1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: %\documentclass{emulateapj}
3: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:
4:
5: % \documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
6:
7: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
8:
9: %\documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
10:
11: %% If you want to create your own macros, you can do so
12: %% using \newcommand. Your macros should appear before
13: %% the \begin{document} command.
14: %%
15: %% If you are submitting to a journal that translates manuscripts
16: %% into SGML, you need to follow certain guidelines when preparing
17: %% your macros. See the AASTeX v5.x Author Guide
18: %% for information.
19: \newcommand{\etal}{{\it et al.}}
20: \newcommand{\teff}{$T_{{\rm eff}}$}
21: \newcommand{\lgpmin}{$\log(P)_{m}$}
22: \newcommand{\lgpmax}{$\log(P)_{M}$}
23: \newcommand{\kms}{km s$^{-1}$}
24: %% You can insert a short comment on the title page using the command below.
25:
26: %\slugcomment{Draft for ApJ Main Journal}
27:
28: %% If you wish, you may supply running head information, although
29: %% this information may be modified by the editorial offices.
30: %% The left head contains a list of authors,
31: %% usually a maximum of three (otherwise use et al.). The right
32: %% head is a modified title of up to roughly 44 characters. Running heads
33: %% will not print in the manuscript style.
34:
35: \shorttitle{The IMF in the Early Galaxy}
36: \shortauthors{Lucatello \etal}
37:
38: %% This is the end of the preamble. Indicate the beginning of the
39: %% paper itself with \begin{document}.
40:
41: %\received{2004 April 7}
42: \begin{document}
43:
44: %% LaTeX will automatically break titles if they run longer than
45: %% one line. However, you may use \\ to force a line break if
46: %% you desire.
47:
48: \title{Observational evidence for a different IMF in the early Galaxy}
49:
50: %% Use \author, \affil, and the \and command to format
51: %% author and affiliation information.
52: %% Note that \email has replaced the old \authoremail command
53: %% from AASTeX v4.0. You can use \email to mark an email address
54: %% anywhere in the paper, not just in the front matter.
55: %% As in the title, you can use \\ to force line breaks.
56: \author{Sara Lucatello\altaffilmark{1,2}, Raffaele G. Gratton \altaffilmark{1},
57: Timothy C. Beers\altaffilmark{3}, Eugenio Carretta \altaffilmark{1,4}}
58: \altaffiltext{1}{INAF, Osservatorio Astronomico di Padova, Vicolo dell'Osservatorio 5,
59: 35122, Padova, Italy.}
60: \altaffiltext{2}{Dipartimento di Astronomia, Universit\`a di Padova, Vicolo dell'Osservatorio 2,
61: 35122, Padova, Italy.}
62: \altaffiltext{3}{Department of Physics \& Astronomy and JINA: Joint Institute
63: for Nuclear Astrophysics, Michigan State University,
64: East Lansing, Michigan 48824-1116.}
65: \altaffiltext{4}{INAF, Osservatorio Astronomico di Bologna, via Ranzani 1, 40127, Bologna, Italy}
66: %% Notice that each of these authors has alternate affiliations, which
67: %% are identified by the \altaffilmark after each name. Specify alternate
68: %% affiliation information with \altaffiltext, with one command per each
69: %% affiliation.
70: %% Mark off your abstract in the ``abstract'' environment. In the manuscript
71: %% style, abstract will output a Received/Accepted line after the
72: %% title and affiliation information. No date will appear since the author
73: %% does not have this information. The dates will be filled in by the
74: %% editorial office after submission.
75:
76: \begin{abstract}
77: The unexpected high incidence of carbon-enhanced, {\it s}-process enriched
78: unevolved stars amongst extremely metal-poor stars in the halo provides a
79: significant constraint on the Initial Mass Function (IMF) in the early Galaxy. We
80: argue that these objects are evidence for the past existence of a large
81: population of intermediate-mass stars, and conclude that the IMF in the early
82: Galaxy was different from the present, and shifted toward higher masses.
83: \end{abstract}
84:
85: %% Keywords should appear after the \end{abstract} command. The uncommented
86: %% example has been keyed in ApJ style. See the instructions to authors
87: %% for the journal to which you are submitting your paper to determine
88: %% what keyword punctuation is appropriate.
89:
90: \keywords{stars: AGB and post-AGB --- stars: binaries --- Galaxy: stellar content --- Galaxy: fundamental parameters}
91:
92: %% From the front matter, we move on to the body of the paper.
93: %% In the first two sections, notice the use of the natbib \citep
94: %% and \citet commands to identify citations. The citations are
95: %% tied to the reference list via symbolic KEYs. The KEY corresponds
96: %% to the KEY in the \bibitem in the reference list below. We have
97: %% chosen the first three characters of the first author's name plus
98: %% the last two numeral of the year of publication as our KEY for
99: %% each reference.
100:
101: \section{Introduction}
102:
103: The initial mass function (IMF) of stars has fundamental consequences
104: for the evolution of stellar systems, influencing the processes of metal
105: enrichment of the interstellar (and inter-galactic) medium, the expected
106: mass-to-light ratios of individual galaxies and globular clusters, and the
107: possible contribution of early-generation stars to re-ionization of the
108: universe. Hence, it is quite important to determine the form of the IMF over a
109: large range of physical conditions, in particular those typical of the very
110: early evolution of galaxies, when the metal content was still quite low (less
111: than 1\% of the solar value).
112:
113: Determination of the early IMF from first principles is difficult, primarily due to
114: uncertainties related to the various processes involved in the fragmentation of
115: clouds and proto-stellar collapse (e.g., cooling, heating, magnetic fields,
116: turbulence, and rotation). A general expectation is that cooling is less
117: efficient at low metallicities, leading to preferential formation of more
118: massive objects (see, e.g., Bromm \& Larson 2004), but large uncertainties
119: still exist.
120:
121: Observational determination of the IMF under conditions of very low metal
122: abundance is hampered by the fact that, in our galaxy, stars more massive than the
123: Sun that formed with [Fe/H] $< -2.0$ have already ended their nuclear burning
124: phases, and are now faint collapsed objects such as white dwarfs, neutron stars,
125: and black holes. Various authors (Ryu, Olive, \& Silk 1990; Adams \& Laughlin
126: 1996, AL hereafter; Fields, Mathews, \& Schramm 1997) have argued for an IMF
127: that is peaked at intermediate masses for the metal-poor halo of our Galaxy.
128: These claims are based on constraints derived from the number density of white
129: dwarfs inferred from gravitational microlens experiments, coupled with those
130: given at low masses by the present halo luminosity, and at large masses by
131: nucleosynthesis limits. Such arguments are, however, still highly controversial
132: (Fields, Freese, \& Graff 2000; Gibson \& Mould 1997; M{\' e}ndez \& Minniti
133: 2000; Majewski \& Siegel 2002).
134:
135: Abia \etal (2001) set constraints on the early IMF on the basis of the large
136: fraction of carbon-rich stars that have been discovered by modern
137: surveys of extremely metal-poor (EMP) stars ({\it e.g.} Rossi, Beers, \& Sneden
138: 1999; Norris, Beers \& Ryan 2000), and suggested that the IMF must have been
139: biased toward higher masses in the early Galaxy. However, we emphasize that this
140: result was based on then-incomplete knowledge of the statistics regarding the
141: fraction of carbon-enhanced EMP (CEMP) stars, and in particular concerning their
142: association with intermediate mass stars, hence the results obtained are highly
143: uncertain.
144:
145: While direct observations of the early IMF are very difficult (if not
146: impossible) to obtain, one can search for evidence of their past existence with
147: presently observable stars. Such evidence can in particular be seen in binary
148: systems, where one of the components is a sub-solar-mass star, with a nuclear
149: evolutionary timescale comparable to the age of our Galaxy, and the other was an
150: intermediate-mass star (IMS; throughout this paper a star which undergoes the
151: third dredge-up during its Asymptotic Giant Branch--AGB--phase and becomes a
152: C-star) that has gone
153: through all its nuclear phases, past its AGB stage, and is now a white dwarf.
154: During the AGB phase the IMS burns He into C in flashes; between flashes, a
155: restricted region within the star produces significant amounts of heavy elements
156: via the {\it s}-process (Straniero \etal{} 1995). AGB stars have extended outer
157: convective envelopes, and at the end of the flashes this convective envelope
158: penetrates into the region where nuclear burning previously occurred, dredging
159: up to the stellar surface large amounts of freshly produced carbon as well as
160: heavy nuclei produced through the {\it s}-process (Iben \& Renzini 1982).
161:
162: When an IMS evolves beyond the AGB stage, the carbon- and {\it s}-process-rich
163: envelope is lost to the interstellar medium through a slow wind. In a binary
164: system the companion may be able to capture part of this envelope (either
165: through direct mass transfer or accretion from the post-AGB wind of the IMS), and mix
166: the nucleosynthesis products with its outer layers. The presently observed
167: spectrum of the lower-mass companion of such a binary will still exhibit the
168: unmistakable chemical signature of AGB processing that occurred in the IMS
169: companion.
170:
171: \section{Carbon-enhanced, {\it s}-process-Rich, Metal-Poor Stars and IMF Constraints}
172:
173: The existence of carbon-rich binary systems among stars of solar composition is
174: long established (McConnell, Frye, \& Upgren 1972; Luck \& Bond, 1991). They are
175: called Barium stars at solar metallicities because of the presence of strong Ba
176: II lines, and CH stars at [Fe/H]$\sim -$1\ , due to the strong CH bands in
177: their spectra. These stars are also referred to as {\it extrinsic} carbon stars,
178: because they owe their large carbon abundances to pollution from a companion,
179: rather than to their own internal nucleosynthetic or mixing processes. About 1\%
180: of the stars in the Solar Neighborhood are classified as Ba or CH stars
181: (McConnell, Frye, \& Upgren 1972; Luck \& Bond 1991).
182:
183: The fraction of IMS in a population can hence be derived by the following simple formula,
184: which takes into account the formation scenario of these objects:
185: \begin{equation}
186: f(IMS)=\frac{c(IMS)}{b\times p_{{\rm eff}}}.
187: \label{solmet}
188: \end{equation}
189: \noindent The term c(IMS) represents the fraction of stars which had IMS companions
190: with the appropriate separations to transform them into the presently observed C- and {\it
191: s}-process enhanced stars, ({\it i.e.} a quantity directly inferred from observation). The
192: term $b$ is the binary fraction, which allows one to correct to the total population, and $p_{{\rm
193: eff}}$ indicates the percentage of binaries with orbital separation suitable for mass accretion to
194: take place.
195:
196: We assume that about 60\% of stars with solar metallicities are in binary
197: systems (Jahrei{\ss} \& Wielen 2000), independent of metallicity. To estimate the range of initial
198: orbital periods for effective mass transfer, a few considerations are needed.
199:
200: The lower limit to the range of orbital separations is set by considering that
201: the stellar radius of the presumed donating companion should not exceed the
202: Roche-lobe radius during its previous evolutionary phases ({\it e.g.}, the red-giant branch).
203: This was derived adopting the Y2 isochrones (Yi, Kim,
204: \& Demarque 2003) at solar metallicity (period of $\sim$ 0.3 days).
205:
206: The upper limit of the component separations has been calculated by scaling that
207: adopted for metal-poor stars (upper limit to the orbital period of 250,000 days,
208: see below). In fact, the separation is expected to increase in inverse
209: proportion to the square root of the required enrichment; the latter increases
210: by a factor of $\sim 60$ with respect to stars of solar metallicity.
211: The stars which we are considering have a typical metallicity of about
212: [Fe/H]$\simeq-$2.5, but are considered as carbon-rich stars only if their [C/Fe]
213: is at least a factor of ten higher than the solar ratio. This should be
214: contrasted with the factor of two enhancement that is often taken as a working
215: definition of carbon-rich stars amongst solar-metallicity stars. Therefore, the
216: upper limit to the period for solar metallicity stars is expected to be of order
217: $\sim$13,000\,days. The fraction of binaries satisfying this assumption ({\it i.e.}
218: 0.3$\leq$P$\leq$ 13,000) is estimated from the period distribution of Duquennoy \& Mayor 1991)
219: and is about $\sim$37\%.
220: Substituting these values in Eq. \ref{solmet}, we obtain that
221: $\sim$5\%
222: of solar-neighborhood stars were IMS. We assume that
223: the masses of the two components are independent of one another (Kroupa 1995);
224: the adopted mass range for IMS is between 1.5 and 6\,M$_{\odot}$.
225: In fact, while at solar metallicity stars up to 8\,M$_{\odot}$ do undergo
226: third dredge-up during their AGB phase, the objects in the upper end
227: of this range (6 to 8\,M$_{\odot}$) have quite effective hot bottom burning.
228: C is burnt into N and thus the stars become N-rich rather than C-rich
229: (see {\it e.g.} Forestini \& Charbonnel 1997, Marigo 2001 and Karakas 2003).
230: Thus adopting a mass range between 1.5 and 6\,M$_{\odot}$ for the IMS and mass
231: cutoffs of 0.1 and 125\, M$_{\odot}$ for the lower and upper end of the stellar
232: masses, respectively, the Salpeter (1955) and Miller \& Scalo (1979; M\&S
233: hereafter) IMFs predict that, respectively, $\sim$2\% and $\sim$8\% of
234: Solar Neighborhood stars should be IMS. This quite good agreement found for
235: Population I suggests that we might derive the fraction of IMS in the total
236: stellar population (and hence obtain strong constraints on the IMF for all
237: stars) by simply counting the fraction of {\it extrinsic} carbon-enhanced stars
238: in a given sample. The rest of this paper exploits this method to constrain the
239: IMF of the old, metal-poor population of the Galactic halo. Of course, the first
240: challenge is to determine the fraction of the total population of CEMP stars that are
241: in fact extrinsic, rather than intrinsic.
242:
243: \section{The Importance of CEMP-s stars}
244:
245: The fraction of carbon-rich stars, among stars that have not yet reached
246: the AGB, is roughly constant down to a metallicity of a few percent of solar
247: (McConnell, Frye, \& Upgren 1972). However, a number of recent studies have
248: indicated that the fraction of carbon-rich stars increases abruptly amongst EMP
249: stars.
250:
251: One of the most surprising results of the hitherto largest wide-field
252: spectroscopic survey for metal-poor stars, the HK survey (Beers, Preston \& Shectman
253: 1992; Beers 1999), is the high frequency of carbon-enhanced stars found among
254: very metal-poor stars (Rossi, Beers \& Sneden 1999). This result has been confirmed by the Hamburg/ESO survey
255: (HES; Christlieb 2003), which found that $\sim$25-30\,\% of the metal-poor candidates
256: (with [Fe/H] $< -2.5$) appear to be carbon-enhanced stars. These unevolved CEMP
257: stars could have a variety of origins; Lucatello et al. (2004, Paper I) discuss at least
258: five possible classes of CEMP stars, the great majority of which, to date,
259: appear associated with {\it s}-process enrichment. Aoki et al. (2003) have
260: demonstrated that at least 70\% of a sample of 33 CEMP stars in their study exhibit
261: elements produced by the {\it s}-process, which we refer to as CEMP-s stars. As
262: discussed in Paper I, it is quite likely that {\it all} the
263: CEMP-s stars are members of binary systems. The straightforward interpretation
264: is that 15-20\% of EMP stars had IMS companions with the proper
265: separations to transform them into presently-observed CEMP stars.
266:
267: \section{Derivation of the IMS fraction among EMP stars}
268:
269: Taken at face value, the large fraction of CEMP-s stars amongst the CEMP objects
270: in the HK survey and HES suggests that a large number of IMS were present (as
271: companions in binary system) within this population. However, when comparing
272: this value with that obtained for more metal-rich stars, we must make a few
273: assumptions, and consider several possible selection effects that could bias the
274: determination.
275:
276: \subsection{Selection Effects}
277:
278: {\bf Temperature scale:} Originally, both the HK survey and HES based their temperature scales on
279: $B-V$ colors. Estimates of the metal abundances were obtained by comparing the strength of the
280: Ca~II K line with that predicted for stars of the estimated $B-V$ color. However, it is well known
281: that the $B-V$ color is affected by the strength of the CH G-band (and other molecular carbon
282: features), leading to an underestimate of \teff{} in stars with strong bands. Therefore, a lower
283: metallicity was assigned to carbon-enhanced stars, with respect to carbon-normal stars with
284: identical atmospheric parameters. Hence, the parent population to be considered when comparing the
285: frequency of carbon-enhanced stars was larger, including stars more metal rich than the usual limit
286: for EMP stars. However, more recent results based on a considerable fraction of the HK survey data
287: adopt $V-K$ colors, which are more appropriate \teff{} indicators, as they are negligibly affected
288: by the strength of the CH G-band. Using these colors, it has been obtained that {\it at least} 20\%
289: of the stars with [Fe/H]$<-$2.5 are carbon-enhanced, {\it i.e.} with a carbon-to-iron ratio
290: obtained from intermediate-resolution spectroscopy of [C/Fe]$>+$1.0 (Beers et al. 2004, in
291: preparation). We adopt this value in our discussion.
292:
293: {\bf Luminosity effect:} Carbon-enhancement, {\it per se}, does not affect the
294: bolometric luminosity of a given star. However, the presence of strong molecular
295: bands of CH and C$_{2}$ lowers the $B$ flux (and, to a smaller extent, the $V$
296: flux as well). Therefore, $B$- magnitude-limited surveys, such as the HK survey and the HES,
297: will be biased against CEMP stars, given their lower luminosity in the
298: $B$ filter with respect to carbon-normal stars with the same abundance at the
299: same evolutionary stage. This effect leads to a small {\it underestimate} of the
300: CEMP fraction. In fact, the typical difference in $B$ magnitude is of order
301: $\sim$20\%; the volume sampled for carbon-enhanced stars will then be smaller by
302: $\sim$30\% than that considered for carbon-normal stars. We do not take this
303: effect into account in our analysis, but we remark that the adopted value is in
304: fact a conservative one.
305:
306: {\bf Carbon-enhancement selection effect:} In order to be positively identified as carbon-enhanced
307: star, we have adopted the criterion that a given star must display an overabundance of
308: [C/Fe]$>$+1.0. Subgiants and RGB stars which are the surviving companions of a binary pair
309: including an IMS have already undergone first dredge-up, thus diluting the accreted material in
310: their convective envelopes. It is expected that such dilution could be as much as a factor of 20,
311: with the net effect of decreasing the observed atmospheric carbon abundance\footnote{This is
312: confirmed by the decrease of the Li abundance (see {\it e.g.,} Gratton \etal~2000; Spite et al.
313: 2004)}. Therefore, many of the evolved stars which, in their main-sequence phases, had a carbon
314: overabundance well above the chosen threshold, dropped below this value after the first dredge-up
315: episode, and are thus identified as carbon-{\it normal} stars rather than carbon-enhanced ones,
316: affecting the measured fraction of the latter. Given their high luminosity, the evolved stars are
317: expected to make up the majority of the sample in these surveys, thus this effect could be very
318: important. In order to avoid this bias, the statistics should be limited exclusively to dwarf
319: stars. Indeed, recent results from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, e.g. Downes \etal{} (2004), have
320: indicated that the number of dwarf carbon stars account about 60\% of all high-latitude C stars. If
321: it indeed proves to be the case that the dwarf carbon stars have their origin from mass transfer
322: from an IMS companion, which we suspect is likely, the appropriate fraction of IMS may be
323: substantially larger than the value adopted in the present discussion.
324:
325: \subsection{Assumptions}
326:
327: In making our calculations we are forced to adopt a number of assumptions, several of which are
328: still not well constrained. We discuss these assumptions in detail below.
329:
330: {\bf Binary fraction:} The binary fraction for EMP stars is still not well known. However, for
331: slightly more metal-rich stars (e.g., [Fe/H] $\sim -2.0$) it is quite similar to that found for
332: stars of solar metal abundance (see {\it e.g.} Carney \etal{} 2003; Zapatero-Osorio \& Martin
333: 2004). We will henceforth assume that the binary fraction is independent of metallicity, and adopt
334: the binary fraction of Jahrei{\ss} \& Wielen (2000), $\sim$60\%.
335:
336: {\bf Separation range:} A metal-poor object is easily transformed into a
337: carbon-rich star, since, given its low Fe content, even a moderate amount of
338: processed matter accretion can produce the enhancement ([C/Fe]$>$+1) required to
339: identify an EMP star as CEMP. Therefore, the range of (original) separations
340: between components of a binary system that might be involved in the formation of
341: such objects is larger, as discussed in Paper I. The lower
342: limit on the range of component separations is set by considering that the
343: stellar radius of the presumed donating companion should not exceed the
344: Roche-lobe radius during its previous evolutionary phases (red-giant branch). We
345: adopted this limit from the the Y2 isochrones (Yi, Kim,
346: \& Demarque 2003) at [Fe/H]=$-$2.5.
347:
348: For the present purpose, we estimate that the
349: range of initial orbital periods for CEMP-s stars ranges from $-$0.65$\leq \log
350: P\leq$5.4 ({\it i.e.} 0.2 to 250,000 days). Given the discussion in Paper I
351: , this is very likely an overestimate of the period range; however
352: this can be considered as a conservative estimate for such an interval. Adopting
353: the period distribution of Duquennoy \& Mayor (1991), this period range includes
354: 59\% of all binaries. It is worth noting that, while this period range is not
355: well determined, its accuracy is not crucial for our conclusion. In fact, the
356: majority of binaries have separations within the useful range.
357:
358: {\bf Mass range:} The mass threshold for stars to become carbon-rich when on the
359: AGB is likely to be smaller at lower metallicity. Fujimoto, Ikeda, \& Iben
360: (2000) argue that at metallicities below [Fe/H]$\sim-$3.5, stars with masses as
361: low as 0.8\,M$_{\odot}$ do indeed become carbon-enhanced in their AGB phase.
362: However, the typical metallicity for our objects is of about [Fe/H]=$-$2.5,
363: therefore we adopt 1.2\,M$_{\odot}$ as a more realistic lower limit for our
364: sample (Lattanzio 2003, private communication).
365:
366: The maximum mass for the third dredge-up during the AGB
367: is expected to increase with decreasing
368: metallicity. However, the upper limit to the mass for becoming a C-star
369: does decrease with metallicity, possibly reaching values as low as
370: $\sim$3-4 for EMP stars
371: (see Karakas 2003 and references therein).
372: Keeping this in mind, we adopt as our definition of IMS at low metallicity
373: stars with masses in the range 1.2 to 6\, M$_{\odot}$, noting that this is a
374: {\it conservative} estimate.
375:
376: When all of the above factors are taken into account, substituting the adopted
377: values into Eq. \ref{solmet}, {\it i.e.}, $c(IMS)=14$\%,
378: $b=60$\% and $p_{{\rm eff}}=59$\%,
379: we find that the fraction of IMS companions amongst EMP stars is 40\%,
380: a factor of eight larger than for solar-metallicity stars. Even if we
381: assume the most conservative scenario, wherein the binary fraction of EMP stars is 100\%,
382: and demand that all IMS in binaries produce a carbon-rich companion
383: (irrespective of the initial system separation), the derived fraction of IMS
384: among EMPs is 14\%. The expected fraction of IMS, adopting a M\&S IMF is
385: $\sim$10\%, smaller than this (conservative) lower limit\footnote{If the lower
386: end of the IMS range is set to 0.9\,M$_{\odot}$, the M\&S IMF predicts the {\it
387: lower} limit of IMS derived from the data. However, models do not expect such
388: low values for the typical metallicity ([Fe/H]=$-$2.5) of our sample, see {\it
389: e.g.} Fujimoto, Ikeda \& Iben (2000)} . This result seems to favor an IMF peaked
390: at IMS for low-metallicity stars, as put forward by AL.
391:
392: Let us now assume for the IMF a log-normal form,
393: \begin{equation}
394: \ln f (\ln m)=A-\frac{1}{2<\sigma>^{2}}[\ln (\frac{m}{m_{c}})]^{2}
395: \end{equation}
396: \noindent where $f=\frac{dN}{d\ln m}$. This general form for the IMF is motivated by star-
397: formation theory and by general statistical considerations (Larson 1973;
398: Elmegreen \& Mathieu 1983; Zinnecker 1984; Adams \& Fatuzzo 1996; Adams \&
399: Laughlin 1996). This form for the IMF is also sufficiently flexible to assume a
400: wide variety of behaviors. The parameter $A$ gives the overall normalization of
401: the distribution; $m_{c}$ is the mass scale, in solar masses, and sets the
402: center of the distribution, while the dimensionless parameter $<\sigma>$
403: is the width of the distribution. Fitting such a function to our results, we
404: obtain values of 1.18 and 0.79\,M$_{\odot}$ respectively, for $<\sigma>$ and
405: $m_{c}$. The corresponding values for the M\&S IMF are $<\sigma> \simeq$ 1.57 and
406: $m_{c}=$0.1\, M$_{\odot}$, while AL found, respectively, 0.44 and 2.3\,
407: M$_{\odot}$.
408:
409: As can be noted from inspection of Figure \ref{f_imf_imf}, which compares the
410: three above mentioned IMF's, as well as from the simple comparison of the curve
411: parameters, the IMF derived by fitting our results is not very different from
412: that of M\&S, showing basically a simple shift of the mass peak. On the other
413: hand, the shape of the AL IMF is peaked at much larger mass, and the mass range
414: for which the distribution function is not negligible is much narrower. We do
415: {\it not} claim that the IMF obtained by our fitting is an actual prediction of
416: the early IMF; in fact we do not have any direct information about high mass
417: stars. However, we point out that, in order to perform the fit we assumed the
418: same mass cutoffs as the M\&S IMF, {\it i.e.}, that the fraction of high-mass stars
419: formed is almost negligible.
420:
421: \section{Discussion}
422:
423: The primary objection against the existence of a large population of IMS in the
424: early Galaxy, including stars with metal abundances up to [Fe/H]=$-$2.0, is the
425: very large predicted production of carbon (Gibson \& Mould 1997; Fields, Freese,
426: \& Graff 2000). However, this objection does not apply to the EMP stars, which
427: comprise at most a few percent of the total halo population. In fact,
428: the EMP IMS contributed to the Galactic metal enrichment only at the end of their
429: nuclear-burning lives. Stars born with metallicities [Fe/H]$ \approx -3$ enrich the ISM
430: after a time ranging from 1.5 Gyr (1.5 M$_{\odot}$) down to 100 Myr (6
431: M$_{\odot}$) (Girardi \etal{} 1996).
432: At $\sim$10$^{8}$ years, the metal abundance of the interstellar medium is likely
433: to have been elevated to about [Fe/H]=$-$1.5 (Prantzos 2003), possibly reaching
434: a metal abundance as high as [Fe/H]=$-$1.0 (Chiappini, Romano, \& Matteucci 2003).
435: A shift in the peak mass of the IMF also likely affects slightly larger mass stars, such as those
436: those with masses ~6-8 Mo, which have shorter lifetimes
437: (a few 10$^{7}$ years for a metallicity of
438: [Fe/H]$\simeq-$3, Girardi \etal{} 1996) and
439: thus could in principle have an impact on the chemical composition of the other
440: EMP stars.
441: We do not have information about the mass distribution within the IMS range,
442: however it is quite likely that the fraction of stars slightly more massive than IMS,
443: although probably
444: larger than among presently forming stars, was still very small and thus their effect on the
445: ISM composition quite limited.
446:
447: It is noteworthy that, the lower the metallicities, the shorter the nuclear burning lifetimes
448: of IMS stars (see Chieffi \etal{} 2001), thus in principle,
449: stars with metallicities lower than about [Fe/H]$\leq-$3.5 could contribute early on
450: in the Galactic chemical evolution.
451: Moreover, an early IMF biased toward larger masses could also have an impact on the
452: white dwarf fraction, and thus on the SN Ia rate in the early Galaxy, which in turn affects
453: chemical evolution.
454: However, when considering these effects,
455: it is important to keep in mind that EMP stars account for only a very small fraction of
456: the stellar content of the Galaxy, therefore a moderate shift of the early
457: IMF towards higher masses should have a small impact on Galactic chemical evolution.
458: Hence, it is expected that:
459: \begin{list}{}{}
460: \item[i]
461: EMP IMS have likely not contributed significantly to the presently observed elemental
462: compositions of other EMP stars, except for the outer envelopes of their companions in
463: binary systems
464: \item[ii] The effect of EMP IMS on more metal-rich stars is diluted due to the
465: contribution of the much larger population of moderately metal-poor ([Fe/H]$\sim -$1.5)
466: stars born from a ``conventional'' IMF
467: \end{list}
468:
469: In order to properly assess the effect of an IMF biased toward higher masses
470: on the chemical evolution of the Galaxy,
471: calculation of an accurate chemical evolution model would be necessary, which is beyond the
472: scope of the present paper.
473:
474: An interesting consequence of the bias of the early IMF toward stars of higher
475: mass regards globular clusters (GC, hereafter). In fact, a GC forming with this
476: IMF would soon undergo large loss of gas from the system due to a population of
477: IMS. This gas could either result in the formation of new stars, be captured by
478: a pre-existing black hole in the cluster, or be lost to the ISM. The first two
479: hypotheses appear to be ruled out based on observations. There is no sign of
480: enrichment by {\it s}-process elements in GCs (with the exception of
481: $\omega$-Cen, which is, however a quite unusual case), and there is no evidence
482: for the presence of black holes in GCs with a mass comparable to that that
483: expected to be lost by the IMS population (see, {\it e.g.}, Gerssen \etal{} 2003).
484: Therefore, the only remaining possibility is that the material shed from the
485: IMSs is ejected into the ISM. This mass loss would have clear consequences on
486: the GC potential well, and eventually lead to the disruption of the cluster
487: itself. This could be the reason why there are no GCs at metallicities lower
488: than [Fe/H]=$-$2.5, and very few below $-$2\, dex.
489: %\footnote{On the other hand,
490: %GCs {\it do} exhibit huge variations of the abundances of light elements (N, O,
491: %Na) related to hot bottom burning (Gratton \etal{} 2001), but not to the
492: %triple-$\alpha$ reactions. This might be a signature of pollution by IMS more
493: %massive than those causing the CEMP-s phenomenon}.
494:
495: \section{Concluding remarks}
496:
497: Our results indicate that the IMF of stars formed at early times in the
498: evolution of the Galaxy was different from that observed at present. In these
499: early epochs stars more massive than the Sun formed far more frequently than
500: now. {\it This is the first direct observational evidence that the IMF of stars
501: is not universal over time, lending support to the idea that the first
502: generations of stars included a substantial number of objects with very high
503: mass.}
504:
505: This result, based on local samples of halo stars with well-measured elemental
506: abundances, provides stringent constraints on theoretical work aimed at deriving
507: the early IMF, as well as the interpretation of the abundance patterns in
508: distant objects such as those responsible for the Ly-$\alpha$ forest systems
509: (e.g., Songaila 2001; Pettini \etal 2003).
510:
511: %% Observe the use of the LaTeX \label
512: %% command after the \subsection to give a symbolic KEY to the
513: %% subsection for cross-referencing in a \ref command.
514: %% You can use LaTeX's \ref and \label commands to keep track of
515: %% cross-references to sections, equations, tables, and figures.
516: %% That way, if you change the order of any elements, LaTeX will
517: %% automatically renumber them.
518:
519: %% This section also includes several of the displayed math environments
520: %% mentioned in the Author Guide.
521:
522:
523: %% The \notetoeditor{TEXT} command allows the author to communicate
524: %% information to the copy editor. This information will appear as a
525: %% footnote on the printed copy for the manuscript style file. Nothing will
526: %% appear on the printed copy if the preprint or
527: %% preprint2 style files are used.
528:
529: %% The eqnarray environment produces multi-line display math. The end of
530: %% each line is marked with a \\. Lines will be numbered unless the \\
531: %% is preceded by a \nonumber command.
532: %% Alignment points are marked by ampersands (&). There should be two
533: %% ampersands (&) per line.
534: %% Putting eqnarrays or equations inside the mathletters environment groups
535: %% the enclosed equations by letter. For instance, the eqnarray below, instead
536: %% of being numbered, say, (4) and (5), would be numbered (4a) and (4b).
537: %% LaTeX the paper and look at the output to see the results.
538:
539: %% This section contains more display math examples, including unnumbered
540: %% equations (displaymath environment). The last paragraph includes some
541: %% examples of in-line math featuring a couple of the AASTeX symbol macros.
542:
543:
544: %% The displaymath environment will produce the same sort of equation as
545: %% the equation environment, except that the equation will not be numbered
546: %% by LaTeX.
547:
548: %% If you wish to include an acknowledgments section in your paper,
549: %% separate it off from the body of the text using the \acknowledgments
550: %% command.
551:
552: %% Included in this acknowledgments section are examples of the
553: %% AASTeX hypertext markup commands. Use \url without the optional [HREF]
554: %% argument when you want to print the url directly in the text. Otherwise,
555: %% use either \url or \anchor, with the HREF as the first argument and the
556: %% text to be printed in the second.
557:
558:
559: \acknowledgments
560: The authors thank John Norris and Chris Sneden
561: for useful discussions. S.L., R.G., and E.C. acknowledge
562: partial support from the MURST COFIN 2001. T.C.B. acknowledges partial funding
563: for this work from grants AST 00-98508 and AST 00-98549, as well as from grant
564: PHY 02-16783: Physics Frontiers Center/Joint Institute for Nuclear Astrophysics
565: (JINA), awarded by the U.S. National Science Foundation.
566:
567:
568: %% Appendix material should be preceded with a single \appendix command.
569: %% There should be a \section command for each appendix. Mark appendix
570: %% subsections with the same markup you use in the main body of the paper.
571:
572: %% Each Appendix (indicated with \section) will be lettered A, B, C, etc.
573: %% The equation counter will reset when it encounters the \appendix
574: %% command and will number appendix equations (A1), (A2), etc.
575:
576: %% The reference list follows the main body and any appendices.
577: %% Use LaTeX's thebibliography environment to mark up your reference list.
578: %% Note \begin{thebibliography} is followed by an empty set of
579: %% curly braces. If you forget this, LaTeX will generate the error
580: %% "Perhaps a missing \item?".
581: %%
582: %% thebibliography produces citations in the text using \bibitem-\cite
583: %% cross-referencing. Each reference is preceded by a
584: %% \bibitem command that defines in curly braces the KEY that corresponds
585: %% to the KEY in the \cite commands (see the first section above).
586: %% Make sure that you provide a unique KEY for every \bibitem or else the
587: %% paper will not LaTeX. The square brackets should contain
588: %% the citation text that LaTeX will insert in
589: %% place of the \cite commands.
590:
591: %% We have used macros to produce journal name abbreviations.
592: %% AASTeX provides a number of these for the more frequently-cited journals.
593: %% See the Author Guide for a list of them.
594:
595: %% Note that the style of the \bibitem labels (in []) is slightly
596: %% different from previous examples. The natbib system solves a host
597: %% of citation expression problems, but it is necessary to clearly
598: %% delimit the year from the author name used in the citation.
599: %% See the natbib documentation for more details and options.
600:
601: \begin{thebibliography}{}
602:
603:
604: \bibitem[Abia et al.(2001)]{2001ApJ...557..126A} Abia, C.,
605: Dom{\'{\i}}nguez, I., Straniero, O., Limongi, M., Chieffi, A., \& Isern,
606: J.\ 2001, \apj, 557, 126
607:
608: \bibitem[Adams \& Fatuzzo (1996)]{1996ApJ...464..256A} Adams, F.~C.~\&
609: Fatuzzo, M.\ 1996, \apj, 464, 256
610:
611: \bibitem[Adams \& Laughlin(1996)]{1996ApJ...468..586A} Adams, F.~C.~\&
612: Laughlin, G.\ 1996, \apj, 468, 586
613:
614: \bibitem[Aoki et al.(2003)]{2003IAUJD..15E..19A} Aoki, W., Ryan, S.~G.,
615: Tsangarides, S., Norris, J.~E., Beers, T.~C., \& Ando, H.\ 2003, Elemental
616: Abundances in Old Stars and Damped Lyman-{$\alpha$} Systems, 25th meeting
617: of the IAU, Joint Discussion 15, 22 July 2003, Sydney, Australia, 15
618: \bibitem[1992]{bee2} Beers,
619: T.~C., Preston, G.~W., \& Shectman, S.~A.\ 1992, \aj, 103, 1987
620:
621: \bibitem[1999]{bee3}
622: Beers, T.~C. 1999, in ASP Conf. Ser., Vol. 165, {\it The Third Stromlo Symposium:
623: The Galactic Halo}, ed. B.~Gibson, T.~Axelrod, \& M.~Putman, 202--212
624:
625: \bibitem[2004]{bromm} Bromm, V.~\& Larson,
626: R.~B.\ 2004, \araa, 42, 79
627:
628: \bibitem[Carney et al.(2003)]{2003AJ....125..293C} Carney, B.~W., Latham,
629: D.~W., Stefanik, R.~P., Laird, J.~B., \& Morse, J.~A.\ 2003, \aj, 125, 293
630:
631: \bibitem[Chiappini, Romano, \& Matteucci(2003)]{2003MNRAS.339...63C}
632: Chiappini, C., Romano, D., \& Matteucci, F.\ 2003, \mnras, 339, 63
633:
634: \bibitem[Chieffi, Dom{\'{\i}}nguez, Limongi, \&
635: Straniero(2001)]{2001ApJ...554.1159C} Chieffi, A., Dom{\'{\i}}nguez, I.,
636: Limongi, M., \& Straniero, O.\ 2001, \apj, 554, 1159
637:
638: \bibitem[2001]{chra} Christlieb, N.,
639: Wisotzki, L., Reimers, D., Homeier, D., Koester, D., \& Heber, U.\ 2001,
640: \aap, 366, 898
641:
642: \bibitem[2003]{christ} Christlieb, N., 2003, Rewiews in Modern Astronomy, vol 16
643:
644: \bibitem[2004]{Down} Downes, R.~A., et al.\
645: 2004, \aj, 127, 2838
646:
647: \bibitem[Duquennoy \& Mayor(1991)]{1991A&A...248..485D} Duquennoy, A.~\&
648: Mayor, M.\ 1991, \aap, 248, 485
649:
650: \bibitem[Elmegreen \& Mathieu(1983)]{1983MNRAS.203..305E} Elmegreen,
651: B.~G.~\& Mathieu, R.~D.\ 1983, \mnras, 203, 305
652:
653: \bibitem[Fields, Mathews, \& Schramm(1997)]{1997ApJ...483..625F} Fields,
654: B.~D., Mathews, G.~J., \& Schramm, D.~N.\ 1997, \apj, 483, 625
655:
656: \bibitem[Fields, Freese, \& Graff(2000)]{2000ApJ...534..265F} Fields,
657: B.~D., Freese, K., \& Graff, D.~S.\ 2000, \apj, 534, 265
658:
659: \bibitem[Forestini \& Charbonnel(1997)]{1997A&AS..123..241F} Forestini,
660: M.~\& Charbonnel, C.\ 1997, \aaps, 123, 241
661:
662: \bibitem[Fujimoto, Ikeda, \& Iben(2000)]{2000ApJ...529L..25F} Fujimoto,
663: M.~Y., Ikeda, Y., \& Iben, I.~J.\ 2000, \apjl, 529, L25
664:
665: \bibitem[Gerssen et al.(2002)]{2002AJ....124.3270G} Gerssen, J., van der
666: Marel, R.~P., Gebhardt, K., Guhathakurta, P., Peterson, R.~C., \& Pryor,
667: C.\ 2002, \aj, 124, 3270
668:
669: \bibitem[Gibson \& Mould(1997)]{1997ApJ...482...98G} Gibson, B.~K.~\&
670: Mould, J.~R.\ 1997, \apj, 482, 98
671:
672: \bibitem[Girardi et al.(1996)]{1996A&AS..117..113G} Girardi, L., Bressan,
673: A., Chiosi, C., Bertelli, G., \& Nasi, E.\ 1996, \aaps, 117, 113
674:
675: \bibitem[Gratton, Sneden, Carretta, \&
676: Bragaglia(2000)]{2000A&A...354..169G} Gratton, R.~G., Sneden, C., Carretta,
677: E., \& Bragaglia, A.\ 2000, \aap, 354, 169
678:
679: \bibitem[Gratton et al.(2001)]{2001A&A...369...87G} Gratton, R.~G., et al.\
680: 2001, \aap, 369, 87
681:
682: \bibitem[Iben \& Renzini(1982)]{1982ApJ...263L..23I} Iben, I.~\& Renzini,
683: A.\ 1982, \apjl, 263, L23
684:
685: \bibitem[Jahrei{\ss} \& Wielen(2000)]{2000IAUS..200P.129J} Jahrei{\ss},
686: H.~\& Wielen, R.\ 2000, IAU Symposium, 200, 129P
687:
688: \bibitem[Karakas2003]{kar} Karakas, A., PhD thesis, Monash University, 2003
689:
690: \bibitem[Kroupa(1995)]{1995ApJ...453..358K} Kroupa, P.\ 1995, \apj, 453,
691: 358
692:
693: \bibitem[Larson(1973)]{1973MNRAS.161..133L} Larson, R.~B.\ 1973, \mnras,
694: 161, 133
695:
696: \bibitem[Lucatello et al.(2003)]{2003AJ....125..875L} Lucatello, S.,
697: Gratton, R., Cohen, J.~G., Beers, T.~C., Christlieb, N., Carretta, E., \&
698: Ram{\'{\i}}rez, S.\ 2003, \aj, 125, 875
699:
700: \bibitem[Lucatello et al.(2004)]{lucat} Lucatello, S.,
701: Gratton, Beers, T.~C., R., Carretta, E., Ryan, S. G., Tsangarides, S.
702: \apjl Accepted Paper I, astro-ph/0412422
703:
704: \bibitem[Luck \& Bond(1991)]{1991ApJS...77..515L} Luck, R.~E.~\& Bond,
705: H.~E.\ 1991, \apjs, 77, 515
706:
707: \bibitem[Marigo(2001)]{2001A&A...370..194M} Marigo, P.\ 2001, \aap, 370,
708: 194
709:
710: \bibitem[Majewski \& Siegel(2002)]{2002ApJ...569..432M} Majewski, S.~R.~\&
711: Siegel, M.~H.\ 2002, \apj, 569, 432
712:
713: \bibitem[McConnell, Frye, \& Upgren(1972)]{1972AJ.....77..384M} McConnell,
714: D.~J., Frye, R.~L., \& Upgren, A.~R.\ 1972, \aj, 77, 384
715:
716: \bibitem[M{\' e}ndez \& Minniti(2000)]{2000ApJ...529..911M} M{\' e}ndez,
717: R.~A.~\& Minniti, D.\ 2000, \apj, 529, 911
718:
719:
720: \bibitem[Miller \& Scalo(1979)]{1979ApJS...41..513M} Miller, G.~E.~\&
721: Scalo, J.~M.\ 1979, \apjs, 41, 513
722:
723: \bibitem[Norris, Beers, \& Ryan(2000)]{2000ApJ...540..456N} Norris, J.~E.,
724: Beers, T.~C., \& Ryan, S.~G.\ 2000, \apj, 540, 456
725:
726: \bibitem[2003]{pett} Pettini, M., Madau, P.,
727: Bolte, M., Prochaska, J.~X., Ellison, S.~L., \& Fan, X.\ 2003, \apj, 594,
728: 695
729:
730: \bibitem[Prantzos(2003)]{2003A&A...404..211P} Prantzos, N.\ 2003, \aap,
731: 404, 211
732:
733: \bibitem[]{rossi} Rossi, S., Beers, T.C., \& Sneden, C. 1999, in ASP Conf. Ser. 165,
734: The Third Stromlo Symposium: The Galactic Halo, eds. B. Gibson, T.S. Axelrod,
735: \& M. Putman (San Francisco: ASP) p. 264
736:
737: \bibitem[Ryu, Olive, \& Silk(1990)]{1990ApJ...353...81R} Ryu, D., Olive,
738: K.~A., \& Silk, J.\ 1990, \apj, 353, 81
739:
740:
741: \bibitem[Salpeter(1955)]{1955ApJ...121..161S} Salpeter, E.~E.\ 1955, \apj,
742: 121, 161
743:
744: \bibitem[2000]{sne2} Sneden, C., Cowan,
745: J.~J., Ivans, I.~I., Fuller, G.~M., Burles, S., Beers, T.~C., \& Lawler,
746: J.~E.\ 2000, \apjl, 533, L139
747:
748: \bibitem[Songaila(2001)]{2001ApJ...561L.153S} Songaila, A.\ 2001, \apjl,
749: 561, L153
750:
751: \bibitem[Spite(2004)]{spi04} Spite, M., Cayrel, R., Plez, B., Hill, V., Spite, F.,
752: Depagne, E., Francois, P., Bonifacio, P., Barbuy, B., Beers, T., Anderson, J.,
753: Molaro, P., Noprdstrom, B., \& Primas, F. 2004, \aap, in press
754:
755: \bibitem[Straniero et al.(1995)]{1995ApJ...440L..85S} Straniero, O.,
756: Gallino, R., Busso, M., Chiefei, A., Raiteri, C.~M., Limongi, M., \&
757: Salaris, M.\ 1995, \apjl, 440, L85
758:
759: \bibitem[Yi, Kim, \& Demarque(2003)]{2003ApJS..144..259Y} Yi, S.~K., Kim,
760: Y., \& Demarque, P.\ 2003, \apjs, 144, 259
761:
762: \bibitem[Zap]{zap}
763: Zapatero Osorio, M.~R.~\& Mart{\'{\i}}n, E.~L.\ 2004, \aap, 419, 167
764:
765: \bibitem[Zinnecker(1984)]{1984MNRAS.210...43Z} Zinnecker, H.\ 1984, \mnras,
766: 210, 43
767: \end{thebibliography}
768:
769:
770: \clearpage
771: %
772: %% Use the figure environment and \plotone or \plottwo to include
773: %% figures and captions in your electronic submission.
774:
775: \begin{figure}
776: \plotone{f1_color.eps}
777: \caption{Comparison of the IMF obtained assuming a log-normal form and fitting the
778: measured IMS fraction (see text) with
779: those for M\&S and AL (1996).
780: \label{f_imf_imf}}
781: \end{figure}
782:
783: %\begin{figure}
784: %\plotone{logp_iso.ps}
785: %\caption{This is the first figure and it uses sgi9259.eps as
786: %its EPS figure file. \label{fig1}}
787: %\end{figure}
788: %
789: %\clearpage
790: %
791: %\begin{figure}
792: %\plottwo{logp_lim.ps}{logp_lim.ps}
793: %\caption{This is an example of a multipart figure with a long figure caption
794: %that must be set as a paragraph. The processor has to buffer the text of the
795: %caption, so it is good not to be too wordy, but that would make for
796: %poor communication as well.\label{fig2}}
797: %\end{figure}
798:
799: %% If you are not including electonic art with your submission, you may
800: %% mark up your captions using the \figcaption command. See the
801: %% User Guide for details.
802: %%
803: %% No more than seven \figcaption commands are allowed per page,
804: %% so if you have more than seven captions, insert a \clearpage
805: %% after every seventh one.
806:
807:
808: %% Tables should be submitted one per page, so put a \clearpage before
809: %% each one.
810:
811: %% Two options are available to the author for producing tables: the
812: %% deluxetable environment provided by the AASTeX package or the LaTeX
813: %% table environment. Use of deluxetable is preferred.
814: %%
815:
816: %% Three table samples follow, two marked up in the deluxetable environment,
817: %% one marked up as a LaTeX table.
818:
819:
820: %% In this first example, note that the \tabletypesize{}
821: %% command has been used to reduce the font size of the table.
822: %% Note also that the \label command needs to be placed
823: %% inside the \tablecaption.
824: \end{document}
825:
826: %%
827: %% End of file `sample.tex'.
828: