Search for: All records

Abstract Parthenogenetic wasps provide an ideal natural experiment to study the heritability, plasticity, and microevolutionary dynamics of body size. Dinocampus coccinellae (Hymenoptera:Braconidae, Euphorinae) is a solitary, generalist braconid parasitoid wasp that reproduces through thelytokous parthenogenesis, and parasitizes over fifty diverse species of coccinellid ladybeetles worldwide as hosts. Here we designed an experiment with parthenogenetic lines of D. coccinellae presented with three different host ladybeetle species of varying sizes, across multiple generations to investigate heritability, and plasticity of body size measured via a combination of morphometric variables such as thorax width, abdominal width, and wing length in D. coccinellae. We expected positively correlated parent-offspring parasitoid regressions, indicative of heritable size variation, from unilineal (parent and offspring reared on same host species) lines, since these restrict environmental variation in phenotypes. In contrast, because multilineal (parent and offspring reared on different host species) lines would induce phenotypic plasticity of clones reared in varying environments, we expected negatively correlated parent-offspring parasitoid regressions. Our results indicate (1) little heritable variation in body size, (2) strong independence of offspring size on the host environment, (3) small mothers produce larger offspring, and vice versa, independent of host. We then model the evolution of size and host-shifting under a constrained fecundity advantage model of Cope’s Law using a Hidden Markov Model, showing that D. coccinellae likely has fitness advantages to maintain plasticity in body size despite parthenogenetic reproduction. 

National and many state standards require elementary teachers to teach engineering in their classrooms. However, incorporating engineering into elementary engineering classrooms has not been a standard practice, thus emphasizing the need for teachers to be provided with training, resources, and support for the vision of instruction described in the standards to become a reality. Administrators are responsible for making decisions regarding teacher training and support. In response, we explored the perceptions of division and building-level administrators throughout Virginia regarding the current state of elementary engineering education and what they perceive as barriers to their teachers engaging students in lessons that incorporate engineering practices. Our data comes from 11 questions from a multiple-choice and open-ended response survey, which was analyzed using a mixed-method approach. Findings describe incoherence between what administrators perceive as the current state of engineering education, the barriers to teachers engaging their students in engineering, and what supports are being provided to teachers. These findings have implications for professional development design and implementation. 

This article outlines the key components of the River’s Edge Construction lesson plan. An explanation of how the lesson was delivered is presented alongside suggestions for implementation by K–6 teachers. The integration of scientific literacy is discussed first, followed by a discussion of each of the 5Es (Bybee et al. 2006). A timeframe for distributing the lesson phases is given; however, the activities included in this plan (see Supplementary Resources for specific lesson materials), should be modified to meet the needs and interest of students, and to align with allotted instructional time and objectives. 

This article outlines the key components of the River’s Edge Construction lesson plan. An explanation of how the lesson was delivered is presented alongside suggestions for implementation by K–6 teachers. The integration of scientific literacy is discussed first, followed by a discussion of each of the 5Es (Bybee et al. 2006). A timeframe for distributing the lesson phases is given; however, the activities included in this plan (see Supplementary Resources for specific lesson materials), should be modified to meet the needs and interest of students, and to align with allotted instructional time and objectives. 

Over the last two years, the COVID-19 pandemic has required teacher educators to teach their classes online. Teacher educators now need to reflect on the learning opportunities that the COVID-19 induced shift to online learning has provided. This study shares two teacher educators’ experiences of teaching and supporting preservice teachers (PSTs) as they taught engineering online to elementary students. The two teacher educators noticed (a) positive changes in PSTs’ attitudes and beliefs about technology integration, (b) PSTs’ tendency to select and use of educational technologies, (c) PSTs’ recognition of the importance of online interaction and feedback from K-12 students, (d) the importance of providing PSTs with extended access to physical hardware, and (e) the importance of providing developmentally appropriate digital resources. The paper concludes with suggestions for teacher educators who are preparing PSTs for the next generation of teaching. 

Abstract Optical emissions associated with Terrestrial Gamma ray Flashes (TGFs) have recently become important subjects in space‐based and ground‐based observations as they can help us understand how TGFs are produced during thunderstorms. In this paper, we present the first time‐resolved leader spectra of the optical component associated with a downward TGF. The TGF was observed by the Telescope Array Surface Detector (TASD) simultaneously with other lightning detectors, including a Lightning Mapping Array (LMA), an INTerFerometer (INTF), a Fast Antenna (FA), and a spectroscopic system. The spectroscopic system recorded leader spectra at 29,900 frames per second (33.44 s time resolution), covering a spectral range from 400 to 900 nm, with 2.1 nm per pixel. The recordings of the leader spectra began 11.7 ms before the kA return stroke and at a height of 2.37 km above the ground. These spectra reveal that optical emissions of singly ionized nitrogen and oxygen occur between 167 s before and 267 s after the TGF detection, while optical emissions of neutrals (H I, 656 nm; N I, 744 nm, and O I, 777 nm) occur right at the moment of the detection. The time‐dependent spectra reveal differences in the optical emissions of lightning leaders with and without downward TGFs. 

We present a measurement of the branching fraction and fraction of longitudinal polarization of $B^0\to {\rho }^{+}{\rho }^{-}$decays, which have two ${\pi }^0$’s in the final state. We also measure time-dependent $CP$violation parameters for decays into longitudinally polarized ${\rho }^{+}{\rho }^{-}$pairs. This analysis is based on a data sample containing $(387\pm 6)\times {10}^6$ $\mathrm{\Upsilon }\left(4S\right)$mesons collected with the Belle II detector at the SuperKEKB asymmetric-energy $e^{+}{e}^{-}$collider in 2019–2022. We obtain $\mathcal{B}(B^0\to {\rho }^{+}{\rho }^{-})=\left(2.89_{-0.22}^{+0.23}{}_{-0.27}^{+0.29}\right)\times {10}^{-5}$, $f_L=0.921_{-0.025}^{+0.024}{}_{-0.015}^{+0.017}$, $S=-0.26\pm 0.19\pm 0.08$, and $C=-0.02\pm 0.12_{-0.05}^{+0.06}$, where the first uncertainties are statistical and the second are systematic. We use these results to perform an isospin analysis to constrain the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa angle ${\varphi }_2$and obtain two solutions; the result consistent with other Standard Model constraints is ${\varphi }_2=\left({92.6}_{-4.7}^{+4.5}\right)°$. Published by the American Physical Society2025 

A<sc>bstract</sc> We perform the first search forCPviolation in$$ {D}_{(s)}^{+}\to {K}_S^0{K}^{-}{\pi}^{+}{\pi}^{+} $$ $D_{\left(s\right)}^{+}\to K_S^0{K}^{-}{\pi }^{+}{\pi }^{+}$decays. We use a combined data set from the Belle and Belle II experiments, which studye⁺e⁻collisions at center-of-mass energies at or near the Υ(4S) resonance. We use 980 fb⁻¹of data from Belle and 428 fb⁻¹of data from Belle II. We measure sixCP-violating asymmetries that are based on triple products and quadruple products of the momenta of final-state particles, and also the particles’ helicity angles. We obtain a precision at the level of 0.5% for$$ {D}^{+}\to {K}_S^0{K}^{-}{\pi}^{+}{\pi}^{+} $$ $D^{+}\to K_S^0{K}^{-}{\pi }^{+}{\pi }^{+}$decays, and better than 0.3% for$$ {D}_s^{+}\to {K}_S^0{K}^{-}{\pi}^{+}{\pi}^{+} $$ $D_s^{+}\to K_S^0{K}^{-}{\pi }^{+}{\pi }^{+}$decays. No evidence ofCPviolation is found. Our results for the triple-product asymmetries are the most precise to date for singly-Cabibbo-suppressedD⁺decays. Our results for the other asymmetries are the first such measurements performed for charm decays. 

A<sc>bstract</sc> Using data samples of 983.0 fb⁻¹and 427.9 fb⁻¹accumulated with the Belle and Belle II detectors operating at the KEKB and SuperKEKB asymmetric-energye⁺e⁻colliders, singly Cabibbo-suppressed decays$$ {\Xi}_c^{+}\to p{K}_S^0 $$ ${\Xi }_c^{+}\to p{K}_S^0$,$$ {\Xi}_c^{+}\to \Lambda {\pi}^{+} $$ ${\Xi }_c^{+}\to \Lambda {\pi }^{+}$, and$$ {\Xi}_c^{+}\to {\Sigma}^0{\pi}^{+} $$ ${\Xi }_c^{+}\to {\Sigma }^0{\pi }^{+}$are observed for the first time. The ratios of branching fractions of$$ {\Xi}_c^{+}\to p{K}_S^0 $$ ${\Xi }_c^{+}\to p{K}_S^0$,$$ {\Xi}_c^{+}\to \Lambda {\pi}^{+} $$ ${\Xi }_c^{+}\to \Lambda {\pi }^{+}$, and$$ {\Xi}_c^{+}\to {\Sigma}^0{\pi}^{+} $$ ${\Xi }_c^{+}\to {\Sigma }^0{\pi }^{+}$relative to that of$$ {\Xi}_c^{+}\to {\Xi}^{-}{\pi}^{+}{\pi}^{+} $$ ${\Xi }_c^{+}\to {\Xi }^{-}{\pi }^{+}{\pi }^{+}$are measured to be$$ {\displaystyle \begin{array}{c}\frac{\mathcal{B}\left({\Xi}_c^{+}\to p{K}_S^0\right)}{\mathcal{B}\left({\Xi}_c^{+}\to {\Xi}^{-}{\pi}^{+}{\pi}^{+}\right)}=\left(2.47\pm 0.16\pm 0.07\right)\%,\\ {}\frac{\mathcal{B}\left({\Xi}_c^{+}\to \Lambda {\pi}^{+}\right)}{\mathcal{B}\left({\Xi}_c^{+}\to {\Xi}^{-}{\pi}^{+}{\pi}^{+}\right)}=\left(1.56\pm 0.14\pm 0.09\right)\%,\\ {}\frac{\mathcal{B}\left({\Xi}_c^{+}\to {\Sigma}^0{\pi}^{+}\right)}{\mathcal{B}\left({\Xi}_c^{+}\to {\Xi}^{-}{\pi}^{+}{\pi}^{+}\right)}=\left(4.13\pm 0.26\pm 0.22\right)\%.\end{array}} $$ $\begin{array}{c}\frac{B\left({\Xi }_c^{+}\to p{K}_S^0\right)}{B\left({\Xi }_c^{+}\to {\Xi }^{-}{\pi }^{+}{\pi }^{+}\right)}=\left(2.47\pm 0.16\pm 0.07\right)\%,\\ \frac{B\left({\Xi }_c^{+}\to \Lambda {\pi }^{+}\right)}{B\left({\Xi }_c^{+}\to {\Xi }^{-}{\pi }^{+}{\pi }^{+}\right)}=\left(1.56\pm 0.14\pm 0.09\right)\%,\\ \frac{B\left({\Xi }_c^{+}\to {\Sigma }^0{\pi }^{+}\right)}{B\left({\Xi }_c^{+}\to {\Xi }^{-}{\pi }^{+}{\pi }^{+}\right)}=\left(4.13\pm 0.26\pm 0.22\right)\%.\end{array}$ Multiplying these values by the branching fraction of the normalization channel,$$ \mathcal{B}\left({\Xi}_c^{+}\to {\Xi}^{-}{\pi}^{+}{\pi}^{+}\right)=\left(2.9\pm 1.3\right)\% $$ $B\left({\Xi }_c^{+}\to {\Xi }^{-}{\pi }^{+}{\pi }^{+}\right)=\left(2.9\pm 1.3\right)\%$, the absolute branching fractions are determined to be$$ {\displaystyle \begin{array}{c}\mathcal{B}\left({\Xi}_c^{+}\to p{K}_S^0\right)=\left(7.16\pm 0.46\pm 0.20\pm 3.21\right)\times {10}^{-4},\\ {}\mathcal{B}\left({\Xi}_c^{+}\to \Lambda {\pi}^{+}\right)=\left(4.52\pm 0.41\pm 0.26\pm 2.03\right)\times {10}^{-4},\\ {}\mathcal{B}\left({\Xi}_c^{+}\to {\Sigma}^0{\pi}^{+}\right)=\left(1.20\pm 0.08\pm 0.07\pm 0.54\right)\times {10}^{-3}.\end{array}} $$ $\begin{array}{c}B\left({\Xi }_c^{+}\to p{K}_S^0\right)=\left(7.16\pm 0.46\pm 0.20\pm 3.21\right)\times {10}^{-4},\\ B\left({\Xi }_c^{+}\to \Lambda {\pi }^{+}\right)=\left(4.52\pm 0.41\pm 0.26\pm 2.03\right)\times {10}^{-4},\\ B\left({\Xi }_c^{+}\to {\Sigma }^0{\pi }^{+}\right)=\left(1.20\pm 0.08\pm 0.07\pm 0.54\right)\times {10}^{-3}.\end{array}$ The first and second uncertainties above are statistical and systematic, respectively, while the third ones arise from the uncertainty in$$ \mathcal{B}\left({\Xi}_c^{+}\to {\Xi}^{-}{\pi}^{+}{\pi}^{+}\right) $$ $B\left({\Xi }_c^{+}\to {\Xi }^{-}{\pi }^{+}{\pi }^{+}\right)$.