Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Groundwater level response identification by hybrid wavelet–machine learning conjunction models using meteorological data

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Environmental Science and Pollution Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Due to its heterogeneous and complex nature, groundwater modeling needs great effort to quantify the aquifer, a crucial tool for policymakers and hydrogeologists to understand the variations in groundwater levels (GWL). This study proposed a set of supervised machine learning (ML) models to delineate the GWL changes in the Zarand-Saveh complex aquifer in Iran using 15-year (2005–2020) monthly dataset. The wavelet transform (WT) procedure was also used to improve the GWL prediction ability of ML models for 3-month horizons using input datasets of precipitation, evapotranspiration, temperature, and GWL. The four well-accepted standalone ML methods, i.e., artificial neural network (ANN), adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS), group method of data handling (GMDH), and least square support vector machine (LSSVM), were implemented and compared with the hybrid wavelet conjunction models. The methods were compared based on root mean square error (RMSE), mean absolute error (MAE), correlation coefficient (R), and Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE). Comparison outcomes showed that the hybrid wavelet–ML considerably improved the standalone model results. The wavelet transform-least square support vector machine (WT-LSSVM) model was superior to other standalone and hybrid wavelet–ML methods to predict GWL. The best GWL predictions were acquired from the WT-LSSVM model with input scenario 5 involving all influential variables, and this model produced RMSE, MAE, R, and NSE as 0.05, 0.04, 0.99, and 0.99 for 1 month ahead of GWL prediction, while the corresponding values were obtained as 0.18, 0.14, 0.95, and 0.90 for 3 months ahead of GWL prediction, respectively.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

All data are provided as tables and figures.

Abbreviations

AI:

Artificial intelligence

ANFIS :

Adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system

ANN :

Artificial neural network

CEEMD :

Complementary ensemble empirical mode decomposition

EEMD :

Ensemble empirical mode decomposition

EMD :

Empirical mode decomposition

FCM :

Fuzzy C-means clustering

FT :

Fourier transform

GEP:

Gene expression programming

GMDH :

Group method of data handling

GP :

Genetic programming

GWL :

Groundwater level

LM :

Levenberg–Marquardt

LSSVM :

Least square support vector machine

MAE :

Mean absolute error

MF :

Membership functions

ML :

Machine learning

MLP :

Multi-layer perceptron

MLR :

Multi-layer regression

NSE :

Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency

R :

Correlation coefficient

RMSE :

Root mean square error

SVR :

Support vector regression

WA :

Whale algorithm

WT :

Wavelet transform

WT-ANFIS :

Wavelet transform-adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system

WT-ANN :

Wavelet transform-artificial neural network

WT-GMDH :

Wavelet transform-group method of data handling

WT-LSSVM :

Wavelet transform-least square support vector machine

References

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

S. Samani and M. Vadiati analyzed and interpreted data and contributed to writing the manuscript. Z. Nejatijahromi and b. Etebari collected data and had contributed to drafting manuscript preparation. O. Kisi was involved in revising the manuscript critically for important intellectual content. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Meysam Vadiati.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

Not applicable.

Consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing Interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Responsible Editor: Marcus Schulz

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Highlights

• Performance of machine learning models, ANN, ANFIS, GMDH, and LSSVM, was investigated in GWL prediction.

• ML models were compared with wavelet conjunction models.

• Wavelet transform noticeably enhances standalone ML models’ accuracy.

• ML’s performance was improved by using WT for 2 and 3 months ahead of GWL prediction.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Samani, S., Vadiati, M., Nejatijahromi, Z. et al. Groundwater level response identification by hybrid wavelet–machine learning conjunction models using meteorological data. Environ Sci Pollut Res 30, 22863–22884 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-23686-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-23686-2

Keywords

Navigation