1: %% Beginning of file 'sample.tex'

2: %%

3: %% Modified 2005 June 21

4: %%

5: %% This is a sample manuscript marked up using the

6: %% AASTeX v5.x LaTeX 2e macros.

7: 

8: %% The first piece of markup in an AASTeX v5.x document

9: %% is the \documentclass command. LaTeX will ignore

10: %% any data that comes before this command.

11: 

12: %% The command below calls the preprint style

13: %% which will produce a one-column, single-spaced document.

14: %% Examples of commands for other substyles follow. Use

15: %% whichever is most appropriate for your purposes.

16: %%

17: 

18: %%\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}

19: 

20: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:

21: 

22: %%\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}

23: 

24: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:

25: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}

26: \usepackage{amssymb,natbib,epsfig}

27: %\documentclass[preprint1]{aastex}

28: %\usepackage{emulateapj5,amssymb}

29: 

30: %\oddsidemargin 0.1cm

31: %\evensidemargin 0.1cm

32: 

33: %% Sometimes a paper's abstract is too long to fit on the

34: %% title page in preprint2 mode. When that is the case,

35: %% use the longabstract style option.

36: 

37: %% \documentclass[preprint2,longabstract]{aastex}

38: 

39: %% If you want to create your own macros, you can do so

40: %% using \newcommand. Your macros should appear before

41: %% the \begin{document} command.

42: %%

43: %% If you are submitting to a journal that translates manuscripts

44: %% into SGML, you need to follow certain guidelines when preparing

45: %% your macros. See the AASTeX v5.x Author Guide

46: %% for information.

47: 

48: \newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}

49: \newcommand{\myemail}{}

50: 

51: %% You can insert a short comment on the title page using the command below.

52: 

53: \slugcomment{Accepted for publication in ApJ}

54: 

55: %% If you wish, you may supply running head information, although

56: %% this information may be modified by the editorial offices.

57: %% The left head contains a list of authors,

58: %% usually a maximum of three (otherwise use et al.).  The right

59: %% head is a modified title of up to roughly 44 characters.

60: %% Running heads will not print in the manuscript style.

61: 

62: \shorttitle{Star-disk Interaction in NGC 2264 and Orion}

63: \shortauthors{Cieza \& Baliber}

64: 

65: %% This is the end of the preamble.  Indicate the beginning of the

66: %% paper itself with \begin{document}.

67: 

68: \begin{document}

69: 

70: %% LaTeX will automatically break titles if they run longer than

71: %% one line. However, you may use \\ to force a line break if

72: %% you desire.

73: 

74: \title{Testing the Disk Regulation Paradigm with Spitzer Observations. II. \\

75: A Clear Signature of Star-Disk Interaction in NGC 2264 and the Orion Nebula Cluster}

76: 

77: %% Use \author, \affil, and the \and command to format

78: %% author and affiliation information.

79: %% Note that \email has replaced the old \authoremail command

80: %% from AASTeX v4.0. You can use \email to mark an email address

81: %% anywhere in the paper, not just in the front matter.

82: %% As in the title, use \\ to force line breaks.

83: 

84: \author{Lucas Cieza}

85: \affil{Astronomy Department, University of Texas at Austin \\ 

86:        1 University Station C1400, Austin, TX 78712}

87: \email{lcieza@astro.as.utexas.edu}

88: 

89: \and

90: 

91: \author{Nairn Baliber}

92: \affil{Las Cumbres Observatory Global Telescope and \\

93:        University of California, Santa Barbara\\

94:        6740 Cortona Dr. Ste 102, Goleta, CA 93117}

95: \email{baliber@lcogt.net}

96: 

97: 

98: \begin{abstract}

99: Observations of PMS star rotation periods reveal slow rotators in

100: young clusters of various ages, indicating that angular momentum is

101: somehow removed from these rotating masses.  The mechanism by which

102: spin-up is regulated as young stars contract has been one of the

103: longest-standing problems in star formation.  Attempts to

104: observationally confirm the prevailing theory that magnetic

105: interaction between the star and its circumstellar disk regulates

106: these rotation periods have produced mixed results.  In this paper, we

107: use the unprecedented disk identification capability of the {\it

108: Spitzer} Space Telescope to test the star-disk interaction paradigm in

109: two young clusters, NGC 2264 and the Orion Nebula Cluster (ONC). We

110: show that once mass effects and sensitivity biases are removed, a

111: clear increase in the disk fraction with period can be observed in

112: both clusters across the entire period range populated by cluster

113: members.  We also show that the long-period peak (P $\sim$8 days) of

114: the bimodal distribution observed for high-mass stars in the ONC is

115: dominated by a population of stars possessing a disk, while the

116: short-period peak (P $\sim$2 days) is dominated by a population of

117: stars without a disk.  Our results represent the strongest evidence to

118: date that star-disk interaction regulates the angular momentum of

119: these young stars.  This study will make possible quantitative

120: comparisons between the observed period distributions of stars with

121: and without a disk and numerical models of the angular momentum

122: evolution of young stars.

123: 

124: \end{abstract}

125: 

126: \keywords{}

127: 

128: \section{Introduction}

129: For many years, the loss of angular momentum in the evolution of

130: pre-main-sequence (PMS) stars was a fundamental problem in the theory of star

131: formation.  As PMS stars contract by a factor of $\sim$\,2\,--\,3 during their

132: first 3\,Myrs of evolution, models assuming homologous contraction and

133: conservation of angular momentum dictate that all stars less than

134: $\sim$1.2\,${\rm M}_{\odot}$ should rotate with periods shorter than $\sim$2

135: days by an age of 2\,Myrs \citep{dantona98,herbst00a}.  However, observations

136: of clusters determined to be $\sim$2\,Myrs old or older show that most PMS

137: stars rotate much slower than expected.  Interaction between the magnetic

138: field of a young star and the inner regions of its protoplanetary disk has

139: been invoked by virtually every rotational evolution model as the mechanism by

140: which the rotation periods of these stars are regulated as they evolve onto

141: the main sequence \citep{konigl91,shu94,hartmann02,matt05}.

142: 

143: A first-order prediction of these models is stars interacting with their disks

144: should have longer rotation periods than stars that have already lost their

145: disks, leaving them free to spin up as they contract \citep{herbst05}.  Early

146: observations of rotation periods of PMS stars, obtained by monitoring the

147: brightness modulation produced by stellar surface features, seemed to support

148: the star-disk interaction scenario for angular momentum regulation.  

149: 

150: Some studies showed correlations between rotation period and ground-based disk

151: indicators \citep[most commonly excess K-band emission, e.g.][]{herbst02} and

152: interpreted these results as strong evidence for star-disk interaction,

153: claiming that stars with longer periods were rotating more slowly because they

154: had transferred angular momentum to their disks

155: \citep{edwards93,herbst00a,herbst02,lamm05}.  This interpretation suffers from

156: several problems as various issues can mask or mimic the correlation, such as

157: sample size, sensitivity biases, mass effects, and, most importantly,

158: ambiguous disk indicators.  Therefore, the correlation between infrared (IR)

159: excess and rotation period was challenged by studies which failed to find any

160: correlation between rotation period and a range of disk and accretion

161: indicators in various clusters

162: \citep{stassun99,rebull01,rebull04,makidon04,littlefair05}.  

163: The current work presents conclusive evidence that star-disk interaction

164: is the mechanism by which PMS angular momentum is regulated.

165: 

166: The ability to overcome the confusion surrounding the angular momentum problem

167: arrived with the acquisition of {\it Spitzer} mid-IR observations sensitive

168: enough to unambiguously determine the presence of a disk around PMS stars in

169: the IRAC band passes.  In a study of the young cluster IC\,348

170: \citep[][hereafter, Paper I]{cieza06}, we find that 8.0\,$\mu$m data are needed

171: to clearly identify all of the disks in a given sample of stars (fig. 5)

172: \citep[see also][]{hartmann05,rebull06}.  

173: 

174: Both the near infrared (NIR) and IRAC wavelengths trace the inner rim

175: of the disk \citep{allen04,cieza05}. However, since the

176: magnitude of the IR excess over the stellar photosphere is much larger

177: at IRAC wavelengths than it is at NIR wavelengths (e.g., 2MASS

178: wavelengths), IRAC observations, unlike ground-based studies, are

179: sensitive enough to unambiguously determine the presence of a disk

180: around PMS stars.

181: 

182: It might be argued that the sensitivity of the 8.0 $\mu$m excess

183: allows detection of both active, accreting disks and passive disks

184: which no longer interact with their parent stars.  However, the fact

185: that the presence of an IRAC excess does not guarantee that the stars

186: are {\it currently} accreting does not affect our conclusions for

187: multiple reasons.  First, disk dissipation timescales (the time it

188: takes for a given disk to dissipate once it has begun that process)

189: are much shorter than the mean accretion disk lifetimes.  For

190: instance, from the ratio of the number of weak-line T Tauri stars

191: (WTTS) with IRAC excesses to the number of PMS stars (WTTS plus

192: classical T Tauri Stars, CTTS), \citet{cieza07} estimate the

193: transition timescale from optically thick accretion disks to disks

194: undetectable at IRAC wavelengths to be 0.4 Myrs, a factor of $\sim$10

195: smaller than typical accretion disk lifetimes.  This timescale is very

196: similar to the transition timescale between an optically thick disk

197: and an optically thin disk found by \citet{skrutskie90} and

198: \citet{wolk96}, based on the number of ``transition objects,'' which

199: they define as targets without K-band excess but with strong IRAS

200: excesses.  Thus, if an object presently shows an IRAC excess, it is

201: much more likely than not to be accreting.

202: 

203: Moreover, once star-disk interaction stops, it takes some time for

204: stars to spin up significantly.  This ``reaction lag-time'' will tend

205: to compensate for the ``detectability lag-time'' (the time between the

206: end of star-disk interaction and the point at which the disk is no

207: longer detectable at IRAC wavelengths).  As a result, IRAC 8 $\mu$m

208: excess is arguably the best current method with which to reliably

209: detect the presence of an inner circumstellar disk and study the

210: effects of star-disk interaction on the angular momentum history of

211: young stars.

212: 

213: 

214: 

215: 

216: 

217: In this paper, we present a new study of the angular momentum history of two

218: young stellar clusters, the ONC ($\sim$1 Myr) and NGC 2264 ($\sim$2-3

219: Myrs). In \S\ref{previous}, we discuss results from previous work on these two

220: clusters and IC 348, the other well-studied PMS star cluster, detailing the

221: important factors, such as accurate disk identification and sample selection,

222: needed to isolate the effects of circumstellar disks on the current rotation

223: period distributions of young clusters.  In \S\ref{results}, we describe our

224: new results from NGC 2264, using rotation periods from the literature and

225: public {\it Spitzer} data, and a reanalysis of the data in the ONC study

226: presented by \citet{rebull06}, using the same mass sample for each study, with

227: a stricter sample selection in the ONC because of the different extinction

228: levels in that cluster. In \S\ref{discussion}, we compare the two results and

229: discuss robust Monte Carlo simulations, already underway, which will determine

230: what star and disk evolution parameters are allowed given the current rotation

231: period distributions of stars with and without a disk in each cluster.  Future

232: work on the subject is also proposed.  Our conclusions are summarized in

233: \S\ref{conclusion}.

234: 

235: \section{Previous Observational Results}\label{previous}

236: Three clusters have been studied extensively to produce rotation periods from

237: photometric monitoring campaigns, spectral types from spectroscopy and

238: photometric colors, and disk identification from various disk

239: indicators.  Until {\it Spitzer} mid-IR data became available, disk

240: identification was limited to ground-based color excesses, mostly in the

241: NIR, and H$\alpha$ equivalent widths.

242: 

243: These indicators, however, have not provided disk identification accurate

244: and reliable enough to study the effect circumstellar disks have had

245: throughout the lives of PMS stars at the age of these clusters.  The

246: correlation between rotation period and NIR color excess can be masked by

247: biases introduced by these data.  For instance, it has been shown that the

248: NIR disk indicator misses 30\% of the disks that can be detected at longer

249: wavelengths \citep{hillenbrand98}. Also, the ground-based photometry used to

250: calculate the excess most often comes from different epochs, which can affect

251: the results due to the high photometric variability of these stars

252: \citep{rebull01}.

253: 

254: 

255: Moreover, correlations between rotation period and

256: NIR excess can be caused by a secondary effect of the correlation between

257: mass and rotation period, in a sense mimicking the result expected from

258: star-disk interaction \citep{littlefair05}.  

259: As shown by previous work \citep{herbst00a,herbst02,lamm05,cieza06}, rotation

260: period distributions of PMS stars are highly dependent on mass.  PMS stars of

261: later spectral types behave differently than do stars M2 and earlier,

262: corresponding to masses of M $\ge$ 0.25M$_{\odot}$ at the ages of these

263: clusters, according to theoretical evolutionary tracks \citep{dantona98}

264: (hereafter, high-mass stars). 

265: ONC high-mass stars show a bimodal period distribution, while low-mass stars

266: rotate more rapidly than the high-mass stars, with a unimodal distribution

267: peaking at $\sim$2 days and a tail of longer periods \citep{herbst01}.  In NGC

268: 2264, the high-mass stars do not show a clear bimodal distribution, but

269: they do rotate more slowly than the low-mass population.  The low-mass period

270: distribution is also more sharply peaked than the high-mass distribution.  Due

271: to the difference in the color contrast between the stellar photosphere

272: and the inner disk, NIR excess tends to be greater for high-mass stars

273: than for low-mass stars \citep{hillenbrand98}, and since lower mass stars tend

274: to rotate faster than higher mass stars, this can result in a correlation

275: between NIR excess and rotation period that is not necessarily connected

276: to star-disk interaction.  Therefore, these two different populations must be

277: studied separately.

278: 

279: {\it Spitzer}'s Infrared Array Camera (IRAC, 3.6--8.0 $\mu$m) \citep{fazio04}

280: allows the first observations sensitive enough at mid-IR wavelengths to

281: accurately determine the presence of inner circumstellar disks for a

282: statistically significant number of PMS stars with known rotation periods.

283: The observations at every IRAC wavelength are also observed concurrently,

284: overcoming previous limitations caused by stellar magnitude variations between

285: observations.  However, even with an accurate identification of circumstellar

286: disks, biases and selection effects can still mask useful measurements of the

287: effects of star-disk interaction on young stellar populations.  As discussed

288: in \S\ref{data} and \S\ref{results}, selecting a uniform and complete sample

289: of stars is critical in order to be able to detect the role star-disk

290: interaction has on the angular momentum evolution of PMS stars.  What follows

291: is a more detailed discussion of the mixed results of

292: previous searches for the effects of star-disk interaction on rotation

293: period distributions in each cluster.

294: 

295: \subsection{NGC 2264}

296:  

297: Virtually all $\sim$500 known rotation periods in NGC 2264 can be

298: collected from two studies \citep{makidon04,lamm05}.

299: \citet{makidon04} conduct a study of 201 stars in this cluster. They

300: examine the hypothesis that star-disk interaction regulates the

301: angular momentum of PMS stars by searching for a correlation between

302: rotation period and 4 different disk indicators (U-V, I$_C$--K$_s$,

303: H--K$_s$, and H$\alpha$). They find ``no conclusive evidence that more

304: slowly rotating stars have disk indicators, or that faster rotating

305: stars are less likely to have disk indicators.''  \citet{lamm05}

306: investigate the disk regulation hypothesis in NGC 2264 by studying

307: rotation period distributions of CTTS and WTTS using a

308: R$_C$--H$\alpha$ vs. R$_C$--I$_C$ color criterion to distinguish

309: between the two populations.  They find that the distribution of

310: rotation periods of the high-mass CTTS and WTTS populations ``looks

311: quite different'' even though ``the statistics are poor.''  Namely,

312: according a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, they find that there is a 0.02

313: probability that the distribution of high mass CTTS and WTTS are

314: equivalent.  They attribute this marginally significant difference in

315: the rotation period distribution to the fact that the stars classified

316: as CTTS are more likely to have a disk than those classified as WTTS.

317: Although they attempt to separate stars by both mass and disk

318: presence, their results are hampered by an inefficient disk

319: identifier.  Fewer than half of their high-mass stars, for example,

320: are used in their analysis (72 out of 184), leaving 112 stars as

321: ambiguous disk identifications.

322:  

323: 

324: \subsection{ONC}

325: With over 900 known rotation periods, the ONC has been the focus of most

326: studies of the angular momentum evolution of PMS stars.  \citet{edwards93}

327: conduct a study of 34 T Tauri stars from Taurus and the ONC, ranging in

328: spectral type from K7 to M1 and in age from 1 to 10 Myrs. They show a

329: correlation between H-K excess and rotation period for these stars; however,

330: in a subsequent study by \citet{stassun99} for stars in the ONC, no such

331: correlation was found.  \citet{herbst00a} find a strong period dependence on

332: stellar mass and confirm the bimodal distribution for high-mass stars

333: originally suggested by an earlier study from that group \citep{attridge92}.

334: They explain that the previous study by \citet{stassun99} did not exhibit

335: the bimodal period distribution because its sample was dominated by low-mass

336: stars.  They find a ``weak but significant'' correlation with period among

337: stars with M $>$ 0.25 M$_\odot$, but argue that the strongest evidence for

338: disk-locking is the bimodal distribution itself.

339: 

340: \citet{rebull01} study 4 fields in the outer ONC, surrounding but not

341: including the Trapezium region. They conclude that ``There is no unambiguous

342: correlation of period with I$_C$-Ks, H-Ks, and U-V color excesses or more

343: indirect disk indicators; the slowest rotators are not necessarily the disk

344: candidates, and the disk candidates are not necessarily the slow rotators,

345: regardless of how one defines a disk candidate'' \citep{rebull01}.

346: 

347: Subsequently, \citet{herbst02} show a correlation between rotation period and

348: I-K excess for stars in the ONC which they claim has a ``very high'' level of

349: significance. They find that slower rotators with periods $>$6.28 d show a

350: mean IR excess emission, $\Delta$(I--K) = 0.55 $\pm$0.05, 

351: and more rapidly rotating stars

352: with periods $<$3.14 d have a mean $\Delta$(I--K) of 0.17 $\pm$0.05.  With

353: this result, they claim, ``The long-suspected, but somewhat controversial,

354: correlation between rotation and excess infrared emission, which is relevant

355: to the disk-locking hypothesis, is finally confirmed at a very high

356: significance level. There is no doubt now that more slowly rotating stars in

357: the ONC have, on average, greater infrared excess emission than do their more

358: rapidly rotating counterparts'' \citep{herbst02}.  This correlation between

359: rotation and the magnitude of the excess infrared emission has been

360: interpreted by the Herbst group as conclusive support of the star-disk

361: interaction hypothesis \citep{herbst02,herbst06}.

362: 

363: However, having failed to find a correlation between period and disk

364: indicators such as H$\alpha$ emission, U-V color excess, and K-L color excess,

365: other groups have a different interpretation of the \citet{herbst02} results

366: and argue that the observed correlation between period and the magnitude of

367: the infrared excess does not represent strong support for star-disk

368: interaction.  \citet{makidon04} state that ``the size (and indeed the

369: presence) of the NIR excess need not be well correlated with the presence

370: of a circumstellar disk owing to the combined effects of inclination and inner

371: disk hole effects (see Hillenbrand et al. 1998; Mathieu 2003). Therefore,

372: correlations between period and NIR excess strength are not necessarily

373: particularly meaningful'' \citep{makidon04}.  \citet{littlefair05} express

374: similar concerns about the \citet{herbst02} result, and add an additional one:

375: a mass effect. They argue that the ``the level of I--K excess depends upon a

376: number of factors: disc mass, inclination angle, inner disc hole size and disc

377: structure. It also depends strongly upon stellar mass, with excesses around

378: high-mass stars being much stronger than excesses around low-mass stars

379: (Hillenbrand et al. 1998).  What this means for the ONC is that the low-mass

380: stars, which are rotating rapidly, will necessarily exhibit smaller I--K

381: excesses than the high-mass stars, which rotate more slowly. Such an effect

382: could easily be responsible for the apparent correlation between rotation rate

383: and infrared excess. The claims that the ONC offers strong support for disc

384: locking should therefore be interpreted with caution'' \citep{littlefair05}.

385: 

386: We note that the slow and fast rotators ($\omega$ $<$ 1 radian/d and $\omega$

387: $>$ 2 radian/d, corresponding to periods longer than 6.28 days and shorter

388: than 3.14 days, respectively), for which the \citet{herbst02} study finds very

389: different IR-excess distributions, indeed have very different mass

390: distributions. In their short-period sample, there are twice as many low-mass

391: stars as high-mass stars (80 vs. 40), while in their long-period sample, there

392: are only 34 low-mass stars vs. 84 high-mass stars.  Moreover, the mean IR

393: excess emission for long-period stars in the ONC found by the Herbst et

394: al. study ($\Delta$(I--K) = 0.55) is increased significantly by the 8 stars

395: (all high-mass) with the highest excesses in the group.

396:                                                                            

397: Recently, using {\it Spitzer} IRAC data as a more reliable disk indicator,

398: \citet{rebull06} studied the angular momentum problem in the ONC central and

399: surrounding regions using periods from the literature.  Having been able to

400: accurately determine which stars have disks and which do not, they were able

401: to show a connection between stellar rotation and the presence of a

402: circumstellar disk. In particular, they show that stars with periods shorter

403: than 1.8 days are significantly less likely to have a disk that stars with

404: periods longer than 1.8 days.  However, they also find that ``among the slower

405: rotators (stars with periods $>$ 1.8 days), the period distributions for stars

406: with and without disks ([3.6]--[8] $>$ 1 and $<$ 1, where bracketed notation

407: indicates IRAC colors) are statistically indistinguishable.'' Though

408: suggestive, by itself this result does not lend conclusive support to the

409: star-disk interaction scenario because the short-period objects that represent

410: the correlation make up less than 20\% of the entire population, leaving over

411: 80\% of the objects showing no correlation.  Also, this 1.8-day period cut is

412: arbitrary, chosen in order to maximize the result rather than for a specific

413: scientific reason.  Other factors, such as an overabundance of close binaries

414: among fast rotators, could also account for the low disk fraction in this

415: population \citep{rebull06,cieza06}.  As shown in \S\ref{data} and

416: \S\ref{results}, even when using {\it Spitzer} colors as a disk indicator, a

417: general correlation between disk fraction and rotation period can only be seen

418: across the entire period range after the mass effects and sensitivity biases

419: are removed from the sample.

420: 

421: 

422: \subsection{IC 348}

423: 

424: To date, only two groups have searched for a period-disk correlation in IC

425: 348 ($\sim$3\,Myrs).  \citet{littlefair05} study a sample of 50 periodic stars

426: and search for a correlation between period and K-L color excess (available

427: for 30 stars) and H$\alpha$ (available for 43 stars), but find no significant

428: correlation.

429: 

430: Thanks to a very deep IRAC GTO survey (1600 sec exposures/pixel),

431: IC\,348 is the only cluster of the three discussed in this paper that

432: currently has deep-enough observations to reach the photospheric level

433: of the entire sample of periodic stars at all four IRAC

434: wavelengths. In Paper I, a study of IC 348 using these {\it Spitzer}

435: data, we find a similar result to the one reported by \citet{rebull06}

436: in the ONC, although with a smaller level of significance given the

437: size of our sample.

438: 

439: Namely, in a total sample of $\sim$130 stars with rotation periods, we find a

440: small subset of cluster members that rotate with periods shorter than $\sim$2

441: days, showing a significantly lower disk fraction than the rest of the cluster

442: population.  We also find no statistically significant difference between the

443: rotation period distribution of stars with and without disks at periods longer

444: than $\sim$2 days. We analyze the populations of stars with and without disks

445: regardless of stellar mass and the populations of high-mass and low-mass stars

446: independently.  When the entire sample is considered, we find a bimodal

447: distribution of periods for the stars with disks which offers no support for

448: star-disk interaction.  However, after subdividing by mass the population of

449: stars with and without a disk, there are too few stars in each mass

450: bin for the disk and no-disk population to make the analysis as a function of

451: period statistically meaningful (see \S\ref{meffect}).

452: 

453:   

454: 

455: \section{The Data}\label{data}

456: \subsection{NGC 2264}

457: 

458: \subsubsection{NGC 2264 Rotation Periods}

459: \citet{makidon04} report rotation periods for 201 stars. Based on

460: their false alarm probability levels, they divide their periods into two

461: quality categories, 1 and 2.  \citet{lamm05} report rotation periods for 405

462: stars. We combined the 114 ``quality 1'' rotation periods reported by

463: \citet{makidon04} and the 405 rotation periods from \citet{lamm05}.  There

464: were 74 stars in common between these two groups of 114 and 405 stars, which

465: means that we have selected a total of 445 individual stellar rotation

466: periods.  We list the periods of these stars in Table 1, along

467: with their coordinates and the R$_C$ and I$_C$ photometry reported by the two

468: groups.  We adopt the periods from the \citet{lamm05} study for the 74 stars

469: common to both studies.  Their work shows that $\sim$95$\%$ of these 74

470: stellar rotation periods are identical to those of the ``quality 1'' periods

471: reported by the Makidon group, highlighting the reliability of all of the

472: periods listed in Table 1.

473: 

474: 

475: \subsubsection{NGC 2264 {\it Spitzer} data}

476: NGC 2264 was observed with IRAC \citep{fazio04} as part of

477: the {\it Spitzer} Guaranteed Time Observation program 

478: ``Disk Evolution in the Planet Formation Epoch'' (PID=37).  The observations

479: consist of 4 dithers and were conducted in the High Dynamic Range mode

480: which includes 0.4 sec observations before 10.4 sec exposures at each

481: dither position. This mode allows photometry of both bright and faint

482: stars at the same time.  Each dither consists of 7$\times$11 IRAC

483: fields with 290$''$ offsets, resulting in a total mapped area of

484: $\sim$33$'$$\times$51$'$ at each of the IRAC wavelengths (3.6, 4.5,

485: 5.8, and 8.0 $\mu$m).  See \citet{young06} for a more detailed description

486: of the IRAC observations of NGC 2264.  We retrieved from the {\it Spitzer}

487: Science Center (SSC) archive the Basic Calibrated data of NGC 2264

488: that was processed with the SSC pipeline version S11.0.2. The

489: Astronomical Observation Request (AOR) Keys of the data are

490: 0003956480, 0003956992, 0003956736, and 0003957248. We mosaicked the

491: IRAC data and produced point-source catalogs for each band using the

492: pipeline developed as part of the {\it Spitzer} Legacy Project, ``From

493: Molecular Cores to Planet-forming Disks'' (c2d).  See

494: \citet{evans06} for a detailed description of the c2d

495: pipeline.  

496: 

497: 

498: \subsubsection{NGC 2264 Sample Selection}

499: Obtaining an unbiased sample is critical in order to be able to study

500: the connection between circumstellar disks and PMS star angular

501: momentum evolution.  Using {\it Spitzer} data in our study of IC 348

502: (Paper I), we show that $\sim$\,40$\%$ of the circumstellar disks

503: identified with 5.8 and/or 8.0\,$\mu$m excesses in IC\,348 show no

504: clear excess at shorter wavelengths, indicating the necessity of 8.0

505: $\mu$m data for every star in the sample to prevent missing disks

506: which cannot be detected at shorter wavelenghts.

507: 

508: We searched our point source catalogs for IRAC fluxes of the periodic

509: stars in NGC 2264 listed in Table 1.  We found 3.6 $\mu$m fluxes for

510: all 445 of the objects, and data for 436, 371, and 229 stars at 4.5,

511: 5.8, and 8.0 $\mu$m respectively.  The fact that both \emph{Spitzer's}

512: sensitivity and photospheric fluxes decrease with increasing

513: wavelength explains the smaller number of detections at 5.8 and 8.0

514: $\mu$m.  Following Paper I, we use the [3.6]-[8.0] colors for disk

515: identification purposes ([3.6]-[8.0] $<$ 0.7 represents a bare stellar

516: photosphere, and [3.6]-[8.0] $>$ 0.7 a star with a disk); therefore,

517: in order to preserve the reliability of our disk identification, we

518: restrict our analysis to the 229 stars with available 3.6 and 8.0

519: $\mu$m fluxes.

520: 

521: \subsubsection{Mass Bias}

522: 

523: Because IRAC 8.0 $\mu$m data are required for reliable disk identification, a

524: mass bias can be introduced due to the sensitivity limits of those data in a

525: magnitude-limited sample.  To illustrate this effect, in Fig.~\ref{NGCdetect}

526: we plot histograms of the period distributions of the high- and low-mass stars

527: in the NGC 2264 data set that were detected at 8.0 $\mu$m and those that were

528: not.  In the left panel, the period distribution of the high-mass stars

529: detected at 8.0 $\mu$m is statistically indistinguishable from the

530: distribution of stars with no 8.0 $\mu$m detection (P = 0.96,

531: Kolmogorov-Smirnov two-sample test, n1 = 142, n2 = 70).  In the right panel,

532: on the other hand, the period distribution of low-mass stars detected at 8.0

533: $\mu$m is significantly different than that of the undetected stars (P =

534: 1.6e-3, K-S two-sample test, n1 = 81, n2 = 142).  The fraction of stars with

535: periods $<$2 days detected at 8.0 $\mu$m is 26\%, and the fraction with P $>$

536: 2 days detected is 46\%.  In the low-mass sample, there is a strong bias

537: against the fastest rotators, which is expected if these stars are faint

538: because they are the lowest-mass stars in the sample and/or they

539: preferentially have no disks.  Also, if optical colors are used to estimate

540: mass, the low-mass sample can be contaminated by highly extincted high-mass

541: stars, which have a different rotation period distribution than lower-mass

542: stars.

543: 

544: Since low-mass stars suffer from these two effects which render the

545: current sample unreliable, we must segregate the sample by spectral

546: type (corresponding to masses given by evolutionary tracks).  Since

547: brighter high-mass stars do not suffer as much from these sources of

548: sample bias and contamination (reddened low-mass stars cannot be

549: mistaken for high-mass stars), in addition to requiring {\it Spitzer}

550: 8.0 $\micron$ detection, we further restrict our study to the

551: high-mass population.

552: 

553: Spectral types to estimate masses are available for only a fraction of

554: the stars in NGC 2264.  However, NGC 2264 has relatively low

555: extinction (A$_{V}$ $\sim$0.5 mag) \citep{rebull01}, which is fairly

556: uniform across the field of view covered by this study.  This allows

557: us to use R-I colors to make a mass cut and retain a relatively

558: uncontaminated sample of high-mass stars.  We use an R-I color $<$ 1.3

559: (corresponding to unextincted M2 stars and stars with earlier spectral

560: types \citep{kenyon95}) as the cutoff for this sample.  Restricting

561: our sample, as discussed, based on {\it Spitzer} data and stellar

562: mass, leaves a final sample of 142 high-mass stars with known rotation

563: periods detected by IRAC at 8.0 $\micron$ with which we search for a

564: correlation between rotation period and the presence of a

565: circumstellar disk.

566: 

567: 

568: \subsection{The ONC}

569: For our analysis of the Orion Nebula Cluster and its surroundings, we

570: combine in Table 2 the rotation periods and {\it Spitzer} data

571: presented by \citet{rebull06} with spectral types from the literature

572: \citep{rebull01,hillenbrand97}. The study by \citet{rebull06} covers

573: the intersection of the IRAC maps of the Orion star-forming complex

574: (total area $\sim$ 6.8 deg$^2$) and the Orion regions containing stars

575: with known rotation periods.  These regions are the ONC (i.e. the

576: region within the $\sim$20$'$ of the Trapezium) and the ``Flanking

577: Fields'' (four 45$'$ $\times$ 45$'$ fields centered $\sim$30$'$ East,

578: West, North, and South of the ONC). The study of the ONC by

579: \citet{hillenbrand97} provides spectral types for $\sim$70$\%$ of the

580: periodic stars studied by \citet{rebull06} that are located within

581: their 34$'$ $\times$ 36$'$ ONC field.  \citet{rebull01} provides

582: spectral types for only $\sim$30$\%$ of the periodic stars studied by

583: \citet{rebull06} that are located in the Flanking Fields.

584: 

585: 

586: 

587: \subsubsection{ONC Sample Selection}

588: A large fraction of the stars in the \citet{rebull06} sample does not have

589: measured spectral types.  For stars with no spectral type measurement,

590: \citet{rebull06} make a mass cut by placing these stars on I vs. (V-I)

591: color-magnitude diagrams.  Unlike in the case of NGC 2264, this method is

592: unreliable for the ONC sample because the extinction is high and highly

593: variable (A$V$$\sim1-5$) across the entire field of view covered by the

594: study \citep{hillenbrand97}.  Using colors for spectral type classification can

595: lead to a blending of the period distribution of the high- and low-mass stars

596: (see \S\ref{meffect} for a more detailed discussion).

597: We therefore limit our analysis of the \citet{rebull06} sample of stars with

598: known rotation periods to those with measured spectral types (M2 and earlier).

599: This leaves 133 high-mass stars with which to monitor the effects of star-disk

600: interaction.

601: 

602: \section{Results}\label{results}

603: \subsection{NGC 2264}

604: When disk fraction is plotted as a function of period for all NGC 2264 members

605: without separating the populations by spectral type (Fig.~\ref{NGCall}, left

606: panel), we find that the only significant feature is a lower disk fraction

607: (17$\pm$4$\%$) for stars in the shortest period bin (P $\leq$ 2 days) compared

608: to that of the rest of the sample (45$\pm$4$\%$).  For periods longer than 2

609: days, the distributions of periods for stars with and without a disk

610: (Fig.~\ref{NGCall}, right panel) are statistically indistinguishable (P=0.211,

611: Kolmogorov-Smirnov two sample test, n1=76, n2=88). This is, in essence, an

612: identical result to those found in the {\it Spitzer} studies of the ONC

613: \citep{rebull06} and IC 348 \citep{cieza06}.

614: 

615: Using an R-I color $<$ 1.3 (corresponding to unextincted M2 stars and

616: stars with earlier spectral types \citep{kenyon95}) as the cutoff for

617: high-mass stars and plotting disk fraction as a function of period for

618: the high-mass sample in NGC 2264 (Fig.~\ref{NGChigh}, left panel), a

619: clear increase in the disk fraction with period is revealed across the

620: entire period range covered by the sample.  {\it Spitzer's} 8.0

621: $\micron$ IRAC band is the first source of data to provide unambiguous

622: disk identification, allowing the populations of stars with and

623: without disks to be separated and plotted individually.  A histogram

624: of the period distributions for high-mass stars with and without a

625: disk (Fig.~\ref{NGChigh}, right panel) shows that these distributions

626: are significantly different (P=6.1e-05, Kolmogorov-Smirnov two sample

627: test, n1=48, n2=94).  Although there is a relatively flat distribution

628: of stars with disks, there is a large peak of shorter-period stars

629: (1-5 days) with no disks and far fewer with long periods.  These

630: different distributions are a clear indication that star-disk

631: interaction regulates the angular momentum of stars as they contract

632: onto the main sequence.

633: 

634: \subsection{The ONC}

635: The evidence for angular momentum regulation through star-disk interaction is

636: equally dramatic in Orion if one restricts the sample studied by

637: \citet{rebull06} by spectral types in the literature

638: \citep{hillenbrand97,rebull01} to stars of spectral type M2 and earlier, even

639: though the sample of stars with rotation periods is cut in half as a result.

640: Plotting disk fraction as a function of period for the restricted sample

641: (Fig.~\ref{ONChighmassall}, left panel), a clear increase in the disk fraction

642: with period is revealed across the entire period range populated by the Orion

643: stars.  A histogram of the period distributions for high-mass stars with and

644: without a disk (Fig.~\ref{ONChighmassall}, right panel) shows that these

645: distributions are dramatically different (P=9.99e-07, Kolmogorov-Smirnov two

646: sample test, n1=58, n2=75).

647: 

648: Based on the star-disk interaction paradigm, \citet{herbst00a} predict that

649: the long-period peak (P $\sim$ 8 days) seen in the clear bimodal period

650: distribution of the high-mass stars in the ONC should be dominated by stars

651: with disks, while the short-period peak (P $\sim$ 2 days) should be dominated

652: by stars without disks.  \citet{rebull01} include stars in the ONC and in

653: surrounding regions termed the ``Flanking Fields,'' which are composed of

654: older stars than those in the younger central region of the cluster and do not

655: show such a clear bimodal distribution as the ONC. If one further restricts

656: their sample to stars in the ONC (84.1 deg $>$ RA $>$ 83.0 deg; 5.0 deg $>$

657: Dec $>$ -5.7 deg ) with measured spectral types (Fig.~\ref{ONChighmassregion},

658: left panel), one recovers the bimodal distribution seen by earlier

659: observations \citep{attridge92,herbst00a,herbst02}. A period histogram of

660: stars with disks over-plotted on a period histogram of stars without disks

661: (Fig.~\ref{ONChighmassregion}, right panel) reveals two distinct and cohesive

662: rotation period distributions, one populated by stars lacking disks peaked at

663: P $\sim$ 2 days and the other by stars with disks peaked at P $\sim$ 8 days,

664: which, blended together, form the bimodal distribution of the high-mass stars

665: in the ONC.  Separating and plotting individually these two populations of

666: stars with and without disks results in an unambiguous indication that

667: star-disk interaction has prevented the spin-up of PMS stars in the ONC.

668: 

669: \section{Discussion}\label{discussion}

670: \subsection{The Mass Effect}\label{meffect}

671: 

672: In \S\ref{results}, we have discussed the significant differences in

673: the period distributions of low- and high-mass stars in NGC 2264 and

674: the ONC.  These differences are not fully understood but can be

675: partially accounted for by the fact that lower mass stars of a given

676: age have smaller radius, R. Thus, for a given specific angular

677: momentum, $j$ ( $j$ $\propto$ R$^2$/P), they are in fact expected to

678: have a a shorter period, P \citep{herbst01}. However, since $j$ still

679: seems to be higher for low-mass stars than for the high-mass

680: counterparts, it has also been suggested that the disk regulation

681: mechanism is less efficient in low-mass stars than in high-mass stars

682: due to differences in accretion rates and the strength or structure of

683: their magnetic fields \citep{lamm05}.

684: 

685: It is easy to show, by making a slightly different mass cut in our ONC

686: analysis, that even small inaccuracies in spectral classification can lead to

687: a severe blending of the period distributions of stars with and without

688: disks. In Fig.~\ref{ONCmasscut}, we compare the mass cut we use in our

689: analysis (left panel) to a slightly different mass cut, including lower-mass

690: stars by one spectral sub-type in the sample (right panel).  Because low-mass

691: stars inherently rotate faster than high-mass stars, regardless of the

692: presence of a disk, contaminating the high-mass sample with low-mass stars

693: will mask the effect star-disk interaction has on PMS star rotation periods.

694: 

695: 

696: The extreme sensitivity of period distribution to mass is difficult to explain

697: in terms of slowly varying quantities such as radius and accretion rates.  The

698: observed dependence of rotation periods on mass is most consistent with the

699: picture that a \emph{sudden} change in the strength or structure of the

700: magnetic field at the boundary between M2 and M3 stars is responsible for the

701: observed differences in period distributions of low-mass and high-mass PMS

702: stars.  We note that, depending on the evolutionary tracks used, the masses

703: corresponding to given spectral types will change.  \citet{siess00} tracks,

704: for example, give slightly higher masses than do those of \citet{dantona98}.

705: However, the boundary we draw between the high- and low-mass samples is based

706: on spectral type, and our conclusions are not affected by the difference in

707: the corresponding masses derived from different evolutionary tracks.

708: 

709: The vast majority of stars of the masses and ages of those considered

710: in our study are fully convective. Unfortunately, the dynamos

711: operating in fully convective stars are far less understood than the

712: Solar-type dynamo, which operates in the boundary layer between the

713: convective envelope and the radiative core.  Models disagree on the

714: magnetic field strengths and topologies that can arise from fully

715: convective stars \citep{brun05,chabrier06} and are clearly not

716: advanced enough to predict how the strengths and topologies depend on

717: stellar mass \citep{donati06}. The extreme sensitivity of period

718: distribution to stellar mass could represent an important

719: observational constraint for the theoretical work in the area.

720: 

721: 

722: The extreme sensitivity of period distribution to mass also explains

723: previous {\it Spitzer} results that showed inconclusive evidence of the

724: star-disk interaction scenario.  \citet{rebull06} found a separate

725: sub-population of fast rotators with P $\le$ 2 days with a low disk fraction

726: (where there are few high- or low-mass stars with disks) and statistically

727: indistinguishable period distributions for stars with and without disks at P

728: $>$ 2 days (as is the case with NGC 2264 when analyzing the entire sample

729: instead of only high-mass stars).  The longer-period stars in those results

730: are a blend of high- and low-mass stars which have different period

731: distributions, affected by something other than star-disk interaction alone.

732: 

733: In paper I, we obtain the same result for IC 348 because that cluster has too

734: few member stars with known rotation periods to study the high- and low-mass

735: samples separately (Fig.~\ref{IC348}).  As a result, after isolating the small

736: sample, we find only a 1-$\sigma$ hint that the high-mass stars rotating

737: slower than the median (P = 6.2 days) have a higher disk fraction (50$\%$

738: $\pm$ 10$\%$ [12/24]) than the high-mass stars rotating faster than the median

739: (39$\%$$\pm$ 10$\%$ [9/23]). We predict that once a significant number of

740: rotation periods (100-150) become available for high-mass stars in IC 348 and

741: its surroundings, the same clear increase in disk fraction with rotation

742: period seen in NGC 2264 (Fig.~\ref{NGChigh}) and the ONC

743: (Figs.~\ref{ONChighmassall} and \ref{ONChighmassregion}) will become evident

744: in the IC 348 region as well.

745: 

746: \subsection{Outstanding Questions}

747: 

748: \subsubsection{Quantitative models}

749: 

750: Our results from \S\ref{results} show that by restricting the sample of

751: PMS stars studied to those with an accurately determined mass range, and by

752: using a reliable disk indicator like the photometry from {\it Spitzer's} IRAC

753: instrument, clear observational signatures of star-disk interaction become

754: evident. Using {\it Spitzer} mid-IR data as a disk indicator, we can finally

755: progress from first-order issues such as whether or not circumstellar disks

756: regulate the angular momentum evolution of PMS stars to ones such as what

757: initial conditions and PMS star and disk parameters are consistent with the

758: observed period distributions of stars with and without a disk, or what

759: constraints the observed distributions can place on disk evolution. 

760: 

761: For instance, comparing the observed period distributions to Monte Carlo

762: simulations (introduced by \citet{rebull04} and improved upon in the

763: discussion in Paper I) can give us information about the disk-release time of

764: PMS stars and the efficiency with which the disks drain their angular

765: momentum. Results from \citet{rebull04} suggested that a significant fraction

766: ($\sim$30$\%$) of high-mass stars must evolve conserving angular momentum from

767: the time they form in order to reproduce the bimodal distribution observed in

768: the ONC. In the context of star-disk interaction, this implies an extremely

769: short disk lifetime ($<$ 1 Myr) for a significant number of stars.

770: Preliminary comparisons of the period distributions of stars with and without

771: a disk presented herein against much more detailed Monte Carlo models

772: \citep{cieza06a} confirm the \citet{rebull04} result. Short disk lifetimes are

773: also detected independently in the results of recent {\it Spitzer} surveys

774: \citep{padgett06,cieza07} that find that up to

775: 50$\%$ of the youngest WTTS (age $\lesssim$ 1 Myr) show photospheric emission

776: in the mid-IR (8.0-24.0 $\mu$m). Our Monte Carlo models show that the period

777: distribution of the stars lacking disks are very sensitive to short disk

778: dissipation timescales because the effects of star-disk interaction are more

779: important at early ages when the stars undergo very rapid contraction.

780: 

781: The sensitivity of current PMS star rotation period distributions to short

782: disk dissipation time scales allows this type of numerical analysis to put

783: valuable constraints on both disk dissipation and planet formation time

784: scales, and, hence, possibly formation mechanisms. A detailed comparison of

785: the observed period distributions of NGC 2264 and the ONC presented herein to

786: Monte Carlo models will be presented in a follow-up paper (Paper III).

787: 

788: \subsubsection{Cluster to Cluster Comparisons}

789: 

790: The high mass stars in the two clusters studied in this work, the ONC and NGC

791: 2264, have substantially different rotation period distributions. In

792: particular, NGC 2264 lacks the long period peak at $\sim$ 8 days and its stars

793: with disks show a much flatter distribution than do those in the

794: ONC. \citet{lamm05} argue that NCG 2264 is twice as old as the ONC and

795: represents a later stage in rotational evolution.  By assuming that at the age

796: of the ONC, NGC 2264 had the exact period distribution as the ONC has today,

797: they estimate that $\sim$80$\%$ of the stars in NGC 2264 have spun up from the

798: time it was the age of the present-day ONC until now, while only $\sim$30\%

799: have remained locked to their disks.

800: 

801: However, the difference in rotation period distributions is also likely

802: constrained by initial conditions and formation environment.

803: Characteristics such as stellar density, cluster IMF, and overall cluster mass

804: might play a role in the angular momentum evolution of PMS stars. The kind of

805: numerical models described above can be used to test whether the period

806: distributions observed in the ONC will naturally evolve into the period

807: distributions observed in NGC 2264 or if different initial conditions and

808: model parameters are required to reproduced the observed period distribution

809: of each cluster.

810: 

811: The observations of NGC 2264 and the ONC studied here only represent a small

812: fraction of the {\it Spitzer} data capable of playing a role in disentagling the

813: steps in the evolution of PMS stars and their disks.  {\it Spitzer} data

814: currently exist for tens of young nearby clusters awaiting photometric

815: monitoring campaigns to obtain rotation periods.  Further studies of other

816: clusters of different ages (from $<$1 to $>$10 Myrs) will provide a broader

817: age baseline with which to study the evolution of angular momentum of PMS

818: stars, while the study of clusters of different sizes will establish

819: the importance of PMS stellar environment on this evolution.

820: 

821: \subsubsection{Low-mass Population}

822: The only current complete sample of stars with rotation periods in either of

823: the well-studied clusters focused on in this work is the high-mass sample, or

824: stars of spectral type M2 and earlier. Although these stars provide a very

825: clear signature that star-disk interaction is regulating the spin-up of PMS

826: stars as they contract onto the main sequence, the whole story is as yet

827: untold.  Lower mass stars, half of all stars with known rotation periods,

828: cannot currently be studied to see if their rotation periods are similarly

829: affected by their circumstellar disks as no cluster has {\it Spitzer} data

830: deep enough to provide an unbiased sample of low-mass stars.  It is

831: clear that the rotation period behavior of these stars is very different from

832: their high-mass counterparts, but the reason for this difference is still

833: unknown.  These stars might have a lower overall disk fraction than high-mass

834: stars, which would explain the more rapid rotation of these objects.  However,

835: if their were no difference in the disk fraction of these stars, then

836: something internal to the star itself, resulting in a different magnetic

837: field structure for these objects, could prevent star-disk interaction from

838: regulating their angular momentum in the same way it does for high-mass stars.

839: 

840: The only cluster currently suited to be studied in this way is NGC 2264, both

841: because it is a rich cluster with many member stars with known rotation

842: period, and because it has a low enough background brightness to allow deep

843: {\it Spitzer} observations to detect bare stellar photospheres for the entire

844: periodic sample.

845: 

846: \section{Conclusions}\label{conclusion}

847: 

848: We combined stellar rotation periods of the young cluster NGC 2264 from

849: the literature with {\it Spitzer} photometry in order to search for the

850: correlation between slow stellar rotation and mid-infrared excess predicted by

851: disk regulation through star-disk interaction. We also re-analyzed results

852: from the recent \citet{rebull06} study of the ONC using the similar criteria

853: to those used in the NGC 2264 analysis. These two clusters combined contain

854: the vast majority of all known rotation periods of PMS stars.  Thanks to the

855: unprecedented disk detection capabilities of {\it Spitzer}, our results

856: provide the strongest observational evidence to date that star-disk

857: interaction regulates PMS star angular momentum. Our main conclusions can be

858: summarized as follows:

859:                                     

860: 1) When stars of all masses in NGC 2264 are considered together, the only

861: significant result is the lower disk fraction of objects with short periods (P

862: $\le$ 2 days), a range that contains only $\sim$20$\%$ of the periodic stars,

863: with respect to that of the rest of the sample.  This is the same result found

864: by \citet{rebull06} for the ONC, and by itself provides only ambiguous

865: support for the disk regulation paradigm. However, we show that the apparent

866: lack of a clear overall correlation between period and IR-excess across the

867: entire period range is due to the strong dependence of rotation period on

868: stellar mass and a sensitivity bias against low-mass stars lacking disks.

869:                                                         

870: 2) When only the high-mass stars (R-I $<$  1.3) in our NGC 2264 sample

871: are considered, the correlation between stellar rotation and IR-excess becomes

872: evident across the entire period range of the sample.

873: 

874: 3) The NGC 2264 periodic sample of low mass stars (R-I $>$ 1.3) with 8.0

875: $\mu$m data (used for disk identification) is highly biased against the

876: fastest rotators. The bias in the low-mass star sample can be explained if the

877: fastest rotators are the lowest-mass stars in the sample and/or preferentially

878: have no disk.  This bias, which masks disk regulation signatures,

879: does not exist in the high-mass star sample. 

880: 

881: 4) When the periodic sample of ONC stars presented by \citet{rebull06} is

882: restricted to high-mass stars with reliable mass estimations, the

883: correlation between stellar rotation and MID-IR-excess becomes apparent

884: across the entire range of the period distribution in the ONC sample as well.

885: 

886: 5) We show that the long-period peak (P$\sim$8 days) of the bimodal

887: distribution observed for high-mass stars in the ONC is dominated by a

888: population of stars with disks, while the short-period peak (P $\sim$ 2 days)

889: is dominated by a population of stars without a disk. This result confirms one

890: of the main predictions of the star-disk interaction scenario

891: \citep{herbst00a}.

892: 

893: 6) We argue that a quantitative comparison between the period distribution of

894: stars with and without a disk to numerical models is needed to constrain disk

895: regulation parameters such as the angular momentum transfer efficiency,

896: fraction of regulated stars as a function of time, etc. We will present such a

897: quantitative comparison to Monte Carlo models in a follow up paper (Paper

898: III).

899: 

900: 7) The current samples of periodic high-mass stars in NGC 2264 and the ONC

901: with reliable disk indicators (e.g. [3.6]-[8.0] colors) are fairly large and

902: unbiased. However, accurate mass indicators (i.e., spectral types) and deeper

903: {\it Spitzer} observations are still needed for an unbiased quantitative

904: study of the role star-disk interaction plays in the evolution of low-mass

905: stars.

906: 

907: 8)  Photometric monitoring of the many other young clusters already observed

908:     by {\it Spitzer} will reveal the importance of age and stellar formation

909:     environments in the angular momentum evolution of PMS stars.

910: 

911: \acknowledgments 

912:  Support

913: for this work, part of the {\it Spitzer} Legacy Science Program, was

914: provided by NASA through contract 1224608 issued by the Jet Propulsion

915: Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under NASA contract

916: 1407. 

917: 

918: \begin{thebibliography}{42}

919: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi

920: 

921: \bibitem[{{Allen} {et~al.}(2004){Allen}, {Calvet}, {D'Alessio}, {Merin},

922:   {Hartmann}, {Megeath}, {Gutermuth}, {Muzerolle}, {Pipher}, {Myers}, \&

923:   {Fazio}}]{allen04}

924: {Allen}, L.~E., {Calvet}, N., {D'Alessio}, P., {Merin}, B., {Hartmann}, L.,

925:   {Megeath}, S.~T., {Gutermuth}, R.~A., {Muzerolle}, J., {Pipher}, J.~L.,

926:   {Myers}, P.~C., \& {Fazio}, G.~G. 2004, \apjs, 154, 363

927: 

928: \bibitem[{{Attridge} \& {Herbst}(1992)}]{attridge92}

929: {Attridge}, J.~M., \& {Herbst}, W. 1992, \apj, 398, L61

930: 

931: \bibitem[{{Brun} {et~al.}(2005){Brun}, {Browning}, \& {Toomre}}]{brun05}

932: {Brun}, A.~S., {Browning}, M.~K., \& {Toomre}, J. 2005, \apj, 629, 461

933: 

934: \bibitem[{{Carpenter} {et~al.}(2001){Carpenter}, {Hillenbrand}, \&

935:   {Skrutskie}}]{carpenter01}

936: {Carpenter}, J.~M., {Hillenbrand}, L.~A., \& {Skrutskie}, M.~F. 2001, \aj, 121,

937:   3160

938: 

939: \bibitem[{{Chabrier} \& {K{\"u}ker}(2006)}]{chabrier06}

940: {Chabrier}, G., \& {K{\"u}ker}, M. 2006, \aap, 446, 1027

941: 

942: \bibitem[{{Cieza} \& {Baliber}(2006)}]{cieza06}

943: {Cieza}, L., \& {Baliber}, N. 2006, \apj, 649, 862

944: 

945: \bibitem[{{Cieza} {et~al.}(2007){Cieza}, {Padgett}, {Stapelfeldt}, {Augereau},

946:   {Harvey}, {Evans}, {II}, {Merin}, {Koerner}, {Sargent}, {van Dishoeck},

947:   {Allen}, {Blake}, {Brooke}, {Chapman}, {Huard}, {Lai}, {Mundy}, {Myers},

948:   {Spiesman}, \& {Wahhaj}}]{cieza07}

949: {Cieza}, L., {Padgett}, D.~L., {Stapelfeldt}, K.~R., {Augereau}, J.-C.,

950:   {Harvey}, P., {Evans}, N.~J., {II}, {Merin}, B., {Koerner}, D., {Sargent},

951:   A., {van Dishoeck}, E.~F., {Allen}, L., {Blake}, G., {Brooke}, T., {Chapman},

952:   N., {Huard}, T., {Lai}, S.-P., {Mundy}, L., {Myers}, P.~C., {Spiesman}, W.,

953:   \& {Wahhaj}, Z. 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 706

954: 

955: \bibitem[{{Cieza} {et~al.}(2006){Cieza}, {Baliber}, \& {Counselor}}]{cieza06a}

956: {Cieza}, L.~A., {Baliber}, N., \& {Counselor}, N. 2006, in American

957:   Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 209, American Astronomical

958:   Society Meeting Abstracts

959: 

960: \bibitem[{{Cieza} {et~al.}(2005){Cieza}, {Kessler-Silacci}, {Jaffe}, {Harvey},

961:   \& {Evans}}]{cieza05}

962: {Cieza}, L.~A., {Kessler-Silacci}, J.~E., {Jaffe}, D.~T., {Harvey}, P.~M., \&

963:   {Evans}, N.~J. 2005, \apj, 635, 422

964: 

965: \bibitem[{{D'Antona} \& {Mazzitelli}(1998)}]{dantona98}

966: {D'Antona}, F., \& {Mazzitelli}, I. 1998, in ASP Conf. Ser. 134: Brown Dwarfs

967:   and Extrasolar Planets, 442--+, d94

968: 

969: \bibitem[{{Donati} {et~al.}(2006){Donati}, {Forveille}, {Cameron}, {Barnes},

970:   {Delfosse}, {Jardine}, \& {Valenti}}]{donati06}

971: {Donati}, J.-F., {Forveille}, T., {Cameron}, A.~C., {Barnes}, J.~R.,

972:   {Delfosse}, X., {Jardine}, M.~M., \& {Valenti}, J.~A. 2006, Science, 311, 633

973: 

974: \bibitem[{{Edwards} {et~al.}(1993){Edwards}, {Ray}, \& {Mundt}}]{edwards93}

975: {Edwards}, S., {Ray}, T., \& {Mundt}, R. 1993, in Protostars and Planets III,

976:   ed. E.~H. {Levy} \& J.~I. {Lunine}, 567--602

977: 

978: \bibitem[{{Evans} {et~al.}(2006){Evans}, {Harvey}, {Dunham}, {Mundy}, {Lai},

979:   {Chapman}, {Huard}, {Brooke}, \& {Koerner}}]{evans06}

980: {Evans}, N.~J., {Harvey}, P.~M., {Dunham}, M.~M., {Mundy}, L.~G., {Lai}, S.,

981:   {Chapman}, N., {Huard}, T., {Brooke}, T.~Y., \& {Koerner}, D.~W. 2006,

982:   {Delivery of Data from the c2d Legacy Project: IRAC and MIPS (Pasadena,SSC)},

983:   Pasadena, SSC, http://ssc.spitzer.caltech.edu/legacy/original.html

984: 

985: \bibitem[{{Fazio} {et~al.}(2004){Fazio}, {Hora}, {Allen}, {Ashby}, {Barmby},

986:   {Deutsch}, {Huang}, {Kleiner}, {Marengo}, {Megeath}, {Melnick}, {Pahre},

987:   {Patten}, {Polizotti}, {Smith}, {Taylor}, {Wang}, {Willner}, {Hoffmann},

988:   {Pipher}, {Forrest}, {McMurty}, {McCreight}, {McKelvey}, {McMurray}, {Koch},

989:   {Moseley}, {Arendt}, {Mentzell}, {Marx}, {Losch}, {Mayman}, {Eichhorn},

990:   {Krebs}, {Jhabvala}, {Gezari}, {Fixsen}, {Flores}, {Shakoorzadeh}, {Jungo},

991:   {Hakun}, {Workman}, {Karpati}, {Kichak}, {Whitley}, {Mann}, {Tollestrup},

992:   {Eisenhardt}, {Stern}, {Gorjian}, {Bhattacharya}, {Carey}, {Nelson},

993:   {Glaccum}, {Lacy}, {Lowrance}, {Laine}, {Reach}, {Stauffer}, {Surace},

994:   {Wilson}, {Wright}, {Hoffman}, {Domingo}, \& {Cohen}}]{fazio04}

995: {Fazio}, G.~G., {Hora}, J.~L., {Allen}, L.~E., {Ashby}, M.~L.~N., {Barmby}, P.,

996:   {Deutsch}, L.~K., {Huang}, J.-S., {Kleiner}, S., {Marengo}, M., {Megeath},

997:   S.~T., {Melnick}, G.~J., {Pahre}, M.~A., {Patten}, B.~M., {Polizotti}, J.,

998:   {Smith}, H.~A., {Taylor}, R.~S., {Wang}, Z., {Willner}, S.~P., {Hoffmann},

999:   W.~F., {Pipher}, J.~L., {Forrest}, W.~J., {McMurty}, C.~W., {McCreight},

1000:   C.~R., {McKelvey}, M.~E., {McMurray}, R.~E., {Koch}, D.~G., {Moseley}, S.~H.,

1001:   {Arendt}, R.~G., {Mentzell}, J.~E., {Marx}, C.~T., {Losch}, P., {Mayman}, P.,

1002:   {Eichhorn}, W., {Krebs}, D., {Jhabvala}, M., {Gezari}, D.~Y., {Fixsen},

1003:   D.~J., {Flores}, J., {Shakoorzadeh}, K., {Jungo}, R., {Hakun}, C., {Workman},

1004:   L., {Karpati}, G., {Kichak}, R., {Whitley}, R., {Mann}, S., {Tollestrup},

1005:   E.~V., {Eisenhardt}, P., {Stern}, D., {Gorjian}, V., {Bhattacharya}, B.,

1006:   {Carey}, S., {Nelson}, B.~O., {Glaccum}, W.~J., {Lacy}, M., {Lowrance},

1007:   P.~J., {Laine}, S., {Reach}, W.~T., {Stauffer}, J.~A., {Surace}, J.~A.,

1008:   {Wilson}, G., {Wright}, E.~L., {Hoffman}, A., {Domingo}, G., \& {Cohen}, M.

1009:   2004, \apjs, 154, 10

1010: 

1011: \bibitem[{{Hartmann}(2002)}]{hartmann02}

1012: {Hartmann}, L. 2002, \apj, 566, L29

1013: 

1014: \bibitem[{{Hartmann} {et~al.}(2005){Hartmann}, {Megeath}, {Allen}, {Luhman},

1015:   {Calvet}, {D'Alessio}, {Franco-Hernandez}, \& {Fazio}}]{hartmann05}

1016: {Hartmann}, L., {Megeath}, S.~T., {Allen}, L., {Luhman}, K., {Calvet}, N.,

1017:   {D'Alessio}, P., {Franco-Hernandez}, R., \& {Fazio}, G. 2005, \apj, 629, 881

1018: 

1019: \bibitem[{{Herbig} \& {Bell}(1988)}]{herbig88}

1020: {Herbig}, G.~H., \& {Bell}, K.~R. 1988, {Catalog of emission line stars of the

1021:   orion population : 3 : 1988} (Lick Observatory Bulletin, Santa Cruz: Lick

1022:   Observatory, |c1988)

1023: 

1024: \bibitem[{{Herbst} {et~al.}(2001){Herbst}, {Bailer-Jones}, \&

1025:   {Mundt}}]{herbst01}

1026: {Herbst}, W., {Bailer-Jones}, C.~A.~L., \& {Mundt}, R. 2001, \apj, 554, L197

1027: 

1028: \bibitem[{{Herbst} {et~al.}(2002){Herbst}, {Bailer-Jones}, {Mundt},

1029:   {Meisenheimer}, \& {Wackermann}}]{herbst02}

1030: {Herbst}, W., {Bailer-Jones}, C.~A.~L., {Mundt}, R., {Meisenheimer}, K., \&

1031:   {Wackermann}, R. 2002, \aap, 396, 513

1032: 

1033: \bibitem[{{Herbst} {et~al.}(2006){Herbst}, {Eisloffel}, {Mundt}, \&

1034:   {Scholz}}]{herbst06}

1035: {Herbst}, W., {Eisloffel}, J., {Mundt}, R., \& {Scholz}, A. 2006, in Protostars

1036:   and Planets V, ed. V.~{Mannings}, in press

1037: 

1038: \bibitem[{{Herbst} \& {Mundt}(2005)}]{herbst05}

1039: {Herbst}, W., \& {Mundt}, R. 2005, \apj, 633, 967

1040: 

1041: \bibitem[{{Herbst} {et~al.}(2000){Herbst}, {Rhode}, {Hillenbrand}, \&

1042:   {Curran}}]{herbst00a}

1043: {Herbst}, W., {Rhode}, K.~L., {Hillenbrand}, L.~A., \& {Curran}, G. 2000, \aj,

1044:   119, 261

1045: 

1046: \bibitem[{{Hillenbrand}(1997)}]{hillenbrand97}

1047: {Hillenbrand}, L.~A. 1997, \aj, 113, 1733

1048: 

1049: \bibitem[{{Hillenbrand} {et~al.}(1998){Hillenbrand}, {Strom}, {Calvet},

1050:   {Merrill}, {Gatley}, {Makidon}, {Meyer}, \& {Skrutskie}}]{hillenbrand98}

1051: {Hillenbrand}, L.~A., {Strom}, S.~E., {Calvet}, N., {Merrill}, K.~M., {Gatley},

1052:   I., {Makidon}, R.~B., {Meyer}, M.~R., \& {Skrutskie}, M.~F. 1998, \aj, 116,

1053:   1816

1054: 

1055: \bibitem[{{Jones} \& {Walker}(1988)}]{jones88}

1056: {Jones}, B.~F., \& {Walker}, M.~F. 1988, \aj, 95, 1755

1057: 

1058: \bibitem[{{Kenyon} \& {Hartmann}(1995)}]{kenyon95}

1059: {Kenyon}, S.~J., \& {Hartmann}, L. 1995, \apjs, 101, 117

1060: 

1061: \bibitem[{{K\"onigl}(1991)}]{konigl91}

1062: {K\"onigl}, A. 1991, \apj, 370, L39

1063: 

1064: \bibitem[{{Lamm} {et~al.}(2005){Lamm}, {Mundt}, {Bailer-Jones}, \&

1065:   {Herbst}}]{lamm05}

1066: {Lamm}, M.~H., {Mundt}, R., {Bailer-Jones}, C.~A.~L., \& {Herbst}, W. 2005,

1067:   \aap, 430, 1005

1068: 

1069: \bibitem[{{Littlefair} {et~al.}(2005){Littlefair}, {Naylor}, {Burningham}, \&

1070:   {Jeffries}}]{littlefair05}

1071: {Littlefair}, S.~P., {Naylor}, T., {Burningham}, B., \& {Jeffries}, R.~D. 2005,

1072:   \mnras, 358, 341

1073: 

1074: \bibitem[{{Makidon} {et~al.}(2004){Makidon}, {Rebull}, {Strom}, {Adams}, \&

1075:   {Patten}}]{makidon04}

1076: {Makidon}, R.~B., {Rebull}, L.~M., {Strom}, S.~E., {Adams}, M.~T., \& {Patten},

1077:   B.~M. 2004, \aj, 127, 2228

1078: 

1079: \bibitem[{{Matt} \& {Pudritz}(2005)}]{matt05}

1080: {Matt}, S., \& {Pudritz}, R.~E. 2005, \apj, 632, L135

1081: 

1082: \bibitem[{{Padgett} {et~al.}(2006){Padgett}, {Cieza}, {Stapelfeldt}, {Evans},

1083:   {Koerner}, {Sargent}, {Fukagawa}, {van Dishoek}, {Augereau}, {Allen},

1084:   {Blake}, {Brooke}, {Chapman}, {Harvey}, {Porras}, {Lai}, {Mundy}, {Myers},

1085:   {Spiesman}, \& {Wahhaj}}]{padgett06}

1086: {Padgett}, D.~L., {Cieza}, L., {Stapelfeldt}, K.~R., {Evans}, N.~J., {Koerner},

1087:   D., {Sargent}, A., {Fukagawa}, M., {van Dishoek}, E.~F., {Augereau}, J.,

1088:   {Allen}, L., {Blake}, G., {Brooke}, T., {Chapman}, N., {Harvey}, P.,

1089:   {Porras}, A., {Lai}, S., {Mundy}, L., {Myers}, P.~C., {Spiesman}, W., \&

1090:   {Wahhaj}, Z. 2006, astro-ph/0603370

1091: 

1092: \bibitem[{{Parenago}(1954)}]{parenago54}

1093: {Parenago}, P.~P. 1954, Trudy Gosudarstvennogo Astronomicheskogo Instituta, 25,

1094:   1

1095: 

1096: \bibitem[{{Rebull}(2001)}]{rebull01}

1097: {Rebull}, L.~M. 2001, \aj, 121, 1676

1098: 

1099: \bibitem[{{Rebull} {et~al.}(2006){Rebull}, {Stauffer}, {Megeath}, {Hora}, \&

1100:   {Hartmann}}]{rebull06}

1101: {Rebull}, L.~M., {Stauffer}, J.~R., {Megeath}, S.~T., {Hora}, J.~L., \&

1102:   {Hartmann}, L. 2006, \apj, 646, 297

1103: 

1104: \bibitem[{{Rebull} {et~al.}(2004){Rebull}, {Wolff}, \& {Strom}}]{rebull04}

1105: {Rebull}, L.~M., {Wolff}, S.~C., \& {Strom}, S.~E. 2004, \aj, 127, 1029

1106: 

1107: \bibitem[{{Shu} {et~al.}(1994){Shu}, {Najita}, {Ostriker}, {Wilkin}, {Ruden},

1108:   \& {Lizano}}]{shu94}

1109: {Shu}, F., {Najita}, J., {Ostriker}, E., {Wilkin}, F., {Ruden}, S., \&

1110:   {Lizano}, S. 1994, \apj, 429, 781

1111: 

1112: \bibitem[{{Siess} {et~al.}(2000){Siess}, {Dufour}, \& {Forestini}}]{siess00}

1113: {Siess}, L., {Dufour}, E., \& {Forestini}, M. 2000, \aap, 358, 593

1114: 

1115: \bibitem[{{Skrutskie} {et~al.}(1990){Skrutskie}, {Dutkevitch}, {Strom},

1116:   {Edwards}, {Strom}, \& {Shure}}]{skrutskie90}

1117: {Skrutskie}, M.~F., {Dutkevitch}, D., {Strom}, S.~E., {Edwards}, S., {Strom},

1118:   K.~M., \& {Shure}, M.~A. 1990, \aj, 99, 1187

1119: 

1120: \bibitem[{{Stassun} {et~al.}(1999){Stassun}, {Mathieu}, {Mazeh}, \&

1121:   {Vrba}}]{stassun99}

1122: {Stassun}, K.~G., {Mathieu}, R.~D., {Mazeh}, T., \& {Vrba}, F.~J. 1999, \aj,

1123:   117, 2941

1124: 

1125: \bibitem[{{Wolk} \& {Walter}(1996)}]{wolk96}

1126: {Wolk}, S.~J., \& {Walter}, F.~M. 1996, \aj, 111, 2066

1127: 

1128: \bibitem[{{Young} {et~al.}(2006){Young}, {Teixeira}, {Lada}, {Muzerolle},

1129:   {Persson}, {Murphy}, {Siegler}, {Marengo}, {Krause}, \& {Mainzer}}]{young06}

1130: {Young}, E.~T., {Teixeira}, P.~S., {Lada}, C.~J., {Muzerolle}, J., {Persson},

1131:   S.~E., {Murphy}, D.~C., {Siegler}, N., {Marengo}, M., {Krause}, O., \&

1132:   {Mainzer}, A.~K. 2006, apj, 642, 972

1133: 

1134: \end{thebibliography}

1135: 

1136: 

1137: 

1138: %%%%%%%%%%%%% TABLE 1 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1139: \clearpage

1140: \tablenum{1}

1141: \thispagestyle{empty}

1142: \setlength{\voffset}{10mm}

1143: \begin{deluxetable}{cccccccccccccc}

1144: \rotate 

1145: \tablewidth{0pt} 

1146: \tabletypesize{\tiny}

1147: \tablecaption{NGC 2264 Stars with periods from the

1148: literature and Spitzer data} 

1149: \tablehead{\colhead{RA} & \colhead{Dec} &

1150: \colhead{Rc} & \colhead{Ic} & \colhead{Period} & \colhead{Ref} &

1151: \colhead{Flux@3.6} & \colhead{err$_{3.6}$} & \colhead{Flux@4.5} &

1152: \colhead{err$_{4.5}$} & \colhead{Flux@5.8} & \colhead{err$_{5.8}$} &

1153: \colhead{Flux@8.0} & \colhead{err$_{8.0}$} \\ 

1154: \colhead{(J2000)} & \colhead{(J2000)} & \colhead{(mag)} & 

1155: \colhead{(mag)} & \colhead{(days)} & \colhead{} & \colhead{(mJy)} & 

1156: \colhead{(mJy)} & \colhead{(mJy)} & \colhead{(mJy)} & \colhead{(mJy)} & 

1157: \colhead{(mJy)} & \colhead{(mJy)} & \colhead{(mJy)}} 

1158: \startdata 

1159: 99.94500 & 9.68167 & 13.26 & 12.69 & 3.84 & 2 & 1.06e+01 & 1.60e-01 & 

1160: 6.29e+00 & 9.98e-02 & 4.65e+00 & 1.11e-01 & 2.56e+00 & 6.06e-02\\ 

1161: 99.95292 & 9.60983 & 15.69 & 14.49 & 4.01 & 2 & 4.62e+00 & 6.79e-02

1162: & 3.03e+00 & 3.46e-02 & 1.88e+00 & 4.59e-02 & 1.16e+00 & 3.30e-02\\ 

1163: 99.96287 & 9.60922 & 17.16 & 15.84 & 1.36 & 1 & 2.15e+00 & 3.25e-02 & 

1164: 1.40e+00 & 2.47e-02 & 1.45e+00 & 5.61e-02 & 5.89e-01 & 3.39e-02 \\

1165: 99.96954 & 9.62714 & 19.37 & 17.49 & 2.14 & 1 & 6.69e-01 & 1.15e-02 & 

1166: 5.21e-01 & 8.07e-03 & 0.00e+00 & 0.00e+00 & 2.62e-01 & 2.25e-02 \\

1167: 99.97625 & 9.94092 & 17.55 & 15.70 & 0.58 & 2 & 2.45e+00 & 3.49e-02 & 

1168: 1.84e+00 & 2.66e-02 & 0.00e+00 & 0.00e+00 & 7.91e-01 & 3.91e-02 \\

1169: \enddata

1170: \tablecomments{[Reference (Ref) 1 indicates periods and optical photometry

1171: taken from \citet{lamm05}, while Ref 2 indicates periods and optical

1172: photometry taken from \citet{makidon04}.  The complete version of this table

1173: is in the electronic edition of the Journal.  The printed edition contains

1174: only a sample to illustrate its content.]}

1175: \end{deluxetable}

1176: \setlength{\voffset}{0mm}

1177: 

1178: %\setlength{\voffset}{10mm}

1179: %\input{tab1}

1180: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1181: 

1182: %%%%%%%%%%%%% TABLE 2 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1183: \clearpage

1184: 

1185: \clearpage

1186: \tablenum{2}

1187: \thispagestyle{empty}

1188: %\setlength{\voffset}{10mm}

1189: \begin{deluxetable}{cccccccccccccccccccccccc}

1190: \rotate 

1191: \tablewidth{0pt} 

1192: \tabletypesize{\tiny}

1193: \tablecaption{Orion Stars detected in 3.6 and 8.0 microns with periods from

1194:   the literature\tablenotemark{1}}

1195: \tablehead{\colhead{Name\tablenotemark{2}} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{RA (J2000)} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Dec (J2000)} & \colhead{F@3.6} & \colhead{err$_{3.6}$} & \colhead{F@4.5} & \colhead{err$_{4.5}$} & \colhead{F@5.8} & \colhead{err$_{5.8}$} & \colhead{F@8.0} & \colhead{err$_{8.0}$} & \colhead{Per} & \colhead{SpT} & \colhead{SpT-Ref\tablenotemark{3}} & \colhead{Mass\tablenotemark{4}} \\

1196: \colhead{} & \colhead{ (h} & \colhead{m} & \colhead{s) } & \colhead{ (d} & \colhead{m} & \colhead{s) } & \colhead{(mag)} & \colhead{(mag)} & \colhead{(mag)} & \colhead{(mag)} & \colhead{(mag)} & \colhead{(mag)} & \colhead{(mag)} & \colhead{(mag)} & \colhead{(d)} & \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{}}

1197: \startdata 

1198: R01- 678 & 05 & 33 & 36.9 & -05 & 23 & 06.2 & 11.52 & 0.006 & 11.52 & 0.008 & 11.47 & 0.027 & 11.44 & 0.119 & 7.23 & ------ &  ------ & NO \\     

1199: R01- 680 & 05 & 33 & 37.1 & -05 & 23 & 07.0 & 11.52 & 0.006 & 11.52 & 0.008 & 11.47 & 0.027 & 11.44 & 0.119 & 7.20 & ------ &  ------ & NO \\

1200: R01- 716 & 05 & 33 & 41.6 & -04 & 55 & 59.9 & 11.91 & 0.006 & 11.90 & 0.009 & 11.78 & 0.018 & 11.88 & 0.027 & 7.55 & M5.5 & R01 & L \\

1201: R01- 739 & 05 & 33 & 43.3 & -06 & 05 & 23.5 & 12.09 & 0.007 & 12.16 & 0.012 & 12.04 & 0.019 & 11.97 & 0.024 & 3.99 & M3.5 & R01 & L \\

1202: R01- 749 & 05 & 33 & 44.5 & -06 & 05 & 20.5 & 12.39 & 0.009 & 12.36 & 0.011 & 12.36 & 0.020 & 12.36 & 0.031 & 15.42 & ------ & ------ & NO \\

1203: HBC 107 & 05 & 33 & 44.9 & -05 & 31 & 08.6 & 9.92 & 0.002 & 9.97 & 0.003 & 9.89 & 0.007 & 9.82 & 0.039 & 2.64 & ------ & ------ & NO \\

1204: Par 1266 & 05 & 33 & 46.1 & -05 & 34 & 26.5 & 10.84 & 0.003 & 10.84 & 0.004 & 10.84 & 0.011 & 10.90 & 0.039 & 4.65 & K8 & R01 & H \\

1205: \enddata

1206: \tablecomments{The complete version of this table

1207: is in the electronic edition of the Journal.  The printed edition contains

1208: only a sample to illustrate its content.}

1209: \tablenotetext{1}{With the exception of the last 3 columns, all data come from

1210: \citet{rebull06}.}

1211: \tablenotetext{2}{R01 numbers come from \citet{rebull01}, HBC numbers from

1212:  \citet{herbig88}, Par numbers from \citet{parenago54}, CHS numbers 

1213: from \citet{carpenter01}, H97 numbers from \citet{hillenbrand97},

1214: HBJM numbers from \citet{herbst01}, and JW numbers come from

1215: \citet{jones88}.}

1216: \tablenotetext{3}{R01 Spetral types come from \citet{rebull01}, while the 

1217: H97 spectral types come from \citet{hillenbrand97}.}

1218: \tablenotetext{4}{Stars with M2 and earlier spectral types are considered 

1219: high-mass stars, while stars with M2.5 and later spectral types are 

1220: considered low-mass stars.}

1221: 

1222: \end{deluxetable}

1223: \setlength{\voffset}{0mm}

1224: 

1225: 

1226: 

1227: %\pagestyle{empty}

1228: %\input{tab2}

1229: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1230: 

1231: 

1232: \clearpage

1233: \pagestyle{plaintop}

1234: \setlength{\voffset}{0mm}

1235: 

1236: 

1237: 

1238: \begin{figure}

1239: \epsscale{1.0}

1240: \plottwo{f1a.ps}{f1b.ps}

1241: \caption{{\bf Mass-segregated period histograms for stars with and without 8.0

1242:     $\mu$m data in NGC 2264.} {\bf (Left Panel)} Period histogram for

1243:     high-mass stars ([R-I] $<$ 1.3) in NGC 2264. The three different lines

1244:     represent all stars (n=212, solid line), stars detected with {\it

1245:     Spitzer's} IRAC instrument at 8.0 $\mu$m (n=142, dot-dash line), and stars

1246:     not detected at 8.0 $\mu$m (n=70, dotted line). {\bf (Right Panel)} Period

1247:     histogram for low-mass stars ([R-I] $>$ 1.3) in the cluster. The three

1248:     different lines represent all stars (n=223, solid line), stars detected

1249:     with {\it Spitzer's} IRAC instrument at 8.0 $\mu$m (n=81, dot-dash line),

1250:     and stars not detected at 8.0 $\mu$m (n=142, dotted line).  As previously

1251:     noted by \citet{lamm05} in NGC 2264 and \citet{herbst02} in the core of

1252:     the ONC, low- and high-mass stars have clearly different period

1253:     distributions.  Since the 8.0 $\mu$m data is needed for a reliable disk

1254:     identification \citep{rebull06,cieza06}, our analysis is restricted to

1255:     stars detected at this wavelength. The period distribution of the

1256:     high-mass stars detected at 8.0 $\mu$m is statistically indistinguishable

1257:     from that of the undetected stars (P = 0.96, Kolmogorov-Smirnov two-sample

1258:     test, n1 = 142, n2 = 70).  In contrast, the period distribution of

1259:     low-mass stars detected at 8.0 $\mu$m is significantly different than that

1260:     of the undetected stars (P = 1.6e-3, K-S two-sample test, n1 = 81, n2 =

1261:     142).  As the low-mass sample has a much lower detected fraction of stars

1262:     at shorter periods than at longer periods, the biases in this sample

1263:     prevent us from using it.\label{NGCdetect}}

1264: \end{figure}

1265: 

1266: 

1267: \begin{figure}

1268: \epsscale{1}

1269: \plotone{f2.ps}

1270: \caption{{\bf Results for all stars in NGC 2264.} {\bf (Left Panel)} The disk

1271: fraction as a function of period for the stars in NGC 2264 with rotation

1272: periods $<$ 15 days and both 3.6 and 8.0 $\mu$m IRAC data, enough for an

1273: accurate disk identification.  The error bars represent the 68\% confidence

1274: level (1$\sigma$) of the measurements.  The only significant feature is the

1275: lower disk fraction of the stars with shortest periods (P $<$ 2 days) with

1276: respect to that of the rest of the sample.  {\bf (Right Panel)} The period

1277: histogram for for the same sample of stars.  The three different lines

1278: represent all stars (solid line), stars with IR-excess indicating the presence

1279: of a disk (dot-dash line) and stars with no detected disk signature (dotted

1280: line).  For periods longer than 2 days, the distribution of periods for stars

1281: with and without a disk are statistically indistinguishable (P=0.211,

1282: Kolmogorov-Smirnov two sample test, n1=76, n2=88).\label{NGCall}}

1283: \end{figure}

1284: 

1285: \begin{figure}

1286: \epsscale{1}

1287: \plotone{f3.ps}

1288: \caption{{\bf Results for high-mass stars in NGC 2264.} {\bf (Left Panel)} The

1289: disk fraction as a function of period for high-mass stars.  The error bars

1290: represent the 68\% confidence level (1$\sigma$) of the measurements.  When

1291: only high-mass stars are considered, the connection between the presence of a

1292: disk and slow rotation becomes evident across the entire range of the period

1293: distribution.  {\bf (Right Panel)} The period histogram for high-mass stars.

1294: The three different lines represent all the stars (solid line) and stars with

1295: and without a disk (dot-dash line and dotted line, respectively).  The period

1296: distribution of disk-less high-mass stars peaks at short periods (P $<$ 5

1297: days), while the periods of high-mass stars with disks are consistent with a

1298: flat distribution.  These distributions are significantly different

1299: (P=6.1e-05, Kolmogorov-Smirnov two sample test, n1=48, n2=94).  This result

1300: suggests that stars without disks are free to spin up faster than stars with

1301: disks.\label{NGChigh}}

1302: \end{figure}

1303: 

1304: \begin{figure}

1305: \epsscale{1}

1306: \plotone{f4.ps}

1307: \caption{{\bf Results for high-mass stars in Orion.} {\bf (Left Panel)} The

1308: disk fraction as a function of period for high-mass stars with measured

1309: spectral types in the ONC and surrounding flanking fields.  The error bars

1310: represent the 68\% confidence level (1$\sigma$) of the measurements.  As with

1311: NGC 2264, the disk fraction clearly increases with period across the entire

1312: period range covered by the data.  {\bf (Right Panel)} Period histograms for

1313: high-mass stars.  The three different lines represent all the stars (solid

1314: line) and stars with and without a disk (dot-dash line and dotted line,

1315: respectively).  The overall distribution is clearly a blend of the two

1316: distinct period distributions which are significantly different from one

1317: another (P=9.99e-07, Kolmogorov-Smirnov two sample test, n1=58, n2=75).  The

1318: distribution of stars possessing a circumstellar disk is centered at a period

1319: much longer than the distribution of stars with no disk.  Once again, the

1320: result from the high-mass stars in the ONC and surrounding regions clearly

1321: suggest that circumstellar disks are involved with angular momentum regulation

1322: in these young stars.\label{ONChighmassall}}

1323: 

1324: \end{figure}

1325: 

1326: 

1327: \begin{figure}

1328: \epsscale{1}

1329: \plotone{f5.ps}

1330: \caption{{\bf Results for high-mass stars in the central regions of the ONC.}

1331: {\bf (Left Panel)} The period histogram of all high-mass stars in the central

1332: region of the ONC that have measured spectral types. {\bf (Right Panel)} The

1333: period histograms for the same stars with (dot-dashed line) and without

1334: (dotted line) a disk.  When restricting the sample by not including the

1335: flanking fields, the bimodal period distribution seen by previous studies

1336: \citep{attridge92,herbst02} is recovered.  With an accurate disk identifier

1337: and sample selection based on spectral types, one can see that the bimodal

1338: distribution is a blend of two dramatically different distributions, stars

1339: with and without protoplanetary disks (P=4.3e-08, Kolmogorov-Smirnov

1340: two-sample test, n1=49, n2=46).  The disk-less, high-mass population is

1341: centered at a much shorter period that the population with disks, again

1342: unambiguously supporting the picture of angular momentum regulation through

1343: star-disk interaction.\label{ONChighmassregion}}

1344: \end{figure}

1345: 

1346: 

1347: \begin{figure}

1348: \epsscale{1.0}

1349: \plottwo{f6a.ps}{f6b.ps}

1350: \caption{{\bf The effect of a different mass cut on the period distribution of

1351:     stars with and without disks in the ONC.}  {\bf (Left Panel)} Period

1352:     histogram for high-mass stars (M2 and earlier spectral types) with (n =

1353:     49) and without (n = 46) a disk (dot-dash and dotted line, respectively).

1354:     {\bf (Right Panel)} The same plot with a slightly different mass cut.

1355:     This histogram includes M3 stars (i.e. stars with slightly lower masses).

1356:     Again, stars with disks (n=71) are represented by a dot-dash line, and

1357:     stars without disks (n=50) by a dotted line.  This panel shows that even a

1358:     {\it small} contamination of the high-mass star sample by stars with

1359:     slightly lower masses will result in a short-period (P $<$ 4 days) peak of

1360:     stars with disks that will weaken the observational signature of star-disk

1361:     interaction on angular momentum (P increases from 4.3e-8 to 1.1e-4 in a

1362:     Kolmogorov-Smirnov two sample test when comparing the disk and no-disk

1363:     samples in the right panel  to those in the left.  This is due to

1364:     the fact that low-mass stars (M3 and later spectral types) tend to have

1365:     very short periods (P $<$ 4 days) regardless of the presence of a

1366:     disk.\label{ONCmasscut}}

1367: \end{figure}

1368: 

1369: 

1370: \begin{figure}

1371: \epsscale{1.0}

1372: \plotone{f7.ps}

1373: \vskip 0.2pt

1374: \caption{{\bf Histograms of high-mass stars in IC 348.} After dividing the IC

1375:   348 sample of stars with known rotation periods by mass, there are too few

1376:   stars to study the disk and no-disk populations separately.  As seen in the

1377:   figure, very few (or no) stars remain in each period bin.  More rotation

1378:   periods in that cluster would be needed to observe signatures of star-disk

1379:   interaction affecting the period distributions.\label{IC348}}

1380: \end{figure}

1381: 

1382: 

1383: \end{document}

1384: