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
[21]   Flood Prediction Using Machine Learning Models: Literature Review [J].
Mosavi, Amir ;
Ozturk, Pinar ;
Chau, Kwok-wing .
WATER, 2018, 10 (11)
[22]   Machine Learning: An Applied Econometric Approach [J].
Mullainathan, Sendhil ;
Spiess, Jann .
JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVES, 2017, 31 (02) :87-106
[23]   European aquatic ecological assessment methods: A critical review of their sensitivity to key pressures [J].
Poikane, Sandra ;
Herrero, Fuensanta Salas ;
Kelly, Martyn G. ;
Borja, Angel ;
Birk, Sebastian ;
van de Bund, Wouter .
SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT, 2020, 740
[24]   Response of fish communities to multiple pressures: Development of a total anthropogenic pressure intensity index [J].
Poikane, Sandra ;
Ritterbusch, David ;
Argillier, Christine ;
Bialokoz, Witold ;
Blabolil, Petr ;
Breine, Jan ;
Jaarsma, Nicolaas G. ;
Krause, Teet ;
Kubecka, Jan ;
Lauridsen, Torben L. ;
Noges, Peeter ;
Peirson, Graeme ;
Virbickas, Tomas .
SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT, 2017, 586 :502-511
[25]   Using convolutional neural network for predicting cyanobacteria concentrations in river water [J].
Pyo, JongCheol ;
Park, Lan Joo ;
Pachepsky, Yakov ;
Baek, Sang-Soo ;
Kim, Kyunghyun ;
Cho, Kyung Hwa .
WATER RESEARCH, 2020, 186
[26]   Support vector machine applications in the field of hydrology: A review [J].
Raghavendra, Sujay N. ;
Deka, Paresh Chandra .
APPLIED SOFT COMPUTING, 2014, 19 :372-386
[27]   Understanding multiple stressors in a Mediterranean basin: Combined effects of land use, water scarcity and nutrient enrichment [J].
Segurado, Pedro ;
Almeida, Carina ;
Neves, Ramiro ;
Ferreira, Maria Teresa ;
Branco, Paulo .
SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT, 2018, 624 :1221-1233
[28]   Making waves. Bridging theory and practice towards multiple stressor management in freshwater ecosystems [J].
Spears, Bryan M. ;
Chapman, Daniel S. ;
Carvalho, Laurence ;
Feld, Christian K. ;
Gessner, Mark O. ;
Piggott, Jeremy J. ;
Banin, Lindsay F. ;
Gutierrez-Canovas, Cayetano ;
Solheim, Anne Lyche ;
Richardson, Jessica A. ;
Schinegger, Rafaela ;
Segurado, Pedro ;
Thackeray, Stephen J. ;
Birk, Sebastian .
WATER RESEARCH, 2021, 196
[29]   The effect of intervention in nickel concentrations on benthic macroinvertebrates: A case study of statistical causal inference in ecotoxicology [J].
Takeshita, Kazutaka M. ;
Hayashi, Takehiko, I ;
Yokomizo, Hiroyuki .
ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION, 2020, 265
[30]   A Brief Review of Random Forests for Water Scientists and Practitioners and Their Recent History in Water Resources [J].
Tyralis, Hristos ;
Papacharalampous, Georgia ;
Langousis, Andreas .
WATER, 2019, 11 (05)