1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2:
3: \newcommand{\teff}{$T_{\mathrm{eff}}$}
4: \newcommand{\teffs}{$T_{\mathrm{eff}} \;$}
5:
6: \begin{document}
7:
8: \title{HIGH-RESOLUTION SPECTROSCOPY OF THE PLANETARY HOST HD 13189:
9: HIGHLY-EVOLVED AND METAL-POOR\altaffilmark{1}}
10:
11: \altaffiltext{1}{Based on observations obtained at the 2-m Alfred Jensch
12: telescope at the Th{\"u}ringer Landessternwarte Tautenburg, Tautenburg,
13: Germany.}
14:
15: \author{Simon C. Schuler\altaffilmark{2}, James H. Kim \altaffilmark{2,3},
16: Michael C. Tinker, Jr.\altaffilmark{2}, Jeremy R. King\altaffilmark{2},
17: Artie P. Hatzes\altaffilmark{4}, AND Eike W. Guenther\altaffilmark{4}}
18: \affil{
19: \altaffiltext{2}{Department of Physics and Astronomy, Clemson University, 118
20: Kinard Laboratory, Clemson, SC, 29634; sschule@ces.clemson.edu,
21: jking2@clemson.edu, mtinker@ces.clemson.edu}
22: \altaffiltext{3}{Department of Astronomy, Boston University, 725 Commonwealth
23: Ave., Boston, MA, 02215; jimk818@bu.edu}
24: \altaffiltext{4}{Th{\"u}ringer Landessternwarte Tautenburg, Sternwarte 5,
25: D-07778 Tautenburg, Germany; artie@tls-tautenburg.de,
26: guenther@tls-tautenburg.de}}
27:
28: \begin{abstract}
29: We report on the abundances of 13 elements in the planetary host HD 13189, a
30: massive giant star. Abundances are found to be sub-solar, with ${\rm [Fe/H]} =
31: -0.58 \pm 0.04$; HD 13189 is one of the most metal-poor planetary hosts yet
32: discovered. Abundance ratios relative to Fe show no peculiarities with respect to
33: random field stars. A census of metallicities of the seven currently known
34: planet-harboring giants results in a distribution that is more metal-poor than the
35: well-known metal-rich distribution of main sequence (MS) planetary hosts. This
36: finding is discussed in terms of accretion of H-depleted material, one of the
37: possible mechanisms responsible for the high-metallicity distribution of MS stars
38: with planets. We estimate the mass of the HD 13189 progenitor to be $3.5 \;
39: M_{\sun}$ but cannot constrain this value to better than 2-6 $M_{\sun}$. A stellar
40: mass of $3.5 \; M_{\sun}$ implies a planetary mass of $m \sin i = 14.0 \pm 0.8 \;
41: M_{J}$, placing the companion at the planet/brown dwarf boundary. Given its
42: physical characteristics, the HD 13189 system is potentially unique among planetary
43: systems, and its continued investigation should provide invaluable data to
44: extrasolar planetary research.
45: \end{abstract}
46:
47: \keywords{stars:individual (HD 13189) --- planetary systems --- stars:early-type
48: --- stars:abundances --- stars:atmospheres --- stars:fundamental parameters}
49:
50:
51: \section{INTRODUCTION}
52: Ascertaining the physical properties of planetary host stars, the chemical
53: abundances thereof in particular, is a critical component of understanding the
54: formation and evolution of extrasolar planetary systems. Of the approximately
55: 131 stars presently known to harbor planets, Fe abundances have been derived for
56: no fewer than 117, with the abundances of numerous other elements having been
57: determined for many. The results of these abundance analyses have led to the now
58: well-known discovery that stars with planets tend to be metal-rich compared to
59: random field stars (e.g., Fischer \& Valenti 2005; Santos et al. 2005). Two
60: hypotheses have emerged as possible explanations of the planet-metallicity
61: correlation: accretion of H-depleted, rocky material by planetary hosts and
62: preferential planet formation in high-metallicity, proto-planetary disks. Both
63: of these propositions are discussed extensively in the pertinent literature
64: (e.g., Gonzalez 1997; Ida \& Lin 2004; Fischer \& Valenti 2005).
65:
66: An interesting consequence of the radial velocity (RV) method used currently to
67: detect extrasolar planets is the limited range of stellar spectral types of stars
68: chosen as targets. Planet searches generally focus on older, main sequence
69: (MS) late-F, G, and K dwarfs, because it is these stars that are bright enough to
70: obtain high signal-to-noise, high-resolution spectra, have an ample number of usable
71: spectral lines for the RV analyses, and have rotation rates and activity levels
72: that facilitate the detection of planets. Furthermore, there is potentially great
73: sociological significance in finding planets around stars like our Sun. While
74: unique challenges exist for finding planets around younger stars
75: and stars of earlier and later spectral types (e.g., Setiawan et al. 2003;
76: Paulson, Cochran, \& Hatzes 2004), the paucity of known planets in orbits around
77: these ``other'' stars prohibits a full elucidation of extrasolar planet formation
78: and evolution.
79:
80: Recognizing the importance of filling the gaps of the currently known planetary
81: host sample, a handful of groups have initiated dedicated surveys of low mass stars
82: \citep{2003AJ....126.3099E} and evolved G- and K-giants, the progenitors of which
83: were massive early-type MS dwarfs \citep{2003toed.conf..441H}. Most recently, the
84: Tautenburg Observatory Planet Search (TOPS) program, using the Alfred-Jensch 2-m
85: telescope at the Th{\"u}ringer Landessternwarte Tautenburg (TLS) with follow-up
86: observations with the 2.7-m Harlan J. Smith and Hobby Eberly (HET) telescopes at
87: The McDonald Observatory, has announced the discovery of a giant planet orbiting
88: the K2 II giant \object{HD 13189} (Hatzes et al. 2005; Paper I). Based on an
89: estimated luminosity of 3.6 $L_{\sun}$ and the evolutionary tracks of
90: \citet{1996A&AS..117..113G}, Paper I estimated a mass range of 2-7 $M_{\sun}$ for
91: the MS progenitor of HD 13189. Thus, HD 13189 may be the most massive star known
92: to harbor a planet. Here, we present the results of our abundance analysis of this
93: potentially unique planetary host.
94:
95:
96: \section{OBSERVATIONS AND DATA ANALYSIS}
97: Our abundance analysis makes use of two template spectra (spectra taken without an
98: iodine cell) obtained as part of the TOPS program on 2002 December 19 using the
99: Alfred-Jensch 2-m telescope and the high-resolution coud{\'e} echelle spectrometer
100: at TLS, located in Tautenburg, Germany. The spectrometer consists of an echelle
101: grating with $31.6 \; \mathrm{g} \; \mathrm{mm}^{-1}$ and a cross-dispersing grism;
102: the VISUAL grism has been used, along with a single 2048 x 2048 CCD detector with
103: $15 \; \micron$ pixels, providing a wavelength coverage of 4660-7410 {\AA}. Each
104: spectrum has a resolution of $R = 67,000$ and a typical signal-to-noise (S/N) ratio
105: of $\sim 115$. A standard data reduction process, which includes bias subtraction,
106: flatfielding, scattered light removal, extraction, and wavelength calibration,
107: using the usual routines within the {\sf IRAF} facility has been applied to the
108: spectra.
109:
110: The two individual HD 13189 spectra were co-added into a single, higher S/N
111: ratio ($\mathrm{S/N} \approx 160$) spectrum, and equivalent widths (EWs) were
112: measured by fitting lines with Gaussian or Voigt profiles using the one-dimensional
113: spectrum analysis package {\sf SPECTRE} \citep{1987BAAS...19.1129F}. Spectral line
114: selection was aided by the collection of \citet{1990A&AS...82..179T}; only lines
115: labeled as ``case a''- lines with estimated internal uncertainties of $\leq 0.05 \;
116: \mathrm{dex}$ in oscillator strengths ($\log gf$) and presumably free from blends
117: in the solar spectrum- were considered. The list was culled further by examining
118: each line in the spectrum of HD 13189 and eliminating those that were deemed to be
119: blended or otherwise unmeasurable. Our final line list, along with the measured
120: EWs for both HD 13189 and the Sun, is presented in Table 1. Solar EWs have been
121: measured in a high-quality ($R = 60,000$ and $\mathrm{S/N} = 1,000$) spectrum of
122: the daytime sky obtained with the 2.7-m Harlan J. Smith telescope at the McDonald
123: Observatory \citep{trip}.
124:
125: %\marginpar{Tab.~1}
126:
127: Stellar parameters have been determined spectroscopically via an iterative
128: process. The \teffs and $\xi$ are determined by adjusting their values until there
129: are no correlations between line-by-line [Fe/H]\footnotemark[5] abundances (as
130: derived from \ion{Fe}{1} lines) and excitation potential ($\chi$) and reduced EW
131: ($\log \mathrm{EW}/\lambda$), respectively. This method for determining \teffs and
132: $\xi$ is used often, but care must be taken to ensure that there is no ab
133: initio correlation between excitation potential and reduced EW, which can lead
134: to degenerate solutions. This is the case with our \ion{Fe}{1} list, which
135: consists of 86 lines. The list was trimmed until the correlation between
136: excitation potential and reduced EW was eliminated; this left 47 \ion{Fe}{1}
137: lines with a satisfactory range of excitation potentials ($0.91 \leq \chi \leq
138: 4.99 \; \mathrm{eV}$). Uncertainties in \teffs and $\xi$ ($1\sigma$) are
139: determined by adjusting the parameters until the corresponding correlation
140: coefficient has a $1\sigma$ significance. Finally, $\log g$ is fixed by
141: forcing Fe abundances derived from \ion{Fe}{1} and \ion{Fe}{2} lines into
142: agreement; the uncertainty in $\log g$ is based on the uncertainty in the
143: difference of the \ion{Fe}{1} and \ion{Fe}{2} abundances. The final stellar
144: parameters and uncertainties are given in Table 2. We note our derived
145: $\log g$ value supports the finding of Paper I that HD 13189 is a highly
146: evolved giant.
147:
148: %\marginpar{Tab.~2}
149:
150: \footnotetext[5]{The bracket notation is used to denote abundances relative to
151: solar values, e.g., $\mathrm{[Fe/H]} = \log \{N(Fe)/N(H)\}_{\star} - \log
152: \{N(Fe)/N(H)\}_{\sun}$, where $\log N(H) = 12.0$.}
153:
154: Abundances have been derived using the LTE stellar line analysis package {\sf MOOG}
155: (Sneden 1973; Sneden 2004, private communication). The {\sf abfind} driver was
156: used to force-fit abundances to the line-by-line EWs for all elements except O. We
157: have used the {\sf blends} driver to derive the abundance of O from the
158: $\lambda 6300$ [\ion{O}{1}] line, taking care to account for the non-negligible
159: contribution to the feature by a \ion{Ni}{1} blend (e.g., Allende Prieto et al.
160: 2001). The specifics of our O analysis follows that of \citet{forb}, which should
161: be consulted for details. Model atmospheres with the convective overshoot
162: approximation for HD 13189 and the Sun have been interpolated from the ATLAS9 grids
163: of Kurucz; the solar parameters $T_{\mathrm{eff}} = 5777 \; \mathrm{K}$,
164: $\log g = 4.44$, and $\xi = 1.25$ were adopted. Atomic parameters for all
165: transitions are from \citet{1990A&AS...82..179T}, except for those of Mg, which are
166: from the VALD database (Piskunov et al. 1995; Kupka et al. 1999; Ryabchikova et al.
167: 1999), and that of $\lambda 6300$ [\ion{O}{1}], which is from
168: \citet{2001ApJ...556L..63A}.
169:
170: Final absolute abundances for HD 13189 and the Sun are given in Table 1, and
171: the final stellar parameters, relative abundances, and uncertainties for HD
172: 13189 are presented in Table 2. The \ion{Fe}{1} abundances are derived with
173: the complete list of 86 lines. Relative abundances are the mean of a
174: line-by-line comparison with solar values, thus limiting the impact of
175: possibly inaccurate $gf$-values. Final abundance uncertainties are the quadratic
176: sum of the uncertainties related to the adopted stellar parameters- based on
177: sensitivities to arbitrary changes in \teff, $\log g$, and $\xi$- (Table
178: 3)- and uncertainties in the mean abundances. For Mn and O
179: abundances, which are based on a single feature, the final uncertainties
180: incorporate uncertainties in the solar abundances. Sensitivities to the
181: adopted C (important for molecular equilibrium calculations, primarily related
182: to CO) and Ni abundances are also included in the final O abundance
183: uncertainty. The final abundance uncertainties are on the order of 0.05-0.10 dex,
184: but larger uncertainties due to systematic errors, e.g., related to relative
185: differences in the atmospheric models, cannot be ruled out.
186:
187: %\marginpar{Tab.~3}
188:
189: \section{DISCUSSION}
190: The derived Fe abundance, [Fe/H] $= -0.58 \pm 0.04$, places HD 13189 in the
191: lower envelope of the planetary host metallicity distribution and makes HD
192: 13189 one of the most metal-poor planetary hosts yet discovered. Furthermore,
193: with a semi-major axis in the range 1.5-2.2 AU (Paper I), the planetary
194: companion of HD 13189 is the only one known to have a semi-major axis $> 1.0$
195: AU and orbit a star with a metallicity $< -0.40$, a combination that is
196: potentially important to understanding giant planet formation
197: \citep{2005ApJ...630.1107R}. Abundances of other elements considered here are
198: sub-solar, and the [m/Fe] ratios are unspectacular when compared to the general
199: field population (e.g., Edvardsson et al. 1993; Fulbright 2002). The
200: planet-metallicity correlation is one of the most scrutinized results to emerge
201: from extrasolar planet studies. \citet{2005ApJ...622.1102F} offer the most
202: thorough investigation of the correlation to date; their conclusion, based on a
203: uniform analysis of 850 stars with and without planets, is that gas giant planets
204: preferentially form in high-metallicity environments. Various groups have also
205: argued for this ``primordial'' scenario (e.g., Pinsonneault, DePoy, \& Coffee 2001;
206: Santos 2003), and there are two main pieces of evidence given in support. First,
207: there is no correlation between convection zone (CZ) depth and metallicity of
208: planetary hosts, an effect that is expected if accretion of H-depleted rocky
209: material has occurred. Second, the metallicity distribution of planet-harboring
210: subgiant stars does not differ from that of dwarfs; the deepening CZ of a subgiant
211: should dilute any accretion signatures that might have occurred.
212:
213: Despite the substantial evidence pointing to the primordial scenario for planetary
214: formation, data in support of the accretion of H-depleted rocky material
215: hypothesis also exist, albeit they are more sparse. \citet{1997MNRAS.285..403G}
216: was the first to report on the super-solar metallicities of planetary hosts and
217: to suggest the correlation may be a result of accretion. Shortly thereafter,
218: \citet{2001Natur.411..163I} detected $^6{\rm Li}$ in the metal-rich planetary
219: host HD 82943; $^6{\rm Li}$ is a volatile species that should be destroyed beyond
220: the level of observability in the atmospheres of solar-type stars during
221: pre-MS evolution (e.g., Proffitt \& Michaud 1989). Israelian et al. interpreted
222: the presence of $^6{\rm Li}$- which should be preserved in giant planets- in the
223: HD 82943 as possible evidence of accretion; the possibility of heightened $^6$Li
224: abundances in the atmospheres of stars that have engulfed rocky material was later
225: confirmed by \citet{2002A&A...386.1039M}. The $^6{\rm Li}$ detection was
226: subsequently challenged by \citet{2002MNRAS.335.1005R}, who questioned the atomic
227: data used by Israelian et al. In response, \citep{2003A&A...405..753I} reanalyzed
228: $^6{\rm Li}$ in HD 82943 using updated atomic data and confirmed their original
229: detection. Further evidence for the accretion hypothesis comes from the study of
230: Smith, Cunha, \& Lazzaro (2001), who found a trend of increasing abundance for
231: elements with increasing condensation temperatures ($T_{\rm c}$) for a small
232: subsample of planetary hosts. If accretion of rocky material has occurred, one
233: might expect the material to be rich in high-$T_{\rm c}$, refractory elements
234: compared to low-$T_{\rm c}$, volatile elements \citep{1997MNRAS.285..403G}.
235: However, similar $T_{\rm c}$-dependent abundance trends in planetary hosts have not
236: been found by others (e.g., Sadakane et al. 2002).
237:
238: Additional support for the accretion hypothesis may be emerging from the discovery
239: and analyses of giant stars with planetary companions. As of this writing, planets
240: are known to orbit two G-type and five K-type giants (including HD 13189), and
241: their metallicity distribution is not similar to that of planet-hosting dwarfs.
242: In Figure 1 we plot relative Fe abundances versus \teffs for the seven giants (red
243: circles) and for planet hosting dwarfs from Fischer \& Valenti (2005; black
244: circles), from Santos, Israelian, \& Mayor (2004; black squares), excluding
245: duplicates with Fischer \& Valenti, and from Santos et al. (2005; black triangles),
246: again excluding duplicates. The horizontal line represents the mean [Fe/H]
247: abundance of the combined, 126 dwarf sample. The giant data for HD 47536,
248: HD 59686, HD 137759, and HD 219449 are from \citet{2005PASJ...57..127S}, and data
249: for HD 11977 and HD 104985 are from \citet{2005A&A...437L..31S} and
250: \citet{2003ApJ...597L.157S}, respectively. In the combined dwarf sample,
251: $41.3\%$ have derived [Fe/H] abundances higher than $+0.20$ dex, and if the
252: giants follow the same metallicity distribution, we would expect $\sim 3$ to
253: have [Fe/H] abundances higher than $+0.20$ dex (see also Sadakane et al. 2005),
254: which is clearly not seen. If the dwarf and giant samples are drawn from the
255: same parent population, there is only a $0.6\%$ probability of obtaining the
256: observed metallicity distributions according to a two-sided Kolmogorov-Smirnov
257: test.
258:
259: %\marginpar{Fig.~1}
260:
261: While the sample of giant stars with planetary companions is not statistically
262: significant, the indication of a metallicity distribution that possibly
263: differs from that of dwarfs is intriguing. One possible explanation for the
264: difference is that the planet-metallicity correlation found for the dwarfs is a
265: result of accretion, and the giants have sufficiently diluted their atmospheres
266: via evolution-induced mixing. This conclusion, however, would be difficult to
267: reconcile with current results for subgiants (e.g., Fischer \& Valenti 2005).
268: Alternatively, planet formation may be sensitive to the mass of the host star,
269: independent of metallicity. The progenitors of G and K giants are early-type MS
270: dwarfs and would be more massive than the F, G, and K dwarfs known to have planets.
271: Thus, the current results for giants with planets would support a mass-dependent
272: planetary formation scenario. Furthermore, Fischer \& Valenti showed that the
273: occurrence of planets around stars increases linearly with stellar mass. However,
274: they also found a correlation of rising metallicity with increasing planetary host
275: mass and argued that the increased occurrence of planets around more massive stars is
276: most likely spurious. A larger number planets orbiting subgiant and giant stars
277: need to be analyzed in order to determine if either of these explanations are
278: plausible, or if the difference in metallicity distributions is due to other
279: effects, such as different planetary formation mechanisms (e.g., Chauvin et al.
280: 2005). Including more evolved stars in RV surveys is highly encouraged.
281:
282: Our analysis provides the opportunity to place further constraints on the mass of
283: HD 13189 from Paper I. The tracks of \citet{2000A&AS..141..371G} are plotted
284: in the \teff-$\log g$ plane in Figure 2; the position of HD 13189 is marked by
285: the open star. From our derived stellar parameters, we find a mass of
286: $M_{\star} = 3.5 \; M_{\sun}$ for HD 13189. Unfortunately, the range of
287: possible masses, $M_{\star} =$ 2-6 $M_{\sun}$, is not well-constrained due to
288: the uncertainty in the $\log g$ value and is not a significant improvement over
289: that given by Paper I. Adopting a stellar mass of 3.5 $M_{\sun}$, we find a
290: minimum companion mass of $14.0 \pm 0.8 \; M_J$, placing the companion at the
291: planet/brown dwarf boundary. HD 13189 and its companion are a potentially
292: unique system among planetary systems known today. The star has one of the
293: lowest metallicities and possibly the highest mass of all planetary hosts, and
294: the companion likely lies on the planet/brown dwarf boundary and has the largest
295: semi-major axis for a planet orbiting a significantly metal-poor star. Further
296: investigation of the HD 13189 system is needed to place more stringent
297: constraints on the mass of the two objects and should provide unparalleled data
298: in the effort to understand the formation and evolution of planetary systems.
299:
300: %\marginpar{Fig.~2}
301:
302: \acknowledgments
303: REU students J.H.K. and M.T. gratefully acknowledge the support of summer research
304: through the NSF-REU Award 0353849 to Clemson University. S.C.S. and J.R.K
305: acknowledge support for this work by grant AST 02-39518 to J.R.K. from NSF, as well
306: as a generous grant from the Charles Curry Foundation to Clemson University.
307:
308: \clearpage
309: %The Bibliography
310: \begin{thebibliography}{}
311: \bibitem[Allende Prieto et al.(2001)]{2001ApJ...556L..63A}
312: Allende Prieto, C., Lambert, D.~L., \& Asplund, M.\ 2001, \apjl, 556, L63
313: \bibitem[Chauvin et al.(2005)]{2005A&A...438L..29C} Chauvin, G.~ et al.\
314: 2005, \aap, 438, L29
315: \bibitem[Edvardsson et al.(1993)]{1993A&A...275..101E} Edvardsson, B.,
316: Andersen, J., Gustafsson, B., Lambert, D.~L., Nissen, P.~E., \& Tomkin, J.\
317: 1993, \aap, 275, 101
318: \bibitem[Endl et al.(2003)]{2003AJ....126.3099E} Endl, M., Cochran, W.~D.,
319: Tull, R.~G., \& MacQueen, P.~J.\ 2003, \aj, 126, 3099
320: \bibitem[Fischer \& Valenti(2005)]{2005ApJ...622.1102F} Fischer, D.~A. \&
321: Valenti, J.\ 2005, \apj, 622, 1102
322: \bibitem[Fitzpatrick \& Sneden(1987)]{1987BAAS...19.1129F} Fitzpatrick,
323: M.~J.~\& Sneden, C.\ 1987, \baas, 19, 1129
324: \bibitem[Fulbright(2002)]{2002AJ....123..404F} Fulbright, J.~P.\ 2002, \aj,
325: 123, 404
326: \bibitem[Girardi et al.(1996)]{1996A&AS..117..113G} Girardi, L., Bressan,
327: A., Chiosi, C., Bertelli, G., \& Nasi, E.\ 1996, \aaps, 117, 113
328: \bibitem[Girardi et al.(2000)]{2000A&AS..141..371G} Girardi, L., Bressan,
329: A., Bertelli, G., \& Chiosi, C.\ 2000, \aaps, 141, 371
330: \bibitem[Gonzalez(1997)]{1997MNRAS.285..403G} Gonzalez, G.\ 1997, \mnras,
331: 285, 403
332: \bibitem[Hatzes et al.(2003)]{2003toed.conf..441H} Hatzes, A.~P., Guenther,
333: E., K{\" u}rster, M., \& McArthur, B.\ 2003, ESA SP-539: Earths: DARWIN/TPF
334: and the Search for Extrasolar Terrestrial Planets, 441
335: \bibitem[Hatzes et al.(2005)]{2005A&A...437..743H} Hatzes, A.~P., Guenther,
336: E.~W., Endl, M., Cochran, W.~D., D{\"o}llinger, M.~P., \& Bedalov, A.\
337: 2005, \aap, 437, 743 (Paper I)
338: \bibitem[Ida \& Lin(2004)]{2004ApJ...616..567I} Ida, S.~ \& Lin, D.~N.~C.\
339: 2004, \apj, 616, 567
340: \bibitem[Israelian et al.(2001)]{2001Natur.411..163I} Israelian, G.,
341: Santos, N.~C., Mayor, M., \& Rebolo, R.\ 2001, \nat, 411, 163
342: \bibitem[Israelian et al.(2003)]{2003A&A...405..753I} Israelian, G.,
343: Santos, N.~C., Mayor, M., \& Rebolo, R.\ 2003, \aap, 405, 753
344: \bibitem[Kupka et al.(1999)]{1999A&AS..138..119K} Kupka, F., Piskunov, N.,
345: Ryabchikova, T.~A., Stempels, H.~C., \& Weiss, W.~W.\ 1999, \aaps, 138, 119
346: \bibitem[Montalb{\' a}n \& Rebolo(2002)]{2002A&A...386.1039M} Montalb{\'
347: a}n, J.~ \& Rebolo, R.\ 2002, \aap, 386, 1039
348: \bibitem[Paulson et al.(2004)]{2004AJ....127.3579P} Paulson, D.~B.,
349: Cochran, W.~D., \& Hatzes, A.~P.\ 2004, \aj, 127, 3579
350: \bibitem[Pinsonneault et al.(2001)]{2001ApJ...556L..59P} Pinsonneault,
351: M.~H., DePoy, D.~L., \& Coffee, M.\ 2001, \apjl, 556, L59
352: \bibitem[Piskunov et al.(1995)]{1995A&AS..112..525P} Piskunov, N.~E.,
353: Kupka, F., Ryabchikova, T.~A., Weiss, W.~W., \& Jeffery, C.~S.\ 1995,
354: \aaps, 112, 525
355: \bibitem[Proffitt \& Michaud(1989)]{1989ApJ...346..976P} Proffitt, C.~R.~
356: \& Michaud, G.\ 1989, \apj, 346, 976
357: \bibitem[Reddy et al.(2002)]{2002MNRAS.335.1005R} Reddy, B.~E., Lambert,
358: D.~L., Laws, C., Gonzalez, G., \& Covey, K.\ 2002, \mnras, 335, 1005
359: \bibitem[Rice \& Armitage(2005)]{2005ApJ...630.1107R} Rice, W.~K.~M. \&
360: Armitage, P.~J.\ 2005, \apj, 630, 1107
361: \bibitem[Ryabchikova, T.A. et al.(1999)]{rya}Ryabchikova, T.A., Piskunov, N.E.,
362: Stempels, H.C., Kupka, F., \& Weiss, W.W. 1999, Proc. of the 6th Intern. Colloq.
363: on Atomic Spectra and Oscillator Strengths, Victoria, BC, Canada, 1998, Physica
364: Scripta, T83, 162
365: \bibitem[Sadakane et al.(2002)]{2002PASJ...54..911S} Sadakane, K., Ohkubo,
366: M., Takeda, Y., Sato, B., Kambe, E., \& Aoki, W.\ 2002, \pasj, 54, 911
367: \bibitem[Sadakane et al.(2005)]{2005PASJ...57..127S} Sadakane, K., Ohnishi,
368: T., Ohkubo, M., \& Takeda, Y.\ 2005, \pasj, 57, 127
369: \bibitem[Santos et al.(2003)]{2003A&A...398..363S} Santos, N.~C.,
370: Israelian, G., Mayor, M., Rebolo, R., \& Udry, S.\ 2003, \aap, 398, 363
371: \bibitem[Santos et al.(2004)]{2004A&A...415.1153S} Santos, N.~C.,
372: Israelian, G., \& Mayor, M.\ 2004, \aap, 415, 1153
373: \bibitem[Santos et al.(2005)]{2005A&A...437.1127S} Santos, N.~C.,
374: Israelian, G., Mayor, M., Bento, J.~P., Almeida, P.~C., Sousa, S.~G., \&
375: Ecuvillon, A.\ 2005, \aap, 437, 1127
376: \bibitem[Sato et al.(2003)]{2003ApJ...597L.157S} Sato, B., et al.\ 2003,
377: \apjl, 597, L157
378: \bibitem[Schuler et al.(2005a)]{forb}Schuler, S.~C., Hatzes, A.~P., King, J.~R.,
379: K{\"u}rster, M., Booesgaard, A.~M., and The, L.~-S. \ 2005a, AJ, submitted
380: \bibitem[Schuler et al.(2005b)]{trip}Schuler, S.~C., King, J.~R., Terndrup,
381: D.~M., Pinsonneault, M.~H., Murray, N., \& Hobbs, L.~M. \ 2005b, \apj, submitted
382: \bibitem[Setiawan et al.(2003)]{2003A&A...397.1151S} Setiawan, J.,
383: Pasquini, L., da Silva, L., von der L{\" u}he, O., \& Hatzes, A.\ 2003,
384: \aap, 397, 1151
385: \bibitem[Setiawan et al.(2005)]{2005A&A...437L..31S} Setiawan, J.~ et al.\
386: 2005, \aap, 437, L31
387: \bibitem[Smith et al.(2001)]{2001AJ....121.3207S} Smith, V.~V., Cunha, K.,
388: \& Lazzaro, D.\ 2001, \aj, 121, 3207
389: \bibitem[Sneden(1973)]{1973ApJ...184..839S} Sneden, C.\ 1973, \apj, 184,
390: 839
391: \bibitem[Thevenin(1990)]{1990A&AS...82..179T} Thevenin, F.\ 1990, \aaps,
392: 82, 179
393: \end{thebibliography}
394:
395: \clearpage
396: %Tables
397: %Table 1
398: \begin{deluxetable}{lcrcrcrcrrcrr}
399: \tablecolumns{13}
400: \tablewidth{0pt}
401: \tablenum{1}
402: \tablecaption{Equivalent Widths AND Abundances}
403: \tablehead{
404: \colhead{}&
405: \colhead{}&
406: \colhead{$\lambda$}&
407: \colhead{}&
408: \colhead{$\chi$}&
409: \colhead{}&
410: \colhead{}&
411: \colhead{}&
412: \colhead{$\mathrm{EW}_{\sun}$}&
413: \colhead{}&
414: \colhead{}&
415: \colhead{EW}&
416: \colhead{}\\
417: \colhead{Species}&
418: \colhead{}&
419: \colhead{({\AA})}&
420: \colhead{}&
421: \colhead{(eV)}&
422: \colhead{}&
423: \colhead{$\log gf$}&
424: \colhead{}&
425: \colhead{(m{\AA})}&
426: \colhead{$\log N_{\sun}$}&
427: \colhead{}&
428: \colhead{(m{\AA})}&
429: \colhead{$\log N$}
430: }
431:
432: \startdata
433: \ion{Fe}{1}\dotfill && 5633.95 && 4.99 && -0.27 && 82.4 & 7.59 && 95.1 & 6.97\\
434: && 5705.47 && 4.30 && -1.57 && 40.1 & 7.60 && 82.7 & 7.14\\
435: && 5720.90 && 4.55 && -1.95 && 20.1 & 7.77 && 46.4 & 7.30\\
436: && 5731.77 && 4.26 && -1.19 && 59.7 & 7.54 && 97.1 & 6.92\\
437: && 5732.30 && 4.99 && -1.50 && 16.9 & 7.63 && 31.7 & 7.16\\
438: \enddata
439: \tablecomments{Table 1 is presented in its entirety in the electronic
440: edition of the {\it Astrophysical Journal}. A portion is provided here for
441: guidance regarding its form and content.}
442: \end{deluxetable}
443:
444: \clearpage
445: %Table 2
446: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccr}
447: \tablecolumns{5}
448: \tablewidth{0pt}
449: \tablenum{2}
450: \tablecaption{Final Results}
451: \tablehead{
452: \colhead{Parameter}&
453: \colhead{}&
454: \colhead{Value}&
455: \colhead{}&
456: \colhead{$\sigma$}
457: }
458:
459: \startdata
460: $T_{\mathrm{eff}} \; (\mathrm{K})\dotfill$ && 4180 && 77\\
461: $\log g \dotfill$ && 1.07 && 0.19\\
462: $\xi \; (\mathrm{km} \; \mathrm{s}^{-1})\dotfill$ && 2.12 && 0.22\\
463: && && \\
464: $\mathrm{[Fe/H]}\dotfill$ && -0.58 && 0.04\\
465: $\mathrm{[O/H]}\dotfill$ && -0.22 && 0.08\\
466: $\mathrm{[Na/H]}\dotfill$ && -0.31 && 0.06\\
467: $\mathrm{[Mg/H]}\dotfill$ && -0.21 && 0.05\\
468: $\mathrm{[Al/H]}\dotfill$ && -0.23 && 0.06\\
469: $\mathrm{[Si/H]}\dotfill$ && -0.36 && 0.07\\
470: $\mathrm{[Ca/H]}\dotfill$ && -0.49 && 0.07\\
471: $\mathrm{[Sc/H]}\dotfill$ && -0.52 && 0.07\\
472: $\mathrm{[Ti/H]}\dotfill$ && -0.42 && 0.07\\
473: $\mathrm{[V/H]}\dotfill$ && -0.38 && 0.12\\
474: $\mathrm{[Cr/H]}\dotfill$ && -0.47 && 0.09\\
475: $\mathrm{[Mn/H]}\dotfill$ && -0.58 && 0.09\\
476: $\mathrm{[Ni/H]}\dotfill$ && -0.57 && 0.04\\
477: \enddata
478: \end{deluxetable}
479:
480: \clearpage
481:
482: %Table 3
483: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccccc}
484: \tablecolumns{7}
485: \tablewidth{0pt}
486: \tablenum{3}
487: \tablecaption{Abundance Sensitivities}
488: \tablehead{
489: \colhead{}&
490: \colhead{}&
491: \colhead{$\Delta T_{\mathrm{eff}}$}&
492: \colhead{}&
493: \colhead{$\Delta \log g$}&
494: \colhead{}&
495: \colhead{$\Delta \xi$}\\
496: \colhead{Species}&
497: \colhead{}&
498: \colhead{$\pm 150 \; \mathrm{K}$}&
499: \colhead{}&
500: \colhead{$\pm 0.25 \; \mathrm{dex}$}&
501: \colhead{}&
502: \colhead{$\pm 0.30 \; \mathrm{km} \; \mathrm{s}^{-1}$}
503: }
504:
505: \startdata
506: \ion{Fe}{1}\dotfill && $^{+0.04}_{+0.02}$ && $\pm 0.05$ && $\mp 0.09$\\
507: \ion{Fe}{2}\dotfill && $\mp 0.25$ && $\pm 0.15$ && $\mp 0.06$\\
508: \ion{O}{1}\dotfill && $\pm 0.01$ && $\pm 0.08$ && $\mp 0.02$\\
509: \ion{Na}{1}\dotfill && $\pm 0.15$ && $^{+0.01}_{+0.02}$ && $\mp 0.09$\\
510: \ion{Mg}{1}\dotfill && $\pm 0.03$ && $\pm 0.02$ && $\mp 0.09$\\
511: \ion{Al}{1}\dotfill && $\pm 0.13$ && $\pm 0.00$ && $\mp 0.07$\\
512: \ion{Si}{1}\dotfill && $\mp 0.12$ && $\pm 0.07$ && $\mp 0.04$\\
513: \ion{Ca}{1}\dotfill && $\pm 0.18$ && $0.00$ && $\mp 0.10$\\
514: \ion{Sc}{2}\dotfill && $\mp 0.04$ && $\pm 0.11$ && $\mp 0.06$\\
515: \ion{Ti}{1}\dotfill && $\pm 0.23$ && $0.00$ && $\mp 0.09$\\
516: \ion{V}{1}\dotfill && $\pm 0.26$ && $\pm 0.02$ && $\mp 0.15$\\
517: \ion{Cr}{1}\dotfill && $\pm 0.12$ && $\pm 0.01$ && $\mp 0.08$\\
518: \ion{Mn}{1}\dotfill && $\pm 0.09$ && $\pm 0.03$ && $\mp 0.02$\\
519: \ion{Ni}{1}\dotfill && $\pm 0.02$ && $\pm 0.07$ && $\mp 0.10$\\
520: \enddata
521: \end{deluxetable}
522:
523: \clearpage
524:
525: %Figures
526: %Figure 1
527: \begin{figure}
528: \plotone{f1.eps}
529: \caption{Relative Fe abundances of giants (red circles) and dwarfs with
530: planetary companions versus \teff. The sources of the giant abundances and
531: \teffs other than those for HD 13189 are given in the text. Dwarf abundances
532: are from Fischer \& Valenti (2005; black circles), Santos, Israelian, \& Mayor
533: (2004; black squares), and Santos et al. (2005; black triangles). The
534: horizontal line represents the mean Fe abundance (${\rm [Fe/H]} = +0.13$) of
535: the dwarf sample.}
536: \end{figure}
537:
538: \clearpage
539:
540: %Figure 2
541: \begin{figure}
542: \plotone{f2.eps}
543: \caption{Evolutionary tracks of \citet{2000A&AS..141..371G} for (from top left
544: to bottom right) $M_{\star} = $ 1.5, 2.0, 3.0, 3.5, 4.0, 5.0, 6.0, and 7.0
545: $M_{\sun}$. The tracks are characterized by a metallicity of ${\rm [Fe/H]} =
546: -0.50$ or $Z \approx 0.008$. The open star with error bars marks the location
547: of HD 13189 in the \teff-$\log g$ plane.}
548: \end{figure}
549:
550:
551:
552: \end{document}
553: