32 1

2013 01

PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY

Vol.32, No.1
Jan., 2013

DEM
1,2 1 1 3
(1.
6100412.
100049
3.
100035)
DEM

100 m DEM
13 900 m 0.5 11% 0.75

57%

DEM

DEMGIS

doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1033.2013.00121

(, 2001)
(2001)
4
4
(, 2007;
Ferrer-Castan et al, 2005; , 1990;
, 2001; Nevo et al, 1999; , 2001;
, 2011; , 2010)

, 1990
, 2011

(, 2010)

Weiss(2001)(Topographic
Position IndexTPI)(
)(
)TOPMODEL (Terrain Index)
(Topographic Wetness IndexTWI)
(Beven et
al, 1979; , 2002; , 2003;
, 2002)

(, 2001;
, 1998; , 2003; , 2005)

(2006)

DEM,

2012-052012-11.
(Y2R2180180)
(Y2B2010010)
(1987-)

E-mail: try.gogo@yahoo.com.cn
(1963-)

E-mail
wangyukuan@imde.ac.cn
121-129

122

Digital Elevation Model DEM

32

DEM
(Deng et al, 2007;
, 2007; , 2009; , 2008; Paz et al,
2008; Smith et al, 2006; , 2001)

DEM ArcGIS
DEM

2
9721~10831E2636~3419N

7556 m

97.46%
500 m
70 m
7400 m

3.1

(Carrra et al, 1991; ,

2005)
DEM

3.1.1

( 1)
(TPI)
DEM TPI

(TWI) TWI

3.1.2
ArcGIS
DEM DEM
(33
)
(
, 2001) 3

(1)
(TPI)

1
Fig. 1 The classification flowchart of the topographic unit

DEM

TPI

(Weiss, 2001)

(Weiss, 2001)
TPI

n
TPI
TPI * = 1 i
(1)
n i = 1 di
TPI*
TPIi
i
n

dii

(2)
(TWI)

(Beven et al, 1979; Moore et

al, 1986; O'Loughlin et al, 1986; Shary et al, 1991)
(Beven et al, 1979)
TWI = ln(a/ tan )
(2)
TWI a

TWI

123

TWI

(2)

TWI* = ln[(a + 1)/( + 1)]

(3)
TWI*
(2)
(3)
DEM GIS
(, 2006)

3.1.3

13 ( 1)(
1)( 1)

1(2004)

//

1 13
Tab.1 Indicators of 13 types of topographic unites

TPI*SD

TWI*

-0.50.5

-0.50.5

06

<2.5

06

2.5

>1

624

0.51

624

>1

06

(/)

-0.50.5

624

0135,315360

(/)

-0.50.5

624

135315

(/)

< -0.5

624

0135,315360

(/)

< -0.5

624

135315

(/)

2490

0135,315360

(/)

2490

135315

< -0.5

06

SD TPI

1
*

124

32

TPI TPI

GIS

Weiss(2001) TPI

TWI

1 7

2.5 TWI Palmer

TPI ((1))

(Palmer, 1965; , 2003)

TPI 1

Slope Aspect DEM

3.2

DEM

((3)) TWI

TUDIi = Variety(a1,a 2,a 3,...,a n)

(4)

TUDIii

Variety
a1,a 2 ,a3,...,a n

Majority filter(33 )

GIS
MaskMerge Raster calculate
( 1)

( 1)( 2)

900 m

( 3)

4.3

( 2)

0~1
TUDI i - TUDI min
TUDI i* =
(5)
TUDI max - TUDI min

17%

TUDI*i

TUDIi (4)TUDImin

TUDImax

30%
( 2)

0.5
11% 0.75 57%

4.1

DEM

( 3)

DEM 100 m 100 m

NASA NIMA 2004 90 m

SRTM DEM

DEM

2005 1:25

TPI

DEM

( 4)

4.2

TPI<-0.5SD

( 3)

DEM

ArcGIS

DEM

DEM

2
Fig. 2 Distribution of different topographic units in Sichuan Province

3
Fig.3 Distribution of topographic unit diversity index in Sichuan Province

125

126

32

4 ()
Fig. 4 Comparison of water system distribution and topographic position (a part of the study area)

2
Table 2 Area ratios of various topographic units

a/%

b/%

a-b

(/)

15.08

15.03

0.05

(/)

14.40

14.38

0.02

4.96

4.93

0.03

9.07

8.95

0.12

1.79

1.73

0.06

(/)

5.01

5.00

0.01

(/)

11.42

9.60

1.82

(/)

4.80

4.78

0.02

(/)

10.14

8.86

1.28

11.76

10.61

1.15

5.24

4.39

0.85

6.33

5.28

1.04

6.46

ab

5
GIS DEM

TPI

100 m

TWI

Majority filter(33 )

100 m100 m
13 900 m

DEM

900 m

(References)

127

spatial and nonspatial models of richness patterns. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 14(2): 155-165.
Kong F Z, Bing X F. 2003. Calculation method for the topographic index in TOPMODEL. Advances in Water Science, 14(1): 41-45. [, . 2003. TOPMODEL
. , 14(1): 41-45.]
Li L, Wang H Q. 2005. Geo-spatial data mining and knowledge discovering-study and development on geographical
unit dataset. Science of Surveying and Mapping, 30(3):
24-27. [, . 2005.
: . , 30(3):
24-27.]
Li R Q, Zheng L M, Zhu G R. 1990. Inner Monggolia Plateau
Lakes and Environmental Changes. Beijing: Beijing Normal University Press. [, , . 1990.
. :
.]
Li Z L, Zhu Q. 2001. Digital Elevation Model. Wuhan, China:
Wuhan University Press. [, . 2001.
. : .]
Li Z L. 2007. Digital terrain analysis. Acta Geographica Sinica, 61(12): 1326-1326. [. 2007. .
, 61(12): 1326-1326.]
Liu C, Sun W W, Wu H B. 2009. Terrain complexity factor
and its relationship with accuracy of DEM terrain representation. Geomatics and Information Science of Wuhan

Beven K, Kirkby M J. 1979. A Physically based, variable con-

University, 34(9): 1014-1020. [ , , .

tributing area model of basin hydrology. Hydrological

2009. DEM

Sciences-Bulletin-des Sciences Hydrologique, 24(1):

.: , 34(9): 1014-1020.]

43-69.

Liu X H, Yang Q K, Tang G A. 2001. Extraction and applica-

Carrra A, Cardinali M, Guzzetti F, et al. 1991. GIS techniques

tion of relief of China based on DEM and GIS method.

and statistics models in evaluating landslide hazard.

Bulletin of Soil and Water Conservation, 21(1): 57-62.

Earth surface Process and Landform, 16(5): 427-445.

[, , . 2001.

Chen S P, Li M B, Chen A L. 2007. Difference of nutrient allo-

. , 21

cation in different slope positions in Oligostachyum sca-

(1): 57-62.]

briflorum forest. Journal of Fujian College of Forestry, 27

Liu X J, Zhang P. 2008. Effective scale of slope and aspect de-

(3): 193-198. [, , . 2007.

rived from grid-based digital elevation model. Geomatics

. , 27(3):

and Information Science of Wuhan University, 33(12):

193-198.]

1254-1258. [, . 2008. DEM

Deng H P, Li X B. 2002. Relationship of upslope contribution

area and soil water content in TOPMODEL. Progress In
Geography, 21(2): 104-110. [, . 2002.
. , 21(2): 104-110.]

. : , 33(12):
1254-1258.]
Lv G N, Qian Y D, Chen Z M. 1998. Automated extraction of
the characteristics of topography from grid digital eleva-

Deng Y, Wilson J P. 2007. DEM Resolution Dependencies of

tion data. Acta Geographica Sinica, 53(6): 562-569. [

Terrain Attributes Across a Landscape. Inter-national Jour-

, , . 1998.

nal of Geographical Information Science, 21(1/2): 187-213.

., 53(6): 562-569.]

Ferrer-Castan D, Vetaas O R. 2005. Pteridophyte richness, cli-

Moore I D, Machay S M, Wallbrink P J, et al. 1986. Hydrolog-

mate and topography in the Iberian Peninsula: comparing

ic characteristics and modeling of a small forecasted

128

32

catchment in southeastern New South Wales: Prelogging

basic terrain-unit dataset. Science of Surveying and Map-

condition. Journal of Hydrology, 83: 307-335.

pong, 29(3): 22-26. [, . 2004.

Nevo E, Fragman O, Dafni A, et al. 1999. Biodiversity and in-

. , 9(3): 22-26.]

terslope divergence of vascular plants caused by microcli-

Wang L, Tang G A, Liu X J, et al. 2004. Terrain complexity in-

matic differences atEvolution Canyonlower nahal

dex and its derivation from DEMs. Bulletin of Soil and

Oren, Mount Carmel, Israel. Israel Journal of Plant Sci-

Water Conservation, 24(4): 55-58. [, ,

ences, 47(1): 61-62.

, . 2004. DEM .

O'Loughlin E M. 1986. Prediction of surface saturation zones

in natural catchments by topographic analysis. Water Resources Research, 22(5): 794-804.

, 24(4): 55-58.]
Wei J, Ma Z G. 2003. Comparison of palmer drought severity
index, percentage of precipitation anomaly and surface

Palmer W C. 1965. Meteorological drought. US Weather Bu-

humid index. Acta Geographica Sinica, 58(s1):117-124.

reau Research Paper #45. Washington, DC, USA: Gov-

[, . 2003. Palmer

ernment Printing Office: 1-58.

. , 58(s1): 117-124.]

Paz A R, Collischonn W. 2008. Errors in river lengths derived

Weiss A. 2001. Topographic position and Landforms Analysis.

from raster digital elevation models. Computers & Geo-

Poster presentation, ESRI User Conference, San Diego,

sciences, 34(11): 1584-1596.

CA.

Ren L L, Liu X R. 2002. Hydrological processes modeling

Wu L, Liu Y, Zhang J, et al. 2001.Geographical information

based on digital elevation model. Geographical Research,

system: principles, methods, and applications. Beijing,

19(4): 82-86. [, . 2002. DEM

China: Science Press. [, , . 2001.

. , 19(4): 82-86.]

: . : .]

Shary P A. 1991. The second derivative topographic method//

Wu L, Wang D M, Zhang Y. 2006. Research on the algorithms

Stepanov I N. The Geometry of Earth Surface Struc-

of the flow direction determination in ditches extraction

tures. Poushchino: Poushchino Reasearch Center Press:

based on grid DEM. Journal of Image and Graphics, 11

30-60.

(7): 998-1003. [ , , . 2006. DEM

Shen Z H, Fang J Y. 2001. Niche comparison of two fagus species based on the topographic patterns of their popula-

. , 11(7):
998-1003.]

tions. Acta Phytoecologica Sinica, 25(4): 392-398. [

Yan Y H, He Z X, Yuan H, et al. 2011. The ecological re-

, . 2001.

sponse of fern diversity to different slopes in Gudoushan

. , 25(4): 392-398.]

Nature Reserve, Guangdong. Biodiversity Science, 19(1):

Smith M P, Zhu A X, Burt J E, et al. 2006. The Effects of

41-47. [, , , . 2011.

DEM Resolution and Neighborhood Size on Digital Soil

Survey. Gendarma, 137(1/2): 58-69.

, 19(1): 41-47.]

Tang G A, Gong J Y, Chen Z J, et al. 2001. A simulation on

Zhang T, Tang G A, Wang C, et al. 2005. Correlation of quanti-

the accuracy of DEM terrain representation. Acta Geo-

tative terrain factors in gully hill areas of china loess pla-

daetica Et Cartographic Sinica, 30(4): 361-365. [,

teau. Science Geographica Sinica, 25(4): 467-472. [,

, , . 2001.

, , . 2005.

. , 30(4): 361-365.]

. , 25(4): 467-472.]

Tang G A, Yang W Y, Yang X, et al. 2003. Some key points in

Zhao Y, Zhong Y, Zhang J, et al. 2010. Community structure

terrain variables deriving from DEMs. Science of survey-

of soil fauna in Eucalyptus grandis plantations at differ-

ing and mapping, 28(1): 28-32. [, , ,

ent slope locations. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology,

. 2003. DEM

21(9): 2367-2374. [, , , . 2010.

. , 28(1): 28-32.]

. , 21

Wang H, Wang J. 2004. Preliminary study on specification of

(9): 2367-2374. ]

DEM

129

DEM-based topographic unit diversity index and its algorithm

TIAN Ruiyun12, WANG Yukuan1, FU Bin1, LIU Yuan3
(1. Institute of Mountain Hazards and Environment, CAS, Chengdu 610041, China;
2. University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China;
3. Foreign Economic Cooperation Office, Ministry of Environmental Protection, Beijing 100035, China)

AbstractIn this paper, based on review of the studies on methods and techniques of terrain information description, topographic unit diversity index (TUDI), a new concept and quantification method, was proposed. The
diversity index integrates several terrain parameters, e.g., elevation, slope, slope position, slope aspect, water
confluences and distributions information. By combining the algorithms of the topographic position index and
the topographic wetness index, using layer overlay analysis method and appropriate indicators for classification
and grading, TUDI algorithm re-classifies the types of topographic units, and then calculate the TUDI using the
neighborhood statistics and analysis method. The results of the experiment in Sichuan Province as a test region
using DEM (100 m100 m) and waters distribution data (1:250,000, 2005) show that TUDI is a comprehensive
index, revealing the complexity and variations of the true surface. In the process of calculation, the topographic
units were divided into 13 different types. The topographic unit diversity index was calculated with the statistics
window radius set to 900m based on division results of the topographic units. The areas with diversity index value less than 0.5 cover around 11 percent of the whole region; the areas with the value more than 0.75 take up as
much as 57 percent. Basically the results of the calculation agree with the topographic features of the study areas. In addition to the experiment to test the reliability of the algorithm, the advantages and disadvantages of it
were also evaluated. This research provides a good basis for constructing a conceptual system of DEM-based
topographic attributes, as well as for the spatial analysis of terrain information from micro to macro scales.
Key words: topographic unit; DEM; GIS; topographic position index; topographic wetness index