1: %%
2: %% Beginning of file 'sample.tex'
3: %%
4: %% Modified 2005 December 5
5: %%
6: %% This is a sample manuscript marked up using the
7: %% AASTeX v5.x LaTeX 2e macros.
8:
9: %% The first piece of markup in an AASTeX v5.x document
10: %% is the \documentclass command. LaTeX will ignore
11: %% any data that comes before this command.
12:
13: %% The command below calls the preprint style
14: %% which will produce a one-column, single-spaced document.
15: %% Examples of commands for other substyles follow. Use
16: %% whichever is most appropriate for your purposes.
17: %%
18: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
19:
20: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:
21:
22: \documentclass[12pt,manuscript,natbib209]{aastex}
23:
24: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
25: % \documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
26:
27: %% Sometimes a paper's abstract is too long to fit on the
28: %% title page in preprint2 mode. When that is the case,
29: %% use the longabstract style option.
30:
31: %% \documentclass[preprint2,longabstract]{aastex}
32:
33: %% If you want to create your own macros, you can do so
34: %% using \newcommand. Your macros should appear before
35: %% the \begin{document} command.
36: %%
37: %% If you are submitting to a journal that translates manuscripts
38: %% into SGML, you need to follow certain guidelines when preparing
39: %% your macros. See the AASTeX v5.x Author Guide
40: %% for information.
41:
42: \newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}
43: \newcommand{\changed}{ }
44: \newcommand{\myemail}{skywalker@galaxy.far.far.away}
45:
46: %% You can insert a short comment on the title page using the command below.
47:
48: %\slugcomment{ Draft --- \today }
49:
50: %% If you wish, you may supply running head information, although
51: %% this information may be modified by the editorial offices.
52: %% The left head contains a list of authors,
53: %% usually a maximum of three (otherwise use et al.). The right
54: %% head is a modified title of up to roughly 44 characters.
55: %% Running heads will not print in the manuscript style.
56:
57: \shorttitle{Survey for Giant Planets in Cold Debris Disks}
58: \shortauthors{Apai et al.}
59:
60: \begin{document}
61: \newcommand{\ntargets}{8~}
62: \newcommand{\mjup}{M$_{\mathrm J}$~}
63:
64: \title{A Survey for Massive Giant Planets in Debris Disks with Evacuated Inner Cavities\altaffilmark{1} }
65:
66: \altaffiltext{1}{Based on observations collected at the European Southern Observatory at
67: Paranal, Chile (ESO programs P078.C-0412(A) and P077.C-0391(A))}
68:
69: \author{D. Apai\altaffilmark{2}}
70: \affil{Steward Observatory, The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA}
71: \altaffiltext{2}{Laplace Team, NASA Astrobiology Institute}
72: \email{apai@as.arizona.edu}
73:
74: \and
75:
76: \author{M. Janson}
77: \affil{Max Planck Institute for Astronomy, K\"onigstuhl 17, Heidelberg, D--69117, Germany}
78:
79: \and
80:
81: \author{A. Moro--Mart{\' in}}
82: \affil{Department of Astrophysical Sciences, Peyton Hall, Ivy Lane, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ08544, USA}
83:
84: \and
85:
86: \author{M.~R.~Meyer\altaffilmark{2}}
87: \affil{Steward Observatory, The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA}
88:
89: \and
90:
91: \author{E. E. Mamajek}
92: \affil{Harvard--Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60 Garden Street,
93: MS-42, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA}
94:
95: \and
96:
97: \author{E. Masciadri}
98: \affil{INAF-- Astrophysical Observatory Arcetri, Italy}
99:
100: \and
101:
102: \author{Th.~Henning}
103: \affil{Max Planck Institute for Astronomy, K\"onigstuhl 17, Heidelberg, D--69117, Germany}
104:
105: \and
106:
107: \author{I. Pascucci, J. S. Kim}
108: \affil{Steward Observatory, The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA}
109:
110: \and
111:
112: \author{L. A. Hillenbrand}
113: \affil{California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA}
114:
115: \and
116:
117: \author{M. Kasper}
118: \affil{European Southern Observatory, Karl--Schwarzschild--Str. 2, D--85748 Garching, Germany }
119:
120: \author{B. Biller}
121: \affil{Steward Observatory, The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA}
122:
123:
124: %% Notice that each of these authors has alternate affiliations, which
125: %% are identified by the \altaffilmark after each name. Specify alternate
126: %% affiliation information with \altaffiltext, with one command per each
127: %% affiliation.
128:
129:
130: \begin{abstract}
131: The commonality of collisionally replenished debris around main sequence stars suggests that minor bodies
132: are frequent around Sun--like stars. Whether or not debris disks in general are accompanied by planets is yet unknown, but
133: debris disks with large inner cavities -- perhaps dynamically cleared -- are considered to be prime candidates for hosting
134: large--separation massive giant planets.
135: We present here a high--contrast VLT/NACO angular differential imaging survey for eight such cold debris disks.
136: We investigated the presence of massive giant planets in the range of orbital radii where the inner edge of the dust debris is expected.
137: Our observations are sensitive to planets and brown dwarfs with masses $>$3 to 7 Jupiter mass, depending
138: on the age and distance of the target star.
139: Our observations did not identify any planet candidates. {\changed We compare the derived planet mass upper limits to
140: the minimum planet mass required to dynamically clear the inner disks. While we cannot exclude
141: that single giant planets are responsible for clearing out the inner debris disks, our observations constrain
142: the parameter space available for such planets.} The non--detection
143: of massive planets in these evacuated debris disks further reinforces the notion
144: that the giant planet population is confined to the inner disk ($<$15~AU).
145: \end{abstract}
146:
147:
148:
149: \keywords{circumstellar matter -- planetary systems -- stars: individual (HD 105, HD 377, HD 107146, HD 202917, HD 209253, HD 35850, HD 70573, HD 25457)}
150:
151:
152: %==================================================================================================================================
153:
154: \section{Introduction}
155:
156: Collisionally replenished debris dust surrounds about 10--20\% of the main sequence Sun--like stars (e.g. \citealt{Meyer2007}). Such widespread evidence for minor body collisions demonstrates that planetesimals orbit most stars. It is natural to ask whether or not rocky and giant planets are also present in these systems. No convincing correlation could yet be found between close--in exoplanets and the presence of debris (e.g. \citealt{Amaya2007}, but see \citealt{2005ApJ...622.1160B}). However, the presence of massive giant planets has been often invoked to account for the observed azimuthal or radial asymmetries at large radii in many debris disks (e.g. \citealt{Greaves2005,Wilner2002}). While theory offers several alternative mechanisms (e.g. \citealt{Takeuchi2001,Wyatt2005}), dynamical clearing of dust parent bodies by giant planets remains a feasible and exciting theoretical possibility (e.g. \citealt{Amaya2005,Quillen2006,Levison2007, Morbidelli2007}).
157:
158: Examples for such possibly dynamically--cleared disks include two recently identified disks
159: around the young Sun--like stars \object{HD 105} \citep{Meyer2004} and \object{HD 107146} \citep{Williams2004}.
160: Both disks were found to exhibit strong excess emission at wavelengths longer than 30~$\mu$m, while
161: displaying no measurable excesses shortward of 20~$\mu$m. The detailed analysis of the spectral energy distribution of \object{HD 105} suggests that it is consistent with a narrow dust ring ($<$4~AU) with an inner radius of $\sim$42~AU, if the dust grains emit like black bodies \citep{Meyer2004}.
162: Using a similar model \citet{Williams2004} showed that the excess emission from \object{HD 107146} is consistent with arising from cold dust (T=51~K) emitting as a single--temperature black body. The lack of measurable infrared excess shortward of 25~\micron ~illustrates that the inner disk regions are well cleared of dust: for HD~107146 there is at most 140$\times$ less warm dust (T=100~K) than cold dust (T=51~K, \citealt{Williams2004}). The findings of the spectral energy distribution model for \object{HD 107146} have been confirmed
163: by direct imaging with the Hubble Space Telescope, that strengthen the case for a large featureless dust ring outside of
164: an evacuated inner cavity \citep{Ardila2004}.
165:
166: Recent high--contrast imaging surveys have hinted on the general scarcity of giant planets at such large separations
167: (e.g. \citealt{Masciadri2005,Kasper2007,Biller2007,Lafreniere2007}).
168: Quantitative statistical analysis of the non--detections demonstrates that -- at a 90\% confidence level --
169: the giant planet population cannot extend beyond 30~AU if it follows a $r^{0.2}$ radial distribution, consistent
170: with the radial velocity surveys. The statistical analysis suggests an outer cut--off for the giant planet
171: population at $<$15~AU \citep{Kasper2007}. If so, dynamically cleared cold debris disks
172: may be the ssignposts for rare large--separation giant planets, ideally suited for direct imaging studies.
173:
174: In this paper we report on a VLT/NACO high--contrast imaging survey for large--separation giant planets
175: around HD~105, HD~107146, and six other similar disks. In the following we will review the target stars
176: and disks, the observations, followed by a comparison of our non--detections to lower planet mass
177: limits set by dynamical clearing simulations.
178:
179: \subsection{Targets}
180: Our targets were selected from the sample of 328 Sun--like stars (0.7--2.2 $M_\odot$) targeted in the {\em Formation and Evolution of Planetary Systems} Spitzer Space Telescope Legacy program (FEPS, \citealt{Meyer2006}).
181: From this sample we identified \ntargets southern stars, which: a) display strong infrared excess emission at
182: long wavelengths ($\lambda > 20 \mu$m); b) no measurable excess emission at shorter wavelengths; and,
183: C) are young and close enough to permit the detection of planetary--mass objects within the inner radius of the cold debris.
184: Table~\ref{T:Targets} gives an overview of the key parameters of the target stars. The typical lower mass limit for
185: the debris in the systems is $10^{-4}$ to $10^{-5}$~M$_{\earth}$, making these disks massive analogs of our
186: Kuiper--belt (\citealt{Meyer2004,Kim2005}, Hillenbrand et al., in prep). {\changed The disks of \object{HD 105} and \object{HD 107146} ---
187: included in our sample --- have inner evacuated regions with an estimated radii of $\sim40$~AU and
188: $\sim31$~AU \citep{Meyer2004,Williams2004}. The other six disks exhibit spectral energy distributions similar to
189: \object{HD 105} and \object{HD 107146}. Based on the similarity of the excess emissions and the almost identical
190: spectral types all eight disks are expected to have cleared--out inner disks of similar size.}
191: The only possible exception in this sample is \object{HD 202917}, for which the re--calibration of the IRAC fluxes
192: after our VLT observations revealed a faint, but likely real infrared excess even at wavelengths shortward of 10\micron,
193: suggesting that this inner disk may harbor small, but non--negligible amounts of warm dust.
194:
195: In the following we discuss briefly the results of the age determination for these sources as this has direct impact on the sensitivity
196: of our observations to giant planets. A more detailed discussion of the ages of the whole FEPS sample
197: will be presented in Hillenbrand et al. (in prep). We briefly summarize the upper and lower age estimates ($t_{min}$ and $t_{max}$) for each star along with the most likely age $t_{prob}$, where available.
198: HD~105 has already reached the main sequence ($t_{min}$=27~Myr) and its chromospheric activity suggests a $t_{max}$ of 225~Myr (Hillenbrand et al., in prep.). Very likely a member of the Tuc--Hor moving group \citep{Mamajek2004} its $t_{prob}$ is 30~Myr \citep{Hollenbach2005}.
199: HD~377 is also a main sequence star ($t_{min}>25$~Myr) and the chromospheric activity suggests that $t_{max}$=220~Myr.
200: The median of four other age indicators sets $t_{prob}$=90~Myr.
201: For HD~107146 we adopt the age range of 80--200~Myr. HD~202917 is a
202: likely member of the Tuc--Hor moving group ($t_{min}=t_{prob}=30$~Myr) and its upper age limit is set by its Li--abundance, higher than that of the Pleiades ($t_{max}<100$~Myr). HD~35850 is suggested to be a $\beta$~Pic Moving Group member ($t_{min}$=12~Myr, \citealt{Song2003}) and its observed rotation rate sets a reliable upper age limit of $t_{max}$=100~Myr (Hillenbrand et al. in prep.; cf.
203: \citealt{Barnes2007}).
204: HD~70573 is among the few stars that are known to harbor both a debris disk and a giant planet. \citet{Setiawan2007} found an $m_2 sin i = 6.1$~\mjup possible planet on a 1.76--AU orbit. A combination of different age indicators suggest a $t_{min}=30$~Myr for HD~70573 and a $t_{prob}=60~$Myr; \citet{Setiawan2007} quotes $t_{max}$=125~Myr.
205: {\changed Based on Li--abundance and chromospheric activity, position on the color--magnitude diagram and the analysis of its space motions Mamajek et al. (in prep.) estimates that HD~209253 has $t_{min}=200$~Myr and $t_{max}<1.6$~Gyr with $t_{prob}$=500~Myr.}
206: HD 25457 is a member of the AB~Dor moving group giving a very strong lower age limit ($t_{min}=50$~Myr, \citealt{Zuckermanetal2004}). \citet{Luhman2005} derives an age of 75--125~Myr (we adopt $t_{prob}=75$~Myr), while the upper age limit is set by the chromospheric activity ($t_{max}=170$~Myr).
207:
208:
209: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccccc}
210: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
211: %\rotate
212: \tablecaption{Target parameters. \label{T:Targets}}
213: \tablewidth{0pt}
214: \tablehead{\colhead{Target} & \colhead{R.\,A. (J2000)} & \colhead{Dec. (J2000)} & \colhead{V--mag.$^a$}& \colhead{Dist. [pc]$^a$} &\colhead{Sp. Type} & \colhead{Ages:$^b$ $t_{min}$/$t_{prob}$/$t_{max}$} }
215: \startdata
216: HD 105 & 00 05 52.6 & $-$41 45 11 & 7.51 & 40 & G0V & 27 Myr / 30 Myr / 225 Myr\\
217: HD 377 & 00 08 25.7 & $+$06 37 01 & 7.59 & 40 & G2V & 25~Myr / 90~Myr / 220~Myr \\
218: HD 25457 & 04 02 36.8 & $-$00 16 08 & 5.38 & 19 & F5V & 50 Myr / 75 Myr / 170 Myr\\
219: HD 35850 & 05 27 04.8 & $-$11 54 03 & 6.30 & 27 & F7/8V & 12 Myr / 12 Myr / 100 Myr\\
220: HD 70573 & 08 22 50.0 & $+$01 51 34 & 8.69 & 70 & G1/2V & 30 Myr / 60 Myr / 125 Myr \\
221: HD 107146 & 12 19 06.5 & $+$16 32 54 & 7.04 & 29 & G2V & 80 Myr / -- / 200 Myr \\
222: HD 202917 & 21 20 50.0 & $-$53 02 03 & 8.65 & 46 & G5V & 30 Myr / 30 Myr / 100 Myr \\
223: HD 209253 & 22 02 33.0 & $-$32 08 02 & 6.63 & 30 & F6/7V & 200~Myr / 500 Myr / 1.6 Gyr \\
224: \enddata
225: \tablenotetext{a}{All magnitudes and distances from the Hipparcos catalog, except for the distance
226: of HD~70573, which is a main sequence--distance. }
227: \tablenotetext{b}{The age estimates are discussed in the text.}
228: \end{deluxetable}
229:
230:
231: \section{Observations and Data Reduction}
232:
233: Our \ntargets targets were observed with ESO's Very Large Telescope using the NACO adaptive optics system \citep{Lenzen2003,Rousset2003}.
234: The observations were carried out in service mode in late 2006 and early 2007. The weather conditions were
235: excellent with typical visual seeing of 0\farcs8 and clear skies.
236:
237: We used the spectral differential imaging mode (SDI) of NACO in order to enhance the contrast for any methane--rich cold {\changed (T$<1200$~K)} companion (e.g. \citealt{Lenzen2004}). The SDI mode uses two Wollaston prisms to split the incoming light rays into four beams of nearly identical light path. These rays pass through four narrow--band filters, two of which are identical. The three different filters ($f_1$, $f_2$ and $f_3$ corresponding to 1.575, 1.600, and 1.625~$\mu$m) probe the 1.62~$\mu$m methane feature and the adjacent continuum. Because the SDI mode uses the 1024$\times$1024--pixel S13 camera of NACO with a $13" \times 13"$ field of view, the simultaneous acquisition of 4 images in this field reduces the effective field of view to about $3" \times 3"$.
238:
239: {\changed The achieved contrast, however, is not as good as predicted, probably due to the combined effect of read--out noise and a slightly lower Strehl ratio. With the reduced contrast our observations were sensitive only to planets beyond the 1--3 \mjup planet mass range. These
240: planets -- at the young ages of out targets -- are too hot to display the 1.62 $\mu$m--methane feature \citep{Burrows2003}. The lack of the methane feature results
241: in almost identical planet fluxes in the $f_1$, $f_2$ and $f_3$ filters, rendering the SDI technique inefficient.}
242:
243: Instead, we opted to reduce the data taken in the $f_1$ filter ($\lambda_c=1.575 \mu$m, $\delta\lambda=0.025 \mu$m) in the angular differential imaging mode, i.e. without applying the spectral differential imaging step (e.g., \citealt{Mueller1987,Marois2006,Kasper2007}).
244: The data reduction was performed with a dedicated pipeline, as described in detail in \citet{Kellner05} and \citet{Janson07}. The frames taken at a given rotator angle were averaged and the collapsed frame corresponding to one angle was subtracted from the other.
245: This procedure cancels out residual static or quasi--static features from the instrument, whereas any companion will
246: remain as a combination of a positive and negative point source.
247: The intensity of the residuals (at a certain separation from the primary) is characterized by taking the standard deviation in a $9 \times 9$--pixel square {\changed (0\farcs11$\times$0\farcs11 $ \approx (2.7 \lambda/D)^2$ )} centered on that separation, at 180 evenly sampled angles, and taking the median of the results.
248: This is repeated for all separations to create a radial profile of the error distribution in the image. When combined with the brightness of the primary, this yields the achieved contrast as a function of separation in the final image (see, \citealt{Janson07} for more details). {\changed Previous artificial planet tests on identical data sets processed with the reduction pipeline used here showed that 3--sigma--bright sources would have been reliably identified as {candidate} planets \citep{Janson07}. Lacking any such detection, we used 3--sigma fluxes as
249: upper limits on the brightness of any companions to the target stars.}
250: In order to convert the achieved contrast in $f_1$ to the more commonly used H--band, we derived a conversion factor by comparing the flux densities in the two filters in a simulated spectrum of a giant planet in the age and mass range probed by our observations \citep{Burrows2003}.
251:
252:
253: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccccc}
254: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
255: %\rotate
256: \tablecaption{Log of the observations. \label{T:Observations}}
257: \tablewidth{0pt}
258: \tablehead{\colhead{Target} & \colhead{UT Dates} & \colhead{NDIT $\times$ DIT$^a$} & \colhead{Frames per Angle} & \colhead{Angles} & \colhead{On--Source} & \colhead{Strehl} }
259: \startdata
260: HD 105 & 07/20/06+08/18/06+08/21/06 & 1 $\times$ 4s & 144 & 0\degr, 33\degr & 19 min & 43\%\\
261: HD 377 & 08/27/06 & 1 $\times$ 4s & 144 & 0\degr, 33\degr & 19 min & 37\%\\
262: HD 25457 & 08/12/06+08/13/06 & 1 $\times$ 4s& 144 & 0\degr, 33\degr &19 min & 46\%\\
263: HD 35850 & 08/13/06 & 1 $\times$ 4s& 144 & 0\degr, 33\degr & 19 min& 40\%\\
264: HD 70573 & 03/02/07 & 21 $\times$ 5s & 16 & 0\degr, 33\degr & 56 min & 58\%\\
265: HD 107146 & 04/260/06+0 05/26/06 & 1 $\times$ 4s & 95 & 0\degr, 33\degr &13 min & 51\%\\
266: HD 202917 & 06/23/06 & 1 $\times$ 12s & 32 & 0\degr, 33\degr &13 min & 45\%\\
267: HD 209253 & 07/09/06+07/16/06+07/23/06 & 1 $\times$ 4s & 144 & 0\degr, 33\degr &19 min & 49\%\\
268: \enddata
269: \tablenotetext{a}{DIT -- Detector integration time; NDIT -- number of integration averaged on--chip. }
270: \end{deluxetable}
271:
272:
273: %====================================
274: \section{Results}
275:
276: The NACO/ADI observations acquired high--contrast, high--resolution images of the
277: \ntargets{} target stars and their immediate environment (typically between 10 and 70~AU).
278: In spite of the sensitive observations we could not identify giant planet candidates or any
279: other point sources in the images.
280:
281: Our data analysis allows us to set firm upper limits to the brightness of the sources that would have
282: been identified as a candidate. We use the age estimates in Table~\ref{T:Targets} and planetary evolution models
283: \citep{Baraffe2003} to convert the achieved sensitivities to planet masses.
284: These limits are shown in Fig.~\ref{Sensitivities} as a function of separation from the target stars for
285: the lower and upper age limits of our stars.
286:
287: Using the high--contrast observations we can study the probable range of radii in these disks at which the dust debris
288: and the parent body planetesimals reside. Our measurements exclude the presence of any brown dwarf companions
289: for virtually all our targets at these radii. For HD~209253, the oldest star in our sample, the images exclude companions
290: down to the brown dwarf/giant planet mass boundary (13~\mjup) at radii 20~AU or greater.
291: For the the youngest source HD 35850 (12--100~Myr)
292: our observations exclude any giant planet companions down to 3--4 \mjup between 25 to 45~AU, if the star
293: belongs to the $\beta$~Pic moving group as suggested by \citet{Song2003}.
294: For the other six sources our observations are typically sensitive to $\sim$6~\mjup at orbital radii $>$30--40~AU.
295:
296: {\changed Note, that the dominant uncertainty of the upper limits stems from the difficulty of stellar age determination and from
297: the poorly constrained initial conditions for giant planet evolution models. In particular, if shocks
298: lead to efficient energy dissipation during the accretion phase, giant planets may start with much lower
299: luminosities (e.g. \citealt{Marley2007}) than assumed by the hot--start models
300: (e.g. \citealt{Baraffe2003,Burrows2003}).}
301:
302:
303:
304: \begin{figure}
305: \epsscale{1.0}
306: \plotone{f1.ps}
307: \caption{The discovery space of the NACO observations (shaded), the minimum predicted planet masses required
308: for a single planet to scatter out $>90\%$ of the planetesimals at a given radius (dotted lines) and the lower limits
309: for the disk inner radius (dashed lines, Hillenbrand et al., in prep.). The presence of planets within the shaded parameter range is excluded by our observations.
310: The upper and lower shaded sensitivity curves mark the limits for a possible younger and older stellar age.
311: For each figure the outer radius of the field of view is given in astronomical units in the lower right--hand corner.
312: Note, that the reversing sensitivity curve for HD~70573 and HD 209253 is due to the reversal of the planet mass--luminosity curve in the corresponding evolutionary phase \citep{Baraffe2003}.
313: \label{Sensitivities}}
314: \end{figure}
315:
316:
317: %===============================================================
318: \section{Discussion: Inside--Evacuated Debris Disks Without Massive Giant Planets?}
319:
320: If single planets are responsible for clearing out the inner disks in the observed systems, they will be located
321: very close to the inner edge of the debris. Although the available data does not allow the direct measurement
322: of the inner disk radii, simple black body fits to the spectral energy distributions provide
323: reliable {\em lower} limits. We adopt these limits from Hillenbrand et al. (in prep.) and note that they range
324: from 6.2 to 28~AU. Fig.~\ref{Sensitivities} shows the limits for the individual sources (dashed lines).
325: We stress again that these are lower limits --- the real inner disk radii are probably somewhat larger.
326:
327: Given the range of detectable planet masses in Fig.~\ref{Sensitivities}, we assess whether
328: dynamical clearing by a less massive and therefore undetectable planet could
329: still be a feasible mechanism to explain the lack of measurable quantities
330: of warm dust, or on the contrary, if the dynamical clearing scenario may be
331: rejected. Because our disks are devoid of gas \citep{Pascucci2006} we use the dynamical models by \citet{Amaya2005}
332: to investigate the effect of a giant planet on the dust population. These models
333: investigate the efficiency of dust particle ejection by gravitational scattering as a
334: function of planet mass and planet location. In these models the dust particles
335: are released from an outer belt of planetesimals and drift inward toward the central
336: star under the effect of Poynting--Robertson drag, scattering as they cross
337: the orbit of the planet and naturally creating a dust--depleted region inside its orbit.
338: However, as shown in the upcoming study by Hillenbrand et al.
339: (in prep.) all our disks are collision--dominated, as are bright debris disks
340: in general \citep{Wyatt2005}. This means that the dust particles may not have
341: time to drift too far from the parent bodies before getting eroded by collisions
342: down to the blow-out size. Thus, in these collision--dominated disks the dust generally
343: traces the location of the planetesimals. Therefore, we need to evaluate the effect of
344: a giant planet on the planetesimal population rather than on the dust particles.
345: Because gravitational scattering is a process independent
346: of mass, the models of \citet{Amaya2005} are also applicable to planetesimals
347: as long as these can be considered to be ``test particles'' (i.e. their masses are negligible with respect to that of the planet).
348:
349: Using the above models we evaluate what is the mass of the least massive planet
350: that can open a gap in the planetesimal distribution. In order to provide
351: a good model for the evacuated inner gaps we require that the
352: planet scatters out at least 90\% of the planetesimals. A dotted line in Fig.~\ref{Sensitivities} shows
353: these lower masses as a function of orbital radius.
354: We find that for planets in the 5--30 AU range, a planet mass of {\em at least} 2--5 \mjup masses
355: is required. Thus, it is conceivable that giant planets in the mass range 2 to 5~\mjup clear the
356: gaps and still remain undetected by our survey. However, we point out that in the cases of
357: most of our targets, and in particular for HD~35850, the parameter space
358: that such a planet can occupy is {\changed limited}.
359:
360: {\changed Given that our high--contrast imaging survey did not find single, large--separation giant planets that may be responsible for
361: clearing the inner disks, we briefly explore alternative mechanisms. }
362: \citet{Besla2007} provides a useful summary of the proposed models and
363: we will only highlight here a particularly interesting proposal proposed recently by \citet{Amaya07} for the system HD~38529, where two close--in planets trigger secular resonances that affect the planetesimal population in
364: the outer disk. In this model the eccentricity of the planetesimals at the location of the secular
365: resonances is excited, thus enhancing the rate of collisions and truncating the planetesimal disk.
366:
367: %\citet{Wyatt2005} shows that grain--grain collisions at a given radius may lead to an optically thick
368: %dust ring, one that would not permit grains at larger radii to drift inward. This process naturally leads
369: %to a dust ring with a sharp inner edge.
370:
371: %A) The model of \citet{Takeuchi2001} suggests that dust rings form at radii where the disk is
372: %in transition from gas--rich to dust--rich disk; in this model the dust grains are confined
373: %by the drag of the super-- or sub--sonic gas at the outer and inner radii of the ring.
374: %Extending this model \citet{Besla2007} proposes a photoelectric--heating driven
375: %instability that would enhance higher concentration of dust particles and would lead to a
376: %narrow, confined dust ring.
377:
378: Given the range of possible mechanisms that may lead to the formation of dust rings it
379: is probable that in--depth studies of the individual systems will be required for judging
380: the feasibility of the proposed models on a case--by--case basis. {\changed However, our non--detections show
381: that the presence of evacuated large inner holes in cold disks could be related to localized dust production or
382: concentration of dust grains by dust--gas interactions rather than dynamical clearing by single massive giant planets.}
383:
384: %Detecting such lower--mass and fainter planets will require high--contrast
385: %imaging follow-up observations that are more sensitive than the NACO/SDI technique.
386: %Currently the best such option is the L--band angular differential imaging method, as
387: %successfully demonstrated on the VLT (\citealt{Kasper2007}) and on the
388: %Multiple Mirror Telescope \citep{Hinz06}.
389:
390:
391: %====================================
392: \section{Conclusions}
393:
394: We present results from a high--contrast angular differential imaging survey of \ntargets
395: cold debris disks, selected to have significantly or totally evacuated inner disks.
396: Our observations searched for massive giant planets that may be responsible for
397: carving out the inner holes in the observed cold debris disks.
398: For most of our targets we reach typical sensitivities of 3 to 7 \mjup
399: between 20 to 50~AU separations, but did not identify any likely planet
400: or brown dwarf candidates.
401:
402: {\changed By comparing the derived planet mass upper limits to lower limits derived from
403: dynamical scattering models (typically 2-5 \mjup between 10 and 30 AU),
404: we limit the parameter space available for any single planet capable of
405: efficiently clearing out the inner planetesimal disks. }
406:
407: Our survey complements recent direct imaging surveys of nearby young stars indicating
408: that massive giant planets at large separations are very rare. Cool debris disks
409: with large inner evacuated cavities remained promising possible exceptions to this
410: rule until now. However, the combination of our observational upper limits and
411: theoretical lower limits strongly suggest that massive giant planets at large separations
412: are not present in most of these systems, reinforcing the finding that the outer
413: cut--off for the giant planet distribution is probably at 15~AU or at even smaller
414: semi--major axes \citep{Kasper2007}.
415:
416:
417: \acknowledgments
418:
419: We thank the staff at the Paranal Observatories for the support of the service mode
420: observations. In particular, we are grateful to S. Mengel and G. Lowell--Tacconi for their help with
421: the preparation of the observations. This material is partly based upon work supported by the
422: National Aeronautics and Space Administration through the NASA Astrobiology Institute under Cooperative
423: Agreement No. CAN-02-OSS-02 issued through the Office of Space Science to the Life and Planets
424: Astrobiology Center (LAPLACE). We would like to thank members of the FEPS team for their help in
425: characterizing the target stars and their disks. FEPS is pleased to acknowledge support through NASA
426: contracts 1224768, 1224634, and 1224566 administered through JPL.
427:
428: {\it Facilities:} \facility{VLT (NACO)}.
429:
430:
431:
432:
433: %\begin{figure}
434: %\plottwo{f2.eps}{f2_color.eps}
435: %\caption{A panel taken from Figure 2 of \citet{rudnick03}.
436: %See the electronic edition of the Journal for a color version
437: %of this figure.\label{fig2}}
438: %\end{figure}
439:
440: \bibliographystyle{aa}
441: \bibstyle{aa}
442:
443: \bibliography{lit}
444:
445: \end{document}
446:
447: