Mishra and Rawat 2015 - RSG4205

See
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283438771
A Composite Watershed Prioritization Index

(CWPI) Based on Terrain Characteristics,
Morphometry and Soil Brightness Index (SBI)
Using RS and GIS in Moolbari Watershed,
Himachal Pra...
Article October 2015
CITATIONS READS
0 111
2 authors:
Anil Kumar Mishra Kishan Singh Rawat

Indian Agricultural Research Institute 53 PUBLICATIONS 37 CITATIONS
9 PUBLICATIONS 20 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE
All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, Available from: Kishan Singh Rawat
letting you access and read them immediately. Retrieved on: 03 November 2016
Research Article ISSN 22779051
International Journal of Remote Sensing and GIS, Volume 4, Issue 2, 2015, 87-101
Copyright 2015, All rights reserved Research Publishing Group
www.rpublishing.org
A Composite Watershed Prioritization Index (CWPI) Based on

Terrain Characteristics, Morphometry and Soil Brightness Index
(SBI) Using RS and GIS in Moolbari Watershed, Himachal
Pradesh, India
Mishra* A.K.1 and Rawat K.S.2
(Correspondence: mishranilkumar@gmail.com, akm_wtc@iari.res.in)

1
Water Technology Centre, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi, India
2
.Scientist-C, Centre for Remote Sensing and Geo-, Sathyabama, University, Chennai
Received March 31, 2015; accepted October 18, 2015
Abstract
In the present study an index-based approach, based on the Soil Brightness Index (SBI) and other characterization
factors such as; soil surface factors (soil type, land slope) and vegetative factors that are mainly responsible for soil
erosion, have been suggested. The methodology is illustrated with a case study of Moolbari watershed located near
Ganhatti, Mashobra block of Shimla district in Himachal Pradesh State of India. Moolbari watershed is further sub-
divided into 21 micro-watersheds. Index based prioritization for twenty one (21) micro watershed have been
attempted on the basis of soil, vegetation, topography and morphology-related parameters , separately estimated for
each micro watershed using remote sensing and GIS. Remote sensing satellite data were used to evaluate the soil
SBI and Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI), while the G1S system was used to evaluate the
topography and morphology-related indices such as catchment characteristics (size, shape, drainage characteristics,
elevation, slope characteristics, form factor etc.) that have been considered for watershed prioritization. Based on
accumulated weights of these indices (four) the 21 micro-watersheds have been demarcated into very high eroded,
highly eroded, moderately eroded and low eroded categories. The study concluded that the Moolbari watershed has
four micro-watersheds having low erosion. Five watersheds are having medium erosion, while another 10
watersheds having high and 2 watersheds having very high erosion status. The main advantage of the GIS
methodology is in providing quick decision. The integrated effect of all the parameters is evaluated to find different
areas vulnerable to soil erosion. Two watersheds were identified as being most susceptible to soil erosion. Based on
the integrated index, a priority rating of the watersheds for soil conservation planning is recommended.
Key words: - Soil erosion, Soil conservation, Sediment yield, Slope, GIS, NDVI, Remote sensing and LANDSAT
________________________________________________________________________
1. Introduction
Sustainable development of land and water resources without degradation and deterioration vis--vis constant
increase in productivity is the mainstay of mankind. Various forms of erosion are the main deterrents to achieve
sustainability of land and water resources over a long time, Bhardwaj, et al., (2014). Soil erosion is a complex
dynamic process of land denudation by which productive surface soils are detached, transported and accumulated at
a distant place. Soil erosion results in loss of precious soil resources for cultivation and causes siltation of reservoirs
and natural streams, Jain and Dolezal (2000). In India, about 53 % of the total land area is prone to erosion, DLRO
(2014):El-Swaify (1997): Pande et al., (1992). A watershed with a higher rate of soil erosion needs to be given
higher priority for soil conservation measures to be adopted, Singh et al., (2005).
The major factors responsible for soil erosion include rainfall, soil type, and vegetation, topographic and
morphological characteristics of the basin, Chopra et al., (2005). Where there is a lack of data on rainfall and
sediment yield, the relative vulnerability of watersheds can be assessed with respect to time-independent factors
(soil type, topography and morphology). With the advancement of remote sensing techniques and data acquisition, it
is now possible to generate and revise vegetation, Chen et al., (2001) resource maps at the scale of even a few
meters. The effect of vegetation can also be incorporated in such analysis.
Sediment yield from a catchment is one of the main criteria for assessing the vulnerability of a watershed to soil
erosion, Narayan and Babu (1983) : Singh et al., (1992). However, this criterion requires continuous monitoring of
87
Mishra and Rawat/International Journal of Remote Sensing and GIS, Volume 4, Issue 2, 2015, 87-101
sediment samples at the catchment outlet. Such data are not available for small watersheds or sub watershed in
India, Saini et al., (2015).
Using a GIS, the topographic and morphometric analysis, Singh et al., (2005) : Kay et al., (2008); may be carried
out efficiently and different layers of information can be integrated, geographic information systems (using
traditional and remotely sensed data) have already proved to play a very important role in analyzing soil erosion and
sediment yield, as evident from recent studies in the Indian Peninsula and southeast Asia Jain and Kothvari (2000):
Baban and Yusof (2001). Several workers have successfully demonstrated the use of modern tools and techniques
such as remote sensing (RS) and geographic information systems (GIS) in evaluation of soil losses from the
different land use/ land covers and subsequent prioritization of watersheds based on single or multiple factors
Hudson (1995) : Patel et al., (2002) : Solaimani et al., (2009); Solaimani, (2009).
Watershed prioritization is the methodology for ranking of different critical sub- watersheds according to the order
in which they have to be taken up for the treatment by soil and water conservation measures. A particular sub-
watershed may get top priority due to various reasons on the basis of intensity of land degradation. In the absence of
sediment yield data for un-gauged watersheds, geomorphologic parameters along with the satellite based land use /
land cover information of watershed are much helpful in prioritization of the sub watersheds. Quantitative
geomorphologic analysis of a watershed or drainage basin is considered to be the most satisfactory method because
it enables us to understand the relationship among different aspects of the drainage pattern of the basin and to make
a comprehensive evaluation of different sub-watersheds developed in various geologic and climatic regimes.
Remote sensing data provide accurate, timely and real time information on various aspects of the watershed. The
advancements in remote sensing technology supported with GIS have provided very useful methods of surveying,
identifying, classifying and monitoring several forms of earth resources.
In the present study, digital analysis of remotely sensed data has been carried out to assess the vegetation and soil
related indices. Topographic and morphometric,Singh et al., (2005) : Kay, et al., (2008); indices have been generated
in the GIS environment using the topographic information (contour and drainage) from the SOI topo-sheets. Finally,
all the indices have been combined to prioritize different watersheds in the area.
2. Methodology
2.1 Study area
The study area selected for present analysis was Moolbari Experimental Watershed (a watershed adopted
by the Department of Science and Technology (DST), Min. of Science and Technology, Govt. of India under its
Bio-Geo-database Development Programme under National Rescores Development and Management (NRDMS), in
which the measurements were later on continued by the Water Technology Centre (IARI, New Delhi) and Space
Application Center (ISRO, Ahmedabad). The Moolbari watershed is located in the Mashobara Block, enveloping a
small portion of Shimla District of Himachal Pradesh, which lies between 31 7'303115' N latitudes and
7700'777'30 E longitudes. The total area of the watershed was estimated to be 13.9 km 2 (13888144.21 m2) with
a perimeter of 16.3 km (16297.27 m). This information was generated using Arc-View ver. 9.3 by a projected map
of the watershed in WGS-84 projection system of the Survey of India (SOI) topo-sheet No. 53 E/15 NW. The
watershed delineation was done by using SOI toposheet No. 53E/4/NW of 1:50,000 scale by taking the watershed
concentration point down the Tikri Village on Bari Ka Khadd main stream (Fig. 1). The study area is covered in 21
sub watersheds (Fig. 2). In assessing the relative vulnerability of different watersheds to soil erosion, the major
factors responsible for soil erosion were considered using the Watershed Erosion Response Model (WERM), Jain
and Goel (2002).
2.2 Climatic characteristics of the study area

The climate characteristics of the watershed are of tropical monsoon type. The block experiences extreme cold
weather with minimum temperature going below freezing point in the winters while summer temperatures
sometimes rises up to 25C. The maximum relative humidity in rainy and summer seasons go as high as 98 per cent
and minimum up to 55 %. In general the RH remains in the range of 68-79 % in the periods of normal rainfall
followed by dry season extending from late September to early June when again the heavy rainfall in rainy season
sets in.
2.3 Rainfall
88
The amount and intensity of rainfall affect the sediment yield from a basin. Rainfall is a random meteorological
phenomenon. If a dense network of rain gauge stations and long-term rainfall data are available, then the effect of
rainfall characteristics on soil erosion may be taken into consideration. However, within small regions, rainfall
characteristics do not vary to a large extent and can be assumed to be similar over a larger time span.
Outlet of Watershed
Figure 1: Location map of Moolbari Experimental Watershed near Shimla in H.P. State of India in Sub-
Himalayan Region of India
2.4 Vegetation
Generally, forests are most effective in reducing erosion because of their large canopies (Jain and Dolezal
(2000)). The classification and mapping of vegetation are fundamental tools for obtaining knowledge about
vegetation cover and its relationship to the environment. A number of methods have been used to identify different
phenological stages of vegetation, including the application of the normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI),
which is used as an indicator of vegetation condition (Gita et al., (2008) : Eklundh and Olsson (2003)) and is
expressed as:
NDVI
NIR Re d (1.0)
NIR Re d
where,
NIR and Red are reflectance in near-infrared and visible red bands, respectively. The normalization minimizes the
effect of illumination geometry as well as surface topography. The methods adopted for determination of the SBI is
briefly discussed below:
89
Figure 2: The Delineated (micro-watershed) map of the Moolbari Experimental Watershed
2.5 Soil type

The properties which influence the process of erosion the most, include soil structure and texture, organic
matter content, moisture content, density (compactness), shear strength, as well as chemical and biological
characteristics, Chopra et al., (2005). To study the effect of soil conditions in the watersheds, the soil brightness
index (SBI) for each watershed was estimated. The variability in agriculture scene data can be captured in two
dimensions by soil brightness index, as shown by Sharma et al., (1990), who gave coefficients for the calculation of
brightness using the data of Landsat to compute these coefficients. Sharma and others, Sharma et al., (1990), took
nearly 60 soil samples with a wide range of physical properties. A positive linear relationship was found among all
the seven bands (B1-B7), with maximum correlation between bands 2 and 3. In the present study the soil brightness
index (SBI) as suggested by (Sharma et al., (1990)), was chosen as an indication of the soil vulnerability to erosion.
The formula used for the calculation of soil brightness index (SBI) was calculated using equation 2.
SBI 0 . 2623 B 1 0 . 6432 B 2 0 . 6302 B 3 0 . 3471 B 4 (2.0)
Where, Band 1 = B1, Band 2 = B2 , Band 3= B3, Band 5 = B5
90
Figure 3: Normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) map of the Moolbari Experimental Watershed
Figure 4: Soil Brightness Index (SBI) map of the Moolbari Experimental Watershed
91
2.6 Topography
One topographic feature that influences the erosion process the most is the degree of slope; a higher slope
will result in the higher soil erosion, Kiflu (2010). With the advent of G1S, Warrena et al., (2004) techniques, it is
now possible to prepare the digital elevation model (DEM) of an area and estimated the slope of the land. Using the
DEM, the slope; Xie et al., (2003), on all the grids in the area can be calculated and this information can be utilized
for assessing the relative vulnerability to soil erosion.
2.7 Morphology
The relationships between the morphology of streams and sediment yield have been considered important
for many decades, especially when changes in morphology might somehow be linked to changes in sediment yield
from the landscape, Kumar et al., (2000) : Nooka Ratnam et al., (2005) : Obi Reddy et al.,(2002). Important
morphological characteristics of a watershed include drainage density, form factor, elongation ratio and circulatory
ratio. Singh (2006) (Table 1).
Table 1: General Formulae for Estimation of Geomorphometric Parameters for Watershed Characterization their
Sources.
Sl. Geomorphometric Formula
No. Parameters
1 Stream Order Hierachial
2 Stream Length. Km(Lu) Length of stream
3 Lsm=Lu/Nu
Mean stream length(Lsm) Where, Lu=total stream length of order u
Nu=total number of stream segments of order u
4 RL=Lu/Lu-1
Stream Length ratio(RL) Where, Lu=total stream length of order u
Lu-1=total no of stream segments of its next lower order
5 Nb=Nu/Nu+1
Where, Nu=total stream length of order u
Bifurcation ratio(Rb) Nu+1=Number of segments of next higer order
6 Mean bifurcation ratio(Rbm) Average of bifurcation ration of all orders
7 Lenth of main chanel(Lm) Length along longest water course form the outflow point of
Km designated sub-basin to the upper limit of catchment boundary
8 D=Lu/A
Drainage Density(D) Where, D= Drainage Density
Lu=Total stream length of all orders,km
A=Area of the Basin,km2
Table 2: Specifications of LANDSAT remote sensing data of using in the present study.
Spatial Resolution Spectral Resolution
Band TM ETM+ TM ETM+
1 (Blue) 30 m 30 m 0.45-0.52 m 0.45-0.52 m
2 (Green) 30 m 30 m 0.52-0.60 m 0.53-0.61 m
3 (Red) 30 m 30 m 0.63-0.69 m 0.63-0.69 m
4 (Near IR) 30 m 30 m 0.76-0.90 m 0.78-0.90 m
92
5 (Middle IR) 30 m 30 m 1.55-1.75 m 1.55-1.75 m
6 (Thermal IR)* 120 m 60 m 10.4-12.5 m 10.4-12.5 m
7 (Middle IR) 30 m 30 m 2.08-2.35m 2.09-2.35 m
8 (Panchromatic)** 15 m 0.52-0.90 m
* ETM+ Band 6 (Thermal IR) includes both high and low gain settings.
** ETM+ Band 8 (Panchromatic) - most visible & near-IR data in single band.
2.8 Remote sensing and ancillary data used for the study
Various sub watersheds in the watersheds area of interest were marked using the 1:50,000-scale SOI topo-
sheet map No. 53E/4/NW. For preparation of vegetation and soil indexes, the remote sensing data of the LANDSAT
at spatial resolution of 30 m, were used (Table 2). The data of 17 December 2004 were used in the present study,
since the vegetation is more developed after the monsoon season and appears clearly in the remote sensing image.
For the preparation of drainage (Fig. 5) and contour maps (Fig. 6) at higher scales, Survey of India toposheets at
scales of 1:50,000 were used. The area was covered by 1 toposheets.
Figure 5: Drainage ordering map of the Moolbari Experimental Watershed showing the order of different streams
forming the basis of morphometric analysis
93
Figure 6: Digitized contour map of the Moolbari Experimental Watershed
2.9 Preparation of vegetation maps

Vegetation is important in assessing the relative vulnerability of different watersheds to soil erosion. The
presence of vegetation reduces both the detachment of sediments and their transportation. Remote sensing is a
fundamental tool for the classification and mapping of vegetation. The normalized difference vegetation index
(NDVI) as referenced to LANDSAT data, is expressed as:
B 4 B3
NDVI (3.0)
B 4 B3
Where B4 and B3 are the reflectance in band 4 (0.76-0.90 m) and band 3 (0.63-0.69 m), respectively. From the geo-
referenced raw image, the NDVI image was derived using the above equation. Using the base map, the NDVI
images were separated for each sub watersheds, and then organized into four different classes using the technique of
unsupervised classification. Since each basin was to be considered as a single identity, the area-weighted-vegetation
{AWV) was calculated for each watershed as follows
A wV A 2 wV A 3 wV A 4 wV 4 .......... .. A n wV
1 (4.0)
A 2 A 3 A 4 ....... A n
1 2 3 n
AWV
A1
Where A1...An are the areas under each vegetation class, and wV1 .......wVn are the weights for each vegetation
class. The range of AWV was classified into four classes with weights varying from 1 to 4. High AWV h given the
lowest weight based on the reasoning that the watershed with a higher vegetation amount must suffer lesser erosion.
Thus, a watershed with higher vegetation content is given low vulnerability.
2.10 Preparation of soil brightness index maps

Similar to the case of NDVI, the SBI images obtained for each watershed were divided into four different classes
using unsupervised classification. These four classes represented the extent of SBI. In a similar method to that used
for vegetation, area weighted soil (AWSo) values were calculated for all the watersheds. Then the range of AWSo
values was divided into four classes with weights varying from 1 to 4. A high AWSo was given higher weight. This
signifies that the higher the soil content (barren land), the higher is the vulnerability to erosion.
For the estimation of morphological and topographical parameters, Survey of India topo-sheet No. 53E/4/NW was
used. The drainage network was derived from the 1:50,000 Survey of India topographical maps. All the maps were
94
digitized and different thematic layers were generated for the drainage pattern (Fig. 5) and the contours (Fig. 6). For
drainage networking and creation of DEMs (Fig.7) the GIS software ILWIS 3.4 (Integrated Land and Water
Information System) was used. The Strahler system was used for stream ordering.
Figure 7: Interpolated Digital Elevation Model (DEM) map of the Moolbari Experimental Watershed
95
Figure 8: Derived slope map of the Moolbari Experimental Watershed indicating terrain characteristics
Figure 9: Composite Watershed Prioritization Index (CWPI) showing the relative vulnerability for all macro-
watersheds of the Moolbari Experimental Watershed
96
3 Results and discussion

3.1 Estimation of morphological/topographical parameters
All the sub watersheds were found to be in the range of forth or fifth order. After networking, the lengths of streams
of each order were evaluated separately for each watershed. Using this GIS database, the physical characteristics of
the sub watersheds, such as the drainage density, form factor, circulatory ratio and elongation ratio were estimated.
Based on the length of different order streams, drainage density was calculated for each watershed separately and
divided into four classes (weights varying from 1 to 4). The higher the drainage density, the higher will be the
vulnerability to erosion and, hence, the greater the weight. Form factor, circulatory ratio and elongation ratio were
calculated similarly for each watershed and divided into four classes. Higher values of the form factor, circulatory
ratio and elongation ratio induce lesser erosion and higher values in these cases was assigned less weight.
The different weights obtained for each morphological parameter were averaged out and again divided into
four different classes. Thus, a single weight was assigned for all the morphological parameters taken together.
Weights were assigned to each different range of average morphological weight, assuming that higher
morphological weight induces higher erosion. In addition to the basin characteristics, slope (Fig. VIII) is another
prominent factor for soil erosion. The higher the slope, the greater will be the erosion. In the present case, the ILWIS
system was used for evaluation of slope maps (Fig .8). Using the contour information for each sub watershed, a
DEM was generated, and used for the estimation of slope factor using eq.5.0 (ILWIS, 2007) for all the watersheds.
Since a watershed may contain many slope categories, area weighted slope (AWS) was calculated for each
watershed in the same way as for soil and vegetation.
hyp DEMdx , DEMdy
100
DEM
Slope factor (5.0)

Where
hyp is hyperbolic, dx and dy are two digital gradient filter would be applied to the Digital Elevation model, ILWIS-
ITC. (2007).
3.2 Relative vulnerability of watersheds
To account for the integrated effect of all the four parameters considered in this study (Table3), the
individual weights of all the parameters were added together. This sum was further sub-divided into four different
categories for the purpose of assessing the relative vulnerability (Table 4), and codes were assigned to each
category. Watersheds with higher final weights were considered to be most vulnerable to soil erosion. Thus, a
watershed with a code of 1 is highly vulnerable to soil erosion and must be given the highest priority for the purpose
of basin treatment and for the adoption of soil conservation measures. Table 4 present the relative prioritization
status of the watersheds, and the range of accumulated weights (Table 5) and the corresponding prioritization map
for the watershed is given in Fig. 9.
Table 3: SBI, NDVI and Slope derived for all 21watersheds, using 17 December 2004 data.
Watershed Soil Brightness Vegetation Slope (%) Drainage
number Index value Index value Density (D)
Mw1 80.70 0.160 23.05 6.56
Mw2 80.01 0.160 31.35 3.41
Mw3 79.24 0.11 30.76 4.84
Mw4 76.74 0.020 46.49 4.11
Mw5 70.02 0.040 68.77 12.57
Mw6 113.24 0.090 79.28 5.12
Mw7 74.60 0.060 114.38 6.50
Mw8 79.31 0.020 62.59 3.86
Mw9 70.80 0.100 101.71 2.43
Mw10 75.09 0.060 168.66 6.24
Mw11 71.26 0.020 164.98 5.58
Mw12 77.24 0.020 76.27 5.70
Mw13 75.23 0.060 93.23 6.90
97
Mw14 66.34 0.07 394.58 7.51

Mw15 77.72 0.120 75.29 6.72
Mw16 64.87 0.070 282.44 6.82
Mw17 66.34 0.070 235.57 7.51
Mw18 75.32 0.020 54.30 4.96
Mw19 65.31 0.080 361.20 8.10
Mw20 71.55 0.040 83.32 4.87
Mw21 144.74 0.060 98.35 5.42
Table 4: Priority code derived for all 21watersheds, using 17 December 2004 data.
Watershed Morphology SBI weight Vegetation Slope Sum of Priority

number Weight Weight Weight Weighty code
Mw1 2 2 1 1 6 4
Mw2 1 2 1 1 5 4
Mw3 1 2 2 1 6 4
Mw4 1 2 4 1 8 3
Mw5 4 1 4 2 11 1
Mw6 2 4 3 2 11 1
Mw7 2 1 4 2 9 2
Mw8 1 2 4 1 8 3
Mw9 1 1 2 2 6 4
Mw10 2 2 4 2 10 2
Mw11 2 1 4 2 9 2
Mw12 2 2 4 1 9 2
Mw13 2 2 4 1 9 2
Mw14 2 1 3 4 10 2
Mw15 2 2 3 1 8 3
Mw16 2 1 3 3 9 2
Mw17 2 1 3 3 9 2
Mw18 1 2 4 1 8 3
Mw19 2 1 3 4 10 2
Mw20 1 1 4 1 7 3
Mw21 1 4 4 1 10 2
Table 5: Relative vulnerability for all watersheds.

Range of accumulated weights vulnerability code
>11 Very High eroded 1
910 High eroded 2
78 Medium eroded 3
<5 Low eroded 4
4. Conclusions
Watershed prioritization is one of the most important aspects of planning for implementation of its development and
management programmes. The present study demonstrates the usefulness of remote sensing data and GIS for
prioritization of the sub-watersheds of Moolbari Experimental Watershed, at Shimla in Himachal Pradesh of India,
by using Soil Brightness Index and morphometric analysis. Morphometric parameters coupled with integrated
thematic map of drainage density and land use can help in decision making process for water resources
management. Sediment yield data are generally not collected for smaller sub-catchments and it becomes difficult to
98
identify the areas most vulnerable to erosion that should be treated on the basis of priority. Therefore, an index-
based approach is suggested using the surface factors mainly responsible for soil erosion soil type, vegetation, slope
and various catchment properties such as drainage density, form factor, etc. The sub watersheds with different soil
erosion potentials have been assessed with a view to adopting soil conservation measures. Sub-watersheds such as
Mw5 and Mw6 were classified as very high priority from the point of view of soil conservation because they have
higher erosivity values due to their location in the hilly terrain with undulating topography. These are also nearer to
the main channel, therefore have high drainage density value considering the fluvial nature of hazards and need
immediate attention. Similarly, watersheds Mw7, Mw10, Mw11, Mw12, Mw13, Mw14, Mw16, Mw17, Mw19 and
Mw21 were classified as high priority. Five sub watersheds (Mw4, Mw8, Mw15, Mw18 and Mw20) were classified
to have medium priority due to less erosion potential while three watersheds (Mw1, Mw2 and Mw3) fall under the
low priority because they are less eroded in presence of more vegetation (high NDVI values) and are located at
lower topographic position. Therefore, immediate attention towards soil conservation measures is required in these
sub-watersheds to preserve the land from further erosion and to alleviate natural hazards.
Acknowledgements:
Authors are highly grateful to the authorities of Water Technology Centre and Indian Agricultural Research
Institute, New Delhi for providing the man, material and all the required facilities for conducting this work. Our
most heartfelt thanks are due to the authorities of Space Application Centre, Ahmedabad for providing the finance in
implementing the project entitled Space Technology Applications for Assessment and Sustainable Utilization of
Water Resources. We also acknowledge the direct and indirect contributions of many known and unknown workers
whose help we might have received as well as all the authors whose work has been quoted.
References
Bhardwaj, G. S., Salvi, B.L. and Mehta, M. (2014). GIS analysis of landslide prone Hilly-Terrain roads: A case
study of Aravalli Mountain, North-West, India. Int. Journal of Advances in Remote Sensing and GIS, 2(4)
:25-40.
Jain, S.K and Dolezal, F. (2000). Modelling soil erosion using EPIC supported by GIS, Bohemia, Czech Republic.
Journal of Environmental Hydrology 8, 1-11.
Department of Land Resources, Ministry of Rural Development GoI, http://iwmpmis.nic.in/, accessed on 4.11.2014
El-Swaify S. A. (1997). Factors Affecting Soil Erosion Hazards and Conservation Needs for Tropical Steep Lands,
Soil Technology,11 (1) : 3-16.
Pande, L.M., Prasad, J., Saha, S.K. and Subramanyam, C. (1992). Review of Remote Sensing Applications to Soils
and Agriculture. Proceedings. Silver Jubilee Seminar, IIRS, Dehra Dun. 345pp.
Singh, R.K., Saha, S. K. and Kumar, S. (2005). Soil conservation prioritization of watershed based on erosional soil
loss and morphometric analysis using Satellite Remote Sensing & GISA case study. Indian Institute of
Remote Sensing (NRSA), Dehradun. Map India 2005.
Chopra, R., Dhiman, R.D. and Sharma, P.K. (2005). Geomorphometric analysis of sub-watersheds in Gurdaspur
district, Punjab using remote sensing and GIS techniques. Journal of Indian Society Remote Sensing 33, 531-
539.
Chen, Y. H., Li, X. B. and Shi, P. J. (2001). The study of vegetation cover dynamic monitoring by remote sensing of
Hai Dian District Beijing. Botanic Ecological Transaction 25, 588-593.
Narayan, D.V.D. and Babu, R. (1983). Estimation of soil erosion in India, Journal of Irrigation Drain Eng., 109:
419-431.
Singh, G., Babu, R., Narain, P., Busham, L.S., and Abrol, I.P. (1992). Soil erosion rates in India, Journal of Soil and
Water Conservation, 47: 97-99.
Saini, S. S., Jangra, R. and Kaushik, S. P. (2015). Vulnerability assessment of soil erosion using geospatial
techniques-A pilot study of upper catchment of Markanda river. International Journal of Advancement in
Remote Sensing, GIS and Geography. 3 (1): 9-21.
99
Kay, T.H. Shigeko, H and Maung, M.A. (2008). Using GIS-based distributed soil loss modeling and morphometric
analysis to prioritize watershed for soil conservation in Bago river basin of Lower Myanmar. Front, Earth
Science China 2, 465478.
Jain, M.K. and Kothvari. U.C. (2000). Estimation of soil erosion and sediment yield using GIS. Hydrology Science
Journal 45,771- 786.
Baban, S.M.L and Yusof, K.W. (2001). Modelling soil erosion in tropical environments using remote sensing and
geographical information systems. Hydrology Science Journal 46, 191-198.
Hudson, N., (1995). Runoff, erosion and sedimentation: prediction and measurement, Land and Water Integration
and River Basin Management, FAO Land and Water Bulletin, 1: 85.
Patel, N.R., Kumar Suresh, Prasad J.& Pande L.M. (2002). Soil Erosion Risk Assessment & Land Use Adjustment
for Soil Conservation Planning using Remote Sensing and GIS . Asian Journal of Geoinformatics, 3(2): 47-
55.
Solaimani, K., Modallaldoust, S., Lotfi, S. (2009). Investigation of land use changes on soil erosion process using
geographical information system. International Journal of Environment Science and Technology, 6: 415424.
Solaimani, K., Modallaldoust, S., Lotfi, S. (2009). Investigation of Land Use Changes on Soil Erosion Process
Using Geographical Information System, International Journal of Environment Science and Technology, 6:
415424.
Kay, T.H. Shigeko, H and Maung, M.A. (2008). Using GIS-based distributed soil loss modeling and morphometric
analysis to prioritize watershed for soil conservation in Bago river basin of Lower Myanmar. Front, Earth
Science China 2, 465478.
Jain, S. K. and Goel, M.K. (2002). Assessing the vulnerability to soil erosion of the Ukai Dam catchments using
remote sensing and GIS. Hydrologicat SciencesJournal-des Sciences Hydrologiques, 47( 1 ), 31-40.
Jain, S.K and Dolezal, F. (2000). Modelling soil erosion using EPIC supported by GIS, Bohemia, Czech Republic.
Journal of Environmental Hydrology 8, 1-11.
Gita, J., Laidler, P.M., Treitz, D., and Atkinson, M. (2008). Remote Sensing of Arctic Vegetation: Relations
between the NDVI, Spatial Resolution and Vegetation Cover on Boothia Peninsula, Nunavut. Arctic 61 : 1-
13.
Eklundh, L and Olsson, L. (2003). Vegetation index trends for the African Sahel 1982-1999, Geophysical Research
Letters 30, 131-134.
Chopra, R., Dhiman, R.D. and Sharma, P.K. (2005). Geomorphometric analysis of sub-watersheds in Gurdaspur
district, Punjab using remote sensing and GIS techniques. Journal of Indian Society Remote Sensing 33, 531-
539.
Sharma, S.A., Bhatt, P. and Ajai. (1990). Generation of brightness and greenness transformations for IRS LISS II
data. Journal of Indian Society Remote Sensing 18, 25-31.
Kiflu, G. (2010). GIS-Based Conservation Priority Area Identification in Mojo River Watershed on the Basis of
Erosion Risk. M.Sc (GIS and Remote Sensing) thesis Submitted to Department of Earth Sciences, School of
Graduate of Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa 1176. F
100
Warrena, S.D. Hohmannb, M.G. Auerswald, K. and Mitasovad, H. (2004). An evaluation of methods to determine
slope using digital elevation data. Catena 58, 215-233.
Xie, K. Wu, Y. Ma, X. Liu, Y. Liu, B. and Hessel, R. (2003). Using contour lines to generate digital elevation
models for steep slope areas: a case study of the Loess Plateau in North China. Catena 54, 161-171.
Kumar, R. Kumar, S. Lohni, A.K. Neema, R.K and Singh, A.D. (2000). Evaluation of geomorphological
characteristics of a catchment using GIS. GIS India 9, 13-17.
Nooka Ratnam, K. Srivastava, Y.K. Venkateswara Rao,V. Amminedu, E. and Murthy, K.S.R. (2005). Check dam
positioning by prioritization of microwatersheds using SYI model and morphometric analysis-Remote
sensing and GIS perspective. Journal of Indian Society Remote Sensing 33, 25-38.
Obi Reddy, G. P., Maji, A. K and Gajbhiye K S. (2002). GIS for geomorphometric analysis of drainage basins. GIS
India 11, 9-14.
Singh, S. R. (2006). A drainage morphological approach for water resources development of the Sur catchment,
Vidharbha region. Journal of Indian Society Remote Sensing 34, 79-88.
ILWIS help book (2007) ITC.
101

Mishra and Rawat 2015 - RSG4205

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mishra and Rawat 2015 - RSG4205

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See

A Composite Watershed Prioritization Index

Article October 2015

Anil Kumar Mishra Kishan Singh Rawat

A Composite Watershed Prioritization Index (CWPI) Based on

Mishra* A.K.1 and Rawat K.S.2

(Correspondence: mishranilkumar@gmail.com, akm_wtc@iari.res.in)

2.2 Climatic characteristics of the study area

Figure 2: The Delineated (micro-watershed) map of the Moolbari Experimental Watershed

2.5 Soil type

Where, Band 1 = B1, Band 2 = B2 , Band 3= B3, Band 5 = B5

Sl. Geomorphometric Formula

Spatial Resolution Spectral Resolution

Band TM ETM+ TM ETM+

1 (Blue) 30 m 30 m 0.45-0.52 m 0.45-0.52 m

2 (Green) 30 m 30 m 0.52-0.60 m 0.53-0.61 m

3 (Red) 30 m 30 m 0.63-0.69 m 0.63-0.69 m

4 (Near IR) 30 m 30 m 0.76-0.90 m 0.78-0.90 m

5 (Middle IR) 30 m 30 m 1.55-1.75 m 1.55-1.75 m

6 (Thermal IR)* 120 m 60 m 10.4-12.5 m 10.4-12.5 m

7 (Middle IR) 30 m 30 m 2.08-2.35m 2.09-2.35 m

Figure 6: Digitized contour map of the Moolbari Experimental Watershed

2.9 Preparation of vegetation maps

2.10 Preparation of soil brightness index maps

3 Results and discussion

Mw14 66.34 0.07 394.58 7.51

Watershed Morphology SBI weight Vegetation Slope Sum of Priority

Table 5: Relative vulnerability for all watersheds.

You might also like