Advertisement

Artificial intelligence approaches for spatial modeling of streambed hydraulic conductivity

  • Sujay Raghavendra NagannaEmail author
  • Paresh Chandra Deka
Research Article - Hydrology

Abstract

Saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks) describes the water movement through saturated porous media. The hydraulic conductivity of streambed varies spatially owing to the variations in sediment distribution profiles all along the course of the stream. The artificial intelligence (AI) based spatial modeling schemes were instituted and tested to predict the spatial patterns of streambed hydraulic conductivity. The geographical coordinates (i.e., latitude and longitude) of the sampled locations from where the in situ hydraulic conductivity measurements were determined were used as model inputs to predict streambed Ks over spatial scale using artificial neural network (ANN), adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) and support vector machine (SVM) paradigms. The statistical measures computed by using the actual versus predicted streambed Ks values of individual models were comparatively evaluated. The AI-based spatial models provided superior spatial Ks prediction efficiencies with respect to both the strategies/schemes considered. The model efficiencies of spatial modeling scheme 1 (i.e., Strategy 1) were better compared to Strategy 2 due to the incorporation of more number of sampling points for model training. For instance, the SVM model with NSE = 0.941 (Strategy 1) and NSE = 0.895 (Strategy 2) were the best among all the models for 2016 data. Based on the scatter plots and Taylor diagrams plotted, the SVM model predictions were found to be much efficient even though, the ANFIS predictions were less biased. Although ANN and ANFIS models provided a satisfactory level of predictions, the SVM model provided virtuous streambed Ks patterns owing to its inherent capability to adapt to input data that are non-monotone and nonlinearly separable. The tuning of SVM parameters via 3D grid search was responsible for higher efficiencies of SVM models.

