Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 87 references

Shaping core dynamos in A-type stars: The role of dipolar fossil fields

T0 review · 3 major / 3 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 A fossil dipole whose field lines close inside an A-type star can drive the core dynamo into a superequipartition state with magnetic energy five times the kinetic energy, while an open-field dipole leaves it unchanged.

desk verdict The new obliquity results are real, but the central topology claim is confounded with a 15-80x field-strength difference; the authors should add matched-strength controls or soften the abstract. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.01017 v1 pith:QU6NXH53 submitted 2025-06-01 astro-ph.SR physics.plasm-ph

J. P. Hidalgo , P. J. Käpylä , D. R. G Schleicher , C. A. Ortiz-Rodríguez , F. H. Navarrete This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SRphysics.plasm-ph PACS 97.10.Ld95.30.Qd
keywords A-typestarsAp/Bpfossilmagneticfieldscoredynamosuperequipartitionstar-in-a-boxsimulationsmagnetohydrodynamicsdifferentialrotation
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

In a 2.2 solar-mass A-type star simulated in a box with a convective core spanning 20% of the radius, the authors impose two purely poloidal fossil fields with the same 6 kG surface dipolar strength and vary the obliquity angle $\beta$ from $0^\circ$ to $90^\circ$. They find that a dipole whose field lines are all closed inside the star (a point-dipole-like interior with core poloidal rms fields of roughly 100 or 500 kG) switches the dynamo from a cyclic, hemispheric, subequipartition state into a quasi-stationary superequipartition solution with $E_{\rm mag}/E_{\rm kin}\approx 5$, core rms fields of 105–172 kG, and an inverse dependence of field strength on $\beta$. A dipole with no closed field lines inside the star (a uniform interior field of about 6 kG) leaves the dynamo essentially unchanged at every obliquity. The strong closed-field branch produces near-rigid rotation in the radiative envelope and reverses the core's differential rotation from solar-like to anti-solar, while the surface field retains at least 94% of its energy in the dipole mode. The only unstable case is a horizontal dipole ($\beta = 90^\circ$), which decays back to the original dynamo.

What carries the argument

The central objects are two purely poloidal initial field geometries with identical surface dipolar strength of 6 kG: Dipole A, a uniformly magnetized sphere whose field is uniform inside the star (core $B_{\rm pol,rms}\approx 6$ kG) with no field lines closed within the star, and Dipole B/B*, point-dipole-like fields with a softening parameter $\epsilon$ giving core poloidal rms fields of roughly 100 and 500 kG, whose lines all close inside the star. The interpretation uses the dynamo numbers $c_\alpha = \alpha\Delta r/\eta_{\rm turb}$ and $c_\Omega = (\partial\Omega/\partial r)(\Delta r)^3/\eta_{\rm turb}$ together with the ratio $E_{\rm pol}/E_{\rm tor}\approx 3$ to classify the enhanced branch as an $\alpha^2$ dynamo in which shear is quenched by the strong field. The comparison between Dipole A and Dipole B/B* is what carries the paper's claim that closed field-line topology, not merely the presence of a poloidal field, is what reshapes the core dynamo.

What would settle it

Run the same saturated core dynamo with an open-field (Dipole-A-like) configuration whose core poloidal rms field is raised to about 100 kG at the same 6 kG surface strength; if that run reaches $E_{\rm mag}/E_{\rm kin}\approx 5$ and a quasi-stationary dynamo, the topology-based interpretation is falsified. A complementary test would impose a closed dipole with core field matched to Dipole A's ~6 kG to see whether closed geometry alone is sufficient.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that a sufficiently strong, purely poloidal fossil field whose lines close inside the convective core converts the reference core dynamo (run MHDr2 of Paper I) into a different dynamo branch: the $\alpha\Omega$/hemispheric cycle is replaced by a quasi-stationary, equatorially antisymmetric, dipole-dominated $\alpha^2$ solution with superequipartition fields ($E_{\rm mag}/E_{\rm kin}$ between 1.1 and 5.2 in the core). The enhanced branch appears for obliquities $\beta = 0^\circ$ to $85^\circ$ with core rms fields 105–172 kG; the aligned case is strongest, and the amplitude declines with $\beta$. In these runs the poloidal and toroidal components of the core field both grow (poloidal about three times toroidal), the differential rotation of the core changes from solar-like to the anti-solar sense with strongly reduced shear ($c_\Omega$ drops below $c_\alpha$), and the radiative envelope rotates almost rigidly. The same fossil field also produces a surface toroidal component comparable to the poloidal one, likely transported by turbulent diffusion, while the surface dipole amplitude stays roughly constant with 94–97% of magnetic energy in $\ell=1$. The open-field “Dipole A” configurations leave the dynamo's cycle period and hemisphericity essentially unchanged, and the horizontal dipole cases ($\beta = 90^\circ$) transiently excite the quasi-stationary solution but decay to the original state.

Load-bearing premise

The claim that field-line topology controls the outcome rests on comparing Dipole A with Dipole B and B*, but those configurations differ by a 15- to 80-fold change in core field strength, so the enhancement could be due to strength alone rather than to closed geometry.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Ap/Bp stars with closed fossil dipoles could harbor core fields of order 100 kG, consistent with the ~500 kG upper limit inferred for HD 43317 from g-mode asteroseismology.
  • The quasi-stationary enhanced branch is an $\alpha^2$ dynamo: poloidal energy exceeds toroidal by about 3 to 1 and the shear parameter $c_\Omega$ drops below $c_\alpha$, so the cyclic hemispheric $\alpha\Omega$ signature disappears.
  • Near-rigid rotation in the radiative envelope produced by the enhanced field matches asteroseismic detections of nearly uniform rotation in intermediate-mass main-sequence stars.
  • Surface magnetic fields with 94–97% of energy in the dipole mode survive the dynamo, so the observed simple topologies do not exclude an active core dynamo beneath.
  • Obliquity shapes the outcome only mildly from $0^\circ$ to $85^\circ$, but a purely horizontal dipole ($\beta=90^\circ$) is unstable and decays back to the original dynamo.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper conflates topology with strength: Dipole A's core poloidal rms field is ~6 kG while Dipole B/B* are ~100/500 kG, so a matched-strength open-field run is needed to decide whether closed geometry or mere strength causes the enhancement.
  • The enhanced dynamo sits on the same superequipartition, dipolar branch as rapidly rotating planetary dynamos, suggesting a generic strong-field attractor rather than a stellar-specific process.
  • A testable surface signature follows from the runs: the toroidal surface field grows to roughly the poloidal amplitude during the first ~35 years, which Zeeman-Doppler imaging of Ap/Bp stars might detect if the transport timescales are representative.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. The paper uses 3D star-in-a-box MHD simulations of a 2.2 solar-mass A-type star with a convective core dynamo to study how an imposed dipolar fossil field influences the dynamo. Two families of purely poloidal initial fields are prescribed with the same surface dipolar strength of 6 kG: Dipole A, a uniform interior field whose lines are not closed inside the star, and Dipoles B/B*, regularized point-dipole-like fields whose lines are closed inside the star, with core poloidal strengths of roughly 100 and 500 kG. Runs with obliquities beta = 0, 30, 60, 80, 85, and 90 degrees are compared. The paper reports that Dipole A leaves the cyclic hemispheric dynamo essentially unchanged, while sufficiently strong closed dipoles drive the core dynamo into a quasi-stationary, dipole-dominated, superequipartition state (Emag/Ekin about 5 in the strongest cases), with an inverse relation between saturation field strength and beta, a transition to anti-solar core differential rotation, nearly rigid rotation in the radiative envelope, and decay only for beta = 90 degrees. The interpretation is that closed field-line topology is the key agent of dynamo enhancement, with a strength threshold noted in Section 5.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, the paper is significant for the physics of intermediate-mass stars: it would show that a fossil dipolar field can switch a cyclic multipolar core dynamo onto a strong, quasi-stationary alpha-squared branch, produce superequipartition core fields consistent with asteroseismic upper limits, and simultaneously preserve a simple surface dipole like those observed in Ap/Bp stars. The work is also valuable as a numerical benchmark: the diagnostics are carefully defined, the comparison with Featherstone et al. (2009) and Augustson et al. (2016) is useful, and no free constants are fitted to produce the reported saturation levels or the inverse-beta trend. However, the headline topology interpretation is currently entangled with a large variation in field strength, so the significance as a statement about topology rather than about field strength is not yet established.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2, Table 1, §5] The central comparison is confounded: Dipole A has an imposed core poloidal rms field of roughly 6 kG, whereas Dipoles B and B* have roughly 100 and 500 kG, so the closed-versus-open topology contrast is varied simultaneously with a 15- to 80-fold change in strength and with a different radial current profile. Section 5 itself offers a strength-threshold explanation (Bpol_rms at least 19 kG), which is consistent with all the presented runs and makes the topology interpretation unfalsifiable within the current data set. I request matched-strength controls: an open-field configuration with core Bpol in the 100-500 kG range, and a closed-field configuration with core Bpol near 6 kG, with the same regularization and radial profile otherwise. Without such runs, the abstract's claim that field-line closure is the key variable is not supported; the results as they stand are equally consistent with a pure strength threshold.
  2. [§4.1, Table 1] Each beta value is represented by a single simulation started from one snapshot of MHDr2, with no ensemble or noise-level variation. The claimed inverse trend of Brms with beta (Section 4.1.1) and the sharp stability boundary at beta = 90 degrees are therefore based on one trajectory per parameter point. Given that the underlying MHDr2 dynamo is cyclic and hemispheric, with occasional switches of the active hemisphere, the saturation levels and the decay of the horizontal cases could depend on the initial phase or on stochastic fluctuations. Please add either multiple realizations for at least the boundary cases (for example beta = 80, 85, and 90 degrees) or quantitative estimates of the time-averaging uncertainty for the entries in Table 1.
  3. [§4.1.1, Eq. (18)] The classification of the enhanced dynamos as alpha-squared relies on mean-field estimates c_alpha and c_Omega computed from Eq. (18) with the alpha effect from Eq. (19). For a strongly magnetized, quasi-stationary state with Emag/Ekin near 5, these estimates may be sensitive to the arbitrary separation into mean and fluctuating fields and to the choice of eta_turb; the paper should show the time convergence of c_alpha and c_Omega and compare them with alternative definitions before using the ratio c_Omega/c_alpha as evidence against an alpha-Omega contribution in the enhanced cases.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Table 1] The table would be much clearer if it separated the imposed fossil-field component from the total core Bpol_rms; as written, DipA shows Bpol_rms = 23 kG while Section 5 refers to an imposed field of roughly 6 kG, which is confusing to the reader.
  2. [Figure 2] The caption should state explicitly which panels show Dipole A, Dipole B, and Dipole B*, and which panel shows the initial snapshot of run DipB; the current phrasing conflates the schematic initial conditions with the actual simulation snapshot.
  3. [Throughout] The text contains numerous spacing artifacts such as 'a ffect', 'di fferent', and 'e fficiently'; a careful proofreading pass is needed before publication.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the saturation levels and rotation changes are emergent simulation outputs; the closed-vs-open/strength confound is an interpretation issue, not a circular derivation.

full rationale

The paper's central results—core field strengths of 105–172 kG, Emag/Ekin ≈ 5, the inverse relation with obliquity, nearly rigid radiative rotation, and the solar-to-anti-solar core differential rotation transition—are time-averaged outputs of 3D MHD simulations, not analytic consequences of the initial conditions. No free parameter was fitted to reproduce these values. The Dipole A versus Dipole B/B* comparison does vary field-line topology together with internal field strength (about 6 kG versus 100–500 kG), and Section 5 itself concedes that a strength threshold of roughly 19 kG may explain why Dipole A has no effect. That is a genuine design confound relevant to the physical interpretation of the results, but it is not a circular derivation: the simulations with equal-strength initial fields at different obliquities produce different outcomes (the β = 90° cases decay while tilted and aligned cases persist), so the outcomes are not set by the initial condition alone. Self-citations to Paper I supply the numerical setup and the MHDr2 baseline, but the enhancement claim is tested by new simulations against that baseline rather than imported from the cited work. Thus no step in the paper reduces, by construction, to its own input or to a fitted quantity.

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

The central claim depends on the strength and geometry of the imposed dipole, the rotation rate, and the artificial diffusivities. The main free parameters are the surface amplitude (6 kG), the two regularization strengths defining Dipole B and B*, and the numerical transport parameters. No new physical entity is invented; the superequipartition branch is a state of the existing MHD system.

free parameters (6)
  • Surface dipolar amplitude m0 = 6 kG at r = R
    Chosen to match typical Ap/Bp stars (Section 3.2); sets the overall strength of the imposed fossil field.
  • Dipole regularization epsilon (epsilon1, epsilon2) = core Bpol_rms about 500 kG (epsilon1) and 100 kG (epsilon2)
    Two ad hoc cutoffs used to avoid the 1/r singularity; they control the core field strength and define Dipole B* versus Dipole B.
  • Initial rotation period (MHDr2 seed) = Prot = 15 days
    Picked from Paper I as the slowest rotator available; the Coriolis number Co = 10.1 may overstate the rotational influence of real slow rotators.
  • Convective core radius = 0.2R
    Fixed by the 1D MESA model; determines the dynamo volume and the closed and open field-line comparison.
  • Enhanced luminosity and enhanced rotation factors = not tabulated in this paper; from Kapyla et al. (2020) and Paper I
    Numerical approach needed to reach convective velocities, but it changes turbulent transport from the stellar reality.
  • Radiative-zone magnetic diffusivity contrast = eta_rad = 10^-2 eta_conv
    Artificial enhancement (Section 2.1); controls whether the fossil field can survive and be transported.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math The ideal-gas MHD equations with a fixed gravitational potential from a 1D model are a valid description of core convection and dynamo action in the simulated star.
    Equation set (1) to (4), Section 2.1.
  • domain assumption The 1D MESA 2.2 solar mass model is representative of an A-type star with a 20% convective core.
    Section 2.2; the core radius and stratification enter every quantitative result.
  • ad hoc to paper The enhanced-luminosity and enhanced-rotation recipes preserve the rotational influence on the flow despite artificial luminosity.
    Section 2.2, citing Kapyla et al. (2020); if the enhancement distorts the balance, the beta dependence could be numerical.
  • domain assumption Magnetic diffusivity in radiative zones only 100 times smaller than in convective zones, with hyperdiffusivity, still captures the coupling between the core dynamo and the fossil field.
    Section 2.1; load-bearing for the surface-field survival and near-rigid rotation claims.
  • ad hoc to paper The regularized point-dipole field with r' = r + epsilon is a valid proxy for a fossil dipole whose field lines close inside the star.
    Section 3.2; the regularization alters the field near the center and could change the field-line closure classification.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Shaping core dynamos in A-type stars: The role of dipolar fossil fields." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QU6NXH53

@misc{pith2026250601017,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Shaping core dynamos in A-type stars: The role of dipolar fossil fields},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QU6NXH53}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.01017}
}
abstract

Large-scale magnetic fields of Ap/Bp stars are stable over long timescales and have typically simple dipolar geometries, leading to the idea of a fossil origin. These stars are also expected to have convective cores that can host strong dynamo action. We aim to study the interaction between the magnetic fields generated by the convective core dynamo of the star, and a dipolar fossil field reminiscent of observed magnetic topologies of Ap/Bp stars. We use numerical 3D star-in-a-box simulations of a $2.2M_\odot$ A-type star, where the core encompasses $20\%$ of the stellar radius. As an initial condition, we impose two purely poloidal configurations, both with a surface dipolar strength of 6 kG, and we explore different obliquity angles $\beta$ (the angle between the magnetic and rotational axes), ranging from $0^\circ$ to $90^\circ$. The inclusion of a poloidal field where none of the magnetic field lines are closed inside the star, does not affect the core dynamo in a significant way. Dipolar configurations where all the field lines are closed inside the star can enhance the dynamo, producing a superequipartition quasi-stationary solution, where the magnetic energy is 5 times stronger than the kinetic energy. The enhanced core dynamos have typical magnetic field strengths between 105 and 172 kG, where the strength has an inverse relation with $\beta$. The strong magnetic fields produce an almost rigid rotation in the radiative envelope, and change the differential rotation of the core from solar-like to anti-solar. The only cases where the imposed dipoles are unstable and decay are those with $\beta = 90^\circ$. In the rest of cases, the core dynamos are enhanced and the surface magnetic field survives keeping simple topologies like in the observations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.01017 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Magnetic fields and flows from a snapshot of MHDr2 at t = 85 yrs. Panels (a), (b): Radial and toroidal magnetic fields at the surface of the convective zone (r = 0.2R). Panel (c): Azimuthally averaged toroidal (colormap) and poloidal (arrows) magnetic fields. Panel (d): Azimuthally averaged toroidal flows (colormap) and meridional circulation (arrows). All the panels are clipped for a better display, and the minimum… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Imposed initial (fossil) magnetic fields in our simulations. The arrows represent the poloidal magnetic field lines, and the colormap the intensity of this component. Dipole A and Dipole B* are aligned to the rotational axis (β = 0 ◦ ), and as an example of a misaligned dipole an inclination of β = 30◦ was added in Dipole B. The last panel corresponds to the initial snapshot of run DipB (Dipole B + MHDr2). most of t… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Temporal evolution of the rms magnetic field in the convective core (r < 0.2R) from all simulations. The gray dashed line indicates 60 kG, which is the saturated value of the core dynamo from MHDr2. 4.1. Core dynamos All of the current simulations host a strong core dynamo. How￾ever, in some cases the dynamo is enhanced by the fossil field while in others it remains mostly unaffected (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/f… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Time-latitude diagrams of the azimuthally averaged toroidal magnetic field Bϕ(r = 0.2R, θ, t) of runs DipB and DipBt2*. The run label is indicated in the upper left corner of each panel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Dynamo parameters cα = α∆r/ηturb and cΩ = ∂Ω/∂r(∆r) 3 /ηturb from DipB (upper panels) and MHDr2 (bottom panels). All the panels are clipped and cropped (to 0.6R) for better legibility and comparison. negative polarity from 0◦ to −30◦ . Beyond these latitudes, the polar…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Azimuthally averaged toroidal magnetic field Bϕ(ϖ,z) of DipB. The poloidal magnetic field is represented with arrows, where the width is proportional to the strength of the field. The values of Bϕ are clipped and the maximum and minimum values (B min ϕ , B max ϕ ) are …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Distribution and temporal evolution of the rms magnetic field at the stellar surface (r = R) of all the simulations. Upper panels: Poloidal (left) and toroidal (right) components of the azimuthally and temporally averaged rms-field as a function of latitude. Bottom pan…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Left panel: Normalized power spectra of the velocity E˜ (ℓ) K = E (ℓ) K / P l E (ℓ) K and magnetic fields E˜ (ℓ) M = E (ℓ) M / P l E (ℓ) K from DipB at r = 0.98R. The solid lines show the power spectra from early times (first 15 years) of the simulation, and the dashed…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Profiles of the temporally and azimuthally averaged rotation rate Ω(ϖ,z) of selected runs with Dipole B and Dipole B* (clipped at r = 0.6R). The streamlines indicate the mass flux due to meridional circulation. The maximum meridional flow speed is indicated in the low…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

87 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2019, in EAS Publications Series, V ol

    Alecian, E., Villebrun, F., Grunhut, J., et al. 2019, in EAS Publications Series, V ol. 82, EAS Publications Series, 345–355

    2019

  2. [2]

    C., Brun, A

    Augustson, K. C., Brun, A. S., & Toomre, J. 2016, ApJ, 829, 92 Aurière, M., Wade, G. A., Silvester, J., et al. 2007, A&A, 475, 1053

    2016

  3. [3]

    & Shukurov, A

    Baryshnikova, I. & Shukurov, A. 1987, Astronomische Nachrichten, 308, 89

    1987

  4. [4]

    A., & Gusakov, M

    Becerra, L., Reisenegger, A., Valdivia, J. A., & Gusakov, M. E. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 732

    2022

  5. [5]

    B., Frieman, E

    Bernstein, I. B., Frieman, E. A., Kruskal, M. D., & Kulsrud, R. M. 1958, Pro- ceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A, 244, 17

    1958

  6. [6]

    Bice, C. P. & Toomre, J. 2023, ApJ, 947, 36

    2023

  7. [7]

    Bowman, D. M. 2021, in OBA Stars: Variability and Magnetic Fields, 27

    2021

  8. [8]

    Bowman, D. M. 2023, Ap&SS, 368, 107

    work page 2023

Show all 87 references
  1. [9]

    Boyer, D. W. & Levy, E. H. 1984, ApJ, 277, 848

    1984

  2. [10]

    2008, MNRAS, 386, 1947

    Braithwaite, J. 2008, MNRAS, 386, 1947

    2008

  3. [11]

    2009, MNRAS, 397, 763

    Braithwaite, J. 2009, MNRAS, 397, 763

    2009

  4. [12]

    & Nordlund, Å

    Braithwaite, J. & Nordlund, Å. 2006, A&A, 450, 1077

    2006

  5. [13]

    & Spruit, H

    Braithwaite, J. & Spruit, H. C. 2004, Nature, 431, 819

    2004

  6. [14]

    2017, A&A, 598, A117

    Brandenburg, A. 2017, A&A, 598, A117

    2017

  7. [15]

    & Sarson, G

    Brandenburg, A. & Sarson, G. R. 2002, Phys. Rev. Lett., 88, 055003

    2002

  8. [16]

    & Subramanian, K

    Brandenburg, A. & Subramanian, K. 2005, Phys. Rep., 417, 1

    2005

  9. [17]

    2015, in European Physical Journal Web of Conferences, V ol

    Briquet, M. 2015, in European Physical Journal Web of Conferences, V ol. 101, European Physical Journal Web of Conferences, 05001

    2015

  10. [18]

    P., Oishi, J

    Brown, B. P., Oishi, J. S., Vasil, G. M., Lecoanet, D., & Burns, K. J. 2020, ApJ, 902, L3

    2020

  11. [19]

    K., Brun, A

    Browning, M. K., Brun, A. S., & Toomre, J. 2004, ApJ, 601, 512

    2004

  12. [20]

    S., Browning, M

    Brun, A. S., Browning, M. K., & Toomre, J. 2005, ApJ, 629, 461

    2005

  13. [21]

    S., Miesch, M

    Brun, A. S., Miesch, M. S., & Toomre, J. 2004, ApJ, 614, 1073

    2004

  14. [22]

    S., Strugarek, A., Noraz, Q., et al

    Brun, A. S., Strugarek, A., Noraz, Q., et al. 2022, ApJ, 926, 21

    2022

  15. [23]

    M., et al

    Buysschaert, B., Aerts, C., Bowman, D. M., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A148

    2018

  16. [24]

    & Braithwaite, J

    Cantiello, M. & Braithwaite, J. 2019, ApJ, 883, 106

    2019

  17. [25]

    2009, A&A, 499, 279

    Cantiello, M., Langer, N., Brott, I., et al. 2009, A&A, 499, 279

    2009

  18. [26]

    2020, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 17, 4

    Charbonneau, P. 2020, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 17, 4

    2020

  19. [27]

    Christensen, U. R. & Aubert, J. 2006, Geophysical Journal International, 166, 97

    2006

  20. [28]

    Cowling, T. G. 1945, MNRAS, 105, 166

    1945

  21. [29]

    2006, ApJ, 638, 336

    Dobler, W., Stix, M., & Brandenburg, A. 2006, ApJ, 638, 336

    2006

  22. [30]

    Donati, J. F. & Landstreet, J. D. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 333

    2009

  23. [31]

    & Brun, A

    Emeriau-Viard, C. & Brun, A. S. 2017, ApJ, 846, 8

    2017

  24. [32]

    A., Browning, M

    Featherstone, N. A., Browning, M. K., Brun, A. S., & Toomre, J. 2009, ApJ, 705, 1000

    2009

  25. [33]

    E., Tout, C

    Ferrario, L., Pringle, J. E., Tout, C. A., & Wickramasinghe, D. T. 2009, MNRAS, 400, L71

    2009

  26. [34]

    & Ruderman, M

    Flowers, E. & Ruderman, M. A. 1977, ApJ, 215, 302

    1977

  27. [35]

    2012, A&A, 546, A19

    Gastine, T., Duarte, L., & Wicht, J. 2012, A&A, 546, A19

    2012

  28. [36]

    H., Wade, G

    Grunhut, J. H., Wade, G. A., Neiner, C., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 2432

    2017

  29. [37]

    Navarrete, F. H. 2024, A&A, 691, A326

    2024

  30. [38]

    P., & Schöller, M

    Hubrig, S., Järvinen, S. P., & Schöller, M. 2020, Azerbaijani Astronomical Jour- nal, 15, 68

    2020

  31. [39]

    2007, Astronomische Nachrichten, 328, 475

    Hubrig, S., North, P., & Schöller, M. 2007, Astronomische Nachrichten, 328, 475

    2007

  32. [40]

    2011, A&A, 536, A45

    Hubrig, S., Schöller, M., Ilyin, I., et al. 2011, A&A, 536, A45

    2011

  33. [41]

    Hubrig, S., Schöller, M., & Yudin, R. V . 2004, A&A, 428, L1

    2004

  34. [42]

    & Klahr, H

    Johansen, A. & Klahr, H. 2005, ApJ, 634, 1353 Käpylä, P. J. 2021, A&A, 651, A66 Käpylä, P. J. 2022, ApJ, 931, L17 Käpylä, P. J. 2024, A&A, 683, A221 Käpylä, P. J., Browning, M. K., Brun, A. S., Guerrero, G., & Warnecke, J. 2023, Space Sci. Rev., 219, 58 Käpylä, P. J., Gent, F....

    2005

  35. [43]

    F., Akhnevsky, A

    Kholtygin, A. F., Akhnevsky, A. S., & Tsiopa, O. 2019, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 518, Physics of Magnetic Stars, ed. D. O. Kudryavtsev, I. I. Romanyuk, & I. A. Yakunin, 83

    2019

  36. [44]

    & Bagnulo, S

    Kochukhov, O. & Bagnulo, S. 2006, A&A, 450, 763

    2006

  37. [45]

    A., et al

    Kochukhov, O., Rusomarov, N., Valenti, J. A., et al. 2015, A&A, 574, A79

    2015

  38. [46]

    & Wade, G

    Kochukhov, O. & Wade, G. A. 2016, A&A, 586, A30

    2016

  39. [47]

    & Featherstone, N

    Korre, L. & Featherstone, N. A. 2024, ApJ, 964, 162

    2024

  40. [48]

    & Rädler, K.-H

    Krause, F. & Rädler, K.-H. 1980, Mean-field Magnetohydrodynamics and Dy- namo Theory (Oxford: Pergamon Press)

    1980

  41. [49]

    W., Saio, H., Takata, M., et al

    Kurtz, D. W., Saio, H., Takata, M., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 102

    2014

  42. [50]

    D., Bagnulo, S., Andretta, V ., et al

    Landstreet, J. D., Bagnulo, S., Andretta, V ., et al. 2007, A&A, 470, 685

    2007

  43. [51]

    Landstreet, J. D. & Mathys, G. 2000, A&A, 359, 213

    2000

  44. [52]

    D., Silaj, J., Andretta, V ., et al

    Landstreet, J. D., Silaj, J., Andretta, V ., et al. 2008, A&A, 481, 465

    2008

  45. [53]

    M., & Van Reeth, T

    Lecoanet, D., Bowman, D. M., & Van Reeth, T. 2022, MNRAS, 512, L16

    2022

  46. [54]

    P., Heinemann, T., & Masset, F

    Lyra, W., McNally, C. P., Heinemann, T., & Masset, F. 2017, AJ, 154, 146

    2017

  47. [55]

    & Mullan, D

    MacDonald, J. & Mullan, D. J. 2004, MNRAS, 348, 702

    2004

  48. [56]

    MacGregor, K. B. & Cassinelli, J. P. 2003, ApJ, 586, 480

    2003

  49. [57]

    & Tayler, R

    Markey, P. & Tayler, R. J. 1973, MNRAS, 163, 77

    1973

  50. [58]

    & Tayler, R

    Markey, P. & Tayler, R. J. 1974, MNRAS, 168, 505

    1974

  51. [59]

    & Sano, T

    Masada, Y . & Sano, T. 2014, ApJ, 794, L6

    2014

  52. [60]

    J., & Brandenburg, A

    Mitra, D., Tavakol, R., Käpylä, P. J., & Brandenburg, A. 2010, ApJ, 719, L1

    2010

  53. [61]

    2001, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol

    Moss, D. 2001, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 248, Magnetic Fields Across the Hertzsprung-Russell Diagram, ed. G. Mathys, S. K. Solanki, & D. T. Wickramasinghe, 305

    2001

  54. [62]

    2004, A&A, 414, 1065 Ortiz-Rodríguez, C

    Moss, D. 2004, A&A, 414, 1065 Ortiz-Rodríguez, C. A., Käpylä, P. J., Navarrete, F. H., et al. 2023, A&A, 678, A82

    2004

  55. [63]

    Parker, E. N. 1979, Ap&SS, 62, 135

    1979

  56. [64]

    2019, ApJS, 243, 10 Pencil Code Collaboration, Brandenburg, A., Johansen, A., et al

    Paxton, B., Smolec, R., Schwab, J., et al. 2019, ApJS, 243, 10 Pencil Code Collaboration, Brandenburg, A., Johansen, A., et al. 2021, The Jour- nal of Open Source Software, 6, 2807

    2019

  57. [65]

    2023, Science, 379, 300

    Petitdemange, L., Marcotte, F., & Gissinger, C. 2023, Science, 379, 300

    2023

  58. [66]

    2024, A&A, 681, A75

    Petitdemange, L., Marcotte, F., Gissinger, C., & Daniel, F. 2024, A&A, 681, A75

    2024

  59. [67]

    Pouquet, A., Frisch, U., & Léorat, J. 1976, J. Fluid Mech., 77, 321

    1976

  60. [68]

    Prendergast, K. H. 1956, ApJ, 123, 498

    1956

  61. [69]

    Raedler, K. H. & Braeuer, H. J. 1987, Astronomische Nachrichten, 308, 101

    1987

  62. [70]

    2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 558, 377

    Richard, O., Michaud, G., & Richer, J. 2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 558, 377

    2001

  63. [71]

    2015, A&A, 573, A123

    Rusomarov, N., Kochukhov, O., Ryabchikova, T., & Piskunov, N. 2015, A&A, 573, A123

    2015

  64. [72]

    Schleicher, D. R. G., Hidalgo, J. P., & Galli, D. 2023, A&A, 678, A204

    2023

  65. [73]

    Schneider, F. R. N., Ohlmann, S. T., Podsiadlowski, P., et al. 2019, Nature, 574, 211

    2019

  66. [74]

    & Paehler, A

    Schuessler, M. & Paehler, A. 1978, A&A, 68, 57

    1978

  67. [75]

    Shorlin, S. L. S., Wade, G. A., Donati, J. F., et al. 2002, A&A, 392, 637

    2002

  68. [76]

    E., Wade, G

    Shultz, M. E., Wade, G. A., Rivinius, T., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 274

    2019

  69. [77]

    A., Power, J., & Neiner, C

    Sikora, J., Wade, G. A., Power, J., & Neiner, C. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 3127

    2019

  70. [78]

    Silvester, J., Kochukhov, O., Rusomarov, N., & Wade, G. A. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 962

    2017

  71. [79]

    M., King, E

    Soderlund, K. M., King, E. M., & Aurnou, J. M. 2012, Earth and Planetary Sci- ence Letters, 333, 9

    2012

  72. [80]

    Spruit, H. C. 2002, A&A, 381, 923

    2002

  73. [81]

    & Krause, F

    Steenbeck, M. & Krause, F. 1969, Astronomische Nachrichten, 291, 49

    1969

  74. [82]

    Strugarek, A., Beaudoin, P., Charbonneau, P., & Brun, A. S. 2018, ApJ, 863, 35 Suárez Mascareño, A., Rebolo, R., & González Hernández, J. I. 2016, A&A, 595, A12

    2018

  75. [83]

    Tayler, R. J. 1973, MNRAS, 161, 365

    1973

  76. [84]

    Waters, L. B. F. M. 2006, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference

    2006

  77. [85]

    Waters, L. B. F. M. & Waelkens, C. 1998, ARA&A, 36, 233

    1998

  78. [86]

    Wright, G. A. E. 1973, MNRAS, 162, 339

    1973

  79. [87]

    K., Christensen, U

    Yadav, R. K., Christensen, U. R., Morin, J., et al. 2015, ApJ, 813, L31 Article number, page 12 of 12

    2015

Pith tools

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