Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

The formation of Jupiter by hybrid pebble–planetesimal accretion

Nature Astronomy volume 2, pages 873–877 (2018)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

The standard model for giant planet formation is based on the accretion of solids by a growing planetary embryo, followed by rapid gas accretion once the planet exceeds a so-called critical mass1. However, the dominant size of the accreted solids (‘pebbles’ of the order of centimetres or ‘planetesimals’ of the order of kilometres to hundreds of kilometres) is unknown1,2. Recently, high-precision measurements of isotopes in meteorites have provided evidence for the existence of two reservoirs of small bodies in the early Solar System3. These reservoirs remained separated from ~1 Myr until ~3 Myr after the Solar System started to form. This separation is interpreted as resulting from Jupiter growing and becoming a barrier for material transport. In this framework, Jupiter reached ~20 Earth masses (M⊕) within ~1 Myr and slowly grew to ~50 M⊕ in the subsequent 2 Myr before reaching its present-day mass3. The evidence that Jupiter’s growth slowed after reaching 20 M⊕ for at least 2 Myr is puzzling because a planet of this mass is expected to trigger fast runaway gas accretion4,5. Here, we use theoretical models to describe the conditions allowing for such a slow accretion and show that Jupiter grew in three distinct phases. First, rapid pebble accretion supplied the major part of Jupiter’s core mass. Second, slow planetesimal accretion provided the energy required to hinder runaway gas accretion during the 2 Myr. Third, runaway gas accretion proceeded. Both pebbles and planetesimals therefore play an important role in Jupiter’s formation.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Learn more

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Time to reach 50 M⊕ as a function of the core mass at 1 Myr and the solid accretion rate (M⊕ yr−1, log scale).
Fig. 2: Accretion rate of planetesimals as a function of the solid mass fraction and the core mass at 1 Myr.
Fig. 3: The three stages of the hybrid pebble–planetesimal formation model.

References

  1. Helled, R. et al. in Protostars and Planets VI (eds Beuther, H. et al.) 643–666 (Univ. Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ, 2014).

  2. Johansen, A. et al. in Protostars and Planets VI (eds Beuther, H. et al.) 547–570 (Univ. Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ, 2014).

  3. Kruijer, T. S., Burkhardt, C., Budde, G. & Kleine, T. Age of Jupiter inferred from the distinct genetics and formation times of meteorites. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 6712–6716 (2017).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  4. Pollack et al. Formation of the giant planets by concurrent accretion of solids and gas. Icarus 124, 62–85 (1996).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  5. Alibert, Y., Mordasini, C., Benz, W. & Winisdoerffer, C. Models of giant planet formation with migration and disc evolution. Astron. Astrophys. 434, 343–353 (2005).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  6. Trinquier, A., Birck, J. L. & Allègre, C. J. Widespread 54Cr heterogeneity in the inner Solar System. Astrophys. J. 655, 1179–1185 (2007).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  7. Leya, I. et al. Titanium isotopes and the radial heterogeneity of the Solar System. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 266, 233–244 (2008).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  8. Dauphas, N. & Schauble, E. A. Mass fractionation laws, mass-independent effects, and isotopic anomalies. Ann. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 44, 709–783 (2016).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  9. Alibert, Y. et al. Theoretical models of planetary system formation: mass vs. semi-major axis. Astron. Astrophys. 558, A109 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Fortier, A., Alibert, Y., Carron, F., Benz, W. & Dittkrist, K.-M. Planet formation models: the interplay with the planetesimal disc. Astron. Astrophys. 549, A44 (2013).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  11. Levison, H., Thommes, E. & Duncan, M. J. Modeling the formation of giant planet cores. I. Evaluating key processes. Astron. J. 139, 1297–1314 (2010).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  12. Simon, J. B., Armitage, P. J., Youdin, A. N. & Li, R. Evidence for universality in the initial planetesimal mass function. Astrophys. J. Lett. 847, L12 (2017).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  13. Morbidelli, A., Bottke, W. F., Nesvorný, D. & Levison, H. F. Asteroids were born big. Icarus 204, 558–573 (2009).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  14. Kobayashi, H., Tanaka, H., Krivov, A. V. & Inaba, S. Planetary growth with collisional fragmentation and gas drag. Icarus 209, 836–847 (2010).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  15. Bitsch, B., Lambrechts, M. & Johansen, A. The growth of planets by pebble accretion in evolving protoplanetary discs. Astron. Astrophys. 582, A112 (2015).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  16. Bitsch, B., Lambrechts, M. & Johansen, A. The growth of planets by pebble accretion in evolving protoplanetary discs (corrigendum). Astron. Astrophys. 609, C2 (2018).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  17. Ida, S. & Guillot, T. Formation of dust-rich planetesimals from sublimated pebbles inside of the snow line. Astron. Astrophys. 596, L3 (2016).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  18. Hartmann, L., Calvet, N., Gullbring, E. & D’Alessio, P. Accretion and the evolution of T Tauri disks. Astrophys. J. 495, 385–400 (1998).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  19. Zhou, J.-L. & Lin, D. N. C. Planetesimal accretion onto growing proto-gas giant planets. Astrophys. J. 666, 447–465 (2007).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  20. Wahl, S. M. et al. Comparing Jupiter interior structure models to Juno gravity measurements and the role of a dilute core. Geophys. Res. Lett. 44, 4649–4659 (2017).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  21. Mordasini, C., Alibert, Y. & Benz, W. Destruction of planetesimals in protoplanetary atmospheres. In Proc. Tenth Anniversary of 51 Peg-b: Status of and Prospects for Hot Jupiter Studies (eds Arnold, L. et al.) 84–86 (Frontier Group, 2006).

  22. Lozovsky, M., Helled, R., Rosenberg, E. D. & Bodenheimer, P. Jupiter’s formation and its primordial internal structure. Astrophys. J. 836, 227 (2017).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  23. Venturini, J. & Helled, R. The formation of mini-Neptunes. Astrophys. J. 848, 95 (2017).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  24. Bollard, J. et al. Early formation of planetary building blocks inferred from Pb isotopic ages of chondrules. Sci. Adv. 3, e1700407 (2017).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  25. Venturini, J., Alibert, Y. & Benz, W. Planet formation with envelope enrichment: new insights on planetary diversity. Astron. Astrophys. 596, A90 (2016).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  26. Thiabaud, A. et al. From stellar nebula to planets: the refractory components. Astron. Astrophys. 562, A27 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Lissauer, J. J., Hubickyj, O., D’Angelo, G. & Bodenheimer, P. Models of Jupiter’s growth incorporating thermal and hydrodynamic constraints. Icarus 199, 338–350 (2009).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  28. Saumon, D., Chabrier, G. & van Horn, H. M. An equation of state for low-mass stars and giant planets. Astrophys. J. Suppl. S. 99, 713–741 (1995).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  29. Thompson, S. L. ANEOS—Analytic Equations of State for Shock Physics Codes—Input Manual Report SAND89-2951 (Sandia National Laboratories, 1990).

  30. Ormel, C. W. An atmospheric structure equation for grain growth. Astrophys. J. Lett. 789, L18 (2014).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  31. Mordasini, C. Grain opacity and the bulk composition of extrasolar planets. II. An analytical model for grain opacity in protoplanetary atmospheres. Astron. Astrophys. 572, A118 (2014).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  32. Ormel, C. W., Shi, J.-M. & Kuiper, R. Hydrodynamics of embedded planets’ first atmospheres. II. A rapid recycling of atmospheric gas. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 447, 3512–3525 (2015).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  33. Alibert, Y. The maximum mass of planetary embryos formed in core-accretion models. Astron. Astrophys. 606, 69–78 (2017).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  34. Bitsch, B., Johansen, A., Lambrechts, M. & Morbidelli, A. The structure of protoplanetary discs around evolving young stars. Astron. Astrophys. 575, A28 (2015).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  35. Ida, S. & Makino, J. Scattering of planetesimals by a protoplanet—slowing down of runaway growth. Icarus 106, 210–227 (1993).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  36. Nakazawa, K., Ida, S. & Nakagawa, Y. Collisional probability of planetesimals revolving in the solar gravitational field. I. Basic formulation. Astron. Astrophys. 220, 293–300 (1989).

    ADS  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  37. Inaba, S. et al. High-accuracy statistical simulation of planetary accretion. II. Comparison with N-body simulation. Icarus 149, 235–250 (2001).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  38. Benz, W. & Asphaug, E. Catastrophic disruptions revisited. Icarus 142, 5–20 (1999).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  39. Bell, K. R. & Lin, D. N. C. Using FU Orionis outbursts to constrain self-regulated protostellar disk models. Astrophys. J. 427, 987–1004 (1994).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  40. Weidenschilling, S. J. The distribution of mass in the planetary system and solar nebula. Astrophys. Space Sci. 51, 153–158 (1977).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  41. Drążkowska, J., Alibert, Y. & Moore, B. Close-in planetesimal formation by pile-up of drifting pebbles. Astron. Astrophys. 594, A105 (2016).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work has been developed in the framework of the National Center for Competence in Research PlanetS funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF). Y.A., W.B. and R.B. acknowledge support from the SNSF under grant 200020_172746. C.M. acknowledges support from the SNSF under grant BSSGI0_155816 ‘PlanetsInTime’. R.H. acknowledges support from SNSF project 200021_169054. Y.A. acknowledges the support of the European Research Council under grant 239605 ‘PLANETOGENESIS’. M.S. acknowledges the support of the European Research Council under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007–2013)/ERC Grant agreement no. [279779]. We thank C. Surville for sharing the results of hydrodynamic simulations of disk–planet interaction before publication.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Physikalisches Institut, Universität Bern, Bern, Switzerland

    Yann Alibert, Sareh Ataiee, Remo Burn, Luc Senecal, Willy Benz & Christoph Mordasini

  2. Institut for Computational Sciences, Universität Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland

    Julia Venturini, Ravit Helled & Lucio Mayer

  3. Institute for Particle Physics and Astrophysics, ETH Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland

    Sascha P. Quanz

  4. Institute of Geochemistry and Petrology, ETH Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland

    Maria Schönbächler

Authors
  1. Yann Alibert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Julia Venturini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ravit Helled
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sareh Ataiee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Remo Burn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Luc Senecal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Willy Benz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Lucio Mayer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Christoph Mordasini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Sascha P. Quanz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Maria Schönbächler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Y.A. initiated the project. Y.A., J.V., S.A., R.B. and L.S. performed the theoretical calculations. Y.A., J.V. and R.H. led the writing of the manuscript, and all authors contributed to the discussion and interpretation of the results.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yann Alibert.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Text, Supplementary Figures 1-7, Supplementary References

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Alibert, Y., Venturini, J., Helled, R. et al. The formation of Jupiter by hybrid pebble–planetesimal accretion. Nat Astron 2, 873–877 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-018-0557-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-018-0557-2

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing