\section{Introduction}

There are already measurements of magnetic fields in single G and K
giants (Konstantinova--Antova et al.2008; Auri\`ere et al.2008;
Konstantinova--Antova et al.2009), but M giants have not yet been studied in
this respect. Despite theoretical predictions of possible dynamo
operation on the asymptotic giant branch (AGB), (Blackman et al. 2001;
Soker \& Zoabi 2002; Nordhaus et al. 2008), actual evidence of magnetic
activity in such evolved stars is sparse and indirect (H\"unsch et al. 1998;
Karovska et al. 2005; Herpin et al. 2006). Hence, we here present a study of
the variable magnetic field of the single M giant EK~Boo. This work is a part
of a programme, that aims to detect magnetic fields in evolved,
single late-type stars (Konstantinova-Antova et al. 2008).

The source EK~Boo = HD~130144 is a 6th magnitude M5 giant and a semiregular variable star
(Kholopov et al. 1998). This evolved giant attracted our interest by its
unusual X-ray luminosity $L_x$, which is  higher than $10^{30}$ erg$s^{-1}$
(H\"unsch et al. 1998). A further study revealed its variability of $L_x$,
as well as its optical activity indicators Ca\,{\sc ii} K\&H and
H$_\alpha$ (H\"unsch et al. 2004). At the same time, EK~Boo is considered
to be a single star (Famaey et al. 2009) with a projected rotation velocity
of $v\sin i=11$~km\,s$^{-1}$ (H\"unsch et al. 2004). A direct detection of
its magnetic field was first reported by Konstantinova-Antova
et al. (2009). To our knowledge, this was the first direct detection
of a magnetic field in a single M giant. In the work we present here,
we study the variability of the magnetic field and activity of EK~Boo,
its chemical composition and evolutionary stage, and we discuss possible
reasons for a dynamo operation in such an evolved star. To see if this magnetically active M giant is a special case, or magnetic activity is common in such stars, we also present first magnetic field
measurements obtained for other M giants.

\section{Observations and methods}

The observations of EK~Boo were carried out at the 2-m Bernard Lyot
Telescope (TBL) of the Pic du Midi observatory, with NARVAL, a new
generation spectropolarimeter (Auri\`ere \cite{auriere03}). It is
a copy of the instrument ESPaDOnS, which was installed at CFHT at the
end of 2004 (Donati et al. \cite{donati06}). NARVAL is a fiber-fed
echelle spectrometer, able to cover the whole spectrum from 370 nm to 1000 nm
in a single exposure. Forty orders are aligned on the CCD frame,
separated by 2 cross-disperser prisms. We used NARVAL in polarimetric
mode, with a spectral resolution of 65\,000. Stokes $I$ (unpolarised) and
Stokes $V$ (circular polarization) parameters were measured by means of
four sub-exposures, between which the retarders, Fresnel rhombs, were rotated
in order to exchange the beams in the instrument and to reduce spurious
polarization signatures.

We observed EK~Boo during four consecutive nights in April 2008, then on
20 and 21 December 2008, 25 February 2009, and during three nights in March 2009.
For the extraction of the spectra we used Libre-ESpRIT (Donati et al.
\cite{donati97}), a fully automatic reduction package installed at
TBL. For the Zeeman analysis, a least-squares deconvolution
(LSD, Donati et al. \cite{donati97}) was then applied to all spectra.
We used a mask, which was calculated for solar abundance, an effective
temperature of 3500~K, $\log g =0.5$ and a microturbulence of 2.0 $km s^{-1}$.
These parameters are consistent with the spectral class and luminosity of
EK~Boo (Dyck et al. 1998). This method enabled us to average a total of about
12,700 lines and to get Stokes $I$ and Stokes $V$ profiles.
The null spectrum ($N$ profile) given by the standard procedure
(Donati et al. \cite{donati97}) was also examined, but never showed any
signal, confirming that the detected signatures in the V profiles are not spurious. From the obtained mean Stokes $V$ for each night we  computed the
surface-averaged longitudinal magnetic field $B_{l}$ in G, using the
first-order moment method (Donati et al. \cite{donati97}, Rees \& Semel
\cite{rees79}).

At the same time, the magnetic activity of EK Boo was monitored by means
of measurements of the relative intensity of the chromospheric activity
indicator Ca\,{\sc ii}~K. In the core of this emission line,
the $S/N$ of our spectra exceeds 50. Table 1 gives the journal of
our observations of EK~Boo, including the dates, Heliocentric Julian Day (HJD), total exposure time,
detection-level from the LSD statistics (Donati et al. \cite{donati97}),
$B_{l}$ and its error (in G), and the relative intensity I(CaII K)/I(3950)
for the maximum of the Ca\,{\sc ii} K emission.

\section{Observational results}
\subsection{Magnetic field and activity indicators of EK~Boo}

 A significant Stokes $V$ signal was detected at all times, except in December
2008. The measured $B_{l}$ varies from $-0.1$ to --8~G. Figure~1 shows our
best LSD profiles, obtained on 13 March 2009, under excellent sky conditions.
Using the LSD statistics tool (Donati et al. 1997), the outstanding Stokes
$V$ signature (upper profile) corresponds to a definitive detection (DD)
with a $\chi^2$ of 4.7. The Stokes $V$ signal is well centred on the
Stokes $I$ profile (bottom) and no signal at all is observed on the null
polarization $N$ profile (middle). This observation shows a complex
Stokes $V$ structure, maybe a result of a dynamo action. Figure 2 shows all
observed Stokes $V$ profiles for EK~Boo. A very weak signal was observed
in the two nights of December 2008, and we did not obtain any significant
Zeeman detection. Nevertheless, a definitive detection can be attained by
averaging all spectra taken during these two nights. On 25 February
2009, the magnetic field was definitely detected again and the resulting
$B_{l}$ is still close to 0. This challenges our much higher measurements
obtained in the four nights of April 2008, when the magnetic field of EK~Boo
did not present significant variations. And there appears a rapid increase
of $B_l$ again in March 2009.

A significant Ca\,{\sc ii} K\&H emission is observed in every night. The
ratio I/I(3950) of the K-line is given in Table~1. In Fig.~3 it can be
compared with the $B_l$ measurements. Both measurements are plotted over
HJD. We can see that the Ca\,{\sc ii} K emission
increases smoothly and monotonically during the period monitored here,
apparently without any significant short-time variation. This behaviour
is different from that of the Stokes $V$ profiles and $B_l$. For example,
Ca\,{\sc ii} is at the weakest when the magnetic field is strong in the
nights in April 2008. And it becomes stronger when Stokes V
and $B_l$ are weak on 20 and 21 December 2008. This suggest the existence
of areas with opposite magnetic polarity on the surface of EK~Boo:
Contributions of both polarities to the mean magnetic field can cancel
each other when both are present on the facing side of the star, while
adding up to a maximum Ca\,{\sc ii} emission line flux of the related
chromospheric activity regions.

\begin{table}
\caption{Journal of observations of EK~Boo }
\label{table:1}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c}
\hline\hline
Date     &HJD      & Exp. T.   &Det.     & B$_l$& $\sigma$ &Ca\,{\sc ii} K \\
         &2450000+ & s         &         & G    & G        &       \\
\hline
03 Apr 08& 4560.50 & 800       &DD       &-6.7  &1.8       & 0.39  \\
04 Apr 08& 4561.53 & 1600      &DD       &-3.1  &0.5       & 0.39  \\
05 Apr 08& 4562.54 & 1600      &DD       &-5.0  &0.5       & 0.40  \\
06 Apr 08& 4563.51 & 1600      &DD       &-4.7  &0.7       & 0.36  \\
20 Dec 08& 4821.74 & 2400      &nd       &-0.1  &0.6       & 0.46  \\
21 Dec 08& 4822.74 & 2800      &nd       &-0.5  &0.6       & 0.49  \\
25 Feb 09& 4888.6  & 3200      &DD       &-0.3  &0.4       & 0.57  \\
09 Mar 09& 4900.57 & 3200      &DD       &-3.8  &0.6       & 0.55  \\
13 Mar 09& 4904.68 & 3200      &DD       &-4.6  &0.4       & 0.56  \\
18 Mar 09& 4909.55 & 3200      &DD       &-8.1  &0.6       & 0.57  \\
\hline
         &         &           &         &      &          &       \\
\end{tabular}
Individual columns correspond to Dates, HJD, total exposure time, Zeeman
detection (DD = definitive detection, nd = no detection), $B_l$ values
and its errors in G, and I(CaII K)/I(3950) for Ca\,{\sc ii} K emission.
\end{table}

   \begin{figure}
   \centering
   \includegraphics[width=7cm, angle=0]{14503fg1.eps}
      \caption{LSD profiles of Stokes $I$, null polarization $N$ and
Stokes $V$ (bottom, middle and upper curves) for EK~Boo, as observed
on 13 March 2009. For clarity, Stokes $V$ and $N$ profiles are
enlarged 500 times, and the successive profiles are shifted vertically.}
         \label{Figure1}
   \end{figure}

   \begin{figure}
   \centering
   \includegraphics[width=7.4cm, angle=0]{14503fg2.eps}
     \caption{LSD Stokes $V$ profiles for EK~Boo for the dates listed
in Table~1, from 03 Apr 08 (top) to 18 Mar 09 (bottom). The dashed lines
illustrate the respective zero levels. The scale of the Y-axis is in units
of $V/I_c$, $I_c$ is the intensity of the continuum. For clarity, successive
profiles are shifted vertically.}
         \label{Figure2}
   \end{figure}

The Ca\,{\sc ii} K emission profiles sometimes feature a single peak,
but on other occations they show a double-peak structure (see Fig.~4).
Their peak asymmetry changes from $V/R > 1$ on April 3, 2008, to $V/R < 1$
on December 21, 2008, where V/R is the ratio between the violet (V) and red (R) components
of the double-peaked emission line. In the first case, this indicates vertical motions
in the chromosphere, where the downward components appear stronger. This
is typical for many red giants (Smith \& Shetrone 2000). In the second
case, $V/R < 1$, upward motions and possible outflow dominate the asymmetry.
Hence, the chromosphere of EK~Boo seems to be very dynamical on timescales
of months and years, with episodic outflows from its lower layers,
where Ca\,{\sc ii} K and H emission lines are formed.

  \begin{figure}
   \centering
   \includegraphics[width=7cm, height=7.8cm, angle=270]{14503fg3a.ps}
   \includegraphics[width=7cm, height=8cm, angle=270]{14503fg3b.ps}
      \caption{Magnetic field measurements (upper panel) and chromospheric
activity indicator Ca\,{\sc ii} K emission (lower panel)
for EK~Boo in the observed period. An inverse Y-axis is used for
B$_l$ to illustrate the magnetic field. }
         \label{Figure3}
   \end{figure}
  \begin{figure}
   \centering
   \includegraphics[width=6.3cm, angle=270]{14503fg4.ps}
   \caption{Ca\,{\sc ii} K emission line profiles, as observed for
EK~Boo in the period of April 2008 to March 2009.}
         \label{Figure4}
   \end{figure}

\subsection{Radial velocity, binarity, and pulsations}

 Radial velocity measurements ($RV$) for EK~Boo have been carried out on
the LSD Stokes $I$ profiles using Gaussian fits. The $RV$ accuracy of
NARVAL is 20-30~m\,s$^{-1}$ (Moutou et al. 2007, Auri\`ere et al. 2009).
Variations of $RV$ larger than 1~km\,s$^{-1}$ were observed on a time-scale
of less than a month. But in averaging the $RV$ measurements for each month
(April 2008, December 2008, February 2009, and March 2009), we find a
standard deviation of only about half a km\,s$^{-1}$. This compares well
with the values (0.36 and 0.65 km\,s$^{-1}$ respectively) obtained by
H\"unsch et al. (2004) and Famaey et al. (2009) from measurements with
CORAVEL (Udry et al. 1997). Famaey et al. (2009) included their EK~Boo
observations in two of their diagnosis plots and concluded that the star
``appears amidst the non-binary M giants''.

EK~Boo is also known as a semi-regular variable (Kholopov et al. 1998).
A larger photometric sample is available from Hipparcos data, and though
EK~Boo is among stars with large HIP photometric amplitudes (0.38 mag.,
Adelman 2001), no clear periodicity can be derived (Koen et al. 2002).

The average of our much more recent $RV$ measurement is shifted by
about 5~km\,s$^{-1}$ with respect to the average given in the literature
(about --27~km\,s$^{-1}$ with respect to about --22~km\,s$^{-1}$). This
difference is one order of magnitude larger than any shift obtained for
other M giants studied with NARVAL, even when observations were made during
the same nights as EK~Boo. Hence, this shift appears to be real, and it
could be linked to pulsations, as discussed in the context of other
semiregular variable stars (Lebzelter 1999, Lebzelter et al. 2000) or
of multiple-mode asymptotic giant branch variable stars (Hinkle et al. 2002).

In summary, our $RV$ measurements confirm that their variations on a time-scale of less than a month are of a magnitude of about 1~km\,s$^{-1}$. These variations
must be considered as significant with respect to NARVAL's accuracy (better
than CORAVEL accuracy). The analysis by Famaey et al. (2009) favours an origin
from pulsations, quite common in this type of stars. Furthermore, the shift in
$RV$ between our observations and those in the literature is not due to
binarity, although slow orbital motion might, a priory, be a possible
explanation: H\"unsch et al. (1998) already considered the possibility of
active, faint companions in detail, when discussing the origin of detected
X-ray emission in M-giants. But in the case of EK~Boo, spectral signatures
of a secondary have never been found. On the other hand, clearly
a Zeeman detection with NARVAL could only be caused by a bright object,
which would have been easily detected spectroscopically. Hence, the M giant itself must be
magnetically active.

\subsection{Metallicity and atmospheric parameters determination}

We used our NARVAL spectrum of 13 March 2009 to derive the metallicity
and other parameters of EK~Boo. For this purpose, we measured equivalent
widths of the Fe\,{\sc i} and Ni\,{\sc i} lines in the ``window''
7400 - 7580~\AA, a spectral region relatively free of molecular absorption.
Values for the respective oscillator strengths $\log gf$ were taken,
if available, from Gurtovenko \& Kostyk (1989). Otherwise, we used the
values derived by Smith \& Lambert (1985) or those offered by the VALD
database (Kupka et al. 2000).

We then used spherically symmetric, LTE,
hydrostatic model atmospheres as computed with the MARCS code (Gustaffson
et al. 2008). The CNO abundances in atmospheres of M giants are known to
be modified through the first dredge-up (see, e.g., Charbonnel 1994,
Boothroyd \& Sackmann 1999 and sect. 4): $^{12}$C is depleted and
$^{14}$N  is enhanced. We therefore used MARCS models for moderately
CN-cycled composition with [C/Fe]=$-0.13$, [N/Fe]=$+0.31$, and
$^{12}$C/$^{13}$C\,=\,20.
This chemical composition agrees with the abundance ratios
measured in field M giants by Smith \& Lambert (1990):
[C/Fe]=$-0.19\pm 0.13$ and [N/Fe]=$+0.28\pm 0.11$.

The stellar mass was taken to be $M=2\,M_\odot$ (see Sect.~4). But as
shown by Plez (1990) and Garc\'{\i}a-Hernandez (2007), the temperature
and pressure structures of model atmospheres are practically identical for
models of $1\,M_\odot$ and $10\,M_\odot$ stars.
The current version of the LTE line analysis and spectrum synthesis code
{\sc moog} (Sneden 1973) was used here.

The microturbulence velocity was determined from the Fe\,{\sc i} lines
by requiring that the derived abundances shall be independent of the equivalent
width. The effective temperature was derived by requiring that the abundance
calculated for the Fe\,{\sc i} lines shall not show any dependence on
excitation potential (Fig.~5). The atomic line list, measured equivalent
widths, and derived abundances are listed in Table~2.

In the way described above, we derive an effective temperature of
$T_{\rm eff}=3400$~K and a microturbulent velocity of $\xi=2.0$~km\,s$^{-1}$.
In adopting these values, a surface gravity of $\log g = 0.0$
(estimated from $M_{\rm bol}$, $T_{\rm eff}$  and the stellar masses
obtained by comparison with evolutionary tracks, see Sect.~4 and Fig.~7),
we then derived the following abundances:
$\log\varepsilon({\rm Fe})=7.38\pm 0.13$,
$\log\varepsilon({\rm Ni})=6.12\pm 0.18$ or
[Fe/H]$=-0.14\pm 0.13$ and
[Ni/H]$=-0.13\pm 0.18$\footnote{We adopt here
the usual spectroscopic notation [X/Fe]$=\log(N_{\rm X}/N_{\rm Fe})_\star -
\log(N_{\rm X}/N_{\rm Fe})_\odot$.}
where the solar abundances of Fe and Ni are from Anders \& Grevesse (1989).
These values indicate a metallicity typical of M giants.

The accuracy of the above-derived metallicity of EK~Boo depends on
the uncertainties in the adopted atmospheric parameters. Spectral signatures
of singly ionized elements are highly sensitive to the variations in
$\log g$, and to a lesser extent to the variations of $T_{\rm eff}$.
Small changes in the microturbulent velocity lead to larger changes in the
derived abundances. Table~3 lists the abundance changes that are caused by
individual changes in the various atmospheric parameters. -- In summary,
we can state that the metallicity of EK~Boo is comparable to the solar one.

\subsection{Lithium abundance}

In order to determine the lithium abundance of EK~Boo, we used the
Li\,{\sc i} resonance doublet at 6707.8~\AA. In this region, the spectrum
is heavily blanketed by TiO molecular lines, especially by the $\gamma$
electronic transition. In our computations of synthetic spectra we used
the TiO line list given by Plez (1998), restricted to $^{48}$TiO. In deed,
when Plez et al. (1993) computed a restricted line list for the $\gamma$
system of TiO around the 6708~\AA\ Li\,{\sc i} line for all five isotopes
of Ti from $^{46}$Ti to $^{50}$Ti, they found that even if they included
all isotopes to improve the match between calculated and observed spectra,
this did not change the derived Li abundance.

Vacuum values of wavelengths ($\lambda_{\rm vac}$) were transformed to
air wavelengths ($\lambda_{\rm air}$) according to the dispersion formula
(see Birch \& Downs 1994, Morton 2000). For the dissociation energy of
TiO, a value of $D_0=6.87$~eV was used. CN lines in the vicinity of the
Li\,{\sc i} doublet were included in our line list, even though the CN red
system lines near 6700~\AA\ are very weak in M giants (Luck \& Lambert 1982).
Wavelengths and oscillator strength for the individual hyperfine and
isotopic components of the lithium lines were taken from Hobbs et al. (1999).
A solar $^6$Li/$^7$Li isotopic ratio ($^6$Li/$^7$Li$=0.081$) was adopted in
the computations of our synthetic spectra. Atomic line data were taken
from the VALD database (Kupka et al. 2000).

As mentioned above, the TiO veiling effect in the EK~Boo spectrum is
significant. This makes it difficult to place the continuum. For the local
continuum, we adopted the highest point of the spectrum near the Li\,{\sc i}
line, at a wavelength of 6710.7~\AA. Both the observed and synthetic spectra
around 6708~\AA\ line are shown in Fig.~6.

We cannot find any traceable presence of the Li\,{\sc i} 6708~\AA\ resonance
line in the spectrum of EK~Boo. Using alternative synthetic spectra, an
upper limit to the lithium abundance of $\log\varepsilon({\rm Li})\le -0.8$
was determined.

\begin{figure}
   \centering
   \includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{14503fg5.eps}
   \caption{Iron abundance as derived from individual Fe\,{\sc i} lines,
    $\log \varepsilon$(Fe), {\it versus} excitation potential and reduced
    equivalent width, $\log~(W_{\lambda}/\lambda$). An atmospheric model with
    $T_{\rm eff}$= 3\,400\,K, $\log g$ = 0.0, and $\xi$ = 2.0 km\,s$^{-1}$
    was used. }
   \label{Figure5}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}
   \centering
   \includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{14503fg6.eps}
   \caption{Observed (dots) and synthetic (solid lines) spectra for EK~Boo in
    the region around the  Li\,{\sc i} 6708~\AA\ resonance line, the
    observed spectrum is scaled in intensity for a good match. The synthetic
    spectra represent lithium abundances of
    $\log\varepsilon({\rm Li})= -1.0,$ 0.0, and +1.0. }
   \label{Figure6}
\end{figure}

\begin{table}[!htb]
\caption{Observed Fe\,{\sc i} and Ni\,{\sc i} lines, measured equivalent widths (EW),
         and derived abundances.}
\label{table:X1}
\begin{tabular}{cccccc}\hline\hline
Element &  $\lambda$\,(\AA) &  $\chi$(eV) & $\log gf$ & EW (m\AA) & $\log\varepsilon({\rm Fe})$\\
\hline
\ion{Fe}{I}& 7443.022  & 4.19 & $-1.810^1$ & $\;91.2$  & 7.57 \\
           & 7461.520  & 2.56 & $-3.570^1$ & 145.7     & 7.47 \\
           & 7498.530  & 4.14 & $-2.240^1$ & $\;63.3$  & 7.46 \\
           & 7507.266  & 4.41 & $-1.090^1$ & $\;99.0$  & 7.33 \\
           & 7511.019  & 4.18 & $\;0.099^2$ & 214.8    & 7.45 \\
           & 7531.144  & 4.37 & $-0.610^1$ & 122.1     & 7.16 \\
           & 7540.430  & 2.73 & $-3.870^1$ & $\;91.0$  & 7.23 \\
           & 7568.899  & 4.28 & $-0.890^1$ & 124.9     & 7.34 \\
           & 7583.787  & 3.02 & $-1.930^1$ & 199.3     & 7.39 \\
\ion{Ni}{I}& 7393.600  & 3.61 & $-0.100^1$ & 173.9     & 6.28 \\
           & 7414.500  & 1.99 & $-1.970^3$ & 220.5     & 6.06 \\
           & 7555.598  & 3.85 & $\;0.100^1$ & 137.8    & 5.90 \\
           & 7574.043  & 3.83 & $-0.470^1$ & 126.9     & 6.26 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\begin{list}{}{}{}{}{}{}
\item[$^1$] Gurtovenko \& Kostyk (1989);
\item[$^2$] VALD data base;
\item[$^3$] Smith\& Lambert (1985).
\end{list}
   \end{table}

\begin{table}
\caption{Abundance uncertainties for EK~Boo. The second and third columns
give the variation of the abundance that are caused by using a different
$T_{\rm eff}$, i.e. larger or smaller by 100K. The other columns refer to changes in $\log g$ and $\xi$
respectively.}
\label{table:3}
\begin{tabular}{lccccccc}\hline\hline
Species & $\Delta$ $T_{\rm eff}$ & $\Delta T_{\rm eff}$ & $\Delta\log g$ & $\Delta\log g$ & $\Delta\xi$ &
$\Delta\xi$& \\
$_{\rule{0pt}{8pt}}$ & $+100$~K & -100~K & +0.5 & -0.5 & +0.3 & -0.3 \\
\hline
Fe\,{\sc i}    & -0.12 & +0.12 & +0.18 & -0.20 & -0.16 & +0.18 \\
Ni\,{\sc i}    & -0.11 & +0.11 & +0.19 & -0.20 & -0.21 & +0.25 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

\section{Mass and evolutionary status of EK~Boo}

In Sect.~3.3 we derive an effective temperature of 3400~K for EK~Boo. In the
literature, values of 3420~K and 3577~K are given, according to Perrin et
al. (1998) and Dyck et al. (1998), respectively. Hence, we here determine
the mass and evolutionary status of EK~Boo on the basis of both these
effective temperatures. We use the parallax from the New Reduction
Hipparcos catalogue by van Leeuwen (2007), the $V$ magnitude  from the
1997 Hipparcos catalogue,
and bolometric corrections according to Buzzoni et al. (2010).

Figure~7 shows the positions of EK~Boo (black circles, for the two
$T_{\rm eff}$ quoted above) and other M giants (see Table 4) in
the HR diagram, in comparison to standard stellar evolutionary tracks.
These have been computed with the code STAREVOL by Lagarde \&
Charbonnel (in preparation) for solar metallicity (with Asplund et
al. 2005 chemical composition), ignoring stellar rotation. Tracks are
shown for models with masses between 1.0 and 5.0~$M_{\odot}$.

We focus here on the luminosity and effective temperature range of our sample
stars, so that only the relevant RGB and AGB sequences (dashed and solid
lines, respectively) appear on the graph. While low-mass stars
($\leq$ 2.2~$M_{\odot}$) ignite He-burning in a
degenerate core at the tip of the RGB, i.e., at very high luminosity and
cool effective temperature, more massive stars start central-He burning
at much lower luminosities and hotter $T_{\rm eff}$. Hence, the short
RGB-tracks of the latter fall outside Fig. 7, showing only their AGBs.
Respectively, for the low-mass stars we have plotted only the RGB sequences.
As an exception, the 2.2~$M_{\odot}$ model is shown with both RGB and AGB.

When an effective temperature of EK~Boo of 3400 K is considered, this
comparison leads to an estimate of the mass of 3.1$\pm$0.5~M$_{\odot}$. The uncertainty quoted here reflects only the parallax error.
And in this case, EK~Boo is found to be evolving already on the AGB. At the luminosity of EK~Boo our 3~$M_{\odot}$ model has
just undergone a first and relatively weak thermal pulse. By contrast, an
alternative effective temperature of 3577 K would lead to a lower initial
mass of 2.3$\pm$0.3~$M_{\odot}$, when compared to the tracks. Then the
star would be either close to the tip of the first ascend (i.e., on the red
giant branch, RGB), or on the AGB near the onset of the thermal pulse phase.
In these two cases (i.e., 3.1 or 2.3~M$_{\odot}$, for  $T_{\rm eff}$=3400
or 3577~K, respectively), the corresponding stellar radii are 200 and 109~R$_{\odot}$, respectively if one uses the 2007 parallax of EK~Boo.

According to Auri\`ere et al.~(2009, see their Fig.~5), consideration of
stellar rotation would neither change the derived mass value, nor the
evolutionary status for such a bright giant. Let us point out, however, that
the models presented here were computed without core overshooting. For a
given stellar mass, introducing core overshooting actually leads to a more
massive He-core at the end of the main sequence, and thus to He-ignition
at a somewhat lower RGB luminosity. In that case, the RGB tip-luminosities
for stars above $\sim$ 1.5~$M_{\odot}$ could actually be lower than those
shown in Fig.~7. This makes an even stronger case for EK~Boo being an AGB
star.

Major uncertainties on the determination of the mass and evolutionary
status of our other sample stars actually come from the errors on the
effective temperature and on the parallax of the star, as can be seen in
Fig.~\ref{Figure7}. However, uncertainties of the bolometric corrections
are also significant. Here, we use the prescription by Buzzoni et al. (2010),
who provide a fitting function for $BC_V$ vs. $T_{\rm eff}$, supposed to be
valid in the range of $3300 \le T_{\rm eff}\le 5000$~K. For
$T_{\rm eff}= 3400$~K, as derived above for EK~Boo, this gives $BC_V=-3.255$.

Buzzoni et al. (2010) show that for stars with $T_{\rm eff} \ge 4000$~K
the $BC_V - T_{\rm eff}$ relation does not depend on stellar
metallicity as far as atomic transitions prevail as the main source of metal opacity in
their spectra. However, for a star as cool as $T_{\rm eff}=3400$~K,
molecular opacity (mainly due to TiO) becomes important in visual wavelength,
which could in turn affect the derived $BC_V$ value. To the cool end ($T_{\rm eff}
\le 3700$~K), the sample used by Buzzoni et al. (2010) is actually biased in
this respect, since only giants from a metal-rich open cluster (NGC~6791,
[Fe/H]=+0.4) were available for the bolometric correction determination.

Hence, we compared the Buzzoni-values of $BC_V$ with those which would follow
for our M giants from Flower (1996) or Bessel, Castelli, \& Plez (1998). For
less cool stars, i.e. $T_{\rm eff} \ge 3500$~K, all these bolometric
corrections do not differ significantly from each other, but for cooler
stars they do. For $T_{\rm eff}= 3400$~K, as derived for EK~Boo,
we get a $BC_V=-2.70$ according to Flower (1996), and --3.07 when using
Bessel et al. (1998). Taking into account these significant uncertainties
in BC, the best we can conclude is that the mass of EK~Boo lies in the
range of 2.0--3.6~$M_\odot$.

The absence of the $^{7}$Li enrichment in the atmosphere of EK~Boo is
consistent with what is expected for a star within this mass range and at
this evolutionary stage. The star has indeed depleted in the previous phases
of its evolution all the $^{7}$Li it was born with, and it is not massive
nor bright enough to produce fresh $^{7}$Li via the so-called Cameron \&
Fowler (1971) mechanism on the TP-AGB (see e.g. Smith 2010 and reference
therein)
\footnote{Sackmann \& Boothroyd (1992)  predict that
Li-rich AGB stars will have a mass range of 5 to $7\,M_\odot$
for a solar metallicity.}.

   \begin{figure}
   \centering
\includegraphics[width=8cm, angle=0]{14503fg7.eps}
      \caption{Position in the H-R diagram of EK~Boo and other M giants,
adopting $T_{eff}$ from the literature, parallaxes from the New Reduction
Hipparcos catalogue by van Leeuwen (2007), $V$ magnitudes  from the 1997
Hipparcos catalogue, and bolometric corrections from Buzzoni et al. (2010).

EK~Boo's position (filled circles) is shown for two different effective
temperatures (3420K and 3577K, see text). $\beta$ And, another Zeeman detected
M giant, is represented by a filled square. Standard evolutionary tracks for
solar composition and various initial stellar masses (as indicated) are also
plotted (Lagarde \& Charbonnel, in preparation). Dotted lines show the
evolution up to the tip of the first ascent (the RGB) for the low-mass
models (1.0 to 2.2~M$_{\odot}$), while AGBs are indicated by solid lines for the intermediate-mass stars (2.2~M$_{\odot}$ and above).
For clarity, only the 2.2~M$_{\odot}$ model is shown with both RGB
and AGB.}
         \label{Figure7}
   \end{figure}

\section{Rotation and dynamo operation in EK Boo}

\subsection{Rotation}
As for most M giants, the rotational period of EK~Boo is not known.
But in this case, $v\sin i$ has been determined. The CORAVEL
value obtained on the basis of the cross-correllation method (Melo et al. 2001) is $11\pm 1$~km\,s$^{-1}$ (H\"unsch et al. 2004).
Our NARVAL data and the spectral synthesis method (permitting us to account
for rotational and macroturbulent broadening) yield $v\sin i$ of
8.5~km\,s$^{-1}$ with an accuracy 0.5~km\,s$^{-1}$.
To estimate the projected rotational velocity, several synthetic spectra
were generated by {\sc moog} with different values of $v\sin i$ and
$v_{\rm macro}$.
The best fit was found for the following combination of the line-broadening factors: $v\sin i$ = 8.5~km\,s$^{-1}$ and $v_{\rm macro}=2.0$~km\,s$^{-1}$. An adoption of low projected rotation velocity combined with high macroturbulent velocity leads to synthetic spectra that are noticeably
different from the observed one. However, we have to mention that
we do not know the real geometry of macroturbulent motions in the
atmosphere of EK~Boo. In our calculations we used an assumption of radial-tangential macroturbulence profile (Gray 1992).

The
difference between these two values could simply arise because of the different
methods of $v\sin i$ determination. In general, M giants as very evolved
stars are expected to be slow rotators. In this respect, both values above
are surprisingly high! Hence, EK~Boo appears to be a single M giant
with a relatively fast rotation, compared to the statistical value for its
spectral class (Zamanov et al. 2008).

An estimate of the rotational period $P$ of the star (upper limit only) could
be made using the radius of the star, as derived from its angular diameter.
Adopting $\theta$ of 7.90 $\pm$ 0.40 mas (Dyck et al. 1998), as well as a
distance of 248 $\pm$ 25 pc (by the new Hipparcos parallaxes of van Leeuwen,
2007), we obtain a radius of 210 $\pm$ 21 $R_\odot$. This value is about
twice as high as the statistical value for an M5 giant (120 $R_\odot$)
given in Dumm \& Schild (1998). It is however consistent with the value of
200 $R_\odot$ derived in Sect.~4 for EK~Boo being an AGB star with
a $T_{\rm eff}$ of 3400~K. Assuming rigid body rotation and vsini of 8.5 km/s,
we obtain $P \le 1247^d$ for the empirical radius of 210 $R_\odot$, and
$P \le 714^d$ for the statistical radius of 120 $R_\odot$.
For vsini = 11 km/s, these values are $964^d$ and $552^d$, respectively.

Of course, any tilt of the giant's axis into the line of sight would
in deed mean it is rotating even faster than suggested by the radial
velocity measurement. Adopting the statistical value of $\sin i = \pi/4$
and the empirical radius, we then obtain a period  of $846^d$ for
$v\sin i = 8.5$~km\,s$^{-1}$ (or $654^d$ for $v\sin i = 11$~km\,s$^{-1}$).

In future, our observations and Zeeman Doppler Imaging (ZDI) method will
be able to shed more light on the actual rotational period of EK~Boo.

\subsection{Dynamo operation and its origin}

Indirect evidence for the magnetic activity of EK~Boo has been reported before our
NARVAL study. The star attracted the attention of H\"unsch et al. (1998)
because of its high X-ray luminosity. Later, H\"unsch et al. (2004) studied its
variability in X-ray and optical activity indicators. They too ruled out
the possibility of a symbiotic nature of EK~Boo.

Our study (see Sect.~3.1) revealed a variable longitudinal magnetic field in EK Boo for which a dynamo could be a possible explanation. A dipole (as a remnant of an Ap star on the main sequence) is an unlikely explanation, considering the big radius and big convective envelope at this evolutionary stage. We now attend to the question about the possible origin of the dynamo and its type in this evolved star.

A star of about 2.2--3.6~$M_\odot$ at the evolutionary stage of EK~Boo has
just entered the thermally-pulsing phase on the AGB. It has a complex internal
structure with an O/C core surrounded by He- and H-burning shells, and a very
deep and extended convective envelope.

Turbulent motions and fast rotation could result in dynamo
action of the $\alpha- \omega$ type, as described in Nordhaus et al. (2008).
Could such a dynamo explain the magnetic field in EK~Boo? We calculated the
Rossby number (R$_o$), which is indicative for an efficient dynamo action
of this type. For the statistical rotational period of 846~d (see Sect. 5.1)
and a convective turnover time $\tau_c$ of 182~d, as obtained from the model of
2.5~$M_\odot$ described in Sect.4, we determined a R$_o$ of about 4.7.
For a period of 654~d (as for a smaller, statistical radius, see Sect. 5.1),
the value of R$_o$ would be 3.6. For these values, we cannot expect a very
efficient $\alpha - \omega$ dynamo for EK~Boo, but this dynamo might be
still operationable (see Soker \& Tylenda 2007). Our future observations and
a direct determination of the rotational period could lead to a better
knowledge of the Rossby number and the $\alpha - \omega$ dynamo efficiency
in this M giant.

Considering the high density and height difference between the
photospheric layers of the giant and its bottom of the convection zone deep
inside, it is well possible that the deep layers rotate a lot faster then
the surface, which suffers from magnetic braking. In this way,
the $\alpha - \omega$ dynamo may yet be more efficient than
expected on the basis of the surface rotational rate.

The question remains of where the required angular momentum should
come from to run this dynamo. Schr\"oder et al. (1998) studied the
evolutionary status of evolved stars that have coronal X-ray emission, which is a
good indicator of stellar activity among less cool giants. And
Konstantinova-Antova et al. (2009) studied fast rotating single G and K giants
with detected magnetic field. The most active giants in their samples are
above 1.5~$M_{\odot}$, at different evolutionary stages after the main
sequence (MS): first gap crossers, stars near the base of the RGB and its
lower part. These stars had no convective outer layers and, consequently, no
stellar activity on the MS. Hence, magnetic braking cannot yet have
consumed  their fast rotation and fresh activity has set in at these
early post-MS stages. By contrast, EK~Boo has evolved much further and
its convective envelope is a lot more extended. It should have slowed
down long ago, and fresh angular momentum is required here to run its faster rotation
and a dynamo.

The possible source is the contracting core region of this giant: Without
any angular momentum transfer, the contracting core would be considerably speeding up
its rotation rate, both in an RGB and an AGB giant of such
a luminosity such as EK~Boo. Its final product, a white dwarf, would have
to rotate as fast as in minutes, which is physically impossible. Instead,
we now have even direct evidence (see Charpinet et al. 2009) that white
dwarfs are rotating a lot slower, with periods of the order of a day.
Hence, evidently over 99\% of the angular momentum of the core region is
lost during the late evolutionary stages. As discussed by Talon \&
Charbonnel (2008), internal gravity waves may strongly contribute to
the angular momentum redistribution in intermediate-mass stars such as
EK~Boo, when they reach the early-AGB phase. Hence, it may serve the
expanded convective envelope to keep it spinning at a sufficient
rate to run a dynamo process in M giants.

The other possible dynamo type operating in AGB giants is the turbulent
dynamo, where the turbulent motions play the main role in the field
amplification process and in the restoration of the poloidal component
(Brandenburg, 2001). However, for EK~Boo this dynamo is less
efficient than the $\alpha - \omega$ one. Soker \& Zoabi (2002) estimated
that in AGB stars the magnetic field can reach only values of less than 1~G.
This is inconsistent with the much larger net field strength, which we
observe in EK~Boo.

A second explanation for the magnetic field in this M giant could be
given if EK~Boo were a merger of a binary system, which would now be in its spin-down
phase. Then an $\alpha - \omega$ dynamo is well possible to
operate (Soker \& Tylenda 2007). The large radius of EK~Boo together with
the high $v\sin i$ appears to support this idea. But for the moment, the
accuracy of the angular diameter measurement and of the parallax are not
high enough to give a reliable determination of the radius of the star.
In future, we will need more precise values for these parameters, to be able
to distinguish between these two possibilities for $\alpha - \omega$ dynamo
operation in the star.

Another possibility for spinning up a giant and to induce dynamo action is
planet engulfment (Siess \& Livio, 1999).  In this case, according
to Melo et al. (2005), there should be an enhanced Li abundance.
Indeed, Drake et al. (2002) found that among the rapid rotating
($v\sin i \ge 8$~km\,s$^{-1}$) single K giants, there is a very large
proportion ($\sim$50\%) of Li-rich objects. By contrast, there is only
a very small fraction ($\sim$2\%) of Li-rich stars among the common type of
slowly rotating K giants.

Unfortunately, we do not observe any enhanced lithium abundance
in EK~Boo, although we analysed this point carefully (see Sect.~3.4).
However, note that only a recently engulfed big planet would
cause a significant Li content on the star, since Li is a fragile element. The
spin-down time, on the other hand, remains unclear, but it might exceed the
lithium life-time. Hence, we cannot completely exclude the possibility that
the enhanced rotation might be a result of a big planet engulfment.

\section{Are there other magnetically active M giants?}

If dynamo operation on the AGB is a result of the evolution of the star
rather than an exotic case like binary merging or planet engulfment, we
should expect more giants to have a magnetic field at the stage of EK~Boo.
As mentioned already in Sect.~1, there is indirect evidence for such
activity, which stimulated us to begin observing several other M giants
of interest in that respect.

Hence, we observed eight other M giants with the same procedures as for
EK~Boo (see Sect. 2). Three of them are known for their high X-ray
emission: 15~Tri, 42~Her, and  HD~187372 = HR~7547 (H\"unsch et al. 1998,
2004). The sources 15~Tri and HD~187372 are also known as spectroscopic binaries of
a long period (i.e., no synchronization), and 42~Her is considered to have
a stable $RV$ (H\"unsch et al. 2004, Famaey et al. 2009). Our own NARVAL
$RV$ measurements confirm these findings (the specific case of EK~Boo
is discussed in Sect.~3.2). Five other M giants are fast rotators (Zamanov
et al. 2008). These are HD~167006, HD~184786, 8~And = HD~219734, HD~18191,
and $\beta$~And = HD~6860. All these giants show no radial velocity
variations and may be considered to be single stars (Famaey et al. 2005).

Data of all observed giants are presented in  Table~4. The effective
temperatures are from the VizieR catalogues. The X-ray luminosity $L_x$ is
from  H\"unsch et al. (2004); the measurements are both from the ROSAT and
Einstein satellites. Positions in the HR diagram are shown in Fig.~7,
assuming parallaxes from the New Reduction Hipparcos catalogue by van
Leeuwen (2007), $V$ magnitudes  from the 1997 Hipparcos catalogue, and
bolometric corrections from Buzzoni et al.~(2010).

All these are stars in the mass interval 1.0-4.5~M$_\odot$, situated near
the tip of the RGB or on the AGB. The least cool member of the
sample, $\beta$~And is among the more massive stars in our study
(3.1$\pm$0.5~$M_{\odot}$), and is located on the AGB. Note that at
the adopted $T_{\rm eff}$ of $\beta$~And, the uncertainty on the $BC_V$ is
much smaller than for EK~Boo. Consequently, the uncertainty of
its mass is mainly owing to the error of the Hipparcos parallax.

\begin{table*}
\caption{Data for the observed M giants.}
\label{table:2}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c}
\hline\hline
Star    &Other Name  &Sp class& T$_{eff}$ &$v\sin i$     & log$L_x$&Date          &$N^o$. exp.&Detection& $B_l$ & $\sigma$\\
        &            &        & K         & km s$^{-1}$ &         &              &       &           & G   & G       \\
\hline
HD130144&EK~Boo      &M5III   & 3400      & 8.5/11      &30.30 - 31.15& See Table 1&       &    DD       &     &         \\
\hline
HD6860  &$\beta$ And &M0III   & 3842      & 5.6         &       &16 + 26 Sep.08&14     &MD         &-0.95& 0.16    \\
        &           &         &            &            &       &24 Sep. 09    &16     &nd         &-0.29& 0.10    \\
HD16058 &15 Tri     &M3III    & 3640       & 5.4         &30.8   &20 + 21 Sep.08& 5     &nd         &-0.68& 0.38    \\
        &           &         &            &             &       &20 Dec. 08    & 3     &nd         &-1.05& 0.59    \\
HD18191 &RZ Ari     &M6III    & 3450       & 9.6         &       &16 + 21 Sep.08& 5     &nd         &-0.89& 0.45    \\
HD150450&42 Her     &M2.5III  & 3650       & 2.5         &29.41  &19 + 30 Sep.08& 8     &nd         &-0.37& 0.19    \\
        &           &         &            &             &       &25 Feb.09     & 4     &nd         &-0.01& 0.31    \\
HD167006&V669 Her   &M3III    & 3688       & 5.2         &       &16 + 21 Sep.08&12     &nd         &-0.85& 0.32    \\
        &           &         &            &             &       &21 May 09     &16     &nd         &0.97 & 0.39    \\
HD184786&V1743 Cyg  &M4.5III    & 3451       & 7.8         &       &15 + 25 Sep.08& 8     &nd         &-0.16& 0.34    \\
HD187372&HR7547     &M1III    & 3620       & 4.4         &30.64  &19 + 29 Sep.08& 8     &nd         &0.31 & 0.34    \\
        &           &         &            &             &       &25 Feb.09     & 4     &nd         &-0.24& 0.47    \\
        &           &         &            &             &       &24 Nov.09     & 3     &nd         &-0.82& 0.53    \\
HD219734&8 And      &M2III    & 3627       & 4.9         &       &15 + 30 Sep.08& 8     &nd         &-0.28& 0.30    \\
\hline
        &           &         &            &       &              &       &           &               \\
\end{tabular}

Individual columns list HD number, name of the star, spectral class,
effective temperature $T_{\rm eff}$ from VizieR catalogues,
$v\sin i$, log of  X-ray luminosity (in (erg\,s$^{-1}$), detection
(DD = definite, MD = marginal, nd = no), $B_l$ and its error in G.

\end{table*}

With the exeption of  $\beta$~And, which is much brighter, these M giants
are in the same range of magnitude as EK~Boo. For these reasons, their magnetic field detection and $B_l$ measurements
are of a similar accuracy as those of EK~Boo.
The three fast rotators (HD18191, HD184786, HD219734)
were observed only in one month (September 2008). The sources $\beta$~And and HD167006 were observed during two months.
The three X-ray luminous giants were observed during two or three months: September and
December 2008 (15~Tri), September 2008 and February 2009 (42~Her), and
HD~187372 was observed in September 2008, February 2009, and November 2009.

A magnetic field was not detected with certainty for any of
these stars within the limit of our accuracy (0.5~G). However,
for $\beta$~And, the brightest star in this sample, we obtained a marginal
detection of magnetic field (see Fig.~8) in September 2008, after averaging
14 spectra. The measured $B_l$ is $-0.95 \pm 0.2$~G. New observations were
obtained on 24 September 2009: a weak Stokes $V$ signal is still visible,
but at a non significant LSD statistical level (Donati et al. 1997).

This means, that magnetic fields may well be present in these stars, but with a
weaker averaged longitudinal field, wherefore a different observational strategy
might be necessary. However, a weak field seems an unlikely explanation for 15~Tri and HD~187372, which are X-ray sources as luminous as
EK~Boo, but which have to date not yet yielded any Zeeman detection of a mean
magnetic field. As suggested in Sect.~3.1, magnetic areas
with opposite polarities on the surfaces of these stars could produce averaged
longitudinal magnetic fields close to zero, and that possibly for extended
periods. Actually, EK~Boo displays big differences in its magnetic field
behaviour over an extended time interval (e.g. April -- December 2008). Hence,
we will need to monitor all suspected M giant stars both deeper and for
longer periods of time.

  \begin{figure}
   \centering
   \includegraphics[width=8.95cm]{14503fg8.ps}
   \caption{Averaged Stokes $I$ (bottom), $N$ (middle) and $V$ (upper) profiles for $\beta$~And. The spectra were obtained in September 2008.}
         \label{Figure8}
   \end{figure}

For the X-ray luminous M giants, it may not entirely be excluded that a
secondary star is the origin the X-ray radiation. Two of them, 15 Tri and HD187372 are
long-period spectroscopic binaries (H\"unsch et al. 2004, Famaey et al.
2009), and 42~Her is a visual binary. Their $v\sin i$, however, are smaller
than the value of EK~Boo, which could simply mean that they are less active.
All these stars have Ca\,{\sc ii} emission, but their K emission cores show
only little variability, much less than what we observe in EK~Boo.
This may support the idea that there is a link between their lower
rotation velocity and a lower activity level in these three M giants.

The five fast rotating single M giants also exhibit Ca\,{\sc ii} emission
cores with a different strength. But we still lack sufficient observational
data of them to judge their variability. In any case, all M~giants
(with one exception: HD~18191) have lower $v\sin i$ values than EK~Boo and a lower activity level could not be excluded, too.

More observations will answer the question of magnetic field in these
M giants. In the future, we also want to expand our sample of M giants
with some Mira variables, for which magnetic field detection has been reported
from maser emission lines (Herpin et al. 2006). In this way, we will be able
to draw a more complete picture of magnetic activity in AGB stars, and we will
finally know, whether EK~Boo is a special case, or rather whether this
M giant is just the ``tip of an iceberg'' of magnetically
active AGB stars.

\section{Conclusions}

   \begin{enumerate}
      \item The M5 giant EK~Boo was observed with NARVAL in the period
of April 2008 to March 2009 during 10 nights. We analysed the $RV$ behaviour
of the star and came to the conclusion that EK~Boo is likely a single star,
and that the observed variations of its $RV$ are due to some kind of
pulsation. Its position on the H--R diagram reveals that EK~Boo is of
2.0--3.6 $M_{\odot}$, located on the AGB or near the tip of the RGB.
 \item
Magnetic field was definitely detected in the photosphere of EK~Boo and
its longitudinal component $B_l$ was of the order of few Gauss. It is of
a variable strength, and the activity indicators Ca\,{\sc ii} K\&H also
show variability. EK~Boo is the first M giant for which surface
magnetic field is detected.
      \item In March 2009, a complex structure in Stokes $V$ was observed.
This find may be indicative of a dynamo operation. In that case, EK~Boo could
be the first M giant with proof of dynamo operation.
           \item A dynamo of the $\alpha$ -- $\omega$ type is more likely
to operate there than a turbulent dynamo. The driving mechanism for the
$\alpha$ -- $\omega$ dynamo operation could be angular momentum dredge-up
from the interior, binary merging, or perhaps a planet engulfment, but the
absence of a high Li abundance in EK~Boo speaks against the latter (unless
the spin-down time is significantly longer than the Li destruction time).
A turbulent dynamo appears to be challenged by the high measured field
strength of EK~Boo.
       \item For one more M giant, $\beta$~And, we got a marginal detection
of the magnetic field with a $B_l$ strength of --0.95~G. A different
observational strategy is required to be able to detect a weaker magnetic
field in our other sample M giants, and to answer the question, what kind of a special case EK~Boo is.

   \end{enumerate}

\begin{acknowledgements}
      We thank the TBL team for their service observing support. Our
observation time was granted under an OPTICON programme. We further acknowledge
use of the Hipparcos database, the VizieR catalogue access tool (CDS,
Strasbourg, France) and of the VALD data base in Vienna. R.K.-A. and I.S.
acknowledge partial financial support under Bulgarian NSF contract
DO 02-85/2009. R.K.-A. appreciates the possibility to work in LATT --
Tarbes as an invited researcher in the spring 2009. C.C. acknowledges
financial support from the French Programme National de Physique Stellaire
(PNPS) from CNRS/INSU and from the Swiss National Science Foundation (FNS).
\end{acknowledgements}