Hindawi Publishing CorporationGeography JournalVolume 2013 Article ID 178021 14 pageshttpdxdoiorg1011552013178021

Research ArticleMorphometric Analysis to Infer Hydrological Behaviour ofLidder Watershed Western Himalaya India

Farrukh Altaf Gowhar Meraj and Shakil A Romshoo

Department of Earth Sciences University of Kashmir Hazratbal Srinagar Kashmir 190006 India

Correspondence should be addressed to Gowhar Meraj gowharmerajgmailcom

Received 17 January 2013 Revised 1 March 2013 Accepted 3 March 2013

Academic Editor Biswajeet Pradhan

Copyright copy 2013 Farrukh Altaf et al This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution Licensewhich permits unrestricted use distribution and reproduction in any medium provided the original work is properly cited

West Lidder River in the Northwest Greater-Himalayan mountain range is the major source of irrigation and drinking watersupplies for the Kashmir Valley with a population of seven million people The major source of water for the whole Lidder Riveris snow and icemelt emanating from its two subcatchments East Lidder and West Lidder Snowmelt significantly contributes tothe evolution of drainage patterns in this area Quantitative morphometry plays a vital role in routing the snowmelt and otherhydrological processes Morphometric analysis of theWest Lidder River catchment was carried out using geospatial techniqueTheoutcome revealed that the entire study area has uniform lithology and is structurally permeable The high drainage density of allsubwatersheds indicatemore surface runoffThemorphometric analysis also indicates that the area ismore prone toweathering dueto very-coarse to coarse drainage texture All the subwatersheds showed dendritic to subdendritic drainage pattern An immensecontrol of structure on the drainage in some subwatersheds is indicated by their high bifurcation ratios Circulatory and elongationratios show that the subwatersheds have elongated to circular shapes From the integrated analysis of themorphometric parametersimportant hydrologic behaviour of 17 subwatersheds could be inferred

1 Introduction

The measurement and mathematical analysis of the config-uration of the earthrsquos surface shape and dimension of itslandforms is called morphometry [1ndash3] To understand theevolution and behaviour of drainage patterns several quan-titative methods have been developed [4 5] In hydrologybasin drainage characteristics are fundamental in under-standing various hydrological processes Since watershed isthe basic unit in hydrology therefore morphometric analysisat watershed scale is advantageous and preferable rather carryit out on individual channel or inconsistent segment areasWatershed is an area of surface whose major runoff is con-veyed to the single outlet and is the appropriate unit to studyseveral processes of the land surface For example watershedis considered a fundamental erosional landscape elementwherein conspicuous interaction of land and water resourcestakes place Being fundamental units of fluvial terrain con-siderable research focal point has been done on watershedgeometric characterization such as stream network topologyand quantitative narration of shape pattern and drainage

texture [5] Hydrologic and geomorphic processes occurwithin the watershed and morphometric characterization atthe watershed scale reveals information regarding formationand development of land surface processes [6 7] and thusprovides a holistic insight into the hydrologic behaviour of awatershed Basin travel time time to hydrograph peak (basinlag time) and intensity of erosional processes operating atwatershed scale can be predicted with better insight andaccuracy from morphometric evaluation of a watershedFor unguaged watersheds wherein in addition to hydrologyinformation regarding soil geology geomorphology and soforth is also scarce morphometric analysis provides a verygood alternative to understand the underlying factors con-trolling the hydrological behaviour [8] Furthermore thereare a myriad of practical applications of quantitative mor-phometric analysis such as river basin evaluation watershedprioritization for soil and water conservation and manage-ment of natural resources Watershed morphometric analysisdispenses a quantitative description of the drainage systemand thus enabling a better characterization of watersheds[9] The role of landform processes soil physical properties

2 Geography Journal

and erosional characteristics in shaping the idiosyncrasy ofdifferent watersheds can be best evaluated through juxtapos-ing their morphometric parameters [7] Using conventionaltechniques morphometric characterization of many riverbasins and subbasins in different parts of the globe has beencarried out [9ndash11] With the advancement in geospatial andcomputer technology assessment of the drainage basin mor-phometry has been more accurate and precise Nowadaysusing Geographical Information System (GIS) techniquevarious terrain andmorphometric parameters of the drainagebasins are evaluated with more ease and better accuracySatellite data and GIS tools have been successfully employedto generate data on the spatial deviations in drainage charac-teristics thus providing an insight into hydrologic conditionsnecessary for developing watershed management strategies[12ndash14] GIS being a powerful tool for the manipulationand analysis of spatial information provides a flexible envi-ronment for morphometric analysis In the present studymorphometric characterization of 17 subwatersheds of theWest Lidder River catchment was performed in GIS envi-ronment The importance of morphometric analysis for thisregion lies in the fact that Lidder River forms the back boneof irrigation drinking water supplies and economy of theKashmir valley Snowmelt runoff contributes significantlyto the drainage evolution of the area Comparison of thequantitative morphometric parameters of subwatersheds ofa river helps in understanding the geomorphological effectson the spatiotemporal variation of the hydrological functionsMoreover some of the morphometric parameters such ascircularity ratio and bifurcation ratio are input parametersin the hydrograph analysis [15ndash18] and evaluation of surfacewater potential of an area [19] In this context this workrepresents a better understanding of hydrologic behaviourof the study area and its impact on various socioeconomicaspects of the valley of Kashmir Moreover a more ratio-nal approach of drainage morphometric analysis has beenemployed in this study compared to other automaticallyDEM-based drainage generation methods [20 21] It usesnatural stream network and lake information to conditionthe DEM prior to the calculation of flow direction and flowaccumulation grids This greatly reduces error introductionin the form of spurious drainage

2 Materials and Methods

21 Materials

211 Study Area The West Lidder catchment occupiesthe Southeastern part of the Kashmir valley and is sit-uated between 34∘0910158400110158401015840Nndash34∘1410158400010158401015840N and 75∘0610158400010158401015840 Endash75∘2310158402910158401015840 E (Figure 1) Forming a part of the middleHimalayas and lying between the Pir Panjal range in theSouth and Southeast the north Kashmir range in the North-east and Zanskar range in the Southwest the study areahas a unique geoenvironmental setting making it a suitableniche to many of the important glaciers such as KolahoiThe West Lidder catchment has been engraved out by WestLidder River a left bank tributary of River Lidder which

finally drains as a right bank tributary of River Jhelum Ithas a catchment area of 3506 km2 which constitute about2780 per cent of the total catchment area of river Lidder[29 30] The valley begins from the base of the snow fieldcalled the Kolahoi giving rise to West Lidder catchment Thelatter joins the East Lidder which originate from anothersnow field called Sheshnag near the famous tourist townof Pahalgam From this point onwards it is referred asRiver Lidder The latter joins the Jhelum (upper streamof Indus River) at Gur Village after travelling a course of70 km [30] Combined action of glaciers and rivers hasbestowed West Lidder catchment a marked topography Thevalley possesses distinctive climatic characteristics because ofits high altitude location and its geophysical setting beingenclosed on all sides by high mountain ranges The studyarea receives precipitation in the form of both rain and snowThemean annual precipitation at Pahalgam rain gauge stationis 12672mm The highest rainfall of 1629mm was recordedduring the year 1994 and the lowest of 8999 mm during theyear 2000The area receives the highest rainfall in the monthofMarch (2088mm) and the lowest in the month of October(459mm) Such a climatic regime is peculiar characteristicof sub-Mediterranean type of climate Moreover 70 per centof its annual precipitation concentrated in winter and springmonths [31]

212 Data Sets Used The data sets used in this study foraccomplishing the respective objectives are as follows

(i) Quantitative morphometry ASTER DEM 30m

(ii) Surveyof India (SOI) topographicalmaps at 1 50000Dated 1969 Natural drainage delineation

22 Methods

221 Drainage Generation Drainage was generated fromAdvanced Space borne Thermal Emission and ReflectionRadiometer (ASTER) 30m digital elevation model (DEM)in GIS environment The Arc Hydro approach was used fordrainage generation which is more logical and consistentwhen compared to a manual approach [32] There is nodistinction between water filled stream channels and landsurface in a DEM In order to incorporate already existingstreams and lakes into the DEM for drainage analysis aprocess termed as DEM manipulation is followed Naturaldrainage present in SOI toposheets was digitized and usedto manipulate the DEM For proper determination of flowdirection and flow accumulation DEM sinks were identifiedand filled Boundaries of the 17 subwatersheds were derivedby defining pour point for each subwatershed (Figure 1) Thepour point is the location where water drained from wholeof the watershed flows into the main river Based on thecumulative number of the upstream cells draining to eachcell stream network in both the watersheds was definedWe used a critical threshold 006 which represents the 6area in all 17 subwatersheds for defining streams The criticalthreshold is the minimum upstream drainage required toinitiate a stream Area of the watershed was evaluated by

Geography Journal 3

WS1

WS2

WS3

WS7

WS6WS5WS9

WS10

WS11 WS12

WS13

WS14

WS15

WS16WS17

WS4

WS8

74∘09984000998400998400E 74

∘20

9984000998400998400E73

∘40

9984000998400998400E 74

∘40

9984000998400998400E 75

∘09984000998400998400E 75

∘20

9984000998400998400E 75

∘40

9984000998400998400E

33∘20

9984000998400998400N

33∘40

9984000998400998400N

34∘09984000998400998400N

34∘20

9984000998400998400N

Kilometers

Kashmir Valley J and K India

10

75∘59984000998400998400E 75

∘10

9984000998400998400E 75

∘15

9984000998400998400E 75

∘20

9984000998400998400E 75

∘25

9984000998400998400E

34∘09984000998400998400N

34∘59984000998400998400N

34∘10

9984000998400998400N

34∘15

9984000998400998400N

10

Prominent landmarksSubwatershed boundary

Pahalgam

Kolahoi Glacier

N

EW

S

N

EW

S

Kilometers

Figure 1 Showing location of the study area in 2D and 3D perspectives

calculating the geometry of the derived watershed polygonsand length of the watershed was calculated by summing thelength of the main stream channel and the distance fromthe top of the main channel to the watershed boundaryBy summing the lengths of all stream segments in eachsubwatershed the total stream length was calculated

222 Quantitative Morphometry In the present study mor-phometric analysis of the parameters namely stream orderstream length bifurcation ratio relief ratio drainage den-sity drainage intensity drainage texture stream frequencydrainage texture form factor length of overland flow con-stant channel maintenance circulatory and elongation ratioarea perimeter and length of all the 17 subwatersheds havebeen carried out using the standard mathematical formulaegiven in the Table 1 [9 10 19 22ndash28] The values of variousbasin characteristics required for calculating morphometricparameters are shown in Table 2

3 Results and Discussion

31 Stream Order (U) The highest stream order among the17 subwatersheds is five and is shown by four subwatershedsWS7 WS8 WS9 and WS10 The lowest stream order is twoand is shown by WS17 A perusal of Table 3 and Figure 1indicates that the 17 subwatersheds draining intoWest LidderRiver are contributing surface runoff and sediment loadsdifferentially due to variations in their physical characteris-tics There are only 7 subwatersheds in the East side of theriver among which five watersheds have 119880 = 4 and onlytwo watersheds have 119880 = 5 In the West side of the riverthere are 10 watersheds out of which four watersheds have119880 = 3 two watersheds have 119880 = 4 three watersheds have119880 = 5 and only one watershed has 119880 = 2 Drainagemaps of all the 17 subwatersheds are shown below (Figures4(a) 4(b) and 4(c)) Higher stream order is associated withgreater discharge and higher velocity [33] West side of theriver clearly contributes more to discharge and since higher

4 Geography Journal

velocity enhances the erosion rates therefore this side alsocontributes higher sediment loads into theWest Lidder RiverFurther the total number of stream segments decrease withstream order This is referred to as Hortonrsquos law of streamnumbers Any deviation indicates that the terrain is typifiedwith high relief andor moderately steep slopes underlain byvarying lithology and probable uplift across the basin [34] Inpractice when logarithms of the number of streams of a givenorder are plotted against the order the points lie on a straightline [22] Similar geometric relationship was also found tooperate between stream order and stream numbers in allsubwatersheds of this study area It indicates that the wholearea has uniform underlying lithology and geologically therehas been no probable uplift in the basin (Figure 2)

32 Stream Length (Lu)Mean Stream Length (Lsm) Analysisof the results shown in Tables 3 and 4 show that the totallength of stream segments is the maximum in case of firstorder streams It decreases as order increases in all thesubwatersheds (Tables 3 and 4 Figure 4)The results reaffirmthe fact that the area is underlain with uniform lithology withno probable basin upliftment The observation demonstratesthat the area depends only on the drainage characteristics formovement of water Further since there are more numberof watersheds in the West side of the river and the totalstream length of all the orders from this side is greater thanthe East side therefore the longer travel times [35] makesthis side hydrologically very active From this observation itis concluded that during a same intensity storm event overwhole of the East or West side of the river [36] the East sidewill show short basin lag times [37] compared to West sideunder similar soil moisture [38 39] and vegetation cover [39]Moreover Table 4 indicates that Lsm in these subwatershedsrange from a minimum of 021 km for stream order 2 of WS5to a maximum of 669 km for the order 3 of WS13 Accordingto theHortonrsquos lawof stream lengthsLsm of any given order isgreater than that of lower order This geometric relationshipcan be seen in Figure 3 A comparative analysis of Lsm andstream length ratio RL of all the subwatersheds is shown inTable 4

33 Stream FrequencyChannel Frequency (Fs) Stream fre-quency (Fs) is the total number of streams of all orders perunit area The analysis of the results shown in Table 5 showsthat Fs is maximum in subwatershed WS12 (819km2) fol-lowed byWS8 (798km2) WS9 (782km2) WS13 (705km2)WS7 (704km2) WS5 (702km2) WS10 (670km2) WS6(652km2) WS16 (615km2) WS1 (593km2) WS4 (578km2) WS15 (564km2) WS3 (563km2) WS2 (515km2)WS11 (452km2) WS14 (412km2) and WS17 (347km2) Fshas been related to permeability infiltration capacity andrelief of watersheds [40 41] The values observed in WestLidder indicate thatW12 is having rocky terrain and very lowinfiltration capacity out of all the 17 subwatersheds Furtherit is noted that Fs decreases as the stream number increasesFs of WS17 reveals that this subwatershed is comparablycovered with good amount of vegetation and has very goodinfiltration capacity Overall the results of Fs reflect early

1 2 3 4 50

05

1

15

2

25

3

WS1WS2WS3WS4WS5WS6WS7WS8WS9

WS10WS11WS12WS13WS14WS15WS16WS17

Stream order

Stre

am n

umbe

r (lo

g 10)

Figure 2 Showing relation between stream order and number ofstreams for 17 subwatersheds

peak discharge for subwatersheds in order of their decreasingFs resulting in flash floods while the discharge from WS17takes longer time to peak because of low runoff rates due tolesser number of streams [42ndash44]

34 Bifurcation Ratio (Rb)Mean Bifurcation Ratio (Rbm)Analysis of the results shown in Table 5 shows that meanbifurcation ratio (Rbm) of the 17 subwatersheds is 36 37 441 27 48 47 45 64 53 36 102 91 46 42 44 and 30forWS1 toWS17 respectively Rbm does not precisely remainconstant from one order to the next because of possibility ofvariations inwatershed geometry and lithology but it tends tobe a constant throughout the series High Rbm indicates earlyhydrograph peak with a potential for flash flooding duringthe storm events [45 46] Moreover wherever in a basinpowerful geological control dominates Rbm shows only asmall variation for different regions on different environment[10] Higher Rbm values are the characteristics of structurallymore disturbed watersheds with a prominent distortion indrainage pattern and vice versa [14] Maximum Rbm isseen for WS12 (Rbm = 102) and thus it will show earlyhydrographpeak (smaller basin lag time)which also indicatesstrong structural control on the drainage development forthis watershed The minimum Rbm is observed for WS5(119877119887119898 = 279) indicating delayed hydrograph peak

35 Relief Ratio (Rh) Quantitatively it is the measurementof the overall steepness of a drainage basin Also it is anindicator of the intensity of erosion processes operating onthe basin slopes [47] Rh normally increases with decreasingdrainage area and size of a given drainage basin [48] In

Geography Journal 5

Table 1 Methodology adopted for computation of morphometric parameters

S No Morphometric parameters Formulae Reference1 Stream Order (119880) Hierarchical rank (Strahler Scheme) [9]

2 Stream Length (119871119906) Length of the stream [22]

3 Mean Stream Length (119871119904119898) 119871119904119898 = 119871119906119873119906 Where 119871119904119898 = mean stream length 119871119906 = Total stream length oforder ldquo119906rdquo119873119906 = Total no of stream segments of order ldquo119906rdquo [9]

4 Stream Length Ratio (119877119871) 119877119871 = 119871119906119871119906 minus 1 Where 119877119871 = Stream length ratio 119871119906 =The total stream length oforder ldquo119906rdquo 119871119906 minus 1 =The total stream length of its next lower order [22]

5 Bifurcation Ratio (119877119887) 119877119887 = 119873119906119873119906 + 1 Where 119877119887 = Bifucation ratio119873119906 = Total no of stream segmentsof order ldquo119906rdquo119873119906 + 1 = Number of segments of the next higher order [23]

6 Mean Bifurcation Ratio (119877119887119898) 119877119887119898 = Average of bifurcation ratios of all orders [10]

7 Relief Ratio (119877ℎ) 119877ℎ = 119867119871 Where 119877ℎ = Relief ratio H = Total relief (Relative relief) of the basin inKilometre 119871119887 = Basin length [23]

8 Drainage Density (119863) 119863 = 119871119906119860 Where119863 = Drainage density 119871119906 = Total stream length of all orders A =Area of the basin (km2) [24]

9 Stream Frequency (119865119904) 119865119904 = 119873119906119860 Where 119865119904 = Stream frequency119873119906 = Total no of streams of all orders119860 = Area of the basin (km2) [24]

10 Drainage Texture (119877119905) 119877119905 = 119873119906119875 Where 119877119905 = Drainage texture119873119906 = Total no of streams of all orders119875 = Perimeter (km) [22]

11 Form Factor (119877119891) 119877119891 = 1198601198711198872 Where 119877119891 = Form factor 119860 = Area of the basin (km2) 1198711198872 = Square

of basin length [24]

12 Circularity Ratio (119877119888) 119877119888 = 4 lowast120587 lowast 1198601199012Where 119877119890 = Circularity ratio 120587 = ldquo119875119894rdquo value that is 314 A = Areaof the basin (km2) P = Perimeter (km) [25]

13 Elongation Ratio (119877119890) 119877119890 = (2119871119887)lowast

119904119902119903119905 (119860120587) Where Re = Elongation ratio 119860 = Area of the basin (km2)120587 = ldquo119875119894rdquo value that is 314 119871119887 = Basin length [23]

14 Length of overland flow (119871119892) 119871119892 = 1D lowast 2 Where 119871119892 = Length of overland flow D = Drainage density [22]

15 Constant ChannelMaintenance (119862) 119862 = 1119863 Where D = Drainage density [23]

16 Texture Ratio (119879) 119879 = 1198731119875 WhereN1 = Total number of streams in 1st order P = Perimeter of basin [23]

17 Shape index (119878119908) 119878119908 = 1198711198872

119860 Where 119871119887 = Basin length A = Area of basin [22]

18 Ruggedness number (119877119899) 119877119899 = 119861ℎ lowast 119863 Where 119861ℎ = Basin relief D = Drainage density [26]

19 Shape Factor (119877119904) 119877119904 = 119875119906119875119888 Where 119875119906 = Perimeter of circle of watershed area 119875119888 = Perimeter ofwatershed [27]

20 Drainage Intensity (119863119894) 119863119894 = 119865119904119863119889 Where 119865119904 = Stream frequency119863119889 = Drainage density [28]

21 Compactness coefficient (119862119888) 119862119888 = 119875119888119875119906 Where 119875119888 = Perimeter of watershed 119875119906 = Perimeter of circle ofwatershed area [19]

the present study as depicted in Table 7 Rh ranges from aminimum of 014 in WS9 to a maximum of 061 in WS17Higher values of Rh indicate that intense erosion processesare taking place This indicates that WS17 is more susceptibleto erosion and WS9 is the least among all the subwatershedsof the study area if this parameter alone is considered forerosion intensity analysis

36 Drainage Density (D) Factors which affect 119863 are char-acteristically same as those affecting length of the stream

namely resistance to weathering permeability of rock for-mation climate vegetation and so forth The travel timeby water within the basin is controlled by D [49ndash51] Inhumid regions it varies between 055 and 209 kmkm2 [52]Generally D has a low value in regions underlain withhighly resistant permeable material with vegetative coverand low relief High drainage density is observed in theregions of weak and impermeable subsurface material andsparse vegetation and mountainous relief Perusal of the 119863values from Table 5 indicates that WS17 WS14 and WS11have low 119863 values (below 20 kmkm2) while WS1 WS15

6 Geography Journal

Table 2 Some important basin characteristics

SubwatershedsMinimumelevation(km)

Maximumelevation(km)

Relative relief Perimeter (km) Basin area (km2) Basin length (km) Longest flow path (km)

WS1 210 357 147 1830 1045 352 403WS2 225 356 132 1584 1088 529 679WS3 225 356 132 1584 1088 1429 1768WS4 250 442 193 1771 1194 336 434WS5 283 426 143 952 428 295 340WS6 292 489 197 2154 1978 633 706WS7 305 529 224 3310 4817 1209 1495WS8 304 475 171 3055 3758 887 1074WS9 253 462 210 5404 8815 1471 1677WS10 249 437 188 3000 4176 1109 1298WS11 241 423 182 1709 1172 633 814WS12 230 429 199 1667 952 609 688WS13 226 437 211 1792 1050 406 782WS14 225 403 178 1161 655 790 962WS15 223 427 204 2109 1560 435 551WS16 216 420 204 1298 830 217 234WS17 208 340 131 990 461 217 234

Table 3 Showing stream order stream number and stream lengths of subwatersheds

Subwatershed Stream order Stream number Stream length (km)I II III IV V I II III IV V

WS1 4 46 12 3 1 mdash 1363 350 405 084 mdashWS2 4 44 9 2 1 mdash 1363 381 701 194 mdashWS3 5 253 71 14 3 1 8260 1939 2044 1749 279WS4 4 53 13 2 1 mdash 1811 554 425 015 mdashWS5 4 19 8 2 1 mdash 643 171 160 086 mdashWS6 4 86 35 7 1 mdash 2861 1282 536 534 mdashWS7 5 218 106 12 2 1 8313 3462 1993 301 176WS8 5 195 92 10 2 1 6174 2506 1473 882 176WS9 5 437 225 21 5 1 13217 6602 2608 1257 776WS10 5 171 99 7 2 1 5562 2689 631 1193 331WS11 4 40 10 2 1 mdash 1178 315 260 422 mdashWS12 3 60 17 1 mdash mdash 1797 447 561 mdash mdashWS13 3 59 14 1 mdash mdash 2026 466 670 mdash mdashWS14 3 20 6 1 mdash mdash 834 245 072 mdash mdashWS15 4 67 17 3 1 mdash 2084 537 210 621 mdashWS16 3 39 10 2 mdash mdash 1227 232 462 mdash mdashWS17 2 12 4 mdash mdash mdash 339 205 mdash mdash mdash

WS16 WS4 WS3 WS2 WS5 and WS10 have moderate 119863values (20ndash25 kmkm2) Subwatersheds WS6 WS9 WS12WS7 WS8 and WS13 have high 119863 values (between 25 and30 kmkm2) The low and moderate 119863 watersheds revealthat they are composed of permeable subsurface materialgood vegetation cover and low relief which results in moreinfiltration capacity and comparably are good sites for groundwater recharge as compared to high 119863 watersheds [53 54]

On the basis of D WS17 will have the greatest basin lag timewhile WS13 will demonstrate the shortest lag time

37 Drainage Texture (Rt) Drainage texture (Rt) is influ-enced by infiltration capacity [22] There are five differenttexture classes very coarse (lt2) coarse (2ndash4) moderate(4ndash6) fine (6ndash8) and very fine (gt8) [55] According to this

Geography Journal 7

Table 4 Showing comparative mean stream length and stream length ratios

Subwatershed Mean stream length (km) Stream length ratioI II III IV V III IIIII IVIII VIV

WS1 029 029 135 084 mdash 025 115 020 mdashWS2 030 042 350 194 mdash 027 184 027 mdashWS3 032 027 146 583 279 023 105 085 015WS4 034 042 212 015 mdash 030 076 003 mdashWS5 033 021 079 086 mdash 026 093 053 mdashWS6 033 036 076 534 mdash 044 041 099 mdashWS7 038 032 166 150 176 041 057 015 058WS8 031 027 147 441 176 040 058 059 019WS9 030 029 124 251 776 049 039 048 061WS10 032 027 090 596 331 048 023 189 027WS11 029 031 130 422 mdash 026 082 162 mdashWS12 029 026 561 mdash mdash 024 125 mdash mdashWS13 034 033 669 mdash mdash 023 143 mdash mdashWS14 041 040 071 mdash mdash 029 029 mdash mdashWS15 031 031 069 620 mdash 025 039 296 mdashWS16 031 023 231 mdash mdash 018 199 mdash mdashWS17 028 051 mdash mdash mdash 060 mdash mdash mdash

Table 5 Showing bifurcation ratios drainage density and stream frequency of the subwatersheds

Subwatershed Bifurcation ratio Mean bifurcation ratio Drainage density Stream frequency Drainage intensityIII IIIII IIIIV IVV

WS1 383 400 300 mdash 361 211 593 282WS2 489 450 200 mdash 380 243 515 212WS3 356 507 467 300 408 236 563 239WS4 408 650 200 mdash 419 235 578 246WS5 238 400 200 mdash 279 248 702 283WS6 246 500 700 mdash 482 264 652 247WS7 206 883 600 200 472 296 704 238WS8 212 920 500 200 458 298 798 268WS9 194 1071 420 500 562 269 782 291WS10 173 1414 350 200 534 249 670 269WS11 400 500 200 mdash 367 186 452 244WS12 353 1700 mdash mdash 1026 295 819 278WS13 421 1400 mdash mdash 911 301 705 234WS14 333 600 mdash mdash 467 176 412 235WS15 394 567 300 mdash 420 221 564 255WS16 390 500 mdash mdash 445 232 615 265WS17 300 mdash mdash mdash 300 118 347 294

classification WS17 has very coarse drainage texture WS1WS2 WS4 WS5 WS11 WS14 and WS16 have coarse RtWS3 WS6 WS12 WS13 and WS15 have moderate Rt andWS7 WS8 WS9 and WS10 have very fine Rt (Table 6)Hydrologically very coarse texture watersheds have largebasin lag time periods [56] followed by coarse fine and veryfine texture classesThis indicates thatWS17 (Rt = 162) showslonger duration to peak flow while WS9 (Rt = 1275) showsthe shortest

38 Form Factor (Rf) The basins with high form factorshave high peak flows of shorter duration whereas elongatedsubwatersheds with low form factors have lower peak flowof longer duration [57ndash59] In this study WS2 WS3 WS7WS10 WS11 WS13 WS14 and WS15 show lower formfactor (Table 7) indicating elongated shape and suggestingflat hydrograph peak for longer duration Flood flows ofsuch elongated basins are easier to manage than those of thecircular basin WS5 WS6 WS8 WS9 WS12 and WS16 have

8 Geography Journal

Table 6 Showing drainage texture constant channel maintenance shape index ruggedness number and shape factor

Subwatershed Drainage texture Constant channelmaintenance

Compactnesscoefficient

Shape index Ruggedness number Shape factor

WS1 339 047 160 119 070 063WS2 354 041 136 257 054 074WS3 563 042 220 337 119 046WS4 390 043 145 094 082 069WS5 315 040 130 203 058 077WS6 599 038 137 203 075 073WS7 1024 034 135 303 076 074WS8 982 034 141 209 057 071WS9 1275 037 162 246 078 062WS10 933 040 131 295 075 076WS11 310 054 141 342 098 071WS12 468 034 152 390 067 066WS13 413 033 156 402 070 064WS14 233 057 128 252 101 078WS15 417 045 151 400 092 066WS16 393 043 127 228 088 079WS17 162 085 130 102 111 077

Table 7 Showing important morphometric parameters of the subwatersheds

Subwatershed Relief ratio Elongation ratio Texture ratio Circularity ratio Form factor Length of overland flowWS1 042 104 251 039 084 023WS2 025 070 278 054 039 017WS3 020 061 418 021 030 018WS4 057 116 299 048 106 018WS5 049 079 200 059 049 016WS6 031 079 399 054 049 014WS7 019 065 659 055 033 011WS8 019 078 638 051 048 011WS9 014 072 809 038 041 014WS10 017 066 570 058 034 016WS11 029 061 234 050 029 029WS12 033 057 360 043 026 012WS13 032 056 329 041 025 011WS14 044 071 172 061 040 032WS15 026 056 318 044 025 020WS16 047 075 301 062 044 019WS17 061 112 121 059 098 072

slightly circular shape as suggested by moderately higher RfSubwatershedsWS1 WS4 andWS17 have high Rf indicatingthat they have developed into quite circular to rectangularshape Watershed morphology has profound impacts on thewatershed hydrology [60]

39 Elongation Ratio (Re) The value of elongation ratio(Re) generally varies from 06 to 10 associated with a wide

variety of climate and geology Values close to 10 are typicalof regions of very low relief whereas that from 06 to 08are associated with high relief and steep ground slope [7]These values can be grouped into three categories namelycircular (gt09) oval (09ndash07) and less elongated (lt07) Refor the subwatersheds WS13 WS15 WS12 WS3 WS11 WS7andWS10 is less than 070which indicates that subwatershedsare elongated with high relief and steep slope WS2 WS14WS9 WS16 WS8 WS5 and WS6 sub-watersheds fall in oval

Geography Journal 9

1 2 3 4 50

05

1

15

2

25

3

WS1WS2WS3WS4WS5WS6WS7WS8WS9

WS10WS11WS12WS13WS14WS15WS16WS17

Stream order

Stre

am le

ngth

(log10)

Figure 3 Showing relation between stream order and length ofstreams for 17 subwatersheds

category while subwatersheds WS1 WS17 and WS4 fall inthe circular category (Table 7) The circular watersheds havequick though lower hydrograph peak compared to the ovaland elongated watersheds [61 62] This indicates that WS13will show delayed time to peak flow while WS4 will showshorter time to peak

310 Circulatory Ratio (Rc) It is that ratio of the area of thebasin to the area of circle having the same circumference asthe perimeter of the basin [25] Many of the important basincharacteristics influence Rc such as length and frequency ofstreams geological structures land useland cover climaterelief and slope of the basin In the present case Rc forsubwatersheds WS8 WS2 WS6 WS7 WS10 WS5 WS17WS14 and WS16 is in the range from 053 to 062 indicatingthat the area is characterized by high relief elongated andpermeable surface resulting in greater basin lag times whileWS3 WS9 WS1 WS13 WS12 WS15 WS4 and WS11 havelower circularity ratios indicating low relief and impermeablesurface resulting in lower basin lag times (Table 7) Thisindicates that WS16 will show delayed time to peak flowwhile WS3 will show shorter time to peak Rf Re andRc significantly influence the hydrological response of thewatersheds as basin shape and the arrangement of streamsegments combine to influence the size and shape of floodpeaks [63]

311 Length of Overland Flow (Lg) Length of overland flowis one of the most important independent variables affectingboth hydrologic and hydrographic development of drainagebasins [24] Table 7 reveals that Lg for the 17 subwatersheds in

chronological order is 022 016 018 018 016 014 011 011076 016 029 011 011 032 02 018 and 071 respectivelyThe Lg for subwatershedsWS2-WS10WS12WS13 andWS16indicates steep slopes and shorter flow paths while as Lg forWS1 WS11 WS14 WS15 and WS17 indicates gentle slopesand longer flow paths

312 Constant of Channel Maintenance (C) In the presentstudy C varies from 033 forW8 andW9 to 084 forW17 as isshown in Table 6 The reciprocal of the drainage density (D)is constant of channel maintenance and signifies how muchdrainage area is required tomaintain a unit length of channelLow values of 119862 in case of WS8 and WS9 indicates thatamong all the 17 subwatersheds these two are associated withweakest or very low-resistance soils sparse vegetation andmountainous terrain while the watershedWS17 is associatedwith resistance soils vegetation and comparably plain terrain[64]

313 Compactness Coefficient (Cc) Compactness coefficientexpresses the relationship of a basin with that of a circularbasin having the same area A circular basin yields theshortest time of concentration before peak flow occurs in thebasin 119862119888 = 1 indicates that the basin completely behaves asa circular basin 119862119888 gt 1 indicates more deviation from thecircular nature of the basin The values for all the subwater-sheds range from 127 for WS16 to 220 for WS3 as seen inTable 6 Consequently WS16 has the greatest deviation fromthe circular nature and on the basis of this parameter aloneit will have the longest time of concentration before peak flowoccurs in the basin out of all the subwatersheds [60ndash62]

314 Shape Index (Sw) Rate of water and sediment yieldalong the length and relief of the drainage basin is largelyaffected by the shape The shape index values for subwater-sheds of the study area range from 094 in WS4 to 402 inWS13 as shown in Table 6 In terms of Sw onlyWS13 will havethe shorter basin lag time while WS4 will have the longerbasin lag time

315 Texture Ratio (T) Texture ratio is one of the mostimportant factors in the drainage morphometric analysiswhich depends on the underlying lithology infiltration capac-ity and relief aspect of the terrain is the texture ratio [65 66]As shown in Table 7 T varies between 121 in case of WS17and 809 in case of WS9 Hydrologically it can be said thatWS17 in terms of 119879alone will have the longest basin lag timesandWS9 will have the shortest This reaffirms the results andconclusions drawn from the values ofUD Fs and Rt in caseof W17

316 Ruggedness Number (Rn) The ruggedness number indi-cates the structural complexity of the terrain in associationwith the relief and drainage density It also implies that thearea is susceptible to soil erosion [67 68] In present study theruggedness number is minimum in case of WS2 (119877119899 = 054)and maximum in WS3 (119877119899 = 119) as seen in Table 6 Thisindicates that WS2 is least susceptible to erosion and WS3

10 Geography Journal

Stream order map of subwatershed 8

34∘11

9984000998400998400

34∘12

9984000998400998400

34∘13

9984000998400998400

34∘14

9984000998400998400

34∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘12

9984000998400998400

75∘14

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

0 05 1 2Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 1

34∘49984000998400998400

34∘39984000998400998400

34∘29984000998400998400

34∘19984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

75∘18

9984000998400998400

75∘19

9984000998400998400

75∘20

9984000998400998400

75∘21

9984000998400998400

0 045 09 18

Kilometers

N

EW

S

Stream order map of subwatershed 2

34∘59984000998400998400

34∘49984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

75∘18

9984000998400998400

75∘19

9984000998400998400

0 035 07 14

Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 3

34∘49984000998400998400

34∘59984000998400998400

34∘69984000998400998400

34∘79984000998400998400

34∘89984000998400998400

34∘99984000998400998400

34∘10

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

75∘19

9984000998400998400

75∘21

9984000998400998400

0 05 1 2

Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 4

34∘79984000998400998400

34∘89984000998400998400

34∘99984000998400998400

34∘10

9984000998400998400

75∘14

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

0 045 09 18

Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 5

34∘99984000998400998400

34∘10

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

0 025 05 1Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 6

34∘89984000998400998400

34∘99984000998400998400

34∘10

9984000998400998400

34∘11

9984000998400998400

34∘12

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

75∘18

9984000998400998400

75∘19

9984000998400998400

0 05 1 2Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 7

34∘99984000998400998400

34∘10

9984000998400998400

34∘11

9984000998400998400

34∘12

9984000998400998400

34∘13

9984000998400998400

34∘14

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

75∘18

9984000998400998400

75∘20

9984000998400998400

75∘22

9984000998400998400

0 05 1 2Kilometers

12

345

Watershed boundaryStream order

12

345

Watershed boundaryStream order

N

EW

S

N

EW

S

N

EW

S

N

EW

S

N

EW

S

N

EW

S

N

EW

S

West Lidder River West Lidder River

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

Wes

t Lid

der R

iver

Wes

t Lid

der R

iver

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

(a)

Figure 4 Continued

Geography Journal 11

Stream order map of subwatershed 9

34∘59984000998400998400

34∘69984000998400998400

34∘79984000998400998400

34∘89984000998400998400

34∘99984000998400998400

34∘10

9984000998400998400

34∘11

9984000998400998400

34∘12

9984000998400998400

75∘69984000998400998400

75∘89984000998400998400

75∘10

9984000998400998400

75∘11

9984000998400998400

75∘13

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘12

9984000998400998400

75∘14

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

0 1 2 4Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 10

34∘49984000998400998400

34∘59984000998400998400

34∘69984000998400998400

34∘79984000998400998400

34∘89984000998400998400

34∘99984000998400998400

75∘99984000998400998400

0 1 205

Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 15

34∘19984000998400998400

34∘29984000998400998400

34∘39984000998400998400

0 045 09 18Kilometers

75∘14

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

Stream order map of subwatershed 16

34∘19984000998400998400

34∘29984000998400998400

34∘39984000998400998400

0 03 06 12Kilometers

75∘16

9984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

75∘18

9984000998400998400

Stream order map of subwatershed 13

34∘29984000998400998400

34∘39984000998400998400

34∘49984000998400998400

0 035 07 14

Kilometers

75∘13

9984000998400998400

75∘14

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

Stream order map of subwatershed 14

34∘39984000998400998400

34∘49984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

0 1025 05

Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 11

34∘49984000998400998400

34∘59984000998400998400

34∘69984000998400998400

34∘79984000998400998400

75∘12

9984000998400998400

75∘13

9984000998400998400

75∘14

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

0

12

345

04 08 16

Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 12

34∘39984000998400998400

34∘49984000998400998400

34∘59984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

75∘13

9984000998400998400

75∘14

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

0 035 07 14

Kilometers

Watershed boundaryStream order

12

345

Watershed boundaryStream order

N

S

EWN

S

EW

N

S

EW

N

S

EW

N

S

EW

N

S

EW

N

S

EW

N

S

EW

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

(b)

Figure 4 Continued

12 Geography Journal

Stream order map of subwatershed 17

34∘19984000998400998400

34∘29984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

75∘18

9984000998400998400

75∘19

9984000998400998400

0 02 04 08Kilometers

12

Watershed boundaryStream order

N

EW

S

West Lidder River

(c)

Figure 4 (a) Showing drainage maps of subwatersheds WS1ndashWS8 (b) Showing drainage maps of subwatersheds WS9ndashWS16 (c) Showingdrainage patterns of WS17 of West Lidder catchment

is most susceptible among all the subwatersheds of the studyarea

317 Shape Factor (Rs) The shape factor observed in thestudy area is minimum in case of WS3 (119877119904 = 046) andmaximum in case of WS16 (119877119904 = 079) as shown in Table 6This parameter is similar in interpretation to circularity ratioelongation ratio and form factor It gives an idea aboutthe circular character of the basin The greater the circularcharacter of the basin is the greater is the rapid response ofthe watershed after a storm event [60] Therefore in terms ofRs only WS3 has the longest basin lag time and WS16 theshortest

4 Conclusion

From the integrated analysis of the results on the mor-phometry of the 17 subwatersheds it is concluded that thewhole study area has uniform underlying lithology makingthe hydrological response in these subwatersheds a directfunction of the geomorphology the topography and theexisting vegetation conditions only The spatial variabilityof the morphometric parameters analyzed in this study isquite significant Since the hydrology of a watershed changessignificantly due to the spatial variations of the morpho-metric parameters the subwatersheds will therefore alsoexhibit differential hydrological behaviour Overall resultsindicated that comparatively WS16 WS13 WS12 and WS9shall contribute dominantly to the stream runoff in theWest Lidder catchment and on the contrary WS17 WS5and WS3 shall contribute the least due to the cumulativeand integrated effect of the morphometric parameters whosesignificance and influences on the hydrological behaviourhave been discussed in detail in the preceding sectionsBecause of the close relationship between the morphometricparameters and the mean annual flood it is concluded on

the basis of the range of the morphometric analysis thatWS16 WS13 WS12 and WS9 in that order are more proneto flooding compared to the other 13 subwatersheds of theWest Lidder catchment The hydrological behaviour of these17 subwatersheds shall have profound influences on the floodvulnerability and flood risk in the downstream portions ofthe Lidder River It is hoped that information and knowledgegenerated under this study shall guide the informed planningand decision-making for flood disaster risk reduction in theLidder watershed that forms an important tributary of theJhelum basin

Acknowledgments

This research work has been accomplished under a researchgrant provided by the Department of Science and Technol-ogy Government of India for the project titled ldquoIntegratedFlood vulnerability Assessment for Flood Risk Managementand Disaster Mitigationrdquo The authors express their gratitudeto the funding agency for the financial assistanceThe authorsalso express their sincere thanks to anonymous reviewerswhose valuable comments have improved the quality of thispaper

References

[1] C S Agarwal ldquoStudy of drainage pattern through aerial datain Naugarh area of Varanasi district UPrdquo Journal of the IndianSociety of Remote Sensing vol 26 no 4 pp 169ndash175 1998

[2] G E Obi Reddy A K Maji and K S Gajbhiye ldquoGIS formorphometric analysis of drainage basinsrdquo GIS India vol 11no 4 pp 9ndash14 2002

[3] V Pakhmode H Kulkarni and S B Deolankar ldquoHydrological-drainage analysis in watershed-programme planning a casefrom theDeccan basalt IndiardquoHydrogeology Journal vol 11 no5 pp 595ndash604 2003

Geography Journal 13

[4] L B Leopold and T Maddock ldquoThe hydraulic geometry ofstream channels and some physiographic implicationsrdquo USGSProfessional Paper vol 252 pp 1ndash57 1953

[5] A D Abrahams ldquoChannel networks a geomorphologicalperspectiverdquo Water Resources Research vol 20 no 2 pp 161ndash168 1984

[6] S Singh ldquoQuantitative geomorphology of the drainage basinrdquoin Readings on Remote Sensing Applications T S Chouhan andK N Joshi Eds Scientific Publishers Jodhpur India 1992

[7] R A Dar R Chandra and S A Romshoo ldquoMorphotectonicand lithostratigraphic analysis of intermontane Karewa basin ofKashmir Himalayas Indiardquo Journal ofMountain Science vol 10no 1 pp 731ndash741 2013

[8] S A Romshoo S A Bhat and I Rashid ldquoGeoinformatics forassessing the morphometric control on hydrological responseat watershed scale in the Upper Indus basinrdquo Journal of EarthSystem Science vol 121 no 3 pp 659ndash686 2012

[9] A N Strahler ldquoQuantitative geomorphology of drainage basinsand channel networksrdquo in Handbook of Applied Hydrology VT Chow Ed section 4ndash11 McGraw-Hill New York NY USA1964

[10] A Strahler ldquoQuantitative analysis of watershed geomorphol-ogyrdquoTransactions AmericanGeophysical Union vol 38 pp 913ndash920 1957

[11] J Krishnamurthy G Srinivas V Jayaraman and M G Chan-drasekhar ldquoInfluence of rock types and structures in thedevelopment of drainage networks in typical hardrock terrainrdquoITC Journal no 3-4 pp 252ndash259 1996

[12] A K Das and S Mukherjee ldquoDrainage morphometry usingsatellite data andGIS inRaigad districtMaharashtrardquo Journal ofthe Geological Society of India vol 65 no 5 pp 577ndash586 2005

[13] S S Vittala S Govindaih and H H Gowda ldquoMorphometricanalysis of sub-watershed in the Pavada area of Tumkur districtSouth India using remote sensing and GIS techniquesrdquo Journalof Indian Remote Sensing vol 32 pp 351ndash362 2004

[14] S K Nag ldquoMorphometric analysis using remote sensing tech-niques in the Chaka subbasin Purulia district West BengalrdquoJournal of Indian Society of Remote Sensing vol 26 no 1-2 pp69ndash76 1998

[15] AM Y Esper ldquoMorphometric analysis of Colanguil river basinand flash flood hazard San Juan Argentinardquo EnvironmentalGeology vol 55 pp 107ndash111 2008

[16] T N Bhagwat A Shetty and V S Hegde ldquoSpatial variationin drainage characteristics and geomorphic instantaneous unithydrograph (GIUH) implications for watershed management-A case study of the Varada River basin Northern KarnatakardquoCatena vol 87 no 1 pp 52ndash59 2011

[17] N R Bhaskar B P Parida and A K Nayak ldquoFlood estimationfor ungauged catchments using the GIUHrdquo Journal of WaterResources Planning and Management vol 123 no 4 pp 228ndash237 1997

[18] S K Jain R D Singh and S M Seth ldquoDesign flood estimationusing GIS supported GIUH approachrdquo Water Resources Man-agement vol 14 no 5 pp 369ndash376 2000

[19] M Suresh S Sudhakara K N Tiwari and V M ChowdaryldquoPrioritization of watersheds using morphometric parametersand assessment of surface water potential using remote sens-ingrdquo Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing vol 32 no3 2004

[20] S A Bhat and S A Romshoo ldquoDigital elevation model basedwatershed characteristics of upper watersheds of Jhelum basinrdquoJournal of Applied Hydrology vol 21 no 2 pp 23ndash34 2009

[21] J F OrsquoCallaghan and D M Mark ldquoThe extraction of drainagenetworks from digital elevation datardquo Computer Vision Graph-ics and Image Processing vol 28 pp 323ndash344 1984

[22] R E Horton ldquoErosional development of streams and theirdrainage basins hydrophysical approach to quantitative mor-phologyrdquoGeological Society of America Bulletin vol 56 pp 275ndash370 1945

[23] S A Schumms ldquoEvolution of drainage systems and slopes inBadlands at Perth Amboy New Jerseyrdquo Bulletin of the GeologicalSociety of America vol 67 pp 597ndash646 1956

[24] R E Horton ldquoDrainage basin characteristicsrdquo TransactionsAmerican Geophysical Union vol 13 pp 350ndash361 1932

[25] V C Miller ldquoA Quantitative geomorphic study of drainagebasin characteristics in the Clinch Mountain area Virginia andTennesseerdquo Tech Rep 3 NR 389-402 Columbia UniversityDepartment of Geology ONR New York NY USA 1953

[26] K Pareta andU Pareta ldquoQuantitativemorphometric analysis ofa watershed of Yamuna basin India using ASTER (DEM) dataand GISrdquo International Journal of Geomatics and Geosciencesvol 2 no 1 2011

[27] M Sameena J Krishnamurthy V Jayaraman andG RangannaldquoEvaluation of drainage networks developed in hard rockterrainrdquoGeocarto International vol 24 no 5 pp 397ndash420 2009

[28] A Faniran ldquoThe index of drainage intensitymdasha provisional newdrainage factorrdquo Australian Journal of Science vol 31 pp 328ndash330 1968

[29] I Rashid and S A Romshoo ldquoImpact of anthropogenic activ-ities on water quality of Lidder River in Kashmir HimalayasrdquoEnvironmental Monitoring and Assessment 2012

[30] M Raza A Ahmed and A Mohammad The Valley ofKashmirmdashA Geographical Interpretation Vol I the Land VikasPublishing New Delhi India 1978

[31] V M Meher ldquoThe climate of Srinagar and its variabilityrdquoGeographical Review of India vol 33 no 1 pp 1ndash14 1971

[32] BM Engelhardt P JWeisberg and J C Chambers ldquoInfluencesof watershed geomorphology on extent and composition ofriparian vegetationrdquo Journal of Vegetation Science vol 23 no1 pp 127ndash139 2011

[33] J E Costa ldquoHydraulics and basin morphometry of the largestflash floods in the conterminous United Statesrdquo Journal ofHydrology vol 93 no 3-4 pp 313ndash338 1987

[34] S Singh and M C Singh ldquoMorphometric analysis of Kanharriver basinrdquoThe National Geographical Journal of India vol 43no 1 pp 31ndash43 1997

[35] W Luo and J M Harlin ldquoA theoretical travel time basedon watershed hypsometryrdquo Journal of the American WaterResources Association vol 39 no 4 pp 785ndash792 2003

[36] J M Harlin ldquoThe effect of precipitation variability on drainagebasin morphometryrdquo American Journal of Science vol 280 no8 pp 812ndash825 1980

[37] J M Harlin ldquoWatershedmorphometry and time to hydrographpeakrdquo Journal of Hydrology vol 67 no 1-4 pp 141ndash154 1984

[38] S A Romshoo ldquoGeostatistical analysis of soil moisture mea-surements and remotely sensed data at different spatial scalesrdquoEnvironmental Geology vol 45 no 3 pp 339ndash349 2004

[39] S A Romshoo M Koike S Hironaka O Oki and K MusiakeldquoInfluence of surface and vegetation characteristics on C-bandradarmeasurements for soilmoisture contentrdquo Journal of IndianSociety of Remote Sensing vol 30 no 4 pp 229ndash244 2002

[40] D R Montgomery and W E Dietrich ldquoSource areas drainagedensity and channel initiationrdquo Water Resources Research vol25 no 8 pp 1907ndash1918 1989

14 Geography Journal

[41] D R Montgomery and W E Dietrich ldquoChannel initiation andthe problem of landscape scalerdquo Science vol 255 no 5046 pp826ndash830 1992

[42] EM Ghoneim NW Arnell andGM Foody ldquoCharacterizingthe flash flood hazards potential along the Red Sea coast ofEgyptrdquo IAHS-AISH Publication no 271 pp 211ndash216 2002

[43] M Diakakis ldquoA method for flood hazard mapping based onbasin morphometry application in two catchments in GreecerdquoNatural Hazards vol 56 no 3 pp 803ndash814 2011

[44] P C Patton and V R Baker ldquoMorphometry and floods in smalldrainage basins subject to diverse hydrogeomorphic controlsrdquoWater Resources Research vol 12 no 5 pp 941ndash952 1976

[45] A D Howard ldquoRole of hypsometry and planform in basinhydrologic responserdquo Hydrological Processes vol 4 no 4 pp373ndash385 1990

[46] K Rakesh A K Lohani K Sanjay C Chatterjee and R KNema ldquoGIS based morphometric analysis of Ajay river basinupto Srarath gauging site of South Biharrdquo Journal of AppliedHydrology vol 14 no 4 pp 45ndash54 2000

[47] B Dodov and E Foufoula-Georgiou ldquoFluvial processes andstreamflow variability interplay in the scale-frequency contin-uum and implications for scalingrdquo Water Resources Researchvol 41 no 5 pp 1ndash18 2005

[48] L C Gottschalk ldquoReservoir sedimentationrdquo in Handbook ofApplied Hydrology V T Chow Ed section 7-1 McGraw-HillNew York NY USA 1964

[49] B ADodov and E Foufoula-Georgiou ldquoFloodplainmorphom-etry extraction from a high-resolution digital elevationmodel asimple algorithm for regional analysis studiesrdquo IEEE Geoscienceand Remote Sensing Letters vol 3 no 3 pp 410ndash413 2006

[50] P C Patton ldquoDrainage basin morphometry and floodsrdquo inFlood Geomorphology pp 51ndash64 JohnWiley amp Sons NewYorkNY USA 1988

[51] V Gardiner and C C Park ldquoDrainage basin morphometryrdquoProgress in Physical Geography vol 2 no 1 pp 1ndash35 1978

[52] W B Langbein ldquoTopographic characteristics of drainagebasinsrdquoUS Geological SurveyWater-Supply Paper vol 986 pp157ndash159 1947

[53] W Luo ldquoQuantifying groundwater-sapping landforms witha hypsometric techniquerdquo Journal of Geophysical Research EPlanets vol 105 no 1 pp 1685ndash1694 2000

[54] J M Harlin and C Wijeyawickrema ldquoIrrigation and ground-water depletion in Caddo county Oklahomardquo Journal of theAmerican Water Resources Association vol 21 no 1 pp 15ndash221985

[55] K G Smith ldquoStandards for grading textures of erosionaltopographyrdquoAmerican Journal of Science vol 248 pp 655ndash6681950

[56] M Y Esper Angillieri ldquoMorphometric analysis of Colanguilriver basin and flash flood hazard San Juan ArgentinardquoEnvironmental Geology vol 55 no 1 pp 107ndash111 2008

[57] A M Youssef B Pradhan and A M Hassan ldquoFlash floodrisk estimation along the St Katherine road southern SinaiEgypt using GIS based morphometry and satellite imageryrdquoEnvironmental Earth Sciences vol 62 no 3 pp 611ndash623 2011

[58] A D Howard ldquoRole of hypsometry and planform in basinhydrologic responserdquo Hydrological Processes vol 4 no 4 pp373ndash385 1990

[59] R C Kochel ldquoGeomorphic impact of large floods reviewand new perspectives on magnitude and frequencyrdquo in FloodGeomorphology pp 169ndash187 JohnWiley amp Sons NewYork NYUSA 1988

[60] G E Tucker and R L Bras ldquoHillslope processes drainagedensity and landscape morphologyrdquoWater Resources Researchvol 34 no 10 pp 2751ndash2764 1998

[61] M Borga et al ldquoReal time guidance for flash flood riskmanagementrdquo FLOOD Site Research Project Report T16 2008

[62] K W Potter and E B Faulkner ldquoCatchment response time asa predictor of flood quantilesrdquo Journal of the American WaterResources Association vol 23 no 5 pp 857ndash861 1987

[63] R CWard andM Robinson Principles of Hydrology McGraw-Hill Maidenhead UK 4th edition 2000

[64] S Shulits ldquoQuantitative formulation of stream and watershedmorphologyrdquo Bulletin of the International Association of Scien-tific Hydrology vol 3 pp 201ndash207 1968

[65] A Demoulin ldquoBasin and river profile morphometry a newindex with a high potential for relative dating of tectonic upliftrdquoGeomorphology vol 126 no 1-2 pp 97ndash107 2011

[66] T B Altin and B N Altin ldquoDrainage morphometry and itsinfluence on landforms in volcanic terrain Central AnatoliaTurkeyrdquo ProcediamdashSocial and Behavioral Sciences vol 19 pp732ndash740 2011

[67] M Rashid M A Lone and S A Romshoo ldquoGeospatial toolsfor assessing land degradation in Budgam district KashmirHimalaya Indiardquo Journal of Earth System Science vol 120 no3 pp 423ndash433 2011

[68] S Zaz and S A Romshoo ldquoAssessing the geoindicators of landdegradation in the Kashmir Himalayan Region Indiardquo NaturalHazards vol 64 no 2 pp 1219ndash1245 2012

2 Geography Journal

and erosional characteristics in shaping the idiosyncrasy ofdifferent watersheds can be best evaluated through juxtapos-ing their morphometric parameters [7] Using conventionaltechniques morphometric characterization of many riverbasins and subbasins in different parts of the globe has beencarried out [9ndash11] With the advancement in geospatial andcomputer technology assessment of the drainage basin mor-phometry has been more accurate and precise Nowadaysusing Geographical Information System (GIS) techniquevarious terrain andmorphometric parameters of the drainagebasins are evaluated with more ease and better accuracySatellite data and GIS tools have been successfully employedto generate data on the spatial deviations in drainage charac-teristics thus providing an insight into hydrologic conditionsnecessary for developing watershed management strategies[12ndash14] GIS being a powerful tool for the manipulationand analysis of spatial information provides a flexible envi-ronment for morphometric analysis In the present studymorphometric characterization of 17 subwatersheds of theWest Lidder River catchment was performed in GIS envi-ronment The importance of morphometric analysis for thisregion lies in the fact that Lidder River forms the back boneof irrigation drinking water supplies and economy of theKashmir valley Snowmelt runoff contributes significantlyto the drainage evolution of the area Comparison of thequantitative morphometric parameters of subwatersheds ofa river helps in understanding the geomorphological effectson the spatiotemporal variation of the hydrological functionsMoreover some of the morphometric parameters such ascircularity ratio and bifurcation ratio are input parametersin the hydrograph analysis [15ndash18] and evaluation of surfacewater potential of an area [19] In this context this workrepresents a better understanding of hydrologic behaviourof the study area and its impact on various socioeconomicaspects of the valley of Kashmir Moreover a more ratio-nal approach of drainage morphometric analysis has beenemployed in this study compared to other automaticallyDEM-based drainage generation methods [20 21] It usesnatural stream network and lake information to conditionthe DEM prior to the calculation of flow direction and flowaccumulation grids This greatly reduces error introductionin the form of spurious drainage

2 Materials and Methods

21 Materials

211 Study Area The West Lidder catchment occupiesthe Southeastern part of the Kashmir valley and is sit-uated between 34∘0910158400110158401015840Nndash34∘1410158400010158401015840N and 75∘0610158400010158401015840 Endash75∘2310158402910158401015840 E (Figure 1) Forming a part of the middleHimalayas and lying between the Pir Panjal range in theSouth and Southeast the north Kashmir range in the North-east and Zanskar range in the Southwest the study areahas a unique geoenvironmental setting making it a suitableniche to many of the important glaciers such as KolahoiThe West Lidder catchment has been engraved out by WestLidder River a left bank tributary of River Lidder which

finally drains as a right bank tributary of River Jhelum Ithas a catchment area of 3506 km2 which constitute about2780 per cent of the total catchment area of river Lidder[29 30] The valley begins from the base of the snow fieldcalled the Kolahoi giving rise to West Lidder catchment Thelatter joins the East Lidder which originate from anothersnow field called Sheshnag near the famous tourist townof Pahalgam From this point onwards it is referred asRiver Lidder The latter joins the Jhelum (upper streamof Indus River) at Gur Village after travelling a course of70 km [30] Combined action of glaciers and rivers hasbestowed West Lidder catchment a marked topography Thevalley possesses distinctive climatic characteristics because ofits high altitude location and its geophysical setting beingenclosed on all sides by high mountain ranges The studyarea receives precipitation in the form of both rain and snowThemean annual precipitation at Pahalgam rain gauge stationis 12672mm The highest rainfall of 1629mm was recordedduring the year 1994 and the lowest of 8999 mm during theyear 2000The area receives the highest rainfall in the monthofMarch (2088mm) and the lowest in the month of October(459mm) Such a climatic regime is peculiar characteristicof sub-Mediterranean type of climate Moreover 70 per centof its annual precipitation concentrated in winter and springmonths [31]

212 Data Sets Used The data sets used in this study foraccomplishing the respective objectives are as follows

(i) Quantitative morphometry ASTER DEM 30m

(ii) Surveyof India (SOI) topographicalmaps at 1 50000Dated 1969 Natural drainage delineation

22 Methods

221 Drainage Generation Drainage was generated fromAdvanced Space borne Thermal Emission and ReflectionRadiometer (ASTER) 30m digital elevation model (DEM)in GIS environment The Arc Hydro approach was used fordrainage generation which is more logical and consistentwhen compared to a manual approach [32] There is nodistinction between water filled stream channels and landsurface in a DEM In order to incorporate already existingstreams and lakes into the DEM for drainage analysis aprocess termed as DEM manipulation is followed Naturaldrainage present in SOI toposheets was digitized and usedto manipulate the DEM For proper determination of flowdirection and flow accumulation DEM sinks were identifiedand filled Boundaries of the 17 subwatersheds were derivedby defining pour point for each subwatershed (Figure 1) Thepour point is the location where water drained from wholeof the watershed flows into the main river Based on thecumulative number of the upstream cells draining to eachcell stream network in both the watersheds was definedWe used a critical threshold 006 which represents the 6area in all 17 subwatersheds for defining streams The criticalthreshold is the minimum upstream drainage required toinitiate a stream Area of the watershed was evaluated by

Geography Journal 3

WS1

WS2

WS3

WS7

WS6WS5WS9

WS10

WS11 WS12

WS13

WS14

WS15

WS16WS17

WS4

WS8

74∘09984000998400998400E 74

∘20

9984000998400998400E73

∘40

9984000998400998400E 74

∘40

9984000998400998400E 75

∘09984000998400998400E 75

∘20

9984000998400998400E 75

∘40

9984000998400998400E

33∘20

9984000998400998400N

33∘40

9984000998400998400N

34∘09984000998400998400N

34∘20

9984000998400998400N

Kilometers

Kashmir Valley J and K India

10

75∘59984000998400998400E 75

∘10

9984000998400998400E 75

∘15

9984000998400998400E 75

∘20

9984000998400998400E 75

∘25

9984000998400998400E

34∘09984000998400998400N

34∘59984000998400998400N

34∘10

9984000998400998400N

34∘15

9984000998400998400N

10

Prominent landmarksSubwatershed boundary

Pahalgam

Kolahoi Glacier

N

EW

S

N

EW

S

Kilometers

Figure 1 Showing location of the study area in 2D and 3D perspectives

calculating the geometry of the derived watershed polygonsand length of the watershed was calculated by summing thelength of the main stream channel and the distance fromthe top of the main channel to the watershed boundaryBy summing the lengths of all stream segments in eachsubwatershed the total stream length was calculated

222 Quantitative Morphometry In the present study mor-phometric analysis of the parameters namely stream orderstream length bifurcation ratio relief ratio drainage den-sity drainage intensity drainage texture stream frequencydrainage texture form factor length of overland flow con-stant channel maintenance circulatory and elongation ratioarea perimeter and length of all the 17 subwatersheds havebeen carried out using the standard mathematical formulaegiven in the Table 1 [9 10 19 22ndash28] The values of variousbasin characteristics required for calculating morphometricparameters are shown in Table 2

3 Results and Discussion

31 Stream Order (U) The highest stream order among the17 subwatersheds is five and is shown by four subwatershedsWS7 WS8 WS9 and WS10 The lowest stream order is twoand is shown by WS17 A perusal of Table 3 and Figure 1indicates that the 17 subwatersheds draining intoWest LidderRiver are contributing surface runoff and sediment loadsdifferentially due to variations in their physical characteris-tics There are only 7 subwatersheds in the East side of theriver among which five watersheds have 119880 = 4 and onlytwo watersheds have 119880 = 5 In the West side of the riverthere are 10 watersheds out of which four watersheds have119880 = 3 two watersheds have 119880 = 4 three watersheds have119880 = 5 and only one watershed has 119880 = 2 Drainagemaps of all the 17 subwatersheds are shown below (Figures4(a) 4(b) and 4(c)) Higher stream order is associated withgreater discharge and higher velocity [33] West side of theriver clearly contributes more to discharge and since higher

4 Geography Journal

velocity enhances the erosion rates therefore this side alsocontributes higher sediment loads into theWest Lidder RiverFurther the total number of stream segments decrease withstream order This is referred to as Hortonrsquos law of streamnumbers Any deviation indicates that the terrain is typifiedwith high relief andor moderately steep slopes underlain byvarying lithology and probable uplift across the basin [34] Inpractice when logarithms of the number of streams of a givenorder are plotted against the order the points lie on a straightline [22] Similar geometric relationship was also found tooperate between stream order and stream numbers in allsubwatersheds of this study area It indicates that the wholearea has uniform underlying lithology and geologically therehas been no probable uplift in the basin (Figure 2)

32 Stream Length (Lu)Mean Stream Length (Lsm) Analysisof the results shown in Tables 3 and 4 show that the totallength of stream segments is the maximum in case of firstorder streams It decreases as order increases in all thesubwatersheds (Tables 3 and 4 Figure 4)The results reaffirmthe fact that the area is underlain with uniform lithology withno probable basin upliftment The observation demonstratesthat the area depends only on the drainage characteristics formovement of water Further since there are more numberof watersheds in the West side of the river and the totalstream length of all the orders from this side is greater thanthe East side therefore the longer travel times [35] makesthis side hydrologically very active From this observation itis concluded that during a same intensity storm event overwhole of the East or West side of the river [36] the East sidewill show short basin lag times [37] compared to West sideunder similar soil moisture [38 39] and vegetation cover [39]Moreover Table 4 indicates that Lsm in these subwatershedsrange from a minimum of 021 km for stream order 2 of WS5to a maximum of 669 km for the order 3 of WS13 Accordingto theHortonrsquos lawof stream lengthsLsm of any given order isgreater than that of lower order This geometric relationshipcan be seen in Figure 3 A comparative analysis of Lsm andstream length ratio RL of all the subwatersheds is shown inTable 4

33 Stream FrequencyChannel Frequency (Fs) Stream fre-quency (Fs) is the total number of streams of all orders perunit area The analysis of the results shown in Table 5 showsthat Fs is maximum in subwatershed WS12 (819km2) fol-lowed byWS8 (798km2) WS9 (782km2) WS13 (705km2)WS7 (704km2) WS5 (702km2) WS10 (670km2) WS6(652km2) WS16 (615km2) WS1 (593km2) WS4 (578km2) WS15 (564km2) WS3 (563km2) WS2 (515km2)WS11 (452km2) WS14 (412km2) and WS17 (347km2) Fshas been related to permeability infiltration capacity andrelief of watersheds [40 41] The values observed in WestLidder indicate thatW12 is having rocky terrain and very lowinfiltration capacity out of all the 17 subwatersheds Furtherit is noted that Fs decreases as the stream number increasesFs of WS17 reveals that this subwatershed is comparablycovered with good amount of vegetation and has very goodinfiltration capacity Overall the results of Fs reflect early

1 2 3 4 50

05

1

15

2

25

3

WS1WS2WS3WS4WS5WS6WS7WS8WS9

WS10WS11WS12WS13WS14WS15WS16WS17

Stream order

Stre

am n

umbe

r (lo

g 10)

Figure 2 Showing relation between stream order and number ofstreams for 17 subwatersheds

peak discharge for subwatersheds in order of their decreasingFs resulting in flash floods while the discharge from WS17takes longer time to peak because of low runoff rates due tolesser number of streams [42ndash44]

34 Bifurcation Ratio (Rb)Mean Bifurcation Ratio (Rbm)Analysis of the results shown in Table 5 shows that meanbifurcation ratio (Rbm) of the 17 subwatersheds is 36 37 441 27 48 47 45 64 53 36 102 91 46 42 44 and 30forWS1 toWS17 respectively Rbm does not precisely remainconstant from one order to the next because of possibility ofvariations inwatershed geometry and lithology but it tends tobe a constant throughout the series High Rbm indicates earlyhydrograph peak with a potential for flash flooding duringthe storm events [45 46] Moreover wherever in a basinpowerful geological control dominates Rbm shows only asmall variation for different regions on different environment[10] Higher Rbm values are the characteristics of structurallymore disturbed watersheds with a prominent distortion indrainage pattern and vice versa [14] Maximum Rbm isseen for WS12 (Rbm = 102) and thus it will show earlyhydrographpeak (smaller basin lag time)which also indicatesstrong structural control on the drainage development forthis watershed The minimum Rbm is observed for WS5(119877119887119898 = 279) indicating delayed hydrograph peak

35 Relief Ratio (Rh) Quantitatively it is the measurementof the overall steepness of a drainage basin Also it is anindicator of the intensity of erosion processes operating onthe basin slopes [47] Rh normally increases with decreasingdrainage area and size of a given drainage basin [48] In

Geography Journal 5

Table 1 Methodology adopted for computation of morphometric parameters

S No Morphometric parameters Formulae Reference1 Stream Order (119880) Hierarchical rank (Strahler Scheme) [9]

2 Stream Length (119871119906) Length of the stream [22]

3 Mean Stream Length (119871119904119898) 119871119904119898 = 119871119906119873119906 Where 119871119904119898 = mean stream length 119871119906 = Total stream length oforder ldquo119906rdquo119873119906 = Total no of stream segments of order ldquo119906rdquo [9]

4 Stream Length Ratio (119877119871) 119877119871 = 119871119906119871119906 minus 1 Where 119877119871 = Stream length ratio 119871119906 =The total stream length oforder ldquo119906rdquo 119871119906 minus 1 =The total stream length of its next lower order [22]

5 Bifurcation Ratio (119877119887) 119877119887 = 119873119906119873119906 + 1 Where 119877119887 = Bifucation ratio119873119906 = Total no of stream segmentsof order ldquo119906rdquo119873119906 + 1 = Number of segments of the next higher order [23]

6 Mean Bifurcation Ratio (119877119887119898) 119877119887119898 = Average of bifurcation ratios of all orders [10]

7 Relief Ratio (119877ℎ) 119877ℎ = 119867119871 Where 119877ℎ = Relief ratio H = Total relief (Relative relief) of the basin inKilometre 119871119887 = Basin length [23]

8 Drainage Density (119863) 119863 = 119871119906119860 Where119863 = Drainage density 119871119906 = Total stream length of all orders A =Area of the basin (km2) [24]

9 Stream Frequency (119865119904) 119865119904 = 119873119906119860 Where 119865119904 = Stream frequency119873119906 = Total no of streams of all orders119860 = Area of the basin (km2) [24]

10 Drainage Texture (119877119905) 119877119905 = 119873119906119875 Where 119877119905 = Drainage texture119873119906 = Total no of streams of all orders119875 = Perimeter (km) [22]

11 Form Factor (119877119891) 119877119891 = 1198601198711198872 Where 119877119891 = Form factor 119860 = Area of the basin (km2) 1198711198872 = Square

of basin length [24]

12 Circularity Ratio (119877119888) 119877119888 = 4 lowast120587 lowast 1198601199012Where 119877119890 = Circularity ratio 120587 = ldquo119875119894rdquo value that is 314 A = Areaof the basin (km2) P = Perimeter (km) [25]

13 Elongation Ratio (119877119890) 119877119890 = (2119871119887)lowast

119904119902119903119905 (119860120587) Where Re = Elongation ratio 119860 = Area of the basin (km2)120587 = ldquo119875119894rdquo value that is 314 119871119887 = Basin length [23]

14 Length of overland flow (119871119892) 119871119892 = 1D lowast 2 Where 119871119892 = Length of overland flow D = Drainage density [22]

15 Constant ChannelMaintenance (119862) 119862 = 1119863 Where D = Drainage density [23]

16 Texture Ratio (119879) 119879 = 1198731119875 WhereN1 = Total number of streams in 1st order P = Perimeter of basin [23]

17 Shape index (119878119908) 119878119908 = 1198711198872

119860 Where 119871119887 = Basin length A = Area of basin [22]

18 Ruggedness number (119877119899) 119877119899 = 119861ℎ lowast 119863 Where 119861ℎ = Basin relief D = Drainage density [26]

19 Shape Factor (119877119904) 119877119904 = 119875119906119875119888 Where 119875119906 = Perimeter of circle of watershed area 119875119888 = Perimeter ofwatershed [27]

20 Drainage Intensity (119863119894) 119863119894 = 119865119904119863119889 Where 119865119904 = Stream frequency119863119889 = Drainage density [28]

21 Compactness coefficient (119862119888) 119862119888 = 119875119888119875119906 Where 119875119888 = Perimeter of watershed 119875119906 = Perimeter of circle ofwatershed area [19]

the present study as depicted in Table 7 Rh ranges from aminimum of 014 in WS9 to a maximum of 061 in WS17Higher values of Rh indicate that intense erosion processesare taking place This indicates that WS17 is more susceptibleto erosion and WS9 is the least among all the subwatershedsof the study area if this parameter alone is considered forerosion intensity analysis

36 Drainage Density (D) Factors which affect 119863 are char-acteristically same as those affecting length of the stream

namely resistance to weathering permeability of rock for-mation climate vegetation and so forth The travel timeby water within the basin is controlled by D [49ndash51] Inhumid regions it varies between 055 and 209 kmkm2 [52]Generally D has a low value in regions underlain withhighly resistant permeable material with vegetative coverand low relief High drainage density is observed in theregions of weak and impermeable subsurface material andsparse vegetation and mountainous relief Perusal of the 119863values from Table 5 indicates that WS17 WS14 and WS11have low 119863 values (below 20 kmkm2) while WS1 WS15

6 Geography Journal

Table 2 Some important basin characteristics

SubwatershedsMinimumelevation(km)

Maximumelevation(km)

Relative relief Perimeter (km) Basin area (km2) Basin length (km) Longest flow path (km)

WS1 210 357 147 1830 1045 352 403WS2 225 356 132 1584 1088 529 679WS3 225 356 132 1584 1088 1429 1768WS4 250 442 193 1771 1194 336 434WS5 283 426 143 952 428 295 340WS6 292 489 197 2154 1978 633 706WS7 305 529 224 3310 4817 1209 1495WS8 304 475 171 3055 3758 887 1074WS9 253 462 210 5404 8815 1471 1677WS10 249 437 188 3000 4176 1109 1298WS11 241 423 182 1709 1172 633 814WS12 230 429 199 1667 952 609 688WS13 226 437 211 1792 1050 406 782WS14 225 403 178 1161 655 790 962WS15 223 427 204 2109 1560 435 551WS16 216 420 204 1298 830 217 234WS17 208 340 131 990 461 217 234

Table 3 Showing stream order stream number and stream lengths of subwatersheds

Subwatershed Stream order Stream number Stream length (km)I II III IV V I II III IV V

WS1 4 46 12 3 1 mdash 1363 350 405 084 mdashWS2 4 44 9 2 1 mdash 1363 381 701 194 mdashWS3 5 253 71 14 3 1 8260 1939 2044 1749 279WS4 4 53 13 2 1 mdash 1811 554 425 015 mdashWS5 4 19 8 2 1 mdash 643 171 160 086 mdashWS6 4 86 35 7 1 mdash 2861 1282 536 534 mdashWS7 5 218 106 12 2 1 8313 3462 1993 301 176WS8 5 195 92 10 2 1 6174 2506 1473 882 176WS9 5 437 225 21 5 1 13217 6602 2608 1257 776WS10 5 171 99 7 2 1 5562 2689 631 1193 331WS11 4 40 10 2 1 mdash 1178 315 260 422 mdashWS12 3 60 17 1 mdash mdash 1797 447 561 mdash mdashWS13 3 59 14 1 mdash mdash 2026 466 670 mdash mdashWS14 3 20 6 1 mdash mdash 834 245 072 mdash mdashWS15 4 67 17 3 1 mdash 2084 537 210 621 mdashWS16 3 39 10 2 mdash mdash 1227 232 462 mdash mdashWS17 2 12 4 mdash mdash mdash 339 205 mdash mdash mdash

WS16 WS4 WS3 WS2 WS5 and WS10 have moderate 119863values (20ndash25 kmkm2) Subwatersheds WS6 WS9 WS12WS7 WS8 and WS13 have high 119863 values (between 25 and30 kmkm2) The low and moderate 119863 watersheds revealthat they are composed of permeable subsurface materialgood vegetation cover and low relief which results in moreinfiltration capacity and comparably are good sites for groundwater recharge as compared to high 119863 watersheds [53 54]

On the basis of D WS17 will have the greatest basin lag timewhile WS13 will demonstrate the shortest lag time

37 Drainage Texture (Rt) Drainage texture (Rt) is influ-enced by infiltration capacity [22] There are five differenttexture classes very coarse (lt2) coarse (2ndash4) moderate(4ndash6) fine (6ndash8) and very fine (gt8) [55] According to this

Geography Journal 7

Table 4 Showing comparative mean stream length and stream length ratios

Subwatershed Mean stream length (km) Stream length ratioI II III IV V III IIIII IVIII VIV

WS1 029 029 135 084 mdash 025 115 020 mdashWS2 030 042 350 194 mdash 027 184 027 mdashWS3 032 027 146 583 279 023 105 085 015WS4 034 042 212 015 mdash 030 076 003 mdashWS5 033 021 079 086 mdash 026 093 053 mdashWS6 033 036 076 534 mdash 044 041 099 mdashWS7 038 032 166 150 176 041 057 015 058WS8 031 027 147 441 176 040 058 059 019WS9 030 029 124 251 776 049 039 048 061WS10 032 027 090 596 331 048 023 189 027WS11 029 031 130 422 mdash 026 082 162 mdashWS12 029 026 561 mdash mdash 024 125 mdash mdashWS13 034 033 669 mdash mdash 023 143 mdash mdashWS14 041 040 071 mdash mdash 029 029 mdash mdashWS15 031 031 069 620 mdash 025 039 296 mdashWS16 031 023 231 mdash mdash 018 199 mdash mdashWS17 028 051 mdash mdash mdash 060 mdash mdash mdash

Table 5 Showing bifurcation ratios drainage density and stream frequency of the subwatersheds

Subwatershed Bifurcation ratio Mean bifurcation ratio Drainage density Stream frequency Drainage intensityIII IIIII IIIIV IVV

WS1 383 400 300 mdash 361 211 593 282WS2 489 450 200 mdash 380 243 515 212WS3 356 507 467 300 408 236 563 239WS4 408 650 200 mdash 419 235 578 246WS5 238 400 200 mdash 279 248 702 283WS6 246 500 700 mdash 482 264 652 247WS7 206 883 600 200 472 296 704 238WS8 212 920 500 200 458 298 798 268WS9 194 1071 420 500 562 269 782 291WS10 173 1414 350 200 534 249 670 269WS11 400 500 200 mdash 367 186 452 244WS12 353 1700 mdash mdash 1026 295 819 278WS13 421 1400 mdash mdash 911 301 705 234WS14 333 600 mdash mdash 467 176 412 235WS15 394 567 300 mdash 420 221 564 255WS16 390 500 mdash mdash 445 232 615 265WS17 300 mdash mdash mdash 300 118 347 294

classification WS17 has very coarse drainage texture WS1WS2 WS4 WS5 WS11 WS14 and WS16 have coarse RtWS3 WS6 WS12 WS13 and WS15 have moderate Rt andWS7 WS8 WS9 and WS10 have very fine Rt (Table 6)Hydrologically very coarse texture watersheds have largebasin lag time periods [56] followed by coarse fine and veryfine texture classesThis indicates thatWS17 (Rt = 162) showslonger duration to peak flow while WS9 (Rt = 1275) showsthe shortest

38 Form Factor (Rf) The basins with high form factorshave high peak flows of shorter duration whereas elongatedsubwatersheds with low form factors have lower peak flowof longer duration [57ndash59] In this study WS2 WS3 WS7WS10 WS11 WS13 WS14 and WS15 show lower formfactor (Table 7) indicating elongated shape and suggestingflat hydrograph peak for longer duration Flood flows ofsuch elongated basins are easier to manage than those of thecircular basin WS5 WS6 WS8 WS9 WS12 and WS16 have

8 Geography Journal

Table 6 Showing drainage texture constant channel maintenance shape index ruggedness number and shape factor

Subwatershed Drainage texture Constant channelmaintenance

Compactnesscoefficient

Shape index Ruggedness number Shape factor

WS1 339 047 160 119 070 063WS2 354 041 136 257 054 074WS3 563 042 220 337 119 046WS4 390 043 145 094 082 069WS5 315 040 130 203 058 077WS6 599 038 137 203 075 073WS7 1024 034 135 303 076 074WS8 982 034 141 209 057 071WS9 1275 037 162 246 078 062WS10 933 040 131 295 075 076WS11 310 054 141 342 098 071WS12 468 034 152 390 067 066WS13 413 033 156 402 070 064WS14 233 057 128 252 101 078WS15 417 045 151 400 092 066WS16 393 043 127 228 088 079WS17 162 085 130 102 111 077

Table 7 Showing important morphometric parameters of the subwatersheds

Subwatershed Relief ratio Elongation ratio Texture ratio Circularity ratio Form factor Length of overland flowWS1 042 104 251 039 084 023WS2 025 070 278 054 039 017WS3 020 061 418 021 030 018WS4 057 116 299 048 106 018WS5 049 079 200 059 049 016WS6 031 079 399 054 049 014WS7 019 065 659 055 033 011WS8 019 078 638 051 048 011WS9 014 072 809 038 041 014WS10 017 066 570 058 034 016WS11 029 061 234 050 029 029WS12 033 057 360 043 026 012WS13 032 056 329 041 025 011WS14 044 071 172 061 040 032WS15 026 056 318 044 025 020WS16 047 075 301 062 044 019WS17 061 112 121 059 098 072

slightly circular shape as suggested by moderately higher RfSubwatershedsWS1 WS4 andWS17 have high Rf indicatingthat they have developed into quite circular to rectangularshape Watershed morphology has profound impacts on thewatershed hydrology [60]

39 Elongation Ratio (Re) The value of elongation ratio(Re) generally varies from 06 to 10 associated with a wide

variety of climate and geology Values close to 10 are typicalof regions of very low relief whereas that from 06 to 08are associated with high relief and steep ground slope [7]These values can be grouped into three categories namelycircular (gt09) oval (09ndash07) and less elongated (lt07) Refor the subwatersheds WS13 WS15 WS12 WS3 WS11 WS7andWS10 is less than 070which indicates that subwatershedsare elongated with high relief and steep slope WS2 WS14WS9 WS16 WS8 WS5 and WS6 sub-watersheds fall in oval

Geography Journal 9

1 2 3 4 50

05

1

15

2

25

3

WS1WS2WS3WS4WS5WS6WS7WS8WS9

WS10WS11WS12WS13WS14WS15WS16WS17

Stream order

Stre

am le

ngth

(log10)

Figure 3 Showing relation between stream order and length ofstreams for 17 subwatersheds

category while subwatersheds WS1 WS17 and WS4 fall inthe circular category (Table 7) The circular watersheds havequick though lower hydrograph peak compared to the ovaland elongated watersheds [61 62] This indicates that WS13will show delayed time to peak flow while WS4 will showshorter time to peak

310 Circulatory Ratio (Rc) It is that ratio of the area of thebasin to the area of circle having the same circumference asthe perimeter of the basin [25] Many of the important basincharacteristics influence Rc such as length and frequency ofstreams geological structures land useland cover climaterelief and slope of the basin In the present case Rc forsubwatersheds WS8 WS2 WS6 WS7 WS10 WS5 WS17WS14 and WS16 is in the range from 053 to 062 indicatingthat the area is characterized by high relief elongated andpermeable surface resulting in greater basin lag times whileWS3 WS9 WS1 WS13 WS12 WS15 WS4 and WS11 havelower circularity ratios indicating low relief and impermeablesurface resulting in lower basin lag times (Table 7) Thisindicates that WS16 will show delayed time to peak flowwhile WS3 will show shorter time to peak Rf Re andRc significantly influence the hydrological response of thewatersheds as basin shape and the arrangement of streamsegments combine to influence the size and shape of floodpeaks [63]

311 Length of Overland Flow (Lg) Length of overland flowis one of the most important independent variables affectingboth hydrologic and hydrographic development of drainagebasins [24] Table 7 reveals that Lg for the 17 subwatersheds in

chronological order is 022 016 018 018 016 014 011 011076 016 029 011 011 032 02 018 and 071 respectivelyThe Lg for subwatershedsWS2-WS10WS12WS13 andWS16indicates steep slopes and shorter flow paths while as Lg forWS1 WS11 WS14 WS15 and WS17 indicates gentle slopesand longer flow paths

312 Constant of Channel Maintenance (C) In the presentstudy C varies from 033 forW8 andW9 to 084 forW17 as isshown in Table 6 The reciprocal of the drainage density (D)is constant of channel maintenance and signifies how muchdrainage area is required tomaintain a unit length of channelLow values of 119862 in case of WS8 and WS9 indicates thatamong all the 17 subwatersheds these two are associated withweakest or very low-resistance soils sparse vegetation andmountainous terrain while the watershedWS17 is associatedwith resistance soils vegetation and comparably plain terrain[64]

313 Compactness Coefficient (Cc) Compactness coefficientexpresses the relationship of a basin with that of a circularbasin having the same area A circular basin yields theshortest time of concentration before peak flow occurs in thebasin 119862119888 = 1 indicates that the basin completely behaves asa circular basin 119862119888 gt 1 indicates more deviation from thecircular nature of the basin The values for all the subwater-sheds range from 127 for WS16 to 220 for WS3 as seen inTable 6 Consequently WS16 has the greatest deviation fromthe circular nature and on the basis of this parameter aloneit will have the longest time of concentration before peak flowoccurs in the basin out of all the subwatersheds [60ndash62]

314 Shape Index (Sw) Rate of water and sediment yieldalong the length and relief of the drainage basin is largelyaffected by the shape The shape index values for subwater-sheds of the study area range from 094 in WS4 to 402 inWS13 as shown in Table 6 In terms of Sw onlyWS13 will havethe shorter basin lag time while WS4 will have the longerbasin lag time

315 Texture Ratio (T) Texture ratio is one of the mostimportant factors in the drainage morphometric analysiswhich depends on the underlying lithology infiltration capac-ity and relief aspect of the terrain is the texture ratio [65 66]As shown in Table 7 T varies between 121 in case of WS17and 809 in case of WS9 Hydrologically it can be said thatWS17 in terms of 119879alone will have the longest basin lag timesandWS9 will have the shortest This reaffirms the results andconclusions drawn from the values ofUD Fs and Rt in caseof W17

316 Ruggedness Number (Rn) The ruggedness number indi-cates the structural complexity of the terrain in associationwith the relief and drainage density It also implies that thearea is susceptible to soil erosion [67 68] In present study theruggedness number is minimum in case of WS2 (119877119899 = 054)and maximum in WS3 (119877119899 = 119) as seen in Table 6 Thisindicates that WS2 is least susceptible to erosion and WS3

10 Geography Journal

Stream order map of subwatershed 8

34∘11

9984000998400998400

34∘12

9984000998400998400

34∘13

9984000998400998400

34∘14

9984000998400998400

34∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘12

9984000998400998400

75∘14

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

0 05 1 2Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 1

34∘49984000998400998400

34∘39984000998400998400

34∘29984000998400998400

34∘19984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

75∘18

9984000998400998400

75∘19

9984000998400998400

75∘20

9984000998400998400

75∘21

9984000998400998400

0 045 09 18

Kilometers

N

EW

S

Stream order map of subwatershed 2

34∘59984000998400998400

34∘49984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

75∘18

9984000998400998400

75∘19

9984000998400998400

0 035 07 14

Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 3

34∘49984000998400998400

34∘59984000998400998400

34∘69984000998400998400

34∘79984000998400998400

34∘89984000998400998400

34∘99984000998400998400

34∘10

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

75∘19

9984000998400998400

75∘21

9984000998400998400

0 05 1 2

Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 4

34∘79984000998400998400

34∘89984000998400998400

34∘99984000998400998400

34∘10

9984000998400998400

75∘14

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

0 045 09 18

Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 5

34∘99984000998400998400

34∘10

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

0 025 05 1Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 6

34∘89984000998400998400

34∘99984000998400998400

34∘10

9984000998400998400

34∘11

9984000998400998400

34∘12

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

75∘18

9984000998400998400

75∘19

9984000998400998400

0 05 1 2Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 7

34∘99984000998400998400

34∘10

9984000998400998400

34∘11

9984000998400998400

34∘12

9984000998400998400

34∘13

9984000998400998400

34∘14

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

75∘18

9984000998400998400

75∘20

9984000998400998400

75∘22

9984000998400998400

0 05 1 2Kilometers

12

345

Watershed boundaryStream order

12

345

Watershed boundaryStream order

N

EW

S

N

EW

S

N

EW

S

N

EW

S

N

EW

S

N

EW

S

N

EW

S

West Lidder River West Lidder River

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

Wes

t Lid

der R

iver

Wes

t Lid

der R

iver

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

(a)

Figure 4 Continued

Geography Journal 11

Stream order map of subwatershed 9

34∘59984000998400998400

34∘69984000998400998400

34∘79984000998400998400

34∘89984000998400998400

34∘99984000998400998400

34∘10

9984000998400998400

34∘11

9984000998400998400

34∘12

9984000998400998400

75∘69984000998400998400

75∘89984000998400998400

75∘10

9984000998400998400

75∘11

9984000998400998400

75∘13

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘12

9984000998400998400

75∘14

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

0 1 2 4Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 10

34∘49984000998400998400

34∘59984000998400998400

34∘69984000998400998400

34∘79984000998400998400

34∘89984000998400998400

34∘99984000998400998400

75∘99984000998400998400

0 1 205

Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 15

34∘19984000998400998400

34∘29984000998400998400

34∘39984000998400998400

0 045 09 18Kilometers

75∘14

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

Stream order map of subwatershed 16

34∘19984000998400998400

34∘29984000998400998400

34∘39984000998400998400

0 03 06 12Kilometers

75∘16

9984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

75∘18

9984000998400998400

Stream order map of subwatershed 13

34∘29984000998400998400

34∘39984000998400998400

34∘49984000998400998400

0 035 07 14

Kilometers

75∘13

9984000998400998400

75∘14

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

Stream order map of subwatershed 14

34∘39984000998400998400

34∘49984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

0 1025 05

Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 11

34∘49984000998400998400

34∘59984000998400998400

34∘69984000998400998400

34∘79984000998400998400

75∘12

9984000998400998400

75∘13

9984000998400998400

75∘14

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

0

12

345

04 08 16

Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 12

34∘39984000998400998400

34∘49984000998400998400

34∘59984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

75∘13

9984000998400998400

75∘14

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

0 035 07 14

Kilometers

Watershed boundaryStream order

12

345

Watershed boundaryStream order

N

S

EWN

S

EW

N

S

EW

N

S

EW

N

S

EW

N

S

EW

N

S

EW

N

S

EW

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

(b)

Figure 4 Continued

12 Geography Journal

Stream order map of subwatershed 17

34∘19984000998400998400

34∘29984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

75∘18

9984000998400998400

75∘19

9984000998400998400

0 02 04 08Kilometers

12

Watershed boundaryStream order

N

EW

S

West Lidder River

(c)

Figure 4 (a) Showing drainage maps of subwatersheds WS1ndashWS8 (b) Showing drainage maps of subwatersheds WS9ndashWS16 (c) Showingdrainage patterns of WS17 of West Lidder catchment

is most susceptible among all the subwatersheds of the studyarea

317 Shape Factor (Rs) The shape factor observed in thestudy area is minimum in case of WS3 (119877119904 = 046) andmaximum in case of WS16 (119877119904 = 079) as shown in Table 6This parameter is similar in interpretation to circularity ratioelongation ratio and form factor It gives an idea aboutthe circular character of the basin The greater the circularcharacter of the basin is the greater is the rapid response ofthe watershed after a storm event [60] Therefore in terms ofRs only WS3 has the longest basin lag time and WS16 theshortest

4 Conclusion

From the integrated analysis of the results on the mor-phometry of the 17 subwatersheds it is concluded that thewhole study area has uniform underlying lithology makingthe hydrological response in these subwatersheds a directfunction of the geomorphology the topography and theexisting vegetation conditions only The spatial variabilityof the morphometric parameters analyzed in this study isquite significant Since the hydrology of a watershed changessignificantly due to the spatial variations of the morpho-metric parameters the subwatersheds will therefore alsoexhibit differential hydrological behaviour Overall resultsindicated that comparatively WS16 WS13 WS12 and WS9shall contribute dominantly to the stream runoff in theWest Lidder catchment and on the contrary WS17 WS5and WS3 shall contribute the least due to the cumulativeand integrated effect of the morphometric parameters whosesignificance and influences on the hydrological behaviourhave been discussed in detail in the preceding sectionsBecause of the close relationship between the morphometricparameters and the mean annual flood it is concluded on

the basis of the range of the morphometric analysis thatWS16 WS13 WS12 and WS9 in that order are more proneto flooding compared to the other 13 subwatersheds of theWest Lidder catchment The hydrological behaviour of these17 subwatersheds shall have profound influences on the floodvulnerability and flood risk in the downstream portions ofthe Lidder River It is hoped that information and knowledgegenerated under this study shall guide the informed planningand decision-making for flood disaster risk reduction in theLidder watershed that forms an important tributary of theJhelum basin

Acknowledgments

This research work has been accomplished under a researchgrant provided by the Department of Science and Technol-ogy Government of India for the project titled ldquoIntegratedFlood vulnerability Assessment for Flood Risk Managementand Disaster Mitigationrdquo The authors express their gratitudeto the funding agency for the financial assistanceThe authorsalso express their sincere thanks to anonymous reviewerswhose valuable comments have improved the quality of thispaper

References

[1] C S Agarwal ldquoStudy of drainage pattern through aerial datain Naugarh area of Varanasi district UPrdquo Journal of the IndianSociety of Remote Sensing vol 26 no 4 pp 169ndash175 1998

[2] G E Obi Reddy A K Maji and K S Gajbhiye ldquoGIS formorphometric analysis of drainage basinsrdquo GIS India vol 11no 4 pp 9ndash14 2002

[3] V Pakhmode H Kulkarni and S B Deolankar ldquoHydrological-drainage analysis in watershed-programme planning a casefrom theDeccan basalt IndiardquoHydrogeology Journal vol 11 no5 pp 595ndash604 2003

Geography Journal 13

[4] L B Leopold and T Maddock ldquoThe hydraulic geometry ofstream channels and some physiographic implicationsrdquo USGSProfessional Paper vol 252 pp 1ndash57 1953

[5] A D Abrahams ldquoChannel networks a geomorphologicalperspectiverdquo Water Resources Research vol 20 no 2 pp 161ndash168 1984

[6] S Singh ldquoQuantitative geomorphology of the drainage basinrdquoin Readings on Remote Sensing Applications T S Chouhan andK N Joshi Eds Scientific Publishers Jodhpur India 1992

[7] R A Dar R Chandra and S A Romshoo ldquoMorphotectonicand lithostratigraphic analysis of intermontane Karewa basin ofKashmir Himalayas Indiardquo Journal ofMountain Science vol 10no 1 pp 731ndash741 2013

[8] S A Romshoo S A Bhat and I Rashid ldquoGeoinformatics forassessing the morphometric control on hydrological responseat watershed scale in the Upper Indus basinrdquo Journal of EarthSystem Science vol 121 no 3 pp 659ndash686 2012

[9] A N Strahler ldquoQuantitative geomorphology of drainage basinsand channel networksrdquo in Handbook of Applied Hydrology VT Chow Ed section 4ndash11 McGraw-Hill New York NY USA1964

[10] A Strahler ldquoQuantitative analysis of watershed geomorphol-ogyrdquoTransactions AmericanGeophysical Union vol 38 pp 913ndash920 1957

[11] J Krishnamurthy G Srinivas V Jayaraman and M G Chan-drasekhar ldquoInfluence of rock types and structures in thedevelopment of drainage networks in typical hardrock terrainrdquoITC Journal no 3-4 pp 252ndash259 1996

[12] A K Das and S Mukherjee ldquoDrainage morphometry usingsatellite data andGIS inRaigad districtMaharashtrardquo Journal ofthe Geological Society of India vol 65 no 5 pp 577ndash586 2005

[13] S S Vittala S Govindaih and H H Gowda ldquoMorphometricanalysis of sub-watershed in the Pavada area of Tumkur districtSouth India using remote sensing and GIS techniquesrdquo Journalof Indian Remote Sensing vol 32 pp 351ndash362 2004

[14] S K Nag ldquoMorphometric analysis using remote sensing tech-niques in the Chaka subbasin Purulia district West BengalrdquoJournal of Indian Society of Remote Sensing vol 26 no 1-2 pp69ndash76 1998

[15] AM Y Esper ldquoMorphometric analysis of Colanguil river basinand flash flood hazard San Juan Argentinardquo EnvironmentalGeology vol 55 pp 107ndash111 2008

[16] T N Bhagwat A Shetty and V S Hegde ldquoSpatial variationin drainage characteristics and geomorphic instantaneous unithydrograph (GIUH) implications for watershed management-A case study of the Varada River basin Northern KarnatakardquoCatena vol 87 no 1 pp 52ndash59 2011

[17] N R Bhaskar B P Parida and A K Nayak ldquoFlood estimationfor ungauged catchments using the GIUHrdquo Journal of WaterResources Planning and Management vol 123 no 4 pp 228ndash237 1997

[18] S K Jain R D Singh and S M Seth ldquoDesign flood estimationusing GIS supported GIUH approachrdquo Water Resources Man-agement vol 14 no 5 pp 369ndash376 2000

[19] M Suresh S Sudhakara K N Tiwari and V M ChowdaryldquoPrioritization of watersheds using morphometric parametersand assessment of surface water potential using remote sens-ingrdquo Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing vol 32 no3 2004

[20] S A Bhat and S A Romshoo ldquoDigital elevation model basedwatershed characteristics of upper watersheds of Jhelum basinrdquoJournal of Applied Hydrology vol 21 no 2 pp 23ndash34 2009

[21] J F OrsquoCallaghan and D M Mark ldquoThe extraction of drainagenetworks from digital elevation datardquo Computer Vision Graph-ics and Image Processing vol 28 pp 323ndash344 1984

[22] R E Horton ldquoErosional development of streams and theirdrainage basins hydrophysical approach to quantitative mor-phologyrdquoGeological Society of America Bulletin vol 56 pp 275ndash370 1945

[23] S A Schumms ldquoEvolution of drainage systems and slopes inBadlands at Perth Amboy New Jerseyrdquo Bulletin of the GeologicalSociety of America vol 67 pp 597ndash646 1956

[24] R E Horton ldquoDrainage basin characteristicsrdquo TransactionsAmerican Geophysical Union vol 13 pp 350ndash361 1932

[25] V C Miller ldquoA Quantitative geomorphic study of drainagebasin characteristics in the Clinch Mountain area Virginia andTennesseerdquo Tech Rep 3 NR 389-402 Columbia UniversityDepartment of Geology ONR New York NY USA 1953

[26] K Pareta andU Pareta ldquoQuantitativemorphometric analysis ofa watershed of Yamuna basin India using ASTER (DEM) dataand GISrdquo International Journal of Geomatics and Geosciencesvol 2 no 1 2011

[27] M Sameena J Krishnamurthy V Jayaraman andG RangannaldquoEvaluation of drainage networks developed in hard rockterrainrdquoGeocarto International vol 24 no 5 pp 397ndash420 2009

[28] A Faniran ldquoThe index of drainage intensitymdasha provisional newdrainage factorrdquo Australian Journal of Science vol 31 pp 328ndash330 1968

[29] I Rashid and S A Romshoo ldquoImpact of anthropogenic activ-ities on water quality of Lidder River in Kashmir HimalayasrdquoEnvironmental Monitoring and Assessment 2012

[30] M Raza A Ahmed and A Mohammad The Valley ofKashmirmdashA Geographical Interpretation Vol I the Land VikasPublishing New Delhi India 1978

[31] V M Meher ldquoThe climate of Srinagar and its variabilityrdquoGeographical Review of India vol 33 no 1 pp 1ndash14 1971

[32] BM Engelhardt P JWeisberg and J C Chambers ldquoInfluencesof watershed geomorphology on extent and composition ofriparian vegetationrdquo Journal of Vegetation Science vol 23 no1 pp 127ndash139 2011

[33] J E Costa ldquoHydraulics and basin morphometry of the largestflash floods in the conterminous United Statesrdquo Journal ofHydrology vol 93 no 3-4 pp 313ndash338 1987

[34] S Singh and M C Singh ldquoMorphometric analysis of Kanharriver basinrdquoThe National Geographical Journal of India vol 43no 1 pp 31ndash43 1997

[35] W Luo and J M Harlin ldquoA theoretical travel time basedon watershed hypsometryrdquo Journal of the American WaterResources Association vol 39 no 4 pp 785ndash792 2003

[36] J M Harlin ldquoThe effect of precipitation variability on drainagebasin morphometryrdquo American Journal of Science vol 280 no8 pp 812ndash825 1980

[37] J M Harlin ldquoWatershedmorphometry and time to hydrographpeakrdquo Journal of Hydrology vol 67 no 1-4 pp 141ndash154 1984

[38] S A Romshoo ldquoGeostatistical analysis of soil moisture mea-surements and remotely sensed data at different spatial scalesrdquoEnvironmental Geology vol 45 no 3 pp 339ndash349 2004

[39] S A Romshoo M Koike S Hironaka O Oki and K MusiakeldquoInfluence of surface and vegetation characteristics on C-bandradarmeasurements for soilmoisture contentrdquo Journal of IndianSociety of Remote Sensing vol 30 no 4 pp 229ndash244 2002

[40] D R Montgomery and W E Dietrich ldquoSource areas drainagedensity and channel initiationrdquo Water Resources Research vol25 no 8 pp 1907ndash1918 1989

14 Geography Journal

[41] D R Montgomery and W E Dietrich ldquoChannel initiation andthe problem of landscape scalerdquo Science vol 255 no 5046 pp826ndash830 1992

[42] EM Ghoneim NW Arnell andGM Foody ldquoCharacterizingthe flash flood hazards potential along the Red Sea coast ofEgyptrdquo IAHS-AISH Publication no 271 pp 211ndash216 2002

[43] M Diakakis ldquoA method for flood hazard mapping based onbasin morphometry application in two catchments in GreecerdquoNatural Hazards vol 56 no 3 pp 803ndash814 2011

[44] P C Patton and V R Baker ldquoMorphometry and floods in smalldrainage basins subject to diverse hydrogeomorphic controlsrdquoWater Resources Research vol 12 no 5 pp 941ndash952 1976

[45] A D Howard ldquoRole of hypsometry and planform in basinhydrologic responserdquo Hydrological Processes vol 4 no 4 pp373ndash385 1990

[46] K Rakesh A K Lohani K Sanjay C Chatterjee and R KNema ldquoGIS based morphometric analysis of Ajay river basinupto Srarath gauging site of South Biharrdquo Journal of AppliedHydrology vol 14 no 4 pp 45ndash54 2000

[47] B Dodov and E Foufoula-Georgiou ldquoFluvial processes andstreamflow variability interplay in the scale-frequency contin-uum and implications for scalingrdquo Water Resources Researchvol 41 no 5 pp 1ndash18 2005

[48] L C Gottschalk ldquoReservoir sedimentationrdquo in Handbook ofApplied Hydrology V T Chow Ed section 7-1 McGraw-HillNew York NY USA 1964

[49] B ADodov and E Foufoula-Georgiou ldquoFloodplainmorphom-etry extraction from a high-resolution digital elevationmodel asimple algorithm for regional analysis studiesrdquo IEEE Geoscienceand Remote Sensing Letters vol 3 no 3 pp 410ndash413 2006

[50] P C Patton ldquoDrainage basin morphometry and floodsrdquo inFlood Geomorphology pp 51ndash64 JohnWiley amp Sons NewYorkNY USA 1988

[51] V Gardiner and C C Park ldquoDrainage basin morphometryrdquoProgress in Physical Geography vol 2 no 1 pp 1ndash35 1978

[52] W B Langbein ldquoTopographic characteristics of drainagebasinsrdquoUS Geological SurveyWater-Supply Paper vol 986 pp157ndash159 1947

[53] W Luo ldquoQuantifying groundwater-sapping landforms witha hypsometric techniquerdquo Journal of Geophysical Research EPlanets vol 105 no 1 pp 1685ndash1694 2000

[54] J M Harlin and C Wijeyawickrema ldquoIrrigation and ground-water depletion in Caddo county Oklahomardquo Journal of theAmerican Water Resources Association vol 21 no 1 pp 15ndash221985

[55] K G Smith ldquoStandards for grading textures of erosionaltopographyrdquoAmerican Journal of Science vol 248 pp 655ndash6681950

[56] M Y Esper Angillieri ldquoMorphometric analysis of Colanguilriver basin and flash flood hazard San Juan ArgentinardquoEnvironmental Geology vol 55 no 1 pp 107ndash111 2008

[57] A M Youssef B Pradhan and A M Hassan ldquoFlash floodrisk estimation along the St Katherine road southern SinaiEgypt using GIS based morphometry and satellite imageryrdquoEnvironmental Earth Sciences vol 62 no 3 pp 611ndash623 2011

[58] A D Howard ldquoRole of hypsometry and planform in basinhydrologic responserdquo Hydrological Processes vol 4 no 4 pp373ndash385 1990

[59] R C Kochel ldquoGeomorphic impact of large floods reviewand new perspectives on magnitude and frequencyrdquo in FloodGeomorphology pp 169ndash187 JohnWiley amp Sons NewYork NYUSA 1988

[60] G E Tucker and R L Bras ldquoHillslope processes drainagedensity and landscape morphologyrdquoWater Resources Researchvol 34 no 10 pp 2751ndash2764 1998

[61] M Borga et al ldquoReal time guidance for flash flood riskmanagementrdquo FLOOD Site Research Project Report T16 2008

[62] K W Potter and E B Faulkner ldquoCatchment response time asa predictor of flood quantilesrdquo Journal of the American WaterResources Association vol 23 no 5 pp 857ndash861 1987

[63] R CWard andM Robinson Principles of Hydrology McGraw-Hill Maidenhead UK 4th edition 2000

[64] S Shulits ldquoQuantitative formulation of stream and watershedmorphologyrdquo Bulletin of the International Association of Scien-tific Hydrology vol 3 pp 201ndash207 1968

[65] A Demoulin ldquoBasin and river profile morphometry a newindex with a high potential for relative dating of tectonic upliftrdquoGeomorphology vol 126 no 1-2 pp 97ndash107 2011

[66] T B Altin and B N Altin ldquoDrainage morphometry and itsinfluence on landforms in volcanic terrain Central AnatoliaTurkeyrdquo ProcediamdashSocial and Behavioral Sciences vol 19 pp732ndash740 2011

[67] M Rashid M A Lone and S A Romshoo ldquoGeospatial toolsfor assessing land degradation in Budgam district KashmirHimalaya Indiardquo Journal of Earth System Science vol 120 no3 pp 423ndash433 2011

[68] S Zaz and S A Romshoo ldquoAssessing the geoindicators of landdegradation in the Kashmir Himalayan Region Indiardquo NaturalHazards vol 64 no 2 pp 1219ndash1245 2012

Geography Journal 3

WS1

WS2

WS3

WS7

WS6WS5WS9

WS10

WS11 WS12

WS13

WS14

WS15

WS16WS17

WS4

WS8

74∘09984000998400998400E 74

∘20

9984000998400998400E73

∘40

9984000998400998400E 74

∘40

9984000998400998400E 75

∘09984000998400998400E 75

∘20

9984000998400998400E 75

∘40

9984000998400998400E

33∘20

9984000998400998400N

33∘40

9984000998400998400N

34∘09984000998400998400N

34∘20

9984000998400998400N

Kilometers

Kashmir Valley J and K India

10

75∘59984000998400998400E 75

∘10

9984000998400998400E 75

∘15

9984000998400998400E 75

∘20

9984000998400998400E 75

∘25

9984000998400998400E

34∘09984000998400998400N

34∘59984000998400998400N

34∘10

9984000998400998400N

34∘15

9984000998400998400N

10

Prominent landmarksSubwatershed boundary

Pahalgam

Kolahoi Glacier

N

EW

S

N

EW

S

Kilometers

Figure 1 Showing location of the study area in 2D and 3D perspectives

calculating the geometry of the derived watershed polygonsand length of the watershed was calculated by summing thelength of the main stream channel and the distance fromthe top of the main channel to the watershed boundaryBy summing the lengths of all stream segments in eachsubwatershed the total stream length was calculated

222 Quantitative Morphometry In the present study mor-phometric analysis of the parameters namely stream orderstream length bifurcation ratio relief ratio drainage den-sity drainage intensity drainage texture stream frequencydrainage texture form factor length of overland flow con-stant channel maintenance circulatory and elongation ratioarea perimeter and length of all the 17 subwatersheds havebeen carried out using the standard mathematical formulaegiven in the Table 1 [9 10 19 22ndash28] The values of variousbasin characteristics required for calculating morphometricparameters are shown in Table 2

3 Results and Discussion

31 Stream Order (U) The highest stream order among the17 subwatersheds is five and is shown by four subwatershedsWS7 WS8 WS9 and WS10 The lowest stream order is twoand is shown by WS17 A perusal of Table 3 and Figure 1indicates that the 17 subwatersheds draining intoWest LidderRiver are contributing surface runoff and sediment loadsdifferentially due to variations in their physical characteris-tics There are only 7 subwatersheds in the East side of theriver among which five watersheds have 119880 = 4 and onlytwo watersheds have 119880 = 5 In the West side of the riverthere are 10 watersheds out of which four watersheds have119880 = 3 two watersheds have 119880 = 4 three watersheds have119880 = 5 and only one watershed has 119880 = 2 Drainagemaps of all the 17 subwatersheds are shown below (Figures4(a) 4(b) and 4(c)) Higher stream order is associated withgreater discharge and higher velocity [33] West side of theriver clearly contributes more to discharge and since higher

4 Geography Journal

velocity enhances the erosion rates therefore this side alsocontributes higher sediment loads into theWest Lidder RiverFurther the total number of stream segments decrease withstream order This is referred to as Hortonrsquos law of streamnumbers Any deviation indicates that the terrain is typifiedwith high relief andor moderately steep slopes underlain byvarying lithology and probable uplift across the basin [34] Inpractice when logarithms of the number of streams of a givenorder are plotted against the order the points lie on a straightline [22] Similar geometric relationship was also found tooperate between stream order and stream numbers in allsubwatersheds of this study area It indicates that the wholearea has uniform underlying lithology and geologically therehas been no probable uplift in the basin (Figure 2)

32 Stream Length (Lu)Mean Stream Length (Lsm) Analysisof the results shown in Tables 3 and 4 show that the totallength of stream segments is the maximum in case of firstorder streams It decreases as order increases in all thesubwatersheds (Tables 3 and 4 Figure 4)The results reaffirmthe fact that the area is underlain with uniform lithology withno probable basin upliftment The observation demonstratesthat the area depends only on the drainage characteristics formovement of water Further since there are more numberof watersheds in the West side of the river and the totalstream length of all the orders from this side is greater thanthe East side therefore the longer travel times [35] makesthis side hydrologically very active From this observation itis concluded that during a same intensity storm event overwhole of the East or West side of the river [36] the East sidewill show short basin lag times [37] compared to West sideunder similar soil moisture [38 39] and vegetation cover [39]Moreover Table 4 indicates that Lsm in these subwatershedsrange from a minimum of 021 km for stream order 2 of WS5to a maximum of 669 km for the order 3 of WS13 Accordingto theHortonrsquos lawof stream lengthsLsm of any given order isgreater than that of lower order This geometric relationshipcan be seen in Figure 3 A comparative analysis of Lsm andstream length ratio RL of all the subwatersheds is shown inTable 4

33 Stream FrequencyChannel Frequency (Fs) Stream fre-quency (Fs) is the total number of streams of all orders perunit area The analysis of the results shown in Table 5 showsthat Fs is maximum in subwatershed WS12 (819km2) fol-lowed byWS8 (798km2) WS9 (782km2) WS13 (705km2)WS7 (704km2) WS5 (702km2) WS10 (670km2) WS6(652km2) WS16 (615km2) WS1 (593km2) WS4 (578km2) WS15 (564km2) WS3 (563km2) WS2 (515km2)WS11 (452km2) WS14 (412km2) and WS17 (347km2) Fshas been related to permeability infiltration capacity andrelief of watersheds [40 41] The values observed in WestLidder indicate thatW12 is having rocky terrain and very lowinfiltration capacity out of all the 17 subwatersheds Furtherit is noted that Fs decreases as the stream number increasesFs of WS17 reveals that this subwatershed is comparablycovered with good amount of vegetation and has very goodinfiltration capacity Overall the results of Fs reflect early

1 2 3 4 50

05

1

15

2

25

3

WS1WS2WS3WS4WS5WS6WS7WS8WS9

WS10WS11WS12WS13WS14WS15WS16WS17

Stream order

Stre

am n

umbe

r (lo

g 10)

Figure 2 Showing relation between stream order and number ofstreams for 17 subwatersheds

peak discharge for subwatersheds in order of their decreasingFs resulting in flash floods while the discharge from WS17takes longer time to peak because of low runoff rates due tolesser number of streams [42ndash44]

34 Bifurcation Ratio (Rb)Mean Bifurcation Ratio (Rbm)Analysis of the results shown in Table 5 shows that meanbifurcation ratio (Rbm) of the 17 subwatersheds is 36 37 441 27 48 47 45 64 53 36 102 91 46 42 44 and 30forWS1 toWS17 respectively Rbm does not precisely remainconstant from one order to the next because of possibility ofvariations inwatershed geometry and lithology but it tends tobe a constant throughout the series High Rbm indicates earlyhydrograph peak with a potential for flash flooding duringthe storm events [45 46] Moreover wherever in a basinpowerful geological control dominates Rbm shows only asmall variation for different regions on different environment[10] Higher Rbm values are the characteristics of structurallymore disturbed watersheds with a prominent distortion indrainage pattern and vice versa [14] Maximum Rbm isseen for WS12 (Rbm = 102) and thus it will show earlyhydrographpeak (smaller basin lag time)which also indicatesstrong structural control on the drainage development forthis watershed The minimum Rbm is observed for WS5(119877119887119898 = 279) indicating delayed hydrograph peak

35 Relief Ratio (Rh) Quantitatively it is the measurementof the overall steepness of a drainage basin Also it is anindicator of the intensity of erosion processes operating onthe basin slopes [47] Rh normally increases with decreasingdrainage area and size of a given drainage basin [48] In

Geography Journal 5

Table 1 Methodology adopted for computation of morphometric parameters

S No Morphometric parameters Formulae Reference1 Stream Order (119880) Hierarchical rank (Strahler Scheme) [9]

2 Stream Length (119871119906) Length of the stream [22]

3 Mean Stream Length (119871119904119898) 119871119904119898 = 119871119906119873119906 Where 119871119904119898 = mean stream length 119871119906 = Total stream length oforder ldquo119906rdquo119873119906 = Total no of stream segments of order ldquo119906rdquo [9]

4 Stream Length Ratio (119877119871) 119877119871 = 119871119906119871119906 minus 1 Where 119877119871 = Stream length ratio 119871119906 =The total stream length oforder ldquo119906rdquo 119871119906 minus 1 =The total stream length of its next lower order [22]

5 Bifurcation Ratio (119877119887) 119877119887 = 119873119906119873119906 + 1 Where 119877119887 = Bifucation ratio119873119906 = Total no of stream segmentsof order ldquo119906rdquo119873119906 + 1 = Number of segments of the next higher order [23]

6 Mean Bifurcation Ratio (119877119887119898) 119877119887119898 = Average of bifurcation ratios of all orders [10]

7 Relief Ratio (119877ℎ) 119877ℎ = 119867119871 Where 119877ℎ = Relief ratio H = Total relief (Relative relief) of the basin inKilometre 119871119887 = Basin length [23]

8 Drainage Density (119863) 119863 = 119871119906119860 Where119863 = Drainage density 119871119906 = Total stream length of all orders A =Area of the basin (km2) [24]

9 Stream Frequency (119865119904) 119865119904 = 119873119906119860 Where 119865119904 = Stream frequency119873119906 = Total no of streams of all orders119860 = Area of the basin (km2) [24]

10 Drainage Texture (119877119905) 119877119905 = 119873119906119875 Where 119877119905 = Drainage texture119873119906 = Total no of streams of all orders119875 = Perimeter (km) [22]

11 Form Factor (119877119891) 119877119891 = 1198601198711198872 Where 119877119891 = Form factor 119860 = Area of the basin (km2) 1198711198872 = Square

of basin length [24]

12 Circularity Ratio (119877119888) 119877119888 = 4 lowast120587 lowast 1198601199012Where 119877119890 = Circularity ratio 120587 = ldquo119875119894rdquo value that is 314 A = Areaof the basin (km2) P = Perimeter (km) [25]

13 Elongation Ratio (119877119890) 119877119890 = (2119871119887)lowast

119904119902119903119905 (119860120587) Where Re = Elongation ratio 119860 = Area of the basin (km2)120587 = ldquo119875119894rdquo value that is 314 119871119887 = Basin length [23]

14 Length of overland flow (119871119892) 119871119892 = 1D lowast 2 Where 119871119892 = Length of overland flow D = Drainage density [22]

15 Constant ChannelMaintenance (119862) 119862 = 1119863 Where D = Drainage density [23]

16 Texture Ratio (119879) 119879 = 1198731119875 WhereN1 = Total number of streams in 1st order P = Perimeter of basin [23]

17 Shape index (119878119908) 119878119908 = 1198711198872

119860 Where 119871119887 = Basin length A = Area of basin [22]

18 Ruggedness number (119877119899) 119877119899 = 119861ℎ lowast 119863 Where 119861ℎ = Basin relief D = Drainage density [26]

19 Shape Factor (119877119904) 119877119904 = 119875119906119875119888 Where 119875119906 = Perimeter of circle of watershed area 119875119888 = Perimeter ofwatershed [27]

20 Drainage Intensity (119863119894) 119863119894 = 119865119904119863119889 Where 119865119904 = Stream frequency119863119889 = Drainage density [28]

21 Compactness coefficient (119862119888) 119862119888 = 119875119888119875119906 Where 119875119888 = Perimeter of watershed 119875119906 = Perimeter of circle ofwatershed area [19]

the present study as depicted in Table 7 Rh ranges from aminimum of 014 in WS9 to a maximum of 061 in WS17Higher values of Rh indicate that intense erosion processesare taking place This indicates that WS17 is more susceptibleto erosion and WS9 is the least among all the subwatershedsof the study area if this parameter alone is considered forerosion intensity analysis

36 Drainage Density (D) Factors which affect 119863 are char-acteristically same as those affecting length of the stream

namely resistance to weathering permeability of rock for-mation climate vegetation and so forth The travel timeby water within the basin is controlled by D [49ndash51] Inhumid regions it varies between 055 and 209 kmkm2 [52]Generally D has a low value in regions underlain withhighly resistant permeable material with vegetative coverand low relief High drainage density is observed in theregions of weak and impermeable subsurface material andsparse vegetation and mountainous relief Perusal of the 119863values from Table 5 indicates that WS17 WS14 and WS11have low 119863 values (below 20 kmkm2) while WS1 WS15

6 Geography Journal

Table 2 Some important basin characteristics

SubwatershedsMinimumelevation(km)

Maximumelevation(km)

Relative relief Perimeter (km) Basin area (km2) Basin length (km) Longest flow path (km)

WS1 210 357 147 1830 1045 352 403WS2 225 356 132 1584 1088 529 679WS3 225 356 132 1584 1088 1429 1768WS4 250 442 193 1771 1194 336 434WS5 283 426 143 952 428 295 340WS6 292 489 197 2154 1978 633 706WS7 305 529 224 3310 4817 1209 1495WS8 304 475 171 3055 3758 887 1074WS9 253 462 210 5404 8815 1471 1677WS10 249 437 188 3000 4176 1109 1298WS11 241 423 182 1709 1172 633 814WS12 230 429 199 1667 952 609 688WS13 226 437 211 1792 1050 406 782WS14 225 403 178 1161 655 790 962WS15 223 427 204 2109 1560 435 551WS16 216 420 204 1298 830 217 234WS17 208 340 131 990 461 217 234

Table 3 Showing stream order stream number and stream lengths of subwatersheds

Subwatershed Stream order Stream number Stream length (km)I II III IV V I II III IV V

WS1 4 46 12 3 1 mdash 1363 350 405 084 mdashWS2 4 44 9 2 1 mdash 1363 381 701 194 mdashWS3 5 253 71 14 3 1 8260 1939 2044 1749 279WS4 4 53 13 2 1 mdash 1811 554 425 015 mdashWS5 4 19 8 2 1 mdash 643 171 160 086 mdashWS6 4 86 35 7 1 mdash 2861 1282 536 534 mdashWS7 5 218 106 12 2 1 8313 3462 1993 301 176WS8 5 195 92 10 2 1 6174 2506 1473 882 176WS9 5 437 225 21 5 1 13217 6602 2608 1257 776WS10 5 171 99 7 2 1 5562 2689 631 1193 331WS11 4 40 10 2 1 mdash 1178 315 260 422 mdashWS12 3 60 17 1 mdash mdash 1797 447 561 mdash mdashWS13 3 59 14 1 mdash mdash 2026 466 670 mdash mdashWS14 3 20 6 1 mdash mdash 834 245 072 mdash mdashWS15 4 67 17 3 1 mdash 2084 537 210 621 mdashWS16 3 39 10 2 mdash mdash 1227 232 462 mdash mdashWS17 2 12 4 mdash mdash mdash 339 205 mdash mdash mdash

WS16 WS4 WS3 WS2 WS5 and WS10 have moderate 119863values (20ndash25 kmkm2) Subwatersheds WS6 WS9 WS12WS7 WS8 and WS13 have high 119863 values (between 25 and30 kmkm2) The low and moderate 119863 watersheds revealthat they are composed of permeable subsurface materialgood vegetation cover and low relief which results in moreinfiltration capacity and comparably are good sites for groundwater recharge as compared to high 119863 watersheds [53 54]

On the basis of D WS17 will have the greatest basin lag timewhile WS13 will demonstrate the shortest lag time

37 Drainage Texture (Rt) Drainage texture (Rt) is influ-enced by infiltration capacity [22] There are five differenttexture classes very coarse (lt2) coarse (2ndash4) moderate(4ndash6) fine (6ndash8) and very fine (gt8) [55] According to this

Geography Journal 7

Table 4 Showing comparative mean stream length and stream length ratios

Subwatershed Mean stream length (km) Stream length ratioI II III IV V III IIIII IVIII VIV

WS1 029 029 135 084 mdash 025 115 020 mdashWS2 030 042 350 194 mdash 027 184 027 mdashWS3 032 027 146 583 279 023 105 085 015WS4 034 042 212 015 mdash 030 076 003 mdashWS5 033 021 079 086 mdash 026 093 053 mdashWS6 033 036 076 534 mdash 044 041 099 mdashWS7 038 032 166 150 176 041 057 015 058WS8 031 027 147 441 176 040 058 059 019WS9 030 029 124 251 776 049 039 048 061WS10 032 027 090 596 331 048 023 189 027WS11 029 031 130 422 mdash 026 082 162 mdashWS12 029 026 561 mdash mdash 024 125 mdash mdashWS13 034 033 669 mdash mdash 023 143 mdash mdashWS14 041 040 071 mdash mdash 029 029 mdash mdashWS15 031 031 069 620 mdash 025 039 296 mdashWS16 031 023 231 mdash mdash 018 199 mdash mdashWS17 028 051 mdash mdash mdash 060 mdash mdash mdash

Table 5 Showing bifurcation ratios drainage density and stream frequency of the subwatersheds

Subwatershed Bifurcation ratio Mean bifurcation ratio Drainage density Stream frequency Drainage intensityIII IIIII IIIIV IVV

WS1 383 400 300 mdash 361 211 593 282WS2 489 450 200 mdash 380 243 515 212WS3 356 507 467 300 408 236 563 239WS4 408 650 200 mdash 419 235 578 246WS5 238 400 200 mdash 279 248 702 283WS6 246 500 700 mdash 482 264 652 247WS7 206 883 600 200 472 296 704 238WS8 212 920 500 200 458 298 798 268WS9 194 1071 420 500 562 269 782 291WS10 173 1414 350 200 534 249 670 269WS11 400 500 200 mdash 367 186 452 244WS12 353 1700 mdash mdash 1026 295 819 278WS13 421 1400 mdash mdash 911 301 705 234WS14 333 600 mdash mdash 467 176 412 235WS15 394 567 300 mdash 420 221 564 255WS16 390 500 mdash mdash 445 232 615 265WS17 300 mdash mdash mdash 300 118 347 294

classification WS17 has very coarse drainage texture WS1WS2 WS4 WS5 WS11 WS14 and WS16 have coarse RtWS3 WS6 WS12 WS13 and WS15 have moderate Rt andWS7 WS8 WS9 and WS10 have very fine Rt (Table 6)Hydrologically very coarse texture watersheds have largebasin lag time periods [56] followed by coarse fine and veryfine texture classesThis indicates thatWS17 (Rt = 162) showslonger duration to peak flow while WS9 (Rt = 1275) showsthe shortest

38 Form Factor (Rf) The basins with high form factorshave high peak flows of shorter duration whereas elongatedsubwatersheds with low form factors have lower peak flowof longer duration [57ndash59] In this study WS2 WS3 WS7WS10 WS11 WS13 WS14 and WS15 show lower formfactor (Table 7) indicating elongated shape and suggestingflat hydrograph peak for longer duration Flood flows ofsuch elongated basins are easier to manage than those of thecircular basin WS5 WS6 WS8 WS9 WS12 and WS16 have

8 Geography Journal

Table 6 Showing drainage texture constant channel maintenance shape index ruggedness number and shape factor

Subwatershed Drainage texture Constant channelmaintenance

Compactnesscoefficient

Shape index Ruggedness number Shape factor

WS1 339 047 160 119 070 063WS2 354 041 136 257 054 074WS3 563 042 220 337 119 046WS4 390 043 145 094 082 069WS5 315 040 130 203 058 077WS6 599 038 137 203 075 073WS7 1024 034 135 303 076 074WS8 982 034 141 209 057 071WS9 1275 037 162 246 078 062WS10 933 040 131 295 075 076WS11 310 054 141 342 098 071WS12 468 034 152 390 067 066WS13 413 033 156 402 070 064WS14 233 057 128 252 101 078WS15 417 045 151 400 092 066WS16 393 043 127 228 088 079WS17 162 085 130 102 111 077

Table 7 Showing important morphometric parameters of the subwatersheds

Subwatershed Relief ratio Elongation ratio Texture ratio Circularity ratio Form factor Length of overland flowWS1 042 104 251 039 084 023WS2 025 070 278 054 039 017WS3 020 061 418 021 030 018WS4 057 116 299 048 106 018WS5 049 079 200 059 049 016WS6 031 079 399 054 049 014WS7 019 065 659 055 033 011WS8 019 078 638 051 048 011WS9 014 072 809 038 041 014WS10 017 066 570 058 034 016WS11 029 061 234 050 029 029WS12 033 057 360 043 026 012WS13 032 056 329 041 025 011WS14 044 071 172 061 040 032WS15 026 056 318 044 025 020WS16 047 075 301 062 044 019WS17 061 112 121 059 098 072

slightly circular shape as suggested by moderately higher RfSubwatershedsWS1 WS4 andWS17 have high Rf indicatingthat they have developed into quite circular to rectangularshape Watershed morphology has profound impacts on thewatershed hydrology [60]

39 Elongation Ratio (Re) The value of elongation ratio(Re) generally varies from 06 to 10 associated with a wide

variety of climate and geology Values close to 10 are typicalof regions of very low relief whereas that from 06 to 08are associated with high relief and steep ground slope [7]These values can be grouped into three categories namelycircular (gt09) oval (09ndash07) and less elongated (lt07) Refor the subwatersheds WS13 WS15 WS12 WS3 WS11 WS7andWS10 is less than 070which indicates that subwatershedsare elongated with high relief and steep slope WS2 WS14WS9 WS16 WS8 WS5 and WS6 sub-watersheds fall in oval

Geography Journal 9

1 2 3 4 50

05

1

15

2

25

3

WS1WS2WS3WS4WS5WS6WS7WS8WS9

WS10WS11WS12WS13WS14WS15WS16WS17

Stream order

Stre

am le

ngth

(log10)

Figure 3 Showing relation between stream order and length ofstreams for 17 subwatersheds

category while subwatersheds WS1 WS17 and WS4 fall inthe circular category (Table 7) The circular watersheds havequick though lower hydrograph peak compared to the ovaland elongated watersheds [61 62] This indicates that WS13will show delayed time to peak flow while WS4 will showshorter time to peak

310 Circulatory Ratio (Rc) It is that ratio of the area of thebasin to the area of circle having the same circumference asthe perimeter of the basin [25] Many of the important basincharacteristics influence Rc such as length and frequency ofstreams geological structures land useland cover climaterelief and slope of the basin In the present case Rc forsubwatersheds WS8 WS2 WS6 WS7 WS10 WS5 WS17WS14 and WS16 is in the range from 053 to 062 indicatingthat the area is characterized by high relief elongated andpermeable surface resulting in greater basin lag times whileWS3 WS9 WS1 WS13 WS12 WS15 WS4 and WS11 havelower circularity ratios indicating low relief and impermeablesurface resulting in lower basin lag times (Table 7) Thisindicates that WS16 will show delayed time to peak flowwhile WS3 will show shorter time to peak Rf Re andRc significantly influence the hydrological response of thewatersheds as basin shape and the arrangement of streamsegments combine to influence the size and shape of floodpeaks [63]

311 Length of Overland Flow (Lg) Length of overland flowis one of the most important independent variables affectingboth hydrologic and hydrographic development of drainagebasins [24] Table 7 reveals that Lg for the 17 subwatersheds in

chronological order is 022 016 018 018 016 014 011 011076 016 029 011 011 032 02 018 and 071 respectivelyThe Lg for subwatershedsWS2-WS10WS12WS13 andWS16indicates steep slopes and shorter flow paths while as Lg forWS1 WS11 WS14 WS15 and WS17 indicates gentle slopesand longer flow paths

312 Constant of Channel Maintenance (C) In the presentstudy C varies from 033 forW8 andW9 to 084 forW17 as isshown in Table 6 The reciprocal of the drainage density (D)is constant of channel maintenance and signifies how muchdrainage area is required tomaintain a unit length of channelLow values of 119862 in case of WS8 and WS9 indicates thatamong all the 17 subwatersheds these two are associated withweakest or very low-resistance soils sparse vegetation andmountainous terrain while the watershedWS17 is associatedwith resistance soils vegetation and comparably plain terrain[64]

313 Compactness Coefficient (Cc) Compactness coefficientexpresses the relationship of a basin with that of a circularbasin having the same area A circular basin yields theshortest time of concentration before peak flow occurs in thebasin 119862119888 = 1 indicates that the basin completely behaves asa circular basin 119862119888 gt 1 indicates more deviation from thecircular nature of the basin The values for all the subwater-sheds range from 127 for WS16 to 220 for WS3 as seen inTable 6 Consequently WS16 has the greatest deviation fromthe circular nature and on the basis of this parameter aloneit will have the longest time of concentration before peak flowoccurs in the basin out of all the subwatersheds [60ndash62]

314 Shape Index (Sw) Rate of water and sediment yieldalong the length and relief of the drainage basin is largelyaffected by the shape The shape index values for subwater-sheds of the study area range from 094 in WS4 to 402 inWS13 as shown in Table 6 In terms of Sw onlyWS13 will havethe shorter basin lag time while WS4 will have the longerbasin lag time

315 Texture Ratio (T) Texture ratio is one of the mostimportant factors in the drainage morphometric analysiswhich depends on the underlying lithology infiltration capac-ity and relief aspect of the terrain is the texture ratio [65 66]As shown in Table 7 T varies between 121 in case of WS17and 809 in case of WS9 Hydrologically it can be said thatWS17 in terms of 119879alone will have the longest basin lag timesandWS9 will have the shortest This reaffirms the results andconclusions drawn from the values ofUD Fs and Rt in caseof W17

316 Ruggedness Number (Rn) The ruggedness number indi-cates the structural complexity of the terrain in associationwith the relief and drainage density It also implies that thearea is susceptible to soil erosion [67 68] In present study theruggedness number is minimum in case of WS2 (119877119899 = 054)and maximum in WS3 (119877119899 = 119) as seen in Table 6 Thisindicates that WS2 is least susceptible to erosion and WS3

10 Geography Journal

Stream order map of subwatershed 8

34∘11

9984000998400998400

34∘12

9984000998400998400

34∘13

9984000998400998400

34∘14

9984000998400998400

34∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘12

9984000998400998400

75∘14

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

0 05 1 2Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 1

34∘49984000998400998400

34∘39984000998400998400

34∘29984000998400998400

34∘19984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

75∘18

9984000998400998400

75∘19

9984000998400998400

75∘20

9984000998400998400

75∘21

9984000998400998400

0 045 09 18

Kilometers

N

EW

S

Stream order map of subwatershed 2

34∘59984000998400998400

34∘49984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

75∘18

9984000998400998400

75∘19

9984000998400998400

0 035 07 14

Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 3

34∘49984000998400998400

34∘59984000998400998400

34∘69984000998400998400

34∘79984000998400998400

34∘89984000998400998400

34∘99984000998400998400

34∘10

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

75∘19

9984000998400998400

75∘21

9984000998400998400

0 05 1 2

Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 4

34∘79984000998400998400

34∘89984000998400998400

34∘99984000998400998400

34∘10

9984000998400998400

75∘14

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

0 045 09 18

Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 5

34∘99984000998400998400

34∘10

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

0 025 05 1Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 6

34∘89984000998400998400

34∘99984000998400998400

34∘10

9984000998400998400

34∘11

9984000998400998400

34∘12

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

75∘18

9984000998400998400

75∘19

9984000998400998400

0 05 1 2Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 7

34∘99984000998400998400

34∘10

9984000998400998400

34∘11

9984000998400998400

34∘12

9984000998400998400

34∘13

9984000998400998400

34∘14

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

75∘18

9984000998400998400

75∘20

9984000998400998400

75∘22

9984000998400998400

0 05 1 2Kilometers

12

345

Watershed boundaryStream order

12

345

Watershed boundaryStream order

N

EW

S

N

EW

S

N

EW

S

N

EW

S

N

EW

S

N

EW

S

N

EW

S

West Lidder River West Lidder River

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

Wes

t Lid

der R

iver

Wes

t Lid

der R

iver

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

(a)

Figure 4 Continued

Geography Journal 11

Stream order map of subwatershed 9

34∘59984000998400998400

34∘69984000998400998400

34∘79984000998400998400

34∘89984000998400998400

34∘99984000998400998400

34∘10

9984000998400998400

34∘11

9984000998400998400

34∘12

9984000998400998400

75∘69984000998400998400

75∘89984000998400998400

75∘10

9984000998400998400

75∘11

9984000998400998400

75∘13

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘12

9984000998400998400

75∘14

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

0 1 2 4Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 10

34∘49984000998400998400

34∘59984000998400998400

34∘69984000998400998400

34∘79984000998400998400

34∘89984000998400998400

34∘99984000998400998400

75∘99984000998400998400

0 1 205

Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 15

34∘19984000998400998400

34∘29984000998400998400

34∘39984000998400998400

0 045 09 18Kilometers

75∘14

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

Stream order map of subwatershed 16

34∘19984000998400998400

34∘29984000998400998400

34∘39984000998400998400

0 03 06 12Kilometers

75∘16

9984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

75∘18

9984000998400998400

Stream order map of subwatershed 13

34∘29984000998400998400

34∘39984000998400998400

34∘49984000998400998400

0 035 07 14

Kilometers

75∘13

9984000998400998400

75∘14

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

Stream order map of subwatershed 14

34∘39984000998400998400

34∘49984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

0 1025 05

Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 11

34∘49984000998400998400

34∘59984000998400998400

34∘69984000998400998400

34∘79984000998400998400

75∘12

9984000998400998400

75∘13

9984000998400998400

75∘14

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

0

12

345

04 08 16

Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 12

34∘39984000998400998400

34∘49984000998400998400

34∘59984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

75∘13

9984000998400998400

75∘14

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

0 035 07 14

Kilometers

Watershed boundaryStream order

12

345

Watershed boundaryStream order

N

S

EWN

S

EW

N

S

EW

N

S

EW

N

S

EW

N

S

EW

N

S

EW

N

S

EW

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

(b)

Figure 4 Continued

12 Geography Journal

Stream order map of subwatershed 17

34∘19984000998400998400

34∘29984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

75∘18

9984000998400998400

75∘19

9984000998400998400

0 02 04 08Kilometers

12

Watershed boundaryStream order

N

EW

S

West Lidder River

(c)

Figure 4 (a) Showing drainage maps of subwatersheds WS1ndashWS8 (b) Showing drainage maps of subwatersheds WS9ndashWS16 (c) Showingdrainage patterns of WS17 of West Lidder catchment

is most susceptible among all the subwatersheds of the studyarea

317 Shape Factor (Rs) The shape factor observed in thestudy area is minimum in case of WS3 (119877119904 = 046) andmaximum in case of WS16 (119877119904 = 079) as shown in Table 6This parameter is similar in interpretation to circularity ratioelongation ratio and form factor It gives an idea aboutthe circular character of the basin The greater the circularcharacter of the basin is the greater is the rapid response ofthe watershed after a storm event [60] Therefore in terms ofRs only WS3 has the longest basin lag time and WS16 theshortest

4 Conclusion

From the integrated analysis of the results on the mor-phometry of the 17 subwatersheds it is concluded that thewhole study area has uniform underlying lithology makingthe hydrological response in these subwatersheds a directfunction of the geomorphology the topography and theexisting vegetation conditions only The spatial variabilityof the morphometric parameters analyzed in this study isquite significant Since the hydrology of a watershed changessignificantly due to the spatial variations of the morpho-metric parameters the subwatersheds will therefore alsoexhibit differential hydrological behaviour Overall resultsindicated that comparatively WS16 WS13 WS12 and WS9shall contribute dominantly to the stream runoff in theWest Lidder catchment and on the contrary WS17 WS5and WS3 shall contribute the least due to the cumulativeand integrated effect of the morphometric parameters whosesignificance and influences on the hydrological behaviourhave been discussed in detail in the preceding sectionsBecause of the close relationship between the morphometricparameters and the mean annual flood it is concluded on

the basis of the range of the morphometric analysis thatWS16 WS13 WS12 and WS9 in that order are more proneto flooding compared to the other 13 subwatersheds of theWest Lidder catchment The hydrological behaviour of these17 subwatersheds shall have profound influences on the floodvulnerability and flood risk in the downstream portions ofthe Lidder River It is hoped that information and knowledgegenerated under this study shall guide the informed planningand decision-making for flood disaster risk reduction in theLidder watershed that forms an important tributary of theJhelum basin

Acknowledgments

This research work has been accomplished under a researchgrant provided by the Department of Science and Technol-ogy Government of India for the project titled ldquoIntegratedFlood vulnerability Assessment for Flood Risk Managementand Disaster Mitigationrdquo The authors express their gratitudeto the funding agency for the financial assistanceThe authorsalso express their sincere thanks to anonymous reviewerswhose valuable comments have improved the quality of thispaper

References

[1] C S Agarwal ldquoStudy of drainage pattern through aerial datain Naugarh area of Varanasi district UPrdquo Journal of the IndianSociety of Remote Sensing vol 26 no 4 pp 169ndash175 1998

[2] G E Obi Reddy A K Maji and K S Gajbhiye ldquoGIS formorphometric analysis of drainage basinsrdquo GIS India vol 11no 4 pp 9ndash14 2002

[3] V Pakhmode H Kulkarni and S B Deolankar ldquoHydrological-drainage analysis in watershed-programme planning a casefrom theDeccan basalt IndiardquoHydrogeology Journal vol 11 no5 pp 595ndash604 2003

Geography Journal 13

[4] L B Leopold and T Maddock ldquoThe hydraulic geometry ofstream channels and some physiographic implicationsrdquo USGSProfessional Paper vol 252 pp 1ndash57 1953

[5] A D Abrahams ldquoChannel networks a geomorphologicalperspectiverdquo Water Resources Research vol 20 no 2 pp 161ndash168 1984

[6] S Singh ldquoQuantitative geomorphology of the drainage basinrdquoin Readings on Remote Sensing Applications T S Chouhan andK N Joshi Eds Scientific Publishers Jodhpur India 1992

[7] R A Dar R Chandra and S A Romshoo ldquoMorphotectonicand lithostratigraphic analysis of intermontane Karewa basin ofKashmir Himalayas Indiardquo Journal ofMountain Science vol 10no 1 pp 731ndash741 2013

[8] S A Romshoo S A Bhat and I Rashid ldquoGeoinformatics forassessing the morphometric control on hydrological responseat watershed scale in the Upper Indus basinrdquo Journal of EarthSystem Science vol 121 no 3 pp 659ndash686 2012

[9] A N Strahler ldquoQuantitative geomorphology of drainage basinsand channel networksrdquo in Handbook of Applied Hydrology VT Chow Ed section 4ndash11 McGraw-Hill New York NY USA1964

[10] A Strahler ldquoQuantitative analysis of watershed geomorphol-ogyrdquoTransactions AmericanGeophysical Union vol 38 pp 913ndash920 1957

[11] J Krishnamurthy G Srinivas V Jayaraman and M G Chan-drasekhar ldquoInfluence of rock types and structures in thedevelopment of drainage networks in typical hardrock terrainrdquoITC Journal no 3-4 pp 252ndash259 1996

[12] A K Das and S Mukherjee ldquoDrainage morphometry usingsatellite data andGIS inRaigad districtMaharashtrardquo Journal ofthe Geological Society of India vol 65 no 5 pp 577ndash586 2005

[13] S S Vittala S Govindaih and H H Gowda ldquoMorphometricanalysis of sub-watershed in the Pavada area of Tumkur districtSouth India using remote sensing and GIS techniquesrdquo Journalof Indian Remote Sensing vol 32 pp 351ndash362 2004

[14] S K Nag ldquoMorphometric analysis using remote sensing tech-niques in the Chaka subbasin Purulia district West BengalrdquoJournal of Indian Society of Remote Sensing vol 26 no 1-2 pp69ndash76 1998

[15] AM Y Esper ldquoMorphometric analysis of Colanguil river basinand flash flood hazard San Juan Argentinardquo EnvironmentalGeology vol 55 pp 107ndash111 2008

[16] T N Bhagwat A Shetty and V S Hegde ldquoSpatial variationin drainage characteristics and geomorphic instantaneous unithydrograph (GIUH) implications for watershed management-A case study of the Varada River basin Northern KarnatakardquoCatena vol 87 no 1 pp 52ndash59 2011

[17] N R Bhaskar B P Parida and A K Nayak ldquoFlood estimationfor ungauged catchments using the GIUHrdquo Journal of WaterResources Planning and Management vol 123 no 4 pp 228ndash237 1997

[18] S K Jain R D Singh and S M Seth ldquoDesign flood estimationusing GIS supported GIUH approachrdquo Water Resources Man-agement vol 14 no 5 pp 369ndash376 2000

[19] M Suresh S Sudhakara K N Tiwari and V M ChowdaryldquoPrioritization of watersheds using morphometric parametersand assessment of surface water potential using remote sens-ingrdquo Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing vol 32 no3 2004

[20] S A Bhat and S A Romshoo ldquoDigital elevation model basedwatershed characteristics of upper watersheds of Jhelum basinrdquoJournal of Applied Hydrology vol 21 no 2 pp 23ndash34 2009

[21] J F OrsquoCallaghan and D M Mark ldquoThe extraction of drainagenetworks from digital elevation datardquo Computer Vision Graph-ics and Image Processing vol 28 pp 323ndash344 1984

[22] R E Horton ldquoErosional development of streams and theirdrainage basins hydrophysical approach to quantitative mor-phologyrdquoGeological Society of America Bulletin vol 56 pp 275ndash370 1945

[23] S A Schumms ldquoEvolution of drainage systems and slopes inBadlands at Perth Amboy New Jerseyrdquo Bulletin of the GeologicalSociety of America vol 67 pp 597ndash646 1956

[24] R E Horton ldquoDrainage basin characteristicsrdquo TransactionsAmerican Geophysical Union vol 13 pp 350ndash361 1932

[25] V C Miller ldquoA Quantitative geomorphic study of drainagebasin characteristics in the Clinch Mountain area Virginia andTennesseerdquo Tech Rep 3 NR 389-402 Columbia UniversityDepartment of Geology ONR New York NY USA 1953

[26] K Pareta andU Pareta ldquoQuantitativemorphometric analysis ofa watershed of Yamuna basin India using ASTER (DEM) dataand GISrdquo International Journal of Geomatics and Geosciencesvol 2 no 1 2011

[27] M Sameena J Krishnamurthy V Jayaraman andG RangannaldquoEvaluation of drainage networks developed in hard rockterrainrdquoGeocarto International vol 24 no 5 pp 397ndash420 2009

[28] A Faniran ldquoThe index of drainage intensitymdasha provisional newdrainage factorrdquo Australian Journal of Science vol 31 pp 328ndash330 1968

[29] I Rashid and S A Romshoo ldquoImpact of anthropogenic activ-ities on water quality of Lidder River in Kashmir HimalayasrdquoEnvironmental Monitoring and Assessment 2012

[30] M Raza A Ahmed and A Mohammad The Valley ofKashmirmdashA Geographical Interpretation Vol I the Land VikasPublishing New Delhi India 1978

[31] V M Meher ldquoThe climate of Srinagar and its variabilityrdquoGeographical Review of India vol 33 no 1 pp 1ndash14 1971

[32] BM Engelhardt P JWeisberg and J C Chambers ldquoInfluencesof watershed geomorphology on extent and composition ofriparian vegetationrdquo Journal of Vegetation Science vol 23 no1 pp 127ndash139 2011

[33] J E Costa ldquoHydraulics and basin morphometry of the largestflash floods in the conterminous United Statesrdquo Journal ofHydrology vol 93 no 3-4 pp 313ndash338 1987

[34] S Singh and M C Singh ldquoMorphometric analysis of Kanharriver basinrdquoThe National Geographical Journal of India vol 43no 1 pp 31ndash43 1997

[35] W Luo and J M Harlin ldquoA theoretical travel time basedon watershed hypsometryrdquo Journal of the American WaterResources Association vol 39 no 4 pp 785ndash792 2003

[36] J M Harlin ldquoThe effect of precipitation variability on drainagebasin morphometryrdquo American Journal of Science vol 280 no8 pp 812ndash825 1980

[37] J M Harlin ldquoWatershedmorphometry and time to hydrographpeakrdquo Journal of Hydrology vol 67 no 1-4 pp 141ndash154 1984

[38] S A Romshoo ldquoGeostatistical analysis of soil moisture mea-surements and remotely sensed data at different spatial scalesrdquoEnvironmental Geology vol 45 no 3 pp 339ndash349 2004

[39] S A Romshoo M Koike S Hironaka O Oki and K MusiakeldquoInfluence of surface and vegetation characteristics on C-bandradarmeasurements for soilmoisture contentrdquo Journal of IndianSociety of Remote Sensing vol 30 no 4 pp 229ndash244 2002

[40] D R Montgomery and W E Dietrich ldquoSource areas drainagedensity and channel initiationrdquo Water Resources Research vol25 no 8 pp 1907ndash1918 1989

14 Geography Journal

[41] D R Montgomery and W E Dietrich ldquoChannel initiation andthe problem of landscape scalerdquo Science vol 255 no 5046 pp826ndash830 1992

[42] EM Ghoneim NW Arnell andGM Foody ldquoCharacterizingthe flash flood hazards potential along the Red Sea coast ofEgyptrdquo IAHS-AISH Publication no 271 pp 211ndash216 2002

[43] M Diakakis ldquoA method for flood hazard mapping based onbasin morphometry application in two catchments in GreecerdquoNatural Hazards vol 56 no 3 pp 803ndash814 2011

[44] P C Patton and V R Baker ldquoMorphometry and floods in smalldrainage basins subject to diverse hydrogeomorphic controlsrdquoWater Resources Research vol 12 no 5 pp 941ndash952 1976

[45] A D Howard ldquoRole of hypsometry and planform in basinhydrologic responserdquo Hydrological Processes vol 4 no 4 pp373ndash385 1990

[46] K Rakesh A K Lohani K Sanjay C Chatterjee and R KNema ldquoGIS based morphometric analysis of Ajay river basinupto Srarath gauging site of South Biharrdquo Journal of AppliedHydrology vol 14 no 4 pp 45ndash54 2000

[47] B Dodov and E Foufoula-Georgiou ldquoFluvial processes andstreamflow variability interplay in the scale-frequency contin-uum and implications for scalingrdquo Water Resources Researchvol 41 no 5 pp 1ndash18 2005

[48] L C Gottschalk ldquoReservoir sedimentationrdquo in Handbook ofApplied Hydrology V T Chow Ed section 7-1 McGraw-HillNew York NY USA 1964

[49] B ADodov and E Foufoula-Georgiou ldquoFloodplainmorphom-etry extraction from a high-resolution digital elevationmodel asimple algorithm for regional analysis studiesrdquo IEEE Geoscienceand Remote Sensing Letters vol 3 no 3 pp 410ndash413 2006

[50] P C Patton ldquoDrainage basin morphometry and floodsrdquo inFlood Geomorphology pp 51ndash64 JohnWiley amp Sons NewYorkNY USA 1988

[51] V Gardiner and C C Park ldquoDrainage basin morphometryrdquoProgress in Physical Geography vol 2 no 1 pp 1ndash35 1978

[52] W B Langbein ldquoTopographic characteristics of drainagebasinsrdquoUS Geological SurveyWater-Supply Paper vol 986 pp157ndash159 1947

[53] W Luo ldquoQuantifying groundwater-sapping landforms witha hypsometric techniquerdquo Journal of Geophysical Research EPlanets vol 105 no 1 pp 1685ndash1694 2000

[54] J M Harlin and C Wijeyawickrema ldquoIrrigation and ground-water depletion in Caddo county Oklahomardquo Journal of theAmerican Water Resources Association vol 21 no 1 pp 15ndash221985

[55] K G Smith ldquoStandards for grading textures of erosionaltopographyrdquoAmerican Journal of Science vol 248 pp 655ndash6681950

[56] M Y Esper Angillieri ldquoMorphometric analysis of Colanguilriver basin and flash flood hazard San Juan ArgentinardquoEnvironmental Geology vol 55 no 1 pp 107ndash111 2008

[57] A M Youssef B Pradhan and A M Hassan ldquoFlash floodrisk estimation along the St Katherine road southern SinaiEgypt using GIS based morphometry and satellite imageryrdquoEnvironmental Earth Sciences vol 62 no 3 pp 611ndash623 2011

[58] A D Howard ldquoRole of hypsometry and planform in basinhydrologic responserdquo Hydrological Processes vol 4 no 4 pp373ndash385 1990

[59] R C Kochel ldquoGeomorphic impact of large floods reviewand new perspectives on magnitude and frequencyrdquo in FloodGeomorphology pp 169ndash187 JohnWiley amp Sons NewYork NYUSA 1988

[60] G E Tucker and R L Bras ldquoHillslope processes drainagedensity and landscape morphologyrdquoWater Resources Researchvol 34 no 10 pp 2751ndash2764 1998

[61] M Borga et al ldquoReal time guidance for flash flood riskmanagementrdquo FLOOD Site Research Project Report T16 2008

[62] K W Potter and E B Faulkner ldquoCatchment response time asa predictor of flood quantilesrdquo Journal of the American WaterResources Association vol 23 no 5 pp 857ndash861 1987

[63] R CWard andM Robinson Principles of Hydrology McGraw-Hill Maidenhead UK 4th edition 2000

[64] S Shulits ldquoQuantitative formulation of stream and watershedmorphologyrdquo Bulletin of the International Association of Scien-tific Hydrology vol 3 pp 201ndash207 1968

[65] A Demoulin ldquoBasin and river profile morphometry a newindex with a high potential for relative dating of tectonic upliftrdquoGeomorphology vol 126 no 1-2 pp 97ndash107 2011

[66] T B Altin and B N Altin ldquoDrainage morphometry and itsinfluence on landforms in volcanic terrain Central AnatoliaTurkeyrdquo ProcediamdashSocial and Behavioral Sciences vol 19 pp732ndash740 2011

[67] M Rashid M A Lone and S A Romshoo ldquoGeospatial toolsfor assessing land degradation in Budgam district KashmirHimalaya Indiardquo Journal of Earth System Science vol 120 no3 pp 423ndash433 2011

[68] S Zaz and S A Romshoo ldquoAssessing the geoindicators of landdegradation in the Kashmir Himalayan Region Indiardquo NaturalHazards vol 64 no 2 pp 1219ndash1245 2012

4 Geography Journal

velocity enhances the erosion rates therefore this side alsocontributes higher sediment loads into theWest Lidder RiverFurther the total number of stream segments decrease withstream order This is referred to as Hortonrsquos law of streamnumbers Any deviation indicates that the terrain is typifiedwith high relief andor moderately steep slopes underlain byvarying lithology and probable uplift across the basin [34] Inpractice when logarithms of the number of streams of a givenorder are plotted against the order the points lie on a straightline [22] Similar geometric relationship was also found tooperate between stream order and stream numbers in allsubwatersheds of this study area It indicates that the wholearea has uniform underlying lithology and geologically therehas been no probable uplift in the basin (Figure 2)

32 Stream Length (Lu)Mean Stream Length (Lsm) Analysisof the results shown in Tables 3 and 4 show that the totallength of stream segments is the maximum in case of firstorder streams It decreases as order increases in all thesubwatersheds (Tables 3 and 4 Figure 4)The results reaffirmthe fact that the area is underlain with uniform lithology withno probable basin upliftment The observation demonstratesthat the area depends only on the drainage characteristics formovement of water Further since there are more numberof watersheds in the West side of the river and the totalstream length of all the orders from this side is greater thanthe East side therefore the longer travel times [35] makesthis side hydrologically very active From this observation itis concluded that during a same intensity storm event overwhole of the East or West side of the river [36] the East sidewill show short basin lag times [37] compared to West sideunder similar soil moisture [38 39] and vegetation cover [39]Moreover Table 4 indicates that Lsm in these subwatershedsrange from a minimum of 021 km for stream order 2 of WS5to a maximum of 669 km for the order 3 of WS13 Accordingto theHortonrsquos lawof stream lengthsLsm of any given order isgreater than that of lower order This geometric relationshipcan be seen in Figure 3 A comparative analysis of Lsm andstream length ratio RL of all the subwatersheds is shown inTable 4

33 Stream FrequencyChannel Frequency (Fs) Stream fre-quency (Fs) is the total number of streams of all orders perunit area The analysis of the results shown in Table 5 showsthat Fs is maximum in subwatershed WS12 (819km2) fol-lowed byWS8 (798km2) WS9 (782km2) WS13 (705km2)WS7 (704km2) WS5 (702km2) WS10 (670km2) WS6(652km2) WS16 (615km2) WS1 (593km2) WS4 (578km2) WS15 (564km2) WS3 (563km2) WS2 (515km2)WS11 (452km2) WS14 (412km2) and WS17 (347km2) Fshas been related to permeability infiltration capacity andrelief of watersheds [40 41] The values observed in WestLidder indicate thatW12 is having rocky terrain and very lowinfiltration capacity out of all the 17 subwatersheds Furtherit is noted that Fs decreases as the stream number increasesFs of WS17 reveals that this subwatershed is comparablycovered with good amount of vegetation and has very goodinfiltration capacity Overall the results of Fs reflect early

1 2 3 4 50

05

1

15

2

25

3

WS1WS2WS3WS4WS5WS6WS7WS8WS9

WS10WS11WS12WS13WS14WS15WS16WS17

Stream order

Stre

am n

umbe

r (lo

g 10)

Figure 2 Showing relation between stream order and number ofstreams for 17 subwatersheds

peak discharge for subwatersheds in order of their decreasingFs resulting in flash floods while the discharge from WS17takes longer time to peak because of low runoff rates due tolesser number of streams [42ndash44]

34 Bifurcation Ratio (Rb)Mean Bifurcation Ratio (Rbm)Analysis of the results shown in Table 5 shows that meanbifurcation ratio (Rbm) of the 17 subwatersheds is 36 37 441 27 48 47 45 64 53 36 102 91 46 42 44 and 30forWS1 toWS17 respectively Rbm does not precisely remainconstant from one order to the next because of possibility ofvariations inwatershed geometry and lithology but it tends tobe a constant throughout the series High Rbm indicates earlyhydrograph peak with a potential for flash flooding duringthe storm events [45 46] Moreover wherever in a basinpowerful geological control dominates Rbm shows only asmall variation for different regions on different environment[10] Higher Rbm values are the characteristics of structurallymore disturbed watersheds with a prominent distortion indrainage pattern and vice versa [14] Maximum Rbm isseen for WS12 (Rbm = 102) and thus it will show earlyhydrographpeak (smaller basin lag time)which also indicatesstrong structural control on the drainage development forthis watershed The minimum Rbm is observed for WS5(119877119887119898 = 279) indicating delayed hydrograph peak

35 Relief Ratio (Rh) Quantitatively it is the measurementof the overall steepness of a drainage basin Also it is anindicator of the intensity of erosion processes operating onthe basin slopes [47] Rh normally increases with decreasingdrainage area and size of a given drainage basin [48] In

Geography Journal 5

Table 1 Methodology adopted for computation of morphometric parameters

S No Morphometric parameters Formulae Reference1 Stream Order (119880) Hierarchical rank (Strahler Scheme) [9]

2 Stream Length (119871119906) Length of the stream [22]

3 Mean Stream Length (119871119904119898) 119871119904119898 = 119871119906119873119906 Where 119871119904119898 = mean stream length 119871119906 = Total stream length oforder ldquo119906rdquo119873119906 = Total no of stream segments of order ldquo119906rdquo [9]

4 Stream Length Ratio (119877119871) 119877119871 = 119871119906119871119906 minus 1 Where 119877119871 = Stream length ratio 119871119906 =The total stream length oforder ldquo119906rdquo 119871119906 minus 1 =The total stream length of its next lower order [22]

5 Bifurcation Ratio (119877119887) 119877119887 = 119873119906119873119906 + 1 Where 119877119887 = Bifucation ratio119873119906 = Total no of stream segmentsof order ldquo119906rdquo119873119906 + 1 = Number of segments of the next higher order [23]

6 Mean Bifurcation Ratio (119877119887119898) 119877119887119898 = Average of bifurcation ratios of all orders [10]

7 Relief Ratio (119877ℎ) 119877ℎ = 119867119871 Where 119877ℎ = Relief ratio H = Total relief (Relative relief) of the basin inKilometre 119871119887 = Basin length [23]

8 Drainage Density (119863) 119863 = 119871119906119860 Where119863 = Drainage density 119871119906 = Total stream length of all orders A =Area of the basin (km2) [24]

9 Stream Frequency (119865119904) 119865119904 = 119873119906119860 Where 119865119904 = Stream frequency119873119906 = Total no of streams of all orders119860 = Area of the basin (km2) [24]

10 Drainage Texture (119877119905) 119877119905 = 119873119906119875 Where 119877119905 = Drainage texture119873119906 = Total no of streams of all orders119875 = Perimeter (km) [22]

11 Form Factor (119877119891) 119877119891 = 1198601198711198872 Where 119877119891 = Form factor 119860 = Area of the basin (km2) 1198711198872 = Square

of basin length [24]

12 Circularity Ratio (119877119888) 119877119888 = 4 lowast120587 lowast 1198601199012Where 119877119890 = Circularity ratio 120587 = ldquo119875119894rdquo value that is 314 A = Areaof the basin (km2) P = Perimeter (km) [25]

13 Elongation Ratio (119877119890) 119877119890 = (2119871119887)lowast

119904119902119903119905 (119860120587) Where Re = Elongation ratio 119860 = Area of the basin (km2)120587 = ldquo119875119894rdquo value that is 314 119871119887 = Basin length [23]

14 Length of overland flow (119871119892) 119871119892 = 1D lowast 2 Where 119871119892 = Length of overland flow D = Drainage density [22]

15 Constant ChannelMaintenance (119862) 119862 = 1119863 Where D = Drainage density [23]

16 Texture Ratio (119879) 119879 = 1198731119875 WhereN1 = Total number of streams in 1st order P = Perimeter of basin [23]

17 Shape index (119878119908) 119878119908 = 1198711198872

119860 Where 119871119887 = Basin length A = Area of basin [22]

18 Ruggedness number (119877119899) 119877119899 = 119861ℎ lowast 119863 Where 119861ℎ = Basin relief D = Drainage density [26]

19 Shape Factor (119877119904) 119877119904 = 119875119906119875119888 Where 119875119906 = Perimeter of circle of watershed area 119875119888 = Perimeter ofwatershed [27]

20 Drainage Intensity (119863119894) 119863119894 = 119865119904119863119889 Where 119865119904 = Stream frequency119863119889 = Drainage density [28]

21 Compactness coefficient (119862119888) 119862119888 = 119875119888119875119906 Where 119875119888 = Perimeter of watershed 119875119906 = Perimeter of circle ofwatershed area [19]

the present study as depicted in Table 7 Rh ranges from aminimum of 014 in WS9 to a maximum of 061 in WS17Higher values of Rh indicate that intense erosion processesare taking place This indicates that WS17 is more susceptibleto erosion and WS9 is the least among all the subwatershedsof the study area if this parameter alone is considered forerosion intensity analysis

36 Drainage Density (D) Factors which affect 119863 are char-acteristically same as those affecting length of the stream

namely resistance to weathering permeability of rock for-mation climate vegetation and so forth The travel timeby water within the basin is controlled by D [49ndash51] Inhumid regions it varies between 055 and 209 kmkm2 [52]Generally D has a low value in regions underlain withhighly resistant permeable material with vegetative coverand low relief High drainage density is observed in theregions of weak and impermeable subsurface material andsparse vegetation and mountainous relief Perusal of the 119863values from Table 5 indicates that WS17 WS14 and WS11have low 119863 values (below 20 kmkm2) while WS1 WS15

6 Geography Journal

Table 2 Some important basin characteristics

SubwatershedsMinimumelevation(km)

Maximumelevation(km)

Relative relief Perimeter (km) Basin area (km2) Basin length (km) Longest flow path (km)

WS1 210 357 147 1830 1045 352 403WS2 225 356 132 1584 1088 529 679WS3 225 356 132 1584 1088 1429 1768WS4 250 442 193 1771 1194 336 434WS5 283 426 143 952 428 295 340WS6 292 489 197 2154 1978 633 706WS7 305 529 224 3310 4817 1209 1495WS8 304 475 171 3055 3758 887 1074WS9 253 462 210 5404 8815 1471 1677WS10 249 437 188 3000 4176 1109 1298WS11 241 423 182 1709 1172 633 814WS12 230 429 199 1667 952 609 688WS13 226 437 211 1792 1050 406 782WS14 225 403 178 1161 655 790 962WS15 223 427 204 2109 1560 435 551WS16 216 420 204 1298 830 217 234WS17 208 340 131 990 461 217 234

Table 3 Showing stream order stream number and stream lengths of subwatersheds

Subwatershed Stream order Stream number Stream length (km)I II III IV V I II III IV V

WS1 4 46 12 3 1 mdash 1363 350 405 084 mdashWS2 4 44 9 2 1 mdash 1363 381 701 194 mdashWS3 5 253 71 14 3 1 8260 1939 2044 1749 279WS4 4 53 13 2 1 mdash 1811 554 425 015 mdashWS5 4 19 8 2 1 mdash 643 171 160 086 mdashWS6 4 86 35 7 1 mdash 2861 1282 536 534 mdashWS7 5 218 106 12 2 1 8313 3462 1993 301 176WS8 5 195 92 10 2 1 6174 2506 1473 882 176WS9 5 437 225 21 5 1 13217 6602 2608 1257 776WS10 5 171 99 7 2 1 5562 2689 631 1193 331WS11 4 40 10 2 1 mdash 1178 315 260 422 mdashWS12 3 60 17 1 mdash mdash 1797 447 561 mdash mdashWS13 3 59 14 1 mdash mdash 2026 466 670 mdash mdashWS14 3 20 6 1 mdash mdash 834 245 072 mdash mdashWS15 4 67 17 3 1 mdash 2084 537 210 621 mdashWS16 3 39 10 2 mdash mdash 1227 232 462 mdash mdashWS17 2 12 4 mdash mdash mdash 339 205 mdash mdash mdash

WS16 WS4 WS3 WS2 WS5 and WS10 have moderate 119863values (20ndash25 kmkm2) Subwatersheds WS6 WS9 WS12WS7 WS8 and WS13 have high 119863 values (between 25 and30 kmkm2) The low and moderate 119863 watersheds revealthat they are composed of permeable subsurface materialgood vegetation cover and low relief which results in moreinfiltration capacity and comparably are good sites for groundwater recharge as compared to high 119863 watersheds [53 54]

On the basis of D WS17 will have the greatest basin lag timewhile WS13 will demonstrate the shortest lag time

37 Drainage Texture (Rt) Drainage texture (Rt) is influ-enced by infiltration capacity [22] There are five differenttexture classes very coarse (lt2) coarse (2ndash4) moderate(4ndash6) fine (6ndash8) and very fine (gt8) [55] According to this

Geography Journal 7

Table 4 Showing comparative mean stream length and stream length ratios

Subwatershed Mean stream length (km) Stream length ratioI II III IV V III IIIII IVIII VIV

WS1 029 029 135 084 mdash 025 115 020 mdashWS2 030 042 350 194 mdash 027 184 027 mdashWS3 032 027 146 583 279 023 105 085 015WS4 034 042 212 015 mdash 030 076 003 mdashWS5 033 021 079 086 mdash 026 093 053 mdashWS6 033 036 076 534 mdash 044 041 099 mdashWS7 038 032 166 150 176 041 057 015 058WS8 031 027 147 441 176 040 058 059 019WS9 030 029 124 251 776 049 039 048 061WS10 032 027 090 596 331 048 023 189 027WS11 029 031 130 422 mdash 026 082 162 mdashWS12 029 026 561 mdash mdash 024 125 mdash mdashWS13 034 033 669 mdash mdash 023 143 mdash mdashWS14 041 040 071 mdash mdash 029 029 mdash mdashWS15 031 031 069 620 mdash 025 039 296 mdashWS16 031 023 231 mdash mdash 018 199 mdash mdashWS17 028 051 mdash mdash mdash 060 mdash mdash mdash

Table 5 Showing bifurcation ratios drainage density and stream frequency of the subwatersheds

Subwatershed Bifurcation ratio Mean bifurcation ratio Drainage density Stream frequency Drainage intensityIII IIIII IIIIV IVV

WS1 383 400 300 mdash 361 211 593 282WS2 489 450 200 mdash 380 243 515 212WS3 356 507 467 300 408 236 563 239WS4 408 650 200 mdash 419 235 578 246WS5 238 400 200 mdash 279 248 702 283WS6 246 500 700 mdash 482 264 652 247WS7 206 883 600 200 472 296 704 238WS8 212 920 500 200 458 298 798 268WS9 194 1071 420 500 562 269 782 291WS10 173 1414 350 200 534 249 670 269WS11 400 500 200 mdash 367 186 452 244WS12 353 1700 mdash mdash 1026 295 819 278WS13 421 1400 mdash mdash 911 301 705 234WS14 333 600 mdash mdash 467 176 412 235WS15 394 567 300 mdash 420 221 564 255WS16 390 500 mdash mdash 445 232 615 265WS17 300 mdash mdash mdash 300 118 347 294

classification WS17 has very coarse drainage texture WS1WS2 WS4 WS5 WS11 WS14 and WS16 have coarse RtWS3 WS6 WS12 WS13 and WS15 have moderate Rt andWS7 WS8 WS9 and WS10 have very fine Rt (Table 6)Hydrologically very coarse texture watersheds have largebasin lag time periods [56] followed by coarse fine and veryfine texture classesThis indicates thatWS17 (Rt = 162) showslonger duration to peak flow while WS9 (Rt = 1275) showsthe shortest

38 Form Factor (Rf) The basins with high form factorshave high peak flows of shorter duration whereas elongatedsubwatersheds with low form factors have lower peak flowof longer duration [57ndash59] In this study WS2 WS3 WS7WS10 WS11 WS13 WS14 and WS15 show lower formfactor (Table 7) indicating elongated shape and suggestingflat hydrograph peak for longer duration Flood flows ofsuch elongated basins are easier to manage than those of thecircular basin WS5 WS6 WS8 WS9 WS12 and WS16 have

8 Geography Journal

Table 6 Showing drainage texture constant channel maintenance shape index ruggedness number and shape factor

Subwatershed Drainage texture Constant channelmaintenance

Compactnesscoefficient

Shape index Ruggedness number Shape factor

WS1 339 047 160 119 070 063WS2 354 041 136 257 054 074WS3 563 042 220 337 119 046WS4 390 043 145 094 082 069WS5 315 040 130 203 058 077WS6 599 038 137 203 075 073WS7 1024 034 135 303 076 074WS8 982 034 141 209 057 071WS9 1275 037 162 246 078 062WS10 933 040 131 295 075 076WS11 310 054 141 342 098 071WS12 468 034 152 390 067 066WS13 413 033 156 402 070 064WS14 233 057 128 252 101 078WS15 417 045 151 400 092 066WS16 393 043 127 228 088 079WS17 162 085 130 102 111 077

Table 7 Showing important morphometric parameters of the subwatersheds

Subwatershed Relief ratio Elongation ratio Texture ratio Circularity ratio Form factor Length of overland flowWS1 042 104 251 039 084 023WS2 025 070 278 054 039 017WS3 020 061 418 021 030 018WS4 057 116 299 048 106 018WS5 049 079 200 059 049 016WS6 031 079 399 054 049 014WS7 019 065 659 055 033 011WS8 019 078 638 051 048 011WS9 014 072 809 038 041 014WS10 017 066 570 058 034 016WS11 029 061 234 050 029 029WS12 033 057 360 043 026 012WS13 032 056 329 041 025 011WS14 044 071 172 061 040 032WS15 026 056 318 044 025 020WS16 047 075 301 062 044 019WS17 061 112 121 059 098 072

slightly circular shape as suggested by moderately higher RfSubwatershedsWS1 WS4 andWS17 have high Rf indicatingthat they have developed into quite circular to rectangularshape Watershed morphology has profound impacts on thewatershed hydrology [60]

39 Elongation Ratio (Re) The value of elongation ratio(Re) generally varies from 06 to 10 associated with a wide

variety of climate and geology Values close to 10 are typicalof regions of very low relief whereas that from 06 to 08are associated with high relief and steep ground slope [7]These values can be grouped into three categories namelycircular (gt09) oval (09ndash07) and less elongated (lt07) Refor the subwatersheds WS13 WS15 WS12 WS3 WS11 WS7andWS10 is less than 070which indicates that subwatershedsare elongated with high relief and steep slope WS2 WS14WS9 WS16 WS8 WS5 and WS6 sub-watersheds fall in oval

Geography Journal 9

1 2 3 4 50

05

1

15

2

25

3

WS1WS2WS3WS4WS5WS6WS7WS8WS9

WS10WS11WS12WS13WS14WS15WS16WS17

Stream order

Stre

am le

ngth

(log10)

Figure 3 Showing relation between stream order and length ofstreams for 17 subwatersheds

category while subwatersheds WS1 WS17 and WS4 fall inthe circular category (Table 7) The circular watersheds havequick though lower hydrograph peak compared to the ovaland elongated watersheds [61 62] This indicates that WS13will show delayed time to peak flow while WS4 will showshorter time to peak

310 Circulatory Ratio (Rc) It is that ratio of the area of thebasin to the area of circle having the same circumference asthe perimeter of the basin [25] Many of the important basincharacteristics influence Rc such as length and frequency ofstreams geological structures land useland cover climaterelief and slope of the basin In the present case Rc forsubwatersheds WS8 WS2 WS6 WS7 WS10 WS5 WS17WS14 and WS16 is in the range from 053 to 062 indicatingthat the area is characterized by high relief elongated andpermeable surface resulting in greater basin lag times whileWS3 WS9 WS1 WS13 WS12 WS15 WS4 and WS11 havelower circularity ratios indicating low relief and impermeablesurface resulting in lower basin lag times (Table 7) Thisindicates that WS16 will show delayed time to peak flowwhile WS3 will show shorter time to peak Rf Re andRc significantly influence the hydrological response of thewatersheds as basin shape and the arrangement of streamsegments combine to influence the size and shape of floodpeaks [63]

311 Length of Overland Flow (Lg) Length of overland flowis one of the most important independent variables affectingboth hydrologic and hydrographic development of drainagebasins [24] Table 7 reveals that Lg for the 17 subwatersheds in

chronological order is 022 016 018 018 016 014 011 011076 016 029 011 011 032 02 018 and 071 respectivelyThe Lg for subwatershedsWS2-WS10WS12WS13 andWS16indicates steep slopes and shorter flow paths while as Lg forWS1 WS11 WS14 WS15 and WS17 indicates gentle slopesand longer flow paths

312 Constant of Channel Maintenance (C) In the presentstudy C varies from 033 forW8 andW9 to 084 forW17 as isshown in Table 6 The reciprocal of the drainage density (D)is constant of channel maintenance and signifies how muchdrainage area is required tomaintain a unit length of channelLow values of 119862 in case of WS8 and WS9 indicates thatamong all the 17 subwatersheds these two are associated withweakest or very low-resistance soils sparse vegetation andmountainous terrain while the watershedWS17 is associatedwith resistance soils vegetation and comparably plain terrain[64]

313 Compactness Coefficient (Cc) Compactness coefficientexpresses the relationship of a basin with that of a circularbasin having the same area A circular basin yields theshortest time of concentration before peak flow occurs in thebasin 119862119888 = 1 indicates that the basin completely behaves asa circular basin 119862119888 gt 1 indicates more deviation from thecircular nature of the basin The values for all the subwater-sheds range from 127 for WS16 to 220 for WS3 as seen inTable 6 Consequently WS16 has the greatest deviation fromthe circular nature and on the basis of this parameter aloneit will have the longest time of concentration before peak flowoccurs in the basin out of all the subwatersheds [60ndash62]

314 Shape Index (Sw) Rate of water and sediment yieldalong the length and relief of the drainage basin is largelyaffected by the shape The shape index values for subwater-sheds of the study area range from 094 in WS4 to 402 inWS13 as shown in Table 6 In terms of Sw onlyWS13 will havethe shorter basin lag time while WS4 will have the longerbasin lag time

315 Texture Ratio (T) Texture ratio is one of the mostimportant factors in the drainage morphometric analysiswhich depends on the underlying lithology infiltration capac-ity and relief aspect of the terrain is the texture ratio [65 66]As shown in Table 7 T varies between 121 in case of WS17and 809 in case of WS9 Hydrologically it can be said thatWS17 in terms of 119879alone will have the longest basin lag timesandWS9 will have the shortest This reaffirms the results andconclusions drawn from the values ofUD Fs and Rt in caseof W17

316 Ruggedness Number (Rn) The ruggedness number indi-cates the structural complexity of the terrain in associationwith the relief and drainage density It also implies that thearea is susceptible to soil erosion [67 68] In present study theruggedness number is minimum in case of WS2 (119877119899 = 054)and maximum in WS3 (119877119899 = 119) as seen in Table 6 Thisindicates that WS2 is least susceptible to erosion and WS3

10 Geography Journal

Stream order map of subwatershed 8

34∘11

9984000998400998400

34∘12

9984000998400998400

34∘13

9984000998400998400

34∘14

9984000998400998400

34∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘12

9984000998400998400

75∘14

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

0 05 1 2Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 1

34∘49984000998400998400

34∘39984000998400998400

34∘29984000998400998400

34∘19984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

75∘18

9984000998400998400

75∘19

9984000998400998400

75∘20

9984000998400998400

75∘21

9984000998400998400

0 045 09 18

Kilometers

N

EW

S

Stream order map of subwatershed 2

34∘59984000998400998400

34∘49984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

75∘18

9984000998400998400

75∘19

9984000998400998400

0 035 07 14

Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 3

34∘49984000998400998400

34∘59984000998400998400

34∘69984000998400998400

34∘79984000998400998400

34∘89984000998400998400

34∘99984000998400998400

34∘10

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

75∘19

9984000998400998400

75∘21

9984000998400998400

0 05 1 2

Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 4

34∘79984000998400998400

34∘89984000998400998400

34∘99984000998400998400

34∘10

9984000998400998400

75∘14

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

0 045 09 18

Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 5

34∘99984000998400998400

34∘10

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

0 025 05 1Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 6

34∘89984000998400998400

34∘99984000998400998400

34∘10

9984000998400998400

34∘11

9984000998400998400

34∘12

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

75∘18

9984000998400998400

75∘19

9984000998400998400

0 05 1 2Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 7

34∘99984000998400998400

34∘10

9984000998400998400

34∘11

9984000998400998400

34∘12

9984000998400998400

34∘13

9984000998400998400

34∘14

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

75∘18

9984000998400998400

75∘20

9984000998400998400

75∘22

9984000998400998400

0 05 1 2Kilometers

12

345

Watershed boundaryStream order

12

345

Watershed boundaryStream order

N

EW

S

N

EW

S

N

EW

S

N

EW

S

N

EW

S

N

EW

S

N

EW

S

West Lidder River West Lidder River

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

Wes

t Lid

der R

iver

Wes

t Lid

der R

iver

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

(a)

Figure 4 Continued

Geography Journal 11

Stream order map of subwatershed 9

34∘59984000998400998400

34∘69984000998400998400

34∘79984000998400998400

34∘89984000998400998400

34∘99984000998400998400

34∘10

9984000998400998400

34∘11

9984000998400998400

34∘12

9984000998400998400

75∘69984000998400998400

75∘89984000998400998400

75∘10

9984000998400998400

75∘11

9984000998400998400

75∘13

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘12

9984000998400998400

75∘14

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

0 1 2 4Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 10

34∘49984000998400998400

34∘59984000998400998400

34∘69984000998400998400

34∘79984000998400998400

34∘89984000998400998400

34∘99984000998400998400

75∘99984000998400998400

0 1 205

Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 15

34∘19984000998400998400

34∘29984000998400998400

34∘39984000998400998400

0 045 09 18Kilometers

75∘14

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

Stream order map of subwatershed 16

34∘19984000998400998400

34∘29984000998400998400

34∘39984000998400998400

0 03 06 12Kilometers

75∘16

9984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

75∘18

9984000998400998400

Stream order map of subwatershed 13

34∘29984000998400998400

34∘39984000998400998400

34∘49984000998400998400

0 035 07 14

Kilometers

75∘13

9984000998400998400

75∘14

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

Stream order map of subwatershed 14

34∘39984000998400998400

34∘49984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

0 1025 05

Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 11

34∘49984000998400998400

34∘59984000998400998400

34∘69984000998400998400

34∘79984000998400998400

75∘12

9984000998400998400

75∘13

9984000998400998400

75∘14

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

0

12

345

04 08 16

Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 12

34∘39984000998400998400

34∘49984000998400998400

34∘59984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

75∘13

9984000998400998400

75∘14

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

0 035 07 14

Kilometers

Watershed boundaryStream order

12

345

Watershed boundaryStream order

N

S

EWN

S

EW

N

S

EW

N

S

EW

N

S

EW

N

S

EW

N

S

EW

N

S

EW

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

(b)

Figure 4 Continued

12 Geography Journal

Stream order map of subwatershed 17

34∘19984000998400998400

34∘29984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

75∘18

9984000998400998400

75∘19

9984000998400998400

0 02 04 08Kilometers

12

Watershed boundaryStream order

N

EW

S

West Lidder River

(c)

Figure 4 (a) Showing drainage maps of subwatersheds WS1ndashWS8 (b) Showing drainage maps of subwatersheds WS9ndashWS16 (c) Showingdrainage patterns of WS17 of West Lidder catchment

is most susceptible among all the subwatersheds of the studyarea

317 Shape Factor (Rs) The shape factor observed in thestudy area is minimum in case of WS3 (119877119904 = 046) andmaximum in case of WS16 (119877119904 = 079) as shown in Table 6This parameter is similar in interpretation to circularity ratioelongation ratio and form factor It gives an idea aboutthe circular character of the basin The greater the circularcharacter of the basin is the greater is the rapid response ofthe watershed after a storm event [60] Therefore in terms ofRs only WS3 has the longest basin lag time and WS16 theshortest

4 Conclusion

From the integrated analysis of the results on the mor-phometry of the 17 subwatersheds it is concluded that thewhole study area has uniform underlying lithology makingthe hydrological response in these subwatersheds a directfunction of the geomorphology the topography and theexisting vegetation conditions only The spatial variabilityof the morphometric parameters analyzed in this study isquite significant Since the hydrology of a watershed changessignificantly due to the spatial variations of the morpho-metric parameters the subwatersheds will therefore alsoexhibit differential hydrological behaviour Overall resultsindicated that comparatively WS16 WS13 WS12 and WS9shall contribute dominantly to the stream runoff in theWest Lidder catchment and on the contrary WS17 WS5and WS3 shall contribute the least due to the cumulativeand integrated effect of the morphometric parameters whosesignificance and influences on the hydrological behaviourhave been discussed in detail in the preceding sectionsBecause of the close relationship between the morphometricparameters and the mean annual flood it is concluded on

the basis of the range of the morphometric analysis thatWS16 WS13 WS12 and WS9 in that order are more proneto flooding compared to the other 13 subwatersheds of theWest Lidder catchment The hydrological behaviour of these17 subwatersheds shall have profound influences on the floodvulnerability and flood risk in the downstream portions ofthe Lidder River It is hoped that information and knowledgegenerated under this study shall guide the informed planningand decision-making for flood disaster risk reduction in theLidder watershed that forms an important tributary of theJhelum basin

Acknowledgments

This research work has been accomplished under a researchgrant provided by the Department of Science and Technol-ogy Government of India for the project titled ldquoIntegratedFlood vulnerability Assessment for Flood Risk Managementand Disaster Mitigationrdquo The authors express their gratitudeto the funding agency for the financial assistanceThe authorsalso express their sincere thanks to anonymous reviewerswhose valuable comments have improved the quality of thispaper

References

[1] C S Agarwal ldquoStudy of drainage pattern through aerial datain Naugarh area of Varanasi district UPrdquo Journal of the IndianSociety of Remote Sensing vol 26 no 4 pp 169ndash175 1998

[2] G E Obi Reddy A K Maji and K S Gajbhiye ldquoGIS formorphometric analysis of drainage basinsrdquo GIS India vol 11no 4 pp 9ndash14 2002

[3] V Pakhmode H Kulkarni and S B Deolankar ldquoHydrological-drainage analysis in watershed-programme planning a casefrom theDeccan basalt IndiardquoHydrogeology Journal vol 11 no5 pp 595ndash604 2003

Geography Journal 13

[4] L B Leopold and T Maddock ldquoThe hydraulic geometry ofstream channels and some physiographic implicationsrdquo USGSProfessional Paper vol 252 pp 1ndash57 1953

[5] A D Abrahams ldquoChannel networks a geomorphologicalperspectiverdquo Water Resources Research vol 20 no 2 pp 161ndash168 1984

[6] S Singh ldquoQuantitative geomorphology of the drainage basinrdquoin Readings on Remote Sensing Applications T S Chouhan andK N Joshi Eds Scientific Publishers Jodhpur India 1992

[7] R A Dar R Chandra and S A Romshoo ldquoMorphotectonicand lithostratigraphic analysis of intermontane Karewa basin ofKashmir Himalayas Indiardquo Journal ofMountain Science vol 10no 1 pp 731ndash741 2013

[8] S A Romshoo S A Bhat and I Rashid ldquoGeoinformatics forassessing the morphometric control on hydrological responseat watershed scale in the Upper Indus basinrdquo Journal of EarthSystem Science vol 121 no 3 pp 659ndash686 2012

[9] A N Strahler ldquoQuantitative geomorphology of drainage basinsand channel networksrdquo in Handbook of Applied Hydrology VT Chow Ed section 4ndash11 McGraw-Hill New York NY USA1964

[10] A Strahler ldquoQuantitative analysis of watershed geomorphol-ogyrdquoTransactions AmericanGeophysical Union vol 38 pp 913ndash920 1957

[11] J Krishnamurthy G Srinivas V Jayaraman and M G Chan-drasekhar ldquoInfluence of rock types and structures in thedevelopment of drainage networks in typical hardrock terrainrdquoITC Journal no 3-4 pp 252ndash259 1996

[12] A K Das and S Mukherjee ldquoDrainage morphometry usingsatellite data andGIS inRaigad districtMaharashtrardquo Journal ofthe Geological Society of India vol 65 no 5 pp 577ndash586 2005

[13] S S Vittala S Govindaih and H H Gowda ldquoMorphometricanalysis of sub-watershed in the Pavada area of Tumkur districtSouth India using remote sensing and GIS techniquesrdquo Journalof Indian Remote Sensing vol 32 pp 351ndash362 2004

[14] S K Nag ldquoMorphometric analysis using remote sensing tech-niques in the Chaka subbasin Purulia district West BengalrdquoJournal of Indian Society of Remote Sensing vol 26 no 1-2 pp69ndash76 1998

[15] AM Y Esper ldquoMorphometric analysis of Colanguil river basinand flash flood hazard San Juan Argentinardquo EnvironmentalGeology vol 55 pp 107ndash111 2008

[16] T N Bhagwat A Shetty and V S Hegde ldquoSpatial variationin drainage characteristics and geomorphic instantaneous unithydrograph (GIUH) implications for watershed management-A case study of the Varada River basin Northern KarnatakardquoCatena vol 87 no 1 pp 52ndash59 2011

[17] N R Bhaskar B P Parida and A K Nayak ldquoFlood estimationfor ungauged catchments using the GIUHrdquo Journal of WaterResources Planning and Management vol 123 no 4 pp 228ndash237 1997

[18] S K Jain R D Singh and S M Seth ldquoDesign flood estimationusing GIS supported GIUH approachrdquo Water Resources Man-agement vol 14 no 5 pp 369ndash376 2000

[19] M Suresh S Sudhakara K N Tiwari and V M ChowdaryldquoPrioritization of watersheds using morphometric parametersand assessment of surface water potential using remote sens-ingrdquo Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing vol 32 no3 2004

[20] S A Bhat and S A Romshoo ldquoDigital elevation model basedwatershed characteristics of upper watersheds of Jhelum basinrdquoJournal of Applied Hydrology vol 21 no 2 pp 23ndash34 2009

[21] J F OrsquoCallaghan and D M Mark ldquoThe extraction of drainagenetworks from digital elevation datardquo Computer Vision Graph-ics and Image Processing vol 28 pp 323ndash344 1984

[22] R E Horton ldquoErosional development of streams and theirdrainage basins hydrophysical approach to quantitative mor-phologyrdquoGeological Society of America Bulletin vol 56 pp 275ndash370 1945

[23] S A Schumms ldquoEvolution of drainage systems and slopes inBadlands at Perth Amboy New Jerseyrdquo Bulletin of the GeologicalSociety of America vol 67 pp 597ndash646 1956

[24] R E Horton ldquoDrainage basin characteristicsrdquo TransactionsAmerican Geophysical Union vol 13 pp 350ndash361 1932

[25] V C Miller ldquoA Quantitative geomorphic study of drainagebasin characteristics in the Clinch Mountain area Virginia andTennesseerdquo Tech Rep 3 NR 389-402 Columbia UniversityDepartment of Geology ONR New York NY USA 1953

[26] K Pareta andU Pareta ldquoQuantitativemorphometric analysis ofa watershed of Yamuna basin India using ASTER (DEM) dataand GISrdquo International Journal of Geomatics and Geosciencesvol 2 no 1 2011

[27] M Sameena J Krishnamurthy V Jayaraman andG RangannaldquoEvaluation of drainage networks developed in hard rockterrainrdquoGeocarto International vol 24 no 5 pp 397ndash420 2009

[28] A Faniran ldquoThe index of drainage intensitymdasha provisional newdrainage factorrdquo Australian Journal of Science vol 31 pp 328ndash330 1968

[29] I Rashid and S A Romshoo ldquoImpact of anthropogenic activ-ities on water quality of Lidder River in Kashmir HimalayasrdquoEnvironmental Monitoring and Assessment 2012

[30] M Raza A Ahmed and A Mohammad The Valley ofKashmirmdashA Geographical Interpretation Vol I the Land VikasPublishing New Delhi India 1978

[31] V M Meher ldquoThe climate of Srinagar and its variabilityrdquoGeographical Review of India vol 33 no 1 pp 1ndash14 1971

[32] BM Engelhardt P JWeisberg and J C Chambers ldquoInfluencesof watershed geomorphology on extent and composition ofriparian vegetationrdquo Journal of Vegetation Science vol 23 no1 pp 127ndash139 2011

[33] J E Costa ldquoHydraulics and basin morphometry of the largestflash floods in the conterminous United Statesrdquo Journal ofHydrology vol 93 no 3-4 pp 313ndash338 1987

[34] S Singh and M C Singh ldquoMorphometric analysis of Kanharriver basinrdquoThe National Geographical Journal of India vol 43no 1 pp 31ndash43 1997

[35] W Luo and J M Harlin ldquoA theoretical travel time basedon watershed hypsometryrdquo Journal of the American WaterResources Association vol 39 no 4 pp 785ndash792 2003

[36] J M Harlin ldquoThe effect of precipitation variability on drainagebasin morphometryrdquo American Journal of Science vol 280 no8 pp 812ndash825 1980

[37] J M Harlin ldquoWatershedmorphometry and time to hydrographpeakrdquo Journal of Hydrology vol 67 no 1-4 pp 141ndash154 1984

[38] S A Romshoo ldquoGeostatistical analysis of soil moisture mea-surements and remotely sensed data at different spatial scalesrdquoEnvironmental Geology vol 45 no 3 pp 339ndash349 2004

[39] S A Romshoo M Koike S Hironaka O Oki and K MusiakeldquoInfluence of surface and vegetation characteristics on C-bandradarmeasurements for soilmoisture contentrdquo Journal of IndianSociety of Remote Sensing vol 30 no 4 pp 229ndash244 2002

[40] D R Montgomery and W E Dietrich ldquoSource areas drainagedensity and channel initiationrdquo Water Resources Research vol25 no 8 pp 1907ndash1918 1989

14 Geography Journal

[41] D R Montgomery and W E Dietrich ldquoChannel initiation andthe problem of landscape scalerdquo Science vol 255 no 5046 pp826ndash830 1992

[42] EM Ghoneim NW Arnell andGM Foody ldquoCharacterizingthe flash flood hazards potential along the Red Sea coast ofEgyptrdquo IAHS-AISH Publication no 271 pp 211ndash216 2002

[43] M Diakakis ldquoA method for flood hazard mapping based onbasin morphometry application in two catchments in GreecerdquoNatural Hazards vol 56 no 3 pp 803ndash814 2011

[44] P C Patton and V R Baker ldquoMorphometry and floods in smalldrainage basins subject to diverse hydrogeomorphic controlsrdquoWater Resources Research vol 12 no 5 pp 941ndash952 1976

[45] A D Howard ldquoRole of hypsometry and planform in basinhydrologic responserdquo Hydrological Processes vol 4 no 4 pp373ndash385 1990

[46] K Rakesh A K Lohani K Sanjay C Chatterjee and R KNema ldquoGIS based morphometric analysis of Ajay river basinupto Srarath gauging site of South Biharrdquo Journal of AppliedHydrology vol 14 no 4 pp 45ndash54 2000

[47] B Dodov and E Foufoula-Georgiou ldquoFluvial processes andstreamflow variability interplay in the scale-frequency contin-uum and implications for scalingrdquo Water Resources Researchvol 41 no 5 pp 1ndash18 2005

[48] L C Gottschalk ldquoReservoir sedimentationrdquo in Handbook ofApplied Hydrology V T Chow Ed section 7-1 McGraw-HillNew York NY USA 1964

[49] B ADodov and E Foufoula-Georgiou ldquoFloodplainmorphom-etry extraction from a high-resolution digital elevationmodel asimple algorithm for regional analysis studiesrdquo IEEE Geoscienceand Remote Sensing Letters vol 3 no 3 pp 410ndash413 2006

[50] P C Patton ldquoDrainage basin morphometry and floodsrdquo inFlood Geomorphology pp 51ndash64 JohnWiley amp Sons NewYorkNY USA 1988

[51] V Gardiner and C C Park ldquoDrainage basin morphometryrdquoProgress in Physical Geography vol 2 no 1 pp 1ndash35 1978

[52] W B Langbein ldquoTopographic characteristics of drainagebasinsrdquoUS Geological SurveyWater-Supply Paper vol 986 pp157ndash159 1947

[53] W Luo ldquoQuantifying groundwater-sapping landforms witha hypsometric techniquerdquo Journal of Geophysical Research EPlanets vol 105 no 1 pp 1685ndash1694 2000

[54] J M Harlin and C Wijeyawickrema ldquoIrrigation and ground-water depletion in Caddo county Oklahomardquo Journal of theAmerican Water Resources Association vol 21 no 1 pp 15ndash221985

[55] K G Smith ldquoStandards for grading textures of erosionaltopographyrdquoAmerican Journal of Science vol 248 pp 655ndash6681950

[56] M Y Esper Angillieri ldquoMorphometric analysis of Colanguilriver basin and flash flood hazard San Juan ArgentinardquoEnvironmental Geology vol 55 no 1 pp 107ndash111 2008

[57] A M Youssef B Pradhan and A M Hassan ldquoFlash floodrisk estimation along the St Katherine road southern SinaiEgypt using GIS based morphometry and satellite imageryrdquoEnvironmental Earth Sciences vol 62 no 3 pp 611ndash623 2011

[58] A D Howard ldquoRole of hypsometry and planform in basinhydrologic responserdquo Hydrological Processes vol 4 no 4 pp373ndash385 1990

[59] R C Kochel ldquoGeomorphic impact of large floods reviewand new perspectives on magnitude and frequencyrdquo in FloodGeomorphology pp 169ndash187 JohnWiley amp Sons NewYork NYUSA 1988

[60] G E Tucker and R L Bras ldquoHillslope processes drainagedensity and landscape morphologyrdquoWater Resources Researchvol 34 no 10 pp 2751ndash2764 1998

[61] M Borga et al ldquoReal time guidance for flash flood riskmanagementrdquo FLOOD Site Research Project Report T16 2008

[62] K W Potter and E B Faulkner ldquoCatchment response time asa predictor of flood quantilesrdquo Journal of the American WaterResources Association vol 23 no 5 pp 857ndash861 1987

[63] R CWard andM Robinson Principles of Hydrology McGraw-Hill Maidenhead UK 4th edition 2000

[64] S Shulits ldquoQuantitative formulation of stream and watershedmorphologyrdquo Bulletin of the International Association of Scien-tific Hydrology vol 3 pp 201ndash207 1968

[65] A Demoulin ldquoBasin and river profile morphometry a newindex with a high potential for relative dating of tectonic upliftrdquoGeomorphology vol 126 no 1-2 pp 97ndash107 2011

[66] T B Altin and B N Altin ldquoDrainage morphometry and itsinfluence on landforms in volcanic terrain Central AnatoliaTurkeyrdquo ProcediamdashSocial and Behavioral Sciences vol 19 pp732ndash740 2011

[67] M Rashid M A Lone and S A Romshoo ldquoGeospatial toolsfor assessing land degradation in Budgam district KashmirHimalaya Indiardquo Journal of Earth System Science vol 120 no3 pp 423ndash433 2011

[68] S Zaz and S A Romshoo ldquoAssessing the geoindicators of landdegradation in the Kashmir Himalayan Region Indiardquo NaturalHazards vol 64 no 2 pp 1219ndash1245 2012

Geography Journal 5

Table 1 Methodology adopted for computation of morphometric parameters

S No Morphometric parameters Formulae Reference1 Stream Order (119880) Hierarchical rank (Strahler Scheme) [9]

2 Stream Length (119871119906) Length of the stream [22]

3 Mean Stream Length (119871119904119898) 119871119904119898 = 119871119906119873119906 Where 119871119904119898 = mean stream length 119871119906 = Total stream length oforder ldquo119906rdquo119873119906 = Total no of stream segments of order ldquo119906rdquo [9]

4 Stream Length Ratio (119877119871) 119877119871 = 119871119906119871119906 minus 1 Where 119877119871 = Stream length ratio 119871119906 =The total stream length oforder ldquo119906rdquo 119871119906 minus 1 =The total stream length of its next lower order [22]

5 Bifurcation Ratio (119877119887) 119877119887 = 119873119906119873119906 + 1 Where 119877119887 = Bifucation ratio119873119906 = Total no of stream segmentsof order ldquo119906rdquo119873119906 + 1 = Number of segments of the next higher order [23]

6 Mean Bifurcation Ratio (119877119887119898) 119877119887119898 = Average of bifurcation ratios of all orders [10]

7 Relief Ratio (119877ℎ) 119877ℎ = 119867119871 Where 119877ℎ = Relief ratio H = Total relief (Relative relief) of the basin inKilometre 119871119887 = Basin length [23]

8 Drainage Density (119863) 119863 = 119871119906119860 Where119863 = Drainage density 119871119906 = Total stream length of all orders A =Area of the basin (km2) [24]

9 Stream Frequency (119865119904) 119865119904 = 119873119906119860 Where 119865119904 = Stream frequency119873119906 = Total no of streams of all orders119860 = Area of the basin (km2) [24]

10 Drainage Texture (119877119905) 119877119905 = 119873119906119875 Where 119877119905 = Drainage texture119873119906 = Total no of streams of all orders119875 = Perimeter (km) [22]

11 Form Factor (119877119891) 119877119891 = 1198601198711198872 Where 119877119891 = Form factor 119860 = Area of the basin (km2) 1198711198872 = Square

of basin length [24]

12 Circularity Ratio (119877119888) 119877119888 = 4 lowast120587 lowast 1198601199012Where 119877119890 = Circularity ratio 120587 = ldquo119875119894rdquo value that is 314 A = Areaof the basin (km2) P = Perimeter (km) [25]

13 Elongation Ratio (119877119890) 119877119890 = (2119871119887)lowast

119904119902119903119905 (119860120587) Where Re = Elongation ratio 119860 = Area of the basin (km2)120587 = ldquo119875119894rdquo value that is 314 119871119887 = Basin length [23]

14 Length of overland flow (119871119892) 119871119892 = 1D lowast 2 Where 119871119892 = Length of overland flow D = Drainage density [22]

15 Constant ChannelMaintenance (119862) 119862 = 1119863 Where D = Drainage density [23]

16 Texture Ratio (119879) 119879 = 1198731119875 WhereN1 = Total number of streams in 1st order P = Perimeter of basin [23]

17 Shape index (119878119908) 119878119908 = 1198711198872

119860 Where 119871119887 = Basin length A = Area of basin [22]

18 Ruggedness number (119877119899) 119877119899 = 119861ℎ lowast 119863 Where 119861ℎ = Basin relief D = Drainage density [26]

19 Shape Factor (119877119904) 119877119904 = 119875119906119875119888 Where 119875119906 = Perimeter of circle of watershed area 119875119888 = Perimeter ofwatershed [27]

20 Drainage Intensity (119863119894) 119863119894 = 119865119904119863119889 Where 119865119904 = Stream frequency119863119889 = Drainage density [28]

21 Compactness coefficient (119862119888) 119862119888 = 119875119888119875119906 Where 119875119888 = Perimeter of watershed 119875119906 = Perimeter of circle ofwatershed area [19]

the present study as depicted in Table 7 Rh ranges from aminimum of 014 in WS9 to a maximum of 061 in WS17Higher values of Rh indicate that intense erosion processesare taking place This indicates that WS17 is more susceptibleto erosion and WS9 is the least among all the subwatershedsof the study area if this parameter alone is considered forerosion intensity analysis

36 Drainage Density (D) Factors which affect 119863 are char-acteristically same as those affecting length of the stream

namely resistance to weathering permeability of rock for-mation climate vegetation and so forth The travel timeby water within the basin is controlled by D [49ndash51] Inhumid regions it varies between 055 and 209 kmkm2 [52]Generally D has a low value in regions underlain withhighly resistant permeable material with vegetative coverand low relief High drainage density is observed in theregions of weak and impermeable subsurface material andsparse vegetation and mountainous relief Perusal of the 119863values from Table 5 indicates that WS17 WS14 and WS11have low 119863 values (below 20 kmkm2) while WS1 WS15

6 Geography Journal

Table 2 Some important basin characteristics

SubwatershedsMinimumelevation(km)

Maximumelevation(km)

Relative relief Perimeter (km) Basin area (km2) Basin length (km) Longest flow path (km)

WS1 210 357 147 1830 1045 352 403WS2 225 356 132 1584 1088 529 679WS3 225 356 132 1584 1088 1429 1768WS4 250 442 193 1771 1194 336 434WS5 283 426 143 952 428 295 340WS6 292 489 197 2154 1978 633 706WS7 305 529 224 3310 4817 1209 1495WS8 304 475 171 3055 3758 887 1074WS9 253 462 210 5404 8815 1471 1677WS10 249 437 188 3000 4176 1109 1298WS11 241 423 182 1709 1172 633 814WS12 230 429 199 1667 952 609 688WS13 226 437 211 1792 1050 406 782WS14 225 403 178 1161 655 790 962WS15 223 427 204 2109 1560 435 551WS16 216 420 204 1298 830 217 234WS17 208 340 131 990 461 217 234

Table 3 Showing stream order stream number and stream lengths of subwatersheds

Subwatershed Stream order Stream number Stream length (km)I II III IV V I II III IV V

WS1 4 46 12 3 1 mdash 1363 350 405 084 mdashWS2 4 44 9 2 1 mdash 1363 381 701 194 mdashWS3 5 253 71 14 3 1 8260 1939 2044 1749 279WS4 4 53 13 2 1 mdash 1811 554 425 015 mdashWS5 4 19 8 2 1 mdash 643 171 160 086 mdashWS6 4 86 35 7 1 mdash 2861 1282 536 534 mdashWS7 5 218 106 12 2 1 8313 3462 1993 301 176WS8 5 195 92 10 2 1 6174 2506 1473 882 176WS9 5 437 225 21 5 1 13217 6602 2608 1257 776WS10 5 171 99 7 2 1 5562 2689 631 1193 331WS11 4 40 10 2 1 mdash 1178 315 260 422 mdashWS12 3 60 17 1 mdash mdash 1797 447 561 mdash mdashWS13 3 59 14 1 mdash mdash 2026 466 670 mdash mdashWS14 3 20 6 1 mdash mdash 834 245 072 mdash mdashWS15 4 67 17 3 1 mdash 2084 537 210 621 mdashWS16 3 39 10 2 mdash mdash 1227 232 462 mdash mdashWS17 2 12 4 mdash mdash mdash 339 205 mdash mdash mdash

WS16 WS4 WS3 WS2 WS5 and WS10 have moderate 119863values (20ndash25 kmkm2) Subwatersheds WS6 WS9 WS12WS7 WS8 and WS13 have high 119863 values (between 25 and30 kmkm2) The low and moderate 119863 watersheds revealthat they are composed of permeable subsurface materialgood vegetation cover and low relief which results in moreinfiltration capacity and comparably are good sites for groundwater recharge as compared to high 119863 watersheds [53 54]

On the basis of D WS17 will have the greatest basin lag timewhile WS13 will demonstrate the shortest lag time

37 Drainage Texture (Rt) Drainage texture (Rt) is influ-enced by infiltration capacity [22] There are five differenttexture classes very coarse (lt2) coarse (2ndash4) moderate(4ndash6) fine (6ndash8) and very fine (gt8) [55] According to this

Geography Journal 7

Table 4 Showing comparative mean stream length and stream length ratios

Subwatershed Mean stream length (km) Stream length ratioI II III IV V III IIIII IVIII VIV

WS1 029 029 135 084 mdash 025 115 020 mdashWS2 030 042 350 194 mdash 027 184 027 mdashWS3 032 027 146 583 279 023 105 085 015WS4 034 042 212 015 mdash 030 076 003 mdashWS5 033 021 079 086 mdash 026 093 053 mdashWS6 033 036 076 534 mdash 044 041 099 mdashWS7 038 032 166 150 176 041 057 015 058WS8 031 027 147 441 176 040 058 059 019WS9 030 029 124 251 776 049 039 048 061WS10 032 027 090 596 331 048 023 189 027WS11 029 031 130 422 mdash 026 082 162 mdashWS12 029 026 561 mdash mdash 024 125 mdash mdashWS13 034 033 669 mdash mdash 023 143 mdash mdashWS14 041 040 071 mdash mdash 029 029 mdash mdashWS15 031 031 069 620 mdash 025 039 296 mdashWS16 031 023 231 mdash mdash 018 199 mdash mdashWS17 028 051 mdash mdash mdash 060 mdash mdash mdash

Table 5 Showing bifurcation ratios drainage density and stream frequency of the subwatersheds

Subwatershed Bifurcation ratio Mean bifurcation ratio Drainage density Stream frequency Drainage intensityIII IIIII IIIIV IVV

WS1 383 400 300 mdash 361 211 593 282WS2 489 450 200 mdash 380 243 515 212WS3 356 507 467 300 408 236 563 239WS4 408 650 200 mdash 419 235 578 246WS5 238 400 200 mdash 279 248 702 283WS6 246 500 700 mdash 482 264 652 247WS7 206 883 600 200 472 296 704 238WS8 212 920 500 200 458 298 798 268WS9 194 1071 420 500 562 269 782 291WS10 173 1414 350 200 534 249 670 269WS11 400 500 200 mdash 367 186 452 244WS12 353 1700 mdash mdash 1026 295 819 278WS13 421 1400 mdash mdash 911 301 705 234WS14 333 600 mdash mdash 467 176 412 235WS15 394 567 300 mdash 420 221 564 255WS16 390 500 mdash mdash 445 232 615 265WS17 300 mdash mdash mdash 300 118 347 294

classification WS17 has very coarse drainage texture WS1WS2 WS4 WS5 WS11 WS14 and WS16 have coarse RtWS3 WS6 WS12 WS13 and WS15 have moderate Rt andWS7 WS8 WS9 and WS10 have very fine Rt (Table 6)Hydrologically very coarse texture watersheds have largebasin lag time periods [56] followed by coarse fine and veryfine texture classesThis indicates thatWS17 (Rt = 162) showslonger duration to peak flow while WS9 (Rt = 1275) showsthe shortest

38 Form Factor (Rf) The basins with high form factorshave high peak flows of shorter duration whereas elongatedsubwatersheds with low form factors have lower peak flowof longer duration [57ndash59] In this study WS2 WS3 WS7WS10 WS11 WS13 WS14 and WS15 show lower formfactor (Table 7) indicating elongated shape and suggestingflat hydrograph peak for longer duration Flood flows ofsuch elongated basins are easier to manage than those of thecircular basin WS5 WS6 WS8 WS9 WS12 and WS16 have

8 Geography Journal

Table 6 Showing drainage texture constant channel maintenance shape index ruggedness number and shape factor

Subwatershed Drainage texture Constant channelmaintenance

Compactnesscoefficient

Shape index Ruggedness number Shape factor

WS1 339 047 160 119 070 063WS2 354 041 136 257 054 074WS3 563 042 220 337 119 046WS4 390 043 145 094 082 069WS5 315 040 130 203 058 077WS6 599 038 137 203 075 073WS7 1024 034 135 303 076 074WS8 982 034 141 209 057 071WS9 1275 037 162 246 078 062WS10 933 040 131 295 075 076WS11 310 054 141 342 098 071WS12 468 034 152 390 067 066WS13 413 033 156 402 070 064WS14 233 057 128 252 101 078WS15 417 045 151 400 092 066WS16 393 043 127 228 088 079WS17 162 085 130 102 111 077

Table 7 Showing important morphometric parameters of the subwatersheds

Subwatershed Relief ratio Elongation ratio Texture ratio Circularity ratio Form factor Length of overland flowWS1 042 104 251 039 084 023WS2 025 070 278 054 039 017WS3 020 061 418 021 030 018WS4 057 116 299 048 106 018WS5 049 079 200 059 049 016WS6 031 079 399 054 049 014WS7 019 065 659 055 033 011WS8 019 078 638 051 048 011WS9 014 072 809 038 041 014WS10 017 066 570 058 034 016WS11 029 061 234 050 029 029WS12 033 057 360 043 026 012WS13 032 056 329 041 025 011WS14 044 071 172 061 040 032WS15 026 056 318 044 025 020WS16 047 075 301 062 044 019WS17 061 112 121 059 098 072

slightly circular shape as suggested by moderately higher RfSubwatershedsWS1 WS4 andWS17 have high Rf indicatingthat they have developed into quite circular to rectangularshape Watershed morphology has profound impacts on thewatershed hydrology [60]

39 Elongation Ratio (Re) The value of elongation ratio(Re) generally varies from 06 to 10 associated with a wide

variety of climate and geology Values close to 10 are typicalof regions of very low relief whereas that from 06 to 08are associated with high relief and steep ground slope [7]These values can be grouped into three categories namelycircular (gt09) oval (09ndash07) and less elongated (lt07) Refor the subwatersheds WS13 WS15 WS12 WS3 WS11 WS7andWS10 is less than 070which indicates that subwatershedsare elongated with high relief and steep slope WS2 WS14WS9 WS16 WS8 WS5 and WS6 sub-watersheds fall in oval

Geography Journal 9

1 2 3 4 50

05

1

15

2

25

3

WS1WS2WS3WS4WS5WS6WS7WS8WS9

WS10WS11WS12WS13WS14WS15WS16WS17

Stream order

Stre

am le

ngth

(log10)

Figure 3 Showing relation between stream order and length ofstreams for 17 subwatersheds

category while subwatersheds WS1 WS17 and WS4 fall inthe circular category (Table 7) The circular watersheds havequick though lower hydrograph peak compared to the ovaland elongated watersheds [61 62] This indicates that WS13will show delayed time to peak flow while WS4 will showshorter time to peak

310 Circulatory Ratio (Rc) It is that ratio of the area of thebasin to the area of circle having the same circumference asthe perimeter of the basin [25] Many of the important basincharacteristics influence Rc such as length and frequency ofstreams geological structures land useland cover climaterelief and slope of the basin In the present case Rc forsubwatersheds WS8 WS2 WS6 WS7 WS10 WS5 WS17WS14 and WS16 is in the range from 053 to 062 indicatingthat the area is characterized by high relief elongated andpermeable surface resulting in greater basin lag times whileWS3 WS9 WS1 WS13 WS12 WS15 WS4 and WS11 havelower circularity ratios indicating low relief and impermeablesurface resulting in lower basin lag times (Table 7) Thisindicates that WS16 will show delayed time to peak flowwhile WS3 will show shorter time to peak Rf Re andRc significantly influence the hydrological response of thewatersheds as basin shape and the arrangement of streamsegments combine to influence the size and shape of floodpeaks [63]

311 Length of Overland Flow (Lg) Length of overland flowis one of the most important independent variables affectingboth hydrologic and hydrographic development of drainagebasins [24] Table 7 reveals that Lg for the 17 subwatersheds in

chronological order is 022 016 018 018 016 014 011 011076 016 029 011 011 032 02 018 and 071 respectivelyThe Lg for subwatershedsWS2-WS10WS12WS13 andWS16indicates steep slopes and shorter flow paths while as Lg forWS1 WS11 WS14 WS15 and WS17 indicates gentle slopesand longer flow paths

312 Constant of Channel Maintenance (C) In the presentstudy C varies from 033 forW8 andW9 to 084 forW17 as isshown in Table 6 The reciprocal of the drainage density (D)is constant of channel maintenance and signifies how muchdrainage area is required tomaintain a unit length of channelLow values of 119862 in case of WS8 and WS9 indicates thatamong all the 17 subwatersheds these two are associated withweakest or very low-resistance soils sparse vegetation andmountainous terrain while the watershedWS17 is associatedwith resistance soils vegetation and comparably plain terrain[64]

313 Compactness Coefficient (Cc) Compactness coefficientexpresses the relationship of a basin with that of a circularbasin having the same area A circular basin yields theshortest time of concentration before peak flow occurs in thebasin 119862119888 = 1 indicates that the basin completely behaves asa circular basin 119862119888 gt 1 indicates more deviation from thecircular nature of the basin The values for all the subwater-sheds range from 127 for WS16 to 220 for WS3 as seen inTable 6 Consequently WS16 has the greatest deviation fromthe circular nature and on the basis of this parameter aloneit will have the longest time of concentration before peak flowoccurs in the basin out of all the subwatersheds [60ndash62]

314 Shape Index (Sw) Rate of water and sediment yieldalong the length and relief of the drainage basin is largelyaffected by the shape The shape index values for subwater-sheds of the study area range from 094 in WS4 to 402 inWS13 as shown in Table 6 In terms of Sw onlyWS13 will havethe shorter basin lag time while WS4 will have the longerbasin lag time

315 Texture Ratio (T) Texture ratio is one of the mostimportant factors in the drainage morphometric analysiswhich depends on the underlying lithology infiltration capac-ity and relief aspect of the terrain is the texture ratio [65 66]As shown in Table 7 T varies between 121 in case of WS17and 809 in case of WS9 Hydrologically it can be said thatWS17 in terms of 119879alone will have the longest basin lag timesandWS9 will have the shortest This reaffirms the results andconclusions drawn from the values ofUD Fs and Rt in caseof W17

316 Ruggedness Number (Rn) The ruggedness number indi-cates the structural complexity of the terrain in associationwith the relief and drainage density It also implies that thearea is susceptible to soil erosion [67 68] In present study theruggedness number is minimum in case of WS2 (119877119899 = 054)and maximum in WS3 (119877119899 = 119) as seen in Table 6 Thisindicates that WS2 is least susceptible to erosion and WS3

10 Geography Journal

Stream order map of subwatershed 8

34∘11

9984000998400998400

34∘12

9984000998400998400

34∘13

9984000998400998400

34∘14

9984000998400998400

34∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘12

9984000998400998400

75∘14

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

0 05 1 2Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 1

34∘49984000998400998400

34∘39984000998400998400

34∘29984000998400998400

34∘19984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

75∘18

9984000998400998400

75∘19

9984000998400998400

75∘20

9984000998400998400

75∘21

9984000998400998400

0 045 09 18

Kilometers

N

EW

S

Stream order map of subwatershed 2

34∘59984000998400998400

34∘49984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

75∘18

9984000998400998400

75∘19

9984000998400998400

0 035 07 14

Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 3

34∘49984000998400998400

34∘59984000998400998400

34∘69984000998400998400

34∘79984000998400998400

34∘89984000998400998400

34∘99984000998400998400

34∘10

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

75∘19

9984000998400998400

75∘21

9984000998400998400

0 05 1 2

Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 4

34∘79984000998400998400

34∘89984000998400998400

34∘99984000998400998400

34∘10

9984000998400998400

75∘14

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

0 045 09 18

Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 5

34∘99984000998400998400

34∘10

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

0 025 05 1Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 6

34∘89984000998400998400

34∘99984000998400998400

34∘10

9984000998400998400

34∘11

9984000998400998400

34∘12

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

75∘18

9984000998400998400

75∘19

9984000998400998400

0 05 1 2Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 7

34∘99984000998400998400

34∘10

9984000998400998400

34∘11

9984000998400998400

34∘12

9984000998400998400

34∘13

9984000998400998400

34∘14

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

75∘18

9984000998400998400

75∘20

9984000998400998400

75∘22

9984000998400998400

0 05 1 2Kilometers

12

345

Watershed boundaryStream order

12

345

Watershed boundaryStream order

N

EW

S

N

EW

S

N

EW

S

N

EW

S

N

EW

S

N

EW

S

N

EW

S

West Lidder River West Lidder River

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

Wes

t Lid

der R

iver

Wes

t Lid

der R

iver

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

(a)

Figure 4 Continued

Geography Journal 11

Stream order map of subwatershed 9

34∘59984000998400998400

34∘69984000998400998400

34∘79984000998400998400

34∘89984000998400998400

34∘99984000998400998400

34∘10

9984000998400998400

34∘11

9984000998400998400

34∘12

9984000998400998400

75∘69984000998400998400

75∘89984000998400998400

75∘10

9984000998400998400

75∘11

9984000998400998400

75∘13

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘12

9984000998400998400

75∘14

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

0 1 2 4Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 10

34∘49984000998400998400

34∘59984000998400998400

34∘69984000998400998400

34∘79984000998400998400

34∘89984000998400998400

34∘99984000998400998400

75∘99984000998400998400

0 1 205

Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 15

34∘19984000998400998400

34∘29984000998400998400

34∘39984000998400998400

0 045 09 18Kilometers

75∘14

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

Stream order map of subwatershed 16

34∘19984000998400998400

34∘29984000998400998400

34∘39984000998400998400

0 03 06 12Kilometers

75∘16

9984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

75∘18

9984000998400998400

Stream order map of subwatershed 13

34∘29984000998400998400

34∘39984000998400998400

34∘49984000998400998400

0 035 07 14

Kilometers

75∘13

9984000998400998400

75∘14

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

Stream order map of subwatershed 14

34∘39984000998400998400

34∘49984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

0 1025 05

Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 11

34∘49984000998400998400

34∘59984000998400998400

34∘69984000998400998400

34∘79984000998400998400

75∘12

9984000998400998400

75∘13

9984000998400998400

75∘14

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

0

12

345

04 08 16

Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 12

34∘39984000998400998400

34∘49984000998400998400

34∘59984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

75∘13

9984000998400998400

75∘14

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

0 035 07 14

Kilometers

Watershed boundaryStream order

12

345

Watershed boundaryStream order

N

S

EWN

S

EW

N

S

EW

N

S

EW

N

S

EW

N

S

EW

N

S

EW

N

S

EW

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

(b)

Figure 4 Continued

12 Geography Journal

Stream order map of subwatershed 17

34∘19984000998400998400

34∘29984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

75∘18

9984000998400998400

75∘19

9984000998400998400

0 02 04 08Kilometers

12

Watershed boundaryStream order

N

EW

S

West Lidder River

(c)

Figure 4 (a) Showing drainage maps of subwatersheds WS1ndashWS8 (b) Showing drainage maps of subwatersheds WS9ndashWS16 (c) Showingdrainage patterns of WS17 of West Lidder catchment

is most susceptible among all the subwatersheds of the studyarea

317 Shape Factor (Rs) The shape factor observed in thestudy area is minimum in case of WS3 (119877119904 = 046) andmaximum in case of WS16 (119877119904 = 079) as shown in Table 6This parameter is similar in interpretation to circularity ratioelongation ratio and form factor It gives an idea aboutthe circular character of the basin The greater the circularcharacter of the basin is the greater is the rapid response ofthe watershed after a storm event [60] Therefore in terms ofRs only WS3 has the longest basin lag time and WS16 theshortest

4 Conclusion

From the integrated analysis of the results on the mor-phometry of the 17 subwatersheds it is concluded that thewhole study area has uniform underlying lithology makingthe hydrological response in these subwatersheds a directfunction of the geomorphology the topography and theexisting vegetation conditions only The spatial variabilityof the morphometric parameters analyzed in this study isquite significant Since the hydrology of a watershed changessignificantly due to the spatial variations of the morpho-metric parameters the subwatersheds will therefore alsoexhibit differential hydrological behaviour Overall resultsindicated that comparatively WS16 WS13 WS12 and WS9shall contribute dominantly to the stream runoff in theWest Lidder catchment and on the contrary WS17 WS5and WS3 shall contribute the least due to the cumulativeand integrated effect of the morphometric parameters whosesignificance and influences on the hydrological behaviourhave been discussed in detail in the preceding sectionsBecause of the close relationship between the morphometricparameters and the mean annual flood it is concluded on

the basis of the range of the morphometric analysis thatWS16 WS13 WS12 and WS9 in that order are more proneto flooding compared to the other 13 subwatersheds of theWest Lidder catchment The hydrological behaviour of these17 subwatersheds shall have profound influences on the floodvulnerability and flood risk in the downstream portions ofthe Lidder River It is hoped that information and knowledgegenerated under this study shall guide the informed planningand decision-making for flood disaster risk reduction in theLidder watershed that forms an important tributary of theJhelum basin

Acknowledgments

This research work has been accomplished under a researchgrant provided by the Department of Science and Technol-ogy Government of India for the project titled ldquoIntegratedFlood vulnerability Assessment for Flood Risk Managementand Disaster Mitigationrdquo The authors express their gratitudeto the funding agency for the financial assistanceThe authorsalso express their sincere thanks to anonymous reviewerswhose valuable comments have improved the quality of thispaper

References

[1] C S Agarwal ldquoStudy of drainage pattern through aerial datain Naugarh area of Varanasi district UPrdquo Journal of the IndianSociety of Remote Sensing vol 26 no 4 pp 169ndash175 1998

[2] G E Obi Reddy A K Maji and K S Gajbhiye ldquoGIS formorphometric analysis of drainage basinsrdquo GIS India vol 11no 4 pp 9ndash14 2002

[3] V Pakhmode H Kulkarni and S B Deolankar ldquoHydrological-drainage analysis in watershed-programme planning a casefrom theDeccan basalt IndiardquoHydrogeology Journal vol 11 no5 pp 595ndash604 2003

Geography Journal 13

[4] L B Leopold and T Maddock ldquoThe hydraulic geometry ofstream channels and some physiographic implicationsrdquo USGSProfessional Paper vol 252 pp 1ndash57 1953

[5] A D Abrahams ldquoChannel networks a geomorphologicalperspectiverdquo Water Resources Research vol 20 no 2 pp 161ndash168 1984

[6] S Singh ldquoQuantitative geomorphology of the drainage basinrdquoin Readings on Remote Sensing Applications T S Chouhan andK N Joshi Eds Scientific Publishers Jodhpur India 1992

[7] R A Dar R Chandra and S A Romshoo ldquoMorphotectonicand lithostratigraphic analysis of intermontane Karewa basin ofKashmir Himalayas Indiardquo Journal ofMountain Science vol 10no 1 pp 731ndash741 2013

[8] S A Romshoo S A Bhat and I Rashid ldquoGeoinformatics forassessing the morphometric control on hydrological responseat watershed scale in the Upper Indus basinrdquo Journal of EarthSystem Science vol 121 no 3 pp 659ndash686 2012

[9] A N Strahler ldquoQuantitative geomorphology of drainage basinsand channel networksrdquo in Handbook of Applied Hydrology VT Chow Ed section 4ndash11 McGraw-Hill New York NY USA1964

[10] A Strahler ldquoQuantitative analysis of watershed geomorphol-ogyrdquoTransactions AmericanGeophysical Union vol 38 pp 913ndash920 1957

[11] J Krishnamurthy G Srinivas V Jayaraman and M G Chan-drasekhar ldquoInfluence of rock types and structures in thedevelopment of drainage networks in typical hardrock terrainrdquoITC Journal no 3-4 pp 252ndash259 1996

[12] A K Das and S Mukherjee ldquoDrainage morphometry usingsatellite data andGIS inRaigad districtMaharashtrardquo Journal ofthe Geological Society of India vol 65 no 5 pp 577ndash586 2005

[13] S S Vittala S Govindaih and H H Gowda ldquoMorphometricanalysis of sub-watershed in the Pavada area of Tumkur districtSouth India using remote sensing and GIS techniquesrdquo Journalof Indian Remote Sensing vol 32 pp 351ndash362 2004

[14] S K Nag ldquoMorphometric analysis using remote sensing tech-niques in the Chaka subbasin Purulia district West BengalrdquoJournal of Indian Society of Remote Sensing vol 26 no 1-2 pp69ndash76 1998

[15] AM Y Esper ldquoMorphometric analysis of Colanguil river basinand flash flood hazard San Juan Argentinardquo EnvironmentalGeology vol 55 pp 107ndash111 2008

[16] T N Bhagwat A Shetty and V S Hegde ldquoSpatial variationin drainage characteristics and geomorphic instantaneous unithydrograph (GIUH) implications for watershed management-A case study of the Varada River basin Northern KarnatakardquoCatena vol 87 no 1 pp 52ndash59 2011

[17] N R Bhaskar B P Parida and A K Nayak ldquoFlood estimationfor ungauged catchments using the GIUHrdquo Journal of WaterResources Planning and Management vol 123 no 4 pp 228ndash237 1997

[18] S K Jain R D Singh and S M Seth ldquoDesign flood estimationusing GIS supported GIUH approachrdquo Water Resources Man-agement vol 14 no 5 pp 369ndash376 2000

[19] M Suresh S Sudhakara K N Tiwari and V M ChowdaryldquoPrioritization of watersheds using morphometric parametersand assessment of surface water potential using remote sens-ingrdquo Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing vol 32 no3 2004

[20] S A Bhat and S A Romshoo ldquoDigital elevation model basedwatershed characteristics of upper watersheds of Jhelum basinrdquoJournal of Applied Hydrology vol 21 no 2 pp 23ndash34 2009

[21] J F OrsquoCallaghan and D M Mark ldquoThe extraction of drainagenetworks from digital elevation datardquo Computer Vision Graph-ics and Image Processing vol 28 pp 323ndash344 1984

[22] R E Horton ldquoErosional development of streams and theirdrainage basins hydrophysical approach to quantitative mor-phologyrdquoGeological Society of America Bulletin vol 56 pp 275ndash370 1945

[23] S A Schumms ldquoEvolution of drainage systems and slopes inBadlands at Perth Amboy New Jerseyrdquo Bulletin of the GeologicalSociety of America vol 67 pp 597ndash646 1956

[24] R E Horton ldquoDrainage basin characteristicsrdquo TransactionsAmerican Geophysical Union vol 13 pp 350ndash361 1932

[25] V C Miller ldquoA Quantitative geomorphic study of drainagebasin characteristics in the Clinch Mountain area Virginia andTennesseerdquo Tech Rep 3 NR 389-402 Columbia UniversityDepartment of Geology ONR New York NY USA 1953

[26] K Pareta andU Pareta ldquoQuantitativemorphometric analysis ofa watershed of Yamuna basin India using ASTER (DEM) dataand GISrdquo International Journal of Geomatics and Geosciencesvol 2 no 1 2011

[27] M Sameena J Krishnamurthy V Jayaraman andG RangannaldquoEvaluation of drainage networks developed in hard rockterrainrdquoGeocarto International vol 24 no 5 pp 397ndash420 2009

[28] A Faniran ldquoThe index of drainage intensitymdasha provisional newdrainage factorrdquo Australian Journal of Science vol 31 pp 328ndash330 1968

[29] I Rashid and S A Romshoo ldquoImpact of anthropogenic activ-ities on water quality of Lidder River in Kashmir HimalayasrdquoEnvironmental Monitoring and Assessment 2012

[30] M Raza A Ahmed and A Mohammad The Valley ofKashmirmdashA Geographical Interpretation Vol I the Land VikasPublishing New Delhi India 1978

[31] V M Meher ldquoThe climate of Srinagar and its variabilityrdquoGeographical Review of India vol 33 no 1 pp 1ndash14 1971

[32] BM Engelhardt P JWeisberg and J C Chambers ldquoInfluencesof watershed geomorphology on extent and composition ofriparian vegetationrdquo Journal of Vegetation Science vol 23 no1 pp 127ndash139 2011

[33] J E Costa ldquoHydraulics and basin morphometry of the largestflash floods in the conterminous United Statesrdquo Journal ofHydrology vol 93 no 3-4 pp 313ndash338 1987

[34] S Singh and M C Singh ldquoMorphometric analysis of Kanharriver basinrdquoThe National Geographical Journal of India vol 43no 1 pp 31ndash43 1997

[35] W Luo and J M Harlin ldquoA theoretical travel time basedon watershed hypsometryrdquo Journal of the American WaterResources Association vol 39 no 4 pp 785ndash792 2003

[36] J M Harlin ldquoThe effect of precipitation variability on drainagebasin morphometryrdquo American Journal of Science vol 280 no8 pp 812ndash825 1980

[37] J M Harlin ldquoWatershedmorphometry and time to hydrographpeakrdquo Journal of Hydrology vol 67 no 1-4 pp 141ndash154 1984

[38] S A Romshoo ldquoGeostatistical analysis of soil moisture mea-surements and remotely sensed data at different spatial scalesrdquoEnvironmental Geology vol 45 no 3 pp 339ndash349 2004

[39] S A Romshoo M Koike S Hironaka O Oki and K MusiakeldquoInfluence of surface and vegetation characteristics on C-bandradarmeasurements for soilmoisture contentrdquo Journal of IndianSociety of Remote Sensing vol 30 no 4 pp 229ndash244 2002

[40] D R Montgomery and W E Dietrich ldquoSource areas drainagedensity and channel initiationrdquo Water Resources Research vol25 no 8 pp 1907ndash1918 1989

14 Geography Journal

[41] D R Montgomery and W E Dietrich ldquoChannel initiation andthe problem of landscape scalerdquo Science vol 255 no 5046 pp826ndash830 1992

[42] EM Ghoneim NW Arnell andGM Foody ldquoCharacterizingthe flash flood hazards potential along the Red Sea coast ofEgyptrdquo IAHS-AISH Publication no 271 pp 211ndash216 2002

[43] M Diakakis ldquoA method for flood hazard mapping based onbasin morphometry application in two catchments in GreecerdquoNatural Hazards vol 56 no 3 pp 803ndash814 2011

[44] P C Patton and V R Baker ldquoMorphometry and floods in smalldrainage basins subject to diverse hydrogeomorphic controlsrdquoWater Resources Research vol 12 no 5 pp 941ndash952 1976

[45] A D Howard ldquoRole of hypsometry and planform in basinhydrologic responserdquo Hydrological Processes vol 4 no 4 pp373ndash385 1990

[46] K Rakesh A K Lohani K Sanjay C Chatterjee and R KNema ldquoGIS based morphometric analysis of Ajay river basinupto Srarath gauging site of South Biharrdquo Journal of AppliedHydrology vol 14 no 4 pp 45ndash54 2000

[47] B Dodov and E Foufoula-Georgiou ldquoFluvial processes andstreamflow variability interplay in the scale-frequency contin-uum and implications for scalingrdquo Water Resources Researchvol 41 no 5 pp 1ndash18 2005

[48] L C Gottschalk ldquoReservoir sedimentationrdquo in Handbook ofApplied Hydrology V T Chow Ed section 7-1 McGraw-HillNew York NY USA 1964

[49] B ADodov and E Foufoula-Georgiou ldquoFloodplainmorphom-etry extraction from a high-resolution digital elevationmodel asimple algorithm for regional analysis studiesrdquo IEEE Geoscienceand Remote Sensing Letters vol 3 no 3 pp 410ndash413 2006

[50] P C Patton ldquoDrainage basin morphometry and floodsrdquo inFlood Geomorphology pp 51ndash64 JohnWiley amp Sons NewYorkNY USA 1988

[51] V Gardiner and C C Park ldquoDrainage basin morphometryrdquoProgress in Physical Geography vol 2 no 1 pp 1ndash35 1978

[52] W B Langbein ldquoTopographic characteristics of drainagebasinsrdquoUS Geological SurveyWater-Supply Paper vol 986 pp157ndash159 1947

[53] W Luo ldquoQuantifying groundwater-sapping landforms witha hypsometric techniquerdquo Journal of Geophysical Research EPlanets vol 105 no 1 pp 1685ndash1694 2000

[54] J M Harlin and C Wijeyawickrema ldquoIrrigation and ground-water depletion in Caddo county Oklahomardquo Journal of theAmerican Water Resources Association vol 21 no 1 pp 15ndash221985

[55] K G Smith ldquoStandards for grading textures of erosionaltopographyrdquoAmerican Journal of Science vol 248 pp 655ndash6681950

[56] M Y Esper Angillieri ldquoMorphometric analysis of Colanguilriver basin and flash flood hazard San Juan ArgentinardquoEnvironmental Geology vol 55 no 1 pp 107ndash111 2008

[57] A M Youssef B Pradhan and A M Hassan ldquoFlash floodrisk estimation along the St Katherine road southern SinaiEgypt using GIS based morphometry and satellite imageryrdquoEnvironmental Earth Sciences vol 62 no 3 pp 611ndash623 2011

[58] A D Howard ldquoRole of hypsometry and planform in basinhydrologic responserdquo Hydrological Processes vol 4 no 4 pp373ndash385 1990

[59] R C Kochel ldquoGeomorphic impact of large floods reviewand new perspectives on magnitude and frequencyrdquo in FloodGeomorphology pp 169ndash187 JohnWiley amp Sons NewYork NYUSA 1988

[60] G E Tucker and R L Bras ldquoHillslope processes drainagedensity and landscape morphologyrdquoWater Resources Researchvol 34 no 10 pp 2751ndash2764 1998

[61] M Borga et al ldquoReal time guidance for flash flood riskmanagementrdquo FLOOD Site Research Project Report T16 2008

[62] K W Potter and E B Faulkner ldquoCatchment response time asa predictor of flood quantilesrdquo Journal of the American WaterResources Association vol 23 no 5 pp 857ndash861 1987

[63] R CWard andM Robinson Principles of Hydrology McGraw-Hill Maidenhead UK 4th edition 2000

[64] S Shulits ldquoQuantitative formulation of stream and watershedmorphologyrdquo Bulletin of the International Association of Scien-tific Hydrology vol 3 pp 201ndash207 1968

[65] A Demoulin ldquoBasin and river profile morphometry a newindex with a high potential for relative dating of tectonic upliftrdquoGeomorphology vol 126 no 1-2 pp 97ndash107 2011

[66] T B Altin and B N Altin ldquoDrainage morphometry and itsinfluence on landforms in volcanic terrain Central AnatoliaTurkeyrdquo ProcediamdashSocial and Behavioral Sciences vol 19 pp732ndash740 2011

[67] M Rashid M A Lone and S A Romshoo ldquoGeospatial toolsfor assessing land degradation in Budgam district KashmirHimalaya Indiardquo Journal of Earth System Science vol 120 no3 pp 423ndash433 2011

[68] S Zaz and S A Romshoo ldquoAssessing the geoindicators of landdegradation in the Kashmir Himalayan Region Indiardquo NaturalHazards vol 64 no 2 pp 1219ndash1245 2012

6 Geography Journal

Table 2 Some important basin characteristics

SubwatershedsMinimumelevation(km)

Maximumelevation(km)

Relative relief Perimeter (km) Basin area (km2) Basin length (km) Longest flow path (km)

WS1 210 357 147 1830 1045 352 403WS2 225 356 132 1584 1088 529 679WS3 225 356 132 1584 1088 1429 1768WS4 250 442 193 1771 1194 336 434WS5 283 426 143 952 428 295 340WS6 292 489 197 2154 1978 633 706WS7 305 529 224 3310 4817 1209 1495WS8 304 475 171 3055 3758 887 1074WS9 253 462 210 5404 8815 1471 1677WS10 249 437 188 3000 4176 1109 1298WS11 241 423 182 1709 1172 633 814WS12 230 429 199 1667 952 609 688WS13 226 437 211 1792 1050 406 782WS14 225 403 178 1161 655 790 962WS15 223 427 204 2109 1560 435 551WS16 216 420 204 1298 830 217 234WS17 208 340 131 990 461 217 234

Table 3 Showing stream order stream number and stream lengths of subwatersheds

Subwatershed Stream order Stream number Stream length (km)I II III IV V I II III IV V

WS1 4 46 12 3 1 mdash 1363 350 405 084 mdashWS2 4 44 9 2 1 mdash 1363 381 701 194 mdashWS3 5 253 71 14 3 1 8260 1939 2044 1749 279WS4 4 53 13 2 1 mdash 1811 554 425 015 mdashWS5 4 19 8 2 1 mdash 643 171 160 086 mdashWS6 4 86 35 7 1 mdash 2861 1282 536 534 mdashWS7 5 218 106 12 2 1 8313 3462 1993 301 176WS8 5 195 92 10 2 1 6174 2506 1473 882 176WS9 5 437 225 21 5 1 13217 6602 2608 1257 776WS10 5 171 99 7 2 1 5562 2689 631 1193 331WS11 4 40 10 2 1 mdash 1178 315 260 422 mdashWS12 3 60 17 1 mdash mdash 1797 447 561 mdash mdashWS13 3 59 14 1 mdash mdash 2026 466 670 mdash mdashWS14 3 20 6 1 mdash mdash 834 245 072 mdash mdashWS15 4 67 17 3 1 mdash 2084 537 210 621 mdashWS16 3 39 10 2 mdash mdash 1227 232 462 mdash mdashWS17 2 12 4 mdash mdash mdash 339 205 mdash mdash mdash

WS16 WS4 WS3 WS2 WS5 and WS10 have moderate 119863values (20ndash25 kmkm2) Subwatersheds WS6 WS9 WS12WS7 WS8 and WS13 have high 119863 values (between 25 and30 kmkm2) The low and moderate 119863 watersheds revealthat they are composed of permeable subsurface materialgood vegetation cover and low relief which results in moreinfiltration capacity and comparably are good sites for groundwater recharge as compared to high 119863 watersheds [53 54]

On the basis of D WS17 will have the greatest basin lag timewhile WS13 will demonstrate the shortest lag time

37 Drainage Texture (Rt) Drainage texture (Rt) is influ-enced by infiltration capacity [22] There are five differenttexture classes very coarse (lt2) coarse (2ndash4) moderate(4ndash6) fine (6ndash8) and very fine (gt8) [55] According to this

Geography Journal 7

Table 4 Showing comparative mean stream length and stream length ratios

Subwatershed Mean stream length (km) Stream length ratioI II III IV V III IIIII IVIII VIV

WS1 029 029 135 084 mdash 025 115 020 mdashWS2 030 042 350 194 mdash 027 184 027 mdashWS3 032 027 146 583 279 023 105 085 015WS4 034 042 212 015 mdash 030 076 003 mdashWS5 033 021 079 086 mdash 026 093 053 mdashWS6 033 036 076 534 mdash 044 041 099 mdashWS7 038 032 166 150 176 041 057 015 058WS8 031 027 147 441 176 040 058 059 019WS9 030 029 124 251 776 049 039 048 061WS10 032 027 090 596 331 048 023 189 027WS11 029 031 130 422 mdash 026 082 162 mdashWS12 029 026 561 mdash mdash 024 125 mdash mdashWS13 034 033 669 mdash mdash 023 143 mdash mdashWS14 041 040 071 mdash mdash 029 029 mdash mdashWS15 031 031 069 620 mdash 025 039 296 mdashWS16 031 023 231 mdash mdash 018 199 mdash mdashWS17 028 051 mdash mdash mdash 060 mdash mdash mdash

Table 5 Showing bifurcation ratios drainage density and stream frequency of the subwatersheds

Subwatershed Bifurcation ratio Mean bifurcation ratio Drainage density Stream frequency Drainage intensityIII IIIII IIIIV IVV

WS1 383 400 300 mdash 361 211 593 282WS2 489 450 200 mdash 380 243 515 212WS3 356 507 467 300 408 236 563 239WS4 408 650 200 mdash 419 235 578 246WS5 238 400 200 mdash 279 248 702 283WS6 246 500 700 mdash 482 264 652 247WS7 206 883 600 200 472 296 704 238WS8 212 920 500 200 458 298 798 268WS9 194 1071 420 500 562 269 782 291WS10 173 1414 350 200 534 249 670 269WS11 400 500 200 mdash 367 186 452 244WS12 353 1700 mdash mdash 1026 295 819 278WS13 421 1400 mdash mdash 911 301 705 234WS14 333 600 mdash mdash 467 176 412 235WS15 394 567 300 mdash 420 221 564 255WS16 390 500 mdash mdash 445 232 615 265WS17 300 mdash mdash mdash 300 118 347 294

classification WS17 has very coarse drainage texture WS1WS2 WS4 WS5 WS11 WS14 and WS16 have coarse RtWS3 WS6 WS12 WS13 and WS15 have moderate Rt andWS7 WS8 WS9 and WS10 have very fine Rt (Table 6)Hydrologically very coarse texture watersheds have largebasin lag time periods [56] followed by coarse fine and veryfine texture classesThis indicates thatWS17 (Rt = 162) showslonger duration to peak flow while WS9 (Rt = 1275) showsthe shortest

38 Form Factor (Rf) The basins with high form factorshave high peak flows of shorter duration whereas elongatedsubwatersheds with low form factors have lower peak flowof longer duration [57ndash59] In this study WS2 WS3 WS7WS10 WS11 WS13 WS14 and WS15 show lower formfactor (Table 7) indicating elongated shape and suggestingflat hydrograph peak for longer duration Flood flows ofsuch elongated basins are easier to manage than those of thecircular basin WS5 WS6 WS8 WS9 WS12 and WS16 have

8 Geography Journal

Table 6 Showing drainage texture constant channel maintenance shape index ruggedness number and shape factor

Subwatershed Drainage texture Constant channelmaintenance

Compactnesscoefficient

Shape index Ruggedness number Shape factor

WS1 339 047 160 119 070 063WS2 354 041 136 257 054 074WS3 563 042 220 337 119 046WS4 390 043 145 094 082 069WS5 315 040 130 203 058 077WS6 599 038 137 203 075 073WS7 1024 034 135 303 076 074WS8 982 034 141 209 057 071WS9 1275 037 162 246 078 062WS10 933 040 131 295 075 076WS11 310 054 141 342 098 071WS12 468 034 152 390 067 066WS13 413 033 156 402 070 064WS14 233 057 128 252 101 078WS15 417 045 151 400 092 066WS16 393 043 127 228 088 079WS17 162 085 130 102 111 077

Table 7 Showing important morphometric parameters of the subwatersheds

Subwatershed Relief ratio Elongation ratio Texture ratio Circularity ratio Form factor Length of overland flowWS1 042 104 251 039 084 023WS2 025 070 278 054 039 017WS3 020 061 418 021 030 018WS4 057 116 299 048 106 018WS5 049 079 200 059 049 016WS6 031 079 399 054 049 014WS7 019 065 659 055 033 011WS8 019 078 638 051 048 011WS9 014 072 809 038 041 014WS10 017 066 570 058 034 016WS11 029 061 234 050 029 029WS12 033 057 360 043 026 012WS13 032 056 329 041 025 011WS14 044 071 172 061 040 032WS15 026 056 318 044 025 020WS16 047 075 301 062 044 019WS17 061 112 121 059 098 072

slightly circular shape as suggested by moderately higher RfSubwatershedsWS1 WS4 andWS17 have high Rf indicatingthat they have developed into quite circular to rectangularshape Watershed morphology has profound impacts on thewatershed hydrology [60]

39 Elongation Ratio (Re) The value of elongation ratio(Re) generally varies from 06 to 10 associated with a wide

variety of climate and geology Values close to 10 are typicalof regions of very low relief whereas that from 06 to 08are associated with high relief and steep ground slope [7]These values can be grouped into three categories namelycircular (gt09) oval (09ndash07) and less elongated (lt07) Refor the subwatersheds WS13 WS15 WS12 WS3 WS11 WS7andWS10 is less than 070which indicates that subwatershedsare elongated with high relief and steep slope WS2 WS14WS9 WS16 WS8 WS5 and WS6 sub-watersheds fall in oval

Geography Journal 9

1 2 3 4 50

05

1

15

2

25

3

WS1WS2WS3WS4WS5WS6WS7WS8WS9

WS10WS11WS12WS13WS14WS15WS16WS17

Stream order

Stre

am le

ngth

(log10)

Figure 3 Showing relation between stream order and length ofstreams for 17 subwatersheds

category while subwatersheds WS1 WS17 and WS4 fall inthe circular category (Table 7) The circular watersheds havequick though lower hydrograph peak compared to the ovaland elongated watersheds [61 62] This indicates that WS13will show delayed time to peak flow while WS4 will showshorter time to peak

310 Circulatory Ratio (Rc) It is that ratio of the area of thebasin to the area of circle having the same circumference asthe perimeter of the basin [25] Many of the important basincharacteristics influence Rc such as length and frequency ofstreams geological structures land useland cover climaterelief and slope of the basin In the present case Rc forsubwatersheds WS8 WS2 WS6 WS7 WS10 WS5 WS17WS14 and WS16 is in the range from 053 to 062 indicatingthat the area is characterized by high relief elongated andpermeable surface resulting in greater basin lag times whileWS3 WS9 WS1 WS13 WS12 WS15 WS4 and WS11 havelower circularity ratios indicating low relief and impermeablesurface resulting in lower basin lag times (Table 7) Thisindicates that WS16 will show delayed time to peak flowwhile WS3 will show shorter time to peak Rf Re andRc significantly influence the hydrological response of thewatersheds as basin shape and the arrangement of streamsegments combine to influence the size and shape of floodpeaks [63]

311 Length of Overland Flow (Lg) Length of overland flowis one of the most important independent variables affectingboth hydrologic and hydrographic development of drainagebasins [24] Table 7 reveals that Lg for the 17 subwatersheds in

chronological order is 022 016 018 018 016 014 011 011076 016 029 011 011 032 02 018 and 071 respectivelyThe Lg for subwatershedsWS2-WS10WS12WS13 andWS16indicates steep slopes and shorter flow paths while as Lg forWS1 WS11 WS14 WS15 and WS17 indicates gentle slopesand longer flow paths

312 Constant of Channel Maintenance (C) In the presentstudy C varies from 033 forW8 andW9 to 084 forW17 as isshown in Table 6 The reciprocal of the drainage density (D)is constant of channel maintenance and signifies how muchdrainage area is required tomaintain a unit length of channelLow values of 119862 in case of WS8 and WS9 indicates thatamong all the 17 subwatersheds these two are associated withweakest or very low-resistance soils sparse vegetation andmountainous terrain while the watershedWS17 is associatedwith resistance soils vegetation and comparably plain terrain[64]

313 Compactness Coefficient (Cc) Compactness coefficientexpresses the relationship of a basin with that of a circularbasin having the same area A circular basin yields theshortest time of concentration before peak flow occurs in thebasin 119862119888 = 1 indicates that the basin completely behaves asa circular basin 119862119888 gt 1 indicates more deviation from thecircular nature of the basin The values for all the subwater-sheds range from 127 for WS16 to 220 for WS3 as seen inTable 6 Consequently WS16 has the greatest deviation fromthe circular nature and on the basis of this parameter aloneit will have the longest time of concentration before peak flowoccurs in the basin out of all the subwatersheds [60ndash62]

314 Shape Index (Sw) Rate of water and sediment yieldalong the length and relief of the drainage basin is largelyaffected by the shape The shape index values for subwater-sheds of the study area range from 094 in WS4 to 402 inWS13 as shown in Table 6 In terms of Sw onlyWS13 will havethe shorter basin lag time while WS4 will have the longerbasin lag time

315 Texture Ratio (T) Texture ratio is one of the mostimportant factors in the drainage morphometric analysiswhich depends on the underlying lithology infiltration capac-ity and relief aspect of the terrain is the texture ratio [65 66]As shown in Table 7 T varies between 121 in case of WS17and 809 in case of WS9 Hydrologically it can be said thatWS17 in terms of 119879alone will have the longest basin lag timesandWS9 will have the shortest This reaffirms the results andconclusions drawn from the values ofUD Fs and Rt in caseof W17

316 Ruggedness Number (Rn) The ruggedness number indi-cates the structural complexity of the terrain in associationwith the relief and drainage density It also implies that thearea is susceptible to soil erosion [67 68] In present study theruggedness number is minimum in case of WS2 (119877119899 = 054)and maximum in WS3 (119877119899 = 119) as seen in Table 6 Thisindicates that WS2 is least susceptible to erosion and WS3

10 Geography Journal

Stream order map of subwatershed 8

34∘11

9984000998400998400

34∘12

9984000998400998400

34∘13

9984000998400998400

34∘14

9984000998400998400

34∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘12

9984000998400998400

75∘14

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

0 05 1 2Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 1

34∘49984000998400998400

34∘39984000998400998400

34∘29984000998400998400

34∘19984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

75∘18

9984000998400998400

75∘19

9984000998400998400

75∘20

9984000998400998400

75∘21

9984000998400998400

0 045 09 18

Kilometers

N

EW

S

Stream order map of subwatershed 2

34∘59984000998400998400

34∘49984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

75∘18

9984000998400998400

75∘19

9984000998400998400

0 035 07 14

Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 3

34∘49984000998400998400

34∘59984000998400998400

34∘69984000998400998400

34∘79984000998400998400

34∘89984000998400998400

34∘99984000998400998400

34∘10

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

75∘19

9984000998400998400

75∘21

9984000998400998400

0 05 1 2

Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 4

34∘79984000998400998400

34∘89984000998400998400

34∘99984000998400998400

34∘10

9984000998400998400

75∘14

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

0 045 09 18

Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 5

34∘99984000998400998400

34∘10

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

0 025 05 1Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 6

34∘89984000998400998400

34∘99984000998400998400

34∘10

9984000998400998400

34∘11

9984000998400998400

34∘12

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

75∘18

9984000998400998400

75∘19

9984000998400998400

0 05 1 2Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 7

34∘99984000998400998400

34∘10

9984000998400998400

34∘11

9984000998400998400

34∘12

9984000998400998400

34∘13

9984000998400998400

34∘14

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

75∘18

9984000998400998400

75∘20

9984000998400998400

75∘22

9984000998400998400

0 05 1 2Kilometers

12

345

Watershed boundaryStream order

12

345

Watershed boundaryStream order

N

EW

S

N

EW

S

N

EW

S

N

EW

S

N

EW

S

N

EW

S

N

EW

S

West Lidder River West Lidder River

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

Wes

t Lid

der R

iver

Wes

t Lid

der R

iver

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

(a)

Figure 4 Continued

Geography Journal 11

Stream order map of subwatershed 9

34∘59984000998400998400

34∘69984000998400998400

34∘79984000998400998400

34∘89984000998400998400

34∘99984000998400998400

34∘10

9984000998400998400

34∘11

9984000998400998400

34∘12

9984000998400998400

75∘69984000998400998400

75∘89984000998400998400

75∘10

9984000998400998400

75∘11

9984000998400998400

75∘13

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘12

9984000998400998400

75∘14

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

0 1 2 4Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 10

34∘49984000998400998400

34∘59984000998400998400

34∘69984000998400998400

34∘79984000998400998400

34∘89984000998400998400

34∘99984000998400998400

75∘99984000998400998400

0 1 205

Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 15

34∘19984000998400998400

34∘29984000998400998400

34∘39984000998400998400

0 045 09 18Kilometers

75∘14

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

Stream order map of subwatershed 16

34∘19984000998400998400

34∘29984000998400998400

34∘39984000998400998400

0 03 06 12Kilometers

75∘16

9984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

75∘18

9984000998400998400

Stream order map of subwatershed 13

34∘29984000998400998400

34∘39984000998400998400

34∘49984000998400998400

0 035 07 14

Kilometers

75∘13

9984000998400998400

75∘14

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

Stream order map of subwatershed 14

34∘39984000998400998400

34∘49984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

0 1025 05

Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 11

34∘49984000998400998400

34∘59984000998400998400

34∘69984000998400998400

34∘79984000998400998400

75∘12

9984000998400998400

75∘13

9984000998400998400

75∘14

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

0

12

345

04 08 16

Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 12

34∘39984000998400998400

34∘49984000998400998400

34∘59984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

75∘13

9984000998400998400

75∘14

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

0 035 07 14

Kilometers

Watershed boundaryStream order

12

345

Watershed boundaryStream order

N

S

EWN

S

EW

N

S

EW

N

S

EW

N

S

EW

N

S

EW

N

S

EW

N

S

EW

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

(b)

Figure 4 Continued

12 Geography Journal

Stream order map of subwatershed 17

34∘19984000998400998400

34∘29984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

75∘18

9984000998400998400

75∘19

9984000998400998400

0 02 04 08Kilometers

12

Watershed boundaryStream order

N

EW

S

West Lidder River

(c)

Figure 4 (a) Showing drainage maps of subwatersheds WS1ndashWS8 (b) Showing drainage maps of subwatersheds WS9ndashWS16 (c) Showingdrainage patterns of WS17 of West Lidder catchment

is most susceptible among all the subwatersheds of the studyarea

317 Shape Factor (Rs) The shape factor observed in thestudy area is minimum in case of WS3 (119877119904 = 046) andmaximum in case of WS16 (119877119904 = 079) as shown in Table 6This parameter is similar in interpretation to circularity ratioelongation ratio and form factor It gives an idea aboutthe circular character of the basin The greater the circularcharacter of the basin is the greater is the rapid response ofthe watershed after a storm event [60] Therefore in terms ofRs only WS3 has the longest basin lag time and WS16 theshortest

4 Conclusion

From the integrated analysis of the results on the mor-phometry of the 17 subwatersheds it is concluded that thewhole study area has uniform underlying lithology makingthe hydrological response in these subwatersheds a directfunction of the geomorphology the topography and theexisting vegetation conditions only The spatial variabilityof the morphometric parameters analyzed in this study isquite significant Since the hydrology of a watershed changessignificantly due to the spatial variations of the morpho-metric parameters the subwatersheds will therefore alsoexhibit differential hydrological behaviour Overall resultsindicated that comparatively WS16 WS13 WS12 and WS9shall contribute dominantly to the stream runoff in theWest Lidder catchment and on the contrary WS17 WS5and WS3 shall contribute the least due to the cumulativeand integrated effect of the morphometric parameters whosesignificance and influences on the hydrological behaviourhave been discussed in detail in the preceding sectionsBecause of the close relationship between the morphometricparameters and the mean annual flood it is concluded on

the basis of the range of the morphometric analysis thatWS16 WS13 WS12 and WS9 in that order are more proneto flooding compared to the other 13 subwatersheds of theWest Lidder catchment The hydrological behaviour of these17 subwatersheds shall have profound influences on the floodvulnerability and flood risk in the downstream portions ofthe Lidder River It is hoped that information and knowledgegenerated under this study shall guide the informed planningand decision-making for flood disaster risk reduction in theLidder watershed that forms an important tributary of theJhelum basin

Acknowledgments

This research work has been accomplished under a researchgrant provided by the Department of Science and Technol-ogy Government of India for the project titled ldquoIntegratedFlood vulnerability Assessment for Flood Risk Managementand Disaster Mitigationrdquo The authors express their gratitudeto the funding agency for the financial assistanceThe authorsalso express their sincere thanks to anonymous reviewerswhose valuable comments have improved the quality of thispaper

References

[1] C S Agarwal ldquoStudy of drainage pattern through aerial datain Naugarh area of Varanasi district UPrdquo Journal of the IndianSociety of Remote Sensing vol 26 no 4 pp 169ndash175 1998

[2] G E Obi Reddy A K Maji and K S Gajbhiye ldquoGIS formorphometric analysis of drainage basinsrdquo GIS India vol 11no 4 pp 9ndash14 2002

[3] V Pakhmode H Kulkarni and S B Deolankar ldquoHydrological-drainage analysis in watershed-programme planning a casefrom theDeccan basalt IndiardquoHydrogeology Journal vol 11 no5 pp 595ndash604 2003

Geography Journal 13

[4] L B Leopold and T Maddock ldquoThe hydraulic geometry ofstream channels and some physiographic implicationsrdquo USGSProfessional Paper vol 252 pp 1ndash57 1953

[5] A D Abrahams ldquoChannel networks a geomorphologicalperspectiverdquo Water Resources Research vol 20 no 2 pp 161ndash168 1984

[6] S Singh ldquoQuantitative geomorphology of the drainage basinrdquoin Readings on Remote Sensing Applications T S Chouhan andK N Joshi Eds Scientific Publishers Jodhpur India 1992

[7] R A Dar R Chandra and S A Romshoo ldquoMorphotectonicand lithostratigraphic analysis of intermontane Karewa basin ofKashmir Himalayas Indiardquo Journal ofMountain Science vol 10no 1 pp 731ndash741 2013

[8] S A Romshoo S A Bhat and I Rashid ldquoGeoinformatics forassessing the morphometric control on hydrological responseat watershed scale in the Upper Indus basinrdquo Journal of EarthSystem Science vol 121 no 3 pp 659ndash686 2012

[9] A N Strahler ldquoQuantitative geomorphology of drainage basinsand channel networksrdquo in Handbook of Applied Hydrology VT Chow Ed section 4ndash11 McGraw-Hill New York NY USA1964

[10] A Strahler ldquoQuantitative analysis of watershed geomorphol-ogyrdquoTransactions AmericanGeophysical Union vol 38 pp 913ndash920 1957

[11] J Krishnamurthy G Srinivas V Jayaraman and M G Chan-drasekhar ldquoInfluence of rock types and structures in thedevelopment of drainage networks in typical hardrock terrainrdquoITC Journal no 3-4 pp 252ndash259 1996

[12] A K Das and S Mukherjee ldquoDrainage morphometry usingsatellite data andGIS inRaigad districtMaharashtrardquo Journal ofthe Geological Society of India vol 65 no 5 pp 577ndash586 2005

[13] S S Vittala S Govindaih and H H Gowda ldquoMorphometricanalysis of sub-watershed in the Pavada area of Tumkur districtSouth India using remote sensing and GIS techniquesrdquo Journalof Indian Remote Sensing vol 32 pp 351ndash362 2004

[14] S K Nag ldquoMorphometric analysis using remote sensing tech-niques in the Chaka subbasin Purulia district West BengalrdquoJournal of Indian Society of Remote Sensing vol 26 no 1-2 pp69ndash76 1998

[15] AM Y Esper ldquoMorphometric analysis of Colanguil river basinand flash flood hazard San Juan Argentinardquo EnvironmentalGeology vol 55 pp 107ndash111 2008

[16] T N Bhagwat A Shetty and V S Hegde ldquoSpatial variationin drainage characteristics and geomorphic instantaneous unithydrograph (GIUH) implications for watershed management-A case study of the Varada River basin Northern KarnatakardquoCatena vol 87 no 1 pp 52ndash59 2011

[17] N R Bhaskar B P Parida and A K Nayak ldquoFlood estimationfor ungauged catchments using the GIUHrdquo Journal of WaterResources Planning and Management vol 123 no 4 pp 228ndash237 1997

[18] S K Jain R D Singh and S M Seth ldquoDesign flood estimationusing GIS supported GIUH approachrdquo Water Resources Man-agement vol 14 no 5 pp 369ndash376 2000

[19] M Suresh S Sudhakara K N Tiwari and V M ChowdaryldquoPrioritization of watersheds using morphometric parametersand assessment of surface water potential using remote sens-ingrdquo Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing vol 32 no3 2004

[20] S A Bhat and S A Romshoo ldquoDigital elevation model basedwatershed characteristics of upper watersheds of Jhelum basinrdquoJournal of Applied Hydrology vol 21 no 2 pp 23ndash34 2009

[21] J F OrsquoCallaghan and D M Mark ldquoThe extraction of drainagenetworks from digital elevation datardquo Computer Vision Graph-ics and Image Processing vol 28 pp 323ndash344 1984

[22] R E Horton ldquoErosional development of streams and theirdrainage basins hydrophysical approach to quantitative mor-phologyrdquoGeological Society of America Bulletin vol 56 pp 275ndash370 1945

[23] S A Schumms ldquoEvolution of drainage systems and slopes inBadlands at Perth Amboy New Jerseyrdquo Bulletin of the GeologicalSociety of America vol 67 pp 597ndash646 1956

[24] R E Horton ldquoDrainage basin characteristicsrdquo TransactionsAmerican Geophysical Union vol 13 pp 350ndash361 1932

[25] V C Miller ldquoA Quantitative geomorphic study of drainagebasin characteristics in the Clinch Mountain area Virginia andTennesseerdquo Tech Rep 3 NR 389-402 Columbia UniversityDepartment of Geology ONR New York NY USA 1953

[26] K Pareta andU Pareta ldquoQuantitativemorphometric analysis ofa watershed of Yamuna basin India using ASTER (DEM) dataand GISrdquo International Journal of Geomatics and Geosciencesvol 2 no 1 2011

[27] M Sameena J Krishnamurthy V Jayaraman andG RangannaldquoEvaluation of drainage networks developed in hard rockterrainrdquoGeocarto International vol 24 no 5 pp 397ndash420 2009

[28] A Faniran ldquoThe index of drainage intensitymdasha provisional newdrainage factorrdquo Australian Journal of Science vol 31 pp 328ndash330 1968

[29] I Rashid and S A Romshoo ldquoImpact of anthropogenic activ-ities on water quality of Lidder River in Kashmir HimalayasrdquoEnvironmental Monitoring and Assessment 2012

[30] M Raza A Ahmed and A Mohammad The Valley ofKashmirmdashA Geographical Interpretation Vol I the Land VikasPublishing New Delhi India 1978

[31] V M Meher ldquoThe climate of Srinagar and its variabilityrdquoGeographical Review of India vol 33 no 1 pp 1ndash14 1971

[32] BM Engelhardt P JWeisberg and J C Chambers ldquoInfluencesof watershed geomorphology on extent and composition ofriparian vegetationrdquo Journal of Vegetation Science vol 23 no1 pp 127ndash139 2011

[33] J E Costa ldquoHydraulics and basin morphometry of the largestflash floods in the conterminous United Statesrdquo Journal ofHydrology vol 93 no 3-4 pp 313ndash338 1987

[34] S Singh and M C Singh ldquoMorphometric analysis of Kanharriver basinrdquoThe National Geographical Journal of India vol 43no 1 pp 31ndash43 1997

[35] W Luo and J M Harlin ldquoA theoretical travel time basedon watershed hypsometryrdquo Journal of the American WaterResources Association vol 39 no 4 pp 785ndash792 2003

[36] J M Harlin ldquoThe effect of precipitation variability on drainagebasin morphometryrdquo American Journal of Science vol 280 no8 pp 812ndash825 1980

[37] J M Harlin ldquoWatershedmorphometry and time to hydrographpeakrdquo Journal of Hydrology vol 67 no 1-4 pp 141ndash154 1984

[38] S A Romshoo ldquoGeostatistical analysis of soil moisture mea-surements and remotely sensed data at different spatial scalesrdquoEnvironmental Geology vol 45 no 3 pp 339ndash349 2004

[39] S A Romshoo M Koike S Hironaka O Oki and K MusiakeldquoInfluence of surface and vegetation characteristics on C-bandradarmeasurements for soilmoisture contentrdquo Journal of IndianSociety of Remote Sensing vol 30 no 4 pp 229ndash244 2002

[40] D R Montgomery and W E Dietrich ldquoSource areas drainagedensity and channel initiationrdquo Water Resources Research vol25 no 8 pp 1907ndash1918 1989

14 Geography Journal

[41] D R Montgomery and W E Dietrich ldquoChannel initiation andthe problem of landscape scalerdquo Science vol 255 no 5046 pp826ndash830 1992

[42] EM Ghoneim NW Arnell andGM Foody ldquoCharacterizingthe flash flood hazards potential along the Red Sea coast ofEgyptrdquo IAHS-AISH Publication no 271 pp 211ndash216 2002

[43] M Diakakis ldquoA method for flood hazard mapping based onbasin morphometry application in two catchments in GreecerdquoNatural Hazards vol 56 no 3 pp 803ndash814 2011

[44] P C Patton and V R Baker ldquoMorphometry and floods in smalldrainage basins subject to diverse hydrogeomorphic controlsrdquoWater Resources Research vol 12 no 5 pp 941ndash952 1976

[45] A D Howard ldquoRole of hypsometry and planform in basinhydrologic responserdquo Hydrological Processes vol 4 no 4 pp373ndash385 1990

[46] K Rakesh A K Lohani K Sanjay C Chatterjee and R KNema ldquoGIS based morphometric analysis of Ajay river basinupto Srarath gauging site of South Biharrdquo Journal of AppliedHydrology vol 14 no 4 pp 45ndash54 2000

[47] B Dodov and E Foufoula-Georgiou ldquoFluvial processes andstreamflow variability interplay in the scale-frequency contin-uum and implications for scalingrdquo Water Resources Researchvol 41 no 5 pp 1ndash18 2005

[48] L C Gottschalk ldquoReservoir sedimentationrdquo in Handbook ofApplied Hydrology V T Chow Ed section 7-1 McGraw-HillNew York NY USA 1964

[49] B ADodov and E Foufoula-Georgiou ldquoFloodplainmorphom-etry extraction from a high-resolution digital elevationmodel asimple algorithm for regional analysis studiesrdquo IEEE Geoscienceand Remote Sensing Letters vol 3 no 3 pp 410ndash413 2006

[50] P C Patton ldquoDrainage basin morphometry and floodsrdquo inFlood Geomorphology pp 51ndash64 JohnWiley amp Sons NewYorkNY USA 1988

[51] V Gardiner and C C Park ldquoDrainage basin morphometryrdquoProgress in Physical Geography vol 2 no 1 pp 1ndash35 1978

[52] W B Langbein ldquoTopographic characteristics of drainagebasinsrdquoUS Geological SurveyWater-Supply Paper vol 986 pp157ndash159 1947

[53] W Luo ldquoQuantifying groundwater-sapping landforms witha hypsometric techniquerdquo Journal of Geophysical Research EPlanets vol 105 no 1 pp 1685ndash1694 2000

[54] J M Harlin and C Wijeyawickrema ldquoIrrigation and ground-water depletion in Caddo county Oklahomardquo Journal of theAmerican Water Resources Association vol 21 no 1 pp 15ndash221985

[55] K G Smith ldquoStandards for grading textures of erosionaltopographyrdquoAmerican Journal of Science vol 248 pp 655ndash6681950

[56] M Y Esper Angillieri ldquoMorphometric analysis of Colanguilriver basin and flash flood hazard San Juan ArgentinardquoEnvironmental Geology vol 55 no 1 pp 107ndash111 2008

[57] A M Youssef B Pradhan and A M Hassan ldquoFlash floodrisk estimation along the St Katherine road southern SinaiEgypt using GIS based morphometry and satellite imageryrdquoEnvironmental Earth Sciences vol 62 no 3 pp 611ndash623 2011

[58] A D Howard ldquoRole of hypsometry and planform in basinhydrologic responserdquo Hydrological Processes vol 4 no 4 pp373ndash385 1990

[59] R C Kochel ldquoGeomorphic impact of large floods reviewand new perspectives on magnitude and frequencyrdquo in FloodGeomorphology pp 169ndash187 JohnWiley amp Sons NewYork NYUSA 1988

[60] G E Tucker and R L Bras ldquoHillslope processes drainagedensity and landscape morphologyrdquoWater Resources Researchvol 34 no 10 pp 2751ndash2764 1998

[61] M Borga et al ldquoReal time guidance for flash flood riskmanagementrdquo FLOOD Site Research Project Report T16 2008

[62] K W Potter and E B Faulkner ldquoCatchment response time asa predictor of flood quantilesrdquo Journal of the American WaterResources Association vol 23 no 5 pp 857ndash861 1987

[63] R CWard andM Robinson Principles of Hydrology McGraw-Hill Maidenhead UK 4th edition 2000

[64] S Shulits ldquoQuantitative formulation of stream and watershedmorphologyrdquo Bulletin of the International Association of Scien-tific Hydrology vol 3 pp 201ndash207 1968

[65] A Demoulin ldquoBasin and river profile morphometry a newindex with a high potential for relative dating of tectonic upliftrdquoGeomorphology vol 126 no 1-2 pp 97ndash107 2011

[66] T B Altin and B N Altin ldquoDrainage morphometry and itsinfluence on landforms in volcanic terrain Central AnatoliaTurkeyrdquo ProcediamdashSocial and Behavioral Sciences vol 19 pp732ndash740 2011

[67] M Rashid M A Lone and S A Romshoo ldquoGeospatial toolsfor assessing land degradation in Budgam district KashmirHimalaya Indiardquo Journal of Earth System Science vol 120 no3 pp 423ndash433 2011

[68] S Zaz and S A Romshoo ldquoAssessing the geoindicators of landdegradation in the Kashmir Himalayan Region Indiardquo NaturalHazards vol 64 no 2 pp 1219ndash1245 2012

Geography Journal 7

Table 4 Showing comparative mean stream length and stream length ratios

Subwatershed Mean stream length (km) Stream length ratioI II III IV V III IIIII IVIII VIV

WS1 029 029 135 084 mdash 025 115 020 mdashWS2 030 042 350 194 mdash 027 184 027 mdashWS3 032 027 146 583 279 023 105 085 015WS4 034 042 212 015 mdash 030 076 003 mdashWS5 033 021 079 086 mdash 026 093 053 mdashWS6 033 036 076 534 mdash 044 041 099 mdashWS7 038 032 166 150 176 041 057 015 058WS8 031 027 147 441 176 040 058 059 019WS9 030 029 124 251 776 049 039 048 061WS10 032 027 090 596 331 048 023 189 027WS11 029 031 130 422 mdash 026 082 162 mdashWS12 029 026 561 mdash mdash 024 125 mdash mdashWS13 034 033 669 mdash mdash 023 143 mdash mdashWS14 041 040 071 mdash mdash 029 029 mdash mdashWS15 031 031 069 620 mdash 025 039 296 mdashWS16 031 023 231 mdash mdash 018 199 mdash mdashWS17 028 051 mdash mdash mdash 060 mdash mdash mdash

Table 5 Showing bifurcation ratios drainage density and stream frequency of the subwatersheds

Subwatershed Bifurcation ratio Mean bifurcation ratio Drainage density Stream frequency Drainage intensityIII IIIII IIIIV IVV

WS1 383 400 300 mdash 361 211 593 282WS2 489 450 200 mdash 380 243 515 212WS3 356 507 467 300 408 236 563 239WS4 408 650 200 mdash 419 235 578 246WS5 238 400 200 mdash 279 248 702 283WS6 246 500 700 mdash 482 264 652 247WS7 206 883 600 200 472 296 704 238WS8 212 920 500 200 458 298 798 268WS9 194 1071 420 500 562 269 782 291WS10 173 1414 350 200 534 249 670 269WS11 400 500 200 mdash 367 186 452 244WS12 353 1700 mdash mdash 1026 295 819 278WS13 421 1400 mdash mdash 911 301 705 234WS14 333 600 mdash mdash 467 176 412 235WS15 394 567 300 mdash 420 221 564 255WS16 390 500 mdash mdash 445 232 615 265WS17 300 mdash mdash mdash 300 118 347 294

classification WS17 has very coarse drainage texture WS1WS2 WS4 WS5 WS11 WS14 and WS16 have coarse RtWS3 WS6 WS12 WS13 and WS15 have moderate Rt andWS7 WS8 WS9 and WS10 have very fine Rt (Table 6)Hydrologically very coarse texture watersheds have largebasin lag time periods [56] followed by coarse fine and veryfine texture classesThis indicates thatWS17 (Rt = 162) showslonger duration to peak flow while WS9 (Rt = 1275) showsthe shortest

38 Form Factor (Rf) The basins with high form factorshave high peak flows of shorter duration whereas elongatedsubwatersheds with low form factors have lower peak flowof longer duration [57ndash59] In this study WS2 WS3 WS7WS10 WS11 WS13 WS14 and WS15 show lower formfactor (Table 7) indicating elongated shape and suggestingflat hydrograph peak for longer duration Flood flows ofsuch elongated basins are easier to manage than those of thecircular basin WS5 WS6 WS8 WS9 WS12 and WS16 have

8 Geography Journal

Table 6 Showing drainage texture constant channel maintenance shape index ruggedness number and shape factor

Subwatershed Drainage texture Constant channelmaintenance

Compactnesscoefficient

Shape index Ruggedness number Shape factor

WS1 339 047 160 119 070 063WS2 354 041 136 257 054 074WS3 563 042 220 337 119 046WS4 390 043 145 094 082 069WS5 315 040 130 203 058 077WS6 599 038 137 203 075 073WS7 1024 034 135 303 076 074WS8 982 034 141 209 057 071WS9 1275 037 162 246 078 062WS10 933 040 131 295 075 076WS11 310 054 141 342 098 071WS12 468 034 152 390 067 066WS13 413 033 156 402 070 064WS14 233 057 128 252 101 078WS15 417 045 151 400 092 066WS16 393 043 127 228 088 079WS17 162 085 130 102 111 077

Table 7 Showing important morphometric parameters of the subwatersheds

Subwatershed Relief ratio Elongation ratio Texture ratio Circularity ratio Form factor Length of overland flowWS1 042 104 251 039 084 023WS2 025 070 278 054 039 017WS3 020 061 418 021 030 018WS4 057 116 299 048 106 018WS5 049 079 200 059 049 016WS6 031 079 399 054 049 014WS7 019 065 659 055 033 011WS8 019 078 638 051 048 011WS9 014 072 809 038 041 014WS10 017 066 570 058 034 016WS11 029 061 234 050 029 029WS12 033 057 360 043 026 012WS13 032 056 329 041 025 011WS14 044 071 172 061 040 032WS15 026 056 318 044 025 020WS16 047 075 301 062 044 019WS17 061 112 121 059 098 072

slightly circular shape as suggested by moderately higher RfSubwatershedsWS1 WS4 andWS17 have high Rf indicatingthat they have developed into quite circular to rectangularshape Watershed morphology has profound impacts on thewatershed hydrology [60]

39 Elongation Ratio (Re) The value of elongation ratio(Re) generally varies from 06 to 10 associated with a wide

variety of climate and geology Values close to 10 are typicalof regions of very low relief whereas that from 06 to 08are associated with high relief and steep ground slope [7]These values can be grouped into three categories namelycircular (gt09) oval (09ndash07) and less elongated (lt07) Refor the subwatersheds WS13 WS15 WS12 WS3 WS11 WS7andWS10 is less than 070which indicates that subwatershedsare elongated with high relief and steep slope WS2 WS14WS9 WS16 WS8 WS5 and WS6 sub-watersheds fall in oval

Geography Journal 9

1 2 3 4 50

05

1

15

2

25

3

WS1WS2WS3WS4WS5WS6WS7WS8WS9

WS10WS11WS12WS13WS14WS15WS16WS17

Stream order

Stre

am le

ngth

(log10)

Figure 3 Showing relation between stream order and length ofstreams for 17 subwatersheds

category while subwatersheds WS1 WS17 and WS4 fall inthe circular category (Table 7) The circular watersheds havequick though lower hydrograph peak compared to the ovaland elongated watersheds [61 62] This indicates that WS13will show delayed time to peak flow while WS4 will showshorter time to peak

310 Circulatory Ratio (Rc) It is that ratio of the area of thebasin to the area of circle having the same circumference asthe perimeter of the basin [25] Many of the important basincharacteristics influence Rc such as length and frequency ofstreams geological structures land useland cover climaterelief and slope of the basin In the present case Rc forsubwatersheds WS8 WS2 WS6 WS7 WS10 WS5 WS17WS14 and WS16 is in the range from 053 to 062 indicatingthat the area is characterized by high relief elongated andpermeable surface resulting in greater basin lag times whileWS3 WS9 WS1 WS13 WS12 WS15 WS4 and WS11 havelower circularity ratios indicating low relief and impermeablesurface resulting in lower basin lag times (Table 7) Thisindicates that WS16 will show delayed time to peak flowwhile WS3 will show shorter time to peak Rf Re andRc significantly influence the hydrological response of thewatersheds as basin shape and the arrangement of streamsegments combine to influence the size and shape of floodpeaks [63]

311 Length of Overland Flow (Lg) Length of overland flowis one of the most important independent variables affectingboth hydrologic and hydrographic development of drainagebasins [24] Table 7 reveals that Lg for the 17 subwatersheds in

chronological order is 022 016 018 018 016 014 011 011076 016 029 011 011 032 02 018 and 071 respectivelyThe Lg for subwatershedsWS2-WS10WS12WS13 andWS16indicates steep slopes and shorter flow paths while as Lg forWS1 WS11 WS14 WS15 and WS17 indicates gentle slopesand longer flow paths

312 Constant of Channel Maintenance (C) In the presentstudy C varies from 033 forW8 andW9 to 084 forW17 as isshown in Table 6 The reciprocal of the drainage density (D)is constant of channel maintenance and signifies how muchdrainage area is required tomaintain a unit length of channelLow values of 119862 in case of WS8 and WS9 indicates thatamong all the 17 subwatersheds these two are associated withweakest or very low-resistance soils sparse vegetation andmountainous terrain while the watershedWS17 is associatedwith resistance soils vegetation and comparably plain terrain[64]

313 Compactness Coefficient (Cc) Compactness coefficientexpresses the relationship of a basin with that of a circularbasin having the same area A circular basin yields theshortest time of concentration before peak flow occurs in thebasin 119862119888 = 1 indicates that the basin completely behaves asa circular basin 119862119888 gt 1 indicates more deviation from thecircular nature of the basin The values for all the subwater-sheds range from 127 for WS16 to 220 for WS3 as seen inTable 6 Consequently WS16 has the greatest deviation fromthe circular nature and on the basis of this parameter aloneit will have the longest time of concentration before peak flowoccurs in the basin out of all the subwatersheds [60ndash62]

314 Shape Index (Sw) Rate of water and sediment yieldalong the length and relief of the drainage basin is largelyaffected by the shape The shape index values for subwater-sheds of the study area range from 094 in WS4 to 402 inWS13 as shown in Table 6 In terms of Sw onlyWS13 will havethe shorter basin lag time while WS4 will have the longerbasin lag time

315 Texture Ratio (T) Texture ratio is one of the mostimportant factors in the drainage morphometric analysiswhich depends on the underlying lithology infiltration capac-ity and relief aspect of the terrain is the texture ratio [65 66]As shown in Table 7 T varies between 121 in case of WS17and 809 in case of WS9 Hydrologically it can be said thatWS17 in terms of 119879alone will have the longest basin lag timesandWS9 will have the shortest This reaffirms the results andconclusions drawn from the values ofUD Fs and Rt in caseof W17

316 Ruggedness Number (Rn) The ruggedness number indi-cates the structural complexity of the terrain in associationwith the relief and drainage density It also implies that thearea is susceptible to soil erosion [67 68] In present study theruggedness number is minimum in case of WS2 (119877119899 = 054)and maximum in WS3 (119877119899 = 119) as seen in Table 6 Thisindicates that WS2 is least susceptible to erosion and WS3

10 Geography Journal

Stream order map of subwatershed 8

34∘11

9984000998400998400

34∘12

9984000998400998400

34∘13

9984000998400998400

34∘14

9984000998400998400

34∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘12

9984000998400998400

75∘14

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

0 05 1 2Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 1

34∘49984000998400998400

34∘39984000998400998400

34∘29984000998400998400

34∘19984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

75∘18

9984000998400998400

75∘19

9984000998400998400

75∘20

9984000998400998400

75∘21

9984000998400998400

0 045 09 18

Kilometers

N

EW

S

Stream order map of subwatershed 2

34∘59984000998400998400

34∘49984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

75∘18

9984000998400998400

75∘19

9984000998400998400

0 035 07 14

Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 3

34∘49984000998400998400

34∘59984000998400998400

34∘69984000998400998400

34∘79984000998400998400

34∘89984000998400998400

34∘99984000998400998400

34∘10

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

75∘19

9984000998400998400

75∘21

9984000998400998400

0 05 1 2

Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 4

34∘79984000998400998400

34∘89984000998400998400

34∘99984000998400998400

34∘10

9984000998400998400

75∘14

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

0 045 09 18

Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 5

34∘99984000998400998400

34∘10

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

0 025 05 1Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 6

34∘89984000998400998400

34∘99984000998400998400

34∘10

9984000998400998400

34∘11

9984000998400998400

34∘12

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

75∘18

9984000998400998400

75∘19

9984000998400998400

0 05 1 2Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 7

34∘99984000998400998400

34∘10

9984000998400998400

34∘11

9984000998400998400

34∘12

9984000998400998400

34∘13

9984000998400998400

34∘14

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

75∘18

9984000998400998400

75∘20

9984000998400998400

75∘22

9984000998400998400

0 05 1 2Kilometers

12

345

Watershed boundaryStream order

12

345

Watershed boundaryStream order

N

EW

S

N

EW

S

N

EW

S

N

EW

S

N

EW

S

N

EW

S

N

EW

S

West Lidder River West Lidder River

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

Wes

t Lid

der R

iver

Wes

t Lid

der R

iver

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

(a)

Figure 4 Continued

Geography Journal 11

Stream order map of subwatershed 9

34∘59984000998400998400

34∘69984000998400998400

34∘79984000998400998400

34∘89984000998400998400

34∘99984000998400998400

34∘10

9984000998400998400

34∘11

9984000998400998400

34∘12

9984000998400998400

75∘69984000998400998400

75∘89984000998400998400

75∘10

9984000998400998400

75∘11

9984000998400998400

75∘13

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘12

9984000998400998400

75∘14

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

0 1 2 4Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 10

34∘49984000998400998400

34∘59984000998400998400

34∘69984000998400998400

34∘79984000998400998400

34∘89984000998400998400

34∘99984000998400998400

75∘99984000998400998400

0 1 205

Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 15

34∘19984000998400998400

34∘29984000998400998400

34∘39984000998400998400

0 045 09 18Kilometers

75∘14

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

Stream order map of subwatershed 16

34∘19984000998400998400

34∘29984000998400998400

34∘39984000998400998400

0 03 06 12Kilometers

75∘16

9984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

75∘18

9984000998400998400

Stream order map of subwatershed 13

34∘29984000998400998400

34∘39984000998400998400

34∘49984000998400998400

0 035 07 14

Kilometers

75∘13

9984000998400998400

75∘14

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

Stream order map of subwatershed 14

34∘39984000998400998400

34∘49984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

0 1025 05

Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 11

34∘49984000998400998400

34∘59984000998400998400

34∘69984000998400998400

34∘79984000998400998400

75∘12

9984000998400998400

75∘13

9984000998400998400

75∘14

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

0

12

345

04 08 16

Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 12

34∘39984000998400998400

34∘49984000998400998400

34∘59984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

75∘13

9984000998400998400

75∘14

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

0 035 07 14

Kilometers

Watershed boundaryStream order

12

345

Watershed boundaryStream order

N

S

EWN

S

EW

N

S

EW

N

S

EW

N

S

EW

N

S

EW

N

S

EW

N

S

EW

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

(b)

Figure 4 Continued

12 Geography Journal

Stream order map of subwatershed 17

34∘19984000998400998400

34∘29984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

75∘18

9984000998400998400

75∘19

9984000998400998400

0 02 04 08Kilometers

12

Watershed boundaryStream order

N

EW

S

West Lidder River

(c)

Figure 4 (a) Showing drainage maps of subwatersheds WS1ndashWS8 (b) Showing drainage maps of subwatersheds WS9ndashWS16 (c) Showingdrainage patterns of WS17 of West Lidder catchment

is most susceptible among all the subwatersheds of the studyarea

317 Shape Factor (Rs) The shape factor observed in thestudy area is minimum in case of WS3 (119877119904 = 046) andmaximum in case of WS16 (119877119904 = 079) as shown in Table 6This parameter is similar in interpretation to circularity ratioelongation ratio and form factor It gives an idea aboutthe circular character of the basin The greater the circularcharacter of the basin is the greater is the rapid response ofthe watershed after a storm event [60] Therefore in terms ofRs only WS3 has the longest basin lag time and WS16 theshortest

4 Conclusion

From the integrated analysis of the results on the mor-phometry of the 17 subwatersheds it is concluded that thewhole study area has uniform underlying lithology makingthe hydrological response in these subwatersheds a directfunction of the geomorphology the topography and theexisting vegetation conditions only The spatial variabilityof the morphometric parameters analyzed in this study isquite significant Since the hydrology of a watershed changessignificantly due to the spatial variations of the morpho-metric parameters the subwatersheds will therefore alsoexhibit differential hydrological behaviour Overall resultsindicated that comparatively WS16 WS13 WS12 and WS9shall contribute dominantly to the stream runoff in theWest Lidder catchment and on the contrary WS17 WS5and WS3 shall contribute the least due to the cumulativeand integrated effect of the morphometric parameters whosesignificance and influences on the hydrological behaviourhave been discussed in detail in the preceding sectionsBecause of the close relationship between the morphometricparameters and the mean annual flood it is concluded on

the basis of the range of the morphometric analysis thatWS16 WS13 WS12 and WS9 in that order are more proneto flooding compared to the other 13 subwatersheds of theWest Lidder catchment The hydrological behaviour of these17 subwatersheds shall have profound influences on the floodvulnerability and flood risk in the downstream portions ofthe Lidder River It is hoped that information and knowledgegenerated under this study shall guide the informed planningand decision-making for flood disaster risk reduction in theLidder watershed that forms an important tributary of theJhelum basin

Acknowledgments

This research work has been accomplished under a researchgrant provided by the Department of Science and Technol-ogy Government of India for the project titled ldquoIntegratedFlood vulnerability Assessment for Flood Risk Managementand Disaster Mitigationrdquo The authors express their gratitudeto the funding agency for the financial assistanceThe authorsalso express their sincere thanks to anonymous reviewerswhose valuable comments have improved the quality of thispaper

References

[1] C S Agarwal ldquoStudy of drainage pattern through aerial datain Naugarh area of Varanasi district UPrdquo Journal of the IndianSociety of Remote Sensing vol 26 no 4 pp 169ndash175 1998

[2] G E Obi Reddy A K Maji and K S Gajbhiye ldquoGIS formorphometric analysis of drainage basinsrdquo GIS India vol 11no 4 pp 9ndash14 2002

[3] V Pakhmode H Kulkarni and S B Deolankar ldquoHydrological-drainage analysis in watershed-programme planning a casefrom theDeccan basalt IndiardquoHydrogeology Journal vol 11 no5 pp 595ndash604 2003

Geography Journal 13

[4] L B Leopold and T Maddock ldquoThe hydraulic geometry ofstream channels and some physiographic implicationsrdquo USGSProfessional Paper vol 252 pp 1ndash57 1953

[5] A D Abrahams ldquoChannel networks a geomorphologicalperspectiverdquo Water Resources Research vol 20 no 2 pp 161ndash168 1984

[6] S Singh ldquoQuantitative geomorphology of the drainage basinrdquoin Readings on Remote Sensing Applications T S Chouhan andK N Joshi Eds Scientific Publishers Jodhpur India 1992

[7] R A Dar R Chandra and S A Romshoo ldquoMorphotectonicand lithostratigraphic analysis of intermontane Karewa basin ofKashmir Himalayas Indiardquo Journal ofMountain Science vol 10no 1 pp 731ndash741 2013

[8] S A Romshoo S A Bhat and I Rashid ldquoGeoinformatics forassessing the morphometric control on hydrological responseat watershed scale in the Upper Indus basinrdquo Journal of EarthSystem Science vol 121 no 3 pp 659ndash686 2012

[9] A N Strahler ldquoQuantitative geomorphology of drainage basinsand channel networksrdquo in Handbook of Applied Hydrology VT Chow Ed section 4ndash11 McGraw-Hill New York NY USA1964

[10] A Strahler ldquoQuantitative analysis of watershed geomorphol-ogyrdquoTransactions AmericanGeophysical Union vol 38 pp 913ndash920 1957

[11] J Krishnamurthy G Srinivas V Jayaraman and M G Chan-drasekhar ldquoInfluence of rock types and structures in thedevelopment of drainage networks in typical hardrock terrainrdquoITC Journal no 3-4 pp 252ndash259 1996

[12] A K Das and S Mukherjee ldquoDrainage morphometry usingsatellite data andGIS inRaigad districtMaharashtrardquo Journal ofthe Geological Society of India vol 65 no 5 pp 577ndash586 2005

[13] S S Vittala S Govindaih and H H Gowda ldquoMorphometricanalysis of sub-watershed in the Pavada area of Tumkur districtSouth India using remote sensing and GIS techniquesrdquo Journalof Indian Remote Sensing vol 32 pp 351ndash362 2004

[14] S K Nag ldquoMorphometric analysis using remote sensing tech-niques in the Chaka subbasin Purulia district West BengalrdquoJournal of Indian Society of Remote Sensing vol 26 no 1-2 pp69ndash76 1998

[15] AM Y Esper ldquoMorphometric analysis of Colanguil river basinand flash flood hazard San Juan Argentinardquo EnvironmentalGeology vol 55 pp 107ndash111 2008

[16] T N Bhagwat A Shetty and V S Hegde ldquoSpatial variationin drainage characteristics and geomorphic instantaneous unithydrograph (GIUH) implications for watershed management-A case study of the Varada River basin Northern KarnatakardquoCatena vol 87 no 1 pp 52ndash59 2011

[17] N R Bhaskar B P Parida and A K Nayak ldquoFlood estimationfor ungauged catchments using the GIUHrdquo Journal of WaterResources Planning and Management vol 123 no 4 pp 228ndash237 1997

[18] S K Jain R D Singh and S M Seth ldquoDesign flood estimationusing GIS supported GIUH approachrdquo Water Resources Man-agement vol 14 no 5 pp 369ndash376 2000

[19] M Suresh S Sudhakara K N Tiwari and V M ChowdaryldquoPrioritization of watersheds using morphometric parametersand assessment of surface water potential using remote sens-ingrdquo Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing vol 32 no3 2004

[20] S A Bhat and S A Romshoo ldquoDigital elevation model basedwatershed characteristics of upper watersheds of Jhelum basinrdquoJournal of Applied Hydrology vol 21 no 2 pp 23ndash34 2009

[21] J F OrsquoCallaghan and D M Mark ldquoThe extraction of drainagenetworks from digital elevation datardquo Computer Vision Graph-ics and Image Processing vol 28 pp 323ndash344 1984

[22] R E Horton ldquoErosional development of streams and theirdrainage basins hydrophysical approach to quantitative mor-phologyrdquoGeological Society of America Bulletin vol 56 pp 275ndash370 1945

[23] S A Schumms ldquoEvolution of drainage systems and slopes inBadlands at Perth Amboy New Jerseyrdquo Bulletin of the GeologicalSociety of America vol 67 pp 597ndash646 1956

[24] R E Horton ldquoDrainage basin characteristicsrdquo TransactionsAmerican Geophysical Union vol 13 pp 350ndash361 1932

[25] V C Miller ldquoA Quantitative geomorphic study of drainagebasin characteristics in the Clinch Mountain area Virginia andTennesseerdquo Tech Rep 3 NR 389-402 Columbia UniversityDepartment of Geology ONR New York NY USA 1953

[26] K Pareta andU Pareta ldquoQuantitativemorphometric analysis ofa watershed of Yamuna basin India using ASTER (DEM) dataand GISrdquo International Journal of Geomatics and Geosciencesvol 2 no 1 2011

[27] M Sameena J Krishnamurthy V Jayaraman andG RangannaldquoEvaluation of drainage networks developed in hard rockterrainrdquoGeocarto International vol 24 no 5 pp 397ndash420 2009

[28] A Faniran ldquoThe index of drainage intensitymdasha provisional newdrainage factorrdquo Australian Journal of Science vol 31 pp 328ndash330 1968

[29] I Rashid and S A Romshoo ldquoImpact of anthropogenic activ-ities on water quality of Lidder River in Kashmir HimalayasrdquoEnvironmental Monitoring and Assessment 2012

[30] M Raza A Ahmed and A Mohammad The Valley ofKashmirmdashA Geographical Interpretation Vol I the Land VikasPublishing New Delhi India 1978

[31] V M Meher ldquoThe climate of Srinagar and its variabilityrdquoGeographical Review of India vol 33 no 1 pp 1ndash14 1971

[32] BM Engelhardt P JWeisberg and J C Chambers ldquoInfluencesof watershed geomorphology on extent and composition ofriparian vegetationrdquo Journal of Vegetation Science vol 23 no1 pp 127ndash139 2011

[33] J E Costa ldquoHydraulics and basin morphometry of the largestflash floods in the conterminous United Statesrdquo Journal ofHydrology vol 93 no 3-4 pp 313ndash338 1987

[34] S Singh and M C Singh ldquoMorphometric analysis of Kanharriver basinrdquoThe National Geographical Journal of India vol 43no 1 pp 31ndash43 1997

[35] W Luo and J M Harlin ldquoA theoretical travel time basedon watershed hypsometryrdquo Journal of the American WaterResources Association vol 39 no 4 pp 785ndash792 2003

[36] J M Harlin ldquoThe effect of precipitation variability on drainagebasin morphometryrdquo American Journal of Science vol 280 no8 pp 812ndash825 1980

[37] J M Harlin ldquoWatershedmorphometry and time to hydrographpeakrdquo Journal of Hydrology vol 67 no 1-4 pp 141ndash154 1984

[38] S A Romshoo ldquoGeostatistical analysis of soil moisture mea-surements and remotely sensed data at different spatial scalesrdquoEnvironmental Geology vol 45 no 3 pp 339ndash349 2004

[39] S A Romshoo M Koike S Hironaka O Oki and K MusiakeldquoInfluence of surface and vegetation characteristics on C-bandradarmeasurements for soilmoisture contentrdquo Journal of IndianSociety of Remote Sensing vol 30 no 4 pp 229ndash244 2002

[40] D R Montgomery and W E Dietrich ldquoSource areas drainagedensity and channel initiationrdquo Water Resources Research vol25 no 8 pp 1907ndash1918 1989

14 Geography Journal

[41] D R Montgomery and W E Dietrich ldquoChannel initiation andthe problem of landscape scalerdquo Science vol 255 no 5046 pp826ndash830 1992

[42] EM Ghoneim NW Arnell andGM Foody ldquoCharacterizingthe flash flood hazards potential along the Red Sea coast ofEgyptrdquo IAHS-AISH Publication no 271 pp 211ndash216 2002

[43] M Diakakis ldquoA method for flood hazard mapping based onbasin morphometry application in two catchments in GreecerdquoNatural Hazards vol 56 no 3 pp 803ndash814 2011

[44] P C Patton and V R Baker ldquoMorphometry and floods in smalldrainage basins subject to diverse hydrogeomorphic controlsrdquoWater Resources Research vol 12 no 5 pp 941ndash952 1976

[45] A D Howard ldquoRole of hypsometry and planform in basinhydrologic responserdquo Hydrological Processes vol 4 no 4 pp373ndash385 1990

[46] K Rakesh A K Lohani K Sanjay C Chatterjee and R KNema ldquoGIS based morphometric analysis of Ajay river basinupto Srarath gauging site of South Biharrdquo Journal of AppliedHydrology vol 14 no 4 pp 45ndash54 2000

[47] B Dodov and E Foufoula-Georgiou ldquoFluvial processes andstreamflow variability interplay in the scale-frequency contin-uum and implications for scalingrdquo Water Resources Researchvol 41 no 5 pp 1ndash18 2005

[48] L C Gottschalk ldquoReservoir sedimentationrdquo in Handbook ofApplied Hydrology V T Chow Ed section 7-1 McGraw-HillNew York NY USA 1964

[49] B ADodov and E Foufoula-Georgiou ldquoFloodplainmorphom-etry extraction from a high-resolution digital elevationmodel asimple algorithm for regional analysis studiesrdquo IEEE Geoscienceand Remote Sensing Letters vol 3 no 3 pp 410ndash413 2006

[50] P C Patton ldquoDrainage basin morphometry and floodsrdquo inFlood Geomorphology pp 51ndash64 JohnWiley amp Sons NewYorkNY USA 1988

[51] V Gardiner and C C Park ldquoDrainage basin morphometryrdquoProgress in Physical Geography vol 2 no 1 pp 1ndash35 1978

[52] W B Langbein ldquoTopographic characteristics of drainagebasinsrdquoUS Geological SurveyWater-Supply Paper vol 986 pp157ndash159 1947

[53] W Luo ldquoQuantifying groundwater-sapping landforms witha hypsometric techniquerdquo Journal of Geophysical Research EPlanets vol 105 no 1 pp 1685ndash1694 2000

[54] J M Harlin and C Wijeyawickrema ldquoIrrigation and ground-water depletion in Caddo county Oklahomardquo Journal of theAmerican Water Resources Association vol 21 no 1 pp 15ndash221985

[55] K G Smith ldquoStandards for grading textures of erosionaltopographyrdquoAmerican Journal of Science vol 248 pp 655ndash6681950

[56] M Y Esper Angillieri ldquoMorphometric analysis of Colanguilriver basin and flash flood hazard San Juan ArgentinardquoEnvironmental Geology vol 55 no 1 pp 107ndash111 2008

[57] A M Youssef B Pradhan and A M Hassan ldquoFlash floodrisk estimation along the St Katherine road southern SinaiEgypt using GIS based morphometry and satellite imageryrdquoEnvironmental Earth Sciences vol 62 no 3 pp 611ndash623 2011

[58] A D Howard ldquoRole of hypsometry and planform in basinhydrologic responserdquo Hydrological Processes vol 4 no 4 pp373ndash385 1990

[59] R C Kochel ldquoGeomorphic impact of large floods reviewand new perspectives on magnitude and frequencyrdquo in FloodGeomorphology pp 169ndash187 JohnWiley amp Sons NewYork NYUSA 1988

[60] G E Tucker and R L Bras ldquoHillslope processes drainagedensity and landscape morphologyrdquoWater Resources Researchvol 34 no 10 pp 2751ndash2764 1998

[61] M Borga et al ldquoReal time guidance for flash flood riskmanagementrdquo FLOOD Site Research Project Report T16 2008

[62] K W Potter and E B Faulkner ldquoCatchment response time asa predictor of flood quantilesrdquo Journal of the American WaterResources Association vol 23 no 5 pp 857ndash861 1987

[63] R CWard andM Robinson Principles of Hydrology McGraw-Hill Maidenhead UK 4th edition 2000

[64] S Shulits ldquoQuantitative formulation of stream and watershedmorphologyrdquo Bulletin of the International Association of Scien-tific Hydrology vol 3 pp 201ndash207 1968

[65] A Demoulin ldquoBasin and river profile morphometry a newindex with a high potential for relative dating of tectonic upliftrdquoGeomorphology vol 126 no 1-2 pp 97ndash107 2011

[66] T B Altin and B N Altin ldquoDrainage morphometry and itsinfluence on landforms in volcanic terrain Central AnatoliaTurkeyrdquo ProcediamdashSocial and Behavioral Sciences vol 19 pp732ndash740 2011

[67] M Rashid M A Lone and S A Romshoo ldquoGeospatial toolsfor assessing land degradation in Budgam district KashmirHimalaya Indiardquo Journal of Earth System Science vol 120 no3 pp 423ndash433 2011

[68] S Zaz and S A Romshoo ldquoAssessing the geoindicators of landdegradation in the Kashmir Himalayan Region Indiardquo NaturalHazards vol 64 no 2 pp 1219ndash1245 2012

8 Geography Journal

Table 6 Showing drainage texture constant channel maintenance shape index ruggedness number and shape factor

Subwatershed Drainage texture Constant channelmaintenance

Compactnesscoefficient

Shape index Ruggedness number Shape factor

WS1 339 047 160 119 070 063WS2 354 041 136 257 054 074WS3 563 042 220 337 119 046WS4 390 043 145 094 082 069WS5 315 040 130 203 058 077WS6 599 038 137 203 075 073WS7 1024 034 135 303 076 074WS8 982 034 141 209 057 071WS9 1275 037 162 246 078 062WS10 933 040 131 295 075 076WS11 310 054 141 342 098 071WS12 468 034 152 390 067 066WS13 413 033 156 402 070 064WS14 233 057 128 252 101 078WS15 417 045 151 400 092 066WS16 393 043 127 228 088 079WS17 162 085 130 102 111 077

Table 7 Showing important morphometric parameters of the subwatersheds

Subwatershed Relief ratio Elongation ratio Texture ratio Circularity ratio Form factor Length of overland flowWS1 042 104 251 039 084 023WS2 025 070 278 054 039 017WS3 020 061 418 021 030 018WS4 057 116 299 048 106 018WS5 049 079 200 059 049 016WS6 031 079 399 054 049 014WS7 019 065 659 055 033 011WS8 019 078 638 051 048 011WS9 014 072 809 038 041 014WS10 017 066 570 058 034 016WS11 029 061 234 050 029 029WS12 033 057 360 043 026 012WS13 032 056 329 041 025 011WS14 044 071 172 061 040 032WS15 026 056 318 044 025 020WS16 047 075 301 062 044 019WS17 061 112 121 059 098 072

slightly circular shape as suggested by moderately higher RfSubwatershedsWS1 WS4 andWS17 have high Rf indicatingthat they have developed into quite circular to rectangularshape Watershed morphology has profound impacts on thewatershed hydrology [60]

39 Elongation Ratio (Re) The value of elongation ratio(Re) generally varies from 06 to 10 associated with a wide

variety of climate and geology Values close to 10 are typicalof regions of very low relief whereas that from 06 to 08are associated with high relief and steep ground slope [7]These values can be grouped into three categories namelycircular (gt09) oval (09ndash07) and less elongated (lt07) Refor the subwatersheds WS13 WS15 WS12 WS3 WS11 WS7andWS10 is less than 070which indicates that subwatershedsare elongated with high relief and steep slope WS2 WS14WS9 WS16 WS8 WS5 and WS6 sub-watersheds fall in oval

Geography Journal 9

1 2 3 4 50

05

1

15

2

25

3

WS1WS2WS3WS4WS5WS6WS7WS8WS9

WS10WS11WS12WS13WS14WS15WS16WS17

Stream order

Stre

am le

ngth

(log10)

Figure 3 Showing relation between stream order and length ofstreams for 17 subwatersheds

category while subwatersheds WS1 WS17 and WS4 fall inthe circular category (Table 7) The circular watersheds havequick though lower hydrograph peak compared to the ovaland elongated watersheds [61 62] This indicates that WS13will show delayed time to peak flow while WS4 will showshorter time to peak

310 Circulatory Ratio (Rc) It is that ratio of the area of thebasin to the area of circle having the same circumference asthe perimeter of the basin [25] Many of the important basincharacteristics influence Rc such as length and frequency ofstreams geological structures land useland cover climaterelief and slope of the basin In the present case Rc forsubwatersheds WS8 WS2 WS6 WS7 WS10 WS5 WS17WS14 and WS16 is in the range from 053 to 062 indicatingthat the area is characterized by high relief elongated andpermeable surface resulting in greater basin lag times whileWS3 WS9 WS1 WS13 WS12 WS15 WS4 and WS11 havelower circularity ratios indicating low relief and impermeablesurface resulting in lower basin lag times (Table 7) Thisindicates that WS16 will show delayed time to peak flowwhile WS3 will show shorter time to peak Rf Re andRc significantly influence the hydrological response of thewatersheds as basin shape and the arrangement of streamsegments combine to influence the size and shape of floodpeaks [63]

311 Length of Overland Flow (Lg) Length of overland flowis one of the most important independent variables affectingboth hydrologic and hydrographic development of drainagebasins [24] Table 7 reveals that Lg for the 17 subwatersheds in

chronological order is 022 016 018 018 016 014 011 011076 016 029 011 011 032 02 018 and 071 respectivelyThe Lg for subwatershedsWS2-WS10WS12WS13 andWS16indicates steep slopes and shorter flow paths while as Lg forWS1 WS11 WS14 WS15 and WS17 indicates gentle slopesand longer flow paths

312 Constant of Channel Maintenance (C) In the presentstudy C varies from 033 forW8 andW9 to 084 forW17 as isshown in Table 6 The reciprocal of the drainage density (D)is constant of channel maintenance and signifies how muchdrainage area is required tomaintain a unit length of channelLow values of 119862 in case of WS8 and WS9 indicates thatamong all the 17 subwatersheds these two are associated withweakest or very low-resistance soils sparse vegetation andmountainous terrain while the watershedWS17 is associatedwith resistance soils vegetation and comparably plain terrain[64]

313 Compactness Coefficient (Cc) Compactness coefficientexpresses the relationship of a basin with that of a circularbasin having the same area A circular basin yields theshortest time of concentration before peak flow occurs in thebasin 119862119888 = 1 indicates that the basin completely behaves asa circular basin 119862119888 gt 1 indicates more deviation from thecircular nature of the basin The values for all the subwater-sheds range from 127 for WS16 to 220 for WS3 as seen inTable 6 Consequently WS16 has the greatest deviation fromthe circular nature and on the basis of this parameter aloneit will have the longest time of concentration before peak flowoccurs in the basin out of all the subwatersheds [60ndash62]

314 Shape Index (Sw) Rate of water and sediment yieldalong the length and relief of the drainage basin is largelyaffected by the shape The shape index values for subwater-sheds of the study area range from 094 in WS4 to 402 inWS13 as shown in Table 6 In terms of Sw onlyWS13 will havethe shorter basin lag time while WS4 will have the longerbasin lag time

315 Texture Ratio (T) Texture ratio is one of the mostimportant factors in the drainage morphometric analysiswhich depends on the underlying lithology infiltration capac-ity and relief aspect of the terrain is the texture ratio [65 66]As shown in Table 7 T varies between 121 in case of WS17and 809 in case of WS9 Hydrologically it can be said thatWS17 in terms of 119879alone will have the longest basin lag timesandWS9 will have the shortest This reaffirms the results andconclusions drawn from the values ofUD Fs and Rt in caseof W17

316 Ruggedness Number (Rn) The ruggedness number indi-cates the structural complexity of the terrain in associationwith the relief and drainage density It also implies that thearea is susceptible to soil erosion [67 68] In present study theruggedness number is minimum in case of WS2 (119877119899 = 054)and maximum in WS3 (119877119899 = 119) as seen in Table 6 Thisindicates that WS2 is least susceptible to erosion and WS3

10 Geography Journal

Stream order map of subwatershed 8

34∘11

9984000998400998400

34∘12

9984000998400998400

34∘13

9984000998400998400

34∘14

9984000998400998400

34∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘12

9984000998400998400

75∘14

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

0 05 1 2Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 1

34∘49984000998400998400

34∘39984000998400998400

34∘29984000998400998400

34∘19984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

75∘18

9984000998400998400

75∘19

9984000998400998400

75∘20

9984000998400998400

75∘21

9984000998400998400

0 045 09 18

Kilometers

N

EW

S

Stream order map of subwatershed 2

34∘59984000998400998400

34∘49984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

75∘18

9984000998400998400

75∘19

9984000998400998400

0 035 07 14

Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 3

34∘49984000998400998400

34∘59984000998400998400

34∘69984000998400998400

34∘79984000998400998400

34∘89984000998400998400

34∘99984000998400998400

34∘10

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

75∘19

9984000998400998400

75∘21

9984000998400998400

0 05 1 2

Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 4

34∘79984000998400998400

34∘89984000998400998400

34∘99984000998400998400

34∘10

9984000998400998400

75∘14

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

0 045 09 18

Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 5

34∘99984000998400998400

34∘10

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

0 025 05 1Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 6

34∘89984000998400998400

34∘99984000998400998400

34∘10

9984000998400998400

34∘11

9984000998400998400

34∘12

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

75∘18

9984000998400998400

75∘19

9984000998400998400

0 05 1 2Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 7

34∘99984000998400998400

34∘10

9984000998400998400

34∘11

9984000998400998400

34∘12

9984000998400998400

34∘13

9984000998400998400

34∘14

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

75∘18

9984000998400998400

75∘20

9984000998400998400

75∘22

9984000998400998400

0 05 1 2Kilometers

12

345

Watershed boundaryStream order

12

345

Watershed boundaryStream order

N

EW

S

N

EW

S

N

EW

S

N

EW

S

N

EW

S

N

EW

S

N

EW

S

West Lidder River West Lidder River

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

Wes

t Lid

der R

iver

Wes

t Lid

der R

iver

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

(a)

Figure 4 Continued

Geography Journal 11

Stream order map of subwatershed 9

34∘59984000998400998400

34∘69984000998400998400

34∘79984000998400998400

34∘89984000998400998400

34∘99984000998400998400

34∘10

9984000998400998400

34∘11

9984000998400998400

34∘12

9984000998400998400

75∘69984000998400998400

75∘89984000998400998400

75∘10

9984000998400998400

75∘11

9984000998400998400

75∘13

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘12

9984000998400998400

75∘14

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

0 1 2 4Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 10

34∘49984000998400998400

34∘59984000998400998400

34∘69984000998400998400

34∘79984000998400998400

34∘89984000998400998400

34∘99984000998400998400

75∘99984000998400998400

0 1 205

Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 15

34∘19984000998400998400

34∘29984000998400998400

34∘39984000998400998400

0 045 09 18Kilometers

75∘14

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

Stream order map of subwatershed 16

34∘19984000998400998400

34∘29984000998400998400

34∘39984000998400998400

0 03 06 12Kilometers

75∘16

9984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

75∘18

9984000998400998400

Stream order map of subwatershed 13

34∘29984000998400998400

34∘39984000998400998400

34∘49984000998400998400

0 035 07 14

Kilometers

75∘13

9984000998400998400

75∘14

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

Stream order map of subwatershed 14

34∘39984000998400998400

34∘49984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

0 1025 05

Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 11

34∘49984000998400998400

34∘59984000998400998400

34∘69984000998400998400

34∘79984000998400998400

75∘12

9984000998400998400

75∘13

9984000998400998400

75∘14

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

0

12

345

04 08 16

Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 12

34∘39984000998400998400

34∘49984000998400998400

34∘59984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

75∘13

9984000998400998400

75∘14

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

0 035 07 14

Kilometers

Watershed boundaryStream order

12

345

Watershed boundaryStream order

N

S

EWN

S

EW

N

S

EW

N

S

EW

N

S

EW

N

S

EW

N

S

EW

N

S

EW

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

(b)

Figure 4 Continued

12 Geography Journal

Stream order map of subwatershed 17

34∘19984000998400998400

34∘29984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

75∘18

9984000998400998400

75∘19

9984000998400998400

0 02 04 08Kilometers

12

Watershed boundaryStream order

N

EW

S

West Lidder River

(c)

Figure 4 (a) Showing drainage maps of subwatersheds WS1ndashWS8 (b) Showing drainage maps of subwatersheds WS9ndashWS16 (c) Showingdrainage patterns of WS17 of West Lidder catchment

is most susceptible among all the subwatersheds of the studyarea

317 Shape Factor (Rs) The shape factor observed in thestudy area is minimum in case of WS3 (119877119904 = 046) andmaximum in case of WS16 (119877119904 = 079) as shown in Table 6This parameter is similar in interpretation to circularity ratioelongation ratio and form factor It gives an idea aboutthe circular character of the basin The greater the circularcharacter of the basin is the greater is the rapid response ofthe watershed after a storm event [60] Therefore in terms ofRs only WS3 has the longest basin lag time and WS16 theshortest

4 Conclusion

From the integrated analysis of the results on the mor-phometry of the 17 subwatersheds it is concluded that thewhole study area has uniform underlying lithology makingthe hydrological response in these subwatersheds a directfunction of the geomorphology the topography and theexisting vegetation conditions only The spatial variabilityof the morphometric parameters analyzed in this study isquite significant Since the hydrology of a watershed changessignificantly due to the spatial variations of the morpho-metric parameters the subwatersheds will therefore alsoexhibit differential hydrological behaviour Overall resultsindicated that comparatively WS16 WS13 WS12 and WS9shall contribute dominantly to the stream runoff in theWest Lidder catchment and on the contrary WS17 WS5and WS3 shall contribute the least due to the cumulativeand integrated effect of the morphometric parameters whosesignificance and influences on the hydrological behaviourhave been discussed in detail in the preceding sectionsBecause of the close relationship between the morphometricparameters and the mean annual flood it is concluded on

the basis of the range of the morphometric analysis thatWS16 WS13 WS12 and WS9 in that order are more proneto flooding compared to the other 13 subwatersheds of theWest Lidder catchment The hydrological behaviour of these17 subwatersheds shall have profound influences on the floodvulnerability and flood risk in the downstream portions ofthe Lidder River It is hoped that information and knowledgegenerated under this study shall guide the informed planningand decision-making for flood disaster risk reduction in theLidder watershed that forms an important tributary of theJhelum basin

Acknowledgments

This research work has been accomplished under a researchgrant provided by the Department of Science and Technol-ogy Government of India for the project titled ldquoIntegratedFlood vulnerability Assessment for Flood Risk Managementand Disaster Mitigationrdquo The authors express their gratitudeto the funding agency for the financial assistanceThe authorsalso express their sincere thanks to anonymous reviewerswhose valuable comments have improved the quality of thispaper

References

[1] C S Agarwal ldquoStudy of drainage pattern through aerial datain Naugarh area of Varanasi district UPrdquo Journal of the IndianSociety of Remote Sensing vol 26 no 4 pp 169ndash175 1998

[2] G E Obi Reddy A K Maji and K S Gajbhiye ldquoGIS formorphometric analysis of drainage basinsrdquo GIS India vol 11no 4 pp 9ndash14 2002

[3] V Pakhmode H Kulkarni and S B Deolankar ldquoHydrological-drainage analysis in watershed-programme planning a casefrom theDeccan basalt IndiardquoHydrogeology Journal vol 11 no5 pp 595ndash604 2003

Geography Journal 13

[4] L B Leopold and T Maddock ldquoThe hydraulic geometry ofstream channels and some physiographic implicationsrdquo USGSProfessional Paper vol 252 pp 1ndash57 1953

[5] A D Abrahams ldquoChannel networks a geomorphologicalperspectiverdquo Water Resources Research vol 20 no 2 pp 161ndash168 1984

[6] S Singh ldquoQuantitative geomorphology of the drainage basinrdquoin Readings on Remote Sensing Applications T S Chouhan andK N Joshi Eds Scientific Publishers Jodhpur India 1992

[7] R A Dar R Chandra and S A Romshoo ldquoMorphotectonicand lithostratigraphic analysis of intermontane Karewa basin ofKashmir Himalayas Indiardquo Journal ofMountain Science vol 10no 1 pp 731ndash741 2013

[8] S A Romshoo S A Bhat and I Rashid ldquoGeoinformatics forassessing the morphometric control on hydrological responseat watershed scale in the Upper Indus basinrdquo Journal of EarthSystem Science vol 121 no 3 pp 659ndash686 2012

[9] A N Strahler ldquoQuantitative geomorphology of drainage basinsand channel networksrdquo in Handbook of Applied Hydrology VT Chow Ed section 4ndash11 McGraw-Hill New York NY USA1964

[10] A Strahler ldquoQuantitative analysis of watershed geomorphol-ogyrdquoTransactions AmericanGeophysical Union vol 38 pp 913ndash920 1957

[11] J Krishnamurthy G Srinivas V Jayaraman and M G Chan-drasekhar ldquoInfluence of rock types and structures in thedevelopment of drainage networks in typical hardrock terrainrdquoITC Journal no 3-4 pp 252ndash259 1996

[12] A K Das and S Mukherjee ldquoDrainage morphometry usingsatellite data andGIS inRaigad districtMaharashtrardquo Journal ofthe Geological Society of India vol 65 no 5 pp 577ndash586 2005

[13] S S Vittala S Govindaih and H H Gowda ldquoMorphometricanalysis of sub-watershed in the Pavada area of Tumkur districtSouth India using remote sensing and GIS techniquesrdquo Journalof Indian Remote Sensing vol 32 pp 351ndash362 2004

[14] S K Nag ldquoMorphometric analysis using remote sensing tech-niques in the Chaka subbasin Purulia district West BengalrdquoJournal of Indian Society of Remote Sensing vol 26 no 1-2 pp69ndash76 1998

[15] AM Y Esper ldquoMorphometric analysis of Colanguil river basinand flash flood hazard San Juan Argentinardquo EnvironmentalGeology vol 55 pp 107ndash111 2008

[16] T N Bhagwat A Shetty and V S Hegde ldquoSpatial variationin drainage characteristics and geomorphic instantaneous unithydrograph (GIUH) implications for watershed management-A case study of the Varada River basin Northern KarnatakardquoCatena vol 87 no 1 pp 52ndash59 2011

[17] N R Bhaskar B P Parida and A K Nayak ldquoFlood estimationfor ungauged catchments using the GIUHrdquo Journal of WaterResources Planning and Management vol 123 no 4 pp 228ndash237 1997

[18] S K Jain R D Singh and S M Seth ldquoDesign flood estimationusing GIS supported GIUH approachrdquo Water Resources Man-agement vol 14 no 5 pp 369ndash376 2000

[19] M Suresh S Sudhakara K N Tiwari and V M ChowdaryldquoPrioritization of watersheds using morphometric parametersand assessment of surface water potential using remote sens-ingrdquo Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing vol 32 no3 2004

[20] S A Bhat and S A Romshoo ldquoDigital elevation model basedwatershed characteristics of upper watersheds of Jhelum basinrdquoJournal of Applied Hydrology vol 21 no 2 pp 23ndash34 2009

[21] J F OrsquoCallaghan and D M Mark ldquoThe extraction of drainagenetworks from digital elevation datardquo Computer Vision Graph-ics and Image Processing vol 28 pp 323ndash344 1984

[22] R E Horton ldquoErosional development of streams and theirdrainage basins hydrophysical approach to quantitative mor-phologyrdquoGeological Society of America Bulletin vol 56 pp 275ndash370 1945

[23] S A Schumms ldquoEvolution of drainage systems and slopes inBadlands at Perth Amboy New Jerseyrdquo Bulletin of the GeologicalSociety of America vol 67 pp 597ndash646 1956

[24] R E Horton ldquoDrainage basin characteristicsrdquo TransactionsAmerican Geophysical Union vol 13 pp 350ndash361 1932

[25] V C Miller ldquoA Quantitative geomorphic study of drainagebasin characteristics in the Clinch Mountain area Virginia andTennesseerdquo Tech Rep 3 NR 389-402 Columbia UniversityDepartment of Geology ONR New York NY USA 1953

[26] K Pareta andU Pareta ldquoQuantitativemorphometric analysis ofa watershed of Yamuna basin India using ASTER (DEM) dataand GISrdquo International Journal of Geomatics and Geosciencesvol 2 no 1 2011

[27] M Sameena J Krishnamurthy V Jayaraman andG RangannaldquoEvaluation of drainage networks developed in hard rockterrainrdquoGeocarto International vol 24 no 5 pp 397ndash420 2009

[28] A Faniran ldquoThe index of drainage intensitymdasha provisional newdrainage factorrdquo Australian Journal of Science vol 31 pp 328ndash330 1968

[29] I Rashid and S A Romshoo ldquoImpact of anthropogenic activ-ities on water quality of Lidder River in Kashmir HimalayasrdquoEnvironmental Monitoring and Assessment 2012

[30] M Raza A Ahmed and A Mohammad The Valley ofKashmirmdashA Geographical Interpretation Vol I the Land VikasPublishing New Delhi India 1978

[31] V M Meher ldquoThe climate of Srinagar and its variabilityrdquoGeographical Review of India vol 33 no 1 pp 1ndash14 1971

[32] BM Engelhardt P JWeisberg and J C Chambers ldquoInfluencesof watershed geomorphology on extent and composition ofriparian vegetationrdquo Journal of Vegetation Science vol 23 no1 pp 127ndash139 2011

[33] J E Costa ldquoHydraulics and basin morphometry of the largestflash floods in the conterminous United Statesrdquo Journal ofHydrology vol 93 no 3-4 pp 313ndash338 1987

[34] S Singh and M C Singh ldquoMorphometric analysis of Kanharriver basinrdquoThe National Geographical Journal of India vol 43no 1 pp 31ndash43 1997

[35] W Luo and J M Harlin ldquoA theoretical travel time basedon watershed hypsometryrdquo Journal of the American WaterResources Association vol 39 no 4 pp 785ndash792 2003

[36] J M Harlin ldquoThe effect of precipitation variability on drainagebasin morphometryrdquo American Journal of Science vol 280 no8 pp 812ndash825 1980

[37] J M Harlin ldquoWatershedmorphometry and time to hydrographpeakrdquo Journal of Hydrology vol 67 no 1-4 pp 141ndash154 1984

[38] S A Romshoo ldquoGeostatistical analysis of soil moisture mea-surements and remotely sensed data at different spatial scalesrdquoEnvironmental Geology vol 45 no 3 pp 339ndash349 2004

[39] S A Romshoo M Koike S Hironaka O Oki and K MusiakeldquoInfluence of surface and vegetation characteristics on C-bandradarmeasurements for soilmoisture contentrdquo Journal of IndianSociety of Remote Sensing vol 30 no 4 pp 229ndash244 2002

[40] D R Montgomery and W E Dietrich ldquoSource areas drainagedensity and channel initiationrdquo Water Resources Research vol25 no 8 pp 1907ndash1918 1989

14 Geography Journal

[41] D R Montgomery and W E Dietrich ldquoChannel initiation andthe problem of landscape scalerdquo Science vol 255 no 5046 pp826ndash830 1992

[42] EM Ghoneim NW Arnell andGM Foody ldquoCharacterizingthe flash flood hazards potential along the Red Sea coast ofEgyptrdquo IAHS-AISH Publication no 271 pp 211ndash216 2002

[43] M Diakakis ldquoA method for flood hazard mapping based onbasin morphometry application in two catchments in GreecerdquoNatural Hazards vol 56 no 3 pp 803ndash814 2011

[44] P C Patton and V R Baker ldquoMorphometry and floods in smalldrainage basins subject to diverse hydrogeomorphic controlsrdquoWater Resources Research vol 12 no 5 pp 941ndash952 1976

[45] A D Howard ldquoRole of hypsometry and planform in basinhydrologic responserdquo Hydrological Processes vol 4 no 4 pp373ndash385 1990

[46] K Rakesh A K Lohani K Sanjay C Chatterjee and R KNema ldquoGIS based morphometric analysis of Ajay river basinupto Srarath gauging site of South Biharrdquo Journal of AppliedHydrology vol 14 no 4 pp 45ndash54 2000

[47] B Dodov and E Foufoula-Georgiou ldquoFluvial processes andstreamflow variability interplay in the scale-frequency contin-uum and implications for scalingrdquo Water Resources Researchvol 41 no 5 pp 1ndash18 2005

[48] L C Gottschalk ldquoReservoir sedimentationrdquo in Handbook ofApplied Hydrology V T Chow Ed section 7-1 McGraw-HillNew York NY USA 1964

[49] B ADodov and E Foufoula-Georgiou ldquoFloodplainmorphom-etry extraction from a high-resolution digital elevationmodel asimple algorithm for regional analysis studiesrdquo IEEE Geoscienceand Remote Sensing Letters vol 3 no 3 pp 410ndash413 2006

[50] P C Patton ldquoDrainage basin morphometry and floodsrdquo inFlood Geomorphology pp 51ndash64 JohnWiley amp Sons NewYorkNY USA 1988

[51] V Gardiner and C C Park ldquoDrainage basin morphometryrdquoProgress in Physical Geography vol 2 no 1 pp 1ndash35 1978

[52] W B Langbein ldquoTopographic characteristics of drainagebasinsrdquoUS Geological SurveyWater-Supply Paper vol 986 pp157ndash159 1947

[53] W Luo ldquoQuantifying groundwater-sapping landforms witha hypsometric techniquerdquo Journal of Geophysical Research EPlanets vol 105 no 1 pp 1685ndash1694 2000

[54] J M Harlin and C Wijeyawickrema ldquoIrrigation and ground-water depletion in Caddo county Oklahomardquo Journal of theAmerican Water Resources Association vol 21 no 1 pp 15ndash221985

[55] K G Smith ldquoStandards for grading textures of erosionaltopographyrdquoAmerican Journal of Science vol 248 pp 655ndash6681950

[56] M Y Esper Angillieri ldquoMorphometric analysis of Colanguilriver basin and flash flood hazard San Juan ArgentinardquoEnvironmental Geology vol 55 no 1 pp 107ndash111 2008

[57] A M Youssef B Pradhan and A M Hassan ldquoFlash floodrisk estimation along the St Katherine road southern SinaiEgypt using GIS based morphometry and satellite imageryrdquoEnvironmental Earth Sciences vol 62 no 3 pp 611ndash623 2011

[58] A D Howard ldquoRole of hypsometry and planform in basinhydrologic responserdquo Hydrological Processes vol 4 no 4 pp373ndash385 1990

[59] R C Kochel ldquoGeomorphic impact of large floods reviewand new perspectives on magnitude and frequencyrdquo in FloodGeomorphology pp 169ndash187 JohnWiley amp Sons NewYork NYUSA 1988

[60] G E Tucker and R L Bras ldquoHillslope processes drainagedensity and landscape morphologyrdquoWater Resources Researchvol 34 no 10 pp 2751ndash2764 1998

[61] M Borga et al ldquoReal time guidance for flash flood riskmanagementrdquo FLOOD Site Research Project Report T16 2008

[62] K W Potter and E B Faulkner ldquoCatchment response time asa predictor of flood quantilesrdquo Journal of the American WaterResources Association vol 23 no 5 pp 857ndash861 1987

[63] R CWard andM Robinson Principles of Hydrology McGraw-Hill Maidenhead UK 4th edition 2000

[64] S Shulits ldquoQuantitative formulation of stream and watershedmorphologyrdquo Bulletin of the International Association of Scien-tific Hydrology vol 3 pp 201ndash207 1968

[65] A Demoulin ldquoBasin and river profile morphometry a newindex with a high potential for relative dating of tectonic upliftrdquoGeomorphology vol 126 no 1-2 pp 97ndash107 2011

[66] T B Altin and B N Altin ldquoDrainage morphometry and itsinfluence on landforms in volcanic terrain Central AnatoliaTurkeyrdquo ProcediamdashSocial and Behavioral Sciences vol 19 pp732ndash740 2011

[67] M Rashid M A Lone and S A Romshoo ldquoGeospatial toolsfor assessing land degradation in Budgam district KashmirHimalaya Indiardquo Journal of Earth System Science vol 120 no3 pp 423ndash433 2011

[68] S Zaz and S A Romshoo ldquoAssessing the geoindicators of landdegradation in the Kashmir Himalayan Region Indiardquo NaturalHazards vol 64 no 2 pp 1219ndash1245 2012

Geography Journal 9

1 2 3 4 50

05

1

15

2

25

3

WS1WS2WS3WS4WS5WS6WS7WS8WS9

WS10WS11WS12WS13WS14WS15WS16WS17

Stream order

Stre

am le

ngth

(log10)

Figure 3 Showing relation between stream order and length ofstreams for 17 subwatersheds

category while subwatersheds WS1 WS17 and WS4 fall inthe circular category (Table 7) The circular watersheds havequick though lower hydrograph peak compared to the ovaland elongated watersheds [61 62] This indicates that WS13will show delayed time to peak flow while WS4 will showshorter time to peak

310 Circulatory Ratio (Rc) It is that ratio of the area of thebasin to the area of circle having the same circumference asthe perimeter of the basin [25] Many of the important basincharacteristics influence Rc such as length and frequency ofstreams geological structures land useland cover climaterelief and slope of the basin In the present case Rc forsubwatersheds WS8 WS2 WS6 WS7 WS10 WS5 WS17WS14 and WS16 is in the range from 053 to 062 indicatingthat the area is characterized by high relief elongated andpermeable surface resulting in greater basin lag times whileWS3 WS9 WS1 WS13 WS12 WS15 WS4 and WS11 havelower circularity ratios indicating low relief and impermeablesurface resulting in lower basin lag times (Table 7) Thisindicates that WS16 will show delayed time to peak flowwhile WS3 will show shorter time to peak Rf Re andRc significantly influence the hydrological response of thewatersheds as basin shape and the arrangement of streamsegments combine to influence the size and shape of floodpeaks [63]

311 Length of Overland Flow (Lg) Length of overland flowis one of the most important independent variables affectingboth hydrologic and hydrographic development of drainagebasins [24] Table 7 reveals that Lg for the 17 subwatersheds in

chronological order is 022 016 018 018 016 014 011 011076 016 029 011 011 032 02 018 and 071 respectivelyThe Lg for subwatershedsWS2-WS10WS12WS13 andWS16indicates steep slopes and shorter flow paths while as Lg forWS1 WS11 WS14 WS15 and WS17 indicates gentle slopesand longer flow paths

312 Constant of Channel Maintenance (C) In the presentstudy C varies from 033 forW8 andW9 to 084 forW17 as isshown in Table 6 The reciprocal of the drainage density (D)is constant of channel maintenance and signifies how muchdrainage area is required tomaintain a unit length of channelLow values of 119862 in case of WS8 and WS9 indicates thatamong all the 17 subwatersheds these two are associated withweakest or very low-resistance soils sparse vegetation andmountainous terrain while the watershedWS17 is associatedwith resistance soils vegetation and comparably plain terrain[64]

313 Compactness Coefficient (Cc) Compactness coefficientexpresses the relationship of a basin with that of a circularbasin having the same area A circular basin yields theshortest time of concentration before peak flow occurs in thebasin 119862119888 = 1 indicates that the basin completely behaves asa circular basin 119862119888 gt 1 indicates more deviation from thecircular nature of the basin The values for all the subwater-sheds range from 127 for WS16 to 220 for WS3 as seen inTable 6 Consequently WS16 has the greatest deviation fromthe circular nature and on the basis of this parameter aloneit will have the longest time of concentration before peak flowoccurs in the basin out of all the subwatersheds [60ndash62]

314 Shape Index (Sw) Rate of water and sediment yieldalong the length and relief of the drainage basin is largelyaffected by the shape The shape index values for subwater-sheds of the study area range from 094 in WS4 to 402 inWS13 as shown in Table 6 In terms of Sw onlyWS13 will havethe shorter basin lag time while WS4 will have the longerbasin lag time

315 Texture Ratio (T) Texture ratio is one of the mostimportant factors in the drainage morphometric analysiswhich depends on the underlying lithology infiltration capac-ity and relief aspect of the terrain is the texture ratio [65 66]As shown in Table 7 T varies between 121 in case of WS17and 809 in case of WS9 Hydrologically it can be said thatWS17 in terms of 119879alone will have the longest basin lag timesandWS9 will have the shortest This reaffirms the results andconclusions drawn from the values ofUD Fs and Rt in caseof W17

316 Ruggedness Number (Rn) The ruggedness number indi-cates the structural complexity of the terrain in associationwith the relief and drainage density It also implies that thearea is susceptible to soil erosion [67 68] In present study theruggedness number is minimum in case of WS2 (119877119899 = 054)and maximum in WS3 (119877119899 = 119) as seen in Table 6 Thisindicates that WS2 is least susceptible to erosion and WS3

10 Geography Journal

Stream order map of subwatershed 8

34∘11

9984000998400998400

34∘12

9984000998400998400

34∘13

9984000998400998400

34∘14

9984000998400998400

34∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘12

9984000998400998400

75∘14

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

0 05 1 2Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 1

34∘49984000998400998400

34∘39984000998400998400

34∘29984000998400998400

34∘19984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

75∘18

9984000998400998400

75∘19

9984000998400998400

75∘20

9984000998400998400

75∘21

9984000998400998400

0 045 09 18

Kilometers

N

EW

S

Stream order map of subwatershed 2

34∘59984000998400998400

34∘49984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

75∘18

9984000998400998400

75∘19

9984000998400998400

0 035 07 14

Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 3

34∘49984000998400998400

34∘59984000998400998400

34∘69984000998400998400

34∘79984000998400998400

34∘89984000998400998400

34∘99984000998400998400

34∘10

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

75∘19

9984000998400998400

75∘21

9984000998400998400

0 05 1 2

Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 4

34∘79984000998400998400

34∘89984000998400998400

34∘99984000998400998400

34∘10

9984000998400998400

75∘14

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

0 045 09 18

Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 5

34∘99984000998400998400

34∘10

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

0 025 05 1Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 6

34∘89984000998400998400

34∘99984000998400998400

34∘10

9984000998400998400

34∘11

9984000998400998400

34∘12

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

75∘18

9984000998400998400

75∘19

9984000998400998400

0 05 1 2Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 7

34∘99984000998400998400

34∘10

9984000998400998400

34∘11

9984000998400998400

34∘12

9984000998400998400

34∘13

9984000998400998400

34∘14

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

75∘18

9984000998400998400

75∘20

9984000998400998400

75∘22

9984000998400998400

0 05 1 2Kilometers

12

345

Watershed boundaryStream order

12

345

Watershed boundaryStream order

N

EW

S

N

EW

S

N

EW

S

N

EW

S

N

EW

S

N

EW

S

N

EW

S

West Lidder River West Lidder River

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

Wes

t Lid

der R

iver

Wes

t Lid

der R

iver

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

(a)

Figure 4 Continued

Geography Journal 11

Stream order map of subwatershed 9

34∘59984000998400998400

34∘69984000998400998400

34∘79984000998400998400

34∘89984000998400998400

34∘99984000998400998400

34∘10

9984000998400998400

34∘11

9984000998400998400

34∘12

9984000998400998400

75∘69984000998400998400

75∘89984000998400998400

75∘10

9984000998400998400

75∘11

9984000998400998400

75∘13

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘12

9984000998400998400

75∘14

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

0 1 2 4Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 10

34∘49984000998400998400

34∘59984000998400998400

34∘69984000998400998400

34∘79984000998400998400

34∘89984000998400998400

34∘99984000998400998400

75∘99984000998400998400

0 1 205

Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 15

34∘19984000998400998400

34∘29984000998400998400

34∘39984000998400998400

0 045 09 18Kilometers

75∘14

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

Stream order map of subwatershed 16

34∘19984000998400998400

34∘29984000998400998400

34∘39984000998400998400

0 03 06 12Kilometers

75∘16

9984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

75∘18

9984000998400998400

Stream order map of subwatershed 13

34∘29984000998400998400

34∘39984000998400998400

34∘49984000998400998400

0 035 07 14

Kilometers

75∘13

9984000998400998400

75∘14

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

Stream order map of subwatershed 14

34∘39984000998400998400

34∘49984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

0 1025 05

Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 11

34∘49984000998400998400

34∘59984000998400998400

34∘69984000998400998400

34∘79984000998400998400

75∘12

9984000998400998400

75∘13

9984000998400998400

75∘14

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

0

12

345

04 08 16

Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 12

34∘39984000998400998400

34∘49984000998400998400

34∘59984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

75∘13

9984000998400998400

75∘14

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

0 035 07 14

Kilometers

Watershed boundaryStream order

12

345

Watershed boundaryStream order

N

S

EWN

S

EW

N

S

EW

N

S

EW

N

S

EW

N

S

EW

N

S

EW

N

S

EW

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

(b)

Figure 4 Continued

12 Geography Journal

Stream order map of subwatershed 17

34∘19984000998400998400

34∘29984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

75∘18

9984000998400998400

75∘19

9984000998400998400

0 02 04 08Kilometers

12

Watershed boundaryStream order

N

EW

S

West Lidder River

(c)

Figure 4 (a) Showing drainage maps of subwatersheds WS1ndashWS8 (b) Showing drainage maps of subwatersheds WS9ndashWS16 (c) Showingdrainage patterns of WS17 of West Lidder catchment

is most susceptible among all the subwatersheds of the studyarea

317 Shape Factor (Rs) The shape factor observed in thestudy area is minimum in case of WS3 (119877119904 = 046) andmaximum in case of WS16 (119877119904 = 079) as shown in Table 6This parameter is similar in interpretation to circularity ratioelongation ratio and form factor It gives an idea aboutthe circular character of the basin The greater the circularcharacter of the basin is the greater is the rapid response ofthe watershed after a storm event [60] Therefore in terms ofRs only WS3 has the longest basin lag time and WS16 theshortest

4 Conclusion

From the integrated analysis of the results on the mor-phometry of the 17 subwatersheds it is concluded that thewhole study area has uniform underlying lithology makingthe hydrological response in these subwatersheds a directfunction of the geomorphology the topography and theexisting vegetation conditions only The spatial variabilityof the morphometric parameters analyzed in this study isquite significant Since the hydrology of a watershed changessignificantly due to the spatial variations of the morpho-metric parameters the subwatersheds will therefore alsoexhibit differential hydrological behaviour Overall resultsindicated that comparatively WS16 WS13 WS12 and WS9shall contribute dominantly to the stream runoff in theWest Lidder catchment and on the contrary WS17 WS5and WS3 shall contribute the least due to the cumulativeand integrated effect of the morphometric parameters whosesignificance and influences on the hydrological behaviourhave been discussed in detail in the preceding sectionsBecause of the close relationship between the morphometricparameters and the mean annual flood it is concluded on

the basis of the range of the morphometric analysis thatWS16 WS13 WS12 and WS9 in that order are more proneto flooding compared to the other 13 subwatersheds of theWest Lidder catchment The hydrological behaviour of these17 subwatersheds shall have profound influences on the floodvulnerability and flood risk in the downstream portions ofthe Lidder River It is hoped that information and knowledgegenerated under this study shall guide the informed planningand decision-making for flood disaster risk reduction in theLidder watershed that forms an important tributary of theJhelum basin

Acknowledgments

This research work has been accomplished under a researchgrant provided by the Department of Science and Technol-ogy Government of India for the project titled ldquoIntegratedFlood vulnerability Assessment for Flood Risk Managementand Disaster Mitigationrdquo The authors express their gratitudeto the funding agency for the financial assistanceThe authorsalso express their sincere thanks to anonymous reviewerswhose valuable comments have improved the quality of thispaper

References

[1] C S Agarwal ldquoStudy of drainage pattern through aerial datain Naugarh area of Varanasi district UPrdquo Journal of the IndianSociety of Remote Sensing vol 26 no 4 pp 169ndash175 1998

[2] G E Obi Reddy A K Maji and K S Gajbhiye ldquoGIS formorphometric analysis of drainage basinsrdquo GIS India vol 11no 4 pp 9ndash14 2002

[3] V Pakhmode H Kulkarni and S B Deolankar ldquoHydrological-drainage analysis in watershed-programme planning a casefrom theDeccan basalt IndiardquoHydrogeology Journal vol 11 no5 pp 595ndash604 2003

Geography Journal 13

[4] L B Leopold and T Maddock ldquoThe hydraulic geometry ofstream channels and some physiographic implicationsrdquo USGSProfessional Paper vol 252 pp 1ndash57 1953

[5] A D Abrahams ldquoChannel networks a geomorphologicalperspectiverdquo Water Resources Research vol 20 no 2 pp 161ndash168 1984

[6] S Singh ldquoQuantitative geomorphology of the drainage basinrdquoin Readings on Remote Sensing Applications T S Chouhan andK N Joshi Eds Scientific Publishers Jodhpur India 1992

[7] R A Dar R Chandra and S A Romshoo ldquoMorphotectonicand lithostratigraphic analysis of intermontane Karewa basin ofKashmir Himalayas Indiardquo Journal ofMountain Science vol 10no 1 pp 731ndash741 2013

[8] S A Romshoo S A Bhat and I Rashid ldquoGeoinformatics forassessing the morphometric control on hydrological responseat watershed scale in the Upper Indus basinrdquo Journal of EarthSystem Science vol 121 no 3 pp 659ndash686 2012

[9] A N Strahler ldquoQuantitative geomorphology of drainage basinsand channel networksrdquo in Handbook of Applied Hydrology VT Chow Ed section 4ndash11 McGraw-Hill New York NY USA1964

[10] A Strahler ldquoQuantitative analysis of watershed geomorphol-ogyrdquoTransactions AmericanGeophysical Union vol 38 pp 913ndash920 1957

[11] J Krishnamurthy G Srinivas V Jayaraman and M G Chan-drasekhar ldquoInfluence of rock types and structures in thedevelopment of drainage networks in typical hardrock terrainrdquoITC Journal no 3-4 pp 252ndash259 1996

[12] A K Das and S Mukherjee ldquoDrainage morphometry usingsatellite data andGIS inRaigad districtMaharashtrardquo Journal ofthe Geological Society of India vol 65 no 5 pp 577ndash586 2005

[13] S S Vittala S Govindaih and H H Gowda ldquoMorphometricanalysis of sub-watershed in the Pavada area of Tumkur districtSouth India using remote sensing and GIS techniquesrdquo Journalof Indian Remote Sensing vol 32 pp 351ndash362 2004

[14] S K Nag ldquoMorphometric analysis using remote sensing tech-niques in the Chaka subbasin Purulia district West BengalrdquoJournal of Indian Society of Remote Sensing vol 26 no 1-2 pp69ndash76 1998

[15] AM Y Esper ldquoMorphometric analysis of Colanguil river basinand flash flood hazard San Juan Argentinardquo EnvironmentalGeology vol 55 pp 107ndash111 2008

[16] T N Bhagwat A Shetty and V S Hegde ldquoSpatial variationin drainage characteristics and geomorphic instantaneous unithydrograph (GIUH) implications for watershed management-A case study of the Varada River basin Northern KarnatakardquoCatena vol 87 no 1 pp 52ndash59 2011

[17] N R Bhaskar B P Parida and A K Nayak ldquoFlood estimationfor ungauged catchments using the GIUHrdquo Journal of WaterResources Planning and Management vol 123 no 4 pp 228ndash237 1997

[18] S K Jain R D Singh and S M Seth ldquoDesign flood estimationusing GIS supported GIUH approachrdquo Water Resources Man-agement vol 14 no 5 pp 369ndash376 2000

[19] M Suresh S Sudhakara K N Tiwari and V M ChowdaryldquoPrioritization of watersheds using morphometric parametersand assessment of surface water potential using remote sens-ingrdquo Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing vol 32 no3 2004

[20] S A Bhat and S A Romshoo ldquoDigital elevation model basedwatershed characteristics of upper watersheds of Jhelum basinrdquoJournal of Applied Hydrology vol 21 no 2 pp 23ndash34 2009

[21] J F OrsquoCallaghan and D M Mark ldquoThe extraction of drainagenetworks from digital elevation datardquo Computer Vision Graph-ics and Image Processing vol 28 pp 323ndash344 1984

[22] R E Horton ldquoErosional development of streams and theirdrainage basins hydrophysical approach to quantitative mor-phologyrdquoGeological Society of America Bulletin vol 56 pp 275ndash370 1945

[23] S A Schumms ldquoEvolution of drainage systems and slopes inBadlands at Perth Amboy New Jerseyrdquo Bulletin of the GeologicalSociety of America vol 67 pp 597ndash646 1956

[24] R E Horton ldquoDrainage basin characteristicsrdquo TransactionsAmerican Geophysical Union vol 13 pp 350ndash361 1932

[25] V C Miller ldquoA Quantitative geomorphic study of drainagebasin characteristics in the Clinch Mountain area Virginia andTennesseerdquo Tech Rep 3 NR 389-402 Columbia UniversityDepartment of Geology ONR New York NY USA 1953

[26] K Pareta andU Pareta ldquoQuantitativemorphometric analysis ofa watershed of Yamuna basin India using ASTER (DEM) dataand GISrdquo International Journal of Geomatics and Geosciencesvol 2 no 1 2011

[27] M Sameena J Krishnamurthy V Jayaraman andG RangannaldquoEvaluation of drainage networks developed in hard rockterrainrdquoGeocarto International vol 24 no 5 pp 397ndash420 2009

[28] A Faniran ldquoThe index of drainage intensitymdasha provisional newdrainage factorrdquo Australian Journal of Science vol 31 pp 328ndash330 1968

[29] I Rashid and S A Romshoo ldquoImpact of anthropogenic activ-ities on water quality of Lidder River in Kashmir HimalayasrdquoEnvironmental Monitoring and Assessment 2012

[30] M Raza A Ahmed and A Mohammad The Valley ofKashmirmdashA Geographical Interpretation Vol I the Land VikasPublishing New Delhi India 1978

[31] V M Meher ldquoThe climate of Srinagar and its variabilityrdquoGeographical Review of India vol 33 no 1 pp 1ndash14 1971

[32] BM Engelhardt P JWeisberg and J C Chambers ldquoInfluencesof watershed geomorphology on extent and composition ofriparian vegetationrdquo Journal of Vegetation Science vol 23 no1 pp 127ndash139 2011

[33] J E Costa ldquoHydraulics and basin morphometry of the largestflash floods in the conterminous United Statesrdquo Journal ofHydrology vol 93 no 3-4 pp 313ndash338 1987

[34] S Singh and M C Singh ldquoMorphometric analysis of Kanharriver basinrdquoThe National Geographical Journal of India vol 43no 1 pp 31ndash43 1997

[35] W Luo and J M Harlin ldquoA theoretical travel time basedon watershed hypsometryrdquo Journal of the American WaterResources Association vol 39 no 4 pp 785ndash792 2003

[36] J M Harlin ldquoThe effect of precipitation variability on drainagebasin morphometryrdquo American Journal of Science vol 280 no8 pp 812ndash825 1980

[37] J M Harlin ldquoWatershedmorphometry and time to hydrographpeakrdquo Journal of Hydrology vol 67 no 1-4 pp 141ndash154 1984

[38] S A Romshoo ldquoGeostatistical analysis of soil moisture mea-surements and remotely sensed data at different spatial scalesrdquoEnvironmental Geology vol 45 no 3 pp 339ndash349 2004

[39] S A Romshoo M Koike S Hironaka O Oki and K MusiakeldquoInfluence of surface and vegetation characteristics on C-bandradarmeasurements for soilmoisture contentrdquo Journal of IndianSociety of Remote Sensing vol 30 no 4 pp 229ndash244 2002

[40] D R Montgomery and W E Dietrich ldquoSource areas drainagedensity and channel initiationrdquo Water Resources Research vol25 no 8 pp 1907ndash1918 1989

14 Geography Journal

[41] D R Montgomery and W E Dietrich ldquoChannel initiation andthe problem of landscape scalerdquo Science vol 255 no 5046 pp826ndash830 1992

[42] EM Ghoneim NW Arnell andGM Foody ldquoCharacterizingthe flash flood hazards potential along the Red Sea coast ofEgyptrdquo IAHS-AISH Publication no 271 pp 211ndash216 2002

[43] M Diakakis ldquoA method for flood hazard mapping based onbasin morphometry application in two catchments in GreecerdquoNatural Hazards vol 56 no 3 pp 803ndash814 2011

[44] P C Patton and V R Baker ldquoMorphometry and floods in smalldrainage basins subject to diverse hydrogeomorphic controlsrdquoWater Resources Research vol 12 no 5 pp 941ndash952 1976

[45] A D Howard ldquoRole of hypsometry and planform in basinhydrologic responserdquo Hydrological Processes vol 4 no 4 pp373ndash385 1990

[46] K Rakesh A K Lohani K Sanjay C Chatterjee and R KNema ldquoGIS based morphometric analysis of Ajay river basinupto Srarath gauging site of South Biharrdquo Journal of AppliedHydrology vol 14 no 4 pp 45ndash54 2000

[47] B Dodov and E Foufoula-Georgiou ldquoFluvial processes andstreamflow variability interplay in the scale-frequency contin-uum and implications for scalingrdquo Water Resources Researchvol 41 no 5 pp 1ndash18 2005

[48] L C Gottschalk ldquoReservoir sedimentationrdquo in Handbook ofApplied Hydrology V T Chow Ed section 7-1 McGraw-HillNew York NY USA 1964

[49] B ADodov and E Foufoula-Georgiou ldquoFloodplainmorphom-etry extraction from a high-resolution digital elevationmodel asimple algorithm for regional analysis studiesrdquo IEEE Geoscienceand Remote Sensing Letters vol 3 no 3 pp 410ndash413 2006

[50] P C Patton ldquoDrainage basin morphometry and floodsrdquo inFlood Geomorphology pp 51ndash64 JohnWiley amp Sons NewYorkNY USA 1988

[51] V Gardiner and C C Park ldquoDrainage basin morphometryrdquoProgress in Physical Geography vol 2 no 1 pp 1ndash35 1978

[52] W B Langbein ldquoTopographic characteristics of drainagebasinsrdquoUS Geological SurveyWater-Supply Paper vol 986 pp157ndash159 1947

[53] W Luo ldquoQuantifying groundwater-sapping landforms witha hypsometric techniquerdquo Journal of Geophysical Research EPlanets vol 105 no 1 pp 1685ndash1694 2000

[54] J M Harlin and C Wijeyawickrema ldquoIrrigation and ground-water depletion in Caddo county Oklahomardquo Journal of theAmerican Water Resources Association vol 21 no 1 pp 15ndash221985

[55] K G Smith ldquoStandards for grading textures of erosionaltopographyrdquoAmerican Journal of Science vol 248 pp 655ndash6681950

[56] M Y Esper Angillieri ldquoMorphometric analysis of Colanguilriver basin and flash flood hazard San Juan ArgentinardquoEnvironmental Geology vol 55 no 1 pp 107ndash111 2008

[57] A M Youssef B Pradhan and A M Hassan ldquoFlash floodrisk estimation along the St Katherine road southern SinaiEgypt using GIS based morphometry and satellite imageryrdquoEnvironmental Earth Sciences vol 62 no 3 pp 611ndash623 2011

[58] A D Howard ldquoRole of hypsometry and planform in basinhydrologic responserdquo Hydrological Processes vol 4 no 4 pp373ndash385 1990

[59] R C Kochel ldquoGeomorphic impact of large floods reviewand new perspectives on magnitude and frequencyrdquo in FloodGeomorphology pp 169ndash187 JohnWiley amp Sons NewYork NYUSA 1988

[60] G E Tucker and R L Bras ldquoHillslope processes drainagedensity and landscape morphologyrdquoWater Resources Researchvol 34 no 10 pp 2751ndash2764 1998

[61] M Borga et al ldquoReal time guidance for flash flood riskmanagementrdquo FLOOD Site Research Project Report T16 2008

[62] K W Potter and E B Faulkner ldquoCatchment response time asa predictor of flood quantilesrdquo Journal of the American WaterResources Association vol 23 no 5 pp 857ndash861 1987

[63] R CWard andM Robinson Principles of Hydrology McGraw-Hill Maidenhead UK 4th edition 2000

[64] S Shulits ldquoQuantitative formulation of stream and watershedmorphologyrdquo Bulletin of the International Association of Scien-tific Hydrology vol 3 pp 201ndash207 1968

[65] A Demoulin ldquoBasin and river profile morphometry a newindex with a high potential for relative dating of tectonic upliftrdquoGeomorphology vol 126 no 1-2 pp 97ndash107 2011

[66] T B Altin and B N Altin ldquoDrainage morphometry and itsinfluence on landforms in volcanic terrain Central AnatoliaTurkeyrdquo ProcediamdashSocial and Behavioral Sciences vol 19 pp732ndash740 2011

[67] M Rashid M A Lone and S A Romshoo ldquoGeospatial toolsfor assessing land degradation in Budgam district KashmirHimalaya Indiardquo Journal of Earth System Science vol 120 no3 pp 423ndash433 2011

[68] S Zaz and S A Romshoo ldquoAssessing the geoindicators of landdegradation in the Kashmir Himalayan Region Indiardquo NaturalHazards vol 64 no 2 pp 1219ndash1245 2012

10 Geography Journal

Stream order map of subwatershed 8

34∘11

9984000998400998400

34∘12

9984000998400998400

34∘13

9984000998400998400

34∘14

9984000998400998400

34∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘12

9984000998400998400

75∘14

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

0 05 1 2Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 1

34∘49984000998400998400

34∘39984000998400998400

34∘29984000998400998400

34∘19984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

75∘18

9984000998400998400

75∘19

9984000998400998400

75∘20

9984000998400998400

75∘21

9984000998400998400

0 045 09 18

Kilometers

N

EW

S

Stream order map of subwatershed 2

34∘59984000998400998400

34∘49984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

75∘18

9984000998400998400

75∘19

9984000998400998400

0 035 07 14

Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 3

34∘49984000998400998400

34∘59984000998400998400

34∘69984000998400998400

34∘79984000998400998400

34∘89984000998400998400

34∘99984000998400998400

34∘10

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

75∘19

9984000998400998400

75∘21

9984000998400998400

0 05 1 2

Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 4

34∘79984000998400998400

34∘89984000998400998400

34∘99984000998400998400

34∘10

9984000998400998400

75∘14

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

0 045 09 18

Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 5

34∘99984000998400998400

34∘10

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

0 025 05 1Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 6

34∘89984000998400998400

34∘99984000998400998400

34∘10

9984000998400998400

34∘11

9984000998400998400

34∘12

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

75∘18

9984000998400998400

75∘19

9984000998400998400

0 05 1 2Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 7

34∘99984000998400998400

34∘10

9984000998400998400

34∘11

9984000998400998400

34∘12

9984000998400998400

34∘13

9984000998400998400

34∘14

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

75∘18

9984000998400998400

75∘20

9984000998400998400

75∘22

9984000998400998400

0 05 1 2Kilometers

12

345

Watershed boundaryStream order

12

345

Watershed boundaryStream order

N

EW

S

N

EW

S

N

EW

S

N

EW

S

N

EW

S

N

EW

S

N

EW

S

West Lidder River West Lidder River

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

Wes

t Lid

der R

iver

Wes

t Lid

der R

iver

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

(a)

Figure 4 Continued

Geography Journal 11

Stream order map of subwatershed 9

34∘59984000998400998400

34∘69984000998400998400

34∘79984000998400998400

34∘89984000998400998400

34∘99984000998400998400

34∘10

9984000998400998400

34∘11

9984000998400998400

34∘12

9984000998400998400

75∘69984000998400998400

75∘89984000998400998400

75∘10

9984000998400998400

75∘11

9984000998400998400

75∘13

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘12

9984000998400998400

75∘14

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

0 1 2 4Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 10

34∘49984000998400998400

34∘59984000998400998400

34∘69984000998400998400

34∘79984000998400998400

34∘89984000998400998400

34∘99984000998400998400

75∘99984000998400998400

0 1 205

Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 15

34∘19984000998400998400

34∘29984000998400998400

34∘39984000998400998400

0 045 09 18Kilometers

75∘14

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

Stream order map of subwatershed 16

34∘19984000998400998400

34∘29984000998400998400

34∘39984000998400998400

0 03 06 12Kilometers

75∘16

9984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

75∘18

9984000998400998400

Stream order map of subwatershed 13

34∘29984000998400998400

34∘39984000998400998400

34∘49984000998400998400

0 035 07 14

Kilometers

75∘13

9984000998400998400

75∘14

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

Stream order map of subwatershed 14

34∘39984000998400998400

34∘49984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

0 1025 05

Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 11

34∘49984000998400998400

34∘59984000998400998400

34∘69984000998400998400

34∘79984000998400998400

75∘12

9984000998400998400

75∘13

9984000998400998400

75∘14

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

0

12

345

04 08 16

Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 12

34∘39984000998400998400

34∘49984000998400998400

34∘59984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

75∘13

9984000998400998400

75∘14

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

0 035 07 14

Kilometers

Watershed boundaryStream order

12

345

Watershed boundaryStream order

N

S

EWN

S

EW

N

S

EW

N

S

EW

N

S

EW

N

S

EW

N

S

EW

N

S

EW

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

(b)

Figure 4 Continued

12 Geography Journal

Stream order map of subwatershed 17

34∘19984000998400998400

34∘29984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

75∘18

9984000998400998400

75∘19

9984000998400998400

0 02 04 08Kilometers

12

Watershed boundaryStream order

N

EW

S

West Lidder River

(c)

Figure 4 (a) Showing drainage maps of subwatersheds WS1ndashWS8 (b) Showing drainage maps of subwatersheds WS9ndashWS16 (c) Showingdrainage patterns of WS17 of West Lidder catchment

is most susceptible among all the subwatersheds of the studyarea

317 Shape Factor (Rs) The shape factor observed in thestudy area is minimum in case of WS3 (119877119904 = 046) andmaximum in case of WS16 (119877119904 = 079) as shown in Table 6This parameter is similar in interpretation to circularity ratioelongation ratio and form factor It gives an idea aboutthe circular character of the basin The greater the circularcharacter of the basin is the greater is the rapid response ofthe watershed after a storm event [60] Therefore in terms ofRs only WS3 has the longest basin lag time and WS16 theshortest

4 Conclusion

From the integrated analysis of the results on the mor-phometry of the 17 subwatersheds it is concluded that thewhole study area has uniform underlying lithology makingthe hydrological response in these subwatersheds a directfunction of the geomorphology the topography and theexisting vegetation conditions only The spatial variabilityof the morphometric parameters analyzed in this study isquite significant Since the hydrology of a watershed changessignificantly due to the spatial variations of the morpho-metric parameters the subwatersheds will therefore alsoexhibit differential hydrological behaviour Overall resultsindicated that comparatively WS16 WS13 WS12 and WS9shall contribute dominantly to the stream runoff in theWest Lidder catchment and on the contrary WS17 WS5and WS3 shall contribute the least due to the cumulativeand integrated effect of the morphometric parameters whosesignificance and influences on the hydrological behaviourhave been discussed in detail in the preceding sectionsBecause of the close relationship between the morphometricparameters and the mean annual flood it is concluded on

the basis of the range of the morphometric analysis thatWS16 WS13 WS12 and WS9 in that order are more proneto flooding compared to the other 13 subwatersheds of theWest Lidder catchment The hydrological behaviour of these17 subwatersheds shall have profound influences on the floodvulnerability and flood risk in the downstream portions ofthe Lidder River It is hoped that information and knowledgegenerated under this study shall guide the informed planningand decision-making for flood disaster risk reduction in theLidder watershed that forms an important tributary of theJhelum basin

Acknowledgments

This research work has been accomplished under a researchgrant provided by the Department of Science and Technol-ogy Government of India for the project titled ldquoIntegratedFlood vulnerability Assessment for Flood Risk Managementand Disaster Mitigationrdquo The authors express their gratitudeto the funding agency for the financial assistanceThe authorsalso express their sincere thanks to anonymous reviewerswhose valuable comments have improved the quality of thispaper

References

[1] C S Agarwal ldquoStudy of drainage pattern through aerial datain Naugarh area of Varanasi district UPrdquo Journal of the IndianSociety of Remote Sensing vol 26 no 4 pp 169ndash175 1998

[2] G E Obi Reddy A K Maji and K S Gajbhiye ldquoGIS formorphometric analysis of drainage basinsrdquo GIS India vol 11no 4 pp 9ndash14 2002

[3] V Pakhmode H Kulkarni and S B Deolankar ldquoHydrological-drainage analysis in watershed-programme planning a casefrom theDeccan basalt IndiardquoHydrogeology Journal vol 11 no5 pp 595ndash604 2003

Geography Journal 13

[4] L B Leopold and T Maddock ldquoThe hydraulic geometry ofstream channels and some physiographic implicationsrdquo USGSProfessional Paper vol 252 pp 1ndash57 1953

[5] A D Abrahams ldquoChannel networks a geomorphologicalperspectiverdquo Water Resources Research vol 20 no 2 pp 161ndash168 1984

[6] S Singh ldquoQuantitative geomorphology of the drainage basinrdquoin Readings on Remote Sensing Applications T S Chouhan andK N Joshi Eds Scientific Publishers Jodhpur India 1992

[7] R A Dar R Chandra and S A Romshoo ldquoMorphotectonicand lithostratigraphic analysis of intermontane Karewa basin ofKashmir Himalayas Indiardquo Journal ofMountain Science vol 10no 1 pp 731ndash741 2013

[8] S A Romshoo S A Bhat and I Rashid ldquoGeoinformatics forassessing the morphometric control on hydrological responseat watershed scale in the Upper Indus basinrdquo Journal of EarthSystem Science vol 121 no 3 pp 659ndash686 2012

[9] A N Strahler ldquoQuantitative geomorphology of drainage basinsand channel networksrdquo in Handbook of Applied Hydrology VT Chow Ed section 4ndash11 McGraw-Hill New York NY USA1964

[10] A Strahler ldquoQuantitative analysis of watershed geomorphol-ogyrdquoTransactions AmericanGeophysical Union vol 38 pp 913ndash920 1957

[11] J Krishnamurthy G Srinivas V Jayaraman and M G Chan-drasekhar ldquoInfluence of rock types and structures in thedevelopment of drainage networks in typical hardrock terrainrdquoITC Journal no 3-4 pp 252ndash259 1996

[12] A K Das and S Mukherjee ldquoDrainage morphometry usingsatellite data andGIS inRaigad districtMaharashtrardquo Journal ofthe Geological Society of India vol 65 no 5 pp 577ndash586 2005

[13] S S Vittala S Govindaih and H H Gowda ldquoMorphometricanalysis of sub-watershed in the Pavada area of Tumkur districtSouth India using remote sensing and GIS techniquesrdquo Journalof Indian Remote Sensing vol 32 pp 351ndash362 2004

[14] S K Nag ldquoMorphometric analysis using remote sensing tech-niques in the Chaka subbasin Purulia district West BengalrdquoJournal of Indian Society of Remote Sensing vol 26 no 1-2 pp69ndash76 1998

[15] AM Y Esper ldquoMorphometric analysis of Colanguil river basinand flash flood hazard San Juan Argentinardquo EnvironmentalGeology vol 55 pp 107ndash111 2008

[16] T N Bhagwat A Shetty and V S Hegde ldquoSpatial variationin drainage characteristics and geomorphic instantaneous unithydrograph (GIUH) implications for watershed management-A case study of the Varada River basin Northern KarnatakardquoCatena vol 87 no 1 pp 52ndash59 2011

[17] N R Bhaskar B P Parida and A K Nayak ldquoFlood estimationfor ungauged catchments using the GIUHrdquo Journal of WaterResources Planning and Management vol 123 no 4 pp 228ndash237 1997

[18] S K Jain R D Singh and S M Seth ldquoDesign flood estimationusing GIS supported GIUH approachrdquo Water Resources Man-agement vol 14 no 5 pp 369ndash376 2000

[19] M Suresh S Sudhakara K N Tiwari and V M ChowdaryldquoPrioritization of watersheds using morphometric parametersand assessment of surface water potential using remote sens-ingrdquo Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing vol 32 no3 2004

[20] S A Bhat and S A Romshoo ldquoDigital elevation model basedwatershed characteristics of upper watersheds of Jhelum basinrdquoJournal of Applied Hydrology vol 21 no 2 pp 23ndash34 2009

[21] J F OrsquoCallaghan and D M Mark ldquoThe extraction of drainagenetworks from digital elevation datardquo Computer Vision Graph-ics and Image Processing vol 28 pp 323ndash344 1984

[22] R E Horton ldquoErosional development of streams and theirdrainage basins hydrophysical approach to quantitative mor-phologyrdquoGeological Society of America Bulletin vol 56 pp 275ndash370 1945

[23] S A Schumms ldquoEvolution of drainage systems and slopes inBadlands at Perth Amboy New Jerseyrdquo Bulletin of the GeologicalSociety of America vol 67 pp 597ndash646 1956

[24] R E Horton ldquoDrainage basin characteristicsrdquo TransactionsAmerican Geophysical Union vol 13 pp 350ndash361 1932

[25] V C Miller ldquoA Quantitative geomorphic study of drainagebasin characteristics in the Clinch Mountain area Virginia andTennesseerdquo Tech Rep 3 NR 389-402 Columbia UniversityDepartment of Geology ONR New York NY USA 1953

[26] K Pareta andU Pareta ldquoQuantitativemorphometric analysis ofa watershed of Yamuna basin India using ASTER (DEM) dataand GISrdquo International Journal of Geomatics and Geosciencesvol 2 no 1 2011

[27] M Sameena J Krishnamurthy V Jayaraman andG RangannaldquoEvaluation of drainage networks developed in hard rockterrainrdquoGeocarto International vol 24 no 5 pp 397ndash420 2009

[28] A Faniran ldquoThe index of drainage intensitymdasha provisional newdrainage factorrdquo Australian Journal of Science vol 31 pp 328ndash330 1968

[29] I Rashid and S A Romshoo ldquoImpact of anthropogenic activ-ities on water quality of Lidder River in Kashmir HimalayasrdquoEnvironmental Monitoring and Assessment 2012

[30] M Raza A Ahmed and A Mohammad The Valley ofKashmirmdashA Geographical Interpretation Vol I the Land VikasPublishing New Delhi India 1978

[31] V M Meher ldquoThe climate of Srinagar and its variabilityrdquoGeographical Review of India vol 33 no 1 pp 1ndash14 1971

[32] BM Engelhardt P JWeisberg and J C Chambers ldquoInfluencesof watershed geomorphology on extent and composition ofriparian vegetationrdquo Journal of Vegetation Science vol 23 no1 pp 127ndash139 2011

[33] J E Costa ldquoHydraulics and basin morphometry of the largestflash floods in the conterminous United Statesrdquo Journal ofHydrology vol 93 no 3-4 pp 313ndash338 1987

[34] S Singh and M C Singh ldquoMorphometric analysis of Kanharriver basinrdquoThe National Geographical Journal of India vol 43no 1 pp 31ndash43 1997

[35] W Luo and J M Harlin ldquoA theoretical travel time basedon watershed hypsometryrdquo Journal of the American WaterResources Association vol 39 no 4 pp 785ndash792 2003

[36] J M Harlin ldquoThe effect of precipitation variability on drainagebasin morphometryrdquo American Journal of Science vol 280 no8 pp 812ndash825 1980

[37] J M Harlin ldquoWatershedmorphometry and time to hydrographpeakrdquo Journal of Hydrology vol 67 no 1-4 pp 141ndash154 1984

[38] S A Romshoo ldquoGeostatistical analysis of soil moisture mea-surements and remotely sensed data at different spatial scalesrdquoEnvironmental Geology vol 45 no 3 pp 339ndash349 2004

[39] S A Romshoo M Koike S Hironaka O Oki and K MusiakeldquoInfluence of surface and vegetation characteristics on C-bandradarmeasurements for soilmoisture contentrdquo Journal of IndianSociety of Remote Sensing vol 30 no 4 pp 229ndash244 2002

[40] D R Montgomery and W E Dietrich ldquoSource areas drainagedensity and channel initiationrdquo Water Resources Research vol25 no 8 pp 1907ndash1918 1989

14 Geography Journal

[41] D R Montgomery and W E Dietrich ldquoChannel initiation andthe problem of landscape scalerdquo Science vol 255 no 5046 pp826ndash830 1992

[42] EM Ghoneim NW Arnell andGM Foody ldquoCharacterizingthe flash flood hazards potential along the Red Sea coast ofEgyptrdquo IAHS-AISH Publication no 271 pp 211ndash216 2002

[43] M Diakakis ldquoA method for flood hazard mapping based onbasin morphometry application in two catchments in GreecerdquoNatural Hazards vol 56 no 3 pp 803ndash814 2011

[44] P C Patton and V R Baker ldquoMorphometry and floods in smalldrainage basins subject to diverse hydrogeomorphic controlsrdquoWater Resources Research vol 12 no 5 pp 941ndash952 1976

[45] A D Howard ldquoRole of hypsometry and planform in basinhydrologic responserdquo Hydrological Processes vol 4 no 4 pp373ndash385 1990

[46] K Rakesh A K Lohani K Sanjay C Chatterjee and R KNema ldquoGIS based morphometric analysis of Ajay river basinupto Srarath gauging site of South Biharrdquo Journal of AppliedHydrology vol 14 no 4 pp 45ndash54 2000

[47] B Dodov and E Foufoula-Georgiou ldquoFluvial processes andstreamflow variability interplay in the scale-frequency contin-uum and implications for scalingrdquo Water Resources Researchvol 41 no 5 pp 1ndash18 2005

[48] L C Gottschalk ldquoReservoir sedimentationrdquo in Handbook ofApplied Hydrology V T Chow Ed section 7-1 McGraw-HillNew York NY USA 1964

[49] B ADodov and E Foufoula-Georgiou ldquoFloodplainmorphom-etry extraction from a high-resolution digital elevationmodel asimple algorithm for regional analysis studiesrdquo IEEE Geoscienceand Remote Sensing Letters vol 3 no 3 pp 410ndash413 2006

[50] P C Patton ldquoDrainage basin morphometry and floodsrdquo inFlood Geomorphology pp 51ndash64 JohnWiley amp Sons NewYorkNY USA 1988

[51] V Gardiner and C C Park ldquoDrainage basin morphometryrdquoProgress in Physical Geography vol 2 no 1 pp 1ndash35 1978

[52] W B Langbein ldquoTopographic characteristics of drainagebasinsrdquoUS Geological SurveyWater-Supply Paper vol 986 pp157ndash159 1947

[53] W Luo ldquoQuantifying groundwater-sapping landforms witha hypsometric techniquerdquo Journal of Geophysical Research EPlanets vol 105 no 1 pp 1685ndash1694 2000

[54] J M Harlin and C Wijeyawickrema ldquoIrrigation and ground-water depletion in Caddo county Oklahomardquo Journal of theAmerican Water Resources Association vol 21 no 1 pp 15ndash221985

[55] K G Smith ldquoStandards for grading textures of erosionaltopographyrdquoAmerican Journal of Science vol 248 pp 655ndash6681950

[56] M Y Esper Angillieri ldquoMorphometric analysis of Colanguilriver basin and flash flood hazard San Juan ArgentinardquoEnvironmental Geology vol 55 no 1 pp 107ndash111 2008

[57] A M Youssef B Pradhan and A M Hassan ldquoFlash floodrisk estimation along the St Katherine road southern SinaiEgypt using GIS based morphometry and satellite imageryrdquoEnvironmental Earth Sciences vol 62 no 3 pp 611ndash623 2011

[58] A D Howard ldquoRole of hypsometry and planform in basinhydrologic responserdquo Hydrological Processes vol 4 no 4 pp373ndash385 1990

[59] R C Kochel ldquoGeomorphic impact of large floods reviewand new perspectives on magnitude and frequencyrdquo in FloodGeomorphology pp 169ndash187 JohnWiley amp Sons NewYork NYUSA 1988

[60] G E Tucker and R L Bras ldquoHillslope processes drainagedensity and landscape morphologyrdquoWater Resources Researchvol 34 no 10 pp 2751ndash2764 1998

[61] M Borga et al ldquoReal time guidance for flash flood riskmanagementrdquo FLOOD Site Research Project Report T16 2008

[62] K W Potter and E B Faulkner ldquoCatchment response time asa predictor of flood quantilesrdquo Journal of the American WaterResources Association vol 23 no 5 pp 857ndash861 1987

[63] R CWard andM Robinson Principles of Hydrology McGraw-Hill Maidenhead UK 4th edition 2000

[64] S Shulits ldquoQuantitative formulation of stream and watershedmorphologyrdquo Bulletin of the International Association of Scien-tific Hydrology vol 3 pp 201ndash207 1968

[65] A Demoulin ldquoBasin and river profile morphometry a newindex with a high potential for relative dating of tectonic upliftrdquoGeomorphology vol 126 no 1-2 pp 97ndash107 2011

[66] T B Altin and B N Altin ldquoDrainage morphometry and itsinfluence on landforms in volcanic terrain Central AnatoliaTurkeyrdquo ProcediamdashSocial and Behavioral Sciences vol 19 pp732ndash740 2011

[67] M Rashid M A Lone and S A Romshoo ldquoGeospatial toolsfor assessing land degradation in Budgam district KashmirHimalaya Indiardquo Journal of Earth System Science vol 120 no3 pp 423ndash433 2011

[68] S Zaz and S A Romshoo ldquoAssessing the geoindicators of landdegradation in the Kashmir Himalayan Region Indiardquo NaturalHazards vol 64 no 2 pp 1219ndash1245 2012

Geography Journal 11

Stream order map of subwatershed 9

34∘59984000998400998400

34∘69984000998400998400

34∘79984000998400998400

34∘89984000998400998400

34∘99984000998400998400

34∘10

9984000998400998400

34∘11

9984000998400998400

34∘12

9984000998400998400

75∘69984000998400998400

75∘89984000998400998400

75∘10

9984000998400998400

75∘11

9984000998400998400

75∘13

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘12

9984000998400998400

75∘14

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

0 1 2 4Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 10

34∘49984000998400998400

34∘59984000998400998400

34∘69984000998400998400

34∘79984000998400998400

34∘89984000998400998400

34∘99984000998400998400

75∘99984000998400998400

0 1 205

Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 15

34∘19984000998400998400

34∘29984000998400998400

34∘39984000998400998400

0 045 09 18Kilometers

75∘14

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

Stream order map of subwatershed 16

34∘19984000998400998400

34∘29984000998400998400

34∘39984000998400998400

0 03 06 12Kilometers

75∘16

9984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

75∘18

9984000998400998400

Stream order map of subwatershed 13

34∘29984000998400998400

34∘39984000998400998400

34∘49984000998400998400

0 035 07 14

Kilometers

75∘13

9984000998400998400

75∘14

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

Stream order map of subwatershed 14

34∘39984000998400998400

34∘49984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

0 1025 05

Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 11

34∘49984000998400998400

34∘59984000998400998400

34∘69984000998400998400

34∘79984000998400998400

75∘12

9984000998400998400

75∘13

9984000998400998400

75∘14

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

0

12

345

04 08 16

Kilometers

Stream order map of subwatershed 12

34∘39984000998400998400

34∘49984000998400998400

34∘59984000998400998400

75∘16

9984000998400998400

75∘13

9984000998400998400

75∘14

9984000998400998400

75∘15

9984000998400998400

0 035 07 14

Kilometers

Watershed boundaryStream order

12

345

Watershed boundaryStream order

N

S

EWN

S

EW

N

S

EW

N

S

EW

N

S

EW

N

S

EW

N

S

EW

N

S

EW

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

West Lidder River

(b)

Figure 4 Continued

12 Geography Journal

Stream order map of subwatershed 17

34∘19984000998400998400

34∘29984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

75∘18

9984000998400998400

75∘19

9984000998400998400

0 02 04 08Kilometers

12

Watershed boundaryStream order

N

EW

S

West Lidder River

(c)

Figure 4 (a) Showing drainage maps of subwatersheds WS1ndashWS8 (b) Showing drainage maps of subwatersheds WS9ndashWS16 (c) Showingdrainage patterns of WS17 of West Lidder catchment

is most susceptible among all the subwatersheds of the studyarea

317 Shape Factor (Rs) The shape factor observed in thestudy area is minimum in case of WS3 (119877119904 = 046) andmaximum in case of WS16 (119877119904 = 079) as shown in Table 6This parameter is similar in interpretation to circularity ratioelongation ratio and form factor It gives an idea aboutthe circular character of the basin The greater the circularcharacter of the basin is the greater is the rapid response ofthe watershed after a storm event [60] Therefore in terms ofRs only WS3 has the longest basin lag time and WS16 theshortest

4 Conclusion

From the integrated analysis of the results on the mor-phometry of the 17 subwatersheds it is concluded that thewhole study area has uniform underlying lithology makingthe hydrological response in these subwatersheds a directfunction of the geomorphology the topography and theexisting vegetation conditions only The spatial variabilityof the morphometric parameters analyzed in this study isquite significant Since the hydrology of a watershed changessignificantly due to the spatial variations of the morpho-metric parameters the subwatersheds will therefore alsoexhibit differential hydrological behaviour Overall resultsindicated that comparatively WS16 WS13 WS12 and WS9shall contribute dominantly to the stream runoff in theWest Lidder catchment and on the contrary WS17 WS5and WS3 shall contribute the least due to the cumulativeand integrated effect of the morphometric parameters whosesignificance and influences on the hydrological behaviourhave been discussed in detail in the preceding sectionsBecause of the close relationship between the morphometricparameters and the mean annual flood it is concluded on

the basis of the range of the morphometric analysis thatWS16 WS13 WS12 and WS9 in that order are more proneto flooding compared to the other 13 subwatersheds of theWest Lidder catchment The hydrological behaviour of these17 subwatersheds shall have profound influences on the floodvulnerability and flood risk in the downstream portions ofthe Lidder River It is hoped that information and knowledgegenerated under this study shall guide the informed planningand decision-making for flood disaster risk reduction in theLidder watershed that forms an important tributary of theJhelum basin

Acknowledgments

This research work has been accomplished under a researchgrant provided by the Department of Science and Technol-ogy Government of India for the project titled ldquoIntegratedFlood vulnerability Assessment for Flood Risk Managementand Disaster Mitigationrdquo The authors express their gratitudeto the funding agency for the financial assistanceThe authorsalso express their sincere thanks to anonymous reviewerswhose valuable comments have improved the quality of thispaper

References

[1] C S Agarwal ldquoStudy of drainage pattern through aerial datain Naugarh area of Varanasi district UPrdquo Journal of the IndianSociety of Remote Sensing vol 26 no 4 pp 169ndash175 1998

[2] G E Obi Reddy A K Maji and K S Gajbhiye ldquoGIS formorphometric analysis of drainage basinsrdquo GIS India vol 11no 4 pp 9ndash14 2002

[3] V Pakhmode H Kulkarni and S B Deolankar ldquoHydrological-drainage analysis in watershed-programme planning a casefrom theDeccan basalt IndiardquoHydrogeology Journal vol 11 no5 pp 595ndash604 2003

Geography Journal 13

[4] L B Leopold and T Maddock ldquoThe hydraulic geometry ofstream channels and some physiographic implicationsrdquo USGSProfessional Paper vol 252 pp 1ndash57 1953

[5] A D Abrahams ldquoChannel networks a geomorphologicalperspectiverdquo Water Resources Research vol 20 no 2 pp 161ndash168 1984

[6] S Singh ldquoQuantitative geomorphology of the drainage basinrdquoin Readings on Remote Sensing Applications T S Chouhan andK N Joshi Eds Scientific Publishers Jodhpur India 1992

[7] R A Dar R Chandra and S A Romshoo ldquoMorphotectonicand lithostratigraphic analysis of intermontane Karewa basin ofKashmir Himalayas Indiardquo Journal ofMountain Science vol 10no 1 pp 731ndash741 2013

[8] S A Romshoo S A Bhat and I Rashid ldquoGeoinformatics forassessing the morphometric control on hydrological responseat watershed scale in the Upper Indus basinrdquo Journal of EarthSystem Science vol 121 no 3 pp 659ndash686 2012

[9] A N Strahler ldquoQuantitative geomorphology of drainage basinsand channel networksrdquo in Handbook of Applied Hydrology VT Chow Ed section 4ndash11 McGraw-Hill New York NY USA1964

[10] A Strahler ldquoQuantitative analysis of watershed geomorphol-ogyrdquoTransactions AmericanGeophysical Union vol 38 pp 913ndash920 1957

[11] J Krishnamurthy G Srinivas V Jayaraman and M G Chan-drasekhar ldquoInfluence of rock types and structures in thedevelopment of drainage networks in typical hardrock terrainrdquoITC Journal no 3-4 pp 252ndash259 1996

[12] A K Das and S Mukherjee ldquoDrainage morphometry usingsatellite data andGIS inRaigad districtMaharashtrardquo Journal ofthe Geological Society of India vol 65 no 5 pp 577ndash586 2005

[13] S S Vittala S Govindaih and H H Gowda ldquoMorphometricanalysis of sub-watershed in the Pavada area of Tumkur districtSouth India using remote sensing and GIS techniquesrdquo Journalof Indian Remote Sensing vol 32 pp 351ndash362 2004

[14] S K Nag ldquoMorphometric analysis using remote sensing tech-niques in the Chaka subbasin Purulia district West BengalrdquoJournal of Indian Society of Remote Sensing vol 26 no 1-2 pp69ndash76 1998

[15] AM Y Esper ldquoMorphometric analysis of Colanguil river basinand flash flood hazard San Juan Argentinardquo EnvironmentalGeology vol 55 pp 107ndash111 2008

[16] T N Bhagwat A Shetty and V S Hegde ldquoSpatial variationin drainage characteristics and geomorphic instantaneous unithydrograph (GIUH) implications for watershed management-A case study of the Varada River basin Northern KarnatakardquoCatena vol 87 no 1 pp 52ndash59 2011

[17] N R Bhaskar B P Parida and A K Nayak ldquoFlood estimationfor ungauged catchments using the GIUHrdquo Journal of WaterResources Planning and Management vol 123 no 4 pp 228ndash237 1997

[18] S K Jain R D Singh and S M Seth ldquoDesign flood estimationusing GIS supported GIUH approachrdquo Water Resources Man-agement vol 14 no 5 pp 369ndash376 2000

[19] M Suresh S Sudhakara K N Tiwari and V M ChowdaryldquoPrioritization of watersheds using morphometric parametersand assessment of surface water potential using remote sens-ingrdquo Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing vol 32 no3 2004

[20] S A Bhat and S A Romshoo ldquoDigital elevation model basedwatershed characteristics of upper watersheds of Jhelum basinrdquoJournal of Applied Hydrology vol 21 no 2 pp 23ndash34 2009

[21] J F OrsquoCallaghan and D M Mark ldquoThe extraction of drainagenetworks from digital elevation datardquo Computer Vision Graph-ics and Image Processing vol 28 pp 323ndash344 1984

[22] R E Horton ldquoErosional development of streams and theirdrainage basins hydrophysical approach to quantitative mor-phologyrdquoGeological Society of America Bulletin vol 56 pp 275ndash370 1945

[23] S A Schumms ldquoEvolution of drainage systems and slopes inBadlands at Perth Amboy New Jerseyrdquo Bulletin of the GeologicalSociety of America vol 67 pp 597ndash646 1956

[24] R E Horton ldquoDrainage basin characteristicsrdquo TransactionsAmerican Geophysical Union vol 13 pp 350ndash361 1932

[25] V C Miller ldquoA Quantitative geomorphic study of drainagebasin characteristics in the Clinch Mountain area Virginia andTennesseerdquo Tech Rep 3 NR 389-402 Columbia UniversityDepartment of Geology ONR New York NY USA 1953

[26] K Pareta andU Pareta ldquoQuantitativemorphometric analysis ofa watershed of Yamuna basin India using ASTER (DEM) dataand GISrdquo International Journal of Geomatics and Geosciencesvol 2 no 1 2011

[27] M Sameena J Krishnamurthy V Jayaraman andG RangannaldquoEvaluation of drainage networks developed in hard rockterrainrdquoGeocarto International vol 24 no 5 pp 397ndash420 2009

[28] A Faniran ldquoThe index of drainage intensitymdasha provisional newdrainage factorrdquo Australian Journal of Science vol 31 pp 328ndash330 1968

[29] I Rashid and S A Romshoo ldquoImpact of anthropogenic activ-ities on water quality of Lidder River in Kashmir HimalayasrdquoEnvironmental Monitoring and Assessment 2012

[30] M Raza A Ahmed and A Mohammad The Valley ofKashmirmdashA Geographical Interpretation Vol I the Land VikasPublishing New Delhi India 1978

[31] V M Meher ldquoThe climate of Srinagar and its variabilityrdquoGeographical Review of India vol 33 no 1 pp 1ndash14 1971

[32] BM Engelhardt P JWeisberg and J C Chambers ldquoInfluencesof watershed geomorphology on extent and composition ofriparian vegetationrdquo Journal of Vegetation Science vol 23 no1 pp 127ndash139 2011

[33] J E Costa ldquoHydraulics and basin morphometry of the largestflash floods in the conterminous United Statesrdquo Journal ofHydrology vol 93 no 3-4 pp 313ndash338 1987

[34] S Singh and M C Singh ldquoMorphometric analysis of Kanharriver basinrdquoThe National Geographical Journal of India vol 43no 1 pp 31ndash43 1997

[35] W Luo and J M Harlin ldquoA theoretical travel time basedon watershed hypsometryrdquo Journal of the American WaterResources Association vol 39 no 4 pp 785ndash792 2003

[36] J M Harlin ldquoThe effect of precipitation variability on drainagebasin morphometryrdquo American Journal of Science vol 280 no8 pp 812ndash825 1980

[37] J M Harlin ldquoWatershedmorphometry and time to hydrographpeakrdquo Journal of Hydrology vol 67 no 1-4 pp 141ndash154 1984

[38] S A Romshoo ldquoGeostatistical analysis of soil moisture mea-surements and remotely sensed data at different spatial scalesrdquoEnvironmental Geology vol 45 no 3 pp 339ndash349 2004

[39] S A Romshoo M Koike S Hironaka O Oki and K MusiakeldquoInfluence of surface and vegetation characteristics on C-bandradarmeasurements for soilmoisture contentrdquo Journal of IndianSociety of Remote Sensing vol 30 no 4 pp 229ndash244 2002

[40] D R Montgomery and W E Dietrich ldquoSource areas drainagedensity and channel initiationrdquo Water Resources Research vol25 no 8 pp 1907ndash1918 1989

14 Geography Journal

[41] D R Montgomery and W E Dietrich ldquoChannel initiation andthe problem of landscape scalerdquo Science vol 255 no 5046 pp826ndash830 1992

[42] EM Ghoneim NW Arnell andGM Foody ldquoCharacterizingthe flash flood hazards potential along the Red Sea coast ofEgyptrdquo IAHS-AISH Publication no 271 pp 211ndash216 2002

[43] M Diakakis ldquoA method for flood hazard mapping based onbasin morphometry application in two catchments in GreecerdquoNatural Hazards vol 56 no 3 pp 803ndash814 2011

[44] P C Patton and V R Baker ldquoMorphometry and floods in smalldrainage basins subject to diverse hydrogeomorphic controlsrdquoWater Resources Research vol 12 no 5 pp 941ndash952 1976

[45] A D Howard ldquoRole of hypsometry and planform in basinhydrologic responserdquo Hydrological Processes vol 4 no 4 pp373ndash385 1990

[46] K Rakesh A K Lohani K Sanjay C Chatterjee and R KNema ldquoGIS based morphometric analysis of Ajay river basinupto Srarath gauging site of South Biharrdquo Journal of AppliedHydrology vol 14 no 4 pp 45ndash54 2000

[47] B Dodov and E Foufoula-Georgiou ldquoFluvial processes andstreamflow variability interplay in the scale-frequency contin-uum and implications for scalingrdquo Water Resources Researchvol 41 no 5 pp 1ndash18 2005

[48] L C Gottschalk ldquoReservoir sedimentationrdquo in Handbook ofApplied Hydrology V T Chow Ed section 7-1 McGraw-HillNew York NY USA 1964

[49] B ADodov and E Foufoula-Georgiou ldquoFloodplainmorphom-etry extraction from a high-resolution digital elevationmodel asimple algorithm for regional analysis studiesrdquo IEEE Geoscienceand Remote Sensing Letters vol 3 no 3 pp 410ndash413 2006

[50] P C Patton ldquoDrainage basin morphometry and floodsrdquo inFlood Geomorphology pp 51ndash64 JohnWiley amp Sons NewYorkNY USA 1988

[51] V Gardiner and C C Park ldquoDrainage basin morphometryrdquoProgress in Physical Geography vol 2 no 1 pp 1ndash35 1978

[52] W B Langbein ldquoTopographic characteristics of drainagebasinsrdquoUS Geological SurveyWater-Supply Paper vol 986 pp157ndash159 1947

[53] W Luo ldquoQuantifying groundwater-sapping landforms witha hypsometric techniquerdquo Journal of Geophysical Research EPlanets vol 105 no 1 pp 1685ndash1694 2000

[54] J M Harlin and C Wijeyawickrema ldquoIrrigation and ground-water depletion in Caddo county Oklahomardquo Journal of theAmerican Water Resources Association vol 21 no 1 pp 15ndash221985

[55] K G Smith ldquoStandards for grading textures of erosionaltopographyrdquoAmerican Journal of Science vol 248 pp 655ndash6681950

[56] M Y Esper Angillieri ldquoMorphometric analysis of Colanguilriver basin and flash flood hazard San Juan ArgentinardquoEnvironmental Geology vol 55 no 1 pp 107ndash111 2008

[57] A M Youssef B Pradhan and A M Hassan ldquoFlash floodrisk estimation along the St Katherine road southern SinaiEgypt using GIS based morphometry and satellite imageryrdquoEnvironmental Earth Sciences vol 62 no 3 pp 611ndash623 2011

[58] A D Howard ldquoRole of hypsometry and planform in basinhydrologic responserdquo Hydrological Processes vol 4 no 4 pp373ndash385 1990

[59] R C Kochel ldquoGeomorphic impact of large floods reviewand new perspectives on magnitude and frequencyrdquo in FloodGeomorphology pp 169ndash187 JohnWiley amp Sons NewYork NYUSA 1988

[60] G E Tucker and R L Bras ldquoHillslope processes drainagedensity and landscape morphologyrdquoWater Resources Researchvol 34 no 10 pp 2751ndash2764 1998

[61] M Borga et al ldquoReal time guidance for flash flood riskmanagementrdquo FLOOD Site Research Project Report T16 2008

[62] K W Potter and E B Faulkner ldquoCatchment response time asa predictor of flood quantilesrdquo Journal of the American WaterResources Association vol 23 no 5 pp 857ndash861 1987

[63] R CWard andM Robinson Principles of Hydrology McGraw-Hill Maidenhead UK 4th edition 2000

[64] S Shulits ldquoQuantitative formulation of stream and watershedmorphologyrdquo Bulletin of the International Association of Scien-tific Hydrology vol 3 pp 201ndash207 1968

[65] A Demoulin ldquoBasin and river profile morphometry a newindex with a high potential for relative dating of tectonic upliftrdquoGeomorphology vol 126 no 1-2 pp 97ndash107 2011

[66] T B Altin and B N Altin ldquoDrainage morphometry and itsinfluence on landforms in volcanic terrain Central AnatoliaTurkeyrdquo ProcediamdashSocial and Behavioral Sciences vol 19 pp732ndash740 2011

[67] M Rashid M A Lone and S A Romshoo ldquoGeospatial toolsfor assessing land degradation in Budgam district KashmirHimalaya Indiardquo Journal of Earth System Science vol 120 no3 pp 423ndash433 2011

[68] S Zaz and S A Romshoo ldquoAssessing the geoindicators of landdegradation in the Kashmir Himalayan Region Indiardquo NaturalHazards vol 64 no 2 pp 1219ndash1245 2012

12 Geography Journal

Stream order map of subwatershed 17

34∘19984000998400998400

34∘29984000998400998400

75∘17

9984000998400998400

75∘18

9984000998400998400

75∘19

9984000998400998400

0 02 04 08Kilometers

12

Watershed boundaryStream order

N

EW

S

West Lidder River

(c)

Figure 4 (a) Showing drainage maps of subwatersheds WS1ndashWS8 (b) Showing drainage maps of subwatersheds WS9ndashWS16 (c) Showingdrainage patterns of WS17 of West Lidder catchment

is most susceptible among all the subwatersheds of the studyarea

317 Shape Factor (Rs) The shape factor observed in thestudy area is minimum in case of WS3 (119877119904 = 046) andmaximum in case of WS16 (119877119904 = 079) as shown in Table 6This parameter is similar in interpretation to circularity ratioelongation ratio and form factor It gives an idea aboutthe circular character of the basin The greater the circularcharacter of the basin is the greater is the rapid response ofthe watershed after a storm event [60] Therefore in terms ofRs only WS3 has the longest basin lag time and WS16 theshortest

4 Conclusion

From the integrated analysis of the results on the mor-phometry of the 17 subwatersheds it is concluded that thewhole study area has uniform underlying lithology makingthe hydrological response in these subwatersheds a directfunction of the geomorphology the topography and theexisting vegetation conditions only The spatial variabilityof the morphometric parameters analyzed in this study isquite significant Since the hydrology of a watershed changessignificantly due to the spatial variations of the morpho-metric parameters the subwatersheds will therefore alsoexhibit differential hydrological behaviour Overall resultsindicated that comparatively WS16 WS13 WS12 and WS9shall contribute dominantly to the stream runoff in theWest Lidder catchment and on the contrary WS17 WS5and WS3 shall contribute the least due to the cumulativeand integrated effect of the morphometric parameters whosesignificance and influences on the hydrological behaviourhave been discussed in detail in the preceding sectionsBecause of the close relationship between the morphometricparameters and the mean annual flood it is concluded on

the basis of the range of the morphometric analysis thatWS16 WS13 WS12 and WS9 in that order are more proneto flooding compared to the other 13 subwatersheds of theWest Lidder catchment The hydrological behaviour of these17 subwatersheds shall have profound influences on the floodvulnerability and flood risk in the downstream portions ofthe Lidder River It is hoped that information and knowledgegenerated under this study shall guide the informed planningand decision-making for flood disaster risk reduction in theLidder watershed that forms an important tributary of theJhelum basin

Acknowledgments

This research work has been accomplished under a researchgrant provided by the Department of Science and Technol-ogy Government of India for the project titled ldquoIntegratedFlood vulnerability Assessment for Flood Risk Managementand Disaster Mitigationrdquo The authors express their gratitudeto the funding agency for the financial assistanceThe authorsalso express their sincere thanks to anonymous reviewerswhose valuable comments have improved the quality of thispaper

References

[1] C S Agarwal ldquoStudy of drainage pattern through aerial datain Naugarh area of Varanasi district UPrdquo Journal of the IndianSociety of Remote Sensing vol 26 no 4 pp 169ndash175 1998

[2] G E Obi Reddy A K Maji and K S Gajbhiye ldquoGIS formorphometric analysis of drainage basinsrdquo GIS India vol 11no 4 pp 9ndash14 2002

[3] V Pakhmode H Kulkarni and S B Deolankar ldquoHydrological-drainage analysis in watershed-programme planning a casefrom theDeccan basalt IndiardquoHydrogeology Journal vol 11 no5 pp 595ndash604 2003

Geography Journal 13

[4] L B Leopold and T Maddock ldquoThe hydraulic geometry ofstream channels and some physiographic implicationsrdquo USGSProfessional Paper vol 252 pp 1ndash57 1953

[5] A D Abrahams ldquoChannel networks a geomorphologicalperspectiverdquo Water Resources Research vol 20 no 2 pp 161ndash168 1984

[6] S Singh ldquoQuantitative geomorphology of the drainage basinrdquoin Readings on Remote Sensing Applications T S Chouhan andK N Joshi Eds Scientific Publishers Jodhpur India 1992

[7] R A Dar R Chandra and S A Romshoo ldquoMorphotectonicand lithostratigraphic analysis of intermontane Karewa basin ofKashmir Himalayas Indiardquo Journal ofMountain Science vol 10no 1 pp 731ndash741 2013

[8] S A Romshoo S A Bhat and I Rashid ldquoGeoinformatics forassessing the morphometric control on hydrological responseat watershed scale in the Upper Indus basinrdquo Journal of EarthSystem Science vol 121 no 3 pp 659ndash686 2012

[9] A N Strahler ldquoQuantitative geomorphology of drainage basinsand channel networksrdquo in Handbook of Applied Hydrology VT Chow Ed section 4ndash11 McGraw-Hill New York NY USA1964

[10] A Strahler ldquoQuantitative analysis of watershed geomorphol-ogyrdquoTransactions AmericanGeophysical Union vol 38 pp 913ndash920 1957

[11] J Krishnamurthy G Srinivas V Jayaraman and M G Chan-drasekhar ldquoInfluence of rock types and structures in thedevelopment of drainage networks in typical hardrock terrainrdquoITC Journal no 3-4 pp 252ndash259 1996

[12] A K Das and S Mukherjee ldquoDrainage morphometry usingsatellite data andGIS inRaigad districtMaharashtrardquo Journal ofthe Geological Society of India vol 65 no 5 pp 577ndash586 2005

[13] S S Vittala S Govindaih and H H Gowda ldquoMorphometricanalysis of sub-watershed in the Pavada area of Tumkur districtSouth India using remote sensing and GIS techniquesrdquo Journalof Indian Remote Sensing vol 32 pp 351ndash362 2004

[14] S K Nag ldquoMorphometric analysis using remote sensing tech-niques in the Chaka subbasin Purulia district West BengalrdquoJournal of Indian Society of Remote Sensing vol 26 no 1-2 pp69ndash76 1998

[15] AM Y Esper ldquoMorphometric analysis of Colanguil river basinand flash flood hazard San Juan Argentinardquo EnvironmentalGeology vol 55 pp 107ndash111 2008

[16] T N Bhagwat A Shetty and V S Hegde ldquoSpatial variationin drainage characteristics and geomorphic instantaneous unithydrograph (GIUH) implications for watershed management-A case study of the Varada River basin Northern KarnatakardquoCatena vol 87 no 1 pp 52ndash59 2011

[17] N R Bhaskar B P Parida and A K Nayak ldquoFlood estimationfor ungauged catchments using the GIUHrdquo Journal of WaterResources Planning and Management vol 123 no 4 pp 228ndash237 1997

[18] S K Jain R D Singh and S M Seth ldquoDesign flood estimationusing GIS supported GIUH approachrdquo Water Resources Man-agement vol 14 no 5 pp 369ndash376 2000

[19] M Suresh S Sudhakara K N Tiwari and V M ChowdaryldquoPrioritization of watersheds using morphometric parametersand assessment of surface water potential using remote sens-ingrdquo Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing vol 32 no3 2004

[20] S A Bhat and S A Romshoo ldquoDigital elevation model basedwatershed characteristics of upper watersheds of Jhelum basinrdquoJournal of Applied Hydrology vol 21 no 2 pp 23ndash34 2009

[21] J F OrsquoCallaghan and D M Mark ldquoThe extraction of drainagenetworks from digital elevation datardquo Computer Vision Graph-ics and Image Processing vol 28 pp 323ndash344 1984

[22] R E Horton ldquoErosional development of streams and theirdrainage basins hydrophysical approach to quantitative mor-phologyrdquoGeological Society of America Bulletin vol 56 pp 275ndash370 1945

[23] S A Schumms ldquoEvolution of drainage systems and slopes inBadlands at Perth Amboy New Jerseyrdquo Bulletin of the GeologicalSociety of America vol 67 pp 597ndash646 1956

[24] R E Horton ldquoDrainage basin characteristicsrdquo TransactionsAmerican Geophysical Union vol 13 pp 350ndash361 1932

[25] V C Miller ldquoA Quantitative geomorphic study of drainagebasin characteristics in the Clinch Mountain area Virginia andTennesseerdquo Tech Rep 3 NR 389-402 Columbia UniversityDepartment of Geology ONR New York NY USA 1953

[26] K Pareta andU Pareta ldquoQuantitativemorphometric analysis ofa watershed of Yamuna basin India using ASTER (DEM) dataand GISrdquo International Journal of Geomatics and Geosciencesvol 2 no 1 2011

[27] M Sameena J Krishnamurthy V Jayaraman andG RangannaldquoEvaluation of drainage networks developed in hard rockterrainrdquoGeocarto International vol 24 no 5 pp 397ndash420 2009

[28] A Faniran ldquoThe index of drainage intensitymdasha provisional newdrainage factorrdquo Australian Journal of Science vol 31 pp 328ndash330 1968

[29] I Rashid and S A Romshoo ldquoImpact of anthropogenic activ-ities on water quality of Lidder River in Kashmir HimalayasrdquoEnvironmental Monitoring and Assessment 2012

[30] M Raza A Ahmed and A Mohammad The Valley ofKashmirmdashA Geographical Interpretation Vol I the Land VikasPublishing New Delhi India 1978

[31] V M Meher ldquoThe climate of Srinagar and its variabilityrdquoGeographical Review of India vol 33 no 1 pp 1ndash14 1971

[32] BM Engelhardt P JWeisberg and J C Chambers ldquoInfluencesof watershed geomorphology on extent and composition ofriparian vegetationrdquo Journal of Vegetation Science vol 23 no1 pp 127ndash139 2011

[33] J E Costa ldquoHydraulics and basin morphometry of the largestflash floods in the conterminous United Statesrdquo Journal ofHydrology vol 93 no 3-4 pp 313ndash338 1987

[34] S Singh and M C Singh ldquoMorphometric analysis of Kanharriver basinrdquoThe National Geographical Journal of India vol 43no 1 pp 31ndash43 1997

[35] W Luo and J M Harlin ldquoA theoretical travel time basedon watershed hypsometryrdquo Journal of the American WaterResources Association vol 39 no 4 pp 785ndash792 2003

[36] J M Harlin ldquoThe effect of precipitation variability on drainagebasin morphometryrdquo American Journal of Science vol 280 no8 pp 812ndash825 1980

[37] J M Harlin ldquoWatershedmorphometry and time to hydrographpeakrdquo Journal of Hydrology vol 67 no 1-4 pp 141ndash154 1984

[38] S A Romshoo ldquoGeostatistical analysis of soil moisture mea-surements and remotely sensed data at different spatial scalesrdquoEnvironmental Geology vol 45 no 3 pp 339ndash349 2004

[39] S A Romshoo M Koike S Hironaka O Oki and K MusiakeldquoInfluence of surface and vegetation characteristics on C-bandradarmeasurements for soilmoisture contentrdquo Journal of IndianSociety of Remote Sensing vol 30 no 4 pp 229ndash244 2002

[40] D R Montgomery and W E Dietrich ldquoSource areas drainagedensity and channel initiationrdquo Water Resources Research vol25 no 8 pp 1907ndash1918 1989

14 Geography Journal

[41] D R Montgomery and W E Dietrich ldquoChannel initiation andthe problem of landscape scalerdquo Science vol 255 no 5046 pp826ndash830 1992

[42] EM Ghoneim NW Arnell andGM Foody ldquoCharacterizingthe flash flood hazards potential along the Red Sea coast ofEgyptrdquo IAHS-AISH Publication no 271 pp 211ndash216 2002

[43] M Diakakis ldquoA method for flood hazard mapping based onbasin morphometry application in two catchments in GreecerdquoNatural Hazards vol 56 no 3 pp 803ndash814 2011

[44] P C Patton and V R Baker ldquoMorphometry and floods in smalldrainage basins subject to diverse hydrogeomorphic controlsrdquoWater Resources Research vol 12 no 5 pp 941ndash952 1976

[45] A D Howard ldquoRole of hypsometry and planform in basinhydrologic responserdquo Hydrological Processes vol 4 no 4 pp373ndash385 1990

[46] K Rakesh A K Lohani K Sanjay C Chatterjee and R KNema ldquoGIS based morphometric analysis of Ajay river basinupto Srarath gauging site of South Biharrdquo Journal of AppliedHydrology vol 14 no 4 pp 45ndash54 2000

[47] B Dodov and E Foufoula-Georgiou ldquoFluvial processes andstreamflow variability interplay in the scale-frequency contin-uum and implications for scalingrdquo Water Resources Researchvol 41 no 5 pp 1ndash18 2005

[48] L C Gottschalk ldquoReservoir sedimentationrdquo in Handbook ofApplied Hydrology V T Chow Ed section 7-1 McGraw-HillNew York NY USA 1964

[49] B ADodov and E Foufoula-Georgiou ldquoFloodplainmorphom-etry extraction from a high-resolution digital elevationmodel asimple algorithm for regional analysis studiesrdquo IEEE Geoscienceand Remote Sensing Letters vol 3 no 3 pp 410ndash413 2006

[50] P C Patton ldquoDrainage basin morphometry and floodsrdquo inFlood Geomorphology pp 51ndash64 JohnWiley amp Sons NewYorkNY USA 1988

[51] V Gardiner and C C Park ldquoDrainage basin morphometryrdquoProgress in Physical Geography vol 2 no 1 pp 1ndash35 1978

[52] W B Langbein ldquoTopographic characteristics of drainagebasinsrdquoUS Geological SurveyWater-Supply Paper vol 986 pp157ndash159 1947

[53] W Luo ldquoQuantifying groundwater-sapping landforms witha hypsometric techniquerdquo Journal of Geophysical Research EPlanets vol 105 no 1 pp 1685ndash1694 2000

[54] J M Harlin and C Wijeyawickrema ldquoIrrigation and ground-water depletion in Caddo county Oklahomardquo Journal of theAmerican Water Resources Association vol 21 no 1 pp 15ndash221985

[55] K G Smith ldquoStandards for grading textures of erosionaltopographyrdquoAmerican Journal of Science vol 248 pp 655ndash6681950

[56] M Y Esper Angillieri ldquoMorphometric analysis of Colanguilriver basin and flash flood hazard San Juan ArgentinardquoEnvironmental Geology vol 55 no 1 pp 107ndash111 2008

[57] A M Youssef B Pradhan and A M Hassan ldquoFlash floodrisk estimation along the St Katherine road southern SinaiEgypt using GIS based morphometry and satellite imageryrdquoEnvironmental Earth Sciences vol 62 no 3 pp 611ndash623 2011

[58] A D Howard ldquoRole of hypsometry and planform in basinhydrologic responserdquo Hydrological Processes vol 4 no 4 pp373ndash385 1990

[59] R C Kochel ldquoGeomorphic impact of large floods reviewand new perspectives on magnitude and frequencyrdquo in FloodGeomorphology pp 169ndash187 JohnWiley amp Sons NewYork NYUSA 1988

[60] G E Tucker and R L Bras ldquoHillslope processes drainagedensity and landscape morphologyrdquoWater Resources Researchvol 34 no 10 pp 2751ndash2764 1998

[61] M Borga et al ldquoReal time guidance for flash flood riskmanagementrdquo FLOOD Site Research Project Report T16 2008

[62] K W Potter and E B Faulkner ldquoCatchment response time asa predictor of flood quantilesrdquo Journal of the American WaterResources Association vol 23 no 5 pp 857ndash861 1987

[63] R CWard andM Robinson Principles of Hydrology McGraw-Hill Maidenhead UK 4th edition 2000

[64] S Shulits ldquoQuantitative formulation of stream and watershedmorphologyrdquo Bulletin of the International Association of Scien-tific Hydrology vol 3 pp 201ndash207 1968

[65] A Demoulin ldquoBasin and river profile morphometry a newindex with a high potential for relative dating of tectonic upliftrdquoGeomorphology vol 126 no 1-2 pp 97ndash107 2011

[66] T B Altin and B N Altin ldquoDrainage morphometry and itsinfluence on landforms in volcanic terrain Central AnatoliaTurkeyrdquo ProcediamdashSocial and Behavioral Sciences vol 19 pp732ndash740 2011

[67] M Rashid M A Lone and S A Romshoo ldquoGeospatial toolsfor assessing land degradation in Budgam district KashmirHimalaya Indiardquo Journal of Earth System Science vol 120 no3 pp 423ndash433 2011

[68] S Zaz and S A Romshoo ldquoAssessing the geoindicators of landdegradation in the Kashmir Himalayan Region Indiardquo NaturalHazards vol 64 no 2 pp 1219ndash1245 2012

Geography Journal 13

[4] L B Leopold and T Maddock ldquoThe hydraulic geometry ofstream channels and some physiographic implicationsrdquo USGSProfessional Paper vol 252 pp 1ndash57 1953

[5] A D Abrahams ldquoChannel networks a geomorphologicalperspectiverdquo Water Resources Research vol 20 no 2 pp 161ndash168 1984

[6] S Singh ldquoQuantitative geomorphology of the drainage basinrdquoin Readings on Remote Sensing Applications T S Chouhan andK N Joshi Eds Scientific Publishers Jodhpur India 1992

[7] R A Dar R Chandra and S A Romshoo ldquoMorphotectonicand lithostratigraphic analysis of intermontane Karewa basin ofKashmir Himalayas Indiardquo Journal ofMountain Science vol 10no 1 pp 731ndash741 2013

[8] S A Romshoo S A Bhat and I Rashid ldquoGeoinformatics forassessing the morphometric control on hydrological responseat watershed scale in the Upper Indus basinrdquo Journal of EarthSystem Science vol 121 no 3 pp 659ndash686 2012

[9] A N Strahler ldquoQuantitative geomorphology of drainage basinsand channel networksrdquo in Handbook of Applied Hydrology VT Chow Ed section 4ndash11 McGraw-Hill New York NY USA1964

[10] A Strahler ldquoQuantitative analysis of watershed geomorphol-ogyrdquoTransactions AmericanGeophysical Union vol 38 pp 913ndash920 1957

[11] J Krishnamurthy G Srinivas V Jayaraman and M G Chan-drasekhar ldquoInfluence of rock types and structures in thedevelopment of drainage networks in typical hardrock terrainrdquoITC Journal no 3-4 pp 252ndash259 1996

[12] A K Das and S Mukherjee ldquoDrainage morphometry usingsatellite data andGIS inRaigad districtMaharashtrardquo Journal ofthe Geological Society of India vol 65 no 5 pp 577ndash586 2005

[13] S S Vittala S Govindaih and H H Gowda ldquoMorphometricanalysis of sub-watershed in the Pavada area of Tumkur districtSouth India using remote sensing and GIS techniquesrdquo Journalof Indian Remote Sensing vol 32 pp 351ndash362 2004

[14] S K Nag ldquoMorphometric analysis using remote sensing tech-niques in the Chaka subbasin Purulia district West BengalrdquoJournal of Indian Society of Remote Sensing vol 26 no 1-2 pp69ndash76 1998

[15] AM Y Esper ldquoMorphometric analysis of Colanguil river basinand flash flood hazard San Juan Argentinardquo EnvironmentalGeology vol 55 pp 107ndash111 2008

[16] T N Bhagwat A Shetty and V S Hegde ldquoSpatial variationin drainage characteristics and geomorphic instantaneous unithydrograph (GIUH) implications for watershed management-A case study of the Varada River basin Northern KarnatakardquoCatena vol 87 no 1 pp 52ndash59 2011

[17] N R Bhaskar B P Parida and A K Nayak ldquoFlood estimationfor ungauged catchments using the GIUHrdquo Journal of WaterResources Planning and Management vol 123 no 4 pp 228ndash237 1997

[18] S K Jain R D Singh and S M Seth ldquoDesign flood estimationusing GIS supported GIUH approachrdquo Water Resources Man-agement vol 14 no 5 pp 369ndash376 2000

[19] M Suresh S Sudhakara K N Tiwari and V M ChowdaryldquoPrioritization of watersheds using morphometric parametersand assessment of surface water potential using remote sens-ingrdquo Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing vol 32 no3 2004

[20] S A Bhat and S A Romshoo ldquoDigital elevation model basedwatershed characteristics of upper watersheds of Jhelum basinrdquoJournal of Applied Hydrology vol 21 no 2 pp 23ndash34 2009

[21] J F OrsquoCallaghan and D M Mark ldquoThe extraction of drainagenetworks from digital elevation datardquo Computer Vision Graph-ics and Image Processing vol 28 pp 323ndash344 1984

[22] R E Horton ldquoErosional development of streams and theirdrainage basins hydrophysical approach to quantitative mor-phologyrdquoGeological Society of America Bulletin vol 56 pp 275ndash370 1945

[23] S A Schumms ldquoEvolution of drainage systems and slopes inBadlands at Perth Amboy New Jerseyrdquo Bulletin of the GeologicalSociety of America vol 67 pp 597ndash646 1956

[24] R E Horton ldquoDrainage basin characteristicsrdquo TransactionsAmerican Geophysical Union vol 13 pp 350ndash361 1932

[25] V C Miller ldquoA Quantitative geomorphic study of drainagebasin characteristics in the Clinch Mountain area Virginia andTennesseerdquo Tech Rep 3 NR 389-402 Columbia UniversityDepartment of Geology ONR New York NY USA 1953

[26] K Pareta andU Pareta ldquoQuantitativemorphometric analysis ofa watershed of Yamuna basin India using ASTER (DEM) dataand GISrdquo International Journal of Geomatics and Geosciencesvol 2 no 1 2011

[27] M Sameena J Krishnamurthy V Jayaraman andG RangannaldquoEvaluation of drainage networks developed in hard rockterrainrdquoGeocarto International vol 24 no 5 pp 397ndash420 2009

[28] A Faniran ldquoThe index of drainage intensitymdasha provisional newdrainage factorrdquo Australian Journal of Science vol 31 pp 328ndash330 1968

[29] I Rashid and S A Romshoo ldquoImpact of anthropogenic activ-ities on water quality of Lidder River in Kashmir HimalayasrdquoEnvironmental Monitoring and Assessment 2012

[30] M Raza A Ahmed and A Mohammad The Valley ofKashmirmdashA Geographical Interpretation Vol I the Land VikasPublishing New Delhi India 1978

[31] V M Meher ldquoThe climate of Srinagar and its variabilityrdquoGeographical Review of India vol 33 no 1 pp 1ndash14 1971

[32] BM Engelhardt P JWeisberg and J C Chambers ldquoInfluencesof watershed geomorphology on extent and composition ofriparian vegetationrdquo Journal of Vegetation Science vol 23 no1 pp 127ndash139 2011

[33] J E Costa ldquoHydraulics and basin morphometry of the largestflash floods in the conterminous United Statesrdquo Journal ofHydrology vol 93 no 3-4 pp 313ndash338 1987

[34] S Singh and M C Singh ldquoMorphometric analysis of Kanharriver basinrdquoThe National Geographical Journal of India vol 43no 1 pp 31ndash43 1997

[35] W Luo and J M Harlin ldquoA theoretical travel time basedon watershed hypsometryrdquo Journal of the American WaterResources Association vol 39 no 4 pp 785ndash792 2003

[36] J M Harlin ldquoThe effect of precipitation variability on drainagebasin morphometryrdquo American Journal of Science vol 280 no8 pp 812ndash825 1980

[37] J M Harlin ldquoWatershedmorphometry and time to hydrographpeakrdquo Journal of Hydrology vol 67 no 1-4 pp 141ndash154 1984

[38] S A Romshoo ldquoGeostatistical analysis of soil moisture mea-surements and remotely sensed data at different spatial scalesrdquoEnvironmental Geology vol 45 no 3 pp 339ndash349 2004

[39] S A Romshoo M Koike S Hironaka O Oki and K MusiakeldquoInfluence of surface and vegetation characteristics on C-bandradarmeasurements for soilmoisture contentrdquo Journal of IndianSociety of Remote Sensing vol 30 no 4 pp 229ndash244 2002

[40] D R Montgomery and W E Dietrich ldquoSource areas drainagedensity and channel initiationrdquo Water Resources Research vol25 no 8 pp 1907ndash1918 1989

14 Geography Journal

[41] D R Montgomery and W E Dietrich ldquoChannel initiation andthe problem of landscape scalerdquo Science vol 255 no 5046 pp826ndash830 1992

[42] EM Ghoneim NW Arnell andGM Foody ldquoCharacterizingthe flash flood hazards potential along the Red Sea coast ofEgyptrdquo IAHS-AISH Publication no 271 pp 211ndash216 2002

[43] M Diakakis ldquoA method for flood hazard mapping based onbasin morphometry application in two catchments in GreecerdquoNatural Hazards vol 56 no 3 pp 803ndash814 2011

[44] P C Patton and V R Baker ldquoMorphometry and floods in smalldrainage basins subject to diverse hydrogeomorphic controlsrdquoWater Resources Research vol 12 no 5 pp 941ndash952 1976

[45] A D Howard ldquoRole of hypsometry and planform in basinhydrologic responserdquo Hydrological Processes vol 4 no 4 pp373ndash385 1990

[46] K Rakesh A K Lohani K Sanjay C Chatterjee and R KNema ldquoGIS based morphometric analysis of Ajay river basinupto Srarath gauging site of South Biharrdquo Journal of AppliedHydrology vol 14 no 4 pp 45ndash54 2000

[47] B Dodov and E Foufoula-Georgiou ldquoFluvial processes andstreamflow variability interplay in the scale-frequency contin-uum and implications for scalingrdquo Water Resources Researchvol 41 no 5 pp 1ndash18 2005

[48] L C Gottschalk ldquoReservoir sedimentationrdquo in Handbook ofApplied Hydrology V T Chow Ed section 7-1 McGraw-HillNew York NY USA 1964

[49] B ADodov and E Foufoula-Georgiou ldquoFloodplainmorphom-etry extraction from a high-resolution digital elevationmodel asimple algorithm for regional analysis studiesrdquo IEEE Geoscienceand Remote Sensing Letters vol 3 no 3 pp 410ndash413 2006

[50] P C Patton ldquoDrainage basin morphometry and floodsrdquo inFlood Geomorphology pp 51ndash64 JohnWiley amp Sons NewYorkNY USA 1988

[51] V Gardiner and C C Park ldquoDrainage basin morphometryrdquoProgress in Physical Geography vol 2 no 1 pp 1ndash35 1978

[52] W B Langbein ldquoTopographic characteristics of drainagebasinsrdquoUS Geological SurveyWater-Supply Paper vol 986 pp157ndash159 1947

[53] W Luo ldquoQuantifying groundwater-sapping landforms witha hypsometric techniquerdquo Journal of Geophysical Research EPlanets vol 105 no 1 pp 1685ndash1694 2000

[54] J M Harlin and C Wijeyawickrema ldquoIrrigation and ground-water depletion in Caddo county Oklahomardquo Journal of theAmerican Water Resources Association vol 21 no 1 pp 15ndash221985

[55] K G Smith ldquoStandards for grading textures of erosionaltopographyrdquoAmerican Journal of Science vol 248 pp 655ndash6681950

[56] M Y Esper Angillieri ldquoMorphometric analysis of Colanguilriver basin and flash flood hazard San Juan ArgentinardquoEnvironmental Geology vol 55 no 1 pp 107ndash111 2008

[57] A M Youssef B Pradhan and A M Hassan ldquoFlash floodrisk estimation along the St Katherine road southern SinaiEgypt using GIS based morphometry and satellite imageryrdquoEnvironmental Earth Sciences vol 62 no 3 pp 611ndash623 2011

[58] A D Howard ldquoRole of hypsometry and planform in basinhydrologic responserdquo Hydrological Processes vol 4 no 4 pp373ndash385 1990

[59] R C Kochel ldquoGeomorphic impact of large floods reviewand new perspectives on magnitude and frequencyrdquo in FloodGeomorphology pp 169ndash187 JohnWiley amp Sons NewYork NYUSA 1988

[60] G E Tucker and R L Bras ldquoHillslope processes drainagedensity and landscape morphologyrdquoWater Resources Researchvol 34 no 10 pp 2751ndash2764 1998

[61] M Borga et al ldquoReal time guidance for flash flood riskmanagementrdquo FLOOD Site Research Project Report T16 2008

[62] K W Potter and E B Faulkner ldquoCatchment response time asa predictor of flood quantilesrdquo Journal of the American WaterResources Association vol 23 no 5 pp 857ndash861 1987

[63] R CWard andM Robinson Principles of Hydrology McGraw-Hill Maidenhead UK 4th edition 2000

[64] S Shulits ldquoQuantitative formulation of stream and watershedmorphologyrdquo Bulletin of the International Association of Scien-tific Hydrology vol 3 pp 201ndash207 1968

[65] A Demoulin ldquoBasin and river profile morphometry a newindex with a high potential for relative dating of tectonic upliftrdquoGeomorphology vol 126 no 1-2 pp 97ndash107 2011

[66] T B Altin and B N Altin ldquoDrainage morphometry and itsinfluence on landforms in volcanic terrain Central AnatoliaTurkeyrdquo ProcediamdashSocial and Behavioral Sciences vol 19 pp732ndash740 2011

[67] M Rashid M A Lone and S A Romshoo ldquoGeospatial toolsfor assessing land degradation in Budgam district KashmirHimalaya Indiardquo Journal of Earth System Science vol 120 no3 pp 423ndash433 2011

[68] S Zaz and S A Romshoo ldquoAssessing the geoindicators of landdegradation in the Kashmir Himalayan Region Indiardquo NaturalHazards vol 64 no 2 pp 1219ndash1245 2012

14 Geography Journal

[41] D R Montgomery and W E Dietrich ldquoChannel initiation andthe problem of landscape scalerdquo Science vol 255 no 5046 pp826ndash830 1992

[42] EM Ghoneim NW Arnell andGM Foody ldquoCharacterizingthe flash flood hazards potential along the Red Sea coast ofEgyptrdquo IAHS-AISH Publication no 271 pp 211ndash216 2002

[43] M Diakakis ldquoA method for flood hazard mapping based onbasin morphometry application in two catchments in GreecerdquoNatural Hazards vol 56 no 3 pp 803ndash814 2011

[44] P C Patton and V R Baker ldquoMorphometry and floods in smalldrainage basins subject to diverse hydrogeomorphic controlsrdquoWater Resources Research vol 12 no 5 pp 941ndash952 1976

[45] A D Howard ldquoRole of hypsometry and planform in basinhydrologic responserdquo Hydrological Processes vol 4 no 4 pp373ndash385 1990

[46] K Rakesh A K Lohani K Sanjay C Chatterjee and R KNema ldquoGIS based morphometric analysis of Ajay river basinupto Srarath gauging site of South Biharrdquo Journal of AppliedHydrology vol 14 no 4 pp 45ndash54 2000

[47] B Dodov and E Foufoula-Georgiou ldquoFluvial processes andstreamflow variability interplay in the scale-frequency contin-uum and implications for scalingrdquo Water Resources Researchvol 41 no 5 pp 1ndash18 2005

[48] L C Gottschalk ldquoReservoir sedimentationrdquo in Handbook ofApplied Hydrology V T Chow Ed section 7-1 McGraw-HillNew York NY USA 1964

[49] B ADodov and E Foufoula-Georgiou ldquoFloodplainmorphom-etry extraction from a high-resolution digital elevationmodel asimple algorithm for regional analysis studiesrdquo IEEE Geoscienceand Remote Sensing Letters vol 3 no 3 pp 410ndash413 2006

[50] P C Patton ldquoDrainage basin morphometry and floodsrdquo inFlood Geomorphology pp 51ndash64 JohnWiley amp Sons NewYorkNY USA 1988

[51] V Gardiner and C C Park ldquoDrainage basin morphometryrdquoProgress in Physical Geography vol 2 no 1 pp 1ndash35 1978

[52] W B Langbein ldquoTopographic characteristics of drainagebasinsrdquoUS Geological SurveyWater-Supply Paper vol 986 pp157ndash159 1947

[53] W Luo ldquoQuantifying groundwater-sapping landforms witha hypsometric techniquerdquo Journal of Geophysical Research EPlanets vol 105 no 1 pp 1685ndash1694 2000

[54] J M Harlin and C Wijeyawickrema ldquoIrrigation and ground-water depletion in Caddo county Oklahomardquo Journal of theAmerican Water Resources Association vol 21 no 1 pp 15ndash221985

[55] K G Smith ldquoStandards for grading textures of erosionaltopographyrdquoAmerican Journal of Science vol 248 pp 655ndash6681950

[56] M Y Esper Angillieri ldquoMorphometric analysis of Colanguilriver basin and flash flood hazard San Juan ArgentinardquoEnvironmental Geology vol 55 no 1 pp 107ndash111 2008

[57] A M Youssef B Pradhan and A M Hassan ldquoFlash floodrisk estimation along the St Katherine road southern SinaiEgypt using GIS based morphometry and satellite imageryrdquoEnvironmental Earth Sciences vol 62 no 3 pp 611ndash623 2011

[58] A D Howard ldquoRole of hypsometry and planform in basinhydrologic responserdquo Hydrological Processes vol 4 no 4 pp373ndash385 1990

[59] R C Kochel ldquoGeomorphic impact of large floods reviewand new perspectives on magnitude and frequencyrdquo in FloodGeomorphology pp 169ndash187 JohnWiley amp Sons NewYork NYUSA 1988

[60] G E Tucker and R L Bras ldquoHillslope processes drainagedensity and landscape morphologyrdquoWater Resources Researchvol 34 no 10 pp 2751ndash2764 1998

[61] M Borga et al ldquoReal time guidance for flash flood riskmanagementrdquo FLOOD Site Research Project Report T16 2008

[62] K W Potter and E B Faulkner ldquoCatchment response time asa predictor of flood quantilesrdquo Journal of the American WaterResources Association vol 23 no 5 pp 857ndash861 1987

[63] R CWard andM Robinson Principles of Hydrology McGraw-Hill Maidenhead UK 4th edition 2000

[64] S Shulits ldquoQuantitative formulation of stream and watershedmorphologyrdquo Bulletin of the International Association of Scien-tific Hydrology vol 3 pp 201ndash207 1968

[65] A Demoulin ldquoBasin and river profile morphometry a newindex with a high potential for relative dating of tectonic upliftrdquoGeomorphology vol 126 no 1-2 pp 97ndash107 2011

[66] T B Altin and B N Altin ldquoDrainage morphometry and itsinfluence on landforms in volcanic terrain Central AnatoliaTurkeyrdquo ProcediamdashSocial and Behavioral Sciences vol 19 pp732ndash740 2011

[67] M Rashid M A Lone and S A Romshoo ldquoGeospatial toolsfor assessing land degradation in Budgam district KashmirHimalaya Indiardquo Journal of Earth System Science vol 120 no3 pp 423ndash433 2011

[68] S Zaz and S A Romshoo ldquoAssessing the geoindicators of landdegradation in the Kashmir Himalayan Region Indiardquo NaturalHazards vol 64 no 2 pp 1219ndash1245 2012