1: %%\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
2: %\documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
3: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
4: %\documentclass[preprint2,longabstract]{aastex}
5: %\documentclass{emulateapj}
6: %\usepackage{apjfonts}
7:
8: \newcommand{\rphk}{$R^\prime_{\rm HK}$}
9: \newcommand{\rhk}{$R^\prime_{\rm HK}$}
10: \newcommand{\lgrphk}{$\log R^\prime_{\rm HK}$}
11: \newcommand{\logrphk}{$\log R^\prime_{\rm HK}$}
12: \newcommand{\logrphkbar}{$\overline{\log R^\prime_{\rm HK}}$}
13: \newcommand{\logrphktilde}{$\widetilde{\log R^\prime_{\rm HK}}$}
14: \newcommand{\rx}{$R_{\rm X}$}
15: \newcommand{\loglx}{$\log L_{\rm X}$}
16: \newcommand{\logrx}{$\log R_{\rm X}$}
17: \newcommand{\loglxlbol}{log($L_{\rm X}$/$L_{bol}$)}
18: \newcommand{\teff}{T$_{\rm eff}$}
19: \newcommand{\smw}{$S_{MW}$}
20: \newcommand{\pmra}{$\mu_{\alpha *}$}
21: \newcommand{\pmdec}{$\mu_{\delta}$}
22: \newcommand{\kms}{km\,s$^{-1}$}
23: \newcommand{\masyr}{mas\,yr$^{-1}$}
24: \newcommand{\ro}{$R_o$}
25: \newcommand{\tauc}{$\tau_c$}
26: \newcommand{\mv}{M$_V$}
27: \newcommand{\bvo}{$(B - V)_0$}
28: \newcommand{\bvsun}{$(B-V)_{\odot}$}
29: \newcommand{\ebv}{E$(B-V)$}
30:
31:
32: \newcommand{\myemail}{emamajek@cfa.harvard.edu}
33: \slugcomment{accepted for publication in ApJ - 10 July 2008}
34: \shorttitle{Activity Ages}
35: \shortauthors{Mamajek \& Hillenbrand}
36: \begin{document}
37: \title{Improved Age Estimation for Solar-Type Dwarfs Using
38: Activity-Rotation Diagnostics}
39:
40: \author{Eric E. Mamajek\altaffilmark{1,2}}
41: \email{emamajek@cfa.harvard.edu}
42: \author{Lynne A. Hillenbrand\altaffilmark{3}}
43: \email{lah@astro.caltech.edu}
44: \altaffiltext{1}{Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60 Garden St., MS-42, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA}
45: \altaffiltext{2}{Clay Postdoctoral Fellow}
46: \altaffiltext{3}{Astronomy/Astrophysics, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA}
47:
48: \begin{abstract} While the strong anti-correlation between
49: chromospheric activity and age has led to the common use of the Ca II
50: H \& K emission index ($R^\prime_{\rm HK} = L_{HK}/L_{bol}$) as an
51: empirical age estimator for solar type dwarfs, existing activity-age
52: relations produce implausible ages at both high and low activity
53: levels. We have compiled $R^\prime_{\rm HK}$ data from the literature
54: for young stellar clusters, richly populating for the first time the
55: young end of the activity-age relation. Combining the cluster activity
56: data with modern cluster age estimates, and analyzing the
57: color-dependence of the chromospheric activity age index, we derive an
58: improved activity-age calibration for F7-K2 dwarfs (0.5 $<$ B--V $<$
59: 0.9 mag). We also present a more fundamentally motivated activity-age
60: calibration that relies on conversion of $R^\prime_{\rm HK}$ values
61: through the Rossby number to rotation periods, and then makes use of
62: improved gyrochronology relations. We demonstrate that our new
63: activity-age calibration has typical age precision of $\sim$0.2 dex
64: for normal solar-type dwarfs aged between the Hyades and the Sun
65: ($\sim$0.6-4.5 Gyr). Inferring ages through activity-rotation-age
66: relations accounts for some color-dependent effects, and
67: systematically improves the age estimates (albeit only slightly). We
68: demonstrate that coronal activity as measured through the fractional
69: X-ray luminosity ($R_X$= L$_{X}$/L$_{bol}$) has nearly the same age-
70: and rotation-inferring capability as chromospheric activity measured
71: through $R^\prime_{\rm HK}$. As a first application of our
72: calibrations, we provide new activity-derived age estimates for the
73: nearest 100 solar-type field dwarfs ($d$ $<$ 15 pc).
74: \end{abstract}
75:
76: \keywords{stars: activity --- stars: chromospheres --- stars: coronae
77: --- stars: fundamental parameters (ages) --- stars: rotation ---
78: X-rays: stars}
79:
80: \section{Introduction}
81:
82: Age is, arguably, the most difficult basic stellar quantity to
83: estimate for low-mass field dwarfs \citep[see e.g.][]{Mamajek07}.
84: Yet, the temporal evolution of phenomena such as stellar activity,
85: surface abundances, rotation, and circumstellar matter is of current
86: interest and within observational means for nearby stars. Our
87: particular motivation for improving field star age estimates stems
88: from our interest in circumstellar disk evolution as executed via the
89: {\it Spitzer Space Telescope} Formation and Evolution of Planetary
90: Systems (FEPS)\footnote{http://feps.as.arizona.edu} Legacy Science
91: program which is surveying the dust surrounding solar-type stars
92: between $\sim$3 Myr and $\sim$3 Gyr \citep{Meyer04,
93: Kim05, Stauffer05, Hines06, Meyer06, Silverstone06, Hines07,
94: Moro-Martin07, Bouwman08, Meyer08, Hillenbrand08, Carpenter09}.
95:
96: The most theoretically grounded stellar age estimator is the
97: Hertzsprung-Russell diagram, which predicts ages based on our
98: understanding of nuclear physics, stellar interior structure, and
99: stellar atmospheres. It can be employed in stellar clusters for which
100: main sequence turn-off and/or turn-on ages are typically available and
101: to field stars of known distance that are in the pre-MS or post-MS
102: phases of stellar evolution. Field stars, however, are generally main
103: sequence objects and, by definition, lack co-eval accompanying stellar
104: populations that might enable accurate age dating via standard H-R
105: diagram techniques. Thus proxy indicators of age are necessary.
106:
107: \subsection{Chromospheric Activity as an Age Indicator}
108:
109: Historically, a popular age estimator for field stars of roughly solar
110: mass has been the \rphk\, index which measures chromospheric emission
111: in the cores of the broad photospheric Ca II H \& K absorption lines,
112: normalized to the underlying photospheric spectrum. Chromospheric
113: activity is generated through the stellar magnetic dynamo,
114: the strength of which appears to scale with rotation velocity
115: \citep{Kraft67, Noyes84, Montesinos01}. Both chromospheric emission
116: and rotation are observationally constrained to decay with age
117: \citep{Wilson63, Skumanich72, Soderblom83, Soderblom91}. The angular
118: momentum loss is theoretically understood as due to mass loss in a
119: magnetized wind \citep{Schatzman62, Weber67, Mestel68}.
120:
121: The chromospheric activity index \rphk\, is calculated from a
122: band-ratio measurement of the Ca H \& K emission line strength
123: \citep[the ``S-index'' or, when converted to the Mount Wilson system,
124: \smw;][]{Vaughan78,Vaughan80,Duncan91} from which the underlying
125: stellar photospheric contribution is then subtracted. We refer the
126: reader to papers by \citet[][and references therein]{Noyes84,
127: Baliunas96, Baliunas95, Henry96, Wright04} for in-depth discussion of
128: how to measure \smw\ and \rphk, as well as the history of studies
129: using this index. Our simple goal for this study is to provide an
130: \rphk\, vs. age relation applicable to sets of \rphk\, and \bvo\ data
131: (the latter derived from a spectral type or from a color) for
132: solar-type and near-solar metallicity dwarfs.
133:
134: The activity-age data pair of highest quality is that for the Sun, and
135: our adopted values are listed in Table \ref{tab:sun}. The solar age is
136: presumed coincident with that of the oldest portions of meteorites
137: \citep[the Ca-Al-rich inclusions; 4.570 Gyr;][]{Baker05}. However, the
138: Sun and presumably most other stars exhibit activity cycles (with
139: period 11 years in the case of the Sun) as well as longer term
140: variations (e.g. the so-called Maunder minimum in the case of the
141: Sun). Over the period 1966-1993, covering mostly solar cycles 20, 21,
142: and 22, \citet{Baliunas95} estimated the solar Mt. Wilson S-index to
143: be $\overline{S_{\odot}}$ = 0.179. Over the period 1994-2006, mostly
144: solar cycle 23, \citet{Hall07} measured $\overline{S_{\odot}}$ =
145: 0.170. Using a mean solar $S$-value which is approximately weighted
146: by the span of measurements ($\overline{S_{\odot}}$ = 0.176; for
147: $\sim$1966-2006) and a mean solar color of \bv\, = 0.65 \citep{Cox00},
148: and using the equations from \citet{Noyes84}, we estimate the mean
149: solar activity to be \logrphk\, = --4.91. We also give in Table
150: \ref{tab:sun} the 68\% and 95\% range of the observed solar \logrphk\,
151: due to variability.
152:
153: %\clearpage
154: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccl}
155: %\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
156: \setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.03in}
157: \tablewidth{0pt}
158: \tablecaption{Adopted Solar Data \label{tab:sun}}
159: \tablehead{
160: {(1)} &{(2)} & {(3)} & {(4)} \\
161: {Parameter} &{Value} & {Units} & {Ref.}}
162: \startdata
163: \bvo\, & 0.65 & mag & 1 \\
164: Age & 4.570 & Gyr & 2 \\
165: $\overline{{\rm S}_{\odot}}$ & 0.176 & ... & 3 \\
166: $\overline{\log {\rm R}^\prime_{\rm HK}}$ & -4.906 & dex & 4 \\
167: \logrphk\, 68\%\, range & -4.942 to -4.865 & dex & 5 \\
168: \logrphk\, 95\%\, range & -4.955 to -4.832 & dex & 5 \\
169: \loglx & 27.35 & erg\,s$^{-1}$ & 6\\
170: \logrx (=\loglxlbol) & -6.24 & dex & 6 \\
171: \enddata
172: \tablecomments{
173: References: (1) \citet{Cox00}, (2) minimum age from \citet{Baker05},
174: (3) time-weighted average of \citet{Baliunas96} and \citet{Hall07} for
175: 1966-2006, (4) calculated using \bvo\, and mean S$_{\odot}$ via
176: \citet{Noyes84}, (5) calculating using solar 1$\AA$ K-index data from
177: \citet{Livingston07}, using relations from \citet{Radick98} and
178: \citet{Noyes84}, and adopting the solar \bvo\, color listed, (6)
179: soft X-ray (0.1-2.4 keV) luminosity and fraction luminosity
180: estimated from \citet{Judge03}, with 50\% uncertainty.
181: An uncertainty in the solar \bvo\, of $\pm$0.01 mag produces
182: a systematic uncertainty of the \logrphk\, values by $\mp$0.004 dex.
183: Note that the absolute calibration of the \logrphk\, values (as a physical
184: metric of chromospheric line losses) are probably only accurate to
185: $\sim$10\% \citep{Hartmann84,Noyes84}.}
186: \end{deluxetable}
187: %\clearpage
188:
189: \subsection{Shortcomings of Previous Activity-Age Calibrations}
190:
191: Using the Sun as one anchor point, we can look to open clusters with
192: ages derived from other methods (e.g. the H-R diagram) in order to
193: populate an activity-age calibration. There are four such \rphk\,
194: vs. age relations in the literature which have been used in age-dating
195: field stars: two from \citet{Soderblom91}, and one each from
196: \citet{Donahue93}, and \citet{Lachaume99}. The activity-age relations
197: from \citet{Soderblom91} include a linear fit to age vs. activity for
198: members of clusters and binaries. The second relation, often
199: overlooked, assumes a constant star-formation history and takes into
200: account kinematic disk heating. D. Soderblom (priv. comm.) has kindly
201: provided an analytic version of this alternative activity-age
202: relation.
203:
204: That there are deficiencies with these existing calibrations can be
205: easily demonstrated. For the \citet{Lachaume99} calibration, the
206: solar \rphk\, value adopted here (-4.91) would imply a solar age of
207: 7.2 Gyr, which is clearly in error. The other two calibrations used
208: the Sun as one of their anchor points, but with slightly different
209: \rphk\, values (for the calibrations of \citet{Soderblom91} and
210: \citet{Donahue93}, one derives ages of 4.1 and 4.0 Gyr, respectively).
211: \citet{Soderblom91} do not advocate extrapolating either of their
212: activity-age relations to the young/active regime (\logrphk\, $>$
213: -4.4), however \citet{Donahue93} explicitly fit their activity-age
214: relation to age $\sim$10 Myr and \logrphk\, $\simeq$ -4.2 (anchoring
215: their fit to data for NGC 2264). Given the observed activity levels
216: in the $\sim$5-15 Myr Sco-Cen OB association (\logrphk\, $\simeq$
217: --4.05; \S2), neither the fit from \citet{Donahue93} or extrapolating
218: the two fits from \citet{Soderblom91} estimates an age similar to the
219: isochronal value. Indeed, the commonly used fit of \citet{Donahue93}
220: would estimate an age of {\it one minute} for a star with \logrphk\,
221: $\simeq$ --4.05. Given the paucity of young stars in the previous
222: calibrations, we should not be too surprised at the lack of agreement
223: with other age-dating methods at the high-activity end of the
224: relation.
225:
226: \subsection{Potential for Improved Activity-Age Calibrations}
227:
228: Clearly, an improved activity-age calibration is needed. Further, we
229: would like to understand and quantify the limitations of any such
230: relationship and hence its practical application. We focus this paper
231: primarily on {\it refining the age-activity relation for solar-type
232: dwarfs}. By ``solar-type'', we mean $\sim$F7-K2 or 0.5 $<$ \bvo\ $<$
233: 0.9 mag, which is approximately the color range over which the
234: \citet{Noyes84} relation for the photospheric contribution to the
235: S-index is applicable, as well as the color range blanketed by recent
236: activity surveys. The F3V-F6V temperature region (0.42 $<$ \bvo\, $<$
237: 0.5) appears to mark the transition where the rotation-activity
238: correlation breaks down, chromospheric activity diminishes, stellar
239: convective envelopes thin, and magnetic breaking becomes inefficient
240: \citep{Kraft67,Wolff85,GarciaLopez93}. By ``dwarfs'', we mean MS and
241: pre-MS stars, and explicitly exclude evolved stars more than one
242: magnitude above the MS.
243:
244: There are three developments that make our investigation timely:
245:
246: (1) Recently measured \rphk\, values for stars that belong to
247: age-dated young stellar aggregates (e.g. Sco-Cen, $\beta$ Pic, etc.).
248: These additions to the literature both broaden and strengthen modern
249: activity-age derivations relative to the data landscape of 1-2 decades
250: ago.
251:
252: (2) The ages of well-studied nearby open clusters (e.g. $\alpha$~Per,
253: Pleiades) have been updated during the past decade. The most
254: noticeable difference relative to traditionally accepted age values is
255: the systematic shift towards older ages driven by results using the
256: Li-depletion boundary age estimation method
257: \citep[e.g.][]{Stauffer98,Barrado04}.
258:
259: (3) Interest in circumstellar disk and planetary system evolution has
260: increased dramatically over the past five years. The availability of
261: relevant infrared data, e.g. from {\it Spitzer} observations, begs for
262: a robust stellar age estimator in order to probe the collisional and
263: radiative evolution of debris disks, and the connection of such
264: phenomena to exo-solar planetary system dynamics. Similarly, exoplanet
265: discoveries over the past decade have motivated interest in the ages
266: of the parent field stars for comparison to the Sun and solar system.
267: In this paper we derive using samples drawn from cluster and moving
268: group populations (\S2) a new \rphk\ activity vs. age relation (\S3).
269: In \S4, we tie both chromospheric activity index (\rphk) and coronal
270: activity index (\rx\, = \loglxlbol) data to stellar rotation rates via
271: the Rossby number (i.e. secure an activity-rotation relation), and
272: attempt to derive independently an activity-age relation based on the
273: ``gyrochronology'' rotation evolution formalism of \citet{Barnes07},
274: though with newly derived coefficients. In an Appendix, we quantify
275: the correlation between fractional X-ray luminosity and Ca H\&K
276: activity for solar-type stars, and demonstrate that \rx, like \rphk,
277: can be used to derive quantitative age estimates.
278:
279: \section{Data \label{data}}
280:
281: \subsection{Ca II H \& K Data \label{ca_data}}
282:
283: We have collected \rphk\, indices derived from S-values in the
284: tradition of the Mt. Wilson HK project. Typical errors for single
285: observations due to measurement uncertainty and calibration to the
286: standard system combine to typically $\sim$0.1 dex
287: \citep[e.g.][]{Henry96,Paulson02,White07}. Given the ubiquity of the
288: \rphk\, index in the literature, and the uniformity in its calculation
289: and calibration by previous authors, we make no attempt either to
290: improve upon the \rphk\, index, nor to correct for other effects
291: (i.e. metallicity\footnote{The near-solar metallicity
292: \citep[r.m.s. $\simeq$ 0.1 dex in Fe/H;][]{Twarog97} of many of the
293: nearest young open clusters and stellar aggregates which anchor the
294: activity-age relation is well established. This finding extends to T
295: Tauri stars in the nearest star-forming regions \citep{Padgett96}.
296: However, recent analysis of the California-Carnegie Planet Search
297: Project sample by J. Wright (private communication; 2009, in prep.)
298: suggests that there are metallicity effects which can bias \rphk, most
299: severely for stars older than the Sun.}, gravity, etc.).
300:
301: \rphk\, values were taken from many sources, including the large
302: multi-epoch surveys of \citet{Duncan91}, \citet{Baliunas96},
303: \citet{Wright04}, and \citet{Hall07}, the large single-epoch surveys
304: of \citet{Henry96}, \citet{Gray03}, and \citet{Gray06}, the smaller,
305: focused surveys of \citet{Soderblom93}, \citet{Soderblom98},
306: \citet{Paulson02}, \citet{Tinney02}, \citet{Jenkins06,Jenkins08}, and
307: \citet{White07}. The S-values from \citet{Duncan91} were converted to
308: \rphk\, following \citet{Noyes84} using \bv\, colors from
309: \citet{Perryman97}. Discussion of the calibration of the HK
310: observations onto the Mt. Wilson system are addressed in the
311: individual studies. Single-epoch surveys typically give consistent
312: \logrphk\, values that agree at the $\sim$0.1 dex r.m.s. level
313: \citep[e.g.][]{Jenkins08}, likely due to observational errors in
314: evaluating the S-index plus intrinsic stellar variability.
315:
316: As solar-type stars undergo major changes in their interior structure
317: at the end of their main sequence lifetime, and \citet{Wright04} has
318: demonstrated that evolved stars show systematically lower activity
319: levels, we restrict our sample to stars that are consistent with being
320: main sequence stars \citep[here defined as being within $\Delta$M$_V$
321: of 1 magnitude of the main sequence defined by][]{Wright05}. We
322: specifically retain pre-MS stars, however, as we are interested in
323: probing the activity-age relation towards the youngest ages.
324:
325: Although stellar rotation varies slowly with time, rotation-driven
326: stellar activity varies on much shorter time scales e.g. years, weeks,
327: and days. This variability is also taken -- in and of itself -- as an
328: age indicator with more rapid, stochastic, and high-amplitude
329: variability indicative of younger stars while regularly periodic, long
330: cycle, and low-amplitude variability characterizes older stars
331: \citep[e.g.][]{Radick95,Radick98,Hempelmann96,Baliunas98}.
332: \citet{Lockwood07} and \citet{Hall07} also provide recent synopses.
333:
334: The physical mechanisms producing such variability include changes in
335: the filling factor of emitting regions, growth and decay of individual
336: emitting regions, and short and long-term activity cycles. For
337: example, in the Sun as well as in other stars, there is considerable
338: variation in the observable $S$ through an 11 year cycle, by 10\%
339: \citep{White81}. In M67 a substantial fraction of the stars exhibit
340: even larger variations \citep{Giampapa06}. Evidence from the
341: California Planet Search \citep[][Fischer \& Isaacson 2008, private
342: communication]{Wright04} shows that the bulk of the sample exhibit
343: variations of a few to $\sim$10\% in S at activity levels $-4.9 < $
344: \logrphk\ $< -4.4$ with less variation at lower activity levels,
345: $<$2\% in S at \logrphk\ $< -5.1$. Within samples of presumably
346: co-eval cluster stars, there is similar evidence of scatter in
347: \logrphk\, values for a given color (as we illustrate for our sample
348: in \S3.1) which can be interpreted as a mix of high and low activity
349: levels about the mean level characteristic of the cluster age.
350: Estimated variations on time scales up to a few percent of the solar
351: age correspond to $\sim$0.15 in \logrphk.
352:
353: In Table \ref{tab:sun} we list the 68\% and 95\% ranges for the solar
354: \logrphk\, value from 1977-2008 as estimated from the data of
355: \citet{Livingston07}. During recent solar maxima \logrphk\, $\simeq$
356: -4.83, and during recent solar minima \logrphk\, $\simeq$ -4.96.
357: Through extrapolation of the chromospheric activity-cycle length
358: relation, \citet{Baliunas95b} extrapolate the solar activity during
359: the Maunder minimum period ($\sim$1645-1715) to be roughly \logrphk\,
360: $\simeq$ -5.10.
361:
362: All of this implies errors in ages which we could quantify if we
363: understood the probability that an individual measurement reflects the
364: mean activity level for that star. For our sample, the \logrphk\,
365: data is a mix of long-term multi-epoch averages along with some
366: single/few-epoch observations. Most of the X-ray data (discussed
367: next) is single epoch observations of length a few hundred seconds.
368: The evidence on variability suggests caution in age derivation for
369: stars lacking activity index monitoring of sufficient duration such
370: that mean activity levels can be determined. Hence, we expect some
371: uncertainty in ages derived from activity levels to be due to
372: variability.
373:
374: \subsection{Rotation and X-ray Data \label{Rotation_X-ray}}
375:
376: To augment our understanding of the activity-age relation, we also
377: compiled data that allowed us to explore the more fundamental
378: rotation-age relation. We created a database of solar-type stars
379: having \logrphk\ with complimentary estimates of color, rotation
380: period, and when available, fractional X-ray luminosity (\loglxlbol\,
381: = \logrx). We started with the compiled catalog of
382: \citet{Pizzolato03}, and added stars from the FEPS program that had
383: new rotation periods measured by G. Henry (private comm.). We removed
384: stars from the \citet{Pizzolato03} sample which had periods inferred
385: from chromospheric activity levels as in \citet{Saar97}, i.e. we
386: retain only those rotation periods measured from the observed
387: modulation of starspots or chromospheric activity.
388:
389: X-ray luminosities for sample stars were calculated using the 0.1-2.4
390: keV X-ray count rates and HR1 hardness ratios from the {\it ROSAT}
391: All-Sky Survey \citep{Voges99,Voges00}
392: \footnote{One can convert count-rates and fluxes between ROSAT and
393: other X-ray bands can using the PIMMS tool
394: (http://cxc.harvard.edu/toolkit/pimms.jsp). For a brief discussion
395: regarding converting ROSAT and Chandra fluxes, see
396: \citet{Preibisch05}.}. X-ray count rate $f_X$ (ct s$^{-1}$) can be
397: converted to X-ray flux (ergs\,cm$^{-2}$\,sec$^{-1}$) in the low
398: column density regime via a conversion factor ($C_X$) formula from
399: \citet{Fleming95}:
400:
401: \begin{equation}
402: C_X = (8.31 + 5.30~{\rm HR1})~\times 10^{-12}~{\rm ergs~cm^{-2}~ct^{-1}}
403: \end{equation}
404:
405: \noindent Combining the X-ray flux $f_X$ and conversion
406: factor $C_X$ with distance $D$, one can estimate the stellar X-ray
407: luminosity L$_X$ (erg\,s$^{-1}$):
408:
409: \begin{equation}
410: L_X = 4~ \pi~ D^2~ C_X~ f_X
411: \end{equation}
412:
413: The final conversion to X-ray and bolometric luminosities used
414: parallaxes, V-band photometry, and B-V colors from {\it Hipparcos}
415: \citep{Perryman97} and bolometric corrections from \citet{Kenyon95}.
416:
417: Our rotation-activity sample consists of 167 MS and pre-MS stars of
418: near-solar color (0.5 $<$ \bv\, $<$ 0.9 mag) with measured periods and
419: \logrphk. Of these, 166 have X-ray luminosities and \logrx\, values
420: that can be estimated. The three lacking X-ray data are
421: unsurprisingly inactive (\logrphk\, $<$ -5.0). While the primary
422: focus on this paper is on using chromospheric activity to gauge
423: stellar ages, we recognize that X-ray luminosities are calculable for
424: many more stars than those with published \logrphk\,
425: measurements. Hence, in Appendix A we quantify the correlation between
426: chromospheric and X-ray activity for solar-type dwarfs.
427:
428: \subsection{Field Binaries \label{Data_binaries}}
429:
430: Solar-type dwarf binaries are a useful sample for two reasons in the
431: present investigation: examining whether there is a color-dependence
432: of \logrphk\, vs. age, and gauging the precision of the age estimates
433: derived from activity. The coevality of stellar binary components at
434: the $<$1 Myr level is well-motivated observationally
435: \citep[e.g.][]{Hartigan94,Hartigan03}. We list three useful samples
436: for the purposes of exploring the age-activity relation.
437:
438: First, for exploring the color-dependence of \logrphk\, for a given
439: age, we identify 21 ``color-separated'' binary systems in the
440: literature with \rphk\, measurements that have (1) photospheric \bv\,
441: colors differing between the two components by $>$0.05 mag, and (2)
442: \bv\, color for each component between 0.45 and $\approx$0.9
443: \citep[where the photospheric correction to \rphk\ is well
444: characterized;][]{Noyes84}. These systems are listed in Table
445: \ref{tab:pairs}. As our primary focus is on systems of near-solar
446: metallicity, we exclude two very metal poor systems from the analysis
447: (HD 23439AB and HD 134439/40, both with [Fe/H] $\simeq$ -1.0
448: \citep{Thevenin99}), although inclusion of the pair would have
449: negligible impact on our findings.
450:
451: Second, in Table \ref{tab:twins} we list solar-type binaries that met
452: the color range criterion (0.45 $<$ \bvo\, $<$ 0.9), but whose
453: components had near-identical colors (|$\Delta$\bvo|\, $<$ 0.05),
454: i.e. ``twin'' binaries. We include these systems in our analysis of
455: gauging the accuracy to which activity-derived ages can be
456: estimated. Lastly, following \citet{Barnes07}, we also identify five
457: field binaries from the literature having measured rotation periods,
458: and list their properties in Table \ref{tab:bin_per}. A few have
459: \bvo\, colors beyond the range where \logrphk\, is well-defined (i.e.
460: \bvo\, $>$ 0.9), however we include them in our sample for the
461: purposes of assessing the accuracy of the rotation vs. age vs. color
462: relation discussed in \S\ref{Gyro}.
463:
464: %%%%% NON-IDENTICAL PAIRS
465: \clearpage
466: \begin{deluxetable}{llccccl}
467: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
468: \setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.01in}
469: \tablewidth{0pt}
470: \tablecaption{\logrphk\, for Color-Separated Solar-type Dwarf Binaries \label{tab:pairs}}
471: \tablehead{
472: {(1)} &{(2)} &{(3)} &{(4)} &{(5)} &{(6)} &{(7)}\\
473: {A} &{B} &{A} &{B} &{A} &{B} &{}\\
474: {Name} &{Name} &{\bv} &{\bv} &{\logrphk} &{\logrphk}&{Refs.}
475: }
476: \startdata
477: HD 531B & HD 531A & 0.67 & 0.75 & -4.28 & -4.39 & 1,2\\
478: HD 5190 & HD 5208 & 0.52 & 0.68 & -4.96 & -5.13 & 1,3\\
479: HD 6872A & HD 6872B & 0.47 & 0.54 & -4.86 & -4.96 & 1,2\\
480: HD 7439 & HD 7438 & 0.45 & 0.81 & -4.75 & -4.67 & 1,2,4\\
481: HD 13357A & HD 13357B & 0.67 & 0.72 & -4.74 & -4.61 & 1,2*\\
482: HD 14082A & HD 14082B & 0.52 & 0.62 & -4.41 & -4.37 & 1,2\\
483: HD 26923 & HD 26913 & 0.57 & 0.68 & -4.50 & -4.39 & 1,5\\
484: HD 28255A & HD 28255B & 0.62 & 0.69 & -4.89 & -4.65 & 1,6\\
485: HD 53705 & HD 53706 & 0.62 & 0.78 & -4.93 & -5.01 & 1,3\\
486: HD 59099 & HD 59100 & 0.49 & 0.63 & -4.72 & -4.98 & 1,3*\\
487: HD 73668A & HD 73668B & 0.61 & 0.81 & -4.88 & -4.66 & 1,2\\
488: HD 103432 & HD 103431 & 0.71 & 0.76 & -4.82 & -4.73 & 1,2,7*\\
489: HD 116442 & HD 116443 & 0.78 & 0.87 & -4.94 & -4.94 & 1,2\\
490: HD 118576 & GJ 9455B & 0.64 & 0.85 & -4.92 & -4.73 & 1,7\\
491: HD 128620 & HD 128621 & 0.63 & 0.84 & -5.00 & -4.92 & 3,8\\
492: HD 134331 & HD 134330 & 0.62 & 0.72 & -4.82 & -4.82 & 1,3\\
493: HD 135101A & HD 135101B & 0.68 & 0.74 & -5.11 & -5.01 & 1,2,4\\
494: HD 137763 & HD 137778 & 0.79 & 0.87 & -4.97 & -4.37 & 1,2\\
495: HD 142661 & HD 142661B & 0.55 & 0.81 & -4.94 & -4.58 & 1,4*\\
496: HD 144087 & HD 144088 & 0.75 & 0.85 & -4.66 & -4.60 & 1,2\\
497: HD 219175A & HD 219175B & 0.54 & 0.65 & -4.99 & -4.89 & 1,7*,2\\
498: \enddata
499: \tablecomments{References:
500: (1) \citet{Perryman97},
501: (2) \citet{Wright04},
502: (3) \citet{Henry96},
503: (4) \citet{Gray03},
504: (5) \citet{Baliunas96},
505: (6) \citet{Tinney02},
506: (7) \citet{Duncan91},
507: (8) \citet{Bessell81}
508: "*" implies that the published $S_{MW}$ value from the cited
509: survey was converted to \logrphk\, by the author following \citet{Noyes84}.
510: }
511: \end{deluxetable}
512:
513: \begin{deluxetable}{llccccl}
514: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
515: \setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.03in}
516: \tablewidth{0pt}
517: \tablecaption{\logrphk\, for Near-Identical Solar-type Dwarf Binaries\label{tab:twins}}
518: \tablehead{
519: {(1)} &{(2)} &{(3)} &{(4)} &{(5)} &{(6)} &{(7)}\\
520: {A} &{B} &{A} &{B} &{A} &{B} &{}\\
521: {Name} &{Name} &{\bv} &{\bv} &{\logrphk} &{\logrphk}&{Refs.}}
522: \startdata
523: HD 9518A & HD 9518B & 0.53 & 0.54 & -5.12 & -5.00 & 1,2\\
524: HD 10361 & HD 10360 & 0.85 & 0.88 & -4.88 & -4.75 & 3,4\\
525: HD 20807 & HD 20766 & 0.60 & 0.64 & -4.79 & -4.65 & 1,4\\
526: HD 84612 & HD 84627 & 0.52 & 0.53 & -4.83 & -4.81 & 1,4\\
527: HD 92222A & HD 92222B & 0.59 & 0.59 & -4.44 & -4.51 & 2,5\\
528: HD 98745 & HD 98744 & 0.54 & 0.54 & -5.04 & -5.21 & 1,2\\
529: HD 103743 & HD 103742 & 0.64 & 0.67 & -4.81 & -4.83 & 1,4\\
530: HD 111484A & HD 111484B & 0.56 & 0.56 & -4.71 & -4.81 & 1,2\\
531: HD 145958A & HD 145958B & 0.76 & 0.80 & -4.94 & -4.94 & 1,2\\
532: HD 154195A & HD 154195B & 0.61 & 0.61 & -4.87 & -4.88 & 1,4*\\
533: HD 155886 & HD 155885 & 0.85 & 0.86 & -4.57 & -4.56 & 6,7,8*\\
534: HD 167216 & HD 167215 & 0.53 & 0.58 & -5.05 & -5.12 & 1,2\\
535: HD 179957 & HD 179958 & 0.64 & 0.64 & -5.05 & -5.08 & 2,3\\
536: HD 186408 & HD 186427 & 0.64 & 0.66 & -5.10 & -5.08 & 1,2\\
537: \enddata
538: \tablecomments{References:
539: (1) \citet{Perryman97},
540: (2) \citet{Wright04},
541: (3) \citet{Mermilliod91},
542: (4) \citet{Henry96},
543: (5) \bvo\, inferred from spectral type,
544: (6) \citet{Gliese91},
545: (7) \citet{Baliunas96},
546: (8) \citet{Baliunas95}.
547: "*" implies that the published $S_{MW}$ value from the cited survey
548: was recalculated to \logrphk\, by the author using the color listed
549: and following \citet{Noyes84}.}
550: \end{deluxetable}
551:
552: \clearpage
553: %%% TABLE OF BINARIES WITH KNOWN PERIODS
554: \begin{deluxetable}{llccccl}
555: %\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
556: \setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.03in}
557: \tablewidth{0pt}
558: \tablecaption{Field Binaries With Rotation Periods\label{tab:bin_per}}
559: \tablehead{
560: {(1)} &{(2)} &{(3)} &{(4)} &{(5)} &{(6)} &{(7)}\\
561: {A} &{B} &{A} &{B} &{A} &{B} &{}\\
562: {Name} &{Name}&{\bv} &{\bv} &{Per(d)}&{Per(d)}&{Refs.}}
563: \startdata
564: HD 131156A & HD 131156B & 0.73 & 1.16 & 6.31 & 11.94 & 1,2\\
565: HD 128620 & HD 128621 & 0.63 & 0.84 & 25.6 & 36.9 & 3,4,5,6\\
566: HD 155886 & HD 155885 & 0.85 & 0.86 & 20.69 & 21.11 & 2,6\\
567: HD 201091 & HD 201092 & 1.07 & 1.31 & 35.37 & 37.84 & 1,2\\
568: HD 219834A & HD 219834B & 0.79 & 0.90 & 42 & 43 & 7,8
569: \enddata
570: \tablecomments{References:
571: (1) \citet{Perryman97},
572: (2) \citet{Donahue96},
573: (3) \citet{Bessell81},
574: (4) E. Guinan (priv. comm.),
575: (5) \citet{Jay97},
576: (6) \citet{Hallam91},
577: (7) \citet{Hoffleit91},
578: (8) \citet{Mermilliod91},
579: (9) \citet{Baliunas96}. The period for HD 128620 ($\alpha$ Cen A) is
580: a mean (25.6 days) from values given by E. Guinan (priv. comm.;
581: 22\,$\pm$\,3 day) and Hallam et al. (1991; 28.8\,$\pm$\,2.5 days), and
582: is consistent within the constraints from $v$sin$i$ and $p$-mode
583: rotational splitting \citep{Fletcher06,Bazot07}.
584: }
585: \end{deluxetable}
586:
587: % HUGE TABLE OF CLUSTER STARS WITH ACTIVITY MEASUREMENTS
588: \clearpage
589: \begin{deluxetable}{lllcrcrcrcrrl}
590: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
591: \setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.03in}
592: \tablewidth{0pt}
593: \tablecaption{Members of Stellar Aggregates with \logrphk\, Measurements \label{tab:cluster_ca}}
594: \tablehead{
595: {(1)} &{(2)} &{(3)} &{(4)}&{(5)} &{(6)} &{(7)} &{(8)} &{(9)} &{(10)} &{(11)} &{(12)}&{(13)}\\
596: {Name}&{Alias}&{Alias}&{\bv}&{Ref.}&{\ebv}&{Ref.}&{\bvo}&{Ref.}&{\logrphk}&{N$_{obs}$}&{Ref.}&{Group}\\
597: {} &{} &{} &{mag}&{} &{mag} &{} &{mag} &{} &{dex} &{} &{} &{}
598: }
599: \startdata
600: TYC 6779-1372-1 & ScoPMS 5 & HD 142361 & 0.71 & 1 & 0.10 & 4,2 & 0.62 & 4,2 & -4.01 & 2 & 6 & US \\
601: TYC 6793-501-1 & ScoPMS 60 & HD 146516 & 0.79 & 4 & 0.20 & 4,5 & 0.59 & 2,4 & -4.09 & 1 & 6 & US \\
602: TYC 6215-184-1 & ScoPMS 214 & ... & 1.24 & 4 & 0.30 & 4,5 & 0.82 & 4,2 & -4.17 & 1 & 6 & US \\
603: TYC 6785-476-1 & PZ99 J154106.7-265626 & ... & 0.92 & 8 & 0.50 & 7 & 0.74 & 2,7 & -3.88 & 1 & 6 & US \\
604: TYC 6208-1543-1 & PZ99 J160158.2-200811 & ... & 1.10 & 1 & 0.30 & 7 & 0.68 & 2,7 & -3.92 & 1 & 6 & US \\
605: 2UCAC 22492947 & PZ99 J161329.3-231106 & ... & ... & ... & 0.60 & 5,7 & 0.86 & 2,7 & -4.28 & 1 & 6 & US \\
606: TYC 6793-1406-1 & PZ99 J161618.0-233947 & ... & 0.64 & 1 & 0.40 & 5,7 & 0.74 & 2,7 & -4.07 & 1 & 6 & US \\
607: TYC 6779-305-1 & V1149 Sco & HD 143006 & 0.75 & 1 & 0.07 & 1,2 & 0.68 & 2 & -4.05 & 1 & 6 & US \\
608: TYC 6779-305-1 & V1149 Sco & HD 143006 & 0.75 & 1 & 0.07 & 1,2 & 0.68 & 2 & -4.03 & 4 & 3 & US \\
609: HIP 84586 & V824 Ara & HD 155555 & 0.80 & 1 & 0.00 & 9 & 0.80 & 1,9 & -3.97 & ... & 10 & $\beta$ Pic \\
610: HIP 92680 & PZ Tel & HD 174429 & 0.78 & 1 & 0.00 & 9 & 0.78 & 1,9 & -3.78 & 1 & 11 & $\beta$ Pic \\
611: HIP 92680 & PZ Tel & HD 174429 & 0.78 & 1 & 0.00 & 9 & 0.78 & 1,9 & -3.84 & ... & 12 & $\beta$ Pic \\
612: HIP 25486 & HR 1817 & HD 35850 & 0.55 & 1 & 0.00 & 9 & 0.55 & 1,9 & -4.08 & ... & 10 & $\beta$ Pic \\
613: HIP 25486 & HR 1817 & HD 35850 & 0.55 & 1 & 0.00 & 9 & 0.55 & 1,9 & -4.22 & 5 & 3 & $\beta$ Pic \\
614: HIP 25486 & HR 1817 & HD 35850 & 0.55 & 1 & 0.00 & 9 & 0.55 & 1,9 & -4.29 & 1 & 6 & $\beta$ Pic \\
615: TYC 7310-2431 1 & MML 52 & ... & 0.97 & 14 & 0.05 & 14 & 0.62 & 2,14 & -4.12 & 2 & 6 & UCL \\
616: TYC 7319-749 1 & MML 58 & ... & 0.88 & 13 & 0.14 & 14 & 0.81 & 2,14 & -4.20 & 2 & 6 & UCL \\
617: TYC 7822-158 1 & MML 63 & ... & 0.87 & 13 & 0.23 & 14 & 0.80 & 2,14 & -4.02 & 1 & 6 & UCL \\
618: HIP 76673 & MML 69 & HD 139498 & 0.75 & 1 & 0.09 & 14 & 0.68 & 2,14 & -4.04 & 1 & 6 & UCL \\
619: TYC 7331-782 1 & MML 70 & ... & 0.95 & 14 & 0.15 & 14 & 0.82 & 2,14 & -4.06 & 1 & 6 & UCL \\
620: TYC 7333-1260 1 & MML 74 & HD 143358 & 0.73 & 14 & 0.05 & 14 & 0.59 & 2,14 & -4.04 & 2 & 6 & UCL \\
621: HIP 59764 & SAO 251810 & HD 106506 & 0.60 & 1 & 0.06 & 15 & 0.55 & 1,15 & -3.95 & 1 & 11 & LCC \\
622: HIP 59764 & SAO 251810 & HD 106506 & 0.60 & 1 & 0.06 & 15 & 0.55 & 1,15 & -3.97 & ... & 12 & LCC \\
623: HIP 66941 & SAO 252423 & HD 119022 & 0.74 & 1 & 0.12 & 14 & 0.62 & 1,14 & -4.03 & ... & 11 & LCC \\
624: HIP 66941 & SAO 252423 & HD 119022 & 0.74 & 1 & 0.12 & 14 & 0.62 & 1,14 & -4.06 & ... & 12 & LCC \\
625: HIP 490 & SAO 214961 & HD 105 & 0.59 & 1 & 0.00 & 9 & 0.59 & 1,9 & -4.36 & 1 & 11 & Tuc \\
626: HIP 490 & SAO 214961 & HD 105 & 0.59 & 1 & 0.00 & 9 & 0.59 & 1,9 & -4.41 & 7 & 3 & Tuc \\
627: HIP 1481 & SAO 248159 & HD 1466 & 0.54 & 1 & 0.00 & 9 & 0.67 & 1,9 & -4.36 & 1 & 11 & Tuc \\
628: HIP 105388 & SAO 246975 & HD 202917 & 0.69 & 1 & 0.00 & 9 & 0.69 & 1,9 & -4.06 & 1 & 11 & Tuc \\
629: HIP 105388 & SAO 246975 & HD 202917 & 0.69 & 1 & 0.00 & 9 & 0.69 & 1,9 & -4.09 & ... & 12 & Tuc \\
630: HIP 105388 & SAO 246975 & HD 202917 & 0.69 & 1 & 0.00 & 9 & 0.69 & 1,9 & -4.22 & 4 & 3 & Tuc \\
631: HIP 116748A & DS Tuc A & HD 222259A & 0.68 & 1 & 0.00 & 9 & 0.68 & 1,9 & -4.00 & ... & 12 & Tuc \\
632: HIP 116748A & DS Tuc A & HD 222259A & 0.68 & 1 & 0.00 & 9 & 0.68 & 1,9 & -4.09 & 1 & 11 & Tuc \\
633: TYC 3319-306-1 & Cl Melotte 20 350 & ... & 0.69 & 19 & 0.10 & 17 & 0.60 & 17,19 & -4.04 & 1 & 6 & $\alpha$ Per \\
634: TYC 3319-306-1 & Cl Melotte 20 350 & ... & 0.69 & 19 & 0.10 & 17 & 0.60 & 17,19 & -4.21 & 1 & 6 & $\alpha$ Per \\
635: TYC 3315-1080-1 & Cl Melotte 20 373 & ... & 0.77 & 20 & 0.10 & 17 & 0.67 & 20,17 & -4.04 & 2 & 6 & $\alpha$ Per \\
636: TYC 3319-589-1 & Cl Melotte 20 389 & ... & 0.67 & 16 & 0.10 & 17 & 0.57 & 16,17 & -4.53 & 1 & 6 & $\alpha$ Per \\
637: TYC 3320-1283-1 & Cl Melotte 20 622 & ... & 0.82 & 19 & 0.10 & 17 & 0.72 & 17,19 & -3.78 & 1 & 6 & $\alpha$ Per \\
638: 2UCAC 47964793 & Cl Melotte 20 696 & ... & 0.74 & 19 & 0.10 & 17 & 0.64 & 17,19 & -4.21 & 1 & 6 & $\alpha$ Per \\
639: TYC 3320-545-1 & Cl Melotte 20 699 & ... & 0.70 & 16 & 0.10 & 17 & 0.60 & 16,17 & -4.05 & 2 & 6 & $\alpha$ Per \\
640: TYC 3320-423-1 & Cl Melotte 20 750 & ... & 0.59 & 19 & 0.10 & 17 & 0.49 & 17,19 & -4.80 & 1 & 6 & $\alpha$ Per \\
641: TYC 3320-2239-1 & Cl Melotte 20 767 & ... & 0.61 & 19 & 0.10 & 17 & 0.52 & 17,19 & -4.62 & 2 & 6 & $\alpha$ Per \\
642: TYC 3320-583-1 & Cl Melotte 20 935 & ... & 0.63 & 19 & 0.10 & 17 & 0.53 & 17,19 & -4.16 & 1 & 6 & $\alpha$ Per \\
643: TYC 3321-1655-1 & Cl Melotte 20 1101 & ... & 0.69 & 20 & 0.10 & 17 & 0.59 & 17,19 & -4.00 & 1 & 6 & $\alpha$ Per \\
644: TYC 3325-753-1 & Cl Melotte 20 1234 & ... & 0.72 & 16 & 0.10 & 17 & 0.62 & 16,17 & -4.53 & 1 & 6 & $\alpha$ Per \\
645: 2UCAC 47800056 & Cl* Melotte 20 AP 93 & ... & 0.94 & 18 & 0.10 & 17 & 0.84 & 17,18 & -4.05 & 1 & 6 & $\alpha$ Per \\
646: TYC 1799-118-1 & Cl Melotte 22 102 & ... & 0.72 & 19 & 0.04 & 19,21 & 0.68 & 21 & -4.45 & 1 & 6 & Pleiades \\
647: TYC 1799-118-1 & Cl Melotte 22 102 & ... & 0.72 & 19 & 0.04 & 19,21 & 0.68 & 21 & -4.48 & 1 & 6 & Pleiades \\
648: TYC 1799-102-1 & Cl Melotte 22 120 & ... & 0.71 & 19 & 0.04 & 19,21 & 0.67 & 21 & -4.35 & 1 & 6 & Pleiades \\
649: TYC 1799-1268-1 & Cl Melotte 22 129 & ... & 0.88 & 19 & 0.05 & 19,21 & 0.83 & 21 & -4.27 & 1 & 23 & Pleiades \\
650: TYC 1799-1037-1 & Cl Melotte 22 164 & HD 23158 & 0.49 & 19 & 0.03 & 19,21 & 0.46 & 21 & -4.33 & 2 & 23 & Pleiades \\
651: TYC 1803-1351-1 & Cl Melotte 22 173 & ... & 0.85 & 19 & 0.04 & 19,21 & 0.81 & 21 & -4.20 & 1 & 6 & Pleiades \\
652: TYC 1803-8-1 & Cl Melotte 22 174 & ... & 0.85 & 19 & 0.04 & 19,21 & 0.81 & 21 & -3.48 & 1 & 6 & Pleiades \\
653: TYC 1799-1224-1 & Cl Melotte 22 233 & HD 23195 & 0.53 & 19 & 0.03 & 19,21 & 0.49 & 21 & -4.72 & 2 & 23 & Pleiades \\
654: TYC 1803-818-1 & Cl Melotte 22 250 & ... & 0.69 & 19 & 0.05 & 19,21 & 0.64 & 21 & -4.49 & 1 & 6 & Pleiades \\
655: TYC 1799-963-1 & Cl Melotte 22 296 & ... & 0.84 & 19 & 0.04 & 19,21 & 0.80 & 21 & -3.90 & 1 & 21 & Pleiades \\
656: TYC 1803-574-1 & Cl Melotte 22 314 & ... & 0.66 & 19 & 0.04 & 19,21 & 0.61 & 21 & -4.21 & 1 & 6 & Pleiades \\
657: TYC 1803-542-1 & Cl Melotte 22 405 & ... & 0.54 & 19 & 0.04 & 19,21 & 0.49 & 21 & -4.42 & 3 & 23 & Pleiades \\
658: TYC 1803-808-1 & Cl Melotte 22 489 & ... & 0.63 & 19 & 0.10 & 19,21 & 0.53 & 21 & -3.94 & 2 & 23 & Pleiades \\
659: TYC 1803-1061-1 & Cl Melotte 22 514 & ... & 0.70 & 19 & 0.04 & 19,21 & 0.66 & 21 & -4.34 & 1 & 6 & Pleiades \\
660: TYC 1803-1156-1 & Cl Melotte 22 571 & ... & 0.78 & 19 & 0.03 & 19,21 & 0.75 & 21 & -4.40 & 1 & 6 & Pleiades \\
661: GSC 1799-960 & Cl Melotte 22 625 & ... & 1.17 & 19 & 0.36 & 19,21 & 0.82 & 21 & -3.85 & 1 & 21 & Pleiades \\
662: TYC 1799-974-1 & Cl Melotte 22 708 & ... & 0.61 & 19 & 0.03 & 19,21 & 0.58 & 21 & -3.88 & 2 & 23 & Pleiades \\
663: TYC 1803-156-1 & Cl Melotte 22 727 & ... & 0.55 & 19 & 0.03 & 19,21 & 0.52 & 21 & -3.78 & 4 & 23 & Pleiades \\
664: TYC 1803-944-1 & Cl Melotte 22 739 & ... & 0.62 & 19 & 0.04 & 19,21 & 0.59 & 21 & -3.97 & 1 & 21 & Pleiades \\
665: TYC 1799-978-1 & Cl Melotte 22 745 & HD 282969 & 0.52 & 19 & 0.03 & 19,21 & 0.50 & 21 & -4.43 & 1 & 23 & Pleiades \\
666: TYC 1800-1917-1 & Cl Melotte 22 923 & ... & 0.62 & 19 & 0.04 & 19,21 & 0.58 & 21 & -4.23 & 2 & 23 & Pleiades \\
667: TYC 1804-2129-1 & Cl Melotte 22 996 & ... & 0.65 & 19 & 0.04 & 19,21 & 0.60 & 21 & -4.25 & 3 & 23 & Pleiades \\
668: TYC 1804-2366-1 & Cl Melotte 22 1015 & ... & 0.65 & 19 & 0.04 & 19,21 & 0.61 & 21 & -4.55 & 1 & 6 & Pleiades \\
669: TYC 1800-1620-1 & Cl Melotte 22 1117 & ... & 0.72 & 19 & 0.04 & 19,21 & 0.68 & 21 & -4.57 & 2 & 23 & Pleiades \\
670: TYC 1800-1774-1 & Cl Melotte 22 1182 & ... & 0.64 & 19 & 0.04 & 19,21 & 0.60 & 21 & -4.44 & 1 & 6 & Pleiades \\
671: TYC 1800-1627-1 & Cl Melotte 22 1200 & ... & 0.54 & 19 & 0.03 & 19,21 & 0.51 & 21 & -4.68 & 1 & 6 & Pleiades \\
672: TYC 1804-2205-1 & Cl Melotte 22 1207 & ... & 0.63 & 19 & 0.04 & 19,21 & 0.59 & 21 & -4.29 & 1 & 23 & Pleiades \\
673: TYC 1800-1616-1 & Cl Melotte 22 1215 & ... & 0.64 & 19 & 0.04 & 19,21 & 0.60 & 21 & -4.26 & 1 & 23 & Pleiades \\
674: TYC 1800-1683-1 & Cl Melotte 22 1613 & ... & 0.54 & 19 & 0.05 & 19,21 & 0.49 & 21 & -4.42 & 1 & 23 & Pleiades \\
675: TYC 1800-1632-1 & Cl Melotte 22 1726 & HD 23713 & 0.54 & 19 & 0.04 & 19,21 & 0.51 & 21 & -4.44 & 2 & 23 & Pleiades \\
676: TYC 1804-2140-1 & Cl Melotte 22 1776 & HD 282958 & 0.72 & 19 & 0.04 & 19,21 & 0.68 & 21 & -4.07 & 1 & 21 & Pleiades \\
677: TYC 1804-2140-1 & Cl Melotte 22 1776 & ... & 0.72 & 19 & 0.04 & 19,21 & 0.68 & 21 & -4.30 & 1 & 6 & Pleiades \\
678: TYC 1800-1852-1 & Cl Melotte 22 1797 & ... & 0.56 & 19 & 0.04 & 19,21 & 0.52 & 21 & -4.36 & 1 & 23 & Pleiades \\
679: TYC 1800-1716-1 & Cl Melotte 22 1856 & ... & 0.56 & 19 & 0.04 & 19,21 & 0.51 & 21 & -4.39 & 1 & 23 & Pleiades \\
680: 2UCAC 40300217 & Cl Melotte 22 2027 & ... & 0.86 & 19 & 0.04 & 19,21 & 0.82 & 21 & -4.71 & 1 & 23 & Pleiades \\
681: 2UCAC 39967447 & Cl Melotte 22 2106 & ... & 0.86 & 19 & 0.04 & 19,21 & 0.82 & 21 & -4.19 & 2 & 23 & Pleiades \\
682: 2UCAC 39967447 & Cl Melotte 22 2106 & ... & 0.86 & 19 & 0.04 & 19,21 & 0.82 & 21 & -3.94 & 1 & 6 & Pleiades \\
683: 2UCAC 39967452 & Cl Melotte 22 2126 & ... & 0.85 & 19 & 0.04 & 19,21 & 0.81 & 21 & -4.14 & 2 & 23 & Pleiades \\
684: 2UCAC 39967452 & Cl Melotte 22 2126 & ... & 0.85 & 19 & 0.04 & 19,21 & 0.81 & 21 & -4.16 & 1 & 21 & Pleiades \\
685: TYC 1800-1091-1 & Cl Melotte 22 2147 & ... & 0.81 & 19 & 0.03 & 19,21 & 0.78 & 21 & -4.11 & 2 & 23 & Pleiades \\
686: TYC 1800-1091-1 & Cl Melotte 22 2147 & ... & 0.81 & 19 & 0.03 & 19,21 & 0.78 & 21 & -3.94 & 1 & 6 & Pleiades \\
687: TYC 1804-1179-1 & Cl Melotte 22 2278 & ... & 0.87 & 19 & 0.04 & 19,21 & 0.83 & 21 & -4.19 & 1 & 6 & Pleiades \\
688: TYC 1800-471-1 & Cl Melotte 22 2506 & ... & 0.60 & 19 & 0.05 & 19,21 & 0.55 & 21 & -4.43 & 1 & 6 & Pleiades \\
689: TYC 1804-305-1 & Cl Melotte 22 2644 & ... & 0.74 & 19 & 0.04 & 22 & 0.70 & 19,22 & -4.42 & 1 & 6 & Pleiades \\
690: TYC 1800-1526-1 & Cl Melotte 22 2786 & ... & 0.61 & 19 & 0.04 & 19,21 & 0.56 & 21 & -4.38 & 1 & 6 & Pleiades \\
691: TYC 1804-1400-1 & Cl Melotte 22 3097 & ... & 0.74 & 19 & 0.04 & 19,21 & 0.70 & 21 & -4.23 & 1 & 6 & Pleiades \\
692: TYC 1804-1400-1 & Cl Melotte 22 3097 & ... & 0.74 & 19 & 0.04 & 19,21 & 0.70 & 21 & -4.29 & 1 & 6 & Pleiades \\
693: TYC 1800-1415-1 & Cl Melotte 22 3179 & ... & 0.57 & 19 & 0.03 & 19,21 & 0.53 & 21 & -4.55 & 1 & 6 & Pleiades \\
694: TYC 1813-126-1 & Cl* Melotte 22 PELS 191 & ... & 0.71 & 1 & 0.04 & 1,21 & 0.67 & 21 & -4.38 & 1 & 6 & Pleiades \\
695: HIP 13806 & Cl Melotte 25 153 & ... & 0.85 & 1 & 0.00 & 24 & 0.85 & 1,24 & -4.38 & 18 & 25 & Hyades \\
696: HIP 14976 & SAO 56256 & HD 19902 & 0.73 & 1 & 0.00 & 24 & 0.73 & 1,24 & -4.57 & 10 & 25 & Hyades \\
697: HIP 14976 & SAO 56256 & HD 19902 & 0.73 & 1 & 0.00 & 24 & 0.73 & 1,24 & -4.60 & 1 & 3 & Hyades \\
698: HIP 15310 & Cl Melotte 25 2 & HD 20439 & 0.62 & 1 & 0.00 & 24 & 0.62 & 1,24 & -4.49 & 3 & 23 & Hyades \\
699: HIP 15310 & Cl Melotte 25 2 & HD 20439 & 0.62 & 1 & 0.00 & 24 & 0.62 & 1,24 & -4.54 & 13 & 25 & Hyades \\
700: HIP 16529 & Cl Melotte 25 4 & ... & 0.84 & 1 & 0.00 & 24 & 0.84 & 1,24 & -4.37 & 9 & 25 & Hyades \\
701: HIP 18327 & Cl Melotte 25 7 & HD 258252 & 0.90 & 1 & 0.00 & 24 & 0.90 & 1,24 & -4.36 & 8 & 25 & Hyades \\
702: HIP 19098 & Cl Melotte 25 228 & HD 285367 & 0.89 & 1 & 0.00 & 24 & 0.89 & 1,24 & -4.39 & 8 & 25 & Hyades \\
703: HIP 19148 & Cl Melotte 25 10 & HD 25825 & 0.59 & 1 & 0.00 & 24 & 0.59 & 1,24 & -4.47 & 8 & 25 & Hyades \\
704: HIP 19148 & Cl Melotte 25 10 & HD 25825 & 0.59 & 1 & 0.00 & 24 & 0.59 & 1,24 & -4.48 & 13 & 3 & Hyades \\
705: HIP 19148 & Cl Melotte 25 10 & HD 25825 & 0.59 & 1 & 0.00 & 24 & 0.59 & 1,24 & -4.57 & 3 & 23 & Hyades \\
706: HIP 19261 B & Cl Melotte 25 12 & HD 26015B & 0.65 & 1 & 0.00 & 24 & 0.65 & 1,24 & -4.28 & 8 & 25 & Hyades \\
707: HIP 19781 & Cl Melotte 25 17 & HD 26756 & 0.69 & 1 & 0.00 & 24 & 0.69 & 1,24 & -4.42 & 21 & 25 & Hyades \\
708: HIP 19781 & Cl Melotte 25 17 & HD 26756 & 0.69 & 1 & 0.00 & 24 & 0.69 & 1,24 & -4.47 & 27 & 23 & Hyades \\
709: HIP 19786 & Cl Melotte 25 18 & HD 26767 & 0.64 & 1 & 0.00 & 24 & 0.64 & 1,24 & -4.39 & 2 & 23 & Hyades \\
710: HIP 19786 & Cl Melotte 25 18 & HD 26767 & 0.64 & 1 & 0.00 & 24 & 0.64 & 1,24 & -4.44 & 15 & 25 & Hyades \\
711: HIP 19786 & Cl Melotte 25 18 & HD 26767 & 0.64 & 1 & 0.00 & 24 & 0.64 & 1,24 & -4.48 & 9 & 3 & Hyades \\
712: HIP 19793 & Cl Melotte 25 15 & HD 26736 & 0.66 & 1 & 0.00 & 24 & 0.66 & 1,24 & -4.42 & 24 & 23 & Hyades \\
713: HIP 19793 & Cl Melotte 25 15 & HD 26736 & 0.66 & 1 & 0.00 & 24 & 0.66 & 1,24 & -4.42 & 17 & 25 & Hyades \\
714: HIP 19796 & Cl Melotte 25 19 & HD 26784 & 0.51 & 1 & 0.00 & 24 & 0.51 & 1,24 & -4.49 & 1 & 23 & Hyades \\
715: HIP 19796 & Cl Melotte 25 19 & HD 26784 & 0.51 & 1 & 0.00 & 24 & 0.51 & 1,24 & -4.54 & 11 & 25 & Hyades \\
716: HIP 20130 & Cl Melotte 25 26 & HD 27250 & 0.74 & 1 & 0.00 & 24 & 0.74 & 1,24 & -4.45 & 8 & 25 & Hyades \\
717: HIP 20130 & Cl Melotte 25 26 & HD 27250 & 0.74 & 1 & 0.00 & 24 & 0.74 & 1,24 & -4.47 & 12 & 23 & Hyades \\
718: HIP 20146 & Cl Melotte 25 27 & HD 27282 & 0.72 & 1 & 0.00 & 24 & 0.72 & 1,24 & -4.45 & 45 & 23 & Hyades \\
719: HIP 20146 & Cl Melotte 25 27 & HD 27282 & 0.72 & 1 & 0.00 & 24 & 0.72 & 1,24 & -4.46 & 9 & 25 & Hyades \\
720: HIP 20237 & Cl Melotte 25 31 & HD 27406 & 0.56 & 1 & 0.00 & 24 & 0.56 & 1,24 & -4.45 & 8 & 25 & Hyades \\
721: HIP 20237 & Cl Melotte 25 31 & HD 27406 & 0.56 & 1 & 0.00 & 24 & 0.56 & 1,24 & -4.48 & 161 & 23 & Hyades \\
722: HIP 20480 & Cl Melotte 25 42 & HD 27732 & 0.76 & 1 & 0.00 & 24 & 0.76 & 1,24 & -4.46 & 8 & 25 & Hyades \\
723: HIP 20480 & Cl Melotte 25 42 & HD 27732 & 0.76 & 1 & 0.00 & 24 & 0.76 & 1,24 & -4.48 & 10 & 23 & Hyades \\
724: HIP 20492 & Cl Melotte 25 46 & HD 27771 & 0.85 & 1 & 0.00 & 24 & 0.85 & 1,24 & -4.39 & 8 & 25 & Hyades \\
725: HIP 20492 & Cl Melotte 25 46 & HD 27771 & 0.85 & 1 & 0.00 & 24 & 0.85 & 1,24 & -4.81 & 1 & 23 & Hyades \\
726: HIP 20557 & Cl Melotte 25 48 & HD 27808 & 0.52 & 1 & 0.00 & 24 & 0.52 & 1,24 & -4.50 & 8 & 25 & Hyades \\
727: HIP 20557 & Cl Melotte 25 48 & HD 27808 & 0.52 & 1 & 0.00 & 24 & 0.52 & 1,24 & -4.52 & 183 & 23 & Hyades \\
728: HIP 20577 & Cl Melotte 25 52 & HD 27859 & 0.60 & 1 & 0.00 & 24 & 0.60 & 1,24 & -4.45 & 102 & 23 & Hyades \\
729: HIP 20577 & Cl Melotte 25 52 & HD 27859 & 0.60 & 1 & 0.00 & 24 & 0.60 & 1,24 & -4.47 & 1 & 6 & Hyades \\
730: HIP 20577 & Cl Melotte 25 52 & HD 27859 & 0.60 & 1 & 0.00 & 24 & 0.60 & 1,24 & -4.47 & 9 & 25 & Hyades \\
731: HIP 20741 & Cl Melotte 25 64 & HD 20899 & 0.66 & 1 & 0.00 & 24 & 0.66 & 1,24 & -4.47 & 9 & 25 & Hyades \\
732: HIP 20741 & Cl Melotte 25 64 & HD 28099 & 0.66 & 1 & 0.00 & 24 & 0.66 & 1,24 & -4.50 & 81 & 23 & Hyades \\
733: HIP 20741 & Cl Melotte 25 64 & HD 28099 & 0.66 & 1 & 0.00 & 24 & 0.66 & 1,24 & -4.62 & 1 & 6 & Hyades \\
734: HIP 20815 & Cl Melotte 25 65 & HD 28205 & 0.54 & 1 & 0.00 & 24 & 0.54 & 1,24 & -4.58 & 8 & 25 & Hyades \\
735: HIP 20815 & Cl Melotte 25 65 & HD 28205 & 0.54 & 1 & 0.00 & 24 & 0.54 & 1,24 & -4.60 & 144 & 23 & Hyades \\
736: HIP 20826 & Cl Melotte 25 66 & HD 28237 & 0.56 & 1 & 0.00 & 24 & 0.56 & 1,24 & -4.46 & 8 & 25 & Hyades \\
737: HIP 20826 & Cl Melotte 25 66 & HD 28237 & 0.56 & 1 & 0.00 & 24 & 0.56 & 1,24 & -4.46 & 2 & 23 & Hyades \\
738: HIP 20826 & Cl Melotte 25 66 & HD 28237 & 0.56 & 1 & 0.00 & 24 & 0.56 & 1,24 & -4.48 & 5 & 3 & Hyades \\
739: HIP 20826 & Cl Melotte 25 66 & HD 28237 & 0.56 & 1 & 0.00 & 24 & 0.56 & 1,24 & -4.55 & 1 & 6 & Hyades \\
740: HIP 20850 & Cl Melotte 25 178 & HD 28258 & 0.84 & 1 & 0.00 & 24 & 0.84 & 1,24 & -4.43 & 9 & 25 & Hyades \\
741: HIP 20899 & Cl Melotte 25 73 & HD 28344 & 0.61 & 1 & 0.00 & 24 & 0.61 & 1,24 & -4.44 & 33 & 23 & Hyades \\
742: HIP 20899 & Cl Melotte 25 73 & HD 28344 & 0.61 & 1 & 0.00 & 24 & 0.61 & 1,24 & -4.46 & 7 & 3 & Hyades \\
743: HIP 20899 & Cl Melotte 25 73 & HD 28344 & 0.61 & 1 & 0.00 & 24 & 0.61 & 1,24 & -4.50 & 10 & 25 & Hyades \\
744: HIP 20899 & Cl Melotte 25 73 & HD 28344 & 0.61 & 1 & 0.00 & 24 & 0.61 & 1,24 & -4.59 & 1 & 6 & Hyades \\
745: HIP 20951 & Cl Melotte 25 79 & HD 285733 & 0.83 & 1 & 0.00 & 24 & 0.83 & 1,24 & -4.44 & 12 & 23 & Hyades \\
746: HIP 20951 & Cl Melotte 25 79 & HD 285733 & 0.83 & 1 & 0.00 & 24 & 0.83 & 1,24 & -4.52 & 1 & 6 & Hyades \\
747: HIP 20951 & Cl Melotte 25 79 & HD 285773 & 0.83 & 1 & 0.00 & 24 & 0.83 & 1,24 & -4.44 & 9 & 25 & Hyades \\
748: HIP 20978 & Cl Melotte 25 180 & HD 28462 & 0.86 & 1 & 0.00 & 24 & 0.86 & 1,24 & -4.27 & 9 & 23 & Hyades \\
749: HIP 20978 & Cl Melotte 25 180 & HD 28462 & 0.86 & 1 & 0.00 & 24 & 0.86 & 1,24 & -4.29 & 1 & 6 & Hyades \\
750: HIP 20978 & Cl Melotte 25 180 & HD 28462 & 0.86 & 1 & 0.00 & 24 & 0.86 & 1,24 & -4.41 & 7 & 25 & Hyades \\
751: HIP 21099 & Cl Melotte 25 87 & HD 28593 & 0.73 & 1 & 0.00 & 24 & 0.73 & 1,24 & -4.46 & 21 & 23 & Hyades \\
752: HIP 21099 & Cl Melotte 25 87 & HD 28593 & 0.73 & 1 & 0.00 & 24 & 0.73 & 1,24 & -4.48 & 9 & 25 & Hyades \\
753: HIP 21112 & Cl Melotte 25 88 & HD 28635 & 0.54 & 1 & 0.00 & 24 & 0.54 & 1,24 & -4.39 & 1 & 6 & Hyades \\
754: HIP 21112 & Cl Melotte 25 88 & HD 28635 & 0.54 & 1 & 0.00 & 24 & 0.54 & 1,24 & -4.56 & 10 & 25 & Hyades \\
755: HIP 21112 & Cl Melotte 25 88 & HD 28635 & 0.54 & 1 & 0.00 & 24 & 0.54 & 1,24 & -4.56 & 33 & 23 & Hyades \\
756: HIP 21317 & Cl Melotte 25 97 & HD 28892 & 0.63 & 1 & 0.00 & 24 & 0.63 & 1,24 & -4.45 & 8 & 25 & Hyades \\
757: HIP 21317 & Cl Melotte 25 97 & HD 28992 & 0.63 & 1 & 0.00 & 24 & 0.63 & 1,24 & -4.48 & 60 & 23 & Hyades \\
758: HIP 21317 & Cl Melotte 25 97 & HD 28992 & 0.63 & 1 & 0.00 & 24 & 0.63 & 1,24 & -4.52 & 1 & 6 & Hyades \\
759: HIP 21637 & Cl Melotte 25 105 & HD 29419 & 0.58 & 1 & 0.00 & 24 & 0.58 & 1,24 & -4.52 & 8 & 25 & Hyades \\
760: HIP 21654 & Cl Melotte 25 106 & HD 29461 & 0.66 & 1 & 0.00 & 24 & 0.66 & 1,24 & -4.55 & 15 & 3 & Hyades \\
761: HIP 21654 & Cl Melotte 25 106 & HD 29461 & 0.66 & 1 & 0.00 & 24 & 0.66 & 1,24 & -4.58 & 1 & 6 & Hyades \\
762: HIP 22203 & Cl Melotte 25 142 & HD 30246 & 0.67 & 1 & 0.00 & 24 & 0.66 & 1,24 & -4.63 & 1 & 6 & Hyades \\
763: HIP 22422 & Cl Melotte 25 118 & HD 30589 & 0.58 & 1 & 0.00 & 24 & 0.58 & 1,24 & -4.75 & 1 & 23 & Hyades \\
764: HIP 22422 & Cl Melotte 25 118 & HD 30589 & 0.58 & 1 & 0.00 & 24 & 0.58 & 1,24 & -4.82 & 10 & 25 & Hyades \\
765: HIP 23069 & Cl Melotte 25 127 & HD 31609 & 0.74 & 1 & 0.00 & 24 & 0.74 & 1,24 & -4.45 & 7 & 25 & Hyades \\
766: HIP 23498 & Cl Melotte 25 187 & HD 32347 & 0.77 & 1 & 0.00 & 24 & 0.77 & 1,24 & -4.44 & 7 & 25 & Hyades \\
767: HIP 23750 & Cl* Melotte 25 S 140 & HD 240648 & 0.73 & 1 & 0.00 & 24 & 0.73 & 1,24 & -4.43 & 7 & 25 & Hyades \\
768: TYC 1265-569-1 & Cl Melotte 25 49 & HD 27835 & 0.59 & 19 & 0.00 & 24 & 0.59 & 19,24 & -4.62 & 1 & 6 & Hyades \\
769: TYC 1265-569-1 & Cl Melotte 25 49 & HD 27835 & 0.60 & 1 & 0.00 & 24 & 0.60 & 1,24 & -4.52 & 8 & 25 & Hyades \\
770: TYC 1265-569-1 & Cl Melotte 25 49 & HD 27835 & 0.60 & 1 & 0.00 & 24 & 0.60 & 1,24 & -4.53 & 12 & 23 & Hyades \\
771: TYC 1266-1012-1 & Cl Melotte 25 91 & HD 28783 & 0.88 & 19 & 0.00 & 24 & 0.88 & 19,24 & -4.47 & 3 & 23 & Hyades \\
772: TYC 1266-1012-1 & Cl Melotte 25 91 & HD 28783 & 0.88 & 19 & 0.00 & 24 & 0.88 & 19,24 & -4.80 & 1 & 6 & Hyades \\
773: TYC 1266-1175-1 & Cl Melotte 25 99 & HD 29159 & 0.87 & 19 & 0.00 & 24 & 0.87 & 19,24 & -4.38 & 8 & 25 & Hyades \\
774: TYC 1266-1175-1 & Cl Melotte 25 99 & HD 29159 & 0.87 & 19 & 0.00 & 24 & 0.87 & 19,24 & -4.40 & 9 & 23 & Hyades \\
775: TYC 1266-1175-1 & Cl Melotte 25 99 & HD 29159 & 0.87 & 19 & 0.00 & 24 & 0.87 & 19,24 & -4.69 & 1 & 6 & Hyades \\
776: TYC 1266-1286-1 & Cl Melotte 25 92 & HD 28805 & 0.73 & 1 & 0.00 & 24 & 0.73 & 1,24 & -4.44 & 7 & 25 & Hyades \\
777: TYC 1266-1286-1 & Cl Melotte 25 92 & HD 28805 & 0.74 & 19 & 0.00 & 24 & 0.74 & 19,24 & -4.45 & 18 & 23 & Hyades \\
778: TYC 1266-1286-1 & Cl Melotte 25 92 & HD 28805 & 0.74 & 19 & 0.00 & 24 & 0.74 & 19,24 & -4.61 & 1 & 6 & Hyades \\
779: TYC 1266-149-1 & Cl Melotte 25 93 & HD 28878 & 0.89 & 19 & 0.00 & 24 & 0.89 & 19,24 & -4.40 & 8 & 25 & Hyades \\
780: TYC 1266-149-1 & Cl Melotte 25 93 & HD 28878 & 0.89 & 19 & 0.00 & 24 & 0.89 & 19,24 & -4.63 & 1 & 6 & Hyades \\
781: HIP 8486 & GJ 9061B & HD 11131 & 0.65 & 1 & 0.00 & 9 & 0.65 & 1,9 & -4.47 & 4 & 11 & UMa \\
782: HIP 8486 & GJ 9061B & HD 11131 & 0.65 & 1 & 0.00 & 9 & 0.65 & 1,9 & -4.52 & ... & 31 & UMa \\
783: HIP 19859 & HR 1322 & HD 26923 & 0.57 & 1 & 0.00 & 9 & 0.57 & 1,9 & -4.55 & ... & 31 & UMa \\
784: HIP 19859 & HR 1322 & HD 26923 & 0.57 & 1 & 0.00 & 9 & 0.57 & 1,9 & -4.52 & ... & 31 & UMa \\
785: HIP 21276 & GJ 3295 & HD 28495 & 0.76 & 1 & 0.00 & 9 & 0.76 & 1,9 & -4.34 & 6 & 3 & UMa \\
786: HIP 27072 & HR 1983 & HD 38393 & 0.48 & 1 & 0.00 & 9 & 0.48 & 1,9 & -4.77 & 3 & 11 & UMa \\
787: HIP 27072 & HR 1983 & HD 38393 & 0.48 & 1 & 0.00 & 9 & 0.48 & 1,9 & -4.82 & ... & 31 & UMa \\
788: HIP 27913 & HR 2047 & HD 39587 & 0.59 & 1 & 0.00 & 9 & 0.59 & 1,9 & -4.46 & ... & 31 & UMa \\
789: HIP 27913 & HR 2047 & HD 39587 & 0.59 & 1 & 0.00 & 9 & 0.59 & 1,9 & -4.43 & ... & 31 & UMa \\
790: HIP 36704 & HR 8883 & HD 59747 & 0.86 & 1 & 0.00 & 9 & 0.86 & 1,9 & -4.37 & 1 & 3 & UMa \\
791: HIP 36704 & HR 8883 & HD 59747 & 0.86 & 1 & 0.00 & 9 & 0.86 & 1,9 & -4.46 & ... & 31 & UMa \\
792: HIP 42438 & HR 3391 & HD 72905 & 0.62 & 1 & 0.00 & 9 & 0.62 & 1,9 & -4.40 & 3 & 3 & UMa \\
793: HIP 42438 & HR 3391 & HD 72905 & 0.62 & 1 & 0.00 & 9 & 0.62 & 1,9 & -4.48 & 1 & 6 & UMa \\
794: HIP 80686 & HR 6098 & HD 147584 & 0.56 & 1 & 0.00 & 9 & 0.56 & 1,9 & -4.56 & 1 & 11 & UMa \\
795: HIP 80686 & HR 6098 & HD 147584 & 0.56 & 1 & 0.00 & 9 & 0.56 & 1,9 & -4.58 & ... & 31 & UMa \\
796: HIP 88694 & HR 6748 & HD 165185 & 0.61 & 1 & 0.00 & 9 & 0.61 & 1,9 & -4.54 & ... & 31 & UMa \\
797: HIP 115312 & HR 8883 & HD 220096 & 0.82 & 1 & 0.00 & 9 & 0.82 & 1,9 & -4.39 & 1 & 3 & UMa \\
798: 2UCAC 35931542 & Cl* NGC 2682 SAND 0603 & ... & 0.59 & 32 & 0.04 & 33 & 0.55 & 32,33 & -4.74 & ... & 34 & M67 \\
799: 2UCAC 35931521 & Cl* NGC 2682 SAND 0621 & ... & 0.66 & 32 & 0.04 & 33 & 0.62 & 32,33 & -4.83 & ... & 34 & M67 \\
800: 2UCAC 35931673 & Cl* NGC 2682 SAND 0724 & ... & 0.00 & ... & 0.04 & 33 & 0.63 & 34 & -4.86 & ... & 34 & M67 \\
801: 2UCAC 35931593 & Cl* NGC 2682 SAND 0746 & ... & 0.71 & 32 & 0.04 & 33 & 0.67 & 32,33 & -4.85 & ... & 34 & M67 \\
802: 2UCAC 35931670 & Cl* NGC 2682 SAND 0747 & ... & 0.70 & 32 & 0.04 & 33 & 0.67 & 32,33 & -4.47 & ... & 34 & M67 \\
803: 2UCAC 35931634 & Cl* NGC 2682 SAND 0748 & ... & 0.83 & 32 & 0.04 & 33 & 0.79 & 32,33 & -4.75 & ... & 34 & M67 \\
804: 2UCAC 35931585 & Cl* NGC 2682 SAND 0753 & ... & 0.63 & 32 & 0.04 & 33 & 0.59 & 32,33 & -4.77 & ... & 34 & M67 \\
805: 2UCAC 35931642 & Cl* NGC 2682 SAND 0770 & ... & 0.68 & 32 & 0.04 & 33 & 0.64 & 32,33 & -4.88 & ... & 34 & M67 \\
806: 2UCAC 35931570 & Cl* NGC 2682 SAND 0777 & ... & 0.67 & 32 & 0.04 & 33 & 0.64 & 32,33 & -4.82 & ... & 34 & M67 \\
807: 2UCAC 35931615 & Cl* NGC 2682 SAND 0779 & ... & 0.69 & 32 & 0.04 & 33 & 0.65 & 32,33 & -4.94 & ... & 34 & M67 \\
808: 2UCAC 35931637 & Cl* NGC 2682 SAND 0785 & ... & 0.70 & 32 & 0.04 & 33 & 0.66 & 32,33 & -4.79 & ... & 34 & M67 \\
809: 2UCAC 35931665 & Cl* NGC 2682 SAND 0789 & ... & 0.66 & 32 & 0.04 & 33 & 0.62 & 32,33 & -4.82 & ... & 34 & M67 \\
810: 2UCAC 35931671 & Cl* NGC 2682 SAND 0801 & ... & 0.72 & 32 & 0.04 & 33 & 0.68 & 32,33 & -4.98 & ... & 34 & M67 \\
811: 2UCAC 35931641 & Cl* NGC 2682 SAND 0802 & ... & 0.72 & 32 & 0.04 & 33 & 0.68 & 32,33 & -4.92 & ... & 34 & M67 \\
812: 2UCAC 35931626 & Cl* NGC 2682 SAND 0829 & ... & 0.63 & 32 & 0.04 & 33 & 0.59 & 32,33 & -4.88 & ... & 34 & M67 \\
813: 2UCAC 35931675 & Cl* NGC 2682 SAND 0937 & ... & 0.59 & 32 & 0.04 & 33 & 0.55 & 32,33 & -4.84 & ... & 34 & M67 \\
814: 2UCAC 35931686 & Cl* NGC 2682 SAND 0942 & ... & 0.63 & 32 & 0.04 & 33 & 0.59 & 32,33 & -4.78 & ... & 34 & M67 \\
815: 2UCAC 35931848 & Cl* NGC 2682 SAND 0943 & ... & 0.76 & 32 & 0.04 & 33 & 0.72 & 32,33 & -5.08 & ... & 34 & M67 \\
816: 2UCAC 35931810 & Cl* NGC 2682 SAND 0945 & ... & 0.67 & 32 & 0.04 & 33 & 0.63 & 32,33 & -4.83 & ... & 34 & M67 \\
817: 2UCAC 35931701 & Cl* NGC 2682 SAND 0951 & ... & 0.72 & 32 & 0.04 & 33 & 0.68 & 32,33 & -4.94 & ... & 34 & M67 \\
818: 2UCAC 35931726 & Cl* NGC 2682 SAND 0958 & ... & 0.00 & ... & 0.04 & 33 & 0.62 & 34 & -4.82 & ... & 34 & M67 \\
819: 2UCAC 35931749 & Cl* NGC 2682 SAND 0963 & ... & 0.71 & 32 & 0.04 & 33 & 0.67 & 32,33 & -5.05 & ... & 34 & M67 \\
820: 2UCAC 35931815 & Cl* NGC 2682 SAND 0965 & ... & 0.76 & 32 & 0.04 & 33 & 0.72 & 32,33 & -4.83 & ... & 34 & M67 \\
821: 2UCAC 35931793 & Cl* NGC 2682 SAND 0969 & ... & 0.67 & 32 & 0.04 & 33 & 0.63 & 32,33 & -4.83 & ... & 34 & M67 \\
822: GSC 814-1735 & Cl* NGC 2682 SAND 0981 & ... & 0.71 & 32 & 0.04 & 33 & 0.67 & 32,33 & -5.00 & ... & 34 & M67 \\
823: 2UCAC 35931819 & Cl* NGC 2682 SAND 0982 & ... & 0.61 & 32 & 0.04 & 33 & 0.57 & 32,33 & -4.66 & ... & 34 & M67 \\
824: 2UCAC 35931700 & Cl* NGC 2682 SAND 0991 & ... & 0.68 & 32 & 0.04 & 33 & 0.65 & 32,33 & -4.96 & ... & 34 & M67 \\
825: 2UCAC 35931814 & Cl* NGC 2682 SAND 1004 & ... & 0.76 & 32 & 0.04 & 33 & 0.72 & 32,33 & -4.86 & ... & 34 & M67 \\
826: 2UCAC 35931816 & Cl* NGC 2682 SAND 1012 & ... & 0.74 & 32 & 0.04 & 33 & 0.70 & 32,33 & -4.80 & ... & 34 & M67 \\
827: 2UCAC 35931821 & Cl* NGC 2682 SAND 1014 & ... & 0.71 & 32 & 0.04 & 33 & 0.67 & 32,33 & -4.72 & ... & 34 & M67 \\
828: 2UCAC 35931731 & Cl* NGC 2682 SAND 1033 & ... & 0.61 & 32 & 0.04 & 33 & 0.57 & 32,33 & -4.74 & ... & 34 & M67 \\
829: 2UCAC 35931828 & Cl* NGC 2682 SAND 1041 & ... & 0.73 & 32 & 0.04 & 33 & 0.69 & 32,33 & -4.93 & ... & 34 & M67 \\
830: 2UCAC 35931843 & Cl* NGC 2682 SAND 1048 & ... & 0.69 & 32 & 0.04 & 33 & 0.65 & 32,33 & -4.92 & ... & 34 & M67 \\
831: GSC 814-1295 & Cl* NGC 2682 SAND 1050 & ... & 0.66 & 32 & 0.04 & 33 & 0.62 & 32,33 & -4.38 & ... & 34 & M67 \\
832: 2UCAC 35931775 & Cl* NGC 2682 SAND 1057 & ... & 0.68 & 32 & 0.04 & 33 & 0.64 & 32,33 & -4.82 & ... & 34 & M67 \\
833: GSC 814-1233 & Cl* NGC 2682 SAND 1064 & ... & 0.66 & 32 & 0.04 & 33 & 0.62 & 32,33 & -4.94 & ... & 34 & M67 \\
834: GSC 814-1221 & Cl* NGC 2682 SAND 1065 & ... & 0.80 & 32 & 0.04 & 33 & 0.76 & 32,33 & -4.85 & ... & 34 & M67 \\
835: 2UCAC 35931734 & Cl* NGC 2682 SAND 1068 & ... & 0.75 & 32 & 0.04 & 33 & 0.71 & 32,33 & -4.87 & ... & 34 & M67 \\
836: 2UCAC 35931840 & Cl* NGC 2682 SAND 1078 & ... & 0.66 & 32 & 0.04 & 33 & 0.62 & 32,33 & -4.88 & ... & 34 & M67 \\
837: 2UCAC 35931804 & Cl* NGC 2682 SAND 1087 & ... & 0.64 & 32 & 0.04 & 33 & 0.60 & 32,33 & -4.82 & ... & 34 & M67 \\
838: 2UCAC 35931713 & Cl* NGC 2682 SAND 1089 & ... & 0.67 & 32 & 0.04 & 33 & 0.63 & 32,33 & -4.98 & ... & 34 & M67 \\
839: 2UCAC 35931762 & Cl* NGC 2682 SAND 1093 & ... & 0.64 & 32 & 0.04 & 33 & 0.60 & 32,33 & -4.78 & ... & 34 & M67 \\
840: 2UCAC 35931696 & Cl* NGC 2682 SAND 1095 & ... & 0.65 & 32 & 0.04 & 33 & 0.61 & 32,33 & -4.92 & ... & 34 & M67 \\
841: 2UCAC 35931717 & Cl* NGC 2682 SAND 1096 & ... & 0.66 & 32 & 0.04 & 33 & 0.62 & 32,33 & -4.88 & ... & 34 & M67 \\
842: 2UCAC 35931684 & Cl* NGC 2682 SAND 1106 & ... & 0.69 & 32 & 0.04 & 33 & 0.65 & 32,33 & -5.06 & ... & 34 & M67 \\
843: GSC 814-1789 & Cl* NGC 2682 SAND 1107 & ... & 0.64 & 32 & 0.04 & 33 & 0.60 & 32,33 & -4.62 & ... & 34 & M67 \\
844: 2UCAC 35931906 & Cl* NGC 2682 SAND 1203 & ... & 0.71 & 32 & 0.04 & 33 & 0.68 & 32,33 & -4.82 & ... & 34 & M67 \\
845: 2UCAC 35931884 & Cl* NGC 2682 SAND 1208 & ... & 0.00 & ... & 0.04 & 33 & 0.79 & 34 & -4.84 & ... & 34 & M67 \\
846: 2UCAC 35931970 & Cl* NGC 2682 SAND 1212 & ... & 0.78 & 32 & 0.04 & 33 & 0.74 & 32,33 & -4.86 & ... & 34 & M67 \\
847: 2UCAC 35931925 & Cl* NGC 2682 SAND 1213 & ... & 0.60 & 32 & 0.04 & 33 & 0.56 & 32,33 & -4.81 & ... & 34 & M67 \\
848: 2UCAC 35931900 & Cl* NGC 2682 SAND 1218 & ... & 0.68 & 32 & 0.04 & 33 & 0.65 & 32,33 & -4.88 & ... & 34 & M67 \\
849: 2UCAC 35931880 & Cl* NGC 2682 SAND 1246 & ... & 0.69 & 32 & 0.04 & 33 & 0.65 & 32,33 & -4.93 & ... & 34 & M67 \\
850: 2UCAC 35931918 & Cl* NGC 2682 SAND 1247 & ... & 0.62 & 32 & 0.04 & 33 & 0.58 & 32,33 & -4.70 & ... & 34 & M67 \\
851: 2UCAC 35931894 & Cl* NGC 2682 SAND 1248 & ... & 0.62 & 32 & 0.04 & 33 & 0.58 & 32,33 & -4.78 & ... & 34 & M67 \\
852: 2UCAC 35931973 & Cl* NGC 2682 SAND 1249 & ... & 0.78 & 32 & 0.04 & 33 & 0.74 & 32,33 & -4.91 & ... & 34 & M67 \\
853: 2UCAC 35931980 & Cl* NGC 2682 SAND 1251 & ... & 0.75 & 32 & 0.04 & 33 & 0.71 & 32,33 & -4.80 & ... & 34 & M67 \\
854: 2UCAC 35931939 & Cl* NGC 2682 SAND 1252 & ... & 0.64 & 32 & 0.04 & 33 & 0.60 & 32,33 & -4.81 & ... & 34 & M67 \\
855: 2UCAC 35931911 & Cl* NGC 2682 SAND 1255 & ... & 0.67 & 32 & 0.04 & 33 & 0.63 & 32,33 & -4.80 & ... & 34 & M67 \\
856: GSC 814-1973 & Cl* NGC 2682 SAND 1258 & ... & 0.00 & ... & 0.04 & 33 & 0.61 & 34 & -4.92 & ... & 34 & M67 \\
857: GSC 814-1679 & Cl* NGC 2682 SAND 1260 & ... & 0.62 & 32 & 0.04 & 33 & 0.59 & 32,33 & -4.79 & ... & 34 & M67 \\
858: 2UCAC 35931940 & Cl* NGC 2682 SAND 1269 & ... & 0.76 & 32 & 0.04 & 33 & 0.72 & 32,33 & -4.99 & ... & 34 & M67 \\
859: 2UCAC 35931858 & Cl* NGC 2682 SAND 1278 & ... & 0.78 & 32 & 0.04 & 33 & 0.74 & 32,33 & -5.00 & ... & 34 & M67 \\
860: 2UCAC 35931865 & Cl* NGC 2682 SAND 1289 & ... & 0.76 & 32 & 0.04 & 33 & 0.72 & 32,33 & -5.03 & ... & 34 & M67 \\
861: 2UCAC 35931886 & Cl* NGC 2682 SAND 1307 & ... & 0.81 & 32 & 0.04 & 33 & 0.77 & 32,33 & -5.05 & ... & 34 & M67 \\
862: 2UCAC 35931913 & Cl* NGC 2682 SAND 1318 & ... & 0.62 & 32 & 0.04 & 33 & 0.58 & 32,33 & -4.64 & ... & 34 & M67 \\
863: 2UCAC 35931949 & Cl* NGC 2682 SAND 1330 & ... & 0.66 & 32 & 0.04 & 33 & 0.62 & 32,33 & -4.62 & ... & 34 & M67 \\
864: 2UCAC 36114630 & Cl* NGC 2682 SAND 1341 & ... & 0.74 & 32 & 0.04 & 33 & 0.71 & 32,33 & -4.72 & ... & 34 & M67 \\
865: 2UCAC 35932025 & Cl* NGC 2682 SAND 1406 & ... & 0.55 & 32 & 0.04 & 33 & 0.51 & 32,33 & -4.75 & ... & 34 & M67 \\
866: GSC 814-2433 & Cl* NGC 2682 SAND 1420 & ... & 0.63 & 32 & 0.04 & 33 & 0.59 & 32,33 & -4.75 & ... & 34 & M67 \\
867: 2UCAC 35932087 & Cl* NGC 2682 SAND 1426 & ... & 0.62 & 32 & 0.04 & 33 & 0.58 & 32,33 & -4.80 & ... & 34 & M67 \\
868: 2UCAC 35932080 & Cl* NGC 2682 SAND 1446 & ... & 0.61 & 32 & 0.04 & 33 & 0.58 & 32,33 & -4.76 & ... & 34 & M67 \\
869: 2UCAC 35932033 & Cl* NGC 2682 SAND 1449 & ... & 0.66 & 32 & 0.04 & 33 & 0.62 & 32,33 & -4.85 & ... & 34 & M67 \\
870: 2UCAC 35932057 & Cl* NGC 2682 SAND 1452 & ... & 0.67 & 32 & 0.04 & 33 & 0.63 & 32,33 & -4.35 & ... & 34 & M67 \\
871: 2UCAC 35932039 & Cl* NGC 2682 SAND 1462 & ... & 0.67 & 32 & 0.04 & 33 & 0.64 & 32,33 & -4.89 & ... & 34 & M67 \\
872: 2UCAC 35932031 & Cl* NGC 2682 SAND 1473 & ... & 0.78 & 32 & 0.04 & 33 & 0.74 & 32,33 & -5.13 & ... & 34 & M67 \\
873: 2UCAC 35932013 & Cl* NGC 2682 SAND 1477 & ... & 0.72 & 32 & 0.04 & 33 & 0.68 & 32,33 & -4.98 & ... & 34 & M67 \\
874: \enddata
875: \tablecomments{References and notes:
876: (1) \citet{Perryman97},
877: (2) unreddened \bv\ color appropriate for spectral type given by other reference,
878: (3) \citet{Wright04},
879: (4) \citet{Walter94},
880: (5) I have assumed $A_V$/\ebv\, = 3.1 in converting a $A_V$ value to E(B-V),
881: (6) \citet{White07},
882: (7) \citet{Preibisch99},
883: (8) \citet{Hog00} (converted to Johnson using \citet{Mamajek06},
884: (9) star is within 75\,pc and presumed to have no reddening,
885: (10) \citet{Gray06},
886: (11) \citet{Henry96},
887: (12) \citet{Soderblom98},
888: (13) \citet{Wichmann97},
889: (14) \citet{Mamajek02},
890: (15) \citet{Nordstrom04},
891: (16) \citet{Prosser92},
892: (17) \citet{Crawford74},
893: (18) \citet{Messina01},
894: (19) \citet{Mermilliod91},
895: (20) \citet{Stauffer89},
896: (21) \citet{Soderblom93},
897: (22) \citet{Stauffer87},
898: (23) \citet{Duncan91}, converted to to \logrphk\, following \citet{Noyes84},
899: (24) \citet{Taylor06},
900: (25) \citet{Paulson02},
901: (26) \citet{Upgren85},
902: (27) \citet{Reid92},
903: (28) \citet{Weis82},
904: (29) \citet{vanAltena69},
905: (30) \citet{Weis88},
906: (31) \citet{Gray03},
907: (32) \citet{Montgomery93},
908: (33) \citet{VandenBerg04},
909: (34) \citet{Giampapa06}.
910: }
911: \end{deluxetable}
912: %2UCAC 36114619 & Cl* NGC 2682 SAND 1112 & ... & 0.78 & 32 & 0.04 & 33 & 0.74 & 32,33 & -4.12 & ... & 34 & M67 \\
913:
914: %%% TABLE OF CLUSTER ACTIVITY DATA
915: \clearpage
916: \begin{deluxetable}{lrcccccc}
917: %\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
918: \setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.03in}
919: \tablewidth{0pt}
920: \tablecaption{Cluster \logrphk\ Values \label{tab:cluster}}
921: \tablehead{
922: {(1)} &{(2)} & {(3)} & {(4)} &{(5)} &{(6)}&{(7)} &{(8)}\\
923: {Group} &{Age} & {Refs.} & {\logrphk} & {68\%}&{N} &{activity-color} &{\logrphkbar}\\
924: {Name} &{Myr} & {} & {median } & {CL} &{} &{slope $m$} &{\bvsun}}
925: \startdata
926: USco & 5 & 1,2,3 & -4.05\,$\pm$\,0.03 & 0.13 & 9 & -0.73\,$\pm$\,0.62 & -4.01\\
927: $\beta$ Pic & 12 & 4,5 & -4.03\,$\pm$\,0.13 & 0.23 & 6 & 1.40\,$\pm$\,0.30 & -4.06\\
928: UCL+LCC & 16 & 6,7 & -4.04\,$\pm$\,0.01 & 0.07 & 10 & -0.37\,$\pm$\,0.27 & -4.04\\
929: Tuc-Hor & 30 & 6,7 & -4.16\,$\pm$\,0.13 & 0.16 & 8 & 3.02\,$\pm$\,0.45 & -4.23\\
930: $\alpha$ Per & 85 & 9,10,11 & -4.16\,$\pm$\,0.08 & 0.27 & 13 & 2.04\,$\pm$\,1.52 & -4.16\\
931: Pleiades & 130 & 9,11,12 & -4.33\,$\pm$\,0.04 & 0.24 & 56 & 0.75\,$\pm$\,0.24 & -4.27\\
932: UMa & 500 & 13 & -4.48\,$\pm$\,0.03 & 0.09 & 17 & 0.80\,$\pm$\,0.27 & -4.50\\
933: Hyades & 625 & 11,14 & -4.47\,$\pm$\,0.01 & 0.09 & 87 & 0.14\,$\pm$\,0.13 & -4.50\\
934: M67 & 4000 & 15,16 & -4.84\,$\pm$\,0.01 & 0.11 & 76 & -1.03\,$\pm$\,0.23 & -4.85
935: \enddata
936: \tablecomments{Columns:
937: (1) name of group,
938: (2) age,
939: (3) age and membership references,
940: (4) \logrphk\, median and uncertainty \citep{Gott01},
941: (5) 68\% confidence intervals on \logrphk,
942: (6) number of data points per bin,
943: (7) OLS bisector slope $m$ = $\Delta$\logrphk/$\Delta$\bv\, and uncertainty,
944: (8) mean \logrphk\, interpolated at solar \bvo.
945: OLS (Y|X) slopes and uncertainties were calculated using 10$^4$
946: jackknife sampling simulations, except for $\beta$ Pic and Tuc-Hor
947: where the slope was analytic calculated, due to their small sample
948: size. Estimation of the solar \logrphk\, value is discussed in \S1.
949: References: (1) \citet{Preibisch02},
950: (2) \citet{Preibisch99},
951: (3) \citet{Walter94},
952: (4) \citet{Ortega02},
953: (5) \citet{Zuckerman04},
954: (6) \citet{Mamajek02},
955: (7) \citet{deZeeuw99},
956: (8) \citet{Mamajek04},
957: (9) \citet{Barrado04},
958: (10) \citet{Makarov06},
959: (11) this work (\S2.2),
960: (12) \citet{Duncan91},
961: (13) \citet{King03}
962: (14) \citet{Perryman98},
963: (15) \citet{VandenBerg04},
964: (16) \citet{Giampapa06}, selected from \citet{Girard89}.
965: }
966: \end{deluxetable}
967: \clearpage
968:
969: %%%%%%%%%%%%%% END CLUSTER TABLES (ages, individual measurements, mean cluster R'HK values)
970: \subsection{Cluster Ages, Membership, and Activity \label{cluster_membership}}
971:
972: We turn now to a detailed discussion of our cluster samples.
973: Kinematic membership of individual stars to their assigned groups was
974: scrutinized with modern astrometric data (i.e. {\it Hipparcos},
975: Tycho-2, and UCAC2 catalogs) either by the authors or through
976: examination of recently published kinematic studies, or
977: both. Assessment of whether the stars' proper motions were consistent
978: with membership follows the methodology in \citet{Mamajek05}. Table
979: \ref{tab:cluster_ca} lists the members of the stellar groups along
980: with their relevant color and activity, and Table
981: \ref{tab:cluster} summarizes the cluster ages, the number of
982: published \logrphk\, values for cluster members, and a summary of
983: activity statistics. In total there are 274 published \logrphk\,
984: measurements for 206 stars in our cluster database. In the following
985: subsections we briefly review the stellar groups and references for
986: their membership and ages.
987:
988: \subsubsection{Young Associations}
989:
990: Members of Upper Sco were taken from \citet{Preibisch99} and
991: \citet{Walter94}; we adopt the mean group age (5 Myr) from
992: \citet{Preibisch02}. Memberships and mean ages for the $\beta$ Pic
993: and Tuc-Hor moving groups (12 and 30 Myr ages, respectively) were
994: taken from \citet{Zuckerman04}, and HD 105 was added as a Tuc-Hor
995: member following \citet{Mamajek04}. In Tuc-Hor, only stars
996: demonstrated by \citet{Mamajek04} to be near and co-moving with the
997: $\beta$ Tuc nucleus were retained for our activity-age calibration.
998: Members of Lower Cen-Cru (LCC) and Upper Cen-Lup (UCL) were taken from
999: \citet{deZeeuw99} and \citet{Mamajek02}, and mean group ages were
1000: adopted from \citet{Mamajek02}. \citet{Preibisch08} suggest that LCC
1001: shows evidence for substructure and a probable age gradient (the more
1002: populous northern part appears to be $\sim$17 Myr, while the less
1003: populous southern part appears to be $\sim$12 Myr), however 16 Myr is
1004: a reasonable mean age for the group, and given the lack of evolution
1005: in \logrphk\, between $\sim$10$^{6}$ and 10$^{8}$ yr, the choice of
1006: adopted age has negligible impact on our analysis. Furthermore, to
1007: improve the statistics we combined the UCL and LCC groups, which are
1008: approximately coeval and whose individual \rphk\, measurements were
1009: similar.
1010:
1011: We have decided to not include members of a few nearby stellar groups
1012: in our calibration of the activity vs. age relation: AB Dor, Her-Lyr,
1013: and Castor. Although there are solar-type members of the nearby AB
1014: Dor moving group, we do not include its members for the following
1015: reasons: (1) its age is controversial
1016: \citep{Close05,Luhman05,Ortega07}, (2) it is not clear that a clean
1017: separation between membership within a supposedly ``coeval'' AB Dor
1018: group \citep{Zuckerman04} and the ``non-coeval'' Pleiades B4 moving
1019: group \citep{Asiain99,Famaey07} has been demonstrated, and (3) the
1020: range of acceptable velocities for membership in the AB Dor group
1021: seems rather large for a coeval group \citep{Zuckerman04} compared to
1022: OB associations and clusters \citep[e.g.][]{Briceno07}. The coevality
1023: and evidence for a common origin for members of the Her-Lyr and Castor
1024: groups has also not been sufficiently demonstrated for inclusion in a
1025: sample of calibration stars.
