Discover Water

Research

Comparative geomorphometric approach to understand

the hydrological behaviour and identification of the Erosion prone
areas of a coastal watershed using RS and GIS tools
Kuldeep Singh Rautela1 · Mohit Kumar1 · Varun Khajuria1 · M. A. Alam1

Received: 13 October 2021 / Accepted: 20 December 2021

© The Author(s) 2021  OPEN

Abstract
Assessment of the geomorphometric parameters using Remote Sensing (RS) and Geographic Information System (GIS)
tools forms an important part in routing the runoff and other hydrological processes. The current study uses a geospatial
model based on geomorphometric parameters for the categorization of surface runoff and identification of the erosion-
prone areas in the watershed of the Kuttiyadi River. The 4th order Kuttiyadi river is dominated by a dendritic to semi-
dendritic drainage pattern in the subwatersheds. The linear aspect of the subwatersheds indicates towards the presence
of permeable surface and subsurface materials with uniform lithology. The aerial and relief aspects of the subwatersheds
shows fine drainage texture, gentle slopes, delayed peak flow, flatter hydrograph, and large concentration time which
shows that subwatersheds are quite capable of managing flash floods during storm events. The estimated values of
surface runoff (Q) and sediment production rate (SPR) are range from 2.13 to 32.88 ­km2-cm/km2 and 0.0004–0.017 Ha-
m/100km2/year respectively and suggest that Subwatershed 1 ­(SW1) will generate more surface runoff and is prone to
soil erosion followed by subwatershed 2 ­(SW2) in comparison to other subwatersheds. This paper aims to fill the knowl-
edge gap regarding categorization of flow and erosion dynamics in a coastal river watershed. We believe that our work
may work help in providing the crucial information for decision-makers and policymakers responsible for establishing
suitable policies and sustainable land use practices for the watershed.

Keywords Decision-makers · Erosion rate · Surface runoff · Remote sensing · Western ghats

Abbreviations
RS Remote sensing
GIS Geographic information system
MSL Mean Sea Level
NE North-East
SW South-West
SRTM Shuttle Radar Topography Mission
DEM Digital Elevation Model
WGS World Geodetic System
UTM Universal Transverse Mercator
SPR Sediment Production Rate

* Kuldeep Singh Rautela, kuldeeprautela007@gmail.com; Mohit Kumar, msood352@gmail.com; Varun Khajuria, varunkhajuria10@gmail.
com; M. A. Alam, alam_pec@yahoo.co.in | 1Department of Water Resources (CED), Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh 160012, India.

Discover Water (2022) 2:1 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s43832-021-00009-z

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Research Discover Water (2022) 2:1 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s43832-021-00009-z

SW1 Subwatershed 1
SW2 Subwatershed 2
SW3 Subwatershed 3
SW4 Subwatershed 4
SW5 Subwatershed 5
SW6 Subwatershed 6
SWAT-CUP Soil and Water Assessment Tool–Calibration and Uncertanity Programme

1 Introduction

Rivers played a significant role in human civilization throughout the centuries [1]. As a result of their ecological and
economic importance, hydrological processes have a great deal of interest among the public [2, 3]. Anthropogenic as
well as natural factors influence hydrological processes such as shifting and intensity of rainfall occurring, sedimenta-
tion, consecutive droughts, and floods, etc. [4]. Changes in the climatic process in the watershed of spring/rain-fed rivers
may lead to the drying up of sorings and can alter the land use, These changes impact the hydrological properties of
soil, surface and sub-surface flow dynamics, and the frequency of floods [3, 5]. Urbanization exacerbates the problem by
allowing less infiltration and intensifying surface runoff by decreasing the time lag between rainfall and surface runoff
[6]. Streamflow and soil erosion are directly influenced by the intensity and amount of rainfall in a watershed which is
further used to determine the sediment yield [7]. The sediment fluxes significantly affect the function of a river, as they
affect the structure of channels, the development of deltas, the quality of water, geochemical cycles, and habitats in a
river ecosystem [8, 9]. It is vital to understand how sediments are transported by rivers in relation to morphodynamics,
hydrology, erosion rates, and sediment transfer dynamics within the specific watershed [10]. In several parts of the world,
erosion rates have been accelerated because of anthropogenic changes at a global level. This has had a negative impact
both on soil dynamics and sediment flow [11].
Morphometry is the science of observing, measuring, and analyzing landform’s dimensions based on the shape, size,
and other features of the earth’s surface [12, 13]. A geomorphometric analysis has been widely applied to understand the
characteristic features of a watershed, such as drainage characteristics and quantitative morphological characteristics
[14]. In terms of drainage watersheds and their connected drainage networks, morphometric parameters determine
the form and its structure [15, 16]. The linear, aerial, and relief contributions can be determined via a measurement of
the watershed and slope component [17]. Linear aspects of the Morphometric parameters, such as stream numbers,
stream lengths, and stream patterns, are key components in comprehending a watershed’s hydrological response [18].
A watershed is considered a fundamental conveyer of surface runoff and erosional landscape elements. Further, in the
watershed continuous association of land units and water units takes place [19]. Hydrologists have utilized the watershed
as a primary unit to study the hydrological response. In this regard, compared with individual channels or conflicting
sections, geomorphometric investigations at the scale of the little watershed are more profitable [14]. The aerial aspect
of the geomorphometric parameters has considerable influence on the surface runoff parameters such as travel time,
concentration–time, time-lag, and intensity of land erosion cycles, which can be further anticipated with greater precision
[20]. An investigation of geomorphometric features in river watersheds without gauges can provide insights into those
variables that influence hydrological characteristics [21]. There are several factors influencing sediment transport in a
watershed, such as relief, stream density, streamflow, terrain roughness, watershed shape, subsurface flow, rainfall, soil
permeability, and water-holding capacity [22, 23]. Additionally, anthropogenic factors such as deforestation, afforesta-
tion, rapid urbanization, and inappropriate land use and management can also influence the hydrological response and
erosion rate of a watershed [24]. Sedimentation and ecological degradation normally increase as a result of unsuitable
land use and management practices [25]. It is therefore possible to quantify erosion rates in the watershed using sedi-
ment fluxes and other temporal features to understand erosion dynamics and assist in the development of river basins
sustainably by monitoring these sediment fluxes over time.
Although in India, management of land and water resources on a watershed has been given top-most priority but still,
most of the states of northern to southern regions of India are poorly managed to conserve water, soil, and the nutri-
ent state as per watershed management plan [26, 27]. It is important to develop appropriate strategies and determine
priorities for monitoring the watershed responses towards controlling soil erosion and flooding with some preliminary
information about the spatio-temporal variations in the hydrological response dynamics of different subwatersheds
[28]. The value of such conservation practices can be enhanced through the quantification of morphometric parameters

13
Vol:.(1234567890)

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Discover Water (2022) 2:1 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s43832-021-00009-z Research

pertaining to a watershed. Remote Sensing (RS) tools along with Geographical Information System (GIS) provide a more
accurate and more effective application to find out the hydrological response of a watershed [29, 30]. There have been
numerous studies on erosion data at various scales in different parts of India, but no one has explored the hydrological
behavior of a coastal watershed as well as identifying areas of high erosion by examining the sediment production rate
and surface runoff. This study attempts to fill the research gap and will investigate hydrological behavior and identifica-
tion of the zone of high erosion in the watershed by applying a mathematical model concerning the geo-morphometric
analysis at three different aspects of a Kuttiyadi river watershed. In addition, the data will provide key information regard-
ing sustainable resource management for public benefit.

2 Study area

Kuttiyadi River (Figs. 1 and 2) starts from the Narikota Ranges on the Western inclines near the hilly terrain of Waynad;
which is a piece of Western Ghats, at a height of 1220 m over the mean sea level (MSL). The river moves along through
Badagara, Qulandy, and Kozhikode Taluks in Kerala before it merges with the Arabian Sea at Kottakal. Kuttiyadi River and
its tributaries drain an area of 436 k­ m2. The average annual precipitation received by the watershed is 5170 mm of which
30% of the average annual precipitation is received from the north-east (NE) monsoon and 60% of the average annual
precipitation is received from the south-west (SW) monsoon [31]. The average ambient temperature in the Watershed
ranges from 30 to 33.5 °C.

3 Methodology

Remote Sensing (RS) along with GIS tools have been widely used to determine the morphometric parameters of the
Kuttiyadi River watershed. The watershed parameters are analyzed by digital imagery using ArcGIS 10.6.1. The data sets
were used for the analysis as follows:

i. Digital Elevation Model of SRTM 30 m spatial resolution.

ii. Topographical maps of Kerala at 1: 2,50,000 scale.
iii. Google base map.

The drainage generation categorization of the Kuttiyadi watershed was made up by using SRTM 30 m DEM (Fig. 3).
The extraction of the watershed drainage map was prepared by the ArcHydro tool using ArcGIS 10.6.1 [67]. The drainage
pattern was also digitized by using topographical maps and the satellite imaginary overlapped with each other. Sinks
in the Digital Elevation Model (DEM) were recognized and filled up by using the tool of fill sinks to identify and proper

Fig. 1  Location map of the study area

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Research Discover Water (2022) 2:1 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s43832-021-00009-z

Fig. 2  a Flow direction map and b classification of the slope of the Kuttiyadi river watershed

13
Vol:.(1234567890)

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Discover Water (2022) 2:1 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s43832-021-00009-z Research

Fig. 3  Methodology adopted

for Prioritization of subwater-
sheds based on surface runoff
and SPR

determination of the accumulation and direction of the flow. The watershed boundary was generated by defining the
outlet point at the outlet. Similarly, the same process was repeated was for the sub-watershed of the Kuttiyadi watershed
along the path of the main course. The raster datasets of the watershed and sub-watershed were converted into vector
data sets in the form of polylines to polygon and projected into the WGS 1984 UTM Zone- 43 N for calculation of the
watershed area, perimeter, and stream lengths. The other geo-morphometric parameters such as linear, relief, and aerial
parameters are analyzed using the simple mathematical formulae (Table 1) [14, 32–36].

3.1 Geo‑morphometric parameters

The analyzed geo-morphometric parameters of the Kuttiyadi watershed were categorized into three broad categories
as follows:

i. Liner Aspects: It includes all the linear Morphometric parameters of a basin such as stream nos. ­(Nu), length of
streams ­(Lu), mean stream lengths ­(Lsm), stream length ratios ­(Rl), Bifurcation, and Mean Bifurcation ratio ­(Rb and
­Rbm).
ii. Relief Aspects: It includes the parameters which are change with the elevation of a basin such as relative relief (R),
relief ratio ­(Rh), and Ruggedness No. ­(Rn).
iii. Aerial Aspects: It includes the parameters which are changes with the aerial distance of a basin such as a Drainage
density ­(Dd), Texture ratio (T), Stream Frequency ­(Fs), Elongation ratio ­(Re), Circularity ratio (­ Rc), Form factor (­ Rf ),
Rotundity Factor ­(Rf ), Texture Ratio (T), Shape index ­(Si), Length of overland flow ­(Lof ), Constant Channel mainte-
nance (C).

3.2 Watershed surface runoff sediment production rate

The Surface runoff and sediment production rate has been estimated for the categorization of the zones which
convey high surface runoff to the watershed outlet. A similar approach was also used for the identification of the
erosion-prone areas within the watershed. A mathematical model was used based on the Morphometric parameters

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Research Discover Water (2022) 2:1 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s43832-021-00009-z

Table 1  Mathematical formulae for the geomorphometric parameters based on linear, relief and aerial aspects
S. No. Morphometric parameters Formule References

1 Liner Parameters Stream order (U) Hierarchical rank [38]

2 Stream length ­(Lu) Length of stream [39]
3 Mean stream length (­ Lsm) Lsm = Lu/Nu [38]
4 Stream length ratio (­ RL) RL = Lu/Lu−1 [39]
5 Bifurcation ratio (­ Rb) Rb = Nu/Nu+1 [41]
6 Mean bifurcation ratio ­(Rbm) Average of bifurcation ratios of all orders [37]
7 Relief Parameters Watershed relief (­ Wh) The vertical distance between the lowest and [41]
highest points of the watershed
8 Relief ratio (­ Rh) Rh = ­Wh/Lb [41]
9 Ruggedness number (­ Rn) Rn = ­Wh × ­Dd [41]
10 Aerial Parameters Drainage density (­ Dd) D = Lu/A [39]
11 Drainage Texture ­(Rt) Rt = Nu/P [42]
12 Stream frequency (­ Fs) Fs = Nu/A [39]
13 Length of overland flow (­ Lg) Lg = 1/Dd × 2 [39]
14 Constant channel maintenance (C) C = 1/Dd [41]
15 Elongation ratio (­ Re) Re = (2/Lb) × sqrt (A/π); [41]
16 Circulatory ratio (­ Rc) Rc = 4 × π × A/Lp2 [38]
17 Form factor ­(Ff ) Rf = A/Lb2 [39]
18 Compactness Coefficient ­(Cc) Cc = 0.282 × ­Lp/sqrt(A) [43]
19 Rotundity factor ­(Rf ) Rf = ­Lb2/4A [44]
20 Shape index (­ Si) Sw = Lbs2/A [40]

where; Lu = Total stream length of order “u”, Nu = Total no. of stream segments of order “u”, RL = Stream length ratio, Lu − 1 = The total stream
length of its next lower order, Rb = Bifucation ratio, Nu + 1 = Number of segments of the next higher order, Wh = Watershed relief (km),
Lb = Watershed length (km), Lbs = Watershed length along the main stream (km), Dd = Drainage density (­km−1), A = Area of the Watershed
­(km2), P = Perimeter (km), π = 3.14

that have been applied to the subwatersheds for the quantification of runoff and sediment production rate [3, 45,
46].
{ ( )} { ( )} { ( )}
LogQ = 2238.43 + 22.12 Log 100 + Rf − 608.28 Log 100 + Rc − 530.02 Log 100 + Cc

{ ( )} { ( )} ( )
LogSPR = 4919.80 + 48.64 Log 100 + Rf − 1337.77 Log 100 + Rc − 1166.64{Log 100 + Cc }

where; Q is watershed runoff ­(km2-cm/km2), SPR is the sediment production rate (Ha-m/100-km2/year) for the unit area, ­Rf,
­Rc and ­Cc are the Rotundity factor, Circulatory ratio, and Compactness coefficient of the watershed respectively. The esti-
mated runoff and the sediment production rate of the watersheds provided by the model are in the log scale. By taking
the antilog of the estimated values, the actual runoff and sediment production rates of the watershed can be computed.

4 Results

4.1 Basic watershed parameters

The total 436 ­k m2 area of the upper Kuttiyadi river watershed is subdivided into 6 small subwatersheds along the
main river (Table 2). The area and perimeter of subwatersheds range from 49.60 ­k m2 to 128.35 ­k m2 and 37.50 km
to 115.4 km respectively (Table 2). The elevation of the basin ranges from 15 to 1542 m from amsl. A major area of
this watershed is covered with flat topography and high plantations (Fig. 4c and d).

13
Vol:.(1234567890)

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Discover Water (2022) 2:1 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s43832-021-00009-z Research

Table 2  Important watershed S. No. Emin (km) Emax (km) Rr Lb (km) A ­(km2) Lp (km)
characteristics
SW1 0.017 0.563 0.546 16.96 128.35 60.78
SW2 0.017 1.038 1.021 14.87 97.07 56.82
SW3 0.038 1.291 1.253 13.04 49.6 45.4
SW4 0.033 1.542 1.509 17.92 68.12 115.4
SW5 0.015 0.692 0.677 19.03 61.97 88.64
SW6 0.015 0.027 0.012 9.25 31.03 37.5

4.2 Linear aspects

The 4th order Kuttiyadi river is made up of 96 different lower-order streams. The highest stream order among the 6 sub-
watersheds is 4th shown by the 4 watersheds named ­SW1, ­SW2, ­SW5, and ­SW6 respectively, and while the remaining two
watersheds have the highest stream of order 3rd named ­SW3 and ­SW4 (Table 3). The stream length ­(Lu) of the stream
segments is maximum in the case of first-order streams and stream length decreases as the order of streams increases
[48]. The mean stream length ­(Lsm) of any given order is greater than that of the lower order streams [39]. The higher
stream length and mean stream length is shown by the S­ W1 and S­ W4 (Table 3). As a result, these two watersheds S­ W4 are
capable of conveying less surface runoff volume to the mainstream but due to high vegetal cover, uniform slope, and
loamy soil, a large amount of surface runoff will infiltrate through cracks under the dry conditions of the soil. However,
The lag time of the ­SW6 has very little as compared to others because it has less watershed area and perimeter, and also
the catchment has very few stream lengths (Table 3). Stream length ratio ­(RL) is the ratio of the mean stream length of the
individual stream segment to the next lower order stream segment [39]. A larger stream length ratio indicates a greater
potential to carry a large volume of runoff [14]. This study showed that watershed uplift is negligible, with uniform lithol-
ogy throughout the watershed. The Mean bifurcation ratio ­(Rbm) of the 6 subwatersheds of the Kuttiyadi river is 2.33 2.13,
2.00, 3.28, 2.63, and 1.75 for SW1, SW2, SW3, SW4, SW5, and SW6 respectively (Table 3).

4.3 Relief aspects

In a watershed, relief indicates the difference between its maximum and minimum elevation. It is important for a water-
shed to examine its relief to investigate the behavior of surface runoff [51]. The results show the watershed relief of the
­SW4 is quite high as compared to the others (Table 4). However, out of the total watershed area, 127.35 ­km2 area falls
under less than 15°, 73.20 ­km2 area falls under 15–30° slope, 29.29 ­km2 area falls under 30–45° slope and only 3.79 ­km2
area falls under the greater than 45° slope (Fig. 2). The ruggedness number ­(Rn) indicates the structural complexity of the
watershed terrain with the relief ­( Wh) and drainage density ­(Dd). It also describes the areas which are prone to soil ero-
sion [65]. The computed values of ­Rn for the subwatersheds ­SW1, ­SW2, ­SW3, ­SW4, ­SW5, and ­SW6 are 0.08, 0.16, 0.23, 0.46,
0.14 and 0.04 respectively (Table 4).

4.4 Aerial aspects

The drainage density ­(Dd) of the subwatersheds of the Kuttiyadi river is 0.145, 0.154, 0.182, 0.307, 0.282, and 0.194
for ­SW1, ­SW2, ­SW3, ­SW4, ­SW5, and S­ W6 respectively (Table 5). The drainage texture ­(R t) of the subwatersheds of the
Kuttiyadi river is 0.119, 0.079, 0.066, 0.069, 0.051, and 0.077 for the subwatersheds ­SW1, ­SW2, ­SW3, ­SW4, ­SW5, and ­SW6
respectively (Table 5) and indicates a very fine drainage texture. Stream frequency is defined as the total number of
streams of all orders per unit watershed area. The stream frequency ­(Fs) is related to the watershed infiltration rate
and capacity, permeability, and relief [14, 18]. The result shows that the ­SW2 watershed has the minimum stream
frequency among all the subwatersheds. This might be due to the fact that the watershed has a high relative relief
and it contains some rocky terrain as well (Tables 1 and 5). The ­SW4 shows high stream frequency as compared to
other watersheds. This may be due to the watershed having comparatively low relief and having more vegetation as
compared to the others (Tables 1 and 5). Length of overland flow ­(Lg) is one of the most independent parameters which
affect both hydrological and hydrographical development of the watersheds [40, 59]. The computed values of L­ g for

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Research Discover Water (2022) 2:1 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s43832-021-00009-z

Fig. 4  a Drainage map, b Soil map, c Elevation profile, and d land use pattern of the Kuttiyadi river watershed

13
Vol:.(1234567890)

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Discover Water (2022) 2:1 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s43832-021-00009-z Research

Fig. 4  (continued)

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Research Discover Water (2022) 2:1 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s43832-021-00009-z

Table 3  Computed values of S. No. U Nu Lu (km) Lsm (km) RL Rb Rbm

the Linear aspect of the geo-
morphometric parameters SW1 1 20 40 2 1 3.33 2.33
for the sub-watershed of the
2 6 19.72 3.29 0.493 3
Kuttiyadi river
3 2 7.61 3.81 0.39 2
4 1 6.87 6.87 0.90 1
SW2 1 12 29.68 2.47 1 4 2.13
2 3 21.59 7.20 0.73 1.5
3 2 3.84 1.92 0.18 2
4 1 4.52 4.52 1.18 1
SW3 1 6 16.66 2.78 1 3 2.00
2 2 10.21 5.11 0.61 2
3 1 0.27 0.27 0.02 1
4 – – – – –
SW4 1 17 37.95 2.23 1 2.83 3.28
2 6 10.5 1.75 0.27 6
3 1 14.23 14.23 1.36 1
4 – – – – –
SW5 1 13 26.7 2.05 1 6.5 2.63
2 2 2.97 1.49 0.11 1
3 2 16.15 8.08 5.43 2
4 1 5.86 5.86 0.36 1
SW6 1 6 11.83 1.97 1 3 1.75
2 2 6.7 3.35 0.57
3 2 3.21 1.60 0.48
4 1 2.39 2.39 0.75

Table 4  Computed values of S. No. Wh Rh Rn

the Relief aspect of the geo-
morphometric parameters SW1 546 0.03 0.08
for the sub-watershed of the
SW2 1021 0.07 0.16
Kuttiyadi river
SW3 1253 0.10 0.23
SW4 1509 0.08 0.46
SW5 677 0.04 0.14
SW6 192 0.02 0.04

Table 5  Computed values of S. No. Dd Fs T Lg C Si Ff Cc Re Rc Rf

the aerial aspect of the geo-
morphometric parameters SW1 0.145 0.056 0.119 3.46 6.92 1.762 0.446 1.513 0.754 0.436 0.560
for the sub-watershed of
SW2 0.154 0.046 0.079 3.26 6.51 2.272 0.439 1.626 0.747 0.378 0.569
Kuttiyadi river
SW3 0.182 0.06 0.066 2.74 5.48 2.480 0.292 1.818 0.609 0.302 0.857
SW4 0.307 0.117 0.069 1.63 3.26 3.457 0.212 3.942 0.520 0.064 1.178
SW5 0.208 0.073 0.051 2.40 4.80 3.563 0.171 3.175 0.467 0.099 0.984
SW6 0.194 0.089 0.077 2.57 5.14 2.698 0.363 1.798 0.679 0.309 0.689

the subwatersheds ­SW1, ­SW2, ­SW3, ­SW4, ­SW5, and ­SW6 are 3.46, 3.26, 2.47, 1.63, 2.40, and 5.57 respectively (Table 5).
Constant channel maintenance (C) which is reciprocal of the Drainage density ­(Dd) indicates how much watershed
drainage area is required to maintain a unit length of a channel [60]. The computed values of C for the subwatersheds
­SW1, ­SW2, ­SW3, ­SW4, ­SW5, and ­SW6 are 6.92, 6.51, 5.48, 3.26, 4.80, and 5.14 respectively (Table 5).

13
Vol:.(1234567890)

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Discover Water (2022) 2:1 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s43832-021-00009-z Research

The elongation ratio ­(Re) depends on a wide variety of climate, geology, and relief of a watershed. If ­Re is greater than
0.9 then the watershed lies in the category of the circular watershed, if ­Re lies in between 0.9 and 0.7 then it is categorized
under an oval watershed and if R ­ e lies less than 0.7 then the watershed is called elongated in shape [14]. The form factor
­(Ff ) of a watershed indicates the duration of runoff to reach the outlet. The high values of form factors indicate high peak
flows with shorter duration whereas the low form factor indicates the lower peak flow with longer duration [61]. The
form factor of the subwatersheds of the Kuttiyadi river is 0.446, 0.439, 0.292, 0.212, 0.171, and 0.363 for the watersheds
­SW1, ­SW2, ­SW3, ­SW4, ­SW5, and ­SW6 respectively (Table 5). The compactness coefficient ­(Cc) expresses the relationship of a
watershed with that of a circular watershed having the same area. A drainage channel in the circular watershed drains
the water in the shortest period as compared to the other shapes to the outlet i.e., the peak of a hydrograph will occur in
the shortest period after a storm event [62, 63]. If ­Cc approaches unity, the watershed behaves like a completely circular
watershed and if Cc is greater than 1 watershed shows more deviation from its circular shape [64]. The computed values
of ­Cc are greater than one suggesting that all the watersheds deviate from the circular shape and show some elongation.
The circulatory Ratio ­(Rc) of the watershed influences the frequency and length of the streams, geological structures,
LULC, relief, climate, and slope [53]. The computed values of R ­ c for the subwatersheds S­ W1, ­SW2, ­SW3, ­SW4, ­SW5, and S­ W6
ranges from 0.064 to 0.436 (Table 5). Generally for any watershed, if the value of the Rotundity factor ­(Rf ) approaches
unity it indicates the perfectly circular watershed [46]. The computed value of the ­Rf ranges from 0.56 to 1.17 which
indicates all the subwatersheds are elongated in shape (Table 5). The rate of flow and the erosion rate of a watershed
along with the main river is largely affected by the shape index ­(Si) [40, 54]. It depends on the relief and length of the
watershed. If a computed value of the shape index approaches to unity, the watersheds show maximum erosion rate.
The computed values of ­Si are 1.72, 2.272, 2.480, 3.457, 3.563, and 2.698 for the subwatersheds ­SW1, ­SW2, ­SW3, ­SW4, ­SW5,
and ­SW6 respectively (Table 5).

4.5 Surface runoff and sediment production rate

From the analysis of the aerial aspect of geo-morphometric parameters, the volume of surface runoff per unit area of the
subwatersheds are found as 32.88, 26.02, 16.15, 2.13, 7.42, and 16.57 ­km2-cm/km2 for ­SW1, ­SW2, ­SW3, ­SW4, ­SW5, and ­SW6
respectively (Fig. 5). The subwatersheds were categorized as a zone of low runoff to high runoff based on the estimated
surface runoff values (Fig. 6a). The Sediment production rate of the subwatersheds of the Kuttiyadi river are estimated as
0.017, 0.010, 0.0036, 0.0004, 0.0006 and, 0.0038 (Ha-m/100.km2/year) for ­SW1, ­SW2, ­SW3, ­SW4, ­SW5, and S­ W6 respectively
(Fig. 5). The categorization of the SPR shows ­SW1 is more prone to soil erosion followed by ­SW2 whereas, ­SW3, ­SW4, ­SW5,
and ­SW6 are less prone to soil erosion (Fig. 6b).

5 Discussion

To assess flow and erosion dynamics of the subwatersheds in the Kuttiyadi river, the current study was conducted with
the objective of calculating various morphometric parameters of the river and calculating runoff and SPR.

Fig. 5  Estimated values of

surface runoff and sediment
production rate of the dif-
ferent sub-watershed of the
Kuttiyadi river

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Research Discover Water (2022) 2:1 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s43832-021-00009-z

Fig. 6  Classification and prioritization of the zones (a) surface runoff and (b) Erosion prone area of the different sub-watershed of the Kut-
tiyadi river

5.1 Linear aspects

The discharge carrying capacity of a stream and the flowing velocity increase with the stream order. In addition to con-
tributing to greater sediment loads to the river, higher velocity and discharge exacerbate the erosion of the river bed
and banks [47]. Additionally, it is observed that the number of stream segments decreases as the stream order increases
and vice versa [39]. There is a possibility in the watershed that the mean Bifurcation ratio may not remain constant from
one order to the next because of variations in geometry and lithology [49]. The low Rbm indicates the delay in the peak
of hydrograph i.e., the time of concentration is more and the high Rbm indicates the early rise in the hydrograph i.e.,
the time of concentration is less so that the Rbm is used to identifying the watersheds which are responsible for flash
flooding [14, 50]. Overall the Rbm of the subwatersheds is less showing the delayed peak in the hydrographs. The linear
aspect of geo-morphometric parameters demonstrates that the watershed area depends on the drainage characteristics
for the runoff movement.

5.2 Relief aspects

In the Kuttiyadi river watershed, there is a lot of variation between maximum and minimum elevation. This may happen
if the watershed is elongated enough or the watershed is having very steep slopes. An elongated watershed shows a
delayed hydrograph peak with a larger time of concentration [14]. The maximum area of the watershed lies under the
low relief and less slope. The basins relief aspects indicate that the study area has been no probable uplift due to the
uniform geology and lithology [1]. Quantitatively, the relief ratio of a watershed measures the overall steepness [51].
Also, it is a primary indicator of erosion intensity which operates on the mountainous slopes [52]. Relief ratio increases
with decreasing the area and size of a watershed [53]. The computed value of the subwatersheds shows very low values
of relief ratio, thus are less prone to erosion. The subwatersheds have relatively very low erosion based on the minor
change in ­Rh. The lesser values of the Rn indicate the subwatersheds are less prone to the soil erosion due to low drain-
age density, low relief, and gentle slopes (Figs. 2a and 4b).

5.3 Aerial aspects

In a drainage watershed the factors affecting the drainage density are the length of the streams, climate, weathering, and
permeability, etc.; [54]. The drainage density also affects the travel time of runoff in the watershed [55]. The results show
that low drainage density which might be due to the impermeable surface or subsurface materials with high vegeta-
tion cover and low catchment relief (Fig. 4c). The drainage texture indicates the subwatersheds have a very fine drainage
texture so that all the subwatersheds show a longer duration to the peak runoff. The results also show that watershed
has very low relief with a low drainage density [42]. The stream frequency of the watershed is low because the watershed

13
Vol:.(1234567890)

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Discover Water (2022) 2:1 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s43832-021-00009-z Research

of the Kuttiyadi river is covered by adequate vegetation and loamy soil leading to higher infiltration rate and infiltration
capacity. So, the early rise in the hydrograph peak is not possible due to the low stream frequency of the watershed
i.e., the runoff will take more time to reach the watershed outlet [56–58]. Among all the subwatersheds, ­SW2 has higher
vegetation and presence of loamy soil. During the study we found that all the subwaterhseds shows higher values of
overland flow which indicates that watershed has gentle slopes with longer flow paths for the runoff. In addition the
larger values of the constant channel maintainance indicate that thewatershed has high resistive soils, with rich vegeta-
tion and a flat areaindictive of subwatersheds being less prone to erosion (Fig. 4b and d). As a result the concentration
time of the surface runoff is higher.
The ­SW4 has a larger elongation ratio and compactness coefficient among all the subwatersheds as compared to other
watersheds (Table 5 The sub-watershed having a week stratum and permeable surface and sub-surface material allows
infiltration of the water and approaches to a flatter hydrograph with a high time of concentration. Similary the lower
values of the form factors and Circulatory ratio shows that the the surface runoff will take a large time to reach the outlet
of the watershed. As a result, the subwatersheds are well elongated in shape and they are quite capable to manage
flood flows as compared to circular watersheds [1]. Also, the permeability of the S­ W1, ­SW2, ­SW3, and S­ W6 is relatively
high as compare to the ­SW4 and ­SW5 which allows infiltration and contributes to the base flow. The shape index of ­SW1
and ­SW2 shows a higher erosion rate with very little time of concentration and ­SW4 and ­SW5 shows less erosion rate and
larger concentration–time as compared to other subwatersheds [46].From th data,it is clearly seen that lowshape index
isresponsible for the higher erosion of the watershed.

5.4 Runoff and sediment production rate

Runoff from the surface of a watershed is dependent on several hydrological parameters, including precipitation, evapo-
ration, infiltration, and transpiration, which are themselves related to climatic conditions, lithology, structure, relief, and
slopes [3]. The ­SW4, ­SW5, and ­SW6, ­SW3 will be categorized under the zone of low and medium surface runoff respectively
which may be due to the elongation of watersheds, low drainage density, and reasonable geological control over the
surface runoff pattern. ­SW1 and ­SW2 were categorized under the zone of high surface runoff which maybe due to the
less elongation, high drainage density, and absence of geological control over the subwatersheds surface runoff. The
accumulated estimated surface runoff at the watershed outlet is 1019.7 mm which is nearly equal to the measured surface
runoff as 944.03 mm for the Kuttiyadi watershed computed by the SCS-CN method and futher routed and calibrated with
the help of Soil and Water Aassessment Tool–Calibration and Uncertanity Programme (SWAT-CUP) [66]. The high erosion
rate of the sub-watershed was due to the combination of steep slopes, the presence of sandy loam and clay loam soils,
and low forest cover. The subwatersheds which are less prone to soil erosion haveadequate high forest cover and gentle
slope over the watersheds. The findings demonstrate a strong relationship between the geo-morphometric parameters
and terrain slope in the watershed which is sensitive for the generation of surface runoff and sediment production. As a
result, it is vital to emphasize on these parameters to develop regional systems intended to manage, protect, and develop
land resources. According to the numerical model used in this study, the drainage characteristics of basins have a direct
influence on erosion rates and sediment yield. Despite the fact that the effect of land use on the overall sediment yields of
rivers around the world is less clear, as there have been some instances reporting both increase and decrease in sediment
yields. Understanding the role of sediment production rate within a drainage basin inevitably means understanding the
linkages between land use, erosion, and sediment yield within a river basin.

6 Conclusion

The Remote Sensing (RS) along with Geographic Information System (GIS) tools are the most reliable and convenient tools
for computing the geo-morphometric parameters. Geomorphological parameters are considered to be the preliminary
indicator of geology, relief, slope, climate, and hydrodynamics of a river system. In watershed management, the deter-
mination of the behavior of stream networks and their interactions are crucial factors. In this study geo-morphometric
analysis of the linear, aerial, and relief aspects of subwatersheds has been performed. According to the study, it is con-
cluded that the hydrologic response of the sub-watershed of the Kuttiyadi river can be categorized as semi-dendritic to
dendritic with the highest order of 4th. The analysis of the linear aspects of the subwatersheds shows that the hydrologi-
cal response of the subwatersheds is a primary function of the topographic and geomorphologic parameters and the
vegetation cover The mathematical model demonstrates that ­SW1 can be categorized under the zone of high surface

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Research Discover Water (2022) 2:1 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s43832-021-00009-z

runoff and is more prone to soil erosion followed by ­SW2 while ­SW4 and ­SW5 are categorized under the zone of less surface
runoff and low soil erosion. Therefore, preventing further erosion of the land in these watersheds is necessary for the
preservation of the ecological environment and development of the area. This primary investigation can potentially play
an important role in flood vulnerability and risk assessments in the downstream regions of the Kuttiyadi river. It will also
supply provide the information and basic knowledge to the decision and policymakers to develop the pre-assessment
for peak flooding and sustainable land-use policies.

Acknowledgements The research work was conducted as part of M.Tech. Dissertation work entitled, “Hydrological modeling of a catchment”
under the supervision of Prof. Mohit Kumar. The authors thank Director Punjab Engineering College (Deemed to be University) and PG coor-
dinator (Water Resources Engineering Dept.), Punjab Engineering College (Deemed to be University), Sector-12, Chandigarh, 160012, India
for providing facilities to make the present study possible.

Authors’ contributions Kuldeep Singh Rautela led the development and design of the manuscript, Varun Khjuria analyzed the parameters and
writing under the supervision of Prof. Mohit Kumar and Dr. M.A. Alam. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Data availability All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this article (and its supplementary information files).

Declarations

Competing interests The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest in this study.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta-
tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source,
provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article
are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in
the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will
need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://c​ reati​ vecom
​ mons.o
​ rg/l​ icens​ es/b
​ y/4.0
​ /.

References
1. Sofi MS, Bhat SU, Rashid I, Kuniyal JC. The natural flow regime: a master variable for maintaining river ecosystem health. Ecohydrology.
2020;13(8): e2247. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​eco.​2247.
2. Piao S, Ciais P, Huang Y, Shen Z, Peng S, Li J, Zhou L, Liu H, Ma Y, Ding Y, Friedlingstein P. The impacts of climate change on water resources
and agriculture in China. Nature. 2010;467(7311):43–51. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1038/​natur​e09364.
3. Sofi MS, Rautela KS, Bhat SU, Rashid I, Kuniyal JC. Application of geomorphometric approach for the estimation of hydro-sedimentological
flows and cation weathering rate: towards understanding the sustainable land use policy for the Sindh Basin, Kashmir Himalaya. Water
Air Soil Poll. 2021;232(7):1–1. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11270-​021-​05217-w.
4. Oki T, Kanae S. Global hydrological cycles and world water resources. Science. 2006;313(5790):1068–72. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1126/​scien​ce.​
11288​45.
5. Wang GQ, Zhang JY, Pagano TC, Lin JL, Liu CS. Identifying contributions of climate change and human activity to changes in runoff using
epoch detection and hydrologic simulation. J Hydrol Eng. 2013;18(11):1385–92. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1061/​(ASCE)​HE.​1943-​5584.​00005​59.
6. Chen J, Theller L, Gitau MW, Engel BA, Harbor JM. Urbanization impacts on surface runoff of the contiguous United States. J Environ
Manage. 2017;187:470–81. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jenvm​an.​2016.​11.​017.
7. Dutta S. Soil erosion, sediment yield and sedimentation of reservoir: a review. Model Earth Syst Environ. 2016;2(3):1–8. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1007/​s40808-​016-​0182-y.
8. Kondolf GM, Gao Y, Annandale GW, Morris GL, Jiang E, Zhang J, Cao Y, Carling P, Fu K, Guo Q, Hotchkiss R. Sustainable sediment manage-
ment in reservoirs and regulated rivers: experiences from five continents. Earth’s Future. 2014;2(5):256–80. https://d ​ oi.o
​ rg/1
​ 0.1
​ 002/2
​ 013E​
F0001​84.
9. Talbot CJ, Bennett EM, Cassell K, Hanes DM, Minor EC, Paerl H, Raymond PA, Vargas R, Vidon PG, Wollheim W, Xenopoulos MA. The impact
of flooding on aquatic ecosystem services. Biogeochemistry. 2018;141(3):439–61. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10533-​018-​0449-7.
10. Ouillon S. Why and how do we study sediment transport? Focus on coastal zones and ongoing methods. Water. 2018;10:390. https://​doi. ​
org/​10.​3390/​w1004​0390.
11. Turner BL. The earth as transformed by human action. Prof Geogr. 1988;40(3):340–1.
12. Agarwal CS. Study of drainage pattern through aerial data in Naugarh area of Varanasi district, UP. J Indian Soc Remote Sens.
1998;26(4):169–75. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​BF029​90795.
13. Hajam RA, Hamid A, Ahmad DN, Bhat SU. Morphometric analysis of Vishav drainage basin using geo-spatial technology (GST). Int Res J
Geol Min. 2013;3(3):136–46.
14. Altaf F, Meraj G, Romshoo SA. Morphometric analysis to infer hydrological behaviour of Lidder watershed, Western Himalaya, India. Geogr
J. 2013. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1155/​2013/​178021.
15. Prabhakaran A, Raj NJ. Drainage morphometric analysis for assessing form and processes of the watersheds of Pachamalai hills and its
adjoinings, Central Tamil Nadu, India. Appl Water Sci. 2018;8(1):1–9. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s13201-​018-​0646-5.

13
Vol:.(1234567890)

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Discover Water (2022) 2:1 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s43832-021-00009-z Research

16. Ozdemir H, Bird D. Evaluation of morphometric parameters of drainage networks derived from topographic maps and DEM in point of
floods. Environ Geol. 2009;56(7):1405–15. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00254-​008-​1235-y.
17. Nag SK. Morphometric analysis using remote sensing techniques in the Chaka sub-basin, Purulia district, West Bengal. J Indian Soc Remote
Sens. 1998;26(1):69–76. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​BF030​07341.
18. Mahala A. The significance of morphometric analysis to understand the hydrological and morphological characteristics in two different
morpho-climatic settings. Appl Water Sci. 2020;10(1):1–6. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s13201-​019-​1118-2.
19. Iqbal M, Sajjad H, Bhat FA. Morphometric analysis of Shaliganga sub catchment, Kashmir Valley, India using geographical information
system. Int J Eng Trends Technol. 2013;4(1):10–21.
20. Michailidi EM, Antoniadi S, Koukouvinos A, Bacchi B, Efstratiadis A. Timing the time of concentration: shedding light on a paradox.
Hydrol Sci J. 2018;63(5):721–40. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​02626​667.​2018.​14509​85.
21. Chandniha SK, Kansal ML. Prioritization of sub-watersheds based on morphometric analysis using geospatial technique in Piperiya
watershed. India Appl Water Sci. 2017;7(1):329–38. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s13201-​014-​0248-9.
22. Roth G, La Barbera P, Greco M. On the description of the basin effective drainage structure. J Hydrol. 1996;187(1–2):119–35. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/​S0022-​1694(96)​03090-9.
23. Lamarre H, Roy AG. A field experiment on the development of sedimentary structures in a gravel-bed river. Earth Surf Process Land-
forms. 2008;33(7):1064–81. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​esp.​1602.
24. Khatri N, Tyagi S. Influences of natural and anthropogenic factors on surface and groundwater quality in rural and urban areas. Front
Life Sci. 2015;8(1):23–39. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​21553​769.​2014.​933716.
25. Quan B, Römkens MJ, Li R, Wang F, Chen J. Effect of land use and land cover change on soil erosion and the spatio-temporal varia-
tion in Liupan Mountain Region, southern Ningxia, China. Front Environ Sci Eng China. 2011;5(4):564–72. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s11783-​011-​0348-9.
26. Mythili G, Goedecke J. Economics of land degradation in India. In: Economics of land degradation and improvement–a global assess-
ment for sustainable development. Springer: Cham; 2016. p. 431–69.
27. Dhawan V. Water and agriculture in India: background paper for the South Asia expert panel during the Global Forum for Food and
Agriculture (GFFA) 2017; 28: 1–28. https://​w ww.​oav.​de/​filea​dmin/​user_​upload/​5_​Publi​k atio​nen/5_​Studi​en/​170118_​Study_​Water_​
Agric​ulture_​India.​pdf.
28. Ahmed F, Srinivasa RK. Geomorphometric analysis for estimation of sediment production rate and run-off in Tuirini watershed,
Mizoram, India. Int J Remote Sens Appl. 2015;5:67–77. https://​doi.​org/​10.​14355/​ijrsa.​2015.​05.​008.
29. Pawar AD, Sarup J, Mittal SK. Application of GIS and RS for morphometric analysis of Upper Bhima Basin: a case study. J Inst Eng.
2014;95(4):249–57. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s40030-​014-​0097-4.
30. Dang AT, Kumar L. Application of remote sensing and GIS-based hydrological modelling for flood risk analysis: a case study of District
8, Ho Chi Minh city, Vietnam. Geomatics Nat Hazards Risk. 2017;8(2):1792–811. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​19475​705.​2017.​13888​53.
31. Swetha TV, Gopinath G. Landslides susceptibility assessment by analytical network process: a case study for Kuttiyadi river basin
(Western Ghats, southern India). SN Appl Sci. 2020;2(11):1–2. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s42452-​020-​03574-5.
32. Faniran A. The index of drainage intensity: a provisional new drainage factor. Aust J Sci. 1968;31(9):326–30.
33. Miller VC. A quantitative geomorphic study of drainage basin characteristics in the Clinch Mountain area, Virginia and Tennessee,
Tech. Rep. 3 NR 389–402, Columbia University, Department of Geology, ONR, New York; 1953.
34. Pareta K, Pareta U. Quantitative morphometric analysis of a watershed of Yamuna basin, India using ASTER (DEM) data and GIS. Int J
Geomat Geosci. 2011;2(1):248–69.
35. Suresh M, Sudhakar S, Tiwari KN, Chowdary VM. Prioritization of watersheds using morphometric parameters and assessment of
surface water potential using remote sensing. J Indian Soc Remote Sens. 2004;32(3):249–59. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​BF030​30885.
36. Sameena M, Krishnamurthy J, Jayaraman V, Ranganna G. Evaluation of drainage networks developed in hard rock terrain. Geocarto
Int. 2009;24(5):397–420. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​10106​04080​26010​29.
37. Strahler AN. Quantitative analysis of watershed geomorphology. EOS Trans Am Geophys Union. 1957;38(6):913–20. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1029/​TR038​i006p​00913.
38. Strahler AN. Part II. Quantitative geomorphology of drainage basins and channel networks. Handbook of Applied Hydrology: McGraw-
Hill, New York; 1964:4–39.
39. Horton RE. Erosional development of streams and their drainage basins; hydrophysical approach to quantitative morphology. Geol
Soc Am Bull. 1945;56(3):275–370. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1130/​0016-​7606(1945)​56[275:​EDOSAT]​2.0.​CO;2.
40. Horton RE. Drainage-basin characteristics. EOS Trans Am Geophys Union. 1932;13(1):350–61.
41. Schumm SA. Evolution of drainage systems and slopes in badlands at Perth Amboy. New Jersey Geol Soc Am Bull. 1956;67(5):597–646.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1130/​0016-​7606(1956)​67[597:​EODSAS]​2.0.​CO;2.
42. Smith KG. Standards for grading texture of erosional topography. Am J Sci. 1950;248(9):655–68. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2475/​ajs.​248.9.​
655.
43. Gravelius H. Grundrifi der Gesamten Gewcisserkunde. Band I: Flufikunde. Compendium of Hydrology, vol. I. Rivers. German. Goschen,
Berlin. 1914.
44. Chorley RJ, Malm DEC, Pogorzelski HA. A new standard for measuring drainage basin shape. Am J Sci. 1957;255:138–41.
45. Jose CS, Das DC. Geomorphic prediction models for sediment production rate and intensive priorities of watersheds in Mayurakshi
catchment. InProc. of International Symp. On Hydrological Aspects of Mountainous Watersheds, School of Hydrology, UOR, Roorkee,
1982;1:15–33.
46. Rymbai PN, Jha LK. Estimation of sediment production rate of the Umbaniun Micro-watershed, Meghalaya, India. J Geogr Reg Plann.
2012;5(11):293–7. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5897/​JGRP12.​024.
47. Ahmed KB, Sanchez M. A study of the factors and processes involved in the sedimentation of Tarbela reservoir, Pakistan. Environ Earth
Sci. 2011;62(5):927–33. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s12665-​010-​0578-3.
48. Waikar ML, Nilawar AP. Morphometric analysis of a drainage basin using geographical information system: a case study. Int J Multidiscip
Curr Res. 2014;2014(2):179–84.

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Research Discover Water (2022) 2:1 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s43832-021-00009-z

49. Manjare BS, Padhye MA, Girhe SS. Morphometric analysis of a lower Wardha River sub basin of Maharashtra, India Using ASTER DEM Data
and GIS. In15th Esri India User Conference 2014. pp. 1–13.
50. Howard AD. Role of hypsometry and planform in basin hydrologic response. Hydrol Process. 1990;4(4):373–85. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​
hyp.​33600​40407.
51. Babu KJ, Sreekumar S, Aslam A. Implication of drainage basin parameters of a tropical river basin of South India. Appl Water Sci.
2016;6(1):67–75. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s13201-​014-​0212-8.
52. Asfaw D, Workineh G. Quantitative analysis of morphometry on Ribb and Gumara watersheds: implications for soil and water conserva-
tion. Int Soil Water Conserv Res. 2019;7(2):150–7. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​iswcr.​2019.​02.​003.
53. Rai PK, Mohan K, Mishra S, Ahmad A, Mishra VN. A GIS-based approach in drainage morphometric analysis of Kanhar River Basin, India.
Appl Water Sci. 2017;7(1):217–32. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s13201-​014-​0238-y.
54. Fenta AA, Yasuda H, Shimizu K, Haregeweyn N, Woldearegay K. Quantitative analysis and implications of drainage morphometry of the
Agula watershed in the semi-arid northern Ethiopia. Appl Water Sci. 2017;7(7):3825–40. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s13201-​017-​0534-4.
55. Ogden FL, Raj Pradhan N, Downer CW, Zahner JA. Relative importance of impervious area, drainage density, width function, and subsur-
face storm drainage on flood runoff from an urbanized catchment. Water Resour Res. 2011. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1029/​2011W​R0105​50.
56. Ghoneim EM, Arnell NW, Foody GM. Characterizing the flash flood hazards potential along the Red Sea coast of Egypt. IAHS-AISH publica-
tion. 2002:211–6.
57. Diakakis M. A method for flood hazard mapping based on basin morphometry: application in two catchments in Greece. Nat Hazards.
2011;56(3):803–14. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11069-​010-​9592-8.
58. Patton PC, Baker VR. Morphometry and floods in small drainage basins subject to diverse hydrogeomorphic controls. Water Resour Res.
1976;12(5):941–52. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1029/​WR012​i005p​00941.
59. Mokarram M, Sathyamoorthy D. Morphometric analysis of hydrological behavior of North Fars watershed. Iran Eur J Geogr.
2015;6(4):88–106.
60. Sakthivel R, Raj NJ, Sivasankar V, Akhila P, Omine K. Geo-spatial technique-based approach on drainage morphometric analysis at Kalrayan
Hills, Tamil Nadu, India. Appl Water Sci. 2019;9(1):24. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s13201-​019-​0899-7.
61. Palaka R, Sankar GJ. Study of watershed characteristics using Google Elevation Service. Geospatial World. 2016; 1–12. https://w
​ ww.g​ eosp ​
atial​world.​net/​artic​le/​study-​of-​water​shed-​chara​cteri​stics-​using-​google-​eleva​tion-​servi​ce/.
62. Ratnam KN, Srivastava YK, Rao VV, Amminedu E, Murthy KS. Check dam positioning by prioritization of micro-watersheds using SYI model
and morphometric analysis—remote sensing and GIS perspective. J Indian Soc Remote Sens. 2005;33(1):25–38. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
BF029​89988.
63. Javed A, Khanday MY, Ahmed R. Prioritization of sub-watersheds based on morphometric and land use analysis using remote sensing
and GIS techniques. J Indian Soc Remote Sens. 2009;37(2):261–74. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s12524-​009-​0016-8.
64. Adhikary PP, Dash CJ. Morphometric analysis of Katra watershed of Eastern Ghats: a GIS approach. Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci.
2018;7(03):1651–65. https://​doi.​org/​10.​20546/​ijcmas.​2018.​703.​198.
65. Soni S. Assessment of morphometric characteristics of Chakrar watershed in Madhya Pradesh India using geospatial technique. Appl
Water Sci. 2017;7(5):2089–102. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s13201-​016-​0395-2.
66. Rautela KS. Hydrological modeling of a catchment (Masters Dissertation), 2021.
67. ESRI. Arc Hydro Tools—Tutorial. New York, 2009; 136.

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

13
Vol:.(1234567890)

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”), for small-
scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By
accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use (“Terms”). For these
purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal
subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription
(to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the Creative Commons license used will
apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data internally within
ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not
otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies unless we have your permission as
detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that Users may
not:

1. use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to circumvent access
control;
2. use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is
otherwise unlawful;
3. falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in
writing;
4. use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
5. override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
6. share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer Nature journal
content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates revenue,
royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal
content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large scale into their, or any
other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any information or
content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature
may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express or implied
with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law,
including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be licensed
from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other manner not
expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at

onlineservice@springernature.com