IEG 환경지질연구정보센터

전체 글

(1)Jour. Korean Earth Science Society, v. 25, no. 8, p. 764−773, December 2004. J

(2). ;öê ;¯ Ö®æö*~ Æ·F;~ ª

(3) f ·ç kj *R /DQGVDW (70 'ç~ Ï ê' *Á·ÿJ ÁB"Ï Á;>. æî¶öö, 305-350 &*7 F9 &;ÿ 30 ÏÎ&v æ~ã"¦, 305-764 &*7 F9 §ÿ 220 1. 2. Application of Landsat ETM Image to Estimate the Distribution of Soil Types and Erosional Pattern in the Wildfire Area of Gangneung, Gangweon Province, Korea Jin Young Lee15*, Dong Yoon Yang1, Ju Yong Kim1, and Gong Soo Chung2 . .RUHD ,QVWLWXWH RI *HRVFLHQFH 0LQHUDO 5HVRXUFHV 'DHMHRQ .RUHD 'HSDUWPHQW RI *HRORJ\ DQG (DUWK (QYLURQPHQWDO 6FLHQFHV &KXQJQDP 1DWLRQDO 8QLYHUVLW\ 'DHMHRQ .RUHD. . $EVWUDFW The soils in wildfire area of Sacheon-myeon, Gangneung, Gangweon Province, Korea, were investigated to clarify the erosion pattern of the soils. The soils were classified into 5 types on the basis of vegetation, types of organic matter, thickness of soil horizons, and completeness of soil profile. Each soil type showed different erosion pattern and Landsat ETM image. Coverage of plant leaves, litter, root, ash and other organic matter was an important component that affected soil color and reflectance of Landsat image (digital number). Although the NDVI (Normalized Distribution Vegetation Index) method in the wildfire area did not show much difference in soil types, the applied supervised classification method showed characteristic pattern of Landsat ETM image of soil types. This study showed that the applied supervised Landsat TM image classification in wildfire area is an effective way to estimate the distribution of erosion pattern of soils in wildfire area. ,FZXPSET wildfire, soil erosion, Landsat ETM, supervised classification. º £ Ö®æ Æ·~ ·çj \ª~V*~ ;öê ;¯ ÒÂ ¢&~ Ö®æ Æ·j Ò~& . Æ·f FVb~ ª

(4) ·ç 5 Æ·[~ Lþ, Æ·[ B~ j*9(9?ê)¢ "R 5B F;bR \ª~& . *çf Æ·~ F;ö 8¢ ² ¾æÒ . ¾m´, ¿#[, òÒ, Ò <~ FVb~ b Æ·~ ï 'ç æ > Òö 'Ëj ~º 7º ºî . ·ç~ N¢ º 5B F;~ Æ·~ Landsat ETM 'çf Æ· F; êR ç >Òß9j & . Ö®æ Æ·~ ;æ>(NDVI)f Z6ë ª~º Æ·F;ö 8 Landsat ETM 'ç N¢ ¾ >'~V á~&b¾, R&Öê»ö ~ 6ëª~ V»~ 'Ï Ö®æö* ;ö 8 Æ·F; \ª &Ë~& . \º Ö®æö* *çj k~ .G~º Landsat ETM 'ç~ Ï. Ö Î'ªj "î . ºÚ Ö®, Æ· , Landsat ETM, 6ëª~.. *Corresponding author: [email protected] Tel: 82-42-868-3066 Fax: 82-42-868-3037.

(5) ;öê;¯Ö®æö*~Æ·F;~ª

(6) f·ç kj*R-BOETBU&5.'ç~Ï. B V Landsat ETM 'çf 9f æ~ æ¢ Ò~ º ÎN' ;ï'b Ö"¢ B > ® . Landsat ETM'çf æ~ ç¾ ßûj 2k~º j" ÎN'b Ï>Ú z (Koutsias and Karteris, 2000; Huete and Escadafal, 1991; Rondeaux, et al., 1996; Cloutis, 1996). Æ· ç öB [ ¾æÚº ïf Æ·~ ßW" ¸f ç &&ê¢ V r^ö *W'çj Ï~ Î N'b Æ·~ ßûj ª > ® (Huete and Escadafal, 1991; Nagler et. al., 2000). Ö®æ~ Æ ·" æ~ ßûj 2k~º öê Landsat ETM 'ç Ï> ® (Elmore et al., 2000; Dobos et al., 2000, Escadafal, 1993). Ö®æöB º Ö® ~ Æ·~ ç¦ " FVb[ B>V r^ö ï Ã& (Kutiel et al., 1995; Inbar et al., 1998; Ternan and Neller, 1999; Fox and Bryan, 2000). Ö®æöB Landsat ETM ~ Ïf Æ·~ ç¦ [j W~º Wbî <º Ûê, ïç, Nê ~ &æ ßWö V¢. . >Ò ßW ¢æº ©j Ï . Æ·ª~¢ * þ' º *W~ &' (0.4-0.7 µm) ZöB Æ·~ ßWö V >ÒN ö N& ÏB : ®b(Cloutis, 1996), Ò 6º FVbj ~º æöB~ Æ· ª~& ê>î. (Rondeaux, 1996; Nagler et al, 2001; Cloutis, 1996). æ>(NDVI; Normalized Distribution Vegetation Index)º Landsat MSS~ Z7" Z5¢ ÒÏ~ j &V ê 7ª7¶òöBê Ï>î. (Eastman and Fulk, 1993; ÇZ'" 7>, 1998; ·² , 1999). ÚöBº jçræ 'çª~ö B~ 6ëª~& Ö®æö 'ÏB: ì . ~ Ï'f Ö®æöB Æ·j ª~ ' F;ê Æ·~ ª, FVb b;ê, Æ·~ ßû j 2k~ ;¢ Ï~, Landsat TM 'çj ÏöB Æ·j 6ëª~~ ' Æ·~ F ;ö V *çj 2k~º ® .. \æ~ Bº æf ¯;ç ;öê ;¯ ÒÂ ÒÂ. Fig. 1. Map showing the study area and sampling sites. Solid dots represent sampling sites in wildfire area. Open circles represent sampling site in non-wildfire area..

(7) . ê'Á·ÿJÁB"ÏÁ;>. Fig. 2. Computed mean DN (Digital Number) value of each soil type from Landsat ETM images.. êÒ, 6vÒ, CvÒ, ÿÒ ö ³~, *Ò ; o ¯ ãö>öj 7b ãê 128 47' 42'' o o o ~128 52' 30'', *ê 37 47' 30''~37 50' 42''~ æ6 ö ³ (Fig. 1). Ö®f 2000j 4úö B~& . æf ¢V~ z;zb WB ¢~ æî j &æ, ÿB&~ ;~ æ;j <º .ï ÖâÆ·b ª~B . 6 &¯W ÖæB & ¦ª~ æ ·î ÒÆ(LS) 5 Ò·Æ(SL)B Î. ¾ï ¸, Æ·~ vþ& »f Æ· FVb 5 ·ªï Ôf ¿; Æ· ª. (ÿnÖ®bÿÒ, 2000). æ~ f &¦ª~ æ ²¾Z £b W>Ú ®î, ê& ¸f æf ²¾Z-#> b£~ ¢¦ f âæ& ¢¦ ª~ ®î (ÿnÖ®b ÿÒ, 2000). ï;>ïf 1,375.6 mm ..

(8) ;öê;¯Ö®æö*~Æ·F;~ª

(9) f·ç kj*R-BOETBU&5.'ç~Ï. . Table 1. Soil types, their description, erosional features, Landsat ETM DN (digital number) value and in situ investigation sites Soil Types. Description of soil profiles. Type I. Very well developed soil profile consisted of Aoo, Ao, A1, A2, B and C layer; soil surface covered by plant litter and plant after wildfire.. Rare occurrence of erosional High DN value in all features; very small trace with bands; exceptional high pipe erosion and sheet erovalue in band 5 and 7. sion, erosion features below branch and tree roots;. Type II. Relatively well developed soil profile consisted of Aoo, Ao, B and C layer; Aoo, Ao layer thicker than 2cm; soil surface covered by ash and plant leaves. Some erosional features of small rill and gully smaller than 2cm in width and depth; some sheet erosion below the Aoo, Ao layer. High value in band 1 and 5; high value in band 3 compared to band 7; low value in band 7.. Poorly developed soil profile consisted of B1, B2 and C layer; no organic matter at soil surface. Common occurrence of rill and gully erosion greater than 2cm in width and depth; some sliding features in top-soil layer. High value in band 1 and 5; high value in band 7 ompared to band 3.. Poorly developed soil profile consisted of Ao, B and C layer; soil surface consisted of thin ash and burnt plant root. Common occurrence of rill, gully and pipe erosion feature below the burnt plant root; common occurrence of rill and gully greater than 10cm in width and depth. High value in band 1 and 5; high value in band 1 compared to band 5.. Very poorly developed soil profiles consisted of B2 and C layer; some trees at soil surface; common exposure of bedrock and C layer rock-fragments. Common occurrence of rill and gully greater than 10 cm in width and depth; some exposure of bedrock; some slumped features. High value in band 1 and 5; same value in band 2, 3 and 7.. Type III. Type IV. Type V. Erosional features. \ O» Ö®æ ;öê ;¯ ÒÂ ¢&öB Æ·F ;j ª~V * æÒ¢ ~&b Æ·j . B~ j Ò~& . Æ·F;ê *çj Ò~, *çj ª~~& . ''~ Òæ6ö & *~{j *~ GPS(Global Pointing System; Garmin corp.) VV¢ Ï~, 1 : 5,000 æ;ê¢ ^~ ;{ *~¢ Ö;~& . ¢Òº 2000j 8úö Ö®BæöB *Ë~ Æ·~ .B öB Æ·[~ ª¢ Ò~&b, >ã 30 m * ;¢ ª~, FVb 5 Æ· ò¢ VÒ~&b jºö V¢ ò¢ j~& . ;f Æ· ÒöB ;ö & ;{ ª~V& j &ê ² ê>º *çj 7 b ª~~& . *çö V ª~öB Ò ~ [öBò ¾æ¾º *ç" Ò~ [j ~ ~¦~ [ræ cm * B ²Î ¶(rill) 5 ·(gully)b ª~&, ²Î. DN value. Area (%). In situ investigation sites. 12%. KA-3KA-10. 33%. KA-1KA-11. 32%. KA-9. 18%. KA-4KA-12. 6%. KA-2KA-5KA6KA-7KA-8. ¶ 6º ·~ ãÖº ~ " pö V¢ ;ê¢ ~& . Æ·j ·W~V * Ritter(1984)~ Æ· ª~V&j Ï~& . 'ç~ ¾Òº ¢Ò& ¯B æ6~ z²8((DN: Digital Number; Lee, et al., 1999)j áV *, V~;j. ~ z²8j 'çb¦V ' 30B ç~ æ 6b¦V £Ú j~& . 6ëª~(Supervised Classification) O»f &Öê»(Maximum likelihood classifier)j ÒÏ~&b, º ' z²öB &Ë Öê¢ <º ª~Ïj ;"º ©b ªÖ¯R (covariance matrix)j Ï~& (Haralick and Fulk, 1993). 'ç~ ¾Ò¢ *~ Intersys Ò~ ENVI 3.4¢ Ï~& . ÏB 'çf Ö® B *ê~ Landsat TM 7'ç, ;¯ ö>ö ¢&& ¾ æ¾º 2000j 5ú" 2000j 6ú~ 'ç . Ö® Bæ~ ²; 5 æ;ªCj *~ 1 : 25,000 æ;êf 1 : 5,000 æ;ê¢ Ï~&b, ªë ö~ ªëê(1 : 2,5000), ³ëV>Ò~ ;&Æ·ê (1 : 50,000)¢ ^~& ..

(10) . ê'Á·ÿJÁB"ÏÁ;>. Table 2. DN values of soil types with Landsat ETM image after geometric correction Type. Band 1. Band 2. Band 3. Band 4. Band 5. Band 7. NDVI. Type I. Min Max Mean. 95 112 103. 70 98 84. 75 111 93. 42 77 59. 102 155 128. 104 120 112. -0.28 -0.18 -0.23. Type II. Min Max Mean. 89 95 92. 66 72 69. 71 78 74. 48 49 48. 85 87 86. 68 71 69. -0.24 -0.18 -0.21. Type III. Min Max Mean. 90 90 90. 67 67 67. 74 74 74. 45 45 45. 95 95 95. 85 85 85. -0.24 -0.24 -0.24. Type IV. Min Max Mean. 91 96 93. 56 76 66. 72 82 77. 44 51 47. 88 96 92. 75 78 76. -0.24 -0.23 -0.23. Type V. Min Max Mean. 88 97 91. 66 83 71. 68 85 74. 45 69 52. 80 109 92. 62 81 73. -0.24 -0.10 -0.17. Non-wildfire area. Min Max Mean. 77 84 80. 57 63 59. 47 51 48. 63 74 66. 53 63 57. 28 38 32. 0.10 0.21 0.15. Æ·~ ª~ æ~ Æ·f *~ö V¢ Æ·[~ B · ç ² ¾æÂ . æ~ Æ·j Æ· B ·ç(Ritter, 1984)ö V¢ ª~~& (Fig. 2A). A[f ç¦Æ·bB 4B~ [b ^ªB . A00 [f ~ ¦>æ pf ¿#" «~~ FV b ¦ÊVf FVb æÎf Ò W>Ú ® b æö ª . A0[f ¦ª'b ¦B FVb WB [ b~ ºòÒ[ ª . A1[f ¦fï~ FVb" 7bî bB ¦Æ WB [, [öBº 6Æ«¶ 5 &ÏW 7b~ z' Ïö ~ ö¾ bî~ ¢¦& j ¾ ÿB . A2[f Cf ï~ Æ·[ . B[ f ÷'Æ·[bB A[ j¾ö ª~, 6Æ W>Ú ® Æ" rª Özb ³¦~ . r º ÚÒ 6º VÎ·~ ¢ . b~ òÒö ~ R>Vº ~¾A[ FVb R ' . C[f z® Cf .ïj º Îîb W>Ú ® . öBº Ö® BæöB æ Îf FV b" , Æ·, zC æ¢ b~º bî j ª~& . æ bbî" Æ·[ B~ j;W 5 ' Æ·F;ö V 'ç~ ßWj J~ . æ~ Æ·j Type IöB Type Vræ 5&æ F ;b ª~& . Æ·[~ V ·çö V¢ æj Îv 5B~ Æ·b ª~& (Fig. 2B). Type I Æ·f A, B, C[~ Î Æ·[ B >Ú ®, Æ·[~ vþ& 1.5 m ;ê . Æ·~ ç¦º 20 Úæ 30 cm vþ~ ¿#" FVb ® . Type II Æ·f ç¦º Type I~ Æ·" jÝ ~¾ A1[" A2[ B ì Æ·[~ vþ& 50Úæ 60 cm ;ê . Type III Æ·f ç¦ ö FVb ì B[" C[b W>îb vþ & 40Úæ 50 cm ;ê . Type IV Æ·f Æ· > cm ;ê~ f FVb ® B[" C[b W>îb Æ·[~ vþº 40Úæ 50 cm ;ê . Type V Æ·f Æ· ö ¾Z& ÖB'b ¶¢º Æ·bB ZVÆ·" ¶. 6º z> Â>, B2[" C[b W>îb Æ ·[~ vþº 40Úæ 50 cm ;ê .. Æ·F;ê ·ç 5 'çz² 8 Æ· F;ö V F;f Table 1" ?, Æ · F;ö V z²8(DN; Digital Number)f Table 2f ? . Table 2öB Ö®Bæ" -æ pf æ~ NDVI 8f Ö®æöB (-)8j .

(11) ;öê;¯Ö®æö*~Æ·F;~ª

(12) f·ç kj*R-BOETBU&5.'ç~Ï. Fig. 3. (A) Soil profile described by Ritter (1984). Left is the profile divided in detail compared to right profile which shows relatively simplified layers. (B) Soil types and their profiles in the study area characterized by incomplete development of soil layers compared to Ritter`s profile. Type I profile shows completely developed soil profile with A, B and C layer. Soil surface is covered by plant litter and loose organic debris at soil surface. Type II profile shows no A1 and A2 layers. Type III profile is composed of B1, B2, and C layers with little plant cover. Type IV profiles shows ash and burnt plant root(Ao layer) at the surface with poorly developed soil profile composed of Ao, B and C layers. Type V profiles shows exposed bedrock and very poorly developed soil profile composed of B2, C and D layers with rock-fragments.. , jÖ®æöBº (+)8j ¾æÞ (Table 2). Type VF;~ æf ¢Ò *ç v ê æb Type I~ *ç '² &VB æ " «{ N¢ ® (Fig. 3). ' F;ê ßû' ·ç 5 'çz²8j & . Type I Æ·f Æ·ö Ò 6º FVb[ ¾ B>Ú ®, ö ² ê¯7 æb B *ç ~ ¾æ¾æ pº æ (Fig. 2B; Fig. 4A & 4B). æ~ 12%~ ' Type I Æ· . DN8~ ªº ; "º ôf N& ®æò, ' Zê DN 8f Ö ¸f >~ ¢ ® . NDVI 8ê ç&' >~B, KA-3® æ &'b ¸f Kê¢ ¾æ Þ . DN8~ ªöB *>'b Z~ 8 ¸² ª~ ® . ß® 5® Z~ 8 Ö ¸ ² ¾æ¾, rb 7® Z~ 8 ¸² ¾æ¾ ®, 1® Z~ 8f Ö®æ¾ jÖ®æ ¾ FÒ 8~ æz¢ ¾æÞ . Type I Æ·f jÖ®æ" jv " r 5®" 7® Z~ 8 &Ë N¢ ¾æÞ . TYPE II Æ·f vþ& f FVb[ Æ·ç¦ [j ;W ãÖ *ç &V>æ pb Ö®. . æ '~ 33% ;ê (Fig. 2B; Fig. 4C & 4D). ¾, ¶' *' ö ~ ç¦~ [j ;W~º FVb[ "¶B æf 6ç~ , ^~ 6º ;~ ¾æ¾, Ú Ò ; >Vê . jÖ®æö j 5® Z~ >~& &Ë Ô² ¾æ¾, 1® Z~ 8 ¸² ¾æ¾, 7® Z~ 8 j Ö®æ~ 7® Z 8 º ¸b¾ Type" jv r Ôf >~¢ . Type III Æ·f 7º* *çj , ¶" · 10 cm ç~ V¢ (Fig. 2B; Fig. 4E & 4F). F;~ Æ· Ö®æ '~ 32%¢ Næ~ ® . 2 cm ç V~ ¶" ·® ¾æ¾ ç¦ Æ·[öB Æ· j^ »ZB ·çb ¾æÂ . DN8f æöB ÿ¢~² ¾æ¾ ÞN& ~ ìî . 6 ç¦º ²Ïb ¾Jê ¾Z& Îj ®b, w/& ¯B æ B . 5® Z~ 8 &Ë ¸f ©b ¾æ¾, 1® Zf 7® Z~ 8 ¸² ¾æÂ . Type IIf Ò 3®" 7® Z~ 8 *>Ú ª . Type IV Æ·f Gnb £² *ç &VB. (Fig. 2B; Fig. 4G & 4H). 6 æöB~ · " ~ V& &¦ª 10 cm ç . F;~ Æ·f Ö®æ '~ 18%¢ Næ . æö Æ ·FVb ~ ì, æÎf ~ òÒ& Â B ; . ²Ï ê Îf ¾ZÏÒf ¢¦æf ÒO6 ª . 6 æ;'b ¸f ãÒê¢ . 1® Z 8 Ö ¸² ¾æÂ . Type V Æ·f Æ·[~ vþ& Ö »b, 1 cm~2 cm~ ç¦[" V>z ª~º æb /ãÒ¢ . Æ·f Ö®æ '~ 6% ¢ Næ . Æ·~ bç 6 Òf FVb [ ìº ç Æ·[ ç7 Â>Ú B ç¢ (Fig. 2B; Fig. 4I & 4J). Æ·~ vþº 1 m ò, ÒO·ë ®î . Æ·[ B>æ p~¾, BB Æ·[ö *ç B~, ö ~ ÆÒFÂ '~² ¾æÂ æ. . ç¦ FVb[" Æ·[ £~² B . DN 8~ ªº Type IVf FÒ ãËj ¾ 1® Zf 2® Z~ N& ^~² ¾æ¾ 1® Z f 5® Z~ *~ 6 ² ¾æÂ ..

(13) . ê'Á·ÿJÁB"ÏÁ;>. Fig. 4. Field photographs of 5 soil types. A, B) Type I soil characterized by coverage of tree, plant, leaves and ash(left), and burnt plants and plant roots on burnt area (right). C, D) Type II soil. Some area is covered by ash and plant roots layer (left); rill, gully and flow feature and coarse grains are covered on the ground (right). E, F) Type III soil. Both pictures show soil erosion feature and some plants. Rill and gully erosion features are commonly found. G, H) Type IV soil. Plant roots and ashes are distributed at the surface (left) and close view photograph shows top layer composed of ash and burnt plant root and exposed B layer at the center (right). I, J) Type V soil. Characterized by presence of erosion feature with soil mass movements, exposed rock fragments and bedrock.. Æ ~ Ö®æ~ Landsat ETM 'çf ®ö æ Îf Æ·FVb" , Æ·, zC" ?f æ¢ ®º bî~ F;" ßûö ~B ª &Ë~ . FVb~ FZº , ®ö æ Îf ¾Zf Ò, <~ æö ª~º ¾m´" ?f FVb~ ª FZ& 'çª~ö ÏB . FVb ® æ p Â Æ·(bare soil)f æ¢ FVb. æ"º Landsat ETM 'çöB ç ª7 ßWj ¾æÞ . öBº FVb~ FZf kb Â Æ·~ Ò ¦ö V¢ Ö®æ Æ·j 5&æ F;b ª~& . æ Æ·f ÖF ² v b ªB . æ& FVb ®º Type I" Type II Ò 6 ~¾~ FVb ~ ®æ p¾ *& ìº Type III, Type IVf Type V F; ~ Æ·b ªB . v *~ êf NDVI.

(14) ;öê;¯Ö®æö*~Æ·F;~ª

(15) f·ç kj*R-BOETBU&5.'ç~Ï. ö ~ &Ë~& . NDVIº Ö®æ" jÖ®æ j ª~º FÏ O»b Landsat 'çöB ~ Kê¢ Ò~V* ò Úê ;zB ªæ> (Normalized Distribution Vegetation Index). Nagler et al.(2001)ö ~~, Æ· FVb~ æ> Ò ßWf ÂB Æ·~ ßW" ê>, Z 7ö ³~º 2.1 µm~ 2Ë'öB ßû' >ÒFj ¾æÞ ~& . 6 Æ·[ö ª~º FVb j &çb r Æ· >Ò ÊOÞ"öB ¢>' b FVb ³¦ Æ· 0.5-1.3 µm Ò~ 2 Ë&öB JÏ ;~ >ÒFj ¾æÚ, FV b 'f Æ·f " ;~ >ÒFj ¾æÞ. (Rondeaux et al., 1996; Koutsias, and Karteris, 2000). ¢>'b Ö®æf æb Wbî æ Îf ¾Z, Ò Ö^~² ¾æ¾º æ> ÒßWj ¾æÚæ, ~ ßWj V&b FV b ®º æ" kb Â FVb ì º æ" 'çöB ª &Ë~ . öB FVb æ~ êj * Landsat ETM ' ç Z 3(0.63~0.69 µm)" Z 4(0.76~0.90 µm)~ 'j Ï~& . FVb ®º Æ·öB FVb[~ vþö V¢ Æ·j Type I" Type II ª~&. . Type I" Type II Ò~ ªj * ÖF NDVI¢ 'Ï~& . NDVI V»~ 'ÏÖ" KA-10 ® æ ¦"~ Ö ®ï~² ¾æÒb (Fig. 5A), æ;'b Ôf æ êö *~ KA6" KA-9æf jv' ·^ ç ¾æ Ò (Fig. 5A) ¾, æf ¢ *ËöB { Ö" KA-10f ª& ôf æî, KA-6" KA-9º ª& ìº æî . NDVI º Kê¢ Ï~V r^ö Æ·" Æ·j ®º FVb[~ >Òj ê~æ á~º © b ¾æÒ . NDVIöB ¾æ¾º ÎBj BF~V * öBº 6ëª~¢ ê~& . 6ëª~º ¢*ËÒ Ö"¢ Landsat ETM 'ç ¶ò Cö Ï~º V»bB ¢ *ËÒ¢ * *" jÏ >>>º 6 ®Vº ~¾ *ËÒ ì Landsat ETM 'çòj Ï C j ê~º NDVI O»ö j R ;{ê¢ ¸¢ > ®º Ë6 ® . öB ê 6ëª~ öBº KA-10j Type I Æ·b Ò KA-9º Type IIIª ~&, KA-6º Type V Æ·b ª. . Fig. 5. (A) Areal distribution of NDVI in wildfire area. Red represents poor vegetation coverage whereas blue represents good coverage. (B) Areal distribution of 5 soil types based on supervised classification. KA-1 to KA-12 represent soil sampling sites.. ~& (Fig. 5B). FVb ~ ì¾ *& ®æ pf Æ· Type III, Type IV Ò Type V~ êf Landsat ETM'çöB >ÒN &Ë~ . Landsat ETM'çöB Æ·~ >ÒßW Cf ïj <º Æ ·¾ z>~ ãÖ ç&'b ¸f >ÒNj ¾æ Ú, ÚvÚ ïj <º Æ·¾ z>~ ãÖº Ô f >ÒNj (Huete and Escadafal 1991). V ¢B Type III, Type IVf ? Æ·b æ& b B æ" Type Vf ? z> ÂB æf Type I, Type IIf ? b~ ®º æ " «{® ªF > ® . NDVI ª~& jÖ®æ " Ö®æj ª~º j" FÏ~æò, .

(16) . ê'Á·ÿJÁB"ÏÁ;>. Kê¢ Ï ª~º Æ·" Æ·j ®º F Vb[~ >Òj ê~æ á~V r^ö, Ö® æ~ æª~öº '~æ á~& . æ öB Ö®B Ö® ê¯~º ã& " Ë Fj V¢ B~&V r^ö(ÿnÖ®bÿ Ò, 2000), ö êj V¢ b& ¾æÒ . Fig. 5Aº *Ú æöB Ö® Bæj ªÒ~, Ö® Bæ Ú~ NDVI 8j vïöB ¯f ï ê ¾æÞ ©b, ~ Kê& ¸f æj 2¦ïöB ï, Ò ¯fï ê ~ K ê& Ôf æj ¾æÞ . NDVI ¶òçöBº 5 ® Z, 7® Z~ ãË 3® Zf 4® Zf ç ãËj ® . ©f Nagler et al. (2001) æ' ©¾" æ~ NDVI¶ò& b" FVb[ö ~ 'Ëj >'~V r^ © b CB . *çf jÖ®æ" jv r Ö®æ~ NDVIf &NB 3®" 4® Z~ æ zf 5®" 7® Z~ æzfº ç N¢ º ©b ¾æÂ . FVb º ¦¢ C~º ";öB 5® Z~ ßW" 7® Z~ ßWj J¢ . NDVI ª~çöB æêº Tpye IV f V(KA-5, 6, 7, 8, 10æ)~ Kê& Ö ®ï ©b ¾æÒ, ÿ¢ æ 7 Type I (KA-3, 10)f ç&'b Kê& ·^ ©b ¾æÒ . Ö®æ Æ·~ F;ö V¢ ~ ·ç ² ¾æÒ . Æ·F;ê f Ö® B æ Îf FVb" ~ ô 'r, Æ·~ vþ, zC ~ ª ¦ö V¢ ² ¾æÒ . ¢>'b Æ·j &;~º Wischmeier and Smith(1965, 1978)~ º·Æ·F (USLE; Universal Soil Loss Equation)ö ~~, Æ·j ²Ö~º ºf ² ;Ö, æ;, Æ·ßW, æb b º£B . &B~ ãÖ ¢; æ~ ;Öº ² N¢ æ pº ©b *" . V¢B æ;, Æ·ßW, æ bçf ?f ~ãö ~ ~ ;& ¢ ê . Type I, Type II Ò Type IV Æ·f æ j ®º Ò, 6º FVb ~ æb ç ö V¢ ~ ·ç ¢æº ©j ¢öB { > ®î . æö b bî ®º ãÖ b bî ~¦ö 2* ¾æ¾, bbî ìº ãÖ ²Î ¶¾ ·ö ~ ¾æÂ . 'ç ª~öB Type IIIf Type V~ ª~. V&b ÒÏB Æ·" z>~ ãÖ ;º Â ] ªB . º z> ãÖ ;& ì ÂÆ· ãÖ Æ· B~² ¾æÂ . ÂÆ·öB ¾æ¾º ~ ;º ^~, , 6ç b ·~ . 'çöB Type I" Type IIj ª~º V& ~ ;êº ö ' Ëj "º æb¶f ÿ¢~ . V¢B Type I " Type II~ ; Nº «{~æ pæò ~ Îf nêº Type I ú~² ' . &¦ª~ æ>º Æ·~ 'Ë Ö ¸V r ^ö, Æ·~ 'Ëj B~º OËb BF>Úz. . æ~ f KA-10®æöB ö. Ö ®ï~² ¾æÒ . NDVI O»b ¢;'j ª Fig. 5AöB KA-5, KA-6, KA-7® æj B ¾^æ æf æ>ö ~ ª~ Ö"f 6ëª~ö ~ Ö"f ² ª~B . ¢öB ÒB Î æf jÖ®æ" jv~ K ê(NDVI)& Ö Ô² ¾æÂ . 6ëª~ V»f ª~&çö & ;{ ¶ò¢ &æ ªCj ~V r^ö ªC&çö & Ò* Ò~ ÚJæ ®Vº ~¾, Z6ë ª~V» & çj ;{~² ª~ > ®º Ë6j &æ ®. (çî 2001; ·² , 1999). Fig. 5Bº *Ú Ö ®æj ªÒ~, Ö®æöB 6ëª~V»ö ~ ~ ª~B Ö"¢ ¾æÚº ©bB Æ· F;ê ª { ~ Ïj "î . 6ëª~ öBº ' Æ·F; ªæ~ *~¢ 2k~² f b ;ï'b 'j £² ÖÂ > ®ê "î . öB ê 6ëª~º Ö® æ Æ·~ F; 5 ·çj 2k~º j" ÎN'ªj "î .. Ö V Ö®æ Æ·~ ßû" ·çj ÎN'b ª~V * Landsat ETM 'ç~ Ïj ¦Æ~ ¶ ;öê ;¯ ÒÂ ¢& Ö®BæöB ¢ Ò¢ Û, æªbî 5 Æ· ö V ¢ æj 5&æ F;b ª~~& . 5& æ F;~ Æ·f *ËöB Ò Ö" ·çö B N¢ &b, Landsat ETM 'çöB ' Z ~ z²8 N¢ Ï~ ' Æ·F;ê ª &Ë~& ..

(17) ;öê;¯Ö®æö*~Æ·F;~ª

(18) f·ç kj*R-BOETBU&5.'ç~Ï. Æ·F;ê Æ·[~ B" ·ç ª> îb ' Æ·F;ê Landsat ETM 'ç~ N ¢ jvªC~& . *çf Æ· ~ B" &7~² &N>, [~ ; 5 FVb W Æ·~ Wj 6~º Ö FÏ~& . 6 b, FVb(Ò) ~ æ b bî Æ· ~ ö 'Ëj "º 7º º >î . Ö®Bæ~ ;æ>(NDVI)f Z6ëª~ º Æ·F;ö V Landsat ETM'ç N¢ ¾ > '~æ á >, ¢ *ËöB Æ·[~ ö V ;~ N¢ >' 6ëª~º Landsat ETM'ç N¢ ¾ >'~& . Ö" 6ëª ~º Ö®æöB Æ·~ ßûj 2k~ ~ F;j ~² j b, F;ö V 'j ;ï'b 2k~² ~, 7º* æö & ª ~& &Ë~V r^ö ÎN'îrj { > ® ² ~& . 6 Ëê ª~B ' Æ· F;ö V¢ Ö®æ~ Æ·~ &6Onj 'Ï~ Ö®æ ~ Æ·Òö & ÎN' &¾& &Ë ©b V&B .. ^ ^ò ÿnÖ®bæÿÒ, 2000, ÿnÖ®æ;& ÒBI, 85-209. ÇZ', 7>, 1998, Æö ¦ º&_ æ&~ æî 5 æR~ãCj * *W 'ç¶ò~ ªC, æ"²æ, 19(6), 675-683. çî, 2001, *æ{Ë" ê[÷Ö 8»j Ï Z6ë 'çª~, &öÏöÒ²æ, 17(1), 57-69. ·², ÇZ', ;, 1999, öÏöÒf æÒ;Êj Ï zæ ¢&~ æR~ãæzf Æï .G , &öÏöÒ²æ, 9(2), 161-176. Cloutis, E.A., 1996. Hyperspectral geological remote sensing: Evaluation of analytical techniques, International Journal of RemoteSensing, 17, 2215-2242. Dobos, E., Micheli, E. Baumgardner, M.F., Biehl, L. and Helt, T, 2000, Use of combinded digital elevation model and satellite radiometric data for regional soil mapping, Geoderma, 97, 367-391. Elmore, A.J., Mustard, J.F. Manning, S.J., Lobell, D.B., 2000, Quantifying Vegetation Change in Semiarid Environments Precision and Accuracy of Spectral Mixture Analysis and the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index, Remote Sensing of Environment, 73, 87-102. Escadafal, R., 1993, Remote sensing of soil colour : Princi-. . ples and applications, Remote Sensing of Environment, Rev. 7, 261-279. Eastman, J.R. and Fulk, M., 1993, Long sequence time series evaluation using standardized principal components, Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing, 59(4), 991-996. Fox, D. M. and Bryan, R.B., 2000, The relationship of soil loss by interrill erosion to slope gradient, CATENA, 38, 211-222. Haralick, J.R. and Fulk M., 1993, Long sequence time series evaluation using standardized principal components, Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing, 59, 991-996. Huete, A. R. and Escadafal, R., 1991. Assessment of biophysical soil properties through spectral decomposition techniques, Remote Sensing of Environment, 35, 149159. Inbar, M., Tamir, M., Wittenberg, L., 1998, Runoff and erosion processes after a forest fire in mount Carmel, a mediterranean area, Geomorphology, 24, 17-23. Koutsias, N., Karteris, M., 2000, Burned area mapping using logistic regression modeling of a single post-fire Landsat-5 Thematic Mapper image, International Journal of Remote Sensing, 21, 673-687. Kutiel, P., Lavee, H., Segev, M. and Beyamini, Y., 1995, The effect of fire-induced surface heterogeneity on rainfall-runoff-erosion relationships in an eastern Mediterranean ecosystem, Israel, CATENA, 25. 77-87. Lee, B.I., Kim, Y.L., Yua, Y.D., 1999, Effect of Distribution of Pixel Values on the Training Statistics, KSRS, Proceedings of the Spring Meeting, 4, 14-19. Nagler P. L., Daughtry C. S. T., Goward S.N., 2000, Plant litter and soil reflectance, Remote Sensing of Environment, 71, 207-215. Ritter, D.F., 1984, Process of geomorphology, WM. C. Brown Company, Iwoa, 100-110. Rondeaux, G., Steven, M., and Baret, F., 1996, Optimization of soil-adjusted vegetation indices, Remote Sensing of Environment, 55, 95-107. Ternan, J. L. and Neller, R., 1999, The erodibility of soils beneath wildfire prone grasslands in the humid tropics, Hong Kong, CATENA, 36, 49-64. Wischmeier, W.H., Smith, D.D., 1965. Predicting rainfall erosion losses from cropland east of the Rocky Mountains, Agricultural Handbook 282. Wischmeier, W.H., Smith, D.D., 1978. Predicting rainfall erosion losses, A guide to conservation planning. Agricultural Handbook 537.. 2004j 8ú 9¢ ö 7> 2004j 10ú 25¢ >;ö 7> 2004j 11ú 13¢ ö j.

(19)