REMOTE SENSING OF ENVIRONMENT 24:493-507 (1988) 493

The Semivalqogram in Remote Sensing: An Introduction

PAUL J. CURRAN
Department of Geography, University of Sheffield, Western Bank, Sheffield, $10 2TN, United Kingdom

The Earth's surface and remotely sensed imagery contain spatial information that, if quantified, could be used to
optimize many sampling procedures in remote sensing. Until recently a suitable and simple technique for the spatial
characterisation of surtaces was not readily available. Now, thanks to the development of regionalized variable theory
there is a near-ideal tool, the semivariogram. The semivariogram is a function that relates semivariance to sampling lag.
This function can be estimated using remotely sensed data or ground data and represented as a plot that gives a
picture of the spatial dependence of each point on its neighbor. This paper provides an introduction to the
semivariogram and indicates how it could be employed in remote sensing research.

Introduction A way forward was provided when

The Earth's surface and remotely
sensed images of that surface have dis-
tinct spatial properties. Once quantified,
these properties can be used for many
tasks in remote sensing, including image
classification and the sampling of both
the image and the ground. Many meth-
ods have potential for the quantification
of these spatial properties. The most suit-
able being the "approximate" (Lam,
1983) and theoretically very similar meth-
ods of time series analysis (Webster and
Cunalo, 1975), correlograms (Cliff and
Ord, 1973), and Fourier transforms
(Richards, 1986). These have been used
by spatial statisticians and others for the
study of phenomena that are discontinu-
ous and of limited variability, such as the
distribution of crops or cities. However,
these techniques, which dominate the
texts on spatial statistics (e.g., Cliff and
Ord, 1981; Ripley, 1981; Upton and
Fingleton, 1985) are not ideal for study-
ing all remotely sensed phenomena. This
is because such phenomena can be ran-
dom, continuous, and of unlimited varia-
bility, such as the biomass of a field or
the sediment concentration of an estuary.
©Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc., 1988
52 Vanderbilt Ave., New York, NY 10017
Matheron (1965) brought together iso-
lated results in spatial statistics into the
theory of regionalized variables. This the-
ory provided what workers had been
looking for, a simple means of measuring
the spatial dependence of any continu-
ously varying phenomena. The work was
translated into English (Matheron, 1971)
and within a few years the theory of
regionalized variables had become a major
tool in geostatistics (McCttllagh, 1975;
Guarascio et al., 1976; David, 1977;
Campbell, 1978; Journel and Huijbregts,
1978; Hajrasuliha et al., 1980; Mousset-
Jones, 1980). However, it was not until
Webster and co-workers produced their
series of five papers on the applicability
of regionalized variable theory to soil
survey that its general suitability for con-
tinuously varying data became apparent
(Burgess and Webster, 1980a, b; Webster
and Burgess, 1980; Burgess et al., 1981;
McBratney and Webster, 1983a). Advice
on how this theory may be applicable to
remote sensing research has been slight,
and many have obtained their overview
of regionalized variable theory from either
the excellent soil survey review by Web-
ster (1985) or the introductory sections of
00344257/88/$3.50
494
several recent papers in the environmen-
tal sciences (e.g., Kitandis, 1983; Russo,
1984; Oliver and Webster, 1986a, b;
1987).
The key to the theory of regionalized
variables is the semivariogram (Olea,
1977). This hmction relates semivariance
to spatial separation and provides a con-
cise and unbiased description of the scale
and pattern of spatial variability. One of
the main reasons for deriving a semivario-
gram is to use it in the process of estima-
tion (Journel and Huijbregts, 1978). For
example, following the collection of
ground data for a particular property the
semivariogram could be used to estimate
the average value of the property within
a region, or the semivariogram could be
used to interpolate the value of the prop-
erty at a place that has not been visited.
The method of estimation embodied in
regionalized variable theory is known, at
least in the Earth sciences, as kriging
(Krige, 1966). It is essentially a means of
weighted local averaging in which the
weights are chosen so as to give unbiased
estimates. This is done while minimizing
estimation variance and is in that sense
optimal (Webster, 1985). The use of the
semivariogram to krige an area is the
solution to several remote sensing prob-
lems. For example, it could be used to
derive optimal estimates of ground data
for the huge areas covered by the ground
resolution elements of NOAA AVHRR
Transect
of p i x e l s
"--
FIGURE 1. Lags along a transect of pixels. Lags oI I, 2, and 3 pixels ~u'e ilhLstrated.
PAUL J. CURRAN
imagery. Kriging is a very large field of
study in its own right and although some
of the theory is introduced here, it is well
beyond the scope of this paper.
The purpose of this introduction is to
present the semivariogram to a remote
sensing readership and show in a tutorial
and, I hope, seminal way how it can be
applied to remote sensing research.
Calculating the Semivariogram
Samples of both remotely sensed data
(satellite or airborne MSS, digitized aerial
photography, etc.) and ground data (bio-
mass, soil moisture, etc.) can be usefully
employed in the construction of semi-
variograms for remote sensing research.
As the method of calculation is the same
for both data sources, only the former will
be illustrated here.
Imagine a transect nmning across a
remotely sensed image where the digital
number (DN) z of pixels x have been
extracted at regular intervals z(x), where
x = 1, 2,..., n. The relation between a pair
of pixels, h intervals apart (the lag dis-
tance), can be given by the average vari-
ance of the differences between all such
pairs (Fig. 1). As the per-pixel variance is
half this value (Yates, 1948), the semivari-
ance S 2 for pixels at distance h apart is
given by
SZ=½[z(x)-z(x+h)] 2. (1)
lag h = 2
lag h=l
_ . ' _ " _ - _ -...~ _'..-~--_~_ _ - - ~" lag h = 3
SEMIVARIOGRAMS IN REMOTE SENSING
Within the transect there will be m pairs
of observations separated by the same
lag. Their average is given by
~2= 1 (2)
i=l
S~ is an unbiased estimate of the average
semivariance T(h) in the population
(Webster, 1985) and is a usehd measure
of dissimilarity between spatially separate
pixels (Woodcock and Strahler, 1983,
Jupp et al., 1988). The larger g2 and
therefore T(h), the less similar are the
pixels. The semivariogram is the function
that relates semivariance to lag and its
estimated form can be similar to that
shown in Fig. 2(a). To describe such a
relationship, the six terms of support, lag
(h), sill (s), range (a), nugget variance
(Co), and spatially dependent strnctttral
variance (C), are used; these are il-
lustrated in Fig. 2 and defined in Table 1.
The semivariogram in Fig. 2 is derived
from airborne multispectral scanner
imagery of South Yorkshire, UK. The
imagery, which had a nominal spatial res-
olution of 2 m, have been reported in full
elsewhere (Curran and WiUiamson, 1988).
For purposes of illustration a transect ap-
proximately 100 pixels ( = 200 m) long
was orientated randomly along an image
scan line, as shown in Fig. 2(b).
Interpreting the Semivariogram
The three components of interpreta-
tion are the choice of a usable transect
lefigth, description, and modeling.
Choice of usable transect length
When constructing a semivariogram,
the length of the lag determines the num-
ber of those lags in any transect: the
495
longer the lag, the fewer there are of
them (Fig. 1). As a result the confidence
that can be ascribed to T(h) decreases
with increasing h. Webster (1985) con-
siders that it is inadvisable to interpret
lags longer than a fifth to a third of the
transect length, and for reasons of caution
only lags up to a fifth of the transect
length are plotted in this paper (Figs.
2-4).
Describing the semivariogram
Most of the semivariograms in the geo-
statistical literature are bounded by a sill,
as in Fig. 2. In urban/agricultural land-
scapes semivariograms are often of man-
modified surfaces with a repetitive spatial
pattern, and as a result this "classic"
semivariogram (Fig. 3) is relatively un-
usual. The two very common forms are
the "periodic" semivariogram (Fig. 3) re-
corded across a repetitive pattern and the
"aspatial" semivariogram (Fig. 3) re-
corded either along such a repetitive pat-
tern, randomly on a homogeneous surface,
or when using a support that is larger
than the range. For htrther details refer
to Olea (1977) and Webster (1982). There
are many permutations of these three
basic forms, by far the most common
being the "periodic-classic," the "un-
bounded" and the "multffrequency." The
periodic-classic semivariogram (Fig. 3)
often represents a repetitive pattern on a
spatially variable surface. The unbounded
semivariogram (Fig. 3) represents a
surface with a definite trend on which
the range is not reached within the usable
transect length. The multifrequency
semivariogram (Fig. 3) represents an area
in which there are two or more repetitive
patterns.
The examples used to illustrate these
six forms of semivariogram are derived
496 PAUL J. CURRAN

7(h)
4

Surface Bare sod, w i t h

mottled pattern

Location Bawtry
South Yorkshire

. . . . . . . . 2 ' LI . . . . . . . . . . . .-s D a t e 3 0 9 85

Waveband 076-090#m

Transect random

)c
2- spatially
dependent
structural
variance

l
I
I
1- I
I
,,
I range
Co
nugget
variance

0
~\i ,5 2'o 3'0 4o
\
sup[5or t Lag (m)

FICURE 2a. The semivariogram (a) was derived from airborne multispectral scanner data of the
bare field (b). A curve to guide the eye and six discriptors have been added to the semivariogram
(Table 1).

from airborne multispectral scanner Discussion so far has implied a unique

imagery of northern England. The imag-
ery had a nominal spatial resolution of 2
m and has been reported in full elsewhere
(Wardley and Curran, 1984; Curran and
WiUiamson, 1988; Curran et al., 1987).
Parts of the image were sampled using a
transect up to 100 pixels long, and the
semivariograms were calculated using Eq.
(2). The values have been plotted for
integer values of lag, and lines have been
added to guide the eye. The details of the
surface, location, date, waveband, and
transect orientation are given beside each
semivariogram.
semivariogram for each region. This is
not the case, as the form of the semivario-
gram depends on the size and spacing of
the sample points or ground resolution
elements (the support), the variable being
measured in the ground data or the wave-
band being measured in the remotely
sensed data and the orientation of the
sampling transect. As the fine detail of
spatial dependence is often required, small
ground sample points recorded closely to-
gether and remotely sensed data with a
high spatial resolution are preferred for
the construction of the semivariogram.
SEMIVARIOGRAMS IN REMOTE SENSING 497

FIGURE 2b.

TABLE 1 The Terms and Symbols Used in the Description of the Semivaxiograma
TERM SYMBOL DEFINITION
Support Area and shape of surface represented by each sample point.
Lag h Distance (and direction in two or more directions)
between sampling pairs.
Sill s Maximum level of T(h).
Range a Point on h axis where T(h) reaches maximum. In sample
data where T(h) reaches approximately 95% of the sill.
Places closer than the range axe related, places htrtber apart are not.
Nugget variance CO Point where extrapolated relationship T(h)/h intercepts
the 7(h) axis. Represents spatially independent variance.
Spatially dependent C Sill minus nugget variance.
structural variance

a These axe illustrated in Fig. 2(a).

498 PAUL l. CURRAN

(a) Classic
40

Surface : Semi-natural
grassland

30- Location : Lathkill Dale,

Derbyshire

D a t e : 17 9 8 2

W a v e b a n d : 0 6 0 5 - 0-625 /~m
i 20-
Transect : Random

10-

0
o lb 2'0 3b 40
Lag lm)

(b) Periodic
20-

Surface : Coniferous woodland,

planted

15- Location : Bawtry,

South Yorkshire

Date 30 9 85

10- Waveband : 0 6 3 - 0.69/zm

Transect Across rows

5-

0
o lb 2'0 3b 40
Lag (m)

(c) A s p a t i a l
45-

Surface : Bare soil. homogeneous

E Location : Bawtry,
g 30- South Yorkshire

Date 3 0 9 85

I
@ e
Waveband : 155 - 1 75 /=m
I @ ~ I I I
L: 15- o

Transect : Along plough lines

0
o I'o ~o ~o 4o
Lag (m)
FIGURE 3. Six semivariograms calculated using remotely sensed data. These illustrate the
forms typical of man-modified surfaces. The classic, peiodic, and a.spatial are the basic forms
and the periodic-classic, unbounded and multifrequency are permutations of the basic forms.
SEMIVARIOGRAMS IN REMOTE SENSING 499

(d) Periodic-classic
20

Surface : Deciduous woodland,

mature

16- Location : B a w t r y ,
South Yorkshire

Date = 3 0 . 9 . 8 5

c~ 12- Waveband : 0 . 6 3 - 0 . 6 9 / = m

Transect : Random

.i
E 8"

4-

0 10 20 30 40
Lag (ml

'(e) Unbounded
30

Surface : Bare soil, cliff top

Location : Holderness,
South Humberside

i 20- Date : 1 6 . 6 . 8 4

Waveband : 0 . 5 2 - 0 . 6 0 /=m
10-
Transect : Orthogonal to coastline

0
0 I0 210 30 40
Lag (ml

('f) Multifrequency
45

Surface : Sea, near coastal

Location : Holderness,
c~ 3 0 - South Humberside

c Date : 1 6 . 6 . 8 4

= Waveband : 0-52 - 0 . 6 0 /=m

E 15-
Transect : Orthogonal to coastline

0
0 I'o 2'0 3'0 4o
Lag (ml
FIGURE 3. (continued)
 PAULJ. CURRAN

If the spatial variability within a region similar order of magnitude. A problem

was specific to each variable and wave-
band, then each variable or waveband
would be expected to yield a different
semivariogram. Fortunately, this is not
the case because gross spatial features are
usually common to all variables and
wavebands, and the measurement errors
for ground data and single wavebands of
remotely sensed data are usually of a
occurs when using remotely sensed data
that have been recorded throughout the
electromagnetic spectrum. Although not
ideal, a possible way around this problem
is to divide such data into a few groups
that are related to physical characteristics
of the scene, such as water penetration or
vegetation reflectance, and to construct
semivariograms for each group.

Waveband 0 6 3 - 0 6 9 / ~ m Waveband 0 7 6 - 0 9 0 / ~ m
_ 18]

z 1o

co

0
0 '
10 2'o '
30 40 '
10 20 ' 3'0 40
Lag (m) Lag (m)

Waveband:208- 235#m
28
Surface A g r i c u l t u r a l grassland.
sloping with sod banding

Location B a w t r y , South Yorkshire

21 ¸

Date 30 9 85
O

Transect - A c r o s s sod bands

14- and slope
• D o w n soil bands
and slope

7-

0 i
0 ~'o 2'0 30 ,o
Lag (m)

FIGURE 4. Semivariograms of a sloping agricultural |ield with soil t)anding. Three wavebands of
remotely sensed data have been sampled across the soil bands and slope and down the soil bands and
slope.
SEMIVARIOGRAMS IN REMOTE SENSING
The orientation of the sampling tran-
sects are important on anisotropic surfaces
that have a repetitive pattern. For in-
stance, a transect of biomass or near in-
frared reflectance recorded across rows of
potatoes will probably yield a periodic
semivariogram whereas a similar transect
recorded down these rows will almost
certainly not.
The effect of wavelength and transect
orientation on semivariograms con-
structed using remotely sensed data are
illustrated using airborne multispectral
scanner imagery of South Yorkshire, U.K.
The imagery had a nominal spatial resolu-
tion of 2 m and has been reported in full
elsewhere (Curran and Williamson, 1986).
The agricultural grassland field for which
semivariograms are illustrated (Fig. 4) is
sloping and has banding of soil texture.
The slope results in increased soil mois-
ture and possibly vegetation vigor at one
end of the field, and the banding of soft
texture results in soil moisture and possi-
bly vegetation vigor differences with a
repetitive spacing of approximately 22 m.
The two 100-pixel-long transects were
orientated to run across and as far as
possible down both the slope and the soil
bands in red (0.63-0.69 /xm), near in-
frared (0.76-0.90 /zm), and middle in-
frared (2.08-2.35 #m) wavebands.
The red image had a clear trend down
the slope, but there was no evidence of
either a trend across the slope or banding.
The resultant semivariograms had un-
bounded variance both down and for
some unknown reason across the slope,
and no periodic pattern was evident (Fig.
4). On the near infrared and middle in-
frared images, there was no evidence of a
trend either down or across the slope, but
the banding was very clear. The down-
slope variability had a range of 15 m in
501
the near infrared waveband and 35 m in
the middle infrared waveband. For both
wavebands the across-slope transect re-
sulted in a periodic semivariogram (Fig.
4). It would be possible to plot these
semivariograms in two dimensions
(Webster, 1985). For example, a two-
dimensional semivariogram for data from
the middle infrared waveband (Fig. 4)
would comprise parallel ridges running
orthogonal to a slope.
Modeling the semivariogram
If the semivariogram is to be used in
further calculation, for example, in the
derivation of sample size for the collec-
tion of ground data, then the function of
T(h) for the shortest lags must be mod-
eled from the sample data (Webster,
1985). Many models are available, but
only a few families are suitable for con-
tinous variables (McBratney and
Webster, 1986). The most acceptable
being the spherical, exponential, linear, or
combinations of two or three of these.
The linear and spherical models seem to
be most appropriate (Fig. 3) and are dis-
cussed in detail by Armstrong (1984),
Webster (1985), and McBratney and
Webster (1986).
Applying the Semivariogram
The semivariogram can be calculated
for any scale of spatial variation (Oliver
and Webster, 1986a). As much of the
Earth's surface is divided into parcels, it
is useful, in the context of this paper, to
identify the intraparcel scale of study
(e.g., crop disease survey), the interparcel
scale of study (e.g., land cover classifica-
tion), and parcel-independent scale of
study (e.g., continent wide vegetation
surveys). Recently workers, building on
502
the work of Webster (Webster, 1973,
1978; Webster and Cunalo, 1975), have
used semivariograms to describe remotely
sensed surfaces at the interparcel scale
(Lacaze et al., 1985; Milton, 1986, per-
sonal communication) and ground data at
the parcel-independent scale of study
(Dancy et al., 1986). The former are use-
ful for the separation of spectrally similar
surfaces, and the latter provide a basis on
which ground data, measured at points,
can be extrapolated over the ground reso-
lution elements of sateRite sensors.
At all scales of study, the semivario-
gram can be used to aid the choice of
sample units and sample numbers for re-
motely sensed and ground data. In this
introduction the semivariogram, at the
intra- and interparcel scale of study, will
be used to illustrate the selection of a
sampling unit for remotely sensed imag-
ery (spatial resolution) and sample num-
bers for ground data collection.
Use of a semivariogram
derived using remotely sensed data
for the selection of a spatial resolution
Remotely sensed data are available at a
wide range of spatial resolutions and yet
for reasons of caution there is a tendency
to choose the finest (Townshend, 1981).
This is often as desirable for the oper-
ational applications of remote sensing, as
data with a high spatial resolution are
expensive to both purchase and process.
For operational applications, spatial reso-
lution should not be finer than is neces-
sary for the task at hand (Curran and
Williamson, 1988). To choose such a spa-
tial resolution (1, 5, 20 m, etc.), informa-
tion is required on the spatial characteris-
tics of the surface under investigation
(Woodcock, 1985; Woodcock and
PAUL J. CURRAN
Strahler, 1984; 1985; 1987) and such in-
formation is sadly lacking:
"Surprisingly, earth scientists have as
yet largely failed to provide compre-
hensive quantitative data in a form
which is comparable with deriving ob-
jective estimates of resolution require-
ments" (Townshend, 1981, p. 50).
For example, to choose a spatial resolu-
tion suitable for deriving per-field values
of radiance, quantitative data are re-
quired on the size and internal spatial
variability of the fields (Curran and
Williamson, 1988). The size of the fields,
which can be obtained from maps or
remotely sensed imagery, determines the
number of ground resolution elements
that will fit into them (Curran and
Williamson, 1988). The internal spatial
variability of the fields determines how
small a ground resolution element can be
before it detects unnecessary intraparcel
variability.
It is for this latter task that the semi-
variogram is ideal as its range (Fig. 1)
defines the distance above which ground
resolution elements are not related. A
ground resolution element larger than the
range will probably average the spatial
variability within a field and will, there-
fore, be a suitable ambassador for that
field. By contrast, a ground resolution
element smaller than the range will prob-
ably be so different to its neighbors that
it would be a most unsuitable ambassador
for that field (Woodcock and Strahler,
1987). If semivariograms for all wave-
bands and directions are available, then
defining a minimum range and therefore
minimum spatial resolution is straightfor-
ward, providing the semivariogram is
neither aspatial or unbounded (Fig. 3).
SEMIVARIOGRAMS IN REMOTE SENSING
In practice a user can usually have
access to semivariograms in several direc-
tions and wavebands. In such a case, i.e.,
where a ground resolution element is re-
quired to represent a field, then the
minimum range should be used to define
the minimum spatial resolution, and for
the agricultural grassland in Fig. 4 this
would be around 11 m. When only one
semivariogram is available, then the link
between the range and the minimum spa-
tial resolution, while useful, is tentative
(e.g., Soares et al., 1987). For example,
the minimum spatial resolution would
probably be around 10, 12, 12, 20 and 26
m, respectively, for the sea, semi-natural
grassland, coniferous woodland, bare soil,
and deciduous woodland of Figs. 2 and 3.
By contrast, ff the aim were to classify
these fields using a measure of texture,
then these would be maximum values of
spatial resolution.
Use of a semivariogram
derived using ground data for the
design of a ground sampling scheme
Accurate ground data are required to
calibrate remotely sensed imagery or to
check the accuracy of estimates made
using remotely sensed imagery. Due to
the difficulties associated with sampling
large areas in short time periods, the error
in ground data is usually high (Curran
and Hay, 1986). This is a pressing and
serious problem in remote sensing re-
search as it applies across a wide range of
variables, for example, green leaf area
index (Curran and Williamson, 1987),
density of housing (Curran and Hobson,
1987) and the concentration of materials
suspended in water (Curran, 1987). Ide-
ally these should be measured using many
samples per parcel, the number depend-
503
ing on how close the sample mean is to
approach the population mean and on
the spatial variability of the parcel. The
first factor, the level of acceptable error,
is a matter of judgement, and the second
is inherent in the region and can be de-
termined by means of a pilot study (Marsh
and Lyon, 1980; Curran and Williamson,
1985; 1986).
The approach taken by most investiga-
tors to such a pilot study is to measure
the relevant ground data at a number of
random points, calculate the standard de-
viation of the sample 08, lookup Student's
t value for a two-tailed test with n - 1
degrees of freedom at the 95% confidence
level, select an acceptable error e of the
mean, in the same units as the standard
deviation, and use these three values to
derive n:
n = (o~t/e) 2. (3)
This procedure assumes that the variable
of interest is spatially independent, i.e.,
variance is all nugget. With such an as-
sumption, values of n for quite modest
levels of error can be very large. For
example, Curran and Williamson (1986)
report that, to record the green leaf area
index of a particular grassland field with
a 5% error of the mean (at the 95%
confidence level), 293 random points
would be needed. Where there is spatial
dependence, however, the number of
sample points required to achieve a given
level of confidence can be much less
(Webster and Burgess, 1984). Maximum
advantage of this spatial dependence can
be obtained by using a systematic sam-
piing grid as it ensures that neighboring
sample points are as far from one another
,504
as is practical for a fixed sample size and
area. As such, it minimizes the duplica-
tion of "information" that occurs in ran-
dom sampling, where some sample points
are inevitably close. However, the sample
grid must be placed in such a way that it
does not coincide with any repetitive pat-
tern on the ground (Dixon and Leach,
1978). The procedure is to choose a grid
spacing and, using this spacing as the lag,
read off the relevant semivariance ~,(h)
from the ground data semivariogram
(usually in both directions). These values
can be used to calculate, the variance per
unit area. This variance is called the krig-
ing variance (Krige, 1966) OK z, and an be
derived in relation to the mean value
(e.g., biomass) of the area z(A) using
i=1
- ~. ~. hih~'y(xi,x~)--OeA, (4)
i=lj=l
where X~ and ~i are weights chosen to
minimize o~, which is the true estimation
variance, o~ is the variance of the area,
and the expression ~(x i, A) is the mean
semivariance between the sampling point
x i and the area (Burgess et al., 1981;
McBratney et al., 1981; McBratney and
Webster, 1983b).
The minimum kriging variances, or
their square roots, the standard errors,
can be plotted against a number of grid
spacings. (For some excellent examples,
see Webster and Nortcliff, 1984). From
this graph a sample size (derived from
the number of grid squares that would fit
into the area) can be chosen for an ac-
ceptable level of error (Atkinson, 1987)
(for hill discussion see Webster and
PAUL J. CURRAN
Burgess, 1984). Such a strategy enables
the link between sampling error and sam-
ple size to be developed in spatial con-
text; as such, it is ideal for use on ground
or remotely sensed data.
The increase in precision (for a given
sampling effort) of systematic as opposed
to random sampling is dependent upon
the proportion of nugget to spatially de-
pendent structural variance (Fig. 2). Sys-
tematic, as opposed to random sampling
will offer little increase in precision if
nearly all the variance is nugget [Fig.
3(c)] and large increases in precision if
nearly all the variance is spatially depen-
dent [Fig. 3(a)]. Typically, for surfaces
with a semivariogram similar to Fig. 2,
the increases in precision offered by sys-
tematic over random sampling have been
in the range of two to ninefold (McBrat-
ney and Webster, 1983b; Webster and
Burgess, 1984; Webster and Nortcliff,
1984). If these are translated into a de-
crease in sampling effort, then the neces-
sity for the impossibly large sample sizes
that were so lamented by Curran and
Williamson (1985; 1986) will be a thing
of the past.
The author wishes to acknowledge the
financial support of the Natural Environ-
ment Research Council under Research
Grant GR3/5096 and their sponsorship
o f airborne Multispectral Scanner
campaigns from 1982 to 1986 inclusive.
Thanks are also due to Peter Bragg and
Colin Bell for computer programming;
Mark Danson for undertaking the com-
puting; Dr. Dick Webster, Peter Atkinson,
Mark Danson, and Dr. Curtis Woodcock
for comments on the manuscript and Dr.
Dick Webster, who encouraged me to
make friends with the semivariogram.
SEMIVARIOGRAMSIN REMOTESENSING 505

References Curran, P. J., and Hobson, T. A. (1987),

Landsat MSS imagery to estimate resi-
dential heat load density. Environment and
Armstrong, M. (1984), Improving the estima- Planning A 19:1597-1610.
tion and modelling of the variogram, in Curran, P. J., and Williamson, H. D. (1985),
Geostatistics for Natural Resource Char- The accuracy of ground data used in re-
acterisation (G. Verly, M. David, A. G. mote sensing investigations, Int. J. Remote
Journel, and A. Marechal, Eds.), Reidel, Sons. 6:1637-1651.
Dordrecht, Netherlands, pp. 1-19. Curran, P. J., and Williamson, H. D. (1986),
Atldnson, P. M. (1987), The design of effi- Sample size for ground and remotely sensed
cient sampling schemes for remote sensing, data, Remote Sens. Environ. 20:31-41.
in Advances in Digital Image Processing, Curran, P. J., and WiUiamson, H. D. (1987),
Nottingham, 7-11 September, Remote Airborne MSS to estimate GLAI, Int. 1.
Sensing Society, Nottingham, pp. 334-342. Remote Sens. 8:57-74.
Burgess, T. M., and Webster, R. (1980a), Curran, P. J., and Williamson, H. D. (1988),
Optimal interpolation and isarithmic map- Selecting a spatial resolution for estimation
ping of soil properties. I. The semi-vario- of per-field green leaf area index, Int. I.
gram and punctual kriging, 1. Soil Sci. Remote Sens. (forthcoming).
31:315-331. Curran, P. J., Hansom, J. D., Plmnmer, S. E.,
Burgess, T. M., and Webster, R. (1980b), and Pedley, M. I. (1987), Multispectral re-
Optimal interpolation and isarithmic map- mote sensing of nearshore suspended sedi-
ping of soil properties. II. Block kriging, 1. ments: a pilot study, Int. 1. Remote Sens.
Soil Sci. 31:333-341. 8:103-112.
Burgess, T. M., Webster, R., and McBratney, Dancy, K. J., Webster, R., and Abel, N. O. J.
A. B. (1981), Optimal interpolation and (1986), Estimating and mapping grass cover
isarithmic mapping of soil properties. IV. and biomass from low-level photographic
Sampling strategy, 1. Soil Sci. 32:643-659. sampling, Int. 1. Remote Sens. 7:1679-
1704.
Campbell, J. B. (1978), Spatial variation of
sand content and pH within single continu- David, M. (1977), Geostatistical Ore Reserve
ous delineations of two soil mapping units, Estimation, Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Soil Sci. Soc. Am. 1. 42:460-464. Dixon, C., and Leach, B. (1978), Sampling
Methods for Geographical Research,
Cliff, A. D., and Ord, J. K. (1973), Spatial
C A T M O G 17, Geo-Abstracts Ltd.,
Autocorrelation, Pion, London.
Norwich, U.K.
Cliff, A. D., and Ord, J. K. (1981), Spatial Guarascio, M., David, M., and Huijbregts, C.,
Processes, Pion, London. Eds. (1976), Advanced Geostatistics in
Curran, P. J. (1987), Airborne multispectral the Mining Industry, Reidel, Dordrecht,
scanner data for estimating dye dispersion Netherlands.
from sea outfalls, Proc. Inst. Civil Eng., Hajrasuliha, S., Baniabbassi, N., Metthey, J.,
Part 2 83:213-241. and Nielsen, D. R. (1980), Spatial variabil-
Curran, P. J., and Hay, A. M. (1986), The ity of soil sampling for soil studies in south-
importance of measurement error for cer- west Iran, Irrigation Sci. 1:197-208.
tain procedures in remote sensing at optical Journel, A. G., and Huijbregts, C. J. (1978),
wavelengths, Photogramm. Eng. Remote Mining Geostatistics, Academic Press,
Sens. 52:229-241. London.
506 PAULJ. CURRAN

jupp, 0. L. B., Strahler, A. H., and Wood- McBratney, A. B., and Webster, R. (1986),
cock, C. E. (1988) Autocorrelation and Choosing functions for semi-variograms of
regularization in digital images. I. Basic soil properties and fitting them to sampling
theory. IEEE Geosciences and Remote estimates, J. Soil Sci. 37:617-639.
Sensing (forthcoming). McBratney, A. B., Webster, R., and Burgess,
Kitandis, D. K. (1983), Statistical estimation T. M. (1981), The design of optimal sam-
of polynomial generalized covariance func- piing schemes for local estimation and
tions and hydrological applications, Water mapping of regionalized variables. I. The-
Resources Res. 19:909-921. ory and method, Comput. Geosci.
71:331-334.
Krige, D. G. (1966), Two dimensional
weighted moving average trend surfaces for McCullagh, M. J. (1975), Estimation by krig-
ore observation, 1. S. African Inst. Mining ing of the reliability of the proposed Trent
and Metall. 66:13-38. telemetry network, Comput. Appl.
21:357-374.
Lacaze, B., Lahraoui, L., Debussache, G., and
Khelta, A. (1985), Analysis de measures Mousset-Jones, P. F., Ed. (1980), Geostatis-
radiometriques de simulation SPOT en tics, McGraw-Hill, New York.
milieux Mediterraneens aride et sub- Olea, R. A. (1977), Measuring Spatial Depen-
humide, Proceedings of the 3rd Interna- dence with Semi-Variograms, Kansas Geo-
tional Colloquium on Spectral Signatures of logical Survey, Campus West, Lawrence,
Objects in Remote Sensing, Les Arcs, KS.
France, 16-20 December, ESA SP-247 Oliver, M. A., and Webster, R. (1986a), Com-
Noordwijk, pp. 425-428. bining nested and linear sampling for de-
Lam, N. S. N. (1983), Spatial interpolation termining the scale and form of spatial
methods: a review, Am. Cartographer variation of regionalized variables, Geogr.
10:129-149. Anal. 18:227-242.
Marsh, S. E., and Lyon, R. J. P. (1980), Oliver, M. A., and Webster, R. (1986b),
Quantitative relationships of near surface Semi-variograms for modelling the spatial
spectra to Landsat radiometric data, Re- pattern of landform and soil properties,
mote Sens. Environ. 10:241-261. Earth Surface Processes Landforms
11:491-504.
Matheron, G. (1965), Les Variables R~gional- Oliver, M. A., and Webster, R. (1987), The
isles et leur Estimation, Masson, Paris. elucidation of soil pattern in the Wyre
Matheron, G. (1971), The Theory of Regional- Forest of the West Midlands, England. II.
ized Variables and Its Applications, Cahiers Spatial distribution, J. Soil Sci. 38:293-307.
Centre de Morphologie Mathematique No. Richards, J. A. (1986), Remote Sensing Dig-
5, Fontainebleau. ital Image Analysis. An Introduction,
McBratney, A. B., and Webster, R. (1983a), Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Optimal interpolation and isarithmic map- Ripley, B. D. (1981), Spatial Statistics, Wiley,
ping of soil properties. V. Co-regionaiiza- New York.
tion and multiple sampling strategy, 1. Soil Russo, D. (1984), Statistical analysis of crop
Sci. 34:137-162. yield-soil water relationships on heteroge-
McBratney, A. B., and Webster, R. (1983b), neous soils under trickle irrigation, Soil Sci.
How many observations are needed for re- Soc. Am. ]. 48:1402-1410.
gional estimation of soil properties, Soil Sci. Soares, J. V., Bernard, R., and Vidal-Madjar,
135:177-183. D. (1987), Spatial and temporal behaviour
SEMIVARIOGRAMS IN REMOTE SENSING
of a large agricultural area as observed
from airborne C-band scatterometer and
thermal infrared radiometer, Int. I. Re-
mote Sons. 8:981-996.
Townshend, J. R. G. (198I), The spatial re-
solving power of earth resources satellites,
Prog. Phys. Geogr. 5:32-55.
Upton, G. J. G., and Fingleton, B. (1985),
Spatial Data Analysis by Example. Volume
1: Point Pattern and Quantitative Data,
Wiley, New York.
Wardley, N. W., and Curran, P. J. (1984),
The estimation of green leaf area index
from remotely sensed airborne multispec-
tral scanner data, Int. 1. Remote Sons.
5:671-679.
Webster, R. (1973), Automatic soil-boundary
location from transect data, Math. Geol.
5:27-37.
Webster, R. (1978), Optimally partitioning
soil transects, 1. Soil Sci. 29:388-402.
Webster, R. (1982), Experience of kriging
from field measurements of soil properties,
in Traitement Informatique des Donn~es de
Sol, Third Colloquia of the AISS, Paris,
14-17 September 1981, Departement des
Sols Institut National Agronomique, Paris,
Grignon, pp. 101-109.
Webster, R. (1985), Quantitative spatial anal-
ysis of soil in the field, Adv. Soil Sci.
3:1-70.
Webster, R., and Burgess, T. M. (1980), Opti-
mal interpolation and isarithmic mapping
of soil properties. III. Changing drift and
universal kriging, 1. Soil Sci. 31:505-524.
Webster, R., and Burgess, T. M. (1984), Sam-
pling and bulking stragegies for estimating
soil properties in small regions, 1. Soil Sci.
35:127-140.
507
Webster, R., and Cuanalo de la C. H. E.
(1975), Soil transect correlograms of north
Ordordshire and their interpretation, 1. Soil
Sci. 26:176-194.
Webster, R., and Nortcliff, S. (1984), Im-
proved estimation of micro nutrients in
hectare plots of the Sonning Series, 1. Soil
Sci. 35:667-672.
Woodcock, C. E. (1985), Variograms and spa-
tial variation in remotely sensed images,
International Geoscience and Remote Sens-
ing Symposium, University of Massachu-
settes, Amherst, pp. 1078-1083.
Woodcock, C. E., and Strahler, A. H., (1983),
Characterizing spatial patterns in remotely
sensed data, in Proceedings of the 17th
International Symposium on Remote Sens-
ing o f Environment, University of Michi-
gan, Ann Arbor, pp. 839-852.
Woodcock, C. E., and Strahler, A. H. (1984),
Image variance and spatial structure in re-
motely sensed scenes, in Proceedings of the
2nd NASA Conference on Mathematical
Pattern Recognition and Image Analysis,
NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX,
pp. 427-465.
Woodcock, C. E., and Strahler, A. H. (1985),
Relating ground scenes to spatial variation
in images, in Proceedings of the 3rd NASA
Conference on Mathematical Pattern
Recognition and Image Analysis, Texas A
& M University, College Station, TX, pp.
393 -449.
Woodcock, C. E., and Strahler, A. H. (1987),
The factor of scale in remote sensing, Re-
mote Sens. Environ. 21:311-332.
Yates, F. (1948), Systematic sampling, Phil.
Trans. Roy. Soc., Ser. A 241:345-377.
Received 19 February 1987; revised 20 November 1987.