More rapid climate change promotes evolutionary rescue through selection for increased dispersal distance

Acknowledgements This research was funded by FWO projects G.0057.09 to DB and JB, and G.0610.11 to DB, JB and RS. JMJT, DB and RS are supported by the FWO Research Network EVENET.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Correlations derived from Modern Nucleon-Nucleon Potentials

Various modern nucleon-nucleon (NN) potentials yield a very accurate fit to the nucleon-nucleon scattering phase shifts. The differences between these interactions in describing properties of nuclear matter are investigated. Various contributions to the total energy are evaluated employing the Hellmann - Feynman theorem. Special attention is paid to the two-nucleon correlation functions derived from these interactions. Differences in the predictions of the various interactions can be traced back to the inclusion of non-local terms.Comment: 7 pages, 4 figures include

ESC NN-Potentials in Momentum Space. II. Meson-Pair Exchange Potentials

The partial wave projection of the Nijmegen soft-core potential model for Meson-Pair-Exchange (MPE) for NN-scattering in momentum space is presented. Here, nucleon-nucleon momentum space MPE-potentials are NN-interactions where either one or both nucleons contains a meson-pair vertex. Dynamically, the meson-pair vertices can be viewed as describing in an effective way (part of) the effects of heavy-meson exchange and meson-nucleon resonances. From the point of view of ``duality,'' these two kinds of contribution are roughly equivalent. Part of the MPE-vertices can be found in the chiral-invariant phenomenological Lagrangians that have a basis in spontaneous broken chiral symmetry. It is shown that the MPE-interactions are a very important component of the nuclear force, which indeed enables a very succesful description of the low and medium energy NN-data. Here we present a precise fit to the NN-data with the extended-soft-core (ESC) model containing OBE-, PS-PS-, and MPE-potentials. An excellent description of the NN-data for $T_{Lab} \leq 350$ MeV is presented and discussed. Phase shifts are given and a $\chi^2_{p.d.p.} = 1.15$ is reached.Comment: 27 pages, 5 PostScript figures, revtex

Can the magnetic moment contribution explain the A_y puzzle?

We evaluate the full one-photon-exchange Born amplitude for $Nd$ scattering. We include the contributions due to the magnetic moment of the proton or neutron, and the magnetic moment and quadrupole moment of the deuteron. It is found that the inclusion of the magnetic-moment interaction in the theoretical description of the $Nd$ scattering observables cannot resolve the long-standing $A_y$ puzzle.Comment: 7 pages, 2 Postscript figures; to appear in Phys.Rev.

Soft two-meson-exchange nucleon-nucleon potentials. II. One-pair and two-pair diagrams

Two-meson-exchange nucleon-nucleon potentials are derived where either one or both nucleons contains a pair vertex. Physically, the meson-pair vertices are meant to describe in an effective way (part of) the effects of heavy-meson exchange and meson-nucleon resonances. {}From the point of view of ``duality,'' these two kinds of contribution are roughly equivalent. The various possibilities for meson pairs coupling to the nucleon are inspired by the chiral-invariant phenomenological Lagrangians that have appeared in the literature. The coupling constants are fixed using the linear $\sigma$ model. We show that the inclusion of these two-meson exchanges gives a significant improvement over a potential model including only the standard one-boson exchanges.Comment: 21 pages RevTeX, 7 postscript figures; revised version as to appear in Phys. Rev.

Comment on piNN Coupling from High Precision np Charge Exchange at 162 MeV

In this updated and expanded version of our delayed Comment we show that the np backward cross section, as presented by the Uppsala group, is seriously flawed (more than 25 sd.). The main reason is the incorrect normalization of the data. We show also that their extrapolation method, used to determine the charged piNN coupling constant, is a factor of about 10 less accurate than claimed by Ericson et al. The large extrapolation error makes the determination of the coupling constant by the Uppsala group totally uninteresting.Comment: 5 pages, latex2e with a4wide.sty. This is an updated and extended version of the Comment published in Phys. Rev. Letters 81, 5253 (1998