM-964 | EM-1011 | EM-1012 |
EM Spatial Distribution
em.detail.distributeLumpHelp
?
|
spatially distributed (in at least some cases) | spatially distributed (in at least some cases) | spatially distributed (in at least some cases) | spatially lumped (in all cases) |
spatially distributed (in at least some cases) ?Comment:BH: Each individual transect?s data was parceled into location reports, and that each report?s ?quadrat? area was dependent upon the angle of the hydroacoustic sampling beam. The spatial grain is 0.07 m^2, 0.20 m^2 and 0.70 m^2 for depths of 1 meter, 2 meters and 3 meters, respectively. |
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 | area, for pixel or radial feature | area, for pixel or radial feature | Not applicable | area, for pixel or radial feature | Not applicable | Not applicable | grid cells |
Spatial Grain Size
em.detail.spGrainSizeHelp
?
|
30m x 30m | 2 m x 2 m | 1 ha | Not applicable | 0.07 m^2 to 0.70 m^2 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 32km |
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-148 ![]() |
EM-193 | EM-195 | EM-260 | EM-414 | EM-964 | EM-1011 | EM-1012 |
EM Computational Approach
em.detail.emComputationalApproachHelp
?
|
Numeric | Analytic | Analytic | Analytic | Analytic | Analytic | Numeric | Analytic |
EM Determinism
em.detail.deterStochHelp
?
|
deterministic | deterministic | deterministic | deterministic | deterministic | deterministic | deterministic | deterministic |
Statistical Estimation of EM
em.detail.statisticalEstimationHelp
?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-148 ![]() |
EM-193 | EM-195 | EM-260 | EM-414 | EM-964 | EM-1011 | EM-1012 |
Model Calibration Reported?
em.detail.calibrationHelp
?
|
No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Not applicable | Not applicable |
Model Goodness of Fit Reported?
em.detail.goodnessFitHelp
?
|
No | No | No | Yes | Yes | No | Not applicable |
Yes ?Comment:For particulate matter goodness of fit |
Goodness of Fit (metric| value | unit)
em.detail.goodnessFitValuesHelp
?
|
None | None | None |
|
|
None | None |
|
Model Operational Validation Reported?
em.detail.validationHelp
?
|
Yes ?Comment:Used Nash-Sutcliffe model efficiency index |
Yes | No | No | Yes | Not applicable | Not applicable | Yes |
Model Uncertainty Analysis Reported?
em.detail.uncertaintyAnalysisHelp
?
|
No | No | No | Yes | No | Not applicable | Not applicable | Unclear |
Model Sensitivity Analysis Reported?
em.detail.sensAnalysisHelp
?
|
No | No | No | No | No | Not applicable | Not applicable | Unclear |
Model Sensitivity Analysis Include Interactions?
em.detail.interactionConsiderHelp
?
|
Not applicable | Not applicable | 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-148 ![]() |
EM-193 | EM-195 | EM-260 | EM-414 | EM-964 | EM-1011 | EM-1012 |
|
|
None | None |
|
None | None |
|
Marine location (Classification hierarchy: Realm > Region > Province > Ecoregion)
EM-148 ![]() |
EM-193 | EM-195 | EM-260 | EM-414 | EM-964 | EM-1011 | EM-1012 |
None | None |
|
|
None | None | None | None |
Centroid Lat/Long (Decimal Degree)
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-148 ![]() |
EM-193 | EM-195 | EM-260 | EM-414 | EM-964 | EM-1011 | EM-1012 |
Centroid Latitude
em.detail.ddLatHelp
?
|
41.26 | 43.25 | 27.95 | 17.75 | 46.72 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 38.79 |
Centroid Longitude
em.detail.ddLongHelp
?
|
1.18 | -2.92 | -82.47 | -64.75 | -96.13 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 106.53 |
Centroid Datum
em.detail.datumHelp
?
|
WGS84 | WGS84 | WGS84 | NAD83 | WGS84 | Not applicable | Not applicable | WGS84 |
Centroid Coordinates Status
em.detail.coordinateStatusHelp
?
|
Estimated | Provided | Estimated | Estimated | Estimated | Not applicable | Not applicable | Estimated |
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-148 ![]() |
EM-193 | EM-195 | EM-260 | EM-414 | EM-964 | EM-1011 | EM-1012 |
EM Environmental Sub-Class
em.detail.emEnvironmentalSubclassHelp
?
|
Rivers and Streams | Aquatic Environment (sub-classes not fully specified) | Rivers and Streams | Near Coastal Marine and Estuarine | Terrestrial Environment (sub-classes not fully specified) | Forests | Agroecosystems | Created Greenspace | Grasslands | Scrubland/Shrubland | Near Coastal Marine and Estuarine | Near Coastal Marine and Estuarine | Aquatic Environment (sub-classes not fully specified) | Rivers and Streams | Inland Wetlands | Lakes and Ponds | Open Ocean and Seas | Terrestrial Environment (sub-classes not fully specified) | Atmosphere |
Specific Environment Type
em.detail.specificEnvTypeHelp
?
|
Coastal mountains | none | Subtropical Estuary | stony coral reef | Freshwater estuarine system | Pelagic | watershed | Land-sea-air interface |
EM Ecological Scale
em.detail.ecoScaleHelp
?
|
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 is finer than that of the Environmental Sub-class | Ecological scale corresponds to the Environmental Sub-class | Ecological scale corresponds to the Environmental Sub-class | Ecological scale is finer than that of the Environmental Sub-class | Not applicable |
Scale of differentiation of organisms modeled
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-148 ![]() |
EM-193 | EM-195 | EM-260 | EM-414 | EM-964 | EM-1011 | EM-1012 |
EM Organismal Scale
em.detail.orgScaleHelp
?
|
Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Guild or Assemblage | Not applicable |
Other (Comment) ?Comment:Varied levels of taxonomic order |
Not applicable | Not applicable |
Taxonomic level and name of organisms or groups identified
EM-148 ![]() |
EM-193 | EM-195 | EM-260 | EM-414 | EM-964 | EM-1011 | EM-1012 |
None Available | None Available | 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-148 ![]() |
EM-193 | EM-195 | EM-260 | EM-414 | EM-964 | EM-1011 | EM-1012 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
None |
|
<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-148 ![]() |
EM-193 | EM-195 | EM-260 | EM-414 | EM-964 | EM-1011 | EM-1012 |
|
|
|
|
None |
|
None |
|