A study was undertaken to assess the live storage capacity of the Dholbaha reservoir located in Punjab, India using remote sensing and bathymetric survey techniques. The primary objectives included comparing the estimated capacity with findings from a bathymetric survey, refining the elevation-area-capacity curve, and determining the rate of capacity loss due to sediments deposition. This analysis utilized water elevation data spanning from 1987 to 2022 and satellite imageries from Landsat 7, 8 & 9. The satellite data was processed using software tools such as Erdas Imagine and ArcGIS. The water extent of the reservoir was calculated using Modified Normalized Difference Water Index (MNDWI). Over the course of 34 years, the reservoir experienced reductions in its dead, active, and total storage capacities by 81.5%, 19.7%, and 28.9%, respectively. These changes correspond to annual depletion rates of 2.40%, 0.58%, and 0.85%, respectively. The sediment yield from the surrounding catchment area was determined to be approximately 1203.56 m3/km2/year. The findings demonstrate substantial declines in Dholbaha reservoir storage capacities over a 34-year period (1987-2022) attributable to sedimentation. This underscores the critical need for sustainable water management and provides key insights for monitoring and strategic planning. The study advocates immediate, targeted interventions within the catchment area to mitigate sedimentation in the Dholbaha reservoir, highlighting the importance of ongoing sedimentation rate monitoring and collaboration with stakeholders for informed reservoir management and sustainable solutions to maintain water capacity for the region.

  • Satellite data is as good as field investigation (bathymetric survey) for estimating reservoir capacity.

  • The gross storage capacity of the Dholbaha reservoir is depleting by about 0.85% annually.

  • The sediment yield from the catchment area of the Dholbaha reservoir is approximately 1175.3 m3/km2/year.

  • Remote sensing technique is a superior alternative for consistently estimating the loss of reservoir capacity.

The hydrological and sedimentation processes of water reservoirs are significantly affected by both natural and human activities within a catchment area (Singh et al. 2023a). In catchments, smaller dams and reservoirs are primarily constructed to mitigate floods and collect rainwater during the rainy season. The collected runoff water serves various purposes, such as irrigation and fish farming (Ninija-Merina et al. 2016). However, over time, the storage capacities of these reservoirs decrease due to the inflow of silt and sediment from their respective catchment areas (Asselman & Middelkoop 1995; Fryirs 2013), with an annual loss rate of storage capacity ranging from 0.5 to 1.0% (Keller et al. 2000; Walling 2006), mainly caused by water-induced erosion (Singh 2019; Singh et al. 2023a, 2023b). Owing to current land use practices, sedimentation is occurring at a notably higher rate. Research by Annandale et al. (2003) indicates a global loss of reservoir storage capacity at approximately 0.8% due to sediment inflow, resulting in an annual financial loss of around 13 billion dollars, equivalent to 45 km3 of water, making sedimentation a crucial concern. The sediment yield of a reservoir significantly affects its physical attributes and operational planning (Kishore et al. 2021; Billi & Spalevic 2022). Therefore, for the achievement of interconnected sustainable development goals, reservoirs play a pivotal role in the water, energy, and food nexus (Quaranta et al. 2021).

Reservoir sedimentation is a complex process due to the wide array of factors influencing it, including alterations in land use within catchments, fluctuations in hydrology affecting water and sediment inflow, variations in sediment particle size, changes in reservoir operations, and the reservoir's shape and size (Strand & Penibertori 1982). According to Ninija-Merina et al. (2016), one of the primary reasons for reservoir sedimentation is soil erosion, resulting from various inadequate land management practices like deforestation, forest fires, unsustainable agricultural practices, and stream bank degradation. Sedimentation poses a significant challenge to water resource development projects, as it reduces both the dead and live storage capacities of reservoirs, undermining their anticipated benefits. Consequently, proper assessment and management of reservoirs are crucial to maintain their full storage capacity and extend their useful lifespan (Goel et al. 2002).

Reservoir capacity can be determined through direct methods (DGPS-based bathymetric or hydrographic surveys) or indirect methods (soil loss models and sediment sampling). Direct methods, such as hydrographic surveys, directly measure sediment accumulation within a reservoir (Vente et al. 2003; Mupfiga et al. 2016). However, these methods are labor-intensive, time-consuming, expensive, and demand skilled personnel and advanced tools (Thomas et al. 2009), often conducted every 5–15 years (Goel et al. 2002). In contrast, indirect methods estimate sediment content without direct measurements. Remote sensing offers a cost-effective approach for estimating reservoir capacity and sedimentation rates (Patni et al. 2017). Due to sediment entrapment concerns, remote sensing has gained attention for reservoir surveying and monitoring (Kummu & Varis 2007; Singh et al. 2021a, 2021b). GIS applications, with their capability to handle complex issues and large datasets, are efficient for three-dimensional planning (Kumar et al. 2016a, 2016b), making the combination of remote sensing and GIS a new indirect approach for sedimentation analysis in reservoirs (Bhavsa & Gohil 2015; Avinash & Chandramouli 2018). Geospatial techniques provide insights into sediment distribution patterns. The major advantage of remote sensing/satellite data is their repetitive coverage over extended periods (Dutta 2016; Pandey et al. 2016). Landsat satellite images have recently been used to estimate water spread areas of various reservoirs using indices like Normalized Difference Water Index (NDWI) or Modified Normalized Difference Water Index (MNDWI) (Ninija-Merina et al. 2016; Behera et al. 2018; Valderrama-Landeros et al. 2018).

The Kandi region, situated in the Shivalik foothills of Indian Punjab, presents one of the most fragile ecosystems of the Himalayan range due to its uneven geographical composition. Around 18% of the total area (2.14 million ha) of the Kandi region is located in Punjab (Kumar et al. 2016a, 2016b). Intensive rainfall exacerbates soil erosion in this region, characterized by rolling terrain and highly erodible soils (Sidhu et al. 2000). Soil loss exceeds 72.7 Mg/ha/year in this region (Singh 2019; Singh et al. 2021a), reaching up to 244 Mg/ha/year in certain catchments (Bhardwaj & Kaushal 2009). Several earthen dams/reservoirs exist in this area, including Chohal dam, Damsal dam, Dholbaha dam, Januari dam, Maili dam, Nara dam, Patiaria dam, Saleran dam, and Thana dam. However, due to high silt inflow relative to soil erosion, these reservoirs experience a yearly decline of 1.0–1.3% in storage capacity (Sur et al. 1999). Consequently, the elevation-area-capacity curves of these reservoirs shift, potentially leading to inaccurate water availability estimates and flawed reservoir operation plans.

As of now, various research studies have been undertaken to conduct analysis on land use and land change, morphometrics, and prioritization within numerous watersheds or reservoir catchments situated within the Kandi region of Punjab. However, a crucial aspect that remains inadequately addressed pertains to the assessment of capacity loss and sedimentation in earthen dams or reservoirs over the past 34 years from their inception. There has been an absence of studies focusing on the evaluation of reservoir capacity loss, utilizing either field survey methodologies such as bathymetric surveys or advanced geospatial techniques. The periodic assessment of reservoir capacity is paramount, as it offers invaluable insights for accurate determination of available water, effective water use scheduling, and optimization of reservoir operations. Such assessments are crucial for informed decision-making and the sustainable management of water resources within the Kandi region of Punjab. Given this context, a study was conducted to (i) estimate the live storage capacity of the Dholbaha reservoir using geospatial techniques, (ii) compare two different methods for estimating reservoir capacity, (iii) compare estimated capacity with bathymetric survey results and update the elevation-area-capacity curve, and (iv) estimate capacity loss and sediment yield using water elevation data (1987–2022) and Landsat satellite imageries (Landsat 7, 8, and 9) for multiple dates across selected years.

Description of the study area

The Dholbaha dam is situated at the geographical coordinates of 31°44′11.665″N latitude and 75°53′13.448″E longitude (Figure 1). This dam serves as a multipurpose project, positioned downstream of the confluence of Baherakhads and Kukanet, near the Dholbaha village. Its location is approximately 32 km from Hoshiarpur city. Crafted as an earthen (earth fill) dam, it stands at a height of 38.83 m. Notably, it holds the distinction of being the pioneer among the low dams established in the Kandi region of Punjab, executed as part of the Kandi Watershed Development Project. In this particular area, the temperature variations are distinct between the seasons. Summer temperatures oscillate between 14 and 47 °C, while winter temperatures span from 0 to 32 °C. The onset of the southwest monsoon is observed in June, extending its influence until October. The land use within the dam's catchment encompasses diverse categories, including forested land, water bodies, residential or built-up areas, and agricultural plots. Damp deciduous woodland encircles the boundaries of the Dholbaha dam, contributing to its environment. The reservoir formed by the Dholbaha dam accommodates various aquatic organisms, such as fish and insects. With a water surface area of 132 ha, this reservoir serves as a crucial water source. Its stored water fulfills a range of purposes, prominently including irrigation and the recharge of groundwater. For your convenience, Table 1 provides a comprehensive overview of the notable features associated with the Dholbaha dam during its construction phase.
Table 1

Salient features of the Dholbaha dam

DescriptionValue
Catchment area 56.14 km2 
Bed level of choe 391.67 m 
Top level 430.50 m 
Normal reservoir level 417.00 m 
Maximum reservoir level 427.10 m 
Dead storage level 403.50 m 
Reservoir area 132 ha 
Gross storage capacity 1,332.2 ham 
Live storage capacity 1,159.5 ham 
Dead storage capacity 172.7 ham 
Initial intake level 397.50 m 
Final intake level 403.50 m 
Designed discharge of distributary 43.00 cusec 
Gross command area 4,711 ha 
Culturable command area 3,745 ha 
Length of minor distributary 23.62 km 
Water allowance 4.13 cusec/1,000 acre 
Cost of dam 2,113 lakh 
Date of start July 1981 
Date of completion November 1987 
Benefit–cost ratio (B:C) 1.37:1 
DescriptionValue
Catchment area 56.14 km2 
Bed level of choe 391.67 m 
Top level 430.50 m 
Normal reservoir level 417.00 m 
Maximum reservoir level 427.10 m 
Dead storage level 403.50 m 
Reservoir area 132 ha 
Gross storage capacity 1,332.2 ham 
Live storage capacity 1,159.5 ham 
Dead storage capacity 172.7 ham 
Initial intake level 397.50 m 
Final intake level 403.50 m 
Designed discharge of distributary 43.00 cusec 
Gross command area 4,711 ha 
Culturable command area 3,745 ha 
Length of minor distributary 23.62 km 
Water allowance 4.13 cusec/1,000 acre 
Cost of dam 2,113 lakh 
Date of start July 1981 
Date of completion November 1987 
Benefit–cost ratio (B:C) 1.37:1 
Figure 1

Study area map.

The soils of the Kandi region range from loamy sand to sandy loam, with shallow to moderately deep profiles and moderate moisture retention. They are generally unsuitable for cultivation, falling within Class IV to Class VIII land use classifications. The soil characteristics vary within specific ranges for electrical conductivity (EC), pH, and bulk density. The predominant vegetation of this region includes forest trees, shrubs, bushes, and grasses. The landscape is characterized by moderately dense and open forests, with a notable increase in degraded land and stream area over the past two decades, while the proportions of mixed forest and water bodies have decreased.

This region displays a range of soil textures, primarily spanning from loamy sand to sandy loam. These soils typically have shallow to moderately deep profiles, and their capacity for moisture retention falls within the low to medium range. Their suitability for cultivation is limited, falling within various land use classifications, namely Class IV to Class VIII (Sur et al. 1999; Sushanth 2018). The soil characteristics present within specific ranges. The EC of soil which is a crucial aspect affecting its fertility and nutrient availability varies from 0.10 to 0.20 dS/m. The pH, which measures the acidity or alkalinity of the soil, fluctuates between 6.5 and 7.5, representing the soil's chemical composition and its potential impact on plant growth. Additionally, the bulk density, ranging from 1.3 to 1.7 Mg/m3, provides insights into the soil's compactness and porosity.

Regarding vegetation, the prevalent flora in this region comprises forest trees, shrubs, bushes, and grasses. The landscape of the catchment area is characterized by moderately dense and open forests, interspersed with shrubs and grasses. Over a span of 2–3 decades, significant changes have occurred in the land composition of the area. The extent of degraded land has surged by approximately 55%, signifying a concerning trend of environmental degradation. Concurrently, the area occupied by streams has experienced a notable growth of 14%, possibly due to various natural and anthropogenic factors influencing water flow and landscape dynamics. In contrast, the proportions of mixed forest and water bodies have shown a decline, with a 12% decrease in mixed forest coverage and a substantial 36% reduction in water body coverage, indicating transformations in the ecosystem and potential environmental challenges.

Data

Data regarding water surface elevation, design capacity, and bathymetric surveys of the Dholbaha dam reservoir were gathered from the Kandi Canal Irrigation Department, situated in Hoshiarpur, Punjab. Specifically, water surface elevation data spanning a 34-year period (1987–2022) was obtained. In addition, satellite images sourced from Landsat 7, 8, and 9 were obtained from the USGS EarthExplorer platform (https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov) for various dates across the chosen years.

Methodology

The catchment area of the Dholbaha reservoir was delineated using ALOS PALSAR-Digital Elevation Model (DEM) with a resolution of 12.5 m, employing ArcGIS 10.4.1 software (Arc SWAT). Key parameters including catchment area, length, perimeter, elevation (maximum and minimum), longest flow path, and slope were extracted using ArcGIS. Stream orders for the Dholbaha reservoir were determined using a 100-m stream threshold. The satellite imagery from Landsat 7, 8, and 9 was processed using ERDAS IMAGINE and ArcGIS. Extracting the area of interest facilitated the visualization of reservoir water spread for different dates. For various dates, the calculated water spread area and alterations in water surface elevation were employed to assess storage capacity. To evaluate capacity loss, the computed storage capacity was contrasted with the designed capacity. The workflow diagram of this study is depicted in Figure 2.
Figure 2

Workflow diagram of the study.

Figure 2

Workflow diagram of the study.

Close modal

Water spread area extraction

The surface area of the Dholbaha reservoir was assessed through the utilization of the MNDWI. This index amplifies the detection of water bodies by minimizing the influence of soil and vegetation characteristics. It does so by utilizing reflected shortwave infrared radiation (SWIR) and visible green light. In the images generated by employing the MNDWI technique, constructed structures exhibit negative values, whereas water bodies are represented by positive values (Wagh & Manekar 2021). The formulation for the MNDWI is expressed as follows:
(1)

These wavelengths were selected to maximize the ability of water to reflect light. The threshold is set at zero, resulting in the MNDWI value spanning from −1 to 1. A MNDWI value of 0 indicates the presence of water as the cover type, whereas a MNDWI value below 0 indicates the absence of water as the cover type.

Thresholding

The technique of density slicing was employed to delineate areas of water distribution in regions characterized by clear water and distinct land cover features. This methodology involves partitioning the complete set of grayscale pixels within an image into 256 distinct shades. The resultant output comprises a singular value encompassing all gray intensity values associated with water pixels. Through this process, water pixels are segregated from the rest of the image.

Following the identification of minimum and maximum intensity values for water pixels through histogram peak analysis, the image undergoes a thorough density-based segmentation. In cases where uncertainty arises concerning the demarcation between water and other land cover categories, a multifaceted modeling approach can be utilized. This approach aids in pinpointing water distribution areas even when uncertainties surround the delineation between water and other land cover classes.

In order to ascertain the extent of water distribution, a logical assessment is employed to determine the eligibility of pixels in the image for classification as water pixels. For instance, if a pixel satisfies predetermined threshold criteria in both the ratio image and SWIR band, it is designated as a water pixel.

Estimation of reservoir capacity

The capacity of the Dholbaha dam reservoir was computed by the following methods: prismoidal and average/mid-area methods.

Prismoidal method

The capacity of a reservoir/dam can be estimated using Equation (2) (Jain et al. 2002; Avinash & Chandramouli 2018):
(2)
where V is the volume between successive elevations (ham), H is the contour interval or difference between water elevations 1 and 2 , A1 is the area of lower contour or area for elevation 1 (ha), and A2 is the area of the upper contour or area for elevation 2 (ha).

Average/mid-area method

The capacity of a reservoir/dam can also be calculated using Equation (3) (Lu et al. 2013):
(3)
where V is the reservoir capacity (ham), H is the contour interval (m), A1 is the surface area at contour (ha), and A2 is the surface area at the next contour level above the contour level (ha).

Estimation of reservoir capacity loss, annual depletion rate, and sediment yield

Reservoir capacity loss, annual depletion rate, and sediment yield can be estimated using the following relationships.

Reservoir capacity loss

Percent capacity loss

Annual depletion rate

Sediment yield

(adapted from Rahmani et al. (2018))
(7)
where is the initial capacity of reservoir, is the capacity of reservoir at time tc (latest), and Ac is the reservoir catchment year (km2).

Development of the live storage capacity model of the Dholbaha reservoir

A model was developed to form a linear relationship between capacity, water surface elevation, and water spread area of the Dholbaha reservoir. Linear regression technique available in XLSTAT software was used to develop a model for predicting reservoir capacity in relation to water surface elevation and water spread area as inputs. The data (observed capacity, water surface elevation, and water spread area) were divided into two parts (70:30) for model development and validation purposes. The capacity (volume) is linearly related to water surface elevation (Ews) and water surface area (Aws) of the reservoir as indicated by Equations (8a) and (8b):
(8a)
where 401.0 < Ews < 417.0
(8b)
where V, Ews, and Aws are expressed in ham, m, and ha, respectively.

Statistical analysis

The performance analysis included computation of statistical parameters, namely, mean absolute percentage error (MAE), root mean square error (RMSE), standard deviation (SD), Willmott index of agreement (d) reported by Willmott (1982), and coefficient of determination (R2).

Mean absolute error (MAE)

(9)

Root mean square error (RMSE)

(10)

Standard deviation (SD)

(11)

Index of agreement (d)

(12)

Coefficient of determination (R2)

(13)
where n is the number of data points, Pi is the predicted or estimated data, and Oi is the observed or standard data.

Morphometric analysis of the Dholbaha catchment

Utilizing remote sensing techniques, various geomorphic characteristics of the Dholbaha catchment were derived. These parameters include the area (57.30 km2), perimeter (50.5 km), minimum and maximum elevations (610 and 347 m, respectively), basin length (10.8 km), and longest flow path length (13.7 km). The DEM of the Dholbaha catchment is illustrated in Figure 3. The catchment's stream order is 5, as depicted in Figure 4. The bifurcation ratio within the catchment ranged from 2 to 5, indicative of a well-developed drainage network, in accordance with studies by Horton (1945) and Strahler (1968). The mean bifurcation ratio computed was 3.53 (Table 1). Additionally, the RHO coefficient was measured at 0.83, exceeding 0.5, which suggests an ample storage capacity within the catchment, aligning with the findings of Horton (1945) and Gupta et al. (2019). The texture ratio of the Dholbaha catchment, determined as 2.517 km−2, demonstrates a low value as per Gupta et al. (2019). The catchment's elongation ratio of 0.791 falls within the range of 0.6–0.8, indicating a terrain with higher relief and steeper slopes in line with Strahler (1968), yet possessing a less elongated shape, as observed by Pareta & Pareta (2011). The circularity ratio of 0.283 also confirms the catchment's less elongated form, consistent with the assessments of Miller (1957), Schumm (1954), and Patel et al. (2013). Moreover, the form factor below 0.78 designates the catchment's moderately elongated configuration, as denoted by Vinutha & Janardhana (2014). The compactness coefficient of the catchment is determined as 1.880 (Table 2), indicating lower runoff potential and erodibility.
Table 2

Parameters of morphometric analysis of the Dholbaha catchment

ParameterValue
Bifurcation ratio 2–5 
Mean bifurcation ratio 3.53 
RHO coefficient 0.83 
Texture ratio (km−22.517 
Elongation ratio 0.791 
Circularity ratio 0.283 
Form factor 0.492 
Compactness coefficient 1.88 
Shape factor 2.032 
Hypsometric integral 0.455 
Drainage density (km/km22.356 
Stream frequency (km−23.002 
Drainage intensity (km−11.274 
Drainage texture (km−13.409 
Infiltration number (km−37.072 
Length of overland flow (km) 0.212 
Constant of channel maintenance (km2/km) 0.424 
Basin relief (m) 263 
Relative relief 0.005 
Relief ratio 0.024 
Ruggedness number 0.62 
Melton ruggedness number 0.035 
Channel gradient 0.012 
ParameterValue
Bifurcation ratio 2–5 
Mean bifurcation ratio 3.53 
RHO coefficient 0.83 
Texture ratio (km−22.517 
Elongation ratio 0.791 
Circularity ratio 0.283 
Form factor 0.492 
Compactness coefficient 1.88 
Shape factor 2.032 
Hypsometric integral 0.455 
Drainage density (km/km22.356 
Stream frequency (km−23.002 
Drainage intensity (km−11.274 
Drainage texture (km−13.409 
Infiltration number (km−37.072 
Length of overland flow (km) 0.212 
Constant of channel maintenance (km2/km) 0.424 
Basin relief (m) 263 
Relative relief 0.005 
Relief ratio 0.024 
Ruggedness number 0.62 
Melton ruggedness number 0.035 
Channel gradient 0.012 
Figure 3

DEM of the Dholbaha catchment.

Figure 3

DEM of the Dholbaha catchment.

Close modal
Figure 4

Stream ordering of the Dholbaha catchment.

Figure 4

Stream ordering of the Dholbaha catchment.

Close modal
The shape factor of the catchment is computed as 2.032. The hypsometric integral stands at 0.455, indicative of a mature dissected landform according to Ramu & Jayashree (2013). The catchment's drainage density is 2.356 km/km2, categorized as coarse following Chandrashekar et al. (2015) and Tavassol & Gopalakrishna (2016). The stream frequency, noted as 3.002 km−2, is low based on the evaluation of Venkatesan (2014), with a drainage intensity of 1.274 km−1 (refer to Table 2). The catchment's drainage texture is coarse, in accordance with Pareta & Pareta (2011) and Rai et al. (2018). The infiltration number and the constant of channel maintenance are established at 7.072 km−3 and 0.424 km2/km, respectively (Table 2). The length of overland flow is 0.212 km, indicating a moderate value as per Chandrashekar et al. (2015). A shorter length of overland flow signifies higher surface runoff entering the stream. In relatively uniform topography, even minimal rainfall can contribute significantly to stream discharge when the length of overland flow is small, as highlighted by Rao (1978). The catchment's geomorphic attributes include a basin relief of 263 m, a relative relief of 0.005, a relief ratio of 0.024, a ruggedness number of 0.620, a Melton ruggedness number of 0.035, and a channel gradient of 0.012 (Table 2). The contour and slope maps of the Dholbaha catchment are displayed in Figures 5 and 6.
Figure 5

Contour map of the Dholbaha catchment.

Figure 5

Contour map of the Dholbaha catchment.

Close modal
Figure 6

Slope map of the Dholbaha catchment.

Figure 6

Slope map of the Dholbaha catchment.

Close modal

Variation in the water spread area and live storage capacity of the Dholbaha reservoir with water elevation

The water extent of the Dholbaha reservoir, determined through the employment of remote sensing methodology (MNDWI), displayed a range from 25.10 to 104.77 ha. The minimum and maximum water extents were linked to water surface elevations of 405.5 and 417.01 m, respectively. Figures 7 and 8 demonstrate the MNDWI images and water spread areas of Dholbaha reservoir for few selected dates and water elevations, respectively. Upon reaching the reservoir's operational capacity, remote sensing techniques yielded a water extent estimate of 104.8 ha, while bathymetric survey methods produced a measurement of 127.1 ha. The original dead storage capacity of the reservoir, set at 200 ha, concludes at a water surface elevation of 403.5 m. Live storage initiation commences beyond a water surface elevation of 403.5 m and persists up to 417.0 m. To ascertain the live storage capacity of the Dholbaha reservoir through remote sensing means, water surface elevation data was arranged chronologically for various dates across multiple years, dependent on the availability of satellite data. The range of water surface elevation data employed in computing the reservoir's live storage capacity ranged from 405.50 to 417.01 m (Figure 9). The live storage capacities, as derived from prismoidal and average/mid-area methods, were determined as 865.5 and 865.7 ha, respectively. These figures indicated a robust statistical similarity (R2 = 1.0) between the two methodologies (Figure 10). The average/mid-area method yielded a slightly higher value (0.03%) in comparison to the prismoidal method, although with no statistically significant difference. Consequently, both techniques for estimating reservoir capacity demonstrate equivalent applicability.
Figure 7

MNDWI images of Dholbaha reservoir for few selected dates and water elevations.

Figure 7

MNDWI images of Dholbaha reservoir for few selected dates and water elevations.

Close modal
Figure 8

Water surface area of Dholbaha reservoir for few selected dates and water elevations.

Figure 8

Water surface area of Dholbaha reservoir for few selected dates and water elevations.

Close modal
Figure 9

Variation in water surface area and reservoir capacity with water elevation.

Figure 9

Variation in water surface area and reservoir capacity with water elevation.

Close modal
Figure 10

Comparison between prismoidal and average/mid-area methods of reservoir capacity estimation.

Figure 10

Comparison between prismoidal and average/mid-area methods of reservoir capacity estimation.

Close modal

Long-term temporal change in the storage capacity of the Dholbaha reservoir

Based on the findings of a bathymetric survey, the Dholbaha reservoir has experienced significant reductions in its dead, live, and gross storage capacities over a 34-year period (1987–1988 to 2021–2022). Specifically, the dead, live, and gross storage capacities have decreased by 81.5, 19.7, and 28.9%, respectively. These reductions are attributed to annual loss/sedimentation rates of 2.40, 0.58, and 0.85% correspondingly, as illustrated in Figure 11. The annual rate of gross capacity loss for the Dholbaha reservoir aligns with the range reported by Keller et al. (2000) and Walling (2006). The decrease in the reservoir's live storage capacity directly correlates with sediment yield. Over the 34-year period, at a water surface elevation of 417.0 m, the live storage capacity of the Dholbaha reservoir decreased by 224.3 ham (19.7%), with an annual depletion rate of 0.58%. The annual decrease in gross storage capacity at the Dholbaha reservoir (0.85%) closely mirrors the gross storage capacity reduction (0.84% per annum) observed in one of the 24 federally constructed reservoirs located in the central state of Kansas, USA, as reported by Rahmani et al. (2018). This reduction is linked to a sediment yield rate of 1,203.56 m3/km2/year (12.04 Mg/ha/year), as indicated in Table 3. The sedimentation rate observed in the Dholbaha reservoir annually is less than what was documented by Sur et al. (1999). However, if timely action is not taken, this rate may worsen, as in many reservoirs of this region, the sedimentation rates typically range from 1.0 to 1.3%. The original/design, estimated, and bathymetric survey-based live storage capacities of the Dholbaha dam are 1,138.40, 865.5, and 914.0 ham, respectively. In comparison to the original/design capacity, the estimated and bathymetric survey-based capacities are lower by 24.0 and 19.7%, respectively. The discrepancy between satellite-derived/estimated and bathymetric survey-based capacities is only 5.3%, suggesting a statistical similarity between these estimates. This highlights the remarkable proximity between live storage capacity estimated using remote sensing techniques (leveraging satellite imagery from Landsat 7, 8, and 9) and bathymetric survey-based estimates. Figure 12 illustrates a comparison of the original/design, estimated, and bathymetric survey-based live storage capacities of the Dholbaha reservoir. Bathymetric/hydrographic surveys are recognized as highly accurate means of determining reservoir capacity. However, their frequent application is hindered by the method's significant cost and time requirements. These surveys involve technical equipment such as Multi-Beam Sonar, Side-Scan Sonar, Lidar, Laser Scanner, Sound Speed Profiler, GPS, and Water Level Indicators, necessitating skilled operators. Consequently, it is recommended to conduct such surveys at intervals of 5–15 years. An alternative to bathymetric surveys is the use of remote sensing techniques, which offer a more time and cost-efficient approach to estimating reservoir storage capacity. Various freely available satellite products, like Landsat and Sentinel, can be employed for this purpose. Moreover, utilizing finer/higher resolution satellite data (e.g., LISS-III, LISS-IV) can enhance precision in capacity estimation, particularly for smaller reservoirs across different timeframes. In summary, remote sensing represents a promising avenue for estimating reservoir capacity loss/sedimentation rates, offering potential benefits over traditional bathymetric surveys.
Table 3

Capacity loss, percent capacity loss, annual depletion rate, and sediment deposition rate of the Dholbaha reservoir for different water surface elevations

Water surface elevationCapacity loss in 34 years (ham)Capacity loss in 34 years (%)Annual depletion rate (%)Sediment yield (m3/km2/year)
405.5 223.63 80.41 2.37 1,199.81 
406.0 239.74 77.13 2.27 1,286.24 
406.1 247.92 77.72 2.29 1,330.13 
406.5 279.93 75.86 2.23 1,501.87 
407.1 303.62 73.69 2.17 1,628.97 
408.1 279.07 64.86 1.91 1,497.25 
408.7 349.15 66.63 1.96 1,873.24 
409.1 373.86 65.09 1.91 2,005.82 
409.5 366.13 61.50 1.81 1,964.34 
410.1 365.24 58.34 1.72 1,959.57 
410.5 393.08 57.17 1.68 2,108.93 
411.3 391.07 54.26 1.60 2,098.15 
411.5 365.54 49.95 1.47 1,961.18 
412.0 388.43 50.21 1.48 2,083.99 
413.2 477.43 49.40 1.45 2,561.48 
414.0 420.38 42.02 1.24 2,255.40 
414.7 421.14 40.13 1.18 2,259.48 
415.6 369.21 33.50 0.99 1,980.87 
416.5 281.67 24.90 0.73 1,511.20 
417.0 224.33 19.71 0.58 1,203.56 
Water surface elevationCapacity loss in 34 years (ham)Capacity loss in 34 years (%)Annual depletion rate (%)Sediment yield (m3/km2/year)
405.5 223.63 80.41 2.37 1,199.81 
406.0 239.74 77.13 2.27 1,286.24 
406.1 247.92 77.72 2.29 1,330.13 
406.5 279.93 75.86 2.23 1,501.87 
407.1 303.62 73.69 2.17 1,628.97 
408.1 279.07 64.86 1.91 1,497.25 
408.7 349.15 66.63 1.96 1,873.24 
409.1 373.86 65.09 1.91 2,005.82 
409.5 366.13 61.50 1.81 1,964.34 
410.1 365.24 58.34 1.72 1,959.57 
410.5 393.08 57.17 1.68 2,108.93 
411.3 391.07 54.26 1.60 2,098.15 
411.5 365.54 49.95 1.47 1,961.18 
412.0 388.43 50.21 1.48 2,083.99 
413.2 477.43 49.40 1.45 2,561.48 
414.0 420.38 42.02 1.24 2,255.40 
414.7 421.14 40.13 1.18 2,259.48 
415.6 369.21 33.50 0.99 1,980.87 
416.5 281.67 24.90 0.73 1,511.20 
417.0 224.33 19.71 0.58 1,203.56 
Figure 11

Reservoir capacity loss in the past 34 years.

Figure 11

Reservoir capacity loss in the past 34 years.

Close modal
Figure 12

Comparison of design, estimated, and bathymetric survey-based live storage capacities of Dholbaha reservoir.

Figure 12

Comparison of design, estimated, and bathymetric survey-based live storage capacities of Dholbaha reservoir.

Close modal

Modeling storage capacity of the Dholbaha reservoir

The derived model (Equation (8)) offers the capability to predict the long-term fluctuations in reservoir capacity for the Dholbaha dam. This prediction is achieved through the utilization of water surface elevation, which ranges from 401.0 to 417.0 m, and water spread area as the model's input parameters. This model demonstrates its effectiveness in predicting the reservoir capacity across the entire range of water surface elevations, spanning from 401.0 to 417.0 m. Notably, the predicted capacities exhibit a discrepancy of approximately 3.2–3.3% compared to the observed capacities. A graphical representation of the concordance between the predicted and observed reservoir capacities of the Dholbaha dam can be found in Figure 13. During the process of validating the model, certain performance metrics such as MAE, RMSE, and SD display notably higher values in comparison to the period of model development (as outlined in the table). However, the index of agreement maintains a consistent level, remaining close to 1.0 both during the development and validation phases. Furthermore, R and R2 demonstrate a uniformity between the model's performance during development and validation. In fact, these coefficients present slightly higher values during the validation phase, as summarized in Table 4. The statistical evaluation comparing the projected and actual capacity values underscores a robust correlation, as evidenced by values close to 1.0 for both d and R2. Hence, the model that has been developed exhibits its utility in reliably predicting the capacity of the Dholbaha reservoir. This applicability extends across the entire spectrum of water surface elevations, encompassing the range from 401.0 m (indicative of dead storage) to 417.0 m (encompassing live storage and gross storage).
Table 4

Parameters of statistical analysis

ParameterModel developmentValidation
MAE 0.24 0.92 
RMSE 0.29 1.06 
d 1.00 0.99 
SD 0.29 0.52 
R 0.9996 0.9998 
R2 0.9993 0.9996 
ParameterModel developmentValidation
MAE 0.24 0.92 
RMSE 0.29 1.06 
d 1.00 0.99 
SD 0.29 0.52 
R 0.9996 0.9998 
R2 0.9993 0.9996 
Figure 13

Correlation between observed and predicted reservoir capacity.

Figure 13

Correlation between observed and predicted reservoir capacity.

Close modal

Conservation measures for controlling sediment inflow into the Dholbaha reservoir

The Dholbaha Dam reservoir, situated in the Kandi region of Indian Punjab, serves multiple purposes such as flood control, irrigation, water storage, fisheries, and more. However, due to intensified land use and associated changes, the rainy season has witnessed an escalation in soil erosion within the reservoir's catchment area. Consequently, an influx of sediment occurs, leading to a reduction in the reservoir's storage capacity (including dead, live, and gross storage) and overall lifespan. To address this issue, implementing conservation strategies holds great potential in significantly curbing sediment inflow to the dam. These measures encompass a range of practices including optimized land use approaches, establishment of vegetative cover, effective gully management, and precise water supply techniques for agriculture through minor diversions. These strategies can be adopted individually or synergistically to effectively mitigate the sediment load that enters the reservoir. In cases where the aforementioned conservation endeavors fall short of rejuvenating a waterbody – be it a lake, dam reservoir, or pond – resorting to dredging emerges as the most viable solution to restore its optimal operational condition. Employing both mechanical and hydraulic dredging techniques, sediment and debris can be removed, paving the way for the revival of the waterbody. Following the dredging process, it is advisable to implement the aforementioned conservation measures, particularly favoring mechanical dredging, to enhance the reservoir's longevity and functionality.

Limitations

  • i.

    The available satellite data (imageries) that can be accessed without restrictions might lack the necessary level of detail to comprehensively capture information concerning smaller features, such as diminutive water bodies. As a consequence, employing satellite data with lower resolution to assess the capacities of minor water bodies like lakes, shallow dams, and ponds could yield inaccurate outcomes.

  • ii.

    Another constraint lies in obtaining satellite data with superior or finer resolution. Consequently, utilizing high-quality satellite data to estimate capacities or sedimentation rates could incur substantial expenses. This situation ultimately impacts the feasibility and potential of undertaking such endeavors.

  • iii.

    Furthermore, securing satellite data (images) that correspond to the desired water surface elevations of a reservoir might prove challenging, particularly in areas characterized by frequent cloud cover or atmospheric pollution. As a result, the availability of satellite data devoid of cloud interference could also present a constraint in the analysis.

  • iv.

    It is only feasible to estimate the live storage capacity of a reservoir, as it is not viable to assess sediment deposition occurring beneath the minimum drawdown level.

Scope

  • i.

    Understanding the water surface elevations of government-monitored reservoirs and the accessibility of no-cost satellite data streamline the process of estimating reservoir storage capacity, saving both time and labor. In contrast, alternative approaches are expensive, time-intensive, and necessitate specialized expertise.

  • ii.

    The remote sensing technique provides reservoir capacity estimates comparable to those obtained through the capital-intensive bathymetric survey method, as demonstrated in the current study.

Recommendations

  • i.

    Over time, the quality of satellite data, including both freely accessible and paid sources, is continually improving. Therefore, greater attention should be directed toward the utilization of remote sensing techniques for estimating reservoir water storage capacity. The outcomes yielded by this approach are on par with those from hydrographic/bathymetric surveys. It's important to note that the results of remote sensing methods have the potential to further enhance as data quality continues to increase.

  • ii.

    The assessment of reservoir sedimentation can benefit from a collaborative utilization of both remote sensing and bathymetric/hydrographic techniques. Employing remote sensing methods at shorter intervals and conducting bathymetric surveys at longer intervals (around 5–15 years) would be a fitting approach.

  • iii.

    Utilizing microwave remote sensing data, consistently accessible throughout the year at frequent intervals, offers the advantage of obtaining cloud-free images. This data remains unaffected by factors such as illumination or weather conditions.

The bathymetric survey indicated a reservoir capacity of 914.0 ham, while remote sensing estimated it at 865.5 ham, both notably lower (by 224.4 and 272.9 ham) than the original design capacity (1,138.40 ham) of the Dholbaha reservoir. Both prismoidal and average/mid-area methods yielded identical live storage capacity results (R2 = 1.0), highlighting their equal effectiveness for assessment. The Dholbaha reservoir has experienced significant reductions in storage capacities over a 34-year period, with dead, live, and gross storage diminishing by 81.5, 19.7, and 28.9%, respectively. The annual depletion rates are 2.40, 0.58, and 0.85% for the respective capacities. Notably, the loss in live storage capacity at a water surface elevation of 417.0 m amounts to 224.3 ham (19.7%) over the same timeframe, indicating a sediment yield rate of 1,203.56 m3/km2/year from the catchment. Despite differences in estimated and bathymetric survey-based live storage capacities compared to the original design capacity, there is a close statistical congruence between these approaches. This underscores the accuracy of the model projecting Dholbaha reservoir capacity within the water elevation range of 401.0 m (dead storage) to 417.0 m (live and gross storage). The Dholbaha reservoir has witnessed substantial storage capacity reductions, particularly in live storage, over the past 34 years, primarily attributed to sedimentation. The study highlights the urgent need for effective reservoir sediment management strategies to mitigate further loss of storage capacity and sustain water resources. To address the challenges associated with frequent bathymetric/hydrographic surveys, there is a necessity to explore and invest in advanced remote sensing technologies for accurate and cost-effective monitoring of reservoir capacities. Implementing a proactive sediment management plan to minimize sedimentation and regular monitoring of reservoir capacities are essential for ensuring sustainable water resource management and reservoir longevity.

The authors acknowledge the Kandi Canal Irrigation Department, Hoshiarpur, Punjab for providing water surface elevation, design data, and other related information of the Dholbaha dam.

Data cannot be made publicly available; readers should contact the corresponding author for details.

The authors declare there is no conflict.

Annandale
G. W.
,
Dinar
A.
,
Palmieri
A.
,
Shah
F.
,
Johndrow
T. B.
&
Kawashima
S.
2003
Reservoir conservation: economic and engineering evaluation of alternative strategies for managing sedimentation in storage reservoirs: RESCON approach, World Bank Group. United States of America. Retrieved from https://policycommons.net/artifacts/1459157/reservoir-conservation/2098582/ on 11 Nov 2023. CID: 20.500.12592/t1xx7m
.
Asselman
N. E. M.
&
Middelkoop
H.
1995
Floodplain sedimentation: Quantities, patterns and processes
.
Earth Surf. Process Landf.
20
,
481
499
.
https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.3290200602
.
Avinash
G.
&
Chandramouli
P. N.
2018
Assessment of reservoir sedimentation using RS and GIS technique: A case study of Kabini reservoir, Karnataka, India
.
Int. Res. J. Eng. Technol.
5
,
630
635
.
Behera
M. D.
,
Gupta
A. K.
,
Barik
S. K.
,
Das
P.
&
Panda
R. M.
2018
Use of satellite remote sensing as a monitoring tool for land and water resources development activities in an Indian tropical site
.
Environ. Monit. Assess.
190
,
401
.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-018-6770-8
.
Bhardwaj
A.
&
Kaushal
M. P.
2009
Two-dimensional physically based finite element runoff model for small agricultural catchment: I. Model development
.
Hydrol. Process.
23
,
397
407
.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.7150
.
Bhavsa
M. V.
&
Gohil
K. B.
2015
Review on study of reservoir sedimentation by remote sensing technique
.
Int. J. Innov. Res. Sci. Technol.
1
,
251
254
.
Billi
P.
&
Spalevic
V.
2022
Suspended sediment yield in Italian rivers
.
Catena
212
,
106119
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2022.106119
.
Chandrashekar
H.
,
Lokesh
K. V.
,
Sameena
M.
,
Jyothi roopa
&
Ranganna
G.
2015
GIS based morphometric analysis of two reservoir catchments of Arkavati river, Ramanagaram district, Karnataka
.
Aquat. Procedia
4
,
1345
1353
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aqpro.2015.02.175
.
Dutta
S.
2016
Soil erosion, sediment yield, and sedimentation of reservoir: A review
.
Model. Earth Syst. Environ.
2
,
123
.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808-016-0182-y
.
Fryirs
K.
2013
(Dis)connectivity in catchment sediment cascades: A fresh look at the sediment delivery problem
.
Earth Surf. Process Landf.
38
,
30
46
.
https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.3242
.
Gupta
R.
,
Misra
A. K.
&
Sahu
V.
2019
Identification of watershed preference management areas under water quality and scarcity constraints
.
Appl. Water Sci.
9
(
27
),
2
22
.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-019-0905-0
.
Horton
R. E.
1945
Erosional development of streams and their drainage basins: Hydrophysical approach to quantitative morphology
.
Geol. Soc. Am. Bull.
56
,
275
370
.
https://doi.org/10.1130/0016-7606(1945)56[275:EDOSAT]2.0.CO;2
.
Jain
S.
,
Singh
P.
&
Seth
S.
2002
Assessment of sedimentation in Bhakra Reservoir in the western Himalayan Region using remote sensed data
.
Hydrol. Sci. J.
47
,
203
212
.
https://doi.org/10.1080/026266602094924
.
Keller
A.
,
Sakthivadivel
R.
&
Seckler
D.
2000
Water Scarcity and the Role of Storage in Development
, Vol.
vii
.
International Water Management Institute (IWMI). Colombo, Sri Lanka
, p.
20
.
(Research Report 39)
.
Kishore
T. S.
,
Patro
E. R.
,
Harish
V. S. K. V.
&
Haghighi
A. T.
2021
A comprehensive study on the recent progress and trends in development of small hydropower projects
.
Energies
14
,
2882
.
https://doi.org/10.3390/en14102882
.
Kumar
A.
,
Gupta
I.
,
Brandt
J.
,
Kumar
R.
,
Dikshit
A. K.
&
Patil
R. S.
2016a
Air quality mapping using GIS and economic evaluation of health impact for Mumbai City, India
.
J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc.
66
(
5
),
470
481
.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10962247.2016.1143887
.
Kumar
R.
,
Kumar
A.
,
Ram
D.
&
Bhat
O. A.
2016b
Development of cost-effective technology for treatment of torrents in Shivalik hills, India
.
Indian J. Soil Conserv.
44
,
25
29
.
Kummu
M.
&
Varis
O.
2007
Sediment-related impacts due to upstream reservoir trapping, the Lower Mekong River
.
Geomorphology
85
(
3–4
),
275
293
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2006.03.024
.
Lu
S.
,
Ouyang
N.
,
Wu
B.
,
Wei
Y.
&
Tesemma
Z.
2013
Lake water volume calculation with time series remote-sensing images
.
Int. J. Remote Sens.
34
(
22
),
7962
7973
.
Mupfiga
E. T.
,
Munkwakwata
R.
,
Mudereri
B.
&
Nyatondo
U. N.
2016
Assessment of sedimentation in Tuli-Makwe dam using remotely sensed data
.
J. Soil Sci. Environ. Manage.
7
,
230
238
.
Ninija-Merina
R.
,
Sashikkumar
M. C.
,
Rizvana
N.
&
Adlin
R.
2016
Sedimentation study in a reservoir using remote sensing technique
.
Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res.
14
,
296
304
.
Pandey
A.
,
Chaube
U. C.
,
Mishra
S. K.
&
Kumar
D.
2016
Assessment of reservoir sedimentation using remote sensing and recommendation for desilting Patratu Reservoir India
.
Hydrol. Sci. J.
61
(
4
),
711
718
.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2014.993988
.
Pareta
K.
&
Pareta
U.
2011
Quantitative morphometric analysis of a watershed of Yamuna basin, India using ASTER (DEM) Data and GIS
.
Int. J. Geomat. Geosci.
2
(
1
),
248
269
.
Patel
D. P.
,
Gajjar
C. A.
&
Srivastava
P. K.
2013
Prioritization of Malesari mini-watersheds through morphometric analysis: A remote sensing and GIS perspective
.
Environ. Earth Sci.
69
(
8
),
2643
2656
.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-012-2086-0
.
Patni
B. S.
,
Patel
H. R.
&
Bhangaonkar
P. D.
2017
Assessment of sedimentation in Ajwa reservoir in the Vadodara Gujarat region using remotely sensed data
. In
Int. J. Adv. Eng. Res. Dev., National Conference on Applications of Nanotechnology
,
February 2017
, pp.
16
20
.
Patro
E. R.
,
Michele
C. D.
,
Granata
G.
&
Biagini
C.
2022
Assessment of current reservoir sedimentation rate and storage capacity loss: An Italian overview
.
J. Environ. Manage.
320
,
115826
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115826
.
Quaranta
E.
,
Aggidis
G.
,
Boes
R. M.
,
Comoglio
C.
,
De Michele
C.
,
Patro
E. R.
,
Georgievskaia
E.
,
Harby
E.
,
Kougias
L.
,
Muntean
S.
,
Pérez-Díaz
J.
,
Romero-Gomez
P.
,
Rosa-Clot
M.
,
Schleiss
A. J.
,
Vagnoni
E.
,
Wirth
M.
&
Pistocchi
A. M.
2021
Assessing the energy potential of modernizing the European hydropower fleet
.
Energy Convers. Manag.
246
,
114655
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2021.114655
.
Rahmani
V.
,
Kastens
J. H.
,
DeNoyelles
F.
,
Jakubauskas
M. E.
,
Martinko
E. A.
,
Huggins
D. H.
,
Gnau
C.
,
Liechti
P. M.
,
Campbell
S. W.
,
Callihan
R. A.
&
Blackwood
A. J.
2018
Examining storage capacity loss and sedimentation rate of large reservoirs in the central U.S. Great Plains
.
Water
10
,
190
.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w10020190
.
Rai
P. K.
,
Chandel
R. S.
,
Mishra
V. N.
&
Singh
P.
2018
Hydrological inferences through morphometric analysis of lower Kosi river basin of India for water resource management based on remote sensing data
.
Appl. Water Sci.
8
,
15
.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-018-0660-7
.
Ramu
M. B.
&
Jayashree
P.
2013
Morphometric analysis of Tungabhadra drainage basin in Karnataka using geographical information system
.
J. Eng. Comput. Appl. Sci.
2
,
1
7
.
Rao
G. P.
1978
Some morphometric techniques with relation to discharge of Musi River Basin, Andhra Pradesh
. In
Proceedings Symposium on Morphology and Evolution of Landforms
.
Department of Geology, University of Delhi
, pp.
168
176
.
Schumm
S. A.
1954
The relation of drainage basin relief to sediment loss
.
Int. Assoc. Sci. Hydrol.
36
(
1
),
216
219
.
Sidhu
G. S.
,
Walia
C. S.
,
Sachdev
C. B.
,
Rana
K. P. C.
,
Dhankar
R. P.
,
Singh
S. P.
,
Vellayutham
M.
,
2000
Soil resource of NW Shivaliks for prospective land use planning
. In:
Fifty Years of Research on Sustainable Resource Management in Shivaliks
(
Mittal
S. P.
,
Aggrawal
R. K.
&
Samara
J. S.
eds.).
Central Soil & Water Conservation Research and Training Institute, Research Centre Chandigarh
,
India
, pp.
3
34
.
Singh
M. C.
2019
Gully erosion and its control
. In:
Catchment Hydrology, Management and Modeling
, Vol.
1
(
Yousuf
A.
&
Singh
M.
eds.).
Taylor and Francis
,
Boca Raton, United States
(Chapter 6)
, pp.
98
114
.
Singh
M. C.
,
Singh
R.
,
Yousuf
A.
&
Prasad
V.
2021a
Geo-informatics-based morphometric analysis of a reservoir catchment in Shivalik foot-hills of North-West India
.
J. Agric. Eng.
58
,
286
299
.
https://doi.org/10.52151/jae2021581.1752
.
Singh
M. C.
,
Satpute
S.
&
Prasad
V.
2023a
Remote sensing and GIS-based watershed prioritization for land and water conservation planning and management
.
Water Sci. Technol.
88
(
1
),
233
265
.
https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2023.207
.
Singh
M. C.
,
Sur
K.
,
Al-Ansari
N.
,
Arya
P. K.
,
Verma
V. K.
&
Malik
A.
2023b
GIS integrated RUSLE model-based soil loss estimation and watershed prioritization for land and water conservation aspects
.
Front. Environ. Sci.
11
,
1136243
.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2023.1136243
.
Strahler
A. N.
,
1968
Quantitative geomorphology
. In:
The Encyclopedia of Geomorphology
(
Fairbridge
R. W.
ed.).
Reinhold Book Corporation
,
New York
.
Strand
R. I.
&
Penibertori
E. L.
1982
Reservoir Sedimentation: Technical Guideline for Bureau of Reclamation
.
Sushanth
K.
2018
Impact of Land Use Change on Runoff and Sediment Yield of a Watershed in Shivalik Foot-Hills
.
M. Tech. Thesis
,
Punjab Agricultural University
,
Ludhiana
,
India
.
Tavassol
S. F.
&
Gopalakrishna
G. S.
2016
GIS-based morphometric analysis of major watersheds of Tehran-Karaj, Central of Iran
.
Int. J. Life Sci.
4
(
1
),
89
96
.
Thomas
T.
,
Jaiswal
R. K.
,
Galkate
R. V.
&
Singh
S.
2009
Estimation of revised capacity in Shetrunji reservoir using remote sensing and GIS
.
J. Indian Water Resour. Soc.
29
(
3
),
8
14
.
Valderrama-Landeros
L.
,
Flores-de-Santiago
F.
,
Kovacs
J. M.
&
Flores-Verdugo
F.
2018
An assessment of commonly employed satellite-based remote sensors for mapping mangrove species in Mexico using an NDVI-based classification scheme
.
Environ. Monit. Assess.
190
,
23
.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-017-6399-z
.
Venkatesan
A.
2014
Geoinformatics in Fluvial Geomorphological Study of Thoppaiyar Sub-Basin Tamil Nadu India
.
Ph.D. Dissertation
,
Periyar University
,
Salem
,
India
.
Vente
J.
,
Poesen
J.
&
Verstraeten
G.
2003
Evaluation of reservoir sedimentation as a methodology for sediment yield assessment in the Mediterranean: Challenges and limitations
.
Soil Conserv. Prot. Europe
1315
,
1475
1482
.
Vinutha
D. N.
&
Janardhana
M. R.
2014
Morphometry of the Payaswini watershed, Coorg district, Karnataka, India, using remote sensing and GIS techniques
.
Int. J. Innov. Res. Sci. Eng. Technol.
3
(
5
),
516
524
.
Wagh
S.
&
Manekar
V.
2021
Assessment of reservoir sedimentation using satellite remote sensing technique (SRS)
.
J. Inst. Eng. (Series A)
102
,
851
860
.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40030-021-00539-8
.
Walling
D. E.
2006
Human impact on land–ocean sediment transfer by the world's rivers
.
Geomorphology
79
,
192
216
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2006.06.019
.
Willmott
C. J.
1982
Some comments on the evaluation of model performance
.
Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc.
63
(
11
),
1309
1313
.
https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0477(1982)063 < 1309:SCOTEO > 2.0.CO;2
.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits copying and redistribution for non-commercial purposes with no derivatives, provided the original work is properly cited (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).