the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Technical note: An innovative monitoring approach to measure spatio-temporal throughfall patterns in forests
Abstract. Throughfall in forests is spatially highly heterogeneous creating distinct patterns that persist over time and propagate with infiltration into the soil. Despite its importance for forest ecohydrological processes, experimentally derived high-quality datasets describing spatio-temporal throughfall dynamics at fine temporal and spatial resolution are still scarce. The majority of studies were unable to measure throughfall at high temporal and/or spatial resolution because of extensive sampling efforts, especially in forests with complex structures. We present a new, innovative throughfall monitoring approach for continuous, automated measurement of throughfall without removing the water for infiltration that allows to quantify the spatio-temporal throughfall variability at both intra-event and intra-stand levels. The network captures spatial throughfall patterns and their temporal persistence across rainfall events of varying size during leafed and non-leafed periods. The throughfall monitoring network features 60 self-built, cost effective throughfall samplers, with four throughfall collection compartments and tipping bucket units each connected to a newly developed microcontroller board enabling fully automated, low-maintenance operation during rainfall events. The network, collecting data since the winter of 2024/2025, is setup in a stratified sampling pattern among four forest plots of Beech, Douglas fir, Silver fir, and mixed trees in a mature temperate forest in Germany. Throughfall data from a four-week observation period in the spring of 2025 are included in this study to showcase the potential of this approach. The data support the networks’ ability to capture small-range spatio-temporal throughfall patterns across the study area.
Competing interests: At least one of the (co-)authors is a member of the editorial board of Hydrology and Earth System Sciences.
Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.- Preprint
(1538 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-4285', Anonymous Referee #1, 19 Oct 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-4285/egusphere-2025-4285-RC1-supplement.pdfCitation: https://doi.org/
10.5194/egusphere-2025-4285-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Lea Dedden, 28 Nov 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-4285/egusphere-2025-4285-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Lea Dedden, 28 Nov 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-4285', Anonymous Referee #2, 20 Oct 2025
Comments on "Technical note: An innovative monitoring approach to measure spatio-temporal throughfall patterns in forests" submitted to HESS-D by Lea Dedden & Markus Weiler.
[General comment]
This paper proposed monitoring system for throughfall with tipping bucket instrument, which authors had developed recently (Paulsen and Weiler, 2025). I agree that spatial distribution of throughfall is highly heterogeneous, and interception studies require instruments which can measure the spatial distribution of throughfall easily and validly. So, I could understand authors' motivations shown in this paper, but I regret to say that this paper should be rewritten very carefully.
 When tipping bucket system is applied to measure inflow of water, static and dynamic calibrations are necessary, as authors cited Shimizu et al. (2018). Authors did very careful calibration of static volume of one tip. Also, increasing underestimation of one tip for increasing inflow must be considered. The static one tip volume is 2.21 to 3.69 mL, ranging 0.037 mm to 0.062 mm, relatively high resolution for gross rainfall and throughfall measurement. Please note that underestimation occurs at every tip under high intensity, and number of tips should increase with higher resolution (smaller volume of one tip), leading to larger underestimation compared with tipping bucket of low resolution (larger volume). As authors stated, throughfall sometimes exceeds gross rainfall, strongly requiring applying correction based on the dynamic calibration. This is "technical note", in which well-known uncertainties must be evaluated carefully. The one tip volume is similar with Onset and Davis rain gauges, and their dynamic calibration curve had been described in Iida et al. (2012, Hydrological Processes) and Iida et al. (2018, Journal of Hydrometeorology).
 Title of this paper is "... to measure spatio-temporal throughfall patterns in forests". However, reading the current manuscript, main results are rainwater passing through the litter manually put on the capturing area. Changing logic through the manuscript is not suitable for scientific journals. Please confirm that the current objectives (line 111-114) include throughfall only. If authors want to focus on rainwater passing through the litter, careful revisions must be required for whole manuscript.
 I feel strange for expression of "infiltration" measured by this equipment. The tipping bucket measures inflow of rainwater, which passed the litter put on the capturing area of throughfall. I could not think that the inflow is the same as infiltration into soil. To declare infiltration, at least, initial soil water condition, inflow intensity, infiltration capacity and topography (slope or flat) should be considered.[Specific comments]
Line 7-21 (abstract)
There is no "infiltration" among these lines. Readers could not expect that this paper describes inflow of rainwater passed through the litter put on the capturing area.Line 25-85
Detailed background for interception process including throughfall measurement is written here, but these topics are not investigated in this manuscript. I agree that sample size is important issue for throughfall studies, but I could not understand how this equipment contributes to this issue.Line 192-212
It is somewhat difficult for me to understand the situation. Is it correct that newly developed instruments here were used for only measurement of rainwater inflow passing litter? Troughs collect throughfall, but are these data shown in this MS? If trough data is not used, related sentences must be removed. Rainwater captured by trough was measured by Davis rain gauge, so actual one tip should be very small. Please note that underestimation by Davis gauge is high (Iida et al., 2018), and careful attention should be paid for measurements.Line 245-294, 295-351
These results are "infiltration", that is rainwater inflow passed the litter. However, in discussion section, results are compared with previous throughfall studies. Readers should feel strange. In my opinion, as this equipment is throughfall measurement system, authors should compare the throughfall measurements by this new system and the ordinary gauges like storage type point gauges. That is very simple and clear way to show the validity of new system.Line 353-357
These are well-known uncertainties for tipping bucket, which should be considered carefully in this manuscript.Line 370
Not all readers know ECOSENSE. Please take care of readers.[Technical corrections]
Line 166
Please check [ tips" ].Â
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4285-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Lea Dedden, 28 Nov 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-4285/egusphere-2025-4285-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Lea Dedden, 28 Nov 2025
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1,450 | 66 | 19 | 1,535 | 18 | 10 |
- HTML: 1,450
- PDF: 66
- XML: 19
- Total: 1,535
- BibTeX: 18
- EndNote: 10
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1