2008 Takeda - Stellar Parameters and Elemental Abundances of Late-G Giants

PASJ: Publ. Astron. Soc.
Japan 60, 781–802, 2008 August 25

c 2008. Astronomical Society of Japan.
Stellar Parameters and Elemental Abundances of Late-G Giants

Yoichi TAKEDA
National Astronomical Observatory of Japan, 2-21-1 Osawa, Mitaka, Tokyo 181-8588
[email protected]
Bun’ei S ATO
Tokyo Institute of Technology, 2-12-1 Ookayama, Meguro-ku, Tokyo 152-8550
[email protected]
and
Daisuke M URATA
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/pasj/article-abstract/60/4/781/1397939 by guest on 17 April 2020

Graduate School of Science and Technology, Kobe University, 1-1 Rokkodai, Nada, Kobe 657-8501
[email protected]
(Received 2008 February 6; accepted 2008 May 7)

Abstract
The properties of 322 intermediate-mass late-G giants (comprising 10 planet-host stars) selected as the targets
of the Okayama Planet Search Program, many of which are red-clump giants, were comprehensively investigated
by establishing their various stellar parameters (atmospheric parameters, including turbulent velocity fields, metal-
licity, luminosity, mass, age, projected rotational velocity, etc.), and their photospheric chemical abundances for
17 elements, in order to study their mutual dependence, connection with the existence of planets, and possible
evolution-related characteristics. The metallicity distribution of planet-host giants was found to be almost the same
as that of non-planet-host giants, making marked contrast to the case of planet-host dwarfs tending to be metal-rich.
Generally, the metallicities of these comparatively young (typical age of 109 yr) giants tend to be somewhat lower
than those of dwarfs at the same age, and super-metal-rich ([Fe=H] > 0.2) giants appear to be lacking. Apparent
correlations were found between the abundances of C, O, and Na, suggesting that the surface compositions of these
elements have undergone appreciable changes due to dredge-up of H-burning products by evolution-induced deep
envelope mixing, which becomes more efficient for higher mass stars.
Key words: stars: abundances — stars: atmospheres — stars: fundamental parameters — stars: late-type
1. Introduction be reported in forthcoming papers.

Now that such planet-host candidates have increasingly
Since the beginning of the 21 century, a project of searching emerged from this project, it appears necessary to thoroughly
planets around intermediate-mass (1.5–5 Mˇ ) stars by using review the characteristics of the sample targets, since such
the Doppler technique has been undertaken at Okayama basic information consistently obtained for the whole sample
Astrophysical Observatory, which intensively targets evolved is requisite to gain insight into the physical nature of planet-
late-G type giants, because they are considered to be most suit- formation in intermediate-mass stars, given a number of ques-
able for this purpose.1 This “Okayama Planet Search Program” tions to answer; e.g., To which population do the sample
has so far produced successful results of newly discovering stars belong in the Galaxy? What are the key stellar param-
planets around 5 giants (HD 104985, Tau, 18 Del, Aql, and eters especially important to understand the mechanism of
HD 81688; cf. Sato et al. 2003, 2007, 2008) and 1 brown planet-formation (such as the mass, age, metallicity, rotational
dwarf around 11 Com (Liu et al. 2008). And it is still going velocity, etc.)? Are there any differences, between planet-host
on with an extended monitoring sample of more than 300 giants and other normal giants? What are the ages of planet-
stars (considerably increased from the first 50–60 targets host giants like?
when the project started), sorting out further new promising Thus, as a natural extension of Takeda et al.’s (2005c;
candidates of possible substellar companions, which will hereinafter referred to as Paper I) study, which was confined
to 57 late-G giants (the targets of the initial phase), we
Based on observations carried out at Okayama Astrophysical Observatory decided to conduct an extensive investigation for a total of
(Okayama, Japan).
322 program stars, in order to clarify their properties from
The large datasets are separately provided in the machine-readable form as
electronic tables E1, E2, and E3 available at hhttp://pasj.asj.or.jp/v60/n4/ a comprehensive point of view, so as to allow for a statistically
600413/i. meaningful discussion. Practically, our aim is to establish
1 Intermediate-mass stars of other spectral types are less advantageous: spec- the atmospheric parameters, stellar fundamental quantities,
tral lines of B–F main-sequence stars are too few and broad/shallow to kinematic parameters, and surface chemical compositions,
attain sufficient radial-velocity precision, while the atmospheres of cooler while being mostly based on high-dispersion spectra accumu-
K giants tend to be intrinsically more unstable (compared to G giants)
which makes them less suitable for detecting delicate wobbles caused lated during the course of the project. This is the primary
by orbiting planets. purpose of this paper.
782 Y. Takeda, B. Sato, and D. Murata [Vol. 60,
Besides, making use of the results that we gained as by- preparation); HD 1073832 (Liu et al. 2008); HD 81688,
products, we pay attention especially to discussing the chem- HD 188310, and HD 199665 (Sato et al. 2008).
ical properties of these late-G giants, since several disputable
2.2. Observations and Data Reductions
tendencies were tentatively reported in Paper I concerning
the metallicity and the surface chemical composition (e.g., Regarding the basic observational material, we used the
mass-dependent metallicity, subsolar trend of metallicity distri- “pure star” (i.e., without I2 cell) spectra covering the 5000–
bution, Boo-like C vs. Si anti-correlation, under/over- 6200 Å region,3 which were obtained at least once for each star
abundance of O/Na implying H-burning product dredged-up by as the standard template to be used to derive radial velocity
non-canonical deep mixing). Since the number of samples has variations by analyzing the spectra taken with the I2 cell.
been considerably increased by a factor of 6, we would hope Most of the observations were done during the period from
that more convincing results may be obtained concerning the 2000 to 2005 by using the HIDES spectrograph equipped at the
reality of these features, which is counted as another purpose coudé focus of the 188 cm reflector at Okayama Astrophysical

of this study. Observatory. The reduction of the spectra (bias subtraction,
The remaining parts of this paper are organized as follows: flat-fielding, scattered-light subtraction, spectrum extraction,
Section 2 describes the basic observational data invoked in wavelength calibration, and continuum normalization) was
this study. The determinations of stellar parameters (atmo- performed by using the “echelle” package of the software
spheric parameters by using the spectroscopic method, and IRAF4 in a standard manner. Since 2–3 consecutive frames
fundamental parameters with the help of theoretical stellar (mostly 10–20 min exposure for each) were observed at night
evolutionary tracks) are presented in section 3, where compar- for each star in many cases, we co-added these to improve
isons with previous studies are also made. Section 4 deals the signal-to-noise ratio, by which the average S=N of most
with the kinematic parameters describing the orbital motions stars turned out to be in the range of 100–300. The spectral
in the Galaxy (used to discuss the population nature of the resolving power is 67000, corresponding to the standard slit
sample stars) and the projected rotational velocity as well width of 200m.
as the macroturbulent velocity (both estimated from the line- We then determined the stellar radial velocities by
broadening width resulting from the spectrum fitting analysis). comparing these spectra with the theoretically synthesized
The chemical abundances of various elements are determined spectra, which were then converted into the heliocentric system
in section 5, followed by section 6 where the characteristics by using the IRAF task “dopcor.” The basic data of our obser-
of the metallicity distribution and the chemical abundances of vational material (date of observation, radial velocities in the
several key elements are discussed in connection with other laboratory as well as in the heliocentric system) are given in
stellar parameters as well as the existence of planets. In addi- the “obspec.dat” file in e-table E1.
tion, an extra section for discussing the reliability of [O I] 5577
line as an abundance indicator is prepared as Appendix. 3. Fundamental Stellar Parameters
3.1. Atmospheric Parameters
2. Observational Data
As in our previous studies, we used Kurucz’s ATLAS9 grid
2.1. Sample Stars
of model atmospheres, computed for a wide range of parame-
The 322 program stars of this study, which are simultane- ters (Kurucz 1992, 1993),5 from which atmospheric models for
ously the targets of Okayama Planet Search Program, were each of the stars could be generated by interpolations.
originally selected by the following criteria: The four atmospheric parameters necessary for constructing
model atmospheres as well as for abundance determinations
— Apparently bright (V < 6) stars whose declinations are
[Teff (effective temperature), log g (surface gravity), vt (micro-
not too low (ı > 25ı ) so as to be effectively observable
turbulent velocity dispersion), and [Fe=H] (metallicity, repre-
from Okayama.
sented by the Fe abundance relative to the Sun)] were spec-
— The ranges of B V colors and visual absolute magni-
troscopically derived from the measured equivalent widths
tudes are within 0:6 < B V < 1:0 and 3 < MV <
(W ) of Fe I and Fe II lines based on the principle and algo-
+2.5, respectively, corresponding to the spectral type of
rithm described in Takeda, Ohkubo, and Sadakane (2002).
late-G giants (G5–K1 III).
Practically, we used the TGVIT program (Takeda et al.
— Those stars that are catalogued as apparently variable
2005b) by following the same procedure as adopted in Paper I
stars or unresolvable binaries were excluded.
A list of these stars is given in table 1, where the HD
number, the apparent visual magnitude, and the spectral type
2 Strictly speaking, it is not a planet, but a brown dwarf (msin i 20MJ ) that
was found in this star. However, we included it in this stellar group, which
are presented, which were taken from the Hipparcos cata- we define to be one hosting substellar companions in a more global sense.
logue (ESA 1997). All of the 57 stars studied in Paper I were 3 A small fraction of the spectra observed at an early time (2000–2001) of the
included in the present sample. As indicated in the last column project are of somewhat different spectral ranges shifted slightly bluewards
of table 1, we regard in this paper 10 specific stars (out of 322 (e.g., 4800–6000 Å ).
4 IRAF is distributed by the US National Optical Astronomy Observatories,
objects) as stars hosting planets: HD 104985 (Sato et al. 2003);
which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in
HD 62509 (Reffert et al. 2006; Hatzes et al. 2006); HD 28305
Astronomy, Inc. under cooperative agreement with the National Science
(Sato et al. 2007); HD 142091 and HD 167042 (Johnson et al. Foundation.
2008); HD 210702 (Johnson et al. 2007; B. Sato et al., in 5 Available at hhttp://kurucz.harvard.edu/cdroms.htmli.
No. 4] Stellar Parameters and Elemental Abundances of Late-G Giants 783
Table 1. Basic data and the parameter solutions of the program stars.
HD Sp. type V Teff log g vt [Fe=H] = AV MV B.C. log L M log age log gTLM Remark
87 G5 III 5.55 5072 2.63 1.35 0.07 8.8 0.09 0.07 +0.19 0.24 1.92 2.74 8.66 2.73
360 G8 III: 5.99 4850 2.62 1.34 0.08 9.8 0.09 0.10 +0.84 0.32 1.69 2.34 8.86 2.82
448 G9 III 5.57 4780 2.51 1.32 +0.03 11.2 0.06 0.12 +0.69 0.34 1.76 2.25 8.99 2.70
587 K1 III 5.84 4893 3.08 1.13 0.09 18.2 0.05 0.10 +2.04 0.30 1.20 1.58 9.36 3.15
645 K0 III 5.84 4880 3.03 1.18 +0.07 15.3 0.05 0.10 +1.67 0.30 1.35 1.95 9.08 3.08
1239 G8 III 5.74 5114 2.21 1.63 0.24 5.1 0.11 0.49 1.22 0.23 2.48 3.75 8.28 2.32
2114 G5 III 5.77 5230 2.57 1.57 0.03 5.5 0.19 0.10 0.63 0.19 2.23 3.29 8.45 2.55
2952 K0 III 5.93 4844 2.67 1.32 +0.00 8.7 0.08 0.18 +0.44 0.32 1.85 2.54 8.76 2.69
3421 G5 III 5.45 5287 1.88 2.14 0.20 3.2 0.24 0.24 2.27 0.18 2.88 4.43 8.13 2.05

3546 G5 III... 4.34 4882 2.09 1.44 0.67 19.3 0.04 0.08 +0.69 0.31 1.75 2.00 8.95 2.70
3817 G8 III 5.30 5041 2.52 1.40 0.12 9.5 0.09 0.11 +0.07 0.25 1.97 2.81 8.62 2.68
3856 G9 III-IV 5.83 4766 2.28 1.35 0.15 6.5 0.09 0.42 0.53 0.35 2.25 3.09 8.55 2.34
4188 K0 IIIvar 4.77 4844 2.58 1.32 0.01 15.5 0.05 0.10 +0.63 0.32 1.77 2.54 8.75 2.76
4398 G8/K0 III 5.49 4892 2.56 1.37 0.18 9.8 0.07 0.10 +0.34 0.30 1.88 2.59 8.72 2.68
4440 K0 IV 5.86 4842 2.91 1.15 0.10 14.7 0.09 0.04 +1.65 0.32 1.37 1.81 9.19 3.02
4627 G8 III 5.92 4599 2.05 1.40 0.20 4.9 0.17 0.12 0.74 0.43 2.37 3.06 8.56 2.16
4732 K0 III 5.90 4959 3.16 1.12 +0.01 17.7 0.06 0.10 +2.04 0.27 1.19 1.74 9.24 3.22
5395 G8 III-IV 4.62 4774 2.17 1.40 0.45 15.8 0.04 0.18 +0.44 0.35 1.86 1.95 9.08 2.54
5608 K0 5.99 4854 3.03 1.08 +0.06 17.2 0.05 0.06 +2.11 0.31 1.18 1.55 9.40 3.15
5722 G7 III 5.62 4893 2.49 1.39 0.23 10.3 0.09 0.10 +0.59 0.30 1.78 2.26 8.95 2.72
6186 K0 III 4.27 4829 2.30 1.35 0.31 17.1 0.05 0.05 +0.39 0.32 1.88 2.30 8.92 2.61
7087 K0 III 4.66 4908 2.39 1.53 0.04 7.4 0.09 0.14 1.13 0.29 2.47 3.83 8.28 2.27
9057 K0 III 5.27 4883 2.49 1.37 +0.04 11.3 0.07 0.09 +0.44 0.30 1.85 2.56 8.78 2.71
9408 K0 III 4.68 4746 2.21 1.40 0.34 16.0 0.04 0.18 +0.52 0.36 1.83 2.04 9.00 2.57
9774 G8 II-III 5.28 4980 2.50 1.60 +0.02 7.3 0.10 0.09 0.49 0.27 2.20 3.25 8.46 2.49
10348 K0 III 5.97 4931 2.55 1.56 +0.01 6.2 0.13 0.22 0.28 0.28 2.12 3.04 8.54 2.52
10761 K0 III 4.26 4952 2.43 1.43 0.05 12.6 0.07 0.07 0.30 0.28 2.13 3.04 8.53 2.52
10975 K0 III 5.94 4866 2.47 1.37 0.17 10.6 0.07 0.10 +0.96 0.31 1.64 2.19 8.94 2.84
11037 G9 III 5.91 4862 2.45 1.33 0.14 9.9 0.09 0.08 +0.82 0.31 1.70 2.30 8.88 2.80
11949 K0 IV 5.70 4845 2.85 1.17 0.10 13.2 0.05 0.11 +1.20 0.32 1.55 2.17 8.94 2.92
12139 K0 III-IV 5.89 4833 2.53 1.36 0.09 8.2 0.10 0.12 +0.33 0.32 1.89 2.45 8.87 2.62
12339 G8 III 5.22 5011 2.52 1.51 0.03 7.7 0.07 0.08 0.44 0.26 2.18 3.19 8.48 2.51
12583 K0 II/III 5.87 4969 2.51 1.45 +0.00 9.9 0.09 0.10 +0.75 0.27 1.71 2.48 8.78 2.86
13468 G9 III: 5.94 4893 2.54 1.34 0.16 9.2 0.09 0.09 +0.67 0.30 1.75 2.31 8.92 2.76
13692 K0 III 5.86 4868 2.55 1.35 0.12 8.2 0.10 0.10 +0.32 0.31 1.90 2.52 8.80 2.65
13994 G7 III 5.99 4974 2.44 1.83 0.11 4.6 0.15 0.52 1.22 0.27 2.50 3.84 8.28 2.27
14129 G8 III 5.51 4936 2.61 1.37 0.01 9.6 0.10 0.10 +0.32 0.28 1.88 2.70 8.68 2.71
14770 G8 III 5.19 4977 2.47 1.47 +0.01 8.7 0.08 0.17 0.28 0.27 2.12 3.03 8.54 2.54
15779 G3 III: 5.36 4846 2.63 1.26 +0.00 12.3 0.09 0.07 +0.73 0.32 1.73 2.49 8.78 2.79
15920 G8 III 5.17 5061 2.74 1.33 0.06 12.7 0.04 0.29 +0.40 0.24 1.84 2.63 8.71 2.79
16400 G5 III: 5.65 4785 2.35 1.33 0.06 10.3 0.09 0.08 +0.63 0.34 1.78 2.43 8.82 2.71
16901 G0 Ib 5.43 5624 1.42 3.17 +0.00 4.7 0.19 0.37 1.57 0.11 2.57 4.03 8.21 2.43
17656 G8 III 5.86 5100 2.67 1.37 0.06 8.2 0.10 0.22 +0.21 0.23 1.91 2.73 8.66 2.75
17824 K0 III 4.76 5051 2.82 1.19 0.04 17.9 0.04 0.10 +0.92 0.24 1.63 2.37 8.83 2.95
18474 G4p 5.47 5013 2.38 1.42 0.23 5.8 0.13 0.30 0.99 0.26 2.40 3.59 8.33 2.35
18953 K0 II-III 5.32 5029 2.93 1.23 +0.14 12.7 0.07 0.10 +0.73 0.25 1.71 2.53 8.74 2.89
18970 K0 II-III 4.77 4791 2.44 1.30 0.07 15.9 0.05 0.19 +0.59 0.34 1.80 2.44 8.81 2.70
19476 K0 III 3.79 4933 2.82 1.24 +0.14 29.1 0.02 0.06 +1.05 0.28 1.59 2.36 8.83 2.94
19525 G9 III 6.28 4801 2.59 1.38 0.11 7.0 0.16 0.08 +0.42 0.33 1.87 2.37 8.88 2.63
19845 G9 III 5.93 4968 2.86 1.30 +0.14 10.5 0.06 0.17 +0.86 0.27 1.67 2.47 8.77 2.90
20618 G8 IV 5.91 5049 3.08 1.10 0.22 15.9 0.07 0.06 +1.85 0.25 1.26 1.85 9.12 3.21
20791 G8.5 III 5.70 4976 2.63 1.36 +0.07 11.2 0.07 0.03 +0.92 0.27 1.64 2.42 8.81 2.93
20894 G8 III 5.50 5119 2.67 1.44 0.07 7.8 0.09 0.16 0.21 0.22 2.07 2.97 8.56 2.63
21755 G8 III 5.93 5012 2.45 1.39 0.13 6.3 0.15 0.10 0.17 0.26 2.07 2.95 8.56 2.59
22409 G7 III: 5.56 5005 2.67 1.32 0.25 8.6 0.09 0.14 +0.09 0.26 1.97 2.78 8.62 2.66
Table 1. (Continued)
22675 G5 III: 5.86 4878 2.50 1.29 0.06 8.3 0.09 0.15 +0.32 0.30 1.89 2.58 8.76 2.66
22796 G6 III: 5.55 4999 2.72 1.36 0.10 8.1 0.10 0.06 +0.04 0.26 1.99 2.76 8.67 2.64
23526 G9 III 5.91 4837 2.50 1.30 0.15 9.7 0.09 0.04 +0.80 0.32 1.71 2.27 8.90 2.78
26409 G8 III 5.44 5012 2.67 1.42 +0.03 8.7 0.09 0.05 +0.08 0.26 1.97 2.82 8.62 2.67
27022 G5 III 5.26 5314 2.92 1.29 0.01 9.8 0.07 0.25 0.03 0.17 1.98 2.84 8.62 2.76
27348 G8 III 4.93 5001 2.75 1.26 +0.05 14.4 0.06 0.45 +0.27 0.26 1.90 2.74 8.66 2.73
27371 G8 III 3.65 4923 2.57 1.34 +0.10 21.2 0.06 0.06 +0.22 0.29 1.93 2.80 8.63 2.68
27697 G8 III 3.77 4984 2.64 1.38 +0.12 21.3 0.04 0.06 +0.35 0.27 1.87 2.73 8.66 2.75
27971 K1 III 5.29 4886 2.62 1.31 +0.05 13.4 0.06 0.48 +0.45 0.30 1.84 2.56 8.77 2.71

28100 G8 III 4.69 5011 2.54 1.59 0.08 7.2 0.11 0.24 1.27 0.26 2.51 3.94 8.23 2.28
28305 K0 III 3.53 4883 2.57 1.46 +0.13 21.0 0.04 0.06 +0.09 0.30 1.99 2.84 8.62 2.62 PHS
28307 G7 III 3.84 4924 2.63 1.24 +0.10 20.7 0.04 0.08 +0.34 0.29 1.88 2.73 8.66 2.72
29737 G6/G8 III 5.56 4858 2.33 1.37 0.45 10.3 0.07 0.21 +0.42 0.31 1.86 2.23 8.93 2.63
30557 G9 III 5.64 4859 2.57 1.31 0.02 10.2 0.07 0.34 +0.33 0.31 1.89 2.51 8.84 2.65
30814 K0 III 5.03 4842 2.54 1.34 0.02 13.4 0.05 0.18 +0.49 0.32 1.83 2.49 8.80 2.70
32008 G4 V 5.39 5235 3.21 1.10 0.25 18.3 0.06 0.06 +1.64 0.20 1.32 1.96 9.04 3.24
33833 G7 III 5.90 4963 2.67 1.33 0.04 7.3 0.10 0.13 +0.09 0.27 1.97 2.78 8.65 2.65
34538 G8 IV 5.48 4809 2.86 1.08 0.39 20.7 0.04 0.05 +2.01 0.33 1.23 1.25 9.65 2.99
34559 G8 III 4.96 4998 2.74 1.36 +0.00 15.8 0.05 0.24 +0.72 0.26 1.72 2.49 8.77 2.87
35369 G8 III 4.13 4852 2.44 1.33 0.25 18.7 0.04 0.06 +0.43 0.31 1.85 2.33 8.90 2.65
35410 K0 III 5.07 4809 2.58 1.17 0.33 18.9 0.04 0.05 +1.41 0.33 1.47 1.69 9.24 2.88
36079 G5 II 2.81 5209 2.45 1.62 0.25 20.5 0.04 0.05 0.68 0.20 2.25 3.29 8.43 2.52
37160 G8 III-IV 4.09 4704 2.49 1.19 0.65 28.1 0.03 0.03 +1.30 0.38 1.53 1.08 9.87 2.58
38527 G8 III 5.78 5046 2.77 1.19 0.11 10.9 0.08 0.07 +0.89 0.25 1.64 2.36 8.83 2.93
38656 G8 III 4.51 4901 2.50 1.35 0.17 15.3 0.05 0.07 +0.37 0.30 1.87 2.57 8.74 2.69
39004 G7 III: 5.60 5002 2.67 1.39 +0.04 8.7 0.11 0.20 +0.09 0.26 1.97 2.83 8.62 2.67
39007 G8 III 5.79 4994 2.69 1.16 +0.08 9.8 0.09 0.08 +0.66 0.26 1.74 2.55 8.74 2.85
39019 G9 III: 5.54 4964 2.91 1.30 +0.19 10.4 0.10 0.07 +0.56 0.27 1.79 2.65 8.69 2.81
39364 G8 III/IV 3.76 4593 2.30 1.18 0.72 29.1 0.02 0.04 +1.04 0.43 1.66 0.94 10.03 2.36
41361 G7 III: 5.67 4921 2.12 1.82 0.08 3.0 0.29 0.31 2.28 0.29 2.93 4.79 8.05 1.91
41597 G8 III 5.35 4494 1.69 1.46 0.62 9.3 0.07 0.05 +0.15 0.49 2.04 1.34 9.58 2.09
43023 G8 III 5.83 5005 2.71 1.30 0.10 10.4 0.07 0.06 +0.85 0.26 1.66 2.38 8.82 2.90
43039 G8 IIIvar 4.32 4726 2.27 1.40 0.32 19.3 0.04 0.05 +0.70 0.37 1.77 1.86 9.12 2.59
45410 K0 IV 5.86 4978 3.16 1.10 0.13 17.6 0.04 0.03 +2.05 0.27 1.19 1.71 9.24 3.23
45415 G9 III 5.55 4753 2.39 1.33 0.12 11.2 0.07 0.11 +0.68 0.36 1.77 1.96 9.12 2.62
46241 K0 V 5.88 4919 2.57 1.37 0.05 6.3 0.15 0.19 0.31 0.29 2.14 3.04 8.53 2.50
46480 G8 IV-V 5.94 4866 3.04 1.05 0.55 18.8 0.04 0.03 +2.28 0.31 1.11 1.08 9.94 3.06
48432 K0 III 5.34 4891 2.83 1.19 0.11 15.7 0.05 0.03 +1.29 0.30 1.51 2.12 8.97 2.97
50522 G5 III-IV 4.35 4850 2.71 0.96 +0.04 19.1 0.04 0.03 +0.73 0.31 1.73 2.50 8.77 2.80
51000 G5 III 5.91 5203 2.94 1.33 0.06 8.5 0.11 0.05 +0.50 0.20 1.78 2.56 8.73 2.89
51814 G8 III 5.96 4846 2.23 1.57 0.02 3.5 0.25 0.16 1.47 0.32 2.61 4.17 8.16 2.14
53329 G8 IV 5.55 4888 2.35 1.35 0.48 10.7 0.08 0.01 +0.68 0.30 1.75 1.99 9.05 2.70
54131 G8 III 5.47 4737 2.37 1.31 0.18 10.7 0.08 0.08 +0.53 0.36 1.83 2.26 8.91 2.62
54810 K0 III 4.91 4703 2.48 1.23 0.32 15.4 0.05 0.04 +0.81 0.38 1.73 2.09 8.96 2.68
55730 G6 III 5.71 4810 2.47 1.38 0.17 9.8 0.09 0.08 +0.60 0.33 1.79 2.33 8.86 2.70
57478 G8/K0 III 5.59 5032 2.35 1.43 0.04 5.9 0.13 0.12 0.69 0.25 2.28 3.42 8.40 2.46
57727 G8 III 5.04 5001 2.89 1.18 0.12 21.2 0.04 0.00 +1.67 0.26 1.34 1.96 9.07 3.14
58367 G8 III 4.99 4911 1.76 2.04 0.14 3.3 0.27 0.20 2.62 0.29 3.07 4.78 8.03 1.77
60986 K0 III 5.58 5059 2.78 1.31 +0.03 10.7 0.09 0.01 +0.71 0.24 1.71 2.50 8.77 2.89
61363 K0 III 5.58 4762 2.33 1.38 0.31 10.0 0.08 0.05 +0.53 0.35 1.83 2.12 8.96 2.60
62345 G8 III 3.57 4979 2.58 1.39 0.06 22.7 0.04 0.00 +0.35 0.27 1.87 2.65 8.70 2.74
62509 K0 IIIvar 1.16 4904 2.84 1.26 +0.06 96.7 0.01 0.00 +1.09 0.29 1.58 2.31 8.86 2.94 PHS
64152 K0 III 5.62 5017 2.89 1.18 +0.07 11.9 0.06 0.06 +0.94 0.25 1.62 2.41 8.81 2.95
65228 F7/F8 II 4.20 5932 1.96 3.30 +0.01 6.5 0.11 0.09 1.83 0.07 2.66 4.18 8.16 2.45
65345 K0 III 5.30 4983 2.73 1.27 0.05 12.3 0.08 0.00 +0.75 0.27 1.71 2.45 8.79 2.86
65714 G8 III: 5.87 4923 2.45 1.53 +0.08 2.9 0.31 0.44 2.26 0.29 2.92 4.91 7.97 1.93
67447 G8 II 5.34 4974 2.12 2.12 0.06 3.1 0.21 0.04 2.26 0.27 2.91 4.85 8.03 1.95
68077 G9 III 5.88 4881 2.48 1.48 0.01 6.6 0.11 0.07 0.10 0.30 2.06 2.89 8.61 2.55
68290 K0 III 4.72 5028 2.92 1.21 +0.06 17.6 0.04 0.04 +0.91 0.25 1.64 2.41 8.81 2.94
68312 G8 III 5.36 5037 2.70 1.30 0.12 10.3 0.08 0.03 +0.40 0.25 1.84 2.61 8.71 2.78
68375 G8 III 5.55 5041 2.77 1.29 0.09 11.2 0.05 0.00 +0.79 0.25 1.68 2.42 8.80 2.90
71088 G8 III 5.89 4944 2.75 1.33 0.07 10.1 0.06 0.00 +0.92 0.28 1.64 2.33 8.85 2.89
71115 G8 II 5.13 5062 2.53 1.49 0.07 9.1 0.10 0.00 0.08 0.24 2.03 2.90 8.59 2.64
71369 G4 II-III 3.35 5242 2.64 1.51 0.09 17.8 0.04 0.00 0.40 0.19 2.14 3.09 8.51 2.62

73017 G8 IV 5.66 4735 2.44 1.20 0.54 13.6 0.05 0.06 +1.26 0.37 1.54 1.31 9.63 2.67
73593 G0 IV 5.35 4755 2.62 1.16 0.23 18.1 0.04 0.06 +1.58 0.35 1.41 1.48 9.45 2.86
74395 G2 Ib 4.63 5257 1.68 2.47 0.07 5.4 0.18 0.17 1.88 0.19 2.73 4.44 8.08 2.20
74739 G8 Iab: 4.03 4905 2.25 1.80 0.06 10.9 0.12 0.00 0.77 0.29 2.33 3.43 8.42 2.36
74918 G8 III 4.32 5063 2.70 1.34 0.14 14.4 0.11 0.12 0.01 0.24 2.00 2.86 8.60 2.66
75506 K0 III 5.15 4811 2.35 1.38 0.35 11.9 0.06 0.07 +0.46 0.33 1.85 2.05 9.06 2.58
76219 G8 II-III 5.23 4904 2.13 1.75 0.15 5.7 0.15 0.06 1.06 0.29 2.44 3.59 8.37 2.27
76294 G8 III-IV 3.11 4844 2.30 1.41 0.11 21.6 0.05 0.03 0.24 0.32 2.12 2.93 8.60 2.48
76813 G9 III 5.23 5043 2.64 1.33 0.06 10.2 0.07 0.00 +0.27 0.25 1.89 2.70 8.67 2.74
77912 G8 Ib-II 4.56 4899 1.75 2.13 0.14 4.8 0.16 0.07 2.10 0.30 2.86 4.60 8.08 1.96
78235 G8 III 5.42 5123 3.00 1.19 0.03 12.6 0.06 0.00 +0.91 0.22 1.63 2.38 8.83 2.98
78668 G6 III 5.76 5020 2.74 1.28 0.07 7.1 0.13 0.16 0.15 0.25 2.06 2.94 8.57 2.60
79181 G8 III 5.72 4842 2.47 1.35 0.29 10.8 0.07 0.11 +0.79 0.32 1.71 2.10 8.97 2.74
79452 G6 III 5.98 4990 2.27 1.47 0.74 7.2 0.13 0.07 +0.19 0.27 1.93 2.04 9.01 2.56
80499 G8 III 4.77 5033 2.44 1.46 0.09 10.2 0.08 0.12 0.31 0.25 2.12 3.05 8.53 2.56
81688 K0 III-IV 5.40 4771 2.26 1.36 0.34 11.3 0.07 0.10 +0.57 0.35 1.81 2.07 8.98 2.61 PHS
82087 G8 III: 5.87 4867 2.59 1.33 +0.02 6.3 0.14 0.14 0.26 0.31 2.13 3.05 8.53 2.50
82210 G4 III-IV 4.54 5299 3.49 1.13 0.21 30.9 0.02 0.00 +1.99 0.18 1.18 1.81 9.15 3.37
82734 K0 III 5.02 4959 2.62 1.61 +0.17 9.8 0.07 0.12 0.15 0.27 2.07 3.03 8.52 2.58
82741 K0 III 4.81 4801 2.42 1.31 0.22 14.2 0.06 0.08 +0.50 0.34 1.84 2.17 9.00 2.62
83506 K0 III 5.15 4860 2.36 1.70 +0.07 7.4 0.08 0.00 0.51 0.31 2.23 3.30 8.44 2.43
83805 G8 III 5.61 4997 2.64 1.33 +0.01 9.6 0.08 0.11 +0.41 0.26 1.84 2.65 8.70 2.77
84441 G0 II 2.97 5385 2.18 1.88 0.09 13.0 0.07 0.03 1.49 0.16 2.56 4.01 8.21 2.36
85444 G6/G8 III 4.11 5045 2.56 1.35 0.01 11.9 0.07 0.10 0.61 0.25 2.24 3.34 8.43 2.48
91190 K0 III 4.86 4962 2.59 1.33 0.03 12.7 0.04 0.00 +0.38 0.27 1.86 2.66 8.70 2.74
91612 G8 II-III 5.07 4920 2.55 1.31 0.20 10.2 0.08 0.02 +0.10 0.29 1.98 2.60 8.78 2.60
92125 G0 II 4.68 5468 2.22 2.07 +0.03 6.9 0.12 0.05 1.18 0.14 2.43 3.72 8.30 2.48
93291 G4 III: 5.49 5039 2.74 1.28 0.10 11.3 0.08 0.02 +0.74 0.25 1.70 2.43 8.79 2.88
94402 G8 III 5.45 4984 2.64 1.36 +0.03 10.4 0.08 0.02 +0.53 0.27 1.79 2.59 8.73 2.80
94497 G7 III: 5.73 4804 2.69 1.24 0.14 10.7 0.07 0.05 +0.82 0.33 1.71 1.96 9.12 2.70
95808 G7 III... 5.51 4935 2.62 1.29 0.09 10.2 0.09 0.11 +0.45 0.28 1.84 2.58 8.74 2.74
98839 G8 II 4.99 4936 2.30 1.78 0.05 6.6 0.10 0.08 0.98 0.28 2.41 3.69 8.33 2.33
99055 G8 IIICN. 5.39 5060 2.65 1.38 0.05 8.9 0.09 0.02 +0.12 0.24 1.95 2.78 8.64 2.70
99283 K0 III 5.73 4883 2.59 1.37 0.17 9.4 0.08 0.00 +0.59 0.30 1.79 2.29 8.93 2.72
99648 G8 II-III 4.95 5002 2.40 1.63 0.01 5.2 0.16 0.02 1.47 0.26 2.59 4.21 8.15 2.22
100615 K0 III 5.63 4827 2.60 1.34 0.12 7.9 0.08 0.00 +0.13 0.32 1.98 2.57 8.79 2.56
100696 K0 III 5.19 4833 2.32 1.35 0.33 13.5 0.04 0.00 +0.84 0.32 1.69 2.01 9.01 2.74
100920 G9 III 4.30 4835 2.47 1.32 0.19 18.3 0.05 0.02 +0.59 0.32 1.79 2.23 8.97 2.69
101484 K1 III 5.26 4893 2.70 1.24 +0.03 14.0 0.06 0.04 +0.96 0.30 1.64 2.38 8.83 2.89
102070 G8 III 4.71 4992 2.60 1.51 +0.03 9.3 0.09 0.21 0.66 0.26 2.27 3.42 8.40 2.45
103462 G8 III 5.26 4903 2.26 1.39 0.60 11.1 0.06 0.19 +0.29 0.30 1.90 2.14 8.90 2.58
103484 K0 III: 5.58 5008 3.18 1.13 0.01 19.4 0.04 0.03 +1.99 0.26 1.21 1.83 9.18 3.25
104979 G8 III 4.12 4871 2.48 1.37 0.45 19.1 0.04 0.00 +0.52 0.31 1.82 2.12 9.00 2.65
104985 G9 III 5.78 4679 2.47 1.40 0.35 9.8 0.05 0.00 +0.74 0.39 1.76 2.12 8.94 2.64 PHS
106057 K0 II-III 5.60 4956 2.64 1.35 0.10 6.7 0.11 0.06 0.32 0.28 2.14 3.06 8.52 2.52
106714 K0 III 4.93 4933 2.57 1.37 0.18 13.1 0.07 0.05 +0.47 0.28 1.82 2.50 8.79 2.74
107383 G8 III 4.72 4841 2.51 1.38 0.28 9.0 0.10 0.05 0.55 0.32 2.25 3.14 8.49 2.38 PHS (BD)
107950 G7 III 4.76 5171 2.60 1.63 +0.01 8.3 0.07 0.04 0.68 0.21 2.26 3.36 8.42 2.52
108225 G8 III-IV 5.01 4969 2.71 1.27 +0.04 14.3 0.04 0.04 +0.75 0.27 1.71 2.50 8.77 2.87
109272 G8 III/IV 5.58 5104 3.22 1.13 0.26 20.6 0.04 0.13 +2.02 0.23 1.19 1.79 9.16 3.29
109317 K0 IIICN. 5.42 4866 2.61 1.38 0.05 12.3 0.06 0.07 +0.79 0.31 1.71 2.41 8.82 2.81
109379 G5 II 2.65 5145 2.56 1.62 0.01 23.3 0.03 0.10 0.61 0.22 2.23 3.31 8.44 2.53
110646 G8 IIIp 5.91 5067 3.05 1.21 0.45 14.3 0.05 0.00 +1.68 0.24 1.33 1.81 9.12 3.14
111028 K1 III-IV 5.65 4881 3.27 1.03 0.05 22.4 0.04 0.00 +2.40 0.30 1.06 1.41 9.53 3.24
113095 K0 III 5.97 4961 2.68 1.37 0.07 8.1 0.10 0.07 +0.45 0.27 1.83 2.59 8.73 2.76

113226 G8 IIIvar 2.85 5044 2.63 1.41 +0.07 31.9 0.03 0.02 +0.35 0.25 1.86 2.70 8.68 2.78
114256 K0 III 5.79 4858 2.68 1.34 +0.04 9.3 0.08 0.06 +0.57 0.31 1.80 2.51 8.77 2.74
114946 G8 III/IV 5.31 5066 3.32 1.08 0.33 25.9 0.03 0.09 +2.29 0.24 1.08 1.62 9.28 3.34
115202 K1 III 5.21 4826 3.11 1.07 0.02 25.7 0.03 0.09 +2.17 0.32 1.16 1.45 9.50 3.12
115659 G8 III 2.99 5019 2.47 1.47 0.06 24.7 0.03 0.10 0.15 0.25 2.06 2.94 8.57 2.60
116292 K0 III 5.36 4884 2.49 1.30 0.09 10.2 0.07 0.20 +0.20 0.30 1.94 2.64 8.72 2.63
116957 K0 III: 5.88 4898 2.63 1.33 0.10 9.1 0.07 0.02 +0.66 0.30 1.75 2.39 8.87 2.78
117566 G2.5 IIIb 5.74 5496 3.34 1.37 +0.05 11.2 0.04 0.00 +0.98 0.13 1.56 2.29 8.88 3.15
117818 K0 III 5.21 4811 2.31 1.34 0.34 12.4 0.06 0.17 +0.50 0.33 1.83 2.05 9.06 2.60
118219 G6 III 5.70 4831 2.34 1.33 0.34 8.8 0.09 0.17 +0.25 0.32 1.93 2.51 8.74 2.60
119126 G9 III 5.63 4796 2.33 1.34 0.12 10.1 0.08 0.07 +0.59 0.34 1.80 2.38 8.85 2.69
119605 G1 IV/V 5.55 5456 1.96 1.95 0.31 4.2 0.17 0.36 1.70 0.15 2.64 4.04 8.19 2.31
120048 G9 III 5.92 5014 2.79 1.22 +0.11 8.1 0.08 0.10 +0.36 0.26 1.86 2.71 8.66 2.77
120084 G7 III: 5.91 4892 2.71 1.31 +0.09 10.2 0.05 0.00 +0.96 0.30 1.64 2.39 8.82 2.89
120420 K0 III 5.61 4791 2.63 1.26 0.20 10.5 0.06 0.10 +0.61 0.34 1.79 2.25 8.90 2.68
120787 G3 V 5.97 4843 2.31 1.34 0.38 8.3 0.07 0.00 +0.55 0.32 1.81 2.02 9.08 2.63
125454 G9 III 5.14 4848 2.56 1.39 0.10 11.9 0.08 0.10 +0.42 0.32 1.86 2.47 8.82 2.67
126218 K0 III 5.34 5025 2.50 1.58 +0.12 8.2 0.11 0.26 0.36 0.25 2.15 3.15 8.48 2.55
127243 G3 IV 5.58 4893 2.21 1.48 0.77 10.6 0.06 0.01 +0.69 0.30 1.74 1.92 9.08 2.69
129312 G8 IIIvar 4.86 4993 2.53 1.62 +0.01 5.7 0.14 0.05 1.43 0.26 2.58 4.20 8.15 2.23
129336 G8 III 5.55 4901 2.54 1.33 0.25 8.5 0.10 0.05 +0.14 0.30 1.96 2.68 8.67 2.62
129944 K0 III 5.80 4892 2.50 1.32 0.26 8.9 0.11 0.25 +0.30 0.30 1.90 2.59 8.70 2.66
129972 K0 III 4.60 4976 2.69 1.43 0.01 14.5 0.05 0.05 +0.35 0.27 1.87 2.68 8.69 2.74
130952 G8... 4.93 4750 2.34 1.35 0.40 15.1 0.07 0.08 +0.74 0.36 1.75 1.85 9.10 2.62
131530 G7 III 5.78 4962 2.72 1.33 +0.00 8.9 0.11 0.26 +0.28 0.27 1.90 2.72 8.67 2.71
132146 G5 III: 5.72 5012 2.29 1.60 0.06 5.3 0.15 0.05 0.72 0.26 2.29 3.45 8.39 2.44
133002 F9 V 5.63 5532 3.56 1.11 0.34 23.1 0.02 0.00 +2.45 0.14 0.98 1.49 9.37 3.56
133208 G8 III 3.49 5001 2.35 1.61 0.07 14.9 0.04 0.06 0.70 0.26 2.29 3.42 8.40 2.44
133392 G8 III: 5.52 4903 2.69 1.32 +0.09 11.8 0.05 0.10 +0.79 0.29 1.70 2.49 8.77 2.85
134190 G8 III 5.24 4841 2.28 1.40 0.41 12.5 0.04 0.06 +0.67 0.32 1.76 2.03 8.99 2.68
136512 K0 III 5.51 4749 2.34 1.39 0.29 11.9 0.06 0.05 +0.84 0.36 1.71 2.13 8.93 2.72
136956 G8 III 5.72 5031 2.61 1.54 +0.08 5.4 0.14 0.44 1.05 0.25 2.42 3.78 8.27 2.36
138716 K1 IV 4.61 4830 3.14 1.05 +0.00 34.5 0.02 0.07 +2.23 0.32 1.14 1.44 9.51 3.15
138852 K0 III-IV 5.74 4900 2.55 1.36 0.22 10.2 0.05 0.06 +0.73 0.30 1.73 2.21 8.98 2.77
138905 K0 III 3.91 4822 2.56 1.27 0.30 21.4 0.04 0.11 +0.45 0.33 1.85 2.15 9.01 2.61
139641 G8 III-IV 5.25 4907 2.75 1.16 0.53 20.0 0.03 0.09 +1.67 0.30 1.35 1.43 9.50 2.96
141680 G8 III 5.21 4770 2.32 1.34 0.24 12.4 0.06 0.19 +0.49 0.35 1.85 2.17 8.95 2.60
142091 K0 III-IV 4.79 4877 3.21 1.04 +0.10 32.1 0.02 0.03 +2.29 0.30 1.11 1.51 9.43 3.22 PHS
142198 K0 III 4.13 4760 2.35 1.39 0.27 20.0 0.04 0.25 +0.39 0.35 1.88 2.13 9.02 2.55
142531 G8 III: 5.81 4961 2.78 1.37 +0.05 9.1 0.06 0.13 +0.47 0.27 1.82 2.64 8.70 2.77
143553 K0 III: 5.82 4805 2.85 1.17 0.23 13.6 0.06 0.18 +1.31 0.33 1.51 1.75 9.20 2.85
144608 G6/G8 III 4.31 5266 2.54 1.60 0.09 12.3 0.07 0.38 0.62 0.19 2.22 3.27 8.45 2.57
145001 G8 III 5.00 5119 2.90 1.57 +0.04 8.4 0.15 0.07 0.45 0.22 2.17 3.17 8.49 2.56
146791 G8 III 3.23 4931 2.69 1.34 0.07 30.3 0.03 0.09 +0.55 0.28 1.79 2.52 8.78 2.77
147677 K0 III 4.86 4978 2.90 1.28 +0.10 17.8 0.04 0.07 +1.04 0.27 1.59 2.36 8.83 2.96
147700 K0 III 4.48 4843 2.48 1.31 0.11 18.3 0.05 0.27 +0.52 0.32 1.82 2.35 8.89 2.69
148387 G8 III 2.73 5055 2.82 1.34 0.04 37.2 0.01 0.03 +0.55 0.24 1.78 2.55 8.74 2.84
148604 G5 III/IV 5.66 5120 2.90 0.98 0.16 12.2 0.08 0.44 +0.65 0.23 1.73 2.48 8.76 2.89
148786 G8/K0 III 4.29 5110 2.69 1.52 +0.17 15.5 0.05 0.36 0.11 0.23 2.03 2.96 8.55 2.66
150030 G8 II 5.83 4850 2.10 1.81 0.09 3.7 0.14 0.10 1.42 0.32 2.59 4.02 8.22 2.14
150997 G8 III-IV 3.48 5045 2.79 1.26 0.15 29.1 0.02 0.05 +0.75 0.25 1.70 2.41 8.80 2.89
152815 G8 III 5.39 4859 2.43 1.35 0.21 12.8 0.06 0.07 +0.86 0.31 1.68 2.19 8.93 2.80
154084 G7 III: 5.76 4862 2.62 1.41 0.16 8.8 0.07 0.07 +0.42 0.31 1.86 2.39 8.89 2.66
154779 K0 III 5.98 5064 2.75 1.44 +0.12 8.1 0.11 0.33 +0.20 0.24 1.92 2.79 8.63 2.74
156874 K0 III 5.68 4982 2.85 1.32 +0.00 10.2 0.06 0.10 +0.63 0.27 1.75 2.53 8.76 2.83

156891 G7 III: 5.97 4981 2.95 1.30 +0.13 10.2 0.05 0.10 +0.91 0.27 1.64 2.44 8.79 2.93
157527 K0 III 5.82 5090 2.96 1.30 +0.07 10.8 0.09 0.25 +0.74 0.23 1.70 2.49 8.77 2.92
158974 G8 III 5.63 4901 2.32 1.43 0.07 8.7 0.06 0.13 +0.19 0.30 1.94 2.74 8.66 2.65
159181 G2 II 2.79 5153 1.50 2.69 0.15 9.0 0.05 0.10 2.53 0.22 3.00 4.65 8.09 1.91
159353 K0 III: 5.68 4919 2.76 1.32 +0.00 10.2 0.08 0.37 +0.35 0.29 1.88 2.69 8.69 2.71
160781 G7 III 5.97 4593 2.10 1.62 0.02 2.6 0.30 0.69 2.62 0.43 3.12 4.99 8.00 1.62
161178 G9 III 5.87 4766 2.33 1.32 0.20 10.2 0.05 0.04 +0.87 0.35 1.69 2.14 8.94 2.74
162076 G5 IV 5.69 5018 2.98 1.24 +0.04 13.0 0.05 0.09 +1.18 0.25 1.53 2.27 8.89 3.02
163532 G9 III 5.44 4689 2.17 1.44 0.06 7.7 0.09 0.53 0.67 0.39 2.32 3.17 8.55 2.26
163917 K0 III 3.32 4928 2.63 1.46 +0.13 21.4 0.04 0.16 0.19 0.28 2.09 3.04 8.52 2.56
165760 G8 III-IV 4.64 4962 2.52 1.41 0.01 13.7 0.06 0.25 +0.08 0.27 1.98 2.82 8.63 2.65
167042 K1 III 5.97 4943 3.28 1.07 +0.00 20.0 0.03 0.01 +2.47 0.28 1.02 1.50 9.45 3.32 PHS
167768 G3 III 5.99 4895 2.13 1.44 0.70 9.9 0.08 0.39 +0.58 0.30 1.79 2.07 8.90 2.68
168656 G8 III 4.85 5045 2.66 1.30 0.06 12.1 0.07 0.29 0.02 0.25 2.00 2.86 8.60 2.66
168723 K0 III-IV 3.23 4972 3.12 1.17 0.18 52.8 0.01 0.06 +1.78 0.27 1.30 1.84 9.14 3.15
170474 K0 III 5.38 4978 2.83 1.29 +0.02 13.8 0.06 0.30 +0.78 0.27 1.70 2.47 8.78 2.88
171391 G8 III 5.12 5057 2.79 1.23 0.02 11.2 0.07 0.37 +0.01 0.24 1.99 2.84 8.62 2.67
174980 K0 II-III 5.25 5008 2.71 1.41 +0.10 9.7 0.05 0.02 +0.17 0.26 1.94 2.81 8.62 2.70
176598 G8 III 5.62 5018 2.83 1.21 +0.03 10.4 0.04 0.02 +0.68 0.25 1.73 2.52 8.76 2.86
176707 G8 III 6.32 4777 2.27 1.38 0.29 7.5 0.07 0.03 +0.68 0.35 1.77 2.01 9.03 2.64
177241 K0 III 3.76 4906 2.70 1.36 +0.01 23.5 0.03 0.13 +0.48 0.29 1.83 2.63 8.71 2.75
177249 G5 IIbCN. 5.51 5251 2.55 1.65 +0.00 6.6 0.07 0.04 0.44 0.19 2.15 3.12 8.51 2.62
180540 K0 III 4.88 4951 2.34 1.76 0.08 6.1 0.14 0.46 1.66 0.28 2.67 4.34 8.11 2.14
180711 G9 III 3.07 4885 2.62 1.38 0.13 32.5 0.01 0.01 +0.62 0.30 1.77 2.32 8.91 2.74
181276 K0 III 3.80 4986 2.78 1.32 +0.04 26.5 0.02 0.01 +0.90 0.27 1.65 2.41 8.81 2.92
182694 G6.5 IIIa 5.85 5067 2.63 1.37 0.04 8.1 0.06 0.06 +0.32 0.24 1.87 2.67 8.69 2.77
182762 K0 III 5.14 4872 2.57 1.34 0.07 13.8 0.05 0.10 +0.74 0.31 1.73 2.42 8.82 2.80
183491 K0 III 5.82 4901 2.63 1.40 +0.11 6.7 0.11 0.20 0.24 0.29 2.11 3.07 8.51 2.53
184010 K0 III-IV 5.89 5011 3.17 1.16 0.14 16.9 0.04 0.10 +1.93 0.26 1.23 1.82 9.16 3.22
185018 G0 Ib 5.98 5467 1.85 2.31 0.10 2.9 0.29 0.71 2.45 0.14 2.94 4.76 8.06 2.08
185194 G8 IIIvar 5.67 4978 2.44 1.54 +0.03 6.9 0.10 0.19 0.33 0.27 2.14 3.09 8.52 2.53
185351 K0 III 5.17 5006 3.16 1.15 +0.00 24.6 0.02 0.02 +2.11 0.26 1.16 1.76 9.23 3.28
185467 K0 III 5.97 4937 2.70 1.45 +0.13 7.9 0.12 0.28 +0.17 0.28 1.95 2.83 8.61 2.67
185758 G0 II 4.39 5535 2.39 1.87 +0.01 6.9 0.10 0.19 1.61 0.13 2.60 4.11 8.18 2.38
185958 G8 II 4.39 4876 2.22 2.08 +0.02 7.0 0.10 0.19 1.58 0.30 2.65 4.33 8.11 2.13
186675 G8 III 4.89 4953 2.46 1.47 0.08 11.7 0.04 0.04 +0.19 0.28 1.93 2.74 8.66 2.67
187739 K0 III 5.88 4771 2.71 1.03 0.19 10.5 0.09 0.29 +0.69 0.35 1.76 2.01 9.08 2.64
188310 K0 III 4.71 4802 2.72 1.42 0.18 16.0 0.06 0.10 +0.63 0.33 1.78 2.29 8.89 2.69 PHS
188650 Fp 5.79 5450 1.79 2.17 0.67 2.1 0.24 0.95 3.53 0.16 3.38 4.64 8.07 1.63
188947 K0 IIIvar 3.89 4866 2.69 1.35 +0.07 23.4 0.02 0.09 +0.65 0.31 1.76 2.56 8.74 2.78
189127 G9 III 6.10 4760 2.28 1.41 0.22 7.1 0.07 0.04 +0.30 0.35 1.92 2.31 8.92 2.55
192787 K0 III 5.70 5025 2.86 1.25 0.07 10.9 0.05 0.20 +0.68 0.25 1.73 2.47 8.77 2.86
192879 G8 III 5.86 4886 2.62 1.37 0.09 9.6 0.09 0.31 +0.45 0.30 1.84 2.47 8.83 2.70
192944 G8 III 5.30 4981 2.48 1.48 0.06 6.9 0.09 0.18 0.68 0.27 2.28 3.41 8.40 2.44
192947 G6/G8 III 3.58 5046 2.90 1.32 +0.03 30.0 0.03 0.12 +0.85 0.25 1.66 2.43 8.80 2.93
194013 G8 III-IV 5.30 4906 2.63 1.32 0.07 13.2 0.06 0.05 +0.86 0.29 1.67 2.36 8.84 2.86
194577 G6 III 5.68 5028 2.68 1.34 0.02 6.0 0.12 0.20 0.63 0.25 2.25 3.35 8.43 2.47
196857 K0 III 5.79 4878 2.55 1.44 0.27 9.9 0.11 0.15 +0.62 0.31 1.77 2.15 9.01 2.70
199665 G6 III: 5.51 4985 2.84 1.19 0.05 13.7 0.05 0.04 +1.15 0.27 1.55 2.25 8.90 2.99 PHS
200039 G5 III 5.99 4965 2.67 1.36 0.13 7.5 0.07 0.02 +0.35 0.27 1.87 2.62 8.70 2.72
201381 G8 III 4.50 4951 2.77 1.30 0.04 19.9 0.04 0.07 +0.93 0.28 1.64 2.35 8.85 2.91
203222 G7 III: 5.87 5067 2.78 1.29 0.02 9.7 0.09 0.11 +0.69 0.24 1.72 2.49 8.77 2.89
203387 G8 III 4.28 5244 3.07 1.26 +0.07 15.1 0.05 0.08 +0.10 0.19 1.94 2.79 8.63 2.78
204381 K0 III 4.50 5100 2.84 1.33 0.06 18.2 0.05 0.09 +0.71 0.23 1.71 2.47 8.78 2.90

204771 K0 III 5.22 4967 2.93 1.26 +0.09 14.6 0.04 0.16 +0.88 0.27 1.66 2.44 8.79 2.91
205072 G6 III: 5.97 4995 2.72 1.34 0.14 9.2 0.05 0.02 +0.76 0.26 1.70 2.41 8.80 2.87
205435 G8 III 3.98 5114 3.00 1.20 0.10 26.2 0.02 0.09 +0.98 0.23 1.60 2.33 8.85 2.99
206356 K0 III 5.24 4938 2.80 1.28 +0.11 13.2 0.06 0.16 +0.68 0.28 1.74 2.55 8.74 2.83
206453 G8 III 4.72 5038 2.43 1.48 0.38 11.2 0.07 0.13 0.16 0.25 2.07 2.97 8.53 2.61
209396 K0 III 5.55 4999 2.81 1.30 +0.04 12.0 0.07 0.12 +0.83 0.26 1.67 2.46 8.79 2.90
210354 G6 III: 5.58 4793 2.36 1.39 0.22 11.5 0.06 0.05 +0.84 0.34 1.70 1.92 9.12 2.70
210434 K0 III-IV 5.98 4949 2.93 1.36 +0.12 11.6 0.07 0.13 +1.17 0.28 1.54 2.29 8.87 2.99
210702 K1 III 5.93 4967 3.19 1.10 +0.01 17.9 0.04 0.05 +2.14 0.27 1.15 1.68 9.28 3.25 PHS
210807 G8 III 4.79 5071 2.58 1.57 0.10 8.6 0.05 0.28 0.81 0.24 2.32 3.50 8.37 2.44
211391 G8 III-IV 4.17 4909 2.57 1.36 +0.09 17.0 0.04 0.10 +0.23 0.29 1.92 2.78 8.64 2.68
211434 G6 III 5.75 5082 2.70 1.37 0.26 9.6 0.09 0.14 +0.51 0.24 1.79 2.53 8.73 2.83
211554 G8 III 5.88 5043 2.41 1.63 +0.05 4.5 0.12 0.69 1.55 0.25 2.62 4.26 8.12 2.21
212271 K0 IIICN. 5.53 5002 2.90 1.21 +0.10 12.0 0.06 0.16 +0.77 0.26 1.70 2.50 8.76 2.89
212320 G6 V 5.92 5075 2.59 1.46 0.11 7.1 0.13 0.17 +0.01 0.24 1.99 2.84 8.61 2.68
212430 K0 III 5.76 4954 2.56 1.39 0.17 6.0 0.13 0.17 0.52 0.28 2.22 3.17 8.49 2.45
212496 G9 III 4.42 4710 2.43 1.22 0.33 19.2 0.03 0.17 +0.67 0.38 1.78 1.85 9.12 2.57
213789 G6 III 5.88 5010 2.73 1.37 0.06 7.3 0.12 0.07 +0.14 0.26 1.95 2.77 8.64 2.69
213930 G8 III-IV 5.72 5011 2.87 1.34 +0.12 9.6 0.06 0.34 +0.29 0.26 1.89 2.75 8.65 2.75
213986 K1 III 5.97 4928 2.83 1.27 +0.08 9.7 0.09 0.14 +0.75 0.29 1.72 2.50 8.76 2.85
214567 G8 II 5.84 4989 2.69 1.33 0.21 8.6 0.09 0.09 +0.41 0.27 1.84 2.57 8.71 2.75
214878 B8 V 5.94 5041 2.85 1.29 +0.04 9.5 0.06 0.34 +0.49 0.25 1.80 2.62 8.71 2.82
215030 G9 III 5.93 4731 2.41 1.25 0.49 10.1 0.06 0.06 +0.89 0.37 1.69 1.83 9.24 2.67
215373 K0 III 5.11 5007 2.69 1.39 +0.10 11.9 0.05 0.05 +0.44 0.26 1.83 2.66 8.69 2.79
215721 G8 III 5.24 4829 2.23 1.39 0.48 12.3 0.07 0.10 +0.58 0.33 1.80 1.95 9.07 2.62
215943 G8 III: 5.82 4878 2.68 1.33 0.04 9.0 0.08 0.06 +0.52 0.30 1.81 2.45 8.84 2.72
216131 M2 III 3.51 5000 2.69 1.24 0.05 27.9 0.03 0.06 +0.68 0.26 1.73 2.49 8.77 2.85
217264 K1 III: 5.43 4946 2.80 1.27 +0.12 11.6 0.08 0.07 +0.69 0.28 1.74 2.55 8.74 2.84
217703 K0 III 5.97 4890 2.91 1.16 0.17 13.0 0.06 0.10 +1.44 0.30 1.44 1.98 9.05 3.00
218527 G8 IV 5.42 4935 2.57 1.33 0.34 11.6 0.11 0.07 +0.68 0.29 1.74 2.11 9.03 2.75
219139 G5 III: 5.85 4860 2.50 1.38 0.19 9.7 0.08 0.07 +0.72 0.31 1.74 2.29 8.88 2.76
219615 G7 III 3.70 4802 2.25 1.37 0.62 24.9 0.04 0.06 +0.62 0.34 1.79 1.67 9.20 2.55
219945 K0 III 5.44 4874 2.61 1.36 0.10 9.9 0.06 0.18 +0.25 0.31 1.92 2.57 8.77 2.63
221345 K0 III 5.22 4813 2.63 1.43 0.24 13.1 0.05 0.13 +0.67 0.33 1.76 2.20 8.93 2.70
222093 K0 III 5.66 4853 2.56 1.38 0.12 11.5 0.08 0.10 +0.86 0.31 1.68 2.28 8.89 2.81
222387 G8 III 5.98 5055 2.81 1.22 0.11 7.8 0.08 0.31 +0.12 0.24 1.95 2.79 8.63 2.70
222574 G2 Ib/II 4.82 5523 1.99 2.20 +0.04 5.1 0.16 0.10 1.75 0.13 2.65 4.23 8.13 2.34
223252 G8 III 5.49 5031 2.72 1.34 0.03 11.2 0.08 0.10 +0.63 0.25 1.75 2.52 8.76 2.85
224533 G9 III 4.88 5030 2.73 1.28 0.01 14.6 0.06 0.10 +0.60 0.25 1.76 2.54 8.75 2.84
The basic stellar data in columns 1–3 are self-explanatory, which were taken from the Hipparcos catalogue. The values of Teff (in K) , log g (in cm s2 ), vt (in
kms1 ), and [Fe=H] given in columns 4–7 are the finally established solutions based on our spectroscopic method using Fe I and Fe II lines. Columns 8–16 gives the
Hipparcos parallax (; in units of mas) along with the fractional error ( =) involved (ESA 1997), the estimated interstellar extinction (AV ), the absolute visual
magnitude (MV ), the bolometric correction (B.C.), the stellar luminosity (log L=Lˇ ), the stellar mass (M=Mˇ ), the stellar age (log age, in yr), and the theoretical
surface gravity (log gT LM , in cm s2 ). See the text (sections 2 and 3) for more details. The planet-host stars are indicated by “PHS” in column 17, where “PHS
(BD)” for HD 107383 means that the companion is considered to be a brown dwarf.
(cf. subsection 3.1 therein).6
The finally converged solutions of Teff , log g, vt , and [Fe=H]
are summarized in table 1. The results are also given in the
file “tgvf solution.dat” in e-table E1, where the intrinsic statis-
tical uncertainties (typically 10–30 K, 0.05–0.1 dex, 0.05–
0.1 km s1 , and 0.02–0.04 dex) involved in the solutions of
Teff , log g, vt , and the Fe abundance estimated in the manner
described in subsection 3.2 of Takeda et al. (2002), are also
presented, though realistic internal errors may be somewhat
larger than these (especially for Teff and log g; cf. subsec-
tion 3.3.). The measured W values for each of the adopted
Fe I and Fe II lines ( 100 and 10, respectively); the abun-

dances from these lines corresponding to the final solutions of
the parameters are given for each star in e-table E2 (the results
for HD ?????? are contained in the“??????.abd” file).
The correlations between any two combinations of these four
parameters are depicted in figures 1a–1f. It is worth noting that
different stellar groups appear to be involved; i.e., the major
population is composed of many stars having rather similar
parameters to each other, and the minor population shows more
diversed parameter values. For example, regarding the Teff vs.
log g relation (figure 1a), while Teff tends to be lowered with
a decrease in log g for a majority of (densely clumped) stars,
there are also stars satisfying both low-log g and high-Teff .
Actually, the main characteristics of our sample stars tend to
be determined by the former population (red-clump giants), as
mentioned in subsection 3.2. Another remarkable feature is
the marked log g-dependence of vt (figure 1c), which clearly
indicates the growth of the atmospheric turbulent velocity
field as the surface gravity decreases (an intuitively reasonable
tendency).
As a consistency check of our spectroscopically established
BV
Teff and log g, they were compared with Teff (the effective
temperature derived from the B V color by using the calibra-
tion of Alonso et al. 1999) and log gTLM (the surface gravity
derived from Teff , L, and M determined in subsection 3.2), Fig. 1. Correlations of the atmospheric parameters obtained by the
as shown in figures 1g and 1h, respectively. We may state spectroscopic method using Fe I and Fe II lines: (a) Teff vs. log g, (b)
[Fe=H] vs. Teff , (c) vt vs. log g, (d) vt vs. Teff , (e) [Fe=H] vs. log g,
that no significantly systematic discrepancy is seen in these
(f) [Fe=H] vs. vt , (g) log gT LM (cf. subsection 3.1) vs. log g, and (h)
figures, even though the dispersion tends to increase toward BV
Teff (cf. subsection 3.1) vs. Teff .
lower-log g or higher-Teff stars.
3.2. Luminosity, Radius, Mass, and Age derive the mass (M ) and age (age) by comparing the position
on the log L vs. log Teff diagram with Lejeune and Schaerer’s
The stellar luminosity (L) was derived from the apparent
(2001) theoretical evolutionary tracks [log L = fL .agejM; z/,
visual magnitude (mV ), the parallax () from the Hipparcos
log Teff = fT .agejM; z/], as depicted in figure 2. The
catalogue (ESA 1997), the interstellar extinction (AV ) from
resulting parameter values are presented in table 1, and more
Arenou et al.’s (1992) table, and the bolometric correc-
detailed results including the errors8 are summarized in the file
tion (B.C.) from Alonso et al.’s (1999) calibration.7 We then
“stellar params.dat” in e-table E1. The inter-relations between
obtained the stellar radius (R) from L and Teff .
such derived L, R, age, M are displayed in figure 3, where the
Now that Teff , L, and the metallicity (z 0:02 10ŒFe=H ,
M -dependences of Teff , log g, and [Fe=H] are also shown.
where zˇ is 0.02) for each star have been established, we can
Several features can be recognized from figures 2 and 3:
6 The only difference is that we adopted a more stringent condition for the — As we can clearly see from figure 2, many of our program
line selection and limited to using lines satisfying W 120 mÅ (instead of stars clump in the region of 3:67 . log Teff . 3:71 and
the upper limit of 150 m Å in Paper I), since it revealed that the solutions
are rather significantly influenced by saturated lines with non-negligible 8
The internal errors in age (M ) were estimated from the difference between
damping wings, where difficulties are generally involved in precise W age max and age min (M max and M min ), which were obtained by
measurements. perturbing the input values of (log L, log Teff , and log z) interchange-
7 We used their empirical formula instead of interpolating Kurucz’s (1993)5 ably by typical amounts of uncertainties (Δ log L corresponding to parallax
theoretical B.C., which we adopted in Paper I. As a result, the extent of errors given in the Hipparcos catalog, Δ log Teff of ˙0.01dex almost corre-
B.C. in this study tends to be slightly smaller (by 0:1 mag) than that in sponding to ˙100 K, and log z of ˙0.1 dex). Similarly, the error in R
Paper I. was evaluated from Δ log L and Δ log Teff .

Fig. 2. log .L=Lˇ / vs. log Teff plots based on the data given in
table 1, along with Lejeune and Schaerer’s (2001) theoretical evolu-
tionary tracks (for initial masses of 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, and 5.0 Mˇ ),
corresponding to three metallicities: z = 0:008 ([Fe=H] = 0:4; uper-
most among three lines in every Msun group, blue lines), z = 0:02
([Fe=H] = 0.0; middle, green lines), and z = 0:04 ([Fe=H] = +0:3;
lowest, red lines). (Colored only in the electronic edition.)
1:6 . log L=Lˇ . 2:1 (corresponding to 2 . M=Mˇ . 3), Fig. 3. Correlations between the fundamental stellar parameters (M ,
L, age) or their dependences upon the atmospheric parameters (Teff ,
indicating that these objects belong to “red-clump giants” (post log g, and [Fe=H]): (a) M vs. log L (vertical ticks indicate the internal
red-giants after the ignition of core He; see Zhao et al. 2001 and errors in M , which are also replotted in the lower part of the figure), (b)
the references therein). log R (with errors indicated by ticks as in panel a) vs. log L, (c) log age
— Brighter stars tend to be of higher mass almost following (with errors) vs. M , (d) Teff vs. M , (e) log g vs. M , and (f) [Fe=H] vs.
the relation of M=Mˇ 2 log.L=Lˇ / 1, though stars around M (several age values are also indicated).
M 2–3 Mˇ (corresponding to red-clump giants) do not
necessarily conform to this relation and show a rather large
diversity (figure 3a). tendency is locally seen for a homogeneous group of red-clump
— According to figure 3b, the radius (R) is almost a unique giants at M 2–3 Mˇ (indicating that R does not vary much
function of luminosity (L) following the relation of R / L1=2 , among these).
which means that the change in Teff (mostly confined to a rather — Figure 3f suggests that the metallicity ([Fe=H]) tends to
narrow range of several hundred K) does not play any signifi- become higher as M increases, which was also pointed out
cant role here. in Paper I. This trend may be interpreted as being due to
— A tight relationship exists between mass (M ) and age (age) the metallicity dependence of the stellar evolutionary tracks
as log age (yr) ' 10:74 1:04 .M=Mˇ / + 0:0999 .M=Mˇ /2 (L tends to be lowered with a decrease in z for a given M ;
(figure 3c). This is reasonably understandable because the cf. figure 2). That is, if a star with a given L is considered,
age’s of giant stars are practically the same as the main- a larger M will be assigned as its metallicity becomes higher.
sequence lifetime (uniquely determined by M ) which they
3.3. Comparison with Other Studies
spent in the past.
— We can see a rough tendency in figure 3d that Teff tends Figures 4a–4f compare the values of Teff , log g, vt ,
to be higher for larger M . This may be related to the slope [Fe=H], M , and log R derived in this study with those
of the evolutionary tracks rising toward the upper-right (at derived in Paper I for 57 stars in common. We may
log Teff . 3:7), by which a larger M is assigned to a star as state that both results are almost in agreement without any
its Teff becomes higher (if L remains the same). significant systematic differences. The average [Paper I
— There is a general trend in figure 3e that log g becomes this study] differences (˙: standard deviation) are +28
lower toward larger M , which is because the growth rate of (˙67) K, +0.06 (˙0.17) dex, 0.01 (˙0.04) km s1 , +0.05
.R=Rˇ /2 [/ L=Lˇ 10.1+M=Mˇ /=2 ] with increasing M is (˙0.06) dex, +0.10 (˙0.11) Mˇ , +0.51 (˙0.52) Rˇ , respec-
much larger than that of M , itself, though a somewhat opposite tively. Since differences in the atmospheric parameters are

Fig. 5. Comparison of the atmospheric parameters determined in
this study with those derived by McWilliam (1990) for 150 stars in
common: (a) Teff , (b) log g, (c) vt , and (d) [Fe=H].
Fig. 4. Comparison of the stellar parameters determined in this study

with those of 57 stars derived in Paper I: (a) Teff , (b) log g, (c) vt , (d)
[Fe=H], (e) M , and (f) R.
essentially due to the changes in the used W set of Fe I and

Fe II lines (newly re-measured this time also for these 57 stars
independently from Paper I; cf. subsection 3.1), these results
suggest that . 50–100 K, . 0.1–0.2 dex, . 0.05–0.1 km s1 ,
and . 0.05–0.1 dex may be realistic estimates of internal errors
(under consideration of W -measurement ambiguities) in Teff ,
log g, vt , and [Fe=H], respectively.
For the purpose of a consistency check with the parameter
results of other groups, we refer to McWilliam (1990), which
is presumably the most extensive investigation so far on 671
G–K giants, as well as to the three latest studies available
(da Silva et al. 2006; Luck & Heiter 2007; Hekker & Meléndez
2007). How our results are compared with others is graphically
displayed in figures 5, 6, 7, and 8, respectively. A glance at
these figures suffices to realize that systematic differences are
more or less observed in many cases; this may simply suggest
the difficulty of parameter determinations in the case of giant
stars, which critically depends on the method to be adopted
(e.g., photometric vs. spectroscopic, etc.) as well as on the
data to be used (e.g., which lines to be adopted among those of
different strengths or of atomic parameters). Several remark-
able features (notable systematic trends specific to our results,
considerable discrepancies, etc.) are summarized below: Fig. 6. Comparison of the stellar parameters determined in this study
— Our spectroscopically determined log g values appear to with those derived by da Silva et al. (2006) for 9 stars in common:
(a) Teff , (b) log g, (c) vt , (d) [Fe=H], (e) M , and (f) log R.
be systematically lower by 0.2–0.3 dex (cf. figures 5b, 6b,

Fig. 8. Comparison of the atmospheric parameters determined in this
study with those derived by Hekker and Meléndez (2007) for 147 stars
in common: (a) Teff , (b) log g, (c) vt , and (d) AFe (logarithmic Fe
abundance in the usual normalization of AH = 12:00).
G–K giants of luminosity class III.

— Luck and Heiter’s (2007) M values are appreciably smaller
Fig. 7. Comparison of the stellar parameters determined in this study
than our results (figure 7e). We suspect that this may be due
with those (spectroscopically) derived by Luck and Heiter (2007) for to their use of evolutionary “isochrones” (instead of “tracks”
93 stars in common: (a) Teff , (b) log g, (c) vt , (d) [Fe=H], (e) M , and we adopted), since it may cause considerable errors due to the
(f) log L. insufficient time-step of theoretical calculations when applied
to giants under the phase of rapid evolution (see subsection 3.3
7b, and 8b), compared to other four previous studies, where in Paper I).
McWilliam (1990) adopted the direct g-determination method
[from L, Teff , and M (estimated from evolutionary tracks)], 4. Kinematics and Stellar Rotation
while the spectroscopic method based on Fe I and Fe II lines 4.1. Kinematic Properties
(similar to that we used) was invoked by da Silva et al. (2006),
Luck and Heiter (2007),9 and Hekker and Meléndez (2007). In order to examine the kinematic properties of the program
Differences in the used set of lines may have something to do stars, we computed their orbital motions within the galactic
with this tendency, similarly to the case of vt , as mentioned gravitational potential based on the positional and proper-
below. motion data (taken from the Hipparcos catalog) along with the
— There is a trend that our vt results are smaller by several radial-velocity data (measured by us), following the procedure
tenths of km s1 , as compared to others. This may be attributed described in subsection 2.2 of Takeda (2007). The adopted
to the difference in the lines used (especially in terms of input data and the resulting solutions of kinematic parame-
line strengths), because vt tends to be depth-dependent (i.e., ters are given the file “kinepara.dat” contained in e-table E1.
increasing with height) in low-gravity stars (see, e.g., appendix Figures 9a and 9b show the correlations of zmax (maximum
B in Takeda & Takada-Hidai 1994). separation from the galactic plane) vs. VLSR (rotation velocity
— Even so, McWilliam’s (1990) vt values ( 2–4 km s1 ) component relative to LSR) and e (orbital eccentricity) vs.
seem to be exceptionally too large (figure 5b), if we consult hRg i (mean galactocentric radius), respectively. Applying
the review of Gray (1988; see figure 3–8 therein), which indi- Ibukiyama and Arimoto’s (2002) classification criteria to
cates that vt generally falls in the range of 1–2 km s1 for figure 9a, we can see that most ( 97%) stars belong to the
group of normal thin-disk population, while only 8 stars (indi-
9 While Luck and Heiter (2007) published three different sets of stellar cated by open symbols) may be of thick-disk population having
parameters determined in different ways (“spectroscopic”, “MARCS75”, characteristics of large eccentricity (figure 9b), high space-
and “physical”; cf. their table 2), we used their “spectroscopic” parameters
for the present comparison, which they derived from the Fe I and Fe II lines
velocity as well as low metallicity (figure 9c), and compara-
based on the “new” MARCS grid of model atmospheres. tively aged stars of lower-mass (figure 9d).

Fig. 9. (a) Correlation diagram between zmax (maximum separation from the galactic plane) and VLSR (rotation velocity component relative to LSR),
which may be used for classifying the stellar population (the halo/thick-disk/thin-disk boundaries are also shown by dashed lines according to Ibukiyama
& Arimoto 2002). Eight stars, which may be thick-disk candidates, are indicated by their HD numbers. (b) e (orbital eccentricity) plotted against hRg i
(mean galactocentric radius). (c) [Fe=H]-dependence of the space velocity relative to LSR [jvLSR j .ULSR 2 2
+ VLSR 2
+ WLSR /1=2 ]. (d) M -dependence
of jvLSR j (approximate age’s at four different M values are also indicated). Shown by open symbols in all four panels are the possible thick-disk
candidates.
of three component functions: the instrumental broadening

4.2. Rotational Velocity
(denoted as “ip”), rotation (“rt”), and macroturbulence (“mt”);
4.2.1. Modeling of macro-broadening function i.e., fM = fip frt fmt .
In order to derive the projected rotational velocity (ve sin i ) — (3) All of the relevant broadening functions are assumed to
from the widths of spectral lines, we made the following have the same Gaussian form parameterized by the e-folding
assumptions regarding the line-broadening functions: half-width (v˛ ) as f˛ .v/ / exp.v 2 =v˛2 ), where ˛ represents
— (1) The observed stellar spectrum (Dobs ) is a convolution any of the suffixes. Then, a simple relation holds between the
2 2 2 2
of the modeled intrinsic spectrum (D0 ; computable if a model broadening parameters as vM = vip + vrt + vmt .
atmosphere, a microturbulence, and elemental abundances are — (4) For convenience, we also use the combined broad-
given) and the total macro-broadening function, fM .v/; i.e., ening function, fr+m , which is the “macroturbulence + rota-
Dobs = D0 fM (“*” means the convolution procedure ). tion” function, defined as fr+m frt fmt (with a relation
2 2 2
— (2) The total macrobroadening function is a convolution vr+m = vrt + vmt ).
4.2.2. Determination of vr+m from 6080–6089 Å fitting 4.2.4. Calibration of ve si n i
Regarding the actual determination of line broadening Now that the macroturbulence (vmt ) for each star has been
for each star, we applied automatic spectrum-fitting tech- assigned, we can obtain the rotational broadening
q parameter
nique (Takeda 1995) to the 6080–6089 Å region (given the (vrt ) from the already known vr+m as vrt = vr+m 2 2
vmt .
model atmosphere corresponding to the atmospheric parame-
However, since our modeling is based on a rather rough
ters derived in subsection 3.1), which successfully establishes
approximation of Gaussian rotational broadening, we have
such solutions of seven free parameters that accomplish the
to find an appropriate calibration relation connecting vrt and
best fit: the abundances of six elements (Si, Ti, V, Fe, Co, and
ve sin i , for which we invoke Gray’s (1989) ve sin i results
Ni) and the total macrobroadening (vM ). See subsection 4.2 of
for G giants derived from his elaborate line-profile analysis.
Takeda et al. (2007) for more details. Two examples of how
Figure 10c shows the correlation of our vrt and Gray’s (1989)
the theoretical spectrum corresponding to the final solutions
ve sin i for 44 stars in common. We then have a linear-
matches the observed spectrum are shown in figure q 10a. regression relation,

2 2
Once vM is known, we can obtain vr+m ( vM vip by
ve sin i = 1:01vrt + 0:67; (2)
definition) by subtracting vip (2.69 km s1 ) corresponding to
the spectrum resolving power of R ' 67000.10 which we finally adopted to obtain ve sin i . We point out that
4.2.3. Separation of rotation and macroturbulence this proportionality factor of 1.01 is quite reasonable, consid-
Since we now know vr+m , the rotational broadening (vrt ) ering the value of 1.05 (= 1=0.94) expected from a rough esti-
can be evaluated by extracting the macroturbulence component mation (see footnote 12).
(vmt ) from it. Here, we make a practical assumption that “the The resulting values of ve sin i (along with vr+m and vmt )
macroturbulence depends only on the surface gravity,” which are given in the file “profit6085.dat” contained in e-table E1,
we believe to be justified for the following two reasons: where the abundances of Si, Ti, V, Fe, Co, and Ni (derived
— (a) According to Gray’s (1989) detailed line-profile study on as by-products of 6080–6089 Å fitting) are also presented. As
G giants, we may regard that the Teff -dependence of the macro- shown in figure 10d, our ve sin i results are in reasonable agree-
turbulence11 is almost negligible for our sample stars clustering ment (even though ours tend to be slightly smaller at the high
at the spectral type of late-G. ve sin i range of 10 km s1 ) with the recent two exten-
— (b) In view of the reasonable connection between the sive determinations by de Medeiros and Mayor (1999) and
macroturbulence and microturbulence (see, e.g., Gray 1988), Massarotti et al. (2008). Note that, although these two studies
the remarkably tight log g-dependence of vt (increasing with are based on different techniques (cross-correlation method
a decrease in g; cf. figure 1c) suggests that the variation of vmt with CORAVEL, line-broadening width measurement similar
is essentially dominated by the change in log g. to ours), they both used Gray’s results as the calibration stan-
The vr+m values are plotted against log g in figure 10b. dards.
Interestingly, we can recognize in this figure a clear-cut Figures 10e and 10f display the correlations of ve sin i vs.
boundary
boundary line (vr+m ' 4:3 0:67 log g), below which no Teff and ve sin i vs. M , respectively. We can confirm in
stars are seen. Considering that the contribution of projected figure 10e an apparent rotational break at Teff 5000 K, below
rotational velocity can be as small as zero (in the case of which ve sin i quickly falls off, consistently with the conclusion
nearly pole-on stars), we can reasonably assume that this lower of Gray (1989). The tendency of increasing ve toward larger
boundary represents the case of vrt ' 0, which leads to the M (figure 10f) may be interpreted as mainly being due to the
relation we use for estimating the macroturbulence, positive correlation between M and Teff (cf. figure 3d), though
it may partly reflect the real M -dependence of the angular
vmt = 4:3 0:67 log g: (1) momentum. Since the distribution of ve sin i for 10 planet-
1 host stars does not differ much from that of non–planet-host
We point out that the vmt range of 2–3 km s derived from
this equation is just consistent with Gray’s (1989) result of stars (figures 10e and 10f), we could not nominate any clear
RT 5–6 km s1 , since the relationship of vmt ' 0:4

RT is such candidates that have acquired excess angular momentum
expected to hold.12 by ingestion of planets (see also Massarotti et al. 2008).
5. Elemental Abundances
10 Since the Gaussian FWHM is 3 105 =67000 1
p ' 4:48 km s , the corre-
sponding e-folding half-width makes 4:48=.2 ln 2/ ' 2:69 km s1 . The abundances of 17 elements (C, O, Na, Si, Ca, Sc, Ti, V,
11 We can see from figure 7 of Gray (1989) that, while the radial–tangential
Cr, Mn, Co, Ni, Cu, Y, Ce, Pr, Nd) relative to the Sun were
macroturbulence (
RT ) in late-G giants tends to slightly decrease from

RT 6 km s1 at G5 III to
RT 5 km s1 at K0 III on the average, this derived from the measured equivalent widths in the same way
trend is not significant compared to the scatter ( 3 km s1 ). as described in subsection 4.1 of Paper I,13 which should be
12 While
p the v value corresponding to the half-maximum is 0:83 vmt .= consulted for more details.
ln 2 vmt / for the Gaussian macroturbulence function, it is v ' 0.35
RT The detailed line-by-line results of relative-to-Sun differ-
for the case of the radial–tangential-type macroturbulence function (see,
ential abundances (Δ) and their average ([X=H] hΔi) are
e.g., figure 17.5 in Gray 2005). That is, on the requirement that the FWHM
of two broadening functions of different types be equal, we obtain vmt ' presented in e-table E3 (the results for HD ?????? are contained
(0.35=0.83)
RT ' 0:42
RT . Quite similarly, since v ' 0:78 ve sin i for
the realistic rotational broadening function (e.g., figure 18.5 in Gray 2005), 13 One difference is that (unlike Paper I) we did not determine the abundances
we have vrt ' .0:78=0:83/ve sin i ' 0:94 ve sin i as the relation between of elements with Z > 60 (e.g., Gd, Hf) this time, because they are based
vrt and ve sin i. mostly on only one line and thus unreliable.
Fig. 10. (a) Examples of a spectrum-synthesis fitting in the 6080–6089 Å region for evaluating the total macro-broadening parameter (vM ), from
which vr+m (macroscopic broadening velocity field including both rotation and macroturbulence) is derived by subtracting the effect of instrumental
broadening. The upper (HD 13994) and lower (HD 4732) spectra show typical cases of higher ve sin i and lower ve sin i, respectively. Identifications
of prominent lines are also given. (b) Correlation between vr+m and log g, in which we may regard the lower envelope boundary (4:3 0:67 log g;
q line) as representing the log g-dependence of vmt (macroturbulence velocity dispersion). (c) Relation between the rotational
indicated by the dashed
2 2
broadening, vrt ( vr+m vmt ), and the projected rotational velocity (ve sin i) determined by Gray (1989) from his elaborate line-profile analysis,
plotted for 44 stars in common. The dashed line shows the linear-regression line (derived by the least-squares fit), ve sin i = 1:01vrt + 0:67, which we
adopted to convert vrt to ve sin i. (d) Comparison of such derived ve sin i values with the literature values: filled circles are those from de Medeiros and
Mayor (1999) (128 stars in common), while open triangles are those from Massarotti et al. (2008) (plotted for 96 stars out of 157 stars in common, where
61 stars with ve sin i Massarotti = 0 are excluded). (e) Teff -dependence of ve sin i. 10 planet-host stars are indicated by open circles. (f) M -dependence
of ve sin i. Indicated above are the approximate age’s at four different M values, while 10 planet-host stars are shown by open circles.
Fig. 11. Panels (a) through (q): [X=Fe] values ( [X=H] [Fe=H] for each element X) derived from our abundance analyses using the measured
equivalent widths plotted against [Fe=H]. (a) [C=Fe], (b) [O=Fe] (see Appendix for the meaning of the horizontal dotted line at [O=Fe] = 0:37,
down to which the zero-point might be lowered), (c) [Na=Fe], (d) [Si=Fe], (e) [Ca=Fe], (f) [Sc=Fe], (g) [Ti=Fe], (h) [V=Fe], (i) [Cr=Fe], (j) [Mn=Fe],
(k) [Co=Fe], (l) [Ni=Fe], (m) [Cu=Fe], (n) [Y=Fe], (o) [Ce=Fe], (p) [Pr=Fe], and (q) [Nd=Fe]. For Sc, Ti, V, and Cr, two kinds of results from lines of
different ionization stages are separately shown in panels (f), (g), (h), and (i), respectively, where the lower results (vertically offset by 0.5 dex) may
be comparatively less reliable because of being based on a smaller number of lines. Meanwhile, the [X=Fe]6085 values corresponding to the abundances
6085 , A6085 , A6085 , A6085 , A6085 , and A6085 ) derived from the spectrum fitting in the 6080–6089 Å region are plotted against [Fe=H]6085 in the last three
(ASi Ti V Fe Co Ni
panels: (r) [Si=Fe]6085 and [Ti=Fe] (offset by 0.5 dex), (s) [V=Fe]6085 and AFe std A6085 (offset by 0.5 dex), and (t) [Co=Fe]6085 and [Ni=Fe] (offset
Fe
by 0.5 dex). In all panels, 10 planet-host stars are indicated by open symbols.
in the “??????.cmb” file). Also, the [X=H] values for each
of the species are summarized in the file “xhresults.dat” of
e-table E1. The [X=Fe] ratios ( [X=H] [Fe=H]) are plotted
against [Fe=H] in figure 11, where the results corresponding
to the abundances (of Si, Ti, V, Fe, Co, and Ni) derived from
a 6080–6089 Å fitting are also shown for a comparison. We
can see by comparing this figure with figure 7 of Paper I that
the characteristic trend of [X=Fe] vs. [Fe=H] exhibited by each
species (useful for discussing the chemical evolution in the
Galaxy) has become more manifest in the present study, thanks
to the increased number of stars.

6. Abundance and Metallicity Characteristics
Now that we have accomplished our main purpose of

determining the parameters and surface abundances of 322
late-G giants in the preceding sections 2–5, some discussion
based on these results may be appropriate here regarding the
notable features seen in the derived abundances and the metal-
licity, especially in connection with their dependence upon
stellar parameters or with the nature of planet-host stars.
6.1. Abundance Anomalies in C, O, and Na
By comparing figure 11 with Takeda’s (2007) figure 12,
we can confirm that the behavior of [X=Fe] vs. [Fe=H] plots
for these late-G giants are mostly similar to those of F–G–
K dwarfs in the solar neighborhood for many comparatively
heavier species (i.e., Si, Ca, Sc, Ti, V, Cr, Mn, Co, Ni, Cu),
which suggests that the abundance trends of these elements can
be reasonably understood as being due to the chemical evolu-
tion of the Galaxy.
However, the situation is different for the three lighter
elements (C, O, Na), as can be recognized when figures 11a,
11b, 11c are compared with Takeda and Honda’s (2005)
figures 6a and 6c and Takeda’s (2007) figure 12a, respectively.
Namely, the zero point (the value of [X=Fe] corresponding to
the solar metallicity of [Fe=H] = 0) is appreciably discrepant
from zero ([C=Fe] < 0, [O=Fe] < 0,14 and [Na=Fe] > 0) and
the slope of j[X=Fe]=[Fe=H]j 1 for C and O is appreciably
steeper than the case of dwarf stars ( 0.2 for C and 0.4 for Fig. 12. Correlations between the abundance ratios and their
O; cf. subsection 5.1 in Takeda & Honda 2005). More inter- M -dependences: (a) [O=Fe] vs. [C=Fe], (b) [Na=Fe] vs. [C=Fe],
estingly, we can observe a correlation between C and O and (c) [Na=Fe] vs. [O=Fe], (d) [C=Si] vs. [Si=H], (e) [C=Fe] vs. M ,
an anti-correlation between C and Na (and also between O and (f) [O=Fe] vs. M , (g) [Na=Fe] vs. M , and (h) [C=Si] vs. M . In
panels (a), (c), and (f), the position of [O=Fe] = 0:37 is shown by
Na), as shown in figures 12a, 12b, and 12c. Besides, these C, a dotted line, to which the zero-point of [O=Fe] might be lowered (cf.
O, and Na abundances appear to depend upon the stellar mass Appendix). Planet-host stars are indicated by open symbols.
(figures 12e, 12f, and 12g).
It is then natural to consider that the abundances of these
three elements (C, O, Na) in the photosphere of late-G giants of such “a posteriori” abundance changes becomes progres-
have suffered appreciable changes (a decrease in C and O, an sively pronounced as M becomes larger. Regarding the mech-
increase in Na) from their original composition and the effect anism for this cause, it is likely to be mixing of the H-burning
product dredged-up from the deep interior, where C and O
14 Unfortunately, we are not confident with the O abundance derived from are reduced by the CN- and ON-cycles while Na is enriched
only one forbidden [O I] line at 5577.34 Å . Actually, it is probable that
our [O=H] values derived for these giant stars are significantly under- by the NeNa-cycle (as already speculated in subsection 5.3 of
estimated by as much as 0.3–0.4 dex (the zero point might have to be Paper I). Further, the extent of this mixing-induced anomaly
shifted down to the position shown by the dotted line in figure 11b). This tends to be larger for higher-metallicity stars because of the
problem is separately discussed in Appendix more in detail. Anyway, we positive correlation between [Fe=H] and M (cf. figure 3f),
use in this discussion our [O=H] values as they are, hoping that they still
which reasonably accounts for the trends in [C=Fe] vs. [Fe=H]
correctly describe the relative behavior (i.e., the slope of j[O=Fe]=[Fe=H]j
or j[O=Fe]=[C=Fe]j, for example) even if considerable zero-point errors are and [O=Fe] vs. [Fe=H] (steep gradient) as well as in [Na=Fe]
involved in [O=H] or [O=Fe] in the absolute sense. vs. [Fe=H] (conspicuous raise toward [Fe=H] & 0) seen in
figures 11a, 11b, and 11c.
This scenario naturally explains the relationship between
[C=Si] and [Si=H] (cf. subsection 5.2 of Paper I15 ); that is,
since the reduction of photospheric C becomes more efficient at
higher metallicity as well as higher mass, the tendency of anti-
correlation seen in [C=Si] vs. [Si=H] (figure 12d) and [C=Si]
vs. M (figure 12h) is reasonably understood.
We remark, however, that such abundance changes due to
evolution-induced envelope mixing in late-G giants of 1.5–
5 Mˇ has not yet been theoretically justified, at least for O
and Na. Namely, according to the canonical stellar evolution
calculations (e.g., Lejeune & Schaerer 2001), such giant stars

of intermediate-mass only show a sign of CN-cycled prod-
ucts (C-deficient and N-enriched material, while O and Na are
essentially unchanged) because the mixing is not so deep as
to salvage ON-cycle or NeNa-cycle products. Therefore, it
would be highly desirable to investigate from the theoretical
side whether such an O-deficiency and Na-enrichment is ever
feasible or not in the photosphere of late-G giants (including
red-clump giants), such as seen in old globular cluster stars
(where Na vs. O anti-correlation is reported; see, e.g., Kraft
1994) or high-mass supergiants [Na is generally overabundant
as discussed in Takeda & Takada-Hidai (1994); and the possi- Fig. 13. Metallicity distribution (histogram of the numbers of stars
bility of O-deficiency due to mixing of ON-cycled gas was per 0.1 dex bin in [Fe=H]) of the program stars, separately shown for
suspected by Luck & Lambert (1985)]. (a) 312 non–planet-host stars and (b) 10 planet-host stars.
Also, we would again call attention to the poor reliability (at
least in the absolute sense) of our O-abundances derived from a marked contrast to the case of F–G–K dwarfs,16 where
the [O I] 5577 line (cf. footnote 14 and the Appendix), which plane-harboring stars tend to be generally metal-rich (see, e.g.,
may contain considerable zero-point error. Hence, as far as Gonzalez 2003 or Udry & Santos 2007, and the references
the results involving [O=Fe] or [O=H] are concerned, further therein).
checks or examinations using various other lines (e.g., [O I] This consequence (lack of metal-rich tendency in planet-
6300=6363 or O I 7771–5 triplet) would be required before host giants) is in fair agreement with the result of Pasquini
reaching a final conclusion. et al. (2007). However, we can not lend support for Hekker
and Meléndez’s (2007) contradictory argument that planet-host
6.2. Metallicity Distribution giants are more metal-rich by 0.13 dex as compared to the
Form the viewpoint of planet formation, an important large sample of ordinary giants. We suspect that this may
subject is to examine whether the metallicity distribution of reflect their sample choice of planet-host stars, in which not so
planet-harboring giants shows any difference from that of many giants as subgiant stars of near-solar-mass are included
ordinary giants without planets. Figures 13a and 13b show (i.e., the general trend may be partly affected/contaminated by
a histogram of the [Fe=H] distribution for our 322 targets, sepa- the characteristics of higher-gravity stars). We would further
rated for 312 non–planet-host stars (non-PHS) and 10 planet- point out that they used “literature [Fe=H] values” taken from
host stars (PHS), respectively. We can recognize in figure 13a various sources for planet-host giants, which were compared
that [Fe=H] has a characteristic distribution, which is peaked at with their own [Fe=H] results of normal giants; this makes
a slightly subsolar value ( 0:1) with a gradual/steep decline us feel that their results had better be viewed with caution,
toward lower/higher metallicity. It is also worth noting that especially when delicate abundance differences as small as
no super–metal-rich stars ([Fe=H] > +0:2) are found in our 0:1 dex are involved.
sample. Regarding the [Fe=H] trend of planet-host giants, How should we interpret the absence of metal-rich trend in
although the number of the samples is too small to make planet-host giants in contrast to the case of dwarfs (i.e., the fact
any definite argument, the metallicity range (from 0:4 to that planets can form around rather metal-poor intermediate-
+0:2 centering around 0:1) is quite similar (figure 13b) mass stars)? Some explanations may be possible even within
to that of non–planet-host stars; actually, the average values the framework of the standard core-accretion theory favoring
are almost indistinguishable (h[Fe=H]inonPHS = 0:11 and the metal-rich condition (e.g., Hayashi et al. 1985; Ida & Lin
h[Fe=H]iPHS = 0:13). Hence, we conclude that there is 2004):
no essential difference in the metallicity distribution between — (1) Since the mass of the proto-planetary disk tends to
planet-host giants and non–planet-host giants, which makes be generally large for massive stars, sufficient material for
15 In that paper this tendency was discussed in terms of the selective depletion 16 In addition, we note from figures 11 and 12 that this argument also holds for
of refractory elements (such as Si) while the volatile species (such as C) the relative abundance patterns (i.e.,, distribution of [X=Fe] ratios), which
remain unchanged, which is seen in Boo-type stars. Instead, we now means that planet-host giants and non–planet-host giants are practically
consider it is C that has acquired anomaly. indiscernible in terms of the chemical abundance properties in general.
the metallicity upper-limit of giants ( +0:2dex) is lower than
that for dwarfs ( +0:4 dex), which results in the “lack of
super–metal-rich giants”, as already remarked at the beginning
of this subsection. If this trend is real, it might serve as a clue
to investigate the past history of galactic chemical evolution
(e.g., a special event such as a substantial infall of metal-poor
primordial gas might have happened 109 years ago). It would
thus be desirable/necessary to check on late B through F main-
sequence stars (i.e., progenitors of giants) whether the same
tendency as seen in these G-giants is observed.
7. Summary and Conclusion

For the purpose of clarifying the properties of the targets
of Okayama Planet Search Program, we conducted a compre-
hensive investigation of stellar parameters and photospheric
Fig. 14. Age–metallicity relation. Circles show the results for 322 chemical abundances for 322 intermediate-mass late-G giants
late-G giants investigated in this study, while squares are those for the (including 10 planet-host stars).
160 F–G–K dwarfs taken from Takeda (2007). Planet-host stars (10 out
of 322 for the former and 27 out of 160 for the latter) are indicated by
The atmospheric parameters (Teff , log g, vt , and [Fe=H])
open symbols. were determined from the equivalent widths of Fe I and Fe II
lines, and the mass and age were estimated from the posi-
tion on the HR diagram with the help of stellar evolutionary
core-formation may still be available, even in the metal- tracks. Many of our program stars were found to be “red-clump
deficient condition as low as [Fe=H] 0:3, making planet giants.”
formation feasible. The kinematic parameters (zmax , VLSR , e, hRg i, etc.) were
— (2) While planet-formation may proceed efficiently in the evaluated by computing the orbital motion in a given galactic
metal-rich case, such planets (formed in a rather short time gravitational potential. Most stars ( 97%) appear to belong to
scale) are apt to migrate inward (because a substantial amount the thin-disk population, though eight stars are suspected to be
of disk-gas may still remain without being dissipated), which of thick-disk origin.
would not survive as planets around giants because of being The projected rotational velocities (ve sin i ) were determined
engulfed. In this sense, not-so-metal-rich system might be even from the width of macro-broadening function, evaluated by the
more favorable for planet-detection around giants. spectrum-fitting in the 6080–6089 Å region, by subtracting the
— (3) Alternatively, the planet-formation around intermediate- effect of macroturbulence. We confirmed a rotational break at
mass stars might occur by a mechanism other than the canon- Teff 5000 K, below which ve sin i quickly falls off.
ical core-accretion. As a matter of fact, in order to explain The photospheric chemical abundances (differential values
the metal-poor long tail of [Fe=H] distribution in planet-host relative to the Sun) of 17 elements (C, O, Na, Si, Ca, Sc, Ti,
dwarfs (e.g., Udry & Santos 2007), it has been argued that V, Cr, Mn, Co, Ni, Cu, Y, Ce, Pr, Nd) were derived from the
two different planet-formation processes may be coexistent; equivalent widths of selected spectral lines. The resulting
i.e., the metallicity-dependent core-accretion process, and the [X=Fe] vs. [Fe=H] relations for giants were found to be similar
disk-instability mechanism (e.g., Boss 1997) which is consid- to those of F–G–K dwarfs for most of the heavier elements
ered to take place almost independently on the metallicity. If (Si–Cu), indicating that the abundance trends of these elements
planets around intermediate stars are preferentially formed by may be understood within the framework of the galactic chem-
the latter mechanism, the observational fact may be reasonably ical evolution.
explained. However, abundance peculiarities were found in C, O, and
Finally, the age–metallicity relation for 322 late-G giants is Na, in the sense that C and O are deficient, while Na is
displayed in figure 14, where a similar relation obtained for enriched, and the extents of these anomalies appear to increase
160 F–G–K dwarfs taken from Takeda (2007) is also shown for with the stellar mass. We thus suspect that the surface abun-
a comparison. As discussed above, the metal-rich tendency of dances of these elements have suffered changes caused by
planet-host dwarfs and the absence of such a trend for planet- mixing of H-burning products (CN-, ON-, and NeNa-cycle)
host giants are manifestly observed. We can also see that salvaged from the deep interior, though our results for O
planet-host giants so far reported have ages older than several derived from the [O I] 5577 line should be regarded with
108 years (corresponding to M . 3Mˇ ), which might be caution, which may be considerably underestimated.
related to the time scale of planet formation. A strange feature The metallicity distribution of planet-host giants was found
recognized from this figure is the apparent discontinuity in to be almost the same as that of non–planet-host giants
the metallicity distribution between giants and dwarfs; that is, (i.e., planets are equally found for metal-poor as well as
while the large scatter of [Fe=H]dwarfs seen in old stars (age metal-rich giants), which makes marked contrast to the
1010 yr) tends to converge toward medium-aged stars (age case of planet-host dwarfs tending to be metal-rich. Any
109 yr), a large spread reappears in [Fe=H]giants at age 109 yr, theory for planet-formation around intermediate-mass should
which again shrinks toward young stars (age 108 yr). Also, account for this fact.
When the metallicities of these comparatively young (typical larger because of the difficulty in measuring weak lines), which
age of 109 yr) giants are compared with those of F–G–K means that the large discrepancy ([O=H]5577 < [O=H]7773 )
dwarfs (mainly 108 yr . age . 109 yr), a discontinuity appears occurs only in giants.
to exist between these two groups, and [Fe=H]giants tend to As a possibility for explaining this confusing situation, we
be somewhat lower than [Fe=H]dwarfs at the same age with an speculated that “the [O I] 5577 line is significantly contam-
apparent lack of super–metal-rich ([Fe=H] > 0.2) giants. inated (even if superficially undetectable) by some blending
component in solar-type dwarfs (including the Sun), whereas
This study is based on observational material that has been this blending effect becomes insignificant in the condition of
accumulated during the course of the Okayama Planet Search low-gravity giants.” If this is really the case, while the resulting
Program over the past 7 years. We are grateful to all of the overestimated solar oxygen abundance would cause an under-
giants
project members for their collaboration and encouragement, as estimation of [O=H]5577 , the [O=H]dwarfs5577 would not be essen-
well as to the observatory staff for their helpful support in the tially affected because the error (acting on both the star and the

observations. Special thanks are due to M. Omiya, E. Toyota, Sun) is cancelled by each other.
S. Masuda, E. Kambe, and H. Izumiura, who have made Following this consideration, we searched Kurucz and Bell’s
particularly large contributions in carrying out the observa- (1995)5 list of spectral lines in the neighborhood of 5577.34 Å,
tions. We further thank S. Ida for his insightful comments from and found that the Y I line at 5577.42 Å can have an appre-
the theoretical side concerning the metallicity-independence ciable contribution. In order to examine whether its blending
of planet-host giants. Financial support by Grant-in-Aid for produces any quantitatively significant effect, we carried out
Young Scientists (B) No.17740106 (to B.S.) and by “The 21st spectrum synthesis analyses of the [O I] 5577 region to find
Century COE Program: The Origin and Evolution of Planetary the best-fit O-abundance solutions of the Sun and HD 28305
Systems” in Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science ( Tau; selected as a representative giant star) for two cases:
and Technology (MEXT) (to D.M.) are also acknowledged. (1) both O and Y abundances are varied while including the Y I
line, and (2) only the O abundance is varied while neglecting
Appendix. [O I] 5577 as Abundance Indicator the Y I line. The resulting solutions of log (O) for cases
(1)=(2) are 8.99=9.05 (Sun) and 8.95=9.02 (HD 28305), and the
In this study, we had to invoke only one forbidden [O I] appearance of the final fit between the observed and theoretical
line of low excitation at 5577.34 Å (2p4 1 D2 –2p4 1 S0 , low = spectra is depicted in figures 15e (Sun) and 15f (HD 28305).
1.97 eV) for O-abundance determination, since this was the We may conclude from these results that, although this Y I line
only available line in our spectrum data covering the 5000– shows some contribution to the absorption feature at 5577 Å
6200 Å region.17 Having compared the resulting oxygen (its inclusion surely improves the fitting), its effect is insignifi-
abundances ([O=H]5577 ) with those of Takeda et al. (1998) cant in a quantitative sense (the extent of the abundance change
derived from the O I 7771–5 lines ([O=H]NLTE 7773 )
18
for the is only . 0:1 dex), and thus can not be the cause of the discrep-
12 stars in common, we found a significantly large system- ancy amounting to 0.3–0.4 dex.
atic difference (by 0.3–0.4 dex; 0.37 dex on the average) Consequently, we could not find any reasonable solution to
between these two (the former is lower than the latter), as the problem of why our [O=H] results derived from [O I] 5577
shown in figure 15a. Furthermore, when compared with Luck for late-G giants tend to be markedly lower than those based
and Heiter’s (2007) [O=H]6300 results derived from the [O I] on O I 7771–5 or [O I] 6300. Further intensive studies toward
6300.31 Å line, a similar discrepancy was again recognized clarifying the cause of this disagreement (such as searching for
(figure 15b), which makes us suspect that our [O=H]5577 may some other blending candidate on an updated line list, or inves-
be considerably underestimated. tigating the line-formation mechanism19 in the presence of the
The error in the gf value (if any exists) is not relevant here, extended circumstellar gas in order to search for a possibility of
because our analysis is purely differential relative to the Sun. filled-in emission, which may lead to a weakening of absorp-
Also, it can not be due to the [O I] 5577 emission line of tion), would be required to settle this puzzling situation.
geo-atmospheric origin (which is surely observed in our spec- In any case, modestly speaking, our results on oxygen abun-
trum), since its wavelength is generally different from that of dances should be viewed with caution, since they may be
the stellar line due to the Doppler shift (we anyhow gave up systematically underestimated, though we would not conclude
its measurement when an overlapping was confirmed by eye- them to be totally erroneous as long as a possibility still exists
inspection). (even if marginal) that the results from the other lines are
More strangely, when it comes to F–G–K dwarfs, [O=H]5577 overestimated for some unknown reasons (e.g., blending effect
and [O=H]7773 are consistent with each other, as we can see in in [O I] 6300 occurring only in giants, intensification of O I
figures 15c and 15d (though the uncertainties in the former are 7771–5 lines caused by chromospheric temperature rise).
17
Although we searched for the high-excitation O I 6155–58 lines as another
possibility, they were too weak to be detected.
18
We used AO;NLTE
ˇ = 8.82 (Takeda & Honda 2005) as the reference solar 19 According to the conventional non-LTE calculation (e.g., Takeda et al.
oxygen abundance for [O=H]NLTE 7773 . Therefore, since the [O=H] values 1998) using ordinary plain-parallel atmospheric models, the formation of
given in table 1 of Takeda et al. (1998) are the abundances relative to ˇ Gem the [O I] 5577 line is almost perfectly described in LTE; i.e., no emission
(AO;NLTE
ˇGem = 8.88), a correction of +0.06 should be added in order to line is produced.
convert them to the abundances relative to the Sun. 20 Available at hhttp://kurucz.harvard.edu/sun.htmli.
Fig. 15. (a) [O=H]NLTE7773 (from O I 7771–5; Takeda et al. 1998) vs. [O=H]5577 (from [O I] 5577; this study) correlation for 12 stars in common. The
relation h[O=H]NLTE
7773 i h[O=H]5577 i = 0:37 holds between these two averages, as shown by the dashed line. (b) Comparison of [O=H]6300 determined
by Luck and Heiter (1997) from the [O I] 6300 line with [O=H]5577 derived in this study based on the [O I] 5577 line, for 93 stars in common. The dashed
line indicates the relation [O=H]6300 = [O=H]5577 + 0.37, tentatively drawn in analogy with panel (a). (c) Comparison of [O=H]NLTE 7773 and [O=H]5577
for F–G–K dwarfs. The former is the non-LTE abundance derived from O I 7771–5 triplet lines taken from table 2 of Takeda and Honda (2005), while
the latter is the (LTE) abundance from the [O I] 5577 line newly determined for this study based on Takeda et al.’s (2005a) spectra database (measurable
for 70 objects out of 160 stars available). (d) [O=Fe] vs. [Fe=H] relation for F–G–K dwarfs. Open squares represent [O=Fe]5577 for 70 stars described
above, while filled circles correspond to [O=Fe]NLTE
7773 of 160 stars (i.e., the same as figure 6c of Takeda & Honda 2005). (e) Spectrum fitting of the solar
flux spectrum (Kurucz et al. 1984)20 in the 5577.0–5577.6 Å region comprising [O I] 5577.34 and Y I 5577.42 lines. Open circles represent the observed
spectrum, while the best-fit theoretical spectra for two cases of different treatments for the Y I line are shown by the solid line (Y I line included) and the
dashed line (Y I line neglected). The strong feature at 5577 Å is due to Fe I 5577.03. (f) Spectrum fitting of HD 28305 ( Tau) in the 5577.0–5577.6 Å
region. Otherwise, the same as in panel (e).
802 Y. Takeda, B. Sato, and D. Murata
References
Alonso, A., Arribas, S., & Martı́nez-Roger, C. 1999, A&AS, 140, 261 Kurucz, R. L., Furenlid, I., Brault, J., & Testerman, L. 1984, Solar
Arenou, F., Grenon, M., & Gómez, A. 1992, A&A, 258, 104 Flux Atlas from 296 to 1300 nm (Sunspot, New Mexico: National
Boss, A. P. 1997, Science, 276, 1836 Solar Observatory)
da Silva, L., et al. 2006, A&A, 458, 609 Lejeune, T., & Schaerer, D. 2001, A&A, 366, 538
de Medeiros, J. R., & Mayor, M. 1999, A&AS, 139, 433 Liu, Y.-J., et al. 2008, ApJ, 672, 553
ESA 1997, The Hipparcos and Tycho Catalogues, ESA SP-1200 Luck, R. E., & Heiter, U. 2007, AJ, 133, 2464
(Noordwijk: ESA) Luck, R. E., & Lambert, D. L. 1985, ApJ, 298, 782
Gonzalez, G. 2003, Rev. Mod. Phys., 75, 101 Massarotti, A., Latham, D. W., Stefanik, R. P., & Fogel, J. 2008, AJ,
Gray, D. F. 1988, Lectures on Spectral-Line Analysis: F, G, and K 135, 209

Stars (Arva, Ontario: The Publisher) McWilliam, A. 1990, ApJS, 74, 1075
Gray, D. F. 1989, ApJ, 347, 1021 Pasquini, L., Döllinger, M. P., Weiss, A., Girardi, L., Chavero, C.,
Gray, D. F. 2005, The Observation and Analysis of Stellar Hatzes, A. P., da Silva, L., & Setiawan, J. 2007, A&A, 473, 979
Photospheres, 3rd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) Reffert, S., Quirrenbach, A., Mitchell, D. S., Albrecht, S., Hekker, S.,
Hatzes, A. P., et al. 2006, A&A, 457, 335 Fischer, D. A., Marcy, G. W., & Butler, R. P. 2006, AJ, 652, 661
Hayashi, C., Nakazawa, K., & Nakagawa, Y. 1985, in Protostars and Sato, B., et al. 2003, ApJ, 597, L157
Planets II (A86-12626 03-90) ed. D. C. Black & M. S. Matthews Sato, B., et al. 2007, ApJ, 661, 527
(Tucson, Arizona: University of Arizona Press), 1100 Sato, B., et al. 2008, PASJ, 60, 539
Hekker, S., & Meléndez, J. 2007, A&A, 475, 1003 Takeda, Y. 1995, PASJ, 47, 287
Ibukiyama, A., & Arimoto, N. 2002, A&A, 394, 927
Takeda, Y. 2007, PASJ, 59, 335
Ida, S., & Lin, D. N. C. 2004, ApJ, 616, 567
Takeda, Y., et al. 2005a, PASJ, 57, 13
Johnson, J. A., et al. 2007, ApJ, 665, 785
Takeda, Y., & Honda, S. 2005, PASJ, 57, 65
Johnson, J. A., Marcy, G. W., Fischer, D. A., Wright, J. T., Reffert, S.,
Kregenow, J. M., Williams, P. K. G., & Peek, K. M. G. 2008, ApJ, Takeda, Y., Kawanomoto, S., Honda, S., Ando, H., & Sakurai, T.
675, 784 2007, A&A, 468, 663
Kraft, R. P. 1994, PASP, 106, 553 Takeda, Y., Kawanomoto, S., & Sadakane, K. 1998, PASJ, 50, 97
Kurucz, R. L. 1992, in Proc. IAU Symp. 149, The Stellar Populations Takeda, Y., Ohkubo, M., & Sadakane, K. 2002, PASJ, 54, 451
of Galaxies, ed. B. Barbuy & A. Renzini (Dordrecht: Kluwer), Takeda, Y., Ohkubo, M., Sato, B., Kambe, E., & Sadakane, K. 2005b,
225 PASJ, 57, 27; Erratum: 57, 415
Kurucz, R. L. 1993, Kurucz CD-ROM No.13, Atlas 9 Stellar Takeda, Y., Sato, B., Kambe, E., Izumiura, H., Masuda, S., & Ando,
Atmosphere Programs and 2 km s1 Grid (Cambridge, MA: H. 2005c, PASJ, 57, 109 (Paper I)
Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory) Takeda, Y., & Takada-Hidai, M. 1994, PASJ, 46, 395
Kurucz, R. L., & Bell, B. 1995, Kurucz CD-ROM No. 23, Udry, S., & Santos, N. C. 2007, ARA&A, 45, 397
Atomic Line Data (Cambridge, MA: Smithsonian Astrophysical Zhao, G., Qiu, H. M., & Mao, S. 2001, ApJ, 551, L85
Observatory)

2008 Takeda - Stellar Parameters and Elemental Abundances of Late-G Giants

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2008 Takeda - Stellar Parameters and Elemental Abundances of Late-G Giants

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PASJ: Publ. Astron. Soc.

Japan 60, 781–802, 2008 August 25

Stellar Parameters and Elemental Abundances of Late-G Giants

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/pasj/article-abstract/60/4/781/1397939 by guest on 17 April 2020

(Received 2008 February 6; accepted 2008 May 7)

1. Introduction be reported in forthcoming papers.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/pasj/article-abstract/60/4/781/1397939 by guest on 17 April 2020

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/pasj/article-abstract/60/4/781/1397939 by guest on 17 April 2020

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/pasj/article-abstract/60/4/781/1397939 by guest on 17 April 2020

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/pasj/article-abstract/60/4/781/1397939 by guest on 17 April 2020

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/pasj/article-abstract/60/4/781/1397939 by guest on 17 April 2020

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/pasj/article-abstract/60/4/781/1397939 by guest on 17 April 2020

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/pasj/article-abstract/60/4/781/1397939 by guest on 17 April 2020

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/pasj/article-abstract/60/4/781/1397939 by guest on 17 April 2020

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/pasj/article-abstract/60/4/781/1397939 by guest on 17 April 2020

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/pasj/article-abstract/60/4/781/1397939 by guest on 17 April 2020

Fig. 4. Comparison of the stellar parameters determined in this study

essentially due to the changes in the used W set of Fe I and

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/pasj/article-abstract/60/4/781/1397939 by guest on 17 April 2020

G–K giants of luminosity class III.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/pasj/article-abstract/60/4/781/1397939 by guest on 17 April 2020

of three component functions: the instrumental broadening

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/pasj/article-abstract/60/4/781/1397939 by guest on 17 April 2020

RT 5–6 km s1 , since the relationship of vmt ' 0:4

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/pasj/article-abstract/60/4/781/1397939 by guest on 17 April 2020

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/pasj/article-abstract/60/4/781/1397939 by guest on 17 April 2020

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/pasj/article-abstract/60/4/781/1397939 by guest on 17 April 2020

Now that we have accomplished our main purpose of

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/pasj/article-abstract/60/4/781/1397939 by guest on 17 April 2020

7. Summary and Conclusion

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/pasj/article-abstract/60/4/781/1397939 by guest on 17 April 2020

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/pasj/article-abstract/60/4/781/1397939 by guest on 17 April 2020

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/pasj/article-abstract/60/4/781/1397939 by guest on 17 April 2020

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/pasj/article-abstract/60/4/781/1397939 by guest on 17 April 2020

You might also like

essentially due to the changes in the used W set of Fe I and

RT 5–6 km s1 , since the relationship of vmt ' 0:4