# Study and modeling morphometrical index effects catchment on sediment discharge. (Case study Simine rood watershed).

IntroductionTransport of suspended sediment in-streams underlies a wide range of influencing factors [8]. Erosion and deposit producing in drainage basin depends on different factors like physiographic, Climatic, Pedology, Vegetation covering conditions [4]. For example, according to the Mortez's researches in Spring Creek drainage basin in Canada, annual special suspended load in top branches of this basin has been changeable between 1-1500 T. km2 according to various Physiographic properties. Becoming familiar whit those properties and factors, it will be possible for us to study the effects of them on deposit load process in drainage basin. On the other hand in some basin which doesn't have deposit measuring stations, we could present suitable models through which estimating deposit load process will be possible [9,16]. The efficiency of these models for solving some problems in deposit load estimating process is obvious, especially in watershed management constructions designing. So having information about morphometric properties of a basin and also some other information like continental, soil, geology, vegetation features of the area could give a relatively exact understanding of hydraulic system quantitative and qualitative operation of that basin. Therefore, a basin morphometry affects the watery system of drainage basin, not only by hydrologic features but also indirectly by dealing with drainage basin features. Some researchers have presented relations according to some drainage basin features through which estimating the depositing process in particular conditions of drainages possible [2]. Some researchers, for example Patton and Backer [14] and Shimano have divided the type of process by means of morphometric rules and also have presented the drainage basin Features in quantative and qualitive forms. Tomas and Benson reveled in a definite region which has similar climate and physiographic features, making connection between basins area and annual torrent (flood water) average is possible. Blytch, Rodda, Stall and Fok researches results have proved the strong connection between water discharge and river bank by Straheler technique. Morisawa [12] and Patton and Backer, [14] respectively have used the number of first class (first rate) river and waterway length to make connection with discharge in Apalash Plateau and central Texas. Patton [14] showed slope increase effect on concentration time decrease and also mentions that this factor finally results in increasing torrents (flood waters). According to Carlston and Trainer [3], there is a reverse connection between drainage and base current of river in east of United State and Putamak river basin while this factor is in contact whit annual torrent average. Ekerman, also can present an equation which has high determination factor by means of multi variable logarithmic regression method and some physiographic features of the basin to predict annual torrent average of drainage basin in Scotland.

Jinse and Pinter [9] make connection between eight factors as water discharge area, height and length of main waterway and deposit load, so they could present four logarithmic models for four types of climate. So it seems obvious that if we determine the morphometric Factors which affects on deposit transport capacity we will be able to present the most suitable deposit estimating model by means of morphometric features.

Materials and Methods

2.1 Catchment Description:

The Simine rood catchment (Fig. 1) is situated in the north- east of Hamedan and has a size of 22155 ha. and situated in geographical limitation of 48[degrees]28' 14" to 48[degrees]413" of eastern longitude and 34[degrees]35 6 to 34[degrees] 45 5 of northern latitude in central Zagros. Maximum height of this drainage basin (Fig 2) from Sea level is 3580m. According to the Climatic data which Simine rood station presents (1998-2008), average of annual temperature of region is +12.35[degrees]C, the coldest month of year is February with average temperature of 2.3[degrees]C and the hottest month of year is August with average temperature of 23.4[degrees]C.

Rainfall average of the region is 313mm in a year. On the basis of Ambrotermic curve of dry months of a year is May till September. Region climate on the basis of Ambereje method is middle of semi dry cold and semi humid. There is three hydrometry stations of Simine rood , Ebero and Yalfan in this basin. Most stones of the region are penetrative granite, metamorphic schist and Hornfels and Fourth period alluvium.

2.2 Research Method:

In order to study the relationship between the morphometric features of Simine rood basin and discharge deposit, at First two groups of data such as deposit discharge (dependent variable) and independent variable (morphometric factors) was used. statistical data of deposit discharge and water discharge of Simine rood, Yalfan and Ebero station in the basin was gathered From 1984 to 2008. Then the basin dependent variable slice area (A), Circumference (C), extension Factor ([k.sub.c]), Horton Shape Factor ([R.sub.F])and etc were measured by 1:50,000 scale topo maps.

P=basin Circumference (km)

Hmax=Maximum height of the basin

Hmin=Minimum height of the basin

[summation][L.sub.i] =Sum of waterways Length (km

NU=Number of waterway branches From a definite rate

P=Circumference of circle which

[N.sup.U+1] =an upper rate waterways branches number

It has same elevation whit the drainage basin

[L.sub.b] =Maximum Length of basin (km2)

[summation]Ni = Number of river branches

KC=Pressure Factor

[R.sub.F] =Horton Shape Factor

Rb=branching Factor

I= basin average Slope

DD=drainage density

[D.sub.H] =basin height difference

[D.sub.S] =Waterways density

[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]

Deposit statistical data were arranged in ascending-descending from and then were registered. Deposit discharge data which have equal water discharge was extracted from the table and then their mean (average) was considered as independent variable, so a deposit discharge figures was obtained for each Station. All of this process will be done to determine morphometric factors which have affected basin deposit discharge procedure under equal watery conditions. Afterwards we consider two parameters for each station in the basin. These parameters are annual deposit discharge (dependent variable) average and annual water discharge average (dependent variable) with morphometric indexes (independent variable), hence effects of morphometric Factors on deposit discharge were determined in hydraulic (watery) condition. This process will result specifying effects of water discharge deposit discharge and also morphometric indexes roles on deposit load under water discharge effects. Meanwhile, time has been considered approximately constant in order to reduce fault (Maximum difference is eight days). For proving the mentioned formulas and hypothesizes test two assumptions were used, one of them is [H.sub.o] : P = 0 (there is no meaningful connection) and the other one is a statistical assumption that says [H.sub.1] : P = 1 (there is a meaningful connection). At last Function was defined as [M.sub.o] = f(S, I, [R.sub.[- or +]], [K.sub.C], [D.sub.D], [D.sub.S], L) and hypothesizes test was done for defining effects of morphometric factors on deposit load. Variables relations were analyzed in multi variable and one variable regression models by SPSS and SAS Software.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

Results:

Table 1 provides information on independent variables which have been used in this analyzing. Deposit discharge Figures of objected stations in equal water discharge conditions (Table 2). Besides their annual average of water and sediment discharge in approximately constant measuring time condition has been showed (Table 3).

In order to achieve the research aim, deposit discharge as dependent variable and all morphometric indexes and water discharge as independent variables have been studied. We have also considered time as a constant parameter in basin level to reduce time difference up to minimum level. Eleven dependent variable were related to deposit discharge separately in this research to determine effect and type of relations between the morphometric indexes and deposit discharge. The studies show that morphometric indexes have direct effect on deposit discharge. Some morphometric indexes like tension factor, waterway density, mean slope of basin drainage density, Horton shape factor, rate 1,2 and 3 of branching ratio, average of rate 2 waterway decrease factor, main waterway length and average of rate 3 waterway decrease factor are related to deposit discharge in 0.99 and 0.95 of certainty level. Result of this discussion has presented in Table (4). The above equations (relations) are related to the equation which was presented by Arab khedri (1997). Probably priority and delay of mentioned indexes arises from interference of other parameters like lands using vegetation cover. When water discharge beside other independent variables connect with another dependent variable, the effect of morphometric indexes on deposit discharge will be different. So water discharge variables (D), main stream length (L), basin circumference (C), area (A), drainage density, rate 3 branching ratio (Rb3), Horton shape factor (RF), basin mean slope (I), waterways density (DS), height difference of the basin (DH) in 99% of certainty level and two parameters of waterway mean decrease factor (rate 2 and 3) in 95% of certainty level have meaningful connection with dependent variable (deposit discharge) [Table no. 5]. Thereupon after water discharge parameters like main waterway length, area and circumference with strong unity factor (upper then 85%) and certainty level of 99% are the most effective morphometric indexes on water discharge. Studying the individual relations between deposit discharge and morphometric indexes under constant time (invariable time) conditions shows weak but meaningful unity between dependent variables and other independent variables. Water discharge variables (D), branching ratio of 3 statues, branching ratio of 2 statues, main stream length, area, circumference and average of stream decrement coefficient of 3 statues stream factor in certainty level of 99% have a meaningful relation with deposit discharge. Although stream densities and Horton shape factor in certainty level of 95% have meaningful relation with deposit discharge, they in comparison to previous elements have weaker unity whit dependent variable (table no. 6).

The results which has obtained from the connection between dependent variable and independent variables and attainment of the best model for deposit discharge prediction by means of a step by step statistical method shows that in process of examining all morphometric indexes with deposit discharge some acceptable variables of linear model are notable. Those acceptable variables are tension factor, drainage density, Rate 1 branching ratio and in exponential model of morphometric indexes tension factor, drainage density, height difference of the basin and Rate 2 branching ratio.

Drainage density, tension factor, waterways density and mean slope of the basin have been entered in logarithmic model. General from of the models are as below:

linear model (1) MQ=-315.791+ 210. 281 kc+93.583 DD-24.68 Rb1

R2=0. 9050 F=12.71*

exponential model (2)

MQ=95.102+297.819 Inkc x 88.9 InDD x 32.007 InDH x .3.741 InRb2

R2=0. 9192 F=8.54*

Logarithmic model (3)

InMQ=-5.698+10.828 InDD+10.598 InKC - 5.054 InDS+0.3694 InI

R2=0.9504 F=4.40*

Results of multiple regression analysis between morphometric indexes and deposit discharge shows when we consider water discharge the effects of independent variables on discharge change. Those variables in linear model are water discharge, area, main waterway length, average of rate 1 waterway decrease factor, tension factor mean slope of the basin. Variables of exponential model are water discharge main waterway length, average of rate 1 waterway decrease factor, rate 2 branching ration, rate 1 branching ratio and Horton shape factor. Logarithmic parameters are water discharge average of rate 2 stream decrease factor, waterway density, Horton shape factor, height difference and rate 3 branching ration. General from of the models are as below:

Linear model, Equation (4):

MQ = -1020.117+71.026D - 0.4397A + 28.239L + 1.363[MC.sub.1] + 250.23[K.sub.C] - 4.319I

[R.sub.2] = 1 F = 63818.3**

Exponential model, Equation no. (5):

MQ =-1890.497 + 51.297 [Ln.sub.D] x 398.814

[Ln.sub.L] x 215.819Ln [MC.sub.1] x -59.703 LnRb2 x - 130.312 LnRb1 x -32.104Ln RF

[R.sup.2] = 1 F = 6206.28**

logarithmic model, Equation no. (6)

LnMQ = 11.644 + 1.680LnD--2.788Ln [MC.sub.2] + 1.509LnDS - 0.9644 Ln [R.sub.F] + 0.6340Ln [D.sub.H] + 0.2969Ln [Rb.sub.3]

[R.sup.2] = 0.9995 F = 322.65**

If we assume the deposit discharge measuring time equal to one year for produce basin level the effect of morphometric factors on deposit discharge will be determined indirectly. These factors in fixed linear model are rate 3 branching ratio , Horton shape factor, waterways density, average of rate 3 waterway decrease factor, average of decrement coefficient of 1 statues stream factor and water discharge. The variables which have been entered to exponential model rate 3 branching ratio, 1 branching ratio, Horton shape factor, rate 2 branching ratio, water discharge and height difference of the basin. Parameters of logarithmic model are contain of water discharge, average of rate 3 waterway decrease factor, area, tension factor, circumference and rate 3 branching ratio general form of these three models are as below:

Equation Linear model (7)

MQ=3292.479+92.800R[b.sub.3]-2485.420[R.sub.F]-968.640Ds- 1.192[MC.sub.3]-1.486[MC.sub.1]+44.854D

R2=0.9792 F=40.04*

Equation exponential model (8)

MQ=7852.448+384.478 Ln[Rb.sub.3]x -4040.417 Ln[Rb.sub.1] x -1100.864 In[R.sub.F] x -753.773 Ln[Rb.sub.2] x 203.365 InD x -246.370 LnDH

R2=0.9986 F=120.27**

Equation Logarithmic model (9)

LnMQ=1085.249+4.953 LnD-14.287 Ln[MC.sub.2] + 378.392 LnA+789.365 Ln [K.sub.C] - 782.336 [Ln.sub.C] +0.2656 In[Rb.sub.3]

R2=0.9999 F=15451.7**

meaningful in level of %1=*

meaningful in level of %5=**

Regarding to results and independent Variable entrance to the equations, linear model, exponential model and logarithmic model are three models which show deposit discharge is affected by morphometric indexes. By considering different condition at least all of morfometric factors affect the amount of deposit discharge in linear, exponential and logarithmic model. The logarithmic model (3) and the linear model (4) and the logarithmic model (9) have been suggested as the best models for deposit prediction by means of morphometric indexes for measuring less stations because determination factor of these models ([R.sup.2]) is high and have meaningful statistically (F). Despite the fact that the determination factor of all models is more than 90% and their statistically (F) is in the meaningful level of 1% and 5% but the selected models are the best models because they express direct relation of some morphometric indexes and dependent variables (3) and also express the truth of the mountainous drainage basin. Linear model (4) which determine role of more morphometric indexes on deposit discharge and water discharge and logarithmic model (9) which express the role of morphometric indexes indirectly in approximately constant measuring conditions have been selected as the best models too. This subject along with comparison the sediment discharge amount predicted by models not only determine well by real and registered discharge of measuring and statistic stations but also confirm the accuracy of mentioned discussion and the reasons of models selection (Table 7, 8, 9 and 10).

Discussion and Conclusion:

Regarding to achieved results from a single regression, the most significant effect on the sediment discharge, was extension factor (Kc). In water discharge conditions, around length of stream, perimeter and area was related to sediment discharge were the most significant factors on flood respectively that accerdinated to Chehre Monavaris finagling that were based on most unity of length of main stream with depositing factor and Arab khedris data in where the slope variable , area and maximum sediment in adage with a sediment discharge are in the maximuming ful level of 1% also in khalilis and yousefis (1985) single unity model, the area variable has a significant effect on estimate maximum discharge in a day.

In invariable measuring time condition, the studies show that morphometric indexes have indirect effect on the sediment discharge.

In areas that the slope is high and the length of main stream is small, this causes to increase the basin channel density. In some areas with a low slope in where some rivers branching are left the main way by watering landes and gardens and they are not into the main channel and they are out of the estimation area, there is no relation between drainage density and sediment. In north and western north basin of Siminerood, for the low slope and penetrative stones (lime and slims). The water produced by rain and snow, it penetrate and it is parallel to drainage network system.

In this part of the lengthy channel basin with allow branching ratio cause to be decrease the channel density. Then in this pair, the penetrative tissue is on one of the factor that causes to decrease the channel density.

In variable discharge conditions, the increasing sediment had been happen with increasing area. In mountainous areas, the sediment discharge has a relation to the extensor factor, the slope, the channels density and the drainage density.

In flat areas, the sediment discharge relates to Horton form coefficient, area, the main channel length and branching ratio of 3 statues. In above areas of basin the volcanic stones with allow penetrating and slope and a high height cause elongation and intense density specially in 1 statue.

In down areas, Increasing area, decreasing slope and presence of harel penetrating stone cause to increase the main channel length. Also the presence of crevasse in this area causes to emerge a disturbance in the drainage net work. In the sub basins Ebero, clinision areas, Seloodan and Ekbatan their slope are (26/33%, 24/79%, 22/15% and 11/55%, respectfully. The areas with volcanic stones and in low penetrating cause to rise the branching ratio and the channel numbers.

(Doren karp and et al., 1991) showed that mountaounce area with full of slope and kuartezit of filit stones have the most drainage and channel density. Simineh rood's drainage network density is very high that it cause to rise up the channel branching ratio is of 1 and 2 statues. Arab khedri and zargar (1985) showed that with increasing slope, the depositing of density will be increased. Areas with a low slope and unpenetratace stones (lime and shist)

Cause to equal the drainage network producing factor and the lengthy channel with a low branching ratio and have a harsh drainage tissue cause to decrease the channel density.

REFERENCES

[1.] Acrman, M.C., 1985. Predicting the mean annual flood from basin characteristics in Scotland. J. Hydrol. 37-48.

[2.] Arab Khedri-M., A. Zargar., 1985. Regression model for Estimate deposit Rate in North Alborz Jahad sazandegi.

[3.] Carlston, C.W., 1963. Drainage density and flow. Geol. Surv. Prof. Pap (U.S.)., 442: 1-8.

[4.] Chehreh monareri, B., 1990. The study Effect Factors in Produce deposite Jahad sazandegi organization 121-1365.

[5.] Chorley, R.J. and M.A. Morgan, 1962. Comparison of morphometric features, unaka mountains, Tennessee and North Carolina, and Dartmoor, England. Geol. Soc. AM. Bull., 73: 17-34.

[6.] Costa, J.E., 1987. Hydraulics and basin morphometry of the largest flash floods in the conterminous united states, J. Hydrol., 3: 313-338.

[7.] Jabbari, I., 1995. Modeling Runoff Peak Regional on the morphometric characteristics in west oromie Watershed. Tabriz Iran.

[8.] Eder, A., P. Strauss, T. Krueger, Quinton, 2010. Comparative calculation of suspended sediment loads with respect to hysteresis effects (in the Petzenkirchen catchment, Austria) Journal of Hydrology, 389: 168-176.

[9.] Jansen, J.M.L. and R.B. Painter, 1974. Predicting sediment yield from climate and topography J. Hydrol., 21: 371-380.

[10.] Khlili, D., A. Yousefi, 1985. Model suitable determined average discharge By using Physiographic for Atrak watershed. Esfahan Uni, 2: 10-100.

[11.] Mirabolghasemi, H., S. Morid, 1985. The study deposit Produce in Karkheh Watershed Jahadsazandgi.

[12.] Morisawa, M.E., 1962. Quantitative geomorphology of some watersheds in the Appalachian plateau. Geol. Soc. Am., 73: 10251046.

[13.] Patton, P.C. and V.R. Baker, 1976. Morphometry and floods in small drainage basins subjects to diverse hydrology morphic control. Water Resource. Res., 12: 941-952.

[14.] Patton, P.C., 1988. "Drainage Basin Morphometry and floods", in (eds.) V.R. Baker. et al, "Flood Geomorphology", John wiley & sons, chapter 3.

[15.] Sadeghi, S.H.R., 1985. Mathematical models and computers for Estimate Erosion and deposit Jahad sazandegi.

[16.] Sadeghi, S.H.R. and P. Saeidi, 2010. Reliability of sediment rating curves for a deciduous forest watershed in Iran Journal of Hydrological Sciences 55(5).

[17.] Strahler, A.N., 1964. Quantitative 8 Geomomorphology of drainage basins and channel networks. In "Handbook of Applied Hydrology" (V.T. Chow, ed.

Alireza Ildromi

Department of Rangeland and Watershed Management, Malayer University, Malay er, Iran.

Corresponding Author

Alireza Ildromi, Department of Rangeland and Watershed Management, Malayer University, Malayer, Iran.

E-mail: Ildoromi@gmail.com

Table 1: Morphometric Properties in Sub basin Simine rood. Saleh Station Ekbatan Yalfan Eberu Location Selodan abad A 203 166.70 38 32.80 35.50 174 C 67.1 58.45 37.5 30.5 28 63.5 KC 1.31 1.26 1.70 1.49 1.31 1.34 Rf 0.623 0.663 0.203 0.404 0.424 0.531 I % 11.55 11.46 26.23 24.79 22.15 11.15 DH 1647 1480 1617 1420 1320 1471 L 26.65 23.65 15.5 10.45 10.5 25.85 Rb1 4.23 4.29 4.25 5.3 3.87 3.82 Rb2 7.22 6.37 12 3.33 8 4.37 Rb3 4.5 4 1 3 1 4 Rb4 2 2 1 1 2 Rb5 1 1 1 Rb6 Rb7 Ds 1.73 1.68 1.68 2.04 1.12 1.03 DD 1.89 1.85 1.75 2.10 1.40 1.48 MC1 192.45 192.84 201.72 316.84 348.16 206.08 MC2 139.15 135.11 165.33 260.9 155.62 98.37 MC3 280.33 215.37 800 150.33 658 142.37 MC4 457 457 420 222.5 MC5 48 48 55 MC6 MC7 Bahador Ghare Kooshk Station beige aghaj abad A 200 204% 2642.7 C 70.5 65.6% 279.6 KC 1.39 1.28% 1.52 Rf 0.660 0.912% 1.10 I % 6.93 4.53% 3.69 DH 981 648 1897 L 23.15 24.3 64.5 Rb1 3.93 3.86 3.98 Rb2 4.5 4.6 4.49 Rb3 3.33 3.33 40.5 Rb4 1 3 3.33 Rb5 1 1 3 Rb6 2 Rb7 1 Ds 1.18 1.16 .728 DD 1.73 1.90 1.12 MC1 120.19 84.67 146.11 MC2 109.08 65.13 101.71 MC3 120.2 63.6 133.02 MC4 214.66 144 164.14 MC5 62 67 168.5 MC6 47 MC7 43 Table 2: Deposit discharge figures of hydrometric station in equal water discharge. Dwater Deposit Mq discharge Station [m.sup.3]/sec T/dayQ average T/day Ekbatan 2.43 45.4 9.81 Yalfan 2.05 8.64 5.51 Eberu 2.14 871 103.65 Location 2.12 45 66.94 Selodan 2.12 3.2 3.36 Saleh abad 2.18 99.7 14.98 Bahador beig 2.02 13.8 20.64 Ghare aghaj 2 49.2 50.09 Kooshk abad 2.03 54.8 8.16 Table 3: Registered figures of water and deposit discharge in invariable measuring time. Annual water discharge average Deposit discharge Variable Station ([m.sup.3]/sec) average(T/day) Ekbatan 2.82 23.76 Yalfan 2.21 262.29 Eberu 0.45 20.97 Location 0.74 12.29 Selodan 0.6 10.34 Saleh abad 2.12 354.21 Bahador beig 2.1 178.34 Ghare aghaj 0.32 17.57 Kooshk abad 6.48 668.8 Annual water Deposit discharge average in invariable average (Ton in day) Measuring time in invariable measuring Variable Station ([m.sup.3]/sec) time in day Ekbatan 3.9 22.41 Yalfan 3.56 34.41 Eberu 0.55 6.62 Location 2.25 24.53 Selodan 0.98 8.13 Saleh abad 2.59 968.48 Bahador beig 2.64 650.99 Ghare aghaj 0.32 10.56 Kooshk abad 6.94 147.93 Table 4: Regression factor between deposit discharge and morphometric indexes in equal water discharge condition. Indexes Mc3 LR Mc2 Rb3 Rb2 Rb1 MQ 0.38 * -0.38 * 0.42 * -0.47 ** 0.45 * 0.47 * 0.345 0.346 0.298 0.238 0.259 0.242 Indexes RF DD I DS Kc MQ -0.52 ** 0.55 ** 0.55 ** 0.59 ** 0.71 ** 0.188 -0.159 -0.153 0.12 0.049 Table 5: Regression factor between water discharge, deposit discharge and morphometric indexes. Indexes [Mc.sub.2] [Mc.sub.3] DH DS MQ -0.42 * -0.42 * 0.58 ** -0.61 ** 0.306 0.303 0.133 0.11 I [R.sub.F] [Rb.sub.3] DD MQ -0.62 ** 0.66 ** 0.66 ** -0.71 ** 0.102 0.076 0.074 0.05 A C L D MQ 0.85 ** 0.88 ** 0.92 ** 0.96 ** 0.007 0.003 0.001 0.001 Table 6: Regression factor between deposit discharge and water discharge and morphometric indexes under invariable measuring time. Indexes RF I DS Mc3 C MQ 0.41 * -0.43 * -0.45 ** -0.48 ** 0.49 ** 0.361 0.281 0.261 0.225 0.21 Indexes A L Rb2 Rb3 D MQ 0.52 ** 0.52 ** -0.55 ** 0.65 ** 0.66 ** 0.19 0.187 0.161 0.078 0.074 meaningful in level of %1 = * meaningful in level of %5 = ** Table 7: Colleration matrix between deposit discharge and morphometric indexes in equal water discharge condition. Index MQ L DS KC KC 0.71 ** 0.12 (n.s) 0.24 (n.s) 1 0.049 0.779 0.573 0 RF -0.52 ** 0.82 ** -0.64 ** -0.34 (n.s) 0.188 0.013 0.84 0.402 DS 0.59 ** -0.67 ** 1 0.24 (n.s) 0.12 0.069 0 0.573 DD 0.55 ** -0.67 ** 0.84 ** -0.062 (n.s) 0.12 0.067 0.009 0.875 I 0.55 ** -0.7 ** 0.69 ** 0.46 * 0.153 0.052 0.059 0.254 LR -0.39 ** 1 -0.67 ** 0.12 (n.s) 0.034 0 0.069 0.779 [Rb.sub.1] 0.47 * -0.34 (n.s) 0.84 ** 0.34 (n.s) 0.242 0.41 0.009 0.413 [Rb.sub.2] 0.45 * -0.31 (n.s) 0.21 (n.s) 0.69 ** 0.259 0.459 0.62 0.059 [MC.sub.2] 0.42 * -0.51 ** 0.78 ** 0.4 * 0.298 0.2001 0.02 0.324 [MC.sub.3] 0.35 * -0.41 (n.s) 0.21 (n.s) 0.47 * 0.345 0.309 0.61 0.243 A -0.33 (n.s) 0.96 ** -0.59 ** 0.24 (n.s) 0.432 0.0002 0.117 0.56 C -0.35 (n.s) 0.98 ** -0.63 ** 0.19 (n.s) 0.359 0.0001 0.091 0.635 Index I [Rb.sub.1] [Rb.sub.2] [MC.sub.1] KC 0.46 * 0.34 (n.s) 0.48 * 0.066 (n.s) 0.254 0.413 0.228 0.876 RF -0.91 ** -0.37 (n.s) -0.58 ** -0.64 ** 0.001 0.359 0.129 0.086 DS 0.69 ** 0.84 ** 0.21 (n.s) 0.41 * 0.059 0.009 0.62 0.31 DD 0.32 (n.s) 0.63 ** -0.066 (n.s) 0.031 (n.s) 0.43 0.096 0.875 0.941 I 1 0.57 ** 0.57 ** 0.8 ** 0 0.142 0.141 0.017 LR -0.7 ** -0.34 (n.s) -0.31 (n.s) -0.52 ** 0.52 0.41 0.459 0.184 [Rb.sub.1] 0.57 ** 1 -0.15 (n.s) 0.48 ** 0.142 0 0.727 0.232 [Rb.sub.2] 0.57 ** -0.15 (n.s) 1 0.19 (n.s) 0.141 0.727 0 0.651 [MC.sub.2] 0.82 ** 0.89 ** 0.11 (n.s) 0.77 ** 0.011 0.002 0.79 0.025 [MC.sub.3] 0.74 ** -0.045 (n.s) 0.93 ** 0.49 ** 0.036 0.914 0.007 0.22 A -0.52 ** -0.19 (n.s) -0.25 (n.s) -0.32 (n.s) 0.187 0.645 0.55 0.446 C -0.61 ** -0.25 (n.s) -0.29 (n.s) -0.41 * 0.11 0.547 0.487 0.308 Index [MC.sub.2] [MC.sub.3] KC 0.4 * 0.47 * 0.324 0.243 RF -0.64 ** -0.69 ** 0.086 0.055 DS 0.78 ** 0.21 (n.s) 0.02 0.61 DD 0.44 * -0.13 (n.s) 0.269 0.758 I 0.82 ** 0.74 ** 0.011 0.036 LR -0.51 ** -0.41 (n.s) 0.2001 0.309 [Rb.sub.1] 0.89 ** -0.045 (n.s) 0.002 0.914 [Rb.sub.2] 0.11 (n.s) 0.93 ** 0.79 0.007 [MC.sub.2] 1 0.31 (n.s) 0 0.45 [MC.sub.3] 0.31 (n.s) 1 0.45 0 A -0.29 (n.s) -0.28 (n.s) 0.47 0.502 C -0.38 * -0.35 (n.s) 0.345 0.397 meaningful in level of 1% = * meaningful in level of 5% = ** (ns) = non meaningful Table 8: Colleration matrix between water discharge, deposit discharge and morphometric indexes. Index KC RF DD DS MQ 0.031 (n.s) 0.66 ** -0.71 ** -0.61 ** 0.94 0.079 0.05 0.11 D 0.12 (n.s) 0.69 ** -0.69 ** -0.58 ** 0.056 0.056 0.133 A 0.24 (n.s) 0.73 ** -0.71 ** -0.59 ** 0.56 0.039 0.05 0.117 L 0.12 (n.s) 0.82 ** -0.67 ** -0.67 ** 0.779 0.013 0.067 0.069 I 0.46 * -0.91 ** 0.32 (n.s) 0.69 ** 0.254 0.001 0.433 0.059 [Rb.sub.3] -0.4 * 0.69 ** -0.04 (n.s) -0.25 (n.s) 326 0.055 0.924 0.545 C 0.19 (n.s) 0.77 ** -0.68 ** -0.63 ** 0.625 0.022 0.059 0.091 Index I L D [Rb.sub.3] [Rb.sub.1] MQ -0.62 ** 0.92 ** 0.96 ** 0.66 ** -0.30 (n.s) 0.102 0.001 0.0001 0.074 0.467 D -0.58 ** 0.94 ** 1 0.57 ** -0.21 (n.s) 0.13 0.0004 0 0.135 0.608 A -0.52 ** 0.96 ** 0.93 ** 0.40 * -0.19 (n.s) 0.187 0.0002 0.007 0.318 0.645 L -0.7 ** 1 0 0.94 * 0.57 ** -0.34 (n.s) 0.052 0.0004 0.136 0.41 I 1 -0.7 ** -0.58 ** -0.76 ** 0.56 ** 0 0.052 0.13 0.027 0.142 [Rb.sub.3] -0.76 ** 0.57 ** 0.57 ** 1.000 -0.039 (n.s) 0.027 0.136 0.135 0.000 0.926 C -061 ** 0.98 ** 0.95 ** 0.48 ** -0.25 (n.s) 0.11 0.001 0.0004 0.229- 0.547 Index [Rb.sub.2] [MC.sub.1] A C MQ -0.34 (n.s) 0.349 (n.s) 0.85 ** 0.88 ** 0.403 0.396 0.007 0.003 D -0.33 (n.s) -0.318 (n.s) 0.93 ** 0.95 ** 0.418 0.442 0.0007 0.0004 A -0.25 (n.s) -0.315 (n.s) 1 0.99 ** 0.55 0.446 0 0.0001 L -0.31 (n.s) -0.522 ** 0.96 ** 0.98 ** 0.459 0.184 0.0002 0.0001 I 0.57 ** 0.8 ** -0.52 ** -0.61 ** 0.141 0.017 0.187 0.11 [Rb.sub.3] -0.78 ** -0.519 ** 0.41 * 0.48 ** 0.021 0.187 0.318 0.229 C -0.29" -0.41 * 0.99 ** 1 0.487 0.308 0.0001 0 Table 9: Colleration matrix between deposit discharge and water discharge and morphometric indexes under invariable measuring time. Index DS DD L MQ -0.45 * -0.31 (n.s) 0.52 ** 0.261 0.447 0.187 D -0.28 (n.s) -0.43 * 0.49 ** 0.504 0.281 0.212 A -0.77 ** -0.62 ** 0.98 ** 0.025 0.099 0.001 L -0.72 ** -0.59 ** 1 0.041 0.121 0 I 0.72 ** 0.38 * -0.86 ** 0.044 0.35 0.005 DS 1 0.87 ** -0.72 ** 0 0.005 0.0041 Index [Rb.sub.3] A D MQ 0.65 ** 0.52 ** 0.66 ** 0.078 0.19 0.074 D 0.57 ** 0.55 ** 1 0.139 0.158 0 A 0.65 ** 1 0.55 ** 0.077 0 0.158 L 0.63 ** 0.98 ** 0.49 ** 0.095 0.001 0.212 I -0.67 ** -0.89 ** -.025 (n.s) 0.066 0.002 0.553 DS -0.24 (n.s) -0.77 ** -0.28 (n.s) 0.564 0.025 0.504 Table 10: Comparison of predicted amount of deposit discharge by models with observed amount of deposit discharge, statistical year (1994-2007). Standard Observed Predicted Fault of Amount of Amount of predicted Out of Deposit Deposit Deposit model rest station (Ton in day) (Ton in day) amount amount Yalfan 5.51 16.4142 8.469 -10.9042 Eberu 103.7 100.6 13.491 3.0833 Location 3.36 -4.8186 8.306 8.1786 Selodan 66.94 63.2478 14.002 3.6922 Saleh abad 50.09 35.9115 10.249 14.1785 Bahador beig 14.98 10.2105 6.881 4.7695 Ghare aghaj 20.64 41.4056 7.013 -20.7656 Kooshk abad 8.19 10.4223 12.188 -2.2323 Yalfan 262.3 262.1 0.983 0.1891 Eberu 20.97 21.2115 0.972 -0.2415 Location 10.34 10.901 0.829 -0.5610 Selodan 12.29 11.5755 0.701 0.7145 Saleh abad 17.57 17.4143 0.989 0.1557 Bahador beig 354.2 354.2 1.001 -0.0122 Ghare aghaj 178.3 178.6 0.971 -0.2418 Kooshk abad 668.8 668.8 1.001 -0.0027 Yalfan 34.41 5.1278 55.764 29.2822 Eberu 6.62 25.125 60.204 -18.5054 Location 8.13 -10.7902 60.075 18.9202 Selodan 24.53 41.8783 60.548 -17.3483 Saleh abad 10.56 23.9930 61.535 -13.4330 Bahador beig 968.5 986.6 60.319 -18.1294 Ghare aghaj 651 614.8 51.541 36.2009 Kooshk abad 147.9 164.9 60.650 -16.9872 Standard Predicted Fault of Amount of predicted Out of Deposit Deposit model rest station (Ton in day) amount amount Yalfan 10.4127 13.244 -4.9027 Eberu 100.50 15.326 3.1071 Location 4.0175 10.83 -0.6575 Selodan 64.268 13.849 2.9132 Saleh abad 39.4361 13.562 10.6539 Bahador beig 3.9256 8.173 11.0544 Ghare aghaj 42.815 8.166 -21.4415 Kooshk abad 8.9169 13.935 -0.7269 Yalfan 260.30 2.489 2.0277 Eberu 21.2386 3.199 -0.2686 Location 11.2297 3.084 -0.8897 Selodan 12.6423 3.191 -0.3522 Saleh abad 17.2699 3.196 0.3001 Bahador beig 352.7 2.823 1.5289 Ghare aghaj 179.4 3.030 -1.0601 Kooshk abad 670.1 2.941 -1.2861 Yalfan 51.2892 32.241 -16.8792 Eberu -8.4986 33.103 15.1186 Location 24.9279 32.283 -16.7979 Selodan 25.9092 36.366 -1.3792 Saleh abad 9.5836 36.379 0.9764 Bahador beig 978.6 34.954 10.1283 Ghare aghaj 636.1 33.224 14.8512 Kooshk abad 133.7 33.491 14.2384 Standard Predicted Fault of Amount of predicted Out of Deposit Deposit model rest station (Ton in day) amount amount Yalfan 1.6920 0.4 0.0145 Eberu 4.5706 0.349 0.0705 Location 1.3791 0.362 -0.1671 Selodan 4.1453 0.28 0.0585 Saleh abad 3.6767 0.346 0.2372 Bahador beig 2.3906 0.247 0.3161 Ghare aghaj 3.6061 0.221 -0.5789 Kooshk abad 2.0537 0.405 0.0492 Yalfan 5.5362 0.094 0.0322 Eberu 3.0856 0.09 -0.0425 Location 2.2867 0.086 0.0493 Selodan 2.5224 0.099 -0.0136 Saleh abad 2.8797 0.099 -0.0135 Bahador beig 5.8230 0.088 0.0469 Ghare aghaj 5.2031 0.098 -0.0195 Kooshk abad 6.5458 0.091 -0.0403 Yalfan 3.5426 0.017 -0.00428 Eberu 1.8914 0.017 -0.00133 Location 2.0931 0.017 0.00248 Selodan 3.1977 0.017 0.00219 Saleh abad 2.3569 0.017 1.448 Bahador beig 6.8654 0.012 0.0103 Ghare aghaj 6.4906 0.012 0.0121 Kooshk abad 4.9941 0.017 0.00259

Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback | |

Title Annotation: | Original Article |
---|---|

Author: | Ildromi, Alireza |

Publication: | Advances in Environmental Biology |

Article Type: | Report |

Geographic Code: | 7IRAN |

Date: | Dec 1, 2011 |

Words: | 6302 |

Previous Article: | Study of protein and grain starch Amylose in hulless barley lines in the amounts of seed different. |

Next Article: | The effect of plant population densities on yield and yield components of winter canola in Iran (Brassica napus L.). |

Topics: |