Author’s Accepted Manuscript

SwathProfiler and NProfiler: Two new ArcGIS

Add-ins for the automatic extraction of swath and
normalized river profiles

J.V. Pérez-Peña, M. Al-Awabdeh, J.M. Azañón,

J.P. Galve, G. Booth-Rea, D. Notti
www.elsevier.com/locate/cageo

PII: S0098-3004(16)30257-6
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2016.08.008
Reference: CAGEO3817
To appear in: Computers and Geosciences
Received date: 28 August 2015
Revised date: 27 June 2016
Accepted date: 15 August 2016
Cite this article as: J.V. Pérez-Peña, M. Al-Awabdeh, J.M. Azañón, J.P. Galve,
G. Booth-Rea and D. Notti, SwathProfiler and NProfiler: Two new ArcGIS Add-
ins for the automatic extraction of swath and normalized river profiles,
Computers and Geosciences, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2016.08.008
This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for
publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of
the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and
review of the resulting galley proof before it is published in its final citable form.
Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which
could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 SwathProfiler and NProfiler: Two new ArcGIS Add-ins for the
automatic extraction of swath and normalized river profiles

J. V. Pérez-Peña1,2*, M. Al-Awabdeh1, J. M. Azañón1,3, J.P. Galve1, G. Booth-Rea1,3, D. Notti1

1
Departamento de Geodinámica, Universidad de Granada. Campus de Fuentenueva, 18071 Granada, Spain.
2
Instituto Andaluz de Geofísica, Universidad de Granada. Campus Universitario de Cartuja, 18071 Granada, Spain.
3
Instituto Andaluz de Ciencias de la Tierra, CSIC-UGR, Avd. Palmeras, 4, Armilla, Granada, Spain
*
Corresponding author. Email: vperez@ugr.es

Abstract
The present-day great availability of high-resolution Digital Elevation Models has improved
tectonic geomorphology analyses in their methodological aspects and geological meaning.
Analyses based on topographic profiles are valuable to explore the short and long-term landscape
response to tectonic activity and climate changes. Swath and river longitudinal profiles are two
of the most used analysis to explore the long and short-term landscape responses. Most of these
morphometric analyses are conducted in GIS software, which have become standard tools for
analyzing drainage network metrics. In this work we present two ArcGIS Add-Ins to
automatically delineate swath and normalized river profiles. Both tools are programmed in
Visual Basic .NET and use ArcObjects library-architecture to access directly to vector and raster
data. The SwathProfiler Add-In allows analyzing the topography within a swath or band by
representing maximum-minimum-mean elevations, first and third quartile, local relief and
hypsometry. We have defined a new transverse hypsometric integral index (THi) that analyzes
hypsometry along the swath and offer valuable information in these kind of graphics. The
NProfiler Add-In allows representing longitudinal normalized river profiles and their related
morphometric indexes as normalized concavity (CT), maximum concavity (Cmax) and length of
maximum concavity (Lmax). Both tools facilitate the spatial analysis of topography and drainage
networks directly in a GIS environment as ArcMap and provide graphical outputs. To illustrate
how these tools work, we analyzed two study areas, the Sierra Alhamilla mountain range (Betic
Cordillera, SE Spain) and the Eastern margin of the Dead Sea (Jordan). The first study area has
been recently studied from a morphotectonic perspective and these new tools can show an added
value to the previous studies. The second study area has not been analyzed by quantitative
tectonic geomorphology and the results suggest a landscape in transient state due to a continuous
base-level fall produced by the formation of the Dead Sea basin.

Keywords: Swath profile; normalized profile; tectonic geomorphology; Dead Sea Transform Fault;
Sierra Alhamilla; Betic Cordillera

1
1. Introduction
In the last decades tectonic geomorphology has experienced a great development driven by
the advances of the Geographic Information Systems and the Digital Elevation Models (DEMs).
The techniques for landscape analysis have evolved thanks to the development of GIS software
in both, hardware and software requirements, and to the availability of topographic source data.
Most of the pioneering morphometric techniques proposed in the earliest 80s were hard to
compute for larger areas and analyses only included small data sets (Mackin, 1948; Hack, 1957;
Seeber and Gornitz, 1983; Merrits and Vincent, 1989). However, in the last times there have
been significant advances in the scientific discussion over the suitability and meaning of some of
these topographic parameters (Keller and Pinter, 2012; Wobus et al., 2006a; Goldrick and
Bishop, 2007; Pérez-Peña et al., 2009a; Kirby and Whipple, 2012; Perron and Royden, 2013).
This great advance has been supported by two main factors; i) robust and compact GIS software
with increasing spatial analysis capabilities, and ii) the great availability of high-resolution
Digital Elevation Models. Global DEMs as SRTM and/or ASTER permits analyzing remote
areas with a very high geological and tectonic interest that, in turn, allow a better understanding
of the active processes operating in such areas (Kirby and Whipple, 2001; Grohmann et al.,
2007; Zang et al., 2011).

However, the applicability of some of the new morphometric techniques depends on

available tools and specific software knowledge (Grohmann, 2004). In most cases researchers
need to have both; a deep understanding of the geologic and tectonic meaning of the processes
they are analyzing and a precise technical knowledge for applying morphometric techniques
successfully. Popular easy-to-use software packages like ArcGIS, QGIS, GvSIG, GRASS, etc.,
bridge the gap between the technical knowledge requirements and the application of well-known
morphometric parameters (Grohmann, 2004; Guth, 2006; Pérez-Peña et al., 2009b; Coblentz and
Karlstrom, 2011; Shahzad and Gloaguen, 2011a,b; Queiroz et al., 2015; Daxberger et al., 2014).
These software packages also allow developing specific reusable scripts written with popular
programming languages in science as Python, R, Matlab, Visual Basic, Java, etc. These
capabilities definitively extend GIS capabilities in Earth Science and specifically in landscape
analysis. They allow designing reusable tools to evaluate how topography is shaped by active
tectonics.

Among the different approaches in tectonic geomorphology, topographic pattern and

drainage network analyses are the most widely and successfully used (Pérez-Peña et al., 2009a;
2009b; 2010; Kirby and Whipple, 2012; Giaconia et al., 2012; Royden and Perron, 2013; Willet
et al., 2014). To analyze these patterns, earth scientists commonly elaborate topographic swath

2
profiles to recognize general elements on the landscape that may be associated with the tectonic
activity (e.g. Molin et al., 2004; 2012; Andreani et al., 2014; Scotti et al., 2014; Azañon et al.,
2015). On the other hand, rivers are continuously adapting their profiles to climatic, lithological
and tectonic conditions. Therefore, changes in these profiles will reflect variations in these
controlling factors (Rigon et al., 1996; Jackson et al., 1996; Brookfield, 1998; Pérez-Peña et al.,
2009a, 2010; Kirby and Whipple, 2012; Giaconia et al., 2012). In this regard, the comparison of
normalized longitudinal profiles of rivers can highlight gradient differences related to the
mentioned external conditions. In this work we present two complements developed for the
software package ArcGIS from ESRI, the SwathProfiler and NProfiler Add-ins. These
applications minimize the time and the calculation process to extract swath and longitudinal river
profiles. They also allow extracting key information from profiles that may help in their
interpretation and analysis. To illustrate the capabilities of these tools we briefly describe the
obtained results in two study areas. The first area corresponds to the Sierra Alhamilla mountain
range (Betic Cordillera, SE Spain), an area with a well-known tectonic evolution. Recent
tectonic geomorphology studies have been carried out in this area (Giaconia et al., 2012; 2013;
Azañón et al., 2012), and therefore, the presented tools shows its added value to them. The
second study area is located in the eastern margin of the Dead Sea basin in Jordan. This area
presents an interesting topographic configuration with extreme conditions and has not yet been
analyzed from a morphometric perspective, and thus, the new results are valuable in order to
understand its Quaternary landscape evolution.

2. Theoretical background
One of the best approximations to analyze the landscape is through longitudinal profiles.
Topographic longitudinal profiles and river longitudinal profiles are two ways of analyzing the
landscape response to driving internal and external forces and they have been widely used in
tectonic geomorphology studies (Molin et al., 2004; Kirby and Whipple, 2012; Scotti et al.,
2014; Azañon et al., 2015). Topographic profiles depict long-term landscape equilibrium,
whereas river longitudinal profiles represent the short-term response of the landscape to the
tectonic, lithological and climatic changes. In other words, the river longitudinal profiles are an
approximation for the recent to present-day response to the geological and active process and
climatological variations, whilst swath profiles examine the long-term landscape state in
response to these processes.

Topographic swath profiles

3
 Topographic swath profiles are constructed by projecting equally spaced topographic
profiles within a strip or swath (Baulig, 1926; Tricart and Cailleux, 1958; d’Agostino et al.,
2001; Fielding, 1996). These profiles provide a general view of the topographic pattern of a
region and have been used widely to characterize regional-scale topography (d’Agostino et al.,
2001; Riquelme et al., 2003; Grohmann, 2005; Molin et al., 2004; 2012; Scotti et al., 2014;
Azañon et al., 2015).

Linear swath profiles can be constructed straightforward, but when the concept is expanded
to non-linear profiles as mountain fronts or river valleys they can be subjected to systematic bias
(Telbisz et al., 2013; Hergarten et al., 2014). There are several ways to sample elevation points
for curvilinear profiles. Telbisz et al. (2013) proposed the stack of elevation values along non-
parallel lines normal to the curved baseline. This method presents some problems as indicated by
Hergarten et al. (2014); i) the baseline has to be smoothed since the orientation of normal lines
will be very sensitive to small-scale roughness of this baseline and ii) a single cell could
contribute to more than one normal line. On the other hand, Hergarten et al. (2014) proposed a
different way to construct curved swath profiles by stacking elevations using all the cells of the
DEM and calculating signed (or oriented) distances to the baseline. This method needs an
intensive computational effort, since all the cells of the DEM have to be iterated in varying
directions. In this work we used a different approach that maximizes the performance and
calculation time by using the capabilities of ESRI's built-in ArcObjects methods and classes. Our
implementation calculates lines parallel to the base line and sample them with different step sizes
depending of their lengths and considering as a reference the selected step size of the base line.
In this way, all the parallel lines are sampled by the same number of points, and profile
transverse metrics as quartile or mean are calculated with the same sample size throughout the
swath profile (Fig. 1).

Swath profiles can be examined statistically to extract maximum, minimum and mean
topographic elevation for each transect. Mean elevation is a good approximation to the general
topographic trend of the landscape within the swath profile band, whereas maximum and
minimum elevation can inform of landscape variations in the direction perpendicular to the
swath profile. Moreover, other parameters as local relief (maximum elevation - minimum
elevation) or quartile (Q1 - Q3) can also describe topographic variations along the swath.
Generally, stable areas as basins or plateaus with low-to-moderate incision will yield low values
of local relief and swath profiles where all lines will merge together. Conversely, high local
relief and wider variations of swath profiles will be characteristics of mountain ranges or highly
dissected landscapes exposed to high incision and/or uplifting.

4
 Additionally to local relief, the relations between mean elevation respect to maximum and
minimum elevation can reveal important information about the landscape state (Keller and
Pinter, 2012; Wobus et al., 2006b). For a typical swath profile in most landscapes the mean
elevation will lie closer to the minimum than to the maximum. If the mean elevation approaches
the maximum, this upward deflection could indicate a transient state of adjustment to higher
uplift rates (Keller and Pinter, 2012; Wobus et al., 2006b). These deviations can be studied by
examining the hypsometric integral (HI) across all transects (Pike and Wilson, 1971).
 − "
 =
# − "

Values of HI near to 1 indicate that mean elevations are close to maximum elevations, thus
depicting a young transient landscape; on the contrary, HI values near to 0 would indicate a
mature landscape with mean elevations close to the minimum. However, the direct calculation of
HI in swath transects can present some problems. In transects with low relief, i.e. plain areas,
max, min and mean elevation will be very close and small variations in mean elevation can
produce large differences in HI values (see P1 and P2 in Fig. 2). To avoid these artifacts we
propose the use of a transverse hypsometric integral (THi), in which HI values are weighted by
the relative local relief (RRL).

$" = ( − 0.5)%& + 0.5

Since the use of a direct linear normalization will produce big differences in swath transects
with different local relief, we used a logarithmic normalization (Fig. 2). In this normalization the
weight for transects with very low relief is larger, whereas the weights for transects with middle-
low to high local relief yield lower differences (see P3 and P4 in Fig. 2).

%& = 0.2 '(RLR) + 0.1

7*&
*',"- '/3' 4'"6 (*7*) =
7*89:

In most natural landscapes, hypsometric integral values under 0.2 or over 0.8 are extremely
rare (Pérez-Peña et al., 2009c). Therefore, we can improve the description and comparison of
hypsometry along a swath profile by re-scaling HI values between 0.2 and 0.8. We have called
this latter index as enhanced transverse hypsometry index (THi*) and is defined as:
( − 0.2)
 ∗ =
0.8 − 0.2

$" ∗ = ( ∗ − 0.5)%& + 0.5

River normalized profiles

5
 Rivers in equilibrium condition flowing over homogeneous lithology develop a typical
concave-shaped profile, with higher gradients in source areas and smoother gradients near their
mouths. This concave-shape profile is the consequence of the inverse relation between discharge
(that can be approximated by upstream area) and gradient (that can be approximated by channel
slope). In graded rivers slope is progressively adjusted to provide, with available discharge and
the prevailing channel characteristics, just the velocity required for transportation of all the load
(Mackin, 1948). Deviation of this equilibrium or graded-profile will develop inflection points in
the profile known as knickpoints (Whipple and Tucker, 1999; Burbank and Anderson, 2013) and
will produce changes in the concavity of the longitudinal profile up and down-stream. The
analysis of river longitudinal profiles has been used intensively to detect changes in river
controlling factors; namely lithology, climate and tectonic uplift and hillslope processes (Seeber
and Gornitz, 1983; Brookfield 1998; Pérez-Peña et al., 2009a; Kirby and Whipple, 2012;
Giaconia et al., 2012; Anton et al., 2014; Troiani et al., 2014). However, the comparison of
longitudinal profiles from rivers with different lengths and gradients can be intricate.

Demoulin (1998) proposed the representation of river longitudinal profiles in a normalized

form. This form is known as the normalized longitudinal profile and it is constructed by
normalizing elevations with respect to the relative elevation or amplitude and distances respect to
the total channel length. This representation allows comparing rivers with different lengths and
gradients (Demoulin, 1998; Ruszkiczay-Rüdiger et al., 2009; Matos et al., 2014). Moreover, this
normalized representation highlights gradient variations as clear semi-logarithmic profiles
(Hack, 1957; Demoulin, 1998).

In this kind of profiles concavity (CT) is defined as the percent area of the OAB triangle (Fig.
3) between the river profile and the straight line that connects source to mouth. Negative values
of CT will represent concave-up profiles where the river profile stands over the straight line AB
whereas positive values will indicate river convexity. Rectilinear river profiles will be
characterized by CT ~0 (Fig. 3). As river concavity is calculated as an integral, in each point of
the profile we can define a local concavity (Ci) as the distance from the profile to the straight-
line AB. Following this assumption we can define for each river a point of maximum concavity
(Cmax). This value will be redundant with river concavity (CT), but its position respect to river
source (Lmax) can add very interesting information (Fig. 3). Theoretically the lower the Lmax, the
better graded the profile (Demoulin, 1998). Castillo et al. (2013) suggested that this type of
representation is more adequate for rivers in a transient-state with irregular profiles, where
traditional area-slope relations would not be valid. In their study, they demonstrated that the
concavity index (澳) provided a useful measure of the morphology of transient reaches.

6
3. ArcGIS Add-Ins
In this paper we present two ArcGIS Add-Ins (for version 10.x) that automatically generate
swath and normalized river profiles. The two complements are programmed in Visual
Basic.NET and have been integrated as two separate Add-Ins for the ArcMap software (Figs. 4
and 5). We selected proprietary software as ArcGIS (ESRI) by the characteristics of the
presented Add-Ins. Both have been designed as “easy to use” tools with the capability of display
results direct inside the GIS program (ArcMap). Despite of being expensive software, most
research institutions and Universities have licenses for it.

The two complements are programmed in Visual Basic.NET and have been integrated as two
separate Add-Ins for the ArcMap sofware (Figs. 4 and 5). Visual Basic.NET uses Microsoft
.NET Framework that includes not only a complete object collection and powerful libraries, but
also a rich graphic user interface (GUI) as windows, control boxes, menus, graphics charts, etc.
This makes possible to design full software suites that can extend their functionalities beyond
scripting tools designed with Model builder or Python. These applications can use ArcObjects
COM libraries that are considered as the elemental software “building blocks” of ArcGIS.
Accessing to the ArcObjects implies a higher complexity in the code than other scripting
languages as Python or Model Builder. However, it allows more liberty to design and write
analysis algorithms because; i) it is not limited to the use of built-in analysis tools (Toolboxes)
and ii) it grants a direct access to geometries (vector and raster) by using ArcObjects methods
and functions from the internal architecture of ArcGIS.

SwathProfiler Add-In

The SwathProfiler Add-In (Fig. 4) generates swath profiles and related metrics for vector
features using a DEM as source for the topographic elevation. The input-box (Fig. 4a) allows
selecting the input data and the total width of the swath profile, considering input polyline
features (linear or curved) as base lines. By default, for each polyline a swath profile with 50
parallel lines (25 on each side of the baseline) is calculated by taking a sampling step-size of 1.5
times the cell size of the DEM in the base line. The user can modify these values in the input box
(Fig. 4a).

Elevation points for each line are extracted from the raster DEM surface as PointCollection
objects by using the methods of the IRasterSurface and ISurface ArcObjects interfaces.
Considering an input line (in_line) and a raster DEM surface as a IRaster instance, elevation
points along the profile can be obtained by:

7
 Dim pGeometry As IGeometry
Dim pPointColl As IPointCollection
pGeometry = TryCast(in_line, IGeometry)
pSurface.GetProfile(pGeometry, pGeometry, step_size)
pPointColl = TryCast(pGeometry, IPointCollection)

The specified step size (step_size variable in the code above) for the base line is re-
calculated for each parallel line ensuring that all the profiles of the swath are sampled with the
same number of points (Fig. 1).

The display window (Fig. 4b) draws the swath profiles for the input polylines that can be
selected by using the selection box. This window shows the profiles for all the parallel lines, as
well as the maximum, minimum and mean profiles. It also calculates the first and third quartile
and the local relief (max. elev. - min. elev.). The transverse hypsometric integral (THi) is
calculated following the methodological approach described in the previous section and can be
added to the bottom part of the display window. In the properties form, the user can modify the
colors and widths of the lines, modify chart properties and select to display the enhanced
transverse hypsometric integral (THi*) instead of the THi. The program also allows exporting
the chart to image files (raster and vector formats) and export individual values to text.

The NProfiler Add-In

The NProfiler Add-In (Fig. 5) has been generated as an independent ArcMap Add-In to
extract normalized profiles and related indexes. It takes as input data linear feature classes and a
DEM for elevation source. The use of ArcObjects facilitates the access to geometries and raster
surfaces without the need of iterate over points or cells. Profile elevations are calculated by
bilinear interpolation of the 4 nearest cells of the DEM, smoothing elevation errors in individual
cells. This is done by using the methods implemented by the IRasterSurface and ISurface
arcobjects interfaces. Considering pFeat a Feature Class accessed through the IFeature
ArcObject interface, and pRaster a Raster class accessed by the IRaster interface; the x, y, z
points of the longitudinal profile can be obtained in the form of a PointCollection class by
(Visual Basic.Net source code):

Dim pGeometry As IGeometry

Dim RSurface As IRasterSurface
Dim pSurface As ISurface
Dim pPointColl As IPointCollection
RSurface = New RasterSurface
RSurface.PutRaster(pRaster, 0)

8
 pSurface = TryCast(RSurface, ISurface)
pGeometry = pFeat.ShapeCopy
pSurface.GetProfile(pGeometry, pGeometry)
pPointColl = TryCast(pGeometry, IPointCollection)

In order to retrieve distance-elevation data from the PointCollection object we calculated

accumulated distances and store them in new arrays:

Dim Xvalues() As Double

Dim Yvalues() As Double
AccDist = 0
ReDim Xvalues(pPointColl.PointCount - 1)
ReDim Yvalues(pPointColl.PointCount - 1)
Xvalues(0) = AccDist
Yvalues(0) = pPointColl.Point(0).Z
For i = 1 To pPointColl.PointCount - 1
pto_1 = pPointColl.Point(i - 1)
pto_2 = pPointColl.Point(i)
AccDist = AccDist + Math.Sqrt((pto_2.X – pto_1.X)^2 + (pto_2.Y – pto_1.Y)^2)
Xvalues(i) = AccDist
Yvalues(i) = pPointColl.Point(i).Z
Next

Once extracted, elevations and distances of each river profile normalized from 0 to 1 to
calculate CT, Cmax and Lmax indexes (see theoretical background section for further explanation).
The tool also allows removing "peaks" (points with higher elevation than the upstream points
due to DEM errors) and smoothing the profile. The smoothing method uses a moving-window
average that takes the percentage of the profile points input as a smoothing factor. This
smoothing can be especially useful for lower-resolution data sources. The graphic window
visualizes the profile of the selected river and its related morphometric parameters (Fig. 5) and
allow saving as image or vector format.

4. Study cases.
In order to show the capabilities of SwathProfiler and NProfiler Add-Ins we have selected
two key study areas to analyze the value of these presented tools. The first study area is located
in the Sierra Alhamilla mountain range (Betic Cordillera, SE Spain). This area has been studied
by several authors by applying geomorphic indexes and, therefore, its Quaternary topographic
evolution is well constrained. Quaternary tectonic activity in this region is characterized by the
growth of folds and reverse strike-slip faults that have tectonically inverted the middle to late

9
Miocene Sorbas-Tabernas and Níjar-Almería extensional basins (Azañón et al., 2012; Giaconia
et al., 2012; 2013; 2014).

The second study area is located in the eastern side of the Dead Sea and presents a very
different topographic configuration, with the Trans-Jordanian plateau (~700-1200 m a.s.l) being
eroded by a fluvial network draining to the Dead Sea basin, the lowest topographic spot in the
world (water level at 427 m b.s.l in 2014). This second area has not been investigated from a
quantitative tectonic-geomorphologic perspective and, therefore, new data on its Quaternary
landscape evolution are valuable.

4.1. Sierra Alhamilla mountain range

Geological setting

The Sierra Alhamilla mountain range (1200-1300 m a.s.l) is located in the southeastern Betic
Cordillera, between the Sorbas-Tabernas and Níjar-Almería basins (Fig. 6). These basins formed
as sedimentary depocenters during the Middle to Late Miocene, but underwent a tectonic
inversion as a consequence of the Africa-Iberia convergence since the Latemost Miocene
(Weijermars et al., 1985; Booth-Rea et al., 2004; Giaconia et al., 2015). Most of the Pliocene and
Quaternary sediments of these basins relate to releasing jogs of strike-slip faults or were
developed on synclines between E-W to ENE-WSW-elongates antiformal ridges (Azañón et al.,
2012; Giaconia et al., 2012). Recent studies have proposed a Quaternary active deformation in
the Sierra Alhamilla area, within a general transpressive tectonic context. The main active
tectonic structures in this region include the Sierra Alhamilla anticlinorium, the transpressive
dextral-reverse Polopos Fault Zone (Gafarillos and North Alhamilla reverse fault segments
Giaconia et al., 2012; 2013), and high-angle Quaternary normal faults striking NW-SE to NNW-
SSE (Martínez-Díaz and Henández-Enrile, 2004) (Fig. 6).

The Quaternary drainage network evolution in the Sierra Alhamilla mountain range responds
to the activity of the above-mentioned structures. In the early Pleistocene the drainage was
centripetal towards the Sorbas basin, but successive captures diverted the drainage to the Aguas
River, eastwards from the Sierra Alhamilla mountain range (Harvey and Wells, 1987; Giaconia
et al., 2012). The tectonic inversion of the Sorbas basin produced fluvial incision with periods of
aggradation recorded by fluvial terraces. Pleistocene uplift rates for the Sierra Alhamilla
mountain range are between 80 and 150 m/Ma (Weijermars et al., 1985). Giaconia et al. (2012)
demonstrated through a coupled geomorphic-cartographic study that the Northern Alhamilla

10
Reverse Fault (NARF) and the South Gafafillos Fault (SGF), as well as the Sierra Alhamilla
anticline (Fig. 6) have been active in the Quaternary with rates ranging from 0.05 to 0.5 m/ky.

Geomorphic analysis

In order to test the presented GIS tools, we extracted the normalized profiles for all the main
streams draining the Sierra Alhamilla mountain range. We used a Digital Elevation Model of 10
m of pixel resolution from the Andalucía regional government, and used the same numbering as
Giaconia et al. (2012) (Fig. 6). We also calculated four swath profiles with a strip with of 2 km
to characterize the mountain range. The first profile (P0 in Fig.

The extracted normalized profiles show many linear profiles typical of rivers in transient
state (Fig. 7). The most linear and even convex profiles belong to small basins related to the
NARF (profiles 32N and 33N), rivers located in the footwalls of high-angle normal faults in the
southwestern termination of Sierra Alhamilla (rivers 5S, 6S and 7S), and rivers located in the
eastern termination of the range (16S, 19S, 20S, 35N, 36N). These last profiles, despite not being
related to present-day active tectonic structures, could respond to the Pleistocene capture of the
Sorbas-Tabernas basin by the Lucainena Rambla (Giaconia et al., 2013). Normalized profiles are
easier to interpret than traditional longitudinal profiles and highlight knickpoints.

By observing the normalized profiles with linear shapes, it is clear that the only valuable
parameter in this kind of profiles is the Convavity (C T), as the Cmax and Lmax only have sense
in concave profiles (Fig. 3). This is clear in Figure 8 that shows a traditional plot of C T vs Lmax.
This plot would indicate that rivers are in a mature stage (see Ruszkiczay-Rüdiger et al., 2009;
Matos et al., 2014), what is clearly wrong in the Sierra Alhamilla mountain range.

Swath profiles also show very interesting features. The four swath profiles show that the
third quartile profile (Q3) is close in several points to the maximum profile, which would be
indicative of a young relief that is being incised by a drainage network with steep valleys. The
P0 profile runs along the main river divide and indicates higher erosion rates (local relief curve)
in the highest part of the Sierra (Fig. 9), related to the uplift produced by the Sierra Alhamilla
anticlinorium and probably favored by the high-angle normal faults that occur in its western end
(Fig. 6). Transverse profiles P1, P2 and P3 also show interesting differences (Fig. 9). Whereas
profile P1 shows a N-S symmetry, the P2 and P3 profiles area is clearly asymmetric. These
asymmetries can be produced by the activity of the NARF and SGF faults (Fig. 9). In these latter
profiles, incision is concentrated in the hanging wall of these reverse and reverse-oblique faults.

11
Our results prove the landscape signature of the Sierra Alhamilla fold and the northern reverse
faults (NARF and SGF) as was already pointed out by Giaconia et al. (2012).

4.2. Eastern border of the Dead Sea basin

In order to test the applicability of the presented tools in an area with no previous tectonic
geomorphology studies, we have analyzed four rivers of the eastern side of the Dead Sea
Transform Fault (DSTF) (Fig. 10). This region presents a very interesting topographic
configuration, with the Trans-Jordanian plateau located at ~700-1200 m a.s.l, and being eroded
by a fluvial network draining to the Dead Sea basin. This drainage network has experienced a
continuous base-level lowering during the Quaternary, and it is one of the few places in the
world where rivers flow below the present-day sea level (Garfunkel and Ben-Avraham, 1996;
Hall, 1996; Ten Brink and Flores, 2012). The configuration of the eastern drainage network of
the Dead Sea basin is very interesting to analyze the river response to a continuous base level
lowering and the relationship between topography and river longitudinal profiles in terms of
concavity/convexity.

Geological setting

The Dead Sea formed in the Upper Miocene as a pull-apart basin connecting the two main
segments of the southern Dead Sea Transform Fault, namely the Jordan Valley Fault (JVF) and
the Wadi Araba Fault (WAF) (Garfunkel and Ben-Avraham, 1996). The WAF (Fig. 10) bounds
the eastern Dead Sea coast being the topographic transition between the Trans-Jordanian Plateau
(TJP) and the Dead Sea and Araba depressions (Atallah et al. 2005; LeBeon et al., 2012). The
JVF (Fig. 10) cuts the alluvial fans in the Jordan valley whereas no great relief changes are
observed. Active NW-SE normal and E-W Dextral strike-slip faults are conjugate to the WAF
and JVF (Lunina et al., 2005). These faults form a low relief topography favoring the evolution
of large E-W and NW-SE valleys (Fig. 10). The southern and northern areas of the Dead Sea
present NE restraining transpression due to the activity of the WAF, whilst the JVF presents
almost pure sinistral strike-slip movement (Atallah et al., 2005).

The formation of the Dead Sea in the Upper Miocene constituted a major change in the
topography of the region. The subsidence rate of the Dead Sea was several hundreds of m/Ma
during the Upper Miocene to Pliocene but it accelerated by an order of magnitude during the
Pleistocene (Ten Brink and Flores, 2012). This high subsidence had an associated base-level
lowering that, in turn, produced an erosion-wave that propagated eastwards from the Dead Sea
coast into the TJP.

12
Geomorphic analysis

In order to test the ArcGIS Add-Ins we have extracted the drainage network of four of the
most important rivers draining the eastern side of the Dead Sea valley, namely Zarqa, Walah,
Mujeb and Hasa Rivers (Fig. 10). These four rivers flow over the TJP with E-W to SE-NW
directions and drain to the Jordan River (Zarqa river) and the Dead Sea (Walah, Mujeb and Hasa
Rivers, Fig. 10). For the analysis we used a Digital Elevation Model acquired by the Shuttle
Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) with 1 arc-second (~30 m) of pixel resolution.

The normalized longitudinal profiles of the four selected rivers show very interesting
characteristics. All of them have clear convex longitudinal profiles showing negative concavity
values (Fig. 11). The Walah, Mujeb and Hasa rivers that drain directly to the Dead Sea exhibit
slightly higher convexities (i.e. negative concavities) than the Mujeb River that discharges into
the Jordan River. The upper reaches of these rivers are located over the TJP and present smooth
gradients, whereas the lower and middle reaches are affected by the erosion wave formed as a
consequence of the Dead Sea base lowering. The convex profiles may indicate that these rivers
are in transient state as they still have not adapted to the base-level lowering produced by the
Dead Sea formation.

In order to compare the middle-to-long term response of the landscape we also have
extracted 4 swath profiles following the main directions of the analyzed rivers. We selected a
swath width of 12 km and a step-size of 40 m (Fig. 12). The swath profiles show similar
characteristics to the normalized longitudinal profiles; the TJP is clear in the upper parts of the
swaths and the increasing relief (max. elev - min. elev.) coincides with the incision wave. The
high values of the enhanced transverse hypsometry integral (THi*) suggest a young relief
generated by this incision wave, with mean elevations closer to maximum elevations (Fig. 12).
These high THi* values are clearer in the western parts of the swaths, where relief increases due
to the influence of the incision wave. This trend is not so clear in Profile 4, in spite of showing
the highest convexity in the Hansa River. This fact can be due to the influence of the northern
termination of the Dhahal mountains (Atallah et al., 2005) that produce higher elevations (up to
1300 m) in the western part of the swath profile (Fig. 12). This influence is also depicted by the
Q3 profiles of the swaths; whereas in swath profiles 2 and 3 Q3 line is very close to the
maximum elevation (there is not any influence of a higher relief), in profile number 4 the
differences between Q3 and maximum elevation are higher, thus indicating the influence of
Dhahal mountains (higher than the TJP).

13
 The combination of the swath and normalized profiles indicate that the Jordanian side of the
Dead Sea is still in a transient state due to the base-level lowering produced by the formation of
the Dead Sea pull-a-part basin. The convexity of the normalized profiles agrees with the high
hypsometric integral values and local relief in the swath profiles. This quick analysis highlights
the potential of the combination of swath and normalized profiles and the usefulness of the two
presented Add-Ins.

5. Final considerations
The SwathProfiler and NProfiler Add-Ins are useful complements for the software package
ArcGIS 10 to carry out advanced landscape analyses. These tools produce topographic swath
profiles and normalized longitudinal river profiles in a simple, efficient and quick way. Swath
profiles help in the interpretation of the regional topographic patterns and normalized river
profiles allowing the comparison of gradient variations of different rivers that may be controlled
by climatic, lithological and/or tectonic factors. Therefore, the presented tools can streamline the
DEM analysis workflow and allow focusing the efforts of the researchers on the geologic and
tectonic interpretation of the results. The described case studies are good examples of the
usefulness of the tools in tectonic geomorphology field. The results obtained in the Sierra
Alhamilla prove the activity of the fold and reverse-oblique faults in a transpressive tectonic
context as already proposed by Giaconia et al. (2012), and they added extra value to the
quantitative analysis of this area. The obtained profiles in the Jordan side of Dead Sea region
show good examples of rivers conditioned by active tectonic processes that shape the landscape.
Both, rivers and topography are in a transient-state due to the continuous base level lowering
produced since the formation of the Dead Sea pull-a-part basin.

Acknowledgements
This study was supported by research projects CGL2015-67130-C2-1-R, Spanish "Juan de la
Cierva" grant, Erasmus Mundus External Cooperation Window, Lot 3, and a research grant from
Tafila Technical University (Jordan). Any use of trade, product, industry, or firm names is for
descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the authors.

References
Andreani, L., Stanek, K., Gloaguen, R., Krentz, O., Domínguez-González, L., 2014. DEM-Based
Analysis of Interactions between Tectonics and Landscapes in the Ore Mountains and Eger

14
 Rift (East Germany and NW Czech Republic). Remote Sens. 6, 7971–8001.
doi:10.3390/rs6097971

Antón, L., de Vicente, G., Muñoz-Martín, A., Stokes, M., 2014. Using river long profiles and
geomorphic indices to evaluate the geomorphological signature of continental scale drainage
capture, Duero basin (NW Iberia). Geomorphology 206, 250–261.
doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2013.09.028

Atallah, M., Mustafa, H., El-akhal, H., Al-taj, M., 2005. Dhahal structure  : an example of
transpression associated with the Dead Sea transform in Wadi. Acta Geol. Pol. 55, 361–370.

Azañón, J.M., Pérez-Peña, J.V., Giaconia, F., Booth-Rea, G., Martínez-Martínez, J.M.,
Rodríguez-Peces, M.J., 2012. Active tectonics in the central and eastern Betic Cordillera
through morphotectonic analysis: the case of Sierra Nevada and Sierra Alhamilla. J. Iber.
Geol. 38, 225–238. doi:10.5209/rev_JIGE.2012.v38.n1.39214

Azañón, J.M., Galve, J.P., Pérez-Peña, J. V., Giaconia, F., Carvajal, R., Booth-Rea, G., Jabaloy,
A., Vázquez, M., Azor, A., Roldán, F.J., 2015. Relief and drainage evolution during the
exhumation of the Sierra Nevada (SE Spain): Is denudation keeping pace with uplift?
Tectonophysics. doi:10.1016/j.tecto.2015.06.015

Baulig, H., 1926. Sur une méthode d’analyse altimétrique appliquée á la Bretagne. Bull.
l’Association Geogr. Fr. 10, 7–9.

Booth-Rea, G., Azañón, J.M., Azor, A., García-Dueñas, V., 2004. Influence of strike-slip fault
segmentation on drainage evolution and topography. A case study: the Palomares fault zone
(southeast- ern Betics, Spain). J. Struct. Geol 26, 1615-1632. doi:10.1016/j.jsg.2004.01.007

Brookfield, M.E., 1998. The evolution of the great river systems of southern Asia during the
Cenozoic India-Asia collision: rivers draining southwards. Geomorphology 22, 285–312.

Burbank, D.W., Anderson, R.S., 2013. Tectonic Geomorphology, 2nd Edition, 2nd ed. Blackwell
Science, Oxford.

Castillo, M., Bishop, P., Jansen, J.D., 2013. Knickpoint retreat and transient bedrock channel
morphology triggered by base-level fall in small bedrock river catchments: The case of the
Isle of Jura, Scotland. Geomorphology 180-181, 1–9. doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2012.08.023

Coblentz, D., Karlstrom, K.E., 2011. Tectonic geomorphometrics of the western United States:
Speculations on the surface expression of upper mantle processes. Geochemistry Geophys.
Geosystems 12, n/a–n/a. doi:10.1029/2011GC003579

D’Agostino, N., Jackson, J. a., Dramis, F., Funiciello, R., 2001. Interactions between mantle
upwelling, drainage evolution and active normal faulting: an example from the central
Apennines (Italy). Geophys. J. Int. 147, 475–497.

15
Daxberger, H., Dalumpines, R., Scott, D.M., Riller, U., 2014. The ValleyMorph Tool: An
automated extraction tool for transverse topographic symmetry (T-) factor and valley width to
valley height (Vf-) ratio. Comput. Geosci. 70, 154–163. doi:10.1016/j.cageo.2014.05.015

Demoulin, A., 1998. Testing the tectonic significance of some parameters of longitudinal river
profiles: the case of the Ardenne (Belgium, NW Europe). Geomorphology 24, 189–208.
doi:10.1016/S0169-555X(98)00016-6

Fielding, E., Isacks, B., Barazangi, M., Duncan, C., 1994. How flat is Tibet? Geology 22, 163.
doi:10.1130/0091-7613(1994)022<0163:HFIT>2.3.CO;2

Garfunkel, Z., Ben-Avraham, Z., 1996. The structure of the Dead Sea basin. Tectonophysics
266, 155–176. doi:10.1016/S0040-1951(96)00188-6

Giaconia, F., Booth-Rea, G., Martínez-Martínez, J.M., Azañón, J.M., Pérez-Peña, J.V., Pérez-
Romero, J., Villegas, I., 2012. Geomorphic evidence of active tectonics in the Sierra
Alhamilla (eastern Betics, SE Spain). Geomorphology 145-146, 90–106.
doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2011.12.043

Giaconia, F., Booth-Rea, G., Martínez-Martínez, J.M., Azañón, J.M., Pérez-Romero, J., Villegas,
I., 2013. Mountain front migration and drainage captures related to fault segment linkage and
growth: The Polopos transpressive fault zone (southeastern Betics, SE Spain). ). J. Struct.
Geol. 46, 76–91. doi:10.1016/j.jsg.2012.10.005.

Giaconia, F., Booth-Rea, G., Martínez-Martínez, J.M., Azañón, J.M., Storti, F., Artoni, A., 2014.
Heterogeneous extension and the role of transfer faults in the development of the southeastern
Betic basins (SE Spain). Tectonics 33, 2467–2489.

Giaconia, F., Booth-Rea, G., Ranero, C.R., Gràcia, E., Bartolome, R., Calahorrano, A., Lo
Iacono, C., Vendrell, M.G., Cameselle, A.L., Costa, S., De La Peña, L.G., Martínez-Loriente,
S., Perea, H., Viñas, M., 2015. Compressional tectonic inversion of the Algero-Balearic basin:
Latemost Miocene to present oblique convergence at the Palomares margin (Western
Mediterranean) 34, 1516–1543. doi:10.1002/2015TC003861

Goldrick, G., Bishop, P., 2007. Regional analysis of bedrock stream long profiles: evaluation of
Hack’s SL form, and formulation and assessment of an alternative (the DS form). Earth Surf.
Process. Landforms 32, 649–671. doi:10.1002/esp

Grohmann, C.H., 2005. Trend-surface analysis of morphometric parameters: A case study in

southeastern Brazil. Comput. Geosci. 31, 1007–1014. doi:10.1016/j.cageo.2005.02.011

Grohmann, C.H., 2004. Morphometric analysis in geographic information systems: applications

of free software GRASS and R. Comput. Geosci. 30, 1055–1067.
doi:10.1016/j.cageo.2004.08.002

16
Grohmann, C.H., Riccomini, C., Alves, F.M., 2007. SRTM-based morphotectonic analysis of the
Pocos de Caldas Alkaline Massif, southeastern Brazil. Comput. Geosci. 33, 10–19.
doi:10.1016/j.cageo.2006.05.002

Guth, P.L., 2006. Geomorphometry from SRTM: Comparison to NED. Photogramm. Eng.
Remote Sensing 72, 269–277.

Hack, J.T., 1957. Studies of longitudinal profiles in Virginia and Maryland. U.S. Geol. Surv.
Prof. Pap. 294-B.

Hall, J.K., 1996. Digital topography and bathymetry of the area of the Dead Sea Depression.
Tectonophysics 266, 177–185. doi:10.1016/S0040-1951(96)00189-8.

Harvey, A.M., Wells, S.G., 1987. Response of Quaternary fluvial systems to differential
epeirogenic uplift: Aguas and Feos river systems, southeast Spain. Geology 15, 689-693.

Hergarten, S., Robl, J., Stüwe, K., 2014. Extracting topographic swath profiles across curved
geomorphic features. Earth Surf. Dyn. 2, 97–104. doi:10.5194/esurf-2-97-2014

Jackson, J., Norris, R., Youngson, J., 1996. The structural evolution of active fault and fold
systems in central Otago, New Zealand: evidence revealed by drainage patterns. J. Struct.
Geol. 18, 217–234. doi:10.1016/S0191-8141(96)80046-0

Keller, E.A., Pinter, N., 2002. Active tectonics (2nd Ed). Prentice Hall, New Jersey.

Kirby, E., Whipple, K.X., 2012. Expression of active tectonics in erosional landscapes. J. Struct.
Geol. 44, 54–75. doi:10.1016/j.jsg.2012.07.009

Kirby, E., Whipple, K.X., 2001. Quantifying differential rock-uplift rates via stream profile
analysis. Geology 29, 415. doi:10.1130/0091-7613(2001)029<0415:QDRURV>2.0.CO;2

LeBéon, M., Klinger, Y., Mériaux, A.S., Al-Qaryouti, M., Finkel, R.C., Mayyas, O., Tapponnier,
P., 2012. Quaternary morphotectonic mapping of the Wadi Araba and implications for the
tectonic activity of the southern Dead Sea fault. Tectonics 31, 1–25.
doi:10.1029/2012TC003112

Lunina, O.V., Mart, Y., Gladkov, A.S., 2005. Fracturing patterns, stress fields and earthquakes in
the Southern Dead Sea rift. J. Geodyn. 40, 216–234. doi:10.1016/j.jog.2005.07.010

Mackin, J.H., 1948. Concept of the Graded River. GSA Bull. 59, 463–512.

Martínez-Díaz, J.J., Hernández-Enrile, J.L., 2004. Neotectonics and morphotectonics of the

southern Almeria region (Betic Cordillera-Spain) kinematic implications. Int J Earth Sci 93,
189-206.

17
Matoš, B., Tomljenović, B., Trenc, N., 2014. Identification of tectonically active areas using
DEM: a quantitative morphometric analysis of Mt. Medvednica, NW Croatia. Geol. Q. 58, 1–
19. doi:10.7306/gq.1130

Merritts, D., Vincent, K.R., 1989. Geomorphic response of coastal streams to low, intermediate,
and high rates of uplift, Medocino triple junction region, northern California. Geol. Soc. Am.
101, 1373–1388.

Molin, P., Fubelli, G., Nocentini, M., Sperini, S., Ignat, P., Grecu, F., Dramis, F., 2012.
Interaction of mantle dynamics, crustal tectonics, and surface processes in the topography of
the Romanian Carpathians: A geomorphological approach. Glob. Planet. Change 90-91, 58–
72. doi:10.1016/j.gloplacha.2011.05.005

Molin, P., Pazzaglia, F.J., Dramis, F., 2004. Geomorphic expression of active tectonics in a
rapidly-deforming forearc, Sila massif, Calabria, southern Italy. Am. J. Sci. 304, 559–589.

Pérez-Peña, J. V., Azañón, J.M., Azor, A., 2009a. CalHypso: An ArcGIS extension to calculate
hypsometric curves and their statistical moments. Applications to drainage basin analysis in
SE Spain. Comput. Geosci. 35, 1214–1223. doi:10.1016/j.cageo.2008.06.006

Pérez-Peña, J. V., Azañón, J.M., Azor, A., Delgado, J., González-Lodeiro, F., 2009b. Spatial
analysis of stream power using GIS: SLk anomaly maps. Earth Surf. Process. Landforms 34,
16–25. doi:10.1002/esp

Pérez-Peña, J. V., Azañón, J.M., Booth-Rea, G., Azor, a., Delgado, J., 2009c. Differentiating
geology and tectonics using a spatial autocorrelation technique for the hypsometric integral. J.
Geophys. Res. 114, F02018. doi:10.1029/2008JF001092

Pérez-Peña, J. V., Azor, A., Azañón, J.M., Keller, E.A., 2010. Active tectonics in the Sierra
Nevada (Betic Cordillera, SE Spain): insights from geomorphic indexes and drainage pattern
analysis. Geomorphology 119, 74–87. doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2010.02.020

Perron, J.T., Royden, L., 2013. An integral approach to bedrock river profile analysis. Earth
Surf. Process. Landforms 38, 570–576. doi:10.1002/esp.3302

Pike, R.J., Wilson, S.E., 1971. Elevation-Relief Ratio, Hypsometric Integral, and Geomorphic
Area-Altitude Analysis. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 82, 1079 – 1084. doi:10.1130/0016-
7606(1971)82[1079:ERHIAG]2.0.CO;2

Queiroz, G.L., Salamuni, E., Nascimento, E.R., 2015. Knickpoint finder: A software tool that
improves neotectonic analysis. Comput. Geosci. 76, 80–87. doi:10.1016/j.cageo.2014.11.004

Rigon, R., Rodriguez-Iturbe, I., Maritan, A., Giacometti, A., Tarboton, D.G., Rinaldo, A., 1996.
On Hack’s Law. Water Resour. Res. 32, 3367.

18
Riquelme, R., Martinod, J., Hérail, G., Darrozes, J., Charrier, R., 2003. A geomorphological
approach to determining the Neogene to Recent tectonic deformation in the Coastal Cordillera
of northern Chile (Atacama). Tectonophysics 361, 255–275. doi:10.1016/S0040-
1951(02)00649-2

Royden, L., Perron, J.T., 2013. Solutions of the stream power equation and application to the
evolution of river longitudinal profiles. J. Geophys. Res. Earth Surf. 118, 497–518.
doi:10.1002/jgrf.20031

Ruszkiczay-Rüdiger, Z., Fodor, L., Horváth, E., Telbisz, T., 2009. Discrimination of fluvial,
eolian and neotectonic features in a low hilly landscape: A DEM-based morphotectonic
analysis in the Central Pannonian Basin, Hungary. Geomorphology 104, 203–217.
doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2008.08.014

Scotti, V.N., Molin, P., Faccenna, C., Soligo, M., Casas-Sainz, A., 2014. The influence of
surface and tectonic processes on landscape evolution of the Iberian Chain (Spain):
Quantitative geomorphological analysis and geochronology. Geomorphology 206, 37–57.
doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2013.09.017

Seeber, L., Gornitz, V., 1983. River profiles along the Himalayan arc as indicators of active
tectonics. Tectonophysics 92, 335-367.

Shahzad, F., Gloaguen, R., 2011a. TecDEM: A MATLAB based toolbox for tectonic
geomorphology, Part 1: Drainage network preprocessing and stream profile analysis. Comput.
Geosci. 37, 250–260. doi:10.1016/j.cageo.2010.06.008

Shahzad, F., Gloaguen, R., 2011b. TecDEM: A MATLAB based toolbox for tectonic
geomorphology, Part 2: Surface dynamics and basin analysis. Comput. Geosci. 37, 261–271.
doi:10.1016/j.cageo.2010.06.009

Telbisz, T., Kovács, G., Székely, B., Szabó, J., 2013. Topographic swath profile analysis: a
generalization and sensitivity evaluation of a digital terrain analysis tool. Zeitschrift für
Geomorphol. 57, 485–513. doi:10.1127/0372-8854/2013/0110

ten Brink, U. S., Flores, C. H., 2012. Geometry and subsidence history of the Dead Sea basin: A
case for fluid-induced mid-crustal shear zone? J Geophys Res, 117(B1), B01406.
http://doi.org/10.1029/2011JB008711

Tricart, J., Cailleux, A., 1958. Cours de Geomorphologie I: Geomorphologie Structurale. C.D.U.,
Paris.

Troiani, F., Galve, J.P., Piacentini, D., Della Seta, M., Guerrero, J., 2014. Spatial analysis of
stream length-gradient (SL) index for detecting hillslope processes: A case of the Gállego
River headwaters (Central Pyrenees, Spain). Geomorphology 214, 183–197.

19
Weijermars, R., Roep, T.B., Van den Eeckhout, B., Postma, G., Kleverlaan, K., 1985. Uplift
history of a Betic fold nappe inferred from Neogene-Quaternary sedimentation and tectonics
(in the Sierra Alhamilla and Almería, Sorbas and Tabernas Basins of the Betic Cordilleras, SE
Spain). Geologie en Mijnbouw 64, 397-411.

Whipple, K.X., Tucker, G.E., 1999. Dynamics of the stream-power river incision model:
Implications for height limits of mountain ranges, landscape response timescales, and research
needs. J. Geophys. Res. 104, 17661–17674.

Willett, S.D., McCoy, S.W., Perron, J.T., Goren, L., Chen, C.Y., 2014. Dynamic reorganization
of river basins. Science 343, 1248765. doi:10.1126/science.1248765

Wobus, C., Whipple, K.X., Kirby, E., Synder, N., Johnson, J., Spyropolou, K., Crosby, B.T.,
Sheehan, D., 2006. Tectonics from topography: Procedures, promise, and pitfalls, in: Willett,
S.D., Hovius, N., Brandon, M.T., Fisher, D.M. (Eds.), Tectonics, Climate and Landscape
Evolution. Geology Society of America Spetial Papers, pp. 55–74.
doi:10.1130/2006.2398(04)

Wobus, C.W., Whipple, K.X., Hodges, K. V., 2006. Neotectonics of the central Nepalese
Himalaya: Constraints from geomorphology, detrital 40Ar/39Ar thermochronology, and
thermal modeling. Tectonics 25, 1–18. doi:10.1029/2005TC001935

Zhang, H.P., Zhang, P.Z., Kirby, E., Yin, J.H., Liu, C.R., Yu, G.H., 2011. Along-strike
topographic variation of the Longmen Shan and its significance for landscape evolution along
the eastern Tibetan Plateau. J. Asian Earth Sci. 40, 855–864. doi:10.1016/j.jseaes.2010.05.015

Highlights

· We presented two new ArcGIS Add-Ins to extract topographic swath and river normalized profiles.
· These tools are “easy-to-use” and allow perform morphometric analysis within ArcMap environment.
· We propose the use of a new index to analyze topographic swath profiles
· We provide two examples of use in the Betic Cordillera (Spain) and the Dead Sea Transform Fault
(Jordan)

20
 E P01 W
1100
Max. elev.
900

Elevation (m) 700 Q3

Mean elev.
500

300 Q1
100
Min. elev.
-100

-300 1.0

0.5 THi*

0.0
0 15000 30000 45000 60000 75000

E P02 W
900

700
Elevation (m)

500

300

100

-100

-300 1.0
0.5 THi*
0.0
0 15000 30000 45000

E P03 W
900

700
Elevation (m)

500

300

100

-100

-300 1.0
0.5 THi*
0.0
0 15000 30000 45000 60000 75000 90000

E P04 W
1300

1100

900

700
Elevation (m)

500

300

100

-100

-300 1.0

0.5 THi*

0.0
0 15000 30000 45000 60000 75000
Distance (m)

Figure 12. Swath profiles parallel to the analyzed rivers (see location in Fig. 10). The swaths are 12km width and a base step-size of 40m. Each
profile has data from 51 lines. All the swath profiles depict the same trend; an upper part with low relief located over the Transjordanian plateau
(TJP) and a pronounced drop coinciding with the Dead Sea valley. Enhanced transverse hypsometric integral profiles (THi*) show higher values
for profiles 2 and 3 in their middle-to-lower parts, which drain directly to the Dead Sea, and moderate values for profiles 1 and 4.
 1.0 1.0
Zarqa River Walah River
CT: -34.32% CT: -43.01%
Cmax: n/a Cmax: n/a
0.8 Lmax: n/a 0.8 Lmax: n/a
Normalized elevation

Normalized elevation
0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Normalized distance Normalized distance

1.0 1.0
Mujeb River Hasa River
CT: -40.73% CT: -43.50%
Cmax: n/a Cmax: n/a
0.8 Lmax: n/a 0.8 Lmax: n/a
Normalized elevation

Normalized elevation

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Normalized distance Normalized distance

Figure 11. Normalized longitudinal profiles of the four analyzed rivers (see location in Fig. 10). All the profiles show
remarkable convexity pointing to a transient-state. Zarqa river, which drain to the Jordan River, depicts lower convexity
(i.e. negative concavity) than the Walah, Mujeb and Hasa rivers, that drain directly into the Dead Sea.
 34 36 38

A 750000 800000 850000

Irbid

a
Se
34

34
3600000

3600000
an
!
.
stem
c Sy
ne
r
an A
ra

Syri
er

See of Galilee
dit
Me

SHS
Amman
32

32
Jarash

JVF
JVF

AHS
Fig. 1B
!
.
DEAD SEA

African Plate Zarqa River

F
WA

Jordan River
Arabian Plate Al Zarqa
3550000

3550000
!
.
30

30
P01
aba

Amman
q

!
.
of A
lf
Gu

34 36 38

Jerusalem
!
.

3500000
3500000

Wal
ah
Dead Sea

Rive
r

P02

Mujeb River
WAF

Karak

3450000
3450000

!
.

P0
3
Hasa
Rive
r
Mt.

Main tectonic
structures
hal

Rivers
Dha

3400000
Swath Profiles
3400000

Basins
P0
Elevation (m) 4
1637

1030 km
-430
0 25 50
750000 800000 850000

Figure 10. Location of the four analyzed rivers in the eastern side of the Dead Sea (Jordan). The inset shows the
study area location within the plate boundary context defined by the Dead Sea Transform Fault. WAF: Wadi Araba
Fault, JVF: Jordan Valley Fault.
 W E
1400
P0
1200
Elevation (m)
1000

800

600

400

200 1.0

0.5 THi*

0.0
0 4000 8000 12000 16000 20000 24000 28000
Distance (m)

N S
1400

1200
P1
Elevation (m)

1000

800

600

400

200 1.0

0.5 THi*

0.0
0 4000 8000 12000 16000
Distance (m)
N S
1400
P2
1200
Elevation (m)

1000 NARF

800

600

400

200 1.0

0.5 THi*

0.0
0 4000 8000 12000
Distance (m)

N S
800
SGF
P3
Elevation (m)

600

400

200

0 1.0

0.5 THi*

0.0
0 4000 8000
Distance (m)

Figure 9. Swath profiles for Sierra Alhamilla mountain range (see location in figure 6). The swaths are 2
km width and have a base step size of 15m. Each profile has data from 51 lines. See text for discussion.
 North basins
South basins
35

Distance from source (Lmax)

32

31 7 5
16
26

8
6 11
27 4 14
29 1 22
18 10 30
3 2
13
20 28 23 24 21
36 33 17 37
9
19 12 15
34
25

Concavity (C T %)

Figure 8. Distance from source (Lmax) versus Concavity for selected streams.
Figure 7. Continuation
Figure 7. Continuation.
Figure 7. Normalized profiles for the main streams of the Sierra Alhamilla mountain range.
See location in figure 6.
 40 km
Iberian
peninsula

t
aul
ia F
urc
( ( Reverse fault

eM
Secondary streams

ad
am
Alh
37º 30´ Normal fault Main streams
F F Anticline

lt
Terreros fau
Neogene-Quaternary
sediments
550000
NGF 555000 volcanics
Neogene 560000 565000 570000 575000 580000
Study area

zone
Alboran crustal domain

Palomares fau
lt Ü
37º 00´
Malaguide complex
Alpujarride complex Sorbas-Tabernas basin
lt Nevado-Filabride complex
Almería u
ra s fa South-Iberian domain
ne
rbo
4100000

4100000
Ca Subbetic Mesozoic-
Palaeogene cover P2 SGF
2º 30´ 2º 00´ 1º 30´ 1º 00´ ( ( ( P3
( NARF 33N

P1

30N
( ( (
( N

31N
34

32N
23 (

35
( (

29N
28N
N

N
26N
22N
25

27N
24
N N
36N
F

20
F
N

S
4095000

4095000
21

19S
F

18S
17
S

P0
1S

14
2S

16
S

S
15S
4090000

4090000
3S

4S

12
S
11

S
5S

13
6S

7S

S
10
S
8S

Níjar-Almería basin
4085000

4085000
9S

0 2 4 6
km
550000 555000 560000 565000 570000 575000 580000

Figure 6. Location of the Sierra Alhamilla mountain range in the Betic Cordillera (SE Spain). The
figure shows the analyzed river and the location of the swath profiles. NARF: North Alhamilla Rever-
se Fault, SGF: South Gafarillos Fault.
 a

Figure 5. NProfiler Add-In within the ArcMap environment. The input window (a) allows the user to select the river
feature class (polyline) and the elevation source (digital elevation model). The output window (b) draws all the
normalized profiles and associated parameters (CT, Lmax and Cmax) and allow saving image files
 a

Figure 4. SwathProfiler Add-In within the ArcMap environment. The input window (a) allows the user to select the
profile feature class (polyline), the elevation source (digital elevation model) and the swath parameters. The output
window (b) draws all the swaths and allows selecting different kinds of visualizations as well as export data and save
image files.
 A
1.0

0.8

Normalized elevation
0.6

0.4
Cmax
Lmax
CT
0.2

0.0 0 B
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Normalized distance

Figure 3. Normalized profile and associated parameters. A: Headwater, B: mouth, CT Concavity (expressed as a
percentage respect to the AOB triangle), Cmax: maximum concavity, Lmax: position of the maximum concavity
respect to river headwater. See text for further explanation.
 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5
750

500
Elevation (m)

250
Max. elevation
Mean elevation Rmax = 565.6
0 Min. elevation

-250
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Distance (km)

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 1

Max. elev 589 550 475 450 350 0.8

Mean elev 587 543 445 330 120 wi = 0.2 Ln(r/R) + 1
0.6
Min elev 580 543 325 10 -160 Wi
Relief 9 9 150 440 510 0.4
HI 0.78 0.22 0.80 0.73 0.55 0.2
THi 0.55 0.45 0.72 0.72 0.55
0
THi* 0.58 0.42 0.87 0.86 0.58 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
r/R

Figure 2. Relationships between relief (max. - min. elevation) and hypsometry in swath profiles. The points P1 and P2 present very different
hypsometric integral (HI) values due to small variation in mean elevation in transect with very low relief. The proposed Transverse Hypsometric
Integral (THi) uses a weight factor (wi) that takes the logarithmic curve of the relative relief (r/R) to correct anomalous hypsometric variations.
This normalization makes the swath sectors with very low relief approach to 0.5 (points P1 and P2), whereas barely modify transects with mode-
rate to low relative relief (points P3, P4 and P5). The enhanced transverse Hypsometric Integral (THi*) highlights hypsometric variations by
re-scaling HI between 0.2 and 0.8 (see text for further explanation).
 Lines of
constant distance

Base line

Transverse lines
(radial)

d(-i) < d(0) < d(i)

d(-i)
d(0)
d(i)

Figure 1. Construction of a curved swath profile. The default step-size (d0) is determined for the base line and
re-calculated for all the parallel lines (red lines) to ensure that each line is sampled by the same number of points.
Note that transverse lines (green lines) do not need to be perpendicular to the base line