For a long time the proper name of the pool in Joh 5,2 has been subject to discussion. According to the 27th edition of Nestle-Aland's Novum Testamentum Graece, the text reads Bηθζαθα. Since this name is a biblical hapax, a priori one has to be skeptical about this reading. The critical apparatus to NA27 demonstrates that this proper name indeed is not without problems. Already the sheer number of variants is illustrative for the problem. Moreover, the uncertainty concerning this place name has arisen early, which is denoted by the “alten Papyri als Zeugen für eine aus inneren Kriterien als unmöglich auszuschliesende Lesart”.
More than once, Apollinaris of Laodicea (4th century) offered a Hexaplaric reading of a certain biblical book in a commentary on another book. Those commentaries are lost, but fragments of them can be found in the catenae. Since they relate to another biblical book, those catenae have not been investigated by previous editors of Hexaplaric readings. Consequently, the readings offered by Apollinaris have escaped those editors' attention. The present article discusses four unknown readings of Ezekiel that can be found in the catenae on Psalms as well as two of Isaiah and one of Psalms that are preserved in the catenae on the Pauline Epistles. On the whole, most of this Hexaplaric evidence offered by Apollinaris is reliable. The readings are the following: Ez 20,47 (mt 21,3) α' and o'; 21,3 (mt 21,8) α' and o'; Isa 8,13b–14a α'; 65,15–16a α'; Ps 39,6 (mt 40,6) α'.
The agreement of Leaf Area Index (LAI) assessments from three indirect methods, i.e. the LAI–2200 Plant Canopy Analyzer, the SS1 SunScan Canopy Analysis System and Digital Hemispherical Photography (DHP) was evaluated for four canopy types, i.e. a short rotation coppice plantation (SRC) with poplar, a Scots pine stand, a Pedunculate oak stand and a maize field. In the SRC and in the maize field, the indirect measurements were compared with direct measurements (litter fall and harvesting). In the low LAI range (0 to 2) the discrepancies of the SS1 were partly explained by the inability to properly account for clumping and the uncertainty of the ellipsoidal leaf angle distribution parameter. The higher values for SS1 in the medium (2 to 6) to high (6 to 8) ranges might be explained by gap fraction saturation for LAI–2200 and DHP above certain values. Wood area index –understood as the woody light-blocking elements from the canopy with respect to diameter growth– accounted for overestimation by all indirect methods when compared to direct methods in the SRC. The inter-comparison of the three indirect methods in the four canopy types showed a general agreement for all methods in the medium LAI range (2 to 6). LAI–2200 and DHP revealed the best agreement among the indirect methods along the entire range of LAI (0 to 8) in all canopy types. SS1 showed some discrepancies with the LAI–2200 and DHP at low (0 to 2) and high ranges of LAI (6 to 8).
Process-based vegetation models are crucial tools to better understand biosphere-atmosphere exchanges and ecophysiological responses to climate change. In this contribution the performance of two global dynamic vegetation models, i.e. CARAIB and ISBACC, and one stand-scale forest model, i.e. 4C, was compared to long-term observed net ecosystem carbon exchange (NEE) time series from eddy covariance monitoring stations at three old-grown European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) forest stands. Residual analysis, wavelet analysis and singular spectrum analysis were used beside conventional scalar statistical measures to assess model performance with the aim of defining future targets for model improvement. We found that the most important errors for all three models occurred at the edges of the observed NEE distribution and the model errors were correlated with environmental variables on a daily scale. These observations point to possible projection issues under more extreme future climate conditions. Recurrent patterns in the residuals over the course of the year were linked to the approach to simulate phenology and physiological evolution during leaf development and senescence. Substantial model errors occurred on the multi-annual time scale, possibly caused by the lack of inclusion of management actions and disturbances. Other crucial processes defined were the forest structure and the vertical light partitioning through the canopy. Further, model errors were shown not to be transmitted from one time scale to another. We proved that models should be evaluated across multiple sites, preferably using multiple evaluation methods, to identify processes that request reconsideration.