Search for: All records

Increased human presence in the Arctic may affect its vulnerable ecosystems. Effects on arctic and red foxes provide notable examples. Both have been documented to take anthropogenic subsidies when available, which can change diet and ranging patterns in complex ways that can either benefit or harm populations, depending on the situation. Understanding this complexity requires new tools to study impacts of increasing human presence on endemic mammals at high latitudes. We propose that dental ecology, specifically tooth wear and breakage, can offer important clues. Based on samples of arctic foxes ( Vulpes lagopus (Linnaeus, 1758)) trapped prior to ( n = 78) and following ( n = 57) rapidly growing human presence on the Yamal Peninsula, Russia, we found that foxes trapped recently in proximity to human settlement had significantly less tooth wear and breakage. This is likely explained by a dietary shift from consumption of reindeer ( Rangifer tarandus (Linnaeus, 1758)) carcasses including bone to softer human-derived foods, especially when preferred smaller prey (e.g., West Siberian lemmings, Lemmus sibiricus (Kerr, 1792), and arctic lemmings, Dicrostonyx torquatus (Pallas, 1778)) are unavailable. These results suggest that tooth wear and breakage can be a useful indicator of the consumption of anthropogenic foods by arctic foxes. 

In the bottomonium sector, the hindered magnetic dipole transitions between P-wave states $h_b\left(2P\right)\to {\chi }_{bJ}\left(1P\right)\gamma$, $J=0$, 1, 2, are expected to be severely suppressed according to the relativized quark model, due to the spin flip of the $b$quark. Nevertheless, a recent model following the coupled-channel approach predicts the corresponding branching fractions to be enhanced by orders of magnitude. In this Letter, we report the first search for such transitions. We find no significant signals and set upper limits at 90% confidence level on the corresponding branching fractions: $\mathcal{B}\left[h_b\right(2P)\to \gamma {\chi }_{b0}(1P\left)\right]<2.7\times {10}^{-1}$, $\mathcal{B}\left[h_b\right(2P)\to \gamma {\chi }_{b1}(1P\left)\right]<5.4\times {10}^{-3}$and $\mathcal{B}\left[h_b\right(2P)\to \gamma {\chi }_{b2}(1P\left)\right]<1.3\times {10}^{-2}$. These values help to constrain the parameters of the coupled-channel models. The results are obtained using a $121.4{\mathrm{fb}}^{-1}$data sample taken around $\sqrt{s}=10.860\mathrm{GeV}$with the Belle detector at the KEKB asymmetric-energy $e^{+}{e}^{-}$collider. Published by the American Physical Society2025 

We report the first evidence for the $h_b\left(2\mathrm{P}\right)\to \mathrm{\Upsilon }\left(1\mathrm{S}\right)\eta$transition with a significance of 3.5 standard deviations. The decay branching fraction is measured to be $\mathcal{B}\left[h_b\right(2\mathrm{P})\to \mathrm{\Upsilon }(1\mathrm{S}\left)\eta \right]=({7.1}_{-3.2}^{+3.7}\pm 0.8)\times {10}^{-3}$, which is noticeably smaller than expected. We also set upper limits on ${\pi }^0$transitions of $\mathcal{B}\left[h_b\right(2\mathrm{P})\to \mathrm{\Upsilon }(1\mathrm{S}\left){\pi }^0\right]<1.8\times {10}^{-3}$, and $\mathcal{B}\left[h_b\right(1\mathrm{P})\to \mathrm{\Upsilon }(1\mathrm{S}\left){\pi }^0\right]<1.8\times {10}^{-3}$, at the 90% confidence level. These results are obtained with a $131.4{\mathrm{fb}}^{-1}$data sample collected near the $\mathrm{\Upsilon }\left(5\mathrm{S}\right)$resonance with the Belle detector at the KEKB asymmetric-energy $e^{+}{e}^{-}$collider. Published by the American Physical Society2024 

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$$ \mathcal{B}\left({\Xi}_c^{+}\to {\Xi}^{-}{\pi}^{+}{\pi}^{+}\right) $$ $B\left({\Xi }_c^{+}\to {\Xi }^{-}{\pi }^{+}{\pi }^{+}\right)$.