See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268632290

GIS based drainage morphometry

and its influence on hydrology in
parts of Western Ghats region,
Maharashtra, India

Article in Geocarto International November 2014

DOI: 10.1080/10106049.2014.978903

CITATIONS READS

2 153

3 authors, including:

Dipak R. Samal Rama Nagarajan

Ashoka Trust for Research in Eco Indian Institute of Technology B
11 PUBLICATIONS 7 CITATIONS 31 PUBLICATIONS 264 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Available from: Dipak R. Samal

Retrieved on: 02 November 2016
This article was downloaded by: [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai]
On: 21 January 2015, At: 20:53
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Geocarto International
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tgei20

GIS based drainage morphometry and

its influence on hydrology in parts of
Western Ghats region, Maharashtra,
India
a a a
Dipak R. Samal , Shirish S. Gedam & R. Nagarajan
a
Centre of Studies in Resources Engineering (CSRE), Indian
Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai, India
Accepted author version posted online: 17 Nov 2014.Published
online: 15 Jan 2015.
Click for updates

To cite this article: Dipak R. Samal, Shirish S. Gedam & R. Nagarajan (2015): GIS based drainage
morphometry and its influence on hydrology in parts of Western Ghats region, Maharashtra, India,
Geocarto International, DOI: 10.1080/10106049.2014.978903

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10106049.2014.978903

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
 Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 20:53 21 January 2015
 Geocarto International, 2015
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10106049.2014.978903

RESEARCH ARTICLE
GIS based drainage morphometry and its inuence on hydrology in
parts of Western Ghats region, Maharashtra, India
Dipak R. Samal*, Shirish S. Gedam and R. Nagarajan
Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 20:53 21 January 2015

Centre of Studies in Resources Engineering (CSRE), Indian Institute of Technology Bombay,

Mumbai, India
(Received 9 June 2014; nal version received 16 October 2014)

Various drainage morphometric parameters in the Upper Bhima river basin and its
inuence on hydrological processes (e.g. runoff, peak ow, time to peak, inltration,
overland ow, etc.) were discussed using geographical information system (GIS)
and remote sensing techniques. Survey of India topographical maps and ASTER
digital elevation model was incorporated for thematic database generation and mor-
phometric parameter evaluation in GIS environment. The whole study basin was
divided into 8 sub-basins so that the spatial variation of morphological parameters
and its inuence on hydrology could be analyzed. The interrelationship between
morphometric variables were computed (p < 0.05) and presented in a correlation
matrix. The study revealed that mean basin slope (Bs ), drainage density (D), length
of overland ow (Lg ) and basin relief (H) are closely associated and signicantly
related with a large number of morphometric variables. Due to close proximity of
Western Ghats, sub-basins 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 are highly inuenced by slope, as a
result, length of overland ow decreases and water immediately follows channel
path. In contrast, sub-basins 3, 7 and 8 are relatively atter, overland ow is rela-
tively longer and favourable for inltration. This study emphasizes on qualitative
description about the hydrological variables inuenced by the morphometric parame-
ters in a mountainous basin in western India. Independent morphometric variables
were identied from correlation matrix and used in a multiple criteria analysis
(MCA) framework for watershed prioritization. Analytical hierarchical process, a
MCA technique, identied the highest (sub-basin 4) and lowest (sub-basin 7)
priority sub-basins in the Upper Bhima basin. The outcome of the study may be
useful for watershed managers and planners while implementing soil and water
conservation measures in the region.
Keywords: drainage morphometry; GIS; hydrology; correlation matrix; multiple
criteria analysis (MCA); analytical hierarchical process (AHP); Western Ghats

1. Introduction
Geomorphometry, a branch of geomorphology, studies quantitatively the form of the land
surface (Huggett 2007). It is an important component of terrain analysis and land form
studies at river basin scale. Morphometric analysis provides a quantitative description of
the drainage system, which is an important aspect of the basin characterization (Strahler
1964). Earlier morphometric studies were carried out by conventional methods, but the
advent of geographical information system (GIS) and remote sensing (RS) techniques
made it faster and very popular across various branches in geo-science. Moreover,

*Corresponding author. Email: samaldipak@gmail.com

2015 Taylor & Francis

 2 D.R. Samal et al.

digital elevation model (DEM)-based terrain visualization, processing and quantication

of topographic attributes made GIS a powerful tool in morphometric studies. Integrating
GIS and RS provides an efcient mechanism not only to upgrade and monitor morpho-
metric parameters but also to permit spatial analysis of other associated thematic database
(Jain et al. 1995). Evaluating morphometric parameters requires watershed boundary
delineation, preparation of drainage map and its ordering, measuring the stream length
and basin area, computing drainage density and bifurcation ratio, etc., which helps to
understand the nature of drainage basin (Nag & Chakraborty 2003; Reddy et al. 2004;
Nooka Ratnam et al. 2005). Many studies have been carried out using GIS and RS
techniques for drainage morphometric analysis. Magesh et al. (2011) evaluated various
Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 20:53 21 January 2015

morphometric parameters from topographical maps and shuttle radar topography mission
(SRTM) DEM in GIS environment. Prabu and Baskaran (2013) studied the morphometric
properties of Western Ghat sub-basins using RS and GIS approach in south India.
Sreedevi et al. (2013) analyzed the inuence of morphometric variables on hydrology in
a semi-arid watershed using GIS and SRTM data. Bhatt and Ahmed (2014) determined
the ood in the upper Krishna basin using morphometric parameters derived from
Cartosat DEM. In similar study, Bajabaa et al. (2014) identied ash-ood prone areas
and suggested mitigation measures based on drainage morphometry derived from ASTER
DEM. GIS-based drainage morphometry studies are not only faster but also computation-
ally efcient, which have been used for understanding basin characteristics, hydrological
response and watershed prioritization studies (Avinash et al. 2011; Abdel-Lattif & Sherief
2012; Patel et al. 2012; Romshoo et al. 2012; Tamma Rao et al. 2012; Thomas et al.
2012; Wakode et al. 2013; Yadav et al. 2014).
The hydrological processes in a river basin is mainly driven by climate and physi-
ograhic factors. Therefore, it is very important to understand the basin morphology and
their hydrological signicance, as both are inextricably linked through geomorphic pro-
cess of soil development, erosion and deposition (Beven et al. 1988). Morphometric
characteristics provide a means for describing the hydrological behaviour of a basin
(Bardossy & Schmidt 2002). On a qualitative basis, it is well known that hydrological
processes are inuenced by geomorphometric properties such as slope angle, conver-
gence or drainage density (Gregory & Walling 1973). However, a general quantication
of these effects is still an unanswered research question (Schmidt et al. 2000). Beven
et al. (1988), stated that catchment morphology is one of the source of spatial heteroge-
neity (like rainfall inputs, soil characteristics, land use) and has a dominant control over
hydrological processes. Studying the interdependence between basin morphology and
hydrological process one might gain some understanding about the way catchments
work and both should be taken into account for making hydrological predictions
(Horton 1945).
In recent years, morphometric variables are largely used for watershed prioritization.
Watershed prioritization is the process of ranking different sub-watersheds of a large
watershed according to the order in which they have to be taken for treatment with
respect to water or soil conservation measures (Chowdary et al. 2013). Patel et al. (2013)
used morphometric variables for watershed prioritization using composite ranking
method for suitable check dam positioning. In similar study, Thakkar and Dhiman (2007)
evaluated morphometric parameters for watershed prioritization in Mohar watershed.
Vemu and Udayabhaskar (2010) integrated soil characteristics with morphometric param-
eters for watershed prioritization towards mitigation of soil erosion problem. Sarma and
Saikia (2012) studied the watershed prioritization for KhanaparaBornihat area of
AssamMeghalaya using only land use and slope parameter for conservation and
 Geocarto International 3

management of natural resources. Aher et al. (2014) quantied linear, areal and relief
aspects of morphometric parameters by using RS and GIS approach, followed by
watershed prioritization using correlation based method. Jaiswal et al. (2014) identied
environmentally stressed region using both morphometric and soil loss indices in multi-
ple criteria analysis (MCA) framework, as proposed by Satty (1980). Chowdary et al.
(2013) integrated topographic attributes with soil erosion indices and vegetation cover
for watershed prioritization using analytical hierarchical process (AHP) and GIS.
Literature survey indicated that GIS-based drainage morphometry combined watershed
prioritization study is one of the efcient approach for addressing soil and water related
issues pertaining to a watershed. The Upper Bhima basin originates from Western Ghat
Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 20:53 21 January 2015

region and affected by high surface runoff and soil erosion due to rugged terrain and thin
soil cover. Therefore, human intervention equipped with modern tools and technique is
necessary to conserve the natural resources in the region.
In the present research, an effort has been made to study the inuence of morpho-
metric variables on hydrological process using RS, GIS and statistical techniques.
Linear, areal and relief aspects of drainage morphometry were derived from DEM and
topographical maps. Furthermore, the relationship between morphometric variables
were discussed using correlation matrix. The independent parameters were indentied
and analyzed within a MCA framework for watershed prioritization. The study may be
usuful for watershed managers and planners in the region to take decision for
implementing watershed management strategies.

2. Study area
The study basin, the Upper Bhima basin originates from Western Ghats and extended
towards east by covering an area of 6736 km2. It lies in the Pune district of Maharash-
tra state in India. The geographical extension of the basin lies in between 732011
743342 E to 181738190526 N (Figure 1). The basin can be divided into three
distinct physiographic divisions i.e. extremely rugged terrain cut by deep valleys and
crossed by hill ranges towards the western margin of the basin, small hills and large
spurs from plateaux in the middle, rolling topography and the low hills sinking slowly
into the plains with relatively broader valley in the east (Jain 2009). Elevation in the
basin is ranging from 499 to 1298 m with mean elevation of 648 m. Similarly, slope
varies from 0 to 65 with mean slope of 5.5. Almost entire part of the basin is under-
lain by hard rock of Deccan trap basalt with depth varies from 7 to 45 m. Soft rock is
conned to ood plain of major rivers which has very little areal extent (Jain 2009). In
many places, the exposed bed rocks are clearly visible. The maximum and minimum
of soil depth in the region varies from 80 to 1650 mm. Most of soil proles are sin-
gle-layered and covers more than half of the basin area (NBSSLUP 1996). Due to high
relief, western part of the basin receives more than 3000 mm of rainfall during south-
west Indian monsoon (JuneOctober). The Bhima is the major river originated from
Western Ghats and ows toward east. MulaMutha river system, one of the important
tributary of the Bhima river joins from south. More than 90% of rainfall occurs during
three to four months of monsoon period. Various reservoirs are constructed in the hilly
terrain to store rainfall during monsoon period and use it for rest of the year. The wes-
tern part of the basin is covered with forest, agricultural land is predominant along
major river valleys and wasteland is conned to undulating central parts of the basin
with very sparse vegetation cover. Very small portion of basin area is under built up
class. However, the areal extent of the built up has increased signicantly during the
 4 D.R. Samal et al.
Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 20:53 21 January 2015

Figure 1. Location map of the Upper Bhima basin with major tributaries and water bodies.

last two decades. The water requirement in the basin for industrial, domestic and
irrigation purposes are heavily dependent on various reservoirs constructed in the hilly
terrain of Western Ghats region.

3. Methodology
Methodology includes three phases of studies; rst phase includes thematic database
generation, morphometric parameter evaluation and its description; in second phase,
interrelationship between morphometric variables were computed and their hydrological
 Geocarto International 5

signicance were discussed with reference to the Upper Bhima basin; in the third
phase, selected morphometric variables were used in a MCA framework for watershed
prioritization. Various steps involved to carry out morphometric analysis followed by
watershed prioritization in the study were illustrated in Figure 2.
DEM obtained from ASTER GDEM, and survey of India (SoI) topographical maps
were used as fundamental data source for quantifying morphometric parameters. The
rst and foremost step includes basin/sub-basins boundary delineation and drainage net-
works extraction. The basin and sub-basin boundaries were delineated from DEM. In
contrast, drainage networks were manually vectorized from topographical maps.
Although the DEM-based automated drainage networks generation is very fast and
Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 20:53 21 January 2015

rapid, it has certain limitations in rugged terrain where drainage lines converge quickly
under the inuence of slope. As a result, delineation of ner drainage network requires
higher resolution and under-represented at the scale of ASTER DEM. Therefore, drain-
age networks were manually vectorized from topographical maps as well as updated
from recent satellite images. Each drainage segments were ordered numerically as pro-
posed by Strahler i.e. nger tip drainages are rst-order and where two rst-order drain-
age joins second-order emerge and so forth. Important linear, areal and relief aspect of
drainage morphometry were computed using respective formula (Table 1) and discussed
with reference to the Upper Bhima basin. Total basin was divided into eight sub-basins
(Figure 3). Both slope and relief maps were prepared from DEM. Finally, thematic
database layers, such as basin and sub-basin boundary, drainage, relief and slope map

Figure 2. Methodology illustrating various steps involved in drainage morphometry and

watershed prioritization.
 6 D.R. Samal et al.

Table 1. Morphometric parameters and their computational method.

Sl No. Morphometric parameters Formulae References

1 Stream order (u) Hierarchical ranking Strahler (1957)
2 Stream length (Lu ) Stream length Strahler (1957)
3 Cumulative stream length RLu Strahler (1957)
4 Mean stream length (L u )  u = R Lu /Nu
L Strahler (1957)
5 Bifurcation ratio (Rb ) Rb =Nu /Nu1 Horton (1945)
6 Drainage density (D) D = RLu =A Horton (1945)
7 Stream frequency (F) F = RNu =A Horton (1932)
8 Drainage texture (T ) T = DF Horton (1932)
Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 20:53 21 January 2015

9 Length of overland ow (Lg ) Lg 1=2D Horton (1945)

10 Form factor (Rf ) Rf = Au /L2b Horton (1932)
11 Circularity ratio (Rc ) Rc = (4pAu )/P2 Miller (1953)
12 Elongation ratio (Re ) Re =2/Lb  A=p0:5 Schumm (1956)
13 Const. of ch. maintenance (C) C=1/D Schumm (1956)
14 Basin relief (H) H = Hmax Hmin Schumm (1956)
15 Relief ratio (Rh ) Rh =H=Lb Schumm (1956)
16 Ruggedness number (Rn ) Rn = D  H Melton (1957)
Note: A: Basin area; Lb : Basin length; P: Basin perimeter; Nu : No. of stream segments.

Kilometers
SB2 0 5 10 20

SB1
SB3

SB6

SB5
SB7 SB8

SB4
Legend
River channel
Sub-basin boundary

Figure 3. Drainage with sub-basin boundary map of the Upper Bhima basin.

were brought to common spatial reference system (WGS-84/UTM) for better analysis
in GIS environment.
An open source R statistical package was used to establish the inter-relationship
between morphometric variables for the Upper Bhima basin. A total of 17 morphometric
variables including mean basin slope obtained from 8 sub-basins were taken into
consideration for correlation analysis. The Pearsons correlation coefcient values from
all possible pair of variables were given in correlation matrix. A correlation matrix
 Geocarto International 7

consists of n n matrix (where n represents number of morphometric variables used in

correlation analysis) with diagonal elements as 1. Only statistically signicant (p < 0.05)
values were given due attention and discussed with reference to study basin. It shows the
relationship or dependencies among variables within the study basin. Statistically signi-
cant (p < 0.05) values shows the strength of relation between two variables and may
likely vary under different topographic and climatic region. Independent morphometric
variables were identied and incorporated in a MCA framework for watershed
prioritization. MCA gives the overall inuence of morphometric variables on hydrology
for all sub-basins. Saatys (1990) AHP, one of the MCA techniques was used with eld
experience and domain knowledge. Various steps in MCA followed by watershed
Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 20:53 21 January 2015

prioritization are described in section 4.14.

4. Results and discussion

Tables 2 and 3 represent values pertaining to linear, areal and relief aspects of drainage
morphometry in the Upper Bhima river basin. Linear aspects of the basin are proportion-
ately related to stream order and reects the geomorphologic evolution of basin (Ritter
et al. 1995; Altin & Altin 2011). It includes stream order, stream length, bifurcation ratio
and length of overland ow. Areal aspect of basin includes drainage density, stream fre-
quency, drainage texture and basin shpae (form factor, circularity ratio and elongation
ratio). The relief aspect of basin morphometry indicates vertical dimension of drainage
basin which describes about basin elevation, slope and ruggedness. Elevation and slope
distribution in each sub-basins were prepared from DEM and shown in Figures 7 and 8,
respectively. Computational methods for all morphometric parameters are given in Table 1
and their morphometric values computed for all sub-basins and their hydrological
signicance in different sub-basins were discussed under following headings.

4.1. Stream order (u)

Stream ordering is the hierarchical ranking of stream networks. Strahlers method of
stream ordering was followed in the study. All stream netwrorks were vectorized from
topographical maps as well as updated from satellite image (Figure 3). Both intermittent
and permanent ow lines were included for stream ordering. In total, 25,994 stream seg-
ments were identied, out of which 76.37% (19,853) is rst-order, 18.30% (4756) is
second-order, 4.13% (1074) is third-order, 0.96% (249) is fourth-order, 0.02% (51) is
fth-order and 0.003% (8) is sixth-order (Table 2). Sub-basins 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 have
sixth-order drainage, whereas sub-basins 3 and 7 have seventh-order drainage. In sub-
basin 8, the Bhima river is designated as eighth-order drainage (Figure 4). The law of
stream number states that the numbers of stream segments of each order form an inverse
geometric sequence with order number (Horton 1932). A logarithmic regression of num-
ber of streams of each order against stream order usually gives a straight line plot with
very little scatter. The regression plot of stream number against stream order showed the
validity of law of stream number for the Upper Bhima basin (Figure 5).
Lower order streams are considered as the primary collector of rainfall and better
ood predictor (Ritter et al. 1995). For a large basin, the order number is directly pro-
portional to watershed dimension, channel size and stream discharge (Strahler 1957). In
other words, the quantity of water drained by stream increases with order. Sub-basins
1, 2, 4 and 5 have higher number of lower order streams and expected to yield more
water in particular storm than other sub-basins.
 Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 20:53 21 January 2015

Table 2. Linear and relief morphometric parameters* at sub-basin level.

Sub-basin Drainage order

No. RNu RLu R
b Lb Lg P H Rn Rh
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th (In km) (In km) (In km) (In km) (In m)
1 2884 695 160 35 5 1 3780 2732.6 4.97 67 0.18 203.3 582 1.6 8.7
2 3814 911 206 46 9 1 4987 3331.8 5.04 66 0.17 177.8 716 2.1 10.8
3 1882 426 108 21 4 1 1 2443 2131.8 4.58 72 0.25 206.6 545 1.1 7.6
4 3433 759 158 39 6 1 4396 2640.5 5.04 50 0.14 148.7 756 2.7 15.1
5 2835 696 140 33 8 1 3713 2372.9 4.75 51 0.15 165.9 663 2.2 13.0
6 1729 481 112 22 6 1 2351 1571.3 4.42 49 0.16 131.7 663 2.1 13.5
D.R. Samal et al.

7 1888 435 107 32 7 1 1 2471 1996.6 4.33 51 0.24 162.0 483 1.0 9.5
8 1388 353 83 21 6 1 1 1853 1484.3 4.14 22 0.21 124.5 263 0.6 12.0
Bhima basin 19,853 4756 1074 249 51 8 2 1 25,994 18261.7 4.39 124 0.18 446.4 800 2.2 6.5
*Nu : Number of stream order; Rb : Bifurcation ratio; Lb : Basin length; Lg : Length of overland ow; P: Basin perimeter; H: Basin relief Rn : Ruggedness number; Rh : Relief ratio.
 Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 20:53 21 January 2015

Table 3. Linear and areal morphometric parameters at sub-basin level.

Sub-basin Area Drainage Stream Drainage Form Elongation Circularity Const. of channel
No. (in km2) Density (D) Frequency (F) Texture (T ) Factor (Rf ) Ratio (Re ) Ratio (Rc ) maintenance (C)
1 986 2.77 3.83 10.62 0.22 0.53 0.30 0.36
2 1132 2.94 4.40 12.96 0.26 0.58 0.45 0.34
3 1078 1.98 2.27 4.48 0.21 0.51 0.32 0.51
4 738 3.58 5.96 21.34 0.30 0.61 0.42 0.28
5 727 3.26 5.11 16.66 0.28 0.60 0.33 0.31
6 500 3.14 4.70 14.76 0.21 0.52 0.36 0.32
7 955 2.09 2.59 5.41 0.37 0.68 0.46 0.48
Geocarto International

8 620 2.40 2.99 7.16 1.28 0.94 0.50 0.42

Bhima basin 6736 2.71 3.86 10.44 0.44 0.75 0.42 0.36
9
 10 D.R. Samal et al.
Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 20:53 21 January 2015

Figure 4. Drainage order map.

Figure 5. The logarithm regression of stream number against stream order.

4.2. Bifurcation ratio (Rb )

Bifurcation ratio is the average number of particular stream order segments join together
to form a next higher order drainage segment. It is computed as the number of stream
segments of any given order to the number of streams of the next higher order (Table 1).
It is a dimensionless quantity expressing the form of drainage basin. The value of Rb is
highly stable and shows a small range of variation from region to region or environment
to environment, except where powerful geologic controls dominate (Strahler 1957).
Higher Rb value indicates high structural complexity and low permeability of subsurface
strata (Reddy et al. 2004). The bifurcation ratio is indicative of shape of the basin also.
 Geocarto International 11

An elongated basin is likely to have a high Rb , whereas a circular basin is likely to have
low Rb. After studying a diverse range of drainage basin, Horton (1945) states that bifur-
cation ratio ranges about 2 for at area, up to 3 for rolling drainage basin and 4 for
highly dissected or mountainous basin. In similar conclusion, Strahlar stated that Rb
value characteristically range between 3.0 to 5.0 for watershed in which the geologic
structure do not distort the drainage pattern (Strahler 1964).
Average bifurcation ratio for whole study basin is 4.02, while it varies between 4.14
to 5.04 (Table 2) in different sub-basins. Higher Rb value (>4.0) quantitatively proved
that sub-basins are mountainous origin. Additionally, Rb > 5 indicate sub-basins 2 and 4
are structurally controlled. Actually high R  b in these basins are attributed to higher Rb
Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 20:53 21 January 2015

value obtained from fth- and sixth-order drainage basin. Therefore, conclusion drawn
from R b without considering Rb from all consecutive drainage order might be mislead-
ing. In general, a consistent bifurcation ratio between each sub-basin and successive
drainage order is found to be in range from 4.0 to 5.0. The drainage pattern in the basin
is highly inuenced by topography and slope rather than structurally controlled.

4.3. Stream length (Lu )

Stream length is one of the fundamental linear properties of drainage network, which
deals with measurement of channel length of a given order. Mean stream channel
length (Lu ) of given order is computed by the combined length of all streams of a
particular order u to the total number of stream segments in that order. The mean
stream channel length of a given order is more than that of lower order and less than
the next higher order. There are total of 18,261.7 km length of drainage networks
extracted from SoI topographical maps, out of which 11,101 km (60.8%) is rst-order,
3475.4 km (19%), 1781.7 km (9.8%), 876.5 km (4.8%), 473.3 km (2.6%), 351.7 km
(1.9%), 172.9 km (0.9%) and 31 km (0.2%) are second-, third-, fourth-, fth-, sixth-,
seventh- and eighth-order, respectively. Mean channel length is found to be maximum
(810 m) in sub-basin 8 and minimum (600 m) in sub-basin 4 (Table 2). The basin
catchment area of rst-order stream channel is considered as the building block of the
basin which shape the basin. The law of stream length states that mean length of
stream segments of each successive order of a basin tend to approximate a direct geo-
metric sequence. The law of stream length is found to be consistent for the Upper
Bhima basin (Figure 6).
Verication of Hortons law of stream number and stream length supports the
theory of geometrical similarity preserved generally in the basin of increasing order
(Strahler 1957). In other words, a basin of third-order would tend to be geometrically
similar to the second-order basin which lie within it and these in turn would be similar
to the rst-order basin within them.

4.4. Drainage density (D)

Drainage density is an important indicator of linear scale of land from elements in
stream-eroded topography (Horton 1945). It is measured as total length of stream of all
order upon the total area of basin and its dimension reduced to L1 . It indicates the
closeness of channel spacing and provides a numerical measurement of land form
dissection and runoff potential (Reddy et al. 2004). Low drainage density is the charac-
teristics of highly resistant or highly permeable sub-soil material, under dense vegeta-
tive cover, where the relief is low. High drainage density in the region of weak or
 12 D.R. Samal et al.
Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 20:53 21 January 2015

Figure 6. The logarithm regression of mean stream length against stream order.

impermeable sub-surface material, sparse vegetation and mountainous relief. Drainage

density for the whole study basin is 2.7, however, it ranges between 1.98 and 3.58 in
different sub-basins (Table 3). Relatively higher drainage density exist in sub-basins
1, 2, 4, 5 and 6, which are associated with higher relief, medium vegetation cover and
thin soil cover. These sub-basins are characterized by high water yield, high ood peak
and low suitability for agriculture. Low drainage density in sub-basins 3 and 7 are
attributed to low relief, sparse vegetation and relatively permeable sub-surface material.
Drainage density is controlled by numerous variables including relief, rainfall,
inltration capacity of the terrain and resistance of land to erosion (Horton 1945). It is
used as an important independent variable for formulating other morphometric parame-
ters such as length of overland ow, ruggedness number and constant of channel
maintenance.

4.5. Stream frequency (F)

It is dened as the number of stream segments per unit basin area. Hypothetically, both
the basin may have same drainage density but different stream frequency. Similarly same
stream frequency but different drainage density. Both drainage density and stream
frequency measure the texture of a drainage network, but each of which treats a distinct
aspect. The relationship between these two parameters are well studied by Melton
(1957). The stream frequency values in the study basin varies from 2.27 in sub-basin
3 to 5.96 in sub-basin 4 (Table 3). It has been observed that sub-basin with highest F
value have also high D value and vice versa, which indicates a direct relationship
between them. However, a opposite scenario might be possible if the two sub-basins are
from different regions. High F values are observed in sub-basins 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6, which
are associated with high relief and impermeable lithology. In sub-basin 3, 7 and 8,
the slope is relatively lower and therefore yields low F value.

4.6. Drainage texture (T )

Drainage texture is directly related to drainage density and channel frequency. It
indicates the sub-surface characteristics of a basin such as geology, soil, inltration
capacity, etc. The value of T for whole basin is 10.44, however, in sub-basin level it is
 Geocarto International 13

highly varying. The highest T value is observed in sub-basin 4 and lowest in 3

(Table 3). Low T value indicates that sub-surface is relatively permeable and facilitates
inltration. Presence of vegetation cover reduces the T value and enhances deep water
percolation which further depends upon geology and soil characteristics. Under the
inuence of slope, thin soil cover and sub-surface hard rock, sub-basins 4, 5 and 6
have relatively ne texture when compared with other sub-basins.

4.7. Lengh of overland ow (Lg )

It is an important independent variable affecting both the hydrologic and physiographic
Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 20:53 21 January 2015

development of drainage basin (Horton 1945). Lg is dened as non-channel ow from

a point on drainage divide to the adjacent stream channel and approximately equal to
the one half of the reciprocal of the drainage density (Strahler 1964). It affects both
runoff and ooding process. During overland ow, the inltration process takes place
for entire basin (Zavoianu 1985). In high relief areas, lower order streams quickly joins
under the inuence of slope, thus minimizes Lg and time of concentration. Low values
of Lg are observed in sub-basins 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6, which are associated with high relief
and steep slope (Table 2). In contrast, sub-basins 3, 7 and 8 have higher Lg values with
relatively low relief and moderate slope. Sub-basin 4 has least Lg value and high D
value. Higher Lg value provides favourable condition for sheet erosion/inltration under
sparse/dense vegetation cover. In small river basin, length of overland ow is a domi-
nant hydrological process that has a signicant effect on the shape of hydrograph.

4.8. Constant of channel maintenance (C)

The reverse of drainage density is termed as the constant of channel maintenance. It
tells the number of sq. unit of river basin surface required to sustain one linear unit of
drainage channel. Plain area requires a large surface basin area to maintain a single unit
of channel than hilly terrain. In study basin, the highest C value exist in sub-basin 3
and the lowest in sub-basin 4 (Table 3). High C value indicates the basin area of lower
order drainages are relatively larger than the sub-basins which have lower C value.
Low C value minimizes length of overland ow, thereby water discharges quickly as
channel ow under sparse vegetation cover.

4.9. Basin shape (Rf ; Rc and Re )

The shape or outline form of a drainage basin may affect stream-discharge characteris-
tics. Long narrow basins with high bifurcation ratio would be expected to have long
attenuated ood-discharge period, whereas rotund basins of low bifurcation ratio would
be expected to have sharp peak ood discharges. Qualitative description about the basin
shape might be misleading and varies from individual to individual. Therefore, the
quantitative expression of drainage basin outline was made by Horton through form
factor (Rf ), which is the dimensionless ratio of basin area to the square of basin length
(Lb ). Where Lb is the measured parallel to main stream. Basins have larger length and
hence smaller form factors. Circular basins have intermediate form factors and for a
perfectly circular basin, the value of the form factor will be greater than 0.78. Short
and wider basins have the largest form factors. The form factor value ranges from 0.21
(sub-basin 3 and 6) to 1.28 (sub-basin 8) (Table 3). The value greater than 1 shows the
width of the basin and is higher than its length. Sub-basin 8 has largest form factor
 14 D.R. Samal et al.

which shows the wider length of the basin. Except sub-basin 8, all are sufciently
elongated.
Similarly, circularity ratio (Rc ) is dened as the ratio of basin area to the area of
the circle having same perimeter as the basin. The lower Rc value indicates elongated
shape of drainage basin. Rc values approaching 1 indicates that the basin shapes are cir-
cular and as a result, it gets scope for uniform inltration and takes long time to reach
excess water at basin outlet, which further depend on the existing geology, slope and
land cover (Reddy et al. 2004). Sub-basin 8 has the highest (Rc = 0.50) and sub-basin
3 has the lowest (Rc = 0.32) value. Except sub-basin 8, all the sub-basins are strongly
elongated. Sub-basin 3 is the most elongated among all in the Upper Bhima basin.
Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 20:53 21 January 2015

Elongation ratio (Re ) is dened as ratio of the diameter of the circle of the same
area as the basin to the maximum basin length. Re values between 0.6 and 1.0 have a
wide variety of climate and geology. Values close to 1 indicates very low relief and
between 0.6 and 0.8 indicates the basin with strong relief and steep ground slope. The
Re values varies from 0.51 (sub-basin 3) to 0.94 (sub-basin 8). The Rc value in sub-
basin 8 is very close to 1, which is least elongated and nearly a circular basin. Except
sub-basin 8, most of the sub-basins are sufciently elongated.

4.10. Basin relief (H)

Basin relief is dened as the elevation difference between the highest and the lowest
point (basin outlet) in the basin. It controls the stream channel gradient and therefore
inuences ood patterns and sediment amount that can be transported. Basin relief is
the indicator of the potential energy of a drainage system presented by the virtue of ele-
vation. H value ranges between 263 m in sub-basin 8 and 756 m sub-basin 4 (Figure 7).
Sub-basins 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 have high relief (H > 500 m) (Table 2). With increasing
relief, steeper hill slopes, and higher stream gradients, time of concentration decreases,
thereby ood peak increases (Patton & Baker 1976). In this context, high relief
sub-basin will have low inltration and high runoff conditions. Moreover, distribution
of slope also plays a major role in discharge characteristics.

4.11. Relief ratio (Rh )

Relief ratio is dened as the ratio of maximum basin relief to the longest horizontal dis-
tance of the basin measured parallel to the major stream. Rh measures the overall steep-
ness of the drainage basin and an important indicator of the intensity of erosion
processes operating due to slope in basin. Relief ratio is directly related to length of
overland ow and time to peak. High relief ratio in sub-basins 4, 5 and 6 indicate quick
time of concentration and stream ow velocity and prone to erosion than other sub-
basins (Table 2). In sub-basin 8, the Rh is low due to low relief and slope. In general, it
indicates the overall slope of basin surface and directly link to sediment yield. It is a
dimensionless number and very useful when detailing about the topography is lacking.

4.12. Ruggedness number (Rn )

It is a dimensionless quantity formed of the product of basin relief and drainage density
where both are in same units. Extremely high value of the ruggedness number occurs
when both variables are large, i.e. when slope is not only steep but also long. In study
basin, Rn value ranges between 0.6 and 2.7 (Table 3). Sub-basins 3, 7 and 8 have low
 Geocarto International 15
Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 20:53 21 January 2015

Figure 7. Sub-basin elevation distribution.

Rn values and rest of the sub-basins showed high Rn value. High Rn value indicates the
structural complexity of a terrain highly susceptible to erosion. The areas with high
relief and low drainage density are rugged as areas with low relief and high drainage
density. A high ruggedness value would produce a sharp rise in hydrograph.

4.13. Slope
Slope map for sub-basins were prepared from ASTER DEM (Figure 8). Table 4 repre-
sents the areal distribution and mean slope value for each sub-basin. Highest mean
basin slope has been observed in sub-basin 4 and lowest in sub-basin 8. Mean slope
indicates the overall terrain condition of a basin. Except sub-basin 8, the difference
between maximum and minimum slope in all sub-basins are slightly varying. However,
if we look at the slope distribution it showed large variation across all slope groups.
High slope range as well as high mean value showed basin terrain are not only steep
but also long, such as in sub-basins 4 and 5. Sub-basin 4 showed very steep slope and
more than 50% of the area is under >10 slope. Higher mean basin slope is conned to
sub-basins that are originated from the Western Ghats region.
Slope plays a major role in stream network generation, runoff and ooding. Water
always ow along the direction of maximum slope. Steep slope increases stream ow
velocity, thereby reduces time of concentration and causes erosion (in sub-basin 4).
High slope minimizes length of overland ow, as a result, water quickly follows the
channel path and contributes to hydrograph rise. In this context, surface vegetation
cover and channel gradient plays an important role. In dense vegetation, the ow and
sediment reduces when compared to areas with sparse vegetation cover, if all other
external forces acts uniformly throughout.
 16 D.R. Samal et al.
Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 20:53 21 January 2015

Figure 8. Sub-basin slope distribution.

Table 4. Area (in percentage) under various slope* groups.

Sub-basin No.
Slope group 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
01 21.2 13.0 28.6 9.6 12.4 18.9 30.5 41.6
12 15.8 14.1 31.5 5.0 8.8 15.4 29.5 35.2
25 30.3 29.7 30.8 15.7 22.3 30.5 29.6 17.9
510 15.5 20.7 6.8 19.6 20.4 14.9 6.1 4.4
1020 10.8 17.0 2.0 34.2 23.1 15.1 2.9 0.9
2040 6.2 5.4 0.2 15.9 12.6 5.1 1.3 0
>40 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.01
Mean slope 5.5 6.5 2 11 9 6 2.5 1.5
*Slope values in degree.

Geomorphometry affects hydrological process indirectly through their dependency

on several other factors such as soil, geology, vegetation cover and climate (Schmidt
et al. 2000). The interrelationship between morphometric variables varies from basin to
basin under diverse topography and climatic condition. Understanding these relation-
ship would enable us to identify the dominant variables acting on a particular basin.
Assuming other factors acting uniformly, the interrelationship among morphometric
variables are studied for the Upper Bhima basin and the correlation coefcient values
are presented in a correlation matrix (Table 5). From the correlation matrix, it has been
found that:
 Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 20:53 21 January 2015

Table 5. Correlation coefcient between morphometric parameters in the Upper Bhima Basin.

A P L
u Bs Rb D Lg H Rn F C Re Lb Rc Rf T Rh
A 1.00
P 0.85 1.00
L
u 0.34 0.29 1.00
Bs 0.21 0.10 0.94 1.00
Rb 0.45 0.51 0.62 0.73 1.00
D 0.44 0.33 0.98 0.94 0.58 1.00
Lg 0.43 0.31 0.98 0.90 0.58 0.99 1.00
H 0.14 0.23 0.75 0.83 0.80 0.71 0.67 1.00
Rn 0.15 0.05 0.92 0.96 0.75 0.91 0.88 0.93 1.00
F 0.40 0.31 0.99 0.96 0.61 0.99 0.97 0.75 0.93 1.00
C 0.43 0.33 0.98 0.89 0.57 0.99 0.99 0.66 0.87 0.97 1.00
Re 0.35 0.61 0.26 0.39 0.59 0.24 0.22 0.78 0.56 0.26 0.20 1.00
Geocarto International

Lb 0.75 0.88 0.02 0.14 0.64 0.08 0.08 0.58 0.28 0.05 0.10 0.87 1.00
Rc 0.12 0.62 0.09 0.23 0.37 0.13 0.14 0.41 0.28 0.12 0.11 0.77 0.64 1.00
Rf 0.38 0.57 0.32 0.46 0.62 0.27 0.23 0.83 0.61 0.31 0.22 0.97 0.85 0.66 1.00
T 0.41 0.31 0.97 0.97 0.60 0.99 0.96 0.74 0.93 0.99 0.95 0.26 0.05 0.12 0.31 1.00
Rh 0.75 0.77 0.78 0.70 0.10 0.83 0.79 0.35 0.64 0.83 0.79 0.19 0.55 0.27 0.14 0.84 1.00
*A: Sub-basin area, P: Perimeter, Bs : Mean slope, L: Basin Length L
u : mean stream length, Correlations marked bold are signicant at p < 0.05.
17
 18 D.R. Samal et al.

Mean basin slope, drainage density, drainage texture, length of overland ow, basin
relief and relief ratio are signicantly correlated with other morphometric variables.

 Mean channel length is postively correlated with length of overland ow, con-
stant of channel maintenance and negatively correlated with mean basin slope,
drainage density, basin relief, ruggedness number, drainage frequency, drainage
texture and relief ratio.
 Mean basin slope is positively correlated with bifurcation ratio, drainage density,
basin relief, ruggedness number, drainage frequency, drainage texture, relief ratio
and negatively correlated with length of overland ow and constant of channel
Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 20:53 21 January 2015

maintenance.
 Signicant negative relation between mean basin slope and length of overland ow
showed the inuence of slope in the study basin. Sub-basin with shorter length of
overland ow quickly attain the channel ow and contribute to peak ow.
 Basin relief, ruggedness number, drainage frequency, drainage texture and relief
ratio are positively correlated with drainage density, while length of overland ow
and constant of channel maintenance are negatively related with drainage density.
 Similarly, length of overland ow is the only variable which has a signicant posi-
tive correlation with C and negatively correlated with basin relief, ruggedness
number, channel frequency, drainage texture and relief ratio. It is very evident that
a large number of morphometric variable is inuencing the length of overland ow
in the study basin.
 Higher relief in the basin decreases the constant of channel maintenance. In con-
trast, lower relief leads to a decrease in ruggedness number, channel frequency,
drainage texture and relief ratio.
 High channel frequency leads to low constant of channel maintenance, high drain-
age texture and relief ratio.

4.14. MCA-based watershed prioritization

MCA is a framework for ranking or scoring the overall performance of decision criteria
against objective. MCA integrates human judgement, domain knowledge and eld
experience for efcient decision-making process (Hajkowicz & Collins 2007). Various
types of MCA techniques have been used in the eld of watershed planning and man-
agement. In the present study, the pairwise comparison technique, also known as AHP
was used to get overall inuence of morphometric variables on hydrological process.
De Steiguer et al. (2003) stated that AHP can be used as a tool that allows explicit pre-
sentation of the evaluation criteria for identication of suitable integrated water and
watershed management problem. Various steps in AHP includes choosing decision
option, selecting decision criteria, obtaining performance measure of decision criteria
through evaluation matrix, weighting the criteria, followed by consistency test, priority
assessment and decision-making.
The morphometric parameters are considered as criteria and plays a major role in
decision-making for watershed prioritization. According to Satty, the decision criteria
requires to be non-redundant and independent. The independent decision criteria were
identied from correlation matrix (Table 5) and incorporated in AHP. It is evident from
Table 5 that basin perimeter is correlated with area, whereas, basin length is correlated
with perimeter, area, elongation ratio and form factor. Consequently, basin length is
selected as independent variable; basin area, perimeter, elongation ratio and form factor
 Geocarto International 19

are eliminated. Similarly, bifurcation ratio, drainage density, length of overland ow,
relief, ruggedness number, stream frequency, constant of channel maintenance, drainage
texture and relief ratio are correlated with mean basin slope. So, drainage density is
selected as independent parameter and others are eliminated. Bifurcation ratio is corre-
lated with mean basin slope, relief and ruggedness number. Since, relief, ruggedness
number and basin slope are already eliminated in previous step, bifurcation ratio is
selected as independent parameter. Among shape parameters, circularity ratio is corre-
lated with elongation ratio. Since, elongation ratio is already eliminated, circularity ratio
is considered as independent variables. Parameters are selected in such a way that max-
imum number of independent criteria could be taken into consideration. Finally, four
Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 20:53 21 January 2015

independent parameters such as bifurcation ratio, basin length, circularity ratio and
drainage density are selected for pairwise comparison in AHP.
Pairwise comparison matrix was prepared by evaluating the relative importance of
each variable with other in a rating scale ranging from value 1 to 9 (Saaty 1990). The
lowest value i.e. 1 refers to equally important, whereas 9 refers to absolutely more
important. The intensity of importance between two variables are lled in a matrix on
the basis of eld experience, domain knowledge and expert opinion. For example,
bifurcation ratio and basin length are used in a pairwise comparison matrix and it is
decided that bifurcation ratio is very much important than basin length. Therefore, a
number 7 is used to ll the element in the upper part of the comparison matrix
(Table 6). Similarly, all the cell values are lled up by analysing the relative importance
between two morphometric variables from 1 to 9 scale. The lower half of the matrix
represents the reciprocal of the upper part and lies below the diagonal matrix. The diag-
onal matrix is 1, represents the relation of a parameter with itself. In the next step, the
normalized value associated with each parameter and normalized principal eigen vector
are computed (Table 7). The principal eigen value (kmax ) and consistency ratio (CR)
have been estimated as 4.16 and 6.07, respectively (Equations (1) and (2)).
CI
CR  100 (1)
RI

kmax  n
CI (2)
n1

where CI is the consistency index and RI is the random consistency index. kmax is the
principal eigen value obtained from priority matrix and n is the number of parameter
taken for constructing comparison matrix. RI is a unit less random consistency index
that depends upon the matrix size (n) and given by Satty after generating reciprocal
matrix of various sizes. The CR value should be less than 10% and indicates the
consistency of decision-making. The CR is found to be within the acceptable range and
can be used for watershed prioritization.
Table 6. Comparison matrix.

Rb D L Rc
Rb 1.00 0.33 7.0 5.0
D 3.0 1.00 9.0 7.0
L 0.14 0.11 1.00 1.00
Rc 0.20 0.14 1.00 1.00
Sum 4.34 1.59 18.0 14.0
 20 D.R. Samal et al.

Table 7. Computation of nal weights, consistency index and CR.

Eigen vector
Rb D L Rc weight k kmax CI CR
Rb 0.23 0.21 0.39 0.36 0.30 1.29
D 0.69 0.63 0.50 0.50 0.58 0.92 4.16 0.05 6.07
L 0.03 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.06 1.03
Rc 0.05 0.09 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.92
Sum 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 20:53 21 January 2015

The range of morphometric parameters used in AHP varies signicantly and have
differnt measuring units. For example, basin length in differnt sub-basins varies from
22 to 72 km, whereas drainage density ranges from 1.98 to 3.58 km1. Therefore, all
parameters used in AHP are normalized using Equation (3).
Pij  OLBi
Wij (3)
OUBi  OLBi
Wij is the normalized value of ith parameter of the jth watershed. Pij original value
of ith parameter in jth watershed. OUBi and OLBi is the upper bound and lower bound
of ith parameter, respectively. The normalization process will ensure that no specic
parameter will inuence the nal priority assessment in the basin. The normalized value
of all morphometric variables in a sub-basin is multiplied by corresponding weights
and added to compute the nal priority (Table 8). Furthermore, the nal priority values
are grouped into different priority levels such as very high (>0.8), high (0.50.8), med-
ium (0.20.5) and low (<0.2). From Table 8, it is evident that sub-basin 4 has very
high priority level on the basis of hydrological point of view and associated with high
drainage density, shorter length of overland ow and higher mean basin slope. It covers
11% of the total basin area. Similarly, sub-basin 1, 2, 5 and 6 falls under high priority
level and constitute 50% of basin area. It is found that sub-basins originated from
Western Ghats region falls under high and very high priority level and needs efcient
management strategies for surface runoff reduction. Sub-basin 3 and 7 are under low
priority level and constitute 30.2% of total basin. Only sub-basin 8 has medium priority
level which lies towards basin outlet and covers 9.2% of total basin area. The nal
prioritization map with different priority levels are shown in Figure 9.

5. Summary and conclusion

Present study discussed various morphometric parameters and their hydrological
signicance by using RS, GIS and statistical techniques. Linear, areal and relief aspect
of morphometric variables were quantied and discussed with respect to hydrological
process. GIS-based morphometic studies are not only fast but also computationally
efcient. Grid-based DEM provides nearly accurate terrain information and considered
as one of the most important input data-set for GIS-based morphometric studies. DEM
is highly useful for preparing slope map and extracting other topographic attributes.
Entire study basin was divided into 8 sub-basins so that the spatial variation of mor-
phometric parameters could be analyzed in a distributed manner and spatial variation of
morphometric variables were carefully analyzed. Sub-basins originated from Western
Ghats have high drainage density and mean basin slope, which minimizes the length of
overland ow and constant of channel maintenance. High drainage density combined
 Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 20:53 21 January 2015

Table 8. Normalized values for morphometric variables and nal priority of sub-basins in the Upper Bhima basin.

Value Ori. Nor. Ori. Nor. Ori. Nor. Ori. Nor.

Sub-basin Rb Rb D D L L Rc Rc Final priority Priority ranking Priority level
(Weight)* (0.3) (0.58) (0.06) (0.07)
1 4.97 0.90 2.77 0.49 67.00 0.90 0.30 0.00 0.611 4.0 High
2 5.04 1.00 2.94 0.60 66.00 0.88 0.45 0.75 0.753 2.0 High
3 4.58 0.35 1.98 0.00 72.00 1.00 0.32 0.10 0.173 7.0 Low
4 5.04 1.00 3.58 1.00 50.00 0.56 0.42 0.60 0.956 1.0 Very high
5 4.75 0.59 3.26 0.80 51.00 0.58 0.33 0.15 0.687 3.0 High
6 4.42 0.13 3.14 0.73 49.00 0.54 0.36 0.30 0.512 5.0 High
Geocarto International

7 4.33 0.00 2.09 0.07 51.00 0.58 0.46 0.80 0.131 8.0 Low
8 4.39 0.08 2.40 0.26 22.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 0.248 6.0 Medium
*Values in bracket shows the weight of each morphometric variable.
21
 22 D.R. Samal et al.
Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 20:53 21 January 2015

Figure 9. Final prioritization map.

with steep slope tends to yield more water, generate high surface runoff during a partic-
ular storm. Correlation matrix has shown various statistically signicant inter-relation-
ship between morphometric variables. It not only established the statistical relationship
between different morphometric variables but also helps to understand the way, a river
basin responds to various topographic attributes. The mean basin slope is positively
correlated with a large number of morphometric variables like bifurcation ratio, drain-
age density, ruggedness number, stream frequency and drainage texture. In contrast,
constant of channel maintenance and length of overland ow is negatively related with
large number of morphometric parameters mean basin slope, drainage density, channel
frequency, ruggedness number and basin relief. In general, a qualitative description
about the inuence of morphometric parameters on hydrological variables were dis-
cussed in the Upper Bhima basin. Selection of an appropriate hydrological model and
simulating the basin by considering various topographic attributes would give quantita-
tive relationship between hydrological and morphometric variables.
Mean slope is found to be a very dominant factor affecting both morphometric and
hydrological variables in the basin.
Morphometric variables in a MCA framework gives combined inuence of all vari-
ables on hydrological processes. Unlike previoius studies, we have used correlation
matrix for the selection of decision criteria from a large number of morphometric vari-
ables. This approch helps to identify optimum number of parameters for watershed pri-
oritizaton. The mean steam length, bifuration ratio, drainage density and circulatary
ratio were identied as independent variables and used in AHP. Sub-basins 4 is catago-
rized as highest priority, associated with high drainge density, bifurcation ratio and
shorter length of overland ow. In contrast, sub-basin 7 has least priority with lower
drainage density, longer length of overland ow. For planning and development of
 Geocarto International 23

watershed it not feasible to carry out specic strategy over entire basin. The result of
the present study may be helpful for watershed planners and managers towards impli-
menting various water and soil conservaton measures in the region. It may also be con-
cluded that AHP combined with GIS and statistical technique gives very holistic
approach for watershed prioritization and natural resources conservation.

References
Abdel-Lattif A, Sherief Y. 2012. Morphometric analysis and ash oods of Wadi Sudr and Wadi
Wardan, Gulf of Suez, Egypt: using digital elevation model. Arab J Geosci. 5:181195.
Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 20:53 21 January 2015

doi: 10.1007/s12517-010-0156-8
Aher P, Adinarayana J, Gorantiwar S. 2014. Quantication of morphometric characterization and
prioritization for management planning in semi-arid tropics of India: a remote sensing and
GIS approach. Journal of Hydrology. 511:850860.
Altin TB, Altin BN. 2011. Development and morphometry of drainage network in volcanic ter-
rain, Central Anatolia, Turkey. Geomorphology. 125:485503.
Avinash K, Jayappa K, Deepika B. 2011. Prioritization of sub-basins based on geomorphology
and morphometric analysis using remote sensing and geographic informationsystem (GIS)
techniques. Geocarto Int. 26:569592.
Bajabaa S, Masoud M, Al-Amri N. 2014. Flash ood hazard mapping based on quantitative
hydrology, geomorphology and GIS techniques (case study of Wadi Al Lith, Saudi Arabia).
Arab J Geosci. 7:24692481.
Bardossy A, Schmidt F. 2002. GIS approach to scale issues of perimeter-based shape indices for
drainage basins. Hydrol Sci J. 47:931942.
Beven KJ, Wood EF, Sivapalan M. 1988. On hydrological heterogeneity catchment morphol-
ogy and catchment response. J Hydrol. 100:353375.
Bhatt S, Ahmed S. Forthcoming 2014. Morphometric analysis to determine oods in the Upper
Krishna basin using Cartosat DEM. Geocarto Int. 29:878894.
Chowdary VM, Chakraborthy D, Jeyaram A, Krishna Murthy YVN, Sharma JR, Dadhwal VK.
2013. Multi-criteria decision making approach for watershed prioritization using analytic
hierarchy process technique and GIS. Water Resour Manage. 27:35553571.
De Steiguer J, Duberstein J, Lopes V. 2003. The analytic hierarchy process as a means for inte-
grated watershed management. In: Renard KG, editor. First Interagency Conference on
Research on the Watersheds; Benson, AZ; p. 736740.
Gregory KJ, Walling DE. 1973. Drainage basin form and process. New York, NY: John Willy.
Hajkowicz S, Collins K. 2007. A review of multiple criteria analysis for water resource planning
and management. Water Resour Manage. 21:15531566.
Horton RE. 1932. Drainage-basin characteristics. Trans Am Geophys Union. 13:350361.
Horton RE. 1945. Erosional development of streams and their drainage basins; hydrophysical
approach to quantitative morphology. Bull Geol Soc Am. 56:275370.
Huggett RJ. 2007. Fundamentals of geomorphology. New York, NY: Taylor and Francis Group.
Jain PK. 2009. Groundwater Information of Pune district, Maharashtra. Technical report 1612/
DBR/2009, Central Ground Water Board (CGWB), Nagpur, India.
Jain S, Seth SM, Nema R. 1995. Morphometric analysis of Sei dam catchment using GIS. In:
Proceedings of National Symposium on Hydrology, Jaipur, Jaipur; p. 57.
Jaiswal RK, Thomas T, Galkate RV, Ghosh NC, Singh S. 2014. Watershed prioritization using
Saatys AHP based decision support for soil conservation measures. Water Resour Manage.
28:475494.
Magesh N, Chandrasekar N, Soundranayagam J. 2011. Morphometric evaluation of Papanasam
and Manimuthar watersheds, parts of Western Ghats, Tirunelveli district, Tamil Nadu, India:
a GIS approach. Environ Earth Sci. 64:373381.
Melton MA. 1957. An analysis of the relations among elements of climate, surface properties,
and geomorphology. Technical report 11, Off Nav Res.
Miller V. 1953. A quantitative geomorphologic study of drainage basin characteristics in the
clinch mountain area, Virginia and Tennessee. Technical report N6 ONR 271300.
Department of Geology, Columbia University, USA.
 24 D.R. Samal et al.

Nag S, Chakraborty S. 2003. Inuence of rock types and structures in the development of drain-
age network in hard rock area. J Indian Soc Remote Sens. 31:2535.
NBSSLUP. 1996. Maharashtra Soils. Nagpur: National Bureau of Soil Survey and Land Use
Planning.
Nooka Ratnam K, Srivastava YK, Venkateswara Rao V, Amminedu E, Murthy KSR. 2005.
Check dam positioning by prioritization of micro-watersheds using SYI model and morpho-
metric analysis remote sensing and GIS perspective. J Indian Soc Remote Sens. 33:2538.
Patel D, Dholakia M, Naresh N, Srivastava P. 2012. Water harvesting structure positioning by
using geo-visualization concept and prioritization of mini-watersheds through morphometric
analysis in the Lower Tapi Basin. J Indian Soc Remote Sens. 40:299312.
Patel D, Gajjar C, Srivastava P. 2013. Prioritization of Malesari mini-watersheds through morpho-
metric analysis: a remote sensing and GIS perspective. Environ Earth Sci. 69:26432656.
Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 20:53 21 January 2015

Patton PC, Baker VR. 1976. Morphometry and oods in small drainage basins subject to diverse
hydrogeomorphic controls. Water Resour Res. 12:941952.
Prabu P, Baskaran R. 2013. Drainage morphometry of upper Vaigai river sub-basin, Western
Ghats, South India using remote sensing and GIS. J Geol Soc India. 82:519528.
Reddy GPO, Maji AK, Gajbhiye KS. 2004. Drainage morphometry and its inuence on landform
characteristics in a basaltic terrain, Central India a remote sensing and GIS approach. Int J
Appl Earth Obs Geoinf. 6:116.
Ritter DF, Kochel RC, Miller JR. 1995. Process geomorphology. Long Grove, IL: Waveland
Press Inc.
Romshoo S, Bhat S, Rashid I. 2012. Geoinformatics for assessing the morphometric control on
hydrological response at watershed scale in the Upper Indus Basin. J Earth Syst Sci.
121:659686.
Saaty TL. 1990. How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res. 48:926.
Sarma S, Saikia T. 2012. Prioritization of sub-watersheds in KhanaparaBornihat area of Assam
Meghalaya (India) based on land use and slope analysis using remote sensing and GIS. J
Indian Soc Remote Sens. 40:435446.
Satty TL. 1980. The analytic hierarchy process. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Schmidt J, Hennrich K, Dikau R. 2000. Scales and similarities in runoff processes with respect
to geomorphometry. Hydrol Process. 14:19631979.
Schumm SA. 1956. Evolution of drainage systems and slopes in bad lands at Perth Amboy, New
Jersey. Bull Geol Soc Am. 67:597646.
Sreedevi PD, Sreekanth PD, Khan HH, Ahmed S. 2013. Drainage morphometry and its inuence on
hydrology in an semi arid region: using SRTM data and GIS. Environ Earth Sci. 70:839848.
Strahler AN. 1957. Quantitative analysis of watershed geomorphology. Trans Am Geophys
Union. 38:913920.
Strahler AN. 1964. Handbook of applied hydrology. In: Chow VT, editor. Quantitative geomor-
phology of drainage basins and channel networks. New York, NY: Mc-Graw Hill Book
Company; p. 3976.
Tamma Rao G, Gurunadha Rao VVS, Dakate R, Mallikharjuna Rao ST, Raja Rao BT. 2012.
Remote sensing and GIS based comparative morphometric study of two sub-watershed of dif-
ferent physiographic conditions, West Godavari District, A.P. J Geol Soc India. 79:383390.
Thakkar A, Dhiman S. 2007. Morphometric analysis and prioritization of miniwatersheds in
Mohr watershed, Gujarat using remote sensing and GIS techniques. J Indian Soc Remote
Sens. 35:313321.
Thomas J, Joseph S, Thrivikramji KP, Abe G, Kannan N. 2012. Morphometrical analysis of two
tropical mountain river basins of contrasting environmental settings, the southern Western
Ghats. India. Environ Earth Sci. 66:23532366.
Vemu S, Udayabhaskar P. 2010. An integrated approach for prioritization of reservoir catchment
using remote sensing and geographic information system techniques. Geocarto Int. 25:149168.
Wakode HB, Dutta D, Desai VR, Baier K, Azzam R. 2013. Morphometric analysis of the upper
catchment of Kosi River using GIS techniques. Arab J Geosci. 6:395408.
Yadav SK, Singh SK, Gupta M, Srivastava PK. 2014. Morphometric analysis of Upper Tons
basin from Northern Foreland of Peninsular India using CARTOSAT satellite and GIS. Geo-
carto Int. 29:895914.
Zavoianu I. 1985. Morphometry of Drainge basin (Developments in Water Science, 20). Amsterdam:
Elsevier.