Rainfall is the major component of the hydrologic cycle and it is the primary source of runoff. The main purpose of this study was to estimate daily discharge by employing an Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Inference System (ANFIS) model using rainfall and soil moisture data at three different depths (5 cm, 100 cm and bedrock) for the Damanganga basin. The length of the data for the study period 1983–2022 is 39 years. The model employed nine membership functions for each variable of soil moisture, rainfall, discharge and 30 rules were optimized. The results were compared considering a range of model performance indicators as correlation coefficient (R2) and Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE) coefficient. The model application results shows that soil moisture at bedrock gives more precise value of daily discharge with (R2) and NSE value as 0.9936 and 0.9981, respectively, as compared to the soil moisture at depths of 5 and 100 cm. The better results obtained for the measurement of soil moisture in the deeper soil layer are consistent with the hydrological behavior anticipated for the analyzed catchment, where the root-zone soil layer is the driver of the runoff response rather than the surface observations. This study can be helpful to hydrologists in selecting appropriate rainfall–runoff models.

  • To estimate the daily discharge by employing an Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Inference System (ANFIS) model using rainfall and soil moisture data.

  • The model employed nine membership functions for each variable of soil moisture, rainfall, discharge and 30 rules were optimized.

  • The results were compared considering a range of model performance indicators such as correlation coefficient (R2) and Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE) coefficient.

The prediction of availability of water plays an effective role in the planning and management of water resource projects (Vakili & Mousavi 2022). The calculation of runoff resulting from rainfall on river catchments is the first step in the estimation of water availability (Vakili & Mousavi 2022). In order to manage water resources, river flow forecasting helps to control reservoir outflows during low river flows and warns of impending stages during floods (Anusree & Varghese 2016). Hydrologic systems have seen several changes as a result of rapid urbanization, industrialization, deforestation, transformation of the land's cover, and irrigation. In addition to the climate change, soil heterogeneity directly affects different river flows all over the world (Devia et al. 2015). Rainfall–runoff transformation is impacted by soil moisture (Casper et al. 2007). As it regulates the amount of rainfall entering the ground, runoff or evaporation from the soil, it is considered the main factor in the hydrologic system (Brocca et al. 2009). The hydric condition of the soil is greatly influenced by hydrological models. Therefore, the efficiency of the rainfall–runoff process should increase with more precise depiction of the variable in the basin.

Various techniques have been developed by hydrologists to see the effects of rainfall on runoff where numerous models have attempted to demonstrate the physical processes that occur within it (Tayfur & Singh 2011). The rainfall–runoff models are distinguished as empirical or data-driven models, conceptual models, and physically-based models (Meshram et al. 2022). Data-driven models use nonlinear relationships between inputs and outputs. They are observation-oriented and depend heavily on input accuracy (Masih et al. 2010). Conceptual models interpret runoff processes by connecting simplified components in the overall hydrological process. They are based on reservoir storages and simplified equations of the physical hydrological process, which provide a conceptual idea of the behaviors in a catchment (Devia et al. 2015). Physical models, also called process-based or mechanistic models, are based on the understanding of the physics related to the hydrological processes (Jehanzaib et al. 2022). Physically-based equations govern the model to represent multiple parts of real hydrologic responses in the catchment.

An Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Inference System (ANFIS) model was applied for event-based rainfall–runoff modeling and its performance was compared with that of a well-established physical-based model (Talei et al. 2010). The results indicated that ANFIS yielded comparable results to the physical model and provided superior peak flow estimation. Similarly, Dorum et al. (2010) investigated rainfall–runoff data utilizing artificial neural network (ANN) and ANFIS models, juxtaposed against a multi-regression (MR) model. Their findings suggested that both ANN and ANFIS models were effective in discerning the rainfall–runoff relationship, offering viable alternatives to traditional MR methods (Panigrahi & Mujumdar 2000).

The ANFIS is developed to simulate daily discharge for the Damanganga basin. ANFIS is a data-driven model that has no parametric transfer function for the correlation of input and output variables. The model used rainfall and soil moisture at three distinct depths (5 cm, 100 cm and bedrock) as the input parameters for the simulation of the daily discharge and to see the accuracy of the model at a certain depth. The length of the data is 39 years (1983–2022).

Objective

The objective of the present study is to develop a rainfall–runoff model considering soil moisture at three different depths (5 cm, 100 cm and bedrock) in the Damanganga basin.

The Damanganga basin is located between the North latitudes of 19°52′ and 20°26′ and East longitudes of 72°50′ and 73°39′. The Damanganga river drains a total area of 2,318 km2. The Damanganga river originates in the Sahyadri hill ranges close to the village of Ambegaon in the Dindori taluka of Nasik district of Maharashtra State at 950 m above the average sea level and traverses a total distance of about 131.30 km before it drains into the Arabian Sea at Daman. The Damanganga river basin has a fan-shaped catchment which is affected by devastating flash floods. The river has experienced unexcepted floods in 1994, 1997, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2013, 2016 and 2019 from June to September (South-West Monsoon Season). The basin's climate is distinguished by a hot summer, with the exception of the south-west monsoon season. The temperature is at its highest in May and lowest from December to January. During the south-west monsoon season, the region receives over 98% of its yearly rainfall. In the pre- and post-monsoon season, the average wind speed and the relative humidity varies from 0.7 to 4.3 km/h and 65.5 and 91.9%, respectively, in the Damanganga basin. The soil found in the Damanganga basin can broadly be divided into three groups: red coarse soil, coastal alluvial soil and black soil. 39 years (1983–2022) of daily rainfall and discharge data are provided from the State Water Data Centre (SWDC), Gandhinagar and the Soil Moisture and Temperature data are collected through the NASA Power Website (Figures 1 and 2).
Figure 1

Study area map of the Damanganga basin.

Figure 1

Study area map of the Damanganga basin.

Close modal
Figure 2

Damanganga basin map with all stations.

Figure 2

Damanganga basin map with all stations.

Close modal

Fuzzy logic, despite its uncertainty in hydrological processes, has emerged as a valuable tool for modeling rainfall–runoff phenomena. Rather than exact numerical values, it approaches variables parametrically with a focus on uncertainty. In a neuro-fuzzy system, neural networks utilize training data to establish membership functions and fuzzy rules for the fuzzy system. (Heydari et al. 2018). Numerous neuro-fuzzy systems support the utilization of gradient descent learning, particularly when employing differentiable membership functions (Morales et al. 2021). These systems are built upon the fuzzy architecture pioneered by Takagi, Sugeno, and Kang (Takagi & Sugeno 1985). ANFIS, one of the earliest and widely recognized neuro-fuzzy systems, was initially endorsed by Jang in 1991 and has since found extensive application in rainfall–runoff modeling (Anusree & Varghese 2016).

The ANFIS model, proposed by Takagi & Sugeno (1985), combines the strengths of ANNs and fuzzy logic systems. By leveraging learning capabilities of ANNs, ANFIS can derive fuzzy IF-THEN rules with appropriate membership functions, allowing it to effectively model nonlinear functions and identify nonlinear components online in a control system (Tayfur & Brocca 2015). This unique integration enables ANFIS to learn from imprecise input data and provide inference capabilities, making it adept at predicting chaotic time series. Additionally, ANFIS benefits from a more stable training process by effectively utilizing the self-learning and memory abilities inherent in neural networks (Gohil et al. 2024). This combination of features contributes to ANFIS's remarkable results in various applications requiring nonlinear modeling and prediction tasks.

In the present study, ANFIS is used to simulate the daily discharge considering the soil moisture by using the Fuzzy Logic Toolbox in the MATLAB software. Fuzzy logic was developed as a valuable method to model the rainfall–runoff phenomenon. However, it is not quite certain how hydrological processes work (Erdik 2009; Vakili & Mousavi 2022). An ANFIS is similar to ANNs which mainly depends on the Takagi-Sugeno method which was developed in first initial year of the 1990s (Sajindra et al. 2023). By combining ANN and fuzzy logic models, it is possible to capture the benefits of both the techniques in a single model. The neural network uses training data to determine the membership functions and fuzzy rules of a fuzzy logic system in the frame of a neuro-fuzzy system (Kapadia et al. 2023). It has the ability to learn and approximate nonlinear functions, and resembles a set of IF-THEN fuzzy rule (Mehta et al. 2023). The ANFIS network's initial layer explains how it differs from a standard neural network. In order to operate, neural networks often preprocess the data, converting the characteristics into normalized values between 0 and 1. A sigmoid function is not required by an ANFIS neural network, but it performs the preprocessing phase by turning numerical inputs into fuzzy values (Tahmasebi 2012). For the analysis, 70% of the data are used for training purpose and 30% are used for testing purposes (Brocca et al. 2011, 2012).

Statistics of the data

Tables 1 and 2 show the basic statistics of the rainfall, soil moisture at 5 cm, soil moisture at 100 cm, soil moisture at bedrock and discharge data of the Pingalwada, Ozerkheda and Nanipalsan Stations.

Table 1

Statistics of the input data

RainfallSoil moisture (5 cm)Soil moisture (100 cm)Soil moisture (bedrock)
Mean 13.521 0.849 0.876 0.855 
Standard error 0.321 0.002 0.001 0.001 
Median 4.91 0.92 0.93 0.9 
Mode 0.95 0.98 
Standard deviation 22.450 0.189 0.128 0.127 
Sample variance 504.00 0.035 0.016 0.016 
Range 227.45 0.9 0.41 0.88 
Minimum 0.1 0.59 0.12 
Maximum 227.45 
RainfallSoil moisture (5 cm)Soil moisture (100 cm)Soil moisture (bedrock)
Mean 13.521 0.849 0.876 0.855 
Standard error 0.321 0.002 0.001 0.001 
Median 4.91 0.92 0.93 0.9 
Mode 0.95 0.98 
Standard deviation 22.450 0.189 0.128 0.127 
Sample variance 504.00 0.035 0.016 0.016 
Range 227.45 0.9 0.41 0.88 
Minimum 0.1 0.59 0.12 
Maximum 227.45 
Table 2

Statistics of the input data

Discharge (Pingalwada)Discharge (Ozerkheda)Discharge (Nanipalsan)
Mean 25.115 86.307 68.919 
Standard error 0.655 2.299 1.912 
Median 9.475 42.63 35.15 
Mode 
Standard deviation 45.762 160.638 133.590 
Sample variance 2,094.191 25,804.671 17,846.485 
Range 762.218 3,206.124 3,173.18 
Minimum −73.124 
Maximum 762.218 3,133 3,173.18 
Discharge (Pingalwada)Discharge (Ozerkheda)Discharge (Nanipalsan)
Mean 25.115 86.307 68.919 
Standard error 0.655 2.299 1.912 
Median 9.475 42.63 35.15 
Mode 
Standard deviation 45.762 160.638 133.590 
Sample variance 2,094.191 25,804.671 17,846.485 
Range 762.218 3,206.124 3,173.18 
Minimum −73.124 
Maximum 762.218 3,133 3,173.18 

Simulation in the ANFIS model

The ANFIS model is developed for the simulation of daily discharge on the basis of rainfall and observed soil moisture for the time period of 1983–2022 for the Damanganga basin. The model employed two variables and investigated three cases. Rainfall data are used for all cases with soil moisture data at 5 cm (case 1), 100 cm (case 2) and bedrock (case 3). Soil moisture data at 5 cm, 100 cm and bedrock with rainfall can form four input variables and nine fuzzy membership functions are selected for each subset. The model uses nine fuzzy membership functions for each variable. The membership functions are very very low (VVL), very low (VL), low (L), medium low (ML), medium (M), medium high (MH), high (H), very high (VH), very very high (VVH). Soil moisture at 5 cm had a range of 0–9% vol/vol, soil moisture at 100 cm had a range of 0–41% vol/vol, soil moisture at bedrock had a range of 0–0.88% vol/vol, rainfall had a range of 0–227.45 mm/day and discharge had a range of 0–762.218 m3s−1 and nine subsets are formed using the commonly employed triangular membership functions. FIS properties, membership functions and rules were manually adjusted by using the ANFIS GUI editor tool.

Pingalwada station

For training

Figure 3 represents the simulation of the ANFIS model for case 1 (rainfall with soil moisture at 5 cm) where the model captured the highest peak at the end of the study period with computed determination coefficient, R2, and Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE) are 0.8053 and 0.7802, respectively.
Figure 3

Comparison of observed and simulated discharges for the ANFIS model at 5 cm (Pingalwada Station).

Figure 3

Comparison of observed and simulated discharges for the ANFIS model at 5 cm (Pingalwada Station).

Close modal
Figure 4 represents the simulation of the ANFIS model for case 2 (rainfall with soil moisture at 100 cm) where the fuzzy model is found to capture the overall trend but also to underestimate some of the peak values with computed determination coefficient, R2, and NSE are 0.8758 and 0.8611, respectively.
Figure 4

Comparison of observed and simulated discharges for the ANFIS model at 100 cm (Pingalwada Station).

Figure 4

Comparison of observed and simulated discharges for the ANFIS model at 100 cm (Pingalwada Station).

Close modal
Figure 5 represents the simulation of ANFIS for case 3 (rainfall with soil moisture at bedrock) which shows the best results with R2 = 0.9579 and NSE = 0.9530.
Figure 5

Comparison of observed and simulated discharges for the ANFIS model at bedrock (Pingalwada Station).

Figure 5

Comparison of observed and simulated discharges for the ANFIS model at bedrock (Pingalwada Station).

Close modal

For testing

Figure 6 represents the simulation of the ANFIS model for case 1 (rainfall with soil moisture at 5 cm) where the model captured the highest peak at the end of the study period with computed determination coefficient,  R2, and NSE are 0.9114 and 0.9849, respectively.
Figure 6

Comparison of observed and simulated discharges for the ANFIS model at 5 cm (Pingalwada Station).

Figure 6

Comparison of observed and simulated discharges for the ANFIS model at 5 cm (Pingalwada Station).

Close modal
Figure 7 represents the simulation of the ANFIS model for case 2 (rainfall with soil moisture at 100 cm) where the fuzzy model is found to capture the overall trend but also to underestimate some of the peak values with computed determination coefficient, R2, and NSE are 0.9134 and 0.9839, respectively.
Figure 7

Comparison of observed and simulated discharges for the ANFIS model at 100 cm (Pingalwada Station).

Figure 7

Comparison of observed and simulated discharges for the ANFIS model at 100 cm (Pingalwada Station).

Close modal
Figure 8 represents the simulation of ANFIS for case 3 (rainfall with soil moisture at bedrock) showing the best results with R2 = 0.9534 and NSE = 0.9881.
Figure 8

Comparison of observed and simulated discharges for the ANFIS model at bedrock (Pingalwada Station).

Figure 8

Comparison of observed and simulated discharges for the ANFIS model at bedrock (Pingalwada Station).

Close modal

Ozerkheda station

For training

Figure 9 represents the simulation of the ANFIS model for case 1 (rainfall with soil moisture at 5 cm) where the model captured the highest peak at the end of the study period with computed determination coefficient, R2, and NSE are 0.8524 and 0.8519, respectively.
Figure 9

Comparison of observed and simulated discharges for the ANFIS model at 5 cm (Ozerkheda Station).

Figure 9

Comparison of observed and simulated discharges for the ANFIS model at 5 cm (Ozerkheda Station).

Close modal
Figure 10 represents the simulation of the ANFIS model for case 2 (rainfall with soil moisture at 100 cm) where the fuzzy model is found to capture the overall trend but also to underestimate some of the peak values with computed determination coefficient, R2, and NSE are 0.9265 and 0.9241, respectively.
Figure 10

Comparison of observed and simulated discharges for the ANFIS model at 100 cm (Ozerkheda Station).

Figure 10

Comparison of observed and simulated discharges for the ANFIS model at 100 cm (Ozerkheda Station).

Close modal
Figure 11 represents the simulation of the ANFIS model for case 3 (rainfall with soil moisture at bedrock) showing the best results with R2 = 0.9735 and NSE = 0.9729.
Figure 11

Comparison of observed and simulated discharges for the ANFIS model at bedrock (Ozerkheda Station).

Figure 11

Comparison of observed and simulated discharges for the ANFIS model at bedrock (Ozerkheda Station).

Close modal

For testing

Figure 12 represents the simulation of the ANFIS model for case 1 (rainfall with soil moisture at 5 cm) where the model captured the highest peak at the end of the study period with computed determination coefficient, R2, and NSE are 0.9429 and 0.9952, respectively.
Figure 12

Comparison of observed and simulated discharges for the ANFIS model at 5 cm (Ozerkheda Station).

Figure 12

Comparison of observed and simulated discharges for the ANFIS model at 5 cm (Ozerkheda Station).

Close modal
Figure 13 represents the simulation of the ANFIS model for case 2 (rainfall with soil moisture at 100 cm) where the fuzzy model is found to capture the overall trend but also to underestimate some of the peak values with computed determination coefficient, R2, and NSE are 0.9671 and 0.9967, respectively.
Figure 13

Comparison of observed and simulated discharges for the ANFIS model at 100 cm (Ozerkheda Station).

Figure 13

Comparison of observed and simulated discharges for the ANFIS model at 100 cm (Ozerkheda Station).

Close modal
Figure 14 represents the simulation of ANFIS for case 3 (rainfall with soil moisture at bedrock) showing the best results with R2 = 0.9879 and NSE = 0.9974.
Figure 14

Comparison of observed and simulated discharges for the ANFIS model at bedrock (Ozerkheda Station).

Figure 14

Comparison of observed and simulated discharges for the ANFIS model at bedrock (Ozerkheda Station).

Close modal

Nanipalsan station

For training

Figure 15 represents the simulation of the ANFIS model for case 1 (rainfall with soil moisture at 5 cm) where the model captured the highest peak at the end of the study period with computed determination coefficient, R2, and NSE are 0.9304 and 0.9236, respectively.
Figure 15

Comparison of observed and simulated discharges for the ANFIS model at 5 cm (Nanipalsan Station).

Figure 15

Comparison of observed and simulated discharges for the ANFIS model at 5 cm (Nanipalsan Station).

Close modal
Figure 16 represents the simulation of the ANFIS model for case 2 (rainfall with soil moisture at 100 cm) where the fuzzy model is found to capture the overall trend but also to underestimate some of the peak values with computed determination coefficient, R2, and NSE are 0.9181 and 0.9158, respectively.
Figure 16

Comparison of observed and simulated discharges for the ANFIS model at 100 cm (Nanipalsan Station).

Figure 16

Comparison of observed and simulated discharges for the ANFIS model at 100 cm (Nanipalsan Station).

Close modal
Figure 17 represents the simulation of ANFIS for case 3 (rainfall with soil moisture at bedrock) shows the best results with R2 = 0.9577 and NSE = 0.9556.
Figure 17

Comparison of observed and simulated discharges for the ANFIS model at bedrock (Nanipalsan Station).

Figure 17

Comparison of observed and simulated discharges for the ANFIS model at bedrock (Nanipalsan Station).

Close modal

For testing

Figure 18 represents the simulation of the ANFIS model for case 1 (rainfall with soil moisture at 5 cm) where the model captured the highest peak at the end of the study period with computed determination coefficient, R2, and NSE are 0.9581 and 0.9896, respectively.
Figure 18

Comparison of observed and simulated discharges for the ANFIS model at 5 cm (Nanipalsan Station).

Figure 18

Comparison of observed and simulated discharges for the ANFIS model at 5 cm (Nanipalsan Station).

Close modal
Figure 19 represents the simulation of the ANFIS model for case 2 (rainfall with soil moisture at 100 cm) where the fuzzy model is found to capture the overall trend but also to underestimate some of the peak values with computed determination coefficient, R2, and NSE are 0.9862 and 0.9939, respectively.
Figure 19

Comparison of observed and simulated discharges for the ANFIS model at 100 cm (Nanipalsan Station).

Figure 19

Comparison of observed and simulated discharges for the ANFIS model at 100 cm (Nanipalsan Station).

Close modal
Figure 20 represents the simulation of ANFIS for case 3 (rainfall with soil moisture at bedrock) shows the best results with R2 = 0.9936 and NSE = 0.9981.
Figure 20

Comparison of observed and simulated discharges for the ANFIS model at bedrock (Nanipalsan Station).

Figure 20

Comparison of observed and simulated discharges for the ANFIS model at bedrock (Nanipalsan Station).

Close modal

In this study, the ANFIS model is developed to simulate daily discharge as a function of soil moisture (5 cm, 100 cm and bedrock) and rainfall for the Damanganga basin. Nine fuzzy membership functions for each variable of soil moisture, rainfall and discharge are constructed. The analysis for the model is carried out for the time period of 1983–2022. As per the regression analysis, the soil moisture at bedrock gives more precise values of coefficient of determination R2 and NSE as compared to the values obtained from soil moisture at 5 and 100 cm. The better results obtained for the soil moisture (surface to bedrock) agree well with the anticipated hydrological behavior, which depends more on measurements made in the sub-surface soil than in the surface soil for determining runoff, as the soil found in the bedrock is saturated. The drawback of the models is the handling of the imprecise data and the firing strength of the rules is weak. The future research for this study includes the simulation of daily discharge by MISDc (Modello Idrologico Semi-Distribuito in continuo), ANNs and Genetic Algorithm (GA) models. This study can be helpful for future research scholars and to hydrological scientists in selecting appropriate rainfall–runoff models.

All authors have read, understood, and have complied as applicable with the statement on ‘Ethical responsibilities of Authors’ as found in the Instructions for Authors.

This research received no external funding.

All relevant data are included in the paper or its Supplementary Information.

The authors declare there is no conflict.

Brocca
L.
,
Melone
F.
,
Moramarco
T.
&
Singh
V. P.
2009
Assimilation of observed soil moisture data in storm rainfall-runoff modeling
.
Journal of Hydrologic Engineering
14
(
2
),
153
165
.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)1084-0699(2009)14:2(153)
.
Brocca
L.
,
Melone
F.
&
Moramarco
T.
2011
Distributed rainfall–runoff modelling for flood frequency estimation and flood forecasting
.
Hydrological Processes
25
(
18
),
2801
2813
.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.8042
.
Brocca
L.
,
Tullo
T.
,
Melone
F.
,
Moramarco
T.
&
Morbidelli
R.
2012
Catchment scale soil moisture spatial-temporal variability
.
Journal of Hydrology
422–423
,
63
75
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.12.039
.
Casper
M.
,
Gemmar
P.
,
Gronz
O.
,
Johst
M.
&
Stuber
M.
2007
Fuzzy logic-based rainfall–runoff modelling using soil moisture measurements to represent system state
.
Hydrological Sciences Journal
52
(
3
),
478
490
.
https://doi.org/10.1623/hysj.52.3.478
.
Devia
G. K.
,
Ganasri
B. P.
&
Dwarakish
G. S.
2015
A review on hydrological models
.
Aquatic Procedia
4
,
1001
1007
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aqpro.2015.02.126
.
Dorum
A.
,
Yarar
A.
,
Sevimli
M. F.
&
Onüçyildiz
M.
2010
Modelling the rainfall–runoff data of Susurluk basin
.
Expert Systems with Applications
37
(
9
),
6587
6593
.
Gohil
M.
,
Mehta
D.
&
Shaikh
M.
2024
An integration of geospatial and fuzzy-logic techniques for multi-hazard mapping
.
Results in Engineering
21
,
101758
.
Heydari
M.
,
Honarbakhsh
A.
,
Pajoohesh
M.
&
Zangiabadi
M.
2018
Land use optimization using the fuzzy mathematical-spatial approach: a case study of Chelgerd watershed, Iran
.
Journal of Environmental Engineering and Landscape Management
26
(
2
),
75
87
.
Kapadia
C.
,
Patel
K.
,
Akbari
J.
,
Rathod
N.
,
Mehta
D.
&
Waikhom
S.
2023
Flood hazard mapping of lower Damanganga river basin using multi-criteria analysis and geoinformatics approach
.
LARHYSS Journal
55
,
1112
3680
.
Mehta
D.
,
Hadvani
J.
,
Kanthariya
D.
&
Sonawala
P.
 
2023
Effect of land use land cover change on runoff characteristics using curve number: A GIS and remote sensing approach
.
Journal of Hydrology Science and Technology
16
(
1
),
1
16
.
Meshram
S. G.
,
Singh
V. P.
,
Kahya
E.
,
Sepehri
M.
,
Meshram
C.
,
Hasan
M. A.
&
Duc
P. A.
2022
Assessing erosion prone areas in a watershed using interval rough-analytical hierarchy process (IR-AHP) and fuzzy logic (FL)
.
Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment
36
,
297
312
.
Morales
Y.
,
Querales
M.
,
Rosas
H.
,
Allende-Cid
H.
&
Salas
R.
2021
A self-identification Neuro-Fuzzy inference framework for modeling rainfall-runoff in a Chilean watershed
.
Journal of Hydrology
594
,
125910
.
Panigrahi
D. P.
&
Mujumdar
P. P.
2000
Reservoir operation modelling with fuzzy logic
.
Water Resources Management
14
(
2
),
89
109
.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008170632582
.
Sajindra
H.
,
Abekoon
T.
,
Wimalasiri
E. M.
,
Mehta
D.
&
Rathnayake
U.
2023
An artificial neural network for predicting groundnut yield using climatic data
.
AgriEngineering
5
(
4
),
1713
1736
.
Tahmasebi
P.
2012
A hybrid neural networks-fuzzy logic-genetic algorithm for grade estimation
.
Computers & Geosciences
42
,
18
27
.
https://doi:10.1016/j.cageo.2012.02.004
.
Takagi
T.
&
Sugeno
M.
1985
Fuzzy identification of systems and its application to modeling and control
.
IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics
15
(
1
),
116
132
.
Talei
A.
,
Chua
L. H. C.
&
Quek
C.
2010
A novel application of a neuro-fuzzy computational technique in event-based rainfall–runoff modeling
.
Expert Systems with Applications
37
(
12
),
7456
-
7468
.
Tayfur
G.
&
Brocca
L.
2015
Fuzzy logic for rainfall–runoff modelling considering soil moisture
.
Water Resources Management
29
(
10
),
3519
3533
.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-015-1012-0
.
Tayfur
G.
&
Singh
V. P.
2011
Predicting mean and bankfull discharge from channel cross-sectional area by expert and regression methods
.
Water Resources Management
25
(
5
),
1253
1267
.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-010-9741-6
.
Vakili
S.
&
Mousavi
S. M.
2022
Rainfall–runoff modeling using adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) and genetic algorithm (GA)
.
Water Supply
22
(
10
),
7460
.
https://doi.org/10.2166/ws.2022.318
.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits copying and redistribution for non-commercial purposes with no derivatives, provided the original work is properly cited (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).