Paper detail

Stellar parameters and chemical abundances of 223 evolved stars with and without planets

We present fundamental stellar parameters and chemical abundances for a sample of 86 evolved stars with planets and for a control sample of 137 stars without planets. The analysis was based on both high S/N and resolution echelle spectra. The goals of this work are i) to investigate chemical differences between stars with and without planets; ii) to explore potential differences between the properties of the planets around giants and subgiants; and iii) to search for possible correlations between these properties and the chemical abundances of their host stars. In agreement with previous studies, we find that subgiants with planets are, on average, more metal-rich than subgiants without planets by ~ 0.16 dex. The [Fe/H] distribution of giants with planets is centered at slightly subsolar metallicities and there is no metallicity enhancement relative to the [Fe/H] distribution of giants without planets. Furthermore, contrary to recent results, we do not find any clear difference between the metallicity distributions of stars with and without planets for giants with M > 1.5 Msun. With regard to the other chemical elements, the analysis of the [X/Fe] distributions shows differences between giants with and without planets for some elements, particularly V, Co, and Ba. Analyzing the planet properties, some interesting trends might be emerging: i) multi-planet systems around evolved stars show a slight metallicity enhancement compared with single-planet systems; ii) planets with a $\lesssim$ 0.5 AU orbit subgiants with [Fe/H] > 0 and giants hosting planets with a $\lesssim$ 1 AU have [Fe/H] < 0; iii) higher-mass planets tend to orbit more metal-poor giants with M < 1.5 Msun, whereas planets around subgiants seem to follow the planet-mass metallicity trend observed on dwarf hosts; iv) planets orbiting giants show lower orbital eccentricities than those orbiting subgiants and dwarfs.

preprint2014arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access8 authors2 topics

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.