Advertisement

Exploring the Fractal Mountains

  • Brian Klinkenberg
  • Keith C. Clarke

Abstract

The form of the earth’s surface, reflected by the variation in elevation over space, is very often used as one of the best examples of a naturally fractal phenomenon. The simulated landscapes that are included in Mandelbrot’s now classic texts (Mandelbrot, 1977, 1982), and in the work of many others conducting fractal simulation, are very realistic (e.g., Peitgen and Saupe, 1988). Are the models, however, correct? Can we explore the synthetic mountains of the fractal models, just as we can explore the real mountains on earth, and look for natural structure, form, and process? In this chapter we examine the applicability of fractal methods to natural topography from a geoscience, rather than a mathematical, viewpoint. We consider the question “is the land surface fractal?”

Keywords

Fractal Dimension Land Surface Fractal Model Digital Elevation Model Divider Method 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Albinet, G., Searby, G., and Stauffer, D., 1986, Fire propagation in a 2-D random medium: J. Phys. 47, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aviles, C.A., Scholz, C.H., and Boatwright, J., 1987, Fractal analysis applied to characteristic segments of the San Andreas fault: J. Geophys. Res. 92 (B1), 331–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Batty, M., and Longley, P., 1986, The fractal simulation of urban structure: Environ. Planning A 18, 1143–1179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown, S.R., and Scholz, C.H., 1985, Broad bandwidth study of the topography of natural rock surfaces: J. Geophys. Res. 90, 12,575–12, 582.Google Scholar
  5. Burrough, P.A., 1981, Fractal dimensions of landscapes and other environmental data: Nature (London) 294, 240–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burrough, P.A., 1983a, The application of fractal ideas to geophysical phenomena: paper presented at a conference organized by the Institute of Mathematics and Its Applications, 8 June 1983.Google Scholar
  7. Burrough, P.A., 1983b, Multiscale sources of spatial variation in soil. I. The application of fractal concepts to nested levels of soil variation: J. Soil Sci. 34, 577–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burrough, P.A., 1983c, Multiscale sources of spatial variation in soil. II. A non-Brownian fractal model and its application in soil survey: J. Soil Sci. 34, 599–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clarke, K.C., 1986, Computation of the fractal dimension of topographic surfaces using the triangular prism surface area method: Comput. Geosci. 12, 713–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clarke, K.C., 1988, Scale-based simulation of topographic relief: Am. Cartog. 15, 173–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Culling, W.E.H., 1986, Highly erratic spatial variability of soil-pH on Iping Common, West Sussex: Catena 13, 81–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Culling, W.E.H., and Datko, M., 1987, The fractal geometry of the soil-covered landscape: Earth Surface Processes Landforms 12, 369–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eastman, J.R., 1985, Single-pass measurement of the fractal dimension of digitized cartographic lines: paper presented at the annual conference of the Canadian Cartographic Association, 1985.Google Scholar
  14. Elassal, A.A., and Caruso, V.M., 1983, USGS digital cartographic standards: Digital Elevation Models, U.S. Geological Survey Circular 895-B.Google Scholar
  15. Fox, C.G., and Hayes, D.E., 1985, Quantitative methods for analyzing the roughness of the seafloor: Rev. Geophys. 23(1), 1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gilbert, L.E., 1987, Are topographic data sets fractal?: paper presented at MGUS-87, Redwood City, CA.Google Scholar
  17. Goodchild, M.F., 1980, Fractals and the accuracy of geographical measures: Math. Geol. 12, 85–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Goodchild, M.F., 1982, The fractional Brownian process as a terrain simulation model: Model. Simulation 13, 1133–1137.Google Scholar
  19. Goodchild, M.F., and Mark, D.M., 1987, The fractal nature of geographic phenomena: Ann. AAG 77, 265–278.Google Scholar
  20. Goodchild, M.F., Klinkenberg, B., Glieca, M., and Hasan, M., 1985, Statistics of hydrologic networks on fractional Brownian surfaces: Model. Simulation 16, 317–323.Google Scholar
  21. Hakanson, L., 1978, The length of closed geomorphic lines: Math. Geol. 10, 141–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hobson, R.D., 1972, Surface roughness in topography: A quantitative approach: in Spatial Analysis in Geomorphology, R.J. Chorley, (Ed.): Methuen, London, pp. 221–245.Google Scholar
  23. Hunt, C.B., 1967, Physiography of the United States: Freeman, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  24. Kagan, Y.Y., and Knopoff, L., 1980, Spatial distribution of earthquakes: The two-point correlation function: Geophys. J. R. Astron. Soc. 62, 303–320.Google Scholar
  25. Kadanoff, L.P., 1986, Fractals, where’s the physics?: Phys. Today, February, 1986.Google Scholar
  26. Kennedy, S.K., and Lin, W.-H., 1986, Fract-A fortran subroutine to calculate the variables necessary to determine the fractal dimension of closed forms: Comput. Geosci. 12, 705–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kent, C., and Wong, J., 1982, An index of littoral zone complexity and its measurement: Can. J. Fish Aquatic Sci. 39, 847–853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Klinkenberg, B., 1988, Tests of a fractal model of topography: Ph.D. thesis, University of Western Ontario.Google Scholar
  29. Lovejoy, S., 1982, Area-perimeter relation for rain and cloud areas: Science 216, 185–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lovejoy, S., and Mandelbrot, B.B., 1985, Fractal properties of rain, and a fractal model: Tellus 37 (A), 209–232.Google Scholar
  31. Lovejoy, S., and Schertzer, D., 1985, Generalized scale invariance in the atmosphere and fractal models of rain: Water Resources Res. 21(8), 1233–1250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lovejoy, S., and Schertzer, D., 1986, Scale invariance, symmetries, fractals, and stochastic simulations of atmospheric phenomena: Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 67, 21–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lovejoy, S., and Schertzer, D., 1988, Extreme variability, scaling and fractals in remote sensing: analysis and simulation: in Digital Image Processing in Remote Sensing, J.P. Muler, (Ed.): Taylor & Francis, pp. 177–212.Google Scholar
  34. Lovejoy, S., Schertzer, D., and Ladoy, P., 1986, Fractal characterisation of inhomogeneous geophysical measuring networks: Nature (London) 319, 43–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lovejoy, S., Schertzer, D. and Tsonis, A.A., 1987, Functional box-counting and multiple elliptical dimensions in rain: Science 235, 1036–1038.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mandelbrot, B.B., 1967, How long is the coast of Britain? Statistical self-similarity and fractional dimension: Science 156, 636–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mandelbrot, B.B., 1975, Stochastic models for the Earth’s relief, the shape and the fractal dimension of coastlines, and the number-area rule for islands: Proc. Nal. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 72, 3825–3828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mandelbrot, B.B., 1977, Fractals: Form, Chance and Dimension: Freeman, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  39. Mandelbrot, B.B., 1982. The Fractal Geometry of Nature: Freeman, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  40. Mandelbrot, B.B., 1984, Fractals in physics: Squig clusters, diffusions, fractal measures, and the uni-city of fractal dimensionality: J. Stat. Phys. 34, 895–929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mark, D.M., 1975, Geomorphometric parameters: A review and evaluation: Geograf. Ann. Ser. A 3, 165–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mark, D.M., and Aronson, P.B., 1984, Scale-dependent fractal dimensions of topographic surfaces: An empirical investigation, with applications in geomorphology: Math. Geol. 16, 671–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Morse, D.R., Lawton, J.H., Dodson, M.M., and Williamson, M.H., 1985, Fractal dimension of vegetation and the distribution of arthropod body lengths: Nature (London) 314, 731–733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Muller, J.-C., 1986, Fractal dimension and inconsistencies in cartographic line representations: Cartog. J. 23, 123–130.Google Scholar
  45. Pentland, A.P., 1984, Fractal-based description of natural scenes: IFFE PAMI 6, 661–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Peitgen, H.-O., and Saupe, D., Eds., 1988, The Science of Fractal Images: Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
  47. Richardson, L.F., 1961, The problem of contiguity: An appendix to ‘Statistics of deadly quarrels’: General Sys. Yearbook 6, 139–187.Google Scholar
  48. Roy, A., Gravel, G., and Gauthier, C., 1987, Measuring the dimension of surfaces: A review and appraisal of different methods: Proc. Auto-Carto Eight, 68–77.Google Scholar
  49. Scholz, C.H., and Aviles, C.A., 1986, The fractal geometry of faults and faulting: Earthquake Source Mechanics (Geophysical Monograph 37), M. Ewing Ser. 6.Google Scholar
  50. Shelberg, M.C., Moellering, H., and Lam, N.S., 1982, Measuring the fractal dimensions of empirical cartographic curves: Proc. Auto-Carto Five, 481–490.Google Scholar
  51. Shelberg, M.C., Moellering, H., and Lain, N.S., 1983, Measuring the fractal dimensions of surfaces: Proc. Auto-Carto Six, 319–328.Google Scholar
  52. Skoda, G., 1987, Fractal dimension of rainbands over hilly terrain: Meteorol. Atmos. Phys. 36, 74–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Steyn, D.G., and Ayotte, K W, 1985, Application of two-dimension terrain height spectra to mesoscale modeling: J. Atmos. Sci. 42, 2884–2887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Strahler, A.N., 1952, Hypsometric (area-altitude) analysis of erosional topography: Bull. Geol. Soc. Am. 63, 1117–1142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Thornbury, W.D., 1965, Regional Geomorphology of the United States: John Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  56. Woronow, A., 1981, Morphometric consistency with the Hausdorff-Besicovitch dimension: Math. Geol. 13, 201–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Brian Klinkenberg
  • Keith C. Clarke

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations