Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T03:51:13.745Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Impact of Starspots on Mass and Age Estimates for Pre-main Sequence Stars

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2016

Garrett Somers  and
Marc H. Pinsonneault
Garrett Somers
Affiliation:
The Ohio State University Astronomy Department email: somers@astronomy.ohio-state.edu
Marc H. Pinsonneault
Affiliation:
The Ohio State University Astronomy Department email: somers@astronomy.ohio-state.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

We investigate the impact of starspots on the evolution of late-type stars during the pre-main sequence (pre-MS). We find that heavy spot coverage increases the radii of stars by 4–10%, consistent with inflation factors in eclipsing binary systems, and suppresses the rate of pre-MS lithium depletion, leading to a dispersion in zero-age MS Li abundance (comparable to observed spreads) if a range of spot properties exist within clusters from 3-10 Myr. This concordance with data implies that spots induce a range of radii at fixed mass during the pre-MS. These spots decrease the luminosity and Teff of stars, leading to a displacement on the HR diagram. This displacement causes isochrone derived masses and ages to be systematically under-estimated, and can lead to the spurious appearance of an age spread in a co-eval population.

Keywords

stars: starspots – stars: pre-main sequence – stars: fundamental parameters – stars: activity
Type
Contributed Papers
Information
Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union , Volume 10 , Issue S314: Young Stars & Planets Near the Sun , November 2015 , pp. 91 - 94
Copyright
Copyright © International Astronomical Union 2016 

References

Feiden, G. A. & Chaboyer, B. 2012, ApJ, 757, 42Google Scholar
Gough, D. O. & Tayler, R. J. 1966, MNRAS, 133, 85Google Scholar
Hartman, J. D., Bakos, G. Á., Kovács, G., & Noyes, R. W. 2010, MNRAS, 408, 475Google Scholar
Herczeg, G. J. & Hillenbrand, L. A. 2015, arXiv:1505.06518Google Scholar
Jackson, R. J. & Jeffries, R. D. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 2111Google Scholar
Soderblom, D. R., Jones, B. F., & Balachandran, S., et al. 1993, AJ, 106, 1059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Somers, G. & Pinsonneault, M. H. 2014, ApJ, 790, 72Google Scholar
Somers, G. & Pinsonneault, M. H. 2015a, MNRAS, 449, 4131Google Scholar
Somers, G. & Pinsonneault, M. H. 2015b, arXiv:1506.01393Google Scholar
Spruit, H. C. & Weiss, A. 1986, AAP, 166, 167Google Scholar
Torres, G., Andersen, J., & Giménez, A. 2010, AAPR, 18, 67Google Scholar