Analysis reveals changes in land use land cover in the Alaknanda River Basin, suggesting effective watershed management is essential.
Himalayas are home to a diverse ecosystem, from lush valleys to the barren, snow‐capped peaks. They serve as a crucial watershed, providing water resources to millions in the region. The Alaknanda River basin is a vital watershed in the Himalayas, supporting millions through its resources. This study analyzes the basin morphometric characteristics and land use land cover (LULC) patterns from 2017 to 2023 using geo‐informatics techniques. The morphometric study evaluated parameters such as catchment area, stream order, slope, and flow direction. The basin contains seven watersheds: Sarswati (SR), Dhauli Ganga (DGR), Nandakini (NR), middle stretch of Alaknanda (MSAR), Mandakini (MR), Pindari (PR), and lower stretch of Alaknanda (LSAR). Catchment areas ranked as DGR > PR > MR > SR > MSAR > LSAR > NR, with elevations ranging from 454 m (Devprayag) to 7764 m (Dhauli Ganga), whereas slopes varied from 0° to 86°. The basin covers approximately 1,075,329 ha and is categorized into seven LULC classes: water, dense forest, built‐up area, agriculture, bare ground, snow/ice, and rangeland. Snow/ice cover increased from 14.00% to 20.46% (2017–2019) but declined after 2021. Built‐up areas steadily expanded, especially in LSAR (Devprayag and Srinagar), driven by Char Dham Yatra projects. Dense forest showed a decline, with slight recovery in 2023 due to afforestation initiatives. This study highlights the dynamic interplay of natural and anthropogenic influences shaping the Alaknanda basin. The results reveal the need for establishing sustainable watershed management systems that integrate LULC planning and climate adaptation methods to protect ecosystems from risks. The study provides essential knowledge to help policymakers and stakeholders create effective conservation programs to safeguard the vulnerable Himalayan ecosystem and its supporting downstream populations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bisht et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: