Abstract
Slope gradient, slope aspect, profile curvature, contour curvature, and other terrain derivatives are computed from digital elevation models (DEMs) over a neighbourhood (spatial extent). This chapter examines the combined effect of DEM resolution and neighbourhood size on computed terrain derivatives and its impact on digital soil mapping. We employed a widely used regression polynomial approach for computing terrain derivatives over a user-specified neighbourhood size. The method first fits a least squares regression polynomial to produce a filtered (generalized) terrain surface over a user defined neighbourhood (window). Slope gradient, slope aspect, profile, and contour curvatures are then computed analytically from the polynomial. To examine the effects of resolution and neighbourhood, we computed terrain derivatives using various combinations of DEM resolution and neighbourhood size and compared those values with corresponding field observations in two Wisconsin watersheds. In addition, we assessed the effects of resolution and neighbourhood in the context of knowledge-based digital soil mapping by comparing soil class (series) predictions with observed soils. Our results show that a neighbourhood size of 100 feet produces the closest agreement between observed and computed gradient values, and that DEM resolution has little impact on the agreement. Both profile curvature and contour curvature are more sensitive to neighbourhood size than slope gradient, and sensitivity is much higher at small neighbourhood sizes than at large neighbourhood sizes. Because of the importance of terrain derivatives in the knowledge base, predictive accuracy using a digital soil mapping approach varies strongly with neighbourhood size. In particular, prediction accuracy increases as the neighbourhood size increases, reaching a maximum at a neighbourhood of 100 feet and then decreases with further increases in neighbourhood size. DEM resolution again does not seem to impact the accuracy of the soil map very much. This study concludes that, at least for knowledge-based soil mapping, DEM resolution is not as important as neighbourhood size in computing the needed terrain derivatives. In other words, assuming the DEM resolution is sufficient to capture information at the optimum neighbourhood size, there is no predictive advantage gained by further increasing DEM resolution.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Chang, K. and Tsai, B., (1991) The effect of DEM resolution on slope and aspect mapping, Cartography and Geographic Information Systems, 18: 69–77.
Chaplot, V., Walter, C. and Curmi, P., (2000) Improving soil hydromorphy prediction according to DEM resolution and available pedological data, Geoderma, 97: 405–422.
Clayton, L. and Attig, J.W., (1997), Pleistocene Geology of Dane County, Wisconsin, Wisconsin Geologic and Natural History Survey Bulletin #95: 3.
Evans, I.S., (1980), An integrated system of terrain analysis and slope mapping, Zeitschrift fur Geomorphologie, Suppl. Bd. Vol. 36: 274–295.
Fisher, P., Wood, J. and Cheng, T., (2004), Where is Helvellyn? Multiscale morphometry and the mountains of the English Lake District, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 29: 106–128.
Florinsky, I.V., (1998), Accuracy of local topographic variables derived from digital elevation models, International Journal of Geographical Information Science,12: 47–61.
Gao, J., (1997), Resolution and accuracy of terrain representation by grid DEMs at a micro-scale, International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 11: 199–212.
Goyal, S.K., Seyfried, M.S. and O’Neill, P.E., (1998), Effect of digital elevation model resolution on topographic correction of airborne SAR, International Journal of Remote Sensing, 19: 3075–3096.
Hodgson, M.E., (1995), What cell size does the computed slope/aspect angle represent? Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 61: 513–517.
Liu, J. and Zhu, A.X., accepted. Automated Soil Mapping Using Linguistic Soil-landscape Knowledge, Soil Science Society of America Journal.
McMaster, K.J., (2002), Effects of digital elevation model resolution on derived stream network positions, Water Resources Research, 38: 1–9.
Moore, I.D., (1992), Terrain analysis program for environmental sciences (TAPES), Agricultural Systems and Information Technologies, (4)2: 37–39.
Schmidt, J., Evans, I.S. and Brinkmann, J., (2003), Comparison of polynomial models for land surface curvature calculation, International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 17: 797–814.
Schmidt, J. and Andrew, R. (2005), Multi-scale landform characterization, Area, (37)3: 341–350.
Schmidt, J. and Hewitt, A.E., (2004), Fuzzy land element classification from DTMs based on geometry and terrain position, Geoderma, 121: 243–256.
Schoorl, J.M., Sonneveld, M.P.W. and Veldkamp, A., (2000), Three-dimensional landscape process modeling: the effect of DEM resolution, Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 25: 1025–1034.
Shary, P.A., Sharaya, L.S. and Mitusov, A.V., (2002), Fundamental quantitative methods of land surface analysis, Geoderma, 107: 1–32.
Smith, M.P., Zhu, A.X., Burt, J.E. and Styles, C., (2006), The Effects of DEM Resolution and Neighbourhood Size on Digital Soil Survey, Geoderma, (in press).
Thompson, J.A., Bell, J.C. and Butler, C.A., (2001), DEM resolution: effects on terrain attribute calculation and quantitative soil-landscape modelling,Geoderma, 100: 67–89.
Wilson, J.P, Repetto, P.L. and Snyder, R.D., (2000), Effect of data source, grid resolution, and flow routing method on computed topographic attributes, In: Wilson, J.P. and Gallant, J.C. (eds.): Terrain Analysis: Principles and Applications, New York: John Wiley & Sons: 133–161.
Wolock, D.M. and Price, C.V., (1994), Effects of digital elevation model map scale and data resolution on a topography based watershed model, Water Resources Research, 30: 3041–3052.
Wood, J., (1996), Scale-based characterisation of digital elevation models, In Parker, D. (ed.): Innovations in GIS 3, London: Taylor & Francis: 163–75.
Zhang, W.H. and Montgomery, D.R., (1994), Digital elevation model grid size, landscape representation and hydrologic simulations, Water Resources Research, 30: 1019–28.
Zhu, A.X., Hudson, B., Burt, J., Lubich, K. and Simonson, D., (2001), Soil mapping using GIS, expert knowledge, and fuzzy logic, Soil Science Society of America Journal, 65: 1463–1472.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2008 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
A-Xing, Z., BURT, J.E., SMITH, M., Rongxun, W., Jing, G. (2008). The Impact of Neighbourhood Size on Terrain Derivatives and Digital Soil Mapping. In: Zhou, Q., Lees, B., Tang, Ga. (eds) Advances in Digital Terrain Analysis. Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-77800-4_18
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-77800-4_18
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-77799-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-77800-4
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)