Dust Polarization Toward Embedded Protostars in Ophiuchus with ALMA. III. Survey Overview

Benoit Commercon; Dominique Segura-Cox; Ian W. Stephens; John Tobin; Leslie Looney; Patrick Hennebelle; Philip C. Myers; Sarah I. Sadavoy; Thomas Henning; Woojin Kwon

REVIEW 1 major objections 1 minor 191 references

Dust Polarization Toward Embedded Protostars in Ophiuchus with ALMA. III. Survey Overview

T0 review · 1 major / 1 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Most disk-scale dust polarization around embedded protostars traces scattering, not magnetic fields.

desk verdict A valuable, well-executed survey with a plausible but proxy-dependent central interpretation; the inclination–morphology trend should outlive the self-scattering classification, but the β threshold needs a sensitivity check. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.02591 v1 pith:WGOORQE4 submitted 2019-09-05 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA

Sarah I. Sadavoy , Ian W. Stephens , Philip C. Myers , Leslie Looney , John Tobin , Woojin Kwon , Benoit Commercon , Dominique Segura-Cox

show 2 more authors

Thomas Henning Patrick Hennebelle

This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GA

keywords dustpolarizationprotostarsOphiuchusALMAself-scatteringmagneticfieldsprotoplanetarydisksmillimetercontinuum

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper reports the largest homogeneous ALMA survey of 1.3 mm dust polarization toward embedded protostars, covering all the Class 0 and Class I objects in the Ophiuchus cloud at 35 au resolution. It finds that only 14 of 37 young stellar objects are detected in polarization, and that most of those detections, 9 of 14, have morphologies and disk properties consistent with dust self-scattering in optically thick disks rather than with grain alignment by magnetic fields. If this reading is right, dust polarization on scales below about 100 au is usually not a magnetic-field tracer, and inferred field morphologies from such data must be treated cautiously. The survey also proposes that highly inclined disks, with inclinations above about 60 degrees, are the best targets for future scattering studies because their polarization patterns are uniform and do not require the disk to be fully resolved.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the predicted polarization pattern of dust self-scattering: Rayleigh scattering by roughly 200 micron grains in an optically thick disk produces e-vectors aligned with the disk minor axis for inclinations above about 60 degrees and an azimuthal pattern with central depolarization for near-face-on disks. The paper classifies each detection by comparing the observed morphology to that template and by estimating optical depth from the dust opacity index beta, obtained from the millimeter spectral index alpha = beta + 2 using archival fluxes; beta < 0.5 is taken to mean optically thick emission, where magnetic alignment is suppressed and scattering can dominate. The same template is used in reverse: sources with beta > 0.5 and non-scattering morphology are interpreted as magnetic-field tracers, with the field direction recovered by rotating the polarization e-vectors by 90 degrees.

What would settle it

Resolve the nine candidate self-scattering disks at two ALMA bands, such as 0.87 mm and 3 mm, and measure spectral index and polarization maps. If beta < 0.5 is an optical-depth indicator, the short-wavelength emission should be optically thick and the polarization pattern should match scattering models in both bands; if beta is flattened by temperature gradients or scattering, the inferred optical depth and the self-scattering assignment would not survive, and magnetic-alignment alternatives would remain viable.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that, in a complete, unbiased sample of embedded protostars, dust polarization on disk scales is dominated by dust self-scattering rather than by magnetically aligned grains. Nine of the fourteen detected sources have uniform or azimuthal polarization patterns that match scattering predictions for optically thick disks, while the remaining sources are inconsistent with scattering and may instead trace magnetic fields; rotating those polarization vectors by 90 degrees yields mainly poloidal or hourglass-shaped fields, with no evidence of a strong toroidal component toward any disk. The paper therefore concludes that dust polarization is not a good tracer of magnetic fields on scales below about 100 au on average, in contrast to envelope-scale polarization surveys where nearly all sources are detected.

Load-bearing premise

The self-scattering classification rests on the assumption that a dust opacity index beta < 0.5, derived from the flux spectral index with alpha = beta + 2, reliably identifies optically thick emission; if scattering or disk temperature gradients flatten the spectral index without true high optical depth, several of the nine thick-disk assignments would weaken.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

On scales below about 100 au, ALMA dust polarization detections around embedded protostars should not be assumed to trace magnetic fields; in an unbiased sample, most detections are scattering signatures.
Disks with inclinations above about 60 degrees are the best targets for self-scattering studies because their uniform polarization can be recovered without fully resolving the disk.
No strong toroidal magnetic field component is found toward any disk; the inferred fields are poloidal or hourglass-shaped, which bears on magnetic braking and disk formation.
Most disks in Ophiuchus are low-mass, below about 10 Jupiter masses, and compact, below about 30 au, and disk mass and size are correlated with a surface density relation of about r^-0.9 to r^-0.6, matching Class II disks.
Roughly half of the undetected sources have 3-sigma upper limits below 2 percent, indicating that many disks have intrinsically low polarization fractions, possibly from unresolved azimuthal structure or from limited large-grain populations.

Reading between the lines

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

If the self-scattering interpretation holds, millimeter dust polarization of embedded disks becomes a probe of grain growth and disk structure rather than of field geometry, and magnetic-field studies on these scales will need other tracers such as molecular-line polarization.
The inclination-morphology dichotomy predicts that deeper observations of moderate-inclination disks should reveal azimuthal patterns once the disk is resolved, while unresolved disks at lower inclinations should appear depolarized, which could explain many of the non-detections.
Multi-wavelength ALMA observations across the nine candidate scattering disks would test the mechanism directly: the polarization fraction and pattern should vary with wavelength following scattering models, whereas magnetic alignment would not show the same wavelength dependence.
The beta < 0.5 optical-depth proxy could be checked with resolved temperature and optical-depth maps; if beta is flattened by temperature gradients or scattering rather than true high optical depth, the number of genuine scattering detections among the 14 would shrink.

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

The thing to know: this is the largest homogeneous ALMA dust polarization survey of embedded protostars to date, it comes with a full data release, and it will be a reference dataset whether or not the physical interpretation holds. The survey-level results—38% detection rate, the uniform-versus-azimuthal morphology split, and the inclination trend (uniform for i > 60°, azimuthal for i < 60°)—are genuinely new and cleanly presented.

The data work is careful: debiasing is handled properly, the off-axis validation in Appendix B is a real service to the community, and the non-detection upper limits let others use the sample statistically. The galaxy contamination estimates and the multiplicity census are useful secondary products. I ran out of reasons to distrust the measurements.

The soft spot is the step from morphology to mechanism. The paper classifies 9 of 14 detections as self-scattering using β < 0.5 as the optically thick threshold, and Appendix C honestly says β is a proxy that can be flattened by temperature gradients, grain properties, or scattering. That is more than a stylistic caveat: several sources sit right at the threshold (VLA 1623A at 0.45±0.29, VLA 1623B at 0.48±0.08, IRS 63 at 0.35±0.19), and IRS 37-A is classified as scattering with no β measurement at all. A Rayleigh–Jeans correction using the paper’s own 20 K dust temperature would steepen the inferred β and could push the near-threshold sources over 0.5. If that happens, the gate in §4.2.2 that excludes magnetic alignment for thick disks no longer closes, and the strong statement that dust polarization is “not a good tracer of magnetic fields on ≲100 au scales on average” loses its statistical footing. The magnetic-field subset is already small—five sources, really four once GY 91 is set aside—so the no-toroidal-field conclusion is correspondingly fragile.

That said, the inclination–morphology relation is empirical and does not depend on β. Uniform polarization along the minor axis in highly inclined disks is what scattering models predict and is not the expected signature of poloidal or toroidal magnetic alignment, so the self-scattering interpretation has independent support beyond the β proxy. The paper just needs to be honest about how much weight each leg carries.

Minor point: GY 91 is treated as detected in Table 5 but as non-detected in Table 7; the text calls it marginal, which is fine, but the tables should be consistent.

Who is this for? anyone observing or modeling dust polarization in star-forming regions, especially with ALMA. It deserves a serious referee and, with a sensitivity analysis of the β threshold and a clearer separation of the empirical trends from the interpretive classification, it will be a solid anchor paper. I would engage with it and would bring it to a reading group.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. This paper presents ALMA 1.3 mm full-polarization observations of 37 young stellar objects in Ophiuchus, including all embedded protostars in the cloud, at a common resolution of about 35 au. The survey detects polarized emission in 14 of 37 YSOs, and the authors classify the polarization morphologies as uniform (nine sources), azimuthal (four sources), or complex (two sources). On the basis of morphology, inclination, and a dust opacity index β estimated from archival fluxes, they conclude that the majority of detections (9/14) are consistent with dust self-scattering in optically thick disks, while the remaining sources are candidate tracers of magnetic fields with inferred poloidal or hourglass field geometries. The paper also reports disk masses and sizes, clump-scale comparisons, multiplicity statistics, galaxy contamination estimates, and it releases the continuum and polarization maps. The central interpretive claim is that dust polarization is not, on average, a good tracer of magnetic fields on ≲100 au scales.

Significance. If the interpretation holds, this is the first large, homogeneous, unbiased sample showing that disk-scale submillimeter polarization around embedded protostars is dominated by self-scattering rather than magnetic grain alignment, and it provides quantitative guidance for future polarization studies of embedded disks. The strengths of the paper are substantial: a uniform observing setup and reduction, a careful debiasing treatment in Section 2.4, an explicit validation of off-axis polarization in Appendix B, a quantitative galaxy contamination model in Section 5.5, and a public release of the data products. The authors are also transparent about many uncertainties, including the non-uniqueness of source classifications and the proxy nature of β. The main scientific risk is that the central 9/14 classification is conditioned on the β<0.5 optical-depth threshold, which the paper itself acknowledges to be an uncalibrated proxy.

major comments (1)

[Table C1] In Table C1, for sources without quoted flux errors the text says 'we assume 10% errors,' but several rows (e.g., WL 17, Elias 29, Oph-emb-6) quote errors that are smaller than 10% of the flux. Please clarify which errors are adopted in those cases, or apply the 10% assumption uniformly as stated.

minor comments (1)

[Section 6] In Conclusion 7, 'protoplanetery' is a typo for 'protoplanetary.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the polarization-mechanism classification rests on independent morphology–model comparison, not on fitted inputs or self-citations.

full rationale

The central claim that 9/14 detected sources are consistent with dust self-scattering in optically thick disks is a model-comparison result, not a construction from its own inputs. Polarization morphologies are measured directly from Stokes Q/U images, and the optical-depth classification is based on independent archival flux measurements via the spectral index relation alpha = beta + 2 (Appendix C). The paper explicitly acknowledges that beta is only a proxy for optical depth, noting that temperature gradients, grain properties, and scattering can flatten the spectral index without optically thick emission; this is a stated physical assumption and a correctness risk, not a circular reduction. No target quantity is defined in terms of the conclusion: the morphological criteria for uniform and azimuthal polarization are set before comparing to external scattering models (Kataoka et al. 2015, 2016a; Yang et al. 2016, 2017), and the magnetic-field interpretation is applied to the remaining sources with optically thin dust, following the same external theoretical framework. Self-citations to Papers I and II only supply previously published data for two fields and are not used to force the classification; the load-bearing theoretical predictions come from independent published work. The data products are released for external falsification. Accordingly, no circular step meets the evidentiary bar of this review.

