Arxiv:1902.10199V1 [Astro-Ph.SR] 26 Feb 2019

Draft version February 28, 2019 Typeset using LATEX twocolumn style in AASTeX61

CHEMICAL ABUNDANCES OF MAIN-SEQUENCE, TURNOFF, SUBGIANT AND RED GIANT STARS FROM APOGEE SPECTRA II: ATOMIC DIFFUSION IN M67 STARS

Diogo Souto,1 C. Allende Prieto,2, 3 Katia Cunha,1, 4 Marc Pinsonneault,5 Verne V. Smith,6 R. Garcia-Dias,2, 3 Jo Bovy,7, 8 D. A. Garc´ıa-Hernandez,´ 2, 3 Jon Holtzman,9 J. A. Johnson,5 Henrik Jonsson¨ ,10 Steve R. Majewski,11 Matthew Shetrone,12 Jennifer Sobeck,11 Olga Zamora,2, 3 Kaike Pan,13 and Christian Nitschelm14

1ObservatórioNacional, Rua General JoséCristino, 77, 20921-400 SãoCristóvão,Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil 2Instituto de Astrof´ısica de Canarias, E-38205 La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain 3Departamento de Astrof´ısica, Universidad de La Laguna, E-38206 La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain 4Steward Observatory, University of Arizona, 933 North Cherry Avenue, Tucson, AZ 85721-0065, USA 5Department of Astronomy, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA 6National Optical Astronomy Observatory, 950 North Cherry Avenue, Tucson, AZ 85719, USA 7Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, University of Toronto, 50 St. George Street, Toronto, ON, M5S 3H4, Canada 8Dunlap Institute for Astronomy and Astrophysics, University of Toronto, ON M5S 3H4, Canada 9New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM 88003, USA 10Lund Observatory, Department of Astronomy and Theoretical Physics, Lund University, Box 43, SE-221 00 Lund, Sweden 11Department of Astronomy, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22904-4325, USA 12University of Texas at Austin, McDonald Observatory, USA 13Apache Point Observatory and New Mexico State University, P.O. Box 59, Sunspot, NM, 88349-0059, USA 14Centro de Astronom´ıa(CITEVA), Universidad de Antofagasta, Avenida Angamos 601, Antofagasta 1270300, Chile

(Accepted to ApJ, February 28, 2019)

ABSTRACT Chemical abundances for 15 elements (C, N, O, Na, Mg, Al, Si, K, Ca, Ti, V, Cr, Mn, Fe, and Ni) are presented for 83 stellar members of the 4 Gyr old solar-metallicity open cluster M67. The sample contains stars spanning a wide range of evolutionary phases, from G dwarfs to red clump stars. The abundances were derived from near-IR (λ1.5 – 1.7µm) high-resolution spectra (R = 22,500) from the SDSS-IV/APOGEE survey. A 1-D LTE abundance analysis was carried out using the APOGEE synthetic spectral libraries, via chi-square minimization of the synthetic and observed spectra with the qASPCAP code. We found significant abundance differences (∼0.05 – 0.30 dex) between the M67 member stars as a function of the stellar mass (or position on the HR diagram), where the abundance patterns exhibit a general depletion (in [X/H]) in stars at the main-sequence turnoff. The amount of the depletion is different for different elements. We find that atomic diffusion models provide, in general, good agreement with the abundance trends for most chemical species, supporting recent studies indicating that measurable atomic diffusion operates in M67 stars.

arXiv:1902.10199v1 [astro-ph.SR] 26 Feb 2019 Keywords: infrared: star – general: open clusters and associations stars – stars: abundances – Physical data and processes: diﬀusion

Corresponding author: Diogo Souto [email protected], [email protected] 2 Souto et al.

1. INTRODUCTION cess that involves the transport of material in the stel- M67 (Messier 67; NGC 2886) is a well-studied lar atmosphere that is described by a diffusion equation, open cluster, with an age and metallicity (4 Gyr and e.g., gravitational settling. Atomic diffusion has a phys- [Fe/H]=0.0, respectively) similar to those of the Sun. ical basis, with diffusion coefficients predicted by theory A number of studies have determined the distance to Chapman(1917a,b), Aller & Chapman(1960), Michaud the cluster (Yadav et al. 2008), its age (Yadav et al. et al.(1976); Michaud(1980), Vauclair et al.(1978); 2008, Sarajedini et al. 2009), photometric colors and Vauclair & Vauclair(1982), Michaud et al.(2004). reddening (Taylor 2007, Sarajedini et al. 2009), as well Diffusion in stars having a solar age and metallicity, as as metallicity and individual chemical abundances (Co- is the case for members of M67, has been theoretically hen 1980, Foy & Proust 1981, Tautvaiˇsieneet al. 2000, investigated by Michaud et al.(2004), who analyzed 28 Pancino et al. 2010, Jacobson et al. 2011, Onehag¨ et al. elements, finding that He, Li, Be, B, Mg, P, Ti, Fe, and 2014, Liu et al. 2016, Gao et al. 2018, Bertelli Motta Ni were those most affected by this mechanism. One et al. 2018, and Souto et al. 2018). M67 is a “bench- of their conclusions was that atomic diffusion models mark” Galactic open cluster and an excellent laboratory can have a significant impact on the stellar ages derived in which to study poorly understood processes in stel- from isochrones. More recently, theoretical calculations lar astrophysics, such as abundance variations in open by Dotter et al.(2017) concluded that atomic diffusion clusters. also plays an important role in stars with a solar age The chemical composition of a star is inherited from and metallicity (not only metal-poor stars), and found the interstellar matter from which it forms; however this that the photospheric iron abundance in turnoff stars composition changes over time due to internal stellar can be depleted by ∼0.12 dex compared to their initial processes, such as gravitational settling or atomic dif- surface abundance as a consequence of atomic diffusion fusion. The approximation employed in the determi- processes. Dotter et al.(2017) noted that ignoring dif- nation of abundances can also induce systematic errors fusion in models would cause an additional uncertainty in the inferred abundances creating an apparent lack of of about 10% in the stellar ages derived from isochrones. homogeneity. Examples of such simplifications are the Evidence for the occurrence of diffusion in M67 stars ¨ assumptions of hydrostatic equilibrium or local thermo- has been found previously by Onehag et al.(2014), who dynamical equilibrium (LTE). studied a sample of fourteen stars belonging to M67, Stellar clusters are useful astrophysical environments including main-sequence stars (6), turnoff (3), and the to study elemental abundance variations due to the rea- early subgiant branch (5), using high-resolution opti- ¨ sonable assumption that stars in a cluster were born cal spectra from FLAMES/UVES on the VLT. Onehag from the same molecular cloud at the same time. Sev- et al.(2014) found abundance differences among the eral authors have studied the initial chemical homogene- groups of 0.05–0.10 dex for Al, Ca, Cr, Mn, and Fe, with ity of open and globular clusters (De Silva et al. 2006, turnoff stars having lower abundances than subgiants. 2007, Reddy et al. 2012, Bovy 2016) and have, so far, Blanco-Cuaresma et al.(2015) compiled a sample of 42 not found any evidence of inhomogeneities in the initial stars in M67 (28 main-sequence and 14 red giants) us- stellar populations of open and globular clusters. ing spectra from NARVAL, HARPS, and UVES. The One well-known process that has been extensively ob- authors observed that the abundances of Na, Mg, and served in clusters is that as stars evolve into red giants, Si show variations of up to 0.10–0.20 dex between dwarf their surface carbon and nitrogen abundances are al- and giant stars in the cluster. tered by the convectively-driven first dredge-up of ma- Souto et al.(2018) (Paper I) studied a small sample terial from the stellar interior that has been exposed to of eight M67 stellar members spanning a range of evolu- H-burning via the CN-cycle (Lagarde et al. 2012, Bres- tionary phases, including G-dwarfs (2), G-turnoff stars san et al. 2012, Choi et al. 2016). This process does not, (2), G-subgiants (2), and red clump K-giants (2) using however, explain the lack of uniformity in the elemen- high-resolution spectra from the Apache Point Obser- tal abundances of main-sequence and turnoff stars found vatory Galactic Evolution Experiment (APOGEE; Ma- in metal-poor globular clusters (Korn et al. 2007, Lind jewski et al. 2017). They found abundance variations et al. 2008, Nordlander et al. 2012). These variations in fourteen elements across the HR diagram, confirming are instead explained by atomic diffusion, a fundamen- that most chemical species display changes in the range tal process predicted by theory (Michaud et al. 2015, of 0.05–0.20 dex (Fe, Na, Mg, Al, Si, Ca, and Mn), references therein), and operating in all stars, which is with the lower abundances observed in turnoff stars, often ignored in stellar evolution models and abundance with M ∼1.2M . Souto et al.(2018) also showed that studies. Atomic diffusion represents the physical pro- the abundance variations found in M67 stars compare Testing Atomic Diffusion in M67 3 very well with theoretical models of atomic diffusion for from the lower main-sequence, the turnoff, the subgiant stars having the solar age and metallicity. Also using branch, and the red giant branch. The M67 APOGEE APOGEE spectra, the study of Bertran de Lis et al. sample is well-suited both to probe the limits on chem- (2016) found significantly more dispersion in [O/Fe] for ical homogeneity in the cluster members, as well as to M67 stars than for other clusters with similar metal- search for signatures of atomic diffusion in the chemical licity but younger ages, such as NGC 6819 or NGC abundances of a number of elements. APOGEE spectra 2158. Bovy(2016) and Price-Jones & Bovy(2018) found are used here to derive detailed chemical abundances of strong constraints on the chemical homogeneity in M67 fifteen elements: C, N, O, Na, Mg, Al, Si, K, Ca, Ti, V, red giant stars from APOGEE. The authors showed that Cr, Mn, Fe, and Ni. M67 red giants are homogeneous based only on their The paper is structured as follows: in Section 2 we stellar spectra, without the need of modeling the stel- describe the adopted sample, in Section 3 we report on lar atmosphere. The uniformity within the red giant the atmospheric parameters and the methodology em- stars may indicate that changes in the stellar abun- ployed to derive the individual abundances, in Section dances across different evolutionary phases in the HR 4 we analyze the abundance trends, and in Section 5 we diagram for M67 might be related to physical processes suggest possible explanations for them. In Section 6 we operating within these stars. discuss the obtained results, summarizing in Section 7. The works of Bertelli Motta et al.(2018) and Gao et al.(2018) have confirmed, using independent data, 2. THE APOGEE DATA ON M67 that atomic diffusion operates in M67 stars. Both works The APOGEE spectrographs are cryogenic multi- used high-resolution optical spectra; Bertelli Motta et al. fiber near-infrared instruments covering the H-band be- (2018) used UVES/FLAMES (R ∼ 20,000–32,000) ob- tween λ1.51 µm - λ1.69 µm, obtaining high-resolution servations from the Gaia/ESO survey (Gilmore et al. (R=λ/∆λ ∼ 22,500) spectra for 300 objects at a time 2012, Randich et al. 2013), reporting abundances of (Wilson et al. 2010, Gunn et al. 2006). The spectro- eleven elements in fifteen stars from the main-sequence, graphs are currently mounted in both hemispheres on turnoff, and red giant branch. Bertelli Motta et al. 2.5m telescopes at APO (Apache Point Observatory, (2018), using APOGEE data, find abundance variations New Mexico, USA) and at LCO (Las Campanas Ob- of up to 0.20–0.30 dex for elements like Al, Mn, and servatory, La Serena, Chile). The M67 stellar spectra Ni, where non-LTE effects are unlikely to explain the analyzed in this work were all obtained at APO, and re- observed trends. Gao et al.(2018) use spectra from duced with the APOGEE pipeline, described in Nidever the GALAH survey (De Silva et al. 2015), with a re- et al.(2015). solving power of R∼28,000, to report abundances for APOGEE is part of the SDSS-III and SDSS-IV seven elements in 66 stars from the turnoff, subgiant, projects (Eisenstein et al. 2011,Blanton et al. 2017) red giant, and red clump phases. Gao et al.(2018) con- and M67 is one of the calibration clusters for the AS- clude that deviations from non-LTE can explain some PCAP pipeline (Zasowski et al. 2013, Mészároset al. of the observed abundance trends as a function of the 2013; Holtzman et al. 2015, Garc´ıaPérezet al. 2016). evolutionary stage, in particular for oxygen and sodium. APOGEE has observed a dedicated field in the direction However, for Al and Si, non-LTE does not explain the of M67 (location ID 4162), obtaining spectra for 563 tar- remaining trend, which the authors argue might be a gets. The stars had multiple visits, generally more than consequence of diffusion processes in M67. three, to reach the required signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) This work provides a complementary verification of of the combined spectra (higher than ∼100 per half a the atomic diffusion mechanisms acting in M67 stars resolution element); this was achieved for stars brighter as reported by Souto et al.(2018). We use APOGEE than H ≤ 11. results obtained with the qASPCAP1 pipeline using a To verify membership of the observed stars in the M67 much larger stellar sample; qASPCAP is a simple IDL APOGEE field, we adopt two approaches, one using script that substitutes the entire ASPCAP (APOGEE membership studies from the literature and another us- Stellar Parameters and Chemical Abundances Pipeline, ing distances and proper motions from Gaia DR2 (Gaia Garc´ıaPérezet al. 2016) for boutique work. Collaboration et al. 2018). We initially used the ra- APOGEE targeted M67 as one of its calibration dial velocities (RV ) measured by the APOGEE pipeline clusters, observing about a hundred stellar members available in the 14th SDSS data release (DR14, Abol- fathi et al. 2018), following the proper motion and RV 1 github.com/callendeprieto/ membership criteria of Yadav et al.(2008) and Geller et al.(2015) as guidelines. Yadav et al.(2008) deter- 4 Souto et al.

80 APOGEE targets in the M67 field PARSEC Isochrone for; [Fe/H] = 0.00, Age = 4.00 Gyrs, = 9.60 MIST Isochrone for; [Fe/H] = 0.00, Age = 4.00 Gyrs, = 9.60 APOGEE targets in the M67 field 70 This Work: Main-sequence stars 6 This Work: Turnoff stars This Work: Subgiant stars This Work: Red giant stars Control Sample: Main-sequence stars 60 Control Sample: Turnoff stars Control Sample: Subgiant stars 8 Control Sample: Red giant stars

40 0 10 H N (Stars)

10 14

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1 Radial Velocity (km s ) (J-Ks)0

1 8

2 20

3 10

4 10 ] r y / 5 s 12 0 a G m

[ 13 12 11 10 9

APOGEE targets in the M67 field M67 members Based on PM and Parallax from Gaia DR2 M67 members based on PM and Parallax from Gaia DR2, and APOGEE RV 20 20 10 0 10 20 30 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 cos( ) [mas/yr] (GBP-GRP)0

Figure 1. Top left panel: Radial velocity distribution obtained from ASPCAP for all the targets observed in the APOGEE M67 field. Bottom left panel: vector-point diagram with the adopted stellar proper motions. Top right panel: (J-Ks)0 vs H0 diagram showing the sample of this work. We represent the main-sequence stars as blue diamonds, blue squares are the turnoff stars, the blue triangles for the subgiants, and the blue circles represent the red giant stars. We also include the stellar sample of Souto et al.(2018) using the same symbol notation for the stellar classes; however, colored as red. 2MASS color-magnitude diagram of the APOGEE targets in the M67 field are shown as orange dots. Two isochrones for an age of 4 Gyr, (m-M)0 = 9.60, and [Fe/H] = 0.00 from PARSEC (black line) and MIST (brown line) are also shown. We left as open symbols the stars with SNR < 100. Bottom right panel: same as top right panel, expect the CMD using Gaia DR2 data for (GBP-GRP)0 vs G0. Testing Atomic Diffusion in M67 5 mined proper motions for 2462 stars using the Wide- El-Badry et al.(2018), where the authors detected more Field-Imager from the MPG/ESO 2.2m telescope at La than 3000 binary stars in the APOGEE data. To ensure Silla, Chile, with a field of view of 34×33 arcmin2. The the quality of the observed spectra, we keep only those authors reported 434 stars having membership prob- having a signal to noise ratio SNR ≥ 100, resulting in a abilities ≥ 90%. Using the same data, Bellini et al. sample of 83 stars spanning the HR diagram, from the (2010) derived the cluster average proper motion to be main-sequence to the red clump. The threshold in SNR −1 µα cos(δ) = -9.6 ± 1.1 mas yr and µδ = -3.7 ± 0.8 mas is intended to minimize the uncertainties in the param- yr−1. The radial velocity survey by Geller et al.(2015) eters derived. As we are searching for small abundance used spectra obtained from various sources, including a variations across the HR diagram, we assemble the best total of 1278 stars in the vicinity of M67. Geller et al. possible sample. We will include the results reported by (2015) reported 590 stars having membership probabili- Souto et al.(2018) as a control/comparison sample. In ties ≥ 90%, where the mean radial velocity of the sample Table 1 we present our sample, with the adopted radial is 33.64 km s−1, with high internal precision (0.03 km velocity and SNR (from DR14), proper motions and s−1). distances (Gaia Collaboration et al. 2018), membership Based on this information, an initial membership cut probabilities computed by Geller et al.(2015) and the was performed, selecting from the targets observed in adopted magnitudes, V (Zacharias et al. 2015), and the M67 APOGEE field (563 stars), those within the 2MASS infrared magnitudes J, H, and KS (Skrutskie radial velocity range 30.64 – 36.64 km s−1. Figure1 et al. 2006). At the bottom of the table we also provide (top-left panel) shows a histogram of the RV distribu- data for those stars with SNR < 100. tion of all the stars in the field. The peak of the RV In the top right and bottom right panels of Figure1 we distribution compares well with the mean radial velocity display the color-magnitude diagram (J-KS)0 vs H0 and for the cluster reported by Geller et al.(2015), with 140 (GBP-GRP)0 vs G0 for the studied sample using 2MASS stars falling within the RV limit (red dashed lines). We and Gaia DR2 photometry, respectively. We show all then performed a cross-match between the stars within 563 stars observed in the M67 field by the APOGEE the limit in radial velocity and those stars reported by survey with orange dots. Our sample stars are shown as Yadav et al.(2008) and Geller et al.(2015) having mem- filled symbols, and the ones with SNR < 100 as empty bership probabilities ≥ 90 percent. A total of 119 stars symbols. We note that four early G- and K- dwarfs show satisfied these criteria. a small offset compared to the adopted isochrones pre- We then adopted Gaia DR2 (Gaia Collaboration et al. sented in the CMD diagrams of Figure1, which could 2018) proper motions with distances from Bailer-Jones indicate non-membership; however, we opt to use these et al.(2018) to refine the sample. From those 140 stars stars as their RVs, proper motions, and distances sug- within the RV limits, we find 109 within the ranges gest membership. The same symbol notation adopted in distance and proper motion for M67. We accepted by Souto et al.(2018) were used in this work, where di- stars with distances in the range of 796.2 – 992.0 pc, amonds correspond to main-sequence, squares to turnoff which corresponds to a distance modulus of 9.56–9.88, stars, triangles for subgiants, and the circles represent as reported in the literature for the cluster (Yadav et the red giant stars, in blue for this work and red for al. 2008, Yakut et al. 2009). We then adopted the mean Souto et al.(2018). proper motions observed for the stars within the adopted In Figure2, we display a portion of the observed distance limits, where µαcos(δ) = -11.02±0.07 mas/yr APOGEE spectra between 16150–16260 A˚ for the sam- and µδ = -2.97±0.05 mas/yr. We consider as members ple stars. From top to bottom, we plot the spectra of the stars within ± 1 mas/yr from those mean values. the red giant stars followed by the subgiant, turnoff, and Figure1 bottom left panel displays the proper motions main-sequence stars. The individual stellar spectra are for the sample. very similar within a class, with rms differences at any We removed from the sample two hot stars (2M08512643 given wavelength of about σ = 0.01. The largest star- + 1143506 and 2M08513259+1148520) likely to be blue- to-star differences in Figure2 are associated with CO, stragglers. In the final sample, we will only retain the CN, and OH lines in the red giant spectra, suggestive stars with Gaia DR2 data, confirming the member- of the changes produced by H-burning in the stellar in- ship criteria based on distances and proper motions. terior brought to the surface by the first dredge-up, as We searched for binary stars in our sample looking for discussed in Section 5. Fe I and Ca I show the largest RV variations in the multiple spectral visits, with none spread among G type stars. found. Also, we verify the lack of binary stars comparing our sample (44 stars in common) with the recent work of 6 Souto et al.

1.0

0.9

0.8

0.7 Intensity 0.6 Si I Si I OH OH Fe I Fe I Fe I Fe I Fe I Fe I Fe I Fe I Fe I Fe I Fe I Fe I Ca I Ca I Ca I Ca I 0.5 CO + CN CO + CN CN + Si I CN + Fe I CN + Fe I CN + Fe I Observed Red giant stars (29) CO + Fe I CO + Fe I

1.0

0.9

0.8

0.7 Intensity 0.6 Si I Si I Fe I Fe I Fe I Fe I Fe I Fe I Fe I Fe I Fe I Fe I Fe I Fe I Fe I Fe I Fe I Fe I Ca I Ca I Ca I 0.5

Observed Subgiant stars (20) Fe I + Si

1.0

0.9

0.8

0.7

Intensity 0.6 Si I Si I Fe I Fe I Fe I Fe I Fe I Fe I Fe I Fe I Fe I Fe I Fe I Fe I Fe I Fe I Fe I Fe I Ca I Ca I Ca I 0.5 Fe I + Si Observed Turnoff stars (15)

1.0

0.9

0.8

0.7

Intensity 0.6 Si I Si I Fe I Fe I Fe I Fe I Fe I Fe I Fe I Fe I Fe I Fe I Fe I Fe I Fe I Fe I Fe I Fe I Ca I Ca I Ca I 0.5 Fe I + Si Observed Main-sequence stars (19) 16160 16180 16200 16220 16240 16260 Wavelength (Å)

Figure 2. A portion of the APOGEE observed spectra for the stellar sample. From top to bottom we shown the spectra of red giant, subgiant, turnoﬀ, and main-sequence stars.

3. STELLAR PARAMETERS AND CHEMICAL log g values in the analysis would introduce systematic ABUNDANCES uncertainties in the derived abundances. In the next In this paper, we need to determine abundances in section we discuss the determination of the log g’s and different classes of stars (dwarfs to red giants) homo- adopted Teff values in this study. geneously and precisely. One important factor in such analysis is the determination of the stellar parameters. 3.1. Effective Temperatures It is known that the raw log g values derived using the We adopted the effective temperatures derived from ASPCAP pipeline contain systematic offsets for dwarfs ASPCAP DR14. We used the purely spectroscopic raw (being systematically low) as well as red giant stars (be- Teff values from ASPCAP (given in the FPARAM ar- ing systematically high). ray in DR14). For a comparison, we also determined Figure3 shows the effective temperature and surface photometric temperatures adopting the calibration of gravity diagrams for our sample. The left panel shows GonzálezHernández & Bonifacio(2009) and using five the DR14 raw ASPCAP Teff and log g results. It is different colors, B-V , V -J, V -H, V -Ks, and J-Ks, with clear that the log g values derived by ASPCAP do not an adopted cluster reddening of E(B-V) = 0.041 mag match the isochrones from Bressan et al.(2012) and (Sarajedini et al. 2009) and a metallicity of [Fe/H] = Choi et al.(2016) (presented in the Figure). Using such 0.00. GonzálezHernández& Bonifacio(2009) provide Testing Atomic Diffusion in M67 7 photometric calibrations for red giant and dwarf stars; The procedure for determining individual abundances we adopted the coefficients for giants for those stars with and microturbulent velocities with qASPCAP is simi- log g < 4.00 dex and for dwarfs for those stars with lar to the one in ASPCAP. The ASPCAP pipeline (de- higher gravities. Good agreement between the photo- scribed in detail in Garc´ıa Pérezet al. 2016) uses a metric and the adopted raw ASPCAP Teff scales is ob- grid of synthetic spectra (Zamora et al. 2015) computed tained, where hδ(Teff (ASPCAP - GHB)i = -25 ± 106 K. with the turbospectrum code (Alvarez & Plez 1998, Plez The effective temperatures obtained from the ASPCAP 2012) using KURUCZ model atmospheres (Castelli & pipeline have an internal precision of ± 50K (Holtzman Kurucz 2004, Mészároset al. 2012) and the APOGEE et al. 2015, Garc´ıaPérezet al. 2016) DR14 line list, which is an updated version of the one published in Shetrone et al.(2015). The stellar parame- 3.2. Surface Gravities ters and chemical abundances are obtained by chi-square We determined surface gravities from the fundamental minimization with the FERRE code (Allende Prieto et Equation 1, where the adopted Teff0s are from the raw al. 2006) controlled by an IDL wrapper (the qASPCAP ASPCAP DR14 values, with stellar masses and bolomet- in this work). ric magnitudes obtained from interpolation in the MIST In a first phase, seven parameters are determined isochrones (Choi et al. 2016; [Fe/H] = 0.00; age = 4.00 through a 7-D optimization (Teff , log g, [M/H], [C/Fe], Gyr; E(B-V)=0.041; distance modulus (µ) = 9.60). The [N/Fe], [α/Fe], and ξ) using the entire wavelength range adopted solar values are: log g = 4.438 dex, Teff, = of the APOGEE spectra. During the second phase, indi- 5772 K and Mbol, = 4.75, following the IAU recom- vidual abundances are obtained by repeating the fitting mendations in Prˇsaet al.(2016). in pre-determined windows that are sensitive to elemental abundances using the set of atmospheric parameters determined in the previous phase. It is possible to M? T? determine individual abundances for more than 26 ele- log g = log10 g +log10 +4 log10 +0.4(Mbol,?−Mbol, ), M T ments from the APOGEE spectra; see Holtzman et al. (1) (2018), Hasselquist et al.(2016) (for Nd) and Cunha et al.(2017) (for Ce). In this work we adopt the same We adopted the surface gravities derived from equa- molecular and atomic lines as Souto et al.(2018) to de- tion 1 in the abundance analysis in this study. The un- rive individual abundances (see also Smith et al. 2013 certainties in the determined surface gravities are similar and Souto et al. 2016). Even though Souto et al.(2018) to the ones reported in Souto et al.(2018), where σ = reported Na and Cr abundances for main-sequence and ± 0.10 dex. The comparison between the derived log g’s turnoff stars, we opt in this work to not present these in this work with those from ASPCAP confirm the log abundances (for these stellar classes) as the comparisons g offset, where we obtain hδ(log g(Physical - ASPCAP)i between the observed/synthesis were not satisfactory = -0.18 ± 0.16 dex for red giants, -0.16 ± 0.11 dex for due to the weakness of the Na I and Cr I lines. subgiants, -0.19 ± 0.07 dex for turnoff and 0.17 ± 0.13 All M67 targets studied here have similar vsin(i), be- dex for the main-sequence stars. tween 0 ≤ vsin(i) ≤ 7 km s−1. In fact, the threshold Figure3 (right panel) shows the Teff – log g values to detect the star’s vsin(i) from APOGEE spectra is ∼ adopted in this study. The effective temperatures for 7–8 km s−1. The effect of macroturbulence on the line the studied stars are well spread in the HR diagram, profiles is similar to that of stellar rotation and, as an with effective temperatures ranging between 4200 and approximation, qASPCAP treats rotation and macro- 6250 K. The surface gravity values for the studied stars turbulence as a single Gaussian profile. span a range in log g = 1.78 to 4.71. The stellar parameters adopted in this work are shown 3.3. Individual Abundances Analysis in Table 2, with individual abundances presented in Table 3. The uncertainties in the derived abundances In this work we derive individual abundances for fif- adopted in this work are the same as the ones reported teen elements: C, N, O, Na, Mg, Al, Si, K, Ca, Ti, V, in Table 4 of Souto et al.(2018). We note that using Cr, Mn, Fe, and Ni. Individual abundances were deter- ASPCAP calibrated abundances, the average hδ A(El)i mined with the qASPCAP code. The qASPCAP code between the results derived in this work minus ASPCAP basically corresponds to the ASPCAP pipeline, but for is smaller 0.10 dex for all elements. custom work, providing flexibility to change the analysis parameters. The methodology in the analysis is the same as adopted in ASPCAP and the optimization is based on the FERRE code. 4. RESULTS 8 Souto et al.

1.5 PARSEC Isochrone for; [Fe/H] = 0.00, Age = 4.00 Gyrs, = 9.60 1.5 PARSEC Isochrone for; [Fe/H] = 0.00, Age = 4.00 Gyrs, = 9.60 MIST Isochrone for; [Fe/H] = 0.06, Age = 4.00 Gyrs, = 9.60 MIST Isochrone for; [Fe/H] = 0.06, Age = 4.00 Gyrs, = 9.60 This Work: Main-sequence stars This Work: Main-sequence stars This Work: Turnoff stars This Work: Turnoff stars This Work: Subgiant stars This Work: Subgiant stars 2.0 This Work: Red giant stars 2.0 This Work: Red giant stars ASPCAP DR14 for Our Control Sample Control Sample: Main-sequence stars Control Sample: Main-sequence stars stars Control Sample: Turnoff stars Control Sample: Turnoff stars Control Sample: Subgiant stars 2.5 Control Sample: Subgiant stars 2.5 Control Sample: Red giant stars Control Sample: Red giant stars

3.0 3.0

3.5 3.5

Surface Gravity (log g) 4.0 Surface Gravity (log g) 4.0

4.5 4.5

5.0 5.0

7000 6500 6000 5500 5000 4500 4000 3500 7000 6500 6000 5500 5000 4500 4000 3500 Effective Temperature (Teff) Effective Temperature (Teff)

Figure 3. Left panel: Teff – log g diagram showing the APOGEE DR14 raw ASPCAP results for the M67 members. Note the mismatch with the isochrones due to systematic uncertainties in the log g values derived by ASPCAP. Right panel: Teff – log g diagram showing the stellar parameters adopted in this study. The Teff0s are the same raw values from ASPCAP DR14 shown in the left panel but the surface gravities were derived from fundamental relations. The symbol notation is the same as Figure1.

The individual abundances reported in this work dis- subgiants those having 3.60 ≤ log g ≤ 3.90; and red play an elevated scatter (standard deviation of the giant stars those with log g < 3.60. (We note that the mean), in particular for nitrogen (∼0.14 dex), aluminum cut in surface gravity is similar to the one in color and (∼0.16 dex) and the alpha-elements (∼0.15 dex). The magnitude, as can be seen in the right panel of Figure potassium abundances are the ones showing the small- 1.) est scatter, with σ = 0.07 dex. Such significant scat- Probing the level of homogeneity in open clusters is ter in M67 stars was also noticed by Bertran de Lis et important to understand their formation and for evalu- al.(2016) studying [O/Fe] in M67 stars with APOGEE ating the possibility of performing chemical tagging in and comparing it with the spread in other clusters. How- stellar populations. Chemical homogeneity in open clus- ever, when we analyze the stars by class (main-sequence, ters (as well as in globular clusters) is a critical assump- turnoff, subgiant, red giant), the scatter in the derived tion to understand changes in the abundances across elemental abundance is drastically reduced to 0.03–0.04 evolutionary stages. Bovy(2016) and Price-Jones & dex for most of the elements. As our sample covers a Bovy(2018), using APOGEE spectra, found tight con- wide range in surface gravity, 1.78 ≤ log g ≤ 4.71, it is straints on the chemical homogeneity of M67 using a possible that the observed scatter is the signature of a sample of red giant stars. Bovy(2016) analyzed 24 red physical process modifying the stellar atmospheric abun- giant stars in M67, finding one-dimensional sequences dances, such as atomic diffusion as proposed by Souto with a spread in the elemental initial cluster abundances et al.(2018). In the following sections, we discuss in lower than 0.03 dex (2 σ of uncertainty) for all elements detail the abundance trends as a function of the stellar studied in this work. It is worth noting that the Bovy parameters. (2016) results were derived in a way that is insensitive to the effects of atomic diffusion, mixing, and other physi- 4.1. Abundance Variations Across The H-R Diagram cal processes that may modify the stellar surface abun- in M67 Stars: dances. We split our sample into four different classes based One straightforward way to evaluate if samples of on the stars’ evolutionary stage. We selected as main- stars have similar abundances is to apply a Kolmogorov– sequence stars those with log g ≥ 4.20; turnoff stars Smirnov test (K-S test). The K-S test is usually invoked those with surface gravity between 3.90 < log g < 4.20; Testing Atomic Diffusion in M67 9 to find out if two samples are drawn from the same dis- In Figure5 we display the derived individual abun- tribution. We perform a study of chemical homogeneity dances as a function of surface gravity for the fifteen of M67 stars using the derived abundances through a elements studied. We use the same symbol notation as K-S test and we apply it to the same classes, e. g., red in Figure1, but with open symbols instead of filled. giants × red giants. To be able to compare the derived We also show the line-by-line manual abundance results abundances for the same classes with the K-S test, we from Souto et al.(2018), our control sample. Atomic randomly split each group into two samples and then we diffusion models computed for this work (see Section 6) apply the K-S test. To ensure we do not choose a ran- are over-plotted for each element (C and N including dom split that favors homogeneity, for each group, we mixing processes). We note that the diffusion models have run the test in one thousand random splits. This for Na and Mg abundances were slightly shifted in order result shows that the abundances of each stellar class to better fit the observed abundances. are indistinguishable, with the derived median p-value From visual inspection —and in agreement with the > 0.50 for all elements in the four stellar classes. This is results from the K-S test— we can organize the element a complementary result to Bovy(2016), finding chemi- variations as a function of surface gravity (as well as cal homogeneity of M67 stars in the same evolutionary Teff and M?) into three groups of elements: (i) C and stage based on the stellar abundances derived in this N, with abundances displaying a different behavior for work. the evolved subgiant and red giant stars (as a conse- We also applied the K-S test using the derived abun- quence of dredge-up mechanisms); (ii) O, Na, and Cr as dances for the fifteen studied elements comparing stars their abundances are not reliable for the main-sequence in the different groups: G dwarf main-sequence (MS) × and turnoff stars since their spectral lines become too red giant; G dwarf (MS) × subgiant; G dwarf (MS) × weak; (iii) the elements showing a dip, either sinuous turnoff; red giant × subgiant; red giant × turnoff; and or small, in the elemental abundance close to log g = subgiant × Turnoff stars. 4.00 dex (Fe, Mg, Al, Si, K, Ca, Ti, V, Mn, and Ni) The In Figure4 we present the results of the Kolmogorov– derived abundances of Mg, Al, and Si, present the most Smirnov two-sided test (K-S test) comparing the indi- significant changes between the stellar classes (exclud- vidual abundances for each stellar class. The vertical ing N), where the red giant abundances are 0.10 to 0.20 axis represents the [X/H] derived here, and the hori- dex higher than those from the subgiants. zontal axis represents the subgroups being compared. In Figure6, we present the abundance results as a Each cell shows the p-value of the K-S test and is col- function of Teff in M67 stars, with diffusion models also ored as shown in the side color bar. We designed the shown. Overall, the behavior seen in Figure6 indicates color scale to give a blue color if the samples are clearly an abundance increase (in the range 0.00–0.40 dex) as distinct, a yellow color if the p-value is near to 0.05, Teff decreases from 6000 K to 4000 K. The elements and a red color if we cannot reject the null hypothesis, showing a smooth increase or decrease in abundance as i.e., the samples are not distinguishable. Note that we functions of Teff are Fe, Ca and, Mn. The elements most have applied False Discovery Rate (FDR, Benjamini & sensitive to Teff : Na, Mg, Al, and Si, show a monotonic Hochberg 1995) correction in order to account for the increase in their individual abundances. Similar to the fact that we are performing many hypothesis tests simul- trends with log g, C shows a particular behavior and taneously and spurious rejections of the null hypothesis the abundance variation of N shows a maximum value are therefore expected. Regardless of the threshold that around Teff ∼ 4700 K and then decreases for higher and we use, we obtain outstanding segregation for red giant lowers values of Teff . The elements presenting the least and turnoff stars based on their abundances. The K sensitivity to Teff are K, Cr and, Ni. Ti and V show the abundance is the one with higher p-values (> 0.03) for most significant abundance scatter in the analysis as a all scenarios. On the other hand, the two classes most function of both log g and Teff . difficult to separate based on their abundances are the Souto et al.(2018) showed that atomic diffusion pro- main-sequence and the turnoff stars. The abundances cesses can explain the abundance variations of M67 of Mg, Ca, V, and Fe are the best ones to distinguish stars across the different evolutionary stages. However, between these classes. The Mg abundances show signif- other physical processes are also relevant in the con- icant differences among all stellar classes (with p-values text of abundance variations, where the most significant < 0.10 for all comparisons). sources of deviations, not precisely in order, are: non- LTE effects, 1-D or 3-D treatment of the model atmosphere, stellar rotation (v sin i), mixing process (e.g., 4.1.1. As a Function of Stellar Parameters first dredge-up), and atomic diffusion processes. In the 10 Souto et al.

0.00000 0.37834 0.51799 0.00003 0.00000 0.50187 [C/H] 0.10 [N/H] 0.00006

[O/H] 0.08228

[Na/H] 0.00803 0.08

[Mg/H] 0.00000 0.00251 0.08113 0.00015 0.00000 0.00052 e u 0.00000 0.00006 0.77276 0.00000 0.00000 0.00331 l [Al/H] a v - p

[Si/H] 0.00000 0.00262 0.51799 0.00000 0.00000 0.00643 0.06 d e [K/H] 0.85103 0.90235 0.54835 0.41357 0.25532 0.74405 t c e r

[Ca/H] 0.03620 0.86696 0.05213 0.00803 0.00019 0.08268 r o c 0.04

[Ti/H] 0.00116 0.22764 0.06526 0.22764 0.00003 0.00248 R D [V/H] 0.00042 0.41163 0.03448 0.00366 0.00008 0.50187 F

[Cr/H] 0.47442 0.02 [Mn/H] 0.00027 0.41357 0.04211 0.00366 0.00000 0.01183

[Fe/H] 0.00043 0.57031 0.04990 0.00493 0.00000 0.00331

[Ni/H] 0.77276 0.99033 0.22764 0.36133 0.01765 0.37834 0.00 G dwarf (MS) G dwarf (MS) G dwarf (MS) Red giant Red giant Subgiant x x x x x x Red giant Subgiant Turnoff Subgiant Turnoff Turnoff

Figure 4. The Kolmogorov–Smirnov test for the different elements (y-axis) on the different stellar classes (x-axis). The obtained p-value is color coded from blue to red. The red colors are saturated at 0.1. following sections, we discuss the impact of these possi- we created a grid of non-LTE deviations for five ele- ble deviations in our results. ments: Fe, Mg, Si, Ti, and Mn. The deviations were estimated for each stellar class, assuming a solar metal- 5. POSSIBLE EXPLANATIONS TO THE licity and Teff = 4700 K, log g = 2.40, and ξ = 1.60 km −1 ABUNDANCE TRENDS s for red giants, Teff = 5400 K, log g = 3.70, and ξ −1 Figures5, and6, show significant abundance varia- = 1.25 km s for subgiants, Teff = 6100 K, log g = −1 tions as a function of the stellar parameters (log g and 3.90, and ξ = 1.15 km s for turnoff stars, and Teff = −1 Teff ). Such abundance trends are not expected to occur 5850 K, log g = 4.40, and ξ = 1.00 km s for main- in open clusters —due to the homogeneity of the stars sequence stars. We adopted 1-D plane-parallel models formed by the same material— unless some additional computed with MAFAGS-OS for all stellar classes. In effect/mechanism is playing a role in the stellar atmo- Table 5 we summarize the average non-LTE correction sphere, or in the abundance determination itself. for each stellar class and element. In Figure7 we show the non-LTE corrected abun- 5.1. Non-LTE Deviations in the NIR dances for five elements studied (Fe, Mg, Si, Ti, and Deviations from the local thermodynamical equilib- Mn). The top panel displays the abundance differences rium have been studied mostly at optical wavelengths from [X/H]non−LT E - [X/H]LT E, and in the bottom where strong deviations are found to occur in metal- panel we show a similar plot as Figure5, but now using poor evolved red giant stars (Asplund 2005; Asplund et the [X/H]non−LT E. al. 2009). In the NIR, in particular in the H-band, the The iron abundances do not show significant non-LTE works of Cunha et al.(2015) and Zhang et al.(2016, deviations, as seen in Table 5, where δ(nonLTE-LTE) 2017) have investigated non-LTE effects in Na I, Mg are smaller than 0.01 dex for all stellar classes. For Mg I, and Si I lines in the APOGEE spectra, finding de- and Si, the deviation is very similar for main-sequence viations from non-LTE in these elements to be usually stars, both positive, being almost null for Mg. For sub- smaller than 0.05 dex (see also the discussion in Souto et giant and red giants stars, we obtain small negative non- al. 2018). Using the results from Bergemann & Gehren LTE corrections. The deviations for Ti and Mn are (2008) and Bergemann et al.(2012, 2013, 2015) com- more significant in this study. For Ti, the deviations piled from a Maria Bergemann web site (nlte.mpia.de), are positive for the stellar classes studied here, with the Testing Atomic Diffusion in M67 11

Fe C N O 0.4

0.2

[X/H] 0.0

0.2

Na Mg Al Si 0.4

0.2

[X/H] 0.0

0.2

K Ca Ti V 0.4

0.2

[X/H] 0.0

0.2

5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 Cr Mn Ni log g log g 0.4 This Work Diffusion Models This Work: 0.2 Main-sequence stars Turnoff stars Subgiant stars [X/H] 0.0 Red giant stars Control Sample: Main-sequence stars 0.2 Turnoff stars Subgiant stars Red giant stars

5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 log g log g log g

Figure 5. The chemical abundances for the studied stars are shown as a function of log g. The symbol notation is similar to Figure1 (open symbols instead of ﬁlled symbols). The diﬀusion models calculated in this work are shown as solid black lines. 12 Souto et al.

Fe C N O 0.4

0.2

[X/H] 0.0

0.2

Na Mg Al Si 0.4

0.2

[X/H] 0.0

0.2

K Ca Ti V 0.4

0.2

[X/H] 0.0

0.2

6000 5000 4000 6000 5000 4000 Cr Mn Ni T T 0.4 eff eff This Work Diffusion Models This Work: 0.2 Main-sequence stars Turnoff stars Subgiant stars [X/H] 0.0 Red giant stars Control Sample: Main-sequence stars 0.2 Turnoff stars Subgiant stars Red giant stars

6000 5000 4000 6000 5000 4000 6000 5000 4000

Teff Teff Teff

Figure 6. Same as Figure5, except shown as function of Teﬀ . Testing Atomic Diffusion in M67 13

Table 5. Non-LTE corrections 3-D correction, while for K the authors obtain a correction of 0.07 dex. From Caffau et al.(2009) the solar N Stellar Class Mg Si Ti Mn Fe abundance is reported to have a 3-D correction smaller Main-sequence +0.003 -0.011 +0.096 +0.113 +0.003 Turnoff +0.008 -0.025 +0.113 +0.155 +0.005 than 0.01 dex. Subgiant -0.004 -0.016 +0.091 +0.146 +0.003 The previous work by Bergemann et al.(2012) stud- Red giant -0.025 -0.032 +0.070 +0.301 +0.003 ied the 3-D deviations for stars in different evolutionary stages at different metallicities. They find 3-D effects in the iron abundance for the Sun to be very small: 3-D corrections ∼ 0.01 dex. More recently, Bergemann et al. major deviation observed in turnoff stars (δ(nonLTE- (2017) studied the Mg abundances in the Sun and found LTE) = 0.11 dex). When applying non-LTE corrections, 3-D corrections to be ∼0.02 dex. Amarsi & Asplund we do not see a strong change in the abundance vs log (2017) studied non-LTE 3-D Si abundances in the Sun g diagram, when compared to the LTE one presented and found corrections to be lower than 0.01 dex. Amarsi in Figure5. The abundances of Ti are shifted in all et al.(2016) analyzing the O I forbidden line at 630nm classes, resulting in a higher scatter as a function of log find 3-D corrections to the O abundance to be between g. The Mn corrections show the most significant differ- 0.05–0.20 dex, negative in the Sun and reaching higher ences, δ(nonLTE - LTE) ∼ 0.13 dex for main-sequence, values for turnoff stars. turnoff, and subgiants, and δ(nonLTE - LTE) ∼ 0.30 All 3-D corrections discussed above are smaller than dex for red giants. The inclusion of non-LTE corrections 0.05 dex (except for K), which is at the limit of the in the analysis does not erase the observed abundance measurement uncertainties of this work. Given the small trends in the different stellar classes. 3-D corrections found for main-sequence stars, as well as, the lack of studies in the literature for turnoff, subgiants 5.2. 1-D or 3-D Model Atmospheres and red giants stars at solar metallicity, we conclude that deviations from 3-D modeling are not enough to explain Stellar atmospheres are 3-D and time-dependent; how- the abundance trends observed in this work. ever, by convenience, we usually treat model atmospheres as having 1D plane-parallel or spherical geome- 5.3. Stellar Rotation try in hydrostatic equilibrium. This approximation sim- plifies the analysis, but can lead to systematic errors in The study of the relation between stellar rotation and the derived quantities (atmospheric parameters or chem- abundance variations in late-type stars is often moti- ical abundances). vated by the investigation of lithium depletion. Several The use of a 1-D treatment of the stellar atmosphere authors have found correlations between stellar rotation requires the inclusion of “ad hoc” parameters to account and the lithium abundance depletion, such as Balachan- for velocities that broaden the profiles at microscopic dran(1990), Balachandran(1995), King et al.(2000), da (microturbulence) and macroscopic (macroturbulence) Silva et al.(2009), Canto Martins et al.(2011), and Del- levels. A precise determination of the microturbulence gado Mena et al.(2014). None of the spectra analyzed parameter minimizes the deviations from the results ob- in this study exhibit measurable rotational broadening (vsin(i)) above the limits set by the APOGEE spectral tained with 3D models. −1 As in non-LTE studies, 3-D effects are also transi- resolution of ∼ 7–8 km s . tion dependent, and analyses for NIR H-band transitions 6. DISCUSSION have been limited. The studies of Asplund(2005); As- plund et al.(2009), Caffau et al.(2011) have summarized The abundance results obtained for M67 stars show various effects and corrections for elemental abundances evidence that both mixing and atomic diffusion are op- using optical spectra as a reference. In this Section, we erating, thus stellar evolution models that include dif- will summarize these effects for solar metallicity stars to fusion will be compared to the observationally derived verify whether the abundance trends discussed in Sec- abundances . tion 4 could be explained by 3-D effects. Caffau et al.(2011) determined solar abundances from 6.1. Stellar Evolution Models a 3-D non-LTE analysis using the CO5BOLD code, pro- We computed our mixing and atomic diffusion mod- viding 3D abundance corrections for several elements. els using solar models (solar metallicity and solar age 4 For Fe, Caffau et al.(2011) find 3-D corrections to be Gyr) to calibrate the degree of gravitational settling pre- about 0.03 dex using the solar spectrum. The C abun- cisely (using the surface solar He as a proxy); this gives dance reported by Caffau et al.(2011) has a -0.02 dex a predicted reduction in the efficiency of the settling of 14 Souto et al.

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0

[X/H] (non-LTE corrected) - 0.1 Fe Mg Si Ti Mn

log g log g log g 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 Fe Mg Si Ti log g Mn log g 0.4

0.2

0.0

[X/H] (non-LTE corrected) 0.2

5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 log g log g log g log g log g

Figure 7. Top panel: log g versus [X/H] (corrected-derived) individual abundances from non-LTE deviation. Bottom panel: log g versus [X/H] corrected from non-LTE deviations. In both panels, the symbols follow the same notation as Figure5.

15%, or an effective coefficient of 0.85. The methodology RGB; this phase of stellar evolution is referred to as adopted in the modeling of mixing and atomic diffusion first dredge-up, or FDU (Iben 1965; for a more recent is described in detail in Bahcall et al.(2001) and De- overview of the various red giant dredge-up episodes see lahaye & Pinsonneault(2006). We note that, overall, Karakas & Lattanzio 2014). In the case of dredge-up our models agree with the ones from MIST (Choi et al. in M67 red giants, the 14N abundance is predicted to 2016, Dotter et al. 2017); however, our models cover all be enhanced by roughly ∼+0.30 to +0.40 dex, while the species studied in this work, while the MIST models the 12C abundance is predicted to be depleted by ∼- are not available for Al, K, V, Cr, Mn, and Ni. 0.10 to -0.20 dex. The magnitudes of the abundance changes in C and N are a function of red giant mass (Iben 6.2. Mixing Processes: First Dredge-up (FDU) 1965), with larger mass stars having deeper convective When a low-mass star, such as a ∼1.2M M67 star envelopes which dredge up more nuclear-processed ma- that is currently evolving off of the main-sequence and terial, resulting in larger 14N enhancements and larger across the subgiant branch, reaches the base of the 12C depletions, producing lower C/N ratios. red giant branch (RGB), the outer convective envelope The expected relationship between red giant mass and reaches its largest extent in mass. At this point in the H- C/N ratio has been exploited by a number of recent R diagram (where Teff ∼5000K and log g ∼3.5 in M67), studies using APOGEE data and results, e, g., Martig the base of the convective envelope ingests material that et al.(2016), Ness et al.(2016) (see also Feuillet et al. has been exposed previously to H-burning via the CN in preparation) to produce age–mass relatios as a func- cycle. As a consequence of CN-cycle H-burning, this tion of red giant [C/N] abundances, while Masseron & nuclear-processed material contains an enhanced abun- Gilmore(2015) have analyzed [C/N] to study the possi- 14 12 dance of N and a decreased abundance of C. The ble formation of the thin and thick disk. convective envelope will carry this mixture to the sur- In addition to standard convection in 1D, other physi- 12 face, resulting in a lower surface abundance of C and cal processes can modify the interior abundance profiles a larger abundance of 14N for stars evolving onto the Testing Atomic Diffusion in M67 15 in stars as they evolve from the main-sequence, across the abundance variations observed for 12C and 14N in the subgiant branch, and onto the red giant branch, with the subgiant and red giant stars can be explained well two important processes being rotation and the inver- by FDU mixing models. The mixing models here (as sion of the mean molecular weight gradient in a small well as from Lagarde et al. 2012) predict changes for the region outside of the H-burning shell created by 3He- other elemental abundances to be smaller than 0.01 dex burning via 3He(3He,2p)α (Eggleton et al. 2006; Char- as the star evolves. Therefore, mixing models cannot bonnel & Zahn 2007): this last process is referred to as explain their abundance variations. thermohaline mixing. The inclusion of rotation-induced mixing and thermohaline mixing produces larger carbon 6.3. Atomic Diffusion depletions and larger nitrogen enhancements as a result Atomic diffusion is a likely explanation for most of of FDU. In this Section, we use 12C and 14N abundances the observed abundance variations across the H-R di- derived here to compare with predictions from various agram in M67, thus adding members of this old open models of first dredge-up mixing. cluster to those stars in which diffusion has been ob- As shown in Figure8, the M67 red giants display clear served. Evidence of diffusion in the Sun is found both evidence of the first dredge-up through the behavior of in its surface helium abundance, which is lower than the C and N abundances as functions of both T and eff the initial value, as well as the solar sound speed profile log g (which map the position of a star along the sub- being best fit by models that include diffusion (Bah- giant and red giant branches); observed APOGEE abun- call et al. 1995;Chaboyer et al.(1995a)). Lithium abundances are plotted as the various symbols, while models dances settle at a rate similar to He, and the flatness of are plotted as the continuous lines and are models from the Spite Li plateau is likely set by diffusion (Chaboyer this study, along with those from Lagarde et al.(2012). et al. 1992). The diffusion signature can be altered or The left panels of Figure8 plot the [C/N] values versus erased by mixing, for example, mixing driven by rota- T (top, a) and log g (bottom, b), with the [C/N] values eff tion and dredge-up (see Sections 5.3 and 5.4), thus com- decreasing rapidly at T ∼5000K and log g∼3.5, right eff plicating the detection and interpretation of diffusion at the base of the RGB as predicted by FDU. The right patterns. Such mixing processes are likely at work in panels plot the individual abundances of 12C (as [C/H]) the Sun, which has a smoother composition profile than and 14N (as [N/H]) versus log g. Carbon and nitrogen that predicted by diffusion alone, with the magnitude of abundance differences between red giants on the RGB diffusion being overestimated by about 25%. This is also relative to those in the RC were found to agree with confirmed by looking at A-type stars – if they rotate fast results from Tautvaiˇsieneet al.(2000) and Masseron et enough, they are not chemically peculiar (Michaud 1970, al.(2017), who found slightly lower values of C/N in see also Michaud et al. 2015). The interplay between dif- RC stars compared to those on the RGB. Our values for fusion creating abundance signatures that various mix- M67 stars are h12C/14Ni = 1.86 and h12C/14Ni RGB RC ing processes can then modify means that there are not = 1.40, excluding the two evolved stars with log g < 2.1 necessarily firm theoretical predictions about the ampli- dex, which places them on the upper RGB or possibly tude of the diffusion signature and its mass or metallicity in an early-AGB phase of evolution. dependence. Reasonably well-motivated trends can be Figure8 also highlights differences in the C and expected, though, and Chaboyer et al.(1995b,c), Choi N abundance variations predicted from mixing mod- et al.(2016), Dotter(2016), Dotter et al.(2017) have els when compared to those abundances derived in this approximated limits on how efficient diffusion can be in study. In the left panels of Figure8 (a and b), we show thin surface convective zones. the [C/N] ratio as a function of T and log g, respec- eff A few previous studies have probed atomic diffusion tively, and note that the overall observational results fol- in cluster stars, with most of them focused on low- low the model predictions, although the observed [C/N] metallicity globular clusters: Korn et al.(2007), Lind et values are systematic lower. Such a difference can be a al.(2008), and Nordlander et al.(2012). The latter ana- consequence of an overestimated nitrogen abundance in lyzed stars belonging to the globular cluster NGC 6397, our analysis (as pointed out by Bertelli Motta et al. 2017 with a metallicity of [Fe/H] = -2.00 and age of 13.5 Gyr, using ASPCAP data), due to a sub-estimated log g. In with their sample containing stars from the turnoff point the right panel of Figure8, we present the [C/H] (panel (TOP) up to the red giant branch (RGB). The abun- c) and [N/H] (panel d) abundances as a function of log g. dances of Li, Mg, Ca, Ti, Cr, and Fe in those studies For nitrogen, the abundances are in agreement with the were derived from high-resolution optical spectroscopy, models; however, the observational carbon abundances and they found that changes in the stellar abundances differ from the models by ∼-0.15 dex. We conclude that for different evolutionary phases are in good agreement 16 Souto et al.

0.2 0.2 This Work extra-mixing model Lagarde et al. (2012) Sub-giant stars Red-giant stars (RGB) Red-giant stars (RC) Control Sample: Sub-giant stars 0.1 Control Sample: Red-giant stars 0.0

0.0

0.2

0.1 [C/N] [C/H]

0.4

0.2

0.6 0.3

0.8 0.4 5600 5400 5200 5000 4800 4600 4400 4200 4000 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 Effective Temperature (Teff) Surface Gravity (log g) (a) (c)

0.7 0.2

0.6

0.0 0.5

0.4

0.2 0.3 [C/N] [N/H] 0.2 0.4

0.1

0.0 0.6

0.1

0.8 0.2 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 Surface Gravity (log g) Surface Gravity (log g) (b) (d)

Figure 8. Panels a and b shows the Teff x [C/N] and the log g x [C/N], respectively. Panels c and d present the [C/H] x log g and [N/H] x log g diagrams. We display the mixing models from this work (solid black curve) and from Lagarde et al.(2012) (dashed black curve) as a comparison. All symbols follow the same notation as Figure5, with the inclusion of filled circles for the red clump stars. with predictions from diffusion models from the liter- As previously mentioned, abundance differences of up ature, see Richard et al.(2002, 2005). In particular, to ∼0.20 dex between the turnoff and red giant stars Nordlander et al.(2012) found abundance differences of were observed by Souto et al.(2018) for the elements 0.06 and 0.18 dex between TOP and RGB stars in NGC O, Na, Mg, Al, Si, Ca, V, Mn, and Fe. A comparison 6397, with the largest difference for Mg, and which is a of the results in Souto et al.(2018) with the diffusion much smaller variation than we see in M67, for example patterns from the models by Choi et al.(2016) and Dot- for Mg or Al. Of course the chemical abundance of NGC ter et al.(2017) indicated good agreement. In addition, 6397 is rather distinct from that of M67. Bertelli Motta et al.(2018) found >0.15 dex abundance Onehag¨ et al.(2014) found some evidence of atomic differences from main-sequence to red giant stars for the diffusion operating in M67. This was later supported by elements Al, Si, Mn, and Ni. Gao et al.(2018) found the abundance results in Blanco-Cuaresma et al.(2015). Testing Atomic Diffusion in M67 17 a good match between the abundance variations for Al ever, the derived abundances exhibit a more significant and Si with diffusion models. dip across the main-sequence—turnoff when compared to what is expected from the atomic diffusion models, 6.4. Atomic Diffusion in M67 Stars in particular for Mg, Al, Ti, and Mn. For Al, Mg, Si, and to a lesser degree V, the rela- We find significant abundance differences (up to ∼ tive dip across the main-sequence—turnoff stars is more 0.50 dex) for most of the studied species between main- significant because the red giant abundances are higher sequence, turnoff, subgiant, and red giant stars in M67. than those predicted by the models. (The Na abun- Using the K-S test (Figure4), we obtained clear evi- dances of red giants are also higher than the models, but dence of abundance differences between stars in differ- there are no abundances for turnoff and main-sequence ent evolutionary stages in M67. In addition, we showed stars.) On the other hand, for Ti and Mn the dip is (Section 4) that the abundances of stars belonging to more considerable because the abundances of turnoff the same evolutionary class are indistinguishable. and main-sequence stars are lower. As discussed in Sec- In Figure9 we present the mass–∆[X/H] ([X/H] Current tion 5 (Figure7), non-LTE corrections for Mg, Si (as - [X/H] ) diagram for the twelve studied elements. Initial well as Fe) would reduce the abundance dip by a factor Similar diagrams with abundances as a function of sur- of ∼ 0.03 dex, while for Ti, the dip would be reduced face gravity and effective temperature are presented in by roughly 0.05 dex. The non-LTE corrections for Mn, Figures 5 and 6. In all three figures, we show the atomic on the other hand, would systematically change the red diffusion models computed in this work as solid black giant abundances and increase the abundance difference lines and the MIST models as brown dashed lines. The between turnoff and red giant stars by ∼ 0.14 dex, which pristine Fe abundance in the models is assumed to be would worsen the comparison with the models. the mean Fe abundance for the red giants, which is used as the fiducial point (i.e., δ[Fe/H] = 0.00) for the initial cluster value. We note that all other abundance ratios 7. SUMMARY are assumed solar, i.e. [X/Fe] = 0.00. The abundance Given its combination of age and metallicity in ad- variations across the H-R diagram indicate that atomic dition to the numerous detailed studies in the litera- diffusion is operating in most of the studied elements. ture, M67 remains a prime cluster to test for not well- The models for all the elements display similar trends understood physical/chemical processes in stellar spec- driven by atomic diffusion, except for C and N, which troscopy. include mixing signatures. In this paper, we present individual abundances of fif- The complex trend observed in the carbon abun- teen elements (C, N, O, Na, Mg, Al, Si, K, Ca, Ti, V, dances is a consequence of diffusion operating in the Cr, Mn, Fe, and Ni) derived from a 1-D LTE analy- main-sequence and turnoff stars (smaller convective en- sis of 83 stars in M67. The abundances were obtained velopes), and mixing at the first dredge-up being respon- via chi-square minimization of the high-resolution SDSS- sible for the carbon abundance variation in subgiant and IV/APOGEE spectra with the qASPCAP code. The red giant stars (Section 6.2; Figure8). These results sug- stellar sample is composed of stars in different evolution- gest that atomic diffusion dominates over mixing in the ary stages (19 main-sequence; 15 turnoff; 20 subgiant; main-sequence and turnoff stars, while mixing processes and 29 red giants) with the aim to quantify abundance control the abundance changes in subgiant and red giant trends across the different stellar evolutionary phases stars. (Souto et al. 2018, Onehag¨ et al. 2014, Bertelli Motta et The nitrogen abundance variation can be explained as al. 2018, and Gao et al. 2018). a signature of first dredge-up (Section 6.2). For oxygen, We obtain significant abundance differences (of up to the scattered abundance results for red giant and sub- 0.30-0.40 dex) as a function of stellar parameters (Teff , giant stars, combined with the lack of results for main- log g, and mass), which map the different stellar evo- sequence and turnoff stars, impedes detecting signatures lutionary classes. Studying the abundance variations of diffusion. Due to the weakness of CN and OH molec- within the same stellar classes, we find a much lower ular lines in the APOGEE spectra of main-sequence and scatter, of about ∼ 0.05 – 0.10 dex. Using the K-S test, turnoff stars, it is not possible to derive N and O abun- it is found that the abundances within each stellar class dances in such stars. are indistinguishable; while performing the test for the The comparison of the abundance patterns for all el- different classes, we obtain clear segregations for the red ements with the model predictions indicates an overall giant and turnoff stars in most of the elements analyzed. good match between the atomic diffusion models and We compiled non-LTE corrections for Fe, Mg, Al, Si, the derived abundances across the H-R diagram. How- and Mn, finding them to be small for all elements (< 0.10 18 Souto et al.

0.4

0.3 Fe C N O

0.2

0.1

0.0

0.1

0.2

[X/H] (Measured - Initial) 0.3

0.4

0.3 Na Mg Al Si

0.2

0.1

0.0

0.1

0.2

[X/H] (Measured - Initial) 0.3

0.4

0.3 K Ca Ti V

0.2

0.1

0.0

0.1

0.2

[X/H] (Measured - Initial) 0.3

0.4 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 Cr Mn Ni 0.3 M(M ) M(M ) M(M ) M(M )

0.2 Difussion Model (This Work) Difussion Model (Choi et al. 2016) 0.1 This Work: Solar-like stars 0.0 Turnoff stars Subgiant stars 0.1 Red giant stars Control Sample: 0.2 Solar-like stars Turnoff stars [X/H] (Measured - Initial) 0.3 Subgiant stars Red giant stars 0.4 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 M(M ) M(M ) M(M )

Figure 9. Diagram of the stellar mass as a function of ∆[X/H], where ∆[X/H] indicate the derived metallicity from the stellar photosphere minus the initial cluster composition. The black and brown lines shows the atomic diffusion models from this work and MIST, respectively. All symbols follow the same notation as Figure5. dex), except for Mn, which were between 0.15–0.30 dex dances in stars from the main-sequence–turnoff point. in all stellar classes analyzed. With the use of non-LTE The atomic diffusion models computed in this work (as corrections to our derived abundances, we still observe well as from the literature) predict reasonably well the clear abundance trends across the H-R diagram. remaining abundance patterns for the stars at different We found that mixing models explain well the abun- evolutionary stages studied in this work, and therefore, dance variations of C and N for subgiants and red giant we conclude that atomic diffusion operates in M67, more stars. We see atomic diffusion operating in the C abun- efficiently in the turnoff stars and in most of the elements Testing Atomic Diffusion in M67 19

(C, Mg, Al, Si, K, Ca, Ti, V, Mn, Fe, and Ni) analyzed SDSS-IV is managed by the Astrophysical Research in this work. consortium for the Participating Institutions of the SDSS Collaboration including the Brazilian Partici- pation Group, the Carnegie Institution for Science, We thank the anonymous referee for useful comments Carnegie Mellon University, the Chilean Participa- that helped improve the paper. DS thanks Pascal Pe- tion Group, the French Participation Group, Harvard- tit for the cordial host at CNRS-Toulouse where part Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Instituto de As- of this project was developed. KC and VS acknowl- trof´ısica de Canarias, The Johns Hopkins University, edge that their work here is supported, in part, by Kavli Institute for the Physics and Mathematics of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration un- the Universe (IPMU)/University of Tokyo, Lawrence der Grant 16-XRP16 2-0004, issued through the As- Berkeley National Laboratory, Leibniz Institut fürAs- trophysics Division of the Science Mission Directorate. trophysik Potsdam (AIP), Max-Planck-Institut fürAs- D.A.G.H. and O.Z. acknowledge support from the State tronomie (MPIA Heidelberg), Max-Planck-Institut für Research Agency (AEI) of the Spanish Ministry of Sci- Astrophysik (MPA Garching), Max-Planck-Institut für ence, Innovation and Universities (MCIU) and the Eu- Extraterrestrische Physik (MPE), National Astronomi- ropean Regional Development Fund (FEDER) under cal Observatory of China, New Mexico State University, grant AYA2017-88254-P. H. J. acknowledges support New York University, University of Notre Dame, Obser- from the Crafoord Foundation, Stiftelsen Olle Engkvist vatórioNacional / MCTI, The Ohio State University, Byggmästare,and Ruth och Nils-Erik Stenbäcks stif- Pennsylvania State University, Shanghai Astronomi- telse. cal Observatory, United Kingdom Participation Group, Funding for the Sloan Digital Sky Survey IV has been Universidad Nacional Autónomade México,University provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the U.S. of Arizona, University of Colorado Boulder, Univer- Department of Energy Office of Science, and the Partici- sity of Oxford, University of Portsmouth, University pating Institutions. SDSS-IV acknowledges support and of Utah, University of Virginia, University of Washing- resources from the Center for High-Performance Com- ton, University of Wisconsin, Vanderbilt University, and puting at the University of Utah. The SDSS web site is Yale University. www.sdss.org. Facilities: Sloan

REFERENCES

Abolfathi, B., Aguado, D. S., Aguilar, G., et al. 2018, Bergemann, M., Lind, K., Collet, R., Magic, Z., & Asplund, ApJS, 235, 42 M. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 27 Amarsi, A. M., Asplund, M., Collet, R., & Leenaarts, J. Bergemann, M., Kudritzki, R.-P., Plez, B., et al. 2012, ApJ, 2016, MNRAS, 455, 3735 751, 156 Amarsi, A. M., & Asplund, M. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 264 Bergemann, M., Kudritzki, R.-P., W¨url,M., et al. 2013, Allende Prieto, C., Beers, T. C., Wilhelm, R., et al. 2006, ApJ, 764, 115 ApJ, 636, 804 Bergemann, M., Kudritzki, R.-P., Gazak, Z., Davies, B., & Aller, L. H., & Chapman, S. 1960, ApJ, 132, 461 Plez, B. 2015, ApJ, 804, 113 Alvarez, R., & Plez, B. 1998, A&A, 330, 1109 Bergemann, M., Collet, R., Amarsi, A. M., et al. 2017, Asplund, M. 2005, ARA&A, 43, 481 ApJ, 847, 15 Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., & Scott, P. 2009, Bertelli Motta, C., Salaris, M., Pasquali, A., & Grebel, ARA&A, 47, 481 E. K. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 2161 Bahcall, J. N., Pinsonneault, M. H., & Wasserburg, G. J. Bertelli Motta, C., Pasquali, A., Richer, J., et al. 2018, 1995, Reviews of Modern Physics, 67, 781 MNRAS, 478, 425 Bahcall, J. N., Pinsonneault, M. H., & Basu, S. 2001, ApJ, 555, 990 Bertran de Lis, S., Allende Prieto, C., Majewski, S. R., et Bailer-Jones, C. A. L., Rybizki, J., Fouesneau, M., al. 2016, A&A, 590, A74 Mantelet, G., & Andrae, R. 2018, AJ, 156, 58 Blanco-Cuaresma, S., Soubiran, C., Heiter, U., et al. 2015, Balachandran, S. 1990, ApJ, 354, 310 A&A, 577, A47 Balachandran, S. 1995, ApJ, 446, 203 Blanton, M. R., Bershady, M. A., Abolfathi, B., et al. 2017, Bergemann, M., & Gehren, T. 2008, A&A, 492, 823 AJ, 154, 28 20 Souto et al.

Benjamini, Y. and Hochberg, Y., 1995, Journal of the Royal El-Badry, K., Ting, Y.-S., Rix, H.-W., et al. 2018, MNRAS, Statistical Society, 25, 289 476, 528 Bovy, J. 2016, ApJ, 817, 49 Foy, R., & Proust, D. 1981, A&A, 99, 221 Bressan, A., Marigo, P., Girardi, L., et al. 2012, MNRAS, Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 427, 127 2018, A&A, 616, A1 Bellini, A., Bedin, L. R., Pichardo, B., et al. 2010, A&A, Gao, X., Lind, K., Amarsi, A. M., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 513, A51 481, 2666 Caffau, E., Maiorca, E., Bonifacio, P., et al. 2009, A&A, Garc´ıaPérez,A. E., Allende Prieto, C., Holtzman, J. A., et 498, 877 al. 2016, AJ, 151, 144 Caffau, E., Ludwig, H.-G., Steffen, M., Freytag, B., & Geller, A. M., Latham, D. W., & Mathieu, R. D. 2015, AJ, Bonifacio, P. 2011, SoPh, 268, 255 150, 97 Canto Martins, B. L., Lèbre,A., Palacios, A., et al. 2011, Gilmore, G., Randich, S., Asplund, M., et al. 2012, The A&A, 527, A94 Messenger, 147, 25 Castelli, F., & Kurucz, R. L. 2004, arXiv:astro-ph/0405087 GonzálezHernández,J. I., & Bonifacio, P. 2009, A&A, 497, Chaboyer, B., Deliyannis, C. P., Demarque, P., 497 Pinsonneault, M. H., & Sarajedini, A. 1992, ApJ, 388, Gunn, J. E., Siegmund, W. A., Mannery, E. J., et al. 2006, 372 AJ, 131, 2332 Chaboyer, B., Demarque, P., Guenther, D. B., & Hasselquist, S., Shetrone, M., Cunha, K., et al. 2016, ApJ, Pinsonneault, M. H. 1995, ApJ, 446, 435 833, 81 Chaboyer, B., Demarque, P., & Pinsonneault, M. H. 1995, Holtzman, J. A., Shetrone, M., Johnson, J. A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 441, 865 AJ, 150, 148 Chaboyer, B., Demarque, P., & Pinsonneault, M. H. 1995, Holtzman, J. A., Hasselquist, S., Shetrone, M., et al. 2018, ApJ, 441, 876 AJ, 156, 125 Chapman, S. 1917, MNRAS, 77, 539 Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, Chapman, S. 1917, MNRAS, 77, 540 9, 90 Charbonnel, C., & Zahn, J.-P. 2007, A&A, 467, L15 Iben, I., Jr. 1965, ApJ, 142, 1447 Choi, J., Dotter, A., Conroy, C., et al. 2016, ApJ, 823, 102 Jacobson, H. R., Pilachowski, C. A., & Friel, E. D. 2011, Cohen, J. G. 1980, ApJ, 241, 981 AJ, 142, 59 Cunha, K., Smith, V. V., Johnson, J. A., et al. 2015, ApJL, Karakas, A. I., & Lattanzio, J. C. 2014, PASA, 31, e030 798, L41 King, J. R., Krishnamurthi, A., & Pinsonneault, M. H. Cunha, K., Smith, V. V., Hasselquist, S., et al. 2017, ApJ, 2000, AJ, 119, 859 844, 145 Korn, A. J., Grundahl, F., Richard, O., et al. 2007, ApJ, De Silva, G. M., Sneden, C., Paulson, D. B., et al. 2006, 671, 402 AJ, 131, 455 Lagarde, N., Decressin, T., Charbonnel, C., et al. 2012, De Silva, G. M., Freeman, K. C., Asplund, M., et al. 2007, A&A, 543, A108 AJ, 133, 1161 Lind, K., Korn, A. J., Barklem, P. S., & Grundahl, F. 2008, da Silva, L., Torres, C. A. O., de La Reza, R., et al. 2009, A&A, 490, 777 A&A, 508, 833 Liu, F., Asplund, M., Yong, D., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 463, De Silva, G. M., Freeman, K. C., Bland-Hawthorn, J., et al. 696 2015, MNRAS, 449, 2604 Majewski, S. R., Schiavon, R. P., Frinchaboy, P. M., et al. Delahaye, F., & Pinsonneault, M. H. 2006, ApJ, 649, 529 2017, AJ, 154, 94 Delgado Mena, E., Israelian, G., GonzálezHernández,J. I., Martig, M., Fouesneau, M., Rix, H.-W., et al. 2016, et al. 2014, A&A, 562, A92 MNRAS, 456, 3655 Dotter, A. 2016, ApJS, 222, 8 Masseron, T., & Gilmore, G. 2015, MNRAS, 453, 1855 Dotter, A., Conroy, C., Cargile, P., & Asplund, M. 2017, Masseron, T., Lagarde, N., Miglio, A., Elsworth, Y., & ApJ, 840, 99 Gilmore, G. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 3021 Eggleton, P. P., Dearborn, D. S. P., & Lattanzio, J. C. Mészáros,S., Allende Prieto, C., Edvardsson, B., et al. 2006, Science, 314, 1580 2012, AJ, 144, 120 Eisenstein, D. J., Weinberg, D. H., Agol, E., et al. 2011, Mészáros,S., Holtzman, J., Garc´ıaPérez,A. E., et al. 2013, AJ, 142, 72 AJ, 146, 133 Testing Atomic Diffusion in M67 21

Michaud, G. 1970, ApJ, 160, 641 Shetrone, M., Bizyaev, D., Lawler, J. E., et al. 2015, ApJS, Michaud, G., Charland, Y., Vauclair, S., & Vauclair, G. 221, 24 1976, ApJ, 210, 447 Skrutskie, M. F., Cutri, R. M., Stiening, R., et al. 2006, AJ, Michaud, G. 1980, AJ, 85, 589 131, 1163 Michaud, G., Richard, O., Richer, J., & VandenBerg, D. A. Smith, V. V., Cunha, K., Shetrone, M. D., et al. 2013, ApJ, 2004, ApJ, 606, 452 765, 16 Michaud, G., Alecian, G., & Richer, J. 2015, Atomic Souto, D., Cunha, K., Smith, V., et al. 2016, ApJ, 830, 35 Diffusion in Stars, Astronomy and Astrophysics Library, Souto, D., Cunha, K., Smith, V. V., et al. 2018, ApJ, 857, ISBN 978-3-319-19853-8. Springer International 14 Publishing Switzerland, 2015., Tautvaiˇsiene,G., Edvardsson, B., Tuominen, I., & Ilyin, I. Ness, M., Hogg, D. W., Rix, H.-W., et al. 2016, ApJ, 823, 2000, A&A, 360, 499 114 Taylor, B. J. 2007, AJ, 133, 370 Nidever, D. L., Holtzman, J. A., Allende Prieto, C., et al. Van Der Walt, S., Colbert, S. C., & Varoquaux, G. 2011, 2015, AJ, 150, 173 arXiv:1102.1523 Nordlander, T., Korn, A. J., Richard, O., & Lind, K. 2012, Vauclair, G., Vauclair, S., & Michaud, G. 1978, ApJ, 223, ApJ, 753, 48 920 Onehag,¨ A., Gustafsson, B., & Korn, A. 2014, A&A, 562, Vauclair, S., & Vauclair, G. 1982, ARA&A, 20, 37 A102 Wilson, J. C., Hearty, F., Skrutskie, M. F., et al. 2010, Pancino, E., Carrera, R., Rossetti, E., & Gallart, C. 2010, Proc. SPIE, 7735, 77351C A&A, 511, A56 Yadav, R. K. S., Bedin, L. R., Piotto, G., et al. 2008, A&A, Plez, B. 2012, Astrophysics Source Code Library, 484, 609 ascl:1205.004 Yakut, K., Zima, W., Kalomeni, B., et al. 2009, A&A, 503, Price-Jones, N., & Bovy, J. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 1410 165 Prˇsa,A., Harmanec, P., Torres, G., et al. 2016, AJ, 152, 41 Zacharias, N., Finch, C., Subasavage, J., et al. 2015, AJ, Randich, S., Gilmore, G., & Gaia-ESO Consortium 2013, 150, 101 The Messenger, 154, 47 Zamora, O., Garc´ıa-Hernández,D. A., Allende Prieto, C., et al. 2015, AJ, 149, 181 Reddy, A. B. S., Giridhar, S., & Lambert, D. L. 2012, Zasowski, G., Johnson, J. A., Frinchaboy, P. M., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 419, 1350 AJ, 146, 81 Richard, O., Michaud, G., & Richer, J. 2002, ApJ, 580, Zhang, J., Shi, J., Pan, K., Allende Prieto, C., & Liu, C. 1100 2016, ApJ, 833, 137 Richard, O., Michaud, G., & Richer, J. 2005, ApJ, 619, 538 Zhang, J., Shi, J., Pan, K., Allende Prieto, C., & Liu, C. Sarajedini, A., Dotter, A., & Kirkpatrick, A. 2009, ApJ, 2017, ApJ, 835, 90 698, 1872 22 Souto et al. J H Ks ) SNR Prob Prob Prob Prob Prob σ Parsec Parsec G15 Y08 Z93 G89 S77 σ . Stellar Properties Table 1 continued ) δ Table 1 µ ( σ )) δ cos( α µ )( 1 − (RV) PM (ra) PM (ra) PM (dec) PM (dec) Dist BJ18 Dist ( σ (km s σ ) 1 − (km s 2Mass ID RV Red Giants 2M08492491+11440572M08503613+1143180 35.092M08504964+1135089 34.292M08511269+1152423 34.922M08511704+1150464 1.51 34.342M08511897+1158110 0.11 33.582M08512156+1146061 0.07 34.012M08512618+1153520 0.07 -11.06 34.872M08512898+1150330 0.06 -11.06 34.162M08512990+1147168 0.10 -10.96 33.462M08513577+1153347 0.07 0.06 -10.95 36.282M08513938+1151456 0.07 0.04 -11.16 34.052M08514234+1150076 0.08 -2.87 0.04 -11.08 33.982M08514388+1156425 0.06 -2.74 0.01 -11.10 34.272M08514507+1147459 0.07 -2.96 0.11 -11.00 32.942M08514883+1156511 0.05 0.06 -2.98 0.11 -11.14 32.972M08515611+1150147 0.06 0.08 -3.32 0.05 -11.27 34.352M08515952+1155049 0.06 0.07 829.45 -3.09 0.05 -11.06 34.682M08521097+1131491 0.04 0.08 873.89 -2.66 0.04 -11.10 34.392M08521656+1119380 0.05 0.09 832.42 -2.88 0.05 -11.02 28.15 33.822M08521856+1144263 0.04 0.06 818.41 -3.22 0.04 -11.18 24.21 33.822M08522636+1141277 0.05 0.07 460 829.68 -3.73 0.05 -11.05 28.06 33.652M08525625+1148539 0.05 0.07 138 847.08 -2.93 0.03 -10.96 12.56 33.41 982M08534672+1123307 0.05 0.11 344 834.37 -3.12 0.03 -11.13 28.19 32.84 722M08493465+1151256 1445 0.05 0.07 842.43 -2.80 0.06 -11.00 23.29 99 33.04 982M08505816+1152223 0.04 0.08 371 812.29 -3.16 98 100 0.10 -11.06 31.65 33.982M08510723+1153019 0.04 0.08 384 795.23 -3.03 99 0.07 -11.05 14.79 99 34.03 982M08510839+1147121 0.05 0.09 93 314 99 801.49 -3.26 0.07 -11.13 18.46 32.99 982M08522003+1127362 0.07 0.06 982 99 834.61 -3.89 94 0.08 -10.77 34.60 99 33.52 97SubGiants 97 0.04 0.07 99 481 805.95 -3.10 100 0.11 -11.02 20.07 33.94 972M08504994+1149127 0.05 0.07 884 99 2 30.95 844.60 -2.76 77 -11.24 26.61 98 94 982M08510325+1145473 96 0.05 0.08 94 205 839.67 -2.88 0.18 -10.98 23.64 97 33.83 98 10.2962M08511564+1150561 0.06 0.08 95 469 11.131 97 858.95 -3.14 100 91 0.05 -11.13 22.86 35.11 95 982M08511670+1145293 98 0.04 0.08 9.831 -10.92 271 10.644 843.67 -2.99 77 26.03 99 34.01 9.410 982M08512122+1145526 0.05 0.06 94 95 505 10.552 99 8.650 868.56 -3.10 0.10 -10.91 35.02 9.708 93 35.48 51 982M08512879+1151599 0.05 0.08 8.848 281 99 822.72 -2.79 100 0.21 -11.22 28.77 0 33.49 0.07 9.284 8.122 952M08512935+1145275 98 0.05 95 135 10.587 808.61 -2.92 99 0.03 21.45 8.722 33.59 97 02M08513540+1157564 0.05 0.08 95 95 8.712 7.976 133 10.095 818.62 -2.86 100 0.21 -10.83 23.87 96 33.14 9.602 95 972M08513862+1220141 0.05 0.07 -2.41 543 10.012 72 784.76 0.69 -11.07 30.73 8.606 99 33.39 8.619 98 992M08514401+1146245 99 0.04 99 9.085 672 8.566 870.52 -2.93 96 0.13 -10.73 13.28 99 33.74 982M08514474+1146460 1073 0.05 0.07 95 8.113 864.38 -2.91 0.06 -11.26 28.62 8.947 99 2 99 33.11 0.05 93 8.072 982M08514994+1149311 98 0.08 7.314 504 904.59 97 99 0.05 -11.74 33.96 7.960 10.522 99 33.122M08515335+1148208 0.06 0.07 7.958 196 10.383 884.25 -3.27 100 99 96 0.12 6.681 -10.91 32.99 10.023 92 33.33 91 96 0.04 0.13 903.98 100 195 99 9.889 -2.91 88 0.13 -10.74 34.28 nan 97 9.941 6.489 0.09 9.829 92 370 98 8.618 888.63 -2.78 100 92 0.06 -11.10 34.01 71 97 9.795 0.05 0.07 94 21.87 91 893.78 -2.41 0.13 9.339 -10.95 1369 nan 99 8.114 98 0.06 0.07 9.684 95 95 287 -2.47 0.04 -11.10 28.60 11.256 38 99 604 9.187 98 nan 0.05 0.07 90 7.996 809.79 -3.04 99 9.183 -11.06 28.66 11.197 10.779 96 98 98 0.09 0.08 171 nan 94 829.30 -2.98 11 99 -11.35 10.726 10.705 8.597 98 9.045 0.06 0.07 260 99 8.921 785.07 -3.01 -11.44 28.26 99 10.634 94 nan 98 0.05 7.875 0.07 100 8.084 99 843.16 -3.00 27.10 99 8.388 98 0.04 0.07 110 nan 0 8.572 7.233 852.74 -2.89 99 21.58 7.959 98 99 0.04 0.07 77 8.252 103 10.225 91 840.04 -3.12 51.73 99 8.087 98 7.119 10.845 0.05 209 96 837.93 -3.10 99 38.64 10.839 97 9.730 61 10.314 0.05 7.923 140 96 848.14 -2.94 100 93 26.19 10.315 86 10.263 0.04 9.624 91 110 99 71 858.14 27.28 nan 96 10.224 7.203 0.04 94 116 91 870.91 100 24.64 11.197 98 11.175 nan 0.04 93 135 6.546 798.50 54 32.96 10.707 98 10.771 97 99 89 238 nan 858.19 29.12 10.691 98 10.626 6.394 98 10.695 251 99 817.06 23.63 10.839 10.195 97 93 nan 98 98 116 95 27.21 10.383 98 10.112 98 95 351 nan 11.372 99 26.68 96 10.253 94 95 205 10.960 99 11.021 99 11.491 25 98 189 11.485 10.890 99 96 10.662 11.220 99 98 95 11.094 99 100 99 10.570 11.187 98 92 11.013 99 99 11.135 99 99 95 97 11.433 10.888 99 95 98 99 11.287 11.104 10.835 98 93 7. 11.447 10.864 11.024 95 99 11.298 11.143 10.754 92 nan 11.438 10.866 11.030 11.357 0 11.110 10.791 99 10.918 11.027 11.494 10.822 90 11.196 11.148 11.625 11.390 Testing Atomic Diffusion in M67 23 J H Ks ) SNR Prob Prob Prob Prob Prob σ Parsec Parsec G15 Y08 Z93 G89 S77 (continued) σ Table 1 continued Table 1 ) δ µ ( σ )) δ cos( α µ )( 1 − (RV) PM (ra) PM (ra) PM (dec) PM (dec) Dist BJ18 Dist ( σ (km s σ ) 1 − (km s 2Mass ID RV 2M08521134+11453802M08503667+1148553 33.052M08505569+1152146 35.362M08510106+1150108 34.082M08510951+1141449 0.04 32.902M08511877+1151186 0.22 32.362M08515567+1217573 0.09 34.07turnoff 0.14 -10.98 33.522M08503392+1146272 0.08 -11.432M08504079+1147462 0.10 -11.01 33.782M08505177+1200247 0.07 0.05 -10.79 34.592M08505702+1159158 0.06 -10.33 33.722M08505762+1155147 0.18 -2.99 0.14 -10.98 33.962M08505903+1148576 0.09 -3.11 0.06 -10.99 33.072M08505973+1139524 0.07 -2.84 0.25 33.672M08510969+1159096 0.04 0.07 -2.93 0.22 -10.97 33.212M08511576+1152587 0.04 0.08 -3.11 0.24 -10.89 33.982M08512240+1151291 0.13 858.43 -2.74 0.44 -11.22 35.822M08513710+1154599 0.06 0.08 899.99 -2.86 0.19 -11.06 33.442M08513806+1201243 0.06 0.07 930.54 7.27 -10.71 27.32 34.852M08514122+1154290 0.05 0.05 899.78 -3.05 0.08 -10.97 30.68 32.142M08514475+1145012 0.06 0.05 113 897.57 -3.08 0.16 -10.62 57.06 33.612M08520741+1150221 0.04 162 883.67 -2.85 0.05 -10.79 30.39 34.89 98main-sequence 0.06 0.05 425 935.73 -3.72 0.12 -11.96 30.12 34.19 972M08502805+1154505 0.05 0.07 117 -2.85 0.21 -10.94 33.72 98 972M08511229+1154230 0.05 0.04 113 869.53 -2.73 0.20 -10.85 37.02 99 34.95 972M08512314+1154049 0.03 0.07 333 847.32 -2.74 99 0.16 -11.03 99 35.13 972M08512604+1149555 0.03 0.05 226 867.93 -2.93 100 99 -11.15 32.54 33.62 982M08512996+1151090 0.03 0.04 37 840.73 -2.03 100 99 0.20 -10.87 28.41 32.89 962M08513119+1153179 0.05 0.06 93 241 98 870.75 -2.96 0.26 -11.12 21.00 0.0 34.822M08513701+1136516 0.03 0.07 99 170 95 0 867.89 -2.95 100 0.33 21.18 34.17 982M08514189+1149376 98 0.05 0.04 96 146 99 831.18 -3.40 0.30 -10.55 17.25 33.18 98 11.4522M08514742+1147096 47 0.04 0.04 99 95 178 857.36 -3.06 0.23 -10.81 21.19 11.930 99 35.88 87 752M08521649+1147382 11.082 0.03 99 148 844.46 -2.81 0.30 -10.83 28.29 10.852 11.628 99 31.44 982M08505439+1156290 98 0 10.993 0.04 0.04 118 11.380 853.50 -2.95 99 0.67 -11.76 14.81 10.586 99 11.578 33.91 98 952M08510076+1153115 0.05 0.05 104 11.018 858.09 100 86 0.28 -11.07 29.65 11.445 10.515 33.73 96 942M08511176+1150018 0.03 0.05 154 10.951 99 11.502 839.80 -2.41 100 16 6.03 -10.82 20.51 11.102 34.05 982M08512080+1145024 0.03 0.06 99 162 11.516 98 11.089 820.44 -2.87 100 0.27 -10.80 19.44 10.997 33.53 982M08512742+1153265 0.05 94 96 132 11.115 94 11.020 855.48 -2.76 100 0.11 -11.02 28.69 33.77 982M08512788+1155409 98 0.03 0.04 99 93 127 11.005 864.00 -3.28 0.28 -11.11 25.67 11.824 99 34.28 982M08513012+1143498 98 0.04 0.06 99 95 144 -3.08 0.29 -11.01 18.41 11.793 11.596 99 36.06 94 962M08513455+1149068 99 0.03 0.06 213 860.00 -2.98 99 0.11 -10.74 18.90 12.377 11.540 99 11.517 33.53 93 982M08521868+1143246 99 0.04 0.05 136 12.003 850.83 -3.31 99 0.18 -10.76 12.106 99 11.498 33.53 96 832M08512643+1143506 0.03 0.07 202 12.294 11.726 72 846.83 -2.92 94 0.18 -11.02 19.59 99 12.051 32.73 96 982M08513259+1148520 0.03 0.07 12.386 12.038 11.673 99 853.19 -3.09 99 0.23 -10.51 21.65 98 33.45 98Excluded 0.04 0.06 94 122 12.025 Sample 12.206 11.973 84 855.38 -2.74 due 99 0.41 -10.87 20.20 97 33.74 0.04 0.08 64 118 11.735 12.094 858.47 -3.19 99 0 0.18 -11.13 25.88 12.658 99 98 0.03 0.06 79 119 11.703 99 848.99 -2.93 99 0.26 -11.11 22.12 11.728 12.348 98 0.04 0.06 137 81 862.75 -3.20 100 99 0.27 -11.05 19.64 12.195 11.453 12.298 0 98 0.05 0.04 69 192 99 840.28 -3.81 -10.97 24.24 11.952 97 11.391 98 0.05 0.09 99 94 156 12.096 77 814.76 -3.09 -11.37 25.07 11.844 98 11.862 98 0.05 0.08 95 100 11.819 919.56 -2.40 99 -11.30 19.47 11.703 11.551 97 98 99 0.04 0.07 83 112 11.763 914.22 -3.09 99 28.03 12.288 11.466 99 11.495 98 0.04 0.11 113 98 899.09 -3.20 99 34.20 12.097 12.039 99 11.397 93 98 0.03 0.08 120 93 889.07 -2.86 100 89 28.97 11.823 11.969 98 0.06 91 270 12.968 98 948.69 -2.69 99 29.78 98 11.806 98 0.05 92 94 119 12.665 99 893.36 -3.11 28.43 12.986 99 98 0.04 92 127 12.563 97 887.79 99 34.44 13.017 12.708 99 96 98 0.08 93 109 887.52 95 18.68 13.344 12.741 98 12.623 3 0.05 95 273 98 877.95 100 99 38.35 12.926 nan 12.987 12.681 94 129 99 835.57 99 27.47 12.603 12.630 12.897 95 100 96 95 102 13.341 89 99 791.70 32.18 12.327 12.599 98 96 104 12.932 99 96 38.90 13.626 96 12.267 98 97 97 77 143 12.829 100 28.99 12.880 13.262 98 95 121 98 99 13.558 12.496 13.189 93 98 1 95 99 146 11.706 13.221 91 12.372 98 92 13.474 98 11.435 99 13.157 99 96 99 99 13.157 100 96 13.665 11.372 95 11.928 13.105 88 13.120 98 99 95 96 11.679 99 11.667 13.031 12.168 11.603 99 99 99 11.382 99 95 11.831 11.342 12.011 75 11.813 87 13.717 95 11.761 11.590 13.229 11.694 11.020 0 11.352 13.121 11.011 11.259 10.645 10.993 10.541 10.526 24 Souto et al. J H Ks ) SNR Prob Prob Prob Prob Prob σ Parsec Parsec G15 Y08 Z93 G89 S77 (continued) σ Table 1 ) δ µ ( σ )) δ cos( α µ )( 1 − (RV) PM (ra) PM (ra) PM (dec) PM (dec) Dist BJ18 Dist ( σ (km s σ ) 1 − (km s Proper motions and distances from Gaia DR2 ) 100 < 2Mass ID RV to low SNR ( SubGiant 2M08503438+11395662M08504198+1136525 33.772M08510811+1201065 34.462M08511826+1150196 33.832M08520356+1141238 0.21 34.28main-sequence 0.10 34.152M08502833+1142097 0.232M08503788+1252295 4.21 -10.79 33.752M08505334+1143399 0.07 -11.12 32.372M08505923+1146129 -11.70 32.722M08512386+1138521 0.07 0.39 -10.89 31.982M08513215+1136126 0.07 0.30 -10.82 34.612M08513444+1137574 0.04 -2.94 0.33 34.342M08514375+1145148 0.06 -3.10 1.78 -10.85 34.022M08514465+1141510 0.07 -3.02 0.35 -11.83 32.402M08515290+1146358 0.05 -2.59 0.41 -10.89 32.952M08521664+1142300 0.05 0.07 -2.76 0.12 -10.90 34.002M08504511+1136023 0.03 0.07 850.43 0.19 -11.04 32.232M08510131+1141587 0.04 0.05 852.64 -2.83 0.27 -11.22 31.152M08510156+1147501 0.04 0.05 875.47 -3.44 0.53 -10.78 27.79 32.072M08511229+1146212 0.06 863.61 -3.92 3.99 -11.22 27.51 32.932M08511810+1142547 0.05 0.04 13.33 99 852.79 -2.84 -11.33 20.06 31.512M08512033+1145523 0.05 0.04 10.61 91 -2.81 -11.09 27.89 33.882M08512176+1144050 0.04 0.06 98 99 832.76 -2.83 0.23 -10.94 27.94 33.662M08512467+1143061 0.03 0.04 -10.81 99 86 801.51 -2.66 0.28 32.792M08513424+1145535 99 0.05 0.09 -11.04 98 99 841.16 -2.94 0.11 25.30 32.01 99 0.03 0.05 98 810.49 -2.95 0.29 -10.89 25.81 34.19 0.08 91 96 0.03 98 64 849.79 -2.78 0.46 -10.93 21.35 0.04 99 99 0.04 99 869.31 -2.95 0.32 -10.96 18.26 98 99 99 0.03 0.05 -2.70 98 89 829.37 0.46 -10.89 23.97 99 94 nan 0.05 0.05 -2.81 55 848.12 96 -11.28 17.26 99 99 97 0.03 0.05 98 nan 89 860.46 -3.60 -10.88 17.97 98 0 0.07 11.513 0.06 98 52 865.42 -3.04 95 -10.83 24.69 99 0.03 nan 100 99 11.244 0.05 98 11.410 58 805.89 -2.89 96 17.58 100 12.469 11.177 0.04 0.07 842.68 nan 94 11.062 55 -2.96 99 89 23.43 98 13.042 12.159 99 0.04 0.07 879.70 98 10.998 67 -3.12 99 17.43 nan 11.634 12.680 96 12.073 0.04 17.27 98 98 97 876.51 -2.18 88 13.662 99 11.365 97 12.592 0.04 20.72 97 98 70 919.79 -2.81 99 13.239 11.899 97 11.306 76 0.04 94 98 923.46 23.19 80 99 13.139 11.654 99 80 0.05 96 98 876.62 20.28 13.058 99 97 99 94 11.587 0.05 57 881.45 95 25.50 12.271 12.746 67 96 99 96 73 926.54 89 24.68 11.998 99 12.628 99 99 13.313 98 97 941.80 100 24.05 11.934 98 1 99 12.207 12.952 98 76 99 95 36.75 99 100 11.965 12.942 99 99 12.102 60 95 35.23 97 12.027 99 11.910 98 98 11.864 82 93 94 12.120 98 11.805 99 96 11.778 77 92 93 13.961 11.887 84 11.729 71 98 98 95 12.403 13.429 99 11.802 0 98 13.800 91 99 12.144 99 13.282 96 12.420 13.210 96 12.104 84 4 12.167 91 12.371 13.123 99 99 12.075 12.067 97 94 12.060 99 94 11.991 83 11.751 12.186 96 12.061 11.704 99 11.879 94 12.907 11.822 11.844 95 13.258 12.547 11.767 12.863 12.498 13.374 12.806 12.976 12.852 Testing Atomic Diffusion in M67 25 ) 1 − (km s ξ )

M ) Mass ( 2 − (cm s g ) log 2 − (cm s g ) log 2 − (cm s g . Stellar Parameters Table 2 continued (K) log eff Table 2 T (K) eff T (K) eff T ASPCAP raw ASPCAP calib GB09 ASPCAP raw ASPCAP calib Physical Mass Isocronae ASPCAP raw 2Mass ID Red Giants 2M08492491+11440572M08503613+11431802M08504964+1135089 4848.22M08511269+1152423 4973.62M08511704+1150464 4727.82M08511897+1158110 4758.1 4893.52M08512156+1146061 4707.8 5023.92M08512618+1153520 4907.5 4774.72M08512898+1150330 4731.2 4899.0 4805.42M08512990+1147168 4750.6 5019.9 4757.92M08513577+1153347 4693.6 4710.9 4956.52M08513938+1151456 4247.5 4702.4 3.31 4776.92M08514234+1150076 4911.4 4764.2 3.53 4798.52M08514388+1156425 4878.3 4909.9 2.96 4741.12M08514507+1147459 4778.7 4748.2 2.83 4302.42M08514883+1156511 4747.5 4714.2 2.87 4959.5 3.172M08515611+1150147 4765.1 4691.2 3.35 4927.4 3.412M08515952+1155049 4976.0 4274.0 3.01 4825.8 2.802M08521097+1131491 4950.8 4882.8 2.81 4795.8 2.492M08521656+1119380 4740.0 4871.1 2.79 4812.5 2.712M08521856+1144263 4602.3 4803.5 1.95 3.15 5027.4 3.222M08522636+1141277 4345.3 4711.9 3.37 3.51 4994.9 2.852M08525625+1148539 4702.7 4799.6 3.32 2.77 4789.0 2.482M08534672+1123307 4912.3 5028.8 3.13 2.50 4649.1 2.462M08493465+1151256 4899.5 4927.9 2.76 2.71 4394.8 1.68 1.322M08505816+1152223 4850.6 4708.4 3.08 3.30 4750.1 3.24 1.312M08510723+1153019 4190.5 4633.6 3.56 2.86 4962.6 3.20 1.332M08510839+1147121 4983.5 4406.8 3.70 2.49 4944.1 2.99 1.332M08522003+1127362 4661.0 4737.3 2.76 2.47 4899.3 2.44 1.33Subgiants 4901.4 1.14 4957.1 2.75 1.82 -9999.0 2.93 1.322M08504994+1149127 4932.4 1.24 4874.3 2.32 3.29 5030.7 3.44 1.332M08510325+1145473 1.33 4880.3 2.75 3.22 -9999.0 3.56 1.332M08511564+1150561 4347.6 5160.9 1.45 3.39 2.97 4948.9 2.45 1.342M08511670+1145293 5884.4 1.42 5021.5 3.42 2.50 4980.3 2.56 1.342M08512122+1145526 5335.0 5282.5 1.11 3.23 2.88 2.09 1.322M08512879+1151599 1.62 5280.6 1.35 4995.6 3.57 5213.0 2.44 1.322M08512935+1145275 5926.6 1.40 4973.2 3.59 3.56 5928.1 3.26 1.332M08513540+1157564 3.44 5617.4 1.43 2.49 5331.6 3.28 1.332M08513862+1220141 5019.9 1.47 5196.8 3.40 2.55 5335.8 3.11 1.332M08514401+1146245 5446.4 1.19 5932.2 -9999. 3.42 2.08 5971.3 1.312M08514474+1146460 5062.5 1.20 5271.0 2.44 5673.6 3.46 1.312M08514994+1149311 5432.7 1.27 5312.0 -9999. 3.74 3.37 5069.7 1.332M08515335+1148208 5058.6 1.64 6019.4 4.17 3.38 5497.9 3.27 1.33 6003.3 1.35 5624.3 3.81 3.05 1.78 5112.0 3.29 1.35 6069.2 1.25 5061.7 3.86 5483.9 1.35 0.92 5484.9 4.21 3.46 2.62 5109.2 3.62 1.31 1.51 4995.6 3.91 6048.3 -9999. 1.31 1.38 5507.6 3.61 3.22 6114.7 -9999. 1.32 1.34 1.39 5065.6 3.86 3.28 -9999. 1.49 5887.6 3.70 -9999. 1.31 1.33 1.30 5991.7 3.85 3.65 -9999. 3.84 1.29 3.69 3.74 3.49 1.32 1.10 0.53 4.11 -9999. 3.72 1.32 4.10 3.67 3.58 1.05 0.72 -9999. 3.82 1.30 1.30 3.57 1.25 1.30 3.60 -9999. 3.74 1.20 1.24 -9999. 1.31 3.66 3.73 0.96 1.29 0.77 3.64 1.04 3.85 1.31 1.29 0.87 3.89 0.75 1.30 1.30 0.78 1.30 1.16 1.28 0.65 1.27 0.94 0.89 0.97 0.83 1.06 26 Souto et al. ) 1 − (km s ξ )

M ) Mass ( 2 − (cm s g ) log 2 − (cm s g ) log 2 − (continued) (cm s g Table 2 continued Table 2 (K) log eff T (K) eff T (K) eff T ASPCAP raw ASPCAP calib GB09 ASPCAP raw ASPCAP calib Physical Mass Isocronae ASPCAP raw 2Mass ID 2M08521134+11453802M08503667+11485532M08505569+1152146 5293.22M08510106+1150108 5689.42M08510951+1141449 5910.22M08511877+1151186 5428.1 5343.22M08515567+1217573 5445.3 5746.5turnoﬀ 5231.5 5954.92M08503392+1146272 5213.3 5326.3 5480.62M08504079+1147462 5874.4 5492.32M08505177+1200247 6235.1 5943.0 5277.72M08505702+1159158 6228.8 5540.4 3.81 5264.62M08505762+1155147 6009.0 5462.4 3.922M08505903+1148576 6024.5 5326.9 4.09 6279.12M08505973+1139524 6151.3 5215.4 3.92 6274.82M08510969+1159096 5996.1 3.89 6053.3 -9999.2M08511576+1152587 6061.8 6165.5 3.85 6069.9 -9999.2M08512240+1151291 6026.4 6156.4 3.78 6196.3 -9999.2M08513710+1154599 6093.1 6042.0 -9999.0 -9999.2M08513806+1201243 6009.8 6040.1 4.31 6107.0 -9999. 3.712M08514122+1154290 6110.2 6044.2 4.22 6073.3 -9999. 3.822M08514475+1145012 6090.9 5882.2 4.22 6137.2 3.85 3.662M08520741+1150221 6118.1 5968.9 4.20 6056.5 3.78main-sequence 6040.5 5957.1 4.32 6156.0 -9999. 3.772M08502805+1154505 4.25 6043.8 5960.3 1.30 5926.9 -9999. 3.732M08511229+1154230 6056.2 1.29 4.34 6162.7 -9999.2M08512314+1154049 5759.3 6052.5 1.28 4.18 3.73 6086.9 -9999.2M08512604+1149555 5848.9 5845.0 1.29 4.18 6087.8 -9999. 4.022M08512996+1151090 5802.4 6008.6 1.29 -9999. 4.20 0.92 3.972M08513119+1153179 5310.1 6136.3 1.30 4.29 0.68 5806.5 -9999. 4.152M08513701+1136516 5900.8 6057.0 4.16 0.67 5892.7 -9999. 4.03 1.302M08514189+1149376 6062.9 4.19 0.82 5847.1 -9999. 4.162M08514742+1147096 5201.7 5755.8 1.25 4.36 0.84 4.17 5358.8 -9999.2M08521649+1147382 5481.9 5885.6 1.25 4.29 0.81 5945.5 -9999. 4.082M08505439+1156290 5199.1 5886.3 1.21 6108.2 -9999. 4.082M08510076+1153115 5467.4 0.91 5472.1 1.27 4.17 5244.9 -9999. 3.972M08511176+1150018 6163.0 5925.8 1.21 4.35 0.73 5525.2 -9999. 4.082M08512080+1145024 1.21 5564.3 6021.5 4.27 0.72 5245.7 -9999. 4.072M08512742+1153265 4857.4 5211.6 1.25 4.08 0.62 5512.1 3.952M08512788+1155409 5799.6 5595.9 1.25 4.34 0.55 6207.7 -9999. 3.952M08513012+1143498 6169.5 5226.8 1.27 4.30 0.64 5609.2 -9999. 4.142M08513455+1149068 5834.3 5573.0 0.66 1.23 4.52 4902.6 -9999. 4.082M08521868+1143246 5866.0 5956.9 1.23 4.31 0.64 5845.3 -9999.2M08512643+1143506 4922.6 5798.0 1.28 4.24 0.63 6214.1 -9999. 4.332M08513259+1148520 5960.3 4779.6 1.28 4.33 1.24 5878.5 -9999. 4.34Excluded 7985.2 5998.8 Sample 1.23 4.29 due 0.85 5913.1 -9999. 4.34 7599.0 5998.8 1.25 4.25 0.63 4966.8 -9999. 4.33 5860.8 4.20 0.59 6006.6 -9999. 4.34 6036.4 1.14 4.28 -9999.0 0.74 -9999. 4.24 4908.2 1.12 4.31 0.68 7647.2 -9999. 4.65 5970.8 1.11 4.30 0.66 -9999. 4.48 7686.9 1.00 4.36 -9999. 4.57 7095.6 1.11 4.45 0.61 -9999. 4.49 1.17 4.19 0.68 -9999. 4.33 4.67 0.81 0.73 -9999. 4.50 1.03 4.38 0.61 -9999. 4.67 0.85 0.64 -9999. 4.40 1.01 0.68 -9999. 4.31 1.10 -9999. 0.86 4.48 0.93 0.90 -9999. 4.45 0.75 0.60 4.69 0.98 0.72 4.42 1.11 0.63 4.53 0.98 0.60 4.44 1.00 0.57 0.75 0.67 1.03 0.73 1.21 0.61 1.21 0.62 0.86 0.62 1.55 2.82 Testing Atomic Diffusion in M67 27 ) 1 − (km s ξ )

M ) Mass ( 2 − (cm s g ) log 2 − (cm s g ) log 2 − (continued) (cm s g Table 2 (K) log eff T (K) eff T (K) eff T ASPCAP raw ASPCAP calib GB09 ASPCAP raw ASPCAP calib Physical Mass Isocronae ASPCAP raw ) 100 < 2Mass ID to low SNR ( Subgiant 2M08503438+11395662M08504198+11365252M08510811+1201065 5955.82M08511826+1150196 5597.02M08520356+1141238 5625.6main-sequence 5458.1 5998.62M08502833+1142097 5954.6 5647.92M08503788+1252295 5674.22M08505334+1143399 6164.8 5947.6 5508.62M08505923+1146129 5362.5 5611.6 6000.42M08512386+1138521 5194.7 5679.92M08513215+1136126 5567.1 5454.3 4.11 6210.02M08513444+1137574 5614.1 5984.7 3.92 5405.22M08514375+1145148 5935.4 4.02 5242.12M08514465+1141510 6000.8 6060.1 4.01 5613.82M08515290+1146358 6056.9 5381.2 4.07 5659.0 -9999.2M08521664+1142300 6091.1 5536.2 5981.2 -9999.2M08504511+1136023 4624.6 5943.0 4.28 6045.6 -9999.2M08510131+1141587 5985.2 5789.1 4.39 6104.1 -9999.2M08510156+1147501 4547.0 6132.1 4.22 6136.1 -9999. 3.872M08511229+1146212 5904.2 6003.4 4.21 4670.1 3.792M08511810+1142547 5642.9 6127.2 4.47 6033.1 -9999. 3.802M08512033+1145523 5806.2 6031.7 4.33 4593.2 -9999. 3.772M08512176+1144050 5895.8 4633.9 4.24 5953.5 -9999. 3.892M08512467+1143061 6063.8 6122.4 1.28 4.30 5688.3 -9999.2M08513424+1145535 5360.8 4640.2 1.29 4.39 5851.6 -9999. 4.33 5219.1 5906.2 1.29 4.34 5940.7 -9999. 4.68 5193.5 5749.4 1.29 4.28 6108.9 -9999. 4.56 5856.3 1.28 4.17 0.67 5406.7 -9999. 4.51 5920.0 4.24 0.94 5264.6 -9999. 4.52 6146.6 1.10 4.17 0.59 5235.5 -9999. 4.42 5624.3 0.87 4.25 0.58 -9999. 4.40 5446.2 0.85 4.27 0.70 -9999. 4.38 5174.0 0.93 4.32 -9999. 4.36 0.93 4.26 0.86 -9999. 4.71 1.03 4.39 1.11 -9999. 4.36 1.04 4.62 0.69 -9999. 4.55 1.06 0.71 -9999. 4.45 1.07 0.70 -9999. 4.49 0.70 0.73 -9999. 4.47 1.04 0.63 -9999. 4.45 0.75 0.66 4.39 1.01 0.72 4.60 0.95 1.24 4.57 0.98 0.58 4.56 1.01 0.57 1.06 0.70 0.86 0.58 0.85 0.64 0.85 0.70 0.68 0.64 0.78 0.57 28 Souto et al. . Stellar Abundances Table 3 continued Table 3 2Mass ID [Fe/H] [C/H] [N/H] [O/H] [Na/H] [Mg/H] [Al/H] [Si/H] [K/H] [Ca/H] [Ti/H] [V/H] [Cr/H] [Mn/H] [Ni/H] Red Giant 2M08492491+11440572M08503613+1143180 0.132M08504964+1135089 0.022M08511269+1152423 -0.20 0.072M08511704+1150464 -0.07 0.35 0.072M08511897+1158110 -0.16 0.14 0.072M08512156+1146061 -0.16 0.09 0.43 0.062M08512618+1153520 -0.20 0.04 0.29 0.102M08512898+1150330 -0.20 0.33 0.09 0.48 0.062M08512990+1147168 -0.15 0.08 0.11 0.38 0.042M08513577+1153347 -0.19 0.32 0.17 0.13 -0.05 0.352M08513938+1151456 -0.08 0.32 0.02 0.13 0.33 0.04 -0.14 0.422M08514234+1150076 0.28 0.11 0.12 0.21 0.06 0.182M08514388+1156425 -0.13 0.14 0.13 0.10 0.39 0.24 0.12 0.322M08514507+1147459 -0.18 0.31 0.13 0.09 0.13 0.24 0.07 0.47 0.052M08514883+1156511 -0.17 0.37 0.07 0.03 0.21 0.30 0.07 -0.04 0.272M08515611+1150147 -0.18 0.35 0.14 0.09 0.26 0.44 0.04 0.35 0.262M08515952+1155049 -0.14 0.14 0.11 0.00 0.12 -0.01 0.21 0.30 0.15 -0.01 0.342M08521097+1131491 -0.15 0.12 0.10 0.21 0.19 0.29 0.04 0.22 0.07 -0.03 0.412M08521656+1119380 -0.17 0.06 -0.07 0.22 0.11 0.24 0.18 0.10 0.10 -0.04 0.342M08521856+1144263 -0.17 0.31 0.05 0.11 0.20 0.25 0.09 0.19 0.31 0.03 0.06 0.042M08522636+1141277 -0.16 0.29 0.08 0.01 0.14 0.24 0.12 0.31 0.06 0.05 -0.05 0.242M08525625+1148539 -0.19 0.33 0.26 0.15 0.01 -0.01 0.11 0.28 0.08 0.35 0.05 -0.04 0.362M08534672+1123307 -0.23 0.09 0.19 0.17 0.13 0.07 -0.02 0.15 0.27 -0.15 0.16 0.06 -0.00 0.322M08493465+1151256 -0.04 -0.19 -0.03 0.27 0.10 0.17 0.08 0.19 0.39 -0.04 0.11 0.06 0.06 0.09 -0.06 0.412M08505816+1152223 -0.21 0.26 0.04 0.12 -0.03 -1.14 0.23 0.08 0.33 0.01 0.02 0.342M08510723+1153019 0.07 0.11 0.32 0.18 0.00 0.12 0.03 0.26 -0.01 0.27 0.01 0.31 0.08 0.08 -0.72 0.01 -0.03 0.252M08510839+1147121 0.02 0.37 0.14 0.08 0.20 -1.71 0.21 0.03 0.07 0.11 -0.02 0.422M08522003+1127362 -0.05 0.05 0.39 0.12 0.17 0.31 0.01 0.68 -0.02 0.05 0.03 0.18 0.02 -0.08 0.07 -0.69 0.15 -0.01 0.39Subgiant 0.17 0.14 -0.01 0.05 0.05 0.28 -1.00 -0.08 0.09 0.07 0.07 -0.10 0.432M08504994+1149127 -0.06 -0.15 0.29 -0.26 0.14 0.14 0.08 0.06 0.23 0.13 0.05 0.07 0.43 0.032M08510325+1145473 -0.10 0.10 0.02 0.31 -0.08 -2.50 0.21 -0.15 -0.05 0.26 0.06 -0.04 0.06 -0.07 0.03 -0.06 -0.06 0.352M08511564+1150561 0.09 0.21 -0.07 0.02 0.22 0.04 0.01 -0.02 0.26 0.25 0.262M08511670+1145293 -0.05 0.19 -1.36 0.14 0.02 -0.98 -0.04 -0.07 0.13 0.03 0.23 0.00 0.04 0.02 0.04 -0.03 0.43 0.272M08512122+1145526 0.24 0.01 0.20 0.20 -0.63 -0.04 0.01 0.14 0.16 0.14 0.09 -0.05 -2.212M08512879+1151599 0.03 -0.11 0.13 0.38 -0.01 -0.05 0.04 0.31 -0.02 -0.05 -0.00 0.05 0.09 0.28 -0.042M08512935+1145275 -0.02 -1.54 0.37 -1.77 -0.10 0.10 0.28 0.00 0.07 -0.02 0.03 0.05 0.29 0.14 0.16 0.092M08513540+1157564 0.07 0.07 -0.00 -0.07 -0.72 0.08 0.09 0.01 0.03 0.04 -2.21 0.132M08513862+1220141 -0.04 -0.05 0.15 0.05 -0.02 0.20 0.22 0.05 -0.05 0.02 0.05 0.27 0.01 -0.76 0.042M08514401+1146245 -0.14 0.15 -0.92 0.04 -0.03 -1.23 -0.01 0.04 0.10 -0.02 0.30 0.02 0.022M08514474+1146460 -0.26 0.04 0.16 0.34 0.01 0.08 0.09 0.21 0.02 -1.43 0.16 -0.25 -0.02 -0.07 0.07 0.23 -1.53 0.24 0.042M08514994+1149311 0.14 0.03 0.22 -0.55 -0.01 0.11 0.03 -0.01 -0.04 -1.632M08515335+1148208 0.10 0.10 -0.00 0.02 -0.03 0.08 0.08 0.01 -2.21 0.21 -0.00 0.05 -0.03 0.29 -0.11 -0.03 -0.04 0.04 -0.172M08521134+1145380 -0.24 0.17 0.05 -0.06 -1.90 0.06 -0.02 0.28 -0.84 0.07 0.15 0.19 -0.09 0.01 0.05 0.24 0.09 0.08 -0.02 0.14 -0.11 0.00 -0.04 0.09 -0.06 0.08 -0.06 0.18 -0.07 -0.03 0.17 -0.07 -0.89 -0.10 -0.01 0.04 0.05 0.11 -0.06 0.11 -0.07 0.05 -0.11 0.17 -0.07 0.00 0.04 0.12 0.06 0.07 -0.01 0.30 0.05 -0.97 -0.08 -0.00 0.12 -1.21 -0.10 0.35 -0.05 -0.07 0.04 0.29 0.05 0.08 0.19 0.15 0.12 0.16 0.01 -0.04 -0.04 0.01 0.05 -1.36 -2.38 0.11 0.00 -0.06 0.10 -0.19 0.03 0.12 0.02 -0.95 -0.01 0.12 -0.03 -0.52 0.13 0.01 0.09 0.03 -0.00 0.04 -0.26 0.02 -0.01 -0.06 0.13 0.03 0.39 -0.04 -2.35 0.08 0.04 0.08 -0.01 0.14 -0.36 -0.11 0.06 -0.40 0.15 -0.01 0.10 0.09 -0.07 0.10 -0.06 0.03 0.10 0.09 -0.06 -0.07 -2.34 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 0.17 -0.11 0.05 -0.09 -0.04 0.07 -0.01 -0.21 0.07 -0.10 -0.14 -0.02 0.02 -0.09 0.01 -0.01 -0.02 -0.05 -0.12 0.03 0.12 -0.01 -0.03 -0.13 0.07 0.18 0.06 -0.00 -0.01 -0.12 0.21 -0.03 -0.07 -0.39 -0.02 -0.01 0.09 -0.03 0.10 0.06 -0.04 0.04 0.01 0.01 -0.09 0.13 0.04 0.01 0.06 0.03 -2.25 -2.17 0.05 -0.02 -0.29 0.06 -0.06 -0.12 0.05 0.03 -0.02 -0.02 0.02 0.02 0.06 Testing Atomic Diffusion in M67 29 (continued) Table 3 continued Table 3 ) 100 < 2Mass ID [Fe/H] [C/H] [N/H] [O/H] [Na/H] [Mg/H] [Al/H] [Si/H] [K/H] [Ca/H] [Ti/H] [V/H] [Cr/H] [Mn/H] [Ni/H] 2M08503667+11485532M08505569+1152146 -0.072M08510106+1150108 0.01 -0.042M08510951+1141449 0.082M08511877+1151186 -0.06 0.02 0.152M08515567+1217573 0.04 -0.09 -0.08 0.09turnoﬀ 0.07 -0.08 0.042M08503392+1146272 -0.08 -1.34 0.00 -0.042M08504079+1147462 -0.07 0.34 -0.01 0.01 -0.092M08505177+1200247 0.37 0.25 -0.07 -0.05 -0.062M08505702+1159158 0.15 0.01 -0.03 0.12 -0.03 0.142M08505762+1155147 0.23 0.02 -0.08 0.17 -0.032M08505903+1148576 -0.02 0.08 -0.02 ... -2.20 -0.07 0.152M08505973+1139524 ... 0.13 -0.03 0.08 0.05 -0.02 0.162M08510969+1159096 ... -0.03 0.15 0.03 ... -0.02 0.232M08511576+1152587 ...... 0.28 -0.11 0.18 0.01 -0.02 -0.032M08512240+1151291 ...... 0.20 -0.02 0.27 -0.12 -0.032M08513710+1154599 ... 0.15 ...... 0.03 -0.12 -0.00 ... 0.012M08513806+1201243 ... 0.14 0.01 ... -0.01 0.04 -0.03 -0.11 ... 0.092M08514122+1154290 ... -0.00 ... -0.06 -0.10 -0.01 -0.04 -0.07 ...2M08514475+1145012 ... 0.16 ... -2.38 -0.04 0.08 0.17 -0.22 -0.04 ... 0.14 0.142M08520741+1150221 ...... 0.05 0.07 -0.10 -0.26 -0.03 ... 0.22 -0.04main-sequence ... -0.20 -0.04 ... 0.04 -0.26 -0.00 0.10 -0.08 -0.08 ... -0.042M08502805+1154505 ... 0.13 -0.03 -0.15 ... -0.10 -0.26 -0.07 0.08 -0.01 ... -0.05 0.212M08511229+1154230 ...... -0.11 -0.09 0.04 0.09 -0.13 -0.22 0.02 ... -0.192M08512314+1154049 0.18 ... -0.10 ... -0.02 -0.04 -0.34 0.04 0.04 ...2M08512604+1149555 -0.03 ... 0.06 -0.00 0.01 0.03 -0.08 0.01 ... -0.09 -0.02 -0.18 0.00 ...2M08512996+1151090 -0.31 0.15 -0.15 ... 0.01 -0.01 -0.02 0.04 0.06 -0.28 -0.03 0.01 0.22 ... -0.032M08513119+1153179 -0.47 -0.04 -0.01 ...... 0.13 -0.01 -0.15 0.01 -0.15 -0.13 ... 0.15 2M08513701+1136516 -0.05 -0.31 -0.15 -0.18 -0.06 0.11 -0.03 ... -0.07 -0.25 0.05 -0.04 -0.03 ... 0.06 -0.102M08514189+1149376 -0.03 ...... -0.17 -0.36 -0.22 -0.10 0.03 -0.02 -0.03 ...2M08514742+1147096 ... -0.53 ... -0.10 0.06 -0.09 ... -0.32 ... 0.06 0.05 -0.10 -0.062M08521649+1147382 ...... -0.01 -0.32 0.06 ... -0.06 -0.13 0.03 0.05 -0.042M08505439+1156290 ... -0.20 ...... -0.10 -0.19 ... 0.02 0.02 -0.18 -0.16 -0.06 -0.35 0.02 -0.02 -0.092M08510076+1153115 -0.03 ...... -0.28 0.05 -0.04 ... -0.11 0.05 -0.10 -0.01 -0.14 -0.02 2M08511176+1150018 0.11 0.01 -0.22 -0.04 ...... -0.01 ... 0.02 0.11 -0.02 ... -0.042M08512080+1145024 0.02 ... -0.08 -0.09 ... -0.04 -0.02 -0.05 -0.11 0.03 0.02 ... 0.03 ...... -0.17 -0.112M08512742+1153265 -0.02 ... -0.28 -0.12 -0.03 -0.14 -0.05 -0.00 ...... -0.15 0.01 -0.112M08512788+1155409 ... -0.08 -0.49 -0.01 -0.08 -0.05 ... -0.04 -0.14 -0.05 -0.19 -0.03 ...2M08513012+1143498 -0.14 ...... 0.02 ... -0.03 0.15 ... -0.03 0.03 -0.19 0.04 0.00 -0.01 -0.032M08513455+1149068 -0.04 -0.12 ...... -0.07 0.26 -0.05 -0.08 -0.36 -0.02 -0.162M08521868+1143246 ...... 0.06 -0.01 -0.10 0.06 0.03 ... -0.00 0.06 -0.062M08512643+1143506 ...... -0.10 -0.10 -0.01 -0.10 0.04 -0.05 ... -0.08 -0.04 ... -0.122M08513259+1148520 0.06 0.05 ... 0.12 ... 0.00 0.02 0.01 ... 0.02 -0.21 -0.09 -0.05 -0.15 -0.07 -0.12 0.06 0.03 ...Excluded ...... Sample -0.12 -0.18 due -0.00 -0.49 ... -0.21 0.04 0.04 -0.67 0.03 -0.13 0.04to ...... 0.12 low -0.06 -0.00 SNR ... -0.06 ( 0.03 -0.15 ... -0.13 ...Subgiant 0.06 -0.01 0.04 -0.01 ... -0.03 -0.06 0.01 -0.07 -0.05 ...... -0.32 ... 0.07 -0.19 0.02 -0.08 -0.21 0.10 ...... -0.00 0.01 ... 0.03 0.02 ... -0.03 -0.10 0.14 ...... -0.15 0.04 -0.06 ... -0.11 -0.12 ... 0.04 -0.20 0.02 0.12 ... 0.04 -0.11 -0.03 ... 0.05 ... 0.01 -0.04 -0.12 -0.08 -0.02 ... -0.28 -0.02 ...... -0.01 0.15 -0.09 0.01 0.07 -0.12 -0.03 -0.33 ... -0.24 -0.11 -0.12 -0.19 0.05 0.01 -0.03 -0.05 -0.11 -0.35 ... -0.07 0.08 -0.01 -0.02 0.12 0.13 -0.04 -0.06 -0.16 0.03 -0.08 ... 0.01 ... 0.02 -0.14 0.03 -0.01 -0.17 -0.01 -0.07 -0.25 -1.56 -0.20 0.11 0.09 -0.07 ...... 0.03 0.01 -0.46 0.02 -0.04 0.10 -0.05 -0.84 0.26 -0.01 -0.08 -0.09 -0.02 0.03 -0.01 0.07 -0.10 0.02 ... 0.11 -0.56 0.13 -0.10 0.13 ...... 0.04 -0.60 -0.75 0.03 0.07 0.04 -0.05 -0.17 ... 0.58 0.05 -0.05 -0.61 -0.13 0.05 ... 0.21 -0.66 ... -0.07 0.06 -0.55 0.04 -0.04 -2.11 -0.07 -0.61 -0.17 0.02 ...... 0.09 -0.07 ... -0.21 ... -0.01 -0.10 0.54 -0.19 0.09 0.04 -0.15 30 Souto et al. (continued) Table 3 2Mass ID [Fe/H] [C/H] [N/H] [O/H] [Na/H] [Mg/H] [Al/H] [Si/H] [K/H] [Ca/H] [Ti/H] [V/H] [Cr/H] [Mn/H] [Ni/H] 2M08503438+11395662M08504198+1136525 0.102M08510811+1201065 0.112M08511826+1150196 0.07 -0.072M08520356+1141238 0.03 -0.17 -0.13 0.06main-sequence -0.04 -0.21 0.072M08502833+1142097 -0.12 0.09 -0.022M08503788+1252295 -0.20 0.03 -0.32 0.012M08505334+1143399 -0.05 0.72 -0.39 0.072M08505923+1146129 -0.02 0.33 -0.10 0.012M08512386+1138521 ... 0.04 0.03 -0.10 -0.132M08513215+1136126 ...... -0.56 0.08 -0.04 -0.11 -0.132M08513444+1137574 0.24 -0.05 ... -0.07 -0.292M08514375+1145148 ... 0.11 0.04 ... 0.36 0.02 -0.03 0.252M08514465+1141510 ... -0.04 0.07 ... 0.342M08515290+1146358 ... -0.05 0.08 0.03 ... 0.02 -0.02 -0.082M08521664+1142300 -0.12 ...... 0.02 -0.09 0.12 0.112M08504511+1136023 0.02 0.20 ...... -0.15 -0.15 ...... -0.202M08510131+1141587 ...... 0.02 0.26 0.05 0.18 0.05 -0.10 ... 0.162M08510156+1147501 -0.03 -0.18 ... -0.05 -0.17 -0.60 ...... 2M08511229+1146212 -0.08 0.24 -0.01 -0.08 0.29 ... -0.09 -0.12 ... -0.43 -0.05 -0.19 ...2M08511810+1142547 ... 0.16 -0.11 -0.04 ... -0.05 -0.26 -0.25 -0.25 -0.06 -0.24 0.202M08512033+1145523 -0.47 ... 0.08 ... -0.02 -0.07 -0.20 0.05 ... -0.02 ...2M08512176+1144050 ... -0.14 0.00 ... 0.09 -0.03 -0.18 -0.08 -0.03 -0.362M08512467+1143061 ...... 0.01 ... -0.28 -0.16 ...... -0.05 0.05 -0.09 -0.22 -0.01 -0.182M08513424+1145535 -0.22 ... -0.01 ...... 0.08 0.12 -0.14 -0.10 0.03 0.04 -0.06 ... -0.19 -0.18 -0.10 -0.17 -0.30 ...... 0.27 -0.07 0.06 -0.27 0.12 -0.06 ... -0.06 ... -0.15 ... 0.01 -0.41 0.01 -0.19 -0.05 -0.10 -0.02 -0.05 -0.31 -0.21 ...... -0.14 0.03 ... -0.32 0.07 0.01 -0.24 -0.50 -0.11 ... -0.34 0.03 -0.47 0.06 -0.16 ... -0.85 ... -0.42 ...... 0.25 0.48 -0.07 -0.34 ... 0.05 -0.13 -0.42 0.07 -0.05 ...... -0.23 -0.29 -0.05 -2.50 ...... 0.12 0.22 -0.08 0.05 0.03 0.35 -0.13 0.21 ...... -0.22 -0.01 -0.18 ... -0.08 0.22 -0.25 -0.21 0.04 -0.10 -0.16 0.75 -0.39 0.09 0.17 ... 0.41 ... -0.09 -0.05 -0.12 -0.48 0.14 -0.10 -0.10 -0.06 -0.04 0.23 ... 0.03 -0.11 0.04 0.43 -0.06 -0.14 -0.47 -0.12 0.04 ... -0.06 -0.01 ... 0.02 0.38 -0.13 -0.43 -0.03 0.29 -0.14 -0.10 -0.05 0.05 -0.22 0.01 -0.07 ... -0.04 -0.27 -0.36 0.00 -0.03 0.10 -0.10 0.13 -0.03 ... -0.54 ... -0.02 0.01 -0.16 -0.32 0.00 0.04 -0.34 -0.40 0.09 ...... 0.02 -0.29 -0.00 0.03 -0.82 ... -0.01 -0.07 0.11 -0.08 -0.23 -0.32 -0.09 ... 0.07 -0.10 -0.17 0.13 -0.38 ... -0.15 -0.10 -0.04 -0.00 ... 0.08 0.21 -0.07 ... 0.01 0.14 -0.05 -0.01 -0.10 ... -0.03 -0.09 ... -0.16 -0.07 0.02 0.09