1: %\documentstyle[12pt,aasms4]{article}
2: %\documentstyle[11pt,aaspp4,flushrt]{article}
3: %\documentstyle[aas2pp4]{article}
4: %
5: % aas2pp4 is dual column, aaspp4 is what we've been using (11pt),
6: % aasms4 (12pt) is what is submitted.
7: %
8: %
9: %
10: %This manuscript is prepared in AASTex 5.0 style
11: \documentclass[preprint]{aastex}
12:
13: \received{}
14: \revised{}
15: \accepted{}
16: \ccc{}
17: \cpright{}{}
18:
19: \slugcomment{2002, AJ in press}
20: \shorttitle{Abundance Ratios of M71}
21: \shortauthors{Ram\'{\i}rez \etal}
22:
23: \newcommand{\kms}{km~s$^{-1}$}
24: \newcommand{\subsun}{\mbox{$_{\odot}$}}
25: \newcommand{\etal}{{\it et al.\/}}
26: \newcommand{\teff}{$T_{eff}$}
27: \newcommand{\grav}{log($g$)}
28: \newcommand{\mtv}{$\xi$}
29: \newcommand{\ew}{$W_{\lambda}$}
30: \newcommand{\fe}{[Fe/H]}
31:
32: \begin{document}
33:
34: \title{Abundances in Stars from the Red Giant Branch Tip to Near the
35: Main Sequence Turn Off in M71: III. Abundance Ratios
36: \altaffilmark{1}}
37:
38: \author{Solange V. Ram\'{\i}rez \altaffilmark{2} and
39: Judith G. Cohen\altaffilmark{2}.}
40:
41: \altaffiltext{1}{Based on observations obtained at the
42: W.M. Keck Observatory, which is operated jointly by the California
43: Institute of Technology, the University of California, and the
44: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.}
45:
46: \altaffiltext{2}{Palomar Observatory, Mail Stop 105-24,
47: California Institute of Technology.}
48:
49: \begin{abstract}
50:
51: We present abundance ratios for 23 elements with respect to Fe
52: in a sample of stars with a wide range in luminosity from
53: luminous giants to stars near the turnoff in a globular cluster.
54: Our sample of 25 stars in M71 includes 10 giant stars more luminous than the
55: red horizontal branch (RHB), 3 HB stars, 9 giant stars less luminous than
56: the RHB, and 3 stars near the turnoff.
57: The analyzed spectra, obtained with HIRES at the Keck Observatory,
58: are of high dispersion (R=$\lambda / \Delta \lambda$=35,000).
59: We find that the neutron capture, the iron peak and the
60: $\alpha-$element abundance ratios
61: show no trend with \teff, and low scatter around the mean between the
62: top of the RGB and near the main sequence turnoff.
63: The $\alpha-$elements Mg, Ca, Si and Ti are overabundant relative to Fe.
64: The anti-correlation between O and Na abundances,
65: observed in other metal poor globular clusters, is detected in our sample
66: and extends to the main sequence.
67: A statistically significant correlation between Al and Na abundances
68: is observed among the M71 stars in our sample, extending to $M_V = +1.8$,
69: fainter than the luminosity of the RGB bump in M5.
70: Lithium is varying, as expected, and Zr may be varying from star to star
71: as well.
72:
73: M71 appears to have abundance ratios very similar to M5
74: whose bright giants were studied by \citet{iva01}, but seems to have
75: a smaller amplitude of star-to-star variations at a given luminosity,
76: as might be expected from its higher metallicity.
77: Both extremely O poor, Na rich stars and extremely O rich, Na poor stars
78: such as are observed in M5 and in M13 are not present in our
79: sample of M71 stars.
80:
81: The results of our abundance analysis of 25 stars in M71 provide
82: sufficient evidence of abundance variations at unexpectedly low luminosities
83: to rule out the mixing scenario. Either alone or, even more
84: powerfully, combined with other recent studies of C and N
85: abundances in M71 stars, the existence of such abundance variations
86: cannot be reproduced within the context of our current understanding
87: of stellar evolution.
88:
89: \end{abstract}
90:
91: \keywords{globular clusters: general ---
92: globular clusters: individual (M71) --- stars: evolution -- stars:abundances}
93:
94:
95: \section{INTRODUCTION}
96:
97: Abundance determinations of stars in Galactic globular clusters can provide
98: valuable information about important astrophysical processes such as
99: stellar evolution, stellar structure, Galactic chemical evolution and
100: the formation of the Milky Way. Surface stellar abundances of C, N, O,
101: and often Na, Mg, and Al are found to be variable among red giants within
102: a globular cluster.
103: The physical process responsible for these star-to-star element variations
104: is still uncertain (see the reviews of Kraft 1994 and
105: Pinsonneault 1997, as well as Cohen \etal\ 2001, Paper I).
106: %\citep[see ][Paper I]{coh01}.
107:
108: In order to study the origin of the star-to-star abundance variations,
109: we have started a program to determine chemical abundances of the nearer
110: galactic globular cluster stars.
111: \citet{coh01} presents the sample of stars in M71, the nearest globular
112: cluster reachable from the northern hemisphere, and the atmosphere parameters
113: of the program stars.
114: Our sample includes stars over a large range in luminosity:
115: 19 giant stars, 3 horizontal branch (HB) stars, and 3 stars near the main
116: sequence
117: turnoff, in order to study in a consistent manner red giants, horizontal
118: branch stars, and stars at the main sequence turnoff.
119: Our second paper \citep[][Paper II]{ram01} discusses the iron abundance in M71.
120: We found that the \fe\ abundances from both Fe I (\fe\ = $-0.71 \pm 0.08$)
121: and Fe II (\fe\ = $-0.84 \pm 0.12$) lines agree with each other and with
122: earlier determinations \citep{coh83,gra86,lee87,sne94}.
123: We also found that the \fe\ obtained from Fe I and Fe II lines is constant
124: within the rather small uncertainties for this group of stars over the full
125: range in effective temperature (\teff) and luminosity.
126: In this third paper of this series, we present our results for abundances of
127: 23 atomic species in our sample of M71 stars.
128:
129: \section{ATOMIC LINE PARAMETERS}
130:
131: The abundance analysis is done using a current version of the LTE
132: spectral synthesis program MOOG \citep{sne73}.
133: A line list specifying the wavelengths, excitation
134: potentials, $gf$ values, damping constants, and equivalent widths for the
135: observed lines is required.
136: The provenance of the equivalent widths, $gf$ values and damping constants
137: is discussed below.
138:
139: In addition, a model atmosphere for the \teff\
140: and surface gravity (\grav) appropriate for each star and a value for the
141: microturbulent velocity (\mtv) are also required for the abundance analysis.
142: We use the grid of model atmospheres from \citet{kur93a} with a metallicity of
143: \fe\ = $-$0.5 dex, based on earlier high dispersion iron abundance analysis of
144: M71 \citep[][Paper II]{coh83,gra86,lee87,sne94}.
145: \teff\ and \grav\ are derived from the
146: broad-band photometry of the stars as described in
147: Paper I. The photometric \teff\ has an
148: error of $\pm$75 K for giants and $\pm$150 K for
149: dwarfs and \grav\ has an error of $\pm$0.2 dex.
150: The microturbulent velocity is derived as described in Paper II; \mtv\ has
151: an error of $\pm$0.2 \kms. Table~\ref{tab1}, reproduced from
152: Paper II, lists the stellar parameters
153: of our sample of M71 stars.
154:
155: \subsection{Equivalent Widths}
156:
157: The search for absorption features present in our HIRES data and the
158: measurement of their equivalent width (\ew) was done automatically with
159: a FORTRAN code, EWDET, developed for this project. Details of this code
160: and its features are described in Paper II.
161: The line list identified and measured by EWDET is then correlated
162: to the list of suitable unblended lines with atomic parameters
163: to specifically identify the different atomic lines.
164: The list of unblended atomic lines was created by inspection of the spectra
165: of M71 stars, as well as the online Solar spectrum taken with the FTS
166: at the National Solar Observatory of
167: Wallace, Hinkle \& Livingston (1998) and
168: the set of Solar line identifications of Moore, Minnaert \& Houtgast (1966).
169:
170: In Paper II, we derived the $\lambda D-$\ew\ relation of the Fe I
171: lines of ``the weak line set'' (Fe I lines within two sigma levels of the
172: $\lambda D-$\ew\ fit, \ew\ $<$ 60 m\AA, and errors less than a third of the
173: \ew).
174: We used these $\lambda D-$\ew\ relations to determine ``the good line set''
175: (lines with errors less than a third of the \ew\ and with \ew\
176: computed from the derived $\lambda D-$\ew\ relations).
177: The \ew\ of the lines presented in this paper are also determined using the
178: fit to the $\lambda D-$\ew\ relation of the Fe I lines of ``the good line set'',
179: except for the C I, O I and Ca I lines, and for the elements that
180: show hyperfine
181: structure splitting (Sc II, V I, Mn I, Co I, Cu I, and Ba II).
182: The equivalent widths of the C I and O I lines were measured
183: by hand, since thermal motions become important at the low atomic weights
184: of these elements and
185: the $\lambda D-$\ew\ relations derived for Fe I lines may no longer be valid.
186: For Ca I lines and the lines of elements that show hyperfine structure splitting,
187: we used the equivalent widths measured automatically by EWDET,
188: but did not force them to fit the Fe I $\lambda D-$\ew\ relationship due to
189: the probable different broadening mechanisms. Many of the Ca I lines
190: were strong
191: enough to be on the damping part of the curve of growth.
192: The \ew\ used in the abundance analysis are listed in Table~\ref{tab2}
193: (available electronically), which also includes the \ew\ for the Fe I and Fe II
194: lines used in Paper II.
195:
196: \subsection{Transition Probabilities}
197:
198: Transition probabilities for the lines used in this analysis
199: were obtained from the NIST Atomic Spectra Database (NIST Standard
200: Reference Database \#78, see \citet{wei69,mar88,fuh88,wei96}) when possible.
201: Nearly 80\% of the lines selected as suitable from the
202: HIRES spectra have transition probabilities from the NIST database.
203: For the remaining lines the $gf$ values come from the inverted solar
204: analysis of \citet{the89,the90}, corrected by the factors
205: listed in Table~\ref{tab3} which are needed to place both sets of
206: transition probabilities onto the same scale.
207: The correction factor was computed as the mean difference
208: in log($gf$) between the NIST and solar values for the lines in common,
209: which number is given in column 2 of Table~\ref{tab3}.
210: Elements not listed in Table~\ref{tab3}
211: have transition probabilities from the NIST database for
212: all their lines utilized here.
213:
214: Six elements show hyperfine structure splitting (Sc II, V I, Mn I, Co I, Cu I,
215: and Ba II). The corresponding hyperfine structure constants were taken
216: from \citet{pro00}.
217:
218: \subsection{Damping Constants}
219:
220: Most of the Na I and Ca I lines are strong enough for damping effects
221: to be important.
222: For Na I the interaction constants, $C_{6}$, of the van de Waals broadening were
223: taken from the solar analysis of \citet{bau98}. \citet{smi81} studied
224: collisional broadening of 17 Ca I lines. Comparing their experimental results
225: and the predicted values of $C_{6}$
226: obtained using the Uns\"{o}ld approximation,
227: we found that the experimental $C_{6}$ are about 10 times larger than the
228: Uns\"{o}ld $C_{6}$. Thus for the Ca I we used the experimental $C_{6}$
229: from \citet{smi81} when available, otherwise we use 10 times the Uns\"{o}ld
230: approximation. The empirical values of $C_{6}$ for Al I and Mg I from
231: \citet{bau96} and \citet{zha98}, respectively, are also used.
232: We used 4 times times the Uns\"{o}ld approximation for those Al I lines without
233: empirical damping constants.
234: For the lines of all other ions we set $C_{6}$ to be
235: twice the Uns\"{o}ld approximation as was done
236: in Paper II for the Fe I lines following \citet{hol91}.
237:
238:
239: \subsection{Solar Abundances}
240:
241: We need to establish the solar abundances corresponding to our adopted set of
242: $gf$ values and damping constants.
243: Solar abundance ratios were computed using our compilation of atomic parameters,
244: the Kurucz model atmosphere for the Sun \citep{kur93b} and
245: the list of equivalent widths from \citet{moo66}.
246: The results are listed in Table~\ref{tab4}.
247: The O abundance from the permitted lines are corrected by a factor of
248: 0.35 dex (see below).
249: There is a general agreement with the meteoric
250: solar abundance ratios from \citet{and89}.
251: The difference between our solar abundances and the meteoric solar abundances
252: from \citet{and89} is listed in column 5 of Table~\ref{tab4}.
253: This difference is within the standard deviation of our own
254: measurements, with the exception of [Ca/Fe], which is our most deviant
255: abundance ratio. The difference we found is almost the same as the correction
256: factor applied to the solar $gf$ values, listed in Table~\ref{tab3}.
257: We use these solar abundance ratios, derived from our choice of
258: atomic line parameters, to compute the abundance
259: ratios for our sample of M71 stars.
260:
261: \subsection{Non-LTE effects \label{section_nonlte}}
262:
263: The non-LTE treatment of the oxygen permitted lines is discussed in
264: \S\ref{abun}. The K I resonance lines are strongly affected by non-LTE effects
265: in the Sun \citep{del75}. \citet{tak01} carried out statistical equilibrium
266: calculations for the K I line 7699 \AA,
267: the only line used in our analysis, for metal poor stars.
268: We applied a non-LTE correction to our results of K abundance
269: following \citet{tak01}. The smallest correction applied was $-$0.12 dex
270: for the cool giant stars, and the largest correction was $-$0.7 dex for the
271: HB stars. Without these corrections, a very strong dependence of
272: K abundance on \teff\ (equivalent to luminosity) was seen.
273:
274: The aluminium lines are also affected by non-LTE in metal poor stars
275: \citep{bau97}. Unfortunately, the statistical equilibrium calculations of
276: \citet{bau97} included only dwarf stars. Their non-LTE corrections increase
277: with decreasing metallicity, and are larger for the 3961 \AA \ line than for
278: the 6697 \AA\ doublet used in our analysis. Al and all other elements were
279: treated assuming LTE.
280:
281:
282: \section{ABUNDANCE ANALYSIS \label{abun}}
283:
284: Given the stellar parameters from Paper I, we determined the abundances
285: using the equivalent widths obtained as described above.
286: The abundance analysis is done using a current version of the LTE
287: spectral synthesis program MOOG \citep{sne73}.
288: We employ the grid of stellar atmospheres from \citet{kur93b} to compute
289: the abundances of C, O, Na, Mg, Al, Si, K, Ca, Sc, Ti, V, Cr, Mn, Co, Ni,
290: Cu, Zn, Y, Zr, Ba, La, and Eu using the four stellar atmosphere
291: models with the closest \teff\ and \grav\ to each star's parameters.
292: The abundances were interpolated using results from the closest stellar model
293: atmospheres to the appropriate \teff\ and \grav\ for each star.
294:
295: We also determine the abundance of Li using a synthesis of the spectra in
296: the area of the doublet at 6707\AA, which, since it is not well resolved,
297: is considered as only one line in Table~\ref{tab5a}.
298: The Li abundance is given as log~$\epsilon$(Li)=log($N_{Li}/N_{H}$)+12.0,
299: where $N$ is number of atoms.
300: In this case, we used the stellar model
301: atmosphere from \citet{kur93b} with the closest \teff\ and \grav\ to each
302: star's parameters.
303: %The observed spectra (thin line) overplotted with the synthetic
304: %spectra (thick solid line for clear detection, thick dotted line for upper
305: %limits) is shown in Figure~\ref{li1_synth}. Models with $\pm$ 0.1 dex
306: %of the Li abundance of the best fit are plotted with a dotted line in the
307: %clear detection cases in Figure~\ref{li1_synth}.
308:
309: The abundance ratios, with the exception of [C/Fe], [O/Fe], [Si/Fe] and [Zn/Fe]
310: are computed using the iron abundance from Fe I lines of Paper II
311: as slightly updated in Table~\ref{tab1},
312: and our solar abundance ratios from Table~\ref{tab4}.
313: Given their high excitation potentials, the abundance ratios for the
314: C I, Si I, and Zn I lines were computed using the [Fe/H] from Fe II lines.
315: In the \teff\ range of our sample of stars, most of the iron is in the
316: form of Fe II and most of the oxygen is in the form of O I, so both
317: species behave similarly for small changes in the atmospheric parameters.
318: For this reason, we computed the abundance ratio of O using the
319: Fe II lines as well.
320: The computed abundance ratios are listed in Tables ~\ref{tab5a} - ~\ref{tab5e}.
321:
322: There are 11 stars with equivalent widths measured for both the two forbidden and
323: the permitted O lines. The difference of the oxygen abundance ratio from
324: forbidden and permitted lines for those 11 stars and the Sun
325: is plotted against \teff\ in Figure~\ref{ox_teff}.
326: A clear trend with \teff\ is observed, which may come from the different
327: excitation potential of the forbidden and the permitted lines or from
328: non-LTE effects on the permitted lines.
329: We tried applying the non-LTE corrections suggested by \citet{gra99} and
330: by \citet{tak02} to
331: the permitted lines, but the observed \teff\ trend becomes even steeper.
332: \citet{mel01} and \citet{lam02}, among others, discuss the validity of
333: the different oxygen abundance indicators.
334: Since the forbidden lines are usually considered to give more
335: reliable abundances \citep[but see ][]{isr01,all01}, we corrected the
336: abundance ratio from the permitted lines by the amount given by the least
337: squares fit shown in Figure~\ref{ox_teff}.
338: The final [O/Fe] listed in Table~\ref{tab5a} is the average for each star
339: of the results from the forbidden and the corrected permitted lines.
340: Note that a correction of 0.35 dex, which corresponds to the
341: correction at
342: the temperature of the Sun, was applied to the abundances deduced
343: from the permitted lines of O I in the Sun to compute its
344: [O/Fe] in the same way as for our M71 sample of stars.
345:
346: The abundance ratios (absolute abundance for Li) for each star in our M71 sample
347: are plotted against the photometric \teff\ in
348: Figures~\ref{li1} to ~\ref{neutron}.
349: The error bars shown in Figures~\ref{li1} to~\ref{neutron} correspond to the
350: standard deviation of
351: results of different atomic lines divided by the square root
352: of the number of lines used for each star.
353: The solid line, shown in Figures~\ref{light} to~\ref{neutron}, is a linear
354: fit weighted
355: by the errors of the respective abundance ratio versus \teff.
356: The dashed line shown in these figures indicates the mean
357: abundance ratio and its respective error plotted as an error bar at 3925 K.
358: The error in the mean abundance ratio corresponds to the standard deviation
359: within our sample of stars divided by the square root of the number of
360: stars for which an abundance was derived for that ion.
361:
362: We estimate the sensitivity of the abundances with respect to small changes
363: in the equivalent widths (synthesis for Li) and the stellar parameters
364: in four cases 4000/1.0/1.4, 4250/1.0/1.4, 5000/2.5/1.0 and
365: 5500/4.0/0.6, where the three numbers correspond to \teff/\grav/\mtv.
366: The case 4000/1.0/1.4 has been computed only for elements with high excitation
367: lines, which are more sensitive at lower temperatures.
368: The stellar parameters of these cases span the relevant range of
369: atmospheric parameters for our M71 sample.
370: We estimated the error in the \ew\ to be 10\% for all the lines.
371: %, except
372: %the ones with hyperfine structure splitting and
373: %the ones of the 8 most faintest stars, which were estimated to be 15\%.
374: The error of the synthesis of the Li doublet is estimated to be $\pm$0.1 dex.
375: The results are listed in Table~\ref{tab6}, where the range adopted for each
376: parameter is representative of its uncertainty.
377:
378: Because of the high excitation of the C I lines studied here,
379: this is the ion included in our analysis
380: whose derived abundance is most sensitive to \teff.
381: [Ca/H] also has a sensitive dependence on \teff\ and on \mtv,
382: because the Ca I lines are all rather strong and have large
383: damping constants.
384: %Most of the elements that show hyperfine structure splitting also present a larger
385: %sensitivity with respect to the \ew\ error, which was estimated to be higher in
386: %those cases.
387:
388: The mean abundance ratios and their errors are listed in Table~\ref{tab7}.
389: The statistical error, $\sigma_{obs}$, corresponds to the standard deviation of
390: sample of stars divided by the square root of the number of stars and
391: it is a measure of the scatter of the abundance ratio in the sample of M71 stars.
392: In order to quantify the abundance ratio variations within our sample of
393: M71 stars we have to compare the measure of the scatter with the predicted
394: error from the stellar parameters and the measurement of the \ew\ (or synthesis
395: for Li).
396: We estimated the predicted error, $\sigma_{pred}$, using the following equation:
397: \begin{eqnarray*}
398: \sigma^{2}_{pred}([X/Fe]) =
399: & \Delta (X:W_{\lambda})^{2}/N_{lines}(X)+\Delta (Fe:W_{\lambda})^{2}/N_{lines}(Fe) + \\
400: & [\Delta (X:T_{eff}) - \Delta (Fe:T_{eff})]^{2} + \\
401: & [\Delta (X:{\rm log}(g)) - \Delta (Fe:{\rm log}(g))]^{2} + \\
402: & [\Delta (X:\xi) - \Delta (Fe:\xi)]^{2} + \\
403: & [\Delta (X:{\rm [Fe/H]}) - \Delta (Fe:{\rm [Fe/H]})]^{2}
404: \end{eqnarray*}
405: where $\Delta(X:$\ew), $\Delta(X:$\teff), $\Delta(X:$\grav), $\Delta(X:$\mtv),
406: and $\Delta(X:$\fe) are
407: listed in columns 2, 3, 4 ,5 and 6 of Table~\ref{tab6}.
408: $N_{lines}$ is the number of lines used
409: to compute the abundances, $X$ denotes the element under consideration,
410: and $Fe$ denotes either Fe I or Fe II, whichever was used to
411: compute the abundance ratio.
412: Our $\sigma_{pred}$ ignores covariance among the error terms, which
413: is discussed in detail by \citet{joh02}. She shows that these
414: additional terms are fairly small, and will be even smaller in our case,
415: as we have determined \grav\ using isochrones rather than through
416: ionization equilibria (see Paper I).
417: The general small trends seen in Figures~\ref{li1} to \ref{neutron}
418: of [X/Fe] slightly increasing toward cooler \teff\
419: may result from ignoring the covariance terms (see Johnson 2002).
420:
421: The predicted errors for each ion are listed in column 4 of Table~\ref{tab7}.
422: The maximum abundance trend over the
423: relevant \teff\
424: range for each element, $\Delta_{max}$, is also listed
425: in column 6 of Table~\ref{tab7}. This parameter, which is not
426: sensitive to star-to-star scatter abundance variations for stars
427: at a given evolutionary state,
428: is the slope of the linear fit of the abundance
429: ratio vs. \teff\ times the range in \teff; its error is the error in the
430: slope time the range in \teff\ covered by the sample of stars
431: in which the ion of interest was observed. The values of $\Delta_{max}$
432: for essentially all elements observed are gratifyingly small,
433: providing evidence to support many of the assumptions made in the course
434: of this analysis, such as that of non-LTE.
435:
436: A summary of the abundance ratios for our M71 sample
437: is shown in Figure~\ref{summ_fig2}.
438: The results for each element are depicted as
439: a box whose central horizontal line is the median
440: abundance ratio for all the M71 stars included, while the bottom and
441: the top shows its inter--quartile range, the vertical lines
442: coming out of the box mark the
443: position of the adjacent points of the sample,
444: and the outliers are plotted as open circles.
445: The boxes drawn with dotted lines correspond to
446: elements with abundances computed from only one line in each star and
447: hence are more uncertain.
448: The thick line on the left side of the box is the predicted
449: 1$\sigma$ rms error
450: scaled to correspond to the $\pm$25\% inter--quartile range.
451: As seen in Figure~\ref{summ_fig2}, the elements where
452: we expect to see star-to-star variations in our M71 sample
453: are O, Na, Zr, and the special cases of Li and C,
454: each to be discussed in detail later.
455: %the
456: %predicted error is less than $\sigma_{obs}$ found in our
457: %M71 sample are O, Na, Zr, and the special cases of Li and C,
458: %each to be discussed in detail later. These are the
459: %elements in which we expect to see star-to-star variations in
460: %M71 from our data.
461:
462:
463: \section{DISCUSSION}
464:
465: \subsection{Fe-peak elements}
466:
467: The abundance ratios of [Sc/Fe], [V/Fe], [Cr/Fe], [Mn/Fe], [Co/Fe], and [Ni/Fe]
468: follow the behavior of iron as expected, showing no significant trend with \teff,
469: and less scatter around the mean than the predicted error.
470: The mean abundance ratios of Sc ($<$[Sc/Fe]$>$=+0.05$\pm$0.16), V
471: ($<$[V/Fe]$>$=+0.11$\pm$0.14), and Ni ($<$[Ni/Fe]$>$=+0.01$\pm$0.06) are
472: consistent with the earlier results of \citet{sne94}, who analyzed high resolution
473: spectra of ten giant stars in M71, obtaining $<$[Sc/Fe]$>$=+0.10$\pm$0.03,
474: $<$[V/Fe]$>$=+0.19$\pm$0.04, and $<$[Ni/Fe]$>$=+0.07$\pm$0.04.
475: Our abundance ratios of the iron peak elements are also consistent with
476: the results of \citet{lee87}.
477:
478: The Zn I line at 6362.3 \AA\ is definitely present in the best of the
479: spectra of the M71 giants, but
480: is somewhat blended with the much stronger Fe I line at 6362.9.
481: In addition,
482: the continuum there is depressed due to a broad auto-ionization Ca I feature.
483: The rather high abundance of Zn
484: we deduce must thus be regarded as quite uncertain
485: until a full spectral synthesis
486: of this region becomes available.
487:
488: \subsection{Neutron capture elements}
489:
490: We have detected lines of the neutron capture elements Y, Zr, Ba, La and Eu.
491: \citet{cam82} and \citet{kap89} analyzed the solar system
492: meteoritic abundances of neutron capture elements to yield accurate
493: breakdowns into $r$- and $s$-process parts for each isotope,
494: which have been summed into fractions for each element by \citet{bur00}.
495: At [Fe/H] $<-$2.0, as reviewed by \citet{sne01},
496: Zr, Ba, and La are neutron capture element synthesized through $s-$process
497: reactions that occur mainly in low mass asymptotic giant branch (AGB) stars,
498: while Eu is exclusively an $r-$process element.
499:
500: The abundance ratios of the neutron capture elements, Y, Zr, Ba, La, and Eu,
501: show no significant trend with \teff, and less scatter around
502: the mean than the predicted error, except for [Zr/Fe].
503: In Figure ~\ref{zr_spec}, we show the spectra for two stars
504: of similar \teff\ and different [Zr/Fe], 1--56 (4525 K, [Zr/Fe]=--0.57) and
505: 1--81 (4550 K, [Zr/Fe]=0.00) in the region of the Zr line at 6143 \AA,
506: which is the strongest Zr I line included in our study.
507: In the spectral range illustrated, there are also two Fe I lines, one Ba II
508: line and one Si I line, whose strengths are similar in both stars.
509: It is possible but not certain that the difference in strength of
510: the Zr line is due to star-to-star abundance variations.
511: \citet{lee87} analyzed four Zr lines in five bright giant M71 stars
512: to obtain [Zr/Fe] $\sim 0.0$ dex.
513:
514: The abundances of Ba, La, and Eu are overabundant relative to Fe, as
515: is seen in other clusters (see below).
516: The mean [Ba/Eu] ratio of +0.03 is consistent with values
517: observed in halo stars of similar [Fe/H] \citep{bur00,gra94}.
518:
519: \subsection{$\alpha-$elements}
520:
521: We find that the $\alpha-$elements Mg, Ca, Si and Ti are overabundant relative
522: to Fe.
523: Our mean $<$[Ti/Fe]$>$=+0.20$\pm$0.08 and $<$[Si/Fe]$>$=+0.28$\pm$0.14 are
524: similar to the results of \citet{sne94} for ten M71 giant stars
525: ($<$[Ti/Fe]$>$=+0.48$\pm$0.04, $<$[Si/Fe]$>$=+0.31$\pm$0.04), and
526: also similar to the abundance ratios provided by \citet{lee87}.
527: Our $<$[Ca/Fe]$>$=+0.43$\pm$0.05 is higher than the value of \citet{sne94}
528: ($<$[Ca/Fe]$>$=+0.13$\pm$0.03), but similar to the abundance ratio
529: of +0.58 found by \citet{lee87}.
530: The $\alpha-$element abundance ratios show no significant trend with \teff,
531: and low scatter around the mean.
532:
533: [Mg/Fe] is know to vary among bright giant stars in some metal poor globular
534: clusters.
535: In NGC 6752 \citep{gra01}, M13 \citep{kra93,she96} and M15 \citep{sne97},
536: [Mg/Fe] shows a star-to-star range in abundance of about 1.5, 1.2,
537: and 1.0 dex respectively.
538: Our comparison between the observed scatter and the predicted error
539: of [Mg/Fe] given in Table~\ref{tab7} indicates no sign of
540: star-to-star variation of magnesium in M71.
541:
542: \subsection{Sodium and Oxygen \label{section_o}}
543:
544: The oxygen abundance ratios in our sample of stars in M71 behave differently
545: than the abundance ratios of all other elements included in this paper.
546: The scatter in [O/Fe] versus \teff\ shown in Figure~\ref{light}
547: strongly suggests that O shows star-to-star variations within the
548: M71 sample.
549: Furthermore, the observed scatter for [O/Fe] given in
550: Table~\ref{tab7} is larger than the
551: respective predicted error which include the effects of uncertainties in the
552: determination of the the stellar parameters and
553: in the equivalent width measurements.
554: To a lesser extent, the Na abundances behave similarly, as shown
555: in Figure~\ref{light}, and the observed scatter for Na is slightly
556: larger than the value $\sigma_{pred}$ given in Table~\ref{tab7}.
557:
558: In Figure~\ref{na_o_spec} we compare the strength of the Na I and
559: O I lines between two stars of similar stellar parameters.
560: The star with a high [O/Fe] in our sample (1--60) has a low [Na/Fe] and
561: the star with a low [O/Fe] (2--160) has an intermediate [Na/Fe].
562: These two stars are marked with open squares in Figure~\ref{light}.
563: %, and represent the extremes of the set of O abundances for the M71 sample.
564: Note that both of these stars are red giants fainter than the HB,
565: with $M_V = +1.4$ for the fainter, Na-richer star.
566: This figure demonstrates
567: that the higher scatter seen in [Na/Fe] and [O/Fe] is due to star-to-star
568: abundance variations and that in the case of this specific pair of
569: stars, Na and O are anti-correlated, as was first observed by
570: \citet{pet80} in M13.
571:
572: The non-LTE corrections for the infrared OI triplet are not accurately
573: know (see Sec.~\ref{abun}). However, assuming that they are
574: monotonically dependent on ~\teff, the rms in the non-LTE correction
575: cannot introduce a star-to-star scatter in the O abundance nor
576: the Na-O anticorrelation we observe.
577:
578: To explore the presence of an anti-correlation between [Na/Fe] and [O/Fe]
579: within our M71 sample as a whole,
580: we construct Figure~\ref{na_o_m71},
581: which presents the Na versus O abundance diagram
582: for our sample in M71.
583: Our data are indicated by filled symbols, where triangles are red giants
584: brighter than the HB, circles are HB stars, squares are red giants
585: fainter than the HB and the stars near the main sequence turnoff are
586: denoted by ``stars''.
587: We find that Na and O are anti-correlated in our sample of M71 stars.
588: The fit weighted by the error of Na vs. O, plotted as a solid line
589: in Figure~\ref{na_o_m71}, is statistically significant
590: at a 2$\sigma$ confidence level.
591: %The slope in the whole sample is -0.73 +- 0.10
592: Star-to-star Na variations
593: and anti-correlation between Na and O abundances extend well beyond
594: $M_V = +1.4$, and include the small
595: sample of stars near the main sequence turnoff, where this anti-correlation
596: has the same form as among the more luminous stars and
597: is highly statistically significant at a level exceeding 4$\sigma$.
598:
599: In view of the large sample of bright RGB stars studied in M4 by
600: \citet{iva99}, we adopt their results for the observed anti-correlation
601: between Na and O among red giants in this cluster to provide a
602: fiducial line for visual comparisons in the relevant figures.
603: The anti-correlation found from their sample is indicated as a dashed line
604: in Figure~\ref{na_o_m71}, as well as in the panels of Figure~\ref{na_o},
605: to be discussed next.
606: To within the errors, the Na/O anti-correlation we find in M71
607: agrees with that of M4, within a 2$\sigma$ confidence level.
608:
609: In Figure~\ref{na_o}, we compare the determinations of Na and O abundance
610: ratios that exist in the literature for metal poor globular clusters,
611: 47 Tuc \citep{bro90,bro92,nor95}, M71 \citep[][, this paper]{sne94},
612: M5 \citep{iva01,she96,sne92}, M4 \citep{iva99}, NGC 6752 \citep{gra01},
613: M3 \citep{kra93}, M10 \citep{kra95}, M13 \citep{kra93,she96},
614: NGC 6397 \citep{cas00,gra01}, M92 \citep{sne92}, and M15 \citep{sne97}.
615: The symbols are the same as in Figure ~\ref{na_o_m71}.
616: Also included in this figure are
617: the earlier results for ten bright giant
618: stars in M71 from \citet{sne94}, shown in open triangles.
619: All their stars are brighter than the HB and
620: behave similarly to our red giants brighter than the HB.
621: Our observed range in [Na/Fe] is similar to the range observed by
622: \citet{sne94}, but our range in [O/Fe] is twice as big.
623:
624: For each globular cluster depicted in Figure~\ref{na_o},
625: the solid line represent the least squares linear fit of the
626: data from the literature\footnote{Only for M71 do we use a fit weighted
627: by the errors of each abundance determination; for all other clusters,
628: the errors in the abundance for each star are assumed constant.}.
629: It is only shown for those globular clusters where the slope we derive is
630: significant at the 2$\sigma$ level. The dashed line corresponds
631: to the anti-correlation observed in M4 from \citet{iva99}, shown
632: as a fiducial line.
633:
634: At this confidence level, we find Na-O anti-correlations
635: in M71, M5, M4, NGC 6752, M3, M10, M13, M92 and M15.
636: The steepest slope is that of M92, and the flattest slope is
637: that of M13. But, within the 2$\sigma$ level, all the slopes
638: are identical.
639: %THE SLOPES OF THE RELATION IN THE LIST OF
640: %DETECTED CLUSTERS ARE IDENTICAL WITH THE EXCEPTION OF M13 ???
641: %The slope of M5 and NGC6752 and M15 are consistent with M5 slope.
642: %It more like a smooth transition the most steep and the flattest:
643: %cluster slope [Fe/H]
644: %M92 -1.95 +- 0.64 -2.2
645: %M4 -1.08 +- 0.26 -1.2
646: %M10 -0.82 +- 0.21 -1.5
647: %M3 -0.81 +- 0.16 -1.5
648: %M15 -0.76 +- 0.22 -2.4
649: %NGC6752 -0.70 +- 0.25 -1.4
650: %M5 -0.61 +- 0.13 -1.2
651: %M13 -0.50 +- 0.06 -1.5
652: %
653: %M71 -0.73 +- 0.10
654: %
655: No statistically significant global
656: anti-correlation is detected in 47 Tuc or NGC 6397.
657:
658: 47 Tuc ([Fe/H]$\sim$--0.8), M4 ([Fe/H]$\sim$--1.2) and
659: NGC 6397 ([Fe/H]$\sim$--2.0) have a similar [Na/Fe] versus [O/Fe] relationship
660: as does M71 does in terms of abundance ratio ranges and scatter. While
661: the form of the relationship appears to be more or less universal,
662: %with the possible exception of the different slope seen in the M13 sample,
663: Figure~\ref{na_o} suggests that the amplitude of the Na/O anti-correlation
664: among RGB stars is smallest for the two most metal rich globular clusters shown,
665: 47 Tuc (where the published dataset is very small) and M71, as well as
666: for NGC 6397.
667:
668:
669: \subsection{Aluminium}
670:
671: The abundance of Al is also known to vary from star-to-star
672: within a globular cluster.
673: Because the Al doublet at 6697\AA\ is not included in the spectral
674: coverage of the primary set of HIRES spectra (see Paper I), it can
675: be measured only in a subset of the sample of stars studied here.
676: Our comparison between $\sigma_{obs}$ and the predicted error
677: of [Al/Fe] given in Table~\ref{tab7} indicates that the
678: scatter for this element abundance ratio is slightly larger to its respective
679: predicted error.
680:
681: As discussed in \S\ref{section_nonlte}, Al suffers from non-LTE effects.
682: We have not adopted any corrections, nor have we applied any to the
683: set of data from the literature assembled for Al. We do, however, use the
684: 6696\AA\ doublet, which is less susceptible to non-LTE effects than
685: is the 3961\AA\ line.
686:
687: We have constructed Figure~\ref{al_na_m71} to explore the presence
688: of a correlation between [Na/Fe] and [Al/Fe] in M71, seen in other
689: globular clusters.
690: The symbols in Figure~\ref{al_na_m71} are the same as in Figure~\ref{na_o_m71}.
691: We include only our own data in this figure. A clear Al/Na
692: correlation is seen which is
693: statistically significant at a 2$\sigma$ level. This
694: correlation extends down to $M_V = +1.8$ mag in M71, where the sample
695: ends due to the technical issue of the HIRES spectral coverage.
696:
697: In Figure~\ref{al_na}, we compare the determinations of Al/Na abundance
698: ratios that exist in the literature for metal poor globular clusters.
699: We use the same set of references as in \S\ref{section_o}, although
700: there are fewer stars with measured Al abundances.
701: % 47 Tuc \citep{bro90,bro92,nor95},
702: % M5 \citep{iva01,she96,sne92}, M4 \citep{iva99}, NGC 6752 \citep{gra01},
703: % M13 \citep{kra93,she96}, NGC 6397 \citep{gra01}, M92 \citep{sne92}, and
704: % M15 \citep{sne97}.
705: The symbols are the same as in Figure~\ref{na_o_m71}.
706: Again the solid line, representing the least squares linear fit of the
707: data, is only shown in those globular clusters where the slope we derive is
708: significant.
709:
710: At the 2$\sigma$ level, we find Na-Al correlations
711: in M5, M4, NGC 6752, M13, NGC 6397, M92 and M15, as well as in M71.
712: At this confidence level, all the slopes,
713: with the exception of that of M13, are identical.
714: %cluster slope [Fe/H]
715: %M13 +1.76 +- 0.11 -1.5
716: %NGC6752 +1.30 +- 0.48 -1.4
717: %M15 +0.94 +- 0.20 -2.4
718: %M5 +0.91 +- 0.15 -1.2
719: %NGC6397 +0.75 +- 0.23 -2.0
720: %M92 +0.58 +- 0.19 -2.2
721: %M4 +0.50 +- 0.08 -1.2
722: % M71 +0.36 +- 0.21
723: No anti-correlation is detected in 47 Tuc, where the database is very
724: sparse.
725:
726: The differences among the family of linear fits to the Al/Na relationship
727: for various globular clusters shown in Figure~\ref{al_na} appear
728: at first sight to be
729: considerably larger than those shown by the fits to the Na/O anti-correlation
730: in Figure~\ref{na_o}. We suggest that these differences
731: may not be real, and may arise
732: from non-LTE effects in Al acting on the different ranges of luminosities
733: of stars studied in each cluster as well as the particular selection
734: of Al lines used in each analysis. The situation in NGC 6752 is particularly
735: illuminating. Gratton \etal\ (2001) ascribe the very different
736: mean Al abundances deduced for
737: the subgiants and for the main sequence stars in the cluster
738: precisely to this issue of ignoring non-LTE in the spectrum of aluminium.
739:
740:
741:
742:
743: \subsection{Lithium}
744:
745: Li is a very fragile element and is very easily destroyed in
746: stars, burning at $T \gtrsim 2.5 \times 10^6$ K.
747: \citet{spi82} discovered the presence of Li in
748: warm halo dwarfs at a constant value (log $\epsilon$(Li) = 2.24)
749: and suggested that this represents
750: the primordial Li synthesized in the Big Bang, thus of considerable
751: importance to cosmology. Destruction of Li is a measure of
752: the depth of the surface convection zone, and hence a strong function
753: of \teff.
754: \citet{rya01} compile recent
755: observations for Li in galactic disk and halo stars
756: and review the Galactic chemical evolution of Li, while
757: \citet{pin97} reviews the destruction of Li from a theoretical perspective.
758:
759: We therefore expect Li to be depleted
760: among the RGB and subgiant stars in globular clusters, although probably
761: not among the main sequence stars.
762: In addition, there is at least one case known
763: in a globular cluster of the extremely rare class of very
764: Li-rich stars. A possible explanation for this star, found
765: as a bright RGB star in M3 by
766: \citet{kra99}, and similar objects is given by \citet{cha00}.
767:
768: The Li line is not included in the spectral coverage
769: of the primary set of spectra (see Paper I), and hence can
770: be measured only in a subset of the sample of M71 stars studied here.
771: We were able to obtain log $\epsilon$(Li) for three giants fainter than the HB,
772: as well as several upper limits.
773: The mean log $\epsilon$(Li) for the detections is 1.10$\pm$0.16
774: (on the scale H=12.0 dex),
775: which is 0.8 dex less than the mean log $\epsilon$(Li) (1.90 $\pm$ 0.42)
776: for a sample of 11 halo dwarf stars
777: of similar [Fe/H] from the sample of \citet{ful00}, and
778: is evidence of the strong depletion among the cooler stars
779: in which Li was detected here. Figure~\ref{li1} illustrates
780: the pattern of detections and upper limits, which are consistent
781: with our overall expectations.
782:
783: \subsection{Carbon}
784:
785: The analysis of C I lines in cool stars is difficult as the lines are weak, and
786: their excitation potential is high, $\sim$8.5 eV. Furthermore, the
787: C I lines near 7115\AA\ are not included in the spectral coverage
788: of the primary set of spectra (see Paper I), and hence can
789: be measured only in a subset of the sample studied here.
790: We have reliable detections in only 6 stars,
791: 2 lines in 1 star, and 1 line each in the other 5 stars.
792: These, with considerable uncertainty, show a large star-to-star scatter
793: in deduced C abundance. However, the C I lines in stars with
794: \teff\ $\lesssim 4200$ K may be blended with or completely
795: dominated by lines from the
796: red system of CN, as illustrated in the spectrum of
797: Arcturus by \citet{hinkle00}.
798: It is very likely that this has happened,
799: as there are two cool stars in our sample,
800: M71 1-45 and 1-66, with anomalously high deduced C abundances.
801: The measurements of \citet{bri01b} show
802: that these two stars have much stronger CN lines than does
803: M71 star I, a star of similar \teff\, which yielded
804: a much more reasonable C abundance.
805: Unpublished measurements of the G band of CH in these three stars
806: by JGC also suggest that the very large C abundances we deduce for
807: M71 1-45 and 1-66 are spurious.
808:
809: The molecular band data gives a much clearer picture of the pattern
810: of C abundance variation in M71 as the samples are much larger
811: and the C abundance can be inferred with considerable precision
812: from the strength of the CH band.
813: Both the CH and CN bands clearly show strong star-to-star variations
814: on the M71 giant branch \citep[][and references therein]{bri01b} and,
815: more importantly,
816: at the level of the main sequence \citep{coh99}. The entire
817: set of molecular band data can be explained by a variation in
818: C of about a factor of 2, with a much larger anti-correlated variation
819: in the N abundance.
820:
821:
822:
823: \subsection{Other clusters}
824:
825: In Figures~\ref{new_comp1} to \ref{new_comp4},
826: for each element studied here we provide a comparison to
827: similar high-resolution abundance analyses of halo dwarfs, of RGB stars in
828: M4 ([Fe/H]$\sim$--1.2),
829: RGB stars in M5 ([Fe/H]$\sim$--1.2), and RGB stars in M15 from \citet{ful00},
830: \citet{iva99}, \citet{iva01}, and \citet{sne97}, respectively.
831: The halo dwarfs plotted in the Figures have been selected from the sample
832: of \citet{ful00} to have [Fe/H] similar to M71 ($-0.6 <$[Fe/H]$<-0.9$).
833: The boxes in Figures~\ref{new_comp1} to \ref{new_comp4}
834: follow the same layout as those in Figure~\ref{summ_fig2}.
835: The globular cluster name is indicated above each box ('H' stands for
836: the halo dwarf sample), and the number in parenthesis below the name
837: indicates the number of stars used in the calculation of the respective
838: abundance ratio.
839:
840: The median abundances for each element determined in each of the five
841: different environments presented in
842: Figures~\ref{new_comp1} to \ref{new_comp4} agree to within the
843: 1$\sigma$ uncertainties of each measurement for most of the elements
844: displayed, and agree to within $\pm1.2\sigma$ for {\it{all}}
845: the elements shown. Aluminium is the element showing the largest
846: trend with metallicity
847: between these five environments. This is perhaps
848: a consequence of not considering non-LTE effects and of some studies
849: including the 3961 \AA\ doublet, known to be more sensitive to non-LTE
850: effects, and others not. Barium is the only other element showing
851: large variations in its median abundance
852: among the various environments, although no
853: consistent trend with metallicity. We suggest that this too may not
854: be real, and may be a reflection of the issue of hyperfine structure
855: corrections in the fairly strong lines of this element.
856:
857: Overall M71 appears to have very similar
858: abundance ratios as does M5. In this set of figures, one can see
859: some of the well known trends characteristic of halo star abundances
860: as reviewed by \citet{mcw97}, such as
861: the gradual increase of [$\alpha$/Fe] as [Fe/H] decreases,
862: particularly for Si and Ti.
863:
864:
865: \subsection{Interpretation}
866:
867: A classical review of post-main sequence stellar evolution can be
868: found in \citet{ibe83}. Their description of the consequences
869: of the first dredge up phase, the only dredge up phase any of
870: the stars in our M71 sample may have experienced,
871: indicates that a doubling of the surface N$^{14}$ and a 30\% reduction
872: in the surface C$^{12}$ can be expected, together with a
873: drop in the ratio of
874: C$^{12}$/C$^{13}$ from the solar value of 89 to $\sim$20,
875: as well as a drop in surface Li and B by several orders of magnitude.
876: Observations of field stars over a wide range of luminosities
877: conform fairly well to this picture, see e.g.
878: \citet{she93,gra00}.
879:
880: However, the O/Na anti-correlation seen among the bright red giants in
881: many globular clusters, including here in the case of M71,
882: cannot be explained in this picture.
883: Several theoretical mechanisms have thus been proposed (e.g., the meridional
884: mixing of Sweigart \& Mengel 1979, and turbulent diffusion of
885: Charbonnel 1994, 1995)
886: with varying degrees of success. In addition,
887: \citet{den90} suggested that the nuclear reaction
888: $^{22}$Ne($p,\gamma)^{23}$Na occurs
889: in regions of the H-burning shell for low mass stars
890: where O is converted into N and produces Na$^{23}$ and Al$^{27}$.
891: \citet{lan93} combined these ideas to predict the consequences of
892: such possible synthesis and deep mixing, including for example,
893: that the surface Mg abundance
894: should be much less affected than that of Na or Al. These ideas form the
895: basis of our current understanding of dredge up in
896: low mass metal poor giants,
897: with more recent calculations given by \citet{den96,cav98,wei00},
898: among others.
899:
900: The clear prediction of this suite of calculations is that
901: the earliest that deep mixing can
902: begin is at the location of the bump in the luminosity function
903: of the RGB which occurs when the H-burning shell crosses a sharp chemical
904: discontinuity. \citet{zoc99} have shown
905: that the luminosity of the RGB bump as
906: a function of metallicity as determined
907: from observation agrees well with that predicted by
908: the theory of stellar evolution.
909: \citet{bon01} further suggest that the agreement between the predicted
910: luminosity function and actual star counts along the RGB in the vicinity of
911: the bump in a suite of globular clusters is so good that mixing
912: (more exactly, mixing of He) cannot have occurred any earlier, otherwise the
913: evolutionary lifetimes, and hence the observed LF, of such stars
914: would have been affected.
915:
916: Our sample of M71 stars shows a statistically significant correlation
917: between Al and Na abundances which extends to stars
918: as faint as $M_V = +1.8$ mag.
919: We also see an anti-correlation between the Na and O
920: abundances extending down to near the main sequence turn off.
921: We see variations in Li (as expected), and may see variations in Zr (not
922: expected). Any variations in Mg are smaller than those of Al, Na or O
923: (as expected). We know there are large anti-correlated C and N
924: variations from the work of \citet{coh99}; this too is expected.
925:
926: The behavior of Li, which is very fragile and easily destroyed,
927: is not controversial.
928: It is, however, the range of luminosity over which the remainder of these
929: variations are seen which is becoming more and more of a problem
930: for any scenario which invokes dredge up and mixing.
931: The Na/O anti-correlation we see in M71 extends to
932: the main sequence turn off. The Al/Na correlation we see in M71
933: extends to at least as faint as $M_V = +1.8$,
934: while the RGB bump in a cluster of the
935: metallicity of M71 is at $M_V = +1.0$.
936: \citet{coh99} has shown that the C/N anti-correlation
937: extends to the stars at the main sequence turnoff and even fainter in M71.
938: \citet{bri01a} have shown that the C/N abundance range
939: seen at the level of the main sequence is comparable to that seen
940: among the bright red giants of M71 by many previous studies,
941: the most recent of which is \citet{bri01b}.
942:
943: The accumulated weight of recent evidence, both in M71 as described above
944: and in other globular clusters such as 47 Tuc
945: \citep[see ][and references therein]{can98}
946: and NGC 6752 \citep[see][and references therein]{gra01}, suggests that
947: we are now back in the situation we were during the
948: late 1980s. Unless we have missed some important aspect of
949: stellar evolution with impact on mixing and dredge up, we
950: must declare the mixing scenario a failure for the specific case
951: of M71 (and several other globular clusters as well).
952: Even the theoreticians in the forefront of this field are beginning
953: to admit that deep mixing alone is not sufficient \citep{den01,ven01}.
954: Unless and until some major new concept relevant to this issue appears,
955: we must now regard the fundamental origin of the star-to-star
956: variations we see in M71 as arising outside the stars whose
957: spectra we have studied here.
958:
959:
960: \section{CONCLUSIONS}
961:
962: We present results of a high dispersion analysis of 23 elements
963: to obtain abundance ratios for 25 members of the Galactic
964: globular cluster M71. Our sample of stars includes
965: 19 giant stars (9 of which are less luminous than the RHB),
966: 3 horizontal branch stars, and 3 stars near
967: the main sequence turnoff. Our conclusions are summarized as follows:
968:
969: \begin{itemize}
970: \item The iron peak and neutron capture element abundance ratios show no trend
971: with \teff, and low scatter around the mean.
972:
973: \item The $\alpha-$elements Mg, Ca, Si and Ti are overabundant relative to Fe.
974: The scatter about the mean is small.
975:
976: \item An anti-correlation between the Na and O abundances for stars in M71
977: is detected with a statistical
978: significance in excess of 2$\sigma$, and extends to the
979: stars near the main sequence turn off.
980:
981:
982: \item The [Na/Fe] versus [Al/Fe] correlation is detected with a statistical
983: significance in excess of 2$\sigma$ in our sample
984: of M71 stars, and extends at least as faint as $M_V = +1.8$.
985:
986:
987: \item Both extremely O poor, Na rich stars and extremely O rich, Na poor stars
988: such as are observed in M5 and in M13
989: are not present in our sample of M71 stars.
990:
991: \item Li is varying among the subgiants
992: (as expected), and Zr may be varying among the
993: subgiants.
994:
995: \end{itemize}
996:
997: M71 appears very similar in its element abundance ratios to M5, which
998: is not surprising as M5 has a metallicity only slightly lower,
999: [Fe/H] = $-1.2$ dex \citep{iva01}. However, the amplitude
1000: of the Na/O and Al/Na relationships appears to be somewhat larger
1001: in M5 than in M71, and still larger in even more metal poor clusters.
1002:
1003: Our detailed abundance analysis of 25 stars in M71 has revealed
1004: abundance variations appearing at such low luminosities
1005: that deep mixing scenarios can no longer reproduce these results.
1006: This problem is made even more acute when we add in
1007: the data of \citet{coh99} and the analysis of
1008: \citet{bri01a} of the CH and CN bands in M71.
1009: We are forced to the firm conclusion that
1010: much, if not all, of the abundance variations seen in
1011: M71 must have been in place
1012: before the present generation of stars we observe was formed,
1013: or (less likely) are the result of some type (binaries ?) of mass transfer.
1014:
1015: In future papers, we will proceed to apply the techniques and analysis
1016: developed here for M71 to other more metal poor
1017: globular clusters, where the RGB bump is predicted to be somewhat
1018: more luminous and where, judging from the behavior of their
1019: bright RGB stars, we may anticipate finding even larger variations
1020: at low luminosities among the cluster subgiants and main sequence stars.
1021:
1022:
1023:
1024: \acknowledgements
1025: The entire Keck/HIRES user communities owes a huge debt to
1026: Jerry Nelson, Gerry Smith, Steve Vogt, and many other
1027: people who have worked to make the Keck Telescope and HIRES
1028: a reality and to operate and maintain the Keck Observatory.
1029: We are grateful to the W. M. Keck Foundation for the vision to fund
1030: the construction of the W. M. Keck Observatory.
1031: The authors wish to extend special thanks to those of Hawaiian ancestry
1032: on whose sacred mountain we are privileged to be guests.
1033: Without their generous hospitality, none of the observations presented
1034: herein would have been possible.
1035: We are grateful to the National Science Foundation for partial support under
1036: grant AST-9819614 to JGC. We thank Jason Prochaska and Andy McWilliam
1037: for providing their tables of hyperfine structure in digital form.
1038:
1039: \clearpage
1040:
1041:
1042:
1043: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1044:
1045: \bibitem[Allende Prieto, Lambert \& Asplund(2001)]{all01} Allende Prieto, C.,
1046: Lambert, D. L., \& Asplund, M., 2001, \apjl, 556, L63
1047:
1048: \bibitem[Arp \& Hartwick(1971)]{arp71} Arp, H. C. \& Hartwick, F. D. A., 1971,
1049: \apj, 167, 499
1050:
1051: \bibitem[Anders \& Grevesse(1989)]{and89} Anders, E. \& Grevesse, N., 1989,
1052: Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, 53, 197
1053:
1054: \bibitem[Baum\"uller \& Gehren(1996)]{bau96} Baum\"uller, D. \&
1055: Gehren, T., 1996, \aap, 307, 961
1056:
1057: \bibitem[Baum\"uller \& Gehren(1997)]{bau97} Baum\"uller, D. \& Gehren, T.,
1058: 1997, \aap, 325, 1088
1059:
1060: \bibitem[Baum\"uller \etal(1998)]{bau98} Baum\"uller, D., Butler, K., \&
1061: Gehren, T., 1998, \aap, 338, 637
1062:
1063: \bibitem[Bi\'emont \etal(1991)]{bie91} Bi\'emont, E., Hibbert, A.,
1064: Godefroid, M., Vaeck, N., \& Fawcett, B. C., 1991, \apj, 375, 818
1065:
1066: \bibitem[Bono \etal(2001)]{bon01} Bono, G., Cassisi, S., Zocalli, M. \&
1067: Piotto, G., 2001, \apj, 546, L109
1068:
1069: \bibitem[Briley \& Cohen(2001)]{bri01a} Briley, M. M. \& Cohen, J. G., 2001,
1070: \aj, 122, 242
1071:
1072: \bibitem[Briley \etal(2001)]{bri01b} Briley, M. M., Smith, G. H., \&
1073: Claver, C. F., 2001, \aj, 122, 2561
1074:
1075: \bibitem[Brown \etal(1990)]{bro90} Brown J. A., Wallerstein, G., \&
1076: Oke, J. B., 1990, \aj, 100, 1561
1077:
1078: \bibitem[Brown \& Wallerstein(1992)]{bro92} Brown J. A. \& Wallerstein, G.,
1079: \aj, 104, 1818
1080:
1081: \bibitem[Burris \etal(2000)]{bur00} Burris, D. L., Pilachowski, C. A.,
1082: Armandroff, T. E., Sneden, C., Cowan, J. J., \& Roe, H., 2000, \apj, 544, 302
1083:
1084:
1085: \bibitem[Cameron(1982)]{cam82} Cameron, A. G. W., 1982, Ap.Sp.Sci., 82, 123
1086:
1087: \bibitem[Cannon \etal(1998)]{can98} Cannon, R. D., Croke, B. F. W., Bell, R. A.,
1088: Hesser, J. E., \& Stathakis, R. A., 1998, \mnras, 298, 601
1089:
1090: \bibitem[Castilho \etal(2000)]{cas00} Castilho, B. V., Pasquini, L., Allen, D. M.,
1091: Barbuy, B., \& Molaro, P., 2000, \aap, 361, 92
1092:
1093: \bibitem[Cavallo \etal(1998)]{cav98} Cavallo, R. M., Sweigart, A. V., \&
1094: Bell, R. A., 1998, \apj, 492, 575
1095:
1096: \bibitem[Charbonnel(1994)]{cha94} Charbonnel, C., 1994, \aap, 282, 811
1097:
1098: \bibitem[Charbonnel(1995)]{cha95} Charbonnel, C., 1995, \apjl, 453, L4
1099:
1100: \bibitem[Charbonnel \& Balachandran(2000)]{cha00} Charbonnel, C. \&
1101: Balachandran, S. C., 2000, \aap, 359, 563
1102:
1103: \bibitem[Cohen(1983)]{coh83} Cohen, J. G., 1983, \apj, 270, 654
1104:
1105: \bibitem[Cohen(1999)]{coh99} Cohen, J. G., 1999, \aj, 117, 2434
1106:
1107: \bibitem[Cohen \etal(2001)]{coh01} Cohen, J. G., Behr, B. B., \& Briley, M. M.,
1108: 2001, \aj, 122, 1420 (Paper I)
1109:
1110: \bibitem[de la Reza \& Muller(1975)]{del75} de la Reza, R. \& Muller, E.A.,
1111: 1975, Solar Physics, 43, 15
1112:
1113: \bibitem[Denisenkov \& Denisenkova(1990)]{den90} Denisenkov, P. A. \&
1114: Denisenkova, S. N., SvAL, 16, 275
1115:
1116: \bibitem[Denissenkov \& Weiss(1996)]{den96} Denissenkov, P. A. \& Weiss, A.,
1117: 1996, \aap, 308, 773
1118:
1119: \bibitem[Denissenkov \& Weiss(2001)]{den01} Denissenkov, P. A. \& Weiss, A.,
1120: 2001, \apj, 559, 115L
1121:
1122: \bibitem[Fuhr \etal(1988)]{fuh88} Fuhr, J. R., Martin, G. A., \& Wiese, W. L.,
1123: 1988, J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data 17, Suppl. 4
1124:
1125: \bibitem[Fulbright(2000)]{ful00} Fulbright, J., 2000, \apj, 120, 1841
1126:
1127: \bibitem[Gratton \etal(1986)]{gra86} Gratton, R. G., Quarta, M. L.,
1128: \& Ortolani, S., 1986, \aap, 169, 208
1129:
1130: \bibitem[Gratton \& Sneden(1994)]{gra94} Gratton, R. G. \& Sneden, C., 1994, \aap,
1131: 287, 927
1132:
1133: \bibitem[Gratton \etal(1999)]{gra99} Gratton, R. G., Carretta, E., Eriksson, K.,
1134: \& Gustafsson, B., 1999, \aap, 350, 955
1135:
1136: \bibitem[Gratton \etal(2000)]{gra00} Gratton, R.G., Sneden, C., Carretta, E.
1137: \& Bragaglia, A., 2000, \aap, 354, 169
1138:
1139: \bibitem[Gratton \etal(2001)]{gra01} Gratton, R. G., Bonifacio, P.,
1140: Bragaglia, A., Carretta, E., Castellani, V., Centurion, M., Chieffi, A.,
1141: Claudi, R., Clementini, G., D'Antona, F., Desidera, S., Francois, P.,
1142: Grundahl, F., Lucatello, S., Molaro, P., Pasquini, L., Sneden, C., Spite, F.,
1143: \& Straniero, O., 2001, \aap, 369, 87
1144:
1145:
1146: \bibitem[Hinkle \etal(2000)]{hinkle00}
1147: Hinkle, K., Wallace, L., Valenti, J. \& Harmer, D., 2000,
1148: {\it{Visible and Near Infrared Atlas of the Arcturus Spectrum,
1149: 3727 -- 9000 \AA}}, ASP Press, San Francisco
1150:
1151:
1152: \bibitem[Holweger \etal(1991)]{hol91} Holweger, H., Bard, A., Kock, A., \&
1153: Kock, M., 1991, \aap, 249, 545
1154:
1155: \bibitem[Iben \& Renzini(1983)]{ibe83} Iben, I. Jr. \& Renzini, A., 1983, \araa,
1156: 21, 271
1157:
1158: \bibitem[Israelian \etal(2001)]{isr01} Israelian, G., Rebolo, R.,
1159: Garc\'{\i}a L\'{o}pez, R. J., Bonifacio, P., Molaro, P., Basri, G., \&
1160: Shchukina, N., \apj, 551, 833
1161:
1162: \bibitem[Ivans \etal(1999)]{iva99} Ivans, I. I., Sneden, C., Kraft, R. P.,
1163: Suntzeff, N. B., Smith, V. V., Langer, G. E., \& Fulbright, J. P., 1999, \apj, 118, 1273
1164:
1165: \bibitem[Ivans \etal(2001)]{iva01} Ivans, I. I., Kraft, R. P., Sneden, C., Smith, G.,
1166: Rich, R. M., \& Shetrone, M., 2001, \apj, in press
1167:
1168: \bibitem[Johnson(2002)]{joh02} Johnson, J., 2002, \apjs, in press (astro-ph/0111181)
1169:
1170: \bibitem[K\"appeler \etal(1989)]{kap89} K\"appeler, F., Beer, H., \& Wisshak, K.,
1171: 1989, Rep.Prog.Phys., 52, 945
1172:
1173: %\bibitem[King \etal(1998)]{kin98} King, J. R., Stephens, A., Boesgaard, A. M.,
1174: %\& Deliyannis, C. P., 1998, \apj, 115, 666
1175:
1176: \bibitem[Kraft \etal(1993)]{kra93} Kraft, R. P., Sneden, C., Langer, G. E., \&
1177: Shetrone, M. D., 1993, \aj, 106, 1490
1178:
1179: \bibitem[Kraft(1994)]{kra94} Kraft, R. P., 1994, \pasp, 106, 553
1180:
1181: \bibitem[Kraft \etal(1995)]{kra95} Kraft, R. P., Sneden, C., Langer, G. E.,
1182: Shetrone, M. D., \& Bolte, M., 1995, \aj, 109, 2586
1183:
1184: \bibitem[Kraft \etal(1999)]{kra99} Kraft, R. P., Peterson, R. C., Puragra, G.,
1185: Sneden, C., Fulbright, J. P., \& Langer, G. E., 1999, \apj, 518, L53
1186:
1187: \bibitem[Kurucz(1993b)]{kur93a} Kurucz, R. L., 1993$a$, ATLAS9 Stellar
1188: Atmosphere Programs and 2 km/s Grid, (Kurucz CD-ROM No. 13)
1189:
1190: \bibitem[Kurucz(1993b)]{kur93b} Kurucz, R. L., 1993$b$, SYNTHE Spectrum
1191: Synthesis Programs and Line Data (Kurucz CD-ROM No. 18)
1192:
1193: \bibitem[Lambert(2002)]{lam02} Lambert, D. L., 2002, Highlights in Astronomy,
1194: in press
1195:
1196: %\bibitem[Lambert \etal(1996)]{lam96} Lambert, D. L., Heath, J. E., Lemke, M.,
1197: %\& Drake, J., 1996, \apjs, 103, 183
1198:
1199: \bibitem[Langer \etal(1993)]{lan93} Langer, G. E., Hoffman. R. \& Sneden, C.,
1200: 1993, \pasp, 105, 301
1201:
1202: \bibitem[Langer \& Hoffman(1995)]{lan95} Langer, G. E., \& Hoffman, R. D.,
1203: 1995, \pasp, 107, 1177
1204:
1205: \bibitem[Langer \etal(1997)]{lan97} Langer, G. E., Hoffman, R. D., \&
1206: Zaidins, C. S., 1997, \pasp, 109, 244
1207:
1208: \bibitem[Leep \etal(1987)]{lee87} Leep, E. M., Oke, J. B., \&
1209: Wallerstein, G., 1987, \aj, 93, 338
1210:
1211: \bibitem[Martin \etal(1988)]{mar88} Martin, G. A., Fuhr, J. R., \& Wiese, W. L.,
1212: 1988, J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data 17, Suppl. 3
1213:
1214: \bibitem[McWilliam(1997)]{mcw97} McWilliam, A., 1997, \araa, 35, 503
1215:
1216: \bibitem[Mel\'endez \etal(2001)]{mel01} Mel\'endez, J., Barbuy, B.,
1217: \& Spite, F., 2001, \apj, 556, 858
1218:
1219: \bibitem[Moore \etal(1966)]{moo66} Moore, C. E., Minnaert, M. G. J., \& Houtgast, J.,
1220: 1966, "The solar spectrum 2935 \AA\ to 8770 \AA",
1221: National Bureau of Standards Monograph,
1222: Washington: US Government Printing Office (USGPO).
1223:
1224: \bibitem[Norris \& DaCosta(1995)]{nor95} Norris \& DaCosta, 1995, \apj, 447, 680
1225:
1226: \bibitem[Peterson(1980)]{pet80} Peterson, R. C., 1980, \apj, 237, 87
1227:
1228: \bibitem[Pinsonneault(1997)]{pin97} Pinsonneault, M., 1997, \araa, 35, 557
1229:
1230: \bibitem[Prochaska \etal(2000)]{pro00} Prochascka, J. X., Naumov, S. O.,
1231: Carney, B. W., McWilliam, A., \& Wolfe, A. M., 2000, \apj, 120, 2513
1232:
1233: \bibitem[Ram\'{\i}rez \etal(2001)]{ram01} Ram\'{\i}rez, S. V., Cohen, J. G.,
1234: Buss, J., \& Briley, M. M., 2001, \aj, 122, 1429
1235:
1236: \bibitem[Ryan \etal(2001)]{rya01} Ryan, S. G., Kajino, T., Beers, T. C.,
1237: Suzuki, T. K., Romano, D., Matteucci, F. \& Rosolankova, K., 2001, \apj, 545, 55
1238:
1239: \bibitem[Shetrone(1996)]{she96} Shetrone, M. D., 1996, \aj 112, 1517
1240:
1241: \bibitem[Shetrone \etal(1993)]{she93} Shetrone, M. D., Sneden, C. \&
1242: Pilachowski, C. A., 1993, \pasp, 105, 337
1243:
1244: \bibitem[Smith \& Raggett(1981)]{smi81} Smith, G. \& Raggett, D. St. J., 1981,
1245: J. Ph. B, 14, 4015
1246:
1247: \bibitem[Sneden(1973)]{sne73} Sneden, C., 1973, Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of Texas
1248:
1249: %\bibitem[Sneden \etal(1991)]{sne91} Sneden, C., Kraft, R. P., Prosser, C. F.,
1250: %\& Langer, G. E., 1991, \aj, 102, 2001
1251:
1252: \bibitem[Sneden \etal(1992)]{sne92} Sneden, C., Kraft, R. P., Langer, G. E.,
1253: Prosser, C. F., \& Shetrone, M. D., 1992, \aj, 104, 2121
1254:
1255: \bibitem[Sneden \etal(1994)]{sne94} Sneden, C., Kraft, R. P., Langer, G. E.,
1256: Prosser, C. F., \& Shetrone, M. D., 1994, \aj, 107, 1773
1257:
1258: \bibitem[Sneden \etal(1997)]{sne97} Sneden, C., Kraft, R. P., Langer, G. E.,
1259: Prosser, C. F., \& Shetrone, M. D., 1997, \aj, 114, 1964
1260:
1261: \bibitem[Sneden \etal(2001)]{sne01} Sneden, C., Cowan, J. J. \& Truran, J. W.,
1262: 2001, Astro-ph/0101439
1263:
1264: \bibitem[Spite \& Spite(1982)]{spi82} Spite, F. \& Spite, M., 1982,
1265: \aap, 115, 357
1266:
1267: %\bibitem[Suntzeff \& smith(1991)]{sun91} Suntzeff, N. B. \& Smith, V. V.,
1268: %1991, \apj, 381, 160
1269:
1270: \bibitem[Sweigart \& Mengel(1979)]{swe79} Sweigart, A. V. \& Mengel, J. G.,
1271: 1979, \apj, 229, 624
1272:
1273: \bibitem[Takeda \etal(2001)]{tak01} Takeda, Y., Zhao, G., Chen, Y., Qiu, H., \&
1274: Takada-Hidai, M., 2000, \pasj, submitted (astro-ph/0110165)
1275:
1276: \bibitem[Takeda \etal(2002)]{tak02} Takeda, Y., 2002, \apj, submitted
1277: (astro-ph/0105215)
1278:
1279: \bibitem[Th\'evenin(1989)]{the89} Th\'evenin, F., 1989, \aaps, 77, 137
1280:
1281: \bibitem[Th\'evenin(1990)]{the90} Th\'evenin, F., 1990, \aaps, 82, 179
1282:
1283: %\bibitem[Th\'{e}venin \& Idiart(1999)]{the99} Th\'evenin, F. \& Idiart, T. P.,
1284: %1999, \apj, 521, 753
1285:
1286: \bibitem[Ventura \etal(2001)]{ven01} Ventura, P., D'Antona, F., Mazzitelli,
1287: I. \& Gratton, R., 2001, \apj, 550, 65L
1288:
1289: \bibitem[Wallace \etal(1998)]{wal98} Wallace, L., Hinkle, K. \& Livingston, W.C.,
1290: 1998, N.S.O. Technical Report 98-001, http://ftp.noao.edu.fts/visatl/README
1291:
1292: \bibitem[Weise \etal(1969)]{wei69} Weise, W. L., Smith, M. W., \& Miles, B. M.,
1293: 1969, Natl Stand. Ref. Data Ser., Natl Bur. Stand. (U.S.), NSRDS-NBS 22, Vol. II
1294:
1295: \bibitem[Weise \etal(1996)]{wei96} Weise, W. L., Fuhr, J. R., \& Deters, T. M.,
1296: 1996, J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data Monograph No. 7
1297:
1298: \bibitem[Weiss \etal(2000)]{wei00} Weiss, A., Denissenkov, P. A., \& Charbonnel, C.,
1299: 2000, \aap, 356, 181
1300:
1301: %\bibitem[Wolnik \etal(1971)]{wol71} Wolnik, S. J., Berthel, R. O., \&
1302: %Wares, G. W., 1971, \apj, 166, L31
1303:
1304: \bibitem[Zhao \etal(1998)]{zha98} Zhao, G., Butler, K., \& Gehren, T., 1998, \aap,
1305: 333, 219
1306:
1307: \bibitem[Zocalli \etal(1999)]{zoc99} Zocalli, M., Cassisi, G., Piotto, G.,
1308: Bono, G. \& Salaris, M., 1999, \apj, 518, L49
1309:
1310: \end{thebibliography}
1311:
1312:
1313: %Figures
1314:
1315: \clearpage
1316:
1317: \begin{figure}
1318: \epsscale{0.7}
1319: % Comment in the following line to embed the postscript figure into the manuscript
1320: \plotone{ox_teff.ps}
1321: \figcaption[ox_teff.ps]{The difference between the oxygen abundance ratio from the forbidden
1322: and permitted lines is shown as a function of \teff.
1323: The solid line is a linear fit weighted by the errors.
1324: The O abundances subsequently deduced from the permitted lines are
1325: corrected by
1326: the linear fit shown here.
1327: The RHB stars are marked with open circles, while the position of the
1328: Sun is indicated by a filled square.
1329: \label{ox_teff}}
1330: \end{figure}
1331:
1332: \begin{figure}
1333: \epsscale{0.7}
1334: % Comment in the following line to embed the postscript figure into the manuscript
1335: \plotone{li1.ps}
1336: \figcaption[li1.ps]{log $\epsilon$(Li) against \teff.
1337: The RHB stars are marked by open circles.
1338: Arrows represent upper limits for the strength of the Li I line.
1339: \label{li1}}
1340: \end{figure}
1341:
1342:
1343: \begin{figure}
1344: \epsscale{0.7}
1345: % Comment in the following line to embed the postscript figure into the manuscript
1346: \plotone{light.ps}
1347: \figcaption[light.ps]{Abundance ratios of C, O, Na, Al, and K with
1348: respect to Fe against \teff.
1349: The solid line is a linear fit weighted by the errors.
1350: The dashed line indicates the mean abundance ratio with its respective error plotted
1351: as an error bar at 3925 K.
1352: The RHB stars are marked by open circles.
1353: A non-LTE correction has been applied to the O I permitted lines and the K I
1354: line.
1355: The C abundances determined from C I lines
1356: in the cooler M71 stars are believed
1357: to be spurious due to contamination by lines from the red system of CN
1358: (see text).
1359: Stars 1--60 and 2--160, part of whose spectra are shown in Figure~\ref{na_o_spec},
1360: are marked with open squares in the [O/Fe] and [Na/Fe] panels.
1361: \label{light}}
1362: \end{figure}
1363:
1364: \begin{figure}
1365: \epsscale{0.7}
1366: % Comment in the following line to embed the postscript figure into the manuscript
1367: \plotone{alpha.ps}
1368: \figcaption[alpha.ps]{Abundance ratios of the $\alpha-$elements
1369: Mg, Si, Ca and Ti
1370: with respect to Fe against \teff.
1371: The symbols are the same as in Figure~\ref{light}.
1372: \label{alpha}}
1373: \end{figure}
1374:
1375: \begin{figure}
1376: \epsscale{0.7}
1377: % Comment in the following line to embed the postscript figure into the manuscript
1378: \plotone{ironp1.ps}
1379: \figcaption[ironp1.ps]{Abundance ratios of the iron peak elements
1380: Sc, V, Cr, and Mn
1381: with respect to Fe against \teff.
1382: The symbols are the same as in Figure~\ref{light}.
1383: \label{ironp1}}
1384: \end{figure}
1385:
1386: \begin{figure}
1387: \epsscale{0.7}
1388: % Comment in the following line to embed the postscript figure into the manuscript
1389: \plotone{ironp2.ps}
1390: \figcaption[ironp2.ps]{Abundance ratios of the iron peak elements
1391: Co, Ni, Cu, and Zn
1392: with respect to Fe against \teff.
1393: The symbols are the same as in Figure~\ref{light}.
1394: \label{ironp2}}
1395: \end{figure}
1396:
1397: \begin{figure}
1398: \epsscale{0.7}
1399: % Comment in the following line to embed the postscript figure into the manuscript
1400: \plotone{neutron.ps}
1401: \figcaption[neutron.ps]{Abundance ratios of the neutron capture elements
1402: Y, Zr, Ba, La, and Eu
1403: with respect to Fe against \teff.
1404: The symbols are the same as in Figure~\ref{light}.
1405: Stars 1--56 and 1--81, part of whose spectra are shown in Figure~\ref{zr_spec},
1406: are marked with open squares in the [Zr/Fe] panel.
1407: \label{neutron}}
1408: \end{figure}
1409:
1410: \begin{figure}
1411: \epsscale{0.7}
1412: \plotone{summ_fig2.ps}
1413: \figcaption[summ_fig2.ps]
1414: {Summary of abundance ratios. Each abundance ratio is plotted with a box,
1415: which central horizontal line is the median abundance ratio, the bottom
1416: and the top shows its inter--quartile range, the vertical lines coming
1417: out of the box mark the position of the adjacent points of the sample,
1418: and the outliers are plotted as open circles. Boxes constructed
1419: with dashed lines denote elements where only one line per star was
1420: observed. The thick line on the left
1421: side of the box is the predicted error (expected for the
1422: inter--quartile range) which included the dependence on the stellar
1423: parameters and the equivalent width determination.
1424: \label{summ_fig2}}
1425: \end{figure}
1426:
1427: \begin{figure}
1428: \epsscale{0.7}
1429: % Comment in the following line to embed the postscript figure into the manuscript
1430: \plotone{zr1_spec.ps}
1431: \figcaption[zr1_spec.ps]{Comparison of the strength of the
1432: strongest Zr I line included in our study between two
1433: stars of similar effective temperatures, 1--56 (4525 K, [Zr/Fe]=--0.57)
1434: and 1--81 (4550 K, [Zr/Fe]=0.00). The scatter shown by [Zr/Fe]
1435: might be due to real abundance variations among stars of different \teff.
1436: \label{zr_spec}}
1437: \end{figure}
1438:
1439: \begin{figure}
1440: \epsscale{0.7}
1441: % Comment in the following line to embed the postscript figure into the manuscript
1442: \plotone{na_o_spec.ps}
1443: \figcaption[na_o_spec.ps]{Comparison of the strength of four
1444: Na I and two O I lines between two
1445: stars of similar effective temperatures, 1--60 (4900 K, [Na/Fe]=+0.04, [O/Fe]=+0.33)
1446: and 2--160 (5100 K, [Na/Fe]=+0.34, [O/Fe]=+0.06). The scatter shown by [Na/Fe] and
1447: [O/Fe] is due to real abundance variations among stars of different \teff.
1448: \label{na_o_spec}}
1449: \end{figure}
1450:
1451: \begin{figure}
1452: \epsscale{0.7}
1453: % Comment in the following line to embed the postscript figure into the manuscript
1454: \plotone{na_o_m71.ps}
1455: \figcaption[na_o_m71.ps]{[Na/Fe] against [O/Fe] for M71 stars.
1456: Filled triangles are
1457: RG stars brighter than the HB, filled squares are RG stars fainter
1458: than the HB, filled circles are HB stars and ``stars'' are stars
1459: near the main sequence turn off.
1460: The solid line represents the least squares linear fit to our data in M71.
1461: The dashed line corresponds to the Na--O anti-correlation present in
1462: M4 from the analysis of \citet{iva99}.
1463: \label{na_o_m71}}
1464: \end{figure}
1465:
1466: \begin{figure}
1467: \epsscale{0.7}
1468: \plotone{na_o.ps}
1469: \figcaption[na_o.ps]{[Na/Fe] against [O/Fe] for
1470: M71 and for other globular clusters from
1471: the literature. Filled symbols are the same as Figure~\ref{na_o_m71}.
1472: The literature determinations are: 47 Tuc \citep{bro90,bro92,nor95},
1473: M5 \citep{iva01,she96,sne92}, M4 \citep{iva99}, NGC 6752 \citep{gra01},
1474: M3 \citep{kra93}, M10 \citep{kra95}, M13 \citep{kra93,she96}, NGC 6397
1475: \citep{cas00,gra01}, M92 \citep{sne92}, and M15 \citep{sne97}.
1476: Open triangles are bright red giants in M71 from the abundance
1477: analysis of \citet{sne94}.
1478: The solid lines represent the least squares linear fits of the
1479: data from the literature for each cluster.
1480: They only shown for those globular clusters where the slope we derive
1481: is significant at the 2$\sigma$ level. The dashed line corresponds
1482: to the anti-correlation observed in M4 from \citet{iva99},
1483: shown as a fiducial line in each panel. \label{na_o}}
1484: \end{figure}
1485:
1486: \begin{figure}
1487: \epsscale{0.7}
1488: % Comment in the following line to embed the postscript figure into the manuscript
1489: \plotone{al_na_m71.ps}
1490: \figcaption[al_na_m71.ps]{[Na/Fe] against [Al/Fe] for M71 stars.
1491: Symbols are the same as Figure~\ref{na_o_m71}.
1492: The solid line represents the least squares linear fit to our data in M71.
1493: The dashed line corresponds to the Na--Al correlation present in M4 from the
1494: analysis of \citet{iva99}.
1495: \label{al_na_m71}}
1496: \end{figure}
1497:
1498: \begin{figure}
1499: \epsscale{0.7}
1500: \plotone{al_na.ps}
1501: \figcaption[al_na.ps]{[Na/Fe] against [Al/Fe] for other globular clusters from
1502: the literature. Filled symbols are the same as Figure~\ref{na_o_m71}.
1503: The literature sources used are the same as in Figure~\ref{na_o}.
1504: The solid lines represent the least squares linear fits of the
1505: data from the literature for each cluster.
1506: They only shown for those globular clusters where the slope we derive
1507: is significant at the 2$\sigma$ level.
1508: The dashed line corresponds to the Na--Al correlation present in M4 from the
1509: analysis of \citet{iva99}, shown as a fiducial line in each panel.
1510: \label{al_na}}
1511: \end{figure}
1512:
1513: \begin{figure}
1514: \epsscale{0.7}
1515: \plotone{new_comp1.ps}
1516: \figcaption[new_comp1.ps]{A statistical comparison of light elements
1517: with median abundances from halo dwarfs, M4 ([Fe/H]$\sim$--1.2), M5 ([Fe/H]$\sim$--1.2),
1518: and M15 from \citet{ful00}, \citet{iva99}, \citet{iva01}, and \citet{sne97},
1519: respectively.
1520: The halo dwarfs plotted in the Figures have been selected from the sample
1521: of \citet{ful00} to have [Fe/H] similar to M71 ($-0.6 <$[Fe/H]$<-0.9$).
1522: The number in parenthesis indicates the the number
1523: of stars analyzed for each element in the corresponding globular cluster.
1524: The layout of the statistical box for each element is as in
1525: Figure~\ref{summ_fig2}.
1526: \label{new_comp1}}
1527: \end{figure}
1528:
1529: \begin{figure}
1530: \epsscale{0.7}
1531: \plotone{new_comp2.ps}
1532: \figcaption[new_comp2.ps]{Statistical comparison of the abundance of
1533: $\alpha-$elements in various environments.
1534: Symbols and references as in Figure~\ref{new_comp1}.
1535: \label{new_comp2}}
1536: \end{figure}
1537:
1538: \begin{figure}
1539: \epsscale{0.7}
1540: \plotone{new_comp3.ps}
1541: \figcaption[new_comp3.ps]{Statistical comparison of the abundance of
1542: iron--peak elements in various environments.
1543: Symbols and references as in Figure~\ref{new_comp1}.
1544: \label{new_comp3}}
1545: \end{figure}
1546:
1547: \begin{figure}
1548: \epsscale{0.7}
1549: \plotone{new_comp4.ps}
1550: \figcaption[new_comp4.ps]{Statistical comparison of the abundance of
1551: neutron capture elements in various environments.
1552: Symbols and references as in Figure~\ref{new_comp1}.
1553: \label{new_comp4}}
1554: \end{figure}
1555:
1556: \clearpage
1557: %
1558: % Tablas
1559: %
1560:
1561: %
1562: % Table1
1563: %
1564: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccrcrc}
1565: %\rotate
1566: %\small
1567: %\footnotesize
1568: %\scriptsize
1569: \tablenum{1}
1570: \tablewidth{0pt}
1571: \tablecaption{Stellar Parameters for the M71 Sample from
1572: Paper I and Paper II\tablenotemark{a}
1573: \label{tab1}}
1574: \tablehead{
1575: \colhead{ID\tablenotemark{b}} & \colhead{\teff}
1576: & \colhead{\grav} & \colhead{\mtv}
1577: & \colhead{${\rm N_{FeI}}$} & \colhead{[Fe/H]$_{\rm FeI}$}
1578: & \colhead{${\rm N_{FeII}}$}& \colhead{[Fe/H]$_{\rm FeII}$} \\
1579: \colhead{} & \colhead{(K)}
1580: & \colhead{} & \colhead{(km/s)}
1581: & \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{}
1582: }
1583: \startdata
1584: 1--45 & 3950 & 0.90 & 1.45 & 187 & --0.60$\pm$ 0.03 & 5 & --0.45$\pm$ 0.06\\
1585: I & 4150 & 1.00 & 1.38 & 186 & --0.63$\pm$ 0.03 & 6 & --0.66$\pm$ 0.07\\
1586: 1--66 & 4250 & 1.35 & 1.35 & 179 & --0.58$\pm$ 0.03 & 6 & --0.67$\pm$ 0.09\\
1587: 1--64 & 4200 & 1.35 & 1.37 & 187 & --0.61$\pm$ 0.03 & 5 & --0.52$\pm$ 0.09\\
1588: 1--56 & 4525 & 1.60 & 1.26 & 127 & --0.48$\pm$ 0.03 & 2 & --0.68$\pm$ 0.13\\
1589: 1--95 & 4550 & 1.65 & 1.25 & 184 & --0.59$\pm$ 0.03 & 8 & --0.74$\pm$ 0.05\\
1590: 1--81 & 4550 & 1.75 & 1.25 & 180 & --0.56$\pm$ 0.03 & 6 & --0.93$\pm$ 0.05\\
1591: 1--1 & 4700 & 2.05 & 1.20 & 134 & --0.59$\pm$ 0.03 & 5 & --0.76$\pm$ 0.05\\
1592: 1--80\tablenotemark{c,d}& 5300 & 2.40 & 1.80 & 71 & --0.64$\pm$ 0.03 & 5 & --0.93$\pm$ 0.05\\
1593: 1--87\tablenotemark{c} & 5300 & 2.40 & 1.80 & 128 & --0.56$\pm$ 0.03 & 9 & --0.84$\pm$ 0.05\\
1594: 1--94\tablenotemark{c} & 5300 & 2.40 & 1.80 & 94 & --0.73$\pm$ 0.03 & 6 & --0.82$\pm$ 0.05\\
1595: 1--60 & 4900 & 2.30 & 1.13 & 119 & --0.74$\pm$ 0.03 & 6 & --0.62$\pm$ 0.05\\
1596: 1--59 & 4600 & 2.30 & 1.23 & 141 & --0.70$\pm$ 0.03 & 5 & --0.58$\pm$ 0.05\\
1597: G53476\_4543 & 4900 & 2.65 & 1.13 & 174 & --0.61$\pm$ 0.03 & 7 & --0.76$\pm$ 0.05\\
1598: 2--160 & 5100 & 2.70 & 1.07 & 145 & --0.49$\pm$ 0.03 & 5 & --0.94$\pm$ 0.08\\
1599: G53447\_4707 & 5175 & 2.75 & 1.04 & 155 & --0.51$\pm$ 0.03 & 7 & --0.83$\pm$ 0.05\\
1600: G53445\_4647 & 5050 & 2.85 & 1.08 & 112 & --0.59$\pm$ 0.03 & 6 & --0.80$\pm$ 0.05\\
1601: G53447\_4703 & 5000 & 3.00 & 1.10 & 125 & --0.71$\pm$ 0.03 & 4 & --0.74$\pm$ 0.05\\
1602: G53425\_4612 & 5150 & 3.15 & 1.05 & 80 & --0.67$\pm$ 0.03 & 2 & --0.87$\pm$ 0.07\\
1603: G53477\_4539 & 5150 & 3.15 & 1.05 & 119 & --0.64$\pm$ 0.03 & 5 & --0.86$\pm$ 0.05\\
1604: G53457\_4709 & 5200 & 3.35 & 1.03 & 93 & --0.72$\pm$ 0.03 & 5 & --0.72$\pm$ 0.12\\
1605: G53391\_4628 & 5100 & 3.35 & 1.07 & 106 & --0.78$\pm$ 0.03 & 5 & --0.76$\pm$ 0.05\\
1606: G53417\_4431 & 5800 & 4.05 & 0.83 & 38 & --0.63$\pm$ 0.04 & 3 & --0.60$\pm$ 0.12\\
1607: G53392\_4624 & 5800 & 4.05 & 0.83 & 36 & --0.76$\pm$ 0.03 & 3 & --0.66$\pm$ 0.08\\
1608: G53414\_4435 & 5900 & 4.15 & 0.80 & 13 & --0.78$\pm$ 0.05 & 2 & --0.58$\pm$ 0.16\\
1609: \enddata
1610: \tablenotetext{a}{$\xi$ and [Fe/H] have been slightly updated from
1611: the values given in Paper I.}
1612: \tablenotetext{b}{Identifications are from \citet{arp71}
1613: or are assigned based on the J2000 coordinates, rh rm rs.s dd dm dd becoming
1614: Grmrss\_dmdd.}
1615: \tablenotetext{c}{RHB star.}
1616: \tablenotetext{d}{Appears to show rotation (Paper I).}
1617: \end{deluxetable}
1618:
1619:
1620: \clearpage
1621: %
1622: % Table2
1623: %
1624: \begin{deluxetable}{llrrcccccccccccc}
1625: \rotate
1626: %\small
1627: %\footnotesize
1628: %\scriptsize
1629: \tablenum{2}
1630: \tablewidth{0pt}
1631: \tablecaption{Equivalent Widths (m$\AA$)\tablenotemark{a}\label{tab2}}
1632: \tablehead{
1633: \colhead{Ion} & \colhead{$\lambda (\AA)$} & \colhead{$\chi$ (eV)} & \colhead{log($gf$)} & \colhead{1--45 } & \colhead{I } & \colhead{1--66 } & \colhead{1--64 } & \colhead{1--56 } & \colhead{1--95 } & \colhead{1--81 } & \colhead{1--1 } & \colhead{1--80 } & \colhead{1--87 } & \colhead{1--94 } & \colhead{1--60 } \\
1634: \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{} }
1635: \startdata
1636: C I & 7113.180 & 8.640 & -0.773 & 35.5 & 16.1 & 38.4 & ... & ... & 30.0 & ... & ... & ... & ... & ... & ... \\
1637: C I & 7115.170 & 8.640 & -0.710 & 31.3 & ... & ... & ... & ... & ... & ... & ... & ... & ... & ... & ... \\
1638: O I & 6300.304 & 0.000 & -9.780 & 76.2 & 73.8\tablenotemark{b} & 57.1 & 71.6 & 42.4\tablenotemark{b} & 44.9 & 44.5 & 30.5\tablenotemark{b} & 18.8\tablenotemark{b} & 23.4 & 20.1\tablenotemark{b} & 30.4 \\
1639: O I & 6363.776 & 0.020 & -10.300 & 39.3 & 34.3 & 25.9 & 35.7 & 19.2\tablenotemark{b} & 19.6 & 22.3 & ... & ... & ... & 9.0\tablenotemark{b} & 14.9\tablenotemark{b} \\
1640: O I & 7771.944 & 9.150 & 0.369 & ... & ... & 15.2\tablenotemark{b} & 21.3 & 23.2\tablenotemark{b} & 21.2 & 19.9 & 28.7 & 65.5 & 52.5 & 81.0 & 44.4 \\
1641: O I & 7774.166 & 9.150 & 0.223 & ... & 17.2\tablenotemark{b} & 16.1\tablenotemark{b} & 18.8\tablenotemark{b} & 17.5\tablenotemark{b} & 23.8 & 17.5\tablenotemark{b} & 21.4\tablenotemark{b} & 63.6 & 50.9 & 62.3\tablenotemark{b} & 43.6\tablenotemark{b} \\
1642: O I & 7775.388 & 9.150 & 0.001 & ... & 18.6 & ... & 14.3\tablenotemark{b} & 18.7\tablenotemark{b} & 14.7\tablenotemark{b} & 14.7\tablenotemark{b} & 14.3\tablenotemark{b} & 32.3 & 31.3 & 50.6\tablenotemark{b} & 32.5 \\
1643: Na I & 5682.633 & 2.100 & -0.700 & 159.9 & 130.6 & 137.0 & 123.8\tablenotemark{b} & 121.5 & 105.0 & 106.8 & 106.4 & 66.1\tablenotemark{b} & 68.6 & 63.1 & 64.4\tablenotemark{b} \\
1644: Na I & 5688.193 & 2.100 & -0.420 & 159.5 & 134.3 & 146.3 & 141.0 & 131.5 & 125.5 & 129.3 & 125.3 & 84.4 & 90.4 & 83.4 & 84.9 \\
1645: Na I & 6154.225 & 2.100 & -1.530 & 108.2 & 60.4 & 72.3 & 64.5 & 52.8 & 43.0 & 47.3 & 48.4 & 7.0\tablenotemark{b} & 15.7\tablenotemark{b} & 13.4\tablenotemark{b} & 18.4\tablenotemark{b} \\
1646: Na I & 6160.747 & 2.100 & -1.230 & 136.6 & 91.1\tablenotemark{b} & 101.3 & 93.3 & 89.5 & 64.3 & 71.2 & 68.6 & 27.6 & 32.0 & 17.3 & 30.6\tablenotemark{b} \\
1647: Mg I & 5711.088 & 4.340 & -1.670 & 137.7 & 139.4 & 136.0 & 126.3 & 128.1 & 126.3 & 124.1 & 103.9 & 100.1 & 102.2 & 97.9 & 107.3 \\
1648: Mg I & 6318.717 & 5.110 & -1.970 & 69.0 & 63.8 & 55.9 & 56.7 & 64.2 & 53.3 & 54.9 & 61.2 & ... & 37.9 & ... & 37.4 \\
1649: Mg I & 6319.237 & 5.110 & -2.220 & 55.9 & 51.0 & 50.2 & 53.9 & ... & 38.7 & 43.1 & ... & ... & 26.9 & 25.3 & ... \\
1650: Mg I & 6319.495 & 5.110 & -2.680 & ... & ... & ... & ... & ... & ... & ... & ... & ... & ... & ... & ... \\
1651: Mg I & 6965.409 & 5.750 & -1.870 & 35.7 & 34.9 & 41.8 & 40.8 & ... & 37.6 & 42.5 & 31.3 & ... & ... & ... & ... \\
1652: Mg I & 7193.184 & 5.750 & -1.400 & 68.4 & 61.4 & 71.1 & 63.7 & 55.5 & 53.5 & 52.9 & ... & ... & 41.0 & ... & 37.3 \\
1653: Mg I & 7387.689 & 5.750 & -0.870 & 51.3 & 66.9 & 62.2 & 54.4 & ... & 52.9 & 61.4 & 48.8 & ... & 51.6 & 41.6 & ... \\
1654: Mg I & 7657.603 & 5.110 & -1.280 & 112.5 & 112.5 & 111.6 & 112.5 & 97.3 & 98.0 & 101.9 & 91.4 & 77.4 & 77.4 & ... & ... \\
1655: Mg I & 7722.601 & 5.940 & -1.800 & ... & ... & 35.6 & ... & ... & 32.8 & 46.8 & ... & ... & ... & ... & ... \\
1656: Mg I & 7930.810 & 5.940 & -1.200 & 53.6 & 60.2 & 67.9 & 56.5 & ... & 62.2 & 52.6 & 45.0 & ... & ... & ... & ... \\
1657: Al I & 5557.059 & 3.140 & -2.100 & ... & ... & 29.2 & 22.0 & ... & 14.1 & 18.8 & ... & ... & ... & ... & ...
1658: \enddata
1659: \tablenotetext{a}{Table available electronically.}
1660: \tablenotetext{b}{Line identified by hand. All other lines are
1661: identified automatically.}
1662: \tablenotetext{c}{Fe I line used in the $\lambda D-W_{\lambda} $ fit.}
1663: \end{deluxetable}
1664:
1665: \clearpage
1666: %
1667: % Table3
1668: %
1669: \begin{deluxetable}{lcc}
1670: %\rotate
1671: %\small
1672: %\footnotesize
1673: %\scriptsize
1674: \tablenum{3}
1675: \tablewidth{0pt}
1676: \tablecaption{Correction Factors for Inverted Solar $gf$ Values
1677: \label{tab3}}
1678: \tablehead{\colhead{Ion} & \colhead{\# Common Lines} & \colhead{Correction} \\
1679: \colhead{} & \colhead{Between NIST \& Solar} &
1680: \colhead{Factor\tablenotemark{a}} \\
1681: \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{(dex)} }
1682: \startdata
1683: Mg I & 4 & +0.10 \\
1684: Al I & 6 & +0.21 \\
1685: Ca I & 12 & +0.33 \\
1686: Ti I & 30 & +0.05 \\
1687: Cr I & 11 & +0.05 \\
1688: Ni I & 33 & +0.05 \\
1689: \enddata
1690: \tablenotetext{a}{$gf$(used) = $gf$(Thevenin) + Correction Factor}
1691: \end{deluxetable}
1692:
1693: \clearpage
1694: %
1695: % Table4
1696: %
1697: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccc}
1698: %\rotate
1699: %\small
1700: %\footnotesize
1701: %\scriptsize
1702: \tablenum{4}
1703: \tablewidth{0pt}
1704: \tablecaption{Solar Abundance Ratios [X/Fe]
1705: \label{tab4}}
1706: \tablehead{\colhead{Ion} & \colhead{\# lines} &
1707: \colhead{[X/Fe]\tablenotemark{a}} &
1708: \colhead{$\sigma$\tablenotemark{a}}
1709: & \colhead{$\Delta$[us-meteoric]\tablenotemark{b}} \\
1710: \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{(dex)} & \colhead{(dex)} & \colhead{(dex)}}
1711: \startdata
1712: Li I\tablenotemark{c} & 1 & 0.94 & ... & --0.22\tablenotemark{d} \\
1713: C I & 4 & +1.08 & 0.04 & +0.03 \\
1714: O I & 5 & +1.53 & 0.10 & +0.11 \\
1715: Na I & 4 & --1.30 & 0.09 & --0.10 \\
1716: Mg I & 10 & +0.03 & 0.24 & --0.05 \\
1717: Al I & 6 & --1.20 & 0.15 & --0.17 \\
1718: Si I & 20 & +0.14 & 0.12 & +0.09 \\
1719: K I & 1 & --2.28 & ... & +0.10 \\
1720: Ca I & 15 & --1.56 & 0.14 & --0.39 \\
1721: Sc II & 7 & --4.26 & 0.12 & +0.16 \\
1722: Ti I & 40 & --2.48 & 0.15 & +0.09 \\
1723: V I & 13 & --3.55 & 0.14 & --0.06 \\
1724: Cr I & 12 & --1.72 & 0.16 & +0.10 \\
1725: Mn I & 4 & --2.09 & 0.12 & --0.12 \\
1726: Co I & 7 & --2.60 & 0.08 & 0.00 \\
1727: Ni I & 43 & --1.19 & 0.18 & +0.07 \\
1728: Cu I & 1 & --3.44 & ... & --0.20 \\
1729: Zn I & 1 & --2.94 & ... & --0.09 \\
1730: Y II & 1 & --4.96 & ... & +0.33 \\
1731: Zr I & 4 & --4.52 & 0.16 & +0.38 \\
1732: Ba II & 3 & --5.29 & 0.08 & +0.01 \\
1733: La II & 3 & --6.27 & 0.07 & +0.04 \\
1734: Eu II & 1 & --6.96 & ... & +0.01 \\
1735: \enddata
1736: \tablenotetext{a}{Mean and 1$\sigma$ rms deviation about the mean
1737: for the abundance in the Sun of the lines
1738: of a particular ion using
1739: our adopted atomic line parameters.}
1740: \tablenotetext{b}{Meteoric solar abundances from \citet{and89}.}
1741: \tablenotetext{c}{log $\epsilon$(Li)}
1742: \tablenotetext{d}{The photospheric Solar Li abundance
1743: from \citet{and89} is used.}
1744: \end{deluxetable}
1745:
1746: %
1747: % Table5
1748: %
1749: \clearpage
1750:
1751: \begin{deluxetable}{lrrrrrrrr}
1752: %\rotate
1753: %\small
1754: %\footnotesize
1755: %\scriptsize
1756: \tablenum{5a}
1757: \tablewidth{0pt}
1758: \tablecaption{Abundance Ratios/Li-Na.\label{tab5a}}
1759: \tablehead{
1760: \colhead{Star} &
1761: \colhead{${\rm N_{Li}}$} & \colhead{[Li/Fe]} &
1762: \colhead{${\rm N_{C }}$} & \colhead{[C /Fe]} &
1763: \colhead{${\rm N_{O }}$} & \colhead{[O /Fe]} &
1764: \colhead{${\rm N_{Na}}$} & \colhead{[Na/Fe]} }
1765: \startdata
1766: 1--45 & 0 & ... & 2 & 2.10$\pm$0.12 & 2 & --0.19$\pm$0.07 & 4 & 0.57$\pm$0.08\\
1767: I & 0 & ... & 1 & 1.20$\pm$0.10 & 4 & 0.20$\pm$0.18 & 4 & 0.22$\pm$0.08\\
1768: 1--66 & 1 &$<$ --0.61 & 1 & 1.93$\pm$0.11 & 4 & 0.03$\pm$0.08 & 4 & 0.41$\pm$0.07\\
1769: 1--64 & 1 &$<$ --0.79 & 0 & ... & 5 & 0.14$\pm$0.07 & 4 & 0.25$\pm$0.05\\
1770: 1--56 & 0 & ... & 0 & ... & 5 & 0.01$\pm$0.10 & 4 & 0.34$\pm$0.08\\
1771: 1--95 & 1 & $<$--0.39 & 1 & 1.32$\pm$0.09 & 5 & 0.09$\pm$0.11 & 4 & 0.23$\pm$0.08\\
1772: 1--81 & 0 & ... & 0 & ... & 5 & 0.27$\pm$0.14 & 4 & 0.27$\pm$0.07\\
1773: 1--1 & 1 & $<$ 0.36 & 0 & ... & 4 & 0.10$\pm$0.07 & 4 & 0.39$\pm$0.06\\
1774: 1--80 & 1 & $<$--0.69 & 0 & ... & 4 & 0.53$\pm$0.19 & 4 & 0.03$\pm$0.12\\
1775: 1--87 & 0 & ... & 0 & ... & 4 & 0.34$\pm$0.07 & 4 & 0.10$\pm$0.05\\
1776: 1--94 & 1 & $<$--0.69 & 0 & ... & 5 & 0.53$\pm$0.21 & 4 & 0.12$\pm$0.08\\
1777: 1--60 & 0 & ... & 0 & ... & 5 & 0.33$\pm$0.12 & 4 & 0.04$\pm$0.05\\
1778: 1--59 & 0 & ... & 0 & ... & 5 & 0.15$\pm$0.12 & 4 & 0.11$\pm$0.05\\
1779: G53476\_4543 & 0 & ... & 0 & ... & 5 & 0.26$\pm$0.07 & 4 & 0.15$\pm$0.05\\
1780: 2--160 & 1 & $<$ 0.61 & 1 & 1.05$\pm$0.11 & 4 & 0.06$\pm$0.14 & 3 & 0.34$\pm$0.08\\
1781: G53447\_4707 & 1 & 1.01$\pm$0.10 & 0 & ... & 4 & 0.33$\pm$0.07 & 4 & 0.14$\pm$0.05\\
1782: G53445\_4647 & 1 & 0.99$\pm$0.10 & 1 & 0.74$\pm$0.09 & 4 & 0.31$\pm$0.09 & 4 & 0.16$\pm$0.05\\
1783: G53447\_4703 & 0 & ... & 0 & ... & 3 & 0.11$\pm$0.10 & 4 & 0.37$\pm$0.05\\
1784: G53425\_4612 & 1 & 1.29$\pm$0.10 & 0 & ... & 3 & 0.34$\pm$0.12 & 4 & 0.21$\pm$0.09\\
1785: G53477\_4539 & 0 & ... & 0 & ... & 4 & 0.33$\pm$0.07 & 4 & 0.06$\pm$0.07\\
1786: G53457\_4709 & 0 & ... & 0 & ... & 3 & 0.14$\pm$0.11 & 4 & 0.10$\pm$0.06\\
1787: G53391\_4628 & 0 & ... & 0 & ... & 3 & 0.32$\pm$0.13 & 4 & 0.27$\pm$0.05\\
1788: G53417\_4431 & 0 & ... & 0 & ... & 3 & 0.12$\pm$0.11 & 4 & 0.28$\pm$0.07\\
1789: G53392\_4624 & 0 & ... & 0 & ... & 3 & 0.37$\pm$0.09 & 3 & 0.19$\pm$0.10\\
1790: G53414\_4435 & 0 & ... & 0 & ... & 3 & 0.54$\pm$0.18 & 3 & 0.14$\pm$0.14
1791: \enddata
1792: \end{deluxetable}
1793: \clearpage
1794:
1795: \begin{deluxetable}{lrrrrrrrrrr}
1796: \rotate
1797: %\small
1798: %\footnotesize
1799: %\scriptsize
1800: \tablenum{5b}
1801: \tablewidth{0pt}
1802: \tablecaption{Abundance Ratios/Mg-Ca.\label{tab5b}}
1803: \tablehead{
1804: \colhead{Star} &
1805: \colhead{${\rm N_{Mg}}$} & \colhead{[Mg/Fe]} &
1806: \colhead{${\rm N_{Al}}$} & \colhead{[Al/Fe]} &
1807: \colhead{${\rm N_{Si}}$} & \colhead{[Si/Fe]} &
1808: \colhead{${\rm N_{K }}$} & \colhead{[K /Fe]} &
1809: \colhead{${\rm N_{Ca}}$} & \colhead{[Ca/Fe]} }
1810: \startdata
1811: 1--45 & 8 & 0.43$\pm$0.09 & 3 & 0.45$\pm$0.09 & 12 & 0.04$\pm$0.07 & 1 & --0.71$\pm$0.09 & 15 & 0.32$\pm$0.07\\
1812: I & 8 & 0.46$\pm$0.06 & 3 & 0.28$\pm$0.11 & 14 & 0.18$\pm$0.08 & 1 & --0.12$\pm$0.09 & 13 & 0.42$\pm$0.06\\
1813: 1--66 & 9 & 0.47$\pm$0.09 & 3 & 0.26$\pm$0.07 & 17 & 0.22$\pm$0.10 & 1 & 0.03$\pm$0.09 & 14 & 0.39$\pm$0.06\\
1814: 1--64 & 8 & 0.41$\pm$0.09 & 4 & 0.19$\pm$0.07 & 16 & 0.15$\pm$0.10 & 1 & --0.82$\pm$0.09 & 15 & 0.39$\pm$0.06\\
1815: 1--56 & 4 & 0.33$\pm$0.06 & 0 & ... & 10 & 0.34$\pm$0.14 & 0 & ... & 10 & 0.43$\pm$0.07\\
1816: 1--95 & 9 & 0.44$\pm$0.09 & 3 & 0.13$\pm$0.07 & 17 & 0.36$\pm$0.06 & 1 & --0.17$\pm$0.09 & 13 & 0.42$\pm$0.06\\
1817: 1--81 & 9 & 0.46$\pm$0.09 & 4 & 0.27$\pm$0.07 & 16 & 0.42$\pm$0.06 & 1 & 0.03$\pm$0.09 & 14 & 0.47$\pm$0.06\\
1818: 1--1 & 6 & 0.33$\pm$0.11 & 1 & 0.27$\pm$0.07 & 14 & 0.27$\pm$0.06 & 1 & --0.06$\pm$0.09 & 12 & 0.55$\pm$0.06\\
1819: 1--80 & 2 & 0.35$\pm$0.06 & 0 & ... & 10 & 0.47$\pm$0.06 & 0 & ... & 10 & 0.52$\pm$0.13\\
1820: 1--87 & 6 & 0.35$\pm$0.06 & 0 & ... & 16 & 0.45$\pm$0.06 & 0 & ... & 12 & 0.47$\pm$0.08\\
1821: 1--94 & 3 & 0.39$\pm$0.13 & 2 & 0.11$\pm$0.07 & 13 & 0.41$\pm$0.06 & 1 & --0.02$\pm$0.09 & 10 & 0.42$\pm$0.06\\
1822: 1--60 & 3 & 0.47$\pm$0.06 & 0 & ... & 12 & 0.20$\pm$0.06 & 0 & ... & 11 & 0.47$\pm$0.06\\
1823: 1--59 & 4 & 0.43$\pm$0.06 & 0 & ... & 16 & 0.16$\pm$0.06 & 0 & ... & 12 & 0.44$\pm$0.06\\
1824: G53476\_4543 & 5 & 0.36$\pm$0.06 & 0 & ... & 18 & 0.27$\pm$0.06 & 0 & ... & 15 & 0.41$\pm$0.06\\
1825: 2--160 & 7 & 0.33$\pm$0.08 & 2 & 0.17$\pm$0.07 & 17 & 0.45$\pm$0.09 & 0 & ... & 13 & 0.48$\pm$0.06\\
1826: G53447\_4707 & 7 & 0.32$\pm$0.06 & 2 & 0.21$\pm$0.12 & 17 & 0.38$\pm$0.06 & 1 & --0.19$\pm$0.09 & 12 & 0.48$\pm$0.06\\
1827: G53445\_4647 & 4 & 0.24$\pm$0.06 & 1 & 0.39$\pm$0.07 & 13 & 0.28$\pm$0.06 & 0 & ... & 12 & 0.44$\pm$0.07\\
1828: G53447\_4703 & 3 & 0.44$\pm$0.06 & 0 & ... & 16 & 0.23$\pm$0.06 & 1 & 0.19$\pm$0.09 & 13 & 0.36$\pm$0.06\\
1829: G53425\_4612 & 5 & 0.39$\pm$0.16 & 0 & ... & 4 & 0.14$\pm$0.10 & 1 & 0.00$\pm$0.09 & 9 & 0.47$\pm$0.06\\
1830: G53477\_4539 & 6 & 0.43$\pm$0.06 & 0 & ... & 17 & 0.30$\pm$0.06 & 0 & ... & 11 & 0.38$\pm$0.06\\
1831: G53457\_4709 & 4 & 0.45$\pm$0.10 & 0 & ... & 11 & 0.11$\pm$0.13 & 0 & ... & 11 & 0.50$\pm$0.07\\
1832: G53391\_4628 & 2 & 0.13$\pm$0.06 & 0 & ... & 15 & 0.17$\pm$0.06 & 0 & ... & 10 & 0.39$\pm$0.06\\
1833: G53417\_4431 & 1 & 0.16$\pm$0.06 & 0 & ... & 5 & 0.02$\pm$0.13 & 0 & ... & 11 & 0.40$\pm$0.06\\
1834: G53392\_4624 & 1 & 0.39$\pm$0.06 & 0 & ... & 4 & --0.01$\pm$0.12 & 0 & ... & 8 & 0.37$\pm$0.07\\
1835: G53414\_4435 & 0 & ... & 0 & ... & 0 & ... & 0 & ... & 8 & 0.42$\pm$0.10
1836: \enddata
1837: \end{deluxetable}
1838: \clearpage
1839:
1840: \begin{deluxetable}{lrrrrrrrr}
1841: %\rotate
1842: %\small
1843: %\footnotesize
1844: %\scriptsize
1845: \tablenum{5c}
1846: \tablewidth{0pt}
1847: \tablecaption{Abundance Ratios/Sc-Cr.\label{tab5c}}
1848: \tablehead{
1849: \colhead{Star} &
1850: \colhead{${\rm N_{Sc}}$} & \colhead{[Sc/Fe]} &
1851: \colhead{${\rm N_{Ti}}$} & \colhead{[Ti/Fe]} &
1852: \colhead{${\rm N_{V }}$} & \colhead{[V /Fe]} &
1853: \colhead{${\rm N_{Cr}}$} & \colhead{[Cr/Fe]} }
1854: \startdata
1855: 1--45 & 6 & 0.23$\pm$0.08 & 36 & 0.34$\pm$0.06 & 14 & 0.43$\pm$0.12 & 10 & --0.03$\pm$0.08\\
1856: I & 7 & 0.29$\pm$0.21 & 37 & 0.23$\pm$0.05 & 14 & 0.18$\pm$0.15 & 9 & --0.10$\pm$0.08\\
1857: 1--66 & 6 & 0.21$\pm$0.07 & 38 & 0.23$\pm$0.05 & 13 & 0.03$\pm$0.07 & 9 & --0.11$\pm$0.07\\
1858: 1--64 & 7 & 0.19$\pm$0.12 & 37 & 0.25$\pm$0.05 & 14 & 0.19$\pm$0.15 & 8 & --0.10$\pm$0.07\\
1859: 1--56 & 4 & --0.04$\pm$0.12 & 21 & 0.15$\pm$0.07 & 9 & 0.08$\pm$0.14 & 3 & --0.21$\pm$0.13\\
1860: 1--95 & 6 & 0.15$\pm$0.06 & 36 & 0.06$\pm$0.04 & 14 & 0.02$\pm$0.08 & 9 & --0.23$\pm$0.07\\
1861: 1--81 & 7 & 0.07$\pm$0.07 & 34 & 0.34$\pm$0.05 & 14 & 0.36$\pm$0.12 & 9 & --0.07$\pm$0.07\\
1862: 1--1 & 7 & 0.20$\pm$0.19 & 25 & 0.22$\pm$0.05 & 14 & 0.19$\pm$0.07 & 5 & --0.14$\pm$0.07\\
1863: 1--80 & 4 & --0.36$\pm$0.15 & 8 & 0.17$\pm$0.04 & 1 & --0.05$\pm$0.07 & 1 & 0.09$\pm$0.07\\
1864: 1--87 & 7 & --0.17$\pm$0.06 & 16 & 0.13$\pm$0.04 & 10 & 0.20$\pm$0.07 & 4 & --0.21$\pm$0.07\\
1865: 1--94 & 6 & --0.02$\pm$0.06 & 5 & 0.07$\pm$0.04 & 4 & 0.03$\pm$0.07 & 3 & --0.35$\pm$0.10\\
1866: 1--60 & 5 & 0.20$\pm$0.07 & 10 & 0.03$\pm$0.06 & 3 & --0.25$\pm$0.18 & 3 & --0.19$\pm$0.14\\
1867: 1--59 & 5 & 0.26$\pm$0.06 & 23 & 0.13$\pm$0.04 & 11 & 0.06$\pm$0.07 & 7 & --0.11$\pm$0.07\\
1868: G53476\_4543 & 6 & 0.14$\pm$0.06 & 32 & 0.20$\pm$0.04 & 11 & 0.16$\pm$0.07 & 9 & --0.15$\pm$0.07\\
1869: 2--160 & 6 & 0.03$\pm$0.06 & 24 & 0.27$\pm$0.05 & 12 & 0.17$\pm$0.07 & 7 & --0.08$\pm$0.08\\
1870: G53447\_4707 & 7 & --0.07$\pm$0.07 & 21 & 0.16$\pm$0.04 & 9 & 0.09$\pm$0.07 & 8 & --0.18$\pm$0.07\\
1871: G53445\_4647 & 7 & --0.02$\pm$0.06 & 15 & 0.20$\pm$0.04 & 8 & 0.18$\pm$0.08 & 6 & --0.10$\pm$0.07\\
1872: G53447\_4703 & 7 & 0.29$\pm$0.21 & 17 & 0.21$\pm$0.04 & 6 & 0.05$\pm$0.08 & 6 & --0.06$\pm$0.07\\
1873: G53425\_4612 & 5 & 0.06$\pm$0.13 & 6 & 0.23$\pm$0.05 & 7 & 0.08$\pm$0.07 & 3 & --0.15$\pm$0.12\\
1874: G53477\_4539 & 5 & 0.02$\pm$0.06 & 13 & 0.19$\pm$0.04 & 7 & 0.15$\pm$0.09 & 3 & --0.23$\pm$0.13\\
1875: G53457\_4709 & 6 & --0.07$\pm$0.06 & 8 & 0.23$\pm$0.04 & 3 & 0.09$\pm$0.07 & 3 & --0.12$\pm$0.08\\
1876: G53391\_4628 & 6 & 0.10$\pm$0.06 & 15 & 0.30$\pm$0.04 & 0 & ... & 3 & --0.18$\pm$0.07\\
1877: G53417\_4431 & 3 & --0.21$\pm$0.06 & 6 & 0.27$\pm$0.07 & 0 & ... & 1 & --0.17$\pm$0.07\\
1878: G53392\_4624 & 3 & 0.09$\pm$0.11 & 6 & 0.06$\pm$0.09 & 0 & ... & 0 & ... \\
1879: G53414\_4435 & 1 & 0.15$\pm$0.07 & 4 & 0.15$\pm$0.16 & 0 & ... & 0 & ...
1880: \enddata
1881: \end{deluxetable}
1882: \clearpage
1883:
1884: \begin{deluxetable}{lrrrrrrrrrr}
1885: \rotate
1886: %\small
1887: %\footnotesize
1888: %\scriptsize
1889: \tablenum{5d}
1890: \tablewidth{0pt}
1891: \tablecaption{Abundance Ratios/Mn-Zn.\label{tab5d}}
1892: \tablehead{
1893: \colhead{Star} &
1894: \colhead{${\rm N_{Mn}}$} & \colhead{[Mn/Fe]} &
1895: \colhead{${\rm N_{Co}}$} & \colhead{[Co/Fe]} &
1896: \colhead{${\rm N_{Ni}}$} & \colhead{[Ni/Fe]} &
1897: \colhead{${\rm N_{Cu}}$} & \colhead{[Cu/Fe]} &
1898: \colhead{${\rm N_{Zn}}$} & \colhead{[Zn/Fe]} }
1899: \startdata
1900: 1--45 & 3 & --0.28$\pm$0.22 & 7 & 0.09$\pm$0.08 & 37 & 0.09$\pm$0.05 & 1 & --0.12$\pm$0.09 & 0 & ... \\
1901: I & 4 & --0.24$\pm$0.06 & 7 & 0.02$\pm$0.07 & 35 & 0.05$\pm$0.05 & 1 & 0.05$\pm$0.09 & 0 & ... \\
1902: 1--66 & 4 & --0.25$\pm$0.06 & 7 & 0.01$\pm$0.05 & 35 & 0.06$\pm$0.05 & 1 & 0.14$\pm$0.09 & 1 & 0.74$\pm$0.12\\
1903: 1--64 & 4 & --0.39$\pm$0.06 & 8 & 0.02$\pm$0.05 & 38 & 0.08$\pm$0.05 & 1 & --0.22$\pm$0.09 & 1 & 0.64$\pm$0.12\\
1904: 1--56 & 0 & ... & 3 & 0.00$\pm$0.05 & 29 & 0.04$\pm$0.06 & 0 & ... & 0 & ... \\
1905: 1--95 & 4 & --0.36$\pm$0.06 & 7 & --0.02$\pm$0.06 & 37 & 0.03$\pm$0.05 & 1 & 0.12$\pm$0.09 & 0 & ... \\
1906: 1--81 & 4 & --0.16$\pm$0.06 & 7 & 0.04$\pm$0.05 & 36 & 0.00$\pm$0.05 & 1 & 0.12$\pm$0.09 & 0 & ... \\
1907: 1--1 & 4 & --0.27$\pm$0.06 & 6 & 0.04$\pm$0.06 & 29 & 0.02$\pm$0.06 & 1 & 0.07$\pm$0.09 & 0 & ... \\
1908: 1--80 & 0 & ... & 0 & ... & 17 & --0.07$\pm$0.06 & 1 & 0.38$\pm$0.09 & 0 & ... \\
1909: 1--87 & 4 & --0.24$\pm$0.09 & 4 & 0.13$\pm$0.08 & 27 & --0.07$\pm$0.05 & 1 & 0.16$\pm$0.09 & 1 & 0.46$\pm$0.09\\
1910: 1--94 & 3 & --0.31$\pm$0.06 & 0 & ... & 16 & 0.00$\pm$0.06 & 1 & 0.09$\pm$0.09 & 1 & 0.44$\pm$0.09\\
1911: 1--60 & 0 & ... & 2 & 0.04$\pm$0.12 & 19 & 0.00$\pm$0.05 & 1 & --0.30$\pm$0.09 & 0 & ... \\
1912: 1--59 & 0 & ... & 3 & 0.03$\pm$0.07 & 28 & 0.07$\pm$0.05 & 1 & 0.04$\pm$0.09 & 0 & ... \\
1913: G53476\_4543 & 0 & ... & 3 & 0.05$\pm$0.05 & 36 & --0.02$\pm$0.05 & 1 & 0.07$\pm$0.09 & 0 & ... \\
1914: 2--160 & 3 & --0.28$\pm$0.06 & 7 & 0.12$\pm$0.05 & 28 & --0.03$\pm$0.06 & 1 & 0.14$\pm$0.09 & 1 & 0.42$\pm$0.11\\
1915: G53447\_4707 & 3 & --0.27$\pm$0.06 & 4 & --0.05$\pm$0.08 & 34 & --0.05$\pm$0.05 & 1 & 0.00$\pm$0.09 & 1 & 0.44$\pm$0.09\\
1916: G53445\_4647 & 0 & ... & 2 & 0.00$\pm$0.17 & 23 & 0.00$\pm$0.07 & 1 & 0.19$\pm$0.09 & 1 & 0.34$\pm$0.09\\
1917: G53447\_4703 & 2 & 0.05$\pm$0.12 & 1 & 0.04$\pm$0.05 & 25 & 0.05$\pm$0.05 & 1 & 0.15$\pm$0.09 & 0 & ... \\
1918: G53425\_4612 & 2 & --0.20$\pm$0.10 & 0 & ... & 13 & 0.02$\pm$0.10 & 1 & 0.08$\pm$0.09 & 0 & ... \\
1919: G53477\_4539 & 0 & ... & 0 & ... & 24 & --0.03$\pm$0.06 & 1 & 0.09$\pm$0.09 & 0 & ... \\
1920: G53457\_4709 & 0 & ... & 0 & ... & 15 & --0.01$\pm$0.07 & 1 & --0.01$\pm$0.09 & 1 & 0.20$\pm$0.14\\
1921: G53391\_4628 & 0 & ... & 2 & 0.14$\pm$0.15 & 20 & --0.03$\pm$0.07 & 1 & 0.15$\pm$0.09 & 0 & ... \\
1922: G53417\_4431 & 0 & ... & 0 & ... & 7 & --0.10$\pm$0.14 & 0 & ... & 0 & ... \\
1923: G53392\_4624 & 0 & ... & 0 & ... & 5 & --0.20$\pm$0.15 & 0 & ... & 0 & ... \\
1924: G53414\_4435 & 0 & ... & 0 & ... & 2 & --0.01$\pm$0.06 & 0 & ... & 0 & ...
1925: \enddata
1926: \end{deluxetable}
1927: \clearpage
1928:
1929: \begin{deluxetable}{lrrrrrrrrrr}
1930: \rotate
1931: %\small
1932: %\footnotesize
1933: %\scriptsize
1934: \tablenum{5e}
1935: \tablewidth{0pt}
1936: \tablecaption{Abundance Ratios/Y-Eu.\label{tab5e}}
1937: \tablehead{
1938: \colhead{Star} &
1939: \colhead{${\rm N_{Y }}$} & \colhead{[Y /Fe]} &
1940: \colhead{${\rm N_{Zr}}$} & \colhead{[Zr/Fe]} &
1941: \colhead{${\rm N_{Ba}}$} & \colhead{[Ba/Fe]} &
1942: \colhead{${\rm N_{La}}$} & \colhead{[La/Fe]} &
1943: \colhead{${\rm N_{Eu}}$} & \colhead{[Eu/Fe]} }
1944: \startdata
1945: 1--45 & 0 & ... & 3 & 0.09$\pm$0.27 & 3 & 0.25$\pm$0.14 & 2 & 0.22$\pm$0.08 & 1 & 0.58$\pm$0.09\\
1946: I & 1 & --0.16$\pm$0.09 & 4 & --0.24$\pm$0.10 & 3 & 0.35$\pm$0.08 & 1 & 0.15$\pm$0.08 & 1 & 0.46$\pm$0.09\\
1947: 1--66 & 0 & ... & 4 & --0.30$\pm$0.13 & 3 & 0.33$\pm$0.09 & 3 & 0.20$\pm$0.08 & 1 & 0.38$\pm$0.09\\
1948: 1--64 & 0 & ... & 3 & --0.23$\pm$0.08 & 2 & 0.31$\pm$0.08 & 2 & 0.32$\pm$0.12 & 1 & 0.49$\pm$0.09\\
1949: 1--56 & 0 & ... & 1 & --0.57$\pm$0.08 & 3 & 0.52$\pm$0.20 & 2 & 0.27$\pm$0.24 & 1 & 0.02$\pm$0.09\\
1950: 1--95 & 1 & --0.26$\pm$0.09 & 3 & --0.38$\pm$0.08 & 3 & 0.49$\pm$0.09 & 2 & 0.09$\pm$0.08 & 1 & 0.32$\pm$0.09\\
1951: 1--81 & 0 & ... & 2 & 0.00$\pm$0.08 & 3 & 0.34$\pm$0.12 & 2 & 0.27$\pm$0.12 & 1 & 0.26$\pm$0.09\\
1952: 1--1 & 0 & ... & 0 & ... & 2 & 0.18$\pm$0.09 & 1 & 0.21$\pm$0.08 & 0 & ... \\
1953: 1--80 & 0 & ... & 0 & ... & 3 & 0.38$\pm$0.37 & 0 & ... & 1 & 0.15$\pm$0.09\\
1954: 1--87 & 0 & ... & 1 & 0.20$\pm$0.08 & 3 & 0.08$\pm$0.18 & 0 & ... & 1 & 0.20$\pm$0.09\\
1955: 1--94 & 0 & ... & 0 & ... & 3 & 0.29$\pm$0.21 & 1 & 0.24$\pm$0.08 & 0 & ... \\
1956: 1--60 & 0 & ... & 0 & ... & 3 & 0.55$\pm$0.08 & 0 & ... & 0 & ... \\
1957: 1--59 & 0 & ... & 0 & ... & 3 & 0.38$\pm$0.16 & 1 & 0.31$\pm$0.08 & 0 & ... \\
1958: G53476\_4543 & 0 & ... & 1 & --0.12$\pm$0.08 & 3 & 0.23$\pm$0.16 & 1 & 0.19$\pm$0.08 & 1 & 0.33$\pm$0.09\\
1959: 2--160 & 0 & ... & 1 & 0.22$\pm$0.08 & 3 & 0.25$\pm$0.17 & 1 & 0.12$\pm$0.08 & 0 & ... \\
1960: G53447\_4707 & 1 & --0.23$\pm$0.09 & 0 & ... & 3 & 0.26$\pm$0.17 & 1 & --0.02$\pm$0.08 & 1 & 0.25$\pm$0.09\\
1961: G53445\_4647 & 0 & ... & 0 & ... & 2 & 0.35$\pm$0.20 & 0 & ... & 0 & ... \\
1962: G53447\_4703 & 0 & ... & 0 & ... & 3 & 0.15$\pm$0.19 & 0 & ... & 0 & ... \\
1963: G53425\_4612 & 0 & ... & 0 & ... & 3 & 0.41$\pm$0.09 & 0 & ... & 0 & ... \\
1964: G53477\_4539 & 0 & ... & 0 & ... & 3 & 0.22$\pm$0.16 & 1 & 0.41$\pm$0.08 & 0 & ... \\
1965: G53457\_4709 & 0 & ... & 0 & ... & 3 & 0.22$\pm$0.19 & 0 & ... & 0 & ... \\
1966: G53391\_4628 & 0 & ... & 0 & ... & 3 & 0.33$\pm$0.23 & 0 & ... & 0 & ... \\
1967: G53417\_4431 & 0 & ... & 0 & ... & 3 & 0.22$\pm$0.13 & 0 & ... & 0 & ... \\
1968: G53392\_4624 & 0 & ... & 0 & ... & 2 & 0.61$\pm$0.32 & 0 & ... & 0 & ... \\
1969: G53414\_4435 & 0 & ... & 0 & ... & 3 & 0.33$\pm$0.09 & 0 & ... & 0 & ...
1970: \enddata
1971: \end{deluxetable}
1972:
1973: \clearpage
1974:
1975: \begin{deluxetable}{lrrrrr}
1976: %\rotate
1977: %\small
1978: %\footnotesize
1979: %\scriptsize
1980: \tablenum{6}
1981: \tablewidth{0pt}
1982: \tablecaption{Sensitivity of Abundance.\label{tab6}}
1983: \tablehead{
1984: \colhead{} &
1985: \colhead{$\Delta$\ew} &
1986: \colhead{$\Delta$\teff} &
1987: \colhead{$\Delta$\grav} &
1988: \colhead{$\Delta$\mtv} &
1989: \colhead{$\Delta$\fe}\\
1990: \colhead{} &
1991: \colhead{10\%} &
1992: \colhead{+ 100 K} &
1993: \colhead{+ 0.2 dex} &
1994: \colhead{+ 0.2 \kms} &
1995: \colhead{+ 0.2 dex} }
1996: \startdata
1997: Li I : & & & & & \\
1998: 5000/2.5/1.0 & 0.10\tablenotemark{a} & 0.13 & 0.01 & 0.00 & 0.01 \\
1999: C I : & & & & & \\
2000: 4250/1.0/1.4 & 0.10 & -0.28 & 0.09 & -0.02 & -0.03 \\
2001: 5000/2.5/1.0 & 0.07 & -0.20 & 0.09 & -0.01 & 0.00 \\
2002: 5500/4.0/0.6 & 0.07 & -0.11 & 0.07 & 0.00 & 0.00 \\
2003: O I : & & & & & \\
2004: 4250/1.0/1.4 & 0.08 & -0.12 & 0.09 & -0.01 & -0.03 \\
2005: 5000/2.5/1.0 & 0.06 & -0.06 & 0.08 & -0.01 & -0.02 \\
2006: Na I : & & & & & \\
2007: 4250/1.0/1.4 & 0.17 & 0.09 & -0.01 & -0.07 & 0.01 \\
2008: 5000/2.5/1.0 & 0.11 & 0.07 & -0.01 & -0.03 & 0.01 \\
2009: 5500/4.0/0.6 & 0.10 & 0.06 & -0.01 & 0.00 & 0.00 \\
2010: Mg I : & & & & & \\
2011: 4250/1.0/1.4 & 0.12 & 0.01 & 0.00 & -0.04 & 0.00 \\
2012: 5000/2.5/1.0 & 0.10 & 0.05 & -0.01 & -0.03 & 0.00 \\
2013: 5500/4.0/0.6 & 0.16 & 0.06 & -0.03 & -0.02 & 0.00 \\
2014: Al I : & & & & & \\
2015: 4250/1.0/1.4 & 0.09 & 0.07 & 0.00 & -0.03 & 0.00 \\
2016: 5000/2.5/1.0 & 0.06 & 0.06 & 0.00 & -0.01 & 0.01 \\
2017: Si I : & & & & & \\
2018: 4250/1.0/1.4 & 0.09 & -0.12 & 0.06 & -0.03 & -0.04 \\
2019: 5000/2.5/1.0 & 0.10 & -0.07 & 0.05 & -0.03 & -0.04 \\
2020: 5500/4.0/0.6 & 0.08 & 0.00 & 0.01 & -0.02 & -0.01 \\
2021: K I : & & & & & \\
2022: 4250/1.0/1.4 & 0.26 & 0.14 & -0.01 & -0.16 & 0.00 \\
2023: 5000/2.5/1.0 & 0.26 & 0.12 & -0.06 & -0.07 & 0.00 \\
2024: Ca I : & & & & & \\
2025: 4250/1.0/1.4 & 0.18 & 0.12 & -0.02 & -0.10 & 0.00 \\
2026: 5000/2.5/1.0 & 0.13 & 0.09 & -0.03 & -0.05 & 0.00 \\
2027: 5500/4.0/0.6 & 0.16 & 0.08 & -0.05 & -0.02 & -0.01 \\
2028: Sc II: & & & & & \\
2029: 4250/1.0/1.4 & 0.20 & -0.02 & 0.07 & -0.12 & -0.06 \\
2030: 5000/2.5/1.0 & 0.12 & -0.01 & 0.08 & -0.05 & -0.06 \\
2031: 5500/4.0/0.6 & 0.10 & 0.00 & 0.08 & -0.01 & -0.05 \\
2032: Ti I : & & & & & \\
2033: 4250/1.0/1.4 & 0.16 & 0.15 & 0.00 & -0.10 & 0.01 \\
2034: 5000/2.5/1.0 & 0.08 & 0.12 & 0.00 & -0.03 & 0.01 \\
2035: 5500/4.0/0.6 & 0.08 & 0.09 & 0.00 & -0.01 & 0.01 \\
2036: V I : & & & & & \\
2037: 4250/1.0/1.4 & 0.22 & 0.18 & 0.01 & -0.12 & 0.00 \\
2038: 5000/2.5/1.0 & 0.09 & 0.15 & 0.00 & -0.02 & 0.01 \\
2039: Cr I : & & & & & \\
2040: 4250/1.0/1.4 & 0.14 & 0.10 & 0.00 & -0.09 & 0.01 \\
2041: 5000/2.5/1.0 & 0.08 & 0.08 & 0.00 & -0.03 & 0.01 \\
2042: Mn I : & & & & & \\
2043: 4250/1.0/1.4 & 0.20 & 0.08 & 0.01 & -0.07 & 0.00 \\
2044: 5000/2.5/1.0 & 0.12 & 0.10 & 0.00 & -0.03 & 0.01 \\
2045: Fe I : & & & & & \\
2046: 4250/1.0/1.4 & 0.15 & 0.03 & 0.02 & -0.09 & -0.02 \\
2047: 5000/2.5/1.0 & 0.11 & 0.08 & 0.00 & -0.06 & 0.00 \\
2048: 5500/4.0/0.6 & 0.14 & 0.08 & -0.01 & -0.03 & 0.00 \\
2049: Fe II: & & & & & \\
2050: 4250/1.0/1.4 & 0.09 & -0.20 & 0.13 & -0.04 & -0.09 \\
2051: 5000/2.5/1.0 & 0.09 & -0.14 & 0.11 & -0.04 & -0.08 \\
2052: 5500/4.0/0.6 & 0.08 & -0.05 & 0.09 & -0.03 & -0.05 \\
2053: Co I : & & & & & \\
2054: 4250/1.0/1.4 & 0.09 & 0.04 & 0.04 & -0.02 & -0.04 \\
2055: 5000/2.5/1.0 & 0.05 & 0.10 & 0.01 & 0.00 & -0.01 \\
2056: Ni I : & & & & & \\
2057: 4250/1.0/1.4 & 0.20 & 0.01 & 0.04 & -0.10 & -0.04 \\
2058: 5000/2.5/1.0 & 0.11 & 0.07 & 0.01 & -0.06 & 0.00 \\
2059: 5500/4.0/0.6 & 0.13 & 0.05 & 0.00 & -0.03 & -0.01 \\
2060: Cu I : & & & & & \\
2061: 4250/1.0/1.4 & 0.26 & 0.05 & 0.05 & -0.10 & -0.03 \\
2062: 5000/2.5/1.0 & 0.13 & 0.11 & 0.01 & -0.03 & 0.00 \\
2063: Zn I : & & & & & \\
2064: 4250/1.0/1.4 & 0.06 & -0.03 & 0.05 & -0.01 & -0.02 \\
2065: Y II : & & & & & \\
2066: 4250/1.0/1.4 & 0.07 & -0.03 & 0.08 & -0.03 & -0.06 \\
2067: Zr I : & & & & & \\
2068: 4250/1.0/1.4 & 0.13 & 0.20 & 0.01 & -0.09 & 0.00 \\
2069: 5000/2.5/1.0 & 0.05 & 0.15 & 0.00 & -0.01 & 0.01 \\
2070: Ba II: & & & & & \\
2071: 4250/1.0/1.4 & 0.23 & 0.01 & 0.06 & -0.19 & -0.08 \\
2072: 5000/2.5/1.0 & 0.20 & 0.02 & 0.04 & -0.16 & -0.07 \\
2073: 5500/4.0/0.6 & 0.21 & 0.03 & 0.03 & -0.10 & -0.07 \\
2074: La II: & & & & & \\
2075: 4250/1.0/1.4 & 0.08 & 0.01 & 0.08 & -0.04 & -0.07 \\
2076: 5000/2.5/1.0 & 0.05 & 0.01 & 0.08 & -0.01 & -0.07 \\
2077: Eu II: & & & & & \\
2078: 4250/1.0/1.4 & 0.09 & -0.02 & 0.08 & -0.06 & -0.07 \\
2079: 5000/2.5/1.0 & 0.06 & 0.00 & 0.08 & -0.02 & -0.06 \\
2080: \enddata
2081: \tablenotetext{a}{Estimated error in the synthesis.}
2082: \end{deluxetable}
2083:
2084: \clearpage
2085: %
2086: % Table7
2087: %
2088: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccc}
2089: \tablenum{7}
2090: \tablewidth{0pt}
2091: %\small
2092: %\footnotesize
2093: %\scriptsize
2094: \tablecaption{Mean Abundance Ratios and Errors
2095: \label{tab7}}
2096: \tablehead{\colhead{} & \colhead{\# stars} & \colhead{$<$[X/Fe]$>$}
2097: & \colhead{$\sigma_{obs}$} & \colhead{$\sigma_{pred}$} &
2098: \colhead{$\Delta_{max}$} \\
2099: \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{(dex)} & \colhead{(dex)} &
2100: \colhead{(dex)} & \colhead{(dex)} }
2101: \startdata
2102: Li\tablenotemark{a} & 3 & +1.10 & 0.17 & 0.13 & ... \\
2103: C & 6 & +1.30\tablenotemark{b} & 0.49\tablenotemark{b} & 0.13
2104: & 1.00 $\pm$ 0.37\tablenotemark{b} \\
2105: O & 25 & +0.19 & 0.18 & 0.12 & 0.48 $\pm$ 0.10 \\
2106: Na & 25 & +0.21 & 0.13 & 0.10 & 0.23 $\pm$ 0.11 \\
2107: Mg & 24 & +0.36 & 0.09 & 0.12 & 0.18 $\pm$ 0.07 \\
2108: Al & 11 & +0.24 & 0.10 & 0.10 & 0.11 $\pm$ 0.10 \\
2109: Si & 24 & +0.28 & 0.14 & 0.17 & 0.19 $\pm$ 0.12 \\
2110: K & 11 &--0.17 & 0.30 & 0.29 & 0.52 $\pm$ 0.25 \\
2111: Ca & 25 & +0.43 & 0.05 & 0.11 & 0.03 $\pm$ 0.04 \\
2112: Sc & 25 & +0.05 & 0.16 & 0.15 & 0.37 $\pm$ 0.10 \\
2113: Ti & 25 & +0.20 & 0.08 & 0.11 & 0.08 $\pm$ 0.07 \\
2114: V & 21 & +0.11 & 0.14 & 0.17 & 0.09 $\pm$ 0.08 \\
2115: Cr & 23 &--0.13 & 0.09 & 0.09 & 0.05 $\pm$ 0.05 \\
2116: Mn & 13 &--0.27 & 0.11 & 0.11 & 0.03 $\pm$ 0.08 \\
2117: Co & 17 & +0.04 & 0.05 & 0.10 & 0.06 $\pm$ 0.04 \\
2118: Ni & 25 & +0.01 & 0.06 & 0.09 & 0.16 $\pm$ 0.03 \\
2119: Cu & 21 & +0.07 & 0.14 & 0.21 & 0.19 $\pm$ 0.10 \\
2120: Zn & 8 & +0.46 & 0.16 & 0.22 & 0.29 $\pm$ 0.10 \\
2121: Y & 3 &--0.22 & 0.04 & 0.15 & 0.06 $\pm$ 0.08 \\
2122: Zr & 10 &--0.14 & 0.25 & 0.16 & 0.61 $\pm$ 0.24 \\
2123: Ba & 25 & +0.34 & 0.12 & 0.19 & 0.03 $\pm$ 0.09 \\
2124: La & 14 & +0.20 & 0.10 & 0.15 & 0.02 $\pm$ 0.10 \\
2125: Eu & 11 & +0.31 & 0.15 & 0.15 & 0.31 $\pm$ 0.11 \\
2126: \enddata
2127: \tablenotetext{a}{For Li, log $\epsilon$(Li) (H=12.0 dex) is given. For
2128: all other elements, [X/Fe] is given.}
2129: \tablenotetext{b}{The C abundances determined from C I lines
2130: in the cooler M71 stars are believed
2131: to be spurious due to contamination by lines from the red system of CN.}
2132: \end{deluxetable}
2133:
2134:
2135: \end{document}
2136: