morphometric analysis of chel river basin, west …50,000 (20m contour interval) were acquired from...

Open access e-Journal Earth Science India eISSN: 0974 – 8350 V. 12 (I), January, 2019, pp. 1-23 http://www.earthscienceindia.info/

Morphometric Analysis of Chel River Basin, West Bengal,

India, using Geographic Information System

Sonam Lama1 and Ramkrishna Maiti2 1Department of Geography, Darjeeling Govt. College, Darjeeling, West Bengal, 734101, India 2Department of Geography and Environment Management, Vidyasagar University, Medinipur,

West Bengal, 721102, India Email: [email protected]; [email protected]

ABSTRACT

Morphometric analysis of Chel basin was carried out with the help of geographic

information system (GIS). Mosaic of two Shuttle Radar Thematic Mapper (SRTM) 1Arc V3

(30m) tiles was used to prepare Digital Elevation Model (DEM). The watershed boundary

was delineated and drainage lines were identified using Arc Hydro tools in ArcGIS 10.1 by

collaborating Survey of India (SOI) toposheets. Morphometric parameters like stream

order, stream length, bifurcation ratio, drainage density, stream frequency, form factor,

circulatory ratio, and other parameters are computed under three broad categories namely

linear, areal and relief aspects. River Chel was found to be a 5th order stream with overall

length of 58.23 kms. Chel basin encompasses an area of 321 km2 with basin perimeter of

115.21 kms. Relief ranges from 92m to 2449 m with total relief of 2357 m. An elongation

ratio value of 0.47 suggests Chel is a highly elongated drainage basin. Further the

circulatory ratio of Chel basin is 0.304. Mean bifurcation ratio for whole Chel basin is 3.43

whereas weighted mean bifurcation ratio for the same is 4.05. The mean drainage density

of Chel basin is 1.07 and drainage frequency value is 0.49. The elliptic hypsometric curve

with greater initial downward deviation from the equilibrium line followed by long gentle

gradient and finally becoming almost parallel to the abscissa and very low hypsometric

integral (H.I.=0.15) is suggestive of basin being in ‘senile stage’. These finding would help

in better understanding of various morphometric parameters at play and thereby enhance

our spatial understanding for logical decision making in order to formulate proper

management plans for the whole basin.

Keywords: Morphometric analysis, SRTM DEM, Hypsometric Curve and Integral, Senile

stage, Chel River

Please cite this article as: Lama, Sonam and Maiti, Ramkrishna (2019) Morphometric analysis of Chel river basin, West Bengal, India, using Geographic Information System. e-Journal Earth Science India, v. 12, pp. 1-23. https://doi.org/10.31870/ESI.12.1.2019.01

https://doi.org/10.31870/ESI.11.3.2018.11

Morphometric analysis of Chel river basin, West Bengal, India, using Geographic Information System: Lama and Maiti

2

INTRODUCTION

Morphometry is the measurement and mathematical analysis of the configuration of the Earth's surface, shape and dimension of its landforms (Clarke, 1966; Agarwal, 1998; Obi Reddy et al., 2002). Morphometric parameters of a drainage basin describe its form, structure and extension. It is actually quantitative analysis of basin’s terrain and drainage network therein which helps us to understand the consequent development of drainage network and thereby enable us to have an idea of the geological and geomorphological processes over time. Thus it gives us a cue of landform evolutionary phase that basin is currently going through as described in various morphometric studies (Horton, 1945; Strahler, 1952; Strahler, 1964; Shreve, 1969; Muller, 1968).

Horton is considered to be the pioneer in application of quantitative techniques in drainage basin analysis. In early days the method was very much manual which was both time taking and laborious (Horton, 1945; Strahler, 1952; Strahler,1964; Shreve, 1969; Muller,1968; Evans IS, 1972; Chorley et. al., 1984; Strahler, 1957; Schumm, 1956; Chorley and Morgan, 1962). Then J.T. Hack’s Stream-profile analysis and stream-gradient index proved to be significant in the quantitative description of drainage basins (Hack, 1973). The advent of Remote Sensing and Geographical Information System (GIS) techniques began to make things much easier and computation of results more accurate. Now much advancement in RS, GIS and personal computers has made possible its widespread application in quantitative geomorphology in general and in morphotectonic analysis of drainage basins in particular (Williams, 1972; Mesa,2006; Lyew-Ayee et al., 2007; Altin and Altin, 2011; Buccolini et al., 2012). Here in India too, Quantitative techniques have been applied to study the morphometric analysis of different drainage basins (Vittala et al., 2004; Chopra et al., 2005, Vijith and Sateesh, 2006; Rudraiah et al., 2008; Bagyaraj and Gurugnanam, 2011; Malik et al., 2011; Thomas et al., 2011; Magesh et al., 2012; Singh et al., 2012; Pareta and Pareta, 2012; Rai et al., 2014; Biswas et al., 2014; Chougale and Sapkale, 2017). Various Studies suggests morphometric properties of drainage basins as good indicators of structural influence on drainage development and neotectonic activity (Nag and Chakraborty, 2003; Das et al., 2011; Bali et al., 2012; Demoulin, 2011). There are many studies where morphometric analysis of drainage basins has been used to assess the groundwater potentiality of the basins and to locate suitable sites for construction of check dams and artificial recharge structures (Sreedevi et al., 2005; Narendra and Rao, 2006; Avinash et al., 2011; Mishra et al., 2011; Jasmin and Mallikarjuna, 2013). Watershed prioritisation based on morphometric characteristics has also been carried out and aids in the mapping of high flood potential and erosion prone zones (Javed et al., 2011; Patton and Baker, 1976; Diakakis, 2011; Wakode et al., 2011). The remote sensing and GIS provides nowadays has become cheap, convenient and gives higher accuracy level results in morphometric analysis of drainage basins. According to (Rao et al., 2010) the fast emerging spatial information technology, remote sensing, GIS, and GPS are effective tools to overcome most of the problems of land and water resources planning and management rather than conventional methods of data process. The present study aims at using the remote sensing and GIS technology to compute various parameters of morphometric characteristics of the Chel river basin under the following three headings:

Linear Aspects: one dimensional

Areal Aspects: two dimensional

Relief Aspects: three dimensional

STUDY AREA

Morphometric analysis was carried out in Chel river basin, West Bengal. River Chel lies to the left of Tista after Lish and Gish and joins Neora to become Dharala Nadi which ultimately


3

merges with mighty Teesta about 13 kms downstream. The study area extends between 26° 41' 30'' and 27° 5'15'' north latitudes and longitudes 88° 37'00'' and 88° 45' 15'' east (Fig. 1). The entire watershed covers an area of 321 km2 with watershed perimeter of 115.21 kms. Elevation ranges from 92 m to 2449 m. Agriculture in the watershed is largely Tea plantation. Chel is one among many other rivers (Gish, Diana, Chamurchi, Rehti, Gabur-Basra, Jainti etc.) that are dissecting the southern part of Lesser Himalaya with catchment sizes between 50 - 100 km2 and are located in the belt of higher precipitation and form large alluvial fans. Aggradation follow upstream into the hills, while in the distal downstream the braided channels transforms into meandering ones (Starkel and Sarkar, 2002).

The distribution of rainfall is such that 80-90% of total rainfall amount is concentrated in five summer months from May to September and almost no rainfall during winter. Mean monthly temperature ranges between 18.2°C – 29.3°C (Fig. 2).

Fig.1: a) India with the state of West Bengal, b) West Bengal with location of Chel river Basin and c) Chel River Basin (Study Area).


4

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In the present study, Indian topographical maps 78 B/9 and 78 B/10 with a scale of 1:

50,000 (20m contour interval) were acquired from Survey of India. Two SRTM DEMs 1 Arcsec 30m tiles (n26_e088_1arc_V3 and n27_e088_1arc_V3) were downloaded from U.S. Geological Survey website using the Earth explorer interface: (http://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/.) as GeoTiff raster files and mosaicked into one in ArcMap 10.1. Topographic information was digitized and geo-referenced with UTM (WGS 1984, Zone 45N) in ArcMap 10.1. The watershed boundary and drainage lines were automatically extracted from the SRTM DEM using Arc hydro tools in ArcGIS 10.1 by collaborating SOI toposheets. DEM and contours maps were also generated for the basin. Spatial analyst tools in ArcGIS 10.1 software were largely used for computation of aspect, relief and slope of the basin. All morphometric parameters (linear, areal and relief) have been calculated as listed in table: 8 with the help of DEM in consultation with SOI topographical maps and Google Earth in GIS environment (ArcMap 10.1). Golden Surfer V.15 was used to prepare perspective view of the basin (Fig.3).

Fig. 2: Mean monthly rainfall and temperature, 2015 recorded in Meenglas Tea Garden, on piedmont of the river Chel.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Results of the present study are discussed in terms of the following sub-headings: linear

aspects, areal aspects, relief aspects, longitudinal profile, hypsometric curve and hypsometric integral.

LINEAR ASPECTS Linear aspects are the one dimensional morphometric properties of drainage basins.


5

Stream Order (Su)

There are different systems available for ordering streams (Horton,1945; Strahler, 1952; Scheidegger,1965). Strahler’s system, which is a slightly modified of Horton’s system, has been followed here because of its simplicity. The smallest, unbranched fingertip streams are designated as 1st order, the confluence of two 1st order channels give a channel segments of 2nd order, two 2nd order streams join to form a segment of 3rd order and so on. When two channel of different order join then the higher order is maintained. The trunk stream is the stream segment of highest order. Based on the method proposed by (Strahler, 1952), the Chel river is 5th order stream. Altogether 152 streams were identified out of which 114 are 1st order, 28 are 2nd order, 6 are of 3rd order, 3 are 4th order streams and lastly 1 is of fifth order (Table-1; Fig. 6D).

Stream Number (Nu)

The total number of stream segments present in each order is the stream number (Nu).

Thus, Nu is number of streams of order u. As per Horton’s law (Horton,1945) of stream numbers,

‘‘the number of streams of different orders in a given drainage basin tends closely to approximate

as inverse geometric series of which the first term is unity and the ratio is the bifurcation ratio’’.

The study reveals that the development of 1st order streams is maximum in the Himalayan dissected zone (42 streams) followed by piedmont zone (37 streams) and marginally less in the alluvial plain zone (35 streams) (Table-1). For 2nd order Himalayan dissected zone scores 11 streams followed by 10 streams in alluvial plain zone and minimum at piedmont zone with 7 streams. There are no 3rd order streams in alluvial plain zone whereas Himalayan dissected zone has four streams and piedmont zone has two.

Fig. 3: Perspective view of Chel River Basin (Study Area).


6

Stream Length (Lu)

The total length of individual stream segments of each order is the stream length of that order. Stream length measures the average (or mean) length of a stream in each orders, and is calculated by dividing the total length of all streams in a particular order by the number of streams in that order. Stream lengths delineate the total lengths of stream segment of each of the successive orders in a basin tend to approximate a direct geometric series in which the first term is the average length of the stream of the first order (Horton, 1945). The stream length is a measure of the hydrological characteristics of the bedrock and the drainage extent. Wherever the bedrock and formation is permeable, only a small number of relatively longer streams are formed in a well-drained watershed, a large number of streams of smaller length are developed where the bedrocks and formations are less permeable (Sethupathi et al., 2011). In general, the stream length in each order increases exponentially with increasing stream order. But in Chel basin stream length is fluctuating with increase in order. The highest stream length (181.54 kms) is recorded for 1st order streams followed by 2nd order streams (81.54 kms) then comes 5th order stream (39.22 kms) followed by 4th order streams (25.27 kms) and lastly by 3rd order streams (14.66 kms), Table-2.

Mean Stream Length (Lum)

Mean stream length of a stream channel segment of order ‘u’ is a dimensional property revealing the characteristic size of components of a drainage network and its contributing basin surface (Strahler,1964). It is obtained by dividing the total length of stream of an order by total number of segments in the order The lengths of stream segments of up to 5th order are measured and the total length as well as Mean Stream Length (Lū) of each order is computed, Table-2. The mean stream lengths of stream increase with the increase of the order. But in some basin shows opposite relation, higher order stream has a small mean length.

Table-1: Stream Order, Stream Number and Bifurcation Ratio

Su Nu Rb Rbm Nu-r Rb * Nu-r

Rbwm

I 114 4.07 142 577.94

II 28 4.66 34 158.44

III 6 2 9 18

IV 3 3 3.43* 4 12 4.05

V 1 0

Total 152 0 189 766.38

Mean 3.43*

Su= Stream Order, Nu= Number of streams, Rb= Bifurcation Ratio, Rbm= Mean Bifurcation ratio*, Nu-r = Number of streams used in the ratio, Rbwm=Weighted mean bifurcation ratio.


7

Table-2: Stream Length, and Stream Length Ratio

Su Lu (km) Mean Stream Length,Lum

mean stream length ratio,

Lurm

Lur-r Lur* Lur-r Luwm

I 181.54 1.592456 0 0

II 81.601828 2.914351 1.8300983 263.1418 481.58

III 14.659879 2.443313 0.8383729 96.26171 80.9 2.16

IV 25.273743 8.424581 3.4480155 39.93362 139.8

V 39.218084 39.21808 4.6551969 64.49183 303.15

Total 342.29353 54.59279 10.771684 463.82896 1005.43

Mean 10.92 2.693*

Su= Stream Order, Lu= Stream Length, Lum= Mean Stream Length, Lurm= mean stream length ratio*, Lur-r= Stream length used in the ratio, Luwm= weighted Mean Stream Length.

Stream Length Ratio (Lur)

Horton’s law of stream length (Horton, 1945) points out that mean stream length segments

of each of the successive orders of a basin tends to approximate a direct geometric series with stream length increasing towards higher order of streams. Mean stream length ratio (Lurm) for whole Chel basin is 2.69 whereas weighted stream length ratio (Luwm) for the same is 2.16 (Table- 2).

Bifurcation Ratio (Rb)

Horton, 1945 considered Rb as an index of relief and dissection while (Strahler, 1957) opined that Rb shows only a small variation for different regions with different environments except where powerful geological control dominates. According to Schumm, 1956, the term bifurcation ratio (Rb) may be defined as the ratio of the number of the stream segments of given order to the number of segments of the next higher orders. It is a dimensionless property and shows the degree of integration prevailing between streams of various orders in a drainage basin. Order wise bifurcation ratio of Chel basin ranges from 2 to 4.66. Mean bifurcation ratio for whole Chel basin is 3.43 where weighted mean bifurcation ration for the same is 4.05 (Table-1). According to Strahler, 1964, the values of bifurcation ratio characteristically range between 3.0 and 5.0 for drainage basin in which the geological structures do not disturb the drainage pattern. The mean bifurcation ratio (Rbm) characteristically ranges between 3.0 and 5.0 for a basin when the influence of geological structures on the drainage network is negligible (Verstappen, 1983).

Weighted Mean Bifurcation Ratio (Rbwm)

To arrive at a more representative bifurcation number, Strahler (1953) used a weighted mean bifurcation ratio obtained by multiplying the bifurcation ratio for each successive pair of orders by the total numbers of streams involved in the ratio and taking the mean of the sum of these values. Schumm, 1956 has used this method to determine the mean bifurcation ratio of the value of 4.87 of the drainage of Perth Amboy, N.J. Weighted mean bifurcation ratio for the Chel basin is 4.05 (Table-1).


8

Rho Coefficient (ρ)

The Rho coefficient is an important parameter relating drainage density to physiographic

development of a watershed which facilitate evaluation of storage capacity of drainage network and hence, a determinant of ultimate degree of drainage development in a given watershed (Horton, 1945). The climatic, geologic, biologic, geomorphologic, and anthropogenic factors determine the changes in this parameter. Rho value of the Chel basin is ρ=Lur/Rb=2.7/3.43= 0.79, Table-8. This is suggesting higher hydrologic storage during floods and attenuation of effects of erosion during elevated discharge.

Length of Main Channel (Cl)

This is the length along the longest watercourse from the outflow point of watershed to the

upper limit to the watershed boundary. The computed main channel length by using ArcGIS-10 software is 58.23 Kms (Table- 8). Length of the Basin (Lb)

Several people defined basin length in different ways, such Schumm, 1956 defined basin

length as the longest dimension of the basin parallel to the principal drainage line. Gregory and Walling, 1968, defined the basin length as the longest in the basin in which is end being the mouth. The length of the Chel basin in accordance with the definition of Schumm, 1956, is 42.6Kms, Table-8.

AREAL ASPECT

The areal aspect are the two dimensional properties of a basin. Basin Area (A)

The area of the watershed is another important parameter like the length of the stream drainage. (Schumm, 1946) established an interesting relation between the total watershed areas and the total stream lengths, which are supported by the contributing areas. The basin area computed by using ArcGIS-10 software is 321 sq.kms (Table-8). Basin Perimeter (P)

Basin perimeter is the outer boundary of the watershed that encloses its area. It is measured along the divides between watersheds and may be used as an indicator of watershed size and shape. The basin perimeter computed by using ArcGIS-10 software is115.21 Kms (Table-8) Whereas Relative Basin Perimeter (Pr) is 2.79 kms. Length Area Relation (Lar)

Hack, 1957 found that for a large number of basins, the stream length and basin area are related by a simple power function as follows: Lar = 1.4 * A0.6. So Lar for Chel basin is 44.67 (Table-8).


9

Lemniscate’s (k)

Chorley, 1957 express the lemniscate’s value to determine the slope of the basin. In the formula k = k = Lb2 / A. Where, Lb is the basin length (Km) and A is the area of the basin (km2). The lemniscate (k) value for the watershed is 5.65 (Table-8).

BASIN SHAPE

The shape of the basin mainly governs the rate at which the water is supplied to the main

channel. The main indices used to analyze basin shape and relief is the elongation and relief ratios. The elongation ratio is calculated by dividing the diameter of a circle of the same area as the drainage basin by the maximum length of the basin, measured from its outlet to its boundary. Three parameters viz. Elongation Ratio (Re), Circulatory Ratio (Rc) and Form Factor (Rf) are used for characterizing drainage basin shape, which is an important parameter from hydrological point of view.

Elongation Ratio (Re)

Schumm, 1956 defined an elongation ratio (Re) as the ratio of diameter of a circle of the same area as the basin to the maximum basin length. It is a measure of the shape of the river basin and it depends on the climatic and geologic types. The value of Re varies from 0 (in highly elongated shape) to unity i.e. 1.0 (in the circular shape). Thus higher the value of elongation ratio more circular shape of the basin and vice-versa. Values close to 1.0 are typical of regions of very low relief, whereas that of 0.6 to 0.8 are usually associated with high relief and steep ground slope. These values can be grouped as (Table.3),

Table: 3 Elongation ratio and basin shape

Elongation ratio Shape of basin

<0.7 Elongated

0.8-0.7 Less elongated

0.9-0.8 Oval

>0.9 Circular

Higher values of elongation ratio show high infiltration capacity and low runoff, whereas

lower Re values are characterized by high susceptibility to erosion and sediment load (Reddy et al., 2002). The elongation ratio of Chel basin is 0.47 which indicates highly elongated drainage basin (Table-8). Form Factor (Rf)

Form factor is the ratio of the area of the basin and square of the basin length. It is commonly used to represent different basin shapes (Horton, 1932). The value of form factor is in between 0.1-0.8. The value of form factor would always be greater than 0.78 for perfectly circular basin. Smaller the value of form factor, more elongated will be the basin. The basins with high form factors 0.8, have high peak flows of shorter duration, whereas, elongated drainage basin


10

with low form factors have lower peak flow of longer duration. Form factor for Chel basin is calculated as 0.18, Table-8. Thus, the Chel basin is an elongated one. Circularity Ratio (Rc)

The circularity ratio is a similar measure as elongation ratio, originally defined by Miller, 1953 as the ratio of the area of the basin to the area of the circle having same circumference as the basin perimeter. He described Rc as a significant ratio that indicates the dendritic stage of a watershed. This is mainly due to the diversity of slope and relief pattern of the basin. The circulator ratio is mainly concerned with the length and frequency of streams, geological structures, land use/land cover, climate, relief and slope of the basin. It is a significant ratio that indicates the dendritic stage of a watershed. Low, medium and high values of Rc indicate the young, mature, and old stages of the life cycle of the tributary watershed (John Wilson et al., 2012). The value of circularity ratio varies from 0 (in line) to 1 (in a circle). Higher value represents more circularity in the shape of the basin and vice-versa. Naturally all basins have a tendency to become elongated to get the mature stage. The circulatory ratio of Chel basin is 0.304. The structural control of drainage is probably responsible for the low values of circularity ratio (Table-8).

Table 4: Elongation ratio, Circulatory ratio and Form factor

Basin Elongation Ratio(Re)

Re=2{√(A/π)}/Lb

Circulatory Ratio(Rc)

Rc=4πA/p2

Form Factor

(Rf) Rf=A/Lb2

Chel 0.47 0.304 0.176

Drainage Area (Au)

The entire area drained by a stream or system of streams such that all streams flow originating in the area is discharged through a single outlet is termed as the Drainage Area. Drainage area measures the average drainage area of streams in each order; it increases exponentially with increasing order. The total catchment area of Chel is 321 km2 (Table-8). Drainage Density (Dd)

Drainage density (Dd) is a measure of the total stream length in a given basin to the total area of the basin (Strahler, 1964). The drainage density is affected by the factors that control characteristic length of the watershed. Dd is a measure of the texture of the network, and indicates the balance between the erosive power of overland flow and the resistance of surface soils and rocks. The factors affecting drainage density include geology and density of vegetation. The vegetation density influenced drainage density by binding the surface layer and slows down the rate of overland flow, and stores some of the water for short periods of time. The effect of lithology on drainage density is marked. Permeable rocks with a high infiltration rate reduce overland flow, and consequently drainage density is low. The mean Drainage density for the entire Chel Basin is 1.07 km/km2 which indicate presence of resistant permeable subsurface material with moderate drainage and low to moderate relief (Table-8). Low drainage density leads to coarse drainage texture while high drainage density leads to fine drainage texture, high runoff and erosion potential of the basin area (Strahler,1964).


11

Drainage (Stream) Frequency (Fs)

The number of stream segments per unit area is termed Stream Frequency. Reddy et al., 2004, stated that low values of stream frequency, Fs indicate presence of a permeable subsurface material and low relief. The stream frequency value of the Chel basin is 0.47 km/km2 (Table-8). Stream frequency mainly depends on the lithology of the basin and reflects the texture of the drainage network. The value of stream frequency (Fs) for the basin exhibit positive correlation with the drainage density value of the area indicating the increase in stream population with respect to increase in drainage density.

Drainage Texture

Horton, 1945 defined drainage texture is the total number of stream segments of all order in a basin per perimeter of the basin. It is important to geomorphology as it means the relative spacing of drainage lines. Drainage texture is on the underlying lithology, infiltration capacity and relief aspect of the terrain. Drainage texture can be classified into 5 different textures i.e., very coarse (<2), coarse (2 to 4), moderate (4 to 6), fine (6 to 8) and very fine (>8). Table-5 reflects the total drainage texture of the basins is 1.32 km/km2 which indicate very course drainage texture.

Table-5: Drainage density, Drainage frequency and Drainage texture

Basin Drainage Density

(km/km2)

Drainage Frequency (km/km2)

Drainage texture Km/km2

Chel 1.07 0.47 1.32

Drainage Intensity (Di)

Faniran, 1968 defines the drainage intensity, as the ratio of the stream frequency to the drainage density. This study shows a low drainage intensity of 0.46 for the watershed, Table-8. This low value of drainage intensity implies that drainage density and stream frequency have little effect (if any) on the extent to which the surface has been lowered by agents of denudation. With these low values of drainage density, stream frequency and drainage intensity, surface runoff is not quickly removed from the watershed, making it highly susceptible to flooding, gully erosion and landslides. Infiltration Number (If)

The infiltration Number is defined as the product of Drainage Density (Dd) and Drainage Frequency (Fs). Infiltration no. of Chel Basin= 0.501(Table-6). The higher the infiltration number the lower will be the infiltration and consequently, higher will be run off. This leads to the development of higher drainage density. Length of Overland Flow (Lg)

The term length of overland flow is used to describe the length of flow of water over the ground before it becomes concentrated in definite stream channels. Horton, 1945 expressed it as equal to half of the reciprocal of Drainage Density (Dd). It is an important independent variable,


12

which greatly affect the quantity of water required to exceed a certain threshold of erosion. This factor relates inversely to the average slope of the channel and is quite synonymous with the length of sheet flow to a large degree. The length of overland flow bears an effective relationship with the drainage density and constant channel maintenance. Length of Overland Flow (Lg) of Chel Basin= 0.47 (Table-6). Constant of Channel Maintenance (C)

This parameter indicates the requirement of units of watershed surface to bear one unit of channel length. Schumm, 1946 has used the inverse of the drainage density having the dimension of length as a property termed constant of channel maintenance. The drainage basins having higher values of this parameter, there will be lower value of drainage density. Constant of Channel Maintenance (C) of Chel basin is 0.93. It means that on an average 0.93 sq. ft. surface is needed in basin for creation of one linear foot of the stream channel. All the values are computed and shown in the Table-6.

Table-6: Infiltration number, Length of overland flow and constant of channel maintenance

Basin Infiltration Number, If=Dd.Df

Length of Over land flow,

Lg=1/2. AU/Ʃlu

Constant of channel Maintenance, C=1/Dd

Chel 0.501 0.47 0.93

RELIEF ASPECTS

Relief aspects are the three dimensional morphometric parameters of drainage basins. Hence an additional height or depth element gets consideration in this category. Slope

Slope is a significant parameter in the morphometric analysis of any drainage basin. It is the degree of inclination of topography with respect to horizontal plain. The slope of the Chel river basin was computed with the help of SRTM DEM using spatial analyst tool in ArcGIS 10.1 software. The slope values for the Chel basin ranges from 0° to 55.31°. The highest sloping surface with slope (35.6°-55.31°) is found in the structural ridges and valleys in a semi-circular pattern above the elevation of 380m (Fig. 6A and 6C) in the northern part of the basin. We observe a rapid decrease of slope with distance within the hilly region of the basin as the slope decrease to as low as 5° at beginning the piedmont zone (around 20 kms downstream from the source of the river Chel). For rest of the basin area the slope remains well below 5° with occasional small patches of surface having slope ranging from 5° to 13° in the central eastern parts of the basin known popularly as Rangamati surface. This spatial variation in slope gradient directly influences the flow direction, velocity, erosional and depositional characteristics of the channels within the basin.


13

Aspect

Aspect is the horizontal direction to which the surface slope faces. The aspect configuration significantly controls the micro climate within a basin. This is due to the varying duration and intensity of interaction between the sun’s rays and the surface slope (Magesh et al., 2011). Slopes exposed to sun’s rays for longer duration and intensity will be warmer than the sheltered slopes and vice –versa. The aspect map of the Chel river basin is derived with the help of SRTM DEM using spatial analyst tool in ArcGIS 10.1 software. The derived raster map shows the direction of slopes for the Chel basin ranging from 0° to 360°, wherein 0° denotes the northerly direction, 90° refers to eastern direction and so on. A visual interpretation of the aspect map infers to the dominance of aspect ranging from 157.5° to 247.5° in most parts of the basin. This means most of the slopes are facing south and south west direction and are comparatively warmer than the slopes facing other directions. The north-western and southern parts of the basin have aspect towards the east whereas north-eastern parts of the basins have westerly aspect (Fig. 6B). This spatial variation in aspect greatly governs the rate and extent of weathering, types of vegetation, agriculture and erosion within the basin. Relief

Relief is yet another important parameter for morphological analysis of any drainage basin. It infers to the range of elevation values within the drainage basin thereby giving idea about topographic variation and diversity. A relief map for the study area is derived from SRTM DEM using Spatial Analyst tool in ArcGIS 10.1 software. The prepared raster image shows five relief zones with the overall basin’s relief of 2358m. The northernmost hilly part of the basin falls under highest relief zone (1709m to 2450m) whereas the relief values quickly reduces to below 350m beginning from piedmont zone till the confluence of Chel with Neora river (Fig. 3 and 6C). Spatial variation in relief distribution influences the flow direction and velocity of overland flow which translates into uneven erosion and deposition processes. Channel Gradient

Channel Gradient is the total drop in elevation from the source to the mouth of the trunk channels in each drainage basin. In the present study 0.031 is the gradient for Chel river (Table- 7). Basin Relief (H)

Basin relief is the elevation difference of the highest and lowest point of the valley floor. For Chel river basin 2357 m is the maximum basin relief (Table-7 and Fig. 4A). Relief Ratio (Rh)

Schumm (1946) states that the maximum relief to horizontal distance along the longest dimension of the basin parallel to the principal drainage line is termed as relief ratio. Difference in the elevation between the highest point of a basin and the lowest point on the valley floor is termed as the total relief of that river basin. He also stated that it is a dimensionless height-length ratio equal to the tangent of angle formed by two planes intersecting at the mouth of the basin, one representing the horizontal and other passing through the highest point of the basin.


14

Low value of relief ratios is mainly due to the resistant basement rocks of the basin and low degree of slope (Mahadevaswamy et al., 2011). The Rh normally increases with decreasing drainage area and size of a given drainage basin (Gottschalk, 1964). The Relief ratio value for the entire Chel basin is 55.3 (Table-8). Low value of relief ratios is mainly due to the resistant basement rocks of the basin and low degree of slope (Mahadevaswamy et al., 2011). The Rh normally increases with decreasing drainage area and size of a given drainage basin (Gottschalk, 1964).The Relief ratio value for the entire Chel basin is 55.3 (Table-7). Ruggedness Number (Rn)

Strahler,1964 describes ruggedness number (Rn) as the product of maximum basin relief and drainage density and it usually combines slope steepness with its length. Extremely high values of ruggedness number occur when slopes of the basin are not only steeper but long, as well. The Ruggedness number (Rn) for Chel basin is 2.52 (Table-7).

.

Contour Interval-20m

Figure 4: DEM (A) and Contour map (B) of Chel Basin.

Longitudinal Profile

The longitudinal profile of a stream is a property of stream geometry that can provide clues to underlying materials as well as insights into geologic processes and geomorphic history of an area (Hack, 1957). The long profile of river Chel was prepared in Microsoft Excel 2007 workbook by extracting and placing elevation values against the length and the obtained curve was given a

B)

A


15

smoothen effect to get rid of any unnecessary large misleading fluctuations. The prepared longitudinal profile indicates the presence of a few knick points at the steeper mountainous course of the river (Fig. 5). It also exhibit very high gradient (0.2) from its source (2449 m) to 10 kms downstream (around 500m) near Putharjhora T.E. where it leaves behind the Himalaya and enters the plains and due to sudden reduction of gradient it dumps huge amount of unsorted sediments, consequently creates Piedmont surface (Fig. 5). Then after the river flows sluggishly with lower gradient (0.015) upto 30kms over its own sediments creating braiding drainage pattern and farther downstream the longitudinal profile becomes almost parallel to the abscissa with very

low gradient (0.004) and so exhibit meandering pattern of drainage.

Table-7: Ruggedness Number

Basin Elevation of Highest point on Basin

Perimeter (m)

Elevation of lowest point at

the mouth (m)

Maximum Basin

Relief (H) m

Maximum Basin

Length (Lb) km

Channel Gradient

Relief Ratio (Rh)

Ruggedness Number (Rn)=

Dd*(H/1000) Patton &

Baker(1976)

Chel 2449 92 2357 42.6 0.031 2449-92/42.6=55

.3

2357/1000x1.07=2.52

Fig.5 Longitudinal profile

HYPSOMETRIC CURVE

Hypsometric curve was obtained by plotting the relative area along the abscissa and relative elevation along the ordinate. The relative area is obtained as a ratio of the area above a particular contour to the total area of the watershed encompassing the outlet. Considering the watershed area to be bounded by vertical sides and a horizontal base plane passing through the outlet, the relative elevation is calculated as the ratio of the height of a given contour (h) from the base plane to the maximum basin elevation (H) (up to the remote point of the watershed from the outlet (Sarangi et al., 2001; Ritter et al., 2002). This provided a measure of the distribution of landmass volume remaining beneath or above a basal reference plane (Singh et al., 2008). The hypsometric curve of river Chel shows a steep initial fall with an increasing distance from the equilibrium line then followed by long gentle gradient and finally becoming almost parallel to the abscissa (Fig. 7). Such curves represent an old stage of erosion cycle, having steep-sided low


16

hills in the upper catchment region with narrow, entrenched, confined stream defiles, and subsequent valley broadening and floodplain development in the middle and lower reaches (Sarkar and Patel, 2011).

Fig. 6: (A) Slope map, (B) Aspect map (C) Relief map and (D) Stream Order-Vector map of

Chel River Basin (Study Area).


17

Fig. 7: Hypsometric Curve of Chel Basin.

In case of Chel basin, elevation slabs are almost uniform in size above an elevation of

350m (approx..) elevation, whereas it is non-uniform and very small from the beginning of piedmont surface till the basin head or mouth. Thus, the cumulative ‘h/H’ values keep arithmetical progression. Deviations from the equilibrium line are caused by the differing values of ‘a’ in each elevation slab, which then has triggered a cascading effect during computation of the cumulative ‘a/A’ values for the basin. When the ‘a’ in an elevation slab is approaching minimum values near the basin head and increases little in the subsequent elevation slabs towards the basin mouth, the resultant curve shows an initial steep fall with an increasing distance from the equilibrium line. Large scale denudation in the upper reaches and consequent accretion of sediments in the lower reaches characterize such a basin. Therefore, the elevation slabs in the middle and lower basin reaches are wider as the channel’s gradient is much declined, occupying much larger area. With an increase in the values of ‘a’, the cumulative ‘a/A’ values increase significantly across successive elevation slabs and thus the steeply falling hypsometric curve begins to taper off with a gentle gradient to finally run almost parallel to the abscissa. The greater the disparity of ‘a’ values between elevation slabs of the upper and lower reaches, with the smaller values being recorded in the upper catchment, the more elliptic the curve becomes with greater initial downward deviation from the equilibrium line and greater concavity upwards. It is certainly indicative of a marked old stage in the basin’s evolution, further attested to by very low hypsometric integral (H.I.= 0.15).

ESTIMATION OF HYPSOMETRIC INTEGRALS (HI)

Integration of the hypsometric curve gives the hypsometric integral (HI), which is equivalent to the elevation-relief ratio (E) as proposed by (Pike and Wilson, 1971).

Mathematically, it is defined as E ≈ HI = [Mean elevation (Emean) – Minimum elevation (Emin)]/


18

[Maximum elevation (Emax) – Minimum elevation (Emin). It was also found by Strahler,1952 that

the hypsometric integral is inversely correlated with total relief, slope steepness, drainage density and channel gradients. The geologic stages of landforms development and erosional status of the basins are quantified by hypsometric integral. High value of hypsometric integral indicates the youthful stage of less eroded areas and it decreases as the landscape is denuded towards the maturity and old stages. The HI is expressed as a percentage and is an indicator of the remnant of the present volume as compared to the original volume of the basin (Ritter et al., 2002). The hypsometric integral is also an indication of the ‘cycle of erosion’ (Strahler, 1952; Garg, 1983). Although various methods are available to estimate the hypsometric integral (Singh et al., 2008), the hypsometric integral values (Hi) in the present study were calculated using the elevation-relief ratio method as proposed by Pike and Wilson (Pike and Wilson, 1971) owing to its enhanced accuracy and ease of calculation within the GIS environment.

The Hypsometric Integral (H.I.) of Chel basin is 0.15 indicating the basin in senile stage. But a quick glance of hypsometric curve is enough to make an understanding that a distinction of appearance exists between the upper and lower part of the hypsometric curve. The curve for the upper part is similar to that for the ‘late mature to early old stage’ basins while the lower half’s curve is similar to that for the ‘senile stage’- a classic example of the basin straddle in the zone of transition between the dissected upper hill surface and the lower gently rolling plains (Sarkar and Patel, 2011).

Comparison of Drainage Basin Characteristics

The details of the morphometric analysis and comparison of drainage basin characteristics

of Chel basin is presented below (Table-8).

Table- 8: Morphometric parameters at a glance

Sl. no

Morphometric parameter Formula Reference Result

Linear Aspect

1 Stream Order (Su) Hierarchical Rank Strahler (1952) 1 to 5

2 Stream Number (Nu) Nu = N1+N2+…Nn Horton (1945) 152

3 Stream Length (Lu) Kms Lu = L1+L2…Ln Strahler (1952) 342.3

4 Stream Length Ratio (Lur) see Table-2 Strahler (1964) 1.59- 39.22

5 Mean Stream Length Ratio (Lurm) see Table-2 Horton (1945) 2.69

6 Weighted Mean Stream Length Ratio (Luwm)

see Table-2 Horton (1945) 2.16

7 Bifurcation Ratio (Rb) see Table-1 Strahler (1964) 2 - 4.66

8 Mean Bifurcation Ratio (Rbm) see Table-1 Strahler (1964) 3.43

9 Weighted Mean Bifurcation Ratio (Rbwm)

see Table-1 Strahler (1953) 4.05

10 Rho Coefficient (ρ) ρ = Lur / Rb Horton (1945) 0.79

11 Main Channel Length (Cl) Kms GIS Software - 58.23

12 Basin Length (Lb) Kms GIS Software Analysis Schumm(1956) 42.6


19

Areal Aspect

13 Basin Area (A) km2 GIS Software Analysis Schumm(1956) 321

14 Basin Perimeter (P) kms GIS Software Analysis Schumm(1956) 115.21

15 Relative Basin Perimeter (Pr) kms Pr= A / P Schumm(1956) 2.8

16 Length area relation (Lar), kms Lar = 1.4 * A0.6 Hack (1957) 44.67

17 Lemniscate’s (K) k = Lb2 / A Chorley (1957) 5.65

18 Elongation Ratio ( Re) Re = 2 / Lb * (A /π)0.5 Schumm(1956) 0.47

19 Form Factor (Rf) Rf = A / Lb2 Horton (1932) 0.18

20 Circulatory Ratio (Rc) Rc = 12.57 * (A /P2) Miller (1953) 0.304

21 Drainage Density (Dd) Dd = Lu / A Horton (1932) 1.07

22 Drainage Frequency (Fs) km/km2 Fs= Nu / A Horton (1932) 0.49

23 Drainage Texture (km/km2 ) ƩNu/P Horton (1945) 1.32

24 Drainage Intensity (Di) Di = Fs / Dd Faniran (1968) 0.46

25 Infiltration Number (If) If = Fs * Dd Faniran (1968) 0.5

26 Length of overland flow (Lg) kms 1/2.A/ΣLu Horton (1945) 0.47

27 Constant of channel maintenance ©

C = 1 / Dd Schumm(1956) 0.93

Relief Aspect

28 Height of Basin Mouth (z) m GIS Analysis / DEM - 2449

29 Maximum Height of the Basin (Z) m GIS Analysis /DEM - 92

30 Total Basin Relief (H) m H = Z - z Strahler (1952) 2357

31 Relief Ratio (Rhl) Rhl = H / Lb Schumm (1956 55.3

32 Ruggedness Number (Rn) Rn = Dd * (H /1000) Patton & Baker (1976)

2.52

33 Hypsometric Integral (H.I.) E ≈ HI = [ (Emean) – (Emin)]/ [ (Emax) – (Emin)

Pike and Wilson (1971)

0.15

CONCLUSION

Morphometric analysis of drainage basin is an imperative requirement for any hydrological

and quantitative geomorphologic studies. It helps significantly in water resource assessment of any drainage basin. Remote Sensing technology and GIS has proved to be convenient mean for achieving this goal unlike the long and tedious manual process during older days. The development in Remote sensing technology and GIS is enabling geomorphologists, Earth Scientists and hydrologists to make comprehensive assessment of earths’ surface and resources therein. Here an attempt on morphometric analysis of Chel basin has been carried out based on several drainage parameters with the help of remote sensing and GIS tools. All morphometric parameters were categorized into three aspects namely linear, areal and relief aspect. The study infers that Chel River is a 5th order stream with overall length of 58.23 kms. Lower order streams


20

dominate the basin and overall the basin has a dendritic and semi- dendritic drainage pattern which thus indicates prevalence of homogeneous lithology. In general, the stream length in each order increases exponentially with increasing stream order. But in Chel basin stream length is fluctuating with increase in order. The highest stream length (181.54 kms) is recorded for 1st order streams followed by 2nd order streams (81.54 kms) then comes 5th order stream (39.22 kms) followed by 4th order streams (25.27 kms) and lastly by 3rd order streams (14.66 kms). Chel basin comprises an area of 321 km2 with basin perimeter of 115.21 kms. The Stream frequency values decreases with the increase in stream order and vice-versa.

The very low drainage density value (1.07) of the Chel basin suggests permeable subsurface. Large number of small streams disappears under the thick unsorted Himalayan sediment deposits in the piedmont zone (from approximately 15 km to 20 km downstream from source of river Chel), giving rise to coarse drainage in the basin. An elongation ratio value of 0.47 suggests Chel basin is a highly elongated drainage basin. This also suggests that the basin is susceptible to high erosion and thus higher sediment load in the channels.

The Chel River basin with two distinct physiographic units has varied geomorphologic problems. The hilly terrain in the north above the elevation 350m experience rapid overland flow, erosion and landslides whereas its piedmont in the intermediate and alluvial plain in the south is observing large scale sediment deposition, rise in valley floor and consequent shifting of channels. The large scale data generated from this study is aimed at understanding the different morphometric parameters at play within the basin so that this understanding can be translated to proper management of the whole basin and the problems mentioned above can also be addressed. The approach of this study is helpful for assessment and management of water resources too and can be applied to any drainage basin elsewhere. Lastly, the study also substantiates the immense potential and utility of freely available SRTM DEM coupled with GIS technique in river basin morphometric analysis studies.

Acknowledgements: The first author would like to acknowledge the financial assistance received from University Grants Commission (UGC), through letter no. F.PHW-135/15-16(ERO) dated: 02/12/2016.The authors are thankful to Vidyasagar University and Darjeeling Govt. College for necessary support to fulfill the study.

REFERENCES

Agarwal, C.S. (1998) Study of drainage pattern through aerial data in Naugarh area of Varanasi

district, U.P. J. Indian Soc. Remote Sens., v. 26, pp.169–175. Altin, T. B. and Altin, B. N. (2011) Development and morphometry of drainage network in volcanic terrain,

Central Anatolia, Turkey. Geomorphology, v. 125, pp. 485–503. Avinash, K., Jayappa, K. S. and Deepika, B. (2011) Prioritization of sub-basins based on geomorphology

and morphometric analysis using remote sensing and geographic information system (GIS) techniques. Geocarto International, v. 26, pp. 569–592

Bagyaraj, M. and Gurugnanam, B. (2011) Significance of morphometry studies, soil characteristics, erosion phenomena and landform processes using remote Sensing and GIS for Kodaikanal Hills, a global biodiversity hotpot in Western Ghats, Dindigul District, Tamil Nadu, South India. Research Journal of Environmental and Earth Sciences, v. 3, pp. 221–233.

Bali, R., Agarwal, K. K., Ali, S. N., Rastogi, S. K. and Krishna, K. (2012) Drainage morphometry of Himalayan Glaciofluvial basin, India: hydrologic and neotectonic implications. Environmental Earth Sciences, v. 66, pp. 1163–1174.


21

Biswas, A., Majumdar, D. D. and Banerjee, S. (2014) Morphometry governs the dynamics of a drainage basin: Analysis and implications. Geography Journal, v. 2014, pp. 1-14, http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/927176.

Buccolini, M., Coco, L., Cappadonia, C. and Rotigliano, E. (2012) Relationships between a new slope morphometric index and calanchi erosion in northern Sicily, Italy. Geomorphology, v. 149-150, pp. 41–48.

Chopra, R., Dhiman, R. D. and Sharma, P. K. (2005) Morphometric analysis of sub-watersheds in Gurdaspur district, Punjab using remote sensing and GIS techniques. Jour. Indian Society of Remote Sensing, v. 33, pp. 531–539.

Chorley, R.J. and Morgan, M.A. (1962) Comparison of morphometric features, Unaka Mountains, Tennessee and North Carolina, and Dartmoor, England. Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 73, pp. 17–34.

Chorley, R.J., Schumm, S.A. and Sugden D.E. (1984) Geomorphology. Methuen, London, 607p. Chorley, R. J. (1957) Climate and morphometry. Jour. Geology, v. 65. pp. 628-638.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/626468. Chougale, S. S. and Sapkale, B.J. (2017) Morphometric analysis of Kadvi River Basin, Maharashtra using

Geospatial techniques. Current World Environment, v. 12, pp. 635-645. Clarke, J. I. (1966) Morphometry from maps. In: G. H. Dury (ed.) Essays in geomorphology, pp. 235–274,

Elsevier, New York, USA. Das, J. D., Shujat, Y. and Saraf, A. K. ( 2011) Spatial technologies in deriving the morphotectonic

characteristics of tectonically active Western Tripura Region, Northeast India. Jour. Indian Society of Remote Sensing, v. 39, pp. 249–258.

Demoulin, A. (2011) Basin and river profile morphometry: a new index with a high potential for relative dating of tectonic uplift. Geomorphology, v. 126, pp. 97–107.

Diakakis, M. (2011) A method for flood hazard mapping based on basin morphometry: application in two catchments in Greece. Natural Hazards, v. 56, pp. 803–814.

Evans, I. S. (1972) General geomorphometry, derivatives of altitude, and descriptive statistics. In: R. J. Chorley (ed.) Spatial analysis in geomorphology, Harper and Row, New York, pp. 17–90.

Faniran, A. (1968) The Index of drainage intensity- A provisional new drainage factor. Australian Journal of Science, v. 31, pp. 328-330.

Garg, S.K. (1983) Geology- the Science of the Earth. Khanna Publishers, New Delhi. Gottschalk, L. C. (1964) Reservoir sedimentation. In: V.T. Chow (ed.) Handbook of applied hydrology.

McGraw Hill Book Company, pp. 1-34. Gregory, K.J. and Walling, D.E. (1968) The Variation of drainage density within a catchment. International

Association of Scientific Hydrology - Bulletin, v. 13, pp. 61- 68. Hack, J.T. (1957) Studies of longitudinal stream profiles in Virginia and Maryland. Geological Survey

Professional Paper, 294-B. Hack, J.T. (1973) Stream-profile analysis and stream-gradient index. Journal of Research of the U.S.

Geological Survey, v. 1, pp. 421-430. Horton, R. E. (1932) Drainage basin characteristics. American Geophysical Union Trans., v. 13, pp. 348–

352. Horton, R. E. (1932) Drainage basin characteristics. Transactions of American Geophysics Union, v. 13,

pp. 350–361. Horton, R. E. (1945) Erosional development of streams and their drainage basins: hydrophysical approach

to quantitative morphology. Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 56, pp. 275– 370. Jasmin, I. and Mallikarjuna, P. (2013) Morphometric analysis of Araniar river basin using remote sensing

and geographical information system in the assessment of groundwater potential. Arab Journal of Geosciences, v. 6, pp. 3683–3692.

Javed, A. M., Khanday, Y. and Rai, S. (2011) Watershed prioritization using morphometric and land use/land cover parameters: a remote sensing and GIS based approach. Jour. Geological Society of India, v. 78, pp. 63–75.

John Wilson, J. S., Chandrasekar, N. and Magesh, N. S. (2012) Morphometric analysis of major Sub Watersheds in Aiyar and Karai Pottanar Basin, Central Tamil Nadu, India using Remote Sensing & GIS Techniques. Bonfring Int. J. Ind. Eng. Manag. Sci., v. 2 (special issue 1), pp. 8–15.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/626468


22

Lyew-Ayee, P., Viles, H. A. and Tucker, G. E. (2007) The use of GIS based digital morphometric techniques in the study of cockpit karst. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, v. 32, no. 2, pp. 165–179.

Magesh, N. S., Jitheshlal, K. V., Chandrasekar, N. and Jini, K. V. (2012) GIS based morphometric evaluation of Chimmini and Mupily watersheds, parts of Western Ghats, Thrissur District, Kerala, India. Earth Science Information, v. 5, pp. 111–121.

Mahadevaswamy, G., Nagaraju, D., Siddalingamurthy, S., Lakshmamma, M.S.L., Nagesh, P.C., Rao, K. (2011) Morphometric analysis of Nanjangud Taluk, Mysore District, Karnataka, India, using GIS techniques. Int. J. Geomat. Geosci., v. 1, pp. 179–187.

Malik, I., Bhat, S. and Kuchay, N. A. (2011) Watershed based drainage morphometric analysis of Lidder catchment in Kashmir valley using Geographical Information System. Recent Research in Science and Technology, v. 3, pp. 118–126.

Mesa, L. M. (2006) Morphometric analysis of a subtropical Andean basin (Tucum´an, Argentina). Environmental Geology, v. 50, pp. 1235–1242.

Miller, V.C. (1953) A quantitative geomorphologic study of drainage basin characteristics in the Clinch Mountain area, Virginia and Tennessee, Project NR 389042, Tech Report 3. Columbia University Department of Geology, ONR Geography Branch, New York.

Mishra, A., Dubey, D. P. and Tiwari, R. N. (2011) Morphometric analysis of Tons basin, Rewa District, Madhya Pradesh, based on watershed approach. Earth Science India, v. 4, pp. 171–180.

Muller, J.E. (1968) An introduction to the hydraulic and topographic sinuosity indexes. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr., v. 58, pp. 371–38.

Nag, S. K. and Chakraborty, S. (2003) Influence of rock types and structures in the development of drainage network in hard rock area. Jour. Indian Society of Remote Sensing, v. 31, pp. 25–35.

Obi, Reddy G.E., Maji, A. K. and Gajbhiye, K. S. (2002) GIS for morphometric analysis of drainage basins. GIS lndia, v. 4(11), pp. 9–14.

Oguchi, T. (1997) Drainage density and relative relief in humid steep mountains with frequent slope failure. Earth Surf. Processes, v. 22, pp. 107–120.

Pareta, K. and Pareta, U. (2012) Quantitative geomorphological analysis of a watershed of Ravi River Basin, H.P. India. International Journal of Remote Sensing and GIS, v. 1, pp. 41–56.

Patton, P. C. and Baker, V. R. (1976) Morphometry and floods in small drainage basins subject to diverse hydrogeomorphic controls. Water Resources Research, v. 12, pp. 941–952.

Pike, R.J. and Wilson, S.E. (1971) Elevation-Relief Ratio, Hypsometric Integral and Geomorphic Area-Altitude Analysis. Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 82, pp. 1079-1084.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1130/0016-7606(1971)82[1079:ERHIAG]2.0.CO;2. Rai, P.K., Mohan, K., Mishra, S., Ahmad, A. and Mishra, V. (2017) A GIS-Based Approach in Drainage

Morphometric Analysis of Kanhar River Basin, India. Applied Water Science. v. 7, pp 217–232. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13201-014-0238-y.

Rao, N.K., Swarna, L. P., Kumar, A. P. and Krishna, H. M. (2010) Morphometric analysis of Gostani River Basin in Andhra Pradesh State, India using spatial information technology. Int. J. Geomat. Geosci., v. 1(2), pp. 179–187.

Reddy, O. G. P., Maji, A. K. and Gajbhiye, S. K. (2004) Drainage morphometry and its influence on landform characteristics in a basaltic terrain, Central India—a remote sensing and GIS approach. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinformatics, v. 6, pp. 1–16.

Ritter, D.F., Kochel, R.C. and Miller, I. R. (2002) Process geomorphology. McGraw Hill, Boston, 652p. Rudraiah, M., Govindaiah, S. and Vittala S. S. (2008) Morphometry using remote sensing and GIS

techniques in the sub-basins of Kagna river basin, Gulburga district, Karnataka, India. Jour. Indian Society of Remote Sensing, v. 36, pp. 351–360.

Sarangi, A., Bhattacharya, A.K., Singh, A. and Singh, A.K. (2001) Use of Geographic Information System (GIS) in assessing the erosion status of watersheds. Indian J. Soil Cons., v. 29, pp. 190-195.

Sarkar, A. and Patel, P.P. (2011) Topographic Analysis of Dulung River Basin. The Indian Journal of Spatial Science, v. 2, pp. 2–19.

Scheidegger, A.E. (1965) The Algebra of stream order number. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper, 525B, B1, pp. 87-89.

Schumm, S. A. (1956) Evolution of drainage systems and slopes in badlands at Perth Amboy, New Jersey. Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 67, pp. 597–646.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1130/0016-7606(1971)82%5b1079:ERHIAG%5d2.0.CO;2


23

Sethupathi, A. S., Lakshmi Narasimhan, C., Vasanthamohan, V. and Mohan, S. P. (2011) Prioritization of mini-watersheds based on morphometric analysis using remote sensing and GIS in a drought prone Bargur Mathur sub-watersheds, Ponnaiyar river basin, India. Int. J. Geomat. Geosci., v. 2(2), pp. 403–414.

Shreve, R.W. (1969) Stream lengths and basin areas in topologically random channel networks. J. Geol., v. 77, pp. 97–414.

Singh, O., Sarangi, A. and Sharma, M.C. (2008) Hypsometric integral estimation methods and its relevance on erosion status of northwestern Lesser Himalayan Watersheds. Water Res. Mgt., v. 22, pp. 1545-1560.

Singh, P., Thakur, J. K. and Singh, U. C. (2012) Morphometric analysis of Morar River Basin, Madhya Pradesh, India, using remote sensing and GIS techniques. Environmental Earth Science, v. 68, pp. 1967–1977.

Smith, K. G. (1950) Standards for grading texture of erosional topography. Am. J. Sci., v. 248, pp. 655–668.

Sreedevi, P. D., Subrahmanyam, K. and Ahmed, S. (2005) The significance of morphometric analysis for obtaining groundwater potential zones in a structurally controlled terrain. Environmental Geology, v. 47, pp. 412–420.

Strahler, A. N. (1952) Hypsometric analysis of erosional topography. Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 63, 1117–1142.

Strahler, A. N. (1957) Quantitative analysis of watershed geomorphology. Transactions of American Geophysics Union, v. 38, 913–920.

Strahler, A. N. (1964) Quantitative geomorphology of drainage basin and channel networks. In: V. T. Chow (ed.) Handbook of applied hydrology, McGrawHill, NewYork, NY, USA, pp. 439-476.

Starkel, L. and Sarkar, S. (2002) Different frequency of threshold rainfalls transforming the margin of Sikkimese and Bhutanese Himalaya. Studia. Geomorphologica Carpatho-Balcanica, v. 36, pp. 51–67.

Thomas, J., Joseph, S., Thrivikramji, K. P. and Abe, G. (2011) Morphometric analysis of the drainage system and its hydrological implications in the rain shadow regions, Kerala, India. Jour. Geographical Sciences, v. 21, pp. 1077–1088.

Vijith, H. and Sateesh, R. (2006) GIS based morphometric analysis of two major upland sub-watersheds of Meenachil river in Kerala. Jour. Indian Society of Remote Sensing, v. 34, pp. 181–185.

Verstappen, H. (1983) The applied geomorphology. In: International Institute for Aerial Survey and Earth Science (ITC) Enschede.

Vittala, S. S., Govindaih, S. and Gowda, H. H. (2004) Morphometric analysis of sub-watershed in the Pavada area of Tumkur district, South India, using remote sensing and GIS techniques. Jour. Indian Society of Remote Sensing, v. 32, pp. 351–362.

Wakode, H. B., Dutta, D., Desai, V. R., Baier, K. and Azzam R. (2011) Morphometric analysis of the upper catchment of Kosi River using GIS techniques. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, v. 6, pp. 395–408.

Williams, P. W. (1972) Morphometric analysis of polygonal karst in New Guinea. Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 83, pp. 761–796.

(Received: 04.05.2018; Accepted: 24.01.2019)

morphometric analysis of chel river basin, west …50,000 (20m contour interval) were acquired from...

Documents