Paper detail

A Geologically Robust Procedure For Observing Rocky Exoplanets to Ensure that Detection of Atmospheric Oxygen is an Earth-Like Biosignature

In the next decades, the astrobiological community will debate whether the first observations of oxygen in an exoplanet$'$s atmosphere signifies life, so it is critical to establish procedures now for collection and interpretation of such data. We present a step-by-step observational strategy for using oxygen as a robust biosignature, to prioritize exoplanet targets and design future observations. It is premised on avoiding planets lacking subaerial weathering of continents, which would imply geochemical cycles drastically different from Earth$'$s, precluding use of oxygen as a biosignature. The strategy starts with the most readily obtained data: semi-major axis and stellar luminosity to ensure residence in the habitable zone; stellar XUV flux, to ensure an exoplanet can retain a secondary (outgassed) atmosphere. Next, high-precision mass and radius information should be combined with high-precision stellar abundance data, to constrain the exoplanet$'$s water content; those incompatible with less than 0.1 wt % H$_{2}$O can be deprioritized. Then, reflectance photometry or low-resolution transmission spectroscopy should confirm an optically thin atmosphere. Subsequent long-duration, high-resolution transmission spectroscopy should search for oxygen and ensure that water vapor and CO$_{2}$ are present only at low (10$^{2}$-10$^{4}$ ppm levels). Assuming oxygen is found, attribution to life requires the difficult acquisition of a detailed, multispectral light curve of the exoplanet to ensure both surface land and water. Exoplanets failing some of these steps might be habitable, even have observable biogenic oxygen, but should be deprioritized because oxygen could not be attributed unambiguously to life. We show how this is the case for the Solar System, the 55 Cnc System, and the TRAPPIST-1 System, in which only the Earth and TRAPPIST-1e successfully pass through our procedure.

preprint2020arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.