What drives the ecological quality of surface waters? A review of 11 predictive modeling tools

被引:26
作者
Visser, Hans [1 ]
Evers, Niels [2 ]
Bontsema, Arjan [2 ]
Rost, Jasmijn [2 ]
de Niet, Arie [3 ]
Vethman, Paul [1 ]
Mylius, Sido [1 ]
van der Linden, Annelotte [4 ]
van den Roovaart, Joost [4 ]
van Gaalen, Frank [1 ]
Knoben, Roel [2 ]
de Lange, Hendrika J. [5 ]
机构
[1] PBL Netherlands Environm Assessment Agcy, Bezuidenhoutseweg 30, NL-2594 AV The Hague, Netherlands
[2] Royal HaskoningDHV, Laan 1914 35,POB 1132, NL-3800 BC Amersfoort, Netherlands
[3] Witteveen Bos, Leeuwenbrug 8,POB 233, NL-7400 AE Deventer, Netherlands
[4] Deltares, Daltonlaan 600, NL-3584 BK Utrecht, Netherlands
[5] Publ Works & Water Management, Rijnstr 8,POB 2232, NL-3500 GE Utrecht, Netherlands
关键词
Data science; Ecological quality ratios; Machine learning; Prediction; Water quality; Water framework directive; MULTIPLE STRESSORS;
D O I
10.1016/j.watres.2021.117851
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
What policy is needed to ensure that good-quality water is available for both people's needs and the environment? The EU Water Framework Directive (WFD), which came into force in 2000, established a framework for the assessment, management, protection and improvement of the status of water bodies across the European Union. However, recent reviews show that the ecological status of the majority of surface waters in the EU does not meet the requirement of good status. Thus, it is an important question what measures water management authorities should take to improve the ecological status of their water bodies. To find concrete answers, several institutes in the Netherlands cooperated to develop a software tool, the WFD Explorer, to assist water managers in selecting efficient measures. This article deals with the development of prediction tools that allow one to calculate the effect of restoration and mitigation measures on the biological quality, expressed in terms of Ecological Quality Ratios (EQRs). To find the ideal modeling tool we give a review of 11 predictive models: 10 models from the field of Machine Learning and, additionally, the Multiple Regression model. We present our results in terms of a 'predictioninterpretation competition'. All these models were tested in a multiple-stressor setting: the values of 15 stressors (or steering factors) are available to predict the EQR values of four biological quality elements (phytoplankton, other aquatic flora, benthic invertebrates and fish). Analyses are based on 29 data sets from various water clusters (streams, ditches, lakes, channels). All 11 models were ranked by their predictive performance and their level of model transparency. Our review shows a trade-off between these two aspects. Models that have the best EQR prediction performance show non-transparent model structures. These are Random Forest and Boosting. However, models with low prediction accuracies show transparent response relationships between EQRs on the one hand and individual steering factors on the other hand. These models are Multiple Regression, Regression Trees and Product Unit Neural Networks. To acknowledge both aspects of model quality - predictive power and transparency - we recommend that models from both groups are implemented in the WFD Explorer software.
引用
收藏
页数:10
相关论文
共 34 条
  • [1] Impacts of multiple stressors on freshwater biota across spatial scales and ecosystems
    Birk, Sebastian
    Chapman, Daniel
    Carvalho, Laurence
    Spears, Bryan M.
    Andersen, Hans Estrup
    Argillier, Christine
    Auer, Stefan
    Baattrup-Pedersen, Annette
    Banin, Lindsay
    Beklioglu, Meryem
    Bondar-Kunze, Elisabeth
    Borja, Angel
    Branco, Paulo
    Bucak, Tuba
    Buijse, Anthonie D.
    Cardoso, Ana Cristina
    Couture, Raoul-Marie
    Cremona, Fabien
    de Zwart, Dick
    Feld, Christian K.
    Ferreira, M. Teresa
    Feuchtmayr, Heidrun
    Gessner, Mark O.
    Gieswein, Alexander
    Globevnik, Lidija
    Graeber, Daniel
    Graf, Wolfram
    Gutierrez-Canovas, Cayetano
    Hanganu, Jenica
    Iskin, Ugur
    Jarvinen, Marko
    Jeppesen, Erik
    Kotamaki, Niina
    Kuijper, Marijn
    Lemm, Jan U.
    Lu, Shenglan
    Solheim, Anne Lyche
    Mischke, Ute
    Moe, S. Jannicke
    Noges, Peeter
    Noges, Tiina
    Ormerod, Steve J.
    Panagopoulos, Yiannis
    Phillips, Geoff
    Posthuma, Leo
    Pouso, Sarai
    Prudhomme, Christel
    Rankinen, Katri
    Rasmussen, Jes J.
    Richardson, Jessica
    [J]. NATURE ECOLOGY & EVOLUTION, 2020, 4 (08) : 1060 - 1068
  • [2] Three hundred ways to assess Europe's surface waters: An almost complete overview of biological methods to implement the Water Framework Directive
    Birk, Sebastian
    Bonne, Wendy
    Borja, Angel
    Brucet, Sandra
    Courrat, Anne
    Poikane, Sandra
    Solimini, Angelo
    van de Bund, Wouter
    Zampoukas, Nikolaos
    Hering, Daniel
    [J]. ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS, 2012, 18 : 31 - 41
  • [3] Statistical modeling: The two cultures
    Breiman, L
    [J]. STATISTICAL SCIENCE, 2001, 16 (03) : 199 - 215
  • [4] Breiman L., 2001, Machine Learning, V45, P5
  • [5] Comparative analysis of surface water quality prediction performance and identification of key water parameters using different machine learning models based on big data
    Chen, Kangyang
    Chen, Hexia
    Zhou, Chuanlong
    Huang, Yichao
    Qi, Xiangyang
    Shen, Ruqin
    Liu, Fengrui
    Zuo, Min
    Zou, Xinyi
    Wang, Jinfeng
    Zhang, Yan
    Chen, Da
    Chen, Xingguo
    Deng, Yongfeng
    Ren, Hongqiang
    [J]. WATER RESEARCH, 2020, 171 (171)
  • [6] De Niet A., 2014, INT C HYDROINFORM PA
  • [7] 50 Years of Data Science
    Donoho, David
    [J]. JOURNAL OF COMPUTATIONAL AND GRAPHICAL STATISTICS, 2017, 26 (04) : 745 - 766
  • [8] Doshi-Velez F, 2017, ARXIV
  • [9] El-Bilali Ali, 2020, Journal of the Saudi Society of Agricultural Sciences, V19, P439, DOI 10.1016/j.jssas.2020.08.001
  • [10] Evers C.H.M., 2018, 201850 STOW