Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Changing disc compositions via internal photoevaporation II: M dwarf systems

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Internal photoevaporation sets the C/O ratio of inner M-dwarf discs, and a 3–4 times weaker wind is needed to match carbon-rich observations.

desk verdict Solid M-dwarf extension of the photoevaporation-chemistry model, but the claimed reconciliation with observed C/O relies on hand-tuned X-ray reduction factors and a fixed temperature profile, so the factor 3-4 overestimate is not yet uniquely established. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.21470 v1 pith:N3Y5JZYT submitted 2025-05-27 astro-ph.EP

Julia Lena Lienert , Bertram Bitsch , Thomas Henning This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords protoplanetarydiscsMdwarfstarsinternalphotoevaporationC/OratiopebbledriftdiscchemistryplanetformationX-rayluminosity
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

This paper tries to establish that internal photoevaporation, not just viscous transport and pebble drift, controls the carbon-to-oxygen ratio (C/O) of the inner regions of protoplanetary discs around low-mass stars of roughly $0.1$ to $0.5\,M_\odot$. In the model, the photoevaporative wind opens a gap that blocks inflowing pebbles and carries away carbon-rich vapour from the outer disc, so the inner disc stays oxygen-rich and C/O-poor when the nominal wind rate is used. Since observed M-dwarf discs show high C/O, the paper argues that the nominal X-ray photoevaporation rates are too strong, and that reducing the mass-loss rate by a factor of 3 to 4 delays gap opening, lets carbon-rich gas enter, and reproduces the observed C/O values. This matters because the C/O of the disc gas sets the compositions of planets that form there, and M dwarfs are the most common planet hosts.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the soft X-ray photoevaporation prescription combined with equilibrium cycles at evaporation fronts. The prescription fixes the radial profile and total rate of gas loss, which decides where the gap opens (roughly 0.7 to 3 AU) and when (1 to 2 Myr for nominal rates, 5 to 6 Myr for reduced rates). At the gap's inner edge a strong pressure gradient pushes vapour outwards; if that edge coincides with a particular ice line, the vapour recondenses into pebbles that drift back inwards and evaporate again, forming an equilibrium cycle. In these simulations the recycled volatile is water for some stellar masses, keeping oxygen in the inner disc, and CO2 for the $0.3\,M_\odot$ case, keeping carbon in; the evaporation-front positions are set by a time-independent mid-plane temperature. This contrast between the water cycle and the CO2 cycle is what produces the different C/O trajectories across stellar mass.

What would settle it

Measure the inner-disc C/O ratio of a sample of M dwarfs spanning ages of roughly 1 to 6 Myr, with their X-ray luminosities recorded; the model is falsified if old ($>2$ Myr) low-X-ray discs are not carbon-rich, or if young ($<2$ Myr) discs already show C/O above solar, because the timing of the water-rich phase and the gap opening is the causal hinge.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For discs around stars of $0.1$ to $0.5\,M_\odot$, the central claim is that internal photoevaporation sets the inner-disc C/O ratio through the timing and location of the photoevaporative gap. With the nominal soft X-ray mass-loss rates, the gap opens at 1 to 2 Myr, separating the inner disc from carbon-rich gas evaporated from CO, CO2 and CH4 ice; a water or CO2 equilibrium cycle can then recycle one volatile at the gap's inner edge, leaving the inner disc oxygen-rich with subsolar C/O. Observations of low-mass-star discs instead show C/O above solar in systems such as Sz 28, so the paper concludes that nominal photoevaporation rates overestimate mass loss for M dwarfs. A factor 3 to 4 reduction delays gap opening to 5 to 6 Myr, allowing carbon-rich gas to enrich the inner disc first and yielding C/O values in line with observations. The model therefore predicts a two-phase composition history: young inner discs, younger than about 2 Myr, should be oxygen-rich and carbon-poor, while older discs should be carbon-rich if the wind is weak enough.

Load-bearing premise

The argument rests on the assumed strength and position of the photoevaporation wind, together with evaporation-front locations set by a time-independent mid-plane temperature; if these do not hold for M dwarfs, the predicted C/O trajectories and the claimed mismatch with observations do not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Inner discs around M dwarfs younger than about 2 Myr should be oxygen-rich and carbon-poor, because water-ice pebbles evaporate early and dominate the inner gas before carbon-rich vapour arrives.
  • Discs older than about 2 Myr should be carbon-rich, with C/O above solar, only if the photoevaporation rate is low enough to delay gap opening until that carbon-rich vapour reaches the inner disc.
  • Nominal soft X-ray photoevaporation rates overestimate mass loss for M dwarfs; reducing them by a factor of 3 to 4 brings both the inner-disc C/O ratio and the disc lifetime into better agreement with observations.
  • The stellar mass determines which evaporation front sits at the gap's inner edge, so the equilibrium cycle that preserves carbon or oxygen changes with stellar mass, giving different C/O evolutions for each mass.
  • Observed high inner-disc C/O values such as that of Sz 28 can be reproduced without changing the pebble or chemistry model, purely by lowering the wind strength.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the water-versus-CO2 cycle switch with stellar mass implies a sharp transition in the carbon-to-oxygen ratio available to planet formation around M dwarfs, so planets forming around stars near $0.3\,M_\odot$ may show a different atmospheric C/O than those around slightly more or less massive stars.
  • Beyond the paper: if the nominal photoevaporation rates are too high because the model omits cooling, then standard estimates of M-dwarf disc lifetimes are too short, which would push the window for forming planets around the most common stars later than usually assumed.
  • Beyond the paper: the NH3 equilibrium cycle visible in the C/H and N/H results suggests that measuring nitrogen abundances in inner discs would provide an independent observational test of the gap-edge recycling picture.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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. This paper uses the chemcomp 1D semi-analytical disc model to study how internal photoevaporation shapes the C/O ratio in the inner regions of protoplanetary discs around low-mass stars (0.1-0.5 Msun). The authors compare simulations with nominal photoevaporation rates from Picogna et al. (2021) against simulations with X-ray-luminosity-reduced rates (by factors of 2.2-5.0), which lower the mass-loss rates by a factor of 3-4. They find that nominal rates open photoevaporative gaps early, block inward-drifting pebbles, and remove carbon-rich gas from the outer disc, leaving the inner disc with persistently low subsolar C/O ratios. Reduced rates delay gap opening, allowing carbon-rich vapour to raise the C/O ratio to supersolar values in some cases, which the authors argue agrees with JWST observations such as the high C/O of Sz 28. The paper concludes that the nominal photoevaporation rates overestimate the mass-loss efficiency for M dwarfs and that a factor 3-4 reduction reconciles the models with observations.

Significance. The paper addresses an observationally important tension: many inner discs around low-mass stars show high C/O ratios, whereas standard photoevaporation models are thought to produce low C/O. The study provides a concrete mechanistic explanation (equilibrium cycles at the photoevaporative gap edge) and a falsifiable prediction that young (<2 Myr) inner discs should be oxygen-rich and old (>2 Myr) discs carbon-rich. The inclusion of comparison simulations without photoevaporation, with a planet, and with a different viscosity strengthens the interpretion of the mechanism. The authors also openly state several model simplifications, including time-independent temperature and uniform photoevaporation of all molecular species. However, as detailed in the major comments, the central quantitative conclusion that nominal rates overestimate by factor 3-4 rests on a thermal-structure assumption that is not tested, and the reduced rates are hand-calibrated to the very observations they are meant to reproduce. If the thermal assumption is relaxed, the discrepancy with observations may not uniquely require lower photoevaporation rates.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.1, §2.4, §3.1.2] The claim that nominal photoevaporation rates produce persistently low inner-disc C/O ratios depends directly on the time-independent mid-plane temperature, which is calculated once using the stellar luminosity at 2.5 Myr. The equilibrium cycles that set the late-time C/O (water cycle for 0.5 Msun and late-time 0.1 Msun; CO2 cycle for 0.3 Msun) require the relevant ice line to sit at the inner edge of the photoevaporative gap. The authors themselves note that low-mass stars dim substantially with age; for a 0.1 Msun star, the irradiation-dominated ice lines can move inward by factors of about 2 between 1 and 10 Myr. A time-dependent temperature could shift the CO2 or H2O ice line into the gap or into the inner disc, destroying or creating the equilibrium cycle and thereby changing the C/O trajectory. The sensitivity of the mechanism is already visible in Appendix C.2, where increasing alpha alone moves the CO2 line into the gap and removes the 0.3 Msun cycle. I ask the authors to test the fixed-temperature assumption by rerunning the nominal-rate simulations with time-evolving stellar luminosity (or at least with luminosities appropriate for 1 Myr and 5 Myr) and to show whether the low-C/O result persists. Without such a test, the conclusion that the nominal rates overestimate photoevaporation by factor 3-4 is not robust and the discrepancy with observations is not uniquely attributable to the photoevaporation rate.
  2. [§2.2, §3.2] The X-ray reduction factors [5.0, 3.5, 2.2] for stellar masses [0.5, 0.3, 0.1] Msun are chosen, in the words of the authors, so that the reduced rates bring the calculated C/O ratios into better agreement with observations. The same observed C/O values are then used as evidence that the nominal rates overestimate mass loss by factor 3-4. This is close to circular: the data are used both to set the reduction factors and to validate them. The factors are within the observed spread of X-ray luminosities, but the spread is large and a range of factors would be consistent with it; the paper does not show that the required factor is independently predicted. I recommend that the authors present a forward-model comparison over the observed X-ray luminosity distribution, or adopt a statistical measure (e.g., likelihood or chi-square against the observed C/O constraints), and explicitly state that the reduction factors were calibrated to match the C/O observations. This would clarify the logical status of the conclusion.
  3. [§4.2] The comparison to observations is qualitative and rests primarily on a single system, Sz 28, with a lower-limit C/O>1. The model C/O ratio varies strongly with radius and time, while the MIRI observations probe a range of radii weighted by the disc emission and a specific disc age; the paper does not quantify the radius range or the age interval over which the match is claimed to hold. A more quantitative comparison, accounting for the observed emission region and the stellar age, would materially strengthen the claim that the reduced rates 'fit' the observations and that the nominal rates are excluded.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§2.2] The photoevaporation rates in Table 2 are quoted without uncertainties; given the spread in the Güdel et al. (2007) relation and the adopted scaling, a statement of the expected uncertainty in the reduced mass-loss rates would help the reader judge the significance of the factor 3-4.
  2. [§3.1.2] In the 0.1 Msun case, the text says the C/O ratio increases 'up to super-solar values' after the initial drop; please specify the numerical value and time at which this maximum occurs, since the later evolution is driven by the switch from a CO2 cycle to a water cycle.
  3. [§4.1.2] The authors correctly note that photoevaporation is implemented as acting uniformly on all molecular species, whereas in reality lighter species are removed more efficiently. This assumption could affect the C/O ratio in either direction; I suggest adding a brief quantitative estimate or citing a specific result from the literature that bounds this effect, rather than leaving it as an open qualitative caveat.
  4. [General] No data availability statement is provided. Since the paper is based on a semi-analytical code with multiple parameters and appendices, a statement on code/plotting scripts availability would aid reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the C/O predictions are computed outputs and the reduced-rate agreement is a consistency check, not a fit.

full rationale

The central derivation is not circular. Under nominal photoevaporation rates, the low inner-disc C/O ratio is a genuine model output obtained by integrating the stated viscous evolution, pebble drift and evaporation, and the Picogna et al. (2021) mass-loss prescription; early gap opening and the resulting suppression of carbon-rich gas inflow are consequences of the model, not inputs. The reduced-rate simulations change the X-ray luminosity input (Table 2) using the observed X-ray luminosity spread and disc-lifetime considerations before comparing with C/O observations; the agreement with Sz 28 is therefore a consistency check rather than a fit of the photoevaporation factor to the target C/O data. The self-citations (Paper I for the equilibrium-cycle interpretation, chemcomp and Bitsch & Battistini for the chemistry) reference the model machinery and are supported by external comparisons to observations and independent simulations, so they do not smuggle in the conclusion. The paper explicitly acknowledges limiting assumptions, including the time-independent mid-plane temperature and the neglect of refractory carbon, and Appendix C.2 shows sensitivity of the CO2 cycle to the gap/ice-line alignment; these are robustness and non-uniqueness concerns, not circular steps. No equation is defined in terms of the claim, and no fitted parameter is renamed a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the external photoevaporation prescription, the fixed temperature structure, the simplified chemistry, and the hand-chosen reduction factors. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • X-ray luminosity reduction factors = 5.0 (0.5 Msun), 3.5 (0.3 Msun), 2.2 (0.1 Msun)
    Chosen by hand to probe weaker photoevaporation; the resulting 3-4x lower mass-loss rates are then compared to observed C/O ratios. The outcome (high C/O) depends on these choices, so the agreement is partly built into the input (Table 2, section 3.2).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Viscous alpha-disc evolution with alpha=10^-4 and time-independent mid-plane temperature
    Invoked in section 2.1, equations 1-3. The chemical result depends on fixed evaporation-line positions; if temperature evolved, the CO2/water equilibrium cycles would shift.
  • domain assumption Photoevaporation prescription of Picogna et al. (2021) for soft X-rays, scaled to M-dwarf X-ray luminosities via equations 7-8
    The gap location and opening time, and hence which equilibrium cycle dominates, are set by this external prescription (section 2.2, figure 1). The paper itself concludes these nominal rates likely overestimate mass loss.
  • domain assumption All molecular species are removed by photoevaporation at the same rate
    Acknowledged in section 4.1.2. In reality lighter molecules leave faster; this could change C/O evolution.
  • domain assumption Initial disc mass is 10% stellar mass and initial radii follow Mah et al. (2023) scaled relation
    Section 2.4, table 3. These choices set the evolution speed and are not themselves derived from observations in this work.
  • domain assumption Solar initial elemental abundances and simplified chemical partitioning into CO, CO2, CH4, H2O, N2, NH3, without refractory carbon or C2H2
    Section 2.3. The C/O predictions depend on these carriers; including refractory carbon or C2H2 would raise gas-phase carbon.
  • ad hoc to paper Reduced X-ray luminosities (reduction factors 5.0, 3.5, 2.2) represent a plausible low-photoevaporation branch for M dwarfs
    Table 2 and figure 2. The factors are chosen by hand within the observed X-ray spread; they are not derived from a specific stellar model or from C/O data, but the central reconciliation result depends on them.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Changing disc compositions via internal photoevaporation II: M dwarf systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/N3Y5JZYT

@misc{pith2026250521470,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Changing disc compositions via internal photoevaporation II: M dwarf systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/N3Y5JZYT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.21470}
}
read the original abstract

The chemical evolution of the inner regions of protoplanetary discs is a complex process. Several factors influence it, one being the inward drift and evaporation of volatile-rich pebbles. During the disc's evolution, its inner part is first enriched with evaporating water-ice, resulting in a low C/O ratio. Afterwards, C-rich gas from the outer disc is transported inwards. Consequently, the C/O ratio of the inner disc increases again after 2 Myr. Previously, we studied how internal photoevaporation influences these processes in discs around Sun-like stars. We now extend our study to lower-mass stars, where the time evolution of the disc's C/O ratio is different due to the closer-in position of the evaporation fronts and differences in disc mass, size and structure. Our simulations are carried out with the semi-analytical 1D disc model chemcomp, which includes viscous evolution and heating, pebble growth and drift, pebble evaporation and condensation, as well as a simple chemical partitioning model. We show that internal photoevaporation plays a major role in the evolution of protoplanetary discs: As for Sun-like stars, photoevaporation opens a gap, which stops inward drifting pebbles. In addition, volatile-rich gas from the outer disc is carried away by the photoevaporative winds. Consequently, the C/O ratio in the inner disc remains low, contradicting observations of discs around low-mass stars. Our model implies that young inner discs (< 2 Myr) should be O-rich and C-poor, while older discs (> 2 Myr) should be C-rich. The survival of discs to this age can be attributed to lower photoevaporation rates, which either originate from a large spread of observed X-ray luminosities or from the photoevaporation model used here, which likely overestimates the photoevaporation efficiency. A reduction of the latter brings the calculated elemental abundances into better agreement with observations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.21470 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Photoevaporative gas surface density loss rate as a function of disc radius for different stellar masses, as given in equation 5, adopted from Picogna et al. (2021). Here, the nominal values for the photoevap￾orative mass loss rate, as given in table 1, are used. 0.10 1.00 M [M ] 10 28 10 29 10 30 10 31 LX [erg/s] class I class II class III brown dwarfs others simulation data tgap = 1.3 Myr tgap > 8.1 Myr linear reg… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. X-ray luminosity, derived from the measured X-ray flux, as a function of stellar mass for all detected XMM-Newton Extended Sur￾vey of the Taurus Molecular Cloud (XEST) sources, re-plotted from Güdel et al. (2007) using their original data. The distance to Taurus is estimated with 140 pc, although we note that Taurus consists of sub￾groups with varying distances (Galli et al. 2019). The flux of stars with more than o… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. figure 2. This results in a spread in the photoevaporative mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Disc evolution for a viscous disc with internal photoevaporation due to X-rays, using the nominal photoevaporative mass loss rates from table 1. The host star masses vary from 0.5 M⊙ (on the left) to 0.1 M⊙ (on the right). Top: Gas surface density as a function of disc…
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Different element ratios in the gas phase as a function of disc radius and time for a viscous disc with internal photoevaporation due to X-rays, using the nominal photoevaporative mass loss rates from table 1. The host star masses vary from 0.5 M⊙ (on the left) to 0.1 …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Disc evolution for a viscous disc with internal photoevaporation due to X-rays, but with factor 3-4 reduced mass loss rates. For the exact values, see table 2. The reduced rates result in later gap opening and therefore longer disc lifetimes. Host star masses vary from…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Gaseous C/O ratio as a function of disc radius and time for discs with internal photoevaporation due to X-rays and a host star mass of 0.5 M⊙. This plot shows a comparison between different α values and different photoevaporation rates, with the left column depicting α…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Gap opening time vs. photoevaporation rate for the low-mass stars studied in this paper as well as the solar-mass star from Paper I (colour coded). Plotted are data points from our simulations, both from nominal (rightmost point of each line) and reduced photoevaporati…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Water gas discs in exo-asteroid belts

    astro-ph.EP 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.5 of 10

    Water vapour from exo-asteroid belts around solar-mass and heavier stars can supply ocean-scale water to inner planets and remain detectable for tens of Myr with current facilities.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

101 extracted references · 77 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 914, 84

    Aguichine, A., Mousis, O., Deleuil, M., & Marcq, E. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 914, 84

    2021

  4. [4]

    M., Terrell, M., Tripathi, A., et al

    Andrews, S. M., Terrell, M., Tripathi, A., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 865, 157

    2018

  5. [5]

    M., Kamp, I., Henning, Th ., et al

    Arabhavi, A. M., Kamp, I., Henning, Th ., et al. 2024, Science, 384, 1086

    2024

  6. [6]

    Armitage, P. J. 2013, Astrophysics of Planet Formation (Cambridge University Press)

    2013

  7. [7]

    J., & Scott, P

    Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., & Scott, P. 2009, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 47, 481

    2009

  8. [8]

    2018, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 615, A110

    Ataiee, S., Baruteau, C., Alibert, Y., & Benz, W. 2018, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 615, A110

    2018

Show all 101 references
  1. [9]

    C., Bean, J

    August, P. C., Bean, J. L., Zhang, M., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 953, L24

    2023

  2. [10]

    M., Carr, J

    Banzatti, A., Pontoppidan, K. M., Carr, J. S., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 957, L22

    2023

  3. [11]

    2015, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 577, A42

    Baraffe, I., Homeier, D., Allard, F., & Chabrier, G. 2015, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 577, A42

    2015

  4. [12]

    2012, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 539, A148

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

    2012

  5. [13]

    & Battistini, C

    Bitsch, B. & Battistini, C. 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 633, A10

    2020

  6. [14]

    2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 623, A88

    Bitsch, B., Izidoro, A., Johansen, A., et al. 2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 623, A88

    2019

  7. [15]

    2015, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 582, A112

    Bitsch, B., Lambrechts, M., & Johansen, A. 2015, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 582, A112

    2015

  8. [16]

    2018, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 612, A30

    Bitsch, B., Morbidelli, A., Johansen, A., et al. 2018, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 612, A30

    2018

  9. [17]

    N., Buchhave, L

    Bitsch, B., Raymond, S. N., Buchhave, L. A., et al. 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 649, L5

    2021

  10. [18]

    D., & Kreidberg, L

    Bitsch, B., Schneider, A. D., & Kreidberg, L. 2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 665, A138

    2022

  11. [19]

    A., Clarke, C

    Booth, R. A., Clarke, C. J., Madhusudhan, N., & Ilee, J. D. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 469, 3994

    2017

  12. [20]

    2025, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 694, A89

    Borderies, A., Commer c on, B., & Bourdon, B. 2025, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 694, A89

    2025

  13. [21]

    D., Alarc \'o n, F., Bergin, E

    Bosman, A. D., Alarc \'o n, F., Bergin, E. A., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 257, 7

    2021

  14. [22]

    P., & Henning, Th

    Brauer, F., Dullemond, C. P., & Henning, Th . 2008, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 480, 859

    2008

  15. [23]

    Cuzzi, J. N. & Zahnle, K. J. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 614, 490

    2004

  16. [24]

    2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Dr a \.z kowska , J., Bitsch , B., Lambrechts , M., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka , Y. Aikawa , T. Muto , K. Tomida , & M. Tamura , 717

    2023

  17. [25]

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

    Dullemond, C. P., Birnstiel, T., Huang, J., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 869, L46

    2018

  18. [26]

    & Henning, T

    Eistrup, C. & Henning, T. 2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 667, A160

    2022

  19. [27]

    2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 656, A69

    Emsenhuber, A., Mordasini, C., Burn, R., et al. 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 656, A69

    2021

  20. [28]

    & Clarke, C

    Ercolano, B. & Clarke, C. J. 2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 402, 2735

    2010

  21. [29]

    J., & Drake, J

    Ercolano, B., Clarke, C. J., & Drake, J. J. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 699, 1639

    2009

  22. [30]

    J., & Preibisch, T

    Ercolano, B., Picogna, G., Monsch, K., Drake, J. J., & Preibisch, T. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 508, 1675

    2021

  23. [31]

    E., Henning, Th ., Jayawardhana, R., & Oliveira, J

    Fedele, D., Van Den Ancker, M. E., Henning, Th ., Jayawardhana, R., & Oliveira, J. M. 2010, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 510, A72

    2010

  24. [32]

    P., Dzyurkevich, N., et al

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

    2015

  25. [33]

    & Trieloff, M

    Gail, H.-P. & Trieloff, M. 2017, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 606, A16

    2017

  26. [34]

    Galli, P. A. B., Loinard, L., Bouy, H., et al. 2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 630, A137

    2019

  27. [35]

    F., et al

    Gasman, D., Temmink, M., van Dishoeck , E. F., et al. 2025, MINDS . The Influence of Outer Dust Disc Structure on the Volatile Delivery to the Inner Disc

    2025

  28. [36]

    F., Grant, S

    Gasman, D., Van Dishoeck, E. F., Grant, S. L., et al. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 679, A117

    2023

  29. [37]

    L., Van Dishoeck, E

    Grant, S. L., Van Dishoeck, E. F., Tabone, B., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 947, L6

    2023

  30. [38]

    R., Arzner, K., et al

    G \"u del, M., Briggs, K. R., Arzner, K., et al. 2007, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 468, 353

    2007

  31. [39]

    M., De El \'i a, G

    Guilera, O. M., De El \'i a, G. C., Brunini, A., & Santamar \'i a, P. J. 2014, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 565, A96

    2014

  32. [40]

    & Blum, J

    Gundlach, B. & Blum, J. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 798, 34

    2014

  33. [41]

    & Semenov, D

    Henning, T. & Semenov, D. 2013, Chemical Reviews, 113, 9016

    2013

  34. [42]

    & Lin, D

    Ida, S. & Lin, D. N. C. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 604, 388

    2004

  35. [43]

    N., et al

    Izidoro, A., Bitsch, B., Raymond, S. N., et al. 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 650, A152

    2021

  36. [44]

    & Bitsch, B

    Johansen, A. & Bitsch, B. 2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 631, A70

    2019

  37. [45]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 954, 66

    Kalyaan, A., Pinilla, P., Krijt, S., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 954, 66

    2023

  38. [46]

    2024 a , Astronomy & Astrophysics, 689, A231

    Kanwar, J., Kamp, I., Jang, H., et al. 2024 a , Astronomy & Astrophysics, 689, A231

    2024

  39. [47]

    2024 b , Astronomy & Astrophysics, 681, A22

    Kanwar, J., Kamp, I., Woitke, P., et al. 2024 b , Astronomy & Astrophysics, 681, A22

    2024

  40. [48]

    2018, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 617, A44

    Keppler, M., Benisty, M., M \"u ller, A., et al. 2018, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 617, A44

    2018

  41. [49]

    & Johansen, A

    Lambrechts, M. & Johansen, A. 2012, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 544, A32

    2012

  42. [50]

    2014, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 572, A35

    Lambrechts, M., Johansen, A., & Morbidelli, A. 2014, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 572, A35

    2014

  43. [51]

    A., et al

    Lambrechts, M., Morbidelli, A., Jacobson, S. A., et al. 2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 627, A83

    2019

  44. [52]

    I., Teague, R., et al

    Le Gal, R., \"O berg, K. I., Teague, R., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 257, 12

    2021

  45. [53]

    A., & Nomura, H

    Lee, J.-E., Bergin, E. A., & Nomura, H. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 710, L21

    2010

  46. [54]

    1995, The Astrophysical Journal, 447, 848

    Lenzuni, P., Gail, H.-P., & Henning, T. 1995, The Astrophysical Journal, 447, 848

    1995

  47. [55]

    2023, in Protostars and Planets VII , 465

    Lesur, G., Flock, M., Ercolano, B., et al. 2023, in Protostars and Planets VII , 465

    2023

  48. [56]

    A., Blake, G

    Li, J., Bergin, E. A., Blake, G. A., Ciesla, F. J., & Hirschmann, M. M. 2021, Science Advances, 7, eabd3632

    2021

  49. [57]

    L., Bitsch, B., & Henning, Th

    Lienert, J. L., Bitsch, B., & Henning, Th . 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 691, A72

    2024

  50. [58]

    R., Brogi, M., Bean, J

    Line, M. R., Brogi, M., Bean, J. L., et al. 2021, Nature, 598, 580

    2021

  51. [59]

    2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 632, A7

    Liu, B., Lambrechts, M., Johansen, A., & Liu, F. 2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 632, A7

    2019

  52. [60]

    & Pringle, J

    Lynden-Bell , D. & Pringle, J. E. 1974, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 168, 603

    1974

  53. [61]

    & Bitsch, B

    Mah, J. & Bitsch, B. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 673, A17

    2023

  54. [62]

    2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 677, L7

    Mah, J., Bitsch, B., Pascucci, I., & Henning, T. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 677, L7

    2023

  55. [63]

    2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 686, L17

    Mah, J., Savvidou, S., & Bitsch, B. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 686, L17

    2024

  56. [64]

    E., Usuda, T., Tamura, M., & Ishii, M

    Mamajek, E. E., Usuda, T., Tamura, M., & Ishii, M. 2009, in AIP Conference Proceedings (Kailua-Kona (Hawaii): AIP), 3--10

    2009

  57. [65]

    Michel, A., Van Der Marel, N., & Matthews, B. C. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 921, 72

    2021

  58. [66]

    W., Fortney, J

    Miguel, Y., Cridland, A., Ormel, C. W., Fortney, J. J., & Ida, S. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, stz3007

    2019

  59. [67]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 934, 74

    Molli \`e re, P., Molyarova, T., Bitsch, B., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 934, 74

    2022

  60. [68]

    2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 640, A131

    Molli \`e re, P., Stolker, T., Lacour, S., et al. 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 640, A131

    2020

  61. [69]

    2018, in Handbook of Exoplanets , ed

    Mordasini, C. 2018, in Handbook of Exoplanets , ed. H. J. Deeg & J. A. Belmonte (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 2425--2474

    2018

  62. [70]

    2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 832, 41

    Mordasini, C., van Boekel , R., Molli \`e re, P., Henning, Th ., & Benneke, B. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 832, 41

    2016

  63. [71]

    H., & Ice Giants team

    Mousis, O., Atkinson, D. H., & Ice Giants team . 2022, In Situ Exploration of the Atmospheres of the Ice Giants , Other, display

    2022

  64. [72]

    2018, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 617, L2

    M \"u ller, A., Keppler, M., Henning, Th ., et al. 2018, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 617, L2

    2018

  65. [73]

    2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 592, 1252

    Nakano, H., Kouchi, A., Tachibana, S., & Tsuchiyama, A. 2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 592, 1252

    2003

  66. [74]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 474, 886

    Ndugu, N., Bitsch, B., & Jurua, E. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 474, 886

    2018

  67. [75]

    I., Murray-Clay , R., & Bergin, E

    \"O berg, K. I., Murray-Clay , R., & Bergin, E. A. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 743, L16

    2011

  68. [76]

    Ormel, C. W. & Klahr, H. H. 2010, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 520, A43

    2010

  69. [77]

    E., Clarke, C

    Owen, J. E., Clarke, C. J., & Ercolano, B. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 422, 1880

    2012

  70. [78]

    E., Hudoba De Badyn, M., Clarke, C

    Owen, J. E., Hudoba De Badyn, M., Clarke, C. J., & Robins, L. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 436, 1430

    2013

  71. [79]

    & Mellema, G

    Paardekooper, S.-J. & Mellema, G. 2006, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 453, 1129

    2006

  72. [80]

    2022, The Role of Disk Winds in the Evolution and Dispersal of Protoplanetary Disks

    Pascucci, I., Cabrit, S., Edwards, S., et al. 2022, The Role of Disk Winds in the Evolution and Dispersal of Protoplanetary Disks

    2022

  73. [81]

    & Sterzik, M

    Pascucci, I. & Sterzik, M. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 702, 724

    2009

  74. [82]

    2021, The Astronomical Journal, 162, 73

    Pelletier, S., Benneke, B., Darveau-Bernier , A., et al. 2021, The Astronomical Journal, 162, 73

    2021

  75. [83]

    Penzlin, A. B. T., Booth, R. A., Kirk, J., et al. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 535, 171

    2024

  76. [84]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 939, L10

    Pfalzner, S., Dehghani, S., & Michel, A. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 939, L10

    2022

  77. [85]

    2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 691, A45

    Pfeil, T., Birnstiel, T., & Klahr, H. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 691, A45

    2024

  78. [86]

    Picogna, G., Ercolano, B., & Espaillat, C. C. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 508, 3611

    2021

  79. [87]

    E., & Weber, M

    Picogna, G., Ercolano, B., Owen, J. E., & Weber, M. L. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 487, 691

    2019

  80. [88]

    2012, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 538, A114

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

    2012

  81. [89]

    2023, PhD thesis, University of Groningen

    Portilla Revelo, B. 2023, PhD thesis, University of Groningen

    2023

  82. [90]

    Pringle, J. E. 1981, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 19, 137

    1981

  83. [91]

    Raul, E., Alarc \'o n, F., & Bergin, E. A. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 982, 155

    2025

  84. [92]

    & Johansen, A

    Ros, K. & Johansen, A. 2013, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 552, A137

    2013

  85. [93]

    Schneider, A. D. & Bitsch, B. 2021 a , Astronomy & Astrophysics, 654, A71

    2021

  86. [94]

    Schneider, A. D. & Bitsch, B. 2021 b , Astronomy & Astrophysics, 654, A72

    2021

  87. [95]

    D., Grassi, T., Picogna, G., et al

    Sellek, A. D., Grassi, T., Picogna, G., et al. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 690, A296

    2024

  88. [96]

    Shakura, N. I. & Sunyaev, R. A. 1973, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 337

    1973

  89. [97]

    F., et al

    Tabone, B., Bettoni, G., Van Dishoeck, E. F., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 805

    2023

  90. [98]

    Van 'T Hoff, M. L. R., Bergin, E. A., J rgensen, J. K., & Blake, G. A. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 897, L38

    2020

  91. [99]

    Weber, P., Ben \'i tez-Llambay , P., Gressel, O., Krapp, L., & Pessah, M. E. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 854, 153

    2018

  92. [100]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 870, 129

    Wei, C.-E., Nomura, H., Lee, J.-E., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 870, 129

    2019

  93. [101]

    Winter, A. J. & Haworth, T. J. 2022, The European Physical Journal Plus, 137, 1132

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.