Environmental Challenges 15 (2024) 100890

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Challenges
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envc

Hydro-morphometry of a trans-Himalayan River basin: Spatial variance,

inference and significance
Boria Anya , Chandrashekhar Bhuiyan *
Department of Civil Engineering, Sikkim Manipal Institute of Technology, Sikkim Manipal University, Sikkim, India

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Subansiri is the largest tributary of the Brahmaputra River basin originated in the Tibet Autonomous Region of
Hydro-morphometry China. After flowing about 160 km as Chayul Chu in Tibet, it runs as Subansiri in Arunachal Pradesh state of
Hypsometry India for about 360 km before merging into the Brahmaputra River in Assam (India). This study was carried out
Trans-Himalayan
to understand the hydro-morphometry of the entire Subansiri Basin comprising of three sub-basins: Chayul Chu,
Subansiri
GIS
Upper Subansiri and Lower Subansiri. Geomorphometric parameters were extracted from Shuttle Radar Topo­
graphic Mission (SRTM) Digital Elevation Model of 30 m spatial resolution using Google Earth Engine and GIS
software. On comparison, significant difference and spatial variation have been noticed in various morphometric
parameters of the sub-basins. Notable differences are observed in some key morphometric parameters such as
drainage density, stream frequency, constant of channel maintenance, infiltration number, drainage ratio, drainage
texture, dissection index, ruggedness number, form factor ratio, elongation ratio etc. Hypsometric analysis has
highlighted further the difference in geomorphic fabric, terrain maturity and hydrologic characteristics of these
different sub-basins. Hydro-morphometric parameters have direct bearing on the hydrology. Thus, outcome of
this study will be useful in water resources management and in finding engineering solutions to hydro-hazards
for this basin and other basins worldwide.

1. Introduction from topographic maps is a tedious assignment. Technological devel­

opment has ensured automatic extraction of drainage network and
Geomorphometry is the science of quantitative analysis of land- thereby has enabled morphometric analysis easier and less time
surface and drainage basins (Pike et al., 2009). It addresses the pro­ consuming. Subsequently, extraction of drainage networks from DEMs
cesses governed by the surface and sub-surface geology, lithology, and and quantitative evaluation, analysis and mapping of morphometric
geomorphology, which are manifested as the drainage basin character­ parameters using software packages have become routine exercise of
istics. Geomorphometry plays governing role for the hydraulic and hy­ hydro-morphometry (Harvey and Eash, 1996; Lin et al., 2008; Shahzad
drological processes of a river. Subsequently, the field of and Gloaguen, 2011; Thomas et al., 2012). The quantitative analysis of
hydro-morphometry (also referred as hydro-geomorphometry) has these various hydro-morphometric parameters helps in the interpreta­
emerged which intends precise analysis of drainage system and tion of the hydrological functioning of the basins (Singh et al., 2013).
computation of drainage parameters and thereby characterises the hy­ Study of transboundary river basins is important but a sensitive issue.
drological responses and potential of basins or watersheds (Romshoo Both for assessment of water resources potential and evaluation of hy­
et al., 2012; Mahala, 2020). The process involves measurement of linear, drological hazards, data and records of meteorological and hydrological
aerial, relief, and gradient parameters of the channel network (Horton, parameters are crucial. However, due to over sensitivity of the issue and
1932; Majumdar, 1982; Nautiyal, 1994). Hydro-morphometric param­ international conflict, recorded data for transboundary basins are diffi­
eters have direct bearing on the hydrology, water resources and hy­ cult to obtain. In such a situation, particularly for hydrological inter­
drological hazards (flood, drought, and riverbank erosion) in the basin pretation and understanding of basin characteristics, hydro-
(Gardiner, 1990; Ozdemir and Bird, 2009). However, manual extraction morphometric analysis may be very much useful. With this anticipa­
of the drainage network and evaluation of morphometric parameters tion, in this study, hydro-morphometric analysis has been carried out in

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (C. Bhuiyan).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envc.2024.100890
Received 27 December 2023; Received in revised form 5 March 2024; Accepted 5 March 2024
Available online 8 March 2024
2667-0100/© 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
B. Anya and C. Bhuiyan Environmental Challenges 15 (2024) 100890

the trans-Himalayan River basin of Subansiri. With a total length of 518 from tropical to temperate (Sarkar et al., 2012).
km, Subansiri is the largest tributary of the Brahmaputra River System
(Rao, 1979; Goyal et al., 2018). It has originated and flows as Chayul 2.1. Geological set-up
Chu in the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) of China and after entering
Arunachal Pradesh state of India, flows for about 360 km as Subansiri The entire Subansiri Basin is spread across the Higher Himalaya,
before merging into the Brahmaputra River in Assam, India (Goswami Lesser Himalaya, and Sub-Himalaya or Siwalik and is underlain by rocks
and Acharjee, 2016). The entire Subansiri Basin is composed of three of igneous, sedimentary, and metamorphic origin (Kumar and Singh,
sub-basins: Chayul, Upper Subansiri, and Lower Subansiri. While Chayul 1980). The Higher Himalayan rocks include high-grade schists and
is in the Tibet, the downstream sub-basins of Upper Subansiri and Lower gneisses, granite, and pegmatite of Tertiary age along with banded
Subansiri are in Arunachal Pradesh. Topography and physiography vary marble, amphibolite, and quartzite. The Lesser Himalayan rocks consist
spatially among and within these sub-basins. This is anticipated that the mainly of phyllite, schist, granite gneiss, quartzite, and carbonates,
difference and spatial variation in the hydrogeology and whereas the Siwalik rocks are composed of quartzite, phyllite slate,
hydro-morphometry must have some impact on the hydrology of these sandstone, shale, coal, greywacke, and conglomerate of
three sub-basins. Thus, this study was carried out to analyse the spatial Carboniferous-Permian age (Dutta et al., 1983). The entire Subansiri
variations in the hydro-morphometric parameters in the Subansiri Basin, Basin is covered by thick pile of unconsolidated alluvial sediments and is
and its three sub-basins. The study has also analysed the association of associated with several folds generating an undulated topography. The
various geomorphometric parameters and has tried to understand their fold axes have strikes in the E–W, NE–SW and NW–SE directions (Bur­
combined influence on basin hydrology, as well as their significance on hanuddin and Grover, 2023). The upper part (Chayul Chu Basin) is
the water resource potential and hydro-hazard risk. This is expected that mainly occupied by E–W trending folded-faulted crystalline complex of
inferences obtained through the interpretation of the results will explain Higher Himalaya. The middle part (Upper Subansiri and upper part of
the role and impact of geomorphometry on hydrology. Furthermore, it Lower Subansiri) is dominated by NE–SW trending folded and thrusted
will offer a broad insight into the applications and applicability of complex of the Lesser Himalaya, while the lower part of Lower Subansiri
geomorphometry and hydro-morphometry in deciphering the hydro­ is occupied by Siwalik rocks. The basin is dissected by numerous faults
logical response of other basins. including the Main Boundary Thrust (MBT), Main Central Thrust (MCT)
and Main Frontal Thrust (MFT). Many of these faults are tectonically
2. The Subansiri River Basin active and control the drainage patterns of the basin (Chirouze et al.,
2013; Kumar and Duarah, 2020).
The trans-Himalayan Subansiri River Basin is located between 26◦
54ʹ 14.72″ to 28◦ 55ʹ 24.79″ North latitudes and between 91◦ 33ʹ 09.83″ 3. Methedology
to 95◦ 04ʹ 38.44″ East longitudes (Fig. 1). It is the largest tributary of the
Brahmaputra River with a length of 518 km (Rao, 1979). The river has Digital Elevation Model (DEM) is the key to geomorphometric and
originated in the Tibet Plateau. In Tibet, it is known as Chayul Chu, hydro-morphometric analysis. A DEM represents surface heights in a
which is formed near Chayul Dzong with the merger of Nye Chu and rectangular array. In the present study, SRTM DEM (30 m spatial reso­
Loro Chu. After flowing for about 160 km in Tibet, the river enters India lution) has been used considering its better accuracy over ASTER and
at Miri Hills and flows for ~360 km through the hilly tracts of Arunachal Cartosat DEMs for mountainous regions (Rawat et al., 2013; Hu et al.,
Pradesh and Assam as Subansiri or ‘Gold River’ and merges into the 2017). The SRTM DEM was downloaded from Google earth engine and
Brahmaputra. Altogether, it contributes 7.92 % of the total flow of was imported in the ArcGIS software. To eliminate the various errors,
Brahmaputra River (Singh et al., 2004). Of the total ~36,000 km2 area sink fill tool of ArcGIS (ArcHydro tool) was used. The hierarchical orders
of the Subansiri drainage basin, 9503.2 km2 lies in Tibet and 26,415.7 of the drainage networks were derived from the DEM, based on the D8
km2 lies in India. The Indian part of Subansiri is divided into two (multidirectional method) method using Hydrology tool of the ArcGIS
sub-basins: Upper Subansiri covering 7580.91 km2 and Lower Subansiri software. The next steps included delineation of the Subansiri River
covering 18,834.7 km2. Elevation of the basin varies from 73 m to 7018 basin and its sub-basins from the DEM, extraction and computation of
m above the mean sea level (msl). Climate in this basin varies spatially the morphometric parameters, hydrological characterisation, and

Fig. 1. Location of the study area – the Subansiri River Basin.

2
B. Anya and C. Bhuiyan Environmental Challenges 15 (2024) 100890

hydro-hazard risk assessment. The overall methodology of the formulae as listed in Table 1. While linear aspect of these
hydro-morphometric analysis is shown in the flow-diagram (Fig. 2) and geo-morphometric and hydro-morphometric parameters were
is described in the following sub-sections. computed sub-basin wise, the areal and relief aspect parameters were
extracted through spatial interpolation in GIS. The linear aspect of the
3.1. Extraction of Subansiri Basin and sub-basins morphometric parameters is useful in the inter-basin comparison,
whereas the grid-based extraction and analysis of the areal and relief
The Subansiri River Basin boundary was delineated automatically aspect parameters are instrumental in revealing the spatial variations in
from the 30 m resolution SRTM DEM, using the Google Earth Engine and geo-morphometry.
GIS tools and were re-projected. The process involved defining of pour
point, corresponding to the cell size of higher flow accumulation. The
three sub-basins of Subansiri - Chayul, Upper Subansiri and Lower 3.3. Morphometric parameters
Subansiri were delineated from the DEM based on the 5th, 6th, and 7th
order streams (Fig. 3), and were confirmed from the Survey of India Morphometric parameters encompass linear, areal, and relief aspects
topographic maps and Google map. which together govern the hydro-morphometry of a basin. Extraction
and analysis of the morphometric parameters was carried out first for
3.2. Extraction of drainage network the entire Subansiri basin, and then for its three sub-basins. The
morphometric parameters studied are as follows.
The drainage network of the Subansiri Basin and its stream orders
were extracted from the SRTM DEM (30 m) with the help of hydrology 3.3.1. Linear aspects of morphometry
tool in Arc GIS 10.7.1 version following the technique developed by Linear aspects of morphometric parameters are governed by the
Strahler (1964). The entire Subansiri Basin including its three sub-basins geological set up of the basin. They provide crucial information about
are found to be dominated by dendritic drainage pattern (Fig. 3). the drainage characteristics and tectonic fabric of the basin. Besides,
However, at several parts within the basin, rectangular and trellis pat­ they influence the hydrology of the basin.
terns are also observed, which are controlled by geological structures
(Kumar and Daurah, 2020). The hydrology of a drainage basin is char­ 3.3.1.1. Stream order (U). Hierarchical ranking of streams is the first
acterised by as well as its hydrology is governed by the morphometric step for drainage analysis. According to Strahler (1952), streams con­
features and parameters (Biswas et al., 2014). Thus, all the sisting of no tributaries or no branch at up-streams are identified as the
hydro-geomorphometric parameters which encompass the linear, areal first-order stream. Similarly, when two first order stream meets, it is
and relief aspects of a basin were computed or extracted from the SRTM called second order stream and so on. The highest order stream is the
DEM using the spatial analysis tool of ArcGIS following well-defined main channel where streams of all lower orders ultimately merge.

Fig. 2. Flowchart for the methodology of geomorphometric analysis.

3
B. Anya and C. Bhuiyan Environmental Challenges 15 (2024) 100890

Fig. 3. Sub-basins of Subansiri River with stream orders.

However, the intersection of two streams of different orders, will not indicate little or no structural control on the drainage pattern (Strahler,
result in an increase in order but will retain the order of the highest 1957). Bifurcation ratio less than 5 indicates that: (i) the drainage basin
ordered stream. is underlain by rocks of uniform resistance; (ii) branching of the streams
is systematic with large number of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd order streams
3.3.1.2. Stream number (Nu). The total count of stream segments under (Chandrashekar et al., 2015); and (iii) there is control of geological
each stream order constitutes stream number (Nu) for that stream order. structures and tectonics on drainage pattern in the basin (Strahler, 1964;
As per Horton’s Law (Horton, 1945), when stream number taken in Nag, 1998).
logarithmic scale is plotted in the abscissa (Y-axis) against stream order
taken in arithmetic scale in the ordinate (X-axis) it gives a negative 3.3.1.6. Hydrological storage coefficient (Rho). The hydrological storage
linear pattern i.e., as stream order increases, the stream number de­ coefficient is a parameter used to understand the ability and capacity of
creases. The Nu is automatically extracted using ArcGIS software. an aquifer or the geological formation to store or release water. It rep­
Analysis of stream numbers against stream orders and their variations resents storage capacity of the drainage network during a rainfall event
provide information about the hydrological nature and behaviour of the (Soni, 2017). Rho is the ratio of stream length and bifurcation ratio and is
drainage basin. influenced by hydrogeology, geomorphology, and physiography of a
drainage basin (Horton, 1945). It is a dimensionless number that varies
3.3.1.3. Stream length (Lu). Stream length indicates development of between 0 and 1, where 0 indicates little water-storage capacity and 1
successive stages of stream segment. According to Hortons law of stream indicates very high water-storage capacity of a geological formation.
length, a geometric relationship exists between the average stream
length and stream order. This relationship is called stream length ratio. 3.3.2. Areal aspects of morphometry
Studies suggest that mountain-plain front basins have higher stream Areal aspects of morphometry provide vital clue about basin geom­
length than that of plateau-plain front river basins (Vittala et al., 2004; etry that are primarily governed by area, length, and perimeter of the
Sreedevi et al., 2005). Stream length decreases with gradual increase in basin. Basin length is the longest straightline length of the basin from the
the stream order. Any irregularity in this relation indicates morpho­ catchment boundary to the point of confluence (Gregory and Walling,
logical and geological control of river basin (Mahala, 2019). 1973). The areal aspects used in this study include drainage density,
stream frequency, drainage intensity constant of channel maintenance,
3.3.1.4. Mean stream length (Lum) and Stream length ratio (Rl). The Lum is infiltration number, length of overland flow, draiange texture, form
a dimensional parameter that reveals the characteristic property of the factor, elongation ratio, and circularity ratio.
drainage network of the basin (Strahler, 1964). Mean stream length is
calculated by dividing the total stream length of an order to the total 3.3.2.7. Drainage density (Dd). Draiange density is the cumulative
number of stream network of the same order. On the other hand, Rl is the length of channels within a drainage basin (Strahler, 1964). It is an
ratio of the total stream length of a particular order to that of the next important parameter of a basin as it provides a measure of topographic
lower order. A gradual increase in the Rl value from a lower order to a control on the flow of water. The Dd values of large and small basins
higher order indicates the mature geomorphic stage of a basin. cannot be compared directly as Dd changes with drainage area (Horton,
1945). Dd also has direct relationship with infitration capacity (Horton,
3.3.1.5. Bifurcation ratio (Rb). It is the ratio of stream number of a given 1945; Melton, 1965), vegetation cover (Chorley et al., 1957a,b),
stream order to that of the next higher stream order. High Rb value permeability (Strahler, 1956; Zavoianu, 1985), rock resistivity
indicate strong geological control on the basin and small Rb values (Zavoianu, 1985; Gardiner, 1996), and geomorphology. The higher

4
B. Anya and C. Bhuiyan Environmental Challenges 15 (2024) 100890

Table 1 using 1 km2 grid size. Using ‘natural break’, the Dd values were classified
Morphometric parameters of a river basin. into five classes viz. Class 1 (very low), Class 2 (low), Class 3 (moderate),
Morphometry Parameter Formulae References Class 4 (high) and Class 5 (very high).
Linear Stream order (u) Hierarchical rank Strahler
Aspects (1952) 3.3.2.8. Stream frequency (Fs). Stream frequency is the ratio of the total
Stream number Nu = Number of streams of a Horton number of stream segments of all orders in a basin and the basin area
(Nu) particular order, u (1945) (Horton, 1945). It refers to the number of streams per unit area. It is also
Stream length Length of the stream Horton
referred as channel frequencu or stream density. Fs of a basin will vary
(Lu) (1932)
Mean stream Average stream length Strahler depending on factors such as the size and shape of the basin, the amount
length (Lum) (1964) and distribution of rainfall, and the geology and topography of the area.
Stream length Rl = Lu / (Lu - 1); Lu is Horton Fs generaly has a positive correlation with drainage density. Lower
ratio (Rl) stream length of order u and (1945) stream frequency indicates presence of permeable subsurface materials
(Lu-1) is stream length of
the next lower order
and low relief (Reddy et al., 2004). Higher Fs causes flash flood and
Bifurcation ratio Rb = Nu / (Nu+1); Nu is the Schumm riverbank erosion while lower Fs reflects high infiltration and low runoff
(Rb) number of streams of any (1956) resulting groundwater recharge.
given order and N (u+1) is
the next higher order
Mean Bifurcation Rbm = Average bifurcation Strahler
3.3.2.9. Draiange texture (Dt) and texture ratio (Tr). Horton (1945)
ratio (Rbm) ratio of all orders (1964) defined drainage texture as the ratio of total number of streams of all
Hydrological Rho = Lu / Rb Horton orders present in a basin to the perimeter of the basin. It gives idea of
Storage (1945) relative channel spacing of the river basin and depends upon a number
Coefficient (Rho)
of factors such as: soil, rock, relief, slope, vegetation cover, evolutionary
Areal Aspects Drainage density Dd = L / A; L is the total Horton
(Dd) stream length and A is the (1945) stage of the river basin etc. (Kale and Gupta, 2001; Magesh et al., 2013).
basin area. Drainage texture bears an inverse relationship with stream frequency i.
Stream FS = N / A; N is the total Horton e., higher stream frequency corresponds to finer drainage texture and
Frequency (Fs) stream number and A is the (1932) vice versa. Smith (1950) classified drainage density values into five
basin area.
Drainage Texture Dt = N / P; N is the total Horton
classes to refer drainage texture as: very coarse (< 2), coarse (2–4),
(Dt) stream number and P is the (1945) moderate (4–6), fine (6–8), and very fine (>8). In this study, Dt values of
basin perimeter. the Subansiri River basin were classified using ‘natural break’ into five
Drainage D i = Fs / D d Faniran ranges. Texture ratio is a similar parameter proposed by Schumn (1956)
Intensity (Di) (1968)
which is the ratio of total number of first order streams to the basin
Length of Lg = ½ * Dd Horton
overland flow (1945) perimeter.
(Lg)
Constant of C = 1/Dd Schumm 3.3.2.10. Drainage intensity (Di). Drainage intensity of a basin is the
channel (1956)
ratio of stream frequency to its drainage density. Thus, Di has been
maintenance (C)
Texture ratio T = N1/P; N1 is total stream Schumm computed here spatially by dividing the thematic layer of stream fre­
length for 1st order. (1956) quency with that of the drainage density. Similar to drainage density and
Form factor (Ff) Ff = A /Lb2; Lb is the basin Horton stream frequency, low values of drainage density correspond to slow and
length (1932) steady runoff causing soil erosion (Bharat et al., 2021). Thus high Di
Circulatory ratio Rc =(4π*A)/P^2; P is the Miller
values reflect low infiltration of rainwater and high overland flow.
(Rc) basin perimeter (1953)
Elongation ratio Re = Dc/Lb Schumm
(Re) (1956) 3.3.2.11. Length of overland flow (lO). Length of overland flow is the
Compactness Cc = P/ (2√Aπ) Gravelius average distance the water travels over the ground before it merges to
coefficient (Cc) (1914)
the main stream channel (Horton, 1945). It is computed as the half of the
Lemniscate ratio k = L2b / 4*A; where, Lb is Chorley et al.
(k) the basin length and A is the (1957) inverse of drainage density. With smaller lO, the surface runoff generated
area of the basin will take shorer travel time to reach the main stream channel and vece
Infiltration Ig = Dd * Fs Faniran versa. Thus, chances of flash flood occurrence is higher in the basins
number (Ig) (1968)
with smaller lO.
Relief Aspects Relative relief (R) R = H-h; h and H are the Schumm
minimum and maximum (1956)
heights, respectively. 3.3.2.12. Constant of channel maintenance (C). The constant of channel
Relief ratio (Rr) Rr = R/Lb Schumm maintenance represents the drainage area required to maintain one unit
(1963)
of channel length. Hence, it is a measure of erodibility of the basin. It is
Dissection index Dis = R/H; H is max. height Singh and
(Dis) and R is relative relief. Dubey measured as the reciprocal of drainage density (Schumm, 1956). Thus,
(1994) with increase in drainage density, the C value of a basin decreases and
Ruggedness Rn = Dd * R / 1000 Schumm vice versa. Low value of C indicates high structural disturbances, low
number (Rn) (1956) permeability, steep to very steep slopes and high surface runoff.
Melton’s MRn = R / √2 Melton
Ruggedness (1957)
number (MRn) 3.3.2.13. Form factor (Ff). Form factor is the ratio of the basin area to
Slope and Aspect the square of the basin length (Horton, 1932). Form factor is small in
case of elongated basins and is big for circular basins. Again, norrow and
deep stream channels exhibit low form factor whereas shallow and wide
drainage density classes are likely to have high rainfall intensity, run-off,
channels possess high form factor. Basins with high Ff (circular or
low infiltration capacity, and low vegetation cover. Conversely, low Dd
spreaded basin) have high peak flow for shorter duration and basins
indicates high permeability, low surface run-off, dense vegetation cover
with small Ff (elongated basin) have lower peak flow for longer duration
and low erosional potential of the basin area. Dd in the Subansiri Basin
(Chopra et al., 2005).
and its sub-basins was computed through IDW interpolation method

5
B. Anya and C. Bhuiyan Environmental Challenges 15 (2024) 100890

3.3.2.14. Circularity ratio (Rc). Circularity ratio is defined as the ratio of In ArcGIS, computation and mapping of TWI involves preprocessing
basin area to the area of a circle with same perimeter (Miller, 1953). The of the DEM, which includes filling sinks and smoothing the terrain fol­
values of Rc vary between 0 and 1. The high, moderate, low values of Rc lowed by calculation of the slope angle and the contributing area (flow
are indicative of the young, mature, and old phases of the life cycle of the accumulation) using the Spatial Analyst toolbox. Slope values were
basin (Rafiq et al., 2013). The low Rc refers to little structural distur­ converted into radians and tangent of the slope was determined. Finally,
bances and the high Rc indicates presence of strong structural control on using the raster calculator, the TWI was computed using the formula
the basin (Vittala et al., 2004). mentioned above.

3.3.2.15. Elongation ratio (Re). Elongation ratio is defined as the ratio 3.3.3. Relief aspect of morphometry
of the diameter of a circle whose area is equal to that of the basin, to the Relief aspects of morphometry are important in understanding the
basin length (Schumm, 1956). The value of elongation ratio various denudational characteristics and structural complexity of a basin (Jas­
from 0 to 1 where, 0 refers to highly elongated shape basin and 1 refer to min and Mallikarjuna, 2013). Four relief parameters viz. relative relief,
a circular shaped basin. The high value of Re (circular basin) has het­ relief ratio, dissection index, and reggedness number are widely used in
erogeneous lithology and flat land with low relief and low slope, morphometric analysis. Relief parameters are primarily governed by the
whereas, the low value of Re (elongated basin) correspons to homoge­ spatial variation in elevation.
neous lithology, high relief and steep slope. An elongated basin with
high relief generates high surface runoff and sediment load, and is more 3.3.3.20. Relative relief (R). The difference between maximum and
vulnerable to soil erosion compared to a circular basin (Singh and Singh, minimum relief of the basin is known as relative relief (Hadley and
1997). Conversely, low-relief basins correspond to low runoff and Schumm, 1961). It depends on the topography, geology, and geo­
therefore, to higher infitration capacity (Reddy et al., 2004). morphology of the basin. Basin relief influences riverbank erosion and
sediment transport. With the increase in relative relief, chances of
3.3.2.16. Compactness coefficient (Cc). Compactness coefficient is erosion of the riverbanks increase.
defined as the ratio of the basin perimeter to the circumference of
equivalent circular area (Gravelius, 1914). It quantifies the circularity of 3.3.3.21. Relief ratio (Rr). Relief ratio is the ratio of total basin relief to
a basin shape. If Cc = 1, then the basin is perfectly circular, whereas if Cc the basin length (Schumm, 1954). It increases with the decrease in
> 1 then the shape of the basin deviates from circularity. The Cc is in­ drainage basin area (Gottschalk, 1964). It measures the gradient of the
dependent of size of watershed and dependent only on the slope (Hor­ drainage basin and influences the intensity of soil erosional process.
ton, 1945). A circular basin is at higher risk of flash flood since the peak Chance and rate of soil erosion increases with the increase of relief ratio.
flow will occur in the shortest time due to convergence of runoff (Javed
et al., 2009). 3.3.3.22. Dissection index (Dis). Dissection index is the ratio between
relative relief to the absolute relief. It determines vertical erosion and
3.3.2.17. Lemniscate ratio (k). The Leminscate ratio indicates gradient dissection characteristics of a drainage basin (Haghipour and Burg,
of a drainage basin and the extent to which the shape of a basin ap­ 2014). It also determines the stage of erosion cycle i.e., old, mature, and
proaches circularity. If k is 1, then loop of the basin is circular (Chorley young stages of a basin. The value of Dis ranges between ‘0′ (absence of
et al., 1957). Higher is the value of k, more eliptical and elongated is the vertical dissection) to ‘1′ (vertical areas). Dis values near to ‘0′ and near
basin. Circular basins are more prone to flood hazards than elongated ‘1′ indicate respectively, the maximum and the minimum denudation
basins due to the shorter time of stages of geomorphic evolution. Low Dis values indicate mature stage of
a basin having low propability of erosion, while higher Dis values indi­
3.3.2.18. Infiltration number (Ig). Infiltration number is the product of cate the youth stage with greater degree of erosion and incision.
drainage density and stream frequency (Faniran, 1968) and defines the Mountain basins are associated with higher Dis values in comparison to
infiltration capacity of a draibage basin. Higher the Ig, the lower is its river basins of the plateaues and plains (Waikar and Nilawar, 2014).
infiltration capacity and so higher is the runoff (Faniran, 1968; Das and Thus, a region with high relative relief and high dissection index most
Mukherjee 2005; Joji et al., 2013; Elewa et al., 2016). Ig depends on likely has greater risk of soil erosion.
factors such as soil, rock, vegetation cover, relief, slope etc. In this study,
Ig is categorized into five classes viz. very low (vl), low (l), moderate (m), 3.3.3.23. Ruggedness number (Rn). Ruggedness number indicates the
high (h), and very high (vh). surface uneveness of the terrain and is the product of relative relief and
drainage density (Strahler, 1964). It is governed by soil, geology, geo­
3.3.2.19. Topographic wetness index (TWI). The Topographic wetness morphology, vegetation cover, slope, climate etc. As per Strahler’s
index demarcates the areas of water accumulation within a basin (Beven observation (Strahler, 1956), Rn increases with the inctrease in drainage
and Kirkby, 1979). TWI quantifies the topographical control on the density and relative relief of the drainage basin. High Rn values indicate
hydrological process in the drainage basin area (Sørensen et al., 2006). It steeper slope and is common in mountanious regions of tropical climate
also signifies the soil moisture content and the spatial distribution of with high rainfall intensity (Schumn, 1956). Thus, high Rn values are
water availability in an area (Raduła et al., 2018). Higher TWI values associated with soil erosion zones (Babu et al., 2016).
refer high water logging potential and vice versa. Flatland areas are
associated with higher TWI values whereas areas with steeper slope 3.3.3.24. Melton’s Ruggedness Number (MRn). The Melton’s Ruggedness
have lower TWI values. Number is a specialised slope index which provides a detail under­
TWI is derived from a DEM and is based on accumulation of water in standing of the terrain-ruggedness within the basin or watershed
the low-lying areas. In the ArcGIS Pro software, the TWI is computed (Melton, 1965). It is defined as the ratio of relative relief and the square
using the formula as: root of the basin area. Similar to ruggedness number, the values of MRn
( ) also increases with steeper slope and higher relief, and reflects the hy­
A
TWI = ln drological response and potential of a basin due to the spatial variation
tan(β)
in relief and slope. A basin or watershed with higher values of Melton’s
Ruggedness Number will experience high surface sunoff, quick discharge,
where, A is the upslope contributing area of the landscape draining into
and greater amount of soil erosion.
a particular point, and β is the slope gradient (degree). Both A and β are
calculated from the DEM.

