A comparative study of morphometric, hydrologic, and semi-empirical methods for the prioritization of sub-watersheds against flash flood-induced landslides in a part of the Indian Himalayan Region
Sachchidanand Singh,Mitthan Lal Kansal
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-30613-6
Abstract:The flash flood-induced erosion is the primary contributor to soil loss within the Indian Himalayan Region (IHR). This phenomenon is exacerbated by a confluence of factors, including extreme precipitation events, undulating topographical features, and suboptimal soil and water conservation practices. Over the past few decades, several flash flood events have led to the significant degradation of pedosphere strata, which in turn has caused landslides along with fluvial sedimentation in the IHR. Researchers have advocated morphometric, hydrologic, and semi-empirical methods for assessing flash flood-induced soil erosion in hilly watersheds. This study critically examines these methods and their applicability in the Alaknanda River basin of the Indian Himalayan Region. The entire basin is delineated into 12 sub-watersheds, and 13 morphometric parameters are analyzed for each sub-watershed. Thereafter, the ranking of sub-watersheds vulnerability is assigned using the Principal Component Analysis (PCA), compounding method (CM), Geomorphological Instantaneous Unit Hydrograph (GIUH), and Revised Universal Soil Loss Equations (RUSLE) approaches. While the CM method uses all 13 parameters, the PCA approach suggests that the first four principal components are the most important ones, accounting for approximately 89.7% of the total variance observed within the dataset. The GIUH approach highlights the hydrological response of the catchment, incorporating dynamic velocity and instantaneous peak magnifying the flash flood susceptibility, lag time, and the time to peak for each sub-watershed. The RUSLE approach incorporates mathematical equations for estimating annual soil loss utilizing rainfall-runoff erosivity, soil erodibility, topographic, cover management, and supporting practice factors. The variations in vulnerability rankings across various methods indicate that each method captures distinct aspects of the sub-watersheds. The decision-maker can use the weighted average to assign the overall vulnerability to each sub-watershed, aggregating the values from various methods. This study considers an equal weight to the morphometric, hydrological GIUH, and semi-empirical RUSLE techniques to assess the integrated ranking of various sub-watersheds. Vulnerability to flash flood-induced landslides in various sub-watersheds is categorized into three classes. Category I (high-priority) necessitates immediate erosion control measures and slope stabilization. Category II (moderate attention), where rainwater harvesting and sustainable agricultural practices are beneficial. Category III (regular monitoring) suggests periodic community-led soil assessments and afforestation. Sub-watersheds WS11, WS8, WS5, and WS12 are identified under category I, WS7, WS4, WS9, and WS6 under category II, and WS1, WS3, WS2, and WS10 under category III. The occurrence of landslides and flash-flood events and field observations validates the prioritization of sub-watersheds, indicating the need for targeted interventions and regular monitoring activities to mitigate environmental risks and safeguard surrounding ecosystems and communities.