1: \documentclass[final]{aipproc}

2: 

3: \layoutstyle{6x9}

4: \usepackage{amssymb}

5: \usepackage[colorlinks=TRUE, dvips]{hyperref}

6: 

7: %%  Journals

8: \newcommand{\mnras}{MNRAS}

9: \newcommand{\aap}{A\&A}

10: \newcommand{\apj}{ApJ}

11: \newcommand{\apjs}{ApJS}

12: \newcommand{\apjl}{ApJL}

13: \newcommand{\aj}{AJ}

14: 

15: %% Useful commands

16: \newcommand{\ftm}[1]{$^{\rm #1}$}

17: \def\msun{\hbox{${\rm M}_{\odot}$}}

18: \def\rsun{\hbox{${\rm R}_{\odot}$}}

19: \def\mstar{\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}

20: \def\rstar{\hbox{$R_{\star}$}}

21: \def\vsini{\hbox{$v\sin i$}}

22: \def\rsini{\hbox{$R\sin i$}}

23: \def\Prot{\hbox{$P_{\rm rot}$}}

24: \def\mj{\hbox{$\rm M_J$}}

25: \def\dOm{\hbox{$d\Omega$}}

26: \def\dOmsun{\hbox{$\dOm_\odot$}}

27: \def\chisq{\hbox{$\chi^2$}}

28: \def\kms{\hbox{km\,s$^{-1}$}}

29: \def\eps{\hbox{erg\,s$^{-1}$}}

30: \def\degr{\hbox{$^\circ$}}

31: \def\mrpd{\hbox{mrad\,d$^{-1}$}}

32: 

33: \begin{document}

34: 

35: \title{Large-scale magnetic topologies of M dwarfs}

36: 

37: \classification{97.20.Jg -- 97.10.Ld -- 97.10.Kc -- 97.10.Jb}

38: \keywords      {Stars: low-mass, brown dwarfs -- Stars: magnetic fields --

39: Stars: rotation -- Stars: activity -- Techniques: spectropolarimetric}

40: 

41: \author{J.~Morin}{

42:   address={LATT, Universit\'e de Toulouse, CNRS, 14 Av.\ E.~Belin,

43: F--31400 Toulouse, France\\}

44: }

45: 

46: \author{J.-F.~Donati}{

47:   address={LATT, Universit\'e de Toulouse, CNRS, 14 Av.\ E.~Belin,

48: F--31400 Toulouse, France\\}

49: }

50: 

51: \author{X.~Delfosse}{

52:   address={LAOG--UMR~5571, CNRS et Univ.\ J.~Fourier, 31 rue de la

53: Piscine, F--38041 Grenoble, France\\}

54: }

55: 

56: \author{T.~Forveille}{

57:   address={LAOG--UMR~5571, CNRS et Univ.\ J.~Fourier, 31 rue de la

58: Piscine, F--38041 Grenoble, France\\}

59: }

60: 

61: \author{M.M.~Jardine}{

62:   address={SUPA, School of Physics and Astronomy, Univ. of St Andrews, St

63: Andrews, Scotland KY16 9SS\\}

64: }

65: 

66: \begin{abstract}

67: We present here the first results of a spectropolarimetric analysis of a

68: small sample ($\sim20$) of active stars ranging from spectral type M0 to

69: M8, which are either fully-convective or possess a very small radiative

70: core. This study aims at providing new constraints on dynamo processes in

71: fully-convective stars. 

72: 

73: Results for stars with spectral types M0-M4 -- i.e. with masses above or

74: just below the full convection threshold ($\simeq 0.35~\msun$) -- are

75: presented. Tomographic imaging techniques allow us to reconstruct the

76: surface magnetic topologies from the rotationally modulated time-series of

77: circularly polarised profiles.

78: 

79: We find strong differences between partly and fully convective stars

80: concerning magnetic field topology and characteristic scales, and

81: differential rotation. Our results suggest that magnetic field generation

82: in fully convective stars relies on different dynamo processes than those

83: acting in the Sun and other partly convective stars, in agreement with

84: theoretical expectations.

85: 

86: \end{abstract}

87: 

88: \maketitle

89: 

90: \section{Context}

91: 

92: In partly convective stars such as the Sun, magnetic fields -- the

93: energy source of most activity phenomena -- are induced by plasma motions:

94: the combined action of differential rotation ($\Omega$ effect) and

95: cyclonic convection ($\alpha$ effect) manages to generate a self-sustained

96: magnetic field. The so-called $\alpha\Omega$ dynamo \cite{Parker55} is

97: believed to operate mostly through the tachocline, a thin zone of strong

98: shear located at the interface between the radiative inner zone and the

99: convective envelope \cite{Charbonneau05}.

100: 

101: Stars with masses lower than about $0.35~\msun$ are fully-convective

102: \cite{Chabrier97} and thus do not possess a tachocline. However, they

103: manage to trigger magnetic fields \cite{Saar85,Johns96,Reiners06} and are

104: very active \cite{Delfosse98,Mohanty03,West04}. Though significant

105: progress was made since first non-solar dynamo mechanisms were proposed

106: \cite{Durney93}, theoretical and numerical modelling require observational

107: constraints. It is now acknowledged, from observational

108: \cite{Donati06,Morin08} and theoretical points of view

109: \cite{Chabrier06,Dobler06,Browning08}, that fully convective stars (FCS)

110: manage to yield large scale magnetic fields. But the properties of such

111: magnetic fields, and their dependency on stellar parameters (in particular

112: mass and rotation rate) are not yet clear.

113: 

114: We present here the first results of a spectropolarimetric analysis of a

115: small sample of active M dwarfs with spectral types ranging from M0 to M8,

116: which are either fully convective or possess a very small radiative core.

117: We aim at exploring the properties of the large-scale magnetic topologies 

118: of FCS, and their evolution with main stellar parameters. The stars were

119: selected from the rotation-activity study \cite{Delfosse98}. We chose only

120: active stars so that the magnetic field is strong enough to produce

121: detectable circularly polarised signatures, allowing us to apply

122: tomographic imaging techniques. More details about the sample are

123: available in Table~\ref{tab:sample}.

124: 

125: \begin{table}

126: \begin{tabular}{cccccccccccc}

127:  \hline

128:  Name & ST & \mstar & log$R_X$ & \vsini & \Prot & $\tau_c$ & $Ro$ &

129: \rstar & $i$ \\

130:  & & (\msun) & & (\kms) & (d) & (d) & ($10^{-2}$) & (\rsun) & (\degr) \\ 

131:  \hline

132: GJ 182 & M0.5 & 0.75 & $-3.1$ & 10 & 4.35 & 25 & 17 & 0.82 & 60 \\

133: DT Vir & M0.5 & 0.59 & $-3.4$ & 11 & 2.85 & 31 & 9.2 & 0.53 

134: & 60 \\

135: DS Leo & M0 & 0.58 & $-4.0$ & 2 & 14.0 & 32 & 44 & 0.52 & 60

136: \\

137: GJ 49 & M1.5 & 0.57 & $< -4.3$ & 1 & 18.6 & 33 & 56 & 0.51 & 45 \\

138: OT Ser & M1.5 & 0.55 & $-3.4$ & 6 & 3.40 & 35 & 9.7 & 0.49 &

139: 45

140: \\

141: CE Boo & M2.5 & 0.48 & $-3.7$ & 1 & 14.7 & 42 & 35 &

142: 0.43 & 45 \\

143:  AD Leo & M3 & $0.42$ & -3.18 & $3.0$ & $2.24$ & 48 & 4.7 & 0.38 &

144: 20\\

145:  EQ Peg A & M3.5 & $0.39$ & -3.02 & $17.5$ & $1.06$ & 54 & 2.0 &

146: 0.35 & 60 \\

147:  EV Lac & M3.5 & $0.32$ & -3.33 & $4.0$ & $4.37$ & 64 & 6.8 & 0.30

148: & 60 \\

149:  YZ CMi & M4.5 & $0.31$ & -3.09 & $5.0$ & $2.78$ & 66 & 4.2 & 0.29

150: & 60 \\

151:  V374~Peg & M4 & $0.28$ & -3.20 & $36.5$ & $0.446$ & 72 & 0.62 &

152: 0.28 & 70 \\

153:  EQ Peg B & M4.5 & $0.25$ & -3.25 & $28.5$ & $0.404$ & 76 & 0.53 &

154: 0.25 & 60 \\

155:  \hline

156: \end{tabular}

157: \caption{Fundamental parameters of the stellar sample. Columns 1--4

158: respectively list the name, the spectral type, the stellar mass, and the

159: logarithmic relative X-ray luminosity log$R_X=$log($L_X/L_{bol}$). The

160: projected rotation velocity and rotation period inferred from Zeeman

161: Doppler Imaging (ZDI) are mentioned in columns 5 and 6. Columns 7--10

162: respectively list the empirical convective turnover time from

163: \cite{Kiraga07}, the effective Rossby number $Ro=\frac{\Prot}{\tau_c}$,

164: the theoretical radius suited to the stellar mass from \cite{Baraffe98},

165: and the inclination angle used for ZDI. See \cite{Morin08b,Donati08} for

166: more details.}

167: \label{tab:sample}

168: \end{table}

169: 

170: For this study, we used the twin instruments ESPaDOnS on the 3.6-m

171: Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope (CFHT) located in Hawaii and NARVAL on the

172: 2-m T\'elescope Bernard Lyot (TBL) in southern France. These

173: spectropolarimeters, built on the same design, can produce Stokes I,Q,U

174: and V spectra spanning the entire optical domain (from 370 to 1000~nm) at

175: a resolving power of $\sim 65000$ \cite{Donati03}. 

176: 

177: We performed monitoring observations of the sample in circularly polarised

178: light (Stokes $V$). Least-squares deconvolution (LSD) \cite{Donati97} was

179: then applied, resulting, for each spectra, in a synthetic line profile

180: gathering polarimetric information from most photospheric atomic lines.

181: 

182: \section{Imaging procedure and Model description}

183: For each star of the sample, our aim is to infer the topology of the

184: surface magnetic field from the circularly polarised (Stokes $V$) LSD

185: profiles we obtained. This can be achieved using a Zeeman-Doppler

186: Imaging (ZDI) code \cite{Donati97b}. The imaging process is based on the

187: principles of maximum entropy image reconstruction.  The magnetic field

188: is  decomposed into its poloidal and toroidal components, both expressed

189: as spherical harmonics expansions. Starting from a null magnetic field, we

190: iteratively improve our magnetic model by comparing the synthetic Stokes

191: $V$ profiles with the observed LSD profiles, until we reach an optimal

192: field topology that reproduces the data at a given \chisq\ level. The

193: inversion problem being partly ill-posed, we use the entropy function to

194: select the magnetic field with lowest information content among all those

195: reproducing the data equally well \cite{Skilling84}.

196: 

197: % \subsection{Modelling of the local line profiles}

198: To compute the synthetic Stokes $V$ profiles, the star is

199: divided into a grid of $\sim 1000$ cells on which the magnetic field

200: components are computed directly from the coefficients of the spherical

201: harmonics expansion. The contribution of each individual pixel is

202: computed from a model based on Unno-Rachkovsky's equations

203: \cite{Morin08b}. We then integrate all contributions from the visible

204: hemisphere at each observed rotation phase.

205: 

206: % \subsection{Modelling of differential rotation}

207: While computing the Stokes $V$ profiles it is possible to account for

208: differential rotation. For a given differential rotation law, each local

209: line profile is Doppler-shifted as a function of the observation phase. It

210: is then possible to investigate how the fit quality varies in a reasonable

211: range of \Prot\ and \dOm\ values. We can thus derive the optimal \Prot,

212: \dOm\ and corresponding error bars \cite{Petit02,Donati03b,Morin08}.

213: 

214: \section{Reconstructed magnetic fields}

215: For each star of our sample, we reconstruct with ZDI the large-scale

216: surface magnetic field at least up to degree $\ell=6$. We also measure

217: differential rotation and assess time-variability of the magnetic topology

218: whenever possible.

219: 

220: The field is characterised by three quantities: (a) the overall magnetic

221: energy, (b) the ratio of magnetic energy reconstructed in the poloidal

222: modes and (c) the ratio of poloidal magnetic energy reconstructed in the

223: axisymmetric modes (defined by $m < \frac{\ell}{2}$). The results are

224: described below and presented in a more visual way in

225: Figure~\ref{fig:plotMP} as a function of \mstar\ and \Prot . See

226: [Donati, these proceedings] for a version of this diagram including G and

227: K dwarfs. To compare magnetic field generation in stars of different

228: masses, it is convenient to introduce the effective Rossby number which

229: rescales \Prot\ by a mass dependant coefficient.

230: $Ro=\frac{\Prot}{\tau_c}$, where $\tau_c$ is an empirical convective

231: turnover time inferred from X-ray luminosities \cite{Kiraga07}. On

232: Fig.~\ref{fig:plotMP} we also plot contours

233: of constant Rossby number $Ro=0.1$ and $0.01$ respectively

234: corresponding approximately to the saturation and super-saturation

235: thresholds \citep[e.g.,][]{Pizzolato03}.

236: 

237: The magnetic field topologies we reconstruct with ZDI and the differential

238: rotation  amplitudes are very different on each part of the

239: $\mstar\simeq0.5\msun$ boundary. This threshold is very sharp and well

240: defined, with little apparent dependence with the rotation period. Typical

241: examples of magnetic maps on each part of this limit are shown in

242: Fig.~\ref{fig:zdi_maps}.

243: 

244: \begin{figure}

245: \label{fig:plotMP}

246:   \includegraphics[height=.6\textwidth]{plotMP}

247:   \caption{Properties of the magnetic topologies of M dwarfs as a

248: function of rotation period and stellar mass. Larger symbols indicate

249: larger magnetic fields while symbol shapes depict the different degrees

250: of axisymmetry of the reconstructed magnetic field (from decagons for

251: purely axisymmetric fields to sharp stars for purely non axisymmetric

252: fields). Colours illustrate the field configuration (dark blue for purely

253: toroidal fields, dark red for purely poloidal fields and intermediate

254: colours for intermediate configurations). Solid lines represent contours

255: of constant Rossby number $Ro=0.1$ and $0.01$. The theoretical

256: full-convection limit ($\mstar \simeq0.35\msun$ \cite{Chabrier97}) is

257: plotted as a horizontal dashed line.}

258: \end{figure}

259: 

260: \begin{figure}

261: \begin{tabular}{c}

262:  \includegraphics[width=1.\textwidth]{mdw_494map2} \\

263:  \includegraphics[width=1.\textwidth]{yzcmi_V_08c_map} \\

264: \end{tabular}

265: \caption{\textbf{Upper row}: surface magnetic flux of DT~Vir (0.59~\msun)

266: as derived from our 2008 data set. The three components of the field in

267: spherical coordinates are displayed from left to right (flux values

268: labelled in G). The star is shown in flattened polar projection down to

269: latitudes of $-30\degr$, with the equator depicted as a bold circle and

270: parallels as dashed circles. Radial ticks around each plot indicate phases

271: of observations. \textbf{Bottom row}: same for YZ~CMi (0.31~\msun).}

272: \label{fig:zdi_maps}

273: \end{figure}

274: 

275: 

276: % \subsection{$\mstar > 0.5~\msun$}

277: For stars more massive than $0.5~\msun$, we recover magnetic topologies

278: including (i) a \textbf{strong toroidal component} and (ii) a \textbf{high

279: non-axisymmetric degree of the poloidal component}. For 4 stars of this

280: subsample we can derive differential rotation. We find $\mathbf{\dOm

281: \gtrsim \dOmsun}$, in agreement with the dispersion observed in previous

282: photometric measurements of \Prot. As a consequence, \textbf{surface

283: magnetic features are short-lived}, the topology completely changes on a

284: timescale of a few months.

285: 

286: % \subsection{$\mstar < 0.5~\msun$}

287: In the low mass subsample (\mstar<$0.5~\msun$), we reconstruct

288: \textbf{much stronger magnetic fluxes} and very different large-scale

289: magnetic topologies : (i) \textbf{mostly poloidal} ($\sim 90\%$ of the

290: reconstructed energy), (ii) \textbf{strongly axisymmetric} (except for

291: EV~Lac, more than half of the magnetic energy is reconstructed in $m=0$

292: modes) and (iii) \textbf{close to a dipole} with more 50\% of the

293: reconstructed magnetic energy lying in poloidal modes of degree $\ell=1$. 

294: \textbf{Very weak differential rotation} is inferred from our data with 3

295: stars having \dOm\ of the order of a few \mrpd. This very weak

296: differential rotation is in agreement with the most recent numerical 

297: simulations \cite{Browning08}. These stars were observed at two different

298: epochs separated by $\sim 1~{\rm yr}$. \textbf{Evolution of the magnetic

299: topologies is small}, in some cases, it is possible to fit

300: observations

301: separated by $\sim 1~{\rm yr}$ with a unique magnetic topology.

302: 

303: 

304: \section{Conclusions and perspectives}

305: Very different large-scale magnetic topologies are observed on each part

306: of the $\mstar\simeq0.5~\msun$ limit. We also note that dynamo processes

307: become suddenly much more efficient at triggering large-scale magnetic

308: fields (see Fig.~\ref{fig:plotMP} and \ref{fig:Ro_Bsq_RX}) at

309: approximately the same mass ($\simeq0.4~\msun$). This strong step is not

310: visible in the log$R_X$ vs $Ro$ plot. This result suggests that (i) the

311: X-ray emission is sensitive to overall magnetic energy whereas we are only

312: sensitive to the largest scales. (ii) At a given $Ro$ stars with mass

313: above or below $\sim 0.5~\msun$ generate comparable magnetic energy, but

314: with very different spatial scales repartition (the less massive stars

315: triggering more magnetic energy in the largest scales).

316: 

317: These strong changes in magnetic field generation occur at masses

318: slightly larger than the theoretical limit to full convection ($\simeq

319: 0.35~\msun$). This may be due to strong shrinking of the radiative inner

320: zone predicted by theoretical models, from $\sim 0.5~\rsun$ at

321: $\mstar=0.5~\msun$ to nothing at $0.35~\msun$ \cite{Baraffe98,Siess00}.

322: 

323: We are currently completing this survey to extend it to fast rotators

324: with $\mstar>0.5~\msun$, slow rotators with $0.2<\mstar<0.5~\msun$, two

325: regimes not explored in the present sample. Present efforts are

326: also directed to ultracool dwarfs ($\mstar<0.2~\msun$), to investigate

327: how dynamo processes operate down to the brown dwarf limit, i.e. when

328: stellar atmospheres start to become neutral.

329: 

330: \begin{figure}

331:  \label{fig:Ro_Bsq_RX}

332:  \begin{tabular}{cc}

333:   \includegraphics[width=.5\textwidth]{Ro_Bsq} &

334:   \includegraphics[width=.5\textwidth]{Ro_RX} \\

335:  \end{tabular}

336:  \caption{Left panel: Reconstructed magnetic energy as a function of $Ro$.

337: Right panel: logarithmic relative X-ray luminosity as a function of $Ro$

338: (see Tab.~\ref{tab:sample}).}

339:  \end{figure}

340: 

341: \begin{theacknowledgments}

342:   Julien Morin thanks the SOC of Cool Stars 15 and CNRS for providing

343: financial support for attending the conference.

344: \end{theacknowledgments}

345: 

346: \bibliographystyle{aipprocl} % if natbib is missing

347: 

348: \hyphenation{Post-Script Sprin-ger}

349: \begin{thebibliography}{10}

350: \providecommand{\enquote}[1]{``#1''}

351: \expandafter\ifx\csname url\endcsname\relax

352:   \def\url#1{\texttt{#1}}\fi

353: \expandafter\ifx\csname urlprefix\endcsname\relax\def\urlprefix{URL }\fi

354: 

355: \bibitem{Parker55}

356: E.~N. {Parker}, \emph{\apj} \textbf{122}, 293 (1955).

357: 

358: \bibitem{Charbonneau05}

359: P.~{Charbonneau}, \emph{Living Reviews in Solar Physics} \textbf{2}, 2 (2005).

360: 

361: \bibitem{Chabrier97}

362: G.~{Chabrier}, and I.~{Baraffe}, \emph{\aap} \textbf{327}, 1039--1053 (1997).

363: 

364: \bibitem{Saar85}

365: S.~H. {Saar}, and J.~L. {Linsky}, \emph{\apj} \textbf{299}, L47--L50 (1985).

366: 

367: \bibitem{Johns96}

368: C.~M. {Johns-Krull}, and J.~A. {Valenti}, \emph{\apjl} \textbf{459}, L95

369:   (1996).

370: 

371: \bibitem{Reiners06}

372: A.~{Reiners}, and G.~{Basri}, \emph{\apj} \textbf{644}, 497--509 (2006).

373: 

374: \bibitem{Delfosse98}

375: X.~{Delfosse}, T.~{Forveille}, C.~{Perrier}, and M.~{Mayor}, \emph{\aap}

376:   \textbf{331}, 581--595 (1998).

377: 

378: \bibitem{Mohanty03}

379: S.~{Mohanty}, and G.~{Basri}, \emph{\apj} \textbf{583}, 451--472 (2003).

380: 

381: \bibitem{West04}

382: A.~A. {West}, S.~L. {Hawley}, L.~M. {Walkowicz}, K.~R. {Covey}, N.~M.

383:   {Silvestri}, S.~N. {Raymond}, H.~C. {Harris}, J.~A. {Munn}, P.~M. {McGehee},

384:   {\v Z}.~{Ivezi{\'c}}, and J.~{Brinkmann}, \emph{\aj} \textbf{128}, 426--436

385:   (2004).

386: 

387: \bibitem{Durney93}

388: B.~R. {Durney}, D.~S. {De Young}, and I.~W. {Roxburgh}, \emph{Solar Physics}

389:   \textbf{145}, 207--225 (1993).

390: 

391: \bibitem{Donati06}

392: J.-F. {Donati}, T.~{Forveille}, A.~C. {Cameron}, J.~R. {Barnes}, X.~{Delfosse},

393:   M.~M. {Jardine}, and J.~A. {Valenti}, \emph{Science} \textbf{311}, 633--635

394:   (2006).

395: 

396: \bibitem{Morin08}

397: J.~{Morin}, J.-F. {Donati}, T.~{Forveille}, X.~{Delfosse}, W.~{Dobler},

398:   P.~{Petit}, M.~M. {Jardine}, A.~C. {Cameron}, L.~{Albert}, N.~{Manset},

399:   B.~{Dintrans}, G.~{Chabrier}, and J.~A. {Valenti}, \emph{\mnras}

400:   \textbf{384}, 77--86 (2008).

401: 

402: \bibitem{Chabrier06}

403: G.~{Chabrier}, and M.~{K{\"u}ker}, \emph{\aap} \textbf{446}, 1027--1037 (2006).

404: 

405: \bibitem{Dobler06}

406: W.~{Dobler}, M.~{Stix}, and A.~{Brandenburg}, \emph{\apj} \textbf{638},

407:   336--347 (2006).

408: 

409: \bibitem{Browning08}

410: M.~K. {Browning}, \emph{\apj} \textbf{676}, 1262--1280 (2008).

411: 

412: \bibitem{Kiraga07}

413: M.~{Kiraga}, and K.~{Stepien}, \emph{Acta Astronomica} \textbf{57}, 149--172

414:   (2007).

415: 

416: \bibitem{Baraffe98}

417: I.~{Baraffe}, G.~{Chabrier}, F.~{Allard}, and P.~H. {Hauschildt}, \emph{\aap}

418:   \textbf{337}, 403--412 (1998).

419: 

420: \bibitem{Morin08b}

421: J.~{Morin}, J.~. {Donati}, P.~{Petit}, X.~{Delfosse}, T.~{Forveille},

422:   L.~{Albert}, M.~{Auriere}, R.~{Cabanac}, B.~{Dintrans}, R.~{Fares},

423:   T.~{Gastine}, M.~M. {Jardine}, F.~{Lignieres}, F.~{Paletou}, J.~C. {Ramirez

424:   Velez}, and S.~{Theado}, \emph{ArXiv e-prints} \textbf{808} (2008).

425: 

426: \bibitem{Donati08}

427: J.~{Donati}, J.~{Morin}, P.~{Petit}, X.~{Delfosse}, T.~{Forveille},

428:   M.~{Auriere}, R.~{Cabanac}, B.~{Dintrans}, R.~{Fares}, T.~{Gastine},

429:   M.~{Jardine}, F.~{Lignieres}, F.~{Paletou}, J.~{Ramirez Velez}, and

430:   S.~{Theado}, \emph{ArXiv e-prints} \textbf{809} (2008).

431: 

432: \bibitem{Donati03}

433: J.-F. {Donati}, \enquote{{ESPaDOnS: An Echelle SpectroPolarimetric Device for

434:   the Observation of Stars at CFHT},} in \emph{Astronomical Society of the

435:   Pacific Conference Series}, edited by J.~{Trujillo-Bueno}, and J.~{Sanchez

436:   Almeida}, 2003, vol. 307 of \emph{Astronomical Society of the Pacific

437:   Conference Series}, p.~41.

438: 

439: \bibitem{Donati97}

440: J.-F. {Donati}, M.~{Semel}, B.~D. {Carter}, D.~E. {Rees}, and A.~C. {Cameron},

441:   \emph{\mnras} \textbf{291}, 658--682 (1997).

442: 

443: \bibitem{Donati97b}

444: J.-F. {Donati}, and S.~F. {Brown}, \emph{\aap} \textbf{326}, 1135--1142 (1997).

445: 

446: \bibitem{Skilling84}

447: J.~{Skilling}, and R.~K. {Bryan}, \emph{\mnras} \textbf{211}, 111 (1984).

448: 

449: \bibitem{Petit02}

450: P.~{Petit}, J.-F. {Donati}, and A.~{Cameron}, \emph{\mnras} \textbf{334},

451:   374--382 (2002).

452: 

453: \bibitem{Donati03b}

454: J.-F. {Donati}, A.~{Collier Cameron}, and P.~{Petit}, \emph{\mnras}

455:   \textbf{345}, 1187--1199 (2003).

456: 

457: \bibitem{Pizzolato03}

458: N.~{Pizzolato}, A.~{Maggio}, G.~{Micela}, S.~{Sciortino}, and P.~{Ventura},

459:   \emph{\aap} \textbf{397}, 147--157 (2003).

460: 

461: \bibitem{Siess00}

462: L.~{Siess}, E.~{Dufour}, and M.~{Forestini}, \emph{\aap} \textbf{358}, 593--599

463:   (2000).

464: 

465: \end{thebibliography}

466: 

467: \end{document}

468: