All Figures

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8cm,clip]{2491fig1.eps} \end{figure}$ Figure 1: The comparison of EWs as measured/adopted by different authors for stars in common. The literature sources used for these comparisons are reported in the upper left and lower right corners for the y- and x-axis respectively.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8cm,clip]{2491fig2.eps} \end{figure}$ Figure 2: The entire sample plotted in the (b-y) vs. c1 diagram from which we assigned the first set of gravities. Different symbols identify different values of log g, as summarised in the lower left corner of the figure.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.1cm,clip]{2491fig3.eps} \end{figure}$ Figure 3: A direct comparison of effective temperatures derived from the Alonso's calibration, but adopting a lower limit of $\rm [Fe/H]=-2.1$ for the values plotted on the x-axis. Please note that ${T}_{\rm eff}$ (2) refers to our final set of effective temperatures (cf. Sect. 6).
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8cm,clip]{2491fig4.eps} \end{figure}$ Figure 4: A direct comparison of the (b-y)₀ index, de-reddened respectively from the $\beta$ -index (x-axis) and from the $E(B-V)_{\rm mix}$ values averaged from several sources (y-axis; see text for details), via Crawford's (1975) formula.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.6cm,height=10.5cm,clip]{2491fig5.eps} \end{figure}$ Figure 5: How the sets of temperatures ${T}_{\rm eff}$ (2), ${T}_{\rm eff}$ (3), and ${T}_{\rm eff}$ (4) (on the y-axis; see text for more explanations) compare to ${T}_{\rm eff}$ (1) (on the x-axis). Crosses in the top panel represent the 28 objects for which the two criteria (#1 and #2) give different values.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.1cm,clip]{2491fig6.eps} \end{figure}$ Figure 6: Comparison between E(B-V) values derived from different methods: filled dots show how E(B-V) colour excess compare when derived from the InfraRed Dust Maps of Schlegel et al. (1998, on the x-axis) and of Burstein & Heiles (1982, on the y-axis); crosses represent a similar comparison between $E(B-V)_{\rm S98}$ and $E(B-V)_{\rm H97}$ (on the x- and y-axis respectively).
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.2cm,clip]{2491fig7.eps} \end{figure}$ Figure 7: Comparison between $E(B-V)_{\rm S98}$ (on the x-axis) and differences between E(B-V) values derived from various sources (identified from the acronym given in the right bottom corner of each pan), always using S98 as the reference.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.2cm,clip]{2491fig8.eps} \end{figure}$ Figure 8: Comparison between E(B-V) values derived from various sources (identified from the acronym given in the right bottom corner of each pan) and the distance of the object, as derived from Hipparcos parallaxes.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.2cm,clip]{2491fig9.eps} \end{figure}$ Figure 9: How our final set of temperatures ${T}_{\rm eff}$ (2) correlates with the de-reddened Strömgren index (b-y)₀, demonstrating the strong sensitivity of the index to effective temperature.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.2cm,clip]{2491fig10.eps} \end{figure}$ Figure 10: Comparison between our final set of effective temperatures ${T}_{\rm eff}$ (2) (on the x-axis) and the temperatures computed by using E(b-y) as derived from $E(B-V)_{\rm S98}$ and $E(B-V)_{\rm H97}$ (on the y-axis, from top to bottom).
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.2cm,clip]{2491fig11.eps} \end{figure}$ Figure 11: Comparison between our final set of effective temperatures ${T}_{\rm eff}$ (2) (on the x-axis) and the temperature scales used/derived in the original literature sources (on the y-axis). Acromyms in the upper left corner identify which analysis is used for the comparison.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8cm,clip]{2491fig12.eps} \end{figure}$ Figure 12: Lithium abundances as determined by using the sets of temperatures ${T}_{\rm eff}$ (2) and ${T}_{\rm eff}$ (S98) for the clean sample (half-half, circle and square symbols respectively), ${T}_{\rm eff}$ (H97) and ${T}_{\rm eff}$ (mix) for the $\beta$ and ubvy sample (crosses and triangles respectively), in the attempt of mimicking a common situation in which reddenings are taken from different sources.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.2cm,clip]{2491fig13.eps} \end{figure}$ Figure 13: Lithium abundances computed with four different sets of temperatures as derived by using different reddening estimates (as reported in the upper right corner of each pan). Upside-down open triangles represent abundance upper limits.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7.2cm,clip]{2491fig14.eps} \end{figure}$ Figure 14: Final lithium abundances with associated 1 $\sigma$ -errorbars as a function of effective temperature (using ${T}_{\rm eff}$ (2)) are shown for our clean sample ( top) and beta + ubvy samples ( bottom).
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7.4cm,clip]{2491fig15.eps} \end{figure}$ Figure 15: Final lithium abundances with associated 1 $\sigma$ -errorbars as a function of metallicity (using ${T}_{\rm eff}$ (2)) are shown for our clean sample ( top) and for our beta + ubvy samples ( bottom).
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7.3cm,clip]{2491fig16.eps} \end{figure}$ Figure 16: HR diagram for our complete sample stars for separate metallicity bins (using ${T}_{\rm eff}$ (2)).
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7cm,clip]{2491fig17.eps} \end{figure}$ Figure 17: A(Li) $_{\rm NLTE}$ versus ${T}_{\rm eff}$ (2) for our complete sample stars, for separate metallicity bins. The different symbols indicate the evolutionary status of the stars. Filled circles: dwarfs. Open circles: turnoff stars. Open squares: subgiants. Open triangles: stars at the base of the RGB. Crosses: RGB stars. The arrows indicate the lithium upper limits.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7.1cm,clip]{2491fig18.eps} \end{figure}$ Figure 18: A(Li) $_{\rm NLTE}$ versus ${T}_{\rm eff}$ (2) for the dwarfs of our complete sample. Upside-down triangles represent lithium upper limits.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7.2cm,clip]{2491fig19.eps} \end{figure}$ Figure 19: A(Li) $_{\rm NLTE}$ versus [Fe/H] only for the dwarfs with ${T}_{\rm eff}$ $\geq 5700$ K ( upper figure) and with ${T}_{\rm eff}$ $\geq 6000$ K ( lower figure) of our entire sample. Upside-down triangles represent abundance upper limits. The open circles correspond to the case where no lower limit on [Fe/H] is assumed in the colour- ${T}_{\rm eff}$ calibration, while the others correspond to the case where this limit is set to -2.1.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7.6cm,clip]{2491fig20.eps} \end{figure}$ Figure 20: A(Li) $_{\rm NLTE}$ versus ${T}_{\rm eff}$ (2) for the turnoff and more evolved stars of our entire sample for four metallicity bins. Triangles are for lithium upper limits. Effective temperature is here an indicator of the evolutionary status of the stars.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7.5cm,clip]{2491fig21.eps} \end{figure}$ Figure 21: Lithium abundance versus ${T}_{\rm eff}$ for the turnoff and more evolved stars of our sample ( upper panel, ${T}_{\rm eff}$ (2)) and for their counterparts in the globular clusters M 92 and NGC 6397 ( lower and middle panel respectively). Effective temperature is here an indicator of the evolutionary status of the stars. For the field stars we focus on our sample stars in a limited metallicity range around that of the two globular clusters discussed here ([Fe/H] = -2.52 for M 92, King et al. 1998; [Fe/H] = -2.02 for NGC 6397, Thévenin et al. 2001). All the Li values are NLTE (see the text). For M 92, the original data are from Boesgaard et al. (1998, B98) and Bonifacio (2002, B02). For B98 study we plot the data both on the Carney (1983, C83) and King (1993, K93) temperature scales. The data for NGC 6397 are from Pasquini & Molaro (1996, PM96), Castilho et al. (2000, C00), Thévenin et al. (2001, T01) and Bonifacio et al. (2002, BPS02).
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7.5cm,clip]{2491fig22.eps} \end{figure}$ Figure 22: Duplicity and variability among our complete sample. Asterisks: confirmed single- or double-lined binaries (Latham et al. 2002; Carney et al. 2003, 1994). Open squares: stars marked as spectroscopic binaries in Bonifacio & Molaro (1997). Open triangles: suspected binaries (Latham et al. 2002). Crosses: binaries or stars in double/multiple system as reported in SIMBAD. Filled circles: single stars. Open circles: variable stars as reported in SIMBAD.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8cm,clip]{2491fig1.eps} \end{figure}$	Figure 1: The comparison of EWs as measured/adopted by different authors for stars in common. The literature sources used for these comparisons are reported in the upper left and lower right corners for the y- and x-axis respectively.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8cm,clip]{2491fig2.eps} \end{figure}$	Figure 2: The entire sample plotted in the (b-y) vs. c1 diagram from which we assigned the first set of gravities. Different symbols identify different values of log g, as summarised in the lower left corner of the figure.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.1cm,clip]{2491fig3.eps} \end{figure}$	Figure 3: A direct comparison of effective temperatures derived from the Alonso's calibration, but adopting a lower limit of $\rm [Fe/H]=-2.1$ for the values plotted on the x-axis. Please note that ${T}_{\rm eff}$ (2) refers to our final set of effective temperatures (cf. Sect. 6).
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8cm,clip]{2491fig4.eps} \end{figure}$	Figure 4: A direct comparison of the (b-y)₀ index, de-reddened respectively from the $\beta$ -index (x-axis) and from the $E(B-V)_{\rm mix}$ values averaged from several sources (y-axis; see text for details), via Crawford's (1975) formula.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.6cm,height=10.5cm,clip]{2491fig5.eps} \end{figure}$	Figure 5: How the sets of temperatures ${T}_{\rm eff}$ (2), ${T}_{\rm eff}$ (3), and ${T}_{\rm eff}$ (4) (on the y-axis; see text for more explanations) compare to ${T}_{\rm eff}$ (1) (on the x-axis). Crosses in the top panel represent the 28 objects for which the two criteria (#1 and #2) give different values.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.1cm,clip]{2491fig6.eps} \end{figure}$	Figure 6: Comparison between E(B-V) values derived from different methods: filled dots show how E(B-V) colour excess compare when derived from the InfraRed Dust Maps of Schlegel et al. (1998, on the x-axis) and of Burstein & Heiles (1982, on the y-axis); crosses represent a similar comparison between $E(B-V)_{\rm S98}$ and $E(B-V)_{\rm H97}$ (on the x- and y-axis respectively).
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.2cm,clip]{2491fig7.eps} \end{figure}$	Figure 7: Comparison between $E(B-V)_{\rm S98}$ (on the x-axis) and differences between E(B-V) values derived from various sources (identified from the acronym given in the right bottom corner of each pan), always using S98 as the reference.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.2cm,clip]{2491fig8.eps} \end{figure}$	Figure 8: Comparison between E(B-V) values derived from various sources (identified from the acronym given in the right bottom corner of each pan) and the distance of the object, as derived from Hipparcos parallaxes.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.2cm,clip]{2491fig9.eps} \end{figure}$	Figure 9: How our final set of temperatures ${T}_{\rm eff}$ (2) correlates with the de-reddened Strömgren index (b-y)₀, demonstrating the strong sensitivity of the index to effective temperature.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.2cm,clip]{2491fig10.eps} \end{figure}$	Figure 10: Comparison between our final set of effective temperatures ${T}_{\rm eff}$ (2) (on the x-axis) and the temperatures computed by using E(b-y) as derived from $E(B-V)_{\rm S98}$ and $E(B-V)_{\rm H97}$ (on the y-axis, from top to bottom).
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.2cm,clip]{2491fig11.eps} \end{figure}$	Figure 11: Comparison between our final set of effective temperatures ${T}_{\rm eff}$ (2) (on the x-axis) and the temperature scales used/derived in the original literature sources (on the y-axis). Acromyms in the upper left corner identify which analysis is used for the comparison.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.2cm,clip]{2491fig13.eps} \end{figure}$	Figure 13: Lithium abundances computed with four different sets of temperatures as derived by using different reddening estimates (as reported in the upper right corner of each pan). Upside-down open triangles represent abundance upper limits.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7.2cm,clip]{2491fig14.eps} \end{figure}$	Figure 14: Final lithium abundances with associated 1 $\sigma$ -errorbars as a function of effective temperature (using ${T}_{\rm eff}$ (2)) are shown for our clean sample ( top) and beta + ubvy samples ( bottom).
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7.4cm,clip]{2491fig15.eps} \end{figure}$	Figure 15: Final lithium abundances with associated 1 $\sigma$ -errorbars as a function of metallicity (using ${T}_{\rm eff}$ (2)) are shown for our clean sample ( top) and for our beta + ubvy samples ( bottom).
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7.3cm,clip]{2491fig16.eps} \end{figure}$	Figure 16: HR diagram for our complete sample stars for separate metallicity bins (using ${T}_{\rm eff}$ (2)).
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7cm,clip]{2491fig17.eps} \end{figure}$	Figure 17: A(Li) $_{\rm NLTE}$ versus ${T}_{\rm eff}$ (2) for our complete sample stars, for separate metallicity bins. The different symbols indicate the evolutionary status of the stars. Filled circles: dwarfs. Open circles: turnoff stars. Open squares: subgiants. Open triangles: stars at the base of the RGB. Crosses: RGB stars. The arrows indicate the lithium upper limits.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7.1cm,clip]{2491fig18.eps} \end{figure}$	Figure 18: A(Li) $_{\rm NLTE}$ versus ${T}_{\rm eff}$ (2) for the dwarfs of our complete sample. Upside-down triangles represent lithium upper limits.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7.6cm,clip]{2491fig20.eps} \end{figure}$	Figure 20: A(Li) $_{\rm NLTE}$ versus ${T}_{\rm eff}$ (2) for the turnoff and more evolved stars of our entire sample for four metallicity bins. Triangles are for lithium upper limits. Effective temperature is here an indicator of the evolutionary status of the stars.
Open with DEXTER