UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Comparison of computer-based terrain storage methods with respect to the evaluation of certain geomorphometric… Mark, David Michael 1974

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1974_A8 M37.pdf [ 15.72MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0093157.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0093157-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0093157-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0093157-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0093157-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0093157-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0093157-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0093157-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0093157.ris

Full Text

£ • t  A  COMPARISON  OF COMPUTER-BASED TERRAIN  STORAGE METHODS WITH  RESPECT T O THE E V A L U A T I O N O F CERTAIN GEOMORPHOMETRIC by DAVID MICHAEL  MARK  B . A . , Simon Fraser University, 1970 A  THESIS SUBMITTED  IN  PARTIAL FULFILMENT  THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in the Department of Geography  We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard  THE UNIVERSITY  OF  BRITISH  February, 1974  COLUMBIA  OF  MEASURES  In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s  thesis  in p a r t i a l  fulfilment  o f the r e q u i r e m e n r s f o r  an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, the L i b r a r y  s h a l l make i t  freely  available  for  I agree  that,  reference and s t u d y .  I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e copying o f  this  thesis  f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be g r a n t e d by the Head o f my Department: o r by h i s of  representatives.  this thesis for  written  It  financial  gain shall  permission.  Department o f  Geography  The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Vancouver 8, Canada  D a t e  i s understood t h a t  March 11, 1974  Columbia  copying o r  publication  not be allowed w i t h o u t my  Abstract Topographic information can be d i g i t i z e d in several ways.  Sampling may  be surface-random (points selected according to partially or completely arbitrary criteria) or surface-specific (points selected according to their topographic significance).  Surface-random sampling includes grids, contours, and randomly-  located points. compared.  In this study, grid sampling and surface-specific sampling are  Surface behavior between sampled points is assumed to be linear.  A l l aspects of surface form can be considered to reflect surface roughness. Horizontal variation includes the concepts of texture and g r a i n , w h i l e vertical variation is discussed under r e l i e f .  The relationships between these are embodied  in slope and the dispersion of slope magnitude and orientation. The distribution of mass w i t h i n the elevation range of a topographic surface is described under hypsometry.  Parameters for investigation are selected from these categories.  The variation of some selected geomorphometric parameters in southern British Columbia is examined via a stratified random sample consisting of f o r t y two 7 x 7 km areas.  The values of some of these parameters are used to group  the samples, and six are chosen for more detailed analysis.  The relationships  among the variables are examined using correlation analysis. For four geomorphometric measures (local r e l i e f , mean slope, roughness factor, and hypsometric i n t e g r a l ) , the theoretical errors involved in estimating the measures from the two selected terrain storage methods are discussed.  The  surface-specific point samples should produce better results than grids of reasonable densities.  The latter, however, should require less d i g i t i z a t i o n time  and computer storage space per point.  For at least local relief and hypsometric  integral, grid error should be a linear function of grid spacing.  Results of empirical comparison of the methods over the six selected areas are presented.  The average surface-specific point data set is found to  require some 2 . 6 times as much digitization time and 3.1 times as much computer storage space as the 15 by 15 grids used in the comparison.  Computed estimates  obtained from both of these data bases are presented for each of the four selected parameters, together with other estimates (obtained manually) in some cases . The average errors for the methods are found to differ significantly for local relief and mean slope but not for the hypsometric integral; for a l l three measures, the grids produce larger mean errors.  The assumption of a linear relationship  between grid spacing and grid error is used to estimate the grid spacing which would be required fo produce the same average error as the surface-specific points.  For the three parameters used, these hypothetical grids are calculated  to require more computer storage space and d i g i t i z a t i o n time than the surfacespecific point data sets. The influence of the density of surface-specific points and of base map scale appear to be related to the topographic texture.  For a reasonably  experienced terrain analyst, the reproduceabi lity of these data sets appears to be good, although there remains a subjective element in point selection not present for grids.  It is concluded that for a given amount of digitization time  or computer storage space, better estimates of geomorphometric parameters can be obtained using sets of surface-specific points than using regular grids.  - iii -  Table of Contents  Page  Abstract  i  List of Tables  vii  List of Figures  '  Preface  x  X l  Chapter 1:  Introduction  1  1.1:  Precision of topographic map data  2  1.2:  Notation  5  Computer Terrain Storage Systems  6  2.1:  Digitization  6  2.2:  Surface-random sampling: grids  7  2.3:  Surface-random sampling: digitized contours  12  2.4:  Surface-specific sampling: points and lines  13  2.5:  Surface behavior  15  2.6:  Computer storage of terrain information  Chapter 2:  18 2.7:  Comparisons of approaches  2.8:  Conclusions  20  20 Chapter 3:  Geomorphometric Parameters  22  3.1:  The concept of "roughness"  23  3.2:  Texture and grain  25  3.2.1:  Grain  25  3.2.2:  Texture  26  3.2.3:  Drainage density (D^)  26  3.2.4:  Other texture measures  28  3.3:  Relief measures  29  3.3.1:  Local relief (H)  29  3.3.2:  A v a i l a b l e relief ( H ) a  32  Page  3.4:  3.3.3:  Drainage relief (H^)  34  3.3.4:  Applications of relief measures  35  Slope  36  3.4.1:  Average slope: line-sampling method  36  3.4.2:  Average slope: other methods  37  3.4.3:  Other slope parameters  38  3.4.4:  Applications of slope measures  39  3.5:  Dispersion of slope magnitude and orientation  41  3.6:  Hypsometry  45  3.6.1:  The hypsometric curve and its variations  45  3.6.2:  The hypsometric integral (HI)  47  3.6.3:  Other parameters related to the hypsometric curve  49  3.6.4:  Other parameters related to hypsometry  50  3.6.5:  Applications of hypsometric measures  50  3.7: Chapter 4:  Review and parameters to be investigated  51  Terrain V a r i a b i l i t y in Southern British Columbia, and Relationships Among Variables  52  4.1:  Selection of sample areas  52  4.2:  Data collection  58  4.3:  Data analysis  58  4.3.1:  Drainage density (D-|)  58  4.3.2:  Source density (D ) and peak density (Dp)  60  4.3.3:  Local relief  60  4.3.4:  Mean slope ( t a n « )  4.3.5:  Hypsometric integral  4.3.6:  Relationships among variables  s  (H)  61 (HI)  °1 62  -vPage 4.4:  Classification of samples and selection of areas for  66  further analysis 4.5:  Description of areas selected for further analysis  66  4.5.1:  Sample 8:  66  4.5.2:  Sample 1 1 : Ptarmigan Creek map-area  l l l e c i l l e w a e t map-area (82N/4E)  70  (83D/10W) 4.5.3:  Sample 18: Manning Park map-area  70  (92H/2W) 4.5.4:  Sample 24:  Tatla Lake map-area (92N/15E)  4.5.5:  Sample 3 1 : G h i t e z l i Lake map-area  71 71  (93E/9W) 4.5.6:  Sample 4 1 : Oona River map-area  72  (103G/16W) Chapter 5:  Procedures for Analysis and Theoretical Comparisons  73  of Computer Storage Systems 5.1:  5.2:  Local relief (H)  73  5.1.1:  Local relief: surface-specific points  74  5.1.2:  Local relief:  75  5.1.3:  Review  regular grid  78  Mean slope (tanoc)  78  5.2.1:  79  Computational procedures  5.3:  Roughness factor  (R)  5.4:  Hypsometric integral  80 (HI)  80  5.4.1:  Hypsometric integral: surface-specific points  85  5.4.2:  Hypsometric integral: regular grid  85  5.4.3:  Summary  88  -vi -  Page 5.5:  Possibility of estimating other parameters  88  5.6:  Theoretical numbers of points and triangles for triangular  89  data sets, and theoretical computer storage requirements Chapter 6:  Empirical Comparisons and Computational Results  91  6.1:  Digitization time and computer storage  93  6.2:  Local relief  (H)  95  6.3:  Mean slope  (tan«)  95  6.4:  Roughness factor  6.5:  Hypsometric integral (HI)  6.6:  Comparison of errors for triangular data-sets and grids  101  6.7:  Reproduceability and the influence of scale  103  6.8:  Summary  106  Summary and Conclusions  108  Chapter 7:  (R)  References  98 98  111  Appendix I:  Notation  Appendix I I : Topographic and related variables for 42 areas in southern  121 124  British Columbia Appendix I l i a :  Computer program  126  lllb:  Triangular data-sets  135  Illc:  Computer results  144  —vi I —  List of Tables Table 3 . 1 :  Page Sizes of arbitrarily-bounded areas over which local  31  relief was determined by various authors. 4.1:  Physiographic subdivisions of southern British Columbia,  56  after Holland (1964), with sample numbers and map-areas for terrain samples analyzed in Chapter 4 . 4.2:  Comparison of distribution of 42 terrain samples among  57  ten physiographic divisions with expected distribution based on division areas. 4.3:  Variables included in correlation analysis.  63  4.4:  Statistically significant (95 per cent level) correlation  64  coefficients among the variables listed in Table 4 . 3 . 4.5:  Classification of 42 terrain samples using local relief  67  ( H ) , hypsometric integral ( H ) , and peak density (Dp). 4.6:  Values of some selected geomorphometric parameters  68  for six areas selected for detailed analysis. 6.1:  Numbers of points ( N y ) , boundary points (Ng) and  94  triangles ( N ^ ) for data-sets analyzed. 6.2:  Estimates of local relief ( H ) , and analysis of errors in  96  these estimates. 6.3:  Estimates of mean slope ( t a n o f ) , and analysis of errors  97  in these estimates. 6.4:  Estimates of roughness factor (R).  6.5:  Estimates of hypsometric integral ( H ) , and analysis  99 100  of errors in these estimates. 6.6:  Empirical comparison of errors for triangular data-sets and 15 by 15 grids.  102  -viii-  Page Table 6 . 7 :  Similarity among four triangular data-sets based on  104  sample 11 for the four selected measures. 6.8:  Similarity among three triangular data-sets based on sample 18 for the four selected measures.  105  -ix-  List of Figures Figure 2 . 1 :  Page Coefficients of determination as functions of sample size for  11  three sampling designs applied to three surfaces of varying complexity. 2.2:  Map to illustrate types of surface-specific points and  14  lines. 2.3:  Form of the interpolated surface between two data points  for. various  exponents  17  in the general i n t e r -  polation formula. 3.1:  Forms of surface roughness.  24  3.2:  Hypothetical topographic profile illustrating various  33  relief measures. 3.3:  Diagrammatic topographic profile illustrating the  40  relationships among r e l i e f , slope, and roughness. 3.4:  Relationships between local relief and roughness  44  factor. 4.1:  Physiographic subdivisions of southern British Columbia  54  w i t h locations of stratified random sample of terrain analyzed in Chapter 4 . 4.2:  Distribution of terrain samples among the 32  55  1:50,000 scale sheets which make up a 1:250,000 scale map sheet. 4.3:  Histograms for six geomorphometric parameters.  59  4.4:  Correlation structure among twelve terrain and  65  related parameters. 4.5:  Hypsometric curves for the six terrain samples selected for detailed analysis.  69  -xPage Figure 5 . 1 :  Illustration of the distance from any point to the nearest  76  grid point. 5.2:  Hypsometric curves for the portions of an inclined plane  82  w i t h i n 3 sample areas. 5.3:  As in Figure 5 . 2 , but for a square-based pyramid.  84  6.1:  Sample 11a, an example of a triangular data-set from  °2  the Ptarmigan Creek map-area.  Preface When the current project was begun, i t was the writer's intention to develop a computer system for the analysis and classification of terrain from topographic map d a t a , with the specific aim of eventually producing a quantitative physiographic map of British Columbia.  Some theoretical and  empirical analyses (reported herein in Chapter 5) revealed that estimating geomorphometric parameters from a regular grid could introduce considerable error.  The thesis objective was therefore redefined to become an investigation  of the relative merits of grids and of alternative computer terrain storage systems The results may be considered to represent a pilot study for the eventual realization of the original o b j e c t i v e . Throughout this study, the writer has benefitted greatly from discussions with his thesis supervisor, Michael Church.  He and J . Ross Mackay read and  commented upon drafts of the entire thesis, w h i l e Thomas K. Peucker has reviewed certain sections.  Michael C . Roberts and H. O l a v Slaymaker have  also provided helpful a d v i c e .  Financial support was primarily provided by the  Department of Geography, University of British Columbia, in the form of Teaching Assistantships.  Some support was also obtained from the "Geographica  Data Structure" project, Geographical Branch, O f f i c e of Naval Research, Project N O N R 710-100, principal investigator Thomas K. Peucker, Department of Geography, Simon Fraser University.  Computer time was provided through  the Department of Geography, University of British Columbia.  -1-  Chapter 1:  Introduction  Geomorphometry, which has been defined by Chorley et a l . (1957, p. 138) as the science "which treats the geometry of the landscape," attempts to describe quantitatively the form of the land surface; i t is a sub-discipline of geomorphology.  Evans (1972, p. 18) distinguished specific geomorphometry,  which measures the geometry of specific types of landforms (see for example the work of Troeh, 1964, 1965, on "landform equations"), from general geomorphometry, "the measurement and analysis of those characteristics of landforms which are applicable to any continuous rough surface."  In much of the geomorphometric  literature, i t has been claimed that the drainage basin represents "the fundamental geomorphic unit" (notably Chorley, 1969; see also Leopold et a l . , 1964; Williams, 1966). This view was taken to an extreme by Connelly (1968), who in a discussion of terrain statistics stated that "although i t is an oversimplification i t is certainly a valid approximation to attribute all land forms to the f l u v i a l erosion of uplifted rock masses" (p. 7 8 ) .  He stated that this assumption was  necessary in order to develop "a unified framework for landscape geometry. " Since about one third of the earth's land surface was glaciated during the Pleistocene (cf. F l i n t , 1971, p. 19), and as other processes such as f l u v i a l deposition, or a e o l i a n , v o l c a n i c , or periglacial action have also influenced large areas, it is the writer's opinion that a "unified framework" could only be produced i f no single process is assumed.  Furthermore, the specific approach  can only be applied once an area of the earth's surface has been identified as a drainage basin, an a l l u v i a l f a n , a drumlin, et cetera. The object of this study is to investigate the use of computer-stored topographic information in the evaluation of geomorphometric parameters. Computers have been w i d e l y employed in both geography and the earth sciences, and geomorphology has not been an exception. A recent book edited by Chorley  -2-  (1972) attests to the fact that spatial aspects of land surface form have received much a t t e n t i o n . While computers have been used i n geomorphometry, there have been few attempts to store topographic surfaces in computers and then to perform detailed quantitative analyses of land surface form.  Exceptions are the  works of Hormann (1969, 1971), who approximated land surfaces with sets of contiguous triangles, and of Evans (1972), whose work was based on regular square grids ("altitude matrices").  Neither of these works studied the comparative  accuracy, precision, and efficiency of computer terrain storage methods, the differences between computer estimates and "standard" methods for estimating geomorphometric measures, or the relative d i g i t i z a t i o n (data gathering) times and computer storage requirements.  It is the purpose of this study to review  various computer terrain storage systems, and to compare the triangle and grid methods noted above.  The comparison w i l l be based on the estimation of a  group of landform parameters selected after a review of many such measures. For the reasons cited above, emphasis w i l l be placed upon general geomorphometric parameters, although some attention w i l l be directed toward measures based specifically upon landforms of f l u v i a l a c t i v i t y , probably the most important single class of processes which has shaped the earth's surface.  All  examples used in the comparisons w i l l be drawn from topographic maps of that part of British Columbia which lies south of 54 degrees latitude, mostly from 1:50,000 scale maps.  Since a l l topographic data used in this study w i l l be  derived from contour maps, i t seems in order to discuss briefly the precision of topographic map information. 1.1:  Precision of Topographic Map Data Boesch and Kishomoto (1966) expressed elevation errors in terms of  roof-mean-square errors, herein designated s_. survey s  e  For example, they stated that  values for triangulation points are generally less than 0 . 5 m horizontally  -3-  and 0.1 m vertically (pp. 9 - 1 0 ) , while root-mean-square errors in map plotting range from 0.01 to 0 . 3 mm on the map (p. 12).  For a 1:50,000 scale map, this  would represent 0 . 5 to 15 metres on the ground.  Boesch and Kishomoto stated  that contour precision has two aspects: "(1) the positional error of a point on a contour, and (2) the height error of a point whose elevation is determined (or read) from the nearest contours by interpolation" (p. 14). They presented a graph of allowable standard deviations in metres as functions of ground slope for various countries and map scales (their Figure 2 ) . Thompson and Davey (1953, p. 40) cited the accuracy specifications of United States Geological Survey topographic maps as: Vertical accuracy, applied to contour maps on a l l publication scales, shall be such that not more than 10 per cent of the elevations tested shall be in error more than one-half the contour i n t e r v a l . In checking elevations taken from the map, the apparent vertical error may be decreased by assuming a horizontal displacement w i t h i n the permissible horizontal error for a map of that scale. They used the 90 per cent criterion in conjunction w i t h a table of ordinates of the normal curve to estimate the allowable s value as about 0 . 3 times the e  contour i n t e r v a l .  The conversion of horizontal errors into vertical ones involves  the tangent of ground slope. Standards for Canadian topographic maps do not appear to be as well defined.  W . A . Williamson (pers. written c o m m . , 1972) stated that the  Canadian Surveys and Mapping Branch designs its maps so that "on Class A maps the contours are accurate to one-half a contour i n t e r v a l . "  If it is assumed that  this represents a 95 per cent confidence l e v e l , the ordinates of the normal curve can be used fo estimate the allowable root-mean-square height error as 0.255 times the contour i n t e r v a l . Williamson also stated that for Canadian Class A maps, points are to appear w i t h i n 0.5 mm of their true positions as map scale —  this would represent 25 m on the ground for 1:50,000 scale maps.  -4-  Following Thompson and Davey's (1954, p. 43) approach, bur using this scale and a 100-foot (30.5 m) contour i n t e r v a l , the root-mean-square error for the maps used in this study should be given by: s = t ( 7 . 8 + 2 5 . 0 tan 3 ) metres  (1.1)  e  where o is the ground slope. Another possible source of contour error is the generalization required when smaller scale maps are compiled from  larger scale ones.  Pannekoek (1962)  discussed this, and stated that in some cases, contours should be "moved aside" in some valleys or along coasts in order to "make room" for cultural features such as roads and railways.  This should not be a factor in the present study, as  the map series used herein is now compiled "at publication scale" (Williamson, pers. comm.), and was formerly compiled for only a 20 per cent reduction. Errors or inconsistencies in the portrayal of the drainage net on maps may present problems in estimating drainage parameters.  This problem has  received more attention than has the precision of relief estimates (cf.  Morisawa,  1957; Giusti and Schneider, 1965; Eyles, 1966; Gregory, 1966a, 1966b; M c C o y , 1971).  Most of these writers found that the "extended drainage network"  that is, the network formed by extending streams along contour crenulations, was more closely related to the drainage net determined in the f i e l d or from aerial photographs than was the "blue line network" printed on the maps (see Morisawa, 1957; Eyles, 1966). Other authors (notably Gregory) argued that the use of the extended network might lead to the inclusion of former channels not now part of the drainage system, such as "dry valleys" in karst areas or former glacial melrwater channels.  Because drainage net parameters do not form  an important part of the present study, analysis w i l l be simplified through the use of the "blue line" stream network shown on the topographic maps.  -5-  1 .2:  Notation Throughout this paper, terms and symbols are defined where they are first  introduced.  In addition, a complete listing of a l l symbols used w i l l be given  Appendix I.  Where there are "standard" symbols for variables, these w i l l be  in  used unless ambiguity would result. Furthermore, x and y are reserved to indicate geographical location, z elevation above sea l e v e l , N a number of objects or occurrences, D a density value, r a correlation c o e f f i c i e n t , and s a root-meansquare value.  The metric system of units is employed throughout, with British  units being given in some instances.  Elevations obtained from the maps were in  feet, but were converted to metres before analysis.  -6-  C h a p t e r 2 : Computer Terrain Storage Systems Topography can be considered to be a continuous surface, and thus even a small area contains an infinite number of points; the number of points which can be measured is limited by the resolving power of one's instruments and not by the surface itself.  Since i t is generally not possible to specify the land  surface completely, the usual objective of computer terrain storage systems is to obtain a "satisfactory" representation of the surface which w i l l minimize both the effort required to obtain the data and the computer storage requirements, while at the same time maximizing the efficiency with which some particular type of processing may be performed.  In the present study, the  "processing" involves  the estimation of some geomorphometric parameters. The problem is really t w o f o l d : one aspect involves the collection of topographic information from maps or other sources, w h i l e the second relates to the storage, r e t r i e v a l , and processing methods employed. 2.1:  Digitization Digitization can be defined as the process by which "analog measures",  such as length or location on a map, are converted into " d i g i t a l , computer-usable form" (Peucker, 1972, p . 7 2 ) .  Two distinct d i g i t i z a t i o n strategies are a v a i l a b l e :  one involves sampling at surface-random points or lines, while the other uses surface-specific points or lines.  In the surface-random approach, the points  sampled are not selected on the basis of surface form but according to some partially or completely arbitrary set of c r i t e r i a .  Randomly-located points are  obviously surface-random, but points selected using equal increments in the x and y-directions (grid sampling) or equal increments in elevation (contours) are also generally random with respect to the surface.  When surface-specific points  or lines are used, knowledge of the form of the surface being sampled (usually obtained by a visual inspection of a contour map or of the land surface itself)  -7is used to select points or lines which contain a maximum amount of information. These include peaks and pits, passes, ridges and course lines, and breaks of slope. 2 . 2 : Surface-random Sampling:  Grids  The most w i d e l y used method for storing and processing three-dimensional surfaces is probably the square g r i d , also known as the "altitude matrix" (Evans, 1972, p. 2 4 ) , or as "both a digital terrain model and a numerical map" (Connelly, 1972, p. 92).  Sample points are located at the intersections of two orthogonal  sets of regularly-spaced parallel lines.  O n l y the altitude of the surface at each  sample point must be measured and stored w i t h i n the computer — the geographical locations are determined by the grid spacing, and are implicit in the sequential position of the altitude value w i t h i n the computer storage array.  A wide variety  of computer programs for the processing of gridded data is a v a i l a b l e .  Another  advantage lies in the fact that the neighbours of a given data point, which are often required in the calculation of geomorphometric parameters, can be readily obtained, once again from the positions of points w i t h i n the computer array. The principal disadvantage of the regular grid is its tendency toward redundancy —  the grid must be made sufficiently dense throughout to portray  the smallest objects which must be shown anywhere w i t h i n the area covered by the g r i d . According to Tobler (1969, p. 243), the sampling theorem states that " i f a function has no spectral components of frequency higher than W , then the value of the function is completely determined by a knowledge of its values at points spaced 1/2 W a p a r t . "  Thus a regular grid with a grid spacing d can  only be expected to depict those variations of the surface having wavelengths of 2d or more.  If the smallest significant wavelength of object one wishes to  detect or portray anywhere w i t h i n a study area is of size ("wavelength") S, then the grid spacing everywhere must be 1/2 S or less.  "Smoother" sub-areas of the  -8-  study area w i l l then contain far more points than are needed to portray their form. To improve the "resolution" of a grid by a factor f , the grid spacing must be decreased by this factor — the total number of data points is increased by a factor of  f^.  Tobler and Davis (1968) described a number of regular grid data sets of various types of terrain which together form a "digital terrain l i b r a r y " .  Because  of the wide application of this terrain storage method, the larger number of gridded terrain samples already c o l l e c t e d , and the number of computer programs a v a i l a b l e , this method w i l l be examined intensively in later chapters. At least two other grid approaches have been used: one is a "regular triangular g r i d " , while the other was termed the "variable g r i d " method by Boehm (1967, p. 404). square grid approach.  The regular triangular grid has some advantages over the Each point has six neighbours which form a regular  hexagon, and Mackay (1953) discussed how this form of data collection avoids the "saddle point problem" which sometimes arises in attempting to draw isopleths based on a square g r i d .  The advantage in this regard is probably out-  weighed by the increased complexity involved in indicating geographical location i m p l i c i t l y in the computer storage a l l o c a t i o n .  Most of the drawbacks  of the regular square grid would also apply to a regular triangular one. In the variable grid method, a "master" regular grid is used, but in rougher areas, denser regular grids are applied; the redundancy of the denser grid in smoother parts of the surface is thus avoided.  Some preliminary analysis  would be required to determine the areas in which a denser grid should be used, and how dense it should b e .  If the smallest significant terrain wavelength  w i t h i n each sub-area can be estimated, the sampling theorem discussed above can be used to determine the required grid spacing.  This implies some knowledge  of the surface form before the data are c o l l e c t e d , and thus the variable grid  -9-  method is not completely "surface-random", although the exact locations of the data points remain so. There is some disagreement as to the relative merits of completely random sampling of a surface, in which the locations of the sample points are random, and of the type of "surface-random" sampling represented by regular grids. Strahler (1956,  p. 589-592) considered the "random co-ordinate method" and  the regular grid for sampling surface slope.  He stated that:  " I t might be supposed that a regularly distributed sample would give coverage more uniformly representative of the entire area and would be superior to the random co-ordinate method. According to statistical principles, however, this grid sample is unsatisfactory because variance cannot be computed s i m p l y . " (p. 591) Since even the regular grid points are random w i t h respect to such surface characteristics as elevation and slope, the writer cannot understand why the variance of slopes for 100 gridded points cannot be determined in exactly the same way as for 100 randomly-located ones.  Strahler also noted that the grid  might produce a systematically-biased sample i f the grid lines happen to be aligned parallel to linear features in the topography, such as ridges or valleys. This latter argument was also put forward by Haan and Johnson (1966, p. 124) with reference to the sampling of elevations to be used in the construction of hypsometric curves.  Because of their inherently uneven distribution, however,  randomly-located points might also produce biased sampling, although the bias w i l l not be systematic —  there w i l l simply be more data points in some parts of  the study area than in others. W . D . Rase (personal oral c o m m . , 1970; pers. written c o m m . , 1973) investigated the relative "information contents" of randomly-located and gridded elevation samples; this unpublished study represents the only quantitative comparison known to the w r i t e r .  Three surfaces were first represented by 150 x  150 grids; the surfaces were a plane, a fourth-order polynomial, and a 2 3 . 7 km  -10-  square topographic sample from the Lake Louise 1:50,000 scale map sheet (grid spacing about 160 m).  Samples of between about 100 and 500 points were  taken from each of these populations of 22,500 points in three ways —  random,  "systematic stratified aligned" (regular grid) , and "systematic stratified unaligned" in which the rows and columns of the grid were not aligned with the co-ordinate axes.  50 x 50 grids (2,500 points) were then interpolated from these samples  using the SYMAP program (see section 2 . 5 ) , and these were compared with the corresponding points from the original data sets using various simple statistical measures.  Figure 2 . 1 plots the coefficient of determination against sample size  for each of the nine cases examined by Rase.  For each surface, the two systematic  approaches (grids) produced considerably better results than the random co-ordinate method; the aligned samples tended to give somewhat better results than the unaligned systematic samples.  This evidence strongly suggests that grid samples  provide a "better" representation of a surface than do random co-ordinate samples, and appears to refute the unsubstantiated claims of Strahler (1956) and Haan and Johnson (1966).  O f course, the actual values of the coefficients of  determination shown in Figure 2 . 1 are at least in part dependent upon the particular interpolation model chosen to generate the 50 x 50 grids (see section 2.5).  Furthermore, the problem investigated by Rase was not the same as those  investigated by the other authors. From the point of view of computer storage, the random co-ordinate approach would have the added disadvantage that a l l three co-ordinates of each point must be specified and stored —  the advantages of i m p l i c i t geographical  location and implicit neighbours which hold true for grids are lost.  -n-  Figure 2 . 1 :  Coefficients of determination as functions of sample size for three sampling designs (random, systematic stratified unaligned, systematic stratified aligned) applied to three surfaces of varying complexity (after W . D . Rase, unpublished study).  -12-  2.3:  Surface-random Sampling: Digitized Contours Contours represent another way of sampling and storing a terrain surface.  It must be noted that the elevations of the contours are fixed by sea level (or other datum) and the contour i n t e r v a l , and are thus random with respect to surface features.  On some maps, supplementary contours or spot elevations  are used to provide the map user with additional information.  The storage of  topography through the use of digitized contours is of particular interest in light of recent developments in automated compiling and drafting of topographic maps. As the contours are determined using stereoplotters and plotted automatically, the succession of points along the contours could readily be stored on tape and made available for geomorphometric processing.  Evans (1972,  p. 23-27)  discussed the relative merits of digitized contours and of altitude matrices.  He  noted that w h i l e the former method is superior if one wishes to know the locations of a l l pints of a certain height, it is inferior i f one wishes to know the elevation at a given location.  Since the latter sort of question arises much more often in  geomorphometric snalysis than the former, i t would seem that d i g i t i z e d contours are less suitable for geomorphometric analysis than are regular grids.  More  storage space is required per point, since only the elevation can be indicated i m p l i c i t l y , and two values per point must be e x p l i c i t l y stored.  Boehm (1967)  described a "contour tree ordering method" for storing surface information; this method is said to be more efficient in problems where "successive specified points are correlated, such as in line-of-sight calculations" (p. 405) than would be a storage of contour points sorted by x co-ordinates.  Boehm's work w i l l be  discussed further in section 2 . 7 . Computer programs are available for determining slope steepness and aspect directly from contour data (see section 3 . 4 . 2 ) ;  routines for producing  contours from grids are widely a v a i l a b l e , and the inverse process, that is,  -13-  producing grids from digitized contour data, is also possible.  These processes  would both involve interpolation, and the choice of the interpolation model (section 2.5) would influence the results. 2.4:  Surface-specific Sampling: Points and Lines Surface-specific points can be defined as "points which furnish more  information about the surface than only their co-ordinates" (Peucker, 1972, p. 23).  These were termed "significant topographic points" by Hardy (1971,  p. 1907).  Surface-specific points include peaks and pits (maxima and minima,  respectively, on the surface), passes or saddle points, stream and ridge junctions, and points where there are significant changes in the directional trends of surfacespecific lines. breaks of slope.  (See Figure 2 . 2 . )  These lines include ridges, course lines, and  There has been some work on the relationships among and links  between various types of surface-specific points and lines on continuous, contihuously-differentiable surfaces.  This was begun by Cayley (1859) and  Maxwell (1870), and revived by Warntz (1966, 1968). (1972, p. 24) and Woldenberg (1972,  Since both Peucker  p. 327-330) have recently reviewed this  work and as i t is not directly relevant to the current research, no summary w i l l be included herein. The writer knows of no work on the relative "information contents" of surface-specific and surface-random points;  Peucker (1972, p. 7 2 ) , however,  claimed that "surface-specific points have a higher information content than surface-random p o i n t s . "  Fewer of these should be required to define a surface  to a given level of precision, but there is no evidence to suggest how many fewer. Surface specific points require more storage space and d i g i t i z i n g time than do an equivalent number of grid points, since a l l three co-ordinates must be e x p l i c i t l y determined and stored. There is an element of subjectivity in the selection of surface-specific points a n d , furthermore, neighbours cannot easily be determined from the points alone.  STREAM "  P  •  STREAM JUNCTION  —500 —  Figure 2 . 2 :  I  T  CONTOUR  RIDGE •  PEAK  o  RIDGE JUNCTION  P  A  S  S  Map to illustrate types of surface-specific points and lines.  -152.5:  Surface Behavior However the sample points are chosen, one must make some assumptions  about the behavior of the surface between the data points.  Sometimes these  assumptions are based on a theoretical or empirical knowledge of the actual surface behavior, but more often they are arbitrary. In this study only interpolating surfaces, i . e . , surfaces which pass through a l l the data points, w i l l be considered; approximating surfaces (known as trend surfaces), which do not necessarily pass through a l l the points and which are thus "smoother" than the original data, have also been applied to topography.  These works have mainly been involved  with attempts to determine the forms of former "erosion surfaces" now represented only by hilltops (ct\ • K i n g , 1969; Monmonier, 1969; Rodda, 1970; Tarrant, 1970).  Bassett and Chorley (1971) computed trend surfaces based on 15 x 15  grids of terrain elevations in an attempt to determine different scales of variation of the topography.  Such work, while interesting, is beyond the scope of the  present study. As mentioned above, interpolation usually involves an arbitrary assumption about the behavior of the surface between data points. (1960,  Robinson  p. 186-7) stated the "standard" cartographic assumption that, in  determining the*positions of isarithms from control points, linear interpolation should be used "when no evidence exists to indicate a nonlinear gradient between control p o i n t s . "  Peucker (1972, p. 25) noted that linear interpolation, in  particular the representation of a surface by a contiguous non-overlapping set of triangular planes, "represents the simplest, fastest, and often the least misleading interpolation m e t h o d . "  Peucker goes on to point o u t , however, that  such surfaces have discontinuities in the first derivative (i . e . , h a v e "breaks of slope") which may produce an "unpleasant" appearance in block diagrams or contour maps.  Perhaps for this reason, most computer algorithms for producing  -16dense regular grids from a less dense sample of points, (e.g. UBC X P A N D ; SYMAP) use an inverse-distance-squared weighted average of the heights of a number of surrounding data points.  Since distance is determined using Pythagoras'  Theorem, use of the squared distance in weighting elevations eliminates the need for a square-root determination, reducing computer processing time.  A  surface thus produced is continuous in the first derivative and therefore appears "smooth". A general interpolation formula may be expressed as: (2.1) 1  I  where z. is the height to be determined, the z. the elevations of neighbouring points, and c. . the distance between points i and j . For linear interpolation, jJ = 1 , while in the more common interpolation algorithms discussed above,0 - 2. There has been l i t t l e i f any research into the effect of 0 -values on surface behavior;  Figure 2 . 3 illustrates the influence of these values on the form of a  surface between data points.  This diagram suggests that different P -values may  be appropriate for different types of terrain.  In the absence of any work on  optimal 0-values, the linear assumption, i . e . ,  a  -value of one, w i l l be used  in this study. If data are in a square g r i d , triangular planar facets for determining slope or other parameters can be produced in two different ways.  In one  approach, one set of diagonals is arbitrarily inserted. Turner and Miles (1967, p. 260) determined a roughness parameter for the two orientations of diagonals and found very l i t t l e difference in the results.  A l t e r n a t i v e l y , additional points  in the centres of the grid squares may be interpolated by averaging the four surrounding points and used to form triangles.  This is done in some contouring  programs in order to avoid the "saddle point problem" discussed in section 2 . 2 .  -17-  Figure 2 . 3 :  Form of the interpolated surface between two data points (circles) for various exponents in the general interpolation formula (see equation 2 . 1 ) .  -182.6:  Computer Storage of Terrain Information There are a number of possible approaches to the storage of numerical  terrain information.  Most simply, the data may be stored d i r e c t l y , as a matrix  of elevations for gridded d a t a , as lists of x and y co-ordinates for digitized contours, or as a l l three co-ordinates for surface-specific points.  The surface  between the points would then be determined during the processing stage after retrieval.  In the case of irregularly-distributed points such as surface-specific  points, however, processing w i l l be much more efficient if the neighbours of each point are indicated in some way — as already noted above, this is not required for gridded data.  This can be achieved in at least two ways.  Hormann  (1969, 1971) stored the identification number and co-ordinates for each point. He then listed a l l the neighbours (by identification number) for some a r b i t r a r i l y chosen starting point.  N e x t , for each of these neighbours, a l l adjacent points  excluding the starting point are g i v e n , and the procedure is continued until every link between neighbours has been included exactly once.  During  processing, the computer forms triangles, beginning at the arbitrary starting point.  If all neighbours of any particular point other than the first one are  required, a l l previous pointer lists would have to be searched.  In the basic  storage system of the Geographical Data Structure^ (GDS), a l l neighbours of every point are included in that point's pointer list, making it easier to find any point's neighbours.  This makes searching through the data structure easier  than in Hormann's version but requires more storage space as each link appears in two pointer lists.  This storage method is herein termed the "pointer mode"  of the GDS.  1 Geography Branch, O f f i c e of Naval Research, Task N o . 710-100, Department of Geography, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, T . K . Peucker, principal investigator  -19Another approach is to store the point numbers and co-ordinates, and then to store a list of triangles, each record containing the triangle number and the identification numbers of the three points making up its vertices — this is termed the "triangle mode" of storage. could also be indicated.  Other characteristics of the triangle  This form of data organization is somewhat easier to  prepare, and is also more efficient for " t r i a n g l e - b y - t r i a n g l e " processing required for most geomorphometric analysis.  The triangle mode was used by  Akin (1971), w i t h elevations replaced by precipitation values, in the calculation of the mean areal depth of precipitation.  The triangle mode should be far less  efficient for searching through the data structure than would be the pointer mode; computer routines for producing one data structure mode from the other are currently being developed under the GDS project.  The project is also  developing methods for determining the neighbours of a set of surface-specific points given only the points' co-ordinates. It is possible to produce a regular grid from a set of surface-specific points by interpolation (equation 2 . 1 ) .  The results w i l l be influenced by the  choice of the P-value; the appropriateness of the 0 -value of 2 used in most interpolation algorithms is suspect. Yet another approach to numerical terrain storage is to find an e x p l i c i t mathematical function or set of functions which either interpolate or approximate the surface.  The coefficients of the equations, rather than the points themselves,!  would be stored, and could be based on gridded or non-gridded data.  Such  equations can usually be differentiated, the results being equations of surface slope over the area.  If a constant elevation is subtracted from the equation,  the root of the resulting equation w i l l give the contour of that elevation.  Junkins  and Jancaitis (1971) found that this approach was an order of magnitude more efficient than the method of evaluating the surface equation at a large number of  -20-  grid points and then using "standard" grid contouring methods.  The latter  approach was used in the same context by Hardy (1971, 1972). The functions can also be integrated over the study area to determine the volume under the surface, which is of geomorphometric interest.  Once a g a i n , however, there  are often arbitrary assumptions about surface behavior; also, Hardy's method requires that the data points and one coefficient per point be stored, resulting in little saving of storage space, although processing may be speeded up. 2.7:  Comparisons of Approaches Boehm (1967) compared five methods of surface storage: contour points  sorted in the x - d i r e c t i o n (CS), "contour tree ordering" (CT), uniform grid ( U G ) , uniform grid-differential altitude ( U G D A ) , and variable grid-differential altitude ( V G ) .  "Differential a l t i t u d e " means that altitude differences between  neighbours rather than absolute altitudes are stored.  Boehm presented an  extensive table (his Table I I , p. 410) of "performance estimates" for the various methods.  He then applied them to a problem in intervisibility between points  on the surface, determining both storage requirements and processing speed. The grids were most efficient in terms of processing speed, w i t h the uniform grid the best, w h i l e the variable grid required the least storage.  Some other c o m -  parisons of methods have already been cited above. 2.8:  Conclusions As Boehm (1967, p. 414) stated, "one cannot discuss the relative  efficiencies of tabular representation methods without reference to the problem being s o l v e d . "  Thus the results of studies by Rase (see Figure 2.1) and Boehm  (see above) are not directly applicable to the problem considered here, that is, the estimation of some selected geomorphometric parameters.  These parameters  w i l l be selected after a review of many such measures in the next chapter.  The  terrain sampling and storage methods compared w i l l be the regular grid (altitude matrix) and an approach based on surface-specific points.  The regular grid is  -21-  representative of various methods of surface-random sampling, and these two approaches are the only computer terrain storage systems which have been applied to problems of general geomorphometry (c f. Evans, 1972; Hormann, 1969, 1971).  As noted above, surface behavior between data  points w i l l in both cases be assumed to be linear.  -22-  Chapter 3: Geomorphometric Parameter In this chapter, an attempt w i l l be made to review a considerable number of geomorphometric parameters in such a way as to produce a rational classification of these measures. Attention w i l l be focussed upon two points: the amenability of the parameters to measurement based upon the computer terrain storage systems discussed above, and the probable geomorphic significance of the measures.  N o attempt w i l l be made to review papers  approaching landscape analysis through a set of landform "elements", " u n i t s " , or "facets" (examples of this approach include: Van Lopik and Kolb, 1959; Lebedev, 1961; Conacher, 1968; Speight, 1968; Thomas, 1969; Wong, 1969; Gerenchuk et a l . , 1970) .  In cases where the units were based upon  quantitative landform parameters (e.g. Speight, 1968), only the parameters w i l l be discussed.  Similarly, graphical analysis methods w i l l be reviewed only  where they are related to important geomorphometric parameters. Chorley (1969, p. 78) proposed that characteristics of drainage basins and drainage nets could be divided into geometrical properties, which involve the relationships among dimensional properties such as elevations, lengths, areas, and volumes, and topological properties which relate numbers of objects in the drainage net (for example, the bifurcation ratio).  The latter properties w i l l  not be considered herein. A l l measures of land surface form can be considered to be in some way representative of the "roughness" of the surface.  This discussion w i l l thus begin  with a discussion of the general concept of roughness before proceeding to actual geomorphometric parameters.  -23-  3 . 1 : The Concept of "Roughness" In a general sense, roughness refers to the irregularity of a topographic surface.  Stone and Dugundji (1965) and Hobson (1967) observed that roughness  cannot be completely defined by any single measure, but must be represented by a "roughness vector" or set of parameters.  One area may be rougher than another  because i t has a shorter characteristic wavelength (finer grain or texture), a higher amplitude ( r e l i e f ) , an irregularity of ridge spacing, or sharper ridges (see Figure 3 . 1 ) .  Stone and Dugundji, in a study of microrelief profiles, used  five measures, while Hcbson computed 9 other measures based on three different "roughness concepts". It is convenient to discuss terrain roughness by analogy with combinations of periodic functions or spectra of the terrain.  Evans (1972,  p. 33-36) reviewed  some of the attempts to analyze topography using spectral analysis e x p l i c i t l y . He observed (p. 36) that in practice this has not been very successful, because valleys often curve, and they converge downstream, while valley spacing w i t h i n an area is seldom regular.  The general ideas of wavelength and amplitude are  useful, however, and geomorphometric measures w i l l be discussed in this context. The significant wavelengths of the topography are termed grain or texture, while the amplitudes associated w i t h these wavelengths correspond to the concept of relief.  The relationship between the horizontal and vertical dimensions of the  topography is embodied in the land slope and the dispersion of slope magnitude and orientation, while the vertical distribution of mass under the topographic surface is contained in the concept of hypsometry.  -24-  Figure 3 . 1 :  Forms of surface roughness. than A in some respect.  B, C , D, and E are "rougher"  B has a shorter wavelength,  C a higher amplitude, D an irregularity in spacing, and E a "sharper"form.  -25-  3 . 2 : Texture and Grain Texture and grain are terms which have been used to indicate in some way the scale of horizontal variations in the topography.  These terms have  been used in different contexts, and this difference is preserved i f texture is used to refer to the shortest significant wavelength in the topography and grain used for the longest significant wavelength.  Texture is related to the smallest  landform elements one wishes to detect, and grain to the size of area over which one measures other parameters. 3.2.1:  Grain Wood and Snail (1960, p. 1) defined grain as "the size of area over  which the other factors are to be measured.  It is dependent on the spacing of  major ridges and valleys and thus indicates texture of topography."  Grain was  calculated by determining the local relief w i t h i n concentric circles around a randomly-located point.  Relief was plotted against diameter and, according to  the authors, there w i l l generally be a "knick point" in this curve - - the diameter at this knick point w i l l be the grain ( G ) .  Wood and Snell used  diameter increments of one m i l e , and suggested that i f there is no knick point, relief values for the diemeters of circles centred at a number of points should be determined and averaged; "this technique w i l l produce a definite knick point so that no doubt remains as to the grain size "  ( p . 5 ) . They (p.6) noted  that the method is not very precise, but believed that it was better than measuring parameters such as relief for a standard arbitrary area.  In the present  study, " g r a i n " is also used less formally to refer to the longest significant topographic wavelength.  Other parameters should be sampled over areas  larger than or equal to the grain size in order to obtain representative values.  -263.2.2:  Texture As noted above, the term texture is herein applied in a general sense  to refer to the shortest significant topographic wavelength.  This should  determine the grid spacing for grid sampling or the size of the triangles for surface-specific point sampling.  The word "texture" has been used for a  specific geomorphometric parameter.  Smith (1950) proposed a texture ratio:  T=N/P  (3.1)  where"N is the number of crenulations on the selected contour, and P is the length of the perimeter of the basin given in miles or fractions thereof" (p. 657). He "selected" the contour having the most crenulations.  Smith found that the  texture ratio was closely related to drainage density (see below,  section 3 . 2 . 3 )  by the following empirical relationship: D = 1.658 T ' 1  1 1 5  d  (3.2)  Smith did not give confidence limits for the regression coefficients, but the closeness of the exponent to one suggests to the writer that the relationship may in fact be linear. The nearly linear relationship between T and the drainage density is not surprising, since the inverse of T is closely related to the average distance between contour crenulations along the selected contour.  As each  crenulation represents a stream in the "extended drainage n e t w o r k " , the inverse of T is closely related to the mean distance between channels, which is in turn the inverse of drainage density. 3.2.3:  Drainage Density (Dd) As already noted, drainage density is closely related to texture.  Drainage density, defined by Horton (1945, p. 283) as the total length of stream channels per unit area, represents a very important geomorphometric parameter. It has been found to be closely related to mean stream discharge ( c f . Carlston, 1963), mean annual precipitation ( c f . Chorley and Morgan, 1962), and  -27sediment y i e l d (Abrahams, 1972).  It has also been shown to increase with  time on t i l l plains exposed by deglaciation (Ruhe, 1952).  Roberts and Klingeman  (1972) found that the total length of flowing channels at a particular time is closely related to instantaneous stream discharge.  Thus drainage density for  flowing channels only w i l l vary over short periods of time.  Evans (1972, p. 33)  suggested that i f only high order streams are considered, the inverse of valley density should provide a useful expression of overall topographic g r a i n , since the inverse of drainage density is the mean orthogonal distance between channels. In a method analogous to Wentworth's method for slope estimation (see section 3 . 4 . 1 below), Carlston and Langbein (unpub. 1960; c f . M c C o y , 1971) and McCoy (1971) used traverse sampling to obtain a rapid estimate of drainage density (see section 4 . 3 . 4 ) .  Other writers have used the numbers of  intersections between the drainage net and traverse lines directly without attempting to convert them to drainage density.  Peltier (1962) plotted the  number of drainageways per mile against mean slope and showed curves for a number of climatic or geomorphic regions; a l l traverse minima were counted, including closed depressions.  Donahue (1972) determined "mean channel spacing"  by counting intersections between the drainage net and a set of randomlyoriented traverse lines and dividing this into the total length of traverse.  He  did not, however, make a correction for the angle of intersection between traverse line and drainageway (see section 3 . 4 . 1 ) .  Wood and Snell (1957, 1959,  1960) determined a parameter called "slope direction changes", the total number of minima and maxima encountered along traverse lines of constant total length. Since the profile is continuous, maxima and minima must alternate, and the number of slope direction changes is twice the number of drainageways, plus or minus one.  It would be possible to convert the data of Peltier, Donahue, and  Wood and Snell to drainage densities for comparison with other studies.  -28-  Anorher parameter very closely related to drainage density is the source density ( D ) , the number of stream sources per unit area (see Mather, s  1972, p. 311).  Both this and the preceding parameter are very sensitive to the  portrayal of the drainage net.  As already noted in section 1 . 1 , there may be  map-to-map inconsistencies in the portrayal of the drainage net, and for this reason some writers have used the "extended drainage network" formed by extending stress as indicated by the contour crenulations. introduces an element of subjectivity.  This, however,  The q u a l i t y of the b l u e - l i n e drainage  net shown on some topographic map from southern British Columbia w i l l be investigated in the next chapter. 3.2.4:  Other Texture Measures A different measure of surface texture is the number of closed h i l l t o p  contours per unit area, here termed the peak density (Dp).  Wood and Snell  (1959) used this as one of their parameters for classifying terrain. any closed contour (other than a pit) to be a " h i l l t o p " .  They considered  King (1966), in her  application of factor analysis to geomorphometric measures, used two peak densities:  "summit dissection", which was "the number of closed summit or spur  contours" (p. 4 1 ) , and " v a l l e y character", the number of closed valley contours, most of which represented drumlins.  Swan (1967) mapped " h i l l frequency" as the  density of hills per square m i l e . A h i l l was defined as any summit w i t h two or more closed contours, or with a difference between top and base elevations of more than 50 feet (15.2 m).  Using a related measure, Ronca and Green (1970)  studied the density and distribution of craters on the lunar surface. Yet another way of characterizing surface roughness is through an examination of ridges.  Speight (1968) determined ridginess, the total length  of ridge per unit area (analogous to drainage density) and r e t i c u l a t i o n , which was a measure of the size of "the largest connected network of crests that  -29-  projected into a sample area" (p. 248).  He also used modified two-dimensional  vector an lysis on ridge segments to measure the degree to which the ridges tended to be p a r a l l e l . 3.3:  Relief Measures The term relief is used to describe the vertical dimension or amplitude  of topography.  Evans (1972,  p. 31-32) noted that the majority of relief  measures depend upon the extreme values of the distribution of elevations, and would thus be sensitive to rather minor variations in estimations of these heights. He therefore proposed that the standard deviation of altitudes would provide a more stable measure of the vertical v a r i a b i l i t y of the terrain.  He did observe  that "the autocorrelation of altitude admittedly makes range less unreliable than i t is for random variables, since on a continuous surface a l l intermediate values between the extremes must be represented " (p. 31), but nevertheless recommended use of the standard d e v i a t i o n . A l l of the other papers reviewed herein have, however, used extreme values to characterize the vertical dimension. 3.3.1:  Local Relief (H) For any f i n i t e area of a surface, the local relief is defined as the  difference between the highest and lowest elevations occurring w i t h i n that area.  It is important to note that local relief is always defined with respect to  some particular area, and perhaps for this reason has sometimes been termed the "relative r e l i e f " (cf. Smith, 1935).  This measure was apparently introduced by  Partsch (1911), who termed it the reliefenergie, and was first used in the English language in 1935 in independent papers by Smith and by Huggins (1935).  1  The former author is generally credited with introducing the concept of local relief into the English language literature, but Huggins apparently presented his paper at a professional meeting some months earlier.  -30These works, as well as many others (see Table 3 . 1 ) , determined local relief for arbitrarily-bounded terrain samples such as squares, circles, or latitude-longitude quadrangles.  In most cases, the size of the sample area was  arbitrary, although Trewartha and Smith (1941, p. 31) stated that "the size of the rectangle for which relief readings are made appears to need adjustment for the degree of coarseness or fineness of the relief p a t t e r n . "  They did not  indicate how the appropriate size could be determined. Wood and Snell (1960) used a variable sample area size — they first determined the "grain" of the topography (see above, section 3 . 2 . 1 ) , and then measured the relief for a circle with a radius equal to the g r a i n .  Wood and Snell (1957, 1959), Peltier  (1962), and Evans (1972) compared the values of local relief determined over more than one size of area.  Evans (1972, p. 30) pointed out that i f the sample  area "is so small (in relation to topographic wavelengths) that it is unlikely to contain a whole slope, ' r e l i e f becomes simply a measure of gradient;"  in order  to make relief "as distinct and non-redundant a variable as possible" (p. 3 1 ) , he recommended the use of " f a i r l y large" sample areas.  The areas should definitely  be larger than the texture of the topography, and preferably larger than its g r a i n . Data from Wood and Snell (1959, p. 9) support Evens' contention — they found that the correlation between relief and slope declined as the size of the area over which they were measured increased.  Salisbury (1962) studied the  relationship between relief and slope for g l a c i a l deposits, and found the two to be closely related for older drift sheets, t i l l plains, lake plains, and outwash, but poorly related on end moraines and sand dunes.  This probably reflects the  interaction of sample area size and texture. In a l l of the above examples, local relief was determined for a r b i t r a r i l y bounded sample areas; local relief has also frequently been determined for drainage basins.  The minimum elevation w i l l be the basin mouth, w h i l e the  -31-  TABLE 3 . 1 : SIZES OF ARBITRARILY-BOUNDED AREAS OVER WHICH LOCAL RELIEF WAS DETERMINED  authors  date  BY VARIOUS AUTHORS  area (km^)  type of area  1.00 1.00 2.59 3.34 7.52 10.4 10.4 15.0 23.3 25.0 25.0 25.0 32.0 34.0 65.5 93.2 203. 400.  square square square square square square square quad.* square square square square  * of sizes  Studies using one sample size: Chen Harris Hesler & Johnson Swan Abrahams Huggins Donahue Batchelder Zakrzewska King Kaitanen Hutchinson Partsch Trewartha & Smith Smith Hammond Spreen Ahnert  1947 1969 1972 1967 1972 1935 1972 1950 1963 1966 1969 1970 1911 1941 1935 1964 1947 1970  -  quad. quad. square circle square  More than one size used: Gassmann & Gutersohn Evans Wood & Snell Peltier Wood & Snell  1947 1972 1957, 1959 1962 1960  * quad. = latitude-longitude quadrangle  0.25 0.63 0.81 2.59 18.3  to to to & to  28.0 62.7 414. 259. 399.  square square circle square circle  13 18 8 2 7  -32-  maximum is usually, but not always, located on the basin perimeter. (1960,  Maxwell  p. 10-11) determined the "basin r e l i e f " as the "elevation difference  between the basin mouth and upper end of the diameter", where basin diameter was determined trhough a complicated set of c r i t e r i a , but was essentially "the longest dimension of the basin parallel to the principal drainage l i n e " . Since the size of drainage basins w i l l vary, many workers have found i t desirable to determine a dimensionless " r e l i e f r a t i o " or "relative relief number" by dividing the relief by some other linear dimension of the basin.  The latter  have included the basin diameter (defined above), basin perimeter ( M e l t o n , 1957) and square root of basin area ( M e l t o n , 1965). 3 . 3 . 2 : A v a i l a b l e Relief ( H ) n  The concept of available relief was introduced by Glock (1932), and his definition was rephrased by Johnson (1933, p. 295) to read: " A v a i l a b l e relief is the vertical distance from the former position of an upland surface down to the position of adjacent graded streams. " Johnson pointed out that this could only be determined where the original upland surface could be identified from remnants and where there were "graded" streams.  The latter involves the  definition of the concept of " g r a d e " , which w i l l not be discussed here.  Local,  available and drainage relief are illustrated diagrammatically in Figure 3 . 2 . Glock stressed the importance of available relief in determining the land profile but, as Johnson noted, other factors such as drainage density and slope must also be considered. In order to determine the average available r e l i e f , one would have to construct both the " o r i g i n a l " and "streamline" surfaces (see Pannekoek, 1967, for a review of methods for constructing such surfaces), and to then divide the difference in the volumes under these surfaces by the area.  -33-  •  Figure 3 . 2 :  STREAM 'AT G R A D E '  MAXIMUM  ELEVATION  O  STREAM  OTHER  Hypothetical topographic profile illustrating various relief measures. H  q  H is the local relief for the entire p r o f i l e ,  Glock's available r e l i e f , and  the drainage r e l i e f .  Dury's "available relief" would be the mean height of the shaded portion.  -34-  A different relief measure was discussed by Dury (1951), who unfortunately also used the term "available r e l i e f " ;  this was defined as "that  part of the landscape w h i c h , standing higher than the floors of the main valleys , may be looked on as available for destruction by the agents of erosion with reference to existing base-levels" (p. 339).  working  He then defined the "mean  available r e l i e f " as the average height of the land above the streamline surface, computed as the difference in volumes under the actual and streamline surfaces, divided by the area.  This is clearly not the same as the available relief defined  by Glock (1932) and Johnson (1933). Dury (1951, p. 342-3) also discussed the depth of dissection", which is identical to the G l o c k / j o h n s o n concept of available r e l i e f . 3.3.3:  Drainage Relief (H-j) Glock (1932, p. 75) also defined a measure called the drainage relief  as "the vertical distance through which rain water moves over the ground from the time the water first strikes the surface until it joins a definite stream." Johnson (1933, p. 301), however, pointed out that Glock later used the term to refer to the vertical distance between adjacent divides and streams, and proposed that this latter definition be adopted (see Figure 3 . 2 ) .  If in an area  a l l the divides are at the elevation of the original upland surface and a l l the streams are "at g r a d e " , drainage relief w i l l equal available relief; to the latter, however, drainage relief can always be determined.  in contrast Strahler  (1958, p. 295) stated that "local r e l i e f , H, is a measure of vertical distance from stream to adjacent d i v i d e " ( i . e . , local relief is equivalent to drainage r e l i e f ) , but this w i l l only be true i f the sample areas upon which local relief is based are large enough to include adjacent streams and divides and yet not so large that the slopes of the streams and divides themselves significantly increase the relief w i t h i n the sample area.  In Figure 3 . 2 , the area over which H is  determined is "large" and H exceeds H j .  Hormann (1971, p. 145) determined  -35the mittlere Taltiefe ("mean valley depth") for drainage basins.  First, a "roof"  was constructed over the basin by linking points along the basin divide which were equidistant from the basin mouth by straight lines. The volume between this surface and the land surface wad divided by the basin area.  This measure  is "complementary" to Dury's "mean available r e l i e f " . 3 . 3 . 4 : Applications of Relief Measures Relief has commonly been used in a descriptive way ( e . g . Smith, 1935) or to delimit physiographic regions ( e . g . Huggins, 1935), both alone and in conjunction with other variables.  Some studies have, however, related relief  to landscape processes, or to other aspects of physical geography.  Schumm  (1954, 1963) found that sediment yield was closely related to the ratio of basin relief to basin diameter for some small drainage basins in the southwestern United States.  Schumm (1956) also related sedimentyield to relief and slope for  some smaller basins in the Perth Amboy badlands.  Maner (1958) investigated  the relationships between sediment yield and a number of basin characteristics, and found that the above relief ratio was the one most highly correlated with the dependent variable.  Ahnert (1970) determined average basin relief as the  mean of local relief values for 20 by 20 km squares spread over a number of drainage basins for which he had information concerning denudation rates. In the absence of stream incision, denudation w i l l reduce relief; by using the empirical relationship between denudation rates and r e l i e f , Ahnert presented theoretical curves for relief reduction as a function of time, both w i t h and without the effects of isostatic compensation.  He later (1972) related these  results to theoretical models for slope processes.  -36-  3.4:  Slope Evans (1972, p. 36) stated that "slope is perhaps the most important  aspect of surface form, since surfaces are formed completely of slopes, and slope angles control the gravitational force available for geomorphic w o r k . " M a t h e m a t i c a l l y , the tangent of the slope angle (tano<) is the first derivative of a l t i t u d e , and it is as a tangent or per cent slope that this surface parameter is generally reported.  Strahler (1956) also mapped slope sine, which is  proportional to the downslope component of the acceleration of g r a v i t y . Strahler's (1950, 1956) work suggested that slope tangents had a normal distribution; Speight (1971), however, found that for a number of areas investigated, a log-normal distribution provided a better f i t . Unlike relief and most other geomorphometric parameters, which are only defined for f i n i t e subareas of a surface, slope is defined at every point as the slope of a plane tangent to the surface at that point.  In practice,  however, slope is generally measured over a f i n i t e distance, especially when data are obtained from a contour map.  The size of area over which slope is  measured w i l l influence the values obtained, and the effect of recording intervals on slope values was discussed by Gerrard and Robinson (1971).  Mean  slope was generally much less sensitive to the recording interval than was maximum slope. 3 . 4 . 1 : Average Slope:  Line-Sampling Method  A method for estimating average slope proposed by Wentworth (1930) has been w i d e l y a p p l i e d .  The number (N) of intersections between a set of traverse  lines and the contours in the sample area is counted, and the total length of the traverse lines (L) is measured.  L divided by N is the mean horizontal distance  between the contours, as measured along the traverse lines.  This w i l l tend to  be larger than the mean orthogonal distance, and therefore a "correction factor"  -37must be a p p l i e d .  If the traverse line intersects the contours at an angle 0 ,  the true inter-contour distance w i l l equal sin 0 times the traverse distance. If one assumes that a l l values of 0 between 0 and 90 degrees are equally l i k e l y , then the true mean inter-contour distance should equal L / N times the mean value of sin 0 , which is  2/TT , or 0.6366.  The mean slope tangent estimate  is then given by:  ,an« - i _ _  (3.3)  0.6366  where I is the contour interval in the same units as L.  Wentworth presented  the formula for use w i t h L in miles and I in feet as: tan  oc  =  I (N/L) 3 3 6 1  (3.4)  The method gives the mean slope for an area, but has been used to construct slope isopleth maps by assigning the slope for an area to a point at the area's centre (c_f_.  Smith, 1939; Calef and Newcomb, 1953; G r i f f i t h s , 1964).  Other authors have used the number of contour intersections per length of traverse d i r e c t l y , without converting to an actual slope value.  Wood and  Snell (1957, 1960) used the "contour count" as a "measure of slope" (1957, p. 1), but in their 1959 paper converted this to slope using Wentworth's formula. Zakrzewska (1963) determined the "roughness" at a sample point as the number of contour intersections with the circumference of a circle centred at that point. 3 . 4 . 2 : Average Slope: Other Methods Raisz and Henry (1937) mapped average slope by determining areas of similar contour density (slope) subjectively.  The mean slope (in feet per mile)  was determined for each such area, and a choropleth map was produced.  This  approach has also been applied by some other writers ( c f . G r i f f i t h s , 1964). Another method which has been widely used depends upon determining the slope  -38-  at a sample of points distributed over the study area; these values may be averaged ( c f . (cf.  Strahler, 1956; Coulson and Gross, 1967) or "contoured"  Strahler, 1956; Speight, 1968). Ruhe (1950) and Rowan et_aL (1971) determined slope for traverse  segments between maxima and minima along the traverses.  No attempt was made  in either of these studies to correct for the angle between the traverse line and the contours. In direct computer applications, a number of writers (Monmonier et a l . , 1966; Piper and Evans, 1967, c f .  Evans,  1972; P a r k e t a L , 1970, 1971)  have described methods for determining surface slope from d i g i t i z e d contour data.  Sharpnack and A k i n (1969), as w e l l as Rase (1970, pers. oral c o m m . ) ,  computed both slope and aspect from an altitude matrix. Griffiths (1964) compared the "subjective method" (essentially the Raisz and Henry approach), Wentworth method and "point sampling" method.  He  concluded that Wentworth's method was most accurate, and that the point sampling method produced "comparable" results with less e f f o r t . 3.4.3:  Other Slope Parameters Another slope parameter is the rate of change of slope, termed the  "local convexity" by Evans (1972, p. 41).  Mathematically, this is the second  derivative of a l t i t u d e , or the first derivative of slope.  Convexity can be  separated into downslope convexity and cross-slope convexity (contour curvature). Evans suggested that the problem of convexity could be "solved" by f i t t i n g quadratic surfaces to 3 by 3 sections of an altitude matrix.  Convexity could  then be determined by differentiating the resulting quadratic equation t w i c e . Speight (1968, p. 243) examined both rate of change of slope (which he termed "slope gradient") and contour curvature.  It is also possible to determine higher  derivatives of a l t i t u d e , but the possible physical meaning of such higher derivatives is obscure.  -39Closely related to mean slope is Strahler's ruggedness number, which was defined as HD^ by Strahler (1958, p. 289)as a result of dimensional analysis. In the case of a two-dimensional p r o f i l e , the relationship among r e l i e f , drainage density, and slope can be easily shown.  In Figure 3 . 3 , H is the relief and b  half the distance between channels, which equals half the inverse of D^. One thus has the mean slope given by: tan*  = H/b  = 2 HD  or twice the ruggedness number.  D  (3.5)  Strahler (p. 295) also introduced average  slope into the ruggedness number, producing the geometry number: HDJ — 2 tan o(  (3.6)  If H is a reasonable estimate of the drainage relief and if the two-dimensional case can be extended to three dimensions, this geometry number should equal 0 . 5 (see equation 3 . 5 ) .  The theoretical relationship is supported by the fact  that Strahler found that while drainage density for his test basins ranged over two orders of magnitude, values of the geometry number remained between 0 . 4 and 1.0. 3 . 4 . 4 : A p p l i c a t i o n of Slope Measures As in the case of relief (section 3 . 3 . 4 ) , slope has been w i d e l y used in descriptive w o r k , in physiographic classification, and in m i l i t a r y work related to vehicle t r a f f i c a b i l i t y .  Slope angle is a result of past or present geomorphic  processes, and w i l l also influence these processes (c f. Ahnert, 1972). Indeed, the analysis of slope profile form represents an important "sub-discipline of geomorphology (for example, Institute of British Geographers, 1971; Carson and K i r k b y , 1972; Young, 1972).  -40-  Figure 3 . 3 :  Diagrammatic topographic profile  illustrating the relationships  among r e l i e f , slope, and roughness (see equations 3 . 5 , 3 . 1 0 , and 3 . 1 1 ) .  3.5:  Dispersion of Slope Magnitude and Orientation In addition to slope steepness, slope aspect or direction may be  considered, either separately or together w i t h slope angle.  Evans (1972, p. 41)  proposed that the combined analysis of slope magnitude and orientation would produce "undesirable hybrid results; i t is better to separate v a r i a b i l i t y gradient from v a r i a b i l i t y in aspect."  in  If this is done, the aspect data should  be analyzed using two-dimensional vector analysis ( c f .  Curray, 1956).  While such separation may be desirable in some cases, the distribution of orthogonals to the land surface (which summarize both types of information) is essentially three-dimensional, and its analysis as such would seem to be appropriate. Chapman (1952) presented a potentially useful method for examining slope steepness and aspect.  Both the aspect (orientation) and slope (dip) of the  land surface were determined for a sample of points on a regular g r i d .  The  points were then plotted on a Schmidt net and contoured in the same way as other orientation data in the earth sciences are often presented.  Chapman  suggested that these diagrams would probably be useful in relating slopes to structure or the effects of glacier movement, and Newell (1970) successfully used the technique in this context.  One of the computer programs presented  by Hobson (1967, 1972) represents a logical extension of this work, treating the perpendiculars to slope units as vectors and applying well-established mathematical approaches to the analysis of three-dimensional orientation data (cf.  Fisher, 1953; Steinmetz, 1962).  Unit vectors orthogonal to triangular  facets formed by inserting diagonals into a regular grid were summed and the length of the vector sum (R) was determined.  Hobson then calculated k  (which is the estimate of the precision parameter K for the spherical normal distribution of Fisher, 1954) as:  -42-  k  =  (3.7)  (N-l) /(N-R)  As a surface approaches planarity, the vectors w i l l become p a r a l l e l , R w i l l approach N (the number of vectors), and k w i l l become very large.  Intuitively ,  a plane should have a roughness of z e r o , and thus the inverse of k would represent a more "reasonable" roughness measure.  Since Hobson's method was  based on a regular g r i d , all triangles have the same horizontal area and similar true areas, and hence the use of unit vectors is not unreasonable.  If  based upon irregularly-distributed surface specific points, however, there may be a considerable variation in triangle size.  It would seem appropriate to  weight the vector orthogonal to each triangle by the triangle's true area.  If  this is done, however, k and its inverse cannot be determined through equation 3.7.  Some manipulation of that equation gives: _1_  N  k  N-l  _R_ N  100 - L(%)|  (for large N)  (3.8)  100  where L(%) is 100 ( R / N ) , the vector strength in per cent.  For weighted  vectorial analysis, L is defined as 100 times the weighted vector sum divided by the sum of the weights.  It is herein proposed that the best measure of "vector  dispersion" roughness is the roughness factor R, defined by: •R=100-L(%)  (3.9)  In the case of unit vectors and large N , R w i l l approximately equal 100 times the inverse of k. As in the case of slope, the roughness factor can be related to relief and ridge spacing through reference to Figure 3 . 3 .  For R, the vertical  component of each orthogonal vector w i l l equal coso<, w h i l e the horizontal components w i l l cancel out, leaving: R = 100 (1 - coso<)  (3.10)  -43Substituting the value for cos *  gives:  R = 100 (1 -  )  b  VH +b 2  (3.11)  2  Turner and Miles (1967) applied Hobson's (1967) vector program to t w e n t y - f i v e sample areas; twelve of these were derived from Stone and Dugundji's (1965) microterrain maps and provide a basis for examining the relationships among the parameters used by these authors, including R and H. The other thirteen samples were based on macroterrain from 1:24,000 scale maps.  In addition to k, Turner and Miles determined the local relief ( H ) , and  a v a r i a b i l i t y factor v , the local relief divided by the logarithm of k; writer estimated R as the inverse of k.  the  Linear correlation coefficients were  determined among ten roughness measures for the twelve common terrain samples. In a d d i t i o n , correlations were determined separately among Stone and Dugundji's six variables(16 cases) and among the four derived from Turner and Miles (25 cases).  The only statistically significant correlations based on the common  terrain samples which did not reflect functional relationships were those between mean and maximum amplitude, and between H and R.  The latter pair of variables  were not significantly correlated over the t w e n t y - f i v e Turner and Miles samples. This is almost certainly due to the difference in scale between the 1:24,000 and microterrain maps (1 to 2 orders of magnitude).  In Figure 3 . 4 , R (as estimated  as the inverse of k) is plotted against H for these 25 samples and for six others analyzed in Chapter 6 .  Curves of the form given in equation 3.11 for various  values of b have been plotted in Figure 3 . 4 .  These have been fitted "by eye"  to the groups of points for each of the six scales represented.  It appears that  each scale has a reasonably consistent "characteristic wavelength" which influences the relationship between H and R.  -44-  H (metres) Figure 3 . 4 :  Relationship between local relief and roughness factor. Open symbols represent micro-terrain from Turner and Miles (1967).  Solid symbols are macro-terrain (circles from  Turner and Miles; triangles from this study). based on equation 3 . 1 1 .  Curves are  -45ln a related line of research, Hayre and Moore (1961) determined theoretical scattering coefficients for t e r r a i n , based on autocorrelation functions determined from contour map data.  Hayre (1962) then used observed radar  return rates to estimate the roughness of the lunar surface. 3.6:  Hypsometry Clarke (1966, p. 237) defined hypsometry as "the measurement of the  interrelationships of area and a l t i t u d e . "  Evans (1972,  p. 42-48) reviewed  this concept under the heading: "Regional convexity (dissection, a e r a t i o n ) . " Most of these measures, which describe aspects of the distribution of landmass with e l e v a t i o n , are based upon the hypsometric curve. 3.6.1:  The Hypsometric Curve and its Variations Monkhouse and Wilkinson (1952,  p. 112-115) noted that there are  three common sorts of graphs used to report hypsometric data.  These are:  (a)  the area-height curve;  (b)  the hypsometric (or hypsographic) curve, sometimes called the absolute hypsometric curve;  (c)  . the percentage hypsometric curve.  The first of these methods, the area-height curve, plots the area in a band at a particular elevation against e l e v a t i o n , and by convention, elevation is plotted on the y - a x i s .  If relative area is used, the diagram is a plot of the  probability density function for the heights in the area. The relative frequencies of elevations are generally more easily seen on this type of curve than on the hypsometric curves. The absolute hypsometric curve is a graph of the absolute or relative area above a certain elevation plotted against that e l e v a t i o n , and is essentially a cumulative frequency for the elevations.  Once a g a i n , elevation is conventional  plotted on the y-axis and area (representing frequency) on the x - a x i s .  -46-  Clarke (1966, p. 241) pointed out that this curve does not represent an "average p r o f i l e " , since it does not record the slope between contours.  Never-  theless, a section of the curve w i t h a low slope indicates a larger amount of the surface at or near a particular elevation; this would generally indicate gentler slopes near that elevation. Absolute hypsometric curves have been determined for the earth's surface as a w h o l e , countries, natural regions, islands, and drainage basins. While usually plotted on simple arithmetic graph paper, various special sacles have also been employed.  Tanner (1962),  for example, plotted the percentage of the earth's surface area lying above certain elevations on log-probability paper, and was able to separate the curve into four Gaussian components.  Chorley (1958) found that the hypso-  metric curve for a drainage basin he examined plotted as a straight line on arithmetic-probability paper. The third and most w i d e l y used form of curve is the relative or percentage hypsometric curve, often termed simply the hypsometric curve. ^ It plots relative area above a height against relative height, and is the graph of the hypsometric f u n c t i o n , here termed a (h) , where h (the relative height) is defined by:  z  max  -z  . mm  where z is the actual e l e v a t i o n , and z  max  and z . are the highest and lowest mm °  elevations, respectively, w i t h i n the study area. As in the previous cases, h is conventionally plotted on the y - a x i s .  It is this form of the hypsometric  curve and function upon which some important terrain parameters are based.  1  This form of the hypsometric curve is often attributed to Strahler (1952) (for example, see Chorley and M o r l e y , 1959, p. 566); relative hypsometric curves were presented earlier by Imamura (1937, c f . Evans, 1972, p . 4 2 ) , Gassmann and Gutersohn (1947), and Langbein and others (1947), only the latter being cited by Strahler.  _47-  3 . 6 . 2 : The Hypsometric Integral (H) The most w i d e l y used parameter based on the hypsometric curve is the hypsometric i n t e g r a l , here designated HI. This parameter, as defined by Strahler (1952, p. 1121), is given by: i  HI = / a ( h ) dh  (3.13)  Strahler pointed out that geometrically, this value is equal to the ratio of the volume between the land surface and a plane passing through the minimum elevation to the volume of a "reference solid" bounded by the perimeter of the area and planes passing through the minimum and maximum points. G r a p h i c a l l y , HI can be determined by measuring the area under the relative hypsometric curve.  Strahler (p. 1130) proposed that the value of the hypso-  metric integral reflects the "stage" of landscape development.  Those areas  having HI values above 0.6 were considered to be in a " y o u t h f u l " or equilibrium phase, while drainage basins in equilibrium should have hypsometric integrals between 0.6 and 0 . 3 5 .  Values below 0.35 were thought to characterize a  transitory "monadnock phase" in landscape development. Pike and Wilson (1971) proved that the elevation-relief ratio (E) of Wood and Snell (1960) is mathematically equal to the hypsometric integral. The former is defined by: E  =  Z  "  Z  z  m  ?  (3.14)  n  -z max  . mm  where z is the mean elevation.  From equations 3.12 and 3 . 1 4 , i t can be  seen that E is just the mean relative height (h"). Evans (1972, p. 42) pointed out that this same parameter was used much earlier by Peguy (1942, p. 462), and termed the "coefficient of relative massiveness" by M e r l i n (1965).  While  Srrahler's (1952) method for determining the hypsometric integral involves much  -48laborious use of a planimeter to determine inter-contour areas, the e l e v a t i o n relief ratio can be determined much more q u i c k l y , with the mean elevation being determined from a sample of points.  Pike and Wilson ( 1 9 7 1 , p. 1081)  stated that "experience has shown that a sample of 40 to 50 elevations w i l l ensure accuracy of E t o , on the average, 0 . 0 1 , the value to which areaaltitude parameters customarily are read. "  It is important that the maximum  and minimum elevations are determined from an inspection of the entire sample area; gross errors in E can result i f the highest and lowest grid values are used (see section 5 . 4 ) .  Evans (1972, p. 58), however, used only grid values to  estimate the hypsometric integral for sub-matrices ranging from 3 by 3 (9 points) to 47 by 47 (2209 points).  For the smaller sub-matrices at least, Evans  1  estimates of H are probably in serious error. Other methods for approximating the hypsometric integral or curve have been proposed.  Haan and Johnson (1966) suggested that the elevations of  a sample of randomly-located points could be used to construct hypsometric curves, w i t h a considerable saving in time.  Chorley and Morley (1959)  proposed that the hypsometric integral could be estimated by approximating the drainage basin by a simple geometric form, "the intersection of a lemiscate cylinder w i t h an inverted cone, centered at the lemniscate o r i g i n " (p. 556). The accuracy of this method depends upon the degree to which the geometrical form actually approximates the basin, particularly the fit of the lemniscate loop to the basin perimeter (Chorley et a l . , 1957). Chorley and Morley found that the method produced a systematic error, and proposed a correction factor. Turner and Miles (1967) used a computer program to interpolate a dense regular grid from a sample of points; numbers of grid points falling w i t h i n altitudinal bands were used in producing hypsometric curves.  They found that their  method produced results closer to planimetered values than did the corrected  -49Chorley and Morley approach.  It would seem that the e l e v a t i o n - r e l i e f ratio  represents a more accurate and more easily applied approximation to the hypsometric integral than do the above.  Furthermore, the elevation-relief  ratio can be determined for arbitrarily-bounded areas (Wood and Snell, 1960; Pike and Wilson, 1971), while the Chorley and Morley method can only be used for drainage. 3.6.3:  Other Parameters Related to the Hypsometric Curve A number of parameters besides the hypsometric integral have been  derived from the hypsometric curve.  Strahler (1952, p. 1130) noted that most  hypsometric curves show a characteristic "s-shape", and proposed a parameter to indicate the sinuosity of the curve. very sinuous curves.  Evans (1972,  Low values of this parameter indicated  p. 47-48) found a strong correlation between  the hypsometric integral and the skewness of the distribution of elevations in cases having the same sinuosity.  For any constant value of HI, higher skewness  was associated w i t h lower values of Strahler's sinuosity parameter.  Tanner  (1959, 1960) suggested that the skewness and kurtosis of the height distribution function (essentially the hypsometric function) could be used to "characterize various geomorphic regions" (1960, p. 1525).  Examination of Tanner's  diagrams seems to confirm Evans' result that skewness is closely related to the hypsometric i n t e g r a l , and also suggests that Strahler's sinuosity parameter is closely related to kurtosis.  Sinuosity, as measured by Strahler's parameter or  the kurtosis, has not (to the writer's knowledge) been investigated in detail or related to other geomorphometric measures. Gassman and Gutersohn (1947) determined a parameter called the kotenstreuung.  For computation, this has been shown to equal the standard  deviation of the elevations, and was derived from the absolute hypsometric function.  They also determined the relieffactor, which equals twice the  -50kotenstreuung divided by the local r e l i e f .  This is twice the standard  deviation of the relative hypsometric f u n c t i o n .  Gassman and Gutersohn also  determined the mean elevation by using the hypsometric i n t e g r a l , "reversing" the use of the elevation-relief ratio proposed above; this method of determining the mean elevation was employed earlier by Martonne (1941). 3.6.4:  Other Parameters Related to Hypsometry In addition to those related to the hypsometric curve, other parameters  have been proposed to characterize the relationship between area and a l t i t u d e , sometimes also including slope.  None of these have been as widely used as  the hypsometric integral; since many of these have been reviewed by Clarke (1966,  p. 243-248) and by Evans (1972,  herein.  Hammond (1964, p. 15) combined slope and height in an area-elevation  measure.  p. 4 4 - 4 5 ) , most w i l l not be reviewed  His general profile character index was defined as the percentage of  gentle slopes (tan «  less than 0.08) lying above or below the mean e l e v a t i o n .  Pike and Wilson ( 1 9 7 1 ,  p. 1079-80) noted that this index measures a similar  aspect of terrain form to the hypsometric i n t e g r a l .  This measure may be  undefined in some areas if there are no slopes gentler than the c r i t i c a l value. 3 . 6 . 5 : A p p l i c a t i o n of Hypsometric Measures A l l or most of the parameters discussed above have been used in a simply descriptive sense or in physiographic classification.  Only the hypsometric  i n t e g r a l , however, has been related to geomorphic processes. HI has been determined for drainage basins.  Strahler (1957,  In most cases, p. 918-920)  listed a number of works between 1952 and 1956 which used this parameter; none of these studies found any relationship between H and various hydrologic or sediment y i e l d measures.  Chorley (1957, p. 630) measured hypsometric  integrals for 27 drainage basins, but did not use this parameter in subsequent analyses nor comment on its omission. Eyles (1969) studied stream long profile  -51-  form, basin r e l i e f , and basin hypsometric integral for 410 fourth-order drainage basins in Malaysia.  He graphed the hypsometric integral against  relief and presented an "approximate curve of best f i t drawn 'by eye' " ( p . 2 9 ) . If one assumes that relief is continuously reduced w i t h time (cf. Ahnert, 1970) and that space can be substituted for t i m e , Eyles line suggests a period of 1  e q u i l i b r i u m , a monadnock phase, and an eventual return to equilibrium.  An  i n i t i a l inequilibrium phase does not appear to be represented in these d a t a . 3.7:  Review and Parameters to Be Investigated In review, the most fundamental concepts of geomorphometry are the  basic horizontal and vertical scales of the topography.  Horizontal variations  are encompassed by the concepts of grain (largest significant wavelength) and texture (shortest significant wavelength); grain w i l l not be investigated e x p l i c i t l y , but three measures of texture, namely drainage density (D^)/ source density ( D ) , and peak density (D^) w i l l be considered in the next chapter. s  Vertical scale is generally termed " r e l i e f " ;  this terrain concept w i l l  be represented in further analyses by the local relief ( H ) , the most widely employed relief measure.  The relationships between horizontal and vertical  scale w i l l be examined through the mean slope (tan o<), while the threedimensional interaction of slope steepness and aspect w i l l be studied through the roughness factor (IR). Relatively independent from horizontal and vertical scales is the distribution of mass w i t h i n the vertical range of the topography.  This concept  w i l l be investigated through the hypsometric integral (HI). While there may be some redundancy among the parameters noted above, it is believed by the writer that w i t h the possible exception of g r a i n , a l l important terrain information is contained w i t h i n these parameters. next chapter, the relationships among the measures w i l l be studied.  In the  -52-  Chapter 4 : Terrain V a r i a b i l i t y in Southern British Columbia, and Relationships among Variables Before beginning the comparison of the computer terrain storage systems, a " p i l o t study" was conducted. (1)  The principal objectives of this were threefold:  to provide information about terrain v a r i a b i l i t y in southern British Columbia, and thus guide in the selection of terrain samples for more detailed analysis;  (2)  to investigate.the relationships among the parameters selected in the preceding chapter; and  (3)  to provide empirical data for the evaluation of some of the theoretical errors in estimating parameters, which w i l l be discussed in the next chapter.  Values for a number of geomorphometric parameters were determined for square terrain samples using simple techniques not including computer analysis.  The  roughness factor (IR) could therefore not be examined, but the other important parameters listed at the end of the preceding chapter were a l l studied. 4.1:  Selection of Sample Areas In order to obtain a relatively unbiased sample of the terrain of southern  British Columbia, a stratified random sampling design was employed.  From each  of the f o r t y - t w o 1:250,000 scale map sheets which cover British Columbia south of 54 degrees latitude, one of the t h i r t y - t w o 1:50,000 scale maps making up that sheet was selected with the aid of a table of random numbers.  Because  coverage of the area at the larger scale is incomplete, some of the randomlyselected maps were not a v a i l a b l e .  In such cases, and in instances where the  selected map f e l l entirely outside British Columbia, another map was p i c k e d . From each map, one 7 by 7 kilometre square of terrain was examined.  If the  Universal Transverse Mercator grid was printed on the map, the sample was  -53-  generally centred at the intersection of the two major ("10th kilometre") grid lines closest to the centre of the map; this would f a c i l i t a t e later location of the sample areas on the 1:250,000 s ale maps, i f desired. Where the grid did not appear, the sample square was usually placed over the centre of the map. Samples were relocated if more than one third of the area contained water surfaces.  The locations of the f o r t y - t w o samples, together w i t h the major  physiographic subdivisions of the study a r e a , are shown in Figure 4 . 1 ; two of the samples ( 4 , 9) f e l l in A l b e r t a , although the maps from which they were drawn were in part in British Columbia. Since it was not possible to adhere strictly fo the original random sample, tests were made of the randomness of the terrain samples actually used. As noted above, each 1:250,000 scale map contains t h i r t y - t w o 1:50,000 scale half-sheets (see Figure 4 . 2 ) .  The numbers of these t h i r t y - t w o " c e l l s " containing  exactly z e r o , one, t w o , et cetera, samples were determined and compared to the frequencies predicted according to the Poisson distribution. A chi-square test indicated that the two sets of frequencies were not significantly different at the 95 per cent l e v e l . O f twenty major physiographic divisions of British Columbia given by Holland (1964), ten occur at least in part south of 54 degrees latitude.  These ,  together with the sample numbers and respective map-areas f a l l i n g w i t h i n each d i v i s i o n , are listed in Table 4 . 1 . The actual distribution of the f o r t y - t w o terrain samples among these ten regions was compared w i t h an even distribution based on the areas of the subdivisions, once again using the chi-square test (see Table 4 . 2 ) .  The distributions were not significantly different at the 95  per cent l e v e l .  The larger than expected number of samples in the first three  subdivisions is probably at least in part due to the coastal locations of these regions (see Figure 4 . 1 ) .  Since samples f a l l i n g on the ocean were not accepted,  Figure 4 . 1 :  Physiographic subdivisions of southern British Columbia (see Table 4.1) with locations of stratified random sample of terrain analyzed in Chapter 4 .  -55  1 j  ®  ©  1  ®  |  ®  ©  1  ©  1  r—i  i  i  41 2  ©  1  4  |  ®  i  ©  1  ®  1  ®  ®  ©  _  1 1  !  ©  \  ®  _  I j  ®  1  @  ®  i  ©  1  ©  ©  ©  1 1  ®  ©  | (29)  ®  1  1 1  1  1  ®  1 ! (27)  © |  U  i  1 : 250,000 SCALE  14  15  ©  1  1  ©  13  ®  ©  i.  |  1  i  1  MAP  I  16  I  9E  1  (EAST)  9W  12  11  10  9  L_J_  \'  (WEST)  I 1 : 50,000 SCALE  5  6  7  8  f"l8|  Figure 4 . 2 :  3  2  MAP  SAMPLE SELECTED DETAILED  16)  4  ®  OTHER TERRAIN  SAMPLE  1  Distribution of terrain samples among the 32 1:50,000 scale sheets which make up a 1:250,000 scale map sheet. text for discussion.  FOR  ANALYSIS  See  ®  -56-  TABLE 4 . 1 : PHYSIOGRAPHIC COLUMBIA, MAP-AREAS  SUBDIVISIONS OF  AFTER H O L L A N D FOR TERRAIN  SOUTHERN  BRITISH  (1964), WITH SAMPLE NUMBERS SAMPLES A N A L Y Z E D  IN  AND  CHAPTER FOUR  Western System Outer Mountain Area Insular Mountains (1) 14: 92C/16E 15:92E/15E 16: 92F/2W Coastal Trough Hecate Depression (2) 35: 102I/9E 36: 102P/9E Georgia Depression (3) 13:92B/14W Coastal Mountain Area Coast Mountains (4) 17: 92G/9E 19: 92I/5E Cascade Mountains (5) * 1 8 : 92H/2W  22: 9 2 L / 6 W 38: 103B/3E  39: 103C/16E 40: 103F/14E  37: 103A/8E  * 4 1 : 103G/16W  2l:92K/6W 20: 92J/3W 23: 92M/5E  30: 93D/7E 42: 103H/3E  Interior System Central Plateau and Mountain Area Hazelton Mountains (6) (no samples) Rocky Mountain Trench (7) 5: 82K/9E *11:83D/10W Southern Plateau and Mountain Area Interior Plateau (8) 6: 82L/12E 27: 9 3 A / 4 W *24:92N/15E 28:93B/9W 25: 9 2 0 / 1 6 E 29: 93C/8W 26:92P/1E *31:93E/9W Columbia Mountains (9) 1:82E/10W 3: 8 2 G / 1 2 W 2: 82F/8E 7: 82M/15E  32: 93F/9W 33: 9 3 G / 1 3 W 34: 93H/12E * 8 : 82N/4E  Eastern System Rocky Mountain Area Rocky Mountains (10) 4 : 82J/1 IE 9: 8 2 0 / 4 E *  10:83C/5W  indicates sample selected for more detailed analysis  12: 83E/5W  -57-  TABLE 4 . 2 :  COMPARISON  AMONG  TEN  OF  DISTRIBUTION OF 42 TERRAIN  SAMPLES  PHYSIOGRAPHIC DIVISIONS WITH EXPECTED  DISTRIBUTION  physiographic division  BASED  O N D I V I S I O N AREAS  per cent of area  expected (e)  cibserved  (o)  (e-o) e  1 .  Insular Mountains  7.6  3  7  5.33  2.  Hecate Depression  4.8  2  4  2.00  3.  Georgia Depression  3.2  1  2  1.00  4.  Coast Mountains  24.6  10  6  1.60  5.  Cascade Mountains  1.5  1  1  0.00  6.  Hazelton Mountains  0.5  0  0  7.  Rocky Mountain Trench  1.6  1  2  1.00  8.  Interior Plateau  33.8  14  11  0.64  9.  Columbia Mountains  15.8  7  5  0.57  10  Rocky Mountains  6.6  3  4  0.33  100.0  42  42  Sums  * not significant at the 95 per cent level  X = 2  2  12.47*  -58-  samples would tend to be "concentrated" in the land areas of map sheets containing considerable water. 4.2:  Data Collection As stated above, each terrain sample consisted of a 7 by 7 kilometre  square; the selection of this sample area size was arbitrary.  W i t h i n each area,  a 7 by 7 grid w i t h a one kilometre spacing was used in determining some terrain measures. A t each of the forty-nine grid intersections, the elevation was determined, and the type of surface at the point ( e . g . land, ocean, lake, or glacier or snowfield) was also noted. The number of intersections between the grid lines and contours, and also between the grid lines and the "blue line" stream network were counted.  The elevations of the highest and lowest  points w i t h i n the area, the number of closed hilltop contours, the total length of streams, and the number of stream sources were also determined for each sample area. 4.3:  Data Analysis  4.3.1:  Drainage Density (DA) Drainage density was estimated for each sample area by measuring the  total length of blue stream lines on the map, in kilometres, and dividing by the area.  The number of intersections between the grid lines and the drainage net  (N) was counted and divided by the total length of traverse (L).  Carlston and  Langbein (Unpub., 1960; c f . M c C o y , 1971) developed a theoretical equation which proposed that the drainage density should be approximated by: D =1.57N/L d  (4.1)  The empirical evidence collected here appears to support this equation. When a histogram of drainage density was prepared (Figure 4 . 3 a ) , the observations tended to cluster around 0 . 6 km \ having values above one.  but with a number of "outliers"  The writer had observed during the data collection  Figure 4 . 3 :  Histograms for six geomorphometric parameters.  Triangles  indicate the break points for three of the parameters.  -60-  that some of the older maps appeared to have higher drainage densities than newer ones.  A statistically significant inverse correlation was found between  and the year of map publication.  Drainage density was also significantly  correlated with mean annual precipitation at the sites, and i t was thought that this might explain the correlation between map age and drainage density, since most of the older maps were coastal. The correlation between map date and precipitation was not statistically significant, however, suggesting that the variation in the drainage net is at least in part cartographic (see section 1.1). Because of this problem, and because there were no well marked breaks in the distribution, drainage density was not used to divide the samples into groups having similar terrain. 4.3.2:  Source Density (D,.) and Peak Density (Dp) The numbers of stream sources and of closed hilltop contours (peaks)  were determined and divided by the land area of the sample areas.  Source  2 density was found to be closely related to drainage density (r  = 0 . 8 4 7 ) , but  would also be dependent upon the drainage net depicted on the map, and so was not used in further analysis.  A histogram for this parameter is shown in  Figure 4 . 3 b . The histogram for peak density (Figure 4 . 3 c ) showed poorly developed _2 breaks at about 0.25 and 0.50 km  ; these were used to classify the terrain  samples. 4.3.3:  Local Relief (H) The maximum and minimum elevations w i t h i n each sample area, as  determined by a visual inspection of the contours, were used to determine the local r e l i e f .  This should be w i t h i n one contour interval of the actual value  a n d , i f the maps are accurate, must be w i t h i n two contour intervals.  The  maximum and minimum of the 49 grid heights were also determined; the  -61difference between these was designated H * , the grid estimate of the local relief.  Theoretical aspects of the relationship between the true and grid  values of local relief w i l l be discussed in section 5 . 1 . Histograms of local relief were drawn for each of seven physiographic divisions, and for the combined samples (see Figure 4 . 3 d ) .  The latter  contained two "breaks" which were used to divide the data into three relief classes: " l o w " r e l i e f , less than 500 metres (10 samples); "moderate" r e l i e f , 500 to 1,500 metres (25 samples);  " h i g h " r e l i e f , more than 1,500 metres  (7 samples). 4 . 3 . 4 : Mean Slope (tan «K) The mean slope for each area was estimated using the Wentworth method (section 3 . 4 . 1 ) .  The total length of traverse was 98 kilometres, except where  lakes or ocean reduced the land area; in these cases, the length of traverse was reduced by 2 km for each grid intersection f a l l i n g on a water surface. The histogram for average slope (Figure 4 . 3 e ) shows a rather poorly defined break at about 0 . 3 .  The high correlation between mean slope and  2 relief for the samples (r  = 0.679)  clearly indicates that these measures are  not independent, and thus mean slope was not used in classifying the sample areas. 4.3.5:  Hypsometric Integral (HI) The value of the hypsometric integral for each sample was estimated  using Wood and Snell's (1960) e l e v a t i o n - r e l i e f r a t i o .  The mean of the  elevations of those grid points which did not f a l l on lakes or the sea was used as an estimate of the mean height of the t e r r a i n .  The formula for the e l e v a t i o n -  relief ratio (equation 3.14) involves both the minimum elevation and the local relief;  here, the hypsometric integral was computed t w i c e :  H was based on the  "true" minimum and maximum elevations, while H * was based on the grid  -62-  estimates of these values.  Theoretical errors in HI* w i l l be discussed in  section 5 . 4 . Histograms for this parameter were prepared (see Figure 4 . 3 f ) , but in this case there were no clear breaks in the distribution. When Strahler's (1952) divisions at 0.35 and 0.60 were a p p l i e d , i t was found that only one sample had a hypsometric integral above 0.60 (sample 1:0.602).  Thus essentially none of  the areas examined were in the " y o u t h f u l " or "inequilibrium" stage.  Nineteen  of the f o r t y - t w o samples had HI values below 0.35 and would fall into Strahler's "monadnock phase", the remainder being essentially in e q u i l i b r i u m . While the hypsometric integral for an arbitrarily-bounded terrain sample is not necessarily the same as those of its constituent drainage basins (see section 5 . 4 ) , the value of 0.35 was nonetheless used to divide the samples into low or intermediate HI values. 4.3.6:  Relationships among Variables In order to better understand the relationships among terrain and  related parameters (see Table 4 . 3 ) , linear correlation coefficients among the twelve variables listed in Table 4 . 3 were computed.  Table 4 . 4 indicates a l l  correlation coefficients which were statistically-significant at the 95 per cent level.  The correlations were then examined using the same approach as Melton  (1958); Figure 4 . 4 illustrates the three isolated correlation sets which form the cores of three variable systems, namely " d r a i n a g e " , "hypsometry", and !"relief".  Peak density (D ) was not significantly correlated with any other P  variable.  Factor analysis was also applied to the d a t a , and produced essentially  the same result .  -63-  TABLE 4 . 3 : VARIABLES  variable number  1  symbol  D  d  INCLUDED  IN  CORRELATION  ANALYSIS  name  Drainage density  2  N/L  Drainage net intersections  3  Source density  5  D s D P H  6  H*  G r i d estimate of local relief  7  ran <*  Average slope tangent  8  HI  Hypsometric integral  9  HI*  Grid estimate of H  10  z  Mean elevation  11  P  Mean annual precipitation  12  t  Year of map publication  4  Peak density Local relief  -64-  TABLE 4 . 4 :  STATISTICALLY S I G N I F I C A N T  CORRELATION  D,  N/L  D  (95 PER CENT  COEFFICIENTS A M O N G  THE VARIABLES  D  H*  H  H*  ran*  HI  z  LEVEL) IN  p  LINEAR  TABLE  4.3  r  0.921  0.473  -.496  0.927  0.468  -.485  N/L  -  0.554  -.479  0..824  0.419  D s D P H  0..797  0.364  H*  _  -  0.987  -  0. 887  -  tan-f  0.602  0. 323  HI  0.364  HI*  -  -.445  0.336  -  z P  -  r  -65-  Dd ( DRAINAGE) N/L TEXTURE (PEAK  DENSITY)  H  z  p.  t a n  ot  RELIEF H*  HI HYPSOMETRY  Figure 4 . 4 :  Correlation structure among twelve terrain and related parameters (constructed in the manner proposed by M e l t o n , 1958).  The outer boxes enclose isolated correlation sets;  dotted lines indicate inverse correlations.  -664.4:  Classification of Samples and Selection of Areas for Further Analysis Three independent terrain variables, namely r e l i e f , hypsometry, and  peak density, were used to divide the f o r t y - t w o samples into groups having similar terrain.  The independence of the parameters is indicated by the fact 2  that the maximum r  value among the three pairs was 0 . 0 6 3 .  in the distributions of the variables were given above.  The break points  As there were three  classes each for relief and peak density and two for the hypsometric i n t e g r a l , there are eighteen possible groups — of these, fifteen contained at least one sample (see Table 4 . 5 ) .  An attempt was made to select six samples for further  analysis (in Chapter 6) from among the classes in approximately the same ratios as the total numbers of samples; a table of random numbers was used to aid in the final selections.  The exact values of a number of selected geomorphometric  parameters for the selected areas are shown in Table 4 . 6 , while values for a l l f o r t y - t w o areas analyzed in this chapter are given in Appendix II . Using a polar planimeter to determine inter-contour areas, hypsometric curves were constructed for each of the six selected areas (Figure 4 . 5 ) ; based on the 49-point samples of elevations (cf. were similar to those shown.  curves  Haan and Johnston, 1966)  The values used to construct the hypsometric  curve were also used to calculate the hypsometric integral — these values w i l l be used as the "standard" to which estimates of H w i l l be compared in subsequent sections. 4.5:  Description of Areas Selected for Further Analysis^  4.5.1:  Sample 8:  l l l e c i l l e w a e t Map-area (82N/4E)  The terrain sample from the l l l e c i l l e w a e t map-area is located in the northern part of the Selkirk Mountains subdivision of the Columbia Mountains. The minimum elevation of 2880 feet (878 m) occurs in the valley of the Incomappleux River, while the maximum (9050 feet; 2758 m) is an unnamed 1  Physiography after Holland, 1964  -67TABLE 4 . 5 : CLASSIFICATION RELIEF ( H ) , HYPSOMETRIC  OF 42 TERRAIN SAMPLES USING  LOCAL  INTEGRAL (HI), A N D PEAK DENSITY  (D ) . P  NUMBERS OF OBSERVATIONS  I N CLASSES ARE I N PARENTHESES;  SAMPLES FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS ARE UNDERLINED.  H  HI  D  P  0.25(11)  0.25  D 0.50(21) P  D  P  0 . 5 0 (10)  500 m (10)  0.35 (7)  25,33  14,24,40  3,29  0.35 (3)  27  28  32  500 to 1500 m (25)  0.35 (10)  4,22,26,35,36  5,21,32,37,38 17,23  1500 m (7)  0.35 (15)  1,6,14  2,9,12,15,16, ]8,34,39,41,42  0.35 (2)  11  20  0.35 (5)  7,8,19,30  10  -68TABLE 4 . 6 : VALUES OF SOME GEOMORPHOMETRIC PARAMETERS FOR SIX AREAS SELECTED FOR DETAILED A N A L Y S I S . VALUES FOR R ARE FROM CHAPTER 6 ,  ALL OTHERS, FROM THIS CHAPTER.  P 8  0.555  0.102  1880  0.609  13.8  0.432  11  0.549  0.143  1709  0.395  8.1  0.260  18  1.847  0.286  833  0.396  7.4  0.547  24  0.631  0.383  203  0.065  0.25  0.286  31  0.290  0.553  1195  0.225  3.1  0.355  41  0.882  0.490  869  0.400  7.6  0.395  -69-  Figure 4 . 5 :  Hypsometric curves for the six terrain samples selected for detailed analysis.  -70peak just inside the western margin of the sample area.  It is essentially an  area of alpine glacial features — the higher portions show such features as cirques  (two of which contain small glaciers), horns, and aretes, with u-shaped  glacial troughs between.  Sample 8 had the highest local relief of the six areas  selected for detailed analysis, and the fourth highest over a l l . 4.5.2:  Sample 1 1 : Ptarmigan Creek Map-area (83D/10W) Sample 11 contains portions of three major physiographic subdivisions.  The Rocky Mountain Trench, here only 1 to 1.5 km in w i d t h , cuts across the study area from northwest to southeast; it is occupied by the southeast-flowing Canoe River, whose elevation ranges from about 2300 to 2280 feet (701-695 m). To the northeast lies a portion of the Selwyn Range of the Rocky Mountains; the maximum elevation w i t h i n the sample area north of the river is 7000 feet (2134 m) which occurs on an arete of an unnamed peak reaching 8048 feet (2453 m) just beyond the study area boundary.  With the exception of the arete,  the topography north of the Canoe River does not display the angularity characteristic of intense alpine glacial erosion.  Such forms are present w i t h i n  the sample area in the Malton Range of the Monashee Mountains ( a subdivision of the Columbia Mountains) which are found to the southwest of the Trench in this area. A horn with an elevation of 7888 feet (2404 m) represents the maximum elevation w i t h i n the sample area.  The topography of sample 11 is  not unlike that of the previous one (sample 8 ) , with its high relief and low peak density, but is distinguished by a considerably lower hypsometric integral (0.260) which is a result of a more prominent and level valley floor. 4.5.3:  Sample 18: Manning Park Map-area (92H/2W) This sample lies w i t h i n the Hozameen Range of the Cascade Mountains.  Once a g a i n , this sample area is dominated by forms produced by alpine-type g l a c i a l erosion.  Here, however, the summits take on a more rounded appearance  -71because they were overridden by ice during the last glacial maximum.  Four  summits w i t h i n the area have elevations of about 6350 feet (1935 m ) , and most valley floors are around 4300 feet (1311 m). O n l y in the northwest corner, in the v-shaped valley of the upper Skagit River,does the surface descend below 4000 feet (1219 m) to the minimum elevation of 3450 feet (1052 m).  Even so,  the total relief of the area (833 m) is only "moderate", according to the divisions established in section 4 . 3 . 1 ;  the hypsometric integral (0.547) is by  far the highest of the six samples, and the fifth highest of the 42 areas. 4.5.4:  Sample 24: Tatla Lake Map-area (92N/15E) This sample lies near the western margin of the Fraser Plateau subdivision  of the Interior Plateau. A t 203 metres, this area has the lowest local relief of the 42 areas studied in this chapter.  The area is primarily a drumlinized t i l l  plain produced by west-to-east moving ice (Tipper, 1971), with elevations of between 3100 and 3300 feet (945-1006 m); a major meltwater channel traverses the sample area leading into Tatla Lake itself, at 2985 feet (910 m) the minimum elevation in the area. This and another lake together cover some 4 per cent of the sample area.  Five maxima, probably bedrock outcrops, rise above the t i l l  plain to altitudes of about 3650 feet (1113 m). 4.5.5:  Sample 3 1 : G h i t e z l i Lake Map-area (93E/9W) This sample is also from the Interior Plateau, but from the Quanchus  Range of the Nechako Plateau. The area contains Michel Peak, at 7396 feet (2254 m) the highest point in the Nechako Plateau region.  The eastern (lower)  boundary of the latter subdivision was defined by Holland (1964, p. 68) as the 3000 foot (914 m) contour, and since about 5 per cent of the present sample area is part of G l a t h e l i Lake (elevation 3490 feet; 1064 m ) , the 7 by 7 km sample area contains almost the entire relief of the Nechako Plateau. relief for the study area (1190 m) is still only in the "moderate" class.  Local  -72-  4.5.6:  Sample 4 1 : Oona River Map-area (103G/16W) Sample 41 is from Porcher Island, and ranges from a maximum  elevation of 2950 feet (899 m) at Egeria Mountain to a minimum of 100 feet (30 m) near Ogden Channel.  The division between the Hecate Depression and  the Kitimat Ranges of the Coast Mountains is not marked by any prominent physical feature in this area.  Holland (1964, p. 35) stated that "the eastern  boundary of the lowland is arbitrarily taken as a generalized line along the 2000 foot contour. " Following this d e f i n i t i o n , the southwestern half of the sample area belongs to the Hecate Depression, the northeastern to the Coast Mountains; in f a c t , i t is probably more appropriate to assign the entire sample area to a transition zone between the aforementioned physiographic divisions. The area displays many cirques, some w i t h floors as low as about 500 feet (152 m), but nowhere are the ridges sharp as i n , for example, the l l l e c i l l e w a e t map-area (sample 8).  Probably, cirques were formed during an early " a l p i n e "  phase of g l a c i a t i o n , but later the entire area was overridden by i c e .  Cirques  may or may not have been re-occupied by local ice after the disappearance of the Cordilleran ice sheet from the area.  -73-  Chaprer 5:  Procedures for Analysis and Theoretical Comparisons of Computer Systems  In this chapter, the analysis procedures used to estimate the geomorphometric parameters selected for special attention w i l l be o u t l i n e d .  O f the seven  variables examined in the last chapter, drainage and source densities were excluded from consideration for the reasons cited above.  Peak density was  excluded because of computational problems, especially because the correspondence between grid maxima and actual surface maxima may not be great.  The  remaining four parameters which are studied in this chapter are local relief ( H ) , mean slope (tan o<), roughness factor ( R ) , and hypsometric integral ( H ) . Theoretical errors involved in estimating the parameters from a triangular network of surface-specific points and from a regular grid w i l l be discussed q u a l i t a t i v e l y , and in some cases q u a n t i t a t i v e l y .  Consideration w i l l also be given to the  theoretical relationships among these and related geomorphometric parameters, and to theoretical computer storage requirement.  In the discussions which  f o l l o w , it w i l l be assumed that topographic maps provide the only available source of information about the topography. 5.1:  Local Relief (H) In estimating the "true" value of local relief from a contour map, errors  can arise from a number of sources: (1)  map errors, which w i l l be disregarded in the present discussion;  (2)  interpolation errors — the maximum possible interpolation error for both the highest and lowest point is one contour interval (expected error = 1/2 contour i n t e r v a l ) , and thus the maximum error in the local relief from this source is two contour intervals (expected error = one contour interval);  -74-  (3)  errors due to misreading the contours —  this may be one  contour i n t e r v a l , or even five contour intervals i f an "index" contour is misread, for both the maximum and minimum point; (4)  errors due to the mis-identification of either the maximum or minimum p o i n t , or both — for example, a particular summit may be taken to be the highest point w i t h i n the study area when in fact a higher point exists.  O f these, (3) and (4) are "operator errors", and can be avoided by careful examination of the map and checking of the results; errors of types (1) and (2) are generally unavoidable, but are often small when compared to types (3) and (4). 5.1.1:  Local Relief:  Surface-specific Points  In both this and the grid method, the estimate of the local relief is the difference between the elevations of the highest and lowest sample points.  All  four of the sources of error for the "true" value of local relief listed above may contribute to error in the estimate of H obtained from a set of surface-specific points.  "Type 4 " errors should, however, be much less likely in the latter case  than in a visual inspection of the contours.  In d i g i t i z i n g an area using surface-  specific points, an attempt is made to include a l l peaks and pits, as w e l l as a l l maxima and minima long the borders of the area.  If a l l are i n c l u d e d , the true  maximum and minimum elevations must be among them, and " type 4 " errors are eliminated.  If one assumes that no "avoidable operator errors" (types 3 and 4)  are present in either case, the accuracy of this method should be equal to the "standard" method (visual inspection). Otherwise, the estimate of local relief obtained from a sample of surface-specific points should tend to be more accurate than that obtained from a visual inspection of the contours; of course, in any particular case, the errors from the various sources may combine to make the visual estimate closer to the true v a l u e .  -75-  5.1.2:  Local Relief:  Regular Grid  Considerably larger errors in estimating the minimum and maximum elevations result when a regular grid is used. As noted in section 2 . 2 , grids are surface-random, and i t is highly unlikely that a grid point w i l l coincide w i t h the true maximum or minimum elevation of the study area.  Since the  grid maximum cannot exceed the true maximum (unless there are interpolation errors) and the grid minimum w i l l be greater than or equal to the true minimum, H*,  If t is the  the grid estimate of the r e l i e f , w i l l be less than or equal to H.  average land slope near the maximum p o i n t , and c the distance from the maximum to the nearest grid point, the error in estimating the maximum should be given by: e  max  .= c tan 1  (5.1)  A similar estimation may be made for e . . As an estimate of the expected ' mm r  distance from an extreme point to the nearest grid point, one can use the rootmean-square distance (s^) of a l l pints from the nearest grid point.  If d is the  grid spacing, and i f the origin of the co-ordinate system is located at a selected grid point, s^ for a l l points closer to that grid point than to any other ( i . e . , w i t h i n the inner box  in Figure 5.1) is given by: -, I (x  + y ) dy dx  One can further suppose that H may approximately equal o<  = 0.408 d  #  the mean ground  slope; estimates of the errors in the maximum and minimum elevations would then be: e . = e = 0.408 d tan <* mm max  (5.2)  v  (5.3) '  -76-  Figure 5 . 1 :  Illustration of the distance (c) from any point (x, y) to the nearest grid point (open c i r c l e ) . other grid points.  Solid circles indicate  -77-  and thus the expected error in the value of the local relief would be: e  H  = 0.816 d tan <x  (5.4)  The error i n , and accuracy of, the grid estimate of the local relief is theoretica a linear function of the grid spacing, as proposed by the "sampling theorem" (see section 2 . 2 ) .  O f course, the mean slope (o< ) may not be a good estimate  of the land slope near the extreme point.  In many of the areas examined in  section 4 . 3 , the minimum elevation was on a lake, the sea, or a f l o o d p l a i n , an the slope near this point (and thus also  e m  j )  w  n  a  s  near zero . Slopes near the  maxima and the minima of most of the f o r t y - t w o samples from Chapter 4 (grid spacing 1 km) were estimated by dividing the elevation differences between the points and the nearest grid points by the horizontal distances; these values should approximate tan }f.  The mean values of these angles for the maxima  are similar to tan OC, in particular cases they may differ by a factor of two or more; average slope near the minima is only about one third of the mean slope. As an added complication, the closest grid point to the maximum may not be the highest grid p o i n t , and the same may hold for the minimum.  In such cases,  the error in the grid estimate may not be as great as expected. The empirical relationship between e ^ and tan  for the f o r t y - t w o samples from Chapter 4  was e  = 234.1 tanoc + 63.12 ( r = 0.245) 2  H  where e ^ is in metres and d is 1000 m.  (5.5)  This relationship is statistically  significant (95 per cent level); the large amount of "unexplained" variance is probably a result of the random factor of the actual distance from the extreme points to the nearest grid points, and of the difference between tan I  and  tan o< . The ratio of the mean values of e ^ and t a n * , divided by d (1000 m) is 0 . 4 2 6 , still only about half of the theoretical coefficient (equation 5 . 4 ) .  -78This is probably because the slope near the minimum was often much less than the mean slope, and because in some cases the highest (or lowest) grid point was higher (or lower) than the grid point closest to the true maximum (or minimum). 5.1.3:  Review In summary, the estimate of the local relief obtained from a set of  surface-specific points should be as accurate as, or even more accurate t h a n , the estimate obtained through a visual inspection of the contours.  For regular  grids, errors due to the fact that i t is very unlikely that a grid point w i l l coincide exactly w i t h the minimum or maximum point larger than interpolation errors.  w i l l tend to be much  It would appear that the error in estimating H  from a grid w i l l average about 0 . 4 d ran©< , which could be large in areas of steep slopes i f a relatively wide grid spacing is used.  Surface-specific points  should theoretically provide much better estimates of local relief than should regular grids of "reasonable"densities.  Relief error for a given average slope  should be a linear function of grid spacing. 5.2:  Mean Slope (tan <x) Strahler (1956) determined the " t r u e " mean and standard deviation for  slopes in drainage basins by measuring slope tangent at a large number of points, drawing lines of equal slope tangent (isotangents), and using a planimeter to determine the relative frequencies of the various slope classes.  Means and  other distributional parameters were then determined from these frequencies. Strahler then showed that the distribution of slope measurements at 100 randomlylocated points w i t h i n one study area was not significantly different from the "population" values.  As noted earlier (section 3 . 4 . 2 ) , Griffiths (1964) compared  this'point sampling" method to the "traverse sampling" method (Wentworth, 1930) and a "subjective" method similar to that described by Raisz and Henry (1937).  -79He concluded that the Wentworth method produced the most accurate results of the three.  The "isotangent" method would probably produce the best results,  but as this is very time consuming, as Strahler concluded that the results of point sampling were not significantly different from this, and as Griffiths concluded that the Wentworth method was superior to the point sampling approach, the Wentworth method was used herein to provide an estimate of the " t r u e " mean slope to which computer values w i l l be compared in the next chapter. 5.2.1:  Computational Procedures For the mean slope and for the subsequent two geomorphometric measures,  the regular grids were first converted to a set of continguous triangular facets by inserting one set of diagonals into the g r i d ; the same analysis procedures were then used for both these triangles and the triangles based on the surface-specific points.  For each t r i a n g l e ,  a vector orthogonal to it was determined by computing  the cross product of vectors forming two edges of the triangle.  The length of this  vector is twice the true area of the t r i a n g l e , w h i l e the z-component of the orthogonal vector is twice the projected (map) area.  Unit orthogonal vectors  were determined by dividing the components by the total length, and the slopes of the triangles were computed from the z-components of these unit vectors. Three average slopes, namely unweighted, weighted by map area, and weighted by true area, were determined. weighting (cf.  While the latter may represent the most logical  Evans, 1972, p. 37), map area has been used by most methods,  including the Wentworth approach discussed above. The accuracy of the mean slope estimate obtained from a set of triangles is highly dependent upon how closely the triangles approximate the surface.  In  the case of surface-specific points, the accuracy w i l l depend upon the selection of the points and the size of the triangles. Pillewizer (1972) noted that the  -80-  triangle method, as applied by Hormann (1971) , failed to indicate a slope asymmetry detected by f i e l d surveys and careful analysis of large-scale t o p o graphic maps.  Pillewizer attributed this failure to the fact that Hormann's  triangles were too large.  For triangles derived from a g r i d , there w i l l be no  control over the degree to which the triangles approximate the surface, except through the size, which is a function of grid spacing. 5.3:  Roughness Factor (R) As pointed out in section 3 . 5 , the roughness factor is closely related  to the inverse of k, Hobson's (1967, 1970) vector dispersion factor.  The latter  is defined only for unit vectors, and it was argued in section 3.5 that even for grids, i t would be better to weight the vectors by the true areas of the triangles. In the grid case, the map areas of a l l triangles are equal, and the use of unit vectors (cf. Hobson) should not produce results which differ greatly from weighted vector analysis.  For the latter, steeper triangles w i l l be weighted more,  increasing the roughness factor slightly.  For triangles based on surface-specific  points, the use of unit vectors w i l l be inappropriate, since the sizes of the triangles may vary considerably.  In this study, both weighted and unweighted  analyses were conducted, using the orthogonal vectors noted above.  The only  "standard" roughness value to which other methods might be compared would be Hobson's k (or its inverse), but as proposed in section 3 . 5 , this measure should be inferior to the value of R obtained from a weighted vector analysis based on surface-specific points.  Thus no useful comparisons of the computer estimates  to "true" values can be made as for the preceding parameters. 5.4:  Hypsometric Integral ( H ) The " t r u e " value of the hypsometric integral was determined by using  a planimeter to measure the areas above various elevations (that is, enclosed w i t h i n selected contours); the elevations are converted to relative values by  -81-  subtracting the minimum height and dividing by the local r e l i e f , w h i l e relative areas are computed by dividing by the total area.  These points can  be plotted to produce hypsometric curves (see Figure 4 . 5 ) , and the hypsometric integrals can then be determined by measuring the areas under the curves w i t h a planimeter, or by determining the integrals mathematically.  In this study,  the latter approach was used, employing the trapezoidal method for integrating a function whose values are known at a set of points. Most research using the hypsometric integral has involved drainage basins as basic units, although some studies have applied this measure to arbitrarily-bounded topographic samples as are used in the present work ( c f . Gassmann and Gutersohn, 1947; Wood and Snell, 1960; Pike and Wilson, 1971; Evans, 1972).  None o f these works, however, recognized or commented upon  the fact that the shape and orientation of the sample area may influence the form of the curve and sometimes the value of the i n t e g r a l , or that the hypsometric integral for a group of basins may not equal the mean of the basin values. The former fact can be illustrated by applying a square sample area w i t h two different orientations and a circle to two simple geometric forms: an inclined plane, and a square-based pyramid considerably larger than the sample area w i t h the latter centred at its apex.  For the inclined plane, the hypsometric  integral for a l l three samples is 0 . 5 , but the forms of the curves differ (see Figure 5 . 2 ) ; the c i r c l e and the "diagonal square" (the square w i t h a diagonal parallel to the dip of the plane) produce "s-shaped" curves which Strahler (1952) noted were characteristic of higher-order drainage basins at the equilibrium stage in the absence of structural control.  Many such basins have outline forms  similar to the circle or the diagonal square, and the "characteristic s-shape" is probably in part due to the influence of outline form.  In the case of the pyramid,  both the curve form and the hypsometric integral vary with the shape and  -82-  Figure 5 . 2 :  Hypsometric curves for the portions of an inclined plane w i t h i n 3 sample areas. A:  " p a r a l l e l " square (see inset, A ) ;  B:  "diagonal" square (see inset, B);  C:  circle.  -83orientation of the sampling area (Figure 5 . 3 ) .  Indeed, the curve and integral  are identical for the plane and the pyramid in the case of the diagonal square sampling areas.  This effect could produce considerable variation in results i f  the size of the sampling area is less than or equal to the "texture" of the t o p o graphy in an area.  In the present study, however, the sample areas (7 by 7 km)  are considerably larger than the topographic texture of these areas. The second consideration in the case of arbitrarily-bounded sample areas is the relationship between the hypsometric integral for such an area and the integrals of its constituent drainage basins. As a simplified illustration, one can consider two adjacent basins of equal areas, minimum elevations of z e r o , and hypsometric integrals of 0.5 — the only difference is that one basin has a local relief of 500 m, the other 1000 m.  The former basin w i l l have a  mean elevation of 250 m, the latter 500 m — the mean elevation of the combined basins w i l l be 375 m.  The total relief is 1000 m, and thus the hypso-  metric integral of two basins w i l l be 0 . 3 7 5 , t w e n t y - f i v e per cent less than that of either of the individual basins.  Other combinations of relative reliefs,  minima, areas and integrals can produce hypsometric integrals for combined basins larger than those of the constituent basins.  If the minima and hypsometric  integrals are e q u a l , as w i l l be approximately the case in "equilibrium  11  topography  w i t h a common local base level (the ocean, a lake, or a low-gradient f l o o d p l a i n ) , the aggregate integral w i l l always be less than the individual ones. This may in part explain the relatively large number of the f o r t y - t w o areas examined in Chapter 4 which had overall integrals below the lower limit of " e q u i l i b r i u m " (0.35) proposed by Strahler (1952) for individual basins. As noted above, the regular grids were converted to sets of triangles and analyzed using the same methods as employed for triangles based on surfacespecific points.  It can be easily shown that the volume between a triangular  -84-  Figure 5 . 3 :  As in Figure 5 . 2 , but for a square-based pyramid.  Here,  the hypsometric integral varies as w e l l as the curve form.  -85-  plane and the horizontal datum plane is equal to the product of the projected area of the triangle and the mean elevation of the three corners of the t r i a n g l e . These volumes can be summed and divided by the total area to give the mean elevation of the study area.  This can then be used in the e l e v a t i o n - r e l i e f  ratio formula (equation 3.14) to estimate the hypsometric integral. 5.4.1:  Hypsometric Integral: Surface-specific Points It is d i f f i c u l t to determine quantitatively the theoretical precision of  this method.  The degree to which the value of HI determined as described above  from a set of surface-specific points approximates the true value  w i l l depend  upon how closely the land surfaces w i t h i n the triangles formed from these points approximate planes.  If the person selecting the points is careful to make sure  that the contours w i t h i n each triangle are approximately parallel and equally spaced, the method should be reasonably accurate. 5.4.2:  Hypsometric Integral: Regular G r i d The mean elevation determined from triangles based on a regular grid  using the volumetric method outlined above w i l l be very close to the arithmetic mean of the sampled elevation values.  Each point not on the outer boundary  forms a vertex of exactly six triangles, and thus a l l such points are equally weighted (the projected areas of the triangles are, of course, equal);  points  along the boundaries are in three triangles, while corner points are in one or two.  Since no attempt is made to ensure that the areas w i t h i n each triangle  are even approximately planar, the estimate of the mean elevation derived from the grid should not be as accurate as that obtained from a set of surfacespecific points.  The principal sources of error, however, are errors in the  maximum and minimum elevations used in the e l e v a t i o n - r e l i e f ratio formula (equation 3 . 1 4 ) , errors which have been discussed above in section 5 . 1 . 2 .  In  the following discussion, e and e . are non-negative error terms, and an ' max mm ' a  a  -86-  asterisk (*) is used to denote values determined from the grid alone.  If one  defines: z* = z - e max max max  2  =  2  min  and  H* =  min  ~f" 6  (5.6) (5.7)  min  mm •* - z* max min  (5.8)  It follows that: HP  z - (z . + e . ) mm mm' (z - e ) - (z . + e . ) max max' mm mm' v  (5.9)  x  Some algebraic manipulation of this equation yields: HI*  e  ] _  max  + e  min + - z . z  z max  min  e  mm - z . max mm  z z  - z  mm - z . max mm  (5.10)  The right-hand-side of this equation is the true value of the hypsometric integral (disreqarding possible errors in z ) , and z - z . * " max mm v  3  r  is H, the true local r e l i e f ,  giving: HI = HI*  1 -  Ltt + H  mm  (5.11)  H  If HI* is to be accurate, H * must equal H , in which case either e ^ must equal zero or the following relationship must hold true:  H  = H* =  e . mm H  (5.12)  The latter ratio may provide a rough estimate of hypsometry, since for the 42 samples examined in Chapter 4 it was significantly correlated with H , although the r  value was only 0 . 3 4 5 .  -87Some further re-arrangement of equation 5.11 yields the following expression for the relative error in H * : e  HI - HI* E  H T  H  ' 1 - HI I - e . L H J max mm H*  (5.13)  Equations 5.12 and 5.13 imply that if the hypsometric integral is low, the error in the minimum elevation must be less than that in the maximum i f HI* is to be a good estimate of H .  In f a c t , a low hypsometric integral generally  implies gentler slopes near the minimum elevation than near the maximum (see section 3 . 6 . 1 ) , which in turn implies that e . w i l l be less than e " mm max x  r  (see section 5 . 1 . 2 ) . x  For high values of H , e . must exceed e to " min max  minimize the error in the grid estimate of the hypsometric i n t e g r a l , and again this w i l l be the "expected" result.  The dependence in part of these error  terms upon HI should result in errors in H * being somewhat less than equation 5.13 suggests. An attempt was made to determine the relationship between the grid spacing (d) and the theoretical errors in the hypsometric integrals for a squarebased pyramid for grids parallel and diagonal to the pyramid base.  The grids  had odd numbers of rows and columns and were centred on the pyramid apex; meaninq that e was zero. * max  When the grid minimum was used in the - —  calculations, e ^ was found to be a linear function of d , once again supporting the "sampling theorem" noted in section 2 . 2 ; when the " t r u e " minimum was 2 used, the error was proportional to d . To halve the error in the former case would require four times as many points, but in the latter only twice as many.  -885.4.3:  Summary It is d i f f i c u l t to assess quantitatively the theoretical accuracy of the  estimate of the hypsometric integral obtained from a set of surface-specific points.  Accuracy w i l l depend upon how closely the triangles formed by these  points approximate the land surface.  For regular grids where only the grid  points are used, the error in HI should tend to be a linear function of the grid spacing» (d), and is sensitive to the values of e w r  m  5.5:  a  x  and e . m  i  n  \ (equation -i  5 . 1 3/ ) .  Possibility of Estimating Other Parameters In addition to the four measures discussed above, many more of the  geomorphometric parameters reviewed in Chapter 3 might be estimated from computer-stored terrain information. Among the most useful of these would be the measures of texture or grain outlined in section 3 . 2 .  Most of these measures  depend upon the density of peaks, pits, streams, or ridges, and are thus strongly related to surfac-especific points and lines.  It should be possible to estimate  these parameters rather readily from a set of surface-specific points; in the case of grids, the same approach might be applied, but many "false" peaks and pits w i l l appear in such d a t a , simply because a grid point which falls on a ridge may be surrounded by grid points on the sides of the ridge and thus appear to be a "peak" when in fact it is not.  The definition of peaks, pits, ridges, and  courses w i l l theoretically be much easier i f surface-specific points are stored in the "pointer mode", rather than the "triangle mode" used in the present study (see section 2 . 6 ) .  For example, a peak is defined as any point which is  higher than a l l its neighbours; the neighbours must therefore be known before elevation comparisons can be made.  Once the number of peaks or pits, or the  total length of ridges or courses, is established, it can be used to compute peak or pit density, ridginess (cf. Speight, 1968) or drainage density. also be possible to compute other roughness measures (cf.  It would  Hobson, 1967, 1972),  -89-  distributional parameters for the vectors orthogonal to the land surface other than R or k, or measures of slope asymmetry (cf.  Hormann, 1971, section  4.2.4). 5 . 6 : Theoretical Numbers of Points and Triangles for Triangular Data Sets, and Theoretical Computer Storage Requirements "Euler's Law" for a contiguous set of N^. cells, N - edges and N y vertices states that: N  v  + N  c  - N - = 1  i f the "outside" is not considered to be a c e l l . should be 3N^~. sides.  (5.14) If a l l cells are triangles, there  Since a l l edges form sides of two triangles w i t h the  exception of those edges forming the outer boundary of the study a r e a , the total number of edges is given by: 3 N + N —5= r  N-=  R  (5.15)  2  b  where N is the number of edges (and also the number of vertices) which form the boundary. Substituting this value in equation 5.14 and solving for N^. the boi D  yields: N  c  = 2N -(N +2) y  B  (5.16)  Thus the total number of triangles in a data-set w i l l be somewhat less than twice the number of points. One can determine the theoretical computer storage requirements of the regular g r i d , and of the "pointer mode" and "triangle mode" of the triangular data-set method.  Each integer value requires one half-word of  computer storage a l l o c a t i o n , while each " r e a l " or decimal value requires a f u l l word.  To store the three co-ordinates (reals) and the identification number  (integer) of a surface-specific point would thus require 7 half-words of computer  -90-  space, while each grid point needs only 2 half-words of computer storage. For the surface-specific points, either a set of pointers or a set of triangles must also be stored. The total number of pointers in a data-set w i l l be twice the number of edges ( N r J , since each edge forms a pointer of each of the vertices at its ends.  Using equations 5.15 and 5 . 1 6 , the total average  requirements for the pointers of a data-set can be shown to be ( 6 N y - 2 ( N g + half-words, and the total storage for the points and pointers is given by (13N  y  - 2N  B  - 6) half-words  (5.17)  For the "triangle mode", there are required 3 half-words for each t r i a n g l e , the number of triangles being given by equation 5 . 1 6 .  The total storage  requirements for the points and triangles should equal: (13N which is exactly N  R  y  - 3N  g  - 6) half-words  (5.18)  less storage space than needed by the "pointer mode".  -91Chapter 6: Empirical Comparisons and Computational Results In this chapter, the results of an empirical comparison of the two computer terrain storage methods discussed above w i l l be reported.  To provide  data for the comparison, the analysis procedures outlined in Chapter 5 were applied to the six topographic samples described in section 4 . 5 , for both 15 by 15 grids (d = 500 m) and sets of surface-specific points.  Figure 6 . 1 shows one  of the surface-specific point data-sets; maps of the other data-sets are given in Appendix 1Mb.  Samples 11 and 18 were arbitrarily selected to investigate  the reproduceability of triangular data-sets and the influences of triangle size and map scale.  Each of the regular grids was analyzed t w i c e , using first  northwest-southeast and then northeast-southwest diagonals.  The results of a l l  the computer analyses conducted are given in Appendix l l l c . For the six sample areas, the differences between the computer estimates and the "standard" estimates for local r e l i e f , mean slope, and hypsometric integral were determined.  For each method, the mean and standard deviations  of the "errors" were determined, and the t-statistic was used to test the probability that the true mean error of each method was z e r o .  If for any method  this probability was 5 per cent or less, i t would be concluded that the method of estimating the parameter being tested was not v a l i d .  The mean errors for the  grids and triangular data-sets were compared, and the assumption that grid error is proportional to grid spacing was used to estimate the grid density which would be required to produce the precision achieved by the triangular data-sets.  The  hypothetical d i g i t i z a t i o n times and computer storage requirements of these hypothetical grids were then compared with those of the triangular data-sets using the time and storage estimates developed in the following section.  Figure 6 . 1 :  Sample 1 l a , an example of a triangular data-set from the Ptarmigan Creek map-area.  -936.1:  Digitization Time and Computer Storage Table 6 . 1 gives the numbers of points, boundary points, and triangles  for the sets of surface-specific points used in this study.  These a l l conform to  the theoretical relationship given in equation 5 . 1 6 . Tests were made of the lengths of time needed to obtain the data from the topographic maps.  For data to be punched on computer cards, the times cited  are those required to first record the data values on a tape recorder and to then play back the tapes, writing the values on computer coding forms.  The average  time required to determine the elevation of a point was found to be 8.3  seconds  — this should be the same for both surface-specific points and grid points. Drawing the triangular data-sets and numbering the points and triangles required 8.3 seconds per point, while an average of 8 . 0 seconds was needed to determine the vertices of each triangle.  Measuring the x and y co-ordinates  used an average of 12.6 seconds per p o i n t , but if should be possible to improve this considerably by using a d i g i t i z e r . Table 6 . 1 indicates that the average triangular data-set analyzed herein contained 114 points and 197 triangles.  Digitization of such a data-set  would theoretically require 946 seconds to draw the triangles, 1576 seconds to determine the vertices of these triangles, and 2382 seconds to d i g i t i z e the points, a total of 4904 seconds, or 4 3 . 0 seconds per point.  For grids, only the  elevations must be determined, and the 15 by 15 grids (225 points) should require an average of 1867 seconds.  This means that the triangular data-sets  required about 2 . 6 times as long to prepare as did the grids.  The use of a  digitizer in determining locational co-ordinates of surface-specific points should reduce this ratio somewhat. Equation 5.18 implies that the average triangular data-set stored in the "triangle m o d e " , would require 1389 half-words of computer storage a l l o c a t i o n ;  -94-  TABLE 6 . 1 : NUMBERS OF AND  sample  POINTS  TRIANGLES  N  V  BOUNDARY  ( N ) FOR DATA-SETS c  N  B  POINTS ( N ) B  ANALYZED  N  C  8  90  25  153  11a  81  24  136  18a  119  29  207  24  142  32  250  31  114  28  198  41  138  34  240  means  114  29  197  lid  85  25  143  lib, c  29  15  41  18b, c  25  16  32  -95-  the grids would require but 450 half-words.  The surface-specific point d a t a -  sets thus require about 3.1 times as much computer storage space as the grids. 6.2:  Local Relief (H) Table 6.2 presents the estimates of local relief obtained from a visual  inspection of the contours ("standard method"), from the 7 by 7 grids (d = 1000 m) used in Chapter 4 , and from the computer analyses of the 15 by 15 grids and the triangular data-sets.  The results confirm those derived theoretically in  section 5.1 — the triangular data-sets produce results very similar to the visual inspection method, while grid errors may be rather large.  Theoretically,  relief error should be a linear function of the grid spacing (d).  For the six  samples given here, the ratio of grid errors was somewhat less than one third when i t should in theory be one half.  The difference may be fortuitous due to  the random factor of distance from the extrema to the nearest grid points which influences the grid error, and to the small sample size. The t-tests indicated that none of the average errors were significantly different from z e r o , given the small sample size.  Paired t-tests were used to  determine whether the errors of the three estimates were significantly different from each other.  A l l three pairs were significantly different at the 95 per  cent l e v e l , meaning that while the grid estimates were not "significantly b a d " , the triangular data-sets produced errors significantly less than those of the grids. 6.3:  Mean Slope (tan c< ) The results of slope estimation using four methods are given in Table 6 . 3 .  Here, the value obtained using the line intersection method of Wentworth (1933) is the "standard" to which the computer estimates are compared (see section 5 . 2 ) . Once a g a i n , the t-tests indicated that none of the mean errors differed significantly from zero.  Paired t-tests showed that the triangle and grid estimates were  -96TABLE 6 . 2 :  ESTIMATES OF  LOCAL RELIEF ( H ) , A N D ANALYSIS  OF  ERRORS I N THESE ESTIMATES  standard method  7x7 grid  1 5 x 15 grid  triangular data-set  8  1880  1655  1853  1865  11  1709  1590  1606  1709  18  883  619  823  787  24  203  184  187  203  31  1195  1057  1192  1195  41  869  752  823  869  -  225  27  15  119  103  0  264  60  5  -  19  16  0  138  3  0  117  46  0  147  42.5  3.3  87  36.0  6.1  0.689  0.482  0.224  52%  66%  82%  sample  error (e): 8 11 18 24 31  -  41  e e t  s  p ( e = 0)  -97TABLE 6 . 3 : ESTIMATES OF M E A N SLOPE ( t a n t * ) ,  A N D ANALYSIS  OF  ERRORS I N THESE ESTIMATES  Wentworth method  sample  15 x 15 grid NW-SE NE-SW  triangular data-set  8  0.609  0.523  0.518  0.585  11  0.395  0.344  0.358  0.355  18  0.396  0.331  0.335  0.393  24  0.063  0.041  0.039  0.048  31  0.218  0.187  0.185  0.203  41  0.400  0.324  0.336  0.381  0.086  0.091  0.024  11  -  0.051  0.037  0.040  18  -  0.065  0.061  0.003  0.022  0.024  0.015  0.041  0.033  0.015  0.076  0.064  0.019  e  0.055  0.051  0.019  s e t  0.025  0.025  0.012  0.896  0.843  0.639  42%  44%  56%  error (e): 8  -  24 31 41  P (e = 0) =  -98significantly different.  As expected, the two slope estimates obtained from  the same grid using different diagonals were not significantly different at the 95 per cent l e v e l . 6.4:  Roughness Factor (IR) As noted earlier in section 5 . 3 , there exists no useful "standard" value  of the roughness factor to which computer estimates can be compared. Table 6 . 4 presents the results of unit vector analysis of grids (the method used by Hobson, 1967, 1972, and by Turner and M i l e s , 1967), of weighted vector analysis of grids, and of weighted vector analysis of triangular data-sets.  The  similarity of columns 1 and 2 (also of 3 and 4) in the Table supports Turner and Miles' contention that the orientations of the diagonals used to form the triangles has l i t t l e effect on the results.  In the absence of a standard v a l u e ,  the claim made above in Chapters 3 and 5 , that the weighted analysis of triangular data-sets should yield the best results, cannot be substantiated empirically.  The five sets of values given in Table 6 . 4 were not significantly  different from each other. 6.5:  Hypsometric Integral (HI) Table 6 . 5 presents the results of hypsometric analysis of the six study  areas using six different methods.  The standard values were obtained through  the use of a polar planimeter, while the second and third columns report results obtai ned from grids in Chapter 4 .  HI, based on the best available estimates  of the minimum and maximum elevations, follows the approach recommended by Pike and Wilson (1971); H I * , as w e l l as the results for the 15 by 15 grids, used the grid estimates of these quantities.  Pike and Wilson claimed (p. 1081)  that 40 to 50 points w i l l generally produce results w i t h i n 0.01 of the true values.  This claim is supported by the fact that the mean error produced by  their method is 0 . 0 0 6 , and in none of the six cases did the error reach 0 . 0 1 .  -99-  TABLE 6 . 4 :  sample  ESTIMATES OF ROUGHNESS  FACTOR  (R)  15 x 15 grid weighted vectors unit vectors NW-SE NE-SW NW-SE NE-SW  triangular data-set  8  11.36  11.23  11.90  11.85  13.80  11  6.76  6.93  7.23  7.29  8.12  18  5.75  5.79  5.96  5.97  7.37  24  0.13  0.13  0.14  0.13  0.24  31  2.27  2.26  2.44  2.43  2.92  41  5.80  5.82  6.10  6.11  7.61  means  5.35  5.36  5.63  5.63  6.68  -100TABLE 6 . 5 : ESTIMATES OF HYPSOMETRIC INTEGRAL (HI), ANALYSIS  AND  OF ERRORS I N THESE ESTIMATES  7 x 7 grid HI*  1 5 x 15 g r i d * NW-SE NE-SW  triangular data-set  standard method  H  8  0.432  0.428  0.479  0.436  0.436  0.447  11  0.260  0.265  0.284  0.279  0.281  0.263  18  0.547  0.546  0.429  0.566  0.567  0.542  24  0.278  0.271  0.258  0.289  0.297  0.268  31  0.338  0.334  0.278  0.334  0.334  0.337  41  0.395  0.403  0.371  0.420  0.420  0.404  -  0.004  0.047  0.004  0.004  0.015  0.005  0.024  0.019  0.021  0.003  -  0.001  0.118  0.019  0.020  0.005  0,007  0.020  0.011  0.019  0.010  0.004  0.060  0.004  0.004  0.001  0.008  0.024  0.025  0.025  0.009  e  0.006  0.049  0.014  0.015  0.007  s e t  0.002  0.038  0.010  0.010  0.005  0.795  0.529  0.559  0.622  0.557  46%  62%  60%  56%  60%  sampl e  error (e): 8 11 18 24  -  31 41  P (e = 0)  * these estimates are based on grid values only  -101-  The best of the computer estimates, those based upon the triangular data-sets, had a slightly larger average error, with the grid estimates considerably poorer. As in the cases of local relief and slope, the t-tests indicated that none of the mean errors differed significantly from zero.  Unlike those  parameters, however, only one of the 10 paired t-tests indicated a marginally significant difference in average errors — that was between Pike and Wilson's method and the estimate obtained from the 15 by 15 grids using the northeastsouthwest diagonals. 6.6:  Comparison of Errors for Triangular Data-sets and Grids In Tables 6 . 2 , 6 . 3 , and 6 . 5 , the errors in estimating local r e l i e f ,  mean slope, and hypsometric integral using both regular grids and triangular data-sets were g i v e n .  Table 6.6 repeats these error values and gives the ratios  between the estimate errors for the two methods. According to the "Sampling Theorem" introduced in section 2 . 2 , error should be proportional to the grid spacing and the relationship should be linear.  This was confirmed theoretically  for two of the above three parameters in Chapter 5 .  If this is applied to the  grid errors noted above, one finds that in order to reduce the grid error in the estimation of local relief to the level of precision achieved by triangular data-sets, one would need to reduce the grid spacing from 500 m to 39 m. This and the values for the other two parameters are listed in Table 6 . 6 , as are other characteristics of these hypothetical grids.  F i n a l l y , the values  developed above in section 6.1 are used to estimate the relative digitization times and computer storage allocation requirements of these grids compared with those of triangular data-sets.  For a l l three parameters, i t appears that  a given level of precision can be attained with less digitization time and computer storage space using surface-specific points than using regular grids. The contrast is much more dramatic for local relief than it is for the other two parameters.  -102TABLE 6 . 6 :  EMPIRICAL COMPARISON DATA-SETS A N D  OF ERRORS FOR  TRIANGULAR  15 BY 15 GRIDS  H  tan <x  HI  42.5  0.053  0.015  3.3  0.019  0.007  12.9  2.8  2.1  39  179  234  Mean errors: 1 5 x 1 5 grids triangular data-sets ratio  Characteristics of grids theoretically required* to produce same precision as triangles: d (metres) grid size  181 x 181  40 x 40  31 x 31  ^ of grid points  32,761  1,600  961  d i g i t i z a t i o n time  55.4  2.7  1.6  storage space  47.2  2.3  1.4  Ratios of requirements of such grids to those of triangular data-sets:  * assuming a linear relationship between grid error and grid spacing  -1036.7:  Reproduceability and the Influence of Scale As noted above, samples 11 and 18 were selected to investigate the  influence of scale.  For each area, an additional data-set was derived from  a 1:250,000 scale map of the same area (samples l i b , 18b); next, approximately the same points were located on 1:50,000 scale maps (11c, 18c).  Sample 11  was also used to examine the reproduceability of triangular data-sets by producing another such data-set of that area (sample 1 Id) w i t h approximately the same number of points as sample 1 l a .  The number of points and triangles  in a l l of these data-sets were given in Table 6 . 1 .  In separate analyses of  samples 11 (Table 6.7) and 18 (Table 6 . 8 ) , values of the four selected parameters were standardized, and the distances between sub-samples in the resulting fourvariable "phase space" were calculated.  For sample 1 1 , the most similar pair  was a and d , the two with similar numbers of points and triangles derived from the same map.  N e x t were the distances between these and sub-sample c ,  derived from the same scale of map but using many less points and triangles. The most "different" data-set was 1 l b , derived from a smaller-scale map w i t h a larger contour i n t e r v a l .  It seems that for this area, map scale differences  are more important than the number of triangles used. the opposite conclusion was reached.  For area 18 (Table 6 . 8 ) ,  In this case, the most similar pair was  b and c , the two sub-samples with similar and lesser numbers of points derived from maps of different scales.  The greatest difference was between a and b,  which were from different maps and which also used different numbers of points and triangles.  It would appear that for area 18, the number of triangles, or  perhaps more correctly the mean size of the triangles, is more important than the differences between the 1:50,000 and 1:250,000 scale maps.  Because the  triangles in 18b and 18c were too large, the topography was smoothed and slopes reduced (see R and tan o< values in Table 6 . 8 ) .  -104TABLE 6 . 7 :  SIMILARITY A M O N G  ON  SAMPLE  H  FOUR TRIANGULAR  DATA-SETS  BASED  11 FOR THE FOUR SELECTED MEASURES  HI  tan o<  R  numbers of triangles points  O r i g i n a l values: a  1709  0.263  0.355  8.12  81  136  b  1661  0.285  0.378  8.07  29  41  c  1709  0.265  0.367  7.59  29  41  d  1709  0.262  0.371  8.31  85  143  mean  1697  0.269  0.368  8.02  24  0.011  0.008  0.306  s  Standardized values: a  0.500  -0.550  -1.684  0.326  b  -1.500  1.467  1.295  0.163  c  0.500  -0.367  -0.130  -1.404  d  0.500  -0.642  0.389  0.947  Inter-pair differences:  distance*  rank  a-b  2.000  2.017  2.979  0.163  4.119  (6)  a-c  0.000  0.183  1.554  1.730  2.333  (2)  a-d  0.000  0.092  2.073  0.621  2.166  (1)  b-c  2.000  1.834  1.425  1.567  3.442  (5)  b-d  2.000  2.109  0.906  0.784  3.144  (4)  c-d  0.000  0.265  0.519  2.351  2.422  (3)  * this is the distance between the samples in the four-dimensional space whose axes are the four variables Sub-samples: a , d —  1:50,000 scale, small triangles;  b  —  1:250,000 scale, large triangles;  c  —  1:50,000 scale, large triangles.  -105-  TABLE 6 . 8 :  SIMILARITY A M O N G  ON  SAMPLE  DATA-SETS  BASED  18 FOR THE FOUR SELECTED MEASURES  HI  H  THREE TRIANGULAR  tan °<  R  numbers of triangles points  Original values: a  878  0.542  0.397  7.39  119  207  b  838  0.517  0.257  3.45  25  32  c  823  0.544  0.295  4.53  25  32  mean  846  0.534  0.316  5.12  28  0.015  0.072  2.037  s  Standardized values: a  -1.126  -0.532  -1.119  -1.114  b  0.281  1.130  0.290  0.820  c  0.809  -0.665  0.815  0.295 distance  Inter-pair differences:  rank  a-b  1.407  1.662  1.309  1.934  3.193  (3)  a-c  1.935  0.133  1.934  1.409  3.080  (2)  b-c  0.528  1.795  0.525  0.525  2.013  (1)  Sub-samples: a  — 1:50,000 scale , small triangles;  b  — 1:250,000 seal e , large triangles;  c  — 1:50,000 scale , large triangles.  -106-  Because only two areas were investigated, no strong conclusions can be made regarding the results and the difference between the areas.  The  writer proposes the following as a possible explanation for the results obtained. First of a l l , the reduction in the number of triangles was more drastic for sample 18 than for sample 11 — sub-samples l i b and 11c had about one third the number of triangles as did 11a, w h i l e 18b and 18c had only about one sixth the number in 18a.  Secondly, the topography of area 18 was more  complex than area 11 . This can be seen by a visual inspection of the maps in Appendix I I I , and is reflected in the fact that 52 per cent more triangles were used to characterize sample 18's topography in the basic triangular data-sets (see Table 6 . 1 ) .  It is proposed that for area 1 1 , the topographic texture was  sufficiently large that the larger triangles in sub-sample 11c were able to retain most of the "terrain information" present in sub-samples 1 l a and 1 I d . Differences between the map scales due to contour generalization and the larger contour interval thus predominate, making sub-sample l i b the one most distant from the others in its terrain parameters.  For area 18, the finer  topographic texture and larger triangles combined to make the influences of map scale relatively less important than that of the reduced number of triangles. These proposals should be tested by further investigations which are beyond the scope of the present study. 6.8:  Summary Empirical tests were used to estimate the digitization times required for  triangular data-sets and for regular grids.  It was estimated that 4 3 . 0 seconds  per point are required for the former and 8 . 3 seconds per point for the latter. The average triangular data-set would require about 2 . 6 times as long to prepare as the 15 by 15 grids used for comparisons.  Theoretical considerations  indicate that the former data-sets would need some 3.1 times as much computer storage space as would the grids.  -107-  Errors in the estimates of local r e l i e f , mean slope, and hypsometric integral were discussed, and various estimates of the roughness factor were given.  In every case, the triangular data-sets based on surface-specific  points gave better results than the 15 by 15 grids.  Triangular data-set errors  for local relief and mean slope were significantly less than those of the grids, as determined using the t-statistic.  For the hypsometric i n t e g r a l , the grids  produced a higher average error but the difference was not significant at the 95 per cent l e v e l . The hypothetical linear relationship between grid error and grid spacing was used to estimate the grid spacing required to equal the precision of the triangular data-set estimates of the three parameters.  The d i g i t i z a t i o n times  and computer storage requirements of these theoretical grids were determined, and for a l l three parameters the triangular data-sets required less time and space than did the grids. An investigation of the reproduceability of triangular data-sets and the influences of map scale and triangle size was conducted.  The reproduceability  was good; the relative importance of map scale and triangle size appears to be related to the complexity of the terrain.  If the triangles are too large, the  topography is smoothed and the effect of map scale becomes less important. Further work w i l l be required to test and quantify this proposed relationship.  -108-  Chapter 7: Summary and Conclusions General geomorphometry is ro be preferred over a specific approach because i t does not depend upon any single geomorphic process nor on the identification of specific types of landforms.  It is therefore more applicable  to arbitrarily-bounded terrain samples stored in an electronic computer. After a brief discussion of map precision and notation, approaches to computer terrain storage were discussed.  This subject was reviewed in terms of  digitization (data gathering) methods, actual computer storage and retrieval techniques, and assumptions about the behavior of the land surface between data points.  In surface-specific sampling, points are selected which have  particular significance in the topographic form — these include peaks, pits, and passes, and points along ridges and valleys.  In the surface-random approach,  the points are selected according to criteria independent of the surface;  usually  either the locations of the points are determined by some type of g r i d , or the elevations of the points to be recorded are defined (contour sampling). Completely random sampling does not appear to produce as good a representation of a surface as does the stratified random approach represented by a g r i d . G e n e r a l l y , grids require much less computer storage a l l o c a t i o n , since only one co-ordinate (the elevation) must be stored for each point.  Digitized contour  points require two co-ordinates, while for surface-specific points a l l three must be specified.  In a d d i t i o n , the neighbours of a grid point are i m p l i c i t in its  position w i t h i n the computer array, w h i l e these must be e x p l i c i t l y indicated for surface-specific points, requiring still more computer space. An arbitrary assumption about the behavior of the land surface between points is usually made; in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the linear assumption is generally the most reasonable.  In the present study, the surface-specific point  and regular grid approaches to computer terrain storage were compared w i t h reference to the problem of estimating some selected geomorphometric parameters.  -109A large number of landform measures were reviewed, and were found fo belong to a number of basic groups.  These were texture and g r a i n , r e l i e f , slope,  dispersion of slope magnitude and orientation, and hypsometry.  If was decided  to select one parameter from each of these classes, but none of the grain and texture measures were readily adaptable to the computer methods used.  Texture  and grain were i m p l i c i t in the sample area size and the density of sample points. The four parameters examined e x p l i c i t l y were local relief ( H ) , mean slope (tan<x), roughness factor ( R ) , and hypsometric integral (HI). In order to select some areas for detailed analysis and to provide data for assessing the theoretical errors in the estimates of some parameters, f o r t y - t w o 7 by 7 km squares were selected from 1:50,000 scale maps of southern British Columbia using a stratified random sampling design.  For each of these areas, local  r e l i e f , hypsometric i n t e g r a l , mean slope, drainage density, stream source density, and peak density were estimated using manual methods.  Relationships among these  variables and their estimates were examined during correlation analysis.  Relief,  hypsometric i n t e g r a l , and peak density were used to divide the f o r t y - t w o samples into fifteen "terrain types".  A stratified random sample of six areas was derived  from these to provide a basis for the comparison of the computer methods, and the geomorphology of each of the six areas was briefly described. Theoretical errors involved in estimating the four selected parameters both from the triangular networks based upon surface-specific points and from regular grids were discussed, as were the actual analysis procedures employed. For local relief and the hypsometric integral at least, the precision of the grid estimates should be linearly related to the grid spacing; this probably holds true for the other measures also.  The possibility of estimating other parameters, the r e l a t i o n -  ships among the selected variables and between the numbers of points and triangles, and the theoretical computer storage requirements of the methods were also reviewed.  -110-  F i n a l l y , the results of the analysis of the topography of the six samples using the two approaches were reported.  Sample 11 was used to investigate the  reproduceability of the surface-specific sampling,and this and sample 18 used to study the effects of the numbers of points and the scale of the maps used. It was found that the relative importance of map scale and triangle size appears to depend upon the topographic texture.  For coarse texture, map scale is more  important, while for finer texture, the size of triangles used becomes dominant. This hypothesis should be tested by further research. The triangular data-sets were found to produce better estimates of the parameters than the regular grids, even though the latter averaged more than twice as many points.  The average surface-specific point data-set required  some 2.6 times as much d i g i t i z a t i o n time and 3. 1 times as much computer storage space as did the 15 by 15 grids.  The theoretical linear relationship between  grid error and grid spacing was used to estimate the grid density required to equal the precision of the triangular data-sets.  These hypothetical grids would  require much more time and storage space than would the data-sets based on surface-specific points (see Table 6 . 6 ) . In conclusion, i t appears that superior estimates of geomorphometric parameters can be obtained from triangular data-sets based on surface-specific points.  Grids which would produce a comparable level of precision would  theoretically require more d i g i t i z a t i o n time and computer storage space.  For  a reasonably experienced terrain analyst, the triangular data-sets appeared to show good reproduceability;  further investigation w i l l be required to determine  whether comparable results can be obtained using workers w i t h less training and background.  Such workers should be able to produce good results using  grid sampling, since this approach lacks the subjective element involved in the selection of the surface-specific points.  -IllReferences Abrahams, A . D . , 1972, Drainage densities and sediment yields in eastern Australia. Australian Geogr. Studies, v . 10, p. 1 9 - 4 1 . Ahnert, F . , 1970, Functional relationships between denudation, r e l i e f , and uplift in large mid-latitude drainage basins. A m . J . S c i . , v . 268, p. 243-263. , 1972, Relief and denudation — theoretical test of an empirical correlation. Internat. Geog. Congress, 1972, Event Ca6, Vancouver, B.C. A k i n , J . E . , 1971, Calculations of mean areal depth of precipitation. v . 12, p. 363-376.  J . Hydrol.,  Bassett, K, and Chorley, R . J . , 1971, An experiment in terrain f i l t e r i n g . v . 3, p. 7 8 - 9 1 .  Area,  Batchelder, R . B . , 1950, Application of two relative relief techniques to an area of diverse landforms: A comparative analysis. Surv. & Mapping, v . 10, p. 110-118. Boehm, B . W . , 1967, Tabular representation of multivariate functions with application to topographic modeling. Assoc. for Computing Machinery, 22nd N a t . C o n f . , P r o c , 1967, p. 403-415. Boesch, H . , and Kishimoto, H . , 1966, Accuracy of cartometric data. Geographisches Institut der Universitat Zurich , 1966, Contract N o . D A - 9 1 - 5 9 1 - E U C - 3 2 6 2 , Final Tech. Rept. Calef, W . C . , and Newcomb, R., 1953, An average slope map of Illinois. Annals Assoc. A m . G e o g . , v. 4 3 , p. 305-316. Carlston, C . W . , 1963, Drainage density and streamflow. Prof. Paper 4 2 2 - C , 8 pp.  U.S. G e o l . S u r v . ,  Carson, M . A . , & K i r k b y , M . J . , 1972, Hi I Is lope form and process. University Press, London, M a c M i l l a n , Toronto, 1972, 475 pp. Cay ley, A . , 1859, On contour and slope lines. p. 264.  Cambridge  Phil. M a g . , s. 4 , v . 18,  Chapman, C . A . , 1952, A new quantitative method of topographic analysis. A m . J . S c i . , v . 250, p. 428-452. Chen, S . P . , 1947, The relative relief of Tsuny, Kweichow. Soc. C h i n a , v. 14, p. 5. Chorley, R . J . , 1957, Climate and morphometry. 638.  Journal, G e o g .  J . G e o l . , v . 6 5 , p. 6 2 8 -  , 1958, Aspects of the morphometry of a ' p o l y - c y c l i c ' drainage basin. Geog. J . , v. 124, p. 370-374.  -112, 1969, The drainage basin as the fundamental geomorphic u n i t , in Chorley, R . J . , e d . , Water, Earth and M a n , Methuen, London, p. 7 7 - 9 9 . , 1972, Spatial Analysis in Geomorphology. London, 393 pp.  Methuen & Co. L t d . ,  , M a l m , D . E . C . , and Pogorzelski, H . A . , 1957, A new standard for measuring drainage basin shape. A m . J . S c i . , v. 255, p. 138-141. , and Morgan, M . A . , 1962, Comparison of morphometric features, Unaka Mountains, Tennessee and North Carolina and Dartmour, England. G e o l . Soc. A m . B u l l . , v. 7 3 , p. 17-34. , and M o r l e y , L . S . D . , 1959, A simplified approximation for the hypsometric integral. J . G e o g . , v . 6 7 , p. 5 6 6 - 5 7 1 . Clarke, J . I . , 1966, Morphometry from maps, in Dury, G . H . , e d . , Essays in Geomorphology, Heinemann, London, p. 235-274. Conacher, A . J . , 1968, The nine unit landsurface model in southeast Queensland preliminary observations. Proc. Fifth New Zealand G e o g . C o n f . , p. 159-162. Connelly, D.S., 1968, The Coding and Storage of Terrain Height Data: An Introduction to Numerical Cartography. Unpub. MS thesis, Cornel I U . , Sept. 1968, 141 pp. , 1972, Geomorphology and information theory, in Chorley, R. J . , e d . , Spatial Analysis in Geomorphology,Methuen & Co. L t d . , London,p.91 Coulson, A . , and Gross, P . W . , 1967, Measurement of the physical characteristi of drainage basins. Canada Dept. Energy, Mines & Res., Inland Waters Branch, Tech. Bull. N o . 5 , 22 pp. Curray, J . R . , 1956, The analysis of two-dimensional orientation data. v . 6 4 , p. 117-131. Donahue, J . J . , 1972, Drainage intensity in western New York. A m . G e o g . , v . 6 2 , p. 2 3 - 3 6 .  J . Geol  Annals Assoc.  Dury, G . H . , 1951, Quantitative measurements of the available relief and the depth of dissection. G e o l . M a g . , v . 88, p. 339-343. Evans, I . S . , 1972, General geomorphometry, derivatives of a l t i t u d e , and descriptive statistics, in Chorley, R . J . , e d . , 1972, Spatial Analysis in Geomorphology, Methuen & Co. L t d . , London, 1972, p. 17-90. Eyles, R . J . , 1966, Stream representation on Malayan maps. v. 2 2 , p. 1-9.  J . Trop. G e o g . ,  , 1969, Depth of dissection of the West Malaysian landscape. J . Trop. G e o g . , v. 2 8 , p. 2 3 - 3 2 .  -113-  Fisher, R . A . , 1953, Dispersion on a sphere. A - 2 1 7 , p. 295-305.  Royal Soc. London, P r o c , v.  F l i n t , R . F . , 1971, G l a c i a l and Quaternary Geology. New York, 892 pp.  John Wi ley & Sons, I n c . ,  Gassmann, F . , and Gutersohn, H . , 1947, Kotenstreuung und Relieffactor. Geogr. H e l v . , v. 2 , p. 122-139. Gerenchuk, K . I . , Gorash, I. K . , and Topchiyeu, A . G . , 1970, A method for establishing some parameters of the morphologic structure of landscapes. Sov. G e o g r . , v . 1 1 , p. 2 6 2 - 2 7 1 . Gerrard, A . J . W . , and Robinson, D . A . , 1971, V a r i a b i l i t y in slope measurements. A discussion of the effects of different recording intervals and m i c r o - r e l i e f in slope studies. Trans. I B G , 5 4 , p. 4 5 - 5 4 . G i u s t i , E . V . , and Schneider, W . J . , 1965, Comparison of drainage on topographic maps of the Piedmont Province. U.S. G e o l . Surv., Prof. Paper 4 5 0 - E , p. E118-E120. G l o c k , W . S . , 1932, A v a i l a b l e relief as a factor of control in the profile of a landform. J . G e o l . , v. 4 0 , p. 7 4 - 8 3 . Gregory, K . J . , 1966a, The composition of the drainage net. in Slaymaker, H . O . , e d . , Morphometric Analysis of Maps, Brit. Geomorph. Res. G p . , O c c . Paper N o . 4 , p. 9 - 1 1 . , 1966b, Dry valleys and the composition of the drainage net. J . H y d r o l . , v . 4 , p. 327-340. G r i f f i t h s , T . M . , 1964, A comparative study of terrain analysis techniques. U. Denver Dept. Geog. Publ., Tech. Paper 6 4 - 2 . Haan, C . T . , and Johnson, H . P . , 1966, Rapid determination of hypsometric curves. G e o l . Soc. A m . B u l l . , v . 7 7 , p. 123-126. Hammond, E . H . , 1964, Analysis of properties in land form geography: an application to broad-scale land form mapping. Annals Assoc. A m . G e o g . , v. 5 4 , p. 11-19. Hardy, R. L., 1971, Multiquadric equations of topography and other irregular surfaces. J . Geophys. Res., v. 7 6 , p. 1905-1915. , 1972, The analytical geometry of topographic surfaces. Proc. A m . Congr. of Surv. and M a p p i n g , 32nd A n n . M e e t i n g , Wash. D . C . , 1972, p. 163-181. Harris, S . A . , 1969, The meaning of ti II fabrics. 337.  Can. G e o g r . , v . 13, p. 317-  Hayre, H . S . , 1962, Surface roughness of the moon. v. 2 8 , p. 139-140.  Photogramm. Engineering,  -114-  , and Moore, R . K . , 1961, Theoretical scattering coefficient for near vertical incidence from contour maps. J . Res., N a t . Bureau of Standards, 6 5 D , p. 427-432. Hesler, J . L . , and Johnson, W . C . , 1972, Q u a n t i t a t i v e discrimination among hummocky stagnation moraine, end moraine, and ground moraine (abstract). G e o l . Soc. A m . , Abst. with Prog., v . 4 , p. 326. Hobson, R. D . , 1967, FORTRAN IV programs to determine surface roughness in topography for the CDC 3400 computer. Comp. Contrib. 14, State G e o l . S u r v . , Univ. of Kansas, Lawrence, 28 pp. , 1972, Surface roughness in topography: a quantitative approach. in Chorley, R . J . , e d . , Spatial analysis in Geomorphology, Methuen & Co. L t d . , London, 1972, p. 221-246. Holland, S . S . , 1964, Landforms of British Columbia — a physiographic o u t l i n e . B.C. Dept. Mines & Petrol. Res., Bull. 48. Hormann,K., 1969, Geomorphologische Kartenanalyse mit Hilfe elektronischer Rechenanlagen. Z . Geomorph., v. 13, p. 7 5 - 9 8 . , 1971, Morphometrie der Erdoberfldche.  K i e l , 1971, 179 pp.  Horton, R.E., 1945, Erosional development of streams and their drainage basins — hydrophysicaI approach to quantitative morphology. G e o l . Soc. A m . B u l l . , v. 5 6 , p. 275-370. Huggins, K . H . , 1935, The Scottish Highlands: a regional study. M a g . , v . 5 1 , p. 296-306.  Scott. Geogr.  Hutchinson, P., 1970, A contribution to the problem of spacing raingauges in rugged t e r r a i n . J . H y d r o l . , v . 12, p. 1-14. Imamura, G . , 1937, Past glaciers and the present topography of the Japanese Alps. Science Repts. of Tokyo, Bunrika Daiguku, C . 7 , 61 pp. Institute of British Geographers, 1971, Slopes form and process . British Geographers, Special Publ., N o . 3.  Institute of  Johnson, D . , 1933, A v a i l a b l e relief and texture of topography: a discussion. J . G e o l . , v . 4 1 , p. 293-305. Junkins, J . L . , and Jancaitis, J . R . , 1971, Mathematical terrain analysis. A m . Congr. on Surv. & M a p p i n g , 31st A n n . M e e t i n g , Wash. D . C , 1971, p. 658-678. Kaitanen, V . , 1969, A geographical study of the morphogenesis of northern Lapland. Fennia, v . 9 9 , p. 1-85. K i n g , C . A . M . , 1966, A morphometrie example of Factor analysis, in Slaymaker, H . O . , e d . , Morphometrie analysis of maps, Brit. Geomorph. Res. G p . , O c c . Paper N o . 4 .  -115-  , 1969, Trend surface analysis of the Central Pennines erosion surfaces. Trans. Inst. Brit. G e o g r . , v . 4 7 , p. 4 7 - 5 9 . Langbein, W . B . , and others, 1947, Topographic characteristics of drainage basins. U.S. G e o l . S u r v . , Water Supply Paper 9 6 8 - C , p. 99-114. Lebedev, V . G . , 1961, Principles of geomorphic regionalization. v. 2 , p. 5 9 - 6 4 .  Sov. G e o g r . ,  Leopold, L . B . , Wolman, M . G . , and M i l l e r , J . P . , 1964, Fluvial Processes in Geomorphology. Freeman, San Francisco. M a c k a y , J . R . , 1953, The alternative choice in isopleth interpolation. G e o g r . , v . 5 , p. 2 - 4 .  Prof.  Maner, S . V . , 1958, Factors affecting sediment delivery rates in the Red Hills physiographic area. A m . Geophys. Union, Trans. , v . 39, p. 6 6 9 - 6 7 5 . Martonne, E. d e , 1941, Hypsometrie et morphologie: determination et i n t e r pretation des altitudes moyennes de la France et de ses grandes regions naturelles . Annales de Geographie, v. 5 0 , p. 241-254. Mather, R . M . , 1972, Areal classification in geomorphology. in Chorley, R . J . , e d . , Spatial Analysis in Geomorphology, Methuen & Co. L t d . , p. 305322. M a x w e l l , J . C . , 1870, O n hills and dales. Phil. M a g . , 4th s e r . , London, v. 4 0 , N o . 269, Dec. 1870, p. 421-427. M a x w e l l , J . C . , 1960, Quantitative geomorphology of the San Dimas experimental forest, C a l i f o r n i a . Dept. G e o l . , Columbia U . , O N R , Contract N O N R 389-042, Tech. Rept. N o . 19. M c C o y , R . M . , 1971, Rapid measurement of drainage density. B u l l . , v. 8 2 , p. 757-762.  G e o l . Soc. A m .  M e l t o n , M . A . , 1957, An analysis of the relations among elements of c l i m a t e , surface properties, and geomorphology. Dept. G e o l . Columbia U . , O N R , Contract N O N R 389-042, Tech. Rept. N o . 11 . , 1958, Correlation structure of morphometric properties of drainage systems and their controlling agents. J . G e o l . , v. 6 6 , p. 442-460. , 1965, The geomorphic and paleoclimatic significance of a l l u v i a l deposits in Southern A r i z o n a . J . G e o l . , v. 7 3 , p. 1-38. M e r l i n , P., 1965, A propos des methodes de morphometrie. (Paris), v . 5 6 , p. 14-20.  A c t a Geographica  Monkhouse, F . J . , and Wilkinson, H . R . , 1952, Maps and Diagrams: Their Compilation and Construction. Second e d i t i o n , 1964, University Paperbacks, Methuen & Co. L t d . , London, 432 pp.  -116-  Monmonier, M . S . , 1969, Trends in upland accordance in Pennsylvania's Ridge and V a l l e y section. Penna. A c a d . S c i . , P r o c , v. 4 2 , p. 157-162. , Pfaltz, J . L . , and Rosenfeld, D . A . , 1966, Surface area from contour maps. Photogramm. E n g . , v . 32, p. 476-482. Morisawa, M . , 1957, Accuracy of determinations of stream lengths from topographic maps. Trans A m . Geophys. Union, v. 38, p. 86-88. N e w e l l , W . L . , 1970, Factors influencing the grain of the topography along the Willoughby Arch in northern Vermont. Geogr. A n n l r . , v . 5 2 A , p. 103-112. Pannekoek, A . J . , 1962, Generalization of coastlines and contours. Yearbook of Cartography, v . 2 , p. 55-75.  Internat.  , 1967, Generalized contour maps, summit level maps, and streamline surface maps as geomorphological tools. Z . Geomorph., v . 1 1 , p. 169-182. Park, C M . , Lee, Y . H . , and Scheps, B., 1970, Slope measurement from contour maps. U. of Maryland Comp. Sci. Centre, Tech. Rept. 7 0 - 1 0 9 , Mar. 1970, College P k . , M d . , , and , 1971, Slope measurement from contour maps . Phogogramm. E n g . , v . 3 7 , p. 277-283. Partsh, J . , 1911, Schlesien, eine Landeskunde fdr das deutsche V o l k . I I , S. 586, Breslau, 1911. Peguy, C P . , 1942, Principes de morphometrie A l p i n e . v . 3 0 , p. 453-486. Peltier, L . C , 1962, Area sampling for terrain analysis. p. 2 4 - 2 8 .  Rev. de Geog. A l p i n e ,  Prof. G e o g . , v . 14,  Peucker, T . K . , 1972, Computer cartography. Assoc. A m . G e o g . , Commission on College Geography, Resource Paper N o . 17. Pike, R . J . , and Wilson, S . E . , 1971, Elevation-relief r a t i o , hypsometric i n t e g r a l , and geomorphic area-altitude analysis. G e o l . Soc. A m . B u l l . , v . 8 2 , p. 1079-1084. Pillewizer, W . , 1972, Talasymmetrie und Kartometrie. p. 449-462.  Z . Geomorph., v. 16,  Piper, D. J . W . , and Evans, I . S . , 1967, Computer analysis of maps using a pencil follower. Geographical Articles, Cambridge , v. 9 , p. 2 1 - 2 5 . Raisz, E . , and Henry, J . , 1937, An average slope map of southern New England. Geogr. Rev., v . 2 7 , p. 467-472.  -117-  Roberts, M . C . , and Klingeman, P . C , 1972, The relationship of drainage net fluctuation and discharge. International Geography 1972, W . P . Adams and F . M . Helleiner, eds. , 22nd Internat. Geogr. Congress, M o n t r e a l . Robinson, A . H . , 1960, Elements of Cartography. & Sons, I n c . , New York, 343 pp.  2nd e d i t i o n .  John Wiley  Rodda, J . C . , 1970, A trend-surface analysis trial for the planation surfaces of north Cardiganshire. Trans. Inst.Brit. G e o g r . , v. 5 0 , p. 107-114. Ronca, L . B . , and Green, R.R., 1970, Statistical geomorphology of the lunar surface. G e o l . Soc. A m . B u l l . , v. 8 1 , p. 337-352. Rowan, L . C . , M c C a u l e y , J . F . , and Holm, E . A . , 1971, Lunar terrain mapping and relative roughness analysis. U.S. G e o l . Surv. Prof. Paper 5 9 9 G . , 32 pp. Ruhe, R . V . , 1950, Graphic analysis of drift topographies. p. 435-443.  A m . J . S c i . , v. 248,  , 1952, Topographic discontinuities of the Des Moines Lobe. A m . J . S c i . , v. 250, p. 4 6 - 5 6 . Salisbury, N . E . , 1962, Relief: slope relationships in glaciated terrain. Assoc. A m . G e o g . , v . 5 2 , p. 358-359.  Annals  Schumm,S.A., 1954, The relation of drainage basin relief to sediment loss. Pub. Internat. Assoc. H y d r o l . , I U G G , Tenth G e n . Assembly, Rome, 1954, v. 1 , p. 216-219. , 1956, Evolution of drainage systems and slopes in badlands at Perth Amboy, New Jersey. G e o l . Soc. A m . B u l l . , v . 6 7 , p. 597-646. , 1963, The disparity between present rates of denudation and orogeny. U.S. G e o l . Surv. Prof. Paper 4 5 4 - H , 13 pp. Sharpnack, D . A . , and A k i n , G . , 1969, An algorithm for computing slope and aspect from elevation. Photogramm. E n g i n . , v . 35, Mar. 1969, p. 2 4 7 248. Smith, G . - H . , 1935, The relative relief of O h i o . p. 272-284.  Geogr. Rev., v. 2 5 ,  , 1939, The Morphometry of O h i o : The average slope of the land (abst.). Annals Assoc. A m . G e o g . , v . 2 9 , p. 94. Smith, K . G . , 1950, Standards of grading texture of erosional topography. A m . Sci. , v . 248, p. 655-668. Speight, J . G . , 1968, Parametric description of landform . in Stewart, G . A . , e d . , Land Evaluation, Papers of CSIRO symp. , in c o - o p . UNESCO, 26-31 A u g . , 1968, p. 239-250.  -118-  , 1971, Log-normality of slope distribution. p. 2 9 0 - 3 1 1 .  Z . Geomorph., v. 15,  Spreen, W . C . , 1947, A determination of the effect of topography upon precipitation. Trans., A m . Geophys. U . , v . 2 8 , p. 285-290. Steinmetz, R., 1962, Analysis of vectorial data. p. 801-812.  J . Sed. P e t r o l . , v . 32,  Stone, R . O . , and Dugundji, J . , 1965, A study of microrelief — its mapping, classification and quantification by means of a Fourier analysis. Engin. G e o l . , v. 1 , p. 89-187. Strahler, A . N . , 1950, Equilibrium theory of erosional slopes approached by frequency distribution analysis. A m . J . S c i . , v. 2 4 8 , p. 673-696; 800-814. , 1952, Hypsometric (area-altitude) analysis of erosional topography. G e o l . Soc. A m . B u l l . , v. 6 3 , p. 1117-1142. , 1956, Quantitative slope analysis. p. 571-596.  G e o l . Soc. A m . B u l l . , v. 6 7 ,  , 1957, Quantitative analysis of watershed geomorphology. Geophys. U . , Trans., v. 38, p. 913-920.  Am.  , 1958, Dimensional analysis applied to f l u v i a l l y eroded landforms. G e o l . Soc. A m . Bull., v. 6 9 , p. 279-299. Swan, S.B. St. C , 1967, Maps of two indices of terrain, Johor, M a l a y a . J . Trop. G e o g . , v. 2 5 , p. 4 8 - 5 7 . Tanner, W . F . , 1959, Examples of departure from the Gaussian in geomorphic analysis. A m . J . S c i . , v. 257, p. 458-460. , 1960, Numerical comparison of geomorphic samples. v . 1 3 1 , p. 1525-1526.  Science,  , 1962, Components of the hypsometric curve of the earth. Geophys. Res., v. 6 7 , p. 2841-2843.  J.  Tarrant, J . R . , 1970, Comments on the use of trend-surface analysis in the study of erosion surfaces. Trans. Inst. Brit. G e o g r . , v . 5 1 , p. 211-222. Thomas, M . F . , 1969, Geomorphology and land classification in tropical A f r i c a , in Thomas, M . F . , and W h i t t i n g t o n , G . W . , eds., Environment and land use in A f r i c a . London, p. 103-145. Thompson, M . M . , and Davey, C . H . , 1953, Vertical accuracy of topographic maps. Surveying and M a p p i n g , v . 13, p. 4 0 - 4 8 . Tipper, H . W . , 1971, G l a c i a l geomorphology and Pleistocene history of central British Columbia. G e o l . Surv. C a n . , Bull. 196.  -119-  Tobler, W . R., 1969, Geographical filters and their inverses. Analysis, v. 1 , p. 234-253.  Geographical  , and Davis, C M . , 1968, A digital terrain library. U. M i c h . , College of L i t . , Science, and Arts, Dept. of G e o g . , Tech. Rept. ORA Proj. 08055, Ann Arbor, M i c h . Trewartha, G . T . , and Smith, G . - H . , 1941, Surface configuration of the Driftless Cuestaform H i l l Land. Annals Assoc. A m . G e o g . , v. 3 1 , p. 2 5 - 4 5 . Troeh, F . R . , 1964, Landform parameters correlated to soil drainage. Soil Sci. Soc. A m . P r o c , v. 2 8 , p. 808-812. , 1965, Landform equations fitted to contour maps. A m . J . S c i . , v . 263, p. 616-627. Turner, A . K . , and M i l e s , C . R . , 1967, Terrain analysis by computer. A c a d . S c i . , P r o c , v. 7 7 , p. 256-270.  Indiana  Van Lopik, J . R . , and K o l b , C . R . , 1959, A technique for preparing desert terrain analogs. U.S. Army Engin. Waterway Exp. Station, Vicksburg, M i s s . , Tech. Rept. 3-506. Warntz, W . , 1966, The topology of a socio-economic terrain and spatial flows. Papers, Regional Sci. Assoc., v . 17, p. 4 7 - 6 1 . , 1968, A note on stream ordering and contour mapping. Harvard Papers in Theor. G e o g . , N o . 18, O f f i c e of Naval Res., Tech. Rept., Proj. NR389-147. Wentworth, C . K . , 1930, A simplified method of determining the average slope of land surfaces. A m . J . S c i . , v . 2 0 , p. 184-194. W i l l i a m s , P . W . , 1966, Suggested techniques for morphometric analysis of temperate karst landforms. in Slaymaker, H . O . , e d . , Morphometric Analysis of Maps, Brit. Geomorph. Res. G p . , O c c . Paper N o . 4 , p. 12-30. Woldenberg, M . J . , 1972, The average hexagon in spatial hierarchies . in Chorley, R . J . , e d . , Spatial Analysis in Geomorphology, Methuen, London, p. 322-352. Wong, P . P . , 1969. The surface configuration of Singapore Island: a quantitative description. J . Trop. G e o g . , v. 2 9 , p. 6 4 - 7 4 . Wood, W . F . , and Snell, J . B . , 1957, The dispersion of geomorphic data around measures of central tendency and its a p p l i c a t i o n . Quartermaster Res. and Eng. Command, U.S. Army Study Rept. E A - 8 . , and , 1959, Predictive methods in topographic analysis I. Relief, Slope, and Dissection on i n c h - t o - t h e mile maps in the United States. Quartermaster Res. and Eng. Command., U.S. A r m y , Tech. Rept. EP—112.  -120, and , I 9 6 0 , A quantitative system for classifying landforms. Quartermaster Res. and Eng. Command, U.S. A r m y , Tech. Rept. EP-124. Young, A . , 1972, Slopes.  Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh, 1972, 288 pp.  Zakrzewska, B., 1963, An analysis of landforms in a part of the central Great Plains. Annals Assoc. A m . G e o g . , v . 5 3 , p. 536-568.  -121-  Appendix I:  Notation  In this appendix, a l l variables and symbols used in the text are listed, together with their meanings or definitions.  Exceptions are standard  abbreviations (such as " M " for metres) which are not listed.  For each entry,  the text section where the sumbol first appeared is indicated in parentheses. a(h)  the relative hypsometric function ( 3 . 6 . 1 )  b  average distance between adjacent ridges and valleys ( 3 . 4 . 3 )  c  a distance measure (2.5)  D  a density value (1.2)  d  D  D  drainage density ( 3 . 2 . 2 ) peak density ( 3 . 2 . 4 )  P  D s d  stream source density ( 3 . 2 . 3 )  E  e l e v a t i o n - r e l i e f ratio ( 3 . 6 . 2 )  e  H  e  HI  grid spacing (2.2)  error in the grid estimate of local relief ( 5 . 1 . 2 ) relative error in the grid estimate of the hypsometric integral ( 5 . 4 . 2 ) error in the grid estimate of the maximum elevation ( 5 . 1 . 2 )  e  max e . mm f  error in the grid estimate of the minimum elevation (5.1 .2) factor by which one wishes to improve grid accuracy (2.2)  G  grain of topography ( 3 . 2 . 1 )  H  local relief ( 3 . 3 . 1 )  H*  grid estimate of local relief ( 4 . 3 . 3 )  H  available relief ( 3 . 3 . 2 )  H  a  d  drainage relief ( 3 . 3 . 3 )  HI  the hypsometric integral ( 3 . 6 . 2 )  H*  grid estimate of the hypsometric integral ( 4 . 3 . 5 )  h  relative height ( 3 . 6 . 1 )  h  mean relative height ( 3 . 6 . 2 )  -122-  I  the contour interval ( 3 . 4 . 1 )  k  the vector dispersion factor (3.5)  L  total length of traverse lines used in line sampling estimates of slope ( 3 . 4 . 1 ) or drainage density ( 4 . 3 . 1 )  L(%)  vector strength in per cent (3.5)  N  number of objects or occurrences (1 .2)  N^.  number of cells or triangles in network (5.6)  N-  number of edges in network ( 5 . 6 )  Ny  number of vertices or points in network (5.6)  P  length of drainage basin perimeter ( 3 . 2 . 2 )  p  mean annual precipitation ( 4 . 3 . 6 )  R  length of vector sum (3.5)  IR  roughness factor (3.5)  r  correlation coefficient ( 1 . 2 )  S  size or wavelength of smallest features one wishes to detect (2.2)  s  a root-mean-square value (1.2)  Sj  root-mean-square distance ( 5 . 1 . 2 )  s  root-mean-square error (1.1)  g  T  texture ratio ( 3 . 2 . 2 )  t  year of map publication ( 4 . 3 . 6 )  V  volume of landmass ( 3 . 2 . 4 )  v  variability factor (3.5)  W  highest frequency present in a function ( 2 . 2 )  x, y  geographic location co-ordinates (1 .2)  z  altitude above sea level (1 .2)  z  mean elevation ( 3 . 6 . 2 )  z  max  maximum elevation ( 3 . 6 . 1 )  -123z* max  grid estimate of z  z  minimum elevation ( 3 . 6 . 1 ) '  . mm  max  (5.4.2)  z* . mm  grid estimate of z . mm  (5.4.2)  oc  mean ground slope ( 3 . 4 . 1 )  p  exponent in the general interpolation formula (2.5)  t  slope near the maximum or minimum point (5.1 .2)  %  land slope at a point (1.1)  9  angle of intersection between a traverse line and a contour or stream (3.4.1)  K  precision parameter for Fisher's spherical probability distribution (3.5)  -124-  Appendix I I : Topographic and Related Variables for 42 Areas in Southern British Columbia In the following Table, the values for twelve terrain and related variables from the f o r t y - t w o Chapter 4 are g i v e n .  7 by 7 km topographic samples examined in  The parameters were listed in Table 4 . 3 , and are also  included in Appendix I. indicated by the symbol  The six areas analyzed in detail in Chapter 6 are while the highest and lowest value for each  parameter are marked w i t h the symbols " + " and " - " , respectively.  The mean  and standard deviation for each variable, and the units of measurement, are indicated at the bottom of the Table. A l l of the values reported in this Table are based on the exclusion of water surfaces from the calculations.  If these were included, mean slope would be  reduced for those areas including lakes or the ocean, and the values of some of the other parameters would also be influenced.  i  -125-  Area  D  d  N/L  D  D  s  P  H  H*  tan «  H  H*  £  P  t  0.540 0.552 0.481 0.259 0.343  1650 1818 951 1965 1046  40 40 15 45 16  64 61 3162 62  0.339 0.361 0.479 0.451 0.458  1113 1143 1683 2077+ 1967  20 55 80 30 70  58 60 61 59 66  1148 1786 91661 554  30 40 40 100 140  65 60 51 38 39  546 1169 1534  130 120 50 18 130  47 62 57  0.296 0.418 0.184 0.368 0.562  0.102  0.163  1247  884  0.167  0.602  0.388 0.041 0.055 0.224  0.408 0.694 0.417 0.653  963 329 1268 835  643 235 1113  0.405 0.091 0.462  728  0.169  0.568 0.343 0.2400.299  0.286 0.459 0.347 0.388 0.306  0.0000.224 0.102 0.163 0.167  0.184 0.122 0.102 0.326 0.333  939 1694 1880 1387 1740  820 1636 1655 1159 1423  0.241 0.445 0.609 0.527 0.504  0.364 0.352 0.428 0.405  0.347 0.317 0.510 0.837  0.122 0.102  0.143 0.408 0.333 0.122  1709 1405 375 1012  0.250  1326  1590 1207 287 938 1201  0.395 0.460 0.110 0.381 0.594  0.265 0.512 0.242 0.494 0.417  0.284 0.434 0.233  15  0.549 0.476 0.714 1.231 0.937  16 17  1.510 0.492  18'  1.847 0.676 0.684  1.020 0.337 1.163 0.378 0.459  0.306 0.796 0.286 0.163  1015 1408 883 1905  991 1143 619 1814  0.403 0.694+ 0.395  1945  1610  0.496 0.601  0.533 0.562 0.429 0.513  0.408  0.539 0.529 0.546 0.513 0.314  0.563 1.322 0.720 0.631 0.043-  0.357 0.250 0,-837 - O r 821 0.398 0.291 0.459 0.191 0.0310.000-  0.568 0.359 0.521 0.383 0.041-  686 1175 920 203366  567 -1128 832 174262  0.299 -0.376 0.342 0.064 0.042  0.251  0.272  172  70  0.286 0.371 0.281 0.309  0.297 0.365 0.270 0.233  426 341 967 1021  120 90 16 14  49 34 60 58 65  26  0.408  0.235  585 214  0.343 0.494  61  28 29  0.450 0.607+ 0.492  20  0.286 0.439 0.368  0.306 0.184 0.367 0.531  635  0.478 0.724 0.637  0.020 0.163 0.184 0.102  773  27  968 831  16 12-  65 55  0.227-  1201  15  30  0.819  0.480  0.653  0.224  0.601  1220  60  60 61  31'  0.290 0.657 0.326 0.735 2.051+  0.255  0.106 0.104 0.041  0.553 0.521  1480 1141  23  68+  0.490 1.408  0.409 0.268  0.485 0.344  799 1187 176  15 17  0.500 1.316+  0.204 0.429 0.306  0.348 0.562 0.272  0.392  0.459 0.194  67 60 60 36  0.657  0.125 0.256 0.267 0.167  0.271 0.977+ 0.511 0.479  0.252  0.280 0.382 0.374  239 211  0.496 0.661  0.418 1.023 0.357 0.306 0.398  0.286  400 182  70 70 70  64  41' 42  0.882 0.569  0.531 0.316  mean  0.725  s  0.401 .  unite  km ^  1 2  3 4  0.388 0.661 0.292 0.639  5  0.840  6 7 8# 9 10  0.482  n'  12 13 14  19 20  21 22 23 24# 25  32  33  34 35 36 37 38 39 40  0.776 0.555 0.586 0.508  1.420 0.531  0.581  0.250 1.089 0.583 1.510+ 0.265 1.429 0.163 0.061  287 274  0.262 0.056 0.042-  0.377  0.526 0.445  0.380  1129 754  58 65  296 2122  183 269 1972+  1195  1054  0.225  338 272 854 613  329 192 707 471  0.101 0.043 0.257 0.256  643  0.334 0.322  860 464  0.157 0.393 0.373 0.582  0.286  738 716 655 1012 495  0.200  0.347  0.430 0.349  0.673 0.467  - 0.490 0.422  869 968  752 741  0.400 0.519  0.403 0.434  0.371 0.456  380 420  100 160+  61 61  0.465  0.360  0.370  978  838  0.329  0.390  0.408  937  60  58  0.265  0.413  0.195  526  488  0.189  0.109  0.107  566  42  9  km '  km ^  m  m  km  550 559  0.060 0.607  0.540 0.243 0.562  0.386  0.559 0.302  186  m  47 105 90 125  61 61 64 64  inches y  -126-  Appendix I l i a :  Computer Program  In this appendix, the FORTRAN program used in this study (program  IV program listing for the computer  GEOTRI) is g i v e n .  Requirements for the  input data are contained in comments at the beginning of the program listing.  -127:  ORTRAN  I V G COMPILER  MAIM  02-06-74  0001  P A G E  1 0 : 1 9 : 3 2  rj**** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  c C  £  C C C  P R O G R A M :  G E O T ° I  p;[gon<;c;  T  I  npTPP^  I N E  A N A L Y S I S  O  P O S S I B L Y  BfiS n  W R I T T E N :  T s  c  c  D A V I D  M „.M 0  C C.  C C  T N P L ' T :  E A C H  Di  C A R T :  JOB  ^9  F A C E T S  T  T S  .._CE^3^ ft  C O L 3-5  A P H Y  e g  :  n  =  :  1  o  NEW =0:  10  T I T L E  C A R D ,  ,113,  P A  T  F O L L O W E D  B Y  D A T A .  A  15  JF»n  » . ! = W T ^ Q :  C  X S C A L E :  16-27 '  C  N U " B E P  .  : . X - ° n  Y S C & L E :  ? 8 - 3 °  r. C  A S  O  c  U  E T P E S  C  - S C A L E :  40-51  O  .  56  C £  A L L  T R I A N G L E S . A M DO C E A N  66  I _ H G = 0:  =•-" :  C  P A R A M E T E R S  U S E  T P JA N G L E S  C C  67-71  N'> :  NUMBER  O  r_  77-^6  NC t  NU'-'BEP  H F  T I T L E ,  M A X I M U M  T PI A N G L E  So  T O  T R I A N G L E . P R O D U C E .  D I A G O N A L S ,  ROWS  C  IN  G R I D ,  P P D M  U S E N E - S W  =3:  X S C A L E *  F Q D E A C H  D I A G O N A L S  N W - S E  . F ^ R M C T  F  L I S T ,  T P , I _ N ~ L E  ..LIST  I  " N E U N I T  L A K E  ,.C  N  A'JLTS...T?...I , C  A N A L Y Z E OMIT  J C 8  T I  n g  T n  E X C L U D E  I T R T ^ Q ;  C  : T T Q\J  . =1: 6T  V I " i ! , ' S  MNI  FJ ? o5 c  IN  . 3 E =  c  P i _ o  L A K E = 0:  ..  J O B  S P A C I N G  N.  D E F A U L T S  M E T R E S  C  M  T  H P . Y-D I R  Z-0.H..EC.T IONo  C  C.PL'J  D E F A U L T S  C  S P R  NON F  ^ rio M A T :  A B O V E ,  MUMPER  :  A  I  _ R  D A T A .  R O WS P A C I N G ,  -  P R E V I O U S  N E W T C I A N G L E S  TP. I A M GL E S  C  S P E C I F I E D .  C  A S  " p y f U T F  ECTI.OS!,  O R 10  C  P O I N T S  R  U S E S A M  =1:  C  l  P O I N T S  P * T A  U S E SA'-'E  =1:  C  NFrf  R E A P  3  C  .  I P  S U R F A C E *  n  C  '  p  T H E  = 9?..9..:._E.ND.0- . p U N , . . . ( F . D L L W S _ L A S T . . J O B )  C  C  A N D A  ; T H E  " V  T F P S  C  _1_9.I1  i  P F E - T R I A N G U L A T E O  I T Y 3 F = 0 :  C  P A R A "  A 3 0 R D X I ^ A T E  , „ U » B . C».  J O BC A P O  | T;  T P  W H I C H  0*.TA  O N G R I D  Ap-K  J O BR E Q U I R E S  T H E  nMppPHpMPTgTC  S F L E T T E ™  AMCLiL  I  I N  M A T R I X .  C O L U M N S  I N  M A T ?  IX  C C  TITLE  C .  C C C  C  C A R T :  QgSIPEP,  C C  A  PQE-TPI A N G M L A T F ^ - D A T A  P O I N T S ,  NUMBER  LS.....U., 7.E.6.  - L A S T  —TP I A N G L E S ,  D A T A  C  MtjMqco  C  W H I C H  C C  IS  N O T I T L E  C  O C E A N , -LAS_T_ G R I D  7.F0  \  I F  O N A  ( N R ) IS  S  C  ROWS  n  p c  T H R E E  ( F OP  M  o  M  r  BY  C A R D  H A V I N G  A  P O I N T A S  B L A N K  H A V I N G  W R I T T E N  AT  r. A<? n  T P I A N G I . E  V E R T I C E S ,  T=iAMGt.E  c  A  I S  O N A  A S  W R I T T E N ,  N  B Y _ _ A _ B_L A N <  " L " ,  D  L A K E  O  3  .  T H E  515) CA F D  1:  S r P A F . A T P  aL  1 5= c, 01  T ^  O L L C W E D E A C H  1  •  £  c  MA S I . B E . _ _ Q L L O W E D  ( I T Y ? E = ?  =0W  <*E  O T H E R W I S E .  T R I A B L E  D A T A  - E A C H  MUST  F E D U I ' - E O ,  MijM^rjc  E Q U A L S  C A * 0  _.__  P O I N T C  E A C H  A N DZ - C O - O R D I M A T E S . i F O R M A T  0)_ I  ( I T V O E = 0 ) :  R E Q U I R E D ,  Y ,  P p r ^ T  t  D A T A  I R  A N D X ,  C  £  I  DATA:  C  C  F 76 C H A R A C T E R S . MUST Be J.MJ_EJ_T.ED_»_  O  C A R P  BL.AN<  K  Z* R  C A P O , T S ?  N  C I F I E O  M  ( F O R M A T C L U P r P ,  O N T H E J O B  AS  4 ' I T T r . v ;  S I N C F  M ' ) "  p  r  3x, ?  p p  C A R D .  C £1 C  A5_JlQT£0_AeDVE..,  CCLU NS M  3-5  LAST.  J ? B .  I  .  _F L! r  TO END THE  OWED..."Y_.A__C  R U N ,  A.RD..W  I.TH_  _ « o o ? " _ _ T . M .  C r.  R F ^ T R T C T T O N S :  A  S WF. T T T O I . .  T H F P F  A R F T  H  FF O L L O W I N G  R E S T R  I CT\ " » y ^ ;  .  -  :  ORTRAN  IV  ^ 8 -  :  G CQM°ILER  MAIN -MAXIMUM  C  02-06-74 Nl.iM?E  c  -MAXIMUM N i . l ' ^ E ' —M ATP i x MAY N O T  C C  j__  (•'.):  -IF  C C £  0  ""IVTC  C  10:19:32  :  (\<p)  i<  PAGE  0002  CQO;  0 - T3 IA NGl.r S ( N T ) N A V E ' O R E T H A N ?Q  iQOO;  T C  ROWS  (NR)  DIMENSIONS ' ^ E INC-EASE3, KFF I N MI \j D - ( N R - 1 ) * (VC-1 ) CANNOT E X C F Q MO; _ N T _ S H O U L D f*E ? I E N $ I O N T H 2 * N P » D  3?  '5  COLUMNS  THAT:  C  U  C " ~ £********* ************************ *^ ************ ™ DIMENSION  OOOl.  "  X ( 5 0 0 ) , Y ( ? 0 0 ) , I ( 5 0 0 ) , I T ( ? 0 0 0 ) , I V < 1 0 0 0 ) , J V ( 1 CO 0) , K V ( 1  000 )  1 , L V ( 1 0 0 0 > , T I T L E ( 1 ) , SU«(12) C T ' M O N . . X , Y , Z, I T f J V . K V . L V , T I T L E ,NP,NT, L A K E , I TR I RAT-O,01 " ^ 5 3 2 9 3 JT?S =0 CALL REAPER I F ( L AK Eo E Q « 999) GO T O 999 ALAKE=0. NL =0 : . , 3  iy.j  000 2 0003 0004 0005 0006 0007 000 S  99  0009  Z AX=-99^90„ M  0010 0 011  ZMIN=99999. T?MAX=3  0012 0013  :  IZMIM=0 . DO 3 1 = 1 , 1 2  001 4  'J M (  .S  00: 5  3  0016  001 7 0018 0019 0020  I..) = 0 o  C O N T IN',jc  .  I PI I TRT , E 0 . 0)  r,0 TO  .  .  94  W R I T E ( 6 • 1 52 ) ( T I L E ( I ! ) t I T = ) , 1 9 ) 1 5 2 F O R M A T ! • 1. • r l ° A 4 , / / ) WRITE(6,500) 5 0 0 F Q R" AT ( ' NO, CORNERS L 1 AR A S L O P E ' ,/) 94 DO f- I = i , NT I F ( Z ( ! V ( I n . L E o Z V f t X ) GO T _ 6 0 Z MAX= Z( I V ( I ) ) I Z M » . X = I V ( I) T  T.rilS.  7. ' t I P X t ' MAP M  r  0021 . 007? 0023 0024  002 5  50  0026 0027 0028 0029  ______ 0035 0036 .0037  003 3 0039 Q040 0041 0042 Q043L OC-4 0045 J3Q4_6  •  I.EIOJ.V.U. M • LE ...Z MAX ) S O T ] 6 1  Z A X = Z ( .)V ( I ) ) IZMAX=JV(I) T ( 7 t K V ( ! ) ) _ L E _ ZM-X ZMAX = Z ( K V ( I ) ) M  Si  0030  .0011 003? • 0033  ;  62 "  f>3 '  6„  65  c  )  GO '>  62  T  IZM/>x=K V( I I  I F (.7 ( I V (I )j , GEo Z M I N L ^ 0 . _ . . : Z M I V •= Z ( IV (I )) IZMIN=IV<I) T  T P ( 7 1 . I V ( T ) ) _ r , E . 7 'TNH G "  T  L  3  .  0 64  ;  Z M I V = Z ( J V ( I )) IZMTN=JV(I) I (I (KV ( I ) ) . O G . Z M I.M..) ...G.0._I?...3_5.  .  c  ZMIN = Z ( K V ( I U I Z M I N = KV( I ) C O N T IN') F VFC1 1 = X(J V ( I ) ) - X ( I  V F C i 2=Y( J V ( VEC13=Z( JV(  .  :  V(I))  ! ) )-Y( I V ( I) ) 11 J.- Z ( IV I I ) )  V £ C 2 1 = X ( K V ( I) ) - X ( I V ( ! ) ) V E C 2 2 = Y ( * V ( I ) ) - Y ( I VI I)) __FC? 3 =7 [ KV \ I ) . , ) . - L I V LI) )  _  :  .  .  _ .  -129OUTRAN  0047  IV G  COMPILER  C  02-06-74  MAIN  VEC1  AND VEC2  ZM = ( Z ( I V ( ! )  ARE  V  )+Z(JV<  C  PNG  C T P R S  I ) ) +?( " V  ,  0049 0050  C  v_=VECI3*V  C  I j  TH~  THE  0051 J3_5_2_ O P * 3-  THE  TRIANGLE  C ? l . - V E C 5 1"*V C_ 3 C  CR c s S . .  TR [ A N G L  O  O  2"*V  EC 2  1  " T J c~. o E _ y F_C 1  ANP..XEC  ?•  AND  I S . .T H P  T  GO  TP  4  .  )*'P  V2 = < - 1 . ) * V 2 V3 = ( - 1 . ) * V 3  0054 HQ5.5.  S.P N T . I . N ' J E  THIS  MAKES  THF VECTOR  VL = S Q R T ! V 1 * V ? + V 2 * V 2 + V  OQ5 7  aT=VL/2THE L E N G T H OF  005 B D05 9_ 0060 0061  U1=V1/VL  V  IS  3*V?)  TWICE  'J2 = V Z / V L _  'IJP'  POINT  0056  THE TRUE  .  AREA  O F T H E TP I A N G L E ,  L  AT  :  U3=V3/VL A=V3/2. T H F I I M H O " QP P Q Q J F C T E O A R E A I S H A L F THE 7-CQM 0ME !T OF V OIP=1.57 0 7963-AFSIN(U?) S =T A N ( 0 1 P ) _S S _T_HE.._.SLOPE._TANGF.NT _ INDIVIDUAL TRIANGLES ARE N1TE: I F O T H E R CHAR. A C E R I S T ! C S P F p  006 2 0063  C  N  D E S I  T  c 0064 006 5 0066.. 0067 006 8 0069  P = H I G ? _ N A L .J  C  I F ( V 3 . G E . 0 . 0 ) VI = ( - 1 .  SI P E S P F THE T ° I A N G L E  c  V ?= V EC 11 * VE C2 2 - V E . I v  2  1  U ) ) ) / 3 .  T H E M=AM F L ; V A T I C N OF Z M I- S *V C23-v?*.3-v~ 7"> _yj_=y_FCi  C 0 Q 4 _  PAGE O O P  10:19:32  ST*TE'-1 E M S  APpppp^iATF  THF  SHOULD  BE  T  N S E R T E D  H F ^ E  :  AND THE  cr.,: ORIENT ATT PN P F T F I A M G L E . WRITE STATEMENT CHANGE D o ITRI.FQ.Q) ~,n T O 90 WRI'E'6,200) ITI I ) , I V l I ) • J V ( I ) , * V ( I ) , L V ( I ) , Z M , A , A T , S  ' IF(  r  ..2.00 90  _ F O R M A T (5.I.5.»_4F.i 5,o,.e_.L . CONTINUE I F ( L V ( D o N E , 1 ) GO T O A L AKE=ALAK£ + A NL=\'L + ! ALAKE I S THE TOTAL ARE A p c L A K E S _TRT A N G L E S F A L L I N G O N . W ATE? 7  0070  I ( L A K E oE Go C ) G O T O 7 IF (I T R I . M E .0 ) WRITE ( 6 , 300) I 0R AT( TRIANGLE H ' , 1 3 , ' I S  0071  + OCEAN;  N L I S T H E NUMBER  PF  c  -0072 007?  =  v  1  1E0* ) GO T O  0074  00.7.5...  PN A LAKE  OR T H E .OCEAN  AND IS  6  ' . _ . S ' J M ( D = S U M ( 1. ) + A  0.076 0077 0Q7P  SUM(21-SUM(2)•AT  0079  S JM( _ ) = S L ' M ( 5 ) + S * A S U ( 6 ) = S U ' M 6 ) + S * AT  S U M ( 3 ) = S U  <j\)'A{  M  ( 3 ) + Z  4) = S U ' M  M  * A  4)*S  !  OOBO  M  ..SUM! .7.) = SUM ( 7) +1)1  00"2 0033 0QP4  <;IJM( q ) = S U M ( P ) + J ?  00B5 00P6  SU <11)= SU"M)1)+ V . / 2 .  S U M ( 9 ) = S H ' M O ) 4.II-J = su''PQ)»vi/?o  viMm) y  S'JM(  12)=S'JM(12)+V3/2<  i__ONT...LNUE___  r C  THE  FOLLOWING  SECTICN  C "°UTES. GEO n  w r >  RPHPMFTPTC  PA°A«ETEPS  EXCH'P  -130-  ORTRAN IV G 00?1  13  0099 0090 00° 1  15  03=52 0093 00°4  I F ( L AKE) 13,19,18 AT0T = S U M ( 1 ) * A L A K E NT A - N T - M L GO TO ? 0 ATOT = S U M m COMX!N_ME :A, >MI: SUX(I) AT OT I S THE T 0 A L MAY E X C L U D E L A K E S , NT I S THE' T O T A L N'_P">E O ^TANGLES, °LAKE = !0'0.*ALAKE/ATOT CONTINUE TN=f=LOAT( NTA1 ZM=SUM(3) /SUM( 1 ) SM1 = SU M ( 4 ) / T N S M 2 = S ' l » t 5 ) /SUM( 1 )  c c  SM3=SU (6 M  0103  HYPS  3104 0105  C _r_ C C  I S  SLOPES:  THE HYPSOMETRIC  AR AT I O = S U M 1 2 ) / S J * ( A MT? I - S U M M ) / T M  1)  AMT  AREA  I  C  IS  NTA  H E  t  NilMQER  A<?EA,  WHICH  ALALY S I S  F0?  THE  MEAN  SM I . _ MVWFT G H T E O ;  .  SM2  0  0  WTD  f?Y  A ; S M 3 . o  .  n  v  AT...  INTEGRAL  OF  THE TRIANGLES  ANALYZED  T H I S S E C T I O N I S FOR V E C T O R I A L A N A L Y S I S . V A R I A B L E S RELATED TO U N I T ( U N W E I G H T E D ) VECTOR ANALYST^ INCLUDE "V" I N NAMES, THOSE P E L AT 0 TNCLJPE " V " ' o TO W = 1GMTED AMAI.YSI C  c  C C  R = VECT3R (-),  __  LENGTH,  K= REC!SIC'N D  R F = RO:.'GHNESS  FACTOR,  K. T =J 0 0 / K , L = 7 G T O R  PARAMETER,  C  0= OR I E N T A T T O N ,  D=OIP  OF  MEAN  RU=SORT(SUM(7)**2*SUM( 3)**2 + S U ( ° ) * * 2 ) RV = S0RT(SUM ( 1 3 ) * * 2 + S'JM ( 11 ) * * 2 + ? U M ( 1 2 1 * * 2 ) !jK>( TN-1 . ) / ( T N - R U ) V  0109 0110 J ? JJL 0112 0113  UKI=100./UK UL=300.*PU/TN _ V L =< 0 0 . * R V / S U M ( 2 )  1  '  RFU=100.-UL RFV=100.-VL UL:  0114 0115 .01L6_ ,0117 OU 8 O'.i q  VECTOR  STRENGTH,  U N I  AU=SUM(7)/RU 9U = SUM(P.) / R U  __J=FUM(  ?.iyp.u_  AV=SUM(10)/RV  0120  B V = S U M ( 1 1 )/<?V C V = U M P 2 ) / R V IF(PU.NE.O.O)  0121  IF(A'j)ll,12,13  C  GO  TO  _!Z2_  _1L_0U-? TO.  0123 0124  GO TO 2 4 OU=0.0 GO TO ?4 13 0 U = ° 0 . GO TO 2 4 ___._.._ NT I NUE. 3U=ATAN(AU/BU)/PAO IP C U ) 2 3 , 2 5 , 2 5 ?5 TF ("111 3"*, ? 4 . " 4  5  THE A N A L Y S I S  )/SUM{ ? )  S M ' S A R E MEAN  _H._I_ AX.r £H_N . H Y ? S = ( Z'*~ 7. M I V ) / H  J_ 0 2_  012  c  C  THE  0126 01 2 7 __28.. 0129 013 0 01 3 1  IS  T  01 0 1  0106 3107 0108  0004  NTA=NT ?0  C  0095 0D96 0 0 9 7_ 009 8 0099 0100  PAGE  10:1°:32  MAIN  COM°ILER  12  >  10  T  VICTORS:  VI.  WEIGHTED  BY A T  e  SIR!  VECTOR  -131"ORTRAN I V  G COMPILER  013? 0133 01 3 4  01 3 5 013 6  02-06-74  MAIN  23 3? 33  I ( U>33,32,32 0U = ? 8 0 . + O U 0U=OU-t-l 0.  ?4  CONTTMHC  C  0005  Q  _Qi.4_4_ 01.4  14  c  7  _0I_ 5 L 013 9 014  PAGE  Q  OiJ=A"» ^ TN( GUI / ' i D I ( R V . N E . O o O ) GO TO 1 4 I.~(A.Vt 1 5 , 1 6 , 17 15 0 V = 2 7 0 GO TO 4 4 16 p y = o , 0 . • r,o TO ^ 4 17 3 V = ^ 0 . _n._ 0. .44  013  10:19:32  o  0  0141 0142 0 1 "-3  T  5  CONTINUE OV=ATAN{AV/BV)/°A0  0146  45 IF(?V)53,44,_4 43 I («V)f3,52,52 _5.„.0V=^V«-180, 53 O V = . V + l » 0 . 44 CONTINUE  0143 0149  c  JXL?J_ 01 5 1 01 5 2  t  01  QV-AP.SIM(CV)1°An  C  THE  c  c  OLLOWING  S E C T I O N  PRINTS  OUT RESULTS  0157  WRITE(6,152 ) ( TT~ L ( I T ) , 1 1 = 1 , 1 9 ) WRITE ( 6 , 6 0 3 ) *!°, N T , A T O T , PL A < E »NT A , S I !M ( i ),AMTR I 6 3 3 = O R M A ( « GENgoftt : ' , / / , ' M I I M R F P OF P O I N T S = ' , 1 0 X , 1 5 , / , ' \ " v a <ro 1 O TR IAN Gl-F S = , } 0 X , ! - - , - / • • • T_> T AL * E A = »,-i=.15-, / , ' t -CFVT L 2AKES SEA = ' , 3 X , F ? . ' = . ' AVALYS I S = ' , 10X, 1 5 , / , ' A R F A FOR A . 3 N A L Y S I S _ = «_, E 1 5_ P , / , • ' E A TOTANGLE 4 A = • , El 5 . 2 , / / ) _____ M R I T E ( 6 , 6 0 1 ) 7 I N , ! 7 M I M , 7.M A X , I Z 7 4 X , H , H Y P S , S M 1 , S M 2 ,"sM 2 , A R ATf'o"""  0158  601  C  0154 015 5  T  01^6  c  D  3  C  M  FORMAT.'  9CATED 1ATE0  GE0  M  0'  A T P O T NT AT  OQINT  2 H Y P S OMETR. I C  D  HC  M  E T R Y : ' , / / , * M I N I M'J M  NU^B "  ' , I 4 , /, ' " i x i m . ' M  M JMf} E~ • , ! 4 , / , ' L O C A L  INTEGRAL  = ' , F? „ 5 , / , ' T  PELT F F M  C  A N  = ' ,  =',  8 _ 2 , '  c  f q  ->2,'  =« , FP  S L O P E : ' , / , • c  0  0159 6Q  6  XLL6_1_ 016 2 0163  ._16.4_  F  D  016 5 0166  TOTAL  ELEVATION  EL^VAT^ON  S  2,  1  LO  '. 0 r  OX , / ,  JNWEIGHTFO  - P . ? , ? , / , ' . >'F I GH : 0 BY M A P AREA 9 . 5 , / , ' „ . W E I ; HT E I 4Y T U F AREA , = P 5,7", •ARE A R A T I O =',F8,5,//) WRITE(6,602) OU,nj,UL,UK,JKl ,PFU,OV,OV,VL,»RV - ) 7 nc.»j)_T(» yc CTQR ANALYS I S : ' , / / , ' U N W E I GHT=0 ( U N I T VECTORS ) : ' , / , ' ne T IENTATION =',F?o2,/,» OTP =',F8o2,/,' LI?) 2 =' , F 3 . 2 , / , ' K =',F3.2,/,' J00/K 3F3.?,/. • ROUGHNESS. FA CT0.'_5' , F f l , 2 , //_, • VE T G.1TED_ BY T " J F._AP F,A : • , / 4 ORIENTATION =',F8.2,/,' ^1P =»,Fe.2,7t* L(«) 5 =',F8.2,/,' ROUGHNESS FACTOR = ' , F 8 . 2 > j QQ<; _ J flRC » i GO T 0 9 9 9 9 9 WR I T E ( 6 , ° 0 0 ) J O ^ S 033 FORMAT ( M ' , " = N " i OF... P I I N - __ T H I 5. . _UN_I.'-'.CJL_UDFO__j I 3 i l . . J 0 . 3 S . . ' )_._ ST 0 ° END p  Ql  C  M  MEMORY  XflMJ-lLF.  REQUIREMENTS  ULME =  !_,___.  0013A5 SE C fJ.N I S  BYTES  0.R T R AN I V  :  G  COM P I L E R  0001 0002  -13202-06-74  READER  10:19:35  PAGE  0001  S ' B ' O ' J T I N E RE I D E DHENS I O N X ( 5 0 D ) , Y ( 5 0 3 ) , 7( 5 0 0 > , I ( 1 Q O O ) , I V ( 1 O D D ) , J V (1 0 0 0 ) ,KV(1. 0 0 0 ) 1 , L V ( 1 D 0 0 > , T I T L E ( 1 ? ) , A L T ( 2 0 ,2 0 ) , I D f ? 0 , 2 0 ) t O M n \ j X , Y , 7., I T , T , J V , KV , L V» T I l . F , T , L A * , I T RI R =A ^ ( 5 , I C O ) I T Y = E , N F W " , N E . ^ T , XSCALE , Y S C A L F , Z S C A L F , L A K E , IT P I , I D I A G , V P I ,NC 0 R*-* A T ( _ I 5 » 3 E 1 2 , 5 , 5 1 5 ) I ( T T Y P E , N E . 9 3 0 ) G O T O I L» <" = o p o C  T  M  0003 0004 0005 0006 0007 000* 0009 0010 0011 0012 0013 00 T 4 00' 5 0016  v ,  1 00  .004.6  0047 0048  004P  0050 0051 0052 0053 0054 0055  T  C  J  I  ( x  C  S O A L  E  o, 0, 0 ) X S C A  „ F  L F  ='  , 0  YS C . A L E= XS C AL E Z S C A L E = 1.0  C  IF( I T Y P E . F O . l ) G O T =0 IF{>'E.yP F0.1) G O T O 3 NP=o R I  O  R E A 0 ( 5 , 7 0 1 ) I , X ( ! ) , Y ( I) , 7 ( I ) FORMAT! 15 ,?,F6o0) IF(T,50.0) G O T O 3 X ( I )=X ( I )*XSCA! F Y(I)=Y(T)*YSCALE Z< I ) = Z ( T ) * Z S C A L E NP=N'P+1 GO T O 2 I F M E W T . E Q . U G C TO 5 5 NT = 1  3  0026  0044 0045  C  R E AD(5,103 ) ( I T L ( I ), 1= 7 , 1 9 ) OR' AT(i o>4)  C  I (YSCALE_EO-,0,0) IF(7SCALE.EC.0,0)  101  0043  M  T  3 = T U R N  8 0019 0020 0021 0022 0023 002400 2 5  003 7 0038 0039 004.0 0041 0042-  O  C  1 103  •>  0027 0023 002<3 0030 0031 003? 0033 0034 00*5 0036  V  p  0017 001  T  V  4 102  5 55 200 201 2 02 20"*  RE A D ( 5 , 1 0 2 ) I T ( M T ) , I v ( N T ) "F0R^ A T r 5 T 5 ) I F ( I T ( N T ) «.EOoOJ G O T O 5 NT=NT«-1 T . GO 0 4 \jT=VT_i  ,JV(NT),KV(NT  »,1V(NT)  :  WRITF( ,200)(TITLE(I),1=1,1^) FO R A T ( ' 7 ' , 1 ° A 4 , / ) W R I T F ( 6 ,201) N » , NT OR AT(• T H I S DATA S E T W A S T R I A N G U L A T E D M A N ( A L L Y ; i f "' ? : O 1,' P O I N T S . A N D ' , 1 3 , ' T ' I A M G L E S , ' , / / ' O P T I O N S : • I I F ( M E W ° « E 0,1) WRIT=(6,?0Z) FDR«AT(' -USES S A ^ E POINTS AS P R E C FDIN G DATA S E T ' ) I F ( V E W T . F O . 1) W P . I T E ( 6, 2 0 3 ) F_RMAT(«. .-USES. ..SA'-'E T P I A N . G L E S A S P R E C E D I N G D A T A S E T ') IF(XSCALE.NE.l.O) W R I E ( 6 , i ? 0 4 ) XSCALE -- - FOR«AT(» - X S C 4 L E = • , E 1 2 .5) I-E(YSCALE,NE,1,0) WRlTP(f,,?r>5) Y S C A L 6  U  C  V  T  204  =  205 20  6.  207 50  F O  R  A T ( *  M  -  YSC  A L E =  '  , E  1  . 2,  5)  I F ( 7 S C A L E . M E . 1 , 0 ) W R r T F ( 6 , 206) FORMAT( •..-ZSCALE-' , F I ; „ 5 | I F ( L A K . E Q . l ) W3 I T _ ( A , ? _ 7 ) FO R A T ( * -LAKES ARE EXCLJPED p= T"PN I F ( N E W P . E O . 1 ) G O TO 61 DO 6 0 I = , N » W  1  .60 ._—  150  R.E AD I 5 ,15 D) ( A L T (.1 • J ) , J = l , N C ) FORM T(3X,15 5.0) NP=NP.*NC NR. 1= M R - 7 C  A  ZSCAIE  F D 3  U  THE ANALYSIS')  N T A T N S ~ " »  ,T3  OP TR AN IV G COMPILER 0056 00 5 7 0058 0059 0060 006 1 0Q6 ?_ 006 3 0064 006 5 0066 0067 J2Q.6 8_ 0069 0070 00 7 T 0072 0073 .0074 0075 0076  PAGE 0002  NC1=NC-1 N T = 2 *NR1*NCI 00 l 1=1,NR 00 51 J = l i N C 10= ( I-I )"NC«-J IDMf _,.)) = i o _X'.J? _! = - OA T . I . J t *v SC ALE Y{ 10 } = L 0 AT (NP-! )"Y SCALE" Z( I 3 ) = ALT ( I , J ) -*ZSC ALE CON INiIE CONTINUE INT = 1 DO 5 2 1 = 1 00 52 J=1,NC1 1 (TDIAG) 53, 53, 5^ C  51  61  T  c  IT( I N T ) _ T : ' ) T  54  I V U N T ) = IGM( I , j ) JV(INT)=IOM(i+i,j) _ YJ I N T ) = I DMJJ. + 1 J t l L LV(INT)=0 INT=INT+1 IT(INT)-TNT IV(I NT)=I DM( I , J ) JVUNTJ=TDM(I ,J + 1) J<V.UNI.)=IDM{I+1. J4-1.) LV(INT)=0 INT= INT+1 GO TO 52 IT(INT)=INT IV(INT)=TDM(I ,J) _J.VJ.LN_T" ».= i y  ( I _l_+l >  KV(INT)=IDM(H-1,J) LV<INT)=0 INT=INT»i IT(INT)=INT IV( INT) = IDM(I, J4-1) _J V (TNT ). = I D M ( I+1,J ) KV(INT)=IDM(I+1, LV(INT)=0 INT=INT ». 52  CONTINUF INT=INT-1 HPITE{6,?00.)(.TITI.E(.I), 1= I F ( I NT, NE. NT)  303  FORM AT ( •  301  W R I T E ( 6, 300)  INT=•, I ' , B U T  WRIT=(6.301)  1,19) INTENT  NT=• , I  4,/)  NR,M:.NQ,MT  FORM AT( ' THIS DATA SET IS P.-VS^O ON A ',13,' BY ',13,' ALT IT'JOE M . T 1R IX; •, /, ' I T CONTAINS i , n , i POINTS AMn TRIANGlFS',//,»0PTI _2.0NS: '.).. -._•.: _ I (VEWPoEO.1) WPITE(6, 202) IF(NEWT.EQ.l) WPITEI6,20?) _-J-EJ_X_SCALE, EO. YSCAl E ) W IT F( 6 , ? 02 ) XSCALF FORMAT.' -SOUA^E GPIO. G'TO S P /* F1 2,• MFTPFS') ,_, „„ - -C I NG = • ,.5, IF (XSCALF.NE.YSCALE ) W RITE ( 6 , ?0 J XSCALF, YS~ A L rORVAL(.L_._.r_COL.UMN..SfiACIMjG=' , El 2, 5, • «=TRFS ; ~R_tw SPAC ING=•,c1?_ <=. • 1MET-ES * ) IF(IOIAG.EO.O) WPITE(6,?04) P Q ^ " > ( „. -USEO N3RTHWPST-SPUT(-FA.ST 01 AGONAL S ' ) S  D  302  :!  -3^-3 01 0 9 01 1 0  10:19:35  c  0078 0079  0103 0104 31Q5_ 0106 0107  02-06-74  c  0Q77  0081 0082 008 3 0034 0085 _036_ 0087 008 8 0039 0090 0091 _00.?__ 0093 0094 0095 0096 0397 ___L8_ 0099 0130 0107. 0102  -133-  READER  304  >  p  V  T  -134-  QRTPAN IV G COMPILER  REACE°  :  0111 0112 0113  305  C  0114  R  END  c  TURN  TOTAL MEMORY REQUIREMENTS 001B2C BYTES TIME =  •  1,0:19:35  .  •• ,  :  •'' PAGE  IF (10 I AG. E O . n WPITF(6,'05» FORMAT ( • -'JSEO NO-. TM * S T- F 3 U HWE S T ! A G 0 NA L S * ) IP(ZSCALE.NE.l.O) W ' I' E ( 6, 2 0 6 ) Z S C AL F  0115  COMPILE  •  02-06-74  0.5  SECONDS  T  0003  -135-  Appendix 1Mb: Triangular Data-sets Maps of a l l the triangular data-sets analyzed in this study are g i v e n , w i t h the exception of sample 11a which was illustrated in Figure 6 . 1 . These maps are a l l at the scale of 1:50,000; areas are given in insets.  1:250,000 scale maps of the same  -136-  -137-  Sample l i d , Ptarmigan Creek map-area (83 D/10W)  Sample 18a, Manning Park map-area (92 H/2W)  -144-  Appendix I lie: Computer Results This appendix includes the computer output for the thirteen triangular data-set analyses and fourteen grid analyses upon which the comparisons reported in Chapter 6 were based. The titles of these output sheets are selfexplanatory .  .  _  _  -J_45-  I L L E C 11 L E W A t T ( S A ^ L E 3 ) GENERAL: Ai JM'^FK  CF  P O I N T S  _=  9_0_  NUMBER OF TR I ANGLE S= IS 3 TOTAL AREA = 0 o 4 3 9 92 9 6 ~ 03 PERCE NT_ L..KI. S.. + ..SEA=_ 0.3 NUMBER FOR ANALYSIS= if3 AREA FOR ANALYSIS = 0 , 439 V->29 6S 08 .HE__N TRIANGLE AREA = Oo3202S661E 06 C  GEQMr'RfMHGMFXRY_L  MINIM'JM ELEVATICN = 3 7 7 . 82 MA XI MUM E LE VATICM _ 2 74 3 , 2 0 "LOCAL RELlFF '= m65o'33 HYPSOMETRIC INTEGRAL = 0.44691 VFAN SLOPE: UNWE I GHT FO = 0. 5 3 3 C2 WEIGHTED BY MAP AREA = Co 58537 WEIGHTED BY TRUE AREA = 0 . 5 97 97 AREA RATIO = 1,1634 1 VECTOR  ANALYSIS:  UNWEIGHTED(UNIT ORIENTATION DIP  VECTORS ) : = 102,50 = 31,70 =  K.  100/K  ROUGHNESS  ~ ~  = = FACTOR^  3 6 . 9 1 _  7 . 59 13.18 13.09  WEIGHTED BY TRUE AREA: 0IR I Fj>l TAT ION 115,53 "'DIP • = 33.18" LU) = 36.20 ROUGHNESS F ACTQR= 13.30  LOCATED AT POINT DUMBER LOCATED AT POINT NUMBER  83 53_  .  PTARM I G A N C P E E K GENERAL  N U _ 3 J _  -146-  11 A ):  A L L P 0 1 M1 S  :  JJE_  K i J M rj P R TOTAL  ( S A' 1 P L E  PO I NT S  =  0 F " T R I A~\) G L E S ~ AREA  PERCENT NUMBER  "  =  L A K - S__ + G E FOR  '  ~  1 3 6  0 . 4 3 ° 9 Q 3 2 3 E  \--_  0 8 0 , 0  A N A L Y S I S =  AREA  FOR  WE AN  T R I A N G L E  A N A L Y S I S  1 3 6  =  0 , 4 3  =  0 ,  AREA  9 9 3 2  C  3E  3 6 0 . 8 9 1 2 6  0 3 0 6  GEOMORPHOMETRY:  MINIMUM M A X I M U M  LOCAL  ELEVATIC'N  E LEV ATI r N  RELIE'F"  H Y P S O M E T R I C  MEAN  " I N T E G R A L  393.00  =  2 4 0 4 , 0 0  =  l^o9.00""  =  0 , 2 6 3 4 1  "  W E I G H T E D  BY  MAP  W E I G H T E D  BY  TRUE  R A T I O  VECTOR  A \E  "  =  A  =  0 , 3 5 5  =  0  =  I , C 8 9 1 7  AR E A  '  '  0 , 4 1 4 5 3  V E C T O R S ) :  O R I E N T A T I O N  =  3 1 , 8 6  D I P  =  8 5 , 7 6  H%)__  = ~  '  100/K  9 0 , 9 7 =  1 1 .  =  ROUGHNESS W E I G H T E D  3  A N A L Y S I S :  U N W E I G H T E O ( U N I T  'k'  LOCATE 0 AT P O I N T L O C A T E D AT_ P O I N T  S L O P E :  U N W E I G H T E D  AREA  =  FACTOR=  BY  TRUE  _0 R I E N J £ n O N_ " DTP~ •' L I S ) ROUGHNESS  •  0 0  3 , 0 9 9 . 0 3  A R E A :  ^_  6 0o35  =  ay  0  e  7  =  9 1 , 3 8  E A C T O R -  3 , 1 2  37  3 ? 8 C 0 ~  NUMBER  NUMBER  79 68  -147P f Ai>• 1 0 A N  CP  1  S V H  11 8 )  L E  ;  :  _  F R 0 M " l  _  _  _  : ? 5 0 , 0 0 0  _ ••'•AP  G E N E R A L :  NUMBER  0 F  PQ I'lT S  NUMBER  CP  TR"lV>IGLSS=  T O T A L  i R E A  NUMBER Q  E A,  FOR  F O P  MEAN  2_9 "  =  PeRCENJ._LfeKES...t  A  _f  4 1 0 „ 4 ) >99 7 7 6 E r  _S = A = _ .  0.0  A M A LY S I S =  A N A L Y S I S  T R I A N G L E  A R E A  OS  4 1  =  O  ~  0 . 1 1 9 , 3  0  4 '.<"• 9 9 7 7 6 E 1 6 0 E  0 3 0 7  G E Q M 3 R P H 0 M F T R Y :  M I N I M U M  E L E V A T I O N  =  7 3 1 , 0 4  L O C A T E D  A T  P O I N T  N U M B E R  2 9  M A X I M U M  E L E V A T I O N  -=  2 36 2 o.10  L O C A T E D  A T  P O I N T  N U M 3 E P  1 9  =  1 6 6 L.  1 6  =  0 . 2 6 5  3 0  L O C A L  R E L I E F  H Y P S O M E T R I C MEAN  I N T E G R A L  S L O P E :  U N W E I G H T E D "  ~  W E I G H T E D  RY  MA °  W E I G H T E D  BY  T R U E  AREA  "  =  0  .  -AREA  3  -  A R E A  R A T I O  U N W E I G H T E D ( UN I T O R I E N T A T I O N  0 , 3 9 3 6 4  =  1 . 0 8 3 2 2  V E C T O R S ) : =  3 4 J . 4 3  DIP L(  87,29  %)  K  ~  _ •  '  "  100/K  BY  -  Lit) R O U G H N E SS  7  F A C T O R =  T R U E  -  9 > r  0  7 « 7 6  A R E A :  O R I E N T A T I O N " D I P  9 2 . 2 4 1 2 . 5 7  =  R O U G H N E S S  W E I G H T E D  =  1 3 . 3 6  8.3 / 6  -  c  = F A C T O R =  4 3  =  I i i  7 3 8 3  0 » 3 7 8  +  9 1 . 9 3 8  o  0 7  PTARMIGAN C.K ?f_K ( S A' 1 •' L r  -148- _  A " O R )X'„ SAM" POINTS AS  JlCl  CUT 1 :5 0 , 0 0  GENERAL (VUM3F P. OF POINTS NUMBER OF TP I ANGLES= TOTAL A R F A = 0 4 39 99 64 0?: PERCENT LAKES + SE\=_ 0 NUMBER FOR ANAL YSI S= " 4 AREA FOR ANALYSIS = 0, 48999 B4GE MEAN TRIANGLE AREA = 0,3. 1951 13CE o  o  ?9 4 3. 08 0 1 03 C7  GEOMOR°H 0 E T R Y : M  MINIMUM EI.EVATIC.-. MAXIMUM ELEVATION LOCAL RELIEF HYPSOMETRIC INTEGRAL E AN S L O P E : U N W E I G H T E D " WEIGHTED BY M A P A <E A WEIGHTED RY TRUE AREA AREA RATIO  6 9 4 , 94 2404,26 = 1709,32 = 0,26517  V  =  0 o  3  7  6  ?  0  = 0 . 3 6694 = 0.38063 l . o a2ai  VECTOR ANALYSIS UNWEIGHTED? UNIT VECTORS ) ORIENTATION = 18,33 DIP = 39 o 2 0 LJ •*)_ = 9 2,17 K " " " " = 12746" 100/K = 3.02 ROUGHNESS FACTOR^ 7,83 WEIGHTED BY TRUE AREA: ORIENTATION 30,5 9 "38,0 5" DI P 92,41 LiZ) 7,59 FACTOR: ROUGHNESS  LOCATF 0 AT POINT NUMBER LOCATED AT POINT NUMBER  17 19  -149P T A R M I GAN  G E N E R A L  CR E E K  NUMB E R  OF  P O I N T S  B>;R  OE  TRI  AL  AREA  TOT  \LL  P O I N T S  :  NU  M  lij>) :  ( S A M P L E  PERCENT N U M 3E k '  A N G L E S=  "  =  L A K E S E0R  +  SEA  A NA L Y S I  A R E A  FOR  MEAN  T R I A N G L E  "  0 . 4  '"" 8 0 9 92  '  1 4 3  4 3 6  _  .  0 8 0 . 1 5  S=  A N A L Y S I S AREA  14  3  =  0 , 4 3 9 ' " > 9 2 4 8E  0 8  =  0 , 3 4 2 6 5 2 0 6 E  0 6  G E O M O R PHCME T RY  M I N I M U M  E L E V A T I O N  M A X I M U M  E L E V A T I O N  L O C A L  R E L I E F  1 7 0 <3  UNWE f 3 H T E 0  3 2  0 , 2 6 1 6 5  '  0 , 3  BY  MAP  W E I G H T E D  BY  T R U E  AREA  D.  A R E A  1 , 0  A N A L Y S I S  UNW E I G H T E D ( U N  I T  V E C T O R S ) :  O R I E N T A T I O N  4 1 o  D I P  8 4 , 6 4  L ( %)  =  ~  W E I G H T E D  12  4 9  CI  8,  R O U G H N E S S  F A C T O R ^  TRUE  BY  O R I E N T A T I O N  A R E A : =  4 9 , 6 5  D I P  3 7  L ( %)  9 . 1 .  R O U G H N E S S  0 5  9 2 , 0 5  ' =  F A C T O R :  3 1 1 6  3 70  7 0  Go 3 9 0 5 3  R A T I O  V E C T O R  K 100/K  0  S L O P E :  W E I G H T E D  A R E A  AL  I N T !  H Y P S O M E T R I C MEAN  6 9 4 o "54 2 4 0 4 o 2 4  . 3 3 6 9  3 , 3 1  9 1 4 6  0  A T  P O I N T  N U M B E R  3 5  L O C A T E D  L O C A T E  AT  P O I N T  N U M B E R  7 0  -150MANN f N G  P A R K ( S A M PL 11  A-  l«) ) :  1 : .C ,CC'J  SCALE  "HIGH  R r SC L L T I E N "  GENERAL :  S  LUMEiLJJ QE P C I i l l S .  f i I i  NUMBER  !  TOTAL ....  CF AREA  PERCENT. NUM13ER  115.  =  TRIANGLES=  2C7  =  0.43«99C72E  L A K E S .+ ..SEA-.. FOR  AN AL Y 3 I S=  AREA  FOR  ANALYSIS  MEAN  TRIANGLE  =  AREA  2C7 0 . 4 3 ° 9 9 C 7 2F  _.  MINIMUM  ELEVATION  =  1051.66  MAXIMUM  ELEVATION  -  19 3 5 . ^ 3  RELIEF  =  HYPSOMETRIC  INTEGRAL  . .NEA.N..S.LC.P.E UNWEIGHTED W E I G H T E D BY W E I G H T E D BY AREA  . 7 7.  MAP A R E A T R U E AREA  UNWEIGHTEC (UNIT ORIENTATION D IP  0 . . <2 26  = = =  0.3 £9. 2 0 . 3 9 3 15 0.3.747  -  1.C79S4  VECTORS ): 24.16 89.27  L m  92  K  1 3 . 72 7.29 7 .25  WEIGHTED  FACTOR-  BY  TRUE  ORIENTATION  AREA: 351,0 1  F AC TOR -  39.52 9 2.61 7 .39  ( ? )  ROUGHNESS  .75  =  DI P L  LOCATED  AT  POINT  LJJ^IJ:I.._AT_j _ 0 j N  T  NUMBER NUMBER  S2  =  ANALYSIS:  100/K ROUGHNESS  _  .... .  RATIO  VECTOR  C8  •= 0 . 23 6 71 C4_t_F_ 06  .._ GEC.M0R_PH CM£I_R_Y_:_  LOCAL  C8  . ..0.0  2 __15  •151 M A N N I N G  P A R K  I S A M P L E  1 8 )  :  l : ? 5 C , C C 0  M—  SC A L E  MAP  G E N E R A L :  N U M B E R  CF  P O I N T S  NUMBER  EE  T R I A N G L E S ^  TOTAL  il  AREA  =  _ 5 . 22 0 . 4 3 9 9 9 9 C H E  P E R C E N T ....L A K E S . + ...S E \ = N U M B E R  FOR  AREA  FOR  _M E A N  T R I  C8 0 , 0 . .  ANA LY S I S -  A N A L Y S I S A N G L E  AREA  3 2  =  0 . 4 R 9 5 c c c 4E  C8  =  0 . 1 3 3 1 2  C7  4 7 0 E  -GECM.GR£HCME0L!1_  M I N I M U M  E L E V A T I O N  =  1 0 6 6 .  £ 0  L O C A T E  E  AT  P O I N T  MJ M PER  NAX  E L E V  -  19 C 5.  CO  L O C A T E  0  A T  P O IN  N U MB ER_  I MUM  L O C A L  AT I O N  R E L I E F  H Y P S O M E T R I C  = I N T E G R A L  83  =  8 . 2 0  0 . 5 1 7 3 1  _.f'E.AN.„S.LOP.EjL._  U N W E I G H TEO W E I G H T E D  BY  MAP  W E I G H T E D  BY  T R U E  A R E A  AREA AREA  R A T I O  J  V E C T O R  i  UNW E I  =  0 . 2 6 0 1 5  •=  C . 2 : 5 1 9  =  0 . 2 T 7  r  =  A N A L Y S I S :  GHTE 0 (  UN I T  V E C T O R S ) :  O R I E N T A T I O N  =  3 9 . 8  2  D I P  -  3 9 . 2  7  L.(J.)  =  9 6 . 4 1  K  =  1 0 0 / K  •=  A O U  GHNESS  W E I G H T E D  BY  TRUE  A R E A :  =  D I P  =  R O U G H N E S S  7  3 . 7 1 3 . 5 9  ORIENTATION L I S )  2 6 . 9  F A C T O R =  37.29 3 9  26  1 . 0 3 5 8 2  . 3 9  -  9 6 . 5 5  F AC TOR=  3 . 4 5  T  M A N N I N G  P A R K ( S A M i > l . f i  1.8):  C -  l . : . C , G C O  S C A L E ,  APPRO X .  S A M F  P>'.NTS  G E N E R A L  J>JJjM.'3_E R  O F  P Q I v| T S  NUMBER  CF  T R I A N G L E S ^  T O T A L  A R E A  2 2  =  0.  4 3 9 9 <  PERCENT . L_AK ES.__+_ S E A " N U M BE R FOR A N A [ Y S I S = A R E A  FOR  A N A L Y S I S  MEAN  T R I A N G L E  AREA  >  9 C 4 E  C3  CO "  =  0 .  =  0 . 153  "'  4 39 9 9 9 0 4 E 1 2 A 7 C E  3 2 CS C 7  .-GE0.MJBPH0Mr3T.B_Y_ M I N I  MUM  JiAXj___UM_ L O C A L  E L E V A T I O N  1 C 6 6 . 3 0  L O C A T E C  EL E V A T  1 8 3 9 . 7 6  L O C A T E D  ION  R E L I E F  H Y P S O M E T R I C  = I N T E G R A L  8 2 2 . 9 6  •=  0 . 5 4 3 . 2  =  0 . 3 C E 5 2  X E A J S L S k Q P f : L M W E I G H T E D W E I G H T E D  B Y  MAP  W E I G H T E D  BY  T R U E  A R E A  AREA  0 . 2 9 8 1 . C 4  C ( UN I T  AT  V E C TO R S )  I O N  35 5  P  2 0  100/K  W E I G H T E D  18_ . 1 1  4 . 9 ESS  F A C T O R -  BY  T R U E  O R I E N T A T I O N  A R E A =  10-6 8 9  L(*)  95 E A C T O R  7  4 . 3 2  P  R O U G H N E S S  1  . 7 4  __95_.  K  ROUGHN  .5  8 3  .LULL  D I  0 . 2 9 5 4 6  =  ANALYSIS  I G H T E  O R I ENT D I  -  R A T I C  VECTOR UNWE  A ^ F A  -  .3  JL 2  . 4 3  5 2 7 4 6  AT  Al.  P 0  I N T  P O I N T  NOME  ER  2  NUMB  FR  3  AS  18  6  -153T A T L A  L A K E  ( S A M P L E  2 4 ) :  ' i N C L U O  TNG  L A K E S  G E N E R A L :  N U M B E R  OF  P O I N T S  NUMBER  OF  T R I A N G L E S =  T O T A L  j 4 ?  A R E A  R E K C E N T . NUMBER  "  =  L A K E S . FUR  0  o  4  ± _ . S E A=_.  399 B 9 2  n  E  .  F O R  A N A L Y S I S  MEAN  T R I A N G L E  8  2 5 0  =  0 .  =  0 . 1 9 5 5  A R E A  0  0  3 . 7 6  A N A L Y S I S ^  A R E A  2 5  4 3 9 9 3 9 2  SE  9 56 9E  C 8 0  6  . G E O M O R P H O M E T R Y :  M I N I M U M  E L E V A T I O N  MAX I  E L E V A T I O N  MUM  L O C A L  R E L I E F  H Y P S O M E T R I C MEAN U  N  9 0 9c  S3  1 1 1 2 . 5 2  I N T E G R A L  =  2 0 2 . 6 9  =  0 . 2 6 7 3 9  S L O P E : W  E  I  G  H  T  E  W E I G H T E D  BY  MAP  W E I G H T E D  BY  T R U E  A R E A  D  "  ' " = '  A R E A  =  A R E A  =  R A T I O  V E C T O R  =  A N A L Y S I S  UN WE I G H T E D ( U N I T  0 . C 7 4 7 0 0 .  1 . 0  :  V E C T O R S ) :  O R I E N T A T I O N  4 5 . 5 2  D I P  8 9 . 6 4  ICS)  9 9 . 4 1  K  "  =  J.OO/K  =  R O U G H N E S S  W E I G H T E D  BY  L(35) R O U G H N E S S  0 . 6 0  TRUE  0 . 5 9  A R E A :  O R I E N T A T I O N  DIP "  1 6 7 . 9 9  E A C T O R =  0 4 7 7 2  0 . 0 4 3 C 3  3 4 1 . 5 9  = """  89.T7  =  9 9 . 7 6  F A C T O R =  0 . 2 4  02  '»6  L O C A T E O  AT  P O I  LO C AT  AT  P O I N T  F 0  NT  NUMBE  R  N U M B E R  ..  TATLA  LAKE  -154-  ( S A M P L E 2 4 ) : E X C L U D ING L A K E S  GENERAL: NUMBER OF P O I N T S • \.±Z NUMBER CF" 1'RIANGLE S = " 250 TOTAL A R E A = 0, 4 3 9 ° 9C C 8E 0 5 P E R C E N J L A K E S +_ 5 A.. . . __ 3, 7 6 N U M3 E R F 0 R A MALY S I S= 23 8 A R E A FOR A N A L Y S I S = 0, 4 7 1 5 9 C C 8 E 0 3 MEAN T R I A N G L E AREA = 0 1 9 3 1 4 7 C 6 E 0 6 C  O  GEOMORPHOMETRY M I N I MUM E L E V A T I O N MAXIMUM E L E V A T I O N L O C A L RELIEF H Y P S O M E T R I C INTEGRAL M E A N SLOPE: UNWE T GHTED * = W E I G H T E D B Y MAP AREA - J l L l i L L T ED  BY  TR  iJE  AREA P A T I O  VECTOR  AR  E A  909 3 3 1112,52 = 20 2,69 = 0,27530 0  0 , C 7 3 46 = 0 , 0 4 5 58 =  0,  ANALYSIS:  UNWEIGHTED(UNIT OR I EN TAT ION DIP L m K  100/K R O U G H N E S S  VECT0 R S) 45,52 39»63 99,33 159,92 0,63 F ACTOR: 0,62  W E I G H T E D BY T R U E ARE A: ORIENTATION = 3 41,5 9 DIP = 39,76 L.S) = 99,75 R O U G H N E S S F AC TO R= 0,2 5  !  C 49  90  1,0 02 5 5  LOCATED LOCATED  AT AT  0 I N T NUMBER 7 "01 NT NUMBER 1 '6 P  -155G U I  T E 7. L I  L A K E  ( SAM  ' L E  E I  I N C L U D I  )  N'..  L A K E S  G E N E R A L  N U M B E R  CE  N U M B E R  OF  T O T A L  1 1 4  P U I N T S TR  I  A N G L E S  19 6  1  3, 4  A R E A  P E R C E N T N U M B E R  _ L A K E S _ _ j F O R  8 9 9 9 1 3 6 E  SEA =  OS  4 o 7  A N A L Y S I S -  A R E A  FOR  A N A L Y S I S  M E A N  T R I A N G L E  A R E A  19  =  0,  4 8 9  9 9 13 6 E  =  0,  2 4 7 4 7 C 3  0  7E  8 8 3  0 6  G E O M O R P H O M E T R Y :  MI MI  MUM  E L E V A T I O N  1 0 6  3  MAX I  MUM  E L E V A T I O N  2 2 ~>  e.  ,  =  1 1 9  40  3 2  =  0.3  3 7  -  0  =  0 , 2  L O C A L  R E L I E F  H Y P S O M E T R I C MEAN U  N  I N T E G R A L  5,7  23  S L O P E : W  E  I  G  H  T  E  D  W E I G H T E D  BY  MAP  W E I G H T E D  BY  T R U E  A R E A  "  "  ~  ~  =  0,  A R E A A R E A  R A T I O  V E C T O R  A N A L Y S I S :  V E C T O R S )  O R I E N T A T I O N  7  . 9 2  8.3, 2 9  D I P  9 5 , 6 5  %)  K  = •=  100/K  R O U G H N E S S  W E I G H T E D  22,88 4.37  F A C T O R -  BY  T R U E  O R I E N T A T I O N  4 . 3 5  A R E A : =  5,  S3  D I P  8 5 . 4 9  L (  9 7 , 0 8  %)  R O U G H N E S S  27 o  l o  U N W E I G H T E D . U N I T  L (  7 5  0  F A C T O R -  2 .  9 2  5 1 4  2 G 2  5 9  15  9 0  0 3 3  3 1  L O C A T E D  AT  P O I N T  NI.J M B E R  L O C A T E D  AT  P O I  N U M B E R  N T  2 7 2  -156-  GH i TF 7 I. [ I.AK E ( S V -1 H. E EiX C1L ) U U I  N''  LAKES  GENERAL: Q F POINTS  NUMRcf  1 1 4  NUMBER OF T R I A N G L E S TOTAL A REA -  1 9 3 0 4 39 9 9 I 5 2 E 03  P F R C E N T L AK E S + _ S E A = NU -3E"R " F O R " A N A L Y S I S ~ AREA FOR A N A L Y S I S = MEAN T R I A N G L E AREA =  4, 7 8 18 5 0.4<!6554CcE 08 0 . 2 5 U 9 1 3 7 E 06  V  0  GEOMORPHOMETRY: MINIMUM MAXIMUM LOCAL  ELEVATION ELEVATION  0  RELIEF  =  HYPSOMETRIC INTEGRAL = MEAN S L O P E : UNWErGHT E D " " " ' " " ~ = W E I G H T E D 3 Y MAP A R E A W E I G H T E D BY T R U E A R E A = AREA RATIO  VECTOR  106 3 75 2 2 5 Eo 57 119 4.S2 0.354 13 0.29448 0.2 1277 0.22638 lo 03493  ANALYSIS:  UNWEIGHTED(UNIT OR I E N T AT I O N DIP  VECTORS):  L( %>  7 . 02 82.79 95.40 21.61  K  =  100/K  -  4.63  FACTOR-  4 . 6 0  ROUGHNESS  W E I G H T E D BY T R U E 0 R_I EM T A T I O N "DID" ~ " ROUGHNESS  =  AREA: = 5 . 83 35,27  FACTOR-  96.9 5 3.05  LOCATED LOCATED  AT AT  POI NT POINT  NUMBER NUMBER  2 72  -10/O C N A  K I VEP.  ( S A M P L E  4  1. )  G E N E R A L :  N U M B E R  GIF  NUMBER T O T A L p  E  -  RCE N T  T A N G L E S  L A K E S .  FQ»?  ME A N  TP  2 4  1  0 o 4  F O R  A R E A  G  TR  A R E A  N U M B E R  .13.8.  P H I N T S  E  n  Y S I  S  A N A L Y S I S E  c  B 0 6 C E  *.._S.:.-.V  A N A L  I A N G L  3 9  A R E A  0  O B  _Q.Q  r  2 4 0  --  0 . 4  =  0 .  8 9 9 8 * 6 3 E  2 0 4 1 6 2 3  I E  0 8 0 6  E . 0 M J 3 R f H_0 M E T R Y _  M  E L E V A T I O N  M A X I M U M .  M I N I M U  E L E V A T I O N  L O C A L  M E A N  .  A T  L O C A T E D  AT  =  8 6 8 .  5 3  I N T E G R A L  =  0 . 4 C 3  3 0  S L O P E :  U N W E I G H T E D  *  W E I G H T E D  BY  MAP  W E I G H T E D  BY  T R U E  A R E A  L O C A T E D  1 6  3 Co  R E L I E F  H Y P S O M E T R I C  4 3  3 9 9 o  = A R E A  0 . 3 9 1 6 4  =  U 2 A  0 . 3 8 0  =  1 . C 8 2 6 0  R A T I O  V E C T O R  A N A L Y S I S :  U N W E I G H T E D ( U N  I T  V E C T O R S ) : 2 2 0 .  O R I E N T A T I O N  1 7  DIP  3 8  L ( S)  9 2 . 4 2  K  1 3 . 1 4  100/K  W E I G H T E D  . 0 9  7.61  R O U G H N E S S  7.53  F A C T O R ^  BY  T R U E  ' O R I E N T A T I O N  A R E A : =  2 6 0 . 6 9  DI P  8  L I %)  9 2 . 3 9  R O U G H N E S S  9 0  0 . 3 9 1 2 2  F A C T O R ^  3."72  7 . 6 1  POINT POINT  N U M B E R  1 3 1  N U M B E R  7 3  ILLECILLEWAET  ( SAMPLE  ^3)  G P.To  ,  N W - S E 7)1 'AGON A'fs  GENERAL NUMBER  CF  POINTS  225  NUMBER GF T R I A N G L E S = 392 TOTAL AREA = 0. 43997936E 08 P E R C E N T L A K E S _ _ SEA = _ _ 0 0 NUMBER" F O R " A~NALYS"I'S= " 3 9 2 " O  AREA MEAN  FOR A N A L Y S I S T R I A N G L E AREA  = =  0 . 439-9 7 93 6E 0. 12499469E  08 06  GEOMORPHOMETRY MINIMUM MAXIMUM  ELEVATION ELEVATION  = =  LOCAL RELIEF HYPSOMETRIC INTEGRAL MEAN SLOPE: UNWEIGHTED W E I G H T E D BY W E I G H T E D BY AREA RATIO  VECTOR  MAP A R E A TRUE AREA  3 9 0 . 0 2 2 7 4  = =  1853.18 0.43536  =  0.52344  = =  0.52345 0.5 2900 1.143C7  ANALYSIS  UNWEIGHTED(UNIT ORIENTATION DIP Lit) K " 100/K ROUGHNESS WEIGHTED  BY  TRUE  OR I E N T A T_I_0N DIP  lit) ROUGHNESS  VECTORS): = 114.94 = 8 3 . 1 7 _= §8.64_ " = ~ 3.78 11.39  FACTOR=  "  11.36  AREA: = _1_15, 07 ="  3o 2 0  " 3 3 . 2 3  =  8 3 . 1 0  FACTOR=  11.90  L O C A T E D  A T  P O I N T  N U M B E R  2 0 7  L O C AT f D  AT  P O I N T  N U M B E R  9 2  . I L L E C I L L E W A E  T  -159-  ( S A M P L E  3 ) :  G R I D ,  N E - S W  D I A G O N A L S  G E N E R A L :  N U MB E R  OF  P O I N T  NUMBER  OF  TR  T O T A L  NUMBER  GEO  =  F 0 R  0  4-399 7 93 6E  o  _  ......  0  8  0 » 0  A N A L Y S I S -  A N A L Y S I S  J R i A N G L E _ A R _ E A  3 9  2  -  0 . 4 8 9 9 7 9 3 6 E  0 8  -  0 . 1 2 4 9 9 4 6 9 E  0 6  MORPHCMEJ.RY:  M I N I M U M  E L E V A T I O N  -  M A X I M U M  E L E V A T I O N  =  2 7 4 3 .  =  1 8 5  L O C A L  R E L I E F  H Y P S O M E T R I C N E A N  I N T E G R A L  =  " • "  W E I G H T E D  BY  MAP  W E I G H T E D  BY  T R U E  A R E A  8 9 0 . 0 2  3 . 1 3  0 . 4 3 5 7 6  = A R E A A R E A  0 . 5 1 8 4 3  -  0 . 5  =  0 . 5 3 6 5 4  R A T I O  V E C T O R  A N A L Y S I S :  U N I T  V E C T O R S )  O R I E N T A T I O N  =  D I P  =  8 3 . 2 2  -  83.77  Lm  _  K  ~ "  "  R O U G H N E S S  R O U G H N E S S  ' 8 .  38'  1 1 . 2 6  F A C T O R -  1 1 . 2 3  BY  L(5g)  '  -  T R U E  O R I E N T A T I O N ~  1 1 3 . 0 5  """"=  1 0 0 / K  W E I G H T E D  1 8 4 4  = 1 . 1 4 2 3 7  U N W E I G H T E D ^  D I P "  2 0  S L O P E :  U N W E I G H T E D  _  111 3 9 2  L A K E S _ + _ . S E A -  F O R  MEAN  -  A R E A  P E R C E N T  A R E A  S  I A N G L E S -  ~  _  A R E A : _= =  1 1 5 ^ 0 7 _ 8  3 . 2 3  =  8 8 . 1 5  F A C T O R -  1 1 . 8 5  L O C A T E D  A T  P O I N T  NUMBER  2 0 7  L O C A T E D  AT  P O I N T  N U M B E R  9 2  _  f  P T A R M I G A N  !  GENERAL:  !  > ( i I I .  - 1 6 0 -  CREEK (3V-1PLE 11 T? GRT6 ,  . OI&^HNW-SF >^TAC('NTLS  NUMBER CF POINTS ?2 5_ NUMBER OF TRI ANGLE S= 392 TOTAL AREA = 0.43997936E 03 P ERCENJ . LAKES.* SEA= ... . 0 . 0 NUMBER FOR ANALYSIS= 392 AREA FOR ANALYSIS = 0.439}7936E 08 MEAN TRIANGLE AREA = 0.12499469E 06 G E O M O J R P H _CM E  LRU  MINIMUM ELEVATION 694.94 — 2 3 0 l o 24 MAXIMUM ELEV ATI ON — 1 6 C 6 . 30 LOCAL RELIEF 0,27922 HYPSOMETRIC INTEGRAL MEAN SLOPE: — 'bo~3 4 3S7 UNWEIGHTED 0 . 3 43 69 WEIGHTEO BY MAP AREA 0 . 3 60 39 WEIGHTED BY T R U E AREA = AREA RATIO 1 . 0 78 58  UNWEIGHTEDIUNIT VECTORS): ORIENTATION = 53.92 DIP  = 8 8 . 4 9  l(%)  = 9 3 , 2 4  K = 100/K = ROUGHNESS FACTOR= W E I G H T E D  BY  T R U E  " "  LIZ) R O U G H N E S S  ~  14.75 6.78 6.76  A R E A :  O R I E N T j A T _ I O N  "DlP  LOCATED LOCATED  —  VECTOR ANALYSIS:  V.  ~ T : ^ 0  =  '  =  F A C T O R =  55_._6 2  ="87.94  92.77 7.23  AT AT  —  POINT POINT  -  5  NUMBER  22  NUMBER  1. ° o  - 1 6 1 P T A R M I G A N  C R E E K  ( S A M PLE  3 1 ) :  G R I D ,  1 : 5 0 , 0 0 0 ,  NE-SW DIAGONALS  G E N E R A L :  v f  N U M B E R  OF  NUM13ER  OF  T O T A L  P O I N T S  A R E A  P E R C E N T N U M B E R  22  5  3 9  2  5E  0  8  0  • o.  T R I A N GLE S 0 .  L A K E S FOR  +•  4 3 9 9 7 9 3  S E A -  A N A L Y S I S -  A R E A  F O R  A N A L Y S I S  MEAN  T R I A N G L E  -  A R E A  =  39  2  0 . 4 3 9 9 7 9 3 6 E  0  8  0 .  0  6  1 2 4 9 9  4 6  9E  G E O M O R P H O M E T R Y :  M I N I M U M  E L E V A T I O N  =  4 . 9 4  L O C A T E D  AT  M A X I M U M  E L E V A T I O N  =  2 3 0 1 . 2 4  L O C A T E D  AT  =  1 6 0 6 . 3 0  =  0 . 2 8 0 5 4  L O C A L  R E L I E F  H Y P S O M E T R I C MEAN  I N T E G R A L  W E I G H T E D  BY  MAP  W E I G H T E D  BY  T R U E  A R E A A R E A  R A T I O  V E C T O R  0 , 3 5 8 3 6 0 . 3 5 8 3 7  =  0 . 3 7 1 5 2  =  1 . C 7 9 3 2  NU  MPFR  2 2 1 °  5 9  V E C T O R S ) : 5 8 . 6 4  D I P  8 3 . 3 9  L  9 3 . 0 7  m  1 4 . 4 0  100/K  6 . 9 5  R O U G H N E S S  W E I G H T E D  BY  F A C T O R -  T R U E  6 . 9 3  A R E A :  O R I E N T A T I O N  5 5 , 6 2  D I P  8 7 , 9 4 9 2 , 7 1  U )  R O U G H N E S S  V.  -  O R I E N T A T I O N  K  i•  N U M B E R  A N A L Y S I S :  U N W E I G H T E D . U N I T  L  POINT POINT  S L O P E :  U N W E I G H T E O  A R E A  6 9  F A C T O R -  7 , 2 9  *  _ "PTARMI  ~CR  GAN  "(SVIP'tE  EEK  T l V T  -162OR I  I : 2 50,"o  6 7 "  0 0 ~  ~~NW^S  E  D  f  >^G0>« Al'."S  G E N E R A L  NUMBER  OF  P O I N T S  NUMBER  OF  T R I A N G L E S  T O T A L  A R E A  P E R CE_N J N UM BER  FOR  +__S_E A j  A N A L Y  F O R  MEAN  T R I A N G L E  ST  A R E A  E L E V A T I O N  M A X I M U M  E L E V A T I O N  "  H Y P S O M E T R I C  3 . 4 8 9 9 7 9 3 6 E  =  0 . 1 2 4 9 9 4 6 9 E  7 0 l o 2 3 6 2 o  I N T E G R A L  S L O P E :  ____  U N WE I G H T E D BY  MAP  W E I G H T E D  RY  T R U E  1 6 6 1 . 1 6  =  0 . 2 7 4 6 4  •=  0 . 3 5 4 6 0  -  —  A R E A A R E A  =  0 . 3 7 2 7 5 1 . C 8 1 9 5  A N A L Y S I S : '  U N W E I G H T E D I U N I T  V E C T O R S ) :  O R I E N T A T I O N  =  O I P  = _  ~  1 0 0 / K  W E I G H T E D  5 3 . 0 1 8 8 . 6  9 3 . 0 1  =  1 4 . 2 6  T R U E  6 . 9 9  A R E A :  0 R I E N T A T I O N  =_  D I P  -  L ( ^ ) R O U G H N E S S  7 . 0 1  F A C T O R =  BY  5  _=  =  R O U G H N E S S  2 0  =  R A T I O  "  C4  _  """  W E I G H T E D  V E C T O R  0 8  3  =  R E L I E F  A R E A  2  0  9  2 0 3 0  6  RY:  M I N I M U M  V E A N  5  39  0 •  S=  A N A L Y S I S  GEOMOR P H G M E T  L O C A L  22  0 . 4 3 9 9 7 9 3 6 E  L A K E S ,  A R E A  K  1  _ 5 1 ~~'  .JU  8 3 . 0 4  =  9 2 . 4 8  F A C T O R =  7 . 5 2  L O C A T E D L O C A T E D  AT AT  P O I  NT  NUMBER  2 2 5  PU I  N T  N U M B E R  1 9 9  . -163P T A R M I G A N  C R E E K  ( S A M P L E  1 1  _._  G R I D ,  1 : 2 5 0 , 0 0 0 ,  ... N E - S W  ..  D I A G O N A L S  G E N E R A L :  .NUMBER  OF  N U M B E R  OF  T O T A L  I AN GLE  0 . 4  FOR  FOR  T R I A N G L E  GEO  MqRPHC.MET.RY_  I S  =  A R E A  ;  M I N I M U M  E L E V A T I O N  M A X I M U M  E L E V A T I O N  MEAN  0 .  7 9 3 6 E  1 2 4 9 9 4 6 9 E  L O C A T E D  A T  P O I  AT  P O I N T  16  0 . 2 7 5 3 9  073  W E I G H T E D  BY  T R U E  0.3  A R E A  V E C T O R  0.  A R E A =  R A T I O  U N W E I G H T E D ( U N I T  V E C T O R S ) :  O R I E N T A T I O N  =  5 3 . 3 0  DIP  =  88.52 9 2 .83  ~ =  1 3 . 9 2  Li%)  _____  _  K 1 0 0 / K R O U G H N E S S  W E I G H T E D  =  7 . 1 9  F A C T O R -  7 . 1 7  BY  T R U E  A R E A :  O R I E N T AT I O N ~ "  l i t ) R O U G H N E S S  _ = "  5 1 * 0 1 _  =  " 8 3 . 0 4  =  9 2 . 4 1  F A C T O R -  6 7 6  3"  6 7 6 9 3 8 2  2 9  1 . 0 8 2 7 4  A N A L Y S I S :  7 . 5 9  6  L O C A T E D  SLOPE_:  MAP  0  G4  1 6 6 1 o  BY  2 0 8  2 . 2 0  7 0 l o 2 36  I N T E G R A L  W E I G H T E D  D I P  8  3 9 0 . 4 3 9 9  U N W E I G H T E D  A R E A  2  0  OoO  R E L I E F  H Y P S O M E T R I C  39 9 3 6 E  A N A L Y S I S ^  ANA L Y S  _MEAN  L O C A L  3 9 9 7  L A K E S S E A ;  N U M B E R  '  S-  A R E A  PERCE N T  A R E A  221.  P O I N T S TR  NT  N U M B E R N U M B E R  225 199  . M A N N I N G  PARK  ( S A M P L E  1 3 )  -164-  ........  NW-SE  in,  DIAGONALS  G E N E R A L :  NUMBER  OF  P O I N T S  2 2 5  NUMBER  CF  T R I A N G L E S ^  3 9 2  T O T A L  A R E A  P E R C E N T NUMBER  0 , 4 8 9 9 7 9 3 6 E  L A K E S _ - t - _ S E A = F O R  A N A L Y S I S " :  A R E A  F O R  A N A L Y S I S  MEAN  T R I A N G L E  A R E A  0 8  OoO 39  =  0 , 4 3 9 9 7 9 3 6 E  =  0 , 1 2 4 9 9 4 6 9 E  2  0  8  0 6  G E O M O R P H C M E T R Y :  M I N I M U M  E L E V A T I O N  M A X I M U M  E L E V A T I O N  L O C A L  R E L I E F -  H Y P S O M E T R I C M E A N  _  I N T E G R A L  W E I G H T E D  BY  M A P  W E I G H T E D  BY  T R U E  A R E A  P O I N T  N U M B E R  2  A T  " H I N T  N U M B E R  8  82  2o  9 6  6 5  8 9  —  0 , 3 3 1 0 3  DIP L(%) K 100/K  A  0 , 3  = —  E A  "  R O U G H N E S S  W E I G H T E D  —  F A C T O R -  BY  I E N T A T  T R U E  I O N  "  —  5,75  A R E A : -  "  3_50,  = " " " " 8 9  %)  R O U G H N E S S  1 , 0 6 3 4 7  343,67 = 8 9 , 3 9 = 94,25 17,33 = 5,77  =  F A C T O R -  "  2 1 0 9  0 , 3 3 3 4 5  V E C T O R S ) :  O R I E N T A T I O N  V.  A T  L O C A T E D  0 , 5  A R E A  A N A L Y S I S :  U N W E I G H T E O f U N I T  L (  L O C A T E D  7 6  = =  R A T I O  V E C T O R  D I P  3 0  1 8 8 9 o  S L O P E :  U N W E I G H T E D  0R  1 0 6 6 o  60 , 3 4  9 4 ,  0 4  5 ,  9 6  - •  •  —  —  -  -  f G E N E R A L :  N U M 3 E R  O F  P0INT__S___  N U M3 E R  OF  T R I A N G L E  T O T A L  A R E A  P E R C E N T  22_5 "  =  L A K E S  NUMBER"  = S=  F O R  M E AN  T R I A N G L E  A N A L Y S I S  GEOMOR PHOMET  0 . 4 3 9 9  " " 3 9 2  7 9 3 6 E  "  . =  A R E A  0 8 0  =  o  0  3 9 2  0 . 4 3 9 9 7 9 3 6 E  0 8  0  0 6  0  1 24-99 4 6 9 E  R Y :  M I N I M U M  E L E V A T I O N  1 0 6 6 . 3 0  L O C A T E D  AT  P O I N T  N U M B E R  2  M A X I M U M  E L E V A T I O N  1 8 3 9 „ 7 6  L O C A T E D  AT  P O I N T  N U M B E R  8  L O C A L  R E L I E F  H Y P S O M E T R I C MEAN  3 2 2 o  =  I N T E G R A L  0 . 3  W E I G H T E D  BY  M A P  W E I G H T E D  B Y  T R U E  A R E A  AREA —  AREA  0 . 3 4 1 3 5 1 . 0 6 3 6 1  A N A L Y S I S :  U N W E I G H T E D ( U N I T  V E C T O R S )  O R I E N T A T I O N  3 5 1 .  7 2  D I P  8 9 ,  Li%)  9 4 . 2 1  K  =  " ~  1 0 0 / K R O U G H N E S S  I  P  -  ~  Ll%) R O U G H N E S S  _  1 7 . 2 3 5 , 8 0  F A C T O R =  5 . 7 9  T R U E  A R E A : =  O R I E N T A T I O N D  3 6  =  BY  W E I G H T E O  3 4 7 3  0 , 3 3 4 7 5  R A T I O  V E C T O R  "  9 6  0 . 5 6 6 9 1  S L O P E :  U N W E I G H T E D  V.  ~  + _ S E A = _  F O R ' A N A L Y S I S =  A R E A  '  ~  ~  "= •=  F A C T O R =  3 5 0 . 6 0 "  8 9 . 3 4 9 4 . 0 3 5 . 9 7  .  .._  -166-  T AT LA  LAKE  (SAMPLE  2 4 ) :  OR 1 0  NW-SE  OI-AOONALS  GENERAL NUMBER  OF  NUMBER  OF  TOTAL  POINTS TP I A N G L E S =  AREA  PERCENT NUMBER  39 2 0 , 4 3 9 R 7 9 3 6 E  LAXE S FOR  t  ANALY S I S=  AREA  FOR  ANALYSIS  MEAN  TRIANGLE  AREA  OB  0 . 9  S E \=  3 9 2"  =  0 . 4 3 9 9 7 S 3 6 E  0 8  =  0 . 1 2 4 9 9 4 6 9 E  0 6  G E O M 0R P HOME_TR11 M I N I M U M  E L E V A T I O N  =  MAXIMUM  ELEVA T 10 N  =  LOCAL  RELIEF  HYPSOMETRIC  -  INTEGRAL  SLOPE:_  MEAN  "  "  WEIGHTED  BY  MAP  AREA  WEIGHTED  BY  TRUE  '""'"'"=" AREA  =  DIP  =  0 , 0 4 C  3 4 3 . 3 8 9 9 . 8 7  K  =  7 4 0 . 0 8  1 0 0 / K  0 . 1 4 FACTOR= TRUE  0 . 1 3 AREA:  OR I E N T A T I O N I  P  ~  ROUGHNESS  _34_8o 5 9 "  FACTOR  =' "  3 9 . 7 9  =  9 9 . 6 7  3  87  l.OCllo"  3 9 . 3 0  L ( %)  BY  P O I N T  N U M B E R  3 0  AT  P O I N T  N U M B E R  l_  1  "  0 , 0 4 0 8 1  VECTORS):  ORIENTATION  D  0.'0 40 8  =  =  UNWEIGHTED.UNIT  WEIGHTED  A T  0 . 2 9 8 1 0  A N A L Y S I S :  ROUGHNESS  L O C A T E D jEjOjC A T E D  18 7 , 4 5  =  RATIO  VECTOR  3  28  _  U N W E I G H T E D " " " "  AREA  JO 5 . 3 1 0 9 7 ,  0 . 1 3  '  ; T AT LA  I  L A K E  -167-  2 4 ) :  G R I D  N E - S W  D I A G O N A L S  G E N E R A L :  v  NJJMBER  OF  P O I N T S  NUMBER  OF  T R I A N G L E S -  T O T A L  i  '  =  A R E A  P E R C E N T I  ( S A M P L E  N U M B E R  2 2 5 .  =  L A K E S FOR  0 ,  4 S 9 9 7  93 6E.  + _SEA_=__  F O R  A N A L Y S I S  M E A N  T R I A N G L E  8  3 9  =  A R E A  2  0  0 . 0 .  A N A L Y S I S -  A R E A  39  0 .  =  4 3 ' - 9 7  9.3 6 F  0 „ 1 2 4 9 9 4 6 9 E  2 0 8  0 6  G E O M O R P H O M E T R Y :  M I N I M U M  E L E V A T I O N  M A X I M U M  E L E V A T I O N  L O C A L  zz  R E L I E F  H Y P S O M E T R I C MEAN  =  I N T E G R A L  S L O P E :  UNWE  BY  MAP  W E I G H T E D  BY  T R U E  A R E A A R E A  R A T I O  V E C T O R  =  0.0  zz  0 . 0 3 9 4 1  —  1.001-30  V E C T O R S ) : =  D I P  =  8 9 . 7 9  L ( 2 )  =  9 9 . 8 7  -  ~  7  100/K  W E I G H T E D  3 4 3 . 3 3  4  3 . 5 2  =  R O U G H N E S S  0.13  F A C T O R -  BY  T R U E  0.13  A R E A :  O R I E N T A T I O N  -  D I P  =  3 9 . 7 9  LiZ)  -  9 9 . 8 7  F A C T O R -  0 . 1 3  R O U G H N E S S  L O C A T E D  AT AT  r>01 ° Q I  NT NT  NUMBER  3 0  N U M B E R  1  0 . 2 9 6 3 0  O R I E N T A T I O N  ~  L O C A T E D  3 . 8 7 . 4 5  _  A N A L Y S I S :  U N W E I G H T E D ( U N I T  K  9 c 8 3  zz " O . C 3 9 3 5  I G H T E D  W E I G H T E D  A R E A  v.  9 0  1 0 9 7 . 2 8  3 4 8 . 5 9  3 9  3 5  - -- — -••  -  (  G H I  TF.TL"i  GENERAL  ("SAMPT'E"  LAKE"  =  NUMBER  OF  P O I N T S  OF  T R I A N G L E ' S -  AREA  PERCENT NUMBER AREA  KAL S  22_5 "  =  L A K E S FOR  FOR  MEAN  sTTTTlA G O  :  NUMBER" TOTAL  ) ~ : ~ ~ G R i 0, " NW-  3 1  +  ~  A N A L Y S I S  2 0 8  _ 0 . 0 '  =  AREA  39  0 . 4 8 9 9 7 9 3 6 E  SEA=_  A N A L Y S I S -  T R I A N G L E  "  ~  '  39 2  0 . 4 3 9 9 7 9 3 6 E  -  0 8 0 6  > 4 9 9 4 6 9 E  0 .  GEOMORPHOMETRY:  M I N I M U M MAXIMUM LOCAL  1 0 6  zz  E L E V A T I O N  52  1 1 9 1 . 7 7  zz  I N T E G R A L  3 . 7 5  2 25 5,  =  R E L I E F  H Y P S O M E T R I C MEAN  _  E L E V A T I O N  0 . 3  3 3 9 5  S L O P E :  U N W E I G H T E D W E I G H T E D  BY  MAP  W E I G H T E D  BY  T R U E  AREA  AREA AREA  R A T I O  VECTOR  —  0 . 1 8 6 8  =  0 . 1 8 6 8 6  .zz  0 . 1 9 4 3 6  zz  1 . 0  AN A L Y S I S :  U N W E I G H T E D I U N I T  V E C T O R S ) :  ORIENTATION  -  2.44  DIP  =  8 5 . 8 9  ' =  "43,96  L( %)  K  100/K = ROUGHNESS F A C T O R -  W E I G H T E D  BY  TRUE  nRIENTjAJ)_ON_ . ^ p  Lit) ROUGHNESS  97.73  2.27 2.27  A R E A :  = —--  2 . 2 6 g  =  9 7 , 5 6  F A C T O R -  5  2 . 4 4  28  5  03  L O C A T E D  AT  P O I N T  N U  B E R  1 7  L O C A T E D  AT  POI  NUMBER  1 5 2  NT  M  GHITEZLI  31):  LAKE  -169GRTOY NE-'SW" DTAGONALS"  G E N E R A L :  NUMBER  OF  NUMBER  OF  T O T A L  I AN GLE  S-  A R E A  Go 4 3 9 9  P E R C E N T _ L A K E S N U M B E R  FOR  +_  793  SEA=  39  2  0  3  6 E  _  )o  A N A L Y S I S ^  A R E A  F O R  MEAN  T R I A N G L E  5  22  P O I N T S TR  A N A L Y S I S A R E A  =  Go 4 3 9 9  =  0 . 1 2 4 9 9 4 6 9 E  7 o r  6 E  0  39  2  0  8 0 6  G E O M O R P H O M E T R Y :  MINIMUM MAXIMUM L O C A L  E L E V A T I O N  1 0 6 3 o 7 5  E L E V A T I O N  2 25 5 . 5 2  R E L I E F  1 1 9 1 . 7 7  H Y P S O M E T R I C MEAN  0 . 3 3 4 3 1  I N T E G R A L  S L O P E : 0 . 1 8 4  U N W E I G H T E D W E I G H T E D  BY  MAP  W E I G H T E D  BY  T R U E  A R E A  A R E A  1 . 0  A N A L Y S I S :  U N W E I G H T E O ( U N I T  V E C T O R S )  O R I E N T A T I O N  =  2 . 8 2  D I P  =  8 5 . 8 8  L I S ) K  "  *  _=  9 7 . 7 4  =  4 4 o " G 3  ~  100/K  =  R O U G H N E S S  W E I G H T E D  BY  2 . 2 7 2 . 2 6  ARE  T R U E _  -  Lm  A :  2.26  _=  D I P  R O U G H N E S S  ,  F A C T O R *  O R I E N T A T I O N "  0 .  A R E A  R A T I O  V E C T O R  35Y53 9 7 . 5 7  F A C T O R ^  7 4  0 . 1 8 4 7 5  2.43  1 9 2 4 0 2 8  0 1  LOCATED AT LOCATED AT  P O I N T NUMBER P O I N T NUMBER  1 7  152  __ 0C1NA  R I V E R  ( S A M P L E  4 1 ) :  - l / U -  G R I D ,  N W - S E  DIAGGN'ATS  G E N E R A L :  V, (  "  '  NUMRER  OF  PO I N T S  N U M B E R  OF  T R I A N G L E S *  T O T A L ' j  _ N  A R E A  P E R C E N T U  M  B  E  =_  =  L A K E S  R  FOR F O R  +•_  ?_25  0 . 4  A R E A  ;  MEAN_TR_I A N G L E  S.E;\=  A N A L Y S I S A R E A  3 0 2 0 3  =  0 .  0 6  1 2 4 9  9 4 6 9E  3 0 .  M E X R Y J  =  E L E V A T  =  II  N  R E L I E F  H Y P S O M E T R I C  L O C A T E D  AT  P O I N T  N U M B E R  2 2 5  L O C A T E D  AT  P O I N T  N U M B E R  1 1 3  3 2 2 o 9 6 I N T E G R A L  =  U N W E I G H T E O  0 . 4 1 9  * " 0 7 3  W E I G H T E D  BY  MAP  W E I G H T E D  BY  T R U E  AREA -AREA  R A T I O  A N A L Y S I S  1 4  *  11%) ~  =  1 . 0 6 5 2 4  8 8 . _  K ' " " " ' "  0 . 3 2 4 4 5 0 . 3 3 4 9 5  2 6 6 . 8 0  D I P  "  "  "  ~  9  1 7 . 2 0  F A C T O R *  5 . 8 0  5 .  R O U G H N E S S  W E I G H T E D  BY  T R U E  ~~  11%) R O U G H N E S S  "  ~  8 1  A R E A :  = _263_.  OR I EjNTAT IQN_  ~  7 7  ° 2 0  4  =  1 0 0 / K  44"  =  V E C T O R S ) :  O R I E N T A T I O N  2 4  -  :  U N W E I G H T E C I U N I f  DIP'  4 8  8 5 3 . 4 4  S L O P E :  V E C T O R  3  0 . * 8 9 9 7 9 3 6 E  E L E V A T I O N  A R E A  2  0  =  M A X I M U M  MEAN  3 9  0 . 0  M I N I M U M  L O C A L  3 9 9 7 92 6E  A N A L Y S I S *  :  G E 0 M O R P_HC  .  8 0  ="  83.30'  =  9 3 . 9 0  F A C T O R *  6 . 1 0  -171OON  A  R I V E R  41):  ( S A M P L E  OR  I!.),  NE-SW  D I A G O N A L S  GENERAL NUMBER  OF  POINTS  225  392 NUMBER O F T R I A N G L E S = 0, 4 3 9 9 7 9 3 6 E OS TOTAL AREA 0 . 0 P E R C E N T L A K E S_ + _SEA_=_ _ 39 2' N U M B E R " F O R "A N A L Y S I 3 = " " AREA FOR A N A L Y S I S = 0 4 8 9 793 6E 0 3 06 MEAN T R I A N G L E A R E A = 0 1 2 4 9 9 4 6 9 E C  GEOMORPHCMETRY: MINIMUM MAXIMUM LOCAL  ELEVATION ELEVATION  RELIEF  HYPSOMETRIC  3 22.96 INTEGRAL  MEAN S L O P E : UNWEIGHTED W E I G H T E D BY W E I G H T E D BY AREA RATIO  VECTOR  3C< A 3 95 3, 4 4 0.42CC2 0 . 3 26 3 2  MAP A R E A TRUE AREA  0 , 326 34 0.3.3638 1 . 0 6 5 33  ANALYSIS:  UNWEIGHTED.UNIT ORIENTATION DIP LIZ) K 100/K ROUGHNESS WEIGHTED  17.13 5.84  FACTOR*  BY  TRUE  ORIENTATION DI P " 11%) ROUGHNESS  VECTORS ): = 26 3.92 88.30 94.18  5.82  AREA: =_ 26_3_.3_0 • = . 3 8 . 3 0  = FACTOR*  93.89 6.11  L O C A T E D  A T  P O ! NT  L O C A T E D  AT  POINT  NUMBER  113  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0093157/manifest

Comment

Related Items