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

The central claim introduces no new free parameters or entities. The physical interpretation leans on literature model predictions and on adopted assumptions: the beta-to-optical-depth mapping, the reliability of inclinations from axis ratios, and the standard 90-degree rotation for magnetic fields. These are stated in the text with caveats.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Dust opacity index beta < 0.5 indicates optically thick dust emission at 1.3 mm
Used to assign 'thick' or 'not thick' in Table 9 and to classify polarization as self-scattering. Stated in Section 4.2.1 and Appendix C with caveats that beta can be affected by grain properties, temperature gradients, and scattering.
domain assumption Theoretical self-scattering models (Kataoka et al. 2015, 2016a; Yang et al. 2016, 2017) predict uniform minor-axis polarization for inclined disks and azimuthal polarization for face-on disks
These predictions from prior literature are used to identify self-scattering morphologies in Section 4.2.1.
domain assumption Grain alignment polarization from magnetic fields is suppressed in optically thick emission
Used to exclude magnetic alignment for the 9 'thick' sources; based on Yang et al. 2017, cited in Section 4.2.2 and Appendix C.
domain assumption Disk inclination i can be estimated from the Gaussian deconvolved axis ratio via cos i = b/a assuming a geometrically thin disk
Used for Table 8 and the inclination trend in Section 5.4; the paper notes this is only robust if the disk is well resolved, while most disks are compact (less than 2 beams).
standard math For magnetically aligned grains, the plane-of-sky field direction is obtained by rotating polarization e-vectors by 90 degrees
Standard radiative transfer result used in Section 5.1 to infer poloidal/hourglass fields.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dust Polarization Toward Embedded Protostars in Ophiuchus with ALMA. III. Survey Overview." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WGOORQE4

@misc{pith2026190902591,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dust Polarization Toward Embedded Protostars in Ophiuchus with ALMA. III. Survey Overview},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WGOORQE4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.02591}
}

read the original abstract

We present 0.25 arcsec resolution (35 au) ALMA 1.3 mm dust polarization observations for 37 young stellar objects (YSOs) in the Ophiuchus cloud. These data encompass all the embedded protostars in the cloud and several Flat and Class II objects to produce the largest, homogeneous study of dust polarization on disk scales to date. The goal of this study is to study dust polarization down to disk scales. We find that 14/37 (38%) of the YSOs are detected in polarization. Nine of these sources have uniform polarization angles and four sources have azimuthal polarization. The sources with uniform polarization tend to have steeper inclinations (> 60 degree) than those with azimuthal polarization (< 60 degree). The majority (9/14) of the detected sources have polarization morphologies and disk properties consistent with dust self-scattering in optically thick disks. The remaining sources may be instead tracing magnetic fields. Their inferred field directions from rotating the polarization vectors by 90 degree are mainly poloidal or hourglass shaped. We find no evidence of a strong toroidal field component toward any of our disks. For the 23 YSOs that are undetected in polarization, roughly half of them have 3-sigma upper limits of < 2%. These sources also tend to have inclinations < 60 degree and they are generally compact. Since lower inclination sources tend to have azimuthal polarization, these YSOs may be undetected in polarization due to unresolved polarization structure within our beam. We propose that disks with inclinations > 60 degree are the best candidates for future polarization studies of dust self-scattering as these systems will generally show uniform polarization vectors that do not require very high resolution to resolve. We release the continuum and polarization images for all the sources with this publication. Data from the entire survey can be obtained from Dataverse.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.02591 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** SCUBA-2 850 µm map of the Ophiuchus molecular cloud (Pattle et al. 2015; Kirk et al. 2018) with coloured points showing the 28 fields in our survey. The points are coded for Oph A (red), Oph B (yellow), Oph E (orange), Oph F (cyan), L1688 (brown), L1689S (blue), L1689N (pink), and L1709 (purple). The symbol size does not represent the primary beam. Contours show AV = 5 from the COMPLETE survey near-infrared (2MASS) … view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Fields with multiple sources or extended emission. The dotted circle shows the inner third of the primary beam FWHM (diameter ≈ 8.5 00) at the phase center of each field. Small circle in the bottom-left corner shows the beam. Source names are labeled following [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Continued - For fields c2d 904, c2d 1003, c2d 1008, VLA1623a, VLA1623b, IRAS16288. For c2d 1008, we show the inner third of the primary beam from the two fields centered on each protostar [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (10 more)

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: The 14 continuum sources with polarization detections. Background images show the Stokes I maps on a logarithmic color scale (see Appendix A for the flux scale) and the black line segments show the normalized e-vectors. Sources with ‡ are outside of the inner third of …

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Histograms of log peak flux density. Sources that are well detected in polarized intensity are shown with open histograms and the sources not detected or only marginally detected in polarized intensity by filled histograms. 4.1. Morphological Description In Section 3.…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Comparison between the observed polarization e-vectors and an ideal elliptical polarization morphology for the four sources dominated by azimuthal polarization. The purple line segments show the observed polarization and the green line segments show ideal elliptical po…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Inferred magnetic field morphology (b-vectors) for the sources that have polarization inconsistent with dust self-scattering. Line segments represent the same e-vectors as in Section 3.3 rotated by 90◦. For VLA 1623A (compact), VLA 1623B, and IRAS 16293B, we mask out t…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Estimated masses for the YSOs in our sample from Gaussian fits to the continuum emission. To first order, we assume these fits are tracing disks. Sources detected in polarization are shown in filled red symbols and undetected sources as open black symbols. The marginal…

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Comparison between disk mass and disk size for the YSOs detected in our sample. Sources are separated by their YSO Classification, with Class 0 disks in red, Class I disks in yellow, Flat disks in cyan, and Class II disks in black. Unresolved sources are represented by…

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: compares histograms of disk inclination for the resolved sources that are detected in polarization (solid) with those that are undetected (dashed). For simplicity, we exclude IRAS 16293A and IRAS 16293B, as these sources do not have clear disks with which to measure t…

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Source inclination versus peak Stokes I intensity (top) and deconvolved semi-major axis (bottom). Red diamonds represent sources with uniform polarization, blue circles represent sources with azimuthal polarization, and purple squares are sources with complex polariz…

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Probability of detecting a point-source galaxy at 1.3 mm in different annuli within in the ALMA primary beam, where R = 0 corresponds to the phase center. All annuli have a width roughly equal to the synthesized beam. The curves show the probability distributions for …

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: Cumulative probability of detecting a point-source galaxy at 1.3 mm as a function of position in the ALMA primary beam for different detection thresholds. The curves show thresholds of > 5σ(r) (solid) or > 10σ(r) (dashed), and > 20σ(r) (dotdashed), assuming σ = 0.03…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

191 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages

[1]

O., Girart, J

Alves, F. O., Girart, J. M., Caselli, P., et al. 2017, A&A, 603, L3

2017
[2]

O., Girart, J

Alves, F. O., Girart, J. M., Padovani, M., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A56

2018
[3]

C., Stephens, I

Andersen, B. C., Stephens, I. W., Dunham, M. M., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 54 50

2019
[4]

Andersson, B.-G., Lazarian, A., & Vaillancourt, J. E. 2015, ARA&A, 53, 501

2015
[5]

1990, A&A, 236, 180 Andr´ e, P., & Montmerle, T

Andre, P., Martin-Pintado, J., Despois, D., & Montmerle, T. 1990, A&A, 236, 180 Andr´ e, P., & Montmerle, T. 1994, ApJ, 420, 837 Andr´ e, P., Ward-Thompson, D., & Barsony, M. 1993, ApJ, 406, 122

1990
[6]

M., Rosenfeld, K

Andrews, S. M., Rosenfeld, K. A., Kraus, A. L., & Wilner, D. J. 2013, ApJ, 771, 129

2013
[7]

M., & Williams, J

Andrews, S. M., & Williams, J. P. 2007, ApJ, 659, 705

2007
[8]

Dullemond, C. P. 2009, ApJ, 700, 1502

2009

Show all 191 references

[9]

P., Manara, C

Ansdell, M., Williams, J. P., Manara, C. F., et al. 2017, AJ, 153, 240

2017
[10]

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

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

2016
[11]

2014, ApJ, 782, 51 Artur de la Villarmois, E., Jørgensen, J

Antoniucci, S., Giannini, T., Li Causi, G., & Lorenzetti, D. 2014, ApJ, 782, 51 Artur de la Villarmois, E., Jørgensen, J. K., Kristensen, L. E., et al. 2019, A&A, 626, A71 Artur de la Villarmois, E., Kristensen, L. E., Jørgensen, J. K., et al. 2018, A&A, 614, A26

2014
[12]

2015, ApJ, 812, 27

Aso, Y., Ohashi, N., Saigo, K., et al. 2015, ApJ, 812, 27

2015
[13]

M., Padovani, M., et al

Bacciotti, F., Girart, J. M., Padovani, M., et al. 2018, ApJ, 865, L12

2018
[14]

A., & Hawley, J

Balbus, S. A., & Hawley, J. F. 1998, Reviews of Modern Physics, 70, 1

1998
[15]

E., & Marsh, K

Barsony, M., Ressler, M. E., & Marsh, K. A. 2005, ApJ, 630, 381

2005
[16]

A., Ciardi, D

Barsony, M., Wolf-Chase, G. A., Ciardi, D. R., & O’Linger, J. 2010, ApJ, 720, 64

2010
[17]

F., Lucas, P

Beckford, A. F., Lucas, P. W., Chrysostomou, A. C., & Gledhill, T. M. 2008, MNRAS, 384, 907

2008
[18]

Beckwith, S. V. W., & Sargent, A. I. 1991, ApJ, 381, 250

1991
[19]

Bertrang, G. H. M., Flock, M., & Wolf, S. 2017, MNRAS, 464, L61

2017
[20]

P., & Brauer, F

Birnstiel, T., Dullemond, C. P., & Brauer, F. 2010, A&A, 513, A79

2010
[21]

D., & Payne, D

Blandford, R. D., & Payne, D. G. 1982, MNRAS, 199, 883

1982
[22]

1997, in IAU Symposium, Vol

Bontemps, S., & Andre, P. 1997, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 182, Herbig-Haro Flows and the Birth of Stars, ed. B. Reipurth & C. Bertout, 63

1997
[23]

1996, A&A, 311, 858

Bontemps, S., Andre, P., Terebey, S., & Cabrit, S. 1996, A&A, 311, 858

1996
[24]

A., et al

Bontemps, S., Andr´ e, P., Kaas, A. A., et al. 2001, A&A, 372, 173

2001
[25]

2000, A&A, 364, L13

Brandner, W., Sheppard, S., Zinnecker, H., et al. 2000, A&A, 364, L13

2000
[26]

P., & Henning, T

Brauer, F., Dullemond, C. P., & Henning, T. 2008, A&A, 480, 859

2008
[27]

2017, A&A, 607, A104

Brauer, R., Wolf, S., & Flock, M. 2017, A&A, 607, A104

2017
[28]

Brinch, C., & Jørgensen, J. K. 2013, A&A, 559, A82

2013
[29]

2016, ApJ, 830, L16

Gressel, O. 2016, ApJ, 830, L16

2016
[30]

Walker, C. K. 2007, ApJ, 657, L33

2007
[31]

K., M¨ uller, H

Calcutt, H., Jørgensen, J. K., M¨ uller, H. S. P., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A90

2018
[32]

2015, A&A, 584, A78

Carniani, S., Maiolino, R., De Zotti, G., et al. 2015, A&A, 584, A78

2015
[33]

M., Narayanan, D., & Cooray, A

Casey, C. M., Narayanan, D., & Cooray, A. 2014, Phys. Rep., 541, 45

2014
[34]

J., Brogan, C

Chandler, C. J., Brogan, C. L., Shirley, Y. L., & Loinard, L. 2005, ApJ, 632, 371

2005
[35]

G., Zhang, Q., et al

Chen, X., Arce, H. G., Zhang, Q., et al. 2013, ApJ, 768, 110

2013
[36]

2018, ApJ, 868, 80

Chen, Y.-C., & Hirano, N. 2018, ApJ, 868, 80

2018
[37]

2007, ApJ, 669, 1085

Cho, J., & Lazarian, A. 2007, ApJ, 669, 1085

2007
[38]

A., Ru´ ız-Rodr´ ıguez, D., Hales, A., et al

Cieza, L. A., Ru´ ız-Rodr´ ıguez, D., Hales, A., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 698

2019
[39]

S., & Greene, T

Connelley, M. S., & Greene, T. P. 2010, AJ, 140, 1214

2010
[40]

S., Reipurth, B., & Tokunaga, A

Connelley, M. S., Reipurth, B., & Tokunaga, A. T. 2008, AJ, 135, 2496 Coud´ e, S., Bastien, P., Houde, M., et al. 2019, ApJ, 877, 88

2008
[41]

G., Harris, R

Cox, E. G., Harris, R. J., Looney, L. W., et al. 2018, ApJ, 855, 92 —. 2017, ApJ, 851, 83

2018
[42]

M., Skrutskie, M

Cutri, R. M., Skrutskie, M. F., van Dyk, S., et al. 2003, VizieR Online Data Catalog, 2246

2003
[43]

Dent, W. R. F., Pinte, C., Cortes, P. C., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 482, L29

2019
[44]

W., Greene, T

Doppmann, G. W., Greene, T. P., Covey, K. R., & Lada, C. J. 2005, AJ, 130, 1145

2005
[45]

L., Vaillancourt, J

Dotson, J. L., Vaillancourt, J. E., Kirby, L., et al. 2010, ApJS, 186, 406 Duchˆ ene, G., Bouvier, J., Bontemps, S., Andr´ e, P., & Motte, F. 2004, A&A, 427, 651

2010
[46]

M., Crapsi, A., Evans, II, N

Dunham, M. M., Crapsi, A., Evans, II, N. J., et al. 2008, ApJS, 179, 249

2008
[47]

M., Stutz, A

Dunham, M. M., Stutz, A. M., Allen, L. E., et al. 2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed. H. Beuther, R. S. Klessen, C. P. Dullemond, & T. Henning, 195

2014
[48]

M., Allen, L

Dunham, M. M., Allen, L. E., Evans, II, N. J., et al. 2015, ApJS, 220, 11

2015
[49]

Elias, J. H. 1978, ApJ, 224, 453

1978
[50]

L., Evans, II, N

Enoch, M. L., Evans, II, N. J., Sargent, A. I., & Glenn, J. 2009, ApJ, 692, 973

2009
[51]

2007, ApJ, 670, L135

Espaillat, C., Calvet, N., D’Alessio, P., et al. 2007, ApJ, 670, L135

2007
[52]

2015, ApJ, 814, 22

Evans, Neal J., I., Di Francesco, J., Lee, J.-E., et al. 2015, ApJ, 814, 22

2015
[53]

J., Dunham, M

Evans, II, N. J., Dunham, M. M., Jørgensen, J. K., et al. 2009, ApJS, 181, 321 Fern´ andez-L´ opez, M., Stephens, I. W., Girart, J. M., et al. 2016, ApJ, 832, 200

2009
[54]

K., Pon, A., Bourke, T

Friesen, R. K., Pon, A., Bourke, T. L., et al. 2018, ApJ, 869, 158 Gagn´ e, M., Skinner, S. L., & Daniel, K. J. 2004, ApJ, 613, 393

2018
[55]

M., et al

Galametz, M., Maury, A., Girart, J. M., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A139

2018
[56]

Galli, D., & Shu, F. H. 1993, ApJ, 417, 220

1993
[57]

C., van Dishoeck, E

Geers, V. C., van Dishoeck, E. F., Visser, R., et al. 2007, A&A, 476, 279

2007
[58]

M., Curiel, S., Rodr´ ıguez, L

Girart, J. M., Curiel, S., Rodr´ ıguez, L. F., et al. 2004, AJ, 127, 2969

2004
[59]

M., Rodr´ ıguez, L

Girart, J. M., Rodr´ ıguez, L. F., & Curiel, S. 2000, ApJ, 544, L153

2000
[60]

1952, MNRAS, 112, 215

Gold, T. 1952, MNRAS, 112, 215

1952
[61]

A., Bastien, P., Menard, F., & Myers, P

Goodman, A. A., Bastien, P., Menard, F., & Myers, P. C. 1990, ApJ, 359, 363

1990
[62]

J., McKee, C

Gray, W. J., McKee, C. F., & Klein, R. I. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 2124

2018
[63]

P., & Young, E

Greene, T. P., & Young, E. T. 1992, ApJ, 395, 516 G¨ unther, H. M., Cody, A. M., Covey, K. R., et al. 2014, AJ, 148, 122

1992
[64]

A., Megeath, S

Gutermuth, R. A., Megeath, S. T., Myers, P. C., et al. 2009, ApJS, 184, 18

2009
[65]

J., Cox, E

Harris, R. J., Cox, E. G., Looney, L. W., et al. 2018, ApJ, 861, 91

2018
[66]

E., Looney, L

Harrison, R. E., Looney, L. W., Stephens, I. W., et al. 2019, ApJ, 877, L2

2019
[67]

2018, PASJ, 70, 105

Hatsukade, B., Kohno, K., Yamaguchi, Y., et al. 2018, PASJ, 70, 105

2018
[68]

1981, Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement, 70, 35

Hayashi, C. 1981, Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement, 70, 35

1981
[69]

C., Behroozi, P

Hayward, C. C., Behroozi, P. S., Somerville, R. S., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 434, 2572

2013
[70]

2009, A&A, 506, L29

Hennebelle, P., & Ciardi, A. 2009, A&A, 506, L29

2009
[71]

2008, A&A, 477, 9

Hennebelle, P., & Fromang, S. 2008, A&A, 477, 9

2008
[72]

2008, A&A, 477, 25

Hennebelle, P., & Teyssier, R. 2008, A&A, 477, 25

2008
[73]

Herbig, G. H. 2008, AJ, 135, 637

2008
[74]

H., Davidson, J

Hildebrand, R. H., Davidson, J. A., Dotson, J. L., et al. 2000, PASP, 112, 1215

2000
[75]

2018, ApJ, 852, 129

Hoang, T., Cho, J., & Lazarian, A. 2018, ApJ, 852, 129

2018
[76]

2019a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1904.00133

Hsieh, C.-H., Lai, S.-P., Cheong, P.-I., et al. 2019a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1904.00133

1904 arXiv
[77]

2013, ApJS, 205, 5

Hsieh, T.-H., & Lai, S.-P. 2013, ApJS, 205, 5

2013
[78]

2017, AJ, 153, 173

Hsieh, T.-H., Lai, S.-P., & Belloche, A. 2017, AJ, 153, 173

2017
[79]

M., Hull, C

Hughes, A. M., Hull, C. L. H., Wilner, D. J., & Plambeck, R. L. 2013, AJ, 145, 115

2013
[80]

Hull, C. L. H., & Plambeck, R. L. 2015, Journal of Astronomical Instrumentation, 4, 1550005

2015
[81]

