Geografía y Sistemas de Información Geográfica (GEOSIG).

Revista digital del Programa de Docencia e Investigación en

Sistemas de Información Geográfica (PRODISIG). Universidad
Nacional de Luján, Argentina.
http://www.revistageosig.wixsite.com/geosig (ISSN 1852-8031)

Luján, Año 13, Número 21, 2021, Sección I: Artículos. pp. 1-17

MORPHOMETRIC ANALYSIS OF PONTAL RIVER WATERSHED

IN PERNAMBUCO, BRAZIL
Adriana Thays Araújo Alves¹ – Vitor Hugo de Oliveira Barros² – Alison de Souza
Norberto³ – Lucas Ravellys Pyrrho de Alcântara³ – Severino Martins dos Santos
Neto³ – Artur Paiva Coutinho³ – Suzana Maria Gico Lima Montenegro³ – Antonio
Celso Dantas Antonino³
¹Universidade Estadual do Maranhão
² Instituto Federal do Sertão Pernambucano
³Universidade Federal de Pernambuco
[email protected]

RESUMO

O estudo detalhado de uma bacia hidrográfica desempenha papel importante na

conservação dos recursos que estão em seu território. A caracterização física da bacia
através de ferramentas de geoprocessamento é essencial para tratar de diferentes
questões ambientais, compreender processos hidrológicos que ocorrem na bacia e
auxiliar no planejamento e gestão integrada de recursos hídricos. O estudo da bacia
hidrográfica ao nível de suas sub-bacias produz estimativas da variabilidade espacial
dos parâmetros físicos e permite prever o impacto ambiental na bacia principal. O
principal objetivo deste estudo foi a caracterização física da Bacia Hidrográfica do
Riacho do Pontal (BHRP) e de suas sub-bacias. Como metodologia utilizou-se técnicas
de geoprocessamento em ambiente SIG (Sistema de Informação Geográfica). Observa-
se um formato alongado para BHRP e sub-bacias, o que facilita o escoamento
superficial. Os parâmetros de forma indicam uma baixa sujeição a enchentes em
condições normais de precipitação. Os índices de drenagem indicam uma deficiência
desse sistema na região estudada. Ainda destac-se a baixa variabilidade dos parâmetros
ao longo das sub-bacias, o que denota certa uniformidade na rede de drenagem.
Palavras-chave: Sub-bacias, Morfometría, Pfafstetter.

ABSTRACT

The detailed study of a watershed plays an important role in conserving the natural
resources that are in its territory. The physical characterization of the watershed through
geoprocessing tools is essential to address different environmental issues, understanding
1
hydrological processes that occur in the watershed, and to assist in the integrated
planning and management of water resources. The study of the watershed at the level of
its sub-basins produces estimates of the spatial variability of the physical parameters
and allows to predict the environmental impact in the main watershed. The main
objective of this study was the physical characterization of the Pontal River Watershed
(PRW) and its sub-basins. As a methodology, geoprocessing techniques were used in a
GIS environment (Geographic Information System). The results indicate an elongated
form for PRW and sub-basins, which facilitates surface runoff. The form parameters
indicate low flooding under normal rainfall conditions. The drainage indices indicate a
deficiency of this system in the studied region. It is still possible to highlight a low
variability of parameters along the sub-basins, which denotes a certain uniformity of the
drainage network.

Keywords: Sub-basins, Morphometry, Pfafstetter.

INTRODUCTION

Watershed management plays a significant role in sustainable development and the

conservation of water and soil resources (Choudhari et al., 2018). A watershed
corresponds to an area of the land surface drained by the main canal and its tributaries.
Its limit is marked topographically by elevations beyond which any precipitation will be
drained into adjacent watershed (Paulinus et al., 2016).

The detailed study of a watershed supports its proper management, allowing the
individualization of its characteristics and the development of more appropriate
practices for the preservation of the resources that are in its territory (Vieceli et al.,
2014). In this context, the morphometric analysis of a watershed is essential to
understand its hydrological behavior (Radwan et al., 2020; Malik et al., 2019). Such
analysis refers to the quantitative assessment of the hydrological unit and from it,
parameters such as compactness coefficient, form factor and drainage density. The
analysis of these parameters is usually performed together with the relief features, such
as hypsometry and declivity. These characteristics can generally be treated as physical
or morphometric features of a watershed.

The study of the watershed at the level of its sub-basins is of great importance in a more
detailed understanding of these characteristics. According to Al-Saady et al. (2016), the
quantification of the morphometric parameters of the sub-basins produces estimates of
the spatial variability of these parameters and helps in understanding the variation in
hydrological functions. The authors also highlight that this approach allows predicting
the environmental impact in the main watershed, providing information on the
hydrological conditions necessary for the development of watershed management
strategies.

Several studies are found in the scientific literature on watershed morphometry using
remote sensing techniques and GIS (Geographic Information System) (Cunha and
Bacani, 2016; Pareta and Pareta, 2017; Mendes, 2018; Prabhakaran; Jawahar Raj, 2018;
Ezeh and Mozie, 2019; Sakthivel et al., 2019; Santos et al., 2020). One can affirm that
studies on watershed characterization have been driven in recent decades by the

2
availability of software tools and Digital Elevation Models (DEM). The DEM consists
of a quantitative representation of the Earth's surface where the elevation value is
related to a matrix representation of square cells or pixels (Jalal et al., 2020). Certainly,
the treatment of several environmental issues can gain better precision based on the
incorporation of geoprocessing techniques.

The present study focused on the understanding of the hydrological behavior of Pontal
River Watershed (PRW), Pernambuco, from the physical characterization taken at the
level of the great watershed and its sub-basins, the latter generated from the codification
according to Pfafstetter method. The PRW is located in the Brazilian semi-arid region,
with an area in the São Francisco mesoregion of Pernambuco. It is considered that this
approach can contribute to the management of water resources in the semiarid region of
the state of Pernambuco, a region that historically suffers from water scarcity,
presenting climatic conditions that favor the negative annual water balance.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study área

Pontal River Watershed (PRW) is part of the hydrographic network of the State of
Pernambuco and is located in the extreme west of the State, between 08º 19'00” and 09º
13' 24'' south latitude, and 40º 11' 42” and 41º 20' 39” west longitude, with an area
within the limits of the São Francisco Pernambucano mesoregion (Figure 1). The Pontal
River has its source in the municipality of Afrânio, far west of the State of Pernambuco,
between the limits of the states of Piauí and Bahia and has a mouth on the São Francisco
River. In addition to the municipality of Afrânio, which is fully inserted within the
boundaries of BHRP, a drainage area of BHRP partially involves three municipalities:
Dormant, Lagoa Grande and Petrolina.

Figure 1. PRW location map.

Source: Author's elaboration.

3
PRW belongs to the Brazilian semiarid region, a region that is marked by high rates of
evapotranspiration resulting from the high levels of solar radiation incident in areas of
low latitudes, resulting in the reduction of soil moisture and the volume of stored water,
which together with reduced rainfall and irregular, promote a negative annual water
balance (Correia et al., 2011).

Besides these factors, the semiarid soil is predominantly shallow, characteristic of

crystalline basement rocks. This formation results in low water infiltration and rapid
runoff, making it impossible to form significant water reserves. (Braga, 2016).
According to Cirilo (2008), while the sedimentary basins allow the capture of water
with good quality and stream, in the order of tens to hundreds of m³/h, in the crystalline
formation waters with high salt content, captured in wells of low flow, in the order of
1m³/h predominate. In the State of Pernambuco, there is a predominance of the
Precambrian crystalline basement with magmatic and metamorphic rocks, representing
86.4% of the territory (Pernambuco, 1999).

PRW coding and Subdivision

For PRW coding and subdivision, the present study used the coding system of the
Brazilian hydrologist Otto Pfafstetter, here treated as the Pfafstetter method, which,
according to Resolution Nº. 30 of 2002 of the National Council of Water Resources, is
the methodology adopted for coding the national watershed (Brasil, 2003). The
Pfafstetter method can be replicated from the level of an entire watershed to the level of
the smallest river course (Jager and Vogt, 2010).

For the initial subdivision of a watershed by the Pfafstetter method, there are five
numerical values available for the so-called inter-basins, values 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9, four
numerical values, 2, 4, 6, and 8, for the watershed, and, when there are closed internal
drainage areas, the digit 0 (Verdin and Verdin, 1999). Firstly, the main course of the
watershed must be identified and from it its four largest tributaries, which will receive
even numbers from the mouth to the source. Then, the minor tributaries of the main
course are grouped in areas of inter-basins, which will receive the odd numbers. The
interbasin consists of the passage of the hydrographic network between two consecutive
confluences of the largest tributaries with the main course (Silva et al., 2008). Thus,
according to the division process described before, the interbasin 1 will be the area
drained by the main stem between the outlet of basin 2 and the mouth of the main
stem; The interbasin 3 will be the area drained by the main stem between the outlets of
basins 2 and 4; the interbasin 5 will be the area drained by the main stem between
basins 4 and 6; and the interbasin 7 will lie between the basins 6 and 8; the interbasin 9
will consist in the headwaters area of the main stem (Verdin and Verdin, 1999).

Verdin and Verdin (1999) applied the Pfafstetter method in different basins at a global
level. Also based on this method, Jager and Vogt (2010) developed and demonstrated a
structured system for coding hydrological characteristics for Europe. On the national
literature, Silva et al. (2008) proposed a model called otto-coding by watercourse
length, which, in summary, maintains the original generalities of the Pfafstetter method,
with the difference that it uses the length of the watercourses instead of the basin areas
to identify what will be affluent and what will be the main canal.

4
Obtaining the PRW in the QGIS

Quantum GIS (Geographic Information System) software, version 2.18.0 was used for
the analyzes. The QGIS is a software with open access from Open Source Geospatial
Foundation (OSGeo). As a tool for extracting hydrological information from a digital
elevation model, TauDEM (Terrain Analysis Using Digital Elevation Models) - Utah
State University, also open access, was used.

For the delimitation of watersheds using QGIS, it is necessary to have a Digital

Elevation Model - MDE file. In this study, digital elevation images SRTM (Shuttle
Radar Topography Mission) from the Topodata, 30 meter spatial resolution, were used.

In QGIS, the SRTM file was redesigned for SIRGAS 2000 and was cut to a polygon
with a smaller area, but enough to cover the entire basin. For analysis in a meter
measure, the geographical coordinate system was modified to the UTM (Universal
Transverse Mercator) plane spatial coordinate system. In this way, the SRTM file was
worked on SIRGAS 2000 and UTM 24S. With the assistance of Google Earth, the
coordinates of a point at the mouth were identified, which was necessary to determine
the contribution area of the watershed.

In QGIS, using the TauDEM tool, the steps were followed as outlined in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Flowchart of the steps followed in QGIS using the TauDEM tool.

Source: Author's elaboration.

In the step called “Stream definition by threshold” was necessary to determine a

threshold. Therefore, hydrographic networks were generated for thresholds 200, 500,
and 1000, and based on Elesbon et al. (2011), a comparison of the hydrography
generated by these thresholds with the standard hydrography of the Brazilian Institute of
Geography and Statistics (IBGE) was carried out. This standard hydrography consisted
of the Continuous Cartographic Base of Brazil, on scale 1:250.000 (IBGE, 2019). This
process was necessary given that thresholds below the reference value result in the
formation of non-existent watercourses and denser drainage networks, with the opposite
result when a threshold above the reference value is applied, with the omission of
watercourses (Vendruscolo and Cavalheiro, 2019).

5
Thus, the threshold of 4000 was validated, for which the drainage for PRW coincided
acceptably with the standard drainage. To obtain watercourses order, in possession of
the drainage network shapefile, a classification “strmOrder” was used. The drainage
network delimitation raster file was transformed into the shapefile format, and it was
necessary to merge the features of the file. This shapefile file was used as a mask layer
to cut out the SRTM, which was necessary for the altimetry and declivity analysis.

Physical Characterization of a Watershed

The watersheds must be analyzed and characterized by measuring their dimensions in

relation to the linear, area, and relief aspects (Paulinus et al., 2016). There are several
morphometric parameters introduced in the last century to understand quantitatively the
physical processes that occur in a watershed (Balasubramani et al., 2019), which is
highlighted, for example, by the contributions from Horton (1932, 1945), Strahler
(1957) and Miller (1953). According to Villela and Mattos (1975), the main physical
characteristics of a watershed are the drainage area, the form of the basin, drainage
system, and relief characteristics. In this study, in order to characterize the PRW
parameters shown in Table 1 were selected.

Table 1. Morphometric characteristics selected for analysis.

Parameter Description/Formula
Basin Geometry
Drainage area (A) – in Flat area, horizontal projection, included between
km² topographic dividers
Perimeter (P) – in km Line length along the watershed that delimits the basin area
Axial length (L) – em The measured length of the basin from the outlet to the most
km remote point
Basin Form
Relationship between the perimeter of the
Compactness
basin and the circumference of a circle of
Coefficient (Kc) –
area equal to that of the basin (Villela and
dimensionless
Mattos, 1975; Horton, 1932)
Relationship between the average width
Form Factor (Kf) –
and the axial length of the basin (Horton,
dimensionless
1932)
The ratio between the basin area and the
Circularity ration (Ic) –
area of a circle with the same perimeter
dimensionless
as the basin (Miller, 1953)
Drainage System
Water hierarchy Stream
Reflects the degree of branching of a basin (Strahler, 1957)
Order
Total stream length for
a given order (Ltorder) – Stream length of a specific order
in km

6
The total length of
watercourses (Lt) – in The sum of the lengths of the watercourses of the watershed
km
Main watercourse
Length of the main course from the source to the mouth
length (LP) – in km
Thalweg length (Ltal) – A straight length of the main channel from the source to the
in km mouth
The sinuosity of the Relationship between the length of the
watercourse (Sin) – main canal and the length of the thalweg
dimensionless (Villela and Mattos, 1975)
Relationship between the total length of a
Drainage-density (Dd) –
basin's watercourses and its area (Horton,
in km∙km-²
1932)
Basin relief
Maximum and minimum altitudes, average, amplitude.
Characteristic altitudes
Hypsometry.
Characteristic
The declivity of land in a basin
declivities
Source: Author's elaboration.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

In the Figure 3 is shown the subdivision for PRW according to the Pfafstetter method.
As noted, the subdivision generated sub-basins with different areas, the smallest being
the S1 and S7 inter-basins. In the Table 2 is shown the morphometric characteristics
related to the geometry, form, and drainage system of PRW and its sub-basins.

Figure 3. Coding and subdivision for PRW according to the Pfafstetter method.

Source: Author's elaboration.

7
Table 2. Geometric, form, and drainage characteristics of PRW and its sub-basins.
Watersheds
Parameter PRW S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9
Basin Geometry
A (km²) 5975.053 39.262 543.737 1136.4 388.965 220.264 1674.638 26.026 960.24 985.895
P (km) 626.453 43.68 168.561 246.132 134.003 103.857 390.981 36.396 264.514 215.434
L (km) 126.167 7.835 40.926 52.853 31.106 28.798 85.168 7.335 62.660 51.525
Basin form
Kc 2.269 1.952 2.024 2.044 1.902 1.959 2.675 1.998 2.390 1.921

Kf 0.375 0.640 0.325 0.407 0.402 0.266 0.231 0.484 0.245 0.371

Ic 0.191 0.258 0.24 0.236 0.272 0.256 0.138 0.247 0.172 0.267
Drainage system
Order 5º 2º 4º 4º 4º 3º 4º 2º 4º 4º
Ltorder 1º 1205.228 8.208 113.044 253.395 81.956 41.040 322.671 4.300 171.097 218.919

Ltorder 2º 531.910 5.305 38.859 103.323 38.719 13.560 145.534 7.475 100.727 90.916

Ltorder 3º 360.445 0 52.152 71.631 10.529 25.777 77.379 0 66.371 66.472

Ltorder 4º 223.217 0 13.438 40.455 17.939 0 100.837 0 45.454 45.550

Ltorder 5º 72.229 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Lt (km) 2393.029 13.514 217.491 468.804 149.142 80.376 646.421 11.775 383.649 421.857

LP (km) 144.752 7.412 59.804 71.377 39.906 34.486 131.598 8.392 90.567 79.656

Ltal (km) 82.030 5.202 38.492 50.104 28.128 25.977 81.947 2.755 59.747 49.520
Sin 1.765 1.425 1.554 1.425 1.419 1.328 1.606 3.046 1.516 1.609
Dd
0.401 0.344 0.400 0.413 0.383 0.365 0.386 0.452 0.400 0.428
(km∙km-²)

Source: Author's elaboration.

In terms of geometric characterization, PRW found an area of 5975.053 km², the

perimeter of 626.453 km, and an axial length of 126.167 km. The sub-basin areas varied
from 26.026 to 1674.638 km², for S7 and S6, respectively. S7 and S6 are still the
smallest and the largest sub-basin, respectively, in terms of P and L. Classified in
ascending order of drainage area, the sub-basins follow the order: S7, S1, S5, S4, S2,
S8, S9, S3, and S6.

The Compactness Coefficient (Kc) derives from the relationship between the real
hydrological basins and the hypothetical circular basin with the same area as the
hydrological basin (Choudhari et al., 2018). A minimum coefficient equal to the unit
corresponds to a circular basin. The closer a hydrographic basin approaches this
geometrical form, the greater the concentration of runoff in the outflow, and the greater
the tendency for flooding (Caballero et al., 2020). PRW has a Kc value far from the unit
(2.269), which indicates a non-circular form and a low tendency for flooding under
normal precipitation conditions. Considering the sub-basins, the Kc values were also
distant from the unit, varying from 1.902 to 2.675, for S4 and S6, respectively, which
also indicates an elongated form that facilitates surface runoff.
8
The form factor (Kf) indicates the intensity of the flow from a basin to a defined area,
ranging from zero to one in a way that the lower Kf, the more elongated is the basin
(Choudhari et al., 2018). For higher values, the greater the potential for high flood peaks
(Caballero et al., 2020). The PRW presented a low value of Kf, 0.375, and, therefore, a
low propensity for flooding. Values smaller than the unit were also found for all sub-
basins, among which, S1 presented the highest value for Kf (0.640).

The circularity ratio (Ic) is a parameter that varies from zero to one and is influenced by
geological structures, climate, relief, coverage, stream length, and basin slope
(Choudhari et al., 2018). This parameter is similar to Kc and Kf concerning the
interpretation, as it indicates the circular or elongated character of the basin. Higher
values (>0,5) indicate greater circularity and homogeneity of the geological material,
while lower values (<0,5) indicate the elongated form of the watershed (Malik et al.,
2019). The value of Ic found in PRW was 0.191, which is indicative of an elongated
form, which favors the surface runoff, and consequently, implies once again that PRW
is a little susceptible to flooding. The same occurs to the sub-basins, which presented
values of Ic varying from 0.138 to 0.272, for S6 and S4, respectively.

The ordering of courses is the basic step of the quantitative study of the watershed. The
order of watercourses according to Strahler's methodology (Strahler, 1957) indicates the
5º order for PRW. S2, S3, S4, S6, S8 e S9 were presented as 4º order, S5 as the 3º order,
and S1 and S7 as the 2º order. In this method, canals without tributaries are classified as
first-order; the confluence of first-order rivers forms second-order canals; the
confluence of second-order canals forms third-order canals, and so on successively. The
encounter of canals of different orders generates a canal with the highest order of those
confluences.

Stream length is the most important variable in a drainage basin (Choudhari et al.,
2018). The total length of courses for PRW was 2393,029 km. Regarding the length of
the courses according to the orders, it is possible to verify both for PRW and its sub-
basins, in general, a trend of decreasing in length with an increase in orders. This trend
supports Horton (1945). As the stream order decreases, the stream length increases, so
the stream length is maximum for the first-order stream.

The sinuosity parameter of the watercourse (Sin) is related to the stream velocity in the
drainage canals relating to the erosion capacity (Santos et al., 2012). The value of Sin
para BHRP was 1.765, which indicates the non-rectilinear way of draining the main
canal. Santos et al. (2012) found the values for Sin of 1.33 and 1.43, respectively for the
watershed sub-basins of Perdizes and Fojo, located in Campos do Jordão, São Paulo. As
mentioned by the authors, the values found indicate that the drainage canals have a
transient form, between the rectilinear and sinuous forms, which can also be pointed out
for PRW and its sub-basins, except for S7, sub-basin for the which the value of Sin,
3,046, indicated the sinuous form for the main canal.

The drainage density (Dd) is related to climate, type of rocks, relief, infiltration capacity,
vegetation cover, and runoff intensity (Magesh et al., 2012). Weak or impermeable
subsurface material, mountainous relief, and sparse vegetation lead to high Dd
(Choudhari et al., 2018). The Dd is a measure of the frequency with which water courses
9
occupy the basin area (Kadam et al., 2020), so that greater Dd indicates less spacing
between the courses (Sutradhar, 2020). Therefore, it is possible to infer a high spacing
of the courses for PRW. According to Choudhari et al. (2018), drainage density is
generally divided into four classes, ranging from low (Dd < 2), moderated (Dd between
2 and 4), low (Dd between 4 and 6), and very high (Dd above 6). According to this
classification, the drainage density for PRW, whose value of Dd was 0.401 km∙km-², is
low. According to the values obtained for the sub-basins, it is possible to verify a low
spatial variation for drainage density in PRW.

About drainage characteristics, Figure 4 presents drainage networks with the water
hierarchy for BHRP (Figure 4a) and the sub-basins (Figure 4b).

Figure 4. Drainage network with water hierarchy according to Strahler methodology

(1957) for PRW (a) and PRW sub-basins (b).

(a)

(b)
Source: Author's elaboration.
10
 Amplitude is the maximum vertical difference between the lowest and the highest point
in the basin (Vieceli et al., 2014; Magesh et al., 2012). This parameter helps to
understand the erosion characteristics of the basin and controls the stream gradient and
superficial runoff (Choudhari et al., 2018). In order to view the relief of PRW and its
sub-basins, a hypsometric map is shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5. Hypsometric map for PRW.

Source: Author's elaboration.

In the Table 3 is shown the maximum, minimum, amplitude, and average characteristic
altitudes for PRW and the sub-basins, as well as the areas in km² and relative percentage
for the grouping classes in Figure 5. As can be seen, most of the PRW relief is in the
400 to 500 m altitude range, with a relative percentage of approximately 66. The
altitude range above 700 m, verified only for S8, covered a very small area when the
basin was taken as a whole. In general, areas with high elevations were not very
significant in the region.

Table 3. Characteristic altitudes and distribution in altitude classes of PRW and its sub-
basins in the area and relative percentage.

Watersheds
Altitudes
PRW S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9

Max. 713.059 416.898 653.477 596.356 591.236 508.149 689.335 459.831 713.059 594.583
Altitudes Min. 356.367 356.367 358.814 358.356 378.511 378.537 383.332 383.221 388.441 388.197
Specifications
(m) Ampl. 356.692 60.531 294.663 238 212.725 129.612 306.003 76.610 324.618 206.386

Avarage 464.914 377.793 435.064 414.351 441.108 436.873 497.737 413.299 502.171 468.097
Area
567.435 37.061 100.624 372.5 16.662 15.650 11.257 4.360 3.866 5.631
(km²)
Up t 400 m
Area
9.496 94.504 18.505 32.786 4.280 7.102 0.672 16.791 0.403 0.571
(%)
Area
Between 400 3958.554 2.155 423.838 756.472 365.340 203.843 857.047 21.604 499.791 828.482
(km²)
and 500 m
Area 66.249 5.496 77.945 66.581 93.843 92.511 51.172 83.209 52.081 84.004

11
 (%)

Area
1359.880 0 19.035 7.191 7.309 0.852 769.664 0 403.671 152.126
Between 500 (km²)
and 600 m Area
22.758 0 3.501 0.633 1.877 0.387 45.955 0 42.065 15.425
(%)
Area
88.215 0 0.267 0 0 0 36.865 0 51.086 0
Between 600 (km²)
and 700 m Area
1.476 0 0.049 0 0 0 2.201 0 5.323 0
(%)
Area
1.222 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.222 0
(km²)
Above 700 m
Area
0.020 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.127 0
(%)
Area
5975.305 39.216 543.765 1136.163 389.310 220.345 1674.833 25.963 959.636 986,24
(km²)
Total
Area
100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
(%)

Source: Author's elaboration.

A declivity map according to EMBRAPA (2018) classes is shown in Figure 6, with the
respective areas and relative percentages shown in Table 4.

Figure 6. Declivity relief map for PRW.

Source: Author's elaboration.

Declivity analysis is an important parameter in geomorphic studies (Vieceli et al., 2014;

Magesh et al., 2012). The declivity of a basin influences the stream velocity, which
affects the magnitude of the flood peaks, erosion, infiltration, soil moisture, and supply
of underground water to streams. The gentle declivity facilitates infiltration, as the water
has more time to infiltrate the aquifer zone, while the high inclination increases the
speed of runoff and results in low infiltration into underground reservoirs (Mangan et
al., 2019). As can be seen from Figure 6 and Table 4, over the entire basin understudy
the relief is predominantly flat and smooth undulating, steepest declivity such as
mountainous, are not very significant in the region. The area had no rugged relief.

12
 Table 4. Distribution of PRW declivity classes and their sub-basins in the area and
relative percentage
Watersheds
Declivities
PRW S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9
Area
2001.815 21.23 157.918 565.029 133.816 74.681 396.898 12.2 212.311 412.580
(km²)
0 – 3% (Flat)
Area
33.609 56.081 29.319 50.063 34.738 34.388 23.868 49.086 22.312 42.115
(%)
Area
3 – 8% 3246.85 16.529 339.551 531.271 229.398 126.408 937.903 11.371 518.925 522.924
(km²)
(Gently Area
54.513 43.662 63.042 47.072 59.551 58.207 56.403 45.749 54.535 53.379
undulating) (%)
Area
674.681 0.097 36.626 27.893 21.968 16.081 318.106 1.280 207.234 43.474
8 – 20% (km²)
(Undulating) Area
11.327 0.257 6.8 2.471 5.703 7.405 19.130 5.150 21.779 4.438
(%)
Area
20 – 45% 31.76 0 4.241 3.786 0.030 0 9.942 0.004 12.991 0.669
(km²)
(Strong
Area
undulating) 0.533 0 0.787 0.335 0.008 0 0.598 0.015 1.365 0.068
(%)
Area
1.043 0 0.279 0.658 0 0 0.022 0 0.084 0
45 – 75 % (km²)
(Mountainous) Area
0.018 0 0.052 0.058 0 0 0.001 0 0.009 0
(%)
Area
5956.15 37.857 538.615 1128.637 385.211 217.171 1662.870 24.855 951.546 979.648
(km²)
Total
Area
100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
(%)

Source: Author's elaboration.

CONCLUSIONS

From the analyzes performed, it can be inferred, by the form parameters, a format that
tends towards the elongated for PRW, which favors the superficial runoff and provides
low susceptibility to flooding under normal precipitation. On the other hand, the
characteristics of the relief of the region do not favor the runoff, considering that the
region is characterized by the flat relief with low declivities. In general, it can be
inferred that the study area does not have favorable characteristics for the emergence of
new watercourses.

The PRW analyzed at the level of its sub-basins showed little spatial variation in the
drainage system, which showed low density throughout its extension. Finally, it is
highlighted that the use of SRTM data in a GIS environment allows the morphometric
characterization of watersheds, which can assist the management and management of
water resources, contributing to sustainable development.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This work was carried out with the support of the project "Transfer of Water and
Mixtures of Reactive Pollutants in Anthropized Soils" (CNPq process No.
436875/2018-7) and by project “National Observatory of Water and Carbon Dynamics

13
in the Caatinga Biome ONDACBC (CNPq process N° 465764/2014-2; CAPES process
N° 88887.136369/2017-00; FACEPE process APQ-0498-3.07/17).

REFERENCES

Al-Saady, Y. I.; Al-Suhail, Q. A.; Al-Tawash, B. S.; Othman, A. A. (2016). Drainage

network extraction and morphometric analysis using remote sensing and GIS mapping
techniques (Lesser Zab River Basin, Iraq and Iran). Environmental Earth Sciences, v.
75, p. 1-23.

Balasubramani, K.; Gomathi, M.; Bhaskaran, G.; Kumaraswamy, K. (2019). GIS-based

spatial multi-criteria approach for characterization and prioritization of micro-
watersheds: a case study of semi-arid watershed, South India. Applied Geomatics, v. 11,
p. 289-307.

BRAGA, R.A.P. (2016). Águas de areias. Recife, Clã, 336 p.

BRASIL. Resolução nº 30, de novembro de 2002. Resolução Nº 30, de 11 de Dezembro

de 2002. Disponível em: <http://www.ceivap.org.br/ligislacao/Resolucoes-
CNRH/Resolucao-CNRH%2030.pdf>. Acesso em 01 jun. 2020.

Caballero, C.B.; Menezes, D.; Campagnolo, K; Censi, G.; Schwarz, H.; Kobiyama, M.,
(2020). Dimensão fractal e análise geomorfológica de bacias hidrográficas brasileiras.
Revista de Gestão de Água da América Latina, v.17, p.1-12.

Choudhari, P. P.; Nigam, G. K.; Singh, S. K.; Thakur, S. (2018). Morphometric based
prioritization of watershed for groundwater potential of Mula river basin, Maharashtra,
India. Geology, Ecology, And Landscapes, v. 2, p.256-267.

Cirilo, J.A. (2008). Políticas públicas de recursos hídricos para o semiárido. Estudos
Avançados, v. 22, 61-82.

Correia, R. C.; Kiill, L. H. P.; Moura, M. S. B.; Cunha, T. J. F.; Jesus Júnior, L. A.;
Araujo, J. L. P. (2011). A região semiárida brasileira. In: Voltolini, T. V. (ed.).
Produção de caprinos e ovinos no Semiárido. Embrapa Semiárido, 21-48.

Cunha, E.R. da; Bacani, V.M. (2016). Morphometric Characterization of a Watershed

through SRTM Data and Geoprocessing Technique. Journal of Geographic Information
System, v.8, p.238-247.

Elesbon, A. A. A.; Guedes, H. A. S.; Silva, D. D. da; Oliveira, I. de C. E. (2011). Uso

de dados SRTM e plataforma SIG na caracterização morfométrica da bacia hidrográfica
do Braço Norte do Rio São Mateus - Brasil. Rem: Revista Escola de Minas, v.64, p.281-
288.

EMBRAPA. Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária, 2018. Sistema Brasileiro de

Classificação de Solos. Brasília.

14
Ezeh, C.U.; Mozie, A.T. (2019). Morphometric analysis of the Idemili Basin using
geospatial techniques. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, v.12, p.1-8.

Girma, R., Abraham, T.; Muluneh, A. (2020). Quantitative evaluation of watershed

attributes for water resources management in the Rift Valley Lakes Basin, Ethiopia: a
case from Tikur Wuha river watershed. Applied Water Science, v.10, p.1-15.

Horton, R. E. (1945). Erosional development of streams and their drainage basins;

hydrophysical approach to quantitative morphology. Bulletin of The Geological Society
of America, v.56, p.275-370.

Horton, R.E. (1932). Drainage-basin characteristics. Transactions, American

Geophysical Union, v.13, p.350-361.

IBGE. Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. Censo Demográfico. 2019.

Disponível em:
<ftp://geoftp.ibge.gov.br/cartas_e_mapas/bases_cartograficas_continuas/bc250/versao2
019/>. Acesso em: 05 jun. 2020.

Jager, A. L.; Vogt, J. V. (2010). Development and demonstration of a structured

hydrological feature coding system for Europe. Hydrological Sciences Journal, v.55,
p.661-675.

Jalal, S. J.; Musa, T. A.; Ameen, T. H; Din A. H. M.; Aris, W. A. W.; Ebrahim, J. M.
(2020). Optimizing the Global Digital Elevation Models (GDEMs) and accuracy of
derived DEMs from GPS points for Iraq's mountainous areas. Geodesy and
Geodynamics, v.11, p.338-349.

Kadam, A. K.; Jaweed, T. H.; Kale, S. S..; Umrikar, B. N.; Sankhuad, 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, v.10, p.986–1006.

Magesh, N. S.; Jitheshlal, K. V.; Chandrasekar, N.; Jini, K. V. (2012). GIS based
morphometric evaluation of Chimmini and Mupily watersheds, parts of Western Ghats,
Thrissur District, Kerala, India. Earth Science Informatics, v.5, p.111-121.

Malik, A.; Kumar, A.; Kandpal, Himanshu. (2019). Morphometric analysis and
prioritization of sub-watersheds in a hilly watershed using weighted sum
approach. Arabian Journal Of Geosciences, v.12, p.1-12.

Mangan, P.; Haq, M. A.; Baral, P. (2019). Morphometric Analysis Of Watershed Using
Remote Sensing And GIS – A Case Study Of Nanganji River Basin In Tamil Nadu,
India. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, v.12, p.1-14.

Mendes, A.T. (2018). Delimitação da bacia hidrográfica do Rio Santo Antônio pela
ferramenta de delimitação automática TauDEM. Revista Brasileira de Geografia Física,
v.11, p.973-986.

15
Miller, V. C. (1953). A quantitative geomorphic study of drainage basin characteristics
on the Clinch Mountain area, Virginia and Tennessee. Department of Geology, ONR,
Columbia University, New York, 30.

Pareta, K.; Pareta, U. (2017). Geomorphological Analysis and Hydrological Potential

Zone of Baira River Watershed, Churah in Chamba District of Himachal Pradesh, India.
Indonesian Journal of Science & Technology, v.2, p.26-49.

Paulinus, U.U.; Ifedilichukwu, N.G.; Ahamefula, A.C.; Iheanyichukwu, O.A.;

Theophilus, E.T.; Edet, I.G. (2016). Morphometric Analysis of Sub- watersheds in
Oguta and Environs, Southeastern Nigeria Using GIS and Remote Sensing Data.
Journal of Geosciences and Geomatics, v.4, p.21-28.

PERNAMBUCO. Plano Estadual de Recursos Hídricos de Pernambuco – PERH-PE.

1999. Recife: Secretaria de Recursos Hídricos. 212 p.

Prabhakaran, A.; Jawahar RAJ, N. (2018). Drainage morphometric analysis for

assessing form and processes of the watersheds of Pachamalai hills and its adjoinings,
Central Tamil Nadu, India. Applied Water Science, v.8, p.1-19.

Radwan, F.; Alazba, A.A.; Mossad, A. (2020). Analyzing the geomorphometric

characteristics of semiarid urban watersheds based on an integrated GIS-based
approach. Modeling Earth Systems and Environment, v.6, p.1913–1932.

Rai, P. K.; Chaubey, P. K.; Mohan, K; Singh, P. (2017). Geoinformatics for assessing
the inferences of quantitative drainage morphometry of the Narmada Basin in
India. Applied Water Science, v.9, p.167-189.

Sakthivel, R.; Jawahar RAJ, N.; Sivasankar, V; Akhila, P.; Omine, K. (2019). Geo-
spatial technique-based approach on drainage morphometric analysis at Kalrayan Hills,
Tamil Nadu, India. Applied Water Science, v.9, p.1-18.

Santos, A. M.; Targa, M. dos S.; Batista, G.T.; Dias, N.W. (2012). Análise
morfométrica das sub-bacias hidrográficas Perdizes e Fojo no município de Campos do
Jordão, SP, Brasil. Ambiente e Agua - An Interdisciplinary Journal Of Applied Science,
v.7, p.195-211.

Silva, N. dos S.; Ribeiro, C. A. A. S.; Barroso, W. R.; Ribeiro, P. E. Á.; Soares, V. P.;
Silva, E. (2008). Sistema de otto-codificação modificado para endereçamento de redes
hidrográficas. Revista Árvore, v.32, p.891-897.

Strahler, A. N. (1957). Quantitative analysis of watershed

geomorphology. Transactions, American Geophysical Union, v.38, p.913-920.

Sutradhar, H. (2020). Assessment of Drainage Morphometry and Watersheds

Prioritization of Siddheswari River Basin, Eastern India. Journal of the Indian Society
of Remote Sensing, v.48, p.627–644.

16
Vendruscolo, J.; Cavalheiro, W. C. S. (2019). Seleção de limiares da ferramenta
TauDEM para caracterização de drenagens em microbacias, Rondônia, Brasil. Revista
Geográfica Venezolana, [número especial], p.244-255.

Verdin, K. L; Verdin, J. P. (1999). A topological system for delineation and codification

of the Earth’s river basins. Journal Of Hydrology, v.1-2, p.1-12.

Vieceli, N.; Bortolin, T. A.; Mendes, L. A.; Bacarim, G.; Cemin, G.; Schneider, V. E.
(2014). Morphometric evaluation of watersheds in Caxias do Sul City, Brazil, using
SRTM (DEM) data and GIS. Environmental Earth Sciences, v.73, p.5677-5685.

Villela, S.M.; Mattos, A. (1975). Hidrologia aplicada. São Paulo, Mcgraw-Hill do

Brasil, 1975, 250 p.

Santos, L. L. dos; Ribeiro, V. de O.; Diodato, J. O. (2019). Morphometry of

hydrographic basins placed in the urban area of Dourados – MS – Brazil. RA'E GA,
v.46, p.75-87.

© Adriana Thays Araújo Alves, Vitor Hugo de Oliveira Barros, Alison de Souza
Norberto, Lucas Ravellys Pyrrho de Alcântara, Severino Martins dos Santos Neto,
Artur Paiva Coutinho, Suzana Maria Gico Lima Montenegro, Antonio Celso Dantas
Antonino.

Araújo Alves, A.T.; de Oliveira Barros, V.H.; Souza Norberto, A. de; Alcântara, L.R.P. de;
Santos Neto, S.M. dos; Paiva Coutinho, A.; Montenegro, S.M.G.L.; Antonino, A.C.D.
(2021). Morphometric analysis of pontal river watershed in Pernambuco, Brazil.
Geografía y Sistemas de Información Geográfica (GeoSIG). 13(21) Sección I:1-17.

On-line: www.revistageosig.wixsite.com/geosig

Recibido: 23 de mayo de 2021

Aceptado: 12 de septiembre de 2021

17