Theoretical and Applied Climatology

, Volume 131, Issue 3–4, pp 967–984 | Cite as

A comparison between ten advanced and soft computing models for groundwater qanat potential assessment in Iran using R and GIS

  • Seyed Amir Naghibi
  • Hamid Reza Pourghasemi
  • Karim Abbaspour
Original Paper
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Considering the unstable condition of water resources in Iran and many other countries in arid and semi-arid regions, groundwater studies are very important. Therefore, the aim of this study is to model groundwater potential by qanat locations as indicators and ten advanced and soft computing models applied to the Beheshtabad Watershed, Iran. Qanat is a man-made underground construction which gathers groundwater from higher altitudes and transmits it to low land areas where it can be used for different purposes. For this purpose, at first, the location of the qanats was detected using extensive field surveys. These qanats were classified into two datasets including training (70%) and validation (30%). Then, 14 influence factors depicting the region’s physical, morphological, lithological, and hydrological features were identified to model groundwater potential. Linear discriminant analysis (LDA), quadratic discriminant analysis (QDA), flexible discriminant analysis (FDA), penalized discriminant analysis (PDA), boosted regression tree (BRT), random forest (RF), artificial neural network (ANN), K-nearest neighbor (KNN), multivariate adaptive regression splines (MARS), and support vector machine (SVM) models were applied in R scripts to produce groundwater potential maps. For evaluation of the performance accuracies of the developed models, ROC curve and kappa index were implemented. According to the results, RF had the best performance, followed by SVM and BRT models. Our results showed that qanat locations could be used as a good indicator for groundwater potential. Furthermore, altitude, slope, plan curvature, and profile curvature were found to be the most important influence factors. On the other hand, lithology, land use, and slope aspect were the least significant factors. The methodology in the current study could be used by land use and terrestrial planners and water resource managers to reduce the costs of groundwater resource discovery.

Keywords

Groundwater mapping Soft computing models Geographic information system Iran 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank two anonymous reviewers and editorial positive comments.

References

  1. Abeare SM (2009) Comparisons of boosted regression tree, GLM and GAM performance in the standardization of yellowfin tuna catch-rate data from the Gulf of Mexico Lonline Fishery. Master’s Thesis, Louisiana State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  2. Aertsen W, Kint V, Van Orshoven J, Özkan K, Muys B (2010) Comparison and ranking of different modeling techniques for prediction of site index in Mediterranean mountain forests. Ecol Model 221:1119–1130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aertsen W, Kint V, Van Orshoven J, Muys B (2011) Evaluation of modelling techniques for forest site productivity prediction in contrasting eco-regions using stochastic multi-criteria acceptability analysis (SMAA). Environ Model Softw 26(7):929–937CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ahmadi H, Nazari Samani A, Malekian A (2010) The qanat: a living history in Iran. Water and sustainability in arid regions. Springer, Netherlands, pp 125–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ballabio C, Sterlacchini S (2012) Support vector machines for land-slide susceptibility mapping: the Staffora River basin case study, Italy. Math Geosci 44:47–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Breiman L (1996) Bagging predictors. Mach Learn 24:123–140Google Scholar
  7. Breiman L (2001) Random forests. Mach Learn 45:5–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bonham-Carter GF (1994) Geographic information systems for geoscientists: modelling with GIS. Computer Methamphetamine Geos, vol. 13. Pergamon, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Catani F, Lagomarsino D, Segoni S, Tofani V (2013) Landslide susceptibility estimation by random forests technique: sensitivity and scaling issues. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 13:2815–2831CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cherkassky V, Mulier F (2007) Learning from data: concepts, theory, and methods. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chezgi J, Pourghasemi HR, Naghibi SA, Moradi HR, Kheirkhah Zarkesh M (2015) Assessment of a spatial multi-criteria evaluation to site selection underground dams in the Alborz Province. Iran Geocarto Int 31:628–646. doi: 10.1080/10106049.2015.1073366 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chirici G, Mura M, McInerney D, Py N, Tomppo EO, Waser LT, McRoberts RE (2015) A meta-analysis and review of the literature on the k-nearest neighbors technique for forestry applications that use remotely sensed data. Draft 176:282–294. doi: 10.1016/j.rse.2016.02.001 Google Scholar
  13. Cortez P, Embrechts MJ (2013) Using sensitivity analysis and visualization techniques to open black box data mining models. Inf Sci 225:1–17. doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2012.10.039 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Davoodi Moghaddam D, Rezaei M, Pourghasemi HR, Pourtaghie ZS, Pradhan B (2015) Groundwater spring potential mapping using bivariate statistical model and GIS in the Taleghan watershed, Iran. Arab J Geosci 8(2):913–929CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eker AM, Dekmen M, Cambazoglu S, Duzgun SHB, Akgun H (2015) Evaluation and comparison of landslide susceptibility mapping methods: a case study for the Ulus district, Bartın, northern Turkey. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 29(1):132–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Elith J, Graham CH, Anderson RP et al (2006) Novel methods improve prediction of species’ distributions from occurrence data. Ecography 29:129–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Elith J, Leathwick JR, Hastie T (2008) A working guide to boosted regression trees. J Anim Ecol 77(4):802–813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Everitt BS, Landau S, Leese M, Stahl D (2011) Miscellaneous clustering methods, in cluster analysis, 5th edn. John Wiley & Sons Ltd., ChichesterCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Felicisimo A, Cuartero A, Remondo J, Quiros E (2012) Mapping landslide susceptibility with logistic regression, multiple adaptive regression splines, classification and regression trees, and maximum entropy methods: a comparative study. Landslides 10:175–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Friedman JH (1991) Multivariate adaptive regression splines. Annual Statistics 19:1–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Geology Survey of Iran (GSI) (1997) http://www.gsi.ir/Main/Lang_en/ index.html
  22. Granitto PM, Biasioli F, Endrizzi I, Gasperi F (2008) Discriminant models based on sensory evaluations: single assessors versus panel average. Food Qual Prefer 19(6):589–595. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2008.03.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gutiérrez ÁG, Schnabel S, Lavado Contador JF (2009) Using and comparing two nonparametric methods (CART and MARS) to model the potential distribution of gullies. Ecol Model 220(24):3630–3637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hastie T, Tibshirani R, Friedman J (2001) The elements of statistical learning: data mining, inference, and prediction. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hong H, Pradhan B, Xu C, Tien Bui D (2015) Spatial prediction of landslide hazard at the Yihuang area (China) using two-class kernel logistic regression, alternating decision tree and support vector machines. Catena 133:266–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hong H, Naghibi SA, Pourghasemi HR, Pradhan B (2016) GIS-based landslide spatial modeling in Ganzhou City, China. Arab J Geosci 9(2):112. doi: 10.1007/s12517-015-2094-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Immitzer M, Atzberger C, Koukal T (2012) Eignung von WorldView-2 Satellitenbildern für die Baumartenklassifizierung unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der vier neuen Spektralkanäle. Photogramm Fernerkun:573–588Google Scholar
  28. Karami A, Khoorani A, Noohegar A, Shamsi SR, Moosavi V (2015) Gully erosion mapping using object-based and pixel-based image classification methods. Environ Eng Geosci 21(2):101–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Karimi SE, Emami SN, Tahmasebipour N, Pourghasemi HR, Naghibi SA, Arami SA, Pradhan B (2016) Assessment and comparison of combined bivariate and AHP models with logistic regression for landslide susceptibility mapping in the Chaharmahal-e-Bakhtiari Province, Iran. Arab J Geosci 9(3):201. doi: 10.1007/s12517-015-2258-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kavzoglu T, Sahin E, Colkesen I (2014) Landslide susceptibility mapping using GIS-based multi-criteria decision analysis, support vector machines, and logistic regression. Landslides 11:425–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Leathwick JR, Elith J, Francis MP, Hastie T, Taylor P (2006) Variation in demersal fish species richness in the oceans surrounding New Zealand: an analysis using boosted regression trees. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 321:267–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lee S, Song KY, Kim Y, Park I (2012a) Regional groundwater productivity potential mapping using a geographic information system (GIS) based artificial neural network model. Hydrogeol J 20:1511–1527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lee S, Park I, Choi J-K (2012b) Spatial prediction of ground subsidence susceptibility using an artificial neural network. Environ Manag 49(2):347–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mahdavi M (2004) Applied hydrology, vol 2, 5th edn. University of Tehran Press, TehranGoogle Scholar
  35. Mallet Y, Coomans D, deVel O (1996) Recent developments in discriminant analysis on high dimensional spectral data. Chemometrics Intell. Lab Syst 35(2):157–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Marjanović M, Kovačević M, Bajat B, Voženílek V (2011) Landslide susceptibility assessment using SVM machine learning algorithm. Eng Geol 123:225–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mojiri HR, Zarei AR (2006) The investigation of precipitation condition in the Zagros area and its effects on the central plateau of Iran. The 2nd Conference of Water Resource Management. Tehran, IranGoogle Scholar
  38. Moosavi V, Niazi Y (2015) Development of hybrid wavelet packet-statistical models (WP-SM) for landslide susceptibility mapping. Landslides. doi: 10.1007/s10346-014-0547-0 Google Scholar
  39. Moore ID, Grayson RB, Ladson AR (1991) Digital terrain modeling: a review of hydrological, geomorphological and biological applications. Hydrol Process 5:3–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Naghibi SA, Pourghasemi HR (2015) A comparative assessment between three machine learning models and their performance comparison by bivariate and multivariate statistical methods in groundwater potential mapping. Water Resour Manag. doi: 10.1007/s11269-015-1114-8 Google Scholar
  41. Naghibi SA, Pourghasemi HR, Pourtaghi ZS, Rezaei A (2015) Groundwater qanat potential mapping using frequency ratio and Shannon’s entropy models in the Moghan watershed, Iran. Earth Sci Inf 8(1):171–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Naghibi SA, Pourghasemi HR, Dixon B (2016) GIS-based groundwater potential mapping using boosted regression tree, classification and regression tree, and random forest machine learning models in Iran. Environ Monit Assess 188:44. doi: 10.1007/s10661-015-5049-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Naghibi SA, Moradi Dashtpagerdi M (2016) Evaluation of four supervised learning methods for groundwater spring potential mapping in Khalkhal region (Iran) using GIS-based features. Hydrogeol J. doi: 10.1007/s10040-016-1466-z Google Scholar
  44. Nazari Samani A, Farzadmehr J (2006) Qanat as a traditional and advantageous approach for water supply in Iran. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Water and Management for Sustainable Irrigated Agriculture, Adana, TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  45. Negnevitsky M (2002) Artificial intelligence: a guide to intelligent systems. Addison–Wesley/Pearson, Harlow, p 394Google Scholar
  46. Oh HJ, Kim YS, Choi JK, Park E, Lee S (2011) GIS mapping of regional probabilistic groundwater potential in the area of Pohang City, Korea. J Hydrol 399:158–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Oliveira S, Oehler F, San-Miguel-Ayanz J (2012) Modeling spatial patterns of fire occurrence in Mediterranean Europe using multiple regression and random forest. For Ecol Manag 275:117–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ozdemir A (2011a) GIS-based groundwater spring potential mapping in the Sultan Mountains (Konya, Turkey) using frequency ratio, weights of evidence and logistic regression methods and their comparison. J Hydrol 411:290–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ozdemir A (2011b) Using a binary logistic regression method and GIS for evaluating and mapping the groundwater spring potential in the Sultan Mountains (Aksehir, Turkey). J Hydrol 405:123–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Paraskevas T, Constantinos L, Dimitrios R, Ioanna L (2015) Landslide susceptibility assessments using the k-nearest neighbor algorithm and expert knowledge. Case study of the basin of Selinounda river, Achaia County, Greece. SafeChania 2015, The knowledge triangle in the Civil Protection Service Center of Mediterranean Architecture, Chania, Crete, Greece, 10–14 June 2015Google Scholar
  51. Peters J, De Baets B, Verhoest NEC, Samson R, Degroeve S, De Becker P, Huybrechts W (2007) Random forests as a tool for ecohydrological distribution modelling. Ecol Model 207:304–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Perrier ER, Salkini AB, editors (1991) Supplemental irrigation in the near East and North Africa. Proceedings of a Workshop on Regional Consultation on Supplemental Irrigation. ICARDA and FAO, 1987 Dec 7–9; Rabat, Morroco: Kluwer Academic Publishers; p. 611Google Scholar
  53. Pourghasemi HR, Jirandeh AG, Pradhan B, Xu C, Gokceoglu C (2013) Landslide susceptibility mapping using support vector machine and GIS at the Golestan Province, Iran. J Earth Syst Sci 122:349–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Pourghasemi HR, Beheshtirad M (2014) Assessment of a data-driven evidential belief function model and GIS for groundwater potential mapping in the KoohrangWatershed, Iran. Geocarto Int. doi: 10.1080/10106049. 2014.966161 Google Scholar
  55. Pourtaghi ZS, Pourghasemi HR (2014) GIS-based groundwater spring potential assessment and mapping in the Birjand township, southern Khorasan Province, Iran. Hydrogeol J 22(3):643–662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. R Development Core Team (2005) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, ISBN 3–900051–07-0, http://www.R-project.org.
  57. Rahmati O, Nazari Samani A, Mahdavi M, Pourghasemi HR, Zeinivand H (2014) Groundwater potential mapping at Kurdistan region of Iran using analytic hierarchy process and GIS. Arab J Geosci. doi: 10.1007/s12517-014-1668-4 Google Scholar
  58. Ramos-Canon AM, Prada-Sarmiento LF, Trujillo-Vela MG, Macias JP, Santos-R AC (2015) Alfonso Mariano Ramos-Cañón I Luis Felipe Prada-Sarmiento I Mario Germán Trujillo-Vela I Juan Pablo Macías I Ana Carolina Santos-R Linear discriminant analysis to describe the relationship between rainfall and landslides in Bogotá, Colombia. Landslides, DOI:  10.1007/s10346-015-0593-2
  59. Razandi Y, Pourghasemi HR, Samani Neisani N, Rahmati O (2015) Application of analytical hierarchy process, frequency ratio, and certainty factor models for groundwater potential mapping using GIS. Earth Sci Inf. doi: 10.1007/s12145-015-0220-8 Google Scholar
  60. Reyn SC, Sabatier R, Molinari N (2006) Choice of B-splines with free parameters in the flexible discriminant analysis context. Comput Stat Data Anal 51(3):1765–1778. doi: 10.1016/j.csda.2005.11.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Ridgeway G (2006) gbm: generalized boosted regression models. R package version 1.5–5, URL http://CRAN.R-project.org/.
  62. Ripley BD (1996) Pattern recognition and neural networks. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  63. Samui P, Kurup P (2012) Multivariate adaptive regression spline (MARS) and least squares support vector machine (LSSVM) for OCR prediction. Soft Comput 16(8):1347–1351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Stumpf A, Kerle N (2011) Object-oriented mapping of landslides using random forests. Remote Sens Environ 115(10):2564–2577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Tayyebi A, Pijanowski BC (2014) Modeling multiple land use changes using ANN, CART and MARS: comparing tradeoffs in goodness of fit and explanatory power of data mining tools. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinf 28:102–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Tebaldi C, Nychka D, Brown BG, Sharman R (2002) Flexible discriminant techniques for forecasting clear-air turbulence. Environmetrics 13(8):859–878. doi: 10.1002/env.562
  67. Tehrany MS, Pradhan B, Jebur MN (2014) Flood susceptibility mapping using a novel ensemble weights-of-evidence and support vector machine models in GIS. J Hydrol 512:332–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Tehrany MS, Pradhan B, Mansor S, Ahmad N (2015) Flood susceptibility assessment using GIS-based support vector machine model with different kernel types. Catena 125:91–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Tien Bui D, Pradhan B, Lofman O, Revhaug I (2012) Landslide susceptibility assessment in Vietnam using support vector machines, decision tree, and naive bayes models. Math Probl Eng. doi: 10.1155/2012/974638
  70. Tien Bui D, Tuan TA, Klempe H, Pradhan B, Revhaug I (2015) Spatial prediction models for shallow landslide hazards: a comparative assessment of the efficacy of support vector machines, artificial neural networks, kernel logistic regression, and logistic model tree. Landslides. doi: 10.1007/s10346-015-0557-6 Google Scholar
  71. Tien Bui D, Pham BT, Nguyen QP, Hoang N-D (2016) Spatial prediction of rainfall-induced shallow landslides using hybrid integration approach of least-squares support vector machines and differential evolution optimization: a case study in Central Vietnam. Int J Digital Earth 8947:1–21. doi: 10.1080/17538947.2016.1169561 Google Scholar
  72. Vapnik V (1995) The nature of statistical learning theory. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Vorpahl P, Elsenbeer H, Märker M, Schroder B (2012) How can statistical models help to determine driving factors of landslides? Ecol Model 239:27–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wu X, Kumar V, Ross Quinlan J, Ghosh J, Yang Q, Motoda H, Steinberg D (2008) Top 10 algorithms in data mining. Knowl Inf Syst 14.  10.1007/s10115-007-0114-2
  75. Youssef AM, Pourghasemi HR, Pourtaghi ZS, Al-Katheeri MM (2015) Landslide susceptibility mapping using random forest, boosted regression tree, classification and regression tree, and general linear models and comparison of their performance at Wadi Tayyah Basin, Asir region, Saudi Arabia. Landslides. doi: 10.1007/s10346-015-0614-1 Google Scholar
  76. Zhu Y, Tan TL (2016) Penalized discriminant analysis for the detection of wild-grown and cultivated Ganoderma lucidum using Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy. Spectrochim Acta A Mol Biomol Spectrosc 159:68–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Zabihi M, Pourghasemi HR, Pourtaghi ZS, Behzadfar M (2016) GIS-based multivariate adaptive regression spline and random forest models for groundwater potential mapping in Iran. Environ Earth Sci 75(8):665. doi: 10.1007/s12665-016-5424-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Wien 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Seyed Amir Naghibi
    • 1
  • Hamid Reza Pourghasemi
    • 2
  • Karim Abbaspour
    • 3
  1. 1.Young Researchers and Elite Club, Mashhad BranchIslamic Azad UniversityMashhadIran
  2. 2.Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Engineering, College of AgricultureShiraz UniversityShirazIran
  3. 3.Eawag, Swiss Federal Institute for Aquatic Science and TechnologyDuebendorfSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations