1: %%
2: %% Beginning of file 'sample.tex'
3: %%
4: %% Modified 2005 December 5
5: %%
6: %% This is a sample manuscript marked up using the
7: %% AASTeX v5.x LaTeX 2e macros.
8: %% The first piece of markup in an AASTeX v5.x document
9: %% is the \documentclass command. LaTeX will ignore
10: %% any data that comes before this command.
11: %% The command below calls the preprint style
12: %% which will produce a one-column, single-spaced document.
13: %% Examples of commands for other substyles follow. Use
14: %% whichever is most appropriate for your purposes.
15: %%
16:
17: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
18:
19: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:
20: %%\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
21: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
22: %% \documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
23: %% Sometimes a paper's abstract is too long to fit on the
24: %% title page in preprint2 mode. When that is the case,
25: %% use the longabstract style option.
26: %% \documentclass[preprint2,longabstract]{aastex}
27: %% If you want to create your own macros, you can do so
28: %% using \newcommand. Your macros should appear before
29: %% the \begin{document} command.
30: %%
31: %% If you are submitting to a journal that translates manuscripts
32: %% into SGML, you need to follow certain guidelines when preparing
33: %% your macros. See the AASTeX v5.x Author Guide
34: %% for information.
35:
36: \newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}
37: \newcommand{\myemail}{myemail}
38:
39: %% You can insert a short comment on the title page using the command below.
40:
41: \slugcomment{To appear in The Astrophysical Journal}
42:
43: %% If you wish, you may supply running head information, although
44: %% this information may be modified by the editorial offices.
45: %% The left head contains a list of authors,
46: %% usually a maximum of three (otherwise use et al.). The right
47: %% head is a modified title of up to roughly 44 characters.
48: %% Running heads will not print in the manuscript style.
49: %%\shorttitle{Collapsed Cores in Globular Clusters}
50: %%\shortauthors{Djorgovski et al.}
51: %% This is the end of the preamble. Indicate the beginning of the
52: %% paper itself with \begin{document}.
53:
54: \begin{document}
55:
56: %% LaTeX will automatically break titles if they run longer than
57: %% one line. However, you may use \\ to force a line break if
58: %% you desire.
59:
60: \title{Nucleosynthesis in the early Galaxy}
61:
62: %% Use \author, \affil, and the \and command to format
63: %% author and affiliation information.
64: %% Note that \email has replaced the old \authoremail command
65: %% from AASTeX v4.0. You can use \email to mark an email address
66: %% anywhere in the paper, not just in the front matter.
67: %% As in the title, use \\ to force line breaks.
68:
69: \author{F.~Montes\altaffilmark{1,10}, T.C.~Beers\altaffilmark{2,3},
70: J.~Cowan\altaffilmark{4}, T.~Elliot\altaffilmark{2,5,6},
71: K.~Farouqi\altaffilmark{7}, R.~Gallino\altaffilmark{8},
72: M.~Heil\altaffilmark{1}, K.-L.~Kratz\altaffilmark{7,9},
73: B.~Pfeiffer\altaffilmark{7}, M.~Pignatari\altaffilmark{8},
74: H.~Schatz\altaffilmark{2,5,6}}
75:
76: %% Notice that each of these authors has alternate affiliations, which
77: %% are identified by the \altaffilmark after each name. Specify alternate
78: %% affiliation information with \altaffiltext, with one command per each
79: %% affiliation.
80:
81: \altaffiltext{1}{Gesellschaft f{\"u}r Schwerionenforschung, D-64220
82: Darmstadt, Germany} \altaffiltext{2}{Joint Institute for Nuclear
83: Astrophysics, http://www.jinaweb.org, USA} \altaffiltext{3}{Dept. of
84: Physics and Astronomy and Center for the Study of Cosmic Evolution
85: (CSCE), Michigan State University, E. Lansing, MI 48824, USA}
86: \altaffiltext{4}{Homer L. Dodge Dept. of Physics and Astronomy,
87: University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK 73019 USA} \altaffiltext{5}{Dept.
88: of Physics and Astronomy, Michigan State University, E. Lansing, MI
89: 48824, USA} \altaffiltext{6}{National Superconducting Cyclotron
90: Laboratory, Michigan State University, E. Lansing, MI 48824, USA}
91: \altaffiltext{7}{Virtuelles Institut f{\"u}r Struktur der Kerne und
92: Nukleare Astrophysik (VISTARS), D-55128 Mainz, Germany}
93: \altaffiltext{8}{Dipartimento di Fisica Generale, Universita' di
94: Torino, Via P. Giuria 1, I-10125 Torino, Italy}
95: \altaffiltext{9}{Max-Planck-Institut f{\"u}r Chemie,
96: Otto-Hahn-Institut, Joh.-J.-Becherweg 27, D-55128 Mainz, Germany}
97: \altaffiltext{10}{Present address: NSCL/MSU, East Lansing, MI-48824,
98: US}
99:
100: %% Mark off your abstract in the ``abstract'' environment. In the manuscript
101: %% style, abstract will output a Received/Accepted line after the
102: %% title and affiliation information. No date will appear since the author
103: %% does not have this information. The dates will be filled in by the
104: %% editorial office after submission.
105:
106: \begin{abstract}
107: Recent observations of r-process-enriched metal-poor star abundances
108: reveal a non-uniform abundance pattern for elements $Z\leq47$. Based
109: on non-correlation trends between elemental abundances as a function
110: of Eu-richness in a large sample of metal-poor stars,
111: it is shown that the mixing of a consistent and robust
112: light element primary process (LEPP) and the r-process pattern found
113: in r-II metal-poor stars explains such apparent non-uniformity.
114: Furthermore, we derive the abundance pattern of the LEPP from observation
115: and show that it is consistent with a missing component in the solar
116: abundances when using a recent s-process model. As the astrophysical
117: site of the LEPP is not known, we explore the possibility of a neutron
118: capture process within a site-independent approach. It is suggested that
119: scenarios with neutron densities $n_{n}\leq10^{13}$ $cm^{-3}$ or in the
120: range $n_{n}\geq10^{24}$ $cm^{-3}$ best explain the observations.
121: \end{abstract}
122:
123: %% Keywords should appear after the \end{abstract} command. The uncommented
124: %% example has been keyed in ApJ style. See the instructions to authors
125: %% for the journal to which you are submitting your paper to determine
126: %% what keyword punctuation is appropriate.
127:
128: \keywords{Galaxy: abundances --- nuclear reactions, nucleosynthesis,
129: abundances --- stars: formation}
130:
131: %% From the front matter, we move on to the body of the paper.
132: %% In the first two sections, notice the use of the natbib \citep
133: %% and \citep commands to identify citations. The citations are
134: %% tied to the reference list via symbolic KEYs. The KEY corresponds
135: %% to the KEY in the \bibitem in the reference list below. We have
136: %% chosen the first three characters of the first author's name plus
137: %% the last two numeral of the year of publication as our KEY for
138: %% each reference.
139: %% Authors who wish to have the most important objects in their paper
140: %% linked in the electronic edition to a data center may do so by tagging
141: %% their objects with \objectname{} or \object{}. Each macro takes the
142: %% object name as its required argument. The optional, square-bracket
143: %% argument should be used in cases where the data center identification
144: %% differs from what is to be printed in the paper. The text appearing
145: %% in curly braces is what will appear in print in the published paper.
146: %% If the object name is recognized by the data centers, it will be linked
147: %% in the electronic edition to the object data available at the data centers
148: %%
149: %% Note that for sources with brackets in their names, e.g. [WEG2004] 14h-090,
150: %% the brackets must be escaped with backslashes when used in the first
151: %% square-bracket argument, for instance, \object[\[WEG2004\] 14h-090]{90}).
152: %% Otherwise, LaTeX will issue an error.
153:
154: \section{Introduction}
155: The r-process is responsible for the origin of about half of the
156: heavy isotopes beyond the iron group in nature, yet its site is
157: still not determined with certainty \citep{CTT91,TCP02,cowan06}.
158: The r-process involves extremely unstable nuclei and in order for
159: neutron captures to overcome the correspondingly short beta decay
160: rates, typical conditions with neutron densities in excess of
161: $10^{20}$ cm$^{-3}$ and a process duration of less than $\approx$5 s
162: are required \citep{kratz93}. R-process models have had difficulties
163: in obtaining such conditions in realistic astrophysical
164: environments. One promising scenario and one of the most studied is
165: the neutrino-driven wind off a proto-neutron star in core collapse
166: supernovae \citep{WWH92,TWJ94,Wan01,Tho01,Far06}. Alternative
167: scenarios include neutron star mergers \citep{FRT99,ROS99,GDJ05},
168: jets in core collapse supernovae \citep{Cam01}, and gamma ray bursts
169: \citep{SuM05}. The s-process is responsible for creating roughly the
170: other half of the isotopes beyond the iron group, while the
171: p-process has significant contributions only on the relatively rare
172: isotopes on the proton-rich side of the nuclei chart. It has also
173: been recognized that to correctly reproduce the solar system
174: s-process abundances at least two different components are required
175: \citep{kaeppeler82}; the weak s-process component responsible for
176: creating s-isotopes with $A\leq90$ \citep{raiteri92,PIG06}, and the
177: main s-process responsible for the heavier s-isotopes
178: \citep{Arlandini99,Travaglio04,CRI06}. A third s-process component,
179: called strong s-process, was envisaged by \citet{clayton67} at the
180: termination of the s-process, to account essentially for about 50\%
181: of solar $^{208}$Pb. This component was recently recognized as the
182: outcome of AGB stars of low metallicity \citep{travaglio01}.
183:
184: The solar system r-process abundances are often inferred by using
185: the calculated s- and p- abundances and subtracting them from the
186: observed solar system abundances. If there is an additional
187: nucleosynthesis process creating only small amounts of residual
188: abundances, its contribution may be ``hidden" in the such defined
189: solar system r-process abundances.
190:
191: In addition to the solar system abundance distribution, observations
192: of elemental abundances in unevolved metal-poor halo stars can
193: provide important clues about nucleosynthesis events in the early
194: Galaxy. These stars are old and preserve in their photospheres the
195: abundance composition at the location and time of their formation.
196: In particular a sub-class of extremely metal-poor
197: ([Fe/H]$\approx-$3) but Eu enhanced stars ([Eu/Fe]$>$0.5) exhibit
198: what appears to be a pure r-process abundance pattern for the heavy
199: r-process elements $Z\geq56$ and $Z<83$. This pattern is remarkably
200: stable from star to star and in excellent agreement with the
201: contribution of the r-process to the solar abundances. A few of
202: these stars have been found to date, with CS~22892-052
203: \citep{sneden03} being the prime example. Since they are thought to
204: exhibit the abundance pattern produced by a single or at most a few
205: r-process events in the early Galaxy, the stability of the observed
206: abundance pattern and the good agreement with the solar system
207: r-process contribution imply that r-process events generate a
208: universal abundance distribution. The universality of the abundance
209: pattern of the heavy r-process elements seems not to extend to the
210: actinides Th and U, where some star to star scatter has been found
211: in some cases \citep{hill02,Gor02,Sch02,honda04}.
212:
213: While the r-process abundance pattern for $56\leq Z<83$ is stable
214: from star-to-star, the overall level of enrichment with respect to
215: iron (for example [Eu/Fe]) shows a very large star to star scatter.
216: This implies that very metal-poor halo stars sample a largely
217: unmixed early Galaxy and that the r-process occurs in at most
218: 2-10$\%$ of iron producing core collapse supernovae \citep{TCP02}
219: (assuming core collapse supernovae are the site of the r-process).
220:
221: However, this simple picture breaks down for the lighter neutron
222: capture elements with $Z\leq47$. The abundances of these elements
223: measured in the strongly Eu-enhanced stars once normalized to Eu do
224: not agree entirely with the solar system r-process residual pattern.
225: In particular the abundances of Y, Mo, Rh, Pd and Ag are
226: consistently below the solar system values. This either indicates that the r-process in this region is not robust and depends on the astrophysical condition or metallicity, or that the r-process observed in these stars is not the only nucleosynthesis process leading to the abundance pattern obtained by subtracting the s- and p- processes from the solar abundances \citep{pfeiffer01a,pfeiffer01b}. There is
227: additional evidence for such a second process being present in the
228: early Galaxy: \citet{wasserburg96} and \citet{qian00a} first proposed
229: the existence of two different r-process sites or components based
230: on meteoritic evidence of live light r-process $^{129}$I
231: (T$_{1/2}$=15.7 Myr) in the early solar system compared to the heavy
232: r-process isotopes such as $^{182}$Hf (T$_{1/2}$=8.9 Myr,
233: \citet{vockenhuber04}). \citet{qian00b,qian01,qian03}
234: also proposed that two r-processes together with a ``prompt" nucleosynthesis
235: contribution could explain the metal poor star abundance observations
236: available at the time. However, it has been pointed
237: out that the proposal of different r-process sites for the isotopes
238: in the second r-process peak from I to Te
239: (including $^{129}$I) and for isotopes of Ba and beyond (including $^{182}$Hf) are
240: difficult to reconcile with r-process models and the known nuclear
241: physics at the $N=82$ shell gap \citep{kratz06}. \citet{mcwilliam98},
242: \citet{burris00}, \citet{norris01}, \citet{johnson02},
243: \citet{lambert02}, \citet{TCP02}, \citet{honda04} and
244: \citet{barklem05} reported the observation of a large scatter in
245: [Sr/Ba] in low-metallicity stars. This has been interpreted as further
246: evidence for a second, independent process
247: that produces Sr but little or no Ba at low metallicities.
248: \citet{Travaglio04} demonstrated that the same is true for Y, and
249: Zr, and they postulated a LEPP - Light Element Primary Process
250: producing Sr, Y, and Zr, but little Eu and Ba. \citet{TCP02} pointed
251: out that there is in fact a non-correlation of [Sr/Ba] and [Ba/Fe]
252: in some stars showing very large [Sr/Ba] ratios but little Ba.
253: Again, this can be explained by the presence of a second process
254: producing mainly Sr that happens to dominate the composition in such
255: stars. A similar non-correlation was found by \citet{kaori06} for a
256: few stars in the globular cluster M15. \citet{aoki05} came to a
257: similar conclusion based on trends in the behavior of Y and Zr as a
258: function of Eu.
259:
260: We show here in $\S$~\ref{abundanceclues} that such an
261: non-correlation can be found in all metal-poor, r-process-enriched
262: stars, and for additional light elements beyond Sr, Y, and Zr. This
263: includes previously noted ``anomalies" such as the observed
264: abundances in HD~122563 \citep{honda06} that cannot be fit by an r-
265: or an s-process alone. Also included is the abundance pattern in the
266: moderately r-element enhanced star HD~221170 \citep{ivans06} which
267: does not exhibit the underabundance of light r-process elements with
268: respect to the solar r-process contribution. We show that these
269: ``anomalies" are in fact part of a general trend that is consistent
270: with a mixture of two processes in metal-poor stars, an r-process
271: and a LEPP process exhibiting rather stable abundance patterns,
272: which are mixed in varying proportions. In $\S$~\ref{modelsection}
273: we then analyze the features of the newly derived LEPP abundance
274: pattern in terms of a neutron capture process model to determine the
275: astrophysical conditions required for this new process. Conclusions
276: are presented in $\S$~\ref{conclusions}.
277:
278: \section{Abundance clues}
279: \label{abundanceclues}
280: The observed elemental abundances of metal-poor ([Fe/H]$<-$1) and
281: r-process enriched ([Ba/Eu]$<$0) stars are shown in
282: Fig.~\ref{ratios}
283: \citep{burris00,honda04,christlieb05,barklem05,honda06}. All
284: abundances are normalized to Eu, which is predominantly an r-process
285: element ($\approx$95$\%$ of the total solar abundance). The heavy
286: r-process elements with $Z\geq56$ exhibit, within the observational
287: errors, a constant ratio with respect to Eu, independent of the Eu
288: enrichment of the star. This ratio is consistent with the element
289: ratio of the r-process contribution to the solar system. This
290: indicates that the heavy elements are produced by the r-process that
291: produces a universal abundance pattern with fixed element ratios
292: consistent with the solar r-process abundance pattern. This is the
293: same conclusion that has been drawn from the abundance pattern of
294: the few very metal-poor, strongly r-process enhanced stars where a
295: large range of elemental abundance have been determined (see for
296: example the reviews by \citet{TCP02,cowan06}).
297:
298: It is also obvious from Fig.~\ref{ratios} that the lighter r-process
299: elements behave very differently. Clearly, the [Y/Eu], [Sr/Eu] and
300: [Zr/Eu] ratios are not constant but show a non-correlation with the
301: Eu enrichment. This non-correlation indicates that a different
302: process (the LEPP), which does not create substantial amounts of
303: heavier r-process elements such as Eu, has contributed significantly
304: to the abundances of Sr, Y, and Zr. \citet{kaori06} studying 6 giants in the globular cluster
305: M15 observed a similar relation for Y and Zr with respect to Eu and
306: came to the same conclusion, but with very low statistics. We
307: confirm their result with a much larger sample and show that this is
308: true for all r-process enhanced, metal-poor stars. While observations require this process to be different in the sense that it operates not always simultaneously with the process that produces the r-process abundances observed in highly r-process-enhanced stars (r-II, with
309: [Eu/Fe]$>$1.0 and [Ba/Eu]$<$0.0 , according to \citet{beers05}), it is still possible that both processes occur in the same astrophysical object.
310:
311: The [X$_i$/Eu] versus [Eu/Fe] slopes for the light r-process elements in Fig.~\ref{ratios} are at least for not too large [Eu/Fe] roughly consistent with -1. This is a consequence of the correlation of the light r-process elements with Fe instead of Eu. As \citet{Travaglio04} have shown for Sr, Y, and Zr, [X$_i$/Fe] is roughly constant and shows a rather small scatter as a function of metallicity [Fe/H]. Because of [X$_i$/Eu]$=$[X$_i$/Fe]$-$[Eu/Fe], this results in a -1 slope in [X$_i$/Eu] versus [Eu/Fe].
312:
313: An interesting question is the behavior of other light r-process
314: elements below Ba. Ag would be a good indicator for the r-process as
315: $\approx$80-86$\%$
316: \citep{Arlandini99,burris00,Travaglio04}\footnotemark[11] of the
317: total solar abundance is produced in the r-process. Unfortunately,
318: only metal-poor stars CS~22892-052 \citep{sneden03}, HD~155444
319: \citep{westin00,sneden06}, BD~+17$^{o}$3248 \citep{cowan02},
320: CS~31082-001 \citep{hill02}, HD~221170 and HD 122563 have published
321: abundance yields of Nb, Mo, Ru, Rh, Pd and Ag\footnotemark[12]. Nevertheless,
322: although the statistics are low for Pd and Ag, the elemental
323: abundances shown in Fig.~\ref{ratios} are more consistent with an Eu
324: non-correlation as observed for Sr, Y, and Zr, than with the
325: constant ratio exhibited by the heavier r-process elements. We must
326: caution, however, that the observed Ag abundances in these
327: metal-poor stars may have some uncertainties. The atomic data for
328: this element are well established and the Solar System abundance
329: also appears well determined, but it is not clear whether non-LTE
330: effects could have affected the abundance analysis since the Ag abundances are based upon (low-lying) neutral transitions as opposed to ion transitions.
331:
332: Within their
333: very low statistics (2-4 data points) the abundances of Nb, Mo, and
334: Rh are also consistent with the trend exhibited by Sr, Y, Zr, Pd
335: and Ag. A possible exception is Ru, which shows a flat trend, but
336: it is not possible to make definite conclusions based on just 3 data
337: points. Also, Ru has less established atomic data for the lines
338: analyzed. We therefore conclude that the LEPP not only produces Sr,
339: Y, and Zr, but most likely all light elements between Sr and Ag
340: observed in very low metallicity stars.
341:
342: \footnotetext[11]{A reanalysis of the calculations in
343: \citet{Travaglio04} indicates some modification in the values for
344: the Ag entries in their table 5. The corrected $s$ fraction is 14\%
345: and the $r$ residual is then 86\%.}
346:
347: \footnotetext[12]{Recent high resolution spectroscopy of the extremely metal-poor star HD~88609 was recently reported in \citet{honda07} after the manuscript was completed and it is not included in the discussion. Its elemental distribution is very similar to the one observed in HD~122563.}
348:
349: Fig.~\ref{ratios} also shows the underproduction of Sr, Y, Zr, Ag,
350: and Pd versus Eu with respect to the solar pattern for the most Eu
351: enriched stars. Clearly this underproduction is a function of Eu
352: enrichment. \citet{ivans06} recently pointed out that in HD~221170
353: ([Eu/Fe]=0.8) not only the heavy r-process elements, but also the
354: light r-process elements are in reasonable agreement with the solar
355: r-process abundance pattern and do not show the pronounced
356: underproduction of some elements such as Ag and Pd as seen in other
357: r-process enhanced stars. Given the slopes indicated by the data
358: displayed in Fig.~\ref{ratios}, one does indeed expect [Sr/Eu],
359: [Y/Eu], [Zr/Eu], [Pd/Eu], and [Ag/Eu] ratios close to the solar
360: r-process value for moderately r-process enriched stars around
361: [Eu/Fe]=0.8.
362:
363: Recently \citet{honda06} reported seven new elemental abundances in
364: the metal-poor star HD~122563 and observed an excess of light
365: neutron-capture elements. This star has ratios of [Ba/Eu]=$-$0.5,
366: [Fe/H]=$-$2.7 and [Eu/Fe]=$-$0.5, and the enhancement of light
367: neutron-capture elements makes it a candidate for a LEPP enhanced
368: metal-poor star.
369: The abundances of HD~122563 are also shown in Fig.~\ref{ratios}.
370: They follow nicely the abundance trends found in all the other
371: metal-poor stars and this consistency makes us believe that
372: HD~122563 has in fact a significant LEPP contribution.
373:
374: There are some indications that the observed stable abundance pattern of the main r-process (except for U and Th) extends to the light r-process elements. Fig.~\ref{ratios} shows a flattening of the [X$_{i}$/Eu] vs. [Eu/Fe] slopes for light r-process elements in the most enriched stars with [Eu/Fe]$>$1.3 where the main r-process component dominates. This is most clearly seen for Sr and Y, but Zr, Pd, and Ag are not inconsistent with such a trend. In addition, within the error bars the [X$_{i}$/Eu] scatter in the [Eu/Fe]$>$1.3 region is small and comparable to the heavier r-process elements. We therefore take the most Eu enriched stars such as CS~22892-052 and CS~31082-001 ([Eu/Fe]$>$+1.0 ) as representatives of a stable, universal r-process component (except for U and Th). The picture that then emerges is that in less Eu enriched stars an additional contribution from the LEPP to the light elements from Sr to Ag becomes visible. We will show below that one then obtains also a LEPP abundance pattern that is fairly consistent from star to star, which again is a hint that our assumptions are justified.
375:
376: One might argue that there is the possibility of
377: a metallicity dependence of the r-process abundance pattern for
378: the light r-process elements. Fig.~\ref{metallicity} shows the
379: ratio [Sr/Ba] as a function of metallicity. There is no indication
380: of a metallicity dependence from these data and at least for
381: [Fe/H]$<-$1 they are consistent with a large scatter resulting
382: from mixing light and heavy element nucleosynthesis processes
383: at low metallicities and a gradual homogenization of the composition
384: of the Galaxy as a function of metallicity.
385:
386: In order to find the LEPP pattern in all the metal-poor stars studied, we use CS~31082-001 as an r-process only star, and determine the LEPP abundances in other stars by subtracting its abundance pattern normalized to Eu.
387: This assumes that all Eu is made in the r-process. The resulting
388: residual abundances shown in Fig.~\ref{ratiosWeak} were scaled to Zr
389: so that the patterns can be compared. As Fig.~\ref{ratiosWeak} shows, the residual
390: abundances are very consistent for all elements and for all stars
391: shown. A similar result is obtained by using CS~22892-052 as a
392: representative of an r-process only star. The scatter of the data in Fig.~\ref{ratiosWeak} measures variations
393: within the light element pattern. Clearly the scatter is greatly reduced
394: compared to [X/Fe], which has already been shown for Y, Sr, Zr \citep{Travaglio04}.
395: Here we show that the few data on Pd and Ag are consistent with a similar behavior.
396: Even though the error bars are large for high [Eu/Fe], they become smaller for
397: stars with significant LEPP contribution.
398: The distribution of the data is consistent with no scatter indicating a consistent
399: pattern from star to star for the lighter elements.
400:
401: We therefore conclude that the LEPP creates a $uniform$
402: and $unique$ pattern and that with a mixing of a robust r-process,
403: the abundance composition of the other metal-poor stars can be obtained.
404: For elements from Sr to Ag all weakly Eu-enriched
405: stars show an overabundance with respect to CS~31082-001, simply
406: reflecting the extra LEPP component. For elements heavier than Ag,
407: the LEPP enrichment is less significant and for almost all of the
408: stars only an upper limit in the abundance can be obtained.
409:
410: To obtain information on the elements that are only weakly produced
411: in the LEPP one therefore needs to look at the stars with the lowest
412: [Eu/Fe] where the LEPP most prominently dominates the composition.
413: We believe that HD~122563 is an example of such a star. Therefore,
414: having argued for the uniformity and uniqueness of the LEPP
415: abundance pattern based on a number of stars, we now use HD~122563
416: to obtain our best estimate of the LEPP abundance pattern. We take
417: the average of the known r-II stars, and subtract this best
418: estimate of the r-process from the HD~122563 abundance pattern
419: assuming that Eu, Gd, Dy, Er and Yb were solely produced in the
420: r-process (i.e. scaling the main component to those elemental
421: abundances). Both patterns are shown in Fig.~\ref{HD122563}. The
422: result is referred to as the {\it stellar LEPP} abundance
423: pattern in this paper, and it is shown in Fig.~\ref{weak}. It is
424: noteworthy that we find that some smaller amounts of Ba, Ce, Pr, Nd,
425: Sm and Eu are still produced by the LEPP.
426:
427: It would be desirable to obtain a more complete abundance pattern of
428: more Eu-deficient metal-poor stars that exhibit the same
429: (non)correlations as HD~122563. Candidates for such stars are HD~88609 ([Fe/H]=$-$2.93, [Eu/Fe]=$-$0.3), HD~13979 ([Fe/H]=$-$2.26, [Eu/Fe]=$-$0.4) and HD~4306 ([Fe/H]=$-$2.7, [Eu/Fe]=$-$0.6).
430: However, the abundances of elements from Ru to Ag have not yet been
431: observed in these stars.
432:
433: To determine the LEPP contribution to the solar system abundances,
434: we subtracted the average of the known highly r-process-enhanced
435: stars from the abundance pattern obtained by subtracting the s- and
436: p-processes from the solar abundance. Any determination of the solar
437: r-process abundances suffers from the uncertainties in predicting
438: the s- and p- process contributions. In particular, uncertainties in
439: the neutron-capture cross sections and in the solar system
440: abundances \citep{Arlandini99,Travaglio04} create uncertainties in
441: the predicted s-process abundances which were taken into account in
442: the calculations. The solar system abundances were taken from
443: \citet{anders89} and \citet{lodders03}. The weak component of the
444: s-process was included using the results of \citet{raiteri92}.
445: Different models have been used in the past for the main s-process
446: component, which is the most important one for our study.
447: \citet{Arlandini99} used the average s-process yield from two AGB
448: stellar models for a $1.5 M_\odot$ and a $3 M_\odot$ star, both at
449: metallicity 1/2 $Z_\odot$. On the other hand, \citet{Travaglio04}
450: followed a Galactic chemical evolution model that used a range of
451: masses and metallicities and also included intermediate mass star
452: s-process yields. For elements with $Z\geq50$ both models agree
453: within the error bars and no major discrepancies are found. While
454: for elements with $Z\leq37$, \citet{Travaglio04} produce relatively
455: more s- material than \citet{Arlandini99} due to the additional
456: contribution in this region by AGB stars of intermediate mass (4 to
457: 8 $M_\odot$), the opposite happens for elements in the range $38\leq
458: Z\leq51$. The main difference in the resulting solar r-process
459: contributions are therefore found for Sr, Y and Zr. Using the
460: s-process contribution from \citet{Arlandini99}, the solar residuals
461: exhibit smaller amounts of Sr, Y and Zr material than when using the
462: s-process calculations from \citet{Travaglio04}. Because the
463: \citet{Travaglio04} Galactic chemical evolution model is more
464: complete and includes more relevant physics, it is the model that
465: was used in our study. The effect of the p-process to the elemental
466: abundance was included by assuming that it solely adds to abundances
467: of proton-rich isotopes. Only the abundance of Mo and Ru are
468: significantly modified by the p-process. The elemental LEPP
469: contribution to the solar system abundances, which we now call the
470: {\it solar LEPP} pattern, obtained by subtracting the s-, p- and the
471: r-process (average of r-II stars) from the solar abundances, is
472: shown in Table~\ref{LEPPabun}. Upper limits of the isotopic solar
473: LEPP abundances were also obtained. Note that for s-only isotopes
474: the LEPP abundances can be unambiguously calculated since they do
475: not have an r-process contribution.
476:
477: Figure~\ref{weak} compares the solar LEPP pattern with the stellar
478: LEPP abundance pattern. We find rather good agreement for elements
479: Y, Sr, Zr, Nb, Mo, Ru and Rh. We therefore propose that the LEPP observed in the abundances of metal poor stars and the process that is responsible for filling in the residual obtained when subtracting from the solar abundances the s-process from \citet{Travaglio04}, the r-process component observed in the most Eu enriched metal poor stars, and the p-process, are the same.
480: The relative contributions of the LEPP to the solar system abundances
481: are also in agreement with \citet{ishimaru05}, who found indications
482: that the LEPP (or weak r-process in their notation) contribution
483: decreases with atomic number. The element Pd would be somewhat
484: intermediate between Sr, which is dominated by the LEPP, and Ba,
485: which is dominated by the main r-process. However, there are also
486: some discrepancies between the stellar and the solar LEPP patterns.
487: The solar LEPP abundance of Pd is about a factor of 2 smaller than
488: the stellar one, but still within 2 $\sigma$ of the error bars.
489: However, the solar LEPP abundance of Ag is 5 times less than the
490: stellar LEPP abundance. Since Ag is mainly an r-process element
491: ($\approx$80-86$\%$), it is unlikely that the s-process contribution
492: is underestimated by more than a factor of 3 to account for the
493: difference. As mentioned earlier, one possible explanation is the
494: uncertainty of non-LTE effects in the metal-poor stars abundance
495: analysis.
496:
497:
498: \section{Astrophysical conditions}
499: \label{modelsection}
500:
501: The second nucleosynthesis process producing the lighter r-process elements postulated in the pioneering work of \citet{wasserburg96} has usually been assumed to be an r-process due to its required production of $^{129}$I. Consequently \citet{qian98} did attempt to model its abundance pattern with a schematic strongly simplified r-process model based on the few observational data that were available at the time.
502:
503: Traditionally, light s-process products have not been thought
504: to be produced at very low metallicities. In particular, the weak
505: s-process abundance contribution is
506: negligible in extremely metal-poor stars with [Fe/H]$\approx-$3 to
507: account for the abundance of Sr, Y and Zr since the main neutron
508: source in massive stars, $^{22}$Ne, is of secondary nature. Indeed,
509: production of $^{22}$Ne derives from the original CNO nuclei, first
510: converted essentially to $^{14}$N during core H-burning, then
511: converted to $^{18}$O by $\alpha$ capture at the beginning of core
512: He-burning and further processed by $\alpha$ capture to $^{22}$Ne.
513: Neutrons are released by the $^{22}$Ne($\alpha$,n)$^{25}$Mg channel
514: near core He exhaustion or during the following convective shell
515: $^{12}$C burning.
516:
517: Furthermore, the main s-process occurs in low and intermediate mass
518: stars which have relatively long life spans and cannot thus explain
519: the observation of metal-poor stars abundances. The isotopic deficiencies of the Galactic chemical evolution s-process model of \citet{Travaglio04} in the s-only isotopes $^{86}$Sr, $^{96}$Mo, $^{100}$Ru, $^{104}$Pd, $^{110}$Cd, $^{116}$Sn, $^{122-124}$Te and $^{128,130}$Xe, which are only produced with abundances of 70-80\% of the solar value, are problematic since those isotopes should
520: come entirely from the main s-process. Either a third s-process
521: component has to be included to account for such deficiencies or
522: there is a problem in their model. For such reason, the possible
523: existence of a primary s-process contributing to abundances in this
524: region cannot be excluded. In addition, \citet{froehlich06} and
525: \citet{wanajo06} have recently suggested that the $\nu$p-process
526: might contribute to the Y, Sr, and Zr abundances observed in
527: metal-poor stars. The $\nu$p-process occurs in a proton-rich,
528: neutrino-driven wind off a proto-neutron star and is therefore a
529: primary process that could operate in the early Galaxy. While this
530: process produces primarily neutron-deficient isotopes, it cannot be
531: excluded observationally as only elemental abundance data are
532: available for the light r-process elements.
533:
534: Since we are interested in determining where this second nucleosynthesis process, the LEPP, operates, we explore here the possibility of a neutron capture process being responsible for the LEPP. We do not make any assumptions about the neutron exposure, but
535: rather determine the necessary conditions to reproduce the newly
536: obtained LEPP abundance pattern with site-independent full network
537: calculations. Our goal is to constrain the neutron densities and
538: temperatures needed for a LEPP process in order to be consistent
539: with observations. In particular, we want to determine whether the
540: LEPP is an s- or an r-process (different from the one creating the r-II abundances).
541:
542: We use a classical approach with a constant neutron exposure of
543: neutron density $n_{n}$ and duration $\tau$ at a temperature $T$. We
544: vary conditions from s-process type conditions to r-process type. We
545: do not use any waiting point or steady flow approximation, but
546: employ a full reaction network for the abundances of 3224 nuclei
547: from H to Ta, taking into account neutron capture rates, their
548: inverse ($\gamma$,n) photo-disintegration rates, and $\beta$-decay
549: rates with $\beta$-delayed neutron emission. The nuclear reaction
550: rates were taken from the recent REACLIB compilation, which includes
551: theoretical reaction rates based on NON-SMOKER statistical model
552: calculations \citep{rauscher00} with Q-values obtained with the FRDM
553: \citep{frdm} mass model. Experimental Maxwellian average neutron capture cross sections and their temperature trends were taken from \citet{bao00} when available. Experimental $\beta$-decay rates were used when available \citep{nndc,pfeiffer02}. Theoretical $\beta$-decay rates were taken
554: from \citet{moeller97} or when available, from calculations
555: including first forbidden transitions \citep{moeller03}.
556: Temperature and density dependent $\beta$-decay rates from \citet{takahashi87} were included. The temperature was kept
557: constant as a function of time. The initial abundance composition
558: consisted of neutrons and seed nuclei, either $^{56}$Fe, $^{40}$Ca
559: or a solar distribution seed. The $^{56}$Fe mass fraction used in
560: the calculation was 1\%. The neutron to seed ratio was chosen such
561: that $n_{n}$ did not change by more than 5\% during the calculation.
562: The choice of seed abundance does not affect the final
563: abundance pattern, as long as it is below the mass region of interest,
564: and therefore none of our conclusions depend on it. Our choice of Fe
565: as seed is arbitrary and a purely technical means to create a neutron
566: capture flow through the relevant mass region. In particular it does
567: not imply the process to be of secondary nature. In general a
568: neutron capture process requires some seed. In the case of a
569: primary process, this seed had to be created in the same
570: astrophysical event. An example is
571: the $\alpha$-process generating the seed
572: for the r-process in the neutrino-driven wind scenario in core
573: collapse supernovae.
574:
575: To quantify which conditions better fit the stellar LEPP abundance
576: pattern a $\chi^{2}$ function $f(n_{n},T,\tau)$ defined as,
577: \begin{equation}
578: f(n_{n},T,\tau)=\sum_{i~\in~LEPP}\left(\frac{Y^{CAL}_{i}-Y^{LEPP}_{i}}{\Delta
579: Y_{i}} \right)^{2}\textrm{,}
580: \end{equation}
581: was used, where $Y^{CAL}_{i}$ is the calculated stable abundance and
582: $Y^{LEPP}_{i}$ is the desired abundance of element $i$. The closer
583: the value of $f(n_{n},T,\tau)$ to the number of residuals is, the
584: better the agreement between the calculated abundance pattern and
585: the stellar LEPP abundance pattern. Since the size of the
586: uncertainty of the reference abundances for all elements is
587: relatively the same, the $\chi^2$ function is not dominated by one
588: uncertainty and its use is justified.
589:
590: The duration for the neutron exposure $\tau$ was chosen to minimize
591: $f(n_{n},T,\tau)$ for a given set of astrophysical conditions
592: $n_{n}$ and $T$. In order to do this, we started the calculation for
593: a given $T$ and $n_n$, and for every time step determined the
594: abundance pattern that would be produced if the neutrons would be
595: instantly exhausted at that point and all nuclei would decay back to
596: stability via $\beta$-decays. The use of a full decay network
597: including $\beta$-delayed neutron emission for this purpose at every
598: time step and for all conditions was computationally impracticable.
599: Beta delayed neutron emission was however included when calculating
600: the final abundance pattern for the optimum process duration.
601:
602: The resulting best abundance patterns for different conditions are
603: shown in Fig.~\ref{abundancepatterns}. These calculations were
604: performed with a $^{56}$Fe seed. Using $^{40}$Ca or a solar
605: abundance distribution as seed did not have a major impact on the
606: abundance pattern, but only changed the neutron flux duration
607: $\tau$. We find that the abundances of elements $38\leq Z\leq47$ can
608: be reasonably reproduced under a variety of different astrophysical
609: conditions. Even though low neutron densities $n_{n}\approx10^{8}$
610: cm$^{-3}$ and high neutron densities $n_{n}\approx10^{28}$ cm$^{-3}$
611: can fit the LEPP pattern best in this region, other neutron
612: densities can reproduce the pattern within a factor of 3 for every
613: element. However, if heavier elements ($Z\geq56$), even in a
614: relatively low amount such as in the LEPP, also have to be created,
615: low neutron densities are favored to reproduce the desired
616: abundances. This is illustrated in Figure~\ref{proxHD122563}, which
617: displays $f(n_{n},T,\tau)$ for different astrophysical conditions.
618: Neutron-capture processes with a low neutron density,
619: $n_{n}\leq10^{13}$ cm$^{-3}$, reproduce the residual abundance
620: pattern better. Higher neutron densities fail to reproduce the
621: abundance pattern since it is not possible (within the model) to
622: create the correct abundances for $38\leq Z\leq47$ and sufficient
623: amounts of $Z\geq56$ material. The dependence on temperature is
624: small; only for low neutron densities can a high temperature be
625: excluded.
626:
627: The average atomic number of the created nuclei increases as a
628: function of time as neutron captures are followed by $\beta$-decays.
629: As the material becomes heavier, some of it reaches the region
630: $38\leq Z\leq47$ and the desired abundance pattern may be
631: reproduced. As more and more material increases its atomic number,
632: the abundance in the region $38\leq Z\leq47$ decreases and the
633: abundance of $Z\geq56$ starts to increase. To satisfactorily
634: reproduce the residual abundance pattern most of the abundance has
635: to go into $38\leq Z\leq47$. For $Z\geq56$, the amount of created
636: material has to be about one order of magnitude less than the
637: average abundance of the light elements. The neutron shell closure
638: $N=82$ is a bottleneck where abundances accumulate. In order to
639: produce sufficient $38\leq Z\leq47$ abundances the neutron flux has
640: to be exhausted while most of the material is passing through the
641: $N=82$ bottleneck. For processes with a large neutron density, the
642: abundance peak occurs around $50\leq Z\leq56$. In order to produce
643: elements $56\leq Z\leq62$, enough material has to leak out of the
644: bottleneck. Because of the relatively long time for that to occur,
645: the abundance of elements $Z=47$ and $48$ already decreases before
646: enough $56\leq Z\leq62$ material is created. For processes with a
647: relatively small neutron density, the shell closure produces
648: progenitor bottleneck abundances in the region $56\leq Z\leq60$ and
649: therefore the required amount of heavy material can still be
650: obtained.
651:
652: Even though low neutron density scenarios produce a higher amount of
653: heavy material that is in agreement with the solar LEPP abundances,
654: the stellar LEPP abundance pattern is not completely reproduced for
655: $Z\geq56$ as shown in Fig.~\ref{abundancepatterns}. While Ba seems
656: to be always overproduced, Pr and Sm are underproduced by the
657: network model using low neutron density scenarios. The neutron flux
658: duration necessary to obtain a reasonable fit under the lowest
659: neutron density ($\tau \approx 1170$ years for $n_{n}=10^{8}$
660: cm$^{-3}$) far exceeds what is expected by present nucleosynthesis
661: calculations in massive stars
662: \citep{woosley02,rauscher02,chieffi04}. More favorable conditions
663: would require higher $n_{n}$. The choice $n_{n}=10^{13}$ cm$^{-3}$
664: implies $\tau \approx 5$ days. A primary neutron source would also
665: be necessary to obtain a primary-LEPP mechanism, either by the
666: elusive channel $^{12}$C+$^{12}$C$\rightarrow$n+$^{23}$Mg, or by
667: more sophisticated situations in which convective shell C-burning
668: layers merge with hotter inner regions suffering Ne-shell and
669: O-shell burning in the most advanced phases. These developments are
670: outside the scope of the present analysis.
671:
672: Even though in the high end of the $n_n\le 10^{13}$ cm$^{-3}$ range some amount of $^{129}$I is made (at a neutron density $n_n \approx 10^{11}$ cm$^{-3}$ the neutron capture on $^{127}$Te becomes comparable to the beta decay halflive $\approx10$ h and therefore a subsequent neutron capture on the stable $^{128}$Te and the $^{129}$Te beta decay creates it), in our calculations not enough $^{127}$I is produced to explain the meteoritic ratios. It is however interesting that for low neutron densities, $n_{n}\leq10^{11}$ cm$^{-3}$, the derived solar LEPP isotopic abundances are in agreement with the missing s-process abundances in the region Mo to Xe predicted by the Galactic chemical evolution model by \citet{Travaglio04} that includes the yields of all AGB stars according to their lifetimes and production at various metallicities. In particular, s-only isotopes in the region from Mo to Xe are within 20 to 30$\%$ of their solar abundances. For higher neutron densities, the LEPP isotopic distribution shifts progressively towards an r-process behavior.
673:
674: The disadvantage of using a site-independent
675: model is that the reaction network calculations may be over
676: simplistic and some important features can be left out.
677: R-process scenarios such as the neutrino driven wind
678: in supernovae and supernova fallback
679: \citep{WWH92,TWJ94,Wan01,Tho01,Far06,fryer06}
680: have neutron densities that dramatically evolve with time.
681: By keeping a single constant neutron density the effect of
682: such change cannot be correctly reproduced. For such a reason
683: we also performed test calculations to explore whether separate
684: r-process components for the $38\leq Z\leq47$ and the
685: $56\leq Z\leq62$ regions could reproduce the LEPP abundance
686: pattern. Fig.~\ref{abundancepatterns} shows the abundance
687: pattern when using components $n_{n}=10^{28}$ cm$^{-3}$,
688: $\tau=60$ ms and $n_{n}=10^{25}$ cm$^{-3}$, $\tau=2$ s
689: at $T_{9}=1.5$. Although the stellar LEPP is not completely
690: reproduced for the heavy elements, the abundance pattern
691: is reproduced to better than an order of magnitude with the exception
692: of Ba and Pr. Even though the choice of components is not unique,
693: a lower neutron density limit of $n_{n}=10^{24}$ cm$^{-3}$
694: was found preferable to reproduce light and heavy elements
695: without overproducing Pd, Ag, though some overproduction of
696: Ba cannot be avoided. In this case, no s-process production is
697: possible. Site-dependent
698: calculations should be performed in the future to compare
699: the observed LEPP abundances with predictions from various
700: realistic scenarios.
701:
702: %This is the last part...
703: \section{Conclusions}
704: \label{conclusions}
705: We have shown that the elemental abundances of metal-poor halo stars
706: exhibit a non-correlation between [X/Eu] and [Eu/Fe] for Y, Sr, Zr,
707: Pd, and Ag. The same behavior had been found before for Y and Zr in
708: a few stars in M15 \citep{kaori06}. This provides new further
709: evidence for the existence of a primary LEPP process that
710: contributes together with the r-process, the weak s-process, the
711: main s-process, and the p-process to the nucleosynthesis not only of
712: Y, Sr, and Zr, but, as we show here, for most elements in the Sr-Ag
713: range. We also find that a very small contribution to still heavier
714: elements up to Eu is likely. Based on our results we were then able
715: to show that the LEPP produces a uniform and unique abundance
716: pattern, shown in Fig.~\ref{weak}, and that together with the pattern observed in Eu-enriched stars (r-process rich), are able to explain the abundances of all metal-poor stars considered.
717:
718: Metal-poor stars with very weak Eu enhancement play an essential
719: role in constraining the LEPP as they have the smallest contribution
720: from the r-process. A prime example is HD~122563, for which a wide
721: range of elemental abundances are observed. We are therefore able to
722: explain the abundance observations in HD~122563 and HD~221170 that
723: previously had been identified as ``anomalies", together with the
724: abundances observed in other metal-poor halo stars with a consistent
725: picture of mixed contributions from the r-process and the LEPP.
726: In addition, it was found that the LEPP
727: contributes significantly to the solar system abundances
728: based on the use of the \citet{Travaglio04} s-process model.
729: While we consider this model to be the best available it
730: should be noted that the use of the simpler s-process
731: model by \citet{Arlandini99}, for example, would have
732: led to a significantly reduced solar system contribution
733: of the LEPP. However, only when using the \citet{Travaglio04}
734: s-process model do the solar and the stellar LEPP
735: abundance patterns agree.
736:
737: Since the astrophysical conditions that would create the LEPP
738: abundance pattern are not known, full reaction network calculations
739: were performed in a heuristic way assuming different neutron capture
740: process conditions. A variety of different neutron densities from
741: s-process to r-process like were found to reproduce the abundance
742: pattern between Sr and Ag within the observational uncertainties.
743: However, intermediate neutron densities in between typical s- or
744: r-process conditions seem to be excluded. Using a single component
745: to reproduce the LEPP pattern only neutron densities $n_{n}\leq10^{13}$
746: cm$^{-3}$ seem to create enough Ba to Sm material (which actually consist
747: of quite small contributions to solar) that is consistent within
748: an order of magnitude with the abundances inferred for HD~122563.
749: These low neutron densities correspond to densities found in the
750: s-process, or not so far from it.
751: A LEPP characterized by neutron densities of $n_{n}\leq10^{13}$ cm$^{-3}$
752: then not only addresses the the problem of explaining metal poor star abundance patterns,
753: but also the problem of the underproduction of some s-only isotopes in the s-process
754: galactic chemical evolution model of \citet{Travaglio04}.
755:
756: Multiple nucleosynthesis processes are also required to explain the early solar system $^{129}$I/$^{127}$I
757: and $^{182}$Hf/$^{180}$Hf ratios inferred from meteorites \citep{qian03}.
758: As $^{129}$I and $^{182}$Hf are radioactive nuclei with different
759: half-lives, the detected abundance ratios imply different chemical evolution
760: histories for $^{129}$I and $^{182}$Hf, both thought to be produced
761: in the r-process. If low neutron density scenarios are responsible
762: for the LEPP, the A=130 abundance peak could be attributed to
763: the main r-process component (as observed in r-II metal-poor stars).
764: In this case, most of $^{129}$I and $^{182}$Hf would be produced in the same
765: r-process events, which could not explain the meteoritic data.
766: It should be noted however that \citet{meyer00} have questioned
767: the pure r-process origin of $^{182}$Hf. An alternative scenario that would
768: satisfy the meteoritic constraints would be that yet another process
769: is responsible for the origin of the $A=130$ abundance peak. This would
770: require that the $A=130$ production, or at least the production of
771: $^{129}$I, be largely avoided in the main r-process that
772: is known to produce the heavy elements from Ba and beyond. Similarly,
773: the hypothetical additional process that is responsible for the synthesis of $^{129}$I
774: would have to provide negligible contributions to Ba. It would
775: have to be demonstrated in realistic model calculations that
776: both requirements can be achieved. Recent studies based on the
777: classical r-process model indicate that this might be difficult
778: given the know nuclear physics around the $N=82$ shell closure \citep{kratz06}.
779:
780: The astrophysical scenarios involving neutron densities $n_{n}\leq10^{13}$ cm$^{-3}$ do not correspond to the traditional
781: weak or main s-process because the nucleosynthesis occurs in very
782: low metallicity stars and the required neutron flux duration is too
783: long compared to what is expected in those scenarios. A particular
784: challenge is to find a stellar scenario with low neutron densities
785: during a long period of time occurring in low metallicity stars
786: strong enough to produce elements up to Eu. Since it is hard to
787: envision such a scenario, possibilities other than low neutron capture processes should also be considered
788: to explain the observed LEPP abundances.
789:
790: While it is not possible to reproduce the entire LEPP abundance pattern at high neutron densities with a single neutron exposure, we showed that in principle a multi-component exposure with neutron densities $n_{n}\geq10^{24}$ cm$^{-3}$
791: could reproduce the observed abundances. In such a model
792: the LEPP could synthesize $^{129}$I explaining the meteoritic data,
793: though the overproduction of Ba is difficult to avoid.
794: A high neutron density LEPP would however require
795: that the solar abundance residual (our solar LEPP abundance pattern)
796: cannot, or at least not entirely, be explained with LEPP anymore, as it
797: contains the s-only nuclei underproduced in \citet{Travaglio04}.
798: In this case one would have to conclude that the LEPP
799: contributes at most a small amount to the solar abundances, and that
800: an unknown additional s-process component is required to explain the solar
801: abundances. Moreover, the agreement between our solar LEPP
802: pattern and the observed LEPP component in metal poor stars
803: pointed out in this work would than have to be considered coincidental.
804:
805: The s-process contribution to solar $^{96}$Mo is only 78\%. Since
806: that isotope is shielded by $^{96}$Ru against an rp-process far from
807: stability, one might argue that such a process is
808: possibly excluded as an explanation for the LEPP. Nevertheless, a
809: nucleosynthesis process on the proton-rich side running closer to
810: stability such as the recently proposed $\nu$p-process should be
811: considered. Besides proton captures, the $\nu$p-process includes
812: neutron induced reactions and therefore has a path closer to
813: stability producing isotopes such as $^{96}$Mo. In addition,
814: \citet{wanajo06} have shown that the $\nu$p-process under some
815: conditions can produce enough material up to Eu. Further studies
816: should also consider this process a candidate for the production of
817: LEPP abundances.
818:
819: The parameter study in the present work is a first step toward
820: determining the astronomical site responsible for creating the
821: abundance of material not created in the r-process in metal-poor
822: stars. More observational data, particularly for r-process poor
823: stars and for more elements below Ba, would certainly be important
824: for further progress. It would also be desirable to identify actual
825: sites that could be responsible for the LEPP and perform site
826: specific calculations to reproduce our derived LEPP abundance
827: pattern.
828:
829: After submission of this paper, \citet{qian07} presented a
830: refinement of their phenomenological model that is based on
831: similar observational constraints as presented here. Their model is
832: based on the observed abundances in HD~122563 (for their ``L"
833: component) and CS~22892-052 (for their ``H" component). Tough their
834: adopted patterns are slightly different, their conclusion that such
835: a two component model can explain currently available metal poor
836: star abundance patterns is in agreement with this work. Our results
837: concerning the implications of the production of some A$\ge$130
838: nuclei in the LEPP, the likely nature of the LEPP and its potential
839: relevance for the s-process are not affected.
840:
841: \acknowledgments We thank I.I. Ivans, J. E. Lawler, C. Sneden and K.
842: Lodders for helpful discussions, and F.-K. Thielemann for providing
843: the reaction network solver. This work has been supported in part by
844: NSF grants PHY 02-16783 (Joint Institute for Nuclear Astrophysics)
845: and PHY 01-10253. Support was also provided by NSF grants
846: AST03-07279 (J.J.C) and AST04-06784 (T.C.B), by the Virtuelles
847: Institut f{\"u}r Struktur der Kerne und Nukleare Astrophysik under
848: HGF grant VH-VI-061, by the Univ. Mainz-GSI F+E Vertrag under grant
849: MZ/KLK (K.-L.K, B.P. and K.F), and by the Italian MIUR-FIRB Project
850: ``Astrophysical Origin of the Heavy Elements Beyond Fe'' (R.G.).
851:
852: %% To help institutions obtain information on the effectiveness of their
853: %% telescopes, the AAS Journals has created a group of keywords for telescope
854: %% facilities. A common set of keywords will make these types of searches
855: %% significantly easier and more accurate. In addition, they will also be
856: %% useful in linking papers together which utilize the same telescopes
857: %% within the framework of the National Virtual Observatory.
858: %% See the AASTeX Web site at http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AAS/AASTeX
859: %% for information on obtaining the facility keywords.
860: %% After the acknowledgments section, use the following syntax and the
861: %% \facility{} macro to list the keywords of facilities used in the research
862: %% for the paper. Each keyword will be checked against the master list during
863: %% copy editing. Individual instruments or configurations can be provided
864: %% in parentheses, after the keyword, but they will not be verified.
865: %%{\it Facilities:} \facility{Nickel}, \facility{HST (STIS)}, \facility{CXO (ASIS)}.
866: %% The reference list follows the main body and any appendices.
867: %% Use LaTeX's thebibliography environment to mark up your reference list.
868: %% Note \begin{thebibliography} is followed by an empty set of
869: %% curly braces. If you forget this, LaTeX will generate the error
870: %% "Perhaps a missing \item?".
871: %%
872: %% thebibliography produces citations in the text using \bibitem-\citep
873: %% cross-referencing. Each reference is preceded by a
874: %% \bibitem command that defines in curly braces the KEY that corresponds
875: %% to the KEY in the \citep commands (see the first section above).
876: %% Make sure that you provide a unique KEY for every \bibitem or else the
877: %% paper will not LaTeX. The square brackets should contain
878: %% the citation text that LaTeX will insert in
879: %% place of the \citep commands.
880: %% We have used macros to produce journal name abbreviations.
881: %% AASTeX provides a number of these for the more frequently-citepd journals.
882: %% See the Author Guide for a list of them.
883: %% Note that the style of the \bibitem labels (in []) is slightly
884: %% different from previous examples. The natbib system solves a host
885: %% of citation expression problems, but it is necessary to clearly
886: %% delimit the year from the author name used in the citation.
887: %% See the natbib documentation for more details and options.
888:
889: \begin{thebibliography}{}
890:
891:
892: \bibitem[Anders \& Grevesse(1989)]{anders89} Anders, E., \& Grevesse, N. 1989, Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 53, 97
893: \bibitem[Aoki et al.(2005)]{aoki05} Aoki, W. et al. 2005, ApJ, 632, 611
894: \bibitem[Arlandini et al.(1999)]{Arlandini99} Arlandini, C., K{\"a}ppeler,
895: F., Wisshak, K., Gallino, R., Lugaro, M.,
896: Busso, M., \& Straniero,
897: O. 1999, ApJ, 525, 886
898: \bibitem[Bao et al.(2000)]{bao00} Bao, Z.Y., Beer, H., K{\"a}eppeler, F., Voss,
899: F., Wisshak, K., \& Rauscher, T. 2000, At. Data and Nucl. Data Tables, 76, 70
900: \bibitem[Barklem et al.(2005)]{barklem05} Barklem, P.S. et al. 2005, A\&A, 439, 129
901: \bibitem[Beers \& Christlieb(2005)]{beers05} Beers, T.C. \&
902: Christlieb, N. 2005, Ann. Rev. of Astr. \& Astr., 43, 531
903: \bibitem[Beun et al.(2006)]{beu06} Beun, J., McLaughlin, G.C., Surman,
904: R., \& Hix, W.R. 2006, Phys. Rev. D, 73, 093007
905: \bibitem[Brazzle et al.(1999)]{brazzle99} Brazzle, R.H., Pravdivtseva, O.V., Meshik,
906: A.P., \& Hohenberg, C.M. 1999, Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, 63, 739
907: \bibitem[Burris et al.(2000)]{burris00} Burris, D.L., Pilachowski,
908: C.A., Armandroff, T.A., Sneden, C., Cowan, J.J., \& Roe, H. 2000, ApJ, 544, 302
909: \bibitem[Cameron(2001)]{Cam01} Cameron, A.G.W. 2001, ApJ, 562, 456
910: \bibitem[Chieffi \& Limongi(2004)]{chieffi04} Chieffi, A., \& Limongi,
911: M. 2004, ApJ, 608, 405
912: \bibitem[Christlieb et al.(2004)]{christlieb05} Christlieb, N. et
913: al. 2004, A\&A, 428, 1027
914: \bibitem[Clayton \& Rassbach(1967)]{clayton67} Clayton, D.D., \&
915: Rassbach, M.E. 1967, ApJ, 549, 346
916: \bibitem[Cowan et al.(2006)]{cowan06} Cowan, J.J., Sneden, C., Lawler,
917: J.E., \& Den Hartog, E.A. 2006, PoS (NIC-IX), 014
918: \bibitem[Cowan et al.(1991)]{CTT91} Cowan, J.J., Thielemann, F.-K., \&
919: Truran, J.W. 1991, Phys. Rep., 208, 267
920: \bibitem[Cowan et al.(2002)]{cowan02} Cowan, J.J. et al. 2002, ApJ, 572, 861
921: \bibitem[Cristallo et al.(2006)]{CRI06} Cristallo, S., Straniero, O., Gallino,
922: R., Piersanti, L. \& Dominguez, I. 2006, PoS (NIC-IX), 062
923: \bibitem[Farouqi et al.(2006)]{Far06} Farouqi, K. et al., to be published
924: \bibitem[Freiburghaus et al.(1999)]{FRT99} Freiburghaus, C., Rosswog, S., \& Thielemann, F.-K. 1999, ApJ, 525, 121
925: \bibitem[Fr{\"o}hlich et al.(2006)]{froehlich06} Fr{\"o}hlich C.,
926: Martinez-Pinedo, G., Liebend{\"o}rfer, M., Thielemann, F.-K., Bravo,
927: E., Hix, W.R., Langanke, K., \& Zinner, N.T. 2006, Phys. Rev. Lett.,
928: 96, 142502
929: \bibitem[Fryer et al.(2006)]{fryer06} Fryer, C.L., Herwig, F.,
930: Hungerford, A., \& Timmes, F.X. 2006, ApJ, 646, L131
931: \bibitem[Goriely \& Arnould (2002)]{Gor02} Goriely, S., \& Arnould,
932: M. 2002, A\&A, 379, 1113
933: \bibitem[Goriely et al.(2005)]{GDJ05} Goriely, S., Demetriou, P.,
934: Janka, H.-Th, Pearson, J.M., \& Samyn, M. 2005, Nucl. Phys. A, 758, 587
935: \bibitem[Hill et al.(2002)]{hill02} Hill, V. et al. 2002, A\&A, 387, 560
936: \bibitem[Honda et al.(2004)]{honda04} Honda, S., Aoki, W., Kajino, T.,
937: Ando, H., Beers, T.C., Izumiura, H., Sadakena, K., \& Takada-Hidai,
938: M. 2004, ApJ, 607, 474
939: \bibitem[Honda et al.(2006)]{honda06} Honda, S., Aoki, W., Ishimaru,
940: Y., Wanajo, S., \& Ryan, S.G. 2006, ApJ, 643, 1180
941: \bibitem[Honda et al.(2007)]{honda07} Honda, S., Aoki, W., Ishimaru,
942: \& Y., Wanajo, S., arXiv:astro-ph/0705.3975v1.
943: \bibitem[Ishimaru et al.(2005)]{ishimaru05} Ishimaru, Y., Wanajo, S.,
944: Aoki, W., Ryan, S.G., \& Prantzos, N. 2005, Nucl. Phys. A, 758, 603c
945: \bibitem[Ivans et al.(2006)]{ivans06} Ivans, I.I., Simmerer, J.,
946: Sneden, C., Lawler, J.E., Cowan, J.J., Gallino, R., \& Bisterzo,
947: S. 2006, ApJ, 645, 613
948: \bibitem[Johnson \& Bolte(2002)]{johnson02} Johnson, J.A., \& Bolte, M. 2002,
949: ApJ, 579, 616
950: \bibitem[K{\"a}ppeler et al.(1982)]{kaeppeler82} K{\"a}ppeler, F.,
951: Beer, H., Wisshak, K., Clayton, D. D., Macklin, R.
952: L., \& Ward, R. A. 1982, ApJ, 257, 821
953: \bibitem[Kratz et al.(1993)]{kratz93} Kratz, K.-L., Bitouzet, J.-P.,
954: Thielemann, F.-K., Moeller, P., \& Pfeiffer, B. 1993, ApJ, 403, 216
955: \bibitem[Kratz et al.(2007)]{kratz06} Kratz, K.-L., Farouqi, K.,
956: Pfeiffer, B., Truran, J.W., Sneden, C., \& Cowan, J.J. 2007, ApJ, 662, 39
957: \bibitem[Lambert \& Allende Prieto(2002)]{lambert02} Lambert, D.L., \& Allende Prieto, C. 2002, Monthly Not. of the Royal Astr. Soc., 335, 325
958: \bibitem[Lee \& Halliday(2000)]{lee00} Lee, D.-C., \& Halliday, A.N. 2000,
959: Science, 288, 1629
960: \bibitem[Lodders(2003)]{lodders03} Lodders, K. 2003, ApJ, 591, 1220
961: \bibitem[McWilliam(1998)]{mcwilliam98} McWilliam, A. 1998, AJ, 115,
962: 1640
963: \bibitem[Meyer \& Clayton(2000)]{meyer00} Meyer, B.S., \& Clayton,
964: D.D. 2000, Sp. Sci. Rev., 92, 133
965: \bibitem[M{\"o}ller et al.(1997)]{moeller97} M{\"o}ller, P., Nix, J.R., \&
966: Kratz, K.-L. 1997, At. Data and Nucl. Data Tables, 66, 131
967: \bibitem[M{\"o}ller et al.(1995)]{frdm} M{\"o}ller, P., Nix, J.R., Myers,
968: W.D., \& Swiatecki, W.J. 1995, At. Data and Nucl. Data Tables, 59, 185
969: \bibitem[M{\"o}ller et al.(2003)]{moeller03} M{\"o}ller, P., Pfeiffer, B., \&
970: Kratz, K.-L. 2003, Phys. Rev. C, 67, 055802
971: \bibitem[NNDC(2006)]{nndc} National Nuclear Data Center,
972: http://www.nndc.bnl.gov
973: \bibitem[Norris et al.(2001)]{norris01} Norris, J. E., Ryan, S. G., \&
974: Beers, T. C. 2001, ApJ, 561, 1034
975: \bibitem[Otsuki et al.(2006)]{kaori06} Otsuki, K., Honda, S., Aoki,
976: W., Kajino, T., \& Mathews, G.J. 2006, ApJ, 641, L117
977: \bibitem[Otsuki et al.(2003)]{otsuki03} Otsuki, K., Mathews, G.J., \&
978: Kajino, T. 2003, Nucl. Phys. A, 718, 677
979: \bibitem[Pfeiffer et al.(2002)]{pfeiffer02} Pfeiffer, B., Kratz,
980: K.-L., \& M{\"o}ller, P. 2002, Prog. Nuc. Energy, 41, 39
981: \bibitem[Pfeiffer et al.(2001a)]{pfeiffer01a} Pfeiffer, B., Kratz,
982: K.-L., Thielemann, F.-K., \& Walters, W.B. 2001a, Nucl. Phys. A, 693, 282
983: \bibitem[Pfeiffer et al.(2001b)]{pfeiffer01b} Pfeiffer, B., Ott, U., \&
984: Kratz 2001b, Nucl. Phys. A, 693, 282
985: \bibitem[Pignatari et al.(2006)]{PIG06} Pignatari, M. et al., PoS (NIC-IX), 061
986: \bibitem[Qian et al.(1998)]{qian98} Qian, Y.Z., Vogel, P. \& Wasserburg, G.J. 1998, ApJ, 494, 285
987: \bibitem[Qian \& Wasserburg(2000a)]{qian00a} Qian, Y.Z., \& Wasserburg, G.J. 2000, Phys. Rep., 333, 77
988: \bibitem[Qian \& Wasserburg(2000b)]{qian00b} Qian, Y.Z., \& Wasserburg, G.J. 2000, ApJ, 529, L21
989: \bibitem[Qian \& Wasserburg(2001)]{qian01} Qian, Y.Z., \& Wasserburg, G.J. 2001, ApJ, 559, 925
990: \bibitem[Qian \& Wasserburg(2003)]{qian03} Qian, Y.Z., \& Wasserburg, G.J. 2003, ApJ, 588, 1099
991: \bibitem[Qian \& Wasserburg(2007)]{qian07} Qian, Y.Z., \& Wasserburg, G.J. 2007, Phys. Rep., 442, 237
992: \bibitem[Raiteri et al.(1992)]{raiteri92} Raiteri, C.M., Gallino, R.,
993: \& Busso, M. 1992, ApJ, 387, 263
994: \bibitem[Rauscher et al.(2002)]{rauscher02} Rauscher, T., Heger, A.,
995: Hoffman, R. D., \& Woosley, S. E. 2002, ApJ, 576, 323
996: \bibitem[Rauscher \& Thielemann(2000)]{rauscher00} Rauscher, T., \&
997: Thielemann, F.-K. 2000, At. Data and Nucl. Data Tables, 75, 1
998: \bibitem[Rosswog et al.(1999)]{ROS99} Rosswog, S., Liebend{\"o}rfer,
999: M., Thielemann, F.-K., Davies, M.B., Benz, W., \&
1000: Piran, T. 1999, A\&A, 341, 499
1001: \bibitem[Schatz et al.(2002)]{Sch02} Schatz, H., Toenjes, R.,
1002: Pfeiffer, B., Beers, T.C., Cowan, J.J., Hill, V., \& Kratz,
1003: K.-L. 2002, ApJ, 579, 626
1004: \bibitem[Sneden(2006)]{sneden06} Sneden, C. 2006, private communication
1005: \bibitem[Sneden et al.(2003)]{sneden03} Sneden, C. et al. 2003, ApJ, 591, 936
1006: \bibitem[Surman \& McLaughlin(2005)]{SuM05} Surman, R., \& McLaughlin, G.C. 2005, Nucl. Phys. A 758, 189
1007: \bibitem[Takahashi \& Yokoi(1987)]{takahashi87} Takahashi, K., \& Yokoi, K. 1987,
1008: At. Data and Nucl. Data Tables, 36, 375
1009: \bibitem[Takahashi et al.(1994)]{TWJ94} Takahashi, K., Witti, J., \&
1010: Janka, H.-Th. 1994, A\&A, 286, 857
1011: \bibitem[Thompson et al.(2001)]{Tho01} Thompson, T.A., Burrows, A., \&
1012: Meyer, B.S. 2001, ApJ, 562, 887
1013: \bibitem[Travaglio et al.(2004)]{Travaglio04} Travaglio, C., Gallino,
1014: R., Arnone, E., Cowan, J.J., Jordan, F., \& Sneden, C. 2004, ApJ, 601, 864
1015: \bibitem[Travaglio et al.(2001)]{travaglio01} Travaglio, C., Gallino,
1016: R., Busso, M., \& Gratton, R. 2001, ApJ, 549, 346
1017: \bibitem[Truran et al.(2002)]{TCP02} Truran, J.W., Cowan, J.J.,
1018: Pilachowski, C.A., \& Sneden, C. 2002, PASP, 114, 1293
1019: \bibitem[Vockenhuber et al.(2004)]{vockenhuber04} Vockenhuber et al. 2004, Phys. Rev. Lett.,
1020: 93, 172501
1021: \bibitem[Wanajo(2006)]{wanajo06} Wanajo, S. 2006, ApJ, 647, 1323
1022: \bibitem[Wanajo et al.(2001)]{Wan01} Wanajo, S., Kajino, T., Mathews,
1023: G.J., \& Otsuki, K. 2001, ApJ, 554, 578
1024: \bibitem[Wanajo et al.(2003)]{WTI03} Wanajo, S., Tamamura, M., Itoh,
1025: N., Nomoto, K., Ishimaru, Y., Beers, T.C., \& Nozawa, S. 2003, ApJ,
1026: 593, 968
1027: \bibitem[Wasserburg et al.(1996)]{wasserburg96} Wasserburg, G.J.,
1028: Busso, M., \& Gallino, R. 1996, ApJ, 466, L109
1029: \bibitem[Wasserburg \& Qian(2000)]{wasserburg00} Wasserburg, G.J., \& Qian, Y.Z. 2000, ApJ, 538, L99
1030: \bibitem[Westin et al.(2000)]{westin00} Westin, J., Sneden, C.,
1031: Gustafsson, B., \& Cowan, J.J. 2000, ApJ, 530, 783
1032: \bibitem[Woosley \& Hoffman(1992)]{WWH92} Woosley, S.E., \& Hoffman,
1033: R.D. 1992, ApJ, 395, 202
1034: \bibitem[Woosley et al.(2002)]{woosley02} Woosley, S. E., Heger, A.,
1035: \& Weaver, T. A. 2002, Rev. Mod. Phys. 74, 1015
1036: \end{thebibliography}
1037:
1038: \clearpage
1039:
1040: %% Use the figure environment and \plotone or \plottwo to include
1041: %% figures and captions in your electronic submission.
1042: %% To embed the sample graphics in
1043: %% the file, uncomment the \plotone, \plottwo, and
1044: %% \includegraphics commands
1045: %%
1046: %% If you need a layout that cannot be achieved with \plotone or
1047: %% \plottwo, you can invoke the graphicx package directly with the
1048: %% \includegraphics command or use \plotfiddle. For more information,
1049: %% please see the tutorial on "Using Electronic Art with AASTeX" in the
1050: %% documentation section at the AASTeX Web site,
1051: %% http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AAS/AASTeX.
1052: %%
1053: %% The examples below also include sample markup for submission of
1054: %% supplemental electronic materials. As always, be sure to check
1055: %% the instructions to authors for the journal you are submitting to
1056: %% for specific submissions guidelines as they vary from
1057: %% journal to journal.
1058: %% This example uses \plotone to include an EPS file scaled to
1059: %% 80% of its natural size with \epsscale. Its caption
1060: %% has been written to indicate that additional figure parts will be
1061: %% available in the electronic journal.
1062:
1063: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% TABLES %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1064:
1065: \begin{table}[p]
1066: \caption{LEPP contribution to the solar system total abundance
1067: (Solar LEPP as defined in the text).}
1068: \begin{center}
1069: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|}\hline
1070: Element & $\%$ \\
1071: \hline \hline
1072: Sr & $\leq$19 \\
1073: Y & 19(8) \\
1074: Zr & 20(11) \\
1075: Nb & 13(10) \\
1076: Mo & 26(12) \\
1077: Ru & $\leq$34 \\
1078: Rh & 28(9) \\
1079: Pd & 34(10) \\
1080: Ag & 72(16) \\
1081: Ba & $\leq$9 \\
1082: La & $\leq$28 \\
1083: Ce & $\leq$8 \\
1084: Pr & 12(11) \\
1085: Nd & $\leq$12 \\
1086: Sm & $\leq$12 \\
1087: Eu & $\leq$21 \\
1088: Gd & $\leq$25 \\
1089: \hline
1090: \end{tabular}
1091: \end{center}
1092: \label{LEPPabun}
1093: \end{table}
1094:
1095: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% FIGURES %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1096:
1097: \begin{figure}
1098: \includegraphics[scale=0.70]{f1.eps}
1099: \caption{Abundance ratio of metal-poor stars as a function of
1100: [Eu/Fe]. Only stars with [Ba/Eu]$<$0 (except HD~122563) and
1101: [Fe/H]$<-$1 are shown. Abundances represented by crosses were taken
1102: from \cite{burris00}, open squares from \cite{honda04}, open circles
1103: from \cite{christlieb05,barklem05} and filled circles from
1104: \cite{honda06}. Dashed lines are the respective r-process ratios.}
1105: \label{ratios}
1106: \end{figure}
1107:
1108: \clearpage
1109:
1110: \begin{figure}
1111: \includegraphics[scale=0.60]{f2.eps}
1112: \caption{Abundance ratio [Sr/Eu] of metal-poor stars as a function
1113: of metallicity [Fe/H]. Only stars with [Ba/Eu]$<$0 (except
1114: HD~122563) and [Fe/H]$<-$1 are shown. Abundances represented by
1115: crosses were taken from \cite{burris00}, open squares from
1116: \cite{honda04}, open circles from \cite{christlieb05,barklem05} and
1117: filled circles from \cite{honda06}.} \label{metallicity}
1118: \end{figure}
1119:
1120: \clearpage
1121:
1122: \begin{figure}
1123: \centering
1124: \includegraphics[scale=0.70]{f3.eps}
1125: \caption{Abundance obtained after subtracting a Eu-scaled
1126: CS~31082-001 abundance (main r-process) from metal-poor stars as a
1127: function of [Eu/Fe]. Only stars with [Ba/Eu]$<$0 (except HD~122563)
1128: and [Fe/H]$<-$1 are shown. Abundances represented by crosses were
1129: taken from \cite{burris00}, open squares from \cite{honda04}, open
1130: circles from \cite{christlieb05,barklem05}, filled diamonds from \cite{qian07}
1131: and filled circles from \cite{honda06}.}
1132: \label{ratiosWeak}
1133: \end{figure}
1134:
1135: \clearpage
1136:
1137: \begin{figure}
1138: \centering
1139: \includegraphics[scale=0.60]{f4.eps}
1140: \caption{Abundance pattern of HD~122563 and scaled abundance pattern
1141: obtained by averaging r-II stars CS~31082-001 and CS~22892-052. The
1142: average r-II stars pattern was normalized to the Eu, Gd, Dy, Er and
1143: Yb HD~122563 abundance.} \label{HD122563}
1144: \end{figure}
1145:
1146: \clearpage
1147:
1148: \begin{figure}
1149: \centering
1150: \includegraphics[scale=0.60]{f5.eps}
1151: \caption{Abundance pattern created by the LEPP. Pattern represented
1152: by filled squares was created by subtracting the scaled average of
1153: CS~31082-001 and CS~22892-052, the s- and p- process contributions from
1154: the solar abundance (solar LEPP). Pattern represented by filled circles
1155: was obtained
1156: by subtracting the scaled average of
1157: CS~31082-001 and CS~22892-052 from HD~122563 (stellar LEPP) and scaling
1158: it to the
1159: solar LEPP Mo abundance. Read text for explanation.}
1160: \label{weak}
1161: \end{figure}
1162:
1163: \clearpage
1164:
1165: \begin{figure}
1166: \begin{center}
1167: \hspace{0.9in}
1168: \includegraphics[scale=0.85]{f6.eps}
1169: \end{center}
1170: \caption{Abundances as a function of atomic number normalized to Mo
1171: for different astrophysical conditions and compared with the stellar
1172: LEPP (HD~122563-rII average) pattern. Neutron flux duration was
1173: chosen to better reproduce the stellar LEPP abundances. Neutron
1174: density $n_{n}$ is given in $cm^{-3}$ and temperature $T$ in GK.}
1175: \label{abundancepatterns}
1176: \end{figure}
1177:
1178: \clearpage
1179:
1180: \begin{figure}
1181: \begin{center}
1182: \hspace{0.9in}
1183: \includegraphics[scale=0.55]{f7.eps}
1184: \caption{$f(n_{n},T,\tau)$ as function of neutron density $n_{n}$
1185: for different temperatures when comparing the results of the network
1186: calculations with the modified HD~122563 abundance pattern.
1187: Confidence intervals for the $\chi^{2}$ distribution are also
1188: shown.} \label{proxHD122563}
1189: \end{center}
1190: \end{figure}
1191:
1192: \clearpage
1193:
1194: %% Tables should be submitted one per page, so put a \clearpage before
1195: %% each one.
1196: %% Two options are available to the author for producing tables: the
1197: %% deluxetable environment provided by the AASTeX package or the LaTeX
1198: %% table environment. Use of deluxetable is preferred.
1199: %%
1200: %% Three table samples follow, two marked up in the deluxetable environment,
1201: %% one marked up as a LaTeX table.
1202: %% In this first example, note that the \tabletypesize{}
1203: %% command has been used to reduce the font size of the table.
1204: %% We also use the \rotate command to rotate the table to
1205: %% landscape orientation since it is very wide even at the
1206: %% reduced font size.
1207: %%
1208: %% Note also that the \label command needs to be placed
1209: %% inside the \tablecaption.
1210: %% This table also includes a table comment indicating that the full
1211: %% version will be available in machine-readable format in the electronic
1212: %% edition.
1213:
1214: \end{document}
1215:
1216: %%
1217: %% End of file `sample.tex'.
1218:
1219:
1220: