THE ROLE OF MULTIPLICITY IN DISK EVOLUTION AND PLANET FORMATION

By A. Kraus, Michael J. Ireland, L. Hillenbrand, F. Martinache. 2011

178 citations recorded by the source corpus.

The past decade has seen a revolution in our understanding of protoplanetary disk evolution and planet formation in single-star systems. However, the majority of solar-type stars form in binary systems, so the impact of binary companions on protoplanetary disks is an important element in our understanding of planet formation. We have compiled a combined multiplicity/disk census of Taurus–Auriga, plus a restricted sample of close binaries in other regions, in order to explore the role of multiplicity in disk evolution. Our results imply that the tidal influence of a close (≲40 AU) binary companion significantly hastens the process of protoplanetary disk dispersal, as ∼2/3 of all close binaries promptly disperse their disks within ≲1 Myr after formation. However, prompt disk dispersal only occurs for a small fraction of wide binaries and single stars, with ∼80%–90% retaining their disks for at least ∼2–3 Myr (but rarely for more than ∼5 Myr). Our new constraints on the disk clearing timescale have significant implications for giant planet formation; most single stars have 3–5 Myr within which to form giant planets, whereas most close binary systems would have to form giant planets within ≲1 Myr. If core accretion is the primary mode for giant planet formation, then gas giants in close binaries should be rare. Conversely, since almost all single stars have a similar period of time within which to form gas giants, their relative rarity in radial velocity (RV) surveys indicates either that the giant planet formation timescale is very well matched to the disk dispersal timescale or that features beyond the disk lifetime set the likelihood of giant planet formation.

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics, Spectroscopy

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c64d8451d1b94a09c93549851abd3f0c6f71dc90

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Astronomy and Astrophysics

1. B. Bowler
2. N. Evans II
3. Anders Johansen
4. Michael C. Liu
5. A. Kraus
6. T. Dupuy
7. Michiel Lambrechts
8. K. Luhman

In Spectroscopy

1. N. Evans II
2. G. Herczeg
3. L. Allen
4. T. Huard
5. M. Dunham
6. D. Johnstone
7. J. di Francesco
8. B. Bowler

Citations in the corpus

• Dust Evolution and the Formation of Planetesimals (2016, background): “…in disks around different types of young stars from intermediate mass stars to brown dwarfs (Apai et al. 2005; Furlan et al. 2006; Sicilia-Aguilar et al. 2006; Balog et al. 2007; Hernández et al. 2007; Guarcello et al. 2009; Sicilia-Aguilar et al. 2011; Kraus et al. 2012; Fang et al. 2012, 2013).”
• Imaging Extrasolar Giant Planets (2016, background): “Physically, binaries carve out large dynamically-unstable regions that are inhospitable to planets and there is strong evidence that they inhibit planet formation by rapidly clearing or truncating protoplanetary disks (e.g., Cieza et al. 2009; Duchêne 2010; Kraus et al. 2012).”
• THE IMPACT OF STELLAR MULTIPLICITY ON PLANETARY SYSTEMS. I. THE RUINOUS INFLUENCE OF CLOSE BINARY COMPANIONS (2016, background): “This trend emerged most clearly from a combination of a binary census of the Taurus-Auriga star-forming region with a disk census from Spitzer (Kraus et al. 2011, 2012), which showed that at the age of ∼2 Myr, 80% of single stars and 90% of wide binaries host a protoplanetary disk, whereas only 35% ”
• A STEEPER THAN LINEAR DISK MASS–STELLAR MASS SCALING RELATION (2016, background): “Assuming an average distance of 160 pc to the ChamaeleonI star-forming region (Luhman 2008), 7/32 are “close” binaries, with projected separations 40 au that are small enough to affect disk evolution (Kraus et al. 2012).”
• SOAR TESS Survey. I. Sculpting of TESS Planetary Systems by Stellar Companions (2019, background): “…systems: stirring planetesimals (Quintana et al. 2007), perturbing orbits resulting in high-eccentricity tidal migration (Naoz et al. 2012), truncating protoplanetary disks and shortening their lifetime (Jang-Condell et al. 2008; Kraus et al. 2012), and increasing photoevaporation (Alexander 2012).”
• YOUNG STELLAR OBJECTS IN THE GOULD BELT (2015, background): “Although the ages of young stars are highly uncertain, recent studies suggest a revised half-life for disk survival of 2.5 − 4 Myr on both observational (e.g., Kraus et al. 2012; Bell et al. 2013; Soderblom et al. 2014) and theoretical (e.g., Alexander & Armitage 2009) grounds.”
• Forming the cores of giant planets from the radial pebble flux in protoplanetary discs (2014, background): “Observationally, gas discs are estimated to survive only for a few Myr (Haisch et al. 2001; Kraus et al. 2012).”
• Adaptive Optics for Astronomy (2012, background): “…for which the interferometric analysis leads to superior PSF calibration and speckle suppression, is now providing evidence that the central holes in the disks are due to the presence of a binary star (Kraus et al. 2012) or are carved by giant planets (Huélamo et al. 2011, Kraus & Ireland 2012).”
• AN OPTICAL SPECTROSCOPIC STUDY OF T TAURI STARS. I. PHOTOSPHERIC PROPERTIES (2014, background): “This approach is similar to that taken by Hartigan & Kenyon (2003) to analyze spectra of close binaries in Taurus, although our spectral coverage is broader and our grid of WTTSs is more complete.”
• PLANETS AROUND LOW-MASS STARS (PALMS). IV. THE OUTER ARCHITECTURE OF M DWARF PLANETARY SYSTEMS (2014, background): “…separations .100 AU have been excluded since moderate-separation (∼5–100 AU) binaries disperse protoplanetary disks on rapid timescales (Duchêne 2010; Kraus et al. 2012), limiting the raw ingredients of planet formation and diminishing the region of dynamically-stable orbits in these systems.”