Advertisement

Environmental Geology

, Volume 56, Issue 5, pp 865–875 | Cite as

Quantifying geological structures of the Nigde province in central Anatolia, Turkey using SRTM DEM data

  • A. C. DemirkesenEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

A digital terrain model and a 3D fly-through model of the Nigde province in central Anatolia, Turkey were generated and quantitatively analyzed employing the shuttle radar topographic mission (SRTM) digital elevation model (DEM). Besides, stream drainage patterns, lineaments and structural–geological features were extracted and analyzed. In the process of analyzing and interpreting the DEM for landforms, criteria such as color and color tones (attributes of heights), topography (shaded DEM and 3D fly-through model) and stream drainage patterns were employed to acquire geo-information about the land, such as hydrologic, geomorphologic, topographic and tectonic structures. In this study, the SRTM DEM data of the study region were experimentally used for both DEM classification and quantitative analysis of the digital terrain model. The results of the DEM classification are: (1) low plain including the plains of Bor and Altunhisar (20.7%); (2) high plain including the Misli (Konakli) plain (28.8%); (3) plateau plain including the Melendiz (Ciftlik) plateau plain (1.0%); (4) mountain including the Nigde massif (33.3%); and (5) high mountain (16.2%). High mountain areas include a caldera complex of Mt Melendiz, Mt Hasan and Mt Pozanti apart from the Ala mountains called Aladaglar and the Bolkar mountains called Bolkarlar in the study region (7,312km2). Analysis of both the stream drainage patterns and the lineaments revealed that the Nigde province has a valley zone called Karasu valley zone (KVZ) or Nigde valley zone (NVZ), where settlements and agricultural plains, particularly the Bor plain in addition to settlements of the Bor town and the central city of Nigde have the most flooding risk when a heavy raining occurs. The study revealed that the NVZ diagonally divides the study region roughly into two equal parts, heading from northeast to southwest. According to the map created in this study, the right side of the NVZ has more mountainous area, where the Aladaglar is a wildlife national park consisting of many species of fauna and flora whereas the left side of the NVZ has more agricultural plain, with exception of a caldera complex of Mt Melendiz and volcanic Mt Hasan. The south of the study region includes the Bolkarlar. In addition, the Ecemis fault zone (EFZ) lying along the Ecemis rivulet, running from north to south at the west side of the Aladaglar, forms the most important and sensitive location in the region in terms of the tectonics.

Keywords

Classification Extraction Digital terrain analysis Structural Geology Nigde Central Anatolia-Turkey 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I gratefully acknowledge the financial support from Nigde University.

References

  1. ArcGIS 9.0 Manual (2007) ESRI, 380 New York Street, Redlands. http://www.esri.com/
  2. Argialas DP, Lyon JG (1988) Quantitative description and classification of drainage patterns. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 54(4):505–509Google Scholar
  3. Band LE (1986) Topographic partition of watersheds with digital elevation models. Water Resour Res 22(1):l5–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cemen I, Goncuoglu MC, Dirik K (1999) Structural evalution of the Tuzgolu basin in central Anatolia, Turkey. J Geol 107:693–706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dhont D, Chorowicz J, Yurur T, Froger J-L, Kose O, Gundogdu N (1998) Emplacement of volcanic vents and geodynamics of central Anatolia, Turkey. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 85:33–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Drury SA (2001) Image interpretation in geology. Blackwell, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. Eastman R (2006) Idrisi Andes manual and tutorial. Clark Labs, Clark University, WorchesterGoogle Scholar
  8. El Sheimy N, Valeo C, Habib A (2005) Digital terrain modeling: acquisition, manipulation and applications. Artech House, BostonGoogle Scholar
  9. Farr TG, Rosen PA, Caro E, Crippen R, Duren R, et al. (2007) The shuttle radar topography mission. Rev Geophys 45. doi: 10.1029/2005RG000183
  10. Florinsky IV (1998) Combined analysis of digital terrain models and remotely sensed data in landscape investigations. Prog Phys Geogr 22(1):33–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Froger J-L, Lenat J-F, Chorowicz J, Le Pennec J-L, Bourdier J-L, Kose O, Zimitoglu O, Gundogdu NM, Gourgaud A (1998) Hidden calderas evidenced by multisource geophysical data; example of Cappadocian calderas, central Anatolia. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 185:99–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goze K, Altin BN, Gedik I, Atabey H, Ozmel I, Oncu A, Ertana T (1997) Nigde. Nigde Governorship, TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  13. Gorokhovich Y, Voustianiouk A (2006) Accuracy assessment of the processed SRTM-based elevation data by CGIAR using field data from USA and Thailand and its relation to the terrain characteristics. Remote Sens Environ 104:409–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Idrisi Andes 15.0 Manual (2007) Clark labs, Clark University, Worcester. http://www.clarklabs.org/
  15. Jaffey N, Robertson AHF (2001) New sedimentological and structural data from the Ecemis fault zone, southern Turkey: implications for its timing and offset and the Cenozoic tectonic escape of Anatolia. J Geol Soc London 158:367–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jordan G (2003) Morphometric analysis and tectonic interpretation of digital terrain data: a case study. Earth Surf Process Landf 28:807–822CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jordan G, Schott B (2005) Application of wavelet analysis to the study of spatial pattern of morphotectonic lineaments in digital terrain models. A case study. Remote Sens Environ 94:31–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Koc MO, Kilinc E, Tecimer I, Kayacilar C (2007) Nigde. Nigde Governorship, TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  19. Kocyigit A, Beyhan A (1998) A new intracontinental transcurrent structure: the central Anatolian fault zone, Turkey. Tectonophysics 284:317–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Konecny G (2002) Geoinformation: remote sensing, photogrammetry and geographical information systems. Taylor & Francis, LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. Le Pennec J-L, Bourdier J-L, Froger J-L, Temel A, Camus G, Gourgaud A (1994) Neogene ignimbrites of the Nevsehir plateau (central Turkey); stratigraphy, distribution and source constraints. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 63:58–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mark DM, Dozier J, Frew J (1984) Automated basin delineation from digital elevation data. Geo Process 2:299–311Google Scholar
  23. Nigde Governorship (2007) Nigde. Nigde Governorship, Turkey http://www.nigde.gov.tr/
  24. O’Callaghan JF, Mark DM (1984) The extraction of drainage networks from digital elevation data. Comput Vis Graph Image Process 28:328–344Google Scholar
  25. Pandey SN (1987) Principles and applications of photogeology. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Prost GL (1994) Remote sensing for geologists: a guide to image interpretation. Taylor & Francis, LondonGoogle Scholar
  27. Ray RG (1960) Aerial photographs in geologic interpretation and mapping. United States Geological Survey, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  28. Siegal BS, Gillespie AR (1980) Remote sensing in geology. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. Sun G, Ranson KJ, Kharuk VI, Kovacs K (2003) Validation of surface height from shuttle radar topography mission using shuttle laser altimeter. Remote Sens Environ 88:401–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Topal T, Doyuran V (1998) Analyses of deterioration of the Cappadocian tuff, Turkey. Environ Geol 34(1):5–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Toprak V (1998) Vent distribution and its relation to regional tectonics, Cappadocian volcanics, Turkey. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 85:55–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Toprak V, Goncuoglu MC (1993a) Tectonic control on the development of Neogene-Quaternary Central Anatolian Volcanic Province, Turkey. Geol J 28:357–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Toprak V, Goncuoglu MC (1993b) Keceboyduran–Melendiz fault and its regional significance (central Anatolia). Yerbilimleri 16:55–65, in Turkish with English abtractGoogle Scholar
  34. Westaway R (1999) Comment on “A new intracontinental transcurrent structure: the central Anatolian fault zone, Turkey” by Kocyigit and Beyhan. Tectonophysics 314:469–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Whitney DL, Dilek Y (1997) Core complex development in central Anatolia, Turkey. Geology 25:1023–1026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wilson JP, Gallant JC (2000) Terrain analysis: principles and applications. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. Yetis C (1978) Geology of the Camardi (Nigde) region and characteristics of the Ecemis Fault Zone between Maden Bogazi and Kamisli. Istanbul University Fen Fakultesi Mec Series B 43:41–61Google Scholar
  38. Yetis C (1984) New observations on the age of the Ecemis Fault. In: Tekeli O, Goncuoglu MC (eds) Proceedings of the international symposium on the Geology of the Taurus Belt, Ankara, pp 159–164Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Geodesy and Photogrammetry EngineeringNigde UniversityNigdeTurkey

Personalised recommendations