Modeling Earth Systems and Environment

, Volume 3, Issue 4, pp 1449–1461 | Cite as

Estimation of reference evapotranspiration using data driven techniques under limited data conditions

Original Article

Abstract

Estimation of reference evapotranspiration \((E{T_0})\) is a major task in irrigation and water resources development and management. In this context, the FAO56 Penman–Montieth (FAO56PM) equation, one of the most accurate equation is used, which however requires a high number of climatic parameters that are not always available for most meteorological stations. The present study measures the effectiveness of selected machine learning techniques [evolutionary regression (ER), artificial neural network (ANN), multi nonlinear regression (MLNR), and support vector machines (SVMs)] for the estimation of \(E{T_0}\) under limited data conditions. Different models were developed for estimating \(E{T_0}\), including various sets of daily climatic variables, namely maximum and minimum air temperature, extraterrestrial radiation, sunshine hours, wind speed and relative humidity Statistical evaluation of different results obtained from selected techniques showed that the best performance was obtained when six meteorological variables, i.e., (\({T_{max}},\;{T_{min}},\;{R_a},\;{S_h},\;{W_s},\;R{H_{min}}\)) were used as input, with highest \({R^2}=0.9931 \,\) by ANN4 followed by ER4 with \({R^2}=0.9886\). The ER and ANN performed similarly though ANN performed slightly better against FAO56PM model. The ER was recommended over ANN because ER gives a physical algebraic expression, which can be further replicated without modelling tools and computers. Further, its gives the intermittent calculation visibility and understanding, also that ER technique is easy to use and more practical in application. However, ANN models need modelling tools and computers with the very skilled user and inside calculations like a black box. ANN also require simulation process to get any output.

Keywords

Reference evapotranspiration Data-driven techniques ANNs ER MLNR SVMs Gamma test technique 

References

  1. Abdullah SS, Abdul Malek M, Mustapha A, Aryanfar A (2014) Hybrid of artificial neural network-genetic algorithm for prediction of reference evapotranspiration (ET0) in arid and semiarid regions. J Agric Sci 6(3):191–200Google Scholar
  2. Allen RG, Pereira LS, Raes D, Smith M (1998) Crop evapotranspiration-guidelines for computing crop water requirements. FAO irrigation and drainage paper no. 56. FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  3. Aytek A (2008) Co-active neurofuzzy inference system for evapotranspiration modeling. Soft Comput 13(7):691–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chauhan S, Shrivastava RK (2009) Performance evaluation of reference evapotranspiration estimation using climate based methods and artificial neural networks. Water Resour Manag 23(5):825–837CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cortex C, Vapnik V (1995) Support vector networks. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston. Mach Learn 20:273–297Google Scholar
  6. Doglioni A, Giustolisi O, Savic DA, Webb BW (2007) An evolutionary approach to stream temperature analysis. Hydrol Process 22(3):315–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. El-Baroudy I, Elshorbagy A, Carey SK, Giustolisi O, Savic DA (2010) Comparison of three data-driven techniques in modelling the evapotranspiration process. J Hydroinform 12(4):365.  http://dx.doi.org/10.2166/hydro.2010.029 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Eslamian SS, Gohari SA, Zareian MJ, Firoozfar A (2012) Estimating Penman Monteith reference evapotranspiration using artificial neural networks and genetic algorithm: a case study. Arabian J Sci Eng 37(4):935–994CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fatemeh K (2011) Reference evapotranspiration estimation using adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system. Masters thesis, Universiti Putra MalaysiaGoogle Scholar
  10. Fausett L (1994) Fundamentals of neural networks. Prentice Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  11. Giustolisi O, Laucelli D (2005) Improving generalization of artificial neural networks in rainfall-runoff modeling. Hydrol Sci J 50(3):439–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Giustolisi O, Savic DA (2006) A symbolic data-driven technique based on evolutionary polynomial regression. J Hydroinformatics 8(3):207–222.  http://dx.doi.org/10.2166/hydro.2006.020 Google Scholar
  13. Giustolisi O, Simeone V (2006) Optimal design of artificial neural networks by multi-objective strategy: groundwater level predictions. Hydrol Sci J 51(3):502–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Giustolisi O, Doglioni A, Savic DA, Webb BW (2007) A multi-model approach to analysis of environmental phenomena. Environ Model Softw 22(5):674–682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hornik K, Stinchcombe M, White H (1989) Multilayer feed forward networks are universal approximators. Neural Netw 2(5):359–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Huo Z, Feng S, Kang S, Dai X (2012) Artificial neural network models for reference evapotranspiration in an arid area of northwest China. J Arid Environ 82:81–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kale MU, Nagdeve MB, Bagade SJ (2013) Estimation of evapotranspiration with ANN technique. J Indian Water Resour Soc 33(1):23–29Google Scholar
  18. Karimaldini F, Shui L (2012) Daily evapotranspiration modeling from limited weather data by using neuro-fuzzy computing technique. J Irrig Drain Eng 138:21–34.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943-4774.0000343 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Karimaldini F, Shui LT, Abdollahi M, Khalili N (2010) Deciding the embedding nonlinear model dimensions and data size prior to daily reference evapotranspiration modeling. Aust J Basic Appl Sci 4(11):5668–5674Google Scholar
  20. Kisi O (2007) Evapotranspiration modeling from climatic data using a neural computing technique. Hydrol Process 21(6):1925–1934CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kisi O, Cimen M (2009) Evapotranspiration modeling using support vector machines. Hydrol Sci J 54(5):918–928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kisi O, Parmar KS (2016) Application of least square support vector machine and multivariate adaptive regression spline models in long term prediction of river water pollution. J Hydrol 534:104–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kisi O, Parmar KS, Soni K, Demir V (2017) Modeling of air pollutants using least square support vector regression, multivariate adaptive regression spline and m5 model tree models. Air Qual Atmos Health.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11869-017-0477-9 Google Scholar
  24. Koutsoyiannis D (2007) Discussion of generalized regression neural networks for evapotranspir- ration modeling. J Hydrol Sci 52(4):832–835CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Laaboudi A, Mouhouche B, Draoui B (2012) Neural network approach to reference evapotranspiration modeling from limited climatic data in arid regions. IntJ Biometeorol 56:831–841 (831–841) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Laucelli D, Berardi L, Doglioni A (2005) Evolutionary polynomial regression toolbox: version 1.SA. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Technical University of Bari, Bari, Italy. http://www.hydroinformatics.it/prod02.htm. Accessed 24 June 2017
  27. Ozbayoglu G, Ozbayoglu ME (2006) A new approach for the prediction of ash fusion temperatures: a case study using Turkishlignites. Fuel 85:545–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pandey PK, Pandey V (2016) Evaluation of temperature-based Penman–Monteith (TPM) model under the humid environment. Model Earth Syst Environ 2:152.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40808-016-0204-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pandey V, Pandey PK, Mahanta AP (2014) Calibration and performance verification of Hargreaves–Samani equation in a humid region. Irrig Drain 63:659–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pandey PK, Dabral PP, Pandey V (2016) Evaluation of reference evapotranspiration methods for the northeastern region of India. Int Soil Water Conserv Res.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr.2016.02.003 Google Scholar
  31. Parasuraman K, Elshorbagy A, Carey SK (2007) Modeling the dynamics of the evapotranspiration process using genetic programming. J Hydrol Eng (ASCE) 12(1):52–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Parmar KS, Bhardwaj R (2015) River water prediction modeling using neural networks, fuzzy and wavelet coupled model. Water Resour Manag 29(1):17–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Shiri J, Kisi Ö., Landeras G, López JJ, Nazemi AH, Stuyt LCPM (2012) Daily reference evapotranspiration modeling by using genetic programming approach in the Basque Country (Northern Spain). J Hydrol 414–415 (302–316) Google Scholar
  34. Shrestha NK, Shukla S (2015) Support vector machine based modeling of evapotranspiration using hydro-climatic variables in a sub-tropical environment. Agric For Meterol 200:172–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Traorea S, Luoa YF, Fippsa G (2016) Deployment of artificial neural network for short-term forecasting of evapotranspiration using public weather forecast restricted messages. Agric Water Manag 163:363–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Vapnik V (1995) The Nature of statistical learning theory. Springer-Verlag, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wang Z, Yao LI, Guo Z (2015) The estimation of reference evapotranspiration based on gamma test and gene expression programming using the weather data set from different climatic zones in China. 2015 ASABE Annual International Meeting 152188992.  http://dx.doi.org/10.13031/aim.20152188992
  38. Wen X, Si J, He Z, Wu J, Shao H, Yu H (2015) Support-vector-machine-based models for modeling daily reference evapotranspiration with limited climatic data in extreme arid regions. Water Resour Manag 29:3195–3209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Yang F, White MA, Michaelis AR, Ichii K, Hashimoto H, Votava P, Zhu A, Nemani RR (2006) Prediction of continental-scale evapotranspiration by combining MODIS and Ameri Flux data through support vector machine. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens 44(11):3452–3461CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Agricultural EngineeringNorth Eastern Regional Institute of Science and TechnologyItanagarIndia

Personalised recommendations