Optical disdrometers can be used to estimate rainfall erosivity; however, the relative accuracy of different disdrometers is unclear. This study compared three types of optical laser-based disdrometers to quantify differences in measured rainfall characteristics and to develop correction factors for kinetic energy (KE). Two identical PWS100 (Campbell Scientific), one Laser Precipitation Monitor (Thies Clima) and a first-generation Parsivel (OTT) were collocated with a weighing rain gauge (OTT Pluvio²) at a site in Austria. All disdrometers underestimated total rainfall compared to the rain gauge with relative biases from 2% to 29%. Differences in drop size distribution and velocity resulted in different KE estimates. By applying a linear regression to the KE–intensity relationship of each disdrometer, a correction factor for KE between the disdrometers was developed. This factor ranged from 1.15 to 1.36 and allowed comparison of KE between different disdrometer types despite differences in measured drop size and velocity.

An experimental laboratory setup was developed and evaluated in order to investigate detachment of soil particles by raindrop splash impact. The soil under investigation was a silty loam Cambisol, which is typical for agricultural fields in Central Europe. The setup consisted of a rainfall simulator and soil samples packed into splash cups (a plastic cylinder with a surface area of 78.5 cm²) positioned in the center of sediment collectors with an outer diameter of 45 cm. A laboratory rainfall simulator was used to simulate rainfall with a prescribed intensity and kinetic energy. Photographs of the soil’s surface before and after the experiments were taken to create digital models of relief and to calculate changes in surface roughness and the rate of soil compaction. The corresponding amount of splashed soil ranged between 10 and 1500 g m⁻² h⁻¹. We observed a linear relationship between the rainfall kinetic energy and the amount of the detached soil particles. The threshold kinetic energy necessary to initiate the detachment process was 354 J m⁻² h⁻¹. No significant relationship between rainfall kinetic energy and splashed sediment particle-size distribution was observed. The splash erosion process exhibited high variability within each repetition, suggesting a sensitivity of the process to the actual soil surface microtopography.

The interaction between rainfall erosivity parameters and splash erosion is crucial for describing the soil erosion process; however, it is rarely investigated under natural rainfall conditions. In this study, we conducted splash erosion experiments under natural rainfall on three sites in Central Europe. The main goal was to obtain the relationship between splash erosion of the bare soil in seedbed condition and commonly used rainfall erosivity parameters (kinetic energy, intensity, and rainfall erosivity (EI₃₀)). All sites were equipped with a rain gauge and an optical laser disdrometer where the splash erosion was measured, with modified Morgan splash cups. In order to investigate which parameter best describes the splash erosion process for all sites, a regression analysis was performed. In total, 80 splash erosion events were evaluated. Splash erosion can be described as a linear function of total kinetic energy and a non-linear function of EI_30. However, the use of the total kinetic energy led to underestimation of the splash erosion rates for highly intensive rainfalls. Therefore, better results were obtained when using average rainfall intensity as the splash erosion predictor or the kinetic energy divided by the rainfall duration. Minor differences between the replicates during splash erosion measurements indicate that the modified Morgan splash cup provides a good tool for soil erosion assessment.

Soil erosion by water is affected by the rainfall erosivity, which controls the initial detachment and mobilization of soil particles. Rainfall erosivity is expressed through the rainfall intensity (I) and the rainfall kinetic energy (KE). KE–I relationships are an important tool for rainfall erosivity estimation, when direct measurement of KE is not possible. However, the rainfall erosivity estimation varies depending on the chosen KE–I relationship, as the development of KE–I relationships is affected by the measurement method, geographical rainfall patterns and data handling. This study investigated how the development of KE–I relationships and rainfall erosivity estimation is affected by the use of different disdrometer types. Rainfall data were collected in 1-min intervals from six optical disdrometers at three measurement sites in Austria, one site in Czech Republic and one site in New Zealand. The disdrometers included two disdrometers of each of the following types: the PWS100 Present Weather Sensor from Campbell Scientific, the Laser Precipitation Monitor from Thies Clima and the first generation Parsivel from OTT Hydromet. The fit of KE–I relationships from the literature varied among disdrometers and sites. Drop size and velocity distributions and developed KE–I relationships were device-specific and showed similarities for disdrometers of the same type across measurement sites. This hindered direct comparison of results from different types of disdrometers, even when placed at the same site. Thus, to discern spatial differences in rainfall characteristics the same type of measurement instrument should be used.