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,preprint2]{aastex}
19:
20: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:
21:
22: %%\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
23:
24: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
25:
26: % \documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
27:
28: %% Sometimes a paper's abstract is too long to fit on the
29: %% title page in preprint2 mode. When that is the case,
30: %% use the longabstract style option.
31:
32: %% \documentclass[preprint2,longabstract]{aastex}
33:
34: %% If you want to create your own macros, you can do so
35: %% using \newcommand. Your macros should appear before
36: %% the \begin{document} command.
37: %%
38: %% If you are submitting to a journal that translates manuscripts
39: %% into SGML, you need to follow certain guidelines when preparing
40: %% your macros. See the AASTeX v5.x Author Guide
41: %% for information.
42: %% \newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}
43:
44: \newcommand{\neii}{[Ne~{\sc ii}]}
45:
46:
47: %% You can insert a short comment on the title page using the command below.
48:
49: %% \slugcomment{Not to appear in Nonlearned J., 45.}
50:
51: %% If you wish, you may supply running head information, although
52: %% this information may be modified by the editorial offices.
53: %% The left head contains a list of authors,
54: %% usually a maximum of three (otherwise use et al.). The right
55: %% head is a modified title of up to roughly 44 characters.
56: %% Running heads will not print in the manuscript style.
57:
58: \shorttitle{Binarity and Dust Processing}
59: \shortauthors{Pascucci et al.}
60:
61: %% This is the end of the preamble. Indicate the beginning of the
62: %% paper itself with \begin{document}.
63:
64: \begin{document}
65:
66: %% LaTeX will automatically break titles if they run longer than
67: %% one line. However, you may use \\ to force a line break if
68: %% you desire.
69:
70: \title{Medium--separation binaries do not affect the first steps of planet formation}
71:
72: %====== Other possible titles
73: % 1) Detection of [Ne~{\sc ii}] emission lines: tracing the hot disk atmosphere of young circumstellar disks
74:
75: %% Use \author, \affil, and the \and command to format
76: %% author and affiliation information.
77: %% Note that \email has replaced the old \authoremail command
78: %% from AASTeX v4.0. You can use \email to mark an email address
79: %% anywhere in the paper, not just in the front matter.
80: %% As in the title, use \\ to force line breaks.
81:
82: %\author{I. Pascucci\altaffilmark{1}...}
83: \author{I. Pascucci, D. Apai, E. E. Hardegree--Ullman, J. S. Kim, M. R. Meyer,}
84: \affil{Steward Observatory, The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721}
85: \and
86: \author{J. Bouwman}
87: \affil{Max Planck Institute for Astronomy, K\"{o}nigstuhl 17, D-69117, Heidelberg, Germany}
88:
89:
90: %% Notice that each of these authors has alternate affiliations, which
91: %% are identified by the \altaffilmark after each name. Specify alternate
92: %% affiliation information with \altaffiltext, with one command per each
93: %% affiliation.
94:
95: %\altaffiltext{1}{Steward Observatory, The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721.}
96: %\altaffiltext{7}{Max Planck Institute for Astronomy, Heidelberg, Germany}
97:
98:
99: %% Mark off your abstract in the ``abstract'' environment. In the manuscript
100: %% style, abstract will output a Received/Accepted line after the
101: %% title and affiliation information. No date will appear since the author
102: %% does not have this information. The dates will be filled in by the
103: %% editorial office after submission.
104:
105: \begin{abstract}
106: % Aims -- Methods --Results -- Conclusions
107: The first steps of planet formation are marked by the growth and
108: crystallization of sub--micrometer--sized dust grains accompanied
109: by dust settling toward the disk midplane.
110: In this paper we explore whether the first steps of planet formation are affected by the presence of
111: medium--separation stellar companions. We selected two large samples of disks around single and binary T~Tauri stars in Taurus that are thought to have only a modest age spread of a few Myr. The companions of our binary sample are at projected separations between $\sim$10 and 450\,AU with masses down to about 0.1\,M$_{\sun}$. We used the strength and shape of the 10\,\micron{} silicate emission feature as a proxy for grain growth and for crystallization respectively. The degree of dust settling was evaluated from the ratio of fluxes at two different mid--infrared wavelengths.
112: We find no statistically significant difference between the distribution of 10\,\micron{} silicate emission features from single and binary systems. In addition, the distribution of disk flaring is indistinguishable between the single and binary system samples. These results show that the first steps of planet formation are not affected by the presence of a companion at tens of AU.
113:
114: \end{abstract}
115:
116: \keywords{circumstellar matter -- planetary systems: protoplanetary disks -- infrared: stars}
117:
118: \section{Introduction}
119: Two--third of the G stars in the solar neighborhood are members of multiple--star systems
120: (e.g. \citealt{dm91}). These binaries and multiple systems are often found to harbor giant planets (e.g. \citealt{bondes07}). Similarly, young low--mass pre--main sequence stars are very frequently members of multiple systems,
121: mostly binaries \citep{mathieu00,duchene07}. This suggests that planet formation around single stars such as our Sun may be atypical and urges us to understand the effects of stellar companions on planet formation. We tackle this question from an observational point of view. Because numerical simulations of grain agglomeration suggest short timescales for the formation of planetesimals (only a few 10$^4$\,yr, e.g. \citealt{beckwith00}), it is crucial to know how stellar companion(s) affect the dust processing in the first few million years.
122:
123: Grain growth and the settling of dust grains towards the disk midplane are thought to represent the first steps in the planet--formation process (e.g. \citealt{ls93} for a review). The study of disks around intermediate--mass stars
124: also indicates a link between grain growth and crystallinity. High crystallinity was found
125: only when grains larger than the dominant sub--micron interstellar grains were present \citep{van05}. In the context of these findings and dust evolution models (e.g. \citealt{dd04}), older disks are expected to have more processed dust
126: (larger grains and crystals) than younger disks. In addition, their disk structure should be flatter because of the gradual settling of
127: large dust grains towards the disk midplane.
128: However, recent observations show that the degree of dust processing can be very different
129: even for coeval disks around stars of similar spectral type in the same star--forming region
130: (e.g. \citealt{prz03,apai05}). This demonstrates that dust evolution is
131: not uniquely controlled by stellar age and luminosity but at least one additional parameter
132: is present.
133:
134: There are two studies suggesting that stellar multiplicity could play a major role in the initial dust processing.
135: \citet{meeus03} found that among three coeval T~Tauri disks in the Chamaeleon~I
136: star--forming region the closest binary system (projected separation of $\sim$120\,AU) sports the strongest contribution from large
137: ($\sim$\,2\,\micron) grains and has the highest crystalline mass fraction. Similarly, \citet{sterzik04}
138: pointed out that the disk of a young brown dwarf with a companion at $\ga$\,30\,AU shows more processed dust than the disk around a single brown dwarf.
139: Although the small samples inhibit any firm conclusions, these results suggest that companions might trigger rapid dust evolution.
140: Intuitively this may happen in different ways. A companion could speed up dust
141: evolution by dynamically stirring the circumstellar dust grains and leading to an enhanced
142: collision and grain growth rate (e.g. \citealt{dubrulle95}). In addition, the dynamical stirring may lead to an increased mixing that could also expose larger amounts of dust to temperatures high enough ($\ge$\,800\,K) to be crystallized.
143:
144: In this paper we compare two carefully constructed samples of disks
145: around single and binary\footnote{a few of the systems in our study are triple or quadruple systems. For simplicity, we refer to the whole sample as binaries)} stars with a narrow age spread to test the hypothesis that binary systems have disks with more
146: processed dust and flatter structures.
147: In Sect.~\ref{S:sample} we describe our samples. The data reduction of
148: the {\it Spitzer} spectra and of the 24\,\micron{} MIPS photometry is presented in Sect.~\ref{S:redu}.
149: We summarize our results in Sect.~\ref{S:results} and discuss in Sect.~\ref{S:discussion} their implications on planet formation in single and binary systems.
150:
151: %{\bf COMMENT: note that stellar multiplicity does not preclude planet formation}
152: %{\bf COMMENT: note no significant difference in NIR excess between binaries and singles PPVI, nor in the frequencies of IRAs detections. But differences in mm fluxes (smaller masses)--similar temperatures surface densities, similar planet formation}
153:
154: %{\bf COMMENT: from PPV Duchene et al. among filed-stars the frequency of high-order multiple systems is 4 times lower than that of binaries.Shall we shift to binaries rather than multiple systems?}
155:
156: %{\bf COMMENT: there is a statistically significant difference in the mass distribution of planets around binariee and single stars: massive planets in short orbits (0.05AU) are found mainly around tight binaries.}
157:
158: \section{Sample Definition}\label{S:sample}
159: Testing whether stellar companions promote the first steps of planet formation requires: a) two
160: coeval samples of disks around single and binary stars with precisely determined
161: multiplicity; b) identical spectral type distributions for the two samples; c) objects in regions with no diffuse PAH emission that could contaminate the dust emission
162: features of the targets; d) disks with faint or no PAH emission features (for the same reason as b).
163: The Taurus--Auriga star--forming region has a reasonably complete census of its pre--main--sequence
164: stellar population and meets best our requirements among the nearby star--forming regions.
165: To satisfy criteria d) we selected disks around low--mass stars because they have an order of magnitude lower PAH emission than disks around intermediate--mass stars \citep{geers06}.
166: The observed age distribution of low--mass stars in Taurus can be well approximated with a gaussian centered at 1.6\,Myr and a spread no larger than about 2--3\,Myr \citep{hartmann01}. This narrow age spread minimizes any possible trend of disk evolution with age.
167: In summary our sample of disks around single and binary stars is drawn from the Taurus--Auriga population of low--mass T Tauri stars (TTSs) with circumstellar disks and ages between $\sim$1--3\,Myr.
168:
169: Because it is critically important to include only stars with known multiplicity,
170: we first selected each target based on a combination of available
171: high--resolution imaging and interferometry, spectroscopy, and radial velocity measurements
172: \citep{ghez93,leinert93,simon95,wg01}. In this context, we refer to a star as {\it single} if it has no known companions with brightness above the detection limit within 10\arcsec{} (or $\sim$\,1400\,AU at the $\sim$\,140\,pc distance of the Taurus--Auriga star--forming region). The typical detection limit of high--resolution imaging surveys is 2--3\,mag fainter than the primary star in K--band, which corresponds to a very--low mass star of $\sim$0.1\,M$_{\sun}$ at $\sim$2\,Myr according to the Baraffe et al. 1998 isochrones. Only a few binary star systems have been observed with techniques reaching higher contrast (see, e.g. the discovery of a brown dwarf companion to DH~Tau by \citealt{itoh05}).
173: The typical smallest separation resolvable with the imaging surveys is $\sim$\,0\farcs1 ($\sim$10\,AU), meaning that a few unresolved close binaries may have been classified as single.
174: Of these, binaries with periods $<$\,100\,days can only modestly contaminate our single star sample since their frequency in pre--main sequence stars is 8\%$\pm$3\% \citep{mathieu00}. Due to the lack of general understanding of the separation distribution of close pre--main sequence binaries, it is not possible to determine the exact level of contamination. However, the required infrared excess (see below) ensures circumstellar dust within a few AU, likely inconsistent with the presence of a close stellar companion.
175: We also excluded all known spectroscopic binaries in Taurus \citep{mathieu94,jm97} both from the sample of single and binary stars.
176: Our binary sample consists of stars with companions between $\sim$0\farcs1 and 3\,\arcsec{} thus covering the population of medium--separation stellar companions at projected separations between $\sim$14--420\,AU.
177: After defining the samples, we searched for available near-- and mid--infrared data
178: \citep{kh95,stassun01,hartmann05,mccabe06,furlan06} to select only those targets that have excess
179: emission indicative of a circumstellar disk. These selection criteria resulted in a sample of mostly classical TTSs for the single and for the primary star in the multiple systems.
180: Only CZ~Tau and IQ ~Tau in our sample are classified as weak--lined TTSs\footnote{based on their narrow H$\alpha$ emission lines \citep{hb88}}
181: \citep{wg01,mccabe06}. The T Tauri types for the components of the binary sample are mostly classical with the exception of FX~TauB, IS~TauB, V710~TauB, and V807~TauB that are weak--lined TTSs \citep{duchene99,wg01, harken03}.
182: Finally, we selected only systems with fluxes $\gtrsim$\,0.1\,Jy to ensure high signal--to--noise around the 10\,\micron{} silicate emission feature.
183:
184: \begin{figure*}
185: \includegraphics[angle=90,scale=0.7]{f1.ps}
186: \caption{Histogram of the spectral types for the single and binary systems. The spectral type distributions of the single stars and of the primary stars in the binary sample are almost identical. \label{F:spty}}
187: \end{figure*}
188:
189:
190: Our list contains 44 sources, of which 23 are disks around single stars and 21 are multiple systems (see Tables~\ref{T:single} and \ref{T:binary}).
191: Spectral types for the stellar companion(s) are available for 18 out of 21 objects. Most companions have M spectral type (see Table~\ref{T:binary}).
192: The single stars (or the primaries of multiple systems) are mostly between K5
193: and M4 spectral type. Note also that the distribution of spectral types for the single stars is almost identical to that of the primary component in multiple systems (Fig.~\ref{F:spty}). In addition, the fairly narrow range in spectral type minimizes any difference in the dust
194: composition due to luminosity effects. In fact the recent study by \citet{kessler06} shows that the shape and strength of the 10\,\micron{} silicate features of K versus M stars are consistent with being drawn from the same population.
195: Most of our multiple systems are binaries with separations less than 1\arcsec{} (see Table~\ref{T:binary}). Seventeen of them have circumprimary and circumsecondary disks based on the K--L, K--N colors or resolved IRAC photometry of both components
196: \citep{wg01,hartmann05,mccabe06}. DF~Tau~B and FO~Tau~B are the closest binary components in our sample at $\sim$\,0\farcs1. They are also very likely surrounded by circumstellar disks based on accretion signatures like the H$\alpha$ equivalent width and the amount of optical veiling \citep{harken03}. Finally, V710~Tau~B and V807~Tau~B have K--N and K--L colors consistent with photospheric emission suggesting that they do not have circumstellar disks \citep{wg01,mccabe06}. A summary of the disk configurations is provided in column seven of Table~\ref{T:binary}.
197: Resolved mid--infrared photometry is available for 11 out of 21 binary sources \citep{mccabe06}. Another 8 sources have resolved L--band photometry \citep{wg01}, while the two closest binaries FO Tau and DF Tau have been resolved only in K--band \citep{wg01}. For at least two--third of the binary sample the {\it Spitzer}/IRS spectrum is dominated by the disk around the primary star as indicated by the near-- and mid--infrared flux ratios of the primary and secondary components (column eight of Table~\ref{T:binary}). We also note that our selection criteria did not exclude possibly more evolved disks such as transition disks. GM~Aur and DM~Tau in our list of single stars are among the best studied transition disks (see, e.g. \citealt{calvet05}).
198:
199:
200:
201: \begin{deluxetable}{cl c cc}
202: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
203: \tablecaption{Main properties of the selected single TTSs. \label{T:single}}
204: \tablewidth{0pt}
205: \tablehead{
206: \colhead{\#}&\colhead{Source}&\colhead{2MASS~J}&\colhead{Adopted} & \colhead{Ref} \\
207: \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{SpT} & \colhead{(SpT)}}
208: \startdata
209: S1 & AA~Tau & 04345542+2428531 & K7 & 1, 2 \\
210: S2 & BP~Tau & 04191583+2906269 & K7 & 2, 3\\
211: S3 & CI~Tau & 04335200+2250301 & K7 & 1, 2 \\
212: S4 & CW~Tau& 04141700+2810578 & K3 & 1, 2 \\
213: S5 & CX~Tau & 04144786+2648110 & M2.5 &1, 2 \\
214: S6 & CY~Tau & 04173372+2820468 & M2 & 2, 3 \\
215: S7 & DE~Tau & 04215563+2755060 & M1 & 2, 3\\
216: S8 & DH~Tau\tablenotemark{\ast} & 04294155+2632582 & M2 & 2, 4\\
217: S9 & DL~Tau & 04333906+2520382 & K7 & 1, 2 \\
218: S10 & DM~Tau\tablenotemark{\blacklozenge} & 04334871+1810099& M1 & 1, 2 \\
219: S11 & DN~Tau & 04352737+2414589 & M0 & 1, 2\\
220: S12 & DO~Tau & 04382858+2610494 & M0 & 1, 2\\
221: S13 & DP~Tau & 04423769+2515374 & M0.5 &1, 2\\
222: S14 & DS~Tau & 04474859+2925112 & K5 &1, 2\\
223: S15 & FM~Tau & 04141358+2812492 & M1 & 2, 4\\
224: S16 & FN~Tau & 04141458+2827580 & M5 & 2\\
225: S17 & FZ~Tau\tablenotemark{\ast} & 04323176+2420029 & M0 & 2, 4, 5\\
226: S18 & GI~Tau\tablenotemark{\ast} & 04333405+2421170 & K7 & 2, 4\\
227: S19 & GK~Tau\tablenotemark{\ast} & 04333456+2421058& K7 & 2, 4 \\
228: S20 & GM~Aur\tablenotemark{\blacklozenge} & 04551098+3021595& K3 & 1, 2\\
229: S21 & IP~Tau & 04245708+2711565 & M0 & 1, 2\\
230: S22 & IQ~Tau & 04295156+2606448& M0.5 & 1, 2\\
231: S23 & LkCa~15 & 04391779+2221034& K5 & 1, 2\\
232: \enddata
233: \tablenotetext{\ast}{These stars have companions at projected separations just above 10\arcsec{} \citep{hartigan94} :
234: DH~Tau/DI~Tau (15\arcsec); FY~Tau/FZ~Tau (16\farcs9);
235: GK~Tau/GI~Tau (12\farcs9)}
236: \tablenotetext{\blacklozenge}{Known transition disks (see, e.g. \citealt{calvet05}).}
237: \tablecomments{The 2MASS source name includes the J2000 sexagesimal, equatorial position in the form: hhmmssss+ddmmsss \citep{cutri03}.}
238: \tablerefs{
239: (1) \citealt{hb88}; (2) \citealt{kh95}; (3) \citealt{ss94};
240: (4) \citealt{hartigan94}; (5) \citealt{wg01}
241: }
242: \end{deluxetable}
243:
244:
245: \begin{deluxetable}{cl c cccccc}
246: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
247: \tablecaption{Main properties of the selected binary TTSs. \label{T:binary}}
248: \tablewidth{0pt}
249: \tablehead{
250: \colhead{\#}&\colhead{Source}&\colhead{2MASS~J}&\colhead{Adopted} & \colhead{Separation} & \colhead{Ref} & \colhead{Disk} & \colhead{Flux ratio}& \colhead{Ref}\\
251: \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{SpT\tablenotemark{\clubsuit}} & \colhead{(arcsec)} & \colhead{(SpT)} &
252: \colhead{configuration\tablenotemark{\spadesuit}} & \colhead{{\tiny(filter)}\tablenotemark{\blacklozenge}}&\colhead{(flux ratio)}}
