Methods of Thematic Map Comparison
Geologists are interested in comparing maps in order to (1) determine their predictive value, (2) evaluate their similarity and classify them, and (3) use the information for geological interpretation. The comparisons are made by constructing a difference map (isopachous maps) or on a point-by-point basis (computing an overall correlation coefficient for the fit).
Alternatively, surfaces may be represented by numerical descriptors which can be used as the basis for comparison. The original data points need not be at the same location so that different geographic areas can be compared. However, a uniquely defined spatial grid mesh must be overlain on each data set for the purpose of interpolating grid values which may be compared quantitatively. The interpolated grid values then are compared to determine “reliability indices” at individual grid node locations. This newly generated grid matrix is contoured and shows in two dimensions which areas are most alike and which ones are most dissimilar.
KeywordsReliability Index Geological Interpretation Trend Surface Original Data pOints Prospective Petroleum
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Davis, J.C., 1986, Statistics and data analysis in geology (2nd ed.): John Wiley & Sons, New York, 646 p.Google Scholar
- Gold, C., 1980, Geological mapping by computer, in Taylor, D.R.F., The computer in contemporary cartography: John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, p. 151–190.Google Scholar
- Merriam, D.F., and Jewett, D.G., 1985, Quantitative comparison of thematic maps (abst.): Geol. Soc. America Abstracts with Programs, 19th Ann. Meeting South-Central Sec., v. 17, no. 3, p. 167.Google Scholar
- Merriam, D.F., Jewett, D.G., Nordstrom, J.E., and Wolf, G.V., 1984, Methods of thematic map comparison (abst.): 27th Intern Geol. Congress (Moscow), Abstracts v.8, secs. 17 to 22, p. 389.Google Scholar
- Merriam, D.F., and Lippert, R.H., 1964, Pattern recognition studies of geologic structure using trend-surface analysis: Colorado Sch. Mines Quart., v. 59, no. 4, p. 237–245.Google Scholar
- Merriam, D.F., and Robinson, J.E., 1980, Numerical description, enhancement, segmentation and comparison of thematic maps: Sciences de la Terre, Informatique Geologique, no. 15, p. 11–29.Google Scholar
- Merriam, D.F., and Robinson, J.E., 1981 Comparison functions and geological structure maps, in Future trends in geomathematics: Pion. Ltd., London,. 254–264.Google Scholar
- Miller, R.L., 1964, Comparison-analysis of trend maps, in Computers in the mineral industries, pt. 2: Stanford Univ. Publ., Geol. Sci., v. 9, no. 2, p. 669–685.Google Scholar
- Mirchink, M.F., and Bukhartsev, V.P., 1959, The possibility of a statistical study of structural correlations: Doklady Akad. Nauk SSSR (English translation), v. 126, no. 5, p. 1062–1065.Google Scholar
- Rao, S.V.L.N., 1971, Correlations between regression surfaces based on direct comparison of matrices: Modern Geology, v. 2, no. 3, p. 173–177.Google Scholar
- Ribeiro, J.C., and Merriam, D.F., 1979, Quantitative analysis of depositional environments (Aratu Unit, Reconcavo Series, Lower Cretaceous) in the Reconcavo Basin, Bahia, Brazil, in Geomathematical and petrophysical studies in sedimentology: Pergamon Press, Oxford, p. 219–234.Google Scholar
- Robinson, J.E., and Merriam, D.F., 1984, Computer evaluation of prospective petroleum areas: The Oil and Gas Jour., v. 82, no. 34, p. 135–138.Google Scholar
- Thrivikramaji, K.P., and Merriam, D.F., 1976, Trend analysis of sedimentary thickness data: the Pennsylvanian of Kansas, an example, in Quantitative techniques for the analysis of sediments: Pergamon Press, Oxford, p. 11–21.Google Scholar
- Unwin, D., 1981, Introductory spatial analysis: Methuen, London and New York, 212 p.Google Scholar