An accurate computational approach for the prediction of pan evaporation over daily time horizons is a useful decisive tool in sustainable agriculture and hydrological applications, particularly in designing the rural water resource systems, water use allocations, utilization and demand assessments, and the management of irrigation systems. In this study, a hybrid predictive model (Multilayer Perceptron-Firefly Algorithm (MLP-FFA)) based on the FFA optimizer that is embedded within the MLP technique is developed and evaluated for its suitability for the prediction of daily pan evaporation. To develop the hybrid MLP-FFA model, the pan evaporation data measured between 2012 and 2014 for two major meteorological stations (Talesh and Manjil) located at Northern Iran are employed to train and test the predictive model. The ability of the hybrid MLP-FFA model is compared with the traditional MLP and support vector machine (SVM) models. The results are evaluated using five performance criteria metrics: root mean square error (RMSE), mean absolute error (MAE), Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency (NS), and the Willmott’s Index (WI). Taylor diagrams are also used to examine the similarity between the observed and predicted pan evaporation data in the test period. Results show that an optimal MLP-FFA model outperforms the MLP and SVM model for both tested stations. For Talesh, a value of WI = 0.926, NS = 0.791, and RMSE = 1.007 mm day−1 is obtained using MLP-FFA model, compared with 0.912, 0.713, and 1.181 mm day−1 (MLP) and 0.916, 0.726, and 1.153 mm day−1 (SVM), whereas for Manjil, a value of WI = 0.976, NS = 0.922, and 1.406 mm day−1 is attained that contrasts 0.972, 0.901, and 1.583 mm day−1 (MLP) and 0.971, 0.893, and 1.646 mm day−1 (SVM). The results demonstrate the importance of the Firefly Algorithm applied to improve the performance of the MLP-FFA model, as verified through its better predictive performance compared to the MLP and SVM model.
Firefly Algorithm Forecasting Hybrid model Multilayer perceptron Pan evaporation Support vector machine
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
The authors wish to express their gratitude to the Gilan Meteorological Organization (GMO) for providing the data. Also, our appreciation extended to the anonymous reviewers and editor for their constructive and useful comments that helped us to improve the quality of the paper.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
Regarding the conflict of interest declaration, the authors prefer all the potential reviewers from the authors’ countries are excluded from reviewing the manuscript.
Al-Shammari ET, Mohammadi K, Keivani A et al (2016) Prediction of daily dewpoint temperature using a model combining the support vector machine with firefly algorithm. J Irrig Drain Eng. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943-4774.0001015
Deo RC, Şahin M (2015) Application of the artificial neural network model for prediction of monthly standardized precipitation and evapotranspiration index using hydrometeorological parameters and climate indices in eastern Australia. Atmos Res 161–162:65–81. doi:10.1016/j.atmosres.2015.03.018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deo RC, Samui P (2017) Forecasting evaporative loss by least-square support-vector regression and evaluation with genetic programming, Gaussian process, and minimax probability machine regression: case study of Brisbane City. J Hydrol Eng 22:5017003. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0001506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deo RC, Samui P, Kim D (2015) Estimation of monthly evaporative loss using relevance vector machine, extreme learning machine and multivariate adaptive regression spline models. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess. doi:10.1007/s00477-015-1153-y
Drucker H, Burges CJ, Kaufman L, Smola AJ, Vapnik V (1997) Support vector regression machines. Adv Neural Inf Process Syst 155–161Google Scholar
Fahimi F, Yaseen ZM, El-shafie A (2017) Application of soft computing based hybrid models in hydrological variables modeling: a comprehensive review. Theor Appl Climatol 128(3–4):875–903Google Scholar
Ghorbani MA, Khatibi R, Hosseini B, Bilgili M (2013) Relative importance of parameters affecting wind speed prediction using artificial neural networks. Theor Appl Climatol 114:107–114. doi:10.1007/s00704-012-0821-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghorbani MA, Zadeh HA, Isazadeh M, Terzi O (2016) A comparative study of artificial neural network (MLP, RBF) and support vector machine models for river flow prediction. Environ Earth Sci 75:1–14. doi:10.1007/s12665-015-5096-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghorbani MA, Shamshirband S, Zare Haghi D et al (2017) Application of firefly algorithm-based support vector machines for prediction of field capacity and permanent wilting point. Soil Tillage Res 172:32–38. doi:10.1016/j.still.2017.04.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gleckler PJ, Taylor KE, Doutriaux C (2008) Performance metrics for climate models. J Geophys Res Atmos. doi:10.1029/2007JD008972
Günay ME (2016) Forecasting annual gross electricity demand by artificial neural networks using predicted values of socio-economic indicators and climatic conditions: case of Turkey. Energy Policy 90:92–101. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2015.12.019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hassanzadeh T, Faez K, Seyfi G (2012) A speech recognition system based on structure equivalent fuzzy neural network trained by firefly algorithm. In Biomedical Engineering (ICoBE), 2012 International Conference on (pp. 63–67). IEEE, Penang. doi:10.1109/ICoBE.2012.6178956
Heo K-Y, Ha K-J, Yun K-S et al (2013) Methods for uncertainty assessment of climate models and model predictions over East Asia. Int J Climatol. doi:10.1002/joc.3692
Kaushik A, Tayal DK, Yadav K, Kaur A (2016) Integrating firefly algorithm in artificial neural network models for accurate software cost predictions. J Softw Evol Process 28:665–688. doi:10.1002/smr.1792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kavousi-Fard A, Samet H, Marzbani F (2014) A new hybrid modified firefly algorithm and support vector regression model for accurate short term load forecasting. Expert Syst Appl 41:6047–6056. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2014.03.053CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kayarvizhy N, Kanmani S, Uthariaraj RV (2014) ANN models optimized using swarm intelligence algorithms. WSEAS Trans Comput 13:501–519Google Scholar
Kisi O, Genc O, Dinc S, Zounemat-Kermani M (2016) Daily pan evaporation modeling using chi-squared automatic interaction detector, neural networks, classification and regression tree. Comput Electron Agric 122:112–117. doi:10.1016/j.compag.2016.01.026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mba L, Meukam P, Kemajou A (2016) Application of artificial neural network for predicting hourly indoor air temperature and relative humidity in modern building in humid region. Energy Build 121:32–42. doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.03.046CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McClelland JL, Rumelhart DE (1988) Explorations in parallel distributed processing: a handbook of models, programs, and exercises. Explor Parallel Distrib Process Handb Model Programs Exerc 344:ix, 344. doi:10.2307/1423065Google Scholar
Mohanty S, Jha MK, Raul SK et al (2015) Using artificial neural network approach for simultaneous forecasting of weekly groundwater levels at multiple sites. Water Resour Manag 29:5521–5532. doi:10.1007/s11269-015-1132-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vapnik V (1995) The nature of statistical learning theory. Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willmott CJ, Matsuura K (2005) Advantages of the mean absolute error (MAE) over the root mean square error (RMSE) in assessing average model performance. Clim Res 30:79–82. doi:10.3354/cr030079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yaseen ZM, Allawi MF, Yousif AA, Jaafar O, Hamzah FM, El-Shafie A (2016a) Non-tuned machine learning approach for hydrological time series forecasting. Neural Comput & Appl 1–13. doi: 10.1007/s00521-016-2763-0
Yaseen ZM, Jaafar O, Deo RC et al (2016b) Stream-flow forecasting using extreme learning machines: a case study in a semi-arid region in Iraq. J Hydrol. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.09.035
Yoon H, Jun SC, Hyun Y, Bae GO, & Lee KK (2011) A comparative study of artificial neural networks and support vector machines for predicting groundwater levels in a coastal aquifer. JHydrol 396(1):128–138Google Scholar