Cited by 47Aquatic Ecosystems and Phytoplankton DynamicsHydrological Forecasting Using AIWater Quality Monitoring Technologies

Machine learning-based design and monitoring of algae blooms: Recent trends and future perspectives – A short review

Sheik, Abdul Gaffar, Kumar, Arvind, Patnaik, Reeza, Kumari, Sheena, Bux, Faizal·2024·Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology

Abstract

Machine learning (ML) models are widely used methods for analyzing data from sensors and satellites to monitor climate change, predict natural disasters, and protect wildlife. However, the application of these technologies for monitoring and managing algal blooms in freshwater environments is relatively new and novel. The commonly used models in algal blooms (ABS) so far are artificial neural networks (ANN), random forests (RF), support vector machine (SVM), data-driven modeling, and long short-term memory (LSTM). In the past, researchers have mostly worked on predicting the effluent parameters, nutrients, microculture, area and weather conditions, meteorological factors, ground waters, energy optimization, and metallic substances in algal blooms using ML models. Most of the studies have employed performance metrics like root mean squared error, mean squared error, peak signal, precision, and determination coefficient as their primary model performance measures for accuracy analysis, and the usage of transfer, and activation function. While there have been some studies on this topic, several research gaps are still to be addressed. The most significant gaps are related to the limited application of ML in different algae bloom scenarios, the interpretability of ML models, and the lack of integration with existing monitoring systems. Keeping these in mind, this review article has been methodically arranged to present an overview of the past studies, their limitations, and the w…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/10643389.2023.2252313

Cites

128 of 128 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sheik, A. G., Kumar, A., Patnaik, R., Kumari, S., & Bux, F.
Affiliations
Durban University of Technology (ZA)
Corresponding author
Bux, Faizal
Venue
Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology
Published
2023-09-07
Volume
54
Issue
7
Pages
509-532
ISSN
  • 1064-3389 (ISSN-L)
  • 1547-6537
OpenAlex
W4386496371
Cited by
47
References
128
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 10
FWCI
4.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Aquatic Ecosystems and Phytoplankton Dynamics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Hydrological Forecasting Using AI
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Water Quality Monitoring Technologies
Keywords
algal blooms, machine learning, algal bloom prediction, freshwater ecosystems, artificial neural networks, random forest, support vector machine, long short-term memory, model interpretability, real-time monitoring, nutrient prediction, feature engineering, model benchmarking

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review