4.7 Article

Crossing into the substellar regime in Praesepe

Journal

MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY
Volume 361, Issue 4, Pages 1323-1336

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09285.x

Keywords

stars : low-mass,brown dwarfs; stars : luminosity function,mass function; open clusters and associations : individual : Praesepe

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We present the results of a deep optical 2.6 deg(2) survey with near-infrared (NIR) follow-up measurements of the intermediate-aged Praesepe open cluster. The survey is complete to I-c = 21.3, Z = 20.5, corresponding to M similar to 0.06 M-circle dot assuming a cluster age of 0.5 Gyr. Using three to five passbands to constrain cluster membership, we identify 32 new low-mass cluster members, at least four of which are likely to be substellar. We use the low-mass census to trace the region where the sequence moves away from the NEXTGEN towards the DUSTY regime at T-eff = 2200 K. In doing so, we identify four unresolved binaries, yielding a substellar binary fraction (BF) of similar to 30 per cent. The BFs appear to decrease below 0.1 M-circle dot in contrast to the rising fractions found in the Pleiades. We also identify a paucity of late M dwarfs, thought to be due to a steepening in the mass-luminosity relation at these spectral types, and compare the properties of this gap in the sequence to those observed in younger clusters. We note an overdensity of faint sources in the region of the so-called subcluster (possibly an older smaller cluster within Praesepe), and subsequently derive the luminosity and mass functions (MFs) for the main Praesepe cluster, revealing a turnover near the substellar boundary. We conclude by presenting astrometric measurements for low-mass Praesepe candidates from the literature and rule out as a likely foreground dwarf RPr1, hitherto thought to be a substellar member.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available