1: %\documentclass[usenatbib,longnamesfirst,usedcolumn]{mn2e} % Normal MNRAS format
2: %\documentclass[useAMS,usenatbib]{mn2e}
3: \documentclass[usenatbib]{mn2e} % Normal MNRAS format
4: %\usepackage{epsfig}
5: %\usepackage{txfonts}
6: %\usepackage{lscape} % Allows landscape environment to be used
7: \usepackage{longtable} % Allows table to span multiple pages
8: \setlength{\LTcapwidth}{19cm} % Re-define longtable caption width
9: \usepackage{graphicx}
10:
11: %________________________________________________________________________
12: %%%%% AUTHORS - PLACE YOUR OWN MACROS HERE %%%%%
13:
14: \def\m{\multicolumn}
15: \def\h{\hspace}
16: \def\ubvri{$BVRI$\,}
17: \def\CLN{ NGC 1767, NGC 1994, NGC 2002, NGC 2003, NGC 2006, SL 538, NGC 2011,
18: NGC 2098 and NGC 2136}
19: \newcommand{\cf}{{\textrm c.f.}}
20: \newcommand{\eg}{{\textrm e.g.}}
21: \newcommand{\ie}{{\textrm i.e.}}
22: \newcommand{\km}{\ensuremath{\mbox{~km}}}
23: \newcommand{\pc}{\ensuremath{\mbox{~pc}}}
24: \newcommand{\kpc}{\ensuremath{\mbox{~kpc}}}
25:
26: % For astro-ph only:
27: %\voffset-.5in % Shift page to allow for A4/US letter differences
28:
29: %BIB macros
30: \def\aj{AJ}% % Astronomical Journal
31: \def\actaa{Acta Astron.}% % Acta Astronomica
32: \def\araa{ARA\&A}% % Annual Review of Astron and Astrophys
33: \def\apj{ApJ}% % Astrophysical Journal
34: \def\apjl{ApJ}% % Astrophysical Journal, Letters
35: \def\apjs{ApJS}% % Astrophysical Journal, Supplement
36: \def\ao{Appl.~Opt.}% % Applied Optics
37: \def\apss{Ap\&SS}% % Astrophysics and Space Science
38: \def\aap{A\&A}% % Astronomy and Astrophysics
39: \def\aapr{A\&A~Rev.}% % Astronomy and Astrophysics Reviews
40: \def\aaps{A\&AS}% % Astronomy and Astrophysics, Supplement
41: \def\azh{AZh}% % Astronomicheskii Zhurnal
42: \def\baas{BAAS}% % Bulletin of the AAS
43: \def\bac{Bull. astr. Inst. Czechosl.}% Bulletin of the Astronomical vakia
44: \def\caa{Chinese Astron. Astrophys.}% % Chinese Astronomy and Astrophysics
45: \def\cjaa{Chinese J. Astron. Astrophys.}% % Chinese Journal of Astronomy
46: \def\icarus{Icarus}% % Icarus
47: \def\jcap{J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.}% % Journal of Cosmology and Asics
48: \def\jrasc{JRASC}% % Journal of the RAS of Canada
49: \def\mnras{MNRAS}% % Monthly Notices of the RAS
50: \def\memras{MmRAS}% % Memoirs of the RAS
51: \def\na{New A}% % New Astronomy
52: \def\nar{New A Rev.}% % New Astronomy Review
53: \def\pasa{PASA}% % Publications of the Astron. Soc. of Australia
54: \def\pra{Phys.~Rev.~A}% % Physical Review A: General Physics
55: \def\prb{Phys.~Rev.~B}% % Physical Review B: Solid State
56: \def\prc{Phys.~Rev.~C}% % Physical Review C
57: \def\prd{Phys.~Rev.~D}% % Physical Review D
58: \def\pre{Phys.~Rev.~E}% % Physical Review E
59: \def\prl{Phys.~Rev.~Lett.}% % Physical Review Letters
60: \def\pasp{PASP}% % Publications of the ASP
61: \def\pasj{PASJ}% % Publications of the ASJ
62: \def\qjras{QJRAS}% % Quarterly Journal of the RAS
63: \def\rmxaa{Rev. Mexicana Astron. Astrofis.}% % Revista Mexicana de Astronomia
64: \def\skytel{S\&T}% % Sky and Telescope
65: \def\solphys{Sol.~Phys.}% % Solar Physics
66: \def\sovast{Soviet~Ast.}% % Soviet Astronomy
67: \def\ssr{Space~Sci.~Rev.}% % Space Science Reviews
68: \def\zap{ZAp}% % Zeitschrift fuer Astrophysik
69: \def\nat{Nature}% % Nature
70: \def\iaucirc{IAU~Circ.}% % IAU Cirulars
71: \def\aplett{Astrophys.~Lett.}% % Astrophysics Letters
72: \def\apspr{Astrophys.~Space~Phys.~Res.}% % Astrophysics Space Physics Research
73: \def\bain{Bull.~Astron.~Inst.~Netherlands}% % Bulletin Astronomical erlands
74: \def\fcp{Fund.~Cosmic~Phys.}% % Fundamental Cosmic Physics
75: \def\gca{Geochim.~Cosmochim.~Acta}% % Geochimica Cosmochimica Acta
76: \def\grl{Geophys.~Res.~Lett.}% % Geophysics Research Letters
77: \def\jcp{J.~Chem.~Phys.}% % Journal of Chemical Physics
78: \def\jgr{J.~Geophys.~Res.}% % Journal of Geophysics Research
79: \def\jqsrt{J.~Quant.~Spec.~Radiat.~Transf.}% % Journal of Quantitiative r
80: \def\memsai{Mem.~Soc.~Astron.~Italiana}% % Mem. Societa Astronomica Italiana
81: \def\nphysa{Nucl.~Phys.~A}% % Nuclear Physics A
82: \def\physrep{Phys.~Rep.}% % Physics Reports
83: \def\physscr{Phys.~Scr}% % Physica Scripta
84: \def\planss{Planet.~Space~Sci.}% % Planetary Space Science
85: \def\procspie{Proc.~SPIE}% % Proceedings of the SPIE
86:
87: % MANUSCRIPT HEADER
88: %________________________________________________________________________
89:
90: \title[Mass function of LMC star clusters]
91: {CCD photometric and mass function study of
92: 9 young Large Magellanic Cloud star clusters
93: \thanks{Based on observations collected at the European Southern
94: Observatory, Chile.}
95: }
96:
97: \author[Kumar et al.]
98: { B. Kumar$^{1,2}$,
99: R. Sagar$^{2}$ and
100: J. Melnick$^{3}$ \\
101: $^{1}$ Departamento de F\'isica, Universidad de
102: Concepci\'on, Casilla 160-C, Concepci\'on, Chile (bkumar@astro-udec.cl)\\
103: $^{2}$ Aryabhatta Research Institute of Observational Sciences,
104: Manora Peak, Nainital 263 129, India (sagar@aries.ernet.in)\\
105: $^{3}$ European Southern Observatory, Alonso de C\'{o}rdova 3107,
106: Casilla 19001, Vitacura, Santiago, Chile (jmelnick@eso.org)
107: }
108:
109: % MAIN DOCUMENT
110: %________________________________________________________________________
111: \begin{document}
112:
113: \date{\today}
114:
115: \pagerange{\pageref{firstpage}--\pageref{lastpage}} \pubyear{2007}
116:
117: \maketitle
118:
119: \label{firstpage}
120:
121: \begin{abstract}
122: We present CCD photometric and mass function study of 9 young Large
123: Magellanic Cloud star clusters namely \CLN. The \ubvri data reaching
124: down to $V \sim$ 21 mag, are collected from 3.5-meter NTT/EFOSC2 in
125: sub-arcsec seeing conditions. For NGC 1767, NGC 1994, NGC 2002, NGC 2003,
126: NGC 2011 and NGC 2136, broad band photometric CCD data are presented for
127: the first time. Seven of the 9 clusters have ages between 16 to 25 Myr
128: while remaining two clusters have ages $32\pm4$ Myr (NGC 2098) and
129: $90\pm10$ Myr (NGC 2136). For 7 younger clusters, the age estimates
130: based on a recent model and the integrated spectra are found to be
131: systematically lower ($\sim$ 10 Myr) from the present estimate. In the
132: mass range of $\sim 2 - 12$ $M_{\odot}$, the MF slopes for 8 out of nine
133: clusters were found to be similar with the value of $\gamma$ ranging
134: from $-1.90\pm0.16$ to $-2.28\pm0.21$. For NGC 1767 it is flatter
135: with $\gamma = -1.23\pm0.27$. Mass segregation effects are observed
136: for NGC 2002, NGC 2006, NGC 2136 and NGC 2098. This is consistent with
137: the findings of \citet{kontizas98} for NGC 2098. Presence of mass
138: segregation in these clusters could be an imprint of star formation
139: process as their ages are significantly smaller than their dynamical
140: evolution time. Mean MF slope of $\gamma = -2.22\pm0.16$ derived for a
141: sample of 25 young ($\le 100$ Myr) dynamically unevolved LMC stellar
142: systems provide support for the universality of IMF in the intermediate
143: mass range $\sim 2-12\ M_{\odot}$.
144: \end{abstract}
145:
146: \begin{keywords}
147: galaxies:
148: clusters: general -
149: galaxies: Magellanic Clouds
150: \end{keywords}
151:
152:
153: % sec:INTRO
154: %____________________________________________________________________________
155:
156: \section{Introduction} \label{sec:intro}
157:
158: The distribution of stellar masses that form in one star-formation event in
159: a given volume of space is called initial mass function (IMF). Some
160: theoretical studies consider that the IMF should vary with the pressure and
161: temperature of the star-forming cloud in such a way that higher-temperature
162: regions ought to produce higher average stellar masses while others have
163: exactly opposite views (see \citealt{larson98, elmegreen00} and references
164: therein). Detailed knowledge of the IMF shape in different star forming
165: environments is therefore essential. One would like to know whether it is
166: universal in time and space or not. For this, in a galaxy, its young (age
167: $\le$ 100 Myr) star clusters of different ages, abundance etc. need to be
168: observed, as they contain dynamically unevolved, (almost) coeval sets
169: of stars at the same distance with the same metallicity. For a number of
170: such reasons, populous young star clusters of the Large Magellanic Clouds
171: (LMC) are the most suitable objects for investigating the IMF. They provide
172: physical conditions not present in our Galaxy e.g. stellar richness,
173: metallicity and mass ranges (see \citealt{sagar93, sagar95} and references
174: therein). Unlike the galactic counterparts, where corrections for
175: interstellar absorption are not always trivial since it could be large
176: as well as variable \citep{sagar87, yadav01, kumar04}, for LMC star
177: clusters it is relatively small. Its treatment is therefore not a problem.
178: Furthermore, choosing young (age $\le 100$ Myr) clusters reduces the effects
179: of dynamical evolution on their MF. The present day mass function of these
180: stellar systems can therefore be considered as the IMF. The study of young
181: LMC star clusters is thus important for providing the answer to the
182: question of universality of the IMF. Both ground and Hubble Space Telescope
183: (HST) observations have therefore been obtained (see \citealt{sagar91a,
184: brocato01, matteucci02} and references therein) for a few of the large
185: number of young LMC star clusters \citep{bica99}. The potential offered by
186: them has not been fully utilised as still a large fraction of them are
187: unobserved.
188:
189: % fig:radec
190: %____________________________________________________________________
191: \begin{figure}
192: \centering
193: \includegraphics[width=9cm]{radec.eps}
194: \caption{Small dots show the location of identified LMC star clusters
195: from the catalog of \citet{bica99}. A sky area of about
196: 8\degr $\times$ 8\degr is shown centered around the optical center
197: ($\alpha_{\rm J2000} =5^h 20^{m} 56^{s}$,
198: $\delta_{\rm J2000} = -69^{\degr} 28^{\arcmin} 41^{\arcsec}$) of the LMC.
