1: %%
2: %% This is file `template-6s.tex',
3: %% generated with the docstrip utility.
4: %%
5: %% The original source files were:
6: %%
7: %% template.raw (with options: `6s')
8: %%
9: %% Template for the LaTeX class aipproc.
10: %%
11: %% (C) 1998,2000,2001 American Institute of Physics and Frank Mittelbach
12: %% All rights reserved
13: %%
14: %%
15: %% $Id: template.raw,v 1.12 2005/07/06 19:22:14 frank Exp $
16: %%
17:
18: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
19: %% Please remove the next line of code if you
20: %% are satisfied that your installation is
21: %% complete and working.
22: %%
23: %% It is only there to help you in detecting
24: %% potential problems.
25: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
26:
27: %\input{aipcheck}
28:
29: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
30: %% SELECT THE LAYOUT
31: %%
32: %% The class supports further options.
33: %% See aipguide.pdf for details.
34: %%
35: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
36:
37: \documentclass[
38: ,final % use final for the camera ready runs
39: %% ,draft % use draft while you are working on the paper
40: %% ,numberedheadings % uncomment this option for numbered sections
41: %% , % add further options here if necessary
42: ]
43: {aipproc}
44:
45: \layoutstyle{6x9}
46:
47: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
48: %% FRONTMATTER
49: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
50:
51: \begin{document}
52:
53: \title{Stellar spindown: From the ONC to the Sun}
54:
55: \classification{97.10.Cv,97.10.Gz,97.10.Jb,97.10.Kc,97.10.Ld,97.20.Jg,97.20.Vs,97.21.+a}
56: \keywords {Stars: evolution, Stars: low-mass, brown dwarfs, Stars: magnetic fields,Stars: rotation}
57:
58: \author{Alexander Scholz}{
59: address={SUPA, School of Physics \& Astronomy, University of St. Andrews, North Haugh, St. Andrews,
60: Fife KY16 9SS, United Kingdom, email: as110@st-andrews.ac.uk}
61: }
62:
63: \begin{abstract}
64: Rotation is a key parameter in the evolution of stars. From 1 Myr (the age of the ONC) to 4.5 Gyr
65: (the age of the Sun), solar-like stars lose about 1-2 orders of specific angular momentum. The main
66: agents for this rotational braking are believed to be star-disk interaction and magnetically powered
67: stellar winds. Over the last decade, the observational fundament to probe the stellar spindown has
68: dramatically improved. Significant progress has been made in exploring the underlying physical
69: causes of the rotational braking. Parameterized models combining the effects of star-disk interaction,
70: winds, and pre-main sequence contraction are able to reproduce the main features of the rotational
71: data for stars spanning more than 3 orders of magnitude in age. This has allowed us to constrain
72: stellar ages based on the rotation rates ('gyrochronology'). One main challenge for future work
73: is to extend this type of analysis to the substellar mass range, where the rotational database is
74: still sparse. More theoretical and observational work is required to explore the physics of the braking
75: processes, aiming to explain rotational evolution from first principles. In this review for Cool Stars
76: 15, I will summarize the status quo and the recent developments in the field.
77: \end{abstract}
78:
79: \maketitle
80:
81: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
82: %% MAINMATTER
83: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
84:
85: \section{Introduction}
86:
87: Analysing the spindown of low-mass stars is one of the most notorious and difficult issues in astrophysics.
88: We are dealing with a multi-faceted problem: The spin of stars is a function to fundamental stellar properties
89: -- mass, radius, age. The rotation rate is also affected by the star formation process, including
90: the collapse of molecular cloud cores, the formation of binaries and planetary systems, and accretion
91: from circumstellar disks. Finally, the stellar magnetic field, its generation, structure and interaction
92: with the stellar atmosphere plays a dominant role for the regulation of the rotation from the T Tauri
93: phase to the age of the Sun. A comprehensive discussion of the spindown of stars thus requires input
94: from a broad range of fields. While I will mostly focus on rotation itself, I encourage the reader
95: to explore related chapters in this volume, for example the reviews by Edwards, Donati, K{\"u}ker,
96: Stelzer, Basri, as well as the splinter session summary by Reiners et al..
97:
98: In this review, I will trace the spin of stars from $\sim 1$\,Myr, the age of the Orion Nebula Cluster,
99: to 4.5\,Gyr, the age of the Sun. In this time frame, the angular momentum of stars is primarily
100: controlled by two mechanisms: 1) {\it Disk braking}, used here as a generic term for
101: mechanisms that remove angular momentum from the star via the interaction between star and disk,
102: including disk-locking and accretion-powered stellar winds. 2) {\it Wind braking}, i. e. angular
103: momentum losses due to magnetized stellar winds.
104:
105: While disk braking operates on relatively short timescales compatible with the disk lifetime
106: of 1-10\,Myr, wind braking is a long-term process and regulates the spindown on timescales
107: of hundreds of Myr. This allows us to discuss the two processes separately: In the first part
108: of this review, the focus will be on disk braking, i.e. the evolution in the pre-main sequence phase.
109: In the second part, wind braking will be discussed by investigating the
110: long-term evolution on the main-sequence. I will focus on objects with masses
111: ranging from about one solar mass down to the substellar regime.
112:
113: Reviewing the rotational evolution of stars and brown dwarfs is a timely exercise, for two reasons:
114:
115: 1) We have recently experienced an enormous growth in the number of objects with known
116: periods, covering a wide range of ages and masses. Rotation rates are traditionally measured using
117: two techniques, photometric monitoring providing rotation periods and high-resolution spectroscopy providing
118: projected rotational velocities $v\sin{i}$ from Doppler line broadening. Thanks to the availability
119: of wide-field imagers at 2-4\,m class telescopes as well as the exploitation of planetary
120: transit survey, the rotational database now comprises periods for about 3000 objects, and counting.
121: In addition, the availability of high-resolution multi-object spectrographs (e.g., FLAMES at the
122: VLT) has significantly enlarged the pool of $v\sin{i}$ data.
123:
124: 2) A number of new developments over the past five years have enabled studies that
125: provide important complementary insights. Examples are the availability of the Spitzer
126: telescope for mid-infrared studies of disk braking (see contribution by Baliber, this volume)
127: and the ongoing efforts to determine magnetic field structures from Zeeman Doppler Imaging
128: (see review by Donati, this volume). Combining the rotational data with these additional
129: information yields a new, comprehensive picture of the angular momentum evolution of stars.
130:
131: \begin{figure}
132: \includegraphics[height=.5\textheight,angle=-90]{f1a.ps}
133: \caption{Distribution of rotation periods for stars in NGC2264 (age $\sim 2$\,Myr, left panels)
134: and the ONC (age $\sim 1$\,Myr, right panels). The samples are split in two mass bins at roughly
135: $M\sim 0.25\,M_{\odot}$. High and low mass stars are shown in the upper and lower panels,
136: respectively. Figure from \citet{2005A&A...430.1005L}.
137: \label{f1}}
138: \end{figure}
139:
140: \section{Pre-main sequence evolution}
141: \label{pms}
142:
143: \subsection{Initial period distribution}
144:
145: The initial distribution of rotation rates of low-mass stars is now well-established, thanks
146: to extensive survey work in clusters at 1-2\,Myr, mainly the ONC and NGC2264. For a detailed
147: discussion of the available data in these two clusters see for example
148: \citet{1999AJ....117.2941S,2001ApJ...554L.197H,2002A&A...396..513H,2001AJ....121.1676R,2004AJ....127.2228M,2004A&A...417..557L,2005A&A...430.1005L}.
149: Fig. \ref{f1} shows the period distribution in the ONC and NGC2264, as published by
150: \citet{2005A&A...430.1005L}. Three features in these histograms should be highlighted: a) At
151: this early age, the objects show a broad range of periods, mostly between 1 and 10\,d with a
152: tail extending to $\sim 20$\,d. b) The median period drops with decreasing object mass in the
153: considered mass range. c) The distribution is bimodal for solar-mass stars, but unimodal for
154: very low mass stars (see the review by \citet{2007prpl.conf..297H}).
155:
156: As of today, the datasets in the ONC and NGC2264 do not include the lowest mass stars and brown
157: dwarfs (but see the contribution by Rodriguez-Ledesma in this volume for an update). In general,
158: the period database for substellar objects is sparsely populated. Nonetheless, the available
159: data allows us first important conclusions. In Fig. \ref{f2} we show periods for objects with
160: masses of 0.02 to 0.3$\,M_{\odot}$ in the $\sim 5$\,Myr old $\epsilon$\,Ori region.
161: As can be seen in this plot, the trend of declining median period towards lower masses, as seen
162: in the ONC, continues steadily in the substellar regime. As a result, the median period for
163: brown dwarfs is shorter than one day, and the fast rotators in this mass regime are at
164: periods of 3-5\,h (\citet{2001A&A...367..218B,2003A&A...408..663Z,2004A&A...419..249S,2005A&A...429.1007S}).
165: These rotation rates are comparable to the {\it breakup limit}, the value where centrifugal and
166: gravitational forces are in balance at the equator.
167:
168: \begin{figure}
169: \includegraphics[height=.5\textheight,angle=-90]{f2.ps}
170: \caption{Rotation periods for very low mass stars and brown dwarfs in the young population around
171: $\epsilon$\,Ori. Large symbols denote the median period, horizontal solid lines the quartiles per 0.1$\,M_{\odot}$
172: mass bin. The solid line in the upper right corner shows the period-mass relation in the ONC, as given by
173: \citet{2001ApJ...554L.197H}. The dashed line is the approximate breakup limit for an age of 5\,Myr.
174: Figure from \citet{2005A&A...429.1007S} \label{f2}}
175: \end{figure}
176:
177: \subsection{Disk braking at 1-5\,Myr}
178:
179: The first 5\,Myr in the spin evolution are characterized by strong rotational regulation. This has
180: been firmly established in a number of recent studies, based on the growing rotational database in
181: young open clusters and star forming regions (e.g.
182: \citet{2002ApJ...564..877T,2002AJ....124..546R,2004AJ....127.1029R,2005A&A...430.1005L,2005ApJ...633..967H},
183: see also the review in \citet{2007prpl.conf..297H}).
184: A good illustration of this finding is given in Fig. \ref{f3}: The average $v\sin{i}$ at 1-5\,Myr is
185: clearly inconsistent with angular momentum conservation;
186: instead it roughly follows the trend expected for angular velocity (hence period) conservation.
187: This can be understood as a consequence of a rotational braking mechanism affecting a fraction
188: of the objects that decreases with age. The maximum timescale for this type of regulation is
189: $\sim 5$\,Myr, consistent with the lifetime of accretion disks, a first indication that
190: the braking mechanism is related to the presence of a disk.
191:
192: In fact, this is the underlying assumption in the most commonly discussed scenarios for the strong
193: rotational regulation in the T Tauri phase (called 'disk braking' in the following). The theories
194: for this mechanism essentially fall in two groups: Either the angular momentum is extracted directly
195: from the star, or it is transferred from the star to the disk. 'Disk-locking' is probably the leading idea
196: here: According to the standard picture (\citet{1990RvMA....3..234C,1991ApJ...370L..39K}), star and disk are
197: coupled by the strong stellar magnetic field. As a result, the disk exhibits a torque onto the star, and thus
198: slows down its rotation. Angular momentum is moved from the star to the disk and then carried away in a disk
199: wind. One possible realization of a disk-locking scenario is the X-wind model
200: (e.g., \citet{1994ApJ...429..781S,2008arXiv0806.4769M}).
201:
202: Alternative models for disk braking are based on stellar winds. A solar-type wind as in main-sequence
203: objects, however, would not be sufficient for the strong braking seen in T Tauri stars. This leads to
204: the idea of stellar winds powered by accretion. \citet{2005ApJ...632L.135M} have demonstrated that accretion-driven
205: winds can in principle explain the observational picture, if the mass outflow rates are a substantial fraction
206: of the accretion rates ($\sim 10$\%).
207:
208: For observational studies of disk braking, it is important to point out that both types of models --
209: accretion-powered winds and disk-locking -- require the presence of a disk and a coupling between
210: star and disk. Thus, observations should primarily aim to establish whether a connection between
211: disk and rotation is present or not. \citet{1993AJ....106..372E} have presented first evidence for such a
212: connection, in the sense that objects with near-infrared colour-excess, indicative of an inner disk,
213: are primarily seen as slow rotators. While some studies have confirmed this early finding (e.g.,
214: \citet{2002A&A...396..513H}), others did not (e.g., \citet{2001AJ....121.1003S}).
215:
216: \begin{figure}
217: \includegraphics[height=.44\textheight]{f3.ps}
218: \caption{Average $\log{(v \sin{i})}$ vs. $\log{R}$ for young stars. The points with error bars
219: in both directions are the average $\log{(v \sin{i})}$ for all stars within the specified range
220: in $\log{R}$. The $\log{(v \sin{i})}$ values for many individual clusters are also plotted,
221: Approximate ages as a function of R are indicated. The solid line shows the best linear fit,
222: exluding the datapoint at 10\,Myr. The dashed lines are the relations expected for evolution
223: with constant angular velocity (slope of $1$), and constant angular momentum (slope of $-1$).
224: The observed slope is within 2$\sigma$ of the prediction for constant angular velocity, but
225: inconsistent with the value expected for conservation of angular momentum.
226: Figure from \citet{2004AJ....127.1029R} \label{f3}}
227: \end{figure}
228:
229: The mid-infrared observations from the Spitzer Spacecraft Telescope, launched 2003, have greatly improved our
230: understanding of circumstellar disks. For the first time, Spitzer provides unambiguous and reliable
231: disk indicators for the large numbers of objects in the ONC and NGC2264 with measured rotation periods.
232: Based on Spitzer data, \citet{2006ApJ...646..297R} indeed find strong evidence for disk braking:
233: The overwhelming majority of the objects with disks are slow rotators with periods $>1.8$\,d.
234: A similarly clear result has been obtained for NGC2264 by \citet{2007ApJ...671..605C}. It is probably
235: fair to say that most the researchers working in the field today believe that the presence of a disk
236: clearly plays a role for the rotational braking.
237:
238: On the other hand, negative results regarding disk braking have been obtained for IC348 (age 2-4\,Myr,
239: \citet{2006ApJ...649..862C}), Taurus, and Chamaeleon I ($\sim 2$\,Myr, Nguyen et al., in prep.).
240: We are still looking at partly controversial findings, possibly pointing at environmental differences.
241: A number of aspects can dilute a signature of disk braking, e.g., age spread, binarity, dispersion in
242: disk lifetimes, or insufficient sample size. If and how these factors can explain all the observational results
243: is currently under investigation (see the contribution by Baliber, this volume). In standard disk braking
244: scenarios it is not the mere presence of a disk, but the coupling between star and disk that provides the
245: angular momentum removal. Thus, a more detailed understanding requires to look at a variety of disk
246: braking diagnostics, including emission lines affected by accretion and winds (see review by Edwards,
247: this volume).
248:
249: Another open issue is the mass dependence of this mechanism, which can be probed by looking at the
250: very low mass objects in star forming region. Studies of disk braking in
251: brown dwarfs are rare, mainly due to a lack of overlap of period and Spitzer data.
252: The few existing constraints, however, indicate that disk braking is at work
253: in substellar objects as well (\citet{2004A&A...419..249S,2005MmSAI..76..303M}). However, the signature
254: of disk braking, as seen in Spitzer data, becomes weaker at very low masses (\citet{2006ApJ...646..297R}),
255: pointing to 'imperfect' disk braking (\citet{2005A&A...430.1005L}). This might be explained by a mass
256: dependency in the magnetic field topology and will be subject of future programs.
257:
258: \section{Main-sequence evolution}
259: \label{ms}
260:
261: \subsection{The pre-main sequence transition}
262:
263: The rotational picture in the age range 10-100\,Myr is difficult to interpret, because we
264: see superimposed the effects of disk braking, the strong pre-main sequence contraction, as well
265: as the beginning of wind braking. In a recent paper, however, we have shown that the median
266: $v\sin{i}$ for stars covering ages from 5 to 30\,Myr is inconsistent with the expected
267: evolution for angular velocity conservation, but roughly in agreement with angular momentum conservation
268: (\citet{2007ApJ...662.1254S}). This is in stark contrast to the behaviour at 1-5\,Myr,
269: as discussed above (see Fig. \ref{f3}), indicating a sharp change in the rotational braking
270: at 5-10\,Myr. This is readily explained by the disk dissipation, causing the breakdown of
271: disk braking, resulting in rapid spinup due to the contraction.
272:
273: Including rotational data at $\sim 100$\,Myr shows the onset of wind braking: The median rotation
274: rates are significantly lower than expected from pure angular momentum conservation (\citet{2007ApJ...662.1254S}).
275: Wind braking is thought to be the dominant mechanism of rotational braking on the main-sequence and
276: will be discussed in detail below. This sequence of events -- disk braking, rapid spinup due to
277: contraction, and onset of wind braking -- is probably applicable to very low mass stars
278: and brown dwarfs as well (\citet{2004A&A...421..259S}, Scholz \& Eisl{\"o}ffel, in prep.).
279:
280: \subsection{Wind braking: theory vs. observations}
281:
282: The rotational braking due to stellar winds is usually quantified in parameterized
283: angular momentum loss laws based on the description given by \citet{1988ApJ...333..236K},
284: derived from wind physics by \citet{1984LNP...193...49M}:
285: $\frac{dJ}{dt} \propto \omega ^{x} R^{0.5} M^{-0.5}$. We distinguish two
286: regimes:
287:
288: a) The linear regime includes all objects with $\omega < \omega_{\mathrm{crit}}$
289: and is calculated with $x=3$, reproducing the Skumanich law $J \propto t^{-0.5}$,
290: the empirically established angular momentum loss law for solar-type main-sequence
291: stars (\citet{1972ApJ...171..565S}).
292:
293: b) The saturated regime comprises all fast rotating
294: objects with $\omega > \omega_{\mathrm{crit}}$ and is characterized by $x=1$, resulting
295: in an exponential evolution of angular momentum. To fit the observational data,
296: $\omega_{\mathrm{crit}}$ is normally assumed to be a function of object mass. This
297: semi-empirical description is at the core of the most commonly used models for
298: the rotational evolution
299: (\citet{1997ApJ...480..303K,1997A&A...326.1023B,2000ApJ...534..335S,2003ApJ...586..464B,2008ApJ...684.1390R}).
300: For the two different regimes, I will use the nomenclature suggested by \citet{2003ApJ...586..464B}:
301: I-sequence for the linear regime and C-sequence for the saturated regime.
302:
303: \begin{figure}
304: \includegraphics[height=.33\textheight,angle=-90]{f9a.ps}
305: \includegraphics[height=.33\textheight,angle=-90]{f9b.ps}
306: \caption{Rotation periods from the Monitor project and other literature sources for
307: 0.9-1.1$\,M_{\odot}$ (left panel) and 0.2-0.35$\,M_{\odot}$ (right panel). The horizontal solid lines
308: show the typical range of the periods in each cluster (measured as 25\% and 90\% percentiles).
309: The evolutionary tracks shown in solid lines are for solid-body rotation, dashed line include
310: core-envelope decoupling.
311: The figures are updated versions of the ones shown in \citet{2008MNRAS.383.1588I}, including new
312: data in M35, M37, and Praesepe (\citet{2008arXiv0803.1488H,2008arXiv0805.1040M,2007MNRAS.381.1638S},
313: figure kindly provided by J. Irwin).\label{f9}}
314: \end{figure}
315:
316: In Fig. \ref{f9} a large sample of rotation periods, mostly from the {\it Monitor} program
317: (\citet{2006MNRAS.370..954I,2007MNRAS.377..741I,2008MNRAS.383.1588I,2008MNRAS.384..675I}), is
318: compared to models including disk braking at 1-5\,Myr and wind
319: braking following the approach given above. The models provide a reasonable fit to the
320: typical period evolution for solar-mass stars from a few Myr to 4.5\,Gyr. For very low masses,
321: the models reproduce the datapoints for ages $<500$\,Myr, but require a different scaling for
322: $\omega_{\mathrm{crit}}$ to match the periods in Praesepe. Most solar-mass stars
323: go through a phase on the C-sequence at ages $<100$\,Myr, before they switch to the I-sequence,
324: causing rapid spindown. In contrast, very low mass stars stay on the C-sequence for timescales
325: $>100$\,Myr and thus continue to be fast rotators. As is evident from Fig. \ref{f9},
326: there are clearly issues in reproducing the total range of periods at any given age, which
327: can partly be resolved by taking into account core-envelope decoupling, variable disk lifetimes,
328: and binarity.
329:
330: The availability of parameterized models for the rotational evolution allows us to
331: pursue 'gyrochronology' -- measuring ages of stars based on rotation rates -- a method recently
332: put forward by \citet{2007ApJ...669.1167B} and others. Gyrochronology relies on an accurate
333: calibration of the spindown rates, obtained from stars with known ages. While gyro ages for solar-mass
334: stars may already be more reliable than ages estimated from other indicators (e.g., activity, kinematic),
335: the calibration at very low masses requires further work.
336:
337: \subsection{The bimodal spindown}
338:
339: As discussed above, the common description of the main-sequence wind braking includes a
340: bimodal angular momentum loss law. This bimodality can be clearly seen
341: in observational data, particularly when rotation is plotted vs. object mass. In Fig. \ref{f7}
342: we show periods in clusters at an age of $\sim 700$\,Myr as a function of spectral type,
343: used as a proxy for mass (\citet{2007MNRAS.381.1638S}). At this age, the objects have essentially
344: 'forgotten' their pre-main sequence history, thus their rotation rates are primarily determined by
345: wind braking.
346:
347: The most obvious feature in the period-mass relation is a break at spectral types K8-M2,
348: corresponding to masses of $\sim 0.5\,M_{\odot}$. While late K stars are already spun down at
349: the age of 700\,Myr to periods $>10$\,d, M stars at the same age are still fast rotating with
350: periods $<4$\,d. The figure demonstrates that the decline of the periods continues
351: to late M spectral types. The transition from slowly rotating K dwarfs (I-sequence) to fast
352: rotating M dwarfs (C-sequence) separates the two regimes of rotational braking. This transition
353: is likely to be a function of mass, shifting to later spectral types as the objects become older.
354: In $v\sin{i}$ data of field dwarfs it is observed at spectral types of $\sim$M3-M4
355: (\citet{1998A&A...331..581D}, see Reiners et al., this volume).
356:
357: \begin{figure}
358: \includegraphics[height=.5\textheight,angle=-90]{f7.ps}
359: \caption{Rotation periods in clusters at ages $\sim 700$\,Myr as a function of spectral type. The
360: plot includes periods in the Hyades from \citet{1987ApJ...321..459R,1995PASP..107..211P}, shown as
361: triangles, and periods in Praesepe from \citet{2007MNRAS.381.1638S}, shown as crosses. The spectral
362: type is parameterized as follows: 10 -- G0, 20 -- K0, 30 -- M0. \label{f7}}
363: \end{figure}
364:
365: Interpreting the transition from I- to C-sequence and the underlying physics is one of the most
366: relevant outstanding issues in this field. As of today, we do not have a clear understanding for the
367: breakdown of the Skumanich law at very low masses. It is tempting to explain
368: the bimodal spindown as a consequence of the interior structure of stars: While solar-mass stars
369: on the main-sequence have a radiative core, pre-main sequence stars and very low mass objects are fully
370: convective. The presence of an interface layer between radiative core and convective envelope is
371: often argued to be of prime importance for the generation of the large-scale magnetic field of
372: the Sun (see also the contributions by Priest, K{\"u}ker, this volume). The absence of a radiative
373: core may cause a change in the magnetic field generation, the magnetic topology, and thus the
374: characteristics of the stellar wind.
375:
376: There is indeed evidence for a change in the magnetic properties that goes along with the breakdown
377: of the Skumanich braking at very low masses. For example, H$\alpha$ activity is strongly enhanced
378: at spectral types $>$M3 in field objects (\citet{1998A&A...331..581D}). Moreover, there are indications
379: that the structure of the large-scale magnetic field (\citet{2006Sci...311..633D}) as well as the properties
380: of magnetically induced spots (\citet{2005A&A...438..675S}) change in the very low mass regime. Thus,
381: the observed change in the spindown at very low masses may be one observational manifestation among
382: others for the presence of two regimes of magnetic properties.
383:
384: For further progress in this field, it is crucial to learn more about dynamo activity, magnetic
385: field emergence, stellar winds, and how they depend on stellar age and mass. In particular, the currently
386: used parameterized wind braking law as described above is suspect, as it has been designed and repeatedly
387: adapted to account for observational findings, for example to match the Skumanich law and to reproduce
388: fast rotating very low mass objects (e.g., \citet{2000ApJ...534..335S}). Studies on how to improve the
389: currently existing models are underway (e.g., \cite{2008ApJ...678.1109M}). The long-term perspective
390: should be to replace the parameterized spindown laws by physical models, and thus describe the
391: rotational evolution from first principles.
392:
393:
394: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
395: %% BACKMATTER
396: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
397:
398: \begin{theacknowledgments}
399: I thank the SOC and LOC of Cool Stars 15 for organising an exciting and
400: instructive conference. For helpful discussions regarding issues discussed
401: in this paper, I am grateful to Ansgar Reiners, Jerome Bouvier, Sean Matt,
402: Jonathan Irwin, Andrew Collier Cameron, Nairn Baliber, and Duy C. Nguyen. I would like to
403: thank Jochen Eisl{\"o}ffel for nearly a decade of fruitful collaboration on
404: stellar rotation.
405: \end{theacknowledgments}
406:
407: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
408: %% The bibliography can be prepared using the BibTeX program or
409: %% manually.
410: %%
411: %% The code below assumes that BibTeX is used. If the bibliography is
412: %% produced without BibTeX comment out the following lines and see the
413: %% aipguide.pdf for further information.
414: %%
415: %% For your convenience a manually coded example is appended
416: %% after the \end{document}
417: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
418:
419: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
420: %% You may have to change the BibTeX style below, depending on your
421: %% setup or preferences.
422: %%
423: %%
424: %% For The AIP proceedings layouts use either
425: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
426:
427: \bibliographystyle{aipproc} % if natbib is available
428: %\bibliographystyle{aipprocl} % if natbib is missing
429:
430: %\newcommand\aj{\ref@jnl{AJ}} %% Astronomical Journal
431: %\newcommand\apj{\ref@jnl{ApJ}} %% Astrophysical Journal
432:
433: \begin{thebibliography}{9}
434:
435: \bibitem[Bailer-Jones
436: \& Mundt(2001)]{2001A&A...367..218B} Bailer-Jones, C.~A.~L., \& Mundt, R.\ 2001, Astronomy \& Astrophysics,
437: 367, 218
438:
439: \bibitem[Barnes(2007)]{2007ApJ...669.1167B} Barnes, S.~A.\ 2007, Astrophysical Journal, 669,
440: 1167
441:
442: \bibitem[Barnes(2003)]{2003ApJ...586..464B} Barnes, S.~A.\ 2003, Astrophysical Journal, 586,
443: 464
444:
445: \bibitem[Bouvier et
446: al.(1997)]{1997A&A...326.1023B} Bouvier, J., Forestini, M., \& Allain, S.\ 1997, Astronomy \&
447: Astrophysics, 326, 1023
448:
449: \bibitem[Camenzind(1990)]{1990RvMA....3..234C} Camenzind, M.\ 1990, Reviews
450: in Modern Astronomy, 3, 234
451:
452: \bibitem[Cieza
453: \& Baliber(2007)]{2007ApJ...671..605C} Cieza, L., \& Baliber, N.\ 2007, Astrophysical
454: Journal, 671, 605
455:
456: \bibitem[Cieza
457: \& Baliber(2006)]{2006ApJ...649..862C} Cieza, L., \& Baliber, N.\ 2006, Astrophysical
458: Journal, 649, 862
459:
460: \bibitem[Delfosse et
461: al.(1998)]{1998A&A...331..581D} Delfosse, X., Forveille, T., Perrier, C., \& Mayor, M.\ 1998, Astronomy
462: \& Astrophysics, 331, 581
463:
464: \bibitem[Donati et al.(2006)]{2006Sci...311..633D} Donati, J.-F.,
465: Forveille, T., Cameron, A.~C., Barnes, J.~R., Delfosse, X., Jardine, M.~M.,
466: \& Valenti, J.~A.\ 2006, Science, 311, 633
467:
468: \bibitem[Edwards et al.(1993)]{1993AJ....106..372E} Edwards, S., et al.\
469: 1993, Astronomical Journal, 106, 372
470:
471: \bibitem[Hartman et al.(2008)]{2008arXiv0803.1488H} Hartman, J.~D., et al.\
472: 2008, Astrophysical Journal, submitted, arXiv:0803.1488
473:
474: \bibitem[Herbst et al.(2007)]{2007prpl.conf..297H} Herbst, W.,
475: Eisl{\"o}ffel, J., Mundt, R.,
476: \& Scholz, A.\ 2007, Protostars and Planets V, 297
477:
478: \bibitem[Herbst
479: \& Mundt(2005)]{2005ApJ...633..967H} Herbst, W., \& Mundt, R.\ 2005, Astrophysical Journal,
480: 633, 967
481:
482: \bibitem[Herbst et
483: al.(2002)]{2002A&A...396..513H} Herbst, W., Bailer-Jones, C.~A.~L., Mundt, R., Meisenheimer, K.,
484: \& Wackermann, R.\ 2002, Astronomy \& Astrophysics, 396, 513
485:
486: \bibitem[Herbst et al.(2001)]{2001ApJ...554L.197H} Herbst, W.,
487: Bailer-Jones, C.~A.~L., \& Mundt, R.\ 2001, Astrophysical Journal Letters, 554, L197
488:
489: \bibitem[Irwin et al.(2008)]{2008MNRAS.384..675I} Irwin, J., Hodgkin, S.,
490: Aigrain, S., Bouvier, J., Hebb, L., Irwin, M.,
491: \& Moraux, E.\ 2008, Monthly Notices of the Royal
492: Astronomical Society, 384, 675
493:
494: \bibitem[Irwin et al.(2008)]{2008MNRAS.383.1588I} Irwin, J., Hodgkin, S.,
495: Aigrain, S., Bouvier, J., Hebb, L., \& Moraux, E.\ 2008, Monthly Notices of the Royal
496: Astronomical Society, 383, 1588
497:
498: \bibitem[Irwin et al.(2007)]{2007MNRAS.377..741I} Irwin, J., Hodgkin, S.,
499: Aigrain, S., Hebb, L., Bouvier, J., Clarke, C., Moraux, E.,
500: \& Bramich, D.~M.\ 2007, Monthly Notices of the Royal
501: Astronomical Society, 377, 741
502:
503: \bibitem[Irwin et al.(2006)]{2006MNRAS.370..954I} Irwin, J., Aigrain, S.,
504: Hodgkin, S., Irwin, M., Bouvier, J., Clarke, C., Hebb, L.,
505: \& Moraux, E.\ 2006, Monthly Notices of the Royal
506: Astronomical Society, 370, 954
507:
508: \bibitem[Kawaler(1988)]{1988ApJ...333..236K} Kawaler, S.~D.\ 1988, Astrophysical Journal,
509: 333, 236
510:
511: \bibitem[Koenigl(1991)]{1991ApJ...370L..39K} Koenigl, A.\ 1991, Astrophysical Journal Letters, 370,
512: L39
513:
514: \bibitem[Krishnamurthi et al.(1997)]{1997ApJ...480..303K} Krishnamurthi,
515: A., Pinsonneault, M.~H., Barnes, S., \& Sofia, S.\ 1997, Astrophysical Journal, 480, 303
516:
517: \bibitem[Lamm et al.(2005)]{2005A&A...430.1005L} Lamm, M.~H., Mundt, R., Bailer-Jones, C.~A.~L.,
518: \& Herbst, W.\ 2005, Astronomy \& Astrophysics, 430, 1005
519:
520: \bibitem[Lamm et
521: al.(2004)]{2004A&A...417..557L} Lamm, M.~H., Bailer-Jones, C.~A.~L., Mundt, R., Herbst, W.,
522: \& Scholz, A.\ 2004, Astronomy \& Astrophysics, 417, 557
523:
524: \bibitem[Makidon et al.(2004)]{2004AJ....127.2228M} Makidon, R.~B., Rebull,
525: L.~M., Strom, S.~E., Adams, M.~T., \& Patten, B.~M.\ 2004, Astronomical Journal, 127, 2228
526:
527: \bibitem[Matt
528: \& Pudritz(2008)]{2008ApJ...678.1109M} Matt, S., \& Pudritz, R.~E.\ 2008, Astrophysical Journal, 678, 1109
529:
530: \bibitem[Matt
531: \& Pudritz(2008)]{2008ASPC..384..339M} Matt, S., \& Pudritz, R.\ 2008, 14th Cambridge Workshop on
532: Cool Stars, Stellar Systems, and the Sun, 384, 339
533:
534: \bibitem[Matt
535: \& Pudritz(2005)]{2005ApJ...632L.135M} Matt, S., \& Pudritz, R.~E.\ 2005, Astrophysical Journal Letters, 632,
536: L135
537:
538: \bibitem[Meibom et al.(2008)]{2008arXiv0805.1040M} Meibom, S., Mathieu,
539: R.~D., \& Stassun, K.~G.\ 2008, Astrophysical Journal, submitted, arXiv:0805.1040
540:
541: \bibitem[Mestel(1984)]{1984LNP...193...49M} Mestel, L.\ 1984, Cool Stars,
542: Stellar Systems, and the Sun, 193, 49
543:
544: \bibitem[Mohanty
545: \& Shu(2008)]{2008arXiv0806.4769M} Mohanty, S., \& Shu, F.~H.\ 2008, Astrophysical Journal, in press,
546: arXiv:0806.4769
547:
548: \bibitem[Mohanty et al.(2005)]{2005MmSAI..76..303M} Mohanty, S.,
549: Jayawardhana, R.,
550: \& Basri, G.\ 2005, Memorie della Societa Astronomica Italiana, 76, 303
551:
552: \bibitem[Prosser et al.(1995)]{1995PASP..107..211P} Prosser, C.~F., et al.\
553: 1995, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 107, 211
554:
555: \bibitem[Radick et al.(1987)]{1987ApJ...321..459R} Radick, R.~R., Thompson,
556: D.~T., Lockwood, G.~W., Duncan, D.~K.,
557: \& Baggett, W.~E.\ 1987, Astrophysical Journal, 321, 459
558:
559: \bibitem[{{Rebull} {et~al.}(2006){Rebull}, {Stauffer}, {Megeath}, {Hora}, \&
560: {Hartmann}}]{2006ApJ...646..297R}
561: {Rebull}, L.~M., {Stauffer}, J.~R., {Megeath}, S.~T., {Hora}, J.~L., \&
562: {Hartmann}, L. 2006, Astrophysical Journal, 646, 297
563:
564: \bibitem[{{Rebull} {et~al.}(2004){Rebull}, {Wolff}, \&
565: {Strom}}]{2004AJ....127.1029R}
566: {Rebull}, L.~M., {Wolff}, S.~C., \& {Strom}, S.~E. 2004, Astronomical Journal, 127, 1029
567:
568: \bibitem[Rebull et al.(2002)]{2002AJ....124..546R} Rebull, L.~M., Wolff,
569: S.~C., Strom, S.~E., \& Makidon, R.~B.\ 2002, Astronomical Journal, 124, 546
570:
571: \bibitem[Rebull(2001)]{2001AJ....121.1676R} Rebull, L.~M.\ 2001, Astronomical Journal, 121,
572: 1676
573:
574: \bibitem[Reiners
575: \& Basri(2008)]{2008ApJ...684.1390R} Reiners, A., \& Basri, G.\ 2008, Astrophysical Journal, 684, 1390
576:
577: \bibitem[Scholz
578: \& Eisl{\"o}ffel(2007)]{2007MNRAS.381.1638S} Scholz, A., \& Eisl{\"o}ffel, J.\ 2007, Monthly Notices
579: of the Royal Astronomical Society, 381, 1638
580:
581: \bibitem[Scholz et al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...662.1254S} Scholz, A., Coffey, J.,
582: Brandeker, A., \& Jayawardhana, R.\ 2007, Astrophysical Journal, 662, 1254
583:
584: \bibitem[Scholz et
585: al.(2005)]{2005A&A...438..675S} Scholz, A., Eisl{\"o}ffel, J., \& Froebrich, D.\ 2005, Astronomy \&
586: Astrophysics, 438, 675
587:
588: \bibitem[Scholz
589: \& Eisl{\"o}ffel(2005)]{2005A&A...429.1007S} Scholz, A., \& Eisl{\"o}ffel, J.\ 2005, Astronomy \&
590: Astrophysics, 429, 1007
591:
592: \bibitem[Scholz
593: \& Eisl{\"o}ffel(2004)]{2004A&A...421..259S} Scholz, A., \& Eisl{\"o}ffel, J.\ 2004, Astronomy \&
594: Astrophysics, 421, 259
595:
596: \bibitem[Scholz
597: \& Eisl{\"o}ffel(2004)]{2004A&A...419..249S} Scholz, A., \& Eisl{\"o}ffel, J.\ 2004, Astronomy \&
598: Astrophysics, 419, 249
599:
600: \bibitem[Shu et al.(1994)]{1994ApJ...429..781S} Shu, F., Najita, J.,
601: Ostriker, E., Wilkin, F., Ruden, S., \& Lizano, S.\ 1994, Astrophysical Journal, 429, 781
602:
603: \bibitem[Sills et al.(2000)]{2000ApJ...534..335S} Sills, A., Pinsonneault,
604: M.~H., \& Terndrup, D.~M.\ 2000, Astrophysical Journal, 534, 335
605:
606: \bibitem[Skumanich(1972)]{1972ApJ...171..565S} Skumanich, A.\ 1972, Astrophysical Journal,
607: 171, 565
608:
609: \bibitem[Stassun
610: \& Terndrup(2003)]{2003PASP..115..505S} Stassun, K.~G., \& Terndrup, D.\ 2003, Publications
611: of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 115, 505
612:
613: \bibitem[Stassun et al.(2001)]{2001AJ....121.1003S} Stassun, K.~G.,
614: Mathieu, R.~D., Vrba, F.~J., Mazeh, T., \& Henden, A.\ 2001, Astronomical Journal, 121, 1003
615:
616: \bibitem[Stassun et al.(1999)]{1999AJ....117.2941S} Stassun, K.~G.,
617: Mathieu, R.~D., Mazeh, T., \& Vrba, F.~J.\ 1999, Astronomical Journal, 117, 2941
618:
619: \bibitem[Tinker et al.(2002)]{2002ApJ...564..877T} Tinker, J.,
620: Pinsonneault, M., \& Terndrup, D.\ 2002, Astrophysical Journal, 564, 877
621:
622: \bibitem[Zapatero Osorio et
623: al.(2003)]{2003A&A...408..663Z} Zapatero Osorio, M.~R., Caballero, J.~A., B{\'e}jar, V.~J.~S.,
624: \& Rebolo, R.\ 2003, Astronomy \& Astrophysics, 408, 663
625:
626: \end{thebibliography}
627:
628:
629: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
630: %% You probably want to use your own bibtex database here
631: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
632: %\bibliography{aleksbib}
633:
634: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
635: %% Just a reminder that you may have to run bibtex
636: %% All of it up to \end{document} can be removed
637: %% if you don't like the warning.
638: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
639: \IfFileExists{\jobname.bbl}{}
640: {\typeout{}
641: \typeout{******************************************}
642: \typeout{** Please run "bibtex \jobname" to optain}
643: \typeout{** the bibliography and then re-run LaTeX}
644: \typeout{** twice to fix the references!}
645: \typeout{******************************************}
646: \typeout{}
647: }
648:
649: \end{document}
650:
651: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
652: %% The following lines show an example how to produce a bibliography
653: %% without the help of the BibTeX program. This could be used instead
654: %% of the above.
655: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
656:
657:
658:
659: \endinput
660: %%
661: %% End of file `template-6s.tex'.
662: