Comment on "Did the terrestrial planets of the Solar System form by pebble accretion?"

Anders Johansen; Peter Olson; Zachary Sharp

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 3 cited by

Comment on "Did the terrestrial planets of the Solar System form by pebble accretion?"

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Pebble accretion can still build 70% of Earth, a new comment argues, because a hybrid history of pebbles and impacts fits the tungsten clock.

desk verdict A candid rebuttal that makes a legitimate but narrow point: pebble accretion is not excluded by Hf-W given Olson & Sharp's hybrid model, but the 70% figure is an assumed input, not a derived limit. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17043 v2 pith:VMWSKFFS submitted 2024-11-26 astro-ph.EP

Anders Johansen , Peter Olson , Zachary Sharp This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.EP

keywords pebbleaccretionterrestrialplanetformationHf-Wchronometrymoon-forminggiantimpactmetal-silicateequilibrationisotopicdichotomyprotoplanetarydischybridmodel

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 comment responds to a recent analysis that concluded the terrestrial planets did not form by pebble accretion. It argues that pebble accretion remains a viable and possibly dominant growth channel, capable of delivering as much as 70% of Earth's mass during the protoplanetary disc phase. The key move is to show that this rapid early growth is compatible with the Hf-W radioactive decay clock: a hybrid history of 70% pebble accretion, 20% late accretion from small planetesimals, and a canonical Mars-mass moon-forming giant impact with low core-mantle equilibration reproduces Earth's measured 182W excess. If correct, the classical collision-only model and the pure pebble-accretion model are not genuine alternatives; the real process is a hybrid of pebble growth, planetesimal impacts, and giant impact.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the growth-and-mixing model of Olson & Sharp (2023), which tracks Earth's mass and its 182W anomaly through three phases: pebble accretion to 0.7 Earth masses, late planetesimal accretion of 0.2 Earth masses at 90% metal-silicate equilibration, and a Mars-mass giant impact at only 10% equilibration. The central variable is the metal-silicate equilibration efficiency, the fraction of the impactor's core tungsten that mixes into the magma ocean rather than merging directly into the core; it determines how far the 182W anomaly is reset by each collision. By choosing a low 10% efficiency for the giant impact, the model lets a canonical Mars-mass impactor lower the anomaly to the terrestrial value, removing the earlier requirement of a 0.4-Earth-mass impactor. The mechanism also includes thermal processing of accreted FeS to explain volatile-element and Mo isotope signatures.

What would settle it

Measure the metal-silicate equilibration efficiency of the moon-forming giant impact by combining high-resolution impact simulations with metal/silicate partition coefficients and compare it with the assumed 10%; if the efficiency is much higher or the late planetesimal contribution is much less than 0.2 Earth masses, the hybrid model's match to Earth's 182W excess breaks down.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the recent dismissal of pebble accretion as a terrestrial-planet formation mechanism is premature. On the authors' account, a hybrid growth history remains fully viable: a proto-Earth assembled by pebble accretion to 70% of its final mass while the protoplanetary disc still existed, then accreted 20% of its mass from small planetesimals, and finally experienced a Mars-mass moon-forming giant impact. With metal-silicate equilibration of 90% for the small impactors and 10% for the giant impact, this history reproduces the measured 182W excess of Earth's mantle. The Hf-W clock therefore does not demand a massive near-equal-mass impactor or rule out pebble accretion; it only requires substantial collisional growth after the disc phase. The authors conclude that the opposition between pebble-accretion models and classical collision models is a false dichotomy, since both classes of processes were likely at work in the terrestrial planet zone.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion rests on assuming a specific growth history: 70% of Earth assembled from pebbles in the disc, 20% from later small planetesimal impacts, and a Mars-mass giant impact whose core mixed with the mantle at only 10% efficiency, so if real equilibration efficiencies or the late-accreted mass differ substantially, the agreement with the tungsten isotope clock disappears.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The Hf-W excess of Earth's mantle does not by itself rule out pebble accretion; it only demands that a substantial fraction of Earth's mass was added by collisions after the protoplanetary disc dissipated.
A canonical Mars-mass moon-forming giant impact remains viable if its core equilibrated with the magma ocean at only about 10% efficiency, so the pebble-accretion scenario does not require a near-equal-mass giant impactor.
Earth's mix of inner and outer Solar System isotopic signatures (Cr, Ti, Ca, Si) is naturally explained by inward pebble drift, while anomalous elements such as Mo can be explained by thermal processing of FeS during accretion, avoiding the need for an unsampled 'lost reservoir' of planetesimals.
Depletions of moderately volatile elements like S and Zn can arise during pebble accretion through sublimation and gas escape, offering an alternative to forming Earth's building blocks exclusively in a hot inner disc.
The dichotomy between pebble-accretion models and classical collision models is misplaced; the most plausible formation path combines pebble accretion with planetesimal impacts and a final giant impact.

Reading between the lines

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

Inference: the hybrid scenario suggests Mars's modest mass may reflect a lower local pebble-accretion efficiency or earlier disc dispersal, an explanation the comment itself does not develop.
Inference: the model implies a testable tungsten signature in lunar samples; if the giant impactor equilibrated at about 10%, the Moon should carry a slightly different 182W signature than Earth's mantle, and a precise measurement could confirm or rule out the assumed efficiency.
Inference: rather than debating final compositions, the field could constrain the model by observing protoplanetary discs and measuring pebble fluxes, disc lifetimes, and turbulence levels, parameters the comment itself lists as decisive.
Inference: if the pebble-selective major-element match holds, chondrite-based mixing models become inappropriate for Earth's bulk composition, shifting geochemical interpretation toward pebble components and early refractory inclusions.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

This is a rebuttal comment, not a primary research paper. No new data, no new derivations. But it is a serious and honest piece of adversarial writing. Its real contribution is to point out that MKN's binary framing — pebble accretion versus collision-only — is not forced by the evidence, and to present a concrete hybrid scenario from Olson & Sharp (2023) that fits Hf-W in a way MKN's analysis allegedly rules out. On the merits, that is a legitimate counter-example: grow Earth to 0.7 ME via pebbles, add 0.2 ME via small impactors with 90% core–mantle equilibration, then a Mars-mass giant impact at 10% equilibration brings epsilon-182W to zero. If those numbers are within the physically plausible ranges, MKN's exclusion claim is too strong. The comment deserves credit for saying plainly what it is not doing — it does not address every MKN claim — and for conceding that the isotopic evidence is ambiguous.

The soft spot is the 70% headline. In the Olson & Sharp model, that fraction is prescribed, not derived. The comment gives no sensitivity analysis: how much does the final epsilon-182W vary if the pebble fraction is 0.5 or 0.8, or if the late accretion mass is 0.1 ME, or if the equilibration efficiencies differ? Without that, 'as much as 70%' is a statement of possibility, not robustness. I would not call it circularly derived — it is a constructed scenario, which is how viability arguments work — but it is underjustified in this comment. The authors also lean on prior and in-press work (Garai et al. 2024, Bizzarro et al. 2025) for some key claims, which makes the present text difficult to fully check.

Who should read this? Anyone in the terrestrial planet formation debate. It will not change your mind if you already find the Olson & Sharp parameter choices stretched, but it should prevent you from citing MKN as having closed the case. A serious editor should send it to peer review, with reviewers who can interrogate the Hf-W modeling and ask for sensitivity tests. I would not cite this comment itself as a primary source; I'd cite Olson & Sharp for the model and MKN for the critique. I would bring it to a reading group only if the group is specifically debating pebble accretion versus collisions.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This manuscript is a comment on Morbidelli, Kleine & Nimmo (2024) (MKN), who argue that the terrestrial planets did not form by pebble accretion. The authors object on four fronts: (1) the conditions for pebble accretion are met in protoplanetary discs; (2) the isotopic dichotomy (NC-CC) is explained by pebble drift and, for Mo and Zn, by thermal processing during pebble accretion; (3) the Hf-W chronometer can be reconciled with substantial pebble growth if proto-Earth grew to 0.7 Earth masses by pebble accretion, accreted 0.2 Earth masses from small impactors, and then suffered a Mars-mass moon-forming giant impact with low (10%) metal-silicate equilibration, citing the Olson & Sharp (2023) model; and (4) Earth's elemental composition, including moderately volatile depletions, can be produced by selective pebble accretion. The paper concludes that a hybrid model combining pebble accretion, planetesimal impacts, and giant impacts is more plausible than an either/or distinction between the classical and pebble-accretion scenarios.

Significance. If substantiated, the paper would provide a concrete counterargument to MKN's strong conclusion that pebble accretion is incompatible with the Hf-W system and other constraints, and it would support hybrid formation models. The manuscript raises a legitimate and important point: the debate should not be framed as a binary between 'pebble accretion' and 'giant impacts,' because real planet formation plausibly involves both. The paper also draws attention to recent models (Olson & Sharp 2023; Onyett et al. 2023; Steinmeyer et al. 2023) that attempt to reconcile pebble accretion with geochemical observations. However, the central quantitative claim that 'as much as 70% of Earth formed by pebble accretion' is not derived in this comment; it is an input assumption of Olson & Sharp (2023). The manuscript provides no equations, no parameter uncertainties, and no sensitivity analysis for the Hf-W result, and it does not address MKN's constraints on equilibration efficiencies. The paper's own conclusion concedes that the evidence is ambiguous and that many outcomes are possible, which undercuts the strength of the abstract's claim.

major comments (4)

[Section 4 and Figure 1] The abstract's central claim that 'as much as 70% of Earth formed by pebble accretion' is not derived in this comment. The Olson & Sharp (2023) model, which is the basis of Section 4, prescribes a growth history: 0.7 Earth masses by pebble accretion, then 0.2 Earth masses via small impactors with 90% metal-silicate equilibration, and finally a Mars-mass giant impact with 10% equilibration. These are inputs to the model, not outputs or derived bounds. The comment states that this 'gives a good match to the 182W excess' but provides no model equations, no parameter uncertainties, and no sensitivity analysis. To support the 'as much as 70%' claim, the authors need to show that this combination of parameters lies within physically plausible ranges and that the conclusion is robust to reasonable variations. Without this, the claim is underdetermined.
[Section 7, Conclusion] The conclusion states that 'Astrophysical, cosmochemical, and geochemical evidence on the formation of the terrestrial planets is nevertheless ambiguous by nature, so that multiple interpretations are always possible' and that 'the actual division of planetary growth between pebble accretion and collisional accretion will depend on...' many unconstrained parameters. This is in direct tension with the abstract's definitive statement that pebble accretion remains viable 'with as much as 70% of Earth formed by pebble accretion.' The authors should reconcile the abstract with the conclusion, either by softening the quantitative claim or by presenting evidence that the 70% upper bound is robust despite the acknowledged ambiguity.
[Section 4, Hf-W system] The paper argues that a 10% equilibration efficiency for the Mars-mass giant impact is 'conservative' and that 90% equilibration for small impactors is plausible, but it does not address the constraints that MKN likely raise on these values, nor does it provide independent physical constraints for the equilibration efficiencies. Equilibration efficiency is a free parameter in the model, and the final 182W match depends sensitively on both chosen efficiencies and the impactor mass. The authors should either provide a derivation or reference to experimental/geochemical constraints on these parameters, or explicitly demonstrate (e.g., with a parameter study) that the conclusion holds across the range of values MKN consider plausible.
[Section 3, isotopic dichotomy] The paper asserts that a classic collision model without pebble accretion requires 'a massive yet hidden lost reservoir' to explain Earth's Mo isotopic composition, and calls this 'a significant problem.' This is an argument from absence: the existence of an unsampled reservoir is not ruled out, and the proposed FeS thermal-processing model from Onyett et al. (2023) is itself a hypothesis. To make this a strong supporting argument, the paper should provide quantitative evidence that the FeS processing model can reproduce the observed Mo and Zn isotope patterns, or at least acknowledge that both explanations are currently viable. As written, the claim overstates the discriminating power of the Mo isotope argument.

minor comments (4)

[Section 6 and Section 7] There is a typo in the reference to 'Onyett al. (2023)' in both Section 6 and Section 7; this should be 'Onyett et al. (2023).'
[Figure 1] The figure shows two model growth curves and their 182W evolution, but no uncertainties or error bars are given. The caption should state that these are illustrative model outputs based on prescribed growth histories, not measured or inferred quantities.
[Section 6, Earth's elemental composition] The statement that Garai et al. (2024) 'duplicate the Earth's major element composition using pebble components, but cannot do the same with any combination of chondrites' is a strong claim, but the cited work is 'in press.' Please indicate the degree to which this result is published and peer-reviewed, or provide the key findings here.
[Section 2] The three conditions for pebble accretion are listed qualitatively. For a comment, this is acceptable, but a quantitative estimate of the pebble mass flux or accretion timescale would strengthen the argument.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The '70% of Earth by pebble accretion' headline is an assumed growth endpoint in the co-authored Olson & Sharp (2023) model, presented as a demonstrated result rather than a derived prediction.

fitted input called prediction [Section 4, Figure 1 caption and following paragraph; Abstract]
"In the bottom panel we reproduce the model of Olson & Sharp (2023). Here Earth grows again to 0.7 ME by pebble accretion in the protoplanetary disc and then accretes an additional 0.2 ME remnant planetesimals between 10 Myr and 40 Myr; this lowers the 182W excess significantly. The giant impact with a Mars-mass body is here able to lower the ϵW value down the terrestrial level even assuming a conservative equilibration efficiency between the impactor core and the silicate magma of only 10%."

The 70% pebble-accreted Earth fraction that the abstract presents as the conclusion ('with as much as 70% of Earth formed by pebble accretion') is an assumed growth history in the reproduced model, not an output. The model begins with Earth already at 0.7 ME from pebble accretion, then adds prescribed late impactor masses and equilibration efficiencies. The Hf-W calculation then only shows that this assumed history is consistent with 182W; it does not determine the 70% figure. The paper later calls this a demonstration ('hybrid pebble accretion / collisional models demonstrate that proto-Earth may have grown to as much as 70%'), converting a chosen input into a predicted result.
self citation load bearing [Abstract and Section 4]
"We emphasize here an important recent result from Olson & Sharp (2023), namely that significant growth by pebble accretion can be reconciled with the Hf-W decay system even for a canonical moon-forming giant impact with a Mars-mass protoplanet and a low equilibration efficiency – a more massive impactor, as proposed in Johansen et al. (2023), is not necessary."

The load-bearing evidence for the 70% claim is a paper by two of the three authors of this comment. Olson & Sharp (2023) is presented as an external 'important recent result', but the specific reconstruction it offers is the same assumed 0.7 ME pebble-growth history, so the self-citation does not add independent support for the headline number. The reconciliation with Hf-W is real evidence for consistency, but the 70% fraction itself is not established by the cited work beyond the model's own input assumption.

full rationale

The paper contains a genuine consistency check: the Olson & Sharp (2023) growth history—0.7 ME by pebble accretion, 0.2 ME of small impactors, then a Mars-mass giant impact with 10% core–mantle equilibration—does reproduce Earth's 182W excess relative to chondrites. That check is not itself circular. The circularity is narrower: the headline 'as much as 70% of Earth formed by pebble accretion' is the model's assumed pebble-growth endpoint, and the comment elevates it to a demonstrated result ('hybrid pebble accretion / collisional models demonstrate...'). Because the cited model is by two of the paper's three authors and its parameters are prescribed rather than derived or covered by a sensitivity study, the quantitative upper bound reduces by construction to an input. The other sections (isotopic dichotomy, Zn/S depletion, planetesimal formation, Earth's elemental composition) are independent arguments for pebble accretion's role and do not depend on the 70% figure; they keep the paper from being wholly circular. Score 6 rather than 8 because the Hf-W match is an actual model-data comparison and the paper explicitly concedes that many growth divisions are possible.

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

The comment's central claims depend on parameters from the co-authored Olson & Sharp (2023) model (pebble mass fraction, impactor masses, equilibration efficiencies) and on several physical and chemical assumptions about disk evolution and thermal processing. None of these are derived or independently validated within this comment; the 70% Earth-by-pebble figure is an input scenario rather than an output.

free parameters (5)

Pebble-accreted fraction of proto-Earth = 0.7 ME (70%)
Prescribed growth scenario in Olson & Sharp (2023); not derived from data in this comment.
Small-impactor mass accreted after disc dissipation = 0.2 ME (20%)
Used in the Olson & Sharp (2023) model to lower the 182W excess before the giant impact.
Core-mantle equilibration efficiency for small impactors = 90%
Assumed in the bottom panel of Figure 1; higher efficiency facilitates the 182W match.
Core-mantle equilibration efficiency for the Mars-mass giant impact = 10%
Set as a conservative value in the bottom panel of Figure 1.
Mass of the moon-forming giant impactor = Mars mass (about 0.1 ME)
Chosen in the bottom panel of Figure 1; the comment argues a more massive impactor is not necessary.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The protoplanetary disk persisted at least 3 Myr, based on chondrule ages.
Section 2; used to argue there was enough time for pebble accretion to grow an Earth-sized body.
domain assumption The streaming instability produces planetesimal seeds large enough for pebble accretion.
Section 2, citing Liu et al. (2020) and Lyra et al. (2023).
standard math Gas drag and sub-Keplerian rotation cause inward pebble drift and seed growth.
Section 2; basic physics of pebble accretion from Ormel & Klahr (2010) and Lambrechts & Johansen (2012).
ad hoc to paper Earth's isotopic anomalies in Mo and Zn are explained by thermal processing of FeS during pebble accretion.
Sections 3 and 6; this is the authors' own mechanism, referenced to Onyett et al. (2023) and Steinmeyer et al. (2023), not independently verified here.
domain assumption The Olson & Sharp (2023) Hf-W model correctly describes core-mantle segregation and isotopic evolution.
Section 4; the comment relies on this co-authored model without reproducing its equations or error analysis.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Comment on "Did the terrestrial planets of the Solar System form by pebble accretion?"." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VMWSKFFS

@misc{pith2026241117043,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Comment on "Did the terrestrial planets of the Solar System form by pebble accretion?"},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VMWSKFFS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17043}
}

read the original abstract

Morbidelli, Kleine & Nimmo (2024) (MKN) recently published a critical analysis on whether the terrestrial planets in the Solar System formed by rapid pebble accretion or by the classical route of multiple giant impacts between planetary embryos after the dissipation of the protoplanetary disc. They arrive at the conclusion that the terrestrial planets did not form by pebble accretion. Although we welcome debate on this topic, we want to emphasize here several points that we disagree on. We will not address in detail every claim made in MKN, but rather stick to four main points. Our conclusion is that pebble accretion remains a viable mechanism to drive significant growth of protoplanets in the protoplanetary disc, with as much as 70% of Earth formed by pebble accretion. This rapid growth phase must nevertheless have been followed by an extended period of collisional growth after the end of the protoplanetary disc phase, likely culminating with the moon-forming giant impact. We emphasize here an important recent result from Olson & Sharp (2023), namely that significant growth by pebble accretion can be reconciled with the Hf-W decay system even for a canonical moon-forming giant impact with a Mars-mass protoplanet and a low equilibration efficiency - a more massive impactor, as proposed in Johansen et al. (2023), is not necessary. Given that terrestrial planet formation naturally involves both pebble accretion and a combination of small and large impactors, this challenges the very notion of making an either/or distinction between the classical collision model and the pebble accretion model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17043 by the authors.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

A Resonant Beginning for the Solar System Terrestrial Planets
astro-ph.EP 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Simulations show an early resonant chain of terrestrial planets, including Theia, can be broken by the giant planet instability and yield a Moon-forming impact, with the present 3.05 Mars-Venus period ratio inherited ...
Forming Earth-like and Low-Mass Rocky Exoplanets Through Pebble and Planetesimal Accretion
astro-ph.EP 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Starting from 175-450 km planetesimals, pebble accretion builds Earth-mass planets around 0.49-1.0 solar-mass stars but not around 0.09-0.2 solar-mass stars, and surviving habitable-zone Earths are rare.
Earths composition: origin, evolution and energy budget
physics.geo-ph 2025-05 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

A synthesis of geochemical and geoneutrino data concludes that Earth's present radiogenic power is about 20 TW and the bulk silicate Earth is enriched in refractory lithophile elements by 2.5 to 2.7 times CI chondrites.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

[1]

Bizzarro, M., Johansen, A., & Dorn, C.\ 2025, to appear in Nature Reviews Chemistry

work page 2025
[2]

doi:10.1126/sciadv.abj7601

Burkhardt, C., Spitzer, F., Morbidelli, A., et al.\ 2021, Science Advances, 7, eabj7601. doi:10.1126/sciadv.abj7601

doi:10.1126/sciadv.abj7601 2021
[3]

J., Lambrechts, M., van Kooten, E., et al.\ 2024, , 685, A114

Colmenares, M. J., Lambrechts, M., van Kooten, E., et al.\ 2024, , 685, A114. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347737

doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347737 2024
[4]

Garai, S., Olson, P., & Sharp, Z.\ 2024, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta in press

work page 2024
[5]

doi:10.1126/science.7569896

Guillot, T.\ 1995, Science, 269, 1697. doi:10.1126/science.7569896

doi:10.1126/science.7569896 1995
[6]

doi:10.1126/sciadv.abc0444

Johansen, A., Ronnet, T., Bizzarro, M., et al.\ 2021, Science Advances, 7, eabc0444. doi:10.1126/sciadv.abc0444

doi:10.1126/sciadv.abc0444 2021
[7]

doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142142

Johansen, A., Ronnet, T., Schiller, M., et al.\ 2023, , 671, A75. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142142

doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142142 2023
[8]

doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2023.115519

Kleine, T., Steller, T., Burkhardt, C., et al.\ 2023, , 397, 115519. doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2023.115519

work page arXiv 2023

Show all 26 references

[9]

& Johansen, A.\ 2012, , 544, A32

Lambrechts, M. & Johansen, A.\ 2012, , 544, A32. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201219127

2012 doi
[10]

doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2021.116888

Landeau, M., Deguen, R., Phillips, D., et al.\ 2021, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 564, 116888. doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2021.116888

2021
[11]

doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629140

Leconte, J., Selsis, F., Hersant, F., et al.\ 2017, , 598, A98. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629140

2017 doi
[12]

F., Kretke, K

Levison, H. F., Kretke, K. A., Walsh, K. J., et al.\ 2015, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 112, 14180. doi:10.1073/pnas.1513364112

2015 doi
[13]

doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202037720

Liu, B., Lambrechts, M., Johansen, A., et al.\ 2020, , 638, A88. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202037720

2020 doi
[14]

doi:10.1126/sciadv.abm3045

Liu, B., Johansen, A., Lambrechts, M., et al.\ 2022, Science Advances, 8, eabm3045. doi:10.1126/sciadv.abm3045

2022 doi
[15]

H., et al.\ 2023, , 946, 60

Lyra, W., Johansen, A., Ca \ n as, M. H., et al.\ 2023, , 946, 60. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acaf5b

2023 doi
[16]

doi:10.48550/arXiv.2411.09271

Morbidelli, A., Kleine, T., & Nimmo, F.\ 2024, arXiv:2411.09271. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2411.09271

2024 doi arXiv
[17]

Olson, P. L. & Sharp, Z. D.\ 2023, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 622, 118418. doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2023.118418

2023
[18]

J., Schiller, M., Makhatadze, G

Onyett, I. J., Schiller, M., Makhatadze, G. V., et al.\ 2023, , 619, 539. doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06135-z

2023 doi
[19]

Ormel, C. W. & Klahr, H. H.\ 2010, , 520, A43. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201014903

2010 doi
[20]

P.\ 2019, , 482, L107

Popovas, A., Nordlund, A ., & Ramsey, J. P.\ 2019, , 482, L107. doi:10.1093/mnrasl/sly197

2019 doi
[21]

A.\ 2018, , 555, 507

Schiller, M., Bizzarro, M., & Fernandes, V. A.\ 2018, , 555, 507. doi:10.1038/nature25990

2018 doi
[22]

A., Stotz, I

Sossi, P. A., Stotz, I. L., Jacobson, S. A., et al.\ 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 951. doi:10.1038/s41550-022-01702-2

2022 doi
[23]

doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245636

Steinmeyer, M.-L., Woitke, P., & Johansen, A.\ 2023, , 677, A181. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245636

2023 doi
[24]

& Johansen, A.\ 2024, , 683, A217

Steinmeyer, M.-L. & Johansen, A.\ 2024, , 683, A217. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202349052

2024 doi
[25]

doi:10.1126/science.1173907

Villeneuve, J., Chaussidon, M., & Libourel, G.\ 2009, Science, 325, 985. doi:10.1126/science.1173907

2009 doi
[26]

& Jacobsen, S

Yu, G. & Jacobsen, S. B.\ 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 108, 17604

2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Bizzarro, M., Johansen, A., & Dorn, C.\ 2025, to appear in Nature Reviews Chemistry

work page 2025

[2] [2]

doi:10.1126/sciadv.abj7601

Burkhardt, C., Spitzer, F., Morbidelli, A., et al.\ 2021, Science Advances, 7, eabj7601. doi:10.1126/sciadv.abj7601

doi:10.1126/sciadv.abj7601 2021

[3] [3]

J., Lambrechts, M., van Kooten, E., et al.\ 2024, , 685, A114

Colmenares, M. J., Lambrechts, M., van Kooten, E., et al.\ 2024, , 685, A114. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347737

doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347737 2024

[4] [4]

Garai, S., Olson, P., & Sharp, Z.\ 2024, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta in press

work page 2024

[5] [5]

doi:10.1126/science.7569896

Guillot, T.\ 1995, Science, 269, 1697. doi:10.1126/science.7569896

doi:10.1126/science.7569896 1995

[6] [6]

doi:10.1126/sciadv.abc0444

Johansen, A., Ronnet, T., Bizzarro, M., et al.\ 2021, Science Advances, 7, eabc0444. doi:10.1126/sciadv.abc0444

doi:10.1126/sciadv.abc0444 2021

[7] [7]

doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142142

Johansen, A., Ronnet, T., Schiller, M., et al.\ 2023, , 671, A75. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142142

doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142142 2023

[8] [8]

doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2023.115519

Kleine, T., Steller, T., Burkhardt, C., et al.\ 2023, , 397, 115519. doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2023.115519

work page arXiv 2023