1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2:
3: \begin{document}
4: \title{Abundances of Sr, Y, and Zr in Metal-Poor Stars and Implications for
5: Chemical Evolution in the Early Galaxy}
6: \author{Y.-Z. Qian\altaffilmark{1} and G. J. Wasserburg\altaffilmark{2}}
7: \altaffiltext{1}{School of Physics and Astronomy, University of
8: Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455; qian@physics.umn.edu.}
9: \altaffiltext{2}{The Lunatic Asylum, Division of Geological and Planetary
10: Sciences, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125;
11: gjw@gps.caltech.edu.}
12:
13: \begin{abstract}
14: Studies of nucleosynthesis in neutrino-driven winds from nascent
15: neutron stars show that the elements from Sr through Ag with mass
16: numbers $A\sim 88$--110 are produced by charged-particle reactions
17: (CPR) during the $\alpha$-process in the winds. Accordingly, we have
18: attributed all these elements in stars of low metallicities
19: (${\rm [Fe/H]}\lesssim -1.5$) to low-mass and normal
20: supernovae (SNe) from progenitors of $\sim 8$--$11\,M_\odot$ and
21: $\sim 12$--$25\,M_\odot$, respectively, which leave behind neutron
22: stars. Using this rule and attributing all Fe production to normal SNe,
23: we previously developed a phenomenological
24: two-component model, which predicts that
25: ${\rm [Sr/Fe]}\geq -0.32$ for all metal-poor stars.
26: The high-resolution data now available on Sr abundances in
27: Galactic halo stars show that there is a great shortfall of Sr relative to
28: Fe in many stars with ${\rm [Fe/H]}\lesssim -3$.
29: This is in direct conflict with the above prediction.
30: The same conflict also exists for two other CPR elements Y and Zr.
31: The very low abundances of Sr, Y, and Zr observed
32: in stars with ${\rm [Fe/H]}\lesssim -3$ thus require a stellar
33: source that cannot be low-mass or normal SNe. We show that this
34: observation requires a stellar source leaving behind black holes
35: and that hypernovae (HNe) from progenitors of $\sim 25$--$50\,M_\odot$
36: are the most plausible candidates. Pair-instability SNe from very massive
37: stars of $\sim 140$--$260\,M_\odot$ that leave behind no remnants
38: are not suitable as they are extremely deficient in producing the
39: elements of odd atomic numbers such as Na, Al, K, Sc, V, Mn, and Co
40: relative to the neighboring elements of even atomic numbers, but this
41: extreme odd-even effect is not observed in the elemental abundance
42: patterns of metal-poor stars.
43:
44: If we expand our previous phenomenological two-component
45: model to include three components (low-mass and normal SNe and HNe)
46: and use for example, the observed abundances of Ba, Sr, and Fe to
47: separate the contributions from these components, we find that
48: essentially all of the data are very well described by the new model.
49: This model provides strong constraints on the evolution
50: of [Sr/Fe] with [Ba/Fe] in terms of the allowed domain for these
51: abundance ratios. This model also gives an equally good description
52: of the data when any
53: CPR element besides Sr (e.g., Y or Zr) or any heavy $r$-process
54: element besides Ba (e.g., La) is used.
55: As the stars deficient in Sr, Y, and Zr are dominated by contributions
56: from HNe, they define the self-consistent yield pattern of
57: that hypothecated source. This inferred HN yield pattern for the low-$A$
58: elements from Na through Zn ($A\sim 23$--70) including Fe is almost
59: indistinguishable from what we had previously attributed to normal SNe.
60: As HNe are plausible candidates for the first generation of stars and are
61: also known to be
62: ongoing in the present epoch, it is necessary to re-evaluate the extent
63: to which normal SNe are substantial contributors to the Fe inventory of the
64: Galaxy. We conclude that HNe are important contributors to the abundances
65: of the low-$A$ elements over the history of the universe.
66: We estimate that they contributed
67: $\sim 24\%$ of the bulk solar Fe inventory while normal SNe contributed
68: only $\sim 9\%$ (not the usually assumed $\sim 33\%$). This implies a
69: greatly reduced role of normal SNe in the chemical evolution of the
70: low-$A$ elements.
71: \end{abstract}
72:
73: \keywords{nuclear reactions, nucleosynthesis, abundances --- stars: abundances
74: --- stars: Population II --- supernovae: general}
75:
76: \section{Introduction}
77: In this paper we consider that the elements from Sr through Ag in
78: metal-poor stars represent the products of nucleosynthesis
79: in neutrino-driven winds from forming neutron stars. This
80: approach allows us to obtain information on the stellar sources that
81: contributed to the chemical enrichment of the interstellar medium
82: (ISM) in the Galaxy and the intergalactic medium (IGM) at early
83: and recent times. We previously proposed a phenomenological
84: two-component model (\citealt{qw07}; hereafter QW07)
85: to account for the abundances of heavy elements in metal-poor stars.
86: That model focused on the elements commonly considered to be
87: produced by the generic ``$r$-process''.
88: It specifically attributed all the elements from Sr through Ag
89: in metal-poor stars to the charged-particle reactions (CPR) in the
90: neutrino-driven winds from nascent neutron stars and used this as a
91: diagnostic of the sources for these CPR elements.
92: In contrast, the true $r$-process elements (e.g., Ba
93: and higher atomic numbers) are produced
94: by extensive rapid neutron capture. It was
95: assumed in the two-component model
96: that Fe was only produced by normal supernovae (SNe)
97: from progenitors of $\sim 12$--$25\,M_\odot$,
98: which leave behind neutron stars,
99: and that the heavy $r$-process elements ($r$-elements) with mass
100: numbers $A>130$ were formed in low-mass SNe from progenitors
101: of $\sim 8$--$11\,M_\odot$, which also leave behind neutron stars but
102: produce no Fe. Thus the CPR elements would be produced by both
103: low-mass and normal SNe and the corresponding yields were
104: estimated (QW07). It follows that if these SNe were the only sources,
105: then the presence of Fe should always be associated with that of the
106: CPR elements. A more extensive study of the available observational
107: data shows that some low-metallicity stars have Fe but essentially no
108: Sr. In particular, \citet{fulbright04} found a star with
109: ${\rm [Fe/H]}=\log{\rm (Fe/H)}-\log{\rm (Fe/H)}_\odot=-2.88$ and
110: $\log\epsilon({\rm Sr})=\log({\rm Sr/H})+12<-2.6$ in the dwarf galaxy
111: Draco. From the two-component model we would have estimated
112: $\log\epsilon({\rm Sr})=-0.28$ for this star, which is far above the
113: observational upper limit. These results clearly indicate that if
114: the CPR elements are always produced during the formation of
115: neutron stars, then there must be an additional stellar source
116: contributing Fe that does not leave behind neutron stars, or else
117: the above model for the production of the CPR elements is in error.
118:
119: Utilizing a more extensive
120: data base than QW07 and especially treating the data on stars very
121: deficient in Sr, Y, and Zr relative to Fe at ${\rm [Fe/H]}<-3$,
122: the present paper will show that a third source in addition to the two
123: sources (low-mass and normal SNe) in the model of QW07 is
124: required to account for
125: the elemental abundances in metal-poor stars. It will be argued that
126: the third source producing Fe but no CPR elements is most likely
127: associated with hypernovae (HNe) from progenitors of
128: $\sim 25$--$50\,M_\odot$, which leave behind black holes instead
129: of neutron stars. It is then shown that essentially all of the stellar data
130: on elemental abundances at ${\rm [Fe/H]}\lesssim -1.5$ can be
131: decomposed in terms of three distinct types of sources. This
132: decomposition also identifies a yield pattern for the elements from Na
133: through Zn including Fe that is attributable to HNe. An important
134: conclusion is that this HN yield pattern is almost indistinguishable from
135: what is attributed to normal SNe. Further, the discovery of extremely
136: energetic HNe associated with gamma-ray bursters (e.g.,
137: \citealt{galama,iwa98})
138: in the present universe requires that contributions from this source must
139: be considered both in early epochs and on to the present. This leads to
140: a reassessment of the contributions from different sources to the Galactic
141: Fe inventory, which shows that ongoing HNe must play an important role
142: and that the usual attribution of $\sim 1/3$ of the solar Fe inventory to
143: normal SNe is not valid.
144:
145: We aim to present a phenomenological three-component (low-mass and
146: normal SNe and HNe) model for the chemical evolution of the early Galaxy
147: that may provide a quantitative, self-consistent explanation for many of the
148: results from stellar observations. We focus on three groups of elements:
149: the low-$A$ elements from Na through Zn ($A \sim 23$--70), the CPR
150: elements from Sr through Ag ($A \sim 88$--110), and the heavy
151: $r$-elements ($A > 130$, Ba and higher atomic numbers).
152: In \S\ref{sec-2cm} we give a brief outline of the two-component model
153: of QW07 with low-mass and normal SNe
154: represented by the $H$ and $L$ sources,
155: respectively. In \S\ref{sec-data} we present the data on abundances
156: of Sr and Ba as well as Y and La
157: for a large sample of metal-poor stars, and show that
158: the two-component model fails at ${\rm [Fe/H]}\lesssim -3$
159: and that an additional source producing Fe but no Sr or
160: heavier elements is required to account for the data at such low
161: metallicities. This source is identified with HNe. It is then shown that
162: the extended three-component model with HNe, $H$, and
163: $L$ sources gives a good representation of nearly all
164: the data on the CPR elements Sr, Y, and Zr,
165: but leads to the conclusion that the HN yield pattern
166: is indistinguishable from that of the $L$ source for
167: all the low-$A$ elements. Considering that HNe not only represent
168: the first massive stars (Population III stars) but also must
169: continue into the present epoch, we reinterpret the yields attributed
170: to the hypothetical $L$ source as the combined contributions
171: from normal SNe, which we designate as the $L^*$ source,
172: and HNe. In \S\ref{sec-3cm} we show that the three-component
173: model with HNe, $H$, and $L^*$ sources gives a very good
174: representation of essentially all the data on the CPR elements
175: Sr, Y, and Zr and further discuss the
176: characteristics of these sources and their roles in the chemical
177: evolution of the universe. We give our conclusions in \S\ref{sec-con}.
178:
179: \section{The Two-Component Model with the $H$ and $L$ Sources}
180: \label{sec-2cm}
181: The two-component model\footnote{The original two-component
182: model was inspired by the meteoritic data on $^{129}$I and $^{182}$Hf
183: in connection with the $r$-process. See \citet{wbg} for the requirement
184: of two distinct types of $r$-process sources based on these data and
185: QW07 for a review on the development of the two-component model.}
186: of QW07 was based on the observations of
187: elemental abundances in metal-poor stars and a
188: basic understanding of stellar evolution and nucleosynthesis.
189: It was directed toward identifying the stellar sources for the heavy
190: $r$-elements. The following
191: are the key assumptions and inferences of this model:
192:
193: (1) The heavy $r$-elements must be produced by an $H$ source that
194: contributes essentially none of the low-$A$ elements including Fe.
195: The $H$ source is most likely associated
196: with low-mass SNe from progenitors of $\sim 8$--$11\,M_\odot$
197: that undergo O-Ne-Mg core collapse.
198:
199: (2) The low-$A$ elements are produced by an $L$ source
200: associated with normal SNe from progentiors of $\sim 12$--$25\,M_\odot$
201: that undergo Fe core collapse. (It was assumed that this source
202: provided $\sim 1/3$ of the bulk solar Fe inventory.)
203:
204: (3) The so-called light ``$r$''-elements from Sr through Ag,
205: especially Sr, Y, and Zr, in metal-poor stars must have been produced by
206: CPRs in the $\alpha$-process \citep{wh92} that
207: occurs as material expands away from a nascent neutron star in a
208: neutrino-driven wind (e.g., \citealt{dsw86}). Thus, the CPR elements
209: are not directly related to the
210: $r$-process (i.e., they are not the true $r$-elements).
211: Instead, their production is a natural consequence of
212: neutron star formation in low-mass and normal SNe associated with the
213: $H$ and $L$ sources, respectively, as proposed by QW07.
214:
215: The above points were incorporated in the two-component model of QW07
216: to account for the elemental abundances in metal-poor stars.
217: For ${\rm [Fe/H]}\lesssim -1.5$, Type Ia SNe (SNe Ia) associated with
218: low-mass stars (typically of several $M_\odot$) in binaries had not contributed
219: significantly to the Fe group elements in the ISM.
220: Similarly, there were no significant contributions to Sr and heavier elements
221: in the ISM of this early regime from the $s$-process in
222: asymptotic giant branch (AGB) stars.
223: Thus, it was considered in QW07 that for ${\rm [Fe/H]}\lesssim -1.5$,
224: the $H$ source is solely responsible for the heavy $r$-elements such as Eu
225: and the $L$ source is solely responsible for the low-$A$ elements such as
226: Fe while both sources produce the CPR elements. The yield pattern for
227: the prototypical $H$ source was taken from the data on a star
228: (CS~22892--052, \citealt{sneden03}) with extremely high enrichment in
229: the heavy $r$-elements relative to the low-$A$ elements. In contrast,
230: the yield pattern for the prototypical $L$ source was taken from the data
231: on a star (HD~122563, \citealt{honda06}) with very little enrichment in the
232: heavy $r$-elements relative to the low-$A$ elements and the abundances
233: of the latter elements in this star
234: were attributed to the $L$ source only. For this two-component model,
235: the (number) abundance of an element E in the ISM at
236: ${\rm [Fe/H]}\lesssim -1.5$ can be calculated as
237: \begin{equation}
238: \left(\frac{\rm E}{\rm H}\right)=\left(\frac{\rm E}{\rm Eu}\right)_H
239: \left(\frac{\rm Eu}{\rm H}\right)+\left(\frac{\rm E}{\rm Fe}\right)_L
240: \left(\frac{\rm Fe}{\rm H}\right),
241: \label{eq-eh}
242: \end{equation}
243: where (E/Eu)$_H$ and (E/Fe)$_L$ are the (number)
244: yield ratios of E to Eu and
245: Fe for the $H$ and $L$ sources, respectively. Given these yield
246: ratios, the abundances of all the other elements (relative to hydrogen)
247: in a star can be
248: obtained from the above equation using only the observed abundances
249: of Eu and Fe in that star. The results from the above
250: model were in good agreement with the data on a large sample of
251: metal-poor stars. We note that so long as there are no significant
252: $s$-process contributions
253: to the ISM (which is the case for ${\rm [Fe/H]}\lesssim -1.5$) or the star
254: has not undergone mass transfer from an AGB companion in a binary,
255: the element Ba can also be used as a measure of the $r$-process
256: contributions. The yield ratios (E/Eu)$_H$ and (E/Fe)$_L$ for the heavy
257: $r$-elements
258: and the CPR elements, as well as the yield ratios (E/Ba)$_H$ for the
259: CPR elements, are given in Tables~\ref{tab-rhl} and \ref{tab-yhl}.
260:
261: We emphasize the phenomenological nature of the two-component
262: model and its extension presented below. As discussed above, the
263: yield patterns for the $H$ and $L$ sources were taken from the
264: observed abundance patterns in two template stars. The validity of
265: the model should be judged by its predictions for the abundances in
266: other metal-poor stars. Insofar as the predictions agree with the data,
267: the model can be considered to have identified some key
268: characteristics of nucleosynthesis in the relevant stellar sources.
269: This approach cannot replace the ab initio models of stellar
270: nucleosynthesis, but is complimentary to the latter.
271:
272: We note that the production of the low-$A$ elements
273: including Fe in normal SNe from progentiors of
274: $\sim 12$--$25\,M_\odot$ ($L$ source) is demonstrated by extensive
275: modeling of SN nucleosynthesis (e.g., \citealt{ww95,tnh96,cl04}), and
276: so is the production of the CPR elements in the neutrino-driven wind
277: associated with neutron star formation ($H$ and $L$ sources; e.g., \citealt{meyer92,taka94,woosley94,hoffman97}).
278: However, the theoretical yields of the low-$A$ elements, especially
279: the Fe group, are subject to
280: the many uncertainties in modeling the evolution and explosion of
281: massive stars. In the absence of a solid understanding of the SN
282: mechanism, the explosion is artificially induced and the associated
283: nucleosynthesis is parametrized by a ``mass cut'' (e.g., \citealt{ww95})
284: or constrained to fit the yields of $^{56}$Ni inferred from SN light
285: curves (e.g., \citealt{cl04}). For the CPR elements,
286: no reliable quantitative yields are yet available. QW07 concluded
287: that the neutrino-driven wind does not play a significant role in the
288: production of the heavy $r$-elements and suggested that another
289: environment with rapid expansion timescales inside low-mass
290: ($\sim 8$--$11\,M_\odot$) SNe from O-Ne-Mg core collapse ($H$ source)
291: is responsible for making these
292: elements. Subsequent work by \citet{ning07} showed that the propagation
293: of a fast shock through the surface layers of an O-Ne-Mg core can
294: provide the conditions leading to the production of the heavy $r$-elements.
295: However, the required shock speed is not obtained in the current
296: SN models \citep{janka07} based on the pre-SN structure of a
297: $1.38\ M_\odot$ core calculated by
298: \citet{nomoto84,nomoto87}. Clearly, more studies of the pre-SN
299: evolution of O-Ne-Mg cores and their collapse are needed to test
300: whether the heavy $r$-elements can indeed be produced in the shocked
301: surface layers of such cores. In the following we assume that
302: low-mass SNe from O-Ne-Mg core collapse are the $H$ source solely
303: responsible for producing the heavy $r$-elements and that the CPR
304: elements are produced by both the $H$ and $L$ sources.
305: At the present time, stellar models cannot calculate the absolute yields
306: from first principles for any of the sources discussed above and
307: some ad hoc parametric treatment is required for modeling the
308: nucleosynthesis of these sources.
309:
310: \section{Failure of the Two-Component Model and Requirement of HNe}
311: \label{sec-data}
312: In Figure~\ref{fig-esr}a we show the data on
313: $\log\epsilon({\rm Sr})$ from an extensive set of
314: the available high-resolution observations over the wide range
315: of $-5.5\lesssim {\rm [Fe/H]}\lesssim -1.5$ (squares: \citealt{johnson02};
316: pluses: \citealt{honda04}; diamonds: \citealt{aoki05}; circles:
317: \citealt{francois07}; crosses: \citealt{cohen08}; asterisks:
318: \citealt{depagne02,aoki02,aoki06,aoki07}; downward arrows indicating
319: upper limits: \citealt{christlieb04,fulbright04,frebel07,cohen07,norris07}).
320: All the data are for stars in the Galactic halo except for the downward
321: arrow at ${\rm [Fe/H]}=-2.88$, which is for a star
322: (Draco 119, \citealt{fulbright04}) in the dwarf galaxy Draco.
323:
324: We now use the two-component model of QW07 to analyze the data
325: shown in Figure~\ref{fig-esr}a. We first apply equation~(\ref{eq-eh})
326: to calculate the $H$ and $L$ contributions to the solar Sr abundance
327: assuming that the $H$ source provided all of the solar Eu abundance
328: and the $L$ source provided 1/3 of the solar Fe abundance.
329: Further assuming that the sun
330: represents the sampling of a well-mixed ISM, we can show that such
331: an ISM has [Sr/Fe]$_{\rm mix}=-0.10$ resulting from the mixing of
332: $H$ and $L$ contributions only (see Appendix~\ref{sec-app1} and
333: Table~\ref{tab-mix}). This Sr/Fe ratio corresponds to
334: \begin{equation}
335: \log\epsilon({\rm Sr})={\rm [Fe/H]}+2.82,
336: \end{equation}
337: shown as the solid line in Figure~\ref{fig-esr}a. It can be
338: seen from this figure that the bulk of the data lie close to the solid line,
339: but for ${\rm [Fe/H]}\lesssim -3$, almost all of the data depart greatly
340: from this line.
341:
342: There is a lack of Eu data for
343: many stars with $[{\rm Fe/H}]<-3$. As Ba data are more readily
344: available for such stars, we use Ba instead of Eu
345: as the index heavy $r$-element
346: to identify the contributions from the $H$ source
347: (this is robust so long as there are no $s$-process contributions).
348: Then equation~(\ref{eq-eh}) can be rewritten for Sr as
349: \begin{equation}
350: \left(\frac{\rm Sr}{\rm H}\right)=\left(\frac{\rm Sr}{\rm Ba}\right)_H
351: \left(\frac{\rm Ba}{\rm H}\right)+\left(\frac{\rm Sr}{\rm Fe}\right)_L
352: \left(\frac{\rm Fe}{\rm H}\right).
353: \label{eq-srh}
354: \end{equation}
355: The yield ratios (E/Ba)$_H$ and (E/Fe)$_L$ for Sr and other
356: CPR elements are given in Table~\ref{tab-yhl}. Using
357: these yield ratios and the above equation, we calculate the
358: $\log\epsilon_{\rm cal}{\rm (Sr)}$
359: values for those stars shown in Figure~\ref{fig-esr}a that have
360: observed Ba and Fe abundances. The differences
361: $\Delta\log\epsilon({\rm Sr})\equiv\log\epsilon_{\rm cal}{\rm (Sr)}-
362: \log\epsilon_{\rm obs}{\rm (Sr)}$ between the calculated and
363: observed values are shown in Figure~\ref{fig-esr}b.
364: Note that for ${\rm [Fe/H]}> -2.7$, the agreement between
365: the model predictions and the data is very good. However, for
366: ${\rm [Fe/H]}\lesssim -2.7$, there is great discrepancy in the
367: sense that the calculated $\log\epsilon_{\rm cal}{\rm (Sr)}$
368: values for many stars far exceed the observed values.
369: It is this discrepancy that we will focus on in this paper.
370:
371: The large disgreement between the model predictions and the
372: data for ${\rm [Fe/H]}\lesssim -2.7$ shown in Figure~\ref{fig-esr}b
373: is caused by assigning all the Fe to the $L$ source.
374: If there is an additional source producing Fe but no Sr or
375: heavier elements at such low metallicities, then
376: equation~(\ref{eq-srh}) overestimates the Sr abundances.
377: The requirement of such a source
378: can also be seen from the Sr/Fe ratios for the stars. The yield
379: ratio (Sr/Fe)$_L$ corresponds to [Sr/Fe]$_L=-0.32$ (see
380: Table~\ref{tab-mix}).
381: Of the $H$ and $L$ sources, both produce Sr but only the latter
382: can produce Fe. Thus any mixture of
383: the contributions from these two sources should have
384: ${\rm [Sr/Fe]}\geq -0.32$. Figure~\ref{fig-srfe} shows [Sr/Fe]
385: vs. [Ba/Fe] for those stars in Figure~\ref{fig-esr} that have
386: observed Ba abundances or upper limits. It can be seen that
387: many stars have ${\rm [Sr/Fe]}\ll -0.32$ and quite a few have
388: ${\rm [Sr/Fe]}\lesssim -2$. These observations are in direct conflict
389: with the two-component model and can only be accounted for if
390: there is an additional source for Fe (and the associated
391: elements) that produce none or very little of Sr and heavier
392: elements. If we expand the framework of QW07 to include
393: this third source, then a self-consistent interpretation of all the data
394: may be possible.
395:
396: \subsection{Effects of the Third Source}
397: \label{sec-p}
398: In the extended model including the third source in addition to
399: the $H$ and $L$ sources,
400: only a fraction $f_{{\rm Fe},L}$ of the Fe is produced by the $L$ source.
401: Then equation~(\ref{eq-srh}) becomes
402: \begin{equation}
403: \left(\frac{\rm Sr}{\rm H}\right)=\left(\frac{\rm Sr}{\rm Ba}\right)_H
404: \left(\frac{\rm Ba}{\rm H}\right)+\left(\frac{\rm Sr}{\rm Fe}\right)_L
405: \left(\frac{\rm Fe}{\rm H}\right)f_{{\rm Fe},L}.
406: \label{eq-srhf}
407: \end{equation}
408: For $f_{{\rm Fe},L}=1$ the extended model reduces to the two-component
409: model. For $f_{{\rm Fe},L}=0$ only the $H$ source and the third source are
410: relevant with the latter being the sole contributor of the low-$A$ elements
411: such as Fe and the former being the sole contributor of Sr and heavier
412: elements. Equation~(\ref{eq-srhf}) can be rewritten as
413: \begin{equation}
414: {\rm [Sr/Fe]}=\log\left(10^{{\rm [Sr/Ba]}_H+{\rm [Ba/Fe]}}+
415: f_{{\rm Fe},L}\times 10^{{\rm [Sr/Fe]}_L}\right).
416: \label{eq-srfe}
417: \end{equation}
418: Note that the above equation represents very strong constraints on
419: the evolution of [Sr/Fe] with [Ba/Fe] in the extended model. Whether
420: a system starts with the initial composition of big bang debris or with
421: an initial state inside the region defined by the curves representing
422: equation~(\ref{eq-srfe}) for
423: $f_{{\rm Fe},L}=0$ and 1, it cannot have [Sr/Fe] and
424: [Ba/Fe] values outside this region upon further evolution so long as
425: only the $H$ and $L$ sources and the third source contribute metals.
426:
427: The curves representing equation~(\ref{eq-srfe}) for
428: $f_{{\rm Fe},L}=0$, 0.1,
429: 0.5, and 1 are shown along with the data on [Sr/Fe] vs. [Ba/Fe] in
430: Figure~\ref{fig-srfe}. Most of the data lie between the curves for
431: $f_{{\rm Fe},L}=0$ and 1 with a clustering of the data around the
432: curve for $f_{{\rm Fe},L}=1$. There are also quite a few data on the
433: curve for $f_{{\rm Fe},L}=0$. Some data lie distinctly above the curve
434: for $f_{{\rm Fe},L}=1$. This could be partly due to observational
435: uncertainties. We also note that all SNe associated with the $H$
436: and $L$ sources are assumed here to have fixed yield patterns.
437: If there were variations in the yield ratios by
438: a factor of several, then some ``forbidden'' region above the curve
439: for $f_{{\rm Fe},L}=1$ would be accessible. In \S\ref{sec-3cm} we
440: will show that with a reinterpretation of the $L$ source there is no
441: longer a need to call upon such variabilities. In any case,
442: we consider that the comparison between the theoretical model
443: curves for $f_{{\rm Fe},L}=0$ to 1 and the data shown in
444: Figure~\ref{fig-srfe} justifies the extended model where
445: a third source is producing Fe but no Sr or heavier elements.
446:
447: With no production of Sr or heavier elements assigned to the third
448: source, the Sr/Ba ratio is determined exclusively by the $H$ and $L$
449: sources. As both these sources produce Sr but only the $H$ source
450: can produce Ba, any mixture of the contributions from these two sources
451: should have ${\rm [Sr/Ba]}\geq {\rm [Sr/Ba]}_H$. Figure~\ref{fig-srba}
452: shows the data on [Sr/Ba] vs. [Fe/H] along with two reference lines,
453: one corresponding to [Sr/Ba]$_H=-0.31$ (see Table~\ref{tab-mix})
454: and the other to [Sr/Ba]$_{\rm mix}=0.10$ for an ISM with well-mixed
455: $H$ and $L$ contributions (see Appendix~\ref{sec-app1} and
456: Table~\ref{tab-mix}).
457: An excess of $L$ over $H$ contributions relative to the well-mixed
458: case displaces [Sr/Ba] above the line for [Sr/Ba]$_{\rm mix}$. It can be
459: seen from Figure~\ref{fig-srba} that almost all of the data are compatible
460: with the lower bound of ${\rm [Sr/Ba]}\geq {\rm [Sr/Ba]}_H$ and that a
461: substantial fraction of the stars did not sample a well-mixed ISM.
462: Excluding the lower limits, we note that some data lie below the line
463: for [Sr/Ba]$_H$. However, the deviation below [Sr/Ba]$_H$ is
464: $\lesssim 0.4$~dex, which is comparable to the observational
465: uncertainties\footnote{Four of the data points are repeated
466: measurements of well-studied stars with large $r$-process
467: enrichments: the plus at ${\rm [Fe/H]}=-2.86$, ${\rm [Sr/Ba]}=-0.53$
468: and the circle at ${\rm [Fe/H]}=-2.98$, ${\rm [Sr/Ba]}=-0.44$
469: for CS~22892--052, the plus at ${\rm [Fe/H]}=-2.75$,
470: ${\rm [Sr/Ba]}=-0.60$ for CS~31082--001, and the circle at
471: ${\rm [Fe/H]}=-2.02$, ${\rm [Sr/Ba]}=-0.60$ for BD~$+17^\circ 3248$.
472: Observational studies focused on these stars give
473: ${\rm [Sr/Ba]}=-0.31$ (CS~22892--052, \citealt{sneden03}),
474: $-0.43$ (CS~31082--001, \citealt{hill02}), and $-0.16$
475: (BD~$+17^\circ 3248$, \citealt{cowan02}). We note that having some
476: $s$-process contributions to Ba would also lower [Sr/Ba].}
477: and does not represent serious violation of the lower bound.
478: It is important to note that the four stars shown as asterisks
479: A, B, C, and D in Figures~\ref{fig-esr}, \ref{fig-srfe}, and \ref{fig-srba}
480: appear to be well behaved in terms of Sr and Ba although
481: they have very high abundances of C and O and anomalous
482: abundance patterns of the low-$A$ elements (see \S\ref{sec-pan}).
483:
484: To further test the robustness of the extended model including
485: the third source,
486: we have carried out a similar analysis of the medium-resolution data
487: from the HERES survey of metal-poor stars \citep{barklem05}.
488: This sample contains 253 stars of which eight have neither Sr nor Ba
489: data. Five of the remaining stars were clearly recognized from their
490: Ba/Eu ratios as having dominant $s$-process contributions
491: \citep{barklem05} and are excluded. This leaves 240 stars to be analyzed
492: here. The data on $\log\epsilon({\rm Sr})$ vs. [Fe/H] are shown in
493: Figure~\ref{fig-heres}a analogous to Figure~\ref{fig-esr}a. It can be seen
494: that the bulk of the data again cluster around the line for an ISM with
495: well-mixed $H$ and $L$ contributions but there are again many stars
496: with ${\rm [Fe/H]}\lesssim -3$ showing a great deficiency in Sr.
497: The description for the evolution of [Sr/Fe] with [Ba/Fe]
498: by the extended model is compared with the medium-resolution
499: data in Figure~\ref{fig-heres}b.
500: In general, these medium-resolution data are in accord with the results
501: presented above for the high-resoltuion data shown in Figure~\ref{fig-srfe},
502: but with some exceptions.
503: There are a number of data that lie well above the upper bound for
504: $f_{{\rm Fe},L}=1$ (e.g., the data at ${\rm [Ba/Fe]}=-0.87$,
505: ${\rm [Sr/Fe]}=0.68$ and ${\rm [Ba/Fe]}=-0.62$, ${\rm [Sr/Fe]}=0.70$
506: representing HE~0017--4838 and HE~1252--0044, respectively). This
507: may be partly due to observational uncertainties, but it will be shown
508: in \S\ref{sec-3cm} that a reinterpretation of the $L$ source raises the
509: upper bound above essentially all the data. There are also a number
510: of data that lie far to the right of and below the lower bound for
511: $f_{{\rm Fe},L}=0$. We consider that the corresponding stars
512: most plausibly have large $s$-process contributions to the Ba
513: (these stars are: HE~0231--4016,
514: HE~0305--4520, HE~0430--4404, HE~1430--1123, HE~2150--0825,
515: HE~2156--3130, HE~2227--4044, and HE~2240--0412).
516: This explanation can be tested by high-resolution observations covering
517: more elements heavier than Ba. While not showing
518: as clear-cut a case as the high-resolution data, the bulk of the HERES
519: data appear to be in broad accord with the requirement of a third
520: source producing Fe but no Sr or heavier elements as presented
521: above.
522:
523: \subsection{Requirement of a Third Source from Data on Y and La
524: as well as Zr and Ba}
525: \label{sec-yla}
526:
527: As a final test for the requirement of a third source and the robustness
528: of the extended model including this source, we repeat the analysis
529: using the high-resolution data on Y and La
530: in metal-poor stars. Like Sr and Ba, these two elements represent
531: the CPR elements and the heavy $r$-elements, respectively. The
532: abundances of Y and La in a star are generally much lower than
533: those of Sr and Ba, respectively. Consequently, there are much
534: fewer data on Y and La than on Sr and Ba in metal-poor stars.
535: On the other hand, the abundances of Y and La are less
536: susceptible to uncertainties in the spectroscopic analysis if they
537: can be measured and therefore, may be better indicators for
538: the trends of chemical evolution (e.g., \citealt{simmerer}).
539: In Figure~\ref{fig-yla}a we show the data on $\log\epsilon({\rm Y})$
540: from the high-resolution observations of \citet{johnson} (squares)
541: and \citet{francois07} (circles) over the wide range of
542: $-4.1\lesssim[{\rm Fe/H}]\lesssim -1.5$. The solid line in this
543: figure represents
544: \begin{equation}
545: \log\epsilon({\rm Y})=[{\rm Fe/H}]+1.97,
546: \end{equation}
547: which corresponds to [Y/Fe]$_{\rm mix}=-0.24$ for an ISM
548: with well-mixed contributions from the $H$ and $L$ sources
549: only (see Appendix~\ref{sec-app1} and Table~\ref{tab-mix}).
550: It can be seen
551: from Figure~\ref{fig-yla}a that the bulk of the data again cluster
552: around the solid line, but there are again many stars with
553: [Fe/H]~$\lesssim -3$ showing a great deficiency in Y.
554:
555: The failure of the two-component model with the $H$ and $L$
556: sources as found for Sr
557: can also be shown by comparing the Y abundances
558: predicted from this model with the data on metal-poor stars.
559: The yield patterns of the $H$ and $L$ sources given in
560: Tables~\ref{tab-rhl} and \ref{tab-yhl} correspond to
561: $\log({\rm Y/La})_H=0.27$ and $\log({\rm Y/Fe})_L=-5.67$.
562: Using these yield ratios and the La and Fe data on the stars
563: shown in Figure~\ref{fig-yla}a, we calculate the Y abundances
564: for these stars from
565: \begin{equation}
566: \left(\frac{\rm Y}{\rm H}\right)=\left(\frac{\rm Y}{\rm La}\right)_H
567: \left(\frac{\rm La}{\rm H}\right)
568: +\left(\frac{\rm Y}{\rm Fe}\right)_L\left(\frac{\rm Fe}{\rm H}\right)
569: \end{equation}
570: and show the differences $\Delta\log\epsilon({\rm Y})\equiv
571: \log\epsilon_{\rm cal}({\rm Y})-\log\epsilon_{\rm obs}({\rm Y})$
572: between the calculated and observed values in Figure~\ref{fig-yla}b.
573: As many stars lack La data, their $\log\epsilon_{\rm cal}({\rm Y})$
574: values are calculated from the $L$ contributions only. The
575: resulting $\Delta\log\epsilon({\rm Y})$ values represent lower
576: limits and are shown as symbols with upward arrows
577: [the value of $\log({\rm Y/Fe})_L=-5.67$ should represent the
578: minimum value of $\log({\rm Y/Fe})=\log\epsilon({\rm Y})-
579: \log\epsilon({\rm Fe})$ predicted for metal-poor stars
580: based on the two-component model].
581: It can be seen from Figure~\ref{fig-yla}b that
582: there is again good agreement between the two-component model
583: and the data for ${\rm [Fe/H]}>-3$ but the model tends to greatly
584: overpredict Y abundances (by up to $\sim 1.3$ dex)
585: for ${\rm [Fe/H]}\lesssim -3$.
586:
587: As discussed using just the Sr and Ba data, the two-component
588: model must be modified by including a third source producing Fe
589: but no CPR or heavier elements in order to account for the
590: observations. The effects of such a source are shown in
591: Figure~\ref{fig-yla}c for the CPR element Y and the heavy
592: $r$-element La
593: analogous to Figures~\ref{fig-srfe} and \ref{fig-heres}b
594: for Sr and Ba. The data on the evolution of
595: [Y/Fe] with [La/Fe] shown in Figure~\ref{fig-yla}c are for the stars
596: shown in Figure~\ref{fig-yla}a except for those with only upper
597: limits on both Y and La abundances. The distribution of the
598: data on Y and La with respect to the curves calculated from the
599: three-component model for $f_{{\rm Fe},L}=0$, 0.1, 0.5, and 1
600: is similar to those discussed in \S\ref{sec-p}
601: for the evolution of [Sr/Fe] with [Ba/Fe] and
602: shown in Figures~\ref{fig-srfe} and \ref{fig-heres}b. There is
603: one exceptional star, CS~22968--014, which is indicated by
604: the downward arrow labeled as such in Figure~\ref{fig-yla}c.
605: This star has an anomalously high abundance of La
606: corresponding to $\log({\rm La/Ba})=0.7$ \citep{francois07},
607: which greatly exceeds the yield ratio of
608: $\log({\rm La/Ba})_H=-0.71$ assumed
609: for the $H$ source (see Table~\ref{tab-rhl}). If the measured
610: La/Ba ratio were correct, then CS~22968--014 must have
611: sampled an extremely anomalous event producing the
612: heavy $r$-elements. However, the Ba and La abundances
613: for this star were derived from a single line for either element
614: \citep{francois07}, and therefore, could be in error. More
615: observations of these
616: two elements in this star are needed to resolve this issue.
617: In any case, we consider that the overall comparison between
618: the theoretical model
619: curves for $f_{{\rm Fe},L}=0$ to 1 and the data shown in
620: Figure~\ref{fig-yla}c justifies the three-component model where
621: the third source is producing Fe but no CPR or heavier elements.
622:
623: With no production of CPR or heavier elements assigned to the third
624: source, the Y/La ratio is determined exclusively by the $H$ and $L$
625: sources. Any mixture of the contributions from these two sources
626: should have ${\rm [Y/La]}$ exceeding ${\rm [Y/La]}_H=-0.81$
627: (see Table~\ref{tab-mix}). An ISM with well-mixed $H$ and $L$
628: contributions should have [Y/La]$_{\rm mix}=-0.36$
629: (see Appendix~\ref{sec-app1} and Table~\ref{tab-mix}).
630: The data on [Y/La] for the stars
631: shown in Figure~\ref{fig-yla}c are displayed in Figure~\ref{fig-yla}d
632: analogous to Figure~\ref{fig-srba}. It can be seen from
633: Figure~\ref{fig-yla}d that except for the anomalous star
634: CS~22968--014 noted above, all other data are compatible
635: with the lower bound of ${\rm [Y/La]}\geq {\rm [Y/La]}_H$ and that a
636: large fraction of the stars did not sample a well-mixed ISM.
637:
638: Based on the analysis of the Sr and Ba data as well as the
639: Y and La data, we consider that a three-component model including
640: a third source producing Fe but no CPR or heavier elements is
641: adequately justified. Our analysis of the Zr and Ba data
642: (not presented in detail here) is in full accord with the three-component
643: model and leads to the same quantitative conclusion
644: (see \S\ref{sec-3cm} and Figure~\ref{fig-csrfe}d). We will now pursue
645: the consequences of this approach.
646:
647: \subsection{HNe as the Third Source}
648: \label{sec-plowa}
649: Star formation in the early universe responsible
650: for the enrichment of metal-poor stars is still not well understood.
651: Simulations indicate that the first stars were likely to be massive,
652: ranging from $\sim 10$ to $\sim 1000\,M_\odot$
653: [see \citet{abel02,bromm04} for reviews of earlier works and
654: \citet{yoshida06,oshea07,gao07} for more recent studies].
655: It is generally thought that stars form in the typical mass range of
656: $\sim 1$--$50\,M_\odot$ subsequent to the epoch of the first stars.
657: Below we assume this simple scenario of star formation and
658: focus on considerations of nucleosynthesis to identify the stellar
659: types for the third source.
660:
661: The assumed third source produces the low-$A$ elements
662: including Fe but no CPR elements such as Sr or heavier elements.
663: As the CPR elements are here considered to
664: be produced in the neutrino-driven wind from nascent neutron stars,
665: there are two main candidates for the third source :
666: (1) pair-instability SNe (PI-SNe)
667: from very massive ($\sim 140$--$260\,M_\odot$) stars (VMSs),
668: in which the star is completely disrupted by the explosion
669: and no neutron star is produced, and (2) massive SNe with progenitors of
670: $\sim 25$--$50\,M_\odot$, in which a black hole forms either
671: directly by the core collapse or through severe fallback onto the neutron star
672: initially produced by the core collapse. There is observational evidence that
673: massive SNe have two branches: HNe and faint SNe with the latter thought
674: to be much rarer. Compared with normal SNe,
675: HNe have up to $\sim 50$ times higher explosion energies and
676: $\sim 7$ times higher Fe yields while faint SNe have several times lower
677: explosion energies and $\gtrsim 10$ times lower Fe yields
678: [see \citet{iwa98} for interpretation of SN~1998bw as an HN,
679: \citet{tura} for the case of SN~1997D as a faint SN, and
680: \citet{nomoto06} and references therein for other studies of HNe
681: and faint SNe]. It is important to note that HNe are ongoing events in
682: the present universe as evidenced by the occurrences of the associated
683: gamma-ray bursts [see e.g., \citet{galama} for the discovery of SN~1998bw,
684: an HN associated with a gamma-ray burst].
685:
686: In our assumed scenario of star formation, PI-SNe can only occur at
687: zero metallicity but HNe and faint SNe can occur at all epochs. In addition,
688: these three types of events have very different yield patterns of the
689: low-$A$ elements.
690: Compared with HNe and faint SNe, PI-SNe have extremely low production
691: of those low-$A$ elements with odd atomic numbers such as
692: Na, Al, K, Sc, V, Mn, and Co relative to their neighboring elements
693: with even atomic numbers (see Figure~3 in \citealt{heger02}).
694: This is because unlike HNe and faint SNe
695: that occur after all stages of core burning, PI-SNe occur immediately
696: following core C-burning and there is not sufficient time for weak
697: interaction to provide the required neutron excess for significant
698: production of the low-$A$ elements with odd atomic numbers
699: (e.g., \citealt{heger02}). Further, the production of the low-$A$
700: elements from Na through Mg relative to those from Si
701: through Zn differs greatly between HNe and faint SNe. This is
702: because the former elements are produced by hydrostatic burning
703: during the pre-explosion evolution and the latter ones by explosive
704: burning. The extremely weak
705: explosion of faint SNe would lead to very high yield ratios of
706: the hydrostatic burning products relative to the explosive burning
707: products.
708:
709: The decomposition of elemental abundances in terms of
710: three components discussed in \S\ref{sec-p} and \S\ref{sec-yla}
711: identifies those stars in which
712: the Fe is exclusively the product of the third source. Such stars lie
713: on the curve for $f_{{\rm Fe},L}=0$ representing the mixture of
714: contributions from the $H$ source and the third source
715: in Figure~\ref{fig-srfe}.
716: As the $H$ source produces none of the low-$A$
717: elements, these elements in the stars
718: lying on the $f_{{\rm Fe},L}=0$ curve should be attributed to the
719: third source. The abundance patterns of these elements
720: in five such stars (open square: BD~$-18^\circ 5550$,
721: ${\rm [Fe/H]}=-2.98$, \citealt{johnson}; open circle:
722: CS~30325--094, ${\rm [Fe/H]}=-3.25$, open diamond:
723: CS~22885--096, ${\rm [Fe/H]}=-3.73$, open triangle:
724: CS~29502--042, ${\rm [Fe/H]}=-3.14$, \citealt{cayrel};
725: plus: BS~16085--050, ${\rm [Fe/H]}=-2.85$, \citealt{honda04})
726: are shown in Figure~\ref{fig-p}.
727: It can be seen that all the abundance patterns of the low-$A$
728: elements assigned to the third source are quasi-uniform.
729: By quasi-uniformity, we mean that for element E, the [E/Fe]
730: values for different stars are within $\sim 0.3$~dex of some
731: mean value. It is also clear that there are no drastic variations
732: in the [E/Fe] values either between the elements with odd and
733: even atomic numbers or between the hydrostatic and explosive
734: burning products. We conclude that neither PI-SNe nor faint SNe
735: can be the third source. This leaves HNe as the third source.
736:
737: The abundance patterns of the low-$A$ elements in those stars
738: that lie on the curve for $f_{{\rm Fe},L}=1$ in Figure~\ref{fig-srfe}
739: should represent the yield pattern of these elements for the
740: hypothecated $L$ source.
741: The patterns for three such stars (filled square:
742: BD~$+4^\circ 2621$, \citealt{johnson}; filled circle: HD~122563,
743: \citealt{honda04,honda06}; filled diamond: CS~29491--053,
744: \citealt{cayrel}) are compared with those assigned to the third
745: source in Figure~\ref{fig-p}. It can be seen that the third source
746: (now taken to be HNe) and the $L$
747: source are indistinguishable in terms of their assigned
748: contributions to the low-$A$ elements. This is also reflected
749: by the fact that essentially all the stars in the region
750: bounded by the curves for $f_{{\rm Fe},L}=0$ and 1
751: shown in Figure~\ref{fig-srfe} have the same quasi-uniform
752: abundance patterns of the low-$A$ elements as
753: established by the observations of \citet{cayrel}
754: (see \S\ref{sec-pan} for discussion of the exceptional stars).
755: As an example, we show in Figure~\ref{fig-p} the pattern for
756: BD~$+17^\circ 3248$ (solid curve, \citealt{cowan02}) with a
757: relatively high value of ${\rm [Fe/H]}=-2$.
758: We are thus left with a most peculiar conundrum: the yield
759: pattern of the low-$A$ elements attributed to the third source
760: is the same as that attributed to the $L$ source.
761: This is the same result that we \citep{qw02} found earlier in
762: attempting to estimate the yield patterns of the stellar sources
763: contributing in the regime of ${\rm [Fe/H]}\lesssim -3$
764: using the data of \citet{mcw} and \citet{nrb}.
765: The recent more extensive and precise data of \citet{cayrel}
766: lead to the same conclusion.
767:
768: We have associated the third source with HNe and the $L$
769: source with normal SNe. As HNe and normal SNe are
770: concurrent in our assumed scenario of star formation and
771: cannot be distinguished based on their production of the
772: low-$A$ elements, the contributions to these elements,
773: especially Fe, that we previously assigned to the $L$ source
774: only may well be a combination of the contributions from
775: both HNe and normal SNe.
776: In this case, the Sr/Fe ratio assigned to the $L$ source
777: represents a mixture of Sr contributions from normal SNe and
778: Fe contributions from both HNe and normal SNe.
779: In what follows, we designate
780: normal SNe as the $L^*$ source and consider the
781: $L$ source as a combination of HNe and the $L^*$ source
782: ($L\to {\rm HNe}+L^*$). The apparent near identity in the abundance
783: patterns of the low-$A$ elements attributed to HNe and the
784: $L$ source may mean that the dominant
785: contributor to these elements is HNe.
786: The stellar types and the nucleosynthetic characteristics
787: assigned to HNe, $H$, and $L^*$ sources are summarized
788: in Table~\ref{tab-phl}.
789:
790: In our earlier efforts to decompose the stellar sources of
791: elemental abundances at low metallicities, we recognized that
792: there must be a source producing Fe and other low-$A$
793: elements but none of the $r$-elements \citep{qw02}.
794: We therefore proposed a source that only occurred in very
795: early epochs and did not occur later. This inference, in
796: conjunction with the rather sharp break in the observed
797: abundances of the heavy $r$-elements at ${\rm [Fe/H]}\sim-3$,
798: led us to propose that PI-SNe from VMSs might be the source.
799: It was argued that VMSs were the first stars and that the very
800: disruptive PI-SNe associated with them provided a baseline of
801: metals to the IGM at a level of ${\rm [Fe/H]}\sim-3$. This
802: apparent baseline was also found in damped Lyman $\alpha$
803: systems \citep{qsw}. However, in the framework of hierarchical
804: structure formation, for halos that are not disrupted by explosions
805: of massive stars (see \S\ref{sec-halo}), the initial rate of growth in
806: metallicity is so rapid that it would be very rare to find stars with
807: ${\rm [Fe/H]}<-3$ \citep{qw04}. It is thus plausible that the rarity
808: of ultra-metal-poor stars with ${\rm [Fe/H]}<-3$ results from the
809: initial phase of rapid metal enrichment in all bound halos and is
810: not due to a general ``prompt inventory'' in the IGM. In addition,
811: as discussed above, none of the metal-poor stars with
812: ${\rm [Fe/H]}\lesssim-3$ exhibit the abundance patterns
813: calculated for PI-SNe, which
814: are extremely deficient in the elements with odd atomic
815: numbers such as Na, Al, K, Sc, V, Mn, and Co (e.g., \citealt{heger02}).
816: Further, the search for ultra-metal-poor stars has shown that while
817: stars with ${\rm [Fe/H]}<-3$ are rare, they do occur and show some
818: evidence of elements heavier than the Fe group in their spectra
819: (see \citealt{christlieb02,frebel05} for the discovery of the two most
820: metal-poor stars with ${\rm [Fe/H]}<-5$). Thus, low-mass stars must
821: be able to form from a medium with ${\rm [Fe/H]}\ll -3$. Based on all
822: the above considerations, we now must withdraw the
823: ``prompt inventory'' hypothesis and must consider an IGM with
824: widely variable ``metal'' content and that ${\rm [Fe/H]}\sim -3$
825: represents a transition to the regime where halos are no
826: longer disrupted by the explosions of massive stars.
827:
828: \section{The Three-Component Model with HNe, $H$, and $L^*$ Sources}
829: \label{sec-3cm}
830:
831: With the revised interpretation of the $L$ source
832: as a combination of HNe and the $L^*$ source, we can
833: relate ${\rm [Sr/Fe]}_L=-0.32$ (see Table~\ref{tab-mix})
834: to the yield ratio of Sr to Fe
835: for the $L^*$ source. For example, if we assume that
836: 24\% of the Fe in the $L$ mixture is from the $L^*$ source
837: (see \S\ref{sec-hne}), this corresponds to
838: ${\rm [Sr/Fe]}_{L^*}={\rm [Sr/Fe]}_L-\log0.24=0.30$.
839: Equation~(\ref{eq-srfe}) now becomes
840: \begin{equation}
841: {\rm [Sr/Fe]}=\log\left(10^{{\rm [Sr/Ba]}_H+{\rm [Ba/Fe]}}+
842: f_{{\rm Fe},L^*}\times 10^{{\rm [Sr/Fe]}_{L^*}}\right),
843: \label{eq-csrfe}
844: \end{equation}
845: where $f_{{\rm Fe},L^*}$ is the fraction of the Fe in a star
846: contributed by the $L^*$ source. The curves representing
847: the above equation for ${\rm [Sr/Fe]}_{L^*}=0.30$ and
848: $f_{{\rm Fe},L^*}=0$, 0.1, 0.24, and 1 are shown along
849: with the data in Figures~\ref{fig-csrfe}a (high-resolution data)
850: and \ref{fig-csrfe}b (medium-resolution data)
851: analogous to Figures~\ref{fig-srfe} and
852: \ref{fig-heres}b. It can be seen from Figures~\ref{fig-csrfe}a
853: and \ref{fig-csrfe}b
854: that essentially all the data lie inside the allowed region for
855: the evolution of [Sr/Fe] with [Ba/Fe] bounded by the curves for
856: $f_{{\rm Fe},L^*}=0$ and 1
857: (as mentioned near the end of \S\ref{sec-p},
858: the exceptional data points far to the right of and below
859: the curve for $f_{{\rm Fe},L^*}=0$ in Figure~\ref{fig-csrfe}b
860: most likely represent
861: stars that received large $s$-process contributions to Ba).
862:
863: Assuming that 24\% of the Fe in the $L$ mixture is from
864: the $L^*$ source as for Figures~\ref{fig-csrfe}a
865: and \ref{fig-csrfe}b, we obtain
866: ${\rm [Y/Fe]}_{L^*}={\rm [Y/Fe]}_L-\log0.24=0.19$
867: (see Table~\ref{tab-mix}).
868: Using this yield ratio, we show the curves representing
869: \begin{equation}
870: {\rm [Y/Fe]}=\log\left(10^{{\rm [Y/La]}_H+{\rm [La/Fe]}}+
871: f_{{\rm Fe},L^*}\times 10^{{\rm [Y/Fe]}_{L^*}}\right)
872: \label{eq-cyfe}
873: \end{equation}
874: for $f_{{\rm Fe},L^*}=0$, 0.1, 0.24, and 1 along with
875: the data in Figure~\ref{fig-csrfe}c analogous to
876: Figure~\ref{fig-yla}d. It can be seen from Figure~\ref{fig-csrfe}c
877: that with the exception of the anomalous star CS~22968--014
878: as noted in \S\ref{sec-yla}, all other data again lie inside the
879: allowed region for the evolution of [Y/Fe] with [La/Fe] bounded
880: by the curves for $f_{{\rm Fe},L^*}=0$ and 1.
881:
882: For completeness, we also show the high-resolution data
883: on the evolution of [Zr/Fe] with [Ba/Fe] (squares: \citealt{johnson};
884: diamonds: \citealt{aoki05}; circles: \citealt{francois07}) in
885: Figure~\ref{fig-csrfe}d along with the curves representing
886: \begin{equation}
887: {\rm [Zr/Fe]}=\log\left(10^{{\rm [Zr/Ba]}_H+{\rm [Ba/Fe]}}+
888: f_{{\rm Fe},L^*}\times 10^{{\rm [Zr/Fe]}_{L^*}}\right)
889: \label{eq-czrfe}
890: \end{equation}
891: for $f_{{\rm Fe},L^*}=0$, 0.1, 0.24, and 1. In the above equation,
892: we take [Zr/Ba]$_H=-0.20$ and [Zr/Fe]$_{L^*}=0.46$ (see
893: Table~\ref{tab-mix}). The latter yield ratio again assumes that
894: 24\% of the Fe in the $L$ mixture is from the $L^*$
895: source as for Figures~\ref{fig-csrfe}a, \ref{fig-csrfe}b, and
896: \ref{fig-csrfe}c. It can be seen from Figure~\ref{fig-csrfe}d
897: that essentially all the data again lie inside the
898: allowed region for the evolution of [Zr/Fe] with [Ba/Fe] bounded
899: by the curves for $f_{{\rm Fe},L^*}=0$ and 1.
900:
901: Based on the comparison of the theoretical model curves and the
902: data on Sr, Y, and Zr shown in Figure~\ref{fig-csrfe}, we consider
903: that the three-component model with HNe,
904: $H$, and $L^*$ sources provides a very good description
905: of the elemental abundances in metal-poor stars.
906: For an overwhelming portion of the metal-poor stars shown in this
907: figure, their inventory of Fe and other low-$A$ elements received
908: significant but not dominant contributions from the $L^*$
909: source (normal SNe) as indicated by the corresponding
910: low values of $f_{{\rm Fe},L^*}$. We conclude that the bulk of
911: the low-$A$ elements including Fe in metal-poor stars with
912: ${\rm [Fe/H]}\lesssim -1.5$ was provided by HNe. This may
913: explain why wide fluctuations in the abundance patterns of
914: the low-$A$ elements expected from the contributions of just
915: a few normal SNe are not actually observed. The matter remains
916: as to what the detailed yield patterns of the $L^*$ source are
917: for the low-$A$ elements. This is not easily addressable from
918: the observations of metal-poor stars as the $L^*$ contributions
919: only constitute a small fraction of the total abundances of these
920: elements. It appears that we must rely on stellar model
921: calculations (e.g., \citealt{ww95,cl04}) to estimate the $L^*$ yield
922: patterns of the low-$A$ elements.
923:
924: A straightforward application of the three-component model is
925: to calculate the contributions from the $H$ and $L^*$ sources
926: to the solar inventory of the CPR elements. Assuming that
927: all of the Eu in the sun was provided by the $H$ source and
928: a fraction $f_{{\rm Fe},L^*}^\odot=0.08$ of the solar Fe inventory
929: was provided by the $L^*$ source
930: ($f_{{\rm Fe},L^*}^\odot=0.24f_{{\rm Fe},L}^\odot$ with
931: $f_{{\rm Fe},L}^\odot=1/3$ being the fraction contributed by
932: sources other than SNe Ia as usually assumed), we calculate
933: the $H$ and $L^*$ contributions to a CPR element E in the sun
934: from
935: \begin{equation}
936: \left(\frac{\rm E}{\rm H}\right)_{\odot,HL^*}=
937: \left(\frac{\rm E}{\rm Eu}\right)_H
938: \left(\frac{\rm Eu}{\rm H}\right)_\odot+
939: \left(\frac{\rm E}{\rm Fe}\right)_{L^*}
940: \left(\frac{\rm Fe}{\rm H}\right)_\odot f_{{\rm Fe},L^*}^\odot\ ,
941: \label{eq-cprs}
942: \end{equation}
943: where the yield ratios (E/Eu)$_H$ and (E/Fe)$_{L^*}$ are
944: given in Table~\ref{tab-yhl}. We present the results in terms of
945: $\log\epsilon_{\odot,HL^*}({\rm E})$ in Table~\ref{tab-cprs},
946: where the corresponding fraction $f_{{\rm E},HL^*}^\odot$
947: of the solar inventory contributed by the $H$ and $L^*$ sources
948: is also given. The fraction $f_{{\rm E},HL^*}^\odot$
949: is in approximate agreement with the fraction
950: $1-f_{{\rm E},s}^\odot$ attributed to non-$s$-process
951: sources by \citet{arlandini99} and \citet{travaglio} for
952: the elements Mo, Ru, Rh, Pd, and Ag with small to moderate
953: $s$-process contributions (see Table~\ref{tab-cprs}).
954: For the elements Sr, Y, Zr, and Nb
955: with large $s$-process contributions, the fraction
956: $f_{{\rm E},HL^*}^\odot$ is a factor of $\approx 2$ larger than
957: the fraction $1-f_{{\rm E},s}^\odot$ estimated by
958: \citet{arlandini99}. This latter result is in agreement with
959: what was found earlier by us \citep{qw01} and confirmed later by
960: \citet{travaglio}, who carried out a detailed study of
961: Galactic chemical evolution for the $s$-process contributions.
962: To calculate the fraction $1-f_{{\rm E},s}^\odot$, \citet{travaglio}
963: used as input
964: the $s$-process yields for stars of low and intermediate masses
965: with a wide range of metallicities, the formation history of these
966: stars, and the mixing characteristics of their nucleosynthetic
967: products with gas in the Galaxy. In contrast,
968: the fraction $f_{{\rm E},HL^*}^\odot$
969: is calculated directly from the yield templates of
970: the $H$ and $L^*$ sources. These templates are taken
971: from data on metal-poor stars that formed in the regime where
972: there cannot be major $s$-process contributions to the ISM
973: and only massive stars can plausibly contribute. The only
974: assumption with regard to the solar abundances used in
975: calculating $f_{{\rm E},HL^*}^\odot$ is the
976: assignment of a fraction $f_{{\rm Fe},L^*}^\odot=0.08$ of
977: the solar Fe inventory to the $L^*$ source (the fraction
978: from this source and HNe combined is 1/3).
979: It appears that the results from this simple and self-consistent
980: approach, and hence, the assumptions used in the
981: three-component model, are compatible with the non-$s$-process
982: contributions to the solar abundances of the CPR elements. This
983: provides a further test of the model and does not challenge the
984: assignment of major Fe production by HNe as argued here.
985:
986: Below we further discuss the characteristics of HNe and the $H$
987: and $L^*$ sources in the three-component model
988: and their roles in the chemical evolution of the universe.
989:
990: \subsection{Yields of HNe, $H$, and $L^*$ Sources}
991: \label{sec-hne}
992: The yields of the low-$A$ elements for HNe are not known
993: although these were estimated by parameterized calculations
994: (e.g., \citealt{tominaga}). The Fe yields for some HNe were
995: inferred from their light curves.
996: Comparison of the yield patterns of the low-$A$ elements from
997: various parameterized models of HNe with the abundance patterns
998: observed in metal-poor stars can be found in \citet{tominaga}.
999: We here focus on the contributions from HNe to the Fe in the ISM.
1000: In the regime of ${\rm [Fe/H]}\lesssim -1.5$, only HNe and normal
1001: SNe contribute Fe. The fraction of the Fe in a well-mixed
1002: ISM contributed by HNe can be estimated as
1003: \begin{equation}
1004: \frac{\int_{25}^{50}Y_{\rm Fe}^{\rm HN}m^{-2.35}dm}
1005: {\int_{12}^{25}Y_{\rm Fe}^{L^*}m^{-2.35}dm+
1006: \int_{25}^{50}Y_{\rm Fe}^{\rm HN}m^{-2.35}dm}\sim 0.72,
1007: \label{eq-fe}
1008: \end{equation}
1009: where we have assumed a Salpeter initial mass function (IMF) with
1010: $m\sim 12$--25 and 25--50 (stellar mass in units of $M_\odot$)
1011: corresponding to progenitors of normal SNe and HNe, respectively,
1012: and we have taken $Y_{\rm Fe}^{\rm HN}\sim 0.5\,M_\odot$ and
1013: $Y_{\rm Fe}^{L^*}\sim 0.07\,M_\odot$ as the (mass) yields of Fe
1014: for an HN and a normal SN, respectively (see e.g.,
1015: Figure 1 in \citealt{tominaga} and references therein).
1016: The fraction of the Fe contributed by normal SNe is then $\sim 0.28$.
1017: This is close to the fraction of 0.24 assumed for the $L^*$ contribution
1018: to the $L$ mixture and used in Figure~\ref{fig-csrfe}. As $\sim 2/3$
1019: of the solar Fe abundance came from SNe Ia, HNe and normal SNe
1020: contributed $\sim 24\%$ and $\sim 9\%$ of the solar Fe inventory,
1021: respectively.
1022:
1023: Using the Salpeter IMF and the progenitor mass ranges assumed
1024: in equation~(\ref{eq-fe}), we estimate
1025: the relative rates of HNe and low-mass ($H$) and
1026: normal ($L^*$) SNe as
1027: \begin{equation}
1028: R_{\rm HN}:R_H:R_{L^*}\sim\int_{25}^{50}m^{-2.35}dm:
1029: \int_8^{11}m^{-2.35}dm:\int_{12}^{25}m^{-2.35}dm
1030: \sim 0.36:0.96:1,
1031: \label{eq-rphl}
1032: \end{equation}
1033: where we have taken the mass range for the progenitors of
1034: low-mass SNe to be $m\sim 8$--11.
1035: The rate of all core-collapse SNe in the Galaxy is estimated
1036: to be $R_{\rm SN}^G\sim 10^{-2}$~yr$^{-1}$ (e.g., \citealt{cap}).
1037: This gives the Galactic rates of HNe and low-mass and normal
1038: SNe as $R_{\rm HN}^G\sim 1.6\times 10^{-3}$~yr$^{-1}$,
1039: $R_H^G\sim 4.1\times10^{-3}$~yr$^{-1}$,
1040: and $R_{L^*}^G\sim 4.3\times10^{-3}$~yr$^{-1}$, respectively.
1041: Assuming that HNe and normal SNe provided a total mass
1042: $M_{\rm gas}^G$ of gas with $\sim 1/3$
1043: of the solar Fe abundance over the period of
1044: $t_G\sim 10^{10}$~yr prior to the formation
1045: of the solar system, we have
1046: \begin{equation}
1047: M_{\rm gas}^G\sim
1048: \frac{(Y_{\rm Fe}^{\rm HN}R_{\rm HN}^G+Y_{\rm Fe}^{L^*}R_{L^*}^G)t_G}
1049: {X_{{\rm Fe},\odot}/3}\sim 3.3\times 10^{10}\,M_\odot,
1050: \end{equation}
1051: which is comparable to the total stellar mass in the Galactic disk
1052: at the present time. In the above equation,
1053: $X_{{\rm Fe},\odot}\approx 10^{-3}$ is the mass fraction of Fe in
1054: the sun \citep{anders}.
1055: As low-mass SNe are the predominant source for Eu, we can
1056: estimate the (mass) yield of Eu for this source as
1057: \begin{equation}
1058: Y_{\rm Eu}^H\sim
1059: \frac{X_{{\rm Eu},\odot}M_{\rm gas}^G}{R_H^Gt_G}
1060: \sim 3\times 10^{-7}\,M_\odot,
1061: \end{equation}
1062: where $X_{{\rm Eu},\odot}\approx 3.75\times 10^{-10}$ is
1063: the mass fraction of Eu in the sun \citep{anders}.
1064: Using the above Eu yield and
1065: $\log{\rm (Sr/Eu)}_H=1.41$ (see Table~\ref{tab-yhl}),
1066: we can estimate the (mass) yield of Sr for a single low-mass SN
1067: (see also QW07) as
1068: \begin{equation}
1069: Y_{\rm Sr}^H=Y_{\rm Eu}^H
1070: \left(\frac{\rm Sr}{\rm Eu}\right)_H
1071: \left(\frac{A_{\rm Sr}}{A_{\rm Eu}}\right)
1072: \sim 4.5\times 10^{-6}\,M_\odot,
1073: \end{equation}
1074: where $A_{\rm Sr}\approx 88$ and $A_{\rm Eu}\approx 152$
1075: are the atomic weights of Sr and Eu, respectively.
1076: The above estimate
1077: is consistent with the amount of ejecta from the neutrino-driven
1078: wind (e.g., \citealt{qw96}).
1079:
1080: Using $Y_{\rm Fe}^{L^*}\sim 0.07\,M_\odot$ and
1081: [Sr/Fe]$_{L^*}=0.30$ [corresponding to
1082: $\log{\rm (Sr/Fe)}_{L^*}=-4.23$, see Tables~\ref{tab-yhl}
1083: and \ref{tab-mix}],
1084: we can estimate the (mass) yield of Sr for a single normal SN
1085: (see also QW07) as
1086: \begin{equation}
1087: Y_{\rm Sr}^{L^*}=Y_{\rm Fe}^{L^*}
1088: \left(\frac{\rm Sr}{\rm Fe}\right)_{L^*}
1089: \left(\frac{A_{\rm Sr}}{A_{\rm Fe}}\right)
1090: \sim 6.5\times 10^{-6}\,M_\odot,
1091: \end{equation}
1092: where $A_{\rm Fe}\approx 56$ is the atomic weight of Fe.
1093: The above result is very close
1094: to the Sr yield estimated for low-mass SNe and
1095: consistent with the production of the CPR elements
1096: in the neutrino-driven wind.
1097:
1098: We emphasize that we have included
1099: the large contributions to the solar Fe inventory from HNe
1100: in estimating the Eu and Sr yields for low-mass SNe.
1101: This then requires that the Fe contributions from normal SNe
1102: be reduced by a factor of $\sim 4$ from what were assumed
1103: previously. Likewise, the Galactic rate of
1104: $\sim 10^{-2}$~yr$^{-1}$ usually assumed for
1105: normal SNe must be reduced to
1106: $R_{L^*}^G\sim 4.3\times 10^{-3}$~yr$^{-1}$.
1107:
1108: \subsection{Effects of HNe, $H$, and $L^*$ Sources on
1109: Chemical Evolution of Halos}
1110: \label{sec-halo}
1111: We now estimate the enrichment resulting from a single
1112: HN or low-mass ($H$) or normal ($L^*$) SN.
1113: In the framework of hierarchical structure formation,
1114: chemical enrichment depends on the mass of the
1115: halo hosting the stellar sources and the extent to which the
1116: gas is bound to the halo after the explosions of these sources.
1117: In the simplest case, the gas is bound to the halo so that all
1118: sources contribute to the evolution of metal abundances in
1119: the halo. For these bound halos, the amount of gas to mix
1120: with the debris from a stellar explosion can be estimated as
1121: (e.g., \citealt{thornton})
1122: \begin{equation}
1123: M_{\rm mix}\sim 3\times 10^4E_{{\rm expl},51}^{6/7}\,M_\odot,
1124: \label{eq-mmix}
1125: \end{equation}
1126: where $E_{{\rm expl},51}$ is the explosion energy in units
1127: of $10^{51}$~erg. The explosion energy of an HN is
1128: inferred from the light curves to be
1129: $E_{\rm expl}^{\rm HN}\sim (1$--$5)\times 10^{52}$~erg
1130: (see e.g., Figure 1 in \citealt{tominaga} and references therein),
1131: which corresponds to
1132: $M_{\rm mix}^{\rm HN}\sim\mbox{(2--$9)\times 10^5\,M_\odot$}$.
1133: With $Y_{\rm Fe}^{\rm HN}\sim 0.5\,M_\odot$ and
1134: $X_{{\rm Fe},\odot}\approx 10^{-3}$, this gives
1135: \begin{equation}
1136: {\rm [Fe/H]}_{\rm HN}\sim\log\frac{Y_{\rm Fe}^{\rm HN}}
1137: {X_{{\rm Fe},\odot}M_{\rm mix}^{\rm HN}}
1138: \sim\mbox{$-3.3$ to $-2.6$}
1139: \label{eq-fehn}
1140: \end{equation}
1141: for enrichment of the ISM by a single HN in bound halos.
1142: Similarly, using $Y_{\rm Fe}^{L^*}\sim 0.07\,M_\odot$ and
1143: $M_{\rm mix}^{L^*}\sim 3\times 10^4\,M_\odot$ corresponding
1144: to $E_{\rm expl}^{L^*}\sim 10^{51}$~erg, we find that a single
1145: normal SN would result in ${\rm [Fe/H]}_{L^*}\sim -2.6$.
1146: As the relative rates of HNe and low-mass and
1147: normal SNe are comparable [see equation~(\ref{eq-rphl})],
1148: we expect that multiple types of stellar sources would be
1149: sampled at ${\rm [Fe/H]}>-2.6$ in bound halos. This may
1150: explain why HNe and the $L^*$ source can be effectively
1151: combined into the $L$ source and the two-component
1152: model with the $H$ and $L$ sources works rather well
1153: at such relatively high metallicities (see Figures~\ref{fig-esr}b
1154: and \ref{fig-yla}b). To illustrate the effects of low-mass SNe,
1155: we consider the enrichment of Eu. Using
1156: $Y_{\rm Eu}^H\sim3\times 10^{-7}\,M_\odot$,
1157: $X_{{\rm Eu},\odot}\approx 3.75\times 10^{-10}$, and
1158: a mixing mass of $M_{\rm mix}^H\sim 3\times 10^4\,M_\odot$,
1159: we find that a single low-mass SN would result in
1160: ${\rm [Eu/H]}_H\sim -1.6$. This is close to the Eu abundances
1161: observed in CS~22892--052 and CS~31082--001
1162: with ${\rm [Fe/H]}\approx -3$ but with extremely high
1163: enrichments of heavy $r$-elements.
1164:
1165: The mixing mass
1166: $M_{\rm mix}^{\rm HN}\sim\mbox{(2--$9)\times 10^5\,M_\odot$}$
1167: for an HN exceeds the amount of gas ($\sim 1.5\times 10^5\,M_\odot$)
1168: in a halo with a total mass of
1169: $M_h\sim 10^6\,M_\odot$ (only a fraction $\approx 0.15$ in gas and
1170: the rest in dark matter), in which the first stars are considered to have
1171: formed at redshift $z\sim 20$. On the other hand, the interaction of the
1172: HN debris with the gas in such a halo is complicated by the gravitational
1173: potential of the dark matter and by the heating of the gas due to the
1174: radiation from the HN progenitor.
1175: \citet{kitayama} studied the effects of photo-heating of the gas by
1176: a $200\,M_\odot$ VMS and found that with photo-heating, an explosion
1177: with $E_{\rm expl}\gtrsim 10^{50}$~erg is sufficient to blow out all
1178: the gas from a halo of $10^6\,M_\odot$. In contrast, without
1179: photo-heating, $10^{52}<E_{\rm expl}<10^{53}$~erg is required
1180: for the same halo. The effects of the dark matter
1181: potential are also important.
1182: The gravitational binding energy of the gas in a halo at $z\gg 1$
1183: (e.g., \citealt{barkana}) increases with the halo mass as
1184: \begin{equation}
1185: E_{b,{\rm gas}}\approx 2\times 10^{49}
1186: \left(\frac{M_h}{10^6\,M_\odot}\right)^{5/3}
1187: \left(\frac{1+z}{10}\right)\ {\rm erg}.
1188: \end{equation}
1189: To blow out all the gas from a halo of $3\times 10^6\,M_\odot$
1190: requires $10^{52}<E_{\rm expl}<10^{53}$~erg
1191: and $E_{\rm expl}>10^{53}$~erg with and without photo-heating,
1192: respectively. The effects of photo-heating by HN progenitors of
1193: $\sim 25$--$50\,M_\odot$ were not studied. Based on the above
1194: results of \citet{kitayama}, we consider it reasonable to assume
1195: that an HN with $E_{\rm expl}\sim (1$--$5)\times 10^{52}$~erg
1196: would blow out all the gas from a halo of
1197: $\sim 10^6\,M_\odot$ but a low-mass or normal or faint SN with
1198: $E_{\rm expl}\sim 10^{51}$~erg or less would not.
1199:
1200: \citet{greif} showed that subsequent to the blowing-out of the
1201: gas from a halo of $\sim 10^6\,M_\odot$ by an explosion
1202: with $E_{\rm expl}=10^{52}$~erg, collecting the debris
1203: and the swept-up gas requires the assemblage of a much larger
1204: halo of $\gtrsim 10^8\,M_\odot$. It is conceivable that the debris
1205: from several or more HNe originally hosted by different halos
1206: would be mixed and then assembled into the much larger halo.
1207: Stars that formed subsequently from this material would have
1208: sampled multiple HNe and have a quasi-uniform abundance
1209: pattern of the low-$A$ elements. The debris from a single HN
1210: mixed with $\sim 1.5\times 10^7\,M_\odot$ of gas in a halo of
1211: $\sim 10^8\,M_\odot$ would give ${\rm [Fe/H]}\sim -4.5$
1212: (cf. equation~[\ref{eq-fehn}]). This is close to the lower end
1213: of the range of [Fe/H] values for metal-poor stars.
1214: \citet{kitayama} showed that
1215: even with photo-heating, to blow out all the gas from a halo of
1216: $\sim 10^7\,M_\odot$ requires $E_{\rm expl}>10^{53}$~erg.
1217: Consequently, after the debris from the first HNe in halos of
1218: $\sim 10^6\,M_\odot$ were collected into halos of
1219: $\gtrsim 10^8\,M_\odot$, the debris from all subsequent
1220: stellar explosions in the larger halos would be bound to these
1221: halos and mixed therein. As estimated above, a single HN
1222: results in ${\rm [Fe/H]}\sim -3.3$ to $-2.6$ and a single
1223: normal SN results in ${\rm [Fe/H]}\sim -2.6$ for bound
1224: halos. We therefore expect that for these halos,
1225: multiple types of stellar sources
1226: would be sampled at ${\rm [Fe/H]}>-2.6$ following
1227: a transition regime at
1228: $-4.5<{\rm [Fe/H]}\lesssim -3$. Considerations of
1229: bound halos with gas infall and normal star formation rates
1230: show that a metallicity at the level of ${\rm [Fe/H]}\sim -3$ is
1231: reached shortly after the onset of star formation in these
1232: halos \citep{qw04}. Thus, it is
1233: reasonable that ${\rm [Fe/H]}\sim -3$ signifies the end of
1234: a transition regime for the behavior of abundance patterns.
1235:
1236: The occurrences of HNe and low-mass and
1237: normal SNe in bound halos would result in
1238: ${\rm [Sr/Fe]}=-0.10$ and ${\rm [Ba/Fe]}=-0.20$
1239: for a well-mixed ISM (see
1240: Appendix~\ref{sec-app1}). As shown in Figure~\ref{fig-srfe},
1241: many stars have ${\rm [Sr/Fe]}\sim -2.5$ to $-1$ and
1242: ${\rm [Ba/Fe]}\sim -2.5$
1243: to $-1$. Such low values of [Sr/Fe] and [Ba/Fe] largely reflect
1244: the composition of the IGM immediately
1245: following the blowing-out of the gas by the first HNe in halos
1246: of $\sim 10^6\,M_\odot$. As HNe produce the low-$A$
1247: elements including Fe but no Sr or heavier elements, this
1248: IGM would have no Sr or Ba if none of the debris from
1249: the first low-mass and normal SNe escaped from halos of
1250: $\sim 10^6\,M_\odot$. The very low values of
1251: ${\rm [Sr/Fe]}\sim -2.5$ to $-1$ and
1252: ${\rm [Ba/Fe]}\sim -2.5$ to $-1$ may indicate
1253: that $\sim 1$--10\% of the debris from the first low-mass
1254: and normal SNe escaped from their hosting halos. Alternatively,
1255: such low [Sr/Fe] and [Ba/Fe] values could be explained by the
1256: mixing of the IGM that fell into the halos forming at later times
1257: with small amounts
1258: of the debris from low-mass and normal SNe therein.
1259:
1260: \subsection{Exceptional Stars and Faint SNe}
1261: \label{sec-pan}
1262: The three-component model with HNe, $H$, and $L^*$
1263: sources describes the available data on nearly all the stars
1264: very well. However, there are four exceptional stars that are
1265: identified as asterisks A, B, C, and D
1266: in Figures~\ref{fig-esr}, \ref{fig-srfe},
1267: \ref{fig-srba}, and \ref{fig-csrfe}a. These stars
1268: are not anomalous in terms of Sr and Ba as shown by
1269: the above figures. However, Figure~\ref{fig-pan} shows that
1270: their abundance patterns of the low-$A$ elements differ greatly
1271: from those for HNe and all the other stars (see
1272: discussion of Figure~\ref{fig-p} in \S\ref{sec-plowa}). More
1273: specifically, while all stars have indistinguishable patterns
1274: of the explosive burning products from Si through Zn,
1275: these stars have extremely high abundances of the
1276: hydrostatic burning products Na, Mg, and Al relative to the
1277: explosive burning products. Such anomalous production
1278: patterns can be accounted for by faint SNe
1279: (e.g., \citealt{iwamoto}), in which
1280: fall-back coupled with a weak explosion would
1281: hinder the ejection of the explosive burning products in
1282: the inner region much more than that of the hydrostatic
1283: burning products in the outer region. Due to the weak
1284: explosion, the debris from faint SNe would always
1285: be bound to their hosting halos. Mixing with the debris
1286: from low-mass and normal SNe to some small extent
1287: would preserve the anomalous patterns of
1288: the low-$A$ elements and add small amounts of Sr
1289: and Ba to the mixture.
1290: The stars that formed from this mixture would then
1291: appear as the exceptional stars discussed above.
1292: Using $Y_{\rm Fe}\sim 4\times 10^{-3}\,M_\odot$
1293: and $E_{\rm expl}\sim 4\times 10^{50}$~erg inferred
1294: from the light curve of SN~1997D and
1295: $Y_{\rm Fe}\sim 2\times 10^{-3}\,M_\odot$
1296: and $E_{\rm expl}\sim 6\times 10^{50}$~erg
1297: for SN~1999br (see Figure 1 in \citealt{tominaga}
1298: and references therein),
1299: we find that for the corresponding mixing mass
1300: (see equations~[\ref{eq-mmix}])
1301: a single faint SN like these two would
1302: result in ${\rm [Fe/H]}\sim -3.5$ (SN~1997D)
1303: and $\sim -4$ (SN~1999br)
1304: (cf. equation~[\ref{eq-fehn}]). These [Fe/H] values are
1305: close to those of the exceptional stars B
1306: (${\rm [Fe/H]}=-3.94$) and C (${\rm [Fe/H]}=-3.70$).
1307: This is compatible with a single faint SN giving rise
1308: to the anomalous abundance pattern of the low-$A$
1309: elements in each exceptional star.
1310:
1311: \section{Conclusions}
1312: \label{sec-con}
1313: The two-component model of QW07 with the $H$ and $L$
1314: sources provided a good description of the elemental abundances
1315: in metal-poor stars of the Galactic halo for
1316: $-2.7<{\rm [Fe/H]}\lesssim -1.5$. A key ingredient of that model
1317: is the attribution of the elements from Sr through Ag in metal-poor stars
1318: to the charged-particle reactions in neutrino-driven winds from
1319: nascent neutron stars but not to the $r$-process.
1320: However, that model cannot explain the great shortfall in the
1321: abundances of Sr, Y, and Zr relative to Fe for stars with
1322: ${\rm [Fe/H]}\lesssim -3$.
1323: The observations on these three CPR elements
1324: require that there be an early source
1325: producing Fe but no Sr or heavier elements. It is shown that if
1326: such a third source is assumed, then the data can be well
1327: explained by an extended three-component model. From considerations
1328: of the abundance patterns of the low-$A$ elements (from Na through Zn),
1329: it is concluded that this third source is most likely associated with HNe
1330: from massive stars of $\sim 25$--$50\,M_\odot$ that do not leave behind
1331: neutron stars. We here consider the third source to be HNe.
1332:
1333: It is shown that the available data on the evolution of [Sr/Fe] with [Ba/Fe],
1334: that of [Y/Fe] with [La/Fe], and that of [Zr/Fe] with [Ba/Fe]
1335: are well described by the extended model with HNe,
1336: $H$ and $L$ sources, which also provides clear
1337: constraints on the abundance ratios that should be seen. It is further shown
1338: that the abundance patterns of the low-$A$ elements for HNe and the $L$
1339: sources are not distinguishable. Considering that HNe are observed to
1340: be ongoing events in the present universe, we are forced to conclude that
1341: the $L$ source, which was assumed to have provided $\sim 1/3$ of the
1342: solar Fe inventory (the rest attributed to SNe Ia), is in fact a
1343: combination of normal SNe (from progenitors of $\sim 12$--$25\,M_\odot$),
1344: which we define as the $L^*$ source, and
1345: HNe. The net Fe contributions from HNe are found to be $\sim 3$
1346: times larger than those from normal SNe.
1347:
1348: Using the three-component model with HNe, $H$, and $L^*$ sources,
1349: we obtain a very good quantitative description of essentially all the
1350: available data. In particular, this model provides strong constraints on
1351: the evolution of [Sr/Fe] with [Ba/Fe] in terms of the allowed domain for
1352: these abundance ratios. It gives an equally good description
1353: of the data when any CPR element besides Sr (e.g., Y or Zr) or any
1354: heavy $r$-element besides Ba (e.g., La) is used.
1355: The model is also compatible with the non-$s$-process contributions
1356: to the solar abundances of all the CPR elements.
1357: The anomalous abundance patterns of
1358: the low-$A$ elements observed in a small number of stars
1359: appear to fit the description of faint SNe
1360: (e.g., \citealt{iwamoto}), which
1361: are a rarer type of events from the same progenitor mass range as
1362: HNe but with even weaker explosion energies and smaller Fe yields
1363: than normal SNe (e.g., \citealt{nomoto06}). The anomalous abundance
1364: patterns observed reflect the fact that faint SNe produce very little of the
1365: Fe group elements but an abundant amount of the elements from
1366: hydrostatic burning in their outer shells. This gives rise to the extremely
1367: high abundances of Na, Mg, and Al relative to Fe observed in the
1368: anomalous stars. The quasi-uniform abundance patterns of the elements
1369: from Si through Zn in all cases (including the stars with anomalous
1370: abundances of Na, Mg, and Al) appear to reflect some robustness in
1371: the outcome of explosive burning that may arise from the limited range of
1372: conditions required for such nucleosynthesis.
1373:
1374: In this paper we used the elemental yield patterns for three
1375: prototypical model sources to calculate the abundances of an
1376: extensive set of elements (relative to hydrogen) for metal-poor
1377: stars with ${\rm [Fe/H]}\lesssim -1.5$. As the yield patterns
1378: adopted for the assumed prototypical sources are taken from
1379: the data on two template stars, they must represent the
1380: results of stellar nucleosynthesis. The full version of the
1381: three-component model appears very successful in calculating
1382: the abundances of the elements ranging from Na through Pt in
1383: stars with ${\rm [Fe/H]}\lesssim -1.5$. In contrast to this
1384: phenomenological approach, there are extensive studies of
1385: Galactic chemical evolution (GCE) that
1386: use the various theoretical results on the absolute yields of metals
1387: for different stellar types. These theoretical yields are not
1388: calculated from first principles, but are dependent on the
1389: parametrization used in the various stellar models. In those
1390: GCE studies, the elemental abundances for an individual star
1391: are not predicted.
1392: Instead, general trends for the elemental abundances are calculated
1393: assuming different sources, the rates at which they contribute,
1394: and a model of mixing in the ISM for different regions of the Galaxy.
1395: These results give a good broad description for typical elemental
1396: abundances in the general stellar population at higher metallicities
1397: of ${\rm [Fe/H]}>-1.5$. This is a regime in which the observational
1398: data are quite convergent with only limited variability.
1399: However, as anticipated by \citet{gilroy} and supported by the
1400: considerable scatter in the abundances of heavy elements observed
1401: in stars with ${\rm [Fe/H]}\lesssim -1.5$, the chemical composition
1402: of the ISM in the early Galaxy was extremely inhomogeneous.
1403: For ${\rm [Fe/H]}<-2$ there are gross discrepancies between the
1404: observations and the smoothed model of GCE. In no case does that
1405: model give the elemental abundances for an individual star.
1406: It is our view that the simple phenomenological model used here
1407: permits a clearer distinction between the different stellar sources
1408: contributing to the ISM and the IGM at early times. This model also
1409: gives specific testable predictions, which can be used to further
1410: check its validity.
1411:
1412: In conclusion, we consider that the general three-component model
1413: with HNe, $H$, and $L^*$ sources provides a quantitative and
1414: self-consistent description of nearly all the available data on elemental
1415: abundances in stars with ${\rm [Fe/H]}\lesssim -1.5$. Further, HNe
1416: may be not only explosions from the first massive stars (i.e., the
1417: Population III stars much sought after by many) that provided a
1418: very early and variable inventory to the IGM through ejection of
1419: enriched gas from small halos, but also are important
1420: ongoing contributors to the chemical evolution of the universe.
1421:
1422: \acknowledgments
1423: We thank an anonymous reviewer for criticisms and suggestions that
1424: greatly improve the paper.
1425: This work was supported in part by DOE grants DE-FG02-87ER40328
1426: (Y. Z. Q.) and DE-FG03-88ER13851 (G. J. W.), Caltech Division
1427: Contribution 9004 (1125). G. J. W. acknowledges NASA's
1428: Cosmochemistry Program for research support
1429: provided through J. Nuth at the Goddard Space Flight Center. He also
1430: appreciates the generosity of the Epsilon Foundation.
1431:
1432: \appendix
1433: \section{Abundance Ratios in a Well-Mixed ISM}
1434: \label{sec-app1}
1435: Using equation~(\ref{eq-eh}), we calculate the $H$ and $L$ contributions
1436: (Sr/H)$_{\odot,HL}$ to the solar Sr abundance as
1437: \begin{equation}
1438: \left(\frac{\rm Sr}{\rm H}\right)_{\odot,HL}=
1439: \left(\frac{\rm Sr}{\rm Eu}\right)_H\left(\frac{\rm Eu}{\rm H}\right)_{\odot,H}+
1440: \left(\frac{\rm Sr}{\rm Fe}\right)_L\left(\frac{\rm Fe}{\rm H}\right)_{\odot,L}.
1441: \label{eq-srs}
1442: \end{equation}
1443: As Eu is essentially a pure heavy $r$-element, we take the $H$
1444: contributions to the solar Eu abundance to be
1445: ${\rm (Eu/H)}_{\odot,H}\approx {\rm (Eu/H)}_\odot$.
1446: Allowing for contributions from SNe Ia, we take the $L$ contributions
1447: to the solar Fe abundance to be
1448: ${\rm (Fe/H)}_{\odot,L}\approx {\rm (Fe/H)}_\odot/3$.
1449: Using the yield ratios (Sr/Eu)$_H$ and (Sr/Fe)$_L$ given in
1450: Table~\ref{tab-yhl}, we obtain
1451: \begin{equation}
1452: {\rm [Sr/Fe]}_{\rm mix}\equiv\log{\rm (Sr/H)}_{\odot,HL}-
1453: \log{\rm (Fe/H)}_{\odot,L}-\log{\rm (Sr/Fe)}_\odot=-0.10,
1454: \label{eq-srfem}
1455: \end{equation}
1456: which we assume to be characteristic of an ISM with well-mixed $H$
1457: and $L$ contributions. Here and throughout the paper (particularly
1458: when presenting the data from different observational studies), we have
1459: consistently adopted the solar abundances given by \citet{ags05}.
1460:
1461: The $H$ contributions (Ba/H)$_{\odot,H}$ to the solar Ba abundance
1462: can be calculated as
1463: \begin{equation}
1464: \left(\frac{\rm Ba}{\rm H}\right)_{\odot,H}=
1465: \left(\frac{\rm Ba}{\rm Eu}\right)_H\left(\frac{\rm Eu}{\rm H}\right)_{\odot,H}
1466: \approx\left(\frac{\rm Ba}{\rm Eu}\right)_H\left(\frac{\rm Eu}{\rm H}\right)_\odot.
1467: \end{equation}
1468: Together with equation~(\ref{eq-srs}), this gives
1469: \begin{equation}
1470: {\rm [Sr/Ba]}_{\rm mix}\equiv\log{\rm (Sr/H)}_{\odot,HL}-
1471: \log{\rm (Ba/H)}_{\odot,H}-\log{\rm (Sr/Ba)}_\odot=0.10
1472: \end{equation}
1473: for an ISM with well-mixed $H$ and $L$ contributions. Combining the
1474: above equation with equation~(\ref{eq-srfem}) gives
1475: \begin{equation}
1476: {\rm [Ba/Fe]}_{\rm mix}={\rm [Sr/Fe]}_{\rm mix}-
1477: {\rm [Sr/Ba]}_{\rm mix}=-0.20.
1478: \end{equation}
1479:
1480: Other abundance ratios such as [Y/Fe]$_{\rm mix}$, [Y/La]$_{\rm mix}$,
1481: [Zr/Fe]$_{\rm mix}$, and [Zr/Ba]$_{\rm mix}$ for an ISM with
1482: well-mixed $H$ and $L$ contributions can be calculated similarly
1483: and are given in Table~\ref{tab-mix}.
1484:
1485: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1486: \bibitem[Abel et al.(2002)]{abel02} Abel, T., Bryan, G. L., \& Norman, M. L. 2002,
1487: Science, 295, 93
1488: \bibitem[Anders \& Grevesse(1989)]{anders} Anders, E., Grevesse, N. 1989,
1489: \gca, 53, 197
1490: \bibitem[Aoki et al.(2005)]{aoki05} Aoki, W., et al. 2005, \apj, 632, 611
1491: \bibitem[Aoki et al.(2006)]{aoki06} Aoki, W., et al. 2006, \apj, 639, 897
1492: \bibitem[Aoki et al.(2007)]{aoki07} Aoki, W., et al. 2007, \apj, 660, 747
1493: \bibitem[Aoki et al.(2002)]{aoki02} Aoki, W., Norris, J. E., Ryan, S. G., Beers, T. C.,
1494: \& Ando, H. 2002, \apjl, 576, L141
1495: \bibitem[Arlandini et al.(1999)]{arlandini99} Arlandini, C., et al. 1999, \apj, 525, 886
1496: \bibitem[Asplund et al.(2005)]{ags05} Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., \&
1497: Sauval, A. J. 2005, in ASP Conf. Ser. 336, Cosmic Abundances as Records of
1498: Stellar Evolution and Nucleosynthesis, ed. T. G. Barnes III \& F. N. Bash
1499: (San Francisco: ASP), 25
1500: \bibitem[Barkana \& Loeb(2001)]{barkana} Barkana, R., \& Loeb, A. 2001, Phys. Rep.,
1501: 349, 125
1502: \bibitem[Barklem et al.(2005)]{barklem05} Barklem, P. S., et al. 2005, \aap, 439, 129
1503: \bibitem[Bromm \& Larson(2004)]{bromm04} Bromm, V., \& Larson, R. B. 2004,
1504: \araa, 42, 79
1505: \bibitem[Cappellaro et al.(1999)]{cap} Cappellaro, E., Evans, R., \& Turatto, M. 1999,
1506: \aap, 351, 459
1507: \bibitem[Cayrel et al.(2004)]{cayrel} Cayrel, R., et al. 2004, \aap, 416, 1117
1508: \bibitem[Chieffi \& Limongi(2004)]{cl04} Chieffi, A., \& Limongi, M. 2004, \apj,
1509: 608, 405
1510: \bibitem[Christlieb et al.(2002)]{christlieb02} Christlieb, N., et al. 2002, \nat, 419, 904
1511: \bibitem[Christlieb et al.(2004)]{christlieb04} Christlieb, N., et al. 2004, \apj, 603, 708
1512: \bibitem[Cohen et al.(2007)]{cohen07} Cohen, J. G., et al. 2007, \apjl, 659, L161
1513: \bibitem[Cohen et al.(2008)]{cohen08} Cohen, J. G., et al. 2008, \apj, 672, 320
1514: \bibitem[Cowan et al.(2002)]{cowan02} Cowan, J. J., et al. 2002, \apj, 572, 861
1515: \bibitem[Depagne et al.(2002)]{depagne02} Depagne, E., et al. 2002, \aap, 390, 187
1516: \bibitem[Duncan et al.(1986)]{dsw86} Duncan, R. C., Shapiro, S. L., \&
1517: Wasserman, I. 1986, \apj, 309, 141
1518: \bibitem[Fran\c{c}ois et al.(2007)]{francois07} Fran\c{c}ois, P., et al. 2007, \aap, 476, 935
1519: \bibitem[Frebel et al.(2007)]{frebel05} Frebel, A., et al. 2005, \nat, 434, 871
1520: \bibitem[Frebel et al.(2007)]{frebel07} Frebel, A., et al. 2007, \apj, 658, 534
1521: \bibitem[Fulbright et al.(2004)]{fulbright04} Fulbright, J. P., Rich, R. M., \&
1522: Castro, S. 2004, \apj, 612, 447
1523: \bibitem[Galama et al.(1998)]{galama} Galama, T. J., et al. 1998, \nat, 395, 670
1524: \bibitem[Gao et al.(2007)]{gao07} Gao, L., et al. 2007, \mnras, 378, 449
1525: \bibitem[Gilroy et al.(1988)]{gilroy} Gilroy, K. K., Sneden, C., Pilachowski, C. A.,
1526: \& Cowan, J. J. 1988, \apj, 327, 298
1527: \bibitem[Greif et al.(2007)]{greif} Greif, T. H., Johnson, J. L., Bromm, V., \&
1528: Klessen, R. S. 2007, \apj, 670, 1
1529: \bibitem[Heger \& Woosley(2002)]{heger02} Heger, A., \& Woosley, S. E. 2002,
1530: \apj, 567, 532
1531: \bibitem[Hill et al.(2002)]{hill02} Hill, V., et al. 2002, \aap, 387, 560
1532: \bibitem[Hoffman et al.(1997)]{hoffman97} Hoffman, R. D., Woosley, S. E., \&
1533: Qian, Y.-Z. 1997, \apj, 482, 951
1534: \bibitem[Honda et al.(2004)]{honda04} Honda, S., et al. 2004, \apj, 607, 474
1535: \bibitem[Honda et al.(2006)]{honda06} Honda, S., Aoki, W., Ishimaru, Y., Wanajo, S.,
1536: \& Ryan, S. G. 2006, \apj, 643, 1180
1537: \bibitem[Iwamoto et al.(1998)]{iwa98} Iwamoto, K., et al. 1998, \nat, 395, 672
1538: \bibitem[Iwamoto et al.(2005)]{iwamoto} Iwamoto, N., Umeda, H., Tominaga, N.,
1539: Nomoto, K., \& Maeda, K. 2005, Science, 309, 451
1540: \bibitem[Janka et al.(2007)]{janka07} Janka, H.-T., M\"uller, B., Kitaura, F. S., \&
1541: Buras, R. 2007, preprint (arXiv: 0712.4237 [astro-ph])
1542: \bibitem[Johnson(2002)]{johnson} Johnson, J. A. 2002, \apjs, 139, 219
1543: \bibitem[Johnson \& Bolte(2002)]{johnson02} Johnson, J. A., \& Bolte, M. 2002,
1544: \apj, 579, 616
1545: \bibitem[Kitayama \& Yoshida(2005)]{kitayama} Kitayama, T., \& Yoshida, N. 2005,
1546: \apj, 630, 675
1547: \bibitem[McWilliam et al.(1995)]{mcw} McWilliam, A., Preston, G. W., Sneden, C.,
1548: \& Searle, L. 1995, \aj, 109, 2757
1549: \bibitem[Meyer et al.(1992)]{meyer92} Meyer, B. S., Mathews, G. J., Howard, W. M.,
1550: Woosley, S. E., \& Hoffman, R. D. 1992, \apj, 399, 656
1551: \bibitem[Ning et al.(2007)]{ning07} Ning, H., Qian, Y.-Z., \& Meyer, B. S. 2007,
1552: \apjl, 667, L159
1553: \bibitem[Nomoto(1984)]{nomoto84} Nomoto, K. 1984, \apj, 277, 791
1554: \bibitem[Nomoto(1987)]{nomoto87} Nomoto, K. 1987, \apj, 322, 206
1555: \bibitem[Nomoto et al.(2006)]{nomoto06} Nomoto, K., Tominaga, N., Umeda, H.,
1556: Kobayashi, C., \& Maeda, K. 2006, Nucl. Phys. A, 777, 424
1557: \bibitem[Norris et al.(2001)]{nrb} Norris, J. E., Ryan, S. G., \& Beers, T. C. 2001,
1558: \apj, 561, 1034
1559: \bibitem[Norris et al.(2007)]{norris07} Norris, J. E., et al. 2007, \apj, 670, 774
1560: \bibitem[O'Shea \& Norman(2007)]{oshea07} O'Shea, B. W., \& Norman, M. L. 2007,
1561: \apj, 654, 66
1562: \bibitem[Qian et al.(2002)]{qsw} Qian, Y.-Z., Sargent, W. L. W., \& Wasserburg, G. J.
1563: 2002, \apjl, 569, L61
1564: \bibitem[Qian \& Wasserburg(2001)]{qw01} Qian, Y.-Z., \& Wasserburg, G. J. 2001,
1565: \apj, 559, 925
1566: \bibitem[Qian \& Wasserburg(2002)]{qw02} Qian, Y.-Z., \& Wasserburg, G. J. 2002,
1567: \apj, 567, 515
1568: \bibitem[Qian \& Wasserburg(2004)]{qw04} Qian, Y.-Z., \& Wasserburg, G. J. 2004,
1569: \apj, 612, 615
1570: \bibitem[Qian \& Wasserburg(2007)]{qw07} Qian, Y.-Z., \& Wasserburg, G. J. 2007,
1571: Phys. Rep., 442, 237 (QW07)
1572: \bibitem[Qian \& Woosley(1996)]{qw96} Qian, Y.-Z., \& Woosley, S. E. 1996, \apj,
1573: 471, 331
1574: \bibitem[Simmerer et al.(2004)]{simmerer} Simmerer, J., et al. 2004, \apj, 617, 1091
1575: \bibitem[Sneden et al.(2003)]{sneden03} Sneden, C., et al. 2003, \apj, 591, 936
1576: \bibitem[Takahashi et al.(1994)]{taka94} Takahashi, K., Witti, J., \& Janka, H.-T. 1994,
1577: \aap, 286, 857
1578: \bibitem[Thielemann et al.(1996)]{tnh96} Thielemann, F.-K., Nomoto, K., \&
1579: Hashimoto, M. 1996, \apj, 460, 408
1580: \bibitem[Thornton et al.(1998)]{thornton} Thornton, K., Gaudlitz, M., Janka, H.-Th.,
1581: \& Steinmetz, M. 1998, \apj, 500, 95
1582: \bibitem[Tominaga et al.(2007)]{tominaga} Tominaga, N., Umeda, H., \& Nomoto, K. 2007,
1583: \apj, 660, 516
1584: \bibitem[Travaglio et al.(2004)]{travaglio} Travaglio, C., et al. 2004, \apj, 601,864
1585: \bibitem[Turatto et al.(1998)]{tura} Turatto, M., et al. 1998, \apjl, 498, L129
1586: \bibitem[Wasserburg et al.(1996)]{wbg} Wasserburg, G. J., Busso, M., \& Gallino, R. 1996,
1587: \apjl, 466, L109
1588: \bibitem[Woosley \& Hoffman(1992)]{wh92} Woosley, S. E., \& Hoffman, R. D. 1992,
1589: \apj, 395, 202
1590: \bibitem[Woosley \& Weaver(1995)]{ww95} Woosley, S. E., \& Weaver, T. A. 1995,
1591: \apjs, 101, 181
1592: \bibitem[Woosley et al.(1994)]{woosley94} Woosley, S. E., Wilson, J. R., Mathews, G. J.,
1593: Hoffman, R. D., \& Meyer, B. S. 1994, \apj, 433, 229
1594: \bibitem[Yoshida et al.(2006)]{yoshida06} Yoshida, N., Omukai, K., Hernquist, L., \&
1595: Abel, T. 2006, \apj, 652, 6
1596: \end{thebibliography}
1597:
1598: \clearpage
1599:
1600: \begin{deluxetable}{crrcrr}
1601: \tablecaption{Yield ratios (E/Eu)$_H$ and (E/Fe)$_L$ for the
1602: heavy $r$-elements \label{tab-rhl}}
1603: \tablewidth{0pt}
1604: \tablehead{
1605: \colhead{Element}&\colhead{$\log({\rm E/Eu})_H$}&
1606: \colhead{$\log({\rm E/Fe})_L$}&\colhead{Element}&
1607: \colhead{$\log({\rm E/Eu})_H$}&\colhead{$\log({\rm E/Fe})_L$}
1608: }
1609: \startdata
1610: Ba&0.97&$-\infty$&Tm&$-0.45$&$-\infty$\\
1611: La&0.26&$-\infty$&Yb&0.26&$-\infty$\\
1612: Ce&0.46&$-\infty$&Lu&$-0.50$&$-\infty$\\
1613: Pr&$-0.03$&$-\infty$&Hf&$-0.13$&$-\infty$\\
1614: Nd&0.58&$-\infty$&Ta&$-0.88$&$-\infty$\\
1615: Sm&0.28&$-\infty$&W&$-0.20$&$-\infty$\\
1616: Gd&0.48&$-\infty$&Re&$-0.27$&$-\infty$\\
1617: Tb&$-0.22$&$-\infty$&Os&0.82&$-\infty$\\
1618: Dy&0.56&$-\infty$&Ir&0.85&$-\infty$\\
1619: Ho&$-0.05$&$-\infty$&Pt&1.14&$-\infty$\\
1620: Er&0.35&$-\infty$&Au&0.28&$-\infty$\\
1621: \enddata
1622: \tablecomments{The (number) yield ratios (E/Eu)$_H$ for the heavy
1623: $r$-elements are taken from the corresponding solar $r$-process
1624: abundances calculated by \citealt{arlandini99}. The value of
1625: $\log{\rm (Ba/Eu)}=0.96$ obtained this way is essentially the
1626: same as the value of $\log{\rm (Ba/Eu)}=0.97$ obtained from
1627: the data on CS~22892--052 \citep{sneden03}. We adopt
1628: $\log{\rm (Ba/Eu)}_H=0.97$. The yield ratios (E/Fe)$_{L^*}$
1629: for the heavy $r$-elements are the same as (E/Fe)$_L$.}
1630: \end{deluxetable}
1631:
1632: \begin{deluxetable}{crrrr}
1633: \tablecaption{Yield ratios (E/Eu)$_H$, (E/Ba)$_H$, (E/Fe)$_L$,
1634: and (E/Fe)$_{L^*}$ for the CPR elements \label{tab-yhl}}
1635: \tablewidth{0pt}
1636: \tablehead{
1637: \colhead{Element}&\colhead{$\log({\rm E/Eu})_H$}&
1638: \colhead{$\log({\rm E/Ba})_H$}&\colhead{$\log({\rm E/Fe})_L$}&
1639: \colhead{$\log({\rm E/Fe})_{L^*}$}
1640: }
1641: \startdata
1642: Fe&$-\infty$&$-\infty$&0&0\\
1643: Eu&0&$-0.97$&$-\infty$&$-\infty$\\
1644: Ba&0.97&0&$-\infty$&$-\infty$\\
1645: Sr&1.41&0.44&$-4.85$&$-4.23$\\
1646: Y&0.53&$-0.44$&$-5.67$&$-5.05$\\
1647: Zr&1.19&0.22&$-5.02$&$-4.40$\\
1648: Nb&0.15&$-0.82$&$-6.22$&$-5.60$\\
1649: Mo&0.55&$-0.42$&$-5.61$&$-4.99$\\
1650: Ru&1.03&0.06&$-5.60$&$-4.98$\\
1651: Rh&0.40&$-0.57$&$<-5.94$&$<-5.32$\\
1652: Pd&0.66&$-0.31$&$-6.10$&$-5.48$\\
1653: Ag&0.07&$-0.90$&$-6.62$&$-6.00$\\
1654: \enddata
1655: \tablecomments{The (number) yield ratios (E/Eu)$_H$ and (E/Ba)$_H$
1656: for the CPR elements are taken from the data on CS~22892--052
1657: \citep{sneden03} and (E/Fe)$_L$ from the data on HD~122563
1658: \citep{honda06}. The yield ratios
1659: (E/Fe)$_{L^*}$ for the CPR elements are obtained from
1660: (E/Fe)$_L$ assuming that 24\%
1661: of the Fe in the $L$ mixture is from the $L^*$ source.}
1662: \end{deluxetable}
1663:
1664: \begin{deluxetable}{lrrr}
1665: \tablecaption{Abundance and Yield Ratios Relative to Solar Values\label{tab-mix}}
1666: \tablewidth{0pt}
1667: \tablehead{
1668: \colhead{Element}&\colhead{Sr}&
1669: \colhead{Y}&\colhead{Zr}
1670: }
1671: \startdata
1672: ${\rm [E/Fe]}_{\rm mix}$&$-0.10$&$-0.24$&0.04\\
1673: ${\rm [E/Ba]}_{\rm mix}$&0.10&$-0.03$&0.24\\
1674: ${\rm [E/La]}_{\rm mix}$&$-0.23$&$-0.36$&$-0.09$\\
1675: ${\rm [E/Ba]}_H$&$-0.31$&$-0.48$&$-0.20$\\
1676: ${\rm [E/La]}_H$&$-0.64$&$-0.81$&$-0.53$\\
1677: ${\rm [E/Fe]}_L$&$-0.32$&$-0.43$&$-0.16$\\
1678: ${\rm [E/Fe]}_{L^*}$&0.30&0.19&0.46\\
1679: \enddata
1680: \tablecomments{The (number) abundance ratios with subscripts ``mix'' are
1681: calculated for a well-mixed ISM with $H$ and $L$ contributions
1682: only (see Appendix~\ref{sec-app1}).
1683: The (number) yield ratios for the $H$, $L$, and $L^*$ sources
1684: are labeled with the corresponding subscripts. The $L^*$ yield ratios
1685: are calculated from the $L$ yield ratios assuming that 24\%
1686: of the Fe in the $L$ mixture is from the $L^*$ source. The solar abundances
1687: used are taken from \citealt{ags05}.}
1688: \end{deluxetable}
1689:
1690: \begin{deluxetable}{cccc}
1691: \tablecaption{Characteristics of HNe, $H$, and $L^*$ Sources
1692: \label{tab-phl}}
1693: \tablewidth{0pt}
1694: \tablehead{
1695: \colhead{Sources}&\colhead{HNe}&
1696: \colhead{$H$}&\colhead{$L^*$}
1697: }
1698: \startdata
1699: stellar types&HNe from stars&low-mass SNe from&normal SNe from\\
1700: &of $\sim 25$--$50\,M_\odot$&stars of $\sim 8$--$11\,M_\odot$&
1701: stars of $\sim 12$--$25\,M_\odot$\\
1702: &&&\\
1703: remnants&black holes&neutron stars&neutron stars\\
1704: &&&\\
1705: nucleosynthetic&dominant source for&source for CPR elements&
1706: source for low-$A$\\
1707: characteristics&low-$A$ elements&from Sr through Ag&
1708: and CPR elements\\
1709: &from Na through Zn&and only source for heavy&\\
1710: &$f_{\rm Fe, HN}^\odot\sim 0.24$\tablenotemark{a}
1711: &$r$-elements with $A>130$&
1712: $f_{{\rm Fe},L^*}^\odot\sim 0.09$\tablenotemark{b}\\
1713: \enddata
1714: \tablenotetext{a}{Fraction of the solar Fe abundance contributed
1715: by HNe.}
1716: \tablenotetext{b}{Fraction of the solar Fe abundance contributed
1717: by the $L^*$ source.}
1718: \end{deluxetable}
1719:
1720: \begin{deluxetable}{cccccc}
1721: \tablecaption{$H$ and $L^*$ contributions to the solar inventory
1722: of the CPR elements \label{tab-cprs}}
1723: \tablewidth{0pt}
1724: \tablehead{
1725: \colhead{Element}&\colhead{$\log\epsilon_\odot({\rm E})$}&
1726: \colhead{$\log\epsilon_{\odot,HL^*}({\rm E})$}&
1727: \colhead{$f_{{\rm E},HL^*}^\odot$}&
1728: \colhead{$(1-f_{{\rm E},s}^\odot)_{\rm Arlandini}$}&
1729: \colhead{$(1-f_{{\rm E},s}^\odot)_{\rm Travaglio}$}\\
1730: &\colhead{(1)}&\colhead{(2)}&\colhead{(3)}&\colhead{(4)}&
1731: \colhead{(5)}
1732: }
1733: \startdata
1734: Sr&2.92&2.34&0.26&0.15&0.20\\
1735: Y&2.21&1.50&0.19&0.08&0.26\\
1736: Zr&2.59&2.15&0.36&0.17&0.33\\
1737: Nb&1.42&1.01&0.39&0.15&0.31\\
1738: Mo&1.92&1.54&0.42&0.50&0.61\\
1739: Ru&1.84&1.77&0.85&0.68&0.76\\
1740: Rh&1.12&$>0.92$&$>0.63$&0.86&0.90\\
1741: Pd&1.69&1.35&0.46&0.54&0.64\\
1742: Ag&0.94&0.79&0.71&0.80&0.91\\
1743: \enddata
1744: \tablecomments{Column 1 gives the solar abundances of
1745: the CPR elements from \citealt{ags05}, col. 2 gives the
1746: $H$ and $L^*$ contributions to the solar inventory
1747: of these elements as calculated from the three-component
1748: model using the yield ratios given in Table~\ref{tab-yhl},
1749: col. 3 gives the fraction of the solar inventory
1750: provided by the $H$ and $L^*$ sources as
1751: calculated from cols. 1 and 2 using
1752: $\log f_{{\rm E},HL^*}^\odot=\log\epsilon_{\odot,HL^*}({\rm E})-
1753: \log\epsilon_\odot({\rm E})$, and cols. 4 and 5 give the fraction
1754: contributed by processes other than the $s$-process using
1755: the $s$-fraction $f_{{\rm E},s}^\odot$ calculated by
1756: \citealt{arlandini99} and \citealt{travaglio}, respectively.
1757: As the exact value of (Rh/Fe)$_{L^*}$
1758: is unknown (see Table~\ref{tab-yhl}), we calculate only the $H$
1759: contribution to Rh and give the corresponding lower limits
1760: in cols. 2 and 3. Note that the fraction $f_{{\rm E},HL^*}^\odot$
1761: contributed by the $H$ and $L^*$ sources is in approximate
1762: agreement with the fraction $1-f_{{\rm E},s}^\odot$
1763: attributed to non-$s$-process
1764: sources by \citealt{arlandini99} and \citealt{travaglio} for
1765: the elements Mo, Ru, Rh, Pd, and Ag with small to moderate
1766: $s$-process contributions. For the elements Sr, Y, Zr, and Nb
1767: with large $s$-process contributions, the fraction
1768: $f_{{\rm E},HL^*}^\odot$ is a factor of $\approx 2$ larger than
1769: the fraction $1-f_{{\rm E},s}^\odot$ estimated by
1770: \citealt{arlandini99} but in good agreement with that estimated
1771: by \citealt{travaglio}, who carried out a detailed study of
1772: Galactic chemical evolution for the $s$-process contributions
1773: to these elements. The problem in estimating the non-$s$-process
1774: contributions to these elements has been discussed by
1775: \citealt{qw01} and \citealt{travaglio}. It appears that the increase
1776: in the non-$s$-process contributions found again here is justified
1777: in terms of both abundance data on metal-poor stars and
1778: uncertainties in modeling the $s$-process contributions.}
1779: \end{deluxetable}
1780:
1781: \clearpage
1782:
1783: \begin{figure}
1784: \includegraphics[angle=270,scale=.30]{f1a.eps}
1785: \includegraphics[angle=270,scale=.30]{f1b.eps}
1786: \caption{(a) High-resolution data on $\log\epsilon({\rm Sr})$ vs. [Fe/H]
1787: (squares: \citealt{johnson02},
1788: pluses: \citealt{honda04}, diamonds: \citealt{aoki05}, circles:
1789: \citealt{francois07}, crosses: \citealt{cohen08}, asterisks representing
1790: stars with very high C and O abundances and anomalous abundance
1791: patterns of the low-$A$ elements:
1792: \citealt{aoki06} (A, HE~1327--2326);
1793: \citealt{depagne02} (B, CS~22949--037);
1794: \citealt{aoki02} (C, CS~29498--043);
1795: \citealt{aoki07} (D, BS~16934--002), downward arrows indicating
1796: upper limits: \citealt{christlieb04,fulbright04,frebel07,cohen07,norris07}).
1797: Symbols connected with a line indicate results for the same star assuming
1798: two different atmospheric models (subgiant vs. dwarf). Typical observational
1799: errors in $\log\epsilon({\rm Sr})$ are $\sim 0.2$--0.3 dex.
1800: The solid line is for an ISM with well-mixed $H$ and $L$ contributions.
1801: The data mostly cluster around this line but drastically depart to low
1802: $\log\epsilon({\rm Sr})$ values for ${\rm [Fe/H]}\lesssim -3$.
1803: (b) Comparison of the two-component model of QW07 and the observations
1804: in terms of $\Delta\log\epsilon({\rm Sr})\equiv
1805: \log\epsilon_{\rm cal}({\rm Sr})-\log\epsilon_{\rm obs}({\rm Sr})$ as a function
1806: of [Fe/H] for those stars shown in (a) that have observed Ba abundances.
1807: In general, the model grossly overestimates the Sr abundance below
1808: ${\rm [Fe/H]}\sim -2.7$. However, the calculated Sr abundance for
1809: HE~1327--2326 with ${\rm [Fe/H]}=-5.45$ (asterisk A) using the
1810: upper limit on its Ba abundance appears to be in good agreement with
1811: its observed Sr abundance. Measurement of the exact Ba abundance
1812: in this star will provide an extremely important test of the model.}
1813: \label{fig-esr}
1814: \end{figure}
1815:
1816: \begin{figure}
1817: \includegraphics[angle=270,scale=.50]{f2.eps}
1818: \caption{Evolution of [Sr/Fe] with [Ba/Fe]. Data symbols are the same as
1819: in Figure~\ref{fig-esr} except that the left-pointing arrows indicate the upper
1820: limits on [Ba/Fe]. Typical observational errors in [Sr/Fe] and [Ba/Fe] are
1821: $\sim 0.1$--0.25 dex. The curves show
1822: ${\rm [Sr/Fe]}=\log\left(10^{{\rm [Sr/Ba]}_H+{\rm [Ba/Fe]}}+ f_{{\rm Fe},L}
1823: \times 10^{{\rm [Sr/Fe]}_L}\right)$ based on the three-component model
1824: with the $H$ and $L$ sources and a third source (HNe)
1825: for $f_{{\rm Fe},L}=0$ (dot-dot-dashed), 0.1 (dashed), 0.5 (dot-dashed),
1826: and 1 (solid). The parameter $f_{{\rm Fe},L}$ is the fraction of Fe
1827: contributed by the $L$ source ($f_{{\rm Fe},L}=0$ corresponds to
1828: all the Fe being from the third source). The filled circle labeled ``$L$''
1829: indicates the value of [Sr/Fe]$_L=-0.32$ for the $L$ source.
1830: Almost all of the data lie within
1831: the allowed region of the model. Note the
1832: presence of quite a few data on the curve for $f_{{\rm Fe},L}=0$
1833: as well as the abundant data near the curve for $f_{{\rm Fe},L}=1$.}
1834: \label{fig-srfe}
1835: \end{figure}
1836:
1837: \begin{figure}
1838: \includegraphics[angle=270,scale=.50]{f3.eps}
1839: \caption{Data on [Sr/Ba] vs. [Fe/H]. Symbols are the same as in
1840: Figure~\ref{fig-esr} except that the upward arrows represent lower
1841: limits on [Sr/Ba]. Typical observational errors in [Sr/Ba] are
1842: $\sim 0.2$--0.3 dex. The dashed line shows the lower bound of
1843: [Sr/Ba]$_H=-0.31$ for pure $H$ contributions and the solid line
1844: shows the value of [Sr/Ba]$_{\rm mix}=0.10$ for an ISM with well-mixed
1845: $H$ and $L$ contributions. Data above the solid line represent higher
1846: proportions of $L$ contributions than in the well-mixed case. Note that
1847: considering observational uncertainties, there are no serious exceptions
1848: to the rules of Fe, Sr, and Ba production for the $H$ and $L$
1849: sources and the third source (HNe) in the three-component model.}
1850: \label{fig-srba}
1851: \end{figure}
1852:
1853: \begin{figure}
1854: \includegraphics[angle=270,scale=.30]{f4a.eps}
1855: \includegraphics[angle=270,scale=.30]{f4b.eps}
1856: \caption{(a) Medium-resolution data on $\log\epsilon({\rm Sr})$ vs. [Fe/H]
1857: from the HERES survey \citep{barklem05}. Typical observational errors in
1858: $\log\epsilon({\rm Sr})$ are $\sim 0.3$ dex. The data in general follow the
1859: same distribution as presented in Figure~\ref{fig-esr}a for the
1860: high-resolution data, where the same solid line for an ISM with
1861: well-mixed $H$ and $L$ contributions is also shown. The majority of the
1862: data cluster around the solid line but there is a great dispersion
1863: below ${\rm [Fe/H]}\sim -2.5$. (b) Evolution of [Sr/Fe] with [Ba/Fe] for the
1864: HERES sample. Typical observational errors in [Sr/Fe] and [Ba/Fe] are
1865: $\sim 0.3$ dex. The data distribution is again quite similar to the case
1866: for the high-resolution data presented in Figure~\ref{fig-srfe}, where
1867: the same curves are shown. A number of
1868: data lie far to the right of and below the curve for $f_{{\rm Fe},L}=0$.
1869: We consider that the corresponding stars (HE~0231--4016,
1870: HE~0305--4520, HE~0430--4404, HE~1430--1123, HE~2150--0825,
1871: HE~2156--3130, HE~2227--4044, and HE~2240--0412)
1872: may have received large
1873: $s$-process contributions. This can be tested by high-resolution
1874: observations covering more elements heavier than Ba.}
1875: \label{fig-heres}
1876: \end{figure}
1877:
1878: \begin{figure}
1879: \includegraphics[angle=270,scale=.30]{f5a.eps}
1880: \includegraphics[angle=270,scale=.30]{f5b.eps}
1881: \includegraphics[angle=270,scale=.30]{f5c.eps}
1882: \includegraphics[angle=270,scale=.30]{f5d.eps}
1883: \caption{(a) High-resolution data on $\log\epsilon({\rm Y})$ vs.
1884: [Fe/H] (squares: \citealt{johnson}; circles: \citealt{francois07}).
1885: Downward arrows indicate upper limits. The solid line is for an
1886: ISM with well-mixed $H$ and $L$ contributions. Note that
1887: many stars with [Fe/H]~$\lesssim -3$ lie below this line.
1888: (b) Comparison of the two-component model of QW07 and
1889: the observations in terms of $\Delta\log\epsilon({\rm Y})\equiv
1890: \log\epsilon_{\rm cal}({\rm Y})-\log\epsilon_{\rm obs}({\rm Y})$ as a function
1891: of [Fe/H] for the stars shown in (a). For those stars with only
1892: upper limits on the La abundance, only the $L$ contributions to Y are
1893: calculated to give the lower limits on $\Delta\log\epsilon({\rm Y})$ shown
1894: as the upward arrows. The two-component model grossly overestimates
1895: the Y abundances at ${\rm [Fe/H]}\lesssim -3$ but describes the
1896: observations very well at ${\rm [Fe/H]}> -3$. (c) Evolution of [Y/Fe]
1897: with [La/Fe] for those stars shown in (a) that have observed Y abundances.
1898: Left-pointing arrows indicate upper limits on [La/Fe]. The curves are
1899: calculated from the three-component model
1900: with the $H$ and $L$ sources and a third source (HNe)
1901: for $f_{{\rm Fe},L}=0$ (dot-dot-dashed), 0.1 (dashed), 0.5 (dot-dashed),
1902: and 1 (solid). The filled circle labeled ``$L$''
1903: indicates the value of [Y/Fe]$_L=-0.43$ for the $L$ source. Note that
1904: the data mostly lie between the curves for
1905: $f_{{\rm Fe},L}=0$ and 1. The anomalous star CS~22968--014 is
1906: an exception. (d) Data on [Y/La] vs. [Fe/H] for the
1907: stars shown in (c). Except for CS~22968--014,
1908: all the other stars are consistent with the lower bound of
1909: ${\rm [Y/La]}\geq{\rm [Y/La]}_H=-0.81$ from the three-component model.
1910: Typical observational errors in $\log\epsilon({\rm Y})$ [see (a)],
1911: [Y/Fe], [La/Fe], and [Y/La] are $\sim 0.1$--0.3 dex.}
1912: \label{fig-yla}
1913: \end{figure}
1914:
1915: \begin{figure}
1916: \includegraphics[angle=270,scale=.50]{f6.eps}
1917: \caption{Comparison of the abundance patterns of the low-$A$
1918: elements for the third source (HNe) and the $L$ source.
1919: The patterns for the third source
1920: are taken from five stars
1921: that lie on the curve for $f_{{\rm Fe},L}=0$ in Figure~\ref{fig-srfe}
1922: (open square: BD~$-18^\circ 5550$,
1923: ${\rm [Fe/H]}=-2.98$, \citealt{johnson}; open circle:
1924: CS~30325--094, ${\rm [Fe/H]}=-3.25$, open diamond:
1925: CS~22885--096, ${\rm [Fe/H]}=-3.73$, open triangle:
1926: CS~29502--042, ${\rm [Fe/H]}=-3.14$, \citealt{cayrel};
1927: plus: BS~16085--050, ${\rm [Fe/H]}=-2.85$, \citealt{honda04}).
1928: Those for the $L$ source are from three stars
1929: that lie on the curve for $f_{{\rm Fe},L}=1$ in Figure~\ref{fig-srfe}
1930: (filled square:
1931: BD~$+4^\circ 2621$, \citealt{johnson}; filled circle: HD~122563,
1932: \citealt{honda04,honda06}; filled diamond: CS~29491--053,
1933: \citealt{cayrel}). The solid
1934: curve represents a star (BD~$+17^\circ 3248$, \citealt{cowan02})
1935: with a relatively high value of
1936: ${\rm [Fe/H]}=-2$. Typical observational errors in [E/Fe]
1937: are $\sim 0.1$--0.25 dex.
1938: All the patterns shown are essentially
1939: indistinguishable.}
1940: \label{fig-p}
1941: \end{figure}
1942:
1943: \begin{figure}
1944: \includegraphics[angle=270,scale=.30]{f7a.eps}
1945: \includegraphics[angle=270,scale=.30]{f7b.eps}
1946: \includegraphics[angle=270,scale=.30]{f7c.eps}
1947: \includegraphics[angle=270,scale=.30]{f7d.eps}
1948: \caption{(a) Evolution of [Sr/Fe] with [Ba/Fe] in the
1949: three-component model with HNe, $H$, and $L^*$
1950: sources compared with the high-resolution data
1951: (analogous to Figure~\ref{fig-srfe}). (b) The same
1952: relationships compared with the medium-resolution
1953: data (analogous to Figure~\ref{fig-heres}b).
1954: (c) Evolution of [Y/Fe] with [La/Fe] compared with
1955: the high-resolution data
1956: (analogous to Figure~\ref{fig-yla}c). (d) Evolution of
1957: [Zr/Fe] with [Ba/Fe] compared with the high-resolution
1958: data (squares: \citealt{johnson}; diamonds: \citealt{aoki05};
1959: circles: \citealt{francois07}). Typical observational errors in
1960: [Zr/Fe] and [Ba/Fe] are $\sim 0.1$--0.25 dex.
1961: The parameter $f_{{\rm Fe},L^*}$ is the fraction of Fe
1962: contributed by the $L^*$ source.
1963: The filled circles labeled ``$L$'' indicate the
1964: (number) yield ratios of
1965: [Sr/Fe]$_L=-0.32$ (a) and (b), [Y/Fe]$_L=-0.43$ (c), and
1966: [Zr/Fe]$_L=-0.16$ (d) for the $L$ source,
1967: while those labeled ``$L^*$'' indicate the yield ratios of
1968: [Sr/Fe]$_{L^*}=0.30$ (a) and (b), [Y/Fe]$_{L^*}=0.19$ (c),
1969: and [Zr/Fe]$_{L^*}=0.46$ (d) for the $L^*$ source
1970: (see Table~\ref{tab-mix}). The increase from the $L$
1971: to the $L^*$ yield ratio is the same for all the CPR elements.
1972: Note that except for
1973: the data points far to the right of and below the
1974: curve for $f_{{\rm Fe},L^*}=0$ in (b), which may
1975: represent stars with large $s$-process contributions,
1976: and the anomalous star CS~22968--014 noted in the text,
1977: essentially
1978: all the data lie inside the allowed region bounded
1979: by the curves for $f_{{\rm Fe},L^*}=0$ and 1.}
1980: \label{fig-csrfe}
1981: \end{figure}
1982:
1983: \begin{figure}
1984: \includegraphics[angle=270,scale=.50]{f8.eps}
1985: \caption{Comparison of the abundance patterns of the low-$A$
1986: elements for HNe and faint SNe. The patterns for
1987: HNe are taken to be the same as those for the third source shown
1988: in Figure~\ref{fig-p} and the data on CS~22885--096
1989: (open diamonds connected by line segments) are shown here
1990: as a typical example.
1991: The patterns in the anomalous stars (A, B, C, and D)
1992: are assumed to represent faint SNe [filled circle:
1993: \citealt{aoki06} (A, HE~1327--2326); filled triangle:
1994: \citealt{depagne02} (B, CS~22949--037); filled square:
1995: \citealt{aoki02} (C, CS~29498--043); filled diamond:
1996: \citealt{aoki07} (D, BS~16934--002)]. Typical observational errors
1997: in [E/Fe] are $\sim 0.1$--0.25 dex. Note that the latter
1998: patterns are characterized by extremely high abundances
1999: of the hydrostatic burning products Na, Mg, and Al relative to
2000: the explosive burning products from Si through Zn. Note also
2001: that the patterns of the explosive burning products are
2002: indistinguishable for HNe and faint SNe.}
2003: \label{fig-pan}
2004: \end{figure}
2005: \end{document}