Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Geoinformatics for assessing the morphometric control on hydrological response at watershed scale in the Upper Indus Basin

  • Published:
Journal of Earth System Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Five watersheds (W1, W2, W3, W4 and W5) in the upper Indus basin were chosen for detailed studies to understand the influences of geomorphology, drainage basin morphometry and vegetation patterns on hydrology. From the morphometric analysis, it is evident that the hydrologic response of these watersheds changes significantly in response to spatial variations in morphometric parameters. Results indicate that W1, W2 and W5 contribute higher surface runoff than W3 and W4. Further, the topographic and land cover analyses reveal that W1, W2 and W5 generate quick runoff that may result in flooding over prolonged rainy spells. A physically based semi-distributed hydrologic model (soil and water assessment tool, SWAT) was used for simulating the hydrological response from the watersheds. As per the simulations, W5 watershed produces the highest runoff of 11.17 mm/year followed by W1 (7.9 mm/year), W2 (6.6 mm/year), W4 (5.33 mm/year) and W3 (4.29 mm/year). Thus, W5 is particularly more vulnerable to flooding during high rain spells followed by W1, W2, W4 and W3, respectively. Synthetic unit hydrograph analysis of the five watersheds also reveals high peak discharge for W5. The simulated results on the hydrological response from the five watersheds are quite in agreement with those of the morphometric, topographic, vegetation and unit hydrograph analyses. Therefore, it is quite evident that these factors have significant impact on the hydrological response from the watersheds and can be used to predict flood peaks, sediment yield and water discharge from the ungauged watersheds.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agarwal A and Narain S 1996 Floods, floodplains and environmental myths. State of India’s environment: A citizen report; Centre for Science and Environment, New Delhi.

  • Ahern M, Kovats S R, Wilkinson P, Few R and Matthies F 2005 Global health impacts of floods: Epidemiologic evidence; Epidemiol. Rev. 27 36–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Al-Wagdany A S and Rao A R 1994 Drainage network simulation using digital elevation models; Proceeding of the International Conference on Remote Sensing and GIS (India: Tata McGraw-Hill).

    Google Scholar 

  • Al-Wagdany A S and Rao A R 1997 Estimation of the velocity parameter of the geomorphologic instantaneous unit hydrograph; Water Resour. Manage. 11 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnell N 2002 Hydrology and global environmental change (Harlow, England: Prentice-Hall).

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnold J G, Srinivasan R, Muttiah R S and Williams J R 1998 Large area hydrologic modeling and assessment Part 1: Model development; J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 34(1) 73–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Band L E 1986 Topographic partition of watershed with digital elevation models; Water Resour. Res. 22(1) 15–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bapalu V G and Sinha R 2005 GIS in flood hazard mapping: A case study of Kosi River Basin, India; www.gisdevelopment.net, Natural Hazard Management, ESRI.

  • Barry R G and Chorley R J 1998 Atmosphere, weather and climate (7th Edition) (London: Routledge).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bates P D and De Roo A P J 2000 A simple raster-based model for flood inundation simulation; J. Hydrol. 236 54–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berz G, Kron W, Loster T, Rauch E, Schimetschek J, Schmieder J, Siebert A, Smolka A and Wirtz A 2001 World map of natural hazards – a global view of the distribution and intensity of significant exposures; Natural Hazards 23(2–3) 443–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beven K 1989 Changing ideas in hydrology – the case of physically based models; J. Hydrol. 105 157–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhat S A 2009 Geomorphological and hydrological control on flood vulnerability of Jhelum Basin; Unpublished Ph.D thesis, University of Kashmir, India.

  • Bhat S A and Romshoo S A 2008 Digital elevation model based watershed characteristics of upper watersheds of Jhelum basin; J. Appl. Hydrol. 21(1–2) 31–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bosch J M and Hewlett J D 1982 A review of catchment experiments to determine the effects of vegetation changes on water yield and evapotranspiration; J. Hydrol. 55 3–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brasington J and Richards K 1998 Interactions between model predictions, parameters and DTM scales for TOPMODEL; Comput. Geosci. 24 299–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burrough P A 1986 Principles of geographic information systems for land resources assessment (UK: Oxford University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlston C W 1963 Drainage density and stream flow; US Geological Survey Professional Report No. 422C, 67p.

  • Chow V T 1964 Handbook of applied hydrology (New York: McGraw-Hill).

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark C O 1945 Storage and the unit hydrograph; Trans. Am. Soc. Civil Eng. 110 1419–1446.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke J I 1966 Morphometry from maps; In: Essays in geomorphology (ed.) Dury G H (New York: Elsevier Publishing Co.), pp. 235–274.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coates L 1999 Flood fatalities in Australia, 1788–1996; Aust. Geogr. 30(3) 391–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Day P R 1965 Particle fractionation and particle-size analysis; In: Methods of soil analysis, Part 1 (ed.) Black C A (Madison, Wisconsin: American Society of Agronomy, Inc.), pp. 545–567.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeVantier B A and Feldman A D 1993 Review of GIS applications in hydrologic modelling; J. Water Resour. Plan. Manage. 119(2) 246–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dhar O N, Mandal B N and Kulkarni A K 1982 Effect of the Pir Panjal range of Himalayas over monsoon rainfall distribution in Kashmir Valley; Proc. Int. Symp. hydrological aspects of mountainous watersheds, Vol. 1, Roorkee, India.

  • Entekhabi D, Asrar G R, Betts A K, Beven K J, Bras R L, Duffy G J, Dunne T, Koster R D, Lettenmaier D P, McLaughin D B, Shuttleworth W J, Van Genuchten M T, Wei M Y and Wood E F 1999 An agenda for land surface hydrology research and call for the second international hydrological decade; Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 80(10) 2043–2058.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fohrer N, Haverkamp S, Eckhardt K and Frede G G 2001 Hydrologic response to land use changes on the catchment scale; Phys. Chem. Earth 26(7–8) 577–582.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foody G M 2002 Status of land cover classification accuracy assessment; Remote Sens. Environ. 80(1) 185–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fu K S 1976 Pattern recognition in remote sensing of the Earth resources; IEEE Trans. Geosci. Electron. 14 10–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garbrecht J and Martz L W 1997 The assignment of drainage direction over flat surfaces in raster digital elevation models; J. Hydrol. 193 204–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardiner V 1981 Drainage basin morphometry; In: Geomorphologieal techniques (ed.) Goudie A (London, UK: Allen and Unwin), pp. 47–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gorokhovich Y, Khanbilvardi R, Janus L, Goldsmith V and Stern D 2000 Spatially distributed modeling of stream flow during storm events; J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 36(3) 523–539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green W H and Ampt G A 1911 Studies on soil physics–I. The flow of air and water through soils; J. Agric. Sci. 4 11–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hajat S, Ebi K L, Kovats S, Menne B, Edwards S and Haines A 2003 The human health consequences of flooding in Europe and the implications for public health; J. Appl. Environ. Sci. Public Health 1 13–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamlet A F and Lettenmaier D P 1999 Effects of climate change on hydrology and water resources in Columbia River basin; J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 35(6) 1597–1623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen M, Dubayah R and DeFries R 1996 Classification trees: An alternative to traditional land cover classifiers; Int. J. Remote Sens. 17 1075–1081.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horton R E 1932 Drainage basin characteristics; Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 13 350–361.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horton R E 1945 Erosional development of streams and their drainage basins, hydrological approach to quantitative morphology; Bull. Geophys. Soc. Am. 56 275–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hudson P F and Colditz R R 2003 Flood delineation in a large and complex alluvial valley, lower Panuco basin, Mexico; J. Hydrol. 280 229–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IPCC 2007 Climate change, impacts, adaptation and vulnerability; In: Contribution of Working Group II to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change (eds) Parry M L, Canziani O F, Palutikof J P, van der Linden P J and Hanson C E (Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Jack D I 2004 Himalayan perceptions: Environmental change and the well-being of mountain people; Himalayan J. Sci. 2(3) 17–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jain V and Sinha R 2003 Evaluation of geomorphic control on flood hazard through geomorphic instantaneous unit hydrograph; Curr. Sci. 85(11) 1596–1600.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen J 1996 Introduction to digital image processing: A remote sensing perspective, 1st edn (New York, US: Prentice Hall).

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonkman S N 2005 Global perspectives of loss of human life caused by floods; Natural Hazards 34 151–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonkman S N and Kelman I 2005 An analysis of the causes and circumstances of flood disaster deaths; Disasters 29(1) 75–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonkman S N and Vrijling J K 2008 Loss of life due to Floods; J. Flood Risk Manage. 1 43–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khan S and Romshoo S A 2008 Integrated analysis of geomorphic, pedologic and remote sensing data for digital soil mapping; J. Himalayan Ecol. Sustain. Develop. 3(1) 11–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kull D W and Feldman A D 1998 Evolution of Clark’s unit graph method to spatially distributed runoff; J. Hydrol. Eng. 3(1) 9–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence W M and Jurgen G 1993 Automated extraction of drainage network and watershed data from digital elevation models; J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 29(6) 901–908.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lillesand T M and Kiefer R W 1987 Remote sensing and image interpretation (New York: John Wiley & Sons).

    Google Scholar 

  • Mark D M 1988 Network models in geomorphology; In: Modelling in geomorphological systems (ed.) Anderson M G (Chichester: John Wiley), pp. 73–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matheussen B, Kirschbaum R L, Goodman I A, O’Donnell G M and Lettenmaier D P 2000 Effects of land cover change on stream flow in the interior Columbia river basin (USA and Canada); Hydrol. Process. 14(5) 867–885.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melton M A 1957 An analysis of the relations among the elements of climate, surface properties and geomorphology; Technical Report 11, Department of Geology, Columbia University, New York.

  • Montgomery D R and Dietrich W E 1989 Source areas, drainage density and channel initiation; Water Resour. Res. 25 1907–1918.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montgomery D R and Dietrich W E 1992 Channel initiation and the problem of landscape scale; Science 255 826–830.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moonis R, Aijazuddin A and Ali M 1975 The valley of Kashmir: A geographical interpretation (New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House), pp. 95–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Munich Re 2007 Natural catastrophes 2007 analyses, assessments and positions. Munich Re Topics Geo series publication (Munich, Germany: Munich Reinsurance Company).

    Google Scholar 

  • Oky P, Ardiansyah D and Yokoyama R 2002 DEM generation method from contour lines based on the steepest slope segment chain and a monotone interpolation function; ISPRS J. Photogram. Remote Sens. 57(1–2) 86–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olivera F and Maidment D R 1996 Runoff computation using spatially distributed terrain parameters; Proc. ASCE – North American Water and Environment Congress, June 22–28, Anaheim California, US.

  • Patton P C 1988 Drainage basin morphometry and floods; In: Flood geomorphology (eds) Baker V R, Kochel R C and Patton P C (New York: John Wiley), pp. 51–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quilbe R, Rousseau A N, Moquet J S, Savary S, Ricard S and Garbouj M S 2008 Hydrological response of a watershed to historical land use evolution and future land use scenario under climate change conditions; Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 12 101–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rakesh K, Lohani A K, Sanjay C C and Nema R K 2000 GIS based morphometric analysis of Ajay river basin up to Sararath gauging site of south Bihar; J. Appl. Hydrol. 14(4) 45–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson M, Boardman J, Evans R, Heppell K, Packman J and Leeks G 2000 Land use change; In: The hydrology of the UK: A study of change (ed.) Acreman M (New York: Routledge), pp. 30–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romshoo S A 2004 Geostatistical analysis of soil moisture measurements and remotely sensed data at different spatial scales; Environ. Geol. 45 339–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saghafian B, Julien P and Rajaie H 2000 A spatial travel-time method for watershed routing; 4th International conference on integrating GIS and Environmental Modeling (GIS/EM4), Canada, September 2–8, 2000.

  • Singh S 1972a Altimetric analysis: A morphometric technique of landform study; Nat. Geogr. 7 59–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh S 1972b Concept of periglacial processes; Deccan Geogr. 10(2) 71–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strahler A N 1964 Quantitative geomorphology of drainage basins and channel networks; In: Handbook of applied hydrology, Section 4.39–4.76 (ed.) Chow V T (New York: MacGraw-Hill).

  • Tansey K J and Millington A C 2001 Investigating the potential for soil moisture and surface roughness monitoring in dry lands using ERS SAR data; Int. J. Remote Sens. 22(11) 2129–2149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tarboton D G 1989 The analysis of river basins and channel networks using digital terrain data; D.Sc. Thesis, M.I.T., Cambridge, MA.

  • Tarboton D G 1997 A new method for the determination of flow directions and contributing areas in grid digital elevation models; Water Resour. Res. 33(2) 309–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tarboton D G and Ames D P 2001 Advances in the mapping of flow networks from digital elevation data; Proc. World Water and Environmental Resources Congress, Orlando, Florida, May 20–24, ASCE.

  • Tarboton D G and Shankar U 1998 The identification and mapping of flow networks from digital elevation data; Proc. AGU Fall Meeting, San Francisco, December 6–10.

  • Tarboton D G, Bras R L and Rodriguez-Iturbe I 1991 On the extraction of channel networks from digital elevation data; Hydrol. Process. 5(1) 81–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tarboton D G, Bras R L and Rodriguez-Iturbe I 1992 A physical basis for drainage density; Geomorphology 5(1/2) 59–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Timothy D, Straub C, Melching S and Kyle E K 2000 Equations for estimating Clark unit hydrograph parameters for small rural watersheds in Illinois; USGS Water Resources Investigation Report No. 2000–4184, US.

  • Toogood J A 1958 A simplified textural classification diagram; Canadian J. Soil Sci. 38 54–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tucker G E and Bras R L 1998 Hill slope processes, drainage density and landscape morphology; Water Resour. Res. 34(10) 2751–2764.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UN 2004 Guide lines for reducing flood losses (2nd edn) Geneva.

  • USDA Soil Conservation Service 1972 National Engineering Handbook, Section IV: Hydrology (NEH-4), Washington DC, US.

  • Viera F de la C 2003 Geomorphology and natural hazards of the Saamala river basin in Guatemala; ITC International Institute for Geoinformation Science and Earth Observation M.Sc. Thesis 2003, Enschede, The Netherlands.

  • Ward R C and Robinson M 2000 Principles of hydrology (4th edn) (Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill).

    Google Scholar 

  • Willgoose G 1996 A statistic for testing the elevation characteristics of landscape simulation models; J. Geophys. Res. 99(13) 987–996.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yildiz O 2004 An investigation of the effect of drainage density on hydrological response; Turkish J. Eng. Environ. Sci. 28 85–94.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Geology and Geophysics, University of Kashmir, Hazratbal, Srinagar Kashmir, 190 006, India

    SHAKIL AHMAD ROMSHOO, SHAKEEL AHMAD BHAT & IRFAN RASHID

Authors
  1. SHAKIL AHMAD ROMSHOO
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. SHAKEEL AHMAD BHAT
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. IRFAN RASHID
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to SHAKIL AHMAD ROMSHOO.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

ROMSHOO, S.A., BHAT, S.A. & RASHID, I. Geoinformatics for assessing the morphometric control on hydrological response at watershed scale in the Upper Indus Basin. J Earth Syst Sci 121, 659–686 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12040-012-0192-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12040-012-0192-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation