Cited by 82Stellar, planetary, and galactic studiesAstronomy and Astrophysical ResearchGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena

C and N Abundances in Stars at the Base of the Red Giant Branch in M15

Open access
Cohen, Judith G., Briley, Michael M., Stetson, Peter B.·2005·The Astronomical Journal

Abstract

We present an analysis of a large sample of moderate-resolution Keck Low Resolution Imaging Spectrometer spectra of subgiants and stars at the base of the red giant branch (RGB) in the Galactic globular cluster (GC) M15 (NGC 7078), most within the range 16.5 < V < 19.5 (1.2 < M V < 4.2), with the goal of deriving C abundances (from the G band of CH) and N abundances (from the NH band at 3360 Å). Star-to-star stochastic variations with significant range in both [C/Fe] and [N/Fe] are found at all luminosities extending to the subgiants at M V ∼ +3. The C and N abundances appear anticorrelated, as would be expected from the CN-cycle processing of stellar material. Yet these M15 stars are considerably fainter than the RGB bump, the point at which deep mixing is believed to set in. On this basis, while the observed abundance pattern is consistent with proton-capture nucleosynthesis, we infer that the site of the reactions is likely not within the present sample. The range of variation of the N abundances is very large, and the sum of C + N increases as C decreases. To reproduce this requires the incorporation not only of CN but also of ON-processed material. Combining our work with that of Trefzger and coworkers for the brighter giants in M15, we find strong evidence for additional depletion of C among the most luminous giants. This presumably represents the first dredge-up (with enhanced deep mixing) expected for such luminous cluster RGB stars in the course of normal stellar evolution as they cross the RGB bump. We compare the behavior of these patterns for C and N in GCs covering a wide range of metallicity and current mass. While all clusters studied show strong anticorrelated variations of C and N at all luminosities probed, the metal-rich clusters (M71, 47 Tuc, and M5) do not show evidence for the first dredge-up among their most luminous giants, while the metal-poor ones (M13, M92, and M15, plus M5) do. Conversely, the metal-poor clusters do not show evidence for the bimodality in CH and CN line strengths seen in the metal-rich clusters. The collected data on C and N abundances in low-luminosity GC stars cannot be explained by the commonly invoked models for the chemical evolution of GC stars; in particular, "pollution" of existing low-mass stars by ejecta from intermediate-mass asymptotic giant branch (AGB) stars can be ruled out. Pollution of cluster gas by such stars prior to the formation of the lower mass stars we observe today can also be ruled out unless current models of nucleosynthesis and dredge-up into the surface layers of AGB stars are flawed; such models agree qualitatively but disagree quantitatively with our data. We are forced to assume that there was an extended period of star formation in GCs, and that a previous generation of more massive stars evolved, ejected mass, and polluted the GC gas with light elements; the low-mass stars we see today formed afterward. A tentative scenario is developed involving an initial phase of star formation heavily biased toward high-mass stars, with subsequent formation of intermediate-mass, then low-mass stars.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1086/431974

Cites

65 of 65 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cohen, J. G., Briley, M. M., & Stetson, P. B.
Affiliations
  • California Institute of Technology (US)
  • U.S. National Science Foundation (US)
  • Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics (CA)
Venue
The Astronomical Journal
Published
2005-09
Volume
130
Issue
3
Pages
1177-1193
ISSN
  • 0004-6256 (ISSN-L)
  • 1538-3881
OpenAlex
W2026833283
Cited by
82
References
65
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 9
FWCI
3.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Astronomical Journal (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • CaltechAUTHORS (California Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • CERN Document Server (European Organization for Nuclear Research) (submittedVersion)
  • NPARC (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
  • American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • National Aeronautics and Space Administration
  • W. M. Keck Foundation
  • U.S. Naval Observatory
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Stellar, planetary, and galactic studies
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Instrumentation › Astronomy and Astrophysical Research
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Galaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Keywords
M15, globular clusters, carbon abundance, nitrogen abundance, CN cycle, RGB bump, first dredge-up, deep mixing, subgiants, metallicity dependence, stellar abundances, M5, M71, M53, M13

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review