# Employing Data Mining Algorithms and Mathematical Empirical Models for Predicting Wind Drift and Evaporation Losses of a Sprinkler Irrigation Method

^{1}

^{2}

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

## 2. Materials and Methods

#### 2.1. Experimental Site

#### 2.2. Procedures for Sprinkler Tests

_{d}is the coefficient of discharge (C

_{d}= 0.98) according to findings from experiments performed by Playán et al. [39] and Ouazaa et al. [40]. By monitoring the flow rate in the field, Playán et al. [39] obtained the coefficient of discharge of the RC130-BY sprinkler for a range of working pressures. The nozzle orifice’s area is A, the acceleration due to gravity is g (measured in m/s

^{2}), the working pressure is P (measured in kPa), and q is a constant [41,42,43]. For this study, q was taken to be equal to 0.50. In each set test, the irrigation water depth (ID) released by the sprinkler was estimated using Equation (2):

^{2}). The proportion of the irrigation water depth (ID) released by the sprinkler that was not collected in the pluviometers was employed to obtain the percentage of WDEL during each test [18,44,45]. The WDEL were calculated using Equation (3):

_{CC}is the average water depth measured by the pluviometers.

#### 2.3. WDEL Mathematical Empirical Models

_{a}and e

_{s}are the actual vapor pressure of the air and the saturation vapor pressure, respectively, kPa; T is the air dry-bulb temperature, °C; and RH is the relative humidity of the air, %. The same meteorological and operating conditions were simulated for WDEL using the mathematical empirical models of Yazar [19], Trimmer [20], Tarjuelo et al. [11], and Playán et al. [18]. Table 2 lists the investigated empirical equations, where WDEL are expressed as a percentage (%), D is the primary nozzle diameter expressed in millimeters, $\mathsf{\Delta}\mathrm{e}$ is the vapor pressure deficit expressed in kPa, P is the working pressure expressed in kPa, and W is the wind speed expressed in meters per second.

#### 2.4. Details of the Data Mining Algorithms

#### 2.5. Multilayer Perceptron

_{ij}is the input from unit i to j, w

_{ji}is the weight from unit i to j, α is the learning rate, and δ

_{j}is the error discovered at unit j. The weights are adjusted using training examples, and this procedure is repeated a certain number of cycles or until the inaccuracy is negligible or cannot be lowered. The weight update at the n

^{th}iteration of the backpropagation is made partially dependent on the amount of weight changed in the (n − 1)

^{th}iteration in order to increase the performance of the backpropagation process. A constant termed the momentum term (β) controls how much the (n − 1)

^{th}iteration contributes; however, it is increased to produce a quicker convergence. Equation (7) provides the new rule applied for the weight update at the n

^{th}iteration.

#### 2.6. REPTree

#### 2.7. Prediction Performance of Fitted Models

_{i}is the value of WDEL observed in field experiments, $\overline{\mathrm{Y}}$ and $\widehat{\overline{\mathrm{Y}}}$ are the means of the observed and predicted WDEL values, and Nt is the number of data points in the testing data set.

## 3. Results and Discussion

#### 3.1. Wind Drift and Evaporation Losses (WDEL)

#### 3.2. Prediction of WDEL—Data Mining Models

^{2}). The points in this figure are sparsely distributed around the regression line (R

^{2}= 0.967), indicating that the values derived from the experimental data are either overestimated or underestimated. The distribution of points around the best fit line demonstrates the method’s great accuracy in estimating low WDEL values. Weka software version 3.6.13 was also used to create a REPTree model using the same data used to train the ANN model [47]. Figure 4 displays a scatter plot of the estimated WDEL values from the REPTree model against the values of the tested data that were actually observed. A proper agreement is indicated by the R

^{2}score of 0.943. When predicting low WDEL values, the distribution of points around the best fit line illustrates how inaccurate this method is; nevertheless, as WDEL increase, the amount of error diminishes.

#### 3.3. Mathematical Empirical Models for WDEL Simulations

## 4. Conclusions

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Institutional Review Board Statement

## Informed Consent Statement

## Data Availability Statement

## Acknowledgments

## Conflicts of Interest

## References

- Bhatt, N.; Virparia, P.V. Survey based research for data mining techniques to forecast water demand in irrigation. Int. J. Comput. Sci. Mob. Appl.
**2015**, 3, 14–18. [Google Scholar] - Krupakar, H.; Jayakumar, A.; Dhivya, G. A Review of Intelligent Practices for Irrigation Prediction. arXiv
**2016**, arXiv:1612.02893v1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Jiao, J.; Su, D.; Wang, Y. Dynamics of water vapor content around isolated sprinklers: Description and validation of model. Water
**2017**, 9, 307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Khan, S.; Rana, T.; Dassanayake, D.; Abbas, A.; Blackwell, J.; Akbar, S.; Gabriel, H.F. Spatially distributed assessment of channel seepage using geophysics and artificial intelligence. Irrig. Drain.
**2009**, 58, 307–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Khan, M.; Islam, M.Z.; Hafeez, M. Irrigation water requirement prediction through various data mining techniques applied on a carefully pre-processed dataset. J. Res. Pract. Inf. Technol.
**2011**, 43, 1–17. [Google Scholar] - IWMI. Water for a food secure world. In International Water Management Institute (IWMI), Strategic Plan, 2009–2013; IWMI: Colombo, Sri Lanka, 2007; Available online: https://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/About_IWMI/PDF/Strategic_Plan_2009-2013.pdf (accessed on 20 December 2022).
- Hoekstra, A.Y.; Chapagain, A.K. Water footprints of nations: Water use by people as a function of their consumption pattern. Water Resour. Manag.
**2007**, 21, 35–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Bishaw, D.; Olumana, M. Evaluating the effect of operating pressure and riser height on irrigation water application under different wind conditions in Ethiopia. Asia Pac. J. Energy Environ.
**2015**, 5, 41–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - McLean, R.K.; Sriranjan, R.; Klassen, G. Spray evaporation losses from sprinkler irrigation system. Can. Agric. Eng.
**2000**, 42, 1–8. [Google Scholar] - Yacoubi, S.; Zayani, K.; Slatni, A.; Playán, E. Assessing sprinkler irrigation performance using field evaluations at the Medjerda Lower Valley of Tunisia. Engineering
**2012**, 4, 682–691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Tarjuelo, J.M.; Ortega, J.F.; Montero, J.; De Juan, J.A. Modeling evaporation and drift losses in irrigation with medium size impact sprinklers under semi-arid conditions. Agric. Water Manag.
**2000**, 43, 263–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Li, Y.; Bai, G.; Yan, H. Development and validation of a modified model to simulate the sprinkler water distribution. Comput. Electron. Agric.
**2015**, 111, 38–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Okasha, E.M.; Sabreen, K.P. Investigation of riser height and operating pressure on sprinkler irrigation performance under different wind condition. Int. J. ChemTech Res.
**2016**, 9, 292–298. [Google Scholar] - Uddin, J.; Smith, R.J.; Hancock, N.H.; Foley, J.P. Evaporation and sapflow dynamics during sprinkler irrigation of cotton. Agric. Water Manag.
**2013**, 125, 35–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Stambouli, T.; Martinez-Cob, A.; Faci, J.M.; Howell, T.; Zapata, N. Sprinkler evaporation losses in alfalfa during solid-set sprinkler irrigation in semiarid areas. Irrig. Sci.
**2013**, 31, 1075–1089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Keller, J.; Bliesner, R.D. Sprinkler and Trickle Irrigation; Van Nestrand Reinhold: New York, NY, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar]
- Rahmat, A.V.; Boroomand, N.S.; Sakhaeerad, H.; Bavi, A. Evaporation and wind drift losses for two types of sprinklers with one and three nozzles in solid set systems in Ahwaz climate conditions. Iran. J. Irrig. Drain.
**2013**, 6, 265–272. [Google Scholar] - Playán, E.; Salvador, R.; Faci, J.M.; Zapata, N.; Martinez-Cob, A.; Sánchez, I. Day and night wind drift and evaporation losses in sprinkler solid-sets and moving laterals. Agric. Water Manag.
**2005**, 76, 139–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Yazar, A. Evaporation and drift losses from sprinkler irrigation systems under various operating conditions. Agric. Water Manag.
**1984**, 8, 439–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Trimmer, W.L. Sprinkler evaporation loss equation. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng.
**1987**, 113, 616–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ortega, J.F.; Tarjuelo, J.M.; Montero, J.; De Juan, J.A. Discharge efficiency in sprinkling irrigation: Analysis of evaporation and drift losses in semi-arid areas. Agric. Eng.Int. CIGR J.
**2000**, 2, 1–21. [Google Scholar] - Beskow, S.; Faria, L.C.; Colombo, A.; DeMoura, D.C.M. Modeling of evaporation and wind drift losses in medium-pressure sprinklers. Rev. Bras. Eng. Agríc. Environ.
**2011**, 15, 221–228. [Google Scholar] - Saraiva, G.S.; Bonomo, R.; De Souza, J.M. Evaporative water loss and wind drift in fixed sprinkler systems, North of the Espírito Santo. Rev. Bras. Agric. Irrig.
**2013**, 7, 235–247. [Google Scholar] - Alnaizy, R.; Simonet, D. Analysis of water evaporation and drift losses during irrigation in semi-arid areas of Sharjah (UAE) and Riyadh (KSA). Nat. Resour. Res.
**2012**, 21, 285–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Al-Jumaily, K.; Abdul-Kader, S. Spray losses in sprinkler irrigation systems in Iraq. In Proceedings of the Twelfth International Technology Conference, IWTC12, Alexandria, Egypt, 27–30 March 2008; pp. 717–727. [Google Scholar]
- Pulido-Calvo, I.; Roldan, J.; Lopez-Luque, R.; Gutierrez-Estrada, J.C. Demand forecasting for irrigation water distribution systems. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng.
**2003**, 129, 422–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Olaiya, F.; Adeyemo, A.B. Application of data mining techniques in weather prediction and climate change studies. Int. J. Inf. Eng. Electron. Bus.
**2012**, 1, 51–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Cabena, P.H.; Stadler, R.; Verhees, J.; Zanasi, A. Discovering Data Mining: From Concept to Implementation; Prentice Hall: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Mirhashemi, S.H.; Tabatabayi, M. Evaluation ten models of Weka software to predict the potential evapotranspiration month for the next month in the synoptic weather station Arak. Int. J. Agric. Crop Sci.
**2015**, 8, 5–8. [Google Scholar] - Teixeira, S.; Guimarães, A.M.; Proença, C.A.; Da Rocha, J.C.F.; Caires, E.F. Data mining algorithms for prediction of soil organic matter and clay based on Vis-NIR Spectroscopy. Int. J. Agric. For.
**2014**, 4, 310–316. [Google Scholar] - Terzi, O. Monthly rainfall estimation using data-mining process. Appl. Comput. Intell. Soft Comput.
**2012**, 2012, 698071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Terzi, O. Estimating daily pan evaporation using data mining process. Sci. Iran. A
**2013**, 20, 1077–1084. [Google Scholar] - Keskin, M.E.; Terzi, O.; Kucuksille, E.U. Data mining process for integrated evaporation model. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng.
**2009**, 135, 39–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Esmaeilzadeh, B.; Sattari, M.T.; Samadianfard, S. Performance evaluation of ANNs and an M5 model tree in Sattarkhan Reservoir inflow prediction. ISH J. Hydraul. Eng.
**2017**, 23, 283–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Traore, S.; Wang, Y.M.; Kerh, T. Artificial neural network for modeling reference evapotranspiration complex process in Sudano-Sahelian zone. Agric. Water Manag.
**2010**, 97, 707–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Deshmukh, M.M. Artificial neural network modeling for estimation of reference evapotranspiration at Nagpur. Int. J. Res. Eng. Technol.
**2016**, 5, 35–41. [Google Scholar] - Merriam, J.L.; Keller, J. Farm Irrigation System Evaluation: A Guide for Management; Department of Agricultural and Irrigation Engineering, Utah State University: Logan, Utah, 1987. [Google Scholar]
- ASAE. ASAE S398.1; Procedure for Sprinkler Testing and Performance Reporting. ASAE: St. Joseph, MI, USA, 1 January 2001; pp. 880–882.
- Playán, E.; Zapata, N.; Faci, J.M.; Tolosa, D.; Lacueva, J.L.; Pelegrín, J.; Salvador, R.; Sanchez, I.; Lafita, A. Assessing sprinkler irrigation uniformity using a ballistic simulation model. Agric. Water Manag.
**2006**, 84, 89–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Ouazaa, S.; Burguete, J.; Zapata, N. Solid-set sprinklers irrigation of field boundaries: Experiments and modeling. Irrig. Sci.
**2016**, 34, 85–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Li, J.S. Sprinkler performance as function of nozzle geometrical parameters. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. ASCE
**1996**, 122, 244–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Li, J.S.; Kawano, H. Sprinkler performance as affected by nozzle inner contraction angle. Irrig. Sci.
**1998**, 18, 63–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Tarjuelo, J.M.; Montero, J.; Valiente, M.; Honrubia, F.T.; Ortiz, J. Irrigation uniformity with medium size sprinklers part I: Characterization of water distribution in no-wind conditions. Trans. ASAE
**1999**, 42, 665–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Dechmi, F.; Playán, E.; Cavero, J.; Faci, J.M.; Martanez-Cob, A. Wind effects on solid set sprinkler irrigation depth and yield of maize (Zea Mays). Irrig. Sci.
**2003**, 22, 67–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Sanchez, I.; Zapata, N.; Faci, J.M. Combined effect of technical, meteorological and agronomical factors on solid-set sprinkler irrigation: I. Irrigation performance and soil water recharge in alfalfa and maize. Agric. Water Manag.
**2010**, 97, 1571–1581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Murray, J. On the computation of saturated vapour pressure. J. Appl. Meteorol.
**1967**, 6, 203–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Witten, H.; Frank, E. Data Mining: Practical Machine Learning Tools and Techniques with Java Implementations; Morgan Kaufmann: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Bishop, C.M. Neural Networks for Pattern Recognition; Oxford University Press: Oxford, MA, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- Rumelhart, D.; Hinton, G.; Williams, R. Learning Internal Representations by Error Propagation, Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Microstructures of Cognition; MIT Press: Boston, MA, USA, 1986; Volume I. [Google Scholar]
- Conceição, M.A.F.; Coelho, R.D. Simulating wind effect on microsprinkler water distribution. Sci. Agric.
**2003**, 60, 205–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Willmott, C.J. Some comments on the evaluation of model performance. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc.
**1982**, 63, 1309–1313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Camargo, P.A.; Sentelhas, P.C. Evaluation of the performance of different methods of estimation of potential evapotranspiration in the state of São Paulo, Brazil. Braz. J. Agrometeorol.
**1997**, 5, 89–97. [Google Scholar] - Abo-Ghobar, M. Evaporation and drift losses from sprinkler irrigation systems under hot and dry conditions. J. King Saud Univ.
**1993**, 5, 153–164. [Google Scholar] - Jajoo, N.M. Improved equations for estimating spray losses of fixed sprinkler irrigation systems in Iraq. Al-Rafidain Eng.
**2009**, 17, 36–41. [Google Scholar]

**Figure 2.**An ANN model with one hidden layer to predict WDEL. Each connection is linked with a weight. Sigmoid units are employed as hidden and output units (number of epochs were 500, error per epoch was 0.0072431, learning rate was 0.3, and momentum was 0.2).

**Figure 3.**Scatter plot of estimated WDEL values using ANN model against observed values of testing data set.

**Figure 4.**Scatter plot of estimated WDEL values using REPTree model against observed values of testing data set.

**Table 1.**Spacing of collectors according to the ASAE Standard [38].

Sprinkler Throw Distance (m) | Maximum Collector Distance between Centers (m) |
---|---|

0.3–3 | 0.30 |

3–6 | 0.60 |

6–12 | 0.75 |

>12 | 1.50 |

Model | Empirical Equation |
---|---|

Trimmer [20] | $\mathrm{WDEL}=\left(1.98\times \mathrm{D}+0.22\u2206{\mathrm{e}}^{0.63}+3.6\times {10}^{-4}\times {\mathrm{P}}^{1.16}+0.14\times {\mathrm{W}}^{0.7}\right)$ |

Yazar [19] | $\mathrm{WDEL}=(0.003\times \mathrm{exp}\left(0.2\times \mathrm{W}\right)\times \left(10\times \u2206\mathrm{e}\times {10}^{0.59}\times {\mathrm{T}}^{0.23}\times {\mathrm{P}}^{0.76}\right)+0.2$ |

Tarjuelo et al. [11] | $\mathrm{WDEL}=\left(0.007\times \mathrm{P}+7.38\times \u2206{\mathrm{e}}^{0.5}+0.844\times \mathrm{W}\right)$ |

Playán et al. [18] | $\mathrm{WDEL}=\left(20.3+0.214\times {\mathrm{W}}^{2}-2.29\times {10}^{-3}\times {\mathrm{RH}}^{2}\right)$ |

**Table 3.**WDEL averaged across a range of working pressures, nozzle diameters, and environmental factors.

Nozzle Diameter | Actual Working Pressure | Wind Speed | Air Temperature | Air Relative Humidity | Vapor Pressure Deficit | WDEL |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

(mm) | (kPa) | (m/s) | (°C) | (%) | (kPa) | (%) |

4 | 188.1 | 0.82 | 14.93 | 57.11 | 0.73 | 11.60 |

4 | 286.6 | 1.07 | 19.12 | 47.89 | 1.16 | 14.85 |

4 | 379.4 | 1.27 | 21.59 | 40.56 | 1.54 | 18.49 |

Overall mean | 1.05 | 18.55 | 48.52 | 1.14 | 14.98 | |

4.5 | 191.3 | 0.92 | 15.17 | 59.44 | 0.70 | 11.17 |

4.5 | 287.5 | 1.87 | 17.97 | 51.33 | 1.02 | 14.17 |

4.5 | 384.5 | 2.85 | 24.89 | 38.44 | 1.95 | 17.94 |

Overall mean | 1.88 | 19.34 | 49.74 | 1.22 | 14.43 | |

5 | 190.4 | 0.87 | 10.83 | 59.22 | 0.53 | 10.61 |

5 | 287.3 | 1.82 | 14.73 | 49.11 | 0.86 | 13.68 |

5 | 379.8 | 2.58 | 16.71 | 35.67 | 1.23 | 16.25 |

Overall mean | 1.76 | 14.09 | 48.00 | 0.87 | 13.52 |

**Table 4.**Error statistics regarding WDEL estimation by the REPTree and ANN models using testing data set.

The Tested Model | RMSE (%) | MAE (%) |
---|---|---|

ANN | 0.771 | 0.600 |

REPTree | 0.679 | 0.544 |

**Table 5.**Observed and predicted WDEL values using different approaches under various climatic and operating conditions (testing data set).

D | P | W | T | RH | $\mathbf{\u2206}\mathbf{e}$ | Observed WDEL | Predicted WDEL | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Trimmer [20] | Yazar [19] | Tarjuelo et al. [11] | Playán et al. [18] | REPTree | ANN | |||||||

(mm) | (kPa) | (m/s) | (°C) | (%) | (kPa) | (%) | (%) | (%) | (%) | (%) | (%) | (%) |

4.5 | 193 | 1.20 | 15.40 | 56 | 0.77 | 12.44 | 1.99 | 3.75 | 8.84 | 13.43 | 12.104 | 11.91 |

4.5 | 288 | 1.98 | 19.11 | 49 | 1.13 | 14.65 | 3.99 | 8.16 | 11.53 | 15.64 | 15.638 | 14.63 |

4.5 | 195 | 0.47 | 14.30 | 64 | 0.59 | 9.20 | 1.35 | 2.49 | 7.42 | 10.97 | 8.885 | 9.18 |

5.0 | 272 | 1.43 | 14.63 | 51 | 0.82 | 12.51 | 2.43 | 5.23 | 9.78 | 14.78 | 13.473 | 12.30 |

4.5 | 194 | 1.18 | 14.50 | 58 | 0.69 | 12.00 | 1.90 | 3.49 | 8.50 | 12.89 | 11.037 | 11.42 |

4.0 | 186 | 0.80 | 16.90 | 56 | 0.85 | 13.08 | 2.17 | 3.41 | 8.77 | 13.26 | 13.473 | 11.45 |

5.0 | 388 | 2.57 | 16.81 | 36 | 1.23 | 16.76 | 5.57 | 12.10 | 13.06 | 18.75 | 15.683 | 16.03 |

5.0 | 189 | 0.93 | 10.51 | 60 | 0.51 | 11.01 | 1.26 | 2.47 | 7.37 | 12.24 | 11.037 | 9.80 |

4.5 | 299 | 1.89 | 17.50 | 52 | 0.96 | 13.81 | 3.77 | 7.35 | 10.92 | 14.87 | 13.473 | 13.86 |

5.0 | 195 | 0.95 | 11.24 | 59 | 0.55 | 11.23 | 1.33 | 2.68 | 7.63 | 12.52 | 11.037 | 10.05 |

4.0 | 379 | 1.30 | 22.10 | 41 | 1.57 | 18.50 | 6.18 | 9.91 | 13.00 | 16.81 | 18.204 | 17.98 |

4.0 | 376 | 1.28 | 20.50 | 40 | 1.45 | 18.18 | 5.86 | 9.21 | 12.59 | 16.99 | 18.204 | 17.79 |

4.0 | 290 | 1.02 | 19.10 | 53 | 1.04 | 13.40 | 3.59 | 5.80 | 10.42 | 14.09 | 13.473 | 12.71 |

4.0 | 285 | 0.87 | 19.46 | 49 | 1.15 | 14.50 | 3.53 | 5.84 | 10.65 | 14.96 | 15.683 | 13.20 |

4.5 | 190 | 0.52 | 14.70 | 62 | 0.64 | 9.96 | 1.40 | 2.62 | 7.65 | 11.56 | 8.885 | 9.52 |

5.0 | 379 | 2.43 | 16.32 | 34 | 1.23 | 16.10 | 5.26 | 11.35 | 12.87 | 18.92 | 15.638 | 16.19 |

Average | 13.58 | 3.22 | 5.99 | 10.06 | 14.54 | 13.50 | 13.00 | |||||

Minimum | 9.20 | 1.26 | 2.47 | 7.37 | 10.97 | 8.89 | 9.18 | |||||

Maximum | 18.50 | 6.18 | 12.10 | 13.06 | 18.92 | 18.20 | 17.98 | |||||

Standard deviation | 2.75 | 1.75 | 3.30 | 2.11 | 2.40 | 2.89 | 2.86 |

**Table 6.**Results of the index of agreement (d), correlation coefficient (r), and confidence index (c) tests for the different prediction methods in relation to observed WDEL using the testing data set.

Prediction Method | Index of Agreement | Correlation Coefficient | Confidence Index | Performance Based on Confidence Index |
---|---|---|---|---|

The model described by Trimmer [20] | 0.325 | 0.966 | 0.314 | Terrible |

The model described by Yazar [19] | 0.437 | 0.898 | 0.393 | Terrible |

The model described by the model described by Tarjuelo et al. [11] | 0.650 | 0.949 | 0.617 | Average |

Playán et al. [18] | 0.913 | 0.908 | 0.829 | Very good |

REPTree model | 0.984 | 0.971 | 0.956 | Optimal |

ANN model | 0.980 | 0.983 | 0.964 | Optimal |

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |

© 2023 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 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Al-Dosary, N.M.N.; Maray, S.A.; Al-Hamed, S.A.; Aboukarima, A.M.
Employing Data Mining Algorithms and Mathematical Empirical Models for Predicting Wind Drift and Evaporation Losses of a Sprinkler Irrigation Method. *Water* **2023**, *15*, 922.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w15050922

**AMA Style**

Al-Dosary NMN, Maray SA, Al-Hamed SA, Aboukarima AM.
Employing Data Mining Algorithms and Mathematical Empirical Models for Predicting Wind Drift and Evaporation Losses of a Sprinkler Irrigation Method. *Water*. 2023; 15(5):922.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w15050922

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Al-Dosary, Naji Mordi Naji, Samy A. Maray, Saad A. Al-Hamed, and Abdulwahed M. Aboukarima.
2023. "Employing Data Mining Algorithms and Mathematical Empirical Models for Predicting Wind Drift and Evaporation Losses of a Sprinkler Irrigation Method" *Water* 15, no. 5: 922.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w15050922