1: %\documentclass[preprint]{aastex}

2: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex} %a one-column, single-spaced document

3: %\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex} %a one-column, double-spaced document

4: %\documentclass[preprint2]{aastex} %a double-column, single-spaced document:

5: \documentclass{emulateapj}

6: 

7: %\slugcomment{Accepted for publication in the Astrophysical Journal} 

8: 

9: %\shorttitle{Nucleosynthesis in the Collapse of an O-Ne-Mg Core}

10: \shorttitle{Nucleosynthesis in Electron Capture Supernovae}

11: 

12: \shortauthors{Wanajo et al.}

13: 

14: \begin{document}

15: 

16: %\title{Nucleosynthesis in the Supernova Explosion from the Collapse

17: %of an O-N\lowercase{e}-M\lowercase{g} Core}

18: 

19: \title{Nucleosynthesis in Electron Capture Supernovae of AGB Stars}

20: 

21: %\author{Shinya Wanajo\altaffilmark{1},

22: %        Ken'ichi Nomoto\altaffilmark{1, 2},

23: %        Hans-Thomas Janka\altaffilmark{3},

24: %        Francisco-Shu Kitaura\altaffilmark{3},

25: %        and Bernhard M\"uller\altaffilmark{3}}

26: \author{S. Wanajo\altaffilmark{1, 2},

27:         K. Nomoto\altaffilmark{1, 2},

28:         H. -T. Janka\altaffilmark{3},

29:         F. S. Kitaura\altaffilmark{3},

30:         and B. M\"uller\altaffilmark{3}}

31: 

32: \altaffiltext{1}{Institute for the Physics and Mathematics of the Universe, 

33:        University of Tokyo, Kashiwa, Chiba 277-8582, Japan}

34: 

35: \altaffiltext{2}{Department of Astronomy, School of Science,

36:         University of Tokyo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8654, Japan;

37:         wanajo@astron.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp, nomoto@astron.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp}

38: 

39: \altaffiltext{3}{Max-Planck-Institut f\"ur Astrophysik,

40:         Karl-Schwarzschild-Str. 1, D-85748 Garching, Germany;

41:         thj@mpa-garching.mpg.de, kitaura@mpa-garching.mpg.de}

42: 

43: \begin{abstract}

44: We examine nucleosynthesis in the electron capture supernovae of

45: progenitor AGB stars with an O-Ne-Mg core (with the initial stellar

46: mass of $8.8\, M_\odot$). Thermodynamic trajectories for the first

47: 810~ms after core bounce are taken from a recent state-of-the-art

48: hydrodynamic simulation. The presented nucleosynthesis results are

49: characterized by a number of distinct features that are not shared

50: with those of other supernovae from the collapse of stars with iron

51: core (with initial stellar masses of more than $10\, M_\odot$). First

52: is the small amount of $^{56}$Ni ($= 0.002-0.004\, M_\odot$) in the

53: ejecta, which can be an explanation for observed properties of faint

54: supernovae such as SNe~2008S and 1997D. In addition, the large Ni/Fe

55: ratio is in reasonable agreement with the spectroscopic result of the

56: Crab nebula (the relic of SN~1054). Second is the large production of

57: $^{64}$Zn, $^{70}$Ge, light $p$-nuclei ($^{74}$Se, $^{78}$Kr,

58: $^{84}$Sr, and $^{92}$Mo), and in particular, $^{90}$Zr, which

59: originates from the low $Y_e$ ($= 0.46-0.49$, the number of electrons

60: per nucleon) ejecta. We find, however, that only a $1-2\%$ increase of

61: the minimum $Y_e$ moderates the overproduction of $^{90}$Zr. In

62: contrast, the production of $^{64}$Zn is fairly robust against a small

63: variation of $Y_e$. This provides the upper limit of the occurrence of

64: this type of events to be about $30\%$ of all core-collapse

65: supernovae. 

66: %We conclude with a discussion of how multi-dimensional

67: %effects will affect our results that are based on the one-dimensional

68: %supernova models.

69: \end{abstract}

70: 

71: \keywords{

72: nuclear reactions, nucleosynthesis, abundances

73: --- stars: abundances

74: --- supernovae: general

75: --- supernovae: individual (SN~1054, SN~1997D, SN~2008S)

76: --- nebulae: Crab Nebula

77: }

78: 

79: \section{Introduction}

80: 

81: Massive stars end their lives with core-collapse supernovae

82: (SNe~II/Ibc), which are the predominant sources of having enriched

83: galaxies with the elements heavier than helium. The other type,

84: thermonuclear supernovae (SNe~Ia), also contributes to the enrichment

85: of iron-peak elements, which is, however, absent in the early

86: universe. The metals produced by core-collapse supernovae serve as

87: diagnostic tools to uncover the chemical-enrichment history of the

88: Galaxy from its poorly understood early stage to the present day. A

89: reliable prediction of supernova yields has been, however, hampered by

90: the yet unknown mechanism that causes the explosion. Previous studies

91: of supernova nucleosynthesis have relied upon a number of model

92: parameters such as the explosion energy, the position that divides the

93: ejecta and the remnant (mass cut), and the electron fraction ($Y_e$,

94: the number of electrons per nucleon). The production of each element

95: in a supernova, in particular of those synthesized in the innermost

96: ejecta, is severely affected by the choice of these parameters

97: \citep[see, e.g.,][]{Tomi07, Hege08}. It is obvious that 

98: nucleosynthesis studies with self-consistently exploding models are

99: eventually needed to obtain reliable supernova yields.

100: 

101: Recent one-dimensional simulations including accurate neutrino

102: transport seem to exclude the possibility of neutrino-driven

103: explosions without the help of multi-dimensional effects

104: \citep{Ramp00, Mezz01, Lieb01, Thom03, Sumi05, Bura06}, at least for

105: standard nuclear and neutrino physics input. An exception are the

106: explosions of $8-10\, M_\odot$ stars. A star in this mass range forms

107: an electron-degenerate core consisting of oxygen, neon, and magnesium

108: (O-Ne-Mg) during the final stage of its evolution (instead of an iron

109: core in the case of more massive stars), and becomes a super

110: asymptotic giant branch (AGB) star. Such a star ends its life either

111: as an O-Ne-Mg white dwarf or a core-collapse supernova leaving behind

112: a neutron star. For the latter, the collapse is induced by electron

113: capture (what is called an ``electron capture supernova'') when the

114: core mass grows to $1.38\, M_\odot$ and the central density reaches

115: $4\times 10^9$~g~cm$^{-3}$. However, the uncertainties in mixing and

116: mass loss during the evolution make it difficult to draw a clear line

117: between these two channels \citep{Nomo84, Nomo87}. Recent studies

118: report that only the range close to the upper end \citep[a mass range

119: of $\lesssim 1\, M_\odot$ or $\sim 4\%$ of all

120: supernovae,][]{Sies07,Poel08} leads to the explosion channel, although

121: the range could be wider for lower metallicity stars.

122: 

123: The structure of the O-Ne-Mg core is distinctively different from the

124: iron cores of more massive stars by the fact that it has a steep

125: density gradient in the outermost layers, surrounded by an extremely

126: extended, loosely bound H/He envelope.  Recently, \citet{Kita06} have

127: obtained self-consistent explosions from the collapse of the O-Ne-Mg

128: core in a stellar progenitor with an initial mass of $8.8\, M_\odot$

129: developed by \citet{Nomo84}. Their one-dimensional simulations with a

130: state-of-the-art, energy-dependent treatment of the neutrino transport

131: are in fact the only recent models in the literature with successful

132: supernova explosions in spherical symmetry for standard nuclear and

133: weak interaction physics \citep[see also][for a similar

134: result]{Burr07}. The explosions are initiated by the rapid outward

135: acceleration of the supernova shock when it encounters the steep

136: density gradient and fast decline of the mass accretion rate at the

137: edge of the O-Ne-Mg core. They are powered by the neutrino-heating

138: mechanism, which yields a low explosion energy of $\sim$1--$2\times

139: 10^{50}$~erg \citep[for a detailed discussion, see][]{Jank08a}. The

140: new calculations are a revision of previous hydrodynamic results for

141: the same O-Ne-Mg core, namely, of prompt explosions \citep{Hill84,

142: Wana03}, powerful neutrino-driven explosions \citep[$0.6-1.2\times

143: 10^{51}$~erg,][]{Mayl88}, and no explosions \citep{Burr85, Baro87}.

144: 

145: The purpose of this paper is to present nucleosynthesis results for

146: the first 810~ms of the neutrino-driven explosion of a collapsing

147: O-Ne-Mg core (electron capture supernova), using the thermodynamic

148: trajectories obtained by \citet{Kita06}. Employing a self-consistently

149: calculated explosion model with sophisticated neutrino transport is of

150: particular importance not only for the nucleosynthesis study itself,

151: but also for a couple of other aspects.  On the one hand, the mass

152: range of 8--$10\, M_\odot$ accounts for about 30\% of all the

153: core-collapse supernova events, if all the range leads to the

154: explosion channel. The electron capture supernovae can thus be

155: potentially significant contributors to the Galactic chemical

156: evolution of some species. On the other hand, explosions from these

157: progenitors have been proposed as a possible explanation for the

158: inferred low explosion energy of SN~1054 \citep[Crab

159: supernova,][]{Nomo82, Davi82} \citep[see also][for the $10\, M_\odot$

160: progenitor with an iron core]{Hill82} as well as for the small

161: $^{56}$Ni amount estimated for some low-luminosity supernovae

162: \citep[e.g., SN~1997D,][]{Tura98, Chug00, Bene01, Hend05}. A newly

163: identified class of luminous transients like SN~2008S, whose

164: progenitors were deeply dust-enshrouded massive stars, is also

165: suggested to be electron capture supernovae \citep{Prie08,Thom08}

166: \citep[see also][]{Past07}.

167: 

168: Recently, \citet{Hoff08} have investigated the nucleosynthesis in

169: electron capture supernovae, using an explosion calculation of

170: \citet{Jank08a} that is very similar to the explosion models of

171: \citet{Kita06} \citep[but was computed with slightly different input

172: physics, see ][]{Jank08a}. Their study was aimed at determining

173: whether the conditions are suitable for an $r$-process. They found no

174: $r$-process formation and a severe overproduction of $^{90}$Zr, which

175: is also seen in our results. In our work, however, we perform

176: nucleosynthesis calculations in much more detail, taking into account

177: a number of possible uncertainties. In the following section (\S~2)

178: the explosion models of \citet{Kita06} and the methods for the

179: nucleosynthesis calculations will be described. The nucleosynthesis

180: results for the original model and for various modifications of it

181: will be presented in \S~3. We will discuss the question whether

182: electron capture supernovae can be significant contributors to

183: Galactic chemical evolution in \S~4 and will address the possibility

184: that they are the origin of some low-energy supernovae in \S~5.

185: Finally, our summary and conclusions will follow in \S~6.

186: 

187: 

188: \section{Explosion Model and Reaction Network}

189: 

190: \citet{Kita06} have simulated the collapse of the O-Ne-Mg core

191: \citep[with the mass of $1.38\, M_\odot$,][]{Nomo84} \citep[see

192: also][]{Miya80}, employing two different (``soft'' and ``stiff'')

193: nuclear equations of state (EoSs). In this study, we adopt the result

194: with the softer EoS \citep[][LS]{Latt91} as the ``standard'' model

195: (labelled ST), which is qualitatively similar to that with the stiffer

196: one \citep[WH; Wolff \& Hillebrandt EoS in][]{Hill84}. The model with

197: the WH EoS is used later for the purpose of comparison (\S~3.2).

198: Figure~1 shows the evolution of the radius, density, temperature, and

199: $Y_e$ for selected mass elements in model ST as a function of

200: post-bounce time $t_\mathrm{pb}$. The ejecta in model ST are split

201: into 29 mass shells with the first ejected zone having a mass of about

202: $4\times 10^{-4}\, M_\odot$ and each of the other ones of about

203: $5\times 10^{-4}\, M_\odot$ ($1.39\times 10^{-2}\,M_\odot$ in total).

204: 

205: \begin{figure}

206: \epsscale{1.0}

207: \plotone{f1.eps}

208: %\plotone{tjver.ps}

209: \caption{Radius (\textit{a}), density (\textit{b}), temperature

210: (\textit{c}), and $Y_e$ (\textit{d}) as a function of post-bounce time

211: for material ejected from the collapsing O-Ne-Mg core in model ST. The

212: trajectories are colored in green, blue, and red for $Y_e < 0.470$,

213: $0.470 < Y_e < 0.500$, and $Y_e > 0.500$ (values at the end of

214: simulation), respectively.}

215: \end{figure}

216: 

217: The nucleosynthesis yields in each mass shell are obtained in a

218: post-processing step by solving an extensive nuclear reaction

219: network code. The network consists of 6300 species between the proton-

220: and neutron-drip lines predicted by the recent fully microscopic mass

221: formula \citep[HFB-9,][]{Gori05}, all the way from single neutrons and

222: protons up to the $Z = 110$ isotopes. All relevant reactions,

223: i.e. $(n, \gamma)$, $(p,\gamma)$, $(\alpha, \gamma)$, $(p, n)$,

224: $(\alpha, n)$, $(\alpha, p)$, and their inverses are included. The

225: experimental data, whenever available, and the theoretical predictions

226: for light nuclei ($Z < 10$) are taken from the

227: REACLIB\footnote{http://nucastro.org/reaclib.html.} compilation. All

228: the other reaction rates are taken from the Hauser-Feshbach rates of

229: BRUSLIB\footnote{http://www.astro.ulb.ac.be/Html/bruslib.html.}

230: \citep{Aika05} making use of experimental masses \citep{Audi03}

231: whenever available or the HFB-9 mass predictions \citep{Gori05}

232: otherwise. The photodisintegration rates are deduced from the reverse

233: rates applying the reciprocity theorem with the nuclear masses

234: considered. The weak and intermediate screening corrections to charged

235: particle reactions are adopted from \citet{Grab73}.

236: 

237: The $\beta$-decay rates are taken from the gross theory predictions

238: \citep[GT2,][]{Tach90} obtained with the HFB-9 predictions

239: (T. Tachibana 2005, private communication). Electron capture reactions

240: on free nucleons and on heavy nuclei \citep{Full82, Lang01} as well as

241: rates for neutrino capture on free nucleons and $^4$He and for

242: neutrino spallation of free nucleons from $^4$He \citep{Woos90,

243: McLa96} are also included. In contrast, neutrino-induced reactions of

244: heavy nuclei are not taken into account in this study, but they are

245: expected to make only minor effects \citep{Meye98b}. Figure~2 shows the

246: luminosities and mean energies for neutrinos of all types as functions

247: of the post-bounce time $t_\mathrm{pb}$ in model ST; these results are

248: taken from \citet{Kita06} and used for calculating the rates of

249: neutrino-induced reactions. More preciously, we should apply those

250: quantities in the co-moving frame of the fluid with corrections for

251: the gravitational redshift and for Doppler shifting due to fluid

252: motion.  We neglect such effects, which are important on the one hand

253: only when the fluid is relatively close to the neutrino sphere ($<

254: \textrm{several}\, 10$~km), where the temperature is still higher than

255: $T_9 = 9$ (see below). On the other hand, at large distances, where

256: the expansion velocities of the gas are larger, neutrino interactions

257: become essentially irrelevant.

258: 

259: \begin{figure}

260: \epsscale{1.0}

261: \plotone{f2.eps}

262: %\plotone{nuel.ps}

263: \caption{Neutrino luminosities (\textit{top}) and mean neutrino energies

264: (\textit{bottom}) as functions of post-bounce time for electron

265: (\textit{dotted line}), anti-electron (\textit{solid line}), and 

266: heavy-lepton (\textit{dashed line}) neutrinos. The data are given

267: for an observer at rest at 400~km from the center.}

268: \end{figure}

269: 

270: Each nucleosynthesis calculation is initiated when the temperature

271: decreases to $T_9 = 9$ (where $T_9 \equiv T/10^9\, \mathrm{K}$). In

272: the first ejected trajectory, the highest temperature is $T_9 \approx

273: 7$ (Fig.~1), which is taken to be the initial condition for this case

274: only. At such high temperatures, the composition is in the nuclear

275: statistical equilibrium (mostly free nucleons and few

276: $\alpha$ particles), which is realized 

277: immediately after the calculation starts. The

278: initial compositions is then given by $X_n = 1 - Y_{e,\mathrm{i}}$ and $X_p =

279: Y_{e,\mathrm{i}}$, respectively, where $X_n$ and $X_p$ are the mass fractions

280: of free neutrons and protons, and $Y_{e,\mathrm{i}}$ is the initial electron

281: fraction at $T_9 = 9$ (Fig.~3, \textit{black line} for model ST).

282: 

283: \begin{figure}

284: \epsscale{1.0}

285: \plotone{f3.eps}

286: %\plotone{yecomp.ps}

287: \caption{Initial electron fraction $Y_{e,\mathrm{i}}$ for material

288: ejected from the core as a function of the enclosed mass,

289: $M_r$. Different colors correspond to models ST, FP3, FM3, MX, and WH

290: as denoted in the panel (see text).}

291: \end{figure}

292: 

293: %\begin{figure}

294: %\epsscale{1.0}

295: %\plotone{histogramm_alle_ls_modelle.ps}

296: %\caption{}

297: %\end{figure}

298: 

299: \section{Nucleosynthesis Results}

300: 

301: In subsection 3.1, we will present the nucleosynthesis results for 

302: the unmodified model (ST) of \citet{Kita06}, and the corresponding

303: information for variations of model ST will then be discussed

304: in the following subsections. In each model, the

305: nucleosynthetic yields for all the trajectories are mass-integrated

306: over the ejecta-mass range.

307: 

308: \subsection{Unmodified Model}

309: 

310: The nucleosynthesis results of the unmodified model (ST) are shown in

311: Figures~4 (isotopes) and 5 (elements). Both plots present the

312: overproduction factors defined by the mass fractions in the ejecta

313: with respect to their solar values \citep{Lodd03}. The even-$Z$ and

314: odd-$Z$ species are denoted by circles and triangles, respectively. In

315: Figure~4, the isotopes for a given element are connected by lines, and

316: the abundances smaller than $X/X_\odot < 40$ are omitted. The dotted

317: horizontal lines indicate a ``normalization band'' between the largest

318: production factor ($^{90}$Zr and Zr in Figs.~4 and 5, respectively)

319: and a factor of ten smaller than that, along with the median value

320: (\textit{dashed line}). This band is taken to be representative of the

321: uncertainty in the nuclear data involved. In the following, we

322: consider that electron capture supernovae can be contributors to the

323: solar (or Galactic) inventories of the species located within the

324: normalization band.

325: 

326: \begin{figure}

327: \epsscale{1.0}

328: \plotone{f4.eps}

329: %\plotone{oproa.ps}

330: \caption{Mass fractions of isotopes (after decay) in the ejecta of

331: model ST relative to their solar values \citep{Lodd03} as

332: functions of mass number. The abundances smaller than $X/X_\odot < 40$

333: are omitted. The even-$Z$ and odd-$Z$ isotopes are denoted by open

334: circles and triangles, respectively. The $p$-nuclei are represented

335: with filled symbols. The solid lines connect isotopes of a given

336: element. The dotted horizontal lines indicate a ``normalization band''

337: between the largest production factor and a factor of ten smaller than

338: that, along with the median value (\textit{dashed line}).}

339: \end{figure}

340: 

341: \begin{figure}

342: \epsscale{1.0}

343: \plotone{f5.eps}

344: %\plotone{oproz.ps}

345: \caption{Mass fractions of elements (after decay) in the ejecta of

346: model ST relative to their solar values \citep{Lodd03} as a

347: function of atomic number. The even-$Z$ and odd-$Z$ elements are

348: denoted by open circles and triangles, respectively.}

349: \end{figure}

350: 

351: Figure~4 indicates that, along with the marginal ones, model ST can

352: account for the production of $^{64, 66}$Zn, $^{70}$Ge, $^{74, 76}$Se,

353: $^{78, 80}$Kr, $^{84}$Sr, $^{90}$Zr, and $^{92}$Mo, where all the

354: light $p$-nuclei (\textit{filled circles}) up to $A=92$ are

355: included. However, only a few elements (Zn, Ge, Y, and Zr) fall into

356: the normalization band (Fig.~5), since the $p$-nuclei comprise only

357: small fractions of a given element (0.89\%, 0.35\%, 0.56\%, and 14.8\%

358: for $^{74}$Se, $^{78}$Kr, $^{84}$Sr, and $^{92}$Mo, respectively). Our

359: result for model ST is in reasonable agreement with that in

360: \citet[][Fig.~1]{Hoff08}\footnote{The total ejecta mass including the

361: outer H/He envelope is taken to be $1.263\, M_\odot$ in

362: \citet{Hoff08}, while we consider only the calculated zones with

363: $1.39\times 10^{-2}\, M_\odot$. This leads to the hundred times larger

364: values of $X/X_\odot$ in this paper.}, and some differences are due to

365: the slightly higher minimum $Y_e$ in our model (\S~3.5).

366: 

367: Figure~6 shows the mass fractions of some important isotopes (after

368: decay) for model ST (\textit{top}) and these mass fractions relative

369: to their solar values (\textit{bottom}) as functions of the enclosed

370: mass $M_r$. In each mass shell, the dominant heavy isotope is either

371: $^{56}$Fe (produced in the form of $^{56}$Ni) or $^{58,60}$Ni,

372: depending on $Y_{e,\mathrm{i}}$. 

373: %In the bulk of the ejecta, the

374: %entropy is high enough (Fig.~9, up to $30\,k_\mathrm{B}$ per nucleon,

375: %where $k_\mathrm{B}$ is the Boltzmann constant) to allow for an

376: %$\alpha$-rich freezeout. 

377: %In the neutron-rich ejecta, therefore, the

378: %nuclear products in the quasi-statistical-equilibrium (QSE) cluster at

379: %$A\sim 60$ are carried away by the $\alpha$-process and form another

380: %QSE cluster with the peak at $^{90}$Zr ($N = 50$). 

381: In the neutron-rich ejecta, the nuclear products in the single

382: quasi-statistical-equilibrium (QSE) cluster have peaks at $A\sim 60$

383: and $A\sim 90$ because of the strong binding at $N = 28$ and 50

384: \citep{Meye98a}.  The abundance of $^{90}$Zr is maximal in the mass

385: shell with the lowest $Y_{e,\mathrm{i}} = 0.464$. In addition, the

386: matter with $Y_{e,\mathrm{i}} = 0.46-0.49$ is so \textit{proton-rich}

387: (compared to the average of the stable isotopes in the vicinity, e.g.,

388: the proton fraction of $^{90}$Zr is 0.44) that the successive proton

389: captures lead to the production of light $p$-nuclei up to $A =

390: 92$. This can also be seen in the early neutrino-driven winds

391: \citep{Hoff96, Wana06}.

392: 

393: \begin{figure}

394: \epsscale{1.0}

395: \plotone{f6.eps}

396: %\plotone{yoprom.ps}

397: \caption{Mass fractions of several important isotopes (after decay) in

398: the ejecta of model ST (\textit{top}), and these mass fractions relative

399: to their solar values (\textit{bottom}) as functions of the enclosed mass

400: $M_r$. The vertical dotted lines indicate the mass coordinates where the

401: initial $Y_{e,\mathrm{i}}$ is 0.470, 0.480, and 0.490 (see Fig.~3).}

402: \end{figure}

403: 

404: It should be noted that such a nucleosynthesis result that stems from

405: the low-$Y_e$ ($\sim 0.47-0.49$) matter in the early ejecta may be a

406: unique characteristics of collapsing O-Ne-Mg cores. In the present

407: model, the explosion sets in immediately after core bounce and the

408: ejecta rapidly expand, where the ejection of low $Y_e$ matter seems

409: unavoidable (see Fig.~1). For more massive progenitors ($> 10\,

410: M_\odot$), the explosion is expected to be more delayed and to eject

411: neutrino-processed matter, where the bulk of the ejecta may have $Y_e

412: \gtrsim 0.5$ \citep{Froh06, Bura06}.

413: 

414: As will be discussed in \S~4, the maximum overproduction factor of

415: $X/X_\odot = 5.7\times 10^5$ for model ST (Fig.~4) poses a severe

416: constraint on the occurrence of this type of events to be no more than

417: $1\%$ of all core-collapse supernovae. This is in agreement with the

418: conclusions by \citet{Hoff08}. In the simulation of \citet{Kita06}

419: \citep[also][]{Jank08a}, the deceleration of the shock in the outer

420: envelope slows the expansion of the ejecta only slightly. Therefore we

421: do not expect any substantial fallback of the once ejected matter

422: onto the remnant, as it is presumed to take place in the case of more 

423: massive progenitors \citep[e.g.,][]{Umed02}. In the following subsections

424: we thus explore possible modifications to model ST, which instead of 

425: fallback might provide a solution for moderating the extremely large

426: overproduction of, in particular, $^{90}$Zr.

427: 

428: 

429: \subsection{Uncertainty in the Equation of States}

430: 

431: First, we examine nucleosynthesis in the explosion model calculated

432: with the WH EoS in \citet{Kita06}. This model (hereafter WH) has

433: thermodynamic trajectories very similar to those of model ST, but a

434: slightly larger ejecta mass ($1.64\times 10^{-2}\, M_\odot$) and a

435: slightly lower minimal $Y_{e,\mathrm{i}}$ ($= 0.462$). Another EoS by

436: \citet{Shen98}, which is also currently available for core-collapse

437: simulations, falls between the ST and WH EoSs in terms of its

438: \textit{stiffness} and a variety of results of core-collapse

439: simulations, e.g.\ the radii of shock formation and stagnation or the

440: size of the neutrino luminosities \citep[see][]{Jank08b}.  Therefore,

441: we suspect that a comparison of the nucleosynthesis results between

442: models ST and WH well brackets the uncertainties arising from

443: different EoSs.

444: 

445: All nucleosynthesis calculations are repeated with the thermodynamic

446: trajectories and the initial compositions deduced from the

447: $Y_{e,\mathrm{i}}$-mass profile (Fig.~3) of model WH. Figure~7a shows

448: the mass fractions (\textit{bottom}) in the ejecta for models ST and

449: WH, along with their ratios $X_\mathrm{WH}/X_\mathrm{ST}$

450: (\textit{top}), as functions of the mass number $A$. Differences

451: exceeding a factor of 2 (indicated by \textit{dotted lines}) can be

452: seen for the light species with $A < 20$. However, the differences are

453: well below a factor of 2 for the dominant species in the vicinity of

454: the QSE peaks at $A\approx 4, 60$, and 90. We therefore conclude that

455: the uncertainties arising from different nuclear EoSs are not of great

456: importance, at least for the currently available versions of EoSs. We

457: note, however, that the WH EoS leads to a $60\%$ larger $^{56}$Ni mass

458: than that for the LS EoS (Table~1). This suggests that EoSs play a

459: crucial role to precisely determine the $^{56}$Ni ejecta mass from an

460: electron capture supernova.

461: 

462: \begin{figure}

463: \epsscale{1.0}

464: \plotone{f7.eps}

465: %\plotone{compe.ps}

466: \caption{Mass fractions (\textit{bottom} of each panel) in the ejecta

467: for models ST (\textit{blue}) and (\textit{a}) WH, (\textit{b}) RT,

468: (\textit{c}) no$\nu$ (\textit{red}; see the text), and their ratios

469: (\textit{top} of each panel), as functions of the mass number. In the

470: top panels, a factor of 2 difference is indicated by dotted lines.}

471: \end{figure}

472: 

473: \subsection{Uncertainty in the Nuclear Reaction Rates}

474: 

475: In all the present calculations, the nucleosynthetic flows proceed

476: along or in the vicinity of the $\beta$-stability line, forming the

477: QSE peaks at $A \approx 4$, 60, and 90. The nuclear masses of

478: relevance, which are the most important factors in this case, are

479: measured with high enough accuracy \citep{Audi03}. Therefore, we do

480: not expect a sizable change of the nucleosynthesis result arising from

481: the uncertainties in nuclear reaction rates.

482: 

483: As a test, we repeat all the nucleosynthesis calculations of model ST

484: with the theoretical rates \citep{Aika05} replaced by those of

485: \citet{Raus00}. Both data sets are based on the statistical

486: (Hauser-Feshbach) approach with the experimental masses whenever

487: available, but with different theoretical masses and different nuclear

488: level densities. The results (labelled by RT) are compared to those of

489: model ST in Figure~7b. Factors of $2-3$ difference can be seen for

490: the nuclei between $A = 27$ and 45 (Fig.~8, \textit{top}), which have,

491: however, very small mass fractions (\textit{bottom}). The differences

492: for dominant species around $A \approx 4$, 60, and 90 are well below a

493: factor of 2.

494: 

495: %\begin{figure}

496: %\epsscale{1.0}

497: %\plotone{f8.eps}

498: %\plotone{compr.ps}

499: %\caption{Same as Figure~7, but for models ST and RT.}

500: %\end{figure}

501: 

502: \subsection{Effects of Convection}

503: 

504: A potentially important effect that is lacking in the one-dimensional

505: simulations of \citet{Kita06} is convective mixing of the ejecta

506: \citep[see the results of a two-dimensional simulation of a collapsing

507: O-Ne-Mg core in][]{Jank08b}. Figure~8 shows the profiles of

508: temperature (\textit{top}), entropy (\textit{middle}), and $Y_e$

509: (\textit{bottom}) versus mass at early times ($t_\mathrm{pb} = 126,

510: 150, 176, 200$, and 228~ms) and at the end of the simulation

511: ($t_\mathrm{pb} = 810$~ms). We find a negative entropy gradient

512: forming at a temperature high enough for $\alpha$-processing ($T_9 >

513: 3$, which is indicated by the dashed line in the top panel of

514: Fig.~9). This can cause convective overturn and one might speculate

515: that this could moderate the neutron-richness to some extent

516: \textit{before} the freezeout.

517: 

518: As a limiting case, we present the result with the initial composition

519: being determined by the $Y_{e,\mathrm{i}}$-mass profile shown by the

520: green line in Figure~3 (hereafter, model MX). We assume here that

521: the ejecta between 1.367 and $1.375\, M_\odot$ (indicated by vertical

522: dotted lines in Fig.~9) get completely mixed on microscopic scales

523: to have a mass-averaged constant

524: $Y_{e,\mathrm{i}}$ ($= 0.480$). We find that the species having the

525: largest overproduction, i.e., $^{90}$Zr in model ST, is replaced by

526: $^{64}$Zn with ten times smaller value in model MX (Fig.~9). The

527: largest overproduction of Zr (as element) is replaced by that of Zn

528: (Fig.~10). Because of the increased minimum value of 

529: $Y_{e,\mathrm{i}}$ ($Y_{e,\mathrm{min}} = 0.480$) the

530: overproduction of $^{90}$Zr becomes unimportant.

531: 

532: It should be noted, however, that a corresponding two-dimensional 

533: simulation (carried out until 262~ms after core bounce; 

534: see \citet{Jank08b} and M\"uller and Janka 2008, in preparation) 

535: with the same initial O-Ne-Mg core does not show any such small-scale

536: mixing. Instead, the accreted post-shock gas makes one quick overturn

537: (fully developed convection with many overturns does not occur), 

538: after which the rising material in

539: Rayleigh-Taylor mushrooms is directly ejected and self-similar 

540: expansion is quickly established. Hence, there may not be

541: sufficient time for mixing and homogenization on small scales. 

542: As will be discussed in \S~3.5, however, a slight increase of

543: $Y_{e,\mathrm{min}}$ (e.g., $\Delta Y_{e,\mathrm{i}} = 0.004$; 

544: from 0.464 to 0.468) is already enough to significantly moderate

545: the overproduction of $^{90}$Zr. Therefore, partial mixing of

546: the ejecta induced by convection might be sufficient to cure this

547: overproduction problem.

548: 

549: The negative entropy gradient may have a variety of other effects. One

550: is that the convective overturn could stretch the mean duration of the

551: neutrino irradiation of ejected matter

552: and could also lead to regions of ejecta with higher 

553: $Y_{e,\mathrm{i}}$. In fact, a recent

554: two-dimensional simulation with a more massive progenitor \citep[$15\,

555: M_\odot$,][]{Bura06} shows that the bulk of the ejecta turns out to be

556: proton-rich ($Y_e > 0.5$). In the present case, however, the

557: convective overturn may not have exactly the same effects as in 

558: more massive progenitors, because the steep density gradient of

559: the O-Ne-Mg core with its transition to an extremely dilute 

560: H-rich envelope makes the core structure distinctively different 

561: from that of more massive stars. As a consequence, the supernova

562: ejecta accelerate much faster than in more massive stars, and the 

563: convective pattern in the overturn region freezes out in the 

564: self-similar expansion more quickly. Therefore convective mixing

565: is rather inefficient and, moreover, it is possible that 

566: the neutrino-heated bubbles rise so rapidly away from the

567: neutrino-sphere that clumps of low-$Y_e$ material get ejected, a 

568: possibility that may be anticipated from the bottom panel of

569: Figure~8 (e.g., the red and green lines there). This might increase the

570: overproduction of other $N=50$ species ($^{86}$Kr, $^{87}$Rb,

571: $^{88}$Sr, $^{89}$Y). In fact, some neutron-rich blobs (down to $Y_e

572: \approx 0.41$, but with a tiny mass) are found in the preliminary

573: results of the mentioned two-dimensional simulation \citep[M\"uller

574: and Janka 2008, in preparation, see also][]{Jank08b}.

575: 

576: It should be noted that even two-dimensional models with their

577: constraint of axisymmetry may not yield

578: a sufficiently accurate mass distribution of the ejecta as a function

579: of $Y_e$. Such a sensitive information might ultimately require 

580: three-dimensional simulations to allow for reliable conclusions 

581: concerning nucleosynthesis yields and production factors.

582: 

583: \begin{figure}

584: \epsscale{1.0}

585: \plotone{f8.eps}

586: %\plotone{eprof.ps}

587: \caption{Profiles of temperature (\textit{upper}), entropy

588: (\textit{middle}), and $Y_e$ (\textit{bottom}) versus enclosed mass

589: $M_r$ at early times ($t_\mathrm{pb} = 100-230$~ms) and at the end of

590: simulation ($t_\mathrm{pb} = 810$~ms). See the text for the meaning of 

591: the vertical dotted lines and the horizontal dashed line.}

592: \end{figure}

593: 

594: \begin{figure}

595: \epsscale{1.0}

596: \plotone{f9.eps}

597: %\plotone{oproa1.ps}

598: \caption{Same as Figure~4, but for model MX.}

599: \end{figure}

600: 

601: \begin{figure}

602: \epsscale{1.0}

603: \plotone{f10.eps}

604: %\plotone{oproz1.ps}

605: \caption{Same as Figure~5, but for model MX.}

606: \end{figure}

607: 

608: \subsection{Small $Y_e$ Variation}

609: 

610:  From Figure~6 we conclude that the large overproduction of $^{90}$Zr

611: in model ST is mainly due to the neutron-rich ejecta with

612: $Y_{e,\mathrm{i}}$ between $Y_{e,\mathrm{min}} = 0.464$ and 0.470. The

613: demonstration in \S~3.4 (Fig.~9) shows that boosting

614: $Y_{e,\mathrm{min}}$ to 0.480 indeed removes the overproduction of

615: $^{90}$Zr. Motivated by this result, we explore in this subsection

616: that how much increase of $Y_{e,\mathrm{min}}$ could cure this extreme

617: overproduction problem.  We repeat that the $Y_{e,\mathrm{i}}$ values

618: are obtained from state-of-the-art simulations with sophisticated,

619: energy-dependent neutrino transport in \citet{Kita06}.  Nevertheless

620: it is a great challenge to determine $Y_e$ to an accuracy of a few

621: percent, because the neutron-to-proton ratio in the ejecta is

622: established by a delicate competition of electron neutrino and

623: antineutrino captures and their inverse reactions, in particular

624: around the radius where the kinetic equilibrium of these processes

625: breaks down because the rates become slower than the expansion rate of

626: the accelerating ejecta \citep[for a detailed discussion,

627: see][]{Froh06}. Besides the limited numerical resolution (in

628: particular of the neutrino energy spectra) a variety of other effects

629: can be imagined to imply uncertainties at the percent level, for

630: example the potential effects of convective mixing on microscopic

631: scales (\S~3.4), future refinements in the employed microphysics

632: (e.g., EoSs, neutrino interaction rates, electron captures rates),

633: possible effects due to nonstandard neutrino properties (e.g., flavor

634: oscillations in the supernova core), and the uncertainties associated

635: with the stellar evolution calculations of $8-10\, M_\odot$ stars.

636: 

637: In order to test small variations of $Y_{e,\mathrm{min}}$, we examine

638: nucleosynthesis for the trajectories of model ST but with the original

639: $Y_{e,\mathrm{i}}$ profile replaced by $Y_{e,\mathrm{i}} +

640: (0.500-Y_{e,\mathrm{i}}) \times f$. The multiplicative factor $f$ is

641: taken to be 0.1, 0.2, and 0.3 (hereafter, models FP1, FP2, and

642: FP3). The $Y_{e,\mathrm{i}}$-$M_r$ profiles of these models are similar,

643: but each model has a different $Y_{e,\mathrm{min}}$

644: (see Fig.~3 for model FP3). The

645: values of $Y_{e,\mathrm{min}}$ for these models are slightly increased

646: compared to that of model ST to be 0.468, 0.471, and 0.475,

647: respectively (Table~1). 

648: 

649: We find that the production of $^{90}$Zr is extremely sensitive to

650: $Y_{e,\mathrm{min}}$ (Figure~11).  The increase of

651: $Y_{e,\mathrm{min}}$ by only $1-2\%$ ($\Delta Y_{e,\mathrm{i}} =

652: 0.004$ and 0.011 in models FP1 and FP3, respectively) reduces the

653: production factor of $^{90}$Zr by roughly two orders of

654: magnitude. Other species like $^{64}$Zn, $^{74}$Se, and $^{78}$Kr then

655: possess the largest production factors.  In the case of model FP3

656: these have one tenth of the values in model ST. Figure~12 indicates

657: that electron capture supernovae could be the dominant sources of the

658: elemental abundance of Zn, if such a slightly higher

659: $Y_{e,\mathrm{i}}$ was correct.

660: 

661: \begin{figure}

662: \epsscale{1.0}

663: \plotone{f11.eps}

664: %\plotone{oproaye3.ps}

665: \caption{Same as Figure~4, but for models FP1 (\textit{top}), FP2

666: (\textit{middle}), and FP3 (\textit{bottom}).}

667: \end{figure}

668: 

669: \begin{figure}

670: \epsscale{1.0}

671: \plotone{f12.eps}

672: %\plotone{oprozye3.ps}

673: \caption{Same as Figure~5, but for models FP1 (\textit{top}), FP2

674: (\textit{middle}), and FP3 (\textit{bottom}).}

675: \end{figure}

676: 

677: The results for $f = -0.1$, $-0.2$, and $-0.3$ (hereafter, models FM1,

678: FM2, and FM3) are shown in Figures~13 and 14. The values of

679: $Y_{e,\mathrm{min}}$ are then decreased to 0.460, 0.457, and 0.453,

680: respectively (Table~1). The $Y_{e,\mathrm{i}}$-$M_r$ profile for model

681: FM3 is also displayed in Figure~3.  The overproduction of $^{90}$Zr

682: becomes more serious in these models, and other $N=50$ species

683: ($^{88}$Sr and $^{89}$Y) enter into the normalization band in the case

684: of model FM3.  The results of \citet[][Fig.~1]{Hoff08} resemble those

685: for our model FM3 rather than those for model ST. This is probably

686: explained by the fact that \citet{Hoff08} perform their evaluation for

687: ejecta with a value of $Y_{e,\mathrm{min}}= 0.454$, which is close to

688: $Y_{e,\mathrm{min}}$ in model FM3 ($=0.453$), but slightly smaller

689: than $Y_{e,\mathrm{min}}$ in model ST. The small difference between

690: the ejecta conditions in \citet{Hoff08} and those of model ST

691: originates from a different density structure assumed for the dilute

692: H/He envelope around the collapsing O-Ne-Mg core considered by

693: \citet{Hoff08} \citep[see][for more detail]{Jank08a}.

694: 

695: The results presented in this subsection imply that the overproduction

696: of $^{90}$Zr may not be as serious as reported by \citet{Hoff08},

697: because an increase of $Y_{e,\mathrm{min}}$ by only $2\%$ cures this

698: problem. This is a significant improvement compared to the situation 

699: in the older simulations by

700: \citet{Mayl88}, where $Y_{e,\mathrm{min}}$ was found to be around 0.4

701: and a substantial change ($\sim 20\%$) of $Y_{e,\mathrm{min}}$ was

702: necessary to avoid the overproduction of $N = 50$ nuclei.

703: 

704: \begin{figure}

705: \epsscale{1.0}

706: \plotone{f13.eps}

707: %\plotone{oproaym3.ps}

708: \caption{Same as Figure~4, but for models FM1 (\textit{top}), FM2

709: (\textit{middle}), and FM3 (\textit{bottom}).}

710: \end{figure}

711: 

712: \begin{figure}

713: \epsscale{1.0}

714: \plotone{f14.eps}

715: %\plotone{oprozym3.ps}

716: \caption{Same as Figure~5, but for models FM1 (\textit{top}), FM2

717: (\textit{middle}), and FM3 (\textit{bottom}).}

718: \end{figure}

719: 

720: \subsection{$\nu$p-process}

721: 

722: The $\nu$p-process (or neutrino-induced rp-process) is now believed to

723: be a promising nuclear process that synthesizes light $p$-nuclei up to

724: $A\sim 110$ \citep{Froh06, Prue06, Wana06}. In this process, a

725: fraction of free protons are converted to neutrons by neutrino capture

726: in the early proton-rich supernova ejecta. The $\beta$-waiting points

727: on the classical rp-process path (e.g., $^{64}$Ge with the half-life

728: of 1.06 minutes) are then bypassed via much faster neutron

729: capture. The current models contain proton-rich ejecta (up to

730: 0.53, Figs.~1 and~3), where one may expect the occurrence of the

731: $\nu$p-process.

732: 

733: The $\nu$p-process plays, however, no role in producing the

734: $p$-nuclei, although all the examined models in this study include

735: neutrino-induced reactions on free nucleons and $\alpha$ particles. In

736: order to test the effect of neutrinos, the result without

737: neutrino-induced reactions (labelled no$\nu$, otherwise using the same

738: input as in model ST) is compared with that of model ST (Fig.~7c). We

739: find that neutron capture, which is absent without neutrino-induced

740: reactions, diminishes the nuclei with $A \le 20$. The mass fractions

741: of these isotopes are, however, very small compared to the dominant

742: species at $A \approx 4$, 60, and 90. No substantial differences can

743: be seen for the nuclei with $A > 50$ because of the moderate

744: proton-richness (up to $Y_{e,\mathrm{i}} = 0.53$), moderate entropy

745: (up to $30\,k_\mathrm{B}$ per nucleon, where $k_\mathrm{B}$ is the

746: Boltzmann constant), and the fast expansion of the ejecta. The

747: proton-rich ejecta quickly cool down below $T_9 \approx 2-3$, which is

748: the relevant temperature range for the $\nu$p-process to take place

749: (i.e., the proton captures are fast and their inverse reactions

750: slow). The $\nu$p-process might be efficient only in core-collapse

751: supernovae from more massive progenitors (e.g., $\ga 15\, M_\odot$),

752: which have a shallower density gradient at the core edge and a denser

753: envelope and thus their explosions develop in a different way with

754: different conditions for nucleosynthesis.

755: 

756: 

757: %\begin{figure}

758: %\epsscale{1.0}

759: %\plotone{f16.eps}

760: %\plotone{compn.ps}

761: %\caption{Same as Figure~7, but for the results with of model ST

762: %compared to a calculation without including neutrino-induced reactions

763: %(model no$\nu$).}

764: %\end{figure}

765: 

766: \section{Contribution to Galactic Chemical Evolution}

767: 

768: We now discuss a possible contribution of electron capture supernovae

769: to Galactic chemical evolution. First, we suppose that model ST, which

770: has the largest overproduction factor for $^{90}$Zr (Fig.~4), is

771: representative of this type of supernovae. Let us assume that electron

772: capture supernovae produce all $^{90}$Zr in nature, and the other

773: supernovae from the progenitors more massive than $10\, M_\odot$

774: produce $^{16}$O with a typical amount of

775: $M_\mathrm{other}(^{16}\mathrm{O}) = 1.5\, M_\odot$ per event. Here,

776: $M_\mathrm{other}(^{16}\mathrm{O})$ is taken to be the

777: initial-mass-function averaged yield of \citet{Nomo06} between 13 and

778: $40\, M_\odot$ (solar metallicity models). The contribution of

779: electron capture supernovae to the Galactic $^{16}$O is negligible

780: (Table~2). If we assume the number fraction of electron capture

781: supernovae relative to all core-collapse supernovae to be $f_*$, we

782: have the relation

783: \begin{equation}

784: \frac{f_*}{1-f_*} 

785: = \frac{X(^{90}\mathrm{Zr})_\odot/X(^{16}\mathrm{O})_\odot}

786:        {M(^{90}\mathrm{Zr})/M_\mathrm{other}(^{16}\mathrm{O})}

787: = 0.029,

788: \end{equation}

789: where $X(^{16}\mathrm{O})_\odot = 6.6 \times 10^{-3}$,

790: $X(^{90}\mathrm{Zr})_\odot = 1.5 \times 10^{-8}$ \citep{Lodd03}, and

791: $M(^{90}\mathrm{Zr}) = 1.2 \times 10^{-4}\,M_\odot$ (Table~1).

792: Therefore we expect the frequency of electron capture supernovae to be

793: no more than 1\% of all core-collapse events, when taking into account

794: that there are also other sources of $^{90}$Zr \citep[$81\%$ is from

795: the $s$-process,][]{Burr00}. As discussed in \S~3.5, however, the

796: production of $^{90}$Zr is extremely sensitive to $Y_{e,\mathrm{i}}$,

797: changing more than 2 orders of magnitude with only 2\% variation of

798: $Y_{e,\mathrm{i}}$ (Table~1). Thus, we do not consider the

799: overproduction of $^{90}$Zr to give a tight constraint on the

800: occurrence of electron capture supernovae.

801: 

802: Instead, we propose the abundance of $^{64}$Zn, whose production is

803: insensitive to small variations of $Y_{e,\mathrm{i}}$ (Table~1), to

804: serve as a strong constraint on the occurrence of this type of

805: supernovae. As an example, we consider model FP3 (Fig.~11;

806: \textit{bottom}) as representative of electron capture supernovae, in

807: which the largest overproduction is shared by $^{64}$Zn, $^{74}$Se,

808: and $^{78}$Kr. The origins of these isotopes have not been well

809: identified, although the latter two $p$-isotopes might be produced to

810: some extent by the $\gamma$-process \citep{Raye95} or $\nu$p-process

811: \citep{Froh06, Prue06, Wana06} in core-collapse supernovae. We

812: therefore can assume that all $^{64}$Zn (and $^{74}$Se, $^{78}$Kr) in

813: nature is produced by electron capture supernovae. In this case,

814: equation~(1) with $^{90}$Zr replaced by $^{64}$Zn gives $f_* = 0.28$,

815: where $X(^{64}\mathrm{Zn})_\odot = 1.1 \times 10^{-6}$ \citep{Lodd03}

816: and $M(^{64}\mathrm{Zn}) = 6.5 \times 10^{-4}\,M_\odot$ (Table~1). We

817: thus conclude that the upper limit of the frequency of electron

818: capture supernovae is around $30\%$ of all the core-collapse

819: events. This is in good agreement with the upper limit estimated from

820: a recent study of stellar evolution \citep[$\sim 20\%$,][]{Poel08} as

821: well as the estimate for the rate of SN~2008S-like transients

822: \citep[$\sim 20-30\%$,][]{Thom08}. Our result implies that a

823: significant fraction of $8-10\, M_\odot$ is allowed to enter into the

824: supernova channel from the nucleosynthetic point of view.

825: 

826: For a practical use, the yields of all stable (Table~2) and some

827: unstable (Table~3) isotopes for models ST and FP3 are presented. For

828: the study of Galactic chemical evolution, one can use those of model

829: FP3 as representative of electron capture supernovae, keeping in mind that

830: the $Y_{e,\mathrm{i}}$ profile (i.e., the initial composition) of

831: this model was slightly modified. Nevertheless, it would be interesting

832: to see if this type of supernovae was the dominant source of Zn and

833: of the most mysterious $p$-nucleus $^{92}$Mo. In fact, all the

834: previous models of supernova nucleosynthesis (with typical explosion

835: energy), except for \textit{hypernovae} \citep{Umed02}, have failed to

836: explain the solar inventory of $^{64}$Zn (which is the most abundant

837: isotope of this element). We do not expect a substantial contribution

838: to the abundance of $^{64}$Zn from the later ($t_\mathrm{pb} > 1$~s)

839: neutrino-driven wind \citep{Hoff96, Wana06}, whose total mass is no

840: more than $0.001\, M_\odot$ with $^4$He being the dominant species

841: \citep[e.g.,][]{Wana07}. The $p$-isotope $^{92}$Mo can be synthesized

842: by the $\nu p$-process to some extent, but still falls a few times

843: short of what is expected from the neighboring $p$-nuclei

844: \citep[$^{84}$Sr, $^{94}$Mo, and $^{96,98}$Ru,][]{Prue06, Wana06}.

845: 

846: \section{Origin of Faint Supernovae?}

847: 

848: Our result confirms that electron capture supernovae produce very

849: little $^{56}$Ni ($\approx 0.002-0.004\, M_\odot$, Table~1) compared

850: to $\sim 0.1\, M_\odot$ in the case of more massive progenitors

851: \citep[e.g.,][]{Nomo06}. This is a consequence of the small ejecta

852: mass ($= 0.0139\, M_\odot$ without the H-rich envelope) and also of

853: the neutron-richness of the bulk of the ejecta ($Y_{e,\mathrm{i}} <

854: 0.49$ for mass shells in the range of $1.367-1.373\, M_\odot$,

855: Fig.~6), because of which $^{56}$Ni is not a dominant species to be

856: produced. The yield of $^{56}$Ni, which is mainly created in matter

857: with $Y_{e,\mathrm{i}} \sim 0.5$, is insensitive to a small variation

858: of $Y_e$ (Table~1). We also do not expect a significant contribution

859: from the later ($t_\mathrm{pb} > 1$~s) neutrino wind. The uncertainty

860: arising from the nuclear EoS seems larger than that from $Y_e$, being

861: about a factor of 2 (Table~1) for the currently available versions of

862: EoSs. The uncertainty might become larger if a variety of EoSs are

863: available in the future. The convective motion near the mass cut may

864: also affect the $^{56}$Ni mass (\S~3.4), which needs multi-dimensional

865: simulations.

866: 

867: The expected small amount of $^{56}$Ni as well as the low explosion

868: energy of electron capture supernovae have been proposed as an

869: explanation of the observed properties of faint SNe~II-P \citep[e.g.,

870: SN~1997D,][]{Chug00, Kita06} and of the low luminosity of

871: SN~2008S-like transients \citep[possibly a new sub-class of

872: SNe~IIn,][]{Prie08, Thom08}. The former ones, namely SNe 1994N, 1997D,

873: 1999br, 1999eu, 2001dc, and 2005cs, have been observationally defined

874: as the class of low-luminosity Ni-poor SNe~II-P \citep[][]{Past04,

875: Past06}, whose incidence is estimated to be as high as $4-5\%$ of all

876: SNe~II.  The estimated $^{56}$Ni masses of $\sim 0.002-0.008\,

877: M_\odot$ for these low-luminosity SNe~II-P \citep{Zamp03, Past04,

878: Past06, Hend05} are in reasonable agreement with the present result

879: from electron capture supernovae. An alternative possibility is the

880: origin of such supernovae from much more massive stars ($\gtrsim 20\,

881: M_\odot$) with low explosion energies, which suffer from fallback of

882: freshly synthesized $^{56}$Ni \citep[e.g.,][]{Tura98, Bene01, Nomo03,

883: Zamp03}. This is due to the inferred large envelope masses for the

884: low-luminosity SNe~II-P \citep[$\sim 14-40\, M_\odot$,][]{Hend05} that

885: favor massive progenitors. A recent analysis of the progenitors of

886: SNe~II-P by \citet{Smar08} indicates, however, that low-luminosity

887: supernovae with low $^{56}$Ni production are likely to arise from low

888: mass progenitors near the minimum mass limit for core-collapse

889: supernovae. A lack of $\alpha$-elements such as O and Mg in the case

890: of electron capture supernovae will be a key to spectroscopically

891: distinguish between these two scenarios \citep{Kita06}.

892: 

893: The Crab nebula (the relic of SN~1054) is known to have a low kinetic

894: energy \citep[$\sim 4\times 10^{49}$~erg,][]{Chev85} and a small

895: amount of $\alpha$-elements \citep{Davi82}. An electron capture

896: supernova has been suggested to be the origin of the Crab nebula

897: \citep{Nomo82, Nomo85, Kita06}. Our result with the little production

898: of $\alpha$-elements and iron supports this idea. The Ni/Fe ratios

899: ($\approx 1-2$, except for the extreme model MX, Table~1), which are

900: at least 20 times larger than the solar value ($=0.058$) can be

901: considered as an additional support, because they are in reasonable

902: agreement with the reported high Ni/Fe ratio of the Crab nebula

903: \citep[$\sim 10$ times solar;][]{Henr84, Hudg90}.

904: 

905: Recently, \citet{Maca08} investigated gaseous regions of the Crab

906: nebula and inferred from their photoionization calculations that the

907: abundance of a large component of the nebula appears to be He-rich and

908: $\textrm{C}/\textrm{O} > 1$. According to the $8-10\, M_\odot$ star

909: models \citep{Nomo82, Nomo84}, the He-rich envelope for $M \lesssim

910: 9.5\, M_\odot$ has $\textrm{C}/\textrm{O} < 1$ because of the

911: preceding CNO-cycle, while that for $M \gtrsim 9.5\, M_\odot$ has

912: $\textrm{C}/\textrm{O} > 1$ owing to the 3$\alpha$-reactions. The

913: $9.6\, M_\odot$ star in \citet[][case~2.4]{Nomo84}, for example, has

914: carbon and oxygen mass fractions of 0.022 and 0.0033 in the He-burning

915: convective layer \citep[corresponding solar values are 0.0025 and

916: 0.0066, respectively;][]{Lodd03}. This enhanced carbon abundance (ten

917: times that of the solar value) is consistent with that reported by

918: \citet[][]{Maca08}. It should be noted that stars with initial masses

919: of $\sim 9.5-10\, M_\odot$ have almost identical core structures to

920: our considered star of $8.8\, M_\odot$, except for the outermost

921: oxygen mass fraction \citep{Nomo84, Nomo87}. Therefore, the explosion

922: of a star with an initial mass of $\sim 9.5-10\, M_\odot$ and with an

923: O-Ne-Mg core can be the origin of the Crab remnant.

924: 

925: We also note that the dredge-up of the material from the He-layer into

926: the H-layer enhances carbon in the envelope of the AGB star

927: \citep{Nomo87}. This would be more efficient in enhancing carbon than

928: He-thermal pulses, and dust could be easily formed to induce mass

929: loss. This may result in a deeply dust-enshrouded object such as the

930: progenitor of SN~2008S \citep{Prie08, Thom08}. For the $9.6\, M_\odot$

931: star in \citet[][case~2.4]{Nomo84}, the duration of the AGB phase is

932: estimated to be $4\times 10^4$~yr (that becomes shorter for a more

933: massive case), which is in reasonable agreement with the inferred

934: dust-enshrouded phase for SN~2008S-like transients \citep[$\lesssim

935: 10^4$~yr,][]{Thom08}. This might also imply the mass range of the

936: stars that end their lives as electron capture supernovae to be $\sim

937: 9.5-10\, M_\odot$, whose frequency, $\sim 7-8\%$ of all the

938: core-collapse events, satisfies the constraint from our

939: nucleosynthesis results ($< 30\%$; \S~4).

940: 

941: \section{Conclusions}

942: 

943: We have investigated the nucleosynthesis during the first 810~ms after

944: core bounce in an explosion from a collapsing star with O-Ne-Mg core

945: (electron capture supernova) and an initial mass of $8.8\,

946: M_\odot$. The thermodynamic trajectories are taken from the

947: self-consistent explosion models of \citet{Kita06}, which were

948: computed with the initial stellar model of \citet{Nomo84, Nomo87}. Our

949: main conclusions can be summarized as follows.

950: 

951: 1. Our unmodified model (ST) results in (i) little production of

952: $\alpha$-elements and iron, (ii) large production of $^{64}$Zn,

953: $^{70}$Ge, and in particular, $^{90}$Zr, and (iii) production of some

954: light $p$-nuclei ($^{74}$Se, $^{78}$Kr, $^{84}$Sr, and

955: $^{92}$Mo). This is a consequence of the ejection of a sizable amount

956: of neutron-rich matter ($6 \times 10^{-3}\, M_\odot$ with $Y_e =

957: 0.46-0.49$). If we assume this model to be representative of electron

958: capture supernovae, the occurrence of this type of supernovae is

959: limited to be no more than $1\%$ of all core-collapse events. We do

960: not think, however, that the production of $^{90}$Zn serves as a

961: strong constraint, because it is easily affected by a small variation

962: of $Y_e$. The $\nu p$-process does not play any role for the

963: production of $p$-nuclei in the present supernova model.

964: 

965: 2. The uncertainties in the nuclear EoS and the nuclear reaction rates

966: do not substantially affect the nucleosynthesis results. In contrast,

967: the effects of convection, which are not included in the

968: one-dimensional simulations of \citet{Kita06}, are expected to be

969: large and may change the initial $Y_e$ distribution to some

970: extent. The overproduction of $^{90}$Zr is moderated if the minimum

971: $Y_e$ is only $1-2\%$ larger than that in the unmodified model ST. In

972: this case (our model FP3) the largest overproduction, which is

973: observed for $^{64}$Zn, $^{74}$Se, and $^{78}$Kr, is reduced to one

974: tenth of that of the unmodified model. The robustness of the $^{64}$Zn

975: production against small variations of $Y_e$ provides an upper limit

976: to the occurrence of electron capture supernovae to be about $30\%$ of

977: all stellar core-collapse events. Electron capture supernovae can be

978: significant contributors to the Galactic inventories of $^{64}$Zn (the

979: most abundant isotope of Zn) and some light $p$-nuclei (e.g.,

980: $^{92}$Mo), if the assumed slightly larger values of $Y_e$ were

981: correct.

982: 

983: 3. The high Ni/Fe ratio ($= 1-2$) and the small production of

984: $\alpha$-elements, as well as the low explosion energy \citep[$1-2

985:   \times 10^{50}$~erg,][]{Kita06, Jank08a,Jank08b}, support the

986: hypothesis that the Crab nebula is the remnant of

987: an electron capture supernova \citep{Nomo82, Davi82}.

988: 

989: 4. SN~2008S-like transients, whose progenitors are deeply

990: dust-enshrouded massive stars, are likely to be electron capture

991: supernovae of AGB stars. This implies that electron capture supernovae

992: constitute a newly identified sub-class of SNe~IIn \citep{Prie08,

993:   Thom08}.

994: 

995: 5. The ejecta mass of $^{56}$Ni is $0.002-0.004\, M_\odot$, which is

996: in reasonable agreement with estimates for observed low-luminosity

997: supernovae. The amount might be, however, affected by the convective

998: motion near the mass cut. Multi-dimensional studies will clarify the

999: effect of convection on the production of $^{56}$Ni as well as

1000: $^{90}$Zr.

1001: 

1002: 

1003: %Multi-dimensional studies will be needed to

1004: %allow for reliable conclusion concerning the $^{56}$Ni mass from an

1005: %electron capture supernova.

1006: 

1007: %Finally, we stress that our conclusions based on the one-dimensional

1008: %supernova models should not be regarded as the robust ones for

1009: %the related nucleosynthesis problems such as the overproduction of

1010: %$^{90}$Zr and the ejecta mass of $^{56}$Ni. We rather consider that

1011: %our results are to provide a crucial baseline and guidance for the

1012: %future multi-dimensional works that will be needed to allow for

1013: %reliable conclusions for these issues.

1014: 

1015: 

1016: 

1017: %\bigskip

1018: 

1019: \acknowledgements

1020: 

1021: We are grateful to an anonymous referee for important comments. This

1022: research has been supported in part by World Premier International

1023: Research Center Initiative (WPI Initiative), MEXT, Japan, and by the

1024: Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research of the JSPS (17740108, 18104003,

1025: 18540231, 20540226) and MEXT (19047004, 20040004).  In Garching, the

1026: project was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft through

1027: the Transregional Collaborative Research Centers SFB/TR~27 ``Neutrinos

1028: and Beyond'' and SFB/TR~7 ``Gravitational Wave Astronomy'', and the

1029: Cluster of Excellence EXC~153 ``Origin and Structure of the Universe''

1030: ({\tt http://www.universe-cluster.de}). The computations were done at

1031: the Rechenzentrum Garching and at the High Performance Computing

1032: Center Stuttgart (HLRS) under grant number SuperN/12758.

1033: 

1034: 

1035: \begin{deluxetable}{cccccc}

1036: \tablecaption{Yields in Units of Solar Masses}

1037: \tablewidth{0pt}

1038: \tablehead{

1039: \colhead{Model} &

1040: \colhead{$Y_{e,\mathrm{min}}$} &

1041: \colhead{$^{56}\mathrm{Ni}$} &

1042: \colhead{$^{64}$Zn} &

1043: \colhead{$^{90}$Zr} &

1044: \colhead{Ni/Fe} 

1045: }

1046: \startdata

1047: ST  & 0.464 & 2.50E$-$03 & 6.38E$-$04 & 1.21E$-$04 & 1.65 \\

1048: WH  & 0.462 & 4.06E$-$03 & 7.31E$-$04 & 1.39E$-$04 & 1.27 \\

1049: RT  & 0.464 & 2.52E$-$03 & 6.94E$-$04 & 7.83E$-$05 & 1.58 \\

1050: MX  & 0.480 & 1.67E$-$03 & 1.07E$-$03 & 3.32E$-$08 & 3.01 \\

1051: FP1 & 0.468 & 2.62E$-$03 & 6.83E$-$04 & 5.75E$-$05 & 1.55 \\

1052: FP2 & 0.471 & 2.76E$-$03 & 7.08E$-$04 & 1.59E$-$05 & 1.46 \\

1053: FP3 & 0.475 & 2.91E$-$03 & 6.51E$-$04 & 8.04E$-$07 & 1.36 \\

1054: FM1 & 0.460 & 2.41E$-$03 & 5.83E$-$04 & 1.96E$-$04 & 1.73 \\

1055: FM2 & 0.457 & 2.32E$-$03 & 5.31E$-$04 & 2.66E$-$04 & 1.82 \\

1056: FM3 & 0.453 & 2.24E$-$03 & 4.83E$-$04 & 3.11E$-$04 & 1.92  

1057: \enddata

1058: \end{deluxetable}

1059: 

1060: \begin{deluxetable}{cccccc}

1061: \tablecaption{Yields of Stable Isotopes (in Units of $M_\odot$)}

1062: \tablewidth{0pt}

1063: \tablehead{

1064: \colhead{Species} &

1065: \colhead{ST} &

1066: \colhead{FP3} &

1067: \colhead{Species} &

1068: \colhead{ST} &

1069: \colhead{FP3}

1070: }

1071: \startdata

1072: $^{  1}$H \dotfill & 5.55E$-$05 & 3.84E$-$05 & $^{ 58}$Ni\dotfill & 1.79E$-$03 & 2.21E$-$03 \\

1073: $^{  2}$H \dotfill & 1.98E$-$13 & 1.35E$-$13 & $^{ 60}$Ni\dotfill & 2.09E$-$03 & 1.72E$-$03 \\

1074: $^{  3}$He\dotfill & 6.52E$-$10 & 6.49E$-$10 & $^{ 61}$Ni\dotfill & 5.04E$-$05 & 4.62E$-$05 \\

1075: $^{  4}$He\dotfill & 5.12E$-$03 & 5.55E$-$03 & $^{ 62}$Ni\dotfill & 5.11E$-$04 & 2.88E$-$04 \\

1076: $^{  6}$Li\dotfill & 6.70E$-$15 & 6.57E$-$15 & $^{ 64}$Ni\dotfill & 2.55E$-$07 & 5.38E$-$09 \\

1077: $^{  7}$Li\dotfill & 4.52E$-$09 & 5.31E$-$09 & $^{ 63}$Cu\dotfill & 5.96E$-$05 & 1.97E$-$05 \\

1078: $^{  9}$Be\dotfill & 2.05E$-$14 & 1.99E$-$14 & $^{ 65}$Cu\dotfill & 1.56E$-$05 & 4.59E$-$06 \\

1079: $^{ 10}$B \dotfill & 2.72E$-$14 & 2.45E$-$14 & $^{ 64}$Zn\dotfill & 6.38E$-$04 & 6.51E$-$04 \\

1080: $^{ 11}$B \dotfill & 3.02E$-$09 & 3.34E$-$09 & $^{ 66}$Zn\dotfill & 4.54E$-$04 & 2.16E$-$05 \\

1081: $^{ 12}$C \dotfill & 1.18E$-$06 & 1.48E$-$06 & $^{ 67}$Zn\dotfill & 4.44E$-$06 & 2.03E$-$06 \\

1082: $^{ 13}$C \dotfill & 6.82E$-$09 & 7.09E$-$09 & $^{ 68}$Zn\dotfill & 2.89E$-$05 & 3.90E$-$05 \\

1083: $^{ 14}$N \dotfill & 5.54E$-$08 & 4.08E$-$08 & $^{ 70}$Zn\dotfill & 9.72E$-$12 & 2.14E$-$14 \\

1084: $^{ 15}$N \dotfill & 1.02E$-$07 & 8.25E$-$08 & $^{ 69}$Ga\dotfill & 1.93E$-$06 & 5.68E$-$07 \\

1085: $^{ 16}$O \dotfill & 1.03E$-$07 & 1.13E$-$07 & $^{ 71}$Ga\dotfill & 3.96E$-$07 & 7.64E$-$08 \\

1086: $^{ 17}$O \dotfill & 5.17E$-$11 & 5.33E$-$11 & $^{ 70}$Ge\dotfill & 8.29E$-$05 & 6.61E$-$06 \\

1087: $^{ 18}$O \dotfill & 7.16E$-$09 & 5.41E$-$09 & $^{ 72}$Ge\dotfill & 5.05E$-$06 & 7.10E$-$07 \\

1088: $^{ 19}$F \dotfill & 1.02E$-$08 & 8.95E$-$09 & $^{ 73}$Ge\dotfill & 4.11E$-$07 & 4.32E$-$08 \\

1089: $^{ 20}$Ne\dotfill & 3.12E$-$08 & 4.08E$-$08 & $^{ 74}$Ge\dotfill & 5.16E$-$09 & 6.86E$-$12 \\

1090: $^{ 21}$Ne\dotfill & 1.63E$-$10 & 2.00E$-$10 & $^{ 76}$Ge\dotfill & 2.91E$-$14 & 4.90E$-$20 \\

1091: $^{ 22}$Ne\dotfill & 5.37E$-$09 & 5.82E$-$09 & $^{ 75}$As\dotfill & 3.35E$-$07 & 1.84E$-$08 \\

1092: $^{ 23}$Na\dotfill & 3.33E$-$10 & 4.46E$-$10 & $^{ 74}$Se\dotfill & 5.13E$-$06 & 9.28E$-$07 \\

1093: $^{ 24}$Mg\dotfill & 1.80E$-$08 & 2.53E$-$08 & $^{ 76}$Se\dotfill & 9.05E$-$06 & 3.39E$-$08 \\

1094: $^{ 25}$Mg\dotfill & 5.30E$-$09 & 1.05E$-$08 & $^{ 77}$Se\dotfill & 2.77E$-$07 & 7.99E$-$09 \\

1095: $^{ 26}$Mg\dotfill & 4.40E$-$08 & 4.30E$-$08 & $^{ 78}$Se\dotfill & 1.32E$-$07 & 5.41E$-$11 \\

1096: $^{ 27}$Al\dotfill & 3.03E$-$09 & 3.32E$-$09 & $^{ 80}$Se\dotfill & 1.49E$-$10 & 2.87E$-$14 \\

1097: $^{ 28}$Si\dotfill & 5.44E$-$08 & 8.45E$-$08 & $^{ 82}$Se\dotfill & 8.40E$-$16 & 0.00E+00 \\

1098: $^{ 29}$Si\dotfill & 1.11E$-$08 & 1.66E$-$08 & $^{ 79}$Br\dotfill & 2.08E$-$07 & 1.15E$-$08 \\

1099: $^{ 30}$Si\dotfill & 6.82E$-$08 & 6.13E$-$08 & $^{ 81}$Br\dotfill & 1.23E$-$07 & 3.09E$-$09 \\

1100: $^{ 31}$P \dotfill & 2.10E$-$08 & 2.82E$-$08 & $^{ 78}$Kr\dotfill & 7.06E$-$07 & 2.58E$-$07 \\

1101: $^{ 32}$S \dotfill & 1.98E$-$07 & 2.76E$-$07 & $^{ 80}$Kr\dotfill & 2.88E$-$06 & 4.71E$-$08 \\

1102: $^{ 33}$S \dotfill & 3.37E$-$08 & 3.89E$-$08 & $^{ 82}$Kr\dotfill & 1.08E$-$06 & 2.53E$-$08 \\

1103: $^{ 34}$S \dotfill & 2.27E$-$07 & 2.20E$-$07 & $^{ 83}$Kr\dotfill & 2.03E$-$07 & 5.58E$-$09 \\

1104: $^{ 36}$S \dotfill & 4.09E$-$12 & 5.03E$-$12 & $^{ 84}$Kr\dotfill & 3.57E$-$08 & 6.87E$-$12 \\

1105: $^{ 35}$Cl\dotfill & 1.78E$-$07 & 2.03E$-$07 & $^{ 86}$Kr\dotfill & 1.24E$-$11 & 3.48E$-$18 \\

1106: $^{ 37}$Cl\dotfill & 1.05E$-$07 & 1.14E$-$07 & $^{ 85}$Rb\dotfill & 1.40E$-$07 & 4.29E$-$09 \\

1107: $^{ 36}$Ar\dotfill & 1.11E$-$06 & 1.41E$-$06 & $^{ 87}$Rb\dotfill & 4.21E$-$09 & 1.39E$-$15 \\

1108: $^{ 38}$Ar\dotfill & 2.62E$-$07 & 3.01E$-$07 & $^{ 84}$Sr\dotfill & 3.10E$-$07 & 5.87E$-$08 \\

1109: $^{ 40}$Ar\dotfill & 9.90E$-$11 & 1.24E$-$10 & $^{ 86}$Sr\dotfill & 1.29E$-$06 & 6.94E$-$09 \\

1110: $^{ 39}$K \dotfill & 4.07E$-$07 & 4.83E$-$07 & $^{ 87}$Sr\dotfill & 2.92E$-$07 & 2.72E$-$09 \\

1111: $^{ 40}$K \dotfill & 4.98E$-$10 & 5.98E$-$10 & $^{ 88}$Sr\dotfill & 2.74E$-$06 & 3.24E$-$08 \\

1112: $^{ 41}$K \dotfill & 8.14E$-$08 & 8.53E$-$08 & $^{ 89}$Y \dotfill & 3.92E$-$06 & 1.25E$-$08 \\

1113: $^{ 40}$Ca\dotfill & 3.55E$-$06 & 3.93E$-$06 & $^{ 90}$Zr\dotfill & 1.21E$-$04 & 8.04E$-$07 \\

1114: $^{ 42}$Ca\dotfill & 5.23E$-$07 & 6.98E$-$07 & $^{ 91}$Zr\dotfill & 9.96E$-$07 & 6.61E$-$08 \\

1115: $^{ 43}$Ca\dotfill & 1.77E$-$07 & 2.27E$-$07 & $^{ 92}$Zr\dotfill & 7.81E$-$09 & 1.35E$-$10 \\

1116: $^{ 44}$Ca\dotfill & 5.96E$-$06 & 7.17E$-$06 & $^{ 94}$Zr\dotfill & 3.89E$-$16 & 1.97E$-$20 \\

1117: $^{ 46}$Ca\dotfill & 2.44E$-$15 & 1.25E$-$15 & $^{ 96}$Zr\dotfill & 0.00E+00 & 0.00E+00 \\

1118: $^{ 48}$Ca\dotfill & 0.00E+00 & 0.00E+00 & $^{ 93}$Nb\dotfill & 2.05E$-$08 & 2.07E$-$09 \\

1119: $^{ 45}$Sc\dotfill & 1.41E$-$07 & 1.46E$-$07 & $^{ 92}$Mo\dotfill & 7.02E$-$07 & 2.73E$-$07 \\

1120: $^{ 46}$Ti\dotfill & 7.18E$-$07 & 8.29E$-$07 & $^{ 94}$Mo\dotfill & 1.42E$-$08 & 2.32E$-$10 \\

1121: $^{ 47}$Ti\dotfill & 9.24E$-$07 & 1.17E$-$06 & $^{ 95}$Mo\dotfill & 7.96E$-$11 & 1.16E$-$11 \\

1122: $^{ 48}$Ti\dotfill & 8.36E$-$06 & 1.01E$-$05 & $^{ 96}$Mo\dotfill & 3.94E$-$12 & 6.44E$-$14 \\

1123: $^{ 49}$Ti\dotfill & 7.47E$-$07 & 7.64E$-$07 & $^{ 97}$Mo\dotfill & 1.46E$-$12 & 2.09E$-$13 \\

1124: $^{ 50}$Ti\dotfill & 3.35E$-$12 & 7.44E$-$14 & $^{ 98}$Mo\dotfill & 6.96E$-$18 & 0.00E+00 \\

1125: $^{ 50}$V \dotfill & 1.94E$-$09 & 2.97E$-$10 & $^{100}$Mo\dotfill & 0.00E+00 & 0.00E+00 \\

1126: $^{ 51}$V \dotfill & 1.95E$-$06 & 2.23E$-$06 & $^{ 96}$Ru\dotfill & 2.59E$-$11 & 1.58E$-$11 \\

1127: $^{ 50}$Cr\dotfill & 1.41E$-$06 & 1.64E$-$06 & $^{ 98}$Ru\dotfill & 2.86E$-$12 & 6.57E$-$14 \\

1128: $^{ 52}$Cr\dotfill & 1.50E$-$05 & 1.82E$-$05 & $^{ 99}$Ru\dotfill & 1.70E$-$14 & 8.73E$-$16 \\

1129: $^{ 53}$Cr\dotfill & 1.04E$-$06 & 1.22E$-$06 & $^{100}$Ru\dotfill & 7.23E$-$15 & 4.99E$-$16 \\

1130: $^{ 54}$Cr\dotfill & 1.26E$-$08 & 1.86E$-$09 & $^{101}$Ru\dotfill & 2.58E$-$16 & 2.17E$-$17 \\

1131: $^{ 55}$Mn\dotfill & 3.41E$-$06 & 2.88E$-$06 & $^{102}$Ru\dotfill & 9.02E$-$19 & 0.00E+00 \\

1132: $^{ 54}$Fe\dotfill & 3.22E$-$06 & 3.64E$-$06 & $^{104}$Ru\dotfill & 0.00E+00 & 0.00E+00 \\

1133: $^{ 56}$Fe\dotfill & 2.52E$-$03 & 2.92E$-$03 & $^{103}$Rh\dotfill & 4.39E$-$18 & 1.01E$-$19 \\

1134: $^{ 57}$Fe\dotfill & 1.80E$-$04 & 2.13E$-$04 & $^{102}$Pd\dotfill & 3.81E$-$16 & 1.65E$-$17 \\

1135: $^{ 58}$Fe\dotfill & 7.25E$-$08 & 2.18E$-$08 & $^{104}$Pd\dotfill & 3.19E$-$18 & 4.54E$-$21 \\

1136: $^{ 59}$Co\dotfill & 8.61E$-$05 & 1.08E$-$04 & $^{105}$Pd\dotfill & 1.52E$-$20 & 0.00E+00 

1137: \enddata

1138: \end{deluxetable}

1139: 

1140: \bigskip

1141: \bigskip

1142: \bigskip

1143: \bigskip

1144: \bigskip

1145: 

1146: \begin{deluxetable}{cccccc}

1147: \tablecaption{Yields of Unstable Isotopes (in Units of $M_\odot$)}

1148: \tablewidth{0pt}

1149: \tablehead{

1150: \colhead{Species} &

1151: \colhead{ST} &

1152: \colhead{FP3} &

1153: \colhead{Species} &

1154: \colhead{ST} &

1155: \colhead{FP3}

1156: }

1157: \startdata

1158: $^{ 22}$Na\dotfill & 5.37E$-$09 & 5.81E$-$09 & $^{ 60}$Fe\dotfill & 1.40E$-$14 & 4.79E$-$16 \\

1159: $^{ 26}$Al\dotfill & 3.27E$-$08 & 2.97E$-$08 & $^{ 56}$Ni\dotfill & 2.50E$-$03 & 2.91E$-$03 \\

1160: $^{ 41}$Ca\dotfill & 8.05E$-$08 & 8.43E$-$08 & $^{ 57}$Ni\dotfill & 1.77E$-$04 & 2.11E$-$04 \\

1161: $^{ 44}$Ti\dotfill & 5.96E$-$06 & 7.17E$-$06 & $^{ 92}$Nb\dotfill & 6.35E$-$09 & 1.34E$-$10 

1162: \enddata

1163: \end{deluxetable}

1164: 

1165: \begin{thebibliography}{}

1166: \bibitem[Aikawa et al.(2005)]{Aika05}

1167:  Aikawa, M., Arnould, M., Goriely, S., Jorissen, A., \& Takahashi,

1168:  K. 2005, \aap, 441, 1195

1169: %\bibitem[Anders \& Grevesse(1989)]{Ande89}

1170: % Anders, E., \& Grevesse, N. 1989, \gca, 53, 197

1171: %\bibitem[Arcones et al.(2007)]{Arco07}

1172: % Arcones, A., Janka, H. -Th., \& Scheck, L. 2007, \aap, 467, 1227

1173: %\bibitem[Arnould \& Goriely(2003)]{Arno03}

1174: % Arnould, M. \& Goriely, S. 2003, \physrep, 384, 1

1175: \bibitem[Audi, Wapstra, \& Thibault(2003)]{Audi03}

1176:  Audi, G., Wapstra, A. H., \& Thibault, C. 2003, \nphysa, 729, 337

1177: %\bibitem[Bailyn \& Grindlay(1990)]{Bail90}

1178: % Bailyn, C. D. \& Grindlay, J. E. 1990, \apj, 353, 159

1179: \bibitem[Baron, Cooperstein, \& Kahana(1987)]{Baro87}

1180:  Baron, E., Cooperstein, J., \& Kahana, S. 1987, \apj, 320, 300

1181: %\bibitem[Baron et al.(1987)]{Baro87b}

1182: % Baron, E., Cooperstein, J., Kahana, S., \& Nomoto, K. 1987, \apj, 320, 304

1183: %\bibitem[Baron \& Cooperstein(1990)]{Baro90}

1184: % Baron, E. \& Cooperstein, J. 1990, \apj, 353, 597

1185: \bibitem[Benetti et al.(2001)]{Bene01}

1186:  Benetti, S., et al. 2001, \mnras, 322, 361

1187: %\bibitem[Bowers \& Wilson(1982)]{Bowe82}

1188: % Bowers, R. \& Wilson, J. R. 1982, \apj, 263, 366

1189: %\bibitem[Bruenn (1989a)]{Brue89a}

1190: % Bruenn, S. W. 1989, \apj, 340, 955

1191: %\bibitem[Bruenn (1989b)]{Brue89b}

1192: % Bruenn, S. W. 1989, \apj, 341, 385

1193: \bibitem[Burris et al.(2000)]{Burr00}

1194:  Burris, D. L., Pilachowski, C. A., Armandroff, T. E., Sneden, C., 

1195:  Cowan, J. J., \&  Roe, H. 2000, \apj, 544, 302

1196: %\bibitem[Burrows \& Lattimer(1983)]{Burr83}

1197: % Burrows, A. \& Lattimer, J. M. 1983, \apj, 270, 735

1198: \bibitem[Burrows \& Lattimer(1985)]{Burr85}

1199:  Burrows, A. \& Lattimer, J. M. 1985, \apjl, 299, L19

1200: \bibitem[Burrows et al.(2007)]{Burr07}

1201:  Burrows, A., Dessart, L., \& Livne, E. 2007, in AIP Conf. Ser. 937,

1202:  Supernova 1987A: 20 Years After, ed. S. Immler \& R. McCray (New York: AIP),

1203:  370

1204: \bibitem[Buras et al.(2006)]{Bura06}

1205:  Buras, R., Rampp, M., Janka, H. -Th, \& Kifonidis, K. 2006, \aap,

1206:  447, 1049

1207: %\bibitem[Buras et al.(2006b)]{Bura06b}

1208: % Buras, R., Janka, H. -Th., Rampp, M., \& Kifonidis, K. 2006, \aap, 457, 281

1209: %\bibitem[Cappellaro et al.(1997)]{Capp97}

1210: % Cappellaro, E., Turatto, M., Tsvetkov, D. Yu., Bartunov, O. S., Pollas,

1211: % C., Evans, R., Hamuy, M. 1997, \aap, 322, 431

1212: %\bibitem[Cardall \& Fuller(1997)]{Card97}

1213: % Cardall, C. Y. \& Fuller, G. M. 1997, \apjl, 486, L111

1214: \bibitem[Chevalier(1985)]{Chev85}

1215:  Chevalier, R. A. 1985, in The Crab Nebula and Related Supernova Remnants,

1216:  ed. M. C. Kafatos \& R. B. C. Henry (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press), 63

1217: \bibitem[Chugai \& Utrobin(2000)]{Chug00}

1218:  Chugai, N. N., \& Utrobin, V. P. 2000, \aap, 354, 557

1219: \bibitem[Davidson et al.(1982)]{Davi82}

1220:  Davidson, K., et al. 1982, \apj, 253, 696

1221: %\bibitem[Epstein et al.(1988)]{Epst88}

1222: % Epstein, R. I., Colgate, S. A., \& Haxton, W. C. 1988, \prl, 61, 2038

1223: \bibitem[Fr\"ohlich et al.(2006)]{Froh06}

1224:  Fr\"ohlich, C., et al. 2006, \apj, 637, 415

1225: \bibitem[Fuller, Fowler, \& Newman(1982)]{Full82}

1226:  Fuller, G. M., Fowler, W. A., \& Newman, M. J. 1982, \apjs, 48, 279

1227: \bibitem[Graboske et al.(1973)]{Grab73}

1228:  Graboske, H. C., Dewitt, H. E., Grossman, A. S., Cooper, M. S. 

1229:  1973, \apj, 181, 457

1230: \bibitem[Goriely et al.(2005)]{Gori05}

1231:  Goriely, S., Samyn, M., Pearson, J. M., \& Onsi, M. 2005, \nphysa, 750, 425

1232: \bibitem[Heger \& Woosley(2008)]{Hege08}

1233:  Heger, A. \& Woosley, S. E. 2008, \apj, submitted (arXiv:0803.3161)

1234: \bibitem[Hendry et al.(2005)]{Hend05}

1235:  Hendry, M. A., et al. 2005, \mnras, 359, 906

1236: \bibitem[Henry(1984)]{Henr84}

1237:  Henry, R. B. C. 1984, \apj, 281, 644

1238: \bibitem[Hillebrandt(1982)]{Hill82}

1239:  Hillebrandt, W. 1982, \aap, 110, L3

1240: \bibitem[Hillebrandt et al.(1984)]{Hill84}

1241:  Hillebrandt, W., Nomoto, K., \& Wolff, G. 1984, \aap, 133, 175

1242: \bibitem[Hoffman et al.(1996)]{Hoff96}

1243:  Hoffman, R. D., Woosley, S. E., Fuller, G. M., \& Meyer, B. S. 1996,

1244:  \apj, 460, 478

1245: \bibitem[Hoffman et al.(2008)]{Hoff08}

1246:  Hoffman, R. D., M\"uller, B., \& Janka, H. -T. 2008,

1247:  \apjl, 676, L127

1248: \bibitem[Hudgins et al.(1990)]{Hudg90}

1249:  Hudgins, S., Herter, T., \& Joyce, R. J. 1990, \apjl, 354, L57

1250: %\bibitem[Ishimaru \& Wanajo(1999)]{Ishi99}

1251: % Ishimaru, Y. \& Wanajo, S. 1999, \apjl, 511, L33

1252: %\bibitem[Ishimaru et al.(2004)]{Ishi04} Ishimaru, Y., Wanajo, S., Aoki,

1253: % W., \& Ryan, S. G. 2004, \apj, 600, L47

1254: %\bibitem[Janka et al.(2007a)]{Jank07a}

1255: % Janka, H. -Th., Langanke, K., Marek, A., Martinez-Pinedo, G., \&

1256: % M\"uller B. 2007, \physrep, 442, 38

1257: %\bibitem[Janka et al.(2007b)]{Jank07b}

1258: % Janka, H. -T., Marek, M., \& Kitaura, F. -S. 2007, in Supernova

1259: % 1987A: 20 Years After: Supernovae and Gamma-Ray Bursters,

1260: % ed. S. Immler, K.W. Weiler, \& R. McCray (New York: AIP), in

1261: % press; arXiv:0706.3056

1262: \bibitem[Janka et al.(2008a)]{Jank08a}

1263:  Janka, H. -Th., M\"uller, B., Kitaura, F. -S., \& Buras, R. 2008a,

1264:  \aap, 485, 199

1265: \bibitem[Janka et al.(2008b)]{Jank08b}

1266:  Janka, H. -Th., Marek, A., M\"uller, B., \& Scheck, L. 2008b,

1267:  in {\em 40 Years of Pulsars: Millisecond Pulsars, Magnetars, and More},

1268:  Proc.\ Int.\ Conf.,

1269:  McGill Univ., Montreal, Canada, August 12--17, 2007,

1270:  Eds.~C.G.~Bassa, Z.~Wang, A.~Cumming, and V.~Kaspi,

1271:  AIP Conference Proceedings, Vol.~983, American Institute of

1272:  Physics, New York, p.~369; arXiv:0712.3070 

1273: %\bibitem[Keil et al.(1996)]{Keil96}

1274: % Keil, W., Janka, H. -T., \& M\"uller, E. 1996, \apjl, 473, L111

1275: \bibitem[Kitaura et al.(2006)]{Kita06}

1276:  Kitaura, F. S., Janka, H. -Th., \& Hillebrandt, W. 2006, \aap,

1277:  450, 345

1278: \bibitem[Langanke \& Martinez-Pinedo(2001)]{Lang01} Langanke, K. \&

1279:  Martinez-Pinedo, G. 2001, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables, 79, 1

1280: \bibitem[Lattimer \& Swesty(1991)]{Latt91}

1281:  Lattimer, J., \& Swesty, F. 1991, \nphysa, 535, 331

1282: %\bibitem[Li et al.(2006)]{Li06}

1283: % Li, W., Van Dyk, S. D., Filippenko, A. V., Cuillandre, J., Jha, S.,

1284: % Bloom, J. S., Riess, A. G., \& Livio, M. 2006, \apj, 641, 1060

1285: \bibitem[Liebend\"orfer et al.(2001)]{Lieb01}

1286:  Liebend\"orfer, M., Mezzacappa, A., Thielemann, F. -K., Messer, O. E.

1287:  Hix, W. R., \& Bruenn, S. W. 2001, \prd, 63, 103004

1288: %\bibitem[Liebend\"orfer et al.(2003)]{Lieb03}

1289: % Liebend\"orfer, M., Mezzacappa, A., Messer, O. E. B., Martinez-Pinedo,

1290: % G., Hix, W. R., \& Thielemann, F. -K. 2003, \nphysa, 719, 144

1291: \bibitem[Lodders(2003)]{Lodd03}

1292:  Lodders, K. 2003, \apj, 591, 1220

1293: \bibitem[MacAlpine \& Satterfield(2008)]{Maca08}

1294:  MacAlpine, G. M. \& Satterfield, T. J. 2008, \aj, submitted;

1295:  arXiv:0806.1342

1296: %\bibitem[Marek \& Janka(2007)]{Mare07}

1297: % Marek, A. \& Janka, H. -Th. 2007, \apj, submitted; arXiv:0708.3372

1298: %\bibitem[Mathews \& Cowan(1990)]{Math90}

1299: % Mathews, G. J. \& Cowan, J. J 1990, \nat, 345, 491

1300: \bibitem[Mayle \& Wilson(1988)]{Mayl88}

1301:  Mayle, R. \& Wilson, J. R. 1988, \apj, 334, 909

1302: %\bibitem[Maund et al.(2005)]{Maun05}

1303: % Maund, J. R., Smartt, S. J., Danziger, I. J. 2005, \mnras, 364, L33

1304: \bibitem[McLaughlin, Fuller, \& Wilson(1996)]{McLa96}

1305:  McLaughlin, G. C., Fuller, G. M., \& Wilson, J. R. 1996, \apj, 472, 440

1306: %\bibitem[Meyer(1995)]{Meye95}

1307: % Meyer, B. S. 1995, \apjl, 449, L55

1308: \bibitem[Meyer, Krishnan, \& Clayton(1998)]{Meye98a}

1309: Meyer, B. S., Krishnan, T. D., \& Clayton, D. D. 1998, \apj, 498, 808

1310: \bibitem[Meyer, McLaughlin, \& Fuller(1998)]{Meye98b}

1311:  Meyer, B. S., McLaughlin, G. C., \& Fuller G. M. 1998, \prc, 58, 3696

1312: %\bibitem[Meyer et al.(1992)]{Meye92}

1313: % Meyer, B. S., Mathews, G. J., Howard, W. M., Woosley, S. E., \&

1314: % Hoffman, R. D. 1992, \apj, 399, 656

1315: \bibitem[Mezzacappa et al.(2001)]{Mezz01}

1316:  Mezzacappa, A., Liebend\"orfer, M., Messer, O. E., Hix, W. R.

1317:  Thielemann, F. -K., \& Bruenn, S. W. 2001, \prl, 86, 1935

1318: \bibitem[Miyaji et al.(1980)]{Miya80}

1319:  Miyaji, S., Nomoto, K., Yokoi, K., \& Sugimoto, D. 1980, \pasj, 32, 303

1320: %\bibitem[Miyaji \& Nomoto(1987)]{Miya87}

1321: % Miyaji, S. \& Nomoto, K. 1987, \apj, 318, 307

1322: %\bibitem[Nadyozhin et al.(1998)]{Nady98}

1323: % Nadyozhin, D. K., Panov, I. V., \& Blinnikov, S. I. 1998, \aap, 335, 207

1324: %\bibitem[Ning et al.(2007)]{Ning07}

1325: % Ning, H., Qian, Y. -Z., \& Meyer, B. S. 2007, \apjl, 667, L159

1326: \bibitem[Nomoto et al.(1982)]{Nomo82}

1327:  Nomoto, K., Sparks, W. M., Fesen, R. A., Gull, T. R., Miyaji, S.,

1328:  \& Sugimoto, D. 1982, \nat, 299, 803

1329: \bibitem[Nomoto(1984)]{Nomo84}

1330:  Nomoto, K. 1984, \apj, 277, 791

1331: \bibitem[Nomoto(1985)]{Nomo85}

1332:  Nomoto, K. 1985, in The Crab Nebula and Related Supernova Remnants,

1333:  ed. M. C. Kafatos \& R. B. C. Henry (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press), 97

1334: \bibitem[Nomoto(1987)]{Nomo87}

1335:  Nomoto, K. 1987, \apj, 322, 206

1336: \bibitem[Nomoto et al.(2003)]{Nomo03}

1337:  Nomoto, K., Maeda, K., Umeda, H., Ohkubo, T., Deng, J., \& Mazzali, P. 2003,

1338:  in IAU Symp. 212, A Massive Star Odyssey, ed. V. D. Hucht, A. Herrero, \&

1339:  C. Esteban (San Fransisco: ASP), 395

1340: \bibitem[Nomoto et al.(2006)]{Nomo06}

1341:  Nomoto, K., Tominaga, N., Umeda, H., Kobayashi, C., \& Maeda, K. 2006,

1342:  \nphysa, 777, 424

1343: %\bibitem[Otsuki et al.(2000)]{Otsu00}

1344: % Otsuki, K., Tagoshi, H., Kajino, T., \& Wanajo, S. 2000, \apj, 533, 424

1345: \bibitem[Pastorello et al.(2004)]{Past04}

1346: Pastorello, A., et al. 2004, \mnras, 347, 74

1347: \bibitem[Pastorello et al.(2006)]{Past06}

1348: Pastorello, A., et al. 2006, \mnras, 370, 1752

1349: \bibitem[Pastorello et al.(2007)]{Past07}

1350:  Pastorello, A., et al. 2007, \nat, 449, 1

1351: \bibitem[Poelarends et al.(2008)]{Poel08}

1352:  Poelarends, A. J. T., Herwig, F., Langer, N., \& Heger, A. 2008,

1353:  \apj, 675, 614

1354: %\bibitem[Pruet et al.(2005)]{Prue05}

1355: % Pruet, J., Woosley, S. E., Buras, R., \& Janka, H. -Th. 2005, \apj, 623, 325

1356: \bibitem[Prieto et al.(2008)]{Prie08}

1357:  Prieto, J. L., et al. 2008, \apjl, 681, L9

1358: \bibitem[Pruet et al.(2006)]{Prue06}

1359:  Pruet, J., Hoffman, R. D., Woosley, S. E., Janka, H. -Th., \& Buras, R.

1360:  2006, \apj, 644, 1028

1361: %\bibitem[Qian \& Woosley(1996)]{Qian96}

1362: % Qian, Y. -Z. \& Woosley, S. E. 1996, \apj, 471, 331

1363: %\bibitem[Qian et al.(1997)]{Qian97}

1364: % Qian, Y. -Z., Haxton, W. C., Langanke, K., \& Vogel, P. 1997, \prc, 55, 1532

1365: %\bibitem[Qian \& Wasserburg(2002)]{Qian02}

1366: % Qian, Y. -Z. \& Wasserburg, G. J. 2002, \apj, 567, 515

1367: %\bibitem[Qian \& Wasserburg(2003)]{Qian03}

1368: % Qian, Y. -Z. \& Wasserburg, G. J. 2003, \apj, 588, 1099

1369: \bibitem[Rampp \& Janka(2000)]{Ramp00}

1370:  Rampp, M. \& Janka, H. -T. 2000, \apj, 539, L33

1371: \bibitem[Rayet et al.(1995)]{Raye95}

1372:  Rayet, M., Arnould, M., Hashimoto, M., Prantzos, N., \& Nomoto,

1373:  K. 1995, \aap, 298, 517

1374: \bibitem[Rauscher \& Thielemann(2000)]{Raus00}

1375:  Rauscher, T. \& Thielemann, F. -K. 2000, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables, 75, 1

1376: \bibitem[Shen et al.(1998)]{Shen98}

1377:  Shen, H., Toki, H., Oyamatsu, K., \& Sumiyoshi, K. 1998, \nphysa, 637, 435

1378: \bibitem[Siess(2007)]{Sies07}

1379:  Siess, L. 2007, \aap, 476, 893

1380: \bibitem[Smartt et al.(2008)]{Smar08}

1381:  Smartt, S. J., Eldridge, J. J., Crockett, R. M., \& Maund, J. R. 2008,

1382:  \mnras, submitted; arXiv:0809.0403

1383: \bibitem[Sumiyoshi et al.(2005)]{Sumi05}

1384:  Sumiyoshi, K., Yamada, S., Suzuki, H., Shen, H., Chiba, S.,

1385:  \& Toki, H. 2005, \apj, 629, 922

1386: %\bibitem[Suzuki \& Nagataki(2005)]{Suzu05}

1387: % Suzuki, T. K. \& Nagataki, S. 2005, \apj, 628, 914

1388: \bibitem[Tachibana, Yamada, \& Yoshida(1990)]{Tach90}

1389:  Tachibana, T., Yamada, M., \& Yoshida, Y. 1990,

1390:  Progr. Theor. Phys., 84, 641

1391: %\bibitem[Takahashi et al.(1994)]{Taka94}

1392: % Takahashi, K., Witti, J., \& Janka, H. -T. 1994, \aap, 286, 857

1393: \bibitem[Tominaga et al.(2007)]{Tomi07}

1394:  Tominaga, N., Umeda, H., \& Nomoto, K. 2007, \apj, 660, 516

1395: %\bibitem[Thompson et al.(2001)]{Thom01}

1396: % Thompson, T. A., Burrows, A., \& Meyer, B. S. 2001, \apj, 562, 887

1397: \bibitem[Thompson et al.(2003)]{Thom03}

1398:  Thompson, T. A., Burrows, A., \& Pinto, P. A. 2003, \apj, 592, 434

1399: \bibitem[Thompson et al.(2008)]{Thom08}

1400:  Thompson, T. A., Prieto, J. L., Stanek, K. Z., Kistler, M. D.,

1401:  Beacom, J. F., \& Kochanek, C. S. 2008, \apj, submitted; arXiv:0809.0510

1402: \bibitem[Turatto et al.(1998)]{Tura98}

1403:  Turatto, M., et al. 1998, \apjl, 498, L129

1404: \bibitem[Umeda \& Nomoto(2002)]{Umed02}

1405:  Umeda, H. \& Nomoto, K. 2002, \apj, 565, 385

1406: %\bibitem[Umeda \& Nomoto(2003)]{Umed03}

1407: % Umeda, H. \& Nomoto, K. 2003, \nat, 422, 871

1408: %\bibitem[Wanajo et al.(2001)]{Wana01}

1409: % Wanajo, S., Kajino, T., Mathews, G. J., \& Otsuki, K. 2001, \apj, 554, 578

1410: \bibitem[Wanajo et al.(2003)]{Wana03}

1411:  Wanajo, S., Tamamura, M., Itoh, N., Nomoto, K., Ishimaru, Y., 

1412:  Beers, T. C., \& Nozawa, S. 2003, \apj, 593, 968

1413: \bibitem[Wanajo(2006)]{Wana06}

1414:  Wanajo, S. 2006, \apj, 647, 1323

1415: %\bibitem[Wanajo(2006b)]{Wana06b}

1416: % Wanajo, S. 2006, \apjl, 650, L79

1417: %\bibitem[Wanajo \& Ishimaru(2006)]{Wana06c}

1418: % Wanajo, S. \& Ishimaru, I. 2006, \nphysa, 777, 676

1419: \bibitem[Wanajo(2007)]{Wana07}

1420:  Wanajo, S. 2007, \apjl, 666, L77

1421: %\bibitem[Wheeler, Cowan, \& Hillebrandt(1998)]{Whee98}

1422: % Wheeler, J. C., Cowan, J. J., \& Hillebrandt, W. 1998, \apjl, 493, L101

1423: \bibitem[Woosley et al.(1990)]{Woos90}

1424:  Woosley, S. E., Hartmann, D. H., Hoffman, R. D., \&

1425:  Haxton, W. C. 1990, \apj, 356, 272

1426: %\bibitem[Woosley \& Baron(1992)]{Woos92a}

1427: % Woosley, S. E. \& Baron, E. 1992, \apj, 391, 228

1428: %\bibitem[Woosley \& Hoffman(1992)]{Woos92b}

1429: % Woosley, S. E. \& Hoffman, R. D. 1992, \apj, 395, 202

1430: \bibitem[Woosley et al.(1994)]{Woos94}

1431:  Woosley, S. E., Wilson, J. R., Mathews, G. J., Hoffman, R. D., \&

1432:  Meyer, B. S. 1994, \apj, 433, 229

1433: \bibitem[Zampieri et al.(2003)]{Zamp03}

1434:  Zampieri, L., et al. 2003, \mnras, 338, 711

1435: \end{thebibliography}

1436: 

1437: \end{document}

1438: 

1439: The supernovae from collapsing O-Ne-Mg cores have been occasionally

1440: proposed as an astrophysical site of the $r$-process. The limited mass

1441: range of their progenitors ($\sim 8-10\, M_\odot$) as well as their

1442: small production of iron can naturally account for the large

1443: stat-to-star scatter of neutron-capture elements relative to iron

1444: observed in Galactic halo stars \citep{Ishi99, Ishi04}. No clear

1445: correlation between the production of neutron-capture elements and

1446: those of $\alpha$ and iron-peak species in the halo stars may also be

1447: explained if the $r$-process originates from this type of supernovae

1448: \citep{Qian03}.

1449: 

1450: Our result shows, however, no $r$-processing, being in agreement with

1451: that of \citet{Hoff08}. In all the calculations, few neutrons are left

1452: (neutron-to-seed ratio $< 10^{-10}$) at the freezeout of

1453: charged-particle reactions ($T_9 \approx 2.5$). The entropy of $30\,

1454: N_\mathrm{A} k_\mathrm{B}$ is too small and $Y_e$ is too high ($>

1455: 0.46$) to achieve a sufficient neutron-to-seed ratio ($\sim 100$). As

1456: shown by \citet{Jank08}, the shocked surface layers in the present

1457: case do not provide the conditions for the $r$-process that is

1458: proposed by \citet{Ning07}. No sign of a prompt explosion can be seen

1459: in \citet{Kita06}, either, which has been suggested to provide a

1460: suitable conditions for $r$-process \citep[$Y_e \sim 0.2$,][]{Hill84,

1461: Whee98, Wana03}.

1462: 

1463: We do not expect the neutrino-induced $r$-process in the He-layer of

1464: this star, either, which has been proposed by \citet{Epst88}. The

1465: present star has the He-shell at the radius of $\sim 10^8$~cm that is

1466: substantially closer to the center (i.e., the neutrino flux is more

1467: intense) than several $10^9$~cm for more massive progenitors. However,

1468: little enhancement of free neutrons by neutrino reactions can be seen

1469: at the base of the He-layer (the first mass-element to leave the core

1470: in the present case). In order to estimate the maximum neutron number

1471: density $N_n$ from neutrino reactions on $^4$He, we test with the same

1472: trajectory but starting from $T_9 = 1$ with pure $^4$He, where no

1473: heavy nuclei (as the neutron``poison'') exist. The maximum value of

1474: $N_n \sim 10^{20}$~cm~s$^{-3}$ (that is still small for the

1475: $r$-process) is immediately obtained, but $N_n$ decreases below

1476: $10^{18}$~cm~s$^{-3}$ only after 0.15~s. This is due to the fast

1477: expansion of this trajectory above $10^9$~cm, where the

1478: neutrino-induced $r$-process is difficult \citep{Woos90, Nady98}.

1479: 

1480: Our result cannot exclude the possibility of $r$-processing in the

1481: later ($t_\mathrm{pb} > 1$~s) neutrino winds \citep{Taka94,

1482: Woos94}. However, the mass of the proto-neutron star in the present

1483: case ($1.36\, M_\odot$ baryonic mass) is too stall to satisfy the

1484: requisite conditions for the $r$-process \citep[$\sim 2.0\, M_\odot$

1485: gravitational mass is needed,][]{Qian96, Card97, Otsu00, Wana01,

1486: Thom01}. Additional effects might be required for the exploding

1487: O-Ne-Mg cores to be the $r$-process site, e.g., the magnetic field

1488: \citep{Suzu05} or anisotropic neutrino radiation \citep{Wana06b}.

1489: 

1490: