Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T15:56:23.500Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Stellar metallicity distributions in local dwarf spheroidal galaxies: a comparison between model and observations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 April 2010

Gustavo A. Lanfranchi  and
Francesca Matteucci
Gustavo A. Lanfranchi
Affiliation:
Núcleo de Astrofísica Teórica, Universidade Cruzeiro do Sul, R. Galvão Bueno 868, Liberdade, 01506-000, São Paulo, SP, Brazil email: [email protected]
Francesca Matteucci
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Astronomia-Universitá di Trieste, Via G. B. Tiepolo 11, 34131 Trieste, Italy
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

We analyze the main populations of 6 local Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxies by comparing the observed stellar metallicity distributions with the predictions of chemical evolution models. The predicted metallicity distributions of stars generally exhibit a low range of metallicities, a peak below the one of the MW disc in the solar neighborhood (but similar to the Halo), and a sharp decrease at higher metallicities in agreement with observations. The position of the peak is related to the low star formation rates adopted whereas the sharp decrease is a consequence of the occurrence of strong galactic winds. In the low metallicity tail of the distributions we predict a low number of stars in agreement with observations.

Keywords

stars: abundancesgalaxies: dwarfLocal Group
Type
Poster Papers
Information
Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union , Volume 5 , Symposium S262: Stellar Populations – Planning for the Next Decade , August 2009 , pp. 370 - 371
Copyright
Copyright © International Astronomical Union 2010

References

Bellazzini, M., et al. , 2002, AJ, 124, 3222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lanfranchi, G. & Matteucci, F., 2003, MNRAS, 345, 71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lanfranchi, G. & Matteucci, F., 2004, MNRAS, 351, 1338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lanfranchi, G., Matteucci, F., & Cescutti, , 2006, A&A, 453, 67Google Scholar
Nomoto, K., et al. , 1997, Nucl. Phys. A, 616, 79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koch, A., Grebel, E. K., Wyse, R. F. G., et al. , 2006, AJ, 131, 895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koch, A., Grebel, E. K., Kleyna, J. T., et al. , 2007a, AJ, 133,270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koch, A., Wilkenson, M. I., Kleyna, J. T., et al. , 2007b, ApJ, 657, 241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tolstoy, E., Irwin, M. J., Helmi, A., et al. 2004, ApJ, 617, L119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van den Hoeck, L. B. & Groenwegen, M. A. T., 1997, A&AS, 123, 305Google Scholar
Woosley, S. E. & Weaver, T. A., 1995, ApJS, 101, 181CrossRefGoogle Scholar