0 vues

Transféré par Gilang Putra Bahana

Hip Some Tri

- Calculus Lesson Plans
- The Calculus Integral - Brian S. Thomson
- Gravity and Magnetics Workbooks
- dcm-lh-1011-en.pdf
- parentguide math 6eng
- parentguide math 6
- ap rcet
- Greens Function for Cylindrically Stratified Media
- parentguide math 6
- CalcWizard 1
- 1484922492syllabus B.sc Math.
- GPY001872
- Quant_Exercises
- Complex+Integral+Hand+Out
- Periodical Test
- PM0015–Quantitaive Methods in Project Management
- Integration
- A Note on Integrals and Hybrid Contours in the Complex Plane
- Gradeup Short Notes on Definite Integral and Area.pdf-54
- Betw Curves 2

Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 5

STEPHEN E. WILSON ! 94025

Geomorphic Area-Altitude Analysis

ABSTRACT randomly or systematically chosen sample

locale and at any map scale, without special

Mathematical proof establishes identity of emphasis on formational geomorphic pro-

hypsometric integral and elevation-relief ratio, cesses. According to Wood and Snell (i960),

two quantitative topographic descriptors de- the measure, here designated E, expresses

veloped independently of one another for the relative proportion of upland to lowland

entirely different purposes. Operationally, within a sample region, and is defined

values of both measures are in excellent agree-

ment for arbitrarily bounded topographic Mean elevation Min. elevation

samples, as well as for low-order fluvial water- Max. elevation Min. elevation '^

sheds. By using a point-sampling technique

rather than planimetry, elevation-relief ratio In two extensive investigations of terrain ge-

(defined as mean elevation minus minimum ometry (Wood and Snell, I960; Pike, 1963),

elevation divided by relief) is calculated man- E was obtained, respectively, from 9 and 19

ually in about a third of the time required for evenly spaced elevations arranged within cir-

the hypsometric integral. cular sample areas with a diameter of 1 to 14

mi, depending upon the value of a large-

scale texture parameter, topographic grain.

INTRODUCTION These two studies show that topographic

The purpose of this note is to prove that samples may resemble one another with re-

two geomorphic parameters, the familiar spect to local relief, average slope, or other

hypsometric integral, and the more obscure geometric aspects, and yet vary appreciably

elevation-relief ratio, are identical, and to in appearance as demonstrated by different

demonstrate that the elevation-relief ratio is values of E. E usually ranges from 0.15 to

the more useful of the two. Since the two 0.85, with values tending to cluster between

measures are defined differently and were 0.40 and 0.60. Low values occur in terrains

conceived independently of one another for characterized by isolated relief features stand-

entirely dissimilar purposes, it is understand- ing above extensive level surfaces, whereas

able that their identity has not been widely high E values describe broad, somewhat level

recognized. Strahler (1952) formally defined surfaces broken by occasional depressions.

and examined various properties of the hypso- Since identical E values, especially between

metric integral, a parameter designed specific- 0.40 and 0.60, can represent dissimilar terrain

ally for the genetic analysis of individual types, it is necessary to refer to complemen-

fluvial watersheds. His paper can be con- tary geometric parameters to obtain a com-

sulted for further background information. prehensive and meaningful description of a

Despite potential value of the hypsometric topographic sample (see, for example, Wood

integral, here designated H, as a research and Snell, I960).

tool, the time and painstaking planimetry This multivariate approach to the classifi-

required for derivation of the measure have cation of arbitrarily bounded, small-scale

discouraged its wider use among geomor- landform samples has been applied success-

phologists. fully by Hammond (1964) in the compilation

The elevation-relief ratio was conceived by of his map, Classes of Land Surface Form in

Walter F. Wood and developed by Wood and the United States (U.S. Geological Survey,

Snell (i960) as one of six descriptive terrain 1969). One of Hammond's three quantitative

parameters designed to abstract salient geo- classification criteria, "Profile Type,"

metric characteristics of topography at any resembles the elevation-relief ratio, but with

1079

1080 PIKE AND WILSON-GEOMORPHIC ANALYSES

the percentage range divided into quartiles. The high correspondence of H and E sug-

The measure is expressed as 0.50 to 0.75, or gested to the writers that the hypsometric

>0.75 of terrain slope under 8 percent being integral and the elevation-relief ratio must be

either above or below the mean elevation. identical mathematically, a unique occurrence

Hammond's four categories of profile type in relations among geomorphic descriptors.

evidently were intended to roughly measure The identity of H and E has been proven in

the same aspect of landscape geometry pre- the following formulation, which shows that

sumed by Wood and Snell (i960) to be ex- the proportion of landmass volume in any

pressed by the elevation-relief ratio. The wide region A to volume of a reference prism with

acceptance of Hammond's landform map of base area the same as that of A equals the

the United States suggests further that area- elevation-relief ratio. This proof extends the

altitude, or hypsometric, properties consti- work of Strahler (1952), who showed that

tute an important element of the landscape. the hypsometric integral, defined as the ratio

Clearly, the elevation-relief ratio is a more of area beneath the hypsometric curve to

exact estimator of this property than Ham- total graph area is equivalent to the ratio of

mond's and has the additional advantage of landmass volume of a given region to volume

expression as a single number. of a reference solid with the following rela-

tions: base area equal to base area of the land-

IDENTITY OF HYPSOMETRIC mass volume; height equal to maximum relief

INTEGRAL AND ELEVATION-RELIEF of the region. Both volumes are computed

RATIO with base considered as a plane at the mini-

Previous work (Pike, 1964) suggested that mum elevation of the region.

elevation-relief ratio and hypsometric integral Let N = number of sample points in the

were similar. During the present investiga- region,

tion, identity of the two measures was first M = number of distinct elevation

demonstrated empirically and then proven values,

mathematically. The hypothesis was verified hi = elevation values, i = 1,... M,

empirically using 64 finite samples of point hmax = maximum elevation in region

elevations which represent volume percent- with area A,

h m in = minimum elevation in region

ages of topography in the same way Chayes" with area A,

(1956) point sampling of mineralogic con- fi = frequency of elevation value h i;

stituents estimates volume percentage com- A = area of base of sample region or

position of rocks. Values of E and H were drainage basin,

calculated by a Fortran IV program written V, = volume of landmass, and

for the IBM 360/30 computer. E was ob- Vr = volume of reference solid.

tained directly from the Wood formula Since fj/N represents the ratio of number of

(equation l); H was calculated by deriving points at elevation h; to total number of

the hypsometric curve and then integrating sample points, the fraction of landmass area

the area under the curve. Program input con- at elevation h; is inferred to be fj/N'A, with

sists of topographic elevations usually read this estimate increasing in validity as N in-

to at least the nearest 0.5 contour interval creases. It follows that the landmass volume

and arranged in an evenly spaced square of the area at elevation h; is

matrix. We have used a 21 X 21 sampling

grid, with the 441 elevations separated from V,. = . A ( h i - h m i n ) . (2)

one another along rows and columns by 0.1

in. The small sample interval and large sample Thus, the hypsometric integral, H, is

size insure adequa te representation of virtually 2

all topographic types represented on large- v 4 A(hi - h min ) (3)

scale contour maps. For the 64 sample topo- Vr A(h max - h min )

graphic matrices, drawn largely from 1:24,000

U.S. Geological Survey topographic quad- Sf h

i i ~ h

min ' Zfi

rangles, the maximum difference between H -- (4)

and E is 0.008, and the mean of absolute

values of the differences is only 0.002. Of Since

the 64 values (of H-E), 27 were zero, 28

positive, and 9 negative. (5)

DISCUSSION 1081

but the sample is too small to establish this

conclusively; the average difference between

the two sets of values is 0.009.

H = L M ! L _ _ = E. (7) Reducing the number of elevations used to

obtain E from 441 to between 40 and 50 has

not degraded the parameter's accuracy. Each

DISCUSSION E value was calculated in about 15 min, each

Provided adequate sampling procedure is planimetric H value required about 45 min.

followed, the elevation-relief ratio, E, can be Larger and more irregular watersheds require

substituted for the planimetric hypsometric more time to planimeter than do simpler

integral, H p , in morphometric analysis and basins but do not increase the time or effort

landform description. To show that values of needed to gather 40 to 50 elevations for a

the area-altitude quantity are essentially in- reliable value of E.

dependent of the technique used to calculate The elevation-relief ratio is not the first

them in practice, we generated values of E parameter sought as an equivalent to the

by computer and values of H from planimetry hypsometric integral. Chorley and Morley

for 10 of the 64 sample areas used previously. (1959) derived a simplified approximation of

The point-sample technique, using 441 ele- the hypsometric integral in a previous effort

vations, yields values of E similar to values of to reduce the tedium inherent in the calcula-

H derived from planimetry; the mean abso- tion of the measure. Their technique requires

lute difference between the two sets of values that the planimetric outline of a drainage

is 0.010. Differences between the 10 pairs of basin be approximated by a lemniscate loop.

values are neither predominantly positive nor Unfortunately, many fluvial watersheds, espe-

predominantly negative and are attributed to cially those developed upon recent glacial

both the accuracy with which planimetered deposits or in subhumid climatic regimes, do

values of H wete determined and the ac- not lend themselves to approximation by

curacy of the computer values of E. Further such a simple geometric form. Also, values

operational comparisons of E and H p with of the parameter derived by Chorley and

regard to precision and accuracy lie beyond Morley do not correlate directly with the

the scope of the present paper. planimetric hypsometric integral, although

The elevation-relief ratio requires no te- the deviation is fairly constant. However, the

dious planimetry, but rather only three elevation-relief ratio is identical to the hypso-

numbers obtained quickly from a contour metric integral and does not require fitting

map: maximum elevation, minimum eleva- each drainage basin with a lemniscate loop.

tion, and the average elevation of ^he topo- Additionally, the work of Tanner (1959) sug-

graphic sample. The first two values are de- gested that the skewness in a frequency dis-

termined rapidly by inspection; the third is tribution of topographic elevations is com-

calculated from a suitable sample of eleva- parable to the elevation-relief ratio. To test

tions, which must be spaced as evenly as the this hypothesis, the IBM 360/30 was pro-

shape of the sample region or drainage basin grammed to calculate a measure of skewness

will permit so the point-sampling technique from the 441 elevations used previously to

will correctly represent the terrain configura- determine values of E and H. Results show

tion. Experience has shown that a sample of that although E and skewness of elevation

40 to 50 elevations will insure accuracy of E are closely related, skewness is a poorer pre-

to, on the average, 0.01, the value to which dictor of the hypsometric integral than even

area-altitude parameters customarily are read. the hypsometric approximation. Finally,

The elevation-relief ratio can be computed Meier (1954) should be credited with having

rapidly for even the most irregular-shaped recognized the problem when it first became

drainage basins. The sample elevations are evident. His published abstract states that

obtained by positioning a rectangular sample "Strahler's 'hypsometric integral' can be re-

grid of dots over the basin in such a way that placed by the simplet parameter of mean

40 to 50 dots fall within the watershed. Twelve (drainage basin) height, expressed as a frac-

drainage basins were selected to illustrate tion of the total (basin) relief." Although

applicability of the elevation-relief ratio to this parameter is, of course, the elevation-

fluvial watersheds. The resulting values of relief ratio, Meier's abstract furnishes no de-

1082 PIKE AND WILSONGEOMORPHIC ANALYSES

tails showing eithet equivalence of hypso- addition to that adopted for the previous formu-

metric integral and mean basin height or lation:

tests of mean height on topographic maps. h = the altitude of a topographic elevation,

Meier's unpublished 1957 manuscript (1970, h = mean elevation, and

written commun.) does contain a mathe- R = relief, or (h max - h min ).

matical statement of what needed to be proved Let F be the probability density function of h,

and discusses the properties of mean basin in A. The elevation-relief ratio, E, is defined as

height. h max

Previously, geomorphologists have been hF (h) dh - h min __ (1)

reluctant to work with hypsometric analysis / hm[n = h - h min

because of the requisite time-consuming and hmax hmin R

tedious planimetry. The present study has

demonstrated that this objection no longer To define the hypsometric function, we need

first to discuss a proportion-of-relief variable,

is valid and suggests that an area-altitude r, defined by

property, as expressed by the elevation-relief h -

,, -. - h

ratio, is practicable in description, analysis, r(h) =

and interpretation of topographic geometry. "max R

Thus, r(h min ) = 0, r(h *) = 1. (3)

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Let f(r) be the probability density function of r,

It is a pleasure to acknowledge various that is,

individuals who contributed materially to dh

this investigation. J. F. McCauley and H. J. f(r) - F(h) dr (4)

Moore, U.S. Geological Survey; S. A. The hypsometric function is g(r) = proportion

Schumm, Colorado State University; D. K. of area A containing elevations greater than h.

McMacken, Northern Arizona University; More formally,

and R. L. Shreve, University of California,

critically read various drafts of the manu- g(r) = PfMdr. (5)

script. W. J. Rozema and H. J. Moore gen- Jt

erously contributed the simplified proof of The hypsometric integral, H, is

the identity of E and H. L. E. Middlestorb,

while a temporary employee of the U.S. Geo-

(6)

logical Survey, digitized the sample topo-

fraphic matrices. This work was done on

Integrating by parts,

ehalf of the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration under Contract W-12,388 as

one phase of the Lunar Terrain Analysis and (7)

Trafficability Project of the U.S. Geological

Survey.

APPENDIX

An alternative proof shows that the hypso- (8)

metric integral, as defined by the hypsometric

curve itself^ is the same as the elevation-relief

ratio. This formulation is more complex than

the first, but also is more direct, as it does not

have to rely upon prior assumptions concerning (9)

Strahler's relation between ratio of landmass

volume and ratio of areas from the hypsometric

graph. As this proof embodies some concepts (10)

from probability and statistics not considered

previously in connection with either the eleva- = , by a change of variables, and using

tion-relief ratio or the hypsometric integral, we equality (4),

have revised the notation to better accommo-

date the present approach. Both parameters are

redefined in these terms, and the reader can

compare the new definitions with the originals

/

/h. *<"> I <">

proof, we shall use the following notation in

REFERENCES CITED 1083

(13) Pike, R. J. Landform regions of southern New

R T Englanda quantitative delimitation:

(14) M.A. thesis, Clark Univ., Worcester, Mass.,

80 p., 1963.

K LX

hF(h)dh - h min

= Lf fh- hF(h)dr -

I

Jh :

max

h min

F(h)dh

(15)

Pike, R. J. Some morphometric properties of

the lunar surfacea preliminary investiga-

tion from lunar aeronautical charts: Cornell

Aeronautical Lab. Rep. No. VS-1985-C-1,

Buffalo, New York, 112 p., 1964.

R

Strahler, A. M. Hypsometric (area-altitude

L^m

h i

n h (16) curve) analysis of erosional topography:

min

= E. Geol. Soc. Amer., Bull., Vol. 63, p. 1117-

R 1142, 1952.

Thus, we see that H = r = E. Tanner, W. F. Examples of departure from the

gaussian in geomorphic analysis: Amer. J.

REFERENCES CITED Sci., Vol. 257, p. 458-460, 1959.

U.S. Geological Survey. Classes of land-sur-

Chayes, Felix. Petrographic modal analysis face form: Sheet No. 62, National Atlas of

an elementary statistical appraisal: John the United States, scale 1:7,500,000, 1969.

Wiley & Sons, Inc., 113 p., New York, Wood, W. F.; and Snell, J. B. A quantitative

1956. system for classifying landforms: U.S. Army

Chorley, R. J.; and Morley, L. S. D. A Natick Lab., Tech. Rep. EP-124, Natick,

simplified approximation for the hypso- Massachusetts, 20 p., 1960.

metric integral: J. Geol., Vol. 67, p. 566-

571, 1959. MANUSCRIPT RECEIVED BY THE SOCIETY JUNE

Hammond, E. H. Analysis of properties in 26, 1970

landform geography: an application to REVISED MANUSCRIPT RECEIVED NOVEMBER

broad-scale landform mapping: in New 30, 1970

approaches to the geography ofthe United PUBLICATION AUTHORIZED BY THE DIRECTOR,

States: Ass. Amer. Geogr., Ann., Vol. 54, U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

p. 11-19, 1964. PRESENT ADDRESS: (WILSON) DEPARTMENT

Meier, M. F. Area-altitude graph of a mature OF MATHEMATICS, UNIVERSITY OF WASH-

drainage basin: Geol. Soc. Amer., Bull., INGTON, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98105

- Calculus Lesson PlansTransféré parWilliam Bailey
- The Calculus Integral - Brian S. ThomsonTransféré parTruong Huynh
- Gravity and Magnetics WorkbooksTransféré parSutthisrisaarng Pholpark
- dcm-lh-1011-en.pdfTransféré parIulian Tita
- parentguide math 6engTransféré parapi-272093032
- parentguide math 6Transféré parapi-293753588
- ap rcetTransféré parRam Prasad Yadav
- Greens Function for Cylindrically Stratified MediaTransféré paradmueller84
- parentguide math 6Transféré parapi-261509606
- CalcWizard 1Transféré parAvinash Vad
- 1484922492syllabus B.sc Math.Transféré parAnirban Saha
- GPY001872Transféré parDicky Ahmad Zaky
- Quant_ExercisesTransféré parproganesh
- Complex+Integral+Hand+OutTransféré parPrabodaLakruwanRupananda
- Periodical TestTransféré parKenneth Diaz
- PM0015–Quantitaive Methods in Project ManagementTransféré parSolved AssignMents
- IntegrationTransféré parNorhapidah Mohd Saad
- A Note on Integrals and Hybrid Contours in the Complex PlaneTransféré parJohn Gill
- Gradeup Short Notes on Definite Integral and Area.pdf-54Transféré parTafazzul Hazqueel
- Betw Curves 2Transféré parLyra Zapanta
- unit 2 student expectationsTransféré parapi-133117703
- Mathematical symbols list (+,-,x,_,=,_,_,...)Transféré parBaroxx Diaz
- fyc09Transféré parGanesh Kumar
- Semester 2 (1)Transféré parAnas Abumais
- mathTransféré parGag Paf
- Pointers CEST 4 Maths Grade 11 (1)Transféré parSinotif Depok
- Structure DeforTransféré parXavier Guenard
- Appendix 1Transféré parJohn Taulo
- mathsTransféré parapi-356862575
- 151Lect2-Legos-SVTransféré parRO115

- javed2009.pdfTransféré parGilang Putra Bahana
- US Geological Survey Tin Resources Report (1969)Transféré parSrini Kalyanaraman
- Blake & Smith (1970)Transféré parGilang Putra Bahana
- A Study of Tin Deposits in ChinaTransféré parGilang Putra Bahana
- 593-1820-2-PBTransféré parGilang Putra Bahana
- Nag 2003Transféré parGilang Putra Bahana
- Rsg1105 From WebsiteTransféré parGilang Putra Bahana
- An Outline of Petrology, Structure, And Age of the Pompangeo Schist Complex, Central SulawesiTransféré parGilang Putra Bahana
- Am Bras Eys 1970Transféré parGilang Putra Bahana
- Hall_1996 SE Asia ReconstructionTransféré parGilang Putra Bahana
- Sedimentary Rock IdentificationTransféré parGilang Putra Bahana

- Urban Character AnalysisTransféré parSabri Rasyid
- Basic SurveyingTransféré parSalil Deshpande
- The Middle and Lower Course of a River by Fizah's GroupTransféré parcgmalia
- 44. Earthquake Vulnerability AssessmentTransféré parAbu Zafor
- Korce 2006Transféré par_fiaco
- 612Transféré parjealvarezb
- TopographyTransféré parDavid Daviquin
- Reading SubdivisionTransféré parДраган Зрнић
- Company+ProfileTransféré parfaisalshafiq1
- Morris County Master Plan: Future Land Use ElementTransféré parMorris County NJ
- montaj_DepthtoBasementTransféré parvisitvizay
- Terrain ProcessingTransféré parGeorge_Agras_1133
- Application of Remotely Sensed Data and GIS in Assessing the ImpactTransféré parMaria Diamantopoulou
- Target Store Development Guide v. 2.13Transféré parTed Teske
- Photography and FlightTransféré parniko99
- tsunami webquestTransféré parapi-264874516
- Encom Discover 3D Complete Training WorkshopTransféré parErland Prasetya
- 781_XXIX-part4_2Transféré parYan Lean Dollison
- Quiz-6 - Indian & World Geography Questions Asked in State Public Service Commission & Other ExamsTransféré parCharan Reddy
- DENR AO 98-50 Solid Waste Disposal FacilityTransféré parChristian Llorca
- Sample Curriculum TimelineTransféré parKelsey
- Tsunami Inundation Map: MontereyTransféré parAmy Larson
- Gis Sem 6Transféré parapi-3850604
- Rsm Module 12Transféré parLuis AC
- Set 3 Block 1Transféré parBipin
- SurveyingTransféré parjamilthalji
- 2RFP for DPR of New Radial Roads 28-09-2012Transféré parshravan38
- Contour LinesTransféré parAkshay D Nicator
- huizenga trisha 18350421 educ4000 assessment 3Transféré parapi-370098751
- d 5730 – 98 ;Rdu3mzatotgTransféré parJaneth Mendoza