4.3 Article

Random forest predictive model development with uncertainty analysis capability for the estimation of evapotranspiration in an arid oasis region

Journal

HYDROLOGY RESEARCH
Volume 51, Issue 4, Pages 648-665

Publisher

IWA PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.2166/nh.2020.012

Keywords

arid areas; evapotranspiration; Monte Carlo; predict; random forest

Funding

  1. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2017YFC0404305]
  2. Key Research Program of Frontier Sciences, CAS [QYZDJ-SSWDQC031]
  3. Natural Science Foundation of Gansu province, China [18JR4RA002, 18JR3RA393]
  4. CAS 'Light of West China' Program
  5. USQ-CAS collaborative research agreement [USQ943692018]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study evaluates the potential utility of the random forest (RF) predictive model used to simulate daily reference evapotranspiration (ET0) in two stations located in the arid oasis area of northwestern China. To construct an accurate RF-based predictive model, ET(0)is estimated by an appropriate combination of model inputs comprising maximum air temperature (T-max), minimum air temperature (T-min), sunshine durations (S-un), wind speed (U-2), and relative humidity (R-h). The output of RF models are tested by ET(0)calculated using Penman-Monteith FAO 56 (PMF-56) equation. Results showed that the RF model was considered as a better way to predict ET(0)for the arid oasis area with limited data. Besides,R(h)was the most influential factor on the behavior of ET0, except for air temperature in the proposed arid area. Moreover, the uncertainty analysis with a Monte Carlo method was carried out to verify the reliability of the results, and it was concluded that RF model had a lower uncertainty and can be used successfully in simulating ET0. The proposed study shows RF as a sound modeling approach for the prediction of ET(0)in the arid areas where reliable weather data sets are available, but relatively limited.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available