JASC: Journal of Applied Science and Computations ISSN NO: 1076-5131

Geomorphometric analysis using remote sensing and GIS mapping in Kundapura Taluk, Udupi District, Karnataka, India.

Poojashree. B .P#1 and H. Gangadhara Bhat*2 Research Scholar Chairman & Professor

Dept. of Marine Geology Mangalore University [email protected] [email protected]

Abstract: For the current research, a drainage morphometric assessment of Kundapura taluk in the district of Udupi was selected. Geospatial instruments, such as remote sensing and GIS, are used for watershed cultivation and drainage networks. ASTER data was used for morphometric evaluation of groundwater and analysis of multiple morphometric parameters. Pioneering techniques such as Horton and Strahler have analyzed and assessed the morphometric parameters of Kundapura taluk. Further dividing the full research region into four sub-watersheds, SW-1, SW-2, SW-3 and SW-4. These sub-watersheds can be drawn up with development and management schemes to sustainably preserve natural resources with instant impact, eventually resulting in soil and water conservation, including drainage density, slope, water output ability, groundwater opportunities, soil, wasteland, irrigated region and forest cover. The data set can be used in watershed morphometric studies for instructional reasons and potential study. The information indicate the connection between the surfaces and the groundwater subsurface. The information could be used in the capacity of groundwater management. Keywords: Prioritization, sub-watersheds, sustainable development Remote Sensing and GIS

Introduction Morphometry is characterized as the estimation and numerical examination of the setup of the Earth's surface, and the shape and measurements of its landforms. The development of a drainage system over space and time is affected by a few factors, for example, geology, structural components topography, geomorphology, soil and vegetation of a territory through which it pour out. Strahler (1964) reported that morphometric analysis of river basin provides a quantitative description of the drainage system, which is an important aspect of the characterization of basins. It is vital in any hydrological examination like evaluation of groundwater potential, groundwater management, basin management and ecological appraisal. A range of hydrological occurrence is correlated with the physiographic characteristics of a drainage basin such as size, shape, slope of the drainage area, drainage density, size and length of the contributories, etc. (Rastogi and Sharma 1976); The morphometric analysis is carried out through measurement of linear, aerial, relief, gradient of channel network which contributes ground slope of the basin (Nautiyal 1994; Magesh et al. 2012). The surface runoff and flow intensity of the drainage system is estimated using the geomorphic features associated with morphometric parameters (Ozdemir and Bird 2009). Research on basin morphometry has been carried out by Horton (1932, 1945), Miller (1953), and Strahler (1964). Application of remote sensing provides a reliable source for the preparation of various thematic layers for morphometric analysis. The digital elevation data is used for generating the elevation model of a landscape to any extent. The resolution of the image may vary with respect to the satellite sensors. The processed DEM is used for generating the stream network and other supporting layers (Martz and Garbrecht 1992; Mesa 2006; Magesh et al. 2011; Moharir and Pande 2017; Mokarram et al. 2015; Mokarram and Sathyamoorthy 2015; Michael and Samanta 2016; Jothibasu and Anbazhagan 2016; Ghosh and Kanchan 2016; Nair at el .2017) A detailed study of morphometric analysis of an area is great help in understanding the influence of drainage morphometry on landforms and their characteristics. The present study area describes the process to calculate the various geomorphometric parameters and also to derive some geomorphologic variables of Kundapura Taluk, Uduppi District, Karnataka, India.

Volume VI, Issue VI, JUNE/2019 Page No:3530 JASC: Journal of Applied Science and Computations ISSN NO: 1076-5131

Methodology In the present study, morphometric characteristics such as linear, aerial, and relief aspect parameters have been prepared using digital satellite images and ancillary data. Geographic information system (GIS) and remote sensing techniques are used as convenient tools to generate spatial variation in morphometric variables. Remote sensing data obtained from sensors such as ASTER data of 30 m resolution is the Digital Elevation model used. GIS software was used to extract drainage networks, and to generate drainage basin characteristics. More specifically, the drainage networks and geometry of Kundapura Taluk is extracted by using the hydrology toolbox of the ArcGIS software. The automated method for delineating drainage was done in GIS according to the steps outlined by Strahler (1964), (Schumm, 1956), (Nooka ratnam et al., 2005) and (Miller, 1953). The extracted basin and stream network are projected to the regional projection (WGS 1984 UTM Zone 43N). Morphometric parameters were computed in the GIS environment using the standard mathematical formulae given in Table 1. Prioritization rating of all the four sub-watersheds of Kundapura taluk is carried out by calculating the compound parameter values. The sub-watershed with the lowest compound parameter value is given the highest priority.

Fig 1 Landsat Imagery (24.03.2018) of the study area

Volume VI, Issue VI, JUNE/2019 Page No:3531 JASC: Journal of Applied Science and Computations ISSN NO: 1076-5131

Results and Discussion The morphometric parameters were divided into three categories: linear, aerial, and relief aspect parameters, and were computed to determine morphometric and hydrologic properties. The watershed is divided into four sub–watersheds with codes SWS1 to SWS 4 The results of the morphometric parameters are presented in Table 2.

Table 1. Methodology adopted for computation morphometric parameters

Morphometric Parameters Formula References Linear aspect 1 Stream number (Nu) Number of stream segments Strahler (1952) 2 Stream order (Nu) Hierarchical rank Strahler (1964) 3 Stream length (Lu) Length of the stream Horton (1945)

4 Basin length (Lb) Straight-line distance from a basin’s mouth Horton (1932) to the point on the water divide intersected by the projection of the direction of the line through the source of the main stream. 5 Mean stream length(LSM) MSL = Lu/Nu, Lu = Total stream length of Strahler (1964) order ‘‘u,’’ Nu = Total no. of stream segments of order ‘‘u’’ 6 Bifurcation ratio (Rb) Rb = Nu/Nu +1; Nu = Total no. of stream Schumm (1956) segments of order ‘‘u’’; Nu+ 1 = No. of segments of next higher order Areal aspect 7 Drainage density (Dd) Dd = Lu/A; Lu = Total stream length of all Horton (1932) orders (km); A= Area of the basin (km2) 8 Stream frequency (Fs) Fs = N/A where, N=Total number of streams; Horton (1932) A=Area of watershed 9 Drainage intensity (Di) Di = Fs/Dd; Where, Fs = Stream frequency; Faniran (1968) Dd = Drainage density 10 Texture Ratio (T) 푅푡=푁1/푃 where,N1=Total number of first Horton, 1945 order streams; P=Perimeter of watershed 11 Elongation ratio (Re) Re=2√(A/ π)/Lb; A = Area of the basin Schumm (1956) (km2); Lb = Basin length 12 Form factor (Ff) 퐹푓=퐴/퐿푏2 Where, Lb is the basin length (km) Horton (1932) and A is the area of the basin (km2). 13 Circularity index (Rc) Rc=4πA/P2 ;where, A=Area of watershed, Miller (1953) π=3.14, P=Perimeter of watershed 14 Length of overland flow (Lg) Lg = ½Dd where, Dd=Drainage density Horton (1945)

15 Constant of Channel Maintenance Lof = 1/Dd where, Dd=Drainage density Schumm (1956) (Ccm) 16 Drainage texture (T) Dt = Nu/P; Nu = Total no. of streams of all Horton (1945) orders; P = Perimeter (km) 17 Compactness coefficient (Cc) Cc = 0.2821 P/ A 0.5; where, Gravelius, 1914 P=Perimeter of basin, A = Area of basin

Relief aspect

Volume VI, Issue VI, JUNE/2019 Page No:3532 JASC: Journal of Applied Science and Computations ISSN NO: 1076-5131

18 Basin relief (R) R = Hmax - Hmin Strahler (1952) 19 Relief ratio (Rr) Rh = R/Lb; R = Total relief (relative relief) Schumm (1956) of the basin (m); Lb = Basin length 20 Ruggedness number(Rn) Rn = Dd * (R /1000) Patton & Baker R= Basin relief (1976) Dd= Drainage density 21 Gradient ratio(Gr) Rg = (Z - z) / Lb Sreedevi (2004) Lb= Basin length 22 Melton Ruggedness ratio (MRn) MRn = H / A0.5 Melton (1965) 23 Relative relief (Rhp) Rhp = (R*100) / P, where P is perimeter in Huggett and metres Cheesman (2002) 24 Shape factor (Bs) 푘=퐿푏2/A Where, Lb is the basin length (km) Horton (1956) and A is the area of the basin (km2). 25 Leminscate(K) 푘=퐿푏2/A Where, Lb is the basin length (km) Chorely (1957), and A is the area of the basin (km2).

Table: 2 Result of Morphometric analysis

SWS-1 SWS-2 SWS-3 SWS-4 S. No Parameter (Venkatapur) (Kollur) ( Haladi) ( Sita) 1 Area Sq.Km(A) 603.03 630.05 139.61 190.76 2 Perimeter Km (P) 146.19 135.49 124.62 71.15 3 Total stream order (Nu) 202 813 739 149 4 Total stream length (Lu) 208.57 661.05 651.29 123.38 5 Basin length (Lb)km 12.81 32.09 40.93 6.72 6 Mean stream length(LSM) 1.03 0.81 0.88 0.82 7 Mean Bifurcation ratio (Rbm) 2.49 4.11 1.84 2.15 Areal aspect 8 Drainage density (Dd) 2.89 0.95 0.21 1.55 9 Stream frequency (Fs) 0.968 1.229 1.135 1.208 10 Drainage intensity (Di) 0.335 1.289 5.295 0.781 11 Texture Ratio (T) 0.70 3.04 3.00 1.27 12 Elongation ratio (Re) 2.163 0.88 0.325 2.319 13 Form factor (Ff) 3.67 0.612 0.083 4.22 14 Circularity ratio (Rc) 0.35 0.43 0.11 0.47 15 Length of overland flow (Lg) 0.17 0.52 2.33 0.32 Constant of Channel Main- tenance 16 0.35 1.05 4.67 0.65 (Ccm) 17 Drainage texture (T) 2.80 1.17 0.24 1.87 18 Compactness coefficient (Cc) 1.69 1.53 2.99 1.46 Relief aspect 19 Basin relief (R) 1017 1277 872 779 20 Relief ratio (Rr) 79.37 39.79 21.30 115.92 21 Ruggedness number(Rn) 2.86 1.22 0.19 1.19 22 Gradient ratio(Gr) 79.37 39.79 21.30 115.92 23 Melton Ruggedness ratio (MRn) 41.41 50.87 73.80 56.40 24 Relative relief (Rhp) 695.67 942.50 699.72 1094.86 25 Shape factor (Bs) 0.27 1.63 11.99 0.24 26 Lemniscate (K) 0.27 1.63 11.99 0.24

Volume VI, Issue VI, JUNE/2019 Page No:3533 JASC: Journal of Applied Science and Computations ISSN NO: 1076-5131

Linear aspects Stream order (U) and stream number (Nu) Four different systems of ordering streams have been proposed: Gravelius (1914), Horton (1945), Strahler (1952), and Scheidegger (1970). In the current study, Strahler’s method of stream ordering is adopted because of its simplicity and because it is the most commonly used system in hydrologic studies (Yang and Lee 2001). Stream ordering determines the hierarchical position of a stream within a drainage basin. ordering analysis indicates that the Kundapura Taluk is a sixth-order stream (Fig.2). Generally, the number of streams gradually decreases as the stream order increases, the variation in order and size of tributary basins largely depends on physiographic and structural condition of the region. That is very large runoff drainage pattern identify in the study area. All of this morphometric parameters use in developed watershed management and also identify runoff zone, ground water recharge zone and storage. 1898 stream segments are recognized in Kundapura Taluk river basin. High values of first-order streams indicate that there is a possibility of unexpected flash flood after heavy rainfall in the down streams (Chitra et al. 2011). Kundapura Taluk is a 6th order stream covering an area of 1563.45km2. The sub-watersheds SWS1, SWS2, SWS3 and SWS4 having 4th , 6th, 5th , and 3rd order streams respectively and covering an area of 603.03 km2, 630.05 km2, 139.61 km2 and 190.76km2 respectively.

Stream Length (Lu): Generally, the total length of stream segments is the maximum in first-order streams and decreases with an increase in the stream order. Streams with relatively short lengths are representative of areas with steep slopes and finer texture, whereas longer lengths of stream are generally indicative of low gradients (Strahler 1964). Stream length is calculated from mouth of a river to drainage with help of Arc GIS-10.3 software. This has been computed based on the law proposed by Horton’s law for all the river basin of the study area. The total stream length of the Kundapura Taluk is 1644.29kms and the sub- watersheds SWS1, SWS2, SWS3 and SWS4 having 208.57km, 661km, 651km and 123.38km respectively. . Usually, the total length of stream segments in first-order streams is maximum and it increases as the stream order increases. The study computed the stream length based on the low proposed by Horton (1945). Mean stream length (MSL): Mean stream length is characteristic property related to the drainage network components of a drainage network and its contributing basin area surfaces (Strahler 1964). It is obtained by dividing the total length of stream of an order by total number of segments. The MSL values differ with respect to different basins, basins, as they are directly proportional to the size and topography of the basin. Strahler (1964) indicated that the Lsm is a characteristic property related to the size of drainage network and its associated surfaces.

Stream length ratio (RL): Stream length ratio is the ratio of the mean length of one order to the next lower order of the stream segments. The stream length ratio between the streams of different orders of the study area shows changes in basin. The RL between streams of different order in the Kundapura Taluk reveals that there is a variation in RL in the study area. This change might be attributed to variation in slope and topography, indicating the late, youth stage of geomorphic development in the streams of the study area. Changes of stream length ratio from one order to another order indicate their late youth stage of geomorphic development. Horton (1945) states that the length ratio is the ratio of the mean (Lur) of segments of order (So) to mean length of segments of the next lower order (Lu-1), which tends to be constant throughout the successive orders of a basin. . Horton (1945) law of stream lengths states that the mean stream lengths of stream segments of each of the successive orders of a watershed tend to approximate a direct geometric sequence in which the first term (stream length) is the average length of segments of the first order.

Basin length (Lb): The basin length (Lb) is the longest length of the basin from the head waters to the point of confluence (Gregory and Walling 1973). Kundapur Taluk is bounded on the west by the Arabian Sea, and the east by the Western Ghats.. The basin length determines the shape of the basin. High basin

Volume VI, Issue VI, JUNE/2019 Page No:3534 JASC: Journal of Applied Science and Computations ISSN NO: 1076-5131 length indicates elongated basin. The Lb of the sub-watersheds SWS1, SWS2, SWS3 and SWS4 are 12.81km,32.09km, 40.93km and 6.72km respectively.

Bifurcation ratio (Rb)/mean bifurcation ratio (Rbm): Several important pollution transport and hydrologic watershed characteristics can be correlated to the Rb (Krenkel 2012). According to Thomas et al. (2012), high Rb values indicate high overland flow while low Rb values reflect high infiltration rate and fewer channels. Rb characteristically ranges between 3 and 5 for watersheds in which geologic structures do not distort the drainage pattern (Strahler 1964). A relatively high Rb indicates early hydrograph peak with a potential for flash flooding during the storm events in the areas in which these stream orders dominate (Kanth and Hassan 2012). Additionally, the high Rb value indicates high structural complexity and low permeability of the terrain. A low Rb value indicates poor structural disturbance and that the drainage patterns have not been distorted (Strahler 1964). Basins with low Rb produce flood hydrographs with marked discharge peaks, while those with high ratios give rise to low peaks over long time period. In addition, sediment delivery is lower for higher values of the Rb (Krenkel and Novotny 1980). The Rb is not same from one order to its next order in the river basins. Mean bifurcation ratio (Rbm) of sub-watersheds SWS1, SWS2, SWS3 and SWS4 are 2.49, 4.11, 1.84 and 2.15 respectively. The relatively lower value of mean Rb also suggests the geological heterogeneity, higher permeability, and less structural control in the area (Hajam et al. 2013).

Areal aspects The areal aspects are the two-dimensional properties of a basin. They include measurements of areal elements, such as sub-basin area, sub-basin shape, drainage density (Dd),texture ratio, constant of channel maintenance, circularity ratio (Rc), form factor (Rf), elongation ratio (Re), stream frequency (Fs), constant of channel maintenance (C), and length of overland flow (Lg). The planimetric parameters directly affect the size of the storm hydrograph and magnitudes of peak and mean runoff in the basin area.

Basin area (Ba) and perimeter (P): The drainage area is not only important as means of delineating dataset within GIS, but it is also fundamental in the sampling and data interpretation processes (De Vivo et al. 2008). Ba directly impacts the peak and mean runoff magnitudes, and so is a crucial element in the hydrologic process. It is interesting that the maximum flood discharge per unit area is inversely related to size of the basin (Chorley et al. 1957; More 1967). Mean peak discharge volume ratios decrease as drainage area increases, reflecting the influence of transmission losses as predicted by Renard and Keppel (1967). If the basin size is small, it is likely that rainwater will reach the main channel more rapidly than from a larger basin, where the water has much further to travel. Ba is one of the easiest geomorphic parameters to determine and more important than the other geomorphic parameters in terms of control on maximum peak and peak volume ratio (Murphey et al. 1977). There are, however, other variables that also have particular significance in drainage basin morphometrics, particularly in the rainfall collection and runoff concentration. Schumm (1956) established an interesting relation between the total basin areas and the total stream lengths, which are supported by the contributing areas. The basin area of sub watersheds SWS1, SWS2, SWS3 and SWS4 are 603.03km2, 630.05km2, 139.61km2 and 190.76km2 respectively and total basin area of Kundapura taluk is 1563.45 Km2. Basin perimeter (P) is also an important parameter in quantitative morphometric analysis and can be used as an indicator of watershed size and shape. It is the outer boundary of the watershed that encloses its area. The perimeter of Kundapura basin is 234.68 km.

Volume VI, Issue VI, JUNE/2019 Page No:3535 JASC: Journal of Applied Science and Computations ISSN NO: 1076-5131

Fig 2 Stream Network of Kundapura Taluk

Drainage density (Dd): Horton (1932) has defined Dd as the total length of streams of all orders per unit drainage area. Dd is a function of the physiographic and geologic characteristics of a basin, such as tectonic activity, rock and soil type, soil texture, climate, basin shape, relief, time, and type of land cover. In the study area, the Dd of the sub-watersheds SWS1, SWS2, SWS3 and SWS4 are 2.89126 km/km2, 0.953105 km/km2, 0.214359 km/km2 and 1.546118 km/km2 respectively. Range of Drainage Density Explanation (Km/Km2) Up to 1.00 Less 1.01 -2.00 Moderate 2.01 – 3.00 High Above 3.00 Very High Table 3 Distribution of drainage density and category According to this classification, the sub-watersheds SWS2 and SWS3 shows very poor drainage density, SWS4 shows moderate type and SWS1 shows high drainage density. The hydrologic response of a channel network is strongly influenced by Dd, and sediment erosion rates have been linked to channel spacing (Goudie 2006). According to Dodov and Foufoula-Georgiou (2006), the travel time of water within the basin is controlled by Dd. Drainage texture (Dt): Dt is the total number of stream segments of all orders per unit P of the basin Horton (1945). Dt reflects the space between drainage networks. Dt has been classified by Smith (1950) into five different textures: very coarse (2), coarse (2–4), moderate (4–6), fine (6–8), and very fine (>8). DT tends to be coarse in the initial and early stages of the erosion cycle and finest in the maturity stage (Smith 1950). Soft or weak rocks uncovered by vegetation produce a fine texture, whereas massive and resistant rocks produce a coarse texture. The sparse vegetation in arid climates causes finer textures than those developed on similar rocks in a humid climate (Dornkamp and King 1971). The higher the infiltration number, the lower the infiltration will be, resulting in higher runoff. The Dt of SWS1, SWS2, SWS3 and SWS4 shows 2.80, 1.17, 0.24 and 1.87 respectively. The sub-watersheds SWS1 lies very

Volume VI, Issue VI, JUNE/2019 Page No:3536 JASC: Journal of Applied Science and Computations ISSN NO: 1076-5131 coarse texture, SWS2, SWS3 and SWS4 shows more than very coarse texture. Fine texture leads to more dissection and more erosion (Al-Saady et al., 2016). Kale and Gupta 2001 reported that Dt depends upon the same natural factors of infiltration, such as climate, rainfall, vegetation, rock and soil type, infiltration capacity, relief, and stage of development.

Stream frequency (Fs): Fs is defined as number of stream segments of all orders per unit drainage area (Horton 1932). Fs is related to permeability, infiltration capacity, and relief of sub-basins (Rekha et al. 2011). Rainfall amount, lithology, basin shape, and type of structural features also influence its value. Fs of SWS1, SWS2, SWS3 and SWS4 are 0.968, 1.229, 1.135 and 1.208. Fs mainly depended on lithology and vegetation cover. High values of Fs indicate the presence of impermeable material and low relief.

Drainage intensity (Di): The ratio of Fs to Dd is known as Di (Faniran 1968). The Di for SWS1, SWS2, SWS3 and SWS4 are 0.335, 1.289, 5.295 and 0.781 respectively. High Di is directly affected by low values of Dd relative to Fs. High Di with high infiltration capacities increases chances for groundwater recharge.

Texture ratio (Rt): The texture ratio (Rt) is an important factor in the drainage morphometric analysis (Schumm, 1956) which is described in The texture ratio is expressed as the ratio between the first order streams (N1) and perimeter of the basin (P), it depends on the underlying lithology, infiltration capacity and relief aspects of the terrain. In the present study, the texture ratio of the sub-basins SWS1, SWS2, SWS3 and SWS4 are 0.70, 3.04, 3.00 and 1.27 respectively.

Elongation ratio (Re): Elongation ratio is the ratio between the diameter of a circle of the same area as the drainage basin and the maximum length of the basin (Schumm, 1956). A circular basin is more efficient in runoff discharge than elongated basin. According to Strahler (1952) the elongation ratio between 0.6 and 0.8 indicates high relief and steep slope region. Re of the sub-basins SWS1, SWS2, SWS3 and SWS4 are 2.163, 0.88, 0.325 and 2.319 respectively. Basin Re Circular >0.9 Oval 0.8-0.9 Less elongated 0.7-0.8 Elongated 0.5-0.7 More elongated <0.5 Table 4 Elongation ratio and its inferences

Form factor (Rf): The Rf suggested by Horton (1932) is the ratio of Ba to the squared value of Lb. The value of Rf varies from 0 (in highly elongated shape) to the unity, i.e., 1 (in perfect circular shape) (Babar 2005). Hence, higher values of Rf indicate a more circular shape of the basin and vice versa. The Rf value of the sub-watersheds SWS1, SWS2, SWS3 and SWS4 are 3.67, 0.612, 0.083 and 4.22 respectively.SWS2 and SWS3 has a strong tendency to elongation, which indicates low peak flows for longer duration and as such less probability for the basin to flood. Floods are formed and travel more rapidly in circular basins than in an elongated one. Moreover, the floods will be stronger and have higher velocities, and thus greater erosion and transport capacities. As a consequence, the suspended load is greater and the evolution of such drainage basins is thus more rapid (Zavoianu 1985).

Rf Shape Nature of Flow 0 Highly elongated Low peak flow and longer duration 0 - 0.6 Slightly elongated Flatted peak flow and longer duration 0.6 - 0.78 Perfectly circular Moderate to high peak flow for short duration 0.78 – 1.0 Circular High peak flow for short duration Table 5: Significant of form factor

Volume VI, Issue VI, JUNE/2019 Page No:3537 JASC: Journal of Applied Science and Computations ISSN NO: 1076-5131

Circularity ratio (Rc): Rc is defined as the ratio of the Ba to the area of a circle having the same P as that of the basin Miller (1953). Circularity is the most useful shape measure in correlation with stream flow. There is clear variation in the Rc within the same basin of the same order so it seems to be independent of order; however, the general trend is decreasing Rc with increasing stream order. The Rc results are compatible with Morisawa (1962) who states that the circularity of the higher orders appears to decrease. The ratio is equal to unity when the basin shape is perfect circle, decreasing to 0.78 when the basin is a square, and continues to decrease to the extent to which the basin becomes elongated (Zavoianu 1985). The Rc value of the sub-watersheds SWS1, SWS2, SWS3 and SWS4 are 0.35, 0.43, 0.11 and 0.47. This reflects that the sub-watershed basins are elongated or have less circular shape, low discharge of runoff or delayed time to peak flow, and highly subsoil permeability. According to Miller (1953), Rc is influenced by the length and frequency of streams, geological structures, land use, land cover, climate, relief, and slopes of the basin.

Length of overland flow (Lg): Lg describes the length of flow of water over the ground before it becomes concentrated in incised stream channels or permanent drainage channels (Prasad 2008). The Lg average, in most cases, is approximately half the average of the distance between the stream channels. Hence, it is approximately equal to half the reciprocal of the Dd (Horton 1945). The study of overland flow is very important because overland flow affects not only the water regime of a river network but also the long- term evolution of drainage basins (Zavoianu 1985). Lg is one of the most important independent variables affecting both the hydrologic and hydrographic developments of drainage basins (Horton 1945). The Lg value of the sub-watersheds SWS1, SWS2, SWS3 and SWS4 are 0.17, 0.52, 2.33, 0.32 respectively. which is attributed to the variation in the slope, lithology, vegetation cover, and rainfall intensity and infiltration capacity.

Constant of channel maintenance (C): The C is a measure of texture similar to drainage density, this constant a useful means to compare the surface erodibility or other factors affecting surface erosion and drainage network development. Therefore, it may be applied to the as yet un dissected portions of a drainage system to aid in the prediction of areas of future sediment loss (Schumm 1956). S.No. C (km2/km) Significant 1 <0.2 More erodible 2 0.2-0.3 Moderate erodible 3 0.3-0.4 Moderately low erodible 4 0.4-0.5 Low erodible 5 >0.5 Least erodible Table 6: Constant channel maintenance The C value of the sub-watersheds SWS1, SWS2, SWS3 and SWS4 are 0.35, 1.05, 4.67 and 0.65 - characterized by high C values, which suggest high infiltration rate, low erodibility, permeability, and low surface runoff (Al-Saady et al 2016). The ratio represents the amount of the Basin area needed to maintain one linear unit of channel length (Ritter et al. 2006).

Compactness coefficient (Cc): The compactness coefficient of a sub-basin is the ratio of perimeter of sub-basin to circumference of circular area (Gravelius, 1914), which equals the area of the sub-basin. The Cc is independent of size of sub-basin and dependent only on the slope. If the basin was a perfect circle, then Cc would be equal to 1 (Gravelius, 1914). The computed compactness coefficient of the sub- watersheds SWS1, SWS2, SWS3 and SWS4 are 1.69, 1.53, 2.99 and 1.46.

Relief Aspect The Linear and areal features have been considered as the two dimensional aspect lie on a plane. The third dimension describes the concept of relief. By measuring the vertical fall from the head of each stream segment to the point where it joins the higher order stream and dividing the total by the number of streams

Volume VI, Issue VI, JUNE/2019 Page No:3538 JASC: Journal of Applied Science and Computations ISSN NO: 1076-5131 of that order, it is possible to obtain the average vertical fall. Absolute relief indicates the difference in elevation between a highest location and sea level Kundapura Taluk have an absolute relief of 1317m.

Basin Relief (H) Basin Relief (Bh) of the basin, is defined as the difference in elevation between the highest and lowest points on the basin (Schumm, 1956). Generally, relief measures are indicative of the potential energy of a drainage system present by virtue of elevation above a given datum (Smith, 1950). Basin relief is an essential factor in understanding the denudational characteristics of the watershed, landforms and drainage networks development, overland flow, and through-flow and erosional properties of the terrain (Farhan et al. 2017). The basin relief of the sub-watersheds SWS1, SWS2, SWS3 and SWS4 are 1017m, 1277m, 872 and 779m respectively.

Relief Ratio (Rh) Relief ratio is defined as the ratio between the total relief of a basin and the longest dimension of the basin parallel to the principal drainage line (Schumn 1956). This is a dimensionless height-length ratio and allows comparison of the relative relief of any basin regardless of difference in scale or topography. Relief ratio is equal to the right angled triangle and is identical with the tangent of the angle of slope of the hypotenuse with respect to horizontal (Strahler, 1964). Thus is measure the overall steepness of a drainage basin is an indicator of intensity of erosion processes operating on the slope of the basin. Relief ratio normally increases with decreasing drainage area and size of a given drainage basin (Gottschalk, 1964). High values are characteristic of hill region; low values are characteristics of Pedi plains and valley (Sreedevi et al 2009). The relief ratio of the sub-watersheds SWS1, SWS2, SWS3 and SWS4 are 79.37, 39.79, 21.30 and 115.92 respectively. The Rh values explain the intensity of channel gradient; thus, it can be considered as an important factor in the assessment of erosion processes and stream sediment load. According to these values, the peak of discharge and runoff intensity can be predicted.

Relative relief (Rhp): Rhp is calculated from dividing R by basin P. The values of Rhp and relief with regard to structural control give a good indicator to variations in the lithology: Low values indicate clastic or less resistant rock in comparison with high values. Huggett and Cheesman (2002) state that on a regional scale, Rhp and terrain shape tend to be particularly influential properties. On a local scale, slope angle, slope aspect, and albedo may produce remarkable variations in climate near ground. The Rhp of the sub-watersheds SWS1, SWS2, SWS3 and SWS4 are 695.67, 942.50, 699.72 and 1094.86 respectively. Relatively low values are represented by the river basin.

Gradient ratio (Gr): Gradient ratio is an indicator of channel slope from which an assessment of the runoff volume could be made ( Kannan et al). The Gr of the sub-watersheds SWS1, SWS2, SWS3 and SWS4 are 79.37, 39.79, 21.30 and 115.92 respectively which reflects gentle slope and low values of Gr reflect the mountainous nature of the terrain.

Ruggedness number (Rn): Ruggedness number indicates the structural complexity of the terrain. An extreme high value of ruggedness number occurs when both variables i.e. drainage density and relief are high and slope is not only steep but long as well (Strahler, 1956). Rn of the the sub-watersheds SWS1, SWS2, SWS3 and SWS4 are 2.86, 1.22, 0.19 and 1.19 respectively. The low ruggedness value of sub- basin implies that area is less prone to soil erosion and have intrinsic structural complexity in association with relief and drainage density (Patton and Baker, 1976).

Melton Ruggedness ratio (MRn): Differentiates basins with debris flow potential from basins with bed load sediment transport. The MRn is a slope index that provides specialized representation of relief ruggedness within the sub-basin (Melton 1965). MRn of the sub-watersheds SWS1, SWS2, SWS3 and SWS4 are 41.41, 50.87, 73.80 and 56.40 respectively.

Lemniscate (k): Chorley et al. (1957) suggest a new way to compare a drainage basin with a teardrop shape, or the shape with petal or loop of a lemniscate. This ratio indicates the extent to which the shape of

Volume VI, Issue VI, JUNE/2019 Page No:3539 JASC: Journal of Applied Science and Computations ISSN NO: 1076-5131 a basin approaches that of an ideal lemniscate Zavoianu (1985). The calculated Ls value of the study area is 1.30. The limited range variation in the Ls and the more complicated calculations explain why this index is less used (Zavoianu 1985).

Conclusion: Basin Prioritization: Prioritization method is a watershed manager instrument for identifying priority pollutants, prospective priority sources, and specific basin regions. The method of prioritization starts with the detection of the problems of priority water quality. Basin priority classification is the classification of distinct sub- watersheds according to the order in which treatment and conservation steps must be adopted. Given the huge investment in the Basin Development Program, priority-based planning of operations is essential for attaining fruitful outcomes, which also facilitates resolving the problem regions in order to arrive at appropriate alternatives. For basin prioritization, the resource-based strategy is discovered to be realistic as it includes an embedded strategy. Resource factors for implementing the reservoir leadership program or other administrative or even political factors may restrict application to a few sub reservoirs. Even otherwise, it is always easier to begin leadership actions from the lowest priority reservoir, making it compulsory to prioritize sub-watersheds.

Prioritization of Sub-watersheds on the Basis of Morphometric Analysis Morphometric assessment was frequently used for reservoir prioritization. For multiple purposes, a specific watershed may be given top priority, but the severity of land degradation is often chosen as the grounds. It is feasible to evaluate the physical parameters of the land by evaluating the parameters of slope, soil, geomorphology, land use and landscape, etc. that are very suitable for the analysis of GIS. However, the evaluation of physical parameters provides an indication that the ground is limited to the growth of the basin and can therefore be used as a "qualitative measure" of the natural growth element. The basin detail data is evaluated using Arc GIS10.3. Linear parameters such as drainage density, stream frequency, bifurcation ratio, drainage texture, overland flow duration are directly related to erodibility, the greater the value, the greater the erodibility. The largest value of linear parameters was therefore assessed as rank 1, second largest value was rated as rank 2 and so on in order to prioritize sub-watersheds, and the lowest value was classified as last in order. Shape parameters such as elongation proportion, compactness coefficient, and circularity ratio and basin shape and shape factor have an inverse relationship with erodibility (Nooka Ratnam et al., 2005), reduced value, more erodibility. Thus The smallest value of the parameters of the form was classified as rank 1, the next reduced value was classified as rank 2 and so on and the largest value was classified last. The sub-watershed classification was therefore determined by assigning the highest priority / rank based on the greatest value for linear parameters and the smallest value for parameters of form. Prioritization was done by assigning ranks to the individual indices and calculating a compound value (Cp) (Table 7). Sub-watersheds with the largest Cp priorities were small, while those with the smallest Cp priorities were high (Table 7). Thus an index of high, medium and low priority was produced. Sub-watersheds have been broadly classified into three priority zones according to their compound value (Cp): High , Medium and Low (10 and above) (Fig.3). Sub- Rbm Dd Fs T Ff Rc Re Cc Bs Lg Compound Ranking watershed value (Cp)

SWS-1 2.49 2.89 0.968 0.70 3.67 0.35 2.163 1.69 0.27 0.17 15.361 3

SWS-2 4.11 0.95 1.229 3.04 0.612 0.43 0.88 1.53 1.63 0.52 14.931 1

SWS-3 1.84 0.21 1.135 3.00 0.083 0.11 0.325 2.99 11.99 2.33 24.013 4

SWS-4 2.15 1.55 1.208 1.27 4.22 0.47 2.319 1.46 0.24 0.32 15.207 2

Table 7: Compound Value of morphometric parameters

Volume VI, Issue VI, JUNE/2019 Page No:3540 JASC: Journal of Applied Science and Computations ISSN NO: 1076-5131

In this research, calculation system based on knowledge was introduced for sub-watershed prioritization depending on its variables and after careful observation of the field condition. Based on the comparative significance of each parameter in the research region, the foundation for assigning weight to distinct topics was. The calculation system implemented here depends entirely on local terrain and can differ from location to location. The four sub watersheds were delineated from study area for prioritization of sub- watersheds on the basis of water holding capacity and the morphometric parameters, such as bifurcation ratio, drainage density, stream frequency, texture ratio, length overland flow and constant channel maintenance of delineated sub watersheds, were separately calculated( Manjare, 2015). Then, the calculated values were added as compound value. Further, specific weight and specific ranks were assigned based on the water holding capacity in relation to morphometric parameters (Table 8).

Sub- Compound Ranking Final watershed value (Cp) priority

SWS-1 15.361 3 High

SWS-2 14.931 1 High

SWS-3 24.013 4 Low

SWS-4 15.207 2 High

Table 8: Final Priority of Sub-watersheds

Sub-watersheds falling under high priority are sub-susceptible to very serious erosion. Therefore, mechanical soil conservation steps need to be taken immediately to gully control buildings and grass rivers in order to safeguard the loss of the topsoil. While low-priority reservoirs have a very small erosion sensitivity area and may require agronomic steps to safeguard the erosion of the sheet and rill. Figure 3.shows the research zone chart of the sub-watersheds prioritized. Slope: The slope of a physical feature, topographic landform, refers to the amount of inclination of that surface to the horizontal. Slope analysis is an important parameter in geomorphic studies. The slope elements, in turn are controlled by the climatomorphogenic processes in areas having rock of varying resistance. Slope grid is identified as “the maximum rate of change in value from each cell to its neighbors (Burrough 1986). The digital elevation model of the study area is represented in Fig. 3. The degree of slope exhibited by Kundapura Taluk basin varies between 0° to 35° (Fig. 4). Higher degree of slope results in rapid runoff and increased erosion rate with feeble recharge potential. Aspect: The aspect (Fig. 5) is the compass orientation of the steepest downhill slope or azimuth of slope from north (Huggett and Cheesman 2002). There are differences in the vegetation patterns between sun facing and shaded slopes in arid and semiarid environments because they are exposed to different micrometeorological conditions (Warren 2010). Moreover, the density of vegetation cover is higher in the shaded than in sun facing slopes in most cases because the moisture content is retained longer on the shaded side. The NE–E–SE aspect of the slope, which is exposed to the sun during the hottest time of day, will be warmer than the aspect on other sides. From the variant microclimate, it is inferred that many of the parameters will experience varying exposures to sun and shade, which can result in differentiation in drainage density, vegetation cover, and erosion rate (Al-Saady et al 2016).

Volume VI, Issue VI, JUNE/2019 Page No:3541 JASC: Journal of Applied Science and Computations ISSN NO: 1076-5131

Fig 3: Prioritized sub-watersheds of study area

Volume VI, Issue VI, JUNE/2019 Page No:3542 JASC: Journal of Applied Science and Computations ISSN NO: 1076-5131

Fig 4. DEM of the region Fig 5. Slope of the region

Fig 6. Aspect of the region

Volume VI, Issue VI, JUNE/2019 Page No:3543 JASC: Journal of Applied Science and Computations ISSN NO: 1076-5131

References:

 Al-Saady Y.I, Al-Suhail Q.A, Al-Tawas, B.S, Othman A.A (2016) Drainage network extraction and morphometric analysis using remote sensing and GIS mapping techniques Lesser Zab River Basin, Iraq and Iran. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-016-6038-y  B. S. Manjare (2015), Prioritization Of Sub-Watersheds For Sustainable Development And Management Of Natural Resources: An Integrated Approach Using Remote Sensing, Gis Techniques. 16th Esri India User Conference 2015, Department of Geology RTM Nagpur University, Nagpur (MS) India.  Babar M (2005) Hydrogeomorphology: fundamentals, applications and techniques. New India Publishing Agency, New Delhi  Burrough, P.A. (1986) Principles of geographical informationsystems for land resources assessment. Oxford UniversityPress, New York, pp.50.  Chitra C, Alaguraja P, Ganeshkumari K, Yuvaraj D, Manivel M (2011) Watershed characteristics of Kundah sub-basin using remote sensing and GIS techniques. Int. J Geomatics Geosci:311–335.  Chorley R, Malm D, Pogorzelski H (1957) New standard for estimating drainage basin shape. Am J Sci 255:138–141  Chow VT (ed) Handbook of applied hydrology. McGraw Hill Book Company, New York.  De Vivo B, Belkin HE, Lima A (2008) Environmental geochemistry: site characterization, data analysis and case histories. Elsevier, Amsterdam, p 429  Deju R (1971) Regional hydrology fundamentals. Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, Newark.  Dornkamp J, King C (1971) Numerical analyses in geomorphology: an introduction. New York: St Martin  Faniran A (1968) The index of drainage intensity: a provisional new drainage factor. Aust J Sci 31:328–330  Ghosh T, Kanchan R (2016) Aquifer vulnerability assessment in the Bengal alluvial tract, India, using GIS based DRASTIC model. Model. Earth Syst. Environ. 2:153 DOI https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808-016-0208-5  Gottschalk LC (1964) Reservoir Sedimentation in Handbook of Applied Hydrology (New York, Mc. Graw Hill Book Company 1964). Section 7 – 1.  Goudie A (2006) Encyclopedia of geomorphology: a-I, vol 1.Routledge-Taylor & Francis, New York  Gravelius H (1914) Flusskunde. Goschensche Verlagshandlung, Berlin.  Gravelius, H. 1914. FlU,88hunde. Berlin.  Gregory KJ, Walling DE (1973) Drainage basin form and process ageo-morphological approach. Edward Arnold, London.  Hajam R, Hamid A, Bhat S (2013) Application of morphometric analysis for geo- hydrological studies using geo-spatial technology: a case study of Vishav Drainage Basin. Int Res J Geol Min (IRJGM) 4:136–146.  Horton RE (1932) Drainage basin characteristics. Trans Am Geophys Union 13:350–361.  Horton RE (1945) Erosional development of streams and their drainage basins Hydro-physical approach to quantitative morphology.Bull Geol Soc America 56:275–370.  Huggett R, Cheesman J (2002) Topography and the Environment. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle.  Jothibasu A, Anbazhagan S (2016) Modeling groundwater probability index in Ponnaiyar River basin of South India using analytic hierarchy process. 2:109 DOI https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808- 016-0174-y.  K. Nooka Ratnam, Y. K. Srivastava, V. Venkateswara Rao, E. Amminedu, K. S. R. Murthy., March 2005. Check dam positioning by prioritization of micro-watersheds using SYI model and morphometric analysis — Remote sensing and GIS perspective. 33:25.

Volume VI, Issue VI, JUNE/2019 Page No:3544 JASC: Journal of Applied Science and Computations ISSN NO: 1076-5131

 Kanth T, Hassan Z (2012) Morphometric analysis and prioritization of watersheds for soil and water resource management in Wular catchment using geo-spatial tools. Int J Geol Earth Environ Sci 2:30–41  Krenkel P (2012) Water quality management. Elsevier, Amsterdam.  Krenkel P, Novotny V (1980) Water quality management. Academic Press, New York  M D Nautiyal (1994), Morphometric Analysis of A Drainage Basin Using Aerial Photographs : A Case Study of Khairkuli Basin, District Dehradun, U.P. Jourl~l of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing, Vol. 22, No. 4, 1994.  Magesh N, Jitheshlal K, Chandrasekar N, Jini K (2013) Geographical information system based morphometric analysis of Bharathapuzha river basin, Kerala, India. Appl Water Sci 3:467–477  Magesh, N.S., Chandrasekar, N., Soundranayagam, J.P., 2012. Delineation of ground-water potential zones in Theni district, Tamil Nadu, using remote sensing, GIS and MIF techniques. Geosci. Front. 3 (2), 189–196.  Martz W, Garbrecht J (1992) Numerical definition of drainage network and sub catchment areas from digital elevation models.Comput Geosci 18:747–761  Marzieh Mokarram, M., Roshan,G., Negahban,S., 20156. Landform classification using  Melton M A (1965) The geomorphic and paleoclimatic significance of alluvial deposits in southern Arizona. The Journal of Geology, 1-38.  Mesa LM (2006) Morphometric analysis of a subtropical Andean basin (Tucuman, Argentina). Environ Geol 50(8):1235–1242.  Michael E A, Samanta S (2016) Landslide vulnerability mapping (LVM) using weighted linear combination (WLC) model through remote sensing and GIS techniques. Model. Earth Syst. Environ. 2: 88. DOI https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808-016-0141-7  Miller VC (1953) A quantitative geomorphologic study of drainage basin characteristics in the clinch mountain area, Virginia and Tennessee Columbia University, Department of Geology, Technical Report, No. 3, Contract N6 ONR 271–300  Moharir K, Pande CB (2017). GIS based quantitative morphometric analysis and its consequences: a case study from Shanur River Basin, Maharashtra India. Applied Water Science 87:2, 861-871.  Moharir KN, Pande CB (2014) Analysis of morphometric parameters using Remote-sensing and GIS techniques in the lonar nala in Akola district Maharashtra India. Int J Tech Res Eng 1(10).  Mokarram, M., Sathyamoorthy,D., 2015. Modeling the relationship between elevation, aspect and spatial distribution of vegetation in the Darab Mountain, Iran using remote sensing data. Model. Earth Syst. Environ. 1:30. DOI 10.1007/s40808-015-0038-x  More R (1967) Hydrological models and geography, in Models in geography. In: Chorley RJ, Haggett P (eds) Models in geography.Methuen, London, pp 145–185  More R (1967) Hydrological models and geography, in Models in geography. In: Chorley RJ, Haggett P (eds) Models in geography.Methuen, London, pp 145–185  Murphey J, Wallace D, Lane L (1977) Geomorphic parameters predict hydrograph characteristics in the southwest. Water Resour Bull 13:25–38  Nooka, R.K., Srivastava, Y.K., Venkateshwara, R.V.,Amminedu, E. and Murthy, K.S.R. (2005), Check dam positioning by prioritization of micro-watersheds using SYI model and morphometric analysis - Remote Sensing and GIS perspective. Jour. Indian Soc. Remote Sensing, v.33(1), pp.25- 38.  Ozdemir H, Bird D (2009) Evaluation of morphometric parameters of drainage networks derived from topographic maps and DEM in point floods. Environ Geol 56:1405–1415  Patton P C and Baker V R (1976) Morphometry and floods in small drainage basins subject to diverse hydrogeomorphic controls, Water Resources Research, 12 (5), 941-952.  R. Kannan, S.Venkateswaran, M.VijayPrabhu, K.Sankar “Drainage morphometric analysis of the Nagavathi watershed ,Cauvery riverbasin in Dharmapuri district, TamilNadu, India using SRTM data and GIS” Periyar University, Salem, TamilNadu, India. Data in Brief 19 (2018 )2420–2426.

Volume VI, Issue VI, JUNE/2019 Page No:3545 JASC: Journal of Applied Science and Computations ISSN NO: 1076-5131

 Raghunath H (2006) Hydrology: principles, analysis and design. New Age International, New Delhi.  Rastogi RA, Sharma TC (1976) Quantitative analysis of drainage basin characteristics. J Soil Water Conserv India 26(1–4):18–25  Rekha V, George A, Rita M (2011) Morphometric analysis and micro-watershed prioritization of peruvanthanam sub-watershed, the manimala river basin, Kerala, South India. Environ Res Eng Manag 3:6–14  Renard K, Keppel R (1967) Hydrographs of Ephemeral Streams in the Southwest. J Hydraul Div 93:275–277  Ritter D, Kochel R, Miller J (2006) Process geomorphology. Waveland Press, Long Grove  Salvacion, A,R., 2016. Terrain characterization of small island using publicly available data and open- source software: a case study of Marinduque,Philippines. Model. Earth Syst. Environ.2:31. DOI 10.1007/s40808-016-0085-y.  Scheidegger A (1970) Stochastic models in hydrology. Water Resour Res 6:750–755  Schumm S (1956) Evolution of drainage systems and slopes in badlands at Perth Amboy, New Jersey. Geol Soc Am Bull 67:597–646  Smith K (1950) Standards for grading texture of erosional topography.Am J Sci 248(9):655668  Sreedevi P D, Subrahmanyam K and Shakeel A (2005) The significance of morphometric analysis for obtaining groundwater potential zones in a structurally controlled terrain, J Environ Geol Vol 47, No 3, pp 412–420.  Strahler AN (1953) Hypsometric analysis of erosional topography. Bull Geol Soc Am 63:1117– 1142.  Strahler AN (1957) Quantitative analysis of watershed geomorphology.Trans Am Geophys Union 38:913–920.  Strahler AN (1964) Quantitative geomorphology of drainage basins and channel networks. In:  Strahler, A. (1952) Dynamic Basis of Geomorphology. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 63, 923-938.  Thomas J, Joseph S, Thrivikramji K, Abe G, Kannan N (2012) Morphometrical analysis of two tropical mountain river basins of contrasting environmental settings, the southern Western Ghats, India. Environ Earth Sci 66:2353–2366.  topography position index (case study: salt dome of Korsia-Darab plain, Iran). Model. Earth Syst. Environ.1:40, DOI 10.1007/s40808-015-0055-9  Yang M, Lee K (2001) Determination of probability distributions for Strahler stream lengths based on Poisson process and DEM. Hydrol Sci J 46(5):813824  Zavoianu I (1985) Morphometry of drainage basins (developments in water science). Elsevier, Amsterdam.

Volume VI, Issue VI, JUNE/2019 Page No:3546