Soil surface roughness measurement—methods, applicability, and surface representation

In a laboratory rainfall simulator study soil surface roughness was measured using contact (roller chain, pin meter) and noncontact devices (laser scanner, photogrammetry). Soil surfaces with two initial roughness conditions (aggregates < 20 mm and < 63 mm) were investigated before and after 90 mm of simulated rainfall. Measured plot area was 50 by 55 cm. A comparison of soil roughness measurement techniques was undertaken with regard to data acquisition and computation efforts, resolution, precision and capability to represent soil surface features.As for the contact methods, resolution (cm range) and precision (mm range) is limited which constrains their application to calculation of simple surface parameters. Resolution and precision in the sub millimeter range could be obtained with the laser scanner, while for the photogrammetric method the measurement uncertainty was approximately 1–2 mm. Measurement time was highest (90 min) for the pin meter technique, though data were ready to use for analyses. Laser scanner measurements took 34 min. Several steps of data post-processing required 30 more minutes. Data acquisition was fastest for photogrammetry (5 min), but expert knowledge as well as special hard- and software were necessary for time-consuming photo analyses, taking about 120 min.The chain and pin meter were compared using a profile index. Profile lengths matched well for smooth surfaces; on rough surfaces, the chain meter gave shorter profile lines. Between profile index from chain measurements and the random roughness derived from pin meter data a polynomial regression could be found. Parameters of distributions of elevations as well as inclinations and depressions were used to compare the laser scanner and the photogrammetric technique. Generally the laser scanner was able to reproduce small aggregates as well as voids in between them, while DEM from stereophotos was smoothed between major aggregates. This led to skewed distributions of elevations and inclinations, as well as to a lower surface area (up to 39%), and a lower depression volume (up to 68%). Shapes of depressions were significantly different as well. The used photogrammetric technique is supposed to be successful in producing adequate DEMs for already smoothed surfaces, e.g. after rainfall events.The study revealed different fields of application and limitations of the compared devices. Using a non-adequate technique for certain situations will definitely have implications on further analyses concerning connectivity of runoff pathways, surface protection from raindrop impact or runoff detachment and sediment transport.