You are on page 1of 155

Watershed Analysis

Through FOSS Tools

Vishnu B
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

Author: Vishnu B

First Edition: 2013

© Author

All rights reserved

ISBN: 978-81-925176-0-5

Published by

Balaleela Publications, Pala - 686574


PREFACE

The dramatic increase in the computational power and developments


in Geographic Information System (GIS) has led to significant developments in
the way that hydrological analysis is conducted. This book provides details
and examples of the use of Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) GIS
tools for watershed analysis.

‘Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools’ may be of particular


interest to undergraduates and postgraduate students in Geology,
Environmental Sciences, Earth Sciences, Agricultural Engineering, Water
Resources and Environmental Engineering as well as researchers in
Hydrology and Hydrogeomorphology.

This book is the outcome of several years of teaching the Remote Sensing
and GIS applications courses for both undergraduate and postgraduate students at
Kelappaji College of Agricultural Engineering and Technology (KCAET),
Tavanur and my Ph. D. research programme at National Institute of Technology
(NIT), Kozhikode.

I express my deep sense of gratitude and sincere indebtedness to my


research guides Dr. P. Syamala, Professor, Civil Engineering Department, and
Dr. K. Sasikumar, Associate Dean, NIT, Kozhikode for the motivation, and
untiring support throughout the course of my research work there. I am thankful to
Mr. Sumit Kumar Jha and Mr. Rahul, B.T., B. Tech. (Ag. Engg.) students at
KCAET, Tavanur for helping in the preparation of the Meenachil watershed maps.
I concede my gratitude to Dr. E. K. Mathew, Registrar i/c, Kerala Agricultural
University for his encouragement in this endeavour. I take this opportunity to
thank Dr. M. Sivaswami, Dean (Ag. Engg.) for supporting this work. Above all, I
am utmost grateful to the Almighty for giving me the capability, courage and
support to surpass the hurdles during this task.

Vishnu, B.

Tavanur, Kerala
January, 2013
CONTENTS
LIST OF SYMBOLS VI
ABBREVIATIONS VII
1 INTRODUCTION 1
1 Watershed 1
2 Geographic Information System (GIS) 2
3 Remote Sensing 3
4 Geomorphology 3
5 Digital Elevation Model (DEM) 4
6 Watershed delineation 5
7 ILWIS 6
8 Mapwindow GIS 6
9 TauDEM 6
10 GRASS GIS 6
11 Watersheds used for analysis in this book 7
12 Aim 7
2 LITERATURE ON WATERSHED ANALYSIS 8
1 Geomorphometry 9
2 Digital hydrogeomorphology 9
3 Hydrogeomorphology of the watershed 11
4 Studies related to Bharathapuzha watershed 12
5 Watershed Characterization through GIS and Remote Sensing 13
6 GIS and Remote Sensing in Modelling Watershed Processes 15
7 Modelling Watershed Hydrological Responses 16
8 Derivation of flow characteristics 18
9 Watershed Characteristics 20
10 Geomorphological influence on hydrological response of the watershed 21
3 WATERSHEDS, DATA, TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES USED 23
1 Watersheds used for the analysis 23
1 The Bharathapuzha watershed 23
1 Rain gauge and river gauge stations in the Bharathapuzha watershed 26
2 Meenachil watershed 28
2 Maps and data used 29
1 Rainfall 29
2 River flow 31

ii
3 Other climatic data 31
4 1 Topographic maps 31
2 Making a digital version of the topographic map 31
3 Creating a seamless digital map of the area from the digitized toposheets 32
4 Digitizing the contours and drainage network 32
5 Soil map 33
6 Remote sensing imagery 33
7 Digital Elevation Model (DEM) 33
3 Tools and techniques used 36
1 ILWIS 36
2 MapWindow GIS 36
3 TauDEM (Terrain Analysis Using Digital Elevation Models) 37
4 GRASS GIS 38
4 WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS 41
1 Introduction 41
2 Methodology 41
1 Preparation of thematic maps using GIS 41
1 Creation of contour map 43
2 Creation of Digital Elevation Model (DEM) 43
3 Soil map 43
4 Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) 43
5 Land use map 44
6 Slope map 44
7 Aspect map 45
8 Geology map 45
9 Geomorphology 46
10 Drainage map 46
3 Results of the Analysis 46
1 Digital Elevation Model (DEM) 46
2 Soil map 48
3 Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) 50
4 Land use map 52
1 Garden land 54
2 Paddy 54
3 Forest area 54
4 River dry 54

iii
5 Water 54
5 Slope map 54
6 Aspect map 56
7 Geology map 58
8 Geomorphology 60
1 Valley fills 61
2 Structural Hills 62
3 Residual hills 62
4 Pediments 62
5 Moderately dissected pediment zones 63
6 Plateaus 63
7 Coastal terrains 63
9 Drainage 63
1 Drainage pattern 63
2 Drainage Map 64
3 Tributaries of Bharathapuzha River 65
4 Conclusion 66
5 HYDROGEOMORPHOMETRY 67
1 Introduction 67
2 Methodology 67
1 Data and maps required 68
2 Determination of hydrogeomorphological parameters 68
3 Results of the Analysis 69
1 Area 69
2 Stream order 70
3 Stream length (Lu) 73
4 Mean stream length 74
5 Stream length ratio 75
6 Bifurcation ratio 76
7 Basin length 77
8 Relief Ratio 77
9 Drainage texture 78
10 Stream frequency (Fs) 79
11 Form factor (Ff) 80
12 Circularity ratio (Rc) 80
13 Elongation ratio (Re) 81

iv
14 Drainage Density 82
15 Length of overland flow (Lg) 83
16 Sinuosity index (SI) 84
4 Conclusion 85
6 WATERSHED DELINEATION THROUGH DEM- HYDRO 86
PROCESSING
1 Introduction 86
1 Watershed characteristics 86
2 DEM- Hydro processing 87
1 DEM Visualisation 88
2 Flow determination 90
1 Fill sinks 90
2 Flow direction 91
3 Flow accumulation 92
3 Flow Modification 93
1 DEM optimization 93
2 Topological optimization 94
4 Network and catchment extraction 96
1 Drainage Network Extraction 96
2 Drainage network ordering 97
3 Catchment extraction 102
4 Catchment merge 103
5 Compound Parameter Extraction 109
1 Overland Flow Length 109
2 Flow Length to Outlet 110
3 Stepwise procedure for determining watershed parameters using ILWIS 112
1 Catchment area calculation 113
2 Channel Length calculation 114
3 Average channel slope calculation 118
4 Average slope steepness calculation 119
5 Hypsometric curve calculation 124
6 Calculating an aspect map 126
4 Delineation of sub-watersheds using TauDEM plugin of MapWindow GIS 127
REFERENCES 135

v
LIST OF SYMBOLS
Symbol Description Unit
Au Area km2
BFI Base Flow Index
CV Coefficient of variation
Dd Drainage density
Dd Drainage density km-1
Fs Stream frequency km-2
Gg Granite gneiss
H Maximum basin elevation km
Hbg Hornblende-biotite gneiss
Lb Maximum Basin length km
Lg Length of overland flow (km)
Proportion of a watershed with granite and gneiss
LiGg
(lithology)
LiL Proportion of a watershed with laterite (lithology)
Lsm Mean stream length km
Lu Stream length km
Nr Number of rainy days
Nu Stream number
P Perimeter km
P Precipitation
Pa Mean annual rainfall
Qa Mean annual flow
Qfg Quartzofeldspathic gneiss
R Runoff
R2, r2 Coefficient of determination
Rb Bifurcation ratio
Rbm Mean bifurcation ratio
Rc Circularity ratio
Re Elongation ratio
Rf Form factor
Rh Relief ratio
RL Stream length ratio
SD Standard Deviation
Se Standard Error
Sn Slope value for which n % of the pixels are ≤ that value
T Drainage texture km-1
u Stream order
X0 Original time series data
β Parameter vector

vi
ABBREVIATIONS
ASTER Advanced Space borne Thermal Emission and Reflection
Radiometer
BFI base flow index
CC correlation coefficient
CWC Central Water Commission, India
CWRDM Centre for Water Resources Development and Management
DEM digital elevation model
DLSM digital land surface model
et al and others
FOSS Free and open-source software
GIS Geographical Information Systems
GLCF Global Land Cover Facility (http://glcf.umiacs.umd.edu)
GRASS Geographic Resources Analysis Support System
ILWIS Integrated Land and Water Information System
IRS Indian Remote Sensing Satellite
KCAET Kelappaji College of Agricultural Engineering and Technology
KERI Kerala Engineering Research Institute
LISS Linear Imaging Self-scanning Sensor
RUSLE Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation
NBSS & LUP National Bureau of Soil Survey and Land Use Planning, India
NDVI Normalised Difference Vegetation Index
NIR near-infrared
NRSA National Remote Sensing Agency
NSE Nash–Sutcliffe model efficiency
RMSE Root-mean-squared error
SCS Soil Conservation Service
SOI Survey of India
SRTM Shuttle Radar Topography Mission
TauDEM Terrain Analysis Using Digital Elevation Models
TIC Thiel's inequality coefficient
WEPP Water Erosion Prediction Project
WRDK Water Resources Department, Kerala

vii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Water, the essential resource for human life and all spheres of activity, is
becoming more and scarcer due to the increasing demand and decline in the
quality of water by various contaminations. A judicious use of this scarce resource
requires scientific management by way of conservation and planning. Water
resources conservation and management plans are made on a watershed basis as it
is the basic unit for the water balance studies. Rivers play a major role in the
hydrological response of a watershed. Hence the ever growing demand of water in
domestic, agricultural and industrial sectors calls for better management of the
water available in the rivers. This requires the study of precipitation, hydrological
response of the watershed and its relation to the watershed characteristics.

1.1 WATERSHED

Watershed can be defined as an area from which runoff resulting from


precipitation flows past a single point into a stream, river, lake, or an ocean. It is a
topographically delineated area or basin like landform defined by high points and
ridge lines that descend to lower elevations, valleys and is drained by stream
system. It is a spatial unit within which hydrologic principles must hold and
therefore all hydrologic analysis must be validated within this unit.

Watershed is a natural integrator of all hydrological phenomena pertaining


to an area and is a logical unit for planning the optimal development of an area
based on the availability of soil, water and biomass resources. Watershed based
planning is an ideal multidisciplinary approach to the resources management for
ensuring continuous benefits on a sustainable basis. Hence integrated watershed
management is a prerequisite for land and water management for degraded areas
and for soil and water conservation of priority areas.

Watershed models are very effective tools for planning watershed


development activities to gain better understanding of the hydrologic phenomena
operating within the watershed and how changes in the watershed affect these
phenomena. The major scientific challenges for hydrologists are the quantification
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

of the effect of land use change on water balance and the prediction of streamflow
in ungauged watersheds (Donald and David, 1993; Sivapalan, et. al., 2003; Zhang,
et. al., 2005). Even though there have been advances in the understanding of the
processes controlling the water balance, the development of models that can
predict hydrological responses at watershed scale remains a difficult task, since it
must meet the requirements of parsimony in terms of data inputs and model
parameters to be of practical use. The model parameters in such a model must be
estimable from known climate and watershed characteristics (Zhang, et. al., 2005).

Quantification of water quality and quantity for sustainable water


resources planning and management requires data. Also, quantification of the
effects of specific land use practices on quality and quantity of water resources
require adequate hydrological data. Most of the developing countries are having
constraints on finance, equipment and staff for developing and maintaining
hydrological networks leading to shortage of adequate hydrological information
for the sustainable planning and management of water resources. Even when
resources are available, it is impossible to setup an ideal hydrological network in
inaccessible places. Use of various hydrological models require the hydrological
parameters as input which is obtained using hydrological analysis of the
watershed using geospatial data handling tools viz. Geographic Information
System (GIS).

1.2 GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM (GIS)

A Geographic Information System (GIS) can be defined as a computerized


data base system for the capture, storage, retrieval, analysis and display of tabular
and spatial data. GIS is gaining more importance these days because it plays an
important role in resource management, environment monitoring and land use
planning activities. GIS is one of the most important tools for watershed analysis.

The GIS tools have made the data handling and analysis much easier. It
has the advantage of handling attribute data in conjunction with spatial features,
which was totally impossible with manual cartographic analysis. It stores both
spatial and non-spatial data, layer by layer either in raster or vector format. This
tool makes the data handling job easier and meaningful. It is more versatile for

2
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

analysing a large data base and large areal extent. GIS facilitates repetitive model
application with considerable ease and accuracy. The cartographic and data
overlaying capability of GIS coupled with its dynamic linking ability with models
plays a vital role in water management decision making process. The model
output can be displayed effectively and the information stored in a particular
region will be handy for use.

A proper watershed planning can be done by using GIS based technologies


for sustainable management of land and water resources. While remote sensing
can provide a variety of latest and updated information on natural resources, GIS
has the capability for captures, storage, manipulation, analysis, retrieval of
multiple layer resource information occurring both in spatial and aspatial forms.

1.3 REMOTE SENSING

Remote Sensing imply the acquisition of information about an object or


phenomenon on earth surface by devices called sensors without being in any
physical contact between the object and sensing device. This is done by sensing
and recording reflected/emitted electromagnetic energy from objects on the
earth’s surface, distinguishing them using the characteristic ensemble of
electromagnetic radiation emitted/reflected by them -called spectral signature- and
processing, analysing and applying that information. There are tremendous
improvements in remote sensing technology involving increase in spatial
resolutions to sub-meter accuracies and also increase in radiometric resolution by
introduction of hyper-spectral scanners which contain hundreds of bands.
Availability of many of these remote sensing imageries freely like LANDSAT
imagery through earth explorer and IRS imageries through Bhuvan has made its
use in watershed analysis easy. Remote sensing technology has an important role
in effective and timely mapping of geo-resources.

1.4 GEOMORPHOLOGY

River morphology is a field of science which deals with the change of


river plan, form and cross sections due to sedimentation and erosion and the
dynamics of flow and sediment transport in the river are the principal elements

3
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

considered. An understanding of the morphology and behaviour of the river is a


pre-requisite for a scientific and rational approach to different river problems and
proper planning and design of water resources projects. The river morphological
studies, therefore, play an important role in planning, designing and maintaining
river engineering structures. There has been a growing awareness about the need
for taking up morphological studies of rivers in India in recent years.

Geomorphometry is the science of quantitative land surface analysis. It


gathers various mathematical, statistical and image processing techniques that can
be used to quantify morphological, hydrological, ecological and other aspects of a
land surface. Common synonyms for geomorphometry are geomorphological
analysis, terrain morphometry or terrain analysis and land surface analysis. In
simple terms, geomorphometry aims at extracting land surface parameters
(morphometric, hydrological, climatic etc.) and objects (watersheds, stream
networks, landforms etc.) using input digital land surface model (DEM) and
parameterization software. Extracted surface parameters and objects can then be
used, for example, to improve mapping and modelling of soils, vegetation, land
use, geomorphological and geological features and similar. Using GIS, spatially
varying parameters or characteristics can easily be computed, stored, retrieved and
analysed and much derivative information can be generated.

1.5 DIGITAL ELEVATION MODEL (DEM)

DEM (Digital Elevation Model) is a digital model or 3-D representation of


a terrain's surface created from terrain elevation data. Digital Elevation Models
(DEMs) represent the terrain elevation in discrete form in three-dimensional
space. Digital elevation models (DEMs) are increasingly used for visual and
mathematical analysis of topography, landscapes and landforms, as well as
modelling of surface processes. A DEM offers the most common method for
extracting vital topographic information and even enables the modelling of flow
across topography, a controlling factor in distributed models of landform
processes. DEM can be computed from a contour map or DEMs can be generated
from stereo satellite data derived from electro-optic scanners such as ASTER

4
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

(Advanced Space borne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer) or SRTM


(Shuttle Radar Topography Mission).

DEMs are used in water resources projects to identify drainage features


such as ridges, valley bottoms, channel networks, surface drainage patterns, and to
quantify sub catchment and channel properties such as size, length, and slope. The
accuracy of this topographic information is a function both of the quality and
resolution of the DEM, and of the DEM processing algorithms used to extract this
information.

1.6 WATERSHED DELINEATION

Watershed delineation is process of identifying the drainage area of a point


or set of points by finding the water divide. Watershed delineation is one of the
most commonly performed activities in hydrologic analyses. This can be done
manually or automatically. Watershed delineation by manual method involves
drawing lines on a topographic map connecting the slope or ridge tops to indicate
the water divide. A water divide indicates a line joining points such that the water
will drain away from those points. The water divide line forms an enclosing
polygon delineating the watershed.

The automated delineation process involves the use of GIS tools on a


Digital Elevation Model (DEM), obtaining a stream network, and identifying
stream outlets.

Watershed delineation is an important tool for land and water resource


management by considering different variables eg. Morphometric characteristics,
Landuse / land cover, hydrogeomorphology, elevation and slope of watershed by
integration of remote sensing and GIS. There is an urgent need to adopt modern
technology of remote sensing and GIS, offering possibilities of generating various
options, thereby optimizing the whole planning process. If watersheds are not
managed in an integrated sustainable manner, then not only the water resources
but also other resources such as vegetation, fertile soil, fauna and flora get
depleted.

5
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

1.7 ILWIS

ILWIS is an acronym for the Integrated Land and Water Information


System. It is a Geographic Information System (GIS) with Image Processing
capabilities. ILWIS has been developed by the International Institute for
Aerospace Survey and Earth Sciences, Enscheda, the Netherlands. As an
Integrated GIS and Remote Sensing package, ILWIS allows generating
information on the spatial and temporal patterns and processes on the earth
surface and this information can be analysed on GIS platform

1.8 MAPWINDOW GIS

Mapwindow GIS is an open source GIS. It is an extensible geographic


information system. Mapwindow GIS includes standard GIS data visualization
features as well as DBF attribute table editing, shape file editing, and data
converters. Dozens of standard GIS formats are supported, including Shape files,
GeoTIFF, ESRI Arc Info ASCII and binary grids. Mapwindow GIS is an open
source “Programmable Geographic Information System” that supports
manipulation, analysis, and viewing of geospatial data and associated attribute
data in several standard GIS data formats. Mapwindow GIS is a mapping tool, a
GIS modelling system and a GIS application programming interface (API) all in
one convenient redistributable open source solution.

1.9 TAUDEM

TauDEM (Terrain Analysis Using Digital Elevation Models) is a set of


Digital Elevation Model (DEM) tools for the extraction and analysis of hydrologic
information from topography as represented by a DEM. This is software
developed at Utah State University (USU) for hydrologic digital elevation model
analysis and watershed delineation.

1.10 GRASS GIS

GRASS is acronym of “Geographic Resource Analysis and Support


System”. This is free Geographic Information System (GIS) software used for
geospatial data management and analysis, image processing, graphics/maps
production, spatial modelling, and visualization. GRASS is currently used in

6
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

academic and commercial settings around the world, as well as by many


governmental agencies and environmental consulting companies

1.11 WATERSHEDS USED FOR ANALYSIS IN THIS BOOK

Two watersheds in Kerala, India viz. Meenachil and Bharathapuzha are


used for presenting the watershed analysis techniques in this book.

The Meenachil watershed lies between 9°25’to 9°55’ N latitudes and


76°20’ to 76°55’E longitudes and it is located in the Alappuzha and Kottayam
districts and along the western boundary of Idukki district of Kerala state.
Meenachil River is formed by several streams originating from Western Ghats and
its basin cover a total area of 1208.11 km² covering 52 villages spread over 59
Panchayats, 18 blocks and three districts.

The Bharathapuzha river basin lies between 10°26’30.16” to 11°12’32.78”


North latitudes and 75°54’40.74” to 76°54’29.09” East longitudes and it covers
Malappuram, Thrissur and Palakkad districts of Kerala, India. The study area has
a total drainage area of 3844.320 km2.

1.12 AIM

The objective of this book is to present the hydrogeomorphological


analysis of watersheds using various FOSS tools in a simple way for the use of
students and researchers in the field of hydrology and water resources.

7
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE ON WATERSHED ANALYSIS

A review of previous research works related to the hydrological response


of watersheds, hydrogeomorphometry, hydrological response characteristics and
watershed characteristics are presented in this chapter.

A watershed is the area of land where all of the water that is under it or drains
off of it goes into the same place. According to John Wesley Powell a watershed is
that area of land, a bounded hydrologic system, within which all living things are
inextricably linked by their common water course and where, as humans settled,
simple logic demanded that they become part of a community. Hence watershed is
adopted as a basic developmental planning or management unit especially for natural
resources. The hydrology as well as the developmental strategy depends on the size of
the watershed. The sizes of the watersheds vary from a few hectares to thousands of
hectares. Watersheds can be classified on the basis of area as: micro watershed (0 to
10 ha), small watershed (10 to 40 ha), mini watershed (40 to 200 ha), sub
watershed (200 to 400 ha), macro watershed (400 to 1000 ha), and river basin
(above 1000 ha).

Indian River basins are classified as major, medium and minor river basins
respectively based on the size of the watershed area being more than 20,000 km2,
between 20,000 km2 and 2,000 km2, and less than 2,000 km2. (Jain et al., 2007)

Watersheds have distinct characteristics and those characteristics influencing


the runoff production are important in hydrologic analyses. Geomorphological
characteristics like stream order, drainage density, watershed length and width,
channel length, channel slope and relief aspects of watershed are important in
understanding the hydrology of the watershed (Huggett and Cheesman, 2002;
Huggett, 2007). A detailed analysis of the drainage network in a watershed can
provide valuable information about watershed behaviour which will be useful for
further hydrological analysis.

8
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

2.1 GEOMORPHOMETRY

Geomorphometry or morphometry is a branch of geomorphology


(Thornbury, 1969) which is also known as quantitative geomorphology, and
terrain analysis. Geomorphometry is the science of quantitative land-surface
analysis or topographic quantification. It is an important component of terrain
analysis and surface modelling and is a combination of engineering, earth science,
mathematics, and computer science (Pike et al., 2008). It has applications to
diverse fields including hydrology, geohazards mapping, tectonics, sea-floor and
planetary exploration. Assessing soil erosion, mapping eco-regions, characterizing
glacial troughs, mapping sea-floor terrain types, analysing wildfire propagation,
measuring the morphometry of continental ice surfaces, and guiding missiles are
some of its specific applications (Pike 1995, 2000, 2002).

Pike (1999) traced the beginning of modern Geomorphometry to the work


of Alexander von Humboldt and Carl Ritter. The advent of remote sensing and
Geographical Information Systems (GIS) software revived the interest in
geomorphometry. The incorporation of geomorphological mapping into
geographical information systems (GIS) has required greater precision with
definitions, and the separation of thematic layers, so that it is converging with
specific geomorphometry and becoming more flexible and more applicable, with a
broader range of visualisation techniques. (Evans, 2012)

2.2 DIGITAL HYDROGEOMORPHOLOGY

The operational focus of geomorphometry is the extraction of land-surface


parameters and objects from digital elevation models (Pike et al., 2008). There
have been rapid developments in geomorphometry in the field of modelling of
fluvial systems from digital elevation data (Blöschl and Sivapalan, 1995;
Burlando et al., 1996; Rodríguez-Iturbe and Rinaldo, 1997; Pelletier, 1999).
Studies are reported in adaptation of stream-branching topology to networks of
valley glaciers (Bahr and Peckham, 1996) and development of the DEM-based
TOPMODEL algorithm for simulating watershed hydrographs (Beven and
Kirkby, 1997). Attempts to automatically extract stream networks and drainage

9
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

basins from DEMs using fully automated (Peckham, 1995) and interactive (Pilotti
et al., 1996) approaches have been reported.

There have been continuous improvements in the techniques to transform


the DEM-to-watershed (Brändli, 1996; Tarboton, 1997; Rieger, 1998). The
problems due to low-relief topography (Martz and Garbrecht, 1998) and the
inclusion of lakes (Mackay and Band, 1998) received attention. The accuracy of
the results in network mapping with regard to both the numbers of extracted
drainage cells (Lee and Chu, 1996) and uncertainty of the delimited watershed
boundaries (Miller and Morrice, 1996) were assessed. The fidelity of the resulting
drainage nets, basins and parameters primarily depend upon the accuracy and
spacing of the input DEM and the DEM-to-watershed algorithms (Lagacherie et
al., 1996).

The operational goal of geomorphometry is the extraction of land-surface


parameters and spatial features like drainage topology, slope-frequency
distribution, and land-surface classification from digital topography and deals
with the processing of elevation data, description and visualisation of topography,
and a number of numerical analyses. Geomorphometric analysis usually has five
steps: sampling a surface, generating and correcting a surface model, calculating
land-surface parameters, and applying the results (Pike et al., 2008). A square-grid
representation of the land surface in the form of a digital elevation model (DEM)
or digital land surface model (DLSM) is the usual input to geomorphometric
analysis. The neighbourhood operation is the procedure that extracts most land-
surface parameters and objects from a DEM (Hengl and Reuter, 2009).

Biswas et al. (1999) used Morphometric analysis for Prioritization of


Micro-watersheds. Soil erosion studies using Morphometric analysis indicated
relationships between cumulative stream length and stream order and also
bifurcation ratio, drainage density, texture ratio and relief ratio (Nautiyal, 1994,
Chaudhary and Sharma, 1998). A study in the upper Damodar valley of the effect
of topographic elements on sediment production rate of the sub-watersheds
indicated that the sediment production rate decreases with the increase of form
factor. A detailed analysis of the drainage network in a watershed can provide

10
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

valuable information about watershed behaviour which will be useful for further
hydrological analysis. The order, pattern, and density of drainage have
considerable effect on the runoff, infiltration, land management etc. of the
watershed and determine its flow characteristics and erosional behaviour (Murthy,
2000; Murthi, 2004).

The Geographic Information System (GIS) has unique features to relate to


the point, linear and area features in terms of the topology as well as connectivity.
Walsh et al. (1998) described the applications of remote sensing and GIS for
geomorphic research. Increased interest is being directed to the mapping of
hydrogeomorophological characteristics using GIS and Remote Sensing
techniques (Epstein et al., 2002).

Hack's Law

John Hack in 1957 deduced from terrain analysis and interpretation of


field observations that the drainage-basin area increases exponentially with
channel length (Hack and Goodlett, 1960; Hack, 1965) and formulated the Hack's
Law, an empirical relation with moderate scatter, L = 1.4 A0.6, where A is
drainage-basin area and L is channel length. There were several studies on the
variation of the value of the exponent, with an observed range of 0.47–0.65, with
region and basin size (Miller, 1953; Mueller, 1972, 1973; Moseley and Parker,
1973; Shreve, 1967). Hack's Law was interpreted as related to the spacing of
streams draining mountain belts (Hovius, 1996), and as an outgrowth of fractal
properties (Rodríguez-Iturbe and Rinaldo, 1997). Later Dodds and Rothman
(2000, 2001a), Willemin (2000), Birnir and others (2001), and Sivapalan and
others (2002) also interpreted Hack’s Law.

2.3 HYDROGEOMORPHOLOGY OF THE WATERSHED

The study of the hydrogeomorphology of the watershed is essential for


understanding the influence of lithology and geomorphology on the runoff
processes. Philip and Singhal (1991) points out the importance of geomorphology
for hydrological study in hard rock terrain of Bihar Plateau. According to Noe
(2013), hydrogeomorphology is the integrated study of hydrology and

11
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

geomorphology. Hydrogeomorphology has been defined as “an interdisciplinary


science that focuses on the interaction and linkage of hydrologic processes with
landforms or earth materials and the interaction of geomorphic processes with
surface and subsurface water in temporal and spatial dimensions” (Sidle and
Onda, 2004).

Worcester (1948) defines geomorphology as the science of landforms; i.e.


it is the interpretive description of the relief features of the earth. Fluvial
morphology, the science of landforms as produced by river action, is a branch of
geomorphology dealing with form of the streams and adjoining areas as brought
about by erosion, transportation and deposition of sediment by the running water.
The primary objective of fluvial hydraulics is to understand the basic mechanisms
of erosion, transportation and deposition of sediment by flow in the river and
develop qualitative and quantitative methods for prediction of river behaviour
(Garde, 2006).

Assessment of the characteristics of the drainage basin using quantitative


morphometric analysis can provide information about the hydrological nature of
the rocks exposed within the drainage basin and gives an indication of the yield of
the basin (Singh et al., 2013).

Drainage basin morphometry is a means of mathematically quantifying


various aspects of drainage channels and characteristics that can be measured for
comparison. Drainage characteristics of basins have been morphometrically
analysed using conventional methods (Horton, 1945; Strahler, 1964) and remote
sensing and GIS techniques by a number of researchers (Srivastava and
Maitra 1995; Nag, 1998; Agarwal, 1998; Sreedevi et al., 2001; Narendra and
Rao, 2006 ; Rao et al., 2010; Magesh et al., 2013) and observed that remote
sensing and Geographical Information System are powerful tools for the
morphometrical analysis of basins.

2.4 STUDIES RELATED TO BHARATHAPUZHA WATERSHED

CESS (1997, 2004) reported that even though many studies are available
on the geomorphology of Indian rivers, studies are limited in the case of Kerala

12
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

Rivers like Bharathapuzha River. Thirugnanasambandam (1980) conducted


Geomorphological studies at Kuttippuram and Pattambi in the Bharathapuzha
watershed, Anirudhan et al. (1994) studied textural and mineralogical variations
of sediments of Bharathapuzha river system. Rajendran et al. (1996) reported
heavy mineral and geochemical studies of lower Bharathapuzha sediments. Raj
and Azeez. (2009) studied the spatiotemporal variation in water quality and
quantity of Bharathapuzha watershed. Raj and Azeez (2012) carried out
morphometric analysis in the Bharathapuzha watershed. Magesh et al. (2013)
computed the morphometric parameters of Bharathapuzha watershed by
geoprocessing DEM from SRTM alone. The results of the morphometric analysis
of Bharathapuzha watershed reported by Raj and Azeez (2012) vary considerably
from the results obtained using geoprocessing of remote sensing data (SRTM–
DEM) alone by Magesh et al. (2013).

2.5 WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION THROUGH GIS AND


REMOTE SENSING

The most laborious, tedious and time consuming part of the watershed based
studies is the digitisation of topographic maps for preparation Digital Elevation Maps
(DEM) etc. However, due to the advent of Geographic Information Systems (GIS),
the management and manipulation of spatial data has become easy. Geographic
Information System (GIS) is defined as an information system that is used to input,
store, retrieve, manipulate, analyse and output geographically referenced data or
geospatial data, in order to support decision making for planning and management
of landuse, natural resources, environment, transportation, urban facilities, and other
administrative records. The efficiency of GIS is in the integration of data set from
various sources to analyse it as a whole and implement it for critical decision
making in planning and management options. Garbrecht et al. (2001) describes GIS
and distributed watershed models which addresses selected spatial data issue, data
structures and projections, data sources, and information on data solution and
uncertainties. Spatial data that are covered include digital elevation data, steam and
drainage data, soil data, remotely sensed data and radar precipitation data.

13
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

Honda et al. (1994) conducted a study on denudation in a Siwalik watershed


of Nepal using 20 years Landsat data for analysing the change of forest cover in the
watershed and topographical parameters were used in a model to estimate the
probable annual soil loss. Sharma et al. (2001) conducted a study on micro-
watershed development plans using Remote Sensing and GIS for a part of
Shetrunji river basin, Bhavnagar district, Gujarat to identify the natural resources
problems and to generate local specific micro-watershed development plans for a
part of Shetrunji river basin. Chattopadhyay and Choudhury (2005) conducted a
study on application of GIS and Remote Sensing for watershed development
projects to plan the infra-structure development needed such as connecting market
with local place.

Kaur et al. (2002) made a study on GIS based digital delineation of


watershed and its advantage over conventional manual method in Hazaribagh and
Bankura district of Jharkhand and West Bengal. The study indicated that automatic
digital delineation of watershed boundaries avoids the subjectivity in locating the
ridge lines in the manual method and thus gives more accurate shape and size of the
delineated watershed.

Upadhye et al. (2005) used remote sensing and GIS technique for
prioritization of watershed for development and management. Selvi et al. (2006)
studied about the utilities and limitations of remote sensing and GIS applications
in micro-watershed planning of Kuruthukuli watershed in Kundah basin of the
Nilgiris district, Tamil Nadu. Dhar and Mazumdar (2009) implemented a
calibrated Soil and Water Assessment Tool over the Kangsabati river watershed in
Bankura district of West Bengal, India, for a year including monsoon and non-
monsoon period in order to evaluate projected parameters for agricultural
activities. Gupta and Mathur (2005) studied the effect of river configuration in
flood management using Geographical Information System.

Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI)

The principle behind NDVI is that chlorophyll causes considerable


absorption of incoming sunlight in the red region (0.58-0.68 microns) of the
electromagnetic spectrum and the spongy mesophyll leaf structure of the plants

14
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

creates considerable reflectance in the near-infrared region (0.72-1.10 microns) of


the spectrum (Tucker, 1979, Tucker et al., 1991). Thus vigorously growing
healthy vegetation gives high NDVI values due to the low red-light reflectance
and high near-infrared reflectance (Cihlar et al., 1991).

Normalized Difference Vegetation Indices (NDVI) was observed to


increase from water, ice, snow, opaque clouds, bare soil, to green vegetation
(Holben, 1986). Wiegand et al., (1991) attributed the correlation between
evapotranspiration and vegetation index as due to the correspondence between
NDVI and the plant tissue absorbing the active photo synthetic radiation. The
potential application of the NDVI for studying the expansion of the Sahara Desert
has been demonstrated by Tucker et al. (1991).

2.6 GIS AND REMOTE SENSING IN MODELLING WATERSHED


PROCESSES

Ravat (1994) conducted a study on water resource assessment and


management in Himalayan watersheds through remote sensing and GIS
technology to compare the runoff calculated by SCS method, observed runoff and
that computed by water balance method. Sharma and Kumar (2002) studied the
application of SCS model to a watershed in upper Jojri of Rajasthan. Sarangi et al.
(2000) studied the use of GIS in assessing the erosion statistics of two watersheds,
Banha watershed at upper Damodar valley, Jharkhand and IARI watershed at
Delhi. Teeter et al. (2000) have focused their studies on the use of remote sensing
and GIS in watershed level analyses of basin characteristics such as land use/land
cover, slope, and soil attributes which affect water quality by regulating sediment
and chemical concentration.

Pandey et al. (2004) extracted topographical parameters and stream


properties from the DEM developed for Bankduth agricultural watershed for use
in the simulation of runoff and sediment yield from the watershed. Deshmukh et
al. (2007) had integrated GIS with the Modified Universal Soil Loss Equation
(MUSLE) for identification of sediment source areas and the prediction of storm
sediment yield from the Banha watershed of upper Damodar river valley in
Jharkhand state using the Integrated Land and Information System (ILWIS)

15
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

package. Misra and Babu (2008) delineated the watershed of a proposed drop
structure in an agricultural micro-watershed in Kashipur block of Purulia district
using hydrology modelling extension tools.

Ames et al. (2009) had estimated stream channel geometry in Idaho using
GIS and derived the watershed characteristics and described the estimation of
stream channel geometry with multiple regression analysis of GIS-derived
watershed characteristics including drainage area, watershed -averaged
precipitation, mean watershed slope, elevation, forest cover, per cent area with
slopes greater than 30 per cent, and per cent area with north-facing slopes greater
than 30 per cent. Results from this multivariate predictor method were compared
to results from the traditional single-variable (drainage area) relationship for a
sample of 98 unregulated and undiverted streams in Idaho. Root-mean-squared
error (RMSE) was calculated for both multiple- and single-variable predictions for
100 independent, random sub samples of the dataset at each of four different sub
sample levels. The multiple-variable technique produced significantly lower
RMSE for prediction of both stream width and depth when compared to the
drainage area-only technique. In the best predictive equation, stream width
depended positively on drainage area and mean watershed precipitation, and
negatively on fraction of watershed consisting of north-facing slopes greater than
30. They concluded that within a given physiographic province, multivariate
analysis of readily available GIS-derived watershed variables can significantly
improve estimates of stream width and depth for use in flow-routing software
models.

2.7 MODELLING WATERSHED HYDROLOGICAL RESPONSES

The need for estimation of runoff in engineering problems like urban


sewer design, land reclamation through drainage and design of bridges and
spillways necessitated modelling of runoff as a hydrological response of a
watershed to the rainfall input. Now there are innumerable numbers of models for
the study of hydrological problems. Beven (1989) presents a review of the
hydrologic modelling.

16
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

The hydrologic models available could broadly be grouped as empirical


and physically based models (Singh, 1988; Arnold et al. 1998; Merrit et al. 2003;
Gassman et al. 2007). Empirical models are black box models and they try to fit a
relationship between input and output variables without looking into the governing
physical laws (Singh, 1988; McCuen, 1989). On the other hand, physically based
models try to incorporate the physics based processes governing the input output
relationship.

Warren and Gary (2003) present a detailed classification of hydrologic


models as 1. Lumped Vs. distributed parameter model, 2. Stochastic Vs.
deterministic model, 3. Event based vs. continuous model and 4. Prediction Vs.
water budget model.

Refsgaard et al. (1999) illustrate the applicability of a comprehensive


hydrological modelling system (MIKE SHE) for the management of water
resources for agricultural purposes in a watershed. De Carlo et al. (2006) used a
single-valued hydraulic conductivity for the saturated zone as the representative of
the entire watershed for the physically distributed modelling system, MIKE SHE,
which is applied to the Manoa–Palolo stream system on the island of Oahu, Hawaii,
to study the watershed response to storm events.

Kumar and Kumar (2006) estimated direct runoff from a hilly sub watershed
of Ramganga river watershed in Uttaranchal, India using a geomorphologic
instantaneous unit hydrograph (GIUH) based on two parameters gamma type
conceptual model.

Pandey et al. (2008) calibrated and validated WEPP (Water Erosion


Prediction Project) watershed model for a small hilly watershed Karso, upper
Damodar Valley, India. Gronsten and Lundekvam (2006) estimated yearly and daily
surface runoff and soil loss simulated by the WEPP Hill slope model and were
compared with measurements from two different soil erosion plot sites in south-
eastern Norway. Pieri et al. (2007) tested the Water Erosion Prediction Project
(WEPP) model using data from a detailed study conducted on experimental plots in
the Apennines Mountain Range, northern Italy. Gong et al. (2009) made a
comparison of WEPP and SWAT for modelling soil erosion of the Zhangjiachong

17
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

watershed in the Three Gorges Reservoir Area and suggested that the model
efficiency indicate that the results of both models were acceptable.

Dass et al. (2007) has conducted a hydrological study and water resource
assessment in Kokriguda watershed of Orissa for sustainable water management.
They made an assessment of water resource potential, availability and demand in
Kokriguda watershed, a representative of Eastern Ghats of Orissa, by considering
all the sources of water, land uses for sustainable water management. Therefore
different interventions like installation of underground pipeline irrigation system,
proper use of water, in-situ moisture conservation measures, crop diversification
etc. were executed and found to be effective for sustainable water management.

Raj and Azeez (2009) have made studies on spatial and temporal variation
in surface water chemistry of Bharathapuzha watershed. It was found that in
basins that are more disturbed, monsoonal discharge was much higher than the
discharges in other seasons, while the slightly disturbed basin had consistent level of
discharge throughout the season.

2.8 DERIVATION OF FLOW CHARACTERISTICS

The flow characteristics indicating meso-scale hydrological response like


mean annual flow, mean monthly flows, coefficient of variation of flows, flow
duration curves, base flow statistics and average number of days without flow in a
year are generally referred to as low flow measures (IH, 1980; Gustard, 1983;
Gustard, et al., 1989; Smakhatin and Toulouse, 1998). Generally the waste
disposal by dilution depends on the amount of water available in a stream for
dilution and critically important at the time of low flows. Hence low flow
measures are used for environmental studies and Smakhatin et al. (1995) found
that these measures were used by 65% of the water resources practitioners in
South Africa for environmental impact assessment. IH (1980) and Gustard et al.
(1989) details methods for estimating the flow duration curve from daily flows.

Most of the dry weather flow consist of the contribution from groundwater
flow and delayed interflow, termed as base flow (Kirkby, 1978, 1985; Linsley et
al., 1982). The proportion of the volume of base flows to the volume of total

18
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

flows within a specified period is called the base flow index (BFI) and is the most
common measure of base flows (IH, 1980; Gustard et al., 1989). BFI is used as a
measure to quantify the variation of base flow between watersheds in
regionalization. Techniques have been developed for the automatic estimation of
BFI from the flow time series and mostly the smoothed minima technique (IH,
1980; Tallaksen, 1995), and the recursive digital filter (Lyne and Hollick, 1979;
Chapman, 1999) are used. These two techniques have been interchangeably used
in various studies as there is no reported dissimilarity between the BFIs estimated
by them. Nathan and McMahon (1990b) compared these two techniques and
found a significant correlation (correlation coefficient of 0.94) between the BFI's
estimated using these methods. The BFI's estimated using the smoothed minima
and recursive digital filter techniques were found to be comparable to the
manually obtained BFI's (Arnold et al., 1995).

The basin descriptors used for different regionalization studies include


area (Tasker, 1982; NERC,1975; Gustard et al. ,1989; Gan et al. ,1990; Nathan
and McMahon, 1990a; Riggs, 1990; Burn and Boorman, 1993; Sefton and
Howarth, 1998), elevation (Nathan and McMahon, 1990a; Gustard et al., 1989;
Tasker, 1982), main stream length (Nathan and McMahon, 1990a; Gustard et al.,
1989; Burn and Boorman, 1993), Slope (Nathan and McMahon, 1990a; Gustard et
al., 1989; Sefton and Howarth, 1998; Burn and Boorman,1993; Lacey and
Grayson, 1998; Berger and Entekhabi, 2001), stream frequency (Sefton and
Howarth,1998; Nathan and McMahon, 1990a; Gustard et al,1989; Burn and
Boorman,1993), drainage density (Nathan and McMahon, 1990a; Lacey and
Grayson, 1998; Berger and Entekhabi, 2001), proportion of watershed under
different soil types (Sefton and Howarth, 1998; Burn and Boorman, 1993; Gustard
et al., 1989; Tasker, 1982), land cover (Sefton and Howarth, 1998; Lacey and
Grayson, 1998; Nathan and McMahon, 1990a, Hundecha and Bardossy, 2004;
Hundecha et al., 2008), proportion of watershed under different geologies (Sefton
and Howarth, 1998; Nathan and McMahon, 1990a; Gustard et al., 1989; Yokoo et
al., 2001), location ( latitude and longitude) (Sefton and Howarth,1998; Nathan
and McMahon,1990a).

Mean annual precipitation and number of rainy days

19
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

The quantification of the hydrological response of a watershed is primarily


depended on the quantity of the received rainfall. The number of rainy days
determines the amount of monthly precipitation received (De Groen, 2002).

2.9 WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS

The estimation of elevation of the watershed from topographic maps is a


tedious and time consuming exercise (Meijerink, et al., 1994). The elevations in a
watershed are usually represented by a digital elevation model (DEM).

The kinetic energy available to the water flow for its movement and for
causing sediment transportation is determined by the slope of the topography and
it is related to the base flows and runoff (Vogel and Kroll, 1996). When the slope
variation with in a watershed is high, one slope index may not be able to represent
the effect of topography on hydrological response of the watershed. There have
been reports of different slope indices used to represent the effect of slope on the
runoff process (Drayton et al., 1980; IH, 1980; Seyhan and Keet, 1981; Gustard et
al., 1989; Nathan and McMahon 1990a). When a DEM is used for the estimation
of slopes, the cumulative percentage distribution of the pixels of different slope is
used to represent the slope. The use of the cumulative percentage distribution of
the pixels at 50%, the median slope, has been found to be a representative
measure of the slope (Berger and Entekhabi, 2001).

The ratio of the total stream length within a watershed to the watershed
area, called drainage density, is an important measure (Gregory and Walling,
1973; Seyhan, 1977) that affects the hydrological response of a watershed and its
dissection (Seyhan and Keet, 1981; Pitlick, 1994; Tucci et al, 1995; Berger and
Entekhabi, 2001). The difficulties involved in using this index are the
inconsistency among mapping agencies in defining a stream (Gregory and
Walling, 1973; Seyhan and Keet, 1981) and the tedious and time consuming
process involved in its estimation from aerial photographs or topographical maps.

The representation of geological effects on the hydrological


response of a watershed by a suitable index faces the major challenge of sparse
data in developing countries as the data on the hydrogeological characteristics

20
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

which widely varies with space is usually non-existent. Several studies have used
the proportions of different lithologies for regionalization (Gustard et al., 1989;
Nathan and McMahon, 1990a; Sefton and Howarth, 1998; Yokoo et al. 2001).

Land Use / Land Cover Classification

Land use land cover classification presents the level of utilisation of the
land. Even though the terms land use and land cover are related and often used
interchangeably, there is a finer distinction between them. Land uses refer to
man’s activity and the various uses which are carried on land (Clawson and
Stewart, 1965) and describe how parcels of land are used for agriculture,
settlements or industry (Anderson et al.1976). Land cover refers to materials such
as vegetation, water bodies, rocks, which are present on the surface (Anderson et
al.1976).

Land use/ land cover affects many hydrological processes like


evapotranspiration, infiltration, surface runoff etc. (Hendriks, 1990). As surface
cover provides roughness to the surface, it reduces runoff and thereby increases
the infiltration. Infiltration will be more and runoff will be less in the forested
areas whereas the rate of infiltration may decrease in urban areas (Sarkar et al.
2001). Since remote sensing provides excellent information with regard to spatial
distribution of vegetation type and land use in less time and at low cost in
comparison to conventional data (Roy et al. 1973), land cover mapping is one of
its important applications.

Land cover has been shown in several studies to affect flow characteristics
(Edwards and Blackie, 1981; Bosch, 1979; Mumeka, 1986; Bosch and Hewlett,
1982; Andrews and Bullock, 1994).

2.10 GEOMORPHOLOGICAL INFLUENCE ON THE HYDROLOGICAL


RESPONSE OF THE WATERSHED

Geomorphology of watershed has a very strong relationship with the


transformation process of rainfall into runoff (Bhattacharjya and Chaurasia, 2013).
The generation of direct runoff from rainfall events is controlled by the nature of
the channel network (Zhang and Govindaraju, 2000, 2003). The transformation of

21
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

a watershed’s rainfall into runoff is a highly nonlinear, dynamic and distributed


process (Jain et al., 2004, Jain and Srinivasulu, 2004). The geomorphological
characteristics of the watershed have a significant impact on the process of
nonlinear transformation of rainfall to runoff. Bhattacharjya and Chaurasia, (2013)
observed that several other processes like evapotranspiration and infiltration,
involved in the transformation of rainfall into runoff are also highly influenced by
the watershed geomorphology and heterogeneity.

A lumped model of rainfall runoff transformation does not consider the


spatial variability of the rainfall input as well as the geomorphological
characteristics. Chen and Adams, (2006) observed that the use of lump model may
not be adequate for the prediction of the runoff in a watershed having significant
spatial variability of rainfall and geomorphological characteristics.

The geomorphological characteristics of the watershed vary spatially and


the hydrological input in the form of rainfall also has spatial variability.
Therefore, the spatial variation of the geomorphological parameters and spatial
variation of rainfall should be considered in developing the rainfall runoff model
of a basin (Bhattacharjya and Chaurasia, 2013).

Bhattacharjya and Chaurasia (2013) found that a methodology based on


the geomorphological parameters obtained from SRTM digital elevation data for
the prediction of runoff from a watershed has the potential for field application
and observed that the geomorphological parameters viz. area, drainage density,
relief ratio, elongation ratio and shape factor yields better model performance.

22
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

CHAPTER 3
WATERSHEDS, DATA, TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES USED

3.1 WATERSHEDS USED FOR THE ANALYSIS


Two watersheds in Kerala, India are used as examples in this book for
demonstrating the watershed analysis procedures.
3.1.1 The Bharathapuzha watershed

Bharathapuzha ("River of Bhārata") River, also known as the River Nila,


Perar or Ponnanipuzha is in the central part of Kerala state, India.

Figure 3.1 Location map of the Bharathapuzha watershed

23
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

Figure 3.2 Bharathapuzha watershed

Kerala state, situated on the south-west corner of India, receives 3085 mm


of average rainfall and is blessed with 40 minor rivers and 4 medium rivers.
Bharathapuzha River is the second longest among the west-flowing perennial
rivers in Kerala and it fulfils the water requirement of several millions of people
in central Kerala. Bharathapuzha is about 209 km long and lies approximately
between 10° 26' and 11° 13' north latitudes and 75° 53' and 77° 13' east
longitudes. Out of the total watershed area of 6,186 km², 4,400 km2 falls within
Kerala, occupying about one-ninth of its total geographical area and the remaining
area (1,786 km²) is in Tamil Nadu (CWC, 2006). Out of the total basin area in
Kerala, about 87% falls within Palakkad district, 12% in Malappuram district and
the remaining 1% in Thrissur district (CWRDM, 1991, 2004). Bharathapuzha
originates at Kovittola Betta of Kundra reserve forest in the Western Ghats,
located in Tamil Nadu, at an elevation of 2336 m above MSL, and flows
westward to join the Arabian Sea at Ponnani (10° 47' 13" N, 75° 54' 40" E)
Kerala, India. The average discharge of the river at its mouth is 161 m3/s.

24
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

The river follows northwards till Pollachi from the head waters at
Anamalai hills and then takes a westward course. The confluence of Chitturpuzha
and Kalpathipuzha in Parali creates Bharathappuzha which flow westwards.
Bharathapuzha’s conflux with Gayathripuzha, originating from the Anaimalai
hills, is at Mayannur. The Thuthapuzha joins Bharathapuzha at Pallipuram in its
westward flow towards the Arabian Sea.

The four major tributaries of the river are Chitturpuzha (Kannadipuzha,


Sokanasinipuzha), Kalpathipuzha, Gayatripuzha, and Toothapuzha. The major and
minor tributaries of Bharathapuzha are listed in Table 3.1.

. Table 3.1 Tributaries of Bharathapuzha sorted in order from the upstream.


Major Tributaries Minor Tributaries

a. Palar
1. Chitturpuzha
b. Aliyar

c. Uppar

a. Korayar

b. Varattar
2. Kalpathipuzha
c. Walayar

d. Malampuzha

a. Mangalam River

b. Ayalurpuzha

3. Gayathripuzha c. Vandazhippuzha

d. Meenkarappuzha

e. Chulliyar

a. Kunthippuzha

b. Kanjirappuzha
4. Thuthapuzha
c. Ambankadavu

d. Thuppanadupuzha

25
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

The Chitturpuzha or Kannadipuzha or Sokanasinipuzha, originates from


Anamalai hills in Western Ghats and flows in a NW-SE direction through Chittur
and joins the Kalpathipuzha River near Parali. It has three tributaries. The
Kalpathipuzha originates from south of Coimbatore and flows roughly in an E-W
direction until it joins with Chitturpuzha. It has four tributaries. The
Gayathripuzha with five tributaries flows along the NW-SE from Anamalai before
it finally join the main river at Mayannur. The Thuthapuzha originates from the
Silent Valley hills and flows in a roughly E-W direction and joins the main river
at Pallippuram. Thuthapuzha has four tributaries.

Bharathapuzha watershed has lowlands (less than 8 m), midlands (8 m to


76 m) and highland (greater than 76 m) areas. The land use in the basin includes
cultivated area (60%), of which paddy occupies the major portion followed by
coconut and rubber, forest (26%), and barren and cultivable land (5%).

This river forms the major water source for the people of Malappuram,
Thrissur and Palakkad districts in Kerala, and Coimbatore District in Tamil Nadu.
Recently, because of in stream sand mining, clay mining for brick kilns, and over
exploitation of water due to anthropogenic pressures, the watershed is
experiencing scarcity of water.

3.1.1.2 Rain gauge and river gauge stations in the Bharathapuzha watershed

The Water Resources Department (WRD), Kerala maintains seven river


gauging stations and the Central Water Commission (CWC) maintains five
gauging stations in the Bharathapuzha basin.

Bharathapuzha watershed map with the locations of river gauging stations


and rain gauge stations are shown in Figure 3.3. Table 3.2 lists the different river
gauging stations in Bharathapuzha basin.

26
27
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

Figure 3.3 Bharathapuzha watershed map showing the locations of rain and river gauges
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

Table 3.2 River gauging stations in Bharathapuzha basin


Gauging Name Latitude Longitude River/Tributary Agency
Station
GS01 Amparampalayam 10° 36' 00” N 76° 59' 00” E Chitturpuzha CWC
GS02 Pudur 10° 46' 20” N 76° 34' 30” E Chitturpuzha CWC
GS03 Mankara 10° 45' 40” N 76° 29' 20” E Bharathapuzha CWC
GS04 Kumbidi 10° 51' 00” N 76° 02' 00” E Bharathapuzha CWC
GS05 Pulamanthole 10° 53' 50” N 76° 11' 50” E Toothapuzha CWC
GS06 Kuttippuram 10° 50' 25" N 76° 01' 18" E Bharathapuzha WRDK
GS07 Thiruvegapura 10° 52' 19" N 76° 06' 51" E Toothapuzha WRDK
GS08 Thrithala 10° 48' 24" N 76° 07' 56" E Bharathapuzha WRDK
GS09 Cheruthuruthy 10° 45' 10" N 76° 16' 30" E Bharathapuzha WRDK
GS10 Pambadi 10° 45' 01" N 76° 26' 09" E Kalpathipuzha WRDK
GS11 Cheerakuzhy 10° 42' 13" N 76° 25' 38" E Gayathripuzha WRDK
GS12 Manakkadavu 12° 13' 15" N 75° 30' 31" E Chitturpuzha WRDK

3.1.2 Meenachil watershed

Meenachil River is formed by several streams originating from Western


Ghats. Meenachil watershed lies between 9°25’to 9°55’ N latitudes and 76°20’ to
76°55’E longitudes and it is located in the Alappuzha and Kottayam district and
along the western boundary of Idukki district of Kerala state has been taken for
study. It is bounded by Vaikom and Meenachil taluks of Kottayam district and
Thodupuzha taluk of Idukki district in the north, Changanassery and Kanjirapally
taluks of Kottayam district and Kuttanad taluk of Alappuzha district in the south,
Peerumedu and Thodupuzha taluks of Idukki district in the east and shertallai
taluk of Alappuzha district in the west .Total area of 1208.11 km² covering 52
villages spread over 59 panchayats, 18 blocks and three district.

28
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

Figure 3.4 Meenachil watershed

3.2 MAPS AND DATA USED

3.2.1 Rainfall

The rainfall time series data is an important essential input required for
watershed analysis and is required for all watershed models.

Daily rainfall data for the study area are available from various sources
like the Water Resources Department (WRD) Kerala, Kerala Engineering
Research Institute (KERI) and Kerala Agricultural University.

The name of rain gauge stations (Table 3.3) and their geographical
locations are shown in the Fig 3.3.

Important rain gauge stations are Pattambi, Shoranur, Ottapalam,


Olavakode, Palghat, Chittur and Ponnani. Other identified rain gauge stations with
their locations are given in table 3.3.

29
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

Table 3.3 Rain gauge stations in Bharathapuzha basin


No. Name Latitude Longitude
1. Alathur 10° 38’ N 76° 33' E
2. Cheerakuzhi 10° 41’ N 76° 29' E
3. Cherplacheri 10° 52' N 76° 19’ E
4. Chuliyar dam 10° 36' N 76° 44' E
5. Elanadu 10° 37' N 76° 23’ E
6. Silent Valley 11" 05' N 76° 26' E
7. Eruthampathy 10° 45' N 76° 52' E
8. Erimayur 10° 39’ N 76° 35’ E
9. Koduvayur 10° 43' N 76° 38' E
10. K.K. Pathy 10° 42’ N 76° 50’ E
11. Maiampuzha 10° 52' N 76° 41' E
12. Mallisserikavu 10° 40' N 76° 21' E
13. Manakadavu 10° 29' N 76° 51' E
14. Manalooru E. 10° 31' N 76° 43' E
15. Mangalam Dam 10° 31' N 76° 32' E
16. Mannarghat 10° 59' N 76° 28' E
17. Mathur 10° 45’ N 76° 33' E
18. Meenkara Dam 10° 38' N 76° 48' E
19. Meeraflors E 10° 32' N 76° 42’ E
20. Moolathara 10° 40’ N 76° 53' E
21. Nelliampathy 10° 30’ N 76° 40’E
22. Nurnee 10° 40’ N 76° 47' E
23. Parli 10° 48’ N 76° 33' E
24. Pazhayannur S.F. 10° 40' N 76° 25’ E
25. Pokkunni 10° 38' N 76° 41’ E
26. Pothundy 10° 33’ N 76° 33' E
27. Pulikkal 11° 02' N 76° 31’ E
28. Sungam 10° 33’ N 76° 49'E
29. Thembaramadaku 10° 41' N 76° 48' E
30. Thrithala 10° 48' N 76° 08'E
31. Vadakkanchery 10° 34’ N 76° 29' E
32. Walayar 10° 49' N 76° 51'E
33. Kanjirapuzha 10° 53'N 76° 30' E
34. Palghat OBS 10° 46' N 76° 39' E

30
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

3.2.2 River flow

River flow data are available from Central Water Commission and the
Water Resources Department (WRD), Kerala.

3.2.3 Other climatic data

Climatic parameters such as temperature, humidity, wind velocity and


solar radiations are available from Kerala Agricultural University.

3.2.4 Topographic maps

Survey of India (SOI) toposheets (1:50,000 scale) bearing numbers


49N/13, 49N/14, 58A/4, 58A/8, 58A/12, 58A/16, 58B/1, 58B/2, 58B/5, 58B/6,
58B/7, 58B/9, 58B/10, 58B/11, 58B/13 58B/14, 58B/15, 58E/4, 58F/2, and 58F/3
were digitized and digital contour and drainage maps were prepared from them.

3.2.4.1 Making a digital version of the topographic map (Rossiter & Hengl, 2004)

1. The topographic maps were scanned at resolution of 300 DPI (≈ 0.1mm


per pixel), which is 15 % finer than the highest-possible plotting accuracy
of a paper map (0.1 mm) produced by computer methods.

2. Scanned maps were saved in the uncompressed TIF (Tagged Imaged


Format) format.

3. The scanned maps were imported into ILWIS, from TIF to raster.

4. The scanned maps were georeferenced using “Tiepoints” method, using


“affine” transformation with at least six tiepoints. If the scanned map has
barrel distortions introduced by the scanner, then the georeferencing is
done with full second order transformation with at least ten tiepoints.

5. The tiepoints used are grid intersections near the edges of the map which
are digitized and their real-world coordinates, known from the grid lines,
are entered.

6. The accuracy of the geo-referencing is visually and numerically evaluated.


Visual evaluation is done by checking whether the grid lines, added as an
annotation to the displayed map, are all exactly in the centre of the grid

31
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

lines as drawn on the map. Numerical evaluation is done by examining the


DRow and DCol fields for each point. They should be quite small and less
than or equivalent to the maximum location accuracy (i.e. 0.1 mm for
fully-automatically produced map or 0.25 mm for map produced by
analogue means).
3.2.4.2 Creating a seamless digital map of the area from the digitized toposheets.

A seamless digital map of the area was created from the Survey of India
topographic sheets using the procedure explained by Rossiter, 1998.

1. A separate coordinate system is created for each N-S strip of map sheets in
a single map series using its own central meridian with the same projection
parameters.

2. Corner tics corresponding to the Lat/Long graticule for each strip are
projected into that strip’s grid coordinates;

3. Maps from each strip are registered using the corner tics from that strip’s
grid coordinates;

4. Coverages from each strip are separately digitized in that strip’s grid
coordinates;

5. Coverages from each strip are separately projected back to geographic


coordinates;

6. Coverages from adjacent strips are merged in geographic coordinates to


create a seamless, single coverage.
3.2.4.3 Digitizing the contours and drainage network.

1. Create a new segment file using the project’s coordinate system and open
the segment editor; display any one of the scanned overlay as the
background image.

2. Set the snap tolerance to match the precision of the overlay. The tolerance
is entered in ground coordinates, usually meters. Since the drawing
accuracy when making the overlay could not be higher than 0.25 mm,
convert this to meters (say, 12.5 m, at 1:50000).

32
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

3. The segments from the overlay are traced using on-screen digitizing.

Contour lines at 20 m interval of the topographic maps were digitized


using the ILWIS software as detailed above to prepare the contour map.

3.2.5 Soil map

Soil map from National Bureau of Soil Survey and Land Use Planning
(NBSS & LUP) was used for obtaining soil attribute information. This soil maps
from National Bureau of Soil Survey and Land Use Planning (NBSS&LUP)
containing the different soil classes and their aerial coverage was scanned,
imported and the soil groups boundaries digitized to create the segment soil map.
Attribute data of individual soil types were entered and the polygon map of the
soil was prepared.

3.2.6 Remote sensing imagery

IRS-P6 LISS III imagery having spatial resolution of 23.5 x 23.5 m from
National Remote Sensing Centre, Hyderabad. LANDSAT TM imageries at 30
meter resolution for the entire watershed were obtained from the Global Land
Cover Facility’s (GLCF) Landsat Imagery database
(http://glcf.umiacs.umd.edu/data/landsat/) (2005).

3.2.7 Digital Elevation Model (DEM)

1. SRTM (Shuttle Radar Topography Mission) DEM.

2. ASTER (Advanced Space borne Thermal Emission and Reflection


Radiometer) DEM.

Table 3.4 Comparison between SRTM and ASTER DEM


ASTER DEM SRTM DEM
Data source ASTER Space shuttle radar
Generation and distribution METI/NASA NASA/USGS
Data acquisition period 2000 ~ ongoing 11 days (in 2000)
Posting interval 30m 90m
DEM accuracy (St. dev.) 7~14m 10m
DEM coverage 83 N ~ 83 S 60 N ~ 56 S
Area of missing data No data due to cloud Topographically steep area
cover - radar characteristics

33
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

SRTM digital data model is generated by using a high resolution imaging


radar system i.e. whereas ASTER digital data model is captured by an advanced
multispectral imager i.e. Advanced Space borne Thermal Emission and Reflection
Radiometer. The spatial resolution is 90 m and 30 m for SRTM and ASTER DEM
respectively. SRTM DEM is available for 80 % of earth’s land area. Since the
SRTM elevation data are unedited, they contain occasional voids, or gaps, where
the terrain lay in the radar beam’s shadow or in areas of extremely low radar
backscatter, such as sea, dams, lakes and virtually any water-covered surface
whereas ASTER consists of three separate instruments subsystems, each operating
in a different spectral region, using separate optical system. The visible– near
infrared system, which is used in DEM production, consists of two telescopes—
one nadir looking with a three-band detector and the other backward looking
(27.7u off-nadir) with a single band detector.

Stereoscopic Image Pre Processing

Sensor Model
Initial Setting
Data information

GCP (x,y,z) GCP Collection

Tie Point Making and Checking

Triangulation Process Error Information

DEM Generation

DEM

Figure 3.5 Flow chart of ASTER and SRTM DEM generation process

34
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

(a) SRTM DEM of Meenachil Watershed

(b) ASTER DEM of Meenachil Watershed

Figure 3.6 DEMs generated from SRTM and ASTER data sets.

35
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

3.3 TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES USED


3.3.1 ILWIS

ILWIS (Integrated Land and Water Information System) is an integrated


Remote Sensing software and raster and vector GIS software. It has raster
processing capabilities to work on remotely sensed satellite images and vector
processing capabilities for making vector maps and spatial modelling abilities. Its
fully integrated raster and vector approach and user-friendliness make it
particularly suitable for natural resources managers, field scientists, and educators.

ILWIS development was initiated in 1984 by Faculty of Geo-Information


Science and Earth Observation (ITC), University of Twente, Netherlands
(http://www.itc.nl/ilwis/) and they continued development up to release 3.31 in
2005. From July 2007, ILWIS software is freely available as open source software
under the 52°North initiative (GPL license) and is called ILWIS Open
(http://52north.org/communities/ilwis). ILWIS Open is a Free and open-source
software (FOSS) remote sensing and GIS desktop package which integrates
image, vector and thematic data in one and delivers a wide range of features
including import/export, digitizing, editing, analysis and display of data, as well as
production of quality maps. The current version of ILWIS Open is 3.8.3 and is
having several improvements and additional features compared to the version 3.31
released by ITC.

The free version of ILWIS Academic 3.31 and ILWIS Open are used for
the GIS and remote sensing digital image processing applications used in the
present study.

3.3.2 MapWindow GIS

MapWindow GIS Desktop (http://www.mapwindow.org) is a Free and


open-source software (FOSS) geographic information system (GIS). MapWindow
is an open source “Programmable Geographic Information System” that supports
manipulation, analysis, and viewing of geospatial data and associated attribute
data in several standard GIS data formats including ESRI’s shape files.
MapWindow has standard GIS data visualization features as well as DBF attribute

36
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

table editing, shapefile editing, and data converters. MapWindow supports various
standard GIS formats including Shapefiles, GeoTIFF, ESRI ArcInfo ASCII and
binary grids. It is a mapping tool and a GIS modelling application programming
interface (API). MapWindow 4 Desktop GIS (v4.8.6) was also used for the GIS
analysis in this study.

3.3.3 TauDEM (Terrain Analysis Using Digital Elevation Models)

TauDEM (Terrain Analysis Using Digital Elevation Models) is a suite of


Digital Elevation Model (DEM) tools for the extraction and analysis of hydrologic
information from topography as represented by a DEM. TauDEM is a free
software developed by David G. Tarboton of Utah State University
(http://hydrology.usu.edu/taudem/taudem5.0/index.html) and is licensed under the
terms of the GNU General Public License.

TauDEM v5.0 is the main component of the MapWindow version 4.8


Watershed Delineation plugin.

TauDEM has the following capability:

 Development of hydrologically correct (pit removed) DEMs using the


flooding approach

 Calculates flow paths (directions) and slopes

 Calculates contributing area using single and multiple flow direction methods

 Multiple methods for the delineation of stream networks including


topographic form-based methods sensitive to spatially variable drainage
density

 Objective methods for determination of the channel network delineation


threshold based on stream drops

 Delineation of watersheds and subwatersheds draining to each stream segment


and association between watershed and segment attributes for setting up
hydrologic models

37
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

 Specialized functions for terrain analysis, including:

o Calculates the slope/area ratio that is the basis for the topographic
wetness index

o Calculates both the distance up to ridges and down to streams in


horizontal, vertical, along slope and direct variants

o Maps locations upslope where activities have an effect on a downslope


location

o Evaluates upslope contribution subject to decay or attenuation

o Calculates accumulation where the uptake is subject to concentration


limitations

o Calculates accumulation where the uptake is subject to transport


limitations

o Evaluates reverse accumulation

o Evaluates potential avalanche runout areas

TauDEM v5.0 plugin of the MapWindow version 4.8 is used for the
Watershed Delineation and computation of watershed characteristics.

3.3.4 GRASS GIS

Geographic Resources Analysis Support System (GRASS GIS) is a


geographic information system (GIS) software suite used for geospatial data
management and analysis, image processing and visualizing, producing graphics
and maps, and spatial and temporal modelling.

The development of GRASS was started in 1982 by the USA-CERL (U.S.


Army - Construction Engineering Research Laboratory), a branch of the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, for land management and environmental planning of
the United States military. Since USA-CERL officially ceased its involvement in
GRASS after release 4.1 (1995), a group at Baylor University took over the
software, releasing GRASS 4.2. Later, Markus Neteler, the current project leader,

38
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

released GRASS 4.2.1(1998), with major improvements including a new


graphical user interface. The license of the public-domain GRASS software was
changed to the GNU GPL in October 1999. Now, GRASS is a powerful software
suite with a wide range of applications in vast multi-disciplinary areas of scientific
research and engineering. GRASS GIS is now licensed and released as free and
open-source software (FOSS) under the GNU General Public License (GPL) and
runs on multiple operating systems, including OS X, Windows and Linux.

GRASS GIS contains over 350 modules to render maps and images;
process multispectral image data; manipulate raster and vector data; and create,
manage, and store spatial data. It can handle raster, topological vector, image
processing, and graphic data.

The following modules in GRASS GIS are related to watershed analysis:

Module Function
r.basins.fill Generates watershed subbasins raster map.
r.carve Generates stream channels.
r.fill.dir Filters and generates a depressionless elevation map and a flow
direction map from a given elevation raster map.
r.flow Constructs flowlines.
r.stream.extract Performs stream network extraction
r.water.outlet Creates watershed basins from a drainage direction map.
r.watershed Calculates hydrological parameters and RUSLE factors.

Figure 3.7 Start-up window of GRASS GIS

39
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

r.watershed module

Watershed basin analysis program, r.watershed calculates hydrological


parameters and RUSLE factors. r.watershed generates a set of maps indicating: 1)
flow accumulation, drainage direction, the location of streams and watershed
basins, and 2) the LS and S factors of the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation
(RUSLE).

Figure 3.8 r.watershed module window of GRASS GIS

40
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

CHAPTER 4
WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS

4.1 INTRODUCTION

The response of a watershed to the hydrological input depends on various


watershed characteristics. This chapter discusses the basic watershed
characteristics which are important with respect to the hydrological studies.

4.2 METHODOLOGY

4.2.1. Preparation of thematic maps using GIS

Survey of India Toposheets Remote Sensing Data

Contour Map Drainage Network

Watershed Boundary NDVI FCC


DEM

Overlay Overlay

Slope Map

Aspect Map Size, Shape etc. Drainage Map Landuse Map

Figure 4.1 Flowchart for the derivation of watershed characteristics.

The details of the data, maps and tools used are discussed in section 3.2.
The digitisation technique used for getting vector thematic layers from paper maps

41
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

like Survey of India (SOI) toposheets, soil map, geology map etc. is described in
section 3.2. The flow chart for deriving the watershed characteristics from
toposheets and remote sensing imagery is shown in Figure 4.1 and the general
flow chart for the preparation of thematic maps is given in Figure 4.2.

Figure 4.2 Flow Chart for the preparation of thematic maps

42
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

4.2.1.1 Creation of contour map

The detailed methodology adopted for the digitization and joining of


various SOI toposheets is given in section 3.2. The contour lines at 20 m interval
of the topographic maps were digitized using ILWIS. These contours were
checked and corrected for overlaps, dead ends and intersections to produce a
segment map.

4.2.1.2 Creation of Digital Elevation Model (DEM)

The segment map of contour lines prepared as explained in 4.2.1.1 is


rasterized and the Digital Elevation Model is prepared in ILWIS using the k
neighbourhood method of contour interpolation. A grid resolution of 30 x 30 m
and an elevation resolution of 0.1m were adopted for the DEM.

4.2.1.3 Soil map

Soil map was prepared by digitizing the national bureau of soil survey and
land use planning (NBSS and LUP) map using GIS software and attribute data
was added.

4.2.1.4 Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI)

The Normalised Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) is one of the


vegetation indices commonly used to give a measure of the vegetative cover on
the land surface over wide areas. NDVI values range from -1 to 1.The NDVI ratio
is calculated by dividing the difference in the near-infrared (NIR) and red colour
bands by the sum of the NIR and red colours bands for each pixel in the image as
follows:

(𝑁𝐼𝑅−𝑅𝐸𝐷)
𝑁𝐷𝑉𝐼 = (𝑁𝐼𝑅+𝑅𝐸𝐷) (4.1)

The NDVI is derived using ILWIS MapCalc function NDVI(a, b), where,
a is the satellite band containing visible or red reflectance values and b is the
satellite band containing near-infrared reflectance values. The function performs
the calculation: (b - a) / (b + a)

43
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

For example, NDVI= NDVI(TmBand3,TmBand4), gives an output map


NDVI with NDVI values, with the inputs TmBand3, the band with red values and
TmBand4, the band with near-infra red values.

4.2.1.5 Land use map

Land use map has been prepared from the standard FCC (False Colour
Composite) remote sensing imageries with the help of NDVI map, topographic
map, online mapping services and ground truth information. The classification
was done by supervised classification method using Classify functionality of the
ILWIS software. The Classify operation performs a multi-spectral image
classification according to training pixels in a sample set. Before classification, a
sample set thus has to be prepared by assigning class names to groups of pixels
that are supposed to represent a known feature on the ground and that have similar
spectral values in the maps in the map list. Creation of the sample set is the
training phase, where classes of pixels with similar spectral values are defined and
then during classification operation each output pixel is assigned a class name if
the spectral values of that pixel are similar enough to a training class; if this is not
the case, an output pixel may be assigned the undefined value. The accuracy of
the classification depends on the spectral values of the pixels selected to serve as
training pixels in the sampling phase,

During the sampling for supervised classification, the accuracy of the


training pixels selected were checked by ground truthing with the help of Global
Positioning System (GPS), NDVI map and attribute information from topographic
maps and online mapping sites like Google Maps satellite images.

4.2.1.6 Slope map

The slope map is derived from the Digital Elevation Model (DEM) using
ILWIS, as follows:

1. Calculate height differences in X-direction from the Digital Elevation


Model using linear filter dfdx to get an output map for example DX.

2. Calculate height differences in Y-direction from the Digital Elevation


Model using linear filter dfdy to get an output map for example DY.

44
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

3. Use the map calculation formula

SLOPEPCT = 100 * HYP(DX,DY)/ PIXSIZE(DEM) (4.2)

to get the slope map in percentages.

4. To get the slope map in degrees use the map calculation formula

SLOPEDEG = RADDEG(ATAN(SLOPEPCT/100)) (4.3)

4.2.1.7 Aspect map

The aspect map is derived from the Digital Elevation Model (DEM) using
ILWIS, as follows:

1. Derive height differences map in X-direction and Y-direction respectively


as DX and DY as mentioned in section 4.2.1.6

2. Use the map calculation formula

ASPECTR = ATAN2(DX,DY) + PI (4.4)

to get the aspect map in radians.

3. Use the map calculation formula

ASPECTD = RADDEG(ATAN2(DX,DY) + PI) (4.5)

to get the aspect map in degrees.

Where, ATAN2 and RADDEG are internal MapCalc/TabCalc functions of


ILWIS, and ASPECTR and ASPECTD are the output map names of the aspect
maps in radians and degrees respectively.

4.2.1.8 Geology map

The geology map was digitised from the Geological Survey of India (GSI,
1995) maps by techniques as explained in section 3.2. The feature boundaries
were digitized and clipped with the watershed boundary to prepare the geology
map.

45
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

4.2.1.9 Geomorphology

Geomorphology map was obtained using remote sensing imagery by


identifying the geomorphologic features from the imagery and digitising it.

4.2.1.10 Drainage map

The drainage channels in the topographic map were digitized and stream
orders were included in the drainage network as attribute data.

4.3 RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS

4.3.1 Digital Elevation Model (DEM)

Digital Elevation Model of Bharathapuzha basin classified for different


elevation ranges is shown in Figure 4.4. DEM shows elevation ranges from 1.5 m
to 2504 m. It can be seen that most of the area comes under 40-120 m elevation
class as shown in Figure 4.3

500000
Number of pixels

450000
400000
350000
300000
250000
200000
150000
100000
50000
0
0
60

00

40

80

20

60

00
0
-80
0

40
-12
<4

0-1

0-2

0-2

0-2

0-3

0-3

0-4

0-2
40

80

12

16

20

24

28

32

36

40

Elevation range (m)


Figure 4.3 Frequency of pixels in different elevation classes of DEM

46
47
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

Figure 4.4 Digital Elevation Model (DEM) from toposheet contours of Bharathapuzha watershed
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

4.3.2 Soil map

The soil map available from NBSS&LUP is digitized using ILWIS and
segment of various soil types were digitized and ploygonized. The soil map of the
river Bharathapuzha with the soil series classes is shown in the Figure 4.6. About
55.6 % of the total area of the watershed is having Anayadi soil series as can be
seen from Figure 4.5. The other soil series of the watershed include Chelikkuzhi,
Cheruvalli, Kanchirappuzha, Kongad, Manimala, Manjallor, Pallippadi and
Vijayapuram. Physical properties of different soil series used in the study are
shown in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1 Physical properties of the soil series in the watershed

Clay Silt Sand Organic carbon Bulk density


No. Code Soil Series
(%) (%) (%) (%) (g/cm3)
1 ANAYA Anayadi 27.8 8.5 63.7 0.89 1.18
2 CHELI Chelikkuzhi 33.7 8.0 58.3 2.18 1.20
3 CHERU Cheruvalli 34.5 6.1 59.4 2.54 1.10
4 KANCHI Kanchirapuzha 33.0 8.6 58.4 2.24 1.20
5 KONGA Kongad 27.7 15.7 56.4 1.24 1.14
6 MANIM Manimala 27.0 9.0 64.0 0.99 1.19
7 MANJA Manjallor 45.0 7.9 47.1 1.83 1.17
8 PALLI Pallippadi 27.0 9.0 64.0 0.99 1.36
9 VIJAY Vijayapuram 24.7 9.5 65.8 1.01 1.17

1.2 5.6 ANAYA


11.7
1 CHELI
1.4
CHERU

13 KANCHI
55.6
KONGA
MANIM
7.1
MANJA
3.4 PALLI
VIJAY

Figure 4.5 Areal Distribution Soil series in Bharathapuzha watershed

48
49
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

Figure 4.6 Soil map of Bharathapuzha watershe


Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

4.3.3 Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI)

The Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) is the most well-


known and used index for many years to monitor vegetation health and changes in
vegetation cover over time from multispectral remote sensing data. The
Normalised Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) gives a measure of the
vegetative cover, water and ice on the land surface over wide areas. It is expressed
𝑵𝑰𝑹−𝑽𝑰𝑺
as = 𝑵𝑰𝑹+𝑽𝑰𝑺 , where NIR and VIS are the spectral reflectance value

corresponding to red (visible) and near infrared bands.

The principle behind NDVI is that chlorophyll causes considerable


absorption of incoming sunlight in the red region (0.58-0.68 microns) of the
electromagnetic spectrum and the spongy mesophyll leaf structure of the plants
creates considerable reflectance in the near-infrared region (0.72-1.10 microns) of
the spectrum (Tucker 1979, Jackson et al.1983, Tucker et al. 1991). Thus
vigorously growing healthy vegetation gives high NDVI values due to the low
red-light reflectance and high near-infrared reflectance.

The spectral reflectance of green leaves in the green to red region of


radiation is less than 20% and it is about 60% in the near-infrared region. The
spectral reflectance is the ratio between the reflected over the incoming radiation
and takes values between 0.0 and 1.0, resulting in NDVI values between -1.0 and
+1.0. Vegetated areas have high near-infrared region reflectance and low red
region reflectance, yielding high NDVI values near to 1. NDVI values above 0.5
indicate dense vegetation and thus temperate and tropical rainforests have values
approaching one. Shrub and grassland areas have low, positive values
(approximately 0.2 to 0.4), while vegetation indices close to zero (-0.1 to 0.1)
indicates no vegetation i.e. barren rock, bare soil, sand, or snow areas which have
similar reflectance in the two bands.

50
51
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

Figure 4.7 Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) map of Bharathapuzha


watershed
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

Table 4.2 Typical NDVI values for various cover types [Holben, 1986]

COVER TYPE RED NIR NDVI


Dense vegetation 0.1 0.5 0.7
Dry Bare soil 0.269 0.283 0.025
Clouds 0.227 0.228 0.002
Snow and ice 0.375 0.342 -0.046
Water 0.022 0.013 -0.257

NDVI values for Bharathapuzha watershed varied from -0.71 to 0.54 and
is shown in Figure 4.7

4.3.4 Land use map

Land use land cover is the level of utilisation of the land and it affects
many hydrological processes like evapotranspiration, infiltration, surface runoff
etc. Land use/ land cover classification of the Bharathapuzha watershed was
carried out using supervised classification of remote sensing False Colour
Composite (FCC) images through visual image interpretation based on the
National Remote Sensing Agency’s (NRSA) classification scheme. The classified
map is shown in Figure 4.8 and the distribution of various land use / land cover in
the watershed is shown in Figure 4.9. Major Landuse types in the watershed are
garden land and paddy.

Dense forest
Garden land
Medium forest
Moderate dense forest
Paddy
Plantation
River dry
Water

Figure 4.8 Distribution of landuse in Bharathapuzha watershed

52
53
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

Figure 4.9 Landuse map of Bharathapuzha watershed


Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

4.3.4.1 Garden land

Garden land area contain mixed land uses, like residential and commercial
and agricultural and residential, which are not clearly demarkable and no single
land use among these is predominant. Garden land landuse occupies the major
portion of the watershed and is observed in the valley fill area of the watershed.

4.3.4.2 Paddy

Paddy fields are distributed in the valley region of the watershed and are
the second largest land use in the watershed.

4.3.4.3 Forest area

The forest areas are further classified into dense and moderate dense. The
forest is classified as open or degraded if the canopy cover is between 10-40% and
dense or closed if the canopy cover is more than 40%. Bharathapuzha watershed
has forest areas in the northern, north eastern and southern region.

4.3.4.4 River dry

Sand deposits appear as sheets in the flood plain and are formed due to
river flooding. Sand deposits are found in the Bharathapuzha river course
westwards from the central part near Ottapalam to the river mouth near Ponnani.

4.3.4.5 Water

Surface waters like rivers, streams, reservoirs, lakes, ponds, canals etc.
comprise the water land use class.

4.3.5 Slope map

Slope is normally described by the ratio of the "rise" divided by the "run"
between two points on a line and indicates the loss or gain in altitude per unit
horizontal distance in a direction. Slope is one of the most important factors
influencing the runoff production; steep slopes accelerate runoff while gentle
slopes decrease runoff by increasing the infiltration opportunity time (Chow,
1964).

54
55
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

Figure 4.10 Slope map of Bharathapuzha watershed


Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

The following classification of the slope ranges are used for the
preparation of the slope map in Figure 4.10:

Table 4.3 Classification of the slope ranges for slope map

Classification Slope range (degree)


Very gentle Less than 3
Gentle 3-5
Moderate 5-10
Moderate-steep 10-15
Steep 15-35
Very steep Greater than 35

Slope of the watershed varies from 0 to 84 and most of the area falls in
the 0-5 slope range. The north, northeast, south and southeast regions of the
watershed have steep slopes, eastern region has very gentle slope and the central
region has moderate slope. Bharathapuzha River originates in the Western Ghats
at a higher altitude and flows westwards to reach the Arabian Sea. The terrain near
Western Ghats is having steep slopes and the steepness of the slope gradually
decreases towards the sea coast in the west.

4.3.6 Aspect map

Aspect generally refers to the horizontal direction to which a slope faces.


Aspect affects the angle of the sun rays when they come in contact with the
ground and can have a strong influence on temperature. Thus it can have
significant influence on the local climate.

An aspect-slope map simultaneously shows the aspect (direction) and


degree (steepness) of slope for a terrain. Aspect categories are symbolized using
hues (e.g., red, orange, yellow, etc.) and degree of slope classes are mapped with
saturation (or brilliance of colour) so that the steeper slopes are brighter.

56
57
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

Figure 4.11 Aspect map of Bharathapuzha watershed


Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

250000

200000
Number of pixels

150000

100000

50000

0 t
rth st st -Ea
s
uth es t st es t rt h
No -Ea Ea So -W We -W No
orth outh ut h rt h
N S So No

Figure 4.12 Distribution of Aspect in the Bharathapuzha watershed

South facing slopes are predominant in the study area, as can be observed
from Figure 4.12. In the northern hemisphere a south-facing slope (more open to
sunlight and warm winds) will generally be warmer and dryer due to higher levels
of evapotranspiration than a north-facing slope (Bennie et al., 2006).

4.3.7 Geology map

The geology of the watershed consists of charnockite, Granite, hornblende


gneiss, laterites and coastal sand and alluvium. Bharathapuzha river is a westward
flowing river and it encounters different geological sequences corresponding to
the High land (extending from 75 m MSL and above) consisting of the hills and
mountains of the Western Ghats on the eastern part, the Midland (extending from
7.5 m to 75 m above MSL) having an undulating topography and the low land
(extending up to an altitude of 7.5 m above MSL) adjacent to the coast on the
western part.

Precambrian metamorphic rocks underlie the major part of Bharathapuzha


watershed. These rocks consist mostly of hornblende-biotite gneiss and
charnockite and in certain regions quarto-feldspathic gneiss, biotite-hornblende
gneiss with schist, quartz syenite and pink granite. Pyroxene granulites,
Charnockites and migmatites also cover a major part of Bharathapuzha watershed.

58
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

The western side of the watershed consist chiefly by hornblendebiotite gneiss.


Intrusion of basic rocks (gabbro, dolerite) and acidic rocks (granulite pyroxene,
norite) could be seen at many places. Sedimentary deposits like alluvium and
coastal sands overlie crystallines in the coastal planes on the western side of the
watershed. Precambrian crystallines and the sedimentary sequences are overlaid
by a thick capping of Laterites. The thickness of the laterite is 20 to 50 m in the
western parts of Ottapalam and is less elsewhere. Archean crystallines are seen
throughout the basin mostly overlain by laterites. The northern part of the Western
Ghats near Palghat gap consist of crystalline lime stone and Calc-granulites with a
grooved appearance along the foliations and characterised by intense fracturing
and solution cavities in the limestone. South west part of the watershed has a
prominent dolerite dyke. Kankar produced by the chemical weathering of rocks is
seen on the eastern side of the watershed (CESS, 2004).

Figure 4.13 Geology of the watershed

The watershed has three types of alluvial formations, coastal alluvium,


river alluvium and valley fills. The valley fills are distributed in the midland area
along the valleys, the river alluvium along the river banks and the coastal
alluvium along the coast in the Western side. The river mouth depositions consist

59
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

of coastal sand and alluvium. At the mouth of the river at Ponnani along the river
course near Kuttippuram, Thiruvegapura and Chamaravattom 2-8 m thick river
alluvium is seen. In the midland and lowland planes weathered rocks are overlain
by a thick layer of alluvial soil. The valleys in the watershed contain valley fill
deposits consisting of erode sediments from uplands and flood plain deposits.
These valley filled areas form the paddy fields in the watershed.

4.3.8 Geomorphology

Figure 4.14 Geomorphology of the watershed

Geomorphology is the science of landforms and describes the surface of


the lithosphere. Geomorphology is the interpretive description of the relief
features of the earth and to understand that, the composition and structure of the
rocks of the earth and the processes which act on it should be known.
Geomorphological characteristics thus depend upon the physiochemical nature of
lithological units in that area. Many of the geomorphological features affect the
runoff, infiltration, surface flow and the occurrence of groundwater. The
geomorphological units of Bharathapuzha watershed are shown in Figure 4.14.

60
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

The study of the geomorphology is important in surface and groundwater


hydrology. The evolution of the present landscape is the result of the action of
various endogenic and exogenic forces due to the weathering and denudation on
the earth crust. The hydrological conditions of the watershed are directly or
indirectly affected by these elements and their characteristics. For groundwater
investigations in a watershed, the geomorphological mapping and characterisation
of pediments, buried pediments, valley fills etc. is very useful. The
geomorphological classification of Bharathapuzha based on the National Remote
Sensing Agency (NRSA) scheme, the distribution of which is shown in Fig 4.15.

Moderately dissected
Plateau
Valley fills

Structural hills

Pediment zones

Less dissected plateau

Moderately dissected
pediment
Plateau

Residual hills

Water body

Channel bars

Coastal plain

Figure 4.15 Distribution of Geomorphological units in the watershed

4.3.8.1. Valley fills

The deposition of unconsolidated fluvial sediments consisting of pebbles,


sand, silt and clay in narrow valleys forms Valley fills. Valley fills are found well
distributed in the watershed as small to wide patches. These areas are suitable for
locating the water harvesting structures and have good groundwater prospects.

4.3.8.2. Structural Hills

61
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

The structural hills cover about 18% area of the watershed along the
northern, north-eastern and southern regions of the watershed. The major rock
types are biotite hornblende gneisses, hornblende-biotite gneisses, charnokite,
pink granite, quartzo-feldspathic gneisses, hornblende-biotite gneisses with schist,
calc granulite with limestone, and Charnockite. Structural hills having hard rock
don’t permit water infiltration and its transmission unless they are fractured and
contain fissures and cavities. However, structural hills in the study area have
several lineament intersections and hence may yield groundwater through deep
wells.

4.3.8.3. Residual hills

Residual hills occur as isolated hills with small aerial extent and are the
end products of the process of pediplanation, which reduce the original mountain
masses into series of scattered knolls on the Pedi plains (Thronbury, 1969). They
are seen at lower altitudes in pediment zone and plateau and are mostly circular in
shape and devoid of any vegetation. Residual hills usually have steep side slopes
and increases runoff and decreases infiltration, resulting in poor groundwater
potential in these areas.

4.3.8.4. Pediments

Pediments are gently sloping (1° to 8°) smooth surface of erosional


bedrock with or without thin cover of detrital materials and are the transition zone
between the hills and adjoining plains. Pediments are found in the northern part of
the watershed. Sankar (2002) observed that the groundwater prospects in
pediments can be considered as normal to poor. As presence of fissures and
fractures increase the transmissibility, areas with lineaments can be potential
zones for groundwater exploration.

4.3.8.5. Moderately dissected pediment zones

Areas with a nearly flat terrain with gentle slope are considered as
moderately dissected pediment zones and are found in the north-western and

62
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

south-western parts of the watershed. These areas have moderate to good


groundwater potential.

4.3.8.6. Plateaus

Flat topped residual mountains in plains are categorised as plateaus which


are sub-classified into moderately dissected and less dissected plateaus. Plateau’s
dissected nature accelerates runoff. Major portion of the watershed in the central
western part and is occupied by the moderately dissected Plateau and less
dissected Plateau occupies the South eastern and south central regions.

4.3.8.7. Coastal terrains

The river mouth is at the western side of the watershed and these areas
near the coast line show sluggish drainage, marshy lands, bars, and spits etc.
which are categorised as coastal terrains.

4.3.9 Drainage
4.3.9.1 Drainage pattern

Drainage patterns are the general arrangement of channels in a watershed


and are influenced by many factors like slope, rock hardness variations, structural
controls, crust deforming processes and recent geomorphic history of the
watershed. Drainage patterns reflect the characteristics of surface and subsurface
formations and help in geomorphic feature interpretations.

The drainage pattern found in the Bharathapuzha watershed is dendritic or


branch-like pattern which is one of the most common drainage patterns.

Dendritic pattern, shown above, is characterised by irregular branching of


tributary streams in many directions and at almost any angle usually less than 90.
Dendritic patterns develop on rocks of uniform resistance and indicate a complete

63
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

lack of structural control. This pattern usually develops in nearly horizontal


sedimentary rocks and massive igneous rocks and sometimes also in complex
metamorphosed rocks (Garde, 2006). Bharathapuzha watershed has these types of
rocks especially granites, resulting in a dendritic drainage pattern.

4.3.9.2 Drainage Map

Figure 4.16 Drainage map

The Bharathapuzha River originates from Anamalai hills in the Western


Ghats of Tamil Nadu and flows westward through Palghat Gap to join the
tributaries Chitturpuzha, Kalpathipuzha, Gayathripuzha, and Tuthapuzha
respectively and finally empties into the Arabian Sea at Ponnani (Figure 4.16).

From the origin at Anamalai hills, the river follows northwards for about
40 km till Pollachi. At Parali both Chitturpuzha and Kalpathipuzha merge as

64
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

Bharathappuzha and flow westwards. Gayathripuzha originating from the


Anaimalai hills joins Bharathapuzha at Mayannur. The Thuthapuzha merge at
Pallipuram and thickens the flow of Bharathapuzha which then follows a westerly
course into the Arabian Sea at Ponnani.

Tributaries of Bharathapuzha River

Figure 4.17 Sub-basins of the tributaries of Bharathapuzha River

The four main tributaries to Bharathapuzha River sorted in order from the
origin heading downstream are:

1. Chitturpuzha (Kannadipuzha, Sokanasinipuzha)

2. Kalpathipuzha

3. Gayathripuzha

4. Thuthapuzha

The Chitturpuzha or Kannadipuzha or Sokanasinipuzha, originates from


Anamalai hills in Western Ghats and flows in a NW-SE direction through Chittur

65
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

and joins the Kalpathipuzha River near Parali. The tributaries of Kannadipuzha
are, (i) Palar (ii) Aliyar, and (iii) Uppar.

The Kalpathipuzha originates from south of Coimbatore and flows roughly


in an E-W direction until it joins with Chitturpuzha. It has four tributaries: (i)
Korayar (ii) Varattar (iii) Walayar and (iv) Malampuzha.

The Gayathripuzha flows along the NW-SE from Anamalai before it


finally join the main river at Mayannur. Gayathripuzha has five tributaries: (i)
Mangalam, (ii) Ailurpuzha (iii) Vandazhipuzha (iv) Meenkara and (v) the
Chulliar.

The Thuthapuzha originates from the Silent Valley hills and flows in a
roughly E-W direction and joins the main river at Pallippuram. Thuthapuzha has
four tributaries: (i) Kunthipuzha (ii) Kanjirappuzha, (iii) Ambankadavu, and (iv)
Thuppanadupuzha.

4.4 CONCLUSION

The various characteristics of the watershed - the slope, aspect, geology,


geomorphology, NDVI, landuse/land cover and drainage maps - were mapped.

66
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

CHAPTER 5
HYDROGEOMORPHOMETRY

5.1 INTRODUCTION

Geomorphometry or quantitative geomorphology is the science of


quantitative land-surface analysis. Hydro-geomorphometry is an important
component of terrain analysis and surface modelling for hydrological applications.
The simple fact that flow paths follow the topographic gradient results in an
intimate connection between geomorphometry and hydrology (Peckham, 2009).
Hydrogeomorphology is the integrated study of hydrology and geomorphology
(Noe, 2013), Sidle and Onda (2004) defines hydrogeomorphology as an
interdisciplinary science that focuses on the interaction and linkage of hydrologic
processes with landforms or earth materials and the interaction of geomorphic
processes with surface and subsurface water in temporal and spatial dimensions.
According to Singh et al. (2013), morphometric analysis of the drainage basin can
provide information about the hydrological nature of the rocks exposed within the
drainage basin and gives an indication of the yield of the basin. The study of the
hydrogeomorphology of the watershed is essential for understanding the influence
of lithology and geomorphology on the runoff processes.

The hydrological response of a watershed depends upon various


hydrological and geomorphological characteristics. The hydrological response of
watersheds can be related to its geomorphological characteristics for which
detailed geomorphological and hydrological analysis are required. Watershed
characterization involves measurement of parameters that influence the
characteristic behaviour of a watershed whereas analysis aims at the critical study
of these parameters to arrive at conclusions on the hydrological response of the
watershed.

The hydrogeomorphological analysis of the Bharathapuzha watershed is


discussed in this chapter.

67
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

5.2 METHODOLOGY

5.2.1 Data and maps required

The hydrogeomorphological analysis of the watershed using GIS utilises


the boundary map, drainage network map and digital elevation model (DEM)
prepared from the contour map for the computation of the geomorphological
characteristics of the watershed. GIS along with conventional data provides the
watershed area, size and shape, topography and drainage pattern for watershed
characterization and analysis. Hydrogeomorphological parameters in this study
were obtained using topographic maps and remote sensing data. The details of the
maps, data and the tools used and the techniques adopted are described in
Chapter 3. The preparation of boundary map, drainage network map and digital
elevation model (DEM) are discussed in Chapter 4.

5.2.2 Determination of hydrogeomorphological parameters

Hydrogeomorphometrical parameters determined and the formulae or


method used for getting it are given in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1 Hydrogeomorphometric parameters

No. Parameter Symbol Unit Definition/Formula


1. Stream order u Hierarchical rank
2. Area Au km2 Area of the watershed
3. Perimeter P km Perimeter of the watershed
4. Maximum Basin Lb km Maximum Basin length
length
5. Stream length Lu km Mean stream length of order u
6. Stream number Nu Number of stream segments of
order u
7. Mean stream Lsm km Lsm = Lu / Nu
length
8. Stream length RL RL=Lu/(Lu-1)
ratio

68
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

9. Bifurcation ratio Rb Rb=Nu/(Nu+1)

10. Mean Rbm Rbm = Mean of all the bifurcation


bifurcation ratio ratios
11. Drainage Dd km-1 Dd=Lu/Au
density
12. Drainage texture T km-1 T=∑ Nu/P
13. Stream Fs km-2 Fs=Nu/Au
frequency
14. Elongation ratio Re Re=D/L=1.129 √𝐴𝑢/Lb
15. Circularity ratio Rc Rc=4πAu/P2

16. Form factor Rf Rf = Au / Lb2

17. Maximum basin H km


elevation
18. Relief R R=H-h
19. Relief ratio Rh Rh = H / Lb
20. Length of Lg Lg=1/2D
overland flow

5.3 RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS

5.3.1. Area

Area of the watershed is hydrologically important as it directly affects the


size of the hydrograph, and the magnitude of mean and peak flows. It also
determines the amount of eroded sediments. Area of the watershed is the most
important parameter in the description of form and processes of the watershed and
almost every watershed characteristic is correlated with it. According to the
drainage basin area, the largest tributary sub-basin is Kalpathipuzha followed by
Chitturpuzha, Gayathripuzha and Thuthapuzha sub-basins respectively.

69
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

The perimeter of the tributary sub-basins varies from Gayathripuzha,


Kalpathipuzha, Thuthapuzha and Chitturpuzha sub-basins in increasing order. The
stream order of the main and Chitturpuzha drainage basin is of 7th order while all
the other tributary sub-basins are of 6th order.

Table 5.2 Stream order, area, perimeter and basin length

Stream Area Perimeter Basin length


Basin name
Order (km2) (km) (km)
Bharathapuzha 7 6185.99 600.80 135
Chitturpuzha 7 1352.77 292.86 80
Kalpathipuzha 6 1460.05 226.11 65
Gayathripuzha 6 1089.51 201.19 58
Thuthapuzha 6 1074.61 248.70 60

5.3.2 Stream order

The numerical measure of the branching complexity of a mathematical


tree is represented by Strahler number or Horton–Strahler number, which were
first developed in hydrology by Robert E. Horton (1945) and Arthur Newell
Strahler (1952, 1957) and are referred to as the Strahler stream order which
represented the branching complexity of a stream network. Alternative stream
ordering systems have been developed by Shreve (1967) and Hodgkinson et al.
(2006).

Generally Strahler’s stream ordering system is followed extensively


because of its simplicity. In the Strahler stream order system, each segment of a
stream or river within a river network is treated as a node in a tree, with the next
segment downstream as its parent. When two first-order streams come together,
they form a second-order stream. When two second-order streams come together,
they form a third-order stream. Streams of lower order joining a higher order
stream do not change the order of the higher stream. Thus, if a first-order stream
joins a second-order stream, it remains a second-order stream. It is not until a
second-order stream combines with another second-order stream that it becomes a
third-order stream. As with mathematical trees, a segment with index i must be

70
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

fed by at least 2i − 1 different tributaries of index 1. Shreve noted that Horton’s


and Strahler’s Laws should be expected from any topologically random
distribution as no conclusion can be drawn to explain the structure or origin of the
stream network.

Most of the streams are having an order less than four. Streams that are
classified as fourth through sixth order are medium streams while anything larger
(up to 12th order) is considered a river. This method of classifying stream size is
important to hydrologists because it gives an idea of the size and strength of
specific waterways within stream networks which is an important component to
water management.

The stream orders of Bharathapuzha watershed and sub-watersheds as per


the Strahler’s system of stream ordering are given in Table 5.2. The main stream
of Bharathapuzha watershed is of order seven and the maximum numbers of
streams are of first order, as expected. These are usually channels in the
mountainous area which flow only during the wet season.

Figure 5.1 Stream order map of Bharathapuzha

71
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

Table 5.3 Stream number corresponding to the different stream orders.

Stream Orders
Basin name Total
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Bharathapuzha 5628 1321 324 70 19 5 1 7368

Chitturpuzha 2162 494 115 22 6 2 1 2802

Kalpathipuzha 1198 291 73 18 5 1 1586

Gayathripuzha 633 165 44 8 3 1 854

Thuthapuzha 1325 296 72 17 5 1 1716

Relationship between Stream order (u) and Stream number (Nu)

Horton (1945) and other investigators found that if log (Nu) is plotted
against u for any watershed the data fall on a single straight line with Nu
decreasing for increasing u. Hence the relation between Nu and u can be
expressed as log (Nu) = a – bu. This observation formed the basis of Horton’s
Law of Stream Numbers. The plot of log (Nu) to u for the Bharathapuzha
watershed and its tributary sub-watersheds is shown in Figure 5.1. The values of
the parameters a and b in log (Nu) = a– bu relationship is given in Table 5.4.

Table 5.4 Values of parameters a and b in log (Nu) = a– bu

Tributary b a R²

Bharathapuzha 0.6188 4.3616 0.9995

Chitturpuzha 0.574 3.7976 0.9878

Kalpathipuzha 0.6084 3.6895 0.9993

Gayathripuzha 0.5705 3.3373 0.9943

Thuthapuzha 0.6159 3.7189 0.9992

72
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

3.5 Bharathapuzha
Chitturpuzha
Kalpathipuzha
3
Gayathripuzha
log(Number of streams)

Thuthapuzha
2.5

1.5

0.5

0
0 2 4 6 8
Stream Order

Figure 5.2 Variation of number of streams with stream order

5.3.3 Stream length (Lu)

The stream length ‘Lu’ in accordance with Horton’s laws is measured


from mouth of the river to the drainage divide near the source. Generally, the total
length of the streams is maximum in the first-order (Horton’s) streams and then
progressively decreases with increasing 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).

73
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

Table 5.5 Stream length of Bharathapuzha watershed.

Basin name Order wise stream Length (km)


Total
(km)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Bharathapuzha 3884.8 1469.7 906.9 433.5 248.7 144.1 166.2 7253.8

Chitturpuzha 1329.2 429.0 237.1 84.2 66.0 40.2 70.3 2256.0

Kalpathipuzha 929.0 392.6 279.1 134.2 61.0 14.2 1810.1

Gayathripuzha 522.9 234.5 137.2 87.3 55.5 27.2 1064.7

Thuthapuzha 803.9 241.8 183.5 91.2 66.1 62.5 1449.0

5.3.4 Mean stream length

Mean stream length is the ratio of the total stream length of a particular
order to the total number of stream segments of the same order. It reveals the
characteristic size of components of a drainage network and its contributing
surfaces (Strahler1964). The mean stream length increases with the stream order
and it is a characteristic property related to the size of the drainage network and its
associated surfaces (Strahler, 1964).

Table 5.6 Mean Stream length of Bharathapuzha Watershed.

Mean Stream length (km)


Basin name
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Bharathapuzha 0.69 1.11 2.80 6.19 13.09 28.81 166.17

Chitturpuzha 0.61 0.87 2.06 3.83 11.01 20.12 70.30

Kalpathipuzha 0.78 1.35 3.82 7.46 12.21 14.16

Gayathripuzha 0.83 1.42 3.12 10.91 18.51 27.15

Thuthapuzha 0.61 0.82 2.55 5.36 13.22 62.50

74
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

2.5
Bharathapuzha
2.0 Chitturpuzha
Kalpathipuzha
log(Mean stream length)

Gayathripuzha
1.5
Thuthapuzha

1.0

0.5

0.0
0 2 4 6 8

-0.5
Stream Order

Figure 5.3 Variation of log Lsm (Mean stream length) with stream order (u)

The significant increase in stream lengths at higher order might be due to


the high rainfall in the region and the slope. As can be seen from Figure 5.2, the
stream length distribution in the watersheds conforms to the Horton’s Second Law
of Stream Lengths (Chow, 1964).

5.3.5 Stream length ratio

The stream length ratio is the ratio between the total lengths of streams in
a given order to the total length of streams of its next order (Horton, 1945). The
variation in stream length ratios could be due to the downstream extension of the
higher order streams or due to the upward extension of tributaries (Thomas et al.,
2010). The stream length ratio values for the Bharathapuzha watershed and are
strongly dependant on the topography and the slope.

75
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

Table 5.7 Stream length ratio of Bharathapuzha Watershed.


Basin name Stream length ratio

2/1 3/2 4/3 5/4 6/5 7/6

Bharathapuzha 0.38 0.62 0.48 0.57 0.58 1.15

Chitturpuzha 0.32 0.55 0.36 0.78 0.61 1.75

Kalpathipuzha 0.42 0.71 0.48 0.45 0.23

Gayathripuzha 0.45 0.59 0.64 0.64 0.49

Thuthapuzha 0.30 0.76 0.50 0.72 0.95

5.3.6 Bifurcation ratio

The Bifurcation ratio is defined as the ratio of the number of streams of


any given order to the number of streams in the next higher order in a drainage
basin (Schumm, 1956). Bifurcation ratio is a dimensionless parameter showing
the degree of integration prevailing between streams of various orders in a
drainage basin. The lower values of bifurcation ratio indicate vulnerability to
flooding, as the water will be concentrated in one channel rather than getting
spread out. Hence the distribution of bifurcation ratios show which parts of a
drainage basin is more likely to flood (Waugh, 2002)

Table 5.8 Bifurcation ratio and mean bifurcation ratio


Bifurcation ratio (RL)
Basin name Mean Bifurcation
1/2 2/3 3/4 4/5 5/6 6/7
Bharathapuzha 4.26 4.08 4.63 3.68 3.8 5.0 4.24
Chitturpuzha 4.38 4.30 5.23 3.67 3.0 2.0 3.76
Kalpathipuzha 4.12 3.99 4.06 3.60 5.0 4.15
Gayathripuzha 3.84 3.75 5.50 2.67 3.0 3.75
Thuthapuzha 4.48 4.11 4.24 3.40 5.0 4.24

The bifurcation ratio for the Bharathapuzha watershed varies from 2 to 5.5.
When the influence of geological structures on the drainage network is negligible,
the bifurcation ratio characteristically ranges between 3.0 and 5.0 (Chow, 1964;

76
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

Verstappen, 1983). Hence the bifurcation ratio values may suggest that the area is
not influenced powerfully by geological structures. However since these values
doesn’t have much variation between different sub-watersheds, it shows similar
geomorphological conditions. According to Strahler (1964), a low bifurcation
ratio value suggests less structural disturbance in the watershed.

5.3.7 Basin length

The basin length is the maximum length measured parallel to the main
drainage line (Horton, 1945). According to Gregory and Walling (1973), basin
length (Lb) is the longest length of the basin from the headwaters to the point of
confluence.

Table 5.9 Basin length of the watershed and sub-watersheds

Basin name Basin length (km)

Bharathapuzha 135
Chitturpuzha 80
Kalpathipuzha 65
Gayathripuzha 58
Thuthapuzha 60

The basin length determines the shape of the basin and a longer basin
length indicates elongated basin. The basin lengths of Bharathapuzha watershed
and sub-watersheds are given in Table 5.9. The basin lengths of the tributary sub-
basins increase from Gayathripuzha sub-basin to Chitturpuzha sub-basin in the
order Gayathripuzha, Thuthapuzha, Kalpathipuzha and Chitturpuzha respectively.

5.3.8 Relief Ratio

The relief is the difference in elevation between given points (Garde,


2006). It plays a significant role in drainage development, surface and sub-surface
water movements and soil erosion characteristics of the watershed. The relative
relief helps to ascertain the amplitude of available relief (Glock, 1932), but does
not take into account the dynamic potential of the terrain (Anilkumar and Pandey,

77
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

1982). The ratio between total relief (maximum elevation - minimum elevation)
and the basin length (the longest dimension of a basin parallel to the main
drainage line) is the relief ratio (Schumm, 1956). It indicates the overall steepness
of the watershed and can be used to compare different watersheds. The relief ratio
has been widely accepted as an effective measure of the gradient of the watershed.

The value of relief in Bharathapuzha watershed indicates high runoff


conditions. A low relative relief (<50 m) is observed in most regions of the
watershed while higher values are observed in the North, northeast and southern
regions of the watershed.

Table 5.10 Relief ratio and elongation ratio.


Basin name Perimeter Basin length Relief ratio

(km)

Bharathapuzha 600.8 135 17.63

Chitturpuzha 292.86 80 29.25

Kalpathipuzha 226.11 65 30.55

Gayathripuzha 201.19 58 19.20

Thuthapuzha 248.7 60 36.53

5.3.9 Drainage texture

Drainage texture is the total number of stream segments of all the orders to
the perimeter of that basin (Horton, 1945). According to Smith (1950), drainage
texture is related to the climate, rainfall, vegetation cover, rock and soil type,
infiltration capacity, and relief and the developmental stage of the watershed. It
gives the relative spacing of drainage lines. Smith (1950) has classified drainage
texture into 5 different drainage textures related to various drainage densities as
very coarse (below 2), coarse (2 - 4), moderate (4 - 6), fine (6 - 8) and very fine (8
and above). The dissection of the watershed increases with increase in the
drainage texture and leads to more erosion.

78
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

Bharathapuzha watershed is having a very fine drainage texture (12.26)


and this may be attributed to the presence of high relief in its western parts.
Among the sub-watersheds, Chitturpuzha has a very fine drainage texture and
Gayathripuzha has a moderate texture and the rest of the two sub-basins have a
fine drainage texture.

Table 5.11 Drainage texture.

Basin name No. of streams Perimeter (km) Drainage Texture


Bharathapuzha 7368 600.8 12.26
Chitturpuzha 2802 292.86 9.57
Kalpathipuzha 1586 226.11 7.01
Gayathripuzha 854 201.19 4.24
Thuthapuzha 1716 248.7 6.9

5.3.10 Stream frequency (Fs)

Horton (1945) defined stream frequency as the ratio of the total number of
stream segments of all the orders in the basin to the total area of the basin. It gives
an indication of the stage of development of the stream network and depends on
the soil permeability, vegetation cover, nature of the rocks, and the climate of the
area. Stream frequency is one of the important morphometric parameter of the
watershed, which controls its hydrological characteristics like runoff and sediment
yield.
Table 5.12 Stream frequency

Basin name No. of streams Area (km2) Stream frequency

Bharathapuzha 7368 6185.99 1.19

Chitturpuzha 2802 1352.77 2.07

Kalpathipuzha 1586 1460.05 1.09

Gayathripuzha 854 1089.51 0.78

Thuthapuzha 1716 1074.61 1.6

79
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

Chitturpuzha sub-watershed is having the highest stream frequency in the


Bharathapuzha watershed, followed by Thuthapuzha sub-watershed, while
Gayathripuzha sub-watershed is having the lowest value. Chitturpuzha has the
highest number of streams among the sub-watersheds, while Gayathripuzha sub-
watershed has the lowest, resulting in this variation in stream frequency.

5.3.11 Form factor (Ff)

Form factor (Ff) is the ratio of the basin area to the square of the basin
length Horton (1932). Lower values indicate narrow elongated watersheds with
large length compared to its area.

Table 5.13 Form factor

Basin name Area (km2) Basin length Form factor

Bharathapuzha 6185.99 135 0.34

Chitturpuzha 1352.77 80 0.21

Kalpathipuzha 1460.05 65 0.35

Gayathripuzha 1089.51 58 0.32

Thuthapuzha 1074.61 60 0.3

Bharathapuzha watershed and sub-watersheds have form factor values


near to 0.3, except in the case of Chitturpuzha sub-watershed which has a low
value of 0.21 due to its narrow shape with less drainage network. These values
indicate elongated watersheds with lower peak flows of longer duration.

5.3.12 Circularity ratio (Rc)

Circulatory ratio is defined as the ratio of the area of a basin to the area of
a circle having the same circumference as the perimeter of the basin (Miller,
1953). It indicates the dendritic stage of a watershed (Miller, 1953) and is
influenced by the length, frequency, and stream gradients of various orders.

80
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

Table 5.14 Circulatory ratio

Basin name Area (km2) Circularity ratio

Bharathapuzha 6185.99 0.22

Chitturpuzha 1352.77 0.20

Kalpathipuzha 1460.05 0.36

Gayathripuzha 1089.51 0.34

Thuthapuzha 1074.61 0.22

The circulatory ratios of Bharathapuzha watershed and sub-watersheds


range from 0.20 to 0.36 indicating that the watersheds are in the youth stage of its
development.

5.3.13 Elongation ratio (Re)

Elongation ratio (Re) is defined as the ratio of diameter of a circle having


the same area as that of the basin and maximum basin length (Schumm1956).
Elongation ratio is a measure of the elongated shape of a watershed and its value
generally ranges from 0.6 to 1.0. A value near to 1 indicates circular shape with
very low relief and that near to 0.6 indicates elongated shape with high relief. The
value of elongation ratio indicates the lag of a watershed and watersheds with
values near one have less lag in runoff production due to the low time of
concentration resulting from the circular shape.

Table 5.15 Elongation ratio


Basin name Basin length Elongation ratio
Bharathapuzha 135 0.66
Chitturpuzha 80 0.52
Kalpathipuzha 65 0.66
Gayathripuzha 58 0.64
Thuthapuzha 60 0.62

Bharathapuzha watershed and the sub-watersheds of its tributaries are


elongated in shape with elongation ratios near to 0.6.

81
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

5.3.14 Drainage Density


Table 5.16 Drainage Density
Area Total stream length Drainage density
Basin name
km2 km km-1
Bharathapuzha 6185.99 7253.82 1.17
Chitturpuzha 1352.77 2256.01 1.67
Kalpathipuzha 1460.05 1810.13 1.24
Gayathripuzha 1089.51 1064.65 0.98
Thuthapuzha 1074.61 1448.97 1.35

Figure 5.4 Drainage Density map

Drainage density is defined as the total length of streams in a basin divided


by its area (Garde, 2006). The drainage density provides quantitative measure of
length of stream within a square grid of the area expressed in terms of length of
channels per unit area (km/km2). Greater drainage density means more channels
per unit area or more closeness of channel spacing and characterises the run off in
the area. The magnitude of the runoff increases with the drainage density and a
lesser value of drainage density indicate more infiltration and groundwater

82
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

recharge. It is an important landform element indicator which provides a


numerical measurement of its runoff potential (Chorley et al., 1976). It is related
to soil and rock properties (Smith 1958; Kelson and Wells, 1989), relief
(Montgomery and Dietrich1989) and climate and vegetation (Moglen et al. 1998),
among other factors.

The drainage density of Bharathapuzha watershed is low (< 0.5) in most


regions of the watershed while highest drainage density is seen at the north,
northeast, south and southeast parts of the watershed (Figure 5.3). A drainage
density value less than 5 indicate coarse drainage resulting from permeable sub-
surface strata and also low basin relief (Strahler, 1964). The low drainage density
values in the study area are observed in the permeable subsurface strata areas with
low relief.

5.3.15 Length of overland flow (Lg)

Length of overland flow is a useful parameter for hydrologic analysis


(Smart, 1972). It is the length of flow of runoff over the ground before it gets
concentrated into definite channels. Length of the overland flow is defined as the
mean horizontal length of flow path from the divide to the stream in a first-order
basin (Chorley 1957). The average length of overland flow Lg is given
approximately by Lg = 1/2D, if the streams are fed by Hortonian overland from all
of the contributing area (Chow, 1964). It is a measure of stream spacing and
degree of dissection. The low values of Lg for the Bharathapuzha watershed
indicate that the runoff will reach the channels fast.

Table 5.17 Length of overland flow

Basin name Drainage density Length of overland flow


Bharathapuzha 1.17 0.43
Chitturpuzha 1.67 0.30
Kalpathipuzha 1.24 0.40
Gayathripuzha 0.98 0.51
Thuthapuzha 1.35 0.37

83
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

Figure 5.5 Overland Flow Length map


5.3.16 Sinuosity index (SI)
It refers to curved shape of the streams. For SI<1.05, the streams are almost
straight, for SI≥1.05 and SI≤1.25, the streams are almost winding; 1.25≤SI<1.50,
the streams are twisty; and basin tend to be meandering when 1.50≤SI. The study
area has got an SI of 1.15 in average which indicates that streams are almost
winding.

The following table shows values of parameters for various stream orders:
Table 5.18 Sinuosity

Order Nu Average Sinuosity Lsm Rl Rb


1 851 1.199294947 2099.709 1.113632 2.138191
2 398 1.146256281 1885.461 1.277628 1.658333
3 240 1.166125 1475.751 0.89157 4.067797
4 59 1.17359322 1655.227 1.12898 0.678161
5 87 1.142954023 1466.126 0.969122 2.023256
6 43 1.122906977 1512.84 - -

84
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

5.4 CONCLUSION
Hydro-geomorphometric analysis of the Bharathapuzha watershed was
conducted for the computation and analysis of various parameters of the
watershed and sub-watersheds like Stream order (U), Stream length (Lu), Mean
stream length (Lsm), Stream length ratio (RL), Bifurcation ratio (Rb), Mean
bifurcation ratio (Rbm), Drainage density (Dd), Drainage texture (T), Stream
frequency (Fs), Elongation ratio (Re), Circularity ratio (Rc), Form factor (Rf),
Relief (R), Relief ratio (Rh), and Length of overland flow (Lg). The stream orders,
stream numbers and stream lengths in the watershed are found to follow the
Horton’s laws. The highest stream order was seven, while streams of lowest order
dominate the watershed. The elongation ratio and circularity ratio shows that the
watershed is elongated. The drainage pattern of the watershed is dendritic. The
drainage density of the watershed is low, indicating lesser runoff and more
infiltration and the watershed is characterised by a fine drainage texture.

The hydogeomorphometric parameters obtained for the watershed can be


used for groundwater studies, water balance studies, basin prioritization for soil
and water conservation and natural resource management for the development and
management of the watershed.

85
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

CHAPTER 6
WATERSHED DELINEATION THROUGH DEM- HYDRO
PROCESSING

6.1 INTRODUCTION

Water resources planning and management activities like flood and


drought mitigation, water supply, power production, irrigation, navigation, etc.
require the estimation of various flow characteristics of a watershed.

6.1.1 Watershed characteristics

The watershed characteristics that influence the hydrological influence of a


watershed has been studied by several researchers, a list of the watershed
characteristics and their citation is provided in Table 6.1

Table 6.1 Watershed Characteristics affecting hydrological response

Watershed Characteristic Study

Tasker (1982), NERC (1975), Gustard et al.


(1989), Gan et al. (1990), Nathan and
Area McMahon (1990a), Riggs (1990), Burn and
Boorman (1993), Sefton and Howarth (1998),
Bhattacharjya and Chaurasia, (2013)

Nathan and McMahon (1990a), Gustard et al.


Elevation
(1989), Tasker (1982)

Nathan and McMahon (1990a), Gustard et a,


Main stream length
(1989), Burn and Boorman (1993)

Nathan and McMahon (1990a), Gustard et al.


(1989), Sefton and Howarth (1998), Burn and
Slope Boorman (1993), Lacey and Grayson (1998),
Berger and Entekhabi (2001), Bhattacharjya
and Chaurasia, (2013)
Sefton and Howarth (1998), Nathan and
McMahon (1990a), Gustard et al. (1989), Burn
Stream frequency
and Boorman (1993), Bhattacharjya and
Chaurasia, (2013)

86
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

Watershed characteristics that have strongest influence on flow


characteristics of interest derived from readily available sources (maps, satellite
imagery, and national databases) are given in Table 6.1.

Table 6.2 Selected Watershed Characteristics

Watershed Characteristic Source

1 Mean monthly and annual rainfall, average Rain gauge data


number of rainy days per year

2 Maximum, average, and minimum watershed Derived from DEM


elevation

3 Drainage density Topographic maps

4 Slope Estimated from DEM

5 Mean monthly and annual potential Class A pan data


evaporation

6 Land cover types Vegetation map

7 Lithology Hydrogeological map

This chapter discusses the watershed delineation through DEM-hydro


processing.

6.2 DEM- HYDRO PROCESSING

ILWIS 3.31 is used for the analysis. For extraction of the DEM parameters
relevant for hydrological analysis, the DEM Hydro-processing module of ILWIS
found in the ILWIS operation tree is used. Various analysis tools and operations
available in the DEM Hydro-processing module of ILWIS is given in the Fig. 6.1.

87
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

Figure 6.1 DEM Hydro-processing module of ILWIS

6.2.1. DEM Visualisation

The DEM Visualisation script creates a colour composite from a DEM


which gives a very good impression of the relief in the watershed as the relief of
the study area really stands out. DEM Visualisation script works by creating three
shadow maps using three different shadow filters and combining them in a colour
composite.

88
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

The DEM Visualisation script calculations:

Three shadow maps are created using the shadow filters Shadow W
(West), Shadow (North-West) and Shadow N (North), which are defined as
follows:

ShadowW (West)
-2 -1 2 Shadow (North-West) ShadowN (North)
-3 -2 -1 -2 -3 -2
-3 1 4 -2 1 2 -1 1 -1
-1 2 4 2 4 2
-2 -1 2

 The three shadow maps are stretched using linear stretching, ignoring 5%.

 A 24-bit colour composite with linear stretching is created from these


stretched shadow maps.

 Then temporary maps are removed and the output colour composite is
displayed.

Figure 6.2 DEM Visualisation of Bharathapuzha watershed

89
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

6.2.2 Flow determination


6.2.2.1 Fill sinks

The Digital Elevation Model (DEM) is cleaned-up to remove local


depressions (sinks) before using the Flow Direction operation by “fill sinks”
operation. The Fill sinks operation will 'remove' the following from a DEM:

 depressions that consist of a single pixel, i.e. any pixel with a smaller height
value than all of its 8 neighbouring pixels,

 Depressions that consist of multiple pixels, i.e. any group of adjacent pixels
where the pixels that have smaller height values than all pixels that surround
such a depression.

Fill sink process:

 When a depression of a single pixel is encountered, the height value of this


pixel will be increased to the smallest value of its 8 neighbour pixels.

 When a depression of multiple pixels is encountered, the height values of this


depression will be increased to the smallest value of a pixel that is both
adjacent to the outlet for the depression, and that would discharge into the
initial depression.

The Fill sinks operation result in a sink-free or depression-free DEM with


pixels such that for every pixel in the DEM, a flow direction will be found
towards the edges of the map. This ensure that, when using the Flow direction
operation on the output DEM of the Fill sinks operation, and a subsequent Flow
accumulation operation on the output map of the Flow direction operation:

 outlets will always be found towards the edges of the map,

 Lakes and flat areas will not act as 'consuming' reservoirs of water but will
still discharge towards an outlet.

90
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

6.2.2.2 Flow direction

The Flow direction operation in a sink-free or depression-free DEM


determines into which neighbouring pixel any water in a central pixel will flow
naturally. Flow direction is calculated for every central pixel of input blocks of 3
by 3 pixels, each time comparing the value of the central pixel with the value of
its 8 neighbours. The output map contains flow directions as N (to the North), NE
(to the North East), etc.

The flow direction for the central pixels may be calculated either by
steepest slope method or the lowest height method. In steepest slope method, the
steepest downhill slope of a central pixel to one of its 8 neighbour pixels is found.
The neighbour pixel that has the smallest value of all the 8 neighbour pixels and
smaller than the value of the central pixel itself is found in the lowest height
method. When the position of the steepest-slope-neighbour pixel or the lowest-
height-neighbour pixel is determined, the flow direction for the central pixel is
known.

91
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

6.2.2.3 Flow accumulation

The Flow accumulation operation performs a cumulative count of the


number of pixels that naturally drain into outlets. The operation can be used to
find the drainage pattern of a terrain. This operation uses the output map of the
Flow direction operation as input. The output map contains cumulative hydrologic
flow values that represent the number of input pixels which contribute any water
to any outlets (or sinks if these have not been removed); the outlets of the largest
streams, rivers etc. will have the largest values.

92
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

6.2.3. Flow Modification


6.2.3.1 DEM optimization

The DEM optimization operation can be used to enhance a Digital


Elevation Model (DEM), on which the Flow direction operation is to be used later
on. The DEM optimization operation will 'burn' existing drainage features into
your Digital Elevation Model (DEM) so that a subsequent Flow direction
operation will follow the existing drainage pattern.

The DEM optimization operation offers the following possibilities:

 Gradual drop of (drainage) segments in the output DEM, over a certain


distance to the (drainage) segments.

 Gradual raise of (watershed-divide) segments on the output DEM, over a


certain distance to the (watershed-divide) segments.

 Additional sharp drop or raise of segments on top of the gradual drop or raise.

 Simple drop or raise of polygons in the output DEM.

The result of using the DEM optimization operation is a 'corrected' DEM


in which existing drainage features are more pronounced.

93
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

In Fig. 6.3, the dotted line shows the original height value(s) in the input
DEM, the solid line shows the position of the drainage. The Buffer distance, the
influence of Smooth drop and the Sharp drop are indicated in the figure.

Figure 6.3 Cross section through the terrain

Buffer distance: Buffer distance determines the width at either side of a


segment where height values should be adapted.

Smooth drop: Smooth drop determines the height with which segments
and their surroundings (as specified by the Buffer distance) should be gradually
dropped (positive value) or raised (negative value) in the terrain.

Sharp drop: Sharp drop determines the height with which segments
themselves should be dropped (positive value) or raised (negative value) in the
terrain.

6.2.3.2 Topological optimization

The Topological Optimization operation can improve the results of a


previous Flow direction operation and a Drainage network extraction operation
when a DEM and/or a flow direction map have undefined values, e.g. when there
are lakes in the study area, to ensure a proper flow through this lake.

This operation requires as input: an existing output map of the Drainage


network extraction operation, an existing output map of the Flow direction

94
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

operation, and a segment map with one or more segments that connect the inlet(s)
of a lake with the outlet(s) of lake (down-flow).

This operation produces as output: a new continuous drainage network


raster map, and a new flow direction raster map. The output of this operation can
serve as a new basis for the other hydrologic operations.

Topological optimization methodology:

The idea is to create one or more segment maps that will connect drainages
through lake areas, so that the drainages that flow into a lake are connected to the
drainages that flow out of the lake. The operation works best, when it is
repeatedly done, each time with new connecting drainages, and using the output
of a first pass as input in a second pass.

1. A previous flow direction map containing areas without a flow direction; and
a previous drainage network extraction map or a drainage network ordering
(segment) map, in which not all drainages seem connected are required.

2. Create a segment map containing one or more main drainage segments by


digitizing in a map window using the input flow direction map and the initial
drainage network ordering segment maps as background. This is the first pass,
the output of which is an updated flow direction map, and an updated drainage
network extraction map.

3. Create another segment map by connecting loose drainages to the main


drainage line digitized in the first pass, especially taking care to connect
drainages in a down-flow direction to the main drainage line. The output of
this second pass is an updated flow direction map, and an updated drainage
network extraction map.

4. Similarly create another segment map using the output maps of the second
pass to get an updated flow direction map, and an updated drainage network
extraction map in the third pass.

95
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

6.2.4. Network and catchment extraction


6.2.4.1 Drainage Network Extraction

The Drainage Network Extraction operation extracts a basic drainage


network. The output raster map is a Boolean raster map showing the basic
drainage as pixels with value True, while other pixels have the value False.

The Drainage Network Extraction operation uses the Flow accumulation


map containing a cumulative drainage count for each pixel as input. Hence either
a threshold value or a threshold raster map is also required as input. The Stream
Threshold (number of pixels) is a value for the minimum number of pixels that are
supposed to drain into a pixel to let this pixel remain as drainage in the output
map. Hence the larger the threshold value, the fewer drainages will remain in the
output map. A threshold raster map contains variable threshold values. This
threshold map can for instance be based on geological units, on height values, or
on an internal relief map, etc.

When using a threshold map, the output map of a previous Flow direction
operation is also required. The program then uses the flow direction map to
automatically fill possible gaps between extracted drainage lines.

In the Boolean output map, true or false value for a pixel is assigned based
on the flow accumulation value and the threshold value for this pixel. If the flow
accumulation value of a pixel exceeds the threshold value, the output pixel value
will be true; else, false is assigned. i.e. If for example when a stream threshold
value of 1000 is used all the pixels in the flow accumulation map which has a
value > 1000, will be assigned value True in the output drainage network map;
and else value False will be assigned to the output pixel.

The required input map is a raster map with Value domain produced by the
Flow accumulation operation. The optional raster map containing threshold values
is also of Value domain. When using such a threshold map, a Flow direction map
using system domain Flow Direction is necessary to automatically fill possible
gaps between extracted drainage lines.

96
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

The output map will use system domain Bool; the output map will use the
same georeference as the input map(s).

6.2.4.2 Drainage network ordering

The Drainage network ordering operation:

 examines all drainage lines in the drainage network map, i.e. an


output map from the Drainage network extraction operation,

 finds the nodes where two or more streams meet, and

 assigns a unique ID to each stream in between these nodes, as well


as to the streams that only have a single node.

The output of this operation is a raster map, a segment map and an


attribute table that all use a newly created ID domain.

The attribute table contains information on each stream, such as:

 Strahler ordering number, Shreve ordering number,

 stream length, calculated along the drainage, and calculated as a


straight line between XY-coordinates,

97
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

 slope values in degrees and in percentages, calculated along the


drainage and calculated as a straight line between XY-coordinates,
and elevation,

 sinuosity of the drainage path as a measure of meandering,

 total upstream drainage length, i.e. the total length of the streams
that drain into the current one, etc.

The output maps and the attribute table of the Drainage network ordering
operation are used as input in many DEM-hydro processing operations listed
below, among others:

 the Catchment extraction operation,

 the Catchment merge operation, and

 the Overland flow length operation.

Principles of Strahler and Shreve network ordering:

There is a Strahler column and a Shreve column in the attribute table of


the output map. These columns contain values that reflect the position of a stream
between its adjacent upstream and downstream streams. These ordering systems
have different methods of calculation as they differ in principle.

The streams that form the upper-most starting points of the drainages in
the network are given ordering number 1 in both Strahler and Shreve ordering
system.

Strahler ordering system:

1. In Strahler ordering, for next streams down-flow to streams of


order 1, the stream order value is increased by 1 when two (or
more) streams of equal order join each other.

For example, when two streams with order number 1 join each other, the
next stream will receive order number 2, and two or more streams with order
number 2 join each other, to form streams of order number 3.

98
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

2. When a higher-order stream joins a lower-order stream, the order


number for the next stream does not increase; instead, the largest
order number of the streams that contribute to it is assigned.

For example, when a stream with order number 1 joins a stream with order
number 2, the next stream will also be assigned order number 2.

The following figure Fig. 6.4 shows Strahler ordering system.

Figure 6.4 Strahler stream network ordering system

Shreve ordering system:

1. Shreve ordering numbers for next streams down-flow are


calculated as the sum of the Shreve ordering numbers of the
streams that directly contributes to this stream.

For example, when a stream with order number 1 joins a stream with order
number 2, the next stream will be assigned order number 3. The following figure
Fig. 6.5 shows Shreve ordering system.

99
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

Figure 6.5 Shreve stream network ordering system

Input maps required:

 A raster map containing height values (DEM);

 a raster map that is the outcome of a previous Flow direction


operation;

 a raster map that is the outcome of a previous Drainage network


extraction operation.

The minimum drainage length (in meters) value is to be specified and


segments with a length greater than or equal to this value only will remain in the
output maps. If larger values are chosen, fewer streams only will remain in the
output drainage network and this will speed up the operation.

100
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

Output maps and attribute table:

 An output raster map and an output segment map will be created;


these maps will use a newly created ID domain with the same
name as the output raster map.

 An output attribute table will be created, using the same ID


domain. The output raster map and the output segment map are
both linked to the output attribute table.

The output attribute table details are given in Table 6.1.

Table 6.3 Drainage network ordering output attribute table

Field Name Domain Description


DrainageID Number Unique drainage ID number(indexed from 1)
UpstreamLinkID String Drainage ID number(s) of upstream link(s).
for e.g.(0) indicates no upstream links, this
must be source cell link, because source cell
does not receive any inflows.(1,2)- indicates
two links(with drainage ID1,and 2)
downstream into it etc.
UpstreamCoord Coordinate X,Y coordinates at the start point of the
segment
UpstreamElevation Value Elevation at given upstream X,Y coordinate
DownstreamLinkID Number A stream ID number corresponding to the
downstream link that it down flows to.
DownstreamCoord Coordinate X,Y coordinates at the endpoint of the
segment
DownstreamElevation Value Elevation at given downstream X,Y
coordinate
ElevationDifference Value Elevation difference between upstream and
downstream coordinates
Strahler Number Strahler ordering
Shreve Number Shreve ordering
Length Value Length along the drainage line

StraightLength Value Straight line length from the upstream X, Y


to downstream X,Y coordinates.
SlopeAlongDrainage% Value Average slope of the link computed as
Elevation difference/Length in degree
SlopeAlongDrainageDegree Value Average slope of the link computed as
Elevation difference/Length in degree
SlopeDrainageStraight% Value Average slope computed as Elevation
difference/Length in percentage
SlopeDrainageStraightDegree Value Average slope computed as elevation
difference/Straight length in degrees
Sinuosity Value Ratio computed as Length/Straight length
TotalUpstreamAlongDrainageLength Value Total upstream channel length from the start
node of segment.

101
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

6.2.4.3 Catchment extraction

The Catchment extraction operation constructs a catchment for each stream found
in the output map of the Drainage network ordering operation. This operation uses
a Flow direction map to determine the flow path of each stream.

Input maps required:

 the output raster map of the Drainage network ordering operation,

 the output raster map of the Flow direction operation.

Output maps and attribute table:

 A raster map, a polygon map and an attribute table are produced as


outputs which all use the ID domain of the input Drainage network
ordering map.

 An output attribute table will be created, using the same ID


domain. The output raster map and the output segment map are
both linked to the output attribute table.

 The attribute table contains information on each catchment, such


as: area and perimeter of the catchment, total upstream area, i.e. the
area of all catchments that drain into this catchment, etc. The
output attribute table details are given in Table 6.2.

102
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

Table 6.4 Catchment extraction attribute table

Field name Domain Description

CatchmentID Number Unique IDnumber

Drainade ID Number Drainage identifier, the same number with


catchmentID , in this case

UpstreamLinkCatchment String Catchment ID number(s) of upstream link


catchments. For e.g. .(0) indicates no upstream
links, this must be source cell link, because source
cell does not receive any inflows.(1,2)- indicates
two links(with drainage ID1,and 2) downstream
into it, etc.

DownstreamLinkCatchment Number A stream ID number corresponding to the


downstream link that it down flows to.

DrainageLength Value Length of drainage line

Perimeter Value Perimeter of the catchment boundary, always get a


value in meter, even to map with LatLon coordinate
system

CatchmentArea Value Catchment area , always calculated with unit of


square meters even to LatLon coordinate system

TotalUpstream Area Value TotalUpstream Area, excluding the area of itself,


unit is square meters as well

TotalDrainagelength Value Overall length of the drainage

Drainage Density(m/km2) Value Drainage density in meter per square kilometre

LongestFlowPathLength Value Length of longest flow path, from drainage divide


to the outlet

LongestDrainageLength Value Longest drainage length, from start of a first order


drainage line to the outlet

CatchmentCenter Coordinate Approach as used in ILWIS point in polygon

DrainageCenter Coordinate Center of the catchment according to half the length


of the longest flow path segment

6.2.4.4 Catchment merge

The Catchment merge operation is able to merge adjacent catchments, as found by


the Catchment extraction operation. In fact, new catchments will be created on the
basis of the Drainage network ordering map and its attribute table.

103
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

Input maps required:

 the output map and table of a previous Drainage network ordering


map operation,

 the output map of a previous Flow direction operation,

 the output map of a previous Flow accumulation operation.

Catchments merge Options:

 by specifying a point map that contains locations of stream outlets


within a catchment; all adjacent catchments that drain into such
outlets will be merged,

 by simply specifying a Strahler or Shreve ordering value: all


adjacent catchments that have this Strahler or Shreve order value

104
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

(or a lower value) and which drain into a common catchment will
be merged.

Output maps and attribute table:

 A new catchment raster map, polygon map and attribute table using
a new ID domain are produced as output.

 The attribute table contains information on the new catchments,


similar to the output attribute table of the Catchment Extraction
operation. This attribute table contains information like, total
drainage length, total upstream area, drainage density, longest flow
path length and longest drainage length.

Optional Output maps and attribute tables:

 a segment map with the longest flow path per catchment and a
linked attribute table,

 a segment ordering map and attribute table, that contain the


segment streams within the new catchments. The output is similar
to the segment map and attribute table of the Drainage Network
Ordering operation. This option is available only when an input
point map of the outlet locations is used.

When a point map that contains only a single point is used as the input
point map of a single outlet location, an option to include the undefined pixels into
a catchment also is available as another option.

Catchments merge operation general options:

Longest flow path segment map:

An additional segment map and attribute table containing the longest possible
flow path within each new catchment, derived based on the flow direction and
flow accumulation input maps can also be optionally obtained. The attribute table
will contain information like Length and StraightLength and Sinuosity for each of
the longest flow path segments.

105
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

Extract stream segments and attributes:

An additional segment map and attribute table that contains only those segment
streams that fall within the new catchments can be optionally obtained. The
attribute table for this segment map will contain information like the drainage
network ordering.

The difference between this attribute table and the one obtained previously
as the drainage network ordering attribute table is that even though the stream IDs
are kept the same, records of streams that no longer fall within a new catchment
are simply deleted. This segment map will obtain the same name as the output
catchment merge map. The attribute table and the domain of this segment map
and attribute table will generally obtain the same name, followed by __1.

This option can only be used when the option Use Outlet Locations is
selected.

Determination of whether an outlet point in a point map is close enough to a


stream:

When the Use Outlet Locations option is selected and one or more outlet
points are provided in the outlet locations point map, the outlet point is considered
only if it is within a 5x5 pixel window near an existing drainage line otherwise it
is ignored. The position of the outlet points as to whether it is close enough to a
stream can be checked in a map window and its position can be adjusted in the
Point editor.

Input maps required:

 the output map and attribute table of a previous Drainage network


ordering operation,

 the output map of a previous Flow direction operation,

 the output map of a previous Flow accumulation operation.

 Output maps and attribute table:

Standard outputs of the Catchment merges operation:

106
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

 an output raster map and an output polygon map will be created


containing one or more catchments; the maps will use a newly
created ID domain;

 the new ID domain will obtain the same name as the output maps;

 an output attribute table will be created, it also uses this ID domain;

 the output raster map and the output polygon map are both linked
to the output attribute table.

When the Longest Flow Path Segment Map option is selected:

 an additional segment map containing the longest possible flow


path within each new catchment is created, based on the flow
direction and flow accumulation input maps;

 an additional attribute table containing information like Length,


StraightLength, and Sinuosity for these longest flow paths is
created;

 the name of the segment map is specified by the user; the attribute
table will obtain the same name;

 the additional segment map and the table use the same domain as
the maps and table that are the standard output of Catchment merge
operation.

When the Extract Stream Segments and Attributes option is selected:

 an additional segment map containing only those segment streams


that are located within the new catchments and removing the other
segments is created;

 these streams segments will keep their original input IDs from the
Drainage network ordering operation;

 an additional attribute table containing the same information as the


Drainage network ordering output attribute table is created;

107
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

 as the stream segments keep their original input IDs, there are no
records in the table for segments that do not fall within the new
catchments;

 the segment map will use the same name as the standard output of
the Catchment merge operation;

 the attribute table will use a name same as the segment map,
generally followed by __1;

 the segment map and the attribute table will use a new ID domain;

 the new ID domain has the same name as the segment map,
generally followed by __1.

The output attribute table details are given in Table 6.3.

Table 6.5 Catchment merge output attribute table

Field name Description


Domain The IDs of the table's domain, every record (ID) represents a new
catchment
DrainageID A column listing the IDs of all streams located within a new
catchment
UpstreamLinkCatchment The ID(s) of the new catchments that directly contribute to this
new catchment, e.g. when catchments 1, 2, 3, and 4 flow together
into catchment 5, then the UpstreamLinkCatchment column will
read for the record with ID 5: {1, 2, 3, 4}
DownstreamLinkCatchment The ID of the new catchment into which a current new catchment
will flow (down-flow), e.g. when catchment 5 flows into
catchment 6, then the DownstreamLinkCatchment column will
read for the record with ID 5: 6. This column is a value column
Perimeter The perimeter of each new catchment.
CatchmentArea The area (m2) of each new catchment
TotalUpstreamArea The total area (m2) of the catchments that directly contribute to a
current catchment, i.e. the sum of the areas of the catchments
listed in column UpstreamLinkCatchment.
TotalDrainageLength The sum of the lengths of all drainages in a catchment.
DrainageDensity(m/km2) The drainage density within a catchment as TotalDrainageLength
/ CatchmentArea
LongestFlowPathLength The length of the longest flow path found in a catchment, from
the catchment's outlet to the most distant source on the catchment
boundary, according to the Flow direction and Flow accumulation
input maps.
LongestDrainageLength The length of the longest actual stream within this catchment.
CenterDrainage The XY-coordinate in the middle of a longest flow path. This
column is a coordinate column.
CenterCatchment The XY-coordinate at the center of a catchment. This column is a
coordinate column.

108
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

6.2.5. Compound Parameter Extraction

6.2.5.1 Overland Flow Length

The Overland Flow Length operation calculates for each pixel the
overland distance towards the 'nearest' drainage according to the flow paths
available in the Flow Direction map.

Input maps required:

 the output raster map of the Drainage network ordering operation


and its linked attribute table,

 the output raster map of the Flow direction operation.

Output maps:

 The Overland Flow Length operation produces a raster map that


contains the overland down-flow distances towards the drainage
into which a pixel will drain according to the flow direction map.

109
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

6.2.5.2 Flow Length to Outlet

The Flow Length operation calculates for each pixel the distance towards
the outlet according to the flow paths available in the Flow Direction map.

Input maps required:

 the output raster map of the Drainage network ordering operation


and its linked attribute table,

 the output raster map of the Flow direction operation.

Output maps:

 The Flow Length operation produces a raster map that contains the
down-flow distances towards the outlet into which a pixel will
drain according to the flow direction map.

6.2.5.3 Compound Index calculation

Compound Index calculation gives a number of scripts to calculate the


wetness index, stream power index and sediment transport index maps that are
relevant in watershed management, soil erosion and conservation studies. The
equations for the indices applied are those given by Burrough and McDonnell
(1998).

110
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

The wetness index

The wetness index indicate the topographic wetness index (TWI) or the compound
topographic index (CTI) and gives catchment area in relation to the slope gradient
(Beven and Kirkby, 1979). The topographic wetness index (TWI) or the
compound topographic index (CTI), is a steady state wetness index designed for
hillslope catenas commonly used to quantify topographic control on hydrological
processes. It has been used to study the spatial scale effects on hydrological
processes and to identify hydrological flow paths for geochemical modelling, to
characterize biological processes such as annual net primary production,
vegetation patterns, and forest site quality.

The topographic wetness index (TWI) was developed by Beven and


Kirkby (1979) within the runoff model TOPMODE and is defined as:

w = ln(As/tan(ß))

where 'As' is the local upslope area draining through a certain point per
unit contour length and ‘tan(ß)’ is the local slope in radians.

The topographic wetness index is a function of both the slope and the upstream
contributing area per unit width orthogonal to the flow direction and gives an idea
of the spatial distribution of zones of saturation or variable sources for runoff
generation.

The stream power index

The stream power index is the product of catchment area and slope and
can be used to identify suitable locations for soil conservation measures to reduce
the effect of concentrated surface runoff.

The sediment transport index

The sediment transport index accounts for the effect of topography on


erosion. The two-dimensional catchment area is used instead of the one-
dimensional slope length factor as in the Universal Soil Loss Equation.

111
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

Input maps required:

 the raster map of the DEM

 the output raster map of the Flow Accumulation operation.

Output maps:

The following output maps are produced:

 the Wetness index map named ‘wetness_index’

 the stream power index map named ‘power_index’

 the sediment transport index map named ‘sediment_index’

6.3 STEPWISE PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING WATERSHED


PARAMETERS USING ILWIS

The stepwise procedures to be adopted in ILWIS v3.31 to calculate


various watershed parameters listed below are detailed in this section. The
following watershed parameters are determined using ILWIS:

1. Catchment Area

2. Channel length

3. Average channel slope

4. Average slope steepness

5. Hypsometric Curve

112
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

6. Aspect map

The input maps used in this section are the following vector maps:

 BOUNDARY Segment map of the catchment


boundary, digitized from cartographic maps.

 CONTOUR Segment map containing contours


for the catchment area. They are digitized from
cartographic maps.

 DRAINAGE Segment map of the drainage net, digitized from


cartographic maps.

6.3.1 Catchment area calculation

The segment map Boundary is converted to a polygon map by right


clicking it in the catalogue windows, selecting ‘Vectorise’ and then ‘Segment to
Polygon’ as shown below:

Now right click the newly created polygon map with the same name
‘Boundary’, select ‘Statistics’ and then ‘Histogram’. The histogram view shows
the number of the polygon and its perimeter and area.

The area value corresponds to the catchment area, in [m2].

113
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

6.3.2 Channel Length calculation

Channel length calculation is performed using the ‘Distance’ function in


ILWIS. For the ‘Distance’ function, two raster maps are required: a Source Map,
and a weight map. The source map contains one pixel which is the source point
for distance measuring along the weight map. Here the source map which contains
one pixel is the catchment outlet, and the weight map is the drainage map.

Rasterize segment map ‘DRAINAGE’ by right clicking and selecting


‘rasterize’ and ‘segment to raster’. Use the same name for the new raster map.

Define a new georeference that contains the same coordinate system as the
original map. For example:

The georeference boundaries are:

Xmin 772,895 [m] Ymin 8,081,050 [m]

Xmax 779,350 [m] Ymax 8,090,620 [m]

Use 10 [m] as pixel size.

In order to make the distance calculation along the raster map


DRAINAGE, this map has to have a weighting value 1. For that, reclassify

114
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

DRAINAGE raster map in a new value map, having value 1 and name the new
map as DRAINVAL. Assign (-1) to the undefined values by the following
MapCalc equation on the ILWIS command line.

drainval=ifundef(drainage,-1,1)

Create a raster map called ‘OUTLET’ with a class domain also called outlet by
File>Create>Raster Map and creating new class domain.

By screen digitizing over DRAINVAL, create only one pixel (the Source
Map) located in the position of the outlet, for example, RowCol position (870,
547). Farthest distance along the drainage map will be measured using this single-
pixel source map. Note this RowCol position for further use.

Display the map DRAINVAL and from this map window select “Add
Layer” and select the Raster map “Outlet” with “Transparent” option selected and
give 50 % value for transparency.

115
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

Right click the ‘Outlet’ raster map from the layer management pane and
select ‘edit’. Now zoom to the outlet pixel RowCol and double click that point and
select <new> to add item to domain. Give name as ‘Outlet’ and Code as ‘O’.

Now you can go to the raster operation ‘Distance Calculation’ and use the
Source and the Weighting maps already defined. Run Distance calculation
operation. Name the new map as DIST, with 1 [m] precision.

116
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

Once the map is calculated, the Display Options window shows a


maximum value. In this case, that value means the maximum distance measured
along drainage map as from the catchment outlet. In order to find the pixel located
on the farthest position along the drainage channel, perform the next calculation in
the command line of ILWIS main window.

MaxDist:=dist=mapmax(DIST.mpr)

Accept the default options.

117
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

This calculation creates a new map max_dist, ‘bool’ domain, where the
farthest pixel has the ‘True’ attribute, and all of the rest has ‘False’ attribute.

Once you open max_distmap, zoom in the window to see the farthest pixel
along the drainage network, for example the pixel located at RowCol (54,298).
Note this position for further use.

6.3.3 Average channel slope calculation

Two values are needed in order to calculate the Average channel slope: the
catchment outlet elevation and the elevation of the farthest point along the
drainage network.

So far, we only have the contours in a segment map called contour. To


obtain the elevation values in a raster format as to calculate slope values, we need
to calculate a Digital Elevation Model, DEM.

Perform the Contour Interpolation operation for Contour segment map.


Name the resulting map as ‘DEM’. Use previous georeference ‘drainage’ to
preserve pixel size and boundaries. Use 1 [m] precision for the calculation.

Having DEM in a raster format, the elevation value for a given pixel
position is feasible. One straight way is simply looking by zooming in a view map
window overlaying the drainage segment map on the ‘DEM’, and locating the
elevation for the pixels at the catchment outlet and the farthest point over the
drainage net.

118
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

Calculate the average channel slope with a single pocket calculator line
using the RASVALUE function:

? (rasvalue(dem,54,298)-rasvalue(dem,870,547))/mapmax(dist) ↵

Result: 0.11=(rasvalue(dem,54,298)-rasvalue(dem,870,547))/mapmax(dist)

This expression calculates the elevation difference between catchment


outlet and the farthest point in the drainage net. The difference is divided by the
distance to that extreme point.

Break the dependency for all the maps already calculated. Type breakdep *.* in
the ILWIS command line.

6.3.4 Average slope steepness calculation

Reclassify the elevation map in 200 [m] elevation ranges. Calculate the
slope map for the study area from ‘DEM’ as Slope. Use a precision of 0.1.

To calculate height differences in X-direction use DFDX filter and that in


Y-direction use DFDY filter. The DFDX filter is a standard linear filter which
works in a 1 by 5 environment. It calculates the first derivative in x-direction
(df/dx) per pixel. The values in the matrix are:

1 -8 0 8 -1

Similar is DFDY filter with matrix values:

-1
8
0
-8
1

HYP(a, b) returns the hypotenuse a2  b2

DEMdx = MapFilter(DEM, dfdx)

119
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

DEMdy = MapFilter(DEM, dfdy)

Slope = 100 * HYP(DEMdx,DEMdy)/PIXSIZE(DEM)

Open DEM, and note the maximum and minimum values 3,325 m and
5,025 m from the Display Options window. Accordingly, reclassify the elevation
in ranges:

Upperbound[m] Name
3400 <3400
3600 3400-3600
3800 3600-3800
4000 3800-4000
4200 4000-4200
4400 4200-4400
4600 4400-4600
4800 4600-4800
5200 >4800

120
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

Rasterize polygon map boundary using the same name for the output map.
Georeference has to be ‘drainage’ as the used by ‘DEM’ map.

Cut Slope map with boundary. Name the resulting map as Slopecut:

Slopecut=iff(isundef(boundary),?,Slope)↵

Figure 6.6 Slope (degrees) map

Cut ‘DEM’ map to a new ‘DEMCUT’.

demcut=iff(isundef(boundary),?, dem) ↵

Reclassify ‘DEMCUT’ map with a ‘class group’ domain according to the


previous elevations ranges list. New map is dem200. New domain has also the
same name ‘dem200’.

121
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

Reclassify (Slicing) demcut map with a ‘class group’ domain according


previous elevations ranges list. New map is dem200. New domain has also the
same name ‘dem200’.

Now is possible to obtain slope values for every elevation range, as this is
required by the average slope steepness expression.

Use the Cross operation using dem200 map with Slopecut map. Also,
create a cross table named ‘cross’.

As from this table, we can calculate the average slope values for each
elevation range area, and also the total average slope steepness for the study area.

For that final purpose, we need to create another table having the
aggregated values for each elevation range.

122
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

Create a new table ‘sm’, with domain ‘dem200’. Use ‘Join’ column option
to insert the ‘Slopecut’ column from ‘cross’ table.

Use ‘Average’ function to get the average slope values grouped by


elevation ranges ‘dem200’. These values have to be weighted by the number of
pixels for each elevation range. By this weighting type, the calculated average
slope value is more accurate.

123
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

The new column name can be named as ‘si’. Use a precision of 2 digits for
the new calculated values of ‘si’, and accept the default values for the remaining
column options.

Do the same join operation for the Area column of ‘cross’ table.

In a new column, calculate the product of the slope and the area, as:

product:=si*Area ↵

Within the table, calculate the final average slope steepness:

? sum(product)/sum(Area) ↵

That value should be about 0.5, or 50%.

6.3.5 Hypsometric curve calculation

Hypsometric curve is useful to find out water storage and water yield
characteristics as to try to relate catchments with similar hydromorphological
characteristics Hypsometric curve is a representation of accumulated catchment
area versus Topographic elevation.

Maps and tables created in the previous sections have all the data required
to calculate the hypsometric curve, in a more precise manner.

124
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

In the ‘sm’ table calculate a new column that accumulates each elevation
range area. Use Cumulative option from Columns menu. Name the column as
‘areacum’.

Calculate a new column ‘PercAreaCum’ with the next expression:

PercAreaCum:=areacum/sum(Area)*100 ↵

Create another column containing average values for the elevation ranges
3300, 3500, 3700, 3900, 4100, 4300, 4500, 4700 and 4900. Name this column as
‘AvgElev’.

Plot the hypsometric curve from the table, with ´ PercAreaCum ´ column
in X axis, and ‘AvgElev for Y axis.

125
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

Hypsometric Curve

4800 4800

4600 4600

4400 4400
Average Elevation

4200 4200

4000 4000

3800 3800

3600 3600

3400 3400

3200 3200

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Cumulative Area

6.3.6 Calculating an aspect map

An aspect map shows to which side a slope is directed. An aspect value of


0 means that the slope is facing the North.

ASPECTD = RADDEG(ATAN2(DEMdx,DEMdy) + PI)

To classify the aspect map, first create a domain group (e.g. called Aspect)
in which you can use for instance the following boundary values and classes:

22.5 North
67.5 North-East
112.5 East
157.5 South-East
202.5 South
247.5 South-West
292.5 West
337.5 North-West
361 North2

Choose Image Processing, Slicing: use as input map ASPECT, as the


group domain Aspect and call the output map for instance ASPECTCL.

Or use command line: ASPECTCL = MapSlicing(ASPECTD, Aspect)

Aspect=iff(isundef(boundary),?,AspectCl)

126
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

6.4 DELINEATION OF THE SUB-WATERSHEDS USING THE TAUDEM


PLUGIN OF MAPWINDOW GIS

The delineation of sub-watersheds is done using the TauDEM plugin of


MapWindow GIS.

The following steps in sequence were adopted for the DEM based hydro-
processing:

1. The digital elevation model (DEM) as shown in Figure 6.7 is selected

Figure 6.7 Digital Elevation Model of watershed

2. The sinks in the DEM are filled using fill sink algorithm

127
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

Figure 6.8 DEM after filling the sinks

3. Now flow direction map is prepared from the sink filled DEM

Figure 6.9 Flow direction from the sink filled DEM

128
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

Figure 6.10 Flow Direction map

4. Flow accumulation map is prepared from the flow direction map

Figure 6.11 Flow accumulation from the flow direction map

129
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

Figure 6.12 Flow Accumulation map

5. The digitized drainage network (section 6.1.4) is burned in to the flow


accumulation map and drainage network is extracted.

Figure 6.13 Drainage network extraction

130
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

(a) Drainage Extraction Map Generated from SRTM DEM

(b) Drainage Extraction Map Generated from ASTER DEM

Figure 6.14 Drainage network extraction for Meenachil watershed

131
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

6. Ordering of the drainage network as per Horton’s stream order

Figure 6.15 Stream ordering

7. Delineation of sub-watersheds

Figure 6.16 Delineated Sub-watersheds - Bharathapuzha

132
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

(a) Delineated watershed Map using SRTM DEM

Map 10(b) Delineated watershed Map using ASTER DEM

Figure 6.17 Delineated Sub-watersheds - Meenachil

133
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

Figure 6.18 Longest flow path map – Bharathapuzha

Conclusion

The aim of this book was to present the watershed analysis methodology
in an organised and stepwise way so that everyone can easily follow the steps.

134
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

REFERENCES
Acreman, M.C. and Sinclair, C.D. 1986. Classification of drainage basins according to their
physical characteristics; an application for flood frequency analysis in Scotland.
Journal of Hydrology 84:365-380.
Agarwal, C.S., 1998, Study of drainage pattern through aerial data in Naugarh area of
Varanasi district, U.P, Journal of Indian society of Remote Sensing 26:169-175.
Ames, D. P., Rafn, E. B., Van Kirk, R., and Crosby, B. 2009. Estimation of stream channel
geometry in Idaho using GIS-derived watershed characteristics. Environmental
Modelling & Software 24(3):444-448.
Ananthakrishnan R, Parthasarthy B, Pathan JM. 1979. Meteorology of Kerala. Contributions
to Marine Sciences 60:123–125.
Anderson, J.R., Hardy, E.E., Roach, J.T. and Wirmer, R.E. 1976. A land use and land cover
classification system for use with remote sensing data, Prof. Paper no.964. USGS.
Andrews, A.J. and Bullock, A. 1994. Hydrological impact of afforestation in eastern
Zimbabwe. Overseas Development Report No. 94/5, Institute of Hydrology,
Wallingford, UK.
Anilkumar and Pandey, R. N. 1982. Quantitative analysis of relief of the Hazaribagh Plateau
region. In: Prospective in Geomorphology, Concept. New Delhi, pp. 235-258.
Anirudhan, S. and Trivikramji, K.P. and Roy Chacko, P.T. 1994. Roles of relief and climate
on composition of detrital and sediments of Bharathapuzha basin, Kerala, Journal of
Geological Society of India 43: 425-483.
Arnold, J.G., Allen, P.M., Muttiah, R., and Bernhardt, G. 1995. Automated base flow
separation and recession analysis techniques. Ground Water 33(6):1010-1018.
Arnold, J.G., Srinivasan, R., Muttiah, R.S., & Williams, J.R., 1998. Large area hydrologic
modeling and assessment part I: Model development1. Journal of the American
Water Resources Association 34(1):73-89.
Bahr, D.B. and Peckham, S.D.1996: Observations and analysis of self-similar branching
topology in glacier networks. Journal of Geophysical Research 101(25):511–521.
Bennie, J.; Hill M. O., Baxter R., and Huntley B. 2006. "Influence of slope and aspect on
long-term vegetation change in British chalk grasslands". Jr. Ecology 94(2):355–368.
Berger, K.P. and Entekhabi, D. 2001. Basin hydrologic response relations to distributed
physiographic descriptors and climate. Journal of Hydrology 247:169-182.
Beven, K.J., 1989. Changing ideas in hydrology – The case of the physically based models.
Journal of Hydrology 105:157-172.
Beven, K.J., and Kirkby, M.J., Ed., 1997. TOPMODEL (special issue). Hydrological
Processes 11, 1069–1356.
Beven, K.J., and O'Connell, P.E. 1982. On the role of physically-based distributed modelling
in hydrology. Report No. 81, Institute of Hydrology, Wallingford, UK.

135
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

Beven, K.J., Kirkby, M.J., 1979. A physically based variable contributing area model of basin
hydrology. Hydrology Science Bulletin 24(1):43-69.
Bhattacharjya, R.K., and Chaurasia, S. 2013. Geomorphology Based Semi-Distributed
Approach for Modelling Rainfall-Runoff Process. Water Resour. Man. 27:567–579.
Biswas, S., Sudhakar, S., and Desai, V.R., 1999. Prioritization of subwatersheds based on
morphometric analysis of drainage basin a remote sensing and GIS approach. Journal
of Indian Society of Remote Sensing 27:155-166.
Blackie, J.R. and Eeles, C.W.O. 1985. Lumped catchment models. In: Anderson, M.G. and
Burt, T.P. (Ed) Hydrological forecasting. John Wiley and Sons, 311-345.
Blöschl, G. and Sivapalan, M. 1995. Scale issues in hydrological modelling – a review. In
Kalma, J.D. and Sivapalan, M., (eds), Scale issues in hydrological modelling, Wiley.
Bosch, J.M. 1979. Treatment effects on annual and dry period streamflow at Cathedral Peak.
South African Forestry Journal, 108:29-38.
Bosch, J.M. and Hewlett, J.D. 1982. A review of catchment experiments to determine the
effect of vegetation changes on water yield and evaporation. Jr.l of Hydrol. 55:3-23.
Brändli, M., 1996: Hierarchical models for the definition and extraction of terrain features. In
Burrough, & Frank, Natural objects with indeterminate boundaries, Taylor & Francis.
Burlando, P., Menduni, G. and Rosso, R., (eds), 1996. Fractals, scaling and nonlinear
variability in hydrology (special issue). Journal of Hydrology 187(1–2):1-264.
Burn, D.H. and Boorman, D.B. 1993. Estimation of hydrological parameters at ungauged
catchments. Journal of Hydrology 143:429-454.
CESS, 1997. Bharathapuzha and its problems, Centre for Earth Science Studies,
Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala.
CESS, 2004. Bharathapuzha and Its Problems with Special Preference to Sand Mining from
the River Stretch between Chamravattom and Thirunnavaya, CESS.
Chapman, T. 1999. A comparison of algorithms for stream flow recession and base flow
separation. Hydrological Processes 13:701-714.
Chattopadhyay, G.S and Choudhury, S. 2005. Application of GIS and Remote Sensing for
watershed development projects-a case study. Jr. Hydrology 348(1-2):302-310.
Chaudhary, R. S. and Sharma, P. D., 1998. Erosion hazard assessment and treatment
prioritisation of Giri river catchment, North Western Himalayas. Indian Journal of
Soil Conservation 26(1):6-11.
Chen, J., and Adams, B.J. 2006. Integration of artificial neural networks with conceptual
models in rainfall-runoff modeling. Journal of Hydrology 318(1–4):232–249.
Chorley, R.J., Donald, E.G., Malm., and Pogorzelski, H.A., 1957, A new standard for
estimating drainage basin shape, American Journal of Science 225:138-141.
Chorley, R.J., 1976 Introduction to Physical Hydrology, Richard Clay Ltd. Bungay Suffolk,
Chow, V. T., 1964. Handbook of Applied Hydrology. McGraw Hill Inc., New York.

136
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

Cihlar, J., Laurent, L.St. and Dyer, J.A. 1991. Relation between the normalized difference
vegetation index and ecological variables. Remote Sensing Environment 35:279-298.
Clawson, M. and Stewart, 1965. Land use information committee on landuse statistics,
resources for future, John Hopkins Press, Baltimore, USA.
CWC, 2006. Integrated Hydrological Data Book, Hydrological Data Directorate, Information
Systems Organisation, Water Planning & Projects Wing, CWC, New Delhi.
CWRDM, 1991. Water Resources Development of Bharathapuzha Basin, a Status Report.
Centre for Water Resources Development and Management. Kozhikode, Kerala.
CWRDM, 2004. Master Plan for Drought Mitigation in Palakkad District.
CWRDM/WMD/04/2. CWRDM. Kozhikode, Kerala.
De Carlo, E.H., Ray, C., and Sahoo, G.B. 2006. Calibration and validation of a physically
Distributed Hydrological Model, MIKE SHE, to Predict Streamflow at High
Frequency in a Flashy Mountainous Hawaii Stream. Jr. of Hydrol. 327(1-2):94-109.
De Groen, M. 2002. Modelling interception and transpiration at monthly time steps:
Introducing daily variability through Markov chains. PhD Thesis, IHE Delft, the
Netherlands.
Deshmukh, S.B., Pandey V.K. and Jain, M.K. 2007. Integration of GIS with MUSLE in
assessment of sediment yield. Indian Journal of Soil Conservation 35(1):1-5.
Dhar, S., and Mazumdar, A. 2009. Hydrological modelling of the Kangsabati river under
changed climate scenario: case study in India. Hydrol. Processes 23(16):2394-2406.
Donald, H.B., and David, B.B., 1993. Estimation of hydrological parameters at ungauged
catchments. Journal of Hydrology 143:429-454.
Drayton, R.S., Kidd, C.H.R., Mandeville, A.N. and Miller, J.B. 1980. A regional analysis of
river flows and low flows in Malawi. Report No. 72, Institute of Hydrology,
Wallingford, U.K.
Edwards, K.A. and Blackie, J.R. 1981. Results of the East African catchment experiments
1958-1974. In: Lall, and Russell. Tropical agriculture hydrology. Wiley, 163-188.
Epstein, J., Payne K., & Kramer, E. 2002. Techniques of mapping suburban sprawl.
Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote sensing 63:913-918.
Evans, I. S. 2012 Geomorphometry and landform mapping: What is a landform?
Geomorphology 137:94–106.
Fernandez, W. Vogel, R.M. and Sankarasubramanian, A. 2000. Regional calibration of a
watershed model. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 45(5):689-707.
Gan, K.C., McMahon, T.A. and O'Neill, I.C. 1990. Errors in estimated streamflow parameters
and storage for ungauged catchments. Water Resources Bulletin 26(3):443-450.
Garbrecht, J., Ogden, F.L., De Barry, P.A. and Maidment, D.R., 2001. GIS and distributed
watershed models I: Data coverages and sources. Jr. of hydro. Engg. (6):506-513.
Garde, R. J. 2006. River morphology. New Age International. New Delhi.

137
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

Gassman, P.W., Reyes, M.R., Green, C.H. and Arnold, .G. 2007. The soil and Water
Assessment Tool: Historical development, applications and future research
directions, Transactions of ASABE 50(4):1211– 250.
Glock, W.S. 1932. Available relief as a factor of control in the profile of a landform, Journal
of Geology 40:74-83.
Gong, Y.H., Li, Q., Liu, R.M., Shen, R.M., and Xu, L. 2009. A comparison of WEPP and
SWAT for modeling soil erosion of the Zhangjiachong Watershed in the Three
Gorges Reservoir Area. Agricultural Water Management 96(10):1435-1442.
Gregory, K.J. and Walling, D.E. 1973. Drainage basin form and process: A geomorphological
approach. Edward Arnold, London.
Gupta and L. Duckstein. 1975. A stochastic analysis of extreme droughts. Water Resources
Research 11(2):221-228.
Gupta S. C. and Mathur G. P. 2005. Geographical Information System in flood management-
a case study on river configuration. Indian Jr.of Soil Conservation 32(1-2):15-20.
Gupta, V.K. and Sorooshian, S. 1983. Uniqueness and observability of conceptual rainfall-
runoff model parameters: The percolation process examined. Water Resources
Research 19(1):269-276.
Gustard, A. 1983. Regional variability of soil characteristics for flood and low flow
estimation. Journal of Agricultural Water Management, 6:255-268.
Gustard, A., Roald, L.A., Demuth, S., Lumadjeng, H.S. and Gross, R. 1989. Flow Regimes
from Experimental and Network Data (FREND), Volume I Hydrological Studies.
Institute of Hydrology, Wallingford, UK.
Hall, M.J. and Minns, A.W. 1999. The classification of hydrologically homogenous regions.
Hydrological Sciences Journal 44(8):693-704.
Hendriks, M.R. 1990. Regionalisation of hydrological data: Effects of lithology and land use
on storm runoff in east Luxembourg. Netherlands Geog. Studies 114, Amsterdam
Hengl, T. and Reuter, H. I., eds. 2009. Geomorphometry: concepts, software, applications.
Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Hodgkinson, J.H., McLaughlin, S. and Cox, M.E. 2006. The influence of structural grain on
drainage in a metamorphic sub-catchment: Lackeys Creek, southeast Queensland,
Australia. Geomorphology 81:394-407.
Holben, B. N. 1986. Characteristics of maximum-value composite images from temporal
AVHRR data, International Journal of Remote Sensing 7:1417–1434.
Honda, K., Samarakon, L., Ishibashi, A., Mabuchi, Y. and Miyagima, S. 1994. Remote
sensing and GIS technologies for denudation in a Siwalik watershed of Nepal.
Journal of Water Resource and Hydrology: 261-275.
Horton, R.E., 1945, Erosional development of streams and their drainage basins:
Hydrophysical approach to quantitative morphology, Geological society of
America Bulletin, 5: 275-370.

138
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

Huggett, R. J. and Cheesman, J. E. 2002. Topography and the Environment. Harlow, Essex:
Prentice Hall.
Huggett, R.J. 2007. Fundamentals of Geomorphology (2 nd Ed.) Routledge, New York.
Hundecha, Y., Bardossy, A., 2004. Modeling of the effect of land use changes on the runoff
generation of a watershed through parameter regionalization of a watershed model.
Journal of Hydrology 292:281– 295.
Hundecha, Y., Bardossy, A., 2004. Modelling of the effect of land use changes on the runoff
generation of a river basin through parameter regionalization of a watershed model.
Journal of Hydrology 292:281– 295.
Hundecha, Y., Ouarad, T. B., Bardosy, A., 2008. Regional estimation of parameters of
rainfall-runoff model at ungauged watersheds using the spatial structure of the
parameters within a canonical physiographic-climatic space. Water Resources
Research 44:1427-1440.
Ibrahim, A.B. and Cordery, I. 1995. Estimation of recharge and runoff volumes from
ungauged catchments in eastern Australia. Hydrological Sciences Journal, Vol. 40,
No. 4, 499-515.
IH, 1980. Low flow studies. Research Report 1, Institute of Hydrology, Wallingford, UK.
Jain, A, Sudheer K.P., Srinivasulu S. 2004 Identification of physical processes inherent in
artificial neural network rainfall runoff models. Hydrological Process 118:571–581.
Jain, A., Srinivasulu, S., 2004. Development of effective and efficient rainfall-runoff models
using integration of deterministic, real-coded genetic algorithms and artificial neural
network techniques. Water Resources Research 40(4), W04302.
Jain, S. K., Agarwal, P. K., and Singh V. P. 2007 "River Basins of India." in Hydrology and
Water Resources of India. Springer Netherlands. 297-331.
Kaur R. and Dutta, D. 2002. GIS based digital delineation and its advantage over conventional
manual method- a case study on watershed in Hazaribagh and Banleura districts of
Jharkhand and west Bengal. Indian Journal of Soil Conservation, 30:1-7.
Kelson, K.I., and Wells, S.G. 1989 Geologic influences on fluvial hydrology and bed load
transport in small mountainous watersheds, northern New Mexico, USA. Earth Surf
Processes 14:671–690.
Kirkby, M.J. (Ed) 1978. Hillslope hydrology. John Wiley and Sons.
Kirkby, M.J. 1985. Hillslope hydrology. In: Anderson, M.G. and Burt, T P. (Ed) Hydrological
forecasting. John Wiley and Sons, 37-74.
Kumar, A. and Kumar, D. 2006. Direct runoff estimation based on geomorphologic
characteristics of a hilly watershed. Indian Journal of Soil Conservation, 34(2): 102-5
Lacey, G.C. and Grayson, R.B. 1998. Relating baseflow characteristics to catchment
properties in south-eastern Australia. Journal of Hydrology 204:231-250.
Laflen, J.M., Lane, L.J., Foster, G.R., 1991. WEPP: A new generation of erosion prediction
technology. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 46: 34-38.

139
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

Lagacherie, P., Moussa, R., Cormary, D. and Molenat, J.1996: Effects of DEM data source
and sampling pattern on topographical parameters and on a topography-based
hydrological model. In Kovar, K. and Nachtnebel, H.P., (eds), Application of GIS in
hydrology and water resources management. IAHS Publication 235, pp.:191–199.
Lee, J. and Chu, C.J. 1996: Spatial structures of digital terrain models and hydrological feature
extraction. In Kovar, K. and Nachtnebel, H.P., editors, Application of GIS in
hydrology and water resources management. IAHS Publication 235: 201–206.
Liden, R. and Harlin, J. 2000. Analysis of conceptual rainfall-runoff modelling performance in
different climates. Journal of Hydrology, 238:231-247.
Lundekvam, H. and Grmonsten, H.A. 2006. Prediction of surface runoff and soil loss in south
eastern Norway using the WEPP Hillslope model. Soil & Tillage Res. 85(1):186-199.
Lyne, V. and Hollick, M. 1979. Stochastic time-variable rainfall-runoff modelling. Institute of
Engineers Australian National Conference Publication 79/10. Institute of Australian
Engineers, Canberra, 89-98.
Mackay, D.S. and Band, L.E., 1998. Extraction and representation of nested catchment areas
from digital elevation models in lake-dominated topography. Water Resources
Research 34:897–901.
Magesh, N. S., Jitheshlal, K. V., Chandrasekhar, N. and Jini K. V. 2013 Geographical
information system-based morphometric analysis of Bharathapuzha river basin,
Kerala, India. Applied Water Science 3(2):467-477.
Manley, R.E. 1978. Simulation of flows in ungauged basins. Hydro.l Sciences Jr. 23:85-101.
Martz, L.W., and Garbrecht, J., 1998: The treatment of flat areas and depressions in automated
drainage analysis of raster digital elevation models. Hydrol. Processes 12:843–855.
McMahon, T.A. and Mein, R.G. 1978. Reservoir yield analysis. Developments in Water
Science 9, Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Meijerink, A.M.J. 1985. Estimates of peak runoff from hilly terrain with varied lithology.
Journal of Hydrology 77:227-236.
Meijerink, A.M.J., de Brouwer, H.A.M., Mannaerts, C.M. and Valenuela, C.R. 1994.
Introduction to the use of geographical information systems for practical hydrology.
Pub. 23, International Institute for Aerospace Survey & Earth Sciences, Netherlands.
Miller, D.R. and Morrice, J.G. 1996. An assessment of the uncertainty of delimited catchment
boundaries. In Kovar, K. and Nachtnebel, H.P., editors, Application of GIS in
hydrology and water resources management. IAHS Pub. 235:, 445–457.
Miller, V.C. 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.
Mimikou, M. 1984. Regional relationships between basin size and runoff characteristics.
Hydrological Sciences Journal, 29(1):63-73.

140
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

Mimikou, M. and Kaemaki, S. 1985. Regionalisation of flow duration characteristics. Journal


of Hydrology 82:77-91.
Misra, P, and Babu, R. R. 2008. Application of Advanced Hydrology Tools of Geographical
Information System (GIS) for field level design of a drop structure. Journal of Soil
Water Conservation, 7(2):63-67.
Moglen G.E., Eltahir E.A., Bras R.L. 1998. On the sensitivity of drainage density to climate
change. Water Resources Research 34:855–862.
Monument, South Dakota. Geological Society of America Bulletin 69:975–1008.
Mumeka, A. 1986. Effect of deforestation and subsistence agriculture on runoff on the Kafue
headwaters, Zambia. Hydrological Sciences Journal 31(4):543-554.
Murthi, V.V.N. 2004. Land and Water Management Engineering. Kalyani Publishers. Noida
Nag, S.K., 1998, Morphometric analysis using remote sensing techniques in the Chaka
sub-basin Purulia district, Bengal, Jr. Indian Soc. of Remote Sensing 26:69-76.
Narendra, K., and Rao, N. K., 2006, Morphometry of the Mehadrigedda watershed,
Visakhapatnam district, Andhra Pradesh using GIS and Resourcesat data, Journal of
Indian society of Remote Sensing, 34: 101-110.
Nash, J.E. and Sutclliffe, J.V. 1970. River flow forecasting through conceptual models Part I -
a discussion of principles. Journal of Hydrology, 10:282-290.
Nathan, R.J. and McMahon, T.A. 1990a. Identification of homogenous regions for purposes of
regionalisation. Journal of Hydrology, 121:217-238.
Nathan, R.J. and McMahon, T.A. 1990b. Evaluation of automated techniques for base flow
and recession analyses. Water Resources Research, 26(7):1465-1473.
Nautiyal, M D., 1994. Morphometric analysis of drainage basin using aerial photographs, a
case study of Khairkuli basin, District Dehradun. Journal of Indian Society of Remote
Sensing 22(4):251-261.
NERC. 1975. Flood studies reports. National Environmental Research Council, UK.
Noe, G.B., 2013. Interactions among hydrogeomorphology, vegetation, and nutrient
biogeochemistry in floodplain ecosystems. In: Schroder, J. Butler, D.R., Hupp, C.R.
(Eds.), Treatise on Geomorphology. Academic Press, San Diego, vol. 12,
Ecogeomorphology, pp. 307–321
Pandey, A., Chowdary, V.M., Mal, B.C. and Billib, M., 2008. Runoff and sediment yield
modeling from a Small agricultural watershed in India using the WEPP model.
Journal of Hydrology 348(3-4):305-319.
Pandey, V.K, Panda, S.N. and Sudhakhar, S., 2004. Digital elevation model for topographic
parameterization of agricultural watershed of Gowari River Catchment. Indian
Journal of Soil Conservation 32(2):108-112.
Peckham, S.D. 1995: New results for self-similar trees with applications to river networks.
Water Resources Research 31, 1023–1029.

141
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

Peckham, S.D., 2009. Geomorphometry and Spatial Hydrologic Modelling in Developments


in Soil Science, Volume 33, Elsevier B.V. pp. 579-602.
Pelletier, J.D., 1999. Self-organization and scaling relationships of evolving river networks.
Journal of Geophysical Research 104:7359–7375.
Philip, G. and Singhal, B.B., 1991. Importance of geomorphology for hydrogeological study
in hard rock terrain — an example from Bihar plateau through remote sensing. Indian
Journal of Earth Sciences 19(4):177- 188.
Pike, R.J., 1995. Geomorphometry – progress, practice, and prospect. Zeitschrift für
Geomorphologie Supplement 101:221–238.
Pike, R.J., 2000. Geomorphometry – diversity in quantitative surface analysis. Progress in
Physical Geography 24(1):1–20.
Pike, R.J., 2002. A Bibliography of Terrain Modeling (Geomorphometry), the Quantitative
Representation of Topography—Supplement 4.0. United States Geological Survey,
Open File Report 02-465. US Department of the Interior, United States Geological
Survey.
Pike, R.J., Evans, I. S., Hengl, T., 2008. Geomorphometry: A Brief Guide. In:
Geomorphometry - Concepts, Software, Applications, Hengl, T. and Reuter, H. I.
(eds.), Developments in Soil Science vol. 33, Elsevier, pp.: 3-33.
Pilgrim, D.H. 1983. Some problems in transferring hydrological relationships between small
and large drainage basins and between regions. Journal of Hydrology 65(1):49-72.
Pilotti, M., Gandolfi, C. and Bischetti, G.B., 1996. Identification and analysis of natural
channel networks from digital elevation models. Earth Surface Processes and
Landforms 21:1007–1020.
Pitlick, J. 1994. Relation between peak flows, precipitation, and physiography for five
mountainous regions in the western USA. Journal of Hydrology 158(3):219-240.
Pitman, W.V. 1973. A mathematical model for generating monthly rivers flows from
meteorological data in South Africa. Report No. 2/73, Hydrological Research Unit,
University of the Witwatersrand, S. Africa.
Post, D.A. and Jakeman, A.J. 1996. Relationships between catchment attributes and
hydrological response characteristics in small Australian mountain ash catchments.
Hydrological Processes 10:877-892.
Post, D.A. and Jakeman, A.J. 1999. Predicting the daily streamflow of ungauged catchments
in S.E. Australia by regionalising the parameters of a lumped conceptual rainfall-
runoff model. Ecological Modelling 123:91-104.
Post, D.A., Jones, J.A. and Grant, G.E. 1998. An improved methodology for predicting daily
hydrologic response of ungauged catchments. Environ. Modelling & Soft.13:395-403.
Raj P.P.N., Azeez, P.A., 2009. "Spatial and temporal variation in surface water chemistry of a
tropical river, the river Bharathapuzha, India." Current Science 96(2): 245-251.

142
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

Raj P.P.N., Azeez, P.A., 2012. Morphometric Analysis of a Tropical Medium River System:
A Case from Bharathapuzha River. Open Jr. of Modern Hydrol. 2(4): 91-8
Rajendran, S., Karthikeyan, P. and Serlathan, P., 1996. Heavy mineral and geochemical
studies of Lower Bharathapuzha sediments, Kerala, Journal of Geological Society of
India 48:319-324.
Rao, N.K., Latha, S.P, Kumar, A.P., and Krishna, H.M., 2010. Morphometric Analysis of
Gostani River Basin in Andhra Pradesh State, India Using Spatial Information
Technology, International Journal of Geomatics and Geosciences 1:179-187.
Ravat M.S., 1994. Water Resource Assessment and Management in Himalayan catchments
through Remote Sensing and GIS Technology. Jr. of Hydrology 340(1-2): 261-270.
Refsgaard, J.C. and Knudsen, J. 1996. Operational validation and inter-comparison of
different types of hydrological models. Water Resources Research 32(7):2189-2202.
Refsgaard, J.C., Seth, S.M., Bathurst, J.C., Erlich, M., Storm, B., Jorgensen, G.H. and
Chandra, S. 1992. Application of the SHE to catchments in India Part 1: General
Results. Journal of Hydrology 140(1):1-23.
Refsgaard, J.C., Singh, R., and Subramanian, K., 1999. Hydrological Modelling of a small
watershed using MIKE SHE for Irrigation Planning. Agricultural Water
Management, 41(3):149-166.
Rieger, W., 1998. A phenomenon-based approach to upslope contributing area and
depressions in DEMs. Hydrologic Processes 12:857–872.
Riggs, H.C., 1990. Estimating flow characteristics at ungauged sites. In: Regionalisation in
Hydrology, Proceedings of the Ljubljan Symposium, April 1990, IAHS Pub. 191.
Rodríguez-Iturbe, I. and Rinaldo, A. 1997. Fractal river basins. Chance and self-organization.
Cambridge University Press.
Rossiter D.G. and Hengl, T. 2004. Creating geometrically-correct photo-interpretations,
photomosaics, and base maps for a project GIS. Technical note. International
Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observations (ITC), Netherlands.
Rossiter, D.G., 1998. Creating seamless digital maps from Survey of India topographic sheets.
GIS India 7(3): 1-10.
Sankar, K., 2002. Evaluation of groundwater potential zones using remote sensing data in
Upper Vaigai river basin, Tamil Nadu, India, Journal of Indian Society of Remote
Sensing 30(3):119-129.
Sarangi, A, Bhattacharya, A. K, Singh, A. and Singh, A.K., 2001. Use of GIS in assessing
the erosion status of watersheds. Indian Journal of Soil Conservation
29(3):190-195.
Sarkar, B.C., Deota, B.S, Raju, P.L. Nand Jugran, D.K. 2001. A geographic information
system approach to evaluation of groundwater potentiality of Shamri micro-
watershed in the Shimla Taluk, Himachal Pradesh, India, Journal of Indian Society of
Remote Sensing 29(3): 151-164.

143
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

Schumm S.A., 1956. Evolution of drainage systems and slopes in Bad Lands at Perth Amboy,
New Jersey. Geological Society of America Bulletin 67:597–646.
Sefton, C.E.M. and Howarth, S.M. 1998. Relationship between dynamic response
characteristics and physical descriptors of catchments in England and Wales. Journal
of Hydrology, Vol. 211, 1-16.
Selvi, M.S., Kumar, S., Singh, D., Yadav, A.K. Saha M.K., Lagathe, S.K., Sharma, R.K.,
Meena, R.L., and Das, S.N., 2007. Digital micro watershed atlas - A tool for
watershed development planning. Indian Journal of Soil Conservation 7:39-43.
Seyhan, E. and Keet, B. 1981. Multivariate statistical analysis (Part I): Application to
hydromorphometrical data. (Communications of the Institute of Earth Sciences, Free
Reformed University - Amsterdam, Series A. No. 8.
Sharika, U.S.S, Fred, L.O, Charles, W.D., Hatim, O.S., 2000. On the calibration and
verification of two-dimensional, distributed, Hortonian, continuous watershed
models. Water Resources Research (36)6:1495- 1510.
Sharma, A.K, Navalgund, R.R, Pandey, A.K and Rao, K.K., 2001. Micro-watershed
development plans using Remote Sensing and GIS for a part of Shetrunji river basin,
Gujarat. Indian Journal of Soil Conservation 29(2): 162-167.
Shreve, R.L., 1967. Infinite topologically random channel networks. The Journal of Geology
75, 178–186.
Sidle R.C. and Onda, Y., 2004. Hydrogeomorphology: overview of an emerging science.
Hydrological Processes 18(4):597-602.
Singh P., Thakur J.K. and Singh U.C., 2013. Morphometric analysis of Morar River Basin,
Madhya Pradesh, India, using remote sensing and GIS techniques. Environmental
Earth Sciences 68(7):1967–1977.
Singh, V.P., 1988. Hydrologic systems: Rainfall Runoff Modelling, Prentice Hall, NJ, USA.
Sivapalan, M., et al. (2003). IAHS Decade on Predictions in Ungauged Basins (PUB), 2003–
2012: Shaping an Exciting Future for the Hydrological Sciences, Hydrological
Sciences Journal 48(6):857-880.
Smart, J.S., 1972. Channel networks, in Advances in Hydroscience, Chow, V.T. (ed.)
Academic Press, Orlando, Fla. Vol.8:305-346.
Smith, K. G., 1950. Standards for Grading Textures of Erosional Topography, American
Journal of Science 248(9):655-668.
Smith, K. G., 1958. Erosional processes and landforms in Badlands national monument, South
Dakota. Geological Society of America Bulletin 69(8):975-1008.
Sreedevi, P.D., Srinivaslu, S. and Raja, K.K., 2001. Hydromorphological and groundwater
prospects of the Pageru river basin by using remote sensing data,
Environmental Geology 40:1088-1094.
Strahler, A.N., 1964. Quantitative geomorphology of drainage basins and channel networks
In Handbook of Applied Hydrology, McGraw Hill Book Company, New York.

144
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools

Tallaksen, L.M., 1995. A review of baseflow recession analysis. Jr. of Hydrol. 165(1):349-70.
Tarboton, D.G. 1997. A new method for the determination of flow directions and upslope
areas in grid digital elevation models. Water Resources Research 33(2):309-319.
Tasker, G.D. 1982. Comparing methods of hydrologic regionalisation. Water Resources
Bulletin, 18(6):965-970.
Teeter, L.D, Lockaby B.G. and Flynn, K.M., 2000. The use of remote sensing and GIS in
watershed level analyses of non-point source pollution problems. Forest Ecology and
Management 128(1-2):65-73.
Thirugnanasambandam, S., 1980. Geomorphological studies of Bharathapuzha basin in
Kuttippuram and Pattambi areas, Kerala. Bulletin of Oil and Natural Gas
Corporation 17(1):31–57.
Thomas, J., Joseph S. and Thrivikramaji, K.P., 2010. Morphometric Aspects of a Small
Tropical Mountain River System, the Southern Western Ghats, India. International
Journal of Digital Earth 3(2):135-156.
Thornbury, W.D., 1969. Principles of Geomorphology (2nd Ed.). John Wiley and Sons., NY.
Tucci, C., Silveira, A. and Sanchez, J. 1995. Flow regionalization in the upper Paraguay basin,
Brazil. Hydrological Sciences Journal 40(4): 485-497.
Tucker, C. J., 1979. Red and photographic infrared linear combinations for monitoring
vegetation. Remote sensing of Environment 8(2), 127-150.
Tucker, C.J., Dregne, H.E. and Newcomb, W.W., 1991. Expansion and contraction of the
Sahara desert from 1980 to 1990. Science 253:299–301.
Vandewiele, G.L., Atlabachew, E., 1995. Monthly water balance of gauged catchments
obtained by geographical regionalization. Journal of Hydrology 170(1):277-291.
Vandewiele, G. L., and Xu, C. Y., 1992. Methodology and comparative study of monthly
water balance models in Belgium, China and Burma. Jr. of Hydrol., 134(1):315-347.
Verstappen, H., 1983. The applied geomorphology. International Institute for Aerial Survey
and Earth Science (ITC), Enschede.
Vogel, R.M. and Kroll, C.N., 1996. Estimation of baseflow recession constants. Water
Resources Management 10: 303-320.
Warren, V., Gary, L., 2003. Introduction to Hydrology (5 th Ed.). Pearson Education.
Waugh, D., 2002. Geography, an Integrated Approach (3rd Ed.), Nelson Thornes.
Wiegand, C.L., Richardson, A.J., & Escobar, D.E., 1991. Vegetation indices in crop
assessment. Remote sensing of environment, 35:105-119.
Worcester, P.G., 1948. A Textbook of Geomorphology. D. Van Nostrand Co.
Yokoo, Y., Kazama, S., Sawamoto and Nishimura, H., 2001. Regionalisation of lumped water
balance model parameters based on multiple regression. Jr. of Hydrol., 246: 209-22
Zhang, B., and Govindaraju, S., 2000. Prediction of watershed runoff using Bayesian concepts
and modular neural networks. Water Resources Research 36(3):753-762.

145

You might also like