1: %%

2: %% Beginning of file 'sample.tex'

3: %%

4: %% Modified 2004 January 9

5: %%

6: %% This is a sample manuscript marked up using the

7: %% AASTeX v5.x LaTeX 2e macros.

8: 

9: %% The first piece of markup in an AASTeX v5.x document

10: %% is the \documentclass command. LaTeX will ignore

11: %% any data that comes before this command.

12: 

13: %% The command below calls the preprint style

14: %% which will produce a one-column, single-spaced document.

15: %% Examples of commands for other substyles follow. Use

16: %% whichever is most appropriate for your purposes.

17: %%

18: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}

19: %\usepackage{natbib}

20: 

21: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:

22: 

23: %% \documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}

24: 

25: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:

26: 

27: %% \documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}

28: 

29: %% Sometimes a paper's abstract is too long to fit on the

30: %% title page in preprint2 mode. When that is the case,

31: %% use the longabstract style option.

32: 

33: %% \documentclass[preprint2,longabstract]{aastex}

34: 

35: %% If you want to create your own macros, you can do so

36: %% using \newcommand. Your macros should appear before

37: %% the \begin{document} command.

38: %%

39: %% If you are submitting to a journal that translates manuscripts

40: %% into SGML, you need to follow certain guidelines when preparing

41: %% your macros. See the AASTeX v5.x Author Guide

42: %% for information.

43: 

44: %% You can insert a short comment on the title page using the command below.

45: 

46: \slugcomment{Submitted to ApJ}

47: 

48: %% If you wish, you may supply running head information, although

49: %% this information may be modified by the editorial offices.

50: %% The left head contains a list of authors,

51: %% usually a maximum of three (otherwise use et al.).  The right

52: %% head is a modified title of up to roughly 44 characters.

53: %% Running heads will not print in the manuscript style.

54: 

55: \shorttitle{Rotation and activity of pre-main-sequence stars}

56: \shortauthors{Scholz et al.}

57: 

58: %% This is the end of the preamble.  Indicate the beginning of the

59: %% paper itself with \begin{document}.

60: 

61: \begin{document}

62: \bibliographystyle{apj}

63: 

64: %% LaTeX will automatically break titles if they run longer than

65: %% one line. However, you may use \\ to force a line break if

66: %% you desire.

67: 

68: \title{Rotation and activity of pre-main-sequence stars}

69: 

70: %% Use \author, \affil, and the \and command to format

71: %% author and affiliation information.

72: %% Note that \email has replaced the old \authoremail command

73: %% from AASTeX v4.0. You can use \email to mark an email address

74: %% anywhere in the paper, not just in the front matter.

75: %% As in the title, use \\ to force line breaks.

76: 

77: \author{Alexander Scholz} 

78: \affil{SUPA, School of Physics \& Astronomy, University of St. Andrews, North Haugh, St. Andrews, 

79: Fife, KY16 9SS, Scotland, United Kingdom\footnote{Former address: Department of Astronomy \& Astrophysics, 

80: University of Toronto, 50 St. George Street, Toronto, Ontario M5S\,3H4, Canada}}

81: \email{as110@st-andrews.ac.uk}

82: \author{Jaime Coffey} 

83: \affil{Department of Physics \& Astronomy, University of British Columbia, 6224 Agricultural Road, 

84: Vancouver, B.C. V6T 1Z1} 

85: \author{Alexis Brandeker, Ray Jayawardhana}

86: \affil{Department of Astronomy \& Astrophysics, University of Toronto,

87:     50 St. George Street, Toronto, Ontario M5S\,3H4, Canada}

88: 

89: \begin{abstract}

90: Rotation and activity are key parameters in stellar evolution and can be used to 

91: probe basic stellar physics. Here we present a study of rotation (measured as projected

92: rotational velocity $v\sin i$) and chromospheric activity (measured as H$\alpha$ equivalent

93: width) based on an extensive set of high-resolution optical spectra obtained with the MIKE 

94: instrument on the 

95: 6.5\,m Magellan Clay telescope. Our targets are 74 F--M dwarfs in the young stellar associations

96: $\eta$~Chamaeleontis, TW Hydrae, $\beta$~Pictoris, and Tucana-Horologium,

97: spanning ages from 6 to 30\,Myr. While the H$\alpha$ equivalent widths for most F and G stars are 

98: consistent

99: with pure photospheric absorption, most K and M stars show measurable chromospheric emission.

100: By comparing H$\alpha$ equivalent width in our sample to results in the literature, we see a 

101: clear evolutionary 

102: sequence: Chromospheric activity declines steadily from the T~Tauri phase to the main sequence. 

103: Using activity as an age indicator, we find a plausible age range for the Tuc-Hor association of 

104: 10--40\,Myr. Between 5 and 30\,Myr, we do not see evidence for rotational braking in the total sample, 

105: thus angular momentum is conserved, in contrast to younger stars. This difference indicates a 

106: change in the rotational regulation at $\sim$5--10\,Myr, possibly because disk braking cannot operate 

107: longer than typical disk lifetimes, allowing the objects to spin up. On timescales of 

108: $\sim 100$\,Myr there is some evidence for weak rotational braking, possibly due to stellar winds. 

109: The rotation-activity relation is flat in our sample; in contrast to main-sequence stars, there is 

110: no linear correlation for slow rotators. We argue that this is because young stars generate 

111: their magnetic fields in a fundamentally different way from main-sequence stars, and not just the 

112: result of a saturated solar-type dynamo. By comparing our rotational velocities with 

113: published rotation periods for a subset of stars, we determine ages of $13^{+7}_{-6}$\,Myr and 

114: $9^{+8}_{-2}$\,Myr for the $\eta$\,Cha and TWA associations, respectively, consistent with previous 

115: estimates. Thus we conclude that stellar radii from evolutionary models 

116: by \citet{1998A&A...337..403B} are in agreement with the observed radii within $\pm 15$\%.

117: \end{abstract}

118: 

119: 

120: \keywords{stars: pre-main-sequence, chromospheres, evolution, magnetic fields, rotation}

121: 

122: \section{Introduction}

123: \label{intro}

124: 

125: About a decade ago, only a few nearby low-mass stars with ages between 5 and 

126: 30\,Myr were known. Therefore, our knowledge about stellar evolution 

127: in this pre-main-sequence (and post-T~Tauri) phase depended largely on interpolating between 

128: the well-studied clusters at ages $<5$\,Myr, e.g.\ the Orion nebula cluster (ONC), IC\,348, and NGC\,2264, and 

129: benchmark zero age main sequence (ZAMS) clusters with ages between 30 and 100\,Myr, e.g. 

130: the Pleiades, IC\,2391, and $\alpha$\,Per. In the last ten years, however, several nearby 

131: and young stellar associations have been discovered, which provide us with the target 

132: samples for in-depth studies of the stellar properties in this critical age range. Most

133: objects in these associations are spread over large areas of the sky, and have been identified 

134: primarily based on satellite all-sky survey data from ROSAT, IRAS, or Hipparcos 

135: \citep[e.g.][]{1997Sci...277...67K,1999ApJ...516L..77M,1999ApJ...520L.123B,2000ApJ...535..959Z,

136: 2000AJ....120.1410T,2001ApJ...562L..87Z}.

137: 

138: This paper concentrates on the $\eta$~Chamaeleontis cluster (hereafter $\eta$\,Cha, age 6\,Myr), 

139: the TW Hydra (TWA, 8\,Myr), $\beta$~Pictoris Moving Group (BPMG, 12\,Myr), and Tucana-Horologium 

140: (TH, $\sim 30$\,Myr) associations \citep[see][for a review]{2004ARA&A..42..685Z}. As these 

141: associations are all located within 100\,pc of the sun, and for all of them, a significant 

142: population of low-mass stars has been identified within the past few years, they are ideal 

143: for probing stellar evolution from the T~Tauri phase to the main sequence. Two stellar 

144: properties that are believed to undergo significant changes in this age range are 

145: magnetic activity and rotation, which are the main focus of this paper.

146: 

147: Magnetic activity is a collective term for all phenomena caused by the operation

148: of the stellar dynamo, including photospheric spots, chromospheric flares and plages, 

149: and coronal emission. It is observed mainly in the X-rays in the case of coronal 

150: activity and in optical emission lines for chromospheric processes. According to our 

151: current understanding, main-sequence, sun-like stars generate large-scale magnetic fields 

152: by means of an $\alpha\Omega$-type dynamo, which operates in the transition layer between

153: convective zone and radiative core \citep[see][and references therein]{2000ssma.book.....S}. 

154: This type of dynamo is driven by the rotation of the star, and hence a strong

155: rotation-activity correlation is observed for solar-type stars with ages $\ga$100 Myr,

156: initially found by \citet{1972ApJ...171..565S} and subsequently confirmed by numerous studies

157: \citep[e.g.][]{1996ApJS..106..489P,2000AJ....119.1303T,2001ApJ...561.1095B}. The correlation, 

158: observed both with coronal and chromospheric activity indicators, is usually seen

159: as a linear increase of activity indicators with increasing rotation rate, followed 

160: by a saturation of the activity at high rotation rates. Young T~Tauri stars, however,

161: are fully convective, and thus cannot harbor a solar-type dynamo. As they evolve to

162: the main-sequence, a change in the magnetic field generation and, as a consequence, in 

163: the magnetic activity properties and their connection to stellar rotation can be 

164: expected.

165: 

166: The rotation of stars themselves changes critically in the pre-main-sequence phase. As the

167: stars contract hydrostatically to the ZAMS, their rotation rates increase as a 

168: consequence of angular momentum conservation. In the first few Myrs of their evolution,

169: the stars are believed to lose significant angular momentum due to magnetic interaction with 

170: their circumstellar environments \citep[see][for a review]{2006astro.ph..3673H}, either by 

171: magnetic coupling between star and disk -- a process often referred to as `disk locking', 

172: see for example \citet{1991ApJ...370L..39K,1993AJ....106..372E} -- or by an accretion powered 

173: stellar wind \citep{2005ApJ...632L.135M}. Once the disk is gone and the accretion

174: has stopped, angular momentum removal is mainly controlled by stellar winds generated

175: by magnetic activity. On the main-sequence, rotational braking by winds leads to a decline 

176: of both rotation and potentially (via a rotationally driven dynamo, see above) magnetic 

177: activity \citep{1972ApJ...171..565S,2001ApJ...561.1095B}. In summary, observational studies 

178: of magnetic activity, rotation, and their interrelationship can probe fundamental changes 

179: in stellar physics occurring between $\sim 1$ and 100\,Myr.

180: 

181: In this paper we present a study of rotation and activity in young stars with ages between 

182: 6 and 30 Myr, based on an extensive set of high-resolution spectra. By comparing the results 

183: from the associations listed above with literature data for younger and older clusters, we 

184: investigate the pre-main-sequence evolution of these properties. For the first time, we 

185: analyze a comprehensive set of H$\alpha$ line measurements together with spectroscopic 

186: rotational velocities $v\sin i$ for a large sample of objects in our four target regions. 

187: In some sense, this is complementary to the work by \citet{2004AJ....128.1812D}, who 

188: published a rotation/activity study for TWA, BPMG, and TH based on $v\sin i$ and X-ray data.

189: 

190: In a previous paper, we investigated disk accretion for these associations based on the same

191: multi-epoch dataset \citep{2006ApJ...648.1206J}. Our cleaned target sample for the current

192: paper is introduced in \S\ref{tar}. In \S\ref{obs}, we present our observations, the data reduction 

193: and spectral analysis, as well as a detailed assessment of the measurement uncertainties. Subsequently, 

194: we investigate H$\alpha$ emission (\S\ref{act}) and rotational velocities (\S\ref{rot}) as a function 

195: of age and mass. In \S\ref{rotact} we focus on the rotation/activity connection. By comparing $v\sin i$ 

196: with previously measured rotation periods, we obtain constraints on stellar radii for a subset of the 

197: targets (\S\ref{periods}). We summarize our results in \S\ref{conc}.

198: 

199: \section{Target selection and properties}

200: \label{tar}

201: 

202: This study is based on multi-epoch spectra of about 100 likely members of the four associations

203: listed in \S\ref{intro}. From the total sample, we excluded objects identified as accretors in 

204: \citet{2006ApJ...648.1206J}, because accretion affects emission lines and thus makes it difficult 

205: to assess chromospheric activity reliably. In \citet{2006ApJ...648.1206J}, the main criterion 

206: to distinguish between accretors and non-accretors is the linewidth of the H$\alpha$ emission 

207: feature. As thresholds we adopted 10\,\AA~for the equivalent width (EW) and 200\,km\,s$^{-1}$ for 

208: the 10\% width. We used the shape of H$\alpha$ and additional emission lines like He\,6678\,\AA~as

209: complementary probes for accretion. Four objects (two in $\eta$ Cha, two in TWA) are classified as 

210: accretors because their linewidths exceed both thresholds and they show He\,6678\,\AA~in emission.

211: One additional object, $\eta$ Cha 11, has very broad H$\alpha$ as well. Although the EW is below 

212: 10\,\AA, we classified it as an accretor based on a strong red-shifted absorption feature in

213: H$\alpha$, a clear indication of infalling material. In total, five accreting objects were 

214: excluded from the rotation/activity analysis in this paper. 

215: 

216: Similarly, we excluded known unresolved binaries, since binarity might introduce additional 

217: line broadening. Many known binaries in these associations are listed by \citet{2004ARA&A..42..685Z},

218: a few more have been identified in separate papers, e.g.\ the close AO-resolved binary 

219: TWA\,5A \citep{2003AJ....126.2009B}. Additionally, the A-stars $\beta$\,Pic and TWA\,11A as 

220: well as the subgiant HD\,1555A were removed from the object list. The final cleaned target 

221: list comprises 74 stars. 

222: 

223: The spectral types for our sources have been collected from \citet{2004ARA&A..42..685Z} and 

224: \citet{2004AJ....128.1812D}. In a few cases where spectral types are missing in the 

225: literature, we obtained an approximate spectral type by simply comparing the appearance 

226: of the spectrum with other stars from our sample. For plotting purposes, we convert 

227: spectral types to a linear numerical scale, where one unit corresponds to one subclass, 

228: and zero is assigned to O0 stars. Spectral type F0 then corresponds to 30 while M0 corresponds 

229: to 60. 

230: 

231: Our targets span the spectral type range from F5 to M3. The distribution of spectral types

232: favours late-type objects, as the sample includes 36 M- and 19 K-stars. Spectral types are not

233: equally distributed in all four associations: With one exception, all objects in $\eta$ Cha and TWA 

234: are K/M-stars. In the two older groups BPMG and TH, however, the distribution is balanced with

235: more F/G-type objects. Effective temperatures have been derived by fitting models to the observed 

236: spectra, and the detailed results from this analysis will be published in a forthcoming paper 

237: (Mentuch et al., in prep.). In this paper, we make use of these $T_{\mathrm{eff}}$ to determine 

238: $L_{\mathrm{H}\alpha} / L_\mathrm{bol}$ in \S\ref{rotact}. 

239: 

240: The magnetic field generation and, as a consequence, magnetic activity and possibly rotation

241: depend critically on the stellar internal structure. For pre-main-sequence stars, it is particularly

242: important to clarify if they are still fully convective or if they already have developed to a solar-like 

243: structure with a radiative core and a convective envelope. As outlined in \S\ref{intro}, a radiative 

244: core is mandatory for the operation of a transition zone, solar-type dynamo, while in fully convective 

245: objects alternative dynamo mechanisms are at work. The age at which a radiative core appears is mass-dependent: 

246: While solar-mass stars are only fully convective for 1-3\,Myr, stars with 0.5\,$M_{\odot}$ need 10-20\,Myr 

247: to develop a radiative core. Objects with masses below 0.35\,$M_{\odot}$ are fully convective throughout 

248: their evolution. 

249: 

250: We used the theoretical evolutionary tracks by \citet{1997A&A...327.1039C} and 

251: \citet[][updated version 1998]{1994ApJS...90..467D} to assess the internal structure of our targets. 

252: In the three youngest associations, $\eta$ Cha, TWA, and $\beta$ Pic, all objects with masses 

253: $\gtrsim 0.6\,M_{\odot}$ are not anymore fully convective, according to the models, where the depth 

254: of the convection zone increases towards higher masses. For TH, the mass limit between radiative and 

255: fully convective is roughly at 0.3-0.4$\,M_{\odot}$, i.e.\ comparable to the main sequence. Converted to 

256: spectral types, this implies that all objects in our sample with spectral types earlier than M0-M2 already 

257: have a radiative core. In TH, this applies to all objects earlier than M3. All these limits are subject

258: to uncertainties due to model inconsistencies, age spread, and uncertainties in the mass/temperature/spectral

259: type conversion.

260: 

261: This essentially means that almost all our targets in $\eta$ Cha and TWA are still fully convective or 

262: just at the limit to develop a (small) radiative core, while in $\beta$ Pic, six out of 16 objects are 

263: clearly already in their radiative evolution. In TH, with its large fraction of K/G/F stars, almost all objects

264: have a substantial radiative core according to the models (i.e.\ basically a solar-like internal structure); 

265: only the three M3 stars may still be fully convective. We will use these considerations as a guideline when 

266: discussing evolution in magnetic activity and rotation.

267: 

268: \section{Observations, spectral analysis, uncertainties}

269: \label{obs}

270: 

271: \subsection{Observation and Data Reduction}

272: 

273: The observations were taken on 12 nights distributed over four observing runs between December 

274: 2004 and July 2005, using the echelle spectrograph MIKE at the Magellan Clay 6.5\,m telescope on 

275: Las Campanas, Chile. In total, the dataset comprises of $\sim 650$ high-resolution spectra with each 

276: star from our sample being observed on average over 6 times. The availability of multi-epoch data for 

277: each star allows for a reliable assessment of variability in the emission lines and provides us

278: with high redundancy in the $v \sin i$ measurements. For more details about the observing

279: runs, see the log in \citet{2006ApJ...648.1206J}. In addition to our target stars, we observed 

280: a sample of $\sim 20$ slowly rotating standard stars covering the spectral range from F8 to M2 

281: from the list of \citet{2002ApJS..141..503N}. 

282: 

283: MIKE is a double echelle slit spectrograph, consisting of a blue and a red arm. In this

284: study, we only make use of the red part, with spectral coverage from 4\,900 to 9\,300\,\AA. 

285: With a 0\farcs35 slit width and no binning, our spectra have a resolution of $R\sim$60\,000.  

286: Depending on the brightness of the target, the integration time was up to 30\,min.  

287: To accommodate for the slanted spectra and the wavelength dependence of this tilt, we developed

288: a customized software package in ESO-MIDAS for data reduction. The details of this reduction

289: procedure will be discussed in a forthcoming paper (Brandeker et al., in prep.).  

290: 

291: \subsection{Spectral Analysis}

292: \label{spanalysis}

293: 

294: As an indicator of chromospheric magnetic activity, we measured the EW of 

295: the H$\alpha$ feature at 6\,562.8\,\AA~in the multi-epoch spectra in our sample. Depending 

296: on the spectral type and the level of chromospheric activity, H$\alpha$ is seen either as 

297: emission or absorption in our spectra. The EWs are obtained by integrating the H$\alpha$ line 

298: after continuum subtraction; absorption is defined as positive EW, emission as negative. The 

299: continuum is approximated by a linear fit to data points in small regions to the immediate right 

300: and left of the feature. These continuum defining regions are between 6\,\AA~and 10\,\AA~in 

301: width, which corresponds to 200 to 450 data points in the spectra.

302: 

303: We determined the projected rotational velocity $v\sin i$ by creating a template from spinning 

304: up a slowly rotating standard star of similar spectral type to the target star. The differences

305: in spectral types between target and standard were usually less than two subclasses. The templates 

306: are created in 1\,km\,s$^{-1}$ increments; we adopted as $v\sin i$ the value which produces the 

307: best $\chi^2$ fit between target and template. This procedure was carried out in three

308: spectral regions for every available spectrum of a given star, with the average value taken 

309: to be the final $v\sin i$ of the target star. The three spectral regions used for the fit have 

310: a width of 30\,\AA~and are centered at 5310, 6250, and 6815\,\AA. They are chosen to avoid

311: emission features and transition regions between different orders of the spectra. Since our 

312: earliest spectral type standard is an F7 star, we are unable to obtain $v\sin i$ measurements 

313: for stars that have spectral types significantly earlier than this. The availability

314: of multi-epoch spectra allows us several independent measurements per star for both H$\alpha$ EW

315: and $v\sin i$. The standard deviation from the average provides an estimate of the 

316: consistency of our results and the variability in H$\alpha$. All average H$\alpha$ EW and $v\sin i$

317: measurements are listed in Tables \ref{etacha}-\ref{th}.

318: 

319: For a subset of our objects, rotational velocities have already been published in the

320: literature, compiled recently by \citet[]{2004AJ....128.1812D}. We use 

321: these values as a control sample in the error analysis (see \S\ref{error}).

322: 

323: \subsection{Error Analysis}

324: \label{error}

325: 

326: Strong emphasis was placed on the reliability of the rotational velocities. Particularly,

327: we are interested to find the lower limit in $v\sin i$ for which our results are

328: trustworthy. We analyze the reliability and the accuracy of our measurements in a 

329: variety of ways. As explained in \S\ref{spanalysis}, we measure $v\sin i$ in three 

330: different wavelength bins in each available spectrum of our multi-epoch dataset, giving us 

331: at least 3 and on average 15 independent measurements per target. The value adopted 

332: for the star is the average over these individual measurements. From the individual

333: measurements for each star we also obtain the standard deviation (of the average EW),

334: a measure for the spread in our datapoints for a given star, and thus a probe for the

335: internal consistency of the method. Fig.~\ref{f1} shows the standard 

336: deviation $\sigma$ versus the average value of $v\sin i$ for all objects. As can be

337: seen in the figure, $\sigma$ is less than 2.5\,km\,s$^{-1}$ for the majority of our

338: objects, confirming the reliability of our method. Only 4 out of 74 stars, or 5\%, 

339: have standard deviations exceeding 5\,km\,s$^{-1}$. Thus, a conservative estimate

340: of the internal accuracy in our $v\sin i$ values is $5$\,km\,s$^{-1}$. We adopt

341: this as a preliminary lower $v\sin i$ limit. The standard deviation $\sigma$ is

342: used in the remainder in the paper as the uncertainty in individual $v\sin i$

343: measurements.

344: 

345: In the next step, we compare the measured $v\sin i$ with published values, if

346: available. As shown in Fig.~\ref{f2}, the majority of our values are within 8\,km\,s$^{-1}$ 

347: of those obtained from the literature. The two stars for which the difference between 

348: the measured and literature $v\sin i$ measurements exceed this amount are HIP\,2729 

349: and PZ~Tel, which are both fast rotators with $v\sin i$ exceeding 60\,km\,s$^{-1}$. Although 

350: the absolute difference between literature and our $v\sin i$ for both of these stars 

351: is large, the relative uncertainty is comparable to the slower rotating objects in the 

352: sample. Thus, the comparison with the literature confirms the validity of our

353: measurements. Since this comparison encompasses both the errors in our own values 

354: and the errors in the literature values (which are at least 3\,km\,s$^{-1}$, see

355: \citet{2003MNRAS.342..837R}), we find that the absolute average uncertainty in our 

356: $v\sin i$ measurements is comparable to the internal accuracy, which has been found 

357: to be 5\,km\,s$^{-1}$ (see above). Thus, we can safely trust all values down to at least 

358: 5\,km\,s$^{-1}$.

359: 

360: Finally, we explore the reliability of the method by using a standard star (called A in the

361: following) to measure the $v\sin i$ of another standard (called B) of similar spectral type 

362: that has been spun-up to a determined value. That way, we produce a template with {\it known} 

363: rotational velocity, for which we can test the accuracy. This assumes that our

364: standards are slow rotators with rotational velocities well below our detection limit. 

365: Standard B is spun-up in steps of 1\,km\,s$^{-1}$ between 0 and 10\,km\,s$^{-1}$. We repeat 

366: the measurements reversing the roles of the standards, i.e.\ switching A and B. These sets 

367: of measurements are done for four pairs, representing cases in which we have more than one 

368: standard star per spectral type. This produces eight 

369: different pairings of standards with the same spectral type. In six of these pairings, the

370: measured $v\sin i$ approaches zero when the imposed $v\sin i$ approaches zero, demonstrating 

371: that in these cases our method produces highly accurate measurements of $v\sin i$. In two

372: pairings, however, the measured $v\sin i$ levels off at 5\,km\,s$^{-1}$ for imposed 

373: $v\sin i<3$\,km\,s$^{-1}$. The best explanation for this result is that in these cases the 

374: standard A has a $v\sin i$ that is 5\,km\,s$^{-1}$ greater than that of standard B, and

375: thus we are never able to measure values lower than 5\,km\,s$^{-1}$. This is evidence for

376: non-negligible rotational velocities in some of our standards, which is probably

377: the dominant source of uncertainty in our measurements. The test shows, however, that

378: these uncertainties are unlikely to exceed 5\,km\,s$^{-1}$, thus confirming the lower

379: reliability limit for our method. In the following, we treat all $v \sin i$ values lower

380: than 5\,km\,s$^{-1}$ as upper limits. We note that this affects only five objects.

381: 

382: We estimate the uncertainty in the measurements of H$\alpha$ equivalent width to be on average 

383: 0.2\,\AA. This estimate was arrived at by determining the average value of equivalent width 

384: obtained from regions of the continuum close to H$\alpha$ that do not contain visible emission 

385: or absorption features. As can be seen in Tables \ref{etacha}--\ref{th}, the standard deviation

386: $\sigma$ in the average H$\alpha$ EW, calculated over the multi-epoch data, is in many cases clearly

387: higher than the measurement error, indicating significant variability (see \S\ref{var}).

388: 

389: \section{Magnetic activity}

390: \label{act}

391: 

392: Magnetic activity and its interplay with rotation is a complex problem, as it depends on

393: stellar age, mass, interior structure, and possibly interactions with disks in the early

394: evolution. To disentangle the different processes, we will start in this section by 

395: analyzing H$\alpha$ EW as a function of age and mass, We note that many of our targets have 

396: been identified in X-ray surveys, thus the selection might be biased towards more active objects. 

397: Therefore, in the discussion of activity, we prefer to use criteria based on the upper limit of 

398: activity in our sample rather than the lower limit, since the latter one might be biased.

399: 

400: \subsection{Evolution of chromospheric activity}

401: \label{evact}

402: 

403: The H$\alpha$ feature is used routinely as an indicator of chromospheric activity, 

404: originating from photoionization and collisions in the hot chromosphere. A main 

405: tool to investigate the chromospheric activity is to plot H$\alpha$ EW vs.\ 

406: effective temperature, in our case represented by the spectral type. This plot 

407: is shown in Fig.~\ref{f4} for our young targets.

408: 

409: Two main features are obvious from this figure: a) There is apparently no difference in 

410: the distribution of datapoints for our four target regions, spanning an age range from 

411: 6 to 30\,Myr. This is further strengthened by the fact the the distribution of EWs are 

412: statistically indistinguishable in the four regions. Thus, the activity levels in the four

413: associations are faily similar, as far as we can tell with our data (see below), although their 

414: ages are somewhat different. b) H$\alpha$ EWs are a strong function of spectral type. While 

415: mid F-type stars exhibit H$\alpha$ absorption of $\sim 5$\,\AA, the feature switches to emission 

416: at K2--K4 spectral types. Around M0, corresponding to masses of 0.7--0.8\,M$_{\odot}$ 

417: \citep{1998A&A...337..403B}, there is a clear `knee' in the distribution; at the same time, 

418: the spread in EW increases, and the stars reach emission levels between 0 and $-10$\,\AA~at 

419: early/mid M spectral types. 

420: 

421: The strong change of H$\alpha$ EW with spectral type does not only reflect a change in 

422: chromospheric activity, as the EW is additionally affected by the drop in the continuum level 

423: with stellar luminosity and the photospheric absorption in H$\alpha$, which is about zero for

424: M dwarfs and increases towards earlier spectral types. The combined effects of photospheric

425: continuum drop and H$\alpha$ absorption are

426: estimated from the H$\alpha$ EW for our standard stars, which we already used as rotational

427: velocity templates and which are selected to be non-active \cite[see][]{2002ApJS..141..503N}.

428: A linear fit to their EW as a function of spectral type is shown in Fig.~\ref{f4} as a dotted

429: line; the object-to-object scatter around this line is typically $\pm 0.5$\,\AA. We note that

430: this dashed line is consistent with the EWs of non-active stars in the Hyades and in the field 

431: for late K and early M spectral types \citep{1989AJ.....97..891H,1995MNRAS.272..828R}, and  

432: with published EW for field F and G dwarfs \citep{1964MNRAS.128..435P,1981A&AS...44..337S}.

433: It is also in line with theoretical predictions for H$\alpha$ EW {\it without}

434: chromosphere from \cite{1985ApJ...294..626C}. Thus, this line is an estimate for the pure

435: photospheric contribution to the H$\alpha$ EW.

436: 

437: As can be seen in the figure, the dotted line follows the lower envelope of the EW for our young 

438: target stars between F8 and M2. All EWs for spectral types earlier than G8 are in agreement with 

439: the dotted line and thus pure photospheric values; thus, these stars do not show measurable 

440: chromospheric activity. Starting at spectral type G8, the EWs measured for our targets show 

441: increasing excess with respect to the photospheric values, indicating a contribution from magnetic 

442: activity. As pointed out by \citet{1979ApJ...234..579C}, the onset of chromospheric activity will 

443: first tend to deepen the 

444: absorption feature by as much as 0.5--1\,\AA~in relatively cool and thin chromospheres, where 

445: line formation is dominated by photoionization and not by collisions. This effect is not seen 

446: in our data, no object shows significantly more absorption than the photospheric values. Thus, 

447: objects in transition between essentially non-active chromospheres to the collision-dominated 

448: regime are rare. The maximum level of magnetic activity and the fraction of active objects

449: increases rapidly from early K to mid M spectral types.

450: 

451: These results can be compared to studies of older and younger objects in a similar spectral 

452: range. We use three criteria: 

453: 

454: A) {\it The spectral type (or color) at which H$\alpha$ changes from absorption to emission.} 

455: This value was introduced by \citet{1999ASPC..158...63H} as an indicator of stellar age, as 

456: it is steadily shifting to later spectral types as the objects get older. In our sample, the 

457: transition is at spectral types K2--K4, but it 

458: is only accurately defined for objects in TH. As summarized in Fig.~5 of \citet{1999ASPC..158...63H}, 

459: the transition occurs at early M types in the Hyades (age 0.5--1\,Gyr), at late K types in the 

460: Pleiades (age 125\,Myr), and at mid K types in IC\,2602/2391 (age 30--40\,Myr). For objects in the 

461: 1--5\,Myr age range (i.e.\ younger than our sample), the transition occurs at spectral types earlier 

462: than K0 \citep{2005AJ....130.1805D} -- in fact, objects without H$\alpha$ in emission are very rare 

463: at these ages \citep{1998ASPC..154.1772P}. Thus, the stars in TH fit nicely in the evolutionary 

464: sequence defined in the literature, indicating a steady decline of activity in the pre-main-sequence

465: evolution. Using this criterion as an age indicator, we find that ages in the TH association 

466: are most likely between 10 and 40\,Myr, confirming previous estimates by \citet{2000AJ....120.1410T} 

467: and \citet{2004ApJ...614L.125S}. 

468: 

469: B) {\it The fraction of K and M type objects with H$\alpha$ emission.} In our sample,

470: practically all K/M objects are above the photospheric values, indicating activity, which

471: is also the case for (non-accreting) stars younger than 6\,Myr. A close to 100\% fraction 

472: of active stars is also seen in pre-main-sequence clusters like IC\,2602/2391 with ages of 

473: 30--40\,Myr \citep{1997ApJ...479..776S}. In contrast, only a small fraction of active stars 

474: is seen in the Hyades at an age of 0.5--1\,Gyr \citep[$\lesssim 30$\%,][]{1995MNRAS.272..828R} 

475: and in the old field population \citep[$\lesssim 10$\%,][]{1989AJ.....97..891H}. 

476: Criterion B thus confirms the drop in activity for objects older 30\,Myr, but some of this effect 

477: might be due to the selection bias in our sample towards highly active objects (see above).

478: 

479: C) {\it The maximum level of activity in M type objects.} M stars are the most active objects in our 

480: sample with EW ranging from zero to 11--12\,\AA. To avoid being biased too much by a few extremely 

481: active objects, we do not take into account the most active 10\% of the objects and thus obtain 

482: $\sim 9$\,\AA~in our sample. We note that this value is mostly determined by objects in the three

483: younger regions. For comparison, the same procedure gives $\sim 9$\,\AA~for objects

484: younger than 6\,Myr \citep[e.g.][]{2005AJ....130.1805D}, $\sim 6.5$\,\AA~in the Pleiades, and 

485: $\sim 6.0$\,\AA~in the Hyades \citep{2000AJ....119.1303T}. Again this criterion confirms a

486: decline of activity, which is particularly significant between 30 and 100\,Myr.

487:  

488: From all three tests, a clear evolutionary sequence is apparent. Our targets are significantly 

489: more active than objects in the Pleiades, Hyades, and older samples. Thus, there is a clear decline 

490: of chromospheric activity from 30\,Myr to 100\,Myr and beyond. This decline leads to a reduction 

491: of the activity level in all spectral types, which includes the complete disappearance of 

492: measurable chromospheric emission at earlier spectral types. As the objects age from 30\,Myr to 

493: 1\,Gyr, the spectral range of non-active objects extends to later spectral types. Eventually, among 

494: evolved main-sequence stars only a fraction of M-type objects can maintain chromospheric activity. The 

495: best interpretation of this behavior is a mass dependence in the lifetime of active chromospheres: 

496: According to the numbers given above, the timescale on which the chromosphere provides significant 

497: H$\alpha$ emission are  $\lesssim 10$\,Myr for F and G stars, 10--100\,Myr for K stars, and 

498: $\ga 500$\,Myr for M stars. A similar decline of activity can probably also be seen in

499: the flare frequencies (see \S\ref{var})

500: 

501: Maybe the best approach to explain this result is based on the different internal structure of the stars

502: in our sample: While the F and G stars already have substantial radiative cores, most M 

503: stars are still fully convective. It is conceivable that once a rotationally driven $\alpha \omega$

504: dynamo is able to operate at the transition between convective and radiative zone, angular momentum loss

505: through stellar winds quickly shuts down the magnetic activity. Thus, the connection between

506: dynamo activity and rotation could potentially be the origin of the quick disappearance of the activity

507: for early-type objects. An alternative explanation for the decline of chromospheric activity 

508: on the pre-main-sequence might be that the change in the interior structure alters the properties 

509: of the magnetic surface field. This in turn might lead to a change in the dominating mechanism 

510: responsible for the heating of the chromosphere, which will then affect the H$\alpha$ emission.

511:  

512: As already mentioned above, we do not see significant differences between the four associations

513: covered with our sample. However, the spectral type coverage in the four regions is different, and thus 

514: it is not possible to carry out a more rigorous comparison of the four regions using the three criteria 

515: defined above. In TH, for example, the number of M-type objects is very low, hampering a reliable 

516: assessment of the fraction of active objects and their maximum activity level. On the other hand, 

517: the younger groups $\eta$ Cha, TWA, and BPMG lack objects to spectral types between G5 and K5, 

518: compromising an analysis for the onset of activity in those regions. Thus, from our data alone we 

519: cannot definitely rule out activity evolution between 6 and 30\,Myr. When comparing our data with

520: younger objects, however, we see evidence for activity evolution on this timescale, in the 

521: sense that the transition to emission occurs at somewhat earlier spectral types in T~Tauri

522: stars. Taken together, the analysis in this section indicates that chromospheric activity 

523: steadily declines as the stars evolve from the T~Tauri phase to the main sequence.

524: 

525: \subsection{Variable chromospheric activity}

526: \label{var}

527: 

528: Since we have more than one epoch for most of our targets, we are able to probe variability

529: in the H$\alpha$ emission. Because both photospheric H$\alpha$ absorption and bolometric 

530: luminosity are not expected to change significantly (i.e.\ more than a few percent) for these 

531: objects, variability in H$\alpha$ EW basically traces changes in the level of chromospheric 

532: emission. For a few objects in the youngest regions, weak levels of episodic accretion cannot 

533: be excluded and might contribute somewhat to the variability \citep[see][]{2006ApJ...648.1206J}.

534: 

535: The primary estimate of variability is the standard deviations in our EW time series. In 

536: Fig.~\ref{f5} (left panel) we plot the absolute values of H$\alpha$ EW $\sigma$ vs.\ spectral type. 

537: The dashed line marks the measurement uncertainty. As can be seen from this plot, many objects with 

538: late spectral types show significantly higher H$\alpha$ variations than expected from

539: the formal error, indicating variability in activity. Interestingly, the onset of measurable

540: variability occurs at early K spectral types, where H$\alpha$ changes from absorption to 

541: emission. This confirms that the variations can indeed be attributed to chromospheric activity --

542: stars without measurable activity and thus only photospheric H$\alpha$ do not show variability.

543: The plot shows no significant difference between the four groups, indicating that the level of

544: variability does not strongly change between 6 and 30\,Myr.

545: 

546: H$\alpha$ emission originates from active regions in the chromosphere, which are typically

547: not uniformly distributed. Thus, one main cause of the H$\alpha$ variations is rotational 

548: modulation. Additionally, the light curves can be affected by flare activity and overall changes 

549: in the activity level, e.g.\ due to an activity cycle. Our time sampling makes it difficult

550: to distinguish between these three scenarios. In most cases, we have only one spectrum per

551: night per target; the longest time baseline is eight months. Rotational changes occur on timescales 

552: of the rotation periods, which are typically a few days for our targets. These changes are periodic,

553: but with our sparse sampling we are not able to recover the periods. General activity level changes 

554: are a long-term phenomenon, and thus might introduce a gradual trend in our time series. Isolated flare

555: events would be detectable, but only if they are clearly stronger than all other sources of 

556: variability. If several flares are present in our time series, it would again be difficult

557: to identify the source of variability.

558: 

559: We checked all H$\alpha$ EW time series for signs of isolated flare events. Since the typical 

560: flare length in the optical wavelength range is at most a few hours, a flare would appear as 

561: a single H$\alpha$ measurement with significantly stronger emission than all other datapoints 

562: in this particular time series. As a clear flare event, we accept a positive 3$\sigma$ outlier 

563: in the time series. It turns out that none of our objects exhibits such an event, although about 

564: 10 of them show 2$\sigma$ outliers (for example, the active stars TWA\,10 and AU\,Mic in BPMG). Thus, 

565: strong, isolated flares are rare in our sample. As already mentioned, flares last typically 1--2\,h 

566: in the optical \citep{1999A&A...347..508G}. Given our conservative detection limit, however, we would 

567: detect them only in the first 10--20\,min, when their effect is most pronounced. In total, we have 

568: about 400 spectra, which thus cover about 100\,h. Therefore, the flare frequency derived from 

569: our spectra is $\lesssim 0.01\,h^{-1}$. Assuming a flare duration of $\sim 2$\,h, this corresponds

570: to a flare rate of $\lesssim 2$\%.

571: 

572: There are few reliable statistical constraints on (average) flare frequencies in the 

573: optical. \citet{1999A&A...347..508G} derive rates of chromospheric flares for non-accreting 

574: T~Tauri stars (ages $\sim 2$\,Myr) and ZAMS stars (ages $\sim 50$\,Myr) based on multi-epoch 

575: multi-object spectroscopy, applying a similar criterion as we have used, but for H$\beta$ instead 

576: of H$\alpha$. They find flare frequencies of 0.06$\,h^{-1}$ for T~Tauri and 0.006$\,h^{-1}$ for 

577: ZAMS stars, concluding that the average flare frequency drops by a factor of ten as the stars 

578: evolve from 2 to 50\,Myr. Our result of $\lesssim 0.01\,h^{-1}$ is clearly lower than the value 

579: derived for T~Tauri stars, which might indicate that our targets are in an intermediate 

580: evolutionary stage between T~Tauri phase and ZAMS in terms of their flare activity.

581: 

582: \section{Stellar rotation}

583: \label{rot}

584: 

585: Stellar rotation is known to be a function of mass, age, and magnetic activity. These

586: dependences will be discussed separately in the following subsections, with the goal

587: of disentangling the involved processes. 

588: 

589: \subsection{Rotation vs. spectral type}

590: \label{rotspt}

591: 

592: Rotation is known to change as a function of stellar mass, mainly because the efficiency 

593: of angular momentum removal depends on magnetic activity, which in turn depends, as discussed in

594: \S\ref{evact}, on stellar mass. In Fig.~\ref{f6} we plot $v\sin i$ versus spectral type, 

595: which we use as an indicator of stellar mass. Early K spectral type roughly corresponds to 

596: 1\,M$_{\odot}$, early M to 0.5\,M$_{\odot}$ \citep{1998A&A...337..403B}. The majority of the 

597: objects have rotational velocities below 60\,km\,s$^{-1}$, the four exceptions, $(5\pm 3)$\% 

598: of our total sample, are PZ~Tel and in BPMG and HIP\,108422, HIP\,2729, and CD-53544 

599: in TH. Objects with $v\sin i >60$\,km\,s$^{-1}$ are called ultrafast rotators in the following.

600: 

601: The overall appearance of this plot is comparable to $v\sin i$ distributions in young clusters.

602: In the ONC, for example, typical values for $v\sin i$ for G--M spectral types are in the range of 

603: 12--30\,km\,s$^{-1}$, while higher mass stars tend to rotate somewhat faster \citep{2002AJ....124..546R}. 

604: For F--M spectral types, velocities $>$60\,km\,s$^{-1}$ are in general rare 

605: \citep[5--10\%,][]{2005AJ....129..363S}, consistent with our dataset. The $v\sin i$ distributions 

606: in ZAMS clusters like the Pleiades \citep{2000AJ....119.1303T} or IC\,2391/2602 shows the same 

607: phenomenological appearance. In these clusters, the number of ultrafast rotators might be somewhat 

608: higher ($\sim 15$\%), as expected as a consequence of pre-main-sequence contraction and thus 

609: rotational acceleration (see \S\ref{rotvsage}). 

610: 

611: For the early-type stars in our sample both the upper and the lower limit of the $v\sin i$ 

612: distribution decline steadily with spectral type. Excluding the ultrafast rotators, the upper limit 

613: decreases from $\sim 50$\,km\,s$^{-1}$ at F5 to $\sim 15$\,km\,s$^{-1}$ at K5, while the lower limit drops 

614: from $\sim$25\,km\,s$^{-1}$ to the detection limit of 5\,km\,s$^{-1}$ in the same spectral range. A similar 

615: trend is seen in the Pleiades \citep{1998A&A...335..183Q,2000AJ....119.1303T}. There are at least two

616: possible explanations: 

617: 

618: a) The timescale on which the rotation of the stars is braked as a consequence of star-disk 

619: interaction (see \S\ref{rotvsage}), depends on spectral type, in the sense that early type objects loose

620: their disks faster than later types. Evidence for mass-dependent disk lifetimes has been found recently

621: \citep{2006ApJ...651L..49C,2007astro.ph..1703S}, but further tests are needed to clarify the impact

622: on rotational evolution. 

623: 

624: b) The effect can also be understood as a consequence of a change in the stellar interior structure: As

625: already discussed in \S\ref{tar} and \S\ref{evact}, all objects earlier than M0 in our sample do have a 

626: radiative core and thus are able to operate a solar-type dynamo. For these objects, a deep convection zone 

627: enables efficient angular momentum removal due to stellar winds and/or disk-locking \citep{2000ssma.book.....S}. 

628: At any given age $>5$\,Myr, stars with spectral types K have deeper convection zones than F--G stars 

629: \citep{1994ApJS...90..467D}. Thus, as we approach later spectral types and the convection zones in the stars 

630: become progressively deeper, the rotational braking becomes more effective, resulting in reduced rotational 

631: velocities, as seen in Fig.~\ref{f6}.

632: 

633: \subsection{Rotational evolution in the pre-main-sequence phase}

634: \label{rotvsage}

635: 

636: To examine the evolutionary effects more in detail, we plot $v\sin i$ vs.\ age in Fig.~\ref{f7}.

637: In the upper panel, we show only the four associations. As can be seen in the plot, the upper

638: limit in $v\sin i$ increases with age; the ultrafast rotators are only seen in older 

639: associations. This trend, however, might be a result of small number statistics. We compared

640: the distributions of $v\sin i$ using a double-sided Kolmogoroff-Smirnoff test. Specifically,

641: we tested the null hypothesis `the $v \sin i$ distribution in two associations is the same'.

642: It was found that with two exceptions all possible combinations of $\eta$ Cha, TWA, BPMG, 

643: and TH give likelihoods for the validity of the null hypothesis larger than 25\%. When comparing

644: TWA with older associations there is some marginal evidence for statistical differences,

645: with false alarm probabilities of 6.2\% (BPMG) and 6.3\% (TH). In general, however, the four

646: datasets are fairly similar. This is consistent with the results of \citet{1999AJ....117.2941S}, 

647: who find similar $v\sin i$ distributions for the ONC (1\,Myr) and the Pleiades (125\,Myr). 

648: Thus, the overall distribution of rotational velocities does not appear to change significantly 

649: in the pre-main-sequence phase. Please note that this does not necessarily imply consistency with 

650: conservation of angular momentum throughout the pre-main-sequence phase, as the objects undergo 

651: a strong contraction (see below for a more detailed assessment).

652: 

653: A large scatter of rotation rates is seen at all ages. While the projection factor $\sin i$,

654: age spread, and $v\sin i$ uncertainties all contribute to the scatter, the major reason for the

655: large spread of the distribution is probably the spread in the initial rotation periods. In clusters with 

656: ages of 1--2\,Myr, the periods range from fractions of a day to $\sim 20$\,d \citep{2006astro.ph..3673H}, 

657: corresponding to rotational velocities ranging from $<5$\,km\,s$^{-1}$ to $>100$\,km\,s$^{-1}$. Moreover, 

658: the $v\sin i$ distribution (as well as the distribution of $\log v\sin i$) is highly asymmetric, 

659: hampering a rigorous statistical analysis. To mitigate this problem when investigating the 

660: rotational evolution we work in the following with typical (median) $v\sin i$ values for a 

661: given age, rather than with individual datapoints. Please note that by averaging over the 

662: rotational velocities in one particular group, we loose any information about the spectral type 

663: dependence of the rotation, which has been discussed in \S\ref{rotspt}. 

664: 

665: In Fig.~\ref{f7}, we overplot the median values for each association as large octagons. We 

666: will compare these median $v\sin i$ with simple models for the rotational evolution. 

667: As starting value for the models, we used the typical $v \sin i$ of 8--15\,km\,s$^{-1}$ (average

668: 11.5\,km\,s$^{-1}$) at $\sim 5$\,Myr given by \citet{2004AJ....127.1029R}. To take into account 

669: the pre-main-sequence contraction, we use radii from \citet{1997A&A...327.1039C} for a stellar 

670: mass of 0.8\,M$_{\odot}$, which is typical for our sample. 

671: 

672: In the upper panel of Fig.~\ref{f7}, we plot the expected rotational evolution for two

673: extreme cases, constant angular momentum with a solid line (model A) and constant angular 

674: velocity with a dashed line (model B). In this approach, we follow \citet{2004AJ....127.1029R}

675: who have done a similar comparison for stars with ages from 1--10\,Myr. In model B,

676: the period is constant, as expected in a scenario with ideal `disk-locking', and thus

677: $v\sin i \propto R$. Model A, on the other hand, shows purely the spin-up due to contraction and

678: thus $v\sin i \propto R^{-1}$. While both models are in good agreement with observations

679: until ages of $\sim 10$\,Myr, only model A is clearly consistent with the median $v\sin i$ at

680: 30\,Myr. Model B, however, gives too low values for ages $>$10\,Myr; it truncates the $v\sin i$ 

681: distribution at the 20\% quartile in BPMG and at the 10\% quartile in TH. Thus, from 10 to 30\,Myr 

682: the objects show rotation rates rather consistent with conservation of angular momentum than with

683: constant rotation period. Thus, the dominating effect for the rotational evolution in this

684: time window is spin-up due to the pre-main-sequence contraction. This result is robust against 

685: uncertainties in the stellar radii, because only the ratio of radii is used in the calculation. 

686: 

687: In strong contrast to our finding, for ages $<5$\,Myr the rotational evolution closely follows 

688: the track for constant angular velocity, as concluded by \citet{2004AJ....127.1029R}. There is 

689: growing evidence for a strong rotational braking in the first few Myr, most likely produced by 

690: interaction with accretion disks \citep[e.g.][]{2002A&A...396..513H,2006ApJ...646..297R} and 

691: preventing the stars from spinning up by essentially locking the rotation period 

692: \citep[e.g.][]{2002AJ....124..546R,2002ApJ...564..877T,2005ApJ...633..967H}. Our results now 

693: demonstrate that while the period may be locked until ages of $\sim 5-10$\,Myr, in the following 

694: $\sim 20$\,Myr the stars spin up without clear evidence for rotational braking. Thus, rotational 

695: acceleration (measured in period) becomes significant at ages of 5--10\,Myr -- which is consistent 

696: with the typical lifetime of circumstellar disks \citep{2001ApJ...553L.153H}. Specifically, it

697: has been shown that many of the youngest stars in our sample (in $\eta$ Cha and TWA) are affected 

698: by inner disk clearing measured from mid-infrared excess \citep{2005ApJ...627L..57H,1999ApJ...521L.129J},

699: while the oldest objects (in TH) do not show any evidence for disks at mid-infrared wavelengths

700: \citep{2004ApJ...612..496M}. Thus, the change of the rotational regulation at 5--10\,Myr  

701: coincides with the disappearance of the inner disks. It has to be emphasized, however, that all 

702: these considerations only apply to the {\it typical} evolution. For individual objects, the 

703: period-locking timescale can vary by a lot -- possibly due to different disk lifetimes.

704: 

705: To follow the evolution to the main sequence, we compared our dataset with the rotational

706: velocity data in the Pleiades. In the lower panel of Fig.~\ref{f7}, we plot the median $v \sin i$

707: for F to M stars (large octagon) together with the quartile values (horizontal bars). These 

708: numbers have been taken from \citet{1998A&A...335..183Q} (their Fig.~6, averaged over all masses). 

709: In this plot we show for each model two evolutionary tracks, the first starts at 6\,Myr and 

710: calculates forward in time (as in the upper panel), the second starts at 125\,Myr and calculates 

711: backwards. Solid lines show again model A, i.e.\ conservation of angular momentum without any rotational 

712: braking. The tracks from model A are barely consistent with the observational data. When started

713: at 5\,Myr, the predicted median in the Pleiades is 21\,km\,s$^{-1}$ and thus too high; when started 

714: at 125\,Myr, they give a median of 5\,km\,s$^{-1}$ at 5\,Myr, which is clearly too low. Thus, 

715: rotational braking is likely involved in the evolution to the ZAMS.

716:  

717: On the main-sequence, rotation is mainly braked by angular momentum losses due to 

718: stellar winds, where the standard rotational braking law has been found to be $v \propto t^{-1/2}$

719: \citep{1972ApJ...171..565S,2001ApJ...561.1095B}. Model C, shown in dotted lines, assumes angular 

720: momentum losses according to the Skumanich law, again calculated in both directions. The tracks from 

721: model C, however, are clearly not in agreement with the observations. When calculated forward, the 

722: predicted median for the Pleiades is well below the detection limit. Conversely, for 5\,Myr the model 

723: gives an unrealistically high median. Thus, Skumanich braking appears to be too strong. We can reproduce 

724: the $v\sin i$ evolution either by using an exponent of $-0.1$ to $-0.3$ instead of $-0.5$ in the braking 

725: law, by using an exponential braking law with $v\sin i \propto \exp{(-t)}$ or by switching on the braking 

726: at about half way through the pre-main-sequence evolution. The latter scenario is not implausible, as most 

727: objects in the considered mass range develop a radiative core and thus the pre-requisite to operate a 

728: solar-type dynamo after about 30\,Myr, see \S\ref{intro}. 

729: 

730: Thus, our comparison with models gives the following results: a) On timescales of $\sim 100$\,Myr, 

731: weak rotational braking, possibly due to a Skumanich-type activity-rotation connection, is required to 

732: find a good match to the observations. b) From 5--30\,Myr the rotational evolution is fully consistent 

733: with angular momentum conservation; effects of possible rotational braking are too weak to affect the 

734: $v\sin i$ distribution significantly. Again it should be emphasised that these results do only apply to 

735: the total sample. In \S\ref{rotspt} we do find that rotational velocities depend on spectral type for 

736: objects earlier than M2. Thus, for objects with ages between 5 and 30\,Myr, stellar mass is the major 

737: factor which determines the rotation, rather than age.

738: 

739: In the previous sections we have already made connections between rotation and activity, to explain

740: the evolution and mass-dependence of H$\alpha$ emission and rotational velocities. The obvious next step

741: is to investigate directly possible correlations between rotation and activity, which is the focus of 

742: the next subsection. 

743: 

744: \subsection{The rotation-activity connection}

745: \label{rotact}

746: 

747: In order to obtain a physically meaningful picture of a possible connection between rotation and activity,

748: we derived relative H$\alpha$ luminosities (i.e.\ $L_{\mathrm{H}\alpha} / L_\mathrm{bol}$) from the 

749: measured H$\alpha$ EW. We focused on the objects with clear chromospheric H$\alpha$ emission, and 

750: therefore excluded stars with spectral type earlier than K2 (see \S\ref{evact}). In a first 

751: step, we corrected the EW for photospheric absorption, using the correlation between

752: photospheric H$\alpha$ absorption and spectral types derived in \S\ref{evact} from non-active

753: reference stars (see dotted line in Fig.~\ref{f4}). Objects with corrected EW $<0.5$\,\AA~and thus 

754: insignificant chromospheric emission were excluded. The continuum at the wavelength of H$\alpha$

755: was estimated using the STARdusty1999 model spectra, which are based on the NextGen models refreshed

756: with new water and TiO opacities  \citep{2000ApJ...540.1005A}. We measured the continuum flux at 

757: 6562\,\AA~for effective temperatures ranging from 3\,000 to 5\,000\,K and $\log g = 4.0$ by approximating 

758: the spectrum around H$\alpha$ with a linear fit. This value was divided by the bolometric luminosity 

759: for the respective effective temperature. As a result, we obtain scaling factors as a function of 

760: effective temperature to convert the H$\alpha$ EW to $L_{\mathrm{H}\alpha} / L_\mathrm{bol}$. Please note 

761: that this conversion depends neither on the radii of the objects nor on the distances, which are poorly 

762: constrained for many of our targets. The effective temperatures for our targets will be published in a 

763: forthcoming paper, see \S\ref{tar}.

764: 

765: Fig.~\ref{f8} shows the relative H$\alpha$ luminosities as a function of $v\sin i$. Please note that by 

766: excluding non-active (earlier type) objects, the clear majority of the objects in the plot is fully convective. 

767: While the lower activity limit in this plot is a detection limit, the upper limit is reliably determined 

768: and can be compared with published samples. In our sample, we obtain $\sim 3 \times 10^{-4}$,

769: excluding the datapoint for TWA\,10, which possibly is affected by a flare event (see \S\ref{var}). 

770: For the mass range of our sample, this value is roughly comparable with the upper limit in the Pleiades 

771: \citep{1995MNRAS.274..869H}, but clearly higher than in the Hyades 

772: \citep[$\sim 1.4 \times 10^{-4}$,][]{1997ApJ...475..604S}, again indicating a decline of the general activity 

773: with age, as already discussed in \S\ref{evact}.

774: 

775: As can be seen in Fig. \ref{f8}, the upper limit of the range in activities is mostly flat. Thus, activity 

776: is not strongly correlated with mass for 5\,km\,s$^{-1} \le  v\sin i$. This holds even when we only consider objects with 

777: radiative core and thus the potential to operate a solar-type, rotationally driven dynamo. It is also important 

778: to note that the distribution of rotational velocities for the non-active stars (not contained in Fig.~\ref{f8}) 

779: is indistinguishable from the active stars; they cover the full range from $<5$ to 100\,km\,s$^{-1}$, with a 

780: accumulation between 10 and 20\,km\,s$^{-1}$. Moreover, among the four slowest rotators in our sample with 

781: $v\sin i <5$\,km\,s$^{-1}$ (shown as upper limits in Fig. \ref{f8}), there is only one object with an activity 

782: level significantly below the range of datapoints for the faster rotators. Thus, by and large the rotation-activity 

783: correlation derived from H$\alpha$ emission is flat in our sample.

784: 

785: These results can be compared phenomenologically with rotation-activity studies based on X-ray data. 

786: \citet{2004AJ....128.1812D} find that stars in TWA, BPMG, and TH are roughly comparable to T~Tauri stars 

787: in the ONC in terms of their X-ray properties. The activity in the ONC has been studied in detail in the 

788: COUP project \citep[e.g.][]{2003ApJ...582..398F,2004AJ....127.3537S}. Both in the COUP data and in the 

789: sample of \citet{2004AJ....128.1812D}, there is no strong correlation between $L_x / L_\mathrm{bol}$ and 

790: rotation period. The rotation/activity relationship appears to be flat over a wide range of periods, 

791: interpreted as saturation with some indication for supersaturation, i.e.a decline of activity

792: for the fastest rotators. This is very similar to what we observe in H$\alpha$. The two ultrafast

793: rotators in Fig. \ref{f8} appear to have below average activity levels, which might be interpreted as 

794: supersaturation. The two additional ultrafast rotators not plotted in Fig. \ref{f8} have no measurable

795: activity level, thus confirming this trend. However, since we have only very few datapoints at high 

796: rotational velocities, this should be treated with caution. Still, it is interesting to note that the 

797: four ultrafast rotators are objects with radiative core, maybe implying that supersaturation might be 

798: associated to the presence of a solar-type dynamo.

799: 

800: It is well established that field stars show a mostly linear relationship between rotation and 

801: relative X-ray luminosity \citep{2000ASPC..198..401R}. In young open clusters like IC\,2391, IC\,2602, 

802: and the Pleiades with ages ranging from 30 to 150\,Myr, an intermediate situation is seen, with 

803: many objects in the saturated regime and an additional linear part \citep[e.g.][]{1996ApJS..106..489P}.

804: A hint of a linear relation might also be seen in the sample of post T~Tauri Lindroos stars

805: with ages between 10 and 100\,Myr analyzed by \citet{2004A&A...428..953H}. Linear correlations between 

806: X-ray flux and rotation rate have additionally been found for young stars in Taurus 

807: \citep{2001A&A...377..538S}. \citet{2004AJ....127.3537S} argued that the linear part of the 

808: rotation/activity correlation in the ONC may be hidden in the objects for which no periods have been 

809: measured. However, studies of magnetic activity at very young ages are problematic, because accretion 

810: additionally affects both X-ray and H$\alpha$ luminosities, which in principle requires the strict 

811: separation of accretors from non-accretors. Our H$\alpha$ luminosity vs. $v\sin i$ plot does not reveal 

812: a strong indication for a linear regime in the rotation/activity relationship. The linear part cannot

813: be hidden at low and thus undetectable rotational velocities, as it has recently been found for field

814: M stars \citep{2007astro.ph..2634R}, because even the slowest rotators in our sample show the same 

815: range of activity levels (with one exception, see above). In summary, it is still 

816: not clear if the linear part of the rotation/activity correlation is already established at ages 

817: $<30$\,Myr.

818: 

819: In this context it is interesting to note that the rotation/activity relation of young

820: stars is similar to very low mass (VLM) objects with masses $<$0.3\,M$_{\odot}$. It is known that the 

821: rotational velocity at which saturation is reached drops quickly with decreasing object mass 

822: \citep{2003A&A...397..147P}, with the result that most VLM objects appear in the saturated regime 

823: \citep{1998A&A...331..581D,2003ApJ...583..451M}. As a consequence, the Skumanich type braking law

824: breaks down \citep{2000ApJ...534..335S}, and a weak exponential braking law is expected with 

825: $v_{\mathrm{rot}} \propto \exp{(-t)}$ \citep{2003ApJ...586..464B}. Such weak rotational braking

826: is indeed required to model the rotational evolution in the VLM regime on timescales of 

827: $\sim$100--1\,000\,Myr \citep{2004A&A...421..259S,2005A&A...429.1007S}.

828: 

829: In the canonical picture of the rotation/activity connection, the solar-type $\alpha\Omega$ dynamo 

830: strongly depends on rotation, causing a linear relationship at low and moderate activity levels. 

831: The saturation effect is usually interpreted as an activity level where the stellar

832: surface is covered by magnetic flux tubes and no further enhancement of activity (and

833: rotational braking) is possible -- thus the term `saturation'. (It is unlikely that this 

834: corresponds to a surface completely covered with starspots, given the fact that many `saturated' 

835: stars show strong photometric modulations due to rotation and thus have only a partially 

836: filled surface.) Both VLM objects and very young stars, however, are fully convective and 

837: thus cannot harbor a solar-type dynamo, which operates at the transition between convective

838: and radiative zone (see \S\ref{intro}). The kind of alternative dynamo that produces their 

839: magnetic activity, and how it depends on rotation, is still a matter of debate

840: \citep[see e.g.][]{1993SoPh..145..207D,2006A&A...446.1027C,2006Sci...311..633D}. But it is

841: at least questionable to assume that the picture of the rotation/activity connection used

842: for evolved solar-type stars can simply be extended to young stars and very low mass objects. 

843: For these types of objects `saturation' can have two meanings: a) They are saturated and do 

844: not follow the Skumanich law, because they rotate too fast to be in the linear regime, as it is 

845: assumed in the standard paradigm. b) Their `saturation' is the consequence of a magnetic field 

846: generation fundamentally different from solar-type stars.

847: 

848: In the second case, `saturation' is not merely the consequence of fast rotation, but a more

849: fundamental sign of a change in the magnetic field generation (and thus the word `saturation'

850: might be misleading). This idea has been proposed as an interpretation of rotation and activity 

851: data for open cluster stars by \citet{2003ApJ...586L.145B,2003ApJ...586..464B}. Basically, the Barnes

852: scheme suggest that the rotation/activity properties can be understood {\it only} in terms

853: of the magnetic field generation: Fully convective objects in the saturated or supersaturated regime 

854: (on the `C-sequence' in the nomenclature of \citet{2003ApJ...586L.145B}) do not harbor a solar-type 

855: magnetic dynamo and thus do not follow the Skumanich type rotational braking law. As the stars

856: evolve from the T~Tauri phase to the ZAMS (and develop a radiative core), the fraction of objects 

857: on the C-sequence drops quickly and reaches values $<10$\% at the age of the Hyades. While the 

858: quantitative predictions of the \citet{2003ApJ...586L.145B} scheme may not be convincing in all

859: cases, the qualitative picture is consistent with the current rotation/activity data 

860: for the pre-main-sequence evolution.

861: 

862: Many of our target stars in $\eta$\,Cha, TWA, BPMG, and TH are too old to be fully

863: convective (see \S\ref{tar}). Depending on their mass, they have developed

864: radiative cores with substantial radii already. Thus, they present an interesting test case 

865: for magnetic field evolution. The fact that they show rotation/activity properties similar to

866: younger stars (and to fully convective VLM objects) might indicate that it takes at least

867: 30\,Myr until the solar-type dynamo dominates the magnetic activity and rotational braking.

868: This is supported by the weak rotational braking on the pre-main sequence found in \S\ref{rotvsage}. 

869: Future investigations of the magnetic field properties of pre-main-sequence stars as a function 

870: of age hold great potential to clarify these issues.

871: 

872: \section{Constraints on ages and radii: Rotation periods vs.\ $v\sin i$}

873: \label{periods}

874: 

875: By combining our measured $v\sin i$ with previously published rotational periods, we can derive 

876: stellar radii (times the unknown projection factor $\sin i$) as $R \sin i = (2\pi)^{-1} P v\sin i$, 

877: and compare these to evolutionary models, to constrain the age. This gives an age estimate independent

878: of other indicators such as the lithium abundance and color-magnitude diagram constraints, 

879: although all these estimates are dependent on the particular evolutionary model used. The 

880: estimated $R\sin i$ thus test the self-consistency of the models.

881: 

882: Because of the unknown projection factor $\sin i$, a statistical sample is needed to derive 

883: the true $R$. Unfortunately, since our targets are widely distributed in the sky, monitoring 

884: campaigns to find photometric periods are time consuming, and only a small subset of our sample 

885: has photometric periods measured. In total, 16 periods have been measured in $\eta$\,Cha 

886: \citep{2001MNRAS.321...57L} and TWA \citep{2005MNRAS.357.1399L}. Of those, 13 are M dwarfs, out 

887: of which 12 have $v\sin i$ above our detection threshold. In Fig.~\ref{f9} we plot $R\sin i$ against 

888: effective temperature for those 12 targets, together with radius isochrones from models by 

889: \citet{1998A&A...337..403B}. The errors in the $R\sin i$ are entirely dominated by errors in 

890: $v\sin i$.

891: 

892: Although the statistical sample (12) may seem small, we are helped by the fact that the probability 

893: density distribution for the projection factor $\sin i$ of a random orientation favors close to 

894: edge-on geometries (see, e.g., Appendix A in \citet{2006astro.ph..8352B}): 

895: 

896: \begin{equation}

897: \label{e:sini}

898: f(\sin i) = \frac{\sin i}{\sqrt{1 - \sin^2 i}}.

899: \end{equation}

900: 

901: Assuming a single age and the evolutionary models by \citet{1998A&A...337..403B}, equation 

902: (\ref{e:sini}) can be used to find a maximum-likelihood estimate for the age. To take into account 

903: the estimated measurement error $\sigma$, and to mitigate the singularity at $\sin i = 1$, we assume

904: the measured $R\sin i$ to be an outcome of a stochastic variable 

905: $\mathcal{R} \in R_{\mathrm{mod}}(t,T_{\mathrm{eff}}) Y + E$, where $Y = \sin i$ is the projection 

906: factor distributed according to equation (\ref{e:sini}), $E$ is normally distributed with zero mean 

907: and variance $\sigma^2$, and $R_{\mathrm{mod}}(t,T_{\mathrm{eff}})$ is the model radius for a star 

908: of age $t$ and effective temperature $T_{\mathrm{eff}}$. The probability distribution of $\mathcal{R}$ 

909: is obtained by numerical integration,

910: 

911: \begin{eqnarray}

912: f_{\mathcal{R}}(r|R_{\mathrm{mod}},\sigma) &=& \frac{1}{R_{\mathrm{mod}}}

913:  \int^{\infty}_{-\infty} f_Y\left(\frac{x}{R_{\mathrm{mod}}}\right) f_E(r-x)\,\mathrm{d}x \nonumber\\

914:  &=& \frac{1}{R_{\mathrm{mod}}\sigma\sqrt{2\pi}} \int^{R_{\mathrm{mod}}}_0

915:    \frac{x \exp[-(r-x)^2/(2\sigma^2)]}{\sqrt{R_{\mathrm{mod}}^2 - x^2}}\,\mathrm{d}x, \label{e:R}

916: \end{eqnarray}

917: 

918: and the maximum likelihood by finding the maximum of the likelihood function

919: 

920: \begin{equation}

921: \mathcal{L}(t) = \sum_j \log f_{\mathcal{R}}(r_j|R_{\mathrm{mod},j},\sigma_j).

922: \end{equation}

923: 

924: To estimate conservative confidence intervals for this estimate, we integrate the probability 

925: density function $f_{\mathcal{R}}$ to get the cumulative probability function

926: $F_{\mathcal{R}}$. We then find the age limits $t_0$ and $t_1$ such that the

927: probabilities

928: 

929: \begin{eqnarray}

930: P(\sin i > \max\{\sin i_j\}|t_0) &=& \frac{1+\alpha}{2} \quad\mbox{and} \\

931: P(\sin i > \max\{\sin i_j\}|t_1) &=& \frac{1-\alpha}{2},

932: \end{eqnarray}

933: 

934: where $\alpha$ is the significance and the probability function is

935: 

936: \begin{equation}

937: P(\sin i > \max\{\sin i_j\}|t) = 1 - \prod_j

938: F_{\mathcal{R}}(R_{\mathrm{mod},j}\max\{\sin i_j\}|R_{\mathrm{mod},j},\sigma_j).

939: \end{equation}

940: 

941: Using the above relations we find the implied ages of $\eta$\,Cha and TWA to be $t_{\eta\,\mathrm{Cha}} = 

942: 13^{+7}_{-6}$\,Myr and $t_{\mathrm{TWA}} = 9^{+8}_{-2}$\,Myr, respectively, where the quoted confidence

943: interval is of 95\% significance. These ages are slightly higher than, but consistent with, estimates from

944: literature (6\,Myr for $\eta$\,Cha and 8\,Myr for TWA), indicating that the model radii with 95\% confidence

945: are good to within $\sim$15\%. 

946: 

947: \section{Summary}

948: \label{conc}

949: 

950: Rotation and activity are important parameters in the stellar pre-main-sequence evolution, because they trace

951: changes of interior structure and magnetic fields as well as the dissipation of circumstellar disks. We present 

952: a spectroscopic study of rotation (measured as $v\sin i$) and chromospheric activity (measured as H$\alpha$ EW) 

953: for a sample of 74 young stars with spectral types F5--M5 in stellar associations with ages from 6 to 30\,Myr. 

954: More than half of the objects are still fully convective, while the remaining fraction has already developed a 

955: radiative core. The analysis is based on an extensive set of multi-epoch high-resolution spectra obtained with the 

956: 6.5\,m Clay Magellan telescope. We achieve a rotational velocity accuracy of $\le 5$\,km\,s$^{-1}$. In the 

957: following, we summarize our results:

958: 

959: \begin{enumerate}

960: \item{The range and distribution of H$\alpha$ EWs do not depend significantly on age in the considered age 

961: range; instead they are a strong function of spectral type (and thus stellar mass). Mid F to early K type

962: stars have H$\alpha$ in absorption, while most later type objects show emission. Until early K types, the

963: H$\alpha$ EW are mostly consistent with pure photospheric absorption, while for later spectral types 

964: chromospheric emission dominates.}

965: \item{The spectral type at which H$\alpha$ goes into emission in our sample is clearly earlier than in

966: older clusters Pleiades and Hyades, but later than in very young T~Tauri stars. This indicates a mass

967: dependence in the lifetime of active chromospheres. Using this as an age criterion, as suggested by 

968: \citet{1999ASPC..158...63H}, we find that the plausible age of TH is in the range between 10 and 

969: 40\,Myr.}

970: \item{The chromospheric activity measured in H$\alpha$ clearly declines as a function of age from T~Tauri 

971: stars (1--5\,Myr) to post T~Tauri stars in our sample (6--30\,Myr) to ZAMS objects (50--100\,Myr).}

972: \item{Many objects with spectral types later than early K show measurable variability in H$\alpha$ EW

973: on timescales of weeks and months, which can be attributed to chromospheric processes.}

974: \item{Most objects in our sample have projected rotational velocities between 5 and 60\,km\,s$^{-1}$. 

975: Additionally, four ultrafast rotators with $v\sin i$ between 70 and 130\,km\,s$^{-1}$ are seen, all

976: in BPMG and TH. The maximum and minimum of the $v\sin i$ range decreases between spectral types mid F 

977: to early K, indicating a dependence of rotation braking on the depth of the convection zone.}

978: \item{The average rotational evolution between 5 and 30\,Myr is consistent with angular momentum conservation. 

979: It does not agree well with constant angular velocity i.e.\ `period-locking'. This is the opposite of what

980: has been observed for ages 1--5\,Myr \citep{2004AJ....127.1029R} and indicates a change in the rotational 

981: regulation at ages of $\sim$5--10\,Myr, coinciding with the average lifetime of (inner) disks. This may be 

982: interpreted with a scenario where the rotation is regulated by disk interaction at early ages, while

983: they are free to spin up after the disks have disappeared.}

984: \item{By comparing our data with rotational velocities in the Pleiades, we see some evidence for weak

985: rotational braking on timescales of $\sim 100$\,Myr. This might be an exponential or a Skumanich type rotational 

986: braking due to stellar winds ($v \propto t^{-1/2}$), which is switched on after the objects have developed 

987: radiative cores, i.e.\ after $\sim 30$\,Myr.}

988: \item{The rotation-activity relation, using $L_{\mathrm{H}\alpha} /L_{\mathrm{bol}}$, appears flat and thus

989: `saturated' in our sample. The maximum level of $L_{\mathrm{H}\alpha} /L_{\mathrm{bol}}$ is $\sim 3 \times 10^{-4}$,

990: more or less independent of rotational velocity. There is no clear sign of a linear rotation/activity

991: correlation at low $v\sin i$.} 

992: \item{The rotation-activity relation of stars with ages $\lesssim 30$\,Myr is similar to 

993: fully-convective very low mass objects. The flat rotation/activity relation and the weak wind braking seen 

994: in these two object classes may not be due to `saturation' of a solar-type rotationally driven dynamo, as 

995: suggested in the standard picture. Instead, the magnetic fields in these young objects are probably generated 

996: in a fundamentally different way from those in main-sequence stars.}

997: \item{By comparing our rotational velocities with rotation periods from the literature, we find ages of 

998: $13^{+7}_{-6}$\,Myr and $9^{+8}_{-2}$\,Myr for $\eta$\,Cha and TWA, respectively, consistent with 

999: previous estimates from other methods. This agreement indicates that the stellar radii for M dwarfs from models 

1000: by \citet{1998A&A...337..403B} are good within $\sim$15\%.}

1001: \end{enumerate}

1002: 

1003: 

1004: \acknowledgments

1005: We thank the anonymous referee for a constructive report. The assistance of the staff at Las Campanas 

1006: Observatory is greatfully acknowledged.

1007: 

1008: Facilities: \facility{Magellan}	

1009: 

1010: \begin{thebibliography}{70}

1011: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi

1012: 

1013: \bibitem[{{Allard} {et~al.}(2000){Allard}, {Hauschildt}, \&

1014:   {Schwenke}}]{2000ApJ...540.1005A}

1015: {Allard}, F., {Hauschildt}, P.~H., \& {Schwenke}, D. 2000, \apj, 540, 1005

1016: 

1017: \bibitem[{{Baraffe} {et~al.}(1998){Baraffe}, {Chabrier}, {Allard}, \&

1018:   {Hauschildt}}]{1998A&A...337..403B}

1019: {Baraffe}, I., {Chabrier}, G., {Allard}, F., \& {Hauschildt}, P.~H. 1998, \aap,

1020:   337, 403

1021: 

1022: \bibitem[{{Barnes}(2001)}]{2001ApJ...561.1095B}

1023: {Barnes}, S.~A. 2001, \apj, 561, 1095

1024: 

1025: \bibitem[{{Barnes}(2003{\natexlab{a}})}]{2003ApJ...586L.145B}

1026: ---. 2003{\natexlab{a}}, \apjl, 586, L145

1027: 

1028: \bibitem[{{Barnes}(2003{\natexlab{b}})}]{2003ApJ...586..464B}

1029: ---. 2003{\natexlab{b}}, \apj, 586, 464

1030: 

1031: \bibitem[{{Barrado y Navascu{\'e}s} {et~al.}(1999){Barrado y Navascu{\'e}s},

1032:   {Stauffer}, {Song}, \& {Caillault}}]{1999ApJ...520L.123B}

1033: {Barrado y Navascu{\'e}s}, D., {Stauffer}, J.~R., {Song}, I., \& {Caillault},

1034:   J.-P. 1999, \apjl, 520, L123

1035: 

1036: \bibitem[{{Brandeker} {et~al.}(2006){Brandeker}, {Jayawardhana}, \& {Najita}}]{2003AJ....126.2009B}

1037: {Brandeker}, A., {Jayawardhana}, R., \& {Najita}, J. 2003, \aj, 126, 2009

1038: 

1039: \bibitem[{{Brandeker} {et~al.}(2006){Brandeker}, {Jayawardhana}, {Khavari},

1040:   {Haisch}, \& {Mardones}}]{2006astro.ph..8352B}

1041: {Brandeker}, A., {Jayawardhana}, R., {Khavari}, P., {Haisch}, Jr, K.~E., \&

1042:   {Mardones}, D. 2006, \apj, 652, 1572

1043: 

1044: \bibitem[{{Carpenter}, {et.~al.}(2006){Carpenter}, {Mamajek}, {Hillenbrand}, \& {Meyer}}]{2006ApJ...651L..49C}

1045: {Carpenter}, J. M., {Mamajek}, E. E., {Hillenbrand}, L. A., {Meyer}, M. R. 2006, \apj, 651, 49

1046: 

1047: \bibitem[{{Chabrier} \& {Baraffe}(1997)}]{1997A&A...327.1039C}

1048: {Chabrier}, G., \& {Baraffe}, I. 1997, \aap, 327, 1039

1049: 

1050: \bibitem[{{Chabrier} \& {K{\"u}ker}(2006)}]{2006A&A...446.1027C}

1051: {Chabrier}, G., \& {K{\"u}ker}, M. 2006, \aap, 446, 1027

1052: 

1053: \bibitem[{{Cram} \& {Mullan}(1985)}]{1985ApJ...294..626C}

1054: {Cram}, L.~E., \& {Mullan}, D.~J. 1985, \apj, 294, 626

1055: 

1056: \bibitem[{{Cram} \& {Mullan}(1979)}]{1979ApJ...234..579C}

1057: {Cram}, L.~E., \& {Mullan}, D.~J. 1979, \apj, 234, 579

1058: 

1059: \bibitem[{{Dahm}(2005)}]{2005AJ....130.1805D}

1060: {Dahm}, S.~E. 2005, \aj, 130, 1805

1061: 

1062: \bibitem[{{D'Antona} \& {Mazzitelli}(1994)}]{1994ApJS...90..467D}

1063: {D'Antona}, F., \& {Mazzitelli}, I. 1994, \apjs, 90, 467

1064: 

1065: \bibitem[{{de la Reza} \& {Pinz{\'o}n}(2004)}]{2004AJ....128.1812D}

1066: {de la Reza}, R., \& {Pinz{\'o}n}, G. 2004, \aj, 128, 1812

1067: 

1068: \bibitem[{{Delfosse} {et~al.}(1998){Delfosse}, {Forveille}, {Perrier}, \&

1069:   {Mayor}}]{1998A&A...331..581D}

1070: {Delfosse}, X., {Forveille}, T., {Perrier}, C., \& {Mayor}, M. 1998, \aap, 331,

1071:   581

1072: 

1073: \bibitem[{{Donati} {et~al.}(2006){Donati}, {Forveille}, {Cameron}, {Barnes},

1074:   {Delfosse}, {Jardine}, \& {Valenti}}]{2006Sci...311..633D}

1075: {Donati}, J.-F., {Forveille}, T., {Cameron}, A.~C., {Barnes}, J.~R.,

1076:   {Delfosse}, X., {Jardine}, M.~M., \& {Valenti}, J.~A. 2006, Science, 311, 633

1077: 

1078: \bibitem[{{Durney} {et~al.}(1993){Durney}, {De Young}, \&

1079:   {Roxburgh}}]{1993SoPh..145..207D}

1080: {Durney}, B.~R., {De Young}, D.~S., \& {Roxburgh}, I.~W. 1993, \solphys, 145,

1081:   207

1082: 

1083: \bibitem[{{Edwards} {et~al.}(1993){Edwards}, {Strom}, {Hartigan}, {Strom},

1084:   {Hillenbrand}, {Herbst}, {Attridge}, {Merrill}, {Probst}, \&

1085:   {Gatley}}]{1993AJ....106..372E}

1086: {Edwards}, S., {Strom}, S.~E., {Hartigan}, P., {Strom}, K.~M., {Hillenbrand},

1087:   L.~A., {Herbst}, W., {Attridge}, J., {Merrill}, K.~M., {Probst}, R., \&

1088:   {Gatley}, I. 1993, \aj, 106, 372

1089: 

1090: \bibitem[{{Flaccomio} {et~al.}(2003){Flaccomio}, {Damiani}, {Micela},

1091:   {Sciortino}, {Harnden}, {Murray}, \& {Wolk}}]{2003ApJ...582..398F}

1092: {Flaccomio}, E., {Damiani}, F., {Micela}, G., {Sciortino}, S., {Harnden}, Jr.,

1093:   F.~R., {Murray}, S.~S., \& {Wolk}, S.~J. 2003, \apj, 582, 398

1094: 

1095: \bibitem[{{Guenther} \& {Ball}(1999)}]{1999A&A...347..508G}

1096: {Guenther}, E.~W., \& {Ball}, M. 1999, \aap, 347, 508

1097: 

1098: \bibitem[{{Haisch} {et~al.}(2001){Haisch}, {Lada}, \&

1099:   {Lada}}]{2001ApJ...553L.153H}

1100: {Haisch}, K.~E., {Lada}, E.~A., \& {Lada}, C.~J. 2001, \apjl, 553, L153

1101: 

1102: \bibitem[{{Haisch} {et~al.}(2005){Haisch}, {Jayawardhana}, \&

1103:   {Alves}}]{2005ApJ...627L..57H}

1104: {Haisch}, Jr., K.~E., {Jayawardhana}, R., \& {Alves}, J. 2005, \apjl, 627, L57

1105: 

1106: \bibitem[{{Hawley} {et~al.}(1999){Hawley}, {Reid}, {Gizis}, \&

1107:   {Byrne}}]{1999ASPC..158...63H}

1108: {Hawley}, S.~L., {Reid}, I.~N., {Gizis}, J.~E., \& {Byrne}, P.~B. 1999, in ASP

1109:   Conf. Ser. 158: Solar and Stellar Activity: Similarities and Differences, ed.

1110:   C.~J. {Butler} \& J.~G. {Doyle}, 63--+

1111: 

1112: \bibitem[{{Herbst} {et~al.}(2002){Herbst}, {Bailer-Jones}, {Mundt},

1113:   {Meisenheimer}, \& {Wackermann}}]{2002A&A...396..513H}

1114: {Herbst}, W., {Bailer-Jones}, C.~A.~L., {Mundt}, R., {Meisenheimer}, K., \&

1115:   {Wackermann}, R. 2002, \aap, 396, 513

1116: 

1117: \bibitem[{{Herbst} {et~al.}(2007){Herbst}, {Eisl{\"o}ffel}, {Mundt}, \&

1118:   {Scholz}}]{2006astro.ph..3673H}

1119: {Herbst}, W., {Eisl{\"o}ffel}, J., {Mundt}, R., \& {Scholz}, A. 2007, in: {\it Protostars 

1120: and Planets V}, B. Reipurth, D. Jewitt, and K. Keil (eds.), University of Arizona Press, 

1121: Tucson, 297

1122: 

1123: \bibitem[{{Herbst} \& {Miller}(1989)}]{1989AJ.....97..891H}

1124: {Herbst}, W., \& {Miller}, J.~R. 1989, \aj, 97, 891

1125: 

1126: \bibitem[{{Herbst} \& {Mundt}(2005)}]{2005ApJ...633..967H}

1127: {Herbst}, W., \& {Mundt}, R. 2005, \apj, 633, 967

1128: 

1129: \bibitem[{{Hodgkin} {et~al.}(1995){Hodgkin}, {Jameson}, \&

1130:   {Steele}}]{1995MNRAS.274..869H}

1131: {Hodgkin}, S.~T., {Jameson}, R.~F., \& {Steele}, I.~A. 1995, \mnras, 274, 869

1132: 

1133: \bibitem[{{Hu{\'e}lamo} {et~al.}(2004){Hu{\'e}lamo}, {Fern{\'a}ndez},

1134:   {Neuh{\"a}user}, \& {Wolk}}]{2004A&A...428..953H}

1135: {Hu{\'e}lamo}, N., {Fern{\'a}ndez}, M., {Neuh{\"a}user}, R., \& {Wolk}, S.~J.

1136:   2004, \aap, 428, 953

1137: 

1138: \bibitem[{{Jayawardhana} {et~al.}(2006){Jayawardhana}, {Coffey}, {Scholz},

1139:   {Brandeker}, \& {van Kerkwijk}}]{2006ApJ...648.1206J}

1140: {Jayawardhana}, R., {Coffey}, J., {Scholz}, A., {Brandeker}, A., \& {van

1141:   Kerkwijk}, M.~H. 2006, \apj, 648, 1206

1142: 

1143: \bibitem[{{Jayawardhana} {et~al.}(1999){Jayawardhana}, {Hartmann}, {Fazio},

1144:   {Fisher}, {Telesco}, \& {Pi{\~n}a}}]{1999ApJ...521L.129J}

1145: {Jayawardhana}, R., {Hartmann}, L., {Fazio}, G., {Fisher}, R.~S., {Telesco},

1146:   C.~M., \& {Pi{\~n}a}, R.~K. 1999, \apjl, 521, L129

1147: 

1148: \bibitem[{{Kastner} {et~al.}(1997){Kastner}, {Zuckerman}, {Weintraub}, \&

1149:   {Forveille}}]{1997Sci...277...67K}

1150: {Kastner}, J.~H., {Zuckerman}, B., {Weintraub}, D.~A., \& {Forveille}, T. 1997,

1151:   Science, 277, 67

1152: 

1153: \bibitem[{{Koenigl}(1991)}]{1991ApJ...370L..39K}

1154: {Koenigl}, A. 1991, \apjl, 370, L39

1155: 

1156: \bibitem[{{Lawson} \& {Crause}(2005)}]{2005MNRAS.357.1399L}

1157: {Lawson}, W.~A., \& {Crause}, L.~A. 2005, \mnras, 357, 1399

1158: 

1159: \bibitem[{{Lawson} {et~al.}(2001){Lawson}, {Crause}, {Mamajek}, \&

1160:   {Feigelson}}]{2001MNRAS.321...57L}

1161: {Lawson}, W.~A., {Crause}, L.~A., {Mamajek}, E.~E., \& {Feigelson}, E.~D. 2001,

1162:   \mnras, 321, 57

1163: 

1164: \bibitem[{{Luhman} \& {Steeghs}(2004)}]{2004ApJ...609..917L}

1165: {Luhman}, K.~L., \& {Steeghs}, D. 2004, \apj, 609, 917

1166: 

1167: \bibitem[{{Mamajek} {et~al.}(1999){Mamajek}, {Lawson}, \&

1168:   {Feigelson}}]{1999ApJ...516L..77M}

1169: {Mamajek}, E.~E., {Lawson}, W.~A., \& {Feigelson}, E.~D. 1999, \apjl, 516, L77

1170: 

1171: \bibitem[{{Mamajek} {et~al.}(2004){Mamajek}, {Meyer}, {Hinz}, {Hoffmann},

1172:   {Cohen}, \& {Hora}}]{2004ApJ...612..496M}

1173: {Mamajek}, E.~E., {Meyer}, M.~R., {Hinz}, P.~M., {Hoffmann}, W.~F., {Cohen},

1174:   M., \& {Hora}, J.~L. 2004, \apj, 612, 496

1175: 

1176: \bibitem[{{Matt} \& {Pudritz}(2005)}]{2005ApJ...632L.135M}

1177:  {Matt}, S., \& {Pudritz}, R.~E. 2005, \apj, 632, 135

1178: 

1179: \bibitem[{{Mohanty} \& {Basri}(2003)}]{2003ApJ...583..451M}

1180:  {Mohanty}, S., \& {Basri}, G. 2003, \apj, 583, 451

1181: 

1182: \bibitem[{{Nidever} {et~al.}(2002){Nidever}, {Marcy}, {Butler}, {Fischer}, \&

1183:   {Vogt}}]{2002ApJS..141..503N}

1184: {Nidever}, D.~L., {Marcy}, G.~W., {Butler}, R.~P., {Fischer}, D.~A., \& {Vogt},

1185:   S.~S. 2002, \apjs, 141, 503

1186: 

1187: \bibitem[{{Patten} \& {Simon}(1996)}]{1996ApJS..106..489P}

1188: {Patten}, B.~M., \& {Simon}, T. 1996, \apjs, 106, 489

1189: 

1190: \bibitem[{{Peat}(1964)}]{1964MNRAS.128..435P}

1191: {Peat}, D.~W. 1964, \mnras, 128, 435

1192: 

1193: \bibitem[{{Pizzolato} {et~al.}(2003){Pizzolato}, {Maggio}, {Micela},

1194:   {Sciortino}, \& {Ventura}}]{2003A&A...397..147P}

1195: {Pizzolato}, N., {Maggio}, A., {Micela}, G., {Sciortino}, S., \& {Ventura}, P.

1196:   2003, \aap, 397, 147

1197: 

1198: \bibitem[{{Poncet} {et~al.}(1998){Poncet}, {Montes}, {Fernandez-Figueroa}, \&

1199:   {Miranda}}]{1998ASPC..154.1772P}

1200: {Poncet}, A., {Montes}, D., {Fernandez-Figueroa}, M.~J., \& {Miranda}, L.~F.

1201:   1998, in ASP Conf. Ser. 154: Cool Stars, Stellar Systems, and the Sun, ed.

1202:   R.~A. {Donahue} \& J.~A. {Bookbinder}, 1772--+

1203: 

1204: \bibitem[{{Queloz} {et~al.}(1998){Queloz}, {Allain}, {Mermilliod}, {Bouvier},

1205:   \& {Mayor}}]{1998A&A...335..183Q}

1206: {Queloz}, D., {Allain}, S., {Mermilliod}, J.-C., {Bouvier}, J., \& {Mayor}, M.

1207:   1998, \aap, 335, 183

1208: 

1209: \bibitem[{{Randich}(2000)}]{2000ASPC..198..401R}

1210: {Randich}, S. 2000, in ASP Conf. Ser. 198: Stellar Clusters and Associations:

1211:   Convection, Rotation, and Dynamos, ed. R.~{Pallavicini}, G.~{Micela}, \&

1212:   S.~{Sciortino}, 401--+

1213: 

1214: \bibitem[{{Rebull} {et~al.}(2006){Rebull}, {Stauffer}, {Megeath}, {Hora}, \&

1215:   {Hartmann}}]{2006ApJ...646..297R}

1216: {Rebull}, L.~M., {Stauffer}, J.~R., {Megeath}, S.~T., {Hora}, J.~L., \&

1217:   {Hartmann}, L. 2006, \apj, 646, 297

1218: 

1219: \bibitem[{{Rebull} {et~al.}(2004){Rebull}, {Wolff}, \&

1220:   {Strom}}]{2004AJ....127.1029R}

1221: {Rebull}, L.~M., {Wolff}, S.~C., \& {Strom}, S.~E. 2004, \aj, 127, 1029

1222: 

1223: \bibitem[{{Rebull} {et~al.}(2002){Rebull}, {Wolff}, {Strom}, \&

1224:   {Makidon}}]{2002AJ....124..546R}

1225: {Rebull}, L.~M., {Wolff}, S.~C., {Strom}, S.~E., \& {Makidon}, R.~B. 2002, \aj,

1226:   124, 546

1227: 

1228: \bibitem[{{Reid}(2003)}]{2003MNRAS.342..837R}

1229: {Reid}, N. 2003, \mnras, 342, 837

1230: 

1231: \bibitem[{{Reid} {et~al.}(1995){Reid}, {Hawley}, \&

1232:   {Mateo}}]{1995MNRAS.272..828R}

1233: {Reid}, N., {Hawley}, S.~L., \& {Mateo}, M. 1995, \mnras, 272, 828

1234: 

1235: \bibitem[{{Reiners}(2007)}]{2007astro.ph..2634R}

1236: {Reiners}, A., 2007, \aap, accepted, astro-ph/0702634

1237: 

1238: \bibitem[{{Scholz} \& {Eisl{\"o}ffel}(2004)}]{2004A&A...421..259S}

1239: {Scholz}, A., \& {Eisl{\"o}ffel}, J. 2004, \aap, 421, 259

1240: 

1241: \bibitem[{{Scholz} \& {Eisl{\"o}ffel}(2005)}]{2005A&A...429.1007S}

1242: ---. 2005, \aap, 429, 1007

1243: 

1244: \bibitem[{{Scholz} {et~al.}(2007){Scholz}, {Jayawardhana}, {Wood}, {Meeus}, {Stelzer}, 

1245:   {Walker}, \& {O'Sullivan}}]{2007astro.ph..1703S}

1246: {Scholz}, A., {Jayawardhana}, R., {Wood}, K., {Meeus}, G., {Stelzer}, B., {Walker}, Ch., {O'Sullivan}, M., 2007 

1247: \apj, in press, astro-ph/0701703

1248:   

1249: \bibitem[{{Schrijver} \& {Zwaan}(2000)}]{2000ssma.book.....S}

1250: {Schrijver}, C.~J., \& {Zwaan}, C. 2000, {Solar and Stellar Magnetic Activity}

1251:   (Solar and stellar magnetic activity / Carolus J.~Schrijver, Cornelius

1252:   Zwaan.~ New York : Cambridge University Press, 2000.~(Cambridge astrophysics

1253:   series ; 34))

1254: 

1255: \bibitem[{{Sicilia-Aguilar} {et~al.}(2005){Sicilia-Aguilar}, {Hartmann},

1256:   {Szentgyorgyi}, {Fabricant}, {F{\H u}r{\'e}sz}, {Roll}, {Conroy}, {Calvet},

1257:   {Tokarz}, \& {Hern{\'a}ndez}}]{2005AJ....129..363S}

1258: {Sicilia-Aguilar}, A., {Hartmann}, L.~W., {Szentgyorgyi}, A.~H., {Fabricant},

1259:   D.~G., {F{\H u}r{\'e}sz}, G., {Roll}, J., {Conroy}, M.~A., {Calvet}, N.,

1260:   {Tokarz}, S., \& {Hern{\'a}ndez}, J. 2005, \aj, 129, 363

1261: 

1262: \bibitem[{{Sills} {et~al.}(2000){Sills}, {Pinsonneault}, \&

1263:   {Terndrup}}]{2000ApJ...534..335S}

1264: {Sills}, A., {Pinsonneault}, M.~H., \& {Terndrup}, D.~M. 2000, \apj, 534, 335

1265: 

1266: \bibitem[{{Skumanich}(1972)}]{1972ApJ...171..565S}

1267: {Skumanich}, A. 1972, \apj, 171, 565

1268: 

1269: \bibitem[{{Song} {et~al.}(2004){Song}, {Zuckerman}, \&

1270:   {Bessell}}]{2004ApJ...614L.125S}

1271: {Song}, I., {Zuckerman}, B., \& {Bessell}, M.~S. 2004, \apjl, 614, L125

1272: 

1273: \bibitem[{{Stassun} {et~al.}(2004){Stassun}, {Ardila}, {Barsony}, {Basri}, \&

1274:   {Mathieu}}]{2004AJ....127.3537S}

1275: {Stassun}, K.~G., {Ardila}, D.~R., {Barsony}, M., {Basri}, G., \& {Mathieu},

1276:   R.~D. 2004, \aj, 127, 3537

1277: 

1278: \bibitem[{{Stassun} {et~al.}(1999){Stassun}, {Mathieu}, {Mazeh}, \&

1279:   {Vrba}}]{1999AJ....117.2941S}

1280: {Stassun}, K.~G., {Mathieu}, R.~D., {Mazeh}, T., \& {Vrba}, F.~J. 1999, \aj,

1281:   117, 2941

1282: 

1283: \bibitem[{{Stauffer} {et~al.}(1997{\natexlab{a}}){Stauffer}, {Balachandran},

1284:   {Krishnamurthi}, {Pinsonneault}, {Terndrup}, \&

1285:   {Stern}}]{1997ApJ...475..604S}

1286: {Stauffer}, J.~R., {Balachandran}, S.~C., {Krishnamurthi}, A., {Pinsonneault},

1287:   M., {Terndrup}, D.~M., \& {Stern}, R.~A. 1997{\natexlab{a}}, \apj, 475, 604

1288: 

1289: \bibitem[{{Stauffer} {et~al.}(1997{\natexlab{b}}){Stauffer}, {Hartmann},

1290:   {Prosser}, {Randich}, {Balachandran}, {Patten}, {Simon}, \&

1291:   {Giampapa}}]{1997ApJ...479..776S}

1292: {Stauffer}, J.~R., {Hartmann}, L.~W., {Prosser}, C.~F., {Randich}, S.,

1293:   {Balachandran}, S., {Patten}, B.~M., {Simon}, T., \& {Giampapa}, M.

1294:   1997{\natexlab{b}}, \apj, 479, 776

1295: 

1296: \bibitem[{{Stelzer} \& {Neuh{\"a}user}(2001)}]{2001A&A...377..538S}

1297: {Stelzer}, B., \& {Neuh{\"a}user}, R. 2001, \aap, 377, 538

1298: 

1299: \bibitem[{{Stelzer} {et~al.}(2000){Stelzer}, {Neuh{\"a}user}, \&

1300:   {Hambaryan}}]{2000A&A...356..949S}

1301: {Stelzer}, B., {Neuh{\"a}user}, R., \& {Hambaryan}, V. 2000, \aap, 356, 949

1302: 

1303: \bibitem[{{Strauss} \& {Ducati}(1981)}]{1981A&AS...44..337S}

1304: {Strauss}, F.~M., \& {Ducati}, J.~R. 1981, \aaps, 44, 337

1305: 

1306: \bibitem[{{Terndrup} {et~al.}(2000){Terndrup}, {Stauffer}, {Pinsonneault},

1307:   {Sills}, {Yuan}, {Jones}, {Fischer}, \&

1308:   {Krishnamurthi}}]{2000AJ....119.1303T}

1309: {Terndrup}, D.~M., {Stauffer}, J.~R., {Pinsonneault}, M.~H., {Sills}, A.,

1310:   {Yuan}, Y., {Jones}, B.~F., {Fischer}, D., \& {Krishnamurthi}, A. 2000, \aj,

1311:   119, 1303

1312: 

1313: \bibitem[{{Tinker} {et~al.}(2002){Tinker}, {Pinsonneault}, \&

1314:   {Terndrup}}]{2002ApJ...564..877T}

1315: {Tinker}, J., {Pinsonneault}, M., \& {Terndrup}, D. 2002, \apj, 564, 877

1316: 

1317: \bibitem[{{Torres} {et~al.}(2000){Torres}, {da Silva}, {Quast}, {de la Reza},

1318:   \& {Jilinski}}]{2000AJ....120.1410T}

1319: {Torres}, C.~A.~O., {da Silva}, L., {Quast}, G.~R., {de la Reza}, R., \&

1320:   {Jilinski}, E. 2000, \aj, 120, 1410

1321: 

1322: \bibitem[{{Zuckerman} \& {Song}(2004)}]{2004ARA&A..42..685Z}

1323: {Zuckerman}, B., \& {Song}, I. 2004, \araa, 42, 685

1324: 

1325: \bibitem[{{Zuckerman} {et~al.}(2001){Zuckerman}, {Song}, {Bessell}, \&

1326:   {Webb}}]{2001ApJ...562L..87Z}

1327: {Zuckerman}, B., {Song}, I., {Bessell}, M.~S., \& {Webb}, R.~A. 2001, \apjl,

1328:   562, L87

1329: 

1330: \bibitem[{{Zuckerman} \& {Webb}(2000)}]{2000ApJ...535..959Z}

1331: {Zuckerman}, B., \& {Webb}, R.~A. 2000, \apj, 535, 959

1332: 

1333: \end{thebibliography}

1334: 

1335: 

1336: \clearpage

1337: 

1338: 

1339: \begin{deluxetable}{lrrrrl}

1340: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

1341: \tablecaption{Summary of results for $\eta$\, Cha. \label{etacha}}

1342: \tablewidth{0pt}

1343: \tablehead{

1344: \colhead{Star} & \colhead{H$\alpha$ EW} & \colhead{H$\alpha$ EW $\sigma$} & \colhead{$v\sin i$} 

1345: & \colhead{$v\sin i$ $\sigma$} &

1346: \colhead{Spectral Type \tablenotemark{a}}}

1347: \startdata

1348: $\eta$\,Cha 3                & -1.99  & 0.17  & 10.50  & 0.67 & M3.25\tablenotemark{b}\\

1349: $\eta$\,Cha 4                & -3.40  & 0.61  & 5.96  & 1.00 & K7\tablenotemark{a} \\

1350: $\eta$\,Cha 5                & -8.57  & 4.29  & 8.75  & 1.48 & M4\tablenotemark{b} \\

1351: $\eta$\,Cha 6                & -5.04  & 0.42  & 20.89  & 1.05 & M2\tablenotemark{a} \\

1352: $\eta$\,Cha 10               & -1.15  & 0.28  & $\mathrm{<}$5.0  & 0.93 & K7\tablenotemark{a} \\

1353: \enddata

1354: \tablecomments{The name of the star, H$\alpha$ equivalent width, standard deviation in the 

1355: H$\alpha$ equivalent width, $v\sin i$, and standard deviation in $v\sin i$ are provided.  

1356: A positive H$\alpha$ EW denotes absorption.}

1357: \tablenotetext{a}{\citet{2004ARA&A..42..685Z}}

1358: \tablenotetext{b}{\citet{2004ApJ...609..917L}}

1359: \end{deluxetable}

1360: 

1361: \begin{deluxetable}{lrrrrl}

1362: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

1363: \tablecaption{Summary of results for TWA.}

1364: \tablewidth{0pt}

1365: \tablehead{

1366: \colhead{Star} & \colhead{H$\alpha$ EW} & \colhead{H$\alpha$ EW $\sigma$} & \colhead{$v\sin i$} 

1367: & \colhead{$v\sin i$ $\sigma$} &

1368: \colhead{Spectral Type}}

1369: \startdata

1370: TWA 2a             &    -1.84 & 0.21 & 12.78 & 1.00 & M2e\tablenotemark{b}\\

1371: TWA 3b             &    -6.14 & 0.89 & 12.20 & 6.59 & M3.5\tablenotemark{b}\\

1372: TWA 7              &    -5.82 & 0.85 & $\mathrm{<}$5.0 & 1.59 & M1\tablenotemark{a}\\

1373: TWA 8a             &    -8.00 & 1.42 & $\mathrm{<}$5.0 & 1.15 & M2\tablenotemark{b}\\

1374: TWA 8b             &    -13.3 & 1.84 & 11.20 & 2.52 & $\sim$M5\tablenotemark{c}\\

1375: TWA 9a             &    -2.14 & 0.45 & 11.26 & 0.53 & K5\tablenotemark{b} \\

1376: TWA 9b             &    -4.31 & 0.60 & 8.39 & 0.61 & M1\tablenotemark{b}\\

1377: TWA 10             &    -13.6 & 9.63 & 6.33 & 1.18 & M2.5\tablenotemark{a}\\

1378: TWA 11b            &    -3.45 & 0.62 & 12.11 & 0.93 & M2.5\tablenotemark{b}\\

1379: TWA 12             &    -4.83 & 0.85 & 16.22 & 0.94 & M2\tablenotemark{b}\\

1380: TWA 13a            &    -3.01 & 0.69 & 10.46 & 1.10 & M1e\tablenotemark{b}\\

1381: TWA 13b            &    -3.00 & 0.74 & 10.33 & 1.19 & M2e\tablenotemark{b}\\

1382: TWA 15a            &    -8.81 & 0.51 & 21.33 & 2.16 & M1.15\tablenotemark{b}\\

1383: TWA 15b            &    -8.59 & 1.35 & 32.33 & 1.86 & M2\tablenotemark{b}\\

1384: TWA 18             &    -3.32 & 0.36 & 24.12 & 0.74 & M0.5\tablenotemark{b}\\

1385: TWA 19a            &     2.60 & 0.13 & 28.35 & 0.71 & G5\tablenotemark{b}\\

1386: TWA 21             &    -0.11 & 0.18 & 6.00 & 1.00 & M1\tablenotemark{b}\\

1387: TWA 22             &    -11.5 & 1.95 & 9.67 & 2.37 & M5\tablenotemark{a}\\

1388: TWA 23             &    -2.44 & 0.19 & 14.78 & 1.72 & M1\tablenotemark{a}\\

1389: TWA 24s            &    -0.30 & 0.16 & 13.87 & 1.13 & K3\tablenotemark{a}\\

1390: TWA 25             &    -2.36 & 0.54 & 11.78 & 1.86 & M0\tablenotemark{a}\\

1391: \enddata

1392: \tablecomments{See notes for Table \ref{etacha} for column heading explanation.}

1393: \tablenotetext{a}{\citet{2004ARA&A..42..685Z}}

1394: \tablenotetext{b}{\citet{2004AJ....128.1812D}}

1395: \tablenotetext{c}{Spectral type approximated by visual comparison with other stars in this group.}

1396: \end{deluxetable}

1397: 

1398: \begin{deluxetable}{lrrrrl}

1399: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

1400: \tablecaption{Summary of results for BPMG.}

1401: \tablewidth{0pt}

1402: \tablehead{

1403: \colhead{Star} & \colhead{H$\alpha$ EW} & \colhead{H$\alpha$ EW $\sigma$} & \colhead{$v\sin i$} 

1404: & \colhead{$v\sin i$ $\sigma$} &

1405: \colhead{Spectral Type\tablenotemark{a}}}

1406: \startdata

1407: AO Men             &    -0.56 & 0.12 & 15.96 & 0.69 & K6/7 \\

1408: AU Mic             &    -2.24 & 0.81 & 8.49 & 0.97 & M1 \\

1409: HD 164249          &    5.43 & 0.09 & 22.50 & 1.97 & F5V \\

1410: HD 181327          &    5.09 & 0.05 & 20.83 & 1.33 & F5.5 \\

1411: HD 35850           &    4.31 & 0.18 & 52.00 & 1.00 & F7 \\

1412: PZ Tel             &    2.29 & 0.17 & 77.50 & 2.81 & K0Vp \\

1413: V343 Nor           &    2.22 & 0.15 & 17.00 & 1.00 & K0V \\

1414: GJ 3305            &    -2.15 & 0.27 & 5.30 & 1.03 & M0.5 \\

1415: GJ 799n            &    -10.9 & 1.61 & 10.56 & 2.13 & M4.5e \\

1416: GJ 799s            &    -9.25 & 0.61 & 17.00 & 3.54 & M4.5e \\

1417: HIP 23309          &    -0.77 & 0.13 & 5.77 & 0.73 & M0.5 \\

1418: HIP 23418A         &    -6.55 & 0.00 & 7.67 & 2.08 & M3V \\

1419: HIP 23418B         &    -6.06 & 0.00 & 21.00 & 4.36 & $\sim$M3\tablenotemark{b} \\

1420: HIP 112312         &    -6.61 & 0.14 & 14.00 & 1.73 & M4e \\

1421: HIP 112312B        &    -8.16 & 0.46 & 24.33 & 4.93 & M4e \\

1422: HIP 12545          &    -0.56 & 0.00 & 9.30 & 0.64 & M0 \\

1423: \enddata

1424: \tablecomments{See notes for Table \ref{etacha} for column heading explanation.}

1425: \tablenotetext{a}{\citet{2004ARA&A..42..685Z}}

1426: \tablenotetext{b}{Spectral type approximated by visual comparison with other stars in this group.}

1427: \end{deluxetable}

1428: 

1429: \begin{deluxetable}{lrrrrl}

1430: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

1431: \tablecaption{Summary of results for Tuc-Hor \label{th}}

1432: \tablewidth{0pt}

1433: \tablehead{

1434: \colhead{Star} & \colhead{H$\alpha$ EW} & \colhead{H$\alpha$ EW $\sigma$} & \colhead{$v\sin i$} 

1435: & \colhead{$v\sin i$ $\sigma$} &

1436: \colhead{Spectral Type \tablenotemark{a}}}

1437: \startdata

1438: 

1439: CD -53544           &  -1.43 & 0.24 & 82.22 & 5.02 & K6Ve \\

1440: CD -60416           &  -0.48 & 0.04 & 10.11 & 0.60 & K3/4 \\

1441: CPD -64120          &  -0.19 & 0.12 & 30.22 & 1.09 & K1Ve \\

1442: GSC 8056-0482       &  -5.31 & 0.44 & 34.22 & 5.61 & M3Ve \\

1443: GSC 8491-1194       &  -4.14 & 0.36 & 12.78 & 0.83 & M3Ve \\

1444: GSC 8497-0995       &  -0.63 & 0.22 & 6.56 & 0.53 & K6Ve \\

1445: HIP 107345          &  -1.41 & 0.15 & 6.44 & 1.33 & M1 \\

1446: HIP 1993           &    -1.01 & 0.11 & 9.50 & 0.55 & M1 \\

1447: HIP 2729           &    -0.68 & 0.26 & 127.5 & 3.94 & K5V \\

1448: HIP 3556           &    -0.79 & 0.02 & $\mathrm{<}$ 5.0 & 0.52 & M3 \\

1449: HD 13183           &    2.70 & 0.13 & 21.00 & 0.71 & G5V \\

1450: HD 13246           &    4.13 & 0.13 & 29.78 & 1.79 & F8V \\

1451: HD 8558            &    2.62 & 0.10 & 12.11 & 0.60 & G6V \\

1452: HD 9054            &    0.76 & 0.11 & $\mathrm{<}$ 5.0 & 0.53 & K1V \\

1453: HIP 105388         &    2.58 & 0.10 & 12.83 & 0.39 & G5V \\

1454: HIP 107947         &    4.26 & 0.05 & 30.42 & 1.38 & F6V \\

1455: HIP 108422         &    1.55 & 0.54 & 139.8 & 9.42 & G8V \\

1456: HIP 1113           &    2.57 & 0.05 & 6.00 & \nodata & G6V \\

1457: HIP 1481           &    4.06 & 0.00 & 22.67 & 0.52 & F8/G0 \\

1458: HIP 16853          &    3.41 & 0.10 & 17.80 & 0.41 & G2V \\

1459: HIP 21632          &    3.02 & 0.00 & 17.53 & 0.64 & G3V \\

1460: HIP 22295          &    3.54 & 0.29 & 41.33 & 2.10 & F7V \\

1461: HIP 30030          &    3.31 & 0.17 & 40.40 & 1.24 & G0 \\

1462: HIP 30034          &    1.30 & 0.26 & 9.73 & 1.71 & K2V \\

1463: HIP 32235          &    2.72 & 0.05 & 10.25 & 0.45 & G6V \\

1464: HIP 33737          &    0.77 & 0.52 & 8.93 & 0.26 & K3V \\

1465: HIP 490            &    3.72 & 0.03 & 14.50 & 0.55 & G0V \\

1466: HIP 9141           &    3.03 & 0.07 & 14.78 & 0.44 & G3/5V \\

1467: TYC 5882-1169      &    0.74 & 0.16 & 6.80 & 0.56 & K3/4 \\

1468: TYC 7065-0n        &    1.45 & 0.02 & 22.33 & 1.03 & K4V \\

1469: TYC 7065-0s        &    1.58 & 0.06 & 14.00 & 0.89 & $\sim$K4\tablenotemark{b}\\

1470: TYC 7600-0         &    1.76 & 0.25 & 18.80 & 0.86 & K1 \\

1471: \enddata

1472: \tablecomments{See notes for Table \ref{etacha} for column heading explanation.}

1473: \tablenotetext{a}{\citet{2004ARA&A..42..685Z}}

1474: \tablenotetext{b}{Spectral type approximated by visual comparison with other stars in this group.}

1475: \end{deluxetable}

1476: 

1477: \clearpage

1478: 

1479: 

1480: \begin{figure}

1481: \includegraphics[width=15cm]{f1.ps}

1482: \caption{Standard deviation of $v\sin i$ versus average $v\sin i$. Only 4 objects out of 

1483: 74 (5\%) have standard deviations greater than 5\,km\,s$^{-1}$ (see \S\ref{error}). 

1484: \label{f1}}

1485: \end{figure}

1486: 

1487: \clearpage

1488: 

1489: 

1490: \begin{figure}

1491: \includegraphics[width=15cm]{f2.ps}

1492: \caption{Absolute difference between measured $v\sin i$ and literature values compiled

1493: by \citet{2004AJ....128.1812D}. The error bars correspond to the scatter in our multi-epoch 

1494: data. With the exception of HIP\,2729 and PZ~Tel, the deviations are not larger than 8\,km\,s$^{-1}$

1495: \label{f2}}

1496: \end{figure}

1497: 

1498: \clearpage

1499: 

1500: 

1501: 

1502: \begin{figure}

1503: \includegraphics[width=15cm]{f4.ps}

1504: \caption{H$\alpha$ EW as a function of spectral type. F0 corresponds to 30, M0 to 60. 

1505: The dotted line shows the H$\alpha$ EW for non-active field stars; the dashed line

1506: marks the zero level. \label{f4}}

1507: \end{figure}

1508: 

1509: \clearpage

1510: 

1511: 

1512: \begin{figure}

1513: \includegraphics[width=15cm]{f5.ps}

1514: \caption{H$\alpha$ EW standard deviation as a function of spectral type compared with 

1515: the measurement error (dashed line). F0 corresponds to 30, M0 to 60. The datapoint for

1516: TWA\,10 at spectral type M2.5 and H$\alpha$ EW $\sigma$ of 9.6\,\AA~is not plotted. \label{f5}}

1517: \end{figure}

1518: 

1519: \clearpage

1520: 

1521: 

1522: \begin{figure}

1523: \includegraphics[width=15cm]{f6.ps}

1524: \caption{Projected rotational velocities $v\sin i$ as a function of spectral type. 

1525: F0 corresponds to 30, M0 to 60. The four objects above the dashed line are the so-called

1526: ultrafast rotators in our sample.\label{f6}}

1527: \end{figure}

1528: 

1529: \clearpage

1530: 

1531: 

1532: \begin{figure}

1533: \center

1534: \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=13cm]{f7a.ps}\\

1535: \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=13cm]{f7b.ps}

1536: \caption{Projected rotational velocities $v\sin i$ as a function of age, symbols as in

1537: the previous figures. {\bf Upper panel:} Big octagons mark the median values in the four 

1538: associations and the average at 5\,Myr (taken from \citet{2004AJ....127.1029R}). The solid 

1539: line shows the evolution assuming constant angular momentum (i.e.\ spin-up, model A), the 

1540: dashed line constant angular velocity (i.e.\ period locked, model B). {\bf Lower panel:} In 

1541: addition, the median $v\sin i$ in the Pleiades is plotted (big octagon at 125\,Myr), together 

1542: with the quartiles (horizontal lines), derived from \citet{1998A&A...335..183Q}. The solid 

1543: lines show the rotational evolution assuming constant angular momentum (as in the upper panel,

1544: model A), the dotted lines assume angular momentum losses following a Skumanich type law 

1545: ($v \propto t^{-1/2}$, model C).

1546: \label{f7}}

1547: \end{figure}

1548: 

1549: \clearpage

1550: 

1551: 

1552: \begin{figure}

1553: \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=15cm]{f8.ps}

1554: \caption{Relative H$\alpha$ luminosities $L_{\mathrm{H}\alpha}/L_\mathrm{bol}$ as a function of

1555: $v\sin i$. Symbols are the same as in Fig.~1--6. Plotted are only objects with significant chromospheric 

1556: H$\alpha$ emission (which implies spectral type later or equal K2). \label{f8}}

1557: \end{figure}

1558: 

1559: \clearpage

1560: 

1561: 

1562: \begin{figure}

1563: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=15cm]{f9.eps}

1564: \caption{Derived $R\sin i$ for 4 targets in $\eta$\,Cha and 8 in TWA. The dashed lines with labeled

1565: ages are the radius isochrones from \citet{1998A&A...337..403B}, and effectively correspond to

1566: upper limits on $R\sin i$ for objects of a given age. Even casual inspection clearly puts

1567: the age of these association between 5 and 20 Myr. More careful analysis yields $t_{\eta\,\mathrm{Cha}} = 

1568: 13^{+7}_{-6}$\,Myr and $t_{\mathrm{TWA}} = 9^{+8}_{-2}$\,Myr for $\eta$\,Cha and TWA, 

1569: respectively (see \S\ref{periods}).\label{f9}}

1570: \end{figure}

1571: 

1572: \end{document}

1573: 

1574: 

1575: \end{document}

1576: 

1577: %%

1578: %% End of file `sample.tex'.

1579: