Comparison of German and Swiss Rainfall Simulators ‐ Utility, Labour Demands and Costs

The utility, vehicle required, the time needed for assembly and relocation and the costs associated with six different rainfall simulators were studied. The results can be summarized as follows: The simulator designed by Kainz & Eicher (1990) is the least expensive to operate. This simulator also has excellent experimental versatility. Its only restriction is a short slope length. The rainfall simulator of Karl & Toldrian (1973) is also inexpensive to operate, but because of disadvantages such as low falling height, wind susceptibility, and the need for more workers than other simulators, it should be used mainly where other simulators are not practical (forests, steep slopes, or long slopes). The rainfall simulator of Richter et al. (1988) has limited mobility in the field and is highly susceptible to wind drift. Moreover, its narrow plots do not cover a representative unit of a cultivated field. The modified Swanson‐type simulator (Auerswald, (1986) is suitable for large plots if a sufficient water supply is available. The simulator of Kromer & Vöhringer (1988) has the highest fixed costs, but labour is used efficiently. The simulator of Schmidt (1983) can only be considered for stationary use because of its long assembly time. Other disadvantages are narrow plot size and high wind susceptibility. Depending on the selection of the simulator, total costs of between 400 DM and 2000 DM per plot should be expected even with high use rates.