1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: %
3: % Version 5.6 Revised December 4, 2007 Resubmitted MRM - Cambridge, MA
4: %
5: \begin{document}
6: \title{Evolution of Mid--IR Excess Around Sun--like Stars: \\
7: Constraints on Models of Terrestrial Planet Formation}
8: \author{M.R. Meyer\altaffilmark{1},
9: J.M. Carpenter\altaffilmark{2},
10: E.E. Mamajek\altaffilmark{3},
11: L.A. Hillenbrand\altaffilmark{2},
12: D. Hollenbach\altaffilmark{4},
13: A. Moro--Martin\altaffilmark{5},
14: J.S. Kim\altaffilmark{1},
15: M.D. Silverstone\altaffilmark{1},
16: J. Najita\altaffilmark{6},
17: D.C. Hines\altaffilmark{7},
18: I. Pascucci\altaffilmark{1},
19: J.R. Stauffer\altaffilmark{8},
20: J. Bouwman\altaffilmark{9}, \&
21: D.E. Backman\altaffilmark{10}}
22: \altaffiltext{1}{Steward Observatory, The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ; mmeyer, serena, msilverstone, pascucci -- @as.arizona.edu}
23: \altaffiltext{2}{Astronomy, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA; jmc, lah -- @astro.caltech.edu}
24: \altaffiltext{3}{Harvard--Smithsonian CfA, Cambridge, MA; emamajek@cfa.harvard.edu}
25: \altaffiltext{4}{NASA--Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA; hollenbach@ism.arc.nasa.gov}
26: \altaffiltext{5}{Astronomy, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ; amaya@astro.princeton.edu}
27: \altaffiltext{6}{National Optical Astronomy Observatory, Tucson, AZ; jnajita@noao.edu}
28: \altaffiltext{7}{Space Science Institute, Boulder, CO; hines@spacescience.org}
29: \altaffiltext{8}{Spitzer Science Center, Pasadena, CA; stauffer@ipac.caltech.edu}
30: \altaffiltext{9}{Max--Planck Institut f\"ur Astronomie, Heidelberg, Germany; bouwman@mpia.mpg.de}
31: \altaffiltext{10}{SETI Institute, Mountain View, CA; dbackman@mail.arc.nasa.gov}
32:
33: \begin{abstract} We report observations from the Spitzer Space
34: Telescope (SST) regarding the frequency of 24 $\mu$m excess emission toward
35: sun-like stars.
36: Our unbiased sample is comprised of 309 stars with masses 0.7-2.2
37: M$_{\odot}$ and ages from $<$3 Myr to $>$3 Gyr that lack excess
38: emission at wavelengths $\leq$8 $\mu$m. We identify 30 stars that
39: exhibit clear evidence of excess emission from the observed
40: $24/8 \mu$m flux ratio. The implied 24 $\mu$m excesses of these
41: candidate debris disk systems range from 13 \% (the minimum detectable) to more
42: than 100\% compared to the expected photospheric emission.
43: The frequency of systems with evidence for dust debris emitting
44: at 24 $\mu$m ranges from 8.5--19 \% at ages $<$300 Myr to $<$ 4 \%
45: for older stars. The results suggest that many, perhaps most,
46: sun-like stars might form terrestrial planets.
47: \end{abstract}
48:
49: \keywords{planetary systems: formation; infrared: stars; stars: circumstellar matter}
50:
51: \section {Introduction}
52:
53: Are planetary systems like our own common or rare in the Milky Way
54: galaxy? The answer depends on what aspect of our planetary system one
55: is investigating. Gas and dust rich circumstellar disks appear to be a
56: common outcome of the star formation process \citep{Strom93}. Gas
57: giant planets within 5 AU (presumably formed from these disks)
58: surround $>$6\% of sun-like stars \citep{Marcy05} while the detection
59: of terrestrial planets is still in its infancy \citep{Beaulieu06}.
60: Although debates concerning theories of giant planet
61: formation continue \citep{Durisen07,Lissauer07}, there
62: is some consensus regarding the formation of terrestrial planets
63: \citep[e.g.][]{Nagasawa07}. Starting with a swarm of 1
64: km-sized planetesimals, orderly growth of larger bodies proceeds
65: rapidly ($<$ 1 Myr) out to at least 2 AU. When the gravitational cross
66: section greatly exceeds the geometrical cross section of the largest objects,
67: growth transitions from orderly to oligarchic with the biggest bodies
68: growing fastest in a runaway process. The final stage, chaotic growth,
69: is characterized by high velocity collisions between the few remaining
70: large bodies in the system. Remaining challenges include the
71: formation of km-sized planetesimals in the face of gas drag on
72: meter-sized bodies \citep{Weidenschilling77} and Type I migration of
73: lunar-mass objects in a remnant gas disk \citep{Nelson05}.
74:
75: Yet there are few observational tests of this developed theory. The
76: physical characteristics of the terrestrial planets, their satellites,
77: and the asteroid belt provide constraints on the formation of our
78: solar system \citep{Bottke05,O'Brien06}. Observations of
79: circumstellar dust debris surrounding sun-like stars can be used to
80: trace the presence of planetesimal belts of larger parent bodies
81: \citep{Meyer07} and thus constrain theories of planet formation.
82: Far--IR observations at 70 $\mu$m with the
83: Spitzer Space Telescope suggest that 10-15\% of sun-like stars
84: possess cool outer dust disks that are massive analogs of the Kuiper
85: Belt \citep{Bryden06}. Yet few mature stars exhibit mid--infrared
86: excess indicative of terrestrial temperature material
87: \citep{Beichman05}. Recent work with the Spitzer Space
88: Telescope has begun to assess the frequency of this emission around
89: younger stars \citep{Chen05, Hernandez06}.
90: In this contribution we use
91: Spitzer data to investigate the frequency of mid-IR excess emission,
92: which may originate from 1--10 AU, observed toward sun--like stars
93: over a wide range of ages spanning the epoch of terrestrial
94: planet formation in our Solar System.
95:
96: \section{Observations}
97:
98: Observations were obtained as part of the Formation and Evolution of
99: Planetary Systems (FEPS) Legacy Science Program \citep{Meyer06}. Our
100: sample consists of 328 ``sun-like'' stars with spectral types F5-K3
101: and masses ranging from 0.7-2.2 M$_{\odot}$ (though strongly peaked at
102: 1.0 M$_{\odot}$). The sample was constructed so that roughly
103: equal numbers of stars were selected in logarithmically spaced
104: age-bins from 3 Myr to 3 Gyr (each bin spanning a factor of x3 in
105: age). Stars $<$ 100 Myr were largely drawn from young stellar
106: populations within the Local Association, often
107: members of OB and T Associations. Ages for
108: these stars were estimated from pre-main sequence evolutionary tracks,
109: as well as kinematic association with groups of known age
110: \citep[e.g.][]{Mamajek02}. Older main sequence stars were selected
111: from a volume-limited sample of stars taken from the HIPPARCOS
112: catalog. Ages for these stars were estimated from calcium H \& K
113: emission-line indices which trace stellar activity levels using
114: the calibration of \citet{Donahue98}. Errors in age for both the
115: young stellar populations as well as the main sequence stars are
116: estimated to be $<$ 50 \%, though uncertainties in the absolute
117: calibration of these ages are not well
118: understood. A fraction of our sample in the age
119: range from 30 Myr to 1 Gyr were selected to be members of open
120: clusters with well determined ages \citep[e.g.][]{Stauffer05}.
121: Our sample selection is described in \citet{Meyer06} and details concerning the
122: age estimates for each star are given in Hillenbrand et al. (in
123: prep). We fit Kurucz model atmospheres to B/V (Tycho) photometry from
124: HIPPARCOS and JHK$_S$ photometry from 2MASS. We assumed solar
125: metalicity and surface gravities estimated from the position of each
126: star in the H--R diagram, performing a non-linear least squares fit
127: for T$_{eff}$ and solid angle. For stars within 75 pc, we
128: assumed A$_v$=0 while for more distant targets A$_v$
129: was a free parameter.
130:
131: All sources were detected at 8 $\mu$m and 24 $\mu$m with SNR $>$
132: 30 using the SST. Photometry at 8 $\mu$m was derived from sub--array
133: observations with the IRAC instrument \citep{Fazio04}. We began our
134: analysis with data processed through the S13 pipeline. Cosmic ray
135: rejection was implemented and corrections for spatially-dependent
136: pixel area and filter response variations were applied. Aperture
137: photometry was derived from from a 3.7'' radius aperture
138: (with sky anuli ranging from 12.2--24.4'') using
139: a modified version of IDLPHOT and placed
140: on the standard flux scale recommended by \citet{Reach05}. Systematic
141: calibration errors are estimated to be $<$ 2 \% in each band.
142: Random photometric uncertainties were estimated from the repeatability
143: of 64 observations obtained at each dither position for each source
144: resulting in minimum uncertainties of 1\% at $8 \mu$m.
145: Photometry at 24 $\mu$m was derived from either 28 or 56 exposures
146: with integration times of 3 or 10 seconds each with the MIPS
147: instrument \citep{Rieke04}. We began with S13 pipeline data and
148: photometry was derived using the MOPEX software.
149: Fluxes were estimated from a PSF--fitting algorithm and placed
150: on the flux scale recommended by the SSC. Calibration errors are
151: thought to be $<$ 4\% \citep[cf.][]{Engelbracht07}. The minimum
152: random uncertainties in the 24 $\mu$m photometry are 1 \%.
153:
154: \section{Analysis}
155:
156: Of the parent sample of 328, 14 stars were selected for our initial
157: IRS search for remnant circumstellar gas \citep{Pascucci06} on the
158: basis of previously detected dust disk signatures. Our analysis
159: starts with the unbiased FEPS sample of 314 (= 328 - 14) stars
160: spanning a range of ages from $<$3 Myr to $>$3 Gyr. We use the
161: $24/8 \mu$m flux ratio to search for stars that exhibit excess
162: emission. These data are plotted in Figure 1 as a function of $8 \mu$m
163: flux. Note that the brighter sources tend to be nearby
164: (older) field stars, while fainter targets tend to be more distant
165: (and younger) sources. Several systems exhibit flux
166: ratios indicative of a 24 $\mu$m excess.
167: The expected photospheric ratio ($24/8 \mu$m) in this
168: diagram is approximately 0.116. In
169: order to define an empirical ``blue envelope'' of stars without excess,
170: we employed a sigma--clipping algorithm to the distribution of
171: $24/8 \mu$m flux ratios. Initially, the mean flux ratio was computed
172: to be 0.190 with $\sigma$ = 0.82, and two outliers with ratios
173: beyond 3$\sigma$ (indicating obvious excess).
174: Removing these two outliers, we recompute the mean and
175: sigma, resulting in identification of three additional sources with
176: smaller excesses. Repeating this process a total of seven times, the
177: values converge with a mean of
178: 0.117 and $\sigma$ = 0.005 as shown in Figure 1,
179: consistent with model predictions.
180: We identify 35 (positive) outliers which we attribute to excess
181: emission in the $24 \mu$m band. Of these, only five exhibit excess emission
182: at $\leq 8 \mu$m and were previously identified in \citet{Silverstone06} as
183: optically--thick primordial gas rich disks. Because we are
184: interested in understanding the transition to debris disks at 24
185: $\mu$m we remove these five from the sample of excess stars under
186: consideration ($314-5=309$). Assuming that the color excesses observed
187: are due to excess emission at 24 $\mu$m, our 3$\sigma$ detection limit of
188: ($0.117 + 3 \times 0.005 = 0.132$) corresponds to a 13 \%
189: excess at 24 $\mu$m
190: compared to the expected photospheric emission ($0.132/0.117-1$).
191: The largest inferred 24 $\mu$m excess
192: is just over 100 \%
193: compared to the photosphere ($0.245/0.117-1$). The 30 sources with
194: detectable excess from our sample of 309 are listed in Table 1 as a
195: function of age.
196: According to the Shapiro--Wilk test, the distribution of $24/8 \mu$m flux
197: ratios for the 279 sources {\it without} excess is not gaussian
198: (P $<$ 0.01 \%).
199: We tested to see whether the mean ratio
200: of 24/8 $\mu$m emission was a function of source brightness.
201: For the 140 targets with $8 \mu$m $>$ 128 mJy the mean was 0.1137 with
202: $\sigma$ = 0.0036, while for the 139 fainter
203: targets the mean was 0.1199 with $\sigma$ = 0.0047.
204: This small offset could be due to uncertainties in flux
205: calibration as a function of integration time (Carpenter et al. 2007;
206: Engelbracht et al. 2007)\footnote{Adopting these offsets in the mean
207: flux ratio (and associated 3 $\sigma$ limits)
208: would result in identification of one new excess object
209: (HD 43989, 30--100 Myr old) and removal of [PZ99] 161618.0-233947
210: from Table 1.}.
211: As a result, the errors quoted on the reported
212: excesses include the random errors in the
213: $24/8 \mu$m ratio (typically 1--2 \%),
214: as well as the dispersion in our estimate of the
215: photospheric color (4.3 \%) rather than the error in the mean,
216: added in quadrature.
217:
218: In Figure 2, we present the fraction of stars exhibiting 24 $\mu$m
219: excess emission in our sample as a function of age. Each bin spans a
220: factor of 3 in age. The errors in the ordinate are Poisson, computed
221: following \citet{Gehrels86} with excess fractions as follows: (5/30) for
222: stars 3--10 Myr, (9/48) for 10--30 Myr, (5/59) for 30--100 Myr,
223: (9/62) for 100--300 Myr, (2/53) 300--1000 Myr, and (0/57) for
224: stars 1--3 Gyr old. The KS test suggests that the distributions of
225: $24/8 \mu$m flux ratios (Fig. 1) for the sample $<$ 300 Myr (N = 199)
226: and those $>$ 300 Myr (N = 110) are inconsistent with having been
227: drawn from the same parent population (P $<$ 10$^{-10}$). We note
228: that the errors in age quoted above act to diffuse sources to younger
229: as well as older ages. Because there are more excess objects in younger
230: bins, errors in age tend to increase the excess fractions at older
231: ages. As a result, the abrupt drop in the excess fraction at 300 Myr
232: may be even more dramatic than detected here.
233:
234: \section{Discussion}
235:
236: We associate the observed 24 $\mu$m excess with dust debris generated through
237: collisions of planetesimals. One of our excess stars identified in
238: Table I (HD 12039) was studied in detail by \citet{Hines06}. Models
239: of this debris disk (with fractional 24
240: $\mu$m excess $0.151/0.117 - 1 = 0.29$)
241: suggested a dust mass of $\sim$ 10$^{-5}$ M$_{\earth}$
242: located between 4--6 AU.
243: The magnitude of all our detected 24 $\mu$m excesses are
244: within a a factor of $\times$ 3 (relative to the photosphere)
245: compared to HD 12039.
246: Results similar to ours,
247: have been reported for samples of FGK stars in open clusters
248: \citep{Gorlova06,Siegler07}. Our sample is comprised
249: of 60 open cluster stars with discrete ages of 55 (5 members of IC
250: 2602), 90 (13 members of $\alpha$ Per), 110 (20 Pleiades), and 600 Myr
251: (22 Hyades), as well 249 field stars.
252: We have analyzed the statistics for sub-samples where they
253: overlap. While the excess fractions for open clusters with ages
254: 30--100 Myr and 100--300 Myr are {\it greater} than the
255: comparable field star samples($3/18$ vs. $2/41$ and $5/20$ vs. $4/42$
256: respectively), the results are formally consistent
257: with each other. This suggests that there is no strong dependence of
258: debris disk evolution on star--forming environment, though larger
259: samples could reveal a difference.
260:
261: A key question is whether stars observed to have excess
262: at 24 $\mu$m in one age bin are the same cohort of stars with 24 $\mu$m excess
263: in another. In other words, do the same 10--20 \% of
264: sun--like stars with excess evolve from one age bin to the next with a
265: constant fraction; or are they distinct groups of stars, that persist
266: in the observed state for a short time?
267: Our observations trace excess emission from 21.7--26.4
268: $\mu$m toward stars lacking excess emission $\leq
269: 10 \mu$m (corresponding to a lack of dust generating
270: planetesimals inside 1 AU \citep{Silverstone06}).
271: Assuming blackbody emission from large grains implies
272: dust at radii from $\sim$ 4--7 AU.
273: Maximum dust production during the evolution of a
274: planetesimal swarm is thought to
275: occur between runaway and chaotic growth when the largest planetesimals
276: reach $\sim$ 2000 km at a given radius \citep{Kenyon04,Kenyon06}.
277: The timescale for this
278: goes as $\tau \sim a^{1.5} \sigma_{disk}^{-1}$
279: where a is the orbital radius and $\sigma_{disk}$
280: is the mass surface density of solids
281: in the disk (\citet{Goldreich04}).
282: Assuming $\sigma_{disk} \sim \sigma_{o} a^{-p}$, and that
283: $0 < p < 1$ (\citet{Kitamura02}),
284: a range of $\times 2$ in radius
285: corresponds to $\times 3-6$ in time. Thus
286: the emission we observe might not persist over timescales
287: much larger than our age bins
288: \footnote{While the published Kenyon and Bromley models
289: predict the duration of $24 \mu$m excess emission $> \times 3-6$
290: in time, they also predict hot dust at smaller radii
291: covering a wider range of radii than our observations imply.}.
292: Perhaps many stars go through this phase of 24 $\mu$m excess, but at
293: different times.
294: A range of $\times$ 100 in initial mass surface density
295: (\citet{Andrews05}) could translate
296: into a range of $\times$ 100 in evolutionary timescales. If so,
297: one might expect smaller excesses at later times (produced by
298: lower mass disks). In comparing the mean detected excess for stars
299: 3--30 Myr old (0.359 with $\sigma$ = 0.199) with that for
300: stars 30--300 Myr old (0.345 with $\sigma$ = 0.116),
301: we find no evidence that this is the case
302: (though the samples are dominated by stars lacking detectable excess).
303: Nevertheless, one might consider {\it summing} the fractions of stars with
304: 24 $\mu$m excess between 3-300 Myr, resulting in an overall fraction of stars
305: with evidence for terrestrial planet formation greater than 60 \%!
306: Averaging the results over factors of ten in age results in excess
307: fractions of 18, 12, and 2 \% at ages 3--30 Myr, 30--300 Myr, and
308: 0.3--3 Gyr, implying at least 32 \% of sun--like stars
309: exhibit evidence for terrestrial
310: planet formation (provided that the epoch of 24 $\mu$m excess
311: emission lasts $\leq \times 10$ in age).
312: We note that in this scenario, the planets formed later from lower
313: mass disks will be smaller (\citet{Kenyon06}).
314:
315:
316: Results to date suggest that: a) primordial disks between 0.3-3 AU
317: dissipate or agglomerate into larger bodies on timescales comparable
318: to the cessation of accretion\citep{Haisch01}; and b) few stars harbor optically-thin
319: inner disks between 3-30 Myr \citep{Silverstone06}. Based on theoretical
320: considerations, we expect that planetesimals belts evolved rapidly
321: within 3 AU.
322: \citet{Rieke05} explore the evolution of 24 $\mu$m excess emission
323: around a sample of A stars observed with SST and IRAS. They
324: deduce a characteristic timescale of 150 Myr for strong excesses
325: to decay. However, care must be taken in comparing these results
326: to ours as: 1) the dust masses detected by Rieke
327: et al. are likely {\it larger} than the dust masses detected here;
328: and 2) similar temperature dust traces
329: distinct radii for stars of different luminosity. In general,
330: the fractional 24 $\mu$m excesses around A stars are larger
331: than around G stars.
332: The observed
333: duration of the excess phase for both samples is
334: longer than expected if the emission results solely from dust
335: production well inside 10 AU. An important caveat to our results
336: is that we have not assessed whether the 24
337: $\mu$m excesses we have detected are tracing warm dust in the
338: terrestrial planet zone, or the Wien--side of the Planck function from
339: cooler dust. If, at 24 $\mu$m, we are
340: seeing cooler dust generated at radii
341: beyond 10 AU, we would expect to observe it at later times. We
342: also note that the maximum excess ratios predicted by Kenyon and
343: Bromley are larger than the excesses detected here.
344:
345: \citet{Wyatt07} provide steady--state models of warm dust production
346: around sun--like stars. On the basis of comparing the observed IR
347: luminosity of several systems to these models as a function of age,
348: they conclude that most (5/8) of the stars exhibiting evidence for
349: warm dust must be in a transient state of evolution and not
350: participating in a steady--state collisional cascade. However, the
351: three systems
352: with ages $<$ 300 Myr (one of which is HD 12039)
353: can be explained with equilibrium
354: models.
355: Global analysis of the SED for all sources identified here
356: will be required to directly compare the evolutionary state of these
357: systems with the models (Carpenter et al., in preparation).
358:
359: More work is needed to define the transition from primordial to debris
360: disk \citep[e.g.][]{Padgett06}. Given the short time expected for
361: collisional evolution of inner planetesimals belts ($<$ 3 Myr), and
362: the 1-10 Myr lifetime of primordial disks, it may be
363: difficult to detect the onset of collisional evolution. We
364: suggest that SST observations at 24 $\mu$m can be interpreted as evidence
365: for terrestrial planet formation occuring around many (19--32 \%),
366: if not most (62 \%), sun--like stars. This range is higher than
367: the observed frequency of gas giant planets
368: (6.6--12 \% within 5--20 AU \citet{Marcy05})
369: but comparable to the inference that cool dust debris beyond
370: 10 AU might be very common \citet{Bryden06}. Radial
371: velocity monitoring of low mass stars, micro-lensing surveys, as well
372: as transit surveys such as COROT and Kepler, will provide
373: critical tests of our interpretation.
374:
375: We thank all members of the FEPS, IRAC, MIPS, and SSC teams
376: for their efforts, as well as Scott Kenyon, Nick Siegler,
377: and George Rieke for valuable discussions, and an anonymous referee
378: for helpful suggestions. This work was based
379: on observations made with the Spitzer Space Telescope, which is
380: operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute
381: of Technology under a contract with NASA. Support for this work
382: was provided by NASA through an award issued by JPL/Caltech.
383:
384: %\begin{references}
385: \begin{thebibliography}{}
386:
387: \bibitem[Andrews \& Williams(2005)]{Andrews05} Andrews, S.~M., \&
388: Williams, J.~P.\ 2005, \apj, 631, 1134
389:
390: \bibitem[Beaulieu et al.(2006)]{Beaulieu06} Beaulieu, J.-P., et al.\
391: 2006, \nat, 439, 437
392:
393: \bibitem[Beichman et al.(2005)]{Beichman05} Beichman, C.~A., et al.\
394: 2005, \apj, 626, 1061
395:
396: \bibitem[Bottke et al.(2005)]{Bottke05} Bottke, W.~F. et al. 2005,
397: Icarus, 179, 63
398:
399: \bibitem[Bryden et al.(2006)]{Bryden06} Bryden, G., et al.\ 2006,
400: \apj, 636, 1098
401:
402: \bibitem[Chambers(2001)]{Chambers01} Chambers, J.~E.\ 2001, Icarus,
403: 152, 205
404:
405: \bibitem[Chen et al.(2005)]{Chen05} Chen, C.~H., et al.\ 2005, \apj,
406: 634, 1372
407:
408: \bibitem[Donahue(1998)]{Donahue98} Donahue, R.~A.\ 1998, Cool
409: Stars, Stellar Systems, and the Sun, 154, 1235
410:
411: \bibitem[Durisen et al.(2007)]{Durisen07} Durisen, R.~H., Boss, A.~P.,
412: Mayer, L., Nelson, A.~F., Quinn, T., \& Rice, W.~K.~M.\ 2007,
413: Protostars and Planets V, 607
414:
415: \bibitem[Engelbracht et al.(2007)]{Engelbracht07} Engelbracht, C.~W.,
416: et al.\ 2007, arXiv:0704.2195
417:
418: \bibitem[Fazio et al.(2004)]{Fazio04} Fazio, G.~G., et al.\ 2004,
419: \apjs, 154, 10
420:
421: \bibitem[Gehrels(1986)]{Gehrels86} Gehrels, N.\ 1986, \apj, 303, 336
422:
423: \bibitem[Goldreich et al.(2004)]{Goldreich04} Goldreich, P.,
424: Lithwick, Y., \& Sari, R.\ 2004, \araa, 42, 549
425:
426: \bibitem[Gorlova et al.(2006)]{Gorlova06} Gorlova, N., Rieke, G.~H.,
427: Muzerolle, J., Stauffer, J.~R., Siegler, N., Young, E.~T., \&
428: Stansberry, J.~H.\ 2006, \apj, 649, 1028
429:
430: \bibitem[Haisch et al.(2001)]{Haisch01} Haisch, K.~E., Jr., Lada,
431: E.~A., \& Lada, C.~J.\ 2001, \apjl, 553, L153
432:
433: \bibitem[Hern{\'a}ndez et al.(2006)]{Hernandez06} Hern{\'a}ndez,
434: J., Brice{\~n}o, C., Calvet, N., Hartmann, L., Muzerolle, J., \& Quintero,
435: A.\ 2006, \apj, 652, 472
436:
437: \bibitem[Hines et al.(2006)]{Hines06} Hines, D.~C., et al.\ 2006,
438: \apj, 638, 1070
439:
440: \bibitem[Kenyon \& Bromley(2004)]{Kenyon04} Kenyon, S.~J., \& Bromley,
441: B.~C.\ 2004, \apjl, 602, L133
442:
443: \bibitem[Kenyon \& Bromley(2006)]{Kenyon06} Kenyon, S.~J., \& Bromley,
444: B.~C.\ 2006, \aj, 131, 1837
445:
446: \bibitem[Kitamura et al.(2002)]{Kitamura02} Kitamura, Y., Momose,
447: M., Yokogawa, S., Kawabe, R., Tamura, M., \& Ida, S.\ 2002, \apj, 581, 357
448:
449: \bibitem[Lissauer \& Stevenson(2007)]{Lissauer07} Lissauer, J.~J., \&
450: Stevenson, D.~J.\ 2007, Protostars \& Planets V, 591
451:
452: \bibitem[Mamajek et al.(2002)]{Mamajek02} Mamajek, E.~E., Meyer,
453: M.~R., \& Liebert, J.\ 2002, \aj, 124, 1670
454:
455: \bibitem[Marcy et al.(2005)]{Marcy05} Marcy, G., Butler, R.~P.,
456: Fischer, D., Vogt, S., Wright, J.~T., Tinney, C.~G., \& Jones,
457: H.~R.~A.\ 2005, Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement, 158, 24
458:
459: \bibitem[Meyer et al.(2006)]{Meyer06} Meyer, M.~R., et al.\ 2006,
460: \pasp, 118, 1690
461:
462: \bibitem[Meyer et al.(2007)]{Meyer07} Meyer, M.~R., Backman,
463: D.~E., Weinberger, A.~J., \& Wyatt, M.~C.\ 2007, Protostars and Planets V,
464: 573
465:
466: \bibitem[Nagasawa et al.(2007)]{Nagasawa07} Nagasawa, M., Thommes,
467: E.~W., Kenyon, S.~J., Bromley, B.~C., \& Lin, D.~N.~C.\ 2007,
468: Protostars and Planets V, 639
469:
470: \bibitem[Nelson(2005)]{Nelson05} Nelson, R.~P.\ 2005, \aap, 443, 1067
471:
472: \bibitem[O'Brien et al.(2006)]{O'Brien06} O'Brien, D., Morbidelli, A.,
473: \& Levison, H.\ 2006, Icarus, 184, 39
474:
475: \bibitem[Padgett et al.(2006)]{Padgett06} Padgett, D.~L., et al.\
476: 2006, \apj, 645, 1283
477:
478: \bibitem[Pascucci et al.(2006)]{Pascucci06} Pascucci, I., et al.\
479: 2006, \apj, 651, 1177
480:
481: \bibitem[Reach et al.(2005)]{Reach05} Reach, W.~T., et al.\ 2005,
482: \pasp, 117, 978
483:
484: \bibitem[Rieke et al.(2004)]{Rieke04} Rieke, G.~H., et al.\ 2004,
485: \apjs, 154, 25
486:
487: \bibitem[Rieke et al.(2005)]{Rieke05} Rieke, G.~H., et al.\ 2005,
488: \apj, 620, 1010
489:
490: \bibitem[Siegler et al.(2007)]{Siegler07} Siegler, N., et al.\ 2007,
491: \apj, 654, 580
492:
493: \bibitem[Silverstone et al.(2006)]{Silverstone06} Silverstone, M.~D.,
494: et al.\ 2006, \apj, 639, 1138
495:
496: \bibitem[Stauffer et al.(2005)]{Stauffer05} Stauffer, J.~R., et al.\
497: 2005, \aj, 130, 1834
498:
499: \bibitem[Strom et al.(1993)]{Strom93} Strom, S.~E., Edwards, S., \&
500: Skrutskie, M.~F.\ 1993, Protostars and Planets III, 837
501:
502: \bibitem[Weidenschilling(1977)]{Weidenschilling77} Weidenschilling,
503: S.~J.\ 1977, \mnras, 180, 57
504:
505: \bibitem[Wyatt et al.(2007)]{Wyatt07} Wyatt, M.~C., Smith, R.,
506: Greaves, J.~S., Beichman, C.~A., Bryden, G., \& Lisse, C.~M.\ 2007,
507: \apj, 658, 569
508:
509: \end{thebibliography}
510:
511: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccrcc}
512: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
513: \tablewidth{0pt}
514: \tablecolumns{9}
515: %\tablenum{}
516: \setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.06in}
517: %\tableheadfrac{0.1}
518: \tablecaption{Systems with MIPS--24 $\mu$m Excess \label{properties}}
519: %\tablecomments{}
520: \tablehead{
521: \colhead{Source} & \colhead{Dist} & \colhead{log(age)} &
522: \colhead{T$_{eff}$} & \colhead{log(L$_{\star}$/L$_\odot$)} &
523: \colhead{f$_{24 \mu m}$(excess)/f$_{24\mu m}$}(phot) & \colhead{$\sigma$} \\
524: & (pc) & (yr) & (K) & (dex) & & }
525: \startdata
526: 1RXS J051111.1+281353 & 199 & 6.5-7 & 5270 & 0.71 & 0.239 & 0.045\\
527: RX J1600.6-2159 & 161 & 6.5-7 & 5330 & 0.27 & 0.190 & 0.045\\
528: $[$PZ99$]$ J161459.2-275023 & 114 & 6.5-7 & 5500 & -0.14 & 0.628 & 0.047\\
529: $[$PZ99$]$ J155847.8-175800 & 161 & 6.5-7 & 4660 & 0.20 & 0.479 & 0.046\\
530: $[$PZ99$]$ J161618.0-233947 & 161 & 6.5-7 & 5250 & 0.22 & 0.141 & 0.045\\
531: HD 22179 & 68 & 7-7.5 & 5990 & 0.02 & 0.336 & 0.045\\
532: HD 116099 & 140 & 7-7.5 & 6010 & 0.19 & 0.188 & 0.045\\
533: HD 141943 & 67 & 7-7.5 & 5810 & 0.43 & 0.210 & 0.045\\
534: HD 281691 & 73 & 7-7.5 & 5140 & -0.42 & 0.156 & 0.045\\
535: MML 8 & 108 & 7-7.5 & 5810 & 0.15 & 0.737 & 0.047\\
536: MML 17 & 124 & 7-7.5 & 6000 & 0.43 & 0.612 & 0.046\\
537: MML 28 & 108 & 7-7.5 & 5000 & -0.35 & 0.413 & 0.046\\
538: MML 36 & 98 & 7-7.5 & 5270 & 0.03 & 0.541 & 0.046\\
539: MML 43 & 132 & 7-7.5 & 5410 & 0.06 & 0.154 & 0.045\\
540: HD 377 & 39 & 7.5-8 & 5850 & 0.09 & 0.332 & 0.045\\
541: HD 12039 & 42 & 7.5-8 & 5690 & -0.05 & 0.287 & 0.045\\
542: HE 750 & 176 & 7.5-8 & 6360 & 0.28 & 0.197 & 0.046\\
543: HE 848 & 176 & 7.5-8 & 6310 & 0.47 & 0.537 & 0.047\\
544: W79 & 152 & 7.5-8 & 5380 & -0.29 & 0.242 & 0.046\\
545: HD 19668 & 40 & 8-8.5 & 5420 & -0.23 & 0.192 & 0.045\\
546: HD 61005 & 35 & 8-8.5 & 5460 & -0.26 & 1.096 & 0.049\\
547: HD 72687 & 46 & 8-8.5 & -- & -0.05 & 0.208 & 0.046\\
548: HD 107146 & 28 & 8-8.5 & 5860 & 0.02 & 0.329 & 0.045\\
549: HII 152 & 133 & 8-8.5 & 5700 & -0.10 & 0.366 & 0.046\\
550: HII 250 & 133 & 8-8.5 & 5770 & -0.04 & 0.146 & 0.046\\
551: HII 514 & 133 & 8-8.5 & 5720 & 0.04 & 0.250 & 0.046\\
552: HII 1101 & 133 & 8-8.5 & 6070 & 0.08 & 0.545 & 0.046\\
553: HII 1200 & 133 & 8-8.5 & 6210 & 0.35 & 0.170 & 0.045\\
554: HD 85301 & 32 & 8.5-9 & 5600 & -0.14 & 0.343 & 0.046\\
555: HD 219498 & 62 & 8.5-9 & 5670 & -0.07 & 0.277 & 0.045\\
556: \enddata
557: \end{deluxetable}
558:
559: \clearpage
560:
561: \begin{figure}
562: \plotone{f1.ps}
563: \caption{$24/8 \mu$m flux ratio plotted as a function of $8 \mu$m
564: flux for 314 stars drawn from the unbiased FEPS sample.
565: The sample mean (solid line) and 3$\sigma$ limits (dashed lines) as described
566: in the text are shown.}
567: \label{CMD}
568: \end{figure}
569:
570: \vskip 2.0in
571:
572: \begin{figure}
573: \plotone{f2.ps}
574: \caption{The fraction of stars in the sample with detectable $24 \mu$m excess
575: plotted as a function of age.}
576: \label{evolution}
577: \end{figure}
578:
579: \end{document}
580: \end
581: