| 1. |
- Asensio-Torres, R., et al.
(author)
-
Perturbers : SPHERE detection limits to planetary-mass companions in protoplanetary disks
- 2021
-
In: Astronomy and Astrophysics. - : EDP Sciences. - 0004-6361 .- 1432-0746. ; 652
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The detection of a wide range of substructures such as rings, cavities, and spirals has become a common outcome of high spatial resolution imaging of protoplanetary disks, both in the near-infrared scattered light and in the thermal millimetre continuum emission. The most frequent interpretation of their origin is the presence of planetary-mass companions perturbing the gas and dust distribution in the disk (perturbers), but so far the only bona fide detection has been the two giant planets carving the disk around PDS 70. Here, we present a sample of 15 protoplanetary disks showing substructures in SPHERE scattered-light images and a homogeneous derivation of planet detection limits in these systems. To obtain mass limits we rely on different post-formation luminosity models based on distinct formation conditions, which are critical in the first million years of evolution. We also estimate the mass of these perturbers through a Hill radius prescription and a comparison to ALMA data. Assuming that one single planet carves each substructure in scattered light, we find that more massive perturbers are needed to create gaps within cavities than rings, and that we might be close to a detection in the cavities of RX J1604.3-2130A, RX J1615.3-3255, Sz Cha, HD 135344B, and HD 34282. We reach typical mass limits in these cavities of 3–10 MJup. For planets in the gaps between rings, we find that the detection limits of SPHERE high-contrast imaging are about an order of magnitude away in mass, and that the gaps of PDS 66 and HD 97048 seem to be the most promising structures for planet searches. The proposed presence of massive planets causing spiral features in HD 135344B and HD 36112 are also within SPHERE’s reach assuming hot-start models. These results suggest that the current detection limits are able to detect hot-start planets in cavities, under the assumption that they are formed by a single perturber located at the centre of the cavity. More realistic planet mass constraints would help to clarify whether this is actually the case, which might indicate that perturbers are not the only way of creating substructures.
|
|
| 2. |
- Bergez, J-E, et al.
(author)
-
Integrating agri-environmental indicators, ecosystem services assessment, life cycle assessment and yield gap analysis to assess the environmental sustainability of agriculture.
- 2022
-
In: Ecological Indicators. - : Elsevier BV. - 1470-160X. ; 141
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Agriculture’s primary function is the production of food, feed, fibre and fuel for the fast-growing world population. However, it also affects human health and ecosystem integrity. Policymakers make policies in order to avoid harmful impacts. How to assess such policies is a challenge. In this paper, we propose a conceptual framework to help evaluate the impacts of agricultural policies on the environment. Our framework represents the global system as four subsystems and their interactions. These four components are the cells of a 2 by 2 matrix [Agriculture, Rest of the word]; [Socio-eco system, Ecological system]. We then developed a set of indicators for environmental issues and positioned these issues in the framework. To assess these issues, we used four well-known existing approaches: Life Cycle Assessment, Ecosystem Services Analysis, Yield Gap Analysis and Agro-Environmental Indicators. Using these four approaches together provided a more holistic view of the impacts of a given policy on the system. We then applied our framework on existing cover crop policies using an extensive literature survey and analysing the different environmental issues mobilised by the four assessment approaches. This demonstration case shows that our framework may be of help for a full systemic assessment. Despite their differences (aims, scales, standardization, data requirements, etc.), it is possible and profitable to use the four approaches together. This is a significant step forward, though more work is needed to produce a genuinely operational tool.
|
|
