Fractal characteristics of dense stream networks

In the past, a great deal of research has been conducted to determine the fractal properties which quantify the sinuosity of individual streams and the branching configuration of stream channel networks in watersheds. Much of this work has been conducted with sparse rather than dense stream networks. It seems appropriate that characteristics should be determined for dense networks to decide if the ranges of values of the fractal characteristics computed by previous researchers hold for the dense networks. The first objective of the present study is to compute the fractal measures for several watersheds, which have dense network data, and to compare them to the values in the literature estimated by using sparse network data. The second objective is to compare the different fractal measures for different watersheds and examine their variability. If there is considerable variability in these measures, then the question of which measures to use arises. The third objective is to examine whether these watersheds are self-similar or self-affine. The results indicate that the fractal dimensions vary widely, depending on the definitions used. The watersheds have self-affine rather than self-similar characteristics.

[1]  Dietmar Saupe,et al.  Chaos and fractals - new frontiers of science , 1992 .

[2]  Michael F. Barnsley,et al.  Fractals everywhere , 1988 .

[3]  D. Gray,et al.  Interrelationships of watershed characteristics , 1961 .

[4]  David H. Pilgrim,et al.  Bridging the gap between flood research and design practice , 1986 .

[5]  L F Richardson,et al.  The problem of contiguity : An appendix to statistics of deadly quarrels , 1961 .

[6]  Reply [to “Comment on ‘On the fractal dimension of stream networks’ by Paolo La Barbera and Renzo Rosso”] , 1990 .

[7]  Renzo Rosso,et al.  Fractal relation of mainstream length to catchment area in river networks , 1991 .

[8]  Hideki Takayasu,et al.  Fractals in the Physical Sciences , 1990 .

[9]  J. Niemann,et al.  Self‐similarity and multifractality of fluvial erosion topography: 2. Scaling properties , 2000 .

[10]  R. Rosso,et al.  On the fractal dimension of stream networks , 1989 .

[11]  A. Maritan,et al.  On Hack's Law , 1996 .

[12]  S. Peckham.  New Results for Self‐Similar Trees with Applications to River Networks , 1995 .

[13]  Oscar J. Mesa,et al.  On the main channel length‐area relationship for channel networks , 1987 .

[14]  W. Langbein,et al.  Topographic characteristics of drainage basins , 1947 .

[15]  Jerry E. Mueller.  Re-evaluation of the Relationship of Master Streams and Drainage Basins , 1972 .

[16]  I. Rodríguez‐Iturbe,et al.  Comment on “On the fractal dimension of stream networks” by Paolo La Barbera and Renzo Rosso , 1990 .

[17]  Eiji Tokunaga,et al.  Consideration on the composition of drainage networks and their evolution , 1978 .

[18]  D. Noever,et al.  Fractal geometry of individual river channels and its computer simulation , 1993 .

[19]  Vladimir Nikora,et al.  River network fractal geometry and its computer simulation , 1993 .

[20]  David G. Tarboton,et al.  Comment on "On the fractal dimension of stream networks" , 1990 .

[21]  I. Rodríguez‐Iturbe,et al.  The fractal nature of river networks , 1988 .

[22]  Benoit B. Mandelbrot,et al.  Fractal Geometry of Nature , 1984 .

[23]  R. Horton.  EROSIONAL DEVELOPMENT OF STREAMS AND THEIR DRAINAGE BASINS; HYDROPHYSICAL APPROACH TO QUANTITATIVE MORPHOLOGY , 1945 .

[24]  Allen T. Hjelmfelt,et al.  FRACTALS AND THE RIVER-LENGTH CATCHMENT-AREA RATIO , 1988 .

[25]  J. Niemann,et al.  Self‐similarity and multifractality of fluvial erosion topography: 1. Mathematical conditions and physical origin , 2000 .

[26]  Luciano Pietronero,et al.  FRACTALS IN PHYSICS , 1990 .