Focus Soft Computing 7 (2003) 370 – 385 Ó Springer-Verlag 2003

DOI 10.1007/s00500-002-0226-2

Automatic fuzzy-rule assessment and its application to the modelling

of nitrogen leaching for large regions
A. Bárdossy, U. Haberlandt, V. Krysanova

370
Abstract Diffuse nutrient emissions from agricultural Keywords Fuzzy rules, Environmental modelling,
land is one of the major sources of pollution for ground Simulated annealing
water, rivers and coastal waters. The quantification of
pollutant loads requires mathematical modelling of water
and nutrient cycles. The deterministic simulation of
1
nitrogen dynamics, represented by complicated highly
Introduction
non-linear processes, requires the application of detailed
Environmental problems are often related to complicated
models with many parameters and large associated data
physical and chemical processes. Their quantitative mod-
bases. The operation of those models within integrated
elling requires a great number of parameters, which can be
assessment tools or decision support systems for large
determined under laboratory circumstances for selected
regions is often not feasible. Fuzzy rule based modelling
areas. Environmental decisions however require the
provides a fast, transparent and parameter parsimonious
prediction of large scale effects. The parameters for the
alternative. Besides, it allows regionalisation and integra-
modelling on the large scale are usually not available.
tion of results from different models and measurements at
Further the computational effort for using detailed models
a higher generalised level and enables explicit consider-
is enormous.
ation of expert knowledge. In this paper an algorithm for
Nitrogen (N) leaching to groundwater in rural land-
the assessment of fuzzy rules for fuzzy modelling using
scapes represents one of the most significant sources of
simulated annealing is presented. The fuzzy rule system is
water pollution in Europe. Therefore quantification of ef-
applied to simulate nitrogen leaching for selected agri-
fects of natural conditions (soil, climate, and topography)
cultural soils within the 23687 km2 Saale River Basin. The
and human impacts (land management practices, like
fuzzy rules are defined and calibrated using results from
fertilization rates and crop rotations) is very important for
simulation experiments carried out with the deterministic
defining appropriate land management policies and
modelling system SWIM. Monthly aggregated time series
building the corresponding Decision Support Systems
of simulated water balance components (e.g. percolation
(DSS). For deterministic simulation of nitrogen dynamics
and evapotranspiration), fertilization amounts, resulting
complicated highly non-linear processes have to be con-
nitrogen leaching and crop parameters are used for the
sidered often requiring the application of detailed models
derivation of the fuzzy rules. The 30-year simulation pe-
with many parameters and large associated data bases. The
riod was divided into 20 years for training and 10 years for
operation of those models within integrated assessment
validation, with the latter taken from the middle part of the
tools or decision support systems for large regions is not
period. Three specific fuzzy rule systems were created
always the optimal solution. Fuzzy rule based modelling
from the simulation experiments, one for each selected soil
provides a fast, transparent and parameter parsimonious
profile. Each rule system includes 15 rules as well as one
alternative. Besides, it allows regionalisation and integra-
prescribed rules from expert knowledge and 7 input
tion of results from different models and measurements at
variables. The performance of the fuzzy rule system is
a higher generalised level and enables explicit consider-
satisfactory for the assessment of nitrate leaching on an-
ation of expert knowledge. The rule systems can be derived
nual to long term time steps. The approach allows rapid
from deterministic models, and can be used subsequently
scenario analysis for large regions and has the potential to
as a replacement of the complicated physically based
become part of decision support systems for generalised
model. Its use is advantageous as fuzzy rules are case
integrated assessment of water and nutrients in macroscale
dependent, and use only those arguments which are es-
regions.
sential for the given situation. Further they can describe
very complicated non-linear, non-monotonic relationships
between variables. Once a rule system is assessed, its
application is extremely fast and robust.
A. Bárdossy (&) Fuzzy rule assessment from experimental data and/or
Universität Stuttgart expert knowledge is a central research topic. In their paper
Pfaffenwaldring 61, 70550 Stuttgart, Germany
E-mail: bardossy@iws.uni-stuttgart.de [1] Pedrycz and Reformat suggest a fuzzy partitioning
algorithm for the description of rule systems. Neuro-fuzzy
U. Haberlandt, V. Krysanova approaches are also used for this purpose [2]. In [3] a
Potsdam Institut für Klimafolgenforschung learning algorithm using genetic optimisation is presented.
In this paper a simulated annealing based algorithm is
used to identify rules in a rule system. The rule perfor-
mance defined as a distance between observations and rule
response is optimised.
The paper is organized as follows: after the introduction
a methodology for the assessment of fuzzy rules is pre-
sented. Sections 3 and 4 are dealing with modelling of
nitrogen leaching to groundwater from arable land using
(1) the process-based deterministic ecohydrological
model SWIM [16], and y^ ¼
(2) a fuzzy rule based model, which uses the outputs from
SWIM as the training and validation sets.
A section with discussion and conclusions completes the
paper.
2 calculated using the observed and calculated values:
Fuzzy rules and their assessment
The most popular fuzzy direct reasoning technique is the
Mamdani’s method [4]. It is composed of direct IF-THEN
statements with fuzzy premises and fuzzy conclusions. It is
widely applied in fuzzy control [5], however its use in
fuzzy modelling is still restricted to a few specific case
studies [6]. Mamdani’s method is very well suited to
describe the complex case dependent nature of complex
environmental systems.
The most important task for the application of a fuzzy
rule system is the assessment of the suitable rules. For the
present study rules are derived from datasets obtained
from a limited number of runs of a complicated complex
environmental model.
Given a dataset T the goal is to describe the relationship
with Kj being the number of possible membership
functions for rule argument j and L being the number of
possible individual rule responses.
The goal is to find the best matrix R. It is assumed that
the rules are applied with a product inference and a
weighted linear combination of the results. This means
that for each vector ðx1 ; . . . ; xJ Þ the defuzzified response is
calculated as:
P P Q
mi ðx1 ; . . . ; xJ ÞMðBi Þ
iP i j lA ðxj ÞMðBi Þ
¼ P Q ji
i mi ðx1 ; . . . ; xJ Þ i j lAji ðxj Þ 371
ð5Þ
where M denotes the center of gravity of a fuzzy set.
These calculations are done for each element of the
training set. Then the results are compared to the observed
yðtÞ values. The performance P of the rule system is
X
P¼ F ðy^ðtÞ; yðtÞÞ ð6Þ
t
Typically F can be chosen as an lp measure:
F ðy^ðtÞ; yðtÞÞ ¼ jy^ðtÞ yðtÞjp ð7Þ
Other performance functions such as a likelihood type
measure, a geometric distance or a performance related to
proportional errors can also be formulated. Once one has a
measure of performance an automatic assessment of the
rules can be established. This means that the goal is to find
the rule matrix R for which the performance is the best:
PðRÞ ! min ð8Þ
Q
The number of possible rules is: j Kj  L This means that
between the variables x1 ; . . . ; xJ and y using fuzzy rules. the number of possible rule matrices is:
T ¼ ðx1 ðtÞ; . . . ; xJ ðtÞ; yðtÞ t ¼ 1; . . . TÞ ð1Þ
Q 
j Kj  L
The rule system consisting of I rules should deliver results I
(after a combination and defuzzification) such that the
rule response R for each t should be close to the observed which is usually a very large number. For example, in the
value: case of a small rule system with J ¼ 3 arguments with
Kj ¼ 6 possible membership functions for each of them
Rðx1 ðtÞ; . . . ; xJ ðtÞÞ  yðtÞ ð2Þ and considering a rule response with 5 possibilities the
The fuzzy rules are formulated using predefined fuzzy sets  number
of rule sets consisting of I ¼ 5 rules is
63 5
for each variable j fAj;1 ; . . . ; Aj;Kj g. The fuzzy rules then are 5  1:2  1013 . Thus there is no possibility to try out
described in the form: each rule combination to find the best. Therefore discrete
optimisation methods have to be used to find ‘‘good’’ rule
If x1 is A1;ki;1 and . . . xJ is AJ;ki;J then y is Bli;1 ð3Þ systems. Genetic algorithm or simulated annealing are
Here i is the index of the rule. possible candidates for this task.

2.2
2.1 Assessment of the rule system
Definition of the rule system The problem is to find the rule system R with optimal
The rule system can thus be described in the form of a performance PðRÞ. The method chosen here is simulated
matrix consisting of natural numbers ki;j annealing using the Metropolis algorithm. The algorithm
0 1 is as follows:
k1;1    k1;J l1
B .. C
R ¼ @ ... ..
. .A ð4Þ (1) The possible fuzzy sets for the arguments Aj;k and the
responses Bl are defined
kI;1  kI;J lI (2) A rule system R is generated at random.
where (3) The performance of the rule system PðRÞ is calcu-
lated.
1  ki;j  Kj ; 1  li  L (4) An initial annealing temperature ta is selected.
 (5) An element of the rule system is picked at random. the others will be altered. In case of rule responses they
Suppose the index of this element is ði; hÞ. can be calculated directly.
(6) If h  J, an index 1  h  Kh is chosen at random
and a new rule system R with ki;h replacing ki;h is 2.4
considered. Selection of the possible fuzzy sets for
(7) If h > J, an index 1  h  L is chosen at random the rule arguments
and a new rule system R with li ¼ h replacing li is The possible fuzzy sets for the rule arguments have to be
considered. fixed before the optimisation is done. Expert knowledge
(8) In both cases the performance of the new rule system can be used for this purpose. Another alternative is the
PðR Þ is evaluated. definition by using a uniform coverage of the possible
(9) If PðR Þ < PðRÞ, then R replaces R (positive ranges of the arguments.
372
changes). One of the most important things in assessing rules is
(10) If PðR Þ  PðRÞ then the quantity the recognition that not all arguments play an important

 role for each case. The role of arguments varies according
PðRÞ PðR Þ
p ¼ exp to the actual state of the other arguments. This means that
ta one has to consider among the selected possibilities for
is calculated. With the probability p the rule system each argument the membership function lðxÞ ¼ 1. This
R replaces R (negative changes). makes it possible to formulate rules using only some of the
(11) Steps 5–10 are repeated NN times. arguments. This is an advantage of the fuzzy rule systems,
(12) The annealing temperature ta is reduced. as, for example, a linear or polynomial representation
(13) Steps 11–12 are repeated until the proportion of always considers all arguments.
positive changes becomes less than a threshold  > 0. Partial knowledge can be incorporated into the rule
The above algorithm yields a rule system with ‘‘optimal’’ system by fixing some elements of the matrix R. These
performance. However the rules obtained might reflect fixed elements are not altered randomly in the algorithm.
some specific features corresponding to a small number of Thus rules can be fixed, or rules of given structure can be
cases in the data set. To avoid rules to be derived from too identified.
few cases the performance function is modified. The Missing data or fuzzy data in the training set can also be
insufficient generality of a rule can be recognized on the considered. For each missing value a membership function
number of cases for which it is applied. As an alternative identical to 1 is chosen. For fuzzy data the corresponding
the degree of fulfilment of the rules can also be considered. membership function is considered. The DOF is evaluated
In order to ensure the transferability of the rules the using the fuzzy input as
performance of the rule system is modified, by taking the

sum of the DOFs into account. lAi;k ðx^k Þ ¼ max min lAi;k ðxÞ; lx^k ðxÞ ð10Þ
x
Y
0 P  
m t mi ðx1 ðtÞ; . . . ; xJ ðtÞ This means for missing data for each corresponding
0
P ðRÞ ¼ PðRÞ 1þ argument the membership 1 is assumed.
i
m0 þ

ð9Þ
Here ð:Þþ is the positive part function:
 In order to assess the rule system one has to select the
x if x  0
xþ ¼
0 if x < 0
m0 is the desired lower limit for the applicability of the rules
in this case expressed by the sum of DOFs. If P0 is used
in the optimisation procedure then rules which are based
on a few cases and are seldom used are penalized. The
degree of penalty depends on the grade to which the
desired limit m0 exceeds the actual sum of DOFs for a
selected rule.
2.3
Calculation of the changes
The evaluation of the performance P (or P0 ) requires the
calculation of the DOFs for each element of the training
set. This means that for each rule argument the member-
2.5
Choice of the parameters of the algorithm
parameters ta ; NN; m0 of the performance function and the
algorithm. There are no specific guidelines but some
practical hints can be given. The initial annealing tem-
perature ta should be selected in such a way that at the
beginning of the algorithm about 50–70% of the randomly
generated changes are accepted (i.e. the rule matrix is
modified). A very low ta leads to a few accepted negative
changes and risks to end in a local optimum. On the other
hand a too high ta means a fully random search at the
beginning, thus a long computation before the number of
changes is reduced below the acceptable limit .
The limit m0 for the sum of DOFs should be selected as a
function of the number of observations T and the number
of rules. It reflects the minimum number of cases for
which each rule has to be applied. Reasonable choices are
around:
ship function has to be evaluated. Thus totally T  I  J
T
membership functions have to be evaluated. In the case of m0 ¼ 0:1 
a big training set when T is large, this means a lot of I
computations. This can be reduced considerably if one The number of iterations NN should be selected in a way
only calculates the DOF of the changed rule i, as none of that for each temperature enough evaluations are carried
out. The value should be proportional to the number rise to the soil profile, lateral flow, and percolation to the
of rules and the number of arguments + number of deep aquifer.
responses. Values around The module representing crops and natural vegetation
is an important interface between hydrology and nutrients.
NN ¼ 5  I  ðJ þ 1Þ
usually give reasonable results.
2.6
Validation of the rule systems
Rule systems are obtained using observed data, and thus
have to be validated on independent observations. For this
purpose two methods can be applied – split sampling and
cross validation.
In the case of a sufficiently large sample one can divide
the data in two sets – the training set T and the validation
set V. The rules are assessed from T and evaluated on V.
The real performance of the rule system is that on the
validation set.
3 and the flows: fertilization, input with precipitation,
Modelling nitrogen leaching with the process-based
model
For the selected application, first a training set T has to be
found. As there are no representative measurements for
this large scale available, a detailed process-based model
can be used to generate the training set. Usually, the
detailed dynamic models due to their complexity and
data requirements are not best suited for large-scale
applications aimed in policy support.
Simulation experiments described here were performed
using the model SWIM for a restricted set of natural and
land management conditions, which are representative for
the Saale River basin (drainage area 23, 687 km2 ), a trib-
utary of the Elbe River. This subsection (a) gives a short
description of SWIM in Sect. 3.1, (b) describes how the
simulation experiments were designed in Sect. 3.2, and
(c) analyses the results to be used in Sect. 4 as an input to
the fuzzy rule based model (Sect. 3.3).
3.1
The process-based model
The modelling system SWIM (Soil and Water Integrated
Model) includes as its kernel, a continuous-time spatially-
distributed model, which integrates hydrology, vegetation,
and nutrient (nitrogen, N and phosphorus, P) and sedi-
ment fluxes at the river basin scale. In addition, it includes
an interface to the Geographic Information System GRASS,
which allows the extraction of spatially distributed pa-
rameters including elevation, land use, soil types, and the
A simplified EPIC approach [7] is included in SWIM for
simulating arable crops (like wheat, barley, rye, maize,
potatoes) and aggregated vegetation types (like ‘pasture’,
‘evergreen forest’, ‘mixed forest’), using specific parameter
values for each crop/vegetation type. Vegetation in the
model affects the hydrological cycle by the cover-specific
retention coefficient, which influences runoff, and
373
indirectly – the amount of evapotranspiration, which
is simulated as a function of potential evapotranspiration
and LAI.
The nitrogen and phosphorus modules include the
following pools: nitrate nitrogen, active and stable organic
nitrogen, organic nitrogen in the plant residue, labile
phosphorus, active and stable mineral phosphorus, or-
ganic phosphorus, and phosphorus in the plant residue,
mineralisation, denitrification, plant uptake, leaching to
groundwater, losses with surface runoff and erosion.
Regarding the lateral transport, the runoff and leaching are
more important for nitrogen than for phosphorus. The
latter is mainly transported with erosion. The interaction
between nutrient supply and vegetation is modelled by the
plant consumption of nutrients and using nitrogen and
phosphorus stress functions, which affect the plant growth.
Prior to this study SWIM was tested and validated se-
quentially for hydrology in several mesoscale river basins,
for nitrogen dynamics, crop growth, and erosion. The
validation of nitrogen dynamics was performed for two
mesoscale sub-basins of the Elbe: the Stepenitz and the
Zschopau [8] [9]. In advance to the modelling nitrogen
fluxes for the Saale basin, a successful hydrological
validation for this basin (gauge Calbe-Grizehne located
close to the river mouth), was completed.
3.2
Design of modelling experiments and data
The natural conditions incorporated in the simulation
runs included four climates (represented by climate
stations), three different soils (according to soil map BÜK-
1000), five elevation classes (represented by slope steep-
ness). The land management conditions included three
crop rotations and three fertilization schemes. Simulation
runs were performed for 30 years period 1961–1990 for all
possible combinations of four climate zones, three soil
classes, three rotation schemes, three fertilization schemes,
routing structure for the model initialisation. The model
can be applied for mesoscale river basins (or regions) with
an area up to 25,000 km2 , or, after validation in
representative sub-basins, for regions of similar size.
The simulated hydrological system consists of four
control volumes: the soil surface, the root zone, the
shallow aquifer, and the deep aquifer. The soil column is
subdivided into several layers in accordance with the soil
database. The water balance for the soil column includes
precipitation, surface runoff, evapotranspiration, percola-
tion and subsurface runoff. The water balance for the
shallow aquifer includes groundwater recharge, capillary
and five elevation zones, which produced 4  3  3  3
5 ¼ 540 time series with daily time step.
Agricultural land occupies about 70% of the Saale River
basin. Four climate stations were chosen as representative
for cropland in the region, based on a classification taking
into account the long-term average annual precipitation
and average temperature for the stations, and considering
the availability of continuous data during the period 1961–
1990. The four climate zones represented by climate sta-
tions are listed in Table 1. They are ordered according to
the annual precipitation ranging from 460 to 732 mm. The
altitude of the stations varies from 164 m a.m.s.l. in Artern
 Table 1. Classification of natural conditions and agricultural land management in the Saale River basin used for the simulation
experiments with the SWIM model

No Station name Station number Altitude, m a.m.s.l. Average annual Average annual
precipitation (mm) temperature (°C)

I Climate zones, represented by climate stations

1 Artern 3402 164 460 8.64
2 Erfurt 4200 316 503 8.01
3 Gera-Leumnitz 4406 311 611 8.02
4 Hof-Hohensaas 4027 567 732 6.46
No Name of soil types Occurrence in Field capacity in Saturated conductivity
374 arable land (%) root zone (Vol. %) in root zone (mm/h)
II Soil classes, represented by soil types (BÜK-1000)
36 Tschernosem from loess 13.8 39.7 9.9
56 Braunerde from loess and weathering products 6.4 37.5 9.0
55 Braunerde from sour rocks 4.3 32.3 41.1
No Crop sequence (year)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
III Rotation schemes
1 pob ww sb Wr set-aside ww wb po ww ma
2 po wb ma ww wr ww ma po ww ma
3 po set-aside sb wr set-aside ww wb po ww set-aside
No Fertilisation rate (kg ha)1)
Winter wheat Winter barley Winter rye Spring barley Potatoes Maize Set-aside
IV Fertilisation schemes
1 30+60+30 Nc 20+60+20 N 20+60+20 N 60+20+20 N 140 N 180 N 0 N
30+30 org Nd 30+30 org N 30+30 org N 30+30 org N 30+30 org N 30+30 org N 0 org N
2 45+90+45 N 30+90+30 N 30+90+30 N 90+30+30 N 210 N 270 N 0 N
45+45 org N 45+45 org N 45+45 org N 45+45 org N 45+45 org N 45+45 org N 0 org N
3 15+30+15 N 10+30+10 N 10+30+10 N 30+10+10 N 70 N 90 N 0 N
15+15 org N 15+15 org N 15+15 org N 15+15 org N 15+15 org N 15+15 org N 0 org N
a
occurrence of the main soil plus occurrence of other soils;
b
po – potatoes, ww – winter wheat, wb – winter barley, wr – winter rye, sb – spring barley, ma – silage maize;
c
fertilisation by mineral N;
d
fertilisation by organic N

to 567 m a.m.s.l. in Hof-Hohensaas. The higher altitudes in
the basin (up to 1100 m) were ignored, because most of
the agricultural land is at lower altitudes, namely: about
40% of agricultural land is located in areas lower than
200 m, 79% lower than 400 m, and 96.4% lower than
600 m. Though climate stations 1 and 2 have similar
average annual precipitation, they both were considered
in order to have better representation of the climate
conditions and elevation for the basin. Five elevation
classes represented by topographic slope ranging from 0.2
to 10% were considered.
Loess soils or soils from loess mixed with weathering
products are the dominant soil types in the basin, rocky
soils occur only in the mountain areas. Altogether, the
cropland contains 34 soil types (BÜK-1000) [10], 23 of
them occupy 96.7% of the total cropland area. They can be
roughly represented by three different soils: ‘Tschernosem
from loess’ (soil 36), ‘Braunerde from loess and weathering
products’ (soil 56), and ‘Braunerde from sour rocks’ (soil
55) listed in Table 1. These three soils occupy 24.5% of
arable land. Soil 36 is loamy, it has a low saturated hy-
draulic conductivity and the highest field capacity among
three chosen soils. Soil 56 is also loamy, with a loamy-
sandy layer below 85 cm, it has low saturated hydraulic
conductivity and a medium field capacity. Soil 55 is sandy-
loamy, with a loamy-sandy layer below 60 cm, it has the
lowest field capacity and the highest saturated hydraulic
conductivity among the three chosen soils. The number of
soils was restricted in this case for simplification purposes,
though other soil classifications are possible for better
representation of soil characteristics in the region [11].
Table 1 includes also three rotation schemes, 10 years
each, and three fertilization schemes, which represent a
range of agricultural management practices. The basic
rotation and fertilization schemes (schemes 1) were de-
rived from the typical practices in the area [12] and [13].
Two additional rotation schemes were applied; a more
intensive rotation (scheme 2), which included two addi-
tional years of silage maize instead of one year of spring
barley and one year of set-aside, and a less intensive ro-
tation (scheme 3), which included two additional years of
set-aside instead of one year of silage maize and one year
of winter wheat). Winter crops are indicated in Table 1 for
the year when they are harvested.
The rates of fertilization used in the model application
are crop-specific (Table 1). The cereals (winter wheat,
winter barley, winter rye, and spring barley) are fertilised
by mineral N three times, including once in autumn for
winter crops, while for silage maize and potatoes the total
annual amount is applied only once, during the sowing
[12]. In addition, organic fertilizer is applied using the
following rules: for winter crops 30 kg ha 1 of organic N is
applied 23–43 days before sowing (depending on the
previous crop) and 30 kg ha-1 is applied at the beginning
of March; and for summer crops 30 kg ha 1 is applied at
the end of October of the previous year and 30 kg ha 1 is
applied six weeks after sowing in spring. Two other fer-
tilization schemes were used in the model by increasing
(scheme 2) or decreasing (scheme 3) the fertilization
application rates by 50% without changing the time of
application. The three rotation schemes and three
fertilization schemes were combined with one another.
3.3
Analysis of factors affecting nitrogen fluxes
Simulated 540 time series of daily water fluxes (direct
runoff, interflow, groundwater recharge, and evapotran-
spiration) and daily N fluxes (N washoff with direct runoff
and interflow, N leaching to groundwater, N uptake by
plants, denitrification, and mineralisation) were aggregat-
ed to monthly, annual, and average annual values and then
analysed with respect to the different natural conditions
and management practices. The results of the analysis are
presented in Figs. 1–5. 375
Figure 1 shows the effect of climate on the monthly N
losses with water (with direct runoff, interflow and
leaching to groundwater) for soil 56 for the whole simu-
lation period of 30 years. The increasing trend in wetter
conditions is evident: when precipitation increases from
Fig. 1. Monthly dynamics of
total N losses with water (with
direct runoff, interflow and
leaching to groundwater) for
soil 56 for the 30 years
simulation period in different
climate conditions (climate 1, 3
and 4)
376
460 through 611 to 732 mm on average for climate stations
1, 3 to 4, nitrogen losses from soil with water fluxes
increase as well. In dryer climate conditions (station 1)
there are some years with very low or even zero N losses
with water from this soil.
Figure 2 (a) shows annual dynamics of N losses with
water for three investigated soils for climate station 3. In
this example rotation scheme 1 and fertilization scheme 1
were applied. As one can see, soil 36 has the lowest, and
soil 55 the highest losses with water. Figure 3 (b) compares
the same dynamics of N losses with water for three soils,
and annual precipitation after sorting the years in accor-
dance with the precipitation gradient: from the smallest to
the largest. It is clear that though there is some positive
trend for N losses following the trend in precipitation,
there are some years (e.g. years 13, 12, 28) with rather low
or medium precipitation, but rather high N losses, and, on
the opposite, there are some years (e.g. years 10, 5) with
Fig. 2. Annual dynamics of N
losses with water for three
investigated soils for climate
station 3 (a), and the same
dynamics of (N) losses with
water, and annual precipita-
tion after sorting the years in
accordance with the precipita-
tion gradient (b)
high precipitation, but rather low N losses. This is due to
the importance of seasonal distribution of precipitation
and N dynamics, e.g. high precipitation in summer or
early autumn does not cause washoff of N, because usually
arable cropland is poor in nutrients at that time. On the
other hand, high precipitation in winter and early spring
may cause high losses of N from soil with water.
Figure 3 allows to compare N losses with three above-
mentioned water flows in different climate conditions. It
shows the combined effects of climate, soil and elevation
zones on N losses with surface runoff, interflow and
leaching to groundwater. Only the basic rotation and fer-
tilization schemes were considered for these graphs. Ni-
trogen losses with surface runoff are very small. The sum
of N losses with water fluxes is practically independent of
elevation, however the elevation affects redistribution of
fluxes: N losses with interflow increase at higher elevation,
and leaching to groundwater decreases), while the total

amount remains practically the same. Consequently, the
higher slopes were excluded from further analysis. This
provides a sort of maximum estimate of N leaching to
groundwater for all soils.
Soil 36 has the smallest N losses with water, and soil 55
the highest (Fig. 3) for all climates. There is an increasing
trend for all soils with increasing precipitation (from
climate zone 1 to climate zone 4), though the results for
climates 1 and 2 are similar, and even for soil 55 the losses
are smallest for climate 2.
The effect of land management practices represented by
rotation and fertilization schemes on N uptake by plants
(upt), denitrification (den), and N potential leaching to
377
Fig. 3. Combined effects of climate
ðcl1; . . . ; cl4Þ, soils (s36, s56, s55), and
elevation (SS = 0.002, 0.05, SS = 0.10,
where SS is the topographic slope) on
modelled long-term average annual N
losses, considering fluxes with direct
runoff (n-qd), interflow (n-inter), and
ground-water recharge (n-gw)
groundwater (lea) is shown in Fig. 4 for three investigated
soils. The effect of higher fertilization rates is obvious: all
losses and uptake are higher when fertilization scheme 2 is
applied. Also, changing the crop rotation affects N plant
uptake and N losses: both are highest for rotation scheme
2, and lowest for rotation scheme 3.
In Fig. 5 the effect of the fertilization rates on N
mineralisation, N uptake by plants, N denitrification, and
N leaching is depicted for three investigated soils. The
modelling results for five climate zones were averaged for
this example to exclude the climate effects. Here one can
see the combined effect of soil types and fertilization rates.
The following tendencies are observed: the highest N
378

Fig. 4. Effect of rotation and fertilisation schemes ðr1f 1; . . . ; r3f 3Þ on simulated long-term average annual N fluxes: N uptake by
plants (upt), gaseous losses (den), and N losses with water (lea+)

mineralisation and N uptake in soil 36, high N losses with ments with the deterministic SWIM model (see Sect. 3).
denitrification in soil 36, and the highest losses with water This Section describes some of the data pre-processing, the
in the more sandy soil 55. The denitrification pattern is building of the fuzzy model and the validation of the
attributed to a high field capacity and low saturated hy- approach.
draulic conductivity of soil 36, which enhances denitrifi-
cation and assures its low permeability for water and 4.1
associated fluxes. In contrast, leaching to groundwater is Pre-processing
much higher in soil 55, which has zero denitrification. ThisAlthough for prospective applications of the fuzzy model
is due to larger proportion of sand and higher saturated in environmental or agricultural management the annual
hydraulic conductivity in this soil. to long term behaviour of N-leaching is the most sought
An indirect validation of nitrogen balance components target scale, a monthly time step has been chosen here.
obtained for the Saale region was performed using regional This allows to consider important seasonal climate and
data on nitrogen balance components for northern and management effects and builds a compromise between the
central Germany obtained from literature [14] [15] and modelling demands resulting from high process dynamics
others. In general, the modelling results fit into the ranges
and the required computational efficiency of the solution.
obtained from the literature for different conditions, and One of the most important steps for the identification of
differences between soils and climates are plausible. The the fuzzy rule systems is the selection and compilation of
results of the simulation experiments with SWIM provide the input variables. They should have significant impact
a basis for the fuzzy rule based model, which is described on the nitrogen dynamics and be easily available for future
in Sect. 4. scenario analysis without the need for running a nitrogen
process model. Table 2 lists some important variables,
4 which are evaluated amongst several others regarding their
Application of the fuzzy rule model use for the fuzzy model. The list mainly comprises climate
The fuzzy rule approach is applied to the estimation of observations, water fluxes from SWIM simulations, fertil-
nitrogen (N) leaching from three different soils (s36, s56, ization amounts and average crop uptake values. The latter
s55) using the results obtained from simulation experi- can be considered as fixed plant specific parameters (12
 379

Fig. 5. Effect of the fertilisation rates (scheme 1 : ref, scheme 2: +50% , scheme 3: )50% ) on N mineralisation, N uptake by plants, N
denitrification, and N losses with water for three investigated soils

Table 2. Important variables

used for the identification of No. Symbol Variable Units
the fuzzy rule systems 3,4
1 Nout nitrogen leaching kg N/(ha
mon)
2 PCP precipitation mm/mon
3 TAV air temperature °C
4 Q total water outflow3 current month mm/mon
5 Q)1 total water outflow3 last month mm/mon
6 ETR evapotranspiration mm/mon
7 FERT fertilization current month kg N/(ha
mon)
8 FERT12 average monthly fertilization over last 12 months kg N/(ha
mon)
(including current month)
9 Q12 average water outflow3 over last 12 months mm/mon
(excluding current month)
10 NUPT12 specific2 nitrogen crop uptake averaged over the kg N/(ha
mon)
last 12 months (including current month)
11 Qsald difference between total precipitation sum and mm/yr
total water outflow3 over whole simulation
period for each variant1
12 FERTsald difference between total fertilization sum and kg N/yr
specific2 nitrogen crop uptake averaged over
the whole simulation period for each variant1
1
36 variants per soil (combination of ‘‘climates’’, fertilizations and crop rotations)
2
calculated from monthly crop specific values (12 values for each crop, one per month), compiled
from simulation results with SWIM
3
sum over all horizontal and vertical components leaving the soil column: surface, interflow,
groundwater-percolation
4 target variable (model response)
 values per crop, one for each month), assessed from long-  the definition of the structure of the model (variables,
term SWIM simulations. To consider a certain hydrolog- number of systems and rules),
ical memory in the fuzzy rule systems several lagged and  the definition of fuzzy numbers on input variables and
aggregated variables are introduced (e.g. average fertil- on the response and
ization and outflow over the last 12 months). Besides,  the assessment of the fuzzy rules (optimization of the
some total balances are used to distinguish between arguments for the rules).
general site conditions represented by each of the variants
(climate + fertilization + crop rotation). All dynamic For simplicity reasons three separate fuzzy rule systems are
process variables describing the nitrogen cycle like N build here, one for each soil profile operating on data from
content in soil, denitrification, mineralization etc. have all combinations of climates, crop rotations and
been avoided. However, hydrological fluxes like water fertilizations (36 variants per soil). For the whole identifi-
380
outflow and evapotranspiration are included, assuming cation process the data set is divided into two samples, one
they can be obtained in a future operational case from a for training and one for validation. This is done by splitting
simple conceptual water balance model. the 30-year simulation period (1961 to 1990) into 20 years
As an initial assessment about the value of the input for training (1961–1970 & 1981–1990) and 10 years for
validation (1971–1980). The validation set is taken from the
variables, a correlation analysis is carried out. Fig. 6 shows
simplified scatterplots between monthly N-leaching and middle part of the whole period to avoid inconsistencies
several explanatory variables. It becomes obvious, that the between learning and training sets caused by trends. So,
relationship between N-leaching and the input variables is altogether each data set for training and validation consists
quite non-linear and that there is no single variable with aof 8640 and 4320 records of monthly data, respectively (1
dominating effect on Nout. Actual N-leaching increases soil  4 climates  3 crop rotations  3 fertilization
with increasing Q, FERT12, FERTsald and with decreasing
Q1, Q12, ETR, FERT. Regarding NUPT12, PCP and TAV
the potential for leaching is highest for values in the
middle of the input range. A comparison for different
months shows higher leaching values during the winter
season. Further analysis is required to decide about an
optimal number and combination of input variables (see
next Section).
4.2
Model building
The building of the fuzzy model involves basically the
following three tasks, which are discussed in this Section: transpiration (ETR) instead of precipitation (PCP) and air
schemes  20/10 years  12 months).
A decision about the number of variables and the number
of rules has to be made before the assessment of the rule
systems (see also sect. 2). In addition to the information
gained from the correlation analysis, further trial and error
testing is carried out here. Several fuzzy rule systems with
different number and combination of input variables are
assessed. Figure 7 shows some of the results for the three
soils using rule systems with 15 rules each. Comparing the
standard errors, conclusions about the relevance of the
number and selection of specific variables can be drawn.
First, it can be seen that using percolation (Q) and evapo-
Fig. 6. Simplified scatterplots
between N-leaching ðNout Þ and
several explanatory variables
on a monthly basis for the soil
profile s56 (training period:
1961–1970 & 1981–1990)
temperature (TAV) decreases the errors significantly.
Adding actual fertilization (FERT) as input variable does not
improve the results, but using the average fertilization over
the last 12 months (FERT12) does. Further improvements
are made by inclusion of the average outflow over the last
12 months (Q12). The specific plant uptake over the last
12 month (NUPT12) as a single variable has no effect, but
utilized as a component in the fertilization saldo (FERTsald)
it seems quite useful. Also, the incorporation of the flow
saldo (Qsald) is helpful. Generally, the differences between
the various combination of variables are more pronounced
as higher the leaching potential of the soil is. Concluding
from those experiments 7 input variables has been chosen in
all three fuzzy rule systems: Q, Q1, ETR, FERT12, Q12,
FERTsald and Qsald.
Regarding the optimal number of rules similar tests are
run. In this case the problem of over-learning can be se-
rious. Figure 8 shows this effect comparing standard errors
averaged for the three soils and calculated for the training
and the validation period with number of rules in the fuzzy
rule systems. While with increasing number of rules the
training performances becomes continually better, the
validation performance does not follow this pattern, it
even decreases again with higher number of rules ð> 0Þ.
For a robust approach simulation results for both training
and validation periods should show similar low errors.
This is the case for a moderate number of rules between 10
and 20. So, for subsequent modelling the number of rules
381
is set to 15 for all three rule systems.
Another important issue is the adequate definition of
fuzzy numbers for the rule arguments (Aj;k ) and on the
response Bi . After some tests an automatic procedure is
used considering the range of the variables and the fre-
quency of the values. As mentioned before only triangular
Fig. 7. Effect of number and
combination of input variables
on the training performance of
the fuzzy rule systems
(training period: 1961–1970 &
1981–1990)
Fig. 8. Standard errors from
simulations with the fuzzy rule
systems averaged for the three
soils for training and valida-
tion periods using different
number of rules
 fuzzy numbers are employed. Figure. 9 shows exemplarily
the fuzzy numbers defined on the input variable percola-
tion (Q). Given any maximum number K1 the procedure
associates one fuzzy number for the infinite case, one for
the zero case, three symmetric numbers equally parti-
tioning the observed range of the variable and the re-
maining ðK1 5Þ according to the frequency of the values
with the largest fuzzy number extending to infinity of x. K1
is set here to values between 6 and 12, with 12 for the
response variable and decreasing number according to the
relevance of the input variables. Finally, the fuzzy numbers
382
are ordered, the distance between adjacent numbers is
calculated and for very similar numbers only one is kept.
In order to account for values outside the range for future
applications the smallest and the largest fuzzy number (i.e.
xi for lðxi Þ ¼ 1) are shifted by 50% beyond the minimum
and the maximum values observed, respectively.
For the assessment of the fuzzy rules simulated an-
nealing is used as an automatic procedure (see also Sect.
2), but with the possibility to include some rules a priori.
Here only one fixed rule is prescribed: ‘‘If percolation is
zero than N-leaching is zero too.’’ This rule is implemented
as an exclusive crisp rule disabling the remaining fuzzy
rules, since simultaneous fulfilment is undesirable in this
case. As objective function the sum of mean squared errors
between SWIM simulated and fuzzy rule simulated
monthly N-leaching values is taken. The iteration is
stopped if the sum of positive changes remains smaller
than 3 during the last three temperature loops. Addition-
ally, the parameter m0 is introduced, which leads to a
penalty on the objective function value if the sum of the
degrees of fulfilment over all time steps for a certain rule
Fig. 9. Fuzzy numbers defined on percolation (Q); solid lines:
zero and infinite cases, dashed lines: equal range partitioning,
dotted lines: frequency partitioning
becomes smaller then m0 . This forces the optimisation
procedure to general applicable rules and prevents too
strong emphasis on very rare events.
4.3
Results and validation
The three soil-specific fuzzy rule systems consisting of 15
rules and 7 input variables each are assessed and validated
considering the above defined prerequisites and data sets
for training and validation. Table 3 shows some perfor-
mance criteria for the fuzzy model, listed separately for the
training and validation periods as well as for different time
scales. The performance improves with increasing time
scale. The simulation quality for the training period is
better than for the validation period, but the differences
are moderate, which demonstrates the robustness of the
approach. For long term values quite good results were
reached, which is the most important scale for potential
future assessment exercises. In Fig. 10 comparisons be-
tween the SWIM and fuzzy rule based simulations of the
long term average N-losses for all soils and the training
and validation periods are presented, which support this
conclusion. Although a drop in performance can be no-
ticed, when comparing the annual criteria in Table 3 with
the long term values, the former are still satisfactory. In
Fig. 11 the annual time series simulated by SWIM and the
fuzzy model for both the training and validation periods
for soil s56 are presented. It can be seen, that the corre-
spondence is acceptable, however the extreme values are
not modelled very well by the fuzzy rule approach.
Finally, the fuzzy rule approach is compared with a
multiple linear regression model to assess the differences
between a conventional linear and a non-linear approach.
As an example the soil profile s56 is chosen here, too.
The same 7 input variables as utilised in the fuzzy model
are used here as independent variables in the multiple
regression approach. Also, all records with zero N-losses
are excluded to account for the crisp rule If percolation is
zero than N-leaching is zero, too. The multiple regression
model is fitted for the training period and then applied for
the validation period using the monthly data. One problem
is the occurrence of negative values for some of the
responses. This could have been avoided by a suitable
variable transformation. However, for simplicity and to
keep a pure linear approach the remaining small number
of negative responses after aggregation to annual values
(2% negative values left) has been set to zero. Figure 12

Table 3. Performance of the

fuzzy rule system for the 3 soil Soil Avg Monthly SE/Avg r Annual r Long-term r
profiles N-loss1 bias2 SE/Avg SE/Avg
Training (1961–1970 & 1981–1990)
s36 9.2 )0.02 2.20 0.80 0.74 0.86 0.19 0.97
s56 30.1 0.01 1.78 0.84 0.61 0.88 0.18 0.97
s55 42.9 )0.09 1.33 0.86 0.49 0.91 0.16 0.97
Validation (1971–1980)
s36 7.2 0.25 2.67 0.78 1.04 0.82 0.58 0.97
s56 30.5 )0.07 2.15 0.70 0.76 0.75 0.29 0.91
s55 49.4 )0.79 1.60 0.81 0.64 0.79 0.32 0.94

Avg – average, SE – standard error, r –correlation, 1

kg ha)1 year)1, 2
kg ha)1 month)1
 383

Fig. 10. Comparison of long term N-los-

ses simulated by SWIM and by the fuzzy
model for all three soils and both training
and validation periods (36 variants per
shows the aggregated annual time series simulated by
SWIM and by the regression model. The simulation
performance of the multiple regression approach is worse
compared to the fuzzy model (cp. Fig. 11) with in increase
of the standard error by 36%. Although, it is certainly
possible to construct better and quasi non-linear regres-
sion models by special transformations on the variables, it
would be difficult to achieve the performance of the fuzzy
model, which is not forced a priory to any internal model
structure.
5 
Discussion and conclusions
Environmental systems are often very complex and highly
non linear. The variables controlling the processes are
varying with the actual dominating processes. As the
importance of the processes depends on the actual state,
fuzzy rules can provide a natural case specific description.
graph: 4 ‘‘climates’’  3 rotations  3
fertilizations) (for performance criteria
see Table 3)
This means that models are built where only the variables
important for the given state are considered. As no
structure of the model is imposed, fuzzy rules can flexibly
adjusted to the problem considered.
 Fuzzy rules can be derived from datasets using
simulated annealing.
 Expert knowledge can be incorporated via fixed rules.
 Robustness and transferability can be ensured by
limiting the number of rules and the number of cases a
rule is applied.
Incomplete datasets can be used.
 Nitrate leaching as a complicated non-linear problem
can be modelled effectively by fuzzy rule systems.
 Deterministic models can serve as a basis for the
derivation of fuzzy rule based replacement models.
 The fuzzy models are fast, robust and transparent and
can be applied in many cases.
384

Fig. 11. Comparison of annual N-loss time series for

soil 56 simulated by SWIM and by the fuzzy model
(FuzRul) for 10 years training (upper figure) and 10
years validation (lower figure). The figures show
sequences of 36  10 years simulations comprising
all variants with crop rotations (r1...r3) cycling fastest,
then fertilizations ðf1 . . . f3Þ and finally ‘‘climates’’
ðc1 . . . c4Þ from left to right (e.g. r1f1c1, r2f1c1, r3f1c1
for the first 30 years etc.)

Fig. 12. Comparison of annual N-loss time series for

soil 56 simulated by SWIM and by the multiple re-
gression model (MREG) for the validation period. The
The simplicity of the fuzzy rules makes their incorporation
into Geographical Information Systems possible and can
offer a flexible easy to use modelling system for decision
support.
References
1. Pedricz W, Reformat M (1997) Rule-based models of multi-
variable functions. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 90: 235–253
2. Yan Shi, Masaharu Mizumoto (2000) A new approach of
neuro-fuzzy learning algorithm for tuning fuzzy rules, Fuzzy
Sets and Systems 112: 99–116
figure shows a sequences of 36  10 years simulations
comprising all variants with crop rotations ðr1 . . . r3Þ
cycling fastest, then fertilizations ðf1 . . . f3Þ and finally
‘‘climates’’ ðc1 . . . c4Þ from left to right (e.g. r1f1c1,
r2f1c1, r3f1c1 for the first 30 years etc.)
3. Herrera F, Lozano M. Verdegay JL (1998) A learning Process
for fuzzy control rules using genetic algorithms, Fuzzy Sets
and Systems 100: 143–158
4. Mamdani EH (1974) Applications of fuzzy algorithms for
control of a simple dynamic plant, Proceedings of IEEE
121(12): 1585–1588
5. Tanaka K (1997) An Introduction to Fuzzy Logic for
Practical Applications, Springer Verlag, New York, Berlin,
Heidelberg
6. Bárdossy A, Disse M (1993) Fuzzy Rule-based
Models for Infiltration. Water Resources Research 29: 373–
382
 7. Williams JR, Renard KG, Dyke PT (1984) EPIC – a new
model for assessing erosion’s effect on soil productivity,
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 38(5): 381–383
8. Krysanova V, Becker A (1999a) Integrated Modelling of
Hydrological Processes and Nutrient Dynamics at the River
Basins Scale. Hydrobiologia 410: 131–138
9. Krysanova V, Gerten D, Klöcking B, Becker A (1999b) Fac-
tors affecting nitrogen export from diffuse sources: A mod-
elling study in the Elbe basin. In: Heathwaite L, (ed.) Impact
of Land-Use Change on Nutrient Loads from Diffuse Sources,
IAHS Publ. No. 257; pp. 201–212
10. Hartwich R, Behrens J, Eckelmann W, Haase G, Richter A,
Roeschmann G, Schmidt R (1995) Bodenübersichtskarte
der Bundesrepublik Deutschland 1:1000000, Hannover,
Germany
11. Krysanova V, Haberlandt U, Österle H, Hattermann F
(2001a) Effects of natural and anthropogenic factors on
nitrogen fluxes in agricultural soils: a modelling study in
the Saale River basin (central Europe). In: Impact of Human
Activity on Groundwater Dynamics, IAHS Publ. No. 269;
pp. 331–338
12. Roth D, Knoblauch S, Pfleger I, Herold L (1998) Nitratgehalte
im Sickerwasser und N-Austrag aus unterschiedlichen
Agrarstandorten Thüringens, Thüringer Landesamt fr
Landwirtschaft, Jena, Germany
13. Krönert R, Franko U, Haferkorn U, Hülsbergen K-J,
Abraham J, Biermann S, Hirt U, Mellenthin U, Ramsbeck-
Ullmann M, Steinhardt U (1999) Gebietswasserhaushalt und
Stoffhaushalt in der Löregion des Elbegebietes als Grundlage
fr die Durchsetzung einer nachhaltigen Landnutzung, UFZ
Leipzig-Halle GmbH, Leipzig, Germany
14. DVWK, Deutscher Verband für Wasserwirtschaft und
Kulturbau e.V (1984) Bodennutzung und Nitrataustrag
Literaturauswertung ber die Situation bis 1984 in der 385
Bundesrepublik Deutschland (1985), Hamburg, Berlin,
Germany
15. Scheffer F, Schachtschabel P (1984) Lehrbuch der Bodenk-
unde. 11 Edition. Enke, Stuttgart, Germany
16. Krysanova V, Müller-Wohlfeil DI, Becker A (1998) Devel-
opment and test of a spatially distributed hydrological/water
quality model for mesoscale watersheds, Ecological Model-
ling, 106: 261–289