INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMATICS AND GEOSCIENCES Volume 7, No 4, 2017 Copyright by the authors - Licensee IPA- Under Creative Commons license 3.0 Research article ISSN 0976 4380 Use of Morphometric Parameters in Prioritizing Sub Watersheds Based On Runoff Potential and Infiltration Capacity - A Case Study in the Midland Region of Peruvamba River Basin, Kannur District, Kerala Akhil R 1, Jayapal G 2 1- Planning Assistant/GIS, Town and Country Planning, Kakkanad 2- Assistant Professor, Dept. of Geography, Kannur University agniamba@gmail.com ABSTRACT Morphometry is one of the important analysis using in understanding the watershed or basin characteristics. Morphometric change of a river basin is the result of actions induced by various factors like vegetation, geology, climate etc. Hence studying the morphometry is indirectly connecting all these mentioned factors. For the present study an attempt has been made in connecting the morphometric parameters with the runoff and infiltration capacity for prioritizing the sub watersheds of Peruvamba River. Nine morphometric parameters having positive and negative influence on runoff and infiltration are taken for ranking the sub watersheds. After that the ranks scored for all parameters by each sub watersheds are added together. This sum value is taken for prioritization of sub watersheds based on infiltration capacity and runoff potential. The sub watersheds with minimum sum values have been given least priority as they have more infiltration capacity and vice versa. After the prioritization field verification has been done and the result came to be positive. Keywords: Morphometry, watersheds, prioritization, infiltration capacity, Runoff potential. 1. Introduction Morphometry in geographical perspective means the measurement of land forms. So in sense morphometric analysis means to analyse the geometry of landforms (Chattopadyay et al 1993). It is the quantitative application of derived data for describing and analyzing the characteristics of drainage basin. The fluvial process acting on a region carved out the shape of each watershed or drainage basin. The morphology of an area is very much connected with the hydrology and the hydrogeomorphology over there. Morphometry can also be related to the infiltration and runoff character of a particular region. Hence the analysis of morphometry is inevitable for evaluation of water resource of an area. Here an attempt is made to connect the morphometric analysis with runoff and infiltration potential of a small river basin. 2. Study area Peruvamba River is the fourth biggest river of Kannur district with a length of 51 km. It originates near to Pekkunu of Western Ghats at an elevation of 325m above Mean Sea Level (MSL). Peruvamba covers an area of 243.87 sq.km in Kannur district. However only 28.2 km of this river course passes through the midlands. The major trunk which is taken for the present study has a drainage basin of 169.56 sq.km. There are 561 streams in this basin. Among this 447 are first order streams, 90 are second order streams, 17 third order streams, 4 fourth order streams and 1 fifth order stream. The total length of all these streams together is 406.58 km with a drainage density of 2.40 km/sq.km (Figure1). Submitted on November 2016 published on May 2017 333
3. Objectives Figure 1: Study area 1. To analyse the morphometric characteristics of Peruvamba River sub watersheds. 2. Runoff and infiltration capacity prioritization of sub watersheds based on morphometric parameters. 3. To generate map on sub watersheds prioritization based on runoff and infiltration. 4. Methodology There are many techniques and methods for analyzing the morphometry in the present time. The introduction of GIS, Remote Sensing and number of other software along with improved technologies made the morphometric analysis and mapping of the drainage basin very easy. For the present study basic parameters were generated with the help of base maps and GIS software. Further calculations and derived parameters were made using Microsoft excel software. Twenty one parameters have been taken for the analysis, which includes parameters from river order to ruggedness number. The morphometric parameters are categorized into two categories namely, basic parameters and derived parameters. Of these parameters, nine parameters having positive and negative influence on runoff and infiltration are taken for ranking the sub watersheds. The parameters having inverse relationship with infiltration capacity (direct relationship with runoff) are ranked from smallest to largest value and those with direct relationship are ranked from largest to smallest value. After that the ranks scored for all parameters by each sub watersheds are added together. This sum value is taken for prioritization of sub watersheds based on infiltration capacity and runoff potential. The sub watersheds with minimum sum values have been given least priority as they have more infiltration capacity and less runoff and the sub watersheds with maximum values have been given high priority as they have less infiltration and more runoff. A prioritization map for sub watersheds is also prepared from the sum values. 334
Table 1: Mathematical expressions for the Morphometric Analysis Sl. No Morphometric Parameter Method Used Mathematical Formula Linear Aspects 1 Stream Order (U) Strahler (1964) Hierarchical rank 2 Number of Stream (Nu) Horton (1945) Nu = N1+N2..+N6 3 Stream Length in km (Lu) Horton (1945) Lu = L1+L2..+N6 4 Stream Length Ratio (RL) Horton (1945) RL = Lu/ Lu-1 5 Mean Stream Length (Lum) Strahler (1964) Lum = Lu/Nu 6 Bifurcation Ratio (Rb) Horton (1945) Rb = Nu/Nu+1 7 Mean Bifurcation Ratio (Rbm) Strahler (1953) Rbm = (Rb1+Rb2 Rbn)/Rbn Areal Aspects 1 Basin Area in sq.km (A) Schumm (1956) Area calculation 2 Basin Perimeter in km (P) Schumm (1956) Perimeter calculation 3 Length of the basin in km (Lb) Schumm (1956) Length calculation 4 Drainage density (Dd) Horton (1932) Dd = Lu/A 5 Stream frequency (Fs) Horton (1932) Fs = Nu/A 6 Circularity ratio (Rc) Miller (1953) Rc = 12.57 * (A/P 2 ) 7 Elongation ratio (Re) Schumm (1956) Re = 2/Lb* (A/π) 8 Form factor (Ff) Horton (1932) Ff = A/Lb 2 9 Drainage texture (T) Horton (1932) T = Nu/P 10 Drainage intensity (Id) Faniran (1968) Id Fs/Dd 11 Length of overland flow (Lo) Horton (1945) Lo = 1/Dd*0.5 12 Constant of channel maintenance (Ccm) Schumm (1956) Ccm = 1/Dd Relief Aspects 1 Maximum Relief in m (Z) Maximum height calculation 2 Minimum Relief in m (z) Minimum height calculation 3 Basin relief in m (H) Strahler (1957) H = Z z 4 Relief ratio (Rh) Schumm (1956) Rh = H/Lb 5 Relative relief index (Rhp) Melton (1957) Rhp = H*100/P 6 Ruggedness number (Ru) Schumm (1956) Ru = H * Dd 335
5. Morphometric Analysis of Peruvamba River 5.1. Linear Aspect of Peruvamba Sub watersheds Table 2: Peruvamba sub watersheds - Linear aspect Mean Stream Length (km) Mean Bifurcation Ratio Sub watershed Stream Order Stream Number Stream Length (km) PER-1 3 21 12.55 0.60 4.00 PER-2 3 20 16.05 0.80 3.88 PER-3 4 100 81.94 0.82 4.44 PER-4 4 55 35.46 0.64 3.76 PER-5 4 264 139.89 0.53 6.49 PER-6 4 57 40.58 0.71 3.97 The major sub watersheds of Peruvamba River have 3 rd and 4 th order streams and vary in size and number of streams. The stream number of Peruvamba River varies from 264 for sub watershed PER-5 located at the eastern side to 20 for PER-2 which is located in the central part. There is a big difference in the number of streams in the sub watersheds. Considering the stream length sub watershed PER-5 with a total length of 139.89 km ranks first followed by PER-3 (81.94 km) located at the northeastern part (Table 3.3). PER-1 at west central part has the lowest stream length of 12.55 km. Mean stream length shows a variation from 0.82 km to 0.53 km for each stream segment. Sub watershed PER-3 shows the highest value followed by PER-2 (0.80 km). Sub watershed PER-5 has the lowest mean stream length. Bifurcation ratio is calculated for the second, third order and fourth order streams. The result also shows a fluctuating trend. Sub watershed PER-1 has same bifurcation ratio while the bifurcation ratio of PER-5 and Per-3 shows an increasing trend. For the present analysis mean bifurcation ratio has been given priority. Mean bifurcation ratio shows some variations among the sub watersheds. PER-5 (6.49) has the highest mean bifurcation ratio followed by PER-3 (4.44). PER-4 (3.76) in the south of the Peruvamba basin has the lowest mean bifurcation ratio. 5.2. Areal aspect of Peruvamba Sub watersheds Table 3: Peruvamba sub watersheds - Areal aspect (1) Sub watershed Area (sq.km) Basin Perimeter (km) Circularity Ratio Elongation Ratio Form Factor PER-1 5.04 9.36 0.46 0.63 0.31 PER-2 6.62 13.38 0.72 0.56 0.24 PER-3 33.99 29.10 0.50 0.68 0.37 PER-4 13.04 17.37 0.54 0.66 0.34 PER-5 45.08 31.54 0.57 0.52 0.22 PER-6 16.36 18.54 0.60 0.67 0.35 336
Sub watershed PER-5 with area 45.08 sq. km and perimeter 31.54 km is the biggest one among the sub watersheds of Peruvamba River followed by PER-3, which is 33.99 sq.km in area. The area of PER-1 is 5.04 sq.km and perimeter is 9.36. It is the smallest sub watershed of Peruvamba River (Table 3). The circularity ratio of sub watersheds of Peruvamba basin ranges from 0.46 to 0.72 that means the sub watersheds have semicircular or oval shape. Here PER-2 and PER-6 show the highest value of 0.72 and 0.60 respectively indicating oval shape. Sub watersheds PER-1 and PER-3 have the least value with 0.46 and 0.50 respectively. They have a comparatively more elongated shape (Figure 3). The sub watersheds of Peruvamba River have elongation ratio ranging from 0.52 to 0.68, which shows more to the elongated shape. PER-3 (0.68), PER-6 (0.67) and PER-4 (0.66) have the higher values and are comparatively the least elongated sub watersheds. PER-5 (.52) and PER-2 (.56) are considered as more elongated. The form factor of the sub watersheds of Peruvamba basin ranges from 0.22 to 0.37 which shows more tendency towards elongated shape. The sub watersheds PER-3 (0.37) and PER-6 (0.35) have the highest form factor but still it also shows an elongated shape as far as form factor is considered. PER-5 (0.22) and PER-2 (0.24) have the lowest form factor value. Figure 2: Shape index From the three basin shape computation it is clear that the sub watersheds PER-3 and PER-4 have less elongated shape and sub watershed PER-5 has more elongated shape. That means the infiltration capacity of PER-5 is higher than PER-3 and PER-4 while considering the shape parameters. Table 4: Peruvamba sub watersheds - Areal aspect (2) Sub watershed Drainage Density Stream Frequency Drainage Texture Drainage Intensity Length of Overland Flow Constant of Channel Maintenance PER-1 2.49 4.16 2.24 1.67 0.20 0.40 PER-2 2.43 3.02 1.49 1.25 0.21 0.41 PER-3 2.41 2.94 3.44 1.22 0.21 0.41 PER-4 2.72 4.22 3.17 1.55 0.18 0.37 PER-5 3.10 5.86 8.37 1.89 0.16 0.32 PER-6 2.48 3.48 3.07 1.40 0.20 0.40 The drainage density of the Peruvamba sub watersheds ranges from 2.41 to 3.10. Sub watershed PER-5 and PER-4 which are located at the eastern side of Peruvamba basin have 337
the highest drainage density. The lowest drainage density is found in PER-3 and PER-2. The drainage density of Peruvamba river sub watersheds shows less variation. Stream frequency of Peruvamba river sub watersheds indicates a moderate difference. Its lowest stream frequency is for PER-3 (2.94) and the highest is for PER-5 (5.86). Higher rate of stream frequency shows higher runoff. PER-5, PER-4 and PER-1 have a comparatively higher runoff. Drainage texture is high for sub watershed PER-5 (8.37), which shows a low infiltration rate due to lower spacing of drainage line. PER-5 is followed by PER-3 which has a drainage texture of 3.44 (Table 3.5). A large variation is visible between the two. The sub watershed PER-2 and PER-1 have the lowest drainage texture. The drainage intensity is also high for PER-5 with a value of 1.89 and is low for PER-3 which is having a value of 1.22. The length of overland flow is high for PER-2 with a value of 0.21 and is followed by PER-1 (0.20). All these sub watersheds are located in the northern side of the Peruvamba river. The length of overland flow is low for PER-5 and PER-4. There exist only small variations in constant of channel maintenance of the sub watersheds of Peruvamba River. It ranges from 0.32 to 0.41. Sub watersheds PER-2 and PER-3 have a higher constant of channel maintenance with a value of 0.41. PER-5 has the lowest constant. 5.3 Relief aspect of Peruvamba sub watersheds Table 5: Peruvamba sub watersheds - Relief aspect Sub watersheds Basin Relief (m) Relief Ratio Rhp Index Ruggedness Number PER-1 40 11.49 0.43 99.50 PER-2 40 8.13 0.30 97.07 PER-3 80 7.19 0.27 192.85 PER-4 140 23.33 0.80 380.63 PER-5 140 11.63 0.44 434.41 PER-6 60 10.07 0.32 148.80 Sub watersheds PER-4 and PER-5 have the maximum value of 140m as far as basin relief is considered. PER-1 and PER-2 have the minimum basin relief of 40m and are at the centre of the Peruvamba river basin. PER-4 (23.33), located at eastern edge of Peruvamba river basin has the highest value of relief ratio (Table 3.6) PER-5, PER-1 and PER-6 have moderate relief ratio among the sub watersheds and hence the steepness is also moderate. PER-3 and PER-2 have low relief ratio and thus the steepness is low. Rhp index is also very high for PER-4 with a value of 0.80. PER-5 which comes second has a relative relief of only 0.44. This shows a wide variation in the amplitude of relief. Rhp index is low for PER-3 and PER-2. Ruggedness is high for sub watershed PER-5 and is low for PER-2 with a value of 434.41 and 97.07 respectively. The sub watersheds which come second and third in ruggedness number show a sudden fall that is from 380.63 to 192.85. 5.3 Runoff potential and infiltration capacity ranking of sub watersheds based on morphometric parameters The detailed study on morphometry can be applied in analyzing number of hydrogeomorphic processes. Here the various morphometric parameters are used to identify the runoff potential and infiltration capacity of different sub watersheds of Peruvamba River basin. There exists a direct relationship between morphometric parameters and runoff-infiltration capacity of a region. 338
Nine parameters, having positive and negative influence on the runoff potential and infiltration capacity are taken for ranking the sub watersheds. The parameters which have negative or inverse relationship with infiltration have positive relationship with runoff and vice versa. The parameters having positive relation with infiltration that is higher the value of parameters higher rate of infiltration are length of overland flow and constant of channel maintenance. Table 6: Peruvamba sub watersheds - Ranking of sub watersheds based on infiltration capacity and runoff potential Sub watershed CR ER FF DD SF DT RR LOF CCM Total Rank PER-2 6 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 19 PER-3 2 6 6 1 1 5 1 1 1 24 PER-1 1 3 3 4 4 2 4 3 4 27 PER-6 5 5 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 33 PER-4 3 4 4 5 5 4 6 5 6 40 PER-5 4 1 1 6 6 6 5 6 5 40 CR- Circularity Ratio, ER- Elongation Ratio, FF- Form Factor, DD-Drainage Density, SF- Stream Frequency, DT-Drainage Texture, RR- Relief Ratio, LOF- Length of Overland Flow, CCM- Constant of Channel Maintenance. Figure 3: Sub watershed prioritization 339
Those with inverse relationship that is higher the value lower the infiltration are circularity ratio, elongation ratio, form factor, drainage density, stream frequency, drainage texture, relief ratio. The parameters having inverse relationship with infiltration capacity (direct relationship with runoff) are ranked from smallest to largest value and those with direct relationship are ranked from largest to smallest value. After that the ranks scored for all parameters by each sub watersheds are added together. This sum value is taken for prioritization of sub watersheds based on infiltration capacity and runoff potential. The sub watersheds with minimum sum values have been given least priority as they have more infiltration capacity and less runoff and the sub watersheds with maximum values have been given high priority as they have less infiltration and more runoff. Table 3.7 shows the different ranks scored by each sub watershed of Peruvamba basin in relation with its infiltration capacity and runoff potential. It may be seen that PER-2 sub watershed has more infiltration capacity and minimum runoff and hence comes under low priority. PER-4, PER-5 and PER-6 sub watersheds have minimum infiltration capacity and maximum runoff (Fig.3.4). Therefore they come under High priority category. The other two sub watersheds come under moderate priority. 6. References 1. Bandyopadhyay K, M., (2004), Management of Surface Water Resources with Spacial reference to the North East India, Annals of the National Association of Geogrphers, India, 24(2), pp 59-64. 2. Bangar, S K., (2011), Potential of Remote Sensing and Geographical Information System in Water Resource Management, D R Khana, R Bhutiani, Gagan matta. Water and Waste Water Management, New Delhi, Daya Publishing House, pp 376-380. 3. Chand Pritam., (2011), Digital Elevation Models and Geomorphometry for studying glacier geomorphology and glaciation in upp.er Ravi River basin, Himachal Pradesh, Sustainable Natural Resource Management under Changing Climatic Scenarios, New Delhi, Allied Publishers Pvt.Ltd, pp 81-88. 4. Chattopadyay Srikumar., Ajay Kumar Varma., and Terry Machado., (1993), Integrated resource evaluation, the Vamanapuram river basin First annual report, Centre for Earth Science Studies, Trivandrum, Kerala. 5. Chitra. C, Alaguraja. P, Ganeshkumari. K, Yuvaraj. D and Manivel. M (2011) Watershed characteristics of Kundah sub basin using Remote Sensing and GIS techniques,, 2(1), pp 311-335. 6. Eze E.B., and Joel Efiong., (2010) Morphometric Parameters of the Calabar River Basin: Implication for Hydrologic Processes. Journal of Geography and Geology, 2(1), pp 18-26. 7. Flint R Warren., (2004) The Sustainable Development of Water Resources, Water Resources Update. Washington DC, Universities Council on Water Resources. 8. Gopinath Girish., and Gigo Pulikkottil., (2011), Application of ASTER DEM in drainage network derivation and watershed delineation-a case study in a tropical river 340
basin, Kerala, India, Sustainable Natural Resource Management under Changing Climatic Scenarios, New Delhi, Allied Publishers Pvt.Ltd, pp 109-114. 9. Gregory K. J., and D E Walling., (1973), Drainage basin Form and Process: A Geomorphological Approach, New York, Wiley Publishers. 10. Horton R.E., (1945), Erosional Development of streams and their drainage basins Hydrophysical approach to quantitative Morphology Geological Society of America Bulletin, 56, pp 370-275. 11. James E., (2002), Water resource management in watersheds with special reference to India, Watershed management practices in India- A Compendium of Articles on Watershed management practices, Thiruvananthapuram, Western Ghat Cell, pp 32-47. 12. Kashyap R. K., (2009), Water Technology Management; Challenges and Choices, Jaipur, Oxford book company 13. Kavitha T., and A Ganesh., (2004), "Geomorphic analysis of Amaravathy Basin, Tamilnadu." H Chandrashekharan, R K Sharma, K V Sundaram, Water resource development and management, New Delhi, Mittal Publications, pp 51-60. 14. Kerala state Planning Board., (1999), Neerthadadhistitha Vikasanam: Master Plan thayarakkunnathinulla kaippusthakam, Development plan, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala state Audio-visual and Reprographic centre. 15. Laenen Antonius., and John C Risley., (1997), Presipitation- Runoff and Stream Flow Routing Modeling as a foundation for water Quality Simulation in the Willamette River Basin, Oregon, Antonius Laenen, David A Dunnette, River Quality; Dynamics and Restoration, London, Lewis publishers, pp 120-130. 16. Mesa L. M., (2006), Morphometric analysis of a subtropical Andean basin (Tucuman, Argentina), Environmental Geology September, pp 1235 1242. 17. Miller V.C., (1953), A quantitative geomorphic study of drainage basin characteristics in the Clinch Mountain area, Varginia and Tennessee Project NR 389042 Tech. Rept. 3 Columbia University, Department of Geology, ONR, Geography Branch, New York. 18. Mishra Kavita., V. K Kumara., and S P Mishra., (2009), Morphological Analysis and Prioritization of Micro-Sub watersheds in Chandraprabha Basin, Annals of the National Association of Geogrphers, India, 29(2), pp 11-31. 19. Palanisami K., and Ramaswamy K., (2002), Some impact indicators and experiences of watershed development in drought prone areas of Tamil Nadu, Watershed Management Issues and Policies for 21st Century, New Delhi, Associated Publishing Company Ltd, pp 182-191. 20. Panda S.K., and Sukumar B., (2010), Delineation of areas for water conservation in Peruvamba River basin, Kannur district, Kerala, using Remote Sensing and GIS,, 1, pp 83-76. 21. Rajora Rajesh., (2002), Integrated watershed management Field Mannual for equitable, productive and sustainable development, Jaipur, Rawant publication. 341
22. Ravi S. S., and Dipankar Roy., (2015), Water in India: A conceptual outflow,transaction, 37(1), pp 67-79. 23. Rekha V.B., George A.V., and Rita M., (2011), Morphometric Analysis and Microwatershed Prioritization of Peruvanthanam Sub-watershed, the Manimala River Basin, Kerala, South India Environmental Research Engineering and Management, 3(57),Pp 14-6. 24. Sankar P, Hermon.R.R, Alaguraja P, Manivel M (2012) Comprehensive water resources development planning Panoli village blocks in Ahmednagar district, Maharashtra using Remote Sensing and GIS techniques, International Journal of Advances in Remote Sensing and GIS, 1(1), pp 40-58 25. Schumm S.A., (1956) The Evolution of drainage systems and slopes in badlands at Perth Amboi, New Jersey Geological Society of America Bulletins, 67(5). 26. Strahler, A.N. (1964), Quantitative Geomorphology of drainage basins and channel network Hand book of applied Hydrology. New York: MC Graw Hill Publication. 27. Vandana M., (2012) Morphometric analysis and watershed prioritization: A case study of Kabani river basin, Wayanad district, Kerala, India Indian Journal of Geomarine Sciences, 42(2), pp 222-211. 342