Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Vishnu B
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools
Author: Vishnu B
© Author
ISBN: 978-81-925176-0-5
Published by
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.
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
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).
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.
1.4 GEOMORPHOLOGY
3
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools
4
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools
5
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools
1.7 ILWIS
1.9 TAUDEM
6
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools
1.12 AIM
7
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE ON WATERSHED ANALYSIS
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)
8
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools
2.1 GEOMORPHOMETRY
9
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools
basins from DEMs using fully automated (Peckham, 1995) and interactive (Pilotti
et al., 1996) approaches have been reported.
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).
Hack's Law
11
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools
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
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
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.
14
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools
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.
16
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools
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.
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.
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).
19
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools
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.
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 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 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).
21
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools
22
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools
CHAPTER 3
WATERSHEDS, DATA, TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES USED
23
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools
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.
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
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
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
28
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools
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.
29
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools
30
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools
River flow data are available from Central Water Commission and the
Water Resources Department (WRD), Kerala.
3.2.4.1 Making a digital version of the topographic map (Rossiter & Hengl, 2004)
3. The scanned maps were imported into ILWIS, from TIF to raster.
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.
31
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools
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;
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.
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.
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).
33
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools
Sensor Model
Initial Setting
Data information
DEM Generation
DEM
Figure 3.5 Flow chart of ASTER and SRTM DEM generation process
34
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools
Figure 3.6 DEMs generated from SRTM and ASTER data sets.
35
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools
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.
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.
Calculates contributing area using single and multiple flow direction methods
37
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools
o Calculates the slope/area ratio that is the basis for the topographic
wetness index
TauDEM v5.0 plugin of the MapWindow version 4.8 is used for the
Watershed Delineation and computation of watershed characteristics.
38
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools
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.
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.
39
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools
r.watershed module
40
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools
CHAPTER 4
WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS
4.1 INTRODUCTION
4.2 METHODOLOGY
Overlay Overlay
Slope Map
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.
42
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools
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.
(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
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,
The slope map is derived from the Digital Elevation Model (DEM) using
ILWIS, as follows:
44
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools
4. To get the slope map in degrees use the map calculation formula
The aspect map is derived from the Digital Elevation Model (DEM) using
ILWIS, as follows:
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
The drainage channels in the topographic map were digitized and stream
orders were included in the drainage network as attribute data.
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
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
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.
13 KANCHI
55.6
KONGA
MANIM
7.1
MANJA
3.4 PALLI
VIJAY
48
49
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools
50
51
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools
Table 4.2 Typical NDVI values for various cover types [Holben, 1986]
NDVI values for Bharathapuzha watershed varied from -0.71 to 0.54 and
is shown in Figure 4.7
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
52
53
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools
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.
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.
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.
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
The following classification of the slope ranges are used for the
preparation of the slope map in Figure 4.10:
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.
56
57
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
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).
58
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools
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
60
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools
Moderately dissected
Plateau
Valley fills
Structural hills
Pediment zones
Moderately dissected
pediment
Plateau
Residual hills
Water body
Channel bars
Coastal plain
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.
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
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
4.3.8.6. Plateaus
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
63
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools
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
The four main tributaries to Bharathapuzha River sorted in order from the
origin heading downstream are:
2. Kalpathipuzha
3. Gayathripuzha
4. Thuthapuzha
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 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
66
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools
CHAPTER 5
HYDROGEOMORPHOMETRY
5.1 INTRODUCTION
67
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools
5.2 METHODOLOGY
68
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools
5.3.1. Area
69
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools
70
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools
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.
71
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools
Stream Orders
Basin name Total
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
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.
Tributary b a R²
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
73
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools
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).
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 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
(km)
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
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
79
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools
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.
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
81
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools
82
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools
83
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools
The following table shows values of parameters for various stream orders:
Table 5.18 Sinuosity
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.
85
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools
CHAPTER 6
WATERSHED DELINEATION THROUGH DEM- HYDRO
PROCESSING
6.1 INTRODUCTION
86
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools
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
88
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools
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%.
Then temporary maps are removed and the output colour composite is
displayed.
89
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools
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.
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
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
92
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools
Additional sharp drop or raise of segments on top of the gradual drop or raise.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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
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).
97
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools
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 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.
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
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.
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
100
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools
101
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools
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.
102
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools
103
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools
104
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools
(or a lower value) and which drain into a common catchment will
be merged.
A new catchment raster map, polygon map and attribute table using
a new ID domain are produced as output.
a segment map with the longest flow path per catchment and a
linked attribute table,
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.
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
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.
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.
106
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools
the new ID domain will obtain the same name as the output maps;
the output raster map and the output polygon map are both linked
to the output attribute table.
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.
these streams segments will keep their original input IDs from the
Drainage network ordering operation;
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.
108
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools
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.
Output maps:
109
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools
The Flow Length operation calculates for each pixel the distance towards
the outlet according to the flow paths available in the Flow Direction map.
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.
110
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools
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.
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 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.
111
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools
Output maps:
1. Catchment Area
2. Channel length
5. Hypsometric Curve
112
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools
6. Aspect map
The input maps used in this section are the following vector maps:
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.
113
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools
Define a new georeference that contains the same coordinate system as the
original map. For example:
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
MaxDist:=dist=mapmax(DIST.mpr)
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.
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.
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)
Break the dependency for all the maps already calculated. Type breakdep *.* in
the ILWIS command line.
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.
1 -8 0 8 -1
-1
8
0
-8
1
119
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools
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)↵
demcut=iff(isundef(boundary),?, dem) ↵
121
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools
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.
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 ↵
? sum(product)/sum(Area) ↵
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’.
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
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
Aspect=iff(isundef(boundary),?,AspectCl)
126
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools
The following steps in sequence were adopted for the DEM based hydro-
processing:
2. The sinks in the DEM are filled using fill sink algorithm
127
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools
3. Now flow direction map is prepared from the sink filled DEM
128
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools
129
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools
130
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools
131
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools
7. Delineation of sub-watersheds
132
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools
133
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools
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
141
Watershed Analysis – Through FOSS Tools
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