[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
You seem to have javascript disabled. Please note that many of the page functionalities won't work as expected without javascript enabled.
 
 
Sign in to use this feature.

Years

Between: -

Subjects

remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline

Journals

Article Types

Countries / Regions

Search Results (3)

Search Parameters:
Keywords = Haraz watershed

Order results
Result details
Results per page
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
14 pages, 1425 KiB  
Article
Effect of Land-Use Change on Runoff in Hyrcania
by Naser Ahmadi-Sani, Lida Razaghnia and Timo Pukkala
Land 2022, 11(2), 220; https://doi.org/10.3390/land11020220 - 31 Jan 2022
Cited by 16 | Viewed by 3538
Abstract
Population growth and human activities have resulted in drastic changes in land use in many areas of the world, including the Hyrcania region in northern Iran. Land-use changes affect the hydrological processes of water basins. This study evaluated the effect of land-use changes [...] Read more.
Population growth and human activities have resulted in drastic changes in land use in many areas of the world, including the Hyrcania region in northern Iran. Land-use changes affect the hydrological processes of water basins. This study evaluated the effect of land-use changes on runoff over 15 years in the Haraz River basin located in Hyrcania using remote sensing data and GIS analyses. The annual precipitation of the region is 66.5 cm. Two Landsat images were used to develop land-use maps for 1996 and 2011. Original image features, their principal components, and vegetation indices were used to classify the two Landsat images into different land-use categories. Runoff was predicted from precipitation, land use, and hydrological soil groups, using the SCS-CN model (the “curve number” approach). During the 15 years, 62.4% of the area remained unchanged and 37.6% had undergone a land-use change. The highest average runoffs were obtained for bare land (14.1–14.5 cm/year) and residential land (10.4–11.4 cm/year), and the lowest for dense forest (2.5–2.6 cm/year) and first-grade rangeland (2.8–3.1 cm/year). The volume of annual runoff increased by 9% during 1996–2011 due to land-use changes. Runoff was estimated at 9.4% of precipitation in 1996, and 9.6% of precipitation in 2011. Most of the increase was related to the increased area of bare land and decreased area of rangeland. The study indicated that combined use of the SCS-CN approach, remote sensing data, and GIS tools allow cost-effective runoff estimation, helping watershed management. The results on the effect of land-use change on runoff can be seen as a warning for land-use managers and policymakers, who should aim at stopping and reversing the current land-use trends of the Haraz River basin. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Land–Climate Interactions)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Location and satellite image of the study area in Iran. The lower map is a digital elevation model of the study area.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Land-use map of 1996 (<b>a</b>) and 2011 (<b>b</b>). The land-use classes are 1, bare land; 2, irrigated farming; 3, dense forests; 4, sparse forests and horticulture; 5, rangeland and dry farming; 6, first-grade range; 7, second-grade range; 8, residential lands; 9, water.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2 Cont.
<p>Land-use map of 1996 (<b>a</b>) and 2011 (<b>b</b>). The land-use classes are 1, bare land; 2, irrigated farming; 3, dense forests; 4, sparse forests and horticulture; 5, rangeland and dry farming; 6, first-grade range; 7, second-grade range; 8, residential lands; 9, water.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Areas where the land use has changed (yellow) or remained the same (green) between 1996 and 2011.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Curve number (CN) map of 1996 (<b>a</b>) and 2011 (<b>b</b>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Mean annual runoff depths (<b>a</b>) and volumes (<b>b</b>) in different land-use classes in 1996 and 2011. Runoff depth is that part of annual precipitation (66.5 cm/year) that does not infiltrate the soil.</p>
Full article ">
30 pages, 5231 KiB  
Article
Flood Detection and Susceptibility Mapping Using Sentinel-1 Remote Sensing Data and a Machine Learning Approach: Hybrid Intelligence of Bagging Ensemble Based on K-Nearest Neighbor Classifier
by Himan Shahabi, Ataollah Shirzadi, Kayvan Ghaderi, Ebrahim Omidvar, Nadhir Al-Ansari, John J. Clague, Marten Geertsema, Khabat Khosravi, Ata Amini, Sepideh Bahrami, Omid Rahmati, Kyoumars Habibi, Ayub Mohammadi, Hoang Nguyen, Assefa M. Melesse, Baharin Bin Ahmad and Anuar Ahmad
Remote Sens. 2020, 12(2), 266; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12020266 - 13 Jan 2020
Cited by 253 | Viewed by 19145
Abstract
Mapping flood-prone areas is a key activity in flood disaster management. In this paper, we propose a new flood susceptibility mapping technique. We employ new ensemble models based on bagging as a meta-classifier and K-Nearest Neighbor (KNN) coarse, cosine, cubic, and weighted base [...] Read more.
Mapping flood-prone areas is a key activity in flood disaster management. In this paper, we propose a new flood susceptibility mapping technique. We employ new ensemble models based on bagging as a meta-classifier and K-Nearest Neighbor (KNN) coarse, cosine, cubic, and weighted base classifiers to spatially forecast flooding in the Haraz watershed in northern Iran. We identified flood-prone areas using data from Sentinel-1 sensor. We then selected 10 conditioning factors to spatially predict floods and assess their predictive power using the Relief Attribute Evaluation (RFAE) method. Model validation was performed using two statistical error indices and the area under the curve (AUC). Our results show that the Bagging–Cubic–KNN ensemble model outperformed other ensemble models. It decreased the overfitting and variance problems in the training dataset and enhanced the prediction accuracy of the Cubic–KNN model (AUC=0.660). We therefore recommend that the Bagging–Cubic–KNN model be more widely applied for the sustainable management of flood-prone areas. Full article
Show Figures

Graphical abstract

Graphical abstract
Full article ">Figure 1
<p>The Haraz catchment showing flood training and testing sites.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Flowchart of the research methodology used in this study.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Flow chart for detecting flood points in the study area using Sentinel-1 data.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Pseudo code of the basic Relief Attribute Evaluation (RFAE) technique.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Detection of flood-prone areas in the Haraz watershed using Sentinel-1 data.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Important flood factors selected by the Relief Attribute Evaluation (RFAE) technique.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Modelling process using (<b>a</b>) Cubic–KNN, (<b>b</b>) Coarse–KNN, (<b>c</b>) Cosine–KNN, (<b>d</b>) Weighted–KNN, and (<b>e</b>) Bagging Tree models.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7 Cont.
<p>Modelling process using (<b>a</b>) Cubic–KNN, (<b>b</b>) Coarse–KNN, (<b>c</b>) Cosine–KNN, (<b>d</b>) Weighted–KNN, and (<b>e</b>) Bagging Tree models.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7 Cont.
<p>Modelling process using (<b>a</b>) Cubic–KNN, (<b>b</b>) Coarse–KNN, (<b>c</b>) Cosine–KNN, (<b>d</b>) Weighted–KNN, and (<b>e</b>) Bagging Tree models.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Flood susceptibility maps of the study area based on: (<b>a</b>) Cubic–KNN, (<b>b</b>) Bagging Tree–Cubic KNN, (<b>c</b>) Coarse–KNN, (<b>d</b>) Bagging Tree–Coarse–KNN, (<b>e</b>) Cosine–KNN, (<b>f</b>) Bagging Tree–Cosine–KNN, (<b>g</b>) Weighted–KNN, and (<b>h</b>) Bagging Tree–Weighted KNN.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Flood model evaluations using AUC. (<b>a</b>) KNN-individual classifiers, training dataset. (<b>b</b>) KNN-individual classifiers, validation dataset. (<b>c</b>) Bagging Tree–KNN ensembles, training dataset. (<b>d</b>) Bagging Tree–KNN ensembles, validation dataset.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9 Cont.
<p>Flood model evaluations using AUC. (<b>a</b>) KNN-individual classifiers, training dataset. (<b>b</b>) KNN-individual classifiers, validation dataset. (<b>c</b>) Bagging Tree–KNN ensembles, training dataset. (<b>d</b>) Bagging Tree–KNN ensembles, validation dataset.</p>
Full article ">
28 pages, 11588 KiB  
Article
New Hybrids of ANFIS with Several Optimization Algorithms for Flood Susceptibility Modeling
by Dieu Tien Bui, Khabat Khosravi, Shaojun Li, Himan Shahabi, Mahdi Panahi, Vijay P. Singh, Kamran Chapi, Ataollah Shirzadi, Somayeh Panahi, Wei Chen and Baharin Bin Ahmad
Water 2018, 10(9), 1210; https://doi.org/10.3390/w10091210 - 7 Sep 2018
Cited by 203 | Viewed by 10144
Abstract
This study presents three new hybrid artificial intelligence optimization models—namely, adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) with cultural (ANFIS-CA), bees (ANFIS-BA), and invasive weed optimization (ANFIS-IWO) algorithms—for flood susceptibility mapping (FSM) in the Haraz watershed, Iran. Ten continuous and categorical flood conditioning factors were [...] Read more.
This study presents three new hybrid artificial intelligence optimization models—namely, adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) with cultural (ANFIS-CA), bees (ANFIS-BA), and invasive weed optimization (ANFIS-IWO) algorithms—for flood susceptibility mapping (FSM) in the Haraz watershed, Iran. Ten continuous and categorical flood conditioning factors were chosen based on the 201 flood locations, including topographic wetness index (TWI), river density, stream power index (SPI), curvature, distance from river, lithology, elevation, ground slope, land use, and rainfall. The step-wise weight assessment ratio analysis (SWARA) model was adopted for the assessment of relationship between flood locations and conditioning factors. The ANFIS model, based on SWARA weights, was employed for providing FSMs with three optimization models to enhance the accuracy of prediction. To evaluate the model performance and prediction capability, root-mean-square error (RMSE) and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (area under the ROC (AUROC)) were used. Results showed that ANFIS-IWO with lower RMSE (0.359) had a better performance, while ANFIS-BA with higher AUROC (94.4%) showed a better prediction capability, followed by ANFIS0-IWO (0.939) and ANFIS-CA (0.921). These models can be suggested for FSM in similar climatic and physiographic areas for developing measures to mitigate flood damages and to sustainably manage floodplains. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Flood Forecasting Using Machine Learning Methods)
Show Figures

Graphical abstract

Graphical abstract
Full article ">Figure 1
<p>Flood inventory map and location of the Haraz watershed on Iran map.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Methodological flowchart used in this study for FSM in the Haraz watershed.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Flood conditioning factor maps in the study area: slope degree (<b>a</b>), altitude (<b>b</b>), curvature (<b>c</b>), SPI (<b>d</b>), TWI (<b>e</b>), river density (<b>f</b>), distance to river (<b>g</b>), lithology (<b>h</b>), land-use (<b>i</b>), and rainfall (<b>j</b>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 3 Cont.
<p>Flood conditioning factor maps in the study area: slope degree (<b>a</b>), altitude (<b>b</b>), curvature (<b>c</b>), SPI (<b>d</b>), TWI (<b>e</b>), river density (<b>f</b>), distance to river (<b>g</b>), lithology (<b>h</b>), land-use (<b>i</b>), and rainfall (<b>j</b>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>General ANFIS architecture of first order Takagi–Sugeno fuzzy model [<a href="#B65-water-10-01210" class="html-bibr">65</a>]: (<b>a</b>) Multi-layer perception fuzzy reasoning; (<b>b</b>) equivalent ANFIS structure.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Flowchart of modelling process in this study.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Spaces of a cultural algorithm [<a href="#B74-water-10-01210" class="html-bibr">74</a>].</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Flowchart of the BA for flood susceptibility mapping in Haraz watershed [<a href="#B76-water-10-01210" class="html-bibr">76</a>].</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Procedure of seed reproduction at weeds’ colony [<a href="#B77-water-10-01210" class="html-bibr">77</a>].</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>RMSE value of training of (<b>a</b>) ANFIS-CA, (<b>c</b>) ANFIS-BA, (<b>e</b>) ANFIS-IWO and for testing data samples (<b>b</b>) ANFIS-CA, (<b>d</b>) ANFIS-BA, and (<b>f</b>) ANFIS-IWO.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9 Cont.
<p>RMSE value of training of (<b>a</b>) ANFIS-CA, (<b>c</b>) ANFIS-BA, (<b>e</b>) ANFIS-IWO and for testing data samples (<b>b</b>) ANFIS-CA, (<b>d</b>) ANFIS-BA, and (<b>f</b>) ANFIS-IWO.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Cumulative curve of speed processing from applied models.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Speed of convergence of applied models.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>FSM using ANFIS-IWO (<b>a</b>), ANFIS-CA (<b>b</b>), and ANFIS-BA (<b>c</b>) for Haraz watershed.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>Model validation by success rate (<b>a</b>) and prediction rate (<b>b</b>) for three hybrid models.</p>
Full article ">Figure 14
<p>Percentages of different flood susceptibility classes in the Haraz watershed.</p>
Full article ">
Back to TopTop