Evaluation of Watershed Scale Aquatic Ecosystem Health by SWAT Modeling and Random Forest Technique

In this study, we evaluated the aquatic ecosystem health (AEH) with five grades (A; very good to E; very poor) of FAI (Fish Assessment Index), TDI (Trophic Diatom Index), and BMI (Benthic Macroinvertebrate Index) using the results of SWAT (Soil and Water Assessment Tool) stream water temperature (WT...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Sustainability 2019, Vol.11 (12), p.3397
Hauptverfasser: Woo, So Young, Jung, Chung Gil, Lee, Ji Wan, Kim, Seong Joon
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue 12
container_start_page 3397
container_title Sustainability
container_volume 11
creator Woo, So Young
Jung, Chung Gil
Lee, Ji Wan
Kim, Seong Joon
description In this study, we evaluated the aquatic ecosystem health (AEH) with five grades (A; very good to E; very poor) of FAI (Fish Assessment Index), TDI (Trophic Diatom Index), and BMI (Benthic Macroinvertebrate Index) using the results of SWAT (Soil and Water Assessment Tool) stream water temperature (WT) and quality (T-N, T-P, NH4, NO3, and PO4). By applying Random Forest, one of the machine learning algorithms for classification analysis, each AEH index was trained and graded from the SWAT results. For Han river watershed (34,418 km2) in South Korea, the 8 years (2008~2015) observed AEH data of Spring and Fall periods at 86 locations from NAEMP (National Aquatic Ecological Monitoring Program) were used. The AEH was separately trained for Spring (FAIs, TDIs, and BMIs) and Fall (FAIa, TDIa, and BMIa), and the AEH results of Random Forest with SWAT (WT, T-N, T-P, NH4, NO3, and PO4) as input variables showed the accuracy of 0.42, 0.48, 0.62, 0.45, 0.4, and 0.58, respectively. The reason for low accuracy was from the weak strength of the individual trees and high correlation between the trees composing the Random Forest due to the data imbalance. The AEH distribution results showed that the number of Grade A of total FAI, TDI, and BMI were 84, 0, and 158 respectively and they were mostly located at the upstream watersheds. The number of Grade E of total FAI, TDI, and BMI were 4, 50, and 13 and they were shown at downstream watersheds.
doi_str_mv 10.3390/su11123397
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2322227294</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2322227294</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c295t-9837ae3b5ac96c58b56b10590c1126f8fedb151a0463fed59b3e90e580a20b793</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpNUF1LwzAUDaLgmHvxFwR8E6r5WNrmcYzNCRPBTfZYkvTWdrTNlqTC_r0ZE_Q83HvgHu659yB0T8kT55I8-4FSyiLNrtCIkYwmlAhy_Y_foon3exLBOZU0HSGz-FbtoEJje2wrvFMBnK-hxBujWsCz43lm8MJYf_IBOrwC1YYa6xPe7GZb_GZLaJv-C6u-xB-x2A4vrQMf8BZM3TfHAe7QTaVaD5PfPkafy8V2vkrW7y-v89k6MUyKkMicZwq4FsrI1Ihci1THoyUx8au0yisoNRVUkWnKIxdSc5AERE4UIzqTfIweLnsPzkZbH4q9HVwfLQvGWUTG5DSqHi8q46z3Dqri4JpOuVNBSXHOsfjLkf8AOfFkLw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2322227294</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Evaluation of Watershed Scale Aquatic Ecosystem Health by SWAT Modeling and Random Forest Technique</title><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>MDPI - Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute</source><creator>Woo, So Young ; Jung, Chung Gil ; Lee, Ji Wan ; Kim, Seong Joon</creator><creatorcontrib>Woo, So Young ; Jung, Chung Gil ; Lee, Ji Wan ; Kim, Seong Joon</creatorcontrib><description>In this study, we evaluated the aquatic ecosystem health (AEH) with five grades (A; very good to E; very poor) of FAI (Fish Assessment Index), TDI (Trophic Diatom Index), and BMI (Benthic Macroinvertebrate Index) using the results of SWAT (Soil and Water Assessment Tool) stream water temperature (WT) and quality (T-N, T-P, NH4, NO3, and PO4). By applying Random Forest, one of the machine learning algorithms for classification analysis, each AEH index was trained and graded from the SWAT results. For Han river watershed (34,418 km2) in South Korea, the 8 years (2008~2015) observed AEH data of Spring and Fall periods at 86 locations from NAEMP (National Aquatic Ecological Monitoring Program) were used. The AEH was separately trained for Spring (FAIs, TDIs, and BMIs) and Fall (FAIa, TDIa, and BMIa), and the AEH results of Random Forest with SWAT (WT, T-N, T-P, NH4, NO3, and PO4) as input variables showed the accuracy of 0.42, 0.48, 0.62, 0.45, 0.4, and 0.58, respectively. The reason for low accuracy was from the weak strength of the individual trees and high correlation between the trees composing the Random Forest due to the data imbalance. The AEH distribution results showed that the number of Grade A of total FAI, TDI, and BMI were 84, 0, and 158 respectively and they were mostly located at the upstream watersheds. The number of Grade E of total FAI, TDI, and BMI were 4, 50, and 13 and they were shown at downstream watersheds.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2071-1050</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2071-1050</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.3390/su11123397</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Basel: MDPI AG</publisher><subject>Algorithms ; Aquatic ecology ; Aquatic ecosystems ; Artificial intelligence ; Bayesian analysis ; Chemical oxygen demand ; Climate change ; Creeks &amp; streams ; Discriminant analysis ; Ecological monitoring ; Ecosystem assessment ; Environmental monitoring ; Forest ecosystems ; Hydrologic cycle ; Hydrology ; Invertebrates ; Knowledge acquisition ; Learning algorithms ; Machine learning ; Organisms ; Plankton ; Precipitation ; Remote sensing ; River ecology ; Sewage ; Statistical methods ; Streams ; Sustainability ; Water quality ; Watersheds</subject><ispartof>Sustainability, 2019, Vol.11 (12), p.3397</ispartof><rights>2019. This work is licensed under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c295t-9837ae3b5ac96c58b56b10590c1126f8fedb151a0463fed59b3e90e580a20b793</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c295t-9837ae3b5ac96c58b56b10590c1126f8fedb151a0463fed59b3e90e580a20b793</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-6307-075X</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,4010,27904,27905,27906</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Woo, So Young</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jung, Chung Gil</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, Ji Wan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kim, Seong Joon</creatorcontrib><title>Evaluation of Watershed Scale Aquatic Ecosystem Health by SWAT Modeling and Random Forest Technique</title><title>Sustainability</title><description>In this study, we evaluated the aquatic ecosystem health (AEH) with five grades (A; very good to E; very poor) of FAI (Fish Assessment Index), TDI (Trophic Diatom Index), and BMI (Benthic Macroinvertebrate Index) using the results of SWAT (Soil and Water Assessment Tool) stream water temperature (WT) and quality (T-N, T-P, NH4, NO3, and PO4). By applying Random Forest, one of the machine learning algorithms for classification analysis, each AEH index was trained and graded from the SWAT results. For Han river watershed (34,418 km2) in South Korea, the 8 years (2008~2015) observed AEH data of Spring and Fall periods at 86 locations from NAEMP (National Aquatic Ecological Monitoring Program) were used. The AEH was separately trained for Spring (FAIs, TDIs, and BMIs) and Fall (FAIa, TDIa, and BMIa), and the AEH results of Random Forest with SWAT (WT, T-N, T-P, NH4, NO3, and PO4) as input variables showed the accuracy of 0.42, 0.48, 0.62, 0.45, 0.4, and 0.58, respectively. The reason for low accuracy was from the weak strength of the individual trees and high correlation between the trees composing the Random Forest due to the data imbalance. The AEH distribution results showed that the number of Grade A of total FAI, TDI, and BMI were 84, 0, and 158 respectively and they were mostly located at the upstream watersheds. The number of Grade E of total FAI, TDI, and BMI were 4, 50, and 13 and they were shown at downstream watersheds.</description><subject>Algorithms</subject><subject>Aquatic ecology</subject><subject>Aquatic ecosystems</subject><subject>Artificial intelligence</subject><subject>Bayesian analysis</subject><subject>Chemical oxygen demand</subject><subject>Climate change</subject><subject>Creeks &amp; streams</subject><subject>Discriminant analysis</subject><subject>Ecological monitoring</subject><subject>Ecosystem assessment</subject><subject>Environmental monitoring</subject><subject>Forest ecosystems</subject><subject>Hydrologic cycle</subject><subject>Hydrology</subject><subject>Invertebrates</subject><subject>Knowledge acquisition</subject><subject>Learning algorithms</subject><subject>Machine learning</subject><subject>Organisms</subject><subject>Plankton</subject><subject>Precipitation</subject><subject>Remote sensing</subject><subject>River ecology</subject><subject>Sewage</subject><subject>Statistical methods</subject><subject>Streams</subject><subject>Sustainability</subject><subject>Water quality</subject><subject>Watersheds</subject><issn>2071-1050</issn><issn>2071-1050</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><recordid>eNpNUF1LwzAUDaLgmHvxFwR8E6r5WNrmcYzNCRPBTfZYkvTWdrTNlqTC_r0ZE_Q83HvgHu659yB0T8kT55I8-4FSyiLNrtCIkYwmlAhy_Y_foon3exLBOZU0HSGz-FbtoEJje2wrvFMBnK-hxBujWsCz43lm8MJYf_IBOrwC1YYa6xPe7GZb_GZLaJv-C6u-xB-x2A4vrQMf8BZM3TfHAe7QTaVaD5PfPkafy8V2vkrW7y-v89k6MUyKkMicZwq4FsrI1Ihci1THoyUx8au0yisoNRVUkWnKIxdSc5AERE4UIzqTfIweLnsPzkZbH4q9HVwfLQvGWUTG5DSqHi8q46z3Dqri4JpOuVNBSXHOsfjLkf8AOfFkLw</recordid><startdate>2019</startdate><enddate>2019</enddate><creator>Woo, So Young</creator><creator>Jung, Chung Gil</creator><creator>Lee, Ji Wan</creator><creator>Kim, Seong Joon</creator><general>MDPI AG</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>4U-</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6307-075X</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>2019</creationdate><title>Evaluation of Watershed Scale Aquatic Ecosystem Health by SWAT Modeling and Random Forest Technique</title><author>Woo, So Young ; Jung, Chung Gil ; Lee, Ji Wan ; Kim, Seong Joon</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c295t-9837ae3b5ac96c58b56b10590c1126f8fedb151a0463fed59b3e90e580a20b793</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Algorithms</topic><topic>Aquatic ecology</topic><topic>Aquatic ecosystems</topic><topic>Artificial intelligence</topic><topic>Bayesian analysis</topic><topic>Chemical oxygen demand</topic><topic>Climate change</topic><topic>Creeks &amp; streams</topic><topic>Discriminant analysis</topic><topic>Ecological monitoring</topic><topic>Ecosystem assessment</topic><topic>Environmental monitoring</topic><topic>Forest ecosystems</topic><topic>Hydrologic cycle</topic><topic>Hydrology</topic><topic>Invertebrates</topic><topic>Knowledge acquisition</topic><topic>Learning algorithms</topic><topic>Machine learning</topic><topic>Organisms</topic><topic>Plankton</topic><topic>Precipitation</topic><topic>Remote sensing</topic><topic>River ecology</topic><topic>Sewage</topic><topic>Statistical methods</topic><topic>Streams</topic><topic>Sustainability</topic><topic>Water quality</topic><topic>Watersheds</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Woo, So Young</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jung, Chung Gil</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, Ji Wan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kim, Seong Joon</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>University Readers</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><jtitle>Sustainability</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Woo, So Young</au><au>Jung, Chung Gil</au><au>Lee, Ji Wan</au><au>Kim, Seong Joon</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Evaluation of Watershed Scale Aquatic Ecosystem Health by SWAT Modeling and Random Forest Technique</atitle><jtitle>Sustainability</jtitle><date>2019</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>11</volume><issue>12</issue><spage>3397</spage><pages>3397-</pages><issn>2071-1050</issn><eissn>2071-1050</eissn><abstract>In this study, we evaluated the aquatic ecosystem health (AEH) with five grades (A; very good to E; very poor) of FAI (Fish Assessment Index), TDI (Trophic Diatom Index), and BMI (Benthic Macroinvertebrate Index) using the results of SWAT (Soil and Water Assessment Tool) stream water temperature (WT) and quality (T-N, T-P, NH4, NO3, and PO4). By applying Random Forest, one of the machine learning algorithms for classification analysis, each AEH index was trained and graded from the SWAT results. For Han river watershed (34,418 km2) in South Korea, the 8 years (2008~2015) observed AEH data of Spring and Fall periods at 86 locations from NAEMP (National Aquatic Ecological Monitoring Program) were used. The AEH was separately trained for Spring (FAIs, TDIs, and BMIs) and Fall (FAIa, TDIa, and BMIa), and the AEH results of Random Forest with SWAT (WT, T-N, T-P, NH4, NO3, and PO4) as input variables showed the accuracy of 0.42, 0.48, 0.62, 0.45, 0.4, and 0.58, respectively. The reason for low accuracy was from the weak strength of the individual trees and high correlation between the trees composing the Random Forest due to the data imbalance. The AEH distribution results showed that the number of Grade A of total FAI, TDI, and BMI were 84, 0, and 158 respectively and they were mostly located at the upstream watersheds. The number of Grade E of total FAI, TDI, and BMI were 4, 50, and 13 and they were shown at downstream watersheds.</abstract><cop>Basel</cop><pub>MDPI AG</pub><doi>10.3390/su11123397</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6307-075X</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 2071-1050
ispartof Sustainability, 2019, Vol.11 (12), p.3397
issn 2071-1050
2071-1050
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2322227294
source Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; MDPI - Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute
subjects Algorithms
Aquatic ecology
Aquatic ecosystems
Artificial intelligence
Bayesian analysis
Chemical oxygen demand
Climate change
Creeks & streams
Discriminant analysis
Ecological monitoring
Ecosystem assessment
Environmental monitoring
Forest ecosystems
Hydrologic cycle
Hydrology
Invertebrates
Knowledge acquisition
Learning algorithms
Machine learning
Organisms
Plankton
Precipitation
Remote sensing
River ecology
Sewage
Statistical methods
Streams
Sustainability
Water quality
Watersheds
title Evaluation of Watershed Scale Aquatic Ecosystem Health by SWAT Modeling and Random Forest Technique
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-18T19%3A49%3A25IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Evaluation%20of%20Watershed%20Scale%20Aquatic%20Ecosystem%20Health%20by%20SWAT%20Modeling%20and%20Random%20Forest%20Technique&rft.jtitle=Sustainability&rft.au=Woo,%20So%20Young&rft.date=2019&rft.volume=11&rft.issue=12&rft.spage=3397&rft.pages=3397-&rft.issn=2071-1050&rft.eissn=2071-1050&rft_id=info:doi/10.3390/su11123397&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2322227294%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2322227294&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true