253: \startdata
254: B1 & CoKu~Tau3 A-B & 04354093+2411087 & M1 & 2.05 & 1 & cp+cs & 4.7 {\tiny(L)} & 3\\
255: B2 & CZ~Tau A-B & 04183158+2816585 & M1.5 & 0.32 & 1 & cp+cs & 1.71 {\tiny(L)} & 10\\
256: B3 & DD~Tau A-B & 04183112+2816290 & M3+M3 & 0.56 & 2, 3 & cp+cs &1.75 {\tiny(N)}& 10\\
257: B4 & DF~Tau A -B & 04270280+2542223 & M0.5+M3& 0.09& 4, 3 & cp+cs & 1.6 {\tiny(K)}& 3\\
258: B5 & DK~Tau A-B & 04304425+2601244 & K9+M1 & 2.30 & 1, 5 & cp+cs& 8.53 {\tiny(SiC)}& 10\\
259: B6 & FO~Tau A-B & 04144928+2812305 & M2+M2 & 0.15 & 4, 3 & cp+cs& 1.7 {\tiny(L)}& 3\\
260: B7 & FS~Tau A-B & 04220217+2657304 & M1+M4 & 0.23 & 4, 3 & cp+cs& 5 {\tiny(L)}& 3\\
261: B8 & FV~Tau A-B & 04265352+2606543 & K5+K6 & 0.72 & 4, 2, 3 & cp+cs&2.2 {\tiny(N)}& 10\\
262: B9 & FX~Tau A-B & 04302961+2426450 & M1+M4 & 0.89 & 1, 5 & cp+cs&2.8 {\tiny(N)}& 10\\
263: B10 & GG~Tau Aa-Ab& 04323034+1731406 & K7+M0.5 & 0.25 & 6 & cp+cs&1.03 {\tiny(N)}& 10\\
264: B11 & GH~Tau A-B & 04330622+2409339 & M1.5+M2 & 0.31 & 3 & cp+cs&1.45 {\tiny(N)}& 10\\
265: B12 & GN~Tau A-B & 04392090+2545021 & M2.5 & 0.33 & 7 & cp+cs&1.53 {\tiny(L)} & 10\\
266: B13 & HK~Tau A-B & 04315056+2424180 & M1+M2 &2.34 & 1, 5 & cp+cs&30 {\tiny(SiC)}& 10\\
267: B14 & HN~Tau A-B & 04333935+1751523 & K5+M4 & 3.11 & 2 & cp+cs&65 {\tiny(L)}& 3\\
268: B15 & IS~Tau A-B & 04333678+2609492 & K7+M4.5 & 0.22 & 8, 3 & cp+cs&9 {\tiny(L)}& 3\\
269: B16 & IT~Tau A-B & 04335470+2613275 & K3+M4 & 2.39 & 5 & cp+cs&2.95 {\tiny(SiC)}& 10\\
270: B17 & RW~Aur A-B & 05074953+3024050 & K1+K5 & 1.42 & 9, 5 & cp+cs&13.63 {\tiny(N)}& 10\\
271: B18 & UY~Aur A-B & 04514737+3047134 & K7+M2 & 0.88 & 1, 5 & cp+cs&2.07 {\tiny(N)}& 10\\
272: B19 & V710~Tau A-B & 04315779+1821380 & M0.5+M2 & 3.17 & 2 & cp&12.7 {\tiny(SiC)}& 10\\
273: B20 & V807~Tau A-B & 04330664+2409549 & K7+M3 & 0.3 & 4, 2, 3 & cp&3.6 {\tiny(L)}& 3 \\
274: B21 & V955~Tau A-B & 04420777+2523118 & K5+M1 & 0.33 & 3 & cp+cs&5.6 {\tiny(L)}& 3\\
275: \enddata
276: \tablenotetext{\clubsuit}{The second spectral type, when available, is for the secondary star.}
277: \tablenotetext{\spadesuit}{'cp' stands for circumprimary disk while 'cs' stands for circumsecondary disk. These disk configurations have been determined via resolved optical and infrared photometry, see Sect.~\ref{S:sample} for details.}
278: \tablenotetext{\blacklozenge}{Flux ratios are calculated as primary/secondary. In parenthesis we provide the filter at which the flux ratio has been calculated (the SiC filter is centered at 11.8\,\micron{}, \citealt{mccabe06}). }
279: \tablecomments{The 2MASS source name includes the J2000 sexagesimal, equatorial position in the form: hhmmssss+ddmmsss \citep{cutri03}.}
280: \tablerefs{
281: (1) \citealt{leinert93}; (2) \citealt{hartigan94}; (3) \citealt{wg01};
282: (4) \citealt{cohen79}; (5) \citealt{duchene99};
283: (6) \citealt{white99}; (7) \citealt{wb03};
284: (8) \citealt{martin94}; (9) \citealt{mundt82}; (10) \citealt{mccabe06}
285: }
286: \end{deluxetable}
287:
288:
289: \section{Data Reduction}\label{S:redu}
290: We use the low--resolution {\it Spitzer} spectra around the 10\,\micron{} silicate emission feature to characterize the degree of dust processing in single and binary systems. Observations at wavelengths longer than $\sim$\,20\,\micron{} are necessary to
291: trace the evolution of the disk structure. For this, we prefer to use the MIPS 24\,\micron{} photometry that is available for all (except 6) targets rather than the spectra acquired with the long--low module of the IRS, which is lacking for 14 targets.
292: In the following we describe the data reduction of the {\it Spitzer} IRS spectra and of the 24\,\micron{} MIPS photometric data.
293:
294: \subsection{{\it Spitzer} IRS low--resolution spectra}
295: The IRS data presented in this paper have been acquired as part of the IRS/GTO program \citep{furlan06}
296: and became available to the community at the end of the year 2005.
297: Only six of the objects we selected (CY~Tau, DS~Tau, FM~Tau, IS~Tau, V710~Tau, and V807~Tau)
298: were observed in staring mode, with the targets placed in two nod positions along the spatial direction of the slit at 1/3 and 2/3 of the slit length. On all the other targets, a 2$\times$3 step mapping observation was carried out:
299: the three steps were chosen to be separated by three-quartes (for SL) or half (for LL) of the slit width in
300: the dispersion direction and the two steps were separated by one-third of the slit in the spatial direction.
301: The exposure time at each nod position was 6\,second for all targets with the exception of V710~Tau which had a
302: 14\,second exposure time per nod.
303:
304: We downloaded the low--resolution IRS data that were processed with
305: the SSC pipeline S13.2.0. Our data reduction starts from the {\it droopres} intermediate data product
306: and follows the steps outlined in detail in \citet{bouwman07}.
307: In brief, we first subtracted the pairs of imaged spectra acquired along the spatial direction of the slit
308: in order to correct for the background emission and stray--light. Then we replaced bad pixels
309: by interpolating over neighboring, good pixels. Although for our analysis we use only the SL data, we also extracted the LL part of the spectra for comparison with the MIPS 24\,\micron{} photometry where both datasets are available. Spectra were extracted from the
310: background--subtracted pixel--corrected images using a 6.0--pixel and 5.0--pixel fixed--width aperture in the
311: spatial direction for the SL (5.2--14\,\micron) and LL
312: (14---35\,\micron) modules, respectively. The low--level fringing at wavelengths $>$20\,\micron{} was removed using the irsfringe package \citep{lb03}.
313:
314: Because peak--up images were not acquired for the majority of the sources, targets may not have been positioned
315: accurately at the center of the slit. We determined the actual position of each source during extraction by finding the peak emission of the wavelength--collapsed source profile.
316: %{\bf COMMENT: discuss that the log part of the spectrum in SL was scaled to the short part of the spectrum. The reasoning is that the point-sperad function is smaller at short lambda....}
317: Once the spectra are extracted for each order, nod and cycle, we computed a mean spectrum for each order and assigned as uncertainty at each wavelength the 1--sigma standard deviation of the distribution of the data points.
318:
319: The absolute flux calibration was done using order--based spectral response functions created within the
320: {\it Formation and Evolution of Planetary Systems} (FEPS) Spitzer Legacy program \citep{hines05, meyer06,bouwman07}.
321: The advantages of this spectral response function over the standard SSC bcd calibration are:
322: a) the use of a larger number of calibrators from the FEPS
323: program; b) the spectral response function is order and nod--position based; c) it is a 1D spectral response function
324: allowing a better rejection of bad pixels. The estimated absolute flux calibration uncertainty is around 10\% \citep{bouwman07} and is propagated to the flux uncertainties assigned at each wavelength.
325: The resulting calibrated spectra are available in the electronic edition of the
326: Astrophysical Journal (Figs.~\ref{s1},~\ref{s2},~\ref{s3},~\ref{s4},~\ref{b1},~\ref{b2},~\ref{b3} and~\ref{b4}).
327:
328: We checked the absolute flux calibration of the IRS SL module using the published IRAC 8\,\micron{} photometry by \citet{hartmann05} and \citet{luhman06}, whose data have been acquired in two different campaigns, February--March 2004 and February 2005 respectively. Eleven sources have IRAC 8\,\micron{} magnitudes from both campaigns, while 5 more sources have only magnitudes from February--March 2004 \citep{hartmann05}, and 14 more sources only from February 2005
329: \citep{luhman06}. The mean difference in the IRAC 8\,\micron{} fluxes for the 11 sources observed in both campaigns is 16\%, much larger than the IRAC absolute flux calibration accuracy of a few percent \citep{reach05}. The largest deviations are for FV~Tau, DL~Tau, and DO~Tau whose 8\,\micron{} IRAC fluxes decreased by factors of 33\%, 23\%, and 23\% respectively in a year baseline.
330: These differences are likely due to intrinsic stellar variability. The IRS 8\,\micron{} fluxes integrated over the IRAC 8\,\micron{} spectral response curve agree on average within $\sim$10\% of the published IRAC photometry, which is within the estimated
331: IRS flux calibration uncertainty. We also verified that our spectra very well agree with those published by \citet{furlan06} who adopted a different data reduction.
332:
333:
334: \begin{deluxetable}{cl c c c}
335: %\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
336: \tabletypesize{\tiny}
337: \tablecaption{Fluxes at 24\,\micron{} from MIPS images (third column, F24) or at 25\,\micron{} from IRS spectra (fourth column, F25). The absolute photometric uncertainty is expected to be $\sim$10\%. This uncertainty includes both the internal random and the absolute calibration uncertainty, see text for details.\label{T:phot24}}
338: %\small
339: \tablewidth{0pt}
340: \tablehead{
341: \colhead{\#}&\colhead{Source}&\colhead{F24}&\colhead{F25}&\colhead{Comment} \\
342: \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{[mJy]} & \colhead{[mJy]} & \colhead{} }
343: \startdata
344: S1 & AA~Tau & 525 & ... & \\
345: S2 & BP~Tau & 666 & ... & \\
346: S3 & CI~Tau & 997 & ... & \\
347: S4 & CW~Tau & 1445 & ... & \\
348: S5 & CX~Tau & 296 & ... & \\
349: S6 & CY~Tau & 123 & ... & \\
350: S7 & DE~Tau & 677 & ... & \\
351: S8 & DH~Tau & 316 & ... & \\
352: S9 & DL~Tau & 965 & ... & \\
353: S10 & DM~Tau & ... & 320 & no MIPS24 \\
354: S11 & DN~Tau & 424 & ... &\\
355: S12 & DO~Tau & ... & 2951 & MIPS24 saturated\\
356: S13 & DP~Tau & 1281 & ... &\\
357: S14 & DS~Tau & ... & 303 & no MIPS24 \\
358: S15 & FM~Tau & 462 & ... & \\
359: S16 & FN~Tau & 1047& ... & \\
360: S17 & FZ~Tau & 1057& ... & \\
361: S18 & GI~Tau & 1006& ... & \\
362: S19 & GK~Tau & ... & 1699 & MIPS24 saturated \\
363: S20 & GM~Aur & 746 & ... & \\
364: S21 & IP~Tau & 277 & ... & \\
365: S22 & IQ~Tau & 544& ... & \\
366: S23 & LkCa~15& 398& ... & \\
367: % \hline
368: B1 & CoKu~Tau3 & 327 & ... & \\
369: B2 & CZ~Tau & 1232 & ... & \\
370: B3 & DD~Tau & 1575 & ... & \\
371: B4 & DF~Tau & 945 & ... &\\
372: B5 & DK~Tau & 1286 & ... & \\
373: B6 & FO~Tau & 529 & ... & \\
374: B7 & FS~Tau & ... & 2112 & MIPS24 saturated\\
375: B8 & FV~Tau & ... & 2344 & MIPS24 saturated\\
376: B9 & FX~Tau & 420 & ... & \\
377: B10 & GG~Tau & ... & 1266 & no MIPS24\\
378: B11 & GH~Tau & 379 & ... & \\
379: B12 & GN~Tau & 536 & ... & \\
380: B13 & HK~Tau & 823 & ... & \\
381: B14 & HN~Tau & & 2988 & no MIPS24\\
382: B15 & IS~Tau & 228 & ... & \\
383: B16 & IT~Tau & 264 & ... & \\
384: B17 & RW~Aur & ... & 2012 & no MIPS24\\
385: B18 & UY~Aur & ... & 5918 & no MIPS24\\
386: B19 & V710~Tau & 245 & ... &\\
387: B20 & V807~Tau & 476 & ... &\\
388: B21 & V955~Tau & 546 & ... & \\
389: \enddata
390: \end{deluxetable}
391:
392:
393: \subsection{{\it Spitzer} 24\,\micron{} photometry}\label{S:mips24}
394: MIPS 24\,\micron{} (hereafter MIPS24) data are available in the {\it Spitzer} archive for all but 6 of the targets we selected (specifically DM~Tau, DS~Tau, GG~Tau, HN~Tau, RW~Aur, and UY~Aur). The majority of the MIPS data have been acquired as part of the Taurus {\it Spitzer} Legacy Program (PI D. Padgett) in February--March 2005 (id=3584) and March 2007 (id=30816) using the MIPS scan map operational mode. V710~Tau and GM~Aur are not covered by these programs but have data from the c2d {\it Spitzer} Legacy Program (PI N. Evans, pid=173) and the GTO program respectively (PI G. Fazio, pid=37).
395: We downloaded the post--bcd MIPS 24\,\micron{} products processed through the SSC pipelines S14.4.0 or later.
396: In the case of photometry mode (only for V710~Tau), the SSC product is an averaged and registered single image while in the case of scan maps (for all other sources), the product is a distortion--corrected mosaic image\footnote{http://ssc.spitzer.caltech.edu/mips/dh/mipsdatahandbook3.2.pdf}.
397: The 24\,\micron{} post--bcd images generated from pipeline versions later than S14 have improved flat field corrections and are suitable for photometry at an accuracy of 10\% (Sect. 9.1 of the MIPS Data Handbook v 3.2, link in footnote 3), sufficient for the purposes of this study.
398:
399: Aperture photometry was done using IDP3 \citep{idp3}. The centeroid
400: of the aperture was found by fitting a Gaussian to each source.
401: We used an aperture radius of 6\farcs6 (2.7 pixels) and background annulus
402: from 20\arcsec{} to 32\arcsec. We opted for this intermediate aperture radius among those suggested by the Spitzer Science Center to include the emission from both binaries (as in the IRS spectra) and to exclude the emission from companions at $>$\,10\arcsec{} from some of the single stars (see, note to Table~\ref{T:single}).
403: To recover the total flux we then applied the proper aperture correction of 1.648 \footnote{http://ssc.spitzer.caltech.edu/mips/apercorr/}.
404: DO~Tau, GK~Tau, FS~Tau, and FV~Tau have 24\,\micron{} fluxes $\ge$1.6\,Jy and are thus saturated in the 3\,sec exposures
405: acquired within the Taurus {\it Spitzer} Legacy Program. For these sources as well as for the 6 targets that lack MIPS24 data, we computed the 25\,\micron{} flux (integrated flux from 23.5 to 26.5\,\micron) from our SL 6 \,\micron{} flux and the n$_{6-25}$ spectral indices from Table~4 of \citet{furlan06}\footnote{most of these sources are so bright that were observed only with the IRS high--resolution module. Therefore we could not compute 24\,\micron{} fluxes from the LL data we reduced}. We will show in Sect.~\ref{S:flaring} that our results are not affected by the use of 25\,\micron{} fluxes instead of 24\,\micron{} fluxes for these 10 objects.
406: For the sources that have both MIPS24 observations and LL data we find that our aperture photometry agrees within about 10\% with the IRS 24\,\micron{} flux integrated over the MIPS24 spectral response curve. Table~\ref{T:phot24} summarize the MIPS24 or the IRS25 fluxes for our sample of single and binary systems.
407:
408: \section{Results}\label{S:results}
409:
410: \begin{figure*}
411: \includegraphics[angle=90,scale=0.7]{f2.ps}
412: \caption{Strengths and shapes of the 10\,\micron{} silicate emission features for the sample of single (red circles)
413: and binary (blue squares) systems. On the y--axis we plot the ratios of the normalized flux at 8.6 and 11.3\,\micron{} over
414: 9.8\,\micron , which are proxies for the degree of crystallinity. The x--axis gives the peak over continuum in the 10\,\micron{} region of normalized spectra, which indicates the amount of grain growth. Objects with processed dust are located on the top left of the diagram. Average error bars are shown on the right upper corner of each plot (see Sect.~\ref{Sect:ss} for details).\label{F:ss}}
415: \end{figure*}
416:
417: \subsection{Strength and Shape of the 10\,\micron{} Feature}\label{Sect:ss}
418: The 10\,\micron{} silicate emission feature traces silicate dust in the optically thin layer of circumstellar disks out to about 1\,AU from a star with solar luminosity (e.g. \citealt{kessler07}). Because the smaller the grain the longer its timescale to settle to the disk midplane, the 10\,\micron{} feature probes the population of the smallest grains in a disk, up to a few micron in size.
419: The strength and shape of the feature bear information on the amount of processing that dust grains have undergone in the disk. In particular, the flux ratio of normalized spectra at 11.3 (or 8.6) over 9.8\,\micron{} can be used as a proxy for the degree of crystallization while the peak--to--continuum ratio can be used as a proxy for grain growth (e.g. \citealt{bouwman01,van05,apai05,bouwman07}). We use these band strengths to search for differences in the dust processing of single and binary systems.
420:
421: We first fit a third--order polynomial\footnote{A third order polynomial gives smaller residuals in the spectrum minus fitted continuum than a first, a second, or a fourth order polynomial. We also verified that the results discussed in this section do not change when using lower or higher order polynomials to fit the continuum.} to the spectral data outside the 10\,\micron{} silicate emission feature (between 6 and 8\,\micron{} and between 12 and 14\,\micron) and then
422: normalize our spectra to the fitted continuum. This normalization ensures that the shape of the spectral features
423: remains identical to the original one (e.g. \citealt{van05}). Fig.~\ref{F:ss} shows the band strengths for our sample of single (red circles) and multiple (blue squares) systems. The flux densities at 8.6, 9.8, and 11.3\,\micron{} are the mean values of flux densities within $\pm$0.1\,\micron{} of these wavelengths. To analyze the uncertainties we followed a Monte Carlo approach. For each disk we added a normally distributed noise to the spectrum and computed the peak--over--continuum and flux ratios 500 times. Their standard deviation gives the uncertainty on the peak--over--continuum and flux ratios for each target. The error bars in Fig.~\ref{F:ss} are the average uncertainties. The simulated noise had two components: i) a normally distributed noise at each wavelength with an amplitude equal to the flux uncertainty at that wavelength; ii) a random calibration uncertainty (equal at all wavelengths) with an amplitude of 10\%.
424:
425:
426: \begin{figure*}
427: \includegraphics[angle=90,scale=0.7]{f3.ps}
428: \caption{Histogram of the 10\,\micron{} feature strengths for the single (red) and binary (blue) systems.
429: The K--S test indicates that the two distributions are consistent with having been drawn from the same parent population. This suggests that the growth of grains up to a few micron in size is not affected by
430: the presence of a medium--separation stellar companion. \label{F:ratio}}
431: \end{figure*}
432:
433: \begin{figure*}
434: \includegraphics[angle=90,scale=0.7]{f4.ps}
435: \caption{Histogram of the flux ratios at 11.3 over 9.8\,\micron{} for the single (red) and binary (blue) systems.
436: The K--S test does not indicate that the two distributions differ statistically. This suggests that crystalline processing is not influenced by the presence of stellar companions at tens of AU. \label{F:peak}}
437: \end{figure*}
438:
439:
440: \begin{figure*}
441: \includegraphics[angle=90,scale=0.7]{f5.ps}
442: \caption{Strength (squares) and shape (stars) of the 10\,\micron{} silicate emission feature versus projected binary separation. The peak--over--continuum compared to the projected separation (squares) gives
443: a Kendall's $\tau$=0.1 and $P$=0.4 suggesting that these variables are not correlated. Similarly, the F11.3/F9.8 flux ratio is uncorrelated with the binary projected separation (stars) as indicated by a Kendall's $\tau$=0.02 and
444: $P$=0.9. \label{F:separ}}
445: \end{figure*}
446:
447: Objects on the bottom right side of Fig.~\ref{F:ss} have 10\,\micron{} emission features similar to the ISM absorption feature, thus their dust grains have experienced little processing. Conversely, objects on the top left side of
448: the plot have disks with larger grains (micron in size) and crystals.
449: There is an obvious anticorrelation between the strength of the 10\,\micron{} silicate emission feature and the F11.3/F9.8 (or F8.6/F9.8) flux ratios, which is apparent not only in Fig.~\ref{F:ss} but also in other similar plots in the literature (e.g. \citealt{van05,apai05}). We use the Kendall's $\tau$ test to measure the degree of anticorrelation.
450: This nonparametric test uses the relative rank ordering of pairs of data to compute two values (see e.g. \citealt{press03}): the rank correlation coefficient $\tau$ which runs between -1 (complete rank reversal) and 1 (complete rank agreement), and the two--sided probability $P$ that the variables are uncorrelated ($\tau=0$).
451: For the single stars in Fig.~\ref{F:ss} (circles), Kendall's $\tau=-0.8$ and $P=6\times10^{-8}$ for the F8.6/F9.8
452: flux ratio versus the peak--over--continuum while $\tau=-0.6$ and $P=2\times10^{-5}$ for the F11.3/F9.8 flux ratio versus the peak--over--continuum. For the binary stars in Fig.~\ref{F:ss} (squares), Kendall's $\tau=-0.5$ and
453: $P<0.001$ for the F8.6/F9.8 and the F11.3/F9.8 flux ratios versus the peak--over--continuum. We interpret these
454: trends as confirmation that there is a significant anticorrelation between the strength of the silicate emission features and the flux ratios presented in Fig.~\ref{F:ss}.
455: %This anti--correlation means that crystalline grains are observed in the 10\,\micron{} silicate emission features only if the features are dominated by micron--sized grains.
456: Therefore, both the peak--over--continuum and the F11.3/F9.8 (or F8.6/F9.8) flux ratios provide an analogue measurement of dust processing in circumstellar disks.
457:
458: %Interestingly, there are no multiple systems with peak over continuum $>2.1$ and F11.3/F9.8$<0.8$ (or F8.6/F9.8$<0.65$) suggesting that grains in multiple systems could undergo faster processing than grains in disks around single stars.
459:
460: The main question we want to answer in this paper is whether the population of disks around single stars statistically differ in terms of dust processing from the population of disks around binaries. In other words, do either of the two populations have more processed dust in their disks than the other?
461: To answer this question we apply the Kolmogorov--Smirnov (hereafter K--S) test (see, e.g. \citealt{press03}) and the Mann--Whitney U (hereafter MWU) test (see, e.g. \citealt{ronald}) on the peak--over--continuum and the flux ratios (F11.3/F9.8 and F8.6/F9.8) presented in Fig.~\ref{F:ss}.
462: The K--S and the MWU tests are both non--parametric tests with the null hypothesis that two samples are drawn from a single population and work on unbinned data.
463: Because the K--S test gives large probabilities of 0.2 for the peak--over--continuum of single and binaries and 0.3 for their
464: F11.3/F9.8 (and F8.6/F9.8) flux ratios, we conclude that both samples could have been drawn from the same distribution. Similarly the MWU test does not reveal any statistically significant difference in the degree of grain growth and crystallinity of the single and binary samples: the probability that both distributions were drawn from the same parent population for the peak--over continuum is 0.08 while for the flux ratios F11.3/F9.8 (and F8.6/F9.8) is 0.1.
465: Figs.~ \ref{F:ratio} and \ref{F:peak} provide a visualization of the peak--over continuum and F11.3/F9.8 flux ratio distributions for the samples of disks around single and binary stars.
466: Further supporting our conclusion, Fig.~\ref{F:separ} shows no clear trend of the strength (or shape) of the 10\,\micron{} feature with the projected separation of the companion. Kendall's $\tau$ are close to 0 and $P$ are large for the rank ordering of peak--over-continuum (or F11.3/F9.8) compared to the projected separation (see caption of Fig.~\ref{F:separ}) suggesting that the variables are uncorrelated.
467:
468:
469: \begin{figure*}
470: \includegraphics[angle=90,scale=0.7]{f6.ps}
471: \caption{Flux ratios at 13.25 over 5.7\,\micron{} (top), at 24.0 over 13.25\,\micron{} (middle), and at 24.0 over 5.7\,\micron{} (bottom) versus the peak--over--continuum in the 10\,\micron{} feature. These ratios are a proxy for the disk flaring; more flaring is indicated by larger ratios in the figure. Squares represent binaries, while circles indicate single stars. Filled symbols are for those sources that do not have MIPS24 photometry or are saturated in the MIPS exposures. For these sources we plot the IRS25 flux computed as described in Sect.~\ref{S:mips24}. Both single and binary systems have a large variety of disk structures.\label{F:flaring1}}
472: \end{figure*}
473:
474: \begin{figure*}
475: \includegraphics[angle=90,scale=0.7]{f7.ps}
476: \caption{Histograms for the flux ratios at 13.25 over 5.7\,\micron{} (top), at 24.0 over 13.25\,\micron{} (middle),
477: and at 24.0 over 5.7\,\micron{} (bottom) for the single (red) and binary (blue) systems. The distributions of flux
478: ratios (disk flaring) do not differ statistically according to the K--S and the MWU tests. MWU probabilities are
479: 0.22, 0.13, and 0.18 for the F13/F6, F24/F13, and F24/F6 respectively. \label{F:flaring2}}
480: \end{figure*}
481: \subsection{Dust settling}\label{S:flaring}
482: Coagulation models show that if the dust grains in the upper layers of a flared disk
483: become sufficiently large, they will gravitationally settle towards the mid--plane of the disk,
484: resulting in a flattened disk geometry (e.g. \citealt{rainer04,nomura06}). Thus a way to search for grain growth is to evaluate the flaring of circumstellar disks. While the shape of the 10\,\micron{} feature is sensitive to the presence of grains of a few microns in size in the disk upper layer the disk flaring should probe the overall grain population of larger grains (e.g. \citealt{dd04}).
485: To evaluate the disk flaring we use the ratio of fluxes at two different mid--infrared wavelengths.
486: This procedure is justified by two facts: a) the continuum flux emitted from the surface layer of the disk becomes
487: proportional to the disk flaring at radial distances from solar--type stars of 0.4\,AU or larger \citep{cg97} and b) these radial distances are probed by mid--infrared observations.
488:
489: We integrate the flux of our SL infrared spectra in two wavelength bands one shortward and one longward of the 10\,\micron{} silicate emission feature: 5.4--6.0\,\micron{} (central wavelength 5.7\,\micron) and 12.5--14.0\,\micron{} (central wavelength 13.25\,\micron). In addition, we use the MIPS24 photometry (or the IRS25 flux when MIPS is not available, see Table~\ref{T:phot24}) to trace the disk flaring out to a few AU from the central star. The calculated flux ratios are shown in Fig.~\ref{F:flaring1} and histograms are presented in Fig.~\ref{F:flaring2}. Larger flaring is indicated by higher ratios of long--wavelength continuum to short--wavelength continuum flux from the dust disk. These plots show that both single and binary systems have a large variety of disk structures with no preference for any structure in the two samples. The K--S and the MWU probabilities that the
490: the flux ratio distributions for single and binary stars come from the same parent population are higher than 0.1 confirming that
491: the distributions of disk flaring for the two samples are not statistically different (the same result holds when excluding the sources with IRS25 fluxes).
492:
493:
494:
495: \section{Discussion}\label{S:discussion}
496: Our study shows a large diversity in the 10\,\micron{} silicate emission features and SED slopes of T~Tauri disks. We found that neither the dust processing nor the disk flaring correlates with the multiplicity of the sources.
497: These results are particularly interesting for two aspects that will be discussed in the following.
498:
499: \subsection{Medium--separation binaries and planet formation}
500: A stellar companion induces tidal forces in a disk that become particularly strong at resonance points. Resonant interactions result in the excitation of density waves that can truncate a disk and act to modify the binary eccentricity (see e.g. \citealt{lubow00} for a review). Theoretical calculations of binary--disk interactions predict that circumstellar disks will be truncated at 0.2--0.5 times the binary semimajor axis $a$, with the exact values depending on eccentricity, mass ratio, and disk viscosity \citep{art94}. These theoretical expectations are supported by millimeter observations of binaries tracing the optically thin dust emission and thus the total disk mass in the system. There is evidence for a diminished millimeter flux (hence disk mass) among the 1--100\,AU binaries in comparison to wider binaries or single stars (e.g. \citealt{mathieu00} for a review). This result is qualitatively consistent with the circumstellar disks of medium--separation binaries being tidally truncated at 0.2--0.5$a$. Two--thirds of our sources have stellar companions between 0.1\arcsec--1\arcsec{}, with a mean projected separation of 0.4\arcsec{} or 56\,AU at the distance of Taurus. Therefore, the typical truncation radius for disks in our sample is $>$11--28\,AU, well outside the location of Jupiter and Saturn in our Solar System. Even in other systems these outer radii are found to be devoid of giant planets (e.g. \citealt{kasper07}). This fact suggests that the formation of terrestrial and giant planets may proceed undisturbed in disks around medium--separation binaries even if these disks are constrained in size.
501: %Although disks in binaries are constrained in size, the formation of terrestrial and giant planets could then proceed undisturbed if the circumstellar material is similar in surface density and temperature to that in disks around single stars. These parameters are difficult to constrain from observations, but there are indications of a similar pathway for planet formation in disks around single and medium--separation binaries.
502:
503:
504: Early investigations of young TTSs found no significant difference in the frequency of near-- and mid--infrared excess emission between single and binary star systems (e.g. \citealt{simonprato95,jensen96}). With the 60\micron{} IRAS flux probing dust $\la$10\,AU from the central star, these measurements demonstrate that binary systems as often have disks as single stars do.
505: Recently \citet{monin07} analyzed the separation distributions of binaries with and without disks and found no statistical difference. Since most of their binaries have projected separations $>$20\,AU, their result shows that medium--and wide-- separation binaries do not have a significant effect on the circumstellar disk lifetime.
506: Our work indicates that these disks also evolve in a similar way. The extent of dust processing in the disk surface layer and the degree of dust settling in binary disk systems do not statistically differ from those in disks around single stars. This suggests that the first few Myr of disk evolution in the terrestrial (and maybe out to the giant) planet--forming region are not affected by medium--separation stellar companions. Whether the disk evolution proceeds undisturbed for tens of millions of years until planets are fully formed cannot yet be assessed observationally. \citet{bouwman06} estimate a mean disk dispersion timescale of $\sim$5\,Myr for close ($\le$4AU) binaries in contrast to a timescale of $\approx$9\,Myr for single star systems. They argue that the time available to form planets in close binary systems is considerably shorter than that in disks around single stars, which may inhibit planet formation. The only two medium--separation binaries in their sample hint for a disk dispersal timescale comparable to that of single stars suggesting a similar disk evolution for single and medium--separation binary systems over the first $\sim$\,10\,Myr.
507:
508:
509: Exoplanet surveys offer us a glimpse into the frequency and properties of giant planets in multiple star systems. Recently \citet{eu07} reported 42 planets orbiting binary and multiple stars (see, their Table 1). \citet{bondes07} analyze a subsample of radial velocity planet host stars with uniform planet detectability and demonstrate that the overall frequency of giant planets in binaries is not statistically different from that of planets in single stars. However, they find indications for a lower frequency of radial velocity planets in the subgroup of close-- and medium--separation binaries ($<\,50-100$\,AU). In a complementary study, \citet{desbar07} find that the mass distribution of planets in binaries with separations $<\,300-500$\,AU is statistically different from that around wider binaries and single stars: Massive planets in short--period orbits are found predominantly around close-- and medium--separation binaries.
510: Taken together, the results from the frequency and properties of exoplanets suggest that
511: a stellar companion with separation less than a few hundred AU affects giant planet formation and/or the subsequent migration. Numerical simulations seem to support this notion. \citet{kley00} shows that a fairly eccentric ($e_{\rm bin}=0.5$) stellar companion at 50--100\,AU enhances the growth rate of a Jupiter mass planet embedded in a circumstellar disk and makes its inward migration more rapid. Recently, \citet{kn07} confirm these trends by following the evolution of a 30\,M$_\earth$ protoplanet in a disk truncated by a stellar companion at 18.5\,AU and $e_{\rm bin}=0.36$, like the $\gamma$~Cep binary system.
512: Our study shows that the early evolution of protoplanetary disks surrounding binary stars is similar to that in single stars indicating that that the differences in the exoplanet properties arise in the later stages of their formation and/or migration.
513:
514: Whether terrestrial planet formation is also affected by medium--separation binaries cannot be yet addressed observationally. Our study shows that the initial dust processing is not impacted by the presence of a stellar companion. Based on the fact that the build--up of planetesimals as large as the $\sim$500--km Vesta has occurred in the first 3.8$\pm$1.3~Myr of the Solar nebula \citep{kleine02}, it is reasonable to speculate on the basis of our study that the formation of planetesimals in binary and single systems proceed along, if not on identical avenues. Another indication supporting this suggestion comes from the finding of a similar incidence of debris disks in Gyr--old single and binary stars \citep{trilling06}. If the debris dust is produced by colliding asteroids, then the similar rate of debris dust in binaries implies that planetesimal formation is not inhibited by the presence of stellar companions. Recent simulations of the later stages of terrestrial planet formation show that rocky planets can form in a wide variety of binary systems \citep{quinta07}. The binary periastron is the most important parameter in limiting the number of forming planets and their range of orbits. \citet{quinta07} show that binaries with periastron $\ga$10\,AU, comprising most of the medium--separation binaries investigated in this paper, can form terrestrial planets over the entire range of orbits allowed for single stars. As a result more than 50\% of the binary systems in the Milky Way \citep{dm91} are wide enough to allow the formation of Earth--like planets.
515:
516: \subsection{The diversity in silicate features and SEDs}
517: Although small sample statistics suggested a correlation between stellar multiplicity and initial dust processing \citep{meeus03,sterzik04,sic07}, our study demonstrates that medium--separation stellar companions do not appreciably affect the growth and crystallization of dust in circumstellar disks.
518: Given the criteria applied to select our samples, we can also exclude that age, spectral type, and stellar environment can account for the large variety of observed silicate emission features and SED slopes in our study.
519: There may be several other factors contributing to this diversity that will be fully explored in an upcoming contribution. In the following we briefly mention two of them:
520:
521: Turbulence in circumstellar disks not only drives the accretion of gas onto the central star but also replenishes the disk atmosphere with more grains that can be larger in size. If the grains inferred from the 10\,\micron{} silicate emission feature reflect the level of disk turbulence, the strength of the features should depend on the stellar accretion rates.
522: \citet{sic07} note that stars with strong features tend to have large accretion rates in their sample of
523: several Myr old intermediate-- and low--mass stars. This trend may be the result of turbulence determining the grain population in the disk atmosphere. Alternatively, the trend could be due to the more massive stars (that have typically larger accretion rates) in their sample heating larger disk area and thus producing stronger silicate emission features (see, e.g. \citealt{kessler07}). The tentative correlation seen in the sample of \citet{sic07} needs to be confirmed using a larger and more homogeneous sample of stars with well--determined accretion rates.
524:
525: %Stellar high--energy photons (UV and X--rays) may also affect the distribution of grain sizes and the composition of solids in circumstellar disks. Low--mass TTs are strong emitters of relative hard KeV X-rays (Wolk et al. 2005) that could evaporate the grain mantle or the complete grain. Voit (1992) calculated that silicate ?? grains with a radius $<$10\AA evpaorates completed when subject to an X-ray energu of zz, which could be reached in the disk atmospheres for grains closer than yy from the central star. This could produce a grain size distribution biased toward larger grains. I DON'T UDERSTAND THE DRAINE A EQUANTION IT GIVES UNREASONABLE RESULTS!!! It says that 50um gains can survive (not evaporate as close as 2 stellar radii.)
526: %Low-mass TTSs also show for about 25\% of their time intense X--ray flares that can carry energies as high as a few MeV (Wolk et al. 2005). Such flares could melt and crystallize grains and may be responsible for the flash melted chondrules in meteorites (e.g. Shu et al. 2001). To asses the effect of stellar high--energy photons on small grains it would be interesting to correlate stellar UV/X-ray variability with changes in the strength and shape of the 10\,\micron{} silicate emission features.
527:
528:
529: Different initial conditions for the collapsing cores may also leave their imprints on the formation and evolution of circumstellar disks. This possibility has been explored by \citet{dullemond06} to explain crystallization of dust grains in the early stages of disk evolution. In their model the level of crystallinity depends crucially on the rotation rate of the collapsing cloud core because this determines the radius at which the infalling matter reaches the disk: rapidly rotating clouds would evolve into disks with low crystallinity, while slowly rotating clouds into disks with high crystallinity.
530:
531: \section{Summary}\label{S:summary}
532: In this paper we explored the effect of a stellar companion on the initial growth and settling of dust grains in circumstellar disks. We constructed two large samples of disks around single and binary TTSs with a narrow age spread and a spectral type distribution for the single stars identical to that of the primary stars in the binary sample. We used the strength of the 10\,\micron{} silicate emission feature derived from IRS/{\it Spitzer} spectra as a proxy for grain growth and the SED slope of circumstellar disks as a proxy for dust settling. Our results can be summarized as follows: \\
533: \smallskip
534: -- there is no statistically significant difference between the distribution of 10\,\micron{} silicate emission features from single and binary systems. \\
535: -- the distribution of disk flaring is indistinguishable between the single and binary system samples. \\
536: \smallskip
537: These results show that stellar companions at projected separations of $\ga$\,10\,AU do not appreciably affect the degree of crystallinity nor the degree of grain growth. Based on the combination of these and other results we argue that the formation of planetesimals and possibly terrestrial planets is not inhibited in a circumstellar disk perturbed by a medium--separation stellar companion.
538:
539:
540:
541: %%%%%%%%%% Single star spectra
542: \begin{figure*}
543: \includegraphics[angle=90,scale=0.7]{f8.ps}
544: \caption{Infrared spectra for the sample of single stars.\label{s1}}
545: \end{figure*}
546: \begin{figure*}
547: \includegraphics[angle=90,scale=0.7]{f9.ps}
548: \caption{Infrared spectra for the sample of single stars.\label{s2}}
549: \end{figure*}
550: \begin{figure*}
551: \includegraphics[angle=90,scale=0.7]{f10.ps}
552: \caption{Infrared spectra for the sample of single stars.\label{s3}}
553: \end{figure*}
554: \begin{figure*}
555: \includegraphics[angle=90,scale=0.7]{f11.ps}
556: \caption{Infrared spectra for the sample of single stars.\label{s4}}
557: \end{figure*}
558:
559: %%%%%%%%%% Binary star spectra
560: \begin{figure*}
561: \includegraphics[angle=90,scale=0.7]{f12.ps}
562: \caption{Infrared spectra for the sample of binary stars.\label{b1}}
563: \end{figure*}
564: \begin{figure*}
565: \includegraphics[angle=90,scale=0.7]{f13.ps}
566: \caption{Infrared spectra for the sample of binary stars.\label{b2}}
567: \end{figure*}
568: \begin{figure*}
569: \includegraphics[angle=90,scale=0.7]{f14.ps}
570: \caption{Infrared spectra for the sample of binary stars.\label{b3}}
571: \end{figure*}
572: \begin{figure*}
573: \includegraphics[angle=90,scale=0.7]{f15.ps}
574: \caption{Infrared spectra for the sample of binary stars.\label{b4}}
575: \end{figure*}
576:
577: \acknowledgments
578: This work is based on observations made with
579: the Spitzer Space Telescope, which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California
580: Institute of Technology. We are pleased to acknowledge support through
581: NASA contract 1290778 and through the NASA Astrobiology Institute. We thank D. Padgett, PI of the {\it Spitzer} Legacy team mapping the Taurus Molecular Cloud, for providing such a valuable dataset to the star and planet formation community. We thank the anonymous referee for thoughtful comments that helped to improve the manuscript.
582:
583:
584: %% To help institutions obtain information on the effectiveness of their
585: %% telescopes, the AAS Journals has created a group of keywords for telescope
586: %% facilities. A common set of keywords will make these types of searches
587: %% significantly easier and more accurate. In addition, they will also be
588: %% useful in linking papers together which utilize the same telescopes
589: %% within the framework of the National Virtual Observatory.
590: %% See the AASTeX Web site at http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AAS/AASTeX
591: %% for information on obtaining the facility keywords.
592:
593: %% After the acknowledgments section, use the following syntax and the
594: %% \facility{} macro to list the keywords of facilities used in the research
595: %% for the paper. Each keyword will be checked against the master list during
596: %% copy editing. Individual instruments or configurations can be provided
597: %% in parentheses, after the keyword, but they will not be verified.
598:
599: {\it Facilities:} \facility{Spitzer Space Telescope}
600:
601: %% Appendix material should be preceded with a single \appendix command.
602: %% There should be a \section command for each appendix. Mark appendix
603: %% subsections with the same markup you use in the main body of the paper.
604:
605: %% Each Appendix (indicated with \section) will be lettered A, B, C, etc.
606: %% The equation counter will reset when it encounters the \appendix
607: %% command and will number appendix equations (A1), (A2), etc.
608:
609: %%\appendix
610:
611: %\section{Appendix material}
612:
613:
614: %% The reference list follows the main body and any appendices.
615: %% Use LaTeX's thebibliography environment to mark up your reference list.
616: %% Note \begin{thebibliography} is followed by an empty set of
617: %% curly braces. If you forget this, LaTeX will generate the error
618: %% "Perhaps a missing \item?".
619: %%
620: %% thebibliography produces citations in the text using \bibitem-\cite
621: %% cross-referencing. Each reference is preceded by a
622: %% \bibitem command that defines in curly braces the KEY that corresponds
623: %% to the KEY in the \cite commands (see the first section above).
624: %% Make sure that you provide a unique KEY for every \bibitem or else the
625: %% paper will not LaTeX. The square brackets should contain
626: %% the citation text that LaTeX will insert in
627: %% place of the \cite commands.
628:
629: %% We have used macros to produce journal name abbreviations.
630: %% AASTeX provides a number of these for the more frequently-cited journals.
631: %% See the Author Guide for a list of them.
632:
633: %% Note that the style of the \bibitem labels (in []) is slightly
634: %% different from previous examples. The natbib system solves a host
635: %% of citation expression problems, but it is necessary to clearly
636: %% delimit the year from the author name used in the citation.
637: %% See the natbib documentation for more details and options.
638:
639: \begin{thebibliography}{}
640: \bibitem[Apai et al.(2005)]{apai05} Apai, D., Pascucci, I., Bouwman, J., Natta, A., Henning, Th., Dullemond, C. P. 2005, Science, 310, 834
641: \bibitem[Artymowicz \& Lubow(1994)]{art94} Artymowicz, P. \& Lubow, S. H. 1994, \apj, 421, 651
642: \bibitem[Beckwith et al.(2000)]{beckwith00} Beckwith, S. V. W., Henning, T., Nakagawa, Y. 2000, 533, in Protostars
643: and Planets IV, eds. Mannings, V., Boss, A.P., Russell, S. S. (Tucson: Univ. Arizona Press)
644: \bibitem[Bonavita \& Desidera(2007)]{bondes07} Bonavita, M. \& Desidera, S. 2007, \aap{} in press (astro-ph 3754)
645: \bibitem[Bouwman et al.(2001)]{bouwman01} Bouwman, J., Meeus, G., de Koter, A., Hony, S., Dominik, C., Waters, L. B. F. M. 2001, \aap, 375, 950
646: \bibitem[Bouwman et al.(2006)]{bouwman06} Bouwman, J., Lawson, W. A., Dominik, C., Feigelson, E. D., Henning, Th., Tielens, A. G. G. M., Waters, L. B. F. M. 2006, \apj, L653, 57
647: \bibitem[Bouwman et al.(2007)]{bouwman07} Bouwman, J., Henning, Th., Hillenbrand, L. A., Meyer, M. R., Pascucci, I., Carpenter, J. M., Hines, D. C., Kim, J. S., Silverstone, M. D. 2007, \apj, submitted
648: \bibitem[Calvet et al.(2005)]{calvet05} Calvet, N., D'Alessio, P., Watson, D. M., Franco-Hern‡ndez, R., Furlan, E., Green, J. et al. 2005, \apjl, 630, 185
649: \bibitem[Chiang \& Goldreich(1997)]{cg97} Chiang, E. I. \& Goldreich, P. 1997, \apj, 490, 368
650: \bibitem[Cohen \& Kuhi(1979)]{cohen79} Cohen, M.\& Kuhi, L. V. 1979, \apjs, 41, 743
651: \bibitem[Cutri et al.(2003)]{cutri03} Cutri, R. M., Skrutskie, M. F., van Dyk, S. et al. 2003, 2MASS All Sky Catalog of point sources
652: \bibitem[Desidera \& Barbieri(2007)]{desbar07} Desidera, S. \& Barbieri, M. 2007, \aap, 462, 345
653: \bibitem[Dubrulle et al.(1995)]{dubrulle95} Dubrulle, B., Morfill, G., Sterzik, M. 1995, Icarus, 114, 237
654: \bibitem[Duch\^{e}ne et al.(1999)]{duchene99} Duch\^{e}ne, G., Monin, J.-L., Bouvier, J., Menard, F. 1999, \aap, 351, 954
655: \bibitem[Duch\^{e}ne et al.(2007)]{duchene07} Duch\^{e}ne, G., Delgado--Donate, E., Haisch, K. E., Jr., Loinard, L., Rodr\'{i}guez, L. F. 2007, 379, in Protostars and Planets V, eds. B. Reipurth, D. Jewitt, \& K. Keil (Tucson: Univ. Arizona Press)
656: \bibitem[Dullemond \& Dominik(2004)]{dd04} Dullemond, C. P. \& Dominik, C. 2004, \aap, 421, 1075
657: \bibitem[Dullemond et al.(2006)]{dullemond06} Dullemond, C. P., Apai, D., Walch, S. 2006, \apj, L640, 67
658: \bibitem[Duquennoy \& Mayor(1991)]{dm91} Duquennoy, A. \& Mayor, M. 1991, \aap, 248, 485
659: \bibitem[Eggenberger \& Udry(2007)]{eu07} Eggenberger, A. \& Udry, S. 2007, in Planets in Binary Star Systems, ed. N. Haghighipour (Springer Publishing Company)
660: \bibitem[Feigelson et al.(2007)]{feigelson07} Feigelson, E., Townsley, L., G\"{u}del, M., Stassun, K. 2007, 313, in Protostars and Planets V, eds. B. Reipurth, D. Jewitt, \& K. Keil (Tucson: Univ. Arizona Press)
661: \bibitem[Furlan et al.(2006)]{furlan06} Furlan, E. et al. 2006, \apjs, 165, 568
662: \bibitem[Geers et al.(2006)]{geers06} Geers, V. C. et al. 2006, \aap, 459, 545
663: \bibitem[Ghez et al.(1993)]{ghez93} Ghez, A. M., Neugebauer, G., Matthews, K. 1993, \aj, 106, 2005
664: \bibitem[Jensen et al.(1996)]{jensen96} Jensen, E. L. N., Mathieu, R. D., Fuller, G. A. 1996, \apj, 458, 312
665: \bibitem[Jensen \& Mathieu(1997)]{jm97} Jensen, E. L. N. \& Mathieu, R. D. 1997, \aj, 114, 301
666: \bibitem[Hartigan et al.(1994)]{hartigan94} Hartigan, P., Strom, K. M., Strom, S. E. 1994, \apj, 427, 961
667: \bibitem[Hartigan \& Kenyon(2003)]{harken03} Hartigan, P. \& Kenyon, S. J. 2003, \apj, 583, 334
668: \bibitem[Hartmann(2001)]{hartmann01} Hartmann, L. 2001, \aj, 121, 1030
669: \bibitem[Hartmann et al.(2005)]{hartmann05} Hartmann, L., Megeath, S. T., Allen, L., Luhman, K., Calvet, N., D'Alessio, P., Franco--Hernandez, R., Fazio, G. 2005, \apj, 629, 881
670: \bibitem[Herbig \& Bell(1988)]{hb88} Herbig, G. H. \& Bell, K. R. 1988, Lick Obs. Bull., 1111, 1
671: \bibitem[Hines et al.(2005)]{hines05} Hines, D. C. et al. 2005, Formation and Evolution of Planetary Systems, Data Explanatory supplement, v 3.0, http://ssc.spitzer.caltech.edu/legacy/fepshistory.html
672: \bibitem[Itoh et al.(2005)]{itoh05} Itoh, Y., Hayashi, M., Tamura, M., Tsuji, T., Oasa, Y., Fukagawa, M. et al. 2005, \apj, 620, 984
673: \bibitem[Kasper et al.(2007)]{kasper07} Kasper, M., Apai, D., Janson, M., Brandner, W. 2007, \aap, 472, 321
674: \bibitem[Kenyon \& Hartmann(1995)]{kh95} Kenyon, S. J. \& Hartmann, L. W. 1995, \apjs,101, 117
675: \bibitem[Kessler--Silacci et al.(2006)]{kessler06} Kessler--Silacci, J. et al. 2006, \apj, 639, 275
676: \bibitem[Kessler--Silacci et al.(2007)]{kessler07} Kessler--Silacci, J. et al. 2007, \apj, 659, 680
677: \bibitem[Kleine et al.(2002)]{kleine02} Kleine, T., M\"{u}nker, C., Mezger, K., Palme, H. 2002, Nature, 418, 952
678: \bibitem[Kley(2000)]{kley00} Kley, W. 2000, in IAU Symposium, 211P
679: \bibitem[Kley \& Nelson(2007)]{kn07} Kley, W. \& Nelson, R. 2007, in Planets in Binary Star Systems, ed. N. Haghighipour (Springer Publishing Company)
680: \bibitem[Lahuis \& Boogert(2003)]{lb03} Lahuis, F. \& Boogert, A. 2003, in SFChem 2002: Chemistry as a Diagnostic of Star
681: Formation, proceedings of a conference held August 21-23, 2002 at University of
682: Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, ed. C. L. Curry \& M. Fich, 335
683: \bibitem[Leinert et al.(1993)] {leinert93} Leinert, Ch., Zinnecker, H., Weitzel, N., Christou, J., Ridgway, S. T., Jameson, R., Haas, M., Lenzen, R. 1993, \aap, 278, 129
684: \bibitem[Lissauer \& Stewart(1993)]{ls93} Lissauer, J. J.\& Stewart, G. R. 1993, 1061, in Protostars
685: and Planets III
686: \bibitem[Lubow \& Artymowicz(2000)]{lubow00} Lubow, S. H. \& Artymowicz, P. 2000, 731, in Protostars
687: and Planets IV, eds. Mannings, V., Boss, A.P., Russell, S. S. (Tucson: Univ. Arizona Press)
688: \bibitem[Luhman et al.(2006)]{luhman06} Luhman, K. L., Whitney, B. A., Meade, M. R., Babler, B. L., Indebetouw, R., Bracker, S., Churchwell, E. B. 2006, \apj, 647, 1180
689: \bibitem[Martin et al.(1994)]{martin94} Martin, E. L., Rebolo, R., Magazzu, A., Pavlenko, Ya. V. 1994, \aap, 282, 503
690: \bibitem[Mathieu(1994)]{mathieu94} Mathieu, R. D. 1994, \aapr, 32, 465
691: \bibitem[Mathieu et al.(2000)]{mathieu00} Mathieu, R. D., Ghez, A. M., Jensen, E. L. N., Simon, M. 2000, 703, in Protostars
692: and Planets IV, eds. Mannings, V., Boss, A.P., Russell, S. S. (Tucson: Univ. Arizona Press)
693: \bibitem[McCabe et al.(2006)]{mccabe06} McCabe C., Ghez, A. M., Prato, L., Duchene, G., Fisher, R. S., Telesco, C. 2006, \apj, 636, 932
694: \bibitem[Meeus et al.(2003)]{meeus03} Meeus G., Sterzik, M., Bouwman, J., Natta, A. 2003, \aap, L409, 25
695: \bibitem[Meyer et al.(2006)]{meyer06} Meyer, M. R., Hillenbrand, L. A., Backman, D. et al. 2006, PASP, 118, 1690
696: \bibitem[Monin et al.(2007)]{monin07} Monin, J.-L., Clarke, C. J., Prato, L., McCabe, C. 2007, in Protostars
697: and Planets V, eds. B. Reipurth, D. Jewitt, and K. Keil (Tucson: Univ. Arizona Press)
698: \bibitem[Mundt \& Giampapa(1982)]{mundt82} Mundt, R. \& Giampapa, M. S. 1982, \apj, 256, 156
699: \bibitem[Nomura \& Nakagawa(2006)]{nomura06} Nomura, H. \& Nakagawa, Y. 2006, \apj, 640, 1099
700: \bibitem[Press et al.(1993)]{press03} Press W. H., Flannery, B. P., Teukolsky, S. A., \& Vetterling, W. T. 1993,
701: Numerical Recipes in FORTRAN 77 (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press)
702: \bibitem[Przygodda et al.(2003)]{prz03} Przygodda, F., van Boekel, R., \'{A}brah\'{a}m, P., Melnikov, S. Y., Waters, L. B. F. M., Leinert, Ch. 2003, \aap, L412, 43
703: \bibitem[Quintana \& Lissauer(2007)]{quinta07} Quintana, E. V. \& Lissauer, J. J. 2007, in Planets in Binary Star Systems, ed. N. Haghighipour (Springer Publishing Company)
704: \bibitem[Reach et al.(2005)]{reach05} Reach, W. T. et al. 2005, PASP, 117, 978
705: \bibitem[Ronald \& Raymond(1985)]{ronald} Ronald E. W. \& Raymond H. M. 1985, PROBABILITY and STATISTICS for ENGINEERS and SCIENTISTS (3rd edition)
706: \bibitem[Schneider \& Stobie(2002)]{idp3} Schneider, G., \& Stobie, E. 2002, ASP Conf. Ser. 281, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and System XI, ed. D. A. Bohlender, D. Durand, \& T. H. Handley (San Francisco: ASP), p. 382
707: \bibitem[Schr\"{a}pler \& Henning(2004)]{rainer04} Schr\"{a}pler, R. \& Henning, Th. 2004, \apj, 614, 960
708: \bibitem[Sicilia--Aguilar et al.(2007)]{sic07} Sicilia--Aguilar, A., Hartmann, L. W., Watson, D., Bohac, C., Henning, Th., Bouwman, J. 2007, \apj, 659, 1637
709: \bibitem[Simon \& Prato(1995)]{simonprato95} Simon, M. \& Prato, L. 1995, \apj, 450, 824
710: \bibitem[Simon et al.(1995)]{simon95} Simon, M. et al. 1995, \apj, 443, 625
711: \bibitem[Stassun et al.(2001)]{stassun01} Stassun, K. G., Mathieu, R. D., Vrba, F. J., Mazeh, T., Henden, A. 2001, \aj, 121, 1003
712: \bibitem[Sterzik et al.(2004)]{sterzik04} Sterzik, M. F., Pascucci, I., Apai, D., van der Bliek, N., Dullemond, C. P. 2004, \aap, 427, 245
713: \bibitem[Strom \& Strom(1994)]{ss94} Strom, K. M. \& Strom, S. E. 1994, \apj, 424, 237
714: \bibitem[Trilling et al.(2006)]{trilling06} Trilling, D. E., Stansberry, J. A., Stapelfeldt, K. R. et al. 2006, \apj, in press
715: \bibitem[van Boekel et al.(2005)]{van05} van Boekel, R., Min, M., Waters, L. B. F. M., de Koter, A., Dominik, C., van den Ancker, M. E., Bouwman, J. 2005, \aap, 437, 189
716: \bibitem[White et al.(1999)]{white99} White, R. J., Ghez, A. M., Reid, I. N., Schultz, G. 1999, \apj, 520, 811
717: \bibitem[White \& Ghez(2001)]{wg01} White, R. J. \& Ghez, A. M. 2001, \apj, 556, 265
718: \bibitem[White \& Basri(2003)]{wb03} White, R. J. \& Basri, G. 2003, \apj, 582, 1109
719: \end{thebibliography}
720:
721: \clearpage
722:
723: \end{document}
724:
725: %%
726: %% End of file `sample.tex'.
727: