Türkiye akarsu havzalarının Strahler metodu temelli morfometrik analizi

Abstract

Akarsu havzalarını şekilsel ve topoğrafik olarak inceleyen havza morfometrisi yöntemleri pek çok bilim alanında sıklıkla kullanılmaktadır. Bu yöntemler ve tekniklerin yakın döneme kadar manuel bir şekilde uygulanması, ilgili çalışmaları mekânsal ölçek bağlamında sınırlı olmaya zorlamıştır. Gelişen teknolojilerle birlikte havza morfometrisi analizlerinin otomatize şekilde gerçekleştirilebilmesi ise geniş alanlarda yüz binlerce havzanın analiz edilebilmesini mümkün kılmıştır. Bu çalışmada güncel yöntem ve teknikler kullanılarak Türkiye’nin akarsu havzaları Strahler metodu temelli olmak üzere tüm alt havzaları ile birlikte ele alınmıştır. Bu doğrultuda elde edilen 145.183 adet havza, 12 farklı morfometrik parametre ile analiz edilerek ulusal ölçekte kapsamlı ve erişilebilir bir morfometrik veri seti oluşturulması amaçlanmıştır. Analizler neticesinde oldukça kapsamlı bir veri seti elde edilmiştir. Havza morfometrisi parametrelerinin mekânsal değişimleri hem genel taban seviye havzaları hem de Devlet Su İşleri havzaları sınıflandırmaları özelinde incelenmiştir. Elde edilen verilere göre Strahler dizini arttıkça havzaların temel drenaj dokusu sabit kalırken, topoğrafik aşınım sürecinde nispeten daha ileri bir evreye ulaştıkları, şekilce uzayarak karmaşıklaştıkları ve hidrolojik kapasitelerinin üstsel şekilde büyüdüğü görülmektedir. Nihayetinde bu çalışma ile havza yönetimi, sel ve taşkın duyarlılık, erozyon, hidrolojik modelleme ve tektonizma gibi araştırma alanları için temel bir veri kaynağı oluşturulmuştur.

Keywords

• Havza Morfometrisi
• Türkiye
• Strahler
• Veri Seti

Morphometric analysis of Türkiye's river basins based on the Strahler method

Abstract

Basin morphometry methods, which analyse river basins in terms of their shape and topography, are widely utilised in numerous scientific fields. Until recently, these methods and techniques have been applied manually, limiting relevant studies to a particular small spatial scale. However, with advances in technology, the automation of basin morphometry analyses has enabled researchers to analyse thousands of watersheds at large scales. In this study, Türkiye’s river basins, including their sub-basins, were analysed using up-to-date methods and techniques based on the Strahler classification. The 145,183 basins identified through this process were analyzed using 12 different morphometric parameters, with the aim of establishing a comprehensive and accessible morphometric dataset on a national scale. As a result of the analyses, a remarkably comprehensive data set was obtained. The spatial variability of basin morphometry parameters was examined for both general-base-level basins and General Directorate of State Hydraulics basin classifications. An analysis of the data reveals that as the Strahler order increases, the basic drainage pattern of the basins remains constant, while the basins relatively reach a more advanced stage in the topographic erosion process, become more elongated and complex in shape, and their hydrological capacity grows exponentially. Ultimately, this study has established a fundamental data source for research areas such as basin management, flood and flood susceptibility, erosion, hydrological modelling and tectonics.

Keywords

• Basin Morphometry
• Türkiye
• Strahler
• Data Set

References

1. Abdeta, G. C., Tesemma, A. B., Tura, A. L., & Atlabachew, G. H. (2020). Morphometric analysis for prioritising sub- watersheds and management planning and practices in Gidabo Basin, Southern Rift Valley of Ethiopia. Applied Water Science, 10(7), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-020-01239-7
2. Agarwal, C. S. (1998). Study of drainage pattern through aerial data in Navgarh area of Varanasi district, U.P. Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing, 26(3), 169–175. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02990795
3. Ameri, A. A., Pourghasemi, H. R., & Cerda, A. (2018). Erodibility prioritisation of sub-watersheds using morphometric parameters analysis and its mapping: A comparison among TOPSIS, VIKOR, SAW, and CF multi-criteria decision making models. Science of the Total Environment, 613, 1385-1400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.09.210
4. Arabameri, A., Tiefenbacher, J. P., Blaschke, T., Pradhan, B., & Tien Bui, D. (2020). Morphometric analysis for soil erosion susceptibility mapping using novel gis-based ensemble model. Remote Sensing, 12(5), 874. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12050874
5. Babaiban, E. (2020). Morfometrik Parametreler Yardımıyla Olası Havza Taşkın Potansiyelinin Değerlendirilmesi: Doğu Akdeniz Havzası Örneği (Tez No. 656391) [Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi]. YÖK Tez Merkezi. https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi
6. Bai, B., Mu, L., & Tan, Y. (2025). A Global Lakes/Reservoirs Surface Extent Dataset (GLRSED): An Integration of Multi‐ Source Data. Geoscience Data Journal, 12(1), e285. https://doi.org/10.1002/gdj3.285
7. Bashir, B., & Alsalman, A. (2023). Geospatial analysis for tectonic assessment and soil erosion prioritisation: a case study of Wadi Al-Lith, Red Sea Coast, Saudi Arabia. Applied Sciences, 13(22), 12523. https://doi.org/10.3390/app132212523
8. Beg, A. A. F. (2015). Morphometric toolbox: a new technique in basin morphometric analysis using ArcGIS. Global Journal of Earth Science and Engineering, 2(2), 21-30.

9. Bhattacharya, R. K., Chatterjee, N. D., & Das, K. (2020). Sub- basin prioritisation for assessment of soil erosion susceptibility in Kangsabati, a plateau basin: a comparison between MCDM and SWAT models. Science of the Total Environment, 734, 139474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139474
10. Blais, J. M., & Kalff, J. (1995). The influence of lake morphometry onsediment focusing. Limnology and Oceanography, 40(3), 582–588. http://dx.doi.org/10.4319/lo.1995.40.3.0582
11. Bloesch, J. (1995). Mechanisms, measurement and importance ofsediment resuspension in lakes. Marine and Freshwater Research,46(1), 295–304. https://doi.org/10.1071/MF9950295
12. Bortolini, W., Taborda da Silveira, C., & Siame, L. (2025). Comparison of drainage network extracted from global digital elevation models with simple-flow and multi-flow 62(1), 90–110. https://doi.org/10.5380/raega.v62i1.
13. Brun, P., Zimmermann, N. E., Hari, C., Pellissier, L., & Karger, D. N. (2022). Global climate-related predictors at kilometer resolution for the past and future. Earth System Science Data, 14(12), 5573-5603. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd- 14-5573-2022
14. Chorley, R. J. (1957). Climate And Morphometry. The Journal OfGeology, 65(6), 627–638.
15. Clarke, J. I. (1996). Morphometry from maps. In Essays in geomorphology (pp. 235–274). Elsevier.
16. Corapci, F., & Ozdemir, H. (2024). A new approach to flood susceptibility analysis of urbanised alluvial fans: the case of Bursa City (Türkiye). Natural Hazards, 120(14), 12909- 12932. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-024-06723-w
17. Cürebal, İ. (2004). Madra Çayı Havzasının Hidrografik Özelliklerine Sayısal Yaklaşım. Balıkesir Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 7(11), 11-24. https://izlik.org/JA96ZT97HH
18. Cürebal, İ., & Erginal, A. E. (2007). Mıhlı Çayı Havzası’nın Jeomorfolojik Özelliklerinin Jeomorfik İndislerle Analizi. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 6(19), 126-135. https://izlik.org/JA62PD33SN
19. Dandabathula, G., Hari, R., Ghosh, K., Bera, A. K., & Srivastav, S. K. (2023). Accuracy assessment of digital bare-earth model using ICESat-2 photons: Analysis of the FABDEM. Modeling Earth Systems and Environment, 9(2), 2677- 2694. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808-022-01648-4
20. Demirbilek, S., & Turoğlu, H. (2025). Flash floods susceptibility analysis of Arsuz River Basin. Eastern Geographical Review, 30 (53), 96-111. https://doi.org/10.17295/ataunidcd.1629115
21. Elbaşı, E. (2015). Marmara Denizi akarsu havzalarının morfometrik analizi (Tez No. 422327) [Yüksek lisans tezi, İstanbul Üniversitesi]. Yükseköğretim Kurulu Tez Merkezi. https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi
22. Elbaşı, E., & Özdemir, H. (2018). Marmara denizi akarsu havzalarının morfometrik analizi. Journal of Geography, (36), 63-84. https://izlik.org/JA86XL33PR
23. Ettritch, G., Hardy, A., Bojang, L., Cross, D., Bunting, P., & Brewer, P. (2018). Enhancing digital elevation models for hydraulic modelling using flood frequency detection. Remote sensing of environment, 217, 506-522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2018.08.029
24. Fairfield, J., & Leymarie, P. (1991). Drainage networks from grid digital elevation models. Water resources research, 27(5), 709-717. https://doi.org/10.1029/90WR02658
25. Fatih, G., & Gökgöz, T. (2010). A new algorithm for extraction of continuous channel networks without problematic parallels from hydrologically corrected DEMs. Boletim de Ciências Geodésicas, 16(1), 20-38. https://revistas.ufpr.br/bcg/article/view/17241/11347
26. Gülbetekin, K. (2022). Soğanlı Çayı Havzası'nın Uygulamalı Hidrografyası (Tez No. 758123) [Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Karabük Üniversitesi]. YÖK Tez Merkezi. https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi Håkanson, L. (2005). The importance of lake morphometry for thestructure and function of lakes. International Review of Hydrobiology,90(4), 433–461. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/iroh.200410775
27. Hawker, L., Uhe, P., Paulo, L., Sosa, J., Savage, J., Sampson, C., & Neal, J. (2022). A 30 m global map of elevation with forests and buildings removed. Environmental Research Letters, 17(2), 024016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748- 9326/ac4d4f
28. Jaiswara, N. K., Pandey, P., & Pandey, A. K. (2021). Basin- Morph (MATLAB tool) for basin morphometric characterisation along the tectonically active Shillong Plateau front, India. Environmental Earth Sciences, 80(17), 570. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-021-09852- 8
29. Jose, C., Thomas, J., Prasannakumar, V., & Reghunath, R. (2019). BaDAM toolbox: A GIS-Based approach for automated drainage basin morphometry. Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing, 47(3), 467-478. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12524-018-0913-9
30. Karabulut, M. S., & Özdemir, H. (2019). Comparison of basin morphometry analyses derived from different DEMs on two drainage basins in Turkey. Environmental Earth Sciences, 78(18), 574. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665- 019-8585-5
31. Keller, E. A., & Pinter, N. (1996). Active tectonics (Vol. 338). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
32. Kuşcu, İ., & Ozdemir, H. (2025). Flood susceptibility analysis of settlement basins on a provincial scale using inventory flood data. Environmental Earth Sciences, 84(1), 15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-024-11988-2
33. Kuzucuoğlu, C., Celâl Şengör, A. M., & Çiner, A. (2019). The tectonic control on the geomorphological landscapes of Turkey. In Landscapes and landforms of Turkey (pp. 17- 40). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03515-0_3
34. Mahala, A. (2020). The significance of morphometric analysis to understand the hydrological and morphological characteristics in two different morpho-climatic settings. Applied Water Science, 10(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-019-1118-2
35. Marešová, J., Bašta, P., Gdulová, K., Barták, V., Kozhoridze, G., Šmída, J., ... & Moudrý, V. (2024). Choosing the optimal global digital elevation model for stream network delineation: Beyond vertical accuracy. Earth and Space Science, 11(12), e2024EA003743. https://doi.org/10.1029/2024EA003743
36. Marin, R. J., García, E. F., & Aristizábal, E. (2020). Effect of basin morphometric parameters on physically-based rainfall thresholds for shallow landslides. Engineering Geology, 278, 105855. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2020.105855
37. MTA, (2002), 1: 500.000 Ölçekli Türkiye Jeoloji Haritası Serisi, MTA Genel Müdürlüğü, Ankara
38. NASA JPL. (2013). NASA Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) Global 3 arc second number (NetCDF) [Data set]. NASA EOSDIS Land Processes Distributed Active Archive Center (LP DAAC). https://doi.org/10.5067/MEaSUREs/SRTM/SRTMGL3_NU MNC.003
39. Neal, J., & Hawker, L. (2023). FABDEM V1-2. January. https://doi.org/10.5523/bris.s5hqmjcdj8yo2ibzi9b4ew3s n.
40. Nişancı, G. Ş., Cihangir, M. E., & Küçükönder, M. (2024). Türkiye’de Ana Akarsu Havzaları Ölçeğinde Morfometrik İndislerle Sel/Taşkın Arasındaki İlişkinin Değerlendirilmesi. Doğu Coğrafya Dergisi, 29(51), 13-40. https://doi.org/10.17295/ataunidcd.1461010
41. Obi Reddy, G. P., Maji, A. K., & Gajbhiye, K. S. (2002). GIS for morphometric analysis of drainage basins. Geological Survey of India, 11, 9–14.
42. Ocak, F. (2026). Morfometrik Analizlerle Taşkın Potansiyelinin Belirlenmesi: Akçay Havzası (Samsun) Örneği, Türkiye. Jeomorfolojik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 16, 1-24. https://doi.org/10.46453/jader.1818945
43. O'Callaghan, J. F., & Mark, D. M. (1984). The extraction of drainage networks from digital elevation data. Computer vision, graphics, and image processing, 28(3), 323-344. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0734-189X(84)80011-0
44. Okay, A. I., & Tüysüz, O. (1999). Tethyan sutures of northern Turkey. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 156(1), 475-515. https://doi.org/10.1144/GSL.SP.1999.156.01.22
45. Okolie, C. J., & Smit, J. L. (2022). A systematic review and meta-analysis of Digital elevation model (DEM) fusion: Pre-processing, methods and applications. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 188, 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2022.03.016
46. Ozdemir, H., & Akbas, A. (2023). Is there a consistency in basin morphometry and hydrodynamic modelling results in terms of the flood generation potential of basins? A case study from the Ulus River Basin (Türkiye). Journal of Hydrology, 625, 129926. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2023.129926
47. Ozdemir, H., & Bird, D. (2009). Evaluation of morphometric parameters of drainage networks derived from topographic maps and DEM in point of floods. Environmental geology, 56(7), 1405-1415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00254-008-1235-y
48. Rai, P. K., Mohan, K., Mishra, S., Ahmad, A., & Mishra, V. N. (2017). A GIS-based approach in drainage morphometric analysis of Kanhar River Basin, India. Applied Water Science, 7(1), 217-232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201- 014-0238-y
49. Revuelta-Acosta, J. D., Garrido-Meléndez, J., Conde-Gutiérrez, R. A., & Alcalá-Perea, G. (2025). Comprehensive geospatial assessment: morphometric parameters and hydrological implications in five Mexican basins. Scientific Reports, 15(1), 21698. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598- 025-05194-8
50. Roy, S., & Chintalacheruvu, M. R. (2024). Google Earth Engine- based morphometric parameter evaluation and comparative analysis of soil erosion susceptibility using statistical and machine learning algorithms in large river basins. Earth Science Informatics, 17(1), 75-97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12145-023-01133-1
51. Różycka, M., & Migoń, P. (2021). Morphometric properties of river basins as indicators of relative tectonic activity– Problems of data handling and interpretation. Geomorphology, 389, 107807. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2021.107807
52. Sangle, A. S., & Yannawar, P. L. (2014). Morphometric analysis of watershed using GIS and RS: a review. Int J Eng Res Technol, 3(11), 499-502.
53. Schildgen, T. F., C. Yıldırım, Cosentino, D., & Strecker, M. R. (2014). Linking slab break-off, Hellenic trench retreat, and uplift of the Central and Eastern Anatolian plateaus. Earth-Science Reviews, 128, 147–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2013.11.006
54. Schwanghart, W., & Kuhn, N. J. (2010). TopoToolbox: A set of Matlab functions for topographic analysis. Environmental Modelling & Software, 25(6), 770-781. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2009.12.002
55. Sengör, A. M. C. (1979). The North Anatolian transform fault: its age, offset and tectonic significance. Journal of the Geological Society, 136(3), 269-282. https://doi.org/10.1144/gsjgs.136.3.0269
56. Shekar, P. R., & Mathew, A. (2022). Morphometric analysis for prioritising sub-watersheds of Murredu River basin, Telangana State, India, using a geographical information system. Journal of Engineering and Applied Science, 69(1), 44. https://doi.org/10.1186/s44147-022-00094-4
57. Shekar, P. R., & Mathew, A. (2024). Morphometric analysis of watersheds: A comprehensive review of data sources, quality, and geospatial techniques. Watershed Ecology and the Environment, 6, 13-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsee.2023.12.001
58. Shekar, P. R., Mathew, A., Hasher, F. F. B., Mehmood, K., & Zhran, M. (2025). Towards sustainable development: Ranking of soil erosion-prone areas using morphometric analysis and multi-criteria decision-making techniques. Sustainability, 17(5), 2124. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17052124
59. Singh, W. R., Barman, S., & Tirkey, G. (2021). Morphometric analysis and watershed prioritisation in relation to soil erosion in Dudhnai Watershed. Applied Water Science, 11(9), 151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-021-01483-5
60. Solanki, A., & Gupta, V. (2022). Implications of geomorphometric parameters on the occurrence of landslides in the Kali Valley, Kumaun Himalaya, India. Catena, 215, 106313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2022.106313
61. Strahler, A. N. (1952). Hypsometric (area-altitude) analysis of erosional topography. Geological society of America bulletin, 63(11), 1117-1142.
62. Strahler, A. N. (1964). Quantitative geomorphology of drainage basin and channel networks. Handbook of applied hydrology.
63. Şener, M., & Arslanoğlu, M. C. (2023). Morphometric analysis in Google Earth Engine: An online interactive web-based application for global-scale analysis. Environmental Modelling & Software, 162, 105640. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2023.105640
64. Şengör AMC, Görür N, Şaroğlu F (1985) Strikeslip faulting and related Basin formation in zones of tectonic escape: Turkey as a case study. In: Biddle KT, Christie-Blick N (eds) Strike-slip deformation, Basin formation, and sedimentation. Soc. Econ. Paleontol. Miner. Spec. Publ. 37 (in honor of J.C. Crowell), pp 227–264. https://doi.org/10.2110/pec.85.37.0211
65. Taşoğlu, E., Öztürk, M. Z., & Yazıcı, Ö. (2024). High Resolution Köppen‐Geiger Climate Zones of Türkiye. International Journal of Climatology, 44(14), 5248-5265. https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.8635
66. Telteu, C. E., & Zaharia, L. (2012). Morphometrical and dynamicalfeatures of the South Dobrogea Lakes, Romania. ProcediaEnvironmental Sciences, 14, 164–176. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2012.03.016
67. Topsakal, M., Dogan, E., Yasak, S. S., Corapci, F., & Ozdemir, H. (2025). Basin morphometry? It is no longer an issue with HydroMachine toolbox. Environmental Earth Sciences, 84(12), 342. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-025-12352- 8
68. Turkes, M. (2020) Climate and drought in Türkiye. In: Harmancioglu NB, Altinbilek D (eds) Water resources of Türkiye, world water resources, vol 2. Springer, Cham, pp 85–125. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11729-0_4
69. Türkeş, M. (1996). Spatial and temporal analysis of annual rainfall variations in Turkey. International Journal of Climatolog, 16(9), 1057-1076. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)10970088(199609)16:9<10 57::AID-JOC75>3.0.CO;2-D
70. Utlu, M., & Özdemir, H. (2018). Havza Morfometrik Özelliklerinin Taşkın Üretmedeki Rolü Biga Çayı Havzası Örneği. Journal of Geography, 36, 49-62. https://izlik.org/JA62WD33GN
71. Uzun, M., & Tatlıdil, K. (2025). Dalaman Çayı Havzası’nın Morfometrik Analiz Yöntemleri Kullanılarak Alt Havza Kapsamında Taşkın Duyarlılık Önceliklendirmesi. Türkiye Coğrafi Bilgi Sistemleri Dergisi, 7(2), 68-84. https://doi.org/10.56130/tucbis.1807763
72. Webster, M. A. R. K., & Sheets, H. D. (2010). A practical introduction to landmark-based geometric morphometrics. The paleontological society papers, 16, 163-188. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1089332600001868
73. Yao, W., Lyu, X., Lei, D., & Wu, P. (2024). Fluvial geomorphic parameters of the Shuiluo River Catchment and their tectonic implications, SE Tibetan Plateau. Progress in Earth and Planetary Science, 11(1), 31. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40645-024-00636-9
74. Zhang, H., Yao, Z., Yang, Q., Li, S., Baartman, J. E., Gai, L., ... & Geissen, V. (2017). An integrated algorithm to evaluate flow direction and flow accumulation in flat regions of hydrologically corrected DEMs. Catena, 151, 174-181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2016.12.009
75. Zhao, F., Xiong, L., Zhang, C., Wei, H.,Liu, K., & Tang, G. (2023). Hydrological object-based flow direction model for constructing a lake-stream topological system. Water Resources Research,59, e2022WR033681.