## 4 Conclusions  
In this study, three different USLE implementations, as used by environmental administrations in CZ, BY, and AT to assess agricultural erosion potential, were applied in three test catchments (7-10 km\({}^{2}\)) in CZ, BY, and AT. The results indicate that, even if all administrations use USLE technology, the regional model adaptations and implementation techniques result in substantial differences in test catchment specific mean erosion. Mean erosion of the three methods applied at all sites vary substantially (CZ: \(10.4\pm 4.88\) tha\({}^{-1}\) a\({}^{-1}\); BY: \(14.4\pm 6.47\) tha\({}^{-1}\) a\({}^{-1}\); AT: \(16.7\pm 6.65\) tha\({}^{-1}\) a\({}^{-1}\)). Much more pronounced differences were modelled for individual fields. The relative difference between methods was highest for small fields with little erosion (approx. \(<2\) t ha\({}^{-1}\) a\({}^{-1}\)) which should be more or less unproblematic with respect to implementing potential soil conservation measures based on the modelling approaches. However, in some cases, differences in modelled field-specific erosion between methods increase for fields with increasing erosion (in CZ also in the case of larger fields). This indicates how sensitive conservation planning is to different USLE implementations, which usually gives farmers incentives only to the most erosion-prone fields in an area.  
A comparison of the region-specific USLE approaches presented in this study with the revised USLE-base European erosion map developed by [PERSON] et al. [19] shows the problems and limitations of harmonization procedures. First, using a spatial resolution of \(100\times 100\) m\({}^{2}\) for most USLE factors and aggregating higher resolution factors into an overall erosion potential on this grid size (as done on the European level [19]) obviously results in an erosion overestimation in case of fields with little erosion and an underestimation in case of fields with larger erosion. Second, the catchment-wide mean erosion from the European map underestimates the mean erosion compared to the region-specific USLE methods.  
In general, the results indicate that even if a large proportion of countries within the EU use USLE technology to assess erosion potential as basis for soil conservation planning, a truly consistent method does not exist and more efforts are needed to homogenize the different methods without losing the specific USLE knowledge developed in the different regions over the last decades.  
Conceptualization: T.D. and P.F.; methodology, T.D., P.F., F.W., J.K., P.S. and E.S.; validation, T.D., P.F., F.W., J.K., P.S. and E.S.; formal analysis, T.D., P.F., F.W., J.K., P.S. and E.S.; data curation, F.W., J.K., and E.S.; writing--original draft preparation, F.F.; writing--review and editing, T.D., P.F., F.W., J.K., P.S. and E.S.; visualization, P.F. and F.W. project administration, T.D. and P.F.; funding acquisition, T.D. and P.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.  
This research was funded by German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD), grant number 57393320, and the Ministry of Education, Youth, and Sports of the Czech Republic, grant number MOBILITY 8J20 DE005 and 8J18 DE006. We specifically acknowledge the support through [PERSON] from the Bavarian State Research Centre for Agriculture (LIL Bayern).  
The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.