1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2:
3: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:
4: % \documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
5: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
6: %\documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
7:
8: %\usepackage{natbib}
9: %\usepackage{graphics}
10: %\usepackage{epsfig}
11: %\usepackage{amssymb}
12:
13: \def\kms{\ifmmode{\rm km\thinspace s^{-1}}\else km\thinspace s$^{-1}$\fi}
14: \def\ms{\ifmmode{\rm m\thinspace s^{-1}}\else m\thinspace s$^{-1}$\fi}
15:
16: \shorttitle{THE EFFECT OF BINARITY ON STELLAR ROTATION}
17: \shortauthors{Meibom et al.}
18:
19: \begin{document}
20:
21: \title{THE EFFECT OF BINARITY ON STELLAR ROTATION
22: - BEYOND THE REACH OF TIDES\altaffilmark{1}}
23:
24: \author{S{\o}ren Meibom\altaffilmark{2,3,4},
25: Robert D. Mathieu\altaffilmark{4}, and Keivan G. Stassun\altaffilmark{5}}
26:
27: \altaffiltext{1}{WIYN Open Cluster Study. XXXI.}
28: \altaffiltext{2}{{\it smeibom@cfa.harvard.edu}}
29: \altaffiltext{3}{Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics,
30: 60 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA - 02138}
31: \altaffiltext{4}{Astronomy Department, University of Wisconsin - Madison,
32: Madison, WI - 53706}
33: \altaffiltext{5}{Physics and Astronomy Department, Vanderbilt University,
34: Nashville, TN - 32735}
35:
36: % ============================================================================
37:
38: \begin{abstract} \label{abs}
39:
40: We present a comparison between the rotation period distributions
41: of solar-type single stars and primary stars in close binaries
42: (0.1 AU $\la a \la$ 5 AU) in the young ($\sim$ 150 Myr) open
43: cluster M35 (NGC\,2168). We find that the primary stars in the
44: close binaries rotate faster than the single stars, on average.
45: The differences in the means and medians between the period
46: distributions are statistically significant at the 99.9\% level
47: or higher. The faster rotation among the primary stars in close
48: binaries is {\it not} due to tidal synchronization as tidally
49: evolved stars are excluded from the comparison. We discuss this
50: result in the context of different early-evolution accretion
51: processes and star-disk interactions for single stars and stars
52: in close binaries.
53:
54: \end{abstract}
55:
56: \keywords{clusters: open, stars: spectroscopic binaries, stellar rotation,
57: stellar accretion, star-disk interactions}
58:
59:
60: % ============================================================================
61:
62: \section{INTRODUCTION} \label{intro}
63:
64: The rotational properties of young low-mass $(\la 2~M_{\odot})$
65: stars challenge our understanding of their angular momentum evolution,
66: and specifically of the physical mechanisms, internal and external,
67: that control transport of angular momentum. The importance of determining
68: these processes is underscored by the observed loss of angular momentum
69: during the pre-main-sequence (PMS) phase producing slowly rotating
70: zero-age main-sequence (ZAMS) stars, and by observations of orders
71: of magnitude dispersions and distinct mass dependencies in the rotation
72: period distributions for coeval samples of PMS, ZAMS, and main-sequence
73: (MS) stars \citep[e.g.][and references therein]{barnes03a,hm05}.
74:
75: Inspired by these challenges a large body of observational
76: and theoretical work on the rotational evolution of low-mass
77: PMS and MS stars was accomplished over past decades. The
78: interpretations and discussions of the results have focused
79: primarily on the roles of stellar magnetic winds and interactions
80: between global stellar magnetic fields and circumstellar (CS)
81: disks in controlling the angular momentum evolution.
82:
83: In the context of single stars, current models of PMS rotational
84: evolution \citep[e.g.][]{tpt02,bfa97,bs96} rely on the regulation
85: of stellar angular momentum by CS disks via magnetic disk-braking
86: \citep[e.g.][]{konigl91,sno+94} to recreate the observed rotational
87: properties of ZAMS stars from those of PMS stars. It is generally
88: assumed that the action of magnetic star-disk coupling is to force
89: the star to rotate at constant angular velocity for the lifetime
90: of the disk. It follows from these models that stars with massive
91: long-lived disks will reach the ZAMS rotating slower than stars
92: with short-lived disks.
93:
94: In parallel, models of the evolution of CS disks in PMS binary
95: stars have studied the effect of a close companion on the sizes,
96: masses, and accretion rates, and thereby the lifetimes, of the disks.
97: In binaries with separations $\la 100$ AU, current models of
98: star-disk interactions predict that a companion star will truncate
99: \citep{ac96,al94,lp93}, cause accelerated mass-accretion from
100: \citep{pt95,kp95}, and potentially disrupt \citep{pringle91,artymowicz92}
101: the CS disks. Accordingly, most models predict that the lifetimes
102: of CS disks are reduced for stars in close binaries as compared
103: to stars in wider binaries and single stars (but see \citet{ac96}).
104: Such models find support in observational evidence for truncated
105: CS disks and ``gaps'' in in disks cleared by a companion
106: \citep[e.g.][and references therein]{jmf96,jm97}.
107:
108: Together, the models suggest that stellar companions may affect
109: one another's rotational evolution indirectly, by virtue of their
110: disruptive effects on the CS disks that would otherwise act to
111: regulate stellar rotation. To test for a relationship between
112: binarity and rotation, an observational comparison of the rotational
113: evolution between young single and binary primary stars of the
114: same age is needed.
115:
116: In the closest binary stars, tidal theory \citep[e.g.][]{zahn77,hut81}
117: predicts that stellar rotation is affected by tidal interactions. The
118: timescale for tidal influence on rotation is dominated by the binary
119: separation ($t_{sync.} \propto (a/R)^6$). Thus tidal theory predicts
120: a (time-dependent) binary separation beyond which rotational evolution
121: due to tides is negligible. Accordingly, in binaries with greater
122: separations, any effect of binarity on stellar rotation must originate
123: from processes other than tidal interactions between the two stars.
124:
125: Previous searches for a relationship between binarity and rotation
126: among late-type dwarfs were published by \citet{brn97} and \citet{pgr+02}.
127: Both groups used projected rotational velocities ($v\sin i$) and
128: speckle imaging to identify binaries as close pairs (separations
129: $\sim$ 10-1000 AU). \citeauthor{brn97} found no evidence for a
130: relationship between binarity and rotation in the Pleiades.
131: \citeauthor{pgr+02} reported higher $v\sin i$'s of 4 binaries with
132: separations between 10-60 AU than for 12 wider binaries in $\alpha$
133: Persei.
134:
135: We present an analysis based on coeval samples of spectroscopic
136: single stars and spectroscopic binaries, 83\% of which have
137: determined spectroscopic orbits \citep{mm05}. All are members
138: of the 150 Myr open cluster M35, and all single/primary stars
139: have well determined rotation periods \citep{mms06,meibom05}.
140: The sample of spectroscopic binaries probe a previously unexplored
141: domain of binary separations ($\sim$0.05-5 AU) in which the CS
142: disks are expected to be truncated, disrupted, and accreted onto
143: the stars on short timescales compared to CS disks of the single
144: stars or stars in wider binaries. Our samples are therefore well
145: suited to search for a relationship between binarity and rotation
146: on the MS, which is the goal of this study.
147:
148: Section~\ref{obs} outlines the spectroscopic and photometric observations
149: and Section~\ref{samples} describes the identification of single and
150: close binary stars and the exclusion of tidally synchronized binaries.
151: We present and compare the distributions of rotation periods for single
152: and close binary stars in Section~\ref{distr} and summarize and discuss
153: our results in Section~\ref{summ}.
154:
155:
156: % ============================================================================
157:
158: \section{OBSERVATIONS} \label{obs}
159:
160: We have conducted two parallel observational programs of
161: late-type stars in the open cluster M35: 1) High precision
162: \citep[$\sim 0.5\,km/s$][]{mbd+01,gm07} radial-velocity surveys to
163: identify single and binary cluster members and determine orbital
164: parameters for the closest binaries; 2) Comprehensive photometric
165: time-series surveys to determine stellar rotation periods from
166: light modulation by star-spots.
167:
168: All spectroscopic data were obtained over a one-degree field centered
169: on M35 using the WIYN 3.5m telescope\footnote{http://www.noao.edu/wiyn}
170: with the Hydra Multi-Object Spectrograph. Approximately 125 spectroscopic
171: binary members have been identified from the radial-velocity survey
172: including 32 with orbital periods between 2.25 to 3112 days ($0.04
173: \la a \la 5 AU$, assuming $M_{p} = 1~M_{\odot}$ and $M_{s} = 0.75~M_{\odot}$;
174: \citet{mm05}). Radial-velocity membership probabilities were calculated
175: based on the formalism by \citet{vkp58} and Gaussian fits to the distinct
176: peaks in the radial-velocity distributions of the cluster ($-8.1\kms$)
177: and field stars \citep[see][]{mms06,mms07b}.
178:
179: The photometric data were obtained within the one-degree field of
180: the spectroscopic survey using the WIYN 0.9m telescope\footnote{
181: http://www.noao.edu/0.9m}. Photometric members were selected based
182: on their location in the color-magnitude diagram (CMD) within or
183: above the main sequence (allowing for inclusion of equal-mass binaries).
184: A relative photometric precision of $\sim$ 0.5\% was obtained for
185: the brightest stars ($12 \la V \la 15$). We have determined stellar
186: rotation periods for 196 photometric and radial-velocity members
187: of M35 \citep{meibom05,mms07b}. The periodic variability detected
188: in the light curves of single-lined spectroscopic binaries is caused
189: by spots on the primary stars, and is therefore a reliable measure
190: of their rotation periods \citep[see][for a detailed discussion]{mms06}.
191:
192:
193: % ============================================================================
194:
195: \section{DEFINING BINARY AND SINGLE STAR SAMPLES} \label{samples}
196:
197: Of the 196 photometric and spectroscopic members of M35 with rotation
198: periods, 118 have three or more radial-velocity measurements,
199: allowing us to test for variability indicative of a close companion
200: star. Specifically, we can distinguish between binaries with $a \la 5$
201: AU and single stars or primary stars in wider binaries (both of which
202: are hereinafter called single).
203:
204: We apply the following criteria for determining whether a star
205: is single or a member of a close binary system:
206:
207: \indent Single star: $N_{RV} \ge 3$, $\sigma_{RV} \le 0.5~km~s^{-1}$,
208: and photometrically single.
209:
210: \indent Binary star: $N_{RV} \ge 3$ and $\sigma_{RV} \ge 1.5~km~s^{-1}$.
211:
212: \noindent $N_{RV}$ denotes the number of radial-velocity measurements,
213: $\sigma_{RV}$ is the standard deviation of these measurements, and
214: ``photometrically single'' refers to a location on the ``single''
215: star cluster sequence in the M35 CMD, thereby excluding equal brightness
216: binaries.
217:
218: These criteria ensure that single stars are not variable above the 1
219: $\sigma$ level, and binary stars vary above the 3 $\sigma$ level
220: in radial velocity. Stars in the grey-zone between single and
221: binary ($0.5~km~s^{-1} \ga \sigma_{RV} \la 1.5~km~s^{-1}$) were
222: not considered. The radial-velocity thresholds are independent
223: of stellar rotation as we find no correlation between stellar
224: rotation period and $\sigma_{RV}$ for either the single stars
225: or stars in the grey-zone.
226:
227: We find 53 single stars and 18 binary stars with measured rotation
228: periods. Of the 18 binary stars, 15 have determined spectroscopic
229: orbits \citep{mm05}. Of the 3 remaining binaries without spectroscopic
230: orbits, 2 have $\sigma_{RV}$'s of $8.3~km~s^{-1}$ and $5.9~km~s^{-1}$,
231: based on $N_{RV} = $ 24 and 12, respectively, significantly above
232: the $1.5~km~s^{-1}$ threshold.
233: %
234: The lack of satisfactory orbital solutions for these two binaries
235: is due in part to blending of the primary and secondary components,
236: preventing accurate determination of the velocities, and to insufficient
237: sampling of the orbits near periastron passage in moderate to high
238: eccentricity orbits. Preliminary orbits have been found for both,
239: but additional measurements are needed to confirm and constrain
240: the solutions.
241: %
242: The last binary without an orbit has a $\sigma_{RV}$ of $1.6~km~s^{-1}$
243: based on 4 velocities. Inspection of each individual spectrum and
244: cross-correlation function leaves no reason to doubt the quality of
245: the derived radial velocities for this star and we keep it in the
246: binary sample.
247:
248: By design, our spectroscopic observing program targets the closest
249: binary stars and gives lowest priority to stars with no or low-amplitude
250: velocity variations. Accordingly, the 53 stars identified as single
251: have only between 3 and 6 velocity measurements separated in time
252: by $\sim$0.5 to 1.5 years. We cannot rule out the possibility of
253: long-period low brightness ratio binaries among the single stars.
254: However, we find from Monte Carlo analysis based on 30,000 binary
255: orbits, assuming an overall binary fraction of two thirds for
256: solar-type stars \citep[e.g.][]{mrd+92,dm91}, that of the 53 stars
257: in the single sample, none will be binaries with semi-major axes
258: less than 10 AU, and at most 7 (13\%) will be binaries with separations
259: less than 100 AU. We sampled each binary orbit with a frequency
260: similar to our actual observing pattern.
261:
262: {\it Excluding tidally evolved binary stars}:
263: Because we are interested in effects on stellar rotation in
264: close binaries other than those imposed by tidal interactions,
265: we evaluate the degree of tidal evolution in the closest binaries
266: and exclude from our sample those likely affected by tidal
267: synchronization at the age of M35 ($\sim$ 150 Myr).
268:
269: Five binaries have orbital periods similar to or shortward of
270: the tidal circularization period for M35 \citep[$P_{circ} = 10.1$
271: days, $a \simeq 0.12$ AU;][]{mm05}. Considering theoretical predictions
272: that the rate of tidal synchronization exceeds that of tidal circularization
273: by a factor $\sim 10^{2}$ for constant stellar interior structure
274: \citep{zahn89,hut81}, tidally synchronized or pseudo-synchronized
275: stellar spins are expected for all 5 primary stars. However, time-series
276: spectroscopic and photometric observations of the 5 binaries reveal
277: that only two have synchronized primary stars and circular orbits
278: \citep{mms06}. The primary stars in the remaining three binaries,
279: only one of which has circularized, are rotating either highly super-
280: or sub-synchronous.
281:
282: Theoretical tidal synchronization times for the 5 binaries can be
283: estimated from the prescription by \citep{hut81}. The synchronization
284: times for the 5 binaries range from $\la$ 10 Myr to several Gyr
285: due to their differences in orbital period and eccentricity, and
286: in the mass of the primary star. At this time there is no consistent
287: agreement between the expectations and predictions of tidal theory
288: and the observed levels of tidal synchronization and circularization
289: in the 5 closest binaries in M35. Therefore, in the analysis that
290: follows we will exclude all 5. In the resulting sample of 13 binaries
291: the shortest orbital period is 30.13 days, and the influence of tidal
292: interactions at the age of M35 can safely be ignored.
293:
294:
295: % ============================================================================
296:
297: \section{THE SINGLE- AND BINARY-STAR ROTATION PERIOD DISTRIBUTIONS}
298: \label{distr}
299:
300: Figure~\ref{svph} shows the rotation period distribution of the single
301: star sample (grey histogram) and for the sample of binary primary stars
302: (solid line histogram). The mean and median rotation periods of the sample
303: of binary primary stars fall 1.7 days and 1.9 days, respectively, short
304: of the mean and
305: median of the single star sample. The significance of the differences
306: in the mean and median rotation periods of the single star and the
307: binary star samples can be formally evaluated by the ``Student's''
308: t-test and the Mann-Whitney u-test \citep{ptv+92}. These two statistical
309: tests are parametric and non-parametric tests of the null hypothesis
310: that two populations derive from the same parent population, or
311: equivalently that the differences in the means or medians between
312: two distributions are not statistically significant. We performed
313: both tests on the single star period distribution against the binary
314: primary star period distribution. Both tests result in less than 0.1\%
315: probability that the difference in the means/medians is by chance and
316: thus that the two distributions derive from the same parent distribution.
317:
318:
319:
320:
321: % ============================================================================
322:
323: \section{SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION} \label{summ}
324:
325: We compare the rotation period distributions of solar-type single
326: stars and primary stars in close ($a \la 5$ AU) binaries in the
327: 150 Myr open cluster M35. We find that the primary stars rotate
328: faster than the single stars or primary stars in wider binaries,
329: on average. This relationship between binarity and rotation is not
330: due to tidal synchronization, and we find no correlations between
331: stellar rotation and orbital period or eccentricity among the close
332: binaries.
333:
334: The observed effect of on average faster rotation in close
335: binaries is consistent with a model scenario involving truncation
336: of the CS disk lifetime by a close companion and consequently
337: a shortened phase of magnetic disk-braking of the stellar rotation
338: during the early PMS phase. Whether magnetic disk-braking is the
339: dominant process setting stellar rotation at 150 Myr remains
340: uncertain on both observational and theoretical grounds.
341:
342: Conceivably, the observed difference in rotation at 150 Myr
343: may reflect differences between single and close binary stars
344: in the amount and distribution of angular momentum at their
345: formation and very early evolution. The formation of the closest
346: binaries, in particular, may differ significantly from the
347: formation of single stars or stars in wide binaries
348: \citep[][and references therein]{larson03}.
349: For example, highly variable accretion rates are frequently
350: associated with the presence of a close companion, and
351: observations of jet-like outflows (Herbig-Haro and FU Orionis
352: stars) have been linked to episodic accretion caused by
353: tidal interactions between proto-stars and their disks in
354: close binaries \citep{reipurth01,hk96,bb92}. A radically
355: different circumstellar environment between single stars
356: and stars in close binaries is carried through to the PMS
357: phase where single stars accrete from extensive CS disks
358: while stars in close binaries may accrete through different
359: processes such as accretion streams \citep{al96,msb+97,jds+07}.
360: Whether these different accretions processes also lead to
361: different depositions of angular momentum remains to be seen.
362:
363: If indeed the observed rotational difference between single and
364: primary stars in M35 derive from differences in the proto-stellar
365: environment or from star-disk interactions in the early PMS
366: phase, it should be more pronounced in younger stellar populations
367: and gradually disappear for older populations as magnetic winds
368: spin down all stars not tidally locked. If on the other hand the
369: rotational difference is persistent over stellar age, then it may
370: be caused by an as-yet-unknown effect of a close companion.
371: Further observational study of the single- and binary-star
372: rotation periods in younger and older populations will probe
373: any dependency on stellar age.
374:
375: % ============================================================================
376:
377: \acknowledgments
378:
379: We thank UW-Madison and NOAO for time granted on the WIYN
380: telescopes, and recognize the exceptional and friendly support
381: from staff and observers at both sites. We thank the referee
382: for suggestions that strengthened the manuscript and the reported
383: result. This work was supported by NSF grant AST 97-31302,
384: and by a Cottrell Scholarship from the Research Corporation
385: to K.G.S.
386:
387: % ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
388:
389: %\bibliographystyle{apj}
390: %\bibliography{thesis}
391:
392: \begin{thebibliography}{36}
393: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi
394:
395: \bibitem[{{Armitage} \& {Clarke}(1996)}]{ac96}
396: {Armitage}, P.~J., \& {Clarke}, C.~J. 1996, \mnras, 280, 458
397:
398: \bibitem[{{Artymowicz}(1992)}]{artymowicz92}
399: {Artymowicz}, P. 1992, \pasp, 104, 769
400:
401: \bibitem[{{Artymowicz} \& {Lubow}(1994)}]{al94}
402: {Artymowicz}, P., \& {Lubow}, S.~H. 1994, \apj, 421, 651
403:
404: \bibitem[{{Artymowicz} \& {Lubow}(1996)}]{al96}
405: ---. 1996, \apjl, 467, L77+
406:
407: \bibitem[{{Barnes} \& {Sofia}(1996)}]{bs96}
408: {Barnes}, S., \& {Sofia}, S. 1996, \apj, 462, 746
409:
410: \bibitem[{{Barnes}(2003)}]{barnes03a}
411: {Barnes}, S.~A. 2003, \apj, 586, 464
412:
413: \bibitem[{{Bonnell} \& {Bastien}(1992)}]{bb92}
414: {Bonnell}, I., \& {Bastien}, P. 1992, \apjl, 401, L31
415:
416: \bibitem[{{Bouvier} {et~al.}(1997{\natexlab{a}}){Bouvier}, {Forestini}, \&
417: {Allain}}]{bfa97}
418: {Bouvier}, J., {Forestini}, M., \& {Allain}, S. 1997{\natexlab{a}}, \aap, 326,
419: 1023
420:
421: \bibitem[{{Bouvier} {et~al.}(1997{\natexlab{b}}){Bouvier}, {Rigaut}, \&
422: {Nadeau}}]{brn97}
423: {Bouvier}, J., {Rigaut}, F., \& {Nadeau}, D. 1997{\natexlab{b}}, \aap, 323, 139
424:
425: \bibitem[{{Duquennoy} \& {Mayor}(1991)}]{dm91}
426: {Duquennoy}, A., \& {Mayor}, M. 1991, \aap, 248, 485
427:
428: \bibitem[{{Geller} \& {Mathieu}(2007)}]{gm07}
429: {Geller}, A., \& {Mathieu}, R.~D. 2006, in prep., to be submitted to AJ
430:
431: \bibitem[{{Hartmann} \& {Kenyon}(1996)}]{hk96}
432: {Hartmann}, L., \& {Kenyon}, S.~J. 1996, \araa, 34, 207
433:
434: \bibitem[{{Herbst} \& {Mundt}(2005)}]{hm05}
435: {Herbst}, W., \& {Mundt}, R. 2005, \apj, 633, 967
436:
437: \bibitem[{{Hut}(1981)}]{hut81}
438: {Hut}, P. 1981, \aap, 99, 126
439:
440: \bibitem[{{Jensen} {et~al.}(2007){Jensen}, {Dhital}, {Stassun}, {Patience},
441: {Herbst}, {Walter}, {Simon}, \& {Basri}}]{jds+07}
442: {Jensen}, E.~L.~N., {Dhital}, S., {Stassun}, K.~G., {Patience}, J., {Herbst},
443: W., {Walter}, F.~M., {Simon}, M., \& {Basri}, G. 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 704
444:
445: \bibitem[{{Jensen} \& {Mathieu}(1997)}]{jm97}
446: {Jensen}, E.~L.~N., \& {Mathieu}, R.~D. 1997, \aj, 114, 301
447:
448: \bibitem[{{Jensen} {et~al.}(1996){Jensen}, {Mathieu}, \& {Fuller}}]{jmf96}
449: {Jensen}, E.~L.~N., {Mathieu}, R.~D., \& {Fuller}, G.~A. 1996, \apj, 458, 312
450:
451: \bibitem[{{Koenigl}(1991)}]{konigl91}
452: {Koenigl}, A. 1991, \apjl, 370, L39
453:
454: \bibitem[{{Korycansky} \& {Papaloizou}(1995)}]{kp95}
455: {Korycansky}, D.~G., \& {Papaloizou}, J.~C.~B. 1995, \mnras, 274, 85
456:
457: \bibitem[{{Larson}(2003)}]{larson03}
458: {Larson}, R.~B. 2003, Reports of Progress in Physics, 66, 1651
459:
460: \bibitem[{{Lin} {et~al.}(1993){Lin}, {Papaloizou}, \& {Kley}}]{lp93}
461: {Lin}, D.~N.~C., {Papaloizou}, J.~C.~B., \& {Kley}, W. 1993, \apj, 416, 689
462:
463: \bibitem[{{Mathieu} {et~al.}(1997){Mathieu}, {Stassun}, {Basri}, {Jensen},
464: {Johns-Krull}, {Valenti}, \& {Hartmann}}]{msb+97}
465: {Mathieu}, R.~D., {Stassun}, K., {Basri}, G., {Jensen}, E.~L.~N.,
466: {Johns-Krull}, C.~M., {Valenti}, J.~A., \& {Hartmann}, L.~W. 1997, \aj, 113,
467: 1841
468:
469: \bibitem[{{Meibom} {et~al.}(2001){Meibom}, {Barnes}, {Dolan}, \&
470: {Mathieu}}]{mbd+01}
471: {Meibom}, S., {Barnes}, S.~A., {Dolan}, C., \& {Mathieu}, R.~D. 2001, in ASP
472: Conf. Ser. 243: From Darkness to Light: Origin and Evolution of Young Stellar
473: Clusters, 711
474:
475: \bibitem[{{Meibom} \& {Mathieu}(2005)}]{mm05}
476: {Meibom}, S., \& {Mathieu}, R.~D. 2005, \apj, 620, 970
477:
478: \bibitem[{{Meibom} {et~al.}(2006){Meibom}, {Mathieu}, \& {Stassun}}]{mms06}
479: {Meibom}, S., {Mathieu}, R.~D., \& {Stassun}, K.~G. 2006, \apj, 653, 621
480:
481: \bibitem[{{Meibom} {et~al.}(2007){Meibom}, {Mathieu}, \& {Stassun}}]{mms07b}
482: ---. 2007b, \apj, in preparation
483:
484: \bibitem[{{Meibom}(2005)}]{meibom05}
485: {Meibom}, S.~C.~D. 2005, PhD thesis, University of Wisconsin - Madison
486:
487: \bibitem[{{Mermilliod} {et~al.}(1992){Mermilliod}, {Rosvick}, {Duquennoy}, \&
488: {Mayor}}]{mrd+92}
489: {Mermilliod}, J.-C., {Rosvick}, J.~M., {Duquennoy}, A., \& {Mayor}, M. 1992,
490: \aap, 265, 513
491:
492: \bibitem[{{Papaloizou} \& {Terquem}(1995)}]{pt95}
493: {Papaloizou}, J.~C.~B., \& {Terquem}, C. 1995, \mnras, 274, 987
494:
495: \bibitem[{{Patience} {et~al.}(2002){Patience}, {Ghez}, {Reid}, \&
496: {Matthews}}]{pgr+02}
497: {Patience}, J., {Ghez}, A.~M., {Reid}, I.~N., \& {Matthews}, K. 2002, \aj, 123,
498: 1570
499:
500: \bibitem[{{Press} {et~al.}(1992){Press}, {Teukolsky}, {Vetterling}, \&
501: {Flannery}}]{ptv+92}
502: {Press}, W.~H., {Teukolsky}, S.~A., {Vetterling}, W.~T., \& {Flannery}, B.~P.
503: 1992, {Numerical recipes in FORTRAN, The art of scientific computing}
504: (Cambridge: University Press, |c1992, 2nd ed.)
505:
506: \bibitem[{{Pringle}(1991)}]{pringle91}
507: {Pringle}, J.~E. 1991, \mnras, 248, 754
508:
509: \bibitem[{{Reipurth}(2001)}]{reipurth01}
510: {Reipurth}, B. 2001, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 200, The Formation of Binary Stars,
511: ed. H.~{Zinnecker} \& R.~{Mathieu}, 249--+
512:
513: \bibitem[{{Shu} {et~al.}(1994){Shu}, {Najita}, {Ostriker}, {Wilkin}, {Ruden},
514: \& {Lizano}}]{sno+94}
515: {Shu}, F., {Najita}, J., {Ostriker}, E., {Wilkin}, F., {Ruden}, S., \&
516: {Lizano}, S. 1994, \apj, 429, 781
517:
518: \bibitem[{{Tinker} {et~al.}(2002){Tinker}, {Pinsonneault}, \&
519: {Terndrup}}]{tpt02}
520: {Tinker}, J., {Pinsonneault}, M., \& {Terndrup}, D. 2002, \apj, 564, 877
521:
522: \bibitem[{{Vasilevskis} {et~al.}(1958){Vasilevskis}, {Klemola}, \&
523: {Preston}}]{vkp58}
524: {Vasilevskis}, S., {Klemola}, A., \& {Preston}, G. 1958, \aj, 63, 387
525:
526: \bibitem[{{Zahn}(1977)}]{zahn77}
527: {Zahn}, J.-P. 1977, \aap, 57, 383
528:
529: \bibitem[{{Zahn}(1989)}]{zahn89}
530: ---. 1989, \aap, 220, 112
531:
532: \end{thebibliography}
533:
534: % ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
535:
536: \clearpage
537:
538: \begin{figure}[ht!]
539: \epsscale{1.0}
540: \plotone{f1.eps}
541: \caption{Rotation period distributions for 53 single stars (grey histogram;
542: $\overline{P_{rot}} = 4.64$ days, $\tilde{P_{rot}} = 4.70$ days) and
543: 13 binary primary stars excluding the five shortest period binaries (solid;
544: $\overline{P_{rot}} = 2.95$ days, $\tilde{P_{rot}} = 2.83$ days).
545: \label{svph}}
546: \end{figure}
547:
548: \end{document}
549:
550:
551:
552: