Advertisement

Earth Systems and Environment

, Volume 3, Issue 3, pp 539–550 | Cite as

Comparative Study of Different Types of Digital Elevation Models on the Basis of Drainage Morphometric Parameters (Case Study of Wadi Fatimah Basin, KSA)

  • Burhan NiyaziEmail author
  • Syed Zaidi
  • Milad Masoud
Original Article
  • 35 Downloads

Abstract

Nowadays there are a lot of geospatial datasets available in the form of different types of Digital Elevation Models (DEMs) which were launched with different resolutions. These datasets are used for studying the physiographical features of the hydrographic basins through the tracing and extracting the elevation points, watershed boundaries, streamlines, flow directions and morphometric parameters assessment. Many researchers have used these datasets to study and evaluate the hydrologic behavior of the basins which is considered as the reflection of physiographic features of the hydrographic basins. In the Middle East especially in Saudi Arabia, the trend of using DEMs increased for hydrographic basin analysis and assessment of hydrologic behavior. So, there is an important question about the accuracy and sensitivity of these datasets which are acquired from different DEMs. This study deals with four types of DEMs, first is derivative from Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer (ASTER 30 m resolution), second is Shuttle Radar Topographic Mission (SRTM 90 m resolution), third is SRTM 30 m resolution and the fourth is the Advanced Land Observing STLT (ALOS 30 resolution). More than 35 morphometric parameters including drainage network, basin geometry, basin texture and basin relief characteristics were measured and calculated using these four types of DEMs and calibrated with topographic maps of 1:250 K and 1:50 K scale and also google earth maps. Results show that the SRTM 30 m is characterized by high accuracy and has a very good matching with google earth maps and topographic map of scale1:50,000. This research is dealing with the comparison of the morphometric parameters of the hydrographic basin based on the type of DEM. It is clear to conclude that the SRTM 30 resolution is the best type for hydrology and water resources study.

Keywords

Digital elevation model DEM ASTER SRTM Basin Morphometric 

References

  1. Bali R, Agarwal KK, Nawaz Ali S, Rastogi SK, Krishna K (2011) Drainage morphometry of the Himalayas glacio-fluvial basin, India: hydrologic and neotectonic implications. Environ Earth Sci 66(4):1163–1174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Band LE (1986) Topographic partition of watersheds with digital elevation models. Water Resour Res 22:15–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Basahi J, Masoud M, Zaidi S (2016) Integration between morphometric parameters, hydrologic model, and geo-informatics techniques for estimating WADI runoff (case study WADI HALYAH—Saudi Arabia). Arabian J Geosci.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-016-2649-6(13 Article number 610) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Callaghan J, Mark DM (1984) The extraction of drainage networks from digital elevation data. Comput Vis Graph Image Process 28(3):323–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Caraballo-Arias NA, Conoscenti C, Di Stefano C, Ferro V (2014) Testing GIS-morphometric analysis of some Sicilian badlands. Catena 113:370–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chorley RJ, Morley LSD (1959) A simplified approximation for the hypsometric integral. J Geol 67:566–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cook AJ, Murray T, Luckman A, Vaughan DG, Barrand NE (2012) A new 100-m digital elevation model of the Antarctic Peninsula derived from ASTER Global DEM: methods and accuracy assessment. Earth Syst Sci Data 4:129–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Das S, Patel PP, Sengupta S (2016) Evaluation of different digital elevation models for analysing drainage morphometric parameters in a mountainous Terrain: a case study of the Supin-Upper Tons Basin, Indian Himalayas. Springer, Berlin, p 38.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-3207-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dawod G (2008) Towards the redefinition of the Egyptian geoid: performance analysis of recent global geoid and digital terrain models. J Spat Sci 53(1):31–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Denker H (2005) Evaluation of SRTM3 and GTOPO30 Terrain Data in Germany. In: Jekeli C, Bastos L, Fernandes J (eds) Gravity, Geoid and Space Missions. International Association of Geodesy Symposia, vol 129. Springer, Berlin, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  11. Dietrich WE, Wilson CJ, Montgomery DR, McKean J (1993) Analysis of erosion thresholds, channel networks, and landscape morphology, using a digital terrain model. J Geol 101(2):259–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dragut L, Schauppenlehner T, Muhar A, Strobl J, Blaschke T (2009) Optimization of scale and parametrization for terrain segmentation: an application to soil-landscape modeling. Comput Geosci 35(9):1875–1883CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eckert S, Kellenberger T, Itten K (2005) Accuracy assessment of automatically derived digital elevation models from aster data in mountainous terrain. Int J Remote Sens 26(9):1943–1957CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Elfeki A, Masoud M, Niyazi B (2017) Integrated rainfall–runoff and flood inundation modeling for flash flood risk assessment under data scarcity in arid regions: Wadi Fatimah basin case study, Saudi Arabia. Nat Hazards 85(1):87–109.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-016-2559-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Evans IE (2012) Geo-morphometry and landform mapping: what is a landform? Geomorphology 137:94–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Faniran A (1968) The index of drainage intensity—a provisional new drainage factor. Aust J Sci 31:328–330Google Scholar
  17. Ferraris F, Firpo M, Pazzaglia FJ (2012) DEM analyses and morphotectonic interpretation: the Plio Quaternary evolution of the eastern Ligurian Alps Italy. Geomorphology 149–150:27–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gopinath G, Swetha TV, Ashitha MK (2014) Automated extraction of watershed boundary and drainage network from SRTM and comparison with Survey of India toposheet. Arab J Geosci 7(7):2625–2632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gorokhovich Y, Voustianiouk A (2006) Accuracy assessment of the processed-SRTM based elevation data by CGIAR using field data from USA and Thailand and its relation to the terrain characteristics. Remote Sens Environ 104:409–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Goudie A (ed) (2004) Encyclopedia of geomorphology. Routledge, London GSI (Geological Survey of India) (2004) Geological Quadrangle Map–Kalpa Quadrangle, Himachal Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh. Geological Survey of India, Kolkata, p 1202Google Scholar
  21. Gregory KJ, Walling DE (1973) Drainage basin form and process. Wiley, New York, p 456Google Scholar
  22. Gurnell AM, Montgomery AR (1999) Hydrological applications of GIS. Wiley, Chichester, p 176Google Scholar
  23. Haggett P (1965) Locational analysis in human geography 339. Edward Arnold Ltd, LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. Hayakawa YS, Oguchi T, Lin Z (2008) Comparison of new and existing global digital elevation models ASTER-GDEM and SRTM-3. Geophys Res Lett 35:L17404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hirt C, Filmer MS, Featherstone WE (2010) Comparison and validation of the recent freely available ASTER-GDEM ver1, SRTM ver4.1 and GEODATA DEM-9S ver3 digital elevation models over Australia. Aust J Earth Sci 57(3):337–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hooke JM (2008) Temporal variations in fluvial processes on an active meandering river over a 20-year period. Geomorphology 100:3–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Horton RE (1932) Drainage basin characteristics. Trans Am Geophys Union 13:350–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Horton RE (1945) Erosional development of streams and their drainage basins, hydrophysical approach to quantitative morphology. Geol Soc Am Bull 56:275–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hosseinzadeh SR (2011) Drainage network analysis, comparison of digital elevation model (DEM) from ASTER with high resolution satellite image and aerial photographs. Int J Environ Sci Dev 2(3):194–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jacques PD, Salvador ED, Machado R, Grohmann CH, Nummer AR (2014) Application of morphometry in neotectonic studies at the eastern edge of the Parana Basin Santa Catarina State Brazil. Geomorphology 213:13–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jenson SK, Domingue JO (1988) Extracting topographic structure from digital elevation data for geographic information system analysis. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 54:1593–1600Google Scholar
  32. Kirby E, Whipple KX (2012) Expression of active tectonics in erosional landscapes. J Struct Geol 44:54–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kiser L, Kelly M (2010) GPS- vs. DEM-derived elevation estimates from a Hardwood dominated forest watershed. J Geogr Inform Sys 2:147–151Google Scholar
  34. Korup O, Schmidt J, McSavaney MJ (2005) Regional relief characteristics and denudation pattern of the western Southern Alps New Zealand. Geomorphology 71:402–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lague D, Crave A, Davy P (2003) Laboratory experiments simulating the geomorphic response to tectonic uplift. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 108(B1):ETG 3-1–ETG 3-20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lindsay JB, Evans MG (2008) The influence of elevation error on the morphometrics of channel networks extracted from DEMs and the implications for hydrological modelling. Hydrol Process 22(11):1588–1603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Maidment DR (2002) ArcHydro GIS for water resources. ESRI Press, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  38. Majure JJ, Soenksen PJ (1991) Using a geographic information system to determine physical basin characteristics for use in flood-frequency equations. In Balthrop BH, Terry JE (eds) US geological survey national computer technology Meeting-Proceedings, Phoenix, Arizona, November 14–18, 1988: US Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 90–4162:31–40Google Scholar
  39. Masoud M (2015) Rainfall-runoff modeling of ungauged Wadis in arid environments (case study Wadi Rabigh—Saudi Arabia). Arab J Geosci 8(5):2587–2606.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-014-1404-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Masoud M (2016) Geoinformatics application for assessing the morphometric characteristics’ effect on hydrological response at watershed (case study of Wadi Qanunah, Saudi Arabia). Arabian J Geosci.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-015-2300-y(Article number 280) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Melton M (1957) An Analysis of the Relations Among Elements of Climate, Surface Properties and Geomorphology. Department of Geology, Columbia University, Technical Report, 11, Project NR 389-042. Office of Navy Research, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  42. Mesa LM (2006) Morphometric analysis of a sub-tropical Andean Basin (Tucuman Argentina). Environ Geol 50:1235–1242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Miller VC (1953) A quantitative geomorphic study of drainage basin characteristics in the Clinch Mountain area, Virginia and Tennessee. Project NR, Technical Report 3, Columbia Univ., Department of Geology, ONR, Geography Branch, New York, pp 389–042Google Scholar
  44. Morris DG, Heerdegen RG (1988) Automatically derived catchment boundaries and channel networks and their hydrological applications. Geomorphology 1:131–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mueller JE (1968) An introduction to the hydraulic and topographic sinuosity Indexes1. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 58(2):371–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pike RJ (2000) Geo-morphometry-diversity in quantitative surface analysis. Prog Phys Geogr 24(1):1–20Google Scholar
  47. Prasanna kumar V, Vijith H, Geetha N (2013) Terrain evaluation through the assessment of geomorphometric parameters using DEM and GIS: case study of two major sub-watersheds in Attapady. South India. Arab J Geosci 6(4):1141–1151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ragheb A (2015) Enhancement of google earth positional accuracy. Int J Eng Res Technol 4(1):627–630Google Scholar
  49. Rinaldi M (2003) Recent channel adjustments in alluvial rivers of Tuscany, Central Italy. Earth Surf Process Land 28:587–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. San BT, Suzen ML (2005) Digital elevation model (DEM) generation and accuracy assessment from ASTER stereo data. Int J Remote Sens 26(22):5013–5027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Saran S, Sterk G, Peters P, Dadhwal VK (2009) Evaluation of digital elevation models for delineation of hydrological response units in a Himalayan watershed. Geocarto Int 25:105–122.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10106040903051967 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Schumm SA (1956) Evolution of drainage system and slope in badlands of Perth Amboy. New Jersey 67:597–546Google Scholar
  53. Sefercik UG (2012) Performance estimation of ASTER Global DEM depending upon the terrain inclination. J Indian Soc Remote Sens 40:565–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sefercik UG, Alkan M (2009) Advanced analysis of differences between C and X Bands using SRTM data for mountainous topography. J Indian Soc Remote Sens 37:335–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Smedberg E, Humborg C, Jakobsson M, Morth C-M (2009) Landscape elements and river chemistry as affected by river regulation—a 3-D perspective. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 13:1597–1606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Snyder NP, Whipple KX, Tucker GE, Merritts DJ (2000) Landscape response to tectonic forcing: digital elevation model analysis of stream profiles in the Mendocino Triple Junction Region, Northern California. Geol Soc Am Bull 112(8):1250–1263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Strahler AN (1952) Hypsometric analysis of erosional topography. Bull Geol Soc Am 63:1117–1142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Strahler AN (1954) Quantitative geomorphology of erosional landscapes. In: Proceedings of the 19th international geological congress Algiers, vol 13, no 3, pp 341–354Google Scholar
  59. Strahler AN (1957) Quantitative analysis of watershed geomorphology. Trans Am Geophys Union 38:913–920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Strahler AN (1964) Quantitative geomorphology of drainage basins and channel networks. Handbook of applied hydrology. McGraw Hill Book Company, New York, p 411Google Scholar
  61. Summerfield MA, Hulton NJ (1994) Natural controls of fluvial denudational rates in major world drainage basins. J Geophys Res 99(B7):13871–13883CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Suwandana E, Kawamura K, Sakuno Y, Kustiyanto E, Raharjo B (2012) Evaluation of ASTER GDEM2 in comparison with GDEM1, SRTM DEM and topographic-map-derived DEM using inundation area analysis and RTK-dGPS data. Remote Sens 4:2419–2431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Taramelli A, Reichenbach P, Ardizzone F (2008) Comparison of SRTM elevation data with cartographically derived DEMs in Italy. Rev Geogr Acad 2(2):41–52Google Scholar
  64. Tarboton DG, Bras RL, Rodriguez-Iturbe I (1991) On the extraction of channel networks from digital elevation data. TT Hydrol Process 5:81–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Trimble SW (2009) Fluvial processes, morphology and sediment budgets in the Coon Creek Basin, WI, USA, 1975–1993. Geomorphology 108:8–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Tucker GE (2004) Drainage basin sensitivity to tectonic and climatic forcing: implications of a stochastic model for the role of entrainment and erosion thresholds. Earth Surf Process Land 29(2):185–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. USGS (United States Geological Survey) (2004) Shuttle radar topography mission, 3 Arc second scene SRTM_n036e052, Global Land Cover Facility. University of Maryland, College Park, p 2000Google Scholar
  68. USGS (United States Geological Survey) and Japan ASTER Program (2003) ASTER scene ASTGTM2_N31E078_dem, 1B. USGS, Sioux FallsGoogle Scholar
  69. Weydahl DJ, Sagstuen J, Dick OB, Ronning H (2007) SRTM DEM accuracy over vegetated areas in Norway. Int J Remote Sens 28(16):3513–3527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Whipple KX (2001) Fluvial landscape response time: how plausible is SteadyState denudation? Am J Sci 301:313–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Whittaker AC (2012) How do landscapes record tectonics and climate? Lithosphere 4(2):160–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wilson JP, Aggett G, Deng Y, Lam CS (2008) Water in the landscape: a review of contemporary flow routing algorithms. In: Zhou Q, Lees B, Tang G (eds) Advances in digital terrain analysis. Lecture notes in geoformation and cartography series, vol 3. Springer, Berlin, pp 213–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Wood J (1996) The geomorphological characterization of digital elevation models. PhD Dissertation, University of Leicester, p 466Google Scholar

Copyright information

© King Abdulaziz University and Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Water Research CentreKing Abdulaziz UniversityJeddahSaudi Arabia
  2. 2.Department of Hydrology and Water Resources ManagementKing Abdulaziz UniversityJeddahSaudi Arabia
  3. 3.Hydrology DepartmentDesert Research CenterCairoEgypt

Personalised recommendations