Some inconvenient truths about biosignatures involving two chemical species on Earth-like exoplanets

Is There Such a Thing as a Biosignature?

The concept of a biosignature is widely used in astrobiology to suggest a link between some observation and a biological cause, given some context. The term itself has been defined and used in several ways in different parts of the scientific community involved in the search for past or present life on Earth and beyond. With the ongoing acceleration in the search for life in distant time and/or deep space, there is a need for clarity and accuracy in the formulation and reporting of claims. Here, we critically review the biosignature concept(s) and the associated nomenclature in light of several problems and ambiguities emphasized by recent works. One worry is that these terms and concepts may imply greater certainty than is usually justified by a rational interpretation of the data. A related worry is that terms such as "biosignature" may be inherently misleading, for example, because the divide between life and non-life-and their observable effects-is fuzzy. Another worry is that different parts of the multidisciplinary community may use non-equivalent or conflicting definitions and conceptions, leading to avoidable confusion. This review leads us to identify a number of pitfalls and to suggest how they can be circumvented. In general, we conclude that astrobiologists should exercise particular caution in deciding whether and how to use the concept of biosignature when thinking and communicating about habitability or life. Concepts and terms should be selected carefully and defined explicitly where appropriate. This would improve clarity and accuracy in the formulation of claims and subsequent technical and public communication about some of the most profound and important questions in science and society. With this objective in mind, we provide a checklist of questions that scientists and other interested parties should ask when assessing any reported detection of a "biosignature" to better understand exactly what is being claimed.

Searching for Atmospheric Bioindicators in Planets around the Two Nearby Stars, Proxima Centauri and Epsilon Eridani-Test Cases for Retrieval of Atmospheric Gases with Infrared Spectroscopy

We tested the ability of thermal infrared spectroscopy to retrieve assumed atmospheric compositions for different types of planets orbiting Proxima Centauri and Epsilon Eridani. Six cases are considered, covering a range of atmospheric compositions and some diversity in the bulk composition (rocky, water ocean, hydrogen rich) and the spectral type of the parent star (M and K stars). For some cases, we applied coupled climate chemistry, or climate-only calculations; for other cases, we assumed the atmospheric composition, ground temperature, and surface reflectivity. The IR emission was then calculated from line-by-line radiative transfer models and used to investigate retrieval of input atmospheric species. For the six cases considered, no false positive of the triple bioindicator (H₂O, CO₂, and O₂, in specified conditions) was found. In some cases, results show that the simultaneous acquisition of a visible spectrum would be valuable, for example, when CO₂ is very abundant and its 9.4 μm satellite band hides the 9.6 μm O₃ band in the IR. In each case, determining the mass appears mandatory to identify the planet's nature and have an idea of surface conditions, which are necessary when testing for the presence of life.

Exoplanet Biosignatures: A Framework for Their Assessment

Finding life on exoplanets from telescopic observations is an ultimate goal of exoplanet science. Life produces gases and other substances, such as pigments, which can have distinct spectral or photometric signatures. Whether or not life is found with future data must be expressed with probabilities, requiring a framework of biosignature assessment. We present a framework in which we advocate using biogeochemical "Exo-Earth System" models to simulate potential biosignatures in spectra or photometry. Given actual observations, simulations are used to find the Bayesian likelihoods of those data occurring for scenarios with and without life. The latter includes "false positives" wherein abiotic sources mimic biosignatures. Prior knowledge of factors influencing planetary inhabitation, including previous observations, is combined with the likelihoods to give the Bayesian posterior probability of life existing on a given exoplanet. Four components of observation and analysis are necessary. (1) Characterization of stellar (e.g., age and spectrum) and exoplanetary system properties, including "external" exoplanet parameters (e.g., mass and radius), to determine an exoplanet's suitability for life. (2) Characterization of "internal" exoplanet parameters (e.g., climate) to evaluate habitability. (3) Assessment of potential biosignatures within the environmental context (components 1-2), including corroborating evidence. (4) Exclusion of false positives. We propose that resulting posterior Bayesian probabilities of life's existence map to five confidence levels, ranging from "very likely" (90-100%) to "very unlikely" (<10%) inhabited. Key Words: Bayesian statistics-Biosignatures-Drake equation-Exoplanets-Habitability-Planetary science. Astrobiology 18, 709-738.

Searching for Biosignatures in Exoplanetary Impact Ejecta

With the number of confirmed rocky exoplanets increasing steadily, their characterization and the search for exoplanetary biospheres are becoming increasingly urgent issues in astrobiology. To date, most efforts have concentrated on the study of exoplanetary atmospheres. Instead, we aim to investigate the possibility of characterizing an exoplanet (in terms of habitability, geology, presence of life, etc.) by studying material ejected from the surface during an impact event. For a number of impact scenarios, we estimate the escaping mass and assess its subsequent collisional evolution in a circumstellar orbit, assuming a Sun-like host star. We calculate the fractional luminosity of the dust as a function of time after the impact event and study its detectability with current and future instrumentation. We consider the possibility to constrain the dust composition, giving information on the geology or the presence of a biosphere. As examples, we investigate whether calcite, silica, or ejected microorganisms could be detected. For a 20 km diameter impactor, we find that the dust mass escaping the exoplanet is roughly comparable to the zodiacal dust, depending on the exoplanet's size. The collisional evolution is best modeled by considering two independent dust populations, a spalled population consisting of nonmelted ejecta evolving on timescales of millions of years, and dust recondensed from melt or vapor evolving on much shorter timescales. While the presence of dust can potentially be inferred with current telescopes, studying its composition requires advanced instrumentation not yet available. The direct detection of biological matter turns out to be extremely challenging. Despite considerable difficulties (small dust masses, noise such as exozodiacal dust, etc.), studying dusty material ejected from an exoplanetary surface might become an interesting complement to atmospheric studies in the future. Key Words: Biosignatures-Exoplanets-Impacts-Interplanetary dust-Remote sensing. Astrobiology 17, 721-746.