1: %----------------------------------------------------------------------- % %
2: %Paper entitled: ``Self--enrichment in Globular Clusters: is there a role
3: %for the super--asymptotic giant branch stars?Self-enrichment by super-AGBs"
4: %----------------------------------------------------------------------- %
5: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
6: %\documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
7: %\usepackage{graphics}
8: %\usepackage{aastexug}
9: %\usepackage{natbib}
10: %\documentstyle{l-aa}
11: %
12: %
13: %----------------------------------------------------------------------- %
14: %Local definitions by the authors
15: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------%
16: \def\Msun{$M_\odot$}
17: \def\msun{$M_\odot$}
18: \def\Mc{$M_c$}
19: \def\C12{^{12}C}
20: \def\N14{^{14}N}
21: \def\O16{^{16}O}
22: \def\Mg24{$^{24}$Mg}
23: \def\Ne20{$^{20}$Ne}
24: \def\F20{$^{20}$F}
25: \def\Na24{$^{24}$Na}
26: \def\ocen{$\omega$~Cen}
27: \def\fcno{F$_{CNO}$}
28: \def\simgt{\lower.5ex\hbox{$\; \buildrel > \over \sim \;$}}
29: %
30: %
31: \begin{document}
32:
33: \title{Self--enrichment in Globular Clusters: is there a role for the super--asymptotic
34: giant branch stars?}
35:
36:
37: \author{M.~L. Pumo\altaffilmark{1,2,3}, F. D'Antona\altaffilmark{1}, P. Ventura\altaffilmark{1}}
38:
39:
40: %\offprints{} \mail{}
41: \affil{\altaffilmark{1}INAF - Osservatorio Astronomico di Roma, via Frascati
42: 33, 00127 Roma, Italy; mlpumo@astrct.oact.inaf.it, dantona@mporzio.astro.it, ventura@mporzio.astro.it}
43: \affil{\altaffilmark{2}Dip.S.F.A. - Universit\`a di Palermo, via Archirafi 36, 90123 Palermo, Italy}
44: \affil{\altaffilmark{3}INAF - Osservatorio Astrofisico di Catania, via S. Sofia 78, 95123 Catania, Italy}
45: \date{Received ... ; accepted ...}
46:
47: \begin{abstract}
48: In four globular clusters (GCs) a non negligible fraction of stars can be interpreted only as a very helium rich population. The evidence comes from the presence of a ``blue" main sequence in \ocen\ and NGC~2808, and from the the very peculiar horizontal branch morphology in NGC~6441 and NGC~6388.
49: Although a general consensus is emerging on the fact that self--enrichment is a common feature among GCs, the helium content required for these stars is Y$\simgt$0.35, and it is difficult to understand how it can be produced without any ---or, for \ocen, without a considerable---associated metal enhancement.
50: We examine the possible role of super--AGB stars, and show that they may provide the required high helium. However, the ejecta of the most massive super--AGBs show a global CNO enrichment by a factor of $\simeq$4, due to the dredge--out process occurring at the second dredge up stage. If these clusters show no evidence for this CNO enrichment, we can rule out that at least the most massive super--AGBs evolve into O--Ne white dwarfs and take part in the formation of the second generation stars.
51: This latter hypothesis may help to explain the high number of neutron stars present in GCs. The most massive super--AGBs would in fact evolve into electron--capture supernovae. Their envelopes would be easily ejected out of the cluster, but the remnant neutron stars remain into the clusters,
52: thanks to their small supernova natal kicks.
53: \end{abstract}
54:
55:
56: \keywords{globular clusters: general --- stars: formation --- stars: AGB and post-AGB --- stars: neutron}
57:
58: \section{Introduction}
59:
60: The majority of the inhomogeneities in the chemical composition of
61: Globular Cluster (GC) stars ---see e.g. \citet{sne99,gratton-araa2004}--- appear due
62: to primordial enrichment by hot-CNO cycled material processed in
63: stars belonging to a first stellar generation. Either massive AGB envelopes
64: subject to hot bottom burning, \citep*[e.g.][]{ventura2001, ventura2002}
65: or the envelopes of massive fastly rotating stars (FRMS) \citep{decressin2007} are an ideal
66: environment to manufacture elements through nuclear reactions in which proton
67: captures are involved. A second stellar generation would then be born from the
68: ejecta of these stars, either directly, or diluted with pristine material.
69: There are however problems with these scenario. For the AGB progenitors, problems
70: concern the chemistry of the anomalous stars (see \citealt{denis2003,ventura2004,
71: fenner2004}, but consider also \citealt{venturadantona2005a}), and the requirements for the
72: mass budget necessary to produce a second stellar generation that, today, is generally
73: about as numerous as the first one \citep{dantona-caloi2004, bekki-norris2006,
74: prantzos2006}.
75: The FRMS model is somewhat less problematic concerning the constraints on the IMF,
76: but poses, in any case, severe problems for ``normal'' GCs, that show a unique
77: metallicity for all stars (with the notable exception of \ocen): this model requires
78: that the envelopes of these stars contribute to the second star formation stage,
79: but the supernova ejecta are expelled from the clusters and do not enrich the second
80: generation matter by heavy elements.
81:
82: Both scenarios predict that the
83: stars showing chemical anomalies also must have {\it enhanced helium abundance}.
84: Helium and the hot--CNO products in the FRMS come to the stellar surface by means of the chemical
85: mixing associated with the transport of angular momentum through the stellar radiative
86: layers, during the phase of hydrogen burning.
87: In the case of AGBs, the helium enrichment is mainly due to the
88: second dredge up (2DU) which precedes the thermal pulse phase. Also the third dredge
89: up (3DU) contributes to helium enrichment in the envelopes, but a further observational constraint
90: is that the sum of CNO abundances remains remarkably constant in normal and anomalous
91: stars \citep[e.g.][]{cohenmelendez2005}. Consequently, the masses which
92: can be responsible for the chemical enrichment must be high enough to be subject
93: to a few episodes of the third dredge up, that brings into the envelope the products of
94: helium burning.
95:
96: A variation in helium content is immediately reflected on the
97: morphology of the horizontal branch (HB), which amplifies any evolutionary difference
98: among the cluster stars. Helium enrichment by a small factor (up to Y$\sim 0.28 - 0.30$)
99: allowed in fact an easy interpretation of
100: some puzzles posed by the HB (blue tails, gaps) \citep{dantona2002,dantona-caloi2004}.
101: Helium variations from the MS location are much harder to be detected,
102: but the clustering of $\simeq$20\% of \ocen\ stars into
103: a ``blue'' MS \citep{bedin2004} was soon interpreted
104: as a MS having an abnormally
105: huge helium content (Y$\sim$0.40) \citep{norris2004, piotto2005}.
106: In contrast to \ocen, NGC~2808 does not show a metallicity spread
107: \citep{carretta2006}. Nevertheless, evidence for the presence of a blue MS in
108: this cluster has been found by \cite{dantona2005}, who interpreted
109: it, again, as built up by stars having Y$\sim$0.40, and were able
110: to correlate them with the bluest side of the HB. \cite{piotto2007} showed
111: that the MS of this cluster is actually made up by {\it three} separate MSs, the bluest
112: of which, including 10--15\% of stars, must have a helium content Y$\sim 0.35 - 0.40$.
113: The presence of blue MS has not yet been found in other clusters: observationally
114: it is a very difficult problem, and, in addition, this may be a characteristic
115: of the most massive clusters only.
116:
117: Huge helium overabundances are also needed to explain all the
118: main features of the anomalous HB of the metal rich clusters NGC~6441 and NGC~6388
119: \citep{caloi-dantona2007a} including: 1) the long extension in luminosity of the red clump;
120: 2) the fact that RR Lyrs have a very long average period, which
121: is unusual for a cluster of high metallicity;
122: 3) the extension into the blue of the HB.
123: This analysis also requires that $\sim 15$\% of the HB population has Y$>$0.35.
124:
125: All these observations and their interpretation in terms of helium enrichment must be taken very
126: seriously, but no chemical enrichment mechanism is able to produce the huge
127: amount of helium required for about 15\%--20\% of the stars in these four clusters
128: without dramatically impacting upon the metal
129: abundance \citep{karakas2006,romano2007}.
130: It is clear that the presence of this extreme population
131: requires some very particular dynamical and chemical conditions to be understood.
132: Nevertheless, the first step is to look for progenitors which may at least provide
133: the required high helium abundance in their ejecta.
134:
135: The most massive FRMS may be able to eject huge quantities of helium
136: \citep{decressin2007}.
137: Concerning the AGB stars, \cite{karakas2006} pointed out that Y$\sim$0.40 is not predicted
138: by AGB models, and this could, in the end, rule out AGB stars as progenitors of the
139: second stellar generation. A scarne Y$\sim$0.29 was the maximum abundance computed from AGB
140: evolution in the models by \citet{ventura2002} for 5.5\Msun, while a single value
141: Y=0.375 is quoted by \cite{karakas2006} for a 5\Msun\ model by \cite{campbell2004}.
142: P. Ventura \& F. D'Antona (in preparation) have now completed new computation of massive AGBs,
143: whose results revise upward the previous ones (see later).
144: The maximum AGB mass in these recent computation is 6.3\Msun, and
145: the possible role of super--AGB stars has not yet been considered.
146: Such models are difficult to be computed, as Carbon burning in semi--degeneracy
147: has to be followed, and the uncertainty in the mass loss rate
148: hampers any conclusions on their final evolution, either towards electron--capture
149: supernova (ecSN) or towards O--Ne white dwarfs.
150:
151: In the light of recent super--AGB stars models described in \cite{pumo2006},
152: in this paper we discuss the possible role of these stars for the self--enrichment of GCs.
153: We discuss both the helium abundance and the total CNO abundance versus core mass
154: which can be built up by the most recent AGB and super--AGB models.
155: We find out that the matter lost by the envelopes of super--AGBs may indeed be a
156: good candidate for the high helium population of the four GCs discussed above.
157: However, in the {\it higher mass tail of the stars developing a
158: O--Ne core} the total CNO is increased by a factor $\sim 4$. Observations of the
159: super He--rich stars may be able to check this result.
160:
161: If all the stars in the GCs having a high--He population have standard CNO, as found
162: for all the chemically anomalous stars in many GCs, the most massive
163: super--AGBs must evolve into ecSNe. This conclusion would be
164: of further support to the idea that the
165: presence of large population of neutron stars in GCs implies
166: that they were born with supernova--kicks low enough not to be ejected by the cluster, as
167: expected by the ecSN event \citep[e.g.][]{ivanova2007}.
168:
169:
170: \section{Super-AGB stellar evolution}
171: AGB stars develop a degenerate carbon--oxygen core and mass loss prevents them
172: to reach the mass limit for degenerate explosive carbon ignition. Super--AGBs are defined
173: as stars which ignite carbon in conditions of semi--degeneracy, thus non explosively,
174: but are not able to ignite hydrostatic Neon burning
175: in the resulting O--Ne core. Consequently, degeneracy increases
176: in the core and these stars may
177: undergo thermal pulses \citep[e.g.][]{iben1997,ritossa1999, siess2006} and lose mass as
178: ``normal'' (but quite massive and luminous) AGB stars.
179: Depending on the competition between the
180: mass loss rate and the core growth, they may then evolve into massive O--Ne white
181: dwarfs \citep{nomoto1984} or as ecSN,
182: electrons being captured first by \Mg24\ and \Na24\ then by \Ne20\ and \F20\
183: nuclei when the core mass reaches the Chandrasekhar mass.
184: The 2DU occurs also in super--AGBs and, as in the massive AGBs, it reduces
185: the mass of the H--exhausted core \citep[e.g.][]{pumo-siess2006}, while the helium abundance increases in the external
186: hydrogen envelope \citep[e.g.][]{siess-pumo2006}.
187: If mass loss is strong enough to avoid the super--AGB evolving to ecSN, as soon as
188: super--AGBs evolve in the GCs, the supernova epoch
189: is finished, and we may hypothesize that the second phase of star formation begins
190: from the super--AGB ejecta.
191:
192: \section{Helium and CNO in massive AGBs and super--AGBs}
193: As a function of the Carbon Oxygen core mass \Mc, we report in
194: Figure \ref{f1} the helium content in the AGB ejecta of
195: metallicity Z=$10^{-3}$, for the models from 4 to 6.3\Msun\ by P. Ventura \& F. D'Antona (in preparation)
196: including $\alpha$--elements enhancement in the opacities, and core
197: overshooting. An important difference from \citet{ventura2002} models
198: is the following: in the present models, also overshooting at the
199: bottom of the convective envelope is included, adopting the same parameter which
200: describes core overshooting. This latter is calibrated to account for the
201: width of the MS of intermediate mass stars. The effect of the envelope
202: overshooting is to enhance the extent of the 2DU: fixed the initial mass,
203: the remnant core mass at the
204: beginning of the AGB evolution is then {\it smaller}, and the resulting helium content
205: in the envelope is {\it larger}, as can be seen by comparing the values of Figure
206: \ref{f1} with Table 1 in \citet{ventura2002}.
207:
208: We also plot the helium content at the 2DU for the super--AGB
209: models of metallicity Z=$10^{-3}$ from 7.5\Msun\ to 9.5\Msun\
210: \citep{pumo2006} computed without overshooting.
211: In this case \Mc\ is the C--O mass after the 2DU. \Mc\ is indeed the important
212: physical parameter which determines the final fate of the star.
213: The initial mass difference between the AGB models with overshooting and super--AGB models
214: without overshooting is, for the same core mass, $\sim$1\Msun.
215: For super--AGBs, we do not have the helium mass fraction of the ejecta, but these stars
216: do not go through efficient episodes of 3DU, so the plotted value is a good approximation.
217: As we see, the super--AGB models reach a helium content in the ejecta larger
218: than the standard AGBs, and well approaching the values
219: needed to be consistent with the super--He rich stars in GCs. The new
220: AGB models and the super--AGB models shown here, computed by a different
221: program and input physics \citep{siess2006, siess-pumo2006}
222: are in good agreement with each other, at the same core mass.
223:
224: From Figure \ref{f1} we see that indeed the super--AGBs could be the
225: progenitors of the very high helium population found in the most massive GCs.
226: For a Salpeter's initial mass function, the mass budget in the ejecta from 6.5\Msun
227: (the minimum mass for super--AGB evolution, considering models with overshooting)
228: to 8\Msun (see later) is about 50\% of the mass budget contained
229: in the ejecta of normal AGBs from 5\Msun to 6.5\Msun. Therefore, from the super--AGBs
230: mass budget, a 15\% fraction of very high helium stars can be born, with the same mechanism
231: which can give origin to another $\sim$30\% of moderately helium rich stars, as in the
232: cluster NGC~2808 \citep{dantona2005}.
233: How these stars can form directly from the super--AGB ejecta, so that
234: their helium abundance remains as large
235: as the required Y$\simgt$0.35, is a different problem.
236:
237: Figure \ref{f1} also shows the total CNO enrichment \fcno, the
238: sum of CNO abundances with respect to their initial sum, in the ejecta of AGBs
239: and at the 2DU for the super--AGBs. The AGB enrichment is larger than $\sim$2 for
240: \Mc$\le$0.9\msun, that is for M$\le$5\msun. As we have noticed, the sum of CNO
241: abundances apparently is constant (within a factor 2) in GC stars. On this basis, we
242: should conclude that stars of M$<$5\Msun\ should not contribute to the second stellar
243: generation --unless their ejecta are diluted with pristine matter, so that the constancy
244: of CNO is preserved. For the super--AGBs, we also find a sharp increase of \fcno,
245: reaching a factor 4 for the largest mass in exam. This is due to the occurrence of the
246: so called dredge--out process in this model \citep{iben1997, ritossa1999}.
247: The helium mass fraction and the overall CNO content are the most robust
248: predictions from these theoretical computations, due to the large uncertainties
249: associated to both the extension of the 3DU and the strength of
250: hot bottom burning (HBB) within super--AGB models \citep[e.g.][]{IP06,pumo-siess2006}.
251: We also comment the individual abundances providing \fcno. The CNO abundances given for $M\leq6.3$\msun
252: are the average mass fractions of the ejecta. As HBB is very efficient, the values provide
253: very small carbon ($X_{\C12} \simeq 1.1 \cdot 10^{-4}$ for $4$-$5$\msun models down to
254: $X_{\C12} \simeq 1.6 \cdot 10^{-5}$ at $6.3$\msun), and low oxygen (from $X_{\O16} \simeq 6.3 \cdot 10^{-4}$
255: at $4$\msun to $X_{\O16} \simeq 10^{-4}$ at $6.3$\msun); nitrogen is very high,
256: especially in the $4$\msun, where the effect of the 3DU is more visible ($X_{\N14} \simeq 2.6 \cdot 10^{-3}$).
257: On the contrary, for the super--AGBs, we consider the values at the 2DU. The carbon abundance
258: increases from $X_{\C12} \simeq 8.9 \cdot 10^{-5}$ for the $7.5$\msun model to
259: $X_{\C12} \simeq 8.1 \cdot 10^{-4}$ at $9$\msun. The nitrogen is about constant
260: ($X_{\N14} \simeq 2.4 \cdot 10^{-4}$), whereas
261: the oxygen abundance is constant ($X_{\O16} \simeq 3.8 \cdot 10^{-4}$) up to
262: $8.5$\msun, and increases up to $X_{\O16} \simeq 4.4 \cdot 10^{-4}$ for the
263: $9$\msun model: this is due to the deeper sinking of the 2DU when increasing the mass. In the $9.5$\msun model, the dredge--out process
264: rises $X_{\C12}$ to $\simeq 1.8 \cdot 10^{-3}$ and $X_{\O16}$ to $\simeq 7.7 \cdot 10^{-4}$. The following evolution
265: will reduce oxygen and carbon and increase nitrogen, if HBB is efficient in these stars as it is in the massive AGBs
266: (this depends on the convective model adopted; see \citealt{venturadantona2005a}).
267: As for the 3DU, there are different and
268: incomplete literature results \citep[see][for summary]{IP06}. In any case, it can only act to increase the values of
269: total CNO abundances given in Figure \ref{f1}.
270:
271: How many stars would be affected if all the super--AGBs contribute to the second
272: stellar generation? If all the super--AGBs contribute to the very helium rich
273: population, the fraction of high--CNO stars, assuming a Salpeter's IMF, would
274: be $\simeq$10\%! This is a small fraction of the cluster stars, if we consider
275: that the super--He rich stars are 15--20\% of the total population, but
276: spectroscopic observations of a large sample of stars could falsify this hypothesis.
277:
278: \section{Do the most massive super--AGBs explode?}
279: Should the constancy of CNO be observationally confirmed also for the most helium rich
280: population showing up in the quoted 4 clusters, we will be able to
281: conclude that the most massive super--AGBs did not
282: take part in the process of forming the second stellar generation in GCs.
283: This may mean: 1) that there were reasons, independent from the super--AGB evolution,
284: by which the self--enrichment process was effective either only at earlier ages (due to
285: the envelopes of massive stars) or at a later age (during the normal, massive AGB evolution)
286: 2) or that the self--enrichment was forbidden by the injection in the cluster gas of the
287: energy due to the ecSN explosion of the stars which undergo the dredge out.
288: Although the explosion energy of such event is significantly lower than inferred for
289: core collapse SN \citep{dessart2006}, it is probably more than sufficient to expel the
290: SN ejecta from most clusters.
291: The conclusion then would be that at least a fraction of super--AGBs
292: must evolve into ecSN, reinforcing the idea that ecSN channel for
293: super--AGB stars could occur \citep[see e.g.][]{siess-pumo2006,pumo-siess2006,Poelarends2007}.
294:
295: \section{Neutron stars in Globular Clusters}
296: The final fate as ecSN of ---at least a fraction--- of super--AGBs
297: is also required by the recent suggestion that NS in GCs
298: should be mainly formed by the ecSN channel.
299:
300: The high number of neutron stars (NS) in GCs, whose presence is
301: revealed mainly by the very high
302: number of millisecond pulsars, remains a puzzle. The massive
303: GC 47Tuc was predicted to contain more than 1000 NS \citep[see e.g.][]{pfahl2002}.
304: Now this figure can perhaps be reduced to $\sim$300--600
305: \citep{heinke2005}. The velocity distribution of young pulsars in the Galaxy shows that,
306: at formation, the NS receives a ``natal kick'', most likely due to the asymmetry in the
307: supernova ejecta \cite{fryer2004}. \cite{pfahl2002} have shown that only up to 8\% of NS
308: can be retained in the clusters. The kick velocity distribution which they used \citep{hp1997}
309: has been recently updated by \cite{hobbs2005}, who find a higher mean velocity and velocity dispersion.
310: Using these new data, simulations of the retention factor
311: by \cite{ivanova2007} show that almost no NS can be retained for an escape velocity
312: of 40Km$\cdot$s$^{-1}$. A natural way to solve this problem,
313: is to hypothesize that there is
314: a stellar population which evolves into ecSN, that probably have {\it much smaller} natal
315: kicks \citep{ivanova2007}, possibly proportional to their reduced explosion energy.
316: This is also suggested by the existence of a class of massive
317: X--ray binaries with small eccentricities.
318: \cite{vdh2007} also supports the evidence of two channels for NS formation ---with
319: either small or large natal kicks--- from an exam of the double neutron star binaries.
320:
321: \acknowledgments
322:
323: We are grateful to R. G. Izzard for his helpful discussions.
324:
325:
326:
327: \begin{thebibliography}{}
328:
329: \bibitem[Bedin et al.(2004)]{bedin2004}
330: Bedin, L.~R., Piotto, G., Anderson, J., Cassisi, S., King, I.~R., Momany, Y., Carraro, G. 2004,
331: \apj, 605, L125
332:
333: \bibitem[Bekki \& Norris(2006)]{bekki-norris2006} Bekki, K., \& Norris,
334: J. E. 2006, \apjl, 637, L109
335:
336: \bibitem[Caloi \& D'Antona(2007)]{caloi-dantona2007a} Caloi, V. \& D'Antona, F. 2007,
337: A\&A, 463, 949
338:
339: \bibitem[Campbell et al.(2004)]{campbell2004} Campbell, S. W.,
340: Fenner, Y., Karakas, A.~I., Lattanzio, J.~C., \& Gibson, B.~K. 2004,
341: Memorie della Societa Astronomica Italiana, 75, 735
342:
343:
344: \bibitem[Carretta et al.(2006)]{carretta2006} Carretta, E.,
345: Bragaglia, A., Gratton, R.~G., Leone, F., Recio-Blanco, A., \& Lucatello,
346: S. 2006, A\&A, 450, 523
347:
348: \bibitem[Cohen \& Mel{\'e}ndez(2005)]{cohenmelendez2005} Cohen, J.~G., \&
349: Mel{\'e}ndez, J. 2005, AJ, 129, 303
350:
351: \bibitem[D'Antona et al.(2002)]{dantona2002} D'Antona,
352: F., Caloi, V., Montalb{\' a}n, J., Ventura, P., \& Gratton, R. 2002, \aap,
353: 395, 69
354:
355: \bibitem[D'Antona \& Caloi(2004)]{dantona-caloi2004} D'Antona, F., \&
356: Caloi, V. 2004, \apj, 611, 871
357:
358: \bibitem[D'Antona et al.(2005)]{dantona2005}
359: D'Antona, F., Bellazzini, M., Caloi, V.,
360: Fusi Pecci, F., Galleti, S., \& Rood, R.~T. 2005,
361: ApJ, 631, 868
362:
363: \bibitem[Decressin et al.(2007)]{decressin2007} Decressin, T.,
364: Meynet, G., Charbonnel, C., Prantzos, N., \& Ekstr{\"o}m, S. 2007, A\&A,
365: 464, 1029
366:
367: \bibitem[Denissenkov \& Herwig(2003)]{denis2003}
368: Denissenkov, P.~A., \& Herwig, F. 2003, \apjl, 590, L99
369:
370: \bibitem[Dessart et al.(2006)]{dessart2006} Dessart, L., Burrows,
371: A., Ott, C.~D., Livne, E., Yoon, S.-C., \& Langer, N. 2006, \apj, 644,
372: 1063
373:
374: \bibitem[Fenner et al.(2004)]{fenner2004}Fenner,Y., Campbell, S., Karakas,
375: A.~I., Lattanzio, J.~C., \& Gibson, B.~K. 2004, \mnras, 353, 789
376:
377: \bibitem[Fryer(2004)]{fryer2004} Fryer, C.~L. 2004, \apjl, 601,
378: L175
379:
380: \bibitem[Gratton et al.(2004)]{gratton-araa2004} Gratton, R., Sneden,
381: C., \& Carretta, E. 2004, \araa, 42, 385
382:
383: \bibitem[Hansen \& Phinney(1997)]{hp1997} Hansen, B.~M.~S., \&
384: Phinney, E.~S. 1997, \mnras, 291, 569
385:
386: \bibitem[Heinke et al.(2005)]{heinke2005} Heinke, C.~O., Grindlay,
387: J.~E., Edmonds, P.~D., Cohn, H.~N., Lugger, P.~M., Camilo, F., Bogdanov,
388: S., \& Freire, P.~C. 2005, in AIP Conf. Proc., Interacting Binaries:
389: Accretion, Evolution, and Outcomes, 797, 40
390:
391: \bibitem[Hobbs et al.(2005)]{hobbs2005} Hobbs, G., Lorimer,
392: D.~R., Lyne, A.~G., \& Kramer, M. 2005, \mnras, 360, 974
393:
394: \bibitem[Iben et al.(1997)]{iben1997} Iben, I.~J., Ritossa, C.,
395: \& Garcia-Berro, E. 1997, \apj, 489, 772
396:
397: \bibitem[Ivanova et al.(2007)]{ivanova2007} Ivanova, N., Heinke,
398: C., Rasio, F.~A., Belczynski, K., \& Fregeau, J. 2007, preprint (arXiv:0706.4096v1)
399:
400: \bibitem[Izzard \& Poelarends(2006)]{IP06} Izzard, R. G., \& Poelarends, A.~J.~T. 2006,
401: Memorie della Societa Astronomica Italiana, 77, 840
402:
403: \bibitem[Karakas et al.(2006)]{karakas2006} Karakas, A.~I., Fenner,
404: Y., Sills, A., Campbell, S.~W., \& Lattanzio, J.~C. 2006, \apj, 652, 1240
405:
406: \bibitem[Lattanzio et al.(2004)]{lattanzio2004} Lattanzio, J.,
407: Karakas, A., Campbell, S., Elliott, L., \& Chieffi, A. 2004, Memorie della
408: Societa Astronomica Italiana, 75, 322
409:
410: \bibitem[Nomoto(1984)]{nomoto1984} Nomoto, K. 1984, \apj, 277, 791
411:
412: \bibitem[Norris(2004)]{norris2004} Norris, J.~E. 2004, \apjl,
413: 612, L25
414:
415: \bibitem[Pfahl et al.(2002)]{pfahl2002} Pfahl, E., Rappaport, S.,
416: \& Podsiadlowski, P. 2002, \apj, 573, 283
417:
418: \bibitem[Piotto et al.(2005)]{piotto2005} Piotto, G., et al.
419: 2005, ApJ, 621, 777
420:
421: \bibitem[Piotto et al.(2007)]{piotto2007} Piotto, G., et al.
422: 2007, \apjl, 661, L53
423:
424: \bibitem[Poelarends et al.(2007)]{Poelarends2007} Poelarends, A.~J.~T., Herwig, F., Langer, N., Heger, A.
425: 2007, preprint (arXiv:0705.4643v1)
426:
427: \bibitem[Prantzos \& Charbonnel(2006)]{prantzos2006} Prantzos, N.,
428: \& Charbonnel, C.\ 2006, A\&A, 458, 135
429:
430: \bibitem[Pumo(2006)]{pumo2006} Pumo, M.L.\ 2006, PhD thesis, University of Catania (Italy)
431:
432: \bibitem[Pumo \& Siess(2006)]{pumo-siess2006} Pumo, M.~L., \& Siess, L. 2006, in ASP Conf. Ser.,
433: Why galaxies care about AGB stars, ed. F. Kerschbaum, C. Charbonnel, B. Wing, in press
434:
435: \bibitem[Ritossa et al.(1999)]{ritossa1999} Ritossa, C.,
436: Garc{\'{\i}}a-Berro, E., \& Iben, I.~J. 1999, \apj, 515, 381
437:
438: \bibitem[Romano et al.(2007)]{romano2007} Romano, D., Matteucci,
439: F., Tosi, M., Pancino, E., Bellazzini, M., Ferraro, F.~R., Limongi, M., \&
440: Sollima, A. 2007, \mnras, 376, 405
441:
442: \bibitem[Siess(2006)]{siess2006} Siess, L.\ 2006, \aap, 448, 717
443:
444: \bibitem[Siess \& Pumo(2006)]{siess-pumo2006} Siess, L., \& Pumo,
445: M.~L. 2006, Memorie della Societa Astronomica Italiana, 77, 822
446:
447: \bibitem[Sneden (1999)]{sne99} Sneden C. 1999, Ap\&SS, 265, 145
448:
449: \bibitem[van den Heuvel(2007)]{vdh2007} van den Heuvel,
450: E.~P.~J.\ 2007, American Institute of Physics Conference Series, 924, 598
451:
452: \bibitem[Ventura et al.(2001)]{ventura2001} Ventura,
453: P., D'Antona, F., Mazzitelli, I., \& Gratton, R.\ 2001, \apjl, 550, L65
454:
455: \bibitem[Ventura et al.(2002)Ventura, D'Antona, \& Mazzitelli]
456: {ventura2002} Ventura, P., D'Antona, F., \& Mazzitelli, I. 2002, \aap, 393,
457: 215
458:
459: \bibitem[Ventura \& D'Antona(2005)]{venturadantona2005a}
460: Ventura, P., \& D'Antona, F. 2005, A\&A, 431, 279
461:
462: %\bibitem[Ventura \& D'Antona(2007)]{venturadantona2007}
463: %Ventura, P., \& D'Antona, F. 2007, in preparation
464:
465: \bibitem[Ventura et al.(2004)]{ventura2004} Ventura, P., D'Antona,
466: F., \& Mazzitelli, I. 2004, Memorie della Societa Astronomica Italiana,
467: 75, 335
468:
469: \end{thebibliography}
470:
471: \clearpage
472:
473: \begin{figure}
474: \epsscale{.95}
475: \plotone{f1_color.eps}
476: \caption{The triangles plus dashed line show the helium content in the ejecta
477: of AGB stars as function
478: of the C--O core mass, in the computations by P. Ventura \& F. D'Antona (in preparation).
479: The initial masses are, from left to right, 4, 4.5, 5, 5.5, 6, 6.3\Msun. The triangles
480: plus continuous line show the helium abundance in the envelope after the 2DU in the
481: super--AGBs by \cite{pumo2006}. Masses from left to right are 7.5, 8, 8.5, 9, 9.5\Msun.
482: The circles show the ratio of total CNO abundance (\fcno) with respect to the initial value
483: for the same models.\label{f1}}
484: \end{figure}
485:
486:
487: \end{document}
488: