Soil Erosion Risk Assessment using Geospatial Techniques

Ummar Ahad (  [email protected] )

University of Kashmir https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2658-7404
Syed Ahmad Ali
Aligarh Muslim University
Umair Ali
Govt. Degree College for Boys, Kupwara

Research Article

Keywords: Morphometry, Geospatial techniques, Soil-erosion risk, Watershed management

Posted Date: October 13th, 2022

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1876212/v2

License:   This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Read Full License

Page 1/18
Abstract
The present study emphasized the application of geospatial techniques in measurement of drainage and morphometric
parameters. Dudhganga-Shaliganga catchment with 7 sub-basins (coded as DS1-DS7) was analyzed to assess the soil
erosion risk using detailed measurement of drainage and morphometric parameters using geospatial techniques. Linear,
shape and relief parameters were assessed for every sub-basin and accordingly ranks were assigned on the basis of
interrelationship with soil erodibility. The stream order up to 6 has been analyzed with drainage density of 1.881 with
sub-parallel drainage pattern. As for as the area of interest is concerned, drainage network is controlled by lithological
and geomorphic conditions with effect of subsurface structures dominant in SW sub-basins. The sub-basins were
divided into high, medium and low category in terms of priority for soil Management and conservation. Ranking reveals
that DS1, DS2 and DS6 come under very high soil erosion susceptibility. Existence of these sub-basins towards Pir-Panjal
side having high altitudinal, high slope and deep valley topography enhance soil erosion risk supported by deforestation,
unmannered cultivation on hill slopes and changing face of landscape by human activities. Besides, the sub-basins
showing higher erosion rick have higher concentration of lineaments which acts as weak planes and allows easy water
flow and increases chances of landslides by lubrication. Consecutively, soil erosion during heavy rain fall also gives birth
to siltation problems in the plainer low lying areas as said above, which is a very serious problem to eradicate. Thus,
morphotectonic and morphometric analysis applied has given an importance inferences related to soil erosion risk
assessment in the area.

1. Introduction
Watershed management necessitates physiographic data such as drainage gradient, channel network configuration,
location of drainage divide, channel length and geomorphic factor viz. drainage density, bifurcation ratio, circulatory
ratio, shape factor, and relative relief for the priority of watersheds and functioning of water and soil sustainability.
Watershed characteristics are best used for management natural endowments such as land and water, and for reducing
the effect of natural disasters and hazards in order to achieve long-term development. Morphometric investigation of a
watershed offers a quantitative account of the drainage network, that is an significant facet for characterization of
watersheds (Strahler, 1964). Morphometry is the mathematical and quantified assessment of the earth's surface layout,
shape, and dimension of its landscapes (Clarke, 1996; Obi Reddy et al., 2002). This involves evaluation of stream
parameters using various measures and drainage properties (Kumar et al., 2000; Ali and Pirasteh, 2005; Ali and Ali,
2014). The morphometric measurement is applied to elaborate a primary hydrological diagnosis in order to predict
approximate watershed behavior, if correctly joined with geomorphology and geology (Esper, 2008). The physiographic
qualities of a watershed, such as form, size, slope, drainage network and size, and stream length, can be correlated to its
hydrological response (Gregory and Walling, 1973). As a result, morphometric evaluation of a watershed is a necessary
initial step in gaining a fundamental understanding of watershed phenomena. Watershed evaluation, watershed
prioritizing for soil and water conservation, and management of natural resources at the micro level all benefit greatly
from quantitative examination of drainage characteristics. Usually drainage parameters were calculated from
topographical maps or field surveys. The fast growing spatial technology, remote sensing and GIS, are efficient tools to
defeat the problems of land and water resource planning and management instead of conventional data processing
methods (Rao et al., 2010). Over the previous two decades, morphometric parameters are increasingly extracted from
digital representation of topographical feature viz digital elevation models (DEM), which is velocious, accurate, updated
and inexpensive technique of watershed analysis (Moore et al., 1991; Maathuis, 2006). The stream network and other
supporting layers were successfully generated using the processed DEM (Mesa, 2006; Magesh et al., 2011, Ali and
Hagos, 2016). When used in combination with enough ground data, remote sensing may be quite useful to identify
ground features namely geological structures, geomorphic features and their hydraulic characters (Ali and Piresteh,
2004).

Page 2/18
The present watershed being part of Kashmir basin situated in Himalaya is surrounded by hilly terrain with range of
slopes and rock types. The hydrological assessment of watershed and their morphometric evaluation of Dudhganga
catchment were carried out through the use of SRTM DEM, satellite images and GIS for water resource management. The
aim of present work is to examine and identify different drainage parameters to understand the watershed behavior for
the conservation and management of soil resources in a sustainable manner.

2. Study Area
Dudhganga catchment is situated in the areas always struck by floods and land degradation. Dudhganga river originates
from Pir-Panjal range and fall coordinates of 33°40′ to 34°48′ N and 74°27′ to 74°57′ E (Fig. 1). The river has length of
about 56 kilometers and drains an area about 600 km2.The area is divisible into three zones: hilly terrain is southwest,
Karewa Plateau in middle and alluvial plains towards basin centers. The area has elevation range from 1557 to above
4200 meters amsl. The Dudhganga flows for a maximum course of about 56 Kilometers. Drainage of the area is quite
significant as most of the drainage flows into river Jhelum, which drains water out of the basin.

The topography of the area is highly varied, spanning from Archean to Recent. Panjal traps, karewas, and alluvial
deposits are the most frequent rocks found in the region (Fig. 2). The karewas deposits are a physiographic
characteristic of the area that is unique. These are Pleistocene deposits of unconsolidated clays, sands, and
conglomerates, as well as lignite layers that lie unconformably on the hard bedrock and are entirely covered by recent
alluvium (Bhatt, 1976; Burbank and Johnson, 1982).

3. Material And Method

To assess the morphometric conditions, satellite imagery and ASTER DEM (30m resolution) were used with the support
of existing geological map. The software ERDAS Imagine 9.1 and Arc GIS 10.2 were used in geo-registration as well as
for geo-rectification, image processing of satellite data. For the drainage system evaluation, Arc GIS 10.2 software was
employed for digitization, computation of geographical as well as attribute databases, digital elevation model (DEM)
derived products like slope map, aspect map, elevation map and contour maps were superimposed in GIS for the purpose
of modifying the drainage system. The 3D terrain map was also analyzed in relation with slope and aspect (down slope
direction) map to demarcated area of soil erosion influence.

In ArcGIS 10.2 software, the inlet and outflow are established to demarcate the Dudhganga watershed. Sub-basins were
also defined using the same software, which used a water divide line produced from a watershed raster layer derived
from a DEM in the hydrology toolbox of ArcGIS and the shape of terrain observed on topographic maps to designate sub-
basins. GIS software was used to get direct measurements of geometric parameters (e.g., basin size and perimeter,
number and length of streams). The formula proposed by (Horton, 1945; Strahler, 1964; Schumm, 1956; Miller, 1953) is
used to calculate the different morphometric characteristics. So every morphometric feature is treated as a distinct
parameter, with a knowledge-based weighting provided based on its impact on soil erosion and land degradation.
According to the morphometric result, each parameter has been assigned a rank: high weightage for high values of linear
aspects and low weightage for high values of areal aspects. This is because erodibility is inversely proportional to shape
characteristics such elongation ratio, compactness coefficient, circularity ratio, form factor, and basin shape
(Nookaratnam et al., 2005). The lower the value, the higher the erodibility. The values of the compound variables were
computed, and the sub-watershed with the lowest weightage was given preference. The actual priority categorization has
been determined into major priority classes which were correlated with the slope map, aspect and elevation map of the
area. The high priority specifies need for mitigation soil conservation measures in these critical sub-watersheds.

4. Result And Discussion

Page 3/18
The current study highlights the use of satellite remote sensing for soil erosion risk assessment based on morphometric
analysis (Table 1, 2, 3), and the results are discussed below.

4.1. Slope
The amount of inclination of a physical feature, landform, to the level surface is referred to as terrain slope. In
morphometric and geomoprphological study, slope analysis is critical. Based on the DEM data, a slope map (Fig. 3B) for
the research region was created. According to Burrough (1986), the greatest rate of change in value from each cell to its
neighbours is known as the slope grid. For the catchment, the slope is measured in degrees and ranges from 0 to 42. In
locations with varied resistant rock, climatomorphogenic processes influence the slope components; nevertheless,
tectonic processes also regulate slope development (Magesh et al., 2011; Gayen et al., 2013). The steeper slope is found
towards the southwest of the research region, near the raised terrain. As a result, steeper slope locations will experience
quicker runoff and increased soil erosion after heavy rains.
4.2. Aspect
Figure 3A shows the watershed' aspect map created in Arc GIS 10.2. The direction (0o to 360o) in which a hill slope faces
is referred to as aspect. The aspect's compass direction was calculated using the output raster data value. The 0o aspect
corresponds to true north, 90o to the east, 270o to the west, and so on. The resulting raster data value was used to
determine the aspect's compass orientation (Magesh et al., 2011). The aspect map shows that the east and northeast
slopes dominate in the area, implying more moisture and lower evaporation rates, and consequently a high vegetation
index.
4.3. Stream Number
The morphometric investigation exhibits that the watershed is 6th order (Fig. 3C) with total number of streams found is
1254, out of which 999 is of first order, 194 of second, 46 of third order, 11 of fourth, 3 of fifth and 1 of sixth order. The
branching of streams indicates the presence of dendritic to sub-parallel drainage pattern in the area. Analysis of data
reveals that maximum number of streams is found in DS3 (264) and minimum number for DS4 (116), it is also noted
that in all sub-watersheds, first order streams are the most numerous, while highest order streams are the fewest.
4.4. Stream length (Lu)
The most fundamental hydrological attribute of the watershed is stream length. It characterises surface runoff
characteristics in places with greater slopes and finer texture, with streams of comparatively shorter lengths. Streams
with longer lengths are more likely to have flatter slopes. Except for DS 1, 2, 3,4,5,7, total stream length is high for the first
order and declines as the stream order advances (Horton, 1945). This shift might be attributed to streams flowing from
high altitude, lithology variations, and relatively steep slopes (Singh and Singh, 1997).
4.5. Stream length ratio (Rl)
It is the ratio of a stream's mean length (Lu) to the mean length (Lu-1) of the next lower order (u) (Horton, 1945). From
lower to higher order, the stream length ratio exhibited a rising and decreasing tendency. The mature geomorphic stage of
a sub-watershed is indicated by an increasing trend in length ratio from lower to higher order. This ratio between
consecutive stream orders changes with slope and topographic circumstances, and it has a strong relationship with the
surface stream flow and errosional stage of the catchment.

Page 4/18
 Table 1
Morphometric Parameters of Dudhganga-Shaliganga watershed
Parameters DS1 DS2 DS3 DS4 DS5 DS6 DS7

Area(Km2) 44.624 56.17 164.92 32.576 76.493 63.021 155.299

Perimeter 44.777 53.733 100.520 38.703 68.030 52.340 75.315

Stream Frequency 4.39 4.09 1.60 3.56 2.36 3.83 0.65

Basin Length(Km) 17.94 23.208 37.00 15.319 29.218 22.520 29.00

Form Factor 0.14 0.10 0.12 0.13 0.09 0.12 0.18

Elongation Ratio 0.42 0.36 0.39 0.42 0.34 0.39 0.49

Circulatory Ratio 0.28 0.24 0.21 0.27 0.21 0.29 0.34

Drainage Density 3.75 3.14 1.58 3.15 2.19 2.86 0.91

Drainage Texture 4.39 4.28 2.62 2.99 2.66 4.62 1.34

Shape Factor 7.21 9.59 8.30 7.20 11.16 8.04 5.42

Comp. Coefficient 1.89 2.02 2.21 1.91 2.19 1.86 1.70

L. O. Land Flow 0.13 0.16 0.32 0.16 0.23 0.17 0.55

4.6. Stream frequency (Fs)

It is the proportion of the entire basin area to the total number of stream segments of all orders (Horton, 1932). Stream
frequency for the area varies from 0.65 to 4.39 km/km2. Highest value of stream frequency for DS1, DS2 and DS6
produces more runoff in comparison to others. The study reveals watersheds with high stream frequency are in the zone
of fluvial channels and the presence of ridges with steeper ground surface. The high stream frequency indicates high
relief, whereas the limited infiltration capacity of the rock layer suggests an increase in stream number as drainage
density rises.
4.7. Drainage density (Dd)
One of the important parameters of the landform element is drainage density (Dd), which provides a numerical
measurement of landscape segmentation and runoff potentiality (Chorley, 1969). It is a measure of the entire length of
the stream segment of all orders to the basin area and shows the closeness of channel spacing (Horton, 1932). Low
drainage density is related with highly permeable subsurface materials under dense vegetative cover and low relief,
whereas high drainage density is associated with impermeable subsurface materials, sparse vegetation, and
mountainous relief (Nag, 1998).Drainage density varies from 0.91 to 3.75 km/km2 and high drainage density was found
in DS1, DS2 and DS4 because of impermeable subsoil material and mountainous relief (Fig. 4B). Under general
circumstances, Dd increases as the infiltration capacity of the underlying rocks decreases and/or the transmissivity of
the soil decreases. Thus, gives birth to quicker runoff process and increase chances of erosion in upstream areas.
4.8. Drainage texture (Dt)
The total number of stream segments of all types per perimeter of the region is known as drainage texture (Horton,
1945). Drainage texture is affected by a variety of characteristics including vegetation, climate, rainfall, rock and soil
Page 5/18
type, infiltration capacity, relief, and development stage (Smith, 1950). Extremely coarse (< 2), coarse (2–4), moderate (4–
6), fine (6–8) and very fine (> 8) are the five classifications. Very coarse to moderate drainage texture was discovered,
with values ranging from 1.34 for DS7 to 4.62 for DS6. Low Dd is associated with coarse drainage texture, and high Dd is
associated with fine drainage texture.
4.9. Bifurcation ratios (Rb)
The bifurcation ratio is a measure of reliefs and dissections (Horton 1945). Except when geological control predominates
significantly, according to Strahler (1957), bifurcation ratios indicate only a little variance for distinct places with varied
environments. Lower bifurcation ratio readings indicate a watershed that is physically less disturbed and has no
drainage pattern distortion (Nag, 1998). The bifurcation ratio is the proportion of total stream segments of one order to
the next higher order in a basin, and it is linked to the stream network's branching pattern (Schumn, 1956).The Rb varies
from 1to 6.5 with higher value for lower order streams. According to Strahler (1964), when Rb between 3 and 5, no
dominant control of geological structures over the drainage pattern. Rb value greater than 5 relates to higher structural
control in development of a drainage network (Strahler, 1957). Thus, lower order streams are dominantly controlled by
geological structural in the area (Fig. 4A).

Table 2
Values of drainage density, texture and bifurcation ratios for sub-watersheds
Sub Mean Stream Length Bifurcation Ratio Rb Mean
Watershed 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 1/2 2/3 3/4 4/5 5/6 Bifurcation
order Order order order order order
Ratio

DS1 0.68 0.94 1.14 3.07 6.33 - 5.15 0.76 17 2 0.00 4.98

DS2 0.56 1.03 3.43 4.81 11.64 - 5.88 5.4 2.5 2 0.00 3.15

DS3 0.66 1.13 4.30 3.48 4.28 25.70 5.94 4.5 2.6 3 1 3.41

DS4 0.60 0.97 2.49 2.74 15.79 .23 5.00 4.5 2 2 1 2.9

DS5 0.66 1.04 1.77 4.39 22.053 - 4.48 3.88 4 2 0.00 2.87

DS6 0.61 0.64 2.76 4.94 5.95 - 4.78 5 4 2 0.00 3.16

DS7 0.68 1.66 3.86 2.91 10.48 16.35 4.63 3.2 1.66 1.5 2 2.59

4.10. Length of overland flow (Lo)

It is equivalent to half of drainage density and is the length of water over the surface before it is condensed into distinct
drainage channels (Horton, 1945). It has an inverse relationship with the average channel slope. Length of overland flow
ranges from 0.13 for DS1 to 0.55 for DS7. The lower length of over land flow means rainwater quickly enters the streams
with quicker runoff process. Higher length of over land flow reveals rainwater has to run for longer distance before
concentrated into river channel with slower runoff process (Chitra et al., 2011) (Fig. 4C). The higher length of over land
flow and slower runoff gives more time for mud coming with flood water during flooding as seen in recent flooding
(September 2014) in Jammu and Kashmir. Other than landslides and severe destruction caused by flood water to
everything in its path, siltation is a severe environmental hazard.

4.11. Form factor (Ff)

Page 6/18
The proportion of basin area to basin length squared is known as the form factor (Horton, 1932). This indicator is used
to forecast the flow strength of a particular watershed (Horton, 1945). The values of form factor would always be less
than 0.7854 (perfectly for a circular basin). Form factor value varies from 0.09–0.18, i.e., all basins are elongated. The
observation shows that the DS2 and DS5 watersheds are highly elongated while as the watersheds DS1, DS4 and DS7
are less elongated. The values of form factor which are low specify that the all sub-watersheds more or less elongated.
The elongated basin having low form factor value signifies that the basin will have a flatter peak flow for longer duration
and vice versa.

4.12. Elongation ratio (Re)

The elongation ratio was established by Schumm (1956) as the ratio of the diameter of a circle with the same area as
the drainage basin to the maximum basin length. In terms of runoff discharge, a circular basin is more efficient than an
elongated basin (Singh et al., 1997). Elongation values range from 0.6 to 1.0 across a wide variety of climatic and
geologic conditions. Closer to 1.0 indicates locations with extremely low relief, while values in the range of 0.6 to 0.8
indicate areas with considerable relief and steep land slope (Strahler, 1964). The whole catchment has elongation ratio
of 0.569 and values of the elongation ratio are found in the range of 0.34 to 0.49 indicating high relief and steep ground
slope with faulting effect in the catchment. Shape of basin is found to be elongated if low elongation ratio to less
elongated if high elongation ratio. These values are smaller than 0.7 for the current catchment under evaluation, resulting
in extended sub-watersheds. Limited Re values imply low infiltration capacity and increased runoff in the region. Sub-
basins with a low elongation ratio are more susceptible to erosion and sedimentation.

4.13. Circulatory ratio(Rc)

The circularity ratio is the ratio of the basin's area to the area of a circle with the same diameter as the basin's perimeter
(Miller, 1953). The length and frequency of streams, geological formations, land use/land cover, climate, relief, and slope
of the watershed all have an impact on Rc. The circulatory ratio, which is less than unity and ranges from 0.21 to 0.34,
suggests that the sub-watersheds are almost extended. The young stage of topography is indicated by a low circulatory
ratio. This oddity is caused by the area's diverse slope, relief, and structural factors.

4.14. Compactness Coefficient (Cc)

The basin perimeter divided by the diameter of a circle to the very same area of the basin is the compactness coefficient.
It is correlated to the extension of the basin area in an indirect manner. Lower numbers imply greater elongation and less
erosional character, whereas higher values suggest less elongation and more erosion. For a perfect circular basin, the
compactness coefficient would be equal to 1 (Gravelius, 1914). In this watershed, Cc ranges from 2.21 to 1.70 which
indicates more elongated. This variable is directly related to the erosion risk evaluation factors, i.e., higher compactness
values indicating more sensitivity to risk factors and the necessity for conservation measures to be implemented.

4.15. Basin Relief (H)

Basin Relief (H) is defined as the difference in elevation between the reference points, i.e. the greatest vertical distance
between the drainage basin's highest (divide) and lowest (outlet) locations. It was measured by Schumm (1956) along
the basin's longest dimension, parallel to the main drainage line. It is important for the development of the drainage
network, permeability, surface and subsurface water flow, landforms, and erosional character of the area. The relief for
sub-watersheds varies from 769 to 2224 meters and is highest for DS1, DS2 and DS6 (Fig. 5). The high relief of these
Page 7/18
sub-watersheds indicates water flow with low gravity as well as infiltration and high runoff as well as sediment down the
slope.

4.16. Relief Ratio

It is the proportion of basin relief to the horzontal length on the bases of which relief was measured (Schumm, 1956),
and there is also a direct relationship between channel gradient and relief (Schumm, 1956). It is used to determine the
overall steepness of a watershed and is also used to determine the severity of the erosion process. The hilly terrain is
characterised by a high relief ratio value. Relief ratios range from 0.027 to 0.105 (Fig. 4D), with DS1, DS2, and DS6
having the largest relief ratios. It has been observed that larger relief ratio values suggest steep slopes and high relief,
whilst lower values indicate a lesser degree of slope (Krishnaswamy, 1981).

Table 3
Relief Aspects of the Sub-watersheds
Sub-watersheds Basin Relif Relief Ratio Relative Relief Ruggedness Number
(H) meters (Rh) (Rr) (Rn)

DS1 1896 0.104 0.042 7.11

DS2 2224 0.105 0.041 6.98

DS3 827 0.027 0.008 1.31

DS4 797 0.053 0.021 2.51

DS5 1704 0.059 0.025 3.73

DS6 2074 0.098 0.039 5.93

DS7 769 0.027 0.010 0.69

4.17. Relative Relief (Rr)

The ratio of relief (H) to the basin's circumference is known as relative relief (Rr). It is a significant measure for assessing
the overall morphological aspects of terrain. Watersheds have relative relief ranging from 0.008 to 0.042. The runoff
potential of watersheds with higher relative relief is greater than that of other watersheds. As a result, the watersheds
DS1, DS2, and DS6 have the largest runoff potential, whereas DS3 and DS7 have the lowest runoff potential.

4.18. Ruggedness number (Rn)

It is the product of drainage density (Dd) and relief of the basin in the same unit (Strahler, 1957; Melton, 1958). For
watersheds it is obtained as 0.69 to 7.11. It describes the structural complexity of the area. The highest value were
observed in DS1 (7.11), DS2 (6.98) and DS5 (5.93) in which both, the overall relief of the watershed and the drainage
network are high, implying that the gradient in these sub-watersheds is quite steep in relation to their length. Higher
ground slopes in the context of above sub-watersheds in the basin's upper reaches indicate a shorter period for overland
flow concentration and a greater risk of soil erosion. Sub-watersheds with a high roughness number are more prone to
erosion and, as a result, have higher peak discharge. The use of morphmetric parameters, also referred as erosion risk
evaluation parameters, has been utilised to prioritise areas (Biswas et al., 1999). Erodibility is inversely related to shape

Page 8/18
parameters including elongation ratio, circularity ratio, form factor, basin shape, and compactness coefficient, while
drainage density, drainage network, mean bifurcation ratio, drainage texture, and length of overland flow are all directly
related to erodibility (Nooka et al., 2005). As a result, the watersheds have been prioritised in order to assign the greatest
rank/priority based on the highest value for linear parameters and the lowest value for shape parameters. We then
calculated the composite factor by adding all the ranks of the linear and shape parameters and dividing by the number
of parameters. (Table 4). The sub-watershed with the lowest compound factor received the highest rank from the group
of these sub-watersheds, and so on. In the Dudhganga catchment DS1, DS2 and DS6 with least compound factor value
are given highest rank in relation to soil erosion vulnerability (Fig. 6). In order to control soil erosion in high vulnerable
area, some possible mitigation measures help to reduce can be applied. To stop and reduce soil erosion, cutting of
forests should be stopped because bare land on slope is more susceptible to soil erosion. Unmannered cultivation on hill
slopes loosens the upper surface which is easily washed away during heavy rainfall. Intense human intervention in
changing the shape of land surface from natural landscape is one serious cause for soil erosion in hilly terrain like
Himalaya.

Table 4
Prioritization results of Morphometric analysis for soil erosion risk assessment.
Sub-basin (Dd) (Fs) (Rb) (T) (Rf) (Bs) (Rc) (Cc) (Re) CP PriorityRank

DS1 1 1 1 2 5 3 4 3 4 2.66 1

DS2 3 2 4 3 2 6 2 5 2 3.22 3

DS3 6 6 2 6 3 5 1 7 3 4.33 6

DS4 2 4 5 4 4 2 3 4 4 3.55 4

DS5 5 5 6 5 1 7 1 6 1 4.11 5

DS6 4 3 3 1 3 4 5 2 3 3.11 2

DS7 7 7 7 7 6 1 6 1 5 5.22 7

Conclusion
The advanced Remote sensing technology and geographic information systems (GIS) are effective tools for calculating
and analyzing watershed features, as well as for understanding various topographical aspects like bedrock type,
permeation capability, and surface runoff. Morphometric investigation combinined with remotely sensed data sets and
GIS techniques may provide a lot of information on watershed features and there behavioral respond to soil erosion in
hydrological settings. Hilly locations with a steep slope, weak structural planes, and a thin top soil cover (driving fast
physical erosion) and above all indiscriminate human intervention are more prone to soil erosion during harsh weather
conditions. Ranking of sub-basins reveal that DS1, DS2 and DS6 in hilly terrain fall in highest rank and are more
vulnerable to soil erosion risk. Spatial technology showed application to estimate natural hazards possible due to soil
erosion and also minimizing the siltation of the plainer sub-basins that causes serious problems as faced by recent
flooding (Sept. 2014) in Kashmir basin. The chances of soil erosion are due to presence of weak planes (structural
features) and water seepage through these weak planes acts as lubricant in the hard rock terrain to enhance the
movement. On the other hand, siltation (mud) problems are more in lower plainer sub-watersheds with higher length of
over land flow as was faced in 2014 Kashmir flood. Thus, results indicate that the morphometric investigation can be
effectively utilized for categorization of catchments, land and water preservation and other natural resource
management at the watershed level. Therefore, instantaneous consideration towards measures to save soil and
hydrological resources is required to preserve the land from further erosion and to reduce natural hazards.
Page 9/18
Declarations
Conflict of Interest

Ethical approval

The study complied with the ethical standards.

Consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent to Publish

All the authors have agreed for the publication of this manuscript.

Competing interests

We declare that there are no competing interests.

Funding

The present study has not received any funding from any agency.

Authors Contributions

The present study is a collaborative work of all the authors. However, ummar Ahad has worked for the general concept of
the manuscript, umair Ali has worked with software part and Dr. Syed Ahmad Ali has been actively engaged in making
structural changes to the manuscript.

Data Availability

On reasonable request, the corresponding author will provide the datasets generated and/or evaluated during the current
work.

References
1. Agarwal, C. S., 1998. Study of drainage pattern through aerial data in Naugarh area of Varanasi district, U.P. Journal
of Indian Society of RemoteSensing, 26,169–175.
2. Ali, S. A., Piresteh, S., 2005. Evaluation of ground water potential zones in parts of Pabdeh Anticline, Zagros Fold
Belt, SW Iran. Water, Ethiopian Journal of Water Science and Technology, 9 (1), 92-97.
3. Ali, U., Ali, S. A., 2014. Analysis of Drainage Morphometry and Watershed Prioritization of Romushi–Sasar
Catchment, Kashmir Valley, India using Remote Sensing and GIS Technology. International Journal of Advanced
Research, 2, 5-23.
4. Bhatt, D. K., 1976. Stratigraphical status of Karewa Group of Kashmir, India. Himalayan Geology, 6, 197–208.
5. Biswas, S., Sudhakar, S., Desai, V. R., 1999. Prioritisation of sub-watersheds based on morphometric analysis of
drainage basin: A Remote Sensing and GIS approach. Journal Indian Society of Remote Sensing, 27(3), 155-166.
6. Burbank, D. W., Johnson, G. D., 1982. Intermontane-basin development in the past 4 Myr in the north-west Himalaya.
Nature, 298, 432-436.

Page 10/18
 7. Burrough, P. A., 1986. Principles of geographical information systems for land resources assessment. Oxford
University Press, New York, p 50.
8. Chitra, C., Alaguraja, P., Ganeshkumari, K., Yuvaraj, D., Manivel, M., 2011. Watershed characteristics of
Kundahsubbasin using remote sensing and GIS techniques. International Journal of Geomatics and Geoscience,
2(1), 311–335.
9. Chorley, R.J., 1969. Introduction to physical hydrology. Methuen and Co. Ltd., Suffolk, p 211.
10. Clarke, J. I., 1996. Morphometry from Maps. Essays in geomorphology.Elsevier publication. Co., New York, pp 235–
274.
11. Esper, A. M. Y., 2008. Morphometric Analysis of Colanguil River Basin and Flash Flood Hazard, San Juan. Argentina
Environmental Geology, 55, 107-111.
12. Gayen, S, Bhunia, G.S., Shi, P. K., 2013. Morphometric analysis of Kangshabati-Darkeswar Interfluves area in West
Bengal, India using ASTER DEM and GIS techniques. Journal of Geology and Geosciences, 2(4), 1–10.
13. Gravelius, H., 1914. Grundrifi der gesamtenGewcisserkunde. Band I: Flufikunde (Compendium of Hydrology, vol. I.
Rivers, in German). Germany: Goschen, Berlin.
14. Gregory, K. J., Walling, D. E., 1973. Drainage basin form and process: a geomorphological approach.New York (NY):
Wiley; p. 456.
15. Horton,R.E., 1932.Drainagebasincharacteristics.Transactions ofAmericanGeophysicalUnion,13, 350-361.
16. Horton, R. E., 1945. Erosional development of streams and their drainage basins: A hydrophysical approach to
quantitative morphology. Geological Society of American Bulletin, 56, 275-370.
17. Krishnaswamy, V. S., 1981. Geological Survey of India, Calcutta, 3, 169-188.
18. Kumar, R., Kumar, S., Lohni, A. K., Neema, R. K., and Singh, A. D., 2000. Evaluation of Geomorphological
Characteristics of a Catchment Using GIS. GIS India, 9(3), 13-17.
19. Maathuis, B. H. P., 2006. Digital elevation model based hydro-processing. GeocartoInternatinal, 21, 21–26.
20. Magesh, N. S., Chandrasekar, N., Soundranayagam, J. P., 2011. Morphometric evaluation of Papanasam and
Manimuthar watersheds, parts of Western Ghats, Tirunelveli district, Tamil Nadu, India: a GIS approach.
Environmental Earth Science, 64(2), 373–381.
21. Melton, M. A., 1958. Correlations structure of morphometric properties of drainage systems and their controlling
agents. Journal of Geology, 66, 442–460.
22. Mesa, L. M., 2006. Morphometric analysis of a subtropical Andean basin (Tucuman, Argentina). Journal of
Environmental Geology, 50(8), 1235–1242.
23. Miller, V. C., 1953. A quantitative geomorphologic study of drainagebasin characteristics in the Clinch Mountain area,
Virginia andTennessee, Project NR 389042, Tech Report 3. ColumbiaUniversity Department of Geology, ONR
Geography Branch,New York.
24. Moore, I. D., Grayson, R. B., Ladson, A. R., 1991. Digital terrain modelling: a review of hydrological, geomorphological
and biological applications. Hydrological Processes, 5(1), 3–30.
25. Nag, S. K., 1998. Morphometric analysis using remote sensing techniquesin the Chaka sub-basin,
Puruliadistrict,West Bengal. Journal of Indian Society of RemoteSensing, 26(1&2), 69–76.
26. Nookaratnam, K., Srivastava, Y. K., Venkateswara, R. V., Amminedu, E., Murthy, K. S. R., 2005. Check dam positioning
by Prioritization of Microwatersheds using SYI model and Morphometric Analysis - Remote sensing and GIS
Perspective. Journal of Indian Society of Remote Sensing, 33(1), 25-38.
27. Obi Reddy, G. E., Majim, A. K., Gajbhiye, K. S., 2002. GIS for morphometricanalysis of drainage basins. GIS lndia,
4(11), 9–14.

Page 11/18
28. Rao, N. K., Swarna, L. P., Kumar, A. P., Krishna, H. M., 2010. Morphometric analysis of Gostani River Basin in Andhra
Pradesh State, Indian using spatial information technology. Internatianal Journal of Geomatics and Geoscience,
1(2), 179–187.
29. Raza, M., Ahmad, A., Mohammad, A., 1978. The valley of Kashmir: a geographical interpretation, Vol. 1: the land.
Vikas, New Delhi, p 59.
30. Schumm,S.A.,1956.EvolutionofdrainagesystemandslopesinbadlandsatPerth Amboy, New Jersy, Bulletin of
Geological. Society of America, 67, 597-646.
31. Singh, S., Singh, M. B., 1997. Morphometric analysis of Kanhar riverbasin. National Geographic Journal India, 43(1),
31–43.
32. Smith, K. G., 1950. Standards for grading texture of errosionaltopography. American Journal of Science, 248, 655–
668.
33. Strahler, A. N., 1957. Quantitative analysis of watershed geomorphology. Transactions of American Geophysical
Union, 38, 913–920.
34. Strahler,A.N.,1964.Quantitativegeomorphologyofdrainagebasinsandchannel
networkinHandbookofAppliedHydrology,McGrawHillBookCompany,Newyork, Section 4-II.
35. Wadia, D.N., 1975. Geology of India, 4th edn. Tata McGraw-Hill, New Delhi, p 344, Tenth reprint, 1989.

Figures

Page 12/18
Figure 1

Location map of Dudhganga Catchment, Kashmir Valley, India.

Page 13/18
Figure 2

Geology of the study area as determined using PCA and existing geological map (modified after Raza et al., 1978).

Page 14/18
Figure 3

(A) Aspect map, (B) Slope map,( C) Drainage map and (D) Relief map of Dudhganga-Shaliganga watershed.

Page 15/18
Figure 4

(A) Mean bifurcation ratio, (B) Drainage density, (C) Length of over land flow, and (D) Relief ratio of Dudhganga-
Shaliganga watershed.

Page 16/18
Figure 5

3D landscape of the Dudhganga-Shaliganga catchment.

Page 17/18
Figure 6

Dudhganga catchment categorized on the basis of soil erosion risk.

Page 18/18