—

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION

VOL. 38, NO. 1 AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION FEBRUARY 2002

SOIL SALINITY PREDICTION USING ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORKS'

R. M. Patel, S. 0. Prasher, P K Goel, and R. Bassi2

ABSTRACT: This study explores the applicability of Artificial Neu-
ral Networks (ANNs) for predicting salt build-up in the crop root
zone. ANN models were developed with salinity data from field
lysimeters subirrigated with brackish water. Different ANN archi-
tectures were explored by varying the number of processing ele-
ments (PEs) (from 1 to 30) for replicate data from a 0.4 m water
table, 0.8 m water table, and both 0.4 and 0.8 m water table lysime-
ters. Different ANN models were developed by using individual
replicate treatment values as well as the mean value for each treat-
ment. For replicate data, the models with twenty, seven, and six
PEs were found to be the best for the water tables at 0.4 m, 0.8 m
and both water tables combined, respectively. The correlation coeffi-
cients between observed salinity and ANN predicted salinity of the
test data with these models were 0.89, 0.91, and 0.89, respectively.
The performance of the ANNs developed using mean salinity values
of the replicates was found to be similar to those with replicate
data. Not only was there agreement between observed and ANN
predicted salinity values, the results clearly indicated the potential
use of ANN models for predicting salt build-up in soil profile at a
specific site.
(KEY TERMS: artificial neural networks; soil salinity; subirriga-
tion; green peppers.)
INTRODUCTION
Artificial neural networks (ANNs) are computa-
tional algorithms. Their architecture and functions
are derived from the structure of biological neural
networks and the theory of adaptive learning. Biologi-
cal neural networks (such as human brains) respond
to a situation through highly complex processes based
on learning from examples. New conditions are
interpreted in terms of lessons learned from the
examples: a decision is selected from the available
options, and then the expected outcome is evaluated.
If the decision fails to yield the desired result, a
second alternative is considered. This process contin-
ues until a satisfactory result is achieved. The final
decision and the governing situation are added to the
knowledge base for future use, and if necessary, earli-
er data is either modified or deleted to accommodate
the new examples. The processing elements (PEs), or
computational units, are arranged in different layers,
and can combine one or more inputs and modify them
according to a transfer function to produce one or
more outputs.
ANN models have been effectively employed in
many areas, ranging from economics to science. ANN
models have considerable potential for modeling some
aspects of agroecosystems, which are often complex,
non-linear, and ill defined. The use of ANN technology
has shown promising results in dealing with several
types of agricultural problems. The first type of appli-
cation is machine vision and image analysis for the
identification and classification of agricultural prod-
ucts, such as weed recognition, apple and wheat ker-
nel color classification, potato inspection, and
pistachio grading (Deck et al., 1995; Ghazanfari et
al., 1996; Nakano, 1997; Wang et al., 1999; Yang et
al., 1999). Secondly, ANNs have been used in decision
support systems for management and process control,
e.g. management of water pollution control,
greenhouse environment control, agricultural input
recommendation, and resource management (Kok et
al., 1994; Gimblett and Ball, 1995; Broner and Corn-
stock, 1997; Seginer, 1997; Wen and Lee, 1998).
Thirdly, ANNs have been used for simulating and pre-
dicting various agricultural and environmental
problems (Chakraborty et al., 1992; Hsu et al., 1995;

'Paper No. 00136 of the Journal of the American Water Resources Association. Discussions are open until October 1, 2002.
'Respectively, Postdoctoral Fellow, Professor, Graduate Student, and Former Graduate Student, Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering,
Macdonald Campus of McGill University, 21111 Lakeshore Road, Ste-Anne de Bellevue, Quebec, Canada H9X 3V9 (E-MaillPrasher: shiv.
prasher@mcgill.ca).

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION 91 JAWRA

 Patel, Prasher, Goel, and Bassi
Jayawardena and Fernando, 1995; Batchelor et al.,
1997; Clair and Ehrman, 1998).
The potential utility of ANNs for solving complex
hydrological processes is still being explored. A num-
ber of approaches are being investigated for forecast-
ing events and modeling the movement of water in
soil systems. Information about the hydrological
behavior of such systems is acquired by conducting
field-level surveys and experiments under specific
conditions. However, the processes involved in such
systems are very complex, and it is quite difficult to
describe them explicitly in mathematical terms. The
process-based models that have been developed
require many input parameter values, for some of
which it is difficult to determine the limits to their
applicability. ANN models have proven to be very
effective in similar situations in other areas of investi-
gation. Maier and Dandy (1996), for example, high-
lighted the usefulness of ANN models and presented
a case study for forecasting salinity in a river. They
reviewed the difference between ANNs and tradition-
al (statistical and physically-based models) forecast-
ing methods. Pachepsky et al. (1996) compared the
accuracy of ANNs and statistical regression methods
for the estimation of water retention in soils based on
soil texture and bulk density data and found ANNs to
be superior. Shukia et al. (1996) explored the possibil-
ity of using ANNs for simulating water table depth
for transient drainage design. They obtained very
encouraging results and concluded that ANNs might
be applied to the real time control of drainage sys-
tems, in light of their reliability and high speed in
simulating water table conditions, as compared to tra-
ditional mathematical models. Similarly, Yang et al.
(1995) successfully related DRAINMOD outputs with
ANN.
Water and solute flow through soil is highly com-
plex. Therefore, limited success has been achieved
in mathematical modeling of the involved physio-
chemical processes. Study of these processes is fur-
ther complicated under growing crop conditions.
Therefore, the prediction of salt build-up in the soil
profile under such conditions is more difficult. Very
few studies have been reported on the mathematical
modeling of salt transport in the soil profile, and field
validation of these models has been limited. Comfort
et al. (1993) observed that models tested with field
data have generated salinity values that vary consid-
erably from the observed values. ANNs do not need to
know the exact form of the mathematical equations as
they learn the phenomena from the observed data.
Moreover, the spatial and temporal variability of vari-
ous physical and chemical parameters makes such
problems even more difficult to model. In such cases,
ANN models seem to have good potential. Patel et al.
JAWRA
(2000) developed ANN models for salinity prediction
in lysimeters. The lysimeters were packed with a
sandy soil. The soil was salinized before planting.
Potatoes (Solanum tuberosum L.) were seeded in this
saline soil. The potatoes were subirrigated with
brackish water, and the salinity at various depths in
the root zone was recorded throughout the season. In
general, the results from Patel et al. (2000) were quite
promising, although in certain instances, the models
either overpredicted or underpredicted salinity. How-
ever, it is not very clear which are the scenarios
where the ANN overpredicts or underpredicts salinity.
The ANN could model salt build-up in saline soil.
However, salt build-up patterns in non-saline soil
subirrigated with brackish water could be different
from saline soil, and an investigation of the capability
of the ANNs is needed. Therefore, this study was
directed to evaluate the potential of ANN to simulate
salt build-up in nonsaline lysimeters, subirrigated
with brackish water, and planted with green peppers
(Capsicum annum Grossum). There was an attempt
to check whether the model simulations were satisfac-
tory in different scenarios of varying water tables and
irrigation water salinity. A number of different ANN
architectures were tried, and the model effectiveness
was evaluated on the basis of the Root Mean Square
(RMS) error, a parameter most commonly used to
evaluate the training efficiency of ANN models. Final-
ly, simulated salinity values were compared with the
observed values, and various statistics, such as arith-
metic mean, absolute arithmetic mean, standard devi-
ation, and correlation coefficient, for testing and
training data were determined for the evaluation of
the developed models.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Salt Build-up Data for ANN Models
Data for the development of ANN models was
obtained from a field lysimeter experiment. Green
pepper (Capsicum annum Grossum, 'Bellboy') was
grown in field lysimeters that were one meter high
and 0.45 m in diameter (Patel, 1997). Brackish water,
with salinity levels of 1, 5, and 9 dS/m, was applied
with a subirrigation system. Two water table depths
(0.4 and 0.8 m from the soil surface) were maintained.
In addition, four levels of fertilizers were applied.
Thus, three levels of irrigation water salinity, two
water table depths, and four levels of fertilizers,
resulted in a total of 24 treatments. With three repli-
cates per treatment, there were 72 lysimeters used in
this study.
92 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION
 Soil Salinity Prediction using Artificial Neural Networks
In the lysimeters with 0.4 m water table depth, soil
solution salinity was recorded at 0.1 and 0.3 m from
the soil surface. In the lysimeters with 0.8 m water
table depth, the salinity was measured at 0.1, 0.3, 0.5,
and 0.7 m. The salinity measurements were made 20,
29, 38, 43, 50, 57, 64, and 72 days after planting the
green peppers. Patel (1997) reported that in this
experiment, fertilizer levels did not influence salt
build-up in the soil. Therefore, the data for the fertil-
izer levels was not considered as an input parameter,
and the observations with different fertilizers were
also considered as replicates in this study.
Earlier work (Patel, 1997) had also shown that salt
build-up in soil profile depends on water table depth,
subirrigation water salinity, depth of salinity mea-
surement, and the number of days elapsed after
planting. Therefore, these independent variables
(water table depth, subirrigation water salinity, depth
of salinity measurement, and days elapsed after
planting), and the dependent variable (soil salinity)
were treated as input and output parameters, respec-
tively. Salt build-up in soil is also governed by many
other agroclimatic parameters and physical soil prop-
erties. For example, rooting depth is an important
parameter influencing salt buildup. In the proposed
ANN modeling, it has been considered in an implicit
way due to choice of our input parameter, water table
depth. The ANN model used only four inputs, in com-
parison to other modeling approaches, such as
DRAINMOD (Workman et el., 1994) and SWAP 1993
(Van den Broek et el., 1994), which require extensive
input parameters. However, whereas the ANN model
is only applicable to the given soil and for the given
agroclimatic conditions, the advantage of the procedu-
ral mathematical models, like DRAINMOD and
SWAP 1993, is that they can be used for any soil and
for nearly any geographic location. Thus, although
ANN models are applicable to the conditions of the
experiments where the data is used in their develop-
ment, it is, of course, possible to develop a more com-
prehensive ANN model by incorporating a greater
number of soil and meteorological input parameters,
provided such data is available.
The randomized data were divided into two sets:
one for training the ANNs and the other for testing.
Of the total, 80 percent of the data was used to make
a training data file. The remaining 20 percent of the
data was used for testing the models during the train-
ing process. The developed model was then used to
predict the salinity values of testing data. It is diffi-
cult to evaluate the performance of the ANN in vari-
ous subirrigation scenarios using limited numbers of
testing data. Therefore, salinity values were also pre-
dicted for training data to generate a complete
dataset.
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION
In the experiment, Patel (1997) reported different
salt build-up trends under different water table treat-
ments. Irrigation water salinity had a greater effect
near the water table and less of an impact on salt
build-up near the soil surface. Initially, different irri-
gation water salinities had little impact on soil salini-
ty, but at later stages, higher irrigation water salinity
resulted in greater salt build-up in the soil column.
Furthermore, irrigation water salinity had a signifi-
cant impact on salt build-up at the 0.1 and 0.3 m
depths in lysimeters with a 0.4 m water table. Salt
build-up in the lysimeters with a 0.8 m water table
was not dependent on the irrigation water salinity at
the 0.1 and 0.3 m depths. However, the salt build-up
at 0.5 and 0.7 m depths was found to be dependent on
irrigation water salinity in the latter case. Therefore,
separate ANNs were developed for both the 0.4 and
0.8 m water tables. To develop a more general model,
suitable for both water tables, an ANN was also
trained using the data from both water table treat-
ments.
Although the models were developed using the
replicate data from 0.4 m and 0.8 m water table treat-
ments separately as well as both treatments com-
bined, upon close scrutiny of the experimental data, it
was found that there was considerable variation in
salinity among the replicates. Therefore, in the sec-
ond approach, instead of using replicate data, the
mean values of all replicates were used to develop the
ANN model.
Development of ANN Models
Neuraiworks Neural Netware Professional IT/PLUS
(Neuralware, 1993) was used for developing the ANN
models used in this study. All networks were of the
feed-forward type. The standard back-propagation
learning algorithm was selected because of its utility
in modeling nonlinear processes (Lacroix et al., 1997).
The most widely used normalized-cumulative d.elta
learning rule and the Sigmoidal transfer function
were selected. To test the model at different stages of
training, the "Best Save" function of the Neuralworks
software was used. This function retains the network
which gives the best result until the training process
results in a better network. The default values were
used for all other parameters. The Root Mean Square
(RMS) error method was used to determine the train-
ing effectiveness of the ANN model. This software
first scales the supplied data into a certain range,
computes the outputs, calculates the RMS error, and
then transforms the scaled output values back to the
original scale.
93 JAWRA
 Patel, Prasher, Goel, and Bassi

Different ANN architectures, with a single hidden RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

layer with different numbers of PEs (from 1 to 30)
were considered. During the training phase, the ANN
was provided with a training data file, containing all
input values as well as the desired output values. The
ANN was trained for a maximum of 200,000 training
cycles. The minimum RMS error value for each model
was recorded. The model with the minimum RMS
error value was then used to predict the salinity for
all input data.
In the second approach, an attempt was made to
develop ANN models with mean observed salinity val-
ues rather than using individual replicate salinity
values. By doing so, the number of records was
reduced from 576 to 48 for the 0.4 m water table
treatment, and from 1152 to 96 for the 0.8 m water
table treatment. Thus, for both water table treat-
ments combined, the number of records was reduced
from 1728 to 144.
Selection of the ANN Model with Replicate Data
for a Specific Water Table Depth
ANN models were developed for specific water
table depths as well as for a generalized water table
condition. The best model for each condition was fur-
ther evaluated to compare the observed and simulat-
ed soil salinities. As mentioned earlier, the RMS error
was used in the selection of the model. The RMS error
values recorded for different ANN models are given in
Figure 1. In the case of ANNs for the 0.4 m water
table depth with replicate data, the RMS error
values varied from 0.0674 to 0.0602. Although there
were local variations based on number of PEs in the
RMS error values, in general, the RMS error
decreased with increasing number of PEs, up to 20

0.10

Replicate data
0.08
0.4 m WI
0.8mWT
BothWT
0
Mean data
0.06 •..• O.4mWT
a .
."- •---• 0.8mWT
£ b
O.4 •O •-•a•- BothWT
-£
£ . .. £ A
a

0.04 ..
.p 0

.0

0.02
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Number of Processing Elements

Figure 1. RMS Error Values for Different ANN Models Using Replicate and Mean Data With
Water Tables at Either 0.4 m or 0.8 m, and the Combined Data for Both Water Tables.

JAWRA 94 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION

 Soil Salinity Prediction using Artificial Neural Networks
PEs. Additional PEs did not reduce the error. Thus,
for the 0.4 m water table depth, the minimum RMS
error of 0.0602 was observed for the model with 20
PEs in the hidden layer. The RMS error for the ANN
models developed for the 0.8 m water table depth
ranged between 0.0766 and 0.0576 (Figure 1). The
minimum RMS error (0.0576) was obtained for a
model with seven PEs in the hidden layer. These
"best" models were used to predict the salinity in the
soil profile. The observed and predicted salinity val-
ues for 0.4 m water table are shown in Figure 2, and
the same for the 0.8 m water table are shown in Fig-
ure 3. A very good agreement between the predicted
and observed salinity values was observed for both
water tables, as evident from Figures 2 and 3. In the
case of the 0.4 m water table, the correlation coeffi-
cients were 0.86 and 0.89 for training and testing
data, respectively (Table 1). The corresponding corre-
lation coefficients for the 0.8 m water table were 0.88
and 0.91 m (Table 1). It is clear from Figures 2 and 3
that the simulation of the testing data was similar to
that of the training data, which could be confirmed
with the similarity of correlation coefficients of train-
ing and testing data. Some of the other statistics of
the "best" models are presented in Table 1. In the case
of the 0.4 m water table, the arithmetic mean errors
6
E -0
C,)
In
'1)
4-'
C.)
•.—S
• Ito • .•o.
••
2 • •.....
• •-
•
• •
•.
• 0.0 0..
oPu.. ••0
0 I
0 2
Figure 2. Observed and ANN Predicted Salinity in 0.4 m Water Table.
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION
(difference between observed and predicted salinity)
were 0.0024 and 0.0539 dS/m for training and testing
data, respectively. For the 0.8 m water table, these
errors were 0.0112 and 0.0298 dS/m. Thus, these
errors were also reasonably low. Similarly, the corre-
sponding absolute arithmetic mean errors for the 0.4
m water table data were 0.4725 and 0.4514 dS/m, and
for the 0.8 m water table were 0.4935 and 0.4850
dS/m. In light of the observed salinity range (0.52 to
7.21 dS/m), and considering the inherent variability
in the field, these errors are rather small.
General ANN model with Replicate Data
for Any Water Table Depth
In the previous step, different ANN models were
developed for each water table depth and were found
to do a satisfactory job in simulating soil salinities at
different depths. Next, efforts were made to develop a
generalized ANN model that would work for e:ither
water table depth. The RMS error varied in this case
from 0.0736 to 0.0591 for different number of PEs
(Figure 1). A gradual decrease in RMS error values
was observed with increasing numbers of PEs, up to
o o 00 0 •...
0 •a
0 •.OC [Testing
• d..d b... •• Training
0- •0• .0 • S.
0
. • • . 00 0 •.
0
4 6 8
Observed salinity dS/m
95 JAWRA
 Patel, Prasher, Goel, and Bassi

0 OS
0 S 0
6
(/.)

0 • • . . 0••. 0 • 00
.00 . •. 0
0 Testing
-4. 0 •.0. .
0
• 0V00
0
• Training
C)
— ..QUb. %I

..._q..
0
• 0. •.p.10
— ••. DO
%d
o.
•00g • .1

2 ,t. . 12•. °'• •

.dsa

0
0 2 4 6 8
Observed salinity dSIm

Figure 3. Observed and ANN Predicted Salinity in 0.8 m Water Table.

TABLE 1. Statistics for Results from Best Models in Different Categories.

Replicate Data Water Tables Mean Data Water Tables

Data 0.4 m 0.8 m Combined 0.4 m 0.8 m Combined
PEs 20 7 6 24 17 14
RMS Error 0.0602 0.0576 0.0591 0.0218 0.0493 0.0401
Arithmetic Mean Error Training 0.0024 0.0112 0.0031 0.0080 0.0051 0.0035
Testing 0.0539 0.0298 0.0202 -0.0411 0.0527 -0.0228
Absolute Arithmetic Mean Error Training 0.4725 0.4935 0.5072 0. 1881 0.3325 0.3439
Testing 0.4514 0.4850 0.4943 0.1581 0.3974 0.3042
Standard Deviation Error Training 0.6802 0.6645 0.6937 0.2560 0.4124 0.4252
Testing 0.6291 0.6414 0.6600 0.1805 0.4983 0.4059
Correlation Coefficient Training 0.8597 0.8812 0.8679 0.9806 0.9508 0.9421
Testing 0.8875 0.9134 0.8940 0.9912 0.9430 0.9636
Total 0.8689 0.8888 0.8738 0.9805 0.9490 0.9472

NOTE: RMS error, arithmetic mean error, absolute arithmetic mean error and standard deviation are in dS/m.

six PEs (Figure 1). The addition of more PEs in the
hidden layer did not result in any further reduction of
RMS error values. Thus, the ANN model with 6 PEs
was found to be the best in this case (RMS error value
of 0.0591). To check the overall performance of the
JAWRA
model, the salinity values were predicted for training
and testing data. The predicted salinity values from
the ANN model and the observed values were in good
agreement for both training and testing data (arith-
metic mean error of 0.0031 and 0.0202 dS/m, absolute
96 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION
 Soil Salinity Prediction using Artificial Neural Networks

arithmetic mean error of 0.5072 and 0.4943 dSIm, and
correlation coefficient of 0.80 and 0.89, for training
and testing data, respectively) (Table 1). On compar-
ing the salinity predicted by the generalized ANN
model with that predicted by the ANNs developed in
the previous step, for individual water tables, it is
clear from Figure 4 that they are very close to each
other (correlation coefficient 0.99). The paired t-test of
this data revealed no significant difference (P<0.05)
between simulation results. This implies that the
ANN developed with combined data adequately simu-
lates salinity with varying water table depths.
As mentioned earlier, there were different salt
build-up patterns depending upon the water table
depths, subirrigation water salinity, depth of salinity
measurement, and days of salinity measurement
(Patel, 1997). Correlation coefficients between the
observed and simulated salinity (0.86 to 0.91), abso-
lute arithmetic mean error (0.1820 to 0.5046 dS/m),
arithmetic mean error (-0.0022 to 0.0149 dS/m), and
standard deviation (0.2413 to 0.6869 dS/m) indicated
a good agreement between observed and predicted
salinity values (Table 1). Although, the above statisti-
cal analysis establishes the overall good performance
of ANN models, it is still difficult to comment on its
capability to simulate salt build-up trends, which are
observed to be different in different ranges. Pate], et
al. (2000) also reported that in spite of the overall
good performance of ANN models, differences in sim-
ulated models and observed values in certain ranges
was found to be more pronounced, however, further
clarification was not provided. Therefore, the ability
of ANNs to distinguish between these different trends
under different scenarios was evaluated by plotting
the observed and predicted salinity values (Figure 5).
It is evident from Figure 5 that the observed and sim-
ulated salinities are in close agreement. Thus, the
salt build-up trends at various depths for lysimeters
under both water tables is well simulated by the ANN
model (Figures 5a through 5f).
ANN Models With Mean Salinity Data
Inherent variability in the observed data is evident
from Figure 5 and is demonstrated by the dispersion
(standard deviation) in observed salinity for diffe:rent
replicates under a particular set of conditions. This

6
Ec
.4
c
o

0 2 4 6 8

Predicted salinity (dS/m)

Separate water table data

Figure 4. Comparison of Salinity Predicted by Models Developed With Separate Water Table
Data and the Model Developed With the Combined Data for Both Water Tables.

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES AssociATioN 97 JAWRA

 Patel, Prasher, Goel, and Bassi

.u. 8 ,
a. At 0.1 m depth with 0.4 m water table
8 At O.3 dgth table

6:,
qp
O.mL1jaj
6

4 4
.2 2 0
(I) ,
0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80

rv
8 c. At 0.1 m depth with O.8rnwater table
4fiuLlffuj
8 d. At 0.3 mdepth with 0.8 m water table
i uj qj
6 6

4 4

2 2

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80

e. At 0.Srndepth with 0.8mwater table f. At 0.7 m depth with 0.8 m water table
8 8'

6: 6'

4 4

2'
= Do 2

0 I I

0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80
Days after planting Days after planting

Observed 0 1 dS/m 0 5 dS/m 9 dS/m

Predicted ldS/m • 5dS/m 9 dS/m
Standard deviation ldS/m o 5dS/m U 9 dS/m
(observed)

Figure 5. Observed and Predicted Soil Solution Salinity in the Lysimeters With
Water Tables at 0.4 m and 0.8 m, Subirrigated With 1, 5, and 9 dSIm Water.

variability can be eliminated using a mean value.
Therefore, ANN models were developed using the
mean salinity values for the 0.4 m and 0.8 m water
tables separately and with both water tables corn-
JAWRA
bined. The minimum RMS error values obtained
using the mean salinity values were 0.0218 (24 PEs),
0.0493 (17 PEs), and 0.401 (14 PEs) (Figure 1, Table
1). The correlation coefficients between the observed
98 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION
 Soil Salinity Prediction using Artificial Neural Networks
and simulated values were 0.98, 0.95 and 0.94 for
training data of the three cases (Table 1), and the cor-
responding values for testing data were 0.99, 0.94,
and 0.96 for testing data (Table 1). These values for
the entire data set were 0.98, 0.95, and 0.95. These
values apparently indicate that the ANNs developed
with the mean data are more accurate than those
developed with the data obtained from individual
replicates (Table 1). However, a closer scrutiny of the
results shows that this is not the case. An ANN model
predicts a single salinity value for a given set of condi-
tions (i.e., for a particular treatment with 12 repli-
cates). In this case there were 12 different input
values and only one ANN predicted output. Therefore,
although salinity values from a number of replicates
may be supplied for training, the mean observed
salinity value for a given set of conditions could be
used for the comparison with that of the predicted
salinity value. Thus, for ANNs developed using repli-
cate data, the correlation between the observed mean
salinity values and predicted salinity values was also
determined for the entire dataset. In this case, the
correlation coefficient values were found to be 0.98,
0.95, and 0.94 for the models developed using the
replicate data from the 0.4 m water table, 0.8 m water
table, and the combine dataset, respectively (the cor-
relation coefficient for the entire replicate data set
were 0.87, 0.89, and 0.87) (Table 1). These values are
almost the same as those obtained with the ANNs
developed using the mean salinity data. Therefore,
ANN models, which were developed using either
replicate data or mean values, predicted similar salin-
ity values.
CONCLUSIONS
Artificial neural networks were successfully
applied to predict soil salinity values in lysimeters
irrigated with brackish water through subirrigation.
The depth of the water table, the salinity level of the
irrigation water, the depth of measurement of the soil
salinity, and the number of days after the initiation of
irrigation were all considered as input parameters.
Feed-forward, back propagation ANN models with a
varying number of processing elements were devel-
oped. The RMS error values from ANNs using salinity
data from replicate lysimeters, ranged from 0.0674 to
0.0602, 0.0766 to 0.0576, and 0.0736 to 0.0591,
respectively, for datasets corresponding to the water
table depths of 0.4 m and 0.8 m, and a combined
dataset for both depths. The correlation coefficients
values between observed salinity values and those
predicted by the ANN models with the minimum
RMS error were 0.86, 0.88, and 0.87 for the three
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION
types of replicate data used for training the ANNs.
The ANN models developed separately for each water
table treatment did not perform better than the model
developed for the combined dataset. The results of
this study also indicate that either replicates data or
the mean data for the replicates of the given treat-
ments can be used for the development of effective
ANN models.
LITERATURE CITED
Batchelor, W. D., X. B. Yand, and A. T. Tschanz, 1997. Development
of a Neural Network for Soybean Rust Epidemics. Transactions
of the ASAE 40(1):247-252.
Broner I. and S. Comstock, 1997. Combining Expert Systems and
Neural Networks for Learning Site Specific Conditions. Comput-
ers and Electronics in Agriculture Journal 19:37-53.
Chakraborty, K., K Mehrotra, C. K. Mohan, and S. Ranka, 1992.
Forecasting the Behavior of Multivariate Time Series Using
Neural Networks. Neural Networks 5(6):961-970.
Clair, T. A., and J. M. Ehrman, 1998. Using Neural Networks to
Assess the Influence of Changing Seasonal Climates in Modify-
ing Discharge, Dissolved Organic Carbon, and Nitrogen Export
in Eastern Canadian Rivers. Water Resour. Res. 34(3):447-455.
Comfort, S. D., W. P. Inskeep, and R. H. Lockerman, 1993.
Observed and Simulated Transport of a Conservative Tracer
Under Line-source Irrigation. J. Environment Quality 22(3):554-
561.
Deck, S. H., C. T. Morrow, P. H. Heinemann, and H. J. Sommer III,
1995. Comparison of a Neural Network and Traditional Classifi-
er for Machine Vision Inspection of Potatoes. Applied Engineer-
ing in Agriculture 11(2):319-326.
Ghazanfari, A., J. Irudayaraj, and A. Kausalik, 1996. Grading Pis-
tachio Nuts Using a Neural Network Approach. Transactions of
the ASAE 39(6):2319-2324.
Gimblett, R. H. and G. L. Ball, 1995. Neural Network Architectures
for Monitoring and Simulating Changes in Forest Resource
Management. Al Applications 9(2):103-123.
Hsu, K.-L., H. V. Gupta, and S. Sorooshian, 1995. Artificial Neural
Network Modelling of the Rainfall-Runoff Process. Water
Resour. Res. 31(1O):2517-2530.
Jayawardena, A. W. and D. A. K. Fernando, 1995. Artificial Neural
Networks in Hydro-Meteorological Modeling. Developments in
Neural Networks and Evolutionary Computing for Civil and
Structural Engineering, Civil-Comp Press, Edinburg, United
Kingdom, pp. 115-120.
Kok, R., R. Lacroix, G. Clark, and E. Taillefer, 1994. Limitation of a
Procedural Greenhouse Model With an Artificial Neural Net-
work. Canadian Agricultural Engineering 36(2):117-126.
Lacroix, R., F. Salehi, X. Z. Yang, and K. M. Wade, 1997. Effects of
Data Processing on the Performance of Artificial Neural Net-
works for Dairy Yield Prediction and Cow Culling Classification.
Transactions of the ASAE 40(3):839-846.
Maier, H. R. and G. C. Dandy, 1996. The Use of Artificial Neural
Networks for the Prediction of Water Quality Parameters. Water
Resour. Research 32(4):1013-1022.
Nakano, K., 1997. Application of Neural Networks to the Color
Grading of Apples. Computer and Electronics in Agriculture
18(2,3): 105-116.
NeuralWare, 1993. Neural Computing: A Technology Handbook for
Professional Il/Plus and NeuralWorks Explorer. NeuralWare
Inc., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
99 JAWRA
 Patel, Prasher, Goel, and Bassi

Pachepsky, Y. A., D. Timlin, and G.Varallyay, 1996. Artificial Neu-

ral Networks to Estimate Soil Water Retention from Easily
Measurable Data. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 60:727-733.
Patel, R. M., 1997. Subirrigation with Brackish Water. Unpublished
Ph.D. Thesis, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
Patel, R. M., 5. 0. Prasher, P. K. Goel, and R. B. Bonnell, 2000.
A Neural Network Approach to Predict Soil Salinity. ICID J.
49(2):67-78.
Seginer, I., 1997. Some Artificial Neural Network Applications to
Greenhouse Environment Control. Computers and Electronics
in Agriculture 18(2,3):167-180.
Shukla, M. B., R. Kok, S. 0. Prasher, G. Clark, and R. Lacroix,
1996. Use of Artificial Neural Networks in Transient Drainage
Design. Transactions of the ASAE 39(1):119-124.
Van den Broek, J. A. Elbers, J. Huygen, P. Kabat, J. G. Wresseling,
J. C. van Dam, and R. A. Feddes, 1994. SWAP 1993 — Input
Instructions Manual. Vakgroep Waterhuishouding, Nieuwe
Kanaal, Wageningen.
Wang, D., F. E. Dowell, and R. E. Lacey, 1999. Single Wheat Kernel
Color Classification Using Neural Networks. Transactions of the
ASAE 42(1):233-240.
Wen, C.-G. and C-S. Lee, 1998. A Neural Network Approach to
Multiobjective Optimization for Water Quality Management in a
River Basin. Water Resour. Research 34(3):427-436.
Workman, S. R., J. E. Parsons, G. M. Chescheir, R. W. Skaggs, and
J. F. Rice, 1994. Drainmod User's Guide. USDA, Natural
Resources Conservation Service, Washington, D.C.
Yang, C.-C., S. 0. Prasher, and J. A. Landry, 1999. Use of Artificial
Neural Networks to Recognise Weeds in a Corn Field. Journée
d'information Scientifique et Technique en genie agroalimen-
taire, Saint-Hyacinthe, Quebec, Canada, pp. 60-65. Conseil des
productions végétales du Québec, Inc.
Yang, C.-C., S. 0. Prasher and R. Lacroix, 1995. Applications of
Artificial Neural Networks to Land Drainage Engineering.
Transactions of the ASAE 39(2):525-533.

JAWRA 100 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION