INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLIMATOLOGY

Int. J. Climatol. (2017)

Published online in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/joc.5064

Evaporation modelling using different machine learning

techniques
Lunche Wang,a,b* Ozgur Kisi,c Bo Hu,b Muhammad Bilal,d Mohammad Zounemat-Kermanie
and Hui Lia
a
Laboratory of Critical Zone Evolution, School of Earth Sciences, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan, China
b
State Key of Laboratory of Atmospheric Boundary Physics and Atmospheric Chemistry, Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Chinese Academy of
Sciences, Beijing, China
c
Center for Interdisciplinary Research, International Black Sea University, Tbilisi, Georgia
d Department of Land Surveying & Geo-Informatics, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon, Hong Kong, China
e
Department of Water Engineering, Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, Iran

ABSTRACT: Accurate prediction of pan evaporation (Ep) is critical for water resource management. This article investigates
the capabilities of three different soft computing methods at estimating monthly Ep at six stations in the Yangtze River Basin
using climatic factors, including the air temperature (Ta), solar radiation (Rg), air pressure (Pa) and wind speed (Ws) for the
period of 1961–2000. The first part of the study focused on testing and comparing model accuracy levels at each station using
local input combinations. The results indicate that the fuzzy genetic (FG) model generally produces better results than adaptive
neuro-fuzzy inference systems with grid partition (ANFIS-GP) and M5 model tree (M5Tree) specifications in terms of the root
mean square error , mean absolute error and coefficient of determination values. The performance of the above models was
also examined using cross-station applications (estimating Ep without local input or output data) in the second part of the
study. The third part focused on estimating Ep using generalized FG, ANFIS-GP and M5Tree models. Collectively, the results
demonstrate that the FG model can be successfully used to estimate Ep without any local inputs and outputs and that a single
generalized FG model can also be used at six different locations.

KEY WORDS pan evaporation; fuzzy genetic algorithm; ANFIS-GP; M5 model tree; cross-station application
Received 2 August 2016; Revised 15 February 2017; Accepted 18 February 2017

1. Introduction
Evaporation is the process through which liquid water
becomes water vapour. This process is strongly depen-
dent on energy supplies, air exchanges and differences
in the vapour pressure between the Earth’s surface and
atmosphere (Penman, 1948; Kim et al., 2012; Shiri et al.,
2014a). Pan evaporation (Ep) is essential for estimating
water budgets and modelling crop water responses to dif-
ferent climatic conditions. For example, Ep is widely used
as an index for potential or reference crop evapotranspira-
tion and irrigation scheduling (Guven and Kisi, 2011; Shiri
et al., 2014b; Kisi, 2015). Thus, accurate observation and
estimation of Ep are critical aspects of water resource engi-
neering and irrigation practices (McCuen, 1998; Sanikhani
et al., 2012; Majidi et al., 2015) and will contribute to
many studies focused on hydrology, meteorology, agron-
omy, forestry, and terrestrial ecosystems.
In recent decades, both direct and indirect methods have
been employed to estimate Ep values around the world
(Priestley and Taylor, 1972; Shirsath and Singh, 2010;
* Correspondence to: L. Wang, Laboratory of Critical Zone Evolution,
School of Earth Sciences, China University of Geosciences, Luoyu Road,
Wuhan 430074, China. E-mail: wang@cug.edu.cn
Shiri et al., 2014c; Wang et al., 2017). The U.S. Weather
Bureau Class A pan, which is 21 cm in diameter and
25.5 cm deep and is mounted on a timber grid 15 cm above
the soil surface, is one of the most widely used instruments
for measuring evaporation. However, it is impractical to
place evaporation pans at each site where they are needed
(Rahimikhoob, 2009), especially in developing coun-
tries (Kim et al., 2015). It is difficult to use pans due to
instrumental limits and practical issues that influence the
accuracy of Ep measurements (Rosenberry et al., 2007).
Thus, a number of scholars have attempted to estimate Ep
values using several indirect methods (Droogers and Allen,
2002; Valiantzas, 2006; Sanikhani et al., 2012; Kim et al.,
2013). For example, many empirical methods fit the linear
relationship between Ep and meteorological variables
(Stephens and Stewart, 1963). However, the rate of evap-
oration strongly depends on local climatic conditions (e.g.
solar radiation, air temperature, relative humidity, vapour
pressure deficit, and wind speed), and these data cannot
be easily obtained from weather stations (Rosenberry
et al., 2007; Piri et al., 2009). It is also difficult to derive
an accurate formula that represents all physical processes
owing to the presence of nonlinear, stochastic and com-
plex evaporation processes (Shilo et al., 2015). Therefore,

© 2017 Royal Meteorological Society

 L. WANG et al.
many researchers have emphasized the need to accurately
estimate evaporation using hydrologic modelling studies.
Artificial intelligence methods have been successfully
applied in a number of fields, including water resources,
solar radiation and energy applications. Regarding hydro-
logical contexts, recent experiments have demonstrated
that artificial neural networks (ANN) may serve as
promising tools for Ep estimation (Tan et al., 2007;
Cobaner et al., 2009; Sanikhani et al., 2012; Goyal et al.,
2014; Xie et al., 2015). For example, Shirsath and Singh
(2010) compared the ANN, Penman, Priestley-Taylor and
Stephens and Stewart models in terms of estimating the
daily Ep in New Delhi, India and found that the ANN
model produces better estimates than multiple linear
regression (MLR) models. Lin et al. (2013) compared
the support vector machine (SVM) and multilayer per-
ceptron (MLP) models for Ep estimation and found that
the SVM-based model is superior owing to its accuracy,
robustness and efficiency. Kim et al. (2015) compared
to three soft computing models [MLP, the Kohonen
self-organizing feature maps-neural networks model
(KSOFM-NNM) and gene expression programming
(GEP)] in terms of predicting daily Ep values at two sta-
tions with limited climatic data. Kisi (2015) investigated
the accuracy of the least square SVM (LSSVM), multi-
variate adaptive regression splines (MARS) and M5Tree
in terms of modelling Ep at two stations in Mediterranean
sites of Turkey and found that the MARS model performs
better than the other models. The same researchers found
satisfactory results when using different models at differ-
ent sites around the world. However, almost no studies
have used a sufficiently large number of stations (>3) to
reach general conclusions. In addition, no studies have
compared different ANN methods in terms of estimating
the Ep values at different sites of China. In this study, a
large number of stations were used to obtain more general
conclusions, and single generalized Adaptive neuro-fuzzy
inference system-grid partitioning (ANFIS-GP), M5Tree
and FG models that can be used at six locations were
developed. To our knowledge, no studies have yet com-
pared these three methods in terms of Ep estimation, thus
creating the impetus for the present investigation.
Some researchers have analysed spatiotemporal varia-
tions in and related causes of Ep in sites across China (Liu
et al., 2004, 2011; Han et al., 2012; Yang and Yang, 2012;
Wei et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2015; Xu et al., 2016). For
example, Zuo et al. (2005) studied correlations between
Ep and environmental factors over the last 40 years in
China. Wang et al. (2007) analysed Ep trends along the
upper and mid-lower Yangtze River Basin for 1961–2000
and found that decreasing Ep values in the summer can be
associated with net radiation and wind speed. Finally, Li
et al. (2013) investigated Ep dynamics in the hyper-arid
region of China for 1958–2010 using long-term meteo-
rological data collected from 81 meteorological stations in
north-western China. However, very few studies have com-
pared Ep estimates in China using different soft computing
techniques.
© 2017 Royal Meteorological Society
This study aims to investigate the capabilities of the
ANFIS-GP, M5Tree and FG models to predict the monthly
Ep at six stations in the Yangtze River Basin using differ-
ent input combinations. The model performance levels are
determined by (1) estimating Ep at each station using dif-
ferent local input combinations; (2) estimating Ep without
local input or output data and (3) estimating Ep using gen-
eralized ANFIS-GP, M5Tree and FG models. This is the
first study to compare the accuracy of different soft com-
puting models for Ep estimation in the Yangtze River Basin
of China.
2. Methods
2.1. Fuzzy genetic (FG) algorithm
The FG method combines the fuzzy system and genetic
algorithm (GA) approaches. These two approaches are
briefly described in the following subsections.
2.1.1. Fuzzy logic approach
Fuzzy logic can be used to establish a fuzzy system, which
generally includes four components (Figure 1(a)) (Kisi
and Tombul, 2013). To set up a model based on a fuzzy
inference system, input data (variables) with correspond-
ing output(s) should be introduced into the system. Unlike
the black-box techniques involved in ANNs, the learning
process of fuzzy systems is more transparent (Kisi, 2015).
When modelling Ep using fuzzy logic, the input and
output data are divided into subsets with membership
functions (MFs). In this study, Gaussian MFs are first
applied in the fuzzification phase. Second, for cn (c denotes
the numbers of subsets, and n is the number of input
parameters), fuzzy rules are established during the fuzzy
rule base and inference engine phases. When considering
one input variable ‘x’ with ‘A1 ’, ‘A2 ’, … , ‘Ac ’ fuzzy
subsets (A can be a linguistic parameter such as ‘low’,
(b)
(a) Input Population Fitness
Initialization Function
Selection
Fuzzification
Fuzzy Inference
System
Fuzzy Inference Crossover
Engine
Fuzzy Rule Base
Mutation
NO
Defuzzification End of Iteration?
YES
Output Output
Figure 1. (a) Typical view of fuzzy inference system and (b) general
framework on fuzzy genetic model.
Int. J. Climatol. (2017)
 EVAPORATION MODELLING IN YANGTZE RIVER BASIN

(a) (b) Y

X,Y

A11
X,Y
A12
Output
X,Y
A13

X
1 00
Input MF T-norms Normalize Sugeno Sum A21 A23 A22
1

Figure 2. (a) Schematic architecture of ANFIS (Kisi, 2015); (b) grid partitioning identification method which divides the two variables input space
into a grid of nine regions.

‘high’, etc.), there are the following k rules (Kisi and
Tombul, 2013):
Rule 1: IF (x has A1 ) THEN y1
Rule 2: IF (x has A2 ) THEN y2
… . . . .. . . . . … … . . . . .. . . . .. ..
Rule k: IF (x has Ak ) THEN yk
The output values (y) can be calculated using a defuzzi-
fication method (such as the centre of gravity, the mean of
the maxima, the middle of the maximum or the weighted
fuzzy mean). In this study, the weighted fuzzy mean is used
in the last fuzzy modelling system phase, and the weighted
averages of outputs from k rules lead to a single weighted
output (Kisi and Tombul, 2013),
∑
k ing, hereafter SC). In this study, a combination of ANFIS
wn · yn
n=1
y=
∑
k 2014). The gradient descent method can be used as an opti-
wn
n=1
where wk denotes the membership degree and where yn is
the output for each fuzzy rule. In this study, a GA is used
to determine the optimal MFs.
2.1.2. GAs
GAs are searching algorithms categorized as heuristic
methods, which are efficient techniques in terms of search-
ing for the optimal MF solution in a fuzzy system. In fuzzy
models, the MF parameters of the input and output are
optimized using a GA. A general schematic view of a GA
model is shown in Figure ure 1(b), and further information
can be found in a related study by Preis and Ostfeld (2008).
2.2. ANFIS with GP
An ANFIS addresses complex problems using a combi-
nation of rule based fuzzy systems and ANNs. In the
ANFIS architecture, input and output nodes denote the
input vector and target value, and middle nodes (in hid-
den layers) are processors that function as rule and MFs.
In this study, a Takagi-Sugeno (TS) fuzzy model is used to
establish fuzzy if-then rules, such as the following expres-
sions (Zounemat-Kermani and Scholz, 2013):
( )
Rule 1 ∶ If x is A1 and y is B1 ,
( )
Then z1 = p1 x + q1 y + r1
( )
Rule 2 ∶ If x is A2 and y is B2 ,
( )
Then z2 = p2 x + q2 y + r2 (2)
where A and B are the MFs of the input vector (x and
y), z is the output, and p, q and r are the output function
parameters.
In general, an ANFIS is shaped like a five-layer neu-
ral network-based fuzzy system (Figure 2(a)). Different
types of TS fuzzy models can be developed using differ-
ent identification methods (e.g. GP and subtractive cluster-
and GP (ANFIS-GP) methods are applied using the des-
ignated number of MFs (Kisi and Zounemat-Kermani,
(1)
mization method for adopting the sizes and locations of
fuzzy grid regions and the degree of overlap among them
(Figure 2(b)).
2.3. M5 model tree
M5Tree is categorized as a class of binary decision-tree
models. M5Tree splits data into subspaces, and then a lin-
ear regression model is built for each of them (Witten et al.,
1999; Goyal, 2014). Connections between the input and
output parameters are developed using linear regression
functions at the terminal nodes (leaves) (Goyal and Ojha,
2011). The generation of M5Tree occurs over two main
phases. In the first phase, the data are split into subsets
according to the standard deviation reduction (SDR) func-
tion shown below (Rahimikhoob, 2014):
∑ ||Ti || ( )
SDR = sd (T) − sd Ti (3)
|T|
where T represents a set of examples that reaches the
node, Ti denotes the subset of examples with the ith out-
come of the potential set, and sd denotes the standard
deviation. Figure 3(a) shows the input space (two inde-
pendent variables) split into five subspaces (leaves). The

© 2017 Royal Meteorological Society Int. J. Climatol. (2017)

 L. WANG et al.

(a) X2 (b)
Model 2 Model 1 X2≤2 No
4 Yes
X1>4
3
X1≤3 Yes No
2 Model 5
Model 4 No Model 1 X2≤3
1 Yes
Yes No
0 Model 3 Model 3 Model 4
X1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Model 5 Model 2
Y

Figure 3. Schematic diagram of an M5 model tree; (a) splitting the input space X1 × X2, (b) related tree-like-structure diagram with five linear
regression models at the leaves.

parent-node-splitting process generates purer categories
(with lower sd values) of data in child nodes. This pro-
cess continues until the best state with the maximum SDR
is reached. However, the splitting process can produce an
overgrown tree-like structure and can consequently result
in poor generalization. Hence, in a second phase, the tree is
pruned by replacing sub-trees with linear regression func-
tions (Figure 3(b)).
2.4. Software availability
In developing the above soft computing models, the
Neural Network Toolbox 5 and MATLAB 7.0 (The
Mathworks, Inc., USA) software packages were used.
A MATLAB script was written. The input and output
data were normalized before they were input into the
models.
2.5. Evaluation criteria
The first part of this study focused on estimating the
monthly Ep values at each station in the Yangtze River
Basin. The accuracies of the aforementioned ANFIS-GP,
FG and M5Tree models were compared using different
input combinations of Rg, Ta, Pa and Ws. In the second
part of the study, a cross-validation method was applied for
each model, and the above methods were tested using input
data from the other station (Application I, cross-station
application). Moreover, the ANFIS-GP, FG and M5Tree
models were tested further in terms of Ep estimation using
input and output data from other stations (Application
II, without local input and output data). The evaluation
criteria used in the following applications were the mean
absolute error (MAE), root mean square error (RMSE) and
coefficient of determination (R2 ), which can be expressed
as follows:
√ the North Pacific Ocean. More detailed information about
√ N
√ 1 ∑( )2 100
RMSE = √
Epm,i − Epo,i (4)
N i=1 Epo,mean
1 ∑|
N
100
MAE = Ep − Epo,i ||
N i=1 | m,i Epo,mean
( n (
)2
∑ )( )
Epm,i − Epm Epo,i − Epo
i=1
R2 = (6)
∑(
n )2 ∑
n ( )2
Epm,i − Epm Epo,i − Epo
i=1 i=1
where N and bar indicate the number of data points and the
mean of the variable, respectively, and Epm and Epo are the
modelled and observed Ep levels, respectively.
3. Case study and data
In this study, monthly data collected at six stations oper-
ated by the China Meteorological Administration (CMA)
were used. Figure 4 presents a detailed account of the geo-
graphical locations of the above stations, which are des-
ignated by IDs 57461 [latitude 30∘ 42′ N, longitude 111∘
18′ E, 133.1 masl (m above sea level), 57494 (30∘ 37′ N,
110∘ 08′ E, 23.1 masl), 57516 (29∘ 35′ N, 106∘ 28′ E, 259.1
masl), 58238 (32∘ 00′ N, 118∘ 48′ E, 7.1 masl), 58321 (31∘
52′ N, 117∘ 14′ E, 27.9 masl) and 58362 (31∘ 24′ N, 121∘
29′ E, 6 masl)]. Figure 4 clearly shows that all stations are
located along the Yangtze River Basin in China, which
is the largest river in China and the third largest in the
world, after the Nile River in Africa and the Amazon River
in South America. The Yangtze River Basin (from the
Qinghai-Tibet Plateau to the East China Sea) holds 40%
of China’s freshwater resources; supports 70% of China’s
rice production, 50% of China’s grain production and 70%
of China’s fishery production; and accounts for 40% of
China’s gross domestic product. The region is character-
ized by a subtropical monsoon climate that is hot and rainy
in the summer and cold and dry in the winter due to the
combined effects of the East Asian atmospheric circulation
and the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau terrain and the proximity of
the geographic, climatic and hydrological conditions of
the region is provided in Wang et al. (2007) and Liu et al.
(2011).
Monthly air temperature (Ta), solar radiation (Rg), air
(5) pressure (Pa), wind speed (Ws) and Ep records for the
period of 1961–2000 were used in this study. For each

© 2017 Royal Meteorological Society Int. J. Climatol. (2017)

 EVAPORATION MODELLING IN YANGTZE RIVER BASIN
70°E 80°E 90°E
40°N
30°N
20°N
0 285 570 1140 1710
90°E
Figure 4. The geographical locations of stations used in this study. [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com].
station, 20-year data (50% of the data) were randomly
selected to train the models, and the remaining data (50%
of the data) were used to test the models. Annual variations
in Ep and associated climatic factors are clearly evident
in Figure 5, and it should be noted that these data have
been quality controlled through a series of procedures
(Zhang et al., 2015) and that annual mean values were
eliminated when more than one third of the monthly data
were missing. It is clear from Figure 5 that the Ep levels
at station 57516 were generally lower than those at 58238,
58321 and other stations, and the Ep levels at most stations
decreased from 1960 to 2000. However, the annual mean
Ta levels increased at most stations, and the values at
station 57516 were the highest. The annual Ws value at
station 58362 was the highest among the six stations, and
the values at stations 57516 and 57461 were the lowest.
The annual variations in Pa were relatively mild at most
stations, and the values at stations 57516 and 57461 were
much less than they were at other stations. As previously
reported in the literature, Rg decreased from 1961 to 1990
and then increased from the 1990s for most stations in
China (Figure 6). A more detailed account of these change
rates is presented in Wang et al. (2017).
Monthly statistical parameters regarding the climatic
data are shown in Table 1 and Figure 6, where xmean , Sx ,
Cv , Cx , xmin and xmax denote the mean, standard devia-
tion, variation coefficient, skewness, minimum and max-
imum values, respectively. It is clear that the monthly
mean Ep values for the whole study period reached 3.63,
3.87, 2.85, 4.27, 4.19 and 4.01 mm for stations 57461,
57494, 57516, 58238, 58321 and 58362, respectively. The
monthly Ep, Ta and Rg values were generally higher in
© 2017 Royal Meteorological Society
100°E 110°E 120°E 130°E 140°E
40°N
30°N
20°N
kilometers
2280
100°E 110°E 120°E 130°E
the summer and lower in the winter. In contrast, the Pa
values were higher in the winter and lower in the sum-
mer (Figure 6). The mean Rg values recorded at stations
58362 and 58238 (12.64 and 12.33 MJ m−2 ) were slightly
greater than those recorded at other stations, and a mean
Ta of 17.99 ∘ C was recorded at station 57516, representing
the highest value of all stations. The Pa values varied lit-
tle across the stations (see the Cv values in Table 1), and
the monthly Pa recorded at station 57516 was generally
less than values recorded at the other stations (less than
1000 hPa) (Figure 6). The Ws value recorded at station
58362 was greater than values recorded at other stations
for each month (owing to the proximity of this station to
the East China Sea) (Figure 6). For station ID 57461, the
Ta values exhibited a less skewed distribution and a strong
correlation with Ep (R = 0.9); the Rg and Ws data exhib-
ited the strongest (R = 0.94) and weakest (R = 0.30) corre-
lations with Ep. For station 57494, the Ta data exhibited
high skewness values (Cv = 0.53) and correlations with Ep
(R = 0.91). For station 57516, the Pa levels exhibited the
least skewed distribution (Cv = 0.01) and a negative corre-
lation with Ep (R = −0.90); the Rg data generated the high-
est skewness values (Cv = 0.53) and strongest correlation
with Ep (R = 0.96). Similarly, the Rg and Ta data exhib-
ited higher skewness values and stronger correlations with
Ep for stations 58238, 58321 and 58362. It is clear from
the statistical indices shown in Table 1 that each data set
covered different data ranges, which may have created
extrapolation difficulties in estimating extreme Ep values.
However, in terms of the correlation coefficients, the Rg
and Ta variables seemed to be the most appropriate param-
eters for predicting Ep.
Int. J. Climatol. (2017)
 L. WANG et al.
Figure 5. The annual variations of Ep and associated meteorological parameters during 1961–2000. [Colour figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com].
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Estimating the Ep of each station using different
local input combinations
In the present study, the capabilities of three soft com-
puting methods (ANFIS-GP, FG and M5Tree) in terms of
estimating monthly Ep using climatic inputs of Rg, Ta, Pa
and Ws were investigated. Data drawn from six stations
(57461, 57494, 57516, 58238, 58321 and 58362) in the
Yangtze River Basin were used in the applications. The
local input combinations used as model inputs included:
(1) Rg; (2) Ta; (3) Rg and Ta; (4) Rg, Ta and Pa; and (5)
Rg, Ta, Pa and Ws. The Sugeno fuzzy inference system
was used for both the ANFIS-GP and FG models. For each
model, two Gaussian MFs were used because increasing
the number of MFs significantly increased the computa-
tional time. For the FG models, population sizes set to
100 and 1000 and 10 000 generations were used, and the
one that yielded the lowest RMSE in the testing phase was
selected.
The testing results of the ANFIS-GP, FG and M5Tree
models for different input combinations were compared
for stations 57461, 57494, 57516, 58238, 58321 and
58362. As evident from Table 2, all models achieved dif-
ferent levels of accuracy for different data sets, and the
models were the most accurate in the testing phase when
applied to station 57461 using the Rg and Ta inputs. The
© 2017 Royal Meteorological Society
ANFIS-GP3 model yielded lower RMSE (13.15%) and
higher R2 (0.949) values than the FG3 and M5Tree3 mod-
els. Rg seemed to be the most appropriate parameter for
modelling Ep at this station (57461), which was also con-
firmed from the highest correlation being found between
Rg and Ep, as evident from Table 1. Adding Pa and Ws
inputs may decrease the models’ accuracy in terms of esti-
mating Ep. For example, the RMSE of M5Tree5 increased
to 15.88%, and the R2 decreased to 0.916. It is clear from
Table 3 that the optimal ANFIS-GP4 and FG5 models were
almost the same in terms of accuracy and that both mod-
els performed better than the optimal M5Tree3 model in
the testing phase. In fact, the accuracies of two-, three-
and four-input models were similar when using the FG
and M5Tree methods. According to results for these two
methods, including the variables Pa and Ws in the input
combinations did not decrease the models’ accuracy in
predicting Ep at this station (57494). As is indicated in
Table 4, the optimal FG5 model, whose input combina-
tions were Rg, Ta, Pa and Ws, performed better than the
ANFIS-GP5 and M5Tree1 models. At station 57516, the
Rg variable also seemed to be more effective at modelling
Ep than Ta. This is evident from Table 1, which reveals
a correlation between Rg and Ep of 0.96. It is clear from
Table 5 that optimal models were obtained from the inputs
of Rg and Ta for the ANFIS-GP, FG and M5Tree models
of station 58238 in the testing phase. Like station 57494,
Int. J. Climatol. (2017)
 EVAPORATION MODELLING IN YANGTZE RIVER BASIN

8 30
57494
7 Ep (mm) 57516 Ta (°C)
24
6 58238
5 58321 18
4 58362
57461 12
3
2
6
1
0 0
Fe ary
ry
ch

il
ay

ne

A y

em t

Fe ary
ry
ch

il
ay

ne

A y
O er
ov er

em t
O er

r
Se gus

Se gus
D be

be

N obe

D be

be
l

l
pr

pr
Ju

Ju

b
ua

ua
ar

Ju

ar

Ju
nu

nu
em

em

em

em
A

A
u

u
M

M
br

br
ct

ct
Ja

Ja

ov
pt

ec

pt

ec
N
4.0 1030
Pa (hPa)
3.6 1020
3.2 Ws (m s–1)
1010
2.8
2.4 1000
2.0 990
1.6
980
1.2
970
Fe ary
ry
ch

il
ay

ne

A y

em t

Fe ary
ry
ch

il
ay

ne

A y
O er
ov er

em t
O er
ov er

r
Se gus

Se gus
D be

be

D be

be
l

l
pr

pr
Ju

Ju

b
ua

ua
ar

Ju

ar

Ju
nu

nu
o
em

em

o
em

em
A

A
u

u
M

M
br

br
ct

ct
Ja

Ja
pt

ec

pt

ec
N

N
20
18 Rg (MJ m–2)
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
Fe ary
ry
ch

il
ay

ne

A y

em t
O er
ov er

r
Se gus

D be

be
l
pr

Ju

b
ua

ar

Ju
nu

o
em

em
A

u
M
br

ct
Ja

pt

ec
N

Figure 6. The seasonal variations of Ep and associated meteorological parameters used in this study. [Colour figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com].

the ANFIS-GP3 and FG3 models were similar in terms
of accuracy. It is clear from the statistics that adding the
parameters Pa and Ws to the model inputs decreased the
accuracy of the Ep estimations for station 58238. The opti-
mal FG3 model performed better than the ANFIS-GP1
and M5Tree5 models for station 58321 (Table 6), and
the Rg was found to be the most important parameter
for Ep estimation. According to Table 7, the ANFIS-GP
and FG models performed better when using four inputs,
whereas the best M5Tree model was obtained when using
three inputs for station 58362. The lowest MAE (8.02%)
and RMSE (10.42%) values and the highest R2 (0.953)
value were observed using the FG5 model, whereas the
ANFIS-GP2 model provided the worst estimates in the
testing phase (MAE, RMSE and R2 are 18.13%, 22.85%
and 0.746, respectively). According to the results of the
ANFIS-GP and FG models, including the Ws parameter as
an input increased the accuracy even though the correlation
between Ws and Ep was only 0.04 (Table 1). This reveals a
non-linear relationship between Ws and Ep that cannot be
captured by the correlation coefficient.
Estimates of the optimal FG, ANFIS-GP and M5Tree
models of the testing phase are compared in Figures 7, 8
for stations 57461, 57494, 57516, 58238, 58321 and
58362, respectively. It is clear from Figure 6 that the FG
models generally yielded less scatter in their estimates
compared with the other models. The M5Tree model pro-
vided the worst results in estimating the Ep values across
six stations. The scatterplots show that the models gen-
erally underestimated high (peak) Ep values at stations
57494, 58238, 58321 and 58362. This may be attributed
to the fact that there were higher Ep values in the test-
ing data sets than in the training data sets for these sta-
tions. Comparisons of Figs. 7, 8 reveal that all models
provided less scattered estimates for station 57516, poten-
tially due to the higher correlations (between climatic fac-
tors and Ep) found at this station than at the other five
stations.
4.2. Estimating Ep without local input and output data
Estimating station Ep values using input data from nearby
stations is very important, especially in developing coun-
tries, for which some climatic data cannot be measured.
The aim of this part of the study was to determine the
performance of the ANFIS-GP, FG and M5Tree models
in estimating Ep values at stations without local input and

© 2017 Royal Meteorological Society Int. J. Climatol. (2017)

 L. WANG et al.

Table 1. Monthly statistical parameters of each data set for each station.

Station ID Dataset xmean Sx Cv Cx xmin xmax R

57461 Rg 10.87 4.32 0.40 0.30 1.91 23.73 0.94
Ta 16.8 8.1 0.48 −0.09 1.5 30.38 0.90
Pa 1002.16 10.78 0.01 −2.71 891.89 1022.04 −0.69
Ws 1.26 0.39 0.31 0.12 0.51 2.24 0.30
EP 3.63 1.82 0.50 0.61 0.89 10.62 1
57494 Rg 11.98 4.64 0.39 0.59 3.27 26.35 0.90
Ta 16.51 8.83 0.53 −0.06 0.12 31.08 0.91
Pa 1013.51 8.55 0.01 −0.16 993.18 1028.18 −0.88
Ws 2.03 0.69 0.34 0.07 0.64 3.77 0.16
EP 3.87 2.05 0.53 0.67 0.84 10.65 1
57516 Rg 8.88 4.67 0.53 0.43 1.15 21.32 0.96
Ta 17.99 7.46 0.41 −0.11 0.64 30.9 0.87
Pa 983.49 7.39 0.01 −0.13 969.79 996.4 −0.90
Ws 1.36 0.34 0.25 −0.11 0.64 2.13 0.58
EP 2.85 1.92 0.67 0.84 0.54 9.32 1
58238 Rg 12.33 4.03 0.33 0.38 4.28 25.78 0.89
Ta 15.15 9 0.59 −0.03 −0.85 30.49 0.89
Pa 1015.45 8.78 0.01 −0.34 980.5 1030.39 −0.83
Ws 2.49 0.53 0.21 0.22 1.31 4.16 0.14
EP 4.27 2.04 0.48 0.35 1.15 9.85 1
58321 Rg 11.85 4.53 0.38 0.01 0 24.87 0.79
Ta 15.96 8.96 0.56 −0.13 −0.98 31.56 0.90
Pa 1010.81 11.3 0.01 −1.85 941.09 1027.32 −0.62
Ws 2.7 0.52 0.19 −0.23 1.05 4.04 0.15
EP 4.19 2.06 0.49 0.38 0.89 9.81 1
58362 Rg 12.64 4.01 0.32 0.36 5.18 25.27 0.90
Ta 15.95 8.46 0.53 −0.04 0.23 29.89 0.89
Pa 1016 8.42 0.01 −0.8 957.73 1029.27 −0.79
Ws 3.75 0.76 0.2 0.71 1.69 6.13 0.04
EP 4.01 1.70 0.42 0.46 1.17 9.04 1
xmean , mean; Sx , standard deviation; Cv , variation coefficient; Cx , skewness; xmin , minimum; xmax , maximum values; R means the coefficient of
correlation between Ep and each climatic parameter. The units of Rg, Ta, Pa, Ws and EP are MJ m−2 , ∘ C, hPa, m s−1 and mm, respectively.

Table 2. Comparison of ANFIS_GP, FG and M5Tree models for predicting Ep at station ID 57461.

Training Testing
2
57461 MAE RMSE R MAE RMSE R2
(%) (%) (%) (%)
ANFIS-GP1 Rg 12.98 17.32 0.884 11.05 13.90 0.932
ANFIS-GP2 Ta 17.70 23.73 0.781 16.00 20.51 0.836
ANFIS-GP3 Rg, Ta 10.28 14.40 0.919 10.99 13.15 0.949
ANFIS-GP4 Rg, Ta, Pa 9.25 13.47 0.93 12.74 15.42 0.939
ANFIS-GP5 Rg, Ta, Pa, Ws 8.92 12.96 0.935 12.74 15.77 0.937
FG1 Rg 12.82 17.18 0.886 11.16 14.53 0.925
FG2 Ta 15.14 20.07 0.844 15.48 19.10 0.861
FG3 Rg, Ta 10.04 13.83 0.926 10.73 13.52 0.94
FG4 Rg, Ta, Pa 9.16 13.09 0.934 12.28 14.73 0.937
FG5 Rg, Ta, Pa, Ws 9.08 12.55 0.939 12.23 14.76 0.93
M5Tree1 Rg 11.78 16.58 0.893 10.79 13.98 0.932
M5Tree2 Ta 12.74 17.37 0.883 15.45 19.39 0.836
M5Tree3 Rg, Ta 8.07 11.46 0.949 10.79 13.90 0.929
M5Tree4 Rg, Ta, Pa 7.34 11.16 0.952 12.66 16.20 0.917
M5Tree5 Rg, Ta, Pa, Ws 6.76 10.69 0.956 12.08 15.88 0.916

The units of Rg, Ta, Pa, and Ws are MJ m−2 , ∘ C, hPa, and m s−1 , respectively.

output data. In the applications, station 57494 was arbi-
trarily selected as a target station. Two different applica-
tions were used: (1) to estimate the Ep at station 57494
using input data from stations 57461 and 58362 and (b) to
estimate Ep at station 57494 using input and output data
from stations 57461 and 58362.
Tables 8, 9 present the test results of the ANFIS-GP, FG
and M5Tree models in Application I and clearly indicate
that all three models were most accurate when using the Rg
and Ta input combinations. The lowest MAE (14.72%) and
RMSE (19.75%) values and the highest R2 (0.895) value
were observed when estimating the Ep at station 57494

© 2017 Royal Meteorological Society Int. J. Climatol. (2017)

 EVAPORATION MODELLING IN YANGTZE RIVER BASIN

Table 3. Comparison of ANFIS_GP, FG and M5Tree models for predicting Ep at station ID 57494.

Training Testing
57494 MAE RMSE R2 MAE RMSE R2
(%) (%) (%) (%)
ANFIS-GP1 Rg 17.50 23.11 0.807 17.02 22.25 0.835
ANFIS-GP2 Ta 17.55 23.44 0.802 22.09 27.19 0.805
ANFIS-GP3 Rg, Ta 11.75 16.03 0.907 15.76 19.10 0.893
ANFIS-GP4 Rg, Ta, Pa 10.78 14.62 0.923 14.80 18.33 0.905
ANFIS-GP5 Rg, Ta, Pa, Ws 10.57 14.29 0.926 16.17 19.29 0.897
FG1 Rg 17.30 23.01 0.809 16.66 21.98 0.837
FG2 Ta 13.68 17.89 0.885 19.54 24.39 0.87
FG3 Rg, Ta 10.55 14.19 0.927 15.29 18.58 0.908
FG4 Rg, Ta, Pa 10.45 14.17 0.928 15.13 18.58 0.908
FG5 Rg, Ta, Pa, Ws 10.11 13.61 0.933 14.91 18.44 0.906
M5Tree1 Rg 14.85 20.56 0.848 17.51 24.01 0.798
M5Tree2 Ta 11.80 15.44 0.914 21.73 27.62 0.837
M5Tree3 Rg, Ta 7.92 10.98 0.956 15.29 18.83 0.909
M5Tree4 Rg, Ta, Pa 7.59 10.68 0.959 15.48 18.99 0.905
M5Tree5 Rg, Ta, Pa, Ws 7.29 10.34 0.962 15.62 19.29 0.903

The units of Rg, Ta, Pa, and Ws are MJ m−2 , ∘ C, hPa, and m s−1 , respectively.

Table 4. Comparison of ANFIS_GP, FG and M5Tree models for predicting Ep at station ID 57516.

Training Testing
57516 MAE RMSE R2 MAE RMSE R2
(%) (%) (%) (%)
ANFIS-GP1 Rg 13.05 19.23 0.919 9.49 13.94 0.956
ANFIS-GP2 Ta 27.00 37.07 0.699 25.36 34.55 0.744
ANFIS-GP3 Rg, Ta 11.73 17.11 0.936 10.36 13.90 0.958
ANFIS-GP4 Rg, Ta, Pa 10.62 15.83 0.945 9.45 12.95 0.964
ANFIS-GP5 Rg, Ta, Pa, Ws 9.96 14.40 0.955 9.23 12.51 0.968
FG1 Rg 12.46 17.70 0.931 8.39 11.78 0.969
FG2 Ta 19.30 24.54 0.868 20.47 25.17 0.873
FG3 Rg, Ta 9.96 14.27 0.955 8.83 12.22 0.968
FG4 Rg, Ta, Pa 9.93 14.16 0.956 9.27 12.37 0.969
FG5 Rg, Ta, Pa, Ws 8.30 11.70 0.97 8.46 11.67 0.978
M5Tree1 Rg 11.28 16.63 0.939 9.92 12.91 0.962
M5Tree2 Ta 15.48 20.93 0.904 20.14 26.67 0.853
M5Tree3 Rg, Ta 7.74 11.49 0.971 11.53 15.72 0.951
M5Tree4 Rg, Ta, Pa 7.05 10.62 0.975 10.69 15.21 0.957
M5Tree5 Rg, Ta, Pa, Ws 6.66 10.24 0.977 11.42 16.67 0.954

The units of Rg, Ta, Pa, and Ws are MJ m−2 , ∘ C, hPa, and m s−1 , respectively.

Table 5. Comparison of ANFIS_GP, FG and M5Tree models for predicting Ep at station ID 58238.

Training Testing
58238 MAE RMSE R2 MAE RMSE R2
(%) (%) (%) (%)
ANFIS-GP1 Rg 17.53 23.06 0.767 14.26 17.84 0.921
ANFIS-GP2 Ta 16.91 22.92 0.77 16.03 20.37 0.824
ANFIS-GP3 Rg, Ta 11.08 15.92 0.889 8.58 11.27 0.957
ANFIS-GP4 Rg, Ta, Pa 10.99 15.50 0.895 9.05 12.09 0.948
ANFIS-GP5 Rg, Ta, Pa, Ws 10.18 14.20 0.912 11.32 14.46 0.959
FG1 Rg 17.08 22.82 0.772 13.26 16.84 0.928
FG2 Ta 16.11 21.59 0.796 15.62 19.62 0.836
FG3 Rg, Ta 10.58 15.07 0.897 8.22 11.23 0.953
FG4 Rg, Ta, Pa 10.51 15.07 0.901 8.85 11.77 0.949
FG5 Rg, Ta, Pa, Ws 9.73 14.10 0.913 9.87 13.01 0.951
M5Tree1 Rg 16.65 22.37 0.781 13.81 18.31 0.904
M5Tree2 Ta 12.26 17.39 0.868 14.60 20.12 0.823
M5Tree3 Rg, Ta 8.10 12.21 0.935 9.85 13.08 0.927
M5Tree4 Rg, Ta, Pa 7.98 11.79 0.939 10.96 14.35 0.912
M5Tree5 Rg, Ta, Pa, Ws 7.23 10.84 0.949 10.62 14.31 0.927

The units of Rg, Ta, Pa, and Ws are MJ m−2 , ∘ C, hPa, and m s−1 , respectively.

© 2017 Royal Meteorological Society Int. J. Climatol. (2017)

 L. WANG et al.

Table 6. Comparison of ANFIS_GP, FG and M5Tree models for predicting Ep at station ID 58321.

Training Testing
58321 MAE RMSE R2 MAE RMSE R2
(%) (%) (%) (%)
ANFIS-GP1 Rg 21.14 29.69 0.644 12.21 15.44 0.923
ANFIS-GP2 Ta 17.13 22.68 0.792 17.29 22.58 0.768
ANFIS-GP3 Rg, Ta 14.13 19.57 0.845 12.30 16.17 0.881
ANFIS-GP4 Rg, Ta, Pa 14.03 19.37 0.848 12.02 15.92 0.885
ANFIS-GP5 Rg, Ta, Pa, Ws 12.78 17.85 0.871 12.92 15.44 0.921
FG1 Rg 19.23 25.31 0.741 11.61 14.96 0.9
FG2 Ta 15.92 21.04 0.821 16.49 21.76 0.785
FG3 Rg, Ta 13.12 17.39 0.878 11.04 14.43 0.905
FG4 Rg, Ta, Pa 12.95 17.08 0.882 11.25 14.68 0.902
FG5 Rg, Ta, Pa, Ws 10.41 13.45 0.927 13.99 17.48 0.906
M5Tree1 Rg 17.10 23.04 0.786 12.64 15.94 0.888
M5Tree2 Ta 12.95 18.00 0.869 17.77 23.75 0.749
M5Tree3 Rg, Ta 9.32 12.44 0.937 12.21 15.87 0.89
M5Tree4 Rg, Ta, Pa 8.67 12.08 0.941 12.02 15.60 0.894
M5Tree5 Rg, Ta, Pa, Ws 7.87 11.04 0.951 12.41 15.48 0.9

The units of Rg, Ta, Pa, and Ws are MJ m−2 , ∘ C, hPa, and m s−1 , respectively.

Table 7. Comparison of ANFIS_GP, FG and M5Tree models for predicting Ep at station ID 58362.

Training Testing
58362 MAE RMSE R2 MAE RMSE R2
(%) (%) (%) (%)
ANFIS-GP1 Rg 15.31 19.74 0.776 11.48 13.62 0.922
ANFIS-GP2 Ta 15.13 19.71 0.777 18.13 22.85 0.746
ANFIS-GP3 Rg, Ta 9.71 13.69 0.893 9.26 11.50 0.942
ANFIS-GP4 Rg, Ta, Pa 9.61 13.44 0.897 8.98 11.17 0.948
ANFIS-GP5 Rg, Ta, Pa, Ws 9.21 12.99 0.903 8.83 10.84 0.95
FG1 Rg 14.88 19.39 0.784 10.92 13.54 0.918
FG2 Ta 14.26 18.14 0.811 17.10 21.08 0.787
FG3 Rg, Ta 9.28 13.22 0.9 8.70 11.10 0.946
FG4 Rg, Ta, Pa 9.41 13.32 0.898 8.60 11.22 0.943
FG5 Rg, Ta, Pa, Ws 8.86 12.67 0.908 8.02 10.42 0.953
M5Tree1 Rg 13.56 18.39 0.806 12.18 15.74 0.882
M5Tree2 Ta 11.92 15.60 0.861 16.04 20.55 0.795
M5Tree3 Rg, Ta 7.32 10.83 0.933 9.89 12.89 0.924
M5Tree4 Rg, Ta, Pa 7.04 10.35 0.938 9.81 12.64 0.927
M5Tree5 Rg, Ta, Pa, Ws 6.62 10.08 0.942 9.89 12.84 0.923

The units of Rg, Ta, Pa, and Ws are MJ m−2 , ∘ C, hPa, and m s−1 , respectively.

using input data from station 57461 using the optimal
FG3 model. However, the optimal ANFIS-GP1 model per-
formed better than the optimal FG5 and M5Tree1 models
(Table 9). Adding the Ws parameter to input combinations
generally increased the model accuracy levels of Applica-
tion I (for cases not involving local inputs). Test statistics
of the ANFIS-GP, FG and M5Tree models are compared
further in Tables 10, 11 for Application II (for cases not
involving local input and output data). The best models
were obtained when Rg, Ta and Pa were used as inputs. The
highest level of model accuracy (the optimal FG3 model)
was obtained when estimating Ep at station 57494 using
input and output data from station 5746. In other cases
described in Table 11, models with only Rg input data also
achieved relatively high levels of accuracy. The optimal
FG1 model produced better estimates than the ANFIS-GP1
and M5Tree1 models (MAE, RMSE and R2 values of
9.77%, 12.78% and 0.929, respectively), and adding the
Ws parameter to the input combinations decreased the
model accuracy of cross-station Application II.
Estimates of the FG, ANFIS-GP and M5Tree models for
cross-station Applications I and II are further shown in
Figure 9; all of the models generally underestimated peak
values. The FG models generally produced less scattered
estimates than the ANFIS-GP and M5Tree models for
both applications. For the second part of Application I
(estimating the Ep of station 57494 using input data from
station 58362), the results seem to be worse than those
of the previous application (models based on input data
of station 57461). This may be because station 57461 is
closer to station 57494 than 58362. It is clear from Figure 9
that the M5Tree estimates are more scattered than those
of the FG and ANFIS-GP models. Comparing Figure 9
to Figure 7 also clearly reveals that the models obtained
without local input and output data generally provided
more scattered estimates than the models with local data.

© 2017 Royal Meteorological Society Int. J. Climatol. (2017)

 EVAPORATION MODELLING IN YANGTZE RIVER BASIN

9 9 9
57461: ANFIS-GP3 57461: FG3 57461: M5Tree3

Estimated Ep (mm)

Estimated Ep (mm)

Estimated Ep (mm)
6 6 6

3 3 3
y = 1.055x + 0.01 y = 1.056x + 0.039 y = 1.008x + 0.13
R2 = 0.949 R2 = 0.94 R2 = 0.929
0 0 0
0 3 6 9 0 3 6 9 0 3 6 9
Observed Ep (mm) Observed Ep (mm) Observed Ep (mm)
9 9 9
57494: ANFIS-GP4 57494: FG4 57494: M5Tree4

Estimated Ep (mm)

Estimated Ep (mm)
Estimated Ep (mm)

6 6 6

3 3 3
y = 0.923x + 0.572 y = 1.942x + 0.537 y = 0.95x + 0.526
R2 = 0.905 R2 = 0.908 R2 = 0.909
0 0 0
0 3 6 9 0 3 6 9 0 3 6 9
Observed Ep (mm) Observed Ep (mm) Observed Ep (mm)
9 9 9
57516: ANFIS-GP5 57516: FG5 57516: M5Tree4
Estimated Ep (mm)

Estimated Ep (mm)
Estimated Ep (mm)

6 6 6

3 3 3
y = 1.011x + 0.536 y = 1.048x + 0.01 y = 1.014x + 0.109
R2 = 0.968 R2 = 0.978 R2 = 0.957
0 0 0
0 3 6 9 0 3 6 9 0 3 6 9
Observed Ep (mm) Observed Ep (mm) Observed Ep (mm)

Figure 7. The observed and estimated Ep values using optimal ANFIS-GP, FG and M5Tree models for each station (Part 1). [Colour figure can be
viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com].

9 9 9
58238: ANFIS-GP3 58238: FG3 58238: M5Tree3
Estimated Ep (mm)

Estimated Ep (mm)

Estimated Ep (mm)

6 6 6

3 3 3
y = 0.869x + 0.438 y = 0.892x + 0.335 y = 0.908x + 0.321
R2 = 0.957 R2 = 0.953 R2 = 0.927
0 0 0
0 3 6 9 0 3 6 9 0 3 6 9
Observed Ep (mm) Observed Ep (mm) Observed Ep (mm)
9 9 9
58321: ANFIS-GP4 58321: FG4
Estimated Ep (mm)

Estimated Ep (mm)

58321: M5Tree4
Estimated Ep (mm)

6 6 6

3 3 3
y = 0.753x + 1.047 y = 0.907x + 0.411 y = 0.947x + 0.245
R2 = 0.923 R2 = 0.905 R2 = 0.89
0 0 0
0 3 6 9 0 3 6 9 0 3 6 9
Observed Ep (mm) Observed Ep (mm) Observed Ep (mm)
9 9 9
58362: ANFIS-GP5 58362: M5Tree4
Estimated Ep (mm)

Estimated Ep (mm)

58362: FG5
Estimated Ep (mm)

6 6 6

3 3 3
y = 0.899x + 0.55 y = 0.928x + 0.443 y = 0.86x + 0.658
R2 = 0.95 R2 = 0.953 R2 = 0.927
0 0 0
0 3 6 9 0 3 6 9 0 3 6 9
Observed Ep (mm) Observed Ep (mm) Observed Ep (mm)

Figure 8. The observed and estimated Ep values using optimal ANFIS-GP, FG and M5Tree models for each station (Part 2). [Colour figure can be
viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com].

© 2017 Royal Meteorological Society Int. J. Climatol. (2017)

 L. WANG et al.

Table 8. Comparison of ANFIS_GP, FG and M5Tree models for predicting Ep at station ID 57494 using input data of
57461 – Application I (without local input data).
Training Testing
MAE RMSE R2 MAE RMSE R2
(%) (%) (%) (%)
ANFIS-GP1 Rg 16.02 21.15 0.839 18.43 22.77 0.846
ANFIS-GP2 Ta 17.24 23.04 0.809 19.86 25.02 0.817
ANFIS-GP3 Rg, Ta 10.91 15.36 0.915 15.96 20.90 0.887
ANFIS-GP4 Rg, Ta, Pa 9.94 14.09 0.929 15.98 21.45 0.886
ANFIS-GP5 Rg, Ta, Pa, Ws 9.84 13.93 0.93 16.01 21.51 0.886
FG1 Rg 15.89 20.90 0.843 19.09 23.02 0.838
FG2 Ta 12.92 16.91 0.897 17.77 22.11 0.863
FG3 Rg, Ta 9.92 13.68 0.933 14.72 19.75 0.895
FG4 Rg, Ta, Pa 9.81 13.58 0.934 16.42 22.41 0.872
FG5 Rg, Ta, Pa, Ws 9.61 13.30 0.936 15.24 20.54 0.894
M5Tree1 Rg 13.32 18.54 0.877 19.86 24.97 0.809
M5Tree2 Ta 11.37 15.33 0.916 17.08 21.86 0.861
M5Tree3 Rg, Ta 7.98 11.37 0.954 15.66 21.56 0.871
M5Tree4 Rg, Ta, Pa 7.32 10.73 0.959 16.20 22.38 0.861
M5Tree5 Rg, Ta, Pa, Ws 6.69 9.56 0.967 16.40 21.81 0.864

The units of Rg, Ta, Pa, and Ws are MJ m−2 , ∘ C, hPa, and m s−1 , respectively.

Table 9. Comparison of ANFIS_GP, FG and M5Tree models for predicting Ep at station ID 57494 using input data of
58362 – Application I (without local input data).
Training Testing
MAE RMSE R2 MAE RMSE R2
(%) (%) (%) (%)
ANFIS-GP1 Rg 13.03 17.35 0.884 10.97 13.80 0.932
ANFIS-GP2 Ta 21.07 27.81 0.701 20.41 26.58 0.721
ANFIS-GP3 Rg, Ta 15.74 21.99 0.813 14.63 20.86 0.831
ANFIS-GP4 Rg, Ta, Pa 15.08 20.79 0.833 12.66 17.63 0.879
ANFIS-GP5 Rg, Ta, Pa, Ws 14.37 19.75 0.849 12.00 16.38 0.887
FG1 Rg 19.48 26.78 0.723 15.06 22.55 0.779
FG2 Ta 19.89 26.15 0.736 20.69 25.92 0.745
FG3 Rg, Ta 15.46 21.50 0.821 13.92 19.95 0.854
FG4 Rg, Ta, Pa 15.16 20.96 0.831 13.00 18.49 0.869
FG5 Rg, Ta, Pa, Ws 15.05 20.63 0.836 12.80 17.61 0.874
M5Tree1 Rg 19.13 26.53 0.728 14.52 21.72 0.792
M5Tree2 Ta 17.90 24.10 0.776 22.35 29.01 0.694
M5Tree3 Rg, Ta 12.05 18.33 0.87 16.69 24.21 0.792
M5Tree4 Rg, Ta, Pa 10.98 16.48 0.895 17.20 23.89 0.808
M5Tree5 Rg, Ta, Pa, Ws 10.30 15.63 0.906 17.12 23.46 0.804

The units of Rg, Ta, Pa, and Ws are MJ m−2 , ∘ C, hPa, and m s−1 , respectively.

Table 10. Comparison of ANFIS_GP, FG and M5Tree models for predicting Ep at station ID 57494 using input and output data of
57461 – Application II (without local input and output data).

Training Testing
MAE RMSE R2 MAE RMSE R2
(%) (%) (%) (%)
ANFIS-GP1 Rg 13.05 17.46 0.884 18.46 22.41 0.839
ANFIS-GP2 Ta 17.94 24.03 0.779 17.96 23.13 0.814
ANFIS-GP3 Rg, Ta 10.14 14.27 0.922 14.97 18.73 0.889
ANFIS-GP4 Rg, Ta, Pa 9.33 13.57 0.929 12.36 17.85 0.889
ANFIS-GP5 Rg, Ta, Pa, Ws 9.11 13.19 0.933 14.03 18.65 0.9
FG1 Rg 12.89 17.32 0.885 18.68 22.55 0.838
FG2 Ta 15.36 20.36 0.841 16.37 20.57 0.868
FG3 Rg, Ta 9.87 13.78 0.927 14.97 18.15 0.901
FG4 Rg, Ta, Pa 9.30 13.21 0.933 13.57 17.50 0.894
FG5 Rg, Ta, Pa, Ws 9.03 12.51 0.94 12.94 17.55 0.905
M5Tree1 Rg 11.15 15.31 0.91 18.92 22.93 0.833
M5Tree2 Ta 12.32 16.99 0.89 18.90 25.13 0.844
M5Tree3 Rg, Ta 7.64 10.52 0.958 18.54 24.69 0.857
M5Tree4 Rg, Ta, Pa 6.74 9.71 0.964 15.74 22.71 0.862
M5Tree5 Rg, Ta, Pa, Ws 6.53 9.52 0.965 16.26 23.84 0.871

The units of Rg, Ta, Pa, and Ws are MJ m−2 , ∘ C, hPa, and m s−1 , respectively.

© 2017 Royal Meteorological Society Int. J. Climatol. (2017)

 EVAPORATION MODELLING IN YANGTZE RIVER BASIN

Table 11. Comparison of ANFIS_GP, FG and M5Tree models for predicting Ep at station ID 57494 using input and output data of
58362 – Application II (without local input and output data).

Training Testing
2
MAE RMSE R MAE RMSE R2
(%) (%) (%) (%)
ANFIS-GP1 Rg 15.30 19.74 0.777 11.35 13.92 0.927
ANFIS-GP2 Ta 15.15 19.71 0.778 24.21 28.55 0.825
ANFIS-GP3 Rg, Ta 9.72 13.68 0.893 12.55 14.92 0.945
ANFIS-GP4 Rg, Ta, Pa 9.39 13.31 0.899 12.78 16.35 0.919
ANFIS-GP5 Rg, Ta, Pa, Ws 9.20 13.01 0.903 16.86 25.92 0.836
FG1 Rg 14.93 19.41 0.785 9.77 12.78 0.929
FG2 Ta 14.28 18.17 0.811 23.04 27.04 0.862
FG3 Rg, Ta 14.10 19.61 0.821 13.92 19.95 0.854
FG4 Rg, Ta, Pa 9.62 13.43 0.897 15.03 18.98 0.903
FG5 Rg, Ta, Pa, Ws 8.92 12.88 0.905 10.63 15.66 0.905
M5Tree1 Rg 13.56 18.39 0.806 10.55 13.43 0.926
M5Tree2 Ta 11.91 15.60 0.861 22.46 27.44 0.826
M5Tree3 Rg, Ta 7.35 10.84 0.933 12.95 16.03 0.91
M5Tree4 Rg, Ta, Pa 7.05 10.37 0.939 14.00 17.12 0.879
M5Tree5 Rg, Ta, Pa, Ws 6.63 10.09 0.942 15.80 19.49 0.861

The units of Rg, Ta, Pa, and Ws are MJ m−2 , ∘ C, hPa, and m s−1 , respectively.
Estimated Ep (mm)

Estimated Ep (mm)

Estimated Ep (mm)
9 (Application I, 57461, 9 9
(Application I, 57461, (Application I, 57461,
ANFIS-GP3) FG3) M5Tree3)
6 6 6

3 y = 0.957x + 0.527 3 y = 0.961x + 0.472 3 y = 0.949 + 0.523

R2 = 0.887 R2 = 0.895 R2 = 0.871
0 0 0
0 3 6 9 0 3 6 9 0 3 6 9
Estimated Ep (mm)
Estimated Ep (mm)

9
Estimated Ep (mm)
9 9
(Application I, 58362, (Application I, 58362, (Application I, 58362,
ANFIS-GP5) FG5) M5Tree5)
6 6 6

3 y = 0.892x + 0.553 3 y = 0.916x + 0.47 3 y = 0.968 + 0.371

R2 = 0.887 R2 = 0.876 R2 = 0.804
0 0 0
0 3 6 9 0 3 6 9 0 3 6 9
Observed Ep (mm) Observed Ep (mm)
Estimated Ep (mm)
Estimated Ep (mm)

Estimated Ep (mm)

9 9 9
(Application II, 57461, (Application II, 57461, (Application II, 57461,
ANFIS-GP4) FG5) M5Tree4)
6 6 6

3 y = 0.88x + 0.33 3 y = 0.941x + 0.01 3 y = 1.033 + 0.1

R2 = 0.889 R2 = 0.905 R2 = 0.862
0 0 0
0 3 6 9 0 3 6 9 0 3 6 9
Observed Ep (mm) Observed Ep (mm)
Estimated Ep (mm)

Estimated Ep (mm)
Estimated Ep (mm)

9 9 9
(Application II, 58362, (Application II, 58362 (Application II, 58362,
ANFIS-GP1) FG1) M5Tree1)
6 6 6

3 y = 0.811x + 0.644 3 y = 0.883x + 0.328 3 y = 0.868 + 0.344

R2 = 0.927 R2 = 0.929 R2 = 0.926
0 0 0
0 3 6 9 0 3 6 9 0 3 6 9
Observed Ep (mm) Observed Ep (mm) Observed Ep (mm)

Figure 9. The observed and estimated Ep values using optimal ANFIS-GP, FG and M5Tree models for each station during cross validation stage.
[Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com].

4.3. Estimating Ep at six stations using generalized and testing statistics of the applied models are com-
ANFIS-GP, M5Tree and FG models pared in Table 12. The four-input FG model performed
In this part of the study, optimal FG, ANFIS-GP and better than the ANFIS-GP and M5Tree models, and
M5Tree models were obtained using training data from adding the Pa or Ws parameters to the input combinations
six stations and were tested at the above stations. Training slightly increased the accuracy of the FG and ANFIS-GP

© 2017 Royal Meteorological Society Int. J. Climatol. (2017)

 L. WANG et al.

Table 12. Comparison of ANFIS_GP, FG and M5Tree models for predicting Ep at all stations.

Training Testing
MAE RMSE R2 MAE RMSE R2
(%) (%) (%) (%)
ANFIS-GP1 Rg 16.49 23.30 0.796 12.78 16.98 0.898
ANFIS-GP2 Ta 21.35 28.26 0.7 22.68 28.98 0.695
ANFIS-GP3 Rg, Ta 12.99 18.44 0.872 12.55 15.98 0.906
ANFIS-GP4 Rg, Ta, Pa 12.29 17.66 0.883 12.23 15.77 0.908
ANFIS-GP5 Rg, Ta, Pa, Ws 11.92 17.14 0.889 12.07 15.77 0.908
FG1 Rg 16.60 23.12 0.799 12.83 16.88 0.899
FG2 Ta 19.23 25.36 0.758 21.36 27.23 0.734
FG3 Rg, Ta 12.57 17.82 0.881 12.57 16.27 0.902
FG4 Rg, Ta, Pa 12.03 16.99 0.891 12.41 15.88 0.907
FG5 Rg, Ta, Pa, Ws 11.56 16.34 0.9 11.89 15.41 0.912
M5Tree1 Rg 15.64 21.77 0.822 12.94 17.32 0.893
M5Tree2 Ta 17.38 23.21 0.797 21.72 27.79 0.727
M5Tree3 Rg, Ta 9.77 14.05 0.926 12.86 17.30 0.891
M5Tree4 Rg, Ta, Pa 8.21 11.95 0.946 13.15 17.90 0.886
M5Tree5 Rg, Ta, Pa, Ws 7.79 11.45 0.951 13.23 17.74 0.887

The units of Rg, Ta, Pa, and Ws are MJ m−2 , ∘ C, hPa, and m s−1 , respectively.

9 9
ALL: ANFIS-GP5 ALL: FG5
Estimated Ep (mm)
Estimated Ep (mm)

6 6

3 3
y = 0.9x + 0.463 y = 0.915x + 0.399
R2 = 0.908 R2 = 0.912
0 0
0 3 6 9 0 3 6 9
9
ALL: M5Tree3
Estimated Ep (mm)

3
y = 0.929x + 0.339
R2 = 0.891
0
0 3 6 9
Observed Ep (mm)

Figure 10. The observed and estimated Ep values using optimal ANFIS-GP, FG and M5Tree models for data from all stations. [Colour figure can be
viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com].

models. Only Ta inputs seemed to be insufficient for (16) rules and corresponding constant values (consequent
obtaining an accurate generalized Ep model at these sta- parameters). The rule base and consequent parameters
tions. Ep estimates from the optimal generalized models used in the optimal FG and ANFIS-GP models are pro-
are shown in Figure 10, and the FG model generated vided in Tables 13 and 14, respectively. As an example,
less scattered estimates than the other models. Similar to when Rg, Ta, Pa and Ws are in1mf1, in2mf1, in3mf1
previous applications, underestimations of high Ep values and in4mf1 under the first rule, respectively, then Ep is
are clearly evident in the scatterplots. The generalized 0.3123 under the optimal generalized FG model. For the
models with Rg and Ta inputs provided reliable estimation FG and ANFIS-GP models, final outputs were obtained
results. The FG and ANFIS-GP models were composed by calculating weighted averages of the 16 consequent
of four inputs and two MFs; thus, each input had 24 parameters (Table 14), and the consequent parameters of

© 2017 Royal Meteorological Society Int. J. Climatol. (2017)

 EVAPORATION MODELLING IN YANGTZE RIVER BASIN

Table 13. The rule base of the optimal generalized FG and ANFIS-GP models for predicting Ep at all stations.

Rules
1. If (Rg is in1mf1) and (Ta is in2mf1) and (Pa is in3mf1) and (Ws is in4mf1) then (Ep is out1mf1) (1)
2. If (Rg is in1mf1) and (Ta is in2mf1) and (Pa is in3mf1) and (Ws is in4mf2) then (Ep is out1mf2) (1)
3. If (Rg is in1mf1) and (Ta is in2mf1) and (Pa is in3mf2) and (Ws is in4mf1) then (Ep is out1mf3) (1)
4. If (Rg is in1mf1) and (Ta is in2mf1) and (Pa is in3mf2) and (Ws is in4mf2) then (Ep is out1mf4) (1)
5. If (Rg is in1mf1) and (Ta is in2mf2) and (Pa is in3mf1) and (Ws is in4mf1) then (Ep is out1mf5) (1)
6. If (Rg is in1mf1) and (Ta is in2mf2) and (Pa is in3mf1) and (Ws is in4mf2) then (Ep is out1mf6) (1)
7. If (Rg is in1mf1) and (Ta is in2mf2) and (Pa is in3mf2) and (Ws is in4mf1) then (Ep is out1mf7) (1)
8. If (Rg is in1mf1) and (Ta is in2mf2) and (Pa is in3mf2) and (Ws is in4mf2) then (Ep is out1mf8) (1)
9. If (Rg is in1mf2) and (Ta is in2mf1) and (Pa is in3mf1) and (Ws is in4mf1) then (Ep is out1mf9) (1)
10. If (Rg is in1mf2) and (Ta is in2mf1) and (Pa is in3mf1) and (Ws is in4mf2) then (Ep is out1mf10) (1)
11. If (Rg is in1mf2) and (Ta is in2mf1) and (Pa is in3mf2) and (Ws is in4mf1) then (Ep is out1mf11) (1)
12. If (Rg is in1mf2) and (Ta is in2mf1) and (Pa is in3mf2) and (Ws is in4mf2) then (Ep is out1mf12) (1)
13. If (Rg is in1mf2) and (Ta is in2mf2) and (Pa is in3mf1) and (Ws is in4mf1) then (Ep is out1mf13) (1)
14. If (Rg is in1mf2) and (Ta is in2mf2) and (Pa is in3mf1) and (Ws is in4mf2) then (Ep is out1mf14) (1)
15. If (Rg is in1mf2) and (Ta is in2mf2) and (Pa is in3mf2) and (Ws is in4mf1) then (Ep is out1mf15) (1)
16. If (Rg is in1mf2) and (Ta is in2mf2) and (Pa is in3mf2) and (Ws is in4mf2) then (Ep is out1mf16) (1)

1mf1, the firstt membership function of the firstt input and vice versa. The unit of Rg, Ta, Pa, Ws and EP are MJ m−2 , ∘ C, hPa, ms−1 and mm,
respectively.

Table 14. The consequent parameters of the optimal generalized FG and ANFIS-GP models for predicting Ep at all stations.

Rule Parameter Rule Parameter Rule Parameter Rule Parameter

Four-input FG
Rule 1 y1 = 0.3123 Rule 5 y5 = 0.8877 Rule 9 y9 = 0.1475 Rule 13 y13 = −0.3395
Rule 2 y2 = 0.9275 Rule 6 y6 = 0.9758 Rule 10 y10 = 0.7134 Rule 14 y14 = 0.4803
Rule 3 y3 = −0.0475 Rule 7 y7 = −1.548 Rule 11 y11 = −1.101 Rule 15 y15 = 0.8763
Rule 4 y4 = 0.3520 Rule 8 y8 = 0.5816 Rule 12 y12 = 5.362 Rule 16 y16 = −7.611
Four-input ANFIS-GP
Rule 1 y1 = −2.788 Rule 5 y5 = 0.6791 Rule 9 y9 = 3.768 Rule 13 y13 = 3.719
Rule 2 y2 = −0.8847 Rule 6 y6 = 3.548 Rule 10 y10 = 6.949 Rule 14 y14 = 9.595
Rule 3 y3 = 15.26 Rule 7 y7 = −0.489 Rule 11 y11 = −11.61 Rule 15 y15 = 6.754
Rule 4 y4 = 5.929 Rule 8 y8 = 3.834 Rule 12 y12 = 25.41 Rule 16 y16 = 3.320

the ANFIS-GP model seemed to be more effective than
premise parameters of the FG model.
In general, the FG and ANFIS-GP models performed
better than M5Tree at estimating the Ep values at sta-
tions in the Yangtze River Basin. The lower accuracy of
the M5Tree may be attributed its linear nature, whereby
it assumes constant variance throughout the data range.
FG was found to produce better estimation results than
ANFIS-GP. Both the FG and ANFIS-GP models use fuzzy
approaches that can accurately describe non-linear rela-
tionships. The ANFIS-GP model uses the gradient descent
method to compute the MF parameters and weights (Jang,
1993). When using gradient-based methods, it is common
to become trapped in a local minimum (Sudheer et al.,
2003). The FG model uses a GA to calculate the MF
parameters. A GA is a type of search method that strikes
a remarkable balance between surveying the search space
and identifying the best solution. This approach has been
found to be more robust than the gradient-based methods
because it can find the global optimum without becom-
ing trapped in local optima (Karterakis et al., 2007; Kisi,
2015). The Rg variable was found to be more effective
at modelling Ep than the Ta even though there low cor-
relations existed between Ta and Ep at some stations.
In some cases, adding Pa to the inputs did not improve
model performance even though there were high correla-
tions between Pa and Ep. All these analysis results reveal
a non-linear relationship between each climatic variable
and Ep that cannot be explained from statistical indices.
Additionally, we found a few extreme statistical values due
to the presence of high or low meteorological values. For
example, the RMSE for station 57494 reached 50% in July
of 1998 as a result of extreme radiation values. This study
focused on evaluating and comparing the general applica-
bility of the above models, and the extreme events will be
investigated in upcoming studies.
5. Conclusion
This study investigated and compared the capacities of
three different soft computing methods (ANFIS-GP, FG
and M5Tree) in modelling the monthly Ep values of sta-
tions along the Yangtze River Basin in China. Climatic
data (Rg, Ta, Pa and Ws) obtained from six stations (57461,
57494, 57516, 58238, 58321 and 58362) were used as
inputs to the models. In the first part of the study, the
above models with different local input combinations were
compared at each station, and the results indicate that the
three models were most accurate when applied to station

© 2017 Royal Meteorological Society Int. J. Climatol. (2017)

 L. WANG et al.
57461 using input combinations of Rg and Ta. Rg was
found to be the most effective parameter for modelling Ep
at most stations, and on occasion, adding inputs of Pa or
Ws variables could decrease the model accuracy. The FG
model generally performed better than the ANFIS-GP and
M5Tree models. For example, the lowest MAE (8.02%)
and RMSE (10.42%) values and the highest R2 (0.953)
value were obtained at station 58362 when using the FG5
model. In the second part of the study, the cross validation
method was employed, and the Ep values were estimated
using inputs or outputs from other stations. Under Appli-
cation I, the monthly Ep at station 57494 was estimated
using input data from stations 57461 and 58362. The test
results indicate that the FG model performed better than
the ANFIS-GP and M5Tree models in terms of the RMSE,
MAE and R2 criteria. In Application II, the Ep at station
57494 was further estimated using input and output data
from stations 57461 and 58362, respectively. Comparisons
also reveal that the FG models with different input combi-
nations performed better than the other methods. The third
part of the study focused on estimating the Ep values of
all stations using generalized FG, ANFIS-GP and M5Tree
models, and the results further indicate that a single gen-
eralized FG model can be successfully used to predict Ep
using input combinations of Rg and Ta.
In general, it was found that FG models can be success-
fully applied to estimate Ep both when using when not
using local input and output data. Such models can be
used in water resources management practice to charac-
terize other hydrological processes in the Yangtze River
Basin (e.g. surface water–groundwater interactions, irri-
gation scheduling and terrestrial ecosystem carbon cycle
modelling). Further studies will be performed to develop
and test more soft computing techniques applied on hourly
and daily scales.
Acknowledgements
This work was financially supported by National Natural
Science Foundation of China (No.41601044), Natural
Science Foundation for Distinguished Yound Schol-
ars of Hubei Province of China (No.2016CFA051)
and the Special Fund for Basic Scientific Research of
Central Colleges, China University of Geosciences,
Wuhan (No.CUG150631), and the 111 Project (grant
No. B08030). Authors would like to thank the China
Meteorological Administration (CMA) for providing the
meteorological and radiation data.
References
Cobaner M, Unal B, Kisi Ö. 2009. Suspended sediment concentration
estimation by an adaptive neuro-fizzy and neural network approaches
by using hydrometerological data. J. Hydrol. 367: 52–61.
Droogers P, Allen RG. 2002. Estimating reference evapotranspiration
under inaccurate data conditions. Irrig. Drain. Syst. 16: 33–45.
Goyal MK. 2014. Modeling of sediment yield prediction using M5 model
tree algorithm and wavelet regression. Water Resour. Manage. 28:
1991–2003.
© 2017 Royal Meteorological Society
Goyal MK, Ojha CSP. 2011. Estimation of Scour downstream of a
ski-jump bucket using support vector and M5 model tree. Water
Resour. Manage. 25(9): 2177–2195.
Goyal MK, Bharti B, Quilty J, Adamowski J, Pandey A. 2014. Modeling
of daily pan evaporation in subtropical climates using ANN, LS-SVR,
Fuzzy Logic, and ANFIS. Expert Syst. Appl. 41(11): 5267–5276.
Guven A, Kisi Ö. 2011. Daily pan evaporation modeling using linear
genetic programming technique. Irrig. Sci. 29(2): 135–145.
Han S, Xu D, Wang S. 2012. Decreasing potential evaporation trends
in China from 1956 to 2005, accelerated in regions with significant
agricultural influence? Agric For. Meteorol. 154: 44–56.
Jang JSR. 1993. ANFIS, adaptive-network-based fuzzy inference sys-
tem. IEEE Trans. Syst. Manage. Cybern. 23(3): 665–685.
Karterakis SM, Karatzas GP, Nikolos IK, Papadopoulou MP. 2007.
Application of linear programming and differential evolutionary opti-
mization methodologies for the solution of coastal subsurface water
management problems subject to environmental criteria. J. Hydrol.
342(3–4): 270–282.
Kim S, Shiri J, Kisi O. 2012. Pan evaporation modeling using neural
computing approach for different climatic zones. Water Resour. Man-
age. 26(11): 3231–3249.
Kim S, Shiri J, Kisi Ö, Singh VP. 2013. Estimating daily pan evapora-
tion using different data-driven methods and lag-time patterns. Water
Resour. Manage. 27(7): 2267–2286.
Kim S, Shiri J, Singh VP, Kisi Ö, Landeras G. 2015. Predicting daily
pan evaporation by soft computing models with limited climatic data.
Hydrol. Sci. J. 60(6): 1120–1136.
Kisi O. 2015. Pan evaporation modeling using least square support vector
machine, multivariate adaptive regression splines and M5 model tree.
J. Hydrol. 528: 312–320.
Kisi O, Tombul M. 2013. Modeling monthly pan evaporations using
fuzzy genetic approach. J. Hydrol. 477: 203–212.
Kisi O, Zounemat-Kermani M. 2014. Comparison of two different
adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference systems in modelling daily reference
evapotranspiration. Water Resour. Manage. 28(9): 2655–2675.
Li Z, Chen Y, Shen Y, Liu Y, Zhang S. 2013. Analysis of changing pan
evaporation in the arid region of Northwest China. Water Resour. Res.
49(4): 2205–2212.
Lin GF, Lin HY, Wu MC. 2013. Development of a
support-vector-machine-based model for daily pan evaporation
estimation. Hydrol. Process. 27(22): 3115–3127.
Liu B, Xu M, Henderson M, Gong W. 2004. A spatial analysis of pan
evaporation trends in China, 1955–2000. J. Geophys. Res. 109(D15):
D15102, doi: 10.1029/2004JD004511.
Liu X, Luo Y, Zhang D, Zhang M, Liu C. 2011. Recent changes in
pan-evaporation dynamics in China. Geophys. Res. Lett. 38: L13404,
doi: 10.1029/2011GL047929.
Majidi M, Alizadeh A, Farid A, Vazifedoust M. 2015. Estimating evap-
oration from lakes and reservoirs under limited data condition in a
semi-arid region. Water Resour. Manage. 29(10): 3711–3733.
McCuen RH. 1998. Hydrologic Analysis and Design. Prentice Hall:
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Penman HL. 1948. Natural evaporation from open water, bare soil and
grass. Proc. R. Soc. A. Math. Phys. Eng. Sci 193: 120–145.
Piri J, Amin S, Moghaddamnia A, Keshavarz A, Han D, Remesan R.
2009. Daily pan evaporation modeling in a hot and dry climate. J.
Hydrol. Eng. 14(8): 803–811.
Preis A, Ostfeld A. 2008. A coupled model tree-genetic algorithm
scheme for flowand water quality predictions in watersheds. J. Hydrol.
349: 364–375.
Priestley CHB, Taylor RJ. 1972. On the assessment of surface heat
flux and evaporation using large scale parameters. Mon. Weather Rev.
100(2): 81–92.
Rahimikhoob A. 2009. Estimating daily pan evaporation using artificial
neural network in a semi-arid environment. Theor. Appl. Climatol.
98(1–2): 101–105.
Rahimikhoob A. 2014. Comparison between M5 model tree and neural
networks for estimating reference evapotranspiration in an arid envi-
ronment. Water Resour. Manage. 28: 657–669.
Rosenberry DO, Winter TC, Buso DC, Likens GE. 2007. Comparison
of 15 evaporation methods applied to a small mountain lake in the
northeastern USA. J. Hydrol. 340: 149–166.
Sanikhani H, Kisi Ö, Nikpour MR, Dinpashoh Y. 2012. Estimation
of daily pan evaporation using two different adaptive neuro-fuzzy
computing techniques. Water Resour. Manage. 26(15): 4347–4365.
Shilo E, Ziv B, Shamir E, Rimmer A. 2015. Evaporation from Lake
Kinneret, Israel, during hot summer days. J. Hydrol. 528: 264–275.
Shiri J, Nazemi AH, Sadraddini AA, Landeras G, Kisi O, Fakheri Fard
A, Marti P. 2014a. Comparison of heuristic and empirical approaches
Int. J. Climatol. (2017)
 EVAPORATION MODELLING IN YANGTZE RIVER BASIN
for estimating reference evapotranspiration from limited inputs in Iran.
Comput. Electron. Agric. 108: 230–241.
Shiri J, Sadraddini AA, Nazemi AH, Kisi O, Landeras G, Fakheri
Fard A, Marti P. 2014b. Generalizability of gene expression
programming-based approaches for estimating daily reference
evapotranspiration in coastal stations of Iran. J. Hydrol. 508: 1–11.
Shiri J, Marti P, Singh VP. 2014c. Evaluation of gene expression pro-
gramming approaches for estimating daily evaporation through spatial
and temporal data scanning. Hydrol. Process. 28(3): 1215–1225.
Shirsath PB, Singh AK. 2010. A comparative study of daily pan evap-
oration estimation using ANN, regression and climate based models.
Water Resour. Manage. 24(8): 1571–1581.
Stephens JC, Stewart EH. 1963. A comparison of procedures for comput-
ing evaporation and evapotranspiration. Publication 62, international
association of scientific hydrology. In International Union of Geody-
namics and Geophysics, Berkeley, CA, 123–133.
Sudheer KP, Gosain AK, Ramasastri KS. 2003. Estimating actual evapo-
transpiration from limited climatic data, using neural computing tech-
nique. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng.-ASCE 129(3): 214–218.
Tan SBK, Shuy EB, Chua LHC. 2007. Modelling hourly and daily
open-water evaporation rates in areas with an equatorial climate.
Hydrol. Process. 21(4): 486–499.
Valiantzas JD. 2006. Simplified versions for the Penman evaporation
equation using routine weather data. J. Hydrol. 331: 690–702.
Wang Y, Jiang T, Bothe O, Fraedrich K. 2007. Changes of pan evap-
oration and reference evapotranspiration in the Yangtze River basin.
Theor. Appl. Climatol. 90: 13–23.
Wang LC, Kisi O, Zounemat-Kermani M, Li H. 2017. Pan evaporation
modeling using six different heuristic computing methods in different
climates of China. J. Hydrol. 544: 407–427.
© 2017 Royal Meteorological Society
Wei J, Knoche HR, Kunstmann H. 2015. Contribution of transpira-
tion and evaporation to precipitation, an ET-Tagging study for the
Poyang Lake region in Southeast China. J. Geophys. Res. 120(14):
6845–6864.
Witten IH, Frank E, Trigg L, Hall M, Holmes G, Cunningham SJ.
1999. Weka: practical machine learning tools and techniques with
java implementations. In Proceedings of Emerging Knowledge Engi-
neering and Connectionist-Based Information Systems, Dunedin, New
Zealand, 192–196.
Xie H, Zhu X, Yuan DY. 2015. Pan evaporation modelling and changing
attribution analysis on the Tibetan Plateau (1970–2012). Hydrol.
Process. 29(9): 2164–2177.
Xu YP, Pan S, Gao C, Fu G, Chiang YM. 2016. Historical pan evapora-
tion changes in the Qiantang River Basin, East China. Int. J. Climatol.
36: 1928–1942.
Yang H, Yang D. 2012. Climatic factors influencing changing pan
evaporation across China from 1961 to 2001. J. Hydrol. 414:
184–193.
Zhang Q, Qi T, Li J, Singh VP, Wang Z. 2015. Spatiotemporal variations
of pan evaporation in China during 1960–2005, changing patterns and
causes. Int. J. Climatol. 35(6): 903–912.
Zounemat-Kermani M, Scholz M. 2013. Computing air demand
using the Takagi–Sugeno model for dam outlets. Water 5(3):
1441–1456.
Zuo H, Li D, Hu Y, Bao Y, Lü S. 2005. Characteristics of climatic
trends and correlation between pan-evaporation and environmental
factors in the last 40 years over China. Chin. Sci. Bull. 50(12):
1235–1241.
Int. J. Climatol. (2017)