## 3 Results and Discussion
As the different USLE approaches were regionally adapted, we assume that the approach adjusted for a specific region performs best in the corresponding region. Therefore, the field-specific results of the different approaches are always presented against the results of the regionally adapted approach (Figure 4). To validate the model results in the three test regions against data to prove our assumption is not/hardly possible. It is important to note that the USLE only produces gross erosion for each raster cell, while transport and deposition are not modelled. Hence, any kind of traditional model validation on a catchment scale using sediment delivery data (e.g., [48]) or catchment internal net soil loss (accounting for soil erosion and deposition in each raster cell), i.e., derived from fallout radionuclides (e.g. [49]) or changes in digital elevation models (e.g., [50]), are generally not feasible. Therefore, our assumption of best regional model performance following regional adaptation is purely supported by plot scale validation in earlier studies (e.g., USLE adaptation for Bavaria [13] or \(K\) factor adaptation for Austria [34]). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**CZ Method**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**BY Method**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**AT Method**} \\ \hline
**USLE** & & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Mean**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Spatially**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Mean**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**SD \({}^{1}\)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Spatially** \\ **Distributed** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Mean** \\ **Arable** \\ **Land** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Spatially** \\ **Arable** \\ **Land** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Mean** \\ **Arable** \\ **Land** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Spatially** \\ **Distributed** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{\
\begin{tabular}{c} **Spatially** \\ **Distributed** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} **Spatially** \\ **Distributed** \\ \end{tabular} } \\
**Factor/Mean** & & & & & & & & & & & \\
**Erosion** & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline \multicolumn{10}{c}{CZ Test Catchment} \\ \hline \(R\) & N h\({}^{-1}\) & 47.4 & 0.34 & yes & 59.8 & - & no & 67.3 & - & no \\ \(K\) & t h h\({}^{-1}\) N\({}^{-1}\) & 0.29 & 0.09 & yes & 0.29 & 0.09 & CZ data & 0.29 & 0.09 & CZ data \\ LS & - & 3.79 & 2.82 & yes & 3.45 & 2.25 & yes & 3.76 & 2.72 & yes \\ \(C\) & - & 0.27 & - & no & 0.10 & - & no & 0.21 & 0.05 & yes \\ \(P\) & - & 1.00 & - & no & 0.85 & - & no & 1.00 & - & no \\ \(A\) & t h\({}^{-1}\) a\({}^{-1}\) & 14.4 & 11.8 & & 4.95 & 3.72 & yes & 11.8 & 6.03 & yes \\ \hline \multicolumn{10}{c}{BY Test Catchment} \\ \(R\) & N h\({}^{-1}\) & 45.7 & - & yes & 72.9 & 0.27 & yes & 85.2 & - & no \\ \(K\) & t h h\({}^{-1}\) N\({}^{-1}\) & 0.45 & 0.06 & BY data & 0.45 & 0.06 & BY data & 0.45 & 0.06 & BY data \\ LS & - & 2.47 & 2.15 & yes & 2.24 & 1.71 & yes & 2.35 & 1.99 & yes \\ \(C\) & - & 0.28 & - & no & 0.13 & - & no & 0.23 & 0.05 & yes \\ \(P\) & - & 1.00 & - & no & 0.85 & - & no & 1.00 & - & no \\ \(A\) & t h\({}^{-1}\) a\({}^{-1}\) & 14.3 & 12.1 & yes & 7.96 & 5.93 & yes & 20.9 & 17.5 & yes \\ \hline \multicolumn{10}{c}{AT Test Catchment} \\ \hline \(R\) & N h\({}^{-1}\) & 57.6 & - & & 61.9 & - & no & 81.7 & 1.54 & yes \\ \(K\) & t h h h\({}^{-1}\) N\({}^{-1}\) & 0.48 & 0.14 & AT data & 0.48 & 0.14 & AT data & 0.48 & 0.14 & AT data \\ LS & - & 2.31 & 2.34 & yes & 2.14 & 1.98 & yes & 2.28 & 2.23 & yes \\ \(C\) & - & 0.30 & - & no & 0.23 & - & no & 0.21 & 0.07 & yes \\ \(P\) & - & 1.00 & - & no & 0.85 & - & no & 1.00 & - & no \\ \(A\) & t h\({}^{-1}\) a\({}^{-1}\) & 19.4 & 19.92 & yes & 9.08 & 7.91 & yes & 21.5 & 24.6 & yes \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \({}^{1}\) SD is standard deviation.  
\end{table}