John E. Gizis et al. 2000 The Astronomical Journal 120 1085 doi:10.1086/301456
John E. Gizis1,7, David G. Monet2,7, I. Neill Reid3, J. Davy Kirkpatrick4, James Liebert5 and Rik J. Williams6
Show affiliationsWe have combined 2MASS and POSS II data in a search for nearby ultracool (later than M6.5) dwarfs with Ks < 12. Spectroscopic follow-up observations identify 53 M7–M9.5 dwarfs and seven L dwarfs. The observed space density is 0.0045 ± 0.0008 M8–M9.5 dwarfs per cubic parsec, without accounting for biases, consistent with a mass function that is smooth across the stellar/substellar limit. We show the observed frequency of Hα emission peaks at ~100% for M7 dwarfs and then decreases for cooler dwarfs. In absolute terms, however, as measured by the ratio of Hα to bolometric luminosity, none of the ultracool M dwarfs can be considered very active compared to earlier M dwarfs, and we show that the decrease that begins at spectral type M6 continues to the latest L dwarfs. We find that flaring is common among the coolest M dwarfs and estimate the frequency of flares at 7% or higher. We show that the kinematics of relatively active (EW > 6 Å) ultracool M dwarfs are consistent with an ordinary old disk stellar population, while the kinematics of inactive ultracool M dwarfs are more typical of a 0.5 Gyr old population. The early L dwarfs in the sample have kinematics consistent with old ages, suggesting that the hydrogen-burning limit is near spectral types L2–L4. We use the available data on M and L dwarfs to show that chromospheric activity drops with decreasing mass and temperature and that at a given (M8 or later) spectral type, the younger field (brown) dwarfs are less active than many of the older, more massive field stellar dwarfs. Thus, contrary to the well-known stellar age-activity relationship, low activity in field ultracool dwarfs can be an indication of comparative youth and substellar mass.
solar neighborhood; stars: activity; stars: kinematics; stars: low-mass, brown dwarfs; stars: luminosity function, mass function
Issue 2 (2000 August)
Received 2000 February 1, accepted for publication 2000 April 26
John E. Gizis et al. 2000 The Astronomical Journal 120 1085
R. J. Foley et al. 2009 The Astronomical Journal 137 3731
Adam J. Burgasser et al. 2000 The Astronomical Journal 120 1100
Sergei Nikolaev et al. 2000 The Astronomical Journal 120 3340
I. Neill Reid et al. 2002 The Astronomical Journal 124 519
John E. Gizis et al. 1999 The Astronomical Journal 118 997
John E. Gizis and I. Neill Reid 2006 The Astronomical Journal 131 638
J. Davy Kirkpatrick et al. 2000 The Astronomical Journal 120 447
John E. Gizis and I. Neill Reid 1999 The Astronomical Journal 117 508
G. Altavilla et al. 2009 ApJ 695 135