Download Groundwater Prospect Zones: Integrating Hydrological Factors with Remote Sensing and GIS and more Essays (university) Hydrology in PDF only on Docsity!
O RI G I N A L A R T I C L E
Integration of hydrological factors and demarcation
of groundwater prospect zones: insights from remote sensing
and GIS techniques
B. Deepika •^ Kumar Avinash •^ K. S. Jayappa
Received: 11 May 2012 / Accepted: 5 January 2013 Ó Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013
Abstract The study demonstrates the potential of geo-
graphical information system and statistical-based approa-
ches to identify the hydrological processes and demarcate
the groundwater prospect zones of the Gangolli basin,
Karnataka State, India. The basin is situated in humid
tropical climate and influenced by three major rivers viz.
Kollur (6th order stream), Chakra (6th order stream) and
Haladi (7th order stream) which cover an area of
*1,512 km 2 and cumulative length of *84 km. Various
thematic maps—drainage, geomorphology, geology, slope,
soil, lineament and lineament density—were prepared
using Survey of India topographic maps, Indian remote
sensing (IRS-P6) images and other published maps.
Hydrogeomorphologic characteristics were correlated with
different morphometric parameters to identify the hydro-
logical processes and demarcate the groundwater potential
zones of the basin. All the hydrological units and mor-
phometric parameters were assigned suitable weightages
according to their relative importance to groundwater
potentiality to identify the most deficit/surplus zones of
groundwater. Based on hydrological characteristics, inte-
grated thematic maps reveal that 14 % (217 km^2 ) of
basin area falls under very good, 32 % (486 km^2 )
under good, 23 % (353 km 2 ) under moderate, and
30 % (*443 km 2 ) under poor zones for groundwater potential. From the sub-basin-wise prioritisation, it has been inferred that SB-III scored highest groundwater potential, followed by SB-X. Result of morphometric analyses with the hydrologic parameters indicates that *99 % area of SB-III and SB-X are under very good to moderate groundwater potential zone. This study clearly demonstrates that hydrological parameters in relation with morphometric analyses are useful to demarcate the pros- pect zones of groundwater.
Keywords Groundwater prospects Morphometric analyses Hydrologic parameters Thematic maps Chi-square test Remote sensing and GIS
Introduction
Groundwater being more dependable source of sustained water supplies, especially during droughts, its assessment, development and rational utilisation should be given more importance. Hence, the groundwater prospect map is important to identify the possibility of groundwater occurrence and it gives a rational picture of subsur- face water resources. The map can show the range in groundwater yield at different depths, besides indicating probable sites for recharging aquifers (Jasmine and Mal- likarjuna 2011). The groundwater prospect in a basin depends on lithology, geological structures, geomorphol- ogy, hydrology, meteorological conditions and quality of water (Yeh et al. 2009; Huang et al. 2012; Nag and Ghosh 2012), which is useful in predictive groundwater resource management (Dar et al. 2010; Singh et al. 2011). The conventional methods used for groundwater studies are still not efficient to identify the favourable areas for
B. Deepika K. S. Jayappa (&) Department of Marine Geology, Mangalore University, Mangalagangotri, Karnataka 574 199, India e-mail: ksjayappa@yahoo.com
B. Deepika e-mail: deepika_sd10@rediffmail.com
K. Avinash EEZ Group, National Centre for Antarctic and Ocean Research, Headland Sada, Vasco da Gama, Goa 403 804, India e-mail: avinash@ncaor.org
DOI 10.1007/s12665-013-2218-
groundwater storage (Al Saud 2010). Due to ever-increasing
population, application of scientific techniques like remote
sensing and geographical information system (GIS) is nec-
essary for proper utilisation and management of groundwater
resources (Elewa and Qaddah 2011).
Groundwater modelling is a powerful management tool
to organise hydrological data, quantify the behaviour and
properties of the systems that can allow quantitative pre-
diction of groundwater (Senthilkumar and Elango 2011).
Delineation and mapping of different lithological and
morphological units, identification of quantitative param-
eters of the drainage network, soil characteristics and slope
of the terrain play a major role in understanding the
groundwater condition of an area (Krishnamurthy et al.
1996). The groundwater potential zone mapping of an area
or basin can be established through investigation of the
sources of water (rainfall and run-off) and hydrologic
factors controlling its occurrence (Elewa and Qaddah
2011). Generally, the groundwater potential depends upon
the thickness of water-bearing formations (aquifers).
Thicker the aquifer, higher is the prospect of groundwater
potential (Subba Rao and Prathap 1999). Rainfall, net
groundwater recharge, lithology, lineaments, slope, drain-
age density, depth to groundwater, groundwater quality are
the different controlling factors involved in groundwater
storage. Lithology determines the soil and exposed rocks
infiltration capabilities and governs the flow and storage of
water among them. Lineaments enhance the permeability
significantly by inducing secondary porosity and permitting
the surface water to percolate easily to recharge the
groundwater. Drainage density has a role in the distribution
of runoff and determining the level of infiltration, whereas
depth to groundwater reflects the accessibility of water
(Elewa and Qaddah 2011).
Geographical information system is an effective tool to
analyse spatial and non-spatial data on drainage, geology,
geomorphology, slope and soil parameters to understand
their inter-relationships (Obi Reddy et al. 2004). GIS-based
multi-approach is useful for the analysis of different mor-
phometric parameters and to explore the relationship
between morphometry and other hydrologic parameters.
This technique is also extensively used as a decision sup-
port system in combination with hydrological models.
Remote sensing data in conjunction with necessary field
investigations will effectively help to identify the ground-
water potential zones and facilitate better data analysis and
interpretation (Jasmine and Mallikarjuna 2011). Systematic
integration of various surface features which influence the
groundwater prospect is an important aspect in water-
management studies (Lee et al. 2012). Several studies have
been carried out on evaluation and demarcation of
groundwater potential zones but most of them are restricted
to northern and southernmost part of India (Krishnamurthy
and Srinivas 1995; Rao et al. 1996; Reddy et al. 1996; Pal et al. 1997; Pratap et al. 2000; Obi Reddy et al. 2000; Subba Rao et al. 2001; Sankar 2002; Bahuguna et al. 2003; Jaiswal et al. 2003; Brody et al. 2004; Dinesh Kumar et al. 2007; Avinash et al. 2011; Machiwal et al. 2011). The Gangolli basin experiences very good rainfall during SW-monsoon season, but it experiences acute shortage of water for drinking during summer due to over-extraction of groundwater resources. In this study, an attempt has been made to demarcate and evaluate sub-basin-wise potential zones of groundwater by considering various hydrological factors—geology/structures, geomorphology, lineaments, drainage networks, soil characteristics and slope—in GIS environment. Finally, a groundwater prospect map of the basin has been generated by inter-relating the quantitative morphometric parameters with hydrological factors.
Study area
The Gangolli basin is located in humid tropical climate in Udupi district of Karnataka State, India and extends from 13 ° 300 to 13° 550 N latitudes and 74° 400 to 75° 100 E lon- gitudes (Fig. 1). The basin covers an area of *1,512 km 2
with a perimeter extending over *212 km and length of *84 km. Physiographically, the basin comprises three well-defined units: (a) Coastal tract, (b) Midland, and (c) Highland (Western Ghats). The coastal tract consists of long, narrow and straight open sandy beaches, barrier spits, sand dunes, estuaries, marsh, tidal creeks, islands and coastal ecosystems—mangroves, coastal forest, and aqua- culture ponds. The area adjoining the coastal tract exhibits forested high hilly topography with deep V-shaped valleys and the highland which is above the Ghats passes on Mysore Plateau. The basin from coast to Western Ghats experiences a typical maritime climate with an average temperature of 26.5 °C and is marked by heavy rainfall and high humidity, whereas the part above the Ghats is characterised by less rainfall, less humidity and marked variation in temperature during different seasons. The average annual rainfall is *4,100 mm, of which about 80 % is received during the southwest monsoon and the remainder during the northeast (winter) and inter-monsoon months (Avinash et al. 2012).
Drainage systems
The Gangolli basin is influenced by three major rivers viz. Kollur, Chakra and Haladi. The Kollur and Chakra are the tributaries of Haladi River and join it near Kundapur. The Haladi River originates above the Ghats in the eastern part of the basin, flows across the Ghats and descends the slope with a fall of 20 m at the top of the Ghats. The rivers
taken as reference map for geo-rectification. The geo-coded
satellite images were enhanced using the digital enhance-
ment techniques such as linear/contrast stretching, edge
enhancement, filtering, band-ratioing and colour compos-
iting (Avinash et al. 2011). Thematic maps of drainage,
geomorphology and lineament were prepared in ArcGIS
v9.3 software using the remote sensing and conventional
data. Digital elevation map (DEM) was extracted from
Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) data (Jarvis
et al. 2008) and slope map was prepared. Geology map of
the basin was prepared using District Resource map (Abbas
et al. 1991), whereas the soil map was prepared using the
satellite imagery and National Bureau of Soil Survey map
and Land use Planning (ICAR) map.
Mapping of groundwater prospect zone using
hydrologic parameters
The groundwater prospect map of the basin is established
through investigation of water sources and hydrologic fac-
tors (geomorphology, geology/structures, soil, slope, line-
ament and drainage analysis) which control occurrence of
groundwater. The influencing factors on groundwater stor-
age were digitally mapped and their relative importance is
examined in the present study. Thematic layers of geo-
morphology, geology, soil and slope were used to demar-
cate and map the zones of groundwater potential in the
basin. The extent of influence of each factor on groundwater
recharge was assessed from interrelationships among the
factors. Each unit of geomorphology, slope, geology and
soil is categorised as very good, good, moderate and poor
groundwater potential depending on their characteristics to
hold groundwater (Table 1). Weightages of every individ-
ual themes and features were assigned depending on the
suitability to hold groundwater. The maximum weightages
value was given to the feature of highest groundwater
potentiality and the minimum weightages to the lowest
potential feature (Table 1). After assigning the weightages
to all the themes and features, the thematic layers were
converted to raster format. The individual themes were
normalised by dividing the theme weight by ‘55’ (sum of all
the theme weights). Finally, an integrated groundwater
potential zone map was prepared using Raster Calculator
tool in ArcGIS software. To assess the association between
various hydrologic variables such as geomorphology, slope,
geology and soil, a statistical non-parametric test namely
Chi-square test of independence was carried out.
Prioritisation of sub-basins based on morphometric
parameters
Based on drainage characteristics and relief variability,
the basin has been subdivided into ten sub-basins (SB-I to
SB-X) (Fig. 1). The stream ordering was carried out using Strahler stream order method (Strahler 1964). Linear, areal and relief morphometric parameters of the sub-basins were calculated using the established mathematical equations discussed by Avinash et al. (2011). Each morphometric parameter has been assigned a weightage values/ranks, and then the ranked values for each sub-basin were averaged to arrive at a compound value. For linear/areal parameters, the highest value among the different sub-basins was ranked as ‘1’; next higher value was ranked as ‘2’ and so on. On the contrary, for the shape parameters, the lowest value was ranked as ‘1’; next lower value was ranked as ‘2’ and so on. Based on the total compound value, first priority (1) is assigned for most deficit sub-basin for groundwater pros- pects and next higher value is assigned for next priority (2) and so on. The last priority number (7) indicates that sub-basin is most surplus zone for groundwater potential (Biswas et al. 1999; Avinash et al. 2011). The methodology adopted for the assessment of groundwater potential in the study area is given in Fig. 2.
Results
Integration of various hydrological parameters
Based on the integration of various thematic maps such as geomorphology, slope, geology and soil, groundwater potential zones have been mapped and quantified at sub- basin-level. Groundwater prospect of all the hydrological features and their computed feature score are given in Table 1 and discussed in detail below.
Geomorphology
Various important erosional and depositional geomorphic units such as denudational hills, structural hills, residual hills, inselbergs, pediment, lateritic uplands, piedmont plain, pediplain, moderately weathered pediplain, shallow weathered pediplain, flood plain and valley fills of the basin are mapped (Fig. 3) and their characteristics are conferred in Table 2. Quantification of sub-basin-wise areal coverage (%) of all the geomorphic units and the groundwater prospects of each feature have been carried out for evaluation of groundwater potential zones (Table 1). Denudational hills (DH) are found in the northern and north-eastern parts of the basin. The total areal extent of this unit is 137.15 km 2. Maximum and minimum area coverage of 60.49 and 0.3 % are found in the SB-I and SB- III, respectively, with zero coverage in the SB-VI, -VII, -VIII and -X (Table 1). Structural hills (SH) are distributed in south-eastern, eastern and north-eastern parts of the
basin. This is the second largest unit observed in the
Gangolli basin. The total areal extent of this geomorphic
unit is estimated to be 267.26 km^2 (Table 1). Sub-basin IV
covers the major portion of *47 %. Residual hills (RH)
are partially exposed in the SB-II and -IV to -X and cover
the total areal extent of about 17 km^2 of which maximum areal extent is found in the SB-IV (4.21 %) (Table 1). In the Gangolli basin, the areal extent of Inselbergs (I) esti- mated is 1.13 km 2 only. Small patches of this unit are found in the SB-III to -X except SB-VII (Table 1).
Table 1 Total areal extent (km^2 ), sub-basin-wise areal coverage (%), groundwater potential and feature score assigned to each unit of geo- morphology, slope, geology and soil in the Gangolli basin
Features Groundwater potential
Feature score
Total area (km 2 )
Sub-basin-wise areal coverage (%)
I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X
Geomorphology (theme weight = 25)
Flood plain (FP) Very good 100 128.93 – – 32.93 – 9.11 – 1.41 2.41 9.66 28. Valley fills (VF) Very good 100 62.14 – – – 7.28 – 25.02 – 1.13 – – Tank (T) Very good 100 0.25 – – – – – – – 0.04 – 0. Pediplain (PP) Good 75 63.59 – – – – – 25.69 – 6.94 – – Moderately weathered pediplain (PPM)
Good 75 451.27 0.14 22.31 25.07 16.49 31.02 12.87 54.31 44.06 41.91 41.
Shallow weathered pediplain (PPS)
Moderate 50 186.97 3.18 10.11 6.88 6.12 24.54 6.84 9.22 7.31 21.37 21.
Lateritic uplands (LU) Moderate 50 127.13 1.91 14.10 34.72 – 24.18 – 0.20 2.21 11.54 6. Piedmont plain (PIP) Moderate 50 44.21 – – – 1.82 2.60 5.94 5.56 5.89 1.68 1. Denudational hills (DH) Poor 25 137.15 60.49 25.27 0.32 13.17 3.47 – – – 8.43 – Structural hills (SH) Poor 25 267.26 27.69 23.89 – 46.91 0.68 22.43 28.78 27.22 4.44 – Residual hills (RH) Poor 25 17.11 – 0.79 – 4.21 0.69 1.18 0.37 2.52 0.64 0. Inselbergs (I) Poor 25 1.13 – – 0.08 0.15 0.08 0.02 – 0.28 0.04 0. Pediment (PD) Poor 25 24.92 6.58 3.53 – 3.85 3.65 – 0.16 – 0.29 –
Slope (theme weight = 15)
0–10° Very good 60 968.43 26.05 39.96 93.00 38.71 68.97 62.84 65.58 60.15 75.89 94. 10–20° Good 45 462.29 54.59 49.23 6.99 53.44 30.43 35.68 25.28 33.82 21.39 5. 20–30° Moderate 30 58.24 15.14 6.45 0.01 6.22 0.58 1.37 6.75 4.55 1.90 0. [ 30 ° Poor 15 19.25 4.22 4.36 – 1.62 0.02 0.11 2.39 1.48 0.82 –
Geology (theme weight = 10)
Laterite Good 30 149.54 3.52 15.75 45.55 – 27.89 – 0.18 2.36 11.82 10. Beach/Coastal sand Good 30 12.91 – – 3.96 – – – – – – 4. Migmatitic (banded/ streaky) gneiss
Moderate 20 837.79 34.86 30.88 50.49 16.70 67.46 67.69 53.24 66.65 71.52 81.
South Canara granite Moderate 20 156.62 6.66 3.74 – 9.57 – 21.93 33.50 19.00 0.14 2. Metabasites Moderate 20 192.95 19.41 29.25 – 49.02 3.64 6.64 7.53 10.91 16.53 – Amphibolite Poor 10 7.12 – – – – – 0.93 2.34 1.07 – – Meta-greywacke Poor 10 70.24 33.82 20.17 – 0.43 1.02 – 3.21 – – – Granite (Closepet granite) Poor 10 2.04 – – – – – 1.02 – – – – Quartz chlorite schist Poor 10 36.94 1.73 0.21 – 24.28 – – – – – – Garnet-grunerite schist Poor 10 3.49 – – – – – 1.75 – – – – Kyanite mica schist Poor 10 0.06 – – – – – 0.03 – – – –
Soil (theme weight = 5)
Sandy soils Very good 20 5.60 – – 1.18 – – – – – – 2. Sandy over loamy soils Good 15 56.32 – – 31.61 – 10.40 – – – – 3. Clayey soils Moderate 10 456.40 13.01 33.18 – 97.05 22.37 44.86 15.98 42.89 32.38 – Loamy over sandy soils Moderate 10 42.50 – – – – – 1.44 – – – 19. Gravelly clay soils Poor 5 926.26 86.99 66.82 67.21 2.95 67.23 53.71 84.02 57.11 67.62 74.
area were categorised into four classes—nearly level
(0–10°), gentle slope (10–20°), moderate slope (20–30°)
and steep slope ([ 30 °) (Fig. 4). The quantitative estima-
tion of all the four slope categories is given in Table 1.
Nearly level area suggests very good possibility of
groundwater and it covers major portion of the basin
(*968 km^2 ). More than 93 % of SB-III and -X are
covered by this slope category (Table 1). The area with
10–20° slope is expected to have good groundwater
prospect and it extended for *462 km^2 area covering all
the sub-basins with a maximum of 54.59 % in the SB-I.
Moderate groundwater prospect is found in the area with
20–30° slope and it occupies *58 km 2 area with a
maximum of 15.14 % of the SB-I. However, the hilly
region found in all the sub-basins except the SB-III and
-X with a maximum areal extent of 4.36 % in the
SB-II having poor groundwater prospect (Table 1). The
total areal coverage of this class is estimated to be
19.25 km 2.
Geology
The geological map of the Gangolli basin has been prepared (Fig. 5), and groundwater potential as well as areal coverage is computed sub-basin-wise based on the characteristics of each geological unit (Table 1). The basin is a part of the Indian Peninsula consists of Archaean to Recent age of geological units. Major geological unit found in the basin is migmatitic (banded/streaky) gneisses (*838 km 2 ; 57 %) of the Peninsular Gneissic Complex of the Archaean age. This unit is observed in all the sub-basins and covering a mini- mum of *17 % of the SB-IV and maximum of *82 % of the SB-X. South Canara Granite (hornblende-biotite granite/ granodiorite, *157 km 2 ; 10.7 %) of the Archaean age is found in the southern part of the basin which is present in most of the sub-basins except the SB-III and -V. Metabasites (193 km^2 ; *13 %) and meta-greywacke (70.24 km 2 ) of Archaean to Proterozoic of the Bababudan Group are found in the north-eastern and northern parts of the basin (along
Fig. 3 Map showing various geomorphic units of the Gangolli basin
Table 2 Characteristics of all the geomorphic units observed in the Gangolli basin
Geomorphic unit Characteristics
Structural hills Consist of iron ore group of rocks and are controlled with complex folding, faulting and criss-crossed by numerous joints/fractures which facilitate some infiltration and mostly act as run-off zones
Denudational hills Consist of jointed and fractured granites or gneisses, formed due to differential erosion and weathering of bedrock. Some infiltration possibilities are expected through fractures/joint planes and topographic cuts
Residual hills Isolated low relief terrains formed by differential erosion and weathering of pre-existing plateaus, plains and complex tectonic mountains
Pediment Gently sloping rock flooring areas with erosional bedrock of low relief between hills and plains developed by the process of weathering, consisting of a veneer of detritus. Massive and compact rocky nature of surface, whereas granitic terrains with numerous fractures/joints permitting infiltration and storage of groundwater
Inselbergs Isolated residual hillocks being remnants of weathering and denudation, found mostly within granitic terrain
Lateritic uplands Developed over Tertiary sediments and are characterised by moderate infiltration from rainfall and significant water- table fluctuation
Piedmont plain Gently sloping longitudinal strip of land running parallel to foot hills traversed by innumerable rivulets with parallel to sub-parallel drainage; comprised of unconsolidated sediments of sand, silt and clay with boulders and pebbles
Pediplain Gently inclined sloping surface of boulders, gravels and sand, extending from the abrupt base of steep mountain faces to the flat foreground; consists of moderately thick weathered materials
Shallow weathered pediplain
Areas of nearly level terrain with low gradient developed by continuous process of pedimentation; characterised by shallow weathered material ranging from 0 to 5 m with red soil cover and sparse vegetation
Moderately weathered pediplain
Found as nearly flat terrain with gentle slope and occur normally along all the major drainage courses; consists of relatively thick weathered material (5–15 m) covered with red soil and fairly thick vegetation; generally associated with lineaments
Flood plain Youngest geomorphic unit formed by the erosion and deposition processes of gravel, pebbles, sand, silt and clay. This unit has high moisture content and gentle slope of about 5°, deposited all along the river course and its main tributary
Valley fills Deposition of unconsolidated materials in the narrow valleys and are found along the upstream of the river courses; found to have high moisture content and covered by thick vegetations
Fig. 4 Map showing sub-basin- wise slope (°) of the Gangolli basin
Lineament density
In Gangolli basin, 62 lineaments were identified which are
trending towards N–S, E-W, NE-SW, NW–SE, ESE-
WNW, ENE-WSW, NNE-SSW and NNW-SSE directions.
Lineaments density was calculated for each sub-basin and
mapped (Fig. 7). Total length of the lineaments is
*478 km and an average length is 7.72 km. Lineament
density of the SB-IX is higher (0.000544 m/m 2 ) compared
to all other sub-basins followed by the SB-VIII
(0.000467 m/m 2 ) and SB-X (0.000412 m/m 2 ). Lowest
density of 0.000124 m/m 2 is found in the SB-VI (Fig. 7).
Association of hydrological parameters
The Chi-square test of independence was applied to assess the
association between the various hydrologic parameters. Var-
ious steps like establishment of hypotheses, calculation of
Chi-square statistic, assessment of significance level, and
finally decision about null hypothesis to be accepted or
rejected were followed. The test was carried out between the
hydrologic variables such as geomorphology, slope, geology
and soil with respect to their groundwater potential zone. The
computed Pearson Chi-square value was less (0.000) than the
considered significance level (0.001). Therefore, null
hypothesis cannot be accepted and the analysis suggests a very
high association between various hydrologic parameters.
Morphometric analysis
Morphometric analysis of a basin is an efficient method which provides the relationship of different aspects—lin- ear, areal and relief—within the drainage basin. Quantita- tive analyses of these aspects were carried out for all the sub-basins of Gangolli basin which are required for the assessment of watershed management plan along with hydrogeological information. The computed drainage characteristics of the studied basin are given in Table 3.
Linear aspects
Linear aspects of the Gangolli basin include stream orders (u), bifurcation ratio (Rb ), stream lengths (L (^) u) and stream length ratio (RL ). Stream ordering of the basin has been carried out according to Strahler’s (1964) ordering system. The total number of streams in all the sub-basins varies from 217 (SB-III) to 801 (SB-VIII) (Table 3). The Rb of all the sub-basins of the Gangolli basin is \5 indicating geo- morphology has a major control on drainage network and minor structural disturbances. Analysis of total stream length (RLu) of all the sub-basins suggested lowest L (^) u value in SB-III (178 km), whereas SB-VIII has the highest L (^) u value (507 km) (Table 4). Average Lu values computed for different stream orders are given in Table 4. An average stream length ratio (RL) values of all the sub-basins vary
Fig. 6 Distribution of different soils in all the ten sub-basins of the Gangolli basin
Fig. 7 Lineaments and lineament density (m/m^2 ) map of the Gangolli basin
Table 3 Computational results of sub-basin-wise area, length, perimeter, number of streams and bifurcation ratio of the Gangolli basin
Sub-basin Area (A; km 2 )
Length (l; km)
Perimeter (p; km)
Number of streams (Nu) of different stream order (u)
Bifurcation ratio Rb (N (^) u/Nu? 1 )
P
Nu 1/2 2/3 3/4 4/5 5/6 6/7 Mean Rb
I 126.78 20.53 53.59 483 131 30 6 2 0 0 652 3.69 4.37 5.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 2.
II 100.40 17.98 45.82 365 77 18 3 1 0 0 464 4.74 4.28 6.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 3.
III 94.30 17.36 56.27 174 37 5 0 0 1 0 217 4.70 7.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.
IV 142.26 21.92 78.58 458 104 20 4 2 0 0 588 4.40 5.20 5.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 2.
V 192.22 26.01 69.20 528 109 23 6 2 2 0 670 4.84 4.74 3.83 3.00 1.00 0.00 2.
VI 198.91 26.52 70.09 494 105 28 7 2 1 0 637 4.70 3.75 4.00 3.50 2.00 0.00 2.
VII 144.17 22.09 63.50 402 85 19 5 3 1 0 515 4.73 4.47 3.80 1.67 3.00 0.00 2.
VIII 179.97 25.05 70.19 621 133 35 10 1 1 0 801 4.67 3.80 3.50 10.00 1.00 0.00 3.
IX 111.44 19.08 75.98 332 87 19 5 3 0 0 446 3.82 4.58 3.80 1.67 0.00 0.00 2.
X 221.58 28.20 93.72 248 60 13 2 0 0 2 325 4.13 4.62 6.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.
Gangolli basin 1,512.02 83.93 212.67 4,105 928 210 48 16 6 2 5,315 4.42 4.42 4.38 3.00 2.67 3.00 3.
Relief aspects
Basin relief (Bh ), relief ratio (Rr ) and ruggedness number
(Rn ) are considered for investigation of different relief
aspects of the basin and their computed parameters are
given sub-basin-wise in Table 5. The analysis suggests that
the sub-basins I, -II and -IV have high basin relief which
indicate flow of water by gravity, low infiltration and high
run-off conditions. The Rr of the whole basin is 0.041,
whereas sub-basin-wise it varies from 0.005 (SB-X) to
0.114 (SB-I and -II) (Table 5). The Rr values indicate that
the SB-I and -II are situated in higher elevated regions
compared to the other sub-basins. The R (^) n values of the sub-
basins vary from 0.12 (SB-X) to 4.37 (SB-I) and the high
value (3.29 km) of the entire basin indicates high basin
relief (1.32 km) (Table 5).