Hull, C. L. H., Plambeck, R. L., Kwon, W., et al. 2014, ApJS, 213, 13

2014
[82]

Hull, C. L. H., Yang, H., Li, Z.-Y., et al. 2018, ApJ, 860, 82

2018
[83]

2019, ApJ, 873, L21

Imai, M., Oya, Y., Sakai, N., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, L21

2019
[84]

2003, PASJ, 55, 653

Tsuboi, Y. 2003, PASJ, 55, 653

2003
[85]

K., Jørgensen, J

Jacobsen, S. K., Jørgensen, J. K., van der Wiel, M. H. D., et al. 2018, A&A, 612, A72

2018
[86]

2012, A&A, 543, A128 51 Jørgensen, J

Joos, M., Hennebelle, P., & Ciardi, A. 2012, A&A, 543, A128 51 Jørgensen, J. K., Bourke, T. L., Nguyen Luong, Q., & Takakuwa, S. 2011, A&A, 534, A100 Jørgensen, J. K., Johnstone, D., Kirk, H., et al. 2008, ApJ, 683, 822 Jørgensen, J. K., van Dishoeck, E. F., Visser, R., et al....

2012
[87]

2003, ApJ, 584, 357

Kamazaki, T., Saito, M., Hirano, N., Umemoto, T., & Kawabe, R. 2003, ApJ, 584, 357

2003
[88]

2019, ApJ, 871, 86

Kamazaki, T., Nakamura, F., Kawabe, R., et al. 2019, ApJ, 871, 86

2019
[89]

N., & Tomisaka, K

Kataoka, A., Machida, M. N., & Tomisaka, K. 2012, ApJ, 761, 40

2012
[90]

2019, ApJ, 874, L6

Kataoka, A., Okuzumi, S., & Tazaki, R. 2019, ApJ, 874, L6

2019
[91]

2017, ApJ, 844, L5

Kataoka, A., Tsukagoshi, T., Pohl, A., et al. 2017, ApJ, 844, L5

2017
[92]

2015, ApJ, 809, 78

Kataoka, A., Muto, T., Momose, M., et al. 2015, ApJ, 809, 78

2015
[93]

Lee, C. W. 2008, A&A, 487, 993

2008
[94]

2018, ApJ, 866, 141

Kawabe, R., Hara, C., Nakamura, F., et al. 2018, ApJ, 866, 141

2018
[95]

Kirchschlager, F., Bertrang, G. H. M., & Flock, M. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 1211

2019
[96]

M., Di Francesco, J., et al

Kirk, H., Dunham, M. M., Di Francesco, J., et al. 2017, ApJ, 838, 114

2017
[97]

2018, ApJS, 238, 8

Kirk, H., Hatchell, J., Johnstone, D., et al. 2018, ApJS, 238, 8

2018
[98]

2018, ApJ, 859, 4

Kwon, J., Doi, Y., Tamura, M., et al. 2018, ApJ, 859, 4

2018
[99]

W., Tobin, J

Kwon, W., Stephens, I. W., Tobin, J. J., et al. 2019, ApJ, 879, 25

2019
[100]

2007, MNRAS, 378, 910

Lazarian, A., & Hoang, T. 2007, MNRAS, 378, 910

2007
[101]

2018, ApJ, 854, 56

Lee, C.-F., Li, Z.-Y., Ching, T.-C., Lai, S.-P., & Yang, H. 2018, ApJ, 854, 56

2018
[102]

2019, ApJ, 879, 101

Lee, C.-F., Kwon, W., Jhan, K.-S., et al. 2019, ApJ, 879, 101

2019
[103]

A., Feigelson, E

Leous, J. A., Feigelson, E. D., Andre, P., & Montmerle, T. 1991, ApJ, 379, 683

1991
[104]

2011, ApJ, 738, 180

Li, Z.-Y., Krasnopolsky, R., & Shang, H. 2011, ApJ, 738, 180

2011
[105]

Liu, H. B. 2019, ApJ, 877, L22

2019
[106]

2019, ApJ, 877, 43

Liu, J., Qiu, K., Berry, D., et al. 2019, ApJ, 877, 43

2019
[107]

K., van Dishoeck, E

Lommen, D., Jørgensen, J. K., van Dishoeck, E. F., & Crapsi, A. 2008, A&A, 481, 141

2008
[108]

J., Pascucci, I., et al

Long, F., Herczeg, G. J., Pascucci, I., et al. 2017, ApJ, 844, 99 —. 2018, ApJ, 863, 61

2017
[109]

W., Mundy, L

Looney, L. W., Mundy, L. G., & Welch, W. J. 2000, ApJ, 529, 477

2000
[110]

N., Matsumoto, T., Tomisaka, K., & Hanawa, T

Machida, M. N., Matsumoto, T., Tomisaka, K., & Hanawa, T. 2005, MNRAS, 362, 369

2005
[111]

K., et al

Manigand, S., Calcutt, H., Jørgensen, J. K., et al. 2019, A&A, 623, A69

2019
[112]

C., Tafalla, M., et al

Mardones, D., Myers, P. C., Tafalla, M., et al. 1997, ApJ, 489, 719

1997
[113]

Markwardt, C. B. 2009, in Astronomical Society of the Paciﬁc Conference Series, Vol. 411, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XVIII, ed. D. A. Bohlender, D. Durand, & P. Dowler, 251

2009
[114]

2016, A&A, 587, A32

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

2016
[115]

C., McPhee, C

Matthews, B. C., McPhee, C. A., Fissel, L. M., & Curran, R. L. 2009, ApJS, 182, 143

2009
[116]

2012, A&A, 539, A130

Maury, A., Ohashi, N., & Andr´ e, P. 2012, A&A, 539, A130

2012
[117]

J., Girart, J

Maury, A. J., Girart, J. M., Zhang, Q., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 2760

2018
[118]

J., Andr´ e, P., Testi, L., et al

Maury, A. J., Andr´ e, P., Testi, L., et al. 2019, A&A, 621, A76

2019
[119]

K., Furlan, E., Manoj, P., et al

McClure, M. K., Furlan, E., Manoj, P., et al. 2010, ApJS, 188, 75

2010
[120]

1966, MNRAS, 133, 265

Mestel, L. 1966, MNRAS, 133, 265

1966
[121]

Mestel, L., & Strittmatter, P. A. 1967, MNRAS, 137, 95

1967
[122]

2014, A&A, 567, A32

Miotello, A., Testi, L., Lodato, G., et al. 2014, A&A, 567, A32

2014
[123]

F., Williams, J

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

2017
[124]

2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1907.10229

Mori, T., Kataoka, A., Ohashi, S., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1907.10229

2019 arXiv
[125]

C., van Dishoeck, E

Mottram, J. C., van Dishoeck, E. F., Kristensen, L. E., et al. 2017, A&A, 600, A99

2017
[126]

Hogerheijde, M. R. 2018, A&A, 615, L14

2018
[127]

M., & Lai, S.-P

Murillo, N. M., & Lai, S.-P. 2013, ApJ, 764, L15

2013
[128]

Dishoeck, E. F. 2013, A&A, 560, A103

2013
[129]

C., Basu, S., & Auddy, S

Myers, P. C., Basu, S., & Auddy, S. 2018, ApJ, 868, 51

2018
[130]

R., Andrews, S

Najita, J. R., Andrews, S. M., & Muzerolle, J. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 3559

2015
[131]

2011, ApJ, 726, 46

Nakamura, F., Kamada, Y., Kamazaki, T., et al. 2011, ApJ, 726, 46

2011
[132]

2015, ApJ, 801, 121

Nisini, B., Santangelo, G., Giannini, T., et al. 2015, ApJ, 801, 121

2015
[133]

2000, A&AS, 143, 23

Ochsenbein, F., Bauer, P., & Marcout, J. 2000, A&AS, 143, 23

2000
[134]

2018, ApJ, 864, 81

Ohashi, S., Kataoka, A., Nagai, H., et al. 2018, ApJ, 864, 81

2018
[135]

2011, A&A, 532, A43+ Ortiz-Le´ on, G

Paszun, D. 2011, A&A, 532, A43+ Ortiz-Le´ on, G. N., Loinard, L., Dzib, S. A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 869, L33

2011
[136]

1994, A&A, 291, 943

Ossenkopf, V., & Henning, T. 1994, A&A, 291, 943

1994
[137]

R., Plavchan, P., White, R

Parks, J. R., Plavchan, P., White, R. J., & Gee, A. H. 2014, ApJS, 211, 3

2014
[138]

M., et al

Pattle, K., Ward-Thompson, D., Kirk, J. M., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 1094 P´ erez, L. M., Carpenter, J. M., Chandler, C. J., et al. 2012, ApJ, 760, L17

2015
[139]

E., Maury, A

Pineda, J. E., Maury, A. J., Fuller, G. A., et al. 2012, A&A, 544, L7

2012
[140]

2016, A&A, 593, A12

Pohl, A., Kataoka, A., Pinilla, P., et al. 2016, A&A, 593, A12

2016
[141]

M., Dullemond, C

Pontoppidan, K. M., Dullemond, C. P., van Dishoeck, E. F., et al. 2005, ApJ, 622, 463

2005
[142]

J., & Bate, M

Price, D. J., & Bate, M. R. 2007, MNRAS, 377, 77

2007
[143]

M., Lai, S.-P., & Marrone, D

Rao, R., Girart, J. M., Lai, S.-P., & Marrone, D. P. 2014, ApJ, 780, L6

2014
[144]

M., Marrone, D

Rao, R., Girart, J. M., Marrone, D. P., Lai, S.-P., & Schnee, S. 2009, ApJ, 707, 921

2009
[145]

2014, A&A, 566, A65

Reissl, S., Wolf, S., & Seifried, D. 2014, A&A, 566, A65

2014
[146]

E., & Barsony, M

Ressler, M. E., & Barsony, M. 2003, ApJ, 584, 832

2003
[147]

F., & Caselli, P

Riaz, B., Thi, W. F., & Caselli, P. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 4662

2018
[148]

A., Di Francesco, J., Kirk, H., et al

Ridge, N. A., Di Francesco, J., Kirk, H., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 2921

2006
[149]

I., & Stahler, S

Sadavoy, S. I., & Stahler, S. W. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 3881

2017
[150]

I., Di Francesco, J., Bontemps, S., et al

Sadavoy, S. I., Di Francesco, J., Bontemps, S., et al. 2010, ApJ, 710, 1247

2010
[151]

M., Nisini, B., et al

Santangelo, G., Murillo, N. M., Nisini, B., et al. 2015, A&A, 581, A91

2015
[152]

P., Chuss, D

Santos, F. P., Chuss, D. T., Dowell, C. D., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1905.00705

2019 arXiv
[153]

1988, MNRAS, 230, 321 Sch¨ oier, F

Sato, S., Tamura, M., Nagata, T., et al. 1988, MNRAS, 230, 321 Sch¨ oier, F. L., Jørgensen, J. K., van Dishoeck, E. F., & Blake, G. A. 2002, A&A, 390, 1001

1988
[154]

M., Looney, L

Segura-Cox, D. M., Looney, L. W., Stephens, I. W., et al. 2015, ApJ, 798, L2

2015
[155]

M., Looney, L

Segura-Cox, D. M., Looney, L. W., Tobin, J. J., et al. 2018, ApJ, 866, 161

2018
[156]

E., & Klessen, R

Seifried, D., Banerjee, R., Pudritz, R. E., & Klessen, R. S. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 3320

2013
[157]

Y., & Li, A

Seok, J. Y., & Li, A. 2017, ApJ, 835, 291

2017
[158]

D., & Eisner, J

Sheehan, P. D., & Eisner, J. A. 2017, ApJ, 840, L12 —. 2018, ApJ, 857, 18

2017
[159]

2009, ApJ, 696, 2234

Ercolano, B. 2009, ApJ, 696, 2234

2009
[160]

2011, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 63, 1071

Shirono, C., Itho, Y., & Oasa, Y. 2011, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 63, 1071

2011
[161]

2018, ApJ, 861, 65

Soam, A., Pattle, K., Ward-Thompson, D., et al. 2018, ApJ, 861, 65

2018
[162]

D., Gredel, R., & Khanzadyan, T

Stanke, T., Smith, M. D., Gredel, R., & Khanzadyan, T. 2006, A&A, 447, 609

2006
[163]

W., Looney, L

Stephens, I. W., Looney, L. W., Kwon, W., et al. 2014, Nature, 514, 597

2014
[164]

W., Yang, H., Li, Z.-Y., et al

Stephens, I. W., Yang, H., Li, Z.-Y., et al. 2017, ApJ, 851, 55

2017
[165]

2017, ApJ, 839, 56

Tazaki, R., Lazarian, A., & Nomura, H. 2017, ApJ, 839, 56

2017
[166]

J., Hartmann, L., Looney, L

Tobin, J. J., Hartmann, L., Looney, L. W., & Chiang, H.-F. 2010, ApJ, 712, 1010

2010
[167]

J., Hartmann, L., Chiang, H.-F., et al

Tobin, J. J., Hartmann, L., Chiang, H.-F., et al. 2011, ApJ, 740, 45

2011
[168]

J., Looney, L

Tobin, J. J., Looney, L. W., Li, Z.-Y., et al. 2016, ApJ, 818, 73 —. 2018, ApJ, 867, 43

2016
[169]

Tomida, K., Okuzumi, S., & Machida, M. N. 2015, ApJ, 801, 117

2015
[170]

2011, PASJ, 63, 147

Tomisaka, K. 2011, PASJ, 63, 147

2011
[171]

Vaillancourt, J. E. 2006, PASP, 118, 1340 van der Marel, N., Dong, R., di Francesco, J., Williams, J. P., &

2006
[172]

2019, ApJ, 872, 112 52 van der Marel, N., Kristensen, L

Tobin, J. 2019, ApJ, 872, 112 52 van der Marel, N., Kristensen, L. E., Visser, R., et al. 2013, A&A, 556, A76 van der Marel, N., Verhaar, B. W., van Terwisga, S., et al. 2016, A&A, 592, A126 van der Wiel, M. H. D., Jacobsen, S. K., Jørgensen, J. K., et al. 2019, A&A, 626, A93 ...

2019
[173]

2018, A&A, 615, A5

Chabrier, G. 2018, A&A, 615, A5

2018
[174]

E., Richer, J

Visser, A. E., Richer, J. S., & Chandler, C. J. 2002, AJ, 124, 2756

2002
[175]

Weidenschilling, S. J. 1977, MNRAS, 180, 57

1977
[176]

A., Kastner, J

Weintraub, D. A., Kastner, J. H., Griﬃth, L. L., & Campins, H. 1993, AJ, 105, 271

1993
[177]

2000, A&AS, 143, 9

Wenger, M., Ochsenbein, F., Egret, D., et al. 2000, A&AS, 143, 9

2000
[178]

T., Riaz, B., & Rouz´ e, B

Whelan, E. T., Riaz, B., & Rouz´ e, B. 2018, A&A, 610, L19

2018
[179]

J., Drabek-Maunder, E., Rosolowsky, E., et al

White, G. J., Drabek-Maunder, E., Rosolowsky, E., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 1996

2015
[180]

A., Gagne, M., & Allen, L

Wilking, B. A., Gagne, M., & Allen, L. E. 2008, VizieR Online Data Catalog, 5, 351

2008
[181]

A., & Lada, C

Wilking, B. A., & Lada, C. J. 1983, ApJ, 274, 698

1983
[182]

A., Lada, C

Wilking, B. A., Lada, C. J., & Young, E. T. 1989, ApJ, 340, 823

1989
[183]

L., Eisenhardt, P

Wright, E. L., Eisenhardt, P. R. M., Mainzer, A. K., et al. 2010, AJ, 140, 1868

2010
[184]

2016, MNRAS, 456, 2794

Yang, H., Li, Z.-Y., Looney, L., & Stephens, I. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 2794

2016
[185]

W., Girart, J

Yang, H., Li, Z.-Y., Looney, L. W., Girart, J. M., & Stephens, I. W. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 373

2017
[186]

W., Kataoka, A., & Looney, L

Yang, H., Li, Z.-Y., Stephens, I. W., Kataoka, A., & Looney, L. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 2371

2019
[187]

M., Takakuwa, S., et al

Yen, H.-W., Koch, P. M., Takakuwa, S., et al. 2017, ApJ, 834, 178

2017
[188]

E., Enoch, M

Young, K. E., Enoch, M. L., Evans, II, N. J., et al. 2006, ApJ, 644, 326

2006
[189]

M., Pantin, E., et al

Zhang, H., Telesco, C. M., Pantin, E., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 2983

2017
[190]

Zhang, Q., Wootten, A., & Ho, P. T. P. 1997, ApJ, 475, 713

1997
[191]

2019, ApJ, 877, L18

Zhu, Z., Zhang, S., Jiang, Y.-F., et al. 2019, ApJ, 877, L18

2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

O., Girart, J

Alves, F. O., Girart, J. M., Caselli, P., et al. 2017, A&A, 603, L3

2017

[2] [2]

O., Girart, J

Alves, F. O., Girart, J. M., Padovani, M., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A56

2018

[3] [3]

C., Stephens, I

Andersen, B. C., Stephens, I. W., Dunham, M. M., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 54 50

2019

[4] [4]

Andersson, B.-G., Lazarian, A., & Vaillancourt, J. E. 2015, ARA&A, 53, 501

2015

[5] [5]

1990, A&A, 236, 180 Andr´ e, P., & Montmerle, T

Andre, P., Martin-Pintado, J., Despois, D., & Montmerle, T. 1990, A&A, 236, 180 Andr´ e, P., & Montmerle, T. 1994, ApJ, 420, 837 Andr´ e, P., Ward-Thompson, D., & Barsony, M. 1993, ApJ, 406, 122

1990

[6] [6]

M., Rosenfeld, K

Andrews, S. M., Rosenfeld, K. A., Kraus, A. L., & Wilner, D. J. 2013, ApJ, 771, 129

2013

[7] [7]

M., & Williams, J

Andrews, S. M., & Williams, J. P. 2007, ApJ, 659, 705

2007

[8] [8]

Dullemond, C. P. 2009, ApJ, 700, 1502

2009