Updated stellar yields from asymptotic giant branch models

By A. Karakas. 2009

542 citations recorded by the source corpus.

An updated grid of stellar yields for low- to intermediate-mass thermally pulsing asymptotic giant branch (AGB) stars is presented. The models cover a range in metallicity Z = 0.02, 0.008, 0.004 and 0.0001, and masses between 1 and 6M ⊙ . New intermediate-mass (M ≥ 3 M ⊙ ) Z = 0.0001 AGB models are also presented, along with a finer mass grid than used in previous studies. The yields are computed using an updated reaction rate network that includes the latest NeNa and MgAl proton capture rates, with the main result that between ∼6 and 30 times less Na is produced by intermediate-mass models with hot bottom burning. In low-mass AGB models, we investigate the effect, on the production of light elements, of including some partial mixing of protons into the intershell region during the deepest extent of each third dredge-up episode. The protons are captured by the abundant 12 C to form a 13 C pocket. The 13 C pocket increases the yields of 19 F, 23 Na, the neutron-rich Mg and Si isotopes, 60 Fe and 31 P. The increase in 31 P is by factors of ∼4 to 20, depending on the metallicity. Any structural changes caused by the addition of the 13 C pocket into the He intershell are ignored. However, the models considered are of low mass and any such feedback is likely to be small. Further study is required to test the accuracy of the yields from the partial-mixing models. For each mass and metallicity, the yields are presented in a tabular form suitable for use in galactic chemical evolution studies or for comparison to the composition of planetary nebulae.

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics, Instrumentation, Statistical and Nonlinear Physics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/4396e6f11e82bacb8f5d179b7335125e51b5dd6e

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Astronomy and Astrophysics

In Instrumentation

In Statistical and Nonlinear Physics

Citations in the corpus

The Dawes Review 2: Nucleosynthesis and Stellar Yields of Low- and Intermediate-Mass Single Stars (2014, methodology): “Such low observed ratios are difficult to reconcile with standard AGB nucleosynthesis models, which produce very high 12C/13C ratios (> 103) at low metallicity (e.g., Karakas 2010; Cristallo et al. 2011; Lugaro et al. 2012).”
Simulating galaxy formation with the IllustrisTNG model (2017, methodology): “We do this by using the Karakas (2010) yields for the metallicity values Z ∈ [0.0001, 0.004, 0.008, 0.02] and for masses between 1 and 6 M .”
CHEMICAL ABUNDANCES FOR 855 GIANTS IN THE GLOBULAR CLUSTER OMEGA CENTAURI (NGC 5139) (2010, methodology): “…from external sources, then the currently favored production mechanisms are: (1) hot bottom burning in >5 M AGB stars (e.g., Ventura & D’Antona 2009; Karakas 2010), (2) hydrogen shell burning in now extinct but slightly more massive RGB stars (Denissenkov & Weiss 2004), and (3) core hydrogen…”
Nucleosynthesis in Stars and the Chemical Enrichment of Galaxies (2013, background): “With updated reactions rates, Na yields from AGB stars are reduced by a factor of ∼30 (Karakas 2010), and the Na overproduction problem (Fenner et al. 2004) by AGB stars is not seen.”
Europium production: neutron star mergers versus core-collapse supernovae (2013, background): “The adopted stellar yields are from Karakas (2010) and rest on detailed stellar evolutionary models.”
STELLAR YIELDS FROM METAL-RICH ASYMPTOTIC GIANT BRANCH MODELS (2016, methodology): “The prescription we use to include overshoot is the same as used by Karakas (2010) and Kamath et al. (2012), and extends the base of the envelope by Nov pressure scale heights during dredge-up.”
THE MOST METAL-POOR STARS. II. CHEMICAL ABUNDANCES OF 190 METAL-POOR STARS INCLUDING 10 NEW STARS WITH [Fe/H] ⩽ −3.5,, (2012, background): “…elements from AGB stars are strongly dependent on mass and metallicity, such that they may be good candidates for explaining part, or perhaps most, of the large range of C ands-process element abundances (e.g., Karakas & Lattanzio 2007; Karakas 2010; Cristallo et al. 2011; Lugaro et al. 2012).”
ON THE SOURCE OF THE DUST EXTINCTION IN TYPE Ia SUPERNOVAE AND THE DISCOVERY OF ANOMALOUSLY STRONG Na i ABSORPTION (2013, methodology): “This is because of the formation of a 13C pocket, a necessary ingredient for the production of s-process elements (see e.g., Mowlavi 1999; Cristallo et al. 2009; Karakas 2010).”
Wind Roche-lobe overflow: Application to carbon-enhanced metal-poor stars (2013, unknown): “Further justification for these assumptions is provided by recent detailed models that find dredge up for stellar mass down to 0.9 M at Z = 10−4 (see e.g. Stancliffe & Glebbeek 2008; Karakas 2010).”
Metallicity gradients in disks - Do galaxies form inside-out? (2012, background): “The chemical evolution implementation withingrape-SPH takes into account the metal-dependent nucleosynthetic byproducts of SNeII (Kobayashi et al. 2006), SNeIa (Nomoto et al. 1997), and low- and intermediate-mass AGB stars (Karakas 2010).”
Towards a more realistic population of bright spiral galaxies in cosmological simulations (2013, methodology): “To account for the mass recycling in the winds of asymptotic giant branch stars, we use the metal-dependent yields of Karakas (2010).”
The illustris simulation: Public data release (2015, unknown): “Portinari+ (1998) Karakas+ (2010)”
The Origin of Elements from Carbon to Uranium (2020, methodology): “…half of the light elements such as C, N, and F are produced by low- and intermediate-mass stars during their asymptotic giant branch (AGB) phase (Karakas 2010; Kobayashi et al. 2011b, hereafter K11; see also van den Hoek & Groenewegen 1997; Marigo 2001; Karakas & Lattanzio 2007; Cristallo et…”
EVOLUTION, NUCLEOSYNTHESIS, AND YIELDS OF AGB STARS AT DIFFERENT METALLICITIES. III. INTERMEDIATE-MASS MODELS, REVISED LOW-MASS MODELS, AND THE pH-FRUITY INTERFACE (2015, result): “A similar analysis, but for IMS-AGBs, can be found in Ventura et al. (2013), who compared their models with those published by Karakas (2010), as well as in Fishlock et al. (2014), who made a comparison with a subset of models presented by Straniero et al. (2014).”
Evolution of thermally pulsing asymptotic giant branch stars - I. The COLIBRI code (2013, background): “…of stellar structure with the aid of classical 1D stellar evolution codes, are becoming increasingly successful thanks to the speeding-up of modern processors, and to the particular care devoted to the nucleosynthesis (e.g. Ventura, D’Antona & Mazzitelli 2002; Cristallo et al. 2009; Karakas 2010).”
EVOLUTION, NUCLEOSYNTHESIS, AND YIELDS OF LOW-MASS ASYMPTOTIC GIANT BRANCH STARS AT DIFFERENT METALLICITIES (2009, methodology): “The Forestini & Charbonnel (1997) and the Karakas (2010) (hereafter K10) are the – 35 – – 36 – only papers we found in the literature in which yields from full stellar evolutionary AGB models have been discussed (we exclude synthetic yields from our analysis; see e.g. Groenewegen & De Jong 1994 and…”
First results from the IllustrisTNG simulations: a tale of two elements - chemical evolution of magnesium and europium (2017, methodology): “…ejected by SNIa, SNII and stellar winds have been updated such that the abundances of the 9 explicitly tracked elements more closely follow the ratios found in the Milky Way (Nomoto et al. 1997; Portinari et al. 1998; Kobayashi et al. 2006; Karakas 2010; Doherty et al. 2014; Fishlock et al. 2014).”
THE s-PROCESS IN ASYMPTOTIC GIANT BRANCH STARS OF LOW METALLICITY AND THE COMPOSITION OF CARBON-ENHANCED METAL-POOR STARS (2011, methodology): “For models of 3 to 6 M⊙ mass loss during the AGB is included using the Reimers (1975) prescription with η values that vary with mass (see discussion in Karakas 2010).”