A correlation between accretion and outflow rates for Class II Young Stellar Objects with full and transition disks

A.A. Rota; A. Garufi; A. Isella; A. Sellek; C. Carrasco-Gonz\'alez; E. Macias; I. Pascucci; L. Testi; N. Van der Marel; S. Facchini

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

A correlation between accretion and outflow rates for Class II Young Stellar Objects with full and transition disks

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Radio free-free emission links accretion to outflow in 31 young stellar disks

desk verdict Useful incremental study adding null diagnostics and an FD-TD comparison, but the MHD-wind interpretation rests on a model conversion that the data don't uniquely constrain. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.16586 v1 pith:HRYUMBTB submitted 2025-05-22 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR

A.A. Rota , N. van der Marel , A. Garufi , C. Carrasco-González , E. Macias , I. Pascucci , A. Sellek , L. Testi

show 2 more authors

A. Isella S. Facchini

This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR PACS 97.10.Fy98.38.Er97.21.+a98.62.Mw

keywords free-freeemissionyoungstellarobjectsprotoplanetarydiskstransitionMHDdiskwindsjetsaccretionratemassloss

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper argues that the centimeter-wavelength free-free emission seen toward evolved young stars with disks traces ionized gas in a jet or magnetohynamic disk wind, not an X-ray-heated photoevaporative flow. It compares 18 full disks and 13 transition disks, finds that the ionized mass loss rate inferred from the free-free emission correlates with the stellar accretion rate, and concludes that jets or MHD winds are likely a main driver of accretion in both disk classes. This matters because it pins the same accretion-outflow engine to disks at different evolutionary stages, including transition disks whose inner cavities raise questions about how material crosses the gap.

What carries the argument

The central object is the ionized mass loss rate dot M_i inferred from the 2 cm free-free flux through the Reynolds (1986) jet model. That model converts the free-free flux, spectral index, jet velocity, opening angle, inclination, distance, and temperature into a mass loss rate. Because the jet velocity is assumed to scale as the square root of stellar mass, the paper also checks whether the accretion-outflow correlation survives fixing the jet velocity at 200 km/s, which it does, ruling out a stellar-mass-driven artifact.

What would settle it

A direct measurement that would settle the claim is a resolved image of the radio continuum around several of the full disks: if the centimeter emission is spread over a broad, roughly spherical region whose size scales with the X-ray or EUV luminosity rather than being collimated along the disk axis, the jet interpretation would fail. A second test is to observe a disk while its accretion rate drops dramatically; if the centimeter flux does not fall proportionally, the free-free emission is not tracing the accretion-driven outflow.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For a sample of 31 Class II young stellar objects with full or transition disks, the free-free emission detected at centimeter wavelengths most likely arises from ionized gas in a jet or MHD disk wind close to the star. The evidence is that the ionized mass loss rate derived from the free-free flux correlates strongly with the accretion rate onto the star (r=0.70±0.18), while the free-free emission shows no correlation with X-ray luminosity or with the [O I]6300 Å line properties. The spectral indices are flat or positive, consistent with partially optically thick free-free emission from a collimated outflow rather than the optically thin emission expected from an X-ray photoevaporative wind. The same conclusion holds for transition disks, whose free-free fluxes are mostly lower limits, and the two samples show consistent accretion-outflow correlations, with hints that the loudest accretors may have lower outflow efficiency.

Load-bearing premise

The conversion from observed radio flux to ionized mass loss rate assumes a fully ionized Reynolds jet geometry and an ionization that is total, so if the radio emission were instead dominated by gyro-synchrotron radiation or a photoevaporative wind, the inferred mass loss rates and the correlation would not support the MHD wind or jet conclusion.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The free-free emission in full disks, not just transition disks, is a practical radio tracer of accretion-driven outflows in evolved Class II sources.
Accretion onto the central star in both full and transition disks appears to be coupled to a jet or MHD wind, supporting the idea that MHD winds, not purely viscous processes, drive disk accretion.
The ratio of ionized mass loss to accretion is small for strong accretors and larger for weak accretors, pointing to a mass-dependent or accretion-rate-dependent efficiency of outflow launching.
The absence of correlation with [O I] line luminosity indicates free-free emission and optical forbidden lines trace different parts or phases of the outflow, so combining both tracers gives a fuller picture of the jet-wind structure.

Reading between the lines

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

If the radio free-free emission is a direct proportionality tracer of accretion-driven outflow, then centimeter monitoring of individual disks could give a time-resolved view of accretion bursts and their ejection response, which the current snapshot sample does not provide.
The hint that transition disks show shallower accretion-outflow correlations may reflect the cavity itself impeding efficient angular momentum extraction; testing this requires a transition-disk sample that is not biased toward high accretors and, ideally, resolved radio maps of the inner cavity region.
The correlation coefficients are computed on heterogeneous literature data with different measurement depths and upper limits, so the reported r-values likely change when a uniform, deeper radio survey of both disk classes is obtained.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Two things to know. First, this is an incremental but genuinely useful paper: it adds new diagnostics (no correlation with X-ray or [O I] properties) to the full-disk free-free sample from Garufi et al. (2025), and it makes the first quantitative full-disk vs transition-disk comparison. Second, the central claim—that the free-free emission traces an MHD wind/jet—is plausible but not uniquely supported; the conversion from flux to ionized mass-loss rate uses a fixed Reynolds jet model, and the resulting Mdot_i–Mdot_acc correlation largely restates the direct F_ff–L_acc correlation under a power-law transform.

The paper does several things well. The null results for X-ray and [O I] are interesting and honestly reported; if the emission were an X-ray-driven photoevaporative wind, you'd expect a correlation with L_X, and you don't see it. The check that fixing v_jet=200 km/s preserves the correlation is a good control against the stellar-mass dependence. The authors are also transparent about the transition-disk lower limits and the bias of that sample toward strong accretors; they don't overclaim the TD-FD difference.

The soft spots are real but proportionate. The stress-test note is right that gyro-synchrotron emission cannot be subtracted and could in principle keep the correlation alive if its fractional contribution is roughly constant. The paper dismisses this because non-thermal contributions 'are likely to vary from target to target,' but that is an assertion, not a test. Still, the flat spectral indices (mean 0.76) are more naturally thermal free-free, and the X-ray non-correlation is a point in the authors' favor. The bigger caveat is that Mdot_i is derived from the same flux that already correlates with L_acc, so the Mdot_i–Mdot_acc slope is not an independent measurement; it is a rescaled version of the same observable correlation. That doesn't invalidate the result, but it should be stated more explicitly. The TD comparison is explicitly provisional, with most fluxes as lower limits; the authors handle this with appropriate caution.

Overall, this is a careful paper from people who know the literature. The interpretation leans on a model, but the observational correlations are solid and the controls are reasonable. The right audience is anyone working on disk winds and accretion; the paper will be a useful reference for the full-disk free-free sample and for the FD-TD comparison. It deserves a serious referee, with the main request being a clearer separation of the direct observable correlation from the model-dependent mass-loss rate.

Recommendation: send it to review. The authors should be asked to quantify or better bound the non-thermal contamination, and to present the F_ff–L_acc correlation as the primary result, with Mdot_i–Mdot_acc as a derived interpretation rather than an independent confirmation.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes 31 Class II YSOs (18 full disks, 13 transition disks) using literature multi-wavelength photometry to isolate centimeter excess emission over the dust contribution. The authors find that the 2 cm free-free flux correlates with accretion luminosity (r=0.72), and that the ionized mass loss rate inferred from a Reynolds (1986) jet model correlates with the stellar accretion rate (r=0.70 for the combined sample). They rule out an X-ray-driven photoevaporative wind on the basis of the spectral indices and the lack of an X-ray correlation, and they argue that the emission originates from an MHD wind/jet. A comparison between full and transition disks yields consistent slopes, though most transition-disk fluxes are lower limits. The authors conclude that free-free emission in both classes of disks is likely associated with an MHD wind/jet, and that the apparent difference in outflow efficiency may be due to the biased accretion rates of the transition-disk sample.

Significance. If the interpretation is correct, the paper provides important evidence that MHD winds/jets are a common accretion-driving mechanism in Class II full disks, extending earlier transition-disk results to a wider sample. The robustness check that the correlation survives when the jet velocity is held fixed at 200 km/s (Sec. 4.3) is a genuine strength, as is the use of multi-wavelength SED fitting to separate free-free from dust emission. The paper is also honest about the limitations of the transition-disk comparison. However, the central conclusion depends on a model-dependent conversion from radio flux to ionized mass-loss rate and on the assumption that the non-dust emission is entirely thermal free-free; the significance for the field therefore hinges on resolving this degeneracy.

major comments (3)

[Sec. 4.1, Eq. (2)] The conclusion that the centimeter emission is thermal free-free from an MHD wind/jet is not uniquely supported. The paper states that gyro-synchrotron emission 'may contribute to a not-determinable fraction of the flux' and dismisses this because such emission is 'likely to vary from target to target.' This argument is not quantitative: if the non-thermal fraction is roughly constant, or scales with accretion activity, the reported Mdot_i-Mdot_acc correlation would persist even if no collimated thermal jet is present. Please provide an explicit constraint on the non-thermal fraction (e.g., from circular polarization, spectral index at additional wavelengths, or variability) or rewrite the conclusions to present the jet interpretation as conditional on the thermal-free-free assumption.
[Sec. 3.1.3, Fig. 6; Abstract] The correlation between Mdot_i and Mdot_acc is largely a nonlinear rescaling of the already-reported F_ff-L_acc correlation, because Mdot_i is proportional to F_ff^{0.75} for fixed jet parameters. The paper should explicitly acknowledge that the Mdot_i conversion mainly changes the normalization and does not independently establish a physical jet. Also, the r=0.70 value quoted in Sec. 3.1.3 is for the combined sample of full and transition disks, whereas the abstract and conclusions attribute the strong correlation specifically to full disks; the full-disk-only correlation is r=0.64±0.19 (Eq. b). Please state the subsample-specific coefficients in the abstract and avoid implying that the strongest correlation is exclusive to full disks.
[Sec. 4.2, Table 2 and Fig. 8] The transition-disk comparison is built on lower limits for the free-free flux in most targets, because the spectral indices are upper limits. The fitted TD-only slope (0.41±0.28) has a large uncertainty, and the statement that the slopes are 'fully consistent' is therefore weak. The conclusion that the same mechanism operates in both classes is not strongly constrained by these data. Please treat the TD correlations as tentative, or use a survival-analysis approach that accounts for censored data, and explicitly state how the lower limits affect the slope comparison.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract] There is a typo: 'ionized gas closed to the star' should be 'ionized gas close to the star.'
[Fig. 2 caption] The caption uses 'Top:' twice; the second panel should be labeled 'Bottom:'.
[Sec. 1] The introduction contains the typo 'photevaporative' instead of 'photoevaporative'.
[Eq. (2) and Table 1] The inclination dependence enters as (sin i)^-0.25, and for the most face-on disks (e.g., HD 135344B with i=12 deg) this factor is highly sensitive to the assumed inclination; a brief discussion of how inclination uncertainties propagate into Mdot_i would be useful.
[Table 2] The spectral-index entries for the transition disks are presented in a nonstandard format (e.g., '0.58 -1.08 +0.98'); please clarify the notation in the table notes so that the central value and its asymmetric uncertainties are unambiguous.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

Partial circularity: the Mdot_i–Mdot_acc correlation is constructed under a Reynolds-jet assumption, so it cannot independently prove the jet/MHD-wind origin; other evidence is non-circular.

self definitional [Section 3.1.3, Eq. (2); Section 4.1 and Figure 6]
""Assuming that free-free emission is associated with gas from an ionized jet and following the geometrical model of the free-free emission from a jet by Reynolds (1986), we estimated the ionized mass loss rate M˙i associated with the 2 cm free-free flux ... A strong correlation between the accretion rate and the ionized mass rate is found (r=0.70±0.18) ... this positive correlation suggests that jets and/or ionized MHD winds are one of the main drivers of accretion onto the star in evolved YSOs.""

Eq. (2) constructs Mdot_i from the 2 cm free-free flux assuming a fully ionized, T=10^4 K Reynolds jet with fixed opening angle, turnover frequency, and v_jet ∝ M*^1/2. The plotted Mdot_i is therefore not an independent observable: it is a power-law rescaling of the same F_ff that already gives the reported F_ff–L_acc correlation (r=0.72, Eq. 1). Reading the resulting r=0.70 Mdot_i–Mdot_acc correlation as evidence that the emission is a jet/MHD wind re-imports the jet assumption used to define Mdot_i; the correlation is consistent with a jet but cannot by itself distinguish a thermal jet from an accretion-linked non-thermal component that would also scale with accretion.

full rationale

The main empirical correlation in the paper is the raw free-free luminosity versus accretion luminosity (Eq. 1, r=0.72). That correlation is model-independent and is a legitimate observational result. The paper also checks the stellar-mass dependence by fixing the jet velocity to 200 km/s and finds that the Mdot_i–Mdot_acc correlation survives, which mitigates one specific concern. The flat/positive spectral indices and the comparison with the Pascucci et al. (2012) X-ray/EUV photo-evaporative wind predictions are independent evidence for optically thick thermal free-free emission, although they do not by themselves uniquely select a jet or MHD wind. The circular element is confined to the interpretive step that uses the Mdot_i–Mdot_acc correlation as evidence for the jet/MHD-wind origin: Mdot_i is defined by assuming a Reynolds jet model, so that correlation is essentially a transformed restatement of the observed F_ff–L_acc correlation and cannot independently prove the emission mechanism. The paper is transparent about this assumption, and the conclusion also rests on non-circular evidence, so the overall circularity is partial rather than total, with a score of 3 rather than 6 or higher.

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

The central claim rests on assumed jet model parameters and on prior SED decompositions from the authors' own earlier papers. No new physical entities are introduced, but the model assumptions and the reliance on prior data are the main unverified inputs.

free parameters (5)

Jet temperature T = 10^4 K
Assumed in Eq. (2) for the Reynolds jet model; enters with a weak exponent of -0.075.
Turnover frequency nu_m = 40 GHz
Assumed because no turnover is detected; has weak dependence on Mdot_i.
Jet opening angle ratio theta_min/theta_max = 0.5
Assumed from Kavak et al. (2021); enters with a 0.75 exponent in Eq. (2).
Jet velocity scaling v_jet = 140 (M*/0.5 M_sun)^1/2 km/s
Empirical scaling from Anglada et al. (2018); directly scales Mdot_i and introduces stellar mass dependence.
Disk inclination i = from Table 1
Assumed jet perpendicular to the disk; enters with a -0.25 exponent in Eq. (2).

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The free-free emission is dominated by thermal free-free with negligible gyro-synchrotron contamination.
The paper acknowledges that non-thermal emission may contribute an unknown fraction, but proceeds under the free-free assumption (Section 4.1).
domain assumption The SED decompositions from Garufi et al. (2025) and Rota et al. (2024) correctly separate dust and free-free emission.
The free-free fluxes for full disks are taken from these prior analyses without the fitting code or raw photometry.
domain assumption The photo-evaporative wind models of Pascucci et al. (2012) are the correct benchmarks for X-ray and EUV ionization.
Used in Section 3.1.1 to interpret the absence of X-ray correlation as evidence against a photoevaporative wind.
domain assumption Accretion rates from the literature, measured from UV excess, are accurate.
Table 1 lists accretion rates from various references with assumed 0.4 dex uncertainties.
domain assumption The [O I]6300 A line components correctly trace MHD winds and jets.
Used in Section 3.1.2 to interpret the absence of correlation with free-free emission as tracing a different part of the outflow.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A correlation between accretion and outflow rates for Class II Young Stellar Objects with full and transition disks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HRYUMBTB

@misc{pith2026250516586,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A correlation between accretion and outflow rates for Class II Young Stellar Objects with full and transition disks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HRYUMBTB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.16586}
}

read the original abstract

Magnetothermal (MHD) winds and jets originate in a wide range of regions of protoplanetary disks (1-30 au) and are thought to be the primary mechanisms driving accretion onto the central star. One indirect signature of these processes is the free-free emission from ionized gas close to the star. We analyze a sample of 31 Class II disks: 18 full disks (FD) and 13 transition disks (TD). All sources show evidence of excess free-free emission over the contribution of the thermal dust. We investigate the origin of this emission and whether it is associated with other observables. We first analyzed a sample of objects in Taurus, exploring correlations with the properties of the central star, the disk, and other disk-wind tracers. We compared our findings with a sample of TD for which free-free emission was shown to be likely associated with an MHD-wind/jet. We found no correlation between the detected free-free emission and either the X-ray or the [OI]6300A line properties. We found a strong correlation between the ionized mass loss rate, as inferred from the free-free emission, and the accretion rate, suggesting that free-free emission in FD is associated with an MHD-wind/jet. The detected free-free emission in both TD and FD is likely similarly associated with an ionized gas close to the star from an MHD-wind/jet. The free-free emission detected in TD shows hints of shallower correlations with accretion properties than in FD. Whereas the efficiency in transforming accretion into outflow might differ in TD and FD, considering the correlations between free-free emission and accretion properties, this difference could simply result from a bias toward strong accretors in the TD sample. Therefore, observations of a more complete and uniform sample are necessary to determine whether this change in correlations holds only for strong accretors or for TD in general.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.16586 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Top: Stellar mass as a function of the free-free luminosity at 2 cm estimated by Garufi et al. (2025) and histogram counts of the stellar mass. Top: Accretion luminosity as a function of the free-free luminosity at 2 cm estimated by Garufi et al. (2025). In both panels, compact disks (·), sub-structured disks (⊙), and transition disks (◦) are shown [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** [O I]6300 Å luminosity for the HVC (bottom) and LVC (top) as a function of the free-free luminosity. Pearson coefficient in both plots is |r| < 0.1. is supported by the analysis of Garufi et al. (2025), which found no curvature in the free-free emission spectrum below 40 GHz. We assumed that the jet is perpendicular to the plane of the disk, and thus the inclination of the disk is taken as the inclination of the jet… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Histogram showing the (stacked) distribution of [O I [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Ionized mass loss rate inferred from the free-free emis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Free-free luminosity at 2 cm (top) and ionized mass loss rate (bottom) as a function of accretion rate for full disks (·) and transition disks (◦). The luminosities at 2 cm of most of transition disks are lower limits (triangles) to the real values since the spectral …

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Top: Jet efficiency at 2 cm as a function of the accretion rate. The plot also reports the histogram counts of the M˙ i/M˙ acc ratio for transition (blue) and full disks (purple). Bottom: Jet efficiency at 2 cm as a function of the stellar mass. likely driven by the s…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID 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

Detailed Microwave Continuum Spectra from Bright Protoplanetary Disks in Taurus
astro-ph.SR 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Dense 4-360 GHz spectra of eight Taurus disks reveal steep cm-wavelength dust spectra, implying millimeter fluxes are optically thick and standard disk dust masses are underestimated by about 10x.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

M., Natta, A., Manara, C

Alcalá, J. M., Natta, A., Manara, C. F., et al. 2014, A&A, 561, A2

work page 2014
[2]

F., & Carrasco-González, C

Anglada, G., Rodríguez, L. F., & Carrasco-González, C. 2018, A&A Rev., 26, 3

work page 2018
[3]

2023, A&A, 673, A139

Appelgren, J., Lambrechts, M., & van der Marel, N. 2023, A&A, 673, A139

work page 2023
[4]

2019, ApJ, 870, 76

Banzatti, A., Pascucci, I., Edwards, S., et al. 2019, ApJ, 870, 76

work page 2019
[5]

K., Follette, K

Betti, S. K., Follette, K. B., Ward-Duong, K., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 262

work page 2023
[6]

2019, A&A, 625, A66

Dionatos, O., Woitke, P., Güdel, M., et al. 2019, A&A, 625, A66

work page 2019
[7]

Dulk, G. A. & Marsh, K. A. 1982, ApJ, 259, 350

1982
[8]

& Owen, J

Ercolano, B. & Owen, J. E. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 3472

work page 2016

Show all 45 references

[9]

2018, ApJ, 868, 28

Fang, M., Pascucci, I., Edwards, S., et al. 2018, ApJ, 868, 28

2018
[10]

2023, ApJ, 945, 112

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

2023
[11]

& van der Marel, N

Francis, L. & van der Marel, N. 2020, ApJ, 892, 111 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A1

2020
[12]

2022, A&A, 667, A124

Gangi, M., Antoniucci, S., Biazzo, K., et al. 2022, A&A, 667, A124

2022
[13]

2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.11686 Güdel, M., Briggs, K

Garufi, A., Carrasco-Gonzalez, C., Macias, E., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.11686 Güdel, M., Briggs, K. R., Arzner, K., et al. 2007, A&A, 468, 353

2025 arXiv
[14]

2022, A&A, 664, A137

Guidi, G., Isella, A., Testi, L., et al. 2022, A&A, 664, A137

2022
[15]

2024, ApJ, 961, 28

Harsono, D., Long, F., Pinilla, P., et al. 2024, ApJ, 961, 28

2024
[16]

1995, ApJ, 452, 736

Hartigan, P., Edwards, S., & Ghandour, L. 1995, ApJ, 452, 736

1995
[17]

2016, ARA&A, 54, 135

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

2016
[18]

J., Chen, Y ., Donati, J.-F., et al

Herczeg, G. J., Chen, Y ., Donati, J.-F., et al. 2023, ApJ, 956, 102

2023
[19]

2021, A&A, 647, A192 Kavak, Ü., Sánchez-Monge, Á., López-Sepulcre, A., et al

Jacquemin-Ide, J., Lesur, G., & Ferreira, J. 2021, A&A, 647, A192 Kavak, Ü., Sánchez-Monge, Á., López-Sepulcre, A., et al. 2021, A&A, 645, A29

2021
[20]

Kelly, B. C. 2007, ApJ, 665, 1489

2007
[21]

Lesur, G. R. J. 2021, A&A, 650, A35

2021
[22]

J., Harsono, D., et al

Long, F., Herczeg, G. J., Harsono, D., et al. 2019, ApJ, 882, 49 Macías, E., Anglada, G., Osorio, M., et al. 2016, ApJ, 829, 1 Macías, E., Guerra-Alvarado, O., Carrasco-González, C., et al. 2021, A&A, 648, A33

2019
[23]

F., Ansdell, M., Rosotti, G

Manara, C. F., Ansdell, M., Rosotti, G. P., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka, Y . Aikawa, T. Muto, K. Tomida, & M. Tamura, 539

2023
[24]

& Lesur, G

Martel, E. & Lesur, G. 2022, in SF2A-2022: Proceedings of the Annual meet- ing of the French Society of Astronomy and Astrophysics, ed. J. Richard, A. Siebert, E. Lagadec, N. Lagarde, O. Venot, J. Malzac, J. B. Marquette, M. N’Diaye, & B. Briot, 321–322

2022
[25]

M., et al

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

2018
[26]

2024, A&A, 683, A116

Nisini, B., Gangi, M., Giannini, T., et al. 2024, A&A, 683, A116

2024
[27]

Owen, J. E. & Clarke, C. J. 2012, MNRAS, 426, L96

2012
[28]

M., & Lee, C

Palau, A., Huélamo, N., Barrado, D., Dunham, M. M., & Lee, C. W. 2024, New A Rev., 99, 101711

2024
[29]

2020, ApJ, 903, 78

Pascucci, I., Banzatti, A., Gorti, U., et al. 2020, ApJ, 903, 78

2020
[30]

L., Cabrit, S., et al

Pascucci, I., Beck, T. L., Cabrit, S., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy [arXiv:2410.18033]

2024 arXiv
[31]

2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol

Pascucci, I., Cabrit, S., Edwards, S., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 534, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Con- ference Series, ed. S. Inutsuka, Y . Aikawa, T. Muto, K. Tomida, & M. Tamura, 567

2023
[32]

2012, ApJ, 751, L42

Pascucci, I., Gorti, U., & Hollenbach, D. 2012, ApJ, 751, L42

2012
[33]

& Pudritz, R

Pelletier, G. & Pudritz, R. E. 1992, ApJ, 394, 117

1992
[34]

E., & Weber, M

Picogna, G., Ercolano, B., Owen, J. E., & Weber, M. L. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 691

2019
[35]

Reynolds, S. P. 1986, ApJ, 304, 713

1986
[36]

& Bally, J

Riaz, B. & Bally, J. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 3781

2021
[37]

2010, A&A, 512, A15

Ricci, L., Testi, L., Natta, A., et al. 2010, A&A, 512, A15

2010
[38]

A., Meijerhof, J

Rota, A. A., Meijerhof, J. D., van der Marel, N., et al. 2024, A&A, 684, A134

2024
[39]

2023, MNRAS, 521, 2427

Ryspaeva, E., Kholtygin, A., & Lyutikov, M. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 2427

2023
[40]

N., Pascucci, I., Edwards, S., et al

Simon, M. N., Pascucci, I., Edwards, S., et al. 2016, ApJ, 831, 169

2016
[41]

T., Wright, C

Ubach, C., Maddison, S. T., Wright, C. M., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 425, 3137

2012
[42]

T., Wright, C

Ubach, C., Maddison, S. T., Wright, C. M., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 4083 van der Marel, N. 2023, European Physical Journal Plus, 138, 225

2017
[43]

2021, A&A, 647, A56

Varga, J., Hogerheijde, M., van Boekel, R., et al. 2021, A&A, 647, A56

2021
[44]

D., Baines, D., Mendigutía, I., & Pérez-Martínez, R

Vioque, M., Oudmaijer, R. D., Baines, D., Mendigutía, I., & Pérez-Martínez, R. 2018, A&A, 620, A128

2018
[45]

D., Fairlamb, J

Wichittanakom, C., Oudmaijer, R. D., Fairlamb, J. R., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 234 Article number, page 10 of 10

2020

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

M., Natta, A., Manara, C

Alcalá, J. M., Natta, A., Manara, C. F., et al. 2014, A&A, 561, A2

work page 2014

[2] [2]

F., & Carrasco-González, C

Anglada, G., Rodríguez, L. F., & Carrasco-González, C. 2018, A&A Rev., 26, 3

work page 2018

[3] [3]

2023, A&A, 673, A139

Appelgren, J., Lambrechts, M., & van der Marel, N. 2023, A&A, 673, A139

work page 2023

[4] [4]

2019, ApJ, 870, 76

Banzatti, A., Pascucci, I., Edwards, S., et al. 2019, ApJ, 870, 76

work page 2019

[5] [5]

K., Follette, K

Betti, S. K., Follette, K. B., Ward-Duong, K., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 262

work page 2023

[6] [6]

2019, A&A, 625, A66

Dionatos, O., Woitke, P., Güdel, M., et al. 2019, A&A, 625, A66

work page 2019

[7] [7]

Dulk, G. A. & Marsh, K. A. 1982, ApJ, 259, 350

1982

[8] [8]

& Owen, J

Ercolano, B. & Owen, J. E. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 3472

work page 2016