Water resource management is critical in the face of climate change to reduce water scarcity and meet the demands of an expanding population. Prioritization of watersheds has gained significance in natural resource management, particularly in the context of watershed management. This study prioritizes sub-watersheds for the Peddavagu basin using five methods. The four methods mentioned above can be estimated utilizing remote sensing (RS) and geographic information system (GIS) approaches, while linear discriminant analysis (LDA) is estimated using machine learning techniques. The catchment resulted in the formation of 13 sub-watersheds. The quantitative measurements of morphometric analysis, including linear, relief, and areal, were considered, and 18 morphometric characteristics were chosen to rank and prioritize sub-watersheds. Principal component analysis (PCA) was used to rank and prioritize sub-watersheds based on four highly correlated morphometric parameters. The land use/land cover (LULC) analysis used four features to prioritize sub-watersheds. The LDA analysis used two features to prioritize sub-watersheds. Using hypsometric integral (HI) values, prioritization has been done. Sub-watersheds were prioritized. Based on five methods, the sub-watersheds were classified as low, medium, and high. Among the sub-watersheds identified as high priority, immediate priority is assigned to SW10. Decision-makers in the research region can use the findings to plan and implement watershed management techniques.

  • A novel machine learning, specifically a linear discriminant analysis technique, was proposed for the prioritization of watersheds.

  • SW10 stands out as the top choice for ensuring efficient watershed management as per requirements.

  • The study's outcomes provide decision-making authorities with valuable information to guide the implementation of sustainable watershed management initiatives.

Natural resources, such as water and land, are typically depleting because of population growth, urbanization, and so on; hence, desirable resource utilization is a precondition for sustainable growth. Natural resource managing has grown in importance for the planned expansion of water and land resources, as well as the prevention of land degradation in order to maintain environmental and ecological balance (Chakraborti 2003; Nookaratnam et al. 2005; Kudnar & Rajasekhar 2020). Remote sensing (RS) and geographic information system (GIS) are effective techniques for addressing specific natural resource management issues at the grassroots level of integrated land and water resource development (Diwakar & Mayya 2010; Kaya et al. 2019; Redvan & Mustafa 2021). To create proper water and land resource action plans, it is essential to first identify the area's geology and river system. Drainage basins are the fundamental water and land resource units managed, providing a managerial procedure for resource efficiency (Moore et al. 1994). Watersheds, for example, are regarded as a fundamental erosional environment aspect where water and land bodies interconnect. Watershed management is critical for protecting water and soil resources (Poongodi & Venkateswaran 2018). Geomorphology, land use/land cover (LULC), and hydrology information are extremely helpful in understanding the watershed's drainage system (Bhattacharya et al. 2020). It summarizes the river watershed, which is exceptionally useful in investigating watershed prioritization, environmental management, restoration, hydrological modelling, and conservation (Waiyasusri & Chotpantarat 2020).

The parameters of the watershed system are critical in the examination of various hydrological processes. Whereas a watershed is a crucial aspect of hydrology, watershed-scale morphometry parameters are much more preferable and beneficial than segment-scale morphometric evaluation (Poongodi & Venkateswaran 2018). Even without including taking into consideration soil sketch, morphometric analysis is an important approach for prioritizing sub-watersheds. Morphometry is a mathematical representation of the earth's surface topographic relief (Clarke 1966; Obi Reddy et al. 2004). A river basin's morphometric parameters are critical factors in watershed hydrology. They reflect the hydrological behaviour of the river basin and are useful in assessing the basin's hydrologic response. Watershed morphometric parameters and flood potential have relationships. For example, higher drainage density indicates faster runoff and a greater degree of channel abrasion for a particular amount of precipitation (Withanage et al. 2014; Samal et al. 2015). Watershed morphometric analysis results may be used as a strategic instrument in water managing, soil erosion sustainability, and watershed prioritization (Sreedevi et al. 2009; Sujatha et al. 2013; Iqbal & Sajjad 2014; Khanday & Javed 2016; Malik et al. 2019). Morphometric studies began in the mid-twentieth century, using a traditional method developed on the basis of conventional topographic maps (Horton 1945; Schumm 1956; Strahler 1964). The traditional method of analysing river morphology is a time-consuming and labour-intensive task. However, as geospatial technologies advance, more precise assessments can be performed with greater ease. Most researchers have studied morphometrical parameters of a watershed using GIS tools and RS (Aher et al. 2014; Mishra et al. 2018; Kadam et al. 2019).

Furthermore, several approaches to watershed prioritization have been developed, varying from simple analytical models to process-oriented physical-based models. For watershed prioritization, analytical as well as process-oriented models are challenging, information-driven, and nuanced. Nonetheless, they can be restored using watershed morphometric variables with less information requirements and more effective approaches. Several researchers have prioritized river basins using conventional methods such as the principal component analysis (PCA), used to minimize the dimension of morphometric parameters and discover variables that explain the majority of the variance seen in a wide range of parameters (Meshram & Sharma 2017; Arefn et al. 2020; Shekar & Mathew 2022c), weighted sum approach, and the fuzzy analytical hierarchy process (Rahaman et al. 2015; Farhan et al. 2018).

Many studies have been conducted on sub-watershed prioritization and management in order to assess erosion-prone regions based on morphometry, LULC, soil type, and so on (Sreedhar et al. 2016; Said et al. 2018; Adhami et al. 2019; Sharma & Mahajan 2020). Change in LULC is a major issue in global environmental change. Land use shift, land cover shift, and land use managing interventions have significantly transformed a huge portion of the earth's surface in order to meet rising natural resource demands (Biswas & Chakraborty 2016; Song et al. 2018; Gupta et al. 2020; Mathew et al. 2022). The watershed's LULC is another essential aspect to consider when prioritizing sub-watersheds (Javed et al. 2009; Puno & Puno 2019; Shekar & Mathew 2022a).

The hypsometric curve of the watershed, which is a non-dimensional evaluation of the proportions of the surface region of a watershed over a given height, is used to analyse the geomorphic processes that occur inside watersheds as well as landforms (Willgoose & Hancock 1998). Langbein (1947) was the earliest to utilize hypsometric analysis (HA) to convey the overall gradient and drainage watershed forms. Hysometry is the measurement and analysis of relationships between the allocation of heights across a land surface and watershed area. HA was utilized to distinguish erosional landforms at various phases of growth in a watershed. The hypsometric integral (HI), hypsometric curve, and hypsometric skewness are all numerical parameters in HA (Pike & Wilson 1971). Strahler (1952) discussed various watersheds and classified various shapes of hypsometric curves as a youth when the watershed experiences erosion and landslide, equilibrium or mature, when the watershed experiences less erosion and landslide than the youth stage, and finally old when the watershed experiences very little erosion and landslide. The region under the hypsometric curve shows the percentage of landmass eroded from the watershed, and based on this, the watershed is classified into three stages: old (HI is less than 0.3), equilibrium or mature (HI is between 0.3 and 0.6), and in equilibrium or youth (HI greater than 0.6). As a result, the HI helps to clarify the erosion that takes place in the watershed over geological time as a result of hydrologic procedures and soil degradation aspects (Strahler 1964).

A well-designed watershed management strategy can be used to control natural disasters like floods and drought as well as watershed issues like increased soil erosion, low yield, excessive overflow, and inadequate infiltration (Gajbhiye & Sharma 2017). Therefore, it is vital for decision-makers to be knowledgeable about the parameters of the watershed and the hydrological processes that take place within it. The watershed's parameters, which could be properly evaluated through geomorphometric analysis, have an impact on how the hydrological processes within it work. The information obtained from geomorphometric analysis of watersheds could be an important tool for prioritizing watersheds (Ahmed et al. 2017). Therefore, in addition to conventional geomorphometric analysis, it is necessary to implement innovative aspects like machine learning techniques to prioritize sub-watersheds with the most accuracy in order to manage and protect natural resources (Javed et al. 2011).

The significance of parameters can vary across different sub-watersheds due to their specific characteristics. Recognizing this variability, the study aimed to effectively prioritize sub-watersheds based on their susceptibility to soil erosion and subsequent flooding using five distinct methods: morphometric analysis, PCA, linear discriminant analysis (LDA) as a novel approach, LULC analysis, and HA. Through the comprehensive utilization of these methods, the study sought to gain a holistic understanding of the sub-watersheds and their individual characteristics. Morphometric analysis involved assessing quantitative measurements like linear, relief, and areal parameters, while PCA identified highly correlated morphometric parameters for ranking sub-watersheds. LULC analysis focused on land use and land cover patterns to prioritize the sub-watersheds, and the novel approach of LDA introduced morphometric parameters to enhance the prioritization process. Furthermore, HA incorporated HI values for prioritization. Notably, the study made a unique contribution by applying machine learning techniques, specifically LDA, to sub-watershed prioritization in the Peddavagu watershed. The objective of this research was to prioritize sub-watersheds by conducting morphometric analysis, PCA, LULC, HA, and LDA. Moreover, the study utilized these five methods to identify sub-watersheds that shared common priorities, adding a valuable dimension to the analysis.

Study area and data collection

The Peddavagu River Basin, situated between Telangana and Maharashtra within the Deccan Plateau region, is home to approximately 330,000 people, as reported by the 2020 Census of Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center (SEDAC) (https://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/data/set/gpw-v4-population-count-rev11). The majority of the population is engaged in agricultural and related activities, reflecting the significance of agriculture in the basin. The land use in the area is predominantly agricultural, with a substantial portion of the land dedicated to cultivation. Major crops cultivated in the basin include paddy, cotton, and pulses. The Indian meteorological department records an average annual precipitation of approximately 1,150 mm in the basin, highlighting the significance of rainfall (https://mausam.imd.gov.in/). The river is fed by numerous small streams and tributaries, most of which are seasonal in nature. The hydrology of the basin is greatly influenced by the monsoon rains that typically occur from June to September. The watershed of Peddavagu is located between latitudes 18°45′0′′ and 19°45′0′′ North and longitudes 79°45′0′′ and 78°30′0′′ East. The outlet locations are 19°19′50′′ North and 79°30′14′′ East (Site location – Bhatpalli) (Figure 1). It covers an area of 3,150 square kilometres. The Shuttle radar topography mission-digital elevation model (SRTM-DEM) was downloaded from earth explorer. The resolution of SRTM-DEM is 30 metres (https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/). LULC data was downloaded from Sentinel-2 imagery (2021). The resolution of LULC is 10 metres (https://livingatlas.arcgis.com/landcover/). The elevation of the Peddavagu watershed ranges from 160 to 655 metres above sea level, according to the SRTM-DEM.
Figure 1

Geographical map of Peddavagu watershed.

Figure 1

Geographical map of Peddavagu watershed.

Close modal

Methodology

Morphometric analysis

In this study, the watershed was delineated using the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) SRTM-DEM. The current study delineates using a combination of remote RS and GIS techniques and tools, as shown in Figure 2. The process over DEM involves fill DEM, flow direction, flow accumulation, thresholding, stream order, stream to feature, and other features. The cell threshold value, which specifies the number of raster cells at which a stream grid should be created, is one of the most crucial steps in the delineation of a drainage network. The threshold value is inversely correlated with drainage density, meaning that a higher threshold value will lead to fewer streams. Sub-watersheds (SW1 to SW13) are classified using ArcGIS 10.4.1 software based on stream order, stream number, stream length, and other factors. There were three types of morphometric parameters studied and classified: linear, relief, and areal or shape parameters. After a thorough review of literature, expert knowledge integration, and data availability assessment, a subset of 18 parameters is selected. These parameters are carefully chosen based on their relevance, effectiveness, and ability to capture the characteristics and processes of the sub-watersheds under consideration. These 18 parameters are determined using a variety of empirical methods, as illustrated in Table 1. Supplementary Table S1 illustrates the calculated linear parameters of the Peddavagu watershed. The rank of each parameter in each sub-watershed is determined after all morphometric values for individual sub-watersheds have been calculated. The linear and relief parameters are directly related to soil erosion, the sub-watershed with the highest result in these parameters is ranked 1st, and so on. On the other side, soil erosion is indirectly related to shape parameters, the sub-watershed with the lowest result in relief parameter is ranked 1st, and so on. Following the calculation of all ranks for each parameter in an individual sub-watershed, the compound parameter (Cp) value for the individual sub-watershed is determined. Then, the sub-watersheds were classified as high, medium, and low.
Table 1

Morphometric parameters of the Peddavagu watershed

ParametersMethodsReferences
Stream number (Nu Horton (1945)  
Stream order (UHierarchical rank Strahler (1964)  
Stream length (Lu Horton (1945)  
Stream length ratio (Rl Horton (1945)  
Mean stream length ratio (RlmAverage of the stream length ratio of all orders Schumm (1956)  
Bifurcation ratio (Rb Schumm (1956)  
Mean bifurcation ratio (RbmAverage of bifurcation ratio of all orders Strahler (1957)  
Drainage texture (Dt Schumm (1956)  
Drainage density (Dd Schumm (1956)  
Stream frequency (Fs Schumm (1956)  
Length of overland flow (Lo Schumm (1956)  
Drainage intensity (Di Faniran (1968)  
Constant of channel maintenance (Ccm Schumm (1956)  
Rho coefficient ( Horton (1945)  
Infiltration number (If Faniran (1968)  
Minimum elevation (hGIS tools  
Maximum elevation (HGIS tools  
Relief (Bh Strahler (1952)  
Relief ratio (Rh Schumm (1956)  
Relative relief (Rhp Melton (1957)  
Ruggedness number (Rn Strahler (1957)  
Perimeter of watershed (PGIS tools  
Area of watershed (AGIS tools  
Basin length (Lb Nookaratnam et al. (2005)  
Elongation ratio (Re Schumm (1956)  
Compactness coefficient (Cc Horton (1945)  
Form factor (Ff Horton (1945)  
Circulatory ratio (Rc Miller (1953)  
Elevation-to-relief ratio (E Pike & Wilson (1971)  
ParametersMethodsReferences
Stream number (Nu Horton (1945)  
Stream order (UHierarchical rank Strahler (1964)  
Stream length (Lu Horton (1945)  
Stream length ratio (Rl Horton (1945)  
Mean stream length ratio (RlmAverage of the stream length ratio of all orders Schumm (1956)  
Bifurcation ratio (Rb Schumm (1956)  
Mean bifurcation ratio (RbmAverage of bifurcation ratio of all orders Strahler (1957)  
Drainage texture (Dt Schumm (1956)  
Drainage density (Dd Schumm (1956)  
Stream frequency (Fs Schumm (1956)  
Length of overland flow (Lo Schumm (1956)  
Drainage intensity (Di Faniran (1968)  
Constant of channel maintenance (Ccm Schumm (1956)  
Rho coefficient ( Horton (1945)  
Infiltration number (If Faniran (1968)  
Minimum elevation (hGIS tools  
Maximum elevation (HGIS tools  
Relief (Bh Strahler (1952)  
Relief ratio (Rh Schumm (1956)  
Relative relief (Rhp Melton (1957)  
Ruggedness number (Rn Strahler (1957)  
Perimeter of watershed (PGIS tools  
Area of watershed (AGIS tools  
Basin length (Lb Nookaratnam et al. (2005)  
Elongation ratio (Re Schumm (1956)  
Compactness coefficient (Cc Horton (1945)  
Form factor (Ff Horton (1945)  
Circulatory ratio (Rc Miller (1953)  
Elevation-to-relief ratio (E Pike & Wilson (1971)  
Figure 2

Flowchart of methodology.

Figure 2

Flowchart of methodology.

Close modal

Principal component analysis

In the current study, 18 morphometric parameters were reduced to 4 important components using the statistical programme for the social sciences (SPSS) software version 22. The rotated component matrix shows that each component considers one highly correlated parameter. Following the collection of four parameters, the sub-watershed with the highest result in the relief parameter as well as the linear parameter was ranked 1st, and so on. The sub-watershed with the lowest shape parameter result was ranked 1st, and so on. The result of the Cp is then computed. The Cp results of the sub-watersheds were used to categorize them into three groups: high, medium, and low.

Linear discriminant analysis

The current research introduces a new technique to predict the priority of sub-watersheds utilizing an efficient method by the name LDA (Subasi 2020). It is a supervised machine learning technique used for classification problems. LDA accomplishes classification by determining the directions or linear discriminants that represent axes, hence maximizing class separation (Fu et al. 2020; Wang et al. 2022). LDA is a dimensionality reduction approach that keeps as much information as feasible while reducing the number of dimensions or parameters in a dataset. Since the volume of data to be trained grows as the dimensionality of the data grows, an exemplary parameter extractor is needed to adequately capture the complete data properties in a smaller number of variables.

LDA assumes that each parameter in the dataset is Gaussian distributed and that the value of each parameter varies around the mean, with the same variance. Therefore, prior to applying LDA to a dataset, it is necessary to standardize it. Standardizing the dataset is done by subtracting every data value by its mean and dividing the difference by its standard deviation. After standardization of data, the following are the steps to perform LDA:

Calculate the mean vectors of each dependent variable class.

  • 1.

    Determine within-class and between-class scatter matrices.

  • 2.

    Calculate eigen values and eigen vector for the matrix, where SW is the scatter matrix within-class and SB is the scatter matrix between-class.

  • 3.

    The top k eigen values are chosen after sorting the eigen values in descending order.

  • 4.

    Construct a new matrix with eigen vectors that map to the k eigen values.

  • 5.

    Obtain the linear discriminants by taking the dot product of the data and the matrix.

Between-class scatter matrix SB measures the distance between-class means, whereas within-class scatter matrix SW measures the spread around means of each class. Mathematically, these are computed using the following equations (Equations (1)–(3)):
(1)
where c is the number of classes, is the mean vector of each class, m is the overall mean of all classes, and is the size of ith class.
(2)
where , Di is the set of all observations having ith label and n is the total number of such observations, mean vector of each class is
(3)
LDA procedural steps have been summarized in Figure 3.
Figure 3

LDA steps summarized.

Figure 3

LDA steps summarized.

Close modal

The LDA method produces two highly correlated parameters. The sub-watershed with the highest result in relief as well as linear parameters ranked 1st, and so on. The sub-watershed with the lowest shape parameter result was ranked first, and so on. The value of the Cp is then computed. Cp of the sub-watersheds were used to categorize them into three groups: high, medium, and also low.

Land use and land cover

The prioritization of sub-watersheds depends on information from Sentinel-2 imagery. The resolution of LULC is 10 metres. The maximum result for the built-up area parameter was allocated a rank of 1, and so on. The minimum result was assigned a rank of 1 in the case of trees, crops, rangeland parameters, and so on. Cp results of the sub-watersheds were used to categorize them into three groups: high, medium, and low.

Hypsometric analysis

The elevation-relief ratio approach was utilized to calculate the HI values. The hypsometric curve and HI were calculated using the SRTM-DEM. The maximum HI value is ranked as 1, and so on. Cp results of the sub-watersheds were used to categorize them into three groups: high, medium, and also low.

Morphometric analysis

Morphometric analysis of shape, linear, as well as relief parameters, was performed in this study using mathematical formulae. The specifics of the various parameters are discussed further below.

Linear parameters

Stream order (U)
The primary stage in quantitative drainage watershed assessment is stream ordering. The unbranched fingertip stream is referred to as 1st order. The union of two 1st order channels generates 2nd order channel segments, two 2nd order streams connect to form a 3rd order segment, and so on (Strahler 1964). The Peddavagu watershed is classified into 13 sub-watersheds, as shown in Figure 4, in the following order: SW5, SW6, SW7, SW9, SW1, SW2, SW4, SW10, SW11, SW12, and SW13, 4th order for SW3, and SW8.
Figure 4

Sub-watersheds and drainage networks.

Figure 4

Sub-watersheds and drainage networks.

Close modal
Stream number (Nu)

It represents the total number of streams in each ordered stream. According to Horton's (1945) laws of stream numbers, the number of stream segments of individual order forms an inverse geometric sequence that can be plotted against the order. In this study, SW10 and SW3 have the maximum and minimum stream numbers, respectively.

Stream length (Lu)

It is defined as the overall length of streams in a specific order. It is an important hydrological parameter of the area because it provides information about surface overflow parameters. Horton's (1945) law was used to calculate the length of the stream. SW6 and SW4 are the lengths of the largest and smallest streams in this study, respectively.

Bifurcation ratio (Rb)

It is the proportion of stream channel of the given order (Nu) to streams of the next higher-order (Nu + 1). Horton (1945) utilized it as a relief as well as a dissertation index. Strahler (1957) illustrated that it tends to vary only slightly across regions, except for where geological regulation is intense. The Rb varies from order to order; these improprieties are influenced by the geomorphological growth of drainage watersheds (Strahler 1964). SW6 and SW3 have the highest bifurcation ratios, indicating a higher proportion of stream channels of a given order compared to streams of the next higher order in those watersheds. This suggests a more complex and branched stream network in SW6 and SW3. On the other hand, SW4 has the lowest bifurcation ratio, indicating a lower proportion of stream channels of a given order compared to streams of the next higher order in that watershed. This implies a less branched and hierarchical stream network in SW4 compared to the other locations studied in your research.

Stream length ratio (Rl)

Horton (1945) identifies the length ratio as the ratio of the mean of order channels to the mean length of the next lower order channels that also appear to be consistent all through the watershed's consecutive orders. In this study, the maximum and minimum Rl are SW2 and SW8, respectively.

The two basic laws govern the number and length of streams of various orders in a drainage watershed (Horton 1945). The relationship between Nu of a given order and stream order in terms of an indirect geometric series, with Rb as the base. Figure 5 depicts a strong relationship between U and Nu, with coefficients of determination ranging from SW4 (0.951) to SW3 (0.999). This law takes the form of a direct geometric series and describes the average length of streams of a known order in terms of U, the average length of streams of first order, and the Rl. Figure 6 illustrates a high correlation among U and Lu, with coefficients of determination varying from SW3 (0.550) to SW5 (0.992).
Figure 5

Number of streams and order of streams.

Figure 5

Number of streams and order of streams.

Close modal
Figure 6

Stream length and order of streams.

Figure 6

Stream length and order of streams.

Close modal
Stream frequency (Fs)

Stream frequency (Fs) refers to the number of stream segments per unit area (Horton 1945). It is a metric commonly used in hydrology and geomorphology to describe the density of streams within a given region. The value of stream frequency can provide insights into the drainage pattern and network complexity of an area. SW10 has the highest stream frequency value, indicating that it has the highest density of stream segments per unit area. On the other hand, SW3 has the lowest stream frequency value, suggesting that it has the lowest density of stream segments per unit area among the studied locations.

Drainage density (Dd)

According to Horton (1945), it is calculated as the ratio of the overall length of streams of all orders per area, and it represents an indicator of the closeness of channel spacing. It is calculated as Dd = Lu/A, where Lu is the overall length of all streams and A is the watershed area. Based on the information you provided, SW10 has the highest drainage density value, indicating that it has a higher overall length of streams relative to its watershed area. This suggests that SW10 has a higher concentration of streams and a closer spacing between channels. On the other hand, SW2 has the lowest drainage density value, indicating that it has a lower overall length of streams relative to its watershed area and a more dispersed channel network compared to the other locations studied.

Drainage texture (Dt)

It is the overall number of stream channels of all orders per area perimeter (Horton 1945). Smith (1950) categorizes Dd into five textures: very coarse (less than 2), coarse (between 2 and 4), moderate (between 6 and 8), and fine (greater than 8). SW10 has the highest value in this study, while SW3 has the lowest.

Length of the overland flow (Lo)

It is approximately half of the reciprocal of Dd (Horton 1945). It refers to the length of water flow over land before it becomes concentrated in definite stream channels. SW2 has the highest value of the length of the overland flow. This indicates that water in SW2 tends to travel a greater distance over the land surface before it becomes concentrated in stream channels compared to the other locations studied in this research. On the other hand, SW10 has the lowest value of the length of the overland flow. This suggests that water in SW10 has a shorter distance to travel over the land surface before it becomes concentrated in stream channels compared to the other locations.

Drainage Intensity (Di)

According to Faniran (1968), it is described as the ratio of Fs to Dd. A watershed with low Dd, texture, and intensity is vulnerable to flooding and erosion. SW10 has the highest drainage intensity value, indicating a relatively higher stream frequency compared to the drainage density. This suggests that SW10 has a higher concentration of streams in relation to its channel spacing, which can indicate a higher potential for flooding and erosion in the watershed. On the other hand, SW7 has the lowest drainage intensity value, indicating a lower stream frequency relative to the drainage density. This suggests that SW7 has a lower concentration of streams compared to its channel spacing, which may imply a lower vulnerability to flooding and erosion compared to the other locations studied in this research.

Rho coefficient ()

It is an important parameter that relates Dd to the physiographic growth of a watershed, allowing for the evaluation of drainage system storage capacity and, as a result, determining the ultimate degree of drainage growth in a given watershed (Horton 1945). It is greater and lesser at SW2 and SW8, respectively, in this study.

Constant of channel maintenance (Ccm)

It is described as the inverse of the Dd with the dimension of length (Schumm 1956). In this study, the Ccm is larger and lower at SW2 and SW10, respectively.

Infiltration number (If)

It is calculated as the sum of Fs and Dd. Higher If results in lower infiltration rates and higher surface overflow (Faniran 1968). SW10 has the highest infiltration number, indicating a higher sum of stream frequency and drainage density. This suggests that SW10 may have a relatively lower infiltration rate and a higher potential for surface overflow compared to the other locations studied in this research. On the other hand, SW3 has the lowest infiltration number, indicating a lower sum of stream frequency and drainage density. This implies that SW3 may have a relatively higher infiltration rate and a lower potential for surface overflow compared to the other locations.

Relief parameters

Relief (Bh)

It is measured as the variation among the maximum and minimum elevations of the watershed. SW7 provides the most relief in this study, while SW2 provides the least.

Relative relief (Rhp)

It has been determined using the perimeter and watershed relief (Melton 1957). SW8 has a greater value in this study, while SW6 has a lesser value.

Relief ratio (Rh)

It is described as the ratio of a watershed's overall relief to its longest dimension parallel to the main drainage line (Schumm 1956). SW8 has a higher value in this study, while SW1 has a lower value.

Ruggedness ratio (Rn)

It is the result of the greatest possible watershed relief and Dd (Strahler 1964). A basin with a low Rn is less prone to soil erosion, whereas a basin with a high Rn is highly susceptible to erosion due to the structural complexity of the terrain. SW10 has the greater value of ruggedness ratio, indicating a higher ratio of watershed relief to drainage density. This suggests that SW10 has a more structurally complex terrain, which can make it more susceptible to soil erosion compared to the other locations studied in this investigation. On the other hand, SW2 has the lower value of ruggedness ratio, indicating a lower ratio of watershed relief to drainage density. This implies that SW2 has a less structurally complex terrain, which may make it less prone to soil erosion compared to the other locations.

Areal parameters

Area of watershed (A)

The watershed area is the watershed parameter for hydrologic layout because it represents the volume of water that can be created from precipitation. It is denoted by the letter ‘A’. The watershed's total area is 3,150 km2. The maximum and minimum sub-watershed areas in the current study are SW5 and SW4, as shown in Supplementary Figure S1.

The perimeter of a watershed (P)

The watershed perimeter is the watershed's outer boundary that encloses its region. It is calculated across watershed categorized and can be used to determine watershed size and shape. As shown in Supplementary Figure S2, the maximum and minimum sub-watershed perimeters of the 13 Peddavagu basins are SW6 and SW4, respectively.

Watershed length (Lb)

The distance determined along the main channel from the watershed outlet to the watershed divide is commonly used to define basin length. It is represented by the letter Lb. According to the current research, SW5 has the longest sub-watershed length, while SW4 has the shortest, as shown in Supplementary Figure S3.

Circulatory ratio (Rc)

It is the dimensionless ratio of the watershed area to the region of a circle with an equal circumference perimeter as the watershed. It expresses the degree of circularity of the basin (Miller 1953). The greater the circularity value, the greater the flood hazard at the outlet point during the peak time. In the present investigation, SW13 has a maximum Rc than SW6, which has a minimum Rc.

Elongation ratio (Re)

It is described as the ratio of the diameter of a circle of the equal region as the watershed to the maximum watershed length. Watershed slopes can be categorized utilizing the index of Re, which includes circular (between 0.9 and 0.10), oval (between 0.8 and 0.9), less elongated (between 0.7 and 0.8), elongated (between 0.5 and 0.7), and more elongated (less than 0.5). SW4 has a higher Re in this study, while SW5 has a lower Re.

Form factor (Ff)

It is the ratio of watershed area (A) to watershed length squared (Lb). The longer the watershed, the lower the Ff value (Strahler 1964). A higher Ff watershed has a maximum peak stream flow in a short time (Horton 1945). SW4 has a higher form factor in this study, while SW5 has a lower form factor, as shown in Supplementary Table S2.

Compactness coefficient (Cc)
It is the ratio of the watershed's perimeter to the circumference of the watershed's equivalent circular area (Horton 1945). It is slope-dependent and size-independent. Lower values of this parameter indicate less erosion and more watershed elongation. SW6 has a higher compactness coefficient in this study, while SW13 has a lower compactness coefficient, as shown in Figure 7.
Figure 7

Morphometric analysis of 13 sub-watersheds.

Figure 7

Morphometric analysis of 13 sub-watersheds.

Close modal

Morphometric sub-watershed prioritization and ranking

There are three types of morphometric parameters (shape, relief, and linear parameters). The erosion of soil has a direct effect on the linear as well as relief parameters (Nookaratnam et al. 2005; Javed et al. 2009). The watershed with the high result of linear as well as relief parameters has more erosion of soil. As a result, the sub-watershed with the highest result in relief as well as linear parameters ranks 1st, and so on. The shape parameters are related to soil erosion in an indirect way. The soil with the lowest shape parameter results in a watershed, the more erosion of soil. Therefore, the sub-watershed with the lowest shape parameter result is ranked 1st, and so on. Cp value is calculated after assigning a rank to each parameter. When all of the ranks of SW1 are combined and divided by 18, Cp is 7.28. The process was repeated for the other sub-watersheds.

As shown in Table 2, the sub-watersheds were classified as low ( ≥ 7.46 to < 8.72), medium ( ≥ 6.2 to < 7.46), and high ( ≥ 4.94 to < 6.2). SW5, SW8, SW10, and SW13 are high priority sub-watersheds, SW5 and SW6 are medium priority, and SW1, SW2, SW3, SW4, SW7, SW11, and SW12 are low priority sub-watersheds. The vulnerable sub-watersheds face the greatest risk of surface overflow, maximum flow, and erosion of soil (Nookaratnam et al. 2005; Javed et al. 2009). Figure 8 illustrates the final prioritized map of Peddavagu watershed sub-watersheds.
Table 2

Prioritization and ranking (morphometric analysis)

ParametersSW1SW2SW3SW4SW5SW6SW7SW8SW9SW10SW11SW12SW13
Mean bifurcation ratio 13 12 10 11 
Mean stream length ratio 13 10 11 12 
Stream frequency 12 13 10 11 
Drainage density 13 12 10 11 
Drainage texture 13 12 11 10 
Length of overland flow 11 12 10 13 
Rho coefficient 11 13 10 12 
Drainage intensity 11 12 13 10 
Infiltration number 12 13 11 10 
Constant channel maintenance 11 12 10 13 
Relief 12 13 11 10 
Relief ratio 13 12 10 11 
Relative ratio 12 13 10 11 
Ruggedness number 12 13 11 10 
Circulatory ratio 11 12 10 13 
Elongation ratio 12 13 11 10 
Form factor 12 13 11 10 
Compactness coefficient 13 11 12 10 
Sum of rankings (x131 151 153 157 104 114 141 89 129 93 135 135 106 
Total number of parameters (y18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 
Compound parameter (x/y7.28 8.39 8.50 8.72 5.78 6.33 7.83 4.94 7.17 5.17 7.50 7.50 5.89 
Ranking 11 12 13 10 
Final priority Low Low Low Low High Medium Low High Medium High Low Low High 
ParametersSW1SW2SW3SW4SW5SW6SW7SW8SW9SW10SW11SW12SW13
Mean bifurcation ratio 13 12 10 11 
Mean stream length ratio 13 10 11 12 
Stream frequency 12 13 10 11 
Drainage density 13 12 10 11 
Drainage texture 13 12 11 10 
Length of overland flow 11 12 10 13 
Rho coefficient 11 13 10 12 
Drainage intensity 11 12 13 10 
Infiltration number 12 13 11 10 
Constant channel maintenance 11 12 10 13 
Relief 12 13 11 10 
Relief ratio 13 12 10 11 
Relative ratio 12 13 10 11 
Ruggedness number 12 13 11 10 
Circulatory ratio 11 12 10 13 
Elongation ratio 12 13 11 10 
Form factor 12 13 11 10 
Compactness coefficient 13 11 12 10 
Sum of rankings (x131 151 153 157 104 114 141 89 129 93 135 135 106 
Total number of parameters (y18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 
Compound parameter (x/y7.28 8.39 8.50 8.72 5.78 6.33 7.83 4.94 7.17 5.17 7.50 7.50 5.89 
Ranking 11 12 13 10 
Final priority Low Low Low Low High Medium Low High Medium High Low Low High 
Figure 8

Priority of morphometric analysis.

Figure 8

Priority of morphometric analysis.

Close modal

Prioritization of sub-watersheds based on PCA

PCA was performed on 18 morphometric parameters as an effective approach to express the physical behaviour, and relationships among morphometric parameters and others using the statistical programme for the social sciences (SPSS) version 22. It was evident from this investigation that between If and Fs, between Ccm and Lo, between Ff and Re, between Dd and Fs, between Dt and Fs, between Lo and Dd, between Cc and Rc, and Di is correlated with Fs, Dt, and If is correlated with Dd, Dt, Di, and Rn is correlated with Dd, Lo, Ccm, there was a strong correlation. On the other hand, between Re and Di there is a very weak correlation. Similarly, Bh is weakly correlated with Fs, Dt, and If. Blue and red cells with values of 1.0 and −1.0, respectively, represent the strongest positive as well as negative correlation among two parameters in the provided correlogram, as shown in Supplementary Figure S4. Supplementary Table S3 presents the component loading matrix, providing an overview of the loadings for each component. Additionally, the scree plot (Figure 9) also includes the component loading matrix, offering a visual representation of the loadings for each component. The top four components account for 92.893% of the overall variance in the actual information and are clearly considerable. According to the rotated component matrix (Supplementary Table S4), component 1 is substantially connected with drainage texture, component 2 is highly correlated with form factor, component 3 is highly correlated with relief, and component 4 is substantially connected with circulatory ratio (Meshram & Sharma 2017). The primary morphometric parameters derived from PCA are drainage texture, relief, circulatory ratio, and form factor. As a result, these factors are used to prioritize the 13 sub-watersheds of the Peddavagu watershed.
Figure 9

A scree plot for component number and eigen values for the 18 parameters. Please refer to the online version of this paper to see this figure in colour: https://dx.doi.org/10.2166/wcc.2023.221.

Figure 9

A scree plot for component number and eigen values for the 18 parameters. Please refer to the online version of this paper to see this figure in colour: https://dx.doi.org/10.2166/wcc.2023.221.

Close modal
Table 3 displays the final priority ranks and Cp values calculated using the PCA approach for the four morphometric parameters. Sub-watersheds were classified as high (≥ 4.67 to < 8), medium (≥ 8 to < 11.33), and low (≥ 11.33 to < 14.67) based on Cp values. SW5, SW7, SW6, SW9, and SW10 are high priority sub-watersheds, SW12, SW1, SW8, and SW13 are medium priority sub-watersheds, and SW3, SW4, SW2, and SW11 are low priority sub-watersheds. Figure 10 illustrates the final prioritized map of Peddavagu watershed sub-watersheds.
Table 3

Prioritization and ranking (PCA)

ParametersSW1SW2SW3SW4SW5SW6SW7SW8SW9SW10SW11SW12SW13
Drainage texture 13 12 11 10 
Relief 12 13 11 10 
Circulatory ratio 11 12 10 13 
Form factor 12 13 11 10 
Sum of rankings (x30 38 41 44 14 18 23 25 20 23 34 28 26 
Total number of parameters (y04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 
Compound parameter (x/y10.00 12.67 13.67 14.67 4.67 6.00 7.67 8.33 6.67 7.67 11.33 9.33 8.67 
Ranking 11 12 13 10 
Final priority Medium Low Low Low High High High Medium High High Low Medium Medium 
ParametersSW1SW2SW3SW4SW5SW6SW7SW8SW9SW10SW11SW12SW13
Drainage texture 13 12 11 10 
Relief 12 13 11 10 
Circulatory ratio 11 12 10 13 
Form factor 12 13 11 10 
Sum of rankings (x30 38 41 44 14 18 23 25 20 23 34 28 26 
Total number of parameters (y04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 
Compound parameter (x/y10.00 12.67 13.67 14.67 4.67 6.00 7.67 8.33 6.67 7.67 11.33 9.33 8.67 
Ranking 11 12 13 10 
Final priority Medium Low Low Low High High High Medium High High Low Medium Medium 
Figure 10

Priority based on PCA.

Figure 10

Priority based on PCA.

Close modal

Prioritization of sub-watersheds based on LDA

The information available is for 13 sub-watersheds, with 18 parameters representing each sub-watershed. The priorities of sub-watersheds have been enlisted as low, medium, and high within the dataset. The objective of this work is to prioritize the sub-watersheds based on their parameters, which is achieved by LDA-based parameter extraction and support vector machine (SVM) classification. The method has been implemented in the Jupyter integrated development environment (IDE) on a desktop personal computer running at 3.4 GHz with 8 GB of random-access memory.

LDA has determined the eigen value/vector of the product of scatter matrices and it has been found that the first two eigen values corresponding to mean bifurcation ratio, and mean stream length ratio have significant values. Since LDA extracts only N − 1 parameters for N-class data, we select the first two most significant eigen values and their eigen vectors for further calculation. Thus, the first eigenpair is the most informative one and is selected to form a one-dimensional parameter space based on this eigenpair. A percentage of variance is also calculated to ascertain the significance of the obtained eigen values. Supplementary Table S5 shows the eigen value and explains the variance in percentage of each corresponding eigen vector. The linear discriminants are then obtained by multiplying the standardized data with the eigen vector matrix. Table 4 shows the two linear discriminants representing the entire 18 parameter data to prioritize the sub-watersheds.

Table 4

Linear discriminants for the 13 sub-watersheds

LD1LD2Class
−2.893745 3.906645 
−3.102163 −0.612261 
−1.048961 −1.601763 
−4.546036 −2.138163 
5.915539 −0.071582 
−4.468341 4.862247 
−2.115739 −3.647159 
6.416290 0.829684 
−2.851531 0.028526 
6.509167 0.318632 
10 −2.456755 −1.500584 
11 −1.264610 −0.508411 
12 5.906885 0.134189 
LD1LD2Class
−2.893745 3.906645 
−3.102163 −0.612261 
−1.048961 −1.601763 
−4.546036 −2.138163 
5.915539 −0.071582 
−4.468341 4.862247 
−2.115739 −3.647159 
6.416290 0.829684 
−2.851531 0.028526 
6.509167 0.318632 
10 −2.456755 −1.500584 
11 −1.264610 −0.508411 
12 5.906885 0.134189 

Figure 11 shows the sub-watersheds being distributed according to the priorities based on the linear discriminants calculated using LDA. It can be inferred from Figure 11 that LDA has enhanced the class separation between multi-class data. This is conclusive evidence that LDA can predict priorities of sub-watersheds with more accuracy.
Figure 11

LDA projection on the first two linear discriminants, class labels have been encoded as medium = 2, low = 1, and high = 0.

Figure 11

LDA projection on the first two linear discriminants, class labels have been encoded as medium = 2, low = 1, and high = 0.

Close modal
In order to classify the sub-watersheds according to their priority, a support vector machine classifier (SVC) is used. The input dataset is first divided into training and test data in the ratio of 70:30. SVM provides a decision boundary that divides n-dimensional space into classes, allowing us to readily categorize fresh future data points. A hyperplane is the name given to the optimal choice boundary. SVC is a versatile classifier since various kernel functions are available for creating decision boundaries, like radial basis function (rbf), polynomial function, linear function, sigmoid function, etc. In implementing our methodology, we have adopted the rbf kernel function in SVC as it has given more accuracy than any other kernel function. It has also employed K-fold cross-validation (K varied from 3 to 7) for validating the results with other different kernels of SVC and with alternative classifiers (Kotsiantis et al. 2006; Singh et al. 2022) like decision tree, random forest, Adaboost, and K-nearest neighbour (KNN). It is found that there has been no significant change in the accuracy after cross-validation. The graph in Figure 12 consolidates all the classifier results. As shown in Figure 12, 5-fold cross-validation using SVC classifier with rbf kernel has confirmed the accuracy percentage as 75%.
Figure 12

Accuracy score of various classifiers under K-fold cross-validation.

Figure 12

Accuracy score of various classifiers under K-fold cross-validation.

Close modal

To determine the accuracy of classification, we have used a confusion matrix. A confusion matrix is a table (refer to Table 5) that shows how well a classification model (or ‘classifier’) performs on a set of test data for which the real values are known. The accuracy obtained for prediction based on our test data is 75%. The obtained confusion matrix is plotted below.

Table 5

Confusion matrix

 
 

The important morphometric parameters derived from LDA are the mean bifurcation ratio and mean stream length ratio. As a result, these factors are used to prioritize the 13 sub-watersheds of the Peddavagu watershed.

Table 6 displays the final priority ranks and Cp values calculated using the LDA approach for the two morphometric parameters. Sub-watersheds were classified as high (≥3 to <6.33), medium (≥6.33 to <9.67), and low (≥9.67 to <13) based on Cp values. SW2, SW3, SW5, SW6, SW8, and SW10 are high priority sub-watersheds, SW1, SW4, SW12, and SW13 are medium priority sub-watersheds, and SW9, SW7, and SW11 are low priority sub-watersheds. Figure 13 illustrates the final prioritized map of Peddavagu watershed sub-watersheds.
Table 6

Prioritization and ranking (LDA)

ParametersSW1SW2SW3SW4SW5SW6SW7SW8SW9SW10SW11SW12SW13
Mean bifurcation ratio 12 11 13 10 
Mean stream length ratio 04 02 01 03 05 06 12 08 13 07 09 10 11 
Sum of rankings (x16 10 14 21 26 10 19 16 18 
Total number of parameters (y
Compound parameter (x/y4.5 10.5 4.5 13 9.5 
Ranking 12 13 11 10 
Final priority Medium High High Medium High High Low High Low High Low Medium Medium 
ParametersSW1SW2SW3SW4SW5SW6SW7SW8SW9SW10SW11SW12SW13
Mean bifurcation ratio 12 11 13 10 
Mean stream length ratio 04 02 01 03 05 06 12 08 13 07 09 10 11 
Sum of rankings (x16 10 14 21 26 10 19 16 18 
Total number of parameters (y
Compound parameter (x/y4.5 10.5 4.5 13 9.5 
Ranking 12 13 11 10 
Final priority Medium High High Medium High High Low High Low High Low Medium Medium 
Figure 13

Priority based on LDA.

Figure 13

Priority based on LDA.

Close modal

Prioritization of sub-watersheds based on LULC

Land use refers to how people and their ecosystems are using land, with a focus on the key role of land in economic action. The physical characteristics of the earth's surface, artificial cover, natural vegetation, soil, rock, water bodies, and others that result from land transformation are referred to as land cover. The resolution of LULC is 10 metres. As shown in Supplementary Table S6, LULC categories include nine primary classes: built-up area; rangeland; crops; scrub/shrub; water; trees; bare ground; flooded vegetation; and grass. The LULC region for the area of study is depicted in Figure 14. Trees, crops, rangeland, and built-up areas were among the LULC aspects considered for prioritizing sub-watersheds.
Figure 14

LULC map.

For the parameters of trees, crops, and rangelands, the lowest result received a rank of 1, and so on. In the case of the built-up area parameter, the highest result received a rank of 1, and so on. As shown in Table 7, the Cp result was calculated for sub-watershed prioritization.

Table 7

Prioritization and ranking (LULC)

LULC categoriesSW1SW2SW3SW4SW5SW6SW7SW8SW9SW10SW11SW12SW13
Trees (%) 10 13 12 11 
Crops (%) 11 13 10 12 
Range Land (%) 12 13 10 11 
Built area (%) 13 10 12 11 
Sum of rankings (x23 24 22 26 30 26 24 39 34 23 31 27 35 
Total number of parameters (y04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 
Compound parameter (x/y5.75 5.50 6.5 7.5 6.5 9.75 8.5 5.75 7.75 6.75 8.75 
Ranking 13 11 10 12 
Final priority High High High High Medium High High Low Low High Medium High Low 
LULC categoriesSW1SW2SW3SW4SW5SW6SW7SW8SW9SW10SW11SW12SW13
Trees (%) 10 13 12 11 
Crops (%) 11 13 10 12 
Range Land (%) 12 13 10 11 
Built area (%) 13 10 12 11 
Sum of rankings (x23 24 22 26 30 26 24 39 34 23 31 27 35 
Total number of parameters (y04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 
Compound parameter (x/y5.75 5.50 6.5 7.5 6.5 9.75 8.5 5.75 7.75 6.75 8.75 
Ranking 13 11 10 12 
Final priority High High High High Medium High High Low Low High Medium High Low 

The sub-watersheds were then divided into three categories: low ( ≥ 8.33 to <9.75), medium ( ≥ 6.92 to <8.33), and high ( ≥ 5.5 to <6.92). SW2, SW1, SW7, SW10, SW3, SW4, SW6, and SW12 are high priority sub-watersheds, SW5 and SW11 are medium priority sub-watersheds, and SW8, SW9, and SW13 are low priority sub-watersheds. Figure 15 depicts the priority of sub-watersheds in the Peddavagu watershed based on LULC analysis.
Figure 15

Priority based on LULC.

Figure 15

Priority based on LULC.

Close modal

Prioritization of sub-watersheds based on HA

The association of horizontal cross-sectional drainage watershed region to elevation is known as hypsometric analysis. HA was determined by utilizing the elevation-relief ratio method (Pike & Wilson 1971), as shown in Table 1. Figure 16 shows that HI in the current study ranges from 0.24 to 0.75. There were three sub-watersheds identified: low (0.24–0.41), medium (0.41–0.58), and high (0.58–0.75). (Farhan et al. 2016; Shekar & Mathew 2022b). As shown in Table 8, SW1, SW2, SW3, SW4, SW10, and SW11 are high priority sub-watersheds; SW5, SW6, SW8, SW9, and SW13 are medium priority sub-watersheds; and SW7 and SW12 are low priority sub-watersheds. The final priority map of Peddavagu sub-watersheds is represented in Figure 17.
Table 8

Ranking and prioritization (HA)

ParametersSW1SW2SW3SW4SW5SW6SW7SW8SW9SW10SW11SW12SW13
Hypsometric integral (HI) 0.68 0.67 0.67 0.65 0.48 0.45 0.24 0.47 0.44 0.75 0.72 0.34 0.57 
Ranking 10 13 11 12 
Final priority High High High High Medium Medium Low Medium Medium High High Low Medium 
ParametersSW1SW2SW3SW4SW5SW6SW7SW8SW9SW10SW11SW12SW13
Hypsometric integral (HI) 0.68 0.67 0.67 0.65 0.48 0.45 0.24 0.47 0.44 0.75 0.72 0.34 0.57 
Ranking 10 13 11 12 
Final priority High High High High Medium Medium Low Medium Medium High High Low Medium 
Figure 16

Hypsometric curve and hypsometric integral.

Figure 16

Hypsometric curve and hypsometric integral.

Close modal
Figure 17

Priority based on HA.

Figure 17

Priority based on HA.

Close modal

Common sub-watersheds

In reality, the importance of parameters may vary across different sub-watersheds depending on their specific characteristics. Therefore, the study used five methods – morphometric analysis, PCA, LDA, LULC, and HA – to prioritize sub-watersheds. Using five methods helps to identify sub-watersheds that have different characteristics and prioritize them based on their specific susceptible to soil erosion and subsequent flooding. In the sub-watershed priority assessment in Peddavagu watershed, different methods may yield varying priority levels. However, when three out of the five methods consistently indicate a similar priority for a particular sub-watershed, it is reasonable to consider that priority. For instance, if SW2 is consistently assigned a high priority by three out of the five methods, it can be considered as having a high priority based on the convergence of those methods. By identifying the overlapping results and considering the consistency among multiple methods, a more robust and reliable assessment of sub-watershed priority can be achieved. The most similar sub-watersheds were identified using morphometric analysis, PCA, LDA, LULC, and HA. Based on the results presented in Table 9, SW2, SW3, SW5, SW6, and SW10 have been determined to have a high priority. SW13 has been assigned a medium priority, while SW11 has been categorized as having a low priority. Ultimately, SW10 should be allocated a high priority in the list of high priority sub-watersheds for conservation measures and land management practices. This decision is based on the fact that SW10 consistently exhibits a similar priority across all five distinct methods. This alignment across multiple assessment approaches highlights the importance of prioritizing SW10 for focused conservation efforts and effective land management practices.

Table 9

Common priority of sub-watersheds

ParametersSW1SW2SW3SW4SW5SW6SW7SW8SW9SW10SW11SW12SW13
Morphometric analysis Low Low Low Low High Medium Low High Medium High Low Low High 
PCA Medium Low Low Low High High High Medium High High Low Medium Medium 
LDA Medium High High Medium High High Low High Low High Low Medium Medium 
LULC High High High High Medium High High Low Low High Medium High Low 
HA High High High High Medium Medium Low Medium Medium High High Low Medium 
Common priority No High High No High High No No No High Low No Medium 
ParametersSW1SW2SW3SW4SW5SW6SW7SW8SW9SW10SW11SW12SW13
Morphometric analysis Low Low Low Low High Medium Low High Medium High Low Low High 
PCA Medium Low Low Low High High High Medium High High Low Medium Medium 
LDA Medium High High Medium High High Low High Low High Low Medium Medium 
LULC High High High High Medium High High Low Low High Medium High Low 
HA High High High High Medium Medium Low Medium Medium High High Low Medium 
Common priority No High High No High High No No No High Low No Medium 

The traditional method of watershed prioritization includes activities like digitizing contours in the toposheet or thorough field survey, digitizing stream networks, segmenting streams to separate stream orders, and manually measuring stream length. It also involves counting streams, calculating watershed area and perimeter, as well as other related variables to calculate morphometric parameters. As a result, this traditional method was time-consuming, expensive, and labour-intensive. GIS can be used to establish watershed priorities in a less expensive, less time-consuming, and less labour-intensive manner. For instance, watersheds are used in forestry, agriculture, recreation, infrastructure development, and other activities. Therefore, it is important to know the purpose of the watershed in its prioritization. In this paper, five techniques have been used for the Peddavagu River Basin prioritizing, wherein a novel strategy is introduced to rank the priority of sub-watersheds using a machine learning algorithm based on LDA written in Python script. The results indicate that SW2, SW3, SW5, SW6, and SW10 have been identified as high priority sub-watersheds. SW13 has been assigned a medium priority, while SW11 has been categorized as low priority. Considering the consistent results obtained from all five distinct methods, it is recommended to assign a high priority to SW10 in the list of high priority sub-watersheds for conservation measures and land management practices. The convergence of assessments across multiple approaches underscores the significance of prioritizing SW10. By doing so, focused conservation efforts and effective land management practices can be directed towards SW10, ensuring the optimal allocation of resources and maximizing the potential for positive environmental outcomes. Among the sub-watersheds identified as high priority, immediate priority is assigned to SW10.

When soil erosion occurs, it leads to the loss of topsoil and exposes the underlying layers, which are often less permeable. As a result, the ability of the soil to absorb and retain water decreases, leading to increased surface runoff during rainfall events. When heavy rainfall occurs on eroded or compacted soil, the water is unable to infiltrate the ground effectively. Instead, it runs off the surface, accumulating in streams, rivers, and other water bodies. This increased volume of water can overwhelm the natural drainage system, causing rivers to overflow their banks and resulting in flooding. Additionally, the sediments eroded from the soil can be carried by the runoff and deposited in water channels, reducing their capacity and further exacerbating the risk of flooding. There are several measures that can be implemented to mitigate soil erosion and subsequent flooding in high priority sub-watersheds (SW2, SW3, SW5, SW6, and SW10). These include: Promoting sustainable land management practices; Constructing soil conservation structures: Installing check dams, gabions, and percolation tanks can help intercept and slow down water flow, reducing erosion and sedimentation. These structures help to retain water within the landscape, promoting infiltration and minimizing runoff; Managing water flow: Implementing measures such as flood control reservoirs, channel maintenance, and riverbank stabilization can effectively manage water flow and reduce the risk of flooding. These actions help to regulate and control the movement of water, mitigating the impact of heavy rainfall events. By implementing these measures, it is possible to mitigate soil erosion and subsequent flooding, leading to improved land and water management, enhanced agricultural productivity, and reduced risks to human settlements and infrastructure.

Prioritization of sub-watersheds within a larger watershed is an essential step towards effective watershed planning, implementation, and allocation of resources. The current research aims to introduce a novel strategy to determine the priority of sub-watersheds by utilizing an efficient tool written in Python (the LDA method). The study employed RS and GIS techniques to improve the precision and cost-effectiveness of drainage basin delineation and extraction. For the prioritization of the Peddavagu river basin, five methods were utilized and prioritized. Utilizing morphometric analysis, higher priorities were designated for SW5, SW8, SW10, and SW13; using PCA, higher priorities were assigned to SW5, SW6, SW7, SW9, and SW10. HI has given high priority to SW1, SW2, SW3, SW4, SW10, and SW11. Utilizing LULC examination, higher priorities have been designated for SW4, SW6, SW7, SW10, SW1, SW2, SW3, and SW12. Utilizing LDA, higher priorities have been designated for SW2, SW3, SW5, SW6, and SW10. Based on the results, SW2, SW3, SW5, SW6, and SW10 have been determined to have a high priority. SW13 has been assigned a medium priority, while SW11 has been categorized as having a low priority. Among the sub-watersheds identified as high priority, immediate priority is assigned to SW10. As a result, the high priority sub-watershed may be used by decision-makers for conservation measurement and land management practices for planning and development as well as to protect the land from further erosion and flooding.

A limitation of the study is the limited availability of data, which restricts the exploration of deep learning models in the research. However, as a future scope, there is a plan to expand the data collection efforts to include more micro-level watersheds. This expansion will enable the continuation of the classification study using deep learning models, offering the potential for enhanced analysis and insights.

The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers and editor for their instructive comments, which helped to improve this paper. In addition, the authors wish to thank the USGS Earth Explorer for making available the satellite data. Finally, the authors also want to thank ESRI for providing land use land cover data.

P.R.S.: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Data curation, Writing – original draft. A.M.: Supervision, Visualization, Investigation, Writing – review & editing. A.P.S.: Data curation, Writing – review & editing. V.P.G.: review & editing.

There was no funding for this project.

All relevant data are included in the paper or its Supplementary Information.

The authors declare there is no conflict.

Adhami
M.
,
Sadeghi
S. H.
,
Duttmann
R.
&
Sheikhmohammady
M.
2019
Changes in watershed hydrological behavior due to land use comanagement scenarios
.
Journal of Hydrology
577
,
124001
.
Chakraborti
A. K.
2003
Watershed prioritization – case studies in Salauli watershed of Zuari river basin, Goa
.
ISRO National Natural Resources Management Systems Bulletin
,
42
44
.
Clarke
J. I.
1966
Morphometry from Maps. Essays in Geomorphology
.
Elsevier Publ, Co
,
New York
.
Diwakar
P. G.
&
Mayya
S. G.
2010
ICT and geomatics as process tools for community centric watershed development
.
Journal of Geomatics
4
(
1
),
25
.
Faniran
A.
1968
The index of drainage intensity: a provisional new drainage factor
.
Australian Journal of Science
31
,
328
330
.
Farhan
Y.
,
Elgaziri
A.
,
Elmaji
I.
&
Ali
I.
2016
Hypsometric analysis of Wadi Mujib Wala Watershed (Southern Jordan) using remote sensing and GIS techniques
.
International Journal of Geosciences
7
,
158
176
.
Farhan
Y.
,
Anbar
A.
,
Al-Shaikh
N.
,
Almohammad
H.
,
Alshawamreh
S.
,
Barghouthi
M.
&
Barghouthi
M.
2018
Prioritization of sub-watersheds in a large semi-arid drainage basin (Southern Jordan) using morphometric analysis, GIS, and multivariate statistics
.
Agricultural Sciences
9
,
437
468
.
Fu
M.
,
Fan
T.
,
Ding
Z.
,
Salih
S. Q.
,
Al-Ansari
N.
&
Yaseen
Z. M.
2020
Deep learning data-intelligence model based on adjusted forecasting window scale: application in daily streamflow simulation
.
IEEE Access
8
,
32632
32651
.
doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2974406
.
Gajbhiye
S. M.
&
Sharma
S. K.
2017
Prioritization of watershed through morphometric parameters: a PCA-based approach
.
Applied Water Science
7
(
2017
),
1505
1519
.
Gupta
N.
,
Mathew
A.
&
Khandelwal
S.
2020
Spatio-temporal impact assessment of land use/land cover (LU-LC) change on land surface temperatures over Jaipur city in India
.
International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development
12
(
3
),
283
299
.
doi:10.1080/19463138.2020.1727908
.
Iqbal
M.
&
Sajjad
H.
2014
Watershed prioritization using morphometric and land use/land cover parameters of Dhudganga Catchment Kashmir Valley India using spatial technology
.
Journal of Geophysics and Remote Sensing
3
,
12
23
.
Javed
A.
,
Khanday
M. Y.
&
Ahmed
R.
2009
Prioritization of sub-watersheds based on morphometric and land use analysis using remote sensing and GIS techniques
.
Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing
37
,
261
.
Kadam
A. K.
,
Jaweed
T. H.
,
Kale
S. S.
,
Umrikar
B. N.
&
Sankhua
R. N.
2019
Identification of erosion-prone areas using modified morphometric prioritization method and sediment production rate: a remote sensing and GIS approach
.
Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk
10
,
986
1006
.
Kaya
C. M.
,
Tayfur
G.
&
Gungor
O.
2019
Predicting flood plain inundation for natural channels having no upstream gauged stations
.
Journal of Water and Climate Change
10
(
2
),
360
372
.
https://doi.org/10.2166/wcc.2017.307
.
Khanday
M. Y.
&
Javed
A.
2016
Prioritization of sub-watersheds for conservation measures in a semi-arid watershed using remote sensing and GIS
.
Journal of the Geological Society of India
2
,
185
196
.
Kotsiantis
S. B.
,
Zaharakis
I. D.
&
Pintelas
P. E.
2006
Machine learning: a review of classification and combining techniques
.
Artificial Intelligence Review
26
,
159
190
.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-007-9052-3
.
Kudnar
N. S.
&
Rajasekhar
M.
2020
A study of the morphometric analysis and cycle of erosion in Wainganga Basin, India
.
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment
6
,
311
327
.
Langbein
W. B.
1947
Topographic characteristics of drainage basins
.
U.S.G.S. Water Supply Paper
968C
,
127
157
.
Melton
M. A.
1957
An Analysis of the Relations Among Elements of Climate, Surface Properties and Geomorphology
.
Department of Geology, Columbia University, Technical Report, 11, Project NR 389-042. Office of Navy Research
,
New York
.
Meshram
S. G.
&
Sharma
S. K.
2017
Prioritization of watershed through morphometric parameters: a PCA-based approach
.
Applied Water Science
7
,
1505
1519
.
Miller
V. C.
1953
A Quantitative Geomorphic Study of Drainage Basin Characteristics in the Clinch Mountain Area, Virginia and Tennessee
.
Department of Geology Columbia University
,
New York
, pp.
389
402
.
Mishra
C.
,
Jaiswal
R.
,
Nema
A.
,
Chandola
V.
&
Chouksey
A.
2018
Priority assessment of sub-watershed based on optimum number of parameters using fuzzy-AHP decision support system in the environment of RS and GIS
.
Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing
47
(
4
),
603
617
.
Moore
I. D.
,
Grayson
R. B.
&
Ladson
A. R.
1994
Digital Terrain Modelling. In a Review of Hydrological, Geomorphological and Biological Applications
, Vol.
7
, No.
31
.
Wiley
,
Chichester
. p.
249
.
Nookaratnam
K.
,
Srivastava
Y. K.
,
Venkateswara Rao
V.
,
Amminedu
E.
&
Murthy
K. S. R.
2005
Check dam positioning by prioritization micro-watersheds using SYI model and morphometric analysis – remote sensing and GIS perspective
.
Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing
33
,
25
38
.
Obi Reddy
G. P.
,
SambasivaRao
M.
&
Maji
A. K.
2004
Delineation and prioritization of macro watersheds in semi-arid Anantapur district Andhra Pradesh
.
Geographical Review of India
66
(
1
),
72
83
.
Pike
R. J.
&
Wilson
S. E.
1971
Elevation-relief ratio, hypsometric integral and geomorphic area-altitude analysis
.
Geological Society of America Bulletin
82
,
1079
1084
.
Puno
G. R.
&
Puno
R. C. C.
2019
Watershed conservation prioritization using geomorphometric and land use-land cover parameters
.
Global Journal of Environmental Science and Management
5
(
3
),
279
294
.
Redvan
G.
&
Mustafa
U.
2021
Flood prioritization of basin based on geomorphometric properties using principal component analysis, morphometric analysis and Redvan's priority methods: a case study of Harshit River Basin
.
Journal of Hydrology
603
,
127061
.
Schumm
S. A.
1956
Evolution of drainage systems and slopes in badlands at Perth Amboy, New Jersey
.
Geological Society of America Bulletin
67
,
597
646
.
Sharma
S.
&
Mahajan
A. K.
2020
GIS-based sub-watershed prioritization through morphometric analysis in the outer Himalayan region of India
.
Applied Water Science
10
,
163
.
Singh
J.
,
Pandey
P.
,
Pandey
P. K.
,
2022
Chapter 26 – Decision-making system for crop selection based on soil
. In:
Intelligent Data-Centric Systems, AI, Edge and IoT-Based Smart Agriculture
(
Abraham
A.
,
Dash
S.
,
Rodrigues
J. J. P. C.
,
Acharya
B.
&
Pani
S. K.
, eds).
Academic Press
, pp.
449
475
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-823694-9.00032-3
.
Smith
K. G.
1950
Standards for grading texture of erosional topography
.
American Journal of Science
248
,
655
668
.
https://doi.org/10.2475/ajs.248.9.655
.
Song
X.
,
Hansen
M. C.
,
Stehman
S. V.
,
Potapov
P. V.
,
Tyunkvina
A.
&
Vermote
E. F.
2018
Global land change from 1982 to 2016
.
Nature
560
,
639
643
.
Sreedevi
P. D.
,
Owais
S.
,
Khan
H. H.
&
Ahmed
S.
2009
Morphometric analysis of a watershed of south India using SRTM data and GIS
.
Journal of the Geological Society of India
73
,
543
552
.
Strahler
A. N.
1952
Hypsometric (area-altitude) analysis of erosional topography
.
Geological Society of America Bulletin
63
,
1117
1142
.
Strahler
A. N.
1957
Quantitative analysis of watershed geomorphology
.
Transactions of the American Geophysical Union
38
,
913
920
.
Strahler
A. N.
,
1964
Quantitative geomorphology of drainage basins and channel networks
. In:
Handbook of Applied Hydrology
(
Chow
V. T.
, ed.).
Section 4–11
,
McGraw-Hill
,
New York, NY
,
USA
Subasi
A.
2020
Chapter 3 – Machine learning techniques
. In:
Practical Machine Learning for Data Analysis Using Python
. pp.
91
202
,
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-821379-7.00003-5
.
Sujatha
E. R.
,
Selvakumar
R.
,
Rajasimman
U. A. B.
&
Victor
R. G.
2013
Morphometric analysis of sub-watershed in parts of Western Ghats, South India using ASTER DEM
.
Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk
6
(
4
),
326
341
.
Waiyasusri
K.
&
Chotpantarat
S.
2020
Watershed prioritization of Kaeng Lawa sub-watershed, Khon Kaen province using the morphometric and land-use analysis: a case study of heavy flooding caused by tropical storm Podul
.
Water (Switzerland)
12
(
6
),
1570
.
Wang
K.
,
Band
S. S.
,
Ameri
R.
,
Biyari
M.
,
Hai
T.
,
Hsu
C.
,
Hadjouni
M.
,
Elmannai
H.
,
Chau
K. W.
&
Mosavi
A.
2022
Performance improvement of machine learning models via wavelet theory in estimating monthly river streamflow
.
Engineering Applications of Computational Fluid Mechanics
16
(
1
),
1833
1848
.
doi:10.1080/19942060.2022.2119281
.
Willgoose
G.
&
Hancock
G.
1998
Revisiting the hypsometric curve as an indicator of form and process in transport-limited catchments
.
Earth Surface Processes and Landforms
23
,
611
623
.
Withanage
N. S.
,
Dayawansa
N. D. K.
&
De-Silva
R. P.
2014
Morphometric analysis of the Gal Oya river basin using spatial data derived from GIS
.
Tropical Agricultural Research
26
(
1
),
175
188
.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence (CC BY 4.0), which permits copying, adaptation and redistribution, provided the original work is properly cited (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Supplementary data