1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2:
3: \newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}
4: \newcommand{\myemail}{}
5:
6: \slugcomment{To appear in ApJ}
7:
8: \shorttitle{The Disk Fraction of wTTs }
9: \shortauthors{Cieza et al.}
10:
11: \begin{document}
12:
13: \title{The \emph{Spitzer} c2d Survey of Weak-line T Tauri Stars II: New Constraints on the Timescale for Planet Building}
14: \author{Lucas Cieza\altaffilmark{1},
15: Deborah L. Padgett\altaffilmark{2},
16: Karl R. Stapelfeldt\altaffilmark{3},
17: Jean-Charles Augereau\altaffilmark{4},
18: Paul Harvey\altaffilmark{1},
19: Neal J. Evans, II\altaffilmark{1},
20: Bruno Mer\'{\i}n \altaffilmark{5},
21: David Koerner\altaffilmark{6},
22: Anneila Sargent\altaffilmark{7},
23: Ewine F. van Dishoeck\altaffilmark{5},
24: Lori Allen\altaffilmark{8},
25: Geoffrey Blake\altaffilmark{7},
26: Timothy Brooke\altaffilmark{7},
27: Nicholas Chapman\altaffilmark{9},
28: Tracy Huard\altaffilmark{8},
29: Shih-Ping Lai\altaffilmark{9},
30: Lee Mundy\altaffilmark{9},
31: Philip C. Myers\altaffilmark{8},
32: William Spiesman\altaffilmark{1},
33: Zahed Wahhaj\altaffilmark{6}}
34:
35: \altaffiltext{1}{Astronomy Department, University of Texas, 1 University
36: Station C1400, Austin, TX 78712}
37: \altaffiltext{2}{{\it Spitzer} Science Center, MC220-6, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125}
38: \altaffiltext{3}{Jet Propulsion Laboratory, MS 183-900, 4800 Oak Grove Drive,
39: Pasadena, CA 91109}
40: \altaffiltext{4}{Laboratoire d'Astrophysique de Grenoble, BP 53, 38041 Grenoble Cedex 9}
41: \altaffiltext{5}{Leiden Observatory, Postbus 9513, 2300 R.A. Leiden, Netherlands}
42: \altaffiltext{6}{Northern Arizona University, Department of Physics and Astronomy,
43: Box 6010, Flagstaff, AZ 86011}
44: \altaffiltext{7}{California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125}
45: \altaffiltext{8}{Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, 60 Garden Street,
46: MS42, Cambridge, MA 02138}
47: \altaffiltext{9}{Astronomy Department, University of Maryland, College Park, MD
48: 20742}
49:
50: \begin{abstract}
51:
52: One of the central goals of the \emph{Spitzer} Legacy Project ``From Molecular Cores to Planet-forming Disks'' (c2d) is to
53: determine the frequency of remnant circumstellar disks around weak-line T Tauri stars (wTTs) and to study the properties
54: and evolutionary status of these disks. Here we present a census of disks for a sample of over 230 spectroscopically
55: identified wTTs located in the c2d IRAC (3.6, 4.5, 4.8, and 8.0 $\mu$m) and MIPS (24 $\mu$m) maps of the Ophiuchus, Lupus, and
56: Perseus Molecular Clouds. We find that $\sim$20$\%$ of the wTTs in a magnitude limited subsample have noticeable IR-excesses
57: at IRAC wavelengths indicating the presence of a circumstellar disk. The disk frequencies we find in these 3 regions are $\sim$3-6 times
58: larger than that recently found for a sample of 83 relatively isolated wTTs located, for the most part, outside the highest extinction regions
59: covered by the c2d IRAC and MIPS maps. This discrepancy in the disk fraction of these two different groups of wTTs (on cloud vs.
60: off-cloud targets) supports the idea that samples of wTTs distributed \emph{around} molecular clouds
61: (nominally 1-10 Myrs old) represent a somewhat older population of stars. The disk fractions we find are more consistent with those obtained
62: in recent \emph{Spitzer} studies of wTTs in young clusters such as IC 348 and Tr 37.
63: From their location in the H-R diagram, we find that, in our sample, the wTTs with excesses are among the younger part of the
64: age distribution. Still, up to $\sim$50$\%$ of the apparently youngest stars in the sample show no
65: evidence of IR excess, suggesting that the circumstellar disks of a sizable fraction of pre-main-sequence stars dissipate in a
66: timescale of $\sim$1 Myr. We also find that none of the stars in our sample apparently older than $\sim$10 Myrs have detectable
67: circumstellar disks at wavelengths $\leq$ 24 $\mu$m. Our result on the survival time of primordial disks is very similar to those
68: obtained by studies based on K-band identified inner disks (r $<$ 0.1 AU).
69: Also, we find that the wTTs disks in our sample exhibit a wide range of properties (SED morphology, inner radius,
70: L$_{DISK}$/L$_{*}$, etc) which bridge the gaps observed between the cTTs and the debris disk regimes. This strongly
71: suggests that wTTs disks are in fact the link between the massive primordial disks found around cTTs and the debris disks
72: observed around main-sequence stars.
73:
74: \end{abstract}
75: \keywords{infrared: stars --- planetary systems: protoplanetary disks --- stars: pre-main sequence --- open clusters and associations: individual (IC 348)}
76:
77: \section{Introduction}
78:
79: Over the last couple of decades, it has been clearly established that circumstellar disks are an integral part of the star
80: formation process. Even though there is currently no direct evidence that planets actually grow from circumstellar material, it has
81: become increasingly clear that disks are potential birthplaces of planets because their masses, sizes,
82: and compositions are consistent with those of the assumed pre-planetary solar nebulae (Hillenbrand 2003). More recently, the
83: discovery of exo-planets orbiting nearby main sequence stars has confirmed that the formation of planets is a common
84: process and not a rare phenomenon exclusive to the Solar System.
85:
86: Direct detection of forming planets is well beyond our current capabilities and observing molecular hydrogen,
87: which largely dominates the mass of primordial disks, is particularly challenging (Thi et al. 2001, Richter et al. 2002).
88: However, the thermal emission from circumstellar dust is much easier to detect and study. For this reason,
89: the study of the evolution of circumstellar dust has been a natural first step toward providing observational constraints
90: on planet formation theories.
91:
92: Strom et al. (1989) studied a sample of 83 classical T Tauri stars (cTTs) and weak-line T Tauri stars (wTTs) located in the
93: Taurus-Auriga star-forming region in order to determine the fraction of objects with K-band (2.2 $\mu$m) and IRAS excesses
94: indicating the presence of a circumstellar disk. WTTs are low-mass pre-main sequence stars that occupy the same region of
95: the H--R diagram as cTTs but do not show clear evidence of accretion. The distinction between the two is usually made
96: based on the $H\alpha$ equivalent width (EW). The $H_\alpha$ EW of cTTs is $>$ 10 $\AA$, while the $H\alpha$ EW of wTTs
97: is $<$ 10 $\AA$. Since there is a very strong correlation between spectroscopic signatures of gas accretion and the presence
98: of near-IR excess (Hartigan et al. 1995), most CTTS show near-IR excess while most wTTs lack such an excess.
99: Strom et al. (1989) found that 60$\%$ of their stars younger than 3 Myrs showed a K-band excess, indicating the presence
100: of a circumstellar disk, while only 10$\%$ of the stars older than 10 Myrs years did so. Based on these numbers,
101: they estimated a disk dissipation timescale of $<$ 3-10 Myrs and claimed that their result was, at the time,
102: ``the best astrophysical constraint on the time available for planet building''. It has been argued that
103: individual star-forming regions such as Taurus lack the intrinsic age spread necessary to investigate the
104: dissipation timescale of circumstellar disks from individually derived ages (Hartmann 2001). However, similar disk
105: lifetimes studies based on the disk frequency of clusters with different mean ages and extending to the 3.4 $\mu$m L-band
106: (e.g. Haisch et al. 2001) have lead to results similar to those presented by Strom and collaborators
107: (see Hillenbrand (2006) for a review on the frequency of near-IR excesses based on a sample of $\sim$3000 PMS).
108: The K-band excess, when used as a disk indicator, is only sensitive to dust in the innermost part of the disk; therefore,
109: K-band studies only constrain the dissipation timescale of a region of the disks that is much closer to the star
110: than the locations corresponding to the orbits of any of the planets in the Solar System (Mercury's semi-major axis is 0.39 AU).
111: The dissipation timescale of the dust in the planet-forming regions might or might not be the same. Since the dynamical timescale
112: is shorter and the surface density is higher closer to the central star, circumstellar disks are expected to evolve from the inside
113: out. Most wTTs, which by definition present little or no evidence for accretion, also show little or no near-IR excess (Hartigan et al. 1995).
114: However, even after the inner accretion disk has dissipated, it is entirely possible that wTTs to still have enough material at
115: larger radii to form terrestrial and giant planets. In fact, millimeter-wave observations show that at least 10 $\%$ of wTTs have
116: disks with estimated masses in the $10^{-1}$--$10^{-3}$ $M_{\odot}$ range (Osterloh $\&$ Beckwith 1995, Andrews and Williams 2005).
117:
118: While the existence of planets around a significant fraction of all MS stars has been verified (e.g., Marcy $\&$ Butler 1998), the
119: fundamentals of the planet formation process still remain open questions, especially for giant planets. There are currently three
120: main theories for the formation of giant planets: core accretion, gravitational instability, and hybrid models that combine aspects
121: of both theories. See Lissauer $\&$ Stevenson (2007) and Durisen et al. (2007) for two recent reviews of the core
122: accretion and gravitational instability models and a discussion of the many upstanding questions.
123:
124: Although it is unlikely that an observational estimate of the disk's dissipation timescale by itself can distinguish between the
125: competing theoretical models mentioned above, estimates of the dissipation timescale of the planet forming regions can impose
126: valuable constraints on current theoretical models. In order to probe the planet-forming regions of disks around pre-main sequence (PMS)
127: stars, mid- and far-IR observations are required. Unfortunately, these spectral regions are not easily observable from the ground,
128: and past space IR telescopes such as IRAS and ISO were only sensitive enough to detect very bright optically thick disks
129: in low-mass stars at the distance of nearest star-forming regions. These instruments lacked the sensitivity needed to detect the
130: modest IR-excesses expected for optically thin disks and faint optically thick disks. Thus, \emph{Spitzer}'s sensitivity is required
131: to establish whether most wTTs have optically thin disks, disks with inner holes, which are too cold to be detected in the near-IR from
132: the ground, disks too faint to be detected by IRAS and ISO, or no disks at all. One of the main goals of the \emph{Spitzer} Legacy Project
133: ``From Molecular Cores to Planet-forming Disks'' (c2d; Evans et al. 2003) is to determine whether or not most wTTs have circumstellar
134: disks and to characterize their properties and evolutionary status. Preliminary results from the c2d Legacy Project (Padgett et al.
135: 2006, P06 hereafter) showed that disks are rare ($\sim$6$\%$) among the population of wTTs distributed \emph{around} nearby molecular
136: clouds. However, other recent \emph{Spitzer} studies have reported significantly larger disk fractions ($\sim$30$\%$) among wTTs in
137: young clusters such as IC 348 and Tr 37 (Lada et al. 2006; Sicilia-Aguilar et al 2006). Here we study a sample of over 230 spectroscopically
138: identified wTTs located in the c2d IRAC and MIPS maps of the Lupus, Ophiuchus, and Perseus Molecular Clouds in order to investigate the
139: frequency of circumstellar disks as a function of stellar age. In Section 2, we describe the c2d survey of molecular clouds and our sample
140: of wTTs. In Section 3, we identify IR excesses and investigate the properties of their disks. In Section 4, we compare our results to
141: previous \emph{Spitzer} results and discuss the evolutionary status of wTTs disks. Also in Section 4, we derive the ages of the wTTs in
142: our sample from their location in the H-R diagram. We investigate the disk frequency as a function of stellar age and use our results to
143: impose constraints on the timescale for planet building. Finally, our conclusions are summarized in Section 5.
144:
145: \section{Observations}\label{observations_01}
146: \subsection{C2D large molecular clouds and GTO observations}
147:
148: As part of the c2d Legacy Project, \emph{Spitzer} has mapped 13.0 sq. deg. of 3 nearby star-forming
149: regions, Perseus, Ophiuchus, and Lupus, with IRAC (3.6, 4.5, 5.8, and 8.0 $\mu$m) and 22.1 sq. deg.
150: with MIPS (24 $\mu$m). MIPS 70 and 160 $\mu$m observations were also taken, but due to sensitivity
151: considerations, we do not include these observations in most of our analysis. The IRAC maps consist of two dithers
152: of 10.4 sec observations, each obtained at two epochs (41.6 sec total) separated by several hours. The second epoch
153: observations were taken in the High Dynamic Range mode, which includes 0.4 sec observations before the 10.4 sec exposures,
154: allowing photometry of both bright and faint stars at the same time. MIPS observations were taken with the fast
155: scan mode, also in two different epochs of 15 sec exposures each. See Jorgensen et al. (2006) and Young et al. (2005)
156: for a detailed description of the observing strategy used for the c2d IRAC and MIPS survey of nearby molecular clouds.
157:
158: In addition to the data from the c2d legacy project, we use observations of IC\,348 taken as part of
159: the IRAC and MIPS Guaranteed Time Observer (GTO) programs (Program ID 36 and 58, respectively).
160: The IRAC GTO observations cover a 15$\arcmin$\,x\,15$\arcmin$ field of view centered in the cluster
161: and consists of two pairs of 8 dithers of 96.8 sec exposures for the 3.6, 4.5, and 5.8\,\micron\ observations
162: (e.g. 1549 sec exposures per pixel). The 8.0\,\micron\ observations consist of four pairs of 8 dithers of 46.8 sec
163: exposures \footnote{The longest integration time of the 8.0 $\mu$m array, nominally 100 secs, consists of 2 exposures
164: of 46.8 sec each (See IRAC handbook, http://ssc.spitzer.caltech.edu/irac/dh/).}. The MIPS 24 $\mu$m GTO observations of
165: IC 348 were taken in the medium scan mode resulting in an average exposure time of 80 seconds per pixel. For consistency,
166: we processed the Basic Calibrated Data from the GTO programs and produced point source catalogs using the c2d pipeline
167: (Evans et al. 2005). The c2d pipeline uses the the c2d mosaicking/source extraction software c2dphot (Harvey et al. 2004),
168: which is based on the mosaicking program APEX developed by the \emph{Spitzer} Science Center, and the source
169: extractor Dophot (Schechter et al. 1993).
170:
171: Flux uncertainties in c2dphot are calculated in a standard way from a numerical estimate of the Hessian matrix
172: (Press et al. 1992; Silvia 1996). This procedure for estimating uncertainties, although statistically correct, appears to
173: underestimate the uncertainty as measured by the repeatability of flux measurements of the same objects at different epochs.
174: For bright sources, there appears to be a random error floor to the best uncertainty possible with our observing techniques
175: of 0.05 mag for the IRAC bands and 0.09 mag for the MIPS bands.
176: The absolute calibration uncertainties are not included in our uncertainties. They are 5 and 10$\%$ for IRAC and MIPS,
177: respectively (see data handbook for the instruments).
178: As in most \emph{Spitzer} surveys, the intrinsic sensitivity of the c2d observations is not uniform
179: across the clouds due to variations in the total exposure time at different positions in the sky, in the
180: amount of extended cloud emission, and in the source confusion level. Based on the cumulative
181: fraction of all sources detected in both epochs of the c2d observations, the overall 90
182: $\%$ completeness levels of the c2d survey have been estimated to be 0.07, 0.12, 0.5, 0.4,
183: and 1.0 mJy for 3.6, 4.5, 5.8, 8.0, and 24 $\mu$m. See Evans et al. (2005) for a
184: detailed discussion of the uncertainties and sensitivity limits of the c2d survey.
185:
186: The IRAC observations are sensitive enough to allow robust detections of stellar photospheres in all four IRAC bands for our
187: entire sample of wTTs in Ophiuchus and Lupus (distance $\sim$125 pc and $\sim$150--200 pc, respectively) and in $\sim$85$\%$
188: of the objects in Perseus (distance $\sim$320 pc). MIPS 24 $\mu$m observations are not deep enough to reach the stellar
189: photosphere of some low mass objects (especially in Perseus, which is the most distant cloud we consider), but, in general,
190: they are deep enough to detect optically thick disks in our entire sample. The different completeness levels
191: of our disk census due to sensitivity considerations are discussed in more detail in Section~\ref{completeness}.
192:
193: \subsection{Sample Selection}\label{sample}
194:
195: The c2d maps contain several hundred young stars identified by their X-ray and $H\alpha$
196: brightness that have been spectroscopically classified as wTTs stars. Our sample was selected from the
197: literature and is distributed as follows: 69 objects in Ophiuchus (Bouvier $\&$ Appenzeller
198: 1992; Martin et al. 1998), 33 in Lupus (Hughes et al. 1994; Krautter et al. 1997),
199: and 130 objects in Perseus (Luhman et al. 2003). The Lupus and Ophiuchus objects are distributed across
200: the cloud maps, while the targets in Perseus are located exclusively in the IC 348 cluster. Of the 33
201: Lupus objects, 27 are located in the c2d maps of Lupus III and 6 lie within the c2d maps of Lupus I.
202:
203: \emph{Spitzer} SEDs of the wTTs in IC 348 have already been presented by Lada et al. (2006, L06 hereafter).
204: We include these objects in our sample because they increase the statistical significance of
205: our results and allow us to compare a clustered population to the more distributed population
206: of stars in Lupus and Ophiuchus. Also, we adopt a different disk identification
207: criterion than L06, which results in a lower disk fraction than that obtained
208: by the Lada group (see Section~\ref{L06_comp}).
209: Furthermore, L06 adopt a single age (2-3 Myrs) for the stars in the IC 348 cluster and do not attempt
210: to study the disk fraction as function of age, which is one of the main goals of
211: our paper.
212:
213: All the objects in our sample, which are listed in Table 1, have known spectral types and small
214: $H\alpha$ EWs. The spectral types are necessary to estimate stellar ages from the position of the
215: targets in the H-R diagram and the contribution of the stellar photospheres to the observed SEDs,
216: while the $H\alpha$ EWs are required to establish wTTs status.
217: The nominal division between cTTs and wTTs is $H\alpha$ EW = 10 $\AA$; however,
218: since the $H\alpha$ EW due to chromospheric activity alone can reach this value for late M stars
219: (e.g., Martin 1997), we have included in our study 18 M2-M7 stars ( $<$ 8 $\%$ of our
220: sample) with $H\alpha$ EW up to 15 $\AA$. Also, $\sim$8$\%$ of the stars in our
221: sample show $H\alpha$ in absorption rather than in emission.
222:
223: We note that even though there is a strong correlation between H$\alpha$ emission and other
224: accretion signatures such as optical veiling, a single-epoch low-resolution measurement
225: of H$\alpha$ equivalent width is not enough to rule out active accretion for at least two reasons.
226: First, even when a narrow range of spectral types is considered, the distribution of H$\alpha$
227: EWs of T Tauri stars does not show a clear gap between accreting and non-accreting objects
228: (e.g., the $H\alpha$ EWs of weakly accreting PMS stars overlap with those of chromospherically active
229: non-accreting stars). Second, accretion itself is a highly variable process, and some objects
230: constantly move across the wTTs--cTTs H$\alpha$ EW boundary. Therefore, we consider our sample
231: to be composed of mostly non-accreting objects but do not rule out the presence of some actively
232: accreting interlopers.
233:
234: \subsection{Complementary data}
235:
236: In order to construct more complete SEDs of our wTTs, we have collected the 2MASS photometry
237: for our entire sample and the V, $R_{C}$, $I_{C}$-band photometry reported by
238: Hughes et al. (1994) and Wichmann et al. (1997) for 24 of our 33 Lupus objects. Also we have obtained our
239: own V$R_{C}$$I_{C}$ optical observations for 52 of our 69 Ophiuchus targets and R$_{C}$ and I$_{C}$-band
240: observations for 115 of the 130 objects in IC 348 with the 0.8 m telescope at McDonald Observatory.
241: The Ophiuchus targets were observed in 7 different 46$\farcm$2 x 46$\farcm$2 fields of view during the
242: photometric nights of June $20^{th}$-$21^{st}$ 2005 with exposures times of 30, 50, and 100 seconds
243: for the V, $R_{C}$, and $I_{C}$-band respectively. The objects in IC 348 were observed in a single field of view
244: with 200 and 150 second exposures in the R$_{C}$ and $I_{C}$-band, respectively. In addition to
245: the program stars, on each night, 3 fields of Landolt standards ($\sim$5 standards
246: per field) were observed at different airmasses. The seeing ranged from 1.5$''$ to 2$''$ when the observations were made.
247: We reduced the data and perform aperture photometry using the standard IRAF packages CCDRED and DAOPHOT.
248: We used a 5.4$''$ (4-pixel) aperture and a sky annulus with inner and outer radii of 16.2$''$ and 22.95$''$
249: respectively.
250:
251: The rms scatter of the photometric solutions applied to the programs stars was $<$ 0.02 mag in all three
252: filters. We adopt a conservative \emph{minimum} photometric error of 0.03 mag. We report the magnitudes
253: and the uncertainties for all the objects with estimated photometric error less than
254: $\sim$0.2 mag. The \emph{Spitzer} photometry for our entire sample is listed in Table 1.
255: The non-\emph{Spitzer} data: optical and 2MASS photometry, along with the spectral types
256: and H$_{\alpha}$ equivalent widths from the literature, is listed in Table 2.
257:
258:
259: \section{Results}\label{observations_02}
260: \subsection{Disk Identification}\label{DF}
261:
262: In order to identify the stars with disks, we compare the extinction-corrected \emph{Spitzer}
263: colors of our targets, to those predicted by NextGen Models (Hauschildt et al. 1999),
264: convolved with the \emph{Spitzer} bandpasses, for the photospheres of stars of the corresponding spectral types.
265: The broader the wavelength baseline of the color used, the larger is the expected excess of the stars with disks;
266: therefore, the available color that provides the most clear disk identification is [3.6]--[24]. However, since both
267: \emph{Spitzer's} sensitivity and the photospheric fluxes decrease with increasing wavelength, not all sources are
268: detected at wavelengths longer than 5.8 $\mu$m.
269:
270: In Figure 1a, we plot [3.6] vs EX([3.6]--[24]), for the 98 stars with 3.6
271: and 24 $\mu$m fluxes available, where EX([3.6]--[24]) is ([3.6]--[24])$_{OBSo}$-([3.6]--[24])$_{Model}$,
272: ([3.6]--[24])$_{OBSo}$ are the observed colors corrected for extinction, and ([3.6]--[24])$_{Model}$
273: are the photospheric colors predicted by the NextGen Models. We estimate the extinction, $A_V$,
274: using $A_{V}= 4.76 \times E(R-I) = 4.76\times((R_{C}-I_{C})_{OBS}-(R_{C}-I_{C})_{O})$.
275: The intrinsic stellar colors, (R$_{C}$-I$_{C}$)o, come from Kenyon \& Hartmann (1995). For objects without
276: R$_{C}$ and I$_{C}$ fluxes available, we use $A_V$=5.88$\times$E(J-K$_{S}$). We note that this will result
277: in an overestimated extinction for objects with significant K-band excess. The extinction at 8 and
278: 24 $\mu$m are calculated according to Table 3.
279:
280: We consider objects with [3.6]--[24] $<$ 0.7 to be those without excess whose emission arises solely from the
281: stellar photosphere. The mean EX([3.6]--[24]) value for this group is not zero but 0.07 mag with a 1-$\sigma$
282: dispersion of 0.17 mag. The 0.07 mag offset of the observed stellar photospheres with respect to the
283: models is probably due to a combination of the systematic errors in the absolute flux calibrations, the stellar models,
284: and the extinction corrections. In Figure 1a, we treat this offset by subtracting 0.07 mag from all the EX([3.6]--[24]) values.
285: We find that 40 objects have a [3.6]--[24] excesses larger than 5-$\sigma$. These are very robust disk identifications.
286: One object, RXJ1622.6-2345, has [3.6]--[24] excess just over 3-$\sigma$. We consider this object to be a good disk
287: candidate, but warn the reader of its lower significance. Since the c2d MIPS maps cover a larger area than the IRAC maps,
288: 24 $\mu$m is the only \emph{Spitzer} flux available for 5 stars in our sample. In these cases, we use [K]--[24] colors for disk
289: identification. None of the 5 objects for which MIPS 24 $\mu$m is the only available \emph{Spitzer} flux show a significant
290: K--24 $\mu$m excess. Of the 127 stars without measured [3.6]--[24] or [K]--[24] colors, 112 have [3.6]--[8.0] colors available.
291: Figure 1b is analogous to Figure 1a, but here we plot [3.6] vs EX([3.6]--[8.0]) for all the stars with measured [3.6]--[8.0] colors,
292: including the ones from Figure 1a, which are shown as open diamonds.
293: Following Cieza $\&$ Baliber (2006), objects with [3.6]--[8.0] $<$ 0.7 are considered stellar photospheres.
294: In this case, the mean color offset with respect to the models is 0.05 mag. The standard deviation of the stellar
295: photospheres is 0.16 mag, but the error clearly increases with decreasing brightness. We find that only 6 objects
296: not detected at 24 $\mu$m show a clear evidence ($>$ 5-$\sigma$) for 8 $\mu$m excess. Two objects, IC348-76 and IC348-67,
297: show excesses between 3 and 5-$\sigma$. Since the SEDs of these two objects show a hint of IR-excess at 4.5 and 5.8 $\mu$m,
298: we consider these two objects to be good disk candidates. We find that none of the 15 objects without [3.6]--[24],
299: [K$_{S}$]--[24], or [3.6]--[8.0] colors available shows a significant [3.6]--[5.8] excess.
300:
301: The SEDs of the wTTs disks in Lupus, Ophiuchus, and IC 348 are shown in Figures 2, 3, and 4, respectively.
302: The open squares represent the observed optical, 2MASS, IRAC and MIPS-24 $\mu$m fluxes, while the dots correspond
303: to the extinction corrected values. The A$_{V}$'s are estimated as described above for Figure 1, while the extinctions
304: at other wavelengths are calculated according to Table 3.
305: NextGen model photospheres, corresponding to published spectral types and normalized to the extinction-corrected J-band,
306: are shown for comparison.
307:
308: \subsubsection{Disk Census Completeness}\label{completeness}
309:
310: Following the procedure described above, we identify a total of 46 wTTs disks and 3 disk candidates.
311: For definiteness, we consider these 3 disk candidates to be real in the rest of the paper.
312: However, we note that the completeness of our disk census is lower for our IC 348 sample than it is for the sample of Lupus and
313: Ophiuchus wTTs.
314:
315: The IRAC observations are sensitive enough to allow robust detections of stellar photospheres in all four IRAC bands for
316: wTTs in the sample from Lupus and Ophiuchus (102 objects in total). Also, the 5 objects in Lupus and Ophiuchus that fall outside the
317: c2d IRAC maps all have 24 $\mu$m fluxes consistent with stellar photospheres, which rules out the presence of any significant
318: IRAC excess in these objects. Therefore, the census of IRAC excesses in our sample of Lupus and Ophiuchus wTTs is likely to
319: be complete (i.e. only 17 out of the 102 wTTs in Lupus and Ophiuchus have significant IRAC excesses).
320: At 24 $\mu$m, we detect \footnote{by detect
321: we mean that the flux of the object has been measured regardless of whether or not the star has an excess. All the objects have been
322: observed at 24 $\mu$m;therefore, a non detection implies that the flux of the object is below our 24 $\mu$m sensitivity limit.}
323: 80$\%$ (82/102) of the Lupus and Ophiuchus objects. Thus, it is possible that some of the 20 wTTs from the Lupus and Ophiuchus sample
324: that are not detected at 24 $\mu$m have SEDs that start to diverge from their photospheres longward of 8.0 $\mu$m but remain bellow our
325: sensitivity at 24 $\mu$m. We find that all the objects with IRAC excess are detected at 24 $\mu$m, and
326: that only 2 of the 82 objects detected at 24 $\mu$m have excesses that only become evident at this wavelength.
327:
328: In our IC 348 sample, 11$\%$ (14/130) of the objects are not detected at 8.0 $\mu$m and 82 $\%$ (107/130)
329: are not detected at 24 $\mu$m. The longer integration times of the GTO IRAC observations
330: of IC 348 with respect to the c2d observation of Lupus and Ophiuchus (1548 vs. 46.8 secs) more
331: than compensates the effect of the distance (320 vs. 125--200 pc) on the expected sensitivities.
332: However, the high background of the IC 348 cluster becomes the limiting factor for the detection
333: of faint sources at 8.0 $\mu$m. At 24 $\mu$m, the depth of the GTO observations only partially compensates
334: for the greater distance of IC 348, and the effect of the background becomes even larger than it is at
335: 8.0 $\mu$m. The combination of these two factors explains the very low detection rate of IC 348 members at 24 $\mu$m.
336: None of the 14 objects without a 8.0 or 24 $\mu$m \emph{detection} shows a significant 5.8 $\mu$m excess
337: that would indicate the presence of a circumstellar disks. However, some of these 14 wTTs
338: could have SEDs that start to diverge from their photospheres longward of 5.8 $\mu$m but remain bellow
339: our sensitivity at 8.0 and 24 $\mu$m. Finally, we find that 91$\%$ (21/23) of the objects detected at 24 $\mu$m
340: also show significant IRAC excesses, which is consistent with the results for Lupus and Ophiuchus. Obviously,
341: in IC 348, we are likely to have missed most of the stars for which the onset of the IR-excess occurs longward
342: of 8.0 $\mu$m.
343:
344: \subsubsection{Disk fraction statistics}\label{DF_stats}
345:
346: In section \ref{DF} we tried to present a disk census as complete as possible given the available
347: data. However, since the sensitivity of our disk survey is not uniform across all wavelengths and
348: varies from region to region due to distance and background level effects, we derive disk fraction
349: statistics from the number of objects with excess at IRAC wavelengths (IRAC disk fraction, hereafter)
350: in a magnitude limited subsamples that is not likely to be affected by sensitivity variations.
351:
352: As discussed in the previous section, we consider our census of IRAC excesses in our sample of
353: Lupus and Ophiuchus wTTs to be complete. Excluding the disks that are only detected longward of
354: 10 $\mu$m (ROXs 36, and RX J1622.6-2345), we derive the following IRAC
355: disk fractions: 27$\%$$\pm7\%$ (9/33) for Lupus, 13$\%$$\pm4\%$ (9/69) for Ophiuchus.
356: For IC 348, we restrict our sample to the 96 objects with 3.6 $\mu$m fluxes greater
357: than 3.2 mJy, a level above which we also detect at 8.0 $\mu$m every object in our sample.
358: We find that 22 of these 96 objects show significant IRAC excess, which leads to
359: a disk fraction of 23$\pm$4$\%$. Combining the objects in Lupus, Ophuichus, and IC 348, we derive
360: an overall IRAC disk fraction of 20$\pm$3$\%$ (40/198). The IRAC disk fractions of wTTs in Lupus
361: and Ophiuchus bracket that of the IC 348 cluster. This suggest that the disk fraction in IC 348 wTTs
362: targets is not strongly affected by the cluster environment.
363:
364: At 24 $\mu$m, the sensitivity of our survey is significantly less uniform than at IRAC wavelengths.
365: We find that even some of our brightest objects lack 24 $\mu$m detections due to the strong
366: background emission surrounding them. This prevent us from deriving robust MIPS disk fractions
367: statistics even from a magnitude limited subsample.
368:
369: \subsection{Disk Properties}\label{disk_properties}
370:
371: \subsubsection{Selected Color-Color Diagrams}
372:
373: In this section, we place our sample of wTTs in \emph{Spitzer} color-color
374: diagrams as our first attempt to explore the diversity of wTTs disks. For comparison, we also include
375: in these diagrams two samples of 83 and 66 cTTs from Taurus and IC 348, respectively.
376: We used the H$\alpha$ EW from Luhman et al. (2003) to select the sample of cTTs in IC 348.
377: For these objects we use our own photometry. The \emph{Spitzer} fluxes of the Taurus cTTs come
378: from Hartmann et al. (2005). In Figures 5 and 6, we show an $A_{V}$=10 extinction
379: vector based on Table 3; however, we note that for most of the stars in our sample the extinction
380: is \emph{significantly} smaller. The mean A${_V}$ we derive for our Lupus,
381: Ophiuchus, and IC 348 wTTs samples are 0.64, 2.7, and 1.7 mag respectively. Also, 93$\%$ of
382: our sample has A$_V$ $<$ 5 mag, and the remaining 7 $\%$ has 10 mag $<$ $A_{V}$ $<$ 5 mag.
383:
384: Figure 5a shows the [3.6]--[24] vs. [3.6]--[8.0] colors of our sample of wTTs stars.
385: Based on the colors shown, we identify three different groups. The first group consists
386: of objects with [3.6]--[24] $<$ 0.7 and [3.6]--[8.0] $<$ 0.4, which are consistent with bare stellar photospheres.
387: The second group consists of stars with [3.6]--[24] $>$ 0.7 and [3.6]--[8.0] $<$ 0.4 (i.e. their SEDs start to diverge
388: from their stellar photospheres longward of 8.0 $\mu$m). The 4 stars in this group are RXJ1622.6-2345, ROXs 36,
389: IC348-56, and IC348-124. In Section~\ref{FDL}, we find that the objects in this second group have
390: the lowest fractional disk luminosities of the sample. In fact, all four objects have $L_{DISK}$/$L_{*}$ $<$ 10$^{-3}$, which suggest
391: the presence of optically thin disks.
392: The last group of objects has [3.6]--[24] $>$ 0.7 and [3.6]--[24] $>$ 0.4 (i.e. they show excess at both IRAC and MIPS
393: wavelengths). Most of these objects are likely to be optically thick disks. Figure 5b shows our sample of wTTs combined with the
394: sample of cTTs. We note that the cTTs populate exclusively the region of the diagram we associate with optically thick disks
395: and that both wTTs and cTTs populations are very well mixed in this region of the diagram.
396:
397: In Figure 6a, we show the [3.6]--[4.5] vs. [5.8]--[8.0] colors of wTTs. In general, the populations of stars with
398: and without an excess are clearly separated. Stars in the upper right corner of the diagram have both 4.5
399: and 8.0 $\mu$m excesses. Stars in the lower right corner of the diagram are stars with 8.0 $\mu$m excess but
400: no 4.5 $\mu$m excess. These objects are usually interpreted as ``transition disks'' with inner holes
401: (e.g. Calvet et al. 2002; D'Alessio et al. 2005). In fact, Sicilia-Aguilar et al. (2006) define transition disks as
402: objects with 8.0 $\mu$m excess but no 4.5 $\mu$m excess. They find that only $\sim$10$\%$ of the T Tauri disks in
403: the 4-Myrs old cluster Tr 37 fall into this category. In contrast, we find that $\sim$30 $\%$ of the wTTs are in
404: fact ``transition disks'' according the working definition stated above. This is in good agreement with the idea that wTTs
405: disks represent a more evolved evolutionary state than cTTs disks. In Figure 6b, we combine wTTs and cTTs in the same
406: color-color diagram.
407:
408: \subsubsection{$EW(H_{\alpha})$ dependence?}\label{DF_vs_Halpha}
409:
410: Since the distinction between cTTs and wTTs is based on the H${_\alpha}$ EW, and cTTs show a
411: much higher disk fraction than wTTs, we investigate the dependence of the IRAC disk fraction on
412: $H\alpha$ EW within our sample of wTTs. We restrict our analysis to the 198 objects in the magnitude
413: limited subsample discussed in Section ~\ref{DF_stats}. Figure 7a shows a histogram of the $H\alpha$ EW
414: of stars with and without a disk, while Figure 7b shows the disk fraction vs. $H\alpha$ EW. We find that (1)
415: the disk fraction is highly correlated with $H\alpha$, and (2) the disk fraction is a smooth function of
416: $H\alpha$ EW, increasing from $\sim$5$\%$ for the stars with $H\alpha$ observed in absorption to $>$50 $\%$
417: for the stars with 15 $\AA$ $>$ $H\alpha$ EW $>$ 10 $\AA$.
418:
419: Since a strong correlation between the presence of a disk and H$\alpha$ emission of chromospheric origin
420: would be difficult to explain, the correlation observed in Figure 7 is likely to be driven
421: by the presence of weakly accreting stars in our sample of wTTs. Muli-epoch high-resolution spectroscopy of
422: the sample of wTTs with disks would be highly desirable to establish, from their H$\alpha$ velocity profiles,
423: which objects are in fact actively accreting (White $\&$ Basri 2003).
424:
425: \subsubsection{Disk fraction dependence on spectral type?}
426:
427: Lada et al. (2006) find that the ``optically thick'' disk fraction in the entire populations of PMS stars (cTTs/wTTs)
428: in IC 348 seems to be a function of spectral type. They argue that the disk fraction peaks around K6--M2 stars, which
429: at the age of the cluster corresponds to stars with masses similar to that of the Sun, and conclude that circumstellar
430: disks might last longer around solar type stars than around both less and more massive stars. Similarly, Carpenter et al.
431: (2006) studied a sample of over 200 PMS star in the 5 Myrs old Upper Scorpius OB association with masses between $\sim$0.1
432: and 20 M$_{\odot}$ and found that stars with K-M spectral types have a significantly larger disk fraction than stars with G-B
433: spectral types.
434:
435: In order to investigate the possibility of a disk fraction dependence on spectral type for wTTs, we restrict our analysis
436: to the 198 objects in the magnitude limited subsample discussed in Section ~\ref{DF_stats} and divide our sample into the
437: same 3 spectral type bins studied by Lada et al. (2006). We find the following IRAC disk fractions for the 3 bins: 28$\%$$\pm7\%$
438: (12/42) for stars with spectral types K6 and earlier, 16$\%$$\pm5\%$ (10/62) for K7--M2 stars, and 19$\%$$\pm4\%$ (18/94)
439: for M2--M6 stars. Our result is inconsistent with a disk fraction of wTTs peaking around K6-M2 stars
440: and suggests that the disk fraction dependence on spectral type found by Lada et al. 2006, if real, is likely to be
441: driven by the cTTs population, which would imply that the duration of the \emph{accretion phase} is a function
442: of spectral type. Given the very different spectral type distribution of our sample (there are only 7 objects with
443: types later than K0 in our sample), our result does not contradict those presented by Carpenter et al. (2006).
444:
445: \subsubsection{Fractional Disk Luminosity}\label{FDL}
446:
447: The ratio of the disk luminosity to the stellar luminosity, $L_{DISK}/L_{*}$, is a measurement of the fraction of
448: the star's radiation that is intercepted and re-emitted by the disk plus any accretion luminosity.
449: This quantity is intimately related to the evolutionary status of a circumstellar disk.
450: On the one hand, the primordial, gas rich, disks around cTTs have typical
451: $L_{DISK}/L_{*}$ values $>10-20$$\%$. On the other hand, $L_{DISK}/L_{*}$ values for optically
452: thin, gas poor, debris disks around MS stars range from $10^{-3}$ to $10^{-6}$ (Beichman et al. 2005).
453: In order to characterize $L_{DISK}/L_{*}$ for wTTs disks, we
454: estimate this quantity for all the wTTs disks in our sample except for the few disks in IC 348 for which
455: 24 $\mu$m fluxes are not available. These objects are below our 24 $\mu$m sensitivity limits, and the disk
456: luminosities obtained from the IRAC excesses alone would be highly uncertain.
457:
458: We estimate the disk luminosity according to the following procedure. We first calculate the IR-excess
459: at IRAC wavelengths and at 24 $\mu$m by subtracting from the observed fluxes the expected photospheric
460: contributions predicted by the stellar models shown in Figures 2, 3, and 4. Then, the IR-excess at 24
461: $\mu$m is extrapolated to longer wavelengths assuming the emission of a black body peaking at 24 $\mu$m
462: (i.e., T = 121 K) and diluted by an emissivity proportional to $\lambda$$^{-1}$. Also, the IR emission of
463: the shortest \emph{significant} IRAC excess is extrapolated to shorter wavelengths assuming black body
464: emission. The temperature of the adopted black bodies ranges from 1400 to 500 K depending on the IRAC band
465: from which the IR-excess is extrapolated. Finally, we calculate the total disk luminosities by integrating the
466: observed and extrapolated IR-excesses over frequency. Similarly, the stellar luminosities are
467: calculated by integrating the fluxes of the stellar models shown in Figures 2, 3, and 4 over
468: frequency.
469: The distribution of $L_{DISK}/L_{*}$ for our sample of wTTs is shown in Figure 8.
470: The $L_{DISK}/L_{*}$ values calculated using the same procedure for a sample of cTTs (From Cieza et al. 2005) and
471: debris disks (from Chen et al. 2005) are shown for comparison.
472: The $L_{DISK}/L_{*}$ values we derive for our sample should be considered lower limits because our assumption that
473: the flux density peaks at 24 $\mu$m may underestimate the flux contribution of cool material in the outer disk.
474: However, since none of our disks are detected at 70 $\mu$m, we can constrain the flux contribution of the outer
475: disks that may be missing in our disk luminosity estimates. For each object, we approximate the outer disk as a
476: diluted black body peaking at 70 $\mu$m (i.e., T = 41 K) with a flux density equal to 45 mJy, the estimated
477: 3-$\sigma$ limits of the c2d observations at 70 $\mu$m (Evans et al. 2005). For objects in Lupus and Ophiuchus, this approach
478: constrains the luminosities of the outer disks to the $10^{-5}$--$10^{-4}$ $L_{*}$ range. For objects in IC 348,
479: this range is $10^{-3}$--$10^{-4}$ $L_{*}$. Thus, we conclude that, for objects with warm disks for which
480: we derive $L_{DISK}/L_{*}$ $>$ $10^{-3}$, the flux contribution of the outer disks is a small fraction of the total disk
481: luminosity. For the objects we derive $L_{DISK}/L_{*}$ $<$ $10^{-3}$, the contribution of an unseen outer
482: disk could, in principle, dominate the total disk luminosity. However, the disk luminosities of such cold disks
483: would still remain in the debris disk range.
484:
485: Figure 8 shows that only one object, Sz 96, has a $L_{DISK}/L_{*}$ value characteristic of cTTs. This
486: object is a M2 border line cTTs/wTTs with a $H\alpha$ EW of 11 $\AA$. As shown in Figure 2, the SED of Sz 96
487: shows strong IR-excess at 2MASS wavelengths and is indistinguishable from that of a cTTs. This object is likely to be
488: one of the actively accreting interlopers discussed in Sections \ref{sample} and \ref{DF_vs_Halpha}.
489: Similarly, only 4 objects have $10^{-3} > L_{DISK}/L_{*} > 10^{-6}$, the range characteristic of optically thin debris disks.
490: However, we note that the low luminosity and low optical depth of a disk do not necessarily warrant debris disk status, which
491: requires the presence of second generation of dust produced by the collision of planetesimals in a gas poor environment.
492: The lowest luminosity, and presumably optically thin, disks in our sample are RXJ1622.6-2345, ROXs 36, IC348-56,
493: and IC348-124. We model the SEDs of these disks in Section~\ref{DISK_MODELS}. If these objects are in fact debris disks, at an
494: age of $\sim$1--3 Myrs, they could be some of the youngest debris disks observed to date. However, the confirmation of debris
495: disk status would require information on the grain size distribution and gas content of their disks. The main conclusion that
496: can be drawn from Figure 8 is that the bulk of the wTTs disks have $L_{DISK}/L_{*}$ values that bridge the
497: gap between the cTTs
498: and the debris disk range. This supports the idea that wTTs disks represent an intermediate evolutionary stage linking
499: primordial disks around cTTs and debris disks
500: around MS stars.
501:
502: \section{Discussion}
503: \subsection{Comparison to recent Spitzer results}
504: \subsubsection{Comparison to Padgett et al. 2006}\label{PO6A}
505:
506: The IRAC disk fractions we found in Section~\ref{DF} are $\sim$3--6 times larger than those
507: recently found for a sample of 83 relatively isolated wTTs (Padgett et al. 2006, P06 hereafter).
508: P06 find that 3 of their objects show IR-excess both at IRAC and MIPS wavelengths, while 2 objects
509: show IRAC fluxes consistent with photospheric emission and small excesses at 24 $\mu$m. Most of these
510: stars in the P06 sample are members of the extended population of Li rich wTTs discovered by the
511: ROSAT X-ray satellite around nearby molecular clouds and are, for the most part, located outside
512: the high extinction regions mapped by the c2d project, but within $\sim$6 degrees of the centers of the
513: c2d cloud maps.The P06 observations were sensitive to the stellar photospheres of the entire sample
514: at both IRAC wavelengths and 24 $\mu$m. Given the size of the samples involved, the discrepancy
515: in the IRAC disk fraction of the off-cloud wTTs studied by P06, 4$\pm2 \%$, and that of
516: the on-cloud wTTs studied in this paper, 20$\pm3\%$, is significant at the 4-$\sigma$ level.
517:
518: Follow up spectroscopic studies of ROSAT targets (e.g. Covino et al. 1997; Martin et al. 1999; Wichmann et al. 2000)
519: used the strength of the Li I 6707 absorption line to discriminate bona-fide PMS from young active MS stars (possibly $\sim$100
520: Myrs old) sharing the same X-ray properties. P06 selected their sample from ROSAT wTTs with Li I 6707 absorption lines
521: stronger than that of a Pleiades star of the same spectral type. These objects were suspected to be 1--10 Myr-old because the
522: age distribution of the ROSAT wTTs, derived from their position in the H-R diagram, is not significantly different from that
523: derived for the on-cloud TT Tauri stars (Alcala et al. 1997; see also Section~\ref{DF_vs_age} of this paper).
524: This age estimate assumes that the ROSAT sources are located at the same distances as their adjacent molecular clouds.
525: However, the distance and pre-main sequence status of the extended population of ROSAT sources has been called
526: into question. Feigelson (1996) and Briceno et al. (1997) argue that the distributed population of ROSAT
527: sources consist of mostly foreground post-T Tauri and active young ($\sim$100 Myrs old) MS stars which are not
528: necessarily associated with regions of current star formation (i.e. they are old enough to have moved far away from their
529: birth sites) and that the presence of Li I 6707 does
530: not warrant PMS status since it is highly dependent on stellar mass, convection, and angular momentum history.
531: The low disk fraction of the distributed population of ROSAT sources studied by P06 with respect to that of the
532: sample of on-cloud wTTs studied here supports the idea that the ROSAT sources found \emph{around} molecular clouds
533: represent a significantly older population of stars than that of the $<$ 1-10 Myrs old cTTs and wTTs found \emph{within}
534: molecular clouds.
535: The age estimate of the extended population of Li rich ROSAT sources depends on whether or not the
536: P06/ROSAT targets are at the same distances as their adjacent molecular clouds. The luminosities of stars closer to us than
537: the molecular clouds themselves could be considerably overestimated,
538: translating into underestimated ages when the stars are placed in the H-R diagram.
539: If the P06 sources are in fact associated with the molecular cloud and the sample has been biased toward foreground stars,
540: the wTTS in P06 sample could be somewhat older than their nominal age of 1--10 Myr. It is reasonable to assume that such a bias
541: toward foreground objects exists because P06 favored bright objects when selecting their sample in order to increase the number of wTTs
542: that could be observed at a given sensitivity. If the P06 sources are not associated with their adjacent molecular clouds,
543: then the only age constraints are Li I 6707 EW and X-ray brightness, and ages of the order of 100 Myrs could not be
544: ruled out.
545:
546: \subsubsection{Comparison to Lada et al. 2006}\label{L06_comp}
547:
548: In a recent study of $\sim$300 confirmed members of IC 348 (wTTs and cTTs) Lada et al. (2006, L06 hereafter)
549: find an IRAC disk fraction of $\sim$35$\%$ among IC 348 members classified as wTTs. The sample of
550: wTTs studied by L06 is virtually the same sample of IC 348 wTTs included in this paper,
551: for which we derive an IRAC disk fraction of 23$\%\pm4\%$. In what follows, we attempt to account
552: for the difference in these results. L06 use a disk identification criterion based on
553: the slope, $\alpha$, of a power law fit to the four IRAC bands. From the comparison to disk models,
554: they identify objects with $\alpha$ $>$ --1.8 as optically thick disks. Based on the predicted slope of
555: an M0 star and the typical uncertainty in the power law fit, they identify objects with $\alpha$ $<$ --2.56
556: as stellar photospheres and objects with intermediate slopes, --2.56\,$>$\,$\alpha$\,$>$\,--1.8.
557: as ``anemic disks''. Cieza $\&$ Baliber (2006) suggest that many of the objects identified as ``anemic disks''
558: by the L06 are more consistent with stellar photosphere of late M stars than with circumstellar disks.
559: Based on a large sample ($>$ 400) of cTTs and wTTs from the literature with photometric uncertainties smaller
560: than 0.1 mag, Cieza $\&$ Baliber (2006) find that cTTs and wTTs disks occupy a well defined locus in the [3.6]--[8.0]
561: vs [3.6]--[5.8] diagram with [3.6]--[8.0] $>$ 0.7, while bare stellar photospheres have [3.6]--[8.0] $<$ 0.5.
562: In fact, only $\sim$1 $\%$ of the their sample have 0.7 $>$ [3.6]--[8.0] $>$ 0.5. As seen in Figure
563: 6, faint objects in IC 348, most of which are M4--M7 stars, have very uncertain [3.6]--[8.0] colors.
564:
565: We suggest the possibility that the combined effect of slightly redder stellar photospheres and larger photometric
566: uncertainties in late M stars with respect to brighter stars with earlier spectral types resulted in a large fraction
567: of M4--M7 stellar photospheres being classified as ``anemic'' disks by L06. L06 find that the ratio of
568: ``anemic'' disks to optically thick disks increases from $\sim$1/5 to $\sim$1/1 from K6--M2 to M2--M6 stars,
569: which is consistent with the idea that some of the anemic disks around late type stars
570: may be of questionable significance.
571:
572: We find that most of the wTTs that do not satisfy our disk identification criterion discussed in Section~\ref{DF}
573: but are classified as ``anemic'' disks by L06 are objects with spectral types M5 or later, which tend to have very
574: uncertain IRAC colors due to the strong IR background of the IC 348 cluster. These low-mass objects account for
575: the difference in the disk fraction derived by us and L06 for the wTTs in IC 348. In Table 4 we list the 18 objects
576: classified as anemic disks by L06 that do not satisfy our disk identification criterion discussed in Section~\ref{DF}.
577: We find that, for objects in Table 4, the [3.6]--[8.0] colors obtained by L06 are $\sim$0.15 mag redder in the mean
578: than our colors. However, this is a selection effect due to the fact that
579: we are only considering the objects that have [3.6]--[8.0] colors from L06 that are red enough to be classified as
580: anemic disks. In fact, when the entire sample of IC 348 wTTs is considered, our photometry gives [3.6]--[8.0] colors
581: that are $\sim$0.05 mag \emph{redder} than those obtained by L06. We note that even using the colors from L06,
582: only one of the objects satisfies [3.6]--[8.0] $>$ 0.7, the disk identification criterion proposed by Cieza \&
583: Baliber (2006). Also, for 12 of the 18 objects listed in Table 4, L06 derive $\alpha$'s that are consistent with
584: the expected stellar photosphere within the errors (i.e. ($\alpha$+2.66)/$\sigma$$_{\alpha}$ $<$ 3, where -2.66
585: is the slope of an M0 photosphere adopted by L06). Finally, two of the objects for which
586: ($\alpha$+2.66)/$\sigma$$_{\alpha}$ $>$ 3 have no 8.0 $\mu$m fluxes measured by us or by L06, which renders the disk
587: identification less reliable. We conclude that an accurate identification of weak IRAC excesses requires careful
588: consideration of the photometric uncertainties involved, especially in regions with strong extended emission such
589: as the IC 348 cluster.
590:
591:
592: \subsection{The diversity and evolutionary status of wTTs disks}
593:
594: For late type stars, the IRAC and MIPS fluxes originate from the inner
595: $\sim$20 AU of the disk. For this reason, observations at these wavelengths are
596: especially suited to study the evolution of the planet-forming region of the disk.
597: According to models of the evolution of circumstellar disks, dust growth and
598: settling take place very efficiently in the circumstellar disks soon after
599: their formation (Weidenschilling 1997, Dullemond \& Dominik 2005).
600: Numerical models also predict that the growth of dust will reduce the opacity of
601: the disk to the stellar radiation causing the disk to become flatter and the
602: excesses in the mid infrared to decrease with time proceeding from the
603: shortest to the longest wavelengths. There is mounting evidence of
604: such phenomena in the IRAC colors of T Tauri stars and lower mass
605: objects (D'Alessio et al. 2001, Furlan et al. 2005, Sicilia-Aguilar et
606: al. 2005, Muzerolle et al. 2006).
607:
608: In this section, we try to explore observational consequences that
609: could be related to dust grain growth
610: and/or settling toward the mid-plane for the sample of wTTs with
611: disks. To this end, we estimate the longest wavelength \emph{without}
612: significant infrared excess from the dereddened SEDs, $\lambda_{\rm
613: turn-off}$ (in $\mu$m), and the slope of the SED longward of
614: $\lambda_{\rm turn-off}$, $\alpha_{\rm excess}$ for all the wTTs stars
615: with disks in the sample. We compare these values for our sample of
616: wTTs to those we obtain for a sample of cTTs in Chamaeleon from Cieza et al.
617: (2005) and a sample of debris disks from Chen et al. (2005).
618: Figure 9 shows the ranges of mid-IR slopes $\alpha_{\rm
619: excess}$ versus the wavelength of disk emission turn off
620: $\lambda_{\rm turn-off}$. Systems with $\lambda_{\rm turn-off}$ $\le$
621: 2.0 $\mu$m show some excess in the near-IR JHK bands and are probably
622: actively accreting (see e.g. Hartmann et al. 2005 and Muzerolle et al. 2003).
623: Objects with $\lambda_{\rm turn-off}$ in the IRAC range are likely to be purely
624: irradiated disks with increasing degree of settling and/or larger
625: inner holes with increasing $\lambda_{\rm turn-off}$. Finally, those stars
626: with $\lambda_{\rm turn-off} \ge$ 8.0 $\mu$m are likely to have cleared
627: inner disks with radii of several AU (e.g. Calvet et al. 2002)
628: or alternatively have dust in the inner disk which has grown to
629: sizes large enough not to produce any detectable excess above the
630: photospheric level.
631:
632: A simple disk evolution scenario based solely on dust grain growth and
633: settling predicts smaller $\alpha_{\rm excess}$ slopes for longer
634: $\lambda_{\rm turn-off}$ or larger cleared inner regions (Dullemond \&
635: Dominik 2005, D'Alessio et al. 2005). However, Figure 9
636: suggests that the {\it range of possible excess slopes increases with
637: the process of inner disk clearing}. The actively-accreting cTTs stars
638: all cluster around $\alpha_{\rm excess}$ values of $-1$. For these objects,
639: the onset of the IR excess occurs near 2.2 $\mu$m.
640: We find that wTTs show a richer distribution of SED morphologies
641: than cTTs. Some of the wTTs show SEDs that are indistinguishable
642: from those of cTTs, while others show a wide range of $\lambda_{\rm
643: turn-off}$ $\alpha_{\rm excess}$ values. Finally, the debris disks,
644: with ages 12 and 200 Myrs (Chen et al. 2005) show detectable excess
645: only longward of 8.0 $\mu$m, but also present a great variety of spectral
646: slopes.
647:
648: In general, the diagram suggests an evolutionary sequence in which most
649: actively accreting cTTs have similar near to mid-IR SEDs, dominated by
650: optically thick emission of the inner disk. This similarity is probably
651: due to the fact that, in most cases, their inner disks extend to the
652: dust sublimation radius (Muzerolle et al. 2003). On the other hand,
653: if disks evolve from the inside out, wTTs disks are likely to have a wider
654: range of of inner disk radii and temperatures than cTTs. This diversity of inner
655: disks, together with possible grain grown and grain settling to the disk mid-plane
656: may explain the large ranges of $\alpha_{\rm excess}$ and $\lambda_{\rm turn-off}$ found.
657: Finally, the debris disks populate the right part of the plot with large cleared inner disks and
658: emission from cool optically thin dust.
659:
660: \subsection{Comparison to Optically Thin Disk Models}\label{DISK_MODELS}
661:
662: As discussed in Section~\ref{disk_properties}, four stars in our sample show SEDs
663: and L$_{DISK}$/L$_{*}$ consistent with optically thin disks. These are ROXs 36,
664: RXJ1622.6-2345, IC348-56 and IC348-124.In this section, we modeled these four objects
665: using the the optically thin disk model developed by Augereau et al. (1999).
666:
667: We limited the exploration of the parameter space to the disk parameters that affect most the
668: global shape of an SED, namely the minimum grain size $a_{\rm min}$, the peak surface density
669: position $r_0$ and the total dust mass $M_{\rm dust}$ (or, equivalently, the surface density at $r_0$).
670: We adopted a differential grain size distribution proportional to $a^{-3.5}$ between
671: $a_{\rm min}$ and $a_{\rm max}$, with $a_{\rm max} = 1300\,\mu$m, a value sufficiently large
672: to not affect the SED fitting in the wavelength range we consider.
673: Following Augereau et al. (1999), the disk surface density $\Sigma(r)$ is parametrized by a two power-law
674: radial profile $\Sigma(r) = \Sigma(r_0) \sqrt{2} \left(x^{-2\alpha_{\rm in}}+x^{-2\alpha_{\rm out}} \right)^{-1/2}$
675: with $x = r/r_0$, and where $\alpha_{\rm in} = 10$ and $\alpha_{\rm out} = -3$ to
676: simulate a disk peaked around $r_0$, with a sharp inner edge, and a density profile decreasing
677: smoothly with the distance from the star beyond $r_0$. The optical properties of the grains
678: were calculated for astronomical silicates (optical constants from Weingartner $\&$ Draine (2001)),
679: and with the Mie theory valid for hard spheres. The grain temperatures were obtained by assuming the
680: dust particles are in thermal equilibrium with the central star. NextGen model atmosphere spectra
681: (Hauschildt et al. 1999) scaled to the observed dereddened K-band magnitude, were used
682: to model the stellar photospheres.
683:
684: For each star, we calculated $15000$ SEDs ($0.3\,\mu$m$\leq \lambda \leq 950\,\mu$m),
685: for $75$, logarithmically-spaced values of $a_{\rm min}$ between $0.05\,\mu$m and
686: $100\,\mu$m, and for $200$ values of $r_0$, logarithmically-spaced between $0.02$\,AU
687: and $300$\,AU. For each model, the dust mass was adjusted by a least-squares method,
688: assuming purely photospheric emission (within the uncertainties, $10\%$) in the four
689: IRAC bands, and by fitting the measured MIPS $24\,\mu$m flux density. Models with flux densities
690: in the MIPS $70\,\mu$m and $160\,\mu$m bands, larger than the estimated $2\sigma$ upper limits
691: of $0.03\,$Jy and $0.5\,$Jy, respectively, were eliminated.
692: The results are summarized in Table 5, and the SEDs are displayed in Figure 10.
693: Results in Table 5 are listed for two different regimes of minimal grain sizes,
694: namely, $a_{\rm min}$ $>$ 10 $\mu$m and $a_{\rm min}$ $<$ 0.5 $\mu$m.
695: The first regime accounts for a scenario where all grains have grown
696: to sizes $>$ 10 $\mu$m and where smaller grains are not replenished by
697: collisions, while the second regime accounts for a case where grains
698: smaller than 0.5 $\mu$m remain in the system, either because they are
699: collisionally replenished, or because pressure forces are inefficient
700: to expel grains. However, assuming a gas poor environment (i.e. the dust dynamics is
701: not controlled by the gas), dissipation processes acting on small grains will limit the
702: size of the smallest grains that are likely to populate the disk. For ROX 36, an A2 star,
703: the blow-out size is of the order of a few microns. Thus, grains significantly smaller
704: than 0.5 $\mu$m are unbound and unlikely to be present in the disk. For the three M-type stars,
705: radiation pressure is not high enough to overcome the gravitational force and expel grains.
706: In this case, and provided the star mass loss rate is high enough,
707: the pressure force expected from the stellar wind will set the lower
708: limit for $a_{\rm min}$ (Augereau $\&$ Beust 2006, Strubbe $\&$ Chiang 2006).
709:
710: In most cases, neither the position of the peak surface density $r_0$, nor the minimum
711: grain size $a_{\rm min}$, can be uniquely determined with so few observational constraints,
712: but some models can be eliminated. In particular, the lack of excess in the IRAC bands
713: imposes the disk to be significantly dust-depleted within $\sim$1 AU from the star.
714: The best fits to the SEDs of the three low-mass stars
715: (RXJ1622.6-2345, IC348-56 and IC348-124)
716: are indeed obtained for $r_0$ values around $2$--$5$\,AU, while in the case of ROXs 36,
717: the inner hole could be ten times larger.
718: The properties of the ROXs 36 disk are in fact those of a typical $\beta$ Pic-like
719: disk: a dust mass in the $10^{-4}$--$10^{-2}$\,M$_{\oplus}$ range, a low fractional
720: luminosity $L_{\rm IR}/L_*$ of about $10^{-4}$, and typical minimum collision time-scales
721: (as calculated using the formula given by Backman et al. 1993) one to three orders
722: of magnitudes smaller than the star age. Also, as it is the case for virtually
723: all $\beta$ Pic-like disks, the disk around ROXs 36 seems to be collisional
724: dominated because collisions occur much faster than Poynting-Robertson (P-R) drag
725: (as calculated using the formula given by Augereau $\&$ Beust 2006) for all grains
726: larger than the blow-up size.
727: The best fits to the observed excesses around the three low-mass
728: wTTs (RXJ1622.6-2345, IC348-56 and IC348-124) are also consistent with optically
729: thin disks observed around other young M-type stars such as AU Mic (Liu et al. 2004).
730: These three objects have low luminosity ratios, $L_{\rm IR}/L_* <2\times 10^{-2}$, and
731: dust masses between $10^{-4}$ and $10^{-3}$\,M$_{\oplus}$, with an upper limit of
732: about $0.5\,$M$_{\oplus}$. The collision time-scales for these three objects are
733: extremely small (of the order of $100$\,yr).
734:
735: The preliminary models described above suggest that the disks around ROXs 36,
736: RXJ1622.6-2345, IC348-56, and IC348-124 \emph{could} be younger analogs of
737: the $\beta$ Pic and AU Mic debris disks, and thus some of the youngest debris
738: disks ever observed. However, this interpretation depends on the assumption
739: that these four wTTs disks are gas poor (as their older counterparts are).
740: The timescale over which gas clearing occurs is still poorly constrained
741: observationally and it is even unclear whether gas and dust are lost simultaneously
742: as disks evolve from the massive optically thick to the debris disk phase.
743: High-resolution \emph{Spitzer}-IRS observations, such as those
744: presented by Pascucci et al. (2007), to constrain the amount of gas
745: present in these extremely young (1-3 Myrs) optically thin disks could provide crucial
746: information on the gas evolution in the transition from the primordial to the
747: debris disk stage.
748:
749: In Section~\ref{DF}, we found that most wTTs ($\sim$80 $\%$) show no evidence for a disk.
750: Since \emph{Spitzer} observations are capable of detecting very small amounts of dust in
751: the planet-forming regions of the disk (r $\sim$0.1--10 AU), the absence of mid-IR excess imposes
752: very stringent limits on the amount of dust available for planet formation around ``disk-less'' wTTs
753: (i.e. most wTTs). In this section, we use the optically thin disk models discussed above
754: to constrain the maximum amount of dust that could remain undetected within the
755: first few tens of AU of the wTTs in our sample. Since the 24 $\mu$m observations are the most constraining,
756: we restrict our analysis to Lupus and Ophiuchus objects that have 24 $\mu$m fluxes consistent with stellar photospheres
757: and exclude the objects that remain undetected at this wavelength. Objects in IC 348 are also excluded because we
758: detect the stellar photospheres of only a couple of them.
759:
760: Since none of our ``diskless'' wTTs are detected in the c2d 70 and 160 $\mu$m maps, for the
761: purpose of our models, we adopt nominal upper limits of 15 and 250 mJy at 70 and 160 $\mu$m, respectively.
762: For each model we calculated the mass encompassed within a radius $r$, as a function of this radius.
763: With this approach, we can estimate the maximum dust mass in the inner regions of the wTTs with
764: no detectable, or marginally detected, emission in excess to the photospheric emission.
765: The results are displayed in Figure \,\ref{MvsR} for the Lupus and Ophiuchus clouds, assuming
766: distances to the Sun listed in Table 6.
767: For the Lupus and Ophiuchus clouds, the c2d Spitzer observations constrain the observed wTTs
768: to have less than a few $10^{-6}$\,M$_{\oplus}$ of dust within $1\,$AU from the central star,
769: and less than a few $10^{-4}$\,M$_{\oplus}$ within $10\,$AU. These mass upper limits, obtained
770: for minimum grain sizes between $10$ and $100\,\mu$m, drop by about an order of magnitude
771: when $a_{\rm min} \leq 0.5\,\mu$m.The Lupus and Ophiuchus wTTs with no (or marginal) excess at $24\,\mu$m, have then inner
772: disks that are strongly depleted, and only extremely cold disks with
773: large inner holes are still theoretically possible because of
774: the relatively large MIPS $70\,\mu$m and $160\,\mu$m upper limits.
775: Such belts would resemble the dust rings resolved about nearby
776: young Main Sequence stars (e.g. HD\,181327, Schneider et al. 2006 and ref. therein).
777: Of course, our observations only constrain the mass of dust and can not rule out the presence
778: of much larger planetesimals or planets because once dust grains grow into larger bodies
779: (r $\gg$ $\lambda$), most of the solid mass never interacts with the radiation, and the opacity
780: function, $k_{\nu}$ ($cm^2$/gr), decreases dramatically.
781:
782: \subsection{Circumstellar Disks and Stellar Ages}\label{DF_vs_age}
783:
784: In Section~\ref{DF}, we studied the overall disk fraction of our sample of wTTs. In this section,
785: we derive stellar ages from two different evolutionary tracks and estimate the disk
786: frequency as a function of stellar age. In order to derive stellar ages from theoretical
787: evolutionary tracks, it is necessary to obtain the effective temperatures and luminosities of
788: all the targets. We estimate the effective temperatures directly from the spectral type of
789: the objects according to the scale provided by Kenyon \& Hartmann (1995). We derive the stellar luminosities
790: by applying a bolometric correction (appropriate for each spectral type) to the 2MASS J-band magnitudes
791: corrected for extinction and assuming the nominal cloud distance listed in Table 6. The J-band
792: was chosen because the effects of extinction is less important than at shorter wavelengths (A$_J$ $\sim$
793: 0.26 A$_V$) and the emission from the disk is less prominent that at longer wavelengths.
794: The bolometric corrections were taken from Hartigan, Strom \& Strom (1994) and the J-band extinction,
795: $A_J$, was calculated using
796: $A_{J}= 1.24\times E(R_{C}-I_{C}) = 1.24\times ((R_{C}-I_{C})_{OBS}-(R_{C}-I_{C})_{O})$.
797: The intrinsic stellar colors, (R$_{C}$-I$_{C}$)o, come from
798: Kenyon \& Hartmann (1995). For objects without R$_{C}$ and I$_{C}$ fluxes available, we use
799: $A_J$=5.88$\times$E(J-K).
800:
801: \subsubsection{Estimation of Age Uncertainties}
802:
803: In order to estimate the error bars associated with the ages we derive, we first estimate
804: the observational uncertainties that need to be propagated through the H-R diagram. Fortunately,
805: the $T_{eff}$'s and luminosities of wTTs are easier to determine than those of cTTs. The interplay between
806: extinction and veiling introduces a large uncertainty in determining stellar luminosities of cTTs,
807: and different results are obtained depending on the band to which the bolometric correction is applied
808: (Cieza et al. 2005). In fact, the luminosities obtained from the J-band are systematically
809: larger (by $\sim$35$\%$) than those obtained from the $I_{C}$ band. For wTTs, Cieza et al. (2005) show that the luminosities
810: derived from the $I_{C}$ and J bands agree to within 5$\%$; therefore, distance is probably the dominant
811: uncertainty in calculating their luminosity. The distance uncertainties listed in Table 6 translate into
812: $\sim$20--30$\%$ luminosity uncertainties. Similarly, the spectral type classification of wTTs (and therefore
813: their temperatures) is usually more accurate than that of cTTs. This is because the spectra of cTTs are affected by
814: veiling, and their photospheres are highly heterogeneous in terms of temperature due to the presence of hot accretion columns.
815: To estimate the effective temperature uncertainty of the wTTs in our sample, we adopt one spectral type subclass as the
816: classification accuracy. For the reasons mentioned above, we regard the $T_{eff}$'s and the luminosities (and
817: therefore the ages) of wTTs as being more accurate than those derived for cTTs using the same procedure.
818:
819: A study of the disk fraction as a function of age can only yield meaningful results
820: if the intrinsic age spread of the sample is larger than the age uncertainties
821: attributable to observational errors. We verify that our sample satisfies this
822: condition by comparing the spread of the ages we derive to that expected solely
823: from observational errors. Based on an error budget similar to the one described above,
824: Hartman (2001) estimated that observational errors will introduce an age spread of
825: $\sigma$log(age) = 0.18 in the logarithmic age distribution derived for wTTs in Taurus.
826: In Figure 12, we plot the derived age distribution of our sample as calculated from
827: two different evolutionary tracks. The mean age and the age spread are model dependent.
828: According the the models presented by D'Antona $\&$ Mazzitelli (1994, 1998, D98 hereafter)
829: \footnote{Available at http://www.mporzio.astro.it/~dantona/prems.html.}
830: the logarithmic age distribution of our sample can be characterized as a Gaussian
831: centered around log(age)=6.3 with $\sigma$(log age) = 0.57. Similarly, according to the
832: models presented by Siess et al. (2000, S00 hereafter)
833: \footnote{Available at http://www-astro.ulb.ac.be/~siess/database.html.},
834: the logarithmic age distribution of the sample can be characterized as a
835: Gaussian centered around log(age)=6.6 with $\sigma$(log age) = 0.40. The age spreads
836: derived are 2.2-3.2 times the value attributed by Hartmann (2001) to observational errors,
837: which is also shown in Fig 13 for comparison.
838:
839: \subsubsection{Evolutionary Tracks and Stellar Ages}
840:
841: In order to evaluate the degree to which ages we derive depends on the models,
842: we compare the individual ages derived from the D98 and S00 models. We choose these two particular evolutionary tracks
843: because they provide the appropriate mass and age range and are
844: both widely used, which allows a direct comparison of our results to those from other papers.
845: Figure 13a shows the ages derived for our sample using both sets of evolutionary tracks.
846: The error bars for every object have been calculated by propagating into the evolutionary tracks the
847: \emph{observational} uncertainties computed as described in the previous section (e.g. a $T_{eff}$ uncertainty
848: equal to one spectral type subclass and a luminosity uncertainty dominated by the distance uncertainty). Stellar
849: ages of PMS stars are very difficult to estimate due to the large observational and model uncertainties involved
850: (Hillenbrand $\&$ White, 2004) and they are often taken with a high degree of (healthy) skepticism.
851: However, even though the the error bars in the individual ages are large, the total age spread in the sample is
852: significantly larger than the typical (observational) error bar. This is consistent with
853: the analysis of Figure 12. Also, even though D98 and S00 evolutionary tracks show some systematic differences
854: (e.g. D98 tracks yield significantly younger ages than S00 models), the relative ages agree fairly well.
855:
856: Figure 13a shows that $\sim$40$\%$ of the wTTs that are both younger than 1.5 Myrs according to the S00 models
857: \emph{and} younger than 0.6 Myrs according to the D98 models have circumstellar disks. In contrast, none of the
858: targets that are older than 10 Myrs according to the D98 \emph{or} S00 models has a disk.
859: The decrease in the IRAC disk fraction with stellar age is clearly seen Figure 13b, where we
860: restrict our analysis to the 198 objects in the magnitude limited subsample discussed in
861: Section ~\ref{DF_stats} and divide the ages we derive using the D98 and S00 models into 4 age bins.
862: Very similar conclusions can be drawn if our sample is combined with that of P06. Including the P06
863: samples considerably increases the statistical significance of the last age bin. Taken both samples together,
864: none of the $\sim$40 stars that are older than 10 Myrs according to either of the tracks have an
865: IR excess indicating the presence of a circumstellar disk.
866:
867: \subsection{Constraint on the Timescale of Planet Building}\label{constrains}
868:
869: Figure 13 suggests that circumstellar disks, as defined by the presence of IR excesses at
870: $\lambda$ $\leq$ 10-24 $\mu$m, are very rare or nonexistent around wTTs with ages $\gtrsim$10 Myrs.
871: This timescale is very similar to that obtained by studies of the frequency of circumstellar disks detected
872: in the near-IR (See Hillenbrand 2006 for a review). However, our results impose much stronger constraints on
873: the time available for the formation of planets than those provided by previous studies. Past results based on near-IR
874: excesses always left room for the possibility that stars without near-IR excess had enough material to form planets at larger
875: radii not probed by near-IR wavelengths. IRAS and ISO had the appropriate wavelengths range to probe the planet-forming
876: regions of the disk but lacked the sensitivity needed to detect all but the strongest mid- and far-IR excesses in
877: low-mass stars at the distances of nearest star-forming regions. \emph{Spitzer} provides, for the first time, the
878: wavelength coverage and the sensitivity needed to detect small amounts of dust in the planet-forming regions of
879: a statistically significant number of low-mass PMS stars. In particular, the results from Section~\ref{DISK_MODELS}
880: suggest that 24 $\mu$m fluxes consistent with stellar photospheres constrain the amount of \emph{warm}
881: dust (T $\sim$100 K) in the disks of our sample of wTTs to be much less than an Earth mass.
882: Even though our 24 $\mu$m observations are not sensitive to the stellar photospheres
883: of all the targets, taking the P06 sample and our sample together, there are at
884: least $\sim$40 wTTs with estimated ages $>$ 10 Myrs showing photospheric fluxes
885: at 24 $\mu$m. This number is likely to be a lower limit because, as discussed
886: in Section \ref{L06_comp}, we suspect that the ages of many of the stars in the P06 sample
887: have been underestimated. This seems to imply that after $\sim$10 Myrs wTTs have
888: to be in a relatively advanced stage of the planet formation process if they are to
889: form planets at all.
890:
891: Since the cTTs disks older than 10 Myrs are also very infrequent, 10 Myrs seems to be a general
892: upper limit for the survival of primordial disks around PMS stars. This conclusion
893: is also supported by recent results from the ``Formation and Evolution of Planetary Systems'' (FEPS)
894: project. Silverstone et al. (2006, S06 hereafter) search for IRAC excesses in a sample of 74 young
895: (age $<$ 30 Myr old) Sun-like (0.7 $<$ M$_*$/M$_{\odot}$) stars. They divided
896: the sample into two age bins, 3-10 Myrs and 10-30 Myrs. S06 find IRAC excesses for 4 of the
897: 29 stars in the youngest age bin and for 1 of the 45 stars in the older age bin. The FEPS
898: objects were selected based on their ages ($<$ 30 Myrs), masses ($\sim$ 1 M$_{\odot}$), distances
899: ($<$ 170 pc), and low infrared backgrounds, without a bias with respect to their H$\alpha$ EW
900: or IR properties. The five objects with IRAC excess have SEDs consistent with those of CTTS, and
901: given the age uncertainties, it entirely possible that they are all younger
902: than 10 Myrs. In fact, the only object with IRAC excess for which S06 adopts an age older than
903: 10 Myrs is PDS 66. S06 adopted an age of 17 Myrs for PDS 66 based on the mean age of
904: the Lower Centaurus Crux, but its formal age is 7-17 Myrs depending on the evolutionary track
905: used (Mamajek et al. 2002). Recent sub-millimeter results extend the conclusions on the survival time
906: of the material in the inner disk (r $<$ 0.1 AU) and the planet-forming region of the disk (r $\sim$ 1--10 AU)
907: to the outer disk (r $\sim$100 AU). Andrews $\&$ Williams (2005) observed over 150 YSOs in Taurus and
908: found that $<$ 10 $\%$ of the object lacking inner disk signatures were detected at sub-mm wavelengths.
909: Given the high sensitivity of their survey (3$\sigma$ $\sim$10 mJy at 850 $\mu$m) they conclude that dust
910: in the inner and outer disk dissipate nearly simultaneously.
911:
912: Figures 13 also suggests that the disks of some wTTs dissipate in timescales $\lesssim$1 Myrs\footnote{This assumes
913: that all wTTs had a disk at some point of their evolution. It is possible that some disks dissipate very early
914: (t $<<$ 1 Myrs), even before the star is optically revealed and can be classified as a wTTs. However, accretion
915: through a disk is considered an unavoidable step of the star formation process.}. Are these apparently very young disk-less
916: objects as young as the evolutionary tracks suggest or is their apparent youth just a product of the large age uncertainty?
917: Several factors can introduce very large errors in the age determination. For instance, the luminosity of foreground field stars
918: can be grossly overestimated if the nominal cloud distances are used, leading to grossly underestimated ages. Also, large errors
919: in the spectral type classification might lead to large errors in the extinction and luminosities.
920: To check for these possibilities, we plotted the SEDs of the objects classified as the youngest disk-less wTTs in our
921: sample. Their SEDs look consistent with stellar photospheres and the overall quality of the fits suggests that both the
922: spectral types and the extinction corrections are reasonably accurate. Still, some of these objects are $\sim$0.5 Myrs
923: old according to the DM98 models and $\sim$1.0 Myrs old according to the S00 models, and $\sim$15 times more luminous than
924: main-sequence stars of the corresponding spectral types.
925:
926: In Section~\ref{DF_vs_age} we found that the dissipation timescale or ``survival time'' of
927: wTTs circumstellar disks ranges from less than 1 to 10 Myrs. A related timescale is the transition
928: timescale from optically thick accretion disks to undetectable disks. Assuming that wTTs disks are the
929: link between cTTs disks and ``disk-less'' wTTs, then the transition timescale, $\tau$, can be estimated as
930: $\tau$= $\frac{N_{TRAN}}{N_{PMS}}\times<$age$>$, where $N_{TRAN}$ is the number of wTTs disks,
931: $N_{PMS}$ is the total number of PMS stars (wTTs+cTTs), and $<$age$>$ is the mean age of the sample.
932: Adopting the wTTs/cTTs ratio of IC 348 ($\sim$3/2) and a mean age of 3 Myrs, the overall IRAC disk fraction
933: in wTTs of 20$\%$ we find in Section~\ref{DF} implies $\tau\sim$0.4 Myrs. This timescale is very similar
934: to that found for the transition timescale between an optically thick disk and an optically thin disk
935: by Skrutskie et al. (1990) and Wolk $\&$ Walter (1996) based on the number of ``transition objects'',
936: which they define as targets without K-band excess but with strong IRAS excesses. The fact that the
937: transitional timescale is significantly shorter than the mean disk-lifetime is inconsistent with traditional
938: viscous evolution (Hartmann et al. 1998) or magnetospheric clearing models (Armitage et al. 1999), which
939: predict a steady disk evolution and thus similar timescales for disk lifetimes and disk dispersal times.
940: Non-steady disk evolution scenarios are required to explain the short transitional timescales inferred
941: after significantly longer disk lifetimes. Such scenarios include the ultraviolet-switch model
942: (Alexander et al. 2006) and the presence of gap forming planets (e.g. Quillen et al. 2004).
943:
944: Our results from Section 4.4, constrain not only the dissipation timescale of the dust during the planet
945: formation process, but also the amount of second generation dust that is produced during this process
946: (Section~\ref{DISK_MODELS}). Numerical models presented by Kenyon
947: $\&$ Bromley (2004) predict the amount of 10 and 20 $\mu$m excess as a function of time produced by the
948: formation of terrestrial planets. Detailed comparison between these kind of models with predictive power and
949: the new observational constraints \emph{Spitzer} is now providing could be highly valuable for our
950: understanding of planet formation.
951:
952: Particularly intriguing and potentially very important objects are the $\sim$1 Myrs old wTTs without any measurable
953: IR excess (for $\lambda$ $\le$ 24 $\mu$m) discussed above. One possible explanation for the very early dissipation of
954: their disks is that these stars have already formed planets through gravitational instability, which is expected to
955: occur at extremely young ages when disks are most massive (Boss 2000). Another possibility for the fast dissipation
956: of these disks is the presence of close companions that could have disrupted their disks. This possibility can be
957: tested with a combination of radial velocity and adaptive optics observations to search for companions. Initial
958: conditions could also be responsible for the early dissipation of the disk, although this hypothesis is not
959: easily testable observationally. We note that the Space Interferometry Mission should be able to establish
960: whether or not these very young disk-less wTTs do in fact harbor planets. The presence of planets around these
961: $\sim$1 Myrs old stars would set the tightest constraints to date for the planet formation timescale.
962:
963: The properties of wTTs with disks such as their age, SED morphology, $L_{DISK}/L_{*}$, etc, strongly
964: suggests that wTTs disks are the link between the massive primordial disks found around cTTs and the debris disks observed
965: around young MS stars. They could be arguably the best places to study ongoing planet formation. Before the
966: end of its mission, \emph{Spitzer} is likely to identify hundreds of wTTs disks in nearby star-forming
967: regions. These objects will most likely be the main targets of many follow-up observations. Deep far-IR and
968: sub-mm observations with \emph{Spitzer}, Herschel, and Alma will allow the study of the outer regions of
969: these wTTs disks and estimates of their masses. Follow-up \emph{Spitzer}/IRS observations of the 10 and 20 $\mu$m
970: silicate features will provide important information on the evolutionary state of the circumstellar dust around
971: these objects. Finally, high resolution searches for $H_{2}$ and atomic lines, such as
972: those presented by Hollenbach et al. (2005) and Pascucci et al. (2007), would be highly desirable to constrain
973: the amount of gas available for the formation of giant planets in wTTs disks.
974:
975: \section{Summary of results}\label{sumary}
976:
977: We present a census of circumstellar disks and report the disk frequency as a function of stellar age for a sample
978: of over 230 spectroscopically identified wTTs located in the c2d IRAC and MIPS maps of the Ophiuchus, Lupus
979: and Perseus Molecular Clouds. Our main results can be summarized as follows:
980:
981: 1) In Section~\ref{DF}, we find from a magnitude limited subsample of wTTs that $\sim$20$\%$ of the wTTs
982: have noticeable IR-excesses at IRAC wavelengths indicating the presence of a circumstellar disk.
983:
984: 2) The disks frequencies we find in the 3 clouds we consider are $\sim$3-6 times larger than that recently found by P06 for a
985: sample of 83 relatively isolated wTTs projected outside the boundaries of nearby molecular clouds. This discrepancy in the
986: disk fractions supports the idea that samples of wTTs (nominally 1-10 Myrs old) located a few degrees away from their
987: parent molecular clouds represent an older population of stars. The disk fractions we find are more consistent with those
988: obtained in recent \emph{Spitzer} studies of wTTs in young clusters such as IC 348 and Tr 37.
989: However, in Section~\ref{L06_comp},
990: we suggest that Lada and colleagues might have overestimated the disk fraction of wTTs in IC 348 by classifying as
991: ``anemic disks'' some disk-less M4-M7 stars with large photometric uncertainties.
992:
993: 3) In Section~\ref{DF_vs_Halpha}. we find that the disk fraction of wTTs is a smooth function
994: of $H\alpha$ EW. In Section~\ref{FDL}, we show that the fractional disk luminosities of wTTs
995: disks bridge the gap between the cTTs and the debris disk range.
996:
997: 4) In Section~\ref{DISK_MODELS}, we estimate mass upper limits of dust within the inner 10 AU
998: of $10^{-4} M_{\oplus}$ for the objects in our sample with 24 $\mu$m fluxes
999: consistent with stellar photospheres.
1000:
1001: 5) In Section~\ref{DF_vs_age}, we place our sample of wTTs in the H-R diagram and find that the stars with excesses are among the
1002: younger part of the age distribution. However, we also find that up to $\sim$50$\%$ of the apparently youngest stars
1003: in the wTTs sample show no evidence of IR excess. This suggests that the circumstellar disks of a sizable fraction of
1004: pre-main-sequence stars dissipate before the stars reach an age of $\sim$1 Myr.
1005:
1006: 6) Also in Section~\ref{DF_vs_age}, we find that none of the stars in our sample apparently older than $\sim$10 Myrs have
1007: detectable circumstellar disks. Since \emph{Spitzer} observations probe planet-forming regions of the disk (r $\sim$0.1-10 AU)
1008: and are capable of detecting IR excesses produced by very small amounts of dust, our results impose stronger
1009: constraints on the time available for the formation of planets than those provided by previous studies based on
1010: detections of disks in the near-IR.
1011:
1012: 7) Finally, in Section~\ref{constrains} we estimate a transition timescale of $\sim$0.4 Myrs
1013: between optically thick accretion disks and disks that are undetectable shortward of $\sim$10 $\mu$m,
1014: in good agreement with previous results.
1015:
1016: \acknowledgments
1017:
1018: We thank the anonymous referee for his/her many detailed comments,
1019: which have helped to improve the paper.
1020: Support for this work, which is part of the {\it Spitzer} Legacy
1021: Science Program, was provided by NASA through contracts 1224608,
1022: 1230782, and 1230799 issued by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory,
1023: California Institute of Technology under NASA contract 1407.
1024: B.M. acknowledges the Fundaci\'on Ram\'on Areces for financial support.
1025: Astrochemistry in Leiden is supported by a NWO Spinoza and
1026: NOVA grant, and by the European Research Training Network
1027: "The Origin of Planetary Systems" (PLANETS, contract number
1028: HPRN-CT-2002-00308). We thank the Lorentz Center in Leiden for
1029: hosting several meetings that contributed to this paper.
1030: This publication makes use of data products from the Two Micron All Sky
1031: Survey, which is a joint project of the University of Massachusetts
1032: and the Infrared Processing and Analysis Center funded by
1033: NASA and the National Science Foundation. We also acknowledge
1034: use of the SIMBAD database.
1035:
1036:
1037: \clearpage
1038:
1039: \begin{references}
1040:
1041: \reference{} Alcala, J. M., Krautter, J., Covino, E., Neuhaeuser, R., Schmitt, J. H. M., Wichmann, R. 1997, A$\&$A, 19, 184
1042:
1043: \reference{} Alibert, Y., Mordasini, C., Benz, W. 2004, A$\&$A, 417, 25
1044:
1045: \reference{} Andrews S. Williams J. 2005, ApJ, 631, 1134
1046:
1047: \reference{} Armitage P. Clarke C. Tout C., 1999, MNRAS, 304, 425
1048:
1049: \reference{} Augereau, J.C., Lagrange, A., Mouillet, D., Papaloizou, J.C., Grorod, P., 1999, A$\&$A, 348, 557
1050:
1051: \reference{} Augereau, J.C., Beust, H., 2006, A$\&$A, 455, 987
1052:
1053: \reference{} Backman, D.E., Paresce, F.1993, Protostars and Planets III, 1253
1054:
1055: \reference{} Beichman, C. A., Bryden, G., Rieke, G. H., Stansberry, J. A., Trilling, D. E., Stapelfeldt, K. R., Werner, M. W.,
1056: Engelbracht, C. W., Blaylock, M., Gordon, K. D., Chen, C. H., Su, K. Y. L., Hines, D. C. 2005, ApJ,622,1160
1057:
1058: \reference{} Beichman, C. A., Stapelfeldt, K. R., Hines, D. C. 2005, ApJ, 620, 1010
1059:
1060: \reference{} Briceno, C., Hartmann, L.W., Stauffer, J.R., Gagne, M.,Stern, R.A., Caillault, J.P. 1997, AJ,113,740
1061:
1062: \reference{} Bodenheimer, P., Pollack, J. B. 1986, Icar, 67, 391
1063:
1064: \reference{} Boss, A. 2000, ApJ, 536, L101
1065:
1066: \reference{} Bouvier, J., Appenzeller, I. 1992, A$\&A$S. 92, 481
1067:
1068: \reference{} Carpenter, J. M., Mamajek, E., Hillenbrand, L., Meyer, M. 2006, ApJL, 651, 49.
1069:
1070: \reference{} Calvet, N., D'Alessio, P., Hartmann, L., W., D., Walsh, A., Sitko, M.2002, ApJ, 568, 1008
1071:
1072: \reference{} Chen, C. H., Patten, B. M., Werner, M. W., Dowell, C. D., Stapelfeldt, K. R., Song, I., Stauffer, J. R.,
1073: Blaylock, M., Gordon, K. D., Krause, V. 2005, ApJ, 634, 1372
1074:
1075: \reference{} Cieza, L. A., Kessler-Silacci, J.E., Jaffe, D.T., Harvey, P.M., Evans, N.J. 2005, ApJ, 635, 422
1076:
1077: \reference{} Cieza, L. A., Baliber, N. 2006, ApJ, 649, 862
1078:
1079: \reference{} Covino, E., Alcala, J, Allain, S., Bouvier, J., Terranegra, L., Krauttter, J. 1997, A$\&$A, 328, 187
1080:
1081: \reference{} D'Alessio, P., Calvet, N., Hartmann, L. 2001, ApJ, 553, 32
1082:
1083: \reference{} D'Alessio, P., Hartmann, L., Calvet, Nuria; Franco-Hernández, R., Forrest, W.J., Sargent, B., Furlan, E., Uchida, K., Green, J.D.,
1084: Watson, D.M., Chen, C.H., Kemper, F., Sloan, G. C., Najita, J. 2005, ApJ, 621, 461
1085:
1086: \reference{} D'Antona, F., Mazzitelli, I. 1994, ApJ , 90, 467
1087:
1088: \reference{} D'Antona, F., Mazzitelli, I. 1998, in ASP Conf. Ser. 134, Brown Dwarfs and Extrasolar Planets, ed. R. Rebolo, E. Martin, $\&$ M.
1089: R. Zapatero Osorio (San Francisco: ASP), 442
1090:
1091: \reference{} de Geus, E. J., de Zeeuw, P. T., Lub, J. 1989, A$\&$A, 216, 44
1092:
1093: \reference{} Dullemond, C. P., Dominik, C. 2005, A$\&$A, 434, 97
1094:
1095: \reference{} Durisen, R. H., Boss, A. P., Mayer, L., Nelson, A. F., Quinn, T., Rice, W. K. M. 2007, Protostars and Planets V,
1096: University of Arizona Press, Tucson
1097:
1098: \reference{} Evans, N. J., II, et al. 2003, PASP, 115, 965
1099:
1100: \reference{} Evans, N. J., II, et al. 2005, Third Delivery of Data from the c2d Legacy Project.
1101: Spitzer Science Center), http://ssc.spitzer.caltech.edu/legacy/
1102:
1103: \reference{} Feigelson, E.D. 1996, ApJ, 468, 306
1104:
1105: \reference{} Fiorucci, M., U. 2003, A$\&$A, 401, 781
1106:
1107: \reference{} Furlan, E., Calvet, N., D'Alessio, P., Hartmann, L., Forrest, W. J., Watson, D. M., Uchida, K. I., Sargent, B., Green, J. D., Herter, T. L.
1108: 2005, ApJ, 628, 65
1109:
1110: \reference{} Haisch, K., Lada, E., Lada, C. 2001, ApJL, 553, 156
1111:
1112: \reference{} Hartigan, P., Strom, K., Strom, S. 1994, ApJ, 427, 961
1113:
1114: \reference{} Hartmann L., Calvet N., Gullbring E., D'Alessio P., 1998, ApJ, 495, 385
1115:
1116: \reference{} Hartmann, L. 2001, AJ, 121, 1030
1117:
1118: \reference{} Hartmann, L.; Megeath, S. T., Allen, L., Luhman, K., Calvet, N., D'Alessio, P., Franco-Hernandez, R., Fazio, G. 2005, ApJ, 629, 881
1119:
1120: \reference{} Harvey, P., et al. 2004, BAAS, 204, 4132
1121:
1122: \reference{} Hauschildt, P., Allard, F., Baron, E. 1999, ApJ, 512, 377
1123:
1124: \reference{} Harvey, P. M., Chapman, N., Lai, Shih-Ping, Evans, Neal J., II, Allen, L. E., Jorgensen, J. K., Mundy, L. G., Huard, T. L., Porras, A.,
1125: Cieza, L., Myers, P. C., Merín, B., van Dishoeck, E. F., Young, K. E., Spiesman, W., Blake, G., A.; Koerner, D. W.; Padgett, D. L.,
1126: Sargent, A. I., Stapelfeldt, K. R. 2006, ApJ, 644, 307
1127:
1128: \reference{} Herbig, G. H. 1998, ApJ, 497, 736
1129:
1130: \reference{} Hillenbrand, L.A. 2003, in ``Origins 2002: The Heavy Element Trail from Galaxies to Habitable Worlds''
1131: (eds. C.E. Woodward and E.P. Smith, ASP Conf. Ser).
1132:
1133: \reference{} Hillenbrand, L. A., White, R. J., 2004, ApJ, 604,741
1134:
1135: \reference{} Hillenbrand, L. A., 2006, A Decade of Discovery: Planets Around Other Stars (eds. M. Livio,
1136: STScI Symposium Series $\#$19)
1137:
1138: \reference{} Hollenbach, D., Gorti, U., Meyer, M., Kim, J. S., Morris, P., Najita, J., Pascucci, I.,
1139: Carpenter, J., Rodmann, J., Brooke, T., Hillenbrand, L., Mamajek, E., Padgett, D., Soderblom, D.,
1140: Wolf, S., Lunine, J. 2005, ApJ, 631, 1180
1141:
1142: \reference{} Hughes, J., Hartigan, P., Krautter, J., Kelemen, J. 1994, ApJ, 104, 680
1143:
1144: \reference{} Jorgensen, J. K., Harvey, P. M., Evans, N. J., II; Huard, T. L., Allen, L. E., Porras, A., Blake, G. A., Bourke, T. L.,
1145: Chapman, N., Cieza, L., Koerner, D. W., Lai, S.P., Mundy, L. G., Myers, Philip C.; Padgett, D. L.,
1146: Rebull, L., Sargent, A. I., Spiesman, W., Stapelfeldt, K. R., van Dishoeck, E. F., Wahhaj, Z., Young, K. E. 2006, ApJ, 645, 124
1147:
1148: \reference{} Kenyon, S.J., Hartmann, L. 1995, ApJS, 101, 117
1149:
1150: \reference{} Kenyon, S.J., Bromley, B.C. 2004, ApJ, 602, 133
1151:
1152: \reference{} Kenyon, S.J., Bromley, B.C. 2005, AJ, 130, 269
1153:
1154: \reference{} Krautter, J., Wichmann, R., Schmitt, J. H. M. M., Alcala, J. M., Neuhauser, R.,Terranegra, L, 1997, A$\&$AS, 123,329
1155:
1156: \reference{} Lada, C.J., Muench, A.A., Luhman, K. L., Allen, L.,Hartmann, L., Megeath, T., Myers, P,, Fazio, G., Wood, K.,Muzerolle, J., Rieke, G.,
1157: Siegler, N., Young, E. 2006, AJ, 131,1574 (L06)
1158:
1159: \reference{} Lissauer, J. 1993 ARA\&P, 31, 129
1160:
1161: \reference{} Lissauer, J., Stevenson, D. L. 2007, Protostars and Planets V, University of Arizona Press, Tucson
1162:
1163: \reference{} Liu, M., Matthews, B.C., Williams, J.P., Kalas, P.G. 2004, ApJ, 608, 532.
1164:
1165: \reference{} Luhman, K., Stauffer, J., Muench, A., Rieke, G., Lada, E., Bouvier, J., Lada, C. 2003, ApJ, 593, 1093
1166:
1167: \reference{} Mamajek, E. E., Meyer, M. R., Liebert, J. 2002, AJ, 124, 1670
1168:
1169: \reference{} Marcy, G. W., Butler, R. P. 1998 ARA$\&$A, 36, 57
1170:
1171: \reference{} Marcy, G. W., et al. 2006, http://exoplanets.org/
1172:
1173: \reference{} Martin, E., L., 1997, A$\&$A, 321, 492
1174:
1175: \reference{} Martin, E. L., Montmerle, T., Gregorio-Hetem, J., Casanova, S. 1998, MNRAS, 300, 733
1176:
1177: \reference{} Martin, E. L., Magazzu, A. 1999, $A\&A$, 342, 173
1178:
1179: \reference{} Muzerolle, J., Calvet, N., Hartmann, L., D'Alessio, P. 2003, ApJL, 597, 149
1180:
1181: \reference{} Muzerolle, J., Adame, L., D'Alessio, P., Calvet, N., Luhman, K. L., Muench, A. A., Lada, C. J., Rieke, G. H., Siegler, N., Trilling, D. E.,
1182: Young, E. T., Allen, L., Hartmann, L., Megeath, S. T. 2006, ApJ, 643, 1003
1183:
1184: \reference{} Osterloh, M., Beckwith, S. V. 1995, AJ, 439, 288
1185:
1186: \reference{} Padgett, D. L., Cieza, L., Stapelfeldt, K. R., Evans, N. J., II, Koerner, D., Sargent, A., Fukagawa, M., van Dishoeck, E. F., Augereau, J.C., Allen, L., Blake, G., Brooke, T., Chapman, N., Harvey, P., Porras, A., Lai, S.P., Mundy, L., Myers, P. C., Spiesman, W., Wahhaj, Z.
1187: 2006, ApJ, 645,1283 (P06)
1188:
1189: \reference{} Papaloizou, J. C., Terquem, C. 1999, ApJ, 521, 823
1190:
1191: \reference{} Pascucci, I., Gorti, U., Hollenbach, D., Najita, J., Meyer, M. R., Carpenter, J. M., Hillenbrand, L. A.,
1192: Herczeg, G. J., Padgett, D. L., Mamajek, E. E., Silverstone, M. D., Schlingman, W. M., Kim, J. S., Stobie, E. B.,
1193: Bouwman, J., Wolf, S., Rodmann, J., Hines, D. C., Lunine, J., Malhotra, R. 2006, ApJ, 651, 1177
1194:
1195: \reference{} Pollack, J.B., Hubickyj, O. Bodenheimer, P., Lissauer, J.J., Podolak, M., Greenzweig, Y. 1996 Icarus, 124, 62
1196:
1197: \reference{} Press, W. H., Teukolsky, S. A., Vetterling, W. T., $\&$ Flannery, B. P. 1992, Numerical Recipes in C (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press)
1198:
1199: \reference{} Quillen A., Blackman E., Frank A., Varnier P., 2004, ApJL, 612, 137
1200:
1201: \reference{} Richter, Matthew J., Jaffe, Daniel T., Blake, Geoffrey A., Lacy, John H. 2002, ApJL, 572, 161
1202:
1203:
1204:
1205: \reference{} Skrutskie, M. F., Dutkevitch, D., Strom, S.E., Edwards, S., Strom, K.M., Shure, M. A. 1990, AJ, 99, 1187
1206:
1207: \reference{} Schechter, P.L., Mateo, M., Saha, A. 1993, PASP, 105, 1342
1208:
1209: \reference{} Schneider, G. et al. 2006, ApJ, in press
1210:
1211: \reference{} Sicilia-Aguilar, A., Hartmann, L., Calvet, N., Megeath, S. T., Muzerolle, J., Allen, L., D'Alessio, P., Merín, B., Stauffer, J.,Young,
1212: E., Lada, C. 2005, ApJ, 638, 897
1213:
1214: \reference{} Siess, L., Dufour E. and Forestini M. 2000 A$\&$A, 358, 593
1215:
1216: \reference{} Silverstone, M. D., Meyer, M. R., Mamajek, E. E., Hines, D. C., Hillenbrand, L. A., Najita, J., Pascucci, I.,
1217: Bouwman, J., Kim, J. S., Carpenter, J. M., Stauffer, J. R., Backman, D. E., Moro-Martin, A., Henning, T.,
1218: Wolf, S., Brooke, T. Y., Padgett, D. L. 2006, ApJ, 639, 1138
1219:
1220: \reference{} Silvia, D. S. 1996, A Bayesian Tutorial (Oxford: Clarendon)
1221:
1222: \reference{} Strom, K.M., Strom, S.E., Edwards, S., Cabrit, N., Skrutskie, M.F. 1989, ApJ, 97, 1451
1223:
1224: \reference{} Strubbe, L. E., Chiang, E. I., 2006, ApJ, 648..652
1225:
1226: \reference{} Thi, W. F., van Dishoeck, E. F., Blake, G. A., van Zadelhoff, G. J., Horn, J., Becklin, E. E., Mannings, V.,
1227: Sargent, A. I., van den Ancker, M. E., Natta, A., Kessler, J. 2001, ApJ, 561, 1074
1228:
1229: \reference{} Weidenschilling, S. J. 1997, LPI, 28, 1517
1230:
1231: \reference{} Weingartner, J.C., Draine, B. T., 2001, ApJ, 548, 296
1232:
1233: \reference{} Wichmann, R., Krautter, J., Covino, E., Alcala, J. M., Neuhaeuser, R., Schmitt, J. H. M. 1997, A$\&$A, 320, 185
1234:
1235: \reference{} Wichmann, R., Torres, G., Melo, C. H. F., Frink, S., Allain, S., Bouvier, J., Krautter, J.,
1236: Covino, E., Neuhäuser, R. 2000, A$\&$A, 359, 181
1237:
1238: \reference{} White, R., Basri G., 2003, AJ, 582, 1109
1239:
1240: \reference{} Wolk, S. J., Walter, F. M. 2006, AJ, 111, 2066
1241:
1242: \reference{} Youdin, A., Shu, F. 2002, ApJ, 580,494
1243:
1244: \reference{} Young, K.E., et al., 2005, ApJ, 628, 283
1245:
1246: \end{references}
1247:
1248: \clearpage
1249:
1250: \tablenum{1}
1251: \thispagestyle{empty}
1252: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccccccccccc}
1253: \rotate
1254: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
1255: \tiny
1256: \tablewidth{0pt}
1257: \tablecaption{\emph{Spitzer data}}
1258: \tablehead{\colhead{ID}&\colhead{R.A}&\colhead{Dec}&\colhead{F$_{3.6}$}&\colhead{Error$_{3.6}$}&\colhead{F$_{4.5}$}&\colhead{Error$_{4.5}$}&\colhead{F$_{5.8}$}&\colhead{Error$_{5.8}$}&\colhead{F$_{8.0}$}&\colhead{Error$_{8.0}$}&\colhead{F$_{24}$}&\colhead{Error$_{24}$}\\
1259: \colhead{}&\colhead{(J2000.0)}&\colhead{(J2000.0)}&\multicolumn{10}{c}{(mJy)}}
1260: \startdata
1261: IC348-1 & 55.8837 & 32.1048 & 1.06e+01 & 1.51e-01 & 7.09e+00 & 8.78e-02 & 4.81e+00 & 5.52e-02 & 2.79e+01 & 4.68e-02 & --- & ---\\
1262: IC348-2 & 55.8903 & 32.0293 & 4.96e+00 & 7.22e-02 & 3.42e+01 & 4.89e-02 & 2.52e+00 & 3.64e-02 & 1.42e+01 & 2.89e-02 & --- & ---\\
1263: IC348-3 & 55.9526 & 32.2308 & 3.23e+00 & 4.64e-02 & 2.39e+00 & 2.82e-02 & 1.65e+00 & 2.96e-02 & 9.38e-01 & 3.05e-02 & --- & ---\\
1264: IC348-4 & 55.9532 & 32.1259 & 9.01e+00 & 1.75e-01 & 6.51e+00 & 8.82e-02 & 4.13e+00 & 5.04e-02 & 2.34e+00 & 4.26e-02 & --- & ---\\
1265: IC348-5 & 55.9558 & 32.1778 & 7.47e+00 & 1.13e-01 & 5.55e+00 & 6.76e-02 & 3.57e+00 & 4.47e-02 & 2.13e+00 & 4.04e-02 & --- & ---\\
1266: \enddata
1267: \tablecomments{[The complete version of this table is in the electronic edition of the Journal. The printed edition contains only a sample
1268: to illustrate its content.]}
1269: \end{deluxetable}
1270:
1271: \clearpage
1272:
1273: \tablenum{2}
1274: \thispagestyle{empty}
1275: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccccccccccc}
1276: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
1277: \rotate
1278: \tiny
1279: \tablewidth{0pt}
1280: \tablecaption{non-\emph{Spitzer data}}
1281: \tablehead{\colhead{ID}&\colhead{R.A}&\colhead{Dec}&\colhead{SpT}&\colhead{H$_{\alpha}$}&\colhead{V}&\colhead{Error$_V$}&\colhead{R$_C$}&\colhead{Error$_{R_{C}}$}&\colhead{I$_C$}&\colhead{Error$_{I_{C}}$}&\colhead{J}&\colhead{$H$}&\colhead{K$_{S}$}\\
1282: \colhead{}&\colhead{(J2000.0)}&\colhead{(J2000.0)}&\colhead{}&\colhead{($\AA$)}&\multicolumn{9}{c}{(mag)}}
1283: \startdata
1284: IC348-1 & 55.8837 & 32.1048 & M0.75 & 1.0 & --- & --- & 14.81 & 0.03 & 13.73 & 0.03 & 12.18 & 11.38 & 11.13 \\
1285: IC348-2 & 55.8903 & 32.0293 & M5 & 5.0 & --- & --- & 17.93 & 0.03 & 15.91 & 0.03 & 13.36 & 12.57 & 12.22 \\
1286: IC348-3 & 55.9526 & 32.2308 & M5 & 6 & --- & --- & 17.92 & 0.03 & 16.05 & 0.03 & 13.59 & 12.98 & 12.64 \\
1287: IC348-4 & 55.9532 & 32.1259 & M1.5 & 0 & --- & --- & 15.44 & 0.03 & 14.16 & 0.03 & 12.44 & 11.59 & 11.34 \\
1288: IC348-5 & 55.9558 & 32.1778 & M3.5 & 11 & --- & --- & 16.36 & 0.03 & 14.76 & 0.03 & 12.58 & 11.80 & 11.54 \\
1289: \enddata
1290: \tablecomments{[The complete version of this table is in the electronic edition of the Journal. The printed edition contains only a sample
1291: to illustrate its content.]}
1292: \end{deluxetable}
1293:
1294:
1295: \tablenum{3}
1296: \thispagestyle{empty}
1297: \begin{deluxetable}{lcc}
1298: \tablewidth{0pt}
1299: \tablecaption{Adopted Extinction Relations}
1300: \tablehead{\colhead{ }&\colhead{$\lambda$}&\colhead{$A_{V}$/$A_{\lambda}$\tablenotemark{1}}\\
1301: \colhead{Band}&\colhead{($\mu$m) }&\colhead{}}
1302: \startdata
1303: V & 0.55 & 1.00 \\
1304: R$_{C}$ & 0.65 & 0.79 \\
1305: I$_{C}$ & 0.80 & 0.58 \\
1306: J & 1.25 & 0.26 \\
1307: H & 1.66 & 0.15 \\
1308: K$_{S}$ & 2.2 & 0.09 \\
1309: IRAC-1 & 3.6 & 0.04 \\
1310: IRAC-2 & 4.5 & 0.03 \\
1311: IRAC-3 & 5.8 & 0.02 \\
1312: IRAC-4 & 8.0 & 0.01 \\
1313: MIPS-1 & 24 & 0.002 \\
1314: \enddata
1315: \tablenotetext{1}{The extinction relations for the optical and 2MASS wavelengths come
1316: the Asiago database of photometric systems (http://ulisse.pd.astro.it/Astro/ADPS/enter.html ;
1317: Fiorucci \& Munari 2003), while those for the \emph{Spitzer} bands come from Huard et al.
1318: (2007, in prep.}
1319: \end{deluxetable}
1320:
1321: \clearpage
1322:
1323: \tablenum{4}
1324: \thispagestyle{empty}
1325: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccccccc}
1326: \rotate
1327: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
1328: \tablewidth{0pt}
1329: \tablecaption{Objects classified as anemic disks by L06 that do not satisfy our disk identification criterion}
1330: \tablehead{\colhead{Ra }&\colhead{Dec}&\colhead{ID}&\colhead{SpT}&\colhead{$\alpha$}&\colhead{$\sigma$$_{\alpha}$}&\colhead{($\alpha$+2.66)/$\sigma$$_{\alpha}$}&\colhead{[3.6]-[8.0]}&\colhead{[3.6]-[8.0]}&\colhead{$\Delta$([3.6]-[8.0])}\\
1331: \colhead{(J2000.0)}&\colhead{(J2000.0)}&\colhead{L06}&\colhead{}&\colhead{L06}&\colhead{L06}&\colhead{L06}&\colhead{L06}&\colhead{C2D}&\colhead{L06-C2D}}
1332: \startdata
1333: %RA Dec L06_ID SpT Alpha Sigma (\alpha-2.66)/sigma alpha [3.6]-[8.0]L06 [3.6]-[8.0]C2D L06-C2D
1334: 55.9526 & 32.2308 & 261 & M5 & -2.560 & 0.048 & 2.0 & 0.29 & 0.26 & 0.03 \\
1335: 55.9742 & 32.1251 & 254 & M4.25 & -2.549 & 0.081 & 1.3 & 0.30 & 0.29 & 0.01 \\
1336: 56.0185 & 32.0817 & 303 & M5.75 & -2.197 & 0.125 & 3.7 & 0.61 & --- & --- \\
1337: 56.0740 & 32.0799 & 169 & M5.25 & -2.440 & 0.099 & 2.2 & 0.41 & 0.36 & 0.05 \\
1338: 56.0816 & 32.0403 & 322 & M4.25 & -2.426 & 0.046 & 5.0 & --- & --- & --- \\
1339: 56.0971 & 32.0318 & 1684 & M5.75 & -1.811 & 0.500 & 1.6 & --- & --- & --- \\
1340: 56.1203 & 32.0730 & 385 & M5.75 & -2.183 & 0.350 & 1.3 & 0.71 & --- & --- \\
1341: 56.1309 & 32.1915 & 226 & M5.25 & -2.233 & 0.265 & 1.6 & 0.60 & 0.38 & 0.22 \\
1342: 56.1358 & 32.1451 & 33 & M2.5 & -2.483 & 0.157 & 1.1 & 0.32 & 0.16 & 0.16 \\
1343: 56.1365 & 32.1544 & 88 & M3.25 & -2.355 & 0.081 & 3.7 & 0.46 & 0.48 & -0.02 \\
1344: 56.1460 & 32.1269 & 8024 & K7 & -2.213 & 0.218 & 2.0 & 0.62 & 0.25 & 0.37 \\
1345: 56.1590 & 32.1727 & 353 & M6 & -2.251 & 0.178 & 2.2 & 0.61 & 0.16 & 0.45 \\
1346: 56.1794 & 32.1709 & 217 & M5 & -2.312 & 0.043 & 8.0 & 0.52 & 0.43 & 0.09 \\
1347: 56.1822 & 32.1800 & 360 & M4.75 & -2.303 & 0.064 & 5.5 & --- & ---- & --- \\
1348: 56.1861 & 32.1251 & 218 & M5 & -2.294 & 0.049 & 7.4 & 0.54 & -0.04 & 0.58 \\
1349: 56.1902 & 32.1864 & 413 & M4 & -2.398 & 0.500 & 0.5 & --- & 0.31 & --- \\
1350: 56.2035 & 32.2228 & 178 & M2.75 & -2.520 & 0.080 & 1.7 & 0.31 & 0.23 & 0.08 \\
1351: 56.2527 & 32.1387 & 344 & M5 & -2.376 & 0.229 & 1.2 & 0.49 & 0.45 & 0.04 \\
1352: \enddata
1353: \end{deluxetable}
1354:
1355: \clearpage
1356:
1357: \tablenum{5}
1358: \thispagestyle{empty}
1359: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccccccc}
1360: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
1361: \rotate
1362: \tablewidth{0pt}
1363: \tablecaption{Optically thin disk properties, for two different regimes of
1364: minimal grain sizes, $a_{\rm min}$. }
1365: \tablehead{\colhead{}&\multicolumn{3}{c}{(a$_{min}$ $<$ 0.5 $\mu$m)}&\multicolumn{3}{c}{(a$_{min}$ $>$ 10 $\mu$m)}&\colhead{}\\
1366: \colhead{Star}&\colhead{r$_{0}$(AU)}&\colhead{M$_{dust}$(10$^{-3}$M$_{\oplus}$)}&\colhead{t$_{coll}$(yr)}&\colhead{r$_{0}$(AU)}&\colhead{M$_{dust}$(10$^{-3}$M$_{\oplus}$)}&\colhead{t$_{coll}$(yr)}&\colhead{L$_{IR}$/L$_{*}$$\times$10$^{3}$}}
1367: \startdata
1368: ROXs 36 &
1369: $ 82_{- 73}^{+ 100} $ &
1370: $ 6.7_{- 6.5}^{+ 25} $ &
1371: $ 77000_{- 74000}^{+ 110000} $ &
1372: % &
1373: $ 17_{- 10}^{+ 2.8} $ &
1374: $ 5.3_{- 4.9}^{+ 5.9} $ &
1375: $ 7400_{- 5200}^{+ 1900} $ &
1376: $ 0.11_{- 0.023}^{+ 0.015} $ \\
1377: %
1378: RXJ1622.6-2345 &
1379: $ 4.0_{- 3.5}^{+ 51} $ &
1380: $ 0.13_{- 0.13}^{+ 280} $ &
1381: $ 310_{- 300}^{+ 2000} $ &
1382: % &
1383: $ 1.9_{- 1.4}^{+ 6.1} $ &
1384: $ 0.35_{- 0.34}^{+ 85} $ &
1385: $ 130_{- 110}^{+ 79} $ &
1386: $ 0.60_{- 0.11}^{+ 5.4} $ \\
1387: %
1388: IC348-56 &
1389: $ 5.2_{- 4.4}^{+ 59} $ &
1390: $ 0.53_{- 0.52}^{+ 570} $ &
1391: $ 190_{- 190}^{+ 1300} $ &
1392: % &
1393: $ 2.5_{- 1.8}^{+ 6.7} $ &
1394: $ 1.5_{- 1.5}^{+ 180} $ &
1395: $ 86_{- 70}^{+ 52} $ &
1396: $ 1.4_{- 0.27}^{+ 9.7} $ \\
1397: %
1398: IC348-124 &
1399: $ 4.1_{- 3.2}^{+ 27.} $ &
1400: $ 0.74_{- 0.69}^{+ 170} $ &
1401: $ 65_{- 61}^{+ 330} $ &
1402: % &
1403: $ 1.8_{- 0.94}^{+ 2.4} $ &
1404: $ 1.8_{- 1.6}^{+ 33} $ &
1405: $ 24_{- 14}^{+ 15} $ &
1406: $ 3.1_{- 0.65}^{+ 8.6} $\\
1407: \enddata
1408: \end{deluxetable}
1409:
1410: \clearpage
1411:
1412: \tablenum{6}
1413: \thispagestyle{empty}
1414: \begin{deluxetable}{lcc}
1415: \tablewidth{0pt}
1416: \tablecaption{Adopted Distances}
1417: \tablehead{\colhead{Cloud}&\colhead{Distance}&\colhead{Reference}\\
1418: \colhead{} &\colhead{(pc)} &\colhead{}}
1419: \startdata
1420: Ophiuchus & 125$\pm$20 & de Geus et al. (1989) \\
1421: Lupus I & 150$\pm$20 & Comeron et al. (2006), in prep.\\
1422: Lupus III & 200$\pm$20 & Comeron et al. (2006), in prep.\\
1423: IC348 & 320$\pm$30 & Herbig (1998) \\
1424: \enddata
1425: \end{deluxetable}
1426:
1427: \clearpage
1428:
1429: \begin{figure}
1430: \figurenum{1a and 1b}
1431: \plottwo{f1a.eps}{f1b.eps}
1432: \caption{[3.6] vs EX([3.6]--[24]) (left) and [3.6] vs EX([3.6]--[8.0]) (right) diagrams for
1433: our sample of wTTs used for disk identification. See text for definitions.
1434: The 3 and 5-$\sigma$ dispersion of the
1435: stellar photospheres are shown as dashed and dotted lines, respectively. Most of the
1436: disks are detected at 24 $\mu$m.}
1437: \end{figure}
1438:
1439: \begin{figure}
1440: \epsscale{1}
1441: \figurenum{2}
1442: \plotone{f2.eps}
1443: \caption{SEDs of wTTs disks in Lupus.
1444: The open squares represent the observed optical, 2MASS, IRAC
1445: and MIPS-24 $\mu$m fluxes, while the dots correspond to the
1446: extinction corrected values. Model photospheres corresponding
1447: to published spectral types are shown for comparison.}
1448: \end{figure}
1449:
1450: \begin{figure}
1451: \epsscale{1}
1452: \figurenum{3}
1453: \plotone{f3.eps}
1454: \caption{SEDs of wTTs disks in Ophiuchus.}
1455: \end{figure}
1456: \clearpage
1457: \begin{figure}
1458: \epsscale{.9}
1459: \figurenum{4}
1460: \plotone{f4a.eps}
1461: \caption{SEDs of wTTs disks in IC 348.}
1462: \end{figure}
1463: \clearpage
1464: {\plotone{f4b.eps}}\\[5mm]
1465: \centerline{Fig. 4. --- Continued.}
1466: \clearpage
1467: {\plotone{f4c.eps}}\\[5mm]
1468: \centerline{Fig. 4. --- Continued.}
1469: \clearpage
1470: \epsscale{1}
1471: \begin{figure}
1472: \figurenum{5a and 5b}
1473: %\plottwo{f5a.eps}{f5b.eps}
1474: \scalebox{.44}{\includegraphics{f5a.eps}}
1475: \scalebox{.45}{\includegraphics{f5b.eps}}
1476: \caption{The Figure on the left shows the [3.6]--[24] vs. [3.6]--[8.0] colors of our sample of wTTs
1477: stars. Based on this diagram, we identify three different groups: (1) stellar photosphere with
1478: [3.6]--[24] $<$ 0.7 and [3.6]--[8.0] $<$ 0.4, (2) Objects with [3.6]--[24] $>$ 0.7 and
1479: [3.6]--[8.0] $<$ 0.4 which show significant 24 $\mu$m excess but no evidence for 8.0 $\mu$m excess, and (3)
1480: objects with [3.6]--[24] $>$ 0.7 and [3.6]--[8.0] $>$ 0.4 which show evidence for both IRAC and MIPS
1481: excesses. Objects in the second group are likely to have optically thin disks (see Section ~\ref{FDL}).
1482: The Figure on the right combines our sample of wTTs with a sample of cTTs from
1483: Hartmann et al. (2005) and Lada et al. (2006).}
1484: \end{figure}
1485:
1486: \begin{figure}
1487: \epsscale{1}
1488: \figurenum{6a and 6b}
1489: \plottwo{f6a.eps}{f6b.eps}
1490: \caption{The Figure in the left shows the [3.6]--[4.5] vs. [5.8]--[8.0] colors of our sample of wTTs.
1491: Faint IC 348 members ([8.0] $>$ 10.8 mag, 3 mJy) tend to have more uncertain colors than the rest of the sample
1492: and are shown as smaller open boxes. The dotted lines represent the
1493: approximate boundaries of the color of the stellar photospheres. Stars in the upper right corner of the
1494: diagram have both, 4.5 and 8.0 $\mu$m, excesses. Stars in the lower right corner of the diagram are
1495: stars with 8.0 $\mu$m excess but no 4.5 $\mu$m excess. The Figure in the right combines our sample of \
1496: wTTs with cTTs from Hartmann et al. (2005) and Lada et al. (2006).}
1497: \end{figure}
1498:
1499:
1500: \begin{figure}
1501: \figurenum{7a and 7b}
1502: \epsscale{1}
1503: \plottwo{f7a.eps}{f7b.eps}
1504: \caption{Histogram of the $H\alpha$ equivalent width for stars with and without a disk (a),
1505: and the disk fraction of wTTs vs. $H\alpha$ equivalent width (b). The disk fraction of wTTs
1506: seems to be a smooth function of $H\alpha$ equivalent width.}
1507: \end{figure}
1508:
1509: \begin{figure}
1510: \figurenum{8}
1511: \epsscale{1}
1512: \plotone{f8.eps}
1513: \caption{The fractional disk luminosities, $L_{DISK}/L_{*}$, derived for our sample of wTTs disks.
1514: The $L_{DISK}/L_{*}$ values calculated using the same procedure for a sample of cTTs (From Cieza et al. 2005)
1515: and debris disks (from Chen et al. 2005) are shown for comparison.
1516: The $L_{DISK}/L_{*}$ values of of wTTs disks fill the gap between the ranges observed for typical
1517: cTTs and debris disks, which are shown for comparison.}
1518: \end{figure}
1519:
1520: \begin{figure}
1521: \figurenum{9}
1522: \includegraphics[width=15cm,angle=0]{f9.eps}
1523: \caption{Distribution of excess slopes $\alpha_{\rm
1524: excess}$ vs. the wavelength at which the infrared
1525: excess begins $\lambda_{\rm turn-off}$ for the sample of wTTs
1526: (solid dots), a sample of cTTs in Chamaeleon from Cieza et al. (2005),
1527: the median SED of cTTs in Taurus from D'Alessio et al. (1999) in
1528: asterisks (marked as D99), and a sample of Debris disks from Chen
1529: et al. (2005) in diamonds.
1530: The diagram shows a much larger spread in inner disk morphologies of wTTs with
1531: respect of those of cTTs.}
1532: \end{figure}
1533:
1534: \begin{figure*}[tbp]
1535: \centering
1536: \figurenum{10}
1537: \includegraphics[angle=90,width=\columnwidth,origin=bl]{f10.eps}
1538: \caption{wTTs with $24\,\mu$m excess consistent with optically thin
1539: disks. On each plot, the darkest regions correspond to the most likely fits
1540: to the SEDs. The dashed line shows the thermal emission for the best-fit model,
1541: while the dotted line corresponds to the total disk emission (i.e. including scattered light emission.)}
1542: \label{JC_dds_SEDs}
1543: \end{figure*}
1544:
1545:
1546: \begin{figure}[tbp]
1547: \centering
1548: \epsscale{0.8}
1549: \figurenum{11}
1550: \hbox to \textwidth
1551: {
1552: \parbox{0.33\textwidth}{
1553: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.35\columnwidth,origin=bl]{f11a.eps}
1554: }
1555: \hspace{0.4cm}
1556: \parbox{0.33\textwidth}{
1557: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.35\columnwidth,origin=bl]{f11b.eps}
1558: }
1559: }
1560: \caption{Maximum encompassed dust mass as a function of the distance from the star for
1561: the Lupus and Ophiuchus clouds (respectively left and right panels).
1562: The red area corresponds to mass upper limits when minimum grain sizes $a_{\rm min}$
1563: between $0.05\,\mu$m and $0.5\,\mu$m are considered, while the blue area corresponds
1564: to $10\, \mu$m$ < a_{\rm min} < 100\, \mu$m.
1565: }
1566: \label{MvsR}
1567: \end{figure}
1568:
1569:
1570: \begin{figure}
1571: \figurenum{12a and 12b}
1572: \plottwo{f12a.eps}{f12b.eps}
1573: \caption{The distributions of stellar ages obtained for our sample using the D98 and S00 evolutionary tracks
1574: (left and right panels, respectively). The observed age distributions (solid lines) are significantly
1575: wider than what is expected from the propagation of observational errors into derived stellar ages
1576: (dotted lines).}
1577: \end{figure}
1578:
1579:
1580: \begin{figure}
1581: \figurenum{13a and 13b}
1582: \plottwo{f13a.eps}{f13b.eps}
1583: \caption{The stellar ages derived for our sample of wTTs using two different sets of evolutionary tracks
1584: (D98 and S00). The error bars have been calculated adopting a $T_{eff}$ uncertainty equal to one spectral
1585: type subclass and a luminosity error calculated from the uncertainty in the distance (a). A clear decrease in the disk
1586: fraction is seen with increasing age. $\sim$40$\%$ of the targets that are both younger than 1 Myrs according
1587: to D98 tracks and younger than 2 Myrs according to S00 tracks have disks. None of the stars that are older than
1588: $\sim$10 Myrs according to either of the models have disks (b).}
1589: \end{figure}
1590:
1591: \clearpage
1592:
1593:
1594: \end{document}
1595: