avinash et al. 2011 geocarto international

7/22/2019 Avinash Et Al. 2011 Geocarto International

1/25

Geocarto InternationalPublication details, including instructions for authors and

subscription information:

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tgei20

Prioritization of sub-basinsbased on geomorphology andmorphometricanalysis usingremote sensing and geographic

informationsystem (GIS) techniquesKumar Avinash

ab, K.S. Jayappa

b& B. Deepika

b

aEEZ Mapping Group, National Centre for Antarctic & Ocean

Research, Vasco-da-Gama, 403804, IndiabDepartment of Marine Geology, Mangalore University, Mangalore,

574 199, India

Available online: 27 Jul 2011

To cite this article:Kumar Avinash, K.S. Jayappa & B. Deepika (2011): Prioritization of sub-basins based on geomorphology and morphometricanalysis using remote sensing and geographic

informationsystem (GIS) techniques, Geocarto International, 26:7, 569-592

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10106049.2011.606925
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tgei20http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10106049.2011.606925http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10106049.2011.606925http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tgei20


2/25

Prioritization of sub-basins based on geomorphology andmorphometric analysis using remote sensing and geographic

information system (GIS) techniques

Kumar Avinasha,b*, K.S. Jayappab and B. Deepikab

aEEZ Mapping Group, National Centre for Antarctic & Ocean Research,Vasco-da-Gama 403 804, India; bDepartment of Marine Geology, Mangalore University,

Mangalore 574 199, India

(Received 3 November 2010; final version received 17 July 2011)

Geomorphology and drainage characteristics of the Gurpur river basin have beenstudied using satellite images, topographic maps and geographic informationsystem (GIS) techniques. Geomorphology and morphometric parameters havebeen used to prioritize the sub-basins (SB-I to -VII) and identify the most deficit/surplus zones of groundwater. The study reveals that 8% (SB-VII) to 85% (SB-II)area of the geomorphic units have poor to moderate groundwater prospect.About 16% (SB-V) to 92% (SB-VII) area were estimated as good to excellentzones for groundwater potential. Bifurcation ratio results show that geomorphiccontrol predominates over structural control in the development of drainagenetwork. Computed values of stream frequency of SB-II, SB-III and SB-VIindicate steep ground slopes, with less permeable rocks, while drainage densityindicates that the river basin is moderately permeable. Sub-basin-wise prioritiza-tion reveals that SB-II is the most deficit zone, while SB-VII is found to be surpluszone of groundwater potential.

Keywords: morphometric parameters; drainage characteristics; hydrogeomor-phology; prioritization; Gurpur river basin; India

1. Introduction

Land and water resources are gradually depleting due to rapid increase in

population, urbanization and industrialization. The demand has increased tremen-

dously for these resources; hence, optimal utilization of them is essential for

sustainable development. In India, about 1756 106 ha of land (i.e. about 53% area)

is subjected to soil erosion due to deforestation and other forms of land degradation

due to natural processes and anthropogenic activities (Biswas et al. 1999).

Drainage basins are the fundamental units to understand geometric character-

istics of fluvial landscape, such as topology of stream networks, and quantitative

description of drainage texture, pattern, shape and relief characteristics (Obi

Reddy et al. 2004, Subba Rao 2009). Morphometric analysis is an important

technique to evaluate and understand the behaviour of hydrological system. It

provides quantitative specification of basin geometry to understand initial slope or

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]; [email protected]

Geocarto International

Vol. 26, No. 7, November 2011, 569592

ISSN 1010-6049 print/ISSN 1752-0762 online

2011 Taylor & Francis

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10106049.2011.606925

http://www.tandfonline.com


3/25

inconsistencies in rock hardness, structural controls, recent diastrophism, geological

and geomorphic history of drainage basin (Strahler 1964, Esper Angillieri 2008).

Morphometric studies of a river basin comprise discrete morphologic region and

have special relevance to drainage pattern and geomorphology (Strahler 1957,

Dornkamp and King 1971).

Prioritization is very important to prepare a comprehensive basin management

and conservation plan. Several studies have been carried out on prioritization of sub-

basins based on morphometric analysis, geomorphology and sediment yield index

(SYI) (Krishnamurthy et al. 1996, Biswas et al. 1999, Khan et al. 2001, Srinivasa

et al.2008, Sureshet al.2004, Nookaratnamet al.2005, Thakkar and Dhiman 2007,

Javed et al. 2009). A study by Mesa (2006) reveals that geology, relief and climate

are the primary causes of running water ecosystems at the basin scale. Subba Rao

(2009) has attempted to define how the numerical scheme is helpful in watershed

development planning programmes.

In the present study, geomorphology and morphometric parameters have been

used to evaluate the Gurpur river basin (Figure 1). Basin geomorphology has beenmapped and interpreted based on lithological characteristics, and the area of each

geomorphic unit has been quantified. Quantitative analyses of the basin character-

istics have been computed from the linear, areal and relief morphometric parameters,

using the established mathematical equations (Table 1). Finally, sub-basin-wise

prioritization was executed to determine the deficit and surplus zones of ground-

water, based on the weightage of geomorphological and morphometric parameters.

2. Area of study

Gurpur river basin is located on the western side ofSahyadri(the Western Ghats),which is a great escarpment produced by denudation along the rifted continental

margin. The river originates near Kudremukh on the western slope of the Western

Ghats at an altitude of*1870 m. It runs for a distance of*80 km in southwest

direction and flows southward parallel to the coast for *8 km before merging with

Netravati river and debouching into the Arabian sea near Mangalore. The drainage

basin extends from 128520 to 138110 N latitudes and 748480 to 758170 E longitudes in

Figure 1. Map showing the location of Gurpur river basin of southern Karnataka, India.

570 K. Avinashet al.


4/25

Table 1. The formulae used for computation of various morphometric parameters.

Morphometricparameters Formula Reference

Linear parameters

Length (L) L 1.312A0.568

whereLBasin length (km)AArea of the basin (km2)

Nookaratnamet al. (2005)

Stream order (u) Hierarchical rank Strahler (1964)Stream length (Lu) Length of the stream Horton (1945)Mean stream

length (Lsm)LsmLu/NuwhereLsmMean stream lengthLuTotal stream length of

order uNuTotal no. of stream segments of

order u

Strahler (1964)

Stream lengthratio (RL)

RLLu/Lu71whereRLStream length ratioLuTotal stream length of

order uLu7lThe total stream length of its

next lower order

Horton (1945)

Bifurcation ratio (Rb) RbNu/Nu 1whereRbBifurcation ratioNuTotal no. of stream segments

of order uNul Number of segments of

the next higher order

Schumm (1956)

Mean bifurcationratio (Rbm)

RbmAverage of bifurcation ratiosof all orders

Strahler (1957)

Areal parametersForm factor (Ff) FfA/L

2

whereFfForm factorAArea of the basin (km2)LBasin length (km)

Horton (1932, 1945)

Elongation ratio (Re) Re 1.128A/LwhereReElongation ratioAArea of the basin (km2)LBasin length (km)

Schumm (1956)

Circularity ratio (Rc) Rc 4pA/P2

whereRcCircularity ratiop 3.14

AArea of the basin (km2)PPerimeter (km)

Miller (1953),Strahler (1964)

Shape factor (Bs) BsL2/A

whereBsShape factorLBasin length (km)AArea of the basin (km2)

Horton (1932)

Compactnessco-efficient (Cc)

Cc 0.2821 P/A0.5

whereCcCompactness coefficientPPerimeter (km)AArea of the basin (km2)

Gravelius (1914)

Drainage density (Dd) DdLu/AwhereDdDrainage density

LuTotal stream length of all ordersA Area of the basin (km2)

Horton (1932, 1945)

(continued)

Geocarto International 571


5/25

Dakshina Kannada and part of Udupi districts, covering an area of*837 km2

(Figure 1). The river delivers 28226 106 m3/yr of water and 0.1056 106 m3/yr of

sediments into the sea (Avinash Kumar et al. 2010a). It is a sixth-order river with

a total length of*88 km, and its beds consist of cobblepebblegravel at its upper

reaches and coarse sand in middle as well as lower parts.

2.1. Physiography and climate

Physiographically, the river basin can be divided into three well-defined units, viz.

hill ranges, midland and lowland. The altitude drops from 1870 m to 100 m within a

span of*12 km. The gradient of the entire river varies from 18 to 1.58 (21.16 m/km),

and the channels are flanked by thin gravelly terraces; therefore, lower reaches ofthis river get flooded during heavy discharges (Avinash Kumar et al. 2010a).

Consequently, the terraces have capping of overbank fine sand, silt and mud. The

Table 1. (Continued).

Morphometricparameters Formula Reference

Stream frequency (Fs) FsSNu/A

whereFsStream frequencySNuTotal no. of streams of

all ordersAArea of the Basin (km2)

Horton (1932, 1945)

Drainage texture (T) TDd6FswhereTDrainage textureDdDrainage densityFsStream frequency

Horton (1945)

Constant of channelmaintenance (C)

C 1/DdwhereCConstant of channel

maintenanceDdDrainage density

Schumm (1956)

Length of overlandflow (Lo)

Lo 1/2DdwhereLoLength of overland flowDdDrainage density

Horton (1945)

Relief parametersBasin relief (R) RH7 h

whereRBasin reliefHMaximum elevation in meterhMinimum elevation in meter

Hadley andSchumm (1961)

Relief ratio (Rr) RrR/LwhereRrRelief ratioRBasin reliefLLongest axis in kilometre

Schumm (1956)

Ruggednessnumber (Rn)

RnR6DdwhereRnRuggedness numberRBasin reliefDdDrainage density

Schumm (1956)

Gradient ratio (Gr) Gr (a7 b)/LwhereGrGradient ratioaElevation at sourcebElevation at mouthLLongest axis in kilometre

Sreedeviet al. (2005)



6/25

river has been cut into bedrocks, and the terraces are covered by overbank

sediments. The low-elevation undulating coastal belt has a rugged topography as

evidenced by flat-topped lateritic mesas cut by deep valleys.

The study area experiences a tropical climate marked by heavy rainfall, high

humidity and hot weather conditions in summer. Temperature decreases (mean daily

is 5298C) with the onset of southwest monsoon (JuneSeptember) and increases

with the retreat of monsoon. The average annual rainfall is *3900 mm, of which

about 80% is received during the southwest monsoon and the remainder during the

northeast (OctoberDecember) and inter-monsoon months (Avinash Kumar et al.

2010b).

2.2. Geology and tectonics

Geologically, the Gurpur river basin constitutes Archaean to Proterozoic and

metabasites (*46 km2, i.e. *5.5%) of Bababudan Group in the scarp region of

Western Ghats (Abbas et al. 1991, Radhakrishna and Vaidyanadhan 1994). SouthKanara Granite (*158 km2, i.e. *19%) and Archaean age of Peninsular Gneissic

Complex such as migmatitic (banded/streaky) gneisses (*519 km2, i.e. *62%) are

present in the northern portion and southern/middle portions of the basin,

respectively (Figure 2). Other rock formations such as chloritic phyllite and

Figure 2. Geological map showing distribution of lithology and rock types of the Gurpurbasin (after resource map of Udupi and Dakshina Kannada Districts, Karnataka, compiled byGeological Survey of India, 1991).



7/25

quartzite (51 km2 each) of Bababudan Group, and amphibolite (*2 km2) and

charnockite (*7 km2) of Sargur group/granulites of higher metamorphic grades are

distributed mainly in the middle and upper parts of the basin, where several dolerite

and norite dikes intersect with each other. Tertiary laterite (*90 km2, i.e. *11%)

and coastal sand (*12 km2, i.e. *1.5%) formations are found in the coastal area.

Tectonically, the Gurpur river basin is active due to its proximity to Mulki-

Pulicat lake axis (a straight line close to 138N connecting west and east coasts of

India) and the presence of a number of seismically active faults/lineaments. This

neotectonic activity has been validated in our earlier study (Avinash Kumar et al.

2010a). A slight deviation of the drainage divided from the fault line can be ascribed

to differential headward erosion of north-easterly and south-easterly flowing rivers

(Subrahmanya 1994).

3. Methodology

The Gurpur basin has been delineated using Survey of India (SOI) topographicalmaps (No. 48 L/13, 48 O/4, 48 O/8 and 48 P/1 of 1:50,000 scale) of 1967 edition

and Indian Remote Sensing Satellite (IRS) P6 and Linear Imaging Self-Scanner

(LISS-III, 23.5 m resolution) images of 2008. The satellite images were geo-

referenced using more than 50 ground control points (GCPs), distributed uniformly

across the Gurpur basins, and carefully selected both on the IRS images and

topographic maps using ERDAS Imagine v. 9.1 software to derive a polynomial

transformation of the first (affine) order. The overall accuracy of the transformation,

expressed as the root mean square error (RMSE) for geo-referenced images, was

50.5 pixel. After geo-referencing in geographic (lat/long) projection, a nearest

neighbour interpolation method (as no change occurs in pixel values) was used torectify and resample the images into a Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM)

projection, WGS 84, Zone 43 North. The geo-coded satellite images were enhanced

using the digital enhancement techniques such as linear/contrast stretching, edge

enhancement, filtering, band-ratioing and colour compositing. Based on tone,

texture, shape, shadow and colour of enhanced images, drainage, lithology and

hydrogeomorphic units were delineated and updated.

Geomorphology of the basin has been interpreted based on lithological

characteristics using soil, geology and SOI topographic maps as well as the satellite

images in geographic information system (GIS) environment. Visually interpreted

geomorphic units were mapped and quantitatively estimated at sub-basin level

(Table 2, Figure 3). The basin area has been classified into eight major geomorphic

units such as structural hills (SHs), pediment (PD), residual hills (RHs), inselbergs

(I), lateritic uplands (LUs), pediplain, piedmont plain (PP) and flood plain (FP),

which have been used to demarcate the surplus/deficit zones of groundwater.

Drainage and contour layers of the whole basin have been extracted by digitizing

the SOI topographic maps using ArcGIS v. 9.1 software. Drainage layer was further

updated with linearly stretched and edge-enhanced False Colour Composite (FCC)

of LISS-III images. Seven sub-basins (SB-I to SB-VII) have been delineated based on

the drainage characteristics and relief variability (Figure 4). Drainage networks were

analysed as per the laws of Horton (1945), and the stream ordering was carried out

using Strahlers stream order method (Strahler 1964). The triangular irregularnetwork (TIN) was generated by interpolating the digitised SOI contours (at 20 m

interval), and further, the TIN map was used to generate the height and slope maps



8/25

using 3D analyst tool of ArcGIS. Various morphometric parameters (linear, areal

and relief) of the sub-basins were calculated using established mathematical

equations (Table 1). Finally, sub-basin-wise prioritization was carried out byassigning the weightage of each geomorphic unit and morphometric parameter. The

steps followed for prioritization are discussed in Section 4.3.

Table 2. Quantification of sub-basin-wise areal coverage (in terms of %) of variousgeomorphic units and their prospects for groundwater.

Geomorphic unitsWater

prospectSB-I(%)

SB-II(%)

SB-III(%)

SB-IV(%)

SB-V(%)

SB-VI(%)

SB-VII(%)

Structural hills (SHs) Poor 11.3 35.3 39.1 0 0 0 0Pediment (PD) Good 2.4 8.5 10.5 0 0 0 0Residual hills (RHs) Poor 3.6 3.8 2 0 0 0 0Inselbergs (I) Poor 5.1 4 0.9 4.9 9.5 2.4 0.2Lateritic uplands (LUs) Moderate 0 0 0 0.7 0.03 1 0Shallow weathered

pediplain (PPS)Moderate 47.8 41.9 34.8 33.3 74.7 23 8

Moderately weatheredpediplain (PPM)

Good 11.4 0.6 1.7 27.9 0.3 39.1 36.8

Peidmont plain (PP) Good 2.9 0 0.02 11.0 0 0 0Flood plain (FP) Excellent 15.5 6.0 10.9 22.3 15.4 34.5 54.9

Figure 3. Map showing distribution of different hydrogeomorphic units in the Gurpur basin.



9/25

4. Results and discussion

Geomorphology and morphometric parameters are useful for drainage networkanalysis, which provide information concerning lithology, hydrological nature,

drainage characteristics and exogenic/endogenic processes within the basin. Various

types of drainage patterns such as dendritic, trellis, rectangular, barbed and braided

are identified in the basin. Dendritic to sub-dendritic type of drainage is the most

common in the study area due to the presence of homogeneous lithological units like

gneisses and charnockites. Dendritic drainage pattern denotes nonexistence of

structural control and gentle to moderate slope. Based on drainage characteristics

and stream numbering, the Gurpur river basin has been classified as sixth-order

basin. Various geomorphic units and morphometric parameters (linear, areal and

relief) were evaluated to understand the groundwater potential for each sub-basin.

The details of these parameters are discussed below.

4.1. Geomorphic characteristics

4.1.1. Structural hills (SHs)

SHs are found in the easternmost part of the basin mainly in SB-I, SB-II and SB-

III. They consist of iron ore group of rocks and are controlled with complex

folding, faulting and criss-crossed by numerous joints/fractures. These structural

features facilitate infiltration of water and contain springs/seepages at lower part,

although these regions are normally having poor source of groundwater. Thetotal areal extent of this unit is estimated to be 96.2 km2, of which *39% falls in

SB-III (Table 2).

Figure 4. Drainage map showing sub-basin-wise various stream orders of the Gurpur basin.



10/25

4.1.2. Pediment (PD)

PD is an erosional geomorphic feature developed by the process of weathering,

having a thin veneer of deposition mostly restricted to the periphery of high relief

outcrops (Figure 4). From the soil map, the thickness of alluvium or weathered

material varies from 0 to 20 m. In this unit, groundwater prospects are normally

poor due to massive rocky surface, whereas granitic terrains with numerous fractures

or joints permit infiltration and storage of groundwater. Hence, depending on the

thickness of weathered material and the presence or absence of secondary structures,

groundwater potential is moderate to poor. In the Gurpur basin, this geomorphic

unit (PD) is found in SB-I to SB-III, covering an area of 23.6 km2, of which 10.5% is

estimated to be distributed in SB-III (Table 2).

4.1.3. Residual hills (RHs)

RHs are isolated hills or continuous chain of hillocks formed by differential erosionand weathering of pre-existing plateaus, plains and complex tectonic mountains.

RHs are usually formed where charnockites and hornblende-biotite gneisses are

broadly folded and subjected to physical disintegration. RHs are found only in SB-I,

SB-II and SB-III, covering a total areal extent of 12.9 km2. Maximum coverage of

this unit is found in SB-II (Table 2). Hence, the groundwater prospects in this unit

are poor due to steep slope and high runoff with less infiltration.

4.1.4. Inselbergs (I)

Inselbergs are isolated residual hillocks being remnants of weathering anddenudation, found mostly within granitic terrain. Total areal extent of this unit is

estimated to be 29.7 km2, of which 9.5% is found in SB-V (Table 2). This

geomorphic unit acts as runoff zone, where groundwater potential is found to be nil.

4.1.5. Lateritic uplands (LUs)

LUs are developed over tertiary sediments and gneissic/granitic basement. This unit

is noticed only in SB-IV, SB-V and SB-VI, covering only 3.5 km2 area in the basin.

The sub-basin-wise variation in their areal extent was found to be very less (0.03% to

1%). This unit is characterised by moderate infiltration and significant water-table

fluctuation. Groundwater prospect in this unit is moderate to good.

4.1.6. Pediplain

Pediplain is a result of weathering under arid and semi-arid conditions, representing

the end stage of cyclic erosion (King 1950, Sparks 1960). PDs with more or less over

burden of accumulated materials on the shallow to moderately weathered rocks have

been identified in various lithological units by interpretation of soil maps and the

field survey. Based on the visual observations, pediplains have been classified into

two classes:

(1) Shallow weathered pediplain (PPS) is developed by continuous process of

pedimentation at low gradient and covered with shallow weathered material



11/25

and sparse vegetation. This unit of the basin occupies the maximum area

(*294 km2), of which 74.7% of area is found in the SB-V (Table 2).

Groundwater prospect is found to be poor (virtually dry environment) to

moderate (gentle slopes adjacent to the stream courses/tanks) in this type of

pediplain.

(2) Moderately weathered pediplain (PPM) is found as nearly flat terrain with

gentle slope and occurs normally along all the major drainage courses/broken

streams, which control the valley course. The PPM consists of relatively thick

weathered material (ranging from 5 to 15 m) covered with soil and fairly

thick vegetation, formed in low-laying areas and generally associated with

lineaments. PPM is the second largest unit which covers the maximum basin

area of*173 km2, of which 39.1% of area is found in the SB-VI (Table 2).

Hence, groundwater prospects in this unit are considered as moderate to

good, depending upon the thickness of weathered zone.

4.1.7. Piedmont plain (PP)

The PP is gently sloping longitudinal strip of land running parallel to foot hills,

traversed by innumerable rivulets with parallel to sub-parallel drainage. It is found in

SB-I, SB-III and SB-IV and formed of loose unconsolidated material (boulders,

gravels, pebbles, cobbles and mixed with silt and clay) accumulating on the slope

of hills, sometimes due to the coalescence of alluvial fans. PP covers an area of

*15 km2, of which 11% of area is found in SB-IV (Table 2). The groundwater

potential of this unit varies from moderate to good in the upper and lower piedmont

zones.

4.1.8. Flood plain (FP)

The FP is the youngest geomorphic unit formed by erosion and deposition processes.

It is found along the river course, and its main tributaries show a gentle slope (*58).

The PP is the second largest unit of the basin covering an area of *189 km2, of

which 54.9% of area is found in SB-VII (Table 2). This unit includes various

landforms, such as sand/channel bars, point bars, natural levee, back-swamps, etc.,

composed of sub-rounded to rounded fragments of sand, silt and clay deposited by

river and their tributaries. Hence, groundwater prospects in this unit are usually very

good to excellent.

4.2. Morphometric parameters

4.2.1. Linear parameters

Stream order (u) is a dimensionless number which can be used for comparison of

geometry of drainage networks on different linear scales. Streams of this basin have

been numbered according to Strahlers (1964) ordering system. In sub-basins (SB-I

to SB-VII), number of total streams varies from 35 (SB-V) to 609 (SB-VI). The lower

number of streams of a sub-basin indicates the maturity of topography, whereas the

higher number of streams (first- and second-orders) indicates that the area is proneto erosion. The sub-basins cover an average area of*120 km2 and an average length

(L) of*19 km. The SB-VII is found to be the shortest (10.1 km) and covers the



12/25

lowest area of 36.4 km2, while the SB-VI is the longest (32.7 km) and covers the

highest area of 287.8 km2 (Table 3) . Variations in stream orders and their coverage

areas are attributed to differences in physiographic and structural conditions

(Sreedevi et al. 2005). According to Hortons law (1932), the geometric relation

between the logarithm of average number of streams (Nu) and stream orders (u)

shows an inverse linear relationship (R7 0.991) (Figure 5).

Bifurcation ratio (Rb)is the ratio of number of streams of any given order (u) to

the number of streams (Nu) of the next higher order (Schumm 1956). Strahler (1964)

has revealed that the Rb ranges from 3 to 5, which means the sub-basin is not

influenced by geological structures. Lower value ofRb indicates that drainage basin

is underlined by uniform materials, and the streams are usually branched

systematically (Vijay Pakhmode et al. 2003). Lower Rb values are also due to the

presence of a large number of first-, second- and third-order streams in the

sub-basins (Manu and Anirudhan 2008). Computed values ofRbof all the seven sub-

basins and total Gurpur river basin are 55 (except the SB-VI), which indicates that

the control of drainage network is mainly pronounced by geomorphology. Rb ofSB-VI is 45, indicating the influence of structural control on the development of

drainage network. Structural control has been also validated from our earlier studies

that the middle portion of the main river channel (i.e. in SB-VI) has been deflected in

V-shape and controlled by lineaments/faults (Avinash Kumar et al. 2010a).

Stream length(Lu) is a dimensional property used in understanding the drainage

network components which reflect the hydrological characteristics of the underlying

rock surfaces over the areas of consecutive stream orders. Generally, if the rock

formations are permeable, a small number of relatively longer streams are formed,

whereas if the rock formations are less permeable, a large number of smaller streams

are developed (Vijay Pakhmode et al. 2003). The total stream length (SLu) isminimum (47.3 km) in the SB-V and maximum (500.8 km) in the SB-VI, with an

average of 220.9 km (Table 4). Further, it is also noted that the Lu is maximum

(average of 124.9 km) in the case of first-order streams of all the sub-basins, as

geometrical similarity is preserved in the basins of increasing order (Strahler 1964).

In all the sub-basins, the Ludecreases consequently with an increase in stream order,

indicating constant variation in the relief over which the streams occur (Subba Rao

2009). However, the average values ofLu computed for the first- and second-order

streams are 0.80 (0.601.14) km and 0.94 (0.751.23) km, respectively, and that of

third- and fourth-order streams are 2.23 (1.093.57) km and 4.59 (0.40513.79) km,

respectively (Table 4). The average values ofLu

computed for the fifth- and sixth-

order streams are 2.60 (2.8111.2) km and 7.1 km, respectively. These differences

favour the distribution of number of streams and their lengths in different orders of

streams.

The geometrical relationship is shown graphically in the form of a straight line

when the log of average total stream lengths vs. stream orders is plotted

(Figure 6(a)). This linear plot indicates the negative relationship (R7 0.947)

and satisfies Hortons (1945) law of stream lengths. The law states that the average

length of streams of different orders in a drainage basin tends closely to approximate

a direct geometric series. However, the values of average Lu vs. u deviate from a

straight line for fifth- and sixth-orders due to differences in the development of

stream lengths of these two orders. The relation between the logarithm of averagenumber of streams and the logarithm of average total stream lengths is shown in

Figure 6(b). This relation shows positive linear relationship (R 0.929), which



13/25

Table3.

Computationalresultsoflinea

rmorphometricparameterssuchasbasinarea,

basinlength,

bas

inperimeter,numberofstreams

andbifurcation

ratioof

sub-basinsoftheGurpurbasin.

Sub-basin/basin

Area

(A;km

2)

Length

(L;km)

Perimeter

(P;km)

Numberofstr

eams(Nu

)ofdifferent

strea

morder(u)

SNu

Bifurcationratio(Rb)N

u/N

u1

Mean

Rb

1

2

3

4

5

6

1/2

2/3

3/4

4/5

5/6

I

178.6

24.9

75.3

239

71

19

7

3

339

3.3

7

3.7

4

2.7

1

2.33

2.4

3

II

126.5

20.5

50.6

282

65

13

4

2

366

4.3

4

5

3.2

5

2

2.9

2

III

82.1

16

53.4

224

41

9

2

276

5.4

6

4.5

6

4.5

0

2.9

0

IV

86.8

16.5

51.8

37

13

4

1

55

2.8

5

3.2

5

4

2.0

2

V

38.6

10.4

33.9

24

8

1

1

1

35

3

8

1

1

2.6

0

VI

287.8

32.7

114.8

423

135

48

2

1

609

3.1

3

2.8

1

24

5.9

9

VII

36.4

10.1

30.7

44

17

7

3

71

2.5

9

2.4

3

2.3

3

1.4

7

Averagea

119.5

18.7

58.6

181

50

14

2

0.8

6

0.1

4

250

3.5

3

4.2

5

5.9

7

0.76

2.9

0

Gurpur

basin

836.7

60

380

1273

350

1

01

20

6

1

1751

3.6

4

3.4

7

5.0

5

3.33

6

4.3

0

Note:aAsawholebasin.



14/25

clearly indicates that the number of streams increases as stream lengths increase.

This concept has been widely used as empirical test to specific models of drainage

network development; therefore, it is being validated by many workers (Strahler

1952, Leopold and Miller 1956, Schumm 1956, Melton 1958, Smith 1958, Broscoe

1959, Morisawa 1959, Raju et al. 1995, Rao and Babu 1995, Sreedevi et al. 2005,

Devadaset al. 2006, Manu and Anirudhan 2008, Subba Rao 2009).

Stream length ratio (RL) is an important relationship as far as the discharge of

surface flow and erosional stages of the basin are concerned (Horton 1945). The RLis the ratio of the average length (Lu) of a stream of any given order (u) to the

average length of a stream of the next lowest order (Lu71), which tends to be

constant throughout the successive orders of the basin. The average RL of the fifth-

order streams shows a high value of 4.1 (0.527.6) compared to the average RL of

the second-, third- and fourth-order streams within the basin, i.e. 1.23 (0.711.51),

2.45 (1.084.03), and 2.27 (0.156.82), respectively. The average RL of all the seven

sub-basins varies from 0.846.38 (Table 4). This indicates that the rock formations in

the area, drained by the fifth-order streams, are more permeable and/or the gradients

are gentler than those formations drained by the lower order streams. It has been

noticed that RL

between successive stream orders varies due to differences in slope

and topographic conditions and has an important relationship with the surface flow

discharge and erosional stage of the basin (Sreedevi et al. 2005).

4.2.2. Areal parameters

Form factor (Ff) is the ratio of the basin area (A) to the squared value of the basin

length (L) (Horton 1932, 1945). The Ffvaries from 0 (in highly elongated shape) to

1 (in perfect circular shape) (Manu and Anirudhan 2008). Average Ff value of the

Gurpur basin is 0.31. In sub-basins (I-VII), the Ffvaries from 0.27 (SB-VI) to 0.36

(SB-VII), indicating that the whole basin is in an elongated form (Table 5, Figure 4).

Elongation ratio(Re) is the ratio between the diameter of a circle of the same areaas the basin (A) and maximum basin length (L) (Schumm 1956). Higher value ofReindicates active denudational processes with high infiltration capacity and low

Figure 5. Relation between stream orders (u) and number of streams (Nu) in different basinsof the study area.



15/25

Table4.

Showingsub-basin-wisecomp

utationalresultsofstreamlengthsandstreamlengthratiooftheGurpurbasin.

Sub-basin/

basin

Totalstreamlength(Lu

;km)ofdifferent

orders(u)

SL

u

A

verageL

u

(km)indifferentu(Lu

/Nu

)

Streamlengthratio(RL)

(Lu

/Lu

1)

Mean

RL

1

2

3

4

5

6

1

2

3

4

5

6

2/1

3/2

4/3

5/4

6/5

I

178.7

80.1

32.8

34.9

8.4

3

335

0.7

5

1.1

3

1.7

3

4.9

9

2.81

1.5

1

1.5

3

2.8

9

0.5

1.3

0

II

194

52.3

42.2

19.6

8.4

2

316.7

0.6

9

0.8

0

3.2

5

4.9

1

4.21

1.1

7

4.0

3

1.5

1

0.8

1.5

1

III

134.2

30.9

18.2

27.6

210.8

0.6

0

0.7

5

2.0

2

13.7

9

1.2

6

2.6

8

6.8

2

2.1

5

IV

42.3

16

14.3

4.0

76.6

1.1

4

1.2

3

3.5

7

4.0

3

1.0

7

2.9

0

1.1

3

1.0

2

V

26.6

6.3

2.7

0.4

11.1

9

47.3

1.1

1

0.7

9

2.7

2

0.4

05

11.2

0.7

1

3.4

4

0.1

5

27.6

6.3

8

VI

269

116.3

61.3

4.5

49.7

4

500.8

0.6

4

0.8

6

1.2

8

2.2

9

49.7

1.3

6

1.4

8

1.8

0

0.9

3

VII

29.2

17.0

7.6

5.2

59.1

0.6

6

1.0

0

1.0

9

1.7

5

1.5

1

1.0

8

1.6

1

0.8

4

Averagea

124.9

45.6

25.6

13.7

4.0

1

7.1

1

220.9

0.8

0

0.9

4

2.2

3

4.5

9

2.60

7.1

1.2

3

2.4

5

2.2

7

4.1

0

2.0

2

Gurpur

basin

874

319

179

96.2

28.0

4

49.7

4

1546.4

0.6

9

0.9

1

1.7

7

4.8

2

4.67

49.7

1.3

3

1.9

5

2.7

2

0.9

7

10.6

3.5

2

Note:aAsawholebasin.



16/25

run-off in the basin, whereas, lower Re values indicate higher elevation of the basin

susceptible to high headward erosion along tectonic lineaments (Obi Reddy et al.

2004, Manu and Anirudhan 2008). The computed values of Re vary from 0.59

(SB-VI) to 0.67 (SB-V and SB-VII), and they are usually associated with high relief

and steep ground slopes (Schumm 1956). The average value of Re of the whole

Gurpur basin is 0.63, which reveals the fact that the basin is in an elongated shape

(Table 5). According to Schumm (1956), Revalues close to 1.0 are typical of regions

of low relief, whereas those in the range of 0.60.8 are generally associated with high

relief and steep ground slopes. Hence, the Re values indicate that the Gurpur river

basin is associated with high relief and steep slopes.

Circularity ratio (Rc) is the ratio of the area of the basin ( A) to the area of the

circle having the same circumference as the perimeter (P) of the basin (Miller 1953,

Strahler 1964). The Rc is more influenced by stream length, stream frequency (Fs)

and gradient of streams of various orders rather than the slope conditions and

Table 5. Sub-basin-wise areal morphometric parameters of the Gurpur basin.

Parameters

Sub-basins

AverageaI II III IV V VI VII

Form factor (Ff) 0.29 0.30 0.32 0.32 0.35 0.27 0.36 0.31Elongation ratio (Re) 0.60 0.62 0.64 0.63 0.67 0.59 0.67 0.63Circularity ratio (Rc) 0.40 0.62 0.36 0.41 0.42 0.27 0.49 0.42Shape factor (Bs) 3.48 3.32 3.13 3.16 2.83 3.72 2.81 3.21Compactness co-efficient (Cc) 1.59 1.27 1.66 1.57 1.54 1.91 1.43 1.57Drainage density (km/km2) (Dd) 1.88 2.50 2.57 0.88 1.23 1.74 1.62 1.77Stream frequency (km72) (Fs) 1.90 2.89 3.36 0.63 0.91 2.12 1.95 1.97Drainage texture (km71) (T) 3.56 7.24 8.64 0.56 1.11 3.68 3.17 3.99Constant of channel maintenance

(km) (C)0.53 0.40 0.39 1.13 0.82 0.57 0.62 0.64

Length of overland flow(km2/km) (Lo)

0.27 0.20 0.19 0.57 0.41 0.29 0.31 0.32

Note: aAs a whole basin.

Figure 6. Graphs showing the geometric relationship (a) between stream orders (u) andstream lengths (Lu), and (b) between number of streams (Nu) and stream lengths (Lu) of wholeGurpur basin.



17/25

drainage pattern of a basin (Strahler 1964). Low, medium and high values ofRcgive

an indication of the young, mature and old stages of the tributaries in the basins,

respectively. If the Rc value is 1.0, the basin is to be a perfect circle in shape and the

discharge quantity would be high (Miller 1953). The values ofRc ranging from 0.27

(SB-VI) to 0.62 (SB-II) (Table 5) also indicate that the basin is not circular in shape,

and the quantity of discharge is comparatively less in sub-basins with lower Revalues. It may be attributed to differences in geomorphological features in the river

basin.

Shape factor (Bs) provides a measurement of basin shape irregularity. The

basin would be a perfect circle if the shape factor 1, successively, lower factors

represent a more convoluted floc, and close to 0 approaching a line (Wolfgang

and Desmond 2002). The calculated value of Bs of the Gurpur river basin is 3.21

(Table 5).

Compactness coefficient (Cc) is the relationship of the shape of the drainage

basin to a circle. This is expressed as a ratio between the length of the drainage

basin boundary (the perimeter) and the perimeter of a circle with the same area.If the basin was a perfect circle, then Cc would be equal to 1 (Gravelius 1914,

Hidore 1964). The computed value of Cc for the whole Gurpur basin is 1.57

(Table 5).

Drainage density (Dd) is the total length of streams of all orders divided by the

area of drainage basin (Horton 1932, 1945). It provides a numerical measurement

of landscape dissection and run-off potential (Obi Reddy et al. 2004). According to

Horton (1945), low Dd is an indication of the prevalence of highly resistant/

permeable strata under dense vegetation and low relief, whereas, high Ddprevails

in the weak/impermeable rocks under sparse vegetation and mountainous relief

regions. In the Gurpur basin, Ddranges from 0.88 (SB-IV) to 2.57 (SB-III) km/km2

,with an average of 1.77 km/km2. Ddvalue 55 suggests the permeable nature of the

surface strata of the river basin, which is a characteristic feature of a coarse-drainage

density (Smith 1950, Strahler 1957).

Stream frequency (Fs) is the ratio between the number of streams (Nu) of all

orders within a basin and the basin area (A). The high value ofFs indicates greater

surface run-off and a steep ground surface (Horton 1932, 1945). The computed Fsvalues of Gurpur basin range from 0.63 (SB-IV) to 3.36 (SB-III), with an average

value of 1.97 per km2 (Table 5). It means that two streams are developed in an area

of 1 km2 in the basin. High Fs values (42/km2) of 2.89, 3.36, 2.12 per km2 are

observed in the SB-II, SB-III and SB-VI, respectively. This indicates that these

sub-basins have steep slopes with less permeable rocks, which facilitate greater run-

off, less infiltration, sparse vegetation and high relief conditions. The low Fs values

(51/km2) in the SB-IV (0.63) and SB-V (0.91) reflect the gentle ground slopes and

greater rock permeability in these sub-basins, where the run-off is low and the

infiltration is high. If the values ofFs range from 12 per km2, as found in the SB-I

(1.90) and SB-VII (1.95), it is an indication of the occurrence of moderate ground

slopes associated with moderately permeable rocks, which promote moderate run-off

and infiltration.

Drainage texture (T) is the product of drainage density and stream frequency.

It is a measure of closeness of the channel spacing, depending on climate, rainfall,

vegetation, soil and rock type, infiltration rate, relief and the stage of development(Horton 1945, Smith 1950, Schumm 1956). Vegetation covers play an important

role in determining the drainage density and texture (Kale and Gupta 2001). Soft



18/25

or weak rocks unprotected by vegetation characterize a fine drainage texture; while

massive and resistant rocks represent a coarse drainage texture. Sparse vegetation,

with an arid climate, causes a finer drainage texture than that developed on similar

rocks in a humid climate. The drainage texture is commonly dependent upon

the vegetation type and climate (Dornkamp and King 1971). According to Smith

(1950), the T is classified as coarse (54 per km), intermediate (410 per km),

fine (1015 per km) and ultra-fine (415 per km). The T values vary between 0.56

(SB-IV) and 8.64 (SB-III), with an average of 3.99. All the sub-basins (except

SB-II and SB-III) with T values ranging between 0.56 and 3.68 and the Gurpur

river as a whole come under the coarse drainage texture (Table 5). This indicates

that all the sub-basins have formations with higher permeability and infiltration

capacity except SB-II (7.24) and SB-III (8.64), which have an intermediate

drainage texture.

Constant of channel maintenance (C) is the inverse of drainage density (Dd)

(Schumm 1956), which depends on the rock type, permeability, climatic regime,

vegetation cover and relief as well as the duration of erosion. It is also the arearequired to maintain one linear kilometre of stream channel. Generally, the higher

the C values of a basin, the higher the permeability of the rocks of that basin and

vice-versa (Vijay Pakhmode et al.2003, Subba Rao 2009). The Cvalue of the sixth-

order Gurpur basin is 0.64 (Table 5), which indicates that, on an average, 0.64 km2

of surface area is required to maintain 1 km length of stream channel. The SB-II and

SB-III have low C value (50.5), indicating that they are under the influence of less

structural disturbance, low permeability, steep to very steep slopes and high surface

run-off, while a high value indicates structural disturbances and less run-off

conditions.

Length of overland flow (Lo) is used to describe the length of flow of water overthe ground before it becomes concentrated in definite stream channels. It is one of

the most important independent variables, affecting both the hydrological and

physiographical developments of the drainage basins (Horton 1945). During the

evolution of the drainage system, Lo is adjusted to a magnitude appropriate to the

scale of the first-order drainage basins. Horton (1945) defined Lo as the length of

flow path, projected to the horizontal of non-channel flow from a point on drainage

divide (basin boundary). The average Lois approximately equal to half the reciprocal

of the averageDd (i.e. 1/2Dd). The computed values ofLoof the Gurpur basin range

between 0.19 (SB-III) and 0.57 (SB-IV) km2/km, with an average value of 0.32 km2/

km (Table 5). For a comparison of the sub-basins in respect of the nature of flow-

path, the Lo is classified as: (1) low (50.20 km2/km), (2) medium (0.200.30 km2/

km) and (3) high (40.30 km2/km) in the study area. The high Lovalues in the SB-IV,

SB-V and SB-VII indicate the occurrence of long flow-paths, and thus, gentle ground

slopes, which reflect areas of less run-off and more infiltration. The low Lovalues in

the SB-II and SB-III reveal short flow paths, with steep ground slopes, reflecting the

areas as associated with more run-off and less infiltration. The SB-I and SB-VI show

medium Lo values, indicating ground slopes, flow-paths, run-off and infiltration

being moderate.

4.2.3. Relief parametersBasin relief (R) is the difference in elevation between the highest and the lowest

points of the basin. It is an important factor to understand the denudational



19/25

characteristics of the basin, which controls the stream gradient and therefore

influences the flood pattern and the amount of sediment that can be transported

(Hadley and Schumm 1961). The maximum height of the Gurpur basin is found

to be *1870 m and the lowest is *20 m. Hence, the relief of the basin is 1850 m

(Table 6).

Relief ratio (Rr) is the dimensionless height-length ratio between the basin relief

(R) and the basin length (L). TheRrof the Gurpur basin is 0.0328, whereasRrvalue

of sub-basins varies from 0.0062 (SB-VI) to 0.1066 (SB-II) (Table 6). A high Rrvalue

indicates a hilly region and a low value is the characteristic of pediplain and valley

regions.

Slope analysis is an important parameter in geomorphic studies which

are controlled by climato-morphogenic processes in the area underlying the

rocks of varying resistance. An understanding of the slope distribution is

essential, because it provides information about settlement planning,

possibilities of agriculture, aforestation, deforestation, planning of engineering

structures, etc. (Sreedevi et al. 2005). In the Gurpur basin area, slope varies from2.48 to 878 (Figure 7). The maximum steepness was observed in SB-I, SB-II and SB-

III.

Ruggedness number (Rn) is a result of basin relief (R) and drainage density (Dd)

that indicates the structural complexity of the terrain (Schumm 1956). Higher values

ofRn are usually expected in a mountainous region of tropical climate with higher

rainfall. The Gurpur basin with a very high Rn value of 3.28 (Table 6) indicates

very high basin relief (1850 m). The SB-I, SB-II and SB-III have very high Rn, which

suggest high relief and drainage density.

Gradient ratio (Gr) is an indication of the channel slope from which the run-off

volume could be evaluated. The basin has a gradient ratio of 0.0328, while Gr ofsub-basins ranges from 0.0028 (SB-IV) to 0.1066 (SB-II) (Table 7).

4.3. Sub-basin-wise prioritization for groundwater prospect

Geomorphology and hydrological-drainage characteristics are important in terms

of evaluation of groundwater prospects. Based on various geomorphic units and

their characteristics, prioritization studies have been carried out for the Gurpur

river basin. The groundwater prospect for each unit has been categorized into

two major categories (i) poor to moderate and (ii) good to excellent for

Table 6. Relief aspects of the Gurpur basin.

Sub-basin/basin

Elevation in m Basinrelief (R)

(H7 h) (m)

Basinrelief (R)

(H7 h) (km)

LongestAxis L

(km)

Reliefratio(Rr)

RuggednessNumber (Rn)R6Dd(km)Max H Min h

I 1420 60 1360 1.36 21.66 0.0628 2.55II 1800 80 1720 1.72 16.13 0.1066 4.31III 1870 80 1790 1.79 16.97 0.1055 4.60IV 160 60 100 0.1 14.06 0.0071 0.09V 220 60 160 0.16 8.15 0.0196 0.20

VI 200 20 180 0.18 28.86 0.0062 0.31VII 100 20 80 0.08 6.4 0.0125 0.13Gurpur 1870 20 1850 1.85 56.36 0.0328 3.28



20/25

prioritizing the sub-basins. Priority was assigned to every geomorphic unit based

on the areal coverage and groundwater prospect. For example, the unit that has

poor to moderate groundwater prospect with largest areal coverage of that

particular sub-basin is ranked as 1, next largest areal coverage is ranked as 2 and

so on. On the contrary, the unit that has good to excellent groundwaterprospect with smaller areal converge in a particular sub-basin is ranked as 1, next

smaller areal coverage is ranked as 2 and so on. After ranking all the geomorphic

Table 7. Gradient aspects of the Gurpur basin.

Sub-basin/basin

Elevation (m) atFall in height

(a7b) (m)Length of mainstream L (km)

Gradient ratioGr (a7b/L)Source a Mouth b

I 1380 60 1320 21.66 0.0609II 1800 80 1720 16.13 0.1066III 1870 80 1790 16.97 0.1055IV 100 60 40 14.06 0.0028V 160 60 100 8.15 0.0123VI 160 20 140 28.86 0.0049VII 80 20 60 6.40 0.0094Gurpur 1870 20 1850 56.36 0.0328

Figure 7. Slope map (in degree) of various sub-basins of the Gurpur basin.



21/25

units, the ranked values for each sub-basin were averaged to arrive at a

compound value (Cg) (Table 8). The morphometric parameters such as linear/

areal (bifurcation ratio, drainage density, drainage texture and stream frequency)

and shape (form factor, elongation ratio, circularity ratio, shape factor) have been

used for prioritizing sub-basins to demarcate sub-basin-wise the most deficit zone

of groundwater. In linear/areal parameter, the highest value among the seven sub-

basins was ranked as 1, next higher value was ranked as 2 and so on. On the

contrary, in the shape parameters, the lowest value was ranked as 1, next lower

value was ranked as 2 and so on. After ranking the every morphometric

parameter, the ranked values for each sub-basin were averaged to arrive at a

compound value (Cm) (Table 8).

The total compound value was calculated by the sum of geomorphic units (Cg)

and morphometric parameters (Cm) as given in Table 8. Based on the total

compound value, first priority (1) is assigned for least compound value, which

indicates most deficit sub-basin for groundwater prospects. Likewise, next higher

value is assigned for next priority (2) and so on. The last priority number (7)

indicates that the sub-basin is the most surplus zone for groundwater potential.

Hence, the sub-basin-wise prioritization results show that SB-II would be the most

deficit zone of groundwater, while the SB-III, SB-VI and SB-I are the next

consequent deficit zones of groundwater. SB-V, SB-IV and SB-VII are found toshow increase in groundwater potentiality (Table 8, Figure 8).

Table 8. The sub-basin-wise prioritization based on geomorphology and morphometricparameters.

Geomorphic units SB-I SB-II SB-III SB-IV SB-V SB-VI SB-VII

SH 3 2 1 4 4 4 4

PD 2 3 4 1 1 1 1RH 2 1 3 4 4 4 4I 2 4 6 3 1 5 7LP 4 4 4 2 3 1 4PPM 2 3 4 5 1 6 7PPS 4 2 3 5 1 7 6PP 3 1 2 4 1 1 1FP 4 1 2 5 3 6 7Compound value (Cg) 2.9 2.3 3.2 3.7 2.1 3.9 4.6

Morphometric parametersFf 2 3 5 4 6 1 7Re 2 3 5 4 6 1 7

Rc 3 7 2 4 5 1 6Bs 6 5 3 4 2 7 1Rb 5 2 3 6 4 1 7Dd 3 2 1 7 6 4 5T 4 2 1 7 6 3 5Fs 5 2 1 7 6 3 4Compound value (Cm) 3.8 3.3 2.6 5.4 5.1 2.6 5.3Total compound value (CgCm) 6.64 5.58 5.85 9.04 7.24 6.51 9.81Final priority 4 1 2 6 5 3 7

Note: The first priority (i.e. 1) shows the most deficit zone of groundwater prospect while the last priority(i.e. 7) shows the potential of groundwater.



22/25

5. Conclusions

This study reveals that the geomorphology and morphometric parameters are good

proxies to evaluate the deficit and surplus zones of groundwater for river basins/

watersheds. Quantification of geomorphic units showed that the maximum area (85%)

of SB-II falls under poor to moderate groundwater prospects, whereas the maximum

area (91.7%) of SB-VII is consisting of good to excellent groundwater prospects. The

observed mean Rb value of SB-VI is the influence of structural control on the

development of drainage network, whereas the Rb of SB-I to SB-V and SB-VII

indicates that geological structures do not seem to exercise a dominant control over the

drainage pattern of the basin. Analyses of areal parameters such as Ff, Re, Rc andBssuggest that the Gurpur basin is in an elongated form associated with high relief, steep

ground slopes and differences in the geomorphological features. High Fs values (42/

km2) in the SB-II, SB-III and SB-VI indicate the occurrence of steep ground slopes,

with less permeable rocks, which facilitate greater run-off, less infiltration, sparse

vegetation and high relief conditions. The Dd value suggests that the nature of the

surface strata of the river basin is permeable, which is a characteristic feature of a

coarse-drainage density. The high relief ratio (Rr) and gradient ratio values indicatehilly regions from which the run-off volume could be evaluated.

Figure 8. The sub-basin-wise prioritization based on geomorphology and morphometricparameters of the Gurpur basin.



23/25

Sub-basin-wise prioritization results show that SB-II gets maximum priority for

the most deficit zone of groundwater. SB-III, SB-VI, SB-I, SB-V and SB-IV show a

decrease in deficiency of groundwater, while SB-VII is found to be a surplus zone

of groundwater potential. The priority results prove that geomorphology and

morphometric analyses clearly indicate hydrogeological relationships among the

various parameters of the basin, which help to understand the river processes and

groundwater prospects.

Acknowledgements

The first author thanks the Council for Scientific & Industrial Research (CSIR), India, forSenior Research Fellowship grant, and the Director, NCAOR, for his encouragement andsupport. The authors thank Mr. A.C. Dinesh, Senior Scientist, Geological Survey of India,Mangalore, for extending his suggestions and Mr. Pattabhi Rama Somayaji, AssistantProfessor, University College, Mangalore, for improving the language of the manuscript.Authors acknowledge anonymous reviewers and Dr. Kamlesh P. Lulla, editor, for theirinsightful comments and suggestions on the previous draft, which improved the quality of thearticle to a greater extent.

References

Abbas, M.H., Vishwanadham, K.D., and Krishna Rao, S.V.G., 1991.Resource map of Udupi andDakshina Kannada Districts, Karnataka. Hyderabad, India: Geological Survey of India.

Avinash Kumar, Jayappa, K.S., and Deepika, B., 2010a. Application of remote sensing andGIS in change detection of the Netravati and Gurpur river channels, Karnataka, India.Geocarto International, 25, 397425.

Avinash Kumar, Narayana, A.C., and Jayappa, K.S., 2010b. Shoreline change andmorphology of spits along southern Karnataka, west coast of India: a remote sensingand statistics-based approach. Geomorphology, 120, 133152.

Biswas, S., Sudharakar, S., and Desai, V.R., 1999. Prioritization of sub-watersheds based onmorphometric analysis of drainage basin: a remote sensing and GIS approach. Journal ofthe Indian Society of Remote Sensing, 27, 155166.

Broscoe, A.J., 1959. Quantitative analysis of longitudinal stream profiles of small watersheds .New York: Department of Geology, ONR, Geography Branch, Columbia University,Project NR 389-042, Technical Report 18.

Devadas, J.D.,et al., 2006. Drainage characteristics of the Sarada river basin, Andhra Pradeshfor watershed management. Journal of Indian Academy of Geosciences, 49, 16.

Dornkamp, J.C. and King, C.A.M., 1971. Numerical analyses in geomorphology: anintroduction. New York: St Martins, 372.

EsperAngillieri, M.Y., 2008. Morphometric analysis of Colanguil river basin and flash floodhazard, San Juan, Argentina. Environmental Geology, 55, 107111.

Gravelius, H., 1914. Grundrifi der gesamten Gewcisserkunde. Band I: Flufikunde (Compendiumof Hydrology, vol. I. Rivers, in German). Germany: Goschen, Berlin.

Hadley, R.F. and Schumm, S.A., 1961. Sediment sources and drainage basin characteristics inupper Cheyenne river basin. Washington, DC: US Geological Survey, Water-Supply Paper.1531-B, 198.

Hidore, J.J., 1964. Landform characteristics affecting watershed yields on the MississippiMissouri interfluve.In: G.A. Moore, ed. Proceedings of the Oklahoma academy of science.Edmond, Oklahoma: University of Central Oklahoma, 201203.

Horton, R.E., 1932. Drainage basin characteristics. Transactions of the American GeophysicalUnion, 13, 350361.

Horton, R.E., 1945. Erosional development of streams and their drainage basins:hydrophysical approach to quantitative morphology. Geological Society of AmericanBulletin, 56, 275370.

Javed, A., Khanday, Y.M., and Ahmed, R., 2009. Prioritization of sub-watersheds based onmorphometric and land use analysis using remote sensing and GIS techniques. Journal ofIndian Society of Remote Sensing, 37, 261274.



24/25

Kale, V.S. and Gupta, A., 2001. Introduction to geomorphology. Hyderabad, India: OrientLongman Ltd.

Khan, M.A., Gupta, V.P., and Moharana, P.C., 2001. Watershed prioritization using remotesensing and geographical information system: a case study from Guhiya, India. Journal ofArid Environments, 49, 465475.

King, L.C., 1950. The study of the worlds plainlands. A new approach in geomorphology.Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society, 106, 101103.

Krishnamurthy, J., et al., 1996. An approach to demarcate ground water potential zonesthrough remote sensing and a geographical information system. International Journal ofRemote Sensing, 17, 18671884.

Leopold, L.B. and Miller, J.P., 1956. Ephemeral streams-hydraulic factors and their relation tothe drainage net. Washington, DC: US Geological Survey, Professional Paper 282-A, 38.

Manu, M.S. and Anirudhan, S., 2008. Drainage characteristics of Achankovil river basin,Kerala.Journal of Geological Society of India, 71, 841850.

Melton, M.A., 1958. Geometric properties of mature drainage system and their representationin an E4 phase space. Journal of Geology, 66, 3554.

Mesa, L.M., 2006. Morphometric analysis of a subtropical Andean Basin (Tucuman,Argentina). Environmental Geology, 50, 12351242.

Miller, V.C., 1953. A quantitative geomorphic study of drainage basin characteristics in theClinch mountain area. New York: Department of Geology, ONR, Columbia University,Virginia and Tennessee, Proj. NR 389-402, Technical Report 3.

Morisawa, M.E., 1959. Relation of quantitative geomorphology to stream flow in representativewatersheds of the Appalachian plateau province. New York: Department of Geology,ONR, Geography Branch, Columbia University, Project NR 389-042, Technical Report20.

Nookaratnam, K., et al., 2005. Check dam positioning by prioritization of microwatershedsusing SYI model and morphometric analysis remote sensing and GIS perspective.Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing, 33, 2538.

Obi Reddy, G.P, et al., 2004. Drainage morphometry and its influence on landformcharacteristics in a basaltic terrain, central India: a remote sensing and GIS approach.

International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 6, 116.Radhakrishna, B.P. and Vaidyanadhan, R., 1994. Geology of Karnataka. Bangalore:Geological Society of India, 917.

Raju, N.J., et al., 1995. Morphometric analysis of the upper Gunjanaeru river basin,Cuddapah District, Andhra Pradesh. National Geographical Journal of India, 41, 145153.

Rao, J.U. and Babu, V.R.R.M., 1995. A quantitative morphometric analysis of Gundala-kamma river basin, Andhra Pradesh. Indian Journal of Earth Sciences, 22, 6374.

Schumm, S.A., 1956. Evolution of drainage system and slope in badlands at Perth Amboy,New Jersey. Geological Society of American Bulletin, 67, 597646.

Smith, K.G., 1950. Standards for grading texture of erosional topography. American Journalof Science, 248, 655668.

Smith, K.G., 1958. Erosional processes and landforms in badlands national monument,South Dakota. Geological Society of American Bulletin, 69, 9751008.

Sparks, B.W., 1960.Landform in arid and semi-arid climates. Geomorphology. 2nd ed. London:Longman Group Ltd.

Sreedevi, P.D., Subrahmanyam, K., and Ahmed, S., 2005. The significance of morphometricanalysis for obtaining groundwater potential zones in a structurally controlled terrain.Environmental Geology, 47, 412420.

Srinivasa Vittala, S., Govindaiah, S., and Honne Gowda, H., 2008. Prioritization of sub-watersheds for sustainable development and management of natural resources: anintegrated approach using remote sensing, GIS and socio-economic data. Current Science,95, 345354.

Strahler, A.N., 1952. Hypsometric (areaaltitude) analysis of erosional topography.Geological Society of American Bulletin, 63, 11171142.

Strahler, A.N., 1957. Quantitative analysis of watershed geomorphology. Transactions of the

American Geophysical Union, 38, 913920.Strahler, A.N., 1964. Quantitative geomorphology of drainage basins and channel networks.

In: V.T. Chow, ed. Handbook of applied hydrology. New York: McGraw Hill, 3976.



25/25

Subba Rao, 2009. A numerical scheme for groundwater development in a watershed basin ofbasement terrain: a case study from India. Hydrogeology Journal, 17, 379396.

Subrahmanya, K.R., 1994. Post-Gondwana tectonics of the Indian Peninsula. CurrentScience, 67, 527530.

Summer, W. and Desmond, W.E., 2002. Modelling erosion, sediment transport and sedimentyield. Paris: UNESCO, Technical documents in hydrology, 60, 205228.

Suresh, M., et al., 2004. Prioritization of watersheds using morphometric parameters andassessment of surface water potential using remote sensing. Journal of the Indian Society ofRemote Sensing, 32, 249259.

Thakkar, A.K. and Dhiman, S.D., 2007. Morphometric analysis and prioritization ofminiwatersheds in Mohr watershed, Gujarat, using remote sensing and GIS techniques.Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing, 37, 313321.

Vijay Pakhmode, Himanshu Kulkarni, and Deolankar, S.B., 2003. Hydrological-drainageanalysis in watershed-programme planning: a case from the Deccan basalt, India.Hydrogeology Journal, 11, 595604.


avinash et al. 2011 geocarto international

Documents