4.5 Article

Post first dredge-up [C/N] ratio as age indicator. Theoretical calibration

期刊

ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS
卷 583, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

EDP SCIENCES S A
DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526951

关键词

convection; galaxies: formation; stars: abundances; stars: evolution; stars: interiors

资金

  1. PRIN-INAF
  2. Economy and Competitiveness Ministry of the Kingdom of Spain [AYA2013-42781-P]
  3. Science and Technology Facilities Council [ST/J001465/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  4. STFC [ST/J001465/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We performed a detailed analysis of the use of [C/N] measured in red giant branch stars between the completion of the first dredge up and the red giant branch bump ([C/N](FDU)) as age indicator. [C/N](FDU) cannot give accurate ages for individual stars, but may provide a general chronology for the formation of composite populations and add constraints to analyses of red giants from surface gravity-effective temperature diagrams. We provide a theoretical calibration of [C/N](FDU) in terms of total metallicity [M/H] and age, for ages greater than similar to 1 Gyr, which we tested against variations in the initial heavy element distribution (scaled-solar vs. alpha-enhanced), efficiency of overshooting from MS convective cores and from the convective envelopes, variations in the initial He abundance and in the mixing length parameter. Our calibration is compared with a small sample of available measurements of [C/N](FDU) in star clusters and halo field stars, which at least qualitatively confirm the overall trend of the predicted [C/N](FDU) with age and [M/H]. The use of [C/N](FDU)-[M/H]-age relations obtained from independent sets of stellar evolution calculations cause age differences (for a given [C/N] FDU and [M/H] pair) up to similar to 2 Gyr. More accurate spectroscopic measurements of [C/N](FDU) in star clusters with well-established ages and metallicities are required to better test theoretical calibrations of this age indicator.

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

4.5
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