1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: %\documentstyle[12pt,/winlin/data/Tex/aastex502/aaspp4]{article}
3:
4: %\shortauthors{Shetrone et al.}
5:
6: \def\teff{T$_{\rm eff}$}
7: \def\logg{log g}
8: \def\etal{et\,al.\,}
9: \def\kms{km\,s$^{-1}$}
10: \def\fei{{\ion{Fe}{1}}}
11: \def\feii{{\ion{Fe}{2}}}
12: \def\mgi{{\ion{Mg}{1}}}
13: \def\mgii{{\ion{Mg}{2}}}
14:
15: %% This is the end of the preamble. Indicate the beginning of the
16: %% paper itself with \begin{document}.
17:
18: \begin{document}
19:
20: \title{Chemical Abundances of the Leo II Dwarf Galaxy}
21:
22: \author{Matthew D. Shetrone}
23: \affil{University of Texas, McDonald Observatory, HC75 Box 1337-McD,
24: Fort Davis, TX, 79734}
25: \author{Michael H. Siegel}
26: \affil{University of Texas -- McDonald Observatory, Austin, TX, 78712}
27: \author{David O. Cook}
28: \affil{Department of Astronomy, University of Minnesota, 116 Church Street SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455}
29: \author{Tammy Bosler\footnote{AAAS Science \& Technology Policy Fellow}}
30: \affil{Division of Astronomical Sciences, National Science Foundation}
31:
32: \begin{abstract}
33: We use previously-published moderate-resolution spectra in combination with stellar atmosphere
34: models to derive the first measured chemical abundance ratios
35: in the Leo II dSph galaxy. We find
36: that for spectra with SNR $> 24$, we are able to measure abundances from weak
37: Ti, Fe and Mg lines located near the calcium infrared triplet (CaT). We also quantify and discuss discrepancies between the
38: metallicities measured from Fe\,I lines and those estimated from the CaT features.
39: We find that while the most
40: metal-poor ([Fe/H] $<-2.0$]) Leo II stars have Ca and Ti abundance ratios similar to those
41: of Galactic globular clusters, the more metal-rich stars show a gradual decline of Ti, Mg and Ca abundance
42: ratio with increasing metallicity. Finding these trends in this distant and apparently
43: dynamically stable dSph galaxy supports the hypothesis
44: that the slow chemical enrichment histories of the dSph galaxies is universal,
45: independent of any interaction with the Milky Way. Combining our spectroscopic abundances with
46: published broadband photometry and updated isochrones, we are able to approximate stellar ages
47: for our bright RGB stars
48: to a relative precision of 2-3 Gyr. While the derived age-metallicity relationship of Leo II
49: hints at some amount of slow enrichment, the data are still statistically consistent with no
50: enrichment over the history of Leo II.
51: \end{abstract}
52:
53: \keywords{stars: abundances; Galaxies: dwarf; Galaxies: Individual (Leo II); galaxies: evolution}
54:
55: \section{Introduction}
56: Dwarf galaxies are the most common type of galaxy in the universe and are thought to be
57: the progenitors of larger structures. Therefore, a clear understanding of dwarf galaxy evolution
58: is the first step toward a larger understanding of general galaxy evolution. Fortunately,
59: dwarf galaxies are also comparatively simple systems that can
60: be effectively modeled and simulated. In particular, the satellite galaxies
61: of the Milky Way, by virtue of being nearby, compact and situated in the sparser regions
62: of the Galactic halo, have proven to be
63: exceptional laboratories for studying models of stellar and chemical evolution (see, e.g. Mateo 1998).
64:
65: A useful tool for studying the dwarf galaxies is the comparison of their chemical
66: properties to those of the well-studied Milky Way globular clusters. Some globular
67: clusters show evidence of multiple stellar populations (Omega Centauri (Lee et al. 1999); NGC~1851 (Milone et al. 2008),
68: NGC~2808 (Piotto et al. 2007)). Others, particularly those associated with dSph galaxies or tidal
69: streams, show
70: peculiar chemical enrichment histories and/or young ages (see, e.g., Letarte et al. 2006).
71: However, most {\it inner halo} Milky Way globular clusters formed their
72: stars a Hubble time ago in a single burst (Marin-Franch et al. 2008). Since the
73: early Universe was dominated by massive stars, it is likely that only core collapse supernovae
74: (type II SN) were able to enrich the primordial interstellar medium (ISM)
75: before the globular clusters formed. These events would have enriched the ISM
76: with both Fe and $\alpha$-elements, resulting in relatively high $\alpha$-element to
77: iron ratios [$\alpha$/Fe]. By contrast, objects that formed later, after
78: type Ia SN had time to enrich the ISM with more Fe, would have lower
79: relative $\alpha$-element ratios.
80:
81: Most dwarf galaxies have compound populations, having undergone slow sporadic star
82: formation over their lifetimes (see review in Mateo 1998). While their earliest populations
83: were formed in the aftermath of the the first SNII events, their later populations
84: benefited from ongoing SNIa. The result is a steep decline in $\alpha$-element abundance
85: ratios with decreasing age/increasing metallicity. The most metal-poor stars have
86: $\alpha$-element ratios similar to globular clusters, while
87: the more metal-rich populations are deficient in $\alpha$-elements
88: (Shetrone et al. 1998, 2001, 2003; Tolstoy et al. 2003; Venn et al. 2004;
89: Smith et al. 2006; Helmi et al. 2006).
90:
91: The chemistry of dwarf Spheroidal (dSph) stars is of particular importance in untangling the hierarchical
92: formation of the Milky Way. CDM cosmological models predict that galaxies like the Milky
93: Way have grown through the merging of low-mass systems with perhaps some low-level merging continuing
94: at the present time.
95: Among the current retinue of dSph satellite galaxies, the Sagittarius
96: dSph shows clear signs of having been torn apart by the Milky Way
97: potential (Majewski et al. 2003) and Ursa Minor, Leo I, Coma Berenices and Ursa Major II
98: also hint at a violent dynamical past (Palma et al. 2003; Sohn et al. 2007; Simon \& Geha 2007).
99:
100: However, while the most metal-poor stars of the dSph galaxies are chemically similar to the most
101: metal-poor stars of the Galactic halo, the enrichment of SNIa kicks in at lower Fe abundances
102: in the dSph galaxies, resulting in consistent deficits in the $\alpha$-element ratios of dSph
103: stars compared to halo stars of similar [Fe/H] (Venn et al. 2004).
104: This would indicate that the Galactic halo formed from objects that
105: had more rapid and therefore more SNII-dominated chemical evolution and that objects like the current
106: dSph galaxies have contributed little to the halo.
107:
108: This argument is, however, undermined by recent studies indicating that
109: the stars the Sagittarius dSph is contributing to the halo differ from those in the residual core
110: (Bellazzini et al. 2006; Chou et al. 2007; Siegel et al. 2007). If the dSph galaxies
111: are the remnants of much larger objects that have been disrupted over a Hubble time,
112: the {\it present} stellar populations of the dSph galaxies may not reflect the {\it initial} stellar
113: populations they would have preferentially contributed to the Galactic halo.
114: Moreover, if the stellar populations of the dSph galaxies have not evolved in isolation, their
115: chemical abundances may have been affected by continual dynamical harassment.
116:
117: These arguments over dSph stellar chemistry could be clarified by the examination of more distant
118: dwarf galaxies
119: that have not been perturbed by the Milky Way potential. If an isolated dSph were shown
120: to have the same chemical abundance patterns as the relatively nearby dSphs, such
121: a discovery would (a) strengthen the argument that the lack of halo stars with ``dSph-like" abundance
122: patterns suggests that the vast majority of the halo formed
123: very quickly and that the dSphs have contributed very few stars since this
124: initial construction phase; and
125: (b) show that the $\alpha$-element deficits have
126: nothing to do with dynamical stirring and are entirely the product
127: of dSph stellar and chemical evolution.
128:
129: In an effort to address these issues, we now expand
130: the study of chemical abundances
131: to the Leo II dSph galaxy.
132: Leo II is the second most distant dSph galaxy assumed to be orbiting
133: the Milky Way (218 kpc, Bellazzini
134: et al. 2005; Siegel et al. 2008, hereafter S08). It is predominantly
135: metal-poor (Hodge 1982; Demers \& Harris 1983;
136: Aaronson et al. 1983; Azzopardi et al. 1985; Suntzeff et al. 1986;
137: Lee 1995; Demers \& Irwin 1993; Koch et al. 2007a,b; Bosler et al. 2007, hereafter BSS07) and
138: dominated by intermediate age populations (Mighell \& Rich 1996; Dolphin
139: et al. 2005; Bellazzini et al. 2005; Gullieuszik et al. 2008). It has a handful of carbon stars (Azzopardi et al. 1985), a
140: rich population of
141: RR Lyrae variable stars (Swope 1967, 1968; Siegel \& Majewski 2000), a
142: high central velocity dispersion (Vogt et al. 1995; Koch et al. 2007b; BSS07; S08) and
143: an extended stellar distribution (Coleman et al. 2007; S08). At present, however, the indications are that
144: is had undergone little, if any, interaction with the Galactic potential (Koch et. al 2007b;
145: Coleman et al. 2007; Walker et al. 2007; S08) and its modest radial velocity (+26.2 km s$^{-1}$, S08) would
146: be consistent with a circular orbit that does not bring it close to the Milky Way.
147:
148: The BSS07 study cited above analyzed medium resolution NIR spectra of a large
149: number of Leo II RGB stars in an effort to measure radial velocities and metallicities.
150: These spectra are dominated by the Calcium II Infrared Triplet (CaT) features
151: but also have numerous weak Fe, Ti, and Mg lines that have yet to be exploited.
152: In this paper, we show that these weak lines can be used
153: to measure metallicity and abundance ratios for
154: stars of sufficient S/N through the use of synthetic model spectra. This
155: method has allowed us to study the chemical evolution of Leo II, to
156: constrain the relationship between the equivalent width of the CaT lines
157: and the [Fe/H] abundances as measured from Fe\,I lines and to make a
158: preliminary examination of the age-metallicity relationship (AMR) of the
159: brightest Leo II RGB stars.
160:
161: \S2 of this paper discusses the additional reduction and analysis we have applied to the
162: BSS07 data. \S3
163: compares the abundances ratios measured in Leo II to those measured in the globular clusters to
164: provide insight into the chemical evolution of Leo II. \S4 examines the inferred ages of our bright Leo II
165: stars while \S5 summarizes our findings.
166:
167: \section{Spectroscopic Reduction and Analysis Techniques}
168:
169: A full description of the observations and data reduction can
170: be found in BSS07 but we give a brief summary of the observations here.
171: Low-dispersion spectra of red giants in the Leo II dSph
172: were taken using the Keck I 10-m telescope and LRIS (Oke et al. 1995)
173: in 2002 and 2003. The LRIS was configured with the
174: 1200 l/mm grating blazed at 7500 \AA which gives a dispersion of 0.62 \AA
175: per pixel and resolution of 1.55 \AA (R $\sim$ 10 000). Twenty to thirty
176: stars were observed on each slit mask creating a total sample of 74 stars
177: with SNR between 10 and 44.
178:
179: Traditional equivalent width analysis of these spectra proved impossible due to the
180: heavy blending of many lines and the difficulty in setting the continuum measure. However,
181: these problems can be overcome by comparison of the observed spectra to
182: synthetic spectra created by the 2007 version of the LTE line-analysis
183: code MOOG (Sneden 1973).
184:
185: The initial line list was obtained from the R. L. Kurucz CD-ROM 23.
186: In order to further calibrate this line list we compared the list with the
187: nearby red giant star, Arcturus (Hinkle et al. 2000).
188: We adopted atmospheric parameters for Arcturus
189: (\teff = 4280, \logg = 1.55, $v_t$ = 1.61 km s$^{-1}$,
190: [Fe/H] = -0.50, [Ti/Fe] = +0.26,
191: [Mg/Fe] = +0.39 and [Ca/Fe] = +0.21)
192: by combining the results of McWilliam (1990), Fulbright et al. (2006,2007)
193: and Koch \& McWilliam (2008). Since we are performing a differential analysis, we chose
194: to adjust the gf values in our synthetic spectrum only for lines that
195: were significantly discrepant from the catalog Arcturus spectrum, rather than adjust all 8345 lines.
196:
197: We smoothed the model spectra with a Gaussian kernel of FWHM equivalent to the BSS07 spectral
198: resolution of 1.55 \AA. Initial metallicity estimates for globular cluster and Leo II stars
199: were taken from BSS07. Effective temperatures were
200: calculated from interpolation of the temperature-color-metallicity
201: relationship of Ramirez \& Melendez (2005) and the $BV$ photometry of S08, the latter
202: allowing the Leo II and cluster data to be analyzed using the same photometric system.
203:
204: Surface gravities were calculated from the temperatures and bolometric-corrected
205: magnitudes assuming a mass of 0.8 $M_{\circ}$.
206: We used distance moduli of 15.07, 13.76, 15.59, 15.19 and 21.61 for M3, M107, NGC~1094, NGC~4590
207: and Leo II,
208: respectively.\footnote{We find in \S4 that Leo II's distance modulus is likely closer
209: to 21.7. Correcting the Leo II distance modulus would change the inferred $log g$ values
210: by approximately 0.04, an insignificant correction.} The microturbulence was
211: estimated as $v_t = -0.41 * log g + 2.15$, in accordance
212: with recent analyzes of
213: globular cluster giants near the tip of the giant branch
214: (e.g. Sneden et al. 2004, Lee, Carney \& Habgood 2005, Ivans et al. 2001, Cohen
215: \& Melendez 2005). Microturbulent velocities ranged from 1.4 km s$^{-1}$ to 2.0 km s$^{-1}$
216: in the globular cluster sample and from 1.6 to 2.0 km s$^{-1}$ in the Leo II sample.
217:
218: These parameters were fed into MOOG to produce preliminary synthetic
219: spectra. We then adjusted the [Fe/H] metallicity
220: of the atmospheres until the Fe lines matched the observed spectrum.
221: A weighted mean of all the iron lines was used to determine the
222: best [Fe/H] value for each star.
223:
224: The model was then set to this metallicity and the abundance
225: ratios were determined by holding all elements constant while varying the
226: desired $\alpha$-element. The best fit was determined by the
227: output difference between the MOOG synthetic spectra and observed spectra.
228: We found that we were able to effectively measure abundances for stars
229: with SNR $> 24$ per pixel.
230:
231: The setting of the continuum was critical for a proper analysis of
232: the weak lines in these
233: medium resolution spectra. To refine the continuum levels we created a
234: synthetic spectrum for
235: each star, divided it into the observed spectrum and fit
236: the residual with a high
237: order spline. This fitted spline was then divided into the observed
238: spectrum to remove high order
239: terms in the continuum placement. If our modeled spectrum changed
240: significantly, e.g. when a
241: new overall metallicity change was required, we repeated this procedure
242: for the new model.
243:
244: We attempted to determine abundance ratios for all of the moderate lines
245: in the spectra. These lines include Fe, Ca, Na, Mg, and Ti.
246: Figure 1 compares one of our highest SNR spectra to several synthetic
247: spectra with varied Fe and Ti
248: abundances. There are a large number of lines in this region with varying
249: strength that can be used to determine abundances. For a more typical SNR spectrum, most
250: of these lines are not strong enough for abundance analysis. We identified
251: sufficient Ti and Fe lines in all of our bright stars but the Na lines and all
252: but one of the Mg lines were absent in
253: most of the spectra. Thus we limit our analysis to the stronger Fe, Ca, Mg
254: and Ti lines listed in Table 1.
255:
256: The only Ca lines in the observed spectral region are the extremely
257: strong Ca triplet lines. The CaT lines are difficult to model with synthetic
258: spectra (hence the more common use of globular cluster-calibrated equivalent width
259: analysis).
260: At a constant Ca abundance, the strength of the CaT lines decreases
261: as the electron pressure increases due to changes in the
262: continuous opacities. For cool stellar atmospheres, the
263: main sources of electrons are Mg, Fe, Si, Ca, Na and Al, but which element
264: contributes the most depends in the effective temperature of the star
265: and which layer of the atmosphere is surveyed. For example, for
266: a \teff = 4200 K star at 0.01 optical depth, the main sources of electrons are Mg and
267: Fe; while for a \teff = 4000 K star at 0.01 optical depth,
268: the main sources of electrons are Ca, Mg, Na and Al.
269: Thus, as the $\alpha$-abundance declines, the continuous
270: opacity changes to counteract the Ca abundance decline.
271: For example, a 0.5 dex change in the electron contributors will increase the CaT
272: line strength enough to mimic a Ca abundance increase of 0.38 and
273: 0.22 dex for stars of \teff=4000, \logg = 0.7, [M/H] = -1.1
274: and \teff=4200, \logg = 0.7, [M/H] = -1.9, respectively.
275: This means that as [M/H] rises, any decline in the [Ca/Fe] ratio
276: would be muted in the measured CaT lines. As a further complication,
277: the CaT lines become less sensitive to the Ca abundance
278: as the lines strengthen.
279:
280: For the globular cluster sample, the Plez model atmospheres with
281: [$\alpha$/Fe]=+0.4 enhanced abundance ratios were appropriate
282: and there was no need to change the model. However, our initial analysis
283: showed that the Ti and Mg ratios of the Leo II stars decline with increasing metallicity (\S3).
284: This resulted in stars with low $\alpha$-abundances having erroneously high Ca abundances.
285: To derive accurate Ca abundance, we were therefore required to iterate. We first
286: determined the Fe abundance for each star and
287: then adjusted the model appropriately. We next determined the Ti and Mg
288: abundances, from which
289: we calculated a preliminary $\alpha$-abundance. Finally, we adjusted the
290: model abundance based on the average $\alpha$-abundance at each star's [Fe/H].
291: The result was that for the more metal-rich Leo II stars, we used model
292: atmospheres that were more metal-poor than the Fe abundance would imply, thus
293: compensating for the lack of electrons owing to the lower $\alpha$-abundances.
294:
295: Measurement errors were determined for each fitted feature by adjusting
296: the abundances up and down until the residuals of the fit were larger
297: than the surrounding continuum regions, ie. larger than the SNR. The measurement
298: errors were then propagated to yield a single measurement error which was
299: added in quadrature to the abundance errors from the
300: modeling uncertainties -- $\pm100$ K for \teff, $\pm0.2$ dex for \logg,
301: $\pm0.25$ for v$_t$ and $\pm0.2$ dex for [M/H]. Typically the
302: measurement errors dominated over the modeling errors particularly for
303: [Mg/Fe] which was derived from a single spectral feature.
304:
305: Tables 2 and 3 list the globular cluster and Leo II stars from BSS07 for
306: which we have been able to determine abundances while tables 4 and 5 show the abundances
307: derived from the MOOG software.
308: We have recalculated the signal to noise ratio (SNR) from the
309: residual of the best fit synthetic spectra to the observed spectra
310: and list that SNR in tables 2 and 3.
311:
312: \section{Spectroscopic Results}
313:
314: Figure 2 shows the photometrically derived effective temperatures and surface gravities for the Leo II sample.
315: There is a clear RGB sequence, corresponding to the photometric sequence upon which the
316: temperatures and gravities are based. The two outlier stars -- 195 and 166 --
317: are metal-poor radial velocity members. They are, however,
318: according to S08, well-removed from the dominant Leo II RGB locus in color-magnitude space although both
319: have Washington+DDO51 photometry consistent with giant stars.
320:
321: It is possible that these are interloping giants
322: in the field, possibly from the metal-poor debris stream of the Sagittarius dSph galaxy passing
323: in front of Leo II (S08). Alternatively, they could represent a young, metal-poor population in LeoII
324: (\S4). Given their outlier status, we have chosen to remove these two stars from
325: the analysis of mean trends in the Leo II sample.
326:
327: Figure 3 compares our derived [Fe/H] metallicities against those
328: derived from the CaT lines by BSS07.
329: On average, the CaT-based metallicities are 0.17 dex
330: higher than the our model [Fe/H] metallicities with an RMS of 0.18 dex.
331: The abundances are correlated
332: but there is a positive residual which shows increasing significance with
333: decreasing metallicity.
334:
335: The offset is likely due to several factors. First, all of our
336: Fe lines are Fe\,I lines and it is possible that metal-poor giants
337: overionize Fe (Thevenin \& Idiart 1999; Asplund \& Garcia-Perez 2001).
338: In M3, for example, Sneden et al. (2004) find an underabundance factor
339: of -0.13 in the Fe\,I lines and they adopt the Fe\,II abundances
340: as the true metallicity.
341: In M68 Lee, Carney \& Habgood (2005) find an underabundance factor of
342: -0.37 in the Fe\,I lines and also adopt the Fe\,II abundances as the true metallicity.
343: However, not all authors find these
344: overionization factors. Cohen \& Melendez (2005) find that the Fe\,I and
345: Fe\,II abundances agree to within uncertainties. Kraft \& Ivans (2003) find small
346: and variable overionization in metal-poor globular clusters but of much
347: smaller magnitude than Thevenin \& Idiart (1999) predict.
348: In light of the disagreement, we have chosen not to make any
349: correction for overionization but will discuss the potential impact in later sections.
350:
351: A second potential source of the discrepancy between the [M/H]$_{CaT}$
352: and our derived [Fe/H] comes from the calibration of the CaT metallicity
353: scale, which in BSS07 is based on the Carretta \& Gratton (1997) metallicity scale.
354: The choice of calibration system can significantly impact the
355: zero point of the metallicity. Battaglia et al. (2008), for example,
356: find a 0.1 dex
357: difference between the Carretta \& Gratton (1997)
358: metallicity scale and their high resolution analysis
359: over the range of metallicity spanned by Leo II's RGB stars.
360:
361: We can explore the issue of the metallicity zero point by comparing
362: the Fe\,I metallicities we derive for the BSS07 globular clusters to the
363: high resolution analyzes listed in Pritzl, Venn \& Irwin (2005). The average abundances
364: we derive
365: for NGC~1904, NGC~4590 and M3 are -0.14 ($\sigma = 0.22$) dex more metal-poor
366: than those listed in Pritzl et al.. However, their NGC~1904 abundances
367: come solely from the study of Gratton \& Ortolani (1989). Pritzl et al. find
368: that the Gratton \& Ortolani abundances are typically 0.16 more metal-rich than
369: more recent analyzes. Correcting the
370: NGC~1904 abundance down by 0.16 dex, we find our calculated
371: Fe I abundances for NGC~1904, NGC~4590 and M3 are -0.08 (0.14) dex more metal-poor
372: than the Pritzl et al. values -- a zero point offset within the
373: error of the weighted mean abundances listed in Table 4.
374:
375: Figures 4 and 5 show the derived [Ti/Fe] and [Mg/Fe] abundance
376: ratios, respectively, for both the Leo II and
377: globular cluster sample. The Leo II and globular cluster star [Ti/Fe]
378: abundances overlap at the poorest metallicities but depart dramatically
379: at higher metallicities. The Leo II [Mg/Fe] ratios
380: are offset from the globular cluster sample and show a pronounced
381: decline with increasing metallicity. The large error-bars on the [Mg/Fe]
382: limit the usefulness of the individual measurements but confirm the
383: same trend seen in the [Ti/Fe] abundance ratios.
384:
385: We note that the [Ti/Fe]
386: ratios in M107 are as high if not higher than those found in the
387: more metal-poor globular clusters. Such large [Ti/Fe] abundance
388: ratios are not unprecedented. Sneden et al. (1994) found that the relatively
389: metal-rich globular cluster M71 had high Ti abundance ratios
390: ([Ti/Fe] = +0.5), although
391: Ramirez \& Cohen (2002) found "normal'' Ti ratios M71.
392:
393: Figure 6 shows the [Ca\,II/Fe\,I] abundance ratios for the globular cluster and Leo II samples.
394: There is a slight decline
395: in the [Ca\,II/Fe\,I] ratio with increasing metallicity among the
396: globular cluster sample. The Leo II Ca abundance ratios are
397: offset from the globular cluster sample and the slope of the best fit line is
398: slightly steeper than that of the cluster sample. This is very similar to
399: the trends in Mg abundances seen in Figure 5.
400:
401: For M3, NGC~4590 and NGC~1904, we compare our abundance ratios to
402: the compilation
403: of Pritzl, Venn \& Irwin (2005). Our [Ti/Fe] ratios
404: are $0.09\pm0.05$ dex larger,
405: our [Mg/Fe] ratios are $0.01\pm0.05$ dex larger, and
406: our [Ca/Fe] ratios are $0.24\pm0.13$ dex larger.
407: The only significant
408: zero point is in our [Ca\,II/Fe\,I] abundances.
409: This is not entirely unexpected. Most analyzes compare
410: ionized species to ionized
411: species and neutral species to neutral species. We would obviously
412: prefer to make a similar comparison, but the previously noted lack of Fe\,II
413: lines prevents this. Additionally, as noted above, the literature is divided on
414: the over-ionization correction need to converted from Fe\,I to Fe\,II abundances.
415: Such corrections are likely to be metallicity dependent and could be
416: the cause of the slope in the globular cluster sample.
417: Because we do not make a correction, the absolute value of our [Ca\,II/Fe\,I] abundances
418: is uncertain. However, because our analysis is concerned with {\it relative}
419: differences between the clusters and Leo II, such a zero point correction
420: will have little impact on our conclusions.
421:
422: Figure 7 show the [Ca/H] ratios derived from our analysis
423: compared to the [Ca/H] ratios derived from the CaT by
424: BSS07. The overlap of the cluster and Leo II sample in this figure suggests that
425: the corrections we made for the more metal-rich low-$\alpha$ stars are
426: consistent with Ca abundances derived with the CaT methodology.
427: The slopes in these samples are less steep than
428: those of Figure 3 -- as would be expected since the CaT lines should be
429: sensitive to the overall Ca abundance. However, there is a residual
430: slope between the two [Ca/H] scales, which remains unexplained.
431:
432: Figure 8 shows the mean of the [Ca/Fe], [Ti/Fe] and [Mg/Fe] ratios. The
433: fit to the data with the lowest formal reduced chi square
434: is a second order Legendre polynomial which exhibits
435: a steep decline in the $\alpha$-abundance ratios of the Leo II
436: stars with metallicities above
437: [Fe/H]$\sim$-2.0. This is consistent with
438: what is seen in other dSph galaxies (see references in \S1) and is likely
439: due to slower chemical evolution and concordant increased
440: contribution of SNIa to Leo II. However, the data would also be consistent with a
441: step function near [Fe/H]$\sim$-1.8 in which the metal-poor stars have globular cluster
442: like $\alpha$-abundances while the more metal-rich stars are underabundant in
443: $\alpha$ elements.
444:
445: \section{Age Distribution of Leo II Stars}
446:
447: The slow enrichment implied by our abundance analysis suggests that Leo II should
448: have an age-metallicity relationship (AMR) in which the more metal-rich stars are younger
449: than the more metal-poor stars and have therefore been subject to more enrichment
450: by SNIa. An AMR would not be immediately obvious in color-magnitude
451: diagrams due the photometric degeneracy of age and metallicity. However, our precise
452: spectroscopic survey affords the ability to remove abundance from the equation. We can now
453: combine precise broadband photometry with modern isochrones to approximate individual stellar ages.
454: This method has had some success in untangling the stellar populations of
455: the Omega Centauri globular cluster, for example (Hilker et al. 2004; Sollima et al. 2005)
456: and was recently applied to the Leo II dSph galaxy by Koch et al. (2007a).
457:
458: The Koch et al. study
459: found that Leo II has undergone steady star formation with little enrichment, starting 9 Gyr ago and continuing up until
460: 2 Gyr ago. More recently-formed stars appear to be somewhat enriched.
461: Our analysis uses similar data but with the advantage that
462: we have measured $\alpha$-abundances, rather than assumed abundances.
463:
464: Because our stars are near the tip of the RGB, rather than the more age-sensitive turnoff,
465: any analysis will necessarily be imprecise (Koch et al. estimate uncertainties of 40\% using
466: these techniques). The ideal stars for this analysis are those near the age-sensitive main sequence
467: turnoff (MSTO). However, given that Leo II's
468: MSTO is well beyond the spectroscopic range of even the largest ground-based telescopes,
469: the RGB is our best option for probing Leo II's age distribution.
470:
471: Figure 9 demonstrates the analysis. Photometry is taken from S08, which has a precision
472: of 0.01 mag in all passbands at the tip of the red giant branch (TRGB). $VI$ colors were calculated
473: by converting the Washington measures in S08 using transformations in Majewski et al. (2000).
474: Isochrones are taken from the Dartmouth Stellar Evolution
475: Program (Dotter et al. 2007) and shifted to a distance modulus of $(m-M)=21.70$ and reddening
476: of $E(B-V)$=0.02, in
477: accordance with S08's TRGB distance derived from the same data.
478:
479: Cursory examination of the
480: individual panels, broken
481: down by passband and metallicity bin, shows no obvious AMR in Leo II.
482: To make a more precise estimate, we interpolated the isochrones in 0.01 magnitude intervals and,
483: with metallicity fixed at the spectroscopic value and [$\alpha/Fe$] fixed to the mean [$\alpha/Fe]$ at
484: each star's [Fe/H], we found the isochrone nearest to each star's
485: photometric position. We estimated age uncertainties by offsetting the [Fe/H] of each star
486: by its uncertainty (which dominates over S08's small photometric uncertainties).
487:
488: The left panels of Figure 10 show the resultant age-metallicity distribution.
489: Although the uncertainties are
490: significant (typically 2-3 Gyr), some interesting trends can be seen. The mean age of the stars is $\sim9$ Gyr but has a spread
491: significantly greater than the uncertainty, implying ongoing low-level star formation. The younger stars appear
492: to be slightly more metal-rich and indeed, an AMR that shows slight enrichment with age -- either gradually or step-wise --
493: would be more consistent with the data than a flat trend. However, we can not statistically rule out a flat AMR, which would have a $\chi^2$ per
494: degree of freedom of 0.9.
495: In fact, our derived AMR is very similar to of Koch et al. 2007a.
496:
497: It should be noted that the exploration of the RGB stars has number of complications
498: that could affect the inferred AMR. In particular:
499:
500: $\bullet$ Leo II is known to have prominent asymptotic giant branch (AGB; Mighell \& Rich 1996; Gullieuszik et al. 2008).
501: Stars on the AGB will
502: overlap young RGB isochrones and perhaps 10\% of our stars could be AGB stars. The most likely
503: candidates would be the two apparently young metal-poor stars that are clear outliers in the bottom
504: panels of Figure 9 and both panels of Figure 10 (note that these are different stars than
505: the two outliers rejected in Figures 2-8, which were excluded {\it a priori} from the age analysis). We attempted to measure ages for these stars using the Padova
506: isochrones (Marigo et al. 2008), which include an AGB. However, these stars are too blue for all but the youngest AGB isochrones
507: (at these magnitudes,
508: the RGB and AGB are separated by only a few .01 mag). Removing these outlier stars from the sample, however, increases the contrast
509: between the younger and older stars of Leo II, making enrichment more tenable. But a flat AMR
510: would still be within the uncertainties ($\chi^2 = 0.9$).
511:
512: $\bullet$ Any age analysis will be sensitive to the distance modulus of Leo II. Adjusting the distance
513: of Leo II shifts the absolute ages, but not the relative ages. The exception is at short distance
514: moduli, where the stars are too faint to correspond to anything but the maximum age in our
515: isochrone set (15 Gyr). If we assume that Leo II's stars must be younger than 15 Gyr, then Leo II
516: must be at a distance of at least $(m-M)=21.7$. Longer distances result in younger absolute ages
517: but have little effect on the inferred AMR.
518:
519: $\bullet$ The overionization correction mentioned in \S2 could alter the AMR by shifting
520: the sample to a more metal-rich distribution. We applied a 0.2 dex correction (right panels of Figure
521: 10) and find that the AMR tightens somewhat, producing a sharper peak in the age distribution at around 6-7 Gyr. However, a
522: flat AMR would still be within the uncertainties ($\chi^2 = 0.9$), even if the two outlier stars are removed.
523:
524: $\bullet$ Our SNR-limited sample is unable to probe the fainter more metal-rich stars in Leo II.
525: Improved spectra of these stars would extend the AMR over a greater range
526: of metallicity, providing better constraint of the enrichment and allowing a comparison
527: to toy models of enrichment. In particular, it would determine if the apparent rise in abundance for the younger
528: stars in Figure 10 is merely statistical scatter or is the indicator of a larger trend.
529:
530: Even with these caveats, the age-metallicity distribution of Leo II stars, while giving tantalizing hints of enrichment,
531: remain statistically consistent with no enrichment. A flat enrichment would be unexpected for Leo II, since we
532: {\it do} find that the more metal-rich stars have lower $\alpha$-element abundances, suggesting gradual enrichment by SNIa over
533: the course of several Gyr.
534:
535: In the end, while this exercise demonstrates that precise photometry and spectroscopy
536: can be used to probe the AMR of objects out to 200 kpc, the enrichment of Leo II may be too subtle to be detected in our data.
537: Spectroscopic examination of the more numerous and age-sensitive turnoff stars may be the only way to tease out the
538: AMR of this distant and enigmatic galaxy.
539:
540: \section{Discussion and Conclusions}
541:
542: Our analysis of the weaker spectral features in the BSS07 spectra provides
543: critical information about not only the Leo II dSph galaxy
544: but other spectroscopic studies as well.
545:
546: $\bullet$ We find the Fe-line metallicities disagree with CaT-based
547: metallicities, although it is likely this is a result of the
548: overionization of Fe at low
549: metallicity. We are unable to analyze the fainter more metal-rich
550: stars to confirm the high-metallicity tail identified by BSS07.
551:
552: $\bullet$ We confirm that Leo II, like the other low-luminosity dSph
553: galaxies, has globular cluster-like $\alpha$-abundances in its most metal-poor
554: stars but shows a declining $\alpha$-abundance at higher metallicities, likely
555: due to the increasing influence of SNIa.
556:
557: $\bullet$ Leo II's AMR gives tantalizing hints of slow enrichment. However, a flat
558: AMR with no enrichment can not be ruled out with the present data, given
559: the inherent uncertainties in analyzing only the brightest stars in the galaxy.
560: Nevertheless, this demonstrates that precise spectroscopic and photometric data can be used
561: to get a general picture of the enrichment history of distant dSph galaxies.
562:
563: Leo II's particular influence on models of dwarf galaxy evolution lies
564: in its difference from the other
565: dSph galaxies. As noted in \S1, Leo II appears to have had little interaction
566: with the Milky Way. This would indicate that
567: the $\alpha$-abundance patterns
568: found in the dSph galaxies are a universal
569: feature of dwarf galaxies and have no relation
570: to any dynamical interaction with a larger parent galaxy.
571: It also strengthens the contention
572: that while objects like the present retinue of dSphs
573: have contributed somewhat to the construction of the Milky Way -- given the similarities
574: between their most metal-poor stars and some chemically peculiar stars within the halo --
575: the stark chemical dissimilarities between the bulk of the dSph
576: and field halo stars indicates that this contribution has been small.
577:
578: Further investigation is needed into the zero point issues intrinsic in our analysis
579: so that we may more confidently translate measured Fe\,I abundances into intrinsic Fe\,II abundances.
580: This could be accomplished by looking at existing high
581: SNR CaT spectra of globular clusters, especially those known
582: to be deficient in $\alpha$-elements or those known or suspected
583: to have been stripped from larger dSph galaxies.
584: Once the zero point issues are understood, the technique we have unveiled in
585: this paper can be applied to the large CaT spectral datasets in the
586: literature to derive $\alpha$-abundance measures for thousands of dSph and field
587: halo stars. Better and easier chemical fingerprinting of distant RGB
588: stars has the potential to finally
589: unravel the hierarchical history of the Milky Way.
590:
591: Moreover, this technique expands the range of current and future investigations into
592: dSph chemistry. It shows that current telescopes can probe dSph chemistry out to at least
593: 200 kpc and indicates that next-generation telescopes will open up
594: investigation into even more isolated dwarfs such as the Phoenix dIrr/dSph (Tobolewski
595: et al., in prep.). This will expand the study of galactic chemical evolution into an even
596: more diverse array of galactic environments. At this time, however,
597: the existing models of dwarf galaxy chemical evolution appear to be
598: valid out to at least 200 kpc from the Galaxy.
599:
600: \acknowledgments
601:
602: This project was completed during
603: the McDonald Observatory REU and was supported under NSF AST-0649128.
604: MHS and MDS were supported by NSF grant AST-0306884.
605:
606: \begin{thebibliography}{}
607: \bibitem[]{AOH83} Aaronson, M., Olszewski, E. W. \& Hodge, P. W. 1983, \apj, 267, 271
608: \bibitem[Asplund
609: \& Garc{\'{\i}}a P{\'e}rez(2001)]{2001A&A...372..601A} Asplund, M., \& Garc{\'{\i}}a P{\'e}rez, A.~E.\ 2001, \aap, 372, 601
610: \bibitem[]{ALW85} Azzopardi, M., Lequeux, J. \& Westerlund, B. E. 1985, \aap, 144, 388
611: \bibitem[Bat08]{Bat08} Battaglia, G., Irwin, M., Tolstoy, E., Hill, V.,
612: Helmi, A., Letarte, B., Jablonka, P. 2008, \mnras, 383, 183
613: \bibitem[]{BGF05} Bellazzini, M., Gennari, N. \& Ferraro, F. R., 2005, \mnras, 360, 185
614: \bibitem[Bellazzini et al.(2006)]{bellazzini} Bellazzini, M., Correnti, M., Ferraro, F.
615: R., Monaco, L., \& Montegriffo, P. 2006a, \aap, 446, 1
616: \bibitem[Bosler, Smecker-Hane \& Stetson]{BSS07}Bosler, T.L., Smecker-Hane, T.A., Stetson, P.B. 2007, \mnras, 378, 318 (BSS07)
617: \bibitem[Carretta \& Gratton (1997)]{CG97} Carretta, E. \& Gratton, R.G. 1997, \aaps, 121, 95
618: \bibitem[Chou et al.(2007)]{C2007} Chou, M.-Y., et al. 2007, \apj, 670, 346
619: \bibitem[Cohen \& Mel{\'e}ndez(2005)]{2005AJ....129..303C} Cohen, J.~G., \& Mel{\'e}ndez, J.\ 2005, \aj, 129, 303
620: \bibitem[]{C07} Coleman, M., Jordi, K., Rix, H.-W., Grebel, E. K. \& Koch, A., 2007, \aj, 134, 1938
621: \bibitem[]{DH83} Demers, S. \& Harris, W. E. 1983, \aj, 88, 329
622: \bibitem[]{DI93} Demers, S. \& Irwin, M. J. 1993, \mnras, 261, 657
623: \bibitem[]{D05} Dolphin, A. E., Weisz, D. R., Skillman, E. D. \& Holtzman, J. A., 2005,
624: {\it astro-ph/0506430}
625: \bibitem[Fulbright et al.(2006)]{2006ApJ...636..821F} Fulbright, J.~P.,
626: McWilliam, A., \& Rich, R.~M.\ 2006, \apj, 636, 821
627: \bibitem[Fulbright et al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...661.1152F} Fulbright, J.~P.,
628: McWilliam, A., \& Rich, R.~M.\ 2007, \apj, 661, 1152
629: \bibitem[]{}Gullieuszik, M., Held, E. V., Rizzi, L., Girardi, K., Marigo, P. \& Momany, Y., 2008, \mnras,
630: {\it in press, astro-ph/0805.0735}
631: \bibitem[Gratton
632: \& Ortolani(1989)]{1989A&A...211...41G} Gratton, R.~G., \& Ortolani, S.\ 1989, \aap, 211, 41
633: \bibitem[Helmi et al.(2006)]{2006ApJ...651L.121H} Helmi, A., et al.\ 2006,
634: \apjl, 651, L121
635: \bibitem[Hilker et al.(2004)]{2004A&A...422L...9H} Hilker, M., Kayser, A., Richtler, T.,
636: \& Willemsen, P.\ 2004, \aap, 422, L9
637: \bibitem[Hinkle et al. (2000)]{Hinkle2000}Hinkle, K., Wallace, L., Valenti, J., \&
638: Harmer, Dianne 2000, Visible and Near Infrared Atlas of the Arcturus Spectrum
639: 3727--9300 \AA, (San Francisco: ASP).
640: \bibitem[]{H82} Hodge, P. W., 1982, \aj, 87, 1668
641: \bibitem[Ivans et al.(2001)]{2001AJ....122.1438I} Ivans, I.~I., Kraft,
642: R.~P., Sneden, C., Smith, G.~H., Rich, R.~M.,
643: \& Shetrone, M.\ 2001, \aj, 122, 1438
644: \bibitem[Koch et al.(2007)]{2007AJ....133..270K} Koch, A., Grebel, E.~K.,
645: Kleyna, J.~T., Wilkinson, M.~I., Harbeck, D.~R., Gilmore, G.~F., Wyse,
646: R.~F.~G., \& Evans, N.~W.\ 2007a, \aj, 133, 270
647: \bibitem[]{K07} Koch, A., Grebel, E. K., Kleyna, J. T., Wilkinson, M. I., Harbeck, D. R., Gilmore, G. F.,
648: Wyse, R. F. G. \& Evans, N. W. 2007b, \aj, 133, 270
649: \bibitem[]{K08} Koch, A., \& McWilliam, A. 2008, \aj 135, 1551
650: \bibitem[Kraft
651: \& Ivans(2003)]{2003PASP..115..143K} Kraft, R.~P., \& Ivans, I.~I.\ 2003, \pasp, 115, 143
652: \bibitem[]{L95} Lee, M. G., 1995, \aj, 110, 1155
653: \bibitem[Lee et al.(1999)]{1999Natur.402...55L} Lee, Y.-W., Joo, J.-M.,
654: Sohn, Y.-J., Rey, S.-C., Lee, H.-C., \& Walker, A.~R.\ 1999, \nat, 402, 55
655: \bibitem[Lee et al.(2005)]{2005AJ....129..251L} Lee, J.-W., Carney, B.~W.,
656: \& Habgood, M.~J.\ 2005, \aj, 129, 251
657: \bibitem[Letarte et
658: al.(2006)]{2006A&A...453..547L} Letarte, B., Hill, V., Jablonka, P., Tolstoy, E., Fran{\c c}ois, P., \& Meylan, G.\ 2006, \aap, 453, 547
659: \bibitem[]{M00b} Majewski, S. R., Ostheimer, J. C., Kunkel, W. E., \& Patterson, R. J., 2000, \aj, 120, 2550
660: \bibitem[]{M03} Majewski, S. R., Skrutski, M. F., Weinberg, M. D. \& Ostheimer,
661: J. C., 2003 \apj, 599, 1082
662: \bibitem[Marigo et
663: al.(2008)]{2008A&A...482..883M} Marigo, P., Girardi, L., Bressan, A., Groenewegen, M.~A.~T., Silva, L., \& Granato, G.~L.\ 2008, \aap, 482, 883
664: \bibitem[]{} Marin-Franch, A., Aparicio, A., Piotto, G., Rosenberg, A., Chaboyer, B., Sarajedini, A., Siegel, M., Anderson, J.,
665: Bedin, L. R., Dotter, A., Hempel, M., King, I., Majewski, S., Milone, A., \& Reid, I. N., \apj, {\it submitted}
666: \bibitem[Mateo(1998)]{1998ARA&A..36..435M} Mateo, M.~L.\ 1998, \araa, 36,
667: 435
668: \bibitem[]{MR96} Mighell, K. J. \& Rich, M. R. 1996, \aj, 111, 777
669: \bibitem[Milone et al.(2008)]{2008ApJ...673..241M} Milone, A.~P., et al.\
670: 2008, \apj, 673, 241
671: \bibitem[Oke et al.(1995)]{1995PASP..107..375O} Oke, J.~B., et al.\ 1995,
672: \pasp, 107, 375
673: \bibitem[]{P03} Palma, C., Majewski, S. R., Siegel, M. H., Patterson, R. J.,
674: Ostheimer, J. C. \& Link, R., 2003 \aj, 125, 1352
675: \bibitem[Piotto et al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...661L..53P} Piotto, G., et al.\
676: 2007, \apjl, 661, L53
677: \bibitem[Pritzl et al.(2005)]{2005AJ....130.2140P} Pritzl, B.~J., Venn,
678: K.~A., \& Irwin, M.\ 2005, \aj, 130, 2140
679: \bibitem[Ram{\'{\i}}rez
680: \& Cohen(2002)]{2002AJ....123.3277R} Ram{\'{\i}}rez, S.~V., \& Cohen, J.~G.\ 2002, \aj, 123, 3277
681: \bibitem[RM05]{RM05}Ramirez, I. \& Melendez, J. 2005, \apj, 626, 465
682: \bibitem[Shetrone et al.(1998)]{1998AJ....115.1888S} Shetrone, M.~D.,
683: Bolte, M., \& Stetson, P.~B.\ 1998, \aj, 115, 1888
684: \bibitem[Shetrone et al.(2001)]{2001ApJ...548..592S} Shetrone, M.~D.,
685: C{\^o}t{\'e}, P., \& Sargent, W.~L.~W.\ 2001, \apj, 548, 592
686: \bibitem[Shetrone et al.(2003)]{2003AJ....125..684S} Shetrone, M., Venn,
687: K.~A., Tolstoy, E., Primas, F., Hill, V., \& Kaufer, A.\ 2003, \aj, 125,
688: 684
689: \bibitem[]{SM00a} Siegel, M. H. \& Majewski, S. R., 2000, \aj, 120, 284
690: \bibitem[Siegel et al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...667L..57S} Siegel, M.~H., et al.\
691: 2007, \apjl, 667, L57
692: \bibitem[S08]{S08} Siegel, M. H., Majewski, S. R., Sohn, S. T., Shetrone, M.D., Munoz, R. R.,
693: \& Patterson, R. J. 2008, \apj, {\it submitted} [S08]
694: \bibitem[]{} Simon, J. D. \& Geha, M., 2007, \apj, 670, 313
695: \bibitem[Smith et al.(2006)]{2006PASP..118.1361S} Smith, G.~H., Siegel,
696: M.~H., Shetrone, M.~D., \& Winnick, R.\ 2006, \pasp, 118, 1361
697: \bibitem[S94]{S94} Sneden, C., Kraft, R.P., Langer, G.E., Prosser, C.F., \&
698: Shetrone, M.D. 1994, \aj, 107, 1773.
699: \bibitem[Sneden et al.(2004)]{2004AJ....127.2162S} Sneden, C., Kraft,
700: R.~P., Guhathakurta, P., Peterson, R.~C.,
701: \& Fulbright, J.~P.\ 2004, \aj, 127, 2162
702: \bibitem[]{S07} Sohn, S. T., Majewski, S. R., Munoz, R. M., Kunkel, W. E.,
703: Johnston, K. V., Ostheimer, J. C., Guhathakurta, P., Patterson, R. J.,
704: Siegel, M. H. \& Cooper, M., 2007, \apj, 663, 960
705: \bibitem[Sollima et al.(2005)]{2005ApJ...634..332S} Sollima, A., Pancino,
706: E., Ferraro, F.~R., Bellazzini, M., Straniero, O.,
707: \& Pasquini, L.\ 2005, \apj, 634, 332
708: \bibitem[]{S86} Suntzeff, N. B., Aaronson, M., Olszewski, E. W. \& Cook, K.H. 1986,
709: \aj, 91, 1091
710: \bibitem[]{S67} Swope, H. H. 1967, \pasp, 79, 439
711: \bibitem[]{S68} Swope, H. H. 1968, \aj, 73, S204
712: \bibitem[Th{\'e}venin
713: \& Idiart(1999)]{1999ApJ...521..753T} Th{\'e}venin, F., \& Idiart, T.~P.\ 1999, \apj, 521, 753
714: \bibitem[Tolstoy et al.(2003)]{2003AJ....125..707T} Tolstoy, E., Venn,
715: K.~A., Shetrone, M., Primas, F., Hill, V., Kaufer, A., \& Szeifert, T.\
716: 2003, \aj, 125, 707
717: \bibitem[Venn et al.(2004)]{2004AJ....128.1177V} Venn, K.~A., Irwin, M.,
718: Shetrone, M.~D., Tout, C.~A., Hill, V., \& Tolstoy, E.\ 2004, \aj, 128,
719: 1177
720: \bibitem[]{V95} Vogt, S. S., Mateo, M, Olszewski, E. W. \& Keane, M. J., 1995 \aj, 109, 151
721: \bibitem[]{Walk07} Walker, M. G., Mateo, M., Olszewski, E. W., Gnedin, O. y., Wang, X.,
722: Sen, B. \& Woodroofe, M., 2007, \apj, {\it in press, astro-ph/0708.0010}
723: \bibitem[]{McWilliam 1990} McWilliam, A. 1990, \apjs 74, 1075
724: \end{thebibliography}
725:
726:
727: \clearpage
728:
729: \begin{deluxetable}{lrrrrrrr}
730: \tablewidth{0 pt}
731: \tablecaption{Main lines used in Abundance Analysis }
732: \tablehead{
733: \colhead{Element } &
734: \colhead{Wavelength } &
735: \colhead{eV } &
736: \colhead{log gf } }
737: \startdata
738: Ti\,I & 8378.25 & 3.72 & -2.30 \\
739: Ti\,I & 8382.53 & 0.82 & -1.63 \\
740: Ti\,I & 8435.65 & 0.84 & -1.30 \\
741: Fe\,I & 8220.38 & 4.32 & 0.20 \\
742: Fe\,I & 8327.06 & 2.20 & -1.64 \\
743: Fe\,I & 8387.77 & 2.18 & -1.60 \\
744: Fe\,I & 8468.41 & 2.22 & -2.17 \\
745: Fe\,I & 8514.07 & 2.20 & -2.25 \\
746: Fe\,I & 8611.80 & 2.85 & -2.15 \\
747: Fe\,I & 8674.75 & 2.83 & -2.00 \\
748: Fe\,I & 8688.63 & 2.18 & -1.21 \\
749: Mg\,I & 8806.76 & 4.35 & -0.13 \\
750: Ca II & 8498.02 & 1.69 & -1.31 \\
751: Ca II & 8542.09 & 1.70 & -0.36 \\
752: Ca II & 8662.14 & 1.69 & -0.62 \\
753: \enddata
754: \end{deluxetable}
755:
756: \clearpage
757:
758: \begin{deluxetable}{lrrrrrr}
759: \tablewidth{0 pt}
760: \tablecaption{Cluster Sample take from Bosler Survey }
761: \tablehead{
762: \colhead{Stars } &
763: \colhead{V (mag) } &
764: \colhead{B-V } &
765: \colhead{SNR } &
766: \colhead{\teff}&
767: \colhead{\logg }&
768: \colhead{v$_t$ } }
769: \startdata
770: \multicolumn{7}{c} {NGC1904} \\
771: \hline
772: 241 &13.61 & 1.11 & 37.6 & 4419 & 0.94 & 1.77 \\
773: 131 &13.02 & 1.20 & 34.9 & 4298 & 0.85 & 1.80 \\
774: 223 &13.19 & 1.16 & 34.5 & 4350 & 0.72 & 1.85 \\
775: 160 &14.06 & 1.52 & 31.2 & 3969 & 0.31 & 2.02 \\
776: 294 &14.22 & 1.00 & 22.3 & 4586 & 1.29 & 1.62 \\
777: 181 &13.95 & 1.25 & 21.3 & 4236 & 0.94 & 1.76 \\
778: \hline
779: \hline
780: \multicolumn{7}{c} {NGC4590} \\
781: \hline
782: HI82 &12.59 & 1.33 & 24.6 & 4188 & 0.34 & 1.98 \\
783: HI119&13.62 & 0.96 & 21.1 & 4633 & 1.09 & 1.70 \\
784: HI239&14.19 & 0.87 & 14.2 & 4788 & 0.89 & 1.79 \\
785: \hline
786: \hline
787: \multicolumn{7}{c} {M3} \\
788: \hline
789: 265 &13.26 & 1.30 & 93.0 & 4155 & 0.83 & 1.81 \\
790: 250 &14.11 & 0.95 & 82.1 & 4627 & 1.50 & 1.54 \\
791: 640 &13.27 & 1.26 & 77.1 & 4199 & 0.87 & 1.79\\
792: 589 &12.87 & 1.33 & 76.6 & 4124 & 0.64 & 1.89 \\
793: 1217 &14.00 & 1.05 & 76.4 & 4470 & 1.36 & 1.59 \\
794: 885 &13.47 & 1.07 & 75.5 & 4441 & 1.13 & 1.69 \\
795: 334 &13.24 & 1.20 & 55.3 & 4269 & 0.91 & 1.78 \\
796: 238 &12.69 & 1.57 & 53.5 & 3918 & 0.35 & 2.01 \\
797: \hline
798: \hline
799: \multicolumn{7}{c} {M107} \\
800: \hline
801: Sl & 14.04 & 1.47 & 56.1 & 4581 & 1.37 & 1.59 \\
802: Sf & 13.39 & 1.70 & 49.0 & 4225 & 0.87 & 1.79 \\
803: Sr & 14.66 & 1.29 & 42.2 & 4910 & 1.80 & 1.41 \\
804: Sh & 13.84 & 1.61 & 38.9 & 4356 & 1.15 & 1.68 \\
805: Ss & 14.79 & 1.40 & 37.9 & 4703 & 1.74 & 1.43 \\
806: Su & 14.78 & 1.28 & 37.5 & 4930 & 1.86 & 1.39 \\
807: S62 & 13.97 & 1.62 & 34.1 & 4341 & 1.19 & 1.66 \\
808: \hline
809: \enddata
810: \end{deluxetable}
811:
812: \clearpage
813:
814: \begin{deluxetable}{lrrrcrrr}
815: \tablewidth{0 pt}
816: \tablecaption{Leo II Sample take from Bosler Survey }
817: \tablehead{
818: \colhead{Stars } &
819: \colhead{V (mag) } &
820: \colhead{B-V } &
821: \colhead{SNR } &
822: \colhead{[M/H]$_{CaT}$\tablenotemark{a} } &
823: \colhead{\teff}&
824: \colhead{\logg}&
825: \colhead{v$_t$ } }
826: \startdata
827: 180 & 18.998 & 1.5117 &43.7 &-1.60 & 3981 & 0.33 & 2.02 \\
828: 255 & 19.291 & 1.3114 &40.0 &-1.66 & 4151 & 0.62 & 1.90 \\
829: 271 & 19.375 & 1.3561 &39.5 &-1.48 & 4100 & 0.60 & 1.90 \\
830: 258 & 19.311 & 1.3507 &36.9 &-1.57 & 4110 & 0.59 & 1.91 \\
831: 336 & 19.531 & 1.1669 &36.8 &-2.03 & 4299 & 0.83 & 1.81 \\
832: 195 & 19.026 & 1.0915 &36.2 &-1.60 & 4406 & 0.71 & 1.86 \\
833: 296 & 19.385 & 1.0488 &35.7 &-2.02 & 4438 & 0.87 & 1.79 \\
834: 293 & 19.304 & 1.2481 &35.5 &-1.84 & 4216 & 0.68 & 1.87 \\
835: 166 & 18.827 & 1.1629 &35.3 &-1.52 & 4318 & 0.56 & 1.92 \\
836: 285 & 19.337 & 1.3657 &35.0 &-1.50 & 4091 & 0.58 & 1.91 \\
837: 304 & 19.389 & 1.2711 &34.7 &-1.81 & 4194 & 0.69 & 1.87 \\
838: 254 & 19.259 & 1.3981 &33.6 &-1.43 & 4055 & 0.51 & 1.87 \\
839: 236 & 19.212 & 1.3330 &32.6 &-1.90 & 4144 & 0.58 & 1.91 \\
840: 351 & 19.552 & 1.2835 &32.5 &-1.40 & 4176 & 0.74 & 1.85 \\
841: 333 & 19.495 & 1.2278 &32.4 &-1.45 & 4240 & 0.77 & 1.83 \\
842: 379 & 19.618 & 1.3171 &32.1 &-1.52 & 4141 & 0.74 & 1.85 \\
843: 209 & 19.033 & 1.4749 &31.7 &-1.59 & 4006 & 0.37 & 2.00 \\
844: 256 & 19.332 & 1.2784 &30.4 &-1.54 & 4182 & 0.66 & 1.88 \\
845: 341 & 19.541 & 1.2780 &29.2 &-1.43 & 4182 & 0.74 & 1.85 \\
846: 281 & 19.342 & 1.1127 &28.6 &-2.05 & 4358 & 0.80 & 1.82 \\
847: 282 & 19.329 & 1.4611 &27.6 &-1.52 & 4008 & 0.49 & 1.95 \\
848: 420 & 19.717 & 1.0824 &27.1 &-1.46 & 4430 & 1.00 & 1.74 \\
849: 377 & 19.587 & 1.1853 &25.8 &-1.73 & 4283 & 0.84 & 1.80 \\
850: 260 & 19.268 & 1.2811 &25.7 &-1.57 & 4179 & 0.63 & 1.89 \\
851: 248 & 19.354 & 1.2399 &25.1 &-1.51 & 4225 & 0.70 & 1.86 \\
852: 234 & 19.250 & 1.2238 &24.5 &-1.80 & 4240 & 0.67 & 1.87 \\
853: 230 & 19.194 & 1.4458 &24.1 &-1.56 & 4025 & 0.45 & 1.96 \\
854: \enddata
855: \tablenotetext{a}{Based on the BSS07 CaT measurement and the Carretta \& Gratton (1997)
856: metallicity scale}
857: \end{deluxetable}
858:
859: \clearpage
860:
861:
862: \begin{deluxetable}{lrrrr}
863: \tablewidth{0 pt}
864: \tablecaption{Derived Abundances for Cluster Sample }
865: \tablehead{
866: \colhead{Star } &
867: \colhead{[FeI/H] ($\sigma$) } &
868: \colhead{[TiI/FeI] ($\sigma$) } &
869: \colhead{[MgI/FeI] ($\sigma$) } &
870: \colhead{[CaII/FeI] ($\sigma$) }
871: }
872: \startdata
873: \multicolumn{5}{c} {NGC1904} \\
874: 241 & -1.70 (0.18) & 0.11 (0.27) & 0.30 (0.38) & 0.70 (0.17) \\
875: 131 & -1.89 (0.21) & 0.70 (0.25) & 0.45 (0.37) & 0.70 (0.20) \\
876: 223 & -1.55 (0.18) & 0.57 (0.22) & 0.50 (0.39) & 0.70 (0.17) \\
877: 160 & -2.06 (0.26) & -0.03 (0.30) & 0.70 (0.59) & 0.35 (0.20) \\
878: 294 & -1.62 (0.22) & 0.65 (0.27) & 0.60 (0.42) & 0.45 (0.17) \\
879: 181 & -2.02 (0.22) & 0.46 (0.25) & 0.20 (0.43) & 0.85 (0.24) \\
880: \tableline
881: average & -1.77 (0.08) & 0.44 (0.10) & 0.44 (0.17) & 0.61 (0.08) \\
882: \tableline
883: \multicolumn{5}{c} {NGC4590} \\
884: HI82 & -2.44 (0.16) & 0.13 (0.20) & 0.50 (0.30) & 0.50 (0.22) \\
885: HI119 & -2.25 (0.14) & 0.22 (0.20) & 0.70 (0.24) & 0.35 (0.27) \\
886: HI239 & -2.03 (0.18) & 0.28 (0.37) & -0.20 (0.35) & 0.30 (0.22) \\
887: \tableline
888: average & -2.26 (0.09) & 0.19 (0.13) & 0.44 (0.17) & 0.39 (0.13) \\
889: \tableline
890: \multicolumn{5}{c} {M3} \\
891: 265 & -1.62 (0.14) &-0.08 (0.16) & 0.20 (0.25) & 0.60 (0.17) \\
892: 238 & -2.10 (0.19) & 0.30 (0.18) & 0.10 (0.32) & 0.45 (0.19) \\
893: 250 & -1.40 (0.14) & 0.38 (0.16) & 0.50 (0.28) & 0.40 (0.15) \\
894: 334 & -1.71 (0.14) & 0.36 (0.16) & 0.30 (0.22) & 0.75 (0.15) \\
895: 589 & -1.77 (0.19) & 0.43 (0.16) & 0.30 (0.27) & 0.65 (0.15) \\
896: 640 & -1.51 (0.14) &-0.02 (0.16) & 0.30 (0.28) & 0.55 (0.15) \\
897: 885 & -1.61 (0.15) & 0.40 (0.17) & 0.05 (0.34) & 0.45 (0.16) \\
898: 1217 & -1.68 (0.16) & 0.60 (0.20) & 0.10 (0.23) & 0.50 (0.18) \\
899: \tableline
900: average & -1.64 (0.05) & 0.28 (0.06) & 0.24 (0.09) & 0.55 (0.06) \\
901: \tableline
902: \multicolumn{5}{c} {M107} \\
903: S62 & -1.03 (0.19) & 0.55 (0.23) & 0.50 (0.27) & 0.50 (0.20) \\
904: Sf & -0.94 (0.18) & 0.60 (0.23) & 0.15 (0.26) & 0.40 (0.20) \\
905: Sh & -1.18 (0.16) & 0.72 (0.20) & 0.35 (0.24) & 0.50 (0.17) \\
906: Sl & -1.17 (0.21) & 0.68 (0.26) & 0.35 (0.33) & 0.50 (0.22) \\
907: Sr & -1.01 (0.20) & 0.55 (0.24) & 0.25 (0.27) & 0.35 (0.21) \\
908: Ss & -1.05 (0.19) & 0.89 (0.27) & 0.10 (0.29) & 0.40 (0.20) \\
909: Su & -0.92 (0.23) & 0.13 (0.40) &-0.10 (0.33) & 0.15 (0.24) \\
910: \tableline
911: average & -1.05 (0.07) & 0.63 (0.09) & 0.25 (0.11) & 0.41 (0.08) \\
912: \tableline
913: \enddata
914: \end{deluxetable}
915: \clearpage
916:
917: \begin{deluxetable}{lrrrr}
918: \tablewidth{0 pt}
919: \tablecaption{Derived Abundances for Leo II Sample }
920: \tablehead{
921: \colhead{Star } &
922: \colhead{[FeI/H] ($\sigma$) } &
923: \colhead{[TiI/FeI] ($\sigma$) } &
924: \colhead{[MgI/FeI] ($\sigma$) } &
925: \colhead{[CaII/FeI] ($\sigma$) }
926: }
927: \startdata
928: 180 & -1.94 (0.18) & -0.16 (0.16) & \nodata &0.25 (0.15) \\
929: 209 & -1.97 (0.17) & -0.13 (0.16) & -0.20 (0.30) &0.30 (0.15) \\
930: 271 & -1.77 (0.18) & -0.10 (0.18) & 0.20 (0.30) &0.50 (0.17) \\
931: 351 & -1.73 (0.22) & -0.17 (0.21) & 0.25 (0.28) &0.30 (0.18) \\
932: 166 & -1.85 (0.18) & 0.18 (0.19) & 0.10 (0.30) &0.60 (0.16) \\
933: 293 & -1.93 (0.18) & -0.05 (0.17) & -0.20 (0.15) &0.35 (0.15) \\
934: 336 & -1.98 (0.21) & \nodata & 0.10 (0.32) &0.20 (0.17) \\
935: 236 & -2.26 (0.22) & 0.33 (0.21) & 0.50 (0.33) &0.40 (0.20) \\
936: 195 & -1.70 (0.19) & 0.36 (0.23) & 0.70 (0.30) &0.42 (0.18) \\
937: 258 & -1.64 (0.19) & -0.17 (0.19) & 0.05 (0.30) &0.30 (0.17) \\
938: 254 & -1.80 (0.19) & -0.10 (0.18) & 0.40 (0.27) &0.20 (0.17) \\
939: 255 & -2.05 (0.19) & 0.30 (0.17) & -0.35 (0.39) &0.45 (0.16) \\
940: 296 & -2.13 (0.19) & 0.28 (0.22) & 0.30 (0.33) &0.40 (0.17) \\
941: 304 & -2.09 (0.18) & -0.02 (0.18) & 0.45 (0.27) &0.35 (0.16) \\
942: 281 & -2.07 (0.21) & 0.35 (0.26) & 0.15 (0.36) &0.35 (0.20) \\
943: 282 & -1.68 (0.19) & -0.34 (0.19) & -0.30 (0.37) &0.05 (0.17) \\
944: 333 & -1.95 (0.21) & 0.28 (0.21) & 0.35 (0.30) &0.50 (0.19) \\
945: 285 & -1.73 (0.18) & -0.03 (0.20) & 0.05 (0.28) &0.45 (0.16) \\
946: 379 & -1.71 (0.21) & -0.03 (0.21) & 0.15 (0.33) &0.30 (0.20) \\
947: 260 & -1.75 (0.21) & -0.17 (0.20) & \nodata &0.35 (0.18) \\
948: 341 & -1.42 (0.19) & -0.18 (0.19) & -0.00 (0.30) &0.15 (0.17) \\
949: 256 & -1.73 (0.18) & 0.05 (0.18) & -0.20 (0.16) &0.35 (0.16) \\
950: 248 & -1.72 (0.20) & 0.03 (0.21) & 0.05 (0.18) &0.40 (0.19) \\
951: 420 & -1.80 (0.22) & 0.24 (0.25) & 0.45 (0.32) &0.45 (0.21) \\
952: 230 & -1.88 (0.24) & 0.07 (0.25) & 0.75 (0.34) &0.50 (0.23) \\
953: 377 & -1.98 (0.20) & 0.09 (0.24) & 0.15 (0.38) &0.40 (0.19) \\
954: 234 & -1.76 (0.19) & -0.20 (0.21) & -0.10 (0.33) &0.25 (0.18) \\
955: \enddata
956: \end{deluxetable}
957:
958: \clearpage
959: \epsscale{0.8}
960: \plotone{f1.eps}
961: \figcaption{Modeling the stellar spectra with MOOG.
962: The points represent the spectrum of Leo II star 180, one of the
963: higher SNR spectra. The lines represent synthetic spectra with 0.3 dex
964: higher (blue) and lower (red) Fe and Ti abundances.
965: Two Ti lines and two Fe lines used in this analysis are labeled.
966: \label{fig1}}
967:
968: \clearpage
969: \epsscale{0.8}
970: \plotone{f2.eps}
971: \figcaption{An HR diagram of the Leo II stars. The two star with large circles
972: are stars 166 and 195 which are rv members but don't seem to fall on the
973: RGB locus and thus are suspect for our analysis.
974: \label{fig2}}
975:
976: \clearpage
977: \epsscale{0.8}
978: \plotone{f3.eps}
979: \figcaption{The [Fe/H] computed from this analysis are compared against the CaT metallicities
980: for the Leo II stars (red filled squares) and the globular clusters (blue open triangles).
981: The thick lines are the best fit lines to the data. The two star with large circles
982: are stars 166 and 195.
983: \label{fig3}}
984:
985:
986: \clearpage
987: \epsscale{0.8}
988: \plotone{f4.eps}
989: \figcaption{The [Ti/Fe] computed from this analysis is shown
990: for the Leo II stars (red filled squares) and the globular clusters (blue open triangles).
991: The thick lines are the best fit lines to the data. The two star with large circles
992: are stars 166 and 195.
993: \label{fig4}}
994:
995: \clearpage
996: \epsscale{0.8}
997: \plotone{f5.eps}
998: \figcaption{The [Mg/Fe] computed from this analysis is shown
999: for the Leo II stars (red filled squares) and the globular clusters (blue open triangles).
1000: The thick lines are the best fit lines to the data. The two star with large circles
1001: are stars 166 and 195.
1002: \label{fig5}}
1003:
1004: \clearpage
1005: \epsscale{0.8}
1006: \plotone{f6.eps}
1007: \figcaption{The [Ca II/Fe I] computed from this analysis is shown
1008: for the Leo II stars (red filled squares) and the globular clusters (blue open triangles).
1009: The thick lines are the best fit lines to the data. The two star with large circles
1010: are stars 166 and 195. Please see the Section 3 and Figure 7 for a full discussion
1011: of the errors and zero points associated with the Ca abundances shown in this figure.
1012: \label{fig6}}
1013:
1014: \clearpage
1015: \epsscale{0.8}
1016: \plotone{f7.eps}
1017: \figcaption{The [Ca/H] computed from this analysis are compared against the CaT
1018: [Ca/H] metallicities
1019: for the Leo II stars (red filled squares) and the globular clusters
1020: (blue open triangles) from BSS07.
1021: The thick lines are the best fit lines to the data. The two star with large
1022: circles are stars 166 and 195.
1023: \label{fig7}}
1024:
1025: \clearpage
1026: \epsscale{0.8}
1027: \plotone{f8.eps}
1028: \figcaption{The average $\alpha$-abundance for the globular cluster (open blue triangles)
1029: and Leo II samples (red filled squares) are shown from the unweighted Ca, Mg and Ti abundance
1030: ratios. The thick lines are the best fit fits to the data.
1031: The two star with large circles are stars 166 and 195 and are not included in the best fit.
1032: \label{fig8}}
1033:
1034: \clearpage
1035: \epsscale{0.8}
1036: \plotone{f9.eps}
1037: \figcaption{Calculation of approximate Leo II RGB star ages. The panels are broken
1038: down by metallicity and passband. The isochrones correspond, from bluest to reddest, to
1039: age of 3, 6, 9, 12 and 15 Gyr. Note the two outlying stars in the bottom panels
1040: which are likely AGB stars. These are different stars from the two outliers highlighted
1041: in figures 3-8, which have been excluded {\it a priori}.
1042: \label{fig9}}
1043:
1044: \clearpage
1045: \epsscale{0.8}
1046: \plotone{f10.eps}
1047: \figcaption{The age distribution and age-metallicity relationship for the
1048: RGB stars of Leo II. The top panels show a histogram of the inferred ages while
1049: the lower panels show the AMR. The left panels shows the raw distributions while
1050: the right panels are corrected for
1051: overionization of the Fe\,I lines. The circled points are the outlier stars, which
1052: are different stars than the two outliers rejected in figures 3-8.
1053: \label{fig10}}
1054:
1055: \end{document}
1056:
1057:
1058: