in

Enhancing reservoir water quality simulation through machine learning-driven remote sensing integration with EFDC: a coupled framework for eutrophication management in data-scarce regions


Abstract

Hydrological model accuracy is often constrained by limited in-situ data. This study develops a coupled framework integrating machine-learning-based remote sensing retrievals with the Environmental Fluid Dynamics Code (EFDC) to improve reservoir water quality simulations. Landsat imagery (2013–2023) and multiple algorithms (Random Forest, Gradient Boosting, AdaBoost, etc.) were used to derive spatiotemporal distributions of total nitrogen (TN), total phosphorus (TP), and chlorophyll-a (Chl-a), which were incorporated as dynamic boundary conditions in EFDC. The coupled model reduced simulation errors by 0.13–5.28% and increased mean R² from 0.70 to 0.81. Compared with standalone EFDC, retrieval-based estimates showed lower mean relative errors for TN (20.61%), TP (28.95%), and Chl-a (26.08%). Seasonal analysis revealed Chl-a peaks in June (14.6 µg/L) and TN/TP accumulation in summer. Scenario simulations indicated that external load reduction (5–30%) effectively decreased TN and TP but had limited influence on Chl-a due to threshold effects. The optimal integrated strategy (30% external load reduction + 1.0% outflow reduction, scenario f-1) achieved concurrent reductions of 27.4% (TN), 23.7% (TP), and 13.2% (Chl-a), averaging 21.4% across all indicators. Critically, scenario analysis revealed that reducing external inflow loads alone produced limited suppression of algal biomass due to threshold effects and internal nutrient buffering, whereas combined reductions in inflow loading and moderate adjustments to hydrodynamic outflow regulation were necessary to achieve meaningful Chl-a control. These findings demonstrate that alterations to both nutrient inflow and reservoir hydrodynamics are essential levers for eutrophication management, with implications for operational decision-making in data-scarce reservoir systems worldwide.

Similar content being viewed by others

Identifying environmental impacts on planktonic algal proliferation and associated risks: a five-year observation study in Danjiangkou Reservoir, China

Seasonal variations in water quality and hydrological dynamics in a tropical reservoir driven by rainfall, runoff, and anthropogenic activities

Comprehensive monitoring of the spatiotemporal variation of water quality and its associated human health risks in Luvuvhu river catchment, Vhembe biosphere reserve, South Africa

Data availability

The data generated from the study will be provided by the corresponding author upon request.

References

  1. Ho, J. C., Michalak, A. M. & Pahlevan, N. Widespread global increase in intense lake phytoplankton blooms since the 1980s. Nature 574, 667–670 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Grill, G. et al. Mapping the world’s free-flowing rivers. Nature 569, 215–221 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Chen, Y. et al. Monthly monitoring of inundated areas and water storage dynamics in China’s large reservoirs using multisource remote sensing. Water Resour. Res. 60, e2023WR036450 (2024).

  4. Keller, A. A., Garner, K., Rao, N., Knipping, E. & Thomas, J. Hydrological models for climate-based assessments at the watershed scale: A critical review of existing hydrologic and water quality models. Sci. Total Environ. 867, 161209 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Liang, S., Jia, H., Xu, C., Xu, T. & Melching, C. A Bayesian approach for evaluation of the effect of water quality model parameter uncertainty on TMDLs: A case study of Miyun Reservoir. Sci. Total Environ. 560–561, 44–54 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Quijano, J. C., Zhu, Z., Morales, V., Landry, B. J. & Garcia, M. H. Three-dimensional model to capture the fate and transport of combined sewer overflow discharges: A case study in the Chicago Area Waterway System. Sci. Total Environ. 576, 362–373 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Jiang, L. et al. Parameter uncertainty and sensitivity analysis of water quality model in Lake Taihu, China. Ecol. Model. 375, 1–12 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Noa-Yarasca, E., Babbar-Sebens, M. & Jordan, C. E. Machine learning models for prediction of shade-affected stream temperatures. J. Hydrol. Eng. 30, 04024058 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Zhang, C. & Fu, T. Recalibration of a three-dimensional water quality model with a newly developed autocalibration toolkit (EFDC-ACT v1.0.0): How much improvement will be achieved with a wider hydrological variability? Geosci. Model. Dev. 16, 4315–4329 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Wu, G. & Xu, Z. Prediction of algal blooming using EFDC model: Case study in the Daoxiang Lake. Ecol. Model. 222, 1245–1252 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Chen, J. et al. Remote Sensing Big Data for Water Environment Monitoring: Current Status, Challenges, and Future Prospects. Earths Future. 10, e2021EF002289 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Ellis, E. A. et al. Bridging the divide between inland water quantity and quality with satellite remote sensing: An interdisciplinary review. WIREs Water. 11, e1725 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Han, Z. et al. Improving reservoir outflow estimation for ungauged basins using satellite observations and a hydrological model. Water Resour. Res. 56, e2020WR027590 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Yan, K. et al. Deep learning-based automatic extraction of cyanobacterial blooms from sentinel-2 MSI satellite data. Remote Sens. 14, 4763 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Zhu, M. et al. A review of the application of machine learning in water quality evaluation. Eco-Environ Health. 1, 107–116 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Pyo, J. et al. Using convolutional neural network for predicting cyanobacteria concentrations in river water. Water Res. 186, 116349 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Zhan, X. et al. Reconstructing historical forest spatial patterns based on CA-AdaBoost-ANN model in northern Guangzhou, China. Landsc. Urban Plan. 242, 104950 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Xu, J., Liu, Z., Hong, G. & Cao, Y. A new machine-learning-based calibration scheme for MODIS thermal infrared water vapor product using BPNN, GBDT, GRNN, KNN, MLPNN, RF, and XGBoost. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 62, 1–12 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Alavi, M., Albaji, M., Golabi, M., Ali Naseri, A. & Homayouni, S. Estimation of sugarcane evapotranspiration from remote sensing and limited meteorological variables using machine learning models. J. Hydrol. 629, 130605 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Dong, N. et al. Toward improved parameterizations of reservoir operation in ungauged basins: A synergistic framework coupling satellite remote sensing, hydrologic modeling, and conceptual operation schemes. Water Resour. Res. 59, e2022WR033026 (2023).

  21. Rafik, A. et al. Groundwater level forecasting in a data-scarce region through remote sensing data downscaling, hydrological modeling, and machine learning: A case study from Morocco. J. Hydrol. Reg. Stud. 50, 101569 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Lubczynski, M. W., Leblanc, M. & Batelaan, O. Remote sensing and hydrogeophysics give a new impetus to integrated hydrological models: A review. J. Hydrol. 633, 130901 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Meyer Oliveira, A., Fleischmann, A. S. & Paiva, R. C. D. On the contribution of remote sensing-based calibration to model hydrological and hydraulic processes in tropical regions. J. Hydrol. 597, 126184 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Jin, L. et al. Coupling the remote sensing data-enhanced SWAT model with the bidirectional long short-term memory model to improve daily streamflow simulations. J. Hydrol. 634, 131117 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Abd-Elhamid, F. Rainfall forecasting in arid regions in response to climate change using ARIMA and remote sensing. Geomat. Nat. Hazards Risk. 15, 2347414 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Saha, A. & Chandra Pal, S. Application of machine learning and emerging remote sensing techniques in hydrology: A state-of-the-art review and current research trends. J. Hydrol. 632, 130907 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Hong, S. M. et al. Autonomous calibration of EFDC for predicting chlorophyll-a using reinforcement learning and a real-time monitoring system. Environ. Model. Softw. 168, 105805 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Kim, S. et al. Developing a cloud-based toolbox for sensitivity analysis of a water quality model. Environ. Model. Softw. 141, 105068 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Gholizadeh, M., Melesse, A. & Reddi, L. A Comprehensive Review on Water Quality Parameters Estimation Using Remote Sensing Techniques. Sensors 16, 1298 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Carey, C. C., Ibelings, B. W., Hoffmann, E. P., Hamilton, D. P. & Brookes, J. D. Eco-physiological adaptations that favour freshwater cyanobacteria in a changing climate. Water Res. 46, 1394–1407 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Thornton, K. W., Kimmel, B. L. & Payne, F. E. Reservoir Limnology: Ecological Perspectives (Wiley, 1991).

  32. Deng, C., Zou, J. & Wang, W. Assimilation of remotely sensed evapotranspiration products for streamflow simulation based on the CAMELS data sets. J. Hydrol. 629, 130574 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  33. Fleming, S. W., Rittger, K., Oaida Taglialatela, C. M. & Graczyk, I. Leveraging next-generation satellite remote sensing‐based snow data to improve seasonal water supply predictions in a practical machine learning‐driven river forecast system. Water Resour. Res. 60, e2023WR035785 (2024).

  34. Kim, J., Seo, D., Jang, M. & Kim, J. Augmentation of limited input data using an artificial neural network method to improve the accuracy of water quality modeling in a large lake. J. Hydrol. 602, 126817 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  35. Pahlevan, N. et al. ACIX-Aqua: A global assessment of atmospheric correction methods for Landsat-8 and Sentinel-2 over lakes, rivers, and coastal waters. Remote Sens. Environ. 258, 112366 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  36. Bennett, M. G. et al. Response of chlorophyll a to total nitrogen and total phosphorus concentrations in lotic ecosystems: A systematic review. Environ. Evid. 10, 23 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  37. Gorelick, N. et al. Google earth engine: Planetary-scale geospatial analysis for everyone. Remote Sens. Environ. 202, 18–27 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  38. Shabani, A. et al. A coupled hydrodynamic (HEC-RAS 2D) and water quality model (WASP) for simulating flood-induced soil, sediment, and contaminant transport. J. Flood Risk Manag. 14, e12747 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  39. Liu, Y. et al. Understanding thermal stratification and circulation dynamics in Fuxian Lake: Insights from EFDC simulation study. Ecol. Indic. 165, 112202 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  40. Wang, J., Chu, A., Dai, Z. & Nienhuis, J. Delft3D model-based estuarine suspended sediment budget with morphodynamic changes of the channel-shoal complex in a mega fluvial-tidal delta. Eng. Appl. Comput. Fluid Mech. 18, 2300763 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  41. Hamrick, J. M. User’s manual for the environmental fluid dynamics computer code. (1996).

  42. Park, J., Khanal, S., Zhao, K. & Byun, K. Remote sensing of chlorophyll-a and water quality over inland lakes: How to alleviate geo-location error and temporal discrepancy in model training. Remote Sens. 16, 2761 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  43. Song, C., Woodcock, C. E., Seto, K. C., Lenney, M. P. & Macomber, S. A. Classification and change detection using landsat TM data: When and how to correct atmospheric effects? Remote Sens. Environ. 75, 230–244 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  44. Jia, H., Xu, T., Liang, S., Zhao, P. & Xu, C. Bayesian framework of parameter sensitivity, uncertainty, and identifiability analysis in complex water quality models. Environ. Model. Softw. 104, 13–26 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  45. Li, Y., Gong & Craig, P. Ran Numerical Simulation and Prediction of Surface Water Environment – ​​EFDC Modeling Techniques and Case Studies. (Science Press, 2019).

  46. Moriasi, D. N. et al. Model evaluation guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations. Trans. ASABE. 50, 885–900 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  47. Wool, T. A., Ambrose, R. B., Martin, J. L., Comer, E. A. & Tech, T. Water quality analysis simulation program (WASP). User’s Man. Version 6, (2006).

  48. Vapnik, V. The Nature of Statistical Learning Theory (Springer science & business media, 2013).

  49. Breiman, L. Random forests. Mach. Learn. 45, 5–32 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  50. Cover, T. & Hart, P. Nearest neighbor pattern classification. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory. 13, 21–27 (1967).

    Google Scholar 

  51. Freund, Y. & Schapire, R. E. A decision-theoretic generalization of on-line learning and an application to boosting. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 55, 119–139 (1997).

    Google Scholar 

  52. Friedman, J. H. Greedy function approximation: A gradient boosting machine. Ann. Stat. 1189–1232 (2001).

  53. Bailey, S. W. & Werdell, P. J. A multi-sensor approach for the on-orbit validation of ocean color satellite data products. Remote Sens. Environ. 102, 12–23 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  54. Krause, P., Boyle, D. P. & Bäse, F. Comparison of different efficiency criteria for hydrological model assessment. Adv. Geosci. 5, 89–97 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research was joint supported by the “Tianchi Plan” Innovation Leading Talents Project of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region (No. 2024TCLJ01), the Xinjiang Institute of Technology High-Level Talent Research Initiation Fund (Grant No. XJLG2024G003), and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 41271004). We gratefully acknowledge this support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Conceptualization, H.M. and J.Z.; methodology, H.M. and Y.C.; software, H.M., X.M. and B.L.; validation, J.Z. and X.M.; formal analysis, H.M. and Y.C.; investigation, H.M and Z.Z.; resources, J.Z. and X.M.; data curation, H.M., Y.C. and Z.Z.; writing—original draft preparation, H.M.; writing—review and editing, H.M., J.Z. and X.M.; visualization, H.M., J.Z. and B.L.; supervision, J.Z., Z.Z. and B.L.; project administration, J.Z.; funding acquisition, J.Z., and X.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to
Jing Zhang or Xianyong Meng.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix A

Table A.1 EFDC parameter results after calibration.
Full size table
Table A.2 The relative errors between Chl-a inversion and EFDC simulation and the measured values.
Full size table
Table A.3 The relative errors between TN inversion and EFDC simulation and the measured values.
Full size table
Table A.4 The relative errors between TN inversion and EFDC simulation and the measured values.
Full size table

Appendix B

Fig. B.1

Full size image

Comparison of coupled model simulations and measured values of WT.

Fig. B.2

Full size image

Comparison of coupled model simulations and measured values of DO.

Fig. B.3

Full size image

Comparison of coupled model simulations and measured values of Chl-a.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Meng, H., Zhang, J., Meng, X. et al. Enhancing reservoir water quality simulation through machine learning-driven remote sensing integration with EFDC: a coupled framework for eutrophication management in data-scarce regions.
Sci Rep (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-46641-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-46641-4

Keywords

  • EFDC modeling
  • Machine learning
  • Remote sensing
  • Reservoir eutrophication
  • Coupled modeling
  • Shanzai reservoir


Source: Resources - nature.com

Marginal causal effect of fungicide seed treatments on soybean yield and uncertain profitability in the US Midwest

Reservoir proximity explains long-term transformation of riverine fish assemblage structure and function

Back to Top