Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
A Modeling Comparison of Groundwater Potential Mapping in a Mountain Bedrock Aquifer: QUEST, GARP, and RF Models
Stockholm University, Faculty of Science, Department of Physical Geography.
Number of Authors: 42020 (English)In: Water, E-ISSN 2073-4441, Vol. 12, no 3Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

In some arid regions, groundwater is the only source of water for human needs, so understanding groundwater potential is essential to ensure its sustainable use. In this study, three machine learning models (Genetic Algorithm for Rule-Set Production (GARP), Quick Unbiased Efficient Statistical Tree (QUEST), and Random Forest (RF)) were applied and verified for spatial prediction of groundwater in a mountain bedrock aquifer in Piranshahr Watershed, Iran. A spring location dataset consisting of 141 springs was prepared by field surveys, and from this three different sample datasets (S1-S3) were randomly generated (70% for training and 30% for validation). A total of 10 groundwater conditioning factors were prepared for modeling, namely slope percent, relative slope position (RSP), plan curvature, altitude, drainage density, slope aspect, topographic wetness index (TWI), terrain ruggedness index (TRI), land use, and lithology. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and true skill statistic (TSS) were used to evaluate the accuracy of models. The results indicated that all models had excellent goodness-of-fit and predictive performance, but that RF (AUC(mean) = 0.995, TSSmean = 0.89) and GARP (AUC(mean) = 0.957, TSSmean = 0.82) outperformed QUEST (AUC(mean) = 0.949, TSSmean = 0.74). In robustness analysis, RF was slightly more sensitive than GARP and QUEST, making it necessary to consider several random partitioning options for preparing training and validation groups. The outcomes of this study can be useful in sustainable management of groundwater resources in the study region.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2020. Vol. 12, no 3
Keywords [en]
spatial modeling, machine-learning, algorithms, distribution models
National Category
Earth and Related Environmental Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:su:diva-181771DOI: 10.3390/w12030679ISI: 000529249500064OAI: oai:DiVA.org:su-181771DiVA, id: diva2:1432384
Available from: 2020-05-27 Created: 2020-05-27 Last updated: 2025-02-07Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full text

Authority records

Kalantari, Zahra

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Kalantari, Zahra
By organisation
Department of Physical Geography
In the same journal
Water
Earth and Related Environmental Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 79 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf