10.57647/j.jap.2025.0901.01

Evaluation of temporal and spatial changes of irrigation water quality classes in Qazvin Plain, Iran, using machine learning models

PDF
  • Leila Davoodi Memar Otagvar1,
  • Ebrahim Fataei*1,
  • Babak Naeimi2,
  • Mehdi Tajiabadi3,
  1. Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, Ard. C., Islamic Azad University, Ardabil, Iran
  2. Quantitative Biodiversity Dynamics, Department of Biology, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands
  3. Department of Earth Sciences, SR.C., Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

Received: 2025-05-02

Revised: 2025-05-28

Accepted: 2025-06-26

Published in Issue 2025-07-01

Copyright (c) 2025 Leila Davoodi Memar Otagvar, Ebrahim Fataei, Babak Naeimi, Mehdi Tajiabadi (Author)

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

Davoodi Memar Otagvar, L., Fataei, E., Naeimi, B., & Tajiabadi, M. (2025). Evaluation of temporal and spatial changes of irrigation water quality classes in Qazvin Plain, Iran, using machine learning models. Anthropogenic Pollution, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.57647/j.jap.2025.0901.01
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

PDF views: 61

Abstract

The present study aimed to determine the quality and quantity of groundwater resources for agricultural purposes in the Qazvin Plain (northwest of Iran) using the spatial and temporal distribution maps of agricultural water quality classes prepared by machine learning models during three study periods of spring 2012, 2016, and 2020. Modeling was performed based on geological maps, annual precipitation maps and 12 hydrogeochemical parameters measured for 63 piezometric wells. Appropriate hydrochemical parameters were selected for each statistical period to model agricultural water quality using the machine learning models of Random Forest (RF), Boosted Regression Tree (BRT) and Multinomial Logistic Regression (MnLR). The results introduced the best models to be RF in 2012 (kappa coefficient (κ)=0.54, overall accuracy (OA)= 69%) and MnLR in 2016 and 2020 (κ= 0.83 and 0.75; OA=88 and 84%), respectively. The percentage of area for C4-S3 class (very high salinity with high sodium) increased from 5% in 2011 to 23.9% in 2019. Giving the increased precipitation in 2019, the agricultural water quality class in the southern region changed from C4-S3 in 2015 to C4-S2 (very high salinity with medium sodium) in 2019. Additionally, the simulated maps showed an elevation in the percentage of C4-S3 class area from 2012 to 2020 in the central part of the region where agricultural lands are concentrated. Our findings revealed the trend of adverse changes in water quality at different regions of Qazvin Plain during the years of study, highlighting the need to make purposeful management decisions. And The study utilized both advanced machine learning algorithms and traditional classification methods, including the Wilcox diagram, to assess agricultural water quality based on twelve physicochemical parameters. And The 12 parameters used in the study were selected based on data availability and relevance to agricultural water quality standards. Due to inconsistent data across years, variables such as nitrate and organic matter were excluded.

Keywords

  • Spatial distribution,
  • Water Resource Quality,
  • Machine Learning Models,
  • Qazvin Plain
PDF

References

  1. Abdullahi Dehki F (2019) Evaluation of temporal and spatial changes in groundwater quantity and quality in Qazvin aquifer. Dissertation, Ghiaseddin Jamshid Kashani University, Abyek County, Qazvin Province, Iran
  2. Adamowski J, Chan HF (2011) A wavelet neural network conjunction model for groundwater level forecasting. Journal of Hydrology 407(1-4):28-40.
  3. Afrifa S, Zhang T, Appiahene P, Varadarajan V (2022) Mathematical and Machine Learning Models for Groundwater Level Changes: A Systematic Review and Bibliographic Analysis. Future Internet 14(9):259
  4. Al-Karablieh EK, Al-Momani FA (2017) Water resources management for sustainable agriculture in Jordan. Journal of soil and water conservation 72(2):115-121.
  5. Avand MT, Janizadeh S, Farzin M (2019) Groundwater Potential Determination on Yasouj-Sisakht area Using Random Forest and Generalized Linear Statistical Models. Journal of Range and Watershed Management 72(3):623-609. doi:10.22059/jrwm.2019.282912.1392
  6. Bakhshandehmehr L, Yazdani MR, Zolfaghari AA (2017). The Evaluation of Groundwater Suitability for Irrigation and Changes in Agricultural Land of Garmsar Basin. Journal of Water and Soil 30(6):1773-1786. doi: 10.22067/jsw.v30i6.38581
  7. Bivand RS, Pebesma EJ, Gómez-Rubio V (2013) Applied spatial data analysis with R, Second Edition. Page 2. Vol. 747248717. Springer.
  8. Breiman L (2001). Random forests. Machine learning 45:5-32.
  9. Breiman L, Cutler A (2005) Random Forests. http://www.stat.berkeley.edu/users/breiman/RandomForests/cc_ home.htm (accessed 20 April 2008).
  10. Bui DT, Khosravi K, Karimi M et al (2020) Enhancing nitrate and strontium concentration prediction in groundwater by using new data mining algorithm. Science of the Total Environment 715:136836.
  11. Byrt T, Bishop J, Carlin JB (1993) Bias, prevalence and kappa. Journal of clinical epidemiology 46(5):423-429.
  12. Cambardella CA, Moorman TB, Parkin TB et al (1994) Field-scale variability of soil properties in central Iowa soils. Soil Science Society American Journal 58(5):1501-1511.
  13. Chukalla AD, Krol MS, Hoekstra AY, Sušnik J (2015) Environmental and water footprint of crop production in Palestine and Israel. Science of the total environment 520:196-208.
  14. Dehghani R, Poudeh HT, Izadi Z (2022) The effect of climate change on groundwater level and its prediction using modern meta-heuristic model. Groundwater for Sustainable Development 16:100702.
  15. Dehghan Rahimabadi P, Masoudi R, Abdolshahnejad M, Hojjati Marvast E (2022) Groundwater suitability in Tashk-Bakhtegan and Maharloo basin, Iran. ECOPERSIA 10(4):257-266.
  16. Elith J, Leathwick JR, Hastie T (2008) A working guide to boosted regression trees. Journal of animal ecology 77(4):802-813.
  17. Eslaminezhad SA, Eftekhari M, Akbari M, Bayat H, Barghi W (2022) Using Boosted Regression Tree, Logistic Model Tree, and Random Forest Algorithms to Evaluate the Groundwater Potential. Watershed Management Research Journal 35(3):44-59. doi:10.22092/wmrj.2021.356517.1440
  18. Fataei E, Shiralipoor S (2011) Evaluation of surface water quality using cluster analysis: a case study. World Journal of Fish and Marine Sciences, 3(5) 366-370.
  19. Gorunescu, F. (2011). Data Mining: Concepts, models and techniques (Vol. 12). Springer Science & Business Media.
  20. Jafari A, Khademi H, Finke PA, Van de Wauw J, Ayoubi S (2014) Spatial prediction of soil great groups by boosted regression trees using a limited point dataset in an arid region, southeastern Iran. Geoderma 232:148-163.
  21. Jafari R, Malekian A, Nourani V (2021) Water quality assessment in Zayanderud River using machine learning models. Journal of Hydrology 597:126093. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.126093
  22. jalili, S. (2020). Water Quality Assessment Based on HFB I& BMWP Index In Karoon River ,Khouzestan Provience, (Northwest of Persian Gulf). Anthropogenic Pollution, 4(1), 36-49. doi: 10.22034/ap.2020.1877482.1047
  23. Jiang Z, Yang S, Liu Z et al (2022) Can ensemble machine learning be used to predict the groundwater level dynamics of farmland under future climate: a 10-year study on Huaibei Plain? Environmental Science and Pollution Research 29(29):44653-44667.
  24. Jeihouni E, Eslamian S, Mohammadi M, Zareian MJ (2019) Simulation of groundwater level fluctuations in response to main climate parameters using a wavelet–ANN hybrid technique for the Shabestar Plain, Iran. Environmental Earth Sciences 78(10):293.
  25. Kempen B, Brus DJ, Heuvelink GB, Stoorvogel JJ (2009) Updating the 1: 50,000 Dutch soil map using legacy soil data: A multinomial logistic regression approach. Geoderma 151(3-4):311-326.
  26. Li L, Barry DA, Pattiaratchi CB, Masselink G (2002) BeachWin: modelling groundwater effects on swash sediment transport and beach profile changes. Environmental Modelling and Software 17(3):313-320.
  27. Lee S, Hyun Y, Lee MJ (2019) Groundwater potential mapping using data mining models of big data analysis in Goyang-si, South Korea. Sustainability 11(6):1678.
  28. Masoudi R, Mousavi SR, Rahimabadi PD, Panahi M, Rahmani A (2023) Assessing data mining algorithms to predict the quality of groundwater resources for determining irrigation hazard. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 195(2):319.
  29. Mishra S, Khatibi R, Solomatine DP (2021) Comparison between multinomial logistic regression, decision trees and random forest for stream water quality prediction. Water 13(16):2191. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13162191
  30. Mohammadi, J., Fataei, E., & Ojaghi, A. (2023). Investigation and Determination of Land Use Effects on Surface Water Quality in Semi-Arid Areas: Case Study on Qarasu River in Iran. Anthropogenic Pollution, 7(1), 113-119. doi: 10.22034/ap.2023.1980293.1149
  31. Mohapatra JB, Jha P, Jha MK, Biswal S (2021) Efficacy of machine learning techniques in predicting groundwater fluctuations in agro-ecological zones of India. Science of the Total Environment 785:147319.
  32. Mousavi SR, Sarmadian F, Dehghani S, Sadikhani MR, Taati A (2017) Evaluating inverse distance weighting and kriging methods in estimation of some physical and chemical properties of soil in Qazvin Plain. Eurasian Journal of Soil Science 6(4):327-336.
  33. Naghibi SA, Ahmadi K, Daneshi A (2017) Application of support vector machine, random forest, and genetic algorithm optimized random forest models in groundwater potential mapping. Water Resources Management 31:2761-2775.
  34. Nourani V, Alami MT, Vousoughi FD (2015) Wavelet-entropy data pre-processing approach for ANN-based groundwater level modeling. Journal of Hydrology 524:255-269.
  35. Oliveira LCD, Santos CAG, de Farias CAS, da Silva RM, Singh VP (2023) Predicting Groundwater Levels in Ogallala Aquifer Wells Using Hierarchical Cluster Analysis and Artificial Neural Networks. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering 28(3):04022042.
  36. Pallant J (2020) SPSS survival manual: a step by step guide to data analysis using IBM SPSS. Routledge.
  37. Piri H, Bameri A (2014) Estimation of sodium absorption ration (SAR) in groundwater using the artificial neural network and linear multiple regression: case study: the Baiestan Plain. Water Engineering 7(21):67-79. SID. https://sid.ir/paper/169416/en
  38. Salehi Rezaabadi F, Salarpour M, Mardani M, Ziaee S (2020) Economic Impact Assessment of Quantity and Quality Changes in Irrigation Water on Agriculture in Kerman Province. Journal of Agricultural Economics and Development 33(4):395-412. doi: 10.22067/jead2.v33i4.84119
  39. Sepahvand R, Safavi HR, Rezaei F (2019) Multi-objective planning for conjunctive use of surface and ground water resources using genetic programming. Water Resources Management 33:2123-2137.
  40. Triantafilis J, Odeh I, McBratney A (2001) Five geostatistical models to predict soil salinity from electromagnetic induction data across irrigated cotton. Soil Science Society of America Journal 65(3):869-878.
  41. Valiallahi, J. (2022). Groundwater quality Zoning Based on Wilcox Index Using Geographic Information System in Jajarm district, north Khorasan, Iran.. Anthropogenic Pollution, 6(2), 16-24. doi: 10.22034/ap.2023.1964980.1136
  42. Zehtabian GR, Rafiei EA, Alavipanah SK, Jafari M (2004) Survey of Varamin Plain groundwater for use on farmlands irrigation. Geographical research quarterly 36(48):91-102. SID. https://sid.ir/paper/5481/en
  43. Zhang X (2015) Conjunctive surface water and groundwater management under climate change. Frontiers in Environmental Science 3:59.