This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site you agree to our use of cookies. To find out more, see our Privacy and Cookies policy.
Close this notification
American Astronomical Society logo

Click here to close this overlay, or press the "Escape" key on your keyboard.

The American Astronomical Society (AAS), established in 1899 and based in Washington, DC, is the major organization of professional astronomers in North America. Its membership of about 7,000 individuals also includes physicists, mathematicians, geologists, engineers, and others whose research and educational interests lie within the broad spectrum of subjects comprising contemporary astronomy. The mission of the AAS is to enhance and share humanity's scientific understanding of the universe.

https://aas.org/

iop-2016.png

Click here to close this overlay, or press the "Escape" key on your keyboard.

The Institute of Physics (IOP) is a leading scientific society promoting physics and bringing physicists together for the benefit of all. It has a worldwide membership of around 50 000 comprising physicists from all sectors, as well as those with an interest in physics. It works to advance physics research, application and education; and engages with policy makers and the public to develop awareness and understanding of physics. Its publishing company, IOP Publishing, is a world leader in professional scientific communications.

https://www.iop.org

A publishing partnership

REVEALING A UNIVERSAL PLANET–METALLICITY CORRELATION FOR PLANETS OF DIFFERENT SIZES AROUND SOLAR-TYPE STARS

and

Published 2014 December 10 © 2015. The American Astronomical Society. All rights reserved.
, ,

1538-3881/149/1/14

Abstract

The metallicity of exoplanet systems serves as a critical diagnostic of planet formation mechanisms. Previous studies have demonstrated the planet–metallicity correlation for large planets (${{R}_{P}}\ \geqslant \ 4\ {{R}_{E}}$); however, a correlation has not been found for smaller planets. With a sample of 406 Kepler objects of interest whose stellar properties are determined spectroscopically, we reveal a universal planet–metallicity correlation: not only gas-giant planets ($3.9\ {{R}_{E}}\ \lt {{R}_{P}}\ \leqslant \ 22.0\ {{R}_{E}}$) but also gas-dwarf ($1.7\ {{R}_{E}}\ \lt {{R}_{P}}\ \leqslant \ 3.9\ {{R}_{E}}$) and terrestrial planets (${{R}_{P}}\ \leqslant \ 1.7\ {{R}_{E}}$) occur more frequently in metal-rich stars. The planet occurrence rates of gas-giant planets, gas-dwarf planets, and terrestrial planets are $9.30_{-3.04}^{+5.62}$, $2.03_{-0.26}^{+0.29}$, and $1.72_{-0.17}^{+0.19}$ times higher for metal-rich stars than for metal-poor stars, respectively.

Export citation and abstract BibTeX RIS

1. INTRODUCTION

Since thousands of exoplanets and exoplanet candidates have been discovered (Schneider et al. 2011; Wright et al. 2011), we are now in a position to study the statistical attributes of the ensemble of known exoplanets. The correlations between the exoplanets' occurrence and the properties of their host stars help us to understand how planets form and evolve. For example, studies found that gas-giant planets occur more frequently around metal-rich stars (Gonzalez 1997; Santos et al. 2004; Fischer & Valenti 2005; Johnson et al. 2010). This planet–metallicity correlation provides a critical diagnostic for planet formation mechanisms: the correlation for gas-giant planets is consistent with the core accretion scenario for exoplanets that orbit closer than 20 AU around main sequence stars (Ida & Lin 2004; Mordasini et al. 2009; Alibert et al. 2011). Although recent studies confirmed a planet–metallicity correlation around sub-giant stars, a planet–metallicity correlation was not found for giant stars (Takeda et al. 2008; Ghezzi et al. 2010; Maldonado et al. 2013). Furthermore, the planet–metallicity correlation was not found for planets smaller than gas-giant planets, such as Neptune-like planets and rocky planets (Sousa 2008; Bouchy et al. 2009; Mayor et al. 2011; Neves et al. 2013).

In addition to the planet–metallicity correlation, correlations between the planet occurrence rate and other stellar properties have been suggested. Johnson et al. (2010) found a positive correlation of the gas-giant planet occurrence rate with stellar mass, but the correlation did not emerge in the analysis in Mortier et al. (2013). Eggenberger et al. (2004, 2011) found that circumstellar gas-giant planets are less frequent in systems with close-in stellar binaries. Subsequent studies further confirmed the influence of stellar multiplicity on planet formation (e.g., Wang et al. 2014a, 2014b, and references therein). These correlations help us to build a complete physical picture of planet formation under different conditions.

The NASA Kepler mission (Borucki et al. 2010) has been a tremendous success in finding transiting exoplanets. More than 7000 planet candidates have been discovered during its 4.5 year mission1 (Borucki et al. 2011; Batalha 2013; Burke et al. 2014). Although the planet occurrence rate has been extensively studied (Catanzarite & Shao 2011; Youdin 2011; Traub 2012; Howard et al. 2012; Fressin et al. 2013; Dressing & Charbonneau 2013), the dependence of the planet occurrence rate on metallicity is a relatively less-visited topic for the Kepler data.

Schlaufman & Laughlin (2011) found that gas-giant planets are preferentially found around metal-rich stars. While they did not find a planet–metallicity correlation for small-radius planets around solar-type stars, they reported a positive correlation between stellar metallicity and the occurrence rate of small-radius planet candidates around late K dwarfs. Their finding was later interpreted as a result of mis-classifications of giant stars as dwarf stars (Mann et al. 2012, 2013). Buchhave et al. (2012) measured metallicity for a sample of 152 Kepler planet host stars and confirmed the planet–metallicity correlation for gas-giant planets. They found that planets with radii smaller than 4 RE have a wide range of metallicity with a median close to the solar value and concluded that there was no planet–metallicity correlation for planets smaller than 4 RE. Everett et al. (2013) took spectra of 220 faint Kepler planet host stars (${{K}_{P}}\gt 14$) and reached a similar conclusion to that of Buchhave et al. (2012). Recently, Buchhave et al. (2014) expanded their metallicity measurements to 406 Kepler planet host stars and found that metallicity is important in regulating planet structure. In their recent data, the average metallicities for gas giant planets and gas dwarf planets are above the solar metallicity ($0.18\pm 0.02$ dex and $0.05\pm 0.01$ dex), and the average metallicity for terrestrial planets is consistent with the solar metallicity at $-0.02\pm 0.02$ dex. These intriguing results motivate us to revisit the planet–metallicity correlation using the newly available spectroscopically determined stellar and planetary properties.

The planet–metallicity correlation for small planets has not been confirmed and quantified: we still do not know whether and how the small planet occurrence rate changes as a function of stellar metallicity. The challenge is both the number of planets and the number of stars being searched. The former used to be small; the latter is often difficult to extract. With hundreds of spectroscopically characterized Kepler planet candidates and hundreds of thousands of Kepler stars, we now have a unique sample of planet host stars and stars with non-detections. This sample enables us to further investigate the planet–metallicity correlation for planets of different sizes. We describe our sample and methodologies in Section 2. Results and comparisons with previous works are discussed in Section 3. A summary and a discussion are given in Section 4.

2. SAMPLE AND METHOD

2.1. Sample

Our method relies on knowing stellar properties for both planet host stars and stars with no planet detections. For the planet host stars, we used stars in Buchhave et al. (2014) whose stellar properties are determined via the Stellar Parameter Classification (SPC) technique (Buchhave et al. 2012). Typical precision for SPC is 50 K, 0.10 dex, and 0.08 dex for Teff, log(g), and [Fe/H], respectively. We selected the stars in Buchhave et al. (2014) hosting planets with orbital periods less than 100 days, which account for 93% (376/406) of their sample.

Since a large number ($\gt 180,000$) of stars have been observed by the Kepler mission2 , only a tiny fraction of Kepler stars received spectroscopic followup observations; the majority of Kepler stars have only photometrically determined stellar properties (Brown et al. 2011; Huber et al. 2014). Therefore, for stars with no planet detections, we adopted the stellar parameters from the NASA Exoplanet Archive3 and converted the values into the more representative stellar properties to remove systematic errors (see Section 2.3 for details). We restricted our sample to solar-type dwarf stars ($4800\;{\rm K}\lt {{T}_{{\rm eff}}}\leqslant 6500$ K, log(g) $\geqslant \;4.2$).

2.2.  Kepler Input Catalog (KIC) versus SPC

Stellar properties for most Kepler stars are from the KIC (Brown et al. 2011). The KIC values are known to have large uncertainties and systematic errors. To investigate the uncertainty and the systematic error, we compared the KIC values with the spectroscopically determined values for the 406 stars in Buchhave et al. (2014) (shown in Figure 1). While we found a large dispersion (~0.2 dex) of spectroscopically determined metallicities at a given KIC metallicity, there is a positive correlation between the SPC and KIC metallicities, [Fe/H]SPC = 0.10 + 0.49 × [Fe/H]KIC. The positive correlation suggests that, although not accurate, the KIC metallicity can be used as a proxy of the stellar metallicity. Dawson & Murray-Clay (2013) used the KIC metallicity to find evidence of planet–planet interactions for giant-planet migration in metal-rich stars. Similarly, for Teff and log(g), we also found a positive correlation between SPC and KIC values, Teff,SPC = 1194 + 0.78 × Teff.KIC, and log(g)SPC = 1.97 + 0.54 × log(g)SPC, respectively. The correlations for [Fe/H], Teff, and log(g) can be used to remove systematic errors, and convert KIC values to values that better represent stellar properties.

Figure 1.

Figure 1. Comparison of stellar properties from the KIC and the SPC analysis (left: metallicity; middle: effective temperature; right: surface gravity). Red circles and error bars are medians and standard deviations for data points in bins of stellar properties. Each bin is defined by two adjacent red dotted lines. Solid lines indicate a 1:1 ratio, and red lines are the best linear fits.

Standard image High-resolution image Export PowerPoint slide

We describe how we converted KIC values to the more representative values as follows. Using the metallicity as an example, we divided KIC metallicity into six bins with a width of 0.2 dex starting at −0.7 dex, and calculated the median value and the standard deviation of the SPC metallicities in each bin (shown as red filled circles and error bars in Figure 1). A more representative metallicity than the KIC metallicity can be calculated by interpolating between adjacent red points. Similarly, a more representative error bar can also be estimated. For Teff, we used six bins with a width of 417.5 K starting at 4590 K to cover the entire Teff range. For log(g), we used 10 bins with a width of 0.1 or 0.2 dex starting at 3.2 dex. The width is changed from 0.1 dex to 0.2 dex for bins with log(g) lower than 4.0 dex because of the small number of available data points. We will use the more representative stellar properties for Kepler stars with no planet detections throughout the paper.

2.3. Dividing Sample on the RP–[Fe/H] Plane

We defined two metallicity groups: a metal-poor group with [Fe/H] $\lt -0.05$ and a metal-rich group with [Fe/H] $\gt 0.05$. The metallicity range between −0.05 and 0.05 serves as a buffer zone, limiting the contamination between two metallicity groups. The width of the buffer zone is consistent with the typical error bar quoted in Buchhave et al. (2014). There are ~53,000 and ~49,000 stars in the metal-poor and metal-rich groups, respectively. Given the uncertainty of the converted metallicity (~0.2 dex), we did not further divide the sample along the metallicity dimension. In each metallicity group, we further divided the stars with detected planets into three sub-groups based on planet size: gas-giant planets ($3.9\ {{R}_{E}}\ \lt {{R}_{P}}\ \leqslant \ 22.0\ {{R}_{E}}$), gas-dwarf planets ($1.7\ {{R}_{E}}\ \lt {{R}_{P}}\ \leqslant \ 3.9\ {{R}_{E}}$), and terrestrial planets (${{R}_{P}}\ \leqslant \ 1.7\ {{R}_{E}}$). The scatter plot of planet radius and stellar metallicity is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Figure 2.  Kepler planet candidates on the [Fe/H]–RP plane. The plane is divided into six sub-regions based on metallicity and planet radius. The dotted area is the metallicity buffer zone ($-0.05\;\leqslant $ [Fe/H] $\leqslant \;0.05$). Stars in the buffer zone are excluded in our analysis.

Standard image High-resolution image Export PowerPoint slide

2.4. Fraction of Stars with Detected Planets

We adopted the following Monte Carlo method to estimate the fraction of stars with detected planets. For each Kepler star with no planet detection, we assigned the star with stellar properties (Teff, log(g), and [Fe/H]) based on the converted, more representative values. The values are then perturbed assuming Gaussian distributions with standard deviations that are equal to the more representative error bars as shown in Figure 1. For each Kepler planet host star in our sample, we perturbed the measurements of stellar properties (Teff, log(g), and [Fe/H]) and planet properties (RP) with the reported measurement uncertainties. With this set of simulated data, we counted the number of stars with detected planet candidates (NP) and the number of searched stars (NS) in each sub-region as shown in Figure 2. We then calculated the ratio of NP and NS, a ratio which we refer to as the fraction of stars with detected planets. We repeated this procedure 1000 times and calculated the median values and the standard deviations for NP and NS. Since NP and NS were counted in each iteration, we considered counting errors which were assumed to follow Poisson distribution. Therefore, the final uncertainties of NP and NS are the summation in quadrature of the standard deviation and the Poisson noise. This approach takes into account both the statistical uncertainty and the uncertainties of stellar and planetary properties.

The fractions of stars with detected planets are given in Table 1. The reported values and uncertainties are the mode and the 68% credible interval of the ${{N}_{P}}/{{N}_{S}}$ distribution. We emphasize that measurements of the planet occurrence rates for planets of different sizes require further information such as detection sensitivity and survey incompleteness. Thus, the numbers that we list should not be construed to be the estimates of the true planet occurrence rates. However, the ratio of ${{N}_{P}}/{{N}_{S}}$ between two metallicity groups is a measure of the ratio of the planet occurrence rates of two metallicity groups, i.e., the relative planet occurrence rate of metal-rich to metal-poor stars. This is true only if the detection sensitivity and survey incompleteness affect the two metallicity groups in the same way.

Table 1.  Comparison of the Fractions of Stars with Detected Planets for Two Metallicity Groups in Different Planet Radius Ranges

  Metal-poor Metal-rich $\frac{{{({{N}_{P}}/{{N}_{S}})}_{{\rm rich}}}}{{{({{N}_{P}}/{{N}_{S}})}_{{\rm poor}}}}$
Planet Radius NP NS ${{N}_{P}}/{{N}_{S}}$ NP NS ${{N}_{P}}/{{N}_{S}}$  
${{R}_{P}}\leqslant 1.7{{R}_{E}}$ 51.0 ± 8.1 53289 ± 287 9.6 ± 1.5 × 10−4 82.0 ± 10.2 49366 ± 284 16.6 ± 2.1 × 10−4 $1.72_{-0.17}^{+0.19}$
$1.7{{R}_{E}}\leqslant {{R}_{P}}\leqslant 3.9{{R}_{E}}$ 36.0 ± 7.1 53289 ± 287 6.8 ± 1.3 × 10−4 68.0 ± 9.5 49366 ± 284 13.8 ± 1.9 × 10−4 $2.03_{-0.26}^{+0.29}$
$3.9{{R}_{E}}\leqslant {{R}_{P}}\leqslant 22.0{{R}_{E}}$ 3.0 ± 2.1 53289 ± 287 5.6 ± 4.0 × 10−5 24.0 ± 5.4 49366 ± 284 48.6 ± 10.9 × 10−5 $9.30_{-3.04}^{+5.62}$

Download table as:  ASCIITypeset image

2.5. Bias against Planet Detection for Metal-rich Stars

At a given photometric precision, it is more difficult to detect a transiting planet around a larger star, so stellar radius affects the planet detection sensitivity. To investigate whether detection sensitivity is the same for stars from two metallicity groups, we checked the dependence of stellar radius on metallicity. The top panels in Figure 3 show stars with spectroscopic followup observations from Buchhave et al. (2014). We limited the comparison for stars with $4800\;{\rm K}\lt {{T}_{{\rm eff}}}\leqslant 6500$ K and log(g) $\geqslant \;4.2$, which is consistent with our sample selection criteria. We found that metal-rich stars are ~20% larger than metal-poor stars. We performed a two-sided K-S test, with a p value of $1.8\times {{10}^{-5}}$, and a maximum difference of the cumulative distribution of 0.29. A two-sided Kuiper test, which is more sensitive to tails of distributions, shows a similar result with a p value of 7 × 10−4. Next, we checked if the stellar radius dependence on metallicity is a systematic for the SPC method. We collected stars with spectroscopically or asteroseismically determined stellar properties from Huber et al. (2014), but excluded stars from Buchhave et al. (2012). These stars consist of a sample whose stellar properties are determined free of the systematics (if any) of the SPC method. With this sample of 182 stars, we again found that metal-rich stars are larger; the median radius of the metal-rich sample is ~5% larger than that for the metal-poor sample. The K-S test gives a p value of 0.006. However, the Kuiper test is inconclusive (p = 0.089 $\geqslant \;0.01$). Finally, we checked all stars whose radii are measured with asteroseismic and interferometric methods (bottom panels in Figure 3, Boyajian et al. 2012, 2013; von Braun et al. 2014; Chaplin et al. 2014). In this case, we found that metal-rich stars are ~5% larger than metal-poor stars, but neither the K-S test (p = 0.14) nor the Kuiper test (p = 0.41) is significant. However, the maximum difference between the two cumulative distributions is 0.24, similar to the two previous cases. The smaller sample size (N = 88) may explain the inconclusive tests.

Figure 3.

Figure 3. Left panels: stellar radii vs. Teff for KOIs from Buchhave et al. (2014) (top), Kepler stars with asteroseismic and spectroscopic measurements from Huber et al. (2014) but excluding stars with the SPC analysis (middle), and stars with asteroseismic and interferometric measurements from Chaplin et al. (2014), Boyajian et al. (2012, 2013), and von Braun et al. (2014) (bottom). Dashed lines in each sub-plot in the left panels are predictions of stellar radii from a stellar evolution model (Dotter et al. 2008) at the age of 5 Gyr for two metallicities, [Fe/H] = −0.4 (lower) and [Fe/H] = 0.4 (upper). Right panels are comparisons of radius distributions between metal-rich and metal-poor stars. Metal-rich stars are on average ~5–20% larger than metal-poor stars at a given Teff.

Standard image High-resolution image Export PowerPoint slide

In a transiting planet survey like the Kepler mission, planet detection is more difficult around larger stars for a given planet size, so there is a bias against planet detection for metal-rich stars whose radii are larger than metal-poor stars. This bias may not be an issue for large planets, whose signals can be detected regardless of the 5%–20% stellar radius difference. However, the detection bias gets stronger for terrestrial planets and small gas-dwarf planets; the transiting signals of these planets may be only marginally detected given the Kepler precision. Therefore, the ratio of the fraction of stars with planets for metal-rich stars to that for metal-poor stars reflects a lower limit of the relative planet occurrence rate of metal-rich stars to metal-poor stars.

3. PLANET OCCURRENCE RATE VERSUS STELLAR METALLICITY

3.1. Result

We found a universal planet–metallicity correlation: not only gas-giant planets but also gas-dwarf planets and terrestrial planets occur more frequently in metal-rich stars (Figure 4). The dependence of the planet occurrence rate on metallicity decreases with decreasing planet size. The planet occurrence rates of gas-giant planets, gas-dwarf planets, and terrestrial planets are $9.30_{-3.04}^{+5.62}$, $2.03_{-0.26}^{+0.29}$, and $1.72_{-0.17}^{+0.19}$ times higher for metal-rich stars than for metal-poor stars, respectively. Given the detection bias against metal-rich stars (Section 2.5), these values are the lower limits for the planet–metallicity correlation: the dependence of the planet occurrence rate on metallicity may be stronger.

Figure 4.

Figure 4. Relative planet occurrence rate as a function of planet size. The relative planet occurrence rate is the ratio of the planet occurrence rate for metal-rich stars to metal-poor stars. A value of 1 (dashed–dotted line) indicates no metallicity dependence of the planet occurrence rate. The relative planet occurrence rates for gas-giant planets, gas-dwarf planets, and terrestrial planets are all significantly higher than 1, indicating the planet–metallicity correlation is universal for planet of all sizes. For terrestrial and gas-dwarf planets, the relative planet occurrence rate for stars with higher effective temperatures (blue) is higher than stars with lower effective temperatures (red).

Standard image High-resolution image Export PowerPoint slide

We further divided the sample into two with different effective temperature ranges, one with $4800\;{\rm K}\lt {{T}_{{\rm eff}}}\leqslant 5650{\rm K}$, and the other one with $5650\;{\rm K}\lt {{T}_{{\rm eff}}}\leqslant 6500$ K. The dividing Teff was selected to match the mean Teff of the sample. For the sub-sample with lower Teff, we found that the relative planet occurrence rates of metal-rich to metal-poor stars are $10.44_{-5.19}^{+1.97}$, $1.51_{-0.26}^{+0.31}$, and $1.34_{-0.18}^{+0.25}$ for gas-giant planets, gas-dwarf planets, and terrestrial planets, respectively. The relative planet occurrence rates in the sub-sample with higher Teff are $7.24_{-2.51}^{+7.86}$, $2.39_{-0.36}^{+0.48}$, and $1.94_{-0.22}^{+0.26}$ for gas-giant planets, gas-dwarf planets, and terrestrial planets, respectively. The relative planet occurrence rates for gas-giant planets are similar between two Teff sub-samples, but they are different for smaller planets (Figure 4). This may suggest that, for smaller planets, the metallicity dependence of the planet occurrence rate is weaker for stars with lower Teff than for stars with higher Teff. However, the hypothesis replies heavily on more observations in the future to confirm or refute.

3.2. Statistical Test

To understand the likelihood of the above result being produced by a random sample, we repeated the Monte Carlo simulations in Section 2.4. Instead of using the metallicities from Buchhave et al. (2014), we randomly assigned metallicities to planet host stars following the more representative metallicity distribution of the overall Kepler stellar population. In only 1 out of 1000 trials we observed a value higher than 1.72, which is the relative planet occurrence rate for terrestrial planets. We did not get a higher value than the reported relative planet occurrence rate for gas-dwarf and gas-giant planets. The result indicates that it is highly unlikely that the universal planet–metallicity correlation is mimicked by a random sample. For a sample of planet host stars with randomized metallicities, the relative planet occurrence rates of metal-rich to metal-poor stars are $1.07_{-0.40}^{+0.50}$, $1.06_{-0.18}^{+0.20}$, and $1.06_{-0.19}^{+0.21}$ for gas-giant planets, gas-dwarf planets, and terrestrial planets, respectively. All the values are consistent with unity, which is what we expect from a randomized sample with no planet–metallicity correlation.

3.3. Comparison to Previous Results

The positive correlation of the gas-giant planet occurrence rate with stellar metallicity is consistent with previous results based on the Kepler data (Schlaufman & Laughlin 2011; Buchhave et al. 2012; Everett et al. 2013). The median [Fe/H] for Kepler metal-poor and metal-rich stars in our sample is −0.14 dex and 0.23 dex, respectively. Our result indicates that a change of 0.37 dex in [Fe/H] results in a change of $9.30_{-3.04}^{+5.62}$ times in the gas-giant planet occurrence rate. In comparison, an exponential law dependence with a power ~2.0 (Fischer & Valenti 2005; Udry & Santos 2007) predicts that the boost of the planet occurrence rate due to metal enhancement is ~5.5. Considering the uncertainties of the metallicity measurement and the exponential power, our result for gas-giant planets is consistent with previous studies.

For terrestrial planets, we found that the planet occurrence rate for metal-poor stars is lower than that for metal-rich stars at 4.2 σ level. In comparison, Buchhave et al. (2012) found that the average metallicity for stars hosting planets smaller than 2 RE is comparable to the solar value, which is a necessary condition for a null-correlation between plant occurrence and stellar metallicity. However, their finding is not sufficient to conclude the null-correlation without knowing the overall metallicity distribution of Kepler stars. Buchhave et al. (2014) measured metallicities for a larger sample of planet host stars. For stars with terrestrial planets (${{R}_{P}}\ \leqslant \ 1.7\ {{R}_{E}}$), the median metallicity is 0.04 dex. Among 207 stars with terrestrial planets, 122 have metallicities above the solar value and 85 have metallicities equal to or lower than the solar value. As the sample size increases, the median metallicity for stars with terrestrial planets becomes higher than the solar value although it is still consistent with the solar value.

We investigated whether the metallicity distribution of the overall Kepler stars is statistically identical to that for stars hosting terrestrial planet. Assuming the more representative metallicities for Kepler stars based on the comparison shown in Figure 1, we compared the metallicity distribution of Kepler stars to that for stars with terrestrial planets. The K-S test (p = 0.005 $\leqslant \;0.01$) rejects the null hypothesis that the metallicity distribution for terrestrial planet host stars is drawn from the overall Kepler stars. The Kuiper test is inconclusive (p = 0.05 $\geqslant 0.01$) although hinting the same result as the K-S test. This test shows the importance of taking into consideration the metallicity distributions of both planet host stars and the overall stellar sample. From the difference in metallicity distribution, we went through the analyses described in this paper, and found that terrestrial planets are $1.72_{-0.17}^{+0.18}$ times more abundant around metal-rich stars than metal-poor stars.

The finding of a positive correlation with metallicity for small planets was also mentioned by Schlaufman & Laughlin (2011), but they found this correlation for late-K dwarfs, which we did not consider in our sample. Schlaufman & Laughlin (2011) did not find a significant planet–metallicity correlation for earlier spectral type. However, they used $g-r$ colors as a proxy for stellar metallicity, which is not as precise as spectroscopically determined values, and is prone to contamination of giant stars (Mann et al. 2012).

The positive planet–metallicity correlation for terrestrial and gas-dwarf planets is seemingly at odds with other previous studies from Doppler surveys (Udry & Santos 2007; Sousa 2008; Bouchy et al. 2009; Mayor et al. 2011). However, there are several possible explanations for the disagreement. First, small sample size may cause the insignificant planet–metallicity correlation. Mayor et al. (2011) studied 23 Doppler planets less massive than 30 M. They found that the median of their host stars metallicities matches with the median metallicities of the overall stellar sample. To investigate the effect of a small sample size, we downsized our sample to mimic their analysis. We randomly selected 822 Kepler stars to simulate their overall stellar sample, and 23 planet host stars (${{R}_{P}}\ \leqslant $ 3.9 RE) to simulate their low-mass planet host star sample, Then, we compared the metallicity distributions of these two samples using the K-S test and the Kuiper test. We found that only in 7.3% (for the K-S test) and 2.5% (for the Kuiper test) of trials the p values are smaller than 0.01. Therefore, the non-detection of a planet–metallicity correlation in Mayor et al. (2011) may be attributed to a small sample size for low-mass planet host stars.

Second, the weaker dependence of the planet occurrence rate on metallicity for stars with lower effective temperatures may be another possible explanation. If Mayor et al. (2011) sample is dominated by stars with ${{T}_{{\rm eff}}}\leqslant 5650$ K, then the planet–metallicity correlation is not as significant as it is for stars with higher Teff. The relative planet occurrence rate for these lower Teff stars is less than 2σ away from unity, which is the value corresponding to no planet–metallicity correlation (see Figure 4). To find the fraction of stars with ${{T}_{{\rm eff}}}\leqslant 5650$ K, we checked the HARPS FKG star sample (Sousa et al. 2011), 55% of stars in the sample have Teff lower than 5650 K. In comparison, 37.5% of the Kepler solar-type stars have Teff lower than 5650 K. The relative portion of stars with ${{T}_{{\rm eff}}}\leqslant 5650$ K is thus higher for the HARPS sample than for the Kepler sample. We therefore expect a less metallicity dependence of planet occurrence rate for the HARPS sample. We conducted a similar simulation to test small size effect on stars with lower Teff, only 4.9% (for the K-S test) and 1.8% (for the Kuiper test) of trials returned p values that indicate significant difference (p ≤ 0.01). Therefore, the difference in sample size and Teff distribution may explain the discrepancy of the planet–metallicity correlation for small planets between the Kepler survey and previous Doppler surveys.

4. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION

4.1. Summary

With a sample of 406 Kepler planet host stars taken from Buchhave et al. (2014), we compared the stellar properties from the KIC and those from the SPC analysis. From the comparison, we derived a method to convert the KIC values for stellar properties to more representative values. Based on the more representative stellar properties, we divided stars into metal-poor and metal-rich groups, and counted the number of stars (NS) and the number of planet host stars (NP) that belong to these two metallicity groups. Next, we calculated the fraction of stars with planets (${{N}_{P}}/{{N}_{S}}$). We used the ratio of the fractions of stars with planets for metal-rich to metal-poor stars as an estimation of the relative planet occurrence rate, a quantity evaluating the planet occurrence rate change due to metal enhancement. We found a universal planet–metallicity correlation for solar-type stars ($4800\;{\rm K}\lt {{T}_{{\rm eff}}}\leqslant 6500$ K, log(g) $\geqslant \;4.2$): planets of all sizes are more abundant around metal-rich stars than they are around metal-poor stars. The relative planet occurrence rates for metal-rich stars to metal-poor stars are $9.30_{-3.04}^{+5.62}$, $2.03_{-0.26}^{+0.29}$, and $1.72_{-0.17}^{+0.18}$ for gas-giant planets ($3.9\ {{R}_{E}}\ \lt {{R}_{P}}\ \leqslant \ 22.0\ {{R}_{E}}$), gas-dwarf planets ($1.7\ {{R}_{E}}\ \lt {{R}_{P}}\ \leqslant \ 3.9\ {{R}_{E}}$), and terrestrial planets (${{R}_{P}}\ \leqslant \ 1.7\ {{R}_{E}}$), respectively. Since we found that metal-rich stars are 5%–20% larger than metal-poor stars, there is a detection bias against planets around metal-rich stars, so the relative planet occurrence rates reported in this paper are the lower limits.

4.2. The Choice of Buffer Zone

We chose a metallicity buffer zone with a width of 0.1 dex, which is comparable to the reported error from Buchhave et al. (2014). However, the error for the stars without spectroscopic observations may be higher than 0.1 dex. We changed the width of the buffer zone to investigate how the width changes our results. For a buffer zone width of 0.15 dex, the relative planet occurrence rates for metal-rich stars to metal-poor stars are $12.13_{-4.21}^{+12.46}$, $2.20_{-0.29}^{+0.31}$, and $1.81_{-0.19}^{+0.21}$ for gas-giant planets, gas-dwarf planets, and terrestrial planets, respectively. For a buffer zone width of 0.20 dex, the relative planet occurrence rates for metal-rich stars to metal-poor stars are $13.91_{-5.07}^{+11.45}$, $2.41_{-0.33}^{+0.43}$, and $1.92_{-0.21}^{+0.22}$ for gas-giant planets, gas-dwarf planets, and terrestrial planets, respectively. Widening the buffer zone has two effects. First, the widening increases the metallicity difference between the metal-rich and metal-poor sample and thus magnifies the planet–metallicity correlation. Second, the widening decreases the number of available data points and thus increases the uncertainty. As the buffer zone width increases, a higher relative planet occurrence rate is observed for each type of planet, although the numbers overlap within error bars. The increasing relative planet occurrence rate with increasing buffer zone width is another piece of evidence for the universal planet–metallicity correlation. Widening the buffer zone leads to two samples that are more separated by metallicity, which reveals a stronger metallicity dependence of planet occurrence rate, i.e., a higher relative planet occurrence rate.

4.3. Disk Time Scale and Small Planet Formation

In Section 3.1, we reported a weaker dependence of the small planet occurrence rate on metallicity for stars with lower effective temperatures ($4800\;{\rm K}\lt {{T}_{{\rm eff}}}\leqslant 5650$ K). The relative planet occurrence rates of metal-rich to metal-poor stars are $1.51_{-0.26}^{+0.31}$ and $1.34_{-0.18}^{+0.25}$ for gas-dwarf planets and terrestrial planets, respectively. In comparison, the relative planet occurrence rates for stars with higher Teff ($5650\;{\rm K}\lt {{T}_{{\rm eff}}}\leqslant 6500$ K) are $2.39_{-0.36}^{+0.48}$ and $1.94_{-0.22}^{+0.26}$ for gas-dwarf planets and terrestrial planets, respectively. This may be explained by a competition effect between the formation of planetesimals and the dispersal of dust materials in disk. Dust in a protoplanetary disk is dispersed with a time scale of several Myr (Haisch et al. 2001; Mamajek 2009). Observations of transition disks demonstrate that the central region of the circumstellar disk clears before the outer regions (e.g., Isella et al. 2009), and imaging surveys of the brightest disks in the nearby Ophiuchus star forming region demonstrate that central clearings are very common in even the most massive disks at ages of a few Myr (Andrews et al. 2009, 2010). The observed properties of transitional disks are consistent with clearing due to the dynamical influence of a low-mass companion embedded in the disk (e.g., Andrews et al. 2011), although photo-evaporation is likely to play a role in disk dispersal, possibly at later stages (e.g., Alexander et al. 2013). There is also some evidence that the dust disks around intermediate mass stars evolve more rapidly than those around solar-type stars (e.g., Yasui et al. 2014). Therefore, planetesimal formation may be cut off at an earlier time in the disks around more massive stars. In order to rapidly form larger planetesimals that are immune to the effects of photo-evaporation and the reduced accretion flow across the gap formed by low-mass companions embedded in the disk, systems with higher metallicity are favored in forming close-in terrestrial and gas-dwarf planets around more massive stars. By comparison, the clearing process may take place slightly later for less massive stars, such that planetesimals can afford to form more slowly. Therefore, metallicity dependence for close-in terrestrial and gas-dwarf planets around less massive stars is not as strong as it is for more massive stars.

We acknowledge the anonymous referees for their insightful comments. We thank Tabetha Boyajian for her stimulating comments and for providing interferometric measurements of stellar radii. We thank Meredith Hughes for the helpful discussion on the stellar mass dependence of the planet–metallicity correlation. This research has made use of the NASA Exoplanet Archive, which is operated by the California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration under the Exoplanet Exploration Program.

Footnotes

References

  • Alexander R., Pascucci I., Andrews S., Armitage P. and Cieza L. 2013 arXiv:1311.1819

    Preprint

  • Alibert Y., Mordasini C. and Benz W. 2011 A&A 526 A63

    CrossrefADS

  • Andrews S. M., Wilner D. J., Espaillat C. et al 2011 ApJ 732 42

    IOPscienceADS

  • Andrews S. M., Wilner D. J., Hughes A. M., Qi C. and Dullemond C. P. 2009 ApJ 700 1502

    IOPscienceADS

  • Andrews S. M., Wilner D. J., Hughes A. M., Qi C. and Dullemond C. P. 2010 ApJ 723 1241

    IOPscienceADS

  • Batalha N. M., Rowe J. F., Bryson S. T. et al 2013 ApJS 204 24

    IOPscienceADS

  • Borucki W. J., Koch D., Basri G. et al 2010 Sci 327 977

    CrossrefADS

  • Borucki W. J., Koch D., Basri G. et al 2011 ApJ 736 19

    IOPscienceADS

  • Bouchy F., Mayor M., Lovis C. et al 2009 A&A 496 527

    CrossrefADS

  • Boyajian T. S., McAlister H. A., van Belle G. et al 2012 ApJ 746 101

    IOPscienceADS

  • Boyajian T. S., van Braun K., van Beller G. et al 2013 ApJ 771 40

    IOPscienceADS

  • Brown T. M., Latham D. W., Everett M. E. and Esquerdo G. A. 2011 AJ 142 112

    IOPscienceADS

  • Buchhave L. A., Latham D. W., Johansen A. et al 2012 Natur 486 375

    CrossrefADS

  • Buchhave L. A., Bizarro M., Latham D. W. et al 2014 Natur 509 593

    CrossrefADS

  • Burke C. J., Bryson S. T., Mullally F. et al 2014 ApJS 210 19

    IOPscienceADS

  • Catanzarite J. and Shao M. 2011 ApJ 738 151

    IOPscienceADS

  • Chaplin W. J., Basu S., Huber D. et al 2014 ApJS 210 1

    IOPscienceADS

  • Dawson R. I. and Murray-Clay R. A. 2013 ApJL 767 L24

    IOPscienceADS

  • Dotter A., Chaboyer B., Jevremović D. et al 2008 ApJS 178 89

    IOPscienceADS

  • Dressing C. D. and Charbonneau D. 2013 ApJ 767 95

    IOPscienceADS

  • Eggenberger A., Udry S., Chauvin G. et al 2011 in IAU Symp. 276, The Astrophysics of Planetary Systems: Formation, Structure, and Dynamical Evolution ed A. Sozzetti, M. G. Lattanzi and A. P. Boss (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press) 409–10

    ADS

  • Eggenberger A., Udry S., Mayor M. et al 2004 A&A 417 353

    CrossrefADS

  • Everett M. E., Howell S. B., Silva D. R. and Szkody P. 2013 ApJ 771 107

    IOPscienceADS

  • Fischer D. A. and Valenti J. 2005 ApJ 622 1102

    IOPscienceADS

  • Fressin F., Torres G., Charbonneau D. et al 2013 ApJ 766 81

    IOPscienceADS

  • Ghezzi L., Cunha K., Schuler S. C. and Smith V. V. 2010 ApJ 725 721

    IOPscienceADS

  • Gonzalez G. 1997 MNARS 285 403

    CrossrefADS

  • Haisch K. E. Jr., Lada E. A., Lada C. J. et al 2001 ApJL 553 L153

    IOPscienceADS

  • Howard A. W., Marcy G. W., Bryson S. T. et al 2012 ApJS 201 15

    IOPscienceADS

  • Huber D., Silva Aguirre V., Matthews J. M. et al 2014 ApJS 211 2

    IOPscienceADS

  • Ida S. and Lin D. N. C. 2004 ApJ 604 388

    IOPscienceADS

  • Isella A., Carpenter J. M. and Sargent A. I. 2009 ApJ 701 260

    IOPscienceADS

  • Johnson J. A., Aller K. M., Howard A. W. and Crepp J. R. 2010 PASP 122 905

    IOPscienceADS

  • Maldonado J., Villaver E. and Eiroa C. 2013 A&A 554 A84

    CrossrefADS

  • Mamajek E. E. 2009 in Proc. AIP Conf. Ser. 1158, Exoplanets and Disks: Their Formation and Diversity ed T. Usuda, M. Tamura and M. Ishii (Melville, NY: AIP) 3

    ADS

  • Mann A. W., Gaidos E., Kraus A. and Hilton E. J. 2013 ApJ 770 43

    IOPscienceADS

  • Mann A. W., Gaidos E., Lépine S. and Hilton E. J. 2012 ApJ 753 90

    IOPscienceADS

  • Mayor M., Marmier M., Lovis C. et al 2011 arXiv:1109.2497

    Preprint

  • Mordasini C., Alibert Y. and Benz W. 2009 A&A 501 1139

    CrossrefADS

  • Mortier A., Santos N. C. and Sousa S. 2013 A&A 551 A112

    CrossrefADS

  • Neves V., Bonfils X. and Santos N. C. 2013 A&A 551 A36

    CrossrefADS

  • Santos N. C., Israelian G. and Mayor M. 2004 A&A 415 1153

    CrossrefADS

  • Schlaufman K. C. and Laughlin G. 2011 ApJ 738 177

    IOPscienceADS

  • Schneider J., Dedieu C., le Sidaner P., Savalle R. and Zolotukhin I. 2011 A&A 532 A79

    CrossrefADS

  • Sousa S. G., Santos N. C., Israelian G., Mayor M. and Udry S. 2008 A&A 487 373

    CrossrefADS

  • Sousa S. G., Santos N. C., Israelian G., Mayor M. and Udry S. 2011 A&A 533 A141

    CrossrefADS

  • Takeda Y., Sato B. and Murata D. 2008 PASJ 60 781

    CrossrefADS

  • Traub W. A. 2012 ApJ 745 20

    IOPscienceADS

  • Udry S. and Santos N. C. 2007 ARA&A 45 397

    CrossrefADS

  • von Braun K., Boyajian T. S., van Belle G. et al 2014 MNRAS 438 2413

    CrossrefADS

  • Wang J., Fischer D. A., Xie J. -W. and Ciardi D. R. 2014 ApJ 791 111

    IOPscienceADS

  • Wang J., Xie J. -W., Barclay T. and Fischer D. A. 2014 ApJ 783 4

    IOPscienceADS

  • Wright J. T., Fakhouri O., Marcy G. W. et al 2011 PASP 123 412

    IOPscienceADS

  • Yasui C., Kobayashi N., Tokunaga A. T. and Saito M. 2014 MNRAS 442 2543

    CrossrefADS

  • Youdin A. N. 2011 ApJ 742 38

    IOPscienceADS

Export references: BibTeX RIS

Citations

  1. K2-140b and K2-180b – Characterization of a hot Jupiter and a mini-Neptune from the K2 mission
    J Korth et al 2019 Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 482 1807

    Crossref

  2. SWEET-Cat updated
    S. G. Sousa et al 2018 Astronomy & Astrophysics 620 A58

    Crossref

  3. Ralph E. Pudritz et al 2018 2475

    Crossref

  4. Gijs D. Mulders 2018 2009

    Crossref

  5. Nuno C. Santos and Lars A. Buchhave 2018 1623

    Crossref

  6. Virginie Batista 2018 659

    Crossref

  7. The Rise of New Planets: Super-Earths and Sub-Neptunes
    Xie Ji-wei 2018 Chinese Astronomy and Astrophysics 42 325

    Crossref

  8. Formation of planetary populations – I. Metallicity and envelope opacity effects
    Matthew Alessi and Ralph E Pudritz 2018 Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 478 2599

    Crossref

  9. Gijs D. Mulders 2018 1

    Crossref

  10. Nuno C. Santos and Lars A. Buchhave 2018 1

    Crossref

  11. Ralph E. Pudritz et al 2018 1

    Crossref

  12. Galaxy formation efficiency and the multiverse explanation of the cosmological constant with EAGLE simulations
    Luke A Barnes et al 2018 Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 477 3727

    Crossref

  13. From Disks to Planets: The Making of Planets and Their Early Atmospheres. An Introduction
    Helmut Lammer and Michel Blanc 2018 Space Science Reviews 214 

    Crossref

  14. Virginie Batista 2018 1

    Crossref

  15. Compact Multi-planet Systems are more Common around Metal-poor Hosts
    John M. Brewer et al. 2018 The Astrophysical Journal Letters 867 L3

    IOPscience

  16. The California-Kepler Survey. VII. Precise Planet Radii Leveraging Gaia DR2 Reveal the Stellar Mass Dependence of the Planet Radius Gap
    Benjamin J. Fulton and Erik A. Petigura 2018 The Astronomical Journal 156 264

    IOPscience

  17. Properties and Occurrence Rates for Kepler Exoplanet Candidates as a Function of Host Star Metallicity from the DR25 Catalog
    Mayank Narang et al. 2018 The Astronomical Journal 156 221

    IOPscience

  18. The Super Earth–Cold Jupiter Relations
    Wei Zhu and Yanqin Wu 2018 The Astronomical Journal 156 92

    IOPscience

  19. Characterizing K2 Candidate Planetary Systems Orbiting Low-mass Stars. III. A High Mass and Low Envelope Fraction for the Warm Neptune K2-55b
    Courtney D. Dressing et al. 2018 The Astronomical Journal 156 70

    IOPscience

  20. Exoplanets around Low-mass Stars Unveiled by K2
    Teruyuki Hirano et al. 2018 The Astronomical Journal 155 127

    IOPscience

  21. The California-Kepler Survey. IV. Metal-rich Stars Host a Greater Diversity of Planets
    Erik A. Petigura et al. 2018 The Astronomical Journal 155 89

    IOPscience

  22. Elemental Abundances of Kepler Objects of Interest in APOGEE. I. Two Distinct Orbital Period Regimes Inferred from Host Star Iron Abundances
    Robert F. Wilson et al. 2018 The Astronomical Journal 155 68

    IOPscience

  23. Chemical Abundances of Neutron-capture Elements in Exoplanet-hosting Stars
    E. Delgado Mena et al. 2018 Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific 130 094202

    IOPscience

  24. Spectral Properties of Cool Stars: Extended Abundance Analysis of Kepler Objects of Interest
    John M. Brewer and Debra A. Fischer 2018 The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 237 38

    IOPscience

  25. Disruption of a Planet Spiraling into its Host Star
    Shi Jia and H. C. Spruit 2018 The Astrophysical Journal 864 169

    IOPscience

  26. Retired A Stars Revisited: An Updated Giant Planet Occurrence Rate as a Function of Stellar Metallicity and Mass
    Luan Ghezzi et al. 2018 The Astrophysical Journal 860 109

    IOPscience

  27. Radiation Hydrodynamics Simulations of Photoevaporation of Protoplanetary Disks by Ultraviolet Radiation: Metallicity Dependence
    Riouhei Nakatani et al. 2018 The Astrophysical Journal 857 57

    IOPscience

  28. LAMOST telescope reveals that Neptunian cousins of hot Jupiters are mostly single offspring of stars that are rich in heavy elements
    Subo Dong et al 2017 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 201711406

    Crossref

  29. N-body simulations of planet formation via pebble accretion
    Soko Matsumura et al 2017 Astronomy & Astrophysics 607 A67

    Crossref

  30. Dynamical rearrangement of super-Earths during disk dispersal
    Beibei Liu and Chris W. Ormel 2017 Astronomy & Astrophysics 606 A66

    Crossref

  31. Evaluating galactic habitability using high-resolution cosmological simulations of galaxy formation
    Duncan Forgan et al 2017 International Journal of Astrobiology 16 60

    Crossref

  32. Toward a Galactic Distribution of Planets. I. Methodology and Planet Sensitivities of the 2015 High-cadence Spitzer Microlens Sample
    Wei Zhu et al. 2017 The Astronomical Journal 154 210

    IOPscience

  33. Absence of a Metallicity Effect for Ultra-short-period Planets
    Joshua N. Winn et al. 2017 The Astronomical Journal 154 60

    IOPscience

  34. A Physically Motivated and Empirically Calibrated Method to Measure the Effective Temperature, Metallicity, and Ti Abundance of M Dwarfs
    Mark J. Veyette et al. 2017 The Astrophysical Journal 851 26

    IOPscience

  35. The HARPS search for southern extra-solar planets
    J. P. Faria et al 2016 Astronomy & Astrophysics 589 A25

    Crossref

  36. Planets, debris and their host metallicity correlations
    Mark Fletcher and Sergei Nayakshin 2016 Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 461 1850

    Crossref

  37. An upper boundary in the mass-metallicity plane of exo-Neptunes
    Bastien Courcol et al 2016 Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 461 1841

    Crossref

  38. The habitability of planets orbiting M-dwarf stars
    Aomawa L. Shields et al 2016 Physics Reports 663 1

    Crossref

  39. Behaviour of elements from lithium to europium in stars with and without planets
    T. Mishenina et al 2016 Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 462 1563

    Crossref

  40. Evolution of galaxy habitability
    R. Gobat and S. E. Hong 2016 Astronomy & Astrophysics 592 A96

    Crossref

  41. The HARPS search for southern extra-solar planets
    A. Mortier et al 2016 Astronomy & Astrophysics 585 A135

    Crossref

  42. They are small worlds after all: revised properties ofKeplerM dwarf stars and their planets
    E. Gaidos et al 2016 Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 457 2877

    Crossref

  43. HATS-11b AND HATS-12b: Two Transiting Hot Jupiters Orbiting Subsolar Metallicity Stars Selected for the K2 Campaign 7
    M. Rabus et al. 2016 The Astronomical Journal 152 88

    IOPscience

  44. Spectral Properties of Cool Stars: Extended Abundance Analysis of 1,617 Planet-search Stars
    John M. Brewer et al. 2016 The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 225 32

    IOPscience

  45. Dependence of Small Planet Frequency on Stellar Metallicity Hidden by Their Prevalence
    Wei Zhu et al. 2016 The Astrophysical Journal 832 196

    IOPscience

  46. Dust Capture and Long-lived Density Enhancements Triggered by Vortices in 2D Protoplanetary Disks
    Clément Surville et al. 2016 The Astrophysical Journal 831 82

    IOPscience

  47. In Situ Formation and Dynamical Evolution of Hot Jupiter Systems
    Konstantin Batygin et al. 2016 The Astrophysical Journal 829 114

    IOPscience

  48. The Correlation between Metallicity and Debris Disk Mass
    András Gáspár et al. 2016 The Astrophysical Journal 826 171

    IOPscience

  49. Lithium-rich Giants in Globular Clusters
    Evan N. Kirby et al. 2016 The Astrophysical Journal 819 135

    IOPscience

  50. Calibration of the MEarth Photometric System: Optical Magnitudes and Photometric Metallicity Estimates for 1802 Nearby M-Dwarfs
    Jason A. Dittmann et al. 2016 The Astrophysical Journal 818 153

    IOPscience

  51. Constraining planet structure from stellar chemistry: the cases of CoRoT-7, Kepler-10, and Kepler-93
    N. C. Santos et al 2015 Astronomy & Astrophysics 580 L13

    Crossref

  52. Youth plus experience: the discovery of 51 Pegasi b
    Davide Cenadelli and Andrea Bernagozzi 2015 The European Physical Journal H 40 527

    Crossref

  53. Larger and faster: revised properties and a shorter orbital period for the WASP-57 planetary system from a pro-am collaboration
    John Southworth et al 2015 Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 454 3094

    Crossref

  54. Planet heating prevents inward migration of planetary cores
    Pablo Benítez-Llambay et al 2015 Nature 520 63

    Crossref

  55. The Quest for Cradles of Life: Using the Fundamental Metallicity Relation to Hunt for the Most Habitable Type of Galaxy
    Pratika Dayal et al. 2015 The Astrophysical Journal Letters 810 L2

    IOPscience

  56. Detailed Abundances of Stars with Small Planets Discovered by Kepler. I. The First Sample
    Simon C. Schuler et al. 2015 The Astrophysical Journal 815 5

    IOPscience

  57. HATS-7b: A Hot Super Neptune Transiting a Quiet K Dwarf Star
    G. Á. Bakos et al. 2015 The Astrophysical Journal 813 111

    IOPscience

  58. The Solar System as an Exoplanetary System
    Rebecca G. Martin and Mario Livio 2015 The Astrophysical Journal 810 105

    IOPscience

  59. Building Massive Compact Planetesimal Disks from the Accretion of Pebbles
    John Moriarty and Debra Fischer 2015 The Astrophysical Journal 809 94

    IOPscience

  60. The Metallicities of Stars with and without Transiting Planets
    Lars A. Buchhave and David W. Latham 2015 The Astrophysical Journal 808 187

    IOPscience

  61. Modeling the Surface Temperature of Earth-like Planets
    Giovanni Vladilo et al. 2015 The Astrophysical Journal 804 50

    IOPscience

  62. On the Occurrence Rate of Hot Jupiters in Different Stellar Environments
    Ji Wang et al. 2015 The Astrophysical Journal 799 229

    IOPscience

Export citations: BibTeX RIS