1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: %\documentclass[manuscript]{../aastex}
3: %\documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
4: \tighten
5: \eqsecnum
6: \received{}
7: \accepted{}
8: \journalid{}{}
9: \articleid{}{}
10: \shortauthors{ }
11: \shorttitle{UMa Moving Group Abundances}
12: %\slugcomment{ }
13:
14: \begin{document}
15:
16: \title{High-Resolution Spectroscopy of Ursa Major Moving Group Stars\altaffilmark{1,2}}
17:
18: \author{Jeremy R. King \& Simon C. Schuler}
19: \affil{Department of Physics and Astronomy, 118 Kinard Laboratory,\\
20: Clemson University, Clemson, SC{\ \ }29634-0978}
21: \email{jking2,sschule@ces.clemson.edu}
22:
23: \altaffiltext{1}{This paper includes data taken at The McDonald Observatory of
24: The University of Texas at Austin.}
25: \altaffiltext{2}{Based on observations obtained at Kitt Peak National Observatory,
26: a division of the National Optical Astronomy Observatories, which is operated by
27: the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc.~under cooperative
28: agreement with the National Science Foundation.}
29:
30: \begin{abstract}
31:
32: We use new and extant literature spectroscopy to address abundances and membership for
33: UMa moving group stars. We first compare the UMa, Coma, and Hyades H-R diagrams via
34: a homogeneous set of isochrones, and find that these three aggregates are essentially
35: coeval; this (near) coevality can explain the indistinguishable distributions
36: of UMa and Hyades dwarfs in the chromospheric emission versus color plane. Our
37: spectroscopy of cool UMa dwarfs reveals striking abundance anomalies--trends
38: with $T_{\rm eff}$, ionization state, and excitation potential--like those recently seen
39: in young cool M34, Pleaides, and Hyades dwarfs. In particular, the trend of rising
40: ${\lambda}7774$-based \ion{O}{1} abundance with declining $T_{\rm eff}$ is markedly
41: subdued in UMa compared to the Pleiades, suggesting a dependence on age or metallicity.
42: Recent photometric metallicity estimates for several UMa dwarfs are markedly low compared
43: to the group's canonical metallicity, and similar deviants are seen among cool Hyads as
44: well. Our spectroscopy does not confirm these curious photometric estimates, which seem
45: to be called into question for cool dwarfs. Despite disparate sources of Li data,
46: our homogeneous analysis indicates that UMa members evince remarkably small scatter
47: in the Li-$T_{\rm eff}$ plane for $T_{\rm eff}{\ge}5200$ K. Significant star-to-star
48: scatter suggested by previous studies is seen for cooler stars. Comparison with the
49: consistently determined Hyades Li-$T_{\rm eff}$ trend reveals differences qualitatively
50: consistent with this cluster's larger [Fe/H] (and perhaps slightly larger age). However,
51: quantitative comparison with standard stellar models indicates the differences are smaller
52: than expected, suggesting the action of a fourth parameter beyond age, mass, and [Fe/H]
53: controlling Li depletion. The UMa-Coma cool star Li abundances may show a slight 0.2 dex
54: difference; however, this may be mass-independent, and thus more consistent with a modest
55: initial Li abundance difference.
56: \end{abstract}
57:
58: \keywords{open clusters and associations: general --- stars: abundances --- stars: evolution --- stars: late-type}
59:
60: \section{Introduction}
61:
62: The complex patterns exhibited by Li abundances in solar-type stars present an ongoing challenge to
63: our fundamental understanding of stellar physics, spectral line formation, and Galactic chemical
64: evolution. Open clusters are important objects for deciphering these patterns since they provide a
65: large number of stars with presumably identical heavy element composition, initial Li abundance, but
66: differing mass; moreover, these objects can be accurately dated-- at least in a relative sense.
67: Open clusters thus provide a unique and valuable means to study two critical problems related to
68: stellar Li abundances: a) the large star-to-star scatter seen in late-G and K dwarfs and connections
69: to scatter in other stellar properties (Soderblom et al.~1993a; King, Krishnamurthi \& Pinsonneault
70: 2000), and b) deconvolving the effects of age-dependent main-sequence depletion and opacity-dependent
71: pre-main-sequence depletion mechanisms in producing intercluster differences in the Li-mass profile
72: (Soderblom 1993b, Swenson et al.~1994, Piau \& Turck-Chieze 2002).
73:
74: \citet{SPFJ} have noted the important niche in such attempts played by the UMa moving group: most
75: notable is its ability to serve as a proxy for a cluster with an age presumably intermediate to the
76: nearby and well-studied Pleaides and Hyades clusters, but having a subsolar ``metallicity''
77: ($-0.08$; Boesgaard, Budge, \& Burck 1988; Boesgaard \& Friel 1990) lower than either cluster.
78: Li abundances in the UMa moving group have been studied previously by \citet{BBB} and \citet{SPFJ}.
79: The intervening decade following these studies has seen the availability of new UMa star data--
80: activity measures, radial velocities, photometry, Hipparcos parallaxes, etc-- which can be used to
81: refine moving group membership. Here, we use new membership information, homogeneously-analyzed
82: abundance data from the literature, and original spectroscopy of our own to revisit Li abundances
83: in the UMa group.
84:
85: \section{Data and Analysis}
86:
87: We pulled our UMa stellar sample from the recent membership study of \citet{King03}. Stars with probable
88: and possible final membership status (their `Y' and `Y?' classes) were selected, and Li measurements
89: searched for in the literature. Table 7 lists the full sample of stars considered here, their $B-V$ color
90: (from the tabulation in \citet{King03}, projected rotational velocity, \ion{Ca}{2} chromospheric emission
91: index, ${\lambda}6707$ \ion{Li}{1} equivalent widths, effective temperatures, LTE Li abundances, and
92: associated references. Several of the Li measurements are actually for the \ion{Li}{1} and neighboring
93: ${\lambda}6707.4$ \ion{Fe}{1} feature. These cases were noted and corrected for in the analysis.
94:
95: Seven additional UMa candidates from \citet{King03} were selected for spectroscopic study utilizing new
96: original data. HD 28495, 59747, and 173950 were classified by \citet{King03} as members. The stars
97: HD 63433 and 75935 were deemed kinematic members, but photometric membership was ambiguous. HD 81659 and
98: 167389 were considered kinematic non-members, but \citet{M01} classified them as kinematic members; our hope
99: was to bring abundance data to bear on the issue of membership for the latter four stars. These 7 additional
100: stars are listed at the bottom of Table 7.
101:
102: We obtained spectroscopy of 3 of the additional UMa candidates in October 2004 with the
103: ``2dcoude'' cross-dispersed echelle spectrometer on the 2.7m Harlan J. Smith Telescope at McDonald
104: Observatory and a thinned Tektronix 2048${\times}$2048 CCD having 24 ${\mu}$m pixels. Use of the folded
105: Schmidt camera and chosen slit yielded a 2-pixel spectral resolution of $R{\sim}60,000$. The resulting
106: per pixel S/N values in the continuum regions near the 6707 {\AA} \ion{Li}{1} region were 200, 240, and
107: 310 for HD 28495, 167389, and 173950. Spectroscopy of the other 4 additional UMa candidates was secured
108: in December 2004 with the Cassegrain echelle spectrograph on the KPNO 4m. The instrumental setup consisted
109: of the 58-63 echelle grating, 226-1 cross disperser, long-focus camera, and T2KB Tektronix 2048${\times}$2048
110: CCD; a 0.9 arcsec slit width yielded a spectral resolution of $R{\sim}40,000$. The per pixel S/N
111: values in the \ion{Li}{1} region were 465, 235, 270, and 155 for HD 59747, 63433, 75935, and 81659.
112: Data reduction was carried out with standard routines in the {\sf IRAF} package. Sample spectra are
113: shown in Figure 1. Equivalent widths were measured with the profile fitting routines in the 1-d spectral
114: analysis package {\sf SPECTRE} \citep{FS}, and are listed in Tables 1, 3, 5, 6, and 7.
115: \marginpar{Fig.~1}
116: \marginpar{Tab.~1}
117:
118: Li abundances were determined from the equivalent widths using the {\sf{LIFIND}} software package
119: kindly provided by Dr.~A.~Steinhauer (2003). The program determines a color-based effective temperature \\
120: $$T_{\rm eff}=8344-3631.32{\times}(B-V)-2211.81{\times}(B-V)^2+3265.44{\times}(B-V)^3-1033.62{\times}(B-V)^4+701.7{\times}(B-V){\times}([Fe/H]-[Fe/H]_{\rm Hyades})$$
121: This relation is a slightly higher order fit to the same calibrating data used by \citet{DSJ}; the
122: zero-point and metallicity terms are discussed by \cite{DKBR}. Interpolating within an internal library
123: of curves of growth generated by the LTE analysis package {\sf{MOOG}} using Kurucz (1992; private
124: communication) model atmospheres, {\sf{LIFIND}} then returns a Li abundance for a given input equivalent
125: width and $T_{\rm eff}$. When required, {\sf{LIFIND}} also corrects the Li abundance for contributions
126: in the ${\lambda}6707.4$ region typically dominated by an \ion{Fe}{1} feature; we assumed [m/H]$=-0.08$
127: for these corrections. For stars with multiple Li measurements, we simply averaged the resulting abundances
128: together. The Li abundance uncertainties listed in Table 7 are internal values comprising contributions due to
129: internal $T_{\rm eff}$ uncertainties from photometric uncertainties and to equivalent width uncertainties.
130: The latter were gauged from multiple measurements, taken from listed uncertainties in the original sources,
131: or calculated from reported S/N, instrumental dispersion, and spectral resolution (or FWHM in the case of
132: non-negligibly rotating stars) values via the formalism of \citet{Cay88}. If one wishes to consider the
133: absolute Li abundances alone or compare these to other analyses using different $T_{\rm eff}$ scales, then
134: a larger total $T_{\rm eff}$ uncertainty of ${\sim}100$ K is more appropriate. This increases the Li
135: abundance uncertainties by ${\sim}0.05$ dex given the $T_{\rm eff}$ sensitivity of the derived Li
136: abundance in our stars (a change of ${\pm}0.12$ dex and ${\pm}0.09$ dex in log $N$(Li) for a change of ${\pm}100$ K
137: in $T_{\rm eff}$ at 5100 and 5750 K, respectively).
138:
139: The derivation of O, Ca, Cr, Fe, and Ni abundances in our 7 additional UMa candidates proceeded as follows.
140: $T_{\rm eff}$ values were taken from above and combined with log $g$ values from Yale-Yonsei isochrones
141: (see next section). Microturbulent velocities were then calculated from the relation of \citet{AP04}.
142: These stellar parameters and the overall metallicity of the model atmosphere are listed in Table 2. The
143: lines listed in Tables 1 and 3 are allegedly clean ``case a'' lines from \citet{Th90}, from which we
144: also took oscillator strengths. We carried out a differential analysis relative to Sun in order to
145: minimize the effects of oscillator strength errors. This was done by measuring the same lines in a spectrum
146: of the zenith daytime sky obtained at the McDonald 2.7m during our October 2004 run, and analyzing them
147: in the same fashion. Abundances were derived using the 2002 version of the LTE analysis package {\sf MOOG}
148: and Kurucz (1992; private communication) model atmospheres. Absolute solar abundances, log $N$(X), and
149: relative stellar abundances normalized to solar values on a line-by-line basis, [X/H], are given in
150: Tables 2 and 4. Table 5 contains our O results from the high excitation ${\lambda}7774$ triplet. Table 6 contains
151: our results for \ion{Fe}{2}; while the ${\lambda}6416$ \ion{Fe}{2} feature appears clean and unblended in all of
152: our spectra (and high resolution solar atlases), the behavior of its associated abundances relative to those from
153: the other 3 lines may suggest mild contamination of the former by another low excitation transition.
154:
155: The neutral lines of Ca, Cr, Fe, and Ni demonstrate a derived abundance sensitivity of ${\pm}0.05$ and ${\pm}0.08$ dex
156: for a ${\pm}100$ K change in $T_{\rm eff}$ at 5100 and 5750 K, respectively. The corresponding O sensitivities
157: are ${\mp}0.13$ and ${\mp}0.09$ dex; those for \ion{Fe}{2} are ${\mp}0.10$ and ${\mp}0.04$ dex. These sensitivities,
158: the internal $T_{\rm eff}$ uncertainties of ${\sim}45$ K, and the small internal mean measurement uncertainties (typically
159: a couple hundredths of a dex), yield total internal uncertainties in [X/H] for all species in the 0.05-0.08 range. As
160: for Li, these uncertainties are appropriate for examining star-to-star scatter. For the purpose of external comparisons,
161: total $T_{\rm eff}$ uncertaines of ${\sim}100$ K are more appropriate. These bring total abundance uncertainties to the 0.10-0.12
162: dex level.
163: \marginpar{Tab.~2}
164: \marginpar{Tab.~3}
165: \marginpar{Tab.~4}
166: \marginpar{Tab.~5}
167: \marginpar{Tab.~6}
168:
169: \section{Results and Discussion}
170:
171: \subsection{The Relative Age of UMa}
172:
173: Before discussing age-related implications of the UMa Li-$T_{\rm eff}$ morphology, it is
174: useful to revisit the relative age of UMa and two key clusters-- the Hyades and Coma
175: Berenices. The right hand panel of Figure 2 shows the color-magnitude
176: diagram of the Hyades using the ``high fidelity'' sample and {\it Hipparcos\/} parallaxes from
177: \citet{dB01}. The lines are the 500, 700, and 900 Myr, [Fe/H]$=+0.13$, [$\alpha$/Fe]$=0$ Yale-Yonsei
178: isochrones \citep{YY} using the Lejeune et al.~(1998) color-$T_{\rm eff}$ relations. The left hand
179: panel shows the photometry from the final {\it Hipparcos\/}-based UMa member sample of \citet{King03}
180: and the [Fe/H]$=-0.08$, [$\alpha$/Fe]$=0$ Yale-Yonsei isochrones for 400, 600, and 800 Myr (all using
181: the Lejeune et al.~1998 color-temperature relations).
182: \marginpar{Fig.~2}
183:
184: Earlier inhomogeneous age estimates placed the Hyades-UMa age difference at 300-500 Myr.
185: The homogeneous comparison in Figure 2 suggests that this age difference is, in fact,
186: considerably smaller-- ${\le}100$ Myr, but the uncertainties may even allow coevality. Assuming
187: a significant UMa-Hyades age difference, \citet{SC87} called attention to the seemingly remarkable
188: similarity of the mean UMa and Hyades chromospheric emission levels. Scatter in the UMa emission levels
189: is also significantly smaller than in younger clusters such as the Pleiades (e.g., Figure 11 of King et
190: al.~2003). A similar age for UMa and the Hyades, suggested here, at last provides a natural explanation
191: for these observations.
192:
193: The left hand panel of Figure 3 shows again the UMa color-magnitude diagram, while the right
194: hand panel shows that for the Coma Berenices cluster. The Coma photometry is from \citet{JK55}
195: and \citet{FJJB}, and the assumed reddening of $E(B-V)=0$ and distance modulus of 4.54 are taken
196: from \citet{Pin98}. Given a Coma metal abundance of [Fe/H]$=-0.07$ \citep{B89}, we utilized the
197: same isochrones displayed in the UMa diagram. The Coma-UMa age comparison in Figure 3 suggests that
198: these two systems too are essentially coeval.
199: \marginpar{Fig.~3}
200:
201: \subsection{Metal Abundances and Membership}
202:
203: Table 7 lists photometric and spectroscopic [Fe/H] values for our UMa stars. The former are
204: Stromgren-based values from the recent large survey of \citet{Nord04}. The latter are taken
205: from literature values tabulated in \citet{K03} or, for the additional UMa stars at the bottom
206: of the table, our own results in Tables 2 and 4. There are several stars for which the photometric
207: metallicity is notably lower than the canonical spectroscopic value of [Fe/H]$=-0.09$ \citep{BF90}:
208: HD 11131 (-0.27), 109799 (-0.24), 184960 (-0.32), 28495 (-0.41), and 173950 (-0.43). As a check on
209: these photometric metallicities, we calculated the mean abundance of Hyades members in the
210: \citet{Nord04} catalog using the cluster membership list of \citet{Perry98} culled of questionable
211: members. The result is [Fe/H]$=-0.01$ with a star-to-star scatter of 0.14 dex; this mean, which is
212: raised by only 0.02 dex if spectroscopic binaries and radial velocity variables are excluded, is
213: some ${\sim}0.15$ dex lower than the canonical spectroscopic Hyades metallicity. It is not clear
214: that the \citet{Nord04} abundance data are robust enough to address UMa membership.
215: \marginpar{Tab.~7}
216:
217: From our own spectroscopic abundance results in Tables 2 and 4, several things seem clear. First,
218: the line-to-line scatter in the abundances is satisfyingly small. This suggests that insidious effects
219: noted by King et al.~(2000), such as differential blending in the Sun relative to the cooler additional
220: UMa stars, is not important here. However, an example of the pitfalls awaiting the unwary spectroscopist is
221: provided by the ${\lambda}6417$ \ion{Ca}{1} line, which is blended in our cool UMa candidates, but
222: apparently clean in the Sun. The blend is subtle, particularly given finite S/N, but identified
223: from the consistent appearance of the line profile in all cool stars and consistently grossly deviant
224: abundances. It is possible that a few, even more subtle, ``clunkers'' have escaped detection and
225: reside in Table 1 and 3. We simply note again that differential blending is a potential pitfall
226: in differential analyses of cool stars--particularly when using lines from a Sun-based line list.
227:
228: Second, both the photometric and our own spectroscopic abundances indicate that HD 81659 is markedly
229: metal-rich compared to true UMa group stars. Given our earlier kinematic non-membership assignment, we
230: eliminate it as an UMa group member. Indeed, its Li abundance is markedly lower than UMa stars
231: of similar $T_{\rm eff}$ (see below).
232:
233: Third, the markedly low photometric abundances for HD 28495 and 173950 are not confirmed by
234: spectroscopic analysis. Our [Fe/H] values are some ${\sim}0.25$ dex higher. While considerably
235: more analysis with larger samples of stars is needed, this could signal a problem with the
236: photometric determinations of cool ($T_{\rm eff}{\le}5200$ K) stars; indeed, the markedly low
237: photometric [Fe/H] values for Hyades members from \citet{Nord04} seem to occur preferentially at the cool end.
238:
239: Fourth, striking evidence for overexcitation/ionization is clearly seen in our cool UMa stars. A
240: growing body of work (Schuler et al.~2003, 2004; Morel \& Micela 2004; Morel et al.~2004; Yong et al.~2004)
241: building on earlier suggestions (Cayrel et al.~1985, King et al.~2000) indicates that cool dwarf
242: abundances show excitation and ionization-related anomalies when subjected to LTE analysis with
243: standard stellar photospheric models. This behavior is seen in our stars: the Ca abundances derived
244: from the higher excitation ${\lambda}6417$ feature (measured to account for the blending noted above)
245: are consistently higher than derived from other Ca transitions for the cool stars in Table 4; the Cr
246: abundancs derived from the lower excitation ${\lambda}6330$ feature are consistently lower than derived
247: from other Cr transitions in all cases (Table 4). The \ion{Fe}{1} abundances derived from the lower
248: excitation ${\lambda}6498$ feature are lower than derived from higher excitation features in all cases
249: (Table 4). More marked is the \ion{Fe}{2}$-$\ion{Fe}{1} difference--a stunning 0.42 dex for the four
250: coolest objects in Table 6.
251:
252: Figure 4 shows the \ion{Fe}{2}-\ion{Fe}{1} differences (see Table 6) and high excitation (9 eV) ${\lambda}7774$
253: triplet-based [O/H] values (see Table 5) versus $T_{\rm eff}$ for HD 28495, 59747, 63433, 75935, 167389, and 173950
254: derived from our new spectroscopy. There is a clear trend with $T{\rm eff}$, and that for \ion{O}{1} appears notably
255: more shallow than for the Pleiades. These striking trends are qualitatively similar to those for
256: [O/H] and \ion{Fe}{1}-\ion{Fe}{2} seen by Schuler et al.~(2003, 2004) and Yong et al.~(2004) for M34, the
257: Pleiades, and the Hyades. Whether the shallower slope of the \ion{O}{1} trend for our UMa stars compared
258: to the Pleiades is somehow related to the former's larger age or lower metallicity is unclear, and
259: will require observations of additional clusters/moving groups.
260: \marginpar{Fig.~4}
261:
262: We believe that the anomalous abundance results for cool stars like that shown in Figure 4 are not
263: explained by simple modest parameter variations. For example, the large \ion{O}{1} abundances and
264: \ion{Fe}{2}-\ion{Fe}{1} differences could be removed by lowering log $g$ by in the cool stars-- but
265: by a full dex. Raising the overall $T_{\rm eff}$ scale for all the UMa stars by 900-1000 K would
266: also flatten out the observed trends in [O/H] and Fe ionization state difference. An alternative
267: fix is to raise the T$_{\rm eff}$ values of the 4 coolest stars by 250 K with respect to the stars near
268: solar $T_{\rm eff}$. An analogous solution to removing the [O/H] trend in the Pleiades (Schuler et al.~2004),
269: however, would require the cool star $T_{\rm eff}$ values to be increased by several factors of 250 K.
270: We regard all these parameter variations as implausible.
271:
272: Given the totality of the evidence in Tables 2 and 4, our abundances only rule out membership
273: for HD 81659. A remaining possible curiosity is that the Fe abundances of HD 59747 are consistently
274: slightly higher on a line-by-line basis compared to the similarly cool dwarfs HD 75935 and HD 173950;
275: this is true for \ion{Fe}{2} as well. Such behavior, however, is not clearly seen in (e.g.,) Ca, Cr,
276: or Ni. Additional work is needed to understand how these striking anomalies noted above might also vary
277: from star-to-star at a given $T_{\rm eff}$, a possibility if activity were an underlying cause (as
278: suggested by, e.g. Morel \& Micela 2004 and Morel et al.~2004), within an otherwise uniform population.
279: In the meantime, we note that the slightly low mean Fe abundances for the cool stars HD 28495 and HD 173950,
280: the larger Fe abundances for the warmer dwarfs HD 63433 and HD 167389, and low mean Ca values for the cool
281: stars HD 75395, 59747, and 173950 (all compared to the canonical UMa metallicity of [m/H]${\sim}-0.09$) that
282: one might notice from Tables 2 and 4 are exactly what one expects given the overexcitation/ionization effects
283: seen in, e.g., M34 (Schuler et al.~2003).
284:
285: \subsection{Li in the UMa Group}
286:
287: The Li-$T_{\rm eff}$ morphology of our UMa members (those stars in Table 7 with the exception
288: of HD 81659) is shown in Figure 5. Barring the three clear members of the Li gap at 6400-6700 K, a
289: notable feature seen here is the lack of statistically significant star-to-star scatter in the Li
290: abundances for $T{\rm eff}{\ge}5200$ K; in this regime the spread in Li is remarkably small-- especially
291: when considering the inhomogeneous data sources. Scatter about a fitted polynomial (excluding
292: Li gap stars) is only a few hundredths of a dex-- that expected from the uncertainties in
293: Table 7.
294: \marginpar{Fig.~5}
295:
296: A second feature of note is that the 0.4-0.5 dex difference between the UMa Li abundances on the
297: hot side of the F-star Li gap and the so-called Li peak at 5800-6000 K is consistent with
298: that in the older Hyades and Coma clusters (e.g., Figure 3 of Jones et al.~1997 and Figures
299: 5 and 6 below) rather than the near-zero difference seen in the Pleiades (e.g., Figure 3 of
300: King, Krishnamurthi, \& Pinsonneault 2000). This is consistent with similar ages for UMa,
301: Coma, and the Hyades as we infer from their color-magnitude diagrams.
302:
303: Below $T_{\rm eff}{\sim}5200$, Figure 5 indicates that there exists significant star-to-star
304: scatter. Figure 6 indicates the onset of this scatter occurs at similar $T_{\rm eff}$ in
305: the Hyades, and the magnitude of the scatter appears similar, though the presence of
306: censored data (upper limits) complicates interpretation. What seems clear is that the
307: star-to-star spread among the UMa group stars with Li detections is more similar to
308: the modest spread evinced by non-tidally locked binaries in the older Hyades cluster than
309: the large (up to a full dex) striking differences in similarly cool young (100-200 Myr) Pleiades
310: and M34 cluster dwarfs (e.g., Figure 3 of Jones et al.~1997). Our new membership information
311: thus verifies essentially similar conclusions of Soderblom et al.~(1993b).
312: \marginpar{Fig.~6}
313:
314: The Hyades Li data in Figure 6 were analyzed in the same fashion as our UMa stars, repeating
315: the analysis of \citet{Bal95} with our particular choice of $T_{\rm eff}$ scale and model
316: atmosphere grids, etc. Though UMa datapoints remain sparse, Figure 6 indicates that the
317: Hyades Li abundances are lower than those in UMa for $T_{\rm eff}{\le}5400$ K. This difference
318: increases modestly if NLTE corrections \citep{Carl94} are applied. The larger UMa Li content
319: relative to cool Hyades would be further exaggerated if we were to utilize a mass coordinate, instead
320: of $T_{\rm eff}$, since the masses are larger at a fixed temperature for higher metallicity like
321: that characterizing the Hyades (e.g., [Fe/H]$=+0.12$ according to Cayrel, Cayrel de Strobel \&
322: Campbell 1985). Greater Li depletion in the cool Hyads is qualitatively consistent with their
323: higher [Fe/H] and the well-known ``metallicity'' dependence of standard pre-main-sequence Li burning
324: (e.g., Figure 3 of Chaboyer, Demarque \& Pinsonneault 1995; table 2 and \S 3.4 of Piau \&
325: Turck-Chi{\`e}ze 2002); greater Li depletion would also be consistent with a very slightly older
326: age for the Hyades and the effects main-sequence mixing (e.g., the age dependence of Li destruction
327: seen in the rotational mixing models of fixed composition in Figure 12 of Chaboyer et al.~1995).
328:
329: While the data are very limited, comparison of the stars hotter than the F-star Li gap in
330: Figure 6 suggests little difference in the Hyades and UMa initial Li abundances.
331: We have also noted the near-equality in the UMa and Hyades age, with an allowance that the
332: Hyades might be (if anything) slightly older. It is then interesting to note that the ${\sim}0.0$
333: dex abundance difference between the cool Hyades dwarfs 5150 K and the cool UMa dwarfs at
334: 4850 K in Figure 6 is considerably {\it smaller} than the near ${\sim}1.0$ dex difference
335: predicted by the standard models in Figure 3 of Chaboyer et al.~(1995) given these entities'
336: metallicity difference. This suggests that there is a fourth parameter beyond mass, age, and
337: [Fe/H] controlling relative Li depletion. Numerous candidates abound-- helium abundance,
338: detailed opacity mixtures (in particular the [$\alpha$/Fe] ratio), accretion history, initial
339: angular momentum and subsequent evolution thereof. Several of these factors are discussed and
340: modeled in Piau \& Turck-Chi{\`e}ze (2002), but (unfortunately) remain observationally ill-constrained.
341:
342: Figure 7 compares our UMa Li abundances with those for Coma, which we analyzed in a
343: homogeneous fashion with temperatures derived as for UMa using the photometry described
344: before. The Coma Li equivalent widths were taken from cluster members in the studies
345: of \citet{F01}, \citet{Sod90}, and \citet{B87}. The UMa-Coma comparison is of particular
346: interest since these clusters have observationally indistinguishable age and [Fe/H].
347: Figure 7 indicates that the cool star Li abundances appear some ${\sim}0.2$ dex lower in Coma
348: than the maximum abundances seen in UMa. A similar difference is inferred from the
349: relative predicted-observed Li differences for each cluster, where these differences are
350: measured using the curves from Figure 3 of Chaboyer et al.~(1995) and the
351: two Coma stars at 5200 K and the 3 UMa stars at 4850 K. In this case, however, the implications
352: of any inter-cluster Li difference for a fourth parameter are unconvincing: the UMa-Coma comparison
353: in Figure 5 may reflect a constant offset; i.e., the abundance levels on the hotside of the Li gap
354: and in the G-star Li peak (5800-6000 K) may also differ at the 0.2 dex level. Such a difference
355: is suggestive of one in initial Li abundance rather than in mass-dependent Li depletion mechanisms.
356: \marginpar{Fig.~7}
357:
358: \subsection{Summary}
359:
360: Using existing and new spectroscopy, we revisit membership and abundances for stars in
361: the UMa moving group. Comparison of the color-magnitude diagrams of UMa, Coma, and the
362: Hyades using isochrones suggests that these stellar aggregates are essentially coeval,
363: with the Hyades perhaps being only 100 Myr older. This finding provides a simple explanation
364: for the modest scatter of UMa stars in the chromospheric emission versus color plane compared
365: to younger clusters (e.g., the Pleiades), and the indistinguishable mean chromospheric emission
366: levels of UMa and Hyades members.
367:
368: Abundances from our new spectroscopy confirms non-membership for HD 81659. Our new spectroscopy
369: of field star UMa group members reveals they clearly demonstrate abundance trends suggestive of
370: or mimicing the effects of over-excitation/ionization that have been reported in young clusters
371: and very active field stars: abundances derived from low excitation potential lines of a given
372: species are lower than the abundances derived from higher excitation lines; at $T_{\rm eff}{\sim}5000$ K,
373: Fe abundances derived from \ion{Fe}{2} lines are a factor 4 higher than abundances derived from
374: \ion{Fe}{1} lines; \ion{O}{1} abundances derived from the high excitation ${\lambda}7774$ triplet
375: show an increase with decreasing $T_{\rm eff}$. This latter trend of rising O with declining
376: $T_{\rm eff}$ is strikingly muted compared to that seen in younger and more metal-rich Pleiades
377: stars.
378:
379: \ion{Fe}{1}-based Fe abundances for HD 28495 and 173950 are notably higher than the photometric
380: metallicity estimates of \citet{Nord04}. There are several UMa members for which \citet{Nord04}
381: metallicities are markedly low compared to the canonical UMa abundance. Similar oddly low
382: photometric estimates for cool stars are also seen in the Hyades, and the \citet{Nord04}
383: photometric values yield a metallicity some 0.10-0.15 dex lower than the canonical spectroscopic
384: metallicity in this cluster too.
385:
386: For $T_{\rm eff}{\ge}5200$ K, UMa group member Li abundances show remarkably small dispersion
387: that is compatible with the estimated errors. As in other young clusters, however, a significant
388: star-to-star scatter in Li is seen at cooler $T_{\rm eff}$ values. Consistent redetermination of
389: Hyades Li abundances indicates lower values at a given cool temperature (and corresponding mass)
390: than for UMa--a difference qualitatively consistent with expectations of standard PMS burning
391: given the higher Hyades [Fe/H] value. However, the quantitative Hyades-UMa cool dwarf difference
392: is considerably smaller than expected, suggesting a fourth parameter other than stellar mass,
393: age, and [Fe/H] affecting the relative Li depletion in cool young-to-intermediate age open cluster
394: dwarfs. Cool dwarfs in UMa and Coma, which have observationally indistinguishable age and [Fe/H],
395: show only a modest ${\le}0.2$ dex, if any, difference that could be due to an initial abundance difference.
396:
397: Uniquely identifying this fourth parameter may be observationally challenging: the initial
398: angular momentum distribution and details of angular momentum loss are both folded into the
399: present day stellar rotation distributions (which may additionally be convolved with projection
400: effects); observable signatures of accretion will quickly be lost by convective dilution in
401: sufficiently low-mass stars; and stellar He abundances are notoriously difficult to determine
402: (particularly in low mass stars). Differences in detailed opacity mixtures are the most amenable
403: to observational discrimination, but consistent abundance analyses of numerous elements in large
404: samples of open cluster stars do not yet exist. While this lack of important observational data
405: seems easy to remedy, the abundance results presented here and the recent work indicating (presumably
406: spurious) $T_{\rm eff}$- and/or age- and/or activity-dependent trends in cool dwarf abundances
407: (Cayrel et al.~1985; King et al.~2000; Schuler et al.~2003,2004; Yong et al.~2004; Morel \& Micela
408: 2004) suggests the needed delineation of genuine cluster-to-cluster abundance differences is not
409: necessarily straightforward. Indeed, an interesting future question is how any such effects influence
410: the measured Li abundances in different clusters themselves.
411:
412: \acknowledgments
413: The author gratefully acknowledges support for this work from NSF awards AST-0086576 and AST-0239518, and
414: a generous grant from the Charles Curry Foundation to Clemson University. We also thank Dr.~Aaron
415: Steinhauer for kindly providing his {\sf{LIFIND}} code, and Ms. Abigail Daane and Mr. Roggie Boone
416: for their assistance at the McDonald 2.7-m and KPNO 4-m telescopes.
417:
418: \begin{thebibliography}
419:
420: \bibitem[Allende Prieto et al.(2004)]{AP04} Allende Prieto, C., Barklem, P. S., Lambert, D. L., \& Cunha, K. 2004, \aap, 420, 183
421:
422: \bibitem[Balachandran(1990)]{Bal90} Balachandran, S. 1990, \apj, 354, 310
423:
424: \bibitem[Balachandran(1995)]{Bal95} Balachandran, S. 1995, \apj, 446, 203
425:
426: \bibitem[Boesgaard \& Friel(1990)]{BF90} Boesgaard, A. M., \& Friel, E.D. 1990, \apj, 351, 467
427:
428: \bibitem[Boesgaard(1989)]{B89} Boesgaard, A. M. 1989, \apj, 336, 798
429:
430: \bibitem[Boesgaard, Budge \& Burck(1988)]{BBB} Boesgaard, A. M., Budge, K. G., \& Burck, E. E. 1988, \apj, 325, 749
431:
432: \bibitem[Boesgaard \& Tripicco(1987)]{BT87} Boesgaard, A. M., \& Tripicco, M. J. 1987, \apj, 313, 389
433:
434: \bibitem[Boesgaard(1987)]{B87} Boesgaard, A. M. 1987, \apj, 321, 967
435:
436: \bibitem[Carlsson et al.(1994)]{Carl94} Carlsson, M., Rutten, R. J., Bruls, J. H. M. J., \& Shchukina, N. G. 1994, \aap, 288, 860
437:
438: \bibitem[Cayrel(1988)]{Cay88} Cayrel, R. 1988, in The Impact of Very High S/N Spectroscopy on Stellar Physics, ed.~G.~Cayrel
439: de Strobel \& M.~Spite, (Dordrecht: Kluwer), p.~345
440:
441: \bibitem[Cayrel, Cayrel de Strobel \& Campbell(1985)]{CCC85} Cayrel, R., Cayrel de Strobel, G., \& Campbell, B. 1985, \aap, 146, 249
442:
443: \bibitem[Chaboyer, Demarque \& Pinsonneault(1995)]{CPD95} Chaboyer, B., Demarque, P., \& Pinsonneault, M. H. 1995, \apj, 441, 876
444:
445: \bibitem[Chen et al.(2001)]{Ch01} Chen, Y. Q., Nissen, P. E., Benoni, T., \& Zhao, G. 2001, \aap, 371, 943
446:
447: \bibitem[de Bruijne, Hoogerwerf \& de Zeeuw(2001)]{dB01} de Bruijne, J. H. J., Hoogerwerf, R., \&
448: de Zeeuw, P. T. 2001, \aap, 367, 111
449:
450: \bibitem[de Medeiros \& Mayor(1999)]{dMM99} de Medeiros, J. R., \& Mayor, M. 1999, A\&AS, 139, 433
451:
452: \bibitem[Deliyannis, Steinhauer \& Jeffries(2002)]{DSJ} Deliyannis, C. P., Steinhauer, A., \& Jeffries, R. D. 2002, \apj, 577, L39
453:
454: \bibitem[Deliyannis et al.(1994)]{DKBR} Deliyannis, C. P., King, J. R., Boesgaard, A. M., \& Ryan, S. G. 1994, \apj, 434, L71
455:
456: \bibitem[Deliyannis et al.(1998)]{Del98} Deliyannis, C. P., Boesgaard, A. M., Stephens, A., King, J. R., Vogt, S. S., \& Keane, M. J. 1998, \apj, 498, L147
457:
458: \bibitem[Favata et al.(1995)]{Fav95} Favata, F., Barbera, M., Micela, G., \& Sciortino, S. 1995, \aap, 295, 147
459:
460: \bibitem[Fekel (1997)]{F97} Fekel, F. C. 1997, \pasp, 109, 514
461:
462: \bibitem[Ford et al.(2001)]{F01} Ford, A., Jeffries, R. D., James, D. J., \& Barnes, J. R. 2001, \aap, 369, 871
463:
464: \bibitem[Gaidos, Henry \& Henry(2000)]{GHH} Gaidos, E. J., Henry, G. W., \& Henry, S. M. 2000, \aj, 120, 1006
465:
466: \bibitem[Henry et al.(1996)]{HSDB} Henry, T. J., Soderblom, D. R., Donahue, R. A., \& Baliunas, S. L. 1996, \aj, 111, 439
467:
468: \bibitem[Fitzpatrick \& Sneden(1987)]{FS} Fitzpatrick, M. J., \& Sneden, C. 1987, BAAS, 19, 1129
469:
470: \bibitem[Ford et al.(2001)]{FJJB} Ford, A., Jeffries, R. D., James, D. J., \& Barnes, J. R. 2001, \aap, 369, 871
471:
472: \bibitem[Johnson \& Knuckles(1955)]{JK55} Johnson, H. L., \& Knuckles, C. F. 1955, \apj, 122, 209
473:
474: \bibitem[Jones et al.(1997)]{J97} Jones, B. F., Fischer, D., Shetrone, M., \& Soderblom, D. R. 1997, \aj, 114, 352
475:
476: \bibitem[King, Krishnamurthi \& Pinsonneault(2000)]{KKP} King, J. R., Krishnamurthi, A., \& Pinsonneault, M. H. 2000, \aj, 119, 859
477:
478: \bibitem[King et al.(2003)]{King03} King, J. R., Villarreal, A. R., Soderblom, D. R., Gulliver, A. F., \& Adelman, S. J. 2003, \aj, 125, 1980
479:
480: \bibitem[King et al.(2000)]{King00} King, J. R., Soderblom, D. R., Fischer, D., \& Jones, B. F. 2000, \apj, 533, 944
481:
482: \bibitem[Lambert, Heath \& Edvardsson(1991)]{LHE} Lambert, D. L., Heath, J. E., \& Edvardsson, B. 1991, \mnras, 253, 610
483:
484: \bibitem[Lebre et al.(1999)]{Leb99} L{\`e}bre, A., de Laverny, P., de Medeiros, J. R., Charbonnel, C., \& da Silva, L. 1999, \aap, 345, 936
485:
486: \bibitem[Lejeune et al.(1998)]{LCB} Lejeune, Th., Cuisinier, F., \& Buser, R. 1998, \aap, 130, 65
487:
488: \bibitem[Morel \& Micela(2004)]{MM04} Morel, T., \& Micela, G. 2004, \aap, 423, 677
489:
490: \bibitem[Morel et al.(2004)]{Metal04} Morel, T., Micela, G., Favata, F., \& Katz, D. 2004, \aap, 426, 1007
491:
492: \bibitem[Montes et al.(2001)]{M01} Montes, D., L{\'o}pez-Santiago, J., Fern{\'a}ndez-Figueroa, M. J., \& G{\'a}lvez, M. C. 2001, \aap, 379, 976
493:
494: \bibitem[Nordstrom et al.(2004)]{Nord04} Nordstrom, B., Mayor, M., Andersen, J., Holmberg, J., Pont, F., Jorgensen, B. R., Olsen, E. H., Udry, S., \& Mowlavi, N. 2004, \aap, 418, 989
495:
496: \bibitem[Pallavicini, Randich \& Giampapa(1992)]{PRG92} Pallavicini, R., Randich, S., \& Giampapa, M. S. 1992, \aap, 253, 185
497:
498: \bibitem[Pallavicini, Cerruti-Sola \& Duncan(1987)]{PCD} Pallavicini, R., Cerruti-Sola, M., \& D. K. Duncan 1987, \aap, 174, 116
499:
500: \bibitem[Perryman et al.(1998)]{Perry98} Perryman, M. A. C., Brown, A. G. A., Lebreton, Y., Gomez, A., Turon, C., de Strobel, G., Cayrel, G., Mermilliod, J. C. et al.~1998, \aap, 331, 81
501:
502: \bibitem[Piau \& Turck-Chieze(2002)]{PTC} Piau, L., \& Turck-Chieze, S. 2002, \apj, 566, 419
503:
504: \bibitem[Pinsonneault et al.(1998)]{Pin98} Pinsonneault, M. H., Stauffer, J., Soderblom, D. R., King, J. R., \& Hanson, R. B. 1998, \apj, 504, 170
505:
506: \bibitem[Randich et al.(1999)]{Ran99} Randich, S., Gratton, R., Pallavicini, R., Pasquini, L., \& Carretta, E. 1999, \aap, 348, 487
507:
508: \bibitem[Rebolo et al.(1986)]{Reb86} Rebolo, R., Beckman, J. E., Crivellari, L., Castelli, F., \& Foing, B. 1986, \aap, 166, 195
509:
510: \bibitem[Royer et al.(2002)]{Roy2002} Royer, F., Grenier, S., Baylac, M. O., Gomez, A. E., \& Zorec, J. 2002, \aap, 393, 897
511:
512: \bibitem[Russell(1995)]{Russ95} Russell, S. C. 1995, \apj, 451, 747
513:
514: \bibitem[Saar \& Osten(1997)]{SO97} Saar, S. H., \& Osten, R. A. 1997, \mnras, 284, 803
515:
516: \bibitem[Schuler et al.(2003)]{Sch03} Schuler, S. C., King, J. R., Fischer, D. A., Soderblom, D. R., \& Jones, B. F. 2003, \aj, 125, 2085
517:
518: \bibitem[Schuler et al.(2004)]{Sch04} Schuler, S. C., King, J. R., Hobbs, L. M., \& Pinsonneault, M. H. 2004, \apj, 602, L117
519:
520: \bibitem[Simon \& Landsman(1991)]{SL91} Simon, T., \& Landsman, W. 1991, \apj, 380, 200
521:
522: \bibitem[Soderblom et al.(1993a)]{S93a} Soderblom, D.R., Jones, B.F., Balachandran, S., Stauffer, J.R., Duncan, D.K., Fedele, S.B., Hudon, J.D. 1993, \aj, 106, 1059
523:
524: \bibitem[Soderblom et al.(1993b)]{SPFJ} Soderblom, D. R., Pilachowski, C. A., Fedele, S. B., \& Jones, B. F. 1993b, \aj, 105, 2299
525:
526: \bibitem[Soderblom \& Mayor(1993a)]{SM93a} Soderblom, D. R., \& Mayor, M. 1993a, \apj, 402, L5
527:
528: \bibitem[Soderblom, King, \& Henry(1998)]{SKH} Soderblom, D. R., King, J. R., \& Henry, T. J. 1998, \aj, 116, 396
529:
530: \bibitem[Soderblom, Pendleton \& Pallavicini(1989)]{SPP} Soderblom, D. R., Pendleton, J., \& Pallavicini, R. 1989, \aj, 97, 539
531:
532: \bibitem[Soderblom \& Clements(1987)]{SC87} Soderblom, D. R., \& Clements, S. D. 1987, \aj, 93, 920
533:
534: \bibitem[Soderblom \& Mayor(1993b)]{SM93b} Soderblom, D. R., \& Mayor, M. 1993b, \aj, 105, 226
535:
536: \bibitem[Soderblom(1985)]{Sod85} Soderblom, D. R. 1985, \pasp, 97, 54
537:
538: \bibitem[Soderblom et al.(1991)]{Sod91} Soderblom, D. R., Duncan, D. K., \& Johnson, D. R. H. 1991, \apj, 375, 722
539:
540: \bibitem[Soderblom et al.(1990)]{Sod90} Soderblom, D. R., Oey, M. S., Johnson, D. R. H., \& Stone, R. P. S. 1990, \aj, 99, 595
541:
542: \bibitem[Steinhauer(2003)]{Stein03} Steinhauer, A. 2003, Ph.~D.~dissertation, Indiana University
543:
544: \bibitem[Strassmeier et al.(1990)]{SFB90} Strassmeier, K. G., Fekel, F. C., Bopp, B. W., Dempsey, R. C., \& Henry, G. W. 1990, \apjs, 72, 191
545:
546: \bibitem[Strassmeier et al.(2000)]{Strass00} Strassmeier, K. G., Washuettl, A., Granzer, T., Scheck, M., \& Weber, M. 2000, A\&AS, 142, 275
547:
548: \bibitem[Swenson et al.(1994)]{SF94} Swenson, F. J., Faulkner, J., Iglesias, C. A., Rogers, F. J., \& Alexander, D. R. 1994, \apj, 422, L79
549:
550: \bibitem[Thevenin(1990)]{Th90} Thevenin, F. 1990, A\&AS, 82, 179
551:
552: \bibitem[Tinney et al.(2002)]{Tin02} Tinney, C. G., McCarthy, C., Jones, H. R. A., Butler, R. P., Carter, B. D., Marcy, G. W., \& Penny, A. J. 2002, \mnras, 332, 759
553:
554: \bibitem[Uesugi \& Fukuda(1970)]{UF70} Uesugi, A., \& Fukuda, I. 1970, Contr.~Astroph.~Kwasan Obs.~Univ., 189
555:
556: \bibitem[Wolff \& Simon(1997)]{WS87} Wolff, S., \& Simon, T. 1997, \pasp, 109, 759
557:
558: \bibitem[Yi et al.(2001)]{YY} Yi, S., Demarque, P., Kim, Y.-C., Lee, Y.-W., Ree, C. H., Lejeune, T., \& Barnes, S. 2001, \apjs, 136, 417
559:
560: \bibitem[Yong et al.(2004)]{Y04} Yong, D., Lambert, D. L., Allende Prieto, C., \& Paulson, D. B. 2004, \apj, 603, 697
561:
562: \end{thebibliography}
563:
564: %%Fig 1
565: \begin{figure}
566: \plotone{fig1.ps}
567: \caption[]{Sample spectra of our additional UMa candidates obtained at the McDonald Observatory 2.7m (top panel) and
568: Kitt Peak National Observatory 4m (bottom panel).}
569: \end{figure}
570:
571: %%Fig 2
572: \begin{figure}
573: \plotone{fig2.ps}
574: \caption[]{(Left) The Hipparcos-based UMa group color-magnitude diagram is shown with the 400, 600, and
575: 800 Myr Yale-Yonsei [Fe/H]$=-0.08$ isochrones constructed with the Lejeune et al.~(1998) color-temperature
576: relation. (Right) The Hipparocs based Hyades color-magnitude diagram is shown with the 500, 700, and 900 Myr
577: Yale-Yonsei [Fe/H]$=+0.13$ isochrones constructed with the same color-temperature relation. }
578: \end{figure}
579:
580: %%Fig 3
581: \begin{figure}
582: \plotone{fig3.ps}
583: \caption[]{(Left) The UMa color magnitude diagram from Figure 1 is shown again. (Right) The Coma
584: color-magnitude diagram, assuming $(m-M)=4.54$ and $E(B-V)=0.00$, is plotted with the same
585: 400, 600, and 800 Myr [Fe/H]$=-0.08$ isochrones as for UMa. }
586: \end{figure}
587:
588: %%Fig 4
589: \begin{figure}
590: \plotone{fig4.ps}
591: \caption[]{Left-- The ${\lambda}7774$ \ion{O}{1}-based [O/H] values from our own spectroscopy are plotted
592: versus $T_{\rm eff}$ for UMa group objects (filled squares) and Pleiades dwarfs from Schuler et
593: al.~(2004; open stars); a typical error bar is shown in the upper right. Right-- The difference between
594: [Fe/H] determined from \ion{Fe}{2} and \ion{Fe}{1} lines based on our own spectroscopy of UMa group
595: objects. A typical error bar is shown in the bottom left.}
596: \end{figure}
597:
598: %%Fig 5
599: \begin{figure}
600: \plotone{fig5.ps}
601: \caption[]{LTE Li abundance is plotted versus $T_{\rm eff}$ for our UMa objects. Upper limits
602: are shown as inverted open triangles.}
603: \end{figure}
604:
605: %%Fig 6
606: \begin{figure}
607: \plotone{fig6.ps}
608: \caption[]{LTE Li abundances for the Hyades (crosses and open circles; the latter designating upper limits)
609: and our UMa objects (symbols the same as in Figure 3) are shown versus $T_{\rm eff}$.}
610: \end{figure}
611:
612: %%Fig 7
613: \begin{figure}
614: \plotone{fig7.ps}
615: \caption[]{LTE Li abundances for Coma Berenices (crosses and open circles denote detections and upper limits)
616: and our UMa objects (with symbols as in Figure 3) are shown versus $T_{\rm eff}$.}
617: \end{figure}
618:
619:
620: %%TABLE 1
621: %\documentclass{aastex}
622: %\begin{document}
623: \begin{deluxetable}{lrrrrrrrrrr}
624: \tablecolumns{11}
625: \tablewidth{0pc}
626: \tablenum{1}
627: \tablecaption{UMa Group \ion{Fe}{1} Line Data}
628: \tablehead{
629: \colhead{$\lambda$} & \colhead{$\chi$} & \colhead{log $gf$} & \colhead{HD28495} & \colhead{HD59747} & \colhead{HD63433} & \colhead{HD75935} & \colhead{HD81659} & \colhead{HD167389} & \colhead{HD173950} & \colhead{Sun}\\
630: \colhead{\AA} & \colhead{eV} & \colhead{ } & \colhead{m\AA} & \colhead{m\AA} & \colhead{m\AA} & \colhead{m\AA} & \colhead{m\AA} & \colhead{m\AA} &
631: \colhead{m\AA} & \colhead{m\AA}
632: }
633: \startdata
634: 6703.58 & 2.76 & -3.13 & 49.9 & 65.3 & \nodata & 54.2 & 53.7 & 35.5 & 56.0 & 40.3 \\
635: 6713.75 & 4.79 & -1.52 & 24.3 & 31.8 & 25.6 & 28.7 & 33.1 & 19.6 & 27.2 & 23.0 \\
636: 6725.36 & 4.10 & -2.30 & 22.4 & 30.4 & 23.9 & 26.1 & 27.0 & 16.9 & 24.7 & 19.6 \\
637: 6726.67 & 4.61 & -1.12 & 55.0 & 69.4 & 57.4 & 62.3 & 58.5 & 48.1 & 57.3 & 50.5 \\
638: 6739.52 & 1.56 & -4.98 & 21.6 & 33.7 & 14.7 & 26.4 & 23.8 & 10.6 & 26.9 & 12.8 \\
639: 6745.98 & 4.07 & -2.74 & 8.4 & 13.5 & 6.7 & 10.8 & 12.0 & 6.2 & 9.4 & 7.5 \\
640: 6746.98 & 2.61 & -4.35 & 6.6 & 11.6 & 6.7 & 7.5 & 9.0 & \nodata & 9.2 & 4.3 \\
641: \enddata
642: \end{deluxetable}
643:
644:
645: %%TABLE 2
646: %\documentclass{aastex}
647: %\begin{document}
648: \begin{deluxetable}{lrrrrrrrr}
649: \tablecolumns{9}
650: \tablewidth{0pc}
651: \tablenum{2}
652: \tablecaption{UMa Group Parameters and Fe Abundance Data}
653: \tablehead{
654: \colhead{ } & \colhead{HD28495} & \colhead{HD59747} & \colhead{HD63433} & \colhead{HD75935} & \colhead{HD81659} & \colhead{HD167389} & \colhead{HD173950} & \colhead{Sun}\\
655: }
656: \startdata
657: Parameters & & & & & & & & \\
658: $T_{\rm eff}$ & 5222 & 4925 & 5553 & 5180 & 5467 & 5827 & 5004 & 5770 \\
659: log $g$ & 4.62 & 4.65 & 4.57 & 4.63 & 4.58 & 4.52 & 4.65 & 4.44 \\
660: ${\xi}$ & 1.14 & 1.04 & 1.25 & 1.12 & 1.22 & 1.36 & 1.07 & 1.38 \\
661: $[{\rm m/H}]$ & -0.2 & -0.10 & -0.10 & -0.10 & +0.10 & -0.10 & -0.20 & +0.00 \\
662: \cline{1-9}
663: Abundances & & & & & & & & \\
664: 6703.58 & -0.18 & +0.01 & \nodata & -0.10 & +0.04 & -0.03 & -0.16 & 7.59 \\
665: 6713.75 & -0.16 & +0.02 & -0.02 & -0.05 & +0.11 & -0.05 & -0.09 & 7.59 \\
666: 6725.36 & -0.17 & +0.00 & +0.01 & -0.07 & +0.04 & -0.04 & -0.15 & 7.62 \\
667: 6726.67 & -0.15 & +0.06 & +0.02 & -0.02 & +0.02 & -0.01 & -0.14 & 7.56 \\
668: 6739.52 & -0.21 & +0.08 & -0.13 & -0.11 & +0.05 & -0.03 & -0.21 & 7.57 \\
669: 6745.98 & -0.20 & +0.02 & -0.16 & -0.07 & +0.07 & -0.05 & -0.18 & 7.55 \\
670: 6746.98 & -0.19 & -0.01 & +0.04 & -0.13 & +0.12 & \nodata & -0.12 & 7.47 \\
671: \cline{1-9}
672: Results & & & & & & & & \\
673: $[{\rm Fe/H}]$ & -0.18 & +0.03 & -0.04 & -0.08 & +0.06 & -0.04 & -0.15 & 7.564 \\
674: std dev & 0.020 & 0.033 & 0.084 & 0.038 & 0.037 & 0.015 & 0.039 & 0.048 \\
675: \enddata
676: \end{deluxetable}
677:
678: %%TABLE 3
679: %\documentclass{aastex}
680: %\begin{document}
681: \begin{deluxetable}{lrrrrrrr}
682: \tablecolumns{8}
683: \tablewidth{0pc}
684: \tablenum{3}
685: \tablecaption{Supplemental Line Data}
686: \tablehead{
687: \colhead{Species} & \colhead{$\lambda$} & \colhead{$\chi$} & \colhead{log $gf$} & \colhead{Sun} & \colhead{HD75935} & \colhead{HD59747} & \colhead{HD173950} \\
688: \colhead{ } & \colhead{\AA} & \colhead{eV} & \colhead{ } & \colhead{EW(m{\AA})} & \colhead{EW(m{\AA})} & \colhead{EW(m{\AA})} & \colhead{EW(m{\AA})}
689: }
690: \startdata
691: \ion{Ca}{1} & 6417.69\tablenotemark{a} & 4.44 & -0.75 & 15.0 & 18.0 & 22.6 & 19.3 \\
692: & 6449.82 & 2.52 & -0.62 & 109.0 & 134.0 & 156.9 & 145.7 \\
693: & 6455.61 & 2.52 & -1.50 & 58.9 & 75.0 & 93.4 & 82.5 \\
694: & 6464.68 & 2.52 & -2.53 & 15.2 & 22.6 & 34.9 & 27.4 \\
695: & 6499.65 & 2.52 & -1.00 & 89.7 & 111.0 & 126.5 & 121.7 \\
696: \ion{Cr}{1} & 6330.10 & 0.94 & -2.99 & 30.8 & 51.2 & 71.8 & 59.3 \\
697: & 6661.08 & 4.19 & -0.24 & 13.0 & \nodata & 28.1 & 23.6 \\
698: & 6729.75 & 4.39 & -0.66 & 3.6 & 5.4 & 6.7 & 5.8 \\
699: \ion{Fe}{1} & 6498.95 & 0.96 & -4.70 & 50.0 & 69.2 & 83.5 & 75.1 \\
700: & 6608.04 & 2.28 & -4.02 & 19.7 & 31.3 & 40.1 & 33.9 \\
701: & 6609.12 & 2.56 & -2.67 & 71.1 & 87.7 & 99.9 & 90.8 \\
702: \ion{Fe}{2} & 6416.93 & 3.89 & -2.86 & 45.2 & 39.5 & 34.6 & 32.0 \\
703: \ion{Ni}{1} & 6327.60 & 1.68 & -3.23 & 40.6 & 54.0 & 60.5 & 49.2 \\
704: & 6378.26 & 4.15 & -1.00 & 34.3 & 37.6 & 38.3 & 34.6 \\
705: & 6414.59 & 4.15 & -1.29 & 20.0 & 23.9 & 21.2 & 20.6 \\
706: & 6482.81 & 1.93 & -2.97 & 45.1 & 52.8 & 57.2 & \nodata \\
707: & 6532.88 & 1.93 & -3.47 & 18.4 & 27.6 & 31.3 & 23.5 \\
708: & 6598.61 & 4.23 & -1.02 & 27.5 & 31.8 & 28.5 & 27.5 \\
709: & 6635.14 & 4.42 & -0.87 & 27.3 & 29.7 & 28.0 & 24.8 \\
710: & 6767.78 & 1.83 & -1.89 & 83.5 & 94.3 & 105.4 & 95.6 \\
711: \tablenotetext{a}{Appears clean in the Sun, but blended to the red in the cool UMa stars. This is
712: accounted for in the measured equivalent widths by reflecting fit to the blue side of the line profile.}
713: \enddata
714: \end{deluxetable}
715:
716: %%TABLE4
717: %\documentclass{aastex}
718: %\begin{document}
719: \begin{deluxetable}{lrrrrr}
720: \tablecolumns{6}
721: \tablewidth{0pc}
722: \tablenum{4}
723: \tablecaption{Supplemental Abundance Results}
724: \tablehead{
725: \colhead{Species} & \colhead{$\lambda$} & \colhead{Sun} & \colhead{HD75935} & \colhead{HD59747} & \colhead{HD173950} \\
726: \colhead{ } & \colhead{\AA} & \colhead{log $N$} & \colhead{[X/H]} & \colhead{[X/H]} & \colhead{[X/H]}
727: }
728: \startdata
729: \ion{Ca}{1} & 6417.69 & 6.63 & -0.10 & -0.07 & -0.13 \\
730: & 6449.82 & 6.31 & -0.24 & -0.31 & -0.33 \\
731: & 6455.61 & 6.44 & -0.19 & -0.16 & -0.24 \\
732: & 6464.68 & 6.59 & -0.20 & -0.15 & -0.23 \\
733: & 6499.65 & 6.41 & -0.19 & -0.28 & -0.27 \\
734: mean [Ca/H] & & & -0.18 & -0.19 & -0.24 \\
735: std dev & & & 0.051 & 0.099 & 0.073 \\
736: \ion{Cr}{1} & 6330.10 & 5.78 & -0.27 & -0.20 & -0.23 \\
737: & 6661.08 & 5.71 & \nodata & -0.01 & -0.08 \\
738: & 6729.75 & 5.71 & -0.08 & -0.08 & -0.12 \\
739: mean [Cr/H] & & & -0.18 & -0.10 & -0.14 \\
740: std dev & & & \nodata & 0.096 & 0.077 \\
741: \ion{Fe}{1} & 6498.95 & 7.54 & -0.20 & -0.10 & -0.23 \\
742: & 6608.04 & 7.57 & -0.15 & -0.07 & -0.19 \\
743: & 6609.12 & 7.49 & -0.10 & -0.03 & -0.16 \\
744: mean [Fe/H]\tablenotemark{a} & & & -0.10 & -0.00 & -0.16 \\
745: std dev & & & 0.052 & 0.055 & 0.042 \\
746: \ion{Fe}{2} & 6416.93 & 7.75 & +0.40 & +0.59 & +0.37 \\
747: \ion{Ni}{1} & 6327.60 & 6.37 & -0.05 & +0.01 & -0.22 \\
748: & 6378.26 & 6.44 & -0.04 & +0.01 & -0.10 \\
749: & 6414.59 & 6.40 & 0.00 & -0.03 & -0.09 \\
750: & 6482.81 & 6.43 & -0.13 & -0.10 & \nodata \\
751: & 6532.88 & 6.36 & -0.02 & -0.03 & -0.23 \\
752: & 6598.61 & 6.38 & 0.00 & -0.02 & -0.09 \\
753: & 6635.14 & 6.41 & -0.03 & -0.02 & -0.13 \\
754: & 6767.78 & 5.92 & -0.11 & -0.03 & -0.18 \\
755: mean [Ni/H] & & & -0.05 & -0.03 & -0.15 \\
756: std dev & & & 0.048 & 0.034 & 0.061 \\
757: \tablenotetext{a}{Includes the results for Fe features in Table2.}
758: \enddata
759: \end{deluxetable}
760:
761: %%TABLE5
762: \begin{deluxetable}{lrrr}
763: \tablecolumns{4}
764: \tablewidth{0pc}
765: \tablenum{5}
766: \tablecaption{UMa LTE \ion{O}{1} Abundances}
767: \tablehead{
768: \colhead{Quantity} & \colhead{${\lambda}7772$} & \colhead{${\lambda}7774$} & \colhead{${\lambda}7775$}
769: }
770: \startdata
771: log $gf$ & +0.333 & +0.186 & -0.035 \\
772: Solar EW(m{\AA}) & 73.7 & 63.8 & 50.1 \\
773: log $N$(O)$_{\odot}$ & 8.94 & 8.93 & 8.91 \\
774: HD28495 EW & 52.2 & 42.7 & 32.4 \\
775: $[{\rm O/H}]$ & +0.31 & +0.29 & +0.30 \\
776: HD59747 EW & 30.9 & 28.0 & 18.5 \\
777: $[{\rm O/H}]$ & +0.32 & +0.39 & +0.32 \\
778: HD63433 EW & 65.8 & 58.1 & 45.5 \\
779: $[{\rm O/H}]$ & +0.14 & +0.17 & +0.19 \\
780: HD75935 EW & 49.0 & 42.3 & 33.1 \\
781: $[{\rm O/H}]$ & +0.33 & +0.36 & +0.39 \\
782: HD167389 EW & 82.0 & 71.5 & 55.6 \\
783: $[{\rm O/H}]$ & +0.07 & +0.07 & +0.07 \\
784: HD173950 EW & 33.8 & 28.0 & 23.3 \\
785: $[{\rm O/H}]$ & +0.25 & +0.25 & +0.35 \\
786: \enddata
787: \end{deluxetable}
788:
789: %%TABLE6
790: \begin{deluxetable}{lrrrr}
791: \tablecolumns{5}
792: \tablewidth{0pc}
793: \tablenum{6}
794: \tablecaption{UMa \ion{Fe}{2} Abundances}
795: \tablehead{
796: \colhead{Quantity} & \colhead{${\lambda}6149.25$} & \colhead{${\lambda}6247.56$} & \colhead{${\lambda}6416.93$} & \colhead{${\lambda}6456.39$}
797: }
798: \startdata
799: log $gf$ & -2.72 & -2.31 & -2.86 & -2.08 \\
800: Solar EW(m{\AA}) & 38.2 & 56.6 & 45.2 & 67.7 \\
801: log $N$(Fe)$_{\odot}$ & 7.47 & 7.44 & 7.75 & 7.43 \\
802: HD28495 EW & 28.7 & 46.3 & 34.7 & 59.1 \\
803: $[{\rm Fe/H}]$ & +0.18 & +0.23 & +0.19 & +0.28 \\
804: HD59747 EW & 22.2 & 32.7 & 34.6 & 43.1 \\
805: $[{\rm Fe/H}]$ & +0.35 & +0.30 & +0.59 & +0.35 \\
806: HD63433 EW & 40.7 & 55.1 & 41.6 & 67.6 \\
807: $[{\rm Fe/H}]$ & +0.23 & +0.16 & +0.10 & +0.19 \\
808: HD75935 EW & 29.8 & 49.1 & 39.5 & 57.8 \\
809: $[{\rm Fe/H}]$ & +0.29 & +0.38 & +0.40 & +0.35 \\
810: HD167389 EW & 40.2 & 62.0 & 43.8 & 72.2 \\
811: $[{\rm Fe/H}]$ & +0.03 & +0.10 & -0.04 & +0.08 \\
812: HD173950 EW & 20.6 & 34.2 & 32.0 & 45.3 \\
813: $[{\rm Fe/H}]$ & +0.16 & +0.19 & +0.37 & +0.25 \\
814: \enddata
815: \end{deluxetable}
816:
817:
818:
819: %%TABLE 7
820: %\documentclass{aastex}
821: %\begin{document}
822: \begin{deluxetable}{lrrrrrcccccc}
823: \tablecolumns{12}
824: \tablewidth{0pc}
825: \tablenum{7}
826: \tablecaption{UMa Group Li Data}
827: \tablehead{
828: \colhead{Star} & \colhead{[Fe/H]} & \colhead{[Fe/H]} & \colhead{$(B-V)$} & \colhead{$T_{\rm eff}$} & \colhead{EW(Li)} & \colhead{Li Ref} &
829: \colhead{log N(Li)} & \colhead{log $R'_{\rm HK}$} & \colhead{Ref} &
830: \colhead{$v$ sin $i$} & \colhead{Ref} \\
831: \colhead{HD} & \colhead{Phot} & \colhead{Spect} & \colhead{ } & \colhead{K} & \colhead{m{\AA}} & \colhead{ } & \colhead{LTE} & \colhead{ } & \colhead{ } & \colhead{km/s} & \colhead{ }
832: }
833: \startdata
834: 11131 & -0.27 & -0.10 & 0.638 & 5692${\pm}34$ & 67.5 & 1,2 & & $-4.50$ & 3,4,5 & $3.5$ & 6 \\
835: & & & & & 78.0\tablenotemark{a} & 7,8,9 & 2.38${\pm}0.04$ & & & & \\
836: 13959A & & & 0.995 & 4570${\pm}150$ & ${\le}6$\tablenotemark{b} & 1 & ${\le}-0.38{\pm}0.32$ & $-4.35$ & 6 & $5.0$ & 6 \\
837: 26923 & -0.08 & +0.08 & 0.582 & 5904${\pm}31$ & 84.3 & 1,2,10,11 & 2.69${\pm}0.03$ & $-4.50$ & 2,3,6 & $4.0$ & 2,6,11,12 \\
838: 38393 & +0.01 & -0.07 & 0.495 & 6252${\pm}12$ & 66.5 & 13,14 & & $-4.77$ & 3 & $8.7$ & 15 \\
839: & & & & & 58.5\tablenotemark{a} & 1,16 & $2.82{\pm}0.03$ & & & & \\
840: 38392 & & & 0.954 & 4678${\pm}24$ & ${\le}3$ & 1,16 & ${\le}-0.54{\pm}0.19$ & $-4.48$ & 5,17,18 & $1.8$ & 17 \\
841: 39587 & -0.06 & -0.04 & 0.597 & 5847${\pm}12$ & 100.3 & 14,19 & & $-4.41$ & 3,6 & $7.5$ & 6, 20 \\
842: & & & & & 102.8\tablenotemark{a} & 1,8 & 2.74${\pm}0.02$ & & & & \\
843: 72905 & -0.20 & -0.05 & 0.616 & 5774${\pm}15$ & 108.5 & 2 & & $-4.37$ & 2,3,6 & $9.3$ & 2,6,21 \\
844: & & & & & 116.9\tablenotemark{a} & 1,8,22,23 & 2.75${\pm}0.05$ & & & & \\
845: 109011 & & & 0.948 & 4695${\pm}30$ & 23.4 & 1,2 & 0.55${\pm}0.04$ & $-4.37$ & 2,3,6 & $5.4$ & 2,6 \\
846: 109647 & & & 0.967 & 4644${\pm}37$ & 25.0 & 1 & 0.49${\pm}0.15$ & $-4.45$\tablenotemark{c} & 3,18 & $2.3$ & 6 \\
847: 109799 & -0.24 & -0.08 & 0.336 & 6926${\pm}26$ & 56.0\tablenotemark{a} & 8 & 3.26${\pm}0.03$ & $-4.36$\tablenotemark{d} & 24 & $0.0$ & 25 \\
848: 110463 & & & 0.974 & 4625${\pm}37$ & 18.0 & 1 & 0.31${\pm}0.06$ & $-4.43$\tablenotemark{c} & 3,6,26 & $2.1$ & 6 \\
849: 111456 & -0.18 & & 0.480 & 6313${\pm}12$ & 36\tablenotemark{a} & 1 & 2.54${\pm}0.05$ & $-4.38$\tablenotemark{d} & 6,24 & $35$ & 6 \\
850: 115043 & -0.19 & -0.03 & 0.610 & 5797${\pm}23$ & 77\tablenotemark{e} & 1 & & $-4.45$ & 3,6 & $7.5$ & 6\\
851: & & & & & 101\tablenotemark{a} & 22 & 2.61${\pm}0.08$ & & & & \\
852: 125451A & -0.02 & -0.02 & 0.402 & 6641${\pm}13$ & ${\le}3.9$\tablenotemark{a} & 8 & ${\le}1.750{\pm}0.20$ & $-4.37$\tablenotemark{d} & 24 & $43$ & 15,28 \\
853: 129798A & +0.00 & & 0.387 & 6706${\pm}22$ & ${\le}2.4$\tablenotemark{a} & 29 & ${\le}1.56{\pm}0.23$ & \nodata & & $43$ & 30 \\
854: 141003B & & & 0.99 & 4583${\pm}52$ & ${\le}2$ & 1 & ${\le}-0.76{\pm}0.26$ & $-4.38$\tablenotemark{c} & 18 & $3.3$ & 6 \\
855: 147584 & -0.08 & -0.19 & 0.554 & 6014${\pm}8$ & 101 & 31 & & $-4.56$ & 5 & $2.2$ & 32 \\
856: & & & & & 93 & 33 & $2.88{\pm}0.03$ & & & & \\
857: 165185 & -0.21 & -0.06 & 0.602 & 5827${\pm}23$ & 92.7 & 2 & & $-4.45$ & 2,3 & $7.2$ & 2 \\
858: & & & & & 93.0 & 1 & $2.68{\pm}0.03$ & & & & \\
859: 180777 & & & 0.311 & 7035${\pm}17$ & 45.4\tablenotemark{a} & 8 & $3.22{\pm}0.03$ & -4.34\tablenotemark{d} & 24 & 63 & 24 \\
860: 184960 & -0.32 & -0.14 & 0.492 & 6264${\pm}13$ & 57.0 & 1,34 & & $-5.07$\tablenotemark{c} & 18 & ${\le}7$ & 6 \\
861: & & & & & 61.6\tablenotemark{a} & 8 & $2.78{\pm}0.03$ & & & & \\
862: 211575 & +0.09 & & 0.455 & 6417${\pm}29$ & ${\le}2.7$ & 35 & ${\le}1.37{\pm}0.15$ & $-4.71$ & 36 & $18$ & 37 \\
863: \cline{1-10}
864: New Data & & & & & & & & & \\
865: 28495 & -0.41 & -0.18 & 0.772 & 5222${\pm}36$ & 71.5 & 38 & $1.86{\pm}0.05$ & $-4.39$ & 3 & & \\
866: 59747 & -0.14 & -0.00 & 0.867 & 4925${\pm}57$ & 41.0 & 39 & $1.16{\pm}0.07$ & $-4.44$ & 3 & & \\
867: 63433 & -0.10 & -0.04 & 0.676 & 5553${\pm}36$ & 99.6 & 39 & $2.40{\pm}0.04$ & $-4.42$ & 3 & & \\
868: 75935 & & -0.10 & 0.785 & 5180${\pm}59$ & 21.9 & 39 & $1.11{\pm}0.07$ & $-4.44$ & 3 & & \\
869: 81659 & +0.13 & +0.06 & 0.700 & 5467${\pm}49$ & 17.2 & 39 & $1.32{\pm}0.09$ & $-4.57$ & 3 & & \\
870: 167389 & -0.11 & -0.04 & 0.602 & 5827${\pm}38$ & 58.8 & 38 & $2.41{\pm}0.04$ & $-4.74$ & 3 & & \\
871: 173950 & -0.43 & -0.16 & 0.841 & 5004${\pm}43$ & 5.8 & 38 & $0.24{\pm}0.10$ & $-4.46$ & 3 & & \\
872: \enddata
873: \tablerefs{
874: (1) Soderblom et al.~(1993); (2) Gaidos, Henry \& Henry (2000); (3) King et al.~(2003);
875: (4) Tinney et al.~(2002); (5) Henry et al.~(1996); (6) Soderblom \& Mayor (1993a);
876: (7) Pallavicini, Randich, \& Giampapa (1992); (8) Boesgaard, Budge \& Burck (1988);
877: (9) Boesgaard \& Tripicco (1987); (10) Favata et al.~(1995); (11) Randich et al.~(1999);
878: (12) L{\`e}bre et al.~(1999); (13) Soderblom, King \& Henry (1998); (14) Chen et al.~(2001);
879: (15) Soderblom, Pendleton \& Pallavicini (1989) ; (16) Pallavicini, Cerruti-Sola \& Duncan (1987);
880: (17) Soderblom \& Mayor (1993b); (18) Soderblom \& Clements (1987); (19) Lambert, Heath \& Edvardsson (1991);
881: (20) Strassmeier et al.~(1990); (21) Fekel (1997); (22) Montes et al.~(2001);
882: (23) Wichmann, Schmitt \& Hubrig (2003); (24) Simon \& Landsman (1991); (25) Uesugi \& Fukuda (1970);
883: (26) Strassmeier et al.~(2000); (28) de Medeiros \& Mayor (1999); (29) Russell (1995)
884: (30) Royer et al.~(2002); (31) Rebolo et al.~(1986); (32) Saar \& Osten (1997);
885: (33) Soderblom (1985); (34) Balachandran (1990); (35) Deliyannis et al.~(1998);
886: (36) Soderblom, Duncan, \& Johnson (1991); (37) Wolff \& Simon (1997); (38) McDonald 2.7-m; (39) KPNO 4-m
887: }
888:
889: \tablenotetext{a}{Equivalent width measurement contains a contribution from the nearby 6707.4{\AA} \ion{Fe}{1}$+$CN blending features}
890: \tablenotetext{b}{Review of the resolved photometry in Fabricius \& Makarov (2000) suggests the close components
891: of HD 13959AB have near equal brightness at 6700 {\AA}. The original equivalent width upper limit has thus been
892: doubled to account for continuum dilution.}
893: \tablenotetext{c}{The log R'$_{hk}$ index from (18) has been transformed to log R'$_{HK}$ using their relations.}
894: \tablenotetext{d}{The log R'$_{1335}$ index from (24) has been transformed to log R'$_{hk}$ and then to log R'$_{HK}$ using the relations in (18).}
895: \tablenotetext{e}{The 77 m{\AA} equivalent width from (1) differs substantially from the Fe-corrected equivalent width of 96 m{\AA} from (22).}
896:
897: \end{deluxetable}
898: \end{document}
899: