Quantitative Morphometric Analysis of the Yerla River Basin, Deccan Trap Region, India

  • Namdev V. TeloreEmail author
Part of the Advances in Geographical and Environmental Sciences book series (AGES)


The evaluation of basin from the drainage morphometric parameters helps in understanding the physical behaviour of the catchments for various purposes. Remote Sensing and Geographic Information System (GIS) techniques were used to study quantitative morphometric analysis of the Yerla River basin of basaltic Deccan Trap region, India. Morphometric analysis is carried out using Survey of India topographical maps in ArcGIS software. Thematic maps such as drainage map, stream ordering map, contour map, elevation map, slope map, aspect map and digital elevation model (DEM) are prepared. SRTM data of 90 m spatial resolution is used to create DEM and ASTER data of 30 m spatial resolution is used to create longitudinal profile of the catchment area. Various linear, relief and areal morphometric parameters such as area, perimeter, stream order, stream length, stream number, bifurcation ratio, drainage density, stream frequency, drainage texture, length of basin, form factor, circulatory ratio and elongation ratio are computed. The dendritic type drainage network of the basin exhibits the homogeneity in texture and lack of structural control. The seventh order basin has low drainage density and poor stream frequency indicates coarse drainage. The mean bifurcation ratio indicates a hilly dissected basin. The form factor ratio and circularity ratio shows that the whole basin has an elongated shape. The compactness coefficient value shows less hazardous basin. Sinuosity indices value indicate transitional stage. Morphometric analysis helps to understand the geo-hydrological characteristics of the watershed. It is inevitable in development and management of drainage basin.


Drainage morphometry Remote sensing GIS Yerla River Basin Deccan traps India 



The author gratefully acknowledges the University Grants Commission, Government of India, New Delhi for providing Teacher Fellowship vide file no. F. No. 36-03/12 (WRO). Thanks to Professor Dr. Maya G. Unde, Department of Geography, Ahmednagar College, Ahmednagar for critical assessment of the work and anonymous reviewers and Editor-in-Chief for their many helpful suggestions.


  1. Ahmed SA, Chandrashekarappa KV, Raj SK, Nishita V, Kavitha G (2010) Evaluation of morphometric parameters derived from ASTER and SRTM DEM-a study on Bandihole sub watershed basin in Karnataka. J Indian Soc Remote Sens 38(2):227–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agarwal KK, Prakash C, Ali SN, Jahan N (2012) Morphometric analysis of the Ladhiya and Lohawati River basin, Kumaun Lesser Himalaya, India. J Zeitschrift fur Geomorphologie 56(2):201–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bhatt S, Ahmed SA (2014) Morphometric analysis to determine floods in the Upper Krishna basin using Cartosat DEM. J Geocarto Int 29(8).
  4. Biswas S, Sudhakar S, Desai VR (1999) Prioritization of sub-watersheds based on Morphometric analysis of drainage basin, district Midnapore, West Bengal. J Indian Soc Remote Sens 27(3):55–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chadha DK, Neupane BR (eds) (2011) Significance of geomorphic analysis of watershed for optimization of recharge structures. UNESCO, New Delhi, pp 1–109.
  6. Chandrashekar H, Lokesh KV, Sameena M, Ranganna G (2015) GIS-based morphometric analysis of two reservoir catchments of Arkavati River, Ramanagaram District, Karnataka. Elsevier Aquat Procedia 4:1345–1353. Scholar
  7. Chopra R, Dhiman RD, Sharma PK (2005) Morphometric analysis of sub-watersheds in Gurdaspur district, Punjab using remote sensing and GIS techniques. J Indian Soc Remote Sens 33:531. Scholar
  8. Chorley RJ, Schumm SA, Sugden DE (1984) Geomorphology. Methuen, LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. Clarke JI (1966) Morphometry from maps. Essays in geomorphology, Elsevier, New York, 235–274Google Scholar
  10. Corley RJ (1957) Illustrating the laws of morphometry. Geol Mag 94(2):140–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cunha ERD, Bacani VM (2016) Morphometric characterization of a watershed through SRTM Data and geoprocessing technique. J Geogr Inf Syst 8(2):238–247. Scholar
  12. Doke A, Pardeshi SD, Pardeshi SS (2018) Identification of morphogenetic regions and respective geomorphic processes: a GIS approach. Arab J Geosci 11:20. Scholar
  13. Ebisemiju FS (1979) A reduced rank model of drainage basin morphology. Geogr Ann Ser A Phys Geogr 61(1/2):103–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Grohmann CH (2004) Morphometric analysis in geographic information systems: applications of free software GRASS and RS. Comput Geosci 30(2004):1055–1067. Scholar
  15. Hack J (1957) Studies of longitudinal stream profiles in Virginia and Maryland. US geological survey professional paper, 294-B.
  16. Horton RE (1932) Drainage basin characteristics. Trans Am Geophys Union 13:350–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Horton RE (1945) Erosional development of streams and their drainage basins: hydrophysical approach to quantitative morphology. Bull Geol Soc Am 56:275–370.
  18. Javed A, Khanday MY, Ahmed R (2009) Prioritization of sub-watersheds based on morphometric and land use analysis using remote sensing and GIS techniques. J Indian Soc Remote Sens 37:261–274. Scholar
  19. Kale VS, Gupta A (2010) Introduction to geomorphology. Orient Longman, Kolkata, pp 1–274Google Scholar
  20. Kanth TA, Hassan Z (2012) Morphometric analysis and prioritization of watersheds for soil and water resource management in Wular catchment using Geo-spatial tools. Int J Geol Earth Environ Sci 2(1):30–41Google Scholar
  21. Magesh NS, Chandrasekar N, Soundranayagam JP (2011) Morphometric evaluation of Papanasam and Manimuthar watersheds, parts of Western Ghats, Tirunelveli district, Tamil Nadu, India: a GIS approach. Environ Earth Sci 64(2):373–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Malik MS, Shukla JP (2018) A GIS-based morphometric analysis of Kandaihimmat watershed, Hoshangabad district, M.P. India. J Geo-Marine Sci 47(10):1980–1985Google Scholar
  23. Manimozhi C, Rengarajan R (2007) Use of remote sensing and geographical information system in drainage morphometric analysis of Thirumanimuttar upper subbasin in Salem and Namakkal District, Tamilnadu, India. Indian J Geomorphlogy 11 and 12(1/2):111–122Google Scholar
  24. Miller VC (1953) A quantitative geomorphic study of drainage basin characteristics on the Clinch Mountain area, Virgina-Tennessee, Proj. NR 389–402, technical report 3, Columbia University.
  25. Mishra SS, Nagarajan R (2010) Morphometric analysis and prioritization of sub-watersheds using GIS and remote sensing techniques: a case study of Odisha, India. Int J Geomat Geosci 1(3):501–510.
  26. Morisawa ME (1968) Streams: their dynamics and morphology, New York, p 215Google Scholar
  27. Nag SK (1998) Morphometric analysis using remote sensing techniques in the Chaka sub-basin, Purulia district, West Bengal. J Indian Soc Remote Sens 26(1/2):69–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nautiyal MD (1994) Morphometric analysis of drainage basin, district Dehradun, Uttar Pradesh. J Indian Soc Remote Sens 22(4):252–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Oguchi T (1997) Drainage density and relative relief in humid steep mountains with frequent slope failure. Earth Surf Process Landform 22:107–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pande CB, Moharir K (2017) GIS based quantitative morphometric analysis and its consequences: a case study from Shanur River basin. Maharashtra India. Appl Water Sci 7(2):861–871. Scholar
  31. Panhalkar SS, Mali SP, Pawar CT (2012) Morphometric analysis and watershed development prioritization of Hiranyakeshi Basin in Maharashtra, India. I J Envi Sci 3(1).
  32. Panhalkar SS, Jarag AP (2015) Assessment of spatial interpolation techniques for river bathymetry generation of Panchganga River basin using geoinformatic techniques. Asian J Geoinformatics 15(3)Google Scholar
  33. Rai PK, Mohan K, Mishra S, Ahmad A, Mishra VN (2017) A GIS-based approach in drainage morphometric analysis of Kanhar River basin, India. Appl Water Sci 7:217–232. Scholar
  34. Raju KS, Kumar DN (2001) Classification of microwatersheds based on morphological characteristics. J Hydro-Environ Res 5:101–109. Scholar
  35. Rao GT, Rao VVSG, Dakate R, Rao STM, Rao BMJ (2012) Remote sensing and GIS based comparative morphometric study of two sub-watershed of different physiographic condition, West Godavari District, A.P. J Geol Soc India 79:383–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sarmah K, Jha LK, Tiwari BK (2012) Morphometric analysis of a highland micro-watershed in East Khasi Hill District of Meghalaya, India: using remote sensing and GIS techniques. J Geog Regional Plan 5(5):142–150Google Scholar
  37. Saptarshi PG, Raghavendra RK (2009) GIS-based evaluation of micro-watersheds to ascertain site suitability for water conservation structures. J Indian Soc Remote Sens 37:639–704. Scholar
  38. Scheidegger AE (1961) General theory of dispersion in porous media. J Geophys Res
  39. Scheidegger AE (1965) The algebra of stream order number, US Geological Survey Professional Paper No 525 BGoogle Scholar
  40. Schumm (1956) Evolution of drainage systems and slopes in badlands at Perth Amboy, New Jersey. Bull Geol Soc Am 67:597–646.
  41. Schumm SA (1963) Sinuosity of alluvial rivers on the Great Plains. Bull Geol Soc Am 74:1089–1100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sebastian M, Jayaraman V, Chandrasekhar MG (1995) Space technology applications for sustainable development of watersheds. Technical report. ISRO, BangaloreGoogle Scholar
  43. Sethupathi AS, Narsimhan L, Vasanthamohan V, Mohan P (2011) Prioritization of mini watersheds based on morphometric analysis using remote sensing and GIS techniques in a drought prone Bargr-Mathur sub watershed, Ponnaiyar River basin, India. J Geomat Geosci 2(2):403–414Google Scholar
  44. Shreve RW (1969) Stream lengths and basin areas in topologically random channel networks. J Geol 77:397–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sindhu D, Ravikumar AS, Shivakumar BL (2015) Quantitative analysis of catchment using remote sensing and geographic information system. Elsevier Aquatic Procedia 4:1421–1428. Scholar
  46. Singh P, Gupta A, Singh M (2014) Hydrological inferences from watershed analysis for water resource management using remote sensing and GIS techniques. Egypt J Remote Sens Space Sci 17:111–121. Scholar
  47. Smith KG (1950) Standards for grading textures of erosional topography. Am J Sci 48:655–668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sreedevi PD, Owais S, Khan HH, Ahmed S (2009) Morphometric analysis of a watershed of south India using SRTM data and GIS. J Geol Soc India 72:543–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Strahler AN (1950) Equilibrium theory of Erosional slopes, approached by frequency distribution analysis. Am J Sci 248:673–696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Strahler AN (1952) Dynamic basis of Geomorphology. GSA Bull 63(9): 923–938[923:DBOG]2.0.CO;2
  51. Strahler AN (1956) Quantitative slope analysis. Bull Geol Soc Am 67:571–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Strahler AN (1964) Quantitative geomorphology of drainage basins and channel networks. In: Chow VT (ed) Handbook of applied hydrology. McGraw Hill, New York, Section 4–11.
  53. Strahler AN (1969) Physical geography, 3rd edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  54. Suresh D, Collins JC, Jayaprasad BK, Yarrakula K, Vishnavi V, Ghosh B (2018) Morphometric analysis of sub-watersheds in Gurdaspur district, Punjab using remote sensing and GIS techniques. Indian J Geo Marine Sci 47(10):1969–1979Google Scholar
  55. Telore NV (2016) Geomorphology and watershed management: a study from Deccan trap region, India. Lap Lambert Academic Pub, Saarbrucken, pp 99–116Google Scholar
  56. Tideman EM (2007) Watershed management: guidelines for Indian condition, 11th ed. Omega Scientific Pub, New Delhi, pp 7–17Google Scholar
  57. Thomas J, Joseph S, Thrivikramji KP, Abe G (2011) Morphometric analysis of the drainage system and its hydrological implications in the rain shadow regions, Kerala, India. J Geogr Sci 21(6):1077–1088CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Thornbury WD (1969) Principles of Geomorphology. 2nd edn. WileyGoogle Scholar
  59. Unde MG, Telore, NV (2013) Role of watershed development programme in sustainable development: Nidhal experience from Satara District, Maharashtra. Int J Shivaji University (Sc and Tech) 42:68–71
  60. Vittala SS, Govindiah S, Honne Gowda H (2004) Morphometric analysis of sub-watersheds in the Pawagada area of Tumkur district, South India, using remote sensing and GIS techniques. J Indian Soc Remote Sens 32(4):351–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Woldenberg MJ (1966) Horton’s Law justified in terms of algometric growth and steady state in open systems. Bull Geol Soc Am 77:431–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of GeographyRaja Shripatrao Bhagawantrao MahavidyalayaAundh, SataraIndia

Personalised recommendations