Abstract
This study presented a quantitative comparison of cockpit and doline karst by examining the numbers and characteristics of typical types of landform entities that are developed in Guilin (Guangxi, China), La Alianza (PR, USA), Avalton (KY, USA), and Oolitic (IN, USA). Five types of landform entities were defined: isolated hill (IH), clustered hills (CHs), isolated sinkhole (IS), clustered sinkholes (CSs), and clustered hills with sinkholes (CHSs). An algorithm was developed to automatically identify these types of landform entities by examining the contour lines on topographic maps of two cockpit karst areas (Guilin and La Alianza) and two doline karst areas (Oolitic and Avalton). Within each specific study area, the CHSs is the least developed type yet with a larger size and higher relief. The IH and IS entities are smaller in size, lower in relief, and outnumber their clustered counterparts. The total numbers of these types of entities are quite different in cockpit and doline karst areas. Doline karst is characterized by more negative (IS and CSs) than positive (IH and IHs) landforms and vice versa for cockpit karst. For example, the Guilin study area has 1192 positive landform entities in total, which occupy 9.81% of the total study area. It has only 622 negative landform entities occupying only 3.91% of the total study area. By contrast, the doline karst in Oolitic has 130 negative while only 10 positive landform entities. The positive and negative landforms in Oolitic occupy 12.68% and 2.61% of the total study area, respectively. Furthermore, average relief and slope of the landform entities are much higher and steeper in the cockpit karst than the doline karst areas. For instance, the average slope of CHs in Alvaton is 3.90 degrees while it is 19.78 degrees in La Alianza. The average relief of CSs is 4.07 m and 34.29 m in Oolitic and Guilin respectively. Such a difference within a specific area or between the cockpit and doline karst may reveal different controls on the development of karst landscape.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Bishop M P, Shroder J F et al., 2003. Remote sensing and geomorphometry for studying relief production in high mountains. Geomorphology, 55: 345–361.
Chai H, Zhou C, Chen X et al., 2009. Digital regionalization of geomorphology in Xinjiang. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 19(5): 600–614.
Cheng W, Zhou C, Chai H et al., 2011. Research and compilation of the Geomorphologic Atlas of the People’s Republic of China (1:1,000,000). Journal of Geographical Sciences, 21(1): 89–100.
Clark C D, Hughes A L, Greenwood S L et al., 2009. Size and shape characteristics of drumlins, derived from a large sample, and associated scaling laws. Quaternary Science Reviews, 28: 677–692.
Cronin T, 2000. Classifying hills and valleys in digitized terrain. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 66: 1129–1137.
Evans I S, 1972. General geomorphometry, derivatives of altitude, and descriptive statistics. Spatial Analysis in Geomorphology, 17–90.
Evans I S, 2012. Geomorphometry and landform mapping: What is a landform? Geomorphology, 137: 94–106.
Fenneman N M, 1938. Physiography of Eastern United States. New York: States McGraw Hill Book Co.
Ford D C, Williams P, 2007. Karst Hydrogeology and Geomorphology. John Wiley & Sons.
Gao D, Zhang S, Bi K et al., 1986. Research on Karst Landscapes in Southern Guizhou. Guiyang: Guizhou Peoples’ Publishing House. (in Chinese)
Grund A, 1914. Der geographische Zyklus im Karst. Gesellschaft für Erdkunde, 52: 621–640.
Hammond E H, 1954. Small-scale continental landform maps. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 44: 33–42.
Hengl T, Rossiter D G, 2003. Supervised landform classification to enhance and replace photo-interpretation in semi-detailed soil survey. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 67: 1810–1822.
Iwahashi J, Pike R J, 2007. Automated classifications of topography from DEMs by an unsupervised nested-means algorithm and a three-part geometric signature. Geomorphology, 86: 409–440.
Kweon I S, Kanade T, 1994. Extracting topographic terrain features from elevation maps. CVGIP: image understanding, 59: 171–182.
Liang F, Brook G A, Shi Y, 2011. Mapping cockpit karst in southern China from ASTER stereo images: DEM validation and accuracy assessment. Carsologica Sinica, 30: 233–242.
Liang F, Du Y, 2013. An automated method to extract typical karst landform entities from contour lines on topographic maps. In: Proceedings of Geomorphometry 2013, Nanjing, China, 46–49.
Liang F, Xu B, 2014. Discrimination of tower-, cockpit-, and non-karst landforms in Guilin, southern China, based on morphometric characteristics. Geomorphology, 204: 42–48.
Lyew-Ayee P, Viles H A, Tucker G E, 2007. The use of GIS-based digital morphometric techniques in the study of cockpit karst. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 32: 165–179.
MacMillan R A, Jones R K, McNabb D H, 2004. Defining a hierarchy of spatial entities for environmental analysis and modeling using digital elevation models (DEMs). Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 28: 175–200.
MacMillan R A, Pettapiece W W, Nolan S C et al., 2000. A generic procedure for automatically segmenting landforms into landform elements using DEMs, heuristic rules and fuzzy logic. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 113: 81–109.
MacMillan R A, Shary P A, 2009. Landforms and landform elements in geomorphometry. Developments in Soil Science, 33: 227–254.
Meijerink A M J, 1988. Data acquisition and data capture through terrain mapping units. ITC-Journal, 1: 23–43.
Miliaresis G C, Argialas D P, 2000. Extraction and delineation of alluvial fans from digital elevation models and Landsat Thematic Mapper images. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 66: 1093–1101.
Minár J, Evans I S, 2008. Elementary forms for land surface segmentation: The theoretical basis of terrain analysis and geomorphological mapping. Geomorphology, 95: 236–259.
Pike R J, 1988. The geometric signature: Quantifying landslide-terrain types from digital elevation models. Mathematical Geology, 20: 491–511.
Tang T, Day M J, 2000. Field survey and analysis of hillslopes on tower karst in Guilin, southern China. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 25: 1221–1235.
Tribe A, 1991. Automated recognition of valley heads from digital elevation models. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 16: 33–49.
Van Asselen S, Seijmonsbergen A C, 2006. Expert-driven semi-automated geomorphological mapping for a mountainous area using a laser DTM. Geomorphology, 78: 309–320.
Veni G, 2002. Revising the karst map of the United States. Journal of Cave and Karst Studies, 64(1): 45–50.
White W B, 1988. Geomorphology and Hydrology of Karst Terrains. New York: Oxford University Press.
Williams P, 2004. Polygonal karst and palaeokarst of the King Country, North Island, New Zealand. Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie Suppl., 136: 45–67.
Zhou Y, Tang G A, Yang X et al., 2010. Positive and negative terrains on northern Shaanxi Loess Plateau. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 20(1): 64–76.
Zhu X, 1988. Guilin Karst. Shanghai: Shanghai Scientific and Technical Publishers. (in Chinese)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Foundation: The State Key Laboratory of Resources and Environmental Information System, No.088RA500KA; National Natural Science Foundation of China, No.41071250; No.41371378
Author: Liang Fuyuan, PhD, specialized in geomorphology and GIS research.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Liang, F., Du, Y., Ge, Y. et al. A quantitative morphometric comparison of cockpit and doline karst landforms. J. Geogr. Sci. 24, 1069–1082 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11442-014-1139-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11442-014-1139-6