Pattern Recognition in the Tasks of Landform Mapping

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

The article aims to show the modern state of pattern recognition techniques for automatic and semi-automatic geomorphological mapping. There is opinion among the geomorphometrists about the expert rules for traditional landform mapping can be quantitated. The general unsolved tasks of automatic landform mapping are: recognition of origin for morphologically similar Earth’s surface forms; criteria development for transfer from morphological to genetic and age landform’s characteristics; preventive choosing the optimal resolution of the remote sensing data; the choosing and rationale of predictor’s weights in statistical modeling procedures. Some cases of the pattern recognition techniques using in geomorphology and landform mapping are given: generalized linear models; classification trees; random forest; artificial neural networks; and computer vision methods. The overall accuracy of the different models according to planar continuous landform recognition (and recognition of lithology types too) is about 50–70% and more. At the same time, specific landform type’s (craters, volcanic cones and others) recognition can reach 90–100%.

About the authors

S. V. Kharchenko

Moscow State University; Institute of Geography, Russian Academy of Sciences

Author for correspondence.
Email: xar4enkkoff@yandex.ru
Russia, Moscow; Russia, Moscow

References

  1. Гаврилов А.А. О природе явлений геоморфологической конвергенции и гомологии // Вестн. Моск. ун-та. Сер. 5: География. 2016. № 4. С. 3–12.
  2. Геоморфологическая карта Мурманской области / сост. М.К. Граве, Л.М. Граве / Атлас Мурманской области. М.: ГУГК, 1971. С. 8.
  3. Крамбейн У., Грейбилл Ф. Статистические модели в геологии. М.: Мир, 1969. 400 с.
  4. Ласточкин А.Н. Морфодинамический анализ. Ленинград: Недра, 1987. 256 с.
  5. Лобанов В.В. Еще раз об “элементарной морфологической единице”, ее содержании и методике установления // Геоморфология. 1988. № 4. С. 29–34.
  6. Лопатин Д.В. О полиморфизме в геоморфологии // Геоморфология. 2007. № 3. С. 22–23.
  7. Серебрянный Л.Р., Чукленкова И.Н. Густота озер как показатель возраста гляцигенной морфоскульптуры (опыт применения морфометрического анализа в северо-западных районах Русской равнины) // Геоморфология. 1973. № 4. С. 79–85.
  8. Солоненко В.П. Сейсмогенные деформации и палеосейсмогеологический метод // Сейсмическое районирование Восточной Сибири и его геолого-геофизические основы. Новосибирск: Наука, 1977. С. 5–47.
  9. Спиридонов А.И. Геоморфологическое картографирование. М.: Недра, 1974. 184 с.
  10. Тимофеев Д.А. О полиморфизме как общем свойстве земной поверхности // Геоморфология. 2006. № 2. С. 3–6.
  11. Тимофеев Д.А. Элементарные морфологические единицы как объект геоморфологического анализа // Геоморфология. 1984. № 1. С. 19–29.
  12. Харченко С.В. К вопросу о применении гармонического анализа при количественной характеристике рельефа // Геоморфология. 2017. № 2. С. 14–24.
  13. Харченко С.В. Новые задачи морфометрии рельефа и автоматизированные морфологические классификации в геоморфологии // Геоморфология. 2020. № 1. С. 3–21.
  14. Anders N.S., Seijmonsbergen A.C., Bouten W. Segmentation optimization and stratified object-based analysis for semi-automated geomorphological mapping // Rem. Sens. of Environ. 2011. Vol. 115. № 12. P. 2976–2985. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2011.05.007
  15. Atkinson J., Jiskoot H., Massari R., Murray T. Generalized linear modelling in geomorphology // Earth Surface Proc. and Landforms. 1998. № 23. P. 1185–1195. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-9837(199812)23: 13%3C1185::AID-ESP928%3E3.0.CO;2-W
  16. Ayalew L., Yamagishi H. The application of GIS-based logistic regression for landslide susceptibility mapping in the Kakuda-Yahiko Mountains, Central Japan // Geomorphology. 2005. Vol. 65. № 1–2. P. 15–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2004.06.010
  17. Brandmeier M., Chen Y. Lithological classification using multi-sensor data and convolutional neural networks // Int. Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sens. & Spatial Inform. Sci. 2019. https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLII-2-W16-55-2019
  18. Breiman L. Random Forests // Machine Learning. 2001. № 45. P. 5–32. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010933404324
  19. Brown D.G., Lusch D.P., Duda K.A. Supervised classification of types of glaciated landscapes using digital elevation data // Geomorphology. 1998. Vol. 21. № 3–4. P. 233–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-555X(97)00063-9
  20. Cavazzi S., Corstanje R., Mayr T., Hannam J., Fealy R. Are fine resolution digital elevation models always the best choice in digital soil mapping? // Geoderma. 2013. Vol. 195. P. 111–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2012.11.020
  21. Clark C.D., Hughes A.L., Greenwood S.L., Spagnolo M., Ng F.S. Size and shape characteristics of drumlins, derived from a large sample, and associated scaling laws // Quat. Sci. Rev. 2009. Vol. 28. № 7–8. P. 677–692. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2008.08.035
  22. Deng Y., Wilson J., Sheng J. Effects of variable attribute weights on landform classification // Earth Surface Proc. and Landforms. 2006. № 31. P. 1452–1462. https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.1401
  23. d’Oleire-Oltmanns S., Eisank C., Drăgut L., Blaschke T. An object-based workflow to extract landforms at multiple scales from two distinct data types // IEEE Geosci. and Rem. Sens. Lett. 2013. Vol. 10. № 4. P. 947–951. https://doi.org/10.1109/LGRS.2013.2254465
  24. Ermini L., Catani F., Casagli N. Artificial natural networks applied to landslide susceptibility assessment // Geomorphology. 2005. Vol. 66. P. 327–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2004.09.025
  25. Evans I.S. Geomorphometry and landform mapping: What is a landform? // Geomorphology. 2012. Vol. 137. P. 94–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2010.09.029
  26. Florinsky I.V., Eilers R.G., Manning G.R., Fuller L.G. Prediction of soil properties by digital terrain modeling // Environ. Modelling & Software. 2002. № 17 (3). P. 295–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-8152(01)00067-6
  27. Florinsky I.V. Digital terrain analysis in soil science and geology. Academic Press, 2016. 506 p.
  28. Kharchenko S. Automated recognition of the landforms origin for the Kola Peninsula based on morphometric variables / EGU General Assembly 2021 (19–30 April 2021) EGU21-15564. https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu21-15564
  29. Lastochkin A.N., Zhirov A.I., Boltramovich S.F. System-morphological approach: Another look at morphology research and geomorphological mapping // Geomorphology. 2018. Vol. 303. P. 486–503. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.GEOMORPH.2017.10.022
  30. Leverington D., Duguay C. A neural network method to determine the presence or absence of permafrost near Mayo, Yukon Territory, Canada // Permafrost and Periglacial Proc. 1997. № 8. P. 205–215. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1530(199732)8:23.0.CO;2-5
  31. Li W., Hsu C.Y. Automated terrain feature identification from remote sensing imagery: a deep learning approach // Int. J. Geographical Inform. Sci. 2020. № 34 (4). P. 637–660. https://doi.org/10.1080/13658816.2018.1542697
  32. Link A.J. A physic-chemical and textural study of carbonate sedimentation in a lagoonal environment. Evanston, IL: Northwestern Univ., 1964.
  33. Luoto M., Hjort J. Evaluation of current statistical approaches for predictive geomorphological mapping // Geomorphology. 2005. № 67. P. 299–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2004.10.006
  34. MacMillan R.A., Pettapiece W.W., Nolan S.C., Goddard T.W. A generic procedure for automatically segmenting landforms into landform elements using DEMs, heuristic rules and fuzzy logic // Fuzzy Sets and Systems. 2000. № 113. P. 81–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-0114(99)00014-7
  35. MacMillan R.A., Shary P.A. Landforms and landform elements in geomorphometry // Geomorphometry: Concepts, Software, Applications. Developments in soil science – 33 / T. Hengl, H.I. Reuter (Eds.). 2009. Vol. 33. P. 227–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-2481(08)00009-3
  36. MacMillan R.A., Pettapiece W.W. Alberta Landforms: Quantitative morphometric descriptions and classification of typical Alberta landforms / Technical Bul. № 2000-2E. Research Branch, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Semiarid Prairie. Agricultural Research Centre, Swift Current, SK, 2000. 118 p.
  37. Marmion M., Hjort J., Thuiller W., Luoto M. A comparison of predictive methods in modelling the distribution of periglacial landforms in Finnish Lapland // Earth Surface Proc. and Landforms. 2008. № 33. P. 2241–2254. https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.1695
  38. Miska L., Jan H. Evaluation of current statistical approaches for predictive geomorphological mapping // Geomorphology. 2005. Vol. 67. № 3–4. P. 299–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2004.10.006
  39. Pennock D.J., Zebarth B.J., De Jong E. Landform classification and soil distribution in hummocky terrain, Saskatchewan, Canada // Geoderma. 1987. Vol. 40. № 3–4. P. 297–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-7061(87)90040-1
  40. Rashid I., Romshoo S.A., Hajam J.A., Abdullah T. A semi-automated approach for mapping geomorphology in mountainous terrain, Ferozpora watershed (Kashmir Himalaya) // J. Geological Soc. of India. 2016. Vol. 88. № 2. P. 206–212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12594-016-0479-5
  41. Shary P.A., Sharaya L.S., Mitusov A.V. Fundamental quantitative methods of land surface analysis // Geoderma. 2002. Vol. 107. № 1–2. P. 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-7061(01)00136-7
  42. Smith M.J., Clark C.D. Methods for the visualization of digital elevation models for landform mapping // Earth Surface Proc. and Landforms. 2005. Vol. 30. № 7. P. 885–900. https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.1210
  43. Sutfin N.A., Shaw J.R., Wohl E.E., Cooper D.J. A geomorphic classification of ephemeral channels in a mountainous, arid region, southwestern Arizona, USA // Geomorphology. 2014. № 221. P. 164–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2014.06.005
  44. Veronesi F., Hurni L. Random Forest with semantic tie points for classifying landforms and creating rigorous shaded relief representations // Geomorphology. 2014. Vol. 224. P. 152–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2014.07.020
  45. Weiss A.D. Topographic positions and landforms analysis (Conference Poster). ESRI Int. User Conference. San Diego, CA July 9–13 2001.
  46. Zhu Y.M., Lu X.X., Zhou Y. Suspended sediment flux modeling with artificial neural network: An example of the Longchuanjiang River in the Upper Yangtze Catchment, China // Geomorphology. 2007. № 84. P. 111–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2006.07.010

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download
2.

Download (83KB)
Indexing metadata
3.

Download (3MB)
Indexing metadata
4.

Download (803KB)
Indexing metadata
5.

Download (1MB)
Indexing metadata

Copyright (c) 2023 С.В. Харченко