Morphometric analysis is crucial for advancing in various fields, including geomorphology, hydrology, environmental sciences, and geological studies. The objective of the present study is to understand the hydrological and morphological characteristics of the Shimsha River, which flows through the fluvial deltaic plain in the semiarid environment of Karnataka. Remote sensing and geographic information system have been used as mapping and efficient tools for drainage basin morphometry. The emphasis is laid on geological, geomorphological, hydrological, and fluvial features under linear, aerial, shape, relief, geometric, morphotectonic, and social morphometric parameters. The basin area is about 8741 km², with a dendritic to subdendritic pattern. The sinuosity index is 1.6, which indicates meandering in nature. Areal parameters suggest that the drainage basin has a moderate surface permeability, homogenous lithology, run-off, erodibility, low relief conditions, infiltration rate, and a well-developed drainage network. Shape parameter indicates that the basin is subelongated with flatted peak flow and longer duration. Relief factor indicated low relief and intermediate stage of the incision rate. The river has an asymmetry factor is 38.65 and it shows that the channel has shifted southwest. The river shows a perfectly graded profile, with a considerable amount of incision and deposition along its profile showing tectonically unstable, based on the spatial distribution of the potential groundwater zone of about (5260 km²), other waterbody masks covered (285 km²). Standard visual interpretation techniques were applied to recognize and interpret the land use and land cover patterns. A basin rich in clay-rich soil may lead to a massive flood. Essentially, physiographical and structural conditions controlled the stream order of the basin. The increase in the stream length ratio from lower to a higher order. That indicates a mature geomorphic stage of the study area. Rainfall and local lithology impact the development of segments of the stream.

1 INTRODUCTION

A watershed is an area where runoff from rainfall collects and flows through a common outlet point (Schwab et al., 1981). Climate change and human activities have profoundly altered the evolutionary processes and developmental trends of the hydrology and geomorphology of rivers.

Morphometry is the measurement and mathematical analysis of the configuration of the land surface, shape, and dimensions of its landforms (Clarke, 1966; Pareta & Pareta, 2011; Strahler, 1964). The estimations of morphometric parameters like stream order, stream length, bifurcation ratio, channel length, relative relief, drainage density, stream frequency, form factor, shape factor, texture ratio, elongation ratio, circularity ratio, and compactness constant are dependent on the formulae proposed by (Bharath, Maddamsetty, Manjunatha, et al., 2023; Bharath, Maddamsetty, & Uttam, 2023; Gautam et al., 2023; Gautam et al., 2020; Horton, 1945; Kumar et al., 2018; Miller, 1953; Schumm, 1956; Strahler, 1964). The gradient of drainage and slope of the fluvial systems is the important component of morphometric characteristics of the river basin (Nautiyal, 1964; Strahler, 1964).

Morphometric characterization requires measurement of the aerial, linear, and relief aspects of the drainage basin (Gautam et al., 2020; Magesh et al., 2013; Nag & Chakraborty, 2003; Shreve, 1966). A drainage basin's spatial and isomorphic aspects are relevant for hydrological investigations, including estimating groundwater potentiality, river management, and environmental assessment (Gautam, Singh, Kumar, et al., 2022). Drainage morphometry is necessary for analyzing many hydrological processes within the watershed (Magesh & Chandrasekar, 2014). Morphometric analysis is used to evaluate flood susceptibility (Obeidat et al., 2021). Soil erosion is related with linear and relief aspects such as bifurcation ratio, drainage density, stream frequency, drainage texture, relief, ruggedness number (Javed et al., 2011).

Landscape changes and drainage evolution can be understood by evaluating geomorphic features and geographic indices, such as longitudinal profile, slope, asymmetry factor, and basin elongation ratio (Bull et al., 1977; Cox, 1994; Cuong & Zuchiewicz, 2001; Dehbozorgi et al., 2010; Gautam et al., 2020; Gautam & Singh, 2023; Hack, 1957; Hare et al., 1985; Keller, 2002; Perez-Pena et al., 2010; Raj, 2012; Singh & Awasthi, 2011a, 2011b; Singh et al., 2018). Asymmetric factors related to basin side slopes are associated with major waterways (Cox, 1994; Cuong & Zuchiewicz, 2001; Dehbozorgi et al., 2010; Gautam & Singh, 2023; Hare et al., 1985; Keller, 2002; Pérez-Peña et al., 2010; Raj, 2012).

Remote sensing and geographic information system (GIS) technology, calculation of hydro morphometric features and terrain analysis of the catchment (Aparna et al., 2015; Odiji et al., 2021; Rekha et al., 2011). Many previous researchers have used drainage analysis using remote sensing techniques (Biswas et al., 1999; Gautam, Singh, Singh, et al., 2022; Krishnamurthy & Srinivas, 1995; Nag, 1998; Nag & Chakraborty, 2003; Nongkynrih & Husain, 2011; Sarkar et al., 2020; Srivastava, 1997; Waikar & Nilawar, 2014; Withanage et al., 2015). Delineation of stream networks and the river boundary can be accomplished by traditional methods using toposheets and onsite observations or by sophisticated approaches using remote sensed data and GIS tools (Bharath et al., 2021; Gautam & Singh, 2022; Kadam et al., 2022; Rajasekhar et al., 2020).

The Shimsha River is a significant river in Peninsular India, primarily flowing through Karnataka. It is a left tributary of the Cauvery River (Bharath, Maddamsetty, Manjunatha, et al., 2023; Bharath, Maddamsetty, & Uttam, 2023). In this study, river morphometry plays an important role in the modern perspective by providing insights into various aspects of river systems and their management such as flow characteristics, flood risk assessment, floodplain mapping, erosion control, habitat assessment, sediment dynamics, land use planning, and water resource management. It aids in sustainable river management, disaster risk reduction, and the preservation of vital aquatic ecosystems. Hence, this study aims to analyse the morphometric and morphotectonic parameters of the Shimsha basin in Karnataka, India, using topographic maps of Survey of India and Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) digital elevation model (DEM) data.

In this study uses the GIS technique to consider their hydrological behavior to describe the characteristics of the Shimsha River in the western ghats. The objectives of this study are to (1) delineate the drainage characteristics, (2) assess the linear, areal, and relief, geometric, and morphotectonic parameters of the basin, and (3) to develop important measures for adequate water and soil conservation.

2 STUDY AREA

The Shimsha River is a left tributary of Cauvery River. Geographically it lies between 12°14′ and 13°37′N latitude and 76°7′ and 77°27′E longitude (Figure 1). The basin runs roughly in a northwest–southeast direction. It originates from Tumkur district at an elevation of 214 m and, after 224 km distance, drains into the Cauvery River as a six-order stream near Ganalu waterfall, Ganalu district, Karnataka. In the western part, the basin has high relief and steep slopes and while the rest of the part is moderate to the low slope. That is characterized by irregular branching in many directions of tributary streams joining the main channel. Subtributaries, namely Eravaishnavi, Kanihalla, Chickkhole, Hebbahalla, Mullahalla, and Kanva. Physiographically is occurs in fluvial-deltaic plains. The basin is hot and subtropical. The temperature of the area varies from 20°C to 38°C. The mean rainfall varies from 600 and 800 mm in semiarid areas. The major rainfall seasons in the area are south-west monsoon (Bharath, Maddamsetty, Manjunatha, et al., 2023; Bharath, Maddamsetty, & Uttam, 2023).

Details are in the caption following the image — **Figure 1**
Open in figure viewer PowerPoint

Location map of study area.

2.1 Geology

The entire district of Tumkur is situated west and east of Dharwar Craton and is essentially part of the hard rock terrain and comprises mainly two rock types namely Closepet Granite and Peninsular Gneissic Complex (Geological Survey of India, 1981).

3 MATERIALS AND METHODS

The base maps of the Shimsha River are prepared based on Survey of India topographic maps on a 1:50,000 scale 57C7/8/11/12/15/16, 57D9/10/13/14/15, 57G2/3/4/7, and 57H1/2/3/5/6/7 and stream network is extracted using SRTM DEM with the help of ArcGIS 10.4. SOI topographic maps of scale 1:50,000 are georeferenced and projected to WGS 1984 UTM zone 43 North datum. The soil map was prepared by digitizing the National Remote Sensing Centre (Table 1). For classification of land use/land cover features of the study area (Resourcesat-II, Indian Remote-Sensing Satellite-P6, Linear Imaging Self-Scanning System-III) of December 22, 2011 imagery. The slope gradient, aspect, and hydrological map for the rivers were prepared based on these results. Channels were classified (Strahler, 1964) following the drainage order and followed by drainage extraction, accumulation module, and calculation of the morphometric parameters using the stream ordering module. The drainage network was analyzed according to Horton's laws (Horton, 1945) and (Strahler, 1964) law specifying the stream orders (Figure 2).

Table 1. Specification of the data sets used in the study.

Data type	Range	Data source
Toposheets	57C7/8/11/12/15/16	Survey of India
	57D9/10/13/14/15
	57G2/3/4/7
	57H1/2/3/5/6/7
SRTM	DEM (90 m)	https://srtm.csi.cgiar.org/srtmdata
Soil		NRSC, India
LULC	Resourcesat-II, IRS-P6, IRS-P6, LISS-III (23.5 m)	https://bhuvan-app3.nrsc.gov.in/data

Abbreviations: DEM, digital elevation model; IRS-P6, Indian Remote-Sensing Satellite-P6; LISS-III, Linear Imaging Self-Scanning System-III; LULC, land use/land cover; NRSC, National Remote Sensing Centre; SRTM, Shuttle Radar Topography Mission.

4 RESULTS

Various morphometric parameters such as linear, aerial, shape, relief, geometric, and morphotectonic have been computed and analysis of morphometric analysis of Shimsha River is discussed in the following sections.

4.1 Linear aspects of the basin

The Shimsha basin is a sixth-order river basin with lower-order stream dominance (Figure 3a). The total stream number declines slowly as the stream order increases the stream number and the total stream number (Figure 3b). The total stream number of all orders is 1871. The river basin exhibits 1476, 302, 72, 17, 3, and 1 of first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth order, respectively. The total stream length of all orders is 4975 km and the total (Lµ) of first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth order streams is 2574, 1172, 660, 311, 110, and 148 km, respectively. Stream length ratio is 0.64 for this basin. The values of the mean bifurcation ratio are 4.40 (Table 2).

Table 2. Mathematical expressions and Summary of drainage basin parameters.

Parameters	Result						Formulae	References
Linear aspect
Stream order	I	II	III	IV	V	IV	Hierarchical rank	Strahler (1964)
Stream number	1476	302	72	17	3	1	N1 + N2++ … Nμ	Horton (1945)
Stream length (km)	2574	1172	660	311	110	148	L1 + L2++ … Lμ	Horton (1945)
Stream length ratio		II/I	III/II	IV/III	V/IV	V/VI	Lμ/(Lμ − 1)	Horton (1945)
Stream length ratio		0.46	0.56	0.47	0.35	1.35	Lμ/(Lμ − 1)
Bifurcation ratio		I/II	II/III	III/IV	IV/V	V/VI	Nμ/Nμ + 1	Strahler (1964)
Bifurcation ratio		4.89	4.19	4.24	5.67	3.00	Nμ/Nμ + 1

Areal aspect
Drainage density (km/km²)	0.57	(Lμ)/A	Horton (1945)
Stream frequency (km/km²)	0.21	(Nμ)/A	Hadley and Schumm (1961)
Drainage texture (km⁻¹)	3.24	Dd × Fs	Smith (1950)
Length of overland flow	0.88	Lg = 1/2Dd	Horton (1945)
Shape aspects
Elongation ratio	0.79	(2/Lb) (A/π)^0.5	Schumm (1956)
Circulatory ratio	0.33	Rc = 4πA/P²	Miller (1953)
Form factor	0.49	Ff = A/Lb²	Horton (1932)
Relief aspect
Basin relief	943	H − h	Hadley and Schumm (1961)
Relative relief ratio	163.43	R × 100/P	Strahler (1956)
Ruggedness number	0.53	Dd ×(R/1000)	Strahler (1956)
Hypsometric integrals	0.5	Sbm − h/H − h	Strahler (1952)
Geometric aspect
Basin area (sq. m)	8741	A	Schumm (1956)
Basin perimeter (km)	577	P	Schumm (1956)
Basin length (km)	133	Lb	Schumm (1956)
Channel length (km)	224	Cl
Morphotectonic aspect
Sinuosity index	1.65	Cl/Vl	Leopold et al. (1964) and Mueller (1968)
Asymmetry factor	38.65	100 (Ar/At)	Molin et al. (2004)
Longitudinal profile (m)		Lg	GIS analysis/DEM

Abbreviations: DEM, digital elevation model; GIS, geographic information system.

4.2 Areal aspects of the basin

The drainage density is characterized by stream length per unit area in a region (Figure 4a). It is 0.57 km/km² for this basin. The stream frequency for this basin has been calculated to be 0.21 km/km². The drainage textures values are 3.24 (km⁻¹). The length of overland flow are 0.88 (Table 2).

4.3 Shape aspects of the basin

The elongation ratio of basin is 0.79 km/km², circulatory ratio values are 0.33, and form factor values are 0.49 (Table 2).

4.4 Relief aspects of the basin

Relief aspect is included concerning topographic parameters (e.g., basin relief, ruggedness number, relative relief, aspect, and hypsometric integrals [HI]). Here, the highest point of the basin is 1315 m amsl and the lowest point 407 m amsl (Figure 4b). The basin relief of the Shimsha basin is 943 m. The ruggedness number of the basin is 0.53 (Figure 4c). Relative relief (Rrp) is 163.43 m for Shimsha basin (Figure 4d). The aspect map probably applies to know a slope's direction. According to the aspect analyses, the area comes under flat 1.29%, sides facing the north 6.12%, sides facing the northeast 12.54%, sides facing the east 13.92%, sides facing the southeast 13.29%, sides facing the south 12.34%, sides facing the southwest 12.75%, sides facing the west 12.1%, sides facing the northwest 11.04%, and sides facing the north 4.62% (Figure 5a). HI of the basin is calculated the HI < 0.5 (Table 2).

4.5 Geometric aspects

The basin area of the Shimsha River is 8741 km², basin length and perimeter are 133 and 577 km, respectively.

4.6 Morphotectonic aspect

Rivers having a sinuosity of 1.65. The Shimsha River has AF 38.65.

5 DISCUSSION

5.1 Areal aspect

The evaluation of aerial (two-dimensional) morphometric parameters (Table 2). Drainage density is calculated as the ratio of the total length of all streams (Lµ) within the drainage basin to the total area (A) of the basin, that is, Lµ/A. In the study area, Dd is 0.57 km/km², which indicates, that surface permeability, runoff, infiltration rate, and erodibility are moderate to high (Horton, 1932). This is mainly influenced by the resistance of the subsurface geology to erosion and infiltration capacity (Singh et al., 2015). The resulting drainage density is an indicator of the potential of Groundwater. The low drainage density indicates the higher potentiality and the high drainage density shows the low potentiality of groundwater (Sarmin & Zaman, 2018).

The stream frequency of the basin is 0.21, which indicates a moderate-to-high infiltration rate, surface permeability, and low relief condition. It depends on the climate, rainfall, runoff, permeability, vegetation, rock/soil type, penetration rate, relief, and developmental stage (Schumm, 1956).

Drainage texture refers to the relative distance between the streams in the unit area along a linear path (Howard, 1967). It is calculated by dividing the total length of all stream channels by the total perimeter of the basin (Table 2). It is classified into five categories, that is, very coarse (<2), course (2–4), moderate (4–6), fine (6–8), and very fine (>8) (Smith, 1950). In the Shimsha basin, the drainage texture ratio is 3.24 (km⁻¹) which indicates the coarse-textured, surface runoff and infiltration rate is moderate. It prominently depends on climate, rainfall and rock type, relief, and development (Horton, 1945; Smith, 1950).

The length of overland flow is about half the reciprocal densities of the drainage basin (Horton, 1945). It is among the most important independent variables influencing the physical and hydrological development of the drainage basin (Waikar & Nilawar, 2014). When the intensity of rainfall exceeds the infiltration capacity of the soil, the surplus water flows on the land surface in the form of ground flow (Suresh, 2000). In the present study, the length of the overland flow of the river is 0.88 (Table 2), indicating a well-developed drainage network. It depends on the rock type, permeability, climatic regime, vegetation and relief, and duration of erosion (Schumm, 1956).

5.2 Shape aspect

The elongation ratio is a shape parameter that is used to describe the geometric characteristics of a drainage basin. It's an important metric for understanding the shape and form of a basin in relation to its hydrological behavior. This parameter was introduced by Schumm (1956) and has since been widely used in hydrological and geomorphological studies. The value of the elongation ratio can provide insights into the potential for streamflow generation, runoff concentration, and flood dynamics within the basin. The elongation ratio is calculated given the formula Re = (2/Lb) (A/π)^0.5. Re is an elongation ratio, and A is a basin area (sq. km). Pi is a “Pi” value, that is, 3.14, Lb is a basin length and Re values help in flood forecasting. The values of Re are <0.5 for a more elongated basin, Re is <0.7 for the elongated basin, 0.8–0.7 for a less elongated basin, 0.9–0.8 for an oval basin, and >0.9 for a circular basin. Re of the basin is 0.79 which suggests that the drainage basin is subelongated (Table 2).

The circularity ratio is a geomorphological parameter that is used to describe the shape of a drainage basin in hydrology and geomorphology studies. It provides insights into the degree of circularity or compactness of a basin's shape. It describes the shape of the basin, and it correlates with subsurface lithology and surface run-off (Miller, 1953). The basins approaching circular shape are generally slow to move, and have a depositional layer, whereas linear catchments tend to have faster channel drainage (Dowling et al., 1998). Unit circularity ratios show the circular shape and indicate uniform infiltration with a long time for surplus water to reach the outlet or confluence, which also depends on the slope, and land cover (Reddy et al., 2004). The Rc for the study area is 0.33 (Table 2). This indicates subelongated. It shows both rivers are at an early stage of topographical maturity.

The form factor can be described as a basin area ratio to the square of the river length (Horton, 1932). This parameter shows the flow intensity of the drainage of the designated area (Horton, 1945). The value of the form factor for the Shimsha basin is 0.49 which represents that the formation of the basin is subelongated with flatted peak flow and longer duration (Table 2).

5.3 Relief aspect

Absolute relief is the actual change in height between two locations, regardless of the terrain's shape or slope between those points. It shows the maximum height of any field morphology, which also gives estimate information. The form and strength of occupational denudation forces (Thakur, 2005 and Tejpal, 2013). It defines how much erosion has occurred in the area's existing summits. Shimsha basin indicates that 56.34% is in the moderate low and moderates an area of total relief that occupies most of the basin, while moderately high-to-high relief covers 33.72% and the low-relief field is only 10.04%. It suggests low run-off and high infiltration in the basin area. Therefore, it was expected that there would be no regular flooding in the basin (Figure 4b and Table 2).

Basin relief refers to the difference in elevation between the highest and lowest points within a drainage basin. It defines the slope and so the run-off and sediment transport. The low basin relief indicates low run-off, low sediment transport, and spreading of water within the basin, according to Hadley and Schumm (1961). The basin relief provides insights into the topographic variability and ruggedness of the landforms within a specific drainage basin. Basin relief is a prime factor in interpreting the denudational properties of the basin. It plays a significant role in developing the landform, drainage, surface and subsurface water flow, permeability, and terrain erosion. The total reliefs of the Shimsha River are measured 943 m (Table 2).

The ruggedness number is defined as the product of basin relief and drainage density (Strahler, 1956; Vijith & Satheesh, 2006) and practically mixes steep slopes with long slopes (Pareta & Pareta, 2011; Patel et al., 2013). The ruggedness number provides insights into the complexity of the terrain. A higher ruggedness number indicates a more rugged or rough terrain, while a lower value suggests a smoother landscape. It formulated Dd × (R/1000), which results in 0.53 (Table 2), it reveals that the medium surface rock-permeability, run-off, and infiltration rate. Found to cover 54.04% basin (Figure 4c), that used interpreted as a basin with low relief and minimize soil erosion - the rugged regions of the east-west of the basin as revealed.

Relative relief is defined as the difference in height in a unit area. It is a significant morphometric parameter used for the overall analysis of morphological attributes of the terrain. Partsch (1911) gave the first idea about relative relief and subsequently (Johnson, 1933; Krebs, 1922; Schrepfer & Kallner, 1930; Smith, 1935) followed it. The first time a scientific and systematic study of relative relief was done by Smith (1935). Further improvement in relative relief analysis was done by Nir (1957) using a relief classification by suggesting the ratio between relative relief and absolute relief. The calculated relative relief of the basin is 163.43. Table 3 shows the relative relief classes of the Shimsha basin. It shows that 22.05% of the basin is either in the moderate low and 21.42% moderate, an area of total relief that occupies most of the basin, while moderately high to high relief covers 38.50%, and only 18.04% of the area consists of low relief, which indicates low runoff and high infiltration rates in the basin. This part of the river whose relative relief is measured <54.94 is the more significant part. Therefore, it is expected that flooding in the basin will not be regular (Figure 4d).

Table 3. Drainage density, elevation range, relative relief, ruggedness number, and basin slope class of the basin.

Parameters	Range	Inferences	Area (sq. km)	Area (%)
Dd (km/km²)	<0.16	Very low density	1678.4	19.2
	0.16–0.43	Low density	2163.4	24.75
	0.43–0.65	Moderate density	2167.4	24.8
	0.65–0.87	High density	1856.4	21.24
	>0.87	Very high density	875.4	10.01
Elevation (m)	<407	Low absolute ratio	885	10.04
	675–748	Moderately low absolute ratio	2391	27.41
	748–813	Moderate absolute ratio	2523	28.93
	813–874	Moderate high absolute ratio	1459	16.66
	>1315	High absolute ratio	1485	16.96
Rr (m)	<54.94	Low	1577	18.04
	54.94–68.62	Moderately low	1927	22.05
	68.62–99.42	Moderate	1872	21.42
	99.42–145.61	Moderate high	1681	19.23
	>145.61	High	1684	19.27
Rn (m)	<1.10	Low	2408	27.55
	1.10–1.65	Moderately low	1878	21.49
	1.65–2.48	Moderate	1138	13.02
	2.48–3.58	Moderate high	1992	22.79
	>3.58	High	1323	15.14
Sb (%)	0–259423.52	Very low slope	3778	43.22
	259,423.52–821,507.84	Low slope	4481	51.26
	821,507.84–1,945,676.47	Moderate slope	334	3.82
	1,945,676.47–3,761,641.17	High slope	106	1.22
	3,761,641.17–11,025,500	Very high slope	42	0.48
Total			8741	100

Slope analysis in geomorphic studies is a significant parameter. Besides, the slope elements are dominated by the morphogenic climate processes in areas with a rock of different resistance. A slope map gives information on settlement planning for agriculture, deforestation, planning for infrastructure, retaining practices, and so forth, provided by Sreedevi et al. (2005). The slope analysis method is also suggested by geomorphologists of various shades and styles (Hammond, 1964; Russell, 1949; Schumm, 1956; Strahler, 1956; Young, 1971), and has contributed a great deal to physiographic investigation and research directed toward the evolution of earth's surface. The average value change rate between each cell and its neighbors (Burrough, 1986). A significant contribution to slope study has been made by (Horton, 1945; Raize & Henry, 1937; Strahler, 1956; Wentworth, 1930). The drainage slope (in percentage) is classified into “5” classes (Table 3), which shows the land area and the percentage of each category as well as the five classified categories—revealing that the low to very low slope within the basin (94.48%). It clarifies the basin's low-relief character regions with a high gradient (1.70%) of the basin area (Figure 5b).

Aspect usually refers to the direction of the slope and this factor can have a very significant impact on the local climate because the hottest afternoon sunlight is in the west so a west-facing slope will be cooler than a protected east-facing slope. These could significantly affect crop growth and biodiversity in the study area. The output raster data set value represents the compass aspect direction. 0 is true for the answer; 90 is on the covered north side (Magesh et al., 2011). The aspect map of Shimsha River (Table 4). It is clearly seen that east-facing slopes are mainly found in 13.92% area. Therefore, these slopes have higher moisture content and lower evaporation rates and some parts falling toward the west have lower moisture content and higher evaporation rates (Rai et al., 2017).

Table 4. Aspect classes of the basin.

Azimuth	Abbreviation	Area (sq. km)	Area (%)
Flat	−1	112.7	1.29
North	0–22.5	534.7	6.12
Northeast	22.5–67.5	1095.7	12.54
East	67.5–112.5	1216.7	13.92
Southeast	112.5–157.5	1161.7	13.29
South	157.5-202.5	1078.7	12.34
Southwest	202.5–247.5	1114.7	12.75
West	247.5–292.5	1057.7	12.1
Northwest	292.5–337.5	964.7	11.04
North	337.5–360	403.7	4.62
Total		8741	100

The hypsometric curve of a basin presents the area's horizontal distribution and the basin's altitudes (Strahler, 1952). Hypsometric curves are attributed to drainage basins' geomorphic and tectonic evolution in terms of their forms and processes (Keller & Pinter, 1996; Strahler, 1964). HI is calculated by following the equation HI= Sb − h/H/h. Where HI of the basin is 0.5, Figure 6, the HI results show three basin stages: (1) basin with (HI > 0.5) indicating deep vertical incision and slight erosion by neotectonics; (2) basin with (0.4 < HI < 0.5) indicates approximate equilibrium and an intermediate stage of incision and recent tectonic erosion of the active agents; and (3) basins with low relief and extreme erosion distinguished by (HI < 0.4). Here, to demonstrate the relationship between the canal level and the drainage region using the hypsometric curve. The integral hypsometric and the hypsometric curves are essential to show the basin (Table 5).

Table 5. LULC classification, geohydrological classification, and soil type of the basin.

Social aspect	Category	Area (sq. km)	Area (%)
LULC class	Water bodies	240	2.75
	Wasteland	4	0.05
	Shrubland	181	2.07
	Permanent wetland	6	0.07
	Mixed forests	180	2.06
	Fallow land	3921	1654
	Deciduous forest	135	1.55
	Cropland	1158	13.25
	Built-up land	104	1.19
	Barren land	16	9.09
	Agriculture	2795	31.98
Total		8741	100
Waterbody	Firstst order	2574	49
	Second order	1172	22
	Third order	660	13
	Fourth order	311	6
	Fifth order	110	2
	Sixth order	148	3
	Waterbody mask	285	5
Total		5260	100
Soil type	Clay	3376	38.62
Soil type	Clay skeletal	5365	61.38
Total		8741	100

Abbreviation: LULC, land use/land cover.

5.4 Geometric aspect

The basin area of the study area is 8741 sq. m. There is a significant relationship between total watershed areas and total stream length, which is supported by the areas contributing (Schumm, 1956). Basin length is defined as the longest dimension of the basin parallel to the principal drainage line (Schumm, 1956). Gregory and Walling (1973) defined the length of the basin as the longest in the basin with a mouth at the end. The basin length calculated for this basin is 133 km. Basin perimeter refers to the total length of the boundary that defines the outer extent of a drainage basin. The basin's perimeter is 577 km, illustrating that the southern portion is stretched widely.

5.5 Morphotectonic aspect

The sinuosity index has been determined for all these sections for monitoring the channel sinuosity parameters measured using the procedure (Leopold et al., 1964). A sinuosity range straight 1.1, sinuous 1.1–1.5, and meandering >1.5 (Leopold et al., 1964). According to Muller (1968), the sinuosity index is the ratio between the channel length to the valley length which is expressed as SI = Cl/Vl. The average sinuosity of the river is 1.6 which indicates the river course as meandering in nature.

The Shimsha River is estimated to be 224 km long, and the river segments were demarcated into 30 sections into a series of equal-length reaches (Figure 7). The length of each section is 7.47 km. The sinuosity range of the river has been measured from 1.08 to 2.71.

Meandering zone: The sinuosity index of this zone has been calculated between 1.57 and 2.71 which indicates that the river follows a meandering pattern (Leopold & Wolman, 1957).

High sinuosity zone: In this zone sinuosity index of the river ranges between 1.30 and 1.49, this value shows high sinuosity, which leads to lateral erosion.

Low sinuosity zone: The range of this zone measures between 1.08 and 1.29 which indicates the low sinuosity. Erosion and accretion along river banks are affected by sinuosity index (Prasad et al., 2021). The sinuosity of a river depends on the structure and geomorphology of the area (Aswathy et al., 2008). The sinuosity of the river channel depends on the structure, geomorphology, river discharge, bank erosion, channel bed, sediment load, and groundwater seepage (Brice, 1964; Leopold & Wolman, 1957; Woolderink, 2021).

The asymmetry factor refers to the lateral tilting of a basin concerning the main watercourse (Cox, 1994; Cuong & Zuchiewicz, 2001; Hare et al., 1985; Mohan et al., 2007; Raj, 2012; Singh & Srivastava, 2011). This index also provides directions for potential differential neotectonic activity and is responsible for the upliftment and subsidence of distinct blocks versus large tilting (Pinter, 2005). The Shimsha River has AF 38.65 (Table 5). It shows that the channel has shifted southwest (Figure 8).

The longitudinal profile is a curvature that shows the relationship between heights versus distance downstream of a channel. Deviations from a curved-up shape of longitudinal channel profiles may indicate channel instability due to climatic and rock-type and tectonic factors (Hack, 1957). The irregularity in the profile occurs due to neotectonic and confluences of tributaries (Schumm, 1986). The slope of the study area is 13.36°. The slope of the river decreases at a gradient (∼2.3 m/km) toward to downstream direction of the river. The longitudinal profiles of the streams show a sudden change in slopes. The river shows a perfectly graded profile, a considerable amount of incision, and deposition along their profiles showing tectonically instability (Figure 9).

5.6 Social aspects

Land use and landcover studies are important information studies about the utilization of land resources for various purposes based on the availability of the necessary support and transport around the world (Nagarajan & Poongothai, 2012). Standard visual interpretation techniques of remote sensing were applied using satellite imageries to recognize and interpret the land use pattern of the area. Forest and the growth of vegetation reflect the presence of groundwater in an area (Sarmin & Zaman, 2018) (Figure 10a).

Groundwater–surface water interactions occur in different ways across Earth's landscapes (Winter et al., 1998). The groundwater perspective area helps determine the suitability of access to groundwater because surface water is linked to groundwater. Bar diagram showing the percentage of water in the subsections of the Shimsha River followed by (first order 49%), (second order 22%), (third order 13%), (fourth order 6%), (fifth order 5%), (sixth order 3%), and (other water body mask 5%) (Figure 10b and Table 5).

Bar soil is very susceptible to soil erosion because rich in water content and therefore characterized by high drainage density and high surface runoff, thus implying significant flood peaks and volume (Gardiner, 2003). Clay contains (3376 sq. km) about 39% and clay skeletal (5365 sq. km) covers 61% (Figure 10c and Table 5). Most of the study area was covered with clay skeletal soil with low to moderate infiltration rates.

6 CONCLUSIONS

To estimate and calculate the erosion potential in the Shimsha basin, 25 morphometric parameters linear, areal, and relief, geometric, and morphotectonic parameters of the basin were analyzed accurately by integrating quantitative and spatial techniques with the help of GIS techniques. Detailed morphometric study of river shows dendritic to subdendritic drainage patterns. The mean bifurcation ratio of the Shimsha basin is 4.40 which indicates that the basin is normal and control of the drainage network by geomorphology. The drainage density, stream frequency and drainage texture of Shimsha basin show a moderate surface permeability, homogenous lithology, run-off, erodibility, low relief conditions, infiltration rate, and a well-developed drainage network. Ruggedness number interpreted as a basin with low relief and minimized soil erosion—the rugged regions of the east-west of the basin. Elongation ratio, circularity ratio, and form factor indicate that the basin consists of a subelongated basin with flattened peak flow and long duration. Relief factor indicated low relief and intermediate stage of the incision rate. Hypsometric analysis of the Shimsha basin specifies a mature stage of geomorphic evolution of the basin. The AF indicates that the channel has shifted to the southwest. The results indicate that the study area consists of a subelongated basin with flattened peak flow and long duration. Most of the study area was covered with clay skeletal soil with low to moderate infiltration rates. The study results are highly beneficial for developing and planning soil and water conservation structures and watershed management strategies. These maps can inform decisions about sustainable groundwater management, potential groundwater zones, water harvesting sites, and groundwater conservation.

ETHICS STATEMENT

None declared.

Open Research

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Data will be made available on request.

REFERENCES

Aparna, P., Nigee, K., Shimna, P., & Drissia, T. K. (2015). Quantitative analysis of geomorphology and flow pattern analysis of Muvattupuzha River Basin using geographic information system. Aquatic Procedia, 4, 609–616.
10.1016/j.aqpro.2015.02.079
Google Scholar
Aswathy, M. V., Vijith, H., & Satheesh, R. (2008). Factors influencing the sinuosity of Pannagon River, Kottayam, Kerala, India: An assessment using remote sensing and GIS. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 138(1–3), 173–180.
10.1007/s10661-007-9755-6
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Bharath, A., Kumar, K. K., Maddamsetty, R., Manjunatha, M., Tangadagi, R. B., & Preethi, S. (2021). Drainage morphometry based sub-watershed prioritization of Kalinadi basin using geospatial technology. Environmental Challenges, 5, 100277.
10.1016/j.envc.2021.100277
Google Scholar
Bharath, A., Maddamsetty, R., Manjunatha, M., & Reshma, T. V. (2023). Spatiotemporal rainfall variability and trend analysis of Shimsha River Basin, India. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30, 107084–107103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-25720-3
10.1007/s11356-023-25720-3
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Bharath, A., Maddamsetty, R., & Uttam, P. (2023). Evaluation of the geomorphological scenario of Shimsha basin, Karnataka, India. Water Science & Technology, 87(8), 1907–1924.
10.2166/wst.2023.105
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Biswas, S., Sudhakar, S., & Desai, V. R. (1999). Prioritisation of subwatersheds based on morphometric analysis of drainage basin a remote sensing and GIS approach. Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing, 27, 155–166.
10.1007/BF02991569
Google Scholar
Brice, J. C. (1964). Channel patterns and terraces of the loup rivers in Nebraska; physiographic and hydraulic studies of rivers (Geological Survey Professional Paper, 422-D). U.S. Government Publishing Office.
Google Scholar
Bull, W. B., & Mc, Fadden. L. D. (1977). Tectonic geomorphology north and south Garlock fault, California. In D. O. Doehring, Geomorphology in arid regions. Proceedings of the Eight Annual Geomorphology Symposium (pp. 115–138). State University of New York.
Google Scholar
Burrough, P. A. (1986). Principles of geographical information systems for land resources assessment (p. 193). Clarendon Press.
Google Scholar
Clarke, J. I. (1966). Morphometry from maps, essays in geomorphology (pp. 235–274). Elsevier Publication.
Google Scholar
Cox, R. T. (1994). Analysis of drainage-basin symmetry as a rapid technique to identify areas of possible quaternary tilt-block tectonics: An example from the Mississippi Embayment. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 106, 571–581.
10.1130/0016-7606(1994)106<0571:AODBSA>2.3.CO;2
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Cuong, N. Q., & Zuchiewicz, W. A. (2001). Morphotectonic properties of the Lo river fault near Tam Dao in North Vietnam. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 1, 15–22.
10.5194/nhess-1-15-2001
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Dehbozorgi, M., Pourkermani, M., Arian, M., Matkan, A. A., Motamedi, H., & Hosseiniasl, A. (2010). Quantitative analysis of relative tectonic activity in the Sarvestan area, central Zagros, Iran. Geomorphology, 121(3–4), 329–341.
10.1016/j.geomorph.2010.05.002
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Dowling, T. I., Richarson, D. P., o'sullivan, A., Summerell, G. K., & Walker, J. (1998). Application of hypsometric integral and other terrain-based indicators of catchment health: A preliminary analysis (CSIRO Land and Water, Canberra, Technical Report 20/98). April 1998). CSIRO, p. 49.
Google Scholar
Gardiner, V. (2003). Drainage basin morphometry. In A. Goudie (Ed.), Geomorphological techniques ( 2nd ed., pp. 79–91). Routledge.
Google Scholar
Gautam, P. K., Kumar, D., Singh, A. K., & Singh, D. S. (2023). Drainage network analysis and tectonics interference of the Reth River, Central Ganga Plain (India) using geospatial technology. Geotectonics, 57(3), 330–345. https://doi.org/10.1134/S0016852123030032
10.1134/S0016852123030032
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Gautam, P. K., & Singh, A. K. (2023). Evaluation of active tectonic features of Nandakini River Basin, Lesser Himalaya, India by using morphometric indices: A GIS approach. Advances in Environmental and Engineering Research, 4(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.21926/aeer.2301014
10.21926/aeer.2301014
Google Scholar
Gautam, P. K., & Singh, D. S. (2022). Flood hazard and risk assessment of Deoha River Basin, Central Ganga Plain, India: An GIS approach. Disaster Advances, 15(10), 42–51. https://doi.org/10.25303/1510da042051
10.25303/1510da042051
Google Scholar
Gautam, P. K., Singh, D. S., Kumar, D., & Singh, A. K. (2020). A GIS-based approach in drainage morphometric analysis of Sai River Basin, Uttar Pradesh, India. Journal of the Geological Society of India, 95, 366–376. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12594-020-1445-9
10.1007/s12594-020-1445-9
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Gautam, P. K., Singh, D. S., Kumar, D., Singh, A. K., & Vishawakarma, B. (2022). Assessment of morphometric characteristics and decadal fluctuation of groundwater level of Kali River basin and its link with climate change, West Indo-Gangetic plain, India using geographical information system. Disaster Advances, 15(5), 26–38. https://doi.org/10.25303/1505da026038
10.25303/1505da026038
Google Scholar
Gautam, P. K., Singh, D. S., Singh, A. K., & Kumar, D. (2022). Geomorphic analysis of Baghain River, Yamuna Basin, and its implication for drainage characteristic and tectonics using remote sensing and GIS techniques. Journal of the Geological Society of India, 98, 1573–1584. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12594-022-2214-8
10.1007/s12594-022-2214-8
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Gregory, K. J., & Walling, D. E. (1973). In E. Arnold (Ed.), Drainage basin form and processes: A geomorphological approach (p. 456). Halsted Press (Pub.).
Google Scholar
Geological Survey of India (GSI). (1981). Geological and mineralogical map of Karnataka and Goa.
Google Scholar
Hack, J. T. (1957). Studies of longitudinal stream profiles in Virginia and Maryland (United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 294-B). USGS, pp. 45–79.
Google Scholar
Hadley, R. F., & Schumm, S. A. (1961). Sediment sources and drainage basin characteristics in upper Cheyenne River Basin (US Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1531-B). USGS, p. 198.
Google Scholar
Hammond, E. H. (1964). Analysis of properties in land form geography an application to broadscale land form mapping. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 54(1), 11–19.
10.1111/j.1467-8306.1964.tb00470.x
CAS Google Scholar
Hare, P. H., & Gardner, T. W. (1985). Geomorphic indicators of vertical neotectonism along converging plate margins, Nicoya Peninsula, Costa Rica. In M. Morisawa & J. T. Hack (Eds.), Tectonic geomorphology (pp. 75–104). Allen and Unwin.
Google Scholar
Horton, R. E. (1932). Drainage basin characteristics. Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, 13, 350–361.
10.1029/TR013i001p00350
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Horton, R. E. (1945). Erosional development of streams and their drainage basins, hydrophysical approach to quantitative morphology. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 56, 275–370.
10.1130/0016-7606(1945)56[275:EDOSAT]2.0.CO;2
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Howard, A. D. (1967). Drainage analysis in geologic interpretation: A summation. AAPG Bulletin, 51, 2246–2259.
Google Scholar
Javed, A., Khanday, M. Y., & Rais, S. (2011). Watershed prioritization using morphometric and land use/land cover parameters: A remote sensing and GIS based approach. Journal of the Geological Society of India, 78, 63–75.
10.1007/s12594-011-0068-6
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Johnson, D. (1933). Available relief and texture of topography, a discussion. The Journal of Geology, 41(3), 293–305.
10.1086/624038
Google Scholar
Kadam, A. K., Kale, S. S., Umrikar, B. N., Sankhua, R. N., & Pawar, N. J. (2022). Assessing site suitability potential for soil and water conservation structures by using modified micro-watershed prioritization method: Geomorphometric and geomatic approach. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 24(4), 4659–4683.
10.1007/s10668-021-01627-2
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Keller, E. A. (2002). Active tectonics: earthquakes, uplift, and landscapes ( 2nd ed., p. 362). Prentice Hall.
Google Scholar
Keller, E. A., & Pinter, N. (1996). Active tectonics (p. 338). Prentice Hall.
Google Scholar
Krebs, N. (1922). Eine Karte der Reliefenergie Siiddeutschlands. Petermanns Mitteilungen, 68(3), 49–53 (in German).
Google Scholar
Krishnamurthy, J., & Srinivas, G. (1995). Role of geological and geomorphological factors in groundwater exploration: A study using IRS LISS data. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 16, 2595–2618.
10.1080/01431169508954579
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Kumar, D., Singh, D. S., Prajapati, S. K., Khan, I., Gautam, P. K., & Vishawakarma, B. (2018). Morphometric parameters and neotectonics of Kalyani River Basin, Ganga Plain: A remote sensing and GIS approach. Journal of the Geological Society of India, 91, 679–686. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12594-018-0923-9
10.1007/s12594-018-0923-9
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Leopold, L. B., & Wolman, M. G. (1957). River channel patterns braided, meandering, and straight (U.S. Geological Survey, 282-B, 85). United States Geological Survey.
Google Scholar
Leopold, L. B., Wolman, G. M., & Miller, J. P. (1964). Fluvial processes in geomorphology (pp. 453–468). W. H. Freeman.
Google Scholar
Magesh, N. S., & Chandrasekar, N. (2014). GIS model-based morphometric evaluation of Tamiraparani subbasin, Tirunelveli district, Tamil Nadu, India. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 7, 131–141.
10.1007/s12517-012-0742-z
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Magesh, N. S., Chandrasekar, N., & Soundranayagam, J. P. (2011). Morphometric evaluation of Papanasam and Manimuthar watersheds, parts of Western Ghats, Tirunelveli district, Tamil Nadu, India: A GIS approach. Environmental Earth Sciences, 64(2), 373–381.
10.1007/s12665-010-0860-4
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Magesh, N. S., Jitheshlal, K. V., Chandrasekar, N., & Jini, K. V. (2013). Geographical information system-based morphometric analysis of Bharathapuzha river basin, Kerala, India. Applied Water Science, 3, 467–477.
10.1007/s13201-013-0095-0
Google Scholar
Miller, V. C. (1953). A quantitative geomorphic study of drainage basin characteristic in the clinch, Mountain area, Verdinia and Tennesser (Project NR 389-042, Technical Report 3). Department of Geology, ONR, Geography Branch, Columbia University.
Google Scholar
Molin, P., Pazzaglia, F. J., & Dramis, F. (2004). Geomorphic expression of the active tectonics in a rapidly-deforming forearc, sila Massif, Calabria, Southern Italy. American Journal of Science, 304, 559–589.
10.2475/ajs.304.7.559
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Mohan, K., Srivastava, V., & Singh, C. K. (2007). Pattern and genesis of lineaments in and across Son–Narmada lineament lineament zone in a part of Central India around Renukoot District Sonbhadra, U. P. Journal of Indian Society of Remote Sensing, 35(2), 181–187.
10.1007/BF02990783
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Muller, J. E. (1968). An introduction to the hydraulic and topographic sinuosity indexes. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 58(2), 371–385.
10.1111/j.1467-8306.1968.tb00650.x
Google Scholar
Nag, S. (1998). Morphometric analysis using remote sensing techniques in the Chaka sub-basin, Purulia district, West Bengal. Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing, 26(12), 69–76.
10.1007/BF03007341
Google Scholar
Nag, S. K., & Chakraborty, S. (2003). Influence of rock types and structures in the development of drainage network in hard rock area. Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing, 31(1), 25–35.
10.1007/BF03030749
Google Scholar
Nagarajan, N., & Poongothai, S. (2012). Spatial mapping of runoff from a watershed using SCS-CN method with remote sensing and GIS. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 17(11), 1268–1277.
10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0000520
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Nautiyal, M. D. (1964). Morphometric analysis of a drainage basin using aerial photographs, A case study of Khairkuli Basin, District Dehradun, U.P. Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing, 22(4), 251–261.
10.1007/BF03026526
Google Scholar
Nir, D. (1957). The ratio of relative and absolute altitude of Mt. Carmel. Geographical Review, 27, 564–569.
10.2307/211866
Google Scholar
Nongkynrih, J. M., & Husain, Z. (2011). Morphometric analysis of the Manas river basin using earth observation data and geographical information system. International Journal of Geomatics and Geosciences, 2, 2.
Google Scholar
Obeidat, M., Awawdeh, M., & Al-Hantouli, F. (2021). Morphometric analysis and prioritisation of watersheds for flood risk management in Wadi Easal Basin (WEB), Jordan, using geospatial technologies. Journal of Flood Risk Management, 14(2):e12711. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfr3.12711
10.1111/jfr3.12711
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Odiji, C. A., Aderoju, O. M., Eta, J. B., Shehu, I., Mai-Bukar, A., & Onuoha, H. (2021). Morphometric analysis and prioritization of upper Benue River watershed, Northern Nigeria. Applied Water Science, 11, 41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-021-01364-x
10.1007/s13201-021-01364-x
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Pareta, K., & Pareta, U. (2011). Quantitative morphometric analysis of a river of Yamuna Basin, India using ASTER (DEM) data and GIS. International Journal of Geomatics and Geosciences, 2(1), 248–269.
Google Scholar
Partsch, J. (1911). Schlesien eine Landeskunde fur das deutsche Volk, v. II (p. 690). Ferdinand Hirt.
Google Scholar
Patel, D., Gajjar, C., & Srivastava, P. K. (2013). Prioritisation of Malesari mini rivers through morphometric analysis: A remote sensing and GIS perspective. Environmental Earth Sciences, 69, 2643–2656.
10.1007/s12665-012-2086-0
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Pérez-Peña, J. V., Azor, A., Azañón, J. M., & Keller, E. A. (2010). Active tectonics in the Sierra Nevada (Betic Cordillera, SE Spain): Insights from geomorphic indexes and drainage pattern analysis. Geomorphology, 119(1–2), 74–87.
10.1016/j.geomorph.2010.02.020
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Pinter, N. (2005). Applications of tectonic geomorphology for deciphering active deformation in the Pannonian Basin, Hungary. In L. Fodor & K. Brezsnyánszky (Eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop on “Applications of GPS in Plate Tectonics in Research on Fossil Energy Resources and in Earthquake Hazard Assessment,” occasional papers of the Geological Institute of Hungary (Vol. 204, pp. 25–51). Magyar Állami Földtani Intézet.
Google Scholar
Prasad, S., Saluja, R., Joshi, V., & Garg, J. K. (2021). Riverine landscape dynamics of the upper ganga river (Haridwar-Narora), India. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 193(2), 96.
10.1007/s10661-021-08868-8
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Rai, P. K., Mohan, K., Mishra, S., Ahmad, A., & Mishra, V. N. (2017). A GIS-based approach in drainage morphometric analysis of Kanhar River Basin, India. Applied Water Science, 7, 217–232.
10.1007/s13201-014-0238-y
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Raize, E., & Henry, J. (1937). An average slope map of new England. Geographical Review, 24, 467–472.
Google Scholar
Raj, R. (2012). Active tectonics of NE Gujarat (India) by morphometric and morphostructural studies of Vatrak river basin. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, 50, 66–78.
10.1016/j.jseaes.2012.01.010
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Rajasekhar, M., Raju, G. S., & Raju, R. S. (2020). Morphometric analysis of the Jilledubanderu River Basin, Anantapur District, Andhra Pradesh, India, using geospatial technologies. Groundwater for Sustainable Development, 11, 100434.
10.1016/j.gsd.2020.100434
Google Scholar
Reddy, G. P. O., Maji, A. K., & Gajbhiye, K. S. (2004). Drainage morphometry and its influence on landform characteristics in a basaltic terrain, Central India—A remote sensing and GIS approach. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 6, 1–16.
10.1016/j.jag.2004.06.003
Google Scholar
Rekha, B. V., George, V. A., & Rita, M. (2011). Morphometric analysis and micro- watershed prioritization of Peruvanthanam sub-watershed, the Manimala River Basin, Kerala, South India. Environmental Research, Engineering and Management, 3(57), 6–14.
Google Scholar
Russell, R. J. (1949). Geographical geomorphology. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 39(1), 1–11.
10.1080/00045604909351992
Google Scholar
Sarkar, D., Mondal, P., Sutradhar, S., & Sarkar, P. (2020). Morphometric analysis using SRTM-DEM and GIS of Nagar River Basin, Indo-Bangladesh Barind Tract. Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing, 48, 597–614. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12524-020-01106-7
10.1007/s12524-020-01106-7
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Sarmin, F. J., & Zaman, U. S. (2018). Miscellaneous techniques of detecting Groundwater. IJIRCST, 6(5), 110–112.
10.21276/ijircst.2018.6.5.4
Google Scholar
Schrepfer, H., & Kallner, H. (1930). Die maximale Reliefenergie Westdeutschlands. Petermanns Mitteilungen, 76(15), 225–227. (in German)
Google Scholar
Schumm, S. A. (1956). Evolution of drainage systems and slopes in badlands at Perth Amboy, New Jersey. Geological Society of America bulletin, 67(5), 597–646.
10.1130/0016-7606(1956)67[597:EODSAS]2.0.CO;2
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Schumm, S. A. (1986). Alluvial river response to active tectonics. In R. E. Wallace (Ed.), Active tectonics studies in geophysics (pp. 80–94). National Academic Press.
Google Scholar
Schwab, G. O., Frevert, R. K., Edminster, T. W., & Barnes, K. K. (1981). Soil and water conservation engineering. John Wiley Inc.
Google Scholar
Shreve, R. L. (1966). Statistical law of stream numbers. The Journal of Geology, 74, 17–37.
10.1086/627137
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Singh, D. S., & Awasthi, A. (2011a). Implication of drainage basin parameters of Chhoti Gandak River, Ganga Plain, India. Journal of the Geological Society of India, 78(2), 370–378.
10.1007/s12594-011-0102-8
Google Scholar
Singh, D. S., & Awasthi, A. (2011b). Natural hazards in the Ghaghara River Area, Ganga Plain, India. Natural Hazard, 57, 213–225.
10.1007/s11069-010-9605-7
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Singh, D. S., Prajapati, S. K., Singh, P., Singh, K., & Kumar, D. (2015). Climatically induced levee break and flood risk management of the Gorakhpur region, Rapti River Basin, Ganga Plain, India. Journal of the Geological Society of India, 85, 79–86.
10.1007/s12594-015-0195-6
CAS Web of Science® Google Scholar
Singh, C. K., & Srivastava, V. (2011). Morphotectonics of the area around Renukoot, district Sonbhadra, U.P. using remote sensing and GIS techniques. Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing, 39(2), 235–240.
10.1007/s12524-011-0072-8
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Singh, D. S., Tiwari, A. K., & Gautam, P. K. (2018). The Burhi Gandak: Most sinuous river. In D. Singh (Ed.), The Indian rivers (Vol. 2, pp. 209–219). Springer Hydrogeology. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2984-4_17
10.1007/978-981-10-2984-4_17
Google Scholar
Smith, G. H. (1935). The relative relief of Ohio. The Geographical Review, 25, 272–274.
10.2307/209602
Google Scholar
Smith, K. G. (1950). Standards for grading texture of erosional topography. American Journal of Science, 248, 655–668.
10.2475/ajs.248.9.655
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Sreedevi, P. D., Subrahmanyam, K., & Ahmed, S. (2005). The significance of morphometric analysis for obtaining groundwater potential zones in a structurally controlled terrain. Environmental Geology, 47(3), 412–420.
10.1007/s00254-004-1166-1
Google Scholar
Srivastava, V. K. (1997). Study of drainage pattern of Jharia Coalfield (Bihar), India, through remote sensing technology. Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing, 25(1), 41–46.
10.1007/BF02995417
Google Scholar
Strahler, A. N. (1952). Dynamic basis of geomorphology. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 63(9), 923–938.
10.1130/0016-7606(1952)63[923:DBOG]2.0.CO;2
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Strahler, A. N. (1956). Quantitative slope analysis. Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, 67, 571–596.
10.1130/0016-7606(1956)67[571:QSA]2.0.CO;2
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Strahler, A. N. (1964). Quantitative geomorphology of drainage basins and channel networks. In V. Te Chow (Ed.), Handbook of applied hydrology (pp. 4–76). McGraw Hill Book Company.
Google Scholar
Suresh, R. (2000). Soil and water conservation engineering, 3rd edn. Vol. 24. Watershed concept and management, 785–813.
Google Scholar
Tejpal, R. (2013). Relief analysis of the Tangri river in the lower Shivalik and Piedmont zone of Haryana and Punjab. Indian Journal of spatial science, 4(1), 9–20.
Google Scholar
Thakur, B. R. (2005). Relief analysis of Solani river using remote sensing and GIS technology. USGS Water-Supply, 4, 26–36.
Google Scholar
Vijith, H., & Satheesh, R. (2006). GIS based morphometric analysis of two major upland sub-watersheds of Meenachil River in Kerala. Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing, 34, 181–185.
10.1007/BF02991823
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Waikar, M. L., & Nilawar, A. P. (2014). Morphometric analysis of a drainage basin using geographical information system: A case study. International Journal of Multidisciplinary and Current Research, 2, 179–184.
Google Scholar
Wentworth. (1930). Morphometry is the measurement of geometry, Germany.
Google Scholar
Winter, T. C., Harvey, J. W., Franke, O. L., & Alley, W. M. (1998). Ground water and surface water—A single resource. U.S. Geological Survey.
10.3133/cir1139
Google Scholar
Withanage, N. S., Dayawansa, N. D. K., & De Silva, R. P. (2015). Morphometric analysis of the Gal Oya River basin using spatial data derived from GIS. Tropical Agricultural Research, 26(1), 175–188.
10.4038/tar.v26i1.8082
Google Scholar
Woolderink, H. (2021). The effects of faulting on river morphodynamics and morphology (Meuse and Roer valley, Netherlands).
Google Scholar
Young, A. (1971). Slope profile analysis-The system of best units. Slope Form and Process, Institute of BritishGeographers Special Publication, 3, 1–13.
Google Scholar

Volume2, Issue4

November 2023

Pages 490-505

The significance of morphometric analysis of Shimsha River, Karnataka, India to understand the hydrological and morphological characteristics

Abstract

1 INTRODUCTION