Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Magnetic disk winds in protoplanetary disks: Description of the model and impact on global disk evolution

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Magnetic disk winds, added to a gravitoviscous thin-disk model, make synthetic Class II protoplanetary disks smaller, less massive, and broadly consistent with ALMA survey demographics.

desk verdict Useful model-building paper with honest caveats, but the ALMA agreement is a postdiction of two free parameters, not an independent test. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.00161 v3 pith:3XTTSPPL submitted 2025-01-31 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR

Kundan Kadam , Eduard Vorobyov , Peter Woitke , Shantanu Basu , Sierk van Terwisga This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR
keywords protoplanetarydisksmagnetocentrifugaldiskwindsthin-diskMHDsimulationsgravitoviscousevolutionsyntheticALMAobservationsdustanddriftmagneticleverarm
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper proposes that protoplanetary disk evolution in the Class II stage is not driven by turbulent viscosity alone, but by a tug-of-war between gravitoviscous spreading and magnetic disk winds that remove mass and angular momentum vertically. It constructs a global wind prescription from local shearing-box MHD results, embeds it in a thin-disk formation-and-evolution code that already includes self-gravity, adaptive viscosity, and two-component dust, and then post-processes the output with a radiation thermo-chemical code to produce ALMA-like continuum and CO maps. The wind-inclusive models produce Class II disks that are smaller and less massive than their gravitoviscous counterparts, and after adjusting two wind calibration parameters the synthetic sizes, dust masses, and line fluxes fall largely within the ranges of ALMA surveys of nearby star-forming regions. The authors argue this makes magnetic winds a necessary ingredient for explaining observed disk demographics, not merely a refinement of viscous theory.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a pair of power-law fitting formulae (Eqs. 25 and 26) that give the wind mass-loss rate and Maxwell stress as functions of local surface density, sound speed, plasma $\beta$, stellar mass, radius, and total luminosity. The Maxwell stress term enters the azimuthal momentum equation as a sink and vertically removes angular momentum, while the mass-loss term removes gas and a proportional amount of small dust. Their radial and luminosity dependencies come from shearing-box fits, with three modifications: a rescaling of radius to arbitrary stellar mass, a box-height factor $C_H H_g/r$, and FUV-luminosity factors that boost winds during accretion outbursts. The critical calibration is $C_\beta = 1000$, applied because the ideal-MHD vertical field in the base code is over-strong; this is the assumption that sets the overall wind strength. Winds are active only inside the centrifugal radius and above a gas surface density threshold of $\Sigma_g = 0.1$ g cm$^{-2}$.

What would settle it

Measure the vertical magnetic field strength in Class II disks at radii from about 1 to 100 au using Zeeman or Faraday-rotation techniques; if the ratio of the simulation's ideal-MHD field to the measured field is not consistently near 1000, or if the required ratio varies with radius or time, the $C_\beta$ scaling and the wind torques derived from it fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated on the paper's own terms, is that a semi-analytic magnetic disk wind model, built from the fitting formulae of local shearing-box simulations, generalized to arbitrary stellar mass and FUV luminosity, and calibrated by a single factor $C_\beta = 1000$ multiplying the midplane plasma $\beta$, can be embedded self-consistently in the FEOSAD thin-disk MHD code and yields disks that compare favorably with ALMA Class II surveys. In these models the winds act as sinks of gas, small dust, and angular momentum inside the centrifugal disk, producing advective evolution in which disks tend to contract rather than spread. The result is that wind disks are smaller and less massive than gravitoviscous-only disks; at low turbulent viscosity the default winds over-shrink disks to a few au, while adjusting $C_\beta$ and $C_H$ recovers observed sizes. The paper claims that the synthetic observations from the adjusted model fall within the observed dust radius, gas radius, and dust mass distributions, and that the inferred global magnetic lever arm settles to $\lambda \approx 1$--$3$ during the Class II stage, in agreement with MHD simulations.

Load-bearing premise

The whole wind torque and mass-loss calibration rests on one number: the factor $C_\beta = 1000$ that converts the simulated ideal-MHD vertical field into the true midplane plasma $\beta$, assumed constant in space and time.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Gravitoviscous-only evolution yields Class II disks that are typically too large and too massive; matching survey demographics appears to require wind-driven angular momentum removal.
  • With winds, disks evolve advectively: their sizes tend to shrink over time, and the final radius is set by the balance between gravitoviscous spreading and wind contraction.
  • For low turbulent $\alpha$ ($10^{-4}$--$10^{-3}$), the default winds are so strong that disks collapse to a few au, so observational sizes constrain the wind calibration parameters $C_\beta$ and $C_H$.
  • The inferred global magnetic lever arm stays near 1--3 throughout the Class II stage, supporting simpler long-term wind models that assume a constant lever arm.
  • Wind models lose more mass and evolve on shorter timescales than gravitoviscous models, leaving less gas for giant planet formation by the Class II stage.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If $C_\beta$ is actually not constant in radius, the dust-trapping rings and the shrinking-continuum-radius trend predicted here would shift; mapping the wind stress profile observationally through disk size versus age could constrain that radial variation.
  • A testable signature separating wind from viscous evolution is that millimeter-dust radii shrink with age while CO gas radii continue to grow; targeted ALMA observations of clusters with known ages could look for this divergence.
  • The calibration implies an unstated self-regulation conjecture: real Class II disks must cluster near $\beta_0 \sim 10^4$; Zeeman or Faraday-rotation measurements across a disk sample would test it directly.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a phenomenological model of magnetic disk winds for global protoplanetary disk evolution in the thin-disk limit, based on the shearing-box fitting formulae of Bai (2013). The wind prescription is implemented as mass and angular momentum sink terms in the FEOSAD code, with corrections for stellar mass, FUV luminosity, shearing-box height, and a constant factor C_beta intended to compensate for the overestimated vertical field in the ideal-MHD calculation. Six models are evolved from collapsing cores through Class II, and synthetic Band 6 continuum and CO line observations are generated with ProDiMo. The authors find that wind-driven models produce smaller and less massive disks than purely gravitoviscous models and argue that, after adjustment of C_beta and C_H, the synthetic sizes, masses, fluxes, and spectral indices compare favorably with ALMA survey demographics.

Significance. If the calibration can be made robust, the paper would be a valuable step: it couples wind-driven angular momentum loss with self-gravity, MRI-dead-zone physics, and two-population dust evolution, and it provides a concrete pipeline from global hydrodynamic simulations to ALMA-observable quantities. The inferred steady lever arm lambda ~ 1-3 in Sect. 3.4 is a genuine independent consistency check, and the qualitative trends (smaller, lower-mass disks with winds; strong sensitivity of the outcome to the viscous alpha) are useful predictions. The main limitation is that the headline "favorable comparison" currently rests on two calibration parameters, C_beta and C_H, whose plausible ranges span the entire range of model behavior; the comparison is therefore a postdiction until robustness and independent constraints are demonstrated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.3 and Eqs. (25)-(26)] The central comparison with ALMA demographics is a postdiction rather than an independent test. C_beta and C_H are set in Section 2.2 by requiring the integrated wind mass-loss rate to be of the order of the accretion rate, a requirement motivated by observed outflow mass-flux estimates; the same broad set of observational properties is then used to claim that the synthetic disks 'compare favorably' with ALMA size and mass surveys. Because the wind mass loss and torque scale as power laws of C_beta*beta0 (with exponents -0.46 and -0.66 in Eqs. (25)-(26)), the normalization essentially determines the disk sizes and masses that are later compared with the data. The paper should either present the comparison explicitly as a calibration fit with the number of degrees of freedom stated, or validate the model against an observable not used in the calibration (for example, radial accretion-rate profiles, outflow kinematics, or a different star-forming region not included in Table B.1).
  2. [Table 4, Sect. 4, Eq. (17)] The result is extremely sensitive to C_beta, and the manuscript does not quantify this sensitivity. With C_beta=1000 and C_H=0.5, model WI-3 gives R_dust,1.3mm = 1.4 au and R_gas,12CO = 114 au, which the authors themselves call unreasonably small; with C_beta=5000 and C_H=1.0, model WI-3a gives R_dust,1.3mm = 51 au and R_gas,12CO = 268 au and is claimed to be favorable. A factor of five in an unmeasured parameter therefore moves the model from outside all observed ranges to inside them. Section 4 concedes that C_beta 'may not be constant in space and time' and that beta0 estimates 'vary by orders of magnitude'; those statements, combined with the steep power-law exponents, mean the model cannot yet be considered validated. Please add a robustness study varying C_beta (and C_H) over the observationally motivated range, and provide an independent physical argument for why a single constant factor suffices to correct the ideal-MHD B_z.
  3. [Section 3.3, Figs. 5 and 6] The 'favorable comparison' is selective: model WI-3a, the only low-alpha wind model that reproduces the observed sizes, still does not fit all observables. The synthetic 13CO and C18O line fluxes in the last two panels of Fig. 5 remain systematically above the observed distributions, and in Fig. 6 the WI-3a track lies beyond the R_g = 4 R_d line, as the text acknowledges ('the ratio of gas to dust radius is somewhat larger than Rg = 4Rd line'). The conclusion should be reworded to state which diagnostics are reproduced and which are not, and a quantitative goodness-of-fit metric (e.g., fraction of survey objects within the model tracks, or chi-square over the diagnostics) should be provided instead of the qualitative phrase 'compare favorably'.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.2] The sentence introducing the parameters says 'the only free parameters are C_H and C_beta,' but several additional choices are unconstrained and not listed as parameters: the FUV exponents in Eqs. (19)-(20), the 0.1 g cm^-2 surface density threshold for wind activation, the 1.2 factor in the centrifugal criterion, and the 5% per-cell mass-loss cap. Please list these in a parameter table and comment briefly on their influence.
  2. [Section 3.4, Eq. (31)] The equation for the lever arm uses Sigma_w,tr before the variable is defined; define Sigma_w,tr as the wind-driven radial mass transport rate in the text preceding Eq. (31).
  3. [Section 3.3] The phrase 'the last two panels of Fig. 5 show the 13CO and C18O line fluxes at 150 au' is ambiguous: the fluxes are computed for a disk at a distance of 150 pc, not at a radius of 150 au. Please clarify the wording.
  4. [Figure captions] In the Fig. 4 caption, the half-violin plots are described as 'gas (red) and dust (red) radii'; one of the two should presumably be a different color (e.g., blue) to match the panels, and the same inconsistency appears in the Fig. 5 caption.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Favorable ALMA comparison is a postdiction of the tuned wind parameters Cβ and CH; the qualitative shrinking of wind disks is independent, but the quantitative 'favorable' fit is adjusted to match the same survey data.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sect. 2.2 (Eqs. 17–18, 25–26) and Sect. 3.3 (WI-3a, Table 4)]
    "The only 'free' parameters are CH and Cβ ... We constrain these parameters with the help of observations in Sect. 3.3. ... With the adjust wind model WI-3a, the effects of wind are attenuated by increasing Cβ parameter by a factor of 5. This modulates the inward transport of gas and consequently the dust drift so that the continuum disk in synthetic observations are congruent with observations even at low αMRI = 10−3."

    The ALMA survey radii and masses used to claim a 'favorable' comparison are the same quantities against which the model is tuned: WI-3a changes CH and Cβ relative to the defaults and is described as making the synthetic continuum disk 'congruent with observations.' Since these two free parameters directly set the wind mass-loss and torque (Eqs. 25–26), and hence the disk size and mass, the agreement is a postdiction of the fit rather than an independent test. The prior constraints on Cβ (β0×Cβ ~ 10^4) and CH (Mdot_w ~ Mdot_acc) do not determine the ALMA sizes; the favorable comparison is achieved only after adjusting these parameters, as the paper itself states.

full rationale

The paper's qualitative conclusion that wind-driven disks are smaller and less massive is parameter-independent and supported by the advective nature of the model; the inferred lever arm λ≈1–2 is an output that matches external MHD and observational expectations, and the FEOSAD-ProDiMo pipeline is self-contained. However, the abstract's central quantitative claim of 'favorable comparison' with ALMA Class II surveys is not an independent prediction: model WI-3a is obtained by increasing CH and Cβ specifically to bring the synthetic dust radius into the observed range (Table 4 shows WI-3 with R_dust,1.3mm=1.4 au versus WI-3a with 51 au). The paper is transparent about this ('the aim of model WI-3a is not to fit this wind model perfectly to the observations. Rather we adjust this model to show trends...'), so the circularity is partial rather than total. Score 6 reflects that the favorable comparison reduces to a postdiction of the tuned parameters, while the qualitative wind effect and lever arm retain independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results depend on a small set of tuned constants (C_beta, C_H, FUV exponents) and auxiliary cutoffs. The most consequential is C_beta=1000, which rescales the plasma beta by three orders of magnitude; without it, the wind mass loss is two orders of magnitude above the accretion rate and the disk would be lost within 10^4 yr. Because these constants are partly calibrated so that the model resembles observations, the ALMA comparison is not an independent test of the wind theory.

free parameters (5)
  • C_beta = 1000
    Constant factor multiplying the midplane plasma beta to correct the ideal-MHD overestimate of B_z; chosen so that C_beta*beta0 ~ 1e4 over the disk. Affects both wind mass loss and torque.
  • C_H = 0.5 (default), 1.0 in WI-3a
    Correction for finite shearing-box height; calibrated so integrated wind mass loss is comparable to the stellar accretion rate.
  • FUV luminosity exponents = 0.8 (mass loss), 0.5 (stress), with prefactor 1/2
    Powers of total luminosity in Eqs. (19)-(20); hand-calibrated to keep wind velocity reasonable and to produce enhanced winds during outbursts.
  • Wind activation thresholds = Sigma_g > 0.1 g/cm2; r/req < 1.2
    Cutoffs that define where winds are active; they suppress winds in the outer, low-density disk and affect the resulting disk sizes.
  • Per-cell mass-loss cap = 5% per timestep
    Numerical cap to avoid sudden mass removal; it limits the effective wind strength in high mass-loss regions.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Local shearing-box fitting formulas for wind mass loss and stress can be stitched radially to describe global disk winds
    Sect. 2.2 builds the global model on Bai (2013) Eqs. (13)-(14), assuming they apply locally at each radius throughout the disk.
  • ad hoc to paper FEOSAD's ideal-MHD vertical field can be corrected with a single constant factor C_beta
    Eq. (17) introduces C_beta=1000; the paper notes it may vary in space and time and should be dropped when non-ideal MHD is solved.
  • domain assumption FUV penetration depth (and thus wind launching efficiency) scales as a power law of total stellar luminosity
    Eqs. (19)-(20) assume this scaling with exponents chosen by hand; the paper acknowledges this incorporates several implicit assumptions.
  • domain assumption Magnetic winds carry away only small dust, in proportion to the small-dust-to-gas ratio
    Eq. (23) removes small dust with the wind but assumes grown dust is not entrained.
  • domain assumption The thin-disk approximation and vertical hydrostatic equilibrium are valid for protoplanetary disks
    Used throughout FEOSAD; justified in Sect. 1 by H_g/r << 1.
  • domain assumption Winds are symmetric about the disk midplane
    Assumed in Sect. 2.2; used to compute mass and angular momentum losses in Eqs. (25)-(26).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Magnetic disk winds in protoplanetary disks: Description of the model and impact on global disk evolution." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3XTTSPPL

@misc{pith2026250200161,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Magnetic disk winds in protoplanetary disks: Description of the model and impact on global disk evolution},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3XTTSPPL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.00161}
}
read the original abstract

Canonically, a protoplanetary disk is thought to undergo (gravito-)viscous evolution, wherein the angular momentum of the accreting material is transported outwards. However, several lines of reasoning suggest that the turbulent viscosity in a typical protoplanetary disk is insufficient to drive the observed accretion rates. An emerging paradigm suggests that radially extended magnetic disk winds may play a crucial role in the disk evolution. We propose a global model of magnetic wind-driven accretion for evolution of protoplanetary disks, based on the insights gained from local shearing box simulations. Here we develop this model and constrain its parameters with the help of theoretical expectations and comparison with observations. The magnetic wind is characterized with the associated loss of angular momentum and mass, which depend on the local disk conditions and stellar properties. We incorporate the disk winds self-consistently in the code FEOSAD and study formation and long-term evolution of protoplanetary disks. We include disk self-gravity and an adaptive turbulent alpha, while the co-evolution of dust is also considered. Synthetic observations are obtained via radiation thermo-chemical code ProDiMo. The models with inclusion of disk winds satisfy general expectations from both theory and observations. The disk wind parameters can be guided by observational constraints and the synthetic observations resulting from such a model compare favorably with the selected ALMA survey data of Class II disks. The proposed magnetic disk wind model is a significant step forward in the direction of representing a more complete disk evolution, wherein the disk experiences concurrent torques from viscous, gravitational, and magnetic wind processes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.00161 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Evolution of the gas surface density for the protoplanetary disk models showing the global picture. The white contours show [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Disk structure of the WI-3a model after 0.2 Myr and one Myr. The upper plots show the gas and dust column densities, where the green dot marks the popular MMSN-value of 1700 g/cm2 at one au. The second row of plots shows the scale heights 𝐻𝑔 (𝑟) as passed from FEOSAD, and the values calculated from the gas temperatures calculated by ProDiMo, using either the midplane temperature only (red dashed) or the 𝑇gas(𝑧) stru… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Continuation of Fig. 2 showing the dust temperature structure (top) and the CO-concentration (second row) calculated by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Evolution of the disk size. Top panel: Theoretical centrifu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Evolution of the disk mass. Top panel: Theoretical mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of the synthetic observations obtained from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Evolution of the disk models in the mass-radius plane [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Evolution of the inferred value of the effective lever arm [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. The ALMA Survey of Gas Evolution of PROtoplanetary Disks (AGE-PRO): I. Program Overview and Summary of First Results

    astro-ph.EP 2025-06 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    First systematic ALMA survey of protoplanetary gas finds median gas disk mass declining from about 6 Jupiter masses in under 1 Myr disks to about 0.5 Jupiter masses by 2 to 6 Myr, with a non-monotonic gas-to-dust rati...

  2. JWST/MIRI Detection of Molecular H$_2$ Winds from an Edge-on Class II Source HV Tau C

    astro-ph.SR 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The edge-on Class II disk HV Tau C hosts a spatially extended, wide-angled molecular hydrogen wind with warm (~600 K) and hot (~2000 K) components and a mass-loss rate near 1e-8 solar masses per year.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

174 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    2020, MN- RAS, 499, 5578

    Akimkin, V., Vorobyov, E., Pavlyuchenkov, Y., & Stoyanovskaya, O. 2020, MN- RAS, 499, 5578

    2020

  2. [2]

    & Pudritz, R

    Alessi, M. & Pudritz, R. E. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 2548

    2022

  3. [3]

    2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed

    Alexander, R., Pascucci, I., Andrews, S., Armitage, P., & Cieza, L. 2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed. H. Beuther, R. S. Klessen, C. P. Dullemond, & T. Henning, 475–496

    2014

  4. [4]

    D., Clarke, C

    Alexander, R. D., Clarke, C. J., & Pringle, J. E. 2006, MNRAS, 369, 216

    2006

  5. [5]

    M., Huang, J., Pérez, L

    Andrews, S. M., Huang, J., Pérez, L. M., et al. 2018, ApJ, 869, L41

    2018

  6. [6]

    Andrews, S. M. & Williams, J. P. 2005, ApJ, 631, 1134

    2005

  7. [7]

    M., Wilner, D

    Andrews, S. M., Wilner, D. J., Hughes, A. M., Qi, C., & Dullemond, C. P. 2009, ApJ, 700, 1502

    2009

  8. [8]

    M., Wilner, D

    Andrews, S. M., Wilner, D. J., Hughes, A. M., Qi, C., & Dullemond, C. P. 2010, ApJ, 723, 1241

    2010

Show all 174 references
  1. [9]

    P., Trapman, L., et al

    Ansdell, M., Williams, J. P., Trapman, L., et al. 2018, ApJ, 859, 21

    2018

  2. [10]

    P., van der Marel, N., et al

    Ansdell, M., Williams, J. P., van der Marel, N., et al. 2016, ApJ, 828, 46

    2016

  3. [11]

    M., Woitke, P., Cazaux, S

    Arabhavi, A. M., Woitke, P., Cazaux, S. M., et al. 2022, A&A, 666, A139

    2022

  4. [12]

    2011, A&A, 526, A163 Armitage,P.J.&Kley,W.2019,FromProtoplanetaryDiskstoPlanetFormation

    Aresu, G., Kamp, I., Meijerink, R., et al. 2011, A&A, 526, A163 Armitage,P.J.&Kley,W.2019,FromProtoplanetaryDiskstoPlanetFormation

    2011

  5. [13]

    M., et al

    Audard, M., Ábrahám, P., Dunham, M. M., et al. 2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed. H. Beuther, R. S. Klessen, C. P. Dullemond, & T. Henning, 387–410

    2014

  6. [14]

    Bae, J., Hartmann, L., Zhu, Z., & Nelson, R. P. 2014, ApJ, 795, 61

    2014

  7. [15]

    & Stone, J

    Bai, X.-N. & Stone, J. M. 2013, ApJ, 769, 76

    2013

  8. [16]

    2016, ApJ, 818, 152

    Bai, X.-N., Ye, J., Goodman, J., & Yuan, F. 2016, ApJ, 818, 152

    2016

  9. [17]

    Balbus, S. A. & Hawley, J. F. 1991, ApJ, 376, 214

    1991

  10. [18]

    Balbus, S. A. & Terquem, C. 2001, ApJ, 552, 235

    2001

  11. [19]

    G., Thi, W

    Balduin, T., Woitke, P., Jørgensen, U. G., Thi, W. F., & Narita, Y. 2023, A&A, 678, A192

    2023

  12. [20]

    2016, ARA&A, 54, 491

    Bally, J. 2016, ARA&A, 54, 491

    2016

  13. [21]

    & Mouschovias, T

    Basu, S. & Mouschovias, T. C. 1994, ApJ, 432, 720

    1994

  14. [22]

    Beckwith, S. V. W., Sargent, A. I., Chini, R. S., & Guesten, R. 1990, AJ, 99, 924

    1990

  15. [23]

    Bergin, E., Calvet, N., D’Alessio, P., & Herczeg, G. J. 2003, ApJ, 591, L159 Bergin,E.A.,Aikawa,Y.,Blake,G.A.,&vanDishoeck,E.F.2007,inProtostars and Planets V, ed. B. Reipurth, D. Jewitt, & K. Keil, 751

    2003

  16. [24]

    Bethell, T. J. & Bergin, E. A. 2011, ApJ, 739, 78 Béthune, W., Lesur, G., & Ferreira, J. 2017, A&A, 600, A75

    2011

  17. [25]

    & Tremaine, S

    Binney, J. & Tremaine, S. 2008, Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition (Princeton University Press, USA)

    2008

  18. [26]

    2016, Space Sci

    Birnstiel, T., Fang, M., & Johansen, A. 2016, Space Sci. Rev., 205, 41

    2016

  19. [27]

    2012, A&A, 539, A148

    Birnstiel, T., Klahr, H., & Ercolano, B. 2012, A&A, 539, A148

    2012

  20. [28]

    2010, A&A, 516, L14

    Birnstiel, T., Ricci, L., Trotta, F., et al. 2010, A&A, 516, L14

    2010

  21. [29]

    & Wurm, G

    Blum, J. & Wurm, G. 2008, ARA&A, 46, 21

    2008

  22. [30]

    Booth, R. A. & Clarke, C. J. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 1569

    2021

  23. [31]

    S., Weiss, B

    Borlina, C. S., Weiss, B. P., Bryson, J. F. J., et al. 2021, Science Advances, 7, eabj6928

    2021

  24. [32]

    D., Alarcón, F., Bergin, E

    Bosman, A. D., Alarcón, F., Bergin, E. A., et al. 2021, ApJS, 257, 7

    2021

  25. [33]

    Boss, A. P. 1997, Science, 276, 1836

    1997

  26. [34]

    J., Myers, P

    Caselli, P., Benson, P. J., Myers, P. C., & Tafalla, M. 2002, ApJ, 572, 238

    2002

  27. [35]

    Ciolek, G. E. & Mouschovias, T. C. 1993, ApJ, 418, 774

    1993

  28. [36]

    I., Öberg, K

    Cleeves, L. I., Öberg, K. I., Wilner, D. J., et al. 2016, ApJ, 832, 110

    2016

  29. [37]

    1928, Mathematische Annalen, 100, 32

    Courant, R., Friedrichs, K., & Lewy, H. 1928, Mathematische Annalen, 100, 32

    1928

  30. [38]

    Crutcher, R. M. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 29 Cruz-Sáenz de Miera, F., Kóspál, Á., Ábrahám, P., et al. 2023, ApJ, 945, 80

    2012

  31. [39]

    & Bai, X.-N

    Cui, C. & Bai, X.-N. 2020, ApJ, 891, 30

    2020

  32. [40]

    B., Basu, S., & Kunz, M

    Dapp, W. B., Basu, S., & Kunz, M. W. 2012, A&A, 541, A35

    2012

  33. [41]

    2003, A&A, 399, 773

    Dartois, E., Dutrey, A., & Guilloteau, S. 2003, A&A, 399, 773

    2003

  34. [42]

    & Basu, S

    Das, I. & Basu, S. 2021, ApJ, 910, 163 de Valon, A., Dougados, C., Cabrit, S., et al. 2020, A&A, 634, L12 de Valon, A., Dougados, C., Cabrit, S., et al. 2022, A&A, 668, A78

    2021

  35. [43]

    Desch, S. J. & Turner, N. J. 2015, ApJ, 811, 156

    2015

  36. [44]

    2015, in European Physical Journal Web of Conferences, Vol

    Dominik, C. 2015, in European Physical Journal Web of Conferences, Vol. 102, European Physical Journal Web of Conferences, 00002

    2015

  37. [45]

    Dong, R., Vorobyov, E., Pavlyuchenkov, Y., Chiang, E., & Liu, H. B. 2016, ApJ, 823, 141

    2016

  38. [46]

    Draine, B. T. 2006, ApJ, 636, 1114

    2006

  39. [47]

    Draine, B. T. 2011, Physics of the Interstellar and Intergalactic Medium

    2011

  40. [48]

    Dudorov, A. E. & Khaibrakhmanov, S. A. 2014, Ap&SS, 352, 103

    2014

  41. [49]

    Dudorov, A. E. & Sazonov, Y. V. 1987, Nauchnye Informatsii, 63, 68

    1987

  42. [50]

    P., Birnstiel, T., Huang, J., et al

    Dullemond, C. P., Birnstiel, T., Huang, J., et al. 2018, ApJ, 869, L46

    2018

  43. [51]

    Dullemond, C. P. & Monnier, J. D. 2010, ARA&A, 48, 205

    2010

  44. [52]

    Dunham, M. M. & Vorobyov, E. I. 2012, ApJ, 747, 52

    2012

  45. [53]

    M., Vorobyov, E

    Dunham, M. M., Vorobyov, E. I., & Arce, H. G. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 887

    2014

  46. [54]

    J., Klahr, H., & Henning, T

    Dzyurkevich, N., Flock, M., Turner, N. J., Klahr, H., & Henning, T. 2010, A&A, 515, A70

    2010

  47. [55]

    2022, MNRAS, 515, 3113

    Elbakyan, V., Wu, Y., Nayakshin, S., & Rosotti, G. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 3113

    2022

  48. [56]

    E., Podio, L., Dougados, C., et al

    Ellerbroek, L. E., Podio, L., Dougados, C., et al. 2014, A&A, 563, A87

    2014

  49. [57]

    & Pascucci, I

    Ercolano, B. & Pascucci, I. 2017, Royal Society Open Science, 4, 170114

    2017

  50. [58]

    2023, ApJ, 945, 112

    Fang, M., Pascucci, I., Edwards, S., et al. 2023, ApJ, 945, 112

    2023

  51. [59]

    J., Hillenbrand, L

    Fischer, W. J., Hillenbrand, L. A., Herczeg, G. J., et al. 2023, in Astronomical SocietyofthePacificConferenceSeries,Vol.534,ProtostarsandPlanetsVII, ed. S. Inutsuka, Y. Aikawa, T. Muto, K. Tomida, & M. Tamura, 355

    2023

  52. [60]

    J., Safron, E., & Megeath, S

    Fischer, W. J., Safron, E., & Megeath, S. T. 2019, ApJ, 872, 183

    2019

  53. [61]

    M., Simon, J

    Flaherty, K., Hughes, A. M., Simon, J. B., et al. 2020, ApJ, 895, 109

    2020

  54. [62]

    M., Hughes, A

    Flaherty, K. M., Hughes, A. M., Rose, S. C., et al. 2017, ApJ, 843, 150

    2017

  55. [63]

    M., Hughes, A

    Flaherty, K. M., Hughes, A. M., Rosenfeld, K. A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 813, 99

    2015

  56. [64]

    & Stone, J

    Fleming, T. & Stone, J. M. 2003, ApJ, 585, 908

    2003

  57. [65]

    P., Dzyurkevich, N., et al

    Flock, M., Ruge, J. P., Dzyurkevich, N., et al. 2015, A&A, 574, A68

    2015

  58. [66]

    2023, A&A, 671, A125 Frank,J.,King,A.,&Raine,D.J.2002,AccretionPowerinAstrophysics:Third Edition

    Franceschi, R., Birnstiel, T., Henning, T., & Sharma, A. 2023, A&A, 671, A125 Frank,J.,King,A.,&Raine,D.J.2002,AccretionPowerinAstrophysics:Third Edition

    2023

  59. [67]

    Fromang, S., Latter, H., Lesur, G., & Ogilvie, G. I. 2013, A&A, 552, A71

    2013

  60. [68]

    R., Weiss, B

    Fu, R. R., Weiss, B. P., Lima, E. A., et al. 2014, Science, 346, 1089

    2014

  61. [69]

    Gammie, C. F. 1996, ApJ, 457, 355

    1996

  62. [70]

    & Hollenbach, D

    Gorti, U. & Hollenbach, D. 2009, ApJ, 690, 1539

    2009

  63. [71]

    Greaves, J. S. & Rice, W. K. M. 2010, MNRAS, 407, 1981

    2010

  64. [72]

    P., Brinch, C., et al

    Gressel, O., Ramsey, J. P., Brinch, C., et al. 2020, ApJ, 896, 126 Güdel, M., Eibensteiner, C., Dionatos, O., et al. 2018, A&A, 620, L1

    2020

  65. [73]

    A., & Raymond, J

    Hartigan, P., Morse, J. A., & Raymond, J. 1994, ApJ, 436, 125

    1994

  66. [74]

    1998, ApJ, 495, 385

    Hartmann, L., Calvet, N., Gullbring, E., & D’Alessio, P. 1998, ApJ, 495, 385

    1998

  67. [75]

    2016, ARA&A, 54, 135

    Hartmann, L., Herczeg, G., & Calvet, N. 2016, ARA&A, 54, 135

    2016

  68. [76]

    & Kenyon, S

    Hartmann, L. & Kenyon, S. J. 1996, ARA&A, 34, 207

    1996

  69. [77]

    Haworth, T. J. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 4172

    2021

  70. [78]

    2020, ApJ, 895, 126

    Hendler, N., Pascucci, I., Pinilla, P., et al. 2020, ApJ, 895, 126

    2020

  71. [79]

    Hildebrand, R. H. 1983, QJRAS, 24, 267

    1983

  72. [80]

    1994, ApJ, 428, 654

    Hollenbach, D., Johnstone, D., Lizano, S., & Shu, F. 1994, ApJ, 428, 654

    1994

  73. [81]

    G., Maureira, M

    Hsieh, C.-H., Arce, H. G., Maureira, M. J., et al. 2024, ApJ, 973, 138

    2024

  74. [82]

    M., Wilner, D

    Hughes, A. M., Wilner, D. J., Andrews, S. M., Qi, C., & Hogerheijde, M. R. 2011, ApJ, 727, 85

    2011

  75. [83]

    & Glassgold, A

    Igea, J. & Glassgold, A. E. 1999, ApJ, 518, 848

    1999

  76. [84]

    2022, MNRAS, 516, 4448

    Kadam, K., Vorobyov, E., & Basu, S. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 4448

    2022

  77. [85]

    2021, ApJ, 909, 31 Kadam,K.,Vorobyov,E.,Regály,Z.,Kóspál,Á.,&Ábrahám,P.2019,ApJ,882, 96 Kadam,K.,Vorobyov,E.,Regály,Z.,Kóspál,Á.,&Ábrahám,P.2020,ApJ,895, 41

    Kadam, K., Vorobyov, E., & Kóspál, Á. 2021, ApJ, 909, 31 Kadam,K.,Vorobyov,E.,Regály,Z.,Kóspál,Á.,&Ábrahám,P.2019,ApJ,882, 96 Kadam,K.,Vorobyov,E.,Regály,Z.,Kóspál,Á.,&Ábrahám,P.2020,ApJ,895, 41

    2021

  78. [86]

    F., Woitke, P., et al

    Kamp, I., Thi, W. F., Woitke, P., et al. 2017, A&A, 607, A41

    2017

  79. [87]

    Kennicutt, R. C. & Evans, N. J. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 531

    2012

  80. [88]

    N., Dullemond, C

    Kimmig, C. N., Dullemond, C. P., & Kley, W. 2020, A&A, 633, A4

    2020

  81. [89]

    & Pudritz, R

    Konigl, A. & Pudritz, R. E. 2000, in Protostars and Planets IV, ed. V. Mannings, A. P. Boss, & S. S. Russell, 759

    2000

  82. [90]

    & Lodato, G

    Kratter, K. & Lodato, G. 2016, ARA&A, 54, 271

    2016

  83. [91]

    K., & Inutsuka, S.-i

    Kunitomo, M., Suzuki, T. K., & Inutsuka, S.-i. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 3849

    2020

  84. [92]

    Kunz, M. W. & Balbus, S. A. 2004, MNRAS, 348, 355

    2004

  85. [93]

    Larson, R. B. 1969, MNRAS, 145, 271

    1969

  86. [94]

    J., Loomis, R

    Law, C. J., Loomis, R. A., Teague, R., et al. 2021, ApJS, 257, 3

    2021

  87. [95]

    2021, ApJ, 907, L41

    Lee, C.-F., Tabone, B., Cabrit, S., et al. 2021, ApJ, 907, L41

    2021

  88. [96]

    2023, 534, 465

    Lesur, G., Flock, M., Ercolano, B., et al. 2023, 534, 465

    2023

  89. [97]

    2012, ApJ, 745, 47

    Li, J., Wang, J., Gu, Q., Zhang, Z.-y., & Zheng, X. 2012, ApJ, 745, 47

    2012

  90. [98]

    Y., Banerjee, R., Pudritz, R

    Li, Z. Y., Banerjee, R., Pudritz, R. E., et al. 2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed. H. Beuther, R. S. Klessen, C. P. Dullemond, & T. Henning, 173–194

    2014

  91. [99]

    2021, ApJ, 919, 79

    Liu, J., Zhang, Q., Commerçon, B., et al. 2021, ApJ, 919, 79

    2021

  92. [100]

    J., Pascucci, I., et al

    Long, F., Herczeg, G. J., Pascucci, I., et al. 2017, ApJ, 844, 99

    2017

  93. [101]

    2018, A&A, 618, A120

    Louvet, F., Dougados, C., Cabrit, S., et al. 2018, A&A, 618, A120

    2018

  94. [102]

    2016, A&A, 587, A32

    Masson, J., Chabrier, G., Hennebelle, P., Vaytet, N., & Commerçon, B. 2016, A&A, 587, A32

    2016

  95. [103]

    2024, A&A, 686, A253

    Mauxion, J., Lesur, G., & Maret, S. 2024, A&A, 686, A253

    2024

  96. [104]

    McCaughrean, M. J. & O’Dell, C. R. 1996, AJ, 111, 1977

    1996

  97. [105]

    J., et al

    McElroy, D., Walsh, C., Markwick, A. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 550, A36

    2013

  98. [106]

    McGinnis, P., Dougados, C., Alencar, S. H. P., Bouvier, J., & Cabrit, S. 2018, A&A, 620, A87

    2018

  99. [107]

    C., & Kataoka, A

    Miotello, A., Kamp, I., Birnstiel, T., Cleeves, L. C., & Kataoka, A. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 534, Protostars andPlanetsVII,ed.S.Inutsuka,Y.Aikawa,T.Muto,K.Tomida,&M.Tamura, 501 Article number, page 22 of 24 Kadam K. et. al: Winds in...

    2023

  100. [108]

    F., Williams, J

    Miotello, A., van Dishoeck, E. F., Williams, J. P., et al. 2017, A&A, 599, A113

    2017

  101. [109]

    K., & Inutsuka, S.-i

    Miyake, T., Suzuki, T. K., & Inutsuka, S.-i. 2016, ApJ, 821, 3

    2016

  102. [110]

    2018, ApJ, 866, 46

    Molyarova, T., Akimkin, V., Semenov, D., et al. 2018, ApJ, 866, 46

    2018

  103. [111]

    I., Akimkin, V., et al

    Molyarova, T., Vorobyov, E. I., Akimkin, V., et al. 2021, ApJ, 910, 153

    2021

  104. [112]

    Mouschovias, T. C. & Spitzer, L., J. 1976, ApJ, 210, 326

    1976

  105. [113]

    A., Dominik, C., Waters, L

    Muro-Arena, G. A., Dominik, C., Waters, L. B. F. M., et al. 2018, A&A, 614, A24

    2018

  106. [114]

    1984, Fund

    Nakano, T. 1984, Fund. Cosmic Phys., 9, 139

    1984

  107. [115]

    & Nakamura, T

    Nakano, T. & Nakamura, T. 1978, PASJ, 30, 671

    1978

  108. [116]

    M., et al

    Natta, A., Testi, L., Alcalá, J. M., et al. 2014, A&A, 569, A5

    2014

  109. [117]

    M., et al

    Nisini, B., Antoniucci, S., Alcalá, J. M., et al. 2018, A&A, 609, A87

    2018

  110. [118]

    Oberg, N., Kamp, I., Cazaux, S., Woitke, P., & Thi, W. F. 2022, A&A, 667, A95

    2022

  111. [119]

    Offner, S. S. R. & McKee, C. F. 2011, ApJ, 736, 53

    2011

  112. [120]

    & Hirose, S

    Okuzumi, S. & Hirose, S. 2011, ApJ, 742, 65 Paardekooper,S.,Dong,R.,Duffell,P.,etal.2023,inAstronomicalSocietyofthe PacificConferenceSeries,Vol.534,AstronomicalSocietyofthePacificCon- ferenceSeries,ed.S.Inutsuka,Y.Aikawa,T.Muto,K.Tomida,&M.Tamura, 685

    2011

  113. [121]

    2012, A&A, 538, A2

    Panoglou, D., Cabrit, S., Pineau Des Forêts, G., et al. 2012, A&A, 538, A2

    2012

  114. [122]

    L., Cabrit, S., et al

    Pascucci, I., Beck, T. L., Cabrit, S., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 81

    2025

  115. [123]

    2023, in Astronomical Society of the PacificConferenceSeries,Vol.534,ProtostarsandPlanetsVII,ed.S.Inutsuka, Y

    Pascucci, I., Cabrit, S., Edwards, S., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the PacificConferenceSeries,Vol.534,ProtostarsandPlanetsVII,ed.S.Inutsuka, Y. Aikawa, T. Muto, K. Tomida, & M. Tamura, 567

    2023

  116. [124]

    & Chiang, E

    Perez-Becker, D. & Chiang, E. 2011, ApJ, 735, 8

    2011

  117. [125]

    2012, A&A, 538, A114

    Pinilla, P., Birnstiel, T., Ricci, L., et al. 2012, A&A, 538, A114

    2012

  118. [126]

    Pinte, C., Dent, W. R. F., Ménard, F., et al. 2016, ApJ, 816, 25

    2016

  119. [127]

    B., Hubickyj, O., Bodenheimer, P., et al

    Pollack, J. B., Hubickyj, O., Bodenheimer, P., et al. 1996, Icarus, 124, 62

    1996

  120. [128]

    Pringle, J. E. 1981, ARA&A, 19, 137

    1981

  121. [129]

    Pudritz, R. E. & Ray, T. P. 2019, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 6, 54

    2019

  122. [130]

    2022, A&A, 668, A154 Rab,C.,Weber,M.L.,Picogna,G.,Ercolano,B.,&Owen,J.E.2023,ApJ,955, L11 Regály, Z., Kadam, K., & Tarczay-Nehéz, D

    Rab, C., Weber, M., Grassi, T., et al. 2022, A&A, 668, A154 Rab,C.,Weber,M.L.,Picogna,G.,Ercolano,B.,&Owen,J.E.2023,ApJ,955, L11 Regály, Z., Kadam, K., & Tarczay-Nehéz, D. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 396

    2022

  123. [131]

    1989, Nature, 340, 42

    Reipurth, B. 1989, Nature, 340, 42

    1989

  124. [132]

    & Lesur, G

    Riols, A. & Lesur, G. 2018, A&A, 617, A117

    2018

  125. [133]

    D., & Helled, R

    Schib, O., Mordasini, C., Wenger, N., Marleau, G. D., & Helled, R. 2021, A&A, 645, A43

    2021

  126. [134]

    D., Booth, R

    Sellek, A. D., Booth, R. A., & Clarke, C. J. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 1279

    2020

  127. [135]

    2003, A&A, 410, 611

    Semenov, D., Henning, T., Helling, C., Ilgner, M., & Sedlmayr, E. 2003, A&A, 410, 611

    2003

  128. [136]

    Shakura, N. I. & Sunyaev, R. A. 1973, A&A, 500, 33

    1973

  129. [137]

    H., Adams, F

    Shu, F. H., Adams, F. C., & Lizano, S. 1987, ARA&A, 25, 23 Simon,J.B.,Bai,X.-N.,Armitage,P.J.,Stone,J.M.,&Beckwith,K.2013,ApJ, 775, 73

    1987

  130. [138]

    B., Bai, X.-N., Flaherty, K

    Simon, J. B., Bai, X.-N., Flaherty, K. M., & Hughes, A. M. 2018, ApJ, 865, 10

    2018

  131. [139]

    2022, MNRAS, 514, 5927

    Somigliana, A., Toci, C., Rosotti, G., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 5927

    2022

  132. [140]

    2019, ApJ, 874, 60

    Steinpilz, T., Teiser, J., & Wurm, G. 2019, ApJ, 874, 60

    2019

  133. [141]

    Stone, J. M. & Norman, M. L. 1992, ApJS, 80, 753

    1992

  134. [142]

    P., Okladnikov, F

    Stoyanovskaya, O. P., Okladnikov, F. A., Vorobyov, E. I., Pavlyuchenkov, Y. N., & Akimkin, V. V. 2020, Astronomy Reports, 64, 107

    2020

  135. [143]

    P., Vorobyov, E

    Stoyanovskaya, O. P., Vorobyov, E. I., & Snytnikov, V. N. 2018, Astronomy Reports, 62, 455

    2018

  136. [144]

    Suzuki, T. K. & Inutsuka, S.-i. 2009, ApJ, 691, L49

    2009

  137. [145]

    2017, A&A, 607, L6

    Tabone, B., Cabrit, S., Bianchi, E., et al. 2017, A&A, 607, L6

    2017

  138. [146]

    2020, A&A, 640, A82

    Tabone, B., Cabrit, S., Pineau des Forêts, G., et al. 2020, A&A, 640, A82

    2020

  139. [147]

    P., Lodato, G., et al

    Tabone, B., Rosotti, G. P., Lodato, G., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, L74

    2022

  140. [148]

    & Lin, D

    Takeuchi, T. & Lin, D. N. C. 2002, ApJ, 581, 1344

    2002

  141. [149]

    F., Lesur, G., Woitke, P., et al

    Thi, W. F., Lesur, G., Woitke, P., et al. 2019, A&A, 632, A44

    2019

  142. [150]

    J., Sheehan, P

    Tobin, J. J., Sheehan, P. D., Megeath, S. T., et al. 2020, ApJ, 890, 130

    2020

  143. [151]

    N., & Inutsuka, S

    Tsukamoto, Y., Iwasaki, K., Okuzumi, S., Machida, M. N., & Inutsuka, S. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 278 Turner,N.J.,Fromang,S.,Gammie,C.,etal.2014,inProtostarsandPlanetsVI, ed. H. Beuther, R. S. Klessen, C. P. Dullemond, & T. Henning, 411 Tychoniec, Ł., Manara, C. F., Rosotti, G. P., et...

    2015

  144. [152]

    & Nakano, T

    Umebayashi, T. & Nakano, T. 1981, PASJ, 33, 617 Umebayashi,T.&Nakano,T.1988,ProgressofTheoreticalPhysicsSupplement, 96, 151

    1981

  145. [153]

    J., & Gaudel, M

    Verliat, A., Hennebelle, P., Maury, A. J., & Gaudel, M. 2020, A&A, 635, A130

    2020

  146. [154]

    Vlemmings, W. H. T., Lankhaar, B., Cazzoletti, P., et al. 2019, A&A, 624, L7

    2019

  147. [155]

    Vorobyov, E. I. 2013, A&A, 552, A129 Vorobyov,E.I.,Akimkin,V.,Stoyanovskaya,O.,Pavlyuchenkov,Y.,&Liu,H.B. 2018a, A&A, 614, A98

    2013

  148. [156]

    Vorobyov, E. I. & Basu, S. 2006, ApJ, 650, 956

    2006

  149. [157]

    Vorobyov, E. I. & Basu, S. 2009, MNRAS, 393, 822

    2009

  150. [158]

    Vorobyov, E. I. & Elbakyan, V. G. 2019, A&A, 631, A1

    2019

  151. [159]

    I., Elbakyan, V

    Vorobyov, E. I., Elbakyan, V. G., Johansen, A., et al. 2023, A&A, 670, A81

    2023

  152. [160]

    I., Skliarevskii, A

    Vorobyov, E. I., Skliarevskii, A. M., Guedel, M., & Molyarova, T. 2024, A&A, 687, A192 Vorobyov,E.I.,Skliarevskii,A.M.,Molyarova,T.,etal.2022,A&A,658,A191 Wada,K.,Tanaka,H.,Suyama,T.,Kimura,H.,&Yamamoto,T.2009,ApJ,702, 1490

    2024

  153. [161]

    2019, ApJ, 874, 90

    Wang, L., Bai, X.-N., & Goodman, J. 2019, ApJ, 874, 90

    2019

  154. [162]

    Williams, J. P. & Cieza, L. A. 2011, ARA&A, 49, 67

    2011

  155. [163]

    M., Kamp, I., & Thi, W

    Woitke, P., Arabhavi, A. M., Kamp, I., & Thi, W. F. 2022, A&A, 668, A164

    2022

  156. [164]

    2019, PASP, 131, 064301

    Woitke, P., Kamp, I., Antonellini, S., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 064301

    2019

  157. [165]

    Woitke, P., Kamp, I., & Thi, W. F. 2009, A&A, 501, 383

    2009

  158. [166]

    2016, A&A, 586, A103

    Woitke, P., Min, M., Pinte, C., et al. 2016, A&A, 586, A103

    2016

  159. [167]

    F., Arabhavi, A

    Woitke, P., Thi, W. F., Arabhavi, A. M., et al. 2024, A&A, 683, A219

    2024

  160. [168]

    & Kunz, M

    Xu, W. & Kunz, M. W. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 4911

    2021

  161. [169]

    2017, A&A, 606, A80

    Yang, C.-C., Johansen, A., & Carrera, D. 2017, A&A, 606, A80

    2017

  162. [170]

    W., Bodenheimer, P., & Laughlin, G

    Yorke, H. W., Bodenheimer, P., & Laughlin, G. 1993, ApJ, 411, 274

    1993

  163. [171]

    2018, ApJ, 869, L47

    Zhang, S., Zhu, Z., Huang, J., et al. 2018, ApJ, 869, L47

    2018

  164. [172]

    Zhu, Z., Hartmann, L., Gammie, C., & McKinney, J. C. 2009, ApJ, 701, 620

    2009

  165. [173]

    Zhu, Z., Jiang, Y.-F., & Stone, J. M. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 3494

    2020

  166. [174]

    & Stone, J

    Zhu, Z. & Stone, J. M. 2018, ApJ, 857, 34 Article number, page 23 of 24 A&A proofs: manuscript no. aanda_corr Appendix A: Escape velocity of disk winds The escape velocity of the wind,𝑣𝑤, constrains the relative strength of the wind mass loss rate and wind stress. It can be es...

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.