Groundwater prospect zones mapping using hydrologic
parameters
Integration of several surface features such as geomor-
phology, geology, soil and slope systematically that indi-
cates groundwater potentialities is an important aspect in
water-management studies. A final groundwater potential
map (where score varying from 12 to 53) has been gen-
erated for the Gangolli basin by integrating the different
thematic maps. This map was categorised into four zones
based on their potential of groundwater such as very good
(42–53 score range), good (32–42 score range), moderate
(22–32 score range) and poor (12–22 score range) (Fig. 8).
Sub-basin-wise areal coverage (km 2 and %) of all the
groundwater potential categories is given in Table 6. In the Gangolli basin, *217 km 2 of total area is under ‘very good’ and *486 km 2 area is under ‘good’ groundwater potential zone. The ‘moderate’ potential zone is estimated to be *353 km 2 and ‘poor’ potential zone is *444 km 2 . About 39 % of the SB-III is covered by ‘very good’ cate- gory whereas 54.62 % of the SB-VII is covered by ‘good’ groundwater potential. About 50 % of the SB-V is under ‘moderate’ groundwater potential zone and *95 % of the SB-I is under ‘poor’ potential zone (Table 6).
Prioritisation of sub-basins based on morphometric parameters
Prioritisation of studied morphometric parameters of the Gangolli basin suggests that the SB-VIII shall be the most deficit zone of groundwater potential, whereas SB-IV, -II, -VII would be the next consequent deficit zones of groundwater potential (Table 7). However, increase in the groundwater potential is recorded progressively in the SB-I, -V, -VI, -IX and -X, whereas the SB-III is the most surplus zone of groundwater potential (Table 7).
Discussion
Morphometric analysis and prioritisation of watersheds are very important for water resource management (Miller and Craig Kochel 2010; Youssef et al. 2011; Bali et al. 2012; Patel et al. 2012). Rapid advancement in remote sensing and GIS technologies has given a great opportunity for
Table 5 Basin shape, areal and relief aspects computed for all the ten sub-basins
Parameter I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X Gangolli basin
Basin shape aspects
Elongation ratio 0.62 0.63 0.63 0.61 0.60 0.60 0.61 0.60 0.62 0.60 0. Circularity ratio 0.55 0.60 0.37 0.29 0.50 0.51 0.45 0.46 0.24 0.32 0. Form factor 0.30 0.31 0.31 0.30 0.28 0.28 0.30 0.29 0.31 0.28 0.
Areal aspects
Drainage density (/km) 3.36 3.15 1.89 2.80 2.34 2.24 2.53 2.82 2.62 1.21 2. Stream frequency (/km^2 ) 5.14 4.62 2.30 4.13 3.49 3.20 3.57 4.45 4.00 1.47 3. Drainage texture (/km) 17.28 14.55 4.35 11.57 8.14 7.17 9.03 12.53 10.47 1.78 9. Constant of channel maintenance 0.30 0.32 0.53 0.36 0.43 0.45 0.40 0.36 0.38 0.82 0. Length of overland flow (km) 0.15 0.16 0.26 0.18 0.21 0.22 0.20 0.18 0.19 0.41 0.
Relief aspects
Maximum elevation (m) 1,340 1,340 110 1,100 560 960 870 775 780 120 1, Minimum elevation (m) 40 40 20 80 20 560 20 20 20 20 20 Basin relief (km) 1.30 1.30 0.09 1.02 0.54 0.40 0.85 0.76 0.76 0.10 1. Relief ratio 0.114 0.114 0.006 0.086 0.021 0.057 0.047 0.034 0.027 0.005 0. Ruggedness number (km) 4.37 4.09 0.17 2.85 1.26 0.90 2.15 2.13 1.99 0.12 3.
Fig. 8 Integrated groundwater potential map prepared using the hydrologic parameters
Table 6 Sub-basin-wise score range obtained by the integration of hydrologic parameters, total area (km^2 ) of groundwater potential zones and their areal coverage (%)
Groundwater potential zones
Score range Area (km 2 ) Sub-basin-wise areal coverage (%)
I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X
Very good 42–53 217.58 – 0.43 39.48 12.17 11.30 25.85 1.43 5.34 10.25 31.
Good 32–42 486.34 0.15 21.32 18.67 11.16 29.63 37.87 54.62 49.91 41.63 39.
Moderate 22–32 353.04 4.82 24.21 41.38 7.70 50.82 12.49 14.87 15.23 34.89 29.
Poor 12–22 443.84 95.03 54.04 0.47 68.97 8.26 23.79 29.07 29.52 13.23 0.
Table 7 Sub-basin-wise prioritisation based on morphometric parameters of Gangolli basin
Morphometric parameter
Sub-basins
I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X
Re 3 4 4 2 1 1 2 1 3 1
Rc 9 10 4 2 7 8 5 6 1 3
Ff 3 4 4 3 1 1 3 2 4 1
Rb 7 2 10 6 5 3 4 1 9 8
Dd 1 2 9 4 7 8 6 3 5 10
Fs 1 2 9 4 7 8 6 3 5 10
T 1 2 9 4 7 8 6 3 5 10
C 9 8 2 7 4 3 5 7 6 1
Lo 9 8 2 7 4 3 5 7 6 1
Compound value 4.778 4.667 5.889 4.333 4.778 4.778 4.667 3.667 4.889 5.
Final priority 4 3 7 2 4 4 3 1 5 6
The first priority (1) shows the most deficit zone of groundwater prospect, while the last priority (7) shows the good potential of groundwater
geomorphic units. High groundwater potential was recor-
ded in natural recharge areas wherever the combined effect
of soil, slope, drainage density and rainfall is favourable.
The area with rugged geomorphology and high steepness
showed less groundwater potential. In hard rock areas, the
groundwater prospects are more complicated where dif-
ferent rock formations are present (Dhakate et al. 2012).
According to Avinash et al. (2011), geomorphology and
morphometric parameters are good proxies to evaluate the
deficit and surplus zones of groundwater for river basins/
watersheds.
Litho-stratigraphy of a region is essential to understand
the nature and distribution of water-bearing properties
(Fetter 1994; Al Saud 2010). In the studied basin, the
existing rock succession, fracture systems, joints, and
dykes represent the principal hydrologic features, which, in
turn, increase the porosity and permeability of the rocks
and facilitate water percolation to flow into deeper rock
successions. Geology, geomorphology and lineaments of
the area directly or indirectly control the terrain charac-
teristics. Lineaments are hydrogeologically very important
and provide pathways for groundwater movement (Sankar
et al. 1996). In hard rock terrains, lineaments represent
areas and zones of faulting and fracturing resulting in
increased secondary porosity and permeability (Dinesh
Kumar et al. 2007). Hence they are good indicators of
accumulation and movement of groundwater (Mohanty and
Behera 2010). Lineament density study is useful for
understanding the local distribution of lineaments (Oh et al.
2011). In the study area, high lineament density is found in
the SB-IX, -VIII and -X; hence the possibilities of
groundwater shall be more due to highly fractured and
permeable zones.
Slope of the basin plays a significant role in increasing
the water-flow velocity with a subsequent reduction in
vertical percolation and recharge processes (Al Saud 2010).
Major area of the studied basin is having a very gentle
slope associated with flood plains which can be categorised
as the zone of very good groundwater potential due to
nearly flat landscape and high infiltration rate. The areas
having gentle slope are in association with moderately
weathered pediplain and are considered as good zones for
groundwater storage due to slightly rolling topography.
Moderately steep slope areas of the basin are associated
with foot slopes of escarpments and denudational hills and
categorised as moderate zones for groundwater potential
because of relatively high surface runoff and low infiltra-
tion. The areas showing very steep slope are in association
with structural hills and are considered as poor zones due to
higher runoff.
Soil characteristics are the controlling factors for surface
water penetration into an aquifer system and they are
directly related to rates of infiltration and permeability (Dar
et al. 2010). The water holding capacity of soil depends on intensity of rainfall, morphometry, infiltration, soil texture, permeability, depth and volume of soil exists on different landforms (Obi Reddy et al. 2004). The soil types (sandy loam, sand and gravel) in the studied basin are porous and permeable in nature and help in infiltration of water, but, a variety of clay materials at different depths act as barriers for infiltration into groundwater reservoirs. In water resource management plans, conservation of soil and its proper utilisation must be taken into account as a natural resource (Ghayoumian et al. 2007).
Impact of morphometric parameters on groundwater potentiality
Morphometric parameters are useful for drainage network analysis, which provide information about lithology, hydrological nature, drainage characteristics, and exogenic/ endogenic processes within the basin (Avinash et al. 2011). The influence of drainage morphometry is very significant in understanding the landform processes, physical proper- ties of soil and erosional characteristics (Obi Reddy et al. 2004). Evaluation of the drainage characteristics of a basin using quantitative morphometric analysis in relation to geomorphological features is a reliable index of rock-per- meability which gives an indication of yield of the water- shed basin (Subba Rao 2009). The presence of various characteristic geomorphological features and anomalies in various morphometric parameters suggests the control of active tectonics on the geomorphic evolution of an area (Bali et al. 2012). Morphometric studies include evaluation of streams through measurement of various stream properties. Linear aspects have a direct relationship with erodibility of a basin. Higher the value of linear parameters, more is the erodibility (Nookaratnam et al. 2005). The development of stream segments is affected by rainfall and local lithology of watershed (Magesh et al. 2011). Lower number of streams in the sub-basins of Gangolli basin indicates the occurrence of mature topography, whereas higher number of streams (first- and second-orders) indicates that the area is prone to erosion (Avinash et al. 2011). Bifurcation ratio of a basin reflects complexity and the degree of dissection. The value of Rb between 3 and 5 indicates that the basin is not influenced by geological structures, whereas Rb value [5 infers the influence of structural control on the devel- opment of drainage network (Strahler 1964). Lower Rb values are due to the presence of a large number of first-, second- and third-order streams in the sub-basins. They also indicate that the drainage basin is underlined by uni- form materials and the streams are usually branched sys- tematically (Pakhmode et al. 2003; Manu and Anirudhan 2008). Stream length is a measure of the hydrological
nature of the underlying rock formations and the degree of
drainage. If the rock formations are permeable, a small
number of relatively longer streams are formed, whereas if
the rock formations are less permeable, a large number of
smaller streams are developed (Pakhmode et al. 2003).
Streams of relatively smaller lengths are characteristics of
areas with larger slopes and finer textures, whereas longer
lengths of streams are generally indicative of flatter gra-
dients. To understand the surface flow discharge and ero-
sional stage of the basin, study of stream length ratio is
useful. An increase in value of RL from lower order to
higher order indicates the mature geomorphic stage,
whereas RL between successive stream orders varies due to
differences in slope and topographic conditions (Magesh
et al. 2011).
Basin shape parameters help to understand the shape of
the basin and they affect the stream flow hydrographs and
peak flows of the basins. Higher values of Re indicate
active denudational processes with high infiltration capac-
ity and low run-off, whereas lower Re values indicate
higher elevation of the basin susceptible to high headward
erosion along tectonic lineaments (Obi Reddy et al. 2004;
Manu and Anirudhan 2008; Avinash et al. 2011). Strongly
elongated and highly permeable homogenous geological
materials are marked by low values of circularity ratio,
whereas high values indicate low relief with impermeable
surface (Sameena et al. 2009). The Rc values also indicate
various stages of tributaries in the basin. Larger peak flows
of shorter duration are observed in the basin with high form
factor values, whereas elongated basins with low-form
factors experience lower peak flows of longer duration
(Magesh et al. 2011).
The Dd of the basin indicates the closeness of spacing of
the streams and the texture of the drainage basin. Areas
with high Dd are not suitable for groundwater development
because of the high surface run-off; however, lesser the Dd ,
higher is the probability of recharge or potential ground-
water zones (Srinivasa et al. 2008; Mohanty and Behera
2010). Slope gradient and relative relief are the main
morphological factors controlling drainage density
(Magesh et al. 2011). Stream frequency mainly depends on
lithology of the basin and reflects texture of drainage net-
work which is more or less affected by rainfall and
temperature (Sreedevi et al. 2005). Fs is related to
permeability, infiltration capacity and relief of the basin.
The high values of Fs indicate greater surface run-off, steep
ground surface, impermeable sub-surface material, sparse
vegetation, high relief conditions and low infiltration
capacity (Horton 1945; Pakhmode et al. 2003; Obi Reddy
et al. 2004; Shaban et al. 2005). Vegetation covers play an
important role in determining the drainage density and
texture (Kale and Gupta 2001). Drainage texture depends
on climate, rainfall, vegetation, soil and rock types,
infiltration rate, relief and the stage of development (Smith 1950). Soft or weak rocks unprotected by vegetation characterize a fine drainage texture which reflects lower permeability strata and supporting lower infiltration. Mas- sive and resistive rocks represent a coarse drainage texture indicating higher permeability strata, promoting greater infiltration (Subba Rao 2009). Constant of channel main- tenance of a basin depends on the rock type, permeability, climatic regime, vegetation cover and relief as well as duration of erosion (Schumm 1956). Higher values of C indicate higher permeability of the rocks and vice versa (Subba Rao 2009). According to Horton (1945), length of overland flow is one of the important independent variables affecting both the hydrological and physiographical development of the drainage basins. Lower values of Lo suggest that the surface run-off reaches the stream faster (Sameena et al. 2009). Relief aspects of a basin play an important role in drainage development, surface and sub-surface water flow, permeability, landforms development and erosion proper- ties of the terrain (Obi Reddy et al. 2004). Relief ratio indicates the overall steepness of a drainage basin and is an indicator of intensity of erosion processes operating on the slopes of the basin. A high Rr value indicates a hilly region, whereas low value is a characteristic feature of less resis- tant rocks of the area (Sreedevi et al. 2005; Avinash et al. 2011). Ruggedness number indicates the structural com- plexity of the terrain. Basins with high R (^) n values are highly susceptible to erosion and found in mountainous region of tropical climate with higher rainfall (Obi Reddy et al. 2004; Avinash et al. 2011).
Conclusions
The present study confides the importance of hydrologic parameters such as geomorphology, slope, geology, soil and lineament density in demarcating the groundwater potential zones of Gangolli basin. The Rb of the studied basin suggests that the drainage network is not much pro- nounced by structural control as the geomorphic control. The computed values of the basin shape aspects reveal that the basin is in an elongated shape. Low Dd values indicate high permeable sub-surface materials and low relief in the SB-III and -X, whereas high values are due to the presence of impermeable sub-surface materials and high relief. The sub-basins I, -II, -IV, -VIII and -IX show Fs value is more than 4/km 2 which indicates steep ground slopes with less permeable rocks, which, in turn, facilitate greater run-off, less infiltration, sparse vegetation and high relief condi- tions. The Gangolli basin has an intermediate drainage texture. The computed values of ‘C’ suggest that most of the sub-basins are influenced by less structural disturbance,
Fetter CW (1994) Applied hydrogeology, 3rd edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River 691p Ghayoumian J, Mohseni Saravi M, Feiznia S, Nouri B, Malekian A (2007) Application of GIS techniques to determine areas most suitable for artificial groundwater recharge in a coastal aquifer in southern Iran. J Asian Earth Sci 30:364– Gosain AK, Rao S (2004) GIS-based technologies for watershed management. Curr Sci 87:948– Horton RE (1945) Erosional development of streams and their drainage basins: hydrophysical approach to quantitative mor- phology. Geol Soc Am Bull 56:275– Huang CC, Yeh HF, Lin HI, Lee ST, Hsu KC, Lee CH (2012) Groundwater recharge and exploitative potential zone mapping using GIS and GOD techniques. Environ Earth Sci. doi: 10.1007/s12665-012-1737- Jaiswal RK, Mukherjee S, Krishnamurthy J, Saxena R (2003) Role of remote sensing and GIS techniques for generation of ground- water prospect zones toward rural development—an approach. Int J Remote Sens 24:993– Jarvis A, Reuter HI, Nelson A, Guevara E (2008) Hole-filled seamless SRTM data V4, International Centre for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT). http://srtm.csi.cgiar.org Jasmine I, Mallikarjuna P (2011) Review: satellite-based remote sensing and geographic information systems and their applica- tion in the assessment of groundwater potential, with particular reference to India. Hydrogeol J 19:729– Javed A, Khanday YM, Ahmed R (2009) Prioritization of sub- watersheds based on morphometric and land use analysis using remote sensing and GIS techniques. J Indian Soc Remote Sens 37:261– Kale VS, Gupta A (2001) Introduction to geomorphology. Orient Longman Ltd., UK Khan MA, Gupta VP, Moharana PC (2001) Watershed prioritization using remote sensing and geographical information system: a case study from Guhiya, India. J Arid Environ 49:465– Krishnamurthy J, Srinivas G (1995) Role of geological and geomor- phological factors in groundwater exploration: a study using IRS LISS II data. Int J Remote Sens 16:2595– Krishnamurthy J, Venkatesa Kumar N, Jayaraman V, Manivel M (1996) An approach to demarcate ground water potential zones through remote sensing and a geographical information system. Int J Remote Sens 17(10):1867– Kumar A, Narayana AC, Jayappa KS (2010) Shoreline changes and morphology of spits along southern Karnataka, west coast of India: a remote sensing and statistics-based approach. Geomor- phology 120:133– Lee S, Kim YS, Oh HJ (2012) Application of a weights-of-evidence method and GIS to regional groundwater productivity potential mapping. J Environ Manag 96:91– Leopold LB, Miller JP (1956) Ephemeral streams: hydraulic factors and their relation to the drainage network. US Geological Survey, Professional Paper 282-A Machiwal D, Jha MK, Mal BC (2011) Assessment of groundwater potential in a semi-arid region of India using remote sensing, GIS and MCDM techniques. Water Resour Manag 25:1359– 1386 Magesh NS, Chandrasekar N, Soundranayagam JP (2011) Morpho- metric evaluation of Papanasam and Manimuthar watersheds, parts of Western Ghats, Tirunelveli district, Tamil Nadu, India: a GIS approach. Environ Earth Sci 64:373– Manu MS, Anirudhan S (2008) Drainage characteristics of Achanko- vil River Basin, Kerala. J Geol Soc India 71:841– Miller JR, Craig Kochel R (2010) Assessment of channel dynamics, in-stream structures and post-project channel adjustments in North Carolina and its implications to effective stream restora- tion. Environ Earth Sci 59(8):1681–
Mohanty C, Behera SC (2010) Integrated remote sensing and GIS study for hydrogeomorphological mapping and delineation of groundwater potential zones in Khallikote block, Ganjam district, Orissa. J Indian Soc Remote Sens 38:345– Nag SK, Ghosh P (2012) Delineation of groundwater potential zone in Chhatna Block, Bankura District, West Bengal, India using remote sensing and GIS techniques. Environ Earth Sci. doi: 10.1007/s12665-012-1713- Nookaratnam K, Srivastava YK, Venkateswara Rao V, Amminedu E, Murthy KSR (2005) Check dam positioning by prioritization of microwatersheds using SYI model and morphometric analysis— remote sensing and GIS perspective. J Indian Soc Remote Sens 33:25– Obi Reddy GP, Chandra Mouli K, Srivastav SK, Srinivas CV, Maji AK (2000) Evaluation of ground water potential zones using remote sensing data—a case study of Gaimukh watershed, Bhandra district, Maharashtra. J Indian Soc Remote Sens 28:19– Obi Reddy GP, Amal K, Maji AK, Gajbhiye S (2004) Drainage morphometry and its influence on landform characteristics in a basaltic terrain, central India: a remote sensing and GIS approach. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinf 6:1– Oh HJ, Kim Y-S, Choi J-K, Park E, Lee S (2011) GIS mapping of regional probabilistic groundwater potential in the area of Pohang City, Korea. J Hydrol 399:158– Pakhmode V, Kulkarni H, Deolankar SB (2003) Hydrological-drainage analysis in watershed-programme planning: a case from the Deccan basalt, India. Hydrogeol J 11:595– Pal DK, Khare MK, Rao GS, Jugran DK, Roy AK (1997) Demarcation of groundwater potential zones using remote sensing and GIS techniques: a case study of Bala valley in parts of Yamunanagar and Sirmaur districts. In: Ravindran KV, Manchanda ML, Prasad J, Pandey LM (eds) Remote sensing for natural resources, pp 395– Patel DP, Gajjar CA, Srivastava PK (2012) Prioritization of Malesari mini-watersheds through morphometric analysis: a remote sensing and GIS perspective. Environ Earth Sci. doi:10.1007/ s12665-012-2086- Prasad B, Honda SK, Murai S (1997) Sub-watershed prioritization of watershed management using remote sensing and GIS. http:// www.gisdevelopment.net/AARS/ACRS/Water resources Pratap K, Ravindran KV, Prabakaran B (2000) Groundwater prospect zoning using remote sensing and geographical information system: a case study in Dala-Renukoot area, Sonbhadra district, Uttarpradesh. J Indian Soc Remote Sens 28:249– Ramesh KS, Elango S, Adiga S (2001) Prioritisation of sub- watersheds of Dakshina Kannada district, Karnataka using remote sensing data. In: Proceedings of IWIWM, Bangalore Rao DP, Bhattacharya A, Reddy PR (1996) Use of IRS-1C data for geological and geographical studies. Curr Sci 70:619– Reddy PR, Vinod Kumar K, Seshadri K (1996) Use of IRS-1C data in groundwater studies. Curr Sci 70:600– Sadatipour SMT (1986) Geomorphology and Groundwater studies of Gangolli Basin, Karnataka, India. Ph. D. Thesis (unpubl.), Mangalore University, 190p Sameena M, Krishnamurthy J, Jayaraman V, Ranganna G (2009) Evaluation of drainage networks developed in hard rock terrain. Geocarto Int 24:397– Sankar K (2002) Evaluation of groundwater potential zones using remote sensing data in Upper Vaigai river basin, Tamil Nadu, India. J Indian Soc Remote Sens 30:119– Sankar K, Jegatheesan MS, Balasubramanian A (1996) Geoelectrical resistivity studies in the Kanyakumari District, Tamil Nadu. J Appl Hydrol 9(1&2):83– Sargaonkar AP, Rathi B, Baile A (2011) Identifying potential sites for artificial groundwater recharge in sub-watershed of River Kanhan, India. Environ Earth Sci 62:1099–
Schumm SA (1956) Evolution of drainage systems and slopes in badlands at Perth Amboy, New Jersey. Geol Soc Am Bull 67:597– Senthilkumar M, Elango L (2011) Modelling the impact of a subsurface barrier on groundwater flow in the lower Palar River basin, southern India. Hydrogeol J 19:917– Shaban A, Khawlie M, Abdallah C, Awad M (2005) Hydrological and watershed characteristics of the El-Kabir River, North Lebanon. Lakes Reserv Res Manag 10:93– Singh PK, Suyash Kumar, Singh UC (2011) Groundwater resource evaluation in the Gwalior area, India, using satellite data: an integrated geomorphological and geophysical approach. Hydro- geol J. doi:10.1007/s10040-011-0758- Smith KG (1950) Standards for grading texture of erosional topography. Am J Sci 248:655– Sreedevi PD, Subrahmanyam K, Ahmed S (2005) The significance of morphometric analysis for obtaining groundwater potential zones in a structurally controlled terrain. Environ Geol 47: 412– Srinivasa VS, Govindainah S, Honne Gowda H (2004) Morphometric analysis of sub-watersheds in the Pawagada area of Tumkur district South India using remote sensing and GIS techniques. J Indian Soc Remote Sens 32:351– Srinivasa VS, Govindaiah S, Honne Gowda H (2008) Prioritization of sub-watersheds for sustainable development and management of natural resources: an integrated approach using remote sensing, GIS and socio-economic data. Curr Sci 95:345– Strahler AN (1952) Hypsometric (area-altitude) analysis of erosional topography. Bull Geol Soc Am 63:1117– Strahler AN (1957) Quantitative analysis of watershed geomorphol- ogy. Trans Am Geophys Union 38:913– Strahler AN (1964) Quantitative geomorphology of basins and channel networks. In: Chow VT (ed) Handbook of applied hydrology. Mcgraw Hill Book Company, New York, pp 4-39–4-
Subba Rao N (2006) Groundwater potential index in a crystalline terrain using remote sensing data. Environ Geol 50:1067– Subba Rao N (2009) A numerical scheme for groundwater develop- ment in a watershed basin of basement terrain: a case study from India. Hydrogeol J 17:379– Subba Rao N, Prathap RR (1999) Groundwater prospects in a developing satellite township of Andhra Pradesh, India. J Indian Soc Remote Sens 27(4):193– Subba Rao N, Chakradhar GKJ, Srinivas V (2001) Identification of groundwater potential zones using remote sensing techniques in and around Guntur Town, Andhra Pradesh, India. J Indian Soc Remote Sens 29:69– Suresh M, Sudhakar S, Tiwari KN, Chowdary VM (2004) Prioriti- zation of watersheds using morphometric parameters and assessment of surface water potential using remote sensing. J Indian Soc Remote Sens 32:249– Szilagyi J, Zlotnik VA, Gates JB, Jozsa J (2011) Mapping mean annual groundwater recharge in the Nebraska Sand Hills, USA. Hydrogeol J. doi:10.1007/s10040-011-0769- Thakkar AK, Dhiman SD (2007) Morphometric analysis and prioritization of mini-watersheds in Mohr watershed, Gujarat using remote sensing and GIS techniques. J Indian Soc Remote Sens 35:313– Thomas J, Joseph S, Thrivikramji KP, Abe G, Kannan N (2012) Morphometrical analysis of two tropical mountain river basins of contrasting environmental settings, the southern Western Ghats, India. Environ Earth Sci 66:2353– Yeh HF, Lee CH, Hsu KC, Chang PH (2009) GIS for the assessment of the groundwater recharge potential zone. Environ Geol 58:185– Youssef AM, Pradhan B, Hassan AM (2011) Flash flood risk estimation along the St. Katherine road, southern Sinai, Egypt using GIS based morphometry and satellite imagery. Environ Earth Sci 62(3):611–
