Free Access
Erratum
This article is an erratum for: [this article]

Issue
A&A
Volume 634, February 2020
Article Number C2
Number of page(s) 4
Section Stellar atmospheres
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201935679e
Published online 04 February 2020

We have corrected an error in Passegger et al. (2019) in the calculation of the stellar surface gravity log g from literature masses and radii provided by Gaidos & Mann (2014) and Mann et al. (2015). The mass and radius were interchanged in the formula, g = GM/R2 which resulted into too high log g values for the earliest M dwarfs. This mistake only affected the part where our log g values were compared to literature values and had no influence on our parameters which had been derived from high-resolution spectra. In the framework of this corrigendum, we also correct a few other minor mistakes and typos. In the following, we describe all changes in detail.

Section 4.2

We replot Figs. 57, where only the middle panel presenting log g has changed for literature values from Gaidos & Mann (2014) and Mann et al. (2015). In the second paragraph, line 8, sentences 6 and 7 should read:

“For log g we find a good correlation with the literature, although a small offset towards lower values can be seen for our results. For this parameter as well as for metallicity, results from Raj18 do not correlate with our values nor with the other literature, spreading across the whole parameter range.”

We recalculate the mean absolute difference between our results and literature in Table 3 after correcting the error in the aforementioned log g calculation from masses and radii published by Mann et al. (2015) and Gaidos & Mann (2014). This leads to a decrease of MADs in log g for all wavelength ranges. Additionally, we correct a minor typo in the MAD calculation for Rajpurohit et al. (2018) and Schweitzer et al. (2019), which leads to differences of less than 1 K and less than 0.05 dex in the single and total MADs. In the last paragraph, line 6, sentences 5 and 6 should read:

“For log g and metallicity, the MADs are mostly within our errorbars for VIS+NIR and VIS.”

thumbnail Fig. 5

Comparison between results from VIS and literature values for Teff (top panel), log g (middle panel), and [Fe/H] (bottom panel). The 1:1 relation is indicated by the black line. The uncertainties of this work (black) are shown in the lower right corner of each panel together with the uncertainties of Rajpurohit et al. (2018) (purple).

Open with DEXTER
thumbnail Fig. 6

Comparison between results from the NIR and literature values for Teff (top panel), log g (middle panel), and [Fe/H] (bottom panel). The 1:1 relation is indicated by the black line. The uncertainties of this work (black) are shown in the lower right corner of each panel together with the uncertainties of Rajpurohit et al. (2018) (purple).

Open with DEXTER
thumbnail Fig. 7

Comparison between results from VIS+NIR and literature values for Teff (top panel), log g (middle panel), and [Fe/H] (bottom panel). The 1:1 relation is indicated by the black line. The uncertainties of this work (black) are shown in the lower right corner of each panel together with the uncertainties of Rajpurohit et al. (2018) (purple).

Open with DEXTER
Table 3

Mean absolute difference between literature and results of this work for different wavelength ranges.

Section 4.3

Our description of the definition of active stars in Fig. 8 was not accurate, as it actually showed only stars with both Hα pseudo-equivalent width less than –0.3 Å and Ca II emission. To match the description in the text, we also include stars that only show Ca II emission alone. Therefore, we correct Fig. 8 regarding log g (middle panel) and activity (all panels), which results in a reduction of outliers. In the first paragraph, line 1, sentence 1 and line 7, sentence 5 should read:

“In the following we will discuss some outliers from Fig. 7, mainly considering metallicity. (...) Stars showing Ca II emission are identified in Table B.1 with an activity flag 1.”

In the second paragraph, line 4, sentence 4 should read:

“Most of these stars are active. However, they correspond well to literature values within their errors, which supports our method of line selection since we found this parameter to be most influenced by activity.”

In the third paragraph, line 8, sentences 5, 6, and 7 should read:

“In log g, we find them at both ends of the plot at low and high values.”

Outliers (6) and (7) in log g disappear due to the correction of the derived literature value. Outliers (9) and (11) in temperature show Ca II emission and are now considered as active. This results in the following renumbering of outliers after (5) J17578+046 (Barnard’s star). The discussion for each outlier remains unchanged.

  • (6)

    J22115+184

  • (7)

    J02222+478

  • (8)

    J05127+196

The rest of the results and discussion remain unaffected.

thumbnail Fig. 8

Comparison of [Fe/H] (top panel), log g (middle panel), and Teff (bottom panel) between values of this work in VIS+NIR and literature. The age is color-coded, active star are plotted as asterisks. Outliers are identified with numbers, the green lines connect different literature values for them. The black line indicates the 1:1 relation, the grey lines the 1σ deviation.

Open with DEXTER

Acknowledgements

We thank Yutong Shan for pointing out this error.

Appendix

There was a typo in Table B.2 for the NIR and VIS parameter values of J23431+365. We update Table B.2 accordingly.

Table B.2

Basic astrophysical parameters of investigated stars for different wavelength regimes.

References

  1. Gaidos, E., & Mann, A. W. 2014, ApJ, 791, 54 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  2. Maldonado, J., Affer, L., Micela, G., et al. 2015, A&A, 577, A132 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  3. Mann, A. W., Feiden, G. A., Gaidos, E., Boyajian, T., & von Braun, K. 2015, ApJ, 804, 64 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  4. Passegger, V. M., Schweitzer, A., Shulyak, D., et al. 2019, A&A, 627, A161 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  5. Rajpurohit, A. S., Allard, F., Rajpurohit, S., et al. 2018, A&A, 620, A180 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  6. Rojas-Ayala, B., Covey, K. R., Muirhead, P. S., & Lloyd, J. P. 2012, ApJ, 748, 93 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  7. Schweitzer, A., Passegger, V. M., Cifuentes, C., et al. 2019, A&A, 625, A68 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]

© ESO 2020

All Tables

Table 3

Mean absolute difference between literature and results of this work for different wavelength ranges.

Table B.2

Basic astrophysical parameters of investigated stars for different wavelength regimes.

All Figures

thumbnail Fig. 5

Comparison between results from VIS and literature values for Teff (top panel), log g (middle panel), and [Fe/H] (bottom panel). The 1:1 relation is indicated by the black line. The uncertainties of this work (black) are shown in the lower right corner of each panel together with the uncertainties of Rajpurohit et al. (2018) (purple).

Open with DEXTER
In the text
thumbnail Fig. 6

Comparison between results from the NIR and literature values for Teff (top panel), log g (middle panel), and [Fe/H] (bottom panel). The 1:1 relation is indicated by the black line. The uncertainties of this work (black) are shown in the lower right corner of each panel together with the uncertainties of Rajpurohit et al. (2018) (purple).

Open with DEXTER
In the text
thumbnail Fig. 7

Comparison between results from VIS+NIR and literature values for Teff (top panel), log g (middle panel), and [Fe/H] (bottom panel). The 1:1 relation is indicated by the black line. The uncertainties of this work (black) are shown in the lower right corner of each panel together with the uncertainties of Rajpurohit et al. (2018) (purple).

Open with DEXTER
In the text
thumbnail Fig. 8

Comparison of [Fe/H] (top panel), log g (middle panel), and Teff (bottom panel) between values of this work in VIS+NIR and literature. The age is color-coded, active star are plotted as asterisks. Outliers are identified with numbers, the green lines connect different literature values for them. The black line indicates the 1:1 relation, the grey lines the 1σ deviation.

Open with DEXTER
In the text

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.