## 4 Discussion  
Comparable studies to our splash erosion experiments under natural rainfall were made in Portugal by [PERSON] et al. [42], and in Spain by [PERSON] et al. [43]. The Thies dichrometer was used in both studies to directly assess rainfall \(KE\). The splash erosion rates measured by [PERSON] et al. [42] were between 2.3 and 100 g m\({}^{-2}\). In the same range of total \(KE\) measured at our sites, splash erosion for loamy sand soil, which was most similar to the texture from the study in Portugal, was between 12 and 2508 g m\({}^{-2}\). However, the Portugal study was based on only nine splash erosion records, during which low rainfall intensities characterized by small raindrops (<0.55 mm) were measured. According to findings by [PERSON] and [PERSON] [59], smaller drops produce significantly less splash erosion than larger ones, even for the same amount of \(KE\). This would explain the lower splash erosion rates compared to our measurements, where more erosive rainfall events with larger mean \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Parameter** & **Soil** & **Equation** & \(\mathbf{R^{2}}\) & **RMSE** \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{\(EI_{30}\) (including E\({}_{1}\), E\({}_{2}\), E\({}_{3}\))} & _ZW_ & \(S\) = 3.927-\(EI_{30}\)\({}^{0.858}\) & 0.60 & 335.23 \\  & MI & \(S\) = 6.418-\(EI_{30}\)\({}^{0.844}\) & 0.64 & 299.95 \\  & BK & \(S\) = 10.233-\(EI_{30}\)\({}^{0.785}\) & 0.65 & 310.70 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{\(EI_{30}\) (excluding E\({}_{1}\), E\({}_{2}\), E\({}_{3}\))} & _ZW_ & \(S\) = 3.899-\(EI_{30}\)\({}^{0.854}\) & 0.60 & 322.87 \\  & MI & \(S\) = 6.572-\(EI_{30}\)\({}^{0.836}\) & 0.65 & 287.67 \\ \cline{1-1}  & BK & \(S\) = 10.517-\(EI_{30}\)\({}^{0.778}\) & 0.65 & 294.55 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Main outputs of the regression analysis between mean splash erosion \(S\) (g m\({}^{-2}\)) for Zwerbach (ZW), Mistelbach (MI), and Bilkovice (BK) soil and rainfall erosivity factor \(EI_{30}\) (MJ ha mm\({}^{-1}\) h\({}^{-1}\)). \(R^{2}\) is the determination coefficient of the regression model, and RMSE (g m\({}^{-2}\)) indicates the root mean squared error. E\({}_{1}\), E\({}_{2}\), and E\({}_{3}\) denote extreme observations. Figure 8: Average splash erosion for Zwerbach (ZW), Mistelbach (MI), and Bilkovice (BK) soil versus mean rainfall erosivity (\(EI_{30}\)), including (**a**) all observations (\(n\) = 80) and (**b**) those without extreme observations (\(n\) = 77). The dashed line represents regression function for ZW, as does the solid line for MI and the dashed–dotted line for BK soil. The points inside the dashed boxes indicate extreme observations (E\({}_{1}\), E\({}_{2}\), and E\({}_{3}\)) per soil. drop sizes (\(>\)0.6 mm) were measured. Furthermore, differences in splash erosion measuring principles could also play a role when comparing results. In Portugal, the cup was placed directly on the soil bed, and splashed particles were collected from the surrounding soil. We prepared the soil samples and measured the particles splashed into the collector surrounding the soil. [PERSON] et al. [42] described splash erosion as the linear function of total \(KE\), with the \(R^{2}\) being 0.51 and 0.69 for different drop size and intensities thresholds used. That corresponds with our observations for the loamy sand soil, where an \(R^{2}\) of 0.52 was obtained. The study from [PERSON] et al. [43] was more comparable to ours, considering that the Morgan splash cups were used for the splash erosion measurements. However, the samples were kept undisturbed during the whole monitoring period, whereas our samples were exchanged after each rainfall event. Splash erosion was measured for three soils with silt, sandy loam, and clay loam textures. The authors suggested \(EI_{30}\) as a controlling factor for splash erosion where no differences in detached rates between the soils were reported.