Evaluation of geomorphic expressions of bedrock Channels in the Western Ghats of southern Kerala, India, through quantitative analysis

  • H. VijithEmail author
  • V. Prasannakumar
  • P. Pratheesh
  • M.V. Ninu Krishnan
  • M.A. Sharath Mohan
Original Paper


Geomorphic expressions embedded within the bedrock channels, originating from the southernmost part of the Western Ghats, India, are quantitatively characterized through well-defined geomorphic indices using digital elevation models (DEM) and geographical information system (GIS) tools. Drainage basin asymmetry (Af), transverse topographic symmetry factor (T), longitudinal profile, stream length gradient index (SL), hypsometric integral and curve (Ihyp), spatial parameters like drainage density (Dd) and dissection index (DI) are used for extraction of information related to the characteristic pattern and behaviour associated with the Karamana river and its two major tributaries. The independent and cumulative analysis of each geomorphic indices indicates adjustment of Karamana river in response to the tectonic activities. Karamana basin, while showing symmetric character as a single unit, exhibits segments of asymmetric nature associated with the terrain tilting and is evidenced from the variable directional oscillation from E, SSE, S, NW and W. Varying characteristics of the longitudinal profiles and abrupt change in the SL index suggest knick points and uplift of the terrain due to tectonic processes. The influence of tectonic process over the stream characteristics is confirmed by identifying higher levels of SL anomalies in unique lithology. The inferences correlate with the low drainage density and high dissection index zones in the region with varying influence of tectonic processes. Though, the Karamana river basin as a single unit shows old age characteristics in the hypsometric analysis and symmetric nature, the longitudinal profile-assisted SL and SL anomaly indices are found to be capable of revealing evidences of differential effects of tectonic activities over the stream characteristics. The deductions are in agreement with field observations on landforms and channel attributes.


Geomorphic indices Asymmetry Hypsometry Dissection index Tectonics Karamana 



Authors are thankful to Prof (Dr.) François Roure and the anonymous reviewer for critical review, constructive comments and suggestions which helped to improve the manuscript significantly and to the Editor Abdullah M. Al-Amri for his generous support.


  1. Adams J (1980) Contemporary uplift and erosion of the Southern Alps. N Z: Geol Soc Am Bull 91:1–114Google Scholar
  2. Ambili V, Narayana AC (2014) Tectonic effects on the longitudinal profile of the Chaliyar River and its tributaries, southwest India. Geomorphology 217:37–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Awasthi KD, Sitaula BK, Singh BR, Batajracharya RM (2002) Land-use change in two Nepalese watersheds: GIS and geomorphometric analysis. Land Degrad Dev 13:495–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Battacharya S, Kar R (1998) Structural constraints on reworking in the Western Ghats Granulite Belt, India and the Antarctic Analogue. Gondwana Res 1(1):285–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burbank DW, Anderson RS (2001) Tectonic Geomorphology. Blackwell Science, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  6. Ch. Kothyari G, Rastogi BK (2013) Tectonic control on drainage network evolution in the upper Narmada valley: implication to neotectonics. Geography Journal 2013:9. doi: 10.1155/2013/325808 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cox RT (1994) Analysis of drainage basin symmetry as a rapid technique to identify areas of possible Quaternary tilt-block tectonics: an example from the Mississipi Embayment. Geol Soc Am Bull 106:571–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cuong NQ, Zuchiewicz WA (2001) Morphotectonic properties of the Lo River Fault near Tam Dao in North Vietnam. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 1:15–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. de Araújo Monteiro K, Missura R, de Barros Correa AC (2010) Application of the Hack index–or stream length-gradient index (SL index)–to the Tracunhaém river watershed, Pernambuco, Brazil. Geociências 29(4):533–539Google Scholar
  10. Drury SA, Holt RW (1980) The tectonic frame work of South India, A reconnaissance involving LANDSAT Imagery. Tectonophysics 65:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Drury SA, Harris NBW, Holt RW, Reeves–Smith GJ, Wightman RT (1984) Precambrian tectonics and crustal evolution in South India. J Geol 92:3–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ferraris F, Firpo M, Pazzaglia FJ (2012) DEM analyses and morphotectonic interpretation: The Plio-Quaternary evolution of the eastern Ligurian Alps, Italy. Geomorphology 149–150:27–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gao M, Zeilinger G, Xu X, Wang Q, Hao M (2013) DEM and GIS analysis of geomorphic indices for evaluating recent uplift of the northeastern margin of the Tibetan Plateau, China. Geomorphology 190:61–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Garrote J, Heydt GG, Cox RT (2008) Multi-stream order analyses in basin asymmetry: a tool to discriminate the influence of neotectonics in fluvial landscape development (Madrid Basin, Central Spain). Geomorphology 102:130–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Giaconia F, Booth-Rea G, Martínez-Martínez JM, Azañón JM, Pérez-Peña JV, Pérez-Romero J, Villegas I (2012) Geomorphic evidence of active tectonics in the Sierra Alhamilla (eastern Betics, SE Spain). Geomorphology 145–146:90–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gloaguen R (2008) Remote sensing analysis of crustal deformation using river networks
  17. Hack JT (1960) Interpretation of erosional topography in humid temperate regions. Am J Sci 258-A:80–97Google Scholar
  18. Hack JT (1973) Stream-profile analysis and stream-gradient index. U.S. Geol Surv J Res 1:421–429Google Scholar
  19. Hare PW, Gardner TW (1985) Tectonic Geomorphology. Proceedings of the 15th Annual Bighamton Geomorphology Symposium. In: Morisawa M, Hack JT (eds) Geomorphic indicators of vertical neotectonism along converging plate margins, Nicoya Peninsula, Costa Rica. Allen and Unwin, Boston, pp. 75–104Google Scholar
  20. Jayappa KS, Markose VJ, Nagaraju M (2012) Identification of geomorphic signatures of neotectonic activity using DEM in the Precambrian Terrain of Western Ghats, India. International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, vol. XXXIX-B8 (2012) XXII ISPRS Congress, 25 August – 01 September 2012, Melbourne, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  21. John B, Rajendran CP (2008) Geomorphic indicators of neotectonism from the Precambrian terrain of Peninsular India: a study from the Bharathapuzha Basin, Kerala. J Geol Soc India 71:827–840Google Scholar
  22. Kale VS, Shejwalkar N (2008) Uplift along the western margin of the Deccan Basalt Province: Is there any geomorphometric evidence? J Earth Syst Sci 117(6):959–971CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Keller EA (1986) Active Tectonics. In: Investigation of Active Tectonics: Use of Surficial Earth Processes. National Academy Press, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  24. Keller EA, Pinter N (2002) Active tectonics. Earthquakes, Uplift, and Landscape. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, p. 362Google Scholar
  25. Kirby E, Whipple KX (2012) Expression of active tectonics in erosional landscapes. J Struct Geol 44:54–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kumar GRR, Chacko T (1988) Petrology and tectonic development of supracrustal sequence of Kerala Khondalite Belt, Southern India. Lunar and Planetary Inst., Workshop on the Deep Continental Crust of South India; p 149–150. Accessed from on 11.08.2014
  27. Mahmood SA, Gloaguen R (2012) Appraisal of active tectonics in Hindu Kush: Insights from DEM derived geomorphic indices and drainage analysis. Geosci Front 3(4):407–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Malik S (2014) Determination of stages of landscape evolution of Sankha Nadi, Jharkhand; an integrated approach of morphometry and GIS. J Environ Earth Sci 4(3):46–55Google Scholar
  29. Markose VJ, Jayappa KS (2011) Hypsometric analysis of Kali River Basin, Karnataka, India, using geographic information system. Geocarto International 26(7):553–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nair PKR, Prasannakumar V, Mathai T (1981) Structure of the western termination of the Bhavani lineament. J Geol Soc India 22:285–291Google Scholar
  31. Peters G, Van Balen RT (2007) Pleistocene tectonics inferred from the fluvial terraces of the northern Upper Rhine Graben, Germany. Tectonophysics 430:41–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rajakumar P, Sanjeevi S, Jayaseelan S, Isakkipandian G, Edwin M, Balaji P, Ehanthalingam G (2007) “Landslide susceptibility mapping in a hilly terrain using remote sensing and GIS.” J Indian Soc Remote Sens 35(1):31–42Google Scholar
  33. Ramakrishnan M (1993) Tectonic evolution of the granulite terrains of southern India. Geological Society of India Memoir 25:35–44Google Scholar
  34. Rhea S (1993) Geomorphic observations of rivers in the Oregaon coast range from a regional reconnaissance prospective. Geomorphology 6:135–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Salvany JM (2004) Tilting neotectonics of the Guadiamar drainage basin, SW Spain. Earth Surf Process Landf 29:145–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Satheeshkumar R, Prasannakumar V (2009) Fabric evolution in Salem-Attur shear zone, south India and its implications on the kinematics. Gondwana Res 16:37–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schumm SA (1956) Evolution of drainage systems and slopes in badlands at Perth Amboy, New Jersey. Natl Geol Soc Am Bull 67:597–646Google Scholar
  38. Schumm SA, Mosley MP, Weaver WE (1987) Experimental Fluvial Geomorphology. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  39. Seeber L, Gornitz VM (1983) River profiles along the Himalayan arc as indicators of active tectonics. Tectonophysics 92:335–367Google Scholar
  40. Selvan MT, Ahmad S, Rashid SM (2011) Analysis of the geomorphometric parameters in high altitude glacierised terrain using SRTM DEM data in Central Himalaya, India. ARPN J Sci Technol 1(1):22–27Google Scholar
  41. Singh O, Sarangi A, Sharma MC (2008) Hypsometric integral estimation methods and its relevance on erosion status of north-western Lesser Himalayan Watersheds. Water Resour Manag 22:1545–1560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Singh T, Awasthi AK (2010) Stream profiles as indicator of active tectonic deformation along the inter-foreland thrust, Nahan Salient, NW India. Curr Sci 98(01):95–98Google Scholar
  43. Sinha Roy S, Mathai J, Narayanaswamy (1984) Structure and metamorphic characteristics of cordierite baring gneiss of south Kerala. Journal of Geological Society of India 25(4):231–244Google Scholar
  44. Snyder N, Whipple KX, Tucker GE, Merritts DJ (2000) Landscape response to tectonic forcing: digital elevation model analysis of stream profiles in the Mendocino triple junction region, northern California. Geol Soc Am Bull 112(8):1250–1263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Soman K (2000) Geology of Kerala. Geological Society of India, Bangalore, p. 335Google Scholar
  46. Štěpančíková P, Stemberk J, Vilímek V, Košťák B (2008) Neotectonic development of drainage networks in the East Sudeten Mountains and monitoring of recent fault displacements (Czech Republic). Geomorphology 102:68–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Strahler AN (1952) Hypsometric (area-altitude) analysis of erosional topography. Geoloical Society of America Bulletin 63:1117–1141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Troiani F, Della Seta M (2008) The use of the stream length-gradient index in morphotectonic analysis of small catchments: a case study from Central Italy. Geomorphology 102:159–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Vijith H, Prasannakumar V, Sharath Mohan M, Pratheesh P (2015) Channel response in structurally disturbed terrain: evaluation of implication of neotectonic activity through an integrated approach. Geocarto International. doi: 10.1080/10106049.2015.1006528 Google Scholar
  50. Virdi NS, Philip G, Bhattacharya S (2006) Neotectonic activity in the Markanda and Bata river basins, Himachal Pradesh, NW Himalaya: A morphotectonic approach. Inter J Rem Sen 27(10):2093–2099CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Whipple KX, Tucker GE (1999) Dynamics of bedrock channels in active orogens: implications for the height limits of mountain ranges, landscape response time scale, and research needs. J Geophys Res 104:17661–17674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Willgoose G, Hancock G (1998) Revisiting the hypsometric curve as an indicator of form and process in transport-limited catchment. Earth Surf Process Landf 23(7):611–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zovoili E, Konstantinidi E, Koukouvelas IK (2004) Tectonic geomorphology of escarpments: the cases of Kompotades and Nea Anchialos faults. Bull Geol Soc Greece 36:1716–1725Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Saudi Society for Geosciences 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. Vijith
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • V. Prasannakumar
    • 1
  • P. Pratheesh
    • 1
  • M.V. Ninu Krishnan
    • 3
  • M.A. Sharath Mohan
    • 1
  1. 1.Inter University Centre for Geoinformation Science and TechnologyUniversity of KeralaThiruvananthapuramIndia
  2. 2.Department of Applied Geology, Faculty of Engineering and ScienceCurtin UniversityMiriMalaysia
  3. 3.State Emergency Operation Centre (SEOC), Kerala State Disaster Management AuthorityInstitute of Land and Disaster ManagementThiruvanathapuramIndia

Personalised recommendations