Paper detail

Chemistry of the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy: a Top-Light IMF, Outflows and the R-Process

From chemical abundance analysis of stars in the Sagittarius dwarf spheroidal galaxy (Sgr), we conclude that the alpha-element deficiencies cannot be due to the Type Ia supernova (SNIa) time-delay scenario of Tinsley (1979). Instead, the evidence points to low [alpha/Fe] ratios resulting from an initial mass function (IMF) deficient in the highest mass stars. The critical evidence is the 0.4 dex deficiency of [O/Fe], [Mg/Fe] and other hydrostatic elements, contrasting with the normal trend of r-process [Eu/Fe]r with [Fe/H]. Supporting evidence comes from the hydrostatic element (O, Mg, Na, Al, Cu) [X/Fe] ratios, which are inconsistent with iron added to the Milky Way (MW) disk trends. Also, the ratio of hydrostatic to explosive (Si, Ca, Ti) element abundances suggests a relatively top-light IMF. Abundance similarities with the LMC, Fornax and IC 1613, suggest that their alpha-element deficiencies also resulted from IMFs lacking the most massive SNII. For such a top-light IMF, the normal trend of r-process [Eu/Fe]r with [Fe/H], as seen in Sgr, indicates that massive Type II supernovae (>30Msun) cannot be major sources of r-process elements. High [La/Y] ratios, consistent with leaky-box chemical evolution, are confirmed but ~0.3 dex larger than theoretical AGB predictions. This may be due to the 13C pocket mass, or a difference between MW and Sgr AGB stars. Sgr has the lowest [Rb/Zr] ratios known, consistent with low-mass (~2Msun) AGB stars near [Fe/H]=-0.6, likely resulting from leaky-box chemical evolution. The [Cu/O] trend in Sgr and the MW suggest that Cu yields increase with both metallicity and stellar mass, as expected from Cu production by the weak s-process in massive stars. Finally, we present an updated hfs line list, an abundance analysis of Arcturus, and further develop our error analysis formalism.

preprint2013arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.