Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T08:45:32.676Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Lithium Depletion Boundary Ages of Young Stars: Inconsistencies in Pre-Main Sequence Models

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2016

Inseok Song
Inseok Song*
Affiliation:
Department of Physics & Astronomy, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602 email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

For proper interpretations of various phenomena in young stars and planetary systems, knowledge of accurate stellar ages is very important. Among a handful of age dating methods commonly used for young (≲500 Myr) stars, lithium depletion boundary (LDB) ages have recently become the most cited and accepted age estimates. However, because of inconsistencies in theoretical evolutionary models, especially for lithium depletion calculations, one has to be cautious in using LDB ages. For a given luminosity, the lithium depletion process is too slow, causing LDB ages to appear older. Various stellar processes affect the surface lithium abundance, and these effects include star spots, accretion history, and magnetic fields. Until we have a self-consistent theoretical evolutionary model for young stars including all relevant stellar effects, caution should be taken when LDB ages are used.

Keywords

stars: fundamental parameters (ages)stars: pre–main-sequencestars: abundances
Type
Contributed Papers
Information
Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union , Volume 10 , Issue S314: Young Stars & Planets Near the Sun , November 2015 , pp. 95 - 98
Copyright
Copyright © International Astronomical Union 2016 

References

Baraffe, I., Chabrier, G., Allard, F., & Hauschildt, P. H. 2002, A&A, 382, 563Google Scholar
Baraffe, I. & Chabrier, G. 2010, A&A, 521, A44Google Scholar
Baraffe, I., Homeier, D., Allard, F., & Chabrier, G. 2015, A&A, 577, A42Google Scholar
Binks, A. S. & Jeffries, R. D. 2014, MNRAS, 438, L11Google Scholar
Burrows, A., Hubbard, W. B., Lunine, J. I., & Liebert, J. 2001, RvMP, 73, 719Google Scholar
Kraus, A. L., Shkolnik, E. L., Allers, K. N., & Liu, M. C. 2014, AJ, 147, 146Google Scholar
Malo, L., Doyon, R., Feiden, G. A., et al. 2014, ApJ, 792, 37Google Scholar
Mamajek, E. E. & Bell, C. P. M. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 2169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ortega, V. G., de la Reza, R., Jilinski, E., & Bazzanella, B. 2002, ApJ, 575, L75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pecaut, M. J. & Mamajek, E. E. 2013, ApJS, 208, 9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rhee, J. H., Song, I., Zuckerman, B., & McElwain, M. 2007, ApJ, 660, 1556Google Scholar
Siess, L., Dufour, E., & Forestini, M. 2000, A&A, 358, 593Google Scholar
Somers, G. & Pinsonneault, M. H. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 4131Google Scholar
Song, I., Zuckerman, B., & Bessell, M. S. 2003, ApJ, 599, 342Google Scholar
Song, I., Bessell, M. S., & Zuckerman, B. 2002, ApJ, 581, L43Google Scholar
Zuckerman, B. & Song, I. 2004, ARA&A, 42, 685Google Scholar