# Algal Bloom Prediction Using Extreme Learning Machine Models at Artificial Weirs in the Nakdong River, Korea

^{1}

^{2}

^{3}

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

## 2. Study Area

^{2}, which is equivalent to approximately 20% of the country’s area. The Nakdong River has eight weirs which were built in sequence starting in 2012. In particular, four of these weirs (Gangjeong-Goryeong weir, Dalseong weir, Hapcheon-Changnyeong weir, and Changnyeong-Haman weir) in the mid-lower Nakdong River region experience harmful algal blooms every summer, causing many problems for agricultural, residential, and commercial water supplies. Harmful algal blooms refer to toxic, hypoxia-generating cyanobacterial bloom genera controlled by the synergistic effects of nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus), light, temperature, water residence, and biotic interactions [25]. Since the construction of the weirs, the public and the government have been interested in managing algal blooms. Figure 1 shows the locations of the four weirs on the Nakdong River in South Korea and the watershed area.

## 3. Extreme Learning Machine

#### 3.1. Architecture and Learning Method for ELM

**w**

_{i}and b

_{i}are the weight and bias between input layer and hidden layer, respectively. The output weights β are parameters to be estimated.

- (Step 1) Randomly assign hidden node parameters $({w}_{i},{b}_{i}),i=1,2,\cdots ,N$
- (Step 2) Calculate the hidden layer output matrix $\mathrm{H}=\left[\begin{array}{c}h({x}_{1})\\ \vdots \\ h({x}_{N})\end{array}\right]$
- (Step 3) Calculate the output weights β using a least squares estimate (LSE):$$\beta ={\mathrm{H}}^{*}\mathrm{T}$$$$\beta ={({\mathrm{H}}^{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{H})}^{-1}{\mathrm{H}}^{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{T}$$

#### 3.2. Model Application

^{2}. Water quality data with chlorophyll-a concentration were collected weekly and the weekly data were used for algal bloom prediction. Chlorophyll-a concentration was used data from 7 days prior.

^{2}) and root-mean-square error (RMSE) between the observed and predicted values. These indicators are defined as follows:

## 4. Results and Discussion

#### 4.1. Experimental Results

^{2}= 0.61 for training and 0.47 for testing, and RMSE of 8.6 μg/L for training and 14.5 μg/L for testing. The prediction results in Dalseong weir show R

^{2}= 0.55 for training and 0.44 for testing, and RMSE of 12.6 for training and 13.5 for testing. The ELM model shows better performance in Gangjeong-Goryeong weir than in Dalseong weir. The prediction results in Hapcheon-Changnyeong weir show R

^{2}= 0.38 for training and 0.41 for testing, and RMSE of 15.3 for training and 13.1 for testing. The prediction results in Changnyeong-Haman weir show R

^{2}= 0.29 for training and 0.36 for testing, and RMSE of 16.6 for training and 12.4 for testing. The Akaike information criterion (AIC) was developed for comparing models, based on information theory [31]. AIC applied to Gangjeong-Goryeong weir has a value of 371.2 for training and 452.2 for testing, and 444.6 for training and 455.8 for testing in Dalseong weir. The AIC value in Hapcheon-Changnyeong weir is 461.3 for training and 436.1 for testing data sets, and 469.0 for training and 421.9 for testing data sets in Changnyeong-Haman weir. The predictive power of the ELM model was found to be better in upstream weirs than in downstream weirs. This is because the downstream Nakdong River has more algal blooming factors, such as tributaries, water intakes, and dam discharge, which are difficult to control and manage.

^{2}= 0.71 (0.61) for training and 0.45 (0.47) for testing, RMSE = 6.8 (8.6) for training and 13.8 (14.5) for testing, and AIC = 333.8 (371.2) for training and 452.2 (446.2) for testing in Gangjeong-Goryeong weir. The ELM2 (ELM1) model showed better performance with R

^{2}= 0.76 (0.55) for training and 0.45 (0.44) for testing, RMSE = 8.9 (12.6) for training and 13.4 (13.5) for testing, and AIC = 388.1 (444.6) for training and 456.9 (455.8) for testing in Dalsone weir. Table 4 and Figure 8 show the results from the ELM2 model in Gangjeong-Goryeong weir and Dalseong weir.

^{2}= 0.44 (0.38) for training and 0.43 (0.41) for testing, RMSE of 14.6 (15.3) for training and 13.1 (13.1) for testing, and AIC of 455.8 (461.3) for training and 437.5 (436.1) for testing in Hapcheon-Changnyeong weir. The ELM2 (ELM1) model showed better performance with R

^{2}= 0.32 (0.29) for training and 0.46 (0.36) for testing, RMSE = 16.3 (16.6) for training and 11.4 (12.4) for testing, and AIC = 468.3 (469.0) for training and 410.5 (421.9) for testing in Changnyeong-Haman weir. The ELM2 results from both downstream weirs were similar to the ELM1 model (Figure 9, Figure 10, Figure 11, Figure 12 and Figure 13). This is because the downstream Nakdong River has more algal blooming factors such as tributaries, water intakes, and dam discharge, which are difficult to control and manage. Thus, these algal blooming factors need to be applied to the ELM2 model for more accurate prediction. On the other hand, upstream chlorophyll-a concentration can be a good indicator to predict algal blooms in upstream weirs. Moreover, we compared with the well-known conventional neural network with BP (Back-Propagation) in Table 5. Here, the learning rate was 0.001 and the number of epochs was 1000. In the case of Gangjeong-Goryeong weir, the RMSE values for training and testing set were 9.27 and 15.73, respectively. We also obtained RMSE values of 11.44 and 14.12 for training and testing data in Dalseong weir, respectively. In Hapcheon-Changnyeong weir, the RMSE values for training and testing are 14.69 and 13.43, respectively. We also obtained RMSE values of 16.68 and 11.35 for training and testing in Changnyeong-Haman weir, respectively. Also, we compared with multiple LR (Linear Regression) in Table 5. In the case of Gangjeong-Goryeong weir, the RMSE values for training and testing set were 11.3 and 17.5, respectively. We also obtained RMSE values of 15.3 and 20.7 for training and testing data in Dalseong weir, respectively. In Hapcheon-Changnyeong weir, the RMSE values for training and testing are 14.7 and 13.9, respectively. We also obtained RMSE values of 16.9 and 14.0 for training and testing in Changnyeong-Haman weir, respectively.

^{2}improved by 16.4% for training and −4.3% for testing, and RMSE improved by 20.9% for training and 4.8% for testing. The prediction results for Dalseong weir show that R

^{2}improved by 38.2% for training and 2.3% for testing, and RMSE improved by 29.4% for training and 0.7% for testing. The prediction results for Hapcheon-Changnyeong weir show that R

^{2}improved by 15.8% for training and 4.9% for testing, and RMSE improved by 4.6% for training and 0.0% for testing. The prediction results for Changnyeong-Haman weir show that R

^{2}improved by 10.3% for training and 27.8% for testing, and RMSE improved by 1.8% for training and 8.1% for testing. Figure 13 shows a performance comparison between the ELM1 and ELM2 model results in all four weirs.

#### 4.2. ELM Performance Discussion

- -
- ELM consists of a simple tuning-free three-step algorithm.
- -
- The learning speed of ELM is extremely fast.
- -
- The hidden node parameters are independent of training data. Although hidden nodes are important, they need not be tuned.
- -
- ELM could generate the hidden node parameters before using the training data.
- -
- ELM can be effectively applied to most real-world problems such as compression, feature learning, clustering, regression and classification.

## 5. Conclusions

^{2}and lower RMSE values for training and testing datasets in the upstream weirs. The ELM2 model also showed better performance with higher R

^{2}and lower RMSE values for training and testing datasets in the downstream weirs. However, the results from downstream weirs showed similar performance as the previous ELM1 model. This is because the downstream Nakdong River has more diverse algal blooming factors such as tributaries, water intakes, and dam discharge, which are difficult to control and manage.

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Acknowledgments

## Conflicts of Interest

## References

- Anderson, D.M.; Cembella, A.D.; Hallegraeff, G.M. Progress in understanding harmful algal blooms: Paradigm shifts and new technologies for research, monitoring, and management. Ann. Rev. Mar. Sci.
**2012**, 4, 143–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version] - Zhang, F.; Wang, Y.; Cao, M.; Sun, X.; Du, Z.; Liu, R.; Ye, X. Deep-Learning-Based Approach for Prediction of Algal Blooms. Sustainability
**2016**, 8, 1060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Tian, W.; Liao, Z.; Zhang, J. An Optimization of artificial neural network model for predicting chlorophyll hynamics. Ecol. Model.
**2017**, 364, 42–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ye, L.; Cai, Q.; Zhang, M.; Tan, L. Real-time observation, early warning and forecasting phytoplankton blooms by integrating in situ automated online sondes and hybrid evolutionary algorithm. Ecol. Inform.
**2014**, 22, 44–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Conley, D.J.; Paeral, H.W.; Howarth, R.W.; Boesch, D.F.; Seitzinger, S.P.; Haven, K.E.; Lancelot, C.; Liken, G.E. Controlling Eutrophication: Nitrogen and Phosphorus. Science
**2009**, 323, 1014–1015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Recknagel, F.; French, M.; Harkonen, P.; Yabunaka, K.I. Artifitial neural network approach for modelling and prediction of algal blooms. Ecol. Model.
**1997**, 96, 11–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Zhang, X.; Recknagel, F.; Chen, Q.; Cao, H.; Li, R. Spatially-explicit modelling and forecasting of cyanobacteria growth in Lake Taihu by evolutionary computation. Ecol. Model.
**2014**, 306, 216–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Xie, Z.; Lou, I.; Ung, W.K.; Mok, K.M. Freshwater algal bloom prediction by Support vector machine in Macau Storage Reservoirs. Math. Probl. Eng.
**2012**, 27, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Loi, I.; Xie, Z.; Ung, W.K. Freshwater algal bloom prediction by extreme learning machine in Macau Storage Reservoirs. Neural Comput. Appl.
**2016**, 27, 19–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Rogers, L.L.; Dowla, F.U. Optimization of groundwater remediation using artificial neural network with parallel solute transport modeling. Water Resour. Res.
**1994**, 30, 457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Wong, K.I.; Wong, P.K.; Cheung, C.S.; Vong, C.M. Modeling and optimization of biodiesel engine performance using advanced machine learning methods. Energy
**2013**, 55, 519–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Deng, W.Y.; Zheng, Q.H.; Chen, L.; Xu, X.B. Power utility nontechnical loss analysis with extreme learning machine method. Chin. J. Comput.
**2010**, 33, 280–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Xu, Y.; Dai, Y.; Dong, Z.Y.; Zhang, R.; Meng, K. Extreme learning machine-based predictor for real-time frequency stability assessment of electric power systems. Neural Comput. Appl.
**2013**, 22, 501–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Sun, Z.I.; Ng, K.M.; Soszynska-Budny, J.; Habbullah, M.S. Application of the LP-ELM model on transportation system life-time optimization. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst.
**2011**, 12, 1484–1494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Vergara, G.; C’ozar, J.; Romero-Gonz’alez, C.; G’amez, J.A.; Soria-Olivas, E. Comparing ELM Against MLP for Electrical Power Prediction in Buildings. Bioinspired Comput. Artif. Syst.
**2015**, 409–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Yeom, C.U.; Kwak, K.C. Short-term electricity-load forecasting using a TSK-based extreme learning machine with knowledge representation. Energies
**2017**, 10, 1613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Yadav, B.; Sudheer, C.; Shashi, M.; Adamowski, J. Discharge forecasting using an online sequential extreme learning machine (OS-ELM) model: A case study in Neckar River, Germany. Measurement
**2016**, 92, 433–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Yin, Z.; Peng, T.; Feng, Q.; Yang, L.; Deo, R.C.; Wen, X.; Si, J.; Xiao, S. Future Projection with an Extreme-Learning Machine and Support Vector Regression of Reference Evapotranspiration in a Mountainous Inland Watershed in North-West China. Water
**2018**, 9, 880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Wang, L.; Wang, X.; Xu, Z.; Zhang, H.; Yao, J.; Jin, X.; Liu, C.; Shi, Y. Time-varying nonlinear modeling and analysis of algal bloom dynamics. Nonlinear Dyn.
**2016**, 84, 371–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Wang, X.; Yao, J.; Shi, Y.; Su, T.; Wang, L.; Xu, J. Research on hybrid mechanism modeling of algal bloom formation in urban lakes and reservoirs. Ecol. Model.
**2016**, 332, 67–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Wang, W.C.; Xu, D.M.; Chau, K.W.; Lei, G.J. Assessment of river water quality based on theory of variable fuzzy sets and fuzzy binary comparison method. Water Resour. Manag.
**2014**, 28, 4183–4200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Olyaie, E.; Banejad, H.; Chau, K.W.; Melesse, A.M. A comparison of various artificial intelligence approaches performance for estimating suspended sediment load of river systems: A case study in United States. Environ. Monit. Assess.
**2015**, 187, 189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Fotovatikhah, F.; Herrera, M.; Shamshirband, S.; Chau, K.W.; Ardabili, S.F.; Piran, M.J. Survey of computational intelligence as basis to big flood management: Challenges, research directions and future work. Eng. Appl. Comput. Fluid Mech.
**2018**, 12, 411–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Cha, Y.K.; Cho, K.H.; Lee, H.; Kang, T.K.; Kim, J.H. The relative importance of water temperature and residence time in predicting cyanobacteria abundance in regulated rivers. Water Res.
**2017**, 124, 11–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Paerl, H.W. Controlling cyanobacterial harmful blooms in freshwater ecosystems. Microb. Biotechnol.
**2017**, 10, 1106–1110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version] - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Water Quality Criteria Research of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: EPA-600/3-76-079. In Proceedings of the EPA Sponsored Symposium, Corvallis, OR, USA, 17–23 August 1975. [Google Scholar]
- Forsberg, C.; Ryding, S.O. Eutrophication parameters and trophic state indices in 30 Swedish waste-receiving lakes. Arch. Hydrobiol.
**1980**, 89, 189–207. [Google Scholar] - Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). OECD Eutrophication Programme-Regional Project Alpine Lakes; Swiss Federal Board for Environmental Protection OECD: Bern, Switzerland, 1980. [Google Scholar]
- Huang, G.B.; Zhu, Q.Y.; Siew, C.K. Extreme learning machine; theory and applications. Neurocomputing
**2006**, 70, 489–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Huang, G.B.; Chen, L.; Siew, C.K. Universal approximation using incremental constructive feedforward networks with random hidden nodes. IEEE Trans. Neural Netw.
**2006**, 17, 879–892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Akaike, H. Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Information Theory, Tsahkadsor, Armenia, 2–8 September 1971; Petrov, B.N., Csaki, F., Eds.; pp. 267–281. [Google Scholar]
- Yaseen, Z.M.; Ramal, M.M.; Diop, L.; Jaafar, O.; Demir, V.; Kisi, O. Hybrid Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Models for Water Quality Index Estimation. Water Resour. Manag.
**2018**, 32, 2227–2245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Wang, W.C.; Chau, K.W.; Cheng, C.T.; Qiu, L. A comparison of performance of several artificial intelligence methods for forecasting monthly discharge time series. J. Hydrol.
**2009**, 374, 294–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Bruder, B.; Babbar-Sebens, M.; Tedesco, L.; Soyeux, E. Use of fuzzy logic models for prediction of taste and odor compounds in algal bloom-affected inland water bodies. Environ. Monit. Assess.
**2014**, 186, 1525–1545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Gong, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Lan, S.; Wang, F. A Comparative Study of Artificial Neural Networks, Support Vector Machines and Adaptive Neuro Fuzzy Inference System for Forecasting Groundwater Levels near Lake Okeechobee, Florida. Water Resour. Manag.
**2016**, 30, 375–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kisi, O.; Zounemat-Kermani, M. Suspended Sediment Modeling Using Neuro-Fuzzy Embedded Fuzzy c-Means Clustering Technique. Water Resour. Manag.
**2016**, 30, 3979–3994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Najah, A.; El-Shafie, A.; Karim, O.A.; El-Shafie, A.H. Performance of ANFIS versus MLP-NN dissolved oxygen prediction models in water quality monitoring. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.
**2014**, 21, 1658–1670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Mathworks. MATLAB R2018b Fuzzy Logic Toolbox. Available online: http://www.mathworks.com/products/fuzzy-logic.html (accessed on 20 September 2018).
- Sun, Z.-I.; Choi, T.-M.; Au, K.-F.; Yu, Y. Sales forecasting using extreme learning machine with applications in fashion retailing. Decis. Support Syst.
**2008**, 46, 411–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Sahin, M. Comparison of modelling ANN and ELM to estimate solar radiation over Turkey using NOAA satellite data. Int. J. Remote Sens.
**2013**, 34, 7508–7533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Mohammadi, K.; Shamshirband, S.; Yee, P.L.; Petković, D.; Zamanid, M.; Ch, S. Predicting the wind power density based upon extreme learning machine. Energy
**2015**, 86, 232–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

**Figure 2.**Weekly total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and chlorophyll-a data at the Gangjeong-Goryeong weir from 2013 to 2016 (n = 201).

**Figure 3.**Weekly total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and chlorophyll-a data at Dalseong weir from 2013 to 2016 (n = 205).

**Figure 5.**Diagram for ELM model (ELM2). AT: air temperature; RF: rainfall; SR: solar radiation; TN: total nitrogen; TP: total phosphorus; NP: ratio of total nitrogen over total phosphorus; Chla: chlorophyll-a concentration; Chla_u: upstream chlorophyll-a concentration.

**Figure 6.**Performance of ELM as a function of the number of hidden nodes. (

**a**) Gangjeong-Goryeong weir and (

**b**) Dalseong weir.

**Figure 7.**Training and testing results from the ELM1 model for chlorophyll-a prediction. (

**a**) Training results and (

**b**) testing results.

**Figure 8.**Training and testing results from the ELM2 model for chlorophyll-a prediction. (

**a**) Training results and (

**b**) testing results.

**Figure 9.**Performance of the ELM1 and ELM2 models in Gangjeong-Goryeong weir. (

**a**) ELM1 model and (

**b**) ELM2 model.

**Figure 10.**Performance of the ELM1 and ELM2 models in Dalseong weir. (

**a**) ELM1 model and (

**b**) ELM2 model.

**Figure 11.**Performance of the ELM1 and ELM2 models in Hapcheon-Changnyeong weir. (

**a**) ELM1 model and (

**b**) ELM2 model.

**Figure 12.**Performance of the ELM1 and ELM2 models in Changnyeong-Haman weir. (

**a**) ELM1 model and (

**b**) ELM2 model.

**Figure 13.**Comparison between the ELM1 and ELM2 model results for chlorophyll-a prediction in all four weirs. (

**a**) Training results and (

**b**) testing results. GG: Gangjeong-Goryeong weir; D: Dalseong weir; HC: Hapcheon-Changnyeong weir; CH: Changnyeong-Haman weir.

**Figure 14.**RMSE curves obtained by training of ANFIS-FCM for four weirs (num. of rule = 2). (

**a**) Gangjeong-Goryeong weir; (

**b**) Dalseong weir; (

**c**) Hapcheon-Changnyeong weir; (

**d**) Changnyeong-Haman weir.

Variables | Gangjeong-Goryeong Weir | Dalseong Weir | Hapcheon-Changnyeong Weir | Changnyeong-Haman Weir |
---|---|---|---|---|

Chlorophyll-a (μg/L) | 19.0 (2.2–106.7) | 26.0 (2.7–104.1) | 23.2 (1.7–100.7) | 25.2 (2.9–123.3) |

Total Nitrogen (mg/L) | 2.605 (1.201–4.100) | 3.723 (1.814–6.433) | 3.397 (1.842–6.207) | 2.778 (1.249–5.483) |

Total Phosphorus (mg/L) | 0.048 (0.012–0.157) | 0.061 (0.017–0.163) | 0.058 (0.016–0.163) | 0.054 (0.015–0.174) |

Items | Variables | Source |
---|---|---|

Weather | Air temperature, Rainfall, Solar radiation | Korea Meteorological Administration (http://kma.go.kr) |

Water quality | Total Nitrogen, Total Phosphorus, N/P ratio, chlorophyll-a | Ministry of Environment, National Institute of Environmental Research (http://water.nier.go.kr) |

ELM1 Model | Gangjeong-Goryeong Weir | Dalseong Weir | Hapcheon-Changnyeong Weir | Changnyeong-Haman Weir | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

R^{2} | Training | 0.61 | 0.55 | 0.38 | 0.29 |

Testing | 0.47 | 0.44 | 0.41 | 0.36 | |

RMSE | Training | 8.6 | 12.6 | 15.3 | 16.6 |

Testing | 14.5 | 13.5 | 13.1 | 12.4 | |

AIC | Training | 371.2 | 444.6 | 461.3 | 469.0 |

Testing | 452.2 | 455.8 | 436.1 | 421.9 |

ELM 2 Model | Gangjeong-Goryeong Weir | Dalseong Weir | Hapcheon-Changnyeong Weir | Changnyeong-Haman Weir | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

R^{2} | Training | 0.71 | 0.76 | 0.44 | 0.32 |

Testing | 0.45 | 0.45 | 0.43 | 0.46 | |

RMSE | Training | 6.8 | 8.9 | 14.6 | 16.3 |

Testing | 13.8 | 13.4 | 13.1 | 11.4 | |

AIC | Training | 333.8 | 388.1 | 455.8 | 468.3 |

Testing | 446.2 | 456.9 | 437.5 | 410.5 |

Model | RMSE | Gangjeong-Goryeong Weir | Dalseong Weir | Hapcheon-Changnyeong Weir | Changnyeong-Haman Weir |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

ELM2 | Training | 6.8 | 8.9 | 14.6 | 16.3 |

Testing | 13.8 | 13.4 | 13.1 | 11.4 | |

Multiple LR | Training | 11.3 | 15.3 | 14.7 | 16.9 |

Testing | 17.5 | 20.7 | 13.9 | 14.0 | |

NN with BP | Training | 9.3 | 11.4 | 14.7 | 16.7 |

Testing | 15.7 | 14.1 | 13.4 | 11.4 | |

ANFIS-FCM (r = 2) | Training | 7.8 | 9.3 | 13.3 | 14.2 |

Testing | 16.7 | 13.2 | 15.1 | 13.0 | |

ANFIS-FCM (r = 3) | Training | 6.7 | 8.9 | 12.9 | 12.2 |

Testing | 29.9 | 16.8 | 15.2 | 14.6 |

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Yi, H.-S.; Park, S.; An, K.-G.; Kwak, K.-C.
Algal Bloom Prediction Using Extreme Learning Machine Models at Artificial Weirs in the Nakdong River, Korea. *Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health* **2018**, *15*, 2078.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15102078

**AMA Style**

Yi H-S, Park S, An K-G, Kwak K-C.
Algal Bloom Prediction Using Extreme Learning Machine Models at Artificial Weirs in the Nakdong River, Korea. *International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health*. 2018; 15(10):2078.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15102078

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Yi, Hye-Suk, Sangyoung Park, Kwang-Guk An, and Keun-Chang Kwak.
2018. "Algal Bloom Prediction Using Extreme Learning Machine Models at Artificial Weirs in the Nakdong River, Korea" *International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health* 15, no. 10: 2078.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15102078