6
B. Anya and C. Bhuiyan Environmental Challenges 15 (2024) 100890

3.3.3.25. Slope and aspect. Slope is defined as the rate of change in 4.1.1. Stream order (U)
elevation, and is measured as the angular inclination between hill top Following the method of stream ordering proposed by Strahler, up to
and valley bottom of the terrain. Slope is governed by relief, landform, 7th order streams could be identified in the Subansiri River basin.
geogolgical structure, vegetation cover etc. Slope is an important Among its sub-basins, Chayul and Upper Subansiri host up to 6th order
parameter in morphometric analysis. Slope and Aspect influence surface streams, whereas the 7th order stream is confined only in Lower Sub­
runoff in terms of speed, amount, and direction. Steeper slope causes ansiri sub-basin (Fig. 2; Table 4). Cumulative discharge increases
rapid runoff, higher soil erosion, and low infiltration, whereas gentle gradually in higher order streams. Obviously, discharge of Lower Sub­
slope promotes infiltration and groundwater recharge. ansiri is expected to be higher than the discharge in the Chayul Chu and
Upper Subansiri sub-basins.
3.3.3.26. Hypometric analysis. Hypsometry is the graphical represen­
tation that shows the proportion of area with respect to elevation for a 4.1.2. Stream number (Nu)
specific terrain, where the abscessia represents relative area and the The total stream number of Subansiri Basin is 10,008 of which 7844
ordinate represents relative height of the terrain. Analysis of Hypso­ (78.38 %) belongs to the 1st order, 1686 (16.85 %) in the 2nd order, 374
metric curve and hypsometric integral (HI) not only gives the idea about (3.74 %) in the 3rd order, 81 (0.81 %) in the 4th order, 18 (0.18 %) in
different erosional stage but it also provides vrucial information about the 5th order, 4 (0.04 %) in the 6th order and only 1 (0.01 %) in the 7th
the lithological, tectonic, and climatic influences on the concerned area order of streams (Table 4). Compared to Chayul Chu and Upper Sub­
(Moglen et al., 1998; Willgoose and Hancock, 1998). HI was categorized ansiri, number of streams is found to be consistently two-times higher in
into three classes by Strahler (1952) based on their shape as follows: the Lower Subansiri sub-basin (Fig. 4). High Nu indicates high erosion
Class-1 (HI: > 0.5) represents convex shape indiacting youth stage of characteristics and occurrence of young topography (Mahala, 2019).
basin development, Class-2 (HI: 0.4–0.5) represents a concaveo-convex
equilibrium shape (S-shaped) indicating an intermediate stage, and 4.1.3. Stream length (Lu)
Class-3 (< 0.4) with a cancave shape indicating the old stage of the Stream order wise, a very strong association is found between stream
basin. length and stream number reflecting a cumulative effect of stream
number on stream length. Results show that Lu has gradually decreased
4. Results with increase in the stream order both in Subansiri and its sub-basins
more-or-less consistently (Tables 3 and 5). The only exception in this
Analysis and comparison have shown wide ranges of variations in regard is observed in the Upper Subansiri where Lu increased in the 6th
different morphometric parameters among the sub-basins as is discussed order compared to that in the 5th order (Table 5). The variation of
in the following subheadings. Basin parameters of Subansiri and its sub- stream length versus stream order in the Lower Subansiri sub-basin
basins are presented in Table 2, and the anomalous values are shown in mimics that of the whole Subansiri Basin but is different in the two
bold letters. Most remarkable difference is found in the minimum other sub-basins. Significant large difference is noticed in the stream
elevation level. While the minimum elevation in Chayul Chu sub-basin is length of lower order and higher order streams of Lower Subansiri.
as high as 2260 m above the msl, it is about 10 times lower in the Upper However, this difference is comparatively small in the cases of Chayul
Subansiri, and about 31 times lower in the Lower Subansiri (Table 2). Chu and Upper Subansiri (Fig. 5). It is interesting to note that the Lu in
Such drastic variation in elevation has definite effect on the hydrology of the Chayul Chu is greater than that of the Upper Subansiri.
the sub-basins. Both inter-basin as well as intra-basin spatial variations
and differences are found in several morphometric parameters. Analysis 4.1.4. Mean stream length (Lum) and Stream length ratio (Rl)
of the results reveal the influence of these morphometric parameters on In this study, the Lum values are found to vary from 1.49 to 171.87
the hydrology and water resources potential of the Subansiri Basin and among the three sub-basins of Subansiri (Table 6). This variation in Lum
its sub-basins. The hydrological significance of the spatial variations of values is caused due to change in topography and slope (Strahler, 1964).
the parameters are discussed here in detail. This is interesting to note that while stream length decreases with
gradual increase in the stream order, the mean stream length gradually
4.1. Linear aspects increases with the stream order (Figs. 5 and 6). When mean stream
length is plotted against stream order, graphs for the sub-basins are
The most common linear morphometric parameters of Subansiri found to be different from that of the whole basin. While for the Sub­
Basin and its sub-basins are listed in Table 3 and are described below. ansiri Basin, Lum against stream order yielded an S-shaped curve, a
Significant variations could be found for certain linear morphometric persistent rising trend in the Lum against stream order is evident in cases
parameters on inter-basin comparison. of the three individual sub-basins (Fig. 5). Again, the stream length (Lu)
of the 6th order streams was more-or-less same for the three sub-basins,
but mean stream length (Lum) of the intermediate sub-basin (Upper
Subansiri) is found to be greater than both the upstream (Chayul Chu)
Table 2
and downstream (Lower Subansiri) sub-basins.
Basin parameters. Significant variations are also noticed in the stream length ratio for
different orders of streams in the sub-basins of Subansiri indicating
Basin and Basin area Basin Basin Max Min
sub-basin (km2), A perimeter length elevation elevation
differences in their hydrological response. Rl is found very low for the
(km), P (km), Lb (m) (m) 5th order of streams and very high for the 6th order of streams in the
Upper Subansiri sub-basin (Table 7).
Subansiri 35,918.86 1517.48 569.67 7018 73
basin
(Total) 4.1.5. Bifurcation ratio (Rb)
Chayul Chu 9503.25 722.53 210.55 7018 2260 Difference and variations could be noticed in the computation and
sub-basin analysis of the bifurcation ratio of different sub-basins of Subansiri as
Upper 7580.91 663.09 187.21 5769 249
Subansiri
well as for different stream orders within the same sub-basin. In the
sub-basin Upper Subansiri sub-basin, sudden increase in the Rb for the 4th order
Lower 18,834.7 1065.2 171.91 6768 73 streams followed by sudden decrease in Rb for the 5th order streams
Subansiri indicate a control of geological structures in the 6th order streams and
sub-basin
little geological control on drainage in stream order 5th (Table 8).

7
B. Anya and C. Bhuiyan Environmental Challenges 15 (2024) 100890

Table 3
Linear morphometric parameters of the Subansiri Basin.
Sl. No Parameters of Linear Aspects Stream order (U)

1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th

1 Stream number (Nu) 7844 1686 374 81 18 4 1

2 Stream length (Lu) in km 11,652.20 5536.98 2890.83 1196.95 748.90 587.85 171.87
3 Mean stream length (Lum) in km 1.49 3.284 7.73 14.78 41.61 146.96 171.87
4 Stream length ratio (Rl) – 0.48 0.52 0.41 0.63 0.79 0.29
5 Bifurcation ratio (Rb) 4.65 4.51 4.62 4.5 4.5 4 –
6 Mean bifurcation ratio (Rbm) 4.46
7 Hydrologic Storage Coefficient (Rho) – 0.11 0.11 0.09 0.14 0.20 0.29

4.2. Areal aspects

Table 4
Stream number in different sub-basins of Subansiri Basin.
Results have indicated inter-basin difference in areal morphometric
Sub-basin Stream Order and Stream Number parameters. Intra-basin spatial variations are also noticed for several
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th parameters through grid-based analysis and comparison, as discussed
Chayul Chu 1971 414 93 20 5 1 – here. These variations are crucial in governing the hydrology and in
Upper Subansiri 1645 356 78 18 2 1 – defining the hydrological characteristics of the sub-basins of Subansiri.
Lower Subansiri 4228 916 203 43 11 4 1
4.2.1. Drainage density (Dd)
Contradictory results have been found when drainage density is
4.1.6. Hydrological storage coefficient (Rho)
computed and compared sub-basin wise and grid wise. When computed
Hydrological storage coefficient values of the Subnsiri Basin are
basin wise (i.e., cumulative length of all streams divided by the basin
found to vary between 0.09 to 0.29 with the mean value 0.16 for
area), then Dd appeared very low and in fractions for the Subansiri Basin
different orders of basins or watersheds. However, the Rho values in
and its three sub-basins (Table 9). However, grid-based computation
different stream orders do not follow any pattern (Table 3). The Rho
through interpolation has revealed high Dd in the lower plains of the
values lower than 0.5 indicate low hydrological storage coefficient as is
Lower Subansiri sub-basin (Fig. 7). This reflects high overland flow and
the case of Subnsiri Basin. As a consequence, the entire Subansiri Basin is
cumulative discharge in the lower part of the Lower Subansiri.
susceptibile to soil erosion and flooding.
4.2.2. Stream frequency (Fs)
When computed basin wise, the Fs values in all the sub-basins of

Fig. 4. Variation of stream number (Nu) against stream order in the Subansiri Basin (inset) and in its sub-basins.

Table 5
Stream length of different sub-basin of Subansiri Basin.
Sub-basin Stream Order and Stream Length (Lu) in km

1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th

Chayul Chu 2987.31 1399.69 671.98 235.81 229.39 130.35 –

Upper Subansiri 2300.03 1095.67 638.17 220.62 56.93 187.21 –
Lower Subansiri 6364.86 3041.62 1580.69 740.53 462.58 270.29 171.87

8
B. Anya and C. Bhuiyan Environmental Challenges 15 (2024) 100890

Fig. 5. Variation of stream length (Lu) against stream order in the Subansiri Basin (inset) and in its sub-basins.

4.2.3. Draiange texture (Dt) and texture ratio (Tr)

Table 6
Drainage texture in the Subansiri Basin and its sub-basins is found to
Mean stream length (km) of different sub-basin of Subansiri.
be different when computed basin wise and grid wise. When computed
Name of Sub- Stream Order and Mean stream length (km) basin wise, hihger but similar Dt and Rt values are obtained for Subansiri
basin
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th and its sub-basins (Table 9). While the Dt values of Chayul Chu (3.47)
Chayul shu 1.52 3.38 7.23 11.79 45.88 130.35 – and Upper Subansiri (3.17) indicate ‘coarse’ drainage texture, it is
Upper Subansiri 1.40 3.08 8.18 12.26 28.46 187.21 – comparatively higher in case of Lower Subansiri (5.08) refering ‘mod­
Lower Subansiri 1.51 3.32 7.79 17.22 42.05 67.57 171.87 erate’ drainage texture. Interestingly, with a value of 6.6, drainage
texture of the entire Subansiri Basin fals under ‘fine’ category as par the
Subansiri River are found to be low (Table 9). Further, Fs was computed
through GIS-based interpolation using 1 km2 grid size, and was classified
Table 7
into five ranges. Values of the Fs are found to be relatively higher in the
Strem length ratio of different sub-basin of Subansiri.
lower plains of Lower Subansiri sub-basin although there is not much
Name of Sub-basin Stream Length Ratio (Rl)
spatial variation or difference in the three sub-basins (Fig. 8). This is
contrary to the general trend of good resemblance and coordination 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th
between drainage density and stream frequency of a basin. Chayul Chu – 0.47 0.48 0.35 0.97 0.57 –
Upper Subansiri – 0.48 0.58 0.35 0.26 3.29 –
Lower Subansiri – 0.48 0.52 0.47 0.63 0.58 0.64

Fig. 6. Variation of mean stream length (Lum) against stream order in the Subansiri Basin (inset) and in its sub-basins.

9
B. Anya and C. Bhuiyan Environmental Challenges 15 (2024) 100890

Table 8
. Bifurcation ratio of different sub-basin of Subansiri.
Name of Sub-basin Stream Order and Bifurcation Ratio (Rb) Mean Bifurcation Ratio (Rbm)

1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th

Chayul Chu 4.76 4.45 4.65 4 5 – – 4.57

Upper Subansiri 4.62 4.56 4.33 9 2 – – 4.90
Lower Subansiri 4.62 4.51 3.91 2.75 4 – – 4.09

4.2.4. Drainage intensity (Di)

Table 9
Drainage intensity of a basin is the ratio of stream frequency to its
Areal apects of morphometric parameters in Subansiri and its sub-basins.
drainage density. When computed basin wise, drainage intensity is
Sl Parameters Subansiri Chayul Upper Lower found to be low for all three sub-basins of the Subansiri River and vary
no. Basin Chu Subansiri Subansiri
within a close range of 0.43 to 0.47 (Table 9). This indicates that the
1 Draianage density 0.63 0.60 0.59 0.67 total number of streams in the basin or sub-basins are relatively lesser
2 Stream frequency 0.28 0.26 0.28 0.29
compared to their cumulative length. This indicates that the streams in
3 Drainage texture 6.60 3.47 3.17 5.08
4 Texture ratio 5.17 2.73 2.48 3.97
the Subansiri Basin are longer in dimension but lesser in number. Similar
5 Drainage intensity 0.44 0.44 0.47 0.43 to draiage density and stream frequency, high values of drainage in­
6 Length of overland 0.79 0.84 0.84 0.75 tensity indicate high surface runoff and low infiltration of rainwater.
flow
7 Constant of 1.58 1.68 1.69 1.49
4.2.5. Length of overland flow (lO)
channel
maintenance As already mentioned, length of overland flow is the half of the in­
8 Form Factor 0.11 0.21 0.22 0.64 verse of drainage density, and indicates the average distance among the
9 Circularity ratio 0.20 0.23 0.22 0.20 drainage channels. In the sub-basins of Subansiri, the values of lO various
10 Elongation ratio 0.38 0.52 0.53 0.90 between 0.75 km and 0.84 km reflecting moderately rapid discharge
11 Compactness 2.26 2.09 2.15 2.19
coefficient
(Table 9). In a relative scale, the Lower Subansiri with shorter length of
12 Lemniscate’s 9.04 4.66 4.62 1.57 overland flow, is prone to flash flood as the lag time will be shorter, and
constant since the surface runoff from rainfall will reach the stream channel
13 Infiltration 0.18 0.16 0.16 0.19 quickly. Besides, lO has a definite control over the lag time as the mean
Number
velocity of the unconcentrated overland flow is less than concentrated
channel flow (Chorley 1969). Thus, with smaller length of overland
classification of Smith. However, on grid-based computetion through chances of occurrence of flash flood is high on the days of intense rain
GIS interpolation it is found to be ‘very coarse’ as par the classification of due to the reduced possibility of water infiltration into the soil (Ols­
Smith. The classified thematic layer further revealed relatively finer zevski et al., 2011).
drainage texture in the lower plains of the Lower Subansiri (Fig. 9).
Similar to drainage texture, the value of texture ratio is also found to be 4.2.6. Constant of channel maintenance (C)
higher in case of Lower Subansiri (3.97) compared to Chayul (2.73) and The C value for the entire Subansiri Basin is found to be 1.58 km2/
Upper Subansiri (2.48). The texture ratio of the entire Subansiri Basin is km, while that for its sub-basins vary between 1.49 to 1.69 km2/km
however, much higher (5.17) than its sub-basins. (Table 9). The higher C values (> 0.5) for all three sub-basins of Sub­
ansiri reflect permeable rock types, higher infiltration, and dense
vegetation cover. A lower C value indicates higher drainage density,

Fig. 7. Spatial variation of driange density in the Subansiri Basin.

10
B. Anya and C. Bhuiyan Environmental Challenges 15 (2024) 100890

Fig. 8. Stream frequency variation in the Subansiri Basin.

Fig. 9. Spatial variation of driange texture in the Subansiri Basin.

higher runoff, and higher erodibility in the Lower Subansiri compared to experience frequent high peak flow for shorter duration and is vulner­
the other two sub-basins. The higher C values of Chayul (1.68) and able to flash flood.
Upper Subansiri (1.69) indicate that the channel capacity of these two
sub-basins is larger than that of Lower Subansi (C = 1.49) to carry higher 4.2.8. Circularity ratio (Rc)
discharge from larger drainage area. The Rc values close to 1 indicate the dendritic stage of a watershed
owing to the diverse slope and relief pattern of the basin. Generally, all
4.2.7. Form factor (Ff) basins have a tendency to become elongated with time as they approach
Variation could be noticed in the values of the form factor of the the mature stage, and the Rc value also decreases gradually. The Rc
three sub-basins of the Subansiri. The Ff of the Subansiri Basin is found to values in the sub-basins of Subansiri River vary between 0.20 and 0.23
be as small as 0.11, while Ff of its three sub-basins are 0.21 for Chayul (Table 9) indicating mature topography of the basin. The low Rc values
Chu, 0.22 for Upper Subansiri and 0.64 for Lower Subansiri (Table 9). for the sub-basins of Subansiri are indicative of structural control and
Compared to the whole of Subansiri or its two sub-basins – Chayul Chu mature stage of development.
and Upper Subansiri, form factor value of Lower Subansiri is much
higher. This is due to presence of deep and narrow channels in Chayul 4.2.9. Elongation ratio (Re)
Chu, enlongated shape of the Upper Subansiri and wide basin area of the The value of Re varies from 0 (in highly elongated shape) to unity i.e.
Lower Subansiri sub-basins. Hence, Lower Subansiri Basin will 1.0 (in the circular shape). Thus, higher to 1.0 are typical of regions of

11
B. Anya and C. Bhuiyan Environmental Challenges 15 (2024) 100890

very low relief, whereas that of 0.6 to 0.8 are usually associated with values vary within 3.55, the values are much higher in the lower part of
high relief and steep ground slope. The elongation ratio of the Subansiri Lower Subansiri, and it is as high as 49.55 (Fig. 10). Since, high infil­
River basin is found to be 0.38 endorsing its elongated shape. Among the tration number corresponds to low infiltration capacity of the ground,
sub-basins, Re value is 0.52 and 0.53 for Chayul Chu and Upper Sub­ the lower part of the Lower Subansiri is expected to have low ground­
ansiri, respectively indicating an eliptical shape, whereas Re value of water recharge and high surface runoff compared to the rest parts of the
0.90 for the Lower Subansiri is indicative of its near circular shape. basin.
Therefore, with the very high value of elongation ratio, the Lower
Subansiri has high infiltration capacity and low runoff, whereas with the 4.2.13. Topographic wetness index (TWI)
lower Re values, the Chayul Chu and Upper Subansiri are characterized Higher TWI values refer high water logging potential and vice versa.
by high susceptibility to erosion and sediment load (Reddy et al., 2004). Flatland areas are associated with higher TWI values whereas areas with
steeper slope have lower TWI values. Distinct and significant spatial
4.2.10. Compactness coefficient (Cc) variations could be noticed in the TWI. In most parts of the Subansiri
The compactness coefficient also provides a measure of the shape of a Basin, the TWI is found to vary in the range of 0.74 and 7.34. On the
basin. Little variation is found in the Cc values in this study. The Cc contrary, in the lower plain of the Lower Subansiri, the TWI is not only
values of the Subansiri and its sub-basins are found to vary between 2.09 highr than this range but also as high as 27.9 (Fig. 11).
and 2.26 (Table 9), indicating their elongated shape. This will result into
longer duration of flow accumulation before attaining the peak flow
(Memon et al., 2020). Therefore, chances of flash flood in the sub-basins 4.3. Relief aspect of morphometry
of Subansiri is less according to the compactness coefficient values.
Relief parameters are primarily governed by the spatial variation in
4.2.11. Lemniscate constant (k) elevation, which is significantly high in the Subansiri Basin (Table 9).
Remarkable differences could be noticed in the values of the Lem­ However, GIS interpolation and grid-based analysis has revealed sig­
niscate’s constant for the Subansiri Basin and its sub-basins. The high k nificant spatial variations in certain parameters (Fig. 12).
value of 9.04, indicates that the Subansiri Basin has a highly elongated
shape. Again, the k values 4.66 for Chayul Chu and 4.62 for Upper 4.3.1. Relative relief (R)
Subasiri indicate their eliptical shape, while a much lower value 1.57 The relative relief of the Subansiri basin is found to be 6945 m from
suggests a near circular shape for Lower Subansiri sub-basin (Table 9). In MSL, with the minimum and maximum values of 73 m and 7018 m,
a near circular basin, surface runoff from the frienge of the basin con­ respectively (Table 10 and Fig. 13). Relative relief is found to vary
verges to the basin outlet very quickly. Thus, Lower Subansiri seems remarkably in different parts of the three sub-basins of Subansiri with
more vulnerable to flash flood and soil erosion due to short lag time. On very low values in the lower portion of the Lower Subamsiri (Fig. 13).
the contrary, the other two sub-basins of Subansiri are less prone to flash This variation in relative relief is not everywhere gradual but at many
flood. places, abrupt. Such abrupt variations in relative relief definitely have
impact on the hydrology and hydrodynamics of the sub-basins of
4.2.12. Infiltration number (Ig) Subansiri.
Conflicting values opten resulted when Ig is computed basin wise and
grid wise as is reflected in Fig. 10 and Table 9. On basin scale, the Ig 4.3.2. Relief ratio (Rr)
values of Subansiri Basin and its sub-basins are found to be very low and The Rr of the entire Subansiri Basin is 0.01 which increases gradually
varies between 0.16 and 0.19 (Table 9). However, large spatial variation from Chayul (Rr = 0.02) to Upper Subansiri (Rr = 0.03) and Lower
in the Ig values is observed in the sub-basins of Subansiri. In a relative Subansiri (Rr = 0.04) sub-basins (Table 10). Since higher the relief ratio
scale, Ig values are found to be much higher in the lower part of Lower a basin is likely to be more prone to erosion, the Lower Subansiri pos­
Subansiri. While in most of the area of the entire Subansiri Basin, Ig sesses greater risk of soil erosion compared to Chayul and Upper Sub­
ansiri. However, this is only in a relative scale since the Rr values for

Fig. 10. Variation of Infiltration number in the Subansiri Basin.

12
B. Anya and C. Bhuiyan Environmental Challenges 15 (2024) 100890

Fig. 11. Topographic wetness index (TWI) of the Subansiri Basin.

Fig. 12. Elevation variation in the Subansiri River Basin.

Subansiri and its sub-basins are very low and vary within a close range.
Table 10
Relief aspects of different sub-basin of Subansiri basin.
4.3.3. Dissection index (Dis)
Sl. Parametes Subansiri Chayul U. L. Significant difference is noticed in the dissection index values of the
No Chu Subansiri Subansiri
sub-basins of Subansiri. The Dis value of the Chayul is found to be much
1 Minimum Elevation 73 2260 249 73 lower (0.68) than the Upper Subansiri and Lower Subansiri (> 0.90).
2 Maximum Elevation 7018 7018 5769 6768
GIS-based interpolation also revealed large spatial variation in Dis
3 Relative Relief 6945 4758 5520 6695
4 Relief Ratio 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
(Fig. 14). With relatively higher Dis values, the Upper Subansiri and the
5 Discetion Index 0.99 0.68 0.96 0.99 upper part of the Lower Subansiri are associated with greater risk of soil
6 Ruggesdness 4.41 2.83 3.28 4.49 erosion.
Number
7 Melton’s 0.037 0.049 0.063 0.049
4.3.4. Ruggedness number (Rn)
Ruggedness Number
Difference is evident in the basin wide Rn values (Table 10). Large
spatial variations are also noticed in the gridded Rn values. Intereste­
ingly the Rn value is much higher (4.49) in the Lower Subansiri than the
other sub-basins (2.83 and 3.28), but is abruptly very low (≤ 0.14) in its

13
B. Anya and C. Bhuiyan Environmental Challenges 15 (2024) 100890

Fig. 13. Spatial variation of relative relief in the Subansiri Basin.

Fig. 14. Spatial variation of disection index in the Subansiri Basin.

bottommost part of Lower Subansiri (Fig. 15). 4.3.6. Slope and aspect
Large spatial variation in slope is observed in the Subansiri Basin
4.3.5. Melton’s ruggedness number (MRn) (Fig. 16). Steeper slope is observed in the middle part of the Subansiri
The MRn value of the entire Subansiri basin is found to be 0.037. The Basin. Sope is found to be gentle (0◦ to 10◦ ) in the uppermost part of
MRn value for the Upper Subansiri (0.063) is relatively higher compared Chayul and in the lowermost (southern) part of Lower Subansiri sub-
to Chayul (0.048) and Lower Subansiri (0.049) (Table 10), indicating basins composed of alluvium deposites. Overall, more than 40 % area
higher succeptibility of Upper Subansiri to flash flood and soil eroision. of the basin has gentle slope and 33 % area has steep to very steep slope
This is interesting to note that among the three sub-basins of Subansiri, (Table 11). Spatial variation in the of pecent of area under different
the basin-wise value of Rn is highest for Lower Subansiri but the MRn slope classes or ranges in the sub-basins of Subansiri is also evident. Area
value is the lowest for the same sub-basin (Table 10). wise variation in slope is found to be most diverse in the Lower Subansiri
sub-basin as it has maximum area under each slope classes compared to
the other two sub-basins – Chayul Chu and Upper Subansiri (Fig. 17).

14
B. Anya and C. Bhuiyan Environmental Challenges 15 (2024) 100890

Fig. 15. Spatial variation of ruggedness number in the Subansiri.

Fig. 16. Spatial variation of slope in the Subansiri Basin.

Aspect is defined as rate of change in slope. It points the direction to

Table 11
which slope changes. Aspect is an integral part of slope analysis as slope
Slope in degree and its coverage area in the basin.
and aspect together governs the hydro-geomorphology. In a hilly terrain
Slope (degree) Class Area(km2) Area % Explanation such as the Subansiri Basin, aspect generally varies in all possible di­
0–10 0
1 10,622.64 29.61 Nearly level rections between 0◦ and 360◦ (Fig. 18).
100–200 2 3865.87 10.77 Gentle slope
200–350 3 9511.8 26.51 Moderate slope 4.3.7. Hypometric analysis
350–45 4 9805.29 27.33 Steep slope
>450 5 2072.92 5.78 Very steep slope
Fig. 19 confirms that all the three sub-basins of the Subansiri River
falls under Class-2 of Strahler indiacting that the basin is in equilibrium
or in the intermediate stage of basin development. However, in a relative
scale, the Chayul sub-basin with HI value close to 0.5 is not fully in
equilibrium and has higher erosion potential compared to the Upper and

15
B. Anya and C. Bhuiyan Environmental Challenges 15 (2024) 100890

relationship (R2 = 0.75) is found between stream order and stream length,
and a moderately strong inverse relationship between stream order and
stream number (R2 = 0.53). More than 78 % streams of the Subansiri
Basin belong to 1st order, and the number of streams under 2nd to 6th
orders decreases exponentially and consistently. The consistent decrease
in the stream number with gradual increase in the stream order indicates
tectonically active nature of the basin with uneven slope gradient
(Nikhil Raj and Azzez, 2012). Similar relations could be noticed in all
three sub-basins of Subansiri (Table 4). Occurrence of a significantly
large number of 1st order streams reflect presence of impermeable rocks
causing low infiltration and high runoff (Gajbhiye et al., 2014). The
higher total length and the shorter mean length of the 1st order streams
indicate that the 1st order streams are numerous by number but short by
length. Moreover, the 1st order streams are associated with steep slope
which together increases the risk of flash flood due to accumulation of
huge volume of runoff water within a short duration (Saha et al., 2022).
Again, gradual increase in the mean stream length consistently with
Fig. 17. Percentage of area under different slope ranges. successive increment of the stream order as is observed in the Subansiri
Basin and its three sub-basins, indicates progressive rise in the carrying
Lower Subansiri sub-basins. On the other hand, the shape of the HC of capacity of the river in its streams of higher order (Tables 3 and 6). On
the Upper and Lower Subansiri sub-basins are not S-shapped but flat the other hand, high inconsistency in the stream length ratio has been
indicating that the sub-basins are approacing the old stage of basin noticed in Subansiri and its sub-basins (Tables 3 and 7), which reflects
development. large spatial variation in infiltration rate in the basin owing to the
variation in slope and lithology (Asfaw and Workineh, 2019). Among
5. Discussion the linear geomorphometric parameters, bifurcation ratio (Rb) is very
important hydrologically. The Rb in the Subansiri Basin is found to vary
Analysis and thorough examination of the geomorphometric pa­ within a small range of 4 to 4.65 with the highest Rb value for the 1st
rameters are extremely useful in understanding the basin characteristics order streams and the lowest value for the 6th order streams (Table 3).
as well as the hydrological processes in the basin. In the present study, Interestingly, while the Rb values for the different order of streams in the
dendritic drainage pattern is observed in the entire Subansiri Basin Chayul sub-basin vary between 4 and 5, significantly large variation in
reflecting presence of homogeneous impermeable rocks and random the Rb values for the Upper Subansiri is remarcable (9 for the 4th order
variation of slope and aspect. However, despite this apparent homoge­ and 2 for the 5th order streams). Although the variation is not that large
neity in lithology and topography, significant differences could be in case of Lower Subansiri, a fall in the Rb value from 4.62 for 1st order
identified on critical analysis in some of the linear, aereal, and relief streams to 2.75 for the 4th order streams is unmissable (Table 8). Such a
aspects of the geomorphometric parameters. These differences are large variation in the Rb values has strong hydrological sugnificance as
responsible for the variation in hydrological responses of the three sub- high Rb value suggests high overland flow and low infiltration and
basins of Subansiri. The parameters those are responsible in determining vice-versa (Thomas et al., 2010). Moreover, the sudden increase and
the values of other morphometric parameters are basin area, basin sudden decrease of bifurcation ratio consecutively in the 4th and 5th
perimeter, basin length, and basin elevation. These four basic parameters order streams indicates tectonic effect (Nikhil Raj and Azzez, 2012).
also vary remarcably in the sub-basins of Subansiri (Table 2). Very low values (≤ 0.2) of the hydrological storage coefficient (Rho) further
Among the linear geomorphometric parameters, a strong inverse confirms very low water-storage capacity of the sub-basins owing to

Fig. 18. Spatial variation of aspect in the Subansiri Basin.

16
B. Anya and C. Bhuiyan Environmental Challenges 15 (2024) 100890

indicating comparatively smaller infiltration and higher runoff in Lower

Subansiri (Das and Mukherjee, 2005; Elewa et al., 2016). The lower
value of the constant of channel maintenance for Lower Subansiri (1.49)
than those of Chayul (1.68) and Upper Subansiri (1.69) further
strengthens the inference, and the values of the length of overland flow
(0.75 for Lower Subansiri and 0.84 both for Chayul and Upper Subansiri)
confirm this theory (Dikpal et al., 2017; Samal et al., 2015). Overall, the
aerial parameters infer lower infiltration and higher as well as rapid
discharge in the Lower Subansiri sub-basin.
Of the relief aspects, inter-basin difference is noticed for relative re­
lief, dissection index, ruggedness number, and Melton Ruggedness Number.
The first three parameters are found to be much higher for the Lower
Subansiri sub-basin. However, the Melton Ruggedness Number is found to
be high in Upper Subansiri. Again, comparing Figs. 12, 13 and 15, it is
understood that the areas having high values of relative relief posses high
values of dissection index and steep slopes and vice-versa. This indicates a
strong association and inter-dependency among these three parameters.
These factors plays an important role in the flooding and sediment load
by erosion of the channels and riverbanks (Mangan et al., 2019). Thus,
with high values for these parameters, channel erosion and bank erosion
are expected to be high in the middele part of the Subansiri River basin.
Again, with higher number of streams, comparatively larger value of
form factor, the Lower Subansiri sub-basin is expected to experience high
peak flow within shorter duration and is vulnerable to flash flood.
Draiange density as well as stream frequency are found to be much higher
in the lower plains of the Lower Subansiri sub-basin indicating higher
runoff and greater soil erosion. Relatively coarser drainage texture,
smaller values of the constant of channel maintenance, and higher values
of infiltration number also indicate comparatively low infiltration and
high surface runoff in the lower part of the Lower Subansiri sub-basin.
This is to highlight that the lower part of Lower Subansiri sub-basin is
bound by the Main Frontal Thrust (MCT) and is associated with high
values for drainage density, stream frequency, drainage texture, and infil­
tration number that cause high runoff as well as high chance of flash flood
and channel erosion. At the same time, the same region is occupied by
thick alluvial deposits and has low elevation, gentle slope, low relative
relief, small disection index, low ruggedness number, and high topographic
wetness index, which promote rainwater infiltration and impart greater
potential of aquifer recharge.

6. Conclusion

Fig. 19. Hypsometric curve (HC) and Hypsometric Integral (HI) of (A) Chayul
Geomorphometry significantly affects the runoff, infiltration, and
Chu, (B) Upper Subansiri, (C) Lower Subansiri sub-basins.
other hydrological and geomorphological processes of a basin. This
study once again has revealed the importnace and usefulness of the
impermeable rocks. geomorphometric parameters, which provide crucial information about
Among the aerial aspects, inter-basin (sub-basin level) variations are the topographic, lithological, and geomorphological characteristics of a
observed for drainage texture, texture ratio, form factor (Ff), and elongation basin. Besides, the study has pointed out the possibility of different
ratio (Re). The drainage texture of Chayul Chu and Upper Subansiri sub- interpretation of basin topography depending upon the scale of the
basins are found to be coarse whereas, that of Lower subansiri basin is features. For example, no significant variations were found in many of
moderate. The Ff and Re of Chayul Chu (0.21 and 0.52) and Upper the morphometric parameters such as: drainage density, stream frequency,
Subansiri (0.22 and 0.53) correspond to an elongated shape whereas, the infiltration number etc. when computed and compared sub-basin wise,
high value of Ff (0.64) in the Lower Subansiri indicates a circular shape. but large intra-basin and inter-basin variations could be observed when
However, a very high value of the Re (0.90) for the Lower Subansiri computed grid wise.
redefines its shape as eliptical rather than circular. Compactness coeffi­ This study through critical analysis and comparison of the linear,
cient values also indicative of non-circularity of the three sub-basins. An areal, and relief aspects of the morphometric parameters have revealed
elongated basin is generally associated with homogeneous lithology, that despite apparent similaritity in topography, there are significant
whereas a circular basin corresponds to heterogeneous lithology. Thus, differences in some of key morphometric parameters of the three sub-
this difference in basin-shape has definite hydrological significance basins of Subansiri River. The study has inferred that the upper part of
(Saha et al., 2022). Because of the elongated shape, surface runoff in the Upper Subansiri and middle part of Lower Subansiri are highly vulner­
Chayul Chu and Upper Subansiri is expected to be low, while due to the able to flash flood, channel erosion and bank erosion owing to high
circular shape, surface runoff will be high and rapid in the Lower Sub­ relative relief, steep slope, high disection index, and ruggedness. The Lower
ansiri. The Lemniscate Constant values further support this inference. The Subansiri sub-basin as a whole may experience relatively higher runoff
other supporting evidence comes from the infiltration number (Ig). due to having relatively higher drainage density, stream frequency, form
Although Ig is low for all three sub-basins, it is slightly higher (0.19) in factor, higher infiltration number, finer drainage texture, smaller constant
the Lower Subansiri compared to Chayul and Upper Subansiri (0.16) of channel maintenance and smaller length of overland flow. However, due

17
B. Anya and C. Bhuiyan Environmental Challenges 15 (2024) 100890

to the presence of thick pile of alluvium with low elevation, low relative Chirouze, F., Huyghe, P., van der Beekm, P., Chauvel, C., Chakraborty, T., Dupont-
Nivet, G., Bernet, M., 2013. Tectonics, exhumation, and drainage evolution of the
relief, gentle slope, low disection index, small ruggedness number, and high
eastern Himalaya since 13 Ma from detrital geochemistry and thermochronology,
topographic wetness index, the lowermost part of Lower Subansiri have Kameng River Section, Arunachal Pradesh. GSA Bull. 125 (3–4), 523–538. https://
higher groundwater potential compared to the other parts of the Sub­ doi.org/10.1130/B30697.1.
ansiri Basin. The results of this study have significnce in water resources Chopra, R., Dhiman, R.D., Sharma, P.K., 2005. Morphometric analysis of sub-watersheds
in Gurdaspur district, Punjab using remote sensing and GIS techniques. J Indian Soc.
assessment and river-basin management of the Subansiri Basin, and the Rem. Sens. 33 (4), 531–539. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02990738/METRICS.
interpretation and the inferences drawn here will be useful for hydro- Chorley, R.J., Chorley, R.J., 1969. The drainage basin as the fundamental geomorphic
morphometric analysis of other basins worlwide. unit (ed). Introduction to Fluvial Processes. Methuen Co. Ltd, pp. 30–52. London.
Chorley, R.J., Malm, D.E., Pogorzelski, H.A., 1957. A new standard for estimating
drainage basin shape. Am. J Sci. 255 (2), 138–141.
Declaration Das, A.K., Mukherjee, S., 2005. Drainage morphometry using satellite data and GIS in
Raigad district, Maharashtra. J. Geol. Soc. India 65, 577–586.
Dikpal, R.L., Renuka Prasad, T.J., Satish, K., 2017. Evaluation of morphometric
This is being declared that there is no conflict of interest. parameters derived from Cartosat-1 DEM using remote sensing and GIS techniques
Individual Contribution: Boria Anya carried out GIS-based morpho­ for Budigere Amanikere watershed, Dakshina Pinakini Basin, Karnataka, India. Appl.
metric analysis, mapping, and wrote the first draft; Chandrashekhar Water Sci. 7, 4399–4414. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-017-0585-6.
Dutta, A., Gill, G.K.S., Srinivasan, J., 1983. Geology of Subansiri and Kamala Rivers.
Bhuiyan built the concept, supervised the entire study, edited, and has Geol. Surv. India Miscelaaneous Publ. 43, 8–14.
re-written the manuscript to give final shape. Both the authors have Elewa, H.H., Ramadan, E.S.M., Nosair, A.M., 2016. Spatial-based hydro-morphometric
reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript. watershed modeling for the assessment of flooding potentialities. Environ. Earth Sci.
75, 1–24.
No AI-assisted technology has been used in writing this manuscript. Faniran, A., 1968. The index of drainage intensity: a provisional new drainage factor.
Except university scholarship, no external fund was received to carry Austr. J Sci. 31 (9), 326–330.
out this study. Gajbhiye, S., Mishra, S.K., Pandey, A., 2014. Prioritizing erosion-prone area through
morphometric analysis: an RS and GIS perspective. Appl. Water Sci. 4, 51–61.
Data will be available form the corresponding author on request.
Gardiner, J.L., 1990. River catchment planning for land drainage, flood defence and the
environment. Water Environ. J. 4 (5), 442–450.
CRediT authorship contribution statement Gardiner, V., 1996. Channel networks: progress in the study of spatial and
temporalvariations of drainage density. In: Gurnell, A., Petts, G.E. (Eds.), Changing
riverchannels. Wiley, New York, pp. 65–85.
Boria Anya: Writing – original draft, Visualization, Validation, Goswami, U., Acharjee, S., 2016. Anabranches of the Subansiri in Assam, India: the
Methodology, Formal analysis, Data curation. Chandrashekhar unsolved enigma of an alluvial river. South East Asian J. Sedim. Basin Res. 2 (4),
13–22.
Bhuiyan: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Super­
Gottschalk, L.C., 1964. Reservoir Sedimentation. Handbook of Applied Hydrology.
vision, Software, Resources, Project administration, Conceptualization. McGraw Hill Book Company. New York, Section, 7.
Goyal, M.K., Shivam, Sarma, A.K., Singh, D.S., Singh, D., 2018. Subansiri: largest
Tributary of Brahmaputra River, Northeast India (eds). The Indian Rivers. Springer
Declaration of competing interest Hydrogeology. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2984-4_
36.
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial Gravelius, H., 1914. Flusskunde. Goschen Verlagshan Dlung Berlin. Morphometry of
Drainage Basins. Elsevier. Amsterdam.
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence Gregory, K.J., Walling, D.E., 1973. Drainage basin form and process: a geomorphological
the work reported in this paper. approach.
Hadley, R.F., Schumm, S.A., 1961. Sediment sources and drainage basin characteristics
in upper Cheyenne River basin. US Geol. Surv. Water-Supply Paper 1531, 198.
Data availability Haghipour, N., Burg, J.P., 2014. Geomorphological analysis of the drainage system on
the growing Makran accretionary wedge. Geomorphology 209, 111–132. https://
No data was used for the research described in the article. doi.org/10.1016/J.GEOMORPH.2013.11.030.
Harvey, C.A., Eash, D.A., 1996. Description, Instructions, and Verification For Basinsoft,
a Computer Program to Quantify Drainage-Basin Characteristics (No. 95-4287). US
Geological Survey.
Acknowledgments Horton, R.E., 1932. Drainage-basin characteristics. Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 13 (1),
350–361.
Horton, R.E., 1945. Erosional development of streams and their drainage basins;
Boria Anya sincerely acknowledges the financial support received Hydrophysical approach to quantitative morphology. Bul. Geol. Soc. Am. 56 (3),
from Sikkim Manipal University to carry out this research through Dr. T. 275–370. https://doi.org/10.1130/0016-7606(1945)56[275:EDOSAT]2.0.CO;2.
Hu, Z., Peng, J., Hou, Y., Shan, J., 2017. Evaluation of recently released open global
M. A. Pai Scholarship. digital elevation models of Hubei, China. Remote Sens. 9, 262. https://doi.org/
10.3390/rs9030262.
References Jasmin, I., Mallikarjuna, P., 2013. Morphometric analysis of Araniar river basin using
remote sensing and geographical information system in the assessment of
groundwater potential. Arab J. Geosci. 6 (10), 3683–3692.
Asfaw, D., Workineh, G., 2019. Quantitative analysis of morphometry on ribb and
Javed, A., Khanday, M.Y., Ahmed, R., 2009. Prioritization of subwatersheds based on
gumara watersheds: implications for soil and water conservation. Int. Soil Water
morphometric and land use analysis using remote sensing and GIS techniques.
Conserv. Res. 7, 150–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr.2019.02.003.
J. Indian Soc. Remote Sens. 37, 261–274.
Babu, K.J., Sreekumar, S., Aslam, A., 2016. Implication of drainage basin parameters of a
Joji, V.S., Nair, A.S.K., Baiju, K.V., 2013. Drainage basin delineation and quantitative
tropical river basin of South India. Appl. Water Sci. 6 (1), 67–75. https://doi.org/
analysis of Panamaram Watershed of Kabani River Basin, Kerala using remote
10.1007/s13201-014-0212-8.
sensing and GIS. J Geol. Soc. India 82 (4), 368–378.
Beven, K., Kirkby, M., 1979. A physically based, variable contributing area model of
Kale, V.S., Gupta, A., 2001. Introduction to Geomorphology. Orient Longman.
basin hydrology. Hydrol. Sci. Bull. 24 (1), 43–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/
Kumar, D., Duarah, B.P., 2020. Geomorphic signatures of active tectonics in Subansiri
02626667909491834.
River Basin, eastern Himalayas. J. Mount Sci. 17, 1523–1540. https://doi.org/
Bharath, A., Kumar, K.K., Maddamsetty, R., Manjunatha, M., Tangadagi, R.B., Preethi, S.,
10.1007/s11629-019-5492-x.
2021. Drainage morphometry based sub-watershed prioritization of Kalinadi basin
Kumar, S., Singh, T., 1980. Tectono-stratigraphic set-up of the Subansiri District,
using geospatial technology. Environ. Change 5, 100277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Arunachal Pradesh. Stratigraphy and Correlations of Lesser Himalayan Formations.
envc.2021.100277.
Hindustan Publishing Corporation (India), pp. 268–279. Delhi.
Biswas, A., Majumdar, D.D., Banerjee, S., 2014. Morphometry governs the dynamics of a
Lin, W.T., Chou, W.C., Lin, C.Y., Huang, P.H., Tsai, J.S., 2008. WinBasin: using improved
drainage basin: analysis and implications. Geol. J. 2014, 927176 https://doi.org/
algorithms and the GIS technique for automated watershed modelling analysis from
10.1155/2014/927176.
digital elevation models. Int. J. Geograp. Inf. Sci. 22 (1), 47–69.
Burhanuddin, M., Grover, A.K., 2023. A correlation of Lesser Himalayan sequences from
Magesh, N.S., Jitheshlal, K.V., Chandrasekar, N., Jini, K.V., 2013. Geographical
east to west in Arunachal Himalaya. SGAT Bull. 24 (1), 9–21.
information system-based morphometric analysis of Bharathapuzha river basin,
Chandrashekar, H., Lokesh, V.K., Sameena, M., Roopa, J., Ranganna, G., 2015. GIS-based
Kerala, India. Appl. Water Sci. 3 (2), 467–477.
morphometric analysis of two reservoir catchments of Arkavati River, Ramanagaram
Mahala, A., 2019. Identifying the factors and status of land degradation in a tropical
District, Karnataka. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on water
plateau region. Geol. J. 84 (5), 1199–1218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-018-
resources, Coastal and Ocean Engineering (ICWCOE2015). Aquatic Procedia, 4,
9916-x.
pp. 1345–1353.

18
B. Anya and C. Bhuiyan Environmental Challenges 15 (2024) 100890

Mahala, A., 2020. The significance of morphometric analysis to understand the Darjeeling Himalaya. Environ. Challenges 7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
hydrological and morphological characteristics in two different morpho‑climatic envc.2022.100463.
settings. Appl. Water Sci. 10, 33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-019-1118-2. Samal, D.R., Gedam, S.S., Nagarajan, R., 2015. GIS based drainage morphometry and its
Majumdar, J.P., 1982. Morphometric analyses of the 4th order drainagewatersheds of influence on hydrology in parts of Western Ghats region, Maharashtra, India.
the Khowai river basin, Tripura, India—Somepreliminary results and observations. Geocarto. Int. 30 (7), 755–778. https://doi.org/10.1080/10106049.2014.978903.
J. Ind. Soc. Rem. Sesn. 10 (3), 49–53. Sarkar, A., Singh, R.D., Sharma, N., 2012. Climate Variability and Trends in Part of
Mangan, P., Haq, M.A., Baral, P., 2019. Morphometric analysis of watershed using Brahmaputra river Basin. India Water Week.
remote sensing and GIS—A case study of Nanganji River Basin in Tamil Nadu, India. Schumm, S.A., 1954. The relation of drainage basin relief to sediment loss. Int. Assoc. Sci.
Arab. J. Geosci. 12 (6), 202. Hydrol. 36 (1), 216–219.
Melton, MA., 1957. An analysis of the relations among elements of climate, surface Schumm, S.A., 1956. Evolution of drainage systems and slopes in badlands at Perth
properties, and geomorphology. Department of Geology, Columbia University, New Amboy, New Jersey. Bul. Geol. Soc. Am. 67 (5), 597–646. https://doi.org/10.1130/
York. 0016-7606(1956)67[597:EODSAS]2.0.CO;2.
Melton, M.A., 1965. The geomorphic and paleoclimatic significance of alluvial deposits Schumm, S.A., 1963. Sinuosity of alluvial rivers on the Great Plains. Geol. Soc. Am. Bul.
in southern Arizona. J. Geol. 73 (1), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1086/627044. 74 (9), 1089–1100.
Memon, N., Patel, D.P., Bhatt, N., Patel, S.B., 2020. Integrated framework for flood relief Singh, P., Thakur, J.K., Singh, U.C., 2013. Morphometric analysis of Morar River Basin,
package (FRP) allocation in semiarid region: a case of Rel River flood, Gujarat, India. Madhya Pradesh, India, using remote sensing and GIS techniques. Environ. Earth Sci.
Nat. Hazards 100, 279–311. 68 (7), 1967–1977. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-012-1884-8.
Miller, V.C., 1953. A Quantitative Geomorphic Study of Drainage Basin Characteristics in Singh, S., Dubey, A., 1994. Geoenvironmental planning of watersheds in India. Chugh.
the Clinch Mountain Area Virginia and Tennessee. Columbia Univ New York. Singh, S., Singh, M.C., 1997. Morphometric analysis of Kanhar river basin. Nat. Geo. J.
Moglen, G.E., Eltahir, E.A., Bras, R.L., 1998. On the sensitivity of drainage density to India 43 (1), 31–43.
climate change. Water Resour. Res. 34 (4), 855–862. Shahzad, F., Gloaguen, R., 2011. TecDEM: A MATLAB based toolbox for tectonic
Nag, S.K., 1998. Morphometric analysis using remote sensing techniques in the Chaka geomorphology, Part 2: Surface dynamics and basin analysis. Comput. Geosciences
sub basin, Purulia district, West Bengal. J. Indian Soc. Remote Sens. 26 (1& 2), 37, 261–271.
69–76. Singh, V.P., Sharma, N., Ojha, C.S.P., 2004. The Brahmaputra basin Water Resources.
Nautiyal, M.D., 1994. Morphometric analysis of a drainage basin using aerial Springer, p. 82. ISBN 978-1-4020-1737-7.
photographs: a case study of Khairkuli Basin, District Dehradun, UP. J. Indian Soc. Smith, K.G., 1950. Standards for grading texture of erosional topography. Am. J Sci. 248
Remote Sens. 22, 251–261. (9), 655–668.
Nikhil Raj, P.P., Azeez, P.A., 2012. Morphometric analysis of a tropical medium river Soni, S., 2017. Assessment of morphometric characteristics of Chakrar watershed in
system: a case from Bharathapuzha river southern India. Open J. Mod. Hydrol. 02, Madhya Pradesh India using geospatial technique. Appl. Water Sci. 7, 2089–2102.
91–98. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojmh.2012.24011. Sørensen, R., Zinko, U., Seibert, J., 2006. On the calculation of the topographic wetness
Olszevski, N., Filho, E.I.F., Costa, L.M.D.A., Schaefer, C.E.G.R., Souza, E.D.E., Costa, O.D. index: evaluation of different methods based on field observations. Hydrol. Earth
V., 2011. Morphology and hydrological aspects of Black River Basin, division of state Sys. Sci. 10, 101–112. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-10-101-2006.
of Rio de Janeiro and Minas Gerais. Braz. J. For. Sci. 35, 485–492. Sreedevi, P.D., Subrahmanyam, K., Ahmed, S., 2005. The significance of morphometric
Ozdemir, H., Bird, D., 2009. Evaluation of morphometric parameters of drainage analysis for obtaining groundwater potential zones in a structurally controlled
networks derived from topographic maps and DEM in point of floods. Environ. Geol. terrain. Env. Geol. 47 (3), 412–420. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00254-004-1166-1.
56, 1405–1415. Srinivasa Vittala, S., Govindaiah, S., Honne Gowda, H., 2004. Morphometric analysis of
Pike, R.J., 2009. Geomorphometry: a brief guide. in: geomorphometry - concepts, sub-watersheds in the Pavagada area of Tumkur district, South India using remote
software, applications [developments in soil science], Vol. 33. 3–30. sensing and GIS techniques. J. Indian Soc. Remote Sens. 32, 351–362.
doi:10.1016/s0166-2481(08)00001-9. Strahler, A.N., 1952. Hypsometric (area-altitude) Analysis of Erosional Topography, 63.
Raduła, M.D., Szymura, T.H., Szymura, M., 2018. Topographic wetness index explains Geological Society of America Bulletin, pp. 1117–1142.
soil moisture better than bioindication with Ellenberg’s indicator values. Ecol. Indic. Strahler, A.N., 1956. Quantitative slope analysis. Geol. Soc. Am. Bul. 67 (5), 571–596.
85, 172–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.10.011. Strahler, A.N., 1957. Quantitative analysis of watershed geomorphology. Trans. Am.
Rafiq, A.H., 2013. Application of morphometric analysis for geo-hydrological studies Geophys. Union 38 (6), 913.
using geo-spatial technology –a case study of vishav drainage basin. J. Waste Water Strahler, A.N., 1964. Quantitative geomorphology of drainage basin and channel
Treatm. Anal. 04 (03) https://doi.org/10.4172/2157-7587.1000157. networks. Handbook of Applied Hydrology. McGraw Hill, New York.
Rao, K.L., 1979. India’s Water Wealth. Orient Blackswan, p. 78. ISBN 978-81-250-0704- Thomas, J., Joseph, S., Thrivikramaji, K.P., 2010. Morphometric aspects of a small
3. tropical mountain river system, the southern Western Ghats, India. Int. J. Digital
Rawat, K.S., Mishra, A.K., Sehgal, V.K., Ahmed, N., Tripathi, V.K., 2013. Comparative Earth 3 (2), 135–156.
evaluation of horizontal accuracy of elevations of selected ground control points Thomas, J., Joseph, S., Thrivikramji, K.P., Abe, G., Kannan, N., 2012. Morphometrical
from ASTER and SRTM DEM with respect to CARTOSAT-1 DEM: a case study of analysis of two tropical mountain river basins of contrasting environmental settings,
Shahjahanpur district, Uttar Pradesh, India. Geocarto. Int. 28 (5), 439–452. https:// the southern Western Ghats, India. Environ. Earth Sci. 66, 2353–2366.
doi.org/10.1080/10106049.2012.724453. Waikar, M.L., Nilawar, A.P., 2014. Morphometric Analysis of a Drainage Basin Using
Reddy, G.P.O., Maji, A.K., Gajbhiye, K.S., 2004. Drainage morphometry and its influence Geographical Information System: A Case Study. Int. J. Multidiscip. Curr. Res 2,
on landform characteristics in a basaltic terrain, Central India: a remote sensing and 179–184.
GIS approach. Int. J Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 6, 1–16. Willgoose, G., Hancock, G., 1998. Revisiting the hypsometric curve as an indicator of
Romshoo, S.A., Bhat, S.A., Rashid, I., 2012. Geoinformatics for assessing the form and process in transport-limited catchment. Earth Surf. Pro. Lan. 23 (7),
morphometric control on hydrological response at watershed scale in the Upper 611–623. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-9837(199807)23:7<611::AID-
Indus Basin. J Earth Sys. Sci. 121 (3), 659–686. ESP872>3.0.CO;2-Y.
Saha, S., Das, J., Mandal, T., 2022. Investigation of the watershed hydro-morphologic Zăvoianu, I., 1985. Morphometry of drainage basins. ed. Developments in Water Science.
characteristics through the morphometric analysis: a study on Rayeng basin in Elsevier.

19