4.6 Article

Rotation periods of 12 000 main-sequence Kepler stars: Dependence on stellar spectral type and comparison with v sin i observations

期刊

ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS
卷 557, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

EDP SCIENCES S A
DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321912

关键词

stars: rotation; starspots; stars: late-type

资金

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) [SFB 963/1]
  2. Danish National Research Foundation
  3. ASTERISK
  4. European Research Council [267864]
  5. NASA Science Mission directorate
  6. NASA [NAS5-26555]
  7. NASA Office of Space Science [NNX09AF08G]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims. We aim to measure the starspot rotation periods of active stars in the Kepler field as a function of spectral type and to extend reliable rotation measurements from F-, G-, and K-type to M-type stars. Methods. Using the Lomb-Scargle periodogram we searched more than 150 000 stellar light curves for periodic brightness variations. We analyzed periods between 1 and 30 days in eight consecutive Kepler quarters, where 30 days is an estimated maximum for the validity of the PDC_MAP data correction pipeline. We selected stable rotation periods, i.e., periods that do not vary from the median by more than one day in at least six of the eight quarters. We averaged the periods for each stellar spectral class according to B-V color and compared the results to archival v sin i data, using stellar radii estimates from the Kepler Input Catalog. Results. We report on the stable starspot rotation periods of 12 151 Kepler stars. We find good agreement between starspot velocities and v sin i data for all F-, G-and early K-type stars. The 795 M-type stars in our sample have a median rotation period of 15.4 days. We find an excess of M-type stars with periods less than 7.5 days that are potentially fast-rotating and fully convective. Measuring photometric variability in multiple Kepler quarters appears to be a straightforward and reliable way to determine the rotation periods of a large sample of active stars, including late-type stars.

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

4.6
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