1026:
1027: \subsubsection{$\alpha$ Per, Pleiades, \& UMa}
1028:
1029: The $\alpha$ Per members have been confirmed kinematically by
1030: \citet{Makarov06} for all of the cluster candidates except Cl Melotte
1031: 20 696 and AP 93. We find that the UCAC2 proper motions for both of
1032: these stars are statistically consistent with membership, and include
1033: them in our $\alpha$ Per sample. For the age of $\alpha$ Per, we adopt
1034: the most recent Li-depletion boundary value from \citet[][85
1035: Myr]{Barrado04}.
1036:
1037: For the Pleiades, all of the \rphk\, measurements of candidate members
1038: from \citet{Duncan91}, \citet{Soderblom93}, and \citet{White07}, were
1039: considered. We independently tested the kinematic membership of each
1040: of these stars to the Pleiades using Tycho-2 or UCAC2 proper motions
1041: and the group proper motion from \citet{Robichon99}. All of the
1042: objects have motions within 2$\sigma$ of the Pleiades mean motion
1043: (although \#571 is a marginal case, but supporting evidence suggests
1044: that this is probably a bona fide member). \citet{Deacon04}
1045: independently assign high membership probability to the Pleiades for
1046: stars \#102, 129, 173, 296, 314, 514, 923, 1776, 1015, 1207, 3097.
1047: For the age of the Pleiades, we adopt the recent Li-depletion boundary
1048: estimate from \citet[][130 Myr]{Barrado04}.
1049:
1050: An extensive study of the age, membership, and activity of the Ursa
1051: Major cluster was undertaken by \citet{King03}, and we include their
1052: ``Y'' or ``Y?'' candidate members in our census for that
1053: cluster. Recently, \citet{King05} reevaluated the age of UMa, and
1054: claimed that the system appears to be approximately coeval with the
1055: Hyades and Coma Ber clusters (all $\sim$0.6 Gyr) but ``with the Hyades
1056: perhaps being only 100 Myr older''. This assessment is apparent in
1057: visual inspection of Fig. 2 of \citet{King05} of the main sequence
1058: turn-offs with overlaid evolutionary tracks appropriate for the
1059: metallicities of UMa and the Hyades. Based on this, we adopt the age
1060: of UMa from \citet{King03}, 500 Myr.
1061:
1062: \subsubsection{Hyades}
1063:
1064: The Hyades is the best studied cluster in terms of its chromospheric
1065: activity. Our primary source of membership assignment and age (625
1066: Myr) for the Hyades is \citet{Perryman98},
1067: adopting their members constrained both by proper motions
1068: and RVs. Additional non-{\it Hipparcos} Hyades candidates were gleaned
1069: from the \logrphk\, surveys of \citet{Duncan91}, \citet{Paulson02},
1070: and \citet{White07}, including Cl Melotte 25 \#s 49, 91, 92, 93, 99,
1071: 183, and Cl Melotte 25 VA \#s 115, 146, 354, 383, 502, and
1072: 637. Tycho-2 and UCAC2 proper motions for these stars were tested for
1073: Hyades membership using the \citet{deBruijne01} convergent point, and
1074: all of these candidates are kinematically consistent with Hyades
1075: membership with moving cluster distances of $\sim$44-52 pc.
1076:
1077: Among the \logrphk\, data for Hyades members were a handful of
1078: remarkably active and inactive stars. Further investigation of these
1079: objects was warranted to see whether we should include them in our
1080: sample statistics (critical for establishing what the spread in
1081: plausible activity levels is for stars of a given age). To see if the
1082: extreme outliers might be dominated by ``supercluster'' members or
1083: interlopers that might be unrelated to the Hyades nucleus, we plotted
1084: moving cluster distance vs. \logrphk\ and membership probability vs.
1085: \logrphk\, in Figure \ref{fig:rhk_dist_Hyad}. The moving cluster
1086: distances and probabilities were calculated following
1087: \citet{Mamajek05} using the \citet{deBruijne01} convergent point
1088: solution with {\it Hipparcos}, Tycho-2, or UCAC2 proper motions (in
1089: order of preference). An intrinsic velocity dispersion of 1 \kms\, was
1090: assumed in the membership probability estimation, with relative
1091: ranking seen as more important than absolute values.
1092:
1093: %\clearpage
1094: % FIGURE: HYADES DIST VS RHK and MEMB. PROBABILITY VS. RHK
1095: \begin{figure}
1096: \epsscale{1}
1097: %\plotone{rhk_dist_hyad.eps}
1098: \plotone{f1.eps}
1099: \caption{(top) Moving cluster distance vs. \logrphk\, for candidate
1100: Hyades members. (bottom) Membership probability vs. \logrphk\, for
1101: candidate Hyades members.
1102: \label{fig:rhk_dist_Hyad}}
1103: \end{figure}
1104: %\clearpage
1105:
1106: A few things are apparent from Fig. \ref{fig:rhk_dist_Hyad}. The
1107: \logrphk\, values for the high membership probability Hyads (P $>$
1108: 75\%) are consistent with a median value of \logrphk\, = -4.47 and
1109: remarkably small r.m.s. of 0.08 dex\footnote{Our literature search for
1110: Hyades activity measurements yielded three extremely active outliers
1111: which are excluded in our analysis: Cl Melotte 25 \#s 76, 105, and
1112: 127. Coincidentally, the \logrphk\, values for all three stars were
1113: estimated from single observations by the Mt. Wilson survey that all
1114: took place 22 July 1977. All three were also observed by
1115: \citet{Paulson02}, and their \logrphk\, values for these stars are
1116: more in line with other Hyades (\logrphk\, = -4.47, -4.52, and -4.45,
1117: for \# 76, 105, and 127, respectively). The idea that three Hyads
1118: could be flaring simultaneously on the same night at unprecedentedly
1119: high levels is extremely unlikely, so we exclude these Mt. Wilson
1120: observations from our statistics.}. The lower membership probability
1121: objects (P $<$ 75\%) have a lower median \logrphk\, (-4.51) and higher
1122: r.m.s. (0.14 dex). We attribute this to the likely inclusion in the
1123: current list of Hyades candidates of older field interlopers. It is
1124: apparent that the stars at $d$ $<$ 40 pc and $d$ $>$ 60 pc tend to be
1125: less frequently active, probably due to inclusion of interlopers.
1126:
1127: In summary, for our activity study, we conservatively include only
1128: those Hyades stars with membership probabilities $>$50\% and cluster
1129: parallax distances within 1 tidal radius ($\pm$10 pc) of the mean
1130: distance (46.3 pc); \citet{Perryman98}.
1131: \footnote{ Due to the distance constraint, we reject from our sample:
1132: HIP 10672, 13600, 13976, 15563, 15720, 17766, 19386, 19441, 20949,
1133: 21741, 22566, 24923, 25639. Due to low membership probability, we
1134: reject from our sample: HIP 15304, 17609, 19082, 19834, 20082, 20719,
1135: 21280, 22380. Some stars failed both the distance and the membership
1136: criteria: HIP 19386 \& 20441. {\it Some}, and possibly even {\it
1137: most} of the rejected stars in the first two lists may be bona fide
1138: Hyades members, although the stars in the last list are almost
1139: certainly non-members. Our goal is to create as clean a sample of
1140: Hyades members as possible for the study of their activity -- hence
1141: our stringent membership criteria. We do not necessarily recommend
1142: rejecting these stars from future studies of the Hyades. Our
1143: selection criterion clips the two most inactive Hyades candidates
1144: studied by \citet{Paulson02}: HIP 25639 (\logrphk\, = -5.38; $d$ = 86
1145: pc, HIP 19386 (\logrphk\, = -5.16; $d$ = 84 pc). The least active
1146: Hyad that satisfies our membership and color criteria is HIP 22422
1147: \citep[\logrphk\, = -4.82;][]{Paulson02}, while the most active is HIP
1148: 20978 \citep[\logrphk\, = -4.27;][]{Duncan91}. }
1149:
1150: \subsubsection{M67 \label{M67}}
1151:
1152: We adopt an age of 4.0 Gyr for the M67 cluster from
1153: \citet{Sarajedini99} and \citet{VandenBerg04}, and include the M67
1154: membership and HK observations of \citet{Giampapa06} in our analysis.
1155: The \logrphk\, values listed in Table \ref{tab:cluster_ca} were
1156: converted from the HK emission equivalent widths by M. Giampapa
1157: (priv. comm.). The candidate RS CVn Sanders 1112 is listed in Table
1158: \ref{tab:cluster_ca}, but was excluded from the analysis (with
1159: \logrphk\, = -4.11).
1160:
1161: \subsubsection{Ancillary Cluster Data \label{Ancillary}}
1162:
1163: We believe that the cluster membership assignments in Table
1164: \ref{tab:cluster_ca} are quite reliable. Any interlopers among the
1165: samples that we may not have caught are small in number, and will have
1166: negligible impact on our findings. The ages reflect modern
1167: astrophysical understanding and are systematically older than those
1168: used in previous age-\logrphk\ calibrations.
1169:
1170: Notably the current sample is sparsely populated at ages of $>$1 Gyr.
1171: The historical lack of $>$1 Gyr-old clusters in the age-activity
1172: calibration is due to the deficiency of nearby ($<$100-200 pc) older
1173: clusters with solar-type members bright enough for observations with
1174: the Mt. Wilson photometer.
1175:
1176: To overcome this shortcoming, Barry and collaborators determined
1177: Mt. Wilson S-values with a lower resolution system
1178: \citep{Barry87,Barry88}. \citet{Soderblom91} argued that the Barry et
1179: al. S-values were not on the Mt. Wilson system, but that a linear
1180: correction could remedy this. While Soderblom's correction is not
1181: well-constrained at the high or low activity regimes, we none-the-less
1182: use it to correct cluster mean \logrphk\, values from \citet{Barry87}
1183: to \logrphk\, values on the Mt. Wilson system. These ancillary cluster
1184: age-activity data are compiled in Table \ref{tab:cluster_other}. We
1185: omit a datum for the $\sim$3 Myr-old cluster NGC 2264 for two reasons:
1186: (1) Soderblom's (1991) correction for the \citet{Barry87} data does
1187: not extend to activity levels this high, and (2) the extrapolated mean
1188: \logrphk\, value for NGC 2264 (-4.26) is $\sim$0.2 dex lower than the
1189: mean values for the similarly aged Upper Sco, UCL, LCC, and $\beta$
1190: Pic groups \footnote{Notably, the form of the
1191: \citet{Donahue93} relation at high activity levels is driven largely
1192: by the NGC 2264 datum.}. The \citet{Barry87} data are nominally
1193: corrected to a standard color of \bvo\, = 0.60; however, for our
1194: purposes the differences are negligible. As a check on the Soderblom
1195: et al. conversion, we find a nearly identical median \logrphk\, value
1196: at solar color for the M67 sample (-4.86) as found in the
1197: high-resolution HK study of \citet{Giampapa06} (-4.85).
1198:
1199: There is a clear need for more modern derivation of \logrphk\,
1200: activity diagnostics in fiducial older clusters such as M~34, Coma
1201: Ber, NGC~752, and NGC~188. Recent studies of H\&K emission in
1202: such members of older clusters \citep[e.g.][]{Pace04} did not provide
1203: \logrphk\, values, only emission line fluxes. Attempts by the authors
1204: and D. Soderblom (priv. comm.) to tie these observations to the
1205: Mt. Wilson system have thus far failed.
1206:
1207: %\clearpage
1208: %%% TABLE OF SUPPLEMENTARY CLUSTER DATA
1209: \begin{deluxetable}{lrcccc}
1210: %\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1211: \setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.03in}
1212: \tablewidth{0pt}
1213: \tablecaption{\logrphk\, Data For Ancillary Samples \label{tab:cluster_other}}
1214: \tablehead{
1215: {(1)} &{(2)} & {(3)} & {(4)} & {(5)} &{(6)} \\
1216: {Cluster} &{Age} & {Age} & {original} & {corrected}&{\logrphk}\\
1217: {Name} &{Myr} & {Ref.} & {\logrphk} & {\logrphk} &{Ref.}}
1218: \startdata
1219: M 34 & 200 & 1 & -4.4: & ... & 2 \\
1220: Coma Ber & 600 & 3 & -4.51 & -4.43 & 4 \\
1221: NGC 752 & 2000 & 5 & -4.70 & -4.70 & 4 \\
1222: M 67 & 4000 & 6,7 & -4.82 & -4.86 & 4 \\
1223: NGC 188 & 6900 & 6,7 & -4.98 & -5.08 & 4 \\
1224: old field & 8000 & 8 & -4.99 & ... & 8
1225: \enddata
1226: \tablecomments{
1227: Columns:
1228: (1) name of group,
1229: (2) age,
1230: (3) age reference,
1231: (4) originally quoted mean \logrphk\, value,
1232: (5) corrected mean \logrphk\, value (only relevant for ref. 4),
1233: (6) activity references.
1234: References:
1235: (1) \citet{Jones97},
1236: (2) visual inspection of Fig. 1 of \citet{King03}
1237: (3) \citet{King05},
1238: (4) data from \citet{Barry88} corrected following \citet{Soderblom91},
1239: (5) \citet{Dinescu95}
1240: (6) \citet{Sarajedini99},
1241: (7) \citet{VandenBerg04},
1242: (8) this study (\S\ref{Old_Field}).
1243: }
1244: \end{deluxetable}
1245: %\clearpage
1246:
1247: %%% FIELD STARS WITH ACCURATE AGES
1248: \subsubsection{Field Stars with Precise Isochronal Ages \label{Old_Field}}
1249:
1250: To further augment the activity data for old stellar samples, we
1251: consider an additional sample of solar-type field dwarfs with
1252: well-constrained isochronal ages. \citet[][hereafter VF05]{Valenti05}
1253: report spectroscopic properties and isochronal age estimates for 1040
1254: solar-type field dwarfs in the Keck, Lick, and AAT planet search
1255: samples (the ``SPOCs'' sample). After estimating accurate
1256: temperatures, luminosities, metallicities, and $\alpha$-element
1257: enhancements, VF05 interpolate isochronal ages for each star on the
1258: Yonsei-Yale evolutionary tracks \citep{Yi03}. From their sample of
1259: 1040 solar-type stars (which includes some evolved stars), VF05 were
1260: able to constrain isochronal ages for 57 stars (5.5\%) to better than
1261: 20\% in both their positive and negative age uncertainties. As our
1262: activity-relation is currently poorly constrained at the old ages
1263: (given the lack of suitable cluster samples), we include VF05
1264: solar-type dwarfs within 1 mag of the MS and isochronal ages of 5-15
1265: Gyr. The stars in this sample that have published \logrphk\, data are
1266: listed in Table \ref{tab:VF05_old}. As the sample is sparse (N = 23),
1267: to put it on equal footing with the cluster samples we simply treat it
1268: as a single ``cluster'' with median age 8.0 \,$\pm$\,0.7 ($\pm$3.9;
1269: 68\%CL) Gyr or log\,$\tau$ = 9.90\,$\pm$\,0.04 ($\pm$0.19 ; 68\%CL)
1270: dex. The mean activity for the sample is \logrphkbar\, =
1271: -4.99\,$\pm$\,0.02 dex ($\pm$0.07; 68\%CL). The mean color for the
1272: sample is similar to that of the Sun: $\overline{\bv}$ $\simeq$
1273: 0.62 mag.
1274:
1275: %\clearpage
1276: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccc}
1277: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1278: \setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.03in}
1279: \tablewidth{0pt}
1280: \tablecaption{Old Solar-Type Dwarfs From VF05 With Age Uncertainties of $<$20\% \label{tab:VF05_old}}
1281: \tablehead{
1282: {(1)} &{(2)} &{(3)} &{(4)} &{(5)} &{(6)} \\
1283: {HD} &{\bv} &{$\tau$}&{\logrphk}&{Ref.} &{$\Delta$M$_V$}\\
1284: {} &{mag} &{Gyr} &{dex} &{} &{mag}
1285: }
1286: \startdata
1287: 3823 & 0.564 & 6.7 & -4.97 & 1 & -0.37 \\
1288: 20794 & 0.711 & 13.5 & -4.98 & 2 & +0.18 \\
1289: 22879 & 0.554 & 13.9 & -4.92 & 3 & +0.58 \\
1290: 32923 & 0.657 & 9.0 & -5.15 & 4 & -0.93 \\
1291: 34297 & 0.652 & 13.4 & -4.93 & 2 & -0.30 \\
1292: 36108 & 0.590 & 7.1 & -5.01 & 1 & -0.37 \\
1293: 38283 & 0.584 & 5.7 & -4.97 & 2 & -0.56 \\
1294: 45289 & 0.673 & 7.6 & -5.01 & 2 & -0.49 \\
1295: 51929 & 0.585 & 12.4 & -4.86 & 2 & +0.14 \\
1296: 95128 & 0.624 & 5.0 & -5.02 & 4 & -0.34 \\
1297: 122862 & 0.581 & 5.9 & -4.99 & 1 & -0.61 \\
1298: 142373 & 0.563 & 7.7 & -5.11 & 3 & -0.63 \\
1299: 143761 & 0.612 & 8.7 & -5.04 & 5 & -0.37 \\
1300: 153075 & 0.581 & 11.2 & -4.88 & 2 & +0.15 \\
1301: 157214 & 0.619 & 11.6 & -5.00 & 4 & -0.01 \\
1302: 186408 & 0.643 & 5.8 & -5.05 & 4 & -0.43 \\
1303: 186427 & 0.661 & 8.0 & -5.04 & 4 & -0.26 \\
1304: 190248 & 0.751 & 6.2 & -5.00 & 2 & -0.78 \\
1305: 191408 & 0.868 & 15.0 & -4.99 & 2 & +0.39 \\
1306: 193307 & 0.549 & 5.7 & -4.90 & 2 & -0.43 \\
1307: 196378 & 0.544 & 5.3 & -4.95 & 1 & -0.91 \\
1308: 201891 & 0.525 & 14.5 & -4.86 & 3 & +0.65 \\
1309: 210918 & 0.648 & 8.5 & -4.95 & 2 & -0.27 \\
1310: \enddata
1311: \tablecomments{Columns:
1312: (1) HD name,
1313: (2) \bv\, color from \citet{Perryman97},
1314: (3) isochronal age in Gyr (VF05; uncertainties $<$20\%),
1315: (4) chromospheric activity \logrphk,
1316: (5) activity reference,
1317: (6) difference between stellar absolute magnitude
1318: and that for MS star of same \bv\, color.
1319: References:
1320: (1) \citet{Jenkins06},
1321: (2) \citet{Henry96},
1322: (3) \citet{Wright04},
1323: (4) \citet{Hall07},
1324: (5) \citet{Baliunas96}.
1325: }
1326: \end{deluxetable}
1327: %\clearpage
1328:
1329: %%% ANALYSIS SECTION %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1330: \section{Ca II H\&K Analysis \label{analysis}}
1331:
1332: With established membership lists and assembled \rphk\, values
1333: deriving from a few large, homogeneous spectroscopic surveys, we
1334: proceed in this section to derive a modern activity-age relationship.
1335: We first consider various second parameter effects,
1336: e.g. color/temperature/mass, surface gravity, and composition. We
1337: investigate color dependencies by examining the \rphk\, diagnostic for
1338: binary pairs having the same age/composition but substantial
1339: temperature differences (\S3.1.1) and then for kinematic groups
1340: sampling a range of masses at different ages (\S3.1.2). We proceed in
1341: \S3.2 to derive a preliminary empirical activity-age relation based on
1342: cluster and solar \logrphk\, data.
1343:
1344: \subsection{Systematics in \rphk\, \label{color_dep}}
1345:
1346: There is some evidence that \rphk\, varies systematically not only as
1347: a function of age, but at a given age with stellar color (i.e. mass).
1348: Specifically, while \citet{Soderblom91} found a flat \logrphk\,
1349: vs. \bvo\, relation for halo stars, they found a significant positive
1350: slope for members of the Hyades cluster ($m$ =
1351: $\Delta$\logrphk/$\Delta$(\bv) = 0.391). Elsewhere in the literature,
1352: it appears that the color-dependence of \logrphk\, is largely ignored.
1353:
1354: Spectral dependencies of \rphk\, could systematically impact our
1355: calibration of \rphk\ as an age estimator, if the distribution of
1356: colors differs amongst the different associations and clusters in our
1357: sample. To test whether the activity-age relation may be mass
1358: dependent, we study both binary pairs and kinematic groups, presuming
1359: in the respective samples that the components have the same age but
1360: different masses, and look for trends in \rphk\, with color.
1361:
1362: \subsubsection{Trends Among Binary Pairs \label{color_binaries}}
1363:
1364: We plot in Fig. \ref{fig:pair_mv} color vs. absolute magnitude for the
1365: field binaries from Table \ref{tab:pairs} with significant color
1366: difference ($\Delta$\bv $>$ 0.05 mag). The reddening towards these
1367: stars is small, according to their spectral types and \bv\, colors, as
1368: well as their proximity to the Sun (most are within $<$75 pc, and
1369: likely have negligible reddening). As can be seen, the pairs are
1370: generally aligned with the main sequence, although it is apparent that
1371: the systems have a modest range in metallicities which slide their
1372: individual main sequences above and below the mean field MS.
1373:
1374: %\clearpage
1375: % FIGURE: NON-IDENTICAL PAIRS (B-V) vs. Mv
1376: \begin{figure}
1377: \epsscale{1}
1378: %\plotone{pair_mv.eps}
1379: \plotone{f2.eps}
1380: \caption{Color vs. absolute magnitude for 23 non-identical
1381: ($\Delta$(B-V) $\ge$ 0.05) stellar binaries (see
1382: \S\ref{color_binaries}). {\it Thin shorted-dashed lines} connect the
1383: stellar binary components ({\it filled circles}). The {\it solid line}
1384: is the main sequence from \citet{Wright05}, and the {\it dash-dotted
1385: line} is 1 mag brighter than the main sequence (approximately
1386: segregating post-MS stars from MS stars). The system above the ``MS
1387: minus 1 mag'' line (HD 5208) was retained as its color-magnitude slope
1388: was consistent with being a system of two MS stars. As the system has
1389: roughly solar metallicity \citep{Marsakov95}, it is possible that its
1390: {\it Hipparcos} parallax is significantly in
1391: error.\label{fig:pair_mv}.}
1392: \end{figure}
1393:
1394: % FIGURE: NON-IDENTICAL PAIRS (B-V) vs. logR'HK
1395: \begin{figure}
1396: \epsscale{1}
1397: %\plotone{pair.eps}
1398: \plotone{f3.eps}
1399: \caption{Color versus activity for 23 non-identical ($\Delta$(B-V)
1400: $\ge$ 0.05) stellar binaries (see \S\ref{color_binaries}). A typical
1401: errorbar for (B-V) colors ($\pm$0.01 mag) and for a single \logrphk\,
1402: observation ($\pm$0.1 dex) is illustrated by the cross. The pair on
1403: the right side with the large slope is the pathological binary HD
1404: 137763.
1405: \label{fig:pairs}}
1406: \end{figure}
1407: %\clearpage
1408:
1409: %%% PLACE TABLE OF COLOR-SEPARATED PAIRS HERE
1410:
1411: In Fig. \ref{fig:pairs} we show \rphk\ as a function of color for the
1412: 24 pairs. Interstellar reddening, which should be negligible, should
1413: affect both components equally and therefore should not influence
1414: measurements of the activity-color mean slope. There is a range of
1415: slopes ($m$ = $\Delta$\logrphk/$\Delta$(\bv)) characterizing the
1416: sample, with some negative and some positive. A statistical analysis
1417: of the individual slopes shows that one system is statistically
1418: deviant \citep[HD 137763\footnote{HD 137763 appears to be a true
1419: pathology. While the B component HD 137778 is clearly an active K2V
1420: dwarf, the A component is an inactive spectroscopic binary with the
1421: highest measured eccentricity ever reported \citep[$e$ =
1422: 0.975;][]{Pourbaix04}. The spectroscopic companion Ab is likely
1423: applying torques to the primary \citep{Duquennoy92}, altering its
1424: rotational evolution. \label{HD_137763}} ; rejected by Chauvenet's
1425: criterion;][]{Bevington92}, and that the mean slope is $\overline{m}$
1426: = 0.51\,$\pm$\,0.29. The true median of the slope is
1427: $\widetilde{m}$ = 0.60$^{+0.34}_{-0.27}$ \citep{Gott01}.
1428:
1429: While the binary data alone are within $\sim$2$\sigma$ of zero slope
1430: in $\Delta$\logrphk/$\Delta$(\bv), there is some hint that the slope
1431: is indeed slightly positive. \citet{Donahue98} made a plot similar to
1432: Fig. \ref{fig:pairs} (indeed, using many of the same systems), but did
1433: not explicitly state any conclusions regarding the existence of a
1434: color trend. As noted above, there is likely a range of ages
1435: represented by these binary pairs; we investigate now whether the
1436: observed variation in slope of \rphk\ with color can be correlated
1437: with stellar age.
1438:
1439: \subsubsection{Trends Among Stellar Kinematic Groups \label{color_groups}}
1440:
1441: %\clearpage
1442: \begin{figure}
1443: \epsscale{1}
1444: %\plotone{clus.eps}
1445: \plotone{f4.eps}
1446: \caption{\bvo\, vs. \logrphk\, for members of several stellar clusters
1447: in Table \ref{tab:cluster_ca}. {\it Filled triangles} are $\sim$5-16
1448: Myr Sco-Cen members (incl. Upper Sco, $\beta$ Pic, UCL, LCC), {\it
1449: open squares} are $\sim$130 Myr-old Pleiads, {\it filled circles} are
1450: $\sim$625 Myr-old Hyads, and {\it open triangles} are $\sim$4 Gyr-old
1451: M67 members. Linear fits to the cluster data are {\it dashed lines}.
1452: The {\it circle-dot} is the Sun. The {\it solid line} represents the
1453: median \logrphk\, for solar-type field stars (median \logrphk\, values
1454: for 8 color bins from a sample of 1572 unique stars in the activity
1455: surveys of \citet{Henry96} and \citet{Wright04}).
1456: \label{fig:cluster_bv_rhk}}
1457: \end{figure}
1458: %\clearpage
1459:
1460: In Fig. \ref{fig:cluster_bv_rhk}, we plot \logrphk\, vs \bv\,
1461: color for the separate kinematically defined groups in our study.
1462: From 10$^4$ jackknife sampling simulations, the slopes ($m$ =
1463: $\Delta$\logrphk/$\Delta$(\bv)) for each group were evaluated using
1464: ordinary least squares linear regression with \logrphk\, as the
1465: dependent variable and \bvo\, as the independent variable \citep[OLS
1466: (Y|X);][]{Isobe90}. These slopes, along with the median \logrphk\,
1467: values, are provided in Table \ref{tab:cluster_ca}.
1468:
1469: Examination of Table \ref{tab:cluster_ca} shows that divining a unique
1470: slope applicable to all solar-type stars at all activity levels is not
1471: be feasible. The $<$100 Myr-old groups show a wide range of slopes
1472: (-1 $<$ $m$ $<$ 3) with typically large uncertainties, but a mean
1473: slope for the ensemble of $m$ = 0.91\,$\pm$\,0.40. The $\sim$0.1-0.5
1474: Gyr Pleiades and UMa clusters show similarly steep slopes of
1475: 0.75\,$\pm$\,0.24 and 0.80\,$\pm$\,0.27, respectively. These values
1476: are $\sim$2$\sigma$ steeper than the slope for the $\sim$0.6 Gyr
1477: Hyades (0.14\,$\pm$\,0.13). The oldest cluster (M67) also has the most
1478: negative slope (-1.0\,$\pm$\,0.2). Together, the data suggest that the
1479: slope $\Delta$\logrphk/$\Delta$(\bv) may flatten as a function of age.
1480: The mean slope for all of the clusters combined is $m$ =
1481: 0.37\,$\pm$\,0.14, essentially identical to the Hyades slope ($m$ =
1482: 0.39) found by \citet{Soderblom85}. However, our Hyades slope appears
1483: to be flatter than that derived by \citet{Soderblom85} due to
1484: inclusion of additional lower activity stars at the blue and red edges
1485: of our color range. A sample of $\sim$1500 unique solar-type field
1486: stars from the combined surveys of \citet{Wright04} and
1487: \citet{Henry96} is statistically consistent with having zero slope
1488: (see Fig. \ref{fig:cluster_bv_rhk}). Similarly, \citet{Soderblom91}
1489: report a negligible slope for a sample of solar-type halo field stars.
1490:
1491: For either the cluster (plus older field) sample alone or the binary
1492: sample alone, the significance of the activity-color slope is
1493: $<3\sigma$. However, based on the fact that the measured slopes are
1494: consistent between these populations in the mean, and systematic with
1495: stellar age, we conclude that there is indeed an activity-color
1496: correlation that needs to be taken into account.
1497:
1498: \subsection{\rphk\,--Age Calibration Using Cluster Stars}
1499:
1500: \subsubsection{Assembled Cluster Data}
1501:
1502: %\clearpage
1503: \begin{figure}
1504: \epsscale{.6}
1505: %\plotone{rhkhist.eps}
1506: %\plotone{agehist.eps}
1507: \plotone{f5.eps}
1508: %\plotone{f5b.eps}
1509: \caption{Normalized histograms showing the distribution of \logrphk\,
1510: values within each stellar cluster or association, as compiled in
1511: Table \ref{tab:cluster_ca}. Individual kinematic groups show a
1512: dispersion in activity that is driven by both measurement error and
1513: astrophysical variation; the latter appears to be at a maximum at
1514: $\alpha$ Per and Pleiades ages. \label{fig:cluster_rhk_hist}}
1515: \end{figure}
1516: %\clearpage
1517:
1518: With estimates of the mean \logrphk\, values and color trends for
1519: stellar samples of known age, we can proceed towards an improved
1520: activity-age relation. In Fig. \ref{fig:cluster_rhk_hist}, we plot
1521: histograms of the distribution of \logrphk\, values for the stellar
1522: groups in our study (Table \ref{tab:cluster}). For each cluster, we
1523: use the individual $\Delta$\logrphk/$\Delta$(\bv) slopes calculated
1524: above to interpolate a mean \logrphk\, value for a hypothetical
1525: cluster member of solar color ((B-V)$_{\odot}$ = 0.65 mag). These are
1526: quoted in the last column of Table \ref{tab:cluster_ca} and adopted in
1527: the analysis that follows.
1528:
1529: \subsubsection{A New \rphk\,--Age Relation \label{Relation}}
1530:
1531: In Fig. \ref{fig:new_old_clusters}, we plot the mean \logrphk\, values
1532: vs. cluster age. The data are the combined set of: individually
1533: assessed \logrphk\, measurements from Table \ref{tab:cluster_ca} along
1534: with their 1-$\sigma$ confidence levels, and adopted mean \logrphk\,
1535: values from Table \ref{tab:cluster_other}. In both cases the ordinate
1536: values have been corrected to a nominally solar-color population. The
1537: best unweighted quadratic fit to the cluster data\footnote{If the
1538: ``classical'' ages for the $\alpha$ Per and Pleiades clusters are
1539: adopted \citep[51 Myr and 77 Myr, respectively;][]{Mermilliod81}
1540: instead of the Li-depletion ages, there is negligible impact on this
1541: fit: \rm{log}($\tau$) = -36.331 - 17.213\, \rm{log}(R$^{'}_{HK}$) -
1542: 1.5977\, \rm{log}(R$^{'}_{HK}$)$^2$. The general effect is that the
1543: very active stars become roughly $\sim$5\% younger.} is:
1544:
1545: \begin{equation}
1546: \log\,\tau = -38.053 - 17.912\, \log\,R^{'}_{HK} - 1.6675\, \log\,(R^{'}_{HK})^2
1547: \label{rhk_new_calib}
1548: \end{equation}
1549:
1550: and its inverse (better fit as a trinomial)
1551:
1552: \begin{equation}
1553: \log\,R^{'}_{HK} = 8.94 - 4.849\, \log\,\tau\, + 0.624\, (\log\,\tau)^2 - 0.028\, (\log\,\tau)^3
1554: \label{rhk_new_calib_inverse}
1555: \end{equation}
1556:
1557: where $\tau$ is the age in years, and where the fit is only
1558: appropriate approximately between \logrphk\, values of -4.0 and -5.1
1559: and log($\tau$) of 6.7 and 9.9 (the approximate range covered by our
1560: cluster samples). Our new function is plotted with the cluster mean
1561: activity values and the previously published activity-age relations in
1562: Fig. \ref{fig:new_old_clusters}. Along the active sequence (-5.0 $<$
1563: \logrphk\, $<$ -4.3) corresponding to ages older than the Pleiades,
1564: the observed r.m.s. in the fit is only log($\tau$/yr) = 0.11 dex
1565: ($\sim$29\%). When the lower-accuracy ancillary cluster data
1566: (\S\ref{Ancillary}) are removed, the r.m.s. for \logrphk\, $<$ -4.3 is
1567: only $\sim$0.07 dex in log($\tau$/yr). We believe the latter value is
1568: more representative of the fidelity of our activity-age relation
1569: (Eqn. \ref{rhk_new_calib}). For the very active stars having
1570: \logrphk\, $>$ -4.3, the r.m.s. in the fit is log($\tau$/yr) = 0.23
1571: dex ($\sim$60\%). While the age calibration has an unquantified
1572: systematic uncertainty due to the uncertainty in the cluster age
1573: scale, these r.m.s. values represent lower limits on the calibration
1574: uncertainty assigned to ages from \logrphk\, measurements.
1575:
1576: What is the typical uncertainty due to observational uncertainties or
1577: variability? To quantify this we apply equation \ref{rhk_new_calib} to
1578: our binary and cluster samples. For the binary samples, the mean age
1579: inferred for the binary from the two \logrphk\, values is assumed to
1580: be the correct system age. Among the 20 color-separated solar-type
1581: dwarf binaries in Table \ref{tab:pairs}, the mean dispersion in the
1582: ages for the 40 components is $\pm$0.15 dex (1$\sigma$). Among the 14
1583: near-identical solar-type dwarf binaries in Table \ref{tab:twins}, the
1584: mean dispersion in the ages for the 28 components is $\pm$0.07 dex
1585: (1$\sigma$). The age dispersions observed among the various stellar
1586: samples are summarized in column 2 of Table \ref{tab:rhk_test}.
1587: Applying the relation to the well-populated Hyades and M67 activity
1588: samples yields dispersions in the predicted ages of 0.25 dex and 0.20
1589: dex, respectively. Hence we see slightly larger dispersions in
1590: inferred age from among the cluster samples than among the binary
1591: samples -- the reasons for which are not entirely clear. Taking into
1592: account observational uncertainties, calibration uncertainties, and
1593: astrophysical scatter, we conclude that for solar-type dwarfs older
1594: than a few hundred Myr the revised activity-age yields age estimates
1595: with total accuracy $\sim$60\% (0.25 dex). For younger stars, the
1596: uncertainty is approximately 1 dex. In \S\ref{Implications}, we will
1597: compare these results to those of an alternative technique -- tying
1598: together age-rotation and rotation-activity relations to quantify the
1599: activity-age relation as a function of color, which somewhat reduces
1600: the scatter.
1601:
1602: Equation \ref{rhk_new_calib} is clearly an improvement on the
1603: previously published activity-age relations given the copious amount
1604: of new activity data that we have incorporated into our fit,
1605: especially for young clusters. However, some caveats to general
1606: applicability remain. For example, our analysis was unable to
1607: constrain quantitatively how the color-activity slope evolves with
1608: age. It is apparent from our cluster data that were we to adopt
1609: equation (3) for all solar type stars, we would introduce systematic
1610: age effects as a function of stellar color (mass). We are thus
1611: motivated to see if we can find an empirical means of taking into
1612: account the color(mass)-dependent evolution of activity as a function
1613: of age.
1614:
1615: %\clearpage
1616: \begin{deluxetable}{lcc}
1617: %\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1618: %\setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.03in}
1619: \tablewidth{0pt}
1620: \tablecaption{Dispersions in Age Estimates \label{tab:rhk_test}}
1621: \tablehead{
1622: {(1)} &{(2)} & {(3)}\\
1623: {Sample} &{$\sigma$(A)} & {$\sigma$(B)}\\
1624: {} &{(dex)} & {(dex)}}
1625: \startdata
1626: Upper Sco & 0.60 & ... \\
1627: $\beta$ Pic & 1.06 & ... \\
1628: UCL+LCC & 0.31 & ... \\
1629: Tuc-Hor & 0.66 & ... \\
1630: $\alpha$ Per & 1.01 & ... \\
1631: Pleiades & 1.12 & 1.06\\
1632: Ursa Major & 0.25 & 0.23\\
1633: Hyades & 0.25 & 0.22\\
1634: M67 & 0.20 & 0.24\\
1635: Color-Sep. Pairs & 0.15 & 0.07\\
1636: Near-Ident. Pairs & 0.07 & 0.05\\
1637: Sun & 0.06 & 0.05\\
1638: \enddata
1639: \tablecomments{
1640: A: 68\%CL range in ages derived from \logrphk-age formula
1641: (Eqn. \ref{rhk_new_calib}). B: 68\%CL range in ages derived from
1642: \logrphk\, $\rightarrow$ R$_o$ $\rightarrow$ Period $\rightarrow$
1643: $\tau$ (\S\ref{Rossby} and \S\ref{Gyro}).
1644: }
1645: \end{deluxetable}
1646: %\clearpage
1647:
1648: % FIGURE: ACTIVITY vs. AGE SHOWING NEW AND OLD CLUSTER POINTS
1649: \begin{figure}
1650: \epsscale{1}
1651: %\plotone{cahk_calibration.eps}
1652: \plotone{f6.eps}
1653: \caption{Mean \logrphk\, cluster values (interpolated to solar \bv)
1654: vs. cluster age. {\it Filled triangles} are cluster mean \logrphk\,
1655: values. {\it Open triangles} are ancillary cluster mean \logrphk\,
1656: values listed in Table \ref{tab:cluster_other}. {\it Open square} is
1657: the mean datum for the 5-15 Gyr-old solar-type dwarfs from
1658: \citet{Valenti05} with isochronal age uncertainties of $<$20\%. The
1659: {\it filled circle} is the Sun. Previously published activity-age
1660: relations are plotted as dotted and/or dashed
1661: curves. \citet{Soderblom91} attempted two fits: ({\it dotted}) a
1662: linear fit to his cluster data, and ({\it long dashed}) a fit that
1663: assumes a constant star-formation rate (CSFR) taking into account disk
1664: heating. Our best fit polynomial to the data in Tables
1665: \ref{tab:cluster} and \ref{tab:cluster_other} is the {\it dark solid
1666: line} (Eqn. \ref{rhk_new_calib}).
1667: \label{fig:new_old_clusters}}
1668: \end{figure}
1669: %\clearpage
1670:
1671: \section{Activity Ages Via the Rossby Number and Gyrochronology \label{rossby_gyro}}
1672:
1673: Thus far we have focused on calibrating the \logrphk\, vs. age
1674: relation empirically using cluster and young association stars of
1675: ``known'' age. In this section, we demonstrate that an age
1676: vs. activity calibration can also be derived by combining the observed
1677: correlation between Rossby number and \logrphk\, demonstrated by
1678: \citet{Noyes84} with a rendition of the empirical ``gyrochronology''
1679: rotational evolution formalism of \citet{Barnes07}. In this section
1680: we update both the activity vs. Rossby number relation of
1681: \citet{Noyes84}, and the rotation vs. age relation of
1682: \citet{Barnes07}, and then combine these into an activity-age relation
1683: to be compared to the activity-age relation in \S3
1684: (Equation \ref{rhk_new_calib}).
1685:
1686: \subsection{Rossby Number vs. Activity \label{Rossby}}
1687:
1688: \subsubsection{Rossby Number Correlated with \rhk\, Measuring Chromospheric Activity \label{rossby_rphk}}
1689:
1690: In their classic chromospheric activity study, \citet{Noyes84} attempt
1691: to understand the evolution of \logrphk\, in terms of the stellar
1692: dynamo \citep[e.g.][]{Parker79}. Chromospheric activity is a
1693: manifestation of heating by surface magnetic fields, which for the Sun
1694: are presumed to be generated near the base of the convective
1695: envelope. Chromospheric activity should, theoretically, scale with
1696: magnetic dynamo number; however dynamo models are parameterized by
1697: variables whose functional forms remain poorly constrained both
1698: observationally and theoretically \citep[e.g.][]{Noyes84, Donahue96,
1699: Montesinos01, Charbonneau01}. \citet{Noyes84} demonstrated that the
1700: mean levels of stellar chromospheric activity for solar-type dwarfs
1701: decay as Rossby number increases. The Rossby number \ro\, is
1702: parameterized as the stellar rotation period $P$ divided by the
1703: convective turnover time \tauc\, or \ro\ = $P$/\tauc. Some
1704: assumptions are necessary in arriving at values for \ro\,.
1705:
1706: First, stars are not rigid rotators, so any estimate of the rotation
1707: rate of an unresolved stellar disk via either chromospheric activity
1708: or starspot modulation will be a latitudinal mean that may vary with
1709: time during the course of stellar activity cycles
1710: \citep{Donahue96}. Second, the Rossby number is dependent on a
1711: convective turnover time that is {\it an estimate}, based directly on
1712: stellar interior models \citep[e.g.][]{Kim96} or informed by the
1713: models but empirically calibrated \citep[e.g.][]{Noyes84}. Multiple
1714: studies have attempted to quantify the convective turnover time for
1715: solar-type main sequence stars \citep{Noyes84,Stepien94,Kim96} and
1716: pre-main sequence stars \citep{Jung07}. \citet{Montesinos01} show that
1717: the \citet{Noyes84} color vs. convective turnover time relation
1718: produces the tightest correlation between activity and Rossby number
1719: when compared to modern stellar models using Mixing Length Theory
1720: (MLT) and Full Turbulence Spectrum (FTS) treatments of convection.
1721:
1722: In light of the \citet{Montesinos01} results, we adopt the
1723: \citet{Noyes84} convective turnover time relation as a function of
1724: \bv\, color. Indeed, from our own data set, the need for a
1725: color-dependent normalization of the rotation periods, i.e. the use of
1726: Rossby number \ro, is readily apparent from examination of period vs.
1727: activity in which the color stratification is obvious. One caveat is
1728: that while the color-dependent convective turnover time should be
1729: adequate for main sequence stars, it will be systematically in error
1730: for pre-main sequence stars. As it is often unclear whether a given
1731: field star is pre-MS or MS (in most cases due to inadequate or lacking
1732: distance information) {\it we adopt the MS convective turnover times
1733: for our calculations, independent of other age-constraining
1734: considerations}.
1735:
1736: %\clearpage
1737: % LOG(R'HK) vs. LINEAR ROSSBY NUMBER
1738: \begin{figure}
1739: \epsscale{1}
1740: %\plotone{ro.eps}
1741: \plotone{f7.eps}
1742: \caption{Rossby number (\ro) versus \logrphk\, for 169 solar-type MS
1743: or pre-MS stars with 0.5 $<$ \bvo\, $<$ 0.9 (the sample described in
1744: \S\ref{Rotation_X-ray}). Stars are color-coded according to the
1745: legend. Mt. Wilson HK survey stars with multi-seasonal mean periods
1746: from \citet{Donahue96} and multi-decadal mean \logrphk\, from
1747: \citet{Baliunas96} are flagged with crosses. The best linear fits in
1748: the very active and active regimes are plotted (equations
1749: \ref{eqn:ro_inactive} and \ref{eqn:ro_active}). Stars with
1750: \logrphk\, $<$ -5.0 appear to have a poor correlation between
1751: \logrphk\, and \ro, possibly due to the increasingly important towards
1752: low activity levels of gravity and metallicity on the photospheric
1753: subtraction (J. Wright, priv. comm.). The Sun is marked with a
1754: large circle with X.
1755: \label{fig:rorphk}}
1756: \end{figure}
1757: %\clearpage
1758:
1759: In Fig. \ref{fig:rorphk}, we plot chromospheric activity
1760: \logrphk\, vs. Rossby number \ro. The colored circles represent 169
1761: solar-type MS and pre-MS (rejecting evolved stars more than 1
1762: magnitude above the MS) stars having 0.5 $<$ \bvo\, $<$ 0.9 mag and
1763: both measured periods and \logrphk. A subsample of 28 of these stars
1764: have multi-seasonal mean rotation periods and \logrphk\, from
1765: \citet{Donahue96} and \citet{Baliunas96}. These stars have the best
1766: determined rotation periods and mean \logrphk\, values and are flagged
1767: with black crosses in the figure. With few exceptions, the
1768: Donahue-Baliunas stars all have published metallicity values within
1769: $\pm$0.5 dex of solar, and the majority are within $\pm$0.2 dex of
1770: solar \citep{Cayrel97,Cayrel01,Nordstrom04,Valenti05}.
1771:
1772: Fig. \ref{fig:rorphk} suggests that the rotation vs. activity relation
1773: should be clarified in three activity regimes. In the ``very active''
1774: regime\footnote{Note that the monikers ``very active'', ``active'', and
1775: ``inactive'' have been defined somewhat differently in other
1776: papers \citep[e.g.][]{Henry96,Saar99,Wright04}. We delimit them based on the
1777: appearance of Fig. \ref{fig:rorphk}.} (\logrphk\, $>$ -4.3) there
1778: appears to be little correlation between \logrphk\, and \ro\, (Pearson
1779: $r$ = -0.24). In the ``active'' regime (-5.0 $<$ \logrphk\, $<$
1780: -4.3) there is a very strong anti-correlation between activity and
1781: Rossby number (Pearson $r$ = -0.94). Curiously, in the ``active" and
1782: ``very active" regimes the vertical scatter at a given activity level is
1783: roughly constant with \logrphk. In the ``inactive'' regime
1784: (\logrphk\, $<$ -5.0), the correlation between activity and Rossby
1785: number is again very weak (Pearson $r$ = +0.33). The inactive
1786: regime (\logrphk\, $<$ -5.0) is exactly where \citet{Wright04b}
1787: suggest that the age-activity correlation fails based on correlation
1788: of inferred \logrphk\, with height above the main sequence. Wright
1789: (2009, in prep.) suggests that the definition of \logrphk\, may
1790: require inclusion of a gravity-sensitive correction. For the purposes
1791: of our study, we omit the inactive stars (\logrphk\, $<$ -5.0)
1792: from further rotation-activity analysis.
1793:
1794: % ACTIVE SEQUENCE
1795:
1796: In Fig. \ref{fig:rorphk} we fit a OLS bisector line to the
1797: ``active'' (-5.0 $<$ \logrphk\, $<$ -4.3) sequence of solar-type
1798: dwarfs, finding:
1799:
1800: \begin{equation}
1801: R_o = (0.808\pm0.014) - (2.966\pm0.098)(\log R^\prime_{\rm HK} + 4.52)
1802: \label{eqn:ro_inactive}
1803: \end{equation}
1804: and
1805: \begin{equation}
1806: \log R^\prime_{\rm HK} = (-4.522\pm0.005) - (0.337\pm0.011)(R_o - 0.814).
1807: \label{eqn:rhk_inactive}
1808: \end{equation}
1809:
1810: In this activity-rotation regime, the r.m.s. of the fits is $\sim$0.16
1811: in \ro\, and $\sim$0.05 in \logrphk. Two obvious outliers were omitted
1812: in the analysis (HD 210667 and HD 120136)\footnote{Multiple
1813: independent estimates of \logrphk\, have been reported for HD 210667
1814: \citep{Duncan91,Henry96,Gray03,Wright04,White07} and for HD 120136
1815: \citep{Duncan91,Baliunas96,Wright04,Hall07}, so their activity levels
1816: are well-constrained. HD 210667 would appear to be normal inactive
1817: star in Fig. \ref{fig:rorphk} if its period were 2$\times$ that
1818: reported by \citet[][9.1 days]{Strassmeier00}, so it is possible that
1819: this is a case of period aliasing (i.e. its true period is $\sim$18
1820: days?). The other outlier is the famous star HD 120136 ($\tau$ Boo),
1821: one of the first stars discovered to have a Hot Jupiter
1822: \citep{Butler97}. Mean rotation periods have been reported by
1823: \citet[][3.2\,$\pm$\,0.5 day]{Henry00} and \citet[][3.5\,$\pm$\,0.7
1824: day]{Walker08}, and the rotation rate is suspiciously close to the
1825: orbital period of 3.3 days for the planet \citep{Butler97}.
1826: \citet{Walker08} concludes that the planetary companion is
1827: magnetically inducing long-lived active regions on the star.
1828: \citet{Henry00} similarly noted that the measured rotation period for
1829: $\tau$ Boo is significantly shorter than what one would infer from its
1830: activity level. Figure \ref{fig:rorphk} suggests that $\tau$ Boo's
1831: unusual Rossby number vs. activity behavior is mimicked by $<$few\% of
1832: solar-type field dwarfs.}.
1833:
1834: % ACTIVE SEQUENCE
1835:
1836: In the ``very active'' regime in Fig. \ref{fig:rorphk} (\logrphk\, $>$
1837: -4.3) the correlation between rotation and activity is very
1838: weak. However we can still assess the empirical relation between
1839: rotation and activity in this regime, even if the predictability of
1840: the dependent variable on the independent variable is weak. Omitting
1841: the outlier HD 199143 (a pre-MS late-F binary), for the stars with
1842: \ro\, $<$ 0.4 in Fig. \ref{fig:rorphk}, we fit:
1843:
1844: \begin{equation}
1845: R_o = (0.233\,\pm\,0.015) - (0.689\,\pm\,0.063)(\log\,R^{\prime}_{HK} + 4.23)
1846: \label{eqn:ro_active}
1847: \end{equation}
1848:
1849: \begin{equation}
1850: \log\,R^{\prime}_{HK} = (-4.23\,\pm\,0.02) - (1.451\,\pm\,0.131)(R_o - 0.233)
1851: \label{eqn:rhk_active}
1852: \end{equation}
1853:
1854: The r.m.s. of the fits is $\sim$0.10 in \ro\, and $\sim$0.16 in
1855: \logrphk. While the r.m.s. in \ro\, is less for the very active than for
1856: the active sequence, the fractional uncertainty in \ro\,
1857: ($\sim$50\%) is larger. As the low Pearson $r$ for the data in the
1858: active regime of Fig. \ref{fig:rorphk} reflects, the power to predict
1859: activity given \ro, or vice versa, is limited with our current
1860: toolkit. The enhanced scatter for the very active stars is likely due
1861: to: (1) increased variability, (2) only one or few \logrphk\,
1862: measurements, and (3) inclusion of likely MS as well as pre-MS stars,
1863: implying a spread in convective turnover times that is not being taken
1864: into account. For our purposes, we match the very active and active
1865: sequence fits (Eqns. \ref{eqn:rhk_inactive}, \ref{eqn:ro_inactive},
1866: \ref{eqn:rhk_active}, and \ref{eqn:ro_active}) at \logrphk\, = -4.35
1867: and \ro\, = 0.32.
1868:
1869: \subsubsection{Rossby Number Correlated with \rx\, Measuring Coronal Activity \label{rossby_rx}}
1870:
1871: In addition to their chromospheric activity quantified via fractional
1872: Ca II H\&K luminosity, \logrphk, young stars are often noted for
1873: copious coronal activity and X-ray emission. There appear to be at
1874: least two rotation-activity regimes inferred from X-ray surveys
1875: \citep[e.g.][]{Pizzolato03}: a ``saturated'' regime for very active,
1876: fast-rotating stars where there is little correlation between rotation
1877: and activity (\logrx\, $\simeq$ -3.2), and a ``non-saturated'' regime
1878: of slower-rotating, lower activity stars where rotation and X-ray
1879: emission are correlated (-7 $<$ \logrx\, $<$ -4). As rotation slows
1880: with stellar age, one would surmise that X-ray emission (especially
1881: ``non-saturated'') can be a useful tool for estimating the ages of
1882: solar-type star.
1883:
1884: In Figure \ref{fig:logrx_logro} we show that coronal activity can be
1885: related to Rossby number in a manner similar to that displayed in
1886: Figure \ref{fig:rorphk} for the relation of chromospheric activity and
1887: Rossby number \citep[see also e.g.][and references
1888: therein]{Hempelmann95,Randich96,Pizzolato03}. As previous authors have
1889: noted, finding a simple function form that adequately describes the
1890: relationship between \logrx\, and \ro\, over the full range of
1891: activity data available is difficult \citep[e.g.][]{Hempelmann95}.
1892: Fig. \ref{fig:logrx_logro} shows three previous fits to the \logrx\,
1893: vs. \ro\, data, one from \citet{Randich96} and two from
1894: \citet{Hempelmann95}, plotted over the full range of activity sampled
1895: by the respective authors. The \citet{Randich96} fit in
1896: Fig. \ref{fig:logrx_logro}) comes from a very small sample of stars in
1897: the young $\alpha$ Per cluster, and appears to miss the majority of
1898: the data. The \citet{Hempelmann95} log-log fit in
1899: Fig. \ref{fig:logrx_logro}) passes through the majority of
1900: intermediate activity stars, but is a poor fit for the low-activity
1901: stars (overestimating the Sun's X-ray emission by an order of
1902: magnitude). The \logrx\, vs. \ro\, (log-linear) fit of
1903: \citet{Hempelmann95} is satisfactory for the intermediate and
1904: low-activity stars, but extrapolation above \logrx\, $>$ -4 (i.e. the
1905: saturated X-ray regime) is not recommended.
1906:
1907: %\clearpage
1908: % FIGURE: logLx/Lbol vs. logR'HK
1909: \begin{figure}
1910: \epsscale{1}
1911: %\plotone{lxlbol_ro.eps}
1912: \plotone{f8.eps}
1913: \caption{\logrx\, vs. Rossby number \ro\, for stars in our sample of
1914: solar-type stars with known rotation periods and chromospheric and
1915: X-ray activity levels. Donahue-Baliunas stars with well-determined
1916: periods also have dark Xs. Previously published \rx\, vs. \ro\, fits
1917: are drawn: {\it cyan long-dashed line} is a log-log fit from
1918: \citet{Randich96}, {\it magenta dot-dashed line} is a log-log fit from
1919: \citet{Hempelmann95}, and the {\it green dashed line} is a linear-log
1920: fit from \citet{Hempelmann95}. Our new log-linear fit for stars in the
1921: range -7 $<$ \logrx\, $<$ -4 is the {\it solid dark line}, consistent
1922: with the Hempelmann linear-log relation. Saturated X-ray emission
1923: (\logrx\, $>$ -4) is consistent with \ro\, $<$ 0.5.
1924: \label{fig:logrx_logro}}
1925: \end{figure}
1926:
1927: Following \citet{Hempelmann95}, we fit a log-linear regression to the
1928: rotation-activity data. The range of fractional X-ray luminosities
1929: over which there is a good correlation between \logrx\, and \ro\, (-7
1930: $<$ \logrx\, $<$ -4) approximately overlaps the ``active'' regime in
1931: Fig. \ref{fig:rorphk} (-5 $<$ \logrphk\, $<$ -4.3; see Appendix).
1932: Over the ``active'' sequence, the fit
1933:
1934: \begin{equation}
1935: {\rm R_o} = (0.86 \pm 0.02) - (0.79 \pm 0.05)\,(\log R_X + 4.83)
1936: \label{eqn:ro_logrx}
1937: \end{equation}
1938:
1939: \noindent produces an r.m.s. scatter of 0.25 in Rossby number \ro. The
1940: inverse relation is:
1941:
1942: \begin{equation}
1943: \log R_X = (-4.83 \pm 0.03) - (1.27 \pm 0.08)\,({\rm R_o} - 0.86)
1944: \label{eqn:logrx_ro}
1945: \end{equation}
1946:
1947: \noindent with an r.m.s. of 0.29 dex in \logrx. The correlation
1948: between \logrx\, and Rossby number is very strong (Pearson $r$ =
1949: -0.89). These fits are not applicable for stars with \logrx\, $>$ -4
1950: that are nearing the saturated X-ray emission regime. Saturated X-ray
1951: emission appears to imply Rossby numbers \ro\, $<$ 0.5 (rotation
1952: period $<$ 6 days for a G2 dwarf), and hence can be used to estimate
1953: an upper limit to the rotation period. This transition region is
1954: similar to that seen for \logrphk\, near \logrphk\, $\simeq$ -4.3
1955: (Fig. \ref{fig:rorphk}). In the Appendix, we further quantify the
1956: relationship between these chromospheric and coronal activity
1957: indicators.
1958:
1959: The r.m.s. scatter in \ro\, values inferred from \logrx\, is
1960: comparable to that inferred from \logrphk\, values in
1961: single-measurement or multi-year surveys (\S\ref{Rossby}; 0.25
1962: vs. 0.16 in $\sigma$(\ro)), although the scatter for averaged data
1963: from multi-decade Mt. Wilson HK observations is smaller (0.10 in
1964: $\sigma$(\ro)). This suggests that soft X-ray luminosities can be used
1965: to infer the rotation rate of old solar-type dwarfs almost as
1966: accurately as most \logrphk\, values in the literature.
1967:
1968: \subsubsection{Considerations for a Rotation-Activity-Age Relation \label{considerations}}
1969:
1970: In the next section (\S\ref{Gyro}), we will attempt to derive a
1971: rotation vs. age relation for solar-type dwarfs of a given color. Our
1972: end goal is to combine an activity-rotation relation with a
1973: rotation-age relation (next section; \S\ref{Gyro}) to produce an
1974: activity-age relation to compare to equation \ref{rhk_new_calib}. As
1975: we intend to infer rotation rates from activity levels, we would like
1976: to know how accurately the uncertainty in \ro\, reflects the
1977: uncertainty in rotation period from equations \ref{eqn:ro_active} and
1978: \ref{eqn:ro_inactive}. From the definition of the Rossby number (\ro\,
1979: = P/\tauc), the uncertainty in period is $\sigma_{P}$\, $\approx$\,
1980: $\tau_{c}$\, $\sigma_{R_o}$. While \tauc\, varies from star-to-star as
1981: a function of color, its mean value in our color range of interest is
1982: $\sim$15 days, and hence a typical uncertainty in the predicted period
1983: $\sigma_P$ is $\sim$1.5 days (ranging from $\sim$0.8 days for the
1984: late-Fs to $\sim$2.2 days for the late-Ks). A good approximation for
1985: the uncertainty in the period (in days) inferred from \logrphk\, for
1986: late-F through early-K stars is:
1987:
1988: \begin{equation}
1989: \sigma_{P}\, \simeq\, 4.4 (B-V) (\sigma_{R_o}/0.1) - 1.7
1990: \end{equation}
1991:
1992: where $\sigma_{R_o}$ $\simeq$ 0.1 for stars with multi-decadal
1993: \logrphk\, means \citep[i.e. Mt. Wilson HK survey stars,
1994: e.g.]{Baliunas96}. For stars from \citet{Wright04}, with typically
1995: dozens of \logrphk\, measurements over a span of a few years, the
1996: scatter in $R_o$ as a function of \logrphk\, is $\sigma_{R_o}$
1997: $\simeq$ 0.17. For stars with measured rotation periods, but with a
1998: few to tens of \logrphk\, measurements
1999: \citep[e.g.][]{Duncan91,Henry96,White07}, the scatter in $R_o$ as a
2000: function of \logrphk\, is $\sigma_{R_o}$ $\simeq$ 0.2. In the limit of
2001: a single \logrphk\, measurement, it appears that one should be able to
2002: estimate $R_o$ to $\sim$0.2-0.3 1$\sigma$ accuracy for solar-type
2003: dwarfs. This is comparable to the accuracy in \ro\, that single X-ray
2004: observations can produce ($\sigma_{R_o}$ $\simeq$ 0.25;
2005: \S\ref{rossby_rx}). Surveying the suite of coronal and X-ray activity
2006: indicators published for thousands of stars, it appears that we can
2007: predict rotation for the majority to better than $\pm$0.25 in \ro.
2008:
2009: % BRIEF DISCUSSION OF SUN
2010: For the Sun's observed mean rotation period as measured through the
2011: Mt. Wilson S-index \citep[26.09 day;][]{Donahue96}, one would predict
2012: the Sun's mean chromospheric activity to be \logrphk\, = -4.98. This
2013: can be compared to the observed value, time-averaged over several
2014: solar cycles, of -4.91 (\S 1.1). As the observed r.m.s. in \logrphk\,
2015: vs. \ro\, along the inactive sequence is only $\sim$0.05 dex, the
2016: Sun's past 40 years of activity appears to be only $\sim$1.3$\sigma$
2017: higher than predicted for its period. This corroborates previous
2018: findings that Sun appears to have more or less normal activity for its
2019: rotation period \citep[e.g.][]{Noyes84}.
2020:
2021: % CLOSING STATEMENTS ON ROSSBY-ACTIVITY RELATION
2022:
2023: From the results of large chromospheric activity surveys
2024: \citep[e.g.][]{Henry96,Wright04} for solar-type stars within 1 mag of
2025: the MS, it appears that $\sim$76\% of solar-type field stars fall
2026: within the active sequence (-5.0 $<$ \logrphk\, $<$ -4.35), $\sim$3\%
2027: fall within the very active sequence (\logrphk\, $>$ -4.35), and
2028: $\sim$21\% are inactive (\logrphk\, $<$ -5.0). The coronal activity
2029: surveys show a similar distribution. Hence, for roughly
2030: three-quarters of the solar-type dwarfs, we have a well-determined
2031: empirical rotation-activity relation where we can reliably use
2032: activity to predict rotation period, or vice versa. This corroborates
2033: the results of \cite{Noyes84}. More importantly, we provide a modern,
2034: well-established activity-rotation relationship using the best
2035: available data. Our next step is to revisit the rotation-age
2036: relationship, with the eventual goal of producing an
2037: activity-rotation-age relationship with more predictive power than an
2038: activity-age relation.
2039:
2040: \subsection{Gyrochronology \label{Gyro}}
2041:
2042: In the course of their evolution, solar-type stars lose angular
2043: momentum via magnetic breaking due to their mass loss \citep{Weber67}.
2044: This inexorably leads to a steady slowdown in rotation rates, first
2045: quantified by \citet{Skumanich72} as projected rotation speed
2046: $v$\,sin\,$i$ $\propto$ age$^{-0.5}$. Detailed surveys of solar-type
2047: stars in open clusters \citep[beginning with the summary
2048: in][]{Kraft67} have shown that the evolution in rotation period has a
2049: mass-dependence.
2050:
2051: Recently, \citet{Barnes07} used existing literature data to derive a
2052: color-dependent version of the Skumanich law (``gyrochronology''). For
2053: a given age, Barnes finds that the majority of solar-type stars in
2054: clusters follow what he calls the {\it interface} or ``I'' rotational
2055: sequence. The choice of nomenclature is theoretically motivated, as it
2056: is believed that these stars are producing their magnetic flux near
2057: the convective-radiative interface. Barnes dubs the population of
2058: ultra-fast rotators the ``C'' or {\it convective} rotational sequence,
2059: and posits that these stars lack large-scale dynamos, and hence break
2060: their rotation very inefficiently \citep[see
2061: also][]{Endal81,Stauffer84,Soderblom93}. According to
2062: \citet{Barnes07}, the rotation periods for I-sequence stars evolve
2063: with age as:
2064:
2065: \begin{eqnarray}
2066: P(B-V, t) = f(B-V)\times g(t) \label{gyro1}\\
2067: f(B-V) = a((B - V)_{o} - c)^{b} \label{gyro2}\\
2068: g(t) = t^{n} \label{gyro3}
2069: \end{eqnarray}
2070:
2071: With the age of the star $t$ given in Myr, Barnes finds $a$ =
2072: 0.7725\,$\pm$\,0.011, $b$ = 0.601\,$\pm$\,0.024, the ``color
2073: singularity'' $c$ = 0.40 mag, and the time-dependence power law $n$ =
2074: 0.5189\,$\pm$\,0.0070. In practice, Barnes segregates the I- and
2075: C-sequence rotators at the 100 Myr {\it gyrochrone}, and does not
2076: attempt to estimate ages for faster rotating stars. These coefficients
2077: are claimed to satisfy the above gyrochronology relation for the Sun
2078: and several young open clusters, and to match well a sample of
2079: color-separated binaries with known rotation periods (e.g. $\alpha$
2080: Cen, 61 Cyg, etc.).
2081:
2082: %\clearpage
2083: \begin{figure}
2084: \epsscale{1}
2085: %\plotone{per_gyro.eps}
2086: \plotone{f9.eps}
2087: %\vspace*{-15mm}
2088: \caption{Rotation period versus \bv\, for solar-type stars in
2089: the Pleiades ({\it filled triangles}) and Hyades ({\it open circles})
2090: compared to gyrochrones from \citet{Barnes07} for ages 130 Myr and 625
2091: Myr. The offsets between the gyrochrones and the observed period
2092: distributions for these benchmark clusters motivated us to rederive
2093: the parameters in the gyro relations.\label{fig:per_gyro_barnes}}
2094: \end{figure}
2095: %\clearpage
2096:
2097: An independent assessment of data for the Sun, Hyades, and Pleiades
2098: reveals discrepancies when using the gyrochronology relations from
2099: \citet{Barnes07}. As illustrated in Fig. \ref{fig:per_gyro_barnes},
2100: the Barnes ``gyrochrone'' for an age of 625 Myr over-predicts the
2101: periods of Hyades members as a function of color by as much as 50\%,
2102: suggesting the need for modification in $a$ and/or $b$. For the
2103: Pleiades (130 Myr), the agreement is better overall, but disagreement
2104: most prevalent for the bluer members, suggesting that the value of $c$
2105: needs revision. To produce suitable fits over a wide range of ages
2106: within the Barnes formalism, we were forced to rederive the parameters
2107: $a$, $b$, $c$, and $n$.
2108:
2109: Considering the clusters of Tables \ref{tab:cluster} and
2110: \ref{tab:cluster_other}, we find after a thorough literature search
2111: that only a few have sufficient data on stellar rotation periods for
2112: inclusion in this exercise. They are the usual suspects: $\alpha$ Per
2113: \citep{Prosser95}, Pleiades \citep{Prosser95,Krishnamurthi98}, M34
2114: (Meibom et al., submitted), and Hyades
2115: \citep{Radick87,Prosser95,Radick95,Paulson04}, and Henry
2116: (priv. comm.). Rotation data for benchmark clusters older than the
2117: Hyades (such as Coma Ber, NGC 752, M 67, and NGC 188) are hard to come
2118: by given the long mean periods of $>$10 days. However, increased
2119: interest in both planet searches and stellar oscillation studies may
2120: soon rectify this situation. We also include the Sun as an old anchor
2121: datum, adopting a period of 26.09 days which is the latitudinal mean
2122: observed by \citet{Donahue96} (the solar rotation ranges from $\sim$25
2123: days near the equator to $\sim$32 days near the poles).
2124:
2125: To rederive a gyro relation which more closely matches the cluster
2126: sequences and the Sun, we include in the fit only the obvious
2127: I-sequence rotators in the clusters, and omit the ultrafast C-sequence
2128: rotators, as well as the two very slow rotators in the Pleiades (HII
2129: 2284 \& 2341). For the four gyro parameters, we minimize the
2130: residuals in period for the cluster data and solar datum, but
2131: retaining only those fits that come within 0.1 day of the solar mean
2132: rotation rate at its age. Our method forces perhaps undue statistical
2133: significance upon this one data point (the Sun); however, as we are
2134: lacking in cluster sequences or even single stars with accurate ages
2135: $>$625 Myr, the solar datum is unique and thus extremely important to
2136: reproduce. We also ignore the effects of metallicity on the cluster
2137: sequences, working in color rather than mass.
2138:
2139: Our best estimate of the gyrochronology parameters are presented in
2140: Table \ref{tab:gyronew}. The errors reflect the uncertainties of the
2141: parameters for $\Delta \chi^2$ = 1, where r.m.s = 1.23 day gives
2142: $\chi^2_{\nu}$ = 1 for the best fit. In Figure \ref{fig:bv_per} we
2143: demonstrate the match of these coefficients to the data from which
2144: they were established.
2145:
2146: %%% TABLE OF REVISED GYRO PARAMETERS
2147: \begin{deluxetable}{cc}
2148: %\setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.03in}
2149: \tablewidth{0pt}
2150: \tablecaption{Revised Gyrochronology Parameters}
2151: \tablehead{
2152: {param.}&{value}
2153: }
2154: \startdata
2155: a & 0.407\,$\pm$\,0.021\\
2156: b & 0.325\,$\pm$\,0.024\\
2157: c & 0.495\,$\pm$\,0.010\\
2158: n & 0.566\,$\pm$\,0.008
2159: \label{tab:gyronew}
2160: \enddata
2161: \end{deluxetable}
2162:
2163: \begin{figure}
2164: \epsscale{1}
2165: %\plotone{per.eps}
2166: \plotone{f10.eps}
2167: %\vspace*{-15mm}
2168: \caption{Rotation period versus \bv\, for solar-type stars compared
2169: to gyrochronology relations derived in this work. Stars are
2170: color-coded by anchor: Sun ({\it blue}), Hyades ({\it green}), M34
2171: ({\it magenta}), Pleiades ({\it red}). In black are binary pairs,
2172: which are presumed co-eval systems that follow the general sense of
2173: the cluster data and the fitted gyrochrones.
2174: \label{fig:bv_per}
2175: }
2176: \end{figure}
2177: %\clearpage
2178:
2179: How well does our improved gyrochronology fit perform for the sample
2180: four solar-type dwarf binaries with known periods
2181: (\S\ref{Data_binaries})? In Fig. \ref{fig:bv_per}, we also show that
2182: the color-period lines connecting the binary components appear to
2183: follow approximately the slopes of the curves predicted from our new
2184: gyrochrone curve (\S\ref{Gyro}). In Table \ref{tab:bin_per_gyro} we
2185: present revised estimates of the individual gyrochronological ages
2186: based on our revised parameters for equations \ref{gyro1}-\ref{gyro3}.
2187:
2188: Assuming the systems are coeval, our revised fit to the gyro equations
2189: appears to yield stellar ages with precision of $\pm$0.05 dex
2190: (1$\sigma$; $\pm$11\%) in log($\tau$/yr). This is comparable to the
2191: precision claimed by \citet{Barnes07}; however the ages should be more
2192: accurate as the Pleiades and Hyades color sequence is more accurately
2193: modeled (c.f. Figures~\ref{fig:bv_per} vs ~\ref{fig:per_gyro_barnes}).
2194: For the best studied system ($\alpha$ Cen), the inferred gyro age
2195: (5.0\,$\pm$\,0.3 Gyr) compares well to recent estimates from modeling
2196: asteroseismology data, which have been converging to a consensus age
2197: of 6\,$\pm$\,1 Gyr in recent years: 4.85\,$\pm$\,0.5 Gyr
2198: \citep[][]{Thevenin02}, $\sim$6.4 Gyr \citep[][]{Thoul03},
2199: 6.52\,$\pm$\,0.3 Gyr \citep[][]{Eggenberger04}, 5.2-7.1 Gyr
2200: \citep[][]{Miglio05}.
2201:
2202: We conclude that our improved gyrochronology fit is probably precise
2203: to of order $\sim$0.05 dex in log($\tau$/yr) for I-sequence
2204: rotators. This uncertainty does not include the absolute uncertainties
2205: in the clusters age scale (which are probably of similar magnitude;
2206: $\sim$15\%). Clearly, new samples of stars with well-constrained
2207: rotation periods and ages at a range of colors are needed to constrain
2208: the rotational evolution of solar-type stars at ages of $>$1 Gyr. Our
2209: refined gyrochronology parameters represent our best attempt to
2210: empirically parameterize the rotational evolution of solar-type stars
2211: at present. However, we acknowledge that given the rapidly changing
2212: data landscape for cluster rotation studies, superior rotation vs. age
2213: relations may be soon available.
2214:
2215: %\clearpage
2216: %%% TABLE OF BINARIES WITH KNOWN PERIODS
2217: \begin{deluxetable}{llccc}
2218: %\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
2219: \setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.03in}
2220: \tablewidth{0pt}
2221: \tablecaption{Revised Gyro Ages for Field Binaries \label{tab:bin_per_gyro}}
2222: \tablehead{
2223: {(1)} &{(2)} &{(3)} &{(4)} &{(5)}\\
2224: {System} &{HD} &{log\,$\tau_A$}&{log\,$\tau_B$ }&{$\overline{\log \tau}$}\\
2225: {} &{} &{(yr)} &{(yr)} &{(yr)}}
2226: \startdata
2227: $\xi$ Boo & 131156AB & 8.47 & 8.70 & 8.59\\
2228: $\alpha$ Cen & 128620/1 & 9.67 & 9.72 & 9.70\\
2229: 36 Oph & 155886/6 & 9.28 & 9.28 & 9.28\\
2230: 61 Cyg & 201091/2 & 9.57 & 9.53 & 9.55
2231: \enddata
2232: \tablecomments{Columns: (1) common name, (2) HD name, (3) gyro age for
2233: component A, (4) gyro age for component B, (5) mean gyro age for the
2234: system. Gyro ages were estimated from the equation P =
2235: $a$((B - V)$_{o}$ - $c$)$^{b}$ $\times$ $t^{n}$, where
2236: the coefficients are listed in Table \ref{tab:gyronew}.}
2237: \end{deluxetable}
2238: %\clearpage
2239:
2240: \subsection{Implications and Tests of New Gyro-Rossby Ages \label{Implications}}
2241:
2242: Having calibrated the activity-rotation and rotation-age correlations
2243: with the best available data, we can now use the results from
2244: \S\ref{Rossby} and \S\ref{Gyro} to predict the evolution of \logrphk\,
2245: as a function of age and color for solar-type stars. In
2246: Fig. \ref{fig:gyrochrones}, we illustrate the predicted activity
2247: tracks as a function of color and stellar age. In
2248: Fig. \ref{fig:cahk_predicted}, we plot the predicted activity-age
2249: relation for various colors of solar-type dwarfs. Considering these
2250: two plots leads us to a few conclusions. First, the subtle positive
2251: mean slopes in $\Delta$\logrphk/$\Delta$\bv\, observed for the young
2252: clusters in Fig. \ref{fig:cluster_bv_rhk} and Table \ref{tab:cluster}
2253: can be understood in the context of mass-dependent rotation evolution
2254: combined with an rotation-activity relation (a notable exception is
2255: the old cluster M67). Second, the assumption of a single activity-age
2256: relation applicable to the wide range of solar-type dwarf colors
2257: ($\sim$0.5 $<$ \bvo\, $<$ 0.9; Eqn. \ref{rhk_new_calib} and
2258: \ref{rhk_new_calib_inverse}, and Fig. \ref{fig:new_old_clusters}) we
2259: and others often considered is a poor assumption. The predicted
2260: activity evolution curves in Fig. \ref{fig:gyrochrones} also warn that
2261: the search for Maunder minimum candidates
2262: \citep[e.g.][]{Donahue98,Wright04b} should take into account that
2263: coeval stars may have different mean activity levels ($\sim$0.1-0.2
2264: dex in \logrphk) as a function of \bv\, color. The question remains,
2265: {\it can we determine more accurate ages from a activity-rotation-age
2266: algorithm compared to the standard activity-age relations?}
2267:
2268: %\clearpage
2269: \begin{figure}
2270: \epsscale{1}
2271: %\plotone{gyrochrones.eps}
2272: \plotone{f11.eps}
2273: \caption{Predicted chromospheric activity levels as a function of age
2274: (``gyrochromochrones''), from combining the age-rotation relations in
2275: \S\ref{Gyro} with the rotation-activity relations in \S\ref{Rossby}.
2276: Typical uncertainty bars are shown in the very active and active regimes,
2277: reflecting the r.m.s. in the Rossby number-activity fits, and typical
2278: photometric errors. The behavior of the gyrochromochrones at the blue
2279: end (i.e. the obvious upturn) is not well-constrained, and is
2280: particularly sensitive to the $c$ parameter in the gyrochronology
2281: fits.
2282: \label{fig:gyrochrones}
2283: }
2284: \end{figure}
2285:
2286: \begin{figure}
2287: \epsscale{1}
2288: %\plotone{cahk_predict.eps}
2289: \plotone{f12.eps}
2290: \caption{Predicted \logrphk\, vs. age relation for solar-type dwarfs
2291: of different colors ({\it dashed lines}). The cluster samples and mean
2292: relation from Fig. \ref{fig:new_old_clusters} are plotted. The {\it
2293: dashed lines} represent the synthesis of the age-rotation
2294: ``gyrochronology'' relation (\S\ref{Gyro}) with the rotation-activity
2295: relations (\S\ref{Rossby}). These ``gyrochromochrones'' show that the
2296: assumption of an activity-age relation applicable to all solar-type
2297: dwarfs in the color range (0.5 $<$ \bvo\, $<$ 0.9) is probably an
2298: oversimplification. The kink in \logrphk\, corresponds to the
2299: transition between the very active and active regimes.
2300: \label{fig:cahk_predicted}
2301: }
2302: \end{figure}
2303: %\clearpage
2304:
2305: Similar to our analysis in \S\ref{Relation}, we wish to test the
2306: consistency of our gyro-activity age predictions among two useful
2307: types of samples: field binary stars and open cluster members. In
2308: each of these groups, the constituents are expected to be co-eval but
2309: to display a range in mass, and to suffer from astrophysical scatter.
2310: How well do the predicted ages agree among these presumably co-eval
2311: stars?
2312:
2313: Our first test uses the 20 binary pairs of Table \ref{tab:pairs}. We
2314: convert the individual \rphk\ values to period via the \rphk\,
2315: vs. Rossby number correlation, and use the gyrochronology relations to
2316: estimate ages. The ages for these binaries are listed in Table
2317: \ref{tab:pairs_ages}. The distribution of the periods (inferred from
2318: the \rphk\, values) versus colors for the binaries are plotted in
2319: Figure \ref{fig:per_rhk}, with the revised gyrochrones overlaid.
2320: Excluding the known pathological system HD 137763 (footnote
2321: \ref{HD_137763}), the remaining systems appear to give consistent ages
2322: with a statistical r.m.s. of $\pm$0.07 dex ($\sim$15\%). Recall that
2323: using the simple activity-age relation (Equation \ref{rhk_new_calib})
2324: produced consistent ages with r.m.s. of $\sim$0.15 dex
2325: ($\sim$35\%). So for the sample of non-identical binaries, taking into
2326: account the color-dependent rotational evolution appears to
2327: significantly decrease the age uncertainties.
2328:
2329: %\clearpage
2330: % TABLE OF COLOR-SEPARATED PAIRS OF SOLAR-TYPE STARS
2331: \begin{deluxetable}{llccc}
2332: %\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
2333: \setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.03in}
2334: \tablewidth{0pt}
2335: \tablecaption{Activity-Gyro Ages for Solar-type Binaries\label{tab:pairs_ages}}
2336: \tablehead{
2337: {(1)} &{(2)} &{(3)} &{(4)} &{(5)} \\
2338: {Primary} &{Secondary}&{log\,$\tau_1$}&{log\,$\tau_2$}&{$\overline{\log \tau}$}\\
2339: {} &{} &{(yr)} &{(yr)} &{(yr)}}
2340: \startdata
2341: HD 531B & HD 531A & 8.01 & 8.73 & 8.37\,$\pm$\,0.36\\
2342: HD 5190 & HD 5208 & 9.59 & 9.86 & 9.73\,$\pm$\,0.14\\
2343: HD 13357A & HD 13357B & 9.42 & 9.28 & 9.35\,$\pm$\,0.07\\
2344: HD 14082A & HD 14082B & 8.59 & 8.43 & 8.51\,$\pm$\,0.08\\
2345: HD 23439A & HD 23439B & 9.80 & 10.11 & 9.96\,$\pm$\,0.15\\
2346: HD 26923 & HD 26913 & 8.76 & 8.64 & 8.70\,$\pm$\,0.06\\
2347: HD 53705 & HD 53706 & 9.56 & 9.89 & 9.72\,$\pm$\,0.16\\
2348: HD 73668A & HD 73668B & 9.47 & 9.46 & 9.47\,$\pm$\,0.01\\
2349: HD 103432 & HD 103431 & 9.60 & 9.54 & 9.57\,$\pm$\,0.03\\
2350: HD 116442 & HD 116443 & 9.82 & 9.85 & 9.84\,$\pm$\,0.02\\
2351: HD 134331 & HD 134330 & 9.42 & 9.61 & 9.52\,$\pm$\,0.10\\
2352: HD 134439 & HD 134440 & 9.62 & 9.75 & 9.68\,$\pm$\,0.07\\
2353: HD 135101A & HD 135101B & 9.85 & 9.85 & 9.85\,$\pm$\,0.00\\
2354: HD 137763 & HD 137778 & 9.86 & 8.72 & 9.29\,$\pm$\,0.56*\\
2355: HD 142661 & HD 142661B & 9.43 & 9.32 & 9.37\,$\pm$\,0.06\\
2356: HD 144087 & HD 144088 & 9.42 & 9.37 & 9.39\,$\pm$\,0.02\\
2357: HD 219175A & HD 219175B & 9.48 & 9.58 & 9.53\,$\pm$\,0.05
2358: \enddata
2359: \tablecomments{
2360: Columns: (1) name of primary, (2) name of secondary, (3) activity-gyro age for
2361: component A, (4) activity-gyro age for component B, (5) mean gyro age for the
2362: system. (*) HD 137763 is a pathological case discussed in footnote \ref{HD_137763}.
2363: }
2364: \end{deluxetable}
2365: %\clearpage
2366:
2367: \begin{figure}
2368: \epsscale{1}
2369: %\plotone{per_bin.eps}
2370: \plotone{f13.eps}
2371: \caption{Predicted rotation periods for field binary stars with
2372: measured \logrphk. Periods were estimated from the activity-Rossby
2373: relations (equations \ref{eqn:ro_inactive} and
2374: \ref{eqn:ro_active}). Gyrochrone equations are from equations
2375: \ref{gyro1}-\ref{gyro3} using the constants in Table
2376: \ref{tab:gyronew}.
2377: \label{fig:per_rhk}
2378: }
2379: \end{figure}
2380: %\clearpage
2381:
2382: Our second test involves the cluster stars from Table
2383: \ref{tab:cluster_ca}. Rather than, as illustrated in Figure
2384: \ref{fig:cluster_rhk_hist}, adopting the mean activity level for a
2385: cluster and turning it into a mean age which can be compared to
2386: individually predicted ages, we convert the individual \rphk\, values
2387: via the Rossby number correlation to period and use the gyrochronology
2388: relations. This method assumes that the stars are participating in
2389: the so-called I-sequence identified by Barnes and are not ultra-fast
2390: rotators of the so-called C-sequence. If this is not true in reality,
2391: some rapid rotators will have their ages underestimated via
2392: gyrochronology/activity. That the Rossby number vs \rphk\,
2393: correlation of Figure \ref{fig:rorphk} breaks down or saturates at
2394: high activity levels helps isolate us from this effect since those
2395: stars will not have reliable conversions to period. The resulting
2396: dispersions (68\% CLs) in the ages inferred for the cluster members
2397: are listed in Table \ref{tab:rhk_test}, along with the dispersions
2398: observed for the two binary samples and the Sun. Also listed in Table
2399: \ref{tab:rhk_test} is the inferred age dispersion for the same
2400: samples when the simple activity-age relation (equation
2401: \ref{rhk_new_calib}) is used to estimate ages.
2402:
2403: From Table \ref{tab:rhk_test} we conclude the following regarding
2404: adopting a simple activity-age relation (\S\ref{Relation}) versus an
2405: activity-rotation-age prescription (\S\ref{Rossby} and \S\ref{Gyro}).
2406: First, among the six stellar samples (four open clusters and two
2407: binary samples), the activity-rotation-age technique resulted in
2408: smaller age dispersions for 5 of the 6 samples (the exception being
2409: M67). Quantifying the improvement is not so straightforward. The
2410: improvement among 3 of the clusters (Pleiades, UMa, Hyades) was
2411: typically a $\sim$10\% reduction in the age dispersion, equivalent to
2412: removing a $\sim$0.1 dex source of systematic error. The two binary
2413: samples show marked improvements in their age dispersions -- most
2414: notably the dispersion in age estimates among the color-separated
2415: binaries was reduced significantly by using the activity-rotation-age
2416: technique rather than a simple activity-age relation. The results for
2417: M67 are somewhat perplexing, and hint that our activity-rotation-age
2418: technique is not adequately modeling this $\sim$4-Gyr-old group. This is
2419: not surprising given that half of the M67 sample is hotter/bluer than
2420: the Sun, and as Figure \ref{fig:bv_per} suggests, {\it the gyro
2421: relations are not well-constrained for late-F/early-G stars for ages
2422: older than the Hyades.} We conclude by stating that the
2423: activity-rotation-age technique appears to give slightly more
2424: consistent ages among the older samples tested than by using a simple
2425: activity-age relation.
2426:
2427: \subsection{Inferred Ages for the Nearest Solar-Type Dwarfs \label{near_stars}}
2428:
2429: While a rigorous utilization of the revised age-deriving methods for
2430: studying the star-formation history of the solar neighborhood is
2431: beyond the focus of this study, we briefly discuss some implications
2432: of our results for a small volume-limited sample of solar-type dwarfs.
2433:
2434: We use our new and improved age-deriving methods to estimate the ages
2435: for the 100 nearest solar-type dwarfs (Table \ref{tab:nearstars}).
2436: The sample consists of the nearest known dwarfs with 0.5 $<$ \bv\, $<$
2437: 0.9 mag (the color region where both the \rhk\, calculations and
2438: revised gyrochronology relations are constrained). A few of the
2439: entries are unresolved multiples, sometimes containing two or even
2440: three solar-type stars (e.g. i Boo). Six evolved stars lying more than
2441: one magnitude above the main sequence defined by \citet{Wright04} have
2442: been omitted (i.e. $\Delta$M$_V$ $<$ -1: $\alpha$ Aur, $\eta$ Boo A,
2443: $\mu$ Her, $\zeta$ Her, and $\beta$ Hyi). When multiple \rhk\,
2444: measurements were found in the literature, we gave highest priority to
2445: those estimates that included the most observations. When multiple
2446: single observations were published by different authors, we
2447: preferentially adopted those from the largest surveys
2448: \citep[e.g.][]{Duncan91,Henry96,Wright04}. All parallaxes and V
2449: magnitudes are from the Hipparcos catalog \citep{Perryman97}. MK
2450: spectral types are preferentially taken from compilations by Keenan
2451: and Gray and collaborators. Given the stated color, parallax, and
2452: absolute magnitude constraints, this catalog is likely to be complete
2453: for distances of $<$15 pc.
2454:
2455: Estimated ages using our methods are listed in the final two columns
2456: of Table \ref{tab:nearstars}. The first column of ages ($\tau_1$) are
2457: from using the revised activity-age relation (\S3.2.2, Eqn. 3). The
2458: second column of ages ($\tau_2$) are those inferred from converting
2459: the chromospheric activity levels to a rotation period via the Rossby
2460: number, then converting the rotation period to an age using the
2461: revised gyro relation (\S4, Eqns. 5-8, 10-12). {\it The final column
2462: of ages $\tau_2$ are the preferred age estimates}. The inferred
2463: activity age for the extraordinarily active ZAMS star AB Dor is
2464: $\sim$1 Myr, and clearly in error \citep[apparently by 2 orders of
2465: magnitude;][]{Luhman05}. As AB Dor painfully illustrates, the
2466: uncertainties in the inferred ages for the very active stars
2467: (\logrphk\, $>$ -4.3) are large ($\sim$1 dex; c.f. Table 9). A
2468: conservative estimate of the typical age uncertainty is $\sim$50\%\,
2469: for the preferred ages $\tau_2$ of the lower activity stars.
2470:
2471: In Fig. \ref{fig:hist_near}, we plot a histogram of the inferred ages
2472: $\tau_1$ and $\tau_2$ for the sample of the 100 nearest solar-type
2473: dwarfs. The histogram can not be strictly interpreted as a true
2474: star-formation history as we have not accounted for disk heating
2475: \citep[e.g.][]{Soderblom91,West08}. The effect preferentially removes
2476: older, higher velocity stars from the local sample, but is subtle and
2477: small for the youngest age bins. The ages inferred from the simple
2478: activity-age (Eqn. 3; {\it dashed histogram}) shows a minimum at
2479: $\sim$2-3 Gyr seen in previous studies which corresponds to the
2480: ``Vaughan-Preston gap'' \citep[][see also Fig. 7 and 8 of Henry et al.
2481: 1996]{Vaughan80,Barry88}. However, when we examine the histogram of
2482: ages inferred from activity $\rightarrow$ rotation ({\it solid
2483: histogram}), the minimum at $\sim$2-3 Gyr is not as obvious, revealing
2484: a more or less smooth distribution of ages between 0-6 Gyr (with a
2485: precipitous decrease at older ages, presumably due to disk heating and
2486: loss of evolved higher-mass stars from the sample). Similarly, the
2487: stellar birthrate during the past Gyr appears unremarkable compared to
2488: the past $\sim$6 Gyr. These results also call into doubt previous
2489: claims that the star-formation rate during the past Gyr has been
2490: significantly enhanced \citep{Barry88}.
2491:
2492: \begin{figure}
2493: \epsscale{1}
2494: \plotone{f14.eps}
2495: \caption{Histogram of inferred ages for the nearest 100 solar-type
2496: dwarfs (F7-K2V). {\it Dashed histogram} is for ages inferred directly
2497: from activity using equation 3. {\it Solid histogram} is for ages
2498: derived from converting activity to rotation period (\S4.1), then
2499: converting rotation period and color to age using the revised gyro
2500: relation (\S4.2). The ages inferred directly from activity show the
2501: familiar lull near $\sim$3 Gyr noted in some studies
2502: \citep[e.g.][]{Barry88}. Using the improved ages (from activity
2503: $\rightarrow$ rotation $\rightarrow$ age), the inferred star-formation
2504: rate appears to be smoother between 0-6 Gyr. \label{fig:hist_near} }
2505: \end{figure}
2506:
2507: \clearpage
2508: \begin{deluxetable}{llllccclrccrlrcc}
2509: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
2510: \setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.03in}
2511: \tablewidth{0pt}
2512: \tablecaption{Activity Ages for the 100 Nearest Solar-type Dwarfs \label{tab:nearstars}}
2513: \tablehead{
2514: {(1) }&{(2)} &{(3)} &{(4)} &{(5)} &{(6)} &{(7)} &{(8)} &{(9)} &{(10)} &{(11)} &{(12)} &{(13)}&{(14)}&{(15)}&{(16)}\\
2515: {HD} &{HIP} &{GJ} &{Alias}&{$\varpi$}&{\bv} &{Ref.}&{\logrphk}&{Ref.}&{V} &{M$_V$}&{$\Delta$M$_V$}&{SpT} &{Ref.}&{$\tau_1$}&{$\tau_2$}\\
2516: {$\ldots$}&{$\ldots$}&{$\ldots$}&{$\ldots$} &{(mas)} &{(mag)}&{$\ldots$}&{(dex)} &{$\ldots$}&{(mag)}&{(mag)}&{(mag)}&{$\ldots$}&{$\ldots$}&{(Gyr)}&{(Gyr)}}
2517: \startdata
2518: 166 & 544 & 5A & V439 And & 72.98$\pm$0.75 & 0.752 & 18 & -4.328 & 6 & 6.07 & 5.39 & -0.02 & G8V & 9 & 0.2 & 0.2\\
2519: 1581 & 1599 & 17 & $\zeta$ Tuc & 116.38$\pm$0.64 & 0.572 & 17 & -4.839 & 12 & 4.23 & 4.56 & 0.25 & F9.5V & 10 & 3.8 & 2.1\\
2520: 3443 & 2941 & 25AB & HR 159 & 64.38$\pm$1.40 & 0.715 & 18 & -4.903 & 1 & 4.61 & 5.19 & -0.58 & G8V+G9V & 3 & 4.8 & 4.9\\
2521: 3651 & 3093 & 27A & 54 Psc & 90.03$\pm$0.72 & 0.850 & 18 & -4.991 & 1 & 5.88 & 5.65 & -0.28 & K0V & 9 & 6.4 & 7.7\\
2522: 4391 & 3583 & 1021 & HR 209 & 66.92$\pm$0.73 & 0.640 & 17 & -4.55 & 12 & 5.80 & 4.93 & 0.23 & G5V Fe-0.8 & 10 & 0.8 & 0.9\\
2523: 4614 & 3821 & 34A & $\eta$ Cas & 167.99$\pm$0.62 & 0.574 & 17 & -4.958 & 6 & 3.46 & 4.59 & 0.20 & F9V & 8 & 5.8 & 2.9\\
2524: 4628 & 3765 & 33 & HR 222 & 134.04$\pm$0.86 & 0.890 & 18 & -4.852 & 1 & 5.74 & 6.38 & 0.25 & K2.5V & 10 & 4.0 & 5.4\\
2525: 4813 & 3909 & 37 & 19 Cet & 64.69$\pm$1.03 & 0.514 & 18 & -4.78 & 9 & 5.17 & 4.22 & 0.32 & F7V & 9 & 2.9 & 1.7\\
2526: 6582 & 5336 & 53A & $\mu$ Cas A & 132.40$\pm$0.60 & 0.695 & 17 & -4.964 & 6 & 5.17 & 5.78 & 0.65 & K1V Fe-2 & 9 & 5.9 & 5.3\\
2527: 7570 & 5862 & 55 & $\nu$ Phe & 66.43$\pm$0.64 & 0.571 & 18 & -4.95 & 15 & 4.97 & 4.28 & -0.20 & F9V Fe+0.4 & 10 & 5.7 & 2.8\\
2528: 10307 & 7918 & 67 & HR 483 & 79.09$\pm$0.83 & 0.618 & 18 & -5.02 & 11 & 4.96 & 4.45 & -0.14 & G1V & 9 & 7.0 & 4.2\\
2529: 10360 & 7751 & 66A & HR 487 & 122.75$\pm$1.41 & 0.880 & 17 & -4.899 & 10 & 5.96 & 6.26 & 0.36 & K2V & 10 & 4.8 & 6.2\\
2530: 10361 & 7751 & 66B & HR 486 & 122.75$\pm$1.41 & 0.850 & 17 & -4.839 & 10 & 5.81 & 6.26 & 0.33 & K2V & 10 & 3.8 & 5.2\\
2531: 10476 & 7981 & 68 & 107 Psc & 133.91$\pm$0.91 & 0.836 & 18 & -4.912 & 1 & 5.24 & 5.87 & 0.02 & K1V & 10 & 5.0 & 6.3\\
2532: 10700 & 8102 & 71 & $\tau$ Cet & 274.17$\pm$0.80 & 0.727 & 18 & -4.958 & 1 & 3.49 & 5.68 & 0.42 & G8.5V & 10 & 5.8 & 5.8\\
2533: 10780 & 8362 & 75 & V987 Cas & 100.24$\pm$0.68 & 0.804 & 18 & -4.681 & 1 & 5.63 & 5.64 & -0.06 & G9V & 9 & 1.8 & 2.9\\
2534: 13445 & 10138 & 86A & HR 637 & 91.63$\pm$0.61 & 0.820 & 17 & -4.74 & 12 & 6.12 & 5.93 & 0.20 & K1V & 10 & 2.4 & 3.7\\
2535: 13974 & 10644 & 92 & $\delta$ Tri A & 92.20$\pm$0.84 & 0.607 & 18 & -4.69 & 11 & 4.84 & 4.66 & 0.15 & G0V & 8 & 1.9 & 1.5\\
2536: 14412 & 10798 & 95 & HR 683 & 78.88$\pm$0.72 & 0.724 & 18 & -4.85 & 21 & 6.33 & 5.81 & 0.57 & G8V & 10 & 3.9 & 4.3\\
2537: 17925 & 13402 & 117 & EP Eri & 96.33$\pm$0.77 & 0.867 & 17 & -4.311 & 1 & 6.05 & 5.97 & -0.02 & K1.5V(k) & 10 & 0.1 & 0.2\\
2538: 19373 & 14632 & 124 & $\iota$ Per & 94.93$\pm$0.67 & 0.595 & 18 & -5.02 & 11 & 4.05 & 3.94 & -0.50 & F9.5V & 9 & 7.0 & 3.7\\
2539: 20630 & 15457 & 137 & 96 Cet & 109.18$\pm$0.78 & 0.681 & 18 & -4.420 & 1 & 4.84 & 5.03 & 0.05 & G5V & 16 & 0.3 & 0.4\\
2540: 20766 & 15330 & 136 & $\zeta^1$ Ret & 82.51$\pm$0.54 & 0.641 & 18 & -4.646 & 12 & 5.53 & 5.11 & 0.38 & G2V & 10 & 1.5 & 1.5\\
2541: 20794 & 15510 & 139 & 82 Eri & 165.02$\pm$0.55 & 0.708 & 17 & -4.998 & 12 & 4.26 & 5.35 & 0.18 & G8V & 10 & 6.6 & 6.1\\
2542: 20807 & 15371 & 138 & $\zeta^2$ Ret & 82.79$\pm$0.53 & 0.600 & 18 & -4.787 & 12 & 5.24 & 4.83 & 0.36 & G0V & 10 & 3.0 & 2.0\\
2543: 22049 & 16537 & 144 & $\epsilon$ Eri & 310.75$\pm$0.85 & 0.881 & 18 & -4.455 & 1 & 3.72 & 6.18 & 0.10 & K2V(k) & 10 & 0.4 & 0.8\\
2544: 22484 & 16852 & 147 & 10 Tau & 72.89$\pm$0.78 & 0.575 & 18 & -5.12 & 21 & 4.29 & 3.60 & -0.70 & F9IV-V & 8 & 8.8 & 4.2\\
2545: 26965 & 19849 & 166A & 40 Eri & 198.24$\pm$0.84 & 0.820 & 18 & -4.872 & 1 & 4.43 & 5.92 & 0.14 & K0.5V & 10 & 4.3 & 5.6\\
2546: 30495 & 22263 & 177 & 58 Eri & 75.10$\pm$0.80 & 0.632 & 18 & -4.49 & 11 & 5.49 & 4.87 & 0.19 & G1.5V CH-0.5 & 10 & 0.6 & 0.6\\
2547: 34411 & 24813 & 197 & $\lambda$ Aur & 79.08$\pm$0.90 & 0.630 & 18 & -5.067 & 6 & 4.69 & 4.18 & -0.48 & G1V & 9 & 7.9 & 5.0\\
2548: 36705 & 25647 & $\ldots$ & AB Dor & 66.92$\pm$0.54 & 0.830 & 18 & -3.88 & 10 & 6.88 & 6.01 & 0.18 & K2Vk & 10 & $<$0.1 & $<$0.1\\
2549: 37394 & 26779 & 211 & V538 Aur & 81.69$\pm$0.83 & 0.840 & 18 & -4.454 & 1 & 6.21 & 5.77 & -0.11 & K0V & 9 & 0.4 & 0.8\\
2550: 38858 & 27435 & 1085 & HR 2007 & 64.25$\pm$1.19 & 0.639 & 18 & -4.87 & 11 & 5.97 & 5.01 & 0.29 & G2V & 9 & 4.3 & 3.2\\
2551: 39587 & 27913 & 222 & 54 Ori & 115.43$\pm$1.08 & 0.594 & 18 & -4.426 & 1 & 4.39 & 4.70 & 0.27 & G0V CH-0.3 & 10 & 0.4 & 0.3\\
2552: 41593 & 28954 & 227 & V1386 Ori & 64.71$\pm$0.91 & 0.814 & 18 & -4.42 & 6 & 6.76 & 5.82 & 0.07 & G9V & 9 & 0.3 & 0.6\\
2553: 43834 & 29271 & 231 & $\alpha$ Men & 98.54$\pm$0.45 & 0.720 & 17 & -4.94 & 12 & 5.08 & 5.05 & -0.14 & G7V & 10 & 5.5 & 5.5\\
2554: 52698 & 33817 & 259 & NLTT 17311 & 68.42$\pm$0.72 & 0.894 & 17 & -4.64 & 12 & 6.71 & 5.89 & -0.20 & K1V(k) & 10 & 1.4 & 2.5\\
2555: 63077 & 37853 & 288A & 171 Pup & 65.79$\pm$0.56 & 0.589 & 18 & -4.97 & 21 & 5.36 & 4.45 & 0.05 & F9V & 10 & 6.0 & 3.2\\
2556: 69830 & 40693 & 302 & HR 3259 & 79.48$\pm$0.77 & 0.754 & 18 & -4.95 & 21 & 5.95 & 5.45 & 0.03 & G8+V & 10 & 5.7 & 6.1\\
2557: 72673 & 41926 & 309 & HR 3384 & 82.15$\pm$0.66 & 0.784 & 18 & -4.95 & 21 & 6.38 & 5.95 & 0.39 & G9V & 10 & 5.7 & 6.5\\
2558: 72905 & 42438 & 311 & 3 UMa & 70.07$\pm$0.71 & 0.618 & 18 & -4.375 & 1 & 5.63 & 4.86 & 0.27 & G0.5V & 8 & 0.2 & 0.2\\
2559: 75732 & 43587 & 324A & 55 Cnc A & 79.80$\pm$0.84 & 0.860 & 17 & -5.04 & 21 & 5.96 & 5.47 & -0.55 & K0IV-V & 9 & 7.4 & 8.7\\
2560: 82885 & 47080 & 356A & 11 LMi & 89.45$\pm$0.78 & 0.770 & 18 & -4.638 & 1 & 5.40 & 5.16 & -0.35 & G8+V & 9 & 1.4 & 2.3\\
2561: 86728 & 49081 & 376A & 20 LMi & 67.14$\pm$0.83 & 0.676 & 18 & -5.06 & 21 & 5.37 & 4.50 & -0.45 & G4V & 9 & 7.7 & 6.2\\
2562: 95128 & 53721 & 407 & 47 UMa & 71.04$\pm$0.66 & 0.624 & 18 & -5.02 & 11 & 5.03 & 4.29 & -0.34 & G1V & 8 & 7.0 & 4.4\\
2563: 100623 & 56452 & 432A & HR 4458 & 104.84$\pm$0.81 & 0.811 & 18 & -4.89 & 21 & 5.96 & 6.06 & 0.33 & K0-V & 10 & 4.6 & 5.8\\
2564: 101501 & 56997 & 434 & 61 UMa & 104.81$\pm$0.72 & 0.723 & 18 & -4.546 & 1 & 5.31 & 5.41 & 0.17 & G8V & 9 & 0.8 & 1.2\\
2565: 102365 & 57443 & 442A & HR 4523 & 108.23$\pm$0.70 & 0.664 & 18 & -4.95 & 12 & 4.89 & 5.06 & 0.18 & G2V & 10 & 5.7 & 4.5\\
2566: 103095 & 57939 & 451A & CF UMa & 109.21$\pm$0.78 & 0.751 & 18 & -4.896 & 1 & 6.42 & 6.61 & 1.19 & K1V Fe-1.5 & 9 & 4.7 & 5.3\\
2567: 104304 & 58576 & 454 & HR 4587 & 77.48$\pm$0.80 & 0.770 & 17 & -4.92 & 21 & 5.54 & 4.99 & -0.47 & G8IV & 10 & 5.1 & 5.9\\
2568: 109358 & 61317 & 475 & $\beta$ CVn & 119.46$\pm$0.83 & 0.585 & 17 & -4.99 & 11 & 4.26 & 4.64 & 0.23 & G0V & 9 & 6.4 & 3.3\\
2569: 114710 & 64394 & 502 & $\beta$ Com & 109.23$\pm$0.72 & 0.572 & 18 & -4.745 & 1 & 4.23 & 4.42 & 0.13 & G0V & 8 & 2.5 & 1.5\\
2570: 115617 & 64924 & 506 & 61 Vir & 117.30$\pm$0.71 & 0.709 & 18 & -5.001 & 1 & 4.74 & 5.09 & -0.07 & G7V & 10 & 6.6 & 6.1\\
2571: 118972 & 66765 & 1175 & NLTT 34858 & 64.08$\pm$0.81 & 0.855 & 18 & -4.39 & 12 & 6.92 & 5.95 & 0.00 & K0V(k) & 10 & 0.3 & 0.4\\
2572: 120136 & 67275 & 527A & $\tau$ Boo & 64.12$\pm$0.70 & 0.508 & 18 & -4.731 & 1 & 4.50 & 3.54 & -0.33 & F7IV-V & 8 & 2.3 & 1.6\\
2573: 128620 & 71683 & 559A & $\alpha$ Cen A & 742.12$\pm$1.40 & 0.633 & 2 & -5.002 & 12 & -0.01 & 4.34 & -0.82 & G2V & 10 & 6.6 & 4.4\\
2574: 128621 & 71681 & 559B & $\alpha$ Cen B & 742.12$\pm$1.40 & 0.840 & 2 & -4.923 & 12 & 1.35 & 5.70 & -0.47 & K2IV & 10 & 5.2 & 6.5\\
2575: 131156 & 72659 & 566A & $\xi$ Boo A & 149.26$\pm$0.76 & 0.720 & 17 & -4.344 & 6 & 4.72 & 5.59 & 0.37 & G7V & 9 & 0.2 & 0.2\\
2576: 131511 & 72848 & 567 & DE Boo & 86.69$\pm$0.81 & 0.833 & 18 & -4.52 & 11 & 6.00 & 5.69 & -0.19 & K0V & 9 & 0.7 & 1.3\\
2577: 133640 & 73695 & 575 & i Boo ABC & 78.39$\pm$1.03 & 0.647 & 18 & -4.637 & 6 & 4.83 & 4.30 & -0.47 & G1V+G8V+K0V & 13 & 1.4 & 1.5\\
2578: 135599 & 74702 & $\ldots$ & V739 Ser & 64.19$\pm$0.97 & 0.830 & 18 & -4.52 & 21 & 6.92 & 5.96 & 0.13 & K0V & 9 & 0.7 & 1.3\\
2579: 136352 & 75181 & 582 & $\nu^2$ Lup & 68.70$\pm$0.79 & 0.639 & 18 & -4.91 & 12 & 5.65 & 4.83 & 0.11 & G2-V & 10 & 5.0 & 3.6\\
2580: 140538 & 77052 & 596.1A & $\psi$ Ser & 68.16$\pm$0.87 & 0.684 & 18 & -4.80 & 11 & 5.86 & 5.03 & 0.02 & G5V & 8 & 3.2 & 3.2\\
2581: 140901 & 77358 & 599A & HR 5864 & 65.60$\pm$0.77 & 0.715 & 18 & -4.72 & 12 & 6.01 & 5.10 & -0.10 & G7IV-V & 10 & 2.2 & 2.7\\
2582: 141004 & 77257 & 598 & $\lambda$ Ser & 85.08$\pm$0.80 & 0.603 & 17 & -5.004 & 1 & 4.42 & 4.07 & -0.43 & G0IV-V & 9 & 6.7 & 3.8\\
2583: 142373 & 77760 & 602 & $\chi$ Her & 63.08$\pm$0.54 & 0.563 & 18 & -5.18 & 1 & 4.60 & 3.60 & -0.63 & G0V Fe-0.8 & 9 & 9.7 & 4.4\\
2584: 144579 & 78775 & 611A & LHS 3152 & 69.61$\pm$0.57 & 0.734 & 18 & -4.97 & 21 & 6.66 & 5.87 & 0.57 & K0V Fe-1.2 & 9 & 6.0 & 6.1\\
2585: 144628 & 79190 & 613 & NLTT 42064 & 69.66$\pm$0.90 & 0.856 & 18 & -4.94 & 12 & 7.11 & 6.32 & 0.37 & K1V & 10 & 5.5 & 6.8\\
2586: 145417 & 79537 & 615 & LHS 413 & 72.75$\pm$0.82 & 0.815 & 18 & -5.06 & 12 & 7.53 & 6.84 & 1.09 & K3V Fe-1.7 & 10 & 7.7 & 8.8\\
2587: 146233 & 79672 & 616 & 18 Sco & 71.30$\pm$0.89 & 0.652 & 18 & -4.93 & 11 & 5.49 & 4.76 & -0.05 & G2V & 9 & 5.3 & 4.1\\
2588: 147513 & 80337 & 620.1A & HR 6094 & 77.69$\pm$0.86 & 0.625 & 18 & -4.45 & 20 & 5.37 & 4.82 & 0.19 & G1V CH-0.4 & 10 & 0.4 & 0.4\\
2589: 147584 & 80686 & 624 & $\zeta$ TrA & 82.61$\pm$0.57 & 0.550 & 17 & -4.56 & 12 & 4.90 & 4.49 & 0.31 & F9V & 10 & 0.9 & 0.6\\
2590: 149661 & 81300 & 631 & 12 Oph & 102.27$\pm$0.85 & 0.827 & 18 & -4.583 & 1 & 5.77 & 5.82 & 0.01 & K0V(k) & 10 & 1.0 & 1.9\\
2591: 154577 & 83990 & 656 & NLTT 44221 & 73.07$\pm$0.91 & 0.893 & 17 & -4.815 & 15 & 7.38 & 6.70 & 0.58 & K2.5V(k) & 10 & 3.4 & 4.8\\
2592: 155885 & 84405 & 663B & 36 Oph B & 167.08$\pm$1.07 & 0.860 & 14 & -4.559 & 1 & 5.11 & 6.23 & 0.25 & K0V & 4 & 0.9 & 1.7\\
2593: 155886 & 84405 & 663A & 36 Oph A & 167.08$\pm$1.07 & 0.850 & 14 & -4.570 & 1 & 5.07 & 6.19 & 0.26 & K0V & 4 & 1.0 & 1.8\\
2594: 156274 & 84720 & 666A & 41 Ara & 113.81$\pm$1.36 & 0.777 & 18 & -4.941 & 12 & 5.47 & 5.75 & 0.28 & G9V & 4 & 5.5 & 6.3\\
2595: 157214 & 84862 & 672 & 72 Her & 69.48$\pm$0.56 & 0.619 & 18 & -5.00 & 11 & 5.38 & 4.59 & -0.01 & G0V & 8 & 6.6 & 4.1\\
2596: 158633 & 85235 & 675 & HR 6518 & 78.14$\pm$0.51 & 0.759 & 18 & -4.93 & 21 & 6.44 & 5.90 & 0.46 & K0V & 5 & 5.3 & 5.9\\
2597: 160269 & 86036 & 684AB & 26 Dra AB & 70.98$\pm$0.55 & 0.602 & 18 & -4.62 & 22 & 5.23 & 4.49 & 0.00 & F9V+K3V & 7 & 1.3 & 1.1\\
2598: 160691 & 86796 & 691 & $\mu$ Ara & 65.46$\pm$0.80 & 0.700 & 17 & -5.04 & 20 & 5.12 & 4.20 & -0.90 & G3IV-V & 10 & 7.4 & 6.5\\
2599: 165341 & 88601 & 702A & 70 Oph A & 196.62$\pm$1.38 & 0.860 & 18 & -4.586 & 6 & 4.25 & 5.50 & -0.48 & K0-V & 9 & 1.1 & 1.9\\
2600: 165908 & 88745 & 704A & 99 Her A & 63.88$\pm$0.55 & 0.528 & 18 & -5.02 & 21 & 5.08 & 4.11 & 0.11 & F9V mw & 8 & 7.0 & 2.9\\
2601: 166620 & 88972 & 706 & HR 6806 & 90.11$\pm$0.54 & 0.876 & 18 & -4.955 & 1 & 6.38 & 6.15 & 0.10 & K2V & 9 & 5.8 & 7.1\\
2602: 170657 & 90790 & 716 & NLTT 46596 & 75.71$\pm$0.89 & 0.861 & 18 & -4.65 & 21 & 6.81 & 6.21 & 0.22 & K2V & 10 & 1.5 & 2.6\\
2603: 172051 & 91438 & 722 & HR 6998 & 77.02$\pm$0.85 & 0.673 & 18 & -4.90 & 21 & 5.85 & 5.28 & 0.35 & G6V & 10 & 4.8 & 4.1\\
2604: 176051 & 93017 & 738AB & HR 7162 & 66.76$\pm$0.54 & 0.594 & 18 & -4.874 & 1 & 5.20 & 4.32 & -0.11 & F9V+K1V & 7 & 4.3 & 2.6\\
2605: 182488 & 95319 & 758 & HR 7368 & 64.54$\pm$0.60 & 0.804 & 18 & -5.06 & 6 & 6.37 & 5.42 & -0.27 & K0V & 16 & 7.7 & 8.7\\
2606: 185144 & 96100 & 764 & $\sigma$ Dra & 173.41$\pm$0.46 & 0.786 & 18 & -4.832 & 1 & 4.67 & 5.87 & 0.27 & G9V & 9 & 3.7 & 4.7\\
2607: 188512 & 98036 & 771A & $\beta$ Aql & 72.95$\pm$0.83 & 0.855 & 18 & -5.173 & 1 & 3.71 & 3.03 & -2.93 & G9.5IV & 10 & 9.6 & 11.4\\
2608: 190248 & 99240 & 780 & $\delta$ Pav & 163.73$\pm$0.65 & 0.751 & 18 & -4.999 & 12 & 3.55 & 4.62 & -0.78 & G8IV & 10 & 6.6 & 6.9\\
2609: 190404 & 98792 & 778 & LHS 481 & 64.17$\pm$0.85 & 0.815 & 18 & -4.98 & 21 & 7.28 & 5.75 & 0.57 & K1V & 9 & 6.2 & 7.3\\
2610: 191408 & 99461 & 783A & HR 7703 & 165.24$\pm$0.90 & 0.868 & 18 & -4.988 & 12 & 5.32 & 6.41 & 0.39 & K2.5V & 10 & 6.4 & 7.7\\
2611: 192310 & 99825 & 785 & HR 7722 & 113.33$\pm$0.89 & 0.878 & 18 & -5.048 & 10 & 5.73 & 6.00 & -0.06 & K2+V & 10 & 7.5 & 8.9\\
2612: 196761 & 101997 & 796 & HR 7898 & 68.28$\pm$0.82 & 0.722 & 18 & -4.92 & 21 & 6.36 & 5.53 & 0.32 & G8V & 10 & 5.1 & 5.2\\
2613: 205390 & 106696 & 833 & NLTT 51629 & 67.85$\pm$0.92 & 0.884 & 17 & -4.53 & 15 & 7.14 & 6.30 & 0.23 & K1.5V & 10 & 0.7 & 1.4\\
2614: 207129 & 107649 & 838 & HR 8323 & 63.95$\pm$0.78 & 0.601 & 18 & -4.80 & 12 & 5.57 & 4.60 & 0.12 & G0V Fe+0.4 & 10 & 3.2 & 2.1\\
2615: 211415 & 110109 & 853A & HR 8501 & 73.47$\pm$0.70 & 0.605 & 17 & -4.86 & 12 & 5.36 & 4.69 & 0.13 & G0V & 10 & 4.1 & 2.6\\
2616: 217014 & 113357 & 882 & 51 Peg & 65.10$\pm$0.76 & 0.666 & 18 & -5.08 & 6 & 5.45 & 4.52 & -0.37 & G2V+ & 10 & 8.1 & 6.1\\
2617: 224930 & 171 & 914A & 85 Peg A & 80.63$\pm$3.03 & 0.673 & 17 & -4.875 & 1 & 5.80 & 5.33 & 0.29 & G5V Fe-1 & 9 & 4.4 & 3.8\\
2618: \enddata
2619: \tablecomments{References:
2620: (1) \citet{Baliunas96},
2621: (2) \citet{Bessell81},
2622: (3) \citet{Christy69},
2623: (4) \citet{Corbally84},
2624: (5) \citet{Cowley67},
2625: (6) \citet{Duncan91}, calculated using equations in \citet{Noyes84},
2626: (7) \citet{Edwards76},
2627: (8) \citet{Gray01},
2628: (9) \citet{Gray03},
2629: (10) \citet{Gray06},
2630: (11) \citet{Hall07},
2631: (12) \citet{Henry96},
2632: (13) \citet{Hill89},
2633: (14) \citet{Hoffleit91},
2634: (15) \citet{Jenkins06},
2635: (16) \citet{Keenan89},
2636: (17) \citet{Mermilliod91},
2637: (18) \citet{Perryman97},
2638: (19) \citet{Roman50},
2639: (20) \citet{Saffe05},
2640: (21) \citet{Wright04},
2641: (22) estimated from {\it ROSAT} All-Sky Survey X-ray emission
2642: \citep{Voges99,Voges00} via equation A1 (see also \S2.3).
2643: }
2644: \end{deluxetable}
2645:
2646: \clearpage
2647: \section{Summary}
2648:
2649: The primary goal of this study was derive a well-calibrated conversion
2650: between activity and age for stars younger than the Sun. To achieve
2651: this, we compiled from the literature \rphk, \rx, and rotation period
2652: data for members of stellar associations and clusters; in particular,
2653: we have populated for the first time the young end of the
2654: chromospheric activity-age relation. We also used updated/modern ages
2655: for many young associations and clusters. We then fit the following
2656: relations critical to assessing stellar ages of solar-type dwarfs: a
2657: chromospheric activity-age relation, a chromospheric activity-rotation
2658: relation, a coronal activity-rotation relation, and a rotation-age
2659: ``gyrochronology'' relation. Our main results drawn from study of the
2660: rotation and activity observed among binary stars and star cluster
2661: members with 0.5 $<$ \bv\, $<$ 0.9 can be summarized as:
2662:
2663: % NEW R'HK VS AGE CALIBRATION
2664: $\bullet$ We provide an improved \logrphk\, vs. age relation for
2665: solar-type stars which constrains especially the young, high-activity
2666: end relative to the relations of \citet{Soderblom91, Donahue93,
2667: Lachaume99}. The activity-age relation for solar-color stars appears
2668: to be absolutely calibrated to the modern cluster age scale to
2669: $\sim$$\pm$0.07 dex in log($\tau$/yr) for stars older than the
2670: Pleiades, and perhaps to only $\sim$$\pm$0.23 dex accuracy in
2671: log($\tau$/yr) for stars younger than the Pleiades. For young stars
2672: recently arriving on the MS (e.g. the Pleiades), \logrphk\, is not
2673: very useful as a quantitative age estimator as the inferred
2674: r.m.s. spread in ages derived from chromospheric activity is an order
2675: of magnitude. For older samples ($>$0.5 Gyr) and typical \logrphk\,
2676: measurements, it appears that our calibration can estimate the ages of
2677: solar-type dwarfs to $\sim$$\pm$0.25 dex ($\sim$60\%; 1$\sigma$)
2678: accuracy, accounting for systematic errors in the calibration, random
2679: errors due to astrophysical scatter, variability of \logrphk, and
2680: measurement errors. This activity-age relation, however, does not
2681: account for color-dependent evolution effects which appear to be
2682: present.
2683:
2684: % ROSSBY-ACTIVITY FIT
2685: $\bullet$ We corroborate previous studies which find a tight relation
2686: between chromospheric activity and rotation for stars with -5.0 $<$
2687: \logrphk\, $<$ -4.35, as well as coronal X-ray activity and rotation
2688: for stars with -7 $<$ \logrx\, $<$ -4 (both via the Rossby number).
2689: In their respective saturated regimes (\logrphk\, $>$ -4.35, \logrx\,
2690: $>$ -4), the correlation between chromospheric and coronal activity is
2691: poor. For stars with long-term \logrphk\, averages and well-determined
2692: periods, we find that rotation period can predict mean \logrphk\, to
2693: $\pm$0.05 dex (1$\sigma$) accuracy. For stars with multi-decadal
2694: average \logrphk\, measurements (e.g. Mt. Wilson HK sample),
2695: \logrphk\, can be used to predict Rossby number (period divided by
2696: convective turnover time) to $\pm$0.1 (1$\sigma$) accuracy. For
2697: shorter baseline \logrphk\, measurements this uncertainty in Rossby
2698: number is larger, with the limit of a single \logrphk\, measurement
2699: probably capable of predicting the Rossby number to $\sim$0.2-0.3
2700: 1$\sigma$ accuracy. Similarly, fractional X-ray luminosity \rx\, for
2701: non-saturated X-ray emitters can be used to infer Rossby number to
2702: $\sim$0.25 1$\sigma$ accuracy.
2703:
2704: % PERIOD-AGE-COLOR RELATION
2705: $\bullet$ We provide an improved gyrochronology relation (period as a
2706: function of color and age), which fits the young cluster data better
2707: than the coefficients provided by \citet{Barnes07}. For so-called
2708: I-sequence rotators, the new fit is statistically accurate to $\pm$1.2
2709: days in rotation between the age of the Pleiades and Sun. Our revised
2710: gyro relation predicts self-consistent ages with statistical accuracy
2711: of $\pm$0.06 dex (14\%; 1$\sigma$) for solar-type stars with
2712: well-determined periods.
2713:
2714: % RESULTS FOR COMBINED ACTIVITY-ROTATION-AGE RELATIONS
2715: $\bullet$ Combining our activity-rotation relation (via the Rossby
2716: number; \S\ref{Rossby}) and our improved gyrochronology relations
2717: (rotation-color-age; \S\ref{Gyro}), we predict the evolution of
2718: activity as a function of color for solar-type dwarf stars. Our
2719: activity-rotation-age calibration appears to yield slightly better
2720: ages than using an activity-age relation alone. Statistical analysis
2721: of binary samples suggest that the activity-rotation-age technique can
2722: estimates ages of $\sim$$\pm$0.1 dex accuracy, whereas analysis of the
2723: cluster samples suggests an accuracy of more like $\sim$$\pm$0.2 dex.
2724:
2725: \acknowledgments
2726:
2727: We thank Mark Giampapa, David Soderblom, John Stauffer, Jason Wright,
2728: Debra Fischer, Sallie Baliunas, S\o ren Meibom, and Sydney Barnes for
2729: discussions and input. We acknowledge Greg Henry for allowing us
2730: access to his rotation period data for young main sequence stars in
2731: advance of publication. EM is supported through a Clay Postdoctoral
2732: Fellowship from the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory.
2733:
2734: \appendix
2735:
2736: \section{X-ray vs. Chromospheric Activity}
2737:
2738: \citet{Sterzik97} demonstrated that fractional X-ray luminosity
2739: (\loglxlbol\, or \logrx, hereafter) and \logrphk\, are well-correlated
2740: over a wide range of masses and ages for solar-type dwarfs, and
2741: studies of the Sun and other solar-type dwarfs show that enhanced
2742: coronal activity traces enhanced chromospheric activity temporally as
2743: well \citep[e.g.][]{Hempelmann03}. Whereas \rphk\, appears to drop by
2744: $\sim$1 dex (see Figure \ref{fig:new_old_clusters}) between the T
2745: Tauri epoch ($\sim$1-10 Myr) and the age of the Sun ($\sim$5 Gyr),
2746: \logrx\, declines by $\sim$3 dex \citep{Preibisch05}. Further, the
2747: saturation of \logrx\ \citep{Preibisch05} appears to occur at earlier
2748: ages than the saturation of \logrphk\ \citep{White07}. We conclude
2749: that at the high activity end, \logrx\ may be a better diagnostic of
2750: age than \logrphk.
2751:
2752: The \logrphk\, vs. \logrx\, relation of \citet{Sterzik97} could be
2753: improved in two ways. First, their sample is X-ray-biased, as it only
2754: includes stars with \logrphk\, measurements that were detected in the
2755: RASS. Secondly, the relation is poorly constrained at the high
2756: activity end due to the relative rarity of extremely young solar-type
2757: stars within 25 pc. To ameliorate this situation, we fit a \logrphk\,
2758: vs. \logrx\, relation to an unbiased sample of solar-type dwarfs, and
2759: check that it fits the high-activity regime for solar-type stars. A
2760: convenient X-ray-unbiased sample of solar-type stars is the
2761: Baliunas-Donahue sample of 28 solar-type dwarfs from the Mt. Wilson HK
2762: survey. This sample has well-determined rotation periods measured over
2763: $>$5 seasons by \citet{Donahue96} and well-determined mean \logrphk\,
2764: values from the Mt. Wilson survey \citep{Baliunas96}. Fortunately,
2765: {\it all} of these stars were detected in X-rays with ROSAT, and X-ray
2766: luminosities and $R_X$ values were calculated by the authors (\S2.2).
2767: An auxiliary sample of X-ray-{\it biased} solar-type stars was also
2768: constructed, so that the \logrx\, vs. \logrphk\, relation fit to the
2769: X-ray-unbiased sample could be verified in the high activity
2770: regime. This auxiliary sample is comprised of 199 solar-type dwarfs
2771: from the literature with \logrphk, \logrx, and rotation period
2772: measurements. This sample was based on the compilation of
2773: \citet{Pizzolato03}, but added to, quality checked, and brought up to
2774: date.
2775:
2776: We show in Figure \ref{fig:logrx} the correlation between the coronal
2777: and chromospheric activity indices for both the Baliunas-Donahue
2778: (X-ray unbiased) and auxiliary (X-ray biased) samples. For the
2779: X-ray-unbiased sample, the X-ray and chromospheric indices are
2780: remarkably well correlated (Pearson $r$ = 0.96). We calculate the OLS
2781: bisector linear regression following \citet{Isobe90}. We find
2782:
2783: \begin{equation}
2784: {\rm log}\,R^{'}_{HK}\, = (-4.54 \pm 0.01) + (0.289 \pm 0.015)\,({\rm log}\,R_X + 4.92)
2785: \label{eqn:rhk_rx}
2786: \end{equation}
2787:
2788: \noindent with an r.m.s. scatter of 0.06 in \logrphk. The inverse
2789: relation is:
2790:
2791: \begin{equation}
2792: {\rm log}\,R_X\, = (-4.90 \pm 0.04) + (3.46 \pm 0.18)\,({\rm log}\,R^{'}_{HK} + 4.53)
2793: \label{eqn:rx_rhk}
2794: \end{equation}
2795:
2796: \noindent with an r.m.s. of 0.19 dex ($\sim$55\%) in \logrx. Equation
2797: \ref{eqn:rx_rhk} is statistically consistent with the relation found
2798: by \citet{Sterzik97}, but our uncertainties are $\sim$2$\times$
2799: smaller. Linear fits were also made for \logrphk\, vs. \logrx, and its
2800: inverse, for the X-ray-based auxiliary sample. The result fits gave
2801: slopes statistically consistent with that estimated for the
2802: Baliunas-Donahue X-ray-unbiased sample, but with y-intercepts favored
2803: towards giving larger \logrx\, values (e.g. the X-ray-biased fit would
2804: predict \logrx\, for the solar \logrphk\, value higher by $\sim$0.2
2805: dex compared to the X-ray-unbiased fit). We find that equations A1 and
2806: A2 are satisfactory for the high-activity stars also, so the fits are
2807: appropriate for the full range of \logrx\, and \logrphk\, values seen
2808: for solar-type field dwarfs and pre-MS stars. The scatter in both
2809: relations increases substantially as the transition from the "active"
2810: regimes in both sequences to the "very active" regime above about
2811: -4.35 in \logrphk\, and the "saturated" regime above about -4 in
2812: \logrx\, is approached.
2813:
2814: If one combines equations \ref{rhk_new_calib} and \ref{eqn:rhk_rx},
2815: one can derive an X-ray activity vs. age relation for solar-type
2816: dwarfs:
2817:
2818: \begin{equation}
2819: \rm{log}\,\tau\, = 1.20 - 2.307\, \rm{log}\,R_X\, - 0.1512\, \rm{log}\,R_X^2
2820: \label{eqn:age_rx}
2821: \end{equation}
2822:
2823: From the cluster X-ray data compiled in \citet{Pizzolato03}, it
2824: appears that the spread in \logrx\, among solar-type dwarfs in young
2825: clusters is $\sim$$\pm$0.2-0.6 dex (68\% CL). If the chromospheric
2826: activity levels for the 4 Gyr-old members of M 67 \citep{Giampapa06}
2827: are converted to \logrx\, via Equation \ref{eqn:rx_rhk}, one would
2828: predict a $\pm$0.4 dex (68\% CL) spread in \logrx\, values among its
2829: solar-type members. Based on this, a $\sim$$\pm$0.4 dex (68\%CL)
2830: spread in \logrx\, values for a coeval population can be adopted, and
2831: should be factored into any age uncertainty inferred from Equation
2832: \ref{eqn:age_rx}.
2833:
2834: The \citet{Baliunas96} \logrphk\, values are long-term averages from
2835: $\sim$20 years of Mt. Wilson HK observations, whereas the \logrx\,
2836: values typically represent only a few-hundred second snapshot in the
2837: star's life. The correlation suggests that one can predict a
2838: multi-decadal average of \logrphk\, to within $\pm$0.1 1$\sigma$
2839: accuracy for a solar-type star from a few hundred seconds of X-ray
2840: data. Given the current state of X-ray and chromospheric activity
2841: data in the literature, we believe that these r.m.s values are
2842: representative of how accurately these variables can be used to
2843: predict one another.
2844:
2845: %\clearpage
2846: % FIGURE: logLx/Lbol vs. logR'HK
2847: \begin{figure}
2848: \epsscale{1}
2849: %\plotone{logrx_logrphk.eps}
2850: \plotone{f15.eps}
2851: \caption{\logrx\, vs. \logrphk\, for stars in our sample
2852: of solar-type stars with known rotation periods and chromospheric and
2853: X-ray activity levels. Donahue-Baliunas stars with well-determined
2854: periods also have dark Xs. Color bins are illustrated in the legend.
2855: The Solar datum uses the mean \logrphk\, calculated in \S1 and the
2856: mean \logrx\, calculated from \citet{Judge03} (with systematic
2857: uncertainty of 50\% in \logrx\, plotted).
2858: \label{fig:logrx}}
2859: \end{figure}
2860:
2861: %\clearpage
2862:
2863: \begin{thebibliography}{}
2864:
2865: \bibitem[Aller et al.(1982)]{Aller82} Aller, L.~H., et al.\ 1982,
2866: Landolt-Bornstein: Numerical Data and Functional Relationships in
2867: Science and Technology
2868:
2869: \bibitem[Asiain et al.(1999)]{Asiain99} Asiain, R., Figueras,
2870: F., \& Torra, J.\ 1999, \aap, 350, 434
2871:
2872: \bibitem[Baker et al.(2005)]{Baker05} Baker, J., Bizzarro, M., Wittig,
2873: N., Connelly, J., \& Haack, H.\ 2005, \nat, 436, 1127
2874:
2875: \bibitem[Baliunas et al.(1995)]{Baliunas95} Baliunas, S.~L., et al.\
2876: 1995, \apj, 438, 269
2877:
2878: \bibitem[Baliunas \& Soon (1995)]{Baliunas95b} Baliunas, S.~L., \& Soon, W.,
2879: 1995, \apj, 450, 896
2880:
2881: \bibitem[Baliunas et al.(1998)]{Baliunas98} Baliunas, S.~L., Donahue,
2882: R.~A., Soon, W., \& Henry, G.~W.\ 1998, Cool Stars, Stellar Systems,
2883: and the Sun, 154, 153
2884:
2885: \bibitem[Baliunas et al.(1996)]{Baliunas96} Baliunas, S., Sokoloff,
2886: D., \& Soon, W.\ 1996, \apjl, 457, L99
2887:
2888: \bibitem[Barnes (2007)]{Barnes07} Barnes, S.,\apj, in press (arXiv0704.3068)
2889:
2890: \bibitem[Barrado y Navascu\'{e}s, et al.(2004)]{Barrado04}
2891: Barrado y Navascu\'{e}s, D., Stauffer, J.~R., \& Jayawardhana, R. 2004, \apj,
2892: 614, 386
2893:
2894: \bibitem[Barry(1988)]{Barry88} Barry, D.~C.\ 1988, \apj, 334, 436
2895:
2896: \bibitem[Barry et al.(1987)]{Barry87} Barry, D.~C., Cromwell, R.~H.,
2897: \& Hege, E.~K.\ 1987, \apj, 315, 264
2898:
2899: \bibitem[Bazot et al.(2007)]{Bazot07} Bazot, M., Bouchy, F., Kjeldsen,
2900: H., Charpinet, S., Laymand, M., \& Vauclair, S.\ 2007, \aap, 470, 295
2901:
2902: \bibitem[Bessell(1981)]{Bessell81} Bessell, M.~S.\ 1981, PASA, 4, 212
2903:
2904: \bibitem[Bevington \& Robinson(1992)]{Bevington92} Bevington, P.~R.,
2905: \& Robinson, D.~K.\ 1992, New York: McGraw-Hill, 2nd ed.
2906:
2907: \bibitem[Bouwman et al.(2008)]{Bouwman08} Bouwman, J., et al.\ 2008,
2908: ArXiv e-prints, 802, arXiv:0802.3033
2909:
2910: \bibitem[Brice{\~n}o et al.(2007)]{Briceno07} Brice{\~n}o, C.,
2911: Preibisch, T., Sherry, W.~H., Mamajek, E.~A., Mathieu, R.~D., Walter,
2912: F.~M., \& Zinnecker, H.\ 2007, Protostars and Planets V, 345
2913:
2914: \bibitem[de Bruijne et al.(2001)]{deBruijne01} de Bruijne,
2915: J.~H.~J., Hoogerwerf, R., \& de Zeeuw, P.~T.\ 2001, \aap, 367, 111
2916:
2917: \bibitem[Butler et al.(1997)]{Butler97} Butler, R.~P., Marcy, G.~W.,
2918: Williams, E., Hauser, H., \& Shirts, P.\ 1997, \apjl, 474, L115
2919:
2920: \bibitem[Carpenter et al.(2009)]{Carpenter09} Carpenter, J.~M., et
2921: al.\ 2009, in prep.
2922:
2923: \bibitem[Casey et al.(1998)]{Casey98} Casey, B.~W., Mathieu, R.~D.,
2924: Vaz, L.~P.~R., Andersen, J., \& Suntzeff, N.~B.\ 1998, \aj, 115, 1617
2925:
2926: \bibitem[Cayrel de Strobel et al.(1997)]{Cayrel97} Cayrel de Strobel,
2927: G., Soubiran, C., Friel, E.~D., Ralite, N., \& Francois, P.\ 1997,
2928: \aaps, 124, 299
2929:
2930: \bibitem[Cayrel de Strobel et al.(2001)]{Cayrel01} Cayrel de Strobel,
2931: G., Soubiran, C., \& Ralite, N.\ 2001, \aap, 373, 159
2932:
2933: \bibitem[Charbonneau \& MacGregor(2001)]{Charbonneau01} Charbonneau,
2934: P., \& MacGregor, K.~B.\ 2001, \apj, 559, 1094
2935:
2936: \bibitem[Christy \& Walker(1969)]{Christy69} Christy, J.~W., \&
2937: Walker, R.~L., Jr.\ 1969, \pasp, 81, 643
2938:
2939: \bibitem[Close et al.(2005)]{Close05} Close, L.~M., et al.\ 2005,
2940: \nat, 433, 286
2941:
2942: \bibitem[Corbally(1984)]{Corbally84} Corbally, C.~J.\ 1984, \apjs, 55,
2943: 657
2944:
2945: \bibitem[Cowley et al.(1967)]{Cowley67} Cowley, A.~P., Hiltner, W.~A.,
2946: \& Witt, A.~N.\ 1967, \aj, 72, 1334
2947:
2948: \bibitem[Cox(2000)]{Cox00} Cox, A.~N.\ 2000, Allen's
2949: Astrophysical Quantities, 4th ed.~Publisher: New York: AIP Press; Springer
2950:
2951: \bibitem[Crawford \& Barnes(1974)]{Crawford74} Crawford, D.~L., \&
2952: Barnes, J.~V.\ 1974, \aj, 79, 687
2953:
2954: \bibitem[Deacon \& Hambly(2004)]{Deacon04} Deacon, N.~R., \& Hambly,
2955: N.~C.\ 2004, \aap, 416, 125
2956:
2957: \bibitem[Dehnen \& Binney(1998)]{Dehnen98} Dehnen, W., \&
2958: Binney, J.~J.\ 1998, \mnras, 298, 387
2959:
2960: \bibitem[Dinescu et al.(1995)]{Dinescu95} Dinescu, D.~I., Demarque,
2961: P., Guenther, D.~B., \& Pinsonneault, M.~H.\ 1995, \aj, 109, 2090
2962:
2963: \bibitem[Donahue(1993)]{Donahue93} Donahue, R.~A.\ 1993, Ph.D.~Thesis,
2964: New Mexico State University
2965:
2966: \bibitem[Donahue(1998)]{Donahue98} Donahue, R.~A., 1998, ASP Conf
2967: Ser. 154, 1235
2968:
2969: \bibitem[Donahue et al.(1996)]{Donahue96} Donahue, R.~A., Saar,
2970: S.~H., \& Baliunas, S.~L.\ 1996, \apj, 466, 384
2971:
2972: \bibitem[Duncan et al.(1991)]{Duncan91} Duncan, D.~K., et al.\ 1991,
2973: \apjs, 76, 383
2974:
2975: \bibitem[Duquennoy et al.(1992)]{Duquennoy92} Duquennoy, A., Mayor,
2976: M., Andersen, J., Carquillat, J.~M., \& North, P.\ 1992, \aap, 254,
2977: L13
2978:
2979: \bibitem[Edvardsson et al.(1993)]{Edvardsson93} Edvardsson, B.,
2980: Andersen, J., Gustafsson, B., Lambert, D.~L., Nissen, P.~E., \&
2981: Tomkin, J.\ 1993, \aap, 275, 101
2982:
2983: \bibitem[Edwards(1976)]{Edwards76} Edwards, T.~W.\ 1976, \aj, 81, 245
2984:
2985: \bibitem[Eggenberger et al.(2004)]{Eggenberger04} Eggenberger, P.,
2986: Charbonnel, C., Talon, S., Meynet, G., Maeder, A., Carrier, F., \&
2987: Bourban, G.\ 2004, \aap, 417, 235
2988:
2989: \bibitem[Endal \& Sofia(1981)]{Endal81} Endal, A.~S., \& Sofia, S.\
2990: 1981, \apj, 243, 625
2991:
2992: \bibitem[Famaey et al.(2007)]{Famaey07} Famaey, B., Siebert, A.,
2993: \& Jorissen, A.\ 2007, A\&A, in press (arXiv:0712.1470)
2994:
2995: \bibitem[Fleming et al.(1995)]{Fleming95} Fleming, T.~A., Schmitt,
2996: J.~H.~M.~M., \& Giampapa, M.~S.\ 1995, \apj, 450, 401
2997:
2998: \bibitem[Fletcher et al.(2006)]{Fletcher06} Fletcher, S.~T., Chaplin,
2999: W.~J., Elsworth, Y., Schou, J., \& Buzasi, D.\ 2006, \mnras, 371, 935
3000:
3001:
3002: \bibitem[Garcia-Lopez et al.(1993)]{GarciaLopez93} Garcia-Lopez,
3003: R.~J., Rebolo, R., Beckman, J.~E., \& McKeith, C.~D.\ 1993, \aap, 273,
3004: 482
3005:
3006: \bibitem[Giampapa et al.(2006)]{Giampapa06} Giampapa, M.~S., Hall,
3007: J.~C., Radick, R.~R., \& Baliunas, S.~L.\ 2006, \apj, 651, 444
3008:
3009: \bibitem[Girard et al.(1989)]{Girard89} Girard, T.~M., Grundy, W.~M.,
3010: Lopez, C.~E., \& van Altena, W.~F.\ 1989, \aj, 98, 227
3011:
3012: \bibitem[Gliese \& Jahreiss(1991)]{Gliese91} Gliese, W. \& Jahreiss,
3013: H., 1991, Preliminary Version of the Third Catalogue of Nearby Stars
3014: (CNS3)
3015:
3016: \bibitem[Gott et al.(2001)]{Gott01} Gott, J.~R.~I., Vogeley, M.~S.,
3017: Podariu, S., \& Ratra, B.\ 2001, \apj, 549, 1
3018:
3019: \bibitem[Gray et al.(2003)]{Gray03} Gray, R.~O., Corbally, C.~J.,
3020: Garrison, R.~F., McFadden, M.~T., \& Robinson, P.~E.\ 2003, \aj, 126,
3021: 2048
3022:
3023: \bibitem[Gray et al.(2006)]{Gray06} Gray, R.~O., Corbally, C.~J.,
3024: Garrison, R.~F., McFadden, M.~T., Bubar, E.~J., McGahee, C.~E.,
3025: O'Donoghue, A.~A., \& Knox, E.~R.\ 2006, \aj, 132, 161
3026:
3027: \bibitem[Gray et al.(2001)]{Gray01} Gray, R.~O., Napier, M.~G., \&
3028: Winkler, L.~I.\ 2001, \aj, 121, 2148
3029:
3030: \bibitem[Hall et al.(2007)]{Hall07} Hall, J.~C., Lockwood, G.~W., \&
3031: Skiff, B.~A.\ 2007, \aj, 133, 862
3032:
3033: \bibitem[Hallam et al.(1991)]{Hallam91} Hallam, K.~L., Altner, B., \&
3034: Endal, A.~S.\ 1991, \apj, 372, 610
3035:
3036: \bibitem[Hartigan \& Kenyon(2003)]{Hartigan03} Hartigan, P., \&
3037: Kenyon, S.~J.\ 2003, \apj, 583, 334
3038:
3039: \bibitem[Hartigan et al.(1994)]{Hartigan94} Hartigan, P., Strom,
3040: K.~M., \& Strom, S.~E.\ 1994, \apj, 427, 961
3041:
3042: \bibitem[Hartmann et al.(1984)]{Hartmann84} Hartmann, L., Soderblom,
3043: D.~R., Noyes, R.~W., Burnham, N., \& Vaughan, A.~H.\ 1984, \apj, 276,
3044: 254
3045:
3046: \bibitem[Hempelmann et al.(2003)]{Hempelmann03} Hempelmann, A.,
3047: Schmitt, J.~H.~M.~M., Baliunas, S.~L., \& Donahue, R.~A.\ 2003, \aap,
3048: 406, L39
3049:
3050: \bibitem[Hempelmann et al.(1995)]{Hempelmann95} Hempelmann, A.,
3051: Schmitt, J.~H.~M.~M., Schultz, M., Ruediger, G., \& Stepien, K.\ 1995,
3052: \aap, 294, 515
3053:
3054: \bibitem[Hempelmann et al.(1996)]{Hempelmann96} Hempelmann, A.,
3055: Schmitt, J.~H.~M.~M., \& St{\c e}pie{\'n}, K.\ 1996, \aap, 305, 284
3056:
3057: \bibitem[Henry et al.(2000)]{Henry00} Henry, G.~W., Baliunas,
3058: S.~L., Donahue, R.~A., Fekel, F.~C., \& Soon, W.\ 2000, \apj, 531, 415
3059:
3060: \bibitem[Henry et al.(1996)]{Henry96} Henry, T.~J., Soderblom,
3061: D.~R., Donahue, R.~A., \& Baliunas, S.~L.\ 1996, \aj, 111, 439
3062:
3063: \bibitem[Hill et al.(1989)]{Hill89} Hill, G., Fisher, W.~A., \&
3064: Holmgren, D.\ 1989, \aap, 211, 81
3065:
3066: \bibitem[Hillenbrand et al.(2008)]{Hillenbrand08} Hillenbrand, L.~A.,
3067: {Carpenter}, J.~M., {Kim}, J.~S., {Meyer}, M.~R., {Backman}, D.~E.,
3068: {Moro-Mart{\'{\i}}n}, A., {Hollenbach}, D.~J., {Hines}, D.~C.,
3069: {Pascucci}, I., \& {Bouwman}, J.,\ 2008, \apj, 677, 630
3070:
3071: \bibitem[Hillenbrand et al.(2009)]{Hillenbrand09} Hillenbrand, L.~A.,
3072: Mamajek, E.M., Stauffer, J.R., Soderblom, D.R., Carpenter, J.M.,
3073: Meyer, M.R., in prep. (ages paper)
3074:
3075: \bibitem[Hines et al.(2006)]{Hines06} Hines, D.~C., et al.\ 2006,
3076: \apj, 638, 1070
3077:
3078: \bibitem[Hines et al.(2007)]{Hines07} Hines, D.~C., et al.\ 2007,
3079: \apjl, 671, L165
3080:
3081: \bibitem[Hoffleit \& Jaschek(1991)]{Hoffleit91} Hoffleit, D., \&
3082: Jaschek, C.~|.\ 1991, Bright Star Catalog, New Haven, Conn.: Yale
3083: University Observatory, 5th rev.ed.
3084:
3085: \bibitem[H{\o}g et al.(2000)]{Hog00} H{\o}g, E., et al.\ 2000, \aap,
3086: 355, L27
3087:
3088: \bibitem[Isobe et al.(1990)]{Isobe90} Isobe, T., Feigelson, E.~D.,
3089: Akritas, M.~G., \& Babu, G.~J.\ 1990, \apj, 364, 104
3090:
3091: \bibitem[Jay et al.(1997)]{Jay97} Jay, J.~E., Guinan, E.~F., Morgan,
3092: N.~D., Messina, S., \& Jassour, D.\ 1997, BAAS, 29, 730
3093:
3094: \bibitem[Jenkins et al.(2006)]{Jenkins06} Jenkins, J.~S., et al.\
3095: 2006, \mnras, 372, 163
3096:
3097: \bibitem[Jenkins et al.(2008)]{Jenkins08} Jenkins, J.~S., et al.\
3098: 2008, A\&A, in press (arXiv:0804.1128)
3099:
3100: \bibitem[Jones et al.(1997)]{Jones97} Jones, B.~F., Fischer, D.,
3101: Shetrone, M., \& Soderblom, D.~R.\ 1997, \aj, 114, 352
3102:
3103: \bibitem[Jung \& Kim (2007)]{Jung07} Jung, Y.~K. \& Kim, Y.-C.\
3104: 2007, JASS, 25, 1
3105:
3106: \bibitem[Judge et al.(2003)]{Judge03} Judge, P.~G., Solomon, S.~C., \&
3107: Ayres, T.~R.\ 2003, \apj, 593, 534
3108:
3109: \bibitem[Keenan \& McNeil(1989)]{Keenan89} Keenan, P.~C., \& McNeil,
3110: R.~C.\ 1989, \apjs, 71, 245
3111:
3112: \bibitem[Kenyon \& Hartmann(1995)]{Kenyon95} Kenyon, S.~J., \&
3113: Hartmann, L.\ 1995, \apjs, 101, 117
3114:
3115: \bibitem[Kim \& Demarque(1996)]{Kim96} Kim, Y.-C., \& Demarque, P.\
3116: 1996, \apj, 457, 340
3117:
3118: \bibitem[Kim et al.(2005)]{Kim05} Kim, J.~S., et al.\ 2005, \apj, 632,
3119: 659
3120:
3121: \bibitem[King(1997)]{King97} King, J.~R.\ 1997, \pasp, 109, 776
3122:
3123: \bibitem[King \& Schuler(2005)]{King05} King, J.~R., \& Schuler,
3124: S.~C.\ 2005, \pasp, 117, 911
3125:
3126: \bibitem[King et al.(2003)]{King03} King, J.~R., Villarreal, A.~R.,
3127: Soderblom, D.~R., Gulliver, A.~F., \& Adelman, S.~J.\ 2003, \aj, 125,
3128: 1980
3129:
3130: \bibitem[Kraft(1967)]{Kraft67} Kraft, R.~P.\ 1967, \apj, 150, 551
3131:
3132: \bibitem[Krishnamurthi et al.(1998)]{Krishnamurthi98} Krishnamurthi,
3133: A., et al.\ 1998, \apj, 493, 914
3134:
3135: \bibitem[Lachaume et al.(1999)]{Lachaume99} Lachaume, R., Dominik, C.,
3136: Lanz, T., \& Habing, H.~J.\ 1999, \aap, 348, 897
3137:
3138: \bibitem[Livingston et al.(2007)]{Livingston07} Livingston, W.,
3139: Wallace, L., White, O.~R., \& Giampapa, M.~S.\ 2007, \apj, 657, 1137
3140:
3141: \bibitem[Lockwood et al.(2007)]{Lockwood07} Lockwood, G.~W., Skiff, B.A.,
3142: Henry, G.W., Henry, S., Radick, R.R., Baliunas, S.L., Donahue, R.A. \&
3143: Soon, W.\ 2007, \apjs, 171, 260
3144:
3145: \bibitem[Luhman et al.(2005)]{Luhman05} Luhman, K.~L., Stauffer,
3146: J.~R., \& Mamajek, E.~E.\ 2005, \apjl, 628, L69
3147:
3148: \bibitem[Makarov(2006)]{Makarov06} Makarov, V.~V.\ 2006, \aj, 131,
3149: 2967
3150:
3151: \bibitem[Mamajek(2005)]{Mamajek05} Mamajek, E.~E.\ 2005, \apj, 634,
3152: 1385
3153:
3154: \bibitem[Mamajek \& Feigelson(2001)]{Mamajek01} Mamajek, E.~E., \&
3155: Feigelson, E.~D.\ 2001, ASP Conf.~Ser.~244: Young Stars Near Earth:
3156: Progress and Prospects, 244, 104
3157:
3158: \bibitem[Mamajek et al.(2002)]{Mamajek02} Mamajek, E.~E., Meyer,
3159: M.~R., \& Liebert, J.\ 2002, \aj, 124, 1670
3160:
3161: \bibitem[Mamajek et al.(2006)]{Mamajek06} Mamajek, E.~E., Meyer,
3162: M.~R., \& Liebert, J.\ 2006, \aj, 131, 2360
3163:
3164: \bibitem[Mamajek et al.(2004)]{Mamajek04} Mamajek, E.~E., Meyer,
3165: M.~R., Hinz, P.~M., Hoffmann, W.~F., Cohen, M., \& Hora, J.~L.\ 2004,
3166: \apj, 612, 496
3167:
3168: \bibitem[Mamajek et al.(2007)]{Mamajek07} Mamajek, E.~E., Barrado y
3169: Navascu\'{e}s, D., Randich, S., Jensen, E.~L., Young, P.~A., Miglio,
3170: A., \& Barnes, S.~A. 2007, ASP Conf. Ser.: The 14th Cambridge Workshop
3171: on Cool Stars, Stellar Systems, and the Sun, in press
3172: (astro-ph/0702024)
3173:
3174: \bibitem[Marsakov \& Shevelev(1995)]{Marsakov95} Marsakov, V.~A., \&
3175: Shevelev, Y.~G.\ 1995, Bulletin d'Information du Centre de Donnees
3176: Stellaires, 47, 13
3177:
3178: \bibitem[Mayne et al.(2007)]{Mayne07} Mayne, N.~J., Naylor, T.,
3179: Littlefair, S.~P., Saunders, E.~S., \& Jeffries, R.~D.\ 2007, \mnras,
3180: 375, 1220
3181:
3182: \bibitem[Mermilliod(1981)]{Mermilliod81} Mermilliod, J.~C.\ 1981,
3183: \aap, 97, 235
3184:
3185: \bibitem[Mermilliod(1991)]{Mermilliod91} Mermilliod, J.~C. 1991,
3186: Catalogue of Homogeneous Means in the UBV System, CDS database II/168,
3187: http://vizier.cfa.harvard.edu/viz-bini/Cat?II/168
3188:
3189: \bibitem[Messina(2001)]{Messina01} Messina, S.\ 2001, \aap, 371, 1024
3190:
3191: \bibitem[Mestel(1968)]{Mestel68} Mestel, L.\ 1968, \mnras, 138, 359
3192:
3193: \bibitem[Meyer et al.(2004)]{Meyer04} Meyer, M.~R., et al.\ 2004,
3194: \apjs, 154, 422
3195:
3196: \bibitem[Meyer et al.(2006)]{Meyer06} Meyer, M.~R., et al.\ 2006,
3197: PASP, 118, 1690
3198:
3199: \bibitem[Meyer et al.(2008)]{Meyer08} Meyer, M.~R., et al.\
3200: 2008, \apjl, 673, L181
3201:
3202: \bibitem[Miglio \& Montalb{\'a}n(2005)]{Miglio05} Miglio, A., \&
3203: Montalb{\'a}n, J.\ 2005, \aap, 441, 615
3204:
3205: \bibitem[Montesinos et al.(2001)]{Montesinos01} Montesinos, B.,
3206: Thomas, J.~H., Ventura, P., \& Mazzitelli, I.\ 2001, \mnras, 326, 877
3207:
3208: \bibitem[Montgomery et al.(1993)]{Montgomery93} Montgomery, K.~A.,
3209: Marschall, L.~A., \& Janes, K.~A.\ 1993, \aj, 106, 181
3210:
3211: \bibitem[Moro-Mart{\'{\i}}n et al.(2007)]{Moro-Martin07}
3212: Moro-Mart{\'{\i}}n, A., et al.\ 2007, \apj, 658, 1312
3213:
3214: \bibitem[Neuh{\"a}user et al.(2000)]{Neuhauser00} Neuh{\"a}user, R.,
3215: et al.\ 2000, \aaps, 146, 323
3216:
3217: \bibitem[Nordstr{\"o}m et al.(2004)]{Nordstrom04} Nordstr{\"o}m,
3218: B., et al.\ 2004, \aap, 418, 989
3219:
3220: \bibitem[Noyes et al.(1984)]{Noyes84} Noyes, R.~W., Hartmann, L.~W.,
3221: Baliunas, S.~L., Duncan, D.~K., \& Vaughan, A.~H.\ 1984, \apj, 279,
3222: 763
3223:
3224: \bibitem[Ortega et al.(2002)]{Ortega02} Ortega, V.~G., de la Reza, R.,
3225: Jilinski, E., \& Bazzanella, B.\ 2002, \apjl, 575, L75
3226:
3227: \bibitem[Ortega et al.(2007)]{Ortega07} Ortega, V.~G., Jilinski, E.,
3228: de La Reza, R., \& Bazzanella, B.\ 2007, \mnras, 377, 441
3229:
3230: \bibitem[Pace \& Pasquini(2004)]{Pace04} Pace, G., \& Pasquini, L.\
3231: 2004, \aap, 426, 1021
3232:
3233: \bibitem[Padgett(1996)]{Padgett96} Padgett, D.~L. 1996, \apj, 471, 847
3234:
3235: \bibitem[Parker(1979)]{Parker79} Parker, E.~N.\ 1979, Oxford,
3236: Clarendon Press; New York, Oxford University Press
3237:
3238: \bibitem[Paulson et al.(2002)]{Paulson02} Paulson, D.~B., Saar, S.~H.,
3239: Cochran, W.~D., \& Hatzes, A.~P.\ 2002, \aj, 124, 572
3240:
3241: \bibitem[Paulson et al.(2004)]{Paulson04} Paulson, D.~B., Cochran,
3242: W.~D., \& Hatzes, A.~P.\ 2004, \aj, 127, 3579
3243:
3244: \bibitem[Perryman et al.(1998)]{Perryman98} Perryman, M.~A.~C., et
3245: al.\ 1998, \aap, 331, 81
3246:
3247: \bibitem[Perryman \& ESA(1997)]{Perryman97} Perryman, M.~A.~C., \&
3248: ESA 1997, ESA Special Publication, 1200
3249:
3250: \bibitem[Pizzolato et al.(2003)]{Pizzolato03} Pizzolato, N.,
3251: Maggio, A., Micela, G., Sciortino, S., \& Ventura, P.\ 2003, \aap, 397, 147
3252:
3253: \bibitem[Pourbaix et al.(2004)]{Pourbaix04} Pourbaix, D., et al.\
3254: 2004, \aap, 424, 727
3255:
3256: \bibitem[Preibisch et al.(2002)]{Preibisch02} Preibisch, T., Brown,
3257: A.~G.~A., Bridges, T., Guenther, E., \& Zinnecker, H.\ 2002, \aj, 124,
3258: 404
3259:
3260: \bibitem[Preibisch \& Feigelson(2005)]{Preibisch05} Preibisch, T., \&
3261: Feigelson, E.~D.\ 2005, \apjs, 160, 390
3262:
3263: \bibitem[Preibisch \& Mamajek (2008)]{Preibisch08} Preibisch, T., \&
3264: Mamajek, E.\ 2008, Handbook of Star-Forming Regions, ed. B. Reipurth,
3265: in press
3266:
3267: \bibitem[Preibisch \& Zinnecker(1999)]{Preibisch99} Preibisch, T., \&
3268: Zinnecker, H.\ 1999, \aj, 117, 2381
3269:
3270: \bibitem[Prosser(1992)]{Prosser92} Prosser, C.~F.\ 1992, \aj, 103, 488
3271:
3272: \bibitem[Prosser et al.(1995)]{Prosser95} Prosser, C.~F., et al.\
3273: 1995, \pasp, 107, 211
3274:
3275: \bibitem[Radick et al.(1998)]{Radick98} Radick, R.~R., Lockwood,
3276: G.~W., Skiff, B.~A., \& Baliunas, S.~L.\ 1998, \apjs, 118, 239
3277:
3278: \bibitem[Radick et al.(1995)]{Radick95} Radick, R.~R., Lockwood,
3279: G.~W., Skiff, B.~A., \& Thompson, D.~T.\ 1995, \apj, 452, 332
3280:
3281: \bibitem[Radick et al.(1987)]{Radick87} Radick, R.~R., Thompson,
3282: D.~T., Lockwood, G.~W., Duncan, D.~K., \& Baggett, W.~E.\ 1987, \apj,
3283: 321, 459
3284:
3285: \bibitem[Randich et al.(1996)]{Randich96} Randich, S., Schmitt,
3286: J.~H.~M.~M., Prosser, C.~F., \& Stauffer, J.~R.\ 1996, \aap, 305, 785
3287:
3288: \bibitem[Reid(1992)]{Reid92} Reid, N.\ 1992, \mnras, 257, 257
3289:
3290: \bibitem[Robichon et al.(1999)]{Robichon99} Robichon, N., Arenou, F.,
3291: Mermilliod, J.-C., \& Turon, C.\ 1999, \aap, 345, 471
3292:
3293: \bibitem[Roman(1950)]{Roman50} Roman, N.~G.\ 1950, \apj, 112, 554
3294:
3295: \bibitem[Saar \& Brandenburg(1999)]{Saar99} Saar, S.~H., \&
3296: Brandenburg, A.\ 1999, \apj, 524, 295
3297:
3298: \bibitem[Saar \& Osten(1997)]{Saar97} Saar, S.~H., \& Osten, R.~A.\
3299: 1997, \mnras, 284, 803
3300:
3301: \bibitem[Saffe et al.(2005)]{Saffe05} Saffe, C., G{\'o}mez, M., \&
3302: Chavero, C.\ 2005, \aap, 443, 609
3303:
3304: \bibitem[Sarajedini et al.(1999)]{Sarajedini99} Sarajedini, A., von
3305: Hippel, T., Kozhurina-Platais, V., \& Demarque, P.\ 1999, \aj, 118,
3306: 2894
3307:
3308: \bibitem[Schatzman(1962)]{Schatzman62} Schatzman, E.\ 1962, Annales
3309: d'Astrophysique, 25, 18
3310:
3311: \bibitem[Silverstone et al.(2006)]{Silverstone06} Silverstone, M.~D.,
3312: et al.\ 2006, \apj, 639, 1138
3313:
3314: \bibitem[Skumanich(1972)]{Skumanich72} Skumanich, A.\ 1972, \apj, 171,
3315: 565
3316:
3317: \bibitem[Soderblom(1983)]{Soderblom83} Soderblom, D.~R.\ 1983, \apjs,
3318: 53, 1
3319:
3320: \bibitem[Soderblom(1985)]{Soderblom85} Soderblom, D.~R.\ 1985, \aj,
3321: 90, 2103
3322:
3323: \bibitem[Soderblom et al.(1991)]{Soderblom91} Soderblom, D.~R.,
3324: Duncan, D.~K., \& Johnson, D.~R.~H.\ 1991, \apj, 375, 722
3325:
3326: \bibitem[Soderblom et al.(1993)]{Soderblom93} Soderblom, D.~R.,
3327: Stauffer, J.~R., Hudon, J.~D., \& Jones, B.~F.\ 1993, \apjs, 85, 315
3328:
3329: \bibitem[Soderblom et al.(1998)]{Soderblom98} Soderblom, D.~R., King,
3330: J.~R., \& Henry, T.~J.\ 1998, \aj, 116, 396
3331:
3332: \bibitem[Spitzer \& Schwarzschild(1951)]{Spitzer51} Spitzer, L.~J., \&
3333: Schwarzschild, M.\ 1951, \apj, 114, 385
3334:
3335: \bibitem[Strassmeier et al.(2000)]{Strassmeier00} Strassmeier, K.,
3336: Washuettl, A., Granzer, T., Scheck, M., \& Weber, M.\ 2000, \aaps,
3337: 142, 275
3338:
3339: \bibitem[Stauffer \& Hartmann(1987)]{Stauffer87} Stauffer, J.~R., \&
3340: Hartmann, L.~W.\ 1987, \apj, 318, 337
3341:
3342: \bibitem[Stauffer et al.(1989)]{Stauffer89} Stauffer, J.~R., Hartmann,
3343: L.~W., \& Jones, B.~F.\ 1989, \apj, 346, 160
3344:
3345: \bibitem[Stauffer et al.(1984)]{Stauffer84} Stauffer, J.~R., Hartmann,
3346: L., Soderblom, D.~R., \& Burnham, N.\ 1984, \apj, 280, 202
3347:
3348: \bibitem[Stauffer, Schultz, \& Kirkpatrick(1998)]{Stauffer98} Stauffer,
3349: J.~R., Schultz, G., Kirkpatrick, J.~D. 1998, \apj, 499, L199
3350:
3351: \bibitem[Stauffer et al.(2005)]{Stauffer05} Stauffer, J.~R., et al.\
3352: 2005, \aj, 130, 1834
3353:
3354: \bibitem[Stepien(1994)]{Stepien94} Stepien, K.\ 1994, \aap, 292, 191
3355:
3356: \bibitem[Sterzik \& Schmitt(1997)]{Sterzik97} Sterzik, M.~F., \&
3357: Schmitt, J.~H.~M.~M.\ 1997, \aj, 114, 1673
3358:
3359: \bibitem[Taylor(2006)]{Taylor06} Taylor, B.~J.\ 2006, \aj, 132, 2453
3360:
3361: \bibitem[Th{\'e}venin \& Idiart(1999)]{Thevenin99} Th{\'e}venin, F.,
3362: \& Idiart, T.~P.\ 1999, \apj, 521, 753
3363:
3364: \bibitem[Th{\'e}venin et al.(2002)]{Thevenin02} Th{\'e}venin, F.,
3365: Provost, J., Morel, P., Berthomieu, G., Bouchy, F., \& Carrier, F.\
3366: 2002, \aap, 392, L9
3367:
3368: \bibitem[Thoul et al.(2003)]{Thoul03} Thoul, A., Scuflaire, R., Noels,
3369: A., Vatovez, B., Briquet, M., Dupret, M.-A., \& Montalban, J.\ 2003,
3370: \aap, 402, 293
3371:
3372: \bibitem[Tinney et al.(2002)]{Tinney02} Tinney, C.~G., McCarthy, C.,
3373: Jones, H.~R.~A., Butler, R.~P., Carter, B.~D., Marcy, G.~W., \& Penny,
3374: A.~J.\ 2002, \mnras, 332, 759
3375:
3376: \bibitem[Twarog, Ashman, \& Anthony-Twarog(1997)]{Twarog97} Twarog, B.~A.,
3377: Ashman, K.~M., \& Anthony-Twarog, B.~J. 1997, AJ, 114, 2556
3378:
3379: \bibitem[Upgren et al.(1985)]{Upgren85} Upgren, A.~R., Weis, E.~W., \&
3380: Hanson, R.~B.\ 1985, \aj, 90, 2039
3381:
3382: \bibitem[Valenti \& Fischer(2005)]{Valenti05} Valenti,
3383: J.~A., \& Fischer, D.~A.\ 2005, \apjs, 159, 141 (VF05)
3384:
3385: \bibitem[van Altena(1969)]{vanAltena69} van Altenb, W.~F.\ 1969, \aj, 74, 2
3386:
3387: \bibitem[VandenBerg \& Stetson(2004)]{VandenBerg04} VandenBerg, D.~A.,
3388: \& Stetson, P.~B.\ 2004, \pasp, 116, 997
3389:
3390: \bibitem[Vaughan \& Preston(1980)]{Vaughan80} Vaughan, A.~H., \&
3391: Preston, G.~W.\ 1980, \pasp, 92, 385
3392:
3393: \bibitem[Vaughan et al.(1978)]{Vaughan78} Vaughan, A.~H., Preston, G.~W.,
3394: \& Wilson, O.~C.\ 1978, \pasp, 90, 267
3395:
3396: \bibitem[Voges et al.(1999)]{Voges99} Voges, W., et al.\ 1999, \aap,
3397: 349, 389
3398:
3399: \bibitem[Voges et al.(2000)]{Voges00} Voges, W., et al.\ 2000,
3400: \iaucirc, 7432, 3
3401:
3402: \bibitem[Walker et al.(2008)]{Walker08} Walker, G.~A.~H., et al.\
3403: 2008, \aap, 482, 691
3404:
3405: \bibitem[Walter et al.(1994)]{Walter94} Walter, F.~M., Vrba, F.~J.,
3406: Mathieu, R.~D., Brown, A., \& Myers, P.~C.\ 1994, \aj, 107, 692
3407:
3408: \bibitem[Weber \& Davis(1967)]{Weber67} Weber, E.~J., \& Davis, L.~J.\
3409: 1967, \apj, 148, 217
3410:
3411: \bibitem[Weis \& Hanson(1988)]{Weis88} Weis, E.~W., \& Hanson, R.~B.\
3412: 1988, \aj, 96, 148
3413:
3414: \bibitem[Weis \& Upgren(1982)]{Weis82} Weis, E.~W., \& Upgren, A.~R.\
3415: 1982, \pasp, 94, 821
3416:
3417: \bibitem[West et al.(2008)]{West08} West, A.~A., Hawley, S.~L.,
3418: Bochanski, J.~J., Covey, K.~R., Reid, I.~N., Dhital, S., Hilton,
3419: E.~J., \& Masuda, M.\ 2008, \aj, 135, 785
3420:
3421: \bibitem[White, Gabor, \& Hillenbrand(2007)]{White07} White, R.~J.,
3422: Gabor, J.~M., \& Hillenbrand, L.~A. 2007, \apj, in press
3423:
3424: \bibitem[White \& Livingston(1981)]{White81} White, O.~R., \&
3425: Livingston, W.~C.\ 1981, \apj, 249, 798
3426:
3427: \bibitem[Wichmann et al.(1997)]{Wichmann97} Wichmann, R., Krautter,
3428: J., Covino, E., Alcala, J.~M., Neuhaeuser, R., \& Schmitt,
3429: J.~H.~M.~M.\ 1997, \aap, 320, 185
3430:
3431: \bibitem[Wilson(1963)]{Wilson63} Wilson, O.~C.\ 1963, \apj, 138, 832
3432:
3433: \bibitem[Wolff et al.(1985)]{Wolff85} Wolff, S.~C., Heasley, J.~N., \&
3434: Varsik, J.\ 1985, \pasp, 97, 707
3435:
3436: \bibitem[Wright et al.(2004)]{Wright04} Wright, J.~T., Marcy, G.~W.,
3437: Butler, R.~P., \& Vogt, S.~S.\ 2004, \apjs, 152, 261
3438:
3439: \bibitem[Wright(2004)]{Wright04b} Wright, J.~T.\ 2004, \aj, 128,
3440: 1273
3441:
3442: \bibitem[Wright(2005)]{Wright05} Wright, J.~T.\ 2005, \aj, 129, 1776
3443:
3444: \bibitem[Yi et al.(2003)]{Yi03} Yi, S.~K., Kim, Y.-C., \& Demarque,
3445: P.\ 2003, \apjs, 144, 259
3446:
3447: \bibitem[de Zeeuw et al.(1999)]{deZeeuw99} de Zeeuw, P.~T.,
3448: Hoogerwerf, R., de Bruijne, J.~H.~J., Brown, A.~G.~A., \& Blaauw, A.\
3449: 1999, \aj, 117, 354
3450:
3451: \bibitem[Zuckerman \& Song(2004)]{Zuckerman04} Zuckerman, B., \&
3452: Song, I.\ 2004, \araa, 42, 685
3453:
3454: \end{thebibliography}
3455: \end{document}
3456: