@Research Paper
<#LINE#>Integrating remote sensing and GIS for quantitative analysis of Nag River Basin, Maharashtra, India<#LINE#>Flawiya S. @More,Khan @Tahama,Yogesh P. @Lolage,Gautam @Gupta <#LINE#>1-10<#LINE#>1.ISCA-IRJES-2023-005.pdf<#LINE#>Indian Institute of Geomagnetism, Navi Mumbai 410218, India@Indian Institute of Geomagnetism, Navi Mumbai 410218, India@School of Earth Sciences, SRTM University, Nanded- 431606, Maharashtra, India@Dr. KSK Geomagnetic Research Laboratory, IIG, Prayagraj 221505, India<#LINE#>8/7/2023<#LINE#>16/10/2023<#LINE#>Morphometric analysis of the extinguishing Nag River Basin, Maharashtra, India, will be a boon for the basin's conservation and sustainable development. Employing SRTM data and GIS tools, this analysis has proven to be a proficient method for extracting the river basin and determining its morphometric parameters, including drainage network, basin geometry analysis, texture and relief analysis etc. The Strahler method has been adapted for stream ordering in Arc GIS 10.3. The resulting extraction processes have unveiled that the river basin is dendritic to sub-dendritic type branching in east-west direction. The Nag River Basin stretch is about 810 square kilometres. Relief analysis has shown that the slopes within the Nag River Basin range from 1.2 to 23 degrees, and these changes in elevation are significantly impacted by the geological and geomorphological features present within the area. Moreover, the basin's mean stream length ratio is 0.55 km, indicating elongated shape with gentle slopes. From this study, it is understood that the development of the Nag River watershed and its streams is governed by the subsurface lithology present there.<#LINE#>Naik, P. K., & Awasthi, A. K. (2003).@Groundwater resources assessment of the Koyna River basin, India.@Hydrogeology Journal, 11, 582-594.@No$Vijesh, V.K. (2013).@Groundwater information, Jalgaon district, Maharashtra.@Central Ground Water Board. Technical Report. 1788/DBR/2013.@Yes$Prabu, P., & Baskaran, R. (2013).@Drainage morphometry of upper Vaigai river sub-basin, Western Ghats, South India using remote sensing and GIS.@Journal of the Geological Society of India, 82, 519-528.@Yes$Reddy, P. R., Kumar, K. V., & Seshadri, K. (1996).@Use of IRS-1C data in groundwater studies.@Current Science, 600-605.@Yes$Rajasekhar, M., Raju, G. S., & Raju, R. S. (2020).@Morphometric analysis of the Jilledubanderu river basin, Anantapur District, Andhra Pradesh, India, using geospatial technologies.@Groundwater for Sustainable Development, 11, 100434.@Yes$Prakasam, C. (2010).@Land use and land cover change detection through remote sensing approach: A case study of Kodaikanal taluk, Tamil nadu.@International journal of Geomatics and Geosciences, 1(2), 150.@Yes$Gupta, R. P. (2017).@Remote sensing geology.@Springer.@Yes$Yadav, S. K., Dubey, A., Singh, S. K., & Yadav, D. (2020).@Spatial regionalisation of morphometric characteristics of mini watershed of Northern Foreland of Peninsular India.@Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 13, 1-16.@Yes$Sharaddeep and Gupta, D.C. (2021).@Study of morphotectonics in relation to Neotectonic Activity in parts of Tapi River Valley: A review.@Int. J. Geography, Geol.  Environ., 3(2), 117-120.@Yes$Krishnamurthy, J., & Srinivas, G. (1995).@Role of geological and geomorphological factors in ground water exploration: a study using IRS LISS data.@International Journal of Remote Sensing, 16(14), 2595-2618.@Yes$Ranade, P., & Katpatal, Y. B. (2008).@Effects of Urbanization on River Morphometry: A Case Study For Nag River Urban Watershed Using Geomatics Approach.@Journal on Geoinformatics, Nepal, 8-11.@Yes$Sreedevi, P. D., Owais, S. H. H. K., Khan, H. H., & Ahmed, S. (2009).@Morphometric analysis of a watershed of South India using SRTM data and GIS.@Journal of the geological society of India, 73, 543-552.@Yes$Umrikar, B. N. (2017).@Morphometric analysis of Andhale watershed, Taluka Mulshi, District Pune, India.@Applied Water Science, 7, 2231-2243.@Yes$Shailaja, G., Umrikar, B. N., Kadam, A. K., & Gupta, G. (2022).@Morphometric characterization of sub-basins in a hard-rock aquifer system of Maharashtra, India, using geospatial and geostatistical tools.@Applied Geomatics, 14(1), 65-78.@Yes$Pande, C. B., & Moharir, K. (2017).@GIS based quantitative morphometric analysis and its consequences: a case study from Shanur River Basin, Maharashtra India.@Applied Water Science, 7(2), 861-871.@Yes$Ansari, K., and Khandeshwar, S.R. (2014).@Groundwater analysis in the vicinity of Nag River.@Int. J. Res. Engg. Tech., 3(11), 259-263@Yes$Sonar, M. A., Sirsat, S. K., Kadam, V. B., & Golekar, R. B. (2021).@Morphometric, Hypsometric and Hydrogeomorphic Investigation in the Region of Painganga River Basin in Buldhana District, Maharashtra, India, Using Remote Sensing & GIS Techniques.@Journal of Geomatics, 15(2), 174-188.@Yes$Manzar, A. (2013).@Ground water information Nagpur district Maharashtra.@@Yes$Rahangdale, K., Khaire, J., Bhoyar, V., Patil, H., Thakre, G., Bawne, Y., Parashar, G. and Kamble, S. (2022).@Pollution Study of nearby River (Nag River).@Int. J. Res. Appl. Sci. Engg. Tech., 10(3), 1148-1150.@Yes$Rai, P.K., Mohan, K., Mishra, S., Ahmad, A. and Mishra, V.N. (2014).@A GIS-based approach in drainage morphometric analysis of Kanhan River Basin, India.@Appl. Water Science, 4(4), https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-014-0238-y.@Yes$Horton, R. E. (1945).@Erosional development of streams and their drainage basins; hydrophysical approach to quantitative morphology.@Geological society of America bulletin, 56(3), 275-370.@Yes$Strahler, A. N. (1952).@Dynamic basis of geomorphology.@Geological society of america bulletin, 63(9), 923-938.@Yes$Strahler, A. N. (1964).@Quantitative geomorphology of drainage basin and channel networks.@Handbook of applied hydrology.@Yes$Mueller, J. E. (1968).@An introduction to the hydraulic and topographic sinuosity indexes.@Annals of the association of american geographers, 58(2), 371-385.@Yes$Chorley, R. J. (2019).@The drainage basin as the fundamental geomorphic unit.@In Introduction to physical hydrology, 37-59. Routledge.@Yes$Horton, R. E. (1932).@Drainage-basin characteristics.@Transactions, American geophysical union, 13(1), 350-361.@Yes$Rai, P. K., Mishra, V. N., & Singh, P. (Eds.). (2022).@Geospatial technology for landscape and environmental management: sustainable assessment and planning.@Singapore: Springer.@Yes$Kumar, A., Singh, S., Pramanik, M., Chaudhary, S., & Negi, M. S. (2022).@Soil erodibility mapping using watershed prioritization and morphometric parameters in conjunction with WSA, SPR and AHP-TOPSIS models in Mandakini basin, India.@International Journal of River Basin Management, 1-23.@Yes$Singh, A. P., Arya, A. K., & Singh, D. S. (2020).@Morphometric analysis of Ghaghara River Basin, India, using SRTM data and GIS.@Journal of the Geological Society of India, 95, 169-178.@Yes$Rai, P. K., Chandel, R. S., Mishra, V. N., & Singh, P. (2018).@Hydrological inferences through morphometric analysis of lower Kosi river basin of India for water resource management based on remote sensing data.@Applied water science, 8, 1-16.@Yes$Rama, V. A. (2014).@Drainage basin analysis for characterization of 3rd order watersheds using Geographic Information System (GIS) and ASTER data.@Journal of Geomatics, 8(2), 200-210.@Yes$Dekaa, B., Bharteeyb, P. K., Duttab, M., Patgirib, D. K., & Saikiab, R. (2021).@Morphometric analysis of Moridhal watershed in Dhemaji District of Assam, India using remote sensing and Geographic Information System techniques.@Desalination and Water Treatment, 242, 235-242.@Yes$Schumm, S. A. (1956).@Evolution of drainage systems and slopes in badlands at Perth Amboy, New Jersey.@Geological society of America bulletin, 67(5), 597-646.@Yes$Hack, J.T. (1957).@Studies of Longitudinal Stream-Profiles in Virginia and Maryland.@U.S. Geol. Surv. Professional Paper - 294B, 45-97.@Yes$Chorley, R. J. (1957).@Climate and morphometry.@The Journal of Geology, 65(6), 628-638.@Yes$Farhan, Y. (2017).@Morphometric assessment of Wadi Wala Watershed, Southern Jordan using ASTER (DEM) and GIS.@Journal of Geographic Information System, 9(2), 158-190.@Yes$Miller, V. C. (1953).@A quantitative geomorphic study of drainage basin characteristics in the Clinch Mountain area, Virginia and Tennessee.@Vol. 3. New York: Columbia University.@Yes$Smith, K. G. (1950).@Standards for grading texture of erosional topography.@American journal of Science, 248(9), 655-668.@Yes$Nooka Ratnam, K., Srivastava, Y. K., Venkateswara Rao, V., Amminedu, E. K. S. R., & 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.@Yes$M. A. (1957).@An analysis of the relations among elements of climate, surface properties, and geomorphology.@Vol. 11. New York: Department of Geology, Columbia University.@Yes$Smart, J. S., & Surkan, A. J. (1967).@The relation between mainstream length and area in drainage basins.@Water resources research, 3(4), 963-974.@Yes$Asfaw, D., & Workineh, G. (2019).@Quantitative analysis of morphometry on Ribb and Gumara watersheds: Implications for soil and water conservation.@International Soil and Water Conservation Research, 7(2), 150-157.@Yes$Faniran, A. (1968).@The index of drainage intensity: a provisional new drainage factor.@Aust J Sci, 31(9), 326-330.@Yes$Schumm, S. A. (1963).@Sinuosity of alluvial rivers on the Great Plains.@Geological Society of America Bulletin, 74(9), 1089-1100.@Yes$Sreedevi, P. D., Subrahmanyam, K., & Ahmed, S. (2005).@The significance of morphometric analysis for obtaining groundwater potential zones in a structurally controlled terrain.@Environmental Geology, 47, 412-420.@Yes$Patton, P. C., & Baker, V. R. (1976).@Morphometry and floods in small drainage basins subject to diverse hydrogeomorphic controls.@Water resources research, 12(5), 941-952.@Yes$Melton, M. A. (1957).@An analysis of the relations among elements of climate, surface properties, and geomorphology Vol. 11.@New York: Department of Geology, Columbia University.@Yes
@Case Study
<#LINE#>The bio-physical impacts of mopane worm harvesting in Nhwali communal lands of Gwanda District in Zimbabwe<#LINE#>Noel @Dube,Elizabeth @Nyathi <#LINE#>11-16<#LINE#>2.ISCA-IRJES-2022-002.pdf<#LINE#>Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, Zimbabwe Open University, Matebeleland South Regional Campus, Box 346, Gwanda, Zimbabwe@Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, Zimbabwe Open University, Matebeleland South Regional Campus, Box 346, Gwanda, Zimbabwe<#LINE#>28/2/2022<#LINE#>9/5/2023<#LINE#>The main aim of the study was to investigate the bio-physical impacts of mopane worm harvesting in Nhwali communal area.A case study research design was adopted for this research because it is appropriate to the problem and the advantages it possess. The population of this study was confined to three hundred and ninety five households in Nhwali, the traditional leadership and staff of the Environmental Management Agency (EMA). The sample consisted of forty household heads, two EMA officers and five village heads. The study revealed that there was accelerated deforestation mainly caused by the cutting down of trees to access the worms from tall trees and the cutting down of trees to built temporary structures during harvesting. Trees were also being cut down so that they can be used as firewood for cooking and roasting the worms so as to preserve them. The study revealed that mopane worm harvesters were one of the greatest contributors to the incidence of outbreak of veldfires in Nhwali. Fires are mainly used for cooking and drying the worms for preservation Water and land pollution was also established to beone of the major bio-physical impacts of mopane harvesting. According to the local community the quantity of the worm decreases every season due to over harvesting and harvesting the worm whilst it is immature.<#LINE#>Marongwe, S. (2002).@Insects in Southern Africa.@@No$Athur, C. (2013).@Significance of Mopane Worms in Southern Africa.@@No$Daily News (2013).@In the 1990s hundreds of tonnes of mopane worms were exported from Southern Africa each year.@13 January 2013.@No$Chavunduka, D. M. (1975).@Insects as a source of protein to the African.@Rhodesia Sci. News, 9, 217-220.@Yes$Flick, U. (2022).@An introduction to qualitative research.@@Yes$Cohen, M. and Marion, R. (2011).@Imperial Education.@Pretoria: UNISA.@No$Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (1993).@Practical research: Planning and design New York. Mac Milian.@@Yes$Cloward C. and Ohlin,K. (2002).@Data collection in context.@London: Longman.@No$Kothari, C. R. (2004).@Research methodology: Methods and techniques.@New Age International.@Yes$Conrad, C., Serlin, R., & Harwell, M. (2014).@Research Design in Qualitative Quantitative/Mixed Methods.@@Yes$Holloway, I. (1997).@Basic concepts for qualitative research.@@Yes$Lieber, E. (2009).@Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Insights into design and analysis issues.@Journal of Ethnographic & Qualitative Research, 3(4).@Yes$J. W., & Kahn, V. J. (1993).@Research in Education: Boston: Ally & Bacon Publishers.@@Yes$Cohen, M. and Marion, R. (2011).@Imperial Education. Pretoria: UNISA.@@No$Driscoll, D. L., Appiah-Yeboah, A., Salib, P., & Rupert, D. J. (2007).@Merging qualitative and quantitative data in mixed methods research: How to and why not.@@Yes$Gwimbi, P., & Dirwai, C. (2003).@Research methods in geography and environmental studies.@Zimbabwe Open University, Harare.@Yes$Neuman, L. W. (2007).@Social research methods, 6/E. Pearson Education India.@@Yes$Thomas, B. (2013).@Sustainable harvesting and trading of mopane worms (Imbrasia belina) in Northern Namibia: an experience from the Uukwaluudhi area.@International Journal of Environmental Studies, 70(4), 494-502.@Yes