Next Article in Journal
Performance of Three Sorghum Cultivars under Excessive Rainfall and Waterlogged Conditions in the Sudano-Sahelian Zone of West Africa: A Case Study at the Climate-Smart Village of Cinzana in Mali
Previous Article in Journal
Investigating the Status of Cadmium, Chromium and Lead in the Drinking Water Supply Chain to Ensure Drinking Water Quality in Malaysia
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Machine Learning-Based Water Level Prediction in Lake Erie

1
Department of Civil Engineering, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON K7L 3N6, Canada
2
Lassonde School of Engineering, York University, Toronto, ON M3J 1P3, Canada
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Water 2020, 12(10), 2654; https://doi.org/10.3390/w12102654
Submission received: 15 August 2020 / Revised: 12 September 2020 / Accepted: 21 September 2020 / Published: 23 September 2020

Abstract

:
Predicting water levels of Lake Erie is important in water resource management as well as navigation since water level significantly impacts cargo transport options as well as personal choices of recreational activities. In this paper, machine learning (ML) algorithms including Gaussian process (GP), multiple linear regression (MLR), multilayer perceptron (MLP), M5P model tree, random forest (RF), and k-nearest neighbor (KNN) are applied to predict the water level in Lake Erie. From 2002 to 2014, meteorological data and one-day-ahead observed water level are the independent variables, and the daily water level is the dependent variable. The predictive results show that MLR and M5P have the highest accuracy regarding root mean square error ( RMSE )   and mean absolute error (MAE). The performance of ML models has also been compared against the performance of the process-based advanced hydrologic prediction system (AHPS), and the results indicate that ML models are superior in predictive accuracy compared to AHPS. Together with their time-saving advantage, this study shows that ML models, especially MLR and M5P, can be used for forecasting Lake Erie water levels and informing future water resources management.

1. Introduction

Water level plays an important part in the community’s well-being and economic livelihoods. For example, water level changes can impact physical processes in lakes, such as circulation, resulting in changes in water mixing and bottom sediment resuspension, and thus could further affect water quality and aquatic ecosystems [1,2]. Hence, water level prediction attracts more and more attention [3,4]. For example, the International Joint Commission (IJC) suggests more efforts should be implemented to improve the methods of monitoring and predicting water level [5].
Water-level change is a complex hydrological phenomenon due to its various controlled factors, including meteorological conditions, as well as water exchange between the lake and its watersheds [6,7]. Thus, many tools used to forecast water levels, while considering influencing factors, have been developed, such as process-based models [8]. For example, Gronewold et al. showed that the advanced hydrologic prediction system (AHPS) can be used to capture seasonal and inter-annual patterns of Lake Erie water level from 1997 to 2009 [9]. However, the effectiveness of process-based models mainly depends on the accuracies of the models to represent the aquatic conditions and the abilities of the models in describing the variabilities in the observations [10,11]. In addition, process-based models are often time-consuming [12], so numerous studies have proposed using statistical models to predict water level, e.g., autoregressive integrated moving average model [13], artificial neural network [14], genetic programming [15], and support vector machine [16]. These studies mainly focused on leveraging historical water level without considering the physical process driven by meteorological conditions [6,17,18].
In this paper, six machine learning methodologies [19], with fast leaning speed, are applied to predict daily Lake Erie water level. And then the ML model predictive performance is compared to the process-based model (i.e., AHPS). ML models are established by considering not only the impacts of the historical water-level changes but also meteorological factors. Overall, there are three innovations of this work. First, it is the first work to take account of both historical water level and meteorological conditions in water level prediction for Lake Erie. Second, it is the first study to apply various ML models to forecast Lake Erie water level and compare the performance among various ML models. Third, it is the first work to compare the predictive performance between ML models and the process-based model AHPS.
The following parts of this paper are divided into four sections. Section 1 introduces the experimental area of this study. Section 2 describes various ML algorithms and the model performance assessment metrics. Section 3 presents the independent variables selection and performance comparison results for ML models. Section 4 discusses the forecasting results of various ML predicting models, and the performance comparisons between ML models and the process-based prediction system AHPS (Figure 1).

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

Lake Erie is the southernmost, shallowest, and smallest part of the Great Lakes System and its mean depth, surface area, and volume are 18.9 m, 25,657 km2, and 484 km3 [20]. It has three distinguishing basins including western, central, and eastern basins, with average depths of 7.4 m, 19 m, and 28.5 m [21,22]. The western basin is separated from the central basin by the islands extending from Point Pelee in Ontario to Marblehead in Ohio, and the eastern basin is separated from the central basin by the Pennsylvania Ridge from Long Point extending to Erie Pennsylvania [21]. There are five major inflows (Detroit River, Maumee River, Sandusky River, Cuyahoga River, and Grand River), and one outflow (Niagara River) for Lake Erie. The water retention capacity of Lake Erie is 2.76 years [20,23]. Figure 2 is generated based on GLERL (Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory) data and the identifiers represent the meteorological stations (red stars) and water level measuring stations (black circles).

2.2. Data Source

Following existing studies, e.g., Bucak et al. (2018), who use various meteorological variables to simulate the water level of Lake Beysehir in Turkey, this study also considers meteorological variables including precipitation, air temperature, shortwave radiation, longwave radiation, wind speed, and relative humidity. The average daily measured water level data at four stations including St. Toledo, Port Stanley, Buffalo, and Cleveland are regarded as the observed daily water level of Lake Erie (Table 1).
The independent variables are selected in terms of the relevance degree between the meteorological variables (daily, one-day-, two-day-, and three-day-ahead observed average, minimum, and maximum values of air temperature, shortwave radiation, longwave radiation, wind speed, and relative humidity; daily, one-day-, two-day-, and three-day-ahead observed average precipitation values) (Table 2) and the water level. The correlation function has been typically applied in previous studies [17,24], measuring the linear dependence between two variables. When the relatedness is not linear, it is not appropriate to apply this method. In this study, we use mutual information (MI) instead of correlation function since MI can measure the general dependence between two variables [25].
MI, i.e., Equation (1), measures the relevance degree between two variables according to the joint probability distribution function p ( x , y ) [26].
MI ( Y ; X )   =   x X y Y p ( x , y ) log ( p ( x , y ) p ( x ) p ( y ) )

2.3. Machine Learning Algorithms

This study adopts six widely used ML methods, including Gaussian process, multiple linear regression, multilayer perceptron, M5P model tree, random forest, and k-nearest neighbors.

2.3.1. Gaussian Process

Gaussian process (GP) [27] can be applied to settle two categories of problems: (1) Regression, where the data are continuous, and optimization of study can provide a close prediction for most of the time; (2) Classification, where the datasets are discrete and the predictions end up with a discrete set of classes [28]. In this work, we adopt the same algorithm of GP from existing studies [27,28,29]. Taking account of the noise of observation y, the Gaussian process is shown below:
y   =   f ( x )   +   ε
f ( x )   =   g ( m ( x ) , k ( x ) )
where x and y represent the input and output, respectively, f is a multi-dimensional Gaussian distribution determined by m(x) (mean function) and k(x,x’) (covariance matrix), x and x’ are the input values at two points, and ε   ( ~ N ( 0 , σ 2 ) )   is the independent white Gaussian noise. To make choosing an appropriate noise level easier, this study applies normalization to the target attribute as well as the other attributes. If the data can be scaled properly, the mean could be zero. A function producing a positive semi-definite covariance matrix with elements [ K ] i , j   =   k ( x i , x j ) is applied as the covariance function, so f is expressed as p ( f | x )   =   N ( 0 , K ) . Based on previous noise assumptions, p ( y | f )   =   N ( f , σ 2 I ) is obtained, and I is the unit matrix.
p ( y | X )   = p ( y | f ) p ( f | x ) d f   =   N ( 0 , K   +   σ 2 I )
The prediction y * is the output corresponding to the input x * :
p ( y * | x , y , x * )   =   N ( ( y * | μ * , σ y * 2 )
μ *   =   k * T ( K   +   σ 2 I ) 1 y
σ y * 2   =   k * *   k * T ( K   +   σ 2 I ) 1 k *
where k * can be obtained from x and x *   through   [ k * ]   =   k ( x , x * ) , and k * * can be obtained from x * through [ k * * ]   =   k ( x * , x * ) . μ * and σ y * 2 represent expectation and variance. The Gaussian covariance function is:
k ( x i , x j )   =   υ e [ 1 2 d = 1 m ω d ( x i d x j d ) 2 ]
where [ υ , ω 1 , ω 2 , , ω m ] represent a parameter vector, called hyperparameters. The simplest expression can be shown as follows:
logp ( y | x )   =   1 2 y T ( K   +   σ 2 I ) 1 y     1 2 log ( | K   +   σ 2 I | )     n 2 log ( 2 π )

2.3.2. Multiple Linear Regression

The multiple linear regression (MLR) method describes the linear relationship between the dependent and independent variables. In this work, we adopt the same MLR algorithm as existing studies [30,31,32].
Y i   =   β 0   +   β 1 X 1 , i   +   β 2 X 2 , i   +     +   X k , i   +   ε i
where X 1 , i ,   X 2 , i , ,   X k , i and Y i are the ith observations of the independent and dependent variables, respectively; β 0 ,   β 1 ,   ,   β k are regression coefficients; and ε i is the residual for the ith observations.

2.3.3. Multilayer Perceptron

An artificial neural network (ANN) mimics human brain functioning, processing information through a single neuron. In this work, we adopt the same MLP algorithm as existing studies [33,34,35,36]. Multiplayer perceptron (MLP), a class of feedforward ANN, has three layers including input, hidden, and output layers. The hidden layers receive the signals from the nodes of the input layer and transform them into signals that are sent to all output nodes, transforming them into the last layer of outputs. The weights between the adjacent layers are adjusted automatically while minimizing the errors between the simulations and observations by using the backpropagation algorithm.

2.3.4. M5P Model Tree

There is a collection of training samples (T); each training sample is featured by a fixed set of attributes, which are input values, and has a corresponding target, which is the output value. In this work, we adopt the same M5P algorithm from existing studies [37,38,39]. In the beginning, T is associated with a leaf storing linear regression function or split into subsets accounting for the outputs, and then the same process is recursive for the subsets.
In this process, choosing appropriate attributes to split T, in order to minimize the expected error at a particular node, requires a splitting criterion, and standard deviation reduction is the expected error reduction, calculated by Equation (11).
SDR   =   s   d ( T )   I | T i | | T | sd ( T i )
where T is a group of samples that achieves the node; T i is the result of splitting the node in terms of the chosen attribute. The model finally chooses the split that maximizes the expected error reduction.

2.3.5. Random Forest

In this work, we adopt the same random forest (RF) algorithm from existing studies [40,41]. Unlike random tree (RT), instead of choosing features, RF can determine the most important ones among all the features after training. It combines many binary decision trees and each tree learns from a random sample of the observations without pruning. In RF, bootstrap samples are drawn to build multiple trees, which means that some samples will be used multiple times in a single tree, and each tree grows with a randomized subset of features from the total number of features. Finally, the output representing the average of each single-tree methodology is generated. Since RF contains a lot of trees, handling a larger number of data, limited generalization errors occur, avoiding overfitting.

2.3.6. K-Nearest Neighbor

Generally, the above machine learning methods can be regarded as eager methods, which means these methods start learning when they receive the data and create a global approximation. On the other hand, k-nearest neighbor (KNN) belongs to lazy learning, which creates a local approximation. In this work, we adopt the same KNN algorithm from existing studies [42,43,44]. It simply stores the training data without learning until it is given a test set, and calculates in terms of the current data set instead of coming up with an algorithm based on historic data. KNN is a method that can be used for either classification or regression, while distributing the attribute values for a target, which is the average of the values of its k nearest neighbors.

2.4. Model Performance Evaluation

The outputs of each ML model are daily water levels of Lake Erie. Then, these predictions are compared against the observations, which are the average measured water levels at the four stations mentioned above. The model performance evaluation criteria selected include root means square error (RMSE), mean absolute error (MAE), correlation coefficient (r), and mutual information (MI) mentioned in Section 2.2.
RMSE shows the residual value between the predictions and the observations, thus a smaller RMSE value represents a better fit between observations and predictions.
RMSE   =   i = 1 n ( O i     P i ) 2 n
The mean absolute error (MAE) can be also applied to access the accuracy of fitting time-series data. Similar to RMSE, a smaller MAE value represents a better fit.
MAE   =   1 n i = 1 n | O i     P i |
The correlation coefficient (r) describes the weight of the relationship between observations and predictions and ranges from −1 to 1. The closer to 0, the weaker linear relationship between observations and predictions. For example, a value of zero represents no linear relationship, −1 represents a strong negative linear relationship, and 1 represents a strong positive linear relationship.
r   = i = 1 n ( O i     O i ¯ ) ( P i     P i ¯ ) i = 1 n ( O i     O i ¯ ) 2 i = 1 n ( P i     P i ¯ ) 2
where O i and P i represent the observations and predictions at the ith time step, O i ¯ and P i ¯ are the means of observations and predictions, and n represents total time step numbers.
RMSE and MAPE describe the overall accuracy of the models, while r and MI describe the differences between the observations and the predictions [19].

3. Results

3.1. Input Selection

A MI value of zero represents zero relatedness between two variables, and the larger value represents stronger relatedness [45]. All meteorological variables except one-day-, two-day-, and three-day-ahead observed minimum shortwave radiation (15×, 31×, and 47×) show a strong relevance to water level (Figure 3), so this study uses daily, one-day-, two-day-, and three-day-ahead observed average, minimum, and maximum values of air temperature, longwave radiation, relative humidity, and wind speed; daily, one-day-, two-day-, and three-day-ahead observed average and maximum values of shortwave radiation; daily, one-day-, two-day-, and three-day-ahead observed average values of precipitation as independent variables. One-day-ahead observed water level is also considered as an independent variable since it can also impact water level changes the next day [46].
Following a previous study [47], we split the whole dataset from 2002 to 2014 into two sections, including the training set (approximately 84% observations) from 2002 to 2012, aiming to establish the model and adjust the weights, as well as the testing set (approximately 16% observations) from 2013 to 2014, aiming to assess the model performance.

3.2. Model Performance Comparison

Table 3 shows the performance of ML models for predicting water level by RMSE, MAE, r, and MI. MLR and M5P provide the most reliable predictions of water level during the testing period from 2013 to 2014 with RMSE and MAE values of 0.02 and 0.01, respectively.
The RMSE values for different ML models in this study are also comparable to previous studies on water-level prediction, e.g., Khan et al. (2006) found RMSE values for the time horizon of 1 to 12 months of 0.057–0.239, 0.085–0.246, and 0.068–0.304 by applying SVM, MLP, and SAR models to Lake Erie [16].

4. Discussion

4.1. Multiple ML Models Comparison

Based on RMSE and MAE (Table 3), the predictions of ML models are acceptable compared to previous studies. For example, Bazartseren et al. predicted water levels with RMSE values of 1.39 and 3.40 for the Oder and Rhein River in Germany by using artificial neural networks [48]. Yoon et al. predicted groundwater levels in the coastal aquifer in Donghae City, Korea, through two wells with average RMSE values of 0.13 and 0.136 by applying ANN and SVM (support vector machine), respectively [49].
The predicted water levels agree with the observations qualitatively (Figure 4). Due to the long period of testing time (2013–2014), we will divide it into three periods for each year to discuss the predictions in detail. In Figure 5a,b, both observations and predictions show the increasing trends, from January to March in 2013 and 2014, due to low precipitation frequency, the water levels are relatively stable and become lowest during the whole year. Beginning from April, the water level rises with frequent rainfall. From May to August (Figure 5c,d), the water level continues increasing to reach a peak in July in 2013 and 2014, showing the significant effects of precipitation on water level changes. From September to December, with precipitation reducing, the water level decreases.
Figure 6 shows that the predicted water levels agree with the observations quantitatively. The slopes are close to 1, indicating that the predictions from ML models show a strong correlation with the observed water levels even though there is a small difference between them. The dots in the KNN comparison figure seem scattered, showing that the predictions are smaller/larger than the observations.
Among these six models, the MLR and M5P models show better performance than others with only a 0.003% difference in capturing the peak values. The KNN model underestimates the peaks in 2013 and 2014 (Figure 4) and overestimates the lowest level in winter 2014, which may be due to the k value selection. Choosing small values for k can be noisy and impact the predictions, while the large values can lead to smooth decision boundaries, resulting in low variance but increased bias and expensive computation. In this study, the value of k is set to 69, which is the square root of the total number of samples based on a previous study [50].

4.2. Comparison between ML Models and AHPS

An advanced hydrologic prediction system (AHPS) is a web-based suite of forecast products, and it has been widely used in predicting the water levels and hydrometeorological variables of the Laurentian Great Lakes [51]. In AHPS, the spatial meteorological forcing data obtained from the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) for sub-basins and over-lakes are averaged by Thiessen Polygon Software, and the results are regarded as the inputs of the lake thermodynamics model, calculating heat storage, and the large basin runoff model, calculating moisture storage, and the net basin supply is calculated based on water balance. Finally, the net basin supplies are translated to water levels and joint flows by the lake routing and regulation model [52]. Gronewold et al. predicted the water level of Lake Erie by using AHPS. He compared 3-month and 6-month mean predicted water level values to the monthly averaged water level observations for 13 years (1997–2009) and assessed AHPS predictive performance by forecasting bias (the averaged differences between the median value of predictions and monthly averaged observations) [9]. In this part, we also compare ML models and AHPS predictive performance in terms of forecasting bias.
All absolute values of forecasting bias based on ML models during the testing period (2013–2014) are smaller than those in AHPS from 1997 to 2009 (Table 4), showing that the predicted median water level values in ML models are much closer to the monthly average observations than AHPS, even though both AHPS and the five ML models (MLR, MLP, M5P, RF, and KNN) underestimate observations with negative forecasting bias. Table 5 indicates the time consumed during training and testing periods in ML models, which are all less than one minute except for the GP model. This is much faster than AHPS. ML models are more accurate than process-based AHPS in forecasting water level, and can also save computational time and expense.

4.3. Impact of Training and Testing Data Selection

In this study, following existing studies [18,53], we used 84% of the total dataset (years 2002–2012) as the training data and the remaining 16% (years 2013–2014) as the testing data. The performance of ML models can vary with different sizes of training data. To explore the impact of the training and testing data selection, we further examined these ML models with different sizes of training data. Specifically, we built ML-based prediction models with different training data and tested their performance on the same set of testing data (years 2013–2014). The detailed results are shown in Table 6, Table 7, Table 8, Table 9, Table 10 and Table 11 (training data are from years 2008–2012, 2007–2012, 2006–2012, 2005–2012, 2004–2012, and 2003–2012, respectively). We observed consistent performance of these ML models with different training data, i.e., MLR and M5P are the best ML models for predicting the water level of Lake Erie.

5. Conclusions

Considering multiple independent variables including meteorological data and one-day-ahead observed water level, this study developed multiple ML models to forecast Lake Erie water level and compared the performance among ML models by RMSE and MAE. MLR and M5P, among all ML models, had the best performance in capturing the variations of water level with the smallest RMSE and MAE, which were 0.02 and 0.01, respectively. Furthermore, this paper also compared the performance of process-based AHPS and ML models, showing that ML models have higher accuracy than AHPS in predicting water level. Based on the advantages of high accuracy and short computational cost, ML methods could be used for informing future water resources management in Lake Erie.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Q.W. and S.W.; methodology, Q.W. and S.W.; software, Q.W. and S.W.; validation, Q.W. and S.W.; formal analysis, Q.W. and S.W.; investigation, Q.W.; resources, Q.W.; data curation, Q.W.; writing—original draft preparation, Q.W.; writing—review and editing, S.W.; visualization, Q.W.; supervision, S.W.; project administration, S.W.; funding acquisition, S.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research is partially supported by Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Håkanson, L.; Parparov, A.; Hambright, K. Modelling the impact of water level fluctuations on water quality (suspended particulate matter) in Lake Kinneret, Israel. Ecol. Model. 2000, 128, 101–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Oganesian, R.; Parparov, A. The problems of Lake Sevan and ways of solution. In Proceedings of the Symposium Biologica Hungarica, Conservation and Management of Lakes, Budapest, Hungary, 11–17 September 1989; Akademiai Kiado: Budapest, Hungary, 1989. [Google Scholar]
  3. Grima, A.; Wilson-Hodges, C. Regulation of Great Lakes water levels: The public speaks out. J. Great Lakes Res. 1977, 3, 240–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. International Joint Commission. Living with the Lakes: Challenges and Opportunities-Annex G Public Information Program; International Joint Commission: Windsor, ON, Canada, 1989. [Google Scholar]
  5. International Joint Commission. Levels Reference Study: Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin; The Board: Windsor, ON, Canada, 1993. [Google Scholar]
  6. Altunkaynak, A. Forecasting surface water level fluctuations of Lake Van by artificial neural networks. Water Resour. Manag. 2007, 21, 399–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Karimi, S.; Shiri, J.; Kisi, O.; Makarynskyy, O. Forecasting water level fluctuations of Urmieh Lake using gene expression programming and adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system. IJOCS 2012, 3, 109–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Marchand, D.; Sanderson, M.; Howe, D.; Alpaugh, C. Climatic change and great lakes levels the impact on shipping. Clim. Chang. 1988, 12, 107–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Gronewold, A.D.; Clites, A.H.; Hunter, T.S.; Stow, C.A. An appraisal of the Great Lakes advanced hydrologic prediction system. J. Great Lakes Res. 2011, 37, 577–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Arhonditsis, G.B.; Brett, M.T. Evaluation of the current state of mechanistic aquatic biogeochemical modeling. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 2004, 271, 13–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Beck, M.B.; Ravetz, J.R.; Mulkey, L.; Barnwell, T.O. Hydraulics. On the problem of model validation for predictive exposure assessments. Stoch. Hydrol. Hydraul. 1997, 11, 229–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Yu, P.S.; Chen, S.T.; Chang, I.F. Support vector regression for real-time flood stage forecasting. J. Hydrol. 2006, 328, 704–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Yu, Z.; Lei, G.; Jiang, Z.; Liu, F. ARIMA modelling and forecasting of water level in the middle reach of the Yangtze River. In Proceedings of the 2017 4th International Conference on Transportation Information and Safety (ICTIS), Banff, AB, Canada, 8–10 August 2017. [Google Scholar]
  14. Alvisi, S.; Mascellani, G.; Franchini, M.; Bardossy, A. Water level forecasting through fuzzy logic and artificial neural network approaches. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2006, 10, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Ghorbani, M.A.; Khatibi, R.; Aytek, A.; Makarynskyy, O.; Shiri, J. Sea water level forecasting using genetic programming and comparing the performance with artificial neural networks. Comput. Geosci. 2010, 36, 620–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Khan, M.S.; Coulibaly, P. Application of support vector machine in lake water level prediction. J. Hydrol. Eng. 2006, 11, 199–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Buyukyildiz, M.; Tezel, G.; Yilmaz, V. Estimation of the change in lake water level by artificial intelligence methods. Water Resour. Manag. 2014, 28, 4747–4763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Coulibaly, P. Reservoir computing approach to Great Lakes water level forecasting. J. Hydrol. 2010, 381, 76–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Meinshausen, M.; Smith, S.J.; Calvin, K.; Daniel, J.S.; Kainuma, M.L.T.; Lamarque, J.F.; Matsumoto, K.; Montzka, S.A.; Raper, S.C.B.; Riahi, K.; et al. The RCP greenhouse gas concentrations and their extensions from 1765 to 2300. Clim. Chang. 2011, 109, 213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Bolsenga, S.J.; Herdendorf, C.E. Lake Erie and Lake St. Clair Handbook; Wayne State University Press: Detroit, MI, UAS, 1993. [Google Scholar]
  21. Boyce, F.M.; Chiocchio, F.; Eid, B.; Penicka, F.; Rosa, F. Hypolimnion flow between the central and eastern basins of Lake Erie during 1977 (interbasin hypolimnion flows). J. Great Lakes Res. 1980, 6, 290–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Conroy, J.D.; Boegman, L.; Zhang, H.; Edwards, W.J.; Culver, D.A. “Dead Zone” dynamics in Lake Erie: The importance of weather and sampling intensity for calculated hypolimnetic oxygen depletion rates. Aquat. Sci. 2011, 73, 289–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Bocaniov, S.A.; Scavia, D. Temporal and spatial dynamics of large lake hypoxia: Integrating statistical and three-dimensional dynamic models to enhance lake management criteria. Water Resour. Res. 2016, 52, 4247–4263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Kisi, O.; Shiri, J.; Nikoofar, B. Forecasting daily lake levels using artificial intelligence approaches. Comput. Geosci. 2012, 41, 169–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Li, W. Mutual information functions versus correlation functions. J. Stat. Phys. 1990, 60, 823–837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Ross, B.C. Mutual information between discrete and continuous data sets. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e87357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Grbić, R.; Slišković, D.; Kadlec, P. Adaptive soft sensor for online prediction and process monitoring based on a mixture of Gaussian process models. Comput Chem Eng. 2013, 58, 84–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Rasmussen, C.E. Gaussian processes in machine learning. In Proceedings of the Summer School on Machine Learning, Canberra, Australia, 2–14 February 2003; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  29. Sun, A.Y.; Wang, D.; Xu, X. Monthly streamflow forecasting using Gaussian process regression. J. Hydrol. 2014, 511, 72–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Makridakis, S.; Wheelwright, S.C.; Hyndman, R.J. Forecasting Methods and Applications; John Wiley & Sons: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  31. Piasecki, A.; Jurasz, J.; Skowron, R. Forecasting surface water level fluctuations of lake Serwy (Northeastern Poland) by artificial neural networks and multiple linear regression. J. Environ. Eng. Landsc. Manag. 2017, 25, 379–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Kadam, A.K.; Wagh, V.M.; Muley, A.A.; Umrikar, B.N.; Sankhua, R.N. Environment. Prediction of water quality index using artificial neural network and multiple linear regression modelling approach in Shivganga River basin, India. Model Earth Syst. Environ. 2019, 5, 951–962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Singh, A.; Imtiyaz, M.; Isaac, R.K.; Denis, D.M. Comparison of soil and water assessment tool (SWAT) and multilayer perceptron (MLP) artificial neural network for predicting sediment yield in the Nagwa agricultural watershed in Jharkhand, India. Agric. Water Manag. 2012, 104, 113–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Hertz, J.A. Introduction to the Theory of Neural Computation; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  35. Lekkas, D.F.; Onof, C.; Lee, M.J.; Baltas, E.A. Application of artificial neural networks for flood forecasting. Glob. Nest J. 2004, 6, 205–211. [Google Scholar]
  36. Ghorbani, M.A.; Deo, R.C.; Karimi, V.; Kashani, M.H.; Ghorbani, S. Design and implementation of a hybrid MLP-GSA model with multi-layer perceptron-gravitational search algorithm for monthly lake water level forecasting. Stoch. Environ. Res. Risk Assess. 2019, 33, 125–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Quinlan, J.R. Learning with continuous classes. In Proceedings of the 5th Australian Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Hobart, Tasmania, 16–18 November 1992; World Scientific: Singapore, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  38. Solomatine, D.P.; Siek, M.B.L. Flexible and optimal M5 model trees with applications to flow predictions. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Hydroinformatics, Singapore, 21–24 June 2004; World Scientific: Singapore, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  39. Solomatine, D.P.; Dulal, K.N. Model trees as an alternative to neural networks in rainfall—Runoff modelling. Hydrol. Sci. J. 2003, 48, 399–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Breiman, L. Random forests. Mach. Learn. 2001, 45, 5–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Wang, X.; Liu, T.; Zheng, X.; Peng, H.; Xin, J.; Zhang, B. Short-term prediction of groundwater level using improved random forest regression with a combination of random features. Appl. Water Sci. 2018, 8, 125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Bremner, D.; Demaine, E.; Erickson, J.; Iacono, J.; Langerman, S.; Morin, P.; Toussaint, G. Output-sensitive algorithms for computing nearest-neighbour decision boundaries. Discrete. Comput. Geom. 2005, 33, 593–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Atkeson, C.G.; Moore, A.W.; Schaal, S. Locally Weighted Learning; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1997; pp. 11–73. [Google Scholar]
  44. Poul, A.K.; Shourian, M.; Ebrahimi, H. A comparative study of MLR, KNN, ANN and ANFIS models with wavelet transform in monthly stream flow prediction. Water Resour. Manag. 2019, 33, 2907–2923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Kinney, J.B.; Atwal, G.S. Equitability, mutual information, and the maximal information coefficient. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2014, 111, 3354–3359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Choi, C.; Kim, J.; Han, H.; Han, D.; Kim, H.S. Development of Water Level Prediction Models Using Machine Learning in Wetlands: A Case Study of Upo Wetland in South Korea. Water 2020, 12, 93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Goodfellow, I.; Bengio, Y.; Courville, A. Machine learning basics. In Deep Learning; Kaiser, D.I., Weck, O.L.D., Eds.; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2016; Volume 1, pp. 98–164. [Google Scholar]
  48. Bazartseren, B.; Hildebrandt, G.; Holz, K.P. Short-term water level prediction using neural networks and neuro-fuzzy approach. Neurocomputing 2003, 55, 439–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Yoon, H.; Jun, S.C.; Hyun, Y.; Bae, G.O.; Lee, K.K. A comparative study of artificial neural networks and support vector machines for predicting groundwater levels in a coastal aquifer. J. Hydrol. 2011, 396, 128–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Nadkarni, P. Clinical Research Computing: A Practitioner’s Handbook; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  51. Croley II, T. Using climate predictions in Great Lakes hydrologic forecasts. In Climate Variations, Climate Change, and Water Resources Engineering; Garbrecht, J.D., Piechota, T.C., Eds.; American Society of Civil Engineers: Arlington, VA, USA, 2006; pp. 166–187. [Google Scholar]
  52. Croley II, T.E.; Hartmann, H.C. Resolving thiessen polygons. J. Hydrol. 1985, 76, 363–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Deo, R.C.; Şahin, M. An extreme learning machine model for the simulation of monthly mean streamflow water level in eastern Queensland. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2016, 188, 90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Flow chart of this paper.
Figure 1. Flow chart of this paper.
Water 12 02654 g001
Figure 2. Lake Erie bathymetric plan view (generated from GLERL data); Meteorological stations (red stars); Water level stations (black circles): Toledo, Port Stanley, Buffalo, and Cleveland; A~F represent Detroit, Maumee, Sandusky, Cuyahoga, Grand, and Niagara Rivers.
Figure 2. Lake Erie bathymetric plan view (generated from GLERL data); Meteorological stations (red stars); Water level stations (black circles): Toledo, Port Stanley, Buffalo, and Cleveland; A~F represent Detroit, Maumee, Sandusky, Cuyahoga, Grand, and Niagara Rivers.
Water 12 02654 g002
Figure 3. Mutual information of all variables.
Figure 3. Mutual information of all variables.
Water 12 02654 g003
Figure 4. Time series of predicted and observed water level of Lake Erie during the testing period from January 1st 2013 to December 31st 2014.
Figure 4. Time series of predicted and observed water level of Lake Erie during the testing period from January 1st 2013 to December 31st 2014.
Water 12 02654 g004
Figure 5. Comparisons between the predictions of six ML models and observations for water level from: (a) January to April 2013; (b) January to April 2014; (c) May to August 2013; (d) May to August 2014; (e) September to December 2013; (f) September to December 2014.
Figure 5. Comparisons between the predictions of six ML models and observations for water level from: (a) January to April 2013; (b) January to April 2014; (c) May to August 2013; (d) May to August 2014; (e) September to December 2013; (f) September to December 2014.
Water 12 02654 g005
Figure 6. Scatter plots of the observations and predictions from GP, MLR, MLP, M5P, RF, and KNN models during the testing period from January 1st 2013 to December 31st 2014.
Figure 6. Scatter plots of the observations and predictions from GP, MLR, MLP, M5P, RF, and KNN models during the testing period from January 1st 2013 to December 31st 2014.
Water 12 02654 g006
Table 1. Summary of sources of meteorological and water level data.
Table 1. Summary of sources of meteorological and water level data.
ParameterSource and LocationFrequency
Air temperatureUS National Data Buoy Center (NDBC) buoys (western basin, station 45005);
Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) lake buoy data (central basin, Port Stanley 45132; eastern basin, Port Colborne 45142);
Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory (GLERL) land stations (station THLO1);
US NDBC land stations (stationGELO1, DBLN6)
Hourly
Wind speed
Longwave radiation
Shortwave radiation
Relative humidity
PrecipitationNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)Daily
Water level
Table 2. Summary of variables.
Table 2. Summary of variables.
VariableDescriptionVariableDescriptionVariableDescriptionVariableDescriptionVariableDescriptionVariableDescription
X1Wind speed(daily ave.)X2Air temperature
(daily ave.)
X3Relative humidity
(daily ave.)
X4Shortwave
Radiation
(daily ave.)
X5Longwave radiation
(daily ave.)
X6Precipitation
(daily ave.)
X7Wind speed
(daily max)
X8Air temperature
(daily max)
X9Relative humidity
(daily max)
X10Shortwave
Radiation
(daily max)
X11Longwave radiation
(daily max)
X12Wind speed
(daily min)
X13Air temperature
(daily min)
X14Relative humidity
(daily min)
X15Shortwave
Radiation
(daily min)
X16Longwave radiation
(daily min)
X17Wind speed
(2-day ave.)
X18Air temperature
(2-day ave.)
X19Relative humidity
(2-day ave.)
X20Shortwave
Radiation
(2-day ave.)
X21Longwave radiation
(2-day ave.)
X22Precipitation
(2-day ave.)
X23Wind speed
(2-day max)
X24Air temperature
(2-day max)
X25Relative humidity
(2-day max)
X26Shortwave
Radiation
(2-day max)
X27Longwave radiation
(2-day max)
X28Wind speed
(2-day min)
X29Air temperature
(2-day min)
X30Relative humidity
(2-day min)
X31Shortwave
Radiation
(2-day min)
X32Longwave radiation
(2-day min)
X33Wind speed
(3-day ave.)
X34Air temperature
(3-day ave.)
X35Relative humidity
(3-day ave.)
X36Shortwave
Radiation
(3-day ave.)
X37Longwave radiation
(3-day ave.)
X38Precipitation
(3-day ave.)
X39Wind speed
(3-day max)
X40Air temperature
(3-day max)
X41Relative humidity
(3-day max)
X42Shortwave
Radiation
(3-day max)
X43Longwave radiation
(3-day max)
X44Wind speed
(3-day min)
X45Air temperature
(3-day min)
X46Relative humidity
(3-day min)
X47Shortwave
Radiation
(3-day min)
X48Longwave radiation
(3-day min)
Table 3. Summary of performance for multiple ML models.
Table 3. Summary of performance for multiple ML models.
Model RMSE MAE r MI
Gaussian process0.070.060.948.45
Multiple linear regression0.020.010.998.54
Multiple Perceptron0.030.020.998.57
M5P Model Tree0.020.010.998.53
Random Forest model tree0.050.040.978.43
KNN0.100.090.838.25
Table 4. Performance comparisons between AHPS and multiple ML models.
Table 4. Performance comparisons between AHPS and multiple ML models.
MethodBias in Median Water Level Forecast (cm)
3-Month Forecast6-Month Forecast
AHPS−5.50−5.40
Gaussian Process1.812.58
Multiple Linear Regression−2.05−3.31
Multilayer Perceptron−3.64−4.57
M5P Model Tree−2.05−3.31
Random Forest Model Tree−1.97−4.25
KNN−2.42−3.60
Table 5. Time to train and test multiple ML models.
Table 5. Time to train and test multiple ML models.
ModelTrain TimeTest Time
Gaussian Process156.0 s35.39 s
Multiple Linear Regression0.28 s0.61 s
Multilayer Perceptron53.78 s0.49 s
M5P Model Tree2.48 s0.51 s
Random Forest Model Tree5.83 s0.73 s
KNN<0.1 s2.35 s
Table 6. Summary of performance of multiple ML models with training data from 2008 to 2012.
Table 6. Summary of performance of multiple ML models with training data from 2008 to 2012.
Model RMSE MAE r MI
Gaussian process0.090.070.918.43
Multiple linear regression0.020.010.998.52
Multiple Perceptron0.030.020.998.52
M5P Model Tree0.020.010.998.54
Random Forest model tree0.060.050.958.42
KNN0.100.080.838.17
Table 7. Summary of performance of multiple ML models with training data from 2007 to 2012.
Table 7. Summary of performance of multiple ML models with training data from 2007 to 2012.
Model RMSE MAE r MI
Gaussian process0.090.070.918.45
Multiple linear regression0.020.010.998.42
Multiple Perceptron0.020.010.998.59
M5P Model Tree0.020.010.998.50
Random Forest model tree0.060.050.958.41
KNN0.110.090.808.21
Table 8. Summary of performance of multiple ML models with training data from 2006 to 2012.
Table 8. Summary of performance of multiple ML models with training data from 2006 to 2012.
Model RMSE MAE r MI
Gaussian process0.080.070.928.50
Multiple linear regression0.020.010.998.52
Multiple Perceptron0.020.020.998.56
M5P Model Tree0.020.010.998.50
Random Forest model tree0.050.040.968.44
KNN0.110.090.818.19
Table 9. Summary of performance of multiple ML models with training data from 2005 to 2012.
Table 9. Summary of performance of multiple ML models with training data from 2005 to 2012.
Model RMSE MAE r MI
Gaussian process0.080.060.938.45
Multiple linear regression0.020.010.998.53
Multiple Perceptron0.030.020.998.57
M5P Model Tree0.020.010.998.53
Random Forest model tree0.060.050.958.39
KNN0.110.090.798.21
Table 10. Summary of performance of multiple ML models with training data from 2004 to 2012.
Table 10. Summary of performance of multiple ML models with training data from 2004 to 2012.
Model RMSE MAE r MI
Gaussian process0.080.060.948.44
Multiple linear regression0.020.010.998.54
Multiple Perceptron0.030.020.998.57
M5P Model Tree0.020.010.998.54
Random Forest model tree0.060.040.968.39
KNN0.100.090.828.19
Table 11. Summary of performance of multiple ML models with training data from 2003 to 2012.
Table 11. Summary of performance of multiple ML models with training data from 2003 to 2012.
Model RMSE MAE r MI
Gaussian process0.080.060.948.47
Multiple linear regression0.020.010.998.53
Multiple Perceptron0.020.010.998.56
M5P Model Tree0.020.010.998.53
Random Forest model tree0.050.040.978.44
KNN0.100.080.848.26

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wang, Q.; Wang, S. Machine Learning-Based Water Level Prediction in Lake Erie. Water 2020, 12, 2654. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12102654

AMA Style

Wang Q, Wang S. Machine Learning-Based Water Level Prediction in Lake Erie. Water. 2020; 12(10):2654. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12102654

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wang, Qi, and Song Wang. 2020. "Machine Learning-Based Water Level Prediction in Lake Erie" Water 12, no. 10: 2654. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12102654

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop