Identification and characterization of dendritic, parallel, pinnate, rectangular, and trellis networks based on deviations from planform self‐similarity

[1] Geomorphologists have long recognized that the geometry of channel network planforms can vary significantly between regions depending on the local lithologic and tectonic conditions. This tendency has led to the classification of channel networks using terms such as dendritic, parallel, pinnate, rectangular, and trellis. Unfortunately, available classification methods are scale dependent and have little connection to any underlying quantitative theory of drainage network geometry or evolution. In this study, a new method is developed to classify drainage networks on the basis of their deviations from self-similarity. The planform geometry of dendritic networks is known to be approximately self-similar. It is our hypothesis that parallel, pinnate, rectangular, and trellis networks correspond to distinct deviations from this self-similarity. To identify such deviations, three measures of channel networks are applied to 10 networks from each classification. These measures are the incremental accumulation of drainage area along channels, the irregularity of channel courses, and the angles formed by merging channels. The results confirm and characterize the self-similarity of dendritic networks. Parallel and pinnate networks are found to exhibit anisotropic scaling. Rectangular and trellis networks are approximately self-similar although deviations from self-similarity are observed. Rectangular networks have more sinuous channels than dendritic networks across all scales, and trellis networks have a slower rate of area accumulation than dendritic networks across all scales. Such observations are used to build and test simple classification trees, which are found to perform well in classifying networks.

[1]  John F. O'Callaghan,et al.  The extraction of drainage networks from digital elevation data , 1984, Comput. Vis. Graph. Image Process..

[2]  M. Morisawa Distribution of Stream-Flow Direction in Drainage Patterns , 1963, The Journal of Geology.

[3]  D. Schertzer,et al.  Physical modeling and analysis of rain and clouds by anisotropic scaling multiplicative processes , 1987 .

[4]  Alessandro Marani,et al.  Minimum energy and fractal structures of drainage networks , 1992 .

[5]  D. Pieri Junction angles in drainage networks , 1984 .

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

[7]  David G. Tarboton,et al.  On the extraction of channel networks from digital elevation data , 1991 .

[8]  A. Howard Optimal Angles of Stream Junction: Geometric, Stability to Capture, and Minimum Power Criteria , 1971 .

[9]  David G. Tarboton,et al.  Power law distributions of discharge mass and energy in river basins , 1992 .

[10]  W. Dietrich,et al.  Experimental study of bedrock erosion by granular flows , 2008 .

[11]  Charles Ichoku,et al.  A numerical approach to the analysis and classification of channel network patterns , 1994 .

[12]  J. R. Smith,et al.  Coordinate systems and map projections , 1973 .

[13]  T. S. Colvin,et al.  Cluster Analysis of Spatiotemporal Corn Yield Patterns in an Iowa Field , 2003 .

[14]  Emilie R. Zernitz Drainage Patterns and Their Significance , 1932, The Journal of Geology.

[15]  S. Schumm,et al.  Effect of regional slope on drainage networks , 1987 .

[16]  D. Montgomery,et al.  Where do channels begin? , 1988, Nature.

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

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

[19]  P. Dodds,et al.  Unified view of scaling laws for river networks. , 1999, Physical review. E, Statistical physics, plasmas, fluids, and related interdisciplinary topics.

[20]  Alessandro Marani,et al.  Energy dissipation, runoff production, and the three-dimensional structure of river basins , 1992 .

[21]  Joan Kramer Lubowe Stream junction angles in the dendritic drainage pattern , 1964 .

[22]  R. Horton Drainage‐basin characteristics , 1932 .

[23]  F. C. Hadipriono,et al.  The development of a knowledge-based expert system for analysis of drainage patterns , 1990 .

[24]  D. Montgomery,et al.  Channel Initiation and the Problem of Landscape Scale , 1992, Science.

[25]  J. T. Hack Studies of longitudinal stream profiles in Virginia and Maryland , 1957 .

[26]  Richard L. White Object Classification in Astronomical Images , 1997 .

[27]  K. G. Cox The role of mantle plumes in the development of continental drainage patterns , 1989, Nature.

[28]  A. D. Abrahams,et al.  Geological controls on the topological properties of some trellis channel networks , 1983 .

[29]  B. Serres,et al.  FLOW DIRECTION AND BRANCHING GEOMETRY AT JUNCTIONS IN DENDRITIC RIVER NETWORKS , 1990 .

[30]  Jan Van Sickle Basic GIS Coordinates , 2004 .

[31]  Jeffrey D. Niemann,et al.  A comparison of experimental and natural drainage basin morphology across a range of scales , 2005 .

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

[33]  S. Mock A Classification Channel Links in Stream Networks , 1971 .

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

[35]  A. Howard A detachment-limited model of drainage basin evolution , 1994 .

[36]  E. Foufoula‐Georgiou,et al.  Channel network source representation using digital elevation models , 1993 .

[37]  Merle Parvis,et al.  DRAINAGE PATTERN SIGNIFICANCE IN AIRPHOTO IDENTIFICATION OF SOILS AND BEDROCKS , 1950 .

[38]  S. Schumm EVOLUTION OF DRAINAGE SYSTEMS AND SLOPES IN BADLANDS AT PERTH AMBOY, NEW JERSEY , 1956 .

[39]  A. D. Howard Drainage Analysis in Geologic Interpretation: A Summation , 1967 .

[40]  R. Plant,et al.  Classification trees: An alternative non‐parametric approach for predicting species distributions , 2000 .

[41]  V. Nikora Fractal structures of river plan forms , 1991 .

[42]  A. N. Strahler Quantitative analysis of watershed geomorphology , 1957 .

[43]  G. De’ath,et al.  CLASSIFICATION AND REGRESSION TREES: A POWERFUL YET SIMPLE TECHNIQUE FOR ECOLOGICAL DATA ANALYSIS , 2000 .

[44]  D. Burbank Causes of recent Himalayan uplift deduced from deposited patterns in the Ganges basin , 1992, Nature.

[45]  T. Dunne Formation and controls of channel networks , 1980 .

[46]  A. Rinaldo,et al.  Fractal River Basins: Chance and Self-Organization , 1997 .

[47]  J. G. Lyon,et al.  Quantitative description and classification of drainage patterns , 1988 .

[48]  Leo Breiman,et al.  Classification and Regression Trees , 1984 .

[49]  Jesús Muñoz,et al.  Comparison of statistical methods commonly used in predictive modelling , 2004 .

[50]  Edward C. Waymire,et al.  A statistical analysis of mesoscale rainfall as a random cascade , 1993 .

[51]  José F. Moreno,et al.  CART-based feature selection of hyperspectral images for crop cover classification , 2003, Proceedings 2003 International Conference on Image Processing (Cat. No.03CH37429).

[52]  Kelly Elder,et al.  Combining binary decision tree and geostatistical methods to estimate snow distribution in a mountain watershed , 2000 .

[53]  J. Daniel Drainage density as an index of climatic geomorphology , 1981 .

[54]  J. Flint Stream gradient as a function of order, magnitude, and discharge , 1974 .