Appl Water Sci (2017) 7:1505–1519

DOI 10.1007/s13201-015-0332-9

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Prioritization of watershed through morphometric parameters:

a PCA-based approach
Sarita Gajbhiye Meshram1,2 • S. K. Sharma1

Received: 14 February 2015 / Accepted: 25 August 2015 / Published online: 18 September 2015
Ó The Author(s) 2015. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com

Abstract Remote sensing (RS) and Geographic Infor- Introduction

mation Systems (GIS) techniques have become very
important these days as they aid planners and decision India supports 16 % of world population on 2.42 % of
makers to make effective and correct decisions and global land area. An estimated 175 million hectares (M ha)
designs. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) involves a of land constituting about 66 % of total geographical area
mathematical procedure that transforms a number of suffers from deleterious effect of soil erosion and land
(possibly) correlated variables into a (smaller) number of degradation. Active erosion caused by water and wind
uncorrelated variables. It reduces the dimensionality of the alone accounts for 150 M ha of land, which accounts for
data set and identifies a new meaningful underlying vari- soil loss of about 5300 million tons of top soil. In addition,
able. Morphometric analysis and prioritization of the sub- 25 M ha is degraded due to ravine and gullies, shifting
watersheds of Shakkar River Catchment, Narsinghpur cultivation, salinity/alkalinity, water logging, etc. (Gajb-
district in Madhya Pradesh State, India, is carried out using hiye 2015).
RS and GIS techniques as discussed in Gajbhiye et al. The watershed management planning highlights the
(Appl Water Sci 4(1):51–61, 2013b). In this study we apply management techniques to control erosion in the catch-
PCA technique in Shakkar River Catchment for redun- ment/watershed area (Gajbhiye et al. 2015a, b). Land and
dancy of morphometric parameters and find the more water resources are limited and their wide utilization is
effective parameters for prioritization of the watershed and imperative, especially for countries like India, where the
discuss the comparison between Gajbhiye et al. (Appl population pressure is continuously increasing (Sharma
Water Sci 4(1):51–61, 2013b) and the present prioritization et al. 2014a, b). The growing pressures on land for food,
scheme. fiber and fodder in addition to industrial expansion and-
consequent need for infrastructure facilities due to even
Keywords Watershed  GIS  Remote sensing  increasing population have given rise to competing and
Morphometric analysis  Prioritization  Principal conflicting demands on finite land and water resources
component analysis (Biswas et al. 1999). The watershed is an ideal unit for
planning and management of land and water resources
(Gajbhiye et al. 2013a, b). Therefore, realistic assessment
of the hydrological behavior of a watershed is important to
develop an effective management plan (Sharma et al.
2014a, b). The watershed management concept recognizes
& Sarita Gajbhiye Meshram the inter-relationships among the linkages between soil,
[email protected]
slope, uplands, low lands, land use and geomorphology.
1
Department of Water Resources Development and Soil and water conservation is the key issue in watershed
Management, IIT, Roorkee, Uttarakhand, India management while demarcating watersheds. However,
2
Department of Soil and Water Engineering, JNKVV, while taking into consideration watershed soil-conservation
Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, India work, it is not possible to take the whole area at once. Thus,

123
1506 Appl Water Sci (2017) 7:1505–1519

the whole basin area is divided into several smaller units, present in the original data. In recent years, many studies
as sub-watersheds or micro-watersheds, by considering its have been done using PCA in the interpretation of water
drainage system. Quantitative morphometric analysis of quality parameters (Gajbhiye et al 2010, 2015b), geomor-
watershed can provide information about the hydrological phometric parameters (Sharma et al. 2009), etc.
nature of the rocks exposed within the watershed (Singh The geomorphologic studies are helpful in regionalising
et al. 2014). Morphometric analysis is a significant tool for the hydrologic models. Since most of the basins are either
prioritization of sub-watersheds even without considering ungauged or sufficient data are not available for them, the
the soil map (Biswas et al. 1999). Morphometric analysis study on geomorphologic characteristics of such basins
requires measurement of the linear features, gradient of becomes much more important. The linking of geomor-
channel network and contributing ground slopes of the phologic parameters with the hydrological characteristics
drainage basin (Nautiyal 1994). of the basin provides a simple way to understand the
Many works have already been reported on morpho- hydrological behaviour of different basins. The need for
metric analysis using Geographical Information Systems accurate information on watershed runoff and sediment
(GIS) and soil erosion (Shrimali et al. 2001); Sharma et al. yield has grown rapidly during the past decades because of
2015). Srinivasa et al. (2004) and Gajbhiye (2015) have the acceleration of watershed management programs for
used GIS techniques in morphometric analysis of sub-wa- conservation, development, and beneficial use of all natural
tersheds of Pawagada area, Tumkur district, Karnataka. resources, including soil and water (Gajbhiye and Mishra
Chopra et al. (2005) carried out morphometric analysis of 2012; Mishra et al. 2013; Gajbhiye et al. 2014a). In this
Bhagra-Phungotri and Haramaja sub-watersheds of Gur- study, morphometric analysis and prioritization of sub-
daspur district, Panjab. Khan et al. 2001 used RS and GIS watersheds are carried out for Shakkar River Catchment in
techniques for watershed prioritization in the Guhiya basin, Narsinghpur district of Madhya Pradesh, India.
India. Nookaratnam et al. 2005 carried out a study on check
dam positioning by prioritization of micro-watersheds Our contribution
using the sediment yield index (SYI) model and morpho-
metric analysis using GIS. Gajbhiye et al. 2014b carried As outlined above, unfortunately, we found that not all the
out a study on prioritization of watershed through SYI existing techniques have provided the optimum effective
using RS and GIS approaches. Morphometric analysis and parameters for prioritization of a watershed. Therefore, our
prioritization of eight sub-watersheds of Uttala river main contribution in this paper is to find the more effective
watershed, which is a tributary of Son River, was carried parameters for prioritization of watershed and also show
out by Sharma et al. (2010). Gajbhiye et al. 2013a, b Pri- the comparison between previous prioritization by taking
oritizing erosion-prone area through morphometric analy- all the parameters in Gajbhiye et al. (2013b). Other
sis: an RS and GIS perspective. Many researchers researchers, as discussed above, also adopted the same
(Gajbhiye et al. 2014a, b, c; Sharma et al. 2013a, b; Singh approach by taking all the geomorphic parameters and then
et al. 2013) have already reported on hypsometric analysis prioritizing the watersheds.
using Geographical Information System (GIS). Geograph-
ical Information System has been used for the calculation Organization
and delineation of the morphometric characteristics of the
basin (Singh et al. 2013). The rest of this paper is organized as follows: Study area is
Factor analysis technique is very useful in the analysis introduced in ‘‘Study area’’. Materials and methods is
of data corresponding to large number of variables; anal- discussed in ‘‘Materials and methods’’. Result and discus-
ysis via this technique produces easily interpretable results, sion are explained in ‘‘Results and discussion’’. Finally,
and this method has been used successfully in hydro- ‘‘Conclusions and findings’’ concludes and discusses the
chemistry for many years; surface water, ground water paper.
quality assessment and environmental research employing
multi-component techniques are well described in the lit-
erature (Praus 2005). The application of different multi- Study area
variate statistical techniques, such as cluster analysis (CA),
principal component analysis (PCA) and factor analysis The Shakkar river rises in the Satpura range, east of the
(FA) help identify important components or factors Chhindi village, Chhindwara district, Madhya Pradesh, at
accounting for most of the variances in a system (Ouyang an elevation of about 600 m at latitude 22°230 N longitude
et al. 2006; Shrestha and Kazama 2007). They are designed 78°520 E (Fig. 1). The watershed covers 2220 km2 area.
to reduce the number of variables to a small number of The climate of the basin is generally dry except for the
indices while attempting to preserve the relationships southwest monsoon season. The southwest monsoon starts

123
Appl Water Sci (2017) 7:1505–1519 1507

Fig. 1 Location map of the study area

from the middle of June and lasts till the end of September. resisting pore water pressure. In Shakkar watershed rolling
October and middle of November constitute the post- land and broadening valley just before the confluence with
monsoon or retreating monsoon season. The normal annual Narmada can be seen in Fig 2.
rainfall is 1192.1 mm. The normal maximum temperature
during the month of May is 42.5 °C and minimum during
the month of January is 8.2 °C. Soils are mainly clayey to Materials and methods
loamy in texture with calcareous concretions invariably
present. They are sticky and in summer, due to shrinkage, For delineation of the Shakkar river watershed and prepara-
develop deep cracks. They generally predominate in tion of drainage map the information regarding the topogra-
montmorillonite and beidellite type of clays. In rest of phy is needed. In this study, a geo-coded digital elevation
alluvial areas, mixed clays, black to brown to reddish model (DEM) generated from Shuttle Radar Terrain Mapper
brown, derived from sandstones and traps are observed (SRTM) data has been used. The DEM was downloaded from
which is sandy clay in nature with calcareous concretions. Global Land Cover Facility (GLCF) website, which was in
Near the banks of the rivers and at the confluence, light Tagged Information File Format (TIFF) format with 30 m
yellow to yellowish brown soils are noticed which were ground resolution. Further, the developed DEM was pro-
deposited during the recent past . These soils are clayey to cessed to generate or delineate the watershed (Fig. 3) and
silt in nature (Gajbhiye et al. 2013b). drainage network (Fig. 4), using the hydrology tool of spatial
Shakkar river watershed has basaltic terrain upward and analyst module of ArcGIS. SRTM DEM based hydrological
a broad alluvial terrain in its middle and lower reaches. The evaluation at watershed scale is more applied and precise
alluvial plain through which Shakker river runs after cut- compared to other available techniques (Singh et al. 2014).
ting across the Satpura range emerges in openness at The designation of stream order is the first step in morpho-
Hathanapur villlage. From Hathanapur down to confluence, metric analysis of drainage basin, based on the hierarchical
it is generally, an alluvial plain. Alluvial soil face recession making of stream proposed by Strahler (1964) has been used
which is one of the prominent processes of badland for- in the present study. The fundamental parameters, namely,
mation and in this process; on gaining moisture the slope number of streams, stream length, area, perimeter and basin
collapses because of no stress perpendicular to the face length were derived from the drainage layer. The

123
1508 Appl Water Sci (2017) 7:1505–1519

Fig. 2 In Shakkar watershed

rolling land and broadening
valley just before the confluence
with Narmada

Fig. 3 Sub-watershed of the

catchment

morphometric parameters for the delineated watershed area Nookaratanam et. al. (2005) and Miller (953) and are given in
were calculated based on the formula suggested by Horton Table 1. The basic morphometric parameters are area,
(1945), Strahler (1964), Hardly (1961), Schumn (1956), perimeter and length shown in Table 2.

123
Appl Water Sci (2017) 7:1505–1519 1509

Fig. 4 Drainage map of the

study area

The morphometric parameters, i.e., mean bifurcation watersheds has been determined by assigning the highest
ratio (Rbm), drainage density (Dd), mean stream length priority/rank based on highest value in case of linear
(Lsm), compactness coefficient (Cc), stream frequency parameters and lowest value in case of shape parameters.
(Fs), texture ratio (T), length of overland flow (Lo), form After the ranking has been done based on every single
factor (Rf), circulatory ratio (Rc) and elongation ratio (Re) parameter, the ranking values for all the linear and shape
are also termed as erosion risk assessment parameters and parameters of each sub-watershed were added up for each
have been used for prioritizing sub-watersheds. The linear of the eight sub-watersheds to arrive at compound value
parameters such as drainage texture, drainage density (Cp). Based on average value of these parameters, the sub-
(Dd), stream frequency (Fs), bifurcation ratio (Rb), length watershed having the least rating value was assigned the
of overland flow (Lo) have a direct relationship with highest priority; the next higher value was assigned sec-
erodibility; higher the value, more is the erodibility (Singh ond priority and so on.
et al. 2013; Nookaratnam et al. 2005). Hence for priori-
tization of sub-watersheds, the highest value of linear Another approach using the Principal Component
parameters was rated as rank 1, second highest value was Analysis
rated as rank 2 and so on, and the least value was rated
last in rank. Shape parameters such as elongation ratio, The geomorphic parameters are usually many times cor-
compactness coefficient, circulatory ratio, basin shape and related. The correlation indicates that some of the infor-
form factor have an inverse relationship with erodibility mation contained in one variable is also contained in some
(Nookaratnam et al. 2005; Javeed et al. 2009); lower the of the other remaining variables. The method of compo-
value, more is the erodibility. Thus the lowest value of nents analysis involves the rotation of coordinate axes to a
shape parameters was rated as rank 1, next lower value new frame of reference in the total variable space—an
was rated as rank 2 and so on and the highest value was orthogonal or uncorrelated transformation wherein each
rated last in rank. Hence, the ranking of the sub- of the n original variables is describable in terms of the

123
1510 Appl Water Sci (2017) 7:1505–1519

Table 1 Formula for computation of morphometric parameters

Morphometric parameters Formula References

Stream order (u) Hierarchical rank Strahler (1964)

Stream length (Lu) Length of the stream Horton (1945)
Mean stream length (Lsm) Lsm = Lu/Nu Strahler (1964)
where, Lsm = mean stream length Lu = total stream length of order
u Nu = total number of stream segments of order u
Bifurcation ratio (Rb) Rb = Nu/Nu?1 Schumn (1956)
where, Rb = bifurcation ratio Nu = total number of stream segments of order
u Nu?1 = number of stream segment of next higher order
Mean bifurcation ratio (Rbm) Rbm = average of bifurcation ratios of all orders Strahler (1964)
Basin length (Lb) Lb = 1.312 9 A0.568 Nookaratnam et.al. (2005)
where, Lb = length of basin (km) A = area of basin (km2)
Drainage density (Dd) Dd = Lu/A Horton (1945)
where, Dd = drainage density Lu = total stream length of all orders
A = area of the basin
Stream frequency (Fs) Fs = Nu/A Horton (1945)
where, Nu = total number of streams of all orders
A = area of the basin (km2)
Texture ratio (T) T = Nu/P Horton (1945)
where, Nu = total number of streams of all orders
P = perimeter (km)
Form factor (Rf) Rf = A/L2b Horton (1945)
where, Rf = form factor A = area of the basin (km2)
L2b = square of the basin length
Circulatory ratio (Rc) Rc = 4pA/P2 Miller (1953)
where, Rc = circulatory ratio A = area of the basin (km2)
P = perimeter (km)
Elongation ratio (Re) Re = (2/Lb) 9 (A/p)0.5 Schumn (1956)
where, Re = elongation ratio Lb = length of basin (km)
A = area of the basin (km2)
Compactness constant (Cc) Cc = 0.2821P/A0.5 Horton (1945)
where, Cc = compactness ratio A = area of the basin (km2)
P = perimeter of the basin (km)

new principal components. An important characteristic of the bifurcation ratio (Rb) was calculated from the number of
the new components is that they account, in turn, for a streams. Other morphometric parameters were calculated
maximum amount of variance of the variables. Principal using the equations as described in Table 1.
component analysis is applied for all geomorphic param-
eters to calculate the correlation matrix and also to derive Stream order (u)
principal components and find out the most effective
parameter. The first factor-loading matrix and the rotated The first step in the geomorphological analysis of a drainage
factor-loading matrix are used in this analysis. The same basin is the designation of stream order; stream ordering as
process of the ranking of parameter is followed as dis- suggested by Strahler (1964) was used for this study.
cussed earlier (Javeed et al. 2009). Streams that originate at a source are defined as first-order
streams. When two streams of a first order join, an order two
stream is created and so on. The order of a basin is the order
Results and discussion of the highest stream. After analysis of the drainage map, it
was found that the Shakkar River catchment is of the 8th
The information about basic morphometric parameters such order type and the drainage pattern is dendritic to sub-
as area (A), perimeter (P), length (L), and number of streams dendritic. This pattern is developed where rocks offer uni-
(N) was obtained from sub-watershed delineated layer, and form resistance in a horizontal direction and devoid of
basin length (Lb) was calculated from stream length, while marked structural control suggesting uniform lithology

123
Appl Water Sci (2017) 7:1505–1519 1511

Table 2 Basic parameters of the Shakkar River catchment

SW No. SW name Basin area (km2) Perimeter (km) Basin length (km)

1 S1 9.23 17.03 3.41

2 S2 37.87 41.11 9.00
3 S3 114.00 71.70 18.01
4 S4 538.22 171.78 43.00
5 S5 158.35 75.06 23.61
6 S6 581.45 150.45 36.89
7 S7 383.43 164.68 46.90
8 S8 397.96 131.84 25.27

Table 3 Linear aspect of the Shakkar River catchment

Sub-watershed Stream order Mean bifurcation ratio (Rb)
I II III IV V VI VII VIII

Sub-watershed-1
No. of streams 58 13 2 0 0 0 2 1 3.49
Stream length (km) 20.98 6.26 2.34 0 0 0 0.098 4.23
Sub-watershed-2
No. of streams 209 49 14 2 0 2 1 0 3.55
Stream length (km) 66 30 16 6 0 0.097 10 0
Sub-watershed-3
No. of streams 590 125 29 7 2 1 0 0 3.73
Stream length (km) 163 83 38 12 24 4.37 0 0
Sub-watershed-4
No. of streams 2992 646 138 28 5 3 1 0 4.30
Stream length (km) 867 411 185 72 58.12 0.18 75.66 0
Sub-watershed-5
No. of streams 913 211 52 8 2 1 0 0 4.17
Stream length (km) 246 121 52 40 20 7.36 0 0
Sub-watershed-6
No. of streams 3237 715 164 45 11 1 0 0 5.52
Stream length (km) 961 433 237 108 50 48.83 0 0
Sub-watershed-7
No. of streams 2165 463 117 25 3 1 0 0 4.93
Stream length (km) 633 286 127 71 29 42.68 0 0
Sub-watershed-8
No. of streams 2340 544 125 29 5 1 0 0 4.75
Stream length (km) 662 279 154 87 30 40.37 0 0

(Cleland 1916). Sub-watershedwise stream analysis is pre- in stream frequency as the stream order increases. Sub-
sented in Table 3 Sub-watersheds 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 are of the watershed-6 has maximum number of streams of 1st order
6th order type; sub-watersheds 2 and 4 are of the 7th order (Nu = 3237), 2nd order (Nu = 715), 3rd order (Nu = 164),
type, and sub-watershed 1 is of the 8th order type. 4th order (Nu = 45), 5th order (Nu = 11), 6th order
(Nu = 1), among all other comparisons.
Stream number
Total stream length (Lu)
It is the number of stream segment of various orders and it
is inversely proportional to the stream order. It is observed The stream lengths of the various segments are measured
from Table 3 that the maximum frequency is in case of with the help of GIS software. All the sub-watersheds show
first-order streams. It is also noticed that there is a decrease that the total length of stream segments is maximum in

123
1512 Appl Water Sci (2017) 7:1505–1519

first-order streams and decreases as the stream order frequency relates to permeability, infiltration capability and
increases (Table 3). Sub-watershed-4 has the longest relief of watershed. A low value 6.61 is observed in sub-
stream length (Lu = 1268.96 km), while sub-watershed-1 watershed-3, while a high value 8.23 is observed in sub-
has the minimum value of Lu = 33.91 km. watershed-1. Stream frequency values indicate positive
correlation with the drainage density of all the sub-water-
Bifurcation ratio (Rb) sheds suggesting increase in stream population with respect
to increase in drainage density.
Horton (1945) considered bifurcation ratio as an index of
relief and dissection. Strahler (1957) demonstrated that Rb
Form factor (Rf)
shows only small variations for different regions in dif-
ferent environments except where powerful geological
It is the ratio of basin area A, to the square of maximum
control dominates. Lower Rb values are the characteristics
length of the basin Lb. It is a dimensionless property and
of structurally less disturbed watershed without any dis-
is used as a quantitative expression of the shape of basin
tortion in drainage pattern (Nag 1998). The sub-watershed-
form. The sub-watershed-1 has maximum value
6 has maximum (Rb = 5.52) while sub-watershed-1 has
(Rf = 0.79) while sub-watershed-7 has minimum value
minimum (Rb = 3.49). Rb characteristically ranges
of (Rf = 0.17). The smaller the value of form factor is,
between 3.0 and 5.0 for watershed where the influence of
the more elongated the basin will be. The basin with a
geological structure on the drainage network is negligible
high form factor has high peak flows of shorter duration,
(Verstappen 1983). The values of Rb for eight sub-water-
whereas the basin with a low form factor has lower peak
sheds are presented in Table 3.
flows of longer duration. Therefore, sub-watershed-7 will
have lower peak flows of longer duration. However, sub-
Drainage density (Dd)
watershed-1 will have high peak flows of shorter
duration.
It indicates the closeness of spacing between channels and is
a measure of the total length of the stream segment of all
orders per unit area. It is affected by factors such as resistance Circulatory ratio (Rc)
to weathering, permeability of rock formation, climatic,
vegetation, etc. In general, low value of Dd is the charac- Miller (1953) introduced the circulatory ratio to quantify
teristic of regions underlain by highly permeable materials the basin shape. It is the ratio of the watershed area and the
with vegetative cover and low relief. Whereas, high values of area of circle of watershed perimeter (P). Circulatory ratio
Dd indicate regions of weak and impermeable subsurface (Rc) is influenced by the length and frequency of streams,
material, sparse vegetation and mountainous relief (Nautiyal geological structures, land use/land cover, climate, relief
1994). Drainage density in the study area varies between 2.84 and slope of the basin. Values of circulatory ratio of all
and 3.67 indicating low drainage density (Table 4). sub-watersheds are presented in Table 4. The sub-water-
shed-7 has minimum value (Rc = 0.17), while sub-water-
Stream frequency/drainage frequency (Fs) shed-1 has maximum value (Rc = 0.40). According to the
Miller range, sub-watersheds are elongated in shape, with
Stream frequency is the total number of stream segments of low discharge of runoff and high permeability subsoil
all orders per unit area (Horton 1932). The stream condition.

Table 4 Aerial aspect of the Shakkar River catchment

Sub- Drainage Stream Circulatory Form Elongation Texture Length of Compactness Ruggedness
watershed density (Dd) frequency ratio (Rc) factor ratio (Re) ratio (T) overland flow constant (Cc) number
(Fs) (Rf) (Lo) (RN)

1 3.673 8.232 0.403 0.794 1.006 4.464 0.136 0.126 0.147

2 3.383 7.315 0.283 0.468 0.772 6.739 0.148 0.048 0.203
3 2.845 6.614 0.281 0.351 0.669 10.516 0.176 0.021 1.682
4 3.101 7.085 0.231 0.291 0.609 22.197 0.161 0.007 1.896
5 3.071 7.496 0.356 0.284 0.602 15.815 0.163 0.015 1.659
6 3.161 7.177 0.325 0.427 0.738 27.738 0.158 0.006 1.865
7 3.100 7.235 0.179 0.174 0.471 16.845 0.161 0.009 2.483
8 3.147 7.649 0.290 0.623 0.891 23.088 0.159 0.008 1.825

123
Appl Water Sci (2017) 7:1505–1519 1513

Elongation ratio (Re) Table 5 Relief aspect of the Shakkar River catchment
Sub- Relative relief Relief ratio Average slope HI
The elongation ratio is an indication of the shape of the watershed (Rh) (Rr) (Sa)
watershed. According to Schumn (1956), elongation ratio is
defined as the ratio of the diameter of a circle having the same 1 0.012 0.002 6.036 0.498
area as the basin and the maximum basin length. The values 2 0.007 0.001 4.099 0.471
of elongation ratio generally vary from 0.6 to 1.0 over a wide 3 0.030 0.008 10.085 0.501
variety of climatic and geologic types. Values close to 1.0 are 4 0.014 0.003 9.803 0.497
typical of regions of very low relief, whereas values in the 5 0.023 0.007 11.67 0.488
range 0.6–0.8 are generally associated with high relief and 6 0.016 0.004 9.329 0.491
steep ground slope (Strahler 1964). It is a very significant 7 0.017 0.005 14.818 0.483
index in the analysis of basin shape, which helps to give an 8 0.023 0.004 13.071 0.508
idea about the hydrological character of a drainage basin. A
circular basin is more efficient in the discharge of runoff than Relative relief (Rr)
an elongated basin. The value of elongation ratio of eight
sub-watersheds is presented in Table 4. The lowest values of Relative relief (Rr) is the ratio of the maximum watershed
0.47 (sub-watershed-7) and 0.97 (sub-watershed-1) indicate relief to the perimeter of the watershed. The value of the
high relief and steep slopes, while remaining sub-watershed relative relief for eight sub-watersheds is shown in Table 5.
indicates a plain land with low relief and low slope. Sub-watershed-2 has minimum Rr (0.007), while sub-wa-
tershed-3 had the maximum value (0.030).
Length of overland flow (Lo)
Ruggedness number (RN)
The overland flow and surface runoff are quite different;
the overland flow refers to that flow of precipitated water, The value of RN for eight sub-watersheds is shown in
which moves over the land surface leading to the stream Table 5. The sub-watershed-7 has maximum ruggedness
channels, while the channel flow reaching the outlet of number (RN = 2.48), while sub-watershed-1 has minimum
watershed is referred as surface runoff. The overland flow value (RN = 0.14). The sub-watershed has overall high
is dominant in smaller watershed instead of larger water- roughness, which indicates the structural complexity of the
sheds. The length and depth of overland flow are small and terrain in association with relief and drainage density. It
found in laminar condition (Horton 1945). Sub-watershed- also implies that the area is susceptible to more erosion.
3 has maximum (Lo = 0.17 km) and sub-watershed-1 has
minimum (Lo = 0.13 km) length of overland flow among 8 Texture ratio (T)
sub-watersheds (Table 4).
Texture ratio is an important factor in drainage morpho-
Relief ratio (Rh) metric analysis, which depends on the underlying lithol-
ogy, infiltration capacity and relief aspect of the terrain.
The relief ratio is defined as the ratio between the total The value of the texture ratio is shown in Table 5. The sub-
relief of a basin and the longest dimension of the basin watershed-6 has maximum (T = 27.73), while sub-water-
parallel to the main drainage line (Schumn 1956). In the shed-1 has minimum (T = 4.46).
study area, the values of relief ratio vary from 0.001 to
0.008 (Table 5). It has been observed that areas with high Compactness constant (Cc)
reliefs and steep slopes are characterized by high values of
relief ratios. Low values of relief ratios are mainly due to The value of the compactness constant is shown in Table 5.
the resistant basement rocks of the basin and the low The sub-watershed-1 has maximum (Cc = 0.12), while
degree of slope. sub-watershed-6 has minimum (Cc = 0.006).

Average slope (Sa) Hypsometric integral (HI)

Average slope of the watershed, Sa has direct influence on Hypsometric analysis was carried out or the relation of
the erodibility of the watershed. It has been proved by horizontal cross-sectional drainage basin area with eleva-
researchers that the more the percentage of slopes is, more tion was developed in its modern dimensionless form by
is the erosion, if other factors remain unchanged. The Langbein (1947). It is used to determine the geomorphic
values of Average slope vary from 9.27 to 88.50 (Table 5). stages of development of a watershed and expresses simply

123
1514 Appl Water Sci (2017) 7:1505–1519

how the mass is distributed within a watershed from base to vation-relief ratio method) is a less cumbersome and faster
top. Figure 5 illustrates the definition of two dimensionless method and it is used in the study for estimating hypso-
variables involved in hypsometric analysis. Taking water- metric integral. The relationship is expressed as:
shed to be bounded by vertical sides and a horizontal base Elevmean  Elevmin
plane passing through the mouth, the relative height, y, is E  Hsi ¼ ð1Þ
Elevmax  Elevmin
the ratio of height of a given contour, h, to total basin relief,
H. Relative area, x, is the ratio of horizontal cross-sectional where E is the elevation-relief ratio equivalent to the
area, a, to the entire watershed area, A. The percentage hypsometric integral Hsi; Elevmean is the weighted mean
hypsometric curve is a plot of the continuous function elevation of the watershed estimated from the identifiable
relating relative height, y, to relative area, x. As shown in contours of the delineated sub-watersheds; Elevmin and
the lower right part of the diagram, the shape of the hyp- Elevmax are the minimum and maximum elevations within
sometric curve varies in early geologic stages of develop- the sub-watersheds. After obtaining the hypsometric inte-
ment of the watershed, but once a steady state (mature grals of the selected watersheds and comparing with the
stage) is attained, tends to vary little thereafter, despite model hypsometric curves (Fig. 5, bottom right), the stages
lowering relief. Several dimensionless attributes of the of development of the watersheds under study are deter-
hypsometric curve are measurable and these can be used mined with the following criteria:
for comparison. One such is hypsometric integral, Hsi, or (a) The watersheds will be in inequilibrium (youthful)
the relative area lying below the curve, i.e. the ratio of area stage if Hsi C 0.60,
under the hypsometric curve to the area of the entire (b) The watersheds are considered to attain the equilib-
square. It is expressed in percentage and can be estimated rium stage if Hsi ranges between 0.35 and 0.60, and
from the hypsometric curves of the watersheds by mea- (c) The watersheds are in monadnock phase if
suring the area under the curve with the help of different Hsi B 0.35.
methods, but the Pike and Wilson (1971) method (or ele-

Fig. 5 Method of hypsometric

analysis

123
Appl Water Sci (2017) 7:1505–1519 1515

Table 6 Intercorrelation matrix of the geomorphological parameter of Shakkar watershed

Rh Rr RN Rb Dd Fs Rc Rf Re T Lo Cc Sa HI

Rh 1.00 0.92 0.55 0.13 -0.75 -0.41 -0.02 -0.24 -0.23 0.22 0.80 -0.43 0.62 0.05
Rr 0.92 1.00 0.60 0.15 -0.80 -0.51 -0.08 -0.51 -0.50 0.17 0.83 -0.48 0.62 -0.02
RN 0.55 0.60 1.00 0.74 -0.78 -0.52 -0.61 -0.69 -0.71 0.75 0.75 -0.84 0.91 0.13
Rb 0.13 0.15 0.74 1.00 -0.35 -0.18 -0.33 -0.33 -0.33 0.90 0.29 -0.66 0.62 -0.04
Dd -0.75 -0.80 -0.78 -0.35 1.00 0.84 0.52 0.73 0.69 -0.47 -1.00 0.85 -0.63 -0.48
Fs -0.41 -0.51 -0.52 -0.18 0.84 1.00 0.60 0.72 0.67 -0.28 -0.85 0.70 -0.22 -0.69
Rc -0.02 -0.08 -0.61 -0.33 0.52 0.60 1.00 0.69 0.71 -0.31 -0.48 0.63 -0.49 -0.62
Rf -0.24 -0.51 -0.69 -0.33 0.73 0.72 0.69 1.00 0.99 -0.33 -0.70 0.74 -0.51 -0.36
Re -0.22 -0.50 -0.70 -0.32 0.69 0.67 0.71 0.99 1.00 -0.30 -0.66 0.69 -0.55 -0.30
T 0.21 0.16 0.75 0.90 -0.47 -0.27 -0.30 -0.33 -0.30 1.00 0.41 -0.77 0.57 0.10
Lo 0.79 0.83 0.74 0.28 -0.99 -0.84 -0.48 -0.70 -0.66 0.41 1.00 -0.80 0.60 0.46
Cc -0.43 -0.45 -0.83 -0.65 0.85 0.69 0.62 0.74 0.69 -0.77 -0.80 1.00 -0.65 -0.54
Sa 0.61 0.62 0.90 0.61 -0.63 -0.22 -0.48 -0.51 -0.55 0.57 0.60 -0.65 1.00 -0.05
HI 0.04 -0.01 0.13 -0.03 -0.48 -0.68 -0.61 -0.36 -0.30 0.10 0.46 -0.54 -0.05 1.00

Intercorrelation among the geomorphic parameters Principal component analysis

For obtaining the inter-correlationship among the geo- The principal component analysis method was used to
morphic parameters, a correlation matrix is obtained using obtain the first factor-loading matrix, and thereafter, the
SPSS 14.0 Software. The correlation matrix of the 14 rotated loading matrix using orthogonal transformation.
geomorphic parameters of Shakkar watershed (Table 6) The results are shown in the following sections.
reveals that strong correlations (correlation coefficient
more than 0.9) exist between relief ratio (Rh) and relative First factor-loading matrix From the correlation matrix
relief (Rr); between ruggedness number (RN) and average of 14 geomorphic parameters, the first unrotated factor-
slope (Sa); between drainage density (Dd) and length of loading matrix is obtained. It can be seen from Table 7 that
overland flow (Lo); and between form factor (Rf) and the first three components whose eigen values are greater
elongation ratio (Re). Also, good correlations (correlation than 1, together account for about 87.35 % of the total
coefficient more than 0.75) exist between Rh and Dd, Lo; variance in the Shakkar watershed. It can be observed from
between Rr and Dd, Lo; between RN and bifurcation ratio Table 8 that the first component is strongly correlated
(Rb), Dd, texture ratio (T), Lo, and compactness coefficient (more than 0.90) with RN, Dd, Lo, and Cc and correlated
(Cc); between Dd and stream frequency (Fs), Cc; and satisfactorily (more than 0.75) with Rf, Re, Fs, and Sa, and
between Fs and Lo. Some more moderately correlated moderately (loading more than 0.60) with Rr, Rc and T. The
parameters (correlation coefficient more than 0.6) are RN second component is moderately correlated with HI and the
with circulatory ratio (Rc), Rf and Re; Dd with Rf, Re and Sa; third component moderately with Rh for Shakkar water-
Fs with Rf, Re, Cc, and hypsometric integral (HI); Rc with shed. It is observed from these results that Rb does not
Rf, Re, Cc, and HI; and Rf with Lo and Cc. It is very difficult show any correlation with any of the components. Some
at this stage to group the parameters into components and parameters are highly correlated with some components,
attach physical significance. Hence, in the next step, the some moderately, and some parameters do not correlate
principal component analysis has been applied to the cor- with any component. Thus, at this stage, it is difficult to
relation matrix. identify a physically significant component. It is necessary
Here, grouping of the parameters into components at to rotate the first factor-loading matrix to get a better
this stage is very difficult. Hence, in the next step, the correlation.
principal component analysis has been applied. The cor-
relation matrix is subjected to the principal component Rotation of first factor-loading matrix The rotated factor-
analysis. loading matrix is obtained by post-multiplying the

123
1516 Appl Water Sci (2017) 7:1505–1519

Table 7 Total variance explained of Shakkar watershed

Component Initial eigen values Extraction sums of squared loadings Rotation sums of squared loadings
Total % of variance Cumulative % Total % of variance Cumulative % Total % of variance Cumulative %

1 8.17 58.33 58.33 8.17 58.33 58.33 4.46 31.84 31.84

2 2.10 14.99 73.31 2.10 14.99 73.31 3.98 28.42 60.26
3 1.97 14.05 87.36 1.97 14.05 87.36 3.79 27.10 87.36
4 0.99 7.05 94.41
5 0.52 3.69 98.10
6 0.18 1.27 99.36
7 0.09 0.64 100.00
8 0.00 0.00 100.00
9 0.00 0.00 100.00
10 0.00 0.00 100.00
11 0.00 0.00 100.00
12 0.00 0.00 100.00
13 0.00 0.00 100.00
14 0.00 0.00 100.00

Table 8 Unrotated matrix

Table 9 Rotated matrix
Component
Component
1 2 3
1 2 3
Component matrix
Rotated component matrix
Rh 0.618 0.237 0.711
Rh -0.010 0.964 0.117
Rr 0.703 0.156 0.676
Rr -0.132 0.970 0.127
RN 0.917 0.336 -0.130
RN -0.366 0.476 0.781
Rb 0.557 0.584 -0.507
Rb -0.069 0.012 0.951
Dd -0.950 0.112 -0.248
Dd 0.604 -0.721 -0.304
Fs -0.782 0.505 -0.068
Fs 0.836 -0.412 -0.046
Rc -0.669 0.366 0.461
Rc 0.816 0.053 -0.355
Rf -0.830 0.271 0.136
Rf 0.754 -0.317 -0.334
Re -0.807 0.233 0.142
Re 0.714 -0.305 -0.350
T 0.613 0.507 -0.451
T -0.144 0.075 0.900
Lo 0.922 -0.132 0.329
Lo -0.578 0.767 0.233
Cc -0.923 -0.014 0.237
Cc 0.634 -0.338 -0.626
Sa -0.015 0.535 0.019
Sa -0.115 0.535 0.719
HI -0.108 -0.157 -0.043
HI -0.808 -0.057 -0.143

transformation matrix with the selected component of the

first factor-loading matrix. It can be observed from Table 9 and it can be termed as relief-density component. The third
that the first component is correlated well with Fs, Rc Rf, component is strongly correlated with Rb and T and good
and HI; and moderately with Cc and Re which may be with RN and moderately correlated with Sa and may be
termed as stage-form component. The second component is termed as organization-processes component for Shakkar
strongly correlated with Rh, Rr; and good with Dd and Lo watershed. As seen (Table 9), the most important

123
Appl Water Sci (2017) 7:1505–1519 1517

Table 10 Priorities of sub-watersheds and their ranks

Sub-watershed Rb Dd Fs Rc Rf Re T Lo Cc RN Rh Rr Sa HI Compound parameter (Cp) Final priority

1 8 1 1 1 8 8 8 8 8 8 7 7 7 3 5.93 7
2 7 2 4 5 6 6 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 6.43 8
3 6 8 8 6 4 4 6 1 6 5 1 1 4 2 4.43 6
4 1 5 7 7 3 3 3 3 2 2 6 6 5 4 4.07 5
5 5 7 3 2 2 2 5 2 5 6 3 2 3 6 3.79 3
6 1 3 6 3 5 5 1 6 1 3 5 5 6 5 3.93 4
7 2 6 5 8 1 1 4 4 4 1 4 3 1 7 3.64 2
8 3 4 2 4 7 7 2 5 3 4 2 4 2 1 3.57 1

Table 11 Priorities of sub-watersheds and their ranks becomes potential area for applying soil conservative
measures. The final prioritized map of the study area is
Sub- Rb Fs Rr Compound parameter (Cp) Final priority
shown in Fig. 6; thus soil-conservation measures can first
watershed
be applied to sub-watershed area 8 and then to the other sub-
1 8 1 7 5.33 7 watersheds depending upon their priority. It can be seen that
2 7 4 8 6.33 8 both the prioritization schemes gave the same result.
3 6 8 1 5.00 6 However, in the prioritization of sub-watersheds made by
4 1 7 6 4.67 5 Gajbhiye et al. (2013b), 14 geomorphic parameters were
5 5 3 2 3.33 3 taken, whereas in the PCA-based scheme, parameters were
6 1 6 5 4.00 4 reduced from 14 to 3, which saves time. The results pre-
7 2 5 3 3.33 2 sented in this paper will assist fluvial geomorphologists and
8 3 2 4 3.00 1 hydrologists to select parameters and also to save time.

parameter is Fs (stream frequency) followed by Rr (relative Conclusions and findings

relief), Rb (bifurcation ratio), so finally these parameters
have been taken for the prioritization. The quantitative morphometric analysis was carried out in
eight sub-watersheds of Shakkar River catchment using
Comparison of two approaches for prioritization GIS technique for determining the linear aspects such as
of sub-watersheds Stream order, Bifurcation ratio, Stream length and aerial
aspects such as drainage density (Dd), stream frequency
By taking all the geomorphic parameters, the compound (Fs), form factor (Rf), circulatory ratio (Rc), and elongation
parameter values of eight sub-watersheds of Shakkar River ratio (Re). The prioritization based on different morpho-
catchment were calculated and the prioritization rating is metric parameters is time consuming. However, PCA-
shown in Table 10. Sub-watershed 8 with a compound based approach allows for more effective parameters for
parameter value of 3.57 receives the highest priority (one) prioritizing watersheds. The morphometric analysis of
with next in the priority list is sub-watershed 7 having the different sub-watersheds shows their relative characteris-
compound parameter value of 3.64. After applying the tics with respect to hydrologic response of the watershed.
PCA, and on the basis of selected parameters, the prioriti- Results of morphometric analysis show that sub-watershed
zation rating is shown in Table 11. Here sub-watershed 8 7 and 5 are possibly having high erosion. Hence, suitable
with a compound parameter value of 3.00 (minimum) soil erosion control measures are required in these water-
receives the highest priority (one) and next sub watershed 7 sheds to preserve the land from further erosion. The present
having the compound parameter value of 3.33 receives the study demonstrates the utility of RS, GIS and PCA tech-
next priority (two). Highest priority indicates the greater niques in prioritizing sub-watersheds based on morpho-
degree of erosion in the particular sub-watershed and it metric analysis.

123
1518 Appl Water Sci (2017) 7:1505–1519

Fig. 6 Prioritized rank map of

the catchment

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Gajbhiye S, Mishra SK (2012) Application of NRCS-SCS curve
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http:// number model in runoff estimation using RS and GIS. In:
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted Advances in engineering, science and management (ICAESM),
use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give international conference, pp 346–352
appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a Gajbhiye S, Sharma SK, Jha M (2010) Application of principal
link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were component analysis in the assessment of water quality param-
made. eters. Scifronts J Mult Sci IV(4):67–72
Gajbhiye S, Mishra SK, Pandey A (2013a) Prioritization of shakkar
river catchment through morphometric analysis using remote
References sensing and gis techniques. J Emerg Technol Mech Sci Eng.
4(2):129–142
Biswas S, Sudhakar S, Desai VR (1999) Prioritisation of sub- Gajbhiye S, Mishra SK, Pandey A (2013b) Prioritizing erosion-prone
watersheds based on morphometric analysis of drainage basin-a area through morphometric analysis: an RS and GIS perspective.
remote sensing and GIS approach. J Indian Soc Remot Sens Appl Water Sci 4(1):51–61
27:155–166 Gajbhiye S, Sharma SK, Meshram C (2014a) Prioritization of
Chopra R, Dhiman R, Sharma PK (2005) Morphometric analysis of watershed through sediment yield index using RS and GIS
sub watersheds in Gurdaspur District, Punjab using Remote approach. Int J U E Serv Sci Technol 7(6):47–60
Sensing and GIS techniques. J Indian Soc Remote Sens Gajbhiye S, Mishra SK, Pandey A (2014b) Relationship between
33(4):531–539 SCS-CN and Sediment Yield. Appl Water Sci 4(4):363–370
Gajbhiye S (2015) Morphometric analysis of a Shakkar River Gajbhiye S, Mishra SK, Pandey A (2014c) Hypsometric analysis of
Catchment Using RS and GIS. Int J U E Serv Sci Technol Shakkar River catchment through geographical information
8(2):11–24 system. J Geol Soc India 84:192–196

123
Appl Water Sci (2017) 7:1505–1519 1519

Gajbhiye S, Mishra SK, Pandey A (2015a) Simplified sediment yield Sharma SK, Rajput GS, Tignath S, Pandey RP (2010) Morphometric
index model incorporating parameter CN. Arab J Geosci analysis of and prioritization of watershed using GIS. J Indian
8(4):1993–2004 Water Res Soc 30(2):33–39
Gajbhiye S, Sharma SK, Awasthi MK (2015b) Application of Sharma SK, Tignath S, Gajbhiye S, Patil R (2013a) Use of
principal components analysis for interpretation and grouping geographical information system in hypsometric analysis of
of water quality parameters. Int J Hybrid Inf Technol 8(4):89–96 Kanhiya Nala watershed. Int J Remote Sens Geosci 2(3):30–35
Horton RE (1932) Drainage basin characteristics. Trans Am Geophys Sharma S, Gajbhiye S, Tignath S (2013b) Application of principal
Assoc 13:350–361 component analysis in grouping geomorphic parameters of
Horton RE (1945) Erosional development of streams and their Uttela watershed for hydrological modelling. Int J Remote Sens
drainage basins: hydrophysical approach to quantitative mor- Geosci 2(6):63–70
phology. Geol Soc Am Bull 5:275–370 Sharma SK, Gajbhiye S, Tignath S (2014a) Application of principal
Javeed A, Khanday MY, Ahmed R (2009) Prioritization of Sub- component analysis in grouping geomorphic parameters of a
watersheds based on morphometric and land use analysis using watershed for hydrological modeling. Appl Water Sci
remote sensing and GIS techniques. J Indian Soc Remote Sens 5(1):89–96
37:261–274 Sharma SK, Gajbhiye S, Nema RK, Tignath S (2014b) Assessing
Khan MA, Gupta VP, Moharana PC (2001) Watershed prioritization vulnerability to soil erosion of a watershed of tons River basin in
using remote sensing and geographical information system: a Madhya Pradesh using Remote sensing and GIS. Int J Environ
case study from Guhiya, India. J Arid Environ 49:465–475 Res Dev 4(2):153–164
Langbein WB (1947) Topographic characteristics of drainage basins. Sharma SK, Gajbhiye S, Nema RK, Tignath S (2015) Assessing
US Geol Surv Water Supply Pap 986(C):157–159 vulnerability to soil erosion of a watershed of narmada basin
Miller VC (1953) A quantitative geomorphic study of drainage basin using remote sensing and GIS. Int J Sci Innov Eng Technol, issue
characteristics in the Clinch Mountain area, Varginia and 1, ISBN 978-81-904760-6-5
Tennessee, Project NR 389042, Tech Rept 3., Columbia Shrestha S, Kazama F (2007) Assessment of surface water quality
University, Department of Geology, ONR, Geography Branch, using multivariate statistical techniques: a case study of the Fuji
New York river basin, Japan. Environ Model Softw 22:464–475
Mishra SK, Gajbhiye S, Pandey A (2013) Estimation of design runoff Shrimali SS, Aggarwal SP, Samra JS (2001) Prioritizing erosion-
CN for Narmada watersheds. J Appl Water Eng Res 1(1):69–79 prone areas in hills using remote sensing and GIS—a case study
Nag SK (1998) Morphometric analysis using remote sensing of the Sukhna Lake catchment, Northern India. Int J Appl Earth
techniques in the Chaka sub-basin Purulia district, West Bengal. Obs Geoinform 3(1):54–60
J Indian Soc Remot Sens 26:69–76 Singh P, Thakur J, Singh UC (2013) Morphometric analysis of Morar
Nautiyal MD (1994) Morphometric analysis of a drainage basin using River Basin, Madhya Pradesh, India, using remote sensing and
arial photographs: a case study of Khairkuli basin District GIS techniques. Environ Earth Sci 68:1967–1977
Deharadun. J Indian Soc Remote Sens 22(4):251–262 Singh P, Gupta A, Singh M (2014) Hydrological inferences from
Nookaratnam K, Srivastava YK, Venkateswarao V, Amminedu E, watershed analysis for water resource management using remote
Murthy KSR (2005) Check dam positioning by prioritization of sensing and GIS techniques. Egypt J Remote Sens Space Sci
micro watersheds using SYI model and morphometric analysis— 17:111–121
Remote sensing and GIS perspective. J Indian Soc Remote Sens Srinivasa VS, Govindaonah S, Home Gowda H (2004) Morphometric
33(1):25–28 analysis of sub watersheds in the Pawagada area of Tumkur
Ouyang Y, Nkedi-Kizza P, Wu QT, Shinde D, Huang CH (2006) district South India using remote sensing and GIS techniques.
Assessment of seasonal variations in surface water quality. J Indian Soc Remote Sens 32(4):351–362
Water Res 40:3800–3810 Strahler AN (1957) Quantative analysis of watershed geomorphology.
Praus P (2005) Water quality assessment using SVD-based principal Trans Am Geophys Union 38:913–920
component analysis of hydrological data. Water SA Strahler AN (1964) Quantitave geomorphology of drainage basins
31(4):417–422 and channel networks In: Handbook of applied hydrology,
Schumn SA (1956) Evaluation of drainage systems and slopes in section 4-II, McGraw Hill Book Company, New York
badlands at Perth Amboy, New Jersy. Geol Soc Am Bull
67:597–646
Sharma SK, Gajbhiye S, Prasad T (2009) Identification of influential
geomorphological parameters for hydrologic modeling. Scifronts
J Mult Sci III(3):9–16

123