4.7 Article

DETECTABILITY OF RED-EDGE-SHIFTED VEGETATION ON TERRESTRIAL PLANETS ORBITING M STARS

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 644, 期 2, 页码 L129-L132

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1086/505746

关键词

astrobiology; atmospheric effects; radiative transfer; stars: late-type

资金

  1. European Space Agency
  2. National Aeronautics and Space Administration through the NASA Astrobiology Institute [CAN-00-OSS-01]
  3. NASA grant [NASA 5-13296]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We have explored the detectability of exovegetation on the surface of a terrestrial planet orbiting an M star. The exovegetation is responsible for producing a pigment-derived surface signature that is redshifted with respect to the Earth vegetation's red edge. The redshift was estimated using a model of leaf optical property spectra (Jacquemoud & Baret) combined with a 3 photon photosynthetic scheme calculated by Wolstencroft & Raven for a possible exovegetation growing on an M star planet. To study the detectability of this surface biosignature on an M star terrestrial planet, we have used the three-dimensional model developed by Tinetti et al. for the case of the Earth. This model can generate disk-averaged spectra and broadband integrated fluxes, which will be useful for future terrestrial planet exploration missions, such as the NASA Terrestrial Planet Finder Coronagraph. Input to this model were the atmospheric profiles and cloud distributions predicted by Joshi and coworkers for a synchronous planet orbiting an M dwarf and the distinctive surface reflectance of the exovegetation. While on Earth this pigment-derived surface feature would be almost completely masked by water absorption, even in a cloud-free atmosphere, we found that the strength of the edge feature on our simulated M star terrestrial planet can exceed that on Earth, given the right conditions. Obviously, the detectability of such biosignatures would be highly dependent on the extent of vegetation surface area, cloud cover, and viewing angle.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据