A Remote Sensing and GIS Approach for Prioritization of Wadi Shueib Mini-Watersheds (Central Jordan) Based on Morphometric and Soil Erosion Susceptibility Analysis

Recently watershed prioritization has become a pragmatic approach for watershed management and natural resources development. Wadi Shueib is a Jordan Rift valley and covers an area of 177.8 km ² . The upper catchment is of dry Mediterranean climate, whereas the lower part is arid. The drainage network is sub-dendritic pattern, with a trellis pattern developed due to the influence of W. Shueib structure. Fourteen mini-watersheds were delineated and designated as (MW 1 to MW 14) for prioritization purposes. Morphometric analysis, and soil erosion susceptibility analysis were conducted, and their values were calculated for each mini-watersheds. Based on value/relationship with erodibility, different prioritization ranks were ascribed following the computation of compound factors. Based on morphometric and soil erosion susceptibility analysis, and the resultant ranks, the mini-watersheds have been classified into four categories in relation to their priority for soil conservation measures: very high, high, moderate, and low. It is found that 64.3% of the 3 ^rd order mini-watersheds are classified in the categories of very high and high priority. Based on soil erosion susceptibility analysis, three mini-watersheds are of very high priority and three are of high priority. The integration of morphometric and soil erosion susceptibility methods shows that mini-watersheds no.2 and no.3 are common mini-watersheds, and can be classified in the class of moderate and low priority respectively. By contrast, two mini-watersheds (no.8 and no.13) are categorized in the class of high priority based on morphometric analysis, and are classified in the category of very high priority based on soil erosion susceptibility analysis. Similarly, mini-watershed no.14 can be placed in the category of very high priority based on morphometric analysis, and ranks in the category of high priority based on soil erosion susceptibility analysis. With reference to the integration of the two methods of prioritization, it can be concluded that most of the mini-watersheds can be categorized in the classes moderate, high, and very high priority. Consequently, the entire W. Shueib watershed must be prioritized for soil and water conservation to ensure future sustainable agriculture and development of natural resources.

• Morphometry
• Soil Erosion Susceptibility
• Prioritization of Watersheds
• Compound Factor
• W. Shueib
• Jordan

1. Introduction

Soil erosion is considered a major problem in the rainfed highlands of Jordan. Erosion of the top soil leads to continuous land degradation and decline of soil quality and productivity. Future sustainable agriculture is therefore seriously threatened by accelerated soil erosion. The most significant causes responsible for high soil erosion rates have been: rapid population growth (2.8% per year), historical and present misuse of the land, land cover changes since 1950s, traditional cultivation and cropping system practices, deforestation and overgrazing, poor conservation measures, and land fragmentation.

Several studies/reports on soil erosion and conservation were carried out on the highlands of Jordan during the 1960s. Soil erosion loss due to surface water catchments east of the Rift amounts to 1.328 million tons year⁻¹, which means, 0.14 cm of the top soil is eroded annually [1] [2] . Similarly, qualitative surveys on soil conservation are conducted in the southern highlands [3] , Wadi Hasa [4] , and northern Jordan with special reference to Wadi Ziqlab [5] , and soil conservation surveys for Wadi Shueib and Wadi Kufrein [6] . The final results of these surveys are restricted to mapping of geomorphological soil erosion features, slope categories (%), detailed soil characteristics and distribution. A conventional land capability map illustrates land capability classes, and a map shows the location of proposed soil conservation structures only for Wadi Ziqlab. In light of the predominant high, very high, and extremely high soil erosion rates, specific geomorphic/terrain units, and mini-watersheds, should be prioritized for conservation practices [7] - [10] . Watersheds however, are considered fundamental geomorphic and hydrologic areal units for watershed management. It enables surface runoff to a defined channel, ravine, stream or river at a particular point [11] . Watersheds also constitute the surface area drained by one or several given water courses, and represent a fluvial erosional land component, where land and water resources interact in a perceivable form [12] . Moreover, the drainage basin has been considered an ideal unit for watershed management and sustainable development of natural resources. Watershed management in this context implies the process of formulating and executing a course of intervention in the watershed targeted to appropriate utilization of land, soil, forest, and water resources in a watershed. This process seeks optimum exploitation with minimum hazard to environmental resources including people who live across the watershed [12] -[14] .

Prioritization of sub-watersheds for soil and water conservation is conducted recently in several areas. Such studies confirm the role of geographic information system (GIS), remote sensing (RS), and morphometric analysis as efficient tools in ranking different sub-watersheds according to the order in which they have to be taken for treatment and for soil conservation measures [15] . At an early stage of morphometric analysis application in prioritization of sub-watersheds, Biswas et al. [12] employ ten morphometric parameters: three of them are basin geometric parameters such as area (km²), perimeter (km), and basin length (km); four linear parameters (bifurcation ratio, drainage density (km/km²), stream frequency (no/km²), and texture ratio). Similarly, Pandey et al. [16] utilize six morphometric parameters: two linear (drainage) parameters (bifurcation ratio, drainage density (km/km²); two shape parameters (circularity ratio, elongation ration); and two relief (steepness) parameters (ruggedness number, and relief ratio). Later, elaboration on morphometric application with respect to prioritization of watersheds is carried out by several researchers [17] -[22] . Ten linear and shape morphometric parameters in relation to erodibility have been adopted: five linear parameters(bifurcation ratio, drainage density (km/km²), texture ration, length of overland flow, and stream frequency (km/km²), texture ration, length of overland flow, and stream frequency (km/km²); and five shape parameters (compactness coefficient, circularity ratio, elongation ratio, shape factor, and form factor). Such parameters are aimed to identify prioritized sub-watersheds for conservation on more consistent bases.

Watersheds are prioritized using different factors such as: morphometry, land use/land cover, estimated soil erosion loss (i.e. USLE or RUSLE models), Sediment Yield Index (SYI) model, or a combination of these methods. Recently, several studies on prioritization have been accomplished in relation to sub-watersheds using morphometric analysis, sediment yield index (SYI), and sediment product rate (SPR) [12] [15] [17] . Other studies employed morphometric analysis and land use/land cover parameters [19] [20] . By contrast, one investigation utilized morphometric indices and soil loss estimation based on the USLE model [18] in Bago River Basin, Myanmar. Chaudhary and Sharma [23] , and Patel et al. [21] conducted prioritization studies based only on morphometric analysis. Abdul Rahaman et al. [24] adopted the Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy process in combination with morphometric analysis to carry out a prioritization study in Tamil Nadu, India. However, the prioritization concept is found to be very helpful for understanding the morphology and fluvial characteristics of individual watersheds, and for designing efficient water harvesting structures across a watershed [21] .

Remote sensing and GIS techniques are the most powerful tools for watershed development, management, and prioritization of sub-watersheds for soil and water conservation. The quantitative analysis of drainage basins is also considered a basic technique for watershed characterization and geomorphometric analysis of drainage basins and stream networks. Morphometic analysis can be implemented by measuring basic, linear and shape parameters of drainage networks and contributing ground slopes [12] [20] [21] . Computation of morphometric parameters can be carried out using an appropriate DEM, GIS software, and formulas developed for this purpose. The objective of the present study is to prioritize fourteen 3^rd order mini-watersheds based on morphometric analysis and soil erosion susceptibility methods using remote sensing and GIS. Priority maps for mini-water- sheds can be generated based on one or two methods, then, a third priority map can be developed by integrating the results achieved from the two methods of prioritization. These results provide significant information which can assist decision makers in formulating more effective soil and water conservation plans for the W. Shueib watershed in the future.

2. The Study Area

The Wadi Shueib watershed (Central Jordan) lies between the latitudes 31˚50' to 32˚02'N, and longitude 35˚35' to 35˚50'E (Figure 1), and covers an area of 177.8 km². The maximum basin length is 23.48 km, and the basin relief (B_h) is 1347 m.

2.1. Geology and Geomorphology

Four lithological units are exposed across the watershed. The lower Cretaceous Kurnub sandstone is dominated

Figure 1

The study area

by silty and clayey sandstone in the upper part, whereas varicoloured shaley sandstone characterizes the lower part [25] . The Kurnub sandstone is overlain by two lithological units of Upper Cretaceous age: the nodular limestone unit (the marly-clay unit) which is predominantly marls and clays interbedded with marly limestones, limestones, nodular limestone, and dolomites. The echinoidal limestone unit, or the marly-limestone unit consists of limestones, dolomitic limestones, marl, sandy limestones, marly limestones, and chert nodules. This unit is exposed at the crest of landslide complexes and rock bluffs. The fourth lithological unit is comprised of the Eocene-Senonian dolomites which are exposed in the upper part of the watershed. Chalky marls, chalk, limestone, shales, clays and phosphatic beds (much of their thickness are silicified) are also present in the catchment. Wadi Shueib is part of a major compressional belt termed locally “Wadi Shueib Structure” [26] [27] . It extends from Shuneh town (at the Ghor) and runs along the eastern flank of Wadi Shueib in a NNE direction to pinch out south of Jerash City at the Zerqa River. The structure consists of several highly folded synclines and anticlines partially overturned to the west. In several localities, the structure is heavily deformed by a set of faults and joints of different trends. When these joints are combined with bedding status they probably contribute to the most unstable conditions. The Wadi Shueib longitudinal profile displays prominent irregularities, which probably represent some form of rejuvenation points associated with the formation of the Jordan Rift. The average slope of the longitudinal profile is 2.76˚. The northeastern reaches of the catchment between 800 and 1000 m (a.s.l), and the interfluve ridges are characterized by broad level areas and gentle slopes, which possibly represent the remnants of Miocene-Pliocene erosion surface [28] [29] . The remainder of the watershed is characterized by steep convex slopes in the upper reaches, and deeply incised gorges in the lower section. Sharp breaks exists on the Wadi cross profiles as a result of lithological variation and rejuvenation activity [30] . The presence of old landslide complexes, and active landslides reveals the role of: (1) tectonic activity and uplifting of the scarp shoulder during the Miocene and Pleistocene tectonics; (2) progressive river incision and rejuvenation activity as a result of recurrent lowering of the base level (the Jordan Rift), and; (3) seasonal flooding and repetitive heavy rainstorms, and remarkable deformation of slopes. Thus, the watershed is highly susceptible to soil erosion and landsliding [28] [31] - [33] .

2.2. Climate

Wadi Shueib is classified as “dry Mediterranean” in the upper catchment and arid in the lower part (the Ghor close to the Dead Sea). Mean annual rainfall ranges from 639 mm at Al-Salt city (796 m a.s.l) to 180 mm at Shunneh town (-230 m b.s.l). Most of the catchment highland areas have 20 to 50 rainy days/year, while the lower parts of the watershed have 10 to 30 rainy days/year. The amount of rainfall on any rainy day varies from 0.1 mm to maximum of 150 mm [6] . Several days can receive precipitation ranging between 20 - 80 mm. This indicates that rainfall storms of high intense daily rainfalls are common in Wadi Shueib, thus, the watershed is considered of high susceptibility to soil erosion and landsliding. Such conditions emphasize the need for prioritization of mini-watersheds for soil and water conservation. Rainfall is concentrated in winter during the cold season from October to March.

2.3. Soils

Atkinson et al. [6] distinguish six soil types in Wadi Shueib. The most widely distributed is the terra rossa. This type has a high internal variability, ranging from cultivated phases, often quite thin to mature terra rossa profile under woodland. Texture is predominatly heavy, ranging from 50 to 70 per cent clay, and silt content varies from 20 to 60 per cent. Sand content is consistently low. Sandstone soil developed on the Kurnub sandstone. Where cultivated, it shows more compacted sub-soils and more distinctive ploughed horizons than their uncultivated counterpart, but of sandy loam texture. The siliceous and cherty rock faces give rise to Brown stony soil, especially on the eastern part of the watershed. Such soil is characterized by very heavy stone content, and the texture ranges from clay loams to silty clays. Alluvial and bench soils are exposed along the Wadi bottom, and more commonly, on structural and rejuvenated terraces along the valley side slopes. In areas of calcareous rocks, with rolling and gentle sloping topography, continuous soil wash and accelerated erosion has led to the accumulation of soil materials in depressional areas to make infill soils which provide good arable land, being cropped for cerals or field crops. Slope soil can be divided into red brown and yellow brown soils. Slope soils are derived largely from terra rossa and brown soil materials, and thus resemble them in properties of texture, structure and color.

3. Materials and Methodology

Topographic maps with scale 1:50000 (20 m contour interval) of Wadi Shueib were obtained from the Royal Jordanian National Geographic Centre (Amman). The topo sheets were then scanned and georeferenced using Arc GIS 10.1 software, then converted to WGS-1984, zone 36˚N projection system. Contours and drainage were digitized from the registered topo sheets, and the catchments were divided into fourteen 3^rd order mini-water- sheds, and assigned as (MW1-MW14) (Figure 2). The drainage network of W. Shueib, and the mini-water- sheds were generated using ASTER DEM (30 m resolution), and digitized using Arc GIS 10.1. Stream order was assigned following the stream ordering system developed by Strahler [34] [35] . The W. Shueib watershed was found to be of the 5^th order. Basic, linear, and shape morphometric parameters for the entire W. Shueib watershed and the drainage networks related to each the fourteen mini-watersheds were measured and calculated using GIS software, and the mathematical equations elaborated by Horton [36] , Strahler [34] [35] , Schumm [37] , Miller [38] , and Nooka Ratnam et al. [17] (Table 1).

The quantitative approach developed by van Zuidam and van Zuidam-Cancelado [39] [40] for a soil erosion susceptibility survey (Figure 3) was employed to compile a map illustrating soil erosion susceptibility classes for the entire W. Shueib, and then digitized using Arc GIS 10.1. Morphometric analysis of linear and shape parameters, and soil erosion susceptibility parameters were employed separately for prioritization of the mini-wat- ersheds, and a priority map was produced based on each method. Then, a third priority map was generated by integrating the results obtained from both methods (the two maps) in order to assess the correlation if any between the two generated maps, and to explore the common priority that may found between the mini-water- sheds.

4. Results and Discussions

4.1. Morphometric Analysis

Quantitative analysis of W. Shueib and the fourteen mini-watersheds was performed to assess the characteristics and properties of the drainage networks. Twenty-five morphometric parameters which represent basic, linear, areal, shape and relief aspects of W. Shueib were considered for analysis to characterize the entire watershed (Table 2). Whereas, five basic parameters, five linear parameters, and five shape parameters were computed for the mini-watersheds to prioritize them for soil conservation. The dominated drainage pattern is the trellis type, which is indicative of structural control on drainage, where the mean bifurcation ratio (R_bm) for the entire watershed is 4.6 (Table 2). Stream ordering for the main watershed and the mini-watersheds has been ranked

Figure 2

3 rd order mini-watersheds.

Table 1

Computation of basic, linear and shape morphometric parameters

Morphometric Parameters	Formula		References
Basic Parameters
Area of Basin (A) Perimeter of Basin (P)	Plan area of the watershed (km2)	GIS Software analysis	[36]
	Perimeter of watershed (km)		[36]
Stream Order (u)	Hierarchical rank		[36]
Basin Length (Lb)	Length of basin (km)/GIS software analysis		[34] [35] [41]
	Lb = 1.321 × A0.568a		[17]
Stream Length (Lu)	Length of the stream (km)		[36]
Linear Parameters
Bifurcation Ratio (Rb)	Rb = Nu/Nu + 1, where		[37]
	Nu + 1 = no. of segments of the next higher order
Drainage Density (Dd) (km/km2)	Dd = Lu/A, Where		[36]
	Lu + total stream length of all orders (km)
	A = area of the watershed (km2)
Stream Frequency(Fu) (no./km2)	Fu = Nu/A, where		[36]
	Nu = total no. of steams of all orders
	A = area of the basin(km2)
Texture Ratio (T) (no./km2)	T = Nu/P, where		[36]
	Nu = total no. of streams of all orders
	P = perimeter (km)
Length of Overland Flow (km) Lo	Lo = ½ Dd, where		[36]
	Dd = drainage density
Shape parameters
Form Factor (Rf)	Rf = A/Lb2, where		[36]
	A = area of the basin (km2)
	Lb = basin length (km)
Shape Factor (Bs)	Bs = Lb2/A, where		[17]
	Lb = basin length (km)
	A = area of the basin (km2)
Elongation Ratio (Re)	Re = 1.128, where,		[37]
	A = area of the basin (km2)
	Lb = basin length (km)
Compactness Coefficient (Cc)	, where		[36]
	P = perimeter of the basin (km)
	A = area of the basin (km2)
Circularity Ratio (Rc)	Rc = 4 × ᴨ × A/P2, where ᴨ = 3.14		[38]
	A = area of the basin (km2)
	P = perimeter (km)

according to Strahler’s method of hierarchical system [41] . Based on drainage order, W. Shueib catchment is classified as a fifth-order basin (Figure 4) with an area of 177.8 km², 23.5 km of length, and perimeter of 85.2 km. The total number of streams (Nu) is 345, and the first-order streams account for 79.9% of the total number of streams in the entire watershed.

Figure 3

Methodology of soil erosion susceptibility survey

Table 2

Morphometric parameters of W. Shueib

Par. No.	Parameters	Stream Order
1	Stream order (u) (5)	I	II	III	IV	V
2	No. of streams order (Total) (Nu ) (345)	269	56	14	5	1
3	Stream length (Lu) (km) (268.925)	123.581	64.805	36.404	25.056	19.079
4	Mean stream length (Lsm) (km) (0.779)	0.459	1.157	2.600	5.011	19.079
5	Stream length ratio (RL)		0.524 II/I	0.561 III/II	0.688 IV/III	0.761 V/Iv
6	Bifurcation ratio (Rb)	4.803 I/II	4 II/III	2.8 III/IV	5 IV/V
7	Mean bifurcation ratio (Rbm)	4.581
8	Basin perimeter (P) (km)	85.190
9	Basin length (Lb)	23.480
10	Basin area (A) (km2)	177.800
11	Basin relief (Bh) (m)	1347
12	Relief ratio (Rr)	0.057
13	Elongation ratio (Re)	0.640
14	Circularity ratio (Rc)	0.307
15	Lemniscate ratio (K)	0.775
16	Drainage density (Dd) (km/km2)	1.512
17	Stream frequency (Fu)	1.940
18	Form factor (Rf)	0.322
19	Shape factor (Bs)	3.100
20	Texture ratio (T)	4.049
21	Dissection index (DIs)	1.230
22	Ruggedness number (Rn)	2.036
23	Drainage intensity (Di)	1.283
24	Length of overland flow (Lo) (Km)	0.756
25	Hypsometric integral (Hi)	0.715

Figure 4

Stream order of W. Shueib

4.1.1. Basic Parameters

Basic parameters were computed for the fourteen mini-watersheds area: the area (A), perimeter (P), stream order (u), basin length (L_b), and stream length (L) (Table 3).

1) Mini-watershed area (A) and perimeter (P)

The drainage area is considered the most significant hydrological characteristics of a watershed. It reflects the volume of water that can be generated from precipitation.

The present study shows that mini-watershed no.4 covers the maximum area of 12.64 km², while mini-wa- tershed no.7 has a minimum area of 2.45 km². The basin perimeter represents the length of the line that demarcates the surface divide of the mini-watershed. The maximum and minimum values are 20.61 km for mini-wa- tershed no.12, and 6.07 km for mini-watershed no.7.

2) Stream order (u)

The stream order parameter was elaborated by Horton [36] and Strahler [34] [35] [41] to describe the drainage network in a quantitative manner. The first order stream has no tributary, and its flow depends totally on the surface overland flow to it. Similarly, the second-order stream is formed by the junction of the two first-order streams and thus, has a higher surface flow and the third-order streams receive flow from two second-order streams [14] . In the present case study, all selected fourteen mini-watersheds are of third-order, and the number of first-order streams (N₁) varies from one watershed to another. It ranges from 21 first-order streams (MW no.4) to 4 first-order streams (MW no.7). By contrast, the number of first-order streams for the eastern part of W. Shueib watershed is higher than the other parts of the catchment. The number ranges here between 13 to 21 streams. Similarly, the number of streams (N_u) for each mini-watershed range from 26 to 7. It is expected therefore, that mini-watersheds on the eastern flank of W. Shueib receive a higher surface flow than other mini-wat- ersheds. Furthermore, the W. Shueib structure extends spatially along the eastern flank of the Wadi. Here, deformation and rock weakness are remarkable compared to other parts of the watershed, where several springs issue along the incised basal slopes. Thus, it is expected that soil erosion susceptibility and shallow landslide activity are higher on this part of the catchment.

3) Total length of streams (L_u)

The number of streams of various orders for each mini-watershed was counted and their lengths measured (Table 3). The first-order stream has no tributary and its flow depends totally on the surface overland flow connected with it. Similarly, the second-order stream is formed by the junction of two first-order streams and as such has a higher surface flow, and the third-order streams receive flow from two second-order streams [21] .

References

1. Mcdonald Partners and Hunting Technical Services LTD (1965) East Bank Water Resources Summary Report. Central Water Authority, Amman.

2. Shamoot, S. and Hussini, H. (1969) Soil and Land Resources in Jordan. Paper Presented at the Near East and Water use Meeting, Amman.

3. Willimott, S.G., Birch, B.P., Mckee, R.F., Atkinson, K. and Nimry, B.S. (1964) Conservation Survey of the Southern Highlands of Jordan. Unpublished Report, Department of Geography, University of Durham, Durham.

4. Willimott, S.G., Shirlaw, D.G., Smith, R.A. and Birch, B.P. (1963) The Wadi Hasa Survey, Jordan. Unpublished Report, Department of Geography, University of Durham, Durham.

5. Beaumont, P. and Atkinson, K. (1969) Soil Erosion and Conservation in Northern Jordan. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 24, 144-147.

6. Atkinson, K., Beaumont, P., Bowen-Jones, H., Fisher, W.B. and Gilchrist-Shirlaw, D.W. (1967) Soil Conservation Survey of Wadi Shueib and Wadi Kufrein, Jordan. Unpublished Report, Department of Geography, University of Durham, Durham.

7. Khresat, S.A., Rawajfih, Z. and Mohammad, M. (1996) Land Degradation in North-Western Jordan: Causes and Processes. Journal of Arid Environment, 39, 623-629. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jare.1998.0385

8. Khresat, S.A., Al-Bakri, J. and Al-Tahhan, R. (2008) Impact of Land Use/ Cover Change on Soil Properties in the Mediterranean Region of Northwestern Jordan. Land Degradation and Development, 19, 397-407. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ldr.847

9. Farhan, Y., Zreqat, D. and Nawaiseh, S. (2014) Assessing the Influence of Physical Factors on Spatial Soil Erosion Risk in Northern Jordan. Journal of American Science, 12, 29-39.

10. Farhan, Y. and Nawaiseh, S. (2015) Spatial Assessment of Soil Erosion Risk Using RUSLE and GIS Techniques. Environmental Earth Sciences, 74, 4649-4669. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12665-015-4430-7

11. Chopra, R., Dhiman, R.D. and Sharma, P.K. (2005) Morphometric Analysis of Sub-Watershed in Gurdaspur District, Punjab Using Remote Sensing and GIS Techniques. Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing, 33, 511-539. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02990738

12. Biswas, S., Sudhakar, S. and Desai, V.R. (1999) Prioritization of Sub-Watersheds Based on Morphometric Analysis of Drainage Basin: A Remote Sensing and GIS Approach. Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing, 27, 155-166. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02991569

13. Kessler, W.B., Salwasser, H., Cartwright Jr., C.W. and Caplan, J.A. (1992) New Perspectives for Sustainable Natural Resources Management. Ecological Applications, 2, 221-225. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1941856

14. Patel, D., Dholakia, M., Naresh, N. and Srivastava, P. (2012) Water Harvesting Structure Positioning by Using Geo-Visualization Concept and Prioritization of Mini-Watersheds through Morphometric Analysis in the Lower Tapi Basin. Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing, 40, 299-312. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12524-011-0147-6

15. Sureh, M., Sudhakar, S., Tiwari, K.N. and Chowdary, V.M. (2004) Prioritization of Watersheds Using Morphometric Parameters and Assessment of Surface Water Potential Using Remote Sensing. Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing, 32, 249-259. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF03030885

16. Pandey, A., Chowdary, V.M., Mal, B.C. and Dabral, P.P. (2011) Remote Sensing and GIS for Identification of Suitable Sites for Soil and Water Conservation Structures. Land Degradation and Development, 22, 359-372. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ldr.1012

17. Nooka Ratnam, K., Srivastava, Y.K., Venkateshwara Rao, V., Amminedu, E. and Murthy, K.S.R. (2005) Check Dam Positioning by Prioritization of Micro-Watersheds Using SYI Model and Morphometric Analysis—Remote Sensing and GIS Perspective. Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing, 33, 25-38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02989988

18. Hlaing, K., Haryama, S. and Aye, M. (2008) Using GIS Based Distributed Soil Loss Modeling and Morphometric Analysis to Prioritize Watersheds for Soil Conservation in Bago River Basin of Lower Myanmar. Frontiers of Earth Science in China, 2, 465-478. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11707-008-0048-3

19. Javed, A., Khanday, M.Y. and Ahmad, R. (2009) Prioritization of Sub-Watersheds Based on Morphometric and Land Use Analysis in Guna District (M.P.): A Remote Sensing and GIS Based Approach. Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing, 37, 261-274. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12524-009-0016-8

20. Javed, A., Khanday, M.Y. and Rias, S. (2011) Watershed Prioritization Using Morphometric and Land Use/Land Cover Parameters: A Remote Sensing and GIS Based Approach. Journal Geological Society of India, 78, 63-75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12594-011-0068-6

21. Patel, D., Gajjar, C. and Srivastava, P. (2013) Prioritization of Malesari Mini-Watersheds through Morphometric Analysis: A Remote Sensing and GIS Perspective. Environmental Earth Sciences, 69, 2643-2656. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12665-012-2086-0

22. Gajbhiya, S., Mishra, S.K. and Pandey, A. (2014) Prioritizing Erosion-Prone Area through Morphometric Analysis: An RS and GIS Perspective. Applied Water Science, 4, 51-61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13201-013-0129-7

23. Chaudhary, R.S. and Sharma, P.D. (1998) Erosion Hazard Assessment and Treatment Prioritization of Giri River Catchment, North Western Himalayas. Indian Journal of Soil Conservation, 26, 6-11.

24. Abdul Rahaman, S., Abdul Ajeez, S., Aruchamy, S. and Jegankumar, R. (2015) Prioritization of Sub Watersheds Based on Morphometric Characteristics Using Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process and Geographical Information System—A Study of Kallar Watershed, Tamil Nadu. Aquatic Procedia, 4, 1322-1330. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aqpro.2015.02.172

25. Bender, F. (1975) Geology of the Arabian Peninsula: Jordan. United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 560-I, Washington DC.

26. Mickbel, S. and Zacher, W. (1981) The Wadi Shueib Structure in Jordan. Neues Jahrbuch fur Geologie und Palaontologie, 9, 571-576.

27. Mickbel, S. and Zacher, W. (1986) Folded Structure in Northern Jordan. Neues Jahrbuch fur Geologie und Palaontologie, 14, 248-256.

28. Quennell, A. (1958) The Structure and Geomorphic Evolution of the Dead Sea Rift. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society, 114, 1-24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1144/gsjgs.114.1.0001

29. Farhan, Y., et al. (2015) Hypsometric Analysis of Wadi Mujib-Wala Watershed (Southern Jordan) Using Remote Sensing and GIS Techniques. International Journal of Geosciences, in press.

30. Farhan, Y. (1982) Slope Morphology in Central Jordan. Yarmouk University Press, Irbid. (In Arabic)

31. Burdon, D. (1959) Handbook of the Geology of Jordan. Benham and Co., Colchester.

32. Farhan, Y. (1986) Landslides in Central Jordan with Special Reference to the March 1983 Rainstorm. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 7, 80-96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9493.1986.tb00174.x

33. Farhan Y. ,et al. (2002)Slope Stability Problems in Central and Northern Jordan The Arab World Geographer 5, 265-290.

34. Strahler, A. (1957) Quantitative Analysis of Watershed Geomorphology. Transactions, American Geophysical Union, 38, 913-920. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/TR038i006p00913

35. Strahler, A. (1964) Quantitative Geomorphology of Drainage Basins and Channel Network. In: Chow, V., Ed., Handbook of Applied Hydrology, McGraw-Hill, New York, 439-476.

36. Horton, R. (1945) Erosional Development of Streams and their Drainage Basins: Hydrological Approach to Quantitative Morphology. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 56, 275-370. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/TR038i006p00913

37. Schumm, S. (1956) Evolution of Drainage Systems and Slopes in Badlands at Perth Amboy, New Jersey. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 67, 597-646. http://dx.doi.org/10.1130/0016-7606(1956)67[597:EODSAS]2.0.CO;2

38. Miller, V. (1953) A Quantitative Geomorphic Study of Drainage Basin Characteristics in the Clinch Mountain Area, Virginia and Tennessee. Project NR 389-402, Technical Report 3, Columbia University, Department of Geology, ONR, New York.

39. van Zuidam, R. and van Zuidam, C. (1979) Terrain Analysis and Classification Using Aerial Photographs: A Geomorphological Approach. ITC, Enschede.

40. van Zuidan, R. and van Zuidam, C. (1985) Aerial Photo-Interpretation in Terrain Analysis and Geomorphological Mapping. Smits Publishers, The Hague.

41. Strahler, A. (1952) Dynamic Basis of Geomorphology. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 63, 923-938. http://dx.doi.org/10.1130/0016-7606(1952)63[923:DBOG]2.0.CO;2

42. Prasad, R.K., Mondal, N.C., Banerjee, P., Nandakumar, N.V. and Singh, V.S. (2008) Deciphering Potential Groundwater Zone in Hard Rock through the Application of GIS. Environmental Geology, 55, 467-475. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00254-007-0992-3

43. Magesh, N.S. Chandrasekar, N. and Soundranayagam, J.P. (2011) Morphometric Evaluation of Papanasam and Mainmuthar Watersheds, Part of Western Ghats, Tirunelueli District, Tamil Nadu, India: A GIS Approach. Environmental Earth Sciences, 64, 737-381. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12665-010-0860-4

44. Sreedevi, P.D., Sreekanth, P.D., Khan, H.H. and Ahmad, S. (2013) Drainage Morphometry and Its Influence on Hydrology in an Semi Arid Region: Using SRTM Data and GIS. Environmental Earth Sciences, 70, 839-848. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12665-012-2172-3

45. Altaf, F., Meraj, G. and Romshoo, S.A. (2013) Morphometric Analysis to Infer Hydrological Behaviour of Lidder Watershed, Western Himalaya, India. Geography Journal, 13, 1-14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/178021

46. Tuker, G.E. and Bras, R.L. (1998) Hillslope Processes, Drainage Density, and Landscape Morphology. Water Resources Research, 34, 2751-2764. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/98WR01474

47. Singh, S. and Singh, M.C. (1997) Morphometric Analysis of Kanhar River Basin. National Geographical Journal of India, 43, 31-43.

48. Gravelius, H. (1914) Grundri? der gesamten Gewasserkunde, Band 1: Flu?kunde. Compendium of Hydrology, I, 265-278.

49. Jain, M.K. and Das, D. (2010) Estimation of Sediment Yield and Areas of Soil Erosion and Deposition for Watershed Prioritization Using GIS and Remote Sensing. Water Resources Management, 24, 2091-2112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11269-009-9540-0

50. Patel, D.P. and Dholakia, M. (2010) Feasible Structural and Non-Structural Measures to Minimize Effect of Flood in Lower Tapi Basin. International Journal WSEAS Transactions of Fluid Mechanics, 3, 104-121.

51. Varade, A.M., Khare, Y.D., Mondal, N.C., Muley, S., Wankawar, P. and Raut, P. (2013) Identification of Water Conservation Sites in a Watershed (WRJ-2) of Nagpur District, Maharashtra Using Geographical Information System (GIS) Technique. Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing, 41, 619-630. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12524-012-0232-5

52. Umrikar, B. (2015) GIS Technique in Management of Watershed Developed Along the Konkan Coast, Maharashtra, India. Journal of Geographic Information System, 7, 280-293. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jgis.2015.73022

53. Ahmad, B.A., Shahabi, H. and Bin Ahmad, B. (2015) Application of GIS Based Multi-Criteria Analysis in Site Selection of Water Reservoirs (Case Study: Batu Pahat, Malaysia). Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology, 9, 995-1005.

54. Van Ghelue, P. and Van Molle, M. (1990) Geomorphological Mapping as a Tool in the Delineation of Erosion Risk Zones in the Rio Guadalhorce Catchment (Spain). Soil Technology, 3, 327-342. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0933-3630(90)90014-T