Abstract
Polygon-based terrain classification data were created globally using 280 m digital elevation models (DEMs) interpolated from the multi-error-removed improved-terrain DEM (MERIT DEM). First, area segmentation was performed globally with the logarithmic value of slope gradient and the local convexity calculated from the DEM. Next, by adding surface texture, k-means clustering was performed globally and the polygons were grouped into 40 clusters. Then, we tried to reclassify these 40 clusters into geomorphologic terrain groups. In this study, we attempted reclassification and grouping using local information from Japan as a test case. The 40 clusters were compared with Japanese geological and geomorphological data and were then reclassified into 12 groups that had different geomorphological and geological characteristics. In addition, large shape landforms, mountains, and hills were subdivided by using the combined texture. Finally, 15 groups were created as terrain groups. Cross tabulations were performed with geological or lithological maps of California and Australia in order to investigate if the Japanese grouping of the clusters was also meaningful for other regions. The classification is improved from previous studies that used 1-km DEMs, especially for the representation of terrace shapes and landform elements smaller than 1 km. The results were generally suitable for distinguishing bedrock mountains, hills, large highland slopes, intermediate landforms (plateaus, terraces, large lowland slopes), and plains. On the other hand, the cross tabulations indicate that in the case of gentler landforms under different geologic provinces/climates, similar topographies may not always indicate similar formative mechanisms and lithology. This may be solved by locally replacing the legend; however, care is necessary for mixed areas where both depositional and erosional gentle plains exist. Moreover, the limit of the description of geometric signatures still appears in failure to detect narrow valley bottom plains, metropolitan areas, and slight rises in gentle plains. Therefore, both global and local perspectives regarding geologic province and climate are necessary for better grouping of the clusters, and additional parameters or higher resolution DEMs are necessary. Successful classification of terrain types of geomorphology may lead to a better understanding of terrain susceptibility to natural hazards and land development.
Highlights
This study was performed to develop global terrain classification data that depict landform patterns as polygon data and that will help to estimate the ground characteristics of land
Hengl et al (2017) produced global gridded soil information at 250-m resolution by machine learning using derivatives calculated from Multierror-removed improved-terrain DEM (DEM), land cover data from satellite data, lithologic units based on the Global Lithological Map (Hartmann and Moosdorf 2012), landform classes based on the U.S Geological Survey (USGS) Map of Global Ecological Land Units (Sayre et al 2014), and soil data from field surveys
We chose three scopes: an area that lies in a young orogenic belt like Japan (California), an area totally different from Japan in geological and climate settings
Summary
This study was performed to develop global terrain classification data that depict landform patterns as polygon data and that will help to estimate the ground characteristics of land. Many studies have combined other parameters with DEMs; for example, Shafique et al (2012) produced a seismic site characterization map by combining terrain classification with Vs30 (average shear wave velocity for the top 30 m); Guida et al (2016) produced hydro-geomorphological scenario maps by combining API (air-photo interpretation) maps with flow accumulation data calculated from DEMs and hydro-chemographs from field surveys, and Martha et al (2010) extracted landslides using terrain classification with satellite images. Especially with high-resolution DEMs, show that polygon-based outputs are increasingly using object-based area segmentation (Baatz and Schäpe 2000)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.