Keywords

ANN ANFIS Spatial modeling Streambed hydraulic conductivity SVM Vented dams 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Abraham A (2005) Adaptation of fuzzy inference system using neural learning. In: Nedjah N, Macedo Mourelle L (eds) Fuzzy systems engineering. Studies in fuzziness and soft computing, vol 181. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.  https://doi.org/10.1007/11339366_3 Google Scholar
  2. Cortes C, Vapnik V (1995) Support-vector networks. Mach Learn 20:273–297.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00994018 Google Scholar
  3. Cristianini N, Shawe-Taylor J (2000) An introduction to support vector machines and other kernel-based learning methods. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cross SS, Harrison RF, Kennedy RL (1995) Introduction to neural networks. Lancet 346:1075–1079.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(95)91746-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dai F, Zhou Q, Lv Z, Wang X, Liu G (2014) Spatial prediction of soil organic matter content integrating artificial neural network and ordinary kriging in Tibetan Plateau. Ecol Indic 45:184–194.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.04.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Forkuor G, Hounkpatin OKL, Welp G, Thiel M (2017) High resolution mapping of soil properties using remote sensing variables in south-western Burkina Faso: a comparison of machine learning and multiple linear regression models. PLoS One 12:e0170478.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0170478 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gholami V, Booij MJ, Nikzad Tehrani E, Hadian MA (2018) Spatial soil erosion estimation using an artificial neural network (ANN) and field plot data. Catena 163:210–218.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2017.12.027 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ghorbani H, Kashi H, Hafezi Moghadas N, Emamgholizadeh S (2015) Estimation of soil cation exchange capacity using multiple regression, artificial neural networks, and adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system models in Golestan Province. Iran. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 46:763–780.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00103624.2015.1006367 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Grekousis G, Manetos P, Photis YN (2013) Modeling urban evolution using neural networks, fuzzy logic and GIS: the case of the Athens metropolitan area. Cities 30:193–203.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2012.03.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jain AK, Mao Jianchang, Mohiuddin KM (1996) Artificial neural networks: a tutorial. Computer (Long Beach Calif) 29:31–44.  https://doi.org/10.1109/2.485891 Google Scholar
  11. Jang J-SR (1992) Neuro-fuzzy modeling: architectures, analyses, and applications. University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  12. Jang JSR (1993) ANFIS: adaptive-network-based fuzzy inference system. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 23:665–685.  https://doi.org/10.1109/21.256541 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jang J-SR, Sun C-T, Mizutani E (1997) Neuro-fuzzy and soft computing: a computational approach to learning and machine intelligence. Prentice Hall, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  14. Khosravi K, Mao L, Kisi O, Yaseen ZM, Shahid S (2018) Quantifying hourly suspended sediment load using data mining models: case study of a glacierized Andean catchment in Chile. J Hydrol 567:165–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kirkwood C, Cave M, Beamish D, Grebby S, Ferreira A (2016) A machine learning approach to geochemical mapping. J Geochemical Explor.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gexplo.2016.05.003 Google Scholar
  16. Kisi O, Yaseen ZM (2019) The potential of hybrid evolutionary fuzzy intelligence model for suspended sediment concentration prediction. Catena 174:11–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kohonen T (1988) An introduction to neural computing. Neural Networks 1:3–16.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0893-6080(88)90020-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Leuenberger M, Kanevski M (2015) Extreme learning machines for spatial environmental data. Comput Geosci 85:64–73.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2015.06.020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Merdun H, Çınar Ö, Meral R, Apan M (2006) Comparison of artificial neural network and regression pedotransfer functions for prediction of soil water retention and saturated hydraulic conductivity. Soil Tillage Res 90:108–116.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2005.08.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. More SB, Deka PC (2018) Estimation of saturated hydraulic conductivity using fuzzy neural network in a semi-arid basin scale for murum soils of India. ISH J Hydraul Eng 24:140–146.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09715010.2017.1400408 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Motaghian HR, Mohammadi J (2011) Spatial estimation of saturated hydraulic conductivity from terrain attributes using regression, kriging, and artificial neural networks. Pedosphere 21:170–177.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1002-0160(11)60115-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Naganna SR, Deka PC (2018) Variability of streambed hydraulic conductivity in an intermittent stream reach regulated by Vented Dams: a case study. J Hydrol 562:477–491.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.05.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Naganna SR, Deka PC, Ch S, Hansen WF (2017) Factors influencing streambed hydraulic conductivity and their implications on stream–aquifer interaction: a conceptual review. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24:24765–24789.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-0393-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Raghavendra NS, Deka PC (2014) Support vector machine applications in the field of hydrology: a review. Appl Soft Comput 19:372–386.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2014.02.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Reid CE, Jerrett M, Petersen ML, Pfister GG, Morefield PE, Tager IB, Raffuse SM, Balmes JR (2015) Spatiotemporal prediction of fine particulate matter during the 2008 Northern California wildfires using machine learning. Environ Sci Technol 49:3887–3896.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es505846r CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sanikhani H, Deo RC, Yaseen ZM, Eray O, Kisi O (2018) Non-tuned data intelligent model for soil temperature estimation: a new approach. Geoderma 330:52–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sivanandam S, Paulraj M (2009) Introduction to artificial neural networks. Vikas Publishing House, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  28. Twarakavi NKC, Šimůnek J, Schaap MG (2009) Development of pedotransfer functions for estimation of soil hydraulic parameters using support vector machines. Soil Sci Soc Am J 73:1443.  https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2008.0021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Vapnik VN (1999) An overview of statistical learning theory. IEEE Trans Neural Netw 10:988–999.  https://doi.org/10.1109/72.788640 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Vapnik VN (2000) The nature of statistical learning theory. Springer, New York.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-3264-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wu G, Shu L, Lu C, Chen X (2015) The heterogeneity of 3-D vertical hydraulic conductivity in a streambed. Hydrol Res 47(1):15–26.  https://doi.org/10.2166/nh.2015.224 Google Scholar
  32. Zhao C, Shao M, Jia X, Nasir M, Zhang C (2016) Using pedotransfer functions to estimate soil hydraulic conductivity in the Loess Plateau of China. Catena 143:1–6.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2016.03.037 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Institute of Geophysics, Polish Academy of Sciences & Polish Academy of Sciences 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Applied Mechanics and HydraulicsNational Institute of Technology KarnatakaSurathkal, MangaloreIndia

Personalised recommendations