1: \documentclass[apj]{emulateapj}
2:
3: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
4: %\documentclass{emulateapj}
5: %\documentclass[apjl]{emulateapj}
6:
7:
8:
9:
10: %\usepackage{amssymb,latexsym}
11:
12:
13: \newcommand{\msun}{\mbox{${\rm M}_{\odot}$}}
14: \newcommand{\Msun}{\mbox{${\rm M}_{\odot}$}}
15: \newcommand{\nlim}{\mbox{${N}(V<20.5)$}}
16: \newcommand{\ncum}{\mbox{${N}(t' <t)$}}
17: \newcommand{\mlim}{\mbox{${M}^{\rm lim}_{\rm cl}$}}
18: \newcommand{\mcompl}{\mbox{${M}^{\rm 80\%}_{\rm cl}$}}
19: \newcommand{\mmin}{\mbox{${M}^{\rm min}_{\rm cl}$}}
20: \newcommand{\tmin}{\mbox{${t}_{\rm min}$}}
21: \newcommand{\mmax}{\mbox{${M}^{\rm max}_{\rm cl}$}}
22: \newcommand{\mgalev}{\mbox{${M}_{\rm GALEV}$}}
23: \newcommand{\mssp}{\mbox{${M}^{\rm SSP}_{\rm cl}$}}
24: \newcommand{\missp}{\mbox{${M}^{\rm SSP}_{{\rm cl},i}$}}
25: \newcommand{\mlgalev}{\mbox{${M}_{\rm \lambda}^{\rm GALEV}$}}
26: \newcommand{\mlssp}{\mbox{${M}_{\rm \lambda}^{\rm SSP}$}}
27: \newcommand{\mvssp}{\mbox{${M}_{V}^{\rm SSP}$}}
28: \newcommand{\Mv}{\mbox{${M}_{V}$}}
29: \newcommand{\mllim}{\mbox{${M}_{\rm \lambda}^{\rm lim}$}}
30: \newcommand{\mblim}{\mbox{${M}_{B}^{\rm lim}$}}
31: \newcommand{\mvlim}{\mbox{${M}_{V}^{\rm lim}$}}
32: \newcommand{\vlim}{\mbox{$V_{\rm lim}$}}
33: \newcommand{\dndt}{\mbox{${\rm d}N/{\rm d}t$}}
34: \newcommand{\dr}{\mbox{${\rm d}$}}
35: \newcommand{\Mc}{\mbox{$M_{\rm cl}$}}
36: \newcommand{\mc}{\mbox{$M_{\rm cl}$}}
37: \newcommand{\galev}{\mbox{$GALEV$}}
38: \newcommand{\starburst}{\mbox{$SB99$}}
39: \newcommand{\tdis}{\mbox{$t_{\rm dis}$}}
40: \newcommand{\trel}{\mbox{$t_{\rm rel}$}}
41: %\newcommand{\arcsec}{\mbox{$^{\prime}$}}
42:
43: \shortauthors{Gieles, Lamers \& Portegies Zwart}
44: \shorttitle{The Age Distributions of SMC Clusters}
45:
46: \def\lea{\mathrel{<\kern-1.0em\lower0.9ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}
47: \def\gea{\mathrel{>\kern-1.0em\lower0.9ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}
48: \newcommand{\lta}{{\>\rlap{\raise2pt\hbox{$<$}}\lower3pt\hbox{$\sim$}\>}}
49: \newcommand{\gta}{{\>\rlap{\raise2pt\hbox{$>$}}\lower3pt\hbox{$\sim$}\>}}
50:
51: \begin{document}
52: \journalinfo{The Astrophysical Journal}
53: \submitted{Received 2007 May 9; accepted 2007 June 8}
54: \title{ON THE INTERPRETATION OF THE AGE DISTRIBUTION OF STAR CLUSTERS IN THE
55: SMALL MAGELLANIC CLOUD}
56:
57: \author{Mark Gieles}
58: \affil{Astronomical Institute, Utrecht University,
59: Princetonplein 5, 3584 CC Utrecht, The Netherlands}
60: \affil{European Southern Observatory, Casilla 19001, Santiago 19, Chile}
61: \email{mgieles@eso.org}
62:
63: \author{Henny J.G.L.M. Lamers}
64: \affil{Astronomical Institute, Utrecht University,
65: Princetonplein 5, 3584 CC Utrecht, The Netherlands}
66: %\email{lamers@astro.uu.nl}
67:
68: \author{Simon F. Portegies Zwart}
69: \affil{ Astronomical Institute `Anton Pannekoek', University of
70: Amsterdam, Kruislaan 403, 1098 SJ Amsterdam, The Netherlands,
71: Section Computational Science, University of Amsterdam, Kruislaan
72: 403, 1098 SJ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands }
73: %\email{spz@science.uva.nl}
74:
75:
76: %************************************************************************
77:
78: %\newpage
79:
80: \begin{abstract}
81: We re-analyze the age distribution (\dndt) of star clusters in the
82: Small Magellanic Cloud (SMC) using age determinations based on the
83: Magellanic Cloud Photometric Survey. For ages younger than
84: $3\times10^9\,$yr the \dndt\ distribution can be approximated by a
85: power-law distribution, $\dndt\propto t^{-\beta}$, with
86: $-\beta=-0.70\pm0.05$ or $-\beta=-0.84\pm0.04$, depending on the
87: model used to derive the ages. Predictions for a cluster population
88: without dissolution limited by a $V$-band detection result in a
89: power-law \dndt\ distribution with an index of $\sim-0.7$. This is
90: because the limiting cluster mass increases with age, due to
91: evolutionary fading of clusters, reducing the number of observed
92: clusters at old ages. When a mass cut well above the limiting cluster
93: mass is applied, the \dndt\ distribution is flat up to $1\,$Gyr. We
94: conclude that cluster dissolution is of small importance in shaping
95: the \dndt\ distribution and incompleteness causes \dndt\ to
96: decline. The reason that no (mass independent) infant mortality of
97: star clusters around $\sim10-20\,$Myr is found is explained by a
98: detection bias towards clusters without nebular emission, i.e. cluster
99: that have survived the infant mortality phase. The reason we find no
100: evidence for tidal (mass dependent) cluster dissolution in the first
101: Gyr is explained by the weak tidal field of the SMC. Our
102: results are in sharp contrast to the interpretation of Chandar et
103: al. (2006), who interpret the declining \dndt\ distribution as
104: rapid cluster dissolution. This is due to their erroneous
105: assumption that the sample is limited by cluster mass, rather than
106: luminosity.
107:
108:
109: \end{abstract}
110:
111: \keywords{galaxies: individual (Small Magellanic Cloud) ---
112: galaxies: star clusters --- stars: formation}
113:
114: %************************************************************************
115:
116: \section{INTRODUCTION}
117:
118: Star clusters are often assumed to be tracers of the star formation
119: history of their host galaxy. Recent studies on the star formation
120: rate in the solar neighborhood have revealed that the majority of
121: stars form in a clustered environment \citep{2000prpl.conf..151C, 2003ARA&A..41...57L},
122: while only a few percent of stars in the solar neighborhood are in
123: clusters. Understanding the process of cluster dissolution is,
124: therefore, of key importance if one wants to make a meaningful
125: translation from the observed age distribution of star clusters to a
126: star formation history of their host galaxy.
127:
128:
129: Recent theoretical work suggest that a large fraction (50-90\%) of the
130: star clusters disperse a few Myrs after formation due to the expulsion
131: of residual gas by the stellar winds and supernovae of massive stars
132: (e.g. \citealt{1997MNRAS.286..669G, 2003MNRAS.338..673B}).
133: If the star formation efficiency is independent of cluster mass (\mc), then
134: this ``infant mortality" is also independent of $\mc$
135: \citep{2006MNRAS.tmp.1213G}.
136:
137: The observed age
138: distribution of star clusters in M51 \citep{2005A&A...431..905B}
139: indicates that $\sim\!70\%$ of the clusters
140: disperse on a time-scale of $\sim\!10\,$Myr after formation, roughly
141: independent of \mc.
142: \citet{2005ApJ...631L.133F} claim that in the
143: ``Antennae'' galaxies this process removes roughly 90\% of the
144: clusters each age dex during the first Gyr. This time-scale is far too
145: long to be explained by the gas expulsion scenario.
146:
147: The \mc\ independent dissolution due to gas expulsion is in
148: sharp contrast to dissolution due to two-body relaxation in a tidal
149: field (e.g. \citealt{1990ApJ...351..121C,
150: 1997MNRAS.289..898V,2000ApJ...535..759T, 2003MNRAS.340..227B}), or
151: external perturbations by the disk \citep{1972ApJ...176L..51O,
152: 1997ApJ...474..223G} or giant molecular clouds
153: \citep{1958ApJ...127...17S, 2006MNRAS.371..793G}, which all have a more destructive effect
154: on low mass clusters than on high mass clusters.
155:
156: The observed age distributions of star clusters can be used to
157: disentangle the two aforementioned disruption processes:
158: mass independent or mass dependent cluster dissolution.
159: If the
160: disruption time ($\tdis$) has a power-law dependence on the cluster mass, then the power-law
161: index can be derived from the slope of the age distribution. This holds for mass
162: limited and magnitude limited cluster samples, since at old ages
163: disruption will usually dominate over evolutionary fading
164: \citep{2003MNRAS.338..717B} (BL03).
165: On the other hand, in the case of a {\it \mc\
166: independent} infant mortality process the age distribution of a {\it
167: mass limited cluster sample} results in an age distribution of the
168: form $\dndt\propto t^{-1}$, where the index of $-1$ applies to the case where 90\% of the clusters dissolves each age dex \citep{2005ApJ...631L.133F, 2007AJ....133.1067W}.
169: If the sample is magnitude limited, then the age
170: distribution will be steeper. This is because fading and
171: disruption both remove a certain fraction from the \dndt\
172: distribution.
173:
174: Recently, \citet{2006ApJ...650L.111C} (CFW06) studied the age
175: distribution of clusters in the Small Magellanic Cloud (SMC) based on
176: cluster ages derived by \citet{2005AJ....129.2701R} (RZ05). They claim
177: that the age distribution is consistent with a power-law with index
178: $-1$ for $t<3\,$Gyr and that the sample is ``reasonably complete down
179: to $10^3\,\msun$ over this age range''. They conclude that their
180: observations are consistent with infant mortality being at work for
181: $\sim\!1~$Gyr and independent of \mc.
182:
183:
184: In this paper we address the interpretation of the \dndt\ distribution of star clusters in the SMC and the pitfall caused by detection incompleteness that can lead to the fallacious conclusion that mass independent cluster disruption shapes the \dndt\ distribution.
185:
186:
187: The structure of the paper is as follows. In \S~2 we discuss the
188: observations from which the SMC cluster sample was derived and the
189: mass and age determinations of the clusters. Because the interpretation
190: of the age distribution of the cluster sample depends heavily on the (in)completeness
191: of the sample, we investigate different incompleteness scenarios in \S~\ref{sec3}. In \S~\ref{sec4}
192: we compare the resulting age distribution to predictions and argue that the shape of the age distribution
193: it can be explained by evolutionary fading, without involving mass independent
194: dissolution. In \S~\ref{sec5} we compare our results to other studies and our conclusions are outlined in \S~\ref{sec6}.
195:
196: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
197:
198: \section{OBSERVATIONS}
199: \label{sec2}
200:
201: The clusters analyzed by RZ05 were identified by
202: \citet{2006AJ....131..414H} (HZ06). Photometric data in the $UBVI$ bands from
203: the Magellanic Clouds Photometric Survey (MCPS;
204: \citealt{1997AJ....114.1002Z}) were used to find clusters.
205: Stellar density images based on the
206: photometric catalog of SMC stars were constructed by counting the
207: number of stars with $V<20.5$ in squares of 10\arcsec. We note that
208: for the photometry all stars in the
209: catalogue were used, but only for clusters that were identified in the sample
210: limited to stars with $V<20.5$.
211:
212: RZ05 derived ages by comparing the $U-B$, $B-V$ and $V-I$ colors from
213: clusters using {\it STARBURST99} (hereafter \starburst,
214: \citealt{1999ApJS..123....3L}) and \galev\ \citep{2002A&A...392....1S,
215: 2003A&A...401.1063A} models.
216: We adopt their ages, which have been derived from the photometry with the mean
217: foreground extinction correction for the SMC of $E(B-V)=0.09$,
218: but without a correction for local extinction.
219: RZ05 tried to include extinction as a free parameter in the age fitting method, but conclude that the scatter in the photometry is too large to improve the age estimates by including extinction as an additional parameter. They take extinction into account in an analytical way\footnote{RZ05 adopted the mean extinction measured by \citet{2004AJ....127.1531H}
220: for stars younger than 10 Myr and older than 1 Gyr. For intermediate ages they
221: interpolated the extinction value. RZ05 then corrected the colors for the clusters for which an age estimate is already available, and recalculated the best fit with the predicted clusted models.}, but again conclude that the spread of observed clusters colours around the models does not reduce. Since this artificially imposed extinction as a function of age could introduce systematic trends in the \dndt\ distribution, combined with the conclusion of RZ05 that this method did not reduce the scatter of the cluster colors, we prefer the first order age estimates of RZ05.
222:
223: Adopting the ages of the clusters based on their photometry, we derived initial masses of the clusters,
224: i.e. corrected for mass loss due to stellar evolution,
225: independently using \starburst\, and \galev\, models with
226: $Z=0.004$. For the \starburst\ models we adopt identical settings as
227: RZ05, i.e. standard mass loss, the full isochrone mass interpolation,
228: a Salpeter initial mass function from $0.1\,\msun$ to $100\,\msun$.
229:
230:
231: \begin{figure}
232: \plotone{f1.eps}
233: \caption{Age-mass diagram of 195 clusters in the SMC based on ages derived by
234: RZ05 with the \galev\ models (bullets) and the \starburst\ models (squares).
235: The 80\% limit as a function of age ($\mcompl(t)$) is derived
236: from the data (see text for details) and shown as triangles for the \starburst.
237: A polynomial fit to $\mcompl(t)$ is shown as a full line. The vertical dashed lines indicate
238: the ages where the $\mcompl(t)$ curve intersects with $\log \mc=3$ and $\log \mc=3.5$.
239: }
240: \label{fig1}
241: \end{figure}
242:
243:
244: In Fig.~\ref{fig1} we show the resulting age-mass diagram for the 195
245: clusters for which an age estimate is available. For both samples an
246: increase in the upper and lower mass boundaries with age can be seen.
247: The increasing upper mass boundary is due to a size of sample effect, since the
248: $x$-axis is the logarithm of age. For a constant cluster formation
249: rate, more clusters are formed in each dex for increasing $\log t$.
250: For a power-law cluster initial mass function (CIMF) with index $-2$
251: the upper boundary is expected to increase as a straight line with
252: slope +1 \citep{2003AJ....126.1836H, 2006A&A...450..129G}, in reasonable agreement with Fig.~\ref{fig1}.
253:
254: The sloping lower mass boundary is due to incompleteness, most likely because of evolutionary fading
255: of clusters with age.
256: Figure~\ref{fig1} clearly shows that the limiting cluster mass in the sample of RZ05 is not constant,
257: contrary to the assumption made by CFW06 in their analysis of the age
258: distribution. Note that CFW06 do not present an age-mass diagram in their work to support their assumption, but rely on the assumption that the sample ``is likely to be approximately surface brightness limited, rather than luminosity limited". In \S~\ref{sec3} we investigate the possible causes for incompleteness and the effect on the \dndt\ distribution in more detail.
259:
260: Because of the method used by HZ06 to define the cluster sample, the sample of RZ05 is not expected to be
261: magnitude limited only (see \S~\ref{sec3}).
262: In an attempt to quantify the increasing lower \mc\ as a function of age,
263: we empirically derive the mass limit above which 80\% of the clusters are
264: more massive ($\mcompl(t)$). The limit is chosen at 80\% since we find this to be the point where the mass function (at different ages) turns-over. This suggests the sample is relatively complete above this limit and highly incomplete below it.
265:
266: At intervals of 0.25 dex in $\log t$ we count the number of clusters in a bin with a width
267: of 0.5 dex.
268: The masses in the bin are sorted and we count from the highest mass until we have reached 80\%
269: of the total number in the bin. Note that this $\mcompl(t)$ is not the same as an 80\% completeness limit, or the detection limit, as usually derived from artificial cluster experiments, since we here have no information about clusters that did not make it into the sample. However, if we assume that the shape of the completeness curve (i.e. the function that describes the fraction of clusters that is retrieved as a function of mass), is not dependent on age, we can safely assume that the evolution of $\mcompl$ with age is the same shape as that for the completeness limit.
270:
271: The result of $\mcompl(t)$ is shown as triangles in Fig.~\ref{fig1}.
272: A polynomial fit is shown as a full line.
273: Note that the curve is located relatively high above the lower limit. If the sample had a ``hard'' detection limit and the cluster IMF
274: had an index of $-2$ and the cluster dissolution would be mass independent,
275: we would expect that at each age the $\mcompl(t)$ line is only a factor 1.25
276: higher in mass than the lower limit. Fig.~\ref{fig1} shows that the 80\% limit is at about an order
277: of magnitude higher mass than the absolute lower limit.
278: This implies the data is highly incomplete for low mass clusters.
279: In the next section we will compare
280: the $\mcompl(t)$ curve to different predictions.
281:
282: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
283:
284: \section{Incompleteness: limited by mass, by luminosity or a combination of both?}
285: \label{sec3}
286:
287: The interpretation of the empirical age distribution of the SMC clusters
288: depends strongly on how incompleteness affects the sample. Therefore,
289: we compare the empirically derived $\mcompl(t)$ curve to what is expected from
290: the selection procedure of HZ06 and RZ05.
291:
292: \subsection{A sample limited by the number of stars in a cluster}
293:
294: From the stellar catalogue HZ06 selected stars with $V<20.5$ mag.
295: They constructed number density images from which over-densities were detected.
296: This implies that only clusters with enough stars with $V<20.5$ could end up in the catalogue.
297:
298: We first assume that the number of stars with $V<20.5$ (\nlim) determines the limiting
299: cluster mass. We use the evolutionary isochrones of the Padova models for
300: $Z=0.004$ \citep{1994A&AS..106..275B,1996A&AS..117..113G,2000A&AS..141..371G} which were
301: converted to the $UBVRIJHK$ photometric system by \citet{2002A&A...391..195G}. We assume
302: a Salpeter stellar initial mass function (IMF) with lower mass of 0.5 \msun.
303: Stars below this mass
304: do not reach $V<20.5$ within the Hubble time.
305: The number
306: of stars with $V<20.5$ is counted for cluster models of different ages and masses
307: and we select only clusters with \nlim\ greater than some fixed number.
308: We adopted $\nlim = 25$ because the resulting mass-age relation agrees more or less
309: with the location of the \mcompl(t)\ line in Fig. 2.
310:
311: In Fig.~\ref{fig2} we show the result as a dotted line.
312: The curve is slowly increasing for $\log t\lesssim9$ and then rises. This transition occurs at
313: the age where the main sequence turn-off drops below $V=20.5$. Below that age a cluster
314: of a given mass has nearly constant \nlim, since the brightness of stars on the main sequence
315: is not varying much and the fraction of stars in \nlim\ that is on the main sequence is high.
316: When the turn-off drops below $V=20.5$, \nlim\ consists of RGB and AGB stars mainly.
317: Because the fraction of RGB and AGB stars in a cluster is small, but is responsible for the majority of the cluster luminosity, the minimum mass of a cluster
318: with $\nlim = 25$ steeply increases with age.
319:
320: \begin{figure}
321: \plotone{f2.eps}
322: \caption{The empirically derived $\mcompl(t)$ curve above which 80\% of the clusters
323: are located as derived in \S~\ref{sec2} and Fig.~\ref{fig1} (full line).
324: Also shown are the two predicted lines for the cluster models with a limiting mass evolution based
325: on the assumption of a constant number of stars brighter than $V<20.5$ (dotted line)
326: and on the assumption of a limiting cluster magnitude at $M_V < -4.5$ (dashed line).}
327: \label{fig2}
328: \end{figure}
329:
330:
331:
332: %***************************************************************************
333: \subsection{A sample limited by the total cluster luminosity}
334:
335: After HZ06 selected their clusters from the stellar density image,
336: as described in \S~\ref{sec2}, a visual inspection on the
337: original images was done. Only the unambiguous clusters were kept. After this,
338: they fitted surface brightness profiles to the remaining sources.
339: Only when a reliable surface brightness fit and photometry could be extracted, the
340: source was kept in their sample and called a ``star cluster". The total number of sources found from the
341: stellar density images was a factor of 4 higher than the final number of star clusters in
342: the catalogue (Zaritsky, private communication). This indicates that accurate photometry
343: was a strongly limiting factor in the selection of the clusters.
344: Since this last selection step relies
345: on the total luminosity of a cluster we may assume that the sample is mainly limited by
346: the magnitude of the clusters. To test this assumption,
347: we predict what is expected for the limiting
348: mass as a function of age for a constant magnitude limit.
349:
350: Star clusters are formed on a time-scale short enough that their
351: photometric evolution can be well described by Simple Stellar
352: Population (SSP) models. From these models it follows that the flux
353: of a star cluster scales approximately as a power-law with age
354: ($F_\lambda\propto t^{-\zeta}$), with $\zeta$ positive. The limiting
355: cluster mass as a function of age ($\mlim(t)$) of a sample that is
356: limited by an absolute magnitude at a certain wavelength ($\mllim$)
357: can be expressed in the magnitude evolution from an SSP model
358: ($\mlssp(t)$):
359:
360: \begin{equation}
361: \log\mlim(t)=\log\missp-0.4\,\left[\mllim-\mlssp(t)\right],
362: \label{eq:mlim1}
363: \end{equation}
364: where \missp\ is the initial mass of the cluster that is
365: described by the SSP model. For the \galev\ and \starburst\ version
366: that we use $\missp=10^6\,\msun$. When taking \missp\ as a constant
367: $\mlim(t)$ represents an initial mass, i.e. before mass loss due
368: to stellar evolution.
369:
370: Since $\log\missp(t)$
371: and $\mllim$ from Eq.~\ref{eq:mlim1} are constant and
372: $0.4\,\mlssp\propto -\log F_\lambda=\zeta\log t$, we can rewrite
373: Eq.~\ref{eq:mlim1} as
374:
375: \begin{equation}
376: \log\mlim(t)=\zeta\log t + C,
377: \label{eq:mlim2}
378: \end{equation}
379: %
380: with $C\equiv\log\missp-0.4\mllim$ (BL03).
381:
382: In Fig.~\ref{fig2} we show the
383: result of Eq.~\ref{eq:mlim1} as a dashed line for the \starburst\ models
384: with an adopted limiting magnitude of $\mvlim=-4.5$. This value was chosen because the resulting limiting
385: age-mass relation agrees more or less with the location of the
386: empirically derived $\mcompl(t)$ limit of Figs.~\ref{fig1} and \ref{fig2}.
387: Notice that this prediction matches the empirically derived $\mlim(t)$ quite well.
388: We especially note that this predicted relation fits the empirical one
389: much better than the $\nlim$ curve.
390:
391: {\it We conclude that the cluster sample of RZ05, used to derive the age distribution
392: of SMC clusters, is mainly magnitude limited.}
393:
394:
395:
396:
397: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
398: \section{THE AGE DISTRIBUTION OF SMC CLUSTERS}
399: \label{sec4}
400:
401: \subsection{The observed age distribution}
402: \label{subsec41}
403:
404:
405: The uncertainties in the age determinations of RZ05 are quite large,
406: mainly due to the photometric uncertainty of faint clusters. We take these
407: uncertainties into account when constructing the \dndt\ distribution.
408:
409: We represent the contribution by each
410: cluster to the age distribution as an asymmetric Gaussian,
411: with the lower width ($\sigma_-$) and
412: the upper width ($\sigma_+$) corresponding to the minimum and maximum age
413: ($t_-$ and $t_+$) derived by RZ05. RZ05 based these latter values on
414: the 90\% confidence range from their $\chi^2$ results
415: of the photometric age determination. This
416: corresponds to $1.6\sigma$. We assume a Gaussian spread in $\log t$,
417: since the errors in the age determination are roughly constant in
418: $\log t$ (mean $\Delta \log t\simeq0.25$). The definition of $\sigma_\pm$ is then
419: $\sigma_\pm\equiv|\log t_\pm-\log t|/1.6$. This results in
420: an asymmetric Gaussian profile for each cluster, where the left and right side
421: both have a surface of 0.5, such that the total contribution of each
422: cluster to the age distribution is 1. Some ages derived with \starburst\ have $\sigma_-=0$ or
423: $\sigma_+=0$. In that case we adopted a minimum uncertainty of
424: $\sigma_\pm=0.05$.
425: When all clusters are added in a large $\log t$ array of equal intervals in $\log t$,
426: each value of $\dr N$ (i.e. the number of clusters in that age interval) is
427: divided by the width of the bin in linear age, to construct the \dndt\
428: distribution.
429:
430:
431: In the left and right panel of Fig.~\ref{fig3} we present the smoothed
432: \dndt\ result for the \galev\ and \starburst\ modelling, respectively.
433: The full line represents the
434: full data set. We estimated Poisson errors by counting the number of
435: clusters in bins of width 0.25 dex, corresponding to the mean uncertainty in the log age values of RZ05. The $1\sigma$ Poisson errors are shown as a grey shaded
436: region. Note that we do not normalize the cluster age distribution to the stellar age
437: distribution, as was done by RZ05. This to compare our results to the results of CFW06,
438: who also construct the unnormalized cluster age distribution.
439:
440: This representation of the \dndt\ distribution takes into account the increasing
441: age interval for increasing width of the age intervals. The number of clusters
442: per logarithmic age bin actually slightly
443: increases with $\log t$, which reflects the small increase in number
444: density that can be seen in Fig.~\ref{fig1}. Note that $\dndt\propto t^{-1}$ implies
445: a constant number of clusters in constant $\log t$ bins.
446:
447: In Fig.~\ref{fig3} we also show a binned \dndt\ histogram as filled
448: circled with small error bars. The sizes of the bins are chosen such that
449: there are $17$ clusters in each bin (following
450: \citealt{2005ApJ...629..873M}). This results in a total of 10 bins
451: over a range of $\sim4.5$ age dex. The obtained average bin width is
452: then 0.35 dex, which is larger than the mean error in the age
453: determination making it suitable for a fit where we only take into account the uncertainties
454: in the direction of the $y$-axis.
455: The first bin starts at the age of the youngest
456: cluster and the last bin ends at the age of the oldest cluster. This
457: way of binning the data results in a \dndt\ distribution very similar
458: to the Gaussian smoothed version (Fig.~\ref{fig3}).
459:
460:
461: We fit a straight line to $\log(\dndt)$ vs. $\log t$ for $t<3\,$Gyr using a
462: $\chi^2$-error statistics minimization with bin weights ($W_i$) depending on the
463: standard deviation
464: of each bin ($\sigma_i$) as $W_i=1/\sigma_i^2$, which for this representation is
465: $W_i=\ln^2(10)\,N_i$. We find a slope, i.e. the power-law index, of
466: $-0.70\pm0.05$ if we use the \galev\ results and $-0.84\pm0.04$ if we
467: use the \starburst\ result. The mean index is thus $0.77\pm0.07$.\footnote{
468: If we ignore the bin weights in the fit, we find uncertainties on the indices
469: of 0.20 and 0.08
470: for the fits on \galev\ and \starburst, respectively. This could be the
471: explanation for the
472: large uncertainty of 0.15 found by CFW06 in their index of 0.85.}
473:
474: {\it We conclude that the observed age distribution in the age range of
475: $7 \lesssim \log t \lesssim 9.5$ can be approximated by a power-law with index $-0.77\pm0.07$.}
476:
477:
478: \begin{figure*}
479: \plottwo{f3a.eps}{f3b.eps}
480: \caption{Top: The age or \dndt\ distribution from \galev\ (left) and \starburst\ (right) results.
481: Full line: each cluster was represented by a Gaussian profile with $\sigma_\pm$ corresponding
482: to the minimum and maximum uncertainty in the age determination. The grey area corresponds to the
483: $1 \sigma$ uncertainty.
484: Dots with error bars: the age distribution shown as a histogram where the horizontal lines
485: indicating the variable width of the age bins, where each bin contains 17 clusters (see text for details).
486: Thick dashed line: the predicted \dndt\ distributions for a sample limited by $\mcompl(t)$ of Fig.~\ref{fig1}. The thick dotted line represents a cluster sample limited by $\mcompl(t)$ combined with the mass independent disruption model which was suggested by CFW06. This distribution declines much more rapidly than the data.
487: Bottom panel: the ratio between the observed \dndt\ distribution and the predicted one for the sample
488: limited by $\mcompl(t)$.}
489: \label{fig3}
490: \end{figure*}
491:
492: %************************************************************************
493: \subsection{The predicted age distribution}
494: \label{subsec42}
495:
496:
497: Assume that a cluster population formed at a constant rate and with a
498: power-law CIMF with index $-\alpha$. Then, if there is {\it no dissolution},
499: the age distribution of all
500: clusters can be acquired by integrating over all masses from
501: $\mlim$ (from Eqs.~\ref{eq:mlim1} or \ref{eq:mlim2}) to $\mmax$
502: (BL03):
503:
504:
505: \begin{eqnarray}
506: \dndt&=&\int_{\mlim}^{\mmax} S\Mc^{-\alpha}\dr \Mc\nonumber\\
507: &=&\frac{S}{1-\alpha}\left[(\mmax)^{1-\alpha}-(\mlim)^{1-\alpha}\right]\nonumber\\
508: &\propto&1/\mlim
509: %
510: \label{eq:dndt}
511: \end{eqnarray}
512: where $S$ describes the cluster formation rate. In the last steps we have used $\alpha=2$
513: and $\mmax >> \mlim$.
514: If the sample is magnitude limited, as we have shown in \S~\ref{sec3}, with $\mlim \propto t^{\zeta}$
515: then the age distribution scales with $t$ as $\dndt \propto t^{-\zeta}$. So we expect a slope $-\zeta$ in the logarithmic representation of the \dndt\ distribution (Fig.~\ref{fig3}).
516: On the other hand, for a sample that is mass limited (corresponding to
517: \mlim\ being constant) without dissolution the age distribution would be flat.
518:
519: The value of $\zeta$ can be determined by
520: approximating $\log \mssp(t)$ vs. $\log t$ following from SSP models
521: by a straight line. For ages smaller than $3\,$Gyr, the value of
522: $\zeta$ derived from the \galev\ models are [1.02, 0.89, 0.72, 0.63,
523: 0.58] for $U,B,V,R$ and $I$, respectively. For the \starburst\ models
524: we find [0.93, 0.78, 0.66, 0.60, 0.54] for the same filters,
525: respectively.
526: So, for a cluster sample formed with constant formation rate, not affected by
527: disruption and limited by a detection in the $V$ band, the predicted age distribution
528: is a power-law with index $\sim-0.7$, in agreement with the observations (\S~\ref{subsec41}).
529:
530:
531:
532:
533: Using the empirically derived $\mlim(t)$ from Figs.~\ref{fig1} and \ref{fig2}, we predict the \dndt\ distribution for a cluster sample that is not affected by any disruption and thus declines as $[\mcompl(t)]^{-1}$ (thick dashed lines in Fig.~\ref{fig3}). The prediction and the observed data are normalized at $\log t =8.5$. The prediction describes the overall decline and the details in the shape of the observed \dndt\ distribution very well. {\it This suggests that there are no signs for cluster disruption present in this data set and the declining \dndt\ distribution can be explained by incompleteness only.}
534:
535: To illustrate the combined effect of disruption and incompleteness, we also show the \dndt\ distribution for a sample where we apply the 90\% reduction of clusters each age dex, as suggested by CFW06 (thick dotted line), also normalized to the data at $\log t =8.5$. We stress that the mass independent disruption model of CFW06 works in addition to incompleteness, such that both make the \dndt\ distribution steeper. Therefore, a fallacious assumption that a cluster sample is mass limited, while it is in reality luminosity limited, will lead to a confusion between disruption and incompleteness.
536:
537:
538: The nice agreement between the observed \dndt\ distribution and the $[\mcompl(t)]^{-1}$ curve implies that {\it the
539: observed age distribution of the SMC clusters with ages $\log t/{\rm yr} \lesssim 9.5$
540: can be explained by evolutionary fading only, without the need for mass independent dissolution.} The fact that there is no evidence for infant mortality at young ages ($\lesssim30\,$Myr) is most likely due to a bias of clusters without nebular emission (HZ06), which typically have such young ages. We expect that the effect of gas removal must destroy young (few Myrs) clusters in the SMC, but we conclude that the sample under discussion here is not suitable to investigate this phenomenon in detail. In a future study we will investigate the infant mortality rate of young star clusters in the SMC using different techniques \citep{gieles07}.
541:
542: Also tidal evaporation does not affect the \dndt\ distribution for SMC clusters
543: with ages $\lesssim 3\,$Gyr. This agrees with the long survival times
544: ($\gtrsim6\,$Gyr for masses $\ge10^4\,\msun$) predicted by $N$-body
545: simulations of clusters dissolving in weak tidal fields (e.g. \citealt{2003MNRAS.340..227B}).
546:
547:
548: %************************************************************************
549: \subsection{The age distribution of a mass limited sub-sample}
550: \label{subsec43}
551: The results of CFW06 are based on the assumption that the RZ05 sample
552: of clusters is mass limited. To show the effect of a mass limit
553: on the age distribution we compare the cumulative age distribution
554: of the clusters with and without mass limit to the predictions.
555: Such a cumulative distribution is preferred over constructing a histogram when only a small number of clusters is available, as is the case when applying a (relatively high) mass cut (see Fig.~\ref{fig1}).
556:
557:
558: Fig.~\ref{fig4} shows the cumulative age distributions divided by the age range from the minimum age in the sample ($\tmin$): $\ncum/(t-\tmin)$. This representation has the advantage that it resembles a \dndt\ distribution. The full SMC cluster sample is shown as thick full lines and the sub-sample of clusters with masses above $3\times10^3$ \msun\ is shown as thick dashed lines, using the
559: masses and ages derived by using the \galev\ models (left panel) and the \starburst\
560: models (right panel). The grey areas of each distribution indicates the $1\sigma$
561: uncertainty due to Poisson statistics. Note that the sub-sample with the mass cut is flat up to $\sim1\,$Gyr, while the full sample is declining. Signs of flattening are also present in the \dndt\ histogram of CFW06 (their Fig.~1) for a sub-sample with $M>10^3\,\msun$. The authors also note this flattening and argue that ``the mass-limited sample is somewhat shallower than the one constructed from the entire sample, since there are relatively few clusters more massive than $10^3\,\msun$ at very young ages." While this is indeed the correct explanation for why the \dndt\ distribution of a mass-limited sub-sample is flatter, it should not be the case in their suggested scenario. In their scenario, the number of clusters in $\log t$ bins of equal width should be constant. Using the \galev\ results, we find 36 clusters with masses above $3\times10^3\,\msun$, and ages between $10^{8.75}\,$yr and $10^{9.25}\,$yr, while there are 0 clusters above this mass limit with ages between $10^{6.75}\,$yr and $10^{7.25}\,$yr. According to the model of CFW06 these numbers should be the same. In addition, we show in Fig.~\ref{fig1} that a mass cut at $10^3\,\msun$ is not high enough to be safely above the increasing limiting mass up to ¼\,Gyr. A mass cut at $3\,10^3\,\msun$ would be a safer choice. Therefore, we will consider this limit.
562:
563: \begin{figure*}
564: \plotone{f4.eps}
565: \caption{The cumulative age distribution (\ncum) normalized to $(t-\tmin)$ for the \galev\ (left) and \starburst\ (right) results. The total sample is shown with thick full lines, with the results of the power-law fits overplotted as thin lines. Eq.~\ref{eq:cum1} was used to relate the power-law function to \ncum. The resulting distributions after a mass cut at $\log M=3.5$ is applied are shown as thick dashed lines. The predictions for a flat \dndt\ distribution, up to the age for which the sample is expected not to be affected by incompleteness ($\sim1\,$Gyr, see Fig.~\ref{fig1}), are also flat in this representation (see text and Eq.~\ref{eq:cum1} for details) and are shown as dotted lines.}
566: \label{fig4}
567: \end{figure*}
568:
569:
570: We compare these cumulative distributions with those predicted for the power-law fits to \dndt.
571: If $\dndt=C\,t^{-\eta}$, then the \ncum\ depends on $t$ as
572:
573: \begin{equation}
574: \ncum = \frac{C}{1-\eta} \left[ t^{1-\eta}-t^{1-\eta}_{\rm min} \right ] ,
575: ~~{\rm if}~~\eta\ne1.
576: \label{eq:cum1}
577: \end{equation}
578: %
579: We adopt $\tmin=3\,$Myr, since this is the youngest age present in the SSP models.
580:
581:
582:
583: In \S~\ref{subsec41} we have shown that for the full sample $\eta=0.70$ and
584: $\eta=0.84$ for \galev\ and \starburst, respectively.
585: The resulting predicted cumulative
586: distribution (Eq.~\ref{eq:cum1}), again normalized to $(t-\tmin$), is shown by the thin full line. Notice that it agrees with the
587: empirical distribution within about $2\sigma$. For a sample that is mass limited
588: above the detection limit and does not loose clusters by dissolution, i.e. $\eta=0$,
589: the expected distribution will be flat in the representation of Fig.~\ref{fig4}.
590: The thin dotted lines
591: in Fig. \ref{fig4} show the predicted distributions. Again, these agree with the
592: observed cumulative distributions up to an age of $\sim1\,$Gyr, corresponding to the maximum age for which the sample of cluster with $\log M=3.5$ is not affected by the $\mcompl(t)$ line (Fig.~\ref{fig1}). Beyond this age the distribution declines in a similar way as the full distribution, which is because even for the relatively high mass cut, the sample is affected by incompleteness in the same way as the full sample.
593:
594:
595:
596:
597: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
598:
599: \section{COMPARISON TO OTHER STUDIES}
600: \label{sec5}
601:
602:
603:
604: We first compare our results to other studies on the SMC star
605: clusters. This is particularly interesting since there appears to be a
606: large variation between the different data sets and their
607: interpretations.
608:
609: One of the first detailed analyses of the age distribution was done by
610: \citet{1987PASP...99..724H}. The age distribution presented in that
611: work looks quite different from the one shown here and in RZ05 and
612: CFW06. It is flat up to almost 1 Gyr and then has a steep drop. This
613: is quite similar to what is found in a recent study by
614: \citet{2006A&A...452..179C} (their Fig.~10) who also present an age distribution for
615: SMC clusters that is nearly flat the first
616: $\sim10^8\,$yr. \citet{1987PASP...99..724H} detects stars down to
617: $B\simeq22-23$ and \citet{2006A&A...452..179C} even down to
618: $V\simeq24$. Both studies derive their ages with isochrone fitting
619: techniques. This makes it possible to determine the age even if only a
620: few stars are available. Assuming that at young ages
621: ($\lesssim$few 100$\,$Myrs) all clusters are detected, a flat distribution is expected
622: until the age that the fading or disruption starts to remove clusters
623: from the sample. Using the sample of \citet{1987PASP...99..724H}
624: BL03 argued that the dissolution time of clusters in the SMC is very long and of the
625: order of 8 Gyr for a cluster of $10^4$ \Msun. This agrees with the fact that we
626: do not find evidence for dissolution up to ages of about 3 Gyr from the RZ05 sample. We note that \citet{2006A&A...452..179C} present 2 age distributions. The one we refer to here is for clusters which were classified C (=genuine star clusters) by \citet{2000AJ....119.1214B}. In their Fig.~7 \citet{2006A&A...452..179C} also present an approximately flat age distribution, defined as $\dr N/\dr \log t$, which corresponds to $\dndt\propto t^{-1}$. However, we note that this sample includes all large OB associations, with sizes much larger ($\gtrsim20\,$pc) than typical star clusters ($\sim5\,$pc).
627:
628: HZ06 and RZ05 consider only stars with $V<20.5$
629: for the selection of their clusters. This cut in the stellar sample is
630: $\sim2-3$ magnitudes brighter than the one on the stellar sample
631: mentioned before. In addition, the broad band photometry of RZ05 was
632: based on \citet{1962AJ.....67..471K} and EFF
633: \citep{1987ApJ...323...54E} profile fits to the surface brightness
634: profile of clusters. More stars are needed for a good profile fit to the surface
635: brightness profile than for an isochrone fit, which results in less clusters in
636: the sample of RZ05 than in the samples of \citet{1987ApJ...323...54E} and \citet{2006A&A...452..179C}.
637: This idea is supported by the larger number of clusters found
638: in the deeper studies of \citet{1987PASP...99..724H} and \citet{2006A&A...452..179C},
639: viz. 327 and 311, respectively. This supports our conclusion that incompleteness effects are more important in the sample of RZ05.
640:
641: Comparing our results to those of CFW06, based on the same cluster sample of RZ05,
642: we note that our interpretation of the age distribution is drastically different.
643: CFW06 assumed that the cluster sample of RZ05 is mass limited. They fit the age
644: distribution of the clusters with a power-law of index $-0.85\pm0.15$, and argue that this is consistent within $1\sigma$ with
645: mass independent dissolution in which the number of clusters decreases
646: by a factor 10 per age-dex, up to an age of about 3 Gyr. We have shown
647: that the index of the age distribution is $-0.77\pm0.07$ (\S~\ref{subsec41}), i.e. consistent with $-1$ only within $3.3\sigma$.
648: Moreover (and more importantly), we have shown
649: in \S~2 that the cluster sample is not mass limited, as is already clear
650: from the distribution of the clusters in the age-mass diagram of Fig. \ref{fig1}.
651: We have given arguments that the cluster sample is approximately magnitude limited.
652: This follows both from the way in which RZ05 have defined their cluster sample
653: and from the observed $80\%$ limit of the stars in Fig. \ref{fig1}. This limit
654: has a very similar slope as that expected for a sample that is limited by the visual
655: magnitude (Fig.~\ref{fig2}). The observed index of $-0.77\pm0.07$ is very similar to the
656: one predicted for a sample is magnitude limited in the $V$-band (0.72 for \galev\
657: models and 0.66 for \starburst\ models) if the number of clusters decreases only
658: by evolutionary fading below the magnitude limit.
659: We thereby
660: rule out the need for the infant mortality scenario that proceeds up to
661: 3 Gyrs as interpreted by CFW06.
662:
663: From theoretical arguments
664: it is expected that infant mortality works on a much shorter
665: time-scale ($\sim10-20\,$Myr), due to the removal of gas that has not
666: been used to form stars
667: (e.g. \citealt{1997MNRAS.286..669G,2003MNRAS.338..673B}).
668: The lack of a strong bump in the age distribution of the SMC clusters at young ages ($\lesssim30\,$Myr), as was found for the clusters in M51 \citep{2005A&A...431..905B} and the Antennae galaxies \citep{2005ApJ...631L.133F},
669: is probably because
670: the SMC sample of HZ06 has a bias towards clusters without
671: strong nebular emission.
672:
673:
674:
675:
676: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
677: \section{CONCLUSIONS}
678: \label{sec6}
679: We conclude that the observed age distribution of the RZ05 sample of the SMC clusters
680: agrees with that predicted for a cluster sample that is magnitude limited
681: and in which the age distribution in terms of \dndt\ is decreasing with age
682: by evolutionary fading of the clusters. There is no need to invoke a
683: mass independent infant mortality that extends to 3 Gyr and destroys
684: 90\% of the clusters every age dex, as suggested by CFW06. In fact,
685: for a magnitude limited cluster sample with an extended independent mass infant mortality, the
686: age distribution would decrease much steeper with age than observed.
687:
688: Interestingly, our result also explains the nearly
689: flat age distribution of the {\it field stars} by RZ05, because not
690: many clusters are dissolved between $10^7$ and $10^9$ yrs, i.e. after the infant
691: mortality phase. This is in contrast to the interpretation by CFW06 of a very long
692: mass independent disruption phase, because that model predicts a rapid increase
693: in the age distribution of the field stars due to the continuing contribution
694: of stars from dissolving clusters to the field. Such an increasing
695: age distribution of the field stars is not observed.
696:
697: In this paper we demonstrate that the interpretation of the
698: cluster age distribution is very sensitive to incompleteness effects
699: as a function of cluster age and to how these are taken into
700: account. For extra-galactic (slightly resolved) star clusters various
701: tests methods have been developed to quantify (in)completeness and its
702: dependence on cluster luminosity and radius (see
703: e.g. \citealt{2005A&A...431..905B, 2007A&A...464..495M}). For nearby
704: cluster samples such as the one of the SMC discussed here, it should
705: be possible to construct completeness curves as a function of
706: structural parameters of the clusters as well. By simulating star
707: clusters of different ages and masses, thereby taking into account the
708: luminosity evolution of the individual stars, and adding them to the
709: catalogues one can retrieve the artificial clusters from the catalogue
710: using the exact same cluster selection procedure as used for the
711: data. This procedure is beyond the scope of this paper, since we
712: mainly want to demonstrate that there is a degeneracy between
713: incompleteness effects and the mass independent disruption model of
714: CFW06.
715:
716: An important consequence of our result is that it confirms that
717: cluster life-times are strongly dependent on the environment in which
718: they evolve, which was already suggested by
719: \citet{1987PASP...99..724H} based on the difference in the age
720: distribution for clusters in the SMC and the solar neighbourhood (see
721: also \citealt{2005A&A...429..173L} for a comparison of cluster
722: life-times in four galaxies). In contrast to this,
723: \citet{2007AJ....133.1067W} use the result of CFW06 to show that the
724: cluster \dndt\ distributions in the Antennae galaxies and in the SMC
725: are very similar. Although it would simplify things if all clusters
726: evolve similarly the first Gyr, it is rather counter-intuitive since
727: then the evolution would not depend at all on the strength of the
728: tidal field and the number of giant molecular clouds. Our results
729: support a scenario where the life-time of clusters that have survived
730: the gas removal phase is determined mainly by environmental factors.
731:
732:
733:
734: %************************************************************************
735:
736:
737: \acknowledgments{We thank Bruce Elmegreen, Nate Bastian and S{\o}ren
738: Larsen for discussions and comments that improved the paper. We thank
739: the referee Dennis Zaritsky for discussion on the cluster
740: selection procedure and completeness. We are grateful to Evghenii
741: Gaburov for help and discussions on fitting. This research was
742: supported in part by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific
743: Research (NWO grant No. 643.200.503), the Netherlands Advanced School
744: for Astronomy (NOVA), the Royal Netherlands Academy for Arts and
745: Sciences (KNAW) and the Leids Kerkhoven-Bosscha fonds (LKBF).}
746:
747:
748: \bibliographystyle{apj}
749: \begin{thebibliography}{39}
750: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi
751:
752: \bibitem[{{Anders} \& {Fritze-v.~Alvensleben}(2003)}]{2003A&A...401.1063A}
753: {Anders}, P. \& {Fritze-v.~Alvensleben}, U. 2003, \aap, 401, 1063
754:
755: \bibitem[{{Bastian} {et~al.}(2005){Bastian}, {Gieles}, {Lamers}, {Scheepmaker},
756: \& {de Grijs}}]{2005A&A...431..905B}
757: {Bastian}, N., {Gieles}, M., {Lamers}, H.~J.~G.~L.~M., {Scheepmaker}, R.~A., \&
758: {de Grijs}, R. 2005, \aap, 431, 905
759:
760: \bibitem[{{Baumgardt} \& {Makino}(2003)}]{2003MNRAS.340..227B}
761: {Baumgardt}, H. \& {Makino}, J. 2003, \mnras, 340, 227
762:
763: \bibitem[{{Bertelli} {et~al.}(1994){Bertelli}, {Bressan}, {Chiosi}, {Fagotto},
764: \& {Nasi}}]{1994A&AS..106..275B}
765: {Bertelli}, G., {Bressan}, A., {Chiosi}, C., {Fagotto}, F., \& {Nasi}, E. 1994,
766: \aaps, 106, 275
767:
768: \bibitem[{{Bica} \& {Dutra}(2000)}]{2000AJ....119.1214B}
769: {Bica}, E. \& {Dutra}, C.~M. 2000, \aj, 119, 1214
770:
771: \bibitem[{{Boily} \& {Kroupa}(2003)}]{2003MNRAS.338..673B}
772: {Boily}, C.~M. \& {Kroupa}, P. 2003, \mnras, 338, 673
773:
774: \bibitem[{{Boutloukos} \& {Lamers}(2003)}]{2003MNRAS.338..717B}
775: {Boutloukos}, S.~G. \& {Lamers}, H.~J.~G.~L.~M. 2003, \mnras, 338, 717
776:
777: \bibitem[{{Chandar} {et~al.}(2006){Chandar}, {Fall}, \&
778: {Whitmore}}]{2006ApJ...650L.111C}
779: {Chandar}, R., {Fall}, S.~M., \& {Whitmore}, B.~C. 2006, \apjl, 650, L111
780:
781: \bibitem[{{Chernoff} \& {Weinberg}(1990)}]{1990ApJ...351..121C}
782: {Chernoff}, D.~F. \& {Weinberg}, M.~D. 1990, \apj, 351, 121
783:
784: \bibitem[{{Chiosi} {et~al.}(2006){Chiosi}, {Vallenari}, {Held}, {Rizzi}, \&
785: {Moretti}}]{2006A&A...452..179C}
786: {Chiosi}, E., {Vallenari}, A., {Held}, E.~V., {Rizzi}, L., \& {Moretti}, A.
787: 2006, \aap, 452, 179
788:
789: \bibitem[{{Clarke} {et~al.}(2000){Clarke}, {Bonnell}, \&
790: {Hillenbrand}}]{2000prpl.conf..151C}
791: {Clarke}, C.~J., {Bonnell}, I.~A., \& {Hillenbrand}, L.~A. 2000, Protostars and
792: Planets IV, 151
793:
794: \bibitem[{{Elson} {et~al.}(1987){Elson}, {Fall}, \&
795: {Freeman}}]{1987ApJ...323...54E}
796: {Elson}, R.~A.~W., {Fall}, S.~M., \& {Freeman}, K.~C. 1987, \apj, 323, 54
797:
798: \bibitem[{{Fall} {et~al.}(2005){Fall}, {Chandar}, \&
799: {Whitmore}}]{2005ApJ...631L.133F}
800: {Fall}, S.~M., {Chandar}, R., \& {Whitmore}, B.~C. 2005, \apjl, 631, L133
801:
802: \bibitem[{{Gieles} {et~al.}(2007){Gieles}, {Bastian}, \& {Ercolano}}]{gieles07}
803: {Gieles}, M., {Bastian}, N., \& {Ercolano}, B. 2007, in prep
804:
805: \bibitem[{{Gieles} {et~al.}(2006{\natexlab{a}}){Gieles}, {Larsen}, {Bastian},
806: \& {Stein}}]{2006A&A...450..129G}
807: {Gieles}, M., {Larsen}, S.~S., {Bastian}, N., \& {Stein}, I.~T.
808: 2006{\natexlab{a}}, \aap, 450, 129
809:
810: \bibitem[{{Gieles} {et~al.}(2006{\natexlab{b}}){Gieles}, {Portegies Zwart},
811: {Baumgardt}, {Athanassoula}, {Lamers}, {Sipior}, \&
812: {Leenaarts}}]{2006MNRAS.371..793G}
813: {Gieles}, M., {Portegies Zwart}, S.~F., {Baumgardt}, H., {Athanassoula}, E.,
814: {Lamers}, H.~J.~G.~L.~M., {Sipior}, M., \& {Leenaarts}, J.
815: 2006{\natexlab{b}}, \mnras, 371, 793
816:
817: \bibitem[{{Girardi} {et~al.}(2002){Girardi}, {Bertelli}, {Bressan}, {Chiosi},
818: {Groenewegen}, {Marigo}, {Salasnich}, \& {Weiss}}]{2002A&A...391..195G}
819: {Girardi}, L., {Bertelli}, G., {Bressan}, A., {Chiosi}, C., {Groenewegen},
820: M.~A.~T., {Marigo}, P., {Salasnich}, B., \& {Weiss}, A. 2002, \aap, 391, 195
821:
822: \bibitem[{{Girardi} {et~al.}(2000){Girardi}, {Bressan}, {Bertelli}, \&
823: {Chiosi}}]{2000A&AS..141..371G}
824: {Girardi}, L., {Bressan}, A., {Bertelli}, G., \& {Chiosi}, C. 2000, \aaps, 141,
825: 371
826:
827: \bibitem[{{Girardi} {et~al.}(1996){Girardi}, {Bressan}, {Chiosi}, {Bertelli},
828: \& {Nasi}}]{1996A&AS..117..113G}
829: {Girardi}, L., {Bressan}, A., {Chiosi}, C., {Bertelli}, G., \& {Nasi}, E. 1996,
830: \aaps, 117, 113
831:
832: \bibitem[{{Gnedin} \& {Ostriker}(1997)}]{1997ApJ...474..223G}
833: {Gnedin}, O.~Y. \& {Ostriker}, J.~P. 1997, \apj, 474, 223
834:
835: \bibitem[{{Goodwin}(1997)}]{1997MNRAS.286..669G}
836: {Goodwin}, S.~P. 1997, \mnras, 286, 669
837:
838: \bibitem[{{Goodwin} \& {Bastian}(2006)}]{2006MNRAS.tmp.1213G}
839: {Goodwin}, S.~P. \& {Bastian}, N. 2006, \mnras, 1213
840:
841: \bibitem[{{Harris} \& {Zaritsky}(2004)}]{2004AJ....127.1531H}
842: {Harris}, J. \& {Zaritsky}, D. 2004, \aj, 127, 1531
843:
844: \bibitem[{{Hill} \& {Zaritsky}(2006)}]{2006AJ....131..414H}
845: {Hill}, A. \& {Zaritsky}, D. 2006, \aj, 131, 414
846:
847: \bibitem[{{Hodge}(1987)}]{1987PASP...99..724H}
848: {Hodge}, P. 1987, \pasp, 99, 724
849:
850: \bibitem[{{Hunter} {et~al.}(2003){Hunter}, {Elmegreen}, {Dupuy}, \&
851: {Mortonson}}]{2003AJ....126.1836H}
852: {Hunter}, D.~A., {Elmegreen}, B.~G., {Dupuy}, T.~J., \& {Mortonson}, M. 2003,
853: \aj, 126, 1836
854:
855: \bibitem[{{King}(1962)}]{1962AJ.....67..471K}
856: {King}, I. 1962, \aj, 67, 471
857:
858: \bibitem[{{Lada} \& {Lada}(2003)}]{2003ARA&A..41...57L}
859: {Lada}, C.~J. \& {Lada}, E.~A. 2003, \araa, 41, 57
860:
861: \bibitem[{{Lamers} {et~al.}(2005){Lamers}, {Gieles}, \& {Portegies
862: Zwart}}]{2005A&A...429..173L}
863: {Lamers}, H.~J.~G.~L.~M., {Gieles}, M., \& {Portegies Zwart}, S.~F. 2005, \aap,
864: 429, 173
865:
866: \bibitem[{{Leitherer} {et~al.}(1999){Leitherer}, {Schaerer}, {Goldader},
867: {Delgado}, {Robert}, {Kune}, {de Mello}, {Devost}, \&
868: {Heckman}}]{1999ApJS..123....3L}
869: {Leitherer}, C., {Schaerer}, D., {Goldader}, J.~D., {Delgado}, R.~M.~G.,
870: {Robert}, C., {Kune}, D.~F., {de Mello}, D.~F., {Devost}, D., \& {Heckman},
871: T.~M. 1999, \apjs, 123, 3
872:
873: \bibitem[{{Ma{\'{\i}}z Apell{\'a}niz} \&
874: {{\'U}beda}(2005)}]{2005ApJ...629..873M}
875: {Ma{\'{\i}}z Apell{\'a}niz}, J. \& {{\'U}beda}, L. 2005, \apj, 629, 873
876:
877: \bibitem[Mora et al.(2007)]{2007A&A...464..495M} Mora, M.~D., Larsen,
878: S.~S., \& Kissler-Patig, M.\ 2007, \aap, 464, 495
879:
880: \bibitem[{{Ostriker} {et~al.}(1972){Ostriker}, {Spitzer}, \&
881: {Chevalier}}]{1972ApJ...176L..51O}
882: {Ostriker}, J.~P., {Spitzer}, L.~J., \& {Chevalier}, R.~A. 1972, \apjl, 176,
883: L51+
884:
885: \bibitem[{{Rafelski} \& {Zaritsky}(2005)}]{2005AJ....129.2701R}
886: {Rafelski}, M. \& {Zaritsky}, D. 2005, \aj, 129, 2701
887:
888: \bibitem[{{Schulz} {et~al.}(2002){Schulz}, {Fritze-v.~Alvensleben}, {M{\"
889: o}ller}, \& {Fricke}}]{2002A&A...392....1S}
890: {Schulz}, J., {Fritze-v.~Alvensleben}, U., {M{\" o}ller}, C.~S., \& {Fricke},
891: K.~J. 2002, \aap, 392, 1
892:
893: \bibitem[{{Spitzer}(1958)}]{1958ApJ...127...17S}
894: {Spitzer}, L.~J. 1958, \apj, 127, 17
895:
896: \bibitem[{{Takahashi} \& {Portegies Zwart}(2000)}]{2000ApJ...535..759T}
897: {Takahashi}, K. \& {Portegies Zwart}, S.~F. 2000, \apj, 535, 759
898:
899: \bibitem[{{Vesperini} \& {Heggie}(1997)}]{1997MNRAS.289..898V}
900: {Vesperini}, E. \& {Heggie}, D.~C. 1997, \mnras, 289, 898
901:
902: \bibitem[{{Whitmore} {et~al.}(2007){Whitmore}, {Chandar}, \&
903: {Fall}}]{2007AJ....133.1067W}
904: {Whitmore}, B.~C., {Chandar}, R., \& {Fall}, S.~M. 2007, \aj, 133, 1067
905:
906: \bibitem[{{Zaritsky} {et~al.}(1997){Zaritsky}, {Harris}, \&
907: {Thompson}}]{1997AJ....114.1002Z}
908: {Zaritsky}, D., {Harris}, J., \& {Thompson}, I. 1997, \aj, 114, 1002
909:
910: \end{thebibliography}
911:
912:
913:
914: \clearpage
915:
916:
917:
918: \end{document}
919:
920: % LocalWords: MAGELLANIC Gieles Henny Lamers Portegies Zwart Utrecht CC Anton
921: % LocalWords: Princetonplein Casilla Pannekoek Kruislaan SJ Magellanic
922:
923:
924: