4.6 Article

Evolution of the Milky Way with radial motions of stars and gas II. The evolution of abundance profiles from H to Ni

期刊

ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS
卷 580, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

EDP SCIENCES S A
DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424599

关键词

Galaxy: general; Galaxy: abundances; Galaxy: disk; Galaxy: evolution

资金

  1. European Union under REA [PITN-GA-2011-289313]
  2. CNES (Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales - France)
  3. PNCG (Programme National Cosmologie et Galaxies - France)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims. We study the role of the radial motions of stars and gas on the evolution of abundance profiles in the Milky Way disk. We investigate, in a parametrized way, the impact of radial flows of gas and radial migration of stars induced mainly by the Galactic bar and its iteraction with the spiral arms. Methods. We use a model with several new or up-dated ingredients (atomic and molecular gas phases, star formation depending on molecular gas, recent sets of metallicity-dependent stellar yields from H to Ni, observationally inferred SNIa rates), which reproduces most global and local observables of the Milky Way well. Results. We obtain abundance profiles flattening both in the inner disk (because of radial flows) and in the outer disk (because of the adopted star formation law). The gas abundance profiles flatten with time, but the corresponding stellar profiles appear to be steeper for younger stars, because of radial migration. We find a correlation between the stellar abundance profiles and O/Fe, which is a proxy for stellar age. Our final abundance profiles are in overall agreement with observations, but slightly steeper (by 0.01-0.02 dex kpc(-1)) for elements above S. We find an interesting odd-even effect in the behaviour of the abundance profiles (steeper slopes for odd elements) for all sets of stellar yields; however, this behaviour does not appear in observations, suggesting that the effect is, perhaps, overestimated in current stellar nucleosynthesis calculations.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据