USGS 
Greece - 
Marineris 
sented on 
research 
ted in an 
cribed on 
ams. The 
ectilinear 
of Grand 
in fronts. 
in Valles 
d (12 km 
1e. Valles 
2 various 
esis and 
  
le from 
on of the 
c degree 
ulation of 
ween the 
will be 
2. METHODOLOGY 
First the study area and data are introduced. Then the 
geomorphometric parameters used in landscape characterization 
are explored. Then selected general geomorphometric 
parameters (Evans, 1980) defined for every node of the DEM 
are computed and the resulting statistics are used in an attempt 
to characterize landscape. Then a comparison between the 
computed geomorphometric parameters of the Valles Marineris 
and Grand Canyon is performed. 
2.4 Geomorphometric Parameters 
The easiest way to visualize the geomorphometric signature and 
International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, Vol XXXV, Part B4. Istanbul 2004 
From the other hand, hypsometric integral (HI) was used in 
classical conceptual geomorphic models of landscape evolution 
(Luo, 1998). It should be noted that the styles of landscape 
evolution depend critically on the timescales of the tectonic 
processes in relation to the response time of the landscape and 
classical conceptual models may be valid under specific 
tectonic conditions (Kooi and Beaumont, 1996). Descriptive 
statistics of the general geomorphometric attributes (Evans, 
1980) like elevation, gradient etc, were used to characterize the 
landscape either at local or even at planet scale (Mark, 1975). 
These gttributes were also used in a pixel based unsupervised 
classification procedure aiming to capture the geometric 
signature of landforms (Pike, 1987). In a previous research 
effort, mean elevation (H), mean gradient (G), hypsometric 
integral (HI) and local relief (LR) that equals to the elevation 
  
Figure 2. 3D visualization of the Grand Canyon. Draped topographic map on the Grand Canyon 1- 
degree DEM. 
the landscape pattern is by shaded relief maps (Pike and Thelin, 
1989). This approach allows the delineation of the major fault 
and ring structures and the characterization of the density- 
range (Hmaximum-Hminimum) within a mountain feature, 
were used to parametrically represent the Valles Marineris 
chasma (Miliaresis, 2001a). 
  
  
% en © 
   
  
Figure 3. The 1-degree DEM of the Grand Canyon merged with the 1-degree DEM of the Marble Canyon. 
roughness of the landscape by visual interpretation (Figure 2). 
The major disadvantage is that we can not establish a metric 
system that could compare the landscape of two different 
physiographic zones in a quantitative and less subjective 
manner. The tributary canyons of the study area are clearly 
observable in Figure 2 indicating a similarity with the formation 
of Valles Marineris canyon system. 
841 
2.2 Study area 
The Grand Canyon lies close to the borders of Utah and 
Nevada. The canyon system trends from longitude -111° to -113 
and covers an area of approximately 4937 sq. km. In places the 
canyon floor reaches a depth of 1800 m which is 6 to 7 times 
sallower compared to the depth of the Valles Marineris chasma. 
The width of the Grand Canyon varies from 16 km at the