1: \documentclass[apj]{emulateapj}
2: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
3: %\usepackage{emulateapj}
4: \usepackage{apjfonts}
5: %\usepackage{amssymb}
6: %\usepackage{psfig}
7: %\journalid{}{}
8: %\articleid{}{}
9: \usepackage{lscape}
10: \bibliographystyle{apj}
11: \def\gf{$gf$}
12: \def\teff{T$_{\rm eff}$}
13: \def\logg{log $g$}
14:
15: \begin{document}
16:
17: \title{Detailed Abundances for 28 Metal-poor Stars: Stellar Relics
18: in the Milky Way\altaffilmark{1,2}}
19:
20: \author{David K. Lai{\altaffilmark{3}}, Michael Bolte{\altaffilmark{3}}, Jennifer
21: A. Johnson{\altaffilmark{4}}, Sara Lucatello{\altaffilmark{5,6}}, Alexander
22: Heger{\altaffilmark{3,7}}, and S. E. Woosley{\altaffilmark{3}}}
23: \altaffiltext{1}{The data presented herein were obtained at the W.M. Keck Observatory, which is operated as a scientific partnership among the California Institute of Technology, the University of California and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The Observatory was made possible by the generous financial support of the W.M. Keck Foundation.}
24: \altaffiltext{2}{This publication makes use of data products from the Two Micron All Sky Survey, which is a joint project of the University of Massachusetts and the Infrared Processing and Analysis Center/California Institute of Technology, funded by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the National Science Foundation.}
25: \altaffiltext{3}{Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, University
26: of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95064; david@ucolick.org,
27: bolte@ucolick.org, alex@ucolick.org, woosley@ucolick.org.}
28: \altaffiltext{4}{Department of Astronomy, Ohio State University, 140
29: W. 18th Ave., Columbus, OH 43210; jaj@astronomy.ohio-state.edu.}
30: \altaffiltext{5}{Osservatorio Astronomico di Padova, Vicolo dell'Osservatorio 5, 35122 Padua, Italy; sara.lucatello@oapd.inaf.it.}
31: \altaffiltext{6}{Excellence Cluster Universe, Technische Universit\"{a}t
32: M\"{u}nchen, D-85748 Garching, Germany.}
33: \altaffiltext{7}{Theoretical Astrophysics Group, T-6, MS B227, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM 87545.}
34:
35: \begin{abstract}
36: We present the results of an abundance analysis for a sample of stars
37: with $-4<$[Fe/H]$<-2$. The data were obtained with the HIRES
38: spectrograph at Keck Observatory. The set includes 28 stars, with
39: effective temperature ranging from 4800 to 6600 K. For 13 stars with
40: [Fe/H]$<-2.6$, including nine with [Fe/H]$<-3.0$, and one with
41: [Fe/H]$=-4.0$, these are the first reported detailed abundances. For
42: the most metal-poor star in our sample, CS 30336-049, we measure an
43: abundance pattern that is very similar to stars in the
44: range [Fe/H]$\sim-3.5$, including a normal C+N abundance. We also find
45: that it has very low but measurable Sr and Ba, indicating some
46: neutron-capture activity even at this low of a metallicity. We explore
47: this issue further by examining other very neutron-capture-deficient
48: stars, and find that at the lowest levels, [Ba/Sr] exhibits the ratio
49: of the main $r$-process. We also report on a new $r$-process-enhanced
50: star, CS 31078-018. This star has [Fe/H]$=-2.85$, [Eu/Fe]$=1.23$,
51: and [Ba/Eu]$=-0.51$. CS 31078-018 exhibits an ``actinide boost'',
52: i.e. much higher [Th/Eu] than expected and at a similar level to
53: CS 31082-001. Our spectra allow us to further constrain the abundance
54: scatter at low metallicities, which we then use to fit to the zero-metallicity
55: Type II supernova yields of \citet{heger08}. We find that supernovae with progenitor masses between 10
56: and 20 M$_{\odot}$ provide the best matches to our abundances.
57:
58: \end{abstract}
59:
60: \keywords{stars: abundances --- stars: Population II --- supernovae:
61: general --- nuclear reactions, nucleosynthesis, abundances }
62:
63: \section{Introduction}
64: In recent years the number of discovered extremely metal-poor (EMP,
65: [Fe/H]$\leq-3.0$) star candidates has grown substantially, thanks in
66: large part to the survey of \citet{bps}, and the more recent
67: Hamburg/ESO (HES) survey \citep{christlieb00}. The high-resolution
68: follow-ups to these surveys (e.g. \citealt{mcwilliam95};
69: \citealt{cohen04,cohen07-2}; \citealt{cayrel04}; \citealt{aoki05}; \citealt{heres2}) have verified about 100 stars with [Fe/H]$<-3.0$.
70:
71: These EMP stars play an important role in understanding the very first
72: generation of stars (\citealt{beers05} and references and discussion
73: therein). The lower the metal content of a star, the fewer instances
74: of nucleosynthesis and recycling that preceded its formation. For the
75: most metal-poor stars we may have the opportunity to measure the
76: undiluted imprint of Population III nucleosynthesis. The best examples
77: of this possibility are the two most metal-poor stars known, HE
78: 1327-2326 \citep{frebel05} and HE 0107-5240 \citep{christlieb02}. Both
79: stars have [Fe/H]$\sim-5.3$, and their abundance ratios can be fitted by
80: zero-metallicity supernovae (SNe) with a tuned mixing parameter in the
81: pre-ejecta material \citep{iwamoto}. An alternative scenario to
82: explain the HE 0107-5240 abundance ratios is proposed by
83: \citet{suda04}, in which it is a Population III star that has accreted
84: its heavy elements through binary and interstellar medium (ISM) accretion. In either case we
85: are most likely seeing the imprint of the first stars, whether it is
86: in SN ejecta or asymptotic giant branch (AGB) evolved material. However, there is a third
87: possibility put forth by \citet{venn08}, that these stars are of a
88: class of chemically peculiar stars that have true [Fe/H] values
89: greater than $-4.0$.
90:
91: As the sample of EMP stars has grown, a curious feature of the
92: metal-poor end of the metallicity distribution function (MDF) of stars
93: in the Galaxy has become apparent. Recently, \citet{norris07} discovered a
94: star with [Fe/H]$=-4.8$, HE 0557-4840, making a total of only three
95: stars with [Fe/H]$<-4.1$. However, when including these stars in
96: the MDF, as \citet{norris07} point out, the number of stars
97: discovered with metallicities $-5.3<$[Fe/H]$<-4.1$ still falls 3-4
98: times short of what is expected from the mixing and fallback models of
99: chemical enrichment (e.g., \citealt{salvadori}). Instead, a two-component
100: model, as described by \citet{karlsson}, where feedback
101: effects from the first massive stars inhibit more star formation, may
102: better fit the statistics of the observed halo MDF.
103:
104: One key to understanding these issues is to increase the sample of
105: well-studied EMP stars to the point where the different classes of
106: abundance patterns can be identified and therefore explore the nature
107: of their progenitors. While most EMP stars with [Fe/H]$>-3.5$ have relatively small dispersions for elements at or below the iron-peak
108: (e.g. \citealt{carretta02} and \citealt{cayrel04}), recent observations have
109: shown that there are some objects that are either strongly enhanced or
110: deficient in certain $\alpha$-elements (\citealt{aoki07b} and
111: references therein). At the more metal-poor end, \citet{cohen07}
112: report a star with [Fe/H]$\sim-4.0$ and a highly unusual
113: abundance pattern, HE 1424-0241. It has very low [Ca/Fe] and [Si/Fe],
114: $-$0.58 and $-$1.01, respectively, but has a [Mg/Fe] of 0.44,
115: which is typical of EMP stars. \citet{cohen07} find that there are
116: no core-collapse SN models that can fit this abundance pattern. These
117: important results re-emphasize the need to find more stars in this
118: metallicity regime. Only then can we begin to find out what, if
119: anything, is typical, and it is clear with HE 1424-0241 that we must be
120: very careful extending trends from [Fe/H]$>-3.5$ to lower
121: metallicities.
122:
123: EMP stars also exhibit a wide dispersion in the ratio of the
124: neutron-capture elements to iron
125: (e.g. \citealt{mcwilliam98,honda04,francois}). By examining both
126: the most neutron-capture rich and neutron capture-poor EMP stars we
127: can shed light on the different processes that give rise to this
128: dispersion. Beginning with the discovery of CS 22892-052
129: \citep{sneden96,sneden03}, the imprint of a universal $r$-process
130: pattern has been found to stretch from EMP stars up to the Sun. As
131: more $r$-process stars are discovered, this result has been even more
132: strongly confirmed (at least for elements with Z$\geq56$). For the
133: $s$-process we are also beginning to see a convergence between
134: observational abundance ratios of the neutron-capture elements in
135: these stars and models of EMP AGB stars
136: (e.g. \citealt{jbcs22183,jbcs31062, masseron06}). Even though some
137: tuning of the $^{13}$C pocket formation in the AGB star is needed, the
138: match between observed abundances and models is encouraging. These
139: agreements, however, for both the $r$-process and $s$-process, do not explain the
140: origin of some of the lighter neutron-capture elements (Z$<56$). To
141: investigate this, the measurement of the light neutron-capture element
142: strontium may prove an ideal probe, as its resonance lines are still
143: detectable in EMP stars. Part of the answer to this puzzle may come
144: from looking at the most neutron-capture poor stars, to isolate the
145: other process(es) that contribute to these elements.
146:
147: In this study we present abundance ratios from [C/Fe] to [Eu/Fe] for
148: stars in various evolutionary states in the metallicity range
149: $-4<$[Fe/H]$<-2$. In addition to the various nucleosynthesis events
150: described above, mixing that occurs as a star evolves from the main
151: sequence and up the giant branch can also affect the light element
152: abundances up to N \citep{gratton00,spite05,spite07}. Our data
153: allows us to both see these evolutionary effects and provide a
154: picture of the early Galaxy through its nucleosynthetic footprint. They
155: also reveal unexpected correlations of \teff{} with \ion{Si}{1},
156: \ion{Ti}{1} and \ion{Ti}{2}, and \ion{Cr}{1}.
157:
158: In $\S$ 2 and $\S$ 3 we present the details of the observations and
159: analysis. In $\S$ 4 we present the abundance results of our study and
160: compare them to previous samples of metal-poor stars. In $\S$ 5 we
161: discuss interesting individual stars, as well as properties of the
162: sample as a whole, including the curious behavior of \ion{Si}{1},
163: \ion{Ti}{1}, \ion{Ti}{2}, and \ion{Cr}{1}. Also in this section we
164: present fits to the zero-metallicity Type II SNe (Sne II)
165: from \citet{heger08}.
166:
167: \section{Observations and Reductions}
168: We chose our sample from \citet{lai04} and
169: metal-poor candidates identified in the photometric sample of \citet{schuster04}.
170: The data were obtained from multiple runs at the HIRES spectrograph
171: \citep{vogt94} at Keck Observatory between 2001 and 2006. A detector
172: upgrade in mid-2004 allowed us to obtain higher quality spectra in the
173: blue region. Before the upgrade we typically observed using a blue
174: and red configuration for HIRES, and after the upgrade we observed with
175: a single setup. The details of the observations, including wavelength
176: coverage, signal-to-noise ratio (S/N), and $V$ magnitude, are given in Table \ref{odetails}.
177:
178: The reductions were done differently for the data before and after the
179: detector upgrade. The pre-upgrade spectra were reduced with the MAKEE (Mauna
180: Kea Echelle Extraction) reduction package. The post-upgrade data were
181: reduced with the HIRES data reduction package written by
182: J. X. Prochaska.
183:
184: \subsection{Equivalent Widths \label{ewsection}}
185:
186: We used the spectrum analysis code SPECTRE \citep{spectre} to measure
187: individual equivalent widths (EWs) of isolated lines. The bulk of
188: lines were measured by Gaussian fitting, but for some of the stronger
189: lines we used a Voigt profile to better fit the line wings.
190:
191: As a check of our accuracy and data quality, we compare our EW
192: measurements with previous high-resolution studies done of common
193: objects. Figure \ref{ewcomp} compares the EWs from the studies of
194: \citet{cayrel04}, \citet{aoki05}, and \citet{ivans03} to our
195: measurements. We share 63 common lines with the Cayrel study for the
196: star BS 16467-062, 438 common lines with the Aoki study from
197: the four stars BS 16080-054, BS 16084-160, CS 30312-059, and CS 30325-028,
198: and 112 common lines with the Ivans study for the stars BD+03 740
199: and BD+24 1676. As can be seen from the figure, our values are in very
200: good agreement with the three studies. On average we are finding
201: slightly lower EWs than these previous studies of 1.09,
202: 2.41, and 2.24 m\AA{}, as compared to \citet{cayrel04}, \citet{aoki05},
203: and \citet{ivans03}, respectively.
204:
205: \section{Stellar Parameters and Analysis}
206:
207: We used a current version of Turbospectrum \citep{turbo}, which
208: properly accounts for continuum scattering (see \citealt{cayrel04}), in
209: combination with the stellar atmospheres from \citet{castelli03} to perform LTE line analysis and spectral synthesis. Our atomic
210: line data along with measured EWs are given in Tables
211: \ref{ew1} through \ref{ew3}. We began with the line lists from
212: \citet{ivans06} and \citet{sneden03}, and added additional lines found
213: using the NIST atomic line database. Specifically we updated/added the
214: following $gf$-values: \ion{Fe}{1} and \ion{Fe}{2} lines with those of \citet{felines}, the Mg
215: lines at 5172.7 and 5183.6 \AA{} with the values from
216: \citet{mgtriplet}, \ion{Cr}{1} lines with values from \citet{sobeck07}, \ion{Cr}{2}
217: lines with values from \citet{crIIlines}, the
218: \ion{Mn}{1} lines at 3577.9 and 4055.6 \AA{} with values from
219: \citet{mnIupdate}, and \ion{Zr}{2} lines with values from \citet{ljung},
220: when available, or otherwise from \citet{malcheva}, when available.
221:
222: To measure oxygen, we adopted the linelist from Kurucz\footnote{http://kurucz.harvard.edu} for the OH
223: region at 3185 \AA{} with a dissociation potential of 4.40
224: eV. We measured nitrogen from the NH feature at 3360 \AA{}. Following
225: the prescription from \citet{johnson07} for this list, we used the
226: Kurucz $gf$-values divided by 2 with a dissociation potential of 3.45
227: eV. The CH linelist at 4300 \AA{} was derived from the LIFBASE
228: database (courtesy of B. Plez).
229:
230: \subsection{Hyperfine splitting}
231:
232: The effects of hyperfine splitting (hfs) can greatly
233: affect the derived abundance from strong lines of certain
234: elements. The effect is a desaturation of strong lines, and therefore
235: a larger equivalent width than would be found given the absence of the
236: splitting. \citet{prochaska00} noted the effects of hfs for Sc and Mn.
237: We have taken the hfs parameters from Kurucz to account for these two
238: elements. Vanadium and cobalt are also known to be affected by hfs;
239: however, all of our lines are below 20 m{\AA}, too weak for it to
240: change their derived abundances. We have adopted the hfs parameters
241: and isotope ratios of Ba from \citet{mcwilliam98} along with updated $gf$-values used by
242: \citet{ivans06}. The hfs parameters for Eu are taken from
243: \citet{sneden03}. The near UV-lines that we use to measure Cu are also known to be
244: greatly affected by hfs \citep{bihain}. We account for this by using the hfs
245: parameters from Kurucz and assuming the solar isotope ratio of $^{63}$Cu
246: to $^{65}$Cu from \citet{anders89}.
247:
248: \subsection{Radial Velocities}
249:
250: Radial velocities were determined by cross-correlating our program
251: star spectra with high-S/N template stars using FXCOR.\footnote{IRAF
252: is distributed by the National Optical Astronomy Observatories, which
253: are operated by the Association of Universities for Research in
254: Astronomy, Inc., under cooperative agreement with the National Science
255: Foundation.} These template star spectra were taken during the same
256: observing run as the respective program stars, and their radial
257: velocities were measured with individual strong absorption lines
258: (typically 50 lines). These results are given in Table
259: \ref{odetails}. The typical internal error from this procedure is only
260: $\sim$0.2 km s$^{-1}$. However this does not take into account the
261: overall zero-point error, particularly given the diversity of our
262: instrument setups. A more realistic estimate to the error in absolute
263: radial velocity can be had by looking at velocities derived for the
264: same object observed during different nights with different instrument
265: setups, but on the same run (i.e. 2004 April 7$-$9). We find that there
266: is an rms of $\sim$1.0 km s$^{-1}$ in these measurements. In our sample
267: BS 16084-160 is clearly identified as a radial velocity variable. Also
268: BS 16550-087 is a likely radial velocity variable.
269:
270: \subsection{Model Atmosphere Parameters}
271:
272: \subsubsection{\teff{}}
273: We obtained our effective temperatures using the $V-K$ color of each
274: star. The $K$ magnitudes were taken from the Two Micron All Sky
275: Survey. We then transformed the color using the updated \citet{alonso96,alonso99} color-\teff{} calibration given by
276: \citet{ramirez05}. The reddenings were taken from the \citet{schlegel} dust maps, except for values of E(B-V) greater than 0.10.
277: The Schlegel map may overestimate reddening for higher values \citep{arce99};
278: we adopted Equation 1 from \citet{bonifacio00} to account for
279: this.
280:
281: We find a trend in \ion{Fe}{1} lines with excitation potential
282: ($\chi$) in many of our stars. This trend is usually accounted for by
283: adjusting the \teff{}. In Table \ref{atm} we give the value for the
284: slope of the trends, the corresponding correlation coefficient ($r$),
285: and the number of \ion{Fe}{1} lines used, for different cuts on the minimum
286: $\chi$ considered. Almost all of our stars have a negative slope when considering
287: all \ion{Fe}{1} lines, which implies that our \teff{} is too high. Unlike
288: \citet{cohen07-2}, we find that using the 0.2 eV cut still leaves a
289: statistically significant correlation between individual \ion{Fe}{1} lines
290: and their corresponding $\chi$-values. \citet{cayrel04} found that a cut at
291: 1.2 eV seemed to eliminate the trends they found, and it does seem to
292: markedly reduce the trends and their statistical significance in this study. However,
293: unlike in \citet{cayrel04}, small but marginally significant trends
294: still exist. In Figure \ref{eptrend} we show this effect for the above
295: cuts on $\chi$.
296:
297: To test the accuracy of our \teff{} determinations, we also fit
298: the Balmer lines of two of our stars, CS 22880-086 and CS
299: 30336-049. CS 22880-086 in particular shows very little reduction in
300: the trends with the $\chi$ cuts, and CS 30336-049 has the largest trend
301: with $\chi$ when considering all \ion{Fe}{1} lines. In neither star do we
302: observe H$\alpha$, and the H$\beta$ lines are positioned on the edges
303: of the echelle orders. We therefore fit H$\gamma$ and H$\delta$. For
304: both stars these two Balmer lines are fitted quite well with the $V-K$-derived \teff{}. Part of the answer to this discrepancy between
305: spectroscopic temperature with color and Balmer line temperatures may come from
306: the three-dimensional (3D) hydrodynamical effects in these
307: stars. \citet{collet} recently examined the potential impact of this
308: in red giant stars. For metal-poor stars they find a strong effect
309: that would explain the direction of our trend but overestimates the
310: magnitude. For this study we have chosen to stay with the $V-K$-derived
311: temperatures and note that the effects of inaccurate \teff{} are
312: minimized by looking at abundance ratios versus absolute abundances.
313:
314: \subsubsection{Surface gravity and Microturbulent velocity}
315:
316: The \teff{} was then used to determine the surface gravity. We used
317: the Y$^2$ isochrones from \citet{kim2002}, with $\alpha$-enhancement set
318: to 0.3 and age to 12 Gyr. We chose not to adjust the \logg{}
319: spectroscopically to get the abundance of iron from \ion{Fe}{2} and
320: \ion{Fe}{1} to match. This way we avoid the potential non-LTE (NLTE) effects on
321: the \ion{Fe}{1} abundance giving us an erroneous \logg{}. Even without
322: adjustment our \ion{Fe}{1} abundances are in generally very good
323: agreement with the \ion{Fe}{2} abundances.
324:
325: The final microturbulent velocity was determined spectroscopically by
326: eliminating any trend with EW versus abundance for the
327: \ion{Fe}{1} lines. Because the \teff{}-color calibration is dependent on
328: metallicity, and therefore the \logg{} as well, we iterated the above
329: method until we settled on a metallicity within 0.10 dex of our \ion{Fe}{1}
330: abundance. The final atmospheric parameters are listed in Table \ref{atm}.
331: Figure \ref{tvslogg} shows the span of evolutionary states of our sample.
332:
333:
334: \subsection{Error Analysis}
335:
336: Excluding systematic NLTE and 1D versus 3D atmosphere effects, the
337: uncertainties in our measurements come from three sources. The first
338: comes from the error in the EW measurement (or in the case of
339: synthesis, the error in the fit). The second comes from errors in the
340: atomic parameters. In most cases we have multiple lines measured for
341: the same element in any given star and the scatter in those lines can
342: give an estimate for the first two error sources. When four or fewer
343: lines of an element in a star are measured, we calculate the average
344: dispersion for the sample in that element, and use this to set a
345: minimum value. We then adopted the larger of the two values, the
346: actual dispersion or this minimum value, to estimate this error
347: component. If there is only a single line measured for a given
348: element, then we assume an error of 0.15 in its abundance. In the
349: case of the synthesis, we estimate this component of the error by how
350: well fitted we can match the synthesis to the actual spectrum (this is
351: typically 0.1).
352:
353: The third source of error comes from the uncertainty in the model
354: atmosphere parameters. We adopt the errors of 100K and 0.2 dex for
355: \teff{} and \logg{}, respectively. The error estimate for \teff{} from
356: using broadband colors has been estimated by multiple authors before
357: (e.g. \citealt{cohen02}), and 100K is a conservative value. The
358: \logg{} error is more difficult to estimate. Although we do not use
359: ionization balance to determine surface gravity, as mentioned above we
360: still find that \ion{Fe}{1} and \ion{Fe}{2} agree very well in
361: our stars. Changes to \logg{} of 0.2 dex generally generate a
362: noticeable difference between \ion{Fe}{1} and \ion{Fe}{2}, and we
363: use this as an error estimate of the isochrones themselves. We estimate the error
364: for microturbulence velocity to be 0.2 km s$^{-1}$, as at differences greater
365: than this pronounced trends of equivalent width versus \ion{Fe}{1}
366: line abundances appeared.
367:
368: We have adopted the error analysis technique described by
369: \citet{mcwilliam95} and \citet{johnson2002}. In particular, we use
370: equations 3, 5, and 6 from \citet{johnson2002}, including the
371: covariance terms to take into account the dependent nature of our \teff{},
372: \logg{}, and microturbulence values. Because our sample spans a
373: wide range of evolutionary states, we use three different stars to
374: estimate the atmospheric effects, BD+03 740, CS 31078-018, and CS
375: 29502-092, to cover the main-sequence/turnoff, sub- lower giant
376: branch, and the upper giant branch, respectively. In Tables
377: \ref{erBD+03}, \ref{erCS31078}, and \ref{erCS29502} we summarize the
378: results for these three situations. Using equation 5 and 6 from
379: \citet{johnson2002}, these values can then be used to estimate both the
380: final absolute and relative errors.
381:
382:
383: \subsection{Comparison to Previous studies}
384:
385: As a final check of our method and analysis we compare our atmosphere
386: and abundance results to those stars from the studies listed in $\S$
387: \ref{ewsection}. For BS 16467-062, we also consider additional
388: abundances from \citet{bonifacio07} and the abundance analysis
389: by \citet{cohen07-2}.
390:
391: In Table \ref{atmcomp} we summarize the atmospheric parameters. In
392: general we are in very good agreement with these previous studies. The
393: agreement with \citet{cohen07-2} is not surprising given that we derive
394: our parameters in a very similar way. All of the other studies, however,
395: use ionization balance to estimate surface gravities. That we agree
396: with these \logg{} values adds confidence to the
397: isochrone method that we use to derive surface gravity. One exception to this good agreement is
398: for BD+03 740. \citet{ivans03}, propose two atmospheres for this
399: star. We have chosen to list in Table \ref{atmcomp} the atmosphere
400: that most closely resembles ours. \citet{ivans03} go into detail
401: about various other atmosphere and abundance determinations for this
402: object.
403:
404: We show the abundance comparisons with these studies in Figure
405: \ref{compabund}. In most cases we have good agreement, although there
406: are a few exceptions. We find the largest discrepancy in [Al/Fe]
407: compared to \citet{aoki05}. The atomic parameters and atmospheres
408: agree quite well between this study and those from \citet{aoki05}, so those are not the reason for the discrepancy. We believe
409: the disagreement may arise from a CH absorption feature that is blended with
410: the Al $\lambda$3944 line.
411:
412: Another highly discrepant ratio, this time between our study and
413: that of \citet{ivans03}, is [Mn/Fe]. This difference comes from
414: measured EWs. \citet{ivans03} measure only a single \ion{Mn}{1} line at
415: 4823.52 \AA{} to have EWs of 14.5 and 7.3m\AA{} for BD+24 1676 and
416: BD+03 740, respectively. For the same line we measure EWs of 3.0 and
417: 1.2 m\AA{}. We have both higher S/N and higher resolution spectra than
418: the \citet{ivans03} study, and for such low EW lines it is conceivable
419: that their measurements for these two lines were overestimated because
420: of noise. This may also be the cause for the discrepancy we find in
421: [Ni/Fe]. For both objects the common lines are very weak, and we find
422: much lower EWs than \citet{ivans03}.
423:
424:
425: \section{Results}
426:
427: In the following section we discuss our abundance results along with those
428: from various other high-resolution studies. These results are reported
429: in Tables \ref{abund1} through \ref{abund6}, assuming the solar
430: abundances from \citet{gs98}. We comment on the specific
431: elements below, but note that in general the abundances from all of
432: these studies, including our own, agree remarkably well both in
433: trends and in scatter.
434:
435: \subsection{The light elements: C,N,O, and Li \label{light}}
436:
437: Figure \ref{cno} shows our values of log$\epsilon(\mbox{Li})$, [C/Fe],
438: [N/Fe], and [O/Fe] versus [Fe/H]. Overplotted on each are the values
439: from \citet{spite05}. For all three elements we find a significant
440: scatter through the whole range of [Fe/H]. In our most metal-poor
441: star, CS 30336-049, we find sub-solar [C/Fe].
442:
443: Although we do find similar values of [O/Fe] as \citet{spite05}, there
444: should be a word of caution in the manner in which we measure
445: [O/Fe]. \citet{spite05} use the forbidden \ion{O}{1} line at 6300 \AA{},
446: while we use the UV OH region at 3185 \AA{}. According to \citet{asplund01}, taking into account 3D effects may reduce oxygen
447: abundances derived from the OH lines by as much as 0.6 dex. However,
448: these models seem to over-predict the solar oxygen abundance derived
449: from helioseismology \citep{delahaye06}. Because of these
450: uncertainties, we have chosen to present our
451: results without any corrections.
452:
453: Because of limited wavelength coverage and unfortunate gaps from
454: the pre-upgrade HIRES CCD, we are only able to measure the $\lambda$6707
455: line of lithium for three stars. The lowest metallicity star with
456: a Li abundance is the dwarf CS 22884-108, at [Fe/H]$=-3.13$, for which we find log$\epsilon$(Li)$=2.31$. The
457: other two measurements are for the stars CS 22872-102 and CS22878-027,
458: with log$\epsilon$(Li) values of 1.97 and 2.39, respectively. The
459: estimated error for all three measurements is 0.17, and the
460: average value for these three metal-poor dwarfs is 2.21. This agrees
461: very well with the value reported by \citet{bonifacio07}, whose study
462: of 17 metal-poor dwarfs find an average log$\epsilon$(Li)$=2.10$. In
463: Figure \ref{cno}, it is clear that our values fall on the Spite
464: plateau, while the giants from \citet{spite05} show a significant
465: amount of depletion.
466:
467:
468: \subsection{Odd-Z elements: Na, Al, and Sc \label{oddz}}
469:
470: In 10 of our stars observed with the original HIRES CCD, our setup
471: allowed us to measure Na from the Na D resonance lines at 5890 and
472: 5895 \AA{}, and we were also able to measure Al in all but eight of our stars
473: using one or both of its resonance lines at 3944 and 3961 \AA. As
474: noted by \citet{cayrel04}, using these features introduces possible
475: NLTE effects. We report our abundances without NLTE corrections. The
476: suggested NLTE corrections when using these lines are $-0.5$ for Na
477: \citep{nanlte} and +0.65 for Al \citep{alnlte}.
478:
479: As can be seen from Figure \ref{naalsc}, we do not reproduce the same
480: trend in [Na/Fe] versus [Fe/H] as \citet{cayrel04}. Although we have
481: fewer measurements of [Na/Fe] in the higher metallicity range, our
482: data suggest a flat trend in [Na/Fe]. Taken with the
483: \citet{cayrel04} points, there appears to be a large scatter in
484: [Na/Fe] down to [Fe/H]$\sim-3.25$, and then little scatter for lower
485: metallicities.
486:
487: Figure \ref{naalsc} also shows that our [Al/Fe] abundances agree
488: remarkably well with the \citet{cayrel04} and \citet{cohen04}
489: distribution of values. In the metallicity range covered by this
490: study, we find a very low 0.12 dex dispersion in [Al/Fe].
491:
492:
493: \subsection{Alpha elements}
494: The scatter in our $\alpha$-elements, as shown in Fig. \ref{alpha}, is
495: very small over the entire range of our metallicities. The rms scatter
496: of these elements is very similar to the value found by previous
497: studies working in our metallicity regime. There are no truly
498: anomalous outliers to the expected $\alpha$-enhancement trend
499: (e.g. \citealt{aoki07b,cohen07}). This suggests that all of our stars
500: formed from gas produced with a very similar star formation history.
501:
502: For [Mg/Fe] and [Ca/Fe] the observed scatters are 0.13 and 0.1
503: with average values of 0.32 and 0.31, respectively. We also find
504: \ion{Ti}{2} to be on average 0.09 higher than \ion{Ti}{1}. However both the
505: neutral and singly ionized species of Ti show relatively large scatter, about
506: 0.17 dex for both. We caution using this as a sign of
507: true abundance scatter as we find a correlation of Ti with \teff{}. We
508: discuss this further in $\S$ \ref{trends}.
509:
510: Another element that exhibits a large scatter is Si. As we show in
511: Figure \ref{si}, we do not find any trends with metallicity and find a
512: rms of 0.24 dex in [Si/Fe]. It appears that part of this scatter comes from
513: a correlation of Si abundance with \teff{} which we also show in
514: Figure \ref{si}. This is also discussed further in $\S$ \ref{trends}.
515:
516: \subsection{The Fe group (23$\leq$Z$\leq$28)}
517:
518: Figure \ref{vanadium} shows the $V$ abundances
519: for our sample. Although we do not measure \ion{V}{1} for many of our stars, we
520: do not find an offset between \ion{V}{2} and \ion{V}{1} as found by
521: \citet{johnson2002}. Overall both the neutral and ionized species
522: give no trend with [Fe/H], reflecting the similar origins of $V$ and Fe
523: from explosive silicon and oxygen burning \citep{ww95}
524:
525: In Figure \ref{cr}, we plot both \ion{Cr}{1} and \ion{Cr}{2} as a function of
526: [Fe/H]. We reproduce the declining trend of [\ion{Cr}{1}/Fe] with [Fe/H] as
527: found in \citet{cayrel04} and references therein, albeit with a
528: slightly steeper slope. Although we are
529: only able to measure [\ion{Cr}{2}/Fe] for our more metal-rich objects
530: ([Fe/H]$>-3.3$), we find a clear offset between the species, with
531: an average [\ion{Cr}{2}/\ion{Cr}{1}] of 0.22. Furthermore in the metallicity range
532: $-3.3<$[Fe/H]$<-2$ that we measure \ion{Cr}{2}, we find no evidence for
533: declining [\ion{Cr}{2}/Fe] with declining [Fe/H]. We explore this more in
534: $\S$ \ref{trends}.
535:
536: Figure \ref{manganese} similarly summarizes our Mn abundances. The
537: differences between our study and that of \citet{cayrel04}
538: arise from a correction that they chose to adopt for the abundances
539: determined from the \ion{Mn}{1} resonance triplet at 4030 \AA{}. They note
540: that in their objects these lines give a consistently lower value
541: ($\sim0.4$ dex) for Mn than the non-resonance lines. They therefore do
542: not include them in the final Mn abundance. In the stars where only
543: the triplet lines were detected, their abundance was adopted with a
544: correction of +0.4 dex. We have chosen to include the \ion{Mn}{1}
545: triplet in our abundance determinations without
546: correction, since it may have some unknown dependence on the
547: atmospheric parameters of a star (the \citealt{cayrel04} sample's
548: concentration on giants avoids this problem). Whatever the cause
549: of this discrepancy, it makes the \ion{Mn}{1} abundances suspect. For
550: this reason, we concentrate on the \ion{Mn}{2} abundances. In Figure
551: \ref{manganese} we have also plotted the \ion{Mn}{1} abundances from
552: \citet{cayrel04} on our \ion{Mn}{2} abundances. As can be seen from the
553: figure, our agreement is quite good, although we are finding slightly
554: higher Mn abundances at [Fe/H]$>-3.0$.
555:
556: We generally confirm the increase in [Co/Fe] with decreasing [Fe/H] as
557: found by \citet{mcwilliam95} and \citet{cayrel04}. In Figure
558: \ref{coni} we see that the trend matches the points from
559: \citet{cayrel04} in general scatter and slope. It is unclear why the
560: points from \citet{cohen04} are offset from ours. The line parameters
561: for Co are similar among all three studies. Our [Ni/Fe] values are
562: also shown in this figure, and they stay flat across all
563: metallicities, with a very low rms of 0.10 dex.
564:
565: \subsection{Cu and Zn}
566:
567: In Figure \ref{cuzn}, we plot [Cu/Fe] versus [Fe/H] and [Zn/Fe]
568: versus [Fe/H]. It has been known since \citet{sneden88} that Cu is
569: deficient in metal-poor stars. We are able to extend the [Cu/Fe]
570: measurements down to [Fe/H]$=-4.0$, comparable to the metallicities of
571: \citet{cohen07-2}, and down from the previous low of [Fe/H]$\sim-3.0$
572: (e.g. \citealt{mishenina02,simmerer03,bihain}).
573:
574: The abundance determinations from
575: \citet{cohen07-2} and \citet{bihain} are also shown in the [Cu/Fe]
576: plot. While we find a similar distribution of [Cu/Fe] values as
577: \citet{bihain}, \citet{cohen07-2} measure higher [Cu/Fe]
578: abundances. Part of this abundance spread is likely artificial. The
579: version of MOOG used by \citet{cohen07-2}, incorrectly treats continuum
580: scattering as absorption. This is properly accounted for in the
581: Turbospectrum code (e.g. \citealt{cayrel04}). We also derived [Cu/Fe] using MOOG and found that
582: those values are on average 0.22 dex higher, with as much as a 0.6 dex
583: difference. Our values are in good agreement with the chemical
584: evolution models of \citet{romano} which assume an initial primary
585: origin of Cu in SNeII, and a secondary contribution from the weak
586: $s$-process.
587:
588: We are only able to measure [Zn/Fe] in a handful of our stars due to
589: gaps in the wavelength coverage of some of our spectra. The values
590: that we are able to measure agree nicely with the results of
591: \citet{cayrel04}. In particular, our data are consistent with the rise
592: of [Zn/Fe] with decreasing [Fe/H]. Taken together, this rise in [Zn/Fe]
593: could be indicative of an $\alpha$-rich freeze out process
594: contributing at a higher level at low metallicities \citep{cayrel04}.
595:
596:
597: \subsection{Neutron capture elements \label{ncaptsec}}
598:
599: We are able to measure four neutron-capture elements in most of our
600: stars: the light peak elements Sr, Y, and Zr ($Z=$38, 39, and 40) and
601: the heavy neutron capture element Ba (Z=56). We find a large scatter
602: in these elements relative to Fe, as can be seen in Figure
603: \ref{ncaptplotorig}.
604:
605: As found by other studies (e.g., \citealt{mcwilliam95,jb2002,honda04,aoki05,francois}), the light
606: elements also appear to be highly correlated with each other,
607: suggesting that these elements share a common origin. In Figure
608: \ref{eltosr} we show that [Y/Sr] and [Zr/Sr] have consistent values
609: for all stars with their respective averages of $-0.05$ and 0.33.
610:
611: The Ba resonance line abundances agree well with the non-resonance
612: lines when measurable, and while we only have three stars with La measurements,
613: these values are roughly consistent with the Ba measurements. The
614: light neutron-capture elements, however, show a remarkable scatter
615: relative to Ba. Figure \ref{eltosr} also shows [Ba/Sr] versus
616: [Fe/H]. The difference between the extreme values is almost 2 dex,
617: replicating the finding of previous work
618: \citep{mcwilliam98,jb2002,honda04}.
619:
620: We also report on the discovery of a new $r$-process-rich star, CS 31078-018.
621: Table \ref{ncapt} gives the summary of its Z$\geq38$ abundances,
622: including thorium. In Figure \ref{th4019} we show the spectral
623: synthesis of the $\lambda$4019 line of \ion{Th}{2}, using the log $gf$ value
624: measured by \citet{nilsson02}. For most of the lines used to measure
625: these neutron-capture elements hfs is negligible because of their low
626: EWs ($<$30 m\AA{}). Except for Ba and Eu the only line that is
627: noticeably affected in CS 31078-018 is the resonance line used to
628: measure Yb. To account for this we follow the prescription of \citet{sneden03}
629: and use the hfs parameters from \citet{ybhfs}.
630:
631: \section{Discussion}
632:
633: \subsection{Mixing}
634:
635: For some elements, we expect differences between giants and dwarfs
636: because of internal mixing in giants. Models of mixing and
637: observations of the effect on the abundances in the atmospheres of
638: giants have a long history (e.g., \citealt{kraft94}). The most relevant observations for
639: very metal-poor giants are the \citet{gratton00} and \citet{spite05}
640: results. The mixing effects can be clearly seen in Figure
641: \ref{light-teff}, where we have plotted the light elements (C, N, O,
642: and Li) as a function of \teff{}, where we note that [C/Fe] drops
643: off below $\sim$5000K. We also plot [(C+N)/Fe], which
644: should remain largely unchanged with evolution, as a
645: function of metallicity and \teff{} in Figure \ref{c+n}. There is no
646: correlation of [(C+N)/Fe] with [Fe/H] or with \teff{}, at least for the
647: region for which we have more than upper limits, \teff{} below 5700K.
648:
649: In Figure \ref{lithium} we plot log$\epsilon$(Li) as a function of
650: luminosity for our sample as well as those of \citet{gratton00} (for
651: [Fe/H]$<-1.3$), \citet{spite05}, and \citet{bonifacio07}. We see the
652: clear signature of the deepening convective envelope. The average
653: log$\epsilon$(Li) for the three dwarfs with Li measurements is 2.21,
654: consistent with the Spite plateau value of 2.10 as found by
655: \citet{bonifacio07}.
656:
657:
658: \subsection{Si, Ti and Cr, unexpected trends with \teff{} \label{trends}}
659:
660: Other than for the elements discussed above, mixing processes and
661: therefore the stage of stellar evolution that a star is in should not
662: affect its abundances. However for the Si, Ti, and Cr abundances we
663: do find a correlation of abundance with \teff{}.
664:
665: We plot our values of [Si/Fe] versus \teff{} in Figure \ref{si}. It
666: is clear from this figure that there is a trend of decreasing Si with
667: increasing \teff{}. The \citet{preston06} study of field horizontal branch
668: stars and red horizontal branch stars in M15 also suggests this
669: result, and shows that it is not correlated with \logg{} as well. This
670: puzzling trend is unexpected from an evolutionary standpoint; the
671: lack of correlation with \logg{} shows that it is not tied to mixing
672: along the red giant branch. \citet{preston06} carefully checked for
673: contamination from possible CH lines and found very little effect, so
674: that is unlikely the culprit.
675:
676: We also find a trend of Ti abundance versus \teff{} in the opposite
677: sense of Si. As we show in
678: Figure \ref{titrend}, this trend shows a decrease in Ti with
679: decreasing \teff{}. In Figure \ref{titrend} the points
680: from \citet{cayrel04} and \citet{cohen04} seem to confirm this
681: trend. We have also included the data from
682: \citet{preston06} to fill in the sparse region in \teff{} between 5400
683: and 6000 K. With the inclusion of these horizontal branch stars from \citet{preston06}, we see that
684: like Si, this is predominately a \teff{}, not \logg{}
685: correlation. It also should be noted that this trend applies for both
686: \ion{Ti}{1} and \ion{Ti}{2}, with respective slopes of 0.12 dex in [\ion{Ti}{1}/Fe] per 500K and 0.10 dex
687: in [\ion{Ti}{2}/Fe] per 500K.
688:
689: A similar trend to Ti is found in \ion{Cr}{1}. In Figure \ref{crtrend} we plot
690: \ion{Cr}{1} and \ion{Cr}{2} as a function of \teff{}. A trend of declining
691: [Cr/Fe] with \teff{} can be seen, while [\ion{Cr}{2}/Fe] appears, if not
692: flat, then far less pronounced. Again we include data from
693: \citet{preston06} in our plots, and we come to the same conclusion
694: that this is a \teff{} and not a \logg{} correlation. The slopes of
695: the best fit lines for our data are 0.09 dex in [Cr/Fe] per 500K and
696: only 0.03 dex in [\ion{Cr}{2}/Fe] per 500K. This discrepancy in both slope
697: and offset between \ion{Cr}{1} and \ion{Cr}{2} may point to NLTE
698: effects. This has already been suggested by
699: \citet{sobeck07}, and the case seems to be made even stronger by our
700: data. Because \ion{Cr}{2} appears relatively free of \teff{} trends, we
701: performed a linear fit of [\ion{Cr}{2}/\ion{Cr}{1}] with \teff{} and suggest
702: that at least as a first step to correct \ion{Cr}{1} abundances by this
703: fit. We find that at 6500K, there is an offset of 0.106 dex and a
704: slope of -0.0113 dex per 100 K. This leads to a correction of 0.3 dex
705: at 4800K.
706:
707: A possible explanation for the observed trends with \teff{} is an
708: incorrect $T$-$\tau$ relationship in the adopted model atmospheres, in
709: particular in giants. In fact, the adoption of a $T$-$\tau$ relationship
710: shallower than the true one would result in a derived abundance
711: dependent on the depth of the line formation and hence on its
712: strength, with strong lines yielding larger abundance values than weak
713: lines. While this effect on the derived [Fe/H] abundances can be, at
714: least partially, compensated by adjusting the value of the
715: micro-turbulence, this does not apply to Si, Cr and Ti, as the
716: abundances for the first come prevalently from lines forming the outer
717: layers and that for the other two mostly from lines formed deep into
718: the atmosphere. The observed trends could thus be explained in terms
719: of increasing discrepancy between the model atmospheres and the "true"
720: atmospheres at the decreasing of the stellar effective temperature. It
721: is noteworthy that the derived slopes for the $\chi$-derived abundance
722: relationship are steeper among giants than among dwarfs (see Table
723: \ref{atm}), which is what is expected in the hypothesis described.
724:
725: Whether these are ultimately due to true abundance trends, unaccounted
726: for blends, or a deficiency in our knowledge in the spectral analysis
727: (e.g. NLTE and other atmosphere effects) is yet to be
728: determined. However by including the data from \citet{preston06}, it
729: seems that this is not an effect of stellar evolution. Regardless,
730: these trends show that caution must be taken when looking at either
731: Ti, \ion{Si}{1} or \ion{Cr}{1} to explore galactic chemical evolution
732: or to constrain SN models.
733:
734: \subsection{CS 30336-049, [Fe/H]=$-4.0$}
735:
736: Of our sample, the star CS 30336-049 is the most metal poor at
737: [Fe/H]=$-4.0$. There are only three stars more metal-poor than this,
738: and only about seven with comparable metallicities (see
739: \citealt{frebel07b}). It is comparable in metallicity and atmospheric
740: parameters to both CD-38:245 and CS 22949-037 \citep{cayrel04}. In its
741: abundance ratios, CS 30336-049 looks far more like CD-38:245 than CS
742: 22949-037. Unlike for CS 22949-037, the derived [Mg/Fe] is actually
743: slightly under-abundant at 0.08 compared to other metal-poor stars.
744: While the high C,N,O and Mg of CS 22949-037 may be suggestive of a
745: low-energy SN explosion \citep{tsuj2003}, CS 30336-049 is
746: ``normal'' in all of these abundances except for a high [N/Fe],
747: leading to a low [C/N] of $-1.2$. At the temperature range of this
748: star, $\sim$4800K, deep mixing may begin to occur and change some of
749: the C to N. Although some of the N then may come from this internal
750: processing in the star, it is possible that much of the low [C/N]
751: value comes from the initial abundances of the cloud that formed the
752: stars. The low carbon abundance of CS 30336-049, coupled with its
753: very low [Ba/Fe] and [Sr/Fe] suggests that the star is not showing
754: mass transferred material from an AGB companion, which suggests a
755: primary source for its enhanced nitrogen abundance.
756:
757: Just comparing CS 30336-049 with CS 22949-049, it is clear that
758: finding more stars at [Fe/H]$=-4$ is very important. Including
759: HE 1424-0241 as discussed in the introduction, the picture gets even
760: more complicated. If these are all products of one to a small number
761: of SN events, then a census of these objects may provide the best way
762: to constrain the nature of Population III stars. With this in mind, we have
763: attempted to fit our abundances to the recent SN II model yields of
764: \citet{heger08} in $\S$ \ref{fits}.
765:
766: The low-metallicity of CS 30336-049 also makes it a good candidate for
767: constraining the gas cooling mechanism responsible for the Population III to
768: Population II transition. As noted by \citet{frebel07c} and references
769: therein, there are two main competing ideas for this cooling mechanism
770: following the initial metal enrichment from the first stars: atomic
771: fine-structure line cooling and dust-induced
772: fragmentation. Accordingly, \citet{frebel07c} define a value they term
773: as the ``transition discriminant,'' $D_{\mbox{trans}}$, that is
774: dependent on the overall C and O abundance of a star. They find that
775: the cooling from \ion{C}{2} and \ion{O}{1} fine-structure lines
776: can allow for low-mass star formation only at values of
777: $D_{\mbox{trans}}>-3.5 \pm 0.2$. Intriguingly, CS 30336-049 has a
778: $D_{\mbox{trans}}$ value of -3.57. Given the inherent uncertainty of
779: deriving O from the UV OH lines and the possibility that some C has
780: been converted to N, this is not a highly certain value. However, if this
781: value is correct, then this may be an indication that this star was
782: formed due primarily to fine-structure line cooling from C and O
783: produced from a Population III star. We note that this does not exclude the
784: dust-induced fragmentation model, as even lower abundances of C and O
785: can induce low-mass star formation in this scenario, but that now
786: including CS 30336-049 all metal-poor stars with C and O measurements
787: are consistent with the fine-structure cooling scenario.
788:
789: \subsection{Neutron-capture-poor stars}
790:
791: The existence of stars that are highly neutron-capture element deficient has
792: been known for some time
793: (e.g. \citealt{mcwilliam95,ryan96,mcwilliam98}). However these confirmed
794: neutron-capture poor stars are relatively rare. In our own sample, BS 16084-160
795: and CS 30336-049 are exceptional in their low [Sr/H] and [Ba/H]
796: values. Both of these values for BS 16084-160 agree with those
797: reported by \citet{aoki05}. \citet{fulbright04} analyzed the Draco
798: dSph red giant D119 and found upper limits to [Sr/H] and [Ba/H] that
799: match our values. The recent studies of
800: \citet{cohen07-2}, \citet{francois}, \citet{honda04}, and \citet{aoki05} have also added
801: to a handful of stars in this regime. In Table \ref{ncaptlow} we
802: summarize measurements from recent high-resolution studies for stars
803: with both [Ba/Fe]$<-1.0$ and [Ba/H]$<-4.0$.
804:
805: In these neutron-capture element-deficient stars, a striking pattern emerges
806: when comparing [Ba/H] to [Sr/H]. In Figure \ref{ncaptplot} we can see
807: that there seem to be two populations of stars. Below
808: [Ba/H]$\sim-5.0$, the Sr and Ba abundances appear to be well
809: coupled. Above this value, however, there is a clear distribution of
810: production of Sr relative to Ba, with the trend of Sr being mainly
811: over-produced relative to Ba. This suggests that the same process,
812: such as a very low-level main $r$-process, is producing both the Sr and
813: Ba in the hyper-neutron capture-poor stars (HNCP, [Ba/H]$<-5.0$).
814:
815: To explain the production of Sr without much Ba, leading to high
816: [Sr/Ba] ratios, \citet{qian2001} and \citet{travaglio} propose a
817: separation of the process that creates the light (e.g. Sr) and heavy
818: (e.g. Ba) neutron-capture elements (termed the light elementary
819: production process, LEPP, by \citealt{travaglio}). It has been proposed that the
820: production site for these elements may come from charged-particle
821: reactions in the neutrino driven wind off of a newly born neutron star
822: (\citealt{qian2007} and references therein). Recently both
823: \citet{montes} and \citet{qian2007} explored how a two-component
824: process could account for much of the scatter found in the light to
825: heavy neutron-capture abundances. Figure \ref{ncaptplot} shows that at
826: the HNCP end this LEPP may somehow be shut off, leaving only the
827: signature of the main $r$-process. While there has been much
828: concentration on neutron-capture rich stars, the observational
829: constraints on the production site of the light neutron-capture
830: elements will benefit greatly from more of these HNCP stars being
831: discovered.
832:
833: \subsection{CS 31078-018, A new $r$-process-rich star}
834:
835: We have discovered a new $r$-process-rich star, CS 31078-018. Adopting
836: the categories of \citet{beers05}, CS 31078-018 is an $r$-II star,
837: that is, [Eu/Fe]$>1$ and [Ba/Eu]$<0$. In Figure \ref{r-process} we plot
838: the neutron-capture abundances of this star over the solar system
839: $r$-process abundances taken from \citet{arlandini} and
840: \citet{simmerer04}.
841:
842: Similar to previously discovered $r$-process-rich stars, the agreement
843: between the solar system $r$-process pattern and the abundances for CS
844: 31078-018 is quite good for Z$\geq$56, further strengthening the case
845: for a universal ``main'' $r$-process for the stable neutron-capture
846: elements.
847:
848: We also find that CS 31078-018 exhibits an ``actinide boost.'' The Th value
849: is far higher than what should be expected, given its radioactive
850: decay lifetime and the theoretical initial $r$-process production
851: ratio. Our measured value of log$\epsilon$(Th/Eu)$=-0.19$ gives a
852: negative age for the star if compared to the current estimate of
853: $-0.28$ for the initial $r$-process production ratio
854: \citep{kratz07}. This is the third star to exhibit this behavior,
855: after CS 31082-001 \citep{hill02} and CS 30306-132
856: \citep{honda04}.
857:
858: In Fig. \ref{thorium} we show the available measurements of
859: log$\epsilon$(Th/Eu) from the literature for metal-poor stars. There
860: are some clear uncertainties as shown by some of the disagreements
861: between measurements for the same star, but it appears that there is a
862: real distribution of values of log$\epsilon$(Th/Eu), with CS
863: 31078-018 near the top. The discrepancy between some of the results
864: from \citet{honda04} and other measurements is at least partially
865: explained by differences in their linelist with \citet{westin}, and
866: differences in adopted atmospheric parameters with
867: \citet{jb01}. \citet{qian2002} proposes a mechanism that allows for
868: a universal $r$-process site for the heavy $r$-nuclei but can vary the
869: actinide abundance via neutrino-induced fission, with neutrino
870: exposure being dependent on individual SNe II. A distribution of
871: values may lend credence to the idea of neutrino-induced fission
872: modifying the abundance of thorium. On the other hand, there seems to
873: be an almost bimodal distribution of values, which is even more
874: enhanced if we do not include the values from \citet{honda04}. This is
875: suggestive of two distinct scenarios with values typified by CS
876: 22892-052 and CS 31078-018. Ultimately more [Th/Eu] measurements will
877: be needed to settle this question.
878:
879: Regardless of the mechanism that over-produces the
880: actinides in some stars, it is clear from Fig. \ref{thorium} that it
881: does not affect all $r$-process-enhanced stars. Aside from this actinide
882: boost, there is no significant difference between these stars and
883: normal $r$-process-enhanced stars, and chronometers based on comparing
884: actinides to these stable elements must be approached with caution.
885:
886:
887: \subsection{Abundance Trends and Scatter in the Metal-poor Galaxy}
888:
889: Fig. \ref{elemall} summarizes the abundance measurements for our
890: entire sample. In the metallicity range that we cover, the only elements to
891: show a trend with [Fe/H] are Cr, Mn, Co, and Cu; our points are
892: consistent with \citet{cayrel04} for the trend they find in Zn. These
893: abundance ratio trends are reflected in their larger scatters in Figure \ref{elemall}. As
894: mentioned before, some of the scatter for \ion{Cr}{1} may be artificial since
895: we also see a trend with \teff{}, which also can explain why
896: \citet{cayrel04} find a much smaller scatter in \ion{Cr}{1} as they have
897: a much narrower \teff{} range.
898:
899: There is a true abundance spread in C and N, although as Figure
900: \ref{c+n} shows, some of this can be reconciled by considering
901: [(C+N)/Fe] (and therefore evolutionary state) instead. The large
902: scatter in the neutron-capture elements, particularly below [Fe/H]$=-3$
903: as shown in Figure \ref{ncaptplotorig} is also readily apparent in \ref{elemall}.
904:
905: What stands out from Figure \ref{elemall}, however is not just the
906: scatter of the previously mentioned elements, but the remarkable
907: consistency in other elements. For example the values for [Ca/Fe],
908: [V/Fe], and [Ni/Fe], given reasonable errors, are effectively the same
909: for all of our stars. This may also be true of [Si/Fe], [Ti/Fe], and
910: [Cr/Fe], but this may be masked by their \teff{} dependence. We
911: are seeing either the evidence of a very well mixed ISM when these stars
912: formed, or evidence that the progenitor stars, possibly Population III stars,
913: were all very similar.
914:
915: \subsection{Abundance Pattern fits to zero metallicity SN \label{fits}}
916:
917: If we assume that these early stars were formed from the products of
918: the first stars, then we can try matching them to some of the most
919: up-to-date nucleosynthesis results from zero-metallicity SN
920: explosions. We use the recent models of \citet{heger08}, which are
921: updates to the models of \citet{ww95}. These models range in mass from
922: 10 to 100 M$_{\odot}$, energies from 0.3 to 10.0 ($\times10^{51}$
923: ergs), and mixing from none to 0.25. \citet{heger08} use a
924: 1D code and mixing cannot be followed due to its
925: multi-dimensional nature. Instead, in these models an artifical
926: prescription for this parameter is used from \citet{pinto88}, and the
927: amount of mixing is defined in terms of the mass fraction of the
928: helium core (for a detailed explanation see \citealt{heger08}). We then assume that
929: these stars are the product of one to just a few SN (e.g.,
930: \citealt{tumlinson06}) or assume an IMF of the first stars and match
931: the yield from that to our stars.
932:
933: We first fit the average abundances of our sample to these
934: models. There are a few general assumptions that we are using to guide
935: us. For all of our fits we are assuming that the Sc and Zn
936: abundances derived from the models are lower limits. It is possible
937: that part of the abundances of both of these elements are synthesized in
938: proton-rich outflows from core-collapse SNe \citep{pruet}, and part of
939: the zinc may also be made in a neutrino-powered wind
940: \citep{hoffman96}. Neither of these processes is included in the
941: models of \citet{heger08}. We fit for C+N, instead of C and N
942: separately to account for potential internal cycling, and we ignore O
943: because of possible offsets due to using the OH feature. Finally we
944: have added in the NLTE corrections discussed in $\S$ \ref{oddz} to our
945: Na and Al abundances.
946:
947: We also find a curious result that the models
948: always over-produce copper relative to the observations. In general we
949: ignore copper in our fits, although we discuss it more below. We are
950: also concerned with the trends of Ti, Si, and \ion{Cr}{1} discussed in $\S$
951: \ref{trends}, as well as the offset between the neutral and ionized
952: species of Mn. For Ti and Si, we weight their values by only half in
953: the fits compared to the other elements. For Cr and Mn, we choose to use the
954: averages from their ionized species to reduce the impact of potential NLTE effects
955: on their respective neutral species.
956:
957: In the IMF models the explosion energy of the SN for a star of mass
958: $M$ is parameterized as
959: \begin{equation}
960: E=E_0 \times \left(\frac{M}{20\,\mathrm{M}_{\odot}}\right)^{E^{\mathrm{exp}}}\,.
961: \label{energyeq}
962: \end{equation}
963: As a convenient SN energy unit we use bethe, $1\,\mathrm{B}=
964: 10^{51}\,$ergs. Possible values of $E_0$ in the model database are 0.3, 0.6, 0.9, 1.2, 1.5, 1.8, 2.4, 3.0, 5.0, and
965: 10.0 B, and $E^{\mathrm{exp}}$ can be $-1, -0.5, 0$, and 1.
966:
967: In Figure \ref{salpall}(a) we show the best fit for a Salpeter IMF
968: ($\Gamma$=1.35), for progenitor masses from 10 to 100 M$_{\odot}$ (the
969: entire mass range of the models). In the first case, we assume a
970: standard IMF, where we set $E^{\mathrm{exp}}=0$ and $E_0=1.2$. The
971: only free parameter is the mixing fraction. The fit is
972: actually quite good, returning a standard mixing parameter of 0.16,
973: compared to the canonical value of 0.1 used to explain the light curve
974: of SN1987A (\citealt{pinto88}).
975:
976: We relax the constraints on $E^{\mathrm{exp}}$ and $E_0$ in Figure
977: \ref{salpall}(b). We let the energy run over the ranges listed above,
978: and only restrict $E^{\mathrm{exp}}\geq0.0$, and we also let the progenitor lower
979: and upper masses float. The match is noticeably better, with
980: $\chi^2=0.69$ for the best fit model. The $E_0=5.0$B, with the
981: explosion energy flat over all masses, $E^{\mathrm{exp}}=0.0$, and no mixing. Also,
982: even though we let the lower and upper bounds of the IMF vary, the
983: best fit still used the entire mass range of models.
984:
985: Finally in \ref{salpall}(c), we let all the parameters range
986: freely. This now includes letting $\Gamma$ have the values
987: $-0.65$, 0.35, 1.35, 2.35, and 3.35, to look at multiple Salpeter-like
988: IMFs. We find a nearly identical fit in terms of $\chi^2$ with
989: \ref{salpall}(b). The Salpeter power law exponent is still given by
990: $\Gamma$=1.35, and the mixing parameter is a low 0.025. The
991: characteristic energy is now much lower with 0.6B, and
992: $E^{\mathrm{exp}}=-0.50$. The low explosion energy coupled with the negative
993: value of $E^{\mathrm{exp}}$ means that we are in effect reducing the importance
994: of high-mass objects. The increased fallback in
995: these objects when the explosion energy is lowered (see
996: \citealt{zhang}) causes very little of their metals to be ejected, in
997: particular the innermost Fe-group elements fall back first.
998:
999: We also constructed Gaussian IMFs to try to match our average abundance
1000: distribution. The Gaussians are centered at 11, 12, 13.5, 15, 17, 20,
1001: 25, 35, 40, 50, 75, and 100 M$_{\odot}$. The widths, in log(Mass),
1002: range from 0.025 up to 0.5 dex. The energies of the explosions are
1003: determined by Eqn. \ref{energyeq}, with the same ranges of $E_0$ and
1004: $E^{\mathrm{exp}}$. The best-fit Gaussian IMF yield is shown in
1005: Fig. \ref{otherfits}(a). The fit both looks qualitatively similar to
1006: \ref{salpall}(c) and is also quantitatively very similar with a
1007: best-fit $\chi^2=0.70$. This Gaussian IMF is centered at 11.0
1008: M$_{\odot}$, with a width of 0.3 dex (truncated at 10.0
1009: M$_{\odot}$). The energies are defined by $E^{\mathrm{exp}}=-1.0$ and
1010: $E_0=0.6$, and the mixing is 0.0251. The similarity in the fits is not
1011: surprising given that this truncated Gaussian IMF would look very
1012: similar to the Salpeter IMF of \ref{salpall}(c). We also fit our
1013: average abundance pattern to the entire library of single SN
1014: yields. This may be instructive to define a ``typical'' Population III star,
1015: even though clearly this is not the origin of the average
1016: abundances. We show the result in Fig. \ref{otherfits}(b). The fit is
1017: quite good, with a $\chi^2=0.615$. This best-fit star has a mass of
1018: 14.4 M$_{\odot}$, explosion energy of 1.8B, and a low mixing parameter
1019: of 0.015.
1020:
1021: We have also performed this best fit analysis on the most metal-poor
1022: star of our sample, CS 30336-049. In Figure \ref{beststar} we show
1023: cases similar to those described above, assuming a Salpeter IMF (a), a
1024: Gaussian IMF (b), and a single star progenitor (c). We could not measure \ion{Cr}{2}
1025: in this object, and instead we use the correction to \ion{Cr}{1} proposed in
1026: $\S$ \ref{trends}, and adjust \ion{Cr}{1} by +0.3 dex for the fit. Because of
1027: the inherent uncertainty of this abundance, we also weight Cr by a
1028: factor of 1/2 as is done for Si and Ti. The other assumptions are as
1029: detailed in the beginning of this section. The Salpeter IMF has a
1030: difficult time fitting the abundance pattern of this star. The fit has
1031: a $\chi^2=1.914$, a very high $E_0=10$B, $E^{\mathrm{exp}}=-1.0$, $\Gamma=1.35$,
1032: mixing of 0.025, and ranges over all masses. The Gaussian IMF is best
1033: fitted by $E_0=1.2$B, $E^{\mathrm{exp}}=-1.0$, a central mass of 11.0 M$_{\odot}$, a
1034: width of 0.225 dex, and mixing of 0.025. The $\chi^2$ is also a somewhat
1035: large 2.40. The most interesting case is the single star fit. The fit
1036: is excellent at $\chi^2=0.425$, with M=10.9 M$_{\odot}$, E=0.6B, and a
1037: very low mixing parameter of 0.01. This explosion in particular does an excellent
1038: job of reproducing the Fe-peak element pattern.
1039:
1040: As a final test, we also examined how well different parameters fit
1041: our abundances, as opposed to looking only at the single best-fit
1042: model. All of the best fits presented above favor progenitor stars
1043: with fairly low characteristic masses, $\sim$ 10-15
1044: M$_{\odot}$. The characteristic explosion energies, however, are not as
1045: well constrained, with $E_0$ ranging from 0.6 to 5.0B. The reality is
1046: that with so many models that can be compared to (16,800 total), it is
1047: relatively easy to find very good fits that are also somewhat
1048: degenerate in $\chi^2$. With this in mind we show in Figure
1049: \ref{best1000} the best 1000 single SN fits in terms of $E_O$ and mass both
1050: for the average abundance ratio of our sample and for CS
1051: 30336-049. The grid-like nature in these plots comes from the discrete
1052: values of the models. Overall the results of the best fits from above
1053: are borne out. Although in both cases there are a small number of models
1054: that have very high explosion energy and mass, the vast majority of
1055: fits for our average abundance pattern have masses in between 10 and
1056: 20 M$_{\odot}$ and $E_0$ less than 3.0B, while the results for the
1057: abundance pattern of CS 30336-049 show an even narrower range of
1058: masses of 10-15 M$_{\odot}$ and typical $E_0$ less than 1.0B. The
1059: mixing parameter could not be constrained with this method because
1060: mass and energy have far greater impact to the fits, and there is not
1061: a favored mixing value when looking at the fits in aggregate.
1062:
1063: These results seem to fit well with the findings of
1064: \citet{tumlinson06-2}, which suggests that the characterstic masses of
1065: the first stars were between 8 and 42 M$_{\odot}$. This is argued from
1066: empirical constraints based on the non-detection of Population III
1067: stars in the Galactic halo, the Galactic halo MDF, and reionization,
1068: not from detailed chemical abundances as done here. As
1069: \citet{tumlinson06-2} notes, these numbers are also close to the
1070: results of theoretical models of primordial star formation that
1071: incorporate formation feedback effects (e.g. \citealt{brommlarson} and
1072: references therein).
1073:
1074: \subsubsection{Copper, A cautionary note on the choice of explosion mechanism}
1075:
1076: It is unclear why copper is so over-produced in these
1077: models. Part of the solution may come from the choice of these models
1078: to locate the piston used to parameterize the explosion at an abrupt
1079: entropy jump where the entropy per baryon ($S/N_Ak)$ is equal to
1080: 4, approximately at the base of the convective shell of the
1081: pre-SN object. Previously in \citet{ww95}, it was located where the electron mole
1082: number, $Y_{\mathrm{e}}$, decreased suddenly, which marked the edge of the iron core.
1083:
1084: In \citet{heger08}, there are also a small subset of models
1085: with explosion energies of 1.2 and 10 B calculated with the piston
1086: located at the $Y_{\mathrm{e}}$ boundary. To test the effect of the different
1087: piston locations, we show in Fig. \ref{copperfit}(a) the best-fit
1088: single-star model to our average abundances using the $Y_{\mathrm{e}}$ models
1089: (including Cu). This model has a mass of 25.5 M$_{\odot}$, $E_0=1.2$B,
1090: and mixing of 0.1. In \ref{copperfit}(b) we show their model with the
1091: exact same parameters, but with the piston located at the $S/N_Ak$
1092: boundary. It is clear that the location of the piston can greatly
1093: affect the [Cu/Fe]. In the $Y_{\mathrm{e}}$ model [Cu/Fe] is about $-$0.70,
1094: compared to the approximately solar value found in the same
1095: $S/N_Ak$ model. This is not to say which explosion mechanism is
1096: correct, as any specification is a parameterized approach, but it
1097: does indicate that copper is a less than ideal element to use to
1098: constrain current SN models.
1099:
1100: \section{Summary}
1101: We have presented the abundances from C to Eu of 28 metal-poor stars
1102: covering a wide range of \teff{}. In the process we have found
1103: abundance trends with \teff{} of \ion{Si}{1}, \ion{Ti}{1} and \ion{Ti}{2},
1104: and \ion{Cr}{1} that may be pointing to the deficiencies of our
1105: standard 1-D, LTE spectral analysis, or less likely, an unknown
1106: physical process for these elements. In either case the unexplained trends in
1107: \ion{Si}{1}, Ti, and \ion{Cr}{1} with \teff{} show that we must be
1108: careful when using them to constrain models of galactic chemical
1109: evolution and models of SN yields.
1110:
1111: Our sample includes the discovery of a new [Fe/H]$=-4.0$ star, CS 30336-049. In
1112: CS 30336-049, we find abundance ratios that track the trends from more
1113: metal-rich objects ([Fe/H]$\sim-3.5$), except for a mildly low
1114: [Mg/Fe]. These results for CS 30336-049 show that some of the stars around
1115: [Fe/H]$=-4.0$ have a similar origin to these more metal-rich
1116: objects. However, the 10 well-studied stars of similar or lower metallicity show a
1117: diversity of abundances far greater than found in the more metal-rich stars.
1118:
1119: We have also discovered a new $r$-process enhanced star, CS
1120: 31078-018. Like other $r$-process-enhanced stars, it has a heavy
1121: neutron-capture (Z$>$56) abundance pattern that matches the scaled
1122: solar system $r$-process pattern. Interestingly, it has a much higher
1123: [Th/Eu] than most other $r$-process-rich stars, one that matches the
1124: value found in CS 31082-001. From figure \ref{thorium}, it is clear
1125: that there is a diversity of [Th/Eu] values in $r$-process-rich
1126: stars. Whether it is a bimodal distribution or continuous is not yet
1127: clear, and it will take more Th measurements to be sorted
1128: out. Regardless, it shows that chronometers based solely on this ratio
1129: need to be used with caution.
1130:
1131: We also explored the origin of the lighter neutron-capture elements
1132: (Z$<56$) by examining stars that are highly deficient in these
1133: elements. By using stars in this sample and the literature, we have
1134: found that HNCP stars ([Ba/H]$\leq$5) only exhibit the
1135: signature of the main $r$-process in their [Ba/Sr] abundance. This is in
1136: contrast to stars with slightly higher [Ba/H], which show a wide
1137: diversity of [Ba/Sr]. This result suggests that if there is a secondary
1138: process that produces these lighter elements (i.e. Sr), then it does
1139: not operate in the most metal-poor regime. In determining the secondary
1140: physical process this may prove to be an important constraint if this
1141: continues to hold true as more HNCP stars are found.
1142:
1143: Overall, we find very little scatter in our relative abundances for
1144: elements in the Fe-group and lighter, and we have largely confirmed many
1145: of the trends of abundance with metallicity for stars with
1146: [Fe/H]$<-2.0$ that were detailed in \citet{cayrel04}. The low rms
1147: suggests either a well mixed ISM or a common origin for our
1148: stars. With this in mind, we have compared the average abundance
1149: pattern of our sample with the zero-metallicity SN II nucleosynthesis
1150: models of \citet{heger08}. These fits
1151: seem to indicate that metal-free SN II progenitors with masses $\sim10
1152: \mbox{-} 20$ M$_{\odot}$ can match our abundances very well. This
1153: comparison was also done with the most metal-poor star of our sample,
1154: CS 30336-049, where we find that a slightly narrower range of
1155: progenitor masses $\sim10 \mbox{-} 15$ M$_{\odot}$ give the best matches to its
1156: abundance pattern.
1157:
1158:
1159:
1160: \acknowledgements
1161:
1162: D.K.L. would like to acknowledge Chris Sneden, Ruth Peterson, Thomas
1163: Masseron, Bob Kraft, and Yong-Zhong Qian for useful discussions, insights,
1164: and advice.
1165:
1166: D.K.L., M.B., and J.A.J. performed this work with the support of the National
1167: Science Foundation (AST-0098617 and AST-0607770).
1168:
1169: S.L. performed this work with the support of INAF cofin 2006 and the
1170: DFG cluster of excellence ``Origin and Structure of the Uniferse.'' S.L. would
1171: also like to thank R. Gratton for helpful discussion.
1172:
1173: A.H. performed this work under the auspices of the US Department of
1174: Energy at the University of California Los Alamos National Laboratory
1175: under contract W-7405-ENG-36 and the DOE
1176: Program for Scientific Discovery through Advanced Computing (SciDAC;
1177: DE-FC02-01ER41176). S.W. received support from the National Science
1178: Foundation (AST-02611) and
1179: from the DOE SciDAC Program (FC02-06ER41438).
1180:
1181: {\it Facilities:} \facility{Keck:I (HIRES)}
1182:
1183:
1184: \bibliography{all.bib}
1185:
1186: \clearpage
1187:
1188:
1189: \begin{deluxetable}{lrrrlcrrrr}
1190: \tablecolumns{10}
1191: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1192: \tablewidth{0pc}
1193: \tablecaption{Observation details \label{odetails}}
1194: \tablehead{
1195: \colhead{Star} & \colhead{$V_{mag}$} & \colhead{V Ref.} &
1196: \colhead{$v_r$} & \colhead{Observation}
1197: &\colhead{Total Exposure} & \colhead{Wavelength} &\colhead{S/N} &\colhead{S/N} &\colhead{S/N} \\ \colhead{ID} &
1198: \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{(km s$^{-1}$)\tablenotemark{*}} & \colhead{Date (UT)} & \colhead{Time (s)} &
1199: \colhead{Coverage (\AA)} & \colhead{5560 \AA} &\colhead{4500 \AA} &\colhead{3435 \AA} }
1200: \startdata
1201: BD+03 740 & 9.80 & 1 & 173.1 (0.2) & 2004, Oct 7-8 & 3900 & 3020-5870 & 425 & 340 & 278 \\
1202: BD+23 3130 & 8.94 & 2 &$-$285.1 (0.2) & 2006, Aug 19 & 960 & 3055-5893 & 424 & 245 & 161 \\
1203: BD+24 1676 & 10.79 & 1 &$-$237.8 (0.2) & 2004, Oct 7 & 3600 & 3020-5870 & 320 & 288 & 193 \\
1204: BS 16077-007 & 12.41 & 3 & $-$38.3 (0.2) & 2005, May 29-30 & 2400 & 3020-5870 & 142 & 111 & 61 \\
1205: BS 16080-054 & 12.776 & 4 &$-$121.2 (0.2) & 2004, Apr 7 & 1200 & 3220-4655 & \nodata & 78 & 12 \\
1206: & & &$-$119.3 (0.3) & 2004, Apr 9 & 1200 & 5385-7665 & 130 & \nodata & \nodata \\
1207: BS 16080-093 & 13.61 & 5 &$-$205.2 (0.2) & 2001, Aug 25 & 5400 & 3770-5280 & \nodata & 85 & \nodata \\
1208: BS 16084-160 & 13.14 & 3 &$-$123.2 (0.2) & 2001, Aug 25 & 7200 & 3770-5280 & \nodata & 103 & \nodata \\
1209: & & &$-$141.5 (0.2) & 2004, Apr 9 & 1800 & 5385-7665 & 140 & \nodata & \nodata \\
1210: & & &$-$126.6 (0.2) & 2005, May 29 & 5400 & 3020-5870 & \nodata & 111 & 34 \\
1211: BS 16467-062 & 14.09 & 3 & $-$92.4 (0.2) & 2003, Jun 6 & 7200 & 3770-5280 & \nodata & 106 & \nodata \\
1212: BS 16545-089 & 14.44 & 6 &$-$162.3 (0.2) & 2004, Apr 8 & 9000 & 3220-4655 & \nodata & 114 & 27 \\
1213: & & &$-$162.5 (1.0) & 2004, Apr 9 & 3600 & 5385-7665 & 100 & \nodata & \nodata \\
1214: BS 16550-087 & 13.76 & 7 &$-$144.4 (0.2) & 2003, Jun 6 & 7200 & 3770-5280 & \nodata & 65 & \nodata \\
1215: & & &$-$148.3 (0.2) & 2004, Apr 7 & 1800 & 3220-4655 & \nodata & 63 & 8 \\
1216: & & &$-$148.9 (0.6) & 2004, Apr 9 & 1800 & 5385-7665 & 134 & \nodata & \nodata \\
1217: BS 16928-053 & 13.47 & 8 & $-$81.5 (0.2) & 2004, Apr 7 & 7200 & 3220-4655 & \nodata & 101 & 11 \\
1218: & & & $-$80.9 (0.3) & 2004, Apr 9 & 2700 & 5385-7665 & 121 & \nodata & \nodata \\
1219: BS 16929-005 & 13.61 & 8 & $-$51.7 (0.2) & 2003, Jun 6 & 1800 & 3770-5280 & \nodata & 108 & \nodata \\
1220: & & & $-$51.3 (0.2) & 2004, Apr 8 & 7200 & 3220-4655 & \nodata & 137 & 27 \\
1221: & & & $-$52.5 (0.5) & 2004, Apr 9 & 2700 & 5385-7665 & 117 & \nodata & \nodata \\
1222: CS 22872-102 & 13.65 & 3 & $-$59.5 (0.2) & 2004, Apr 7 & 7200 & 3220-4655 & \nodata & 138 & 28 \\
1223: & & & $-$56.7 (0.2) & 2004, Apr 9 & 3600 & 5385-7665 & 134 & \nodata & \nodata \\
1224: CS 22878-027 & 14.41 & 3 & $-$91.5 (0.2) & 2004, Apr 8 & 3600 & 3220-4655 & \nodata & 60 & 13 \\
1225: & & & $-$90.1 (0.4) & 2004, Apr 9 & 2700 & 5385-7665 & 87 & \nodata & \nodata \\
1226: CS 22880-086 & 14.41 & 9 &$-$114.0 (0.2) & 2003, Jun 6 & 7200 & 3770-5280 & \nodata & 71 & \nodata \\
1227: CS 22884-108 & 14.24 & 3 & $-$18.1 (0.2) & 2004, Apr 8 & 7200 & 3220-4655 & \nodata & 93 & 18 \\
1228: & & & $-$18.1 (0.4) & 2004, Apr 9 & 3600 & 5385-7665 & 101 & \nodata & \nodata \\
1229: CS 22944-032 & 13.28 & 9 & 17.7 (0.2) & 2004, Oct 7-8 & 7200 & 3020-5870 & 212 & 147 & 74 \\
1230: CS 22957-022 & 13.34 & 3 & $-$33.8 (0.2) & 2004, Oct 8 & 3600 & 3020-5870 & 123 & 95 & 45 \\
1231: CS 22963-004 & 14.98 & 3 & 292.4 (0.2) & 2004, Oct 8 & 9000 & 3020-5870 & 93 & 71 & 29 \\
1232: CS 22965-054 & 15.10 & 3 &$-$283.0 (0.2) & 2001, Aug 25 & 7200 & 3770-5280 & \nodata & 61 & \nodata \\
1233: CS 29502-092 & 11.895 & 3 & $-$68.2 (0.2) & 2001, Aug 25 & 5400 & 3220-4655 & \nodata & 121 & 45 \\
1234: & & & $-$68.5 (0.2) & 2001, Aug 25 & 5400 & 3770-5280 & \nodata & 115 & \nodata \\
1235: & & & $-$69.3 (0.2) & 2004, Oct 7 & 4800 & 3020-5870 & 253 & 141 & 95 \\
1236: CS 29506-007 & 14.18 & 3 & 55.1 (0.2) & 2004, Oct 8 & 5400 & 3020-5870 & 85 & 81 & 34 \\
1237: CS 29522-046 & 12.74 & 3 &$-$106.8 (0.2) & 2004, Oct 7-8 & 5400 & 3020-5870 & 185 & 166 & 91 \\
1238: CS 30312-059 & 13.101 & 4 &$-$156.4 (0.2) & 2004, Apr 8 & 3600 & 3220-4655 & \nodata & 134 & 25 \\
1239: & & &$-$155.2 (0.2) & 2004, Apr 9 & 4800 & 5385-7665 & 169 & \nodata & \nodata \\
1240: CS 30325-028 & 12.889 & 3 &$-$148.8 (0.2) & 2005, May 29 & 5400 & 3020-5870 & 146 & 129 & 51 \\
1241: CS 30336-049 & 14.048 & 3 &$-$237.5 (0.2) & 2004, Oct 7-8 & 7800 & 3020-5870 & 94 & 85 & 31 \\
1242: CS 31078-018 & 13.211 & 7 & 81.3 (0.2) & 2004, Oct 7 & 7200 & 3020-5870 & 167 & 90 & 64 \\
1243: CS 31085-024 & 14.010 & 3 &$-$322.0 (0.2) & 2004, Oct 7-8 & 9000 & 3020-5870 & 150 & 100 & 61
1244: \enddata
1245: \tablenotetext{*}{Heliocentric velocity and estimated internal error.}
1246: \tablerefs{(1) \citet{hauck}; (2) \citet{hog}; (3)
1247: \citet{schuster04}; (4) \citet{aoki05}; (5) \citet{bonifacio00};
1248: (6) \citet{cohen04}; (7) \citet{norris99}; (8) \citet{honda04}; (9) \citet{beers00}}
1249: \end{deluxetable}
1250: \clearpage
1251:
1252:
1253:
1254: \begin{landscape}
1255: \begin{deluxetable}{llrlcccccccccc}
1256: %\rotate
1257: \tablecolumns{14}
1258: \setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.04in}
1259: \tabletypesize{\tiny}
1260: \tablewidth{0pc}
1261: \tablecaption{Equivalent Widths and Atomic Parameters (full version
1262: available in online edition) \label{ew1}}
1263: \tablehead{
1264: \colhead{Wavelength} & \colhead{Element} & \colhead{log$gf$} & \colhead{EP} & \colhead{BD+03 740} & \colhead{BD+23 3130} & \colhead{BD+24 1670} & \colhead{BS 16077-007} & \colhead{BS 16080-054
1265: } & \colhead{BS 16080-093} & \colhead{BS 16084-160} & \colhead{BS 16545-089} & \colhead{BS 16550-087} & \colhead{BS 16928-053}}
1266: \startdata
1267: 5889.95 & 11.0 & 0.11 & 0.00 & \nodata & 128.50 & \nodata & \nodata & 173.50 & \nodata & 124.40 & 25.00 & 121.00 & 145.70 \\
1268: 5895.92 & 11.0 & $-$0.19 & 0.00 & \nodata & 107.50 & \nodata & \nodata & 141.00 & \nodata & 97.70 & \nodata & 94.50 & 123.60 \\
1269: 3829.36 & 12.0 & $-$0.21 & 2.71 & \nodata & 160.70 & \nodata & \nodata & 152.40 & 140.40 & 136.40 & 60.40 & 139.10 & 144.20 \\
1270: 3832.31 & 12.0 & 0.15 & 2.71 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & 187.30 & 167.20 & 157.70 & \nodata & 167.10 & 180.20 \\
1271: 4057.52 & 12.0 & $-$0.90 & 4.34 & 6.70 & 28.60 & 14.30 & \nodata & \nodata & 15.50 & \nodata & 2.00 & 13.20 & \nodata
1272: \enddata
1273: \end{deluxetable}
1274: \clearpage
1275: \end{landscape}
1276:
1277: \begin{landscape}
1278: \begin{deluxetable}{llrlccccccccc}
1279: %\rotate
1280: \tablecolumns{13}
1281: \setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.04in}
1282: \tabletypesize{\tiny}
1283: \tablewidth{0pc}
1284: \tablecaption{Equivalent Widths and Atomic Parameters (full version
1285: available in online edition) \label{ew2}}
1286: \tablehead{
1287: \colhead{Wavelength} & \colhead{Element} & \colhead{log$gf$} & \colhead{EP} & \colhead{BS 16929-005} & \colhead{BS 16467-062} & \colhead{CS 22872-102} & \colhead{CS 22878-027} & \colhead{CS 22880-086} & \colhead{CS 22884-108} & \colhead{CS 22944-032} & \colhead{CS 22957-022} & \colhead{CS 22963-004}}
1288: \startdata
1289: 5889.95 & 11.0 & 0.11 & 0.00 & 89.60 & \nodata & 79.50 & 83.20 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata \\
1290: 5895.92 & 11.0 & $-$0.19 & 0.00 & 73.30 & \nodata & 63.90 & 50.00 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata \\
1291: 3829.36 & 12.0 & $-$0.21 & 2.71 & 118.30 & 80.00 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & 79.50 & 137.90 & 133.10 & 96.90 \\
1292: 3832.31 & 12.0 & 0.15 & 2.71 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata \\
1293: 4057.52 & 12.0 & $-$0.90 & 4.34 & 11.60 & \nodata & 9.60 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & 17.10 & 19.90 & \nodata
1294: \enddata
1295: \end{deluxetable}
1296: \clearpage
1297: \end{landscape}
1298:
1299: \begin{landscape}
1300: \begin{deluxetable}{llrlccccccccc}
1301: %\rotate
1302: \tablecolumns{13}
1303: \setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.04in}
1304: \tabletypesize{\tiny}
1305: \tablewidth{0pc}
1306: \tablecaption{Equivalent Widths and Atomic Parameters (full version
1307: available in online version)\label{ew3}}
1308: \tablehead{
1309: \colhead{Wavelength} & \colhead{Element} & \colhead{log$gf$} & \colhead{EP} & \colhead{CS 22965-054} & \colhead{CS 29502-092} & \colhead{CS 29506-007} & \colhead{CS 29522-046} & \colhead{CS 30312-059} & \colhead{CS 30325-028} & \colhead{CS 30336-049} & \colhead{CS 31078-018} & \colhead{CS 31085-024}}
1310: \startdata
1311: 5889.95 & 11.0 & 0.11 & 0.00 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & 126.90 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata \\
1312: 5895.92 & 11.0 & $-$0.19 & 0.00 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & 104.90 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata \\
1313: 3829.36 & 12.0 & $-$0.21 & 2.71 & 95.40 & 136.70 & \nodata & \nodata & 135.90 & 157.20 & 83.00 & 152.00 & 138.00 \\
1314: 3832.31 & 12.0 & 0.15 & 2.71 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & 103.70 & \nodata & \nodata \\
1315: 4057.52 & 12.0 & $-$0.90 & 4.34 & \nodata & 18.80 & \nodata & 46.70 & 16.40 & 27.70 & \nodata & 20.90 & 11.10
1316: \enddata
1317: \end{deluxetable}
1318: \clearpage
1319: \end{landscape}
1320:
1321: \begin{landscape}
1322: \begin{deluxetable}{lrrrrrrrrrrrrr}
1323: %\rotate
1324: \tablecolumns{14}
1325: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1326: \tablewidth{0pc}
1327: \tablecaption{Stellar Parameters \label{atm}}
1328: \tablehead{
1329: \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{All lines} &
1330: \multicolumn{3}{c}{$\chi > 0.2$eV} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{$\chi > 1.2$eV}
1331: \\\cline{6-14}
1332: \\ \colhead{Star} & \colhead{[Fe/H]} & \colhead{\teff{}} & \colhead{log$g$} & \colhead{v$_t$}
1333: & \colhead{$\chi$ trend} & \colhead{r} &\colhead{Numb.} & \colhead{$\chi$ trend} & \colhead{r}
1334: &\colhead{Numb.} & \colhead{$\chi$ trend} & \colhead{r} &\colhead{Numb.}
1335: \\ \colhead{ID} & \colhead{} & \colhead{(K)} & \colhead{(cgs)} & \colhead{(km s$^{-1}$)}
1336: & \colhead{(dex/eV)} & \colhead{} & \colhead{lines} & \colhead{(dex/eV)} & \colhead{} &
1337: \colhead{lines} & \colhead{(dex/eV)} & \colhead{} & \colhead{lines} }
1338: \startdata
1339: BD+03 740 & $-$2.75 & 6557 & 4.28 & 1.8 & $-$0.04 & $-$0.49 & 102 & $-$0.03 & $-$0.38 & 91 & $-$0.03 & $-$0.27 & 76 \\
1340: BD+23 3130 & $-$2.60 & 5285 & 2.83 & 1.6 & $-$0.07 & $-$0.64 & 150 & $-$0.07 & $-$0.59 & 133 & $-$0.04 & $-$0.36 & 107 \\
1341: BD+24 1676 & $-$2.60 & 6241 & 3.81 & 1.6 & $-$0.01 & $-$0.21 & 119 & $-$0.01 & $-$0.14 & 107 & 0.00 & $-$0.02 & 88 \\
1342: BS 16077-007 & $-$2.80 & 6544 & 4.29 & 1.6 & $-$0.05 & $-$0.56 & 77 & $-$0.06 & $-$0.54 & 67 & $-$0.03 & $-$0.29 & 52 \\
1343: BS 16080-054 & $-$3.00 & 4805 & 1.48 & 2.1 & $-$0.03 & $-$0.29 & 91 & $-$0.02 & $-$0.05 & 80 & $-$0.01 & $-$0.05 & 63 \\
1344: BS 16080-093 & $-$3.20 & 4940 & 1.86 & 1.9 & $-$0.09 & $-$0.69 & 94 & $-$0.07 & $-$0.52 & 78 & $-$0.04 & $-$0.23 & 61 \\
1345: BS 16084-160 & $-$3.15 & 4728 & 1.26 & 2.1 & $-$0.09 & $-$0.59 & 155 & $-$0.07 & $-$0.45 & 137 & $-$0.03 & $-$0.17 & 105 \\
1346: BS 16545-089 & $-$3.50 & 6500 & 4.25 & 1.6 & $-$0.03 & $-$0.30 & 27 & $-$0.01 & $-$0.03 & 21 & $-$0.10 & $-$0.50 & 16 \\
1347: BS 16550-087 & $-$3.50 & 4750 & 1.31 & 2.3 & $-$0.11 & $-$0.65 & 122 & $-$0.08 & $-$0.09 & 105 & $-$0.05 & $-$0.26 & 78 \\
1348: BS 16928-053 & $-$3.05 & 4691 & 1.16 & 2.1 & $-$0.06 & $-$0.47 & 69 & $-$0.06 & $-$0.44 & 61 & $-$0.06 & $-$0.39 & 48 \\
1349: BS 16929-005 & $-$3.35 & 5245 & 2.70 & 1.6 & $-$0.06 & $-$0.56 & 97 & $-$0.05 & $-$0.41 & 83 & $-$0.02 & $-$0.20 & 63 \\
1350: BS 16467-062 & $-$3.70 & 5388 & 3.04 & 1.7 & $-$0.10 & $-$0.67 & 52 & $-$0.02 & $-$0.16 & 41 & $-$0.01 & $-$0.05 & 34 \\
1351: CS 22872-102 & $-$2.90 & 5984 & 3.63 & 1.5 & 0.00 & $-$0.02 & 68 & 0.00 & $-$0.05 & 57 & 0.01 & 0.06 & 48 \\
1352: CS 22878-027 & $-$2.50 & 6348 & 4.39 & 1.4 & $-$0.05 & $-$0.52 & 61 & $-$0.05 & $-$0.39 & 51 & $-$0.02 & $-$0.13 & 41 \\
1353: CS 22880-086 & $-$3.00 & 5188 & 2.55 & 1.5 & $-$0.10 & $-$0.70 & 78 & $-$0.09 & $-$0.58 & 68 & $-$0.09 & $-$0.56 & 53 \\
1354: CS 22884-108 & $-$3.15 & 6290 & 4.44 & 1.4 & $-$0.05 & $-$0.33 & 39 & 0.00 & 0.01 & 31 & $-$0.06 & $-$0.33 & 24 \\
1355: CS 22944-032 & $-$3.00 & 5300 & 2.87 & 1.5 & $-$0.04 & $-$0.46 & 124 & $-$0.04 & $-$0.39 & 112 & $-$0.01 & $-$0.09 & 86 \\
1356: CS 22957-022 & $-$2.90 & 5163 & 2.47 & 1.6 & $-$0.07 & $-$0.58 & 125 & $-$0.06 & $-$0.49 & 114 & $-$0.03 & $-$0.29 & 88 \\
1357: CS 22963-004 & $-$3.50 & 5659 & 3.40 & 1.6 & $-$0.09 & $-$0.67 & 60 & $-$0.07 & $-$0.45 & 49 & $-$0.05 & $-$0.30 & 36 \\
1358: CS 22965-054 & $-$3.10 & 6205 & 3.73 & 1.7 & $-$0.01 & $-$0.11 & 44 & 0.03 & 0.23 & 36 & 0.00 & 0.01 & 30 \\
1359: CS 29502-092 & $-$3.30 & 4890 & 1.72 & 1.6 & $-$0.01 & $-$0.11 & 142 & 0.00 & $-$0.03 & 125 & 0.01 & 0.13 & 96 \\
1360: CS 29506-007 & $-$2.85 & 6369 & 3.84 & 1.4 & $-$0.02 & $-$0.25 & 59 & $-$0.03 & $-$0.22 & 50 & $-$0.04 & $-$0.27 & 39 \\
1361: CS 29522-046 & $-$2.10 & 6055 & 3.80 & 1.4 & $-$0.02 & $-$0.27 & 130 & $-$0.02 & $-$0.23 & 117 & 0.00 & $-$0.02 & 94 \\
1362: CS 30312-059 & $-$3.15 & 5021 & 2.06 & 1.8 & $-$0.05 & $-$0.45 & 90 & $-$0.04 & $-$0.29 & 80 & $-$0.02 & $-$0.16 & 65 \\
1363: CS 30325-028 & $-$2.90 & 4911 & 1.70 & 1.8 & $-$0.07 & $-$0.60 & 122 & $-$0.06 & $-$0.50 & 110 & $-$0.03 & $-$0.22 & 84 \\
1364: CS 30336-049 & $-$3.95 & 4827 & 1.51 & 2.3 & $-$0.13 & $-$0.65 & 78 & $-$0.11 & $-$0.45 & 66 & $-$0.01 & $-$0.06 & 46 \\
1365: CS 31078-018 & $-$2.85 & 5257 & 2.75 & 1.5 & $-$0.07 & $-$0.65 & 125 & $-$0.07 & $-$0.60 & 110 & $-$0.03 & $-$0.37 & 86 \\
1366: CS 31085-024 & $-$2.70 & 5949 & 4.57 & 0.9 & $-$0.07 & $-$0.63 & 101 & $-$0.06 & $-$0.52 & 89 & $-$0.04 & $-$0.36 & 69
1367: \enddata
1368: \end{deluxetable}
1369: \clearpage
1370: \end{landscape}
1371:
1372:
1373: \begin{deluxetable}{lrrrrrrrr}
1374: \tablecolumns{9}
1375: \tabletypesize{\small}
1376: \tablecaption{Comparison of Atmospheric Parameters \label{atmcomp}}
1377: \tablewidth{0pc}
1378: \tablehead{
1379: \colhead{} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{This Study} & \colhead{} &\multicolumn{3}{c}{Previous Study} & \colhead{}\\
1380: \cline{2-4} \cline{6-8} \\
1381: \colhead{Star ID} & \colhead{\teff{}} & \colhead{\logg{}} & \colhead{v$_t$} & \colhead{} & \colhead{\teff{}} & \colhead{\logg{}}
1382: & \colhead{v$_t$} & \colhead{Ref.} \\
1383: }
1384: \startdata
1385: BD+03 740 & 6557 & 4.28 & 1.8 & \phn & 6330 & 3.55 & 1.4 & 1\\
1386: BD+24 1676 & 6241 & 3.81 & 1.6 & \phn & 6250 & 3.45 & 1.2 & 1\\
1387: BS 16080-054 & 4805 & 1.48 & 2.1 & \phn & 4800 & 1.1 & 2.4 & 2\\
1388: BS 16084-160 & 4728 & 1.26 & 2.1 & \phn & 4650 & 1.1 & 2.2 & 2\\
1389: CS 30312-059 & 5021 & 2.06 & 1.8 & \phn & 4950 & 2.0 & 1.8 & 2\\
1390: CS 30325-028 & 4911 & 1.70 & 1.8 & \phn & 4900 & 1.8 & 2.0 & 2\\
1391: BS 16467-062 & 5388 & 3.04 & 1.7 & \phn & 5200 & 2.5 & 1.6 & 3\\
1392: BS 16467-062 & 5388 & 3.04 & 1.7 & \phn & 5364 & 2.95 & 1.6 & 4
1393: \enddata
1394: \tablerefs{(1) \citet{ivans03}; (2) \citet{aoki05}; (3) \citet{cayrel04}; (4) \citet{cohen07-2}}
1395: \end{deluxetable}
1396:
1397: %\clearpage
1398:
1399: \begin{deluxetable}{lrrrrr}
1400: \tablecolumns{6}
1401: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1402: \tablewidth{0pc}
1403: \tablecaption{Atmospheric errors for BD+03 740 \label{erBD+03}}
1404: \tablehead{
1405: \colhead{Element} & \colhead{\teff{}} & \colhead{\logg{}} & \colhead{v$_t$} & \colhead{$\sigma_{\mbox{log}\epsilon}$}
1406: & \colhead{$\sigma_{[X/Fe]}$}\\
1407: \colhead{\phn} & \colhead{+100 K} & \colhead{+0.2 dex} & \colhead{+0.2 km s$^{-1}$} & \colhead{} & \colhead{}}
1408: \startdata
1409: Fe {\scriptsize I} & 0.08 & 0.00 &$-$0.02 & 0.08 & 0.00 \\
1410: Fe {\scriptsize II} & 0.02 & 0.07 & 0.00 & 0.05 & 0.00 \\
1411: Li\tablenotemark{1} & 0.07 & 0.00 & 0.07 & 0.10 & 0.09 \\
1412: C & 0.13 & 0.00 &$-$0.05 & 0.14 & 0.06 \\
1413: Na\tablenotemark{1} & 0.07 &$-$0.01 & 0.07 & 0.11 & 0.09 \\
1414: Mg & 0.05 &$-$0.02 &$-$0.02 & 0.07 & 0.01 \\
1415: Al & 0.07 & 0.00 &$-$0.01 & 0.07 & 0.01 \\
1416: Si & 0.07 &$-$0.02 &$-$0.06 & 0.10 & 0.03 \\
1417: Ca & 0.06 & 0.00 &$-$0.01 & 0.06 & 0.02 \\
1418: Sc {\scriptsize II} & 0.05 & 0.07 &$-$0.01 & 0.03 & 0.03 \\
1419: Ti {\scriptsize I} & 0.08 & 0.01 & 0.00 & 0.07 & 0.02 \\
1420: Ti {\scriptsize II} & 0.05 & 0.05 &$-$0.03 & 0.05 & 0.05 \\
1421: V {\scriptsize I} & 0.08 &$-$0.01 &$-$0.04 & 0.10 & 0.02 \\
1422: V {\scriptsize II} & 0.05 & 0.05 & 0.00 & 0.02 & 0.08 \\
1423: Cr {\scriptsize I} & 0.10 & 0.00 &$-$0.01 & 0.10 & 0.02 \\
1424: Cr {\scriptsize II} & 0.04 & 0.05 &$-$0.03 & 0.05 & 0.04 \\
1425: Mn {\scriptsize I} & 0.09 & 0.00 &$-$0.01 & 0.09 & 0.01 \\
1426: Mn {\scriptsize II} & 0.04 & 0.05 &$-$0.01 & 0.02 & 0.04 \\
1427: Co & 0.09 & 0.01 & 0.00 & 0.08 & 0.01 \\
1428: Ni & 0.08 & 0.00 &$-$0.01 & 0.08 & 0.01 \\
1429: Cu & 0.11 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.11 & 0.04 \\
1430: Sr {\scriptsize II} & 0.06 & 0.06 &$-$0.05 & 0.07 & 0.07 \\
1431: Y {\scriptsize II} & 0.05 & 0.06 & 0.00 & 0.01 & 0.05 \\
1432: Zr {\scriptsize II} & 0.06 & 0.05 &$-$0.01 & 0.02 & 0.06 \\
1433: Ba {\scriptsize II} & 0.07 & 0.06 & 0.00 & 0.02 & 0.07
1434: \enddata
1435: \tablenotetext{1}{EWs from CS 22878-027}
1436: \end{deluxetable}
1437:
1438: \clearpage
1439:
1440: \begin{deluxetable}{lrrrrr}
1441: \tablecolumns{6}
1442: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1443: \tablewidth{0pc}
1444: \tablecaption{Atmospheric errors for CS 31078-018 \label{erCS31078}}
1445: \tablehead{
1446: \colhead{Element} & \colhead{\teff{}} & \colhead{\logg{}} & \colhead{v$_t$} & \colhead{$\sigma_{\mbox{log}\epsilon}$}
1447: & \colhead{$\sigma_{[X/Fe]}$}\\
1448: \colhead{} & \colhead{+100 K} & \colhead{+0.2 dex} & \colhead{+0.2 km s$^{-1}$} & \colhead{} & \colhead{}}
1449: \startdata
1450: Fe {\scriptsize I} & 0.10 &$-$0.02 &$-$0.05 & 0.03 & 0.00 \\
1451: Fe {\scriptsize II} & 0.02 & 0.07 &$-$0.02 & 0.10 & 0.00 \\
1452: C & 0.20 &$-$0.05 & 0.00 & 0.12 & 0.11 \\
1453: N & 0.20 &$-$0.05 & 0.00 & 0.12 & 0.11 \\
1454: O & 0.20 &$-$0.10 & 0.00 & 0.09 & 0.14 \\
1455: Na\tablenotemark{1} & 0.13 &$-$0.05 &$-$0.07 & 0.08 & 0.11 \\
1456: Mg & 0.09 &$-$0.04 &$-$0.02 & 0.05 & 0.09 \\
1457: Al & 0.11 &$-$0.03 &$-$0.07 & 0.04 & 0.05 \\
1458: Si\tablenotemark{2} & 0.13 &$-$0.07 &$-$0.05 & 0.11 & 0.15 \\
1459: Ca & 0.07 & 0.00 &$-$0.01 & 0.07 & 0.03 \\
1460: Sc {\scriptsize II} & 0.05 & 0.05 &$-$0.03 & 0.11 & 0.03 \\
1461: Ti {\scriptsize I} & 0.11 & 0.00 &$-$0.01 & 0.11 & 0.05 \\
1462: Ti {\scriptsize II} & 0.06 & 0.05 &$-$0.04 & 0.13 & 0.03 \\
1463: V {\scriptsize I} & 0.11 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.11 & 0.06 \\
1464: V {\scriptsize II} & 0.06 & 0.06 &$-$0.01 & 0.13 & 0.07 \\
1465: Cr {\scriptsize I} & 0.12 &$-$0.01 &$-$0.06 & 0.08 & 0.03 \\
1466: Cr {\scriptsize II} & 0.04 & 0.03 &$-$0.11 & 0.13 & 0.05 \\
1467: Mn {\scriptsize I} & 0.11 &$-$0.02 &$-$0.08 & 0.05 & 0.03 \\
1468: Mn {\scriptsize II} & 0.05 & 0.04 &$-$0.08 & 0.12 & 0.03 \\
1469: Co & 0.12 & 0.00 &$-$0.05 & 0.10 & 0.04 \\
1470: Ni & 0.11 &$-$0.01 &$-$0.08 & 0.08 & 0.04 \\
1471: Cu & 0.14 &$-$0.01 &$-$0.11 & 0.11 & 0.07 \\
1472: Zn & 0.04 & 0.03 & 0.00 & 0.08 & 0.07 \\
1473: Sr {\scriptsize II} & 0.02 & 0.06 & 0.00 & 0.09 & 0.03 \\
1474: Y {\scriptsize II} & 0.07 & 0.06 &$-$0.03 & 0.15 & 0.03 \\
1475: Zr {\scriptsize II} & 0.07 & 0.06 &$-$0.02 & 0.14 & 0.03 \\
1476: Ru & 0.13 & 0.00 &$-$0.02 & 0.12 & 0.07 \\
1477: Pd & 0.12 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.12 & 0.07 \\
1478: Ba {\scriptsize II} & 0.12 & 0.01 &$-$0.16 & 0.16 & 0.08 \\
1479: La {\scriptsize II} & 0.07 & 0.07 &$-$0.01 & 0.16 & 0.06 \\
1480: Ce {\scriptsize II} & 0.07 & 0.07 & 0.00 & 0.15 & 0.06 \\
1481: Nd {\scriptsize II} & 0.07 & 0.07 & 0.00 & 0.15 & 0.06 \\
1482: Sm {\scriptsize II} & 0.07 & 0.07 & 0.00 & 0.15 & 0.06 \\
1483: Eu {\scriptsize II} & 0.08 & 0.07 &$-$0.02 & 0.17 & 0.03 \\
1484: Gd {\scriptsize II} & 0.07 & 0.06 & 0.00 & 0.14 & 0.05 \\
1485: Dy {\scriptsize II} & 0.08 & 0.06 &$-$0.02 & 0.15 & 0.04 \\
1486: Ho {\scriptsize II} & 0.07 & 0.07 &$-$0.01 & 0.16 & 0.06 \\
1487: Er {\scriptsize II} & 0.08 & 0.07 & 0.00 & 0.17 & 0.07 \\
1488: Yb {\scriptsize II} & 0.10 & 0.02 &$-$0.17 & 0.18 & 0.02
1489: \enddata
1490: \tablenotetext{1}{EW from BD+23 3130}
1491: \tablenotetext{2}{EW from BS 16929-005}
1492: \end{deluxetable}
1493:
1494: \clearpage
1495: \begin{deluxetable}{lrrrrr}
1496: \tablecolumns{6}
1497: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1498: \tablewidth{0pc}
1499: \tablecaption{Atmospheric errors for CS 29502-092 \label{erCS29502}}
1500: \tablehead{
1501: \colhead{Element} & \colhead{\teff{}} & \colhead{\logg{}} & \colhead{v$_t$} & \colhead{$\sigma_{\mbox{log}\epsilon}$}
1502: & \colhead{$\sigma_{[X/Fe]}$}\\
1503: \colhead{} & \colhead{+100 K} & \colhead{+0.2 dex} & \colhead{+0.2 km s$^{-1}$} & \colhead{} & \colhead{}}
1504: \startdata
1505: Fe {\scriptsize I} & 0.12 &$-$0.03 &$-$0.06 & 0.09 & 0.00 \\
1506: Fe {\scriptsize II} & 0.01 & 0.06 &$-$0.02 & 0.08 & 0.00 \\
1507: C & 0.25 &$-$0.10 & 0.00 & 0.09 & 0.08 \\
1508: N & 0.30 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.30 & 0.22 \\
1509: O & 0.25 &$-$0.10 & 0.00 & 0.09 & 0.08 \\
1510: Mg & 0.11 &$-$0.05 &$-$0.04 & 0.01 & 0.04 \\
1511: Na\tablenotemark{1} & 0.14 &$-$0.08 &$-$0.09 & 0.05 & 0.06 \\
1512: Al & 0.12 &$-$0.04 &$-$0.09 & 0.09 & 0.03 \\
1513: Si\tablenotemark{1} & 0.18 &$-$0.08 &$-$0.04 & 0.02 & 0.01 \\
1514: Ca & 0.07 &$-$0.01 &$-$0.01 & 0.06 & 0.04 \\
1515: Sc {\scriptsize II} & 0.06 & 0.06 &$-$0.02 & 0.13 & 0.05 \\
1516: Ti {\scriptsize I} & 0.14 &$-$0.01 &$-$0.01 & 0.13 & 0.06 \\
1517: Ti {\scriptsize II} & 0.05 & 0.06 &$-$0.03 & 0.13 & 0.04 \\
1518: V {\scriptsize I} & 0.14 &$-$0.01 &$-$0.01 & 0.13 & 0.06 \\
1519: V {\scriptsize II} & 0.06 & 0.05 &$-$0.02 & 0.12 & 0.06 \\
1520: Cr {\scriptsize I} & 0.13 &$-$0.02 &$-$0.03 & 0.10 & 0.03 \\
1521: Cr {\scriptsize II} &$-$0.02 & 0.06 & 0.00 & 0.03 & 0.04 \\
1522: Mn {\scriptsize I} & 0.12 &$-$0.01 &$-$0.05 & 0.12 & 0.02 \\
1523: Mn {\scriptsize II} & 0.04 & 0.04 &$-$0.08 & 0.13 & 0.05 \\
1524: Co & 0.14 &$-$0.02 &$-$0.08 & 0.13 & 0.04 \\
1525: Ni & 0.11 &$-$0.02 &$-$0.08 & 0.11 & 0.02 \\
1526: Cu & 0.17 &$-$0.03 &$-$0.10 & 0.15 & 0.06 \\
1527: Zn & 0.05 & 0.03 & 0.00 & 0.09 & 0.05 \\
1528: Sr {\scriptsize II} & 0.08 & 0.03 &$-$0.19 & 0.24 & 0.16 \\
1529: Y {\scriptsize II} & 0.08 & 0.06 &$-$0.01 & 0.15 & 0.07 \\
1530: Zr {\scriptsize II} & 0.08 & 0.06 &$-$0.02 & 0.16 & 0.07 \\
1531: Pd & 0.17 &$-$0.03 &$-$0.10 & 0.15 & 0.06 \\
1532: Cd & 0.18 & 0.01 & 0.00 & 0.19 & 0.11 \\
1533: Ba {\scriptsize II} & 0.08 & 0.06 &$-$0.02 & 0.16 & 0.07 \\
1534: La {\scriptsize II}\tablenotemark{2} & 0.08 & 0.06 &$-$0.01 & 0.15 & 0.07 \\
1535: Eu {\scriptsize II}\tablenotemark{2} & 0.08 & 0.06 &$-$0.01 & 0.15 & 0.04
1536: \enddata
1537: \tablenotetext{1}{EWs from BS 16080-054}
1538: \tablenotetext{2}{EWs from CS 30325-028}
1539: \end{deluxetable}
1540: \clearpage
1541:
1542: \begin{landscape}
1543: \begin{deluxetable}{lrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr}
1544: \tablecolumns{21}
1545: %\rotate
1546: \setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.055in}
1547: \tabletypesize{\tiny}
1548: \tablewidth{0pc}
1549: \tablecaption{Abundances relative to Fe (and \ion{Fe}{2} for ionized species) \label{abund1}}
1550: \tablehead{
1551: \colhead{Star} & \colhead{ [Fe/H]} & \colhead{numb.} & \colhead{$\sigma$} & \colhead{total}
1552: & \colhead{[Fe {\tiny II}/H]} & \colhead{numb.} & \colhead{$\sigma$} & \colhead{total}
1553: & \colhead{ [C/Fe]} & \colhead{numb.} & \colhead{$\sigma$} & \colhead{total} & \colhead{ [N/Fe]}
1554: & \colhead{numb.} & \colhead{$\sigma$} & \colhead{total} & \colhead{ [O/Fe]} & \colhead{numb.} & \colhead{$\sigma$} &
1555: \colhead{total}
1556: \\
1557: \colhead{ID} & \colhead{} & \colhead{lines} &\colhead{lines} & \colhead{error} & \colhead{} & \colhead{lines} &\colhead{lines}
1558: & \colhead{error} & \colhead{} & \colhead{lines} &\colhead{lines} & \colhead{error} & \colhead{} & \colhead{lines} &\colhead{lines}
1559: & \colhead{error} & \colhead{} & \colhead{lines} &\colhead{lines} & \colhead{error}
1560: }
1561: \startdata
1562: BD+03 740 & $-$2.71 & 102 & 0.10 & 0.08 & $-$2.69 & 10 & 0.10 & 0.06 & 0.59 & 1 & 0.30 & 0.31 & $<$0.29 & 1 & \nodata & \nodata & $<$0.98 & 1 & \nodata & \nodata \\
1563: BD+23 3130 & $-$2.58 & 150 & 0.13 & 0.03 & $-$2.62 & 21 & 0.16 & 0.11 & 0.11 & 1 & 0.20 & 0.23 & $-$0.54 & 1 & 0.20 & 0.23 & 0.55 & 1 & 0.30 & 0.33 \\
1564: BD+24 1676 & $-$2.63 & 119 & 0.07 & 0.08 & $-$2.60 & 14 & 0.09 & 0.06 & 0.41 & 1 & 0.20 & 0.21 & $<$0.21 & 1 & \nodata & \nodata & 0.65 & 1 & 0.30 & \nodata \\
1565: BS 16077-007 & $-$2.72 & 77 & 0.10 & 0.08 & $-$2.82 & 4 & 0.14 & 0.09 & 0.60 & 1 & 0.30 & 0.31 & $<$0.80 & 1 & \nodata & \nodata & $<$1.39 & 1 & \nodata & \nodata \\
1566: BS 16080-054 & $-$3.07 & 91 & 0.12 & 0.09 & $-$2.94 & 11 & 0.10 & 0.09 & $-$0.45 & 1 & 0.20 & 0.22 & 0.75 & 1 & 0.30 & 0.37 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata \\
1567: BS 16080-093 & $-$3.19 & 94 & 0.14 & 0.09 & $-$3.11 & 12 & 0.14 & 0.09 &$<-$0.63 & 1 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata \\
1568: BS 16084-160 & $-$3.20 & 155 & 0.17 & 0.09 & $-$3.26 & 16 & 0.11 & 0.08 & $-$0.12 & 1 & 0.20 & 0.22 & 0.78 & 1 & 0.20 & 0.30 & 0.27 & 1 & 0.30 & 0.31 \\
1569: BS 16467-062 & $-$3.75 & 52 & 0.15 & 0.04 & $-$3.75 & 3 & 0.16 & 0.14 & 0.48 & 1 & 0.20 & 0.23 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata \\
1570: BS 16545-089 & $-$3.44 & 27 & 0.06 & 0.08 & $-$3.44 & 27 & 0.06 & 0.08 & $<$1.62 & 1 & \nodata & \nodata & $<$1.82 & 1 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata \\
1571: BS 16550-087 & $-$3.53 & 122 & 0.17 & 0.09 & $-$3.51 & 12 & 0.12 & 0.09 & $-$0.49 & 1 & 0.20 & 0.22 & 1.11 & 1 & 0.30 & 0.37 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata \\
1572: BS 16928-053 & $-$3.07 & 69 & 0.15 & 0.09 & $-$3.11 & 4 & 0.04 & 0.08 & $-$0.25 & 1 & 0.20 & 0.22 & 1.05 & 1 & 0.30 & 0.37 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata \\
1573: BS 16929-005 & $-$3.34 & 97 & 0.12 & 0.03 & $-$3.39 & 7 & 0.12 & 0.11 & 0.97 & 1 & 0.20 & 0.23 & 0.32 & 1 & 0.30 & 0.32 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata \\
1574: CS 22872-102 & $-$2.87 & 68 & 0.07 & 0.03 & $-$2.98 & 4 & 0.14 & 0.12 & 0.60 & 1 & 0.20 & 0.23 & $<$0.55 & 1 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata \\
1575: CS 22878-027 & $-$2.48 & 61 & 0.11 & 0.08 & $-$2.68 & 2 & 0.08 & 0.08 & 0.86 & 1 & 0.10 & 0.12 & $<$1.06 & 1 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata \\
1576: CS 22880-086 & $-$3.01 & 78 & 0.13 & 0.03 & $-$3.03 & 9 & 0.14 & 0.11 & 0.24 & 1 & 0.15 & 0.19 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata \\
1577: CS 22884-108 & $-$3.14 & 39 & 0.12 & 0.08 & $-$3.32 & 2 & 0.06 & 0.07 & $<$0.92 & 1 & \nodata & \nodata & $<$1.22 & 1 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata \\
1578: CS 22944-032 & $-$2.98 & 124 & 0.11 & 0.03 & $-$3.04 & 10 & 0.09 & 0.10 & 0.31 & 1 & 0.10 & 0.15 &$<-$0.44 & 1 & \nodata & \nodata & 0.75 & 1 & 0.30 & 0.33 \\
1579: CS 22957-022 & $-$2.93 & 125 & 0.13 & 0.03 & $-$2.92 & 12 & 0.10 & 0.10 & 0.16 & 1 & 0.20 & 0.23 & 0.21 & 1 & 0.20 & 0.23 & 0.60 & 1 & 0.30 & 0.33 \\
1580: CS 22963-004 & $-$3.42 & 60 & 0.12 & 0.03 & $-$3.44 & 3 & 0.15 & 0.13 & 0.40 & 1 & 0.20 & 0.23 & 0.80 & 1 & 0.20 & 0.23 & 0.99 & 1 & 0.30 & 0.33 \\
1581: CS 22965-054 & $-$3.09 & 44 & 0.11 & 0.03 & $-$3.05 & 4 & 0.20 & 0.14 & $<$1.07 & 1 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata \\
1582: CS 29502-092 & $-$3.18 & 142 & 0.09 & 0.09 & $-$3.20 & 17 & 0.12 & 0.09 & 0.96 & 1 & 0.20 & 0.22 & 0.81 & 1 & 0.15 & 0.27 & 0.75 & 1 & 0.30 & 0.31 \\
1583: CS 29506-007 & $-$2.85 & 59 & 0.09 & 0.08 & $-$2.89 & 4 & 0.09 & 0.07 & $<$0.83 & 1 & \nodata & \nodata & $<$0.93 & 1 & \nodata & \nodata & $<$1.52 & 1 & \nodata & \nodata \\
1584: CS 29522-046 & $-$2.09 & 130 & 0.07 & 0.08 & $-$2.24 & 18 & 0.12 & 0.06 & 0.42 & 1 & 0.20 & 0.21 & $-$0.33 & 1 & 0.30 & \nodata & 0.66 & 1 & 0.20 & \nodata \\
1585: CS 30312-059 & $-$3.14 & 90 & 0.12 & 0.09 & $-$3.19 & 8 & 0.05 & 0.08 & 0.27 & 1 & 0.10 & 0.13 &$<-$0.48 & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata \\
1586: CS 30325-028 & $-$2.90 & 122 & 0.14 & 0.09 & $-$2.96 & 16 & 0.11 & 0.08 & 0.38 & 1 & 0.20 & 0.22 & $-$0.22 & 1 & 0.15 & 0.27 & 0.57 & 1 & 0.30 & 0.31 \\
1587: CS 30336-049 & $-$4.04 & 78 & 0.18 & 0.09 & $-$4.16 & 4 & 0.10 & 0.09 & $-$0.28 & 1 & 0.30 & 0.31 & 0.92 & 1 & 0.20 & 0.30 & 1.01 & 1 & 0.30 & 0.31 \\
1588: CS 31078-018 & $-$2.84 & 125 & 0.12 & 0.03 & $-$2.91 & 10 & 0.13 & 0.11 & 0.37 & 1 & 0.15 & 0.19 & $-$0.38 & 1 & 0.20 & 0.23 & 0.81 & 1 & 0.30 & 0.33 \\
1589: CS 31085-024 & $-$2.68 & 101 & 0.12 & 0.08 & $-$2.71 & 5 & 0.13 & 0.08 & 0.36 & 1 & 0.20 & 0.21 &$<-$0.24 & 1 & \nodata & \nodata & 0.65 & 1 & 0.30 & \nodata
1590: \enddata
1591: \end{deluxetable}
1592: \clearpage
1593:
1594:
1595:
1596:
1597: \begin{deluxetable}{lrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr}
1598: \tablecolumns{21}
1599: %\rotate
1600: \setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.055in}
1601: \tabletypesize{\tiny}
1602: \tablewidth{0pc}
1603: \tablecaption{Abundances relative to Fe (and \ion{Fe}{2} for ionized species) \label{abund2}}
1604: \tablehead{
1605: \colhead{Star} & \colhead{ [Na/Fe]} & \colhead{numb.} & \colhead{$\sigma$} & \colhead{total} & \colhead{ [Mg/Fe]} & \colhead{numb.} & \colhead{$\sigma$} & \colhead{total} & \colhead{ [Al/Fe]} & \colhead{numb.} & \colhead{$\sigma$} & \colhead{total} & \colhead{ [Si/Fe]} & \colhead{numb.} & \colhead{$\sigma$} & \colhead{total} & \colhead{ [Ca/Fe]} & \colhead{numb.} & \colhead{$\sigma$} & \colhead{total}
1606: \\
1607: \colhead{ID} & \colhead{} & \colhead{lines} &\colhead{lines} & \colhead{error} & \colhead{} & \colhead{lines} &\colhead{lines}
1608: & \colhead{error} & \colhead{} & \colhead{lines} &\colhead{lines} & \colhead{error} & \colhead{} & \colhead{lines} &\colhead{lines}
1609: & \colhead{error} & \colhead{} & \colhead{lines} &\colhead{lines} & \colhead{error}
1610: }
1611: \startdata
1612: BD+03 740 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & 0.23 & 6 & 0.04 & 0.02 & $-$0.84 & 1 & 0.15 & 0.15 & 0.07 & 1 & 0.15 & 0.15 & 0.38 & 11 & 0.04 & 0.03 \\
1613: BD+23 3130 & $-$0.09 & 2 & 0.08 & 0.12 & 0.25 & 7 & 0.09 & 0.10 & $-$0.99 & 2 & 0.04 & 0.06 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & 0.24 & 14 & 0.09 & 0.04 \\
1614: BD+24 1676 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & 0.37 & 6 & 0.07 & 0.03 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & 0.17 & 1 & 0.15 & 0.15 & 0.45 & 14 & 0.08 & 0.03 \\
1615: BS 16077-007 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & 0.34 & 5 & 0.08 & 0.04 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & 0.13 & 1 & 0.15 & 0.15 & 0.43 & 10 & 0.03 & 0.02 \\
1616: BS 16080-054 & 0.48 & 2 & 0.15 & 0.12 & 0.44 & 5 & 0.09 & 0.06 & $-$0.70 & 2 & 0.04 & 0.04 & 0.47 & 1 & 0.15 & 0.15 & 0.41 & 11 & 0.06 & 0.05 \\
1617: BS 16080-093 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & 0.44 & 8 & 0.07 & 0.05 & $-$0.88 & 2 & 0.07 & 0.06 & 0.42 & 1 & 0.15 & 0.15 & 0.27 & 8 & 0.09 & 0.05 \\
1618: BS 16084-160 & $-$0.22 & 2 & 0.11 & 0.10 & 0.21 & 7 & 0.07 & 0.05 & $-$0.97 & 2 & 0.04 & 0.05 & 0.62 & 1 & 0.15 & 0.15 & 0.18 & 10 & 0.10 & 0.05 \\
1619: BS 16467-062 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & 0.23 & 4 & 0.10 & 0.11 & $-$0.79 & 2 & 0.04 & 0.06 & 0.32 & 1 & 0.15 & 0.21 & 0.28 & 4 & 0.09 & 0.06 \\
1620: BS 16545-089 & $-$0.13 & 1 & 0.15 & 0.18 & $<$0.29 & 1 & \nodata & \nodata & $-$0.66 & 1 & 0.15 & 0.15 & 0.00 & 1 & 0.15 & 0.15 & 0.46 & 1 & 0.15 & 0.15 \\
1621: BS 16550-087 & 0.01 & 2 & 0.08 & 0.08 & 0.58 & 9 & 0.06 & 0.05 & $-$0.61 & 2 & 0.04 & 0.05 & 0.40 & 1 & 0.15 & 0.15 & 0.23 & 9 & 0.13 & 0.06 \\
1622: BS 16928-053 & 0.03 & 2 & 0.08 & 0.08 & 0.29 & 5 & 0.11 & 0.07 & $-$0.90 & 2 & 0.04 & 0.05 & 1.16 & 1 & 0.15 & 0.15 & 0.21 & 11 & 0.08 & 0.05 \\
1623: BS 16929-005 & $-$0.01 & 2 & 0.08 & 0.12 & 0.45 & 7 & 0.09 & 0.10 & $-$0.66 & 2 & 0.04 & 0.06 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & 0.33 & 5 & 0.06 & 0.04 \\
1624: CS 22872-102 & $-$0.04 & 2 & 0.08 & 0.12 & 0.38 & 3 & 0.09 & 0.10 & $-$0.72 & 2 & 0.11 & 0.09 & 0.28 & 1 & 0.15 & 0.21 & 0.40 & 13 & 0.05 & 0.03 \\
1625: CS 22878-027 & $-$0.28 & 2 & 0.17 & 0.15 & 0.02 & 2 & 0.15 & 0.11 & $-$0.84 & 1 & 0.15 & 0.15 & 0.07 & 1 & 0.15 & 0.15 & 0.18 & 7 & 0.18 & 0.07 \\
1626: CS 22880-086 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & 0.29 & 4 & 0.08 & 0.10 & $-$0.97 & 2 & 0.08 & 0.08 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & 0.26 & 4 & 0.11 & 0.06 \\
1627: CS 22884-108 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & $<$0.18 & 1 & \nodata & \nodata & $-$0.73 & 2 & 0.07 & 0.05 & 0.11 & 1 & 0.15 & 0.15 & 0.36 & 3 & 0.08 & 0.06 \\
1628: CS 22944-032 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & 0.39 & 8 & 0.07 & 0.09 & $-$0.84 & 1 & 0.15 & 0.16 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & 0.29 & 10 & 0.06 & 0.04 \\
1629: CS 22957-022 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & 0.28 & 8 & 0.09 & 0.10 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & 0.22 & 10 & 0.07 & 0.04 \\
1630: CS 22963-004 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & 0.35 & 5 & 0.06 & 0.10 & $-$0.85 & 1 & 0.15 & 0.16 & 0.42 & 1 & 0.15 & 0.21 & 0.31 & 3 & 0.08 & 0.06 \\
1631: CS 22965-054 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & 0.31 & 2 & 0.09 & 0.11 & $-$0.73 & 1 & 0.15 & 0.16 & 0.08 & 1 & 0.15 & 0.21 & 0.43 & 3 & 0.11 & 0.07 \\
1632: CS 29502-092 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & 0.42 & 7 & 0.09 & 0.05 & $-$0.79 & 1 & 0.15 & 0.15 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & 0.31 & 10 & 0.10 & 0.05 \\
1633: CS 29506-007 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & 0.28 & 4 & 0.10 & 0.05 & $-$0.82 & 1 & 0.15 & 0.15 & 0.10 & 1 & 0.15 & 0.15 & 0.45 & 5 & 0.09 & 0.05 \\
1634: CS 29522-046 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & 0.40 & 5 & 0.04 & 0.02 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & 0.38 & 14 & 0.09 & 0.03 \\
1635: CS 30312-059 & 0.17 & 2 & 0.08 & 0.08 & 0.41 & 5 & 0.08 & 0.06 & $-$0.88 & 2 & 0.07 & 0.06 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & 0.33 & 12 & 0.06 & 0.05 \\
1636: CS 30325-028 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & 0.41 & 7 & 0.04 & 0.04 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & 0.32 & 9 & 0.09 & 0.05 \\
1637: CS 30336-049 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & 0.08 & 6 & 0.11 & 0.06 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & 0.19 & 1 & 0.15 & 0.15 & 0.09 & 5 & 0.13 & 0.07 \\
1638: CS 31078-018 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & 0.42 & 8 & 0.08 & 0.09 & $-$0.73 & 1 & 0.15 & 0.16 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & 0.41 & 11 & 0.10 & 0.04 \\
1639: CS 31085-024 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & 0.17 & 7 & 0.07 & 0.03 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & 0.21 & 1 & 0.15 & 0.15 & 0.22 & 10 & 0.07 & 0.03
1640: \enddata
1641: \end{deluxetable}
1642: \clearpage
1643:
1644: \begin{deluxetable}{lrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr}
1645: \tablecolumns{21}
1646: %\rotate
1647: \setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.055in}
1648: \tabletypesize{\tiny}
1649: \tablewidth{0pc}
1650: \tablecaption{Abundances relative to Fe (and \ion{Fe}{2} for ionized species) \label{abund3}}
1651: \tablehead{
1652: \colhead{Star} & \colhead{[ScII/Fe]} & \colhead{numb.} & \colhead{$\sigma$} & \colhead{total} & \colhead{ [Ti/Fe]} & \colhead{numb.} & \colhead{$\sigma$} & \colhead{total} & \colhead{[Ti {\tiny II}/Fe]} & \colhead{numb.} & \colhead{$\sigma$} & \colhead{total} & \colhead{ [V/Fe]} & \colhead{numb.} & \colhead{$\sigma$} & \colhead{total} & \colhead{ [V {\tiny II}/Fe]} & \colhead{numb.} & \colhead{$\sigma$} & \colhead{total}
1653: \\
1654: \colhead{ID} & \colhead{} & \colhead{lines} &\colhead{lines} & \colhead{error} & \colhead{} & \colhead{lines} &\colhead{lines}
1655: & \colhead{error} & \colhead{} & \colhead{lines} &\colhead{lines} & \colhead{error} & \colhead{} & \colhead{lines} &\colhead{lines}
1656: & \colhead{error} & \colhead{} & \colhead{lines} &\colhead{lines} & \colhead{error}
1657: }
1658: \startdata
1659: BD+03 740 & 0.29 & 4 & 0.06 & 0.05 & 0.69 & 7 & 0.07 & 0.03 & 0.57 & 28 & 0.11 & 0.06 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & 0.28 & 4 & 0.06 & 0.09 \\
1660: BD+23 3130 & 0.06 & 6 & 0.06 & 0.05 & 0.21 & 19 & 0.06 & 0.05 & 0.25 & 38 & 0.13 & 0.05 & 0.08 & 3 & 0.25 & 0.16 & 0.12 & 8 & 0.09 & 0.08 \\
1661: BD+24 1676 & 0.20 & 5 & 0.06 & 0.05 & 0.55 & 9 & 0.08 & 0.03 & 0.45 & 32 & 0.11 & 0.06 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & 0.20 & 5 & 0.09 & 0.09 \\
1662: BS 16077-007 & 0.31 & 3 & 0.06 & 0.08 & 0.59 & 3 & 0.10 & 0.06 & 0.62 & 23 & 0.09 & 0.07 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & 0.42 & 1 & 0.15 & 0.18 \\
1663: BS 16080-054 & $-$0.02 & 5 & 0.16 & 0.09 & 0.24 & 6 & 0.10 & 0.07 & 0.30 & 24 & 0.10 & 0.06 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & $-$0.03 & 5 & 0.07 & 0.07 \\
1664: BS 16080-093 & 0.09 & 3 & 0.06 & 0.07 & 0.38 & 9 & 0.07 & 0.07 & 0.41 & 28 & 0.13 & 0.06 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & $-$0.09 & 1 & 0.15 & 0.17 \\
1665: BS 16084-160 & 0.09 & 6 & 0.07 & 0.06 & $-$0.02 & 11 & 0.08 & 0.07 & 0.09 & 28 & 0.09 & 0.06 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & $-$0.14 & 6 & 0.06 & 0.07 \\
1666: BS 16467-062 & 0.31 & 2 & 0.06 & 0.11 & 0.51 & 1 & 0.15 & 0.16 & 0.44 & 9 & 0.12 & 0.10 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata \\
1667: BS 16545-089 & 0.29 & 1 & 0.15 & 0.15 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & 0.71 & 10 & 0.08 & 0.06 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata \\
1668: BS 16550-087 & $-$0.05 & 4 & 0.13 & 0.09 & 0.18 & 7 & 0.13 & 0.08 & 0.15 & 20 & 0.11 & 0.07 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata \\
1669: BS 16928-053 & $-$0.16 & 4 & 0.11 & 0.08 & $-$0.02 & 4 & 0.08 & 0.07 & 0.21 & 16 & 0.10 & 0.09 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & $-$0.37 & 1 & 0.15 & 0.16 \\
1670: BS 16929-005 & $-$0.03 & 1 & 0.15 & 0.16 & 0.45 & 6 & 0.05 & 0.06 & 0.50 & 18 & 0.13 & 0.06 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & 0.01 & 1 & 0.15 & 0.17 \\
1671: CS 22872-102 & 0.08 & 3 & 0.06 & 0.08 & 0.48 & 3 & 0.08 & 0.07 & 0.42 & 20 & 0.13 & 0.05 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata \\
1672: CS 22878-027 & 0.16 & 1 & 0.15 & 0.16 & 0.46 & 2 & 0.16 & 0.12 & 0.53 & 12 & 0.12 & 0.10 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata \\
1673: CS 22880-086 & 0.06 & 2 & 0.07 & 0.07 & 0.23 & 4 & 0.12 & 0.08 & 0.36 & 13 & 0.10 & 0.06 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata \\
1674: CS 22884-108 & 0.45 & 1 & 0.15 & 0.16 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & 0.80 & 10 & 0.12 & 0.11 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata \\
1675: CS 22944-032 & 0.11 & 3 & 0.11 & 0.08 & 0.32 & 13 & 0.09 & 0.06 & 0.36 & 25 & 0.12 & 0.05 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & 0.16 & 5 & 0.04 & 0.08 \\
1676: CS 22957-022 & 0.05 & 3 & 0.06 & 0.06 & 0.30 & 8 & 0.06 & 0.06 & 0.33 & 26 & 0.08 & 0.05 & $-$0.09 & 1 & 0.15 & 0.16 & 0.04 & 5 & 0.04 & 0.08 \\
1677: CS 22963-004 & 0.27 & 2 & 0.06 & 0.10 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & 0.44 & 17 & 0.12 & 0.08 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & 0.07 & 1 & 0.15 & 0.19 \\
1678: CS 22965-054 & 0.03 & 1 & 0.15 & 0.18 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & 0.42 & 10 & 0.12 & 0.07 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata \\
1679: CS 29502-092 & 0.02 & 6 & 0.04 & 0.06 & 0.18 & 19 & 0.08 & 0.06 & 0.19 & 27 & 0.12 & 0.05 & $-$0.06 & 2 & 0.16 & 0.13 & 0.04 & 6 & 0.02 & 0.07 \\
1680: CS 29506-007 & 0.28 & 2 & 0.08 & 0.08 & 0.66 & 2 & 0.08 & 0.06 & 0.57 & 20 & 0.13 & 0.07 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata \\
1681: CS 29522-046 & 0.12 & 5 & 0.04 & 0.04 & 0.35 & 14 & 0.07 & 0.03 & 0.43 & 32 & 0.12 & 0.06 & 0.06 & 1 & 0.15 & 0.15 & 0.17 & 6 & 0.06 & 0.09 \\
1682: CS 30312-059 & 0.07 & 3 & 0.06 & 0.06 & 0.31 & 5 & 0.07 & 0.07 & 0.39 & 17 & 0.10 & 0.06 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & 0.04 & 5 & 0.04 & 0.07 \\
1683: CS 30325-028 & 0.08 & 5 & 0.09 & 0.07 & 0.26 & 19 & 0.08 & 0.06 & 0.35 & 32 & 0.12 & 0.06 & $-$0.11 & 1 & 0.15 & 0.16 & 0.03 & 5 & 0.05 & 0.07 \\
1684: CS 30336-049 & 0.18 & 4 & 0.07 & 0.08 & 0.16 & 1 & 0.15 & 0.16 & 0.27 & 22 & 0.12 & 0.10 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata \\
1685: CS 31078-018 & 0.10 & 4 & 0.06 & 0.06 & 0.31 & 11 & 0.07 & 0.06 & 0.38 & 26 & 0.09 & 0.05 & 0.06 & 2 & 0.16 & 0.13 & 0.13 & 5 & 0.04 & 0.08 \\
1686: CS 31085-024 & 0.14 & 2 & 0.07 & 0.08 & 0.32 & 4 & 0.08 & 0.05 & 0.38 & 22 & 0.16 & 0.08 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & 0.14 & 3 & 0.05 & 0.10
1687: \enddata
1688: \end{deluxetable}
1689: \clearpage
1690:
1691: \begin{deluxetable}{lrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr}
1692: \tablecolumns{21}
1693: \setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.055in}
1694: %\rotate
1695: \tabletypesize{\tiny}
1696: \tablewidth{0pc}
1697: \tablecaption{Abundances relative to Fe (and \ion{Fe}{2} for ionized species) \label{abund4}}
1698: \tablehead{
1699: \colhead{Star} & \colhead{ [Cr/Fe]} & \colhead{numb.} & \colhead{$\sigma$} & \colhead{total} & \colhead{[Cr {\tiny II}/Fe]} & \colhead{numb.} & \colhead{$\sigma$} & \colhead{total} & \colhead{ [Mn/Fe]} & \colhead{numb.} & \colhead{$\sigma$} & \colhead{total} & \colhead{[Mn {\tiny II}/Fe]} & \colhead{numb.} & \colhead{$\sigma$} & \colhead{total} & \colhead{ [Co/Fe]} & \colhead{numb.} & \colhead{$\sigma$} & \colhead{total}
1700: \\
1701: \colhead{ID} & \colhead{} & \colhead{lines} &\colhead{lines} & \colhead{error} & \colhead{} & \colhead{lines} &\colhead{lines}
1702: & \colhead{error} & \colhead{} & \colhead{lines} &\colhead{lines} & \colhead{error} & \colhead{} & \colhead{lines} &\colhead{lines}
1703: & \colhead{error} & \colhead{} & \colhead{lines} &\colhead{lines} & \colhead{error}
1704: }
1705: \startdata
1706: BD+03 740 & $-$0.07 & 5 & 0.05 & 0.03 & 0.05 & 2 & 0.10 & 0.09 & $-$0.46 & 3 & 0.16 & 0.09 & $-$0.19 & 3 & 0.06 & 0.06 & 0.41 & 3 & 0.09 & 0.05 \\
1707: BD+23 3130 & $-$0.24 & 19 & 0.10 & 0.04 & $-$0.07 & 4 & 0.16 & 0.10 & $-$0.57 & 10 & 0.13 & 0.05 & $-$0.38 & 3 & 0.07 & 0.06 & 0.20 & 2 & 0.16 & 0.12 \\
1708: BD+24 1676 & $-$0.13 & 7 & 0.09 & 0.04 & $-$0.09 & 3 & 0.12 & 0.08 & $-$0.43 & 5 & 0.21 & 0.09 & $-$0.30 & 3 & 0.06 & 0.06 & 0.35 & 2 & 0.09 & 0.06 \\
1709: BS 16077-007 & $-$0.15 & 6 & 0.06 & 0.03 & 0.01 & 2 & 0.10 & 0.11 & $-$0.52 & 3 & 0.16 & 0.09 & $-$0.27 & 2 & 0.06 & 0.09 & 0.34 & 2 & 0.09 & 0.06 \\
1710: BS 16080-054 & $-$0.43 & 7 & 0.26 & 0.10 & $-$0.21 & 1 & 0.15 & 0.16 & $-$0.61 & 4 & 0.25 & 0.13 & $-$0.59 & 1 & 0.15 & 0.16 & 0.08 & 3 & 0.09 & 0.07 \\
1711: BS 16080-093 & $-$0.34 & 5 & 0.13 & 0.07 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & $-$0.98 & 3 & 0.16 & 0.10 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & 0.30 & 2 & 0.10 & 0.08 \\
1712: BS 16084-160 & $-$0.42 & 10 & 0.16 & 0.06 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & $-$0.55 & 9 & 0.25 & 0.09 & $-$0.44 & 3 & 0.06 & 0.07 & 0.09 & 3 & 0.11 & 0.08 \\
1713: BS 16467-062 & $-$0.46 & 4 & 0.11 & 0.06 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & $-$0.64 & 3 & 0.16 & 0.10 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & 0.69 & 3 & 0.09 & 0.07 \\
1714: BS 16545-089 & $-$0.15 & 1 & 0.15 & 0.15 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata \\
1715: BS 16550-087 & $-$0.59 & 4 & 0.16 & 0.09 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & $-$0.96 & 3 & 0.16 & 0.10 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & 0.22 & 3 & 0.09 & 0.07 \\
1716: BS 16928-053 & $-$0.25 & 4 & 0.11 & 0.06 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & $-$0.71 & 4 & 0.24 & 0.12 & $-$0.50 & 2 & 0.12 & 0.10 & 0.04 & 3 & 0.11 & 0.08 \\
1717: BS 16929-005 & $-$0.50 & 4 & 0.11 & 0.06 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & $-$0.80 & 3 & 0.16 & 0.10 & \nodata & 2 & 0.10 & 0.09 & 0.38 & 3 & 0.09 & 0.06 \\
1718: CS 22872-102 & $-$0.32 & 5 & 0.08 & 0.05 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & $-$0.62 & 3 & 0.16 & 0.10 & $-$0.44 & 3 & 0.10 & 0.10 & 0.22 & 3 & 0.09 & 0.06 \\
1719: CS 22878-027 & $-$0.12 & 5 & 0.06 & 0.04 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & $-$0.34 & 3 & 0.16 & 0.09 & $-$0.04 & 1 & 0.15 & 0.17 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata \\
1720: CS 22880-086 & $-$0.37 & 2 & 0.11 & 0.08 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & $-$0.50 & 4 & 0.27 & 0.14 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & 0.47 & 3 & 0.09 & 0.07 \\
1721: CS 22884-108 & $-$0.25 & 4 & 0.11 & 0.06 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & $-$0.50 & 2 & 0.16 & 0.11 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata \\
1722: CS 22944-032 & $-$0.31 & 9 & 0.10 & 0.05 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & $-$0.44 & 6 & 0.21 & 0.09 & $-$0.19 & 3 & 0.06 & 0.05 & 0.45 & 3 & 0.09 & 0.06 \\
1723: CS 22957-022 & $-$0.30 & 9 & 0.13 & 0.05 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & $-$0.76 & 3 & 0.16 & 0.10 & $-$0.25 & 3 & 0.06 & 0.05 & 0.29 & 3 & 0.13 & 0.09 \\
1724: CS 22963-004 & $-$0.40 & 5 & 0.08 & 0.05 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & $-$0.77 & 3 & 0.16 & 0.10 & $-$0.42 & 1 & 0.15 & 0.18 & 0.48 & 2 & 0.09 & 0.07 \\
1725: CS 22965-054 & $-$0.05 & 3 & 0.11 & 0.07 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & $-$0.30 & 2 & 0.16 & 0.12 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & 0.26 & 1 & 0.15 & 0.16 \\
1726: CS 29502-092 & $-$0.21 & 15 & 0.12 & 0.04 & 0.21 & 2 & 0.10 & 0.08 & $-$0.32 & 8 & 0.26 & 0.09 & $-$0.16 & 3 & 0.06 & 0.07 & 0.36 & 3 & 0.09 & 0.06 \\
1727: CS 29506-007 & $-$0.17 & 6 & 0.08 & 0.04 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & $-$0.69 & 3 & 0.16 & 0.09 & $-$0.42 & 1 & 0.15 & 0.16 & 0.28 & 1 & 0.15 & 0.15 \\
1728: CS 29522-046 & $-$0.12 & 15 & 0.06 & 0.03 & 0.11 & 3 & 0.12 & 0.08 & $-$0.47 & 7 & 0.16 & 0.06 & $-$0.27 & 3 & 0.06 & 0.06 & 0.17 & 3 & 0.09 & 0.05 \\
1729: CS 30312-059 & $-$0.34 & 6 & 0.20 & 0.09 & 0.09 & 1 & 0.15 & 0.16 & $-$0.88 & 3 & 0.16 & 0.10 & $-$0.53 & 3 & 0.06 & 0.06 & 0.28 & 3 & 0.09 & 0.07 \\
1730: CS 30325-028 & $-$0.26 & 15 & 0.10 & 0.04 & $-$0.01 & 2 & 0.10 & 0.08 & $-$0.51 & 6 & 0.28 & 0.12 & $-$0.41 & 3 & 0.17 & 0.11 & 0.23 & 3 & 0.12 & 0.08 \\
1731: CS 30336-049 & $-$0.74 & 5 & 0.16 & 0.08 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & $-$0.82 & 3 & 0.16 & 0.10 & $-$0.52 & 2 & 0.07 & 0.09 & 0.47 & 3 & 0.10 & 0.07 \\
1732: CS 31078-018 & $-$0.31 & 6 & 0.11 & 0.06 & $-$0.18 & 1 & 0.15 & 0.16 & $-$0.20 & 6 & 0.20 & 0.09 & 0.01 & 3 & 0.06 & 0.06 & 0.34 & 3 & 0.16 & 0.10 \\
1733: CS 31085-024 & $-$0.23 & 7 & 0.07 & 0.04 & $-$0.10 & 1 & 0.15 & 0.17 & $-$0.41 & 5 & 0.23 & 0.10 & $-$0.19 & 3 & 0.06 & 0.08 & 0.37 & 3 & 0.09 & 0.05
1734: \enddata
1735: \end{deluxetable}
1736: \clearpage
1737:
1738: \begin{deluxetable}{lrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr}
1739: \tablecolumns{21}
1740: \setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.055in}
1741: %\rotate
1742: \tabletypesize{\tiny}
1743: \tablewidth{0pc}
1744: \tablecaption{Abundances relative to Fe (and \ion{Fe}{2} for ionized species) \label{abund5}}
1745: \tablehead{
1746: \colhead{Star} & \colhead{ [Ni/Fe]} & \colhead{numb.} & \colhead{$\sigma$} & \colhead{total} & \colhead{ [Cu/Fe]} & \colhead{numb.} & \colhead{$\sigma$} & \colhead{total} & \colhead{ [Zn/Fe]} & \colhead{numb.} & \colhead{$\sigma$} & \colhead{total} & \colhead{[Sr {\tiny II}/Fe]} & \colhead{numb.} & \colhead{$\sigma$} & \colhead{total} & \colhead{ [Y {\tiny II}/Fe]} & \colhead{numb.} & \colhead{$\sigma$} & \colhead{total}
1747: \\
1748: \colhead{ID} & \colhead{} & \colhead{lines} &\colhead{lines} & \colhead{error} & \colhead{} & \colhead{lines} &\colhead{lines}
1749: & \colhead{error} & \colhead{} & \colhead{lines} &\colhead{lines} & \colhead{error} & \colhead{} & \colhead{lines} &\colhead{lines}
1750: & \colhead{error} & \colhead{} & \colhead{lines} &\colhead{lines} & \colhead{error}
1751: }
1752: \startdata
1753: BD+03 740 & 0.06 & 3 & 0.08 & 0.05 & $-$0.80 & 2 & 0.06 & 0.06 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & $-$0.21 & 2 & 0.06 & 0.09 & $-$0.01 & 1 & 0.15 & 0.16 \\
1754: BD+23 3130 & $-$0.15 & 5 & 0.10 & 0.06 & $-$1.33 & 2 & 0.14 & 0.12 & 0.07 & 2 & 0.04 & 0.08 & $-$0.38 & 2 & 0.10 & 0.08 & $-$0.39 & 11 & 0.08 & 0.05 \\
1755: BD+24 1676 & 0.03 & 4 & 0.08 & 0.04 & $-$0.83 & 2 & 0.06 & 0.06 & 0.20 & 1 & 0.15 & 0.18 & $-$0.05 & 2 & 0.05 & 0.08 & $-$0.12 & 5 & 0.05 & 0.06 \\
1756: BS 16077-007 & 0.08 & 3 & 0.08 & 0.05 & $-$0.59 & 1 & 0.15 & 0.16 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & 0.22 & 2 & 0.05 & 0.11 & 0.30 & 1 & 0.15 & 0.17 \\
1757: BS 16080-054 & $-$0.05 & 3 & 0.11 & 0.07 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & 0.16 & 2 & 0.05 & 0.17 & 0.12 & 8 & 0.14 & 0.09 \\
1758: BS 16080-093 & 0.03 & 2 & 0.14 & 0.10 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & $-$0.13 & 2 & 0.05 & 0.17 & $-$0.28 & 4 & 0.09 & 0.09 \\
1759: BS 16084-160 & $-$0.13 & 4 & 0.13 & 0.07 & $-$1.64 & 2 & 0.11 & 0.10 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & $-$2.10 & 2 & 0.11 & 0.18 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata \\
1760: BS 16467-062 & 0.29 & 2 & 0.08 & 0.07 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata \\
1761: BS 16545-089 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & $-$0.09 & 2 & 0.07 & 0.09 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata \\
1762: BS 16550-087 & $-$0.08 & 3 & 0.10 & 0.06 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & 0.42 & 2 & 0.05 & 0.17 & 0.29 & 9 & 0.09 & 0.08 \\
1763: BS 16928-053 & $-$0.15 & 2 & 0.08 & 0.06 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & $-$0.34 & 2 & 0.05 & 0.17 & $-$0.41 & 5 & 0.12 & 0.09 \\
1764: BS 16929-005 & 0.08 & 3 & 0.09 & 0.07 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & 0.37 & 2 & 0.08 & 0.08 & 0.22 & 4 & 0.09 & 0.07 \\
1765: CS 22872-102 & 0.03 & 3 & 0.10 & 0.07 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & $-$0.15 & 2 & 0.05 & 0.09 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata \\
1766: CS 22878-027 & 0.06 & 3 & 0.08 & 0.05 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & $-$0.18 & 2 & 0.05 & 0.10 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata \\
1767: CS 22880-086 & 0.16 & 3 & 0.08 & 0.06 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & $-$0.10 & 2 & 0.05 & 0.07 & $-$0.27 & 3 & 0.15 & 0.10 \\
1768: CS 22884-108 & 0.00 & 2 & 0.11 & 0.08 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & 0.29 & 2 & 0.10 & 0.11 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata \\
1769: CS 22944-032 & 0.10 & 4 & 0.08 & 0.06 & $-$1.10 & 2 & 0.06 & 0.08 & 0.25 & 1 & 0.15 & 0.17 & $-$0.27 & 2 & 0.10 & 0.08 & $-$0.30 & 7 & 0.07 & 0.05 \\
1770: CS 22957-022 & $-$0.02 & 3 & 0.11 & 0.08 & $-$1.23 & 2 & 0.07 & 0.09 & 0.31 & 2 & 0.04 & 0.08 & $-$0.41 & 1 & 0.15 & 0.16 & $-$0.37 & 6 & 0.11 & 0.06 \\
1771: CS 22963-004 & 0.08 & 2 & 0.08 & 0.07 & $-$0.94 & 2 & 0.07 & 0.09 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & $-$0.80 & 2 & 0.05 & 0.10 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata \\
1772: CS 22965-054 & 0.00 & 2 & 0.08 & 0.07 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & 0.06 & 2 & 0.05 & 0.11 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata \\
1773: CS 29502-092 & 0.08 & 5 & 0.07 & 0.04 & $-$1.36 & 2 & 0.11 & 0.10 & 0.34 & 2 & 0.04 & 0.06 & $-$0.46 & 2 & 0.07 & 0.17 & $-$0.63 & 8 & 0.06 & 0.08 \\
1774: CS 29506-007 & $-$0.06 & 2 & 0.08 & 0.06 &$<-$0.56 & 1 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & 0.13 & 2 & 0.06 & 0.09 & 0.24 & 1 & 0.15 & 0.16 \\
1775: CS 29522-046 & $-$0.03 & 5 & 0.10 & 0.05 & $-$0.79 & 2 & 0.06 & 0.06 & 0.15 & 2 & 0.05 & 0.11 & 0.22 & 2 & 0.06 & 0.09 & 0.09 & 8 & 0.05 & 0.06 \\
1776: CS 30312-059 & $-$0.05 & 3 & 0.10 & 0.06 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & $-$0.02 & 2 & 0.06 & 0.17 & $-$0.01 & 6 & 0.09 & 0.08 \\
1777: CS 30325-028 & $-$0.04 & 4 & 0.09 & 0.05 & $-$1.18 & 2 & 0.06 & 0.07 & 0.33 & 2 & 0.09 & 0.08 & 0.16 & 3 & 0.15 & 0.18 & 0.01 & 12 & 0.06 & 0.08 \\
1778: CS 30336-049 & $-$0.05 & 2 & 0.08 & 0.06 & $-$1.17 & 1 & 0.15 & 0.16 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & $-$1.50 & 2 & 0.10 & 0.18 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata \\
1779: CS 31078-018 & 0.09 & 4 & 0.10 & 0.06 & $-$1.02 & 2 & 0.07 & 0.09 & 0.41 & 1 & 0.15 & 0.17 & 0.24 & 1 & 0.15 & 0.16 & 0.24 & 10 & 0.08 & 0.06 \\
1780: CS 31085-024 & 0.21 & 3 & 0.08 & 0.05 & $-$0.93 & 2 & 0.06 & 0.06 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata & $-$0.30 & 2 & 0.05 & 0.10 & \nodata & 0 & \nodata & \nodata
1781: \enddata
1782: \end{deluxetable}
1783: \clearpage
1784:
1785: \begin{deluxetable}{lrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr}
1786: \tablecolumns{17}
1787: \setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.055in}
1788: %\rotate
1789: \tabletypesize{\tiny}
1790: \tablewidth{0pc}
1791: \tablecaption{Abundances relative to Fe (and \ion{Fe}{2} for ionized species) \label{abund6}}
1792: \tablehead{
1793: \colhead{Star} & \colhead{[Zr {\tiny II}/Fe]} & \colhead{numb.} & \colhead{$\sigma$} & \colhead{total} & \colhead{[Ba {\tiny II}/Fe]} & \colhead{numb.} & \colhead{$\sigma$} & \colhead{total} & \colhead{[La {\tiny II}/Fe]} & \colhead{numb.} & \colhead{$\sigma$} & \colhead{total} & \colhead{[Eu {\tiny II}/Fe]} & \colhead{numb.} & \colhead{$\sigma$} & \colhead{total}
1794: \\
1795: \colhead{ID} & \colhead{} & \colhead{lines} &\colhead{lines} & \colhead{error} & \colhead{} & \colhead{lines} &\colhead{lines}
1796: & \colhead{error} & \colhead{} & \colhead{lines} &\colhead{lines} & \colhead{error} & \colhead{} & \colhead{lines} &\colhead{lines}
1797: & \colhead{error}
1798: }
1799: \startdata
1800: BD+03 740 & 0.36 & 2 & 0.11 & 0.10 &$-$0.37 & 1 & 0.15 & 0.17 &\nodata & 0 &\nodata &\nodata &$<$0.68 & 1 &\nodata &\nodata \\
1801: BD+23 3130 & 0.00 & 10 & 0.12 & 0.06 &$-$0.47 & 3 & 0.06 & 0.09 &$-$0.26 & 1 & 0.15 & 0.17 & 0.31 & 1 & 0.10 & 0.11 \\
1802: BD+24 1676 & 0.31 & 5 & 0.14 & 0.09 &$-$0.33 & 2 & 0.06 & 0.09 &\nodata & 0 &\nodata &\nodata &$<$0.59 & 1 &\nodata &\nodata \\
1803: BS 16077-007 & 0.85 & 2 & 0.19 & 0.16 &$-$0.11 & 1 & 0.15 & 0.18 &\nodata & 0 &\nodata &\nodata &$<$0.81 & 1 &\nodata &\nodata \\
1804: BS 16080-054 & 0.31 & 9 & 0.19 & 0.10 &$-$0.42 & 4 & 0.06 & 0.08 &\nodata & 0 &\nodata &\nodata &$<$0.23 & 1 &\nodata &\nodata \\
1805: BS 16080-093 & 0.17 & 1 & 0.15 & 0.17 &$-$0.27 & 2 & 0.06 & 0.09 &\nodata & 0 &\nodata &\nodata & 0.20 & 1 & 0.20 & 0.21 \\
1806: BS 16084-160 &\nodata & 0 &\nodata &\nodata &$-$1.99 & 2 & 0.09 & 0.10 &\nodata & 0 &\nodata &\nodata &$<-$0.25 & 1 &\nodata &\nodata \\
1807: BS 16467-062 &\nodata & 0 &\nodata &\nodata &$<-$0.68 & 1 &\nodata &\nodata &\nodata & 0 &\nodata &\nodata &$<$1.24 & 1 &\nodata &\nodata \\
1808: BS 16545-089 &\nodata & 0 &\nodata &\nodata &$<-$0.09 & 1 &\nodata &\nodata &\nodata & 0 &\nodata &\nodata &$<$1.93 & 1 &\nodata &\nodata \\
1809: BS 16550-087 & 0.74 & 8 & 0.16 & 0.10 &$-$0.74 & 4 & 0.15 & 0.11 &\nodata & 0 &\nodata &\nodata &$<$0.00 & 1 &\nodata &\nodata \\
1810: BS 16928-053 &$-$0.10 & 2 & 0.14 & 0.12 &$-$0.82 & 4 & 0.10 & 0.09 &\nodata & 0 &\nodata &\nodata &$<-$0.40 & 1 &\nodata &\nodata \\
1811: BS 16929-005 & 0.53 & 2 & 0.11 & 0.10 &$-$0.28 & 3 & 0.06 & 0.10 &\nodata & 0 &\nodata &\nodata &$<$0.03 & 1 &\nodata &\nodata \\
1812: CS 22872-102 &\nodata & 0 &\nodata &\nodata &$-$0.45 & 1 & 0.15 & 0.18 &\nodata & 0 &\nodata &\nodata &$<$1.07 & 1 &\nodata &\nodata \\
1813: CS 22878-027 &\nodata & 0 &\nodata &\nodata &$<-$0.75 & 1 &\nodata &\nodata &\nodata & 0 &\nodata &\nodata &$<$1.17 & 1 &\nodata &\nodata \\
1814: CS 22880-086 &\nodata & 0 &\nodata &\nodata &$-$0.80 & 2 & 0.06 & 0.10 &\nodata & 0 &\nodata &\nodata &$<$0.22 & 1 &\nodata &\nodata \\
1815: CS 22884-108 &\nodata & 0 &\nodata &\nodata & 0.24 & 1 & 0.15 & 0.17 &\nodata & 0 &\nodata &\nodata &$<$1.91 & 1 &\nodata &\nodata \\
1816: CS 22944-032 & 0.05 & 5 & 0.06 & 0.05 &$-$0.62 & 2 & 0.06 & 0.09 &\nodata & 0 &\nodata &\nodata &$<$0.73 & 1 &\nodata &\nodata \\
1817: CS 22957-022 &$-$0.05 & 3 & 0.11 & 0.08 &$-$1.01 & 2 & 0.06 & 0.10 &\nodata & 0 &\nodata &\nodata &$<-$0.09 & 1 &\nodata &\nodata \\
1818: CS 22963-004 &\nodata & 0 &\nodata &\nodata &$-$0.44 & 1 & 0.15 & 0.19 &\nodata & 0 &\nodata &\nodata &$<$1.43 & 1 &\nodata &\nodata \\
1819: CS 22965-054 &\nodata & 0 &\nodata &\nodata &$<-$0.48 & 1 &\nodata &\nodata &\nodata & 0 &\nodata &\nodata &$<$1.14 & 1 &\nodata &\nodata \\
1820: CS 29502-092 &$-$0.28 & 5 & 0.05 & 0.08 &$-$1.26 & 2 & 0.06 & 0.09 &\nodata & 0 &\nodata &\nodata &$<-$0.31 & 1 &\nodata &\nodata \\
1821: CS 29506-007 & 0.63 & 3 & 0.11 & 0.10 & 0.11 & 1 & 0.15 & 0.17 &\nodata & 0 &\nodata &\nodata &$<$0.88 & 1 &\nodata &\nodata \\
1822: CS 29522-046 & 0.41 & 9 & 0.11 & 0.08 & 0.14 & 3 & 0.06 & 0.08 &\nodata & 0 &\nodata &\nodata &$<$0.23 & 1 &\nodata &\nodata \\
1823: CS 30312-059 & 0.35 & 7 & 0.11 & 0.08 &$-$0.01 & 4 & 0.06 & 0.08 &\nodata & 0 &\nodata &\nodata & 0.63 & 1 & 0.10 & 0.11 \\
1824: CS 30325-028 & 0.40 & 19 & 0.11 & 0.08 &$-$0.34 & 3 & 0.06 & 0.08 &$-$0.18 & 1 & 0.15 & 0.17 & 0.15 & 1 & 0.20 & 0.21 \\
1825: CS 30336-049 &\nodata & 0 &\nodata &\nodata &$-$1.32 & 1 & 0.15 & 0.17 &\nodata & 0 &\nodata &\nodata &$<$0.95 & 1 &\nodata &\nodata \\
1826: CS 31078-018 & 0.63 & 16 & 0.09 & 0.06 & 0.72 & 3 & 0.27 & 0.18 & 0.74 & 1 & 0.15 & 0.17 & 1.23 & 4 & 0.04 & 0.05 \\
1827: CS 31085-024 &\nodata & 0 &\nodata &\nodata &$-$0.52 & 1 & 0.15 & 0.18 &\nodata & 0 &\nodata &\nodata &$<$0.60 & 1 &\nodata &\nodata
1828: \enddata
1829: \end{deluxetable}
1830: \clearpage
1831: \end{landscape}
1832:
1833: \begin{deluxetable}{llrrc}
1834: \tablecolumns{5}
1835: %\rotate
1836: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1837: \tablewidth{0pc}
1838: \tablecaption{Neutron-capture abundances of CS 31078-018 \label{ncapt}}
1839: \tablehead{
1840: \colhead{Atomic} & \colhead{Element} & \colhead{[X/Fe]} &
1841: \colhead{log$\epsilon$(X)} & \colhead{error}\\ \colhead{Number} &
1842: \colhead{Name} & \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{} }
1843: \startdata
1844: 38 & Sr {\scriptsize II} & 0.31 & 0.30 & 0.18\\
1845: 39 & Y {\scriptsize II} & 0.23 & $-$0.43 & 0.15\\
1846: 40 & Zr {\scriptsize II} & 0.62 & 0.32 & 0.14\\
1847: 44 & Ru {\scriptsize I} & 0.65 & $-$0.35 & 0.19\\
1848: 46 & Pd {\scriptsize I} & 0.79 & $-$0.36 & 0.19\\
1849: 56 & Ba {\scriptsize II} & 0.72 & $-$0.06 & 0.31\\
1850: 57 & La {\scriptsize II} & 0.74 & $-$1.00 & 0.22\\
1851: 58 & Ce {\scriptsize II} & 0.66 & $-$0.67 & 0.21\\
1852: 60 & Nd {\scriptsize II} & 0.79 & $-$0.62 & 0.21\\
1853: 62 & Sm {\scriptsize II} & 1.13 & $-$0.77 & 0.16\\
1854: 63 & Eu {\scriptsize II} & 1.23 & $-$1.17 & 0.17\\
1855: 64 & Gd {\scriptsize II} & 1.03 & $-$0.76 & 0.17\\
1856: 66 & Dy {\scriptsize II} & 1.00 & $-$0.77 & 0.15\\
1857: 67 & Ho {\scriptsize II} & 1.54 & $-$1.11 & 0.22\\
1858: 68 & Er {\scriptsize II} & 1.02 & $-$0.96 & 0.20\\
1859: 70 & Yb {\scriptsize II} & 0.76 & $-$1.07 & 0.21\\
1860: 90 & Th {\scriptsize II} & 1.47 & $-$1.35 & 0.25
1861: \enddata
1862: \end{deluxetable}
1863:
1864:
1865: \begin{deluxetable}{lrrrl}
1866: \tablecolumns{5}
1867: %\rotate
1868: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1869: \tablewidth{0pc}
1870: \tablecaption{A sample of highly neutron-capture deficient stars \label{ncaptlow}}
1871: \tablehead{
1872: \colhead{Star} & \colhead{[Fe/H]} & \colhead{[Sr/H]} &
1873: \colhead{[Ba/H]} & \colhead{source}\\ \colhead{ID} &
1874: \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{} }
1875: \startdata
1876: BS 16084-160 &$-$3.26\tablenotemark{*} & $-$5.29 & $-$5.25 & 1 \\
1877: CS 30336-049 &$-$4.16\tablenotemark{*} & $-$5.59 & $-$5.48 & 1 \\
1878: CS 29502-092 &$-$3.20\tablenotemark{*} & $-$3.59 & $-$4.46 & 1 \\
1879: HD 4306 &$-$2.89 & $-$3.00 & $-$4.06 & 2 \\
1880: BS 16469-075 &$-$3.03 & $-$2.80 & $-$4.15 & 2 \\
1881: BS 16920-017 &$-$3.12 & $-$3.55 & $-$4.95 & 2 \\
1882: BS 16928-053 &$-$2.91 & $-$3.14 & $-$4.07 & 2 \\
1883: Draco 119 &$-$2.97 & $<-$5.47 & $<-$5.57 & 3 \\
1884: CS 22169-035 &$-$3.04 & $-$3.12 & $-$4.23 & 4 \\
1885: CS 22172-002 &$-$3.86 & $-$5.17 & $-$5.03 & 4 \\
1886: CS 22189-009 &$-$3.49 & $-$4.44 & $-$4.78 & 4 \\
1887: CS 22897-008 &$-$3.41 & $-$2.97 & $-$4.41 & 4 \\
1888: CS 22952-015 &$-$3.43 & $-$4.42 & $-$4.76 & 4 \\
1889: CS 22968-014 &$-$3.56 & $-$5.36 & $-$5.33 & 4 \\
1890: CS 29502-042 &$-$3.19 & $-$5.17 & $-$4.88 & 4 \\
1891: CS 30325-094 &$-$3.30 & $-$5.54 & $-$5.21 & 4 \\
1892: BS 16934-002 &$-$2.81\tablenotemark{*} & $-$4.13 & $-$4.61 & 5 \\
1893: CS 30327-038 &$-$2.64\tablenotemark{*} & $-$3.28 & $-$4.14 & 5 \\
1894: HE 1356-0622 &$-$3.36\tablenotemark{*} & $-$5.24 & $-$4.45 & 5
1895: \enddata
1896: \tablenotetext{*}{[Fe II/H]}
1897: \tablerefs{(1) This study; (2) \citet{honda04}; (3)
1898: \citet{fulbright04}; (4) \citet{francois}; (5) \citet{aoki05}; (6) \citet{cohen07-2}}
1899: \end{deluxetable}
1900:
1901:
1902: \begin{figure}
1903: \begin{center}
1904: \scalebox{.45}[.45]{
1905: \plotone{f1.eps}}
1906: \end{center}
1907: \figcaption{The top panel compares the EWs measured by
1908: \citet{cayrel04} with our study, the middle panel shows the
1909: comparison with \citet{aoki05}, and the bottom panel shows the
1910: comparison with \citet{ivans03}. \label{ewcomp}}
1911: \end{figure}
1912:
1913: \begin{figure}
1914: \begin{center}
1915: \scalebox{.8}[.8]{
1916: \plotone{f2_color.eps}}
1917: \end{center}
1918: \figcaption{Value of the $\chi$/log$\epsilon$(Fe {\scriptsize I})
1919: slopes for each of our stars. When all Fe I lines are considered,
1920: there seems to be a trend with both \teff{} and [Fe/H], although
1921: considering only the $\chi>$1.2 eV lines, this trend largely
1922: disappears. Overall, however, even when considering high $\chi$
1923: lines, we still seem to be finding a negative slope in most of our
1924: stars. See the electronic edition of the Journal for a color
1925: version of this figure. \label{eptrend}}
1926: \end{figure}
1927:
1928:
1929: \begin{figure}
1930: \begin{center}
1931: \scalebox{.7}[.7]{
1932: \plotone{f3.eps}}
1933: \end{center}
1934: \figcaption{Plot of \teff{} vs. \logg{} for our stars. The sample spans a wide range of evolutionary states. \label{tvslogg}}
1935: \end{figure}
1936:
1937: \begin{figure}
1938: \begin{center}
1939: \scalebox{.65}[.65]{
1940: \plotone{f4_color.eps}}
1941: \end{center}
1942: \figcaption{Comparison of our abundance to that of other
1943: studies. The sense of the $y$-axis is the values from this study minus
1944: the values from previous studies. See the electronic edition of the Journal for a color
1945: version of this figure.\label{compabund}}
1946: \end{figure}
1947:
1948: \newpage
1949:
1950: \begin{figure}
1951: \begin{center}
1952: \scalebox{.4}[.4]{
1953: \plotone{f5_color.eps}}
1954: \end{center}
1955: \figcaption{Values of Log$\epsilon(\mbox{Li})$ and [(C,N,O)/Fe]
1956: vs. [Fe/H]. The diamonds (colored green in the electronic edition) are
1957: from Spite et al. (2005) and the triangles (colored red in the
1958: electronic edition) are from
1959: \citet{bonifacio07}. In all of the following figures, the black
1960: points with error bars are data from this study. See the electronic edition of the Journal for a color
1961: version of this figure.\label{cno}}
1962: \end{figure}
1963:
1964:
1965: \begin{figure}
1966: \begin{center}
1967: \scalebox{.4}[.4]{
1968: \plotone{f6_color.eps}}
1969: \end{center}
1970: \figcaption{[(Na,Al,Sc)/Fe] vs. [Fe/H]. The diamonds
1971: (colored green in the electronic edition)
1972: are from \citet{cayrel04} and the triangles (colored red in the
1973: electronic edition) are from
1974: \citet{cohen04}. Although we only have two stars below [Fe/H] of
1975: $-2.7$ with measured Na, we do not find the trend found by
1976: \citet{cayrel04}. The [Al/Fe] values from \citet{cohen04} are
1977: plotted without the NLTE correction of 0.6 dex assumed in that
1978: study. See the electronic edition of the Journal for a color
1979: version of this figure.\label{naalsc}}
1980: \end{figure}
1981:
1982: \begin{figure}
1983: \begin{center}
1984: \scalebox{.4}[.4]{
1985: \plotone{f7_color.eps}}
1986: \end{center}
1987: \figcaption{[$\alpha$/Fe] vs. [Fe/H]. The symbols are as
1988: in figure \ref{naalsc}. See the electronic edition of the Journal for a color
1989: version of this figure. \label{alpha}}
1990: \end{figure}
1991:
1992: \clearpage
1993:
1994: \begin{figure}
1995: \begin{center}
1996: \scalebox{.5}[.5]{
1997: \plotone{f8_color.eps}}
1998: \end{center}
1999: \figcaption{[Si/Fe] vs. [Fe/H] and \teff{}. The symbols are as
2000: in figure \ref{naalsc}. In the bottom panel, we also add the data
2001: from \citet{preston06} as the squares (colored purple in the
2002: electronic edition). See the electronic edition of the Journal for a color
2003: version of this figure.
2004: \label{si}}
2005: \end{figure}
2006:
2007:
2008: \begin{figure}
2009: \begin{center}
2010: \scalebox{.4}[.4]{
2011: \plotone{f9.eps}}
2012: \end{center}
2013: \figcaption{Vanadium abundance vs. [Fe/H]. We plot both the neutral and
2014: singly ionized species, along with [V II/V I]. We find no offset
2015: between the V II and V I abundances.
2016: \label{vanadium}}
2017: \end{figure}
2018:
2019: \begin{figure}
2020: \begin{center}
2021: \scalebox{.4}[.4]{
2022: \plotone{f10_color.eps}}
2023: \end{center}
2024: \figcaption{Cr abundance vs. [Fe/H]. We plot both the neutral and
2025: singly ionized species, along with [Cr II/Cr I]. The symbols are as in
2026: figure \ref{naalsc}. Although we do not measure Cr II for many of our
2027: stars, our results suggest an offset from zero for [Cr II/Cr I], as
2028: well as an increasing trend in this value with decreasing
2029: metallicity. See the electronic edition of the Journal for a color
2030: version of this figure.
2031: \label{cr}}
2032: \end{figure}
2033:
2034:
2035: \begin{figure}
2036: \begin{center}
2037: \scalebox{.4}[.4]{
2038: \plotone{f11_color.eps}}
2039: \end{center}
2040: \figcaption{Manganese abundance vs. [Fe/H]. We plot both the neutral and
2041: singly ionized species, along with [Mn II/Mn I]. The symbols are as in
2042: figure \ref{naalsc}. In the [Mn II/Fe]
2043: plot, we also overplot the [Mn/Fe] values from \citet{cayrel04} for
2044: the reasons described in the text. See the electronic edition of the Journal for a color
2045: version of this figure.
2046: \label{manganese}}
2047: \end{figure}
2048:
2049: \begin{figure}
2050: \begin{center}
2051: \scalebox{.5}[.5]{
2052: \plotone{f12_color.eps}}
2053: \end{center}
2054: \figcaption{[Co,Ni/Fe] vs. [Fe/H]. The symbols are as in
2055: figure \ref{naalsc}. We find a similar trend
2056: of increasing [Co/Fe] with decreasing [Fe/H] as in
2057: \citet{cayrel04}. The [Ni/Fe] shows no trend with [Fe/H]. See the electronic edition of the Journal for a color
2058: version of this figure.
2059: \label{coni}}
2060: \end{figure}
2061:
2062: \begin{figure}
2063: \begin{center}
2064: \scalebox{.5}[.5]{
2065: \plotone{f13_color.eps}}
2066: \end{center}
2067: \figcaption{[(Cu,Zn)/Fe] vs. [Fe/H]. The triangles (colored
2068: red in the electronic edition) in the
2069: [Cu/Fe] plot are from \citet{cohen07-2}, and the diamonds (colored
2070: green in the electronic edition) are
2071: from \citet{bihain}. In the [Zn/Fe] plot, the symbols are as in
2072: figure \ref{naalsc}. See the electronic edition of the Journal for a color
2073: version of this figure.\label{cuzn}}
2074: \end{figure}
2075:
2076: \begin{figure}
2077: \begin{center}
2078: \scalebox{.4}[.4]{
2079: \plotone{f14_color.eps}}
2080: \end{center}
2081: \figcaption{[(Sr II, Y II, Zr II, Ba II)/Fe] vs. [Fe/H]. We clearly
2082: see a large scatter in all of these abundances. The triangles
2083: (colored red in the electronic edition) are
2084: from \citet{cohen07-2} and the diamonds (colored green in the
2085: electronic edition) are from \citet{francois}. See the electronic edition of the Journal for a color
2086: version of this figure.
2087: \label{ncaptplotorig}}
2088: \end{figure}
2089:
2090: \begin{figure}
2091: \begin{center}
2092: \scalebox{.4}[.4]{
2093: \plotone{f15_color.eps}}
2094: \end{center}
2095: \figcaption{The light neutron-capture elements, Sr, Zr,
2096: and Y, show remarkable correlation, while [Sr/Ba] shows a scatter of
2097: almost 2 dex. The diamonds (colored green in the electronic edition) are from \citet{francois}. See the electronic edition of the Journal for a color
2098: version of this figure.
2099: \label{eltosr}}
2100: \end{figure}
2101:
2102: \begin{figure}
2103: \begin{center}
2104: \scalebox{.75}[.75]{
2105: \plotone{f16_color.eps}}
2106: \end{center}
2107: \figcaption{Spectral synthesis of the Th line at 4019 \AA{}
2108: in CS 31078-018. See the electronic edition of the Journal for a color
2109: version of this figure.
2110: \label{th4019}}
2111: \end{figure}
2112:
2113:
2114: \begin{figure}
2115: \begin{center}
2116: \scalebox{.4}[.4]{
2117: \plotone{f17_color.eps}}
2118: \end{center}
2119: \figcaption{Values of log$\epsilon(\mbox{Li})$ and [C, N, O/Fe]
2120: vs. \teff{}. The symbols are as in figure \ref{cno}. See the electronic edition of the Journal for a color
2121: version of this figure. \label{light-teff}}
2122: \end{figure}
2123:
2124: \begin{figure}
2125: \begin{center}
2126: \scalebox{.4}[.4]{
2127: \plotone{f18.eps}}
2128: \end{center}
2129: \figcaption{[(C+N)/Fe] vs. [Fe/H] and \teff{}. The large
2130: number of upper limits obscures any potential trend with [Fe/H];
2131: however, it seems clear that [(C+N)/Fe] is not correlated with
2132: \teff{}. The rms scatter for the measured [C+N/Fe] is 0.27 dex, and
2133: the average value is 0.39 dex.
2134: \label{c+n}}
2135: \end{figure}
2136:
2137: %\clearpage
2138:
2139: \begin{figure}
2140: \begin{center}
2141: \scalebox{.5}[.5]{
2142: \plotone{f19_color.eps}}
2143: \end{center}
2144: \figcaption{Values of log$\epsilon$(Li) vs.luminosity. The symbols are
2145: as in figure \ref{cno}, with the addition of the squares (colored purple in
2146: the electronic edition) from \citet{gratton00}. See the electronic edition of the Journal for a color
2147: version of this figure.\label{lithium}}
2148: \end{figure}
2149:
2150: %\clearpage
2151:
2152: \begin{figure}
2153: \begin{center}
2154: \scalebox{.4}[.4]{
2155: \plotone{f20_color.eps}}
2156: \end{center}
2157: \figcaption{[Ti/Fe] and [Ti II/Fe] versus \teff{}. We also
2158: plot [Ti II/T I], which shows that, although there is an offset
2159: between these values, the trend exists for both the neutral and
2160: singly ionized states. We also plot data taken from
2161: \citet{preston06} as the squares (colored purple in the electronic
2162: edition). See the electronic edition of the Journal for a color
2163: version of this figure.
2164: \label{titrend}}
2165: \end{figure}
2166:
2167:
2168: \begin{figure}
2169: \begin{center}
2170: \scalebox{.4}[.4]{
2171: \plotone{f21_color.eps}}
2172: \end{center}
2173: \figcaption{[Cr/Fe] and [Cr II/Fe] vs. \teff{}. We also
2174: plot [Cr II/Cr I], which shows that although there is an offset
2175: between these values, the trend exists for both the neutral and
2176: singly ionized states. The symbols are as in figure \ref{titrend}.
2177: \label{crtrend}}
2178: \end{figure}
2179:
2180: \begin{figure}
2181: \begin{center}
2182: \scalebox{.5}[.5]{
2183: \plotone{f22_color.eps}}
2184: \end{center}
2185: \figcaption{[Sr/H] vs. [Ba/H]. In these
2186: neutron-capture deficient objects, it seems that there are at least
2187: two sites that produce [Sr/H]. The main $r$-process line, as given in
2188: \citet{simmerer04} is plotted as the dashed line. See the electronic edition of the Journal for a color
2189: version of this figure.
2190: \label{ncaptplot}}
2191: \end{figure}
2192:
2193:
2194: \begin{figure}
2195: \begin{center}
2196: \scalebox{.8}[.8]{
2197: \plotone{f23.eps}}
2198: \end{center}
2199: \figcaption{Measured neutron-capture elements in the
2200: star CS 31078-018. The solar system $r$-process lines come from
2201: \citet{arlandini} and \citet{simmerer04}, and have been scaled to
2202: match our Eu abundance.
2203: \label{r-process}}
2204: \end{figure}
2205:
2206:
2207: \begin{figure}
2208: \begin{center}
2209: \scalebox{.5}[.5]{
2210: \plotone{f24.eps}}
2211: \end{center}
2212: \figcaption{Measured log $\epsilon$(Th/Eu) abundances
2213: of metal-poor stars. The symbols represent the following: the filled star is CS 31078-018
2214: from this study, the diamonds are stars from \citet{honda04},
2215: the plus signs are stars from \citet{jb01}, the solid circle is
2216: CS 31082-001 from \citet{hill02}, the upward-pointing triangle is HD 221170
2217: from \citet{ivans06}, the downward-pointing triangle is HE 1523-0901
2218: from \citet{frebel07}, the square is CS 22892-052 from
2219: \citet{sneden03}, the cross is BD+17 3248 from \citet{cowan02},
2220: the open circle is CS 29497-004 from \citet{heres1},
2221: and the asterisk is HD 115444 from \citet{westin}. The solid
2222: lines connect points that are repeated measurements of the same
2223: object. \citet{honda04} suggest that the discrepancy in the
2224: measurements for HD 115444 arise from a combination of differing atmospheric
2225: parameters and linelists. There is a clear distribution of values,
2226: although a majority of the stars have log
2227: $\epsilon$(Th/Eu)$\sim-0.6$. The production ratio from \citet{kratz07} is plotted as the
2228: dashed line.
2229: \label{thorium}}
2230: \end{figure}
2231:
2232: \begin{figure}
2233: \begin{center}
2234: \scalebox{.8}[.8]{
2235: \plotone{f25.eps}}
2236: \end{center}
2237: \figcaption{Abundance spread of our sample. When
2238: both the ionized and neutral species of an element are measured, we
2239: plot only the results for the ionized species. The points plotted
2240: for Fe are the \ion{Fe}{2} - \ion{Fe}{1} values of our stars. ($a$) Here we plot all
2241: of our measurements for the sample from C through Eu. ($b$) Instead of
2242: all of the measurements, we show the average measured abundance for
2243: each element. The error bars represent the rms of the abundances
2244: of each respective element.
2245: \label{elemall}}
2246: \end{figure}
2247:
2248: \clearpage
2249:
2250: \begin{figure} \begin{center}
2251: \scalebox{.5}[.5]{
2252: \plotone{f26.eps}}
2253: \end{center}
2254: \figcaption{Average abundance pattern of our
2255: sample fitted to the \citet{heger08} models assuming a
2256: Salpeter IMF. The filled circles are the averaged abundances, with
2257: the error bars corresponding to the rms of the abundance ratios over
2258: our sample. The smaller filled circles of Si and Ti represent the
2259: smaller weights attributed to them in the fitting procedure. The
2260: open circles are when that particular abundance is not used in the
2261: fit, and the open triangles at Sc and Zn represent treating the
2262: model yields as lower limits.
2263: \label{salpall}}
2264: \end{figure}
2265:
2266: %\clearpage
2267:
2268: \begin{figure} \begin{center}
2269: \scalebox{.5}[.5]{
2270: \plotone{f27.eps}}
2271: \end{center}
2272: \figcaption{Average abundance pattern of our
2273: sample fitted to the \citet{heger08} models. The symbols are
2274: as in Fig. 26. ($a$) Best fit assuming a Gaussian
2275: IMF. ($b$) Best fit to a single SN.
2276: \label{otherfits}}
2277: \end{figure}
2278:
2279: \clearpage
2280:
2281: \begin{figure}
2282: \begin{center}
2283: \scalebox{.5}[.5]{
2284: \plotone{f28.eps}}
2285: \end{center}
2286: \figcaption{Abundance pattern of CS 30336-049 fitted
2287: to the \citet{heger08} models. Oxygen and copper are ignored,
2288: and the Cr has been increased by 0.3 dex. The type of fit and its
2289: parameters are listed on each plot.
2290: \label{beststar}}
2291: \end{figure}
2292:
2293: \begin{figure}
2294: \begin{center}
2295: \scalebox{.5}[.5]{
2296: \plotone{f29.eps}}
2297: \end{center}
2298: \figcaption{The 1000 best-fit single explosion models
2299: to ($a$) our average abundance pattern and ($b$) CS 30336-049. The $\chi^2$
2300: values are represented linearly by the size of the circles, with the
2301: minimum and maximum $\chi^2$ of the fits shown in the legends of each
2302: respective plot. Mixing values are not differentiated in these
2303: plots. The best 50 fits for each case are plotted in red.
2304: \label{best1000}}
2305: \end{figure}
2306:
2307: \begin{figure} \begin{center}
2308: \scalebox{.5}[.5]{
2309: \plotone{f30.eps}}
2310: \end{center}
2311: \figcaption{Plot of the effect of
2312: positioning the piston at the Y$_e$ boundary (edge of the iron core) and the S4 ($S/N_Ak=4.0$)
2313: boundary (base of the convective shell). The black points with error bars again represent the
2314: average abundance pattern of our sample. ($a$) Best single star
2315: fit assuming a piston location at the edge of the iron core. ($b$) Model with the same parameters, but with the piston location at the
2316: base of the convective shell.
2317: \label{copperfit}
2318: }
2319: \end{figure}
2320:
2321:
2322: \end{document}
2323: