The presented morphostructural segmentation of the Alps and Western Carpathians uses physically based geomorphometric variables as input data and object‐based image analysis as a procedure to delineate objects of interest. A previous suitability evaluation of simple object‐based methodology showed its potential in recognition of morphostructural features. When segmenting the Western Carpathians, we moved towards a more specific object‐based approach—a fusion of segmentation and classification at several hierarchical levels. Such an approach was evaluated as not necessary in the less contrasting terrain in the Alps, where only a simple segmentation was used for evaluation of its efficiency. Use of physically based geomorphometric variables as input data brought enhancement of subsequent morphotectonic interpretations. After the segmentations, an index of steady state (ISS) for the entire object levels and their parts was computed. This ISS was used to evaluate and compare the two study areas in terms of their geodynamic development. Similarities and differences in development of these relatively alike mountain ranges are interpreted.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bandura et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: