1: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2:
3: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:
4:
5: %\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
6: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
7: %\documentstyle[aasms4]{article}
8:
9: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
10:
11: %\documentclass[10pt,preprint2]{aastex}
12:
13: %\documentclass[onecolumn]{emulateapj}
14: \documentclass{emulateapj}
15:
16:
17: \newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}
18: \newcommand{\myemail}{skywalker@galaxy.far.far.away}
19:
20: \def\spose#1{\hbox to 0pt{#1\hss}}
21: \def\simlt{\mathrel{\spose{\lower 3pt\hbox{$\mathchar"218$}}
22: \raise 2.0pt\hbox{$\mathchar"13C$}}}
23: \def\simgt{\mathrel{\spose{\lower 3pt\hbox{$\mathchar"218$}}
24: \raise 2.0pt\hbox{$\mathchar"13E$}}}
25:
26: \newcommand{\refer}{\hangindent=3em \hangafter=1 \noindent}
27:
28: %\slugcomment{Draft as of 2006.December}
29: %\slugcomment{Draft as of 2007.April}
30: \slugcomment{AJ Accepted}
31:
32:
33: \shorttitle{Stellar Content of Leo~II}
34: \shortauthors{Komiyama et al.}
35:
36:
37: \begin{document}
38:
39:
40: \title{Wide-field Survey around Local Group Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxy Leo~II:
41: Spatial Distribution of Stellar Content$^{\!}$\altaffilmark{1}
42: }
43:
44:
45: \author{Yutaka Komiyama,$^{\!}$\altaffilmark{2,3}
46: Mamoru Doi,$^{\!}$\altaffilmark{4}
47: Hisanori Furusawa,$^{\!}$\altaffilmark{3}
48: Masaru Hamabe,$^{\!}$\altaffilmark{5}
49: Katsumi Imi,
50: Masahiko Kimura,$^{\!}$\altaffilmark{3}
51: Satoshi Miyazaki,$^{\!}$\altaffilmark{3}
52: Fumiaki Nakata,$^{\!}$\altaffilmark{2}
53: Norio Okada,$^{\!}$\altaffilmark{2}
54: Sadanori Okamura,$^{\!}$\altaffilmark{6,7}
55: Masami Ouchi,$^{\!}$\altaffilmark{8,9}
56: Maki Sekiguchi,
57: Kazuhiro Shimasaku,$^{\!}$\altaffilmark{6,7}
58: Masafumi Yagi,$^{\!}$\altaffilmark{2}
59: and Naoki Yasuda$^{\!}$\altaffilmark{10}
60: }
61:
62: \altaffiltext{1}{Based on data collected at Subaru Telescope,
63: which is operated by the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan}
64: \altaffiltext{2}{National Astronomical Observatory of Japan,
65: 2-21-1 Osawa, Mitaka, Tokyo 181-8588, Japan}
66: \altaffiltext{3}{Subaru Telescope, 650 North Aohoku Place, Hilo,
67: HI 96720, USA}
68: \altaffiltext{4}{Institute of Astronomy, Graduate School of Science,
69: University of Tokyo,
70: 2-21-1 Osawa, Mitaka, Tokyo 181-0015, Japan}
71: \altaffiltext{5}{Department of Mathematical and Physical Sciences,
72: Japan Women's University, Bunkyo, Tokyo 112-8681, Japan}
73: \altaffiltext{6}{Department of Astronomy, University of Tokyo,
74: 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan}
75: \altaffiltext{7}{Research Center for the Early Universe, School of Science,
76: the University of Tokyo, Bunkyo, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan}
77: \altaffiltext{8}{Space Telescope Science Institute,
78: Baltimore, MD, USA}
79: \altaffiltext{9}{Hubble Fellow}
80: \altaffiltext{10}{Institute for Cosmic Ray Research, University of Tokyo,
81: Kashiwa 277-8582, Japan}
82:
83:
84: \begin{abstract}
85:
86: We carried out a wide-field $V, I$ imaging survey
87: of the Local Group dwarf spheroidal galaxy Leo~II
88: using the Subaru Prime Focus Camera on the 8.2-m Subaru Telescope.
89: The survey covered an area of $26.67 \times 26.67$ arcmin$^{2}$,
90: far beyond the tidal radius of Leo~II (8.63 arcmin),
91: down to the limiting magnitude of $V \simeq 26$, which is
92: roughly 1 mag deeper than the turn-off point of the main sequence
93: stars of Leo~II. Radial number density profiles of bright
94: and faint red giant branch (RGB) stars
95: were found to change their slopes at around the tidal radius, and
96: extend beyond the tidal radius with shallower slopes.
97: A smoothed surface brightness map of Leo~II suggests the existence of
98: a small substructure (4$\times$2.5 arcmin$^{2}$, 270$\times$170 pc$^{2}$
99: in physical size) of globular cluster luminosity beyond the tidal radius.
100: We investigated the properties of the stellar population by means of
101: the color-magnitude diagram.
102: The horizontal branch (HB) morphology index shows a radial gradient
103: in which red HB stars are more concentrated than blue HB stars,
104: which is common to many Local Group dwarf spheroidal galaxies.
105: The color distribution of RGB stars around the mean RGB sequence
106: shows a larger dispersion at the center than in the outskirts,
107: indicating a mixture of stellar populations at the center
108: and a more homogeneous population in the outskirts.
109: Based on the age estimation using subgiant branch (SGB) stars,
110: we found that although the major star formation took place
111: $\sim$ 8 Gyr ago, a considerable stellar population
112: younger than 8 Gyr is found at the center; such a younger
113: population is insignificant in the outskirts.
114: The following star-formation history is suggested for Leo~II.
115: Star-forming activity occurred more than
116: $\simgt$ 8 Gyr ago throughout the galaxy at a modest star-formation
117: rate. The star-forming region gradually shrank
118: from the outside toward the center and star-forming activity finally
119: dropped to $\sim$ 0 by $\sim$ 4 Gyr ago, except for
120: the center, where a small population younger than 4 Gyr is present.
121:
122:
123:
124: \end{abstract}
125:
126: %% Keywords should appear after the \end{abstract} command. The uncommented
127: %% example has been keyed in ApJ style. See the instructions to authors
128: %% for the journal to which you are submitting your paper to determine
129: %% what keyword punctuation is appropriate.
130:
131: \keywords{galaxies: stellar content --- galaxies: individual (Leo~II)
132: --- galaxies: dwarf spheroidal --- galaxies: Local Group ---
133: galaxies: evolution}
134:
135:
136: \section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}
137:
138: Dwarf galaxies are the most numerous constituents in the universe
139: and outnumber giant galaxies.
140: In the prevailing hierarchical structure formation scenario
141: (e.g., White \& Rees 1978; White \& Frenk 1991),
142: they play key roles as building blocks from which
143: larger structures such as giant galaxies are formed.
144: Although most dwarf galaxies contain old stellar populations
145: (Grebel 2000; Grebel \& Gallagher 2004),
146: a general trend occurs in the evolution of galaxies
147: in that more massive galaxies are formed at higher redshifts
148: which is known as the "downsizing" effect
149: (Cowie et al. 1996; Smail et al. 1998).
150: It is therefore important to investigate how they evolved
151: over the age of the universe.
152:
153: Extensive and epoch-making observations of Local Group dwarf galaxies
154: using the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) markedly improved
155: our knowledge of their evolutionary process.
156: These observations have revealed their intriguing
157: star-formation histories, which has been succinctly summarized as
158: "no two Local Group dwarfs have the same star-formation history"
159: (Mateo 1998).
160: However, the Achilles' heel of HST is its small field of view.
161: In the Fornax dwarf spheroidal galaxy,
162: Coleman et al. (2004, 2005) found "lobed" substructures,
163: which are suggested to represent
164: a disrupted merging companion dwarf galaxy
165: located at $\sim 1.8$ core radii from the center
166: and outside the tidal radius.
167: Evidence for the existence of substructures is also suggested
168: by both photometric and dynamical analyses for
169: Ursa Minor (Kleyna et al. 1998; Wilkinson et al. 2004),
170: Draco (Wilkinson et al. 2004), and
171: Sextans (Kleyna et al. 2004; Walker et al. 2006).
172: Extended halo structures are also found in
173: several close companion dwarf spheroidals of the Milky Way
174: (Ursa Minor, Palma et al. 2003; Carina, Majewski et al. 2005;
175: Sculptor, Westfall et al. 2006), and their origin
176: is often related to the tidal influence of the Milky Way.
177: Regarding stellar populations,
178: da Costa et al. (1996) first pointed out that
179: Leo~II, And~I and Sculptor
180: show a significant radial gradient in HB morphology.
181: Since then many dwarf spheroidal galaxies have been reported to show
182: radial gradients of stellar populations in the sense of
183: a central concentration of young and metal-rich populations versus
184: more extended metal-poor and old populations
185: (Mart\'inez-Delgado, Gallart \& Aparicio 1999;
186: Saviane, Held \& Bertelli 2000; Harbeck et al. 2001; Tolstoy et al. 2004).
187: However, some exceptions exist, such as Leo~I (Held et al. 2000)
188: and Carina (Smecker-Hane et al. 1994; Harbeck et al 2001),
189: although a mild radial gradient was reported for Carina (Koch et al. 2006).
190: All these results demonstrate that even small dwarf galaxies,
191: often described as simple systems,
192: contain such complex structures inside.
193: Hence, it is important to explore the whole galaxy
194: from this perspective.
195: A combination of good image quality, depth,
196: and a wide field of view is required for such purposes.
197: One of the best facilities for conducting such observations
198: is Suprime-Cam on the 8.2-m Subaru Telescope.
199: We therefore carried out a wide-field imaging survey
200: for the Local Group dwarf spheroidal galaxy Leo~II.
201:
202:
203: Leo~II is one of the Milky Way companion dwarf spheroidal galaxies
204: located about 233 kpc from us (Bellazzini et al. 2005).
205: In contrast to the close companion dwarf spheroidal galaxies
206: such as Sextans, Ursa Minor, and Draco,
207: Leo~II resides in a relatively remote place from the Milky Way.
208: The stellar content of Leo~II was studied extensively by
209: Mighell \& Rich (1996) using WFPC2 on HST.
210: They estimated the metallicity of Leo~II to be ${\rm [Fe/H]}=-1.60\pm0.25$
211: based on the $V, I$ color-magnitude diagram, which is consistent with
212: a recent spectroscopic measurement by Bosler et al. (2004)
213: who derived a median metallicity of ${\rm [Fe/H]}=-1.57$
214: based on the spectra obtained with Keck LRIS.
215: They also noted that Leo~II started forming stars about 14$\pm$1 Gyr ago
216: and formed most of its stellar population during the succeeding 7$\pm$1 Gyr,
217: with a typical star having formed about 9$\pm$1 Gyr ago.
218: A more recent study (Koch et al. 2007) showed that
219: the mean metallicity of Leo~II is -1.74 based on the measurement of
220: the calcium triplet for 52 red giants.
221: These investigators also estimated individual ages,
222: and derived a wide age range (2 - 15 Gyr,
223: the same spread as found by Bosler et al. 2004)
224: and an essentially flat age-metallicity relation.
225: Dolphin (2002) reanalyzed the HST data and derived
226: the star-formation history of Leo~II.
227: He claimed that the mean metallicity (${\rm [Fe/H]}=-1.13$) is higher than
228: the estimates of Mighell \& Rich (1996) and Bosler et al. (2004),
229: owing to a young mean age of the stars in Leo~II (9.4 Gyr).
230: However, the data are limited to the central small area
231: (4.44 arcmin$^{2}$) within
232: the core radius of the galaxy ($2'.9$, Mateo 1998).
233: Recently, Bellazzini et al. (2005) published
234: new $V, I$ photometry data obtained with the 3.5-m TNG
235: covering a relatively wide area of Leo~II ($9.4\times9.4$ arcmin$^{2}$).
236: They analyzed the spatial variation of the stellar content
237: such as red clump stars and blue HB stars
238: and the magnitude of the AGB bump, which indicates
239: that the main population of Leo~II is $\simeq$ 8 Gyr.
240: However, their data are shallow ($V_{lim}\sim22$) and
241: their analysis inevitably limited to features brighter
242: than the HB level.
243: Our data obtained with Suprime-Cam on the 8.2-m Subaru Telescope
244: constitute an excellent data set that gives a crucial clue
245: for understanding the properties of the stellar content of Leo~II.
246:
247: In Section \ref{sec:obs}, we present the details of our observation
248: and data analysis and show our results in
249: Section \ref{sec:radprof} through \ref{sec:age}.
250: On the basis of these results, we discuss the formation and evolution
251: of Leo~II in Section \ref{sec:evol} and give a summary
252: in Section \ref{sec:summary}.
253: Here we adopt the distance modulus of Leo~II
254: to be $(m-M)_{0}=21.63$ and the reddening to be $E(B-V)=0.02$ (Mateo 1998).
255:
256: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
257:
258: \section{Observation and Data Analysis}\label{sec:obs}
259:
260: The observation was carried out
261: in April 2001 using the Subaru Prime Focus Camera
262: (Suprime-Cam; Miyazaki et al. 2002) on the 8.2-m Subaru Telescope
263: at Mauna Kea, Hawaii.
264: Suprime-Cam is a wide-field imager consisting of 10 2k$\times$4k CCDs.
265: It covers a sky area of $34\times27$ arcmin$^{2}$
266: with 0.2 arcsec per pixel sampling.
267: Because of the wide-field coverage and good image quality of
268: the Subaru Telescope,
269: Suprime-Cam is the most powerful instrument for investigating
270: stellar contents of nearby galaxies.
271: We used $V$ and $I$ filters and total exposure times
272: are 3000 sec and 2400 sec in the $V$ and $I$ bands, respectively.
273: Several short exposures were also obtained to measure the luminosities
274: of bright stars, which are saturated in long exposure frames.
275: The sky condition was good and the typical stellar size (FWHM)
276: was about 0.7 arcsec in both $V$ and $I$ bands.
277: The details of the observation are given in Tab.~\ref{tab:obs}.
278:
279: The data were reduced using the standard data analysis software
280: for Suprime-Cam (Yagi et al. 2002).
281: The reduction procedure is summarized as follows.
282: The bias was subtracted from individual frames and bad pixels were masked.
283: Each frame was divided by the flat frame, which was created from
284: object frames (mostly blank fields) taken in the same observing run.
285: Note that Leo~II frames were excluded when creating the flat frames.
286: The optical distortion caused by the prime focus corrector
287: was corrected using an analytical expression of the optical distortion
288: (see Miyazaki et al. 2002), and the sky background was subtracted
289: from each frame. Then the two-dimensional position and the relative
290: brightness of each frame were estimated using common stars
291: found in adjacent CCD chips and different dither positions.
292: Finally we obtained a coadded image.
293: The FWHMs of stars in the resultant coadded images are
294: 0.80 arcsec and 0.78 arcsec in the $V$ and $I$ bands, respectively.
295: We used the central area (8000$\times$8000 pixels,
296: 26.67$\times$26.67 arcmin$^{2}$) for the following analysis to guarantee
297: a homogeneous signal-to-noise ratio over the wide field of view.
298: As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:leo2}, the survey area is wide enough
299: and far beyond the tidal radius of Leo~II (8.7 arcmin; Mateo 1998).
300:
301: We applied DAOPHOT PSF photometry software (Stetson 1987, 1994)
302: for the coadded images.
303: The PSF model was made from about 100 stars and we repeated iterations
304: of the PSF photometry three times to not miss faint stars.
305: Non-stellar objects such as galaxies and cosmic rays were
306: excluded using shape and $\chi^{2}$ parameters calculated by DAOPHOT.
307: Combining bright stellar objects ($V<20$) detected in short exposure frames
308: and faint stellar objects ($V>20$) detected in long exposure frames,
309: 82252 objects were cataloged as stellar objects.
310:
311: Zero-point magnitudes in both $V$ and $I$ bands were calibrated
312: using bright stars ($V<20$) listed in Lee (1995).
313: We used short exposures for comparison since the bright stars
314: listed in Lee (1995) were saturated in long exposure frames.
315: The zero-point magnitudes are accurate to 0.03 mag and 0.01 mag
316: in the $V$ and $I$ bands, respectively.
317: Long exposure frames were calibrated using common stars
318: (typically 20-22 mag stars) on both long and short exposure frames.
319: Long exposure frames are accurate to 0.01 mag (relative to short exposures)
320: in both bands.
321:
322: The magnitude error and the detection completeness were estimated
323: in the standard manner.
324: % A total of 6400 artificial stars was added to the image
325: % (1 star is distributed randomly in every 100$\times$100 pixels grid)
326: % using the {\tt addstar} task in the DAOPHOT package,
327: % and the same PSF photometry procedure was applied to the image.
328: % This process was repeated 10 times for every
329: % 0.5 magnitude interval in each band.
330: We divided the 8000$\times$8000 pixel image into
331: 80 $\times$ 80 grids consisting of 100$\times$100 pixels.
332: In each grid, an artificial star was added at random position
333: using the {\tt addstar} task in the DAOPHOT package,
334: and the same PSF photometry procedure was applied to the image.
335: This process was repeated for 10 times per every
336: 0.5 magnitude interval for the magnitude ranges of
337: 23.5 mag $<V<$ 26.0 mag and 22.5 mag $<I<$ 25.0 mag, respectively.
338: The magnitude error and the detection completeness were calculated
339: from the result of the PSF photometry for these artificial stars.
340: The result for the $V$ band is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:complete}
341: as a function of magnitude and the distance from the galaxy center.
342: The detection completeness is $>0.9$ for $V<24.5$ at any position
343: in the galaxy, but it degrades to 0.6 at the galaxy center for $V=25.5$.
344: The 90\% and 50\% completeness limits at the galaxy center
345: are 24.5 and 25.9 in $V$ band, respectively,
346: and those for $I$ band are 22.7 and 24.7, respectively.
347: The magnitude is accurate to 0.02 mag for $V<24.5$ in most parts of
348: the galaxy, but the degradation is severe at the galaxy center.
349: For $V<23.5$ and $I<22.5$, the detection is almost complete and
350: the magnitude is accurate even at the crowded galaxy center.
351:
352: Fig.~\ref{fig:cmd} shows the color-magnitude diagram of stellar objects
353: found in the central $6.67\times6.67$ arcmin$^{2}$ area of the Leo~II field.
354: It is clearly seen that our data cover a wide magnitude range
355: of stars in Leo~II from the tip of the RGB ($V\simeq19$)
356: to the turn-off point ($V\simeq25$).
357: Remarkable features are the well-defined HB
358: at $V\simeq22.2$ and the narrow RGB.
359: The red HB is characterized by a concentration of stars
360: at the red side of the RR Lyr instability strip ($0.4 \simlt V-I \simlt 0.6$)
361: that is well distinguished from the RGB.
362: The HB extends to the blue side and forms another concentration
363: at $0 \simlt V-I \simlt 0.4$.
364: It is obvious that the asymptotic giant branch (AGB) merges
365: into the RGB at $V\sim21.5$ and the
366: RGB bumps detected by Bellazzini et al. (2005)
367: are clearly seen by eye at $V \sim 21.4$ and $V \sim 21.8$.
368: One might notice that $\sim$20 stars with the same color as
369: the red HB, but much brighter than the red HB, occur.
370: They may possibly be helium-burning, high-mass stars
371: (Mighell \& Rich, 1996; Bellazzini et al. 2005),
372: although Demers \& Irwin (1993) first argued that they are
373: a photometric blend of HB and RGB stars.
374: The other noteworthy feature in the color-magnitude diagram is
375: the apparent bifurcation of the blue HB stars.
376: The feature is also seen in Bellazzini et al. (2005; Fig.2),
377: and according to their identification, most of the brighter
378: blue HB stars are variable stars cataloged by Siegel \& Majewski (2000).
379: We examined the spatial distribution of these stars and
380: found no particular maldistribution (concentrated or uniform distribution).
381:
382: We note that the contamination from Galactic stars
383: is not severe compared to other Milky Way satellite galaxies
384: (e.g., Sextans, Draco, and Ursa Minor; See Harbeck et al. 2001)
385: since Leo~II is located at a relatively
386: high galactic latitude ($b=67^{\circ}$).
387: The contamination becomes severe for $V>23.5$.
388: The typical photometric errors, which were calculated on the basis
389: of the artificial star test (thus including the effect of the crowding),
390: are plotted as blue (near center) and red (outskirts) error bars
391: in Fig.~\ref{fig:cmfea}~(a).
392:
393:
394:
395:
396:
397:
398: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
399:
400: \section{Radial Distribution of the Stellar Component}\label{sec:radprof}
401:
402: We first investigated the radial profiles of
403: bright and faint RGB stars and blue and red HB stars.
404: The blue and red HB stars are
405: easily discerned as seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:cmd}.
406: We defined the blue HB stars as $0<V-I<0.38, 21.88<V<22.48$ stars and
407: the red HB stars as $0.58<V-I<0.88, 21.88<V<22.38$ and
408: $V> -0.4/0.16 [(V-I)-0.58] +22.08$.
409: See Fig.~\ref{fig:cmfea} for these criteria in detail.
410: To identify RGB stars,
411: we determined the mean RGB sequence which was fitted as,
412: \begin{equation}
413: (V-I)_{RGB} = 197.717 - 33.592 V + 2.169 V^{2}
414: - 6.267\times 10^{-2} V^{3} + 6.830\times 10^{-4} V^{4}
415: \label{eq:rgbseq}
416: \end{equation}
417: Fig.~\ref{fig:cmfea}~(a) shows how well the mean RGB sequence traces the data.
418: The stars that deviate less than $\pm$0.075 mag
419: (corresponding to 2.3$\sigma$) in $V-I$ color
420: from the mean RGB sequence are classified as RGB stars.
421: The criteria enclose most of the RGB stars and separate
422: red HB stars fairly well.
423: We set the faint limit of the RGB at $V=23.5$
424: to avoid contamination
425: from foreground stars and unresolved background galaxies,
426: as well as to be free from the completeness correction.
427: The RGB stars were subdivided into bright and faint RGB stars
428: at the HB level ($V_{HB}=22.18$, Mighell \& Rich 1996).
429:
430: We compared the mean RGB sequence with those of Galactic
431: globular clusters M~15, NGC~6397, M~2, and NGC~1851
432: taken from da Costa \& Armandroff (1990) in Fig.~\ref{fig:cmfea}~(b).
433: These clusters have metallicities [Fe/H] of -2.17, -1.91, -1.58, and -1.29,
434: respectively (da Costa \& Armandroff 1990).
435: The mean RGB sequence of Leo~II lies in between NGC~6397 and M~2,
436: suggesting that the mean metallicity of Leo~II would be
437: between -1.91 and -1.58
438: if an old stellar population as Galactic globular clusters is assumed.
439: This value is consistent with those
440: derived spectroscopically by Bosler et al. (2004) and Koch et al. (2007).
441: The mean RGB sequence we obtained is slightly bluer than
442: that derived by Mighell \& Rich (1996).
443: Their mean RGB sequence is just on the M~2 RGB sequence.
444: A likely cause of this could be the difference
445: in the size of the survey field and will be discussed further
446: in Sect.~\ref{sec:rgb}.
447:
448: We counted the number of stars in each stellar component
449: (i.e., bright and faint RGB, blue and red HB) in an annular area
450: of $r_{in}<r<r_{out}$ and divided this by the area of the annulus
451: to derive the number density.
452: The characteristic radius $<r>$ for an annulus is defined as,
453: \begin{eqnarray}
454: \int_{r_{in}}^{<r>} dA &=& \int_{<r>}^{r_{out}} dA \\
455: \langle r \rangle
456: &=& \sqrt{(r_{out}^{2}+r_{in}^{2})/2}
457: \end{eqnarray}
458: In Fig.~\ref{fig:radprof} the radial profiles for each stellar component
459: are plotted as a function of the characteristic radius.
460: The numbers are listed in Tab.~\ref{tab:radprof}.
461: We fitted the radial profile for each stellar component with the
462: King profile and listed the best-fit parameters in Tab.~\ref{tab:king}.
463: The core and tidal radii calculated for all RGB stars are
464: 2.76 arcmin and 8.63 arcmin, respectively,
465: and are consistent with those derived by Irwin \& Hatzidimitriou (1995).
466: Bright RGB stars are slightly more concentrated than faint RGB stars
467: in terms of the core radius.
468: This is also confirmed by a cumulative number fraction plot
469: shown in the inset of Fig.~\ref{fig:radprof}.
470: We calculated the KS probabilities that two different stellar components
471: had the same spatial distribution. The probabilities are less than 1\%
472: except for the pair of bright RGB and red HB stars (76.3\%).
473: % The number density of bright RGB stars decreases
474: % rapidly as the radius increases
475: % and shows the shallower slope for $r>9$ arcmin
476: % and a probable drop at $r>14$ arcmin.
477: The King profile fitting for bright RGB stars is achieved for $r<9$ arcmin,
478: as suggested by the best-fit tidal radius of 9.22 arcmin,
479: and the number density of bright RGB stars
480: shows the shallower slope for $r>9$ arcmin
481: and a probable drop at $r>14$ arcmin.
482: A similar trend is also seen for faint RGB stars, and
483: the change in the slope occurs at $r\sim 8.5$ arcmin
484: (c.f., the best-fit tidal radius of 8.51 arcmin),
485: although the number density may reach the field level
486: at $r>11$ arcmin.
487:
488: The field contamination is estimated in the following way.
489: Ratnatunga \& Bahcall (1985) calculated the number of
490: field stars with different colors toward the direction of Leo~II.
491: The number of field stars with $(B-V)<0.8$ and $19<V<22.18$
492: is estimated to be 0.14 arcmin$^{-2}$ based on their table.
493: Considering that the color of $(B-V)=0.8$ corresponds to a K0V star and
494: hence, $(V-I)=1.87$, and that most field stars are redder than $(V-I)=0.6$,
495: we expect 0.14 arcmin$^{-2}$ field stars
496: in the color range of $0.6<(V-I)<1.87$.
497: We therefore estimated that 0.0165 arcmin$^{-2}$
498: field stars are in our bright RGB selection criteria
499: ($19<V<22.18$ and $\Delta(V-I)=0.15$).
500: We also estimated the number of field stars using
501: the SDSS DR5 archive data (Adelman-McCarthy et al. 2007).
502: The bright RGB selection criteria were determined on
503: the basis of the (g, i) color-magnitude diagram of Leo~II
504: and the number of stars within the criteria
505: in the nearby field of Leo~II (1 degree from Leo~II) was determined.
506: The estimated field contamination is 0.0226 arcmin$^{-2}$,
507: which is consistent with that determined above.
508: We therefore conclude that the number of field contaminations
509: for the bright RGB stars is $\sim 0.02$ arcmin$^{-2}$
510: and that stars located at $r>14$ arcmin are likely to
511: be dominated by the field population.
512: Adopting this field contamination number,
513: we suggest that the shallower slope of the radial profile found
514: for $9<r<13$ arcmin is real.
515: The field contamination for faint RGB stars is expected
516: to be smaller than $\sim 0.02$ arcmin$^{-2}$
517: because of the smaller magnitude coverage of the selection criteria,
518: but contamination from background compact galaxies
519: that are misclassified as stars may occur.
520: The SDSS data are too shallow to be used for
521: estimating the field contamination.
522: If stars found for $r>14$ arcmin consist of such a mixture of
523: field contamination and the background compact galaxies
524: as implied from the analysis for the bright RGB stars,
525: the shallower slope found for $8<r<11$ arcmin
526: is also suggested to be real.
527:
528: % This two component RGB star distribution is
529: % reminiscent of the two distinct disk/halo structures of RGB stars
530: % found for Leo~A (Vansevi\v{c}ius et al. 2004).
531: % Our result for Leo~II supports their conclusion that even small galaxies
532: % are able to develop complex structure.
533: % We cannot clearly identify the 'edge' of this galaxy similar
534: % to that found for Leo~A as a sudden drop of the number density.
535: % Though a drop of number density seen at $r>14$ armin could be the edge,
536: % further observation outside of the survey field is required to
537: % give a definite answer to the question.
538:
539: To further investigate the details of the extra-tidal structure,
540: we made a smoothed surface brightness map for the entire survey field
541: as follows. Stars regarded as RGB or HB stars were listed
542: and Gaussians of 1 arcmin kernel multiplied by
543: the luminosity of each star was placed at the position of each star.
544: They were then coadded to obtain a smoothed surface brightness map.
545: This operation makes hidden faint structures clearer.
546: % as well as simulates how the galaxy looks like
547: % when it is at the large distance (far beyond the Local Group).
548: Fig.~\ref{fig:densmap} is the resuling smoothed surface brightness map.
549: The isosurface-brightness contour of the bright part of
550: the galaxy is almost circular, but it becomes more complicated
551: at a lower surface brightness.
552: The most remarkable feature of Fig.~\ref{fig:densmap} is the diffuse
553: knotty structure prominent in the eastern part of the galaxy
554: ($\Delta\alpha \sim$ = -11, $\Delta\delta \sim$ 1).
555: The knot is more than five times more luminous than
556: the position located at the same distance from the center
557: at the opposite side of the galaxy,
558: although the mean surface brightness is quite faint
559: ($\sim$ 31 mag/arcsec$^{-2}$).
560: The knot contains four bright RGB stars in $\simeq 4 \times 5$
561: arcmin$^{2}$ area and the expected field contamination number is 0.4,
562: indicating that the knot is 99.92\% significant above the field population
563: on the basis of Poisson statistics.
564: % indicating that the knot is 6$\sigma$ ($4/\sqrt{0.4}$),
565: % significantly above the field population.
566:
567: % In addition to the knot,
568: % there are several small lumps (e.g., at the north and the west).
569: % We infer that the existence of such substructures
570: % accounts for the extended halo structure beyond the tidal radius
571: % found in Fig.~\ref{fig:radprof}.
572:
573:
574: The extent of this knot is about 4 arcmin (270 pc in physical size)
575: with a width of 2.5 arcmin (170 pc),
576: and it is small compared to the main body of Leo~II.
577: The magnitude of this knot was estimated to be $M_{V}=-2.8$
578: by summing up luminosities of 15 stars found in the knot region
579: that are brighter than $V=23.5$.
580: The value is close to the magnitude of the least luminous globular cluster.
581: The knot must be more luminous because we neglected
582: a contribution from underlying faint stars, and could be more luminous
583: if it is indeed extended farther to the east (out of our survey field),
584: or if the main part of it is already merged with the main body of Leo~II.
585: It is possible that the substructure is
586: a small globular cluster that is being disrupted
587: and merging into the main body of Leo~II.
588: The other possibility is that the knot is composed of stars
589: stripped from the main body of Leo~II.
590: The origin of the substructure is discussed further in Sect.~\ref{sec:evol}.
591:
592:
593:
594:
595: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
596:
597: \section{Horizontal Branch Morphology}\label{sec:hbmorph}
598:
599: In brief, the HB morphology indicates a distribution in the color of
600: HB stars. It is often parameterized as $(B-R)/(B+V+R)$,
601: where $B$ and $R$ are the numbers of
602: blue and red HB stars, respectively, and $V$ is the number of stars
603: lying on the RR Lyr instability strip.
604: Intensive investigation on the HB morphology of globular clusters
605: has shown that it depends primarily on metallicity
606: in that less metal-rich systems show a bluer HB morphology,
607: but it is also influenced by the {\it second parameter}, which is
608: most likely to be age (Lee, Demarque \& Zinn, 1994).
609: The HB morphology is thus
610: a key measure in studying the properties of stellar populations
611: and the variation in the HB morphology within a galaxy
612: is often investigated (e.g., Harbeck et al. 2001; Tolstoy et al. 2004).
613: Using our data, we can examine the detailed variation of
614: the HB morphology over a wide radius
615: from the center to far beyond the tidal radius of Leo~II.
616:
617: Fig.~\ref{fig:hbmorph} shows the HB morphology index
618: $(B-R)/(B+V+R)$ plotted as a function of the radius.
619: The index is less than zero at any radius,
620: indicating that red HB stars are more numerous than blue HB stars
621: everywhere in Leo~II.
622: This value agrees with those obtained in other studies
623: (-0.68, Demers \& Irwin 1993; $-0.78\pm0.10$, Mighell \& Rich 1996).
624: The index is small at the center of the galaxy and
625: becomes larger as the radius increases for $r>3$ arcmin,
626: reaching its maximum at $r=6$ arcmin.
627: The trend is consistent with the findings of da Costa et al. (1996).
628: They showed that the HB morphology index is approximately constant
629: out to $r \simeq 3$ arcmin but the fraction of blue HB stars
630: increases beyond $r \simeq 3$ arcmin.
631: This means that red HB stars are more concentrated
632: to the center than blue HB stars for $r<6$ arcmin.
633: The inset of Fig.~\ref{fig:hbmorph}, which presents
634: the cumulative number fraction of blue and red HB stars
635: as a function of the radius, clearly shows this
636: and confirms the result of Bellazzini et al. (2005; see their Fig. 8).
637: They suggest that age is the main driver of the population gradient.
638: Koch et al. (2007) support this suggestion
639: although they did not detect any considerable metallicity
640: or age gradient in Leo II.
641: The trend of a centrally-concentrated red HB distribution
642: is also observed in many dwarf spheroidal galaxies
643: in the Local Group
644: (Majewski et al. 1999; Harbeck et al. 2001; Tolstoy et al. 2004).
645: Our results support the idea that
646: the radial gradient of the HB morphology is common to
647: dwarf spheroidal galaxies.
648:
649: For the outer part of the galaxy ($r>7$ arcmin),
650: the HB morphology index looks almost constant
651: at $(B-R)/(B+V+R) \sim -0.6$,
652: and the value is larger than that at the inner part ($r<5$ arcmin).
653: This means that blue HB stars are more numerous,
654: implying that the stellar population in the outer region
655: is less metal-rich and/or older than
656: those in the inner part.
657:
658: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
659:
660: \section{Blue/Red RGB Distribution}\label{sec:rgb}
661:
662:
663: We investigated the color distribution of the RGB stars.
664: In an analogy to the HB morphology index,
665: we used the RGB color index for the analysis, defined as
666: $(B-R)/(B+R)$, where $B$ and $R$ are the numbers of stars that
667: deviate less than 0.075 mag bluer and redder from the mean RGB sequence,
668: respectively (see also Fig.~\ref{fig:cmfea}).
669: The mean RGB sequence is defined as Eq.~\ref{eq:rgbseq}, and
670: those stars $19<V<23.5$ were used.
671: Since the AGB merges to the RGB from the blue side to
672: to the bright part of the RGB,
673: it is possible that the RGB color index may not have been determined correctly
674: due to the contamination of AGB stars, especially when
675: the number fraction of AGB stars to RGB stars is large.
676: To estimate the influence of AGB stars in the determination of the index,
677: we derived the RGB color index using whole RGB stars
678: ($19<V<23.5$) and faint RGB stars ($22.18<V<23.5$).
679: We plotted the results as open triangles (whole RGB) and
680: filled squares (faint RGB) in Fig.~\ref{fig:rgbmorph}.
681: The color index derived from whole RGB stars at a fixed radius
682: is slightly larger (i.e., bluer color) than
683: that derived from faint RGB stars,
684: indicating an influence, albeit small, of AGB stars.
685: Therefore, the RGB color index is more accurately derived
686: by using faint RGB stars ($22.18<V<23.5$).
687:
688: The color index is distributed around zero at any radius
689: except for the center where red RGB stars seem to be numerous.
690: This fact gives a reasonable explanation for
691: the color difference of the mean RGB sequence
692: between this study and the redder mean RGB color of Mighell \& Rich (1996).
693: Since their survey was limited to a small area (4.44 arcmin$^{2}$)
694: at the galaxy center,
695: they inevitably sampled red RGB stars, which are numerous at the center,
696: and hence obtained a redder mean RGB color.
697: This also suggests that the stellar population varies
698: within a galaxy.
699:
700: The inset of Fig.~\ref{fig:rgbmorph} shows the
701: cumulative number fraction of both blue and red RGB stars.
702: The radial distribution is quite similar between the blue and red RGB stars,
703: in contrast to the same figure for blue and red HB stars
704: (Fig.~\ref{fig:hbmorph}).
705: However, the coincidence of the RGB color indices of
706: the two stellar groups does not always mean that the stellar populations
707: of two groups are identical. For example,
708: the color index cannot distinguish between
709: broad and narrow color distributions around the mean RGB sequence;
710: thus, examining the color distributions around this sequence
711: is of key importance, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:frgbchist}.
712: Here we divided the stars into four groups according to radius,
713: $r<1'.5$, $1'.5<r<3'.0$, $3'.0<r<6'.7$ and $6'.7<r$,
714: and made a color histogram for each group.
715: The figure shows that the color distribution is generally broad,
716: but varies as the radius changes.
717: It appears that the color distribution for $r<3'.0$ is
718: very broad, suggesting that
719: the stellar population at the galaxy center is not simple
720: and is a mixture of several stellar populations of
721: different ages and metal abundance.
722: This is consistent with the results of
723: Mighell \& Rich (1996), who noted the wide age
724: spread ($\sim 7$Gyr) for the stellar population at the center.
725: The color distribution becomes
726: more concentrated to $\Delta (V-I)=0$ for $r>3.0$ arcmin.
727: This would imply that the stellar population for $r>3.0$ arcmin
728: is more homogeneous compared to that for $r<3.0$ arcmin.
729: \footnote{Note that a narrow color distribution does not necessarily imply
730: a homogeneous stellar population (e.g., Smecher-Hane et al. 1994)}.
731:
732:
733:
734: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
735:
736: \section{Radial Gradient of Age Distribution}\label{sec:age}
737:
738:
739: Mighell \& Rich (1996) derived the age distribution of
740: the stellar population in the center of the galaxy
741: on the basis of the magnitude distribution of subgiant branch (SGB) stars.
742: Fig.~\ref{fig:cmfea}~(c) focuses on the color-magnitude diagram
743: around the bottom of the RGB and the turn-off point.
744: The green lines represent Padova isochrones for ages 5, 10, and 15 Gyr
745: and metallicity Z=0.0004 (Girardi et al. 2002).
746: As shown in the figure, the isochrones are almost parallel
747: to the $V-I$ axis (i.e., constant $V$ magnitude)
748: at the SGB ($V-I \simeq 0.7$), indicating that the magnitude
749: at a fixed $V-I$ color can be translated to age.
750: The difference in metallicity also affects the shape of the isochrone,
751: but small differences in metallicity
752: (e.g. Z=0.001, shown as magenta lines in Fig.~\ref{fig:cmfea}~(c))
753: do not change the shape significantly.
754: Since it is unlikely that metal rich population ($Z>0.004$)
755: dominates the stellar population in Leo~II
756: as suggested by the shape of mean RGB sequence,
757: we can estimate the age distribution
758: using the magnitude distribution of SGB stars.
759: We examined the magnitude distribution of stars
760: with $23.5<V<25.5$ and $0.67<V-I<0.77$, which we call SGB.
761: The region in the color-magnitude diagram is shown
762: as a cyan box in Fig.~\ref{fig:cmfea} (a) and (c).
763:
764: A difficulty, however, occurs in applying this method to our data;
765: the error in color becomes larger than
766: the width of the selection criteria, $0.67<V-I<0.77$, for $V>24.5$.
767: This increases the uncertainty in the number estimation of
768: SGB stars fainter than $V=24.5$.
769: Nevertheless, we were able to obtain a clue as to
770: the age distribution in the following way.
771: The key lies in the brighter SGB stars ($V<24.5$), which
772: indicate the presence of a younger stellar population.
773: We can estimate what fraction of the total stellar population
774: the young population accounts for
775: by comparing the number ratio of bright SGB stars to faint RGB stars
776: with a theoretical calculation.
777: We therefore investigated the number ratio of SGB stars to faint RGB stars
778: as a function of the radius.
779:
780: To derive the number of SGB stars, the incompleteness of the detection and
781: contaminations from unresolved background
782: galaxies and the foreground stars must be properly corrected.
783: We estimated the incompleteness for every
784: 0.5 mag grid in the $V$ and $I$ bands
785: and for 1 arcmin in radius
786: using real images as explained in Sect.~\ref{sec:obs}.
787: Fig.~\ref{fig:comp_mag} shows the completeness as a function of
788: magnitude in the $V$ and $I$ bands at different radii
789: ($r$ = 0, 2.5, 5.0, 10.0 arcmin).
790: With this incompleteness table in hand,
791: the incompleteness at a given $V$ magnitude, color
792: (i.e., $I$ magnitude, once $V$ magnitude is given), and radius
793: is estimated by a linear interpolation.
794: The numbers of SGB stars are corrected for incompleteness
795: calculated above.
796: To estimate the number of contaminations,
797: we regarded stars found at $r>16.67'$ as contaminations,
798: and the magnitude distribution of (incompleteness-corrected)
799: contaminations with $0.67<V-I<0.77$
800: were fitted to the 4th order polynomials as,
801: $C (arcmin^{-2} / 0.1 mag) = -33245 + 5448.7 V - 334.59 V^{2}
802: + 9.1314 V^{3} - 0.093365 V^{4}$.
803: To derive the number of SGB stars in a given annulus,
804: the contamination number function $C$ multiplied by the area
805: of the annulus wa subtracted from the incompleteness-corrected number.
806:
807: The number ratios of SGB stars to faint RGB stars
808: are plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:sgfrgbratio} as a function of the radius.
809: In the figure, the number ratios are plotted separately
810: for bright SGB stars ($23.5<V<24.0$, filled squares) and
811: intermediate SGB stars ($24.0<V<24.5$, open triangles).
812: Note that $23.5<V<24.0$ and $24.0<V<24.5$ populations
813: roughly correspond to $2.5 \sim 4$ Gyr and $4 \sim 6.3-8$ Gyr
814: populations, respectively.
815: We noted that the number ratios for both bright and
816: intermediate SGB stars increase toward the center of the galaxy.
817: The slope is steeper for intermediate SGB stars.
818:
819: The number ratio can be calculated theoretically
820: for a stellar population of fixed age and metallicity
821: using Padova isochrones and the initial mass function.
822: We adopted Salpeter's form for the initial mass function.
823: The calculation shows that the number ratios for bright SGB stars
824: ($23.5<V<24.0$) range $0.37 \sim 0.41$ for Z=0.0004 population stars.
825: If a stellar population is dominated by a Z=0.0004 population,
826: the number ratio should be close to the value.
827: The number for a Z=0.001 population ranges $0.66 \sim 0.76$.
828: Although the calculated values are different according to
829: the adopted metallicity,
830: the number ratios at any radius are well below all the calculated values.
831: This indicates that a population younger than 4 Gyr
832: is not a dominant population, although it
833: certainly resides in the galaxy center.
834: The existence of a stellar population as young as 2 Gyr
835: reported by Bosler et al. (2004) and Koch et al. (2007)
836: also supports our finding.
837: The increase in the number ratio at the galaxy center suggests that
838: (1) the fraction of the young population is higher at the center
839: than at the periphery,
840: (2) the metallicity of the young population is higher at the center
841: than at the periphery, or
842: (3) a combination of (1) and (2).
843:
844: For intermediate SGB stars ($24.0<V<24.5$), the calculated number ratios
845: range $0.5 \sim 0.8$ and $0.6 \sim 1.0$ for
846: Z=0.0004 and Z=0.001 populations, respectively.
847: The number ratio is $\sim 0.7$ at the center and $\sim 0.5$
848: within 3 arcmin from the center, indicating that an
849: intermediate age population ($4 \sim 8$ Gyr) is dominant
850: at the galaxy center.
851: This is consistent with the finding by Mighell \& Rich (1996)
852: and Dolphin (2002) that a considerable stellar population
853: younger than 8 Gyr occurs at the center of Leo~II.
854: However, the number ratios of both bright and
855: intermediate SGB stars become small as the radius increases,
856: indicating that the stellar population at the outskirts of the galaxy
857: is deficient in young population, i.e., most of the stars
858: are older than 8 Gyr.
859:
860:
861:
862:
863:
864: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
865:
866:
867: \section{The Evolution of Leo~II}\label{sec:evol}
868:
869: \subsection{Main Body}
870:
871: The stellar population in the outskirts of the galaxy
872: ($5 \simlt r \simlt r_{t}$) was shown to consist of
873: mostly older stars ($\simgt$ 8 Gyr).
874: If metal abundance is nearly homogeneous,
875: such an old population must form a narrow color distribution at the RGB,
876: which is confirmed by a concentrated distribution in $V-I$ color of
877: faint RGB stars as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:frgbchist}.
878: A comparison of Padova isochrones with the color distribution of
879: RGB stars in the outskirts suggests low-metal-abundance populations
880: (between Z=0.0004 and Z=0.001) in the outskirts
881: if ages of $10 \sim 15$ Gyr are assumed.
882: The larger HB morphology index (Fig.~\ref{fig:hbmorph}) also
883: supports an old population with low metal abundance.
884: We conclude that the dominant population in the outskirts of the galaxy
885: is an old population with low metal abundance.
886:
887: The stellar population at the center of the galaxy, however,
888: shows a variety of age.
889: It is necessary to include stars younger than 10 Gyr,
890: but a young population with low metal abundance, for example,
891: $\simlt$ 10 Gyr and Z=0.0004 population, is excluded
892: since the isochrone would not trace the RGB distribution.
893: Therefore, a higher metal abundance (Z $\simeq$ 0.001,
894: possibly Z $\simeq$ 0.004 for very young population) is suggested.
895:
896: From the foregoing results, Leo~II is suggested to have evolved as follows.
897: Leo~II first started to form stars over the whole galaxy
898: about 15 Gyr ago\footnote{This estimate is based on the oldest ages
899: in the adopted isochrone grids.}
900: with a modest (probably low) star-formation rate.
901: Star formation lasted for some time and the interstellar
902: gas gained metals.
903: Then about 8 Gyr ago, star formation began to cease from the
904: outskirts and the star-forming region gradually became
905: more concentrated to the center.
906: % At last, Leo~II lost the star forming activity at $\sim$ 4 Gyr ago.
907: The star-forming activity had dropped to $\sim$ 0 by $\sim$ 4 Gyr ago,
908: except for the center where a small population younger than 4 Gyr occurs.
909:
910: Hensler et al. (2004) demonstrated the one-dimensional
911: chemodynamical evolution of dwarf elliptical galaxies,
912: and showed the interesting feature that
913: the star-forming region shrinks as a galaxy evolves
914: because of gas exhaustion in the galaxy.
915: Their simulation seems to outline the evolution of Leo~II fairly well,
916: although it requires a refinement to fully explain our results.
917: Since a population gradient within a galaxy is also observed for
918: several Local Group dwarf spheroidal galaxies (e.g., Harbeck et al. 2001),
919: a more refined chemodynamical model
920: will be necessary to explain the population gradient
921: in the future to clarify the evolution of dwarf spheroidal galaxies.
922:
923:
924: \subsection{Halo Structure}
925:
926: The origin of the knotty substructure found at
927: the extended halo of Leo~II could be
928: (1) a small globular cluster, which is disrupted
929: and merged with the main body of Leo~II,
930: (2) stars stripped from the main body of Leo~II, or
931: (3) a foreground artifact.
932: The properties of stellar populations such as HB morphology
933: are almost the same between outside the tidal radius
934: and at the outskirts of the main body, indicating that
935: the knot would be dominated by old stars with low metal abundance.
936: To further investigate the stellar population of the knot,
937: we made a Hess diagram from which field contaminations were
938: statistically subtracted.
939: In Fig.~\ref{fig:hess}, although the field subtraction is not perfect,
940: two significant concentrations of stars are observed
941: around the red clump ($V-I \sim 0.8$, $V\sim 22$)
942: and the turn-off point ($V-I \sim 0.7$, $V \sim 26$)
943: like that seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:cmd}.
944: This suggests that the knot is likely to consist of a
945: similar stellar population as that residing in the outskirts of Leo~II
946: and the probability of (3) is low.
947: However, based on this figure, it is still difficult to determine
948: whether possibility (1) or (2) is more likely.
949:
950: % Accordingly, we cannot distinguish (1) and (2) above
951: % as the origin of the knotty halo substructure.
952:
953: If the second scenario is true,
954: the tidal influence of the Galaxy would be the most efficient
955: mechanism to strip stars from the main body of Leo~II.
956: Indeed, many dwarf spheroidal galaxies such as Draco and Ursa Minor
957: are now known to host extra-tidal halo structures
958: although they are closer to the Galaxy and hence
959: more influenced by the Galactic tidal force.
960: However, the present-day remote location of Leo~II from the Galaxy
961: raises the question of whether the tidal force of the Galaxy is enough to
962: strip stars from the main body of Leo~II.
963: In addition, the fact that we do not detect any obvious
964: extra-tidal structure at the opposite side of Leo~II
965: is unfavorable for this scenario.
966: Therefore, it is unlikely that tidally stripped stars are
967: the origin of the knotty substructure.
968: If the knot is indeed a result of the tidal stripping,
969: it should be aligned to the direction parallel to the motion of Leo~II.
970: Therefore, measuring the proper motion of Leo~II
971: would provide a clue to answering this problem,
972: although it would still be quite challenging.
973:
974: % The other small knot which is eminent to the west may support this idea.
975:
976:
977: The fact that no globular clusters are found to associate with
978: less luminous dwarf spheroidals such as Leo~II
979: does not support the first scenario for the origin of the knot.
980: But it is possible
981: that Leo~II formed together with a small number of globular clusters
982: and we may be watching the disruption process of the
983: last one that happened to survive until the recent past.
984: It is interesting that Kleyna et al. (2003) demonstrated
985: the survival of a substructure for a Hubble time
986: in a cored dark-matter halo.
987: They suggested that the substructures found in Ursa Minor
988: are the remnants of a disrupted stellar cluster and
989: that Ursa Minor possesses a cored dark-matter halo.
990: Following their idea, we suggest that
991: Leo~II may be another example of a galaxy with a cored dark-matter halo.
992:
993: Recent numerical simulations suggest that
994: dark halos of dwarf spheroidals are larger than previously
995: thought, and hence, extra-tidal stars are
996: gravitationally bound to the galaxies and
997: are a part of the extended stellar halos
998: (Hayashi et al. 2003; Mashchenko et al. 2005).
999: The extended halo structure found in this study
1000: might be a structure bound to Leo~II
1001: according to the predictions of the simulations.
1002:
1003:
1004: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1005:
1006: \section{Summary}\label{sec:summary}
1007:
1008: We carried out a wide-field imaging survey of
1009: the Local Group dwarf spheroidal galaxy Leo~II in the $V$ and $I$ bands
1010: using Suprime-Cam on the 8.2-m Subaru Telescope.
1011: The survey covered an area of $26.67 \times 26.67$ arcmin$^{2}$,
1012: far beyond the tidal radius of the Leo~II (8.63 arcmin).
1013: A total of 82252 stars was detected down to
1014: the limiting magnitude of $V \simeq 26$, which is roughly
1015: 1 mag deeper than the turn-off point of the main sequence stars of Leo~II.
1016: Our main conclusions are summarized below.
1017:
1018: \begin{itemize}
1019:
1020: \item
1021: The radial number density profile of bright RGB stars
1022: is shown to continue beyond the tidal radius ($r_{t} = 9.22$ arcmin).
1023: A change in the slope occurs near the tidal radius
1024: and the slope becomes shallower for $r>9$ arcmin.
1025: A hint of a drop is seen in number density at $r>14$ arcmin.
1026: A similar two-component profile is also observed for faint RGB stars.
1027:
1028: \item
1029: A smoothed surface brightness map of Leo~II suggests the existence of
1030: a small substructure beyond the tidal radius,
1031: which is as large as globular clusters in luminosity ($M_{V}<-2.8$).
1032: It could possibly be a disrupted globular cluster of Leo~II
1033: that had survived until the recent past.
1034: Another possibility is that it is composed of stars stripped
1035: from the main body of Leo~II, although this is unlikely.
1036:
1037:
1038: \item
1039: The HB morphology index shows a radial gradient
1040: in the sense that red HB stars are more concentrated than blue HB stars.
1041: Such a trend is also observed in several
1042: Local Group dwarf spheroidal galaxies.
1043: The HB morphology index implies that the stellar population in the outer part
1044: ($r>7$ arcmin) is more metal-poor and/or older
1045: than that in the inner part.
1046:
1047:
1048: \item
1049: The RGB color index is almost constant at any radius
1050: except for the center, where a redder mean RGB sequence than ours
1051: was observed by Mighell \& Rich (1996).
1052: The color distribution of RGB stars around the mean RGB sequence
1053: shows a broader distribution at the center ($r<3$ arcmin)
1054: than the outskirts.
1055: This suggests a more homogeneous stellar population at the outskirts
1056: of the galaxy and a variety of stellar populations at the galaxy center.
1057:
1058: \item
1059: The age distribution was estimated using brighter
1060: ($23.5<V<24.5$) SGB stars.
1061: The presence of a younger stellar population than 4 Gyr is
1062: suggested for the center, although it is not a dominant population.
1063: The contribution of an intermediate-age ($4 \sim 8$ Gyr)
1064: stellar population seems to be considerable at the galaxy center,
1065: but the contribution of such a population
1066: is small at the outskirts.
1067:
1068: \item
1069: The evolution of Leo~II is suggested to be as follows.
1070: (1) Leo~II first began forming stars throughout the whole galaxy
1071: with a constant (inefficient) star-formation rate.
1072: (2) The star formation then began to cease in the outskirts and
1073: the star-forming region gradually shrank toward the center.
1074: (3) The star-forming activity had dropped to $\sim$ 0 by $\sim$ 4 Gyr ago
1075: except at the center, where a small population younger than 4 Gyr is found.
1076:
1077:
1078: \end{itemize}
1079:
1080: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1081:
1082:
1083: \acknowledgements
1084:
1085: We thank the observatory staff of the Subaru Telescope
1086: for their excellent support.
1087: We are grateful to the anonymous referee
1088: for many valuable comments and suggestions
1089: which improve this paper very much.
1090:
1091:
1092:
1093: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1094:
1095:
1096: \bibitem[]{973}
1097: % Adelman-McCarthy et al. 2007
1098: Adelman-McCarthy, J.~K., et al., 2007, \apjs, submitted
1099:
1100: \bibitem[]{973}
1101: % Bellazzini, Gennari, \& Ferraro 2005
1102: Bellazzini, M., Gennari, N., \& Ferraro, F.~R., 2005, \mnras, 360, 185
1103:
1104: \bibitem[]{977}
1105: % Bosler et al. 2004
1106: Bosler, T.~L., Smecker-Hane, T.~A., Cole, A., \& Stetson, P.~B.,
1107: 2004, Origin and Evolution of the Elements,
1108: ed. A. McWilliam and M. Rauch, 5
1109:
1110: \bibitem[]{983}
1111: % Cowie et al. 1996
1112: Cowie, L.~L., Songaila, A., Hu, E.~M., Cohen, J.~G.,
1113: 1996, \aj, 112, 839
1114:
1115: \bibitem[]{983}
1116: % Coleman et al. 2004
1117: Coleman, M., da Costa, G.~S., Bland-Hawthorn, J., Mart\'inez-Delgado, D.,
1118: Freeman, K.~C., Malin, D., 2004, \aj, 127, 832
1119:
1120: \bibitem[]{983}
1121: % Coleman et al. 2005
1122: Coleman, M., da Costa, G.~S., Bland-Hawthorn, J., Freeman, K.~C.,
1123: 2005, \aj, 129, 1443
1124:
1125: \bibitem[]{988}
1126: % da Costa \& Armandroff 1990
1127: da Costa, G.~S., \& Armandroff, T.~E., 1990, \aj, 100, 162
1128:
1129: \bibitem[]{992}
1130: % da Costa et al. 1996
1131: da Costa, G.~S., Armandroff, T.~E., Caldwell, N., \& Seitzer, P.,
1132: 1996, \aj, 112, 2576
1133:
1134: \bibitem[]{997}
1135: % Demers \& Irwin 1993
1136: Demers, S., \& Irwin, M.~J., 1993, \mnras, 261, 657
1137:
1138: \bibitem[]{1001}
1139: % Dolphin 2002
1140: Dolphin, A.~E., 2002, \mnras, 332, 91
1141:
1142: \bibitem[]{1005}
1143: % Girardi et al. 2002
1144: Girardi, L., et al., 2002, \aap, 391, 195
1145:
1146: \bibitem[]{1005}
1147: % Grebel 2000
1148: Grebel, E.~K., 2000, ESA SP, 445, 87
1149:
1150: \bibitem[]{1005}
1151: % Grebel and Gallagher 2004
1152: Grebel, E.~K., Gallagher, J.~S.,III, 2004, \apjl, 610, L89
1153:
1154: \bibitem[]{1005}
1155: % Harbeck et al. 2001
1156: Harbeck, D., et al., 2001, \aj, 122, 3092
1157:
1158: \bibitem[]{1009}
1159: % Hayashi et al. 2003
1160: Hayashi, E., Navarro, J.~F., Taylor, J.~E., Stadel, J.,
1161: Quinn, T., 2003, \apj, 584, 541
1162:
1163: \bibitem[]{1009}
1164: % Held et al 2001
1165: Held, E.~V., Saviane, I., Momany, Y., Carraro, G.,
1166: 2000, \apjl, 530, L85
1167:
1168: \bibitem[]{1009}
1169: % Hensler, Theis, Gallagher 2004
1170: Hesnler, G., Theis, C., Gallagher, J.~S.~III.,
1171: 2004, \aap, 426, 25
1172:
1173: \bibitem[]{1009}
1174: % Irwin and Hatzidimitriou 1995
1175: Irwin, M., Hatzidimitriou, D., 1995, \mnras, 277, 1354
1176:
1177: \bibitem[]{1014}
1178: % Kleyna et al. 1998
1179: Kleyna, J.~T., Geller, M.~J., Kenyon, S.~J., Kurtz, M.~J.,
1180: Thorstensen, J.~R., 1998, \aj, 115, 2359
1181:
1182: \bibitem[]{1019}
1183: % Kleyna et al. 2003
1184: Kleyna, J.~T., Wilkinson, M.~I., Gilmore, G., Evans, N.~W.,
1185: 2003, \apjl, 588, L21
1186:
1187: \bibitem[]{1019}
1188: % Kleyna et al. 2004
1189: Kleyna, J.~T., Wilkinson, M.~I., Evans, N.~W.,
1190: Gilmore, G., 2004, \mnras, 354, L66
1191:
1192: %\bibitem[]{1024}
1193: % Klypin et al. 1999
1194: %Klypin, A., Kravtsov, A.~V., Valenzuela, O., Prada, F.,
1195: %1999, \apj, 522, 82
1196:
1197: \bibitem[]{1024}
1198: % Koch et al. 2006
1199: Koch, A., et al., 2006, \aj, 131, 895
1200:
1201: \bibitem[]{1024}
1202: % Koch et al. 2007
1203: Koch, A., et al., 2007, \aj, 133, 270
1204:
1205: \bibitem[]{1029}
1206: % Lee 1995
1207: Lee, M.-G., 1995, \aj, 110, 1155
1208:
1209: \bibitem[]{1033}
1210: % Lee, Demarque, \& Zinn 1994
1211: Lee, Y.-W., Demarque, P., \& Zinn, R., 1994, \apj, 423, 248
1212:
1213: \bibitem[]{1037}
1214: % Majewski et al. 1999
1215: Majewski, S.~R., Siegel, M.~H., Patterson, R.~J., \& Rood R.~T.,
1216: 1999, \apjl, 520, L33
1217:
1218: \bibitem[]{1042}
1219: % Majewski et al. 2005
1220: Majewski, S.~R., et al., 2005, \aj, 130, 2677
1221:
1222: \bibitem[]{1046}
1223: % Martinez-Delgado, Gallart and Aparicio 1999
1224: Mart\'inez-Delgado, D., Gallart, C., Aparicio, A.,
1225: 1999, \aj, 118, 862
1226:
1227: \bibitem[]{1046}
1228: % Mashchenko et al. 2005
1229: Mashchenko, S., Couchman, H.~M.~P., Sills, A., 2005, \apj, 624, 726
1230:
1231: \bibitem[]{1050}
1232: % Mateo 1998
1233: Mateo, M.~L., 1998, \araa, 36, 435
1234:
1235: \bibitem[]{1054}
1236: % Mighell \& Rich 1996
1237: Mighell, K.~J., \& Rich, R.~M., 1996, \aj, 111, 777
1238:
1239: \bibitem[]{1058}
1240: % Miyazaki et al. 2002
1241: Miyazaki, S., Komiyama, Y., Sekiguchi, M., Okamura, S., Doi, M.,
1242: Furusawa, H., Hamabe, M., Imi, K., Kimura, M., Nakata, F., Okada, N.,
1243: Ouchi, M., Shimasaku, K., Yagi, M., \& Yasuda, N., 2002, \pasj,
1244: 54, 833
1245:
1246: %\bibitem[]{1065}
1247: % Moore et al. 1999
1248: %Moore, B., Ghigna, S., Governato, F., Lake, G., Quinn, T.,
1249: %Stadel, J., Tozzi, P., 1999, \apjl, 524, L19
1250:
1251: \bibitem[]{1070}
1252: % Palma et al. 2003
1253: Palma, C., Majewski, S.~R., Siegel, M.~H., Patterson, R.~J.,
1254: Ostheimer, J.~C., Link, R., 2003, \aj, 125, 1352
1255:
1256: \bibitem[]{1075}
1257: % Ratnatunga and Bahcall 1985
1258: Ratnatunga, K.~U., Bahcall, J.~N., 1985, \apjs, 59, 63
1259:
1260: \bibitem[]{1075}
1261: % Saviane, Held, Bertelli 2000
1262: Saviane, I., Held, E.~V., Bertelli, G., 2000, \aap, 355, 966
1263:
1264: \bibitem[]{1075}
1265: % Siegel and Majewski 2000
1266: Siegel, M.~H., Majewski, S.~R., 2000, \aj, 120, 284
1267:
1268: \bibitem[]{1075}
1269: % Smail et al. 1998
1270: Smail, I., Edge, A.~C., Ellis, R.~S., Blandford, R.~D.,
1271: 1998, \mnras, 293, 124
1272:
1273:
1274: \bibitem[]{1075}
1275: % Smecker-Hane et al. 1994
1276: Smecker-Hane, T.~A., Stetson, P.~B., Hesser, J.~E., Lehnert, M.~D.,
1277: 1994, \aj, 108, 507
1278:
1279: \bibitem[]{1080}
1280: % Stetson 1987
1281: Stetson, P.~B., 1987, \pasp, 99, 191
1282:
1283: \bibitem[]{1084}
1284: % Stetson 1994
1285: Stetson, P.~B., 1994, \pasp, 106, 250
1286:
1287: \bibitem[]{1088}
1288: % Tolstoy et al. 2004
1289: Tolstoy, E. et al., 2004, \apjl, 617, L119
1290:
1291: \bibitem[]{1092}
1292: % Yagi et al. 2002
1293: Yagi, M., Kashikawa, N., Sekiguchi, M., Doi, M., Yasuda, N.,
1294: Shimasaku, K., \& Okamura, S., 2002, \aj, 123, 66
1295:
1296: %\bibitem[]{1097}
1297: % Vansevicius et al. 2004
1298: %Vansevi\v{c}ius, V. et al., 2004, \apjl, 611, L93
1299:
1300: \bibitem[]{1101}
1301: % Walker et al. 2006
1302: Walker, M.~G., Mateo, M., Olszewski, E.~W., Pal, J.~K.,
1303: Sen, B., Woodroofe, M., 2006, \apjl, 642, L41
1304:
1305: \bibitem[]{1106}
1306: % Westfall et al. 2006
1307: Westfall, K.~B., Majewski, S.~R., Ostheimer, J.~C.,
1308: Frinchaboy, P.~M., Kunkel, W.~E., Patterson, R.~J.,
1309: Link, R., 2006, \aj, 131, 375
1310:
1311: \bibitem[]{1112}
1312: % White and Frenk 1991
1313: White, S.~D.~M., Frenk, C.~S., 1991, \apj, 379, 52
1314:
1315: \bibitem[]{1112}
1316: % White and Rees 1978
1317: White, S.~D.~M., Rees, M.~J., 1978, \mnras, 183, 341
1318:
1319: \bibitem[]{1112}
1320: % Wilkinson et al. 2004
1321: Wilkinson, M.~I., Kleyna, J.~T., Evans, N.~W.,
1322: Gilmore, G.~F., Irwin, M.~J., Grebel, E.~K., 2004, \apj, 611, L21
1323:
1324:
1325:
1326:
1327: \end{thebibliography}
1328:
1329:
1330: \clearpage
1331:
1332: \begin{table}
1333: \begin{center}
1334: \begin{tabular}{llll}\hline
1335: Band & Date & Exposure Time [sec] & FWHM [arcsec]\\ \hline\hline
1336: $V$ & 2001.4.20 & 3000 (5$\times$600) & 0.6 -- 0.8\\
1337: & & 900 (5$\times$180) & 0.6 -- 0.8\\
1338: $I$ & 2001.4.24 & 2400 (5$\times$240+4$\times$300) & 0.6 -- 0.8\\
1339: & & 300 (5$\times$60) & 0.6 -- 0.8\\ \hline
1340: \end{tabular}
1341: \caption{The log of the observation.}
1342: \label{tab:obs}
1343: \end{center}
1344: \end{table}
1345:
1346: \begin{table}
1347: \begin{center}
1348: \begin{tabular}{lllllll}\hline
1349: Area [arcmin] & $<r>$ [arcmin] & Bright RGB & Faint RGB & Blue HB & Red HB & SB [mag/arcsec$^{2}$] \\ \hline\hline
1350: $0.0 -- 0.5$ & 0.354 & 38 & 34 & 4 & 32 & 25.28 \\
1351: $0.5 -- 1.5$ & 1.120 & 203 & 227 & 13 & 184 & 25.60 \\
1352: $1.5 -- 2.5$ & 2.062 & 244 & 319 & 16 & 253 & 26.02 \\
1353: $2.5 -- 3.5$ & 3.041 & 220 & 307 & 20 & 193 & 26.77 \\
1354: $3.5 -- 4.5$ & 4.031 & 127 & 168 & 22 & 122 & 27.63 \\
1355: $4.5 -- 5.5$ & 5.025 & 62 & 98 & 12 & 52 & 28.69 \\
1356: $5.5 -- 6.5$ & 6.021 & 30 & 51 & 8 & 19 & 29.51 \\
1357: $6.5 -- 7.5$ & 7.018 & 18 & 20 & 5 & 25 & 30.29 \\
1358: $7.5 -- 8.5$ & 8.016 & 7 & 21 & 2 & 13 & 31.08 \\
1359: $8.5 -- 9.5$ & 9.014 & 5 & 16 & 1 & 6 & 31.76 \\
1360: $9.5 -- 10.5$ & 10.013 & 5 & 13 & 1 & 5 & 31.98 \\
1361: $10.5 -- 11.5$ & 11.011 & 5 & 9 & 0 & 6 & 32.45 \\
1362: $11.5 -- 12.5$ & 12.010 & 5 & 14 & 2 & 7 & 32.27 \\
1363: $12.5 -- 13.5$ & 12.923 & 4 & 10 & 1 & 7 & 32.38 \\
1364: $13.5 --$ & 14.215 & 4 & 18 & 2 & 9 & 32.97 \\ \hline
1365: \end{tabular}
1366: \caption{The number of stars in each area.
1367: The integrated surface brightness for these components in V band
1368: is listed in the right-most column. }
1369: \label{tab:radprof}
1370: \end{center}
1371: \end{table}
1372:
1373:
1374: \begin{table}
1375: \begin{center}
1376: \begin{tabular}{cccc}\hline
1377: & $f_{K,0}$ & $r_{c}$ [arcmin] & $r_{t}$ [arcmin]\\ \hline\hline
1378: Bright RGB & 77.6$\pm$6.5 & 2.28$\pm$0.30 & 9.22$\pm$0.53 \\
1379: Faint RGB & 104.0$\pm$8.3 & 3.05$\pm$0.34 & 8.51$\pm$0.26 \\
1380:
1381: All RGB & 183.4$\pm$13.2 & 2.76$\pm$0.28 & 8.63$\pm$0.26 \\
1382:
1383: Red HB & 96.2$\pm$11.2 & 3.24$\pm$0.48 & 6.99$\pm$0.22 \\
1384: Blue HB & 5.3$\pm$0.8 & 4.05$\pm$0.78 & 10.78$\pm$0.78 \\ \hline
1385: \end{tabular}
1386: \caption{The best-fit parameters for King profile fitting. }
1387: \label{tab:king}
1388: \end{center}
1389: \end{table}
1390:
1391:
1392:
1393:
1394:
1395: \clearpage
1396:
1397:
1398: \begin{figure}
1399: % \plotone{f1.eps}
1400: \caption{The color image of our survey area.
1401: North is to the top and east is to the left.
1402: Both width and height of the image are 26.67 arcmin.
1403: }
1404: \label{fig:leo2}
1405: \end{figure}
1406:
1407: \begin{figure}
1408: \plotone{f2.eps}
1409: \caption{The detection completeness (top) and the magnitude errors (bottom)
1410: are plotted as a function of the distance from the galaxy center
1411: for different magnitude ($V=23.5, 24.5, 25.5$).
1412: }
1413: \label{fig:complete}
1414: \end{figure}%
1415:
1416: \begin{figure}
1417: % \plotone{f3.eps}
1418: \caption{The color-magnitude diagram of stars in the central
1419: $6.67 \times 6.67$ arcmin$^{2}$ field.
1420: }
1421: \label{fig:cmd}
1422: \end{figure}%
1423:
1424: \begin{figure}
1425: % \plotone{f4.eps}
1426: \caption{(a) The criteria for RGB, blue and red HB selection
1427: are overlaid on the color-magnitude diagram.
1428: Typical photometric errors at the center ($\sim2.5$ arcmin)
1429: and the outskirts of the galaxy are indicated
1430: as blue and red error bars at $V-I=1.4$.
1431: (b) The detailed view of the RGB sequence.
1432: The mean RGB sequence (Eq.\ref{eq:rgbseq}) is plotted in red
1433: together with those of Galactic globular clusters
1434: M~15, NGC~6397, M~2 and NGC~1851 (from left to right) in cyan.
1435: (c) Detailed view of the SGB.
1436: Padova isochrones for ages 5, 10, and 15 Gyr
1437: (from top to bottom) of different metallicity population
1438: (Z=0.0004 in green and Z=0.001 in magenta)
1439: are overlaid.
1440: }
1441: \label{fig:cmfea}
1442: \end{figure}%
1443:
1444: \begin{figure}
1445: \plotone{f5.eps}
1446: \caption{The radial profile of each stellar component.
1447: The red, black, blue and green lines represent
1448: the radial profiles of bright RGB, faint RGB, blue HB, and
1449: red HB stars, respectively.
1450: The error bars are estimated on the basis of Poisson statistics.
1451: Two arrows indicate the tidal radii calculated for
1452: bright RGB (red) and faint RGB (black), respectively.
1453: The inset shows
1454: the cumulative number fraction of each stellar component
1455: as a function of the radius
1456: in the same colors as described above.
1457: }
1458: \label{fig:radprof}
1459: \end{figure}%
1460:
1461: \begin{figure}
1462: % \plotone{f6.eps}
1463: \caption{Smoothed surface brightness map of RGB and HB stars.
1464: Contours correspond roughly to
1465: 26.5, 27.5, 28.3, 29.0, 30.0 mag/arcsec$^{2}$
1466: from the center.
1467: }
1468: \label{fig:densmap}
1469: \end{figure}%
1470:
1471: \begin{figure}
1472: \plotone{f7.eps}
1473: \caption{The HB morphology index $(B-R)/(B+V+R)$
1474: plotted as a function of the radius.
1475: $B$, $R$ and $V$ indicate numbers of blue, red HB stars, and
1476: those stars found at the RR Lyr instability strip, respectively.
1477: The error bars are estimated based on the Poisson statistics.
1478: The inset shows
1479: the cumulative number fraction of blue (solid)
1480: and red (dashed) HB stars as a function of the radius.
1481: }
1482: \label{fig:hbmorph}
1483: \end{figure}%
1484:
1485: \begin{figure}
1486: \plotone{f8.eps}
1487: \caption{The RGB color index $(B-R)/(B+R)$
1488: plotted as a function of the radius.
1489: $B$ and $R$ indicate numbers of stars
1490: that deviate less than 0.075 mag bluer and redder
1491: from the mean RGB sequence, respectively.
1492: The indices derived from whole RGB stars ($19<V<23.5$)
1493: and faint RGB stars ($22.18<V<23.5$)
1494: are plotted as open triangles and filled squares.
1495: The error bars are estimated based on the Poisson statistics.
1496: The inset shows
1497: the cumulative number fraction of blue (solid)
1498: and red (dashed) faint RGB stars as a function of the radius.
1499: }
1500: \label{fig:rgbmorph}
1501: \end{figure}%
1502:
1503: \begin{figure}
1504: \plotone{f9.eps}
1505: \caption{The color distribution of faint RGB stars
1506: around the mean RGB sequence in different annuli
1507: ($r<1'.5, 1'.5<r<3'.0, 3'.0<r<6'.7$, and $6'.7<r$).
1508: }
1509: \label{fig:frgbchist}
1510: \end{figure}%
1511:
1512:
1513: \begin{figure}
1514: \plotone{f10.eps}
1515: \caption{Detection completeness as a function of
1516: magnitude in $V$ (bottom) and $I$ (top) bands for different radii
1517: ($r$ = 0, 2.5, 5.0, 10.0 arcmin).
1518: }
1519: \label{fig:comp_mag}
1520: \end{figure}%
1521:
1522:
1523: \begin{figure}
1524: \plotone{f11.eps}
1525: \caption{The number ratio of SGB to faint RGB stars
1526: plotted as a function of the radius.
1527: Filled squares and open triangles represent
1528: the number ratio for bright ($23.5<V<24.0$) and intermediate
1529: ($24.0<V<24.5$) SGB stars, respectively.
1530: The error bars are estimated on the basis of Poisson statistics.
1531: The solid and dotted arrows at $r \sim 14$ represent
1532: the calculated number ratios (see text)
1533: for bright and intermediate SGB stars, respectively,
1534: of different metallicities.
1535: }
1536: \label{fig:sgfrgbratio}
1537: \end{figure}%
1538:
1539:
1540: \begin{figure}
1541: \plotone{f12.eps}
1542: \caption{Field subtracted Hess diagram for the knot.
1543: The solid contours represent 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32 stars
1544: per $\Delta(V-I)=0.1$ and $\Delta V=0.5$ bin.
1545: The dotted contours represent -1, -2, -4, -8, -16, -32 stars,
1546: indicating that field contamination is oversubtracted.
1547: Two isochrones (Z=0.0004 and Z=0.001 with age of 15 Gyr)
1548: are overlaid for the guidance.
1549: }
1550: \label{fig:hess}
1551: \end{figure}%
1552:
1553:
1554:
1555: \end{document}
1556:
1557:
1558: