4.7 Article

A framework for using ant colony optimization to schedule environmental flow management alternatives for rivers, wetlands, and floodplains

期刊

WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH
卷 48, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1029/2011WR011276

关键词

-

资金

  1. University of Adelaide
  2. eWater CRC

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Rivers, wetlands, and floodplains are in need of management as they have been altered from natural conditions and are at risk of vanishing because of river development. One method to mitigate these impacts involves the scheduling of environmental flow management alternatives (EFMA); however, this is a complex task as there are generally a large number of ecological assets (e. g., wetlands) that need to be considered, each with species with competing flow requirements. Hence, this problem evolves into an optimization problem to maximize an ecological benefit within constraints imposed by human needs and the physical layout of the system. This paper presents a novel optimization framework which uses ant colony optimization to enable optimal scheduling of EFMAs, given constraints on the environmental water that is available. This optimization algorithm is selected because, unlike other currently popular algorithms, it is able to account for all aspects of the problem. The approach is validated by comparing it to a heuristic approach, and its utility is demonstrated using a case study based on the Murray River in South Australia to investigate (1) the trade-off between plant recruitment (i.e., promoting germination) and maintenance (i.e., maintaining habitat) flow requirements, (2) the trade-off between flora and fauna flow requirements, and (3) a hydrograph inversion case. The results demonstrate the usefulness and flexibility of the proposed framework as it is able to determine EFMA schedules that provide optimal or near-optimal trade-offs between the competing needs of species under a range of operating conditions and valuable insight for managers.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据