4.7 Article

ACCRETION IN EVOLVED AND TRANSITIONAL DISKS IN CEP OB2: LOOKING FOR THE ORIGIN OF THE INNER HOLES

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 710, 期 1, 页码 597-612

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/710/1/597

关键词

accretion, accretion disks; protoplanetary disks; stars: pre-main sequence

资金

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, DFG [SI 1486/1-1]
  2. National Aeronautics and Space Administration
  3. National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present accretion rates for a large number of solar-type stars in the Cep OB2 region, based on U-band observations. Our study comprises 95 members of the similar to 4 Myr old cluster Tr 37 (including 20 transition objects (TOs)), as well as the only classical T Tauri star (CTTS) in the similar to 12 Myr old cluster NGC 7160. The stars show different disk morphologies, with the majority of them having evolved and flattened disks. The typical accretion rates are about 1 order of magnitude lower than in regions aged 1-2 Myr, and we find no strong correlation between disk morphology and accretion rates. Although half of the TOs are not accreting, the median accretion rates of normal CTTS and accreting transition disks are similar (similar to 3 x 10(-9) and 2 x 10(-9) M-circle dot yr(-1), respectively). Comparison with other regions suggests that the TOs observed at different ages do not necessarily represent the same type of objects, which is consistent with the fact that the different processes that can lead to reduced IR excess/inner disk clearing (e.g., binarity, dust coagulation/settling, photoevaporation, giant planet formation) do not operate on the same timescales. Accreting TOs in Tr 37 are probably suffering strong dust coagulation/settling. Regarding the equally large number of non-accreting TOs in the region, other processes, such as photoevaporation, the presence of stellar/substellar companions, and/or giant planet formation, may account for their transitional spectral energy distributions and negligible accretion rates.

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