Morphometric Analysis and Prioritization of Sub-Watersheds Located in Heterogeneous Geographical Units—Case Study: The Buzău River Basin
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area
2.2. Methodology
3. Results
3.1. Morphometry of Watersheds
3.2. Morphometry of the Hydrographic Network
3.3. Derived Properties of the Watershed and Hydrographic Network
3.4. Prioritization of Intervention Measures in the Sub-Watersheds of the Buzau River Basin
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Ha, M.C.; Vu, P.L.; Nguyen, H.D.; Hoang, T.P.; Dang, D.D.; Dinh, T.B.H.; Şerban, G.; Rus, I.; Brețcan, P. Machine Learning and Remote Sensing Application for Extreme Climate Evaluation: Example of Flood Susceptibility in the Hue Province, Central Vietnam Region. Water 2022, 14, 1617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sabӑu, D.A.; Şerban, G.; Breţcan, P.; Dunea, D.; Petrea, D.; Rus, I.; Tanislav, D. Combining radar quantitative precipitation estimates (QPEs) with distributed hydrological model for controlling transit of flash-flood upstream of crowded human habitats in Romania. Nat. Hazards 2023, 116, 1209–1238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Şerban, G.; Rus, I.; Vele, D.; Breţcan, P.; Alexe, M.; Petrea, D. Flood-prone area delimitation using UAV technology, in the areas hard-to-reach for classic aircrafts: Case study in the north-east of Apuseni Mountains, Transylvania. Nat. Hazards 2016, 82, 1817–1832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Şerban, G.; Sabӑu, D.; Bătinaș, R.; Brețcan, P.; Ignat, E.; Nacu, S. Water Resources from Romanian Upper Tisa Basin. In Water Resources Management in Romania; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 393–434, Print ISBN 978-3-030-22319-9 Online ISBN978-3-030-22320-5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pathare, J.A.; Pathare, A.R. Watershed prioritization for soil and water conservation in Darna River basin: A PCA approach. Sustain. Water Resour. Manag. 2021, 7, 49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khan, M.Y.A.; ElKashouty, M. Watershed prioritization and hydro-morphometric analysis for the potential development of Tabuk Basin, Saudi Arabia using multivariate statistical analysis and coupled RS-GIS approach. Ecol. Indic. 2023, 154, 110766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gâștescu, P.; Murărescu, O.; Brețcan, P.; Dinu, I. Hidrologie Generală-Lucrări Practice; Transversal: Târgoviște, Romania, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Syed, N.H.; Rehman, A.A.; Hussain, D.; Ishaq, S.; Khan, A.A. Morphometric analysis to prioritize sub-watershed for flood risk assessment in Central Karakoram National Park using GIS/RS approach. In ISPRS Annals of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences; Copernicus GmbH: Göttingen, Germany, 2017; Volume 4, pp. 367–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cîmpianu, C.I.; Mihu-Pintilie, A.; Stoleriu, C.C.; Urzică, A.; Huţanu, E. Managing Flood Hazard in a Complex Cross-Border Region Using Sentinel-1 SAR and Sentinel-2 Optical Data: A Case Study from Prut River Basin (NE Romania). Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 4934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nguyen, H.D.; Nguyen, T.H.T.; Nguyen, Q.H.; Nguyen, T.G.; Dang, S.K.; Nguyen, N.; Bui, T.H.; Nguyen, N.D.; Bui, Q.-T.; Bretcan, P.; et al. Bottom-up approach for flood-risk management in developing countries: A case study in the Gianh River watershed of Vietnam. Nat. Hazards 2023, 118, 1933–1959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vespremeanu-Stroe, A.; Micu, M.; Cruceru, N. The 3D analysis of Valea Viei mudflow morphodynamic, Buzău Subcarpathians. Rev. Geomorfol. 2006, 8, 95–108. [Google Scholar]
- Moisa, M.B.; Dejene, I.N.; Merga, B.B.; Gemeda, D.O. Soil loss estimation and prioritization using geographic information systems and the RUSLE model: A case study of the Anger River sub-basin, Western Ethiopia. J. Water Clim. Change 2022, 13, 1170–1184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Benzougagh, B.; Meshram, S.G.; Dridri, A.; Boudad, L.; Baamar, B.; Sadkaoui, D.; Khedher, K.M. Identification of critical watershed at risk of soil erosion using morphometric and geographic information system analysis. Appl. Water Sci. 2022, 12, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharma, N.; Kaushal, A.; Yousuf, A.; Kaur, S.; Sharda, R.; Singh, S.P.; Gupta, O.P.; Sood, A. Prioritization of erosion susceptible watersheds using morphometric analysis and PCA approach: A case study of lower Sutlej River basin of Indian Punjab. Watershed Ecol. Environ. 2023, 5, 209–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ojha, S.; Puri, L.; Bist, S.P.; Bastola, A.P.; Acharya, B. Watershed prioritization of Kailali district through morphometric parameters and landuse/landcover datasets using GIS. Heliyon 2023, 9, e16489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zaharia, L. Tendances dans l’évolution des transferts de matières en suspension, dans l’arc des Subcarpates, en relation avec les modifications du milieu. Géomorphol. Relief Process. Environ. 1998, 4, 3–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zăvoianu, I. Morfometria Bazinelor Hidrografice; Academiei: Bucharest, Romania, 1978. [Google Scholar]
- Bretcan, P.; Tanislav, D.; Radulescu, C.; Serban, G.; Danielescu, S.; Reid, M.; Dunea, D. Evaluation of Shallow Groundwater Quality at Regional Scales Using Adaptive Water Quality Indices. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 10637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rus, I.; Șerban, G.; Brețcan, P.; Dunea, D.; Sabău, D. Identification of Vegetation Surfaces and Volumes by Height Levels in Reservoir Deltas Using UAS Techniques—Case Study at Gilău Reservoir, Transylvania, Romania. Sustainability 2024, 16, 648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dunea, D.; Bretcan, P.; Tanislav, D.; Serban, G.; Teodorescu, R.; Iordache, S.; Petrescu, N.; Tuchiu, E. Evaluation of Water Quality in Ialomita River Basin in Relationship with Land Cover Patterns. Water 2020, 12, 735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dunea, D.; Bretcan, P.; Purcoi, L.; Tanislav, D.; Serban, G.; Neagoe, A.; Iordache, V.; Iordache, Ș. Effects of riparian vegetation on evapotranspiration processes and water quality of small plain streams. Ecohydrol. Hydrobiol. 2021, 21, 629–640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zăvoianu, I. Morphometrical model of average mean channel slope in the Buzău Subcarpathians. Rev. Roum. Geol. Geophys. Geogr. Série Geogr. 1988, 32, 37–42. [Google Scholar]
- Bretcan, P.; Dunea, D.; Vintescu, G.; Tanislav, D.; Zelenakova, M.; Predescu, L.; Șerban, G.; Borowiak, D.; Rus, I.; Sabău, D.A.; et al. Automated versus Manual Mapping of Gravel Pit Lakes from South-Eastern Romania for Detailed Morphometry and Vegetation. Water 2022, 14, 1858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Horton, R.E. Erosional development of streams and their drainage basin; hydrophysical approach to quantitative morphology. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 1945, 56, 151–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, K.G. Standards for grading texture of erosional topography. Am. J. Sci. 1950, 248, 655–668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miller, V.C. A Quantitative Geomorphic Study of Drainage Basin Characteristics in the Clinch Mountain Area, Virginia and Tennessee; Technical Report (Columbia University. Department of Geology): New York, NY, USA, 1953. [Google Scholar]
- Melton, M.A. An Analysis of the Relations among Elements of Climate, Surface Properties, and Geomorphology; Columbia University: New York, NY, USA, 1957. [Google Scholar]
- Thomas, P.G.; Doherty, P.C. The analytic hierarchy. In Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA; Citeseer: Princeton, NJ, USA, 1980. [Google Scholar]
- Ichim, I. Cateva Observatii Asupra Raportului de Confluenta; Bull Publishing: Suceava, Romania, 1984. [Google Scholar]
- Enea, A.; Stoleriu, C.C.; Iosub, M.; Niacsu, L. A GIS Automated Tool for Morphometric Flood Analysis Based on the Horton–Strahler River Classification System. Water 2024, 16, 536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schumm, S.A. Evolution of drainage systems and slopes in badlands at Perth Amboy, New Jersey. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 1956, 67, 597–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chendes, V.; Balteanu, D.; Sima, M. Flood Events in the Curvature Subcarpathians (Romania); Romanian Academy Institute of Geography: Bucharest, Romania, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Armaş, I. Bazinul Hidrografic Doftana: Studiu de Geomorfologie; Editura Enciclopedică: Bucharest, Romania, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Constantin, M.; Bednarik, M.; Jurchescu, M.C.; Vlaicu, M. Landslide susceptibility assessment using the bivariate statistical analysis and the index of entropy in the Sibiciu Basin (Romania). Environ. Earth Sci. 2011, 63, 397–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Odiji, C.A.; Aderoju, O.M.; Eta, J.B.; Shehu, I.; Mai-Bukar, A.; Onuoha, H. Morphometric analysis and prioritization of upper Benue River watershed. North. Niger. Appl. Water Sci. 2021, 11, 41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Diaconu, D.C.; Andronache, I.; Pintilii, R.I.; Breţcan, P.; Simion, A.G.; Drăghici, C.C.; Gruia, K.A.; Grecu, A.; Marin, M.; Peptenatu, D. Using fractal fragmentation index (FFI) in analysis of the deforestation process in Bucegi Mountains Group, Romania. Carpathian J. Earth Environ. Sci. 2019, 14, 431–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dunea, D.; Șerban, G.; Brețcan, P. Hydroinformatic Tools and Spatial Analyses for Water Resources and Extreme Water Events. Water 2023, 15, 463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Minea, G. Assessment of the flash flood potential of Basca river catchment (Romania) based on physiographic factors. Open Geosci. 2013, 5, 344–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ovreiu, A.B.; Barsoianu, L.A.; Nedelea, A.; Comanescu, L.; Nistor, C. Implementation of a new model on soil erosion. Case study-Văratica hydrographic basin (Cozia Mountains, Romania). Z. Für Geomorphol. 2018, 62, 41–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aouragh, M.H.; Essahlaoui, A. A TOPSIS approach-based morphometric analysis for sub-watersheds prioritization of high Oum Er-Rbia basin, Morocco. Spat. Inf. Res. 2018, 26, 187–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Malik, A.; Kumar, A.; Kandpal, H. Morphometric analysis and prioritization of sub-watersheds in a hilly watershed using weighted sum approach. Arab. J. Geosci. 2019, 12, 118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Godif, G.; Manjunatha, B.R. Prioritizing sub-watersheds for soil and water conservation via morphometric analysis and the weighted sum approach: A case study of the Geba river basin in Tigray, Ethiopia. Heliyon 2022, 8, e12261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Horton, R.E. Drainage basin characteristics transactions. Am. Geophys. Union 1932, 13, 350–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Strahler, A.N. Quantitative analysis of watershed geomorphology. Eos Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 1957, 38, 913–920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Strahler, A. Geografia Fizică; Editura Științifică: Bucharest, Romania, 1973. [Google Scholar]
- Chendeș, V. Resursele de Apă Din Subcarpații de la Curbură. Evaluări Geospațiale; Editura Academiei Române: Bucharest, Romania, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Bogale, A. Morphometric analysis of a drainage basin using geographical information system in Gilgel Abay watershed, Lake Tana Basin, upper Blue Nile Basin, Ethiopia. Appl. Water Sci. 2021, 11, 122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sankriti, R.; Subbarayan, S.; Aluru, M.; Devanantham, A.; Reddy, N.; Ayyakkannu, S. Morphometric analysis and prioritization of sub-watersheds of Himayatsagar catchment, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana, India using remote sensing and GIS techniques. Int. J. Syst. Assur. Eng. Manag. 2021, 12, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tukura, N.G.; Akalu, M.M.; Hussein, M.; Befekadu, A. Morphometric analysis and sub-watershed prioritization of Welmal watershed, Ganale-Dawa River Basin, Ethiopia: Implications for sediment erosion. J. Sediment. Environ. 2021, 6, 121–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sarkar, P.; Kumar, P.; Vishwakarma, D.K.; Ashok, A.; Elbeltagi, A.; Gupta, S.; Kuriqi, A. Watershed prioritization using morphometric analysis by MCDM approaches. Ecol. Inform. 2022, 70, 101763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mundetia, N.; Sharma, D.; Dubey, S.K. Morphometric assessment and sub-watershed prioritization of Khari River basin in semi-arid region of Rajasthan, India. Arab. J. Geosci. 2018, 11, 503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chaudhary, S.; Pandey, A.C. PCA driven watershed prioritization based on runoff modeling and drought severity assessment in parts of Koel river basin, Jharkhand (India). Water Supply 2022, 22, 2034–2054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahmed, R.; Sajjad, H.; Husain, I. Morphometric parameters-based prioritization of sub-watersheds using fuzzy analytical hierarchy process: A case study of lower Barpani Watershed, India. Nat. Resour. Res. 2018, 27, 67–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghosh, M.; Gope, D. Hydro-morphometric characterization and prioritization of sub-watersheds for land and water resource management using fuzzy analytical hierarchical process (FAHP): A case study of upper Rihand watershed of Chhattisgarh State, India. Appl. Water Sci. 2021, 11, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shelar, R.S.; Shinde, S.P.; Pande, C.B.; Moharir, K.N.; Orimoloye, I.R.; Mishra, A.P.; Varade, A.M. Sub-watershed prioritization of Koyna river basin in India using multi criteria analytical hierarchical process, remote sensing and GIS techniques. Phys. Chem. Earth Parts A/B/C 2022, 128, 103219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meshram, S.G.; Sepheri, M.; Meshram, C.; Moatamed, A.; Benzougagh, B.; Parvizi, S.; Bazrafshan, E.; Rahimi, Y. Prioritization of watersheds based on a picture fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and linear assignment model. Stoch. Environ. Res. Risk Assess. 2023, 37, 735–748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grecu, F. Bazinul Hârtibaciu. Elemente de Morfohidrografie; Ed Academiei: Bucharest, Romania, 1992. [Google Scholar]
- Grecu, F.; Zăvoianu, I. Bazinul morfohidrografic. Rev. Geomorfol. 1997, 1, 99–106. [Google Scholar]
- Zăvoianu, I.; Herișanu, G.; Marin, C.; Cruceru, N.; Parichi, M.; Vartolomei, F. Relații Cantitative Între Producția de Aluviuni în Suspensie și Factorii de Mediu; Editura Transversal: Bucharest, Romania, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Zaharia, L.; Costache, R.; Prăvălie, R.; Minea, G. Assessment and mapping of flood potential in the Slănic catchment in Romania. J. Earth Syst. Sci. 2015, 124, 1311–1324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Popa, M.C.; Peptenatu, D.; Drăghici, C.C.; Diaconu, D.C. Flood hazard mapping using the flood and flash-flood potential index in the Buzău River catchment, Romania. Water 2019, 11, 2116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prăvălie, R.; Costache, R. The vulnerability of the territorial-administrative units to the hydrological phenomena of risk (flash-floods). Case study: The subcarpathian sector of Buzău catchment. Analele Univ. Oradea—Ser. Geogr. 2013, 23, 91–98. [Google Scholar]
- Constantin, M.; Rotaru, A.; Nishimoto, H.; Yamakoshi, T. Geomorphological hazards in Romania. Some examples from the area situated at the contact between Buzău Carpathians and Buzău Subcarpathians. J. Jpn. Soc. Erosion. Control Eng. 2005, 58, 59–62. (In Japanese) [Google Scholar]
- Armaş, I.; Nistoran, D.E.G.; Osaci-Costache, G.; Braşoveanu, L. Morpho-dynamic evolution patterns of subCarpathian Prahova River (Romania). Catena 2013, 100, 83–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grecu, F.; Comănescu, L. The morphometric analysis of the gravels from the Slănic of Buzău bed–preliminary considerations. Rev. Geomorfol. 2006, 8, 45–52. [Google Scholar]
- Iancu, M.; Ielenicz, M. Depresiunea și Munții Întorsura Buzăului [Depression and Întorsura Buzăului Mountains]; Alua: Gheorghe, Romania, 1972; pp. 233–240. [Google Scholar]
- Frunzescu, D.; Brănoiu, G. Monografia Geologică a Bazinlui Râului Buzău; Editura Universității din București: Bucharest, Romania, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Longley, P.A.; Goodchild, M.F.; Maguire, D.J.; Rhind, D.W. Geographic Information Science and Systems; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Faniran, A. The index of drainage intensity—a provisional new drainage factor. Aust. J. Sci. 1968, 31, 328–330. [Google Scholar]
- Gâştescu, P.; Breţcan, P. Hidrologie Continentală şi Oceanografie; Edit Transversal: Bucharest, Romania, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Strahler, A.N. Quantitative geomorphology of drainage basins and channel networks. In Hand Book of Applied Hydrology; Te Chow, V., Ed.; McGraw Hill Book Company: New York, NY, USA, 1964. [Google Scholar]
- Smart, J.S. The analysis of drainage network composition. Earth Surf. Process. 1978, 3, 129–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abrahams, A.D. Factor analysis of drainage basin properties: Evidence for stream abstraction accompanying the degradation of relief. Water Resour. Res. 1972, 8, 624–633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morisawa, M.E. Quantitative geomorphology of some watersheds in the Appalachian Plateau. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 1962, 73, 1025–1046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ichim, I.; Batuca, D.; Radoane, M.; Duma, D. Morfologia si Dinamica Albiilor de Rauri; Edit Tehnica: Bucharest, Romania, 1989. [Google Scholar]
- Shreve, R.L. Variation of mainstream length with basin area in river networks. Water Resour. Res. 1974, 10, 1167–1177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Nr. | Parameter | Formula | References |
---|---|---|---|
Morphometry of watershed | |||
1 | Catchment area (A) (sq.km) | Area of the watershed | |
2 | Catchment perimeter (P) (km) | Perimeter of the watershed | |
3 | Max. elevation in basin (H) (m) | ||
4 | Min. elevation in basin (h) (m) | ||
5 | Catchment length () (km) | [43] | |
6 | Slope (S) (‰) | ||
Morphometry of the hydrographic network | |||
1 | Order of stream () | Hierarchical rank | [24,44] |
2 | Stream number () | Sum of stream segments of each order | [24,44] |
3 | Length of Stream () (km) | Length of the stream | [24] |
Derived properties of watershed and hydrographic network | |||
1 | Bifurcation ratio () | [31] | |
2 | Stream-length ratio () | [24] | |
3 | RHO coefficient | [24] | |
4 | Drainage density () | [43] | |
5 | Stream frequency () | [24] | |
6 | Drainage texture ratio () | [24] | |
7 | Texture ratio (T) | [24] | |
8 | Infiltration number () | [69] | |
9 | Drainage intensity | [69] | |
10 | Length of overland flow () | [24] | |
11 | Basin relief () | [24] | |
12 | Relief ratio () | [31] | |
13 | Ruggedness number () | [44] | |
14 | Circularity ratio () | [26] | |
15 | Compactness coefficient () | [24] | |
16 | Elongation ratio () | [31] | |
17 | Form factor () | [43] | |
18 | Shape factor () | [43] |
Area | SW | 1st Scenario | 2nd Scenario | Compound Parameter Value | Priority | Priority Class | |||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dd | Fs | Rb | Rc | Re | Rf | Lo | Bh | Rh | Rn | DT | If | Rl | T | Di | RHO | Bs | Cc | ||||||
Carpathian area | SW 1 | Scenario 1 | 1 | 1 | 9 | 15 | 25 | 27 | 39 | 6 | 3 | 1 | 6 | 12.09 | 3 | Very high | |||||||
Scenario 2 | 1 | 1 | 9 | 15 | 25 | 27 | 39 | 6 | 3 | 1 | 6 | 1 | 3 | 6 | 6 | 20 | 12 | 15 | 10.88 | 1 | Very high | ||
SW 2 | Scenario 1 | 8 | 7 | 15 | 19 | 14 | 18 | 31 | 4 | 7 | 4 | 10 | 12.45 | 4 | Very high | ||||||||
Scenario 2 | 8 | 7 | 15 | 19 | 14 | 18 | 31 | 4 | 7 | 4 | 10 | 6 | 7 | 11 | 13 | 36 | 22 | 19 | 13.94 | 3 | Very high | ||
SW 3 | Scenario 1 | 15 | 11 | 22 | 12 | 15 | 14 | 22 | 18 | 22 | 15 | 14 | 16.36 | 8 | High | ||||||||
Scenario 2 | 15 | 11 | 22 | 12 | 15 | 14 | 22 | 18 | 22 | 15 | 14 | 11 | 22 | 16 | 16 | 14 | 23 | 14 | 16.44 | 6 | High | ||
SW 4 | Scenario 1 | 12 | 14 | 2 | 32 | 26 | 28 | 26 | 28 | 21 | 22 | 19 | 20.90 | 22 | Medium | ||||||||
Scenario 2 | 12 | 14 | 2 | 32 | 26 | 28 | 26 | 28 | 21 | 22 | 19 | 13 | 21 | 22 | 21 | 27 | 13 | 32 | 21.05 | 27 | Low | ||
SW 5 | Scenario 1 | 5 | 28 | 11 | 33 | 36 | 36 | 33 | 33 | 16 | 23 | 33 | 26.09 | 35 | Very low | ||||||||
Scenario 2 | 5 | 28 | 11 | 33 | 36 | 36 | 33 | 33 | 16 | 23 | 33 | 23 | 16 | 24 | 33 | 12 | 3 | 33 | 23.94 | 31 | Very low | ||
SW 6 | Scenario 1 | 16 | 12 | 23 | 13 | 10 | 11 | 23 | 29 | 34 | 26 | 7 | 18.54 | 16 | High | ||||||||
Scenario 2 | 16 | 12 | 23 | 13 | 10 | 11 | 23 | 29 | 34 | 26 | 7 | 12 | 34 | 9 | 14 | 21 | 29 | 12 | 18.61 | 16 | High | ||
SW 7 | Scenario 1 | 4 | 3 | 25 | 34 | 29 | 32 | 36 | 35 | 25 | 27 | 12 | 23.81 | 31 | Low | ||||||||
Scenario 2 | 4 | 3 | 25 | 34 | 29 | 32 | 36 | 35 | 25 | 27 | 12 | 4 | 25 | 14 | 7 | 22 | 7 | 34 | 20.83 | 26 | Low | ||
SW 8 | Scenario 1 | 11 | 6 | 18 | 17 | 16 | 15 | 29 | 22 | 23 | 17 | 8 | 16.54 | 9 | High | ||||||||
Scenario 2 | 11 | 6 | 18 | 17 | 16 | 15 | 29 | 22 | 23 | 17 | 8 | 7 | 23 | 12 | 8 | 28 | 25 | 17 | 16.77 | 8 | High | ||
SW 9 | Scenario 1 | 13 | 8 | 17 | 25 | 24 | 24 | 27 | 24 | 12 | 18 | 16 | 18.90 | 18 | High | ||||||||
Scenario 2 | 13 | 8 | 17 | 25 | 24 | 24 | 27 | 24 | 12 | 18 | 16 | 8 | 12 | 19 | 9 | 34 | 16 | 25 | 18.38 | 14 | High | ||
SW 10 | Scenario 1 | 21 | 20 | 5 | 31 | 27 | 25 | 19 | 9 | 4 | 11 | 22 | 17.63 | 11 | High | ||||||||
Scenario 2 | 21 | 20 | 5 | 31 | 27 | 25 | 19 | 9 | 4 | 11 | 22 | 18 | 4 | 26 | 24 | 37 | 14 | 31 | 19.33 | 20 | Medium | ||
SW 11 | Scenario 1 | 7 | 29 | 8 | 37 | 21 | 21 | 34 | 16 | 14 | 13 | 27 | 20.63 | 21 | Medium | ||||||||
Scenario 2 | 7 | 29 | 8 | 37 | 21 | 21 | 34 | 16 | 14 | 13 | 27 | 24 | 14 | 10 | 34 | 23 | 17 | 37 | 21.44 | 29 | Low | ||
SW 12 | Scenario 1 | 14 | 13 | 12 | 30 | 38 | 38 | 28 | 8 | 1 | 6 | 24 | 19.27 | 19 | Medium | ||||||||
Scenario 2 | 14 | 13 | 12 | 30 | 38 | 38 | 28 | 8 | 1 | 6 | 24 | 10 | 1 | 29 | 18 | 29 | 1 | 30 | 18.33 | 12 | High | ||
SW 13 | Scenario 1 | 19 | 19 | 14 | 38 | 12 | 12 | 20 | 5 | 18 | 10 | 11 | 16.18 | 7 | High | ||||||||
Scenario 2 | 19 | 19 | 14 | 38 | 12 | 12 | 20 | 5 | 18 | 10 | 11 | 16 | 18 | 2 | 23 | 30 | 28 | 38 | 18.5 | 15 | High | ||
SW 14 | Scenario 1 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 21 | 39 | 39 | 38 | 17 | 2 | 5 | 18 | 17.18 | 10 | High | ||||||||
Scenario 2 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 21 | 39 | 39 | 38 | 17 | 2 | 5 | 18 | 3 | 2 | 21 | 19 | 39 | 2 | 22 | 16.5 | 7 | High | ||
SW 15 | Scenario 1 | 3 | 2 | 19 | 9 | 17 | 16 | 37 | 10 | 13 | 2 | 2 | 11.81 | 2 | Very high | ||||||||
Scenario 2 | 3 | 2 | 19 | 9 | 17 | 16 | 37 | 10 | 13 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 13 | 3 | 5 | 31 | 26 | 8 | 12.11 | 2 | Very high | ||
SW 16 | Scenario 1 | 10 | 9 | 21 | 10 | 1 | 1 | 30 | 1 | 32 | 3 | 1 | 10.81 | 1 | Very high | ||||||||
Scenario 2 | 10 | 9 | 21 | 10 | 1 | 1 | 30 | 1 | 32 | 3 | 1 | 9 | 32 | 4 | 11 | 32 | 39 | 11 | 14.27 | 4 | Very high | ||
SW 17 | Scenario 1 | 9 | 31 | 33 | 27 | 22 | 22 | 32 | 11 | 8 | 9 | 28 | 21.09 | 23 | Medium | ||||||||
Scenario 2 | 9 | 31 | 33 | 27 | 22 | 22 | 32 | 11 | 8 | 9 | 28 | 25 | 8 | 15 | 35 | 13 | 18 | 27 | 20.72 | 25 | Low | ||
SW 18 | Scenario 1 | 6 | 5 | 28 | 29 | 34 | 34 | 35 | 26 | 10 | 19 | 17 | 22.09 | 25 | Low | ||||||||
Scenario 2 | 6 | 5 | 28 | 29 | 34 | 34 | 35 | 26 | 10 | 19 | 17 | 5 | 10 | 23 | 10 | 15 | 5 | 28 | 18.83 | 17 | High | ||
SW 19 | Scenario 1 | 20 | 21 | 10 | 22 | 30 | 29 | 21 | 15 | 6 | 16 | 25 | 19.54 | 20 | Medium | ||||||||
Scenario 2 | 20 | 21 | 10 | 22 | 30 | 29 | 21 | 15 | 6 | 16 | 25 | 19 | 6 | 30 | 26 | 16 | 9 | 21 | 19 | 18 | Medium | ||
SW 20 | Scenario 1 | 36 | 33 | 36 | 39 | 19 | 19 | 4 | 19 | 20 | 32 | 26 | 25.72 | 33 | Very low | ||||||||
Scenario 2 | 36 | 33 | 36 | 39 | 19 | 19 | 4 | 19 | 20 | 32 | 26 | 34 | 20 | 32 | 17 | 24 | 20 | 39 | 26.05 | 37 | Very low | ||
SW 21 | Scenario 1 | 17 | 15 | 20 | 28 | 20 | 21 | 24 | 12 | 15 | 14 | 15 | 18.27 | 14 | High | ||||||||
Scenario 2 | 17 | 15 | 20 | 28 | 20 | 21 | 24 | 12 | 15 | 14 | 15 | 14 | 15 | 18 | 22 | 33 | 21 | 29 | 19.61 | 21 | Medium | ||
Subcarpathian area | SW 22 | Scenario 1 | 25 | 10 | 26 | 20 | 31 | 30 | 15 | 23 | 9 | 25 | 20 | 21.27 | 24 | Medium | |||||||
Scenario 2 | 25 | 10 | 26 | 20 | 31 | 30 | 15 | 23 | 9 | 25 | 20 | 15 | 9 | 25 | 4 | 10 | 10 | 20 | 18.16 | 11 | High | ||
SW 23 | Scenario 1 | 18 | 32 | 29 | 36 | 28 | 26 | 25 | 25 | 17 | 20 | 30 | 26 | 34 | Very low | ||||||||
Scenario 2 | 18 | 32 | 29 | 36 | 28 | 26 | 25 | 25 | 17 | 20 | 30 | 28 | 17 | 20 | 32 | 17 | 15 | 36 | 25.05 | 33 | Very low | ||
SW 24 | Scenario 1 | 24 | 22 | 30 | 14 | 3 | 4 | 16 | 2 | 28 | 8 | 4 | 14.09 | 6 | Very high | ||||||||
Scenario 2 | 24 | 22 | 30 | 14 | 3 | 4 | 16 | 2 | 28 | 8 | 4 | 20 | 28 | 8 | 25 | 25 | 36 | 13 | 17.22 | 9 | High | ||
SW 25 | Scenario 1 | 29 | 17 | 7 | 35 | 35 | 35 | 11 | 27 | 11 | 28 | 23 | 23.45 | 29 | Low | ||||||||
Scenario 2 | 29 | 17 | 7 | 35 | 35 | 35 | 11 | 27 | 11 | 28 | 23 | 22 | 11 | 28 | 3 | 2 | 6 | 35 | 20.27 | 23 | Medium | ||
SW 26 | Scenario 1 | 22 | 24 | 38 | 7 | 8 | 6 | 18 | 21 | 26 | 12 | 13 | 17.72 | 13 | High | ||||||||
Scenario 2 | 22 | 24 | 38 | 7 | 8 | 6 | 18 | 21 | 26 | 12 | 13 | 21 | 26 | 17 | 28 | 18 | 32 | 9 | 19.22 | 19 | Medium | ||
SW 27 | Scenario 1 | 26 | 26 | 31 | 23 | 37 | 37 | 13 | 7 | 5 | 24 | 29 | 23.45 | 29 | Low | ||||||||
Scenario 2 | 26 | 26 | 31 | 23 | 37 | 37 | 13 | 7 | 5 | 24 | 29 | 26 | 5 | 34 | 27 | 8 | 4 | 23 | 21.38 | 28 | Low | ||
SW 28 | Scenario 1 | 33 | 16 | 35 | 16 | 9 | 7 | 6 | 14 | 30 | 30 | 5 | 18.27 | 15 | High | ||||||||
Scenario 2 | 33 | 16 | 35 | 16 | 9 | 7 | 6 | 14 | 30 | 30 | 5 | 30 | 30 | 7 | 2 | 3 | 31 | 16 | 17.77 | 10 | High | ||
SW 29 | Scenario 1 | 30 | 34 | 3 | 26 | 32 | 31 | 10 | 34 | 24 | 31 | 37 | 26.54 | 36 | Very low | ||||||||
Scenario 2 | 30 | 34 | 3 | 26 | 32 | 31 | 10 | 34 | 24 | 31 | 37 | 33 | 24 | 31 | 30 | 5 | 11 | 26 | 25.11 | 34 | Very low | ||
SW 30 | Scenario 1 | 23 | 18 | 34 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 17 | 3 | 28 | 7 | 3 | 12.72 | 5 | Very high | ||||||||
Scenario 2 | 23 | 18 | 34 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 17 | 3 | 28 | 7 | 3 | 17 | 28 | 5 | 20 | 19 | 38 | 3 | 15 | 5 | Very high | ||
SW 31 | Scenario 1 | 28 | 25 | 6 | 1 | 33 | 33 | 12 | 30 | 19 | 29 | 32 | 22.54 | 27 | Low | ||||||||
Scenario 2 | 28 | 25 | 6 | 1 | 33 | 33 | 12 | 30 | 19 | 29 | 32 | 27 | 19 | 35 | 15 | 6 | 8 | 1 | 19.94 | 22 | Medium | ||
SW 32 | Scenario 1 | 39 | 23 | 27 | 8 | 5 | 5 | 1 | 20 | 33 | 35 | 9 | 18.63 | 17 | High | ||||||||
Scenario 2 | 39 | 23 | 27 | 8 | 5 | 5 | 1 | 20 | 33 | 35 | 9 | 32 | 33 | 13 | 1 | 4 | 35 | 7 | 18.33 | 13 | High | ||
SW 33 | Scenario 1 | 33 | 30 | 1 | 4 | 23 | 23 | 8 | 32 | 27 | 33 | 31 | 22.27 | 26 | Low | ||||||||
Scenario 2 | 33 | 30 | 1 | 4 | 23 | 23 | 8 | 32 | 27 | 33 | 31 | 31 | 27 | 33 | 12 | 38 | 19 | 4 | 22.72 | 30 | Low | ||
SW 34 | Scenario 1 | 27 | 27 | 24 | 2 | 6 | 8 | 14 | 13 | 31 | 21 | 21 | 17.63 | 12 | High | ||||||||
Scenario 2 | 27 | 27 | 24 | 2 | 6 | 8 | 14 | 13 | 31 | 21 | 21 | 29 | 31 | 27 | 29 | 26 | 33 | 2 | 20.61 | 24 | Low | ||
Plains area | SW 35 | Scenario 1 | 38 | 38 | 32 | 5 | 13 | 13 | 2 | 36 | 36 | 36 | 39 | 26.18 | 36 | Very low | |||||||
Scenario 2 | 38 | 38 | 32 | 5 | 13 | 13 | 2 | 36 | 36 | 36 | 39 | 39 | 36 | 1 | 37 | 1 | 27 | 5 | 24.11 | 32 | Very low | ||
SW 36 | Scenario 1 | 35 | 37 | 16 | 18 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 31 | 35 | 34 | 34 | 22.90 | 28 | Low | ||||||||
Scenario 2 | 35 | 37 | 16 | 18 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 31 | 35 | 34 | 34 | 36 | 35 | 36 | 38 | 9 | 37 | 18 | 25.61 | 35 | Very low | ||
SW 37 | Scenario 1 | 31 | 35 | 13 | 24 | 18 | 17 | 9 | 39 | 39 | 39 | 35 | 27.18 | 38 | Very low | ||||||||
Scenario 2 | 31 | 35 | 13 | 24 | 18 | 17 | 9 | 39 | 39 | 39 | 35 | 35 | 39 | 37 | 36 | 35 | 24 | 24 | 29.38 | 39 | Very low | ||
SW 38 | Scenario 1 | 34 | 39 | 39 | 11 | 11 | 10 | 7 | 38 | 38 | 38 | 38 | 27.54 | 39 | Very low | ||||||||
Scenario 2 | 34 | 39 | 39 | 11 | 11 | 10 | 7 | 38 | 38 | 38 | 38 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 39 | 7 | 30 | 10 | 27.94 | 38 | Very low | ||
SW 39 | Scenario 1 | 37 | 36 | 37 | 6 | 7 | 9 | 3 | 37 | 37 | 37 | 26 | 24.72 | 32 | Very low | ||||||||
Scenario 2 | 37 | 36 | 37 | 6 | 7 | 9 | 3 | 37 | 37 | 37 | 26 | 38 | 37 | 38 | 31 | 11 | 34 | 6 | 25.94 | 36 | Very low |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Pastor, I.; Tanislav, D.; Nedelea, A.; Dunea, D.; Serban, G.; Haghighi, A.T.; Sabau, D.; Bretcan, P. Morphometric Analysis and Prioritization of Sub-Watersheds Located in Heterogeneous Geographical Units—Case Study: The Buzău River Basin. Sustainability 2024, 16, 7567. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177567
Pastor I, Tanislav D, Nedelea A, Dunea D, Serban G, Haghighi AT, Sabau D, Bretcan P. Morphometric Analysis and Prioritization of Sub-Watersheds Located in Heterogeneous Geographical Units—Case Study: The Buzău River Basin. Sustainability. 2024; 16(17):7567. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177567
Chicago/Turabian StylePastor, Ioana, Danut Tanislav, Alexandru Nedelea, Daniel Dunea, Gheorghe Serban, Ali Torabi Haghighi, Daniel Sabau, and Petre Bretcan. 2024. "Morphometric Analysis and Prioritization of Sub-Watersheds Located in Heterogeneous Geographical Units—Case Study: The Buzău River Basin" Sustainability 16, no. 17: 7567. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177567