Cited by 325Astrophysics and Star Formation StudiesStellar, planetary, and galactic studiesGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena

MAPPING THE SHORES OF THE BROWN DWARF DESERT. II. MULTIPLE STAR FORMATION IN TAURUS-AURIGA

Open access
Kraus, Adam L., Ireland, Michael J., Martinache, Frantz, Hillenbrand, Lynne A.·2011·The Astrophysical Journal

Abstract

We have conducted a high-resolution imaging study of the Taurus–Auriga star-forming region in order to characterize the primordial outcome of multiple star formation and the extent of the brown dwarf desert. Our survey identified 16 new binary companions to primary stars with masses of 0.25–2.5 M ☉ , raising the total number of binary pairs (including components of high-order multiples) with separations of 3–5000 AU to 90. We find that ∼2/3–3/4 of all Taurus members are multiple systems of two or more stars, while the other ∼1/4–1/3 appear to have formed as single stars; the distribution of high-order multiplicity suggests that fragmentation into a wide binary has no impact on the subsequent probability that either component will fragment again. The separation distribution for solar-type stars (0.7–2.5 M ☉ ) is nearly log-flat over separations of 3–5000 AU, but lower-mass stars (0.25–0.7 M ☉ ) show a paucity of binary companions with separations of ≳200 AU. Across this full mass range, companion masses are well described with a linear-flat function; all system mass ratios ( q = M B / M A ) are equally probable, apparently including substellar companions. Our results are broadly consistent with the two expected modes of binary formation (free-fall fragmentation on large scales and disk fragmentation on small scales), but the distributions provide some clues as to the epochs at which the companions are likely to form.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1088/0004-637x/731/1/8

Cites

133 of 133 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. [64]64. Königl, A., & Pudritz, R. 2000, in Protostars and Planets IV, ed. V. Mannings, A. P. Boss, & S. S. Russell (Tucson, AZ: Univ. Arizona Press), 750
  2. [77]77. Lin, D., & Papaloizou, J. 1985, in Protostars and Planets II, ed. D. C. Black & M. S. Matthews (Tucson, AZ: Univ. Arizona Press), 981
  3. [123]123. Schmidt-Kaler, Th. 1982, Physical Parameters of the Stars, Landolt-Bornstein Numerical Data and Functional Relationships in Science and Technology, New Series, Group VI, Volume 2b (Berlin: Springer)
  4. [125]125. Shu, F., Najita, J., Shang, H., & Li, Z.-Y. 2000, in Protostars and Planets IV, ed. V. Mannings, A. P. Boss, & S. S. Russell (Tucson, AZ: Univ. Arizona Press), 789
  5. [142]142. Tuthill, P., et al. 2006, Proc. SPIE, 6272, 62723A

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kraus, A. L., Ireland, M. J., Martinache, F., & Hillenbrand, L. A.
Affiliations
  • University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa (US)
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
  • National Astronomical Observatory of Japan (JP)
  • California Institute of Technology (US)
Venue
The Astrophysical Journal
Published
2011-03-17
Volume
731
Issue
1
Pages
8
ISSN
  • 0004-637X (ISSN-L)
  • 1538-4357
OpenAlex
W1996452021
Cited by
325
References
133
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 37 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 28 · 2015: 28 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 33 · 2012: 25
FWCI
16.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Astrophysical Journal (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • CaltechAUTHORS (California Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • ANU Open Research (Australian National University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (NAS 5-26555)
  • National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NAS 526555, 526555)
  • California Institute of Technology
  • Space Telescope Science Institute (NAS5- 26555, 5-26555, 26555)
  • U.S. Naval Observatory (NAS 5-26555)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Astrophysics and Star Formation Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Stellar, planetary, and galactic studies
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Galaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Keywords
brown dwarf desert, multiple star formation, Taurus-Auriga star-forming region, binary companion, binary separation distribution, disk fragmentation, substellar companions

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review