Comparison of rainfall generators with regionalisation for the estimation of rainfall erosivity at ungauged sites

Pidoto, Ross; Bezak, Nejc; Müller-Thomy, Hannes; Shehu, Bora; Callau-Beyer, Ana Claudia; Zabret, Katarina; Haberlandt, Uwe

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-10-851-2022

Articles | Volume 10, issue 4

https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-10-851-2022

© Author(s) 2022. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-10-851-2022

© Author(s) 2022. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 10, issue 4

Research article

|

15 Aug 2022

Research article |

| 15 Aug 2022

Comparison of rainfall generators with regionalisation for the estimation of rainfall erosivity at ungauged sites

Ross Pidoto, Nejc Bezak, Hannes Müller-Thomy, Bora Shehu, Ana Claudia Callau-Beyer, Katarina Zabret, and Uwe Haberlandt

Download

Final revised paper (published on 15 Aug 2022)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 01 Feb 2022)
Supplement to the preprint

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on esurf-2022-1', Nadav Peleg, 10 Mar 2022

The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://esurf.copernicus.org/preprints/esurf-2022-1/esurf-2022-1-RC1-supplement.pdf

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-2022-1-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply to reviewers', Hannes Müller-Thomy, 22 Jun 2022
  
  Please find our point-to-point reviewer reply in the supplement.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-2022-1-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on esurf-2022-1', D Mark Silburn, 26 Apr 2022

This a very well written, clear and concise paper. I have made only very minor edits to aid clarity. I have ranked Scientific significane as good only (rather than excellent) because the RUSLE is mature technicology.

Note town names in Figure 1 are unclear/hard to read.

Note you should also use a more mathmatical reviewer than me.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-2022-1-RC2
- AC1: 'Reply to reviewers', Hannes Müller-Thomy, 22 Jun 2022
  
  Please find our point-to-point reviewer reply in the supplement.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-2022-1-AC1
RC3:
'Comment on esurf-2022-1', Anonymous Referee #3, 14 May 2022

The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://esurf.copernicus.org/preprints/esurf-2022-1/esurf-2022-1-RC3-supplement.pdf

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-2022-1-RC3
- AC1: 'Reply to reviewers', Hannes Müller-Thomy, 22 Jun 2022
  
  Please find our point-to-point reviewer reply in the supplement.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-2022-1-AC1
AC1: 'Reply to reviewers', Hannes Müller-Thomy, 22 Jun 2022

Please find our point-to-point reviewer reply in the supplement.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-2022-1-AC1

Peer review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision | EF: Editorial file upload

AR by Hannes Müller-Thomy on behalf of the Authors (22 Jun 2022) Author's response

EF by Mika Burghoff (30 Jun 2022) Manuscript

EF by Mika Burghoff (30 Jun 2022) Supplement

EF by Mika Burghoff (30 Jun 2022) Author's tracked changes

ED: Publish as is (07 Jul 2022) by Greg Hancock

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (08 Jul 2022) by A. Joshua West (Editor)

AR by Hannes Müller-Thomy on behalf of the Authors (25 Jul 2022) Manuscript

Short summary

Erosion is a threat for soils with rainfall as the driving force. The annual rainfall erosivity factor quantifies rainfall impact by analysing high-resolution rainfall time series (~ 5 min). Due to a lack of measuring stations, alternatives for its estimation are analysed in this study. The best results are obtained for regionalisation of the erosivity factor itself. However, the identified minimum of 60-year time series length suggests using rainfall generators as in this study as well.