199: The bar region is clearly seen. The target clusters are shown with
200: filled triangles.}
201: \label{fig:radec}
202: \end{figure}
203:
204:
205: In this paper we derive mass function (MF) slopes using new broad band
206: $BVRI$ CCD photometric observations of the stars in 9 young LMC star clusters
207: namely \CLN. Their integrated photometric colours indicate that all of them
208: belong to SWB \citep{searle80} class of 0 or I and hence are very young with
209: ages $\le 30$ Myr \citep{elson95, bica96} except NGC 2136 which belongs to
210: SWB class of III indicating and age between 70\,-\,200 Myr.
211: Table \ref{tab:sample} lists the relevant information available prior to
212: this study. All the clusters are rich indicating higher stellar
213: density \citep{bica95} and thus most suitable for the MF study. Except
214: NGC 2011, all are elliptical in size with major axes diameters ranging
215: from 1\farcm3 to 2\farcm8. Except for NGC 2002 and NGC 2098, all others
216: are candidate members of either a pair or a multiple
217: system (see \citealt{dieball02}). Locations of the target clusters are
218: shown in Fig. \ref{fig:radec}. Most of them lie towards north-east side
219: of the LMC bar harboring young star forming regions in contrast to the
220: intermediate age (1 - 3 Gyr) cluster field of the bar. NGC 1767 lies
221: south-west region of the LMC bar. Being spread over a wide region
222: ($\sim$ 5\degr $\times$ 10\degr), the sample may reflect
223: different star forming environments. It is therefore suitable for testing
224: the universality of the IMF. When CCD observations were carried
225: out in 1990, no detailed photometric observations and MF studies had been
226: published. However, in the mean time some CCD photometric observations have
227: been published for a few of the clusters under study. A brief description of
228: the previous work on the clusters under study is given below.
229:
230: %tab:sample
231: %_________________________________________________________________
232: \input{./sample.tab}
233:
234:
235: \subsection{Previous work}
236:
237: \begin{itemize}
238:
239: \item {\bf NGC 1767.} This, a member of triple star cluster system, is
240: located in the OB association LH 8. Integrated ($U-B$) and ($B-V$) colors
241: indicate that the cluster is young with an age of $\sim$ 10 Myr.
242:
243: \item {\bf NGC 1994.} This, located in LMC DEM 210 region, is a member of a
244: 5-cluster system. Its irregular size is largest amongst them. An age of about
245: 5 - 30 Myr has been derived for the cluster from its integrated photometric
246: colour observations.
247:
248: \item {\bf NGC 2002.} This single cluster is located in the OB association
249: LH 77 in the supergiant shell LMC 4 region. The cluster center is
250: condensed, but the outer part is resolved. Integrated light observations
251: indicate an age of $\sim$ 10 - 30 Myr along with the presence of a few red
252: supergiants \citep{bica96}.
253:
254: \item {\bf NGC 2003.} Integrated photometric observations indicate an age of
255: 10 - 30 Myr for this cluster located in the Shapley III region of the LMC.
256: Its shape on the photographic image is elongated with resolved outer parts.
257:
258: \item {\bf NGC 2006 and SL 538.} This binary star cluster is located in the
259: northwestern part of the OB association LH 77 in supergiant shell LMC 4.
260: The clusters are separated by $\sim 55''$ on the sky corresponding to a
261: linear separation of 13.3 pc at the distance of LMC. Integrated photometric
262: observations obtained by \citet{bhatia92} and \citet{bica96} indicate a
263: similar age for both the clusters. Using low-resolution objective prism
264: spectra and integrated IUE spectra, \citet{kontizas98} suggested that this
265: binary cluster may merge in $\sim$ 10 Myr. Broad band and H$_{\alpha}$ CCD
266: photometric observations were obtained by \citet{dieball98}. Based on the
267: colour-magnitude diagrams (CMDs) of the clusters they derived an age of
268: $18\pm2$ Myr for SL 538 and of $22.5\pm2.5$ Myr for NGC 2006. The MF slopes
269: obtained for both the clusters were consistent with that
270: of \citet{salpeter55} and indicated similar total masses. These studies
271: thus indicates near-simultaneous formation of the cluster pair in the
272: same giant molecular cloud.
273:
274: \item {\bf NGC 2011.} This is located in the OB association region LH 75.
275: Its age estimated from the integrated photometric observations is between
276: 10 to few tens of Myr. Its photographic image indicates that it is elongated,
277: fairly condensed and partly resolved cluster. A recent analysis of its
278: stellar content using HST observations reveal that it has two parallel main
279: sequence branches, and may be a binary system \citep{gouliermis06}. However,
280: the analysis also indicate that both populations might have formed in a
281: single star forming event as the redder stars are situated in the central
282: half arcmin region and are thought to be embedded in the dust and gas, while
283: the blue stars are spread in the outer region up to 1 arcmin.
284:
285: \item {\bf NGC 2098.} This is another single cluster amongst the objects
286: under study. The first $BR$ broad band CCD photometric observations have been
287: presented by \citet{kontizas98}. They derived an age of 63 - 79 Myr and
288: found strong evidence for mass segregation in agreement with their earlier
289: studies based on the photographic observations. However, poor quality of
290: their CCD data was indicated by the authors.
291:
292: \item {\bf NGC 2136.} This is the brighter component of the young binary
293: globular cluster NGC 2136/ NGC 2137 in the LMC. The angular separation
294: between the components is about 1\farcm3. \citet{hilker95} using Stromgren
295: CCD photometry of the clusters indicates their common origin. They indicate
296: an age of 80 Myr and metallicity [Fe/H] = $-0.55\pm0.06$ dex for the cluster
297: while \citet{dirsch00} derive an age of $100\pm20$ Myr but the same
298: metallicity. The cluster contains a number of Cepheids as well as red giants.
299:
300: \end{itemize}
301:
302: The present CCD observations, in combination with earlier observations, have
303: been used to estimate and/or interpret the interstellar reddening to the
304: cluster regions, ages and mass functions of the clusters. Section 2 deals
305: with the observational data, reduction procedures and comparisons with the
306: published photometric data. In section 3, we analyse the stellar surface
307: density profiles, CMDs and MFs of the sample clusters. Last section is
308: presented with the results and discussions.
309:
310: %tab:obslog
311: %_________________________________________________________________
312: \input{./obslog.tab}
313:
314:
315: % sec:OBS
316: %_____________________________________________________________________
317:
318: \section{Observations and Data reductions} \label{sec:obs}
319:
320: The observations, procedures for data reductions are described in this
321: section along with the photometric accuracy and comparison with published
322: photometry.
323:
324: \subsection{Photometric data}
325:
326: The broad band $BVRI$ CCD photometric observations were carried out at
327: the European Southern Observatory (ESO), La Silla, Chile, in 1990 between
328: January 10 and 13 using the ESO Faint Object Spectrograph and
329: Camera-2 (EFOSC-2) mounted at the Nasmyth focus of the 3.5-m New Technology
330: Telescope (NTT). The filters used in these observations were standard Bessel
331: BVR (ESO\#583, 584, 585) and Gunn {\it i} (ESO\#618). At the focus
332: of the telescope, a 27$\mu$m square pixel of the 512$\times$512 size
333: Tektronix CCD (\#16) chip corresponds to $\sim$ 0\farcs23 and entire chip
334: covers a square area of side $\sim$ 2\farcm0 on the sky. The read out noise
335: for the system was 14 e with a gain factor of 5.5 e/ADU. During our
336: observations the seeing varied from about 0\farcs7 to 1\farcs2 (see
337: Table \ref{tab:obslog}) with a mean value of 1\farcs0
338: for $B$ band and about 0\farcs8 for $V, R$ and $I$ bands. We obtained only
339: one image for all clusters, as the CCD size was large enough to cover the
340: entire region of the compact clusters. In the case of NGC 2002 and the binary
341: cluster NGC 2136, we have also imaged a field region located about $3\arcmin$
342: away from the center of clusters. Table \ref{tab:obslog}
343: lists the log of observations. Most of the observations were taken during
344: commissioning phase of the EFOSC2 when the instrument rotator was still not
345: available. As the image on NTT rotates during exposures at rates
346: which depends upon the position on the sky, only exposures of up to at
347: most few minutes were possible. Bias frames were taken intermittently.
348: Flat-field exposures were made of the twilight sky. Dark current frames
349: were also secured.
350:
351: Nine \citet{landolt92} standards covering a range in brightness
352: ($11.4 < V < 13.1$) as well as in colour ($-0.13 <(V-R)< 0.67$) were
353: observed for calibration purposes. The excellent photometric quality of
354: the sky during the observations have ensured the accuracy of the data
355: presented here.
356:
357:
358: \subsection {Reductions}
359:
360: %tab:photerr
361: %_________________________________________________________________
362: \input{./photerr.tab}
363:
364: %tab:photmag
365: %_________________________________________________________________
366: \input{./photmag.tab}
367:
368:
369: % fig:n2006dif
370: %____________________________________________________________________
371: \begin{figure}
372: \centering
373: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{./n2006dif.eps}
374: \caption{Comparison of the present photometry in NGC 2006/SL 538 with
375: those of \citet{dieball98}. The differences denote present minus
376: literature data.}
377: \label{fig:n2006dif}
378: \end{figure}
379:
380: The data were reduced using computing facilities available at the
381: ARIES Observatory, Nainital. Initial processing of the data frames was done
382: in the usual manner using the IRAF/MIDAS data reduction package. The
383: flat-field frames were summed for each colour band. The evenness of
384: flat fields is better than a few percent in all the filters.
385:
386: The magnitude estimate of a star on the data frames has been done
387: using DAOPHOT software \citep{stetson87, stetson92}. Further processing and
388: conversion of these raw instrumental magnitudes into the standard
389: photometric system have been done using the procedure outlined by
390: \citet{stetson92}. The image parameters and errors provided by DAOPHOT
391: were used to reject poor measurements. About 10\% of the stars were
392: rejected in this process. The DAOMASTER program was used for cross
393: identifying the stars measured on different frames of a cluster
394: region. In those cases where brighter stars are saturated on deep
395: exposure frames, their magnitudes have been taken only from the short
396: exposure frames. Most of the stars brighter than V $\sim$ 10.5 mag
397: could not be measured because they are saturated even on the shortest
398: exposure frames.
399:
400: In deriving the colour equations for the CCD system and evaluating the
401: zero-points for the data frames, we have used mean values of atmospheric
402: extinction coefficients of the site viz 0.3, 0.2, 0.15 and 0.1 mag
403: for $B, V, R$ and $I$ band respectively. The colour equations
404: for the CCD system are determined by performing aperture photometry on the
405: photometric standards. By fitting least square linear regressions in the
406: observed aperture magnitudes as a function of the standard photometric
407: indices, following colour equations are derived for the system:
408:
409: \[ B-V = 1.219\pm0.024 (b-v) - 1.113\pm0.028 \]
410: \[ V-R = 1.065\pm0.019 (v-r) - 0.116\pm0.016 \]
411: \[ V-I = 1.062\pm0.010 (v-i) + 1.101\pm0.014 \]
412: \[ V-v = 0.032\pm0.017 (V-R) - 1.145\pm0.013 \]
413:
414: \noindent
415: where $B, V, R$ and $I$ are the standard magnitudes provided
416: by \citet{landolt92}. The $b, v, r$ and $i$ are the CCD aperture
417: magnitudes. The RMS deviations of the Landolt standards around the
418: fitted magnitudes are found to be 0.033, 0.035, 0.027 and 0.026 mag
419: respectively for $B, V, R$ and $I$. For establishing the local standards,
420: we selected about 30 isolated stars in each field and used the DAOGROW
421: program for construction of the aperture growth curve required for
422: determining the difference between aperture and profile-fitting magnitudes.
423: These differences, together with the differences in exposure times and
424: atmospheric extinction, were used in evaluating zero-points for local
425: standards in the data frames. The zero-points are uncertain
426: by $\sim$ 0.013 mag in $B, V, R$ and $I$.
427:
428: The internal errors estimated from the scatter in the individual measures
429: of different exposures in NGC 2002 cluster region are listed in
430: Table \ref{tab:photerr} as a function of magnitude
431: for all filters. The errors become large ($\ga 0.10$ mag) for stars fainter
432: than 20 mag. They can be considered as representative of the accuracy of
433: our photometry in all the cluster and field regions under study. The number
434: of stars measured in different photometric passbands in an imaged region
435: are given in Table \ref{tab:obslog}. The X and Y pixel coordinates as well
436: as $V, (B-V), (V-R)$, and $(V-I)$ CCD magnitudes of the stars observed
437: in the regions of \CLN\ are listed in Table \ref{tab:photmag}. Stars
438: observed by others have been identified in the last column of the table.
439: Only sample table is presented here; the entire table is available in
440: electronic version of the article and also from the authors.
441:
442:
443: % fig:n2098dif
444: %____________________________________________________________________
445: \begin{figure}
446: \centering
447: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{./n2098dif.eps}
448: \caption{Comparison of the present photometry in NGC 2098 with those of
449: \citet{kontizas98}. The differences denote present minus literature data.}
450: \label{fig:n2098dif}
451: \end{figure}
452:
453: %tab:radden
454: %_________________________________________________________________
455: \input{./radden.tab}
456:
457:
458: \subsection {Photometric Comparisons}
459:
460: We compare the present CCD photometry with the published ones for the
461: clusters NGC 2006, SL538 and NGC 2098 in the following subsections.
462:
463: {\bf NGC 2006 and SL 538.} The present photometry has 297 stars in common
464: with the CCD photometric data given by \citet{dieball98}. The plot
465: of the differences between the two data sets (see Fig. \ref{fig:n2006dif})
466: indicate agreement between the V magnitudes of the two data sets and the
467: present photometry is $\sim$ 0.04 mag brighter in $V$ while the $B-V$ and
468: $V-R$ colour agrees fairly well. The RMS scatter in $\Delta V$,
469: $\Delta (B-V)$ and $\Delta (V-R)$ was found to be 0.08 mag, 0.12 mag and
470: 0.09 mag respectively and it can be understood in terms of the error
471: present in both the photometries. There are a few outliers which appear
472: to be mostly stars located in the nucleus region of the cluster and were
473: treated as blended multiple stars in one of the photometry. We also note
474: that the plot of differences with the color show a small systematic trend
475: in $\Delta (V-R)$ and it is apparent also to some extent in $\Delta (B-V)$.
476: This may arise due to a second order color term from the B filter or due
477: to a minor calibration uncertainties present in one of the photometry.
478:
479: {\bf NGC 2098.} There are 174 stars common between present photometry and
480: the $BR$ data given by \citet{kontizas98}. The differences between these
481: data are plotted in Fig. \ref{fig:n2098dif}. They indicate that there is
482: a constant difference between $B$ and $R$ magnitudes of the two data sets.
483: We suspect that poor observing conditions during the \citet{kontizas98}
484: observations may be responsible for the observed differences.
485:
486:
487: % sec:ANALYSIS
488: %_____________________________________________________________________
489:
490: \section {Data Analysis} \label{sec:analysis}
491:
492: The photometric data of the clusters under study have been used to study
493: extent of the clusters along with their colour-magnitude diagrams (CMDs)
494: and mass function in the following sub sections.
495:
496: \subsection {Radial density profiles} \label{sec:radden}
497:
498: The spatial surface density profile of stars can be used to determine
499: cluster radius, $r_{\rm c}$, which is taken as the distance from the
500: cluster center where the average cluster
501: contribution becomes negligible with respect to the background stellar field.
502: It can also be used to estimate extent of field star contamination in the
503: cluster region. For this, first we derive the cluster center iteratively
504: by calculating average X and Y positions of stars within 150 pixels from
505: an eye estimated centre, until it converged to a constant value. An error
506: of about 10 to 20 pixels is expected in locating the cluster centre. The
507: (X,Y) pixel coordinates of the cluster centres are given in
508: Table \ref{tab:radden}. For determining the radial surface density of stars
509: in a cluster, the imaged area has been divided into a number of concentric
510: circles with respect to the above estimated cluster centre, in such a way
511: that each zone contains statistically significant numbers of stars. The
512: number density of stars, $\rho_i$, in $i^{th}$ zone has been evaluated as
513:
514: $\rho_i = \frac{N_i}{A_i}$
515:
516: \noindent
517: where $N_i$ is the number of stars up to $V \sim$ 20 mag and $A_i$ is the
518: area of the $i^{th}$ zone. Wherever the zones cover only part of the imaged
519: cluster area, it has been accounted far in the determination of $A_i$.
520: The assumed concentric circles and the stellar surface densities derived
521: in this way for the clusters under discussion are shown in Figs 4 to 6 and 8
522: to 12. Presence of clear radius-density variation confirms the relatively
523: small diameters (compactness) of the star clusters under study.
524:
525:
526: % fig:n1767
527: %____________________________________________________________________
528: \begin{figure*}
529: \centering
530: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{n1767id.eps}
531: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{n1767rad.eps}
532: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{n1767age.eps}
533: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{n1767cmd.eps}
534: \caption{NGC 1767. {\it Top left} : Identification chart for the
535: observed $\sim 2\arcmin \times 2\arcmin$ region of NGC 1767 by EFOSC2/NTT.
536: The size of the filled circle is proportional to apparent magnitude in
537: such a way that brighter stars have larger sizes. North is
538: up and east is to left. Innermost ring defines core region while the
539: outermost ring represents cluster boundary (see Table \ref{tab:radden}).
540: Except NGC 2002 and NGC 2136, the field region is considered beyond the
541: outermost ring. {\it Top right} : Stellar surface density of stars
542: around cluster center is shown. Poisson errors are shown with vertical
543: bars. First and third dotted vertical lines represent core and cluster
544: radius respectively. Ring 1 and Ring 2 region are used for
545: MF determination. The horizontal arrow at the rightmost
546: corner of the plot shows field star density. {\it Bottom left} : The
547: CMDs for the cluster region ($r < r_{\rm c}$) and the two isochrones from
548: \citet{girardi02} confining the best age estimates are shown by dotted
549: (younger ishochrone) and solid (older isochrone) continuous curves.
550: LMC distance modulus of 18.5 and normal reddening law has been assumed.
551: The resulting color excess parameters are posted in the respective CMD
552: panel. The MS gaps (see Table \ref{tab:age}) are
553: marked with horizontal bars. {\it Bottom right} : The CMDs for field
554: region alone ($r > r_{\rm c}$) are shown. Reduced stellar density
555: for MS as well as the red clump around $(V-R) \sim 0.5$ mag,
556: $(B-V) \sim 0.95$ mag and $V \sim 19.5$ mag are clearly seen.}
557: \label{fig:n1767}
558: \end{figure*}
559:
560: % fig:n1994
561: %____________________________________________________________________
562: \begin{figure*}
563: \centering
564: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{./n1994id.eps}
565: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{./n1994rad.eps}
566: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{./n1994age.eps}
567: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{./n1994cmd.eps}
568: \caption{NGC 1994. Other descriptions are the same as for NGC 1767
569: in Fig. \ref{fig:n1767}.}
570: \label{fig:n1994}
571: \end{figure*}
572:
573: % fig:n2002
574: %____________________________________________________________________
575: \begin{figure*}
576: \centering
577: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{./n2002id.eps}
578: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{./n2002rad.eps}
579: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{./n2002age.eps}
580: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{./n2002cmd.eps}
581: \caption{NGC 2002. Other descriptions are the same as for NGC 1767
582: in Fig. \ref{fig:n1767}. The top right figure also shows the
583: radial star density (open circles) of the field region imaged
584: about 3\arcmin away from the cluster center and shown in
585: Fig. \ref{fig:f2002}, the center is selected arbitrarily at X=256
586: and Y=256 pixel.}
587: \label{fig:n2002}
588: \end{figure*}
589:
590: % fig:f2002
591: %____________________________________________________________________
592: \begin{figure*}
593: \centering
594: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{./f2002id.eps}
595: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{./f2002cmd.eps}
596: \caption{Identification chart and CMDs for NGC 2002 field region.}
597: \label{fig:f2002}
598: \end{figure*}
599:
600: % fig:n2003
601: %____________________________________________________________________
602: \begin{figure*}
603: \centering
604: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{./n2003id.eps}
605: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{./n2003rad.eps}
606: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{./n2003age.eps}
607: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{./n2003cmd.eps}
608: \caption{NGC 2003. Other descriptions are the same as for NGC 1767
609: in Fig. \ref{fig:n1767}.}
610: \label{fig:n2003}
611: \end{figure*}
612:
613:
614: % fig-n2006
615: %____________________________________________________________________
616: \begin{figure*}
617: \centering
618: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{./n2006id.eps}
619: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{./n2006rad.eps}
620: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{./n2006age.eps}
621: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{./n2006cmd.eps}
622: \caption{NGC 2006 and SL 538. The two left panels in the bottom left figure
623: correspond to NGC 2006 and the stars are shown with $r < 120$ pixel
624: while the two right panels belong to SL 538 with $r < 110$ pixel.
625: Other descriptions are the same as for NGC 1767 in Fig.
626: \ref{fig:n1767}.}
627: \label{fig:n2006}
628: \end{figure*}
629:
630:
631: % fig-n2011
632: %____________________________________________________________________
633: \begin{figure*}
634: \centering
635: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{./n2011id.eps}
636: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{./n2011rad.eps}
637: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{./n2011age.eps}
638: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{./n2011cmd.eps}
639: \caption{NGC 2011. Other descriptions are the same as for NGC 1767
640: in Fig. \ref{fig:n1767}.}
641: \label{fig:n2011}
642: \end{figure*}
643:
644: % fig:n2098
645: %____________________________________________________________________
646: \begin{figure*}
647: \centering
648: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{./n2098id.eps}
649: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{./n2098rad.eps}
650: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{./n2098age.eps}
651: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{./n2098cmd.eps}
652: \caption{NGC 2098. Other descriptions are the same as for NGC 1767
653: in Fig. \ref{fig:n1767}.}
654: \label{fig:n2098}
655: \end{figure*}
656:
657: % fig:n2136
658: %____________________________________________________________________
659: \begin{figure*}
660: \centering
661: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{./n2136id.eps}
662: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{./n2136rad.eps}
663: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{./n2136age.eps}
664: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{./n2136cmd.eps}
665: \caption{NGC 2136. Other descriptions are the same as for NGC 1767
666: in Fig. \ref{fig:n1767}. The top right figure also shows the
667: radial star density (open circles) of the field region imaged
668: about 3\arcmin away from the cluster center and shown in
669: Fig. \ref{fig:f2136}, the center is selected arbitrarily at X=256 and
670: Y=256.}
671: \label{fig:n2136}
672: \end{figure*}
673:
674: % fig:f2136
675: %____________________________________________________________________
676: \begin{figure*}
677: \centering
678: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{./f2136id.eps}
679: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{./f2136cmd.eps}
680: \caption{Identification chart and CMDs for NGC 2136 field region.}
681: \label{fig:f2136}
682: \end{figure*}
683:
684:
685: The level of field star density derived from the outer region are also
686: shown in these figures. The field star densities up to $V = 20$ mag are
687: in the range of 69 to 102 star arcmin$^{-2}$ with an average value of about
688: 80 stars arcmin$^{-2}$. For NGC 2002 and NGC 2136, the field stellar
689: density is also estimated from a $2\arcmin \times 2\arcmin$ region
690: lying $\sim 3\arcmin$ away from cluster center. The derived mean densities
691: are 78 and 56 stars arcmin$^{-2}$ respectively. The corresponding values
692: derived from the outermost region of the clusters ($ r > r_{\rm c}$) are
693: 79 and 80 stars/arcmin$^{2}$. Within our statistical uncertainty, they
694: are similar. It can therefore be concluded that the extent of field star
695: contamination is similar in all the clusters under discussion. We also
696: derive the spatial variation of the field star density from the imaged
697: field regions taking $X = 256$ pix and $Y = 256$ pix as its center and
698: the same are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:n2002} and Fig. \ref{fig:n2136}. It
699: is seen that the stellar density of the field region follows the background
700: densities derived from the outermost regions of these two clusters. This
701: indicates that stars with $r > r_{\rm c}$ can be used to estimate field
702: star contamination in the cluster. From these numbers as well as the
703: cluster sequences present in the CM diagrams discussed below, one may
704: say that the field star contamination in the stars brighter
705: than $V \sim 20$ mag is not strong enough to smear the cluster sequences
706: and hence affect the results derived below.
707:
708: As our data are substantially incomplete in the crowded central region
709: of the clusters, we are unable to evaluate the value of stellar density
710: at the cluster center. Consequently, the radius at which central stellar
711: density becomes half can not be determined. However, the radial density
712: profiles of all the clusters clearly indicate the innermost cluster
713: region ($\le$ 30 pixel) where stellar crowding is so large that it cannot
714: be used to determine the cluster MF accurately. Similarly, the outermost
715: regions of the clusters where the stellar density becomes flat is clearly
716: defined and we have considered this as the cluster radius. In Figs 4 to 6
717: and 8 to 12, one can see that for all the clusters beyond a radius
718: $R \sim 0\farcm9$, the number of stars up to 20 mag per unit area drops
719: to a uniform level which might be considered as a good approximation of
720: the background density. The cluster radius for the target clusters range
721: from 120 pixels ($\sim 0\farcm5$) for NGC 2006 \& SL 538 to 260 pixels
722: ($\sim 1\farcm0$) for NGC 2136. Its value is about $0\farcm75$ for NGC 1767
723: and NGC 2098 while the remaining clusters have a radius of about $0\farcm92$.
724: In order to see radial variations of MF, the entire cluster region
725: (excluding core) has been divided into two annulus region i.e. Ring 1 and
726: Ring 2. The pixel values of the cluster radius, core region, Ring 1 and
727: Ring 2 are listed in Table \ref{tab:radden}.
728:
729:
730: \subsection {Color magnitude diagrams} \label{sec:cmd}
731:
732: In order to properly analyse the CMDs of our LMC clusters, it is necessary to
733: delineate the cluster sequences from the unavoidable field star contamination.
734: We therefore constructed CMDs of stars located at different radial distances
735: from the cluster center. This helps us to clearly distinguish cluster
736: features from those characterising the surrounding LMC fields. Consequently,
737: two CMDs for each cluster, one representing the features of the clusters
738: while other characterising the surrounding field region are constructed.
739: Figures \ref{fig:n1767} to \ref{fig:n2002} and \ref{fig:n2003} to
740: \ref{fig:n2136} show the CMDs of the cluster ($r \le r_{\rm c}$) as well
741: as of
742: the field ($r > r_{\rm c}$) regions. For NGC 2002 and NGC 2136, we also show
743: the CMDs of a nearby field ($2\arcmin \times 2$\arcmin) regions in Figs 7 and
744: 13 respectively. A characteristic MS from $V \sim 14$ mag to 20 mag is seen
745: in all the clusters, except NGC 2136 where it begins at around $V \sim $ 16
746: mag, indicating their youthful (age $\la 25$ Myr) nature. In addition, the
747: brighter end ($V \sim 13$ mag) is also populated by a few blue and red
748: supergiants. This is in contrast to the field regions which is only sparsely
749: populated by stars towards lower MS ($V \ga 16$ mag). Red clump of stars
750: near $V \sim 19.5$ mag, $(B-V) \sim 0.9$ mag and $(V-R) \sim 0.5$ mag in the
751: CMDs, are populated by evolved stars arising from the old age ($\ga$ 1 Gr)
752: stellar populations of the LMC. Such a feature has also been observed in
753: other CCD photometric studies of LMC star
754: clusters (see \citealt{sagar91b} and references therein).
755: These are intermediate age core helium burning stars of the LMC
756: field forming a clump in the CMDs.
757:
758: For constructing mass functions of the clusters under study, we need
759: determination of distance, age and reddening for each object and the same are
760: being described below.
761:
762: A value of $18.5\pm0.1$ mag for the true distance modulus of the LMC is
763: now well
764: constrained since it is derived using more than two dozen independent
765: measurements (see \citealt{alves04, schaefer08} and references therein).
766: The individual determinations, however, vary from 18.1 to
767: 18.8 mag primarily due to different standard candles being
768: used e.g. the Red clump, tip of red giant branch, Cepheids, RR Lyrae
769: stars, Mira variables, SN1987A, eclipsing binaries etc. We adopt
770: $18.5 \pm 0.1$ mag as distance modulus for LMC in the present study.
771: Being everything similar, smaller distances result in lower ages
772: and affect the derived mass ranges for MFs. A closer analysis indicates that
773: adopting distance modulus 0.4 mag different changes the derived mass
774: functions significantly, although its effect on MF slopes are observed
775: to be negligible \citep{sagar91a}.
776:
777: We use the stellar evolutionary models by \citet{girardi02} to estimate
778: clusters ages and adopt a constant value of metallicity $Z=0.008$
779: (Fe/H $\sim$ 0.3 dex). Recent estimates on the present day chemical
780: abundance for LMC stellar population converge to a sub-solar metallicity,
781: for example, \citet{rolleston02}
782: derive a metallicity index of $-0.31\pm0.4$ for OB-type main sequence stars.
783: For many young ($\tau < 100$ Myr) LMC star clusters, the metallicity seems to
784: have a plateau around Fe/H $\sim$ 0.4. \citep{mackey03, kerber07}.
785: Effects of metallicity variation on the derived MF slope indicate that it
786: becomes flatter with decreasing value of Z. A change in Z from 0.02 to 0.004
787: has a negligible effect on the MF slope, see Fig. 6 of \citet{sagar91a}.
788:
789: Reddening towards surrounding LMC region is observed to be around
790: $E(B-V) = 0.075$ mag as estimated from all sky maps
791: at 100 $\mu m$ \citep{schlegel98}. Based on HI emission
792: map \citep{burstein82}, the predicted $E(B-V)$ towards cluster lie
793: between 0.05 to 0.1 mag. However, the intra-galactic reddening across
794: LMC is observed to vary and it may be as
795: high as 0.3 mag in some regions \citep{bessell91}. We therefore adjusted
796: the value of reddening to best fit the isochrones to the MS. Our age
797: estimates are greatly facilitated by the presence of a few blue and red
798: supergiants. The best estimate for age lies between two isochrones identified
799: for each cluster and are shown in Figs. \ref{fig:n1767} to \ref{fig:n2002}
800: and \ref{fig:n2003} to \ref{fig:n2136} and accordingly, we adopt mean age
801: ($\tau$/Myr) and uncertainty. The reddening and the adopted ages derived
802: in this way are listed in Table \ref{tab:age}. The values
803: of $E(B-V)$ are $\le 0.1$ mag for all the clusters except for NGC 1767 and
804: NGC 2002 where its value is 0.18 and 0.2 mag respectively. Thus the present
805: low reddening values are in agreement with those based on HI and dust
806: emission map of sky.
807:
808: The present age estimates for NGC 2006 ($25\pm3$ Myr) and SL 538 ($20\pm2$
809: Myr) are consistent with the corresponding estimates of $22.5\pm2.5$ Myr and
810: $18\pm2$ Myr by \citet{dieball98}. Our age estimate ($32\pm4$ Myr) for NGC
811: 2098 is significantly younger than the estimate of 63\,-\,79 Myr
812: by \citet{kontizas98}.
813: For all other clusters this is the first reliable estimate of age using
814: main-sequence turn-off point in the CMDs. However, studies using integrated
815: spectra of star clusters and single population stellar library derive about
816: 10 Myr systematically younger ages \citep{wolf07}. Barring NGC 2098 and
817: NGC 2136, their age estimates for the remaining 7 clusters of our sample
818: lie between 6 to 8 Myr, while, our estimates range from 15 to 20 Myr. The
819: age estimates derived from integrated spectra using theoretical models seem
820: to be biased towards blue MS stars.
821:
822: A gap in the MS is defined as a band, not necessarily perpendicular to the MS,
823: with no or very few stars. \citet{bohm74} first located a gap in MS around
824: $(B-V)_{0} = 0.27$ mag which arise due to onset of convection in the stellar
825: envelope. Gaps seem to appear as statistically distinct features in MS
826: of star clusters \citep{sagar78, kjeldsen91, subramaniam99}. MS Gaps in the
827: present sample were identified visually and the gap parameters are listed in
828: Table \ref{tab:age}. Except NGC 2136, all the target clusters have about 0.3
829: to 0.5 mag wide gap between $M_{V} \sim$ $-3.0$ to $-5.0$ mag. This seems to
830: be characteristic feature of stellar evolution as the brighter gap location
831: corresponds to the younger clusters. Stellar evolution models do predict
832: paucity of stars around and beyond the MS turn off. However,
833: some clusters seem to have clumpy MS with more than one gaps, for example,
834: NGC 2003 and NGC 2011 show gaps of smaller amplitude ($\Delta V < 0.3$ mag)
835: at fainter magnitudes. Both these clusters have elongated spatial structures
836: and may have star forming history different from the other clusters.
837: It is therefore noted that the gaps may also arise due to stochastic
838: effects of star formation and sampling along the main sequence and it may not
839: represent any genuine astrophysical effects.
840:
841:
842: \subsection {Cluster luminosity and mass functions}
843:
844: The Luminosity functions (LFs) of LMC star clusters and their
845: corresponding field region is derived from star counts in bin width
846: of 0.5 mag in $V$ from the $V$, $(V-R)$ diagrams. It has been preferred over
847: other CMDs due to fainter limiting magnitude and better data completeness.
848: The main factors which limit the precise determinations of cluster MF
849: from present observations are data incompleteness and field star contamination
850: as the central region of the clusters are more likely to suffer from data
851: incompleteness while the outer region is more affected by field star
852: contamination. Moreover, the present photometry is generally not able to
853: resolve the central 30 pixel diameter region of each cluster. We therefore,
854: estimate the LFs for the inner (Ring 1), outer (Ring 2), and entire regions
855: of each cluster excluding the core. These regions
856: are marked in the radial density profile of the respective clusters
857: (see Sect \ref{sec:radden}) and also listed in Table \ref{tab:radden}.
858:
859: For data completeness factor (CF), we follow the usual DAOPHOT procedure of
860: adding and recovering the artificially selected stars with known
861: magnitudes and positions in the original $V$ and $R$ frame and the
862: effective CF is taken to be smaller value of them.
863: We estimate CF separately for inner, outer, and entire regions
864: as well as the corresponding field regions
865: which is usually defined as $r \ge r_{\rm c}$ (see Table \ref{tab:radden}).
866: In the case of NGC 2002 and NGC 2136, the field region refers to full
867: CCD frames of a nearby field. For each region, the number of stars (NS)
868: lying on the main sequence in the $V, (V-R)$ diagram are counted in a bin
869: width of 0.5 mag. In order to avoid field star
870: contamination from intermediate age stellar populations of the LMC, which
871: normally appear as the characteristic red clump near $V \sim 19.5$ mag
872: and $(V-R) \sim 0.5$ mag, the stars are counted in a 0.5 mag strip
873: around the best fitting isochrones. The LF for each bin is calculated as :
874:
875:
876: ${\rm LF} = \left( \frac{\rm NS}{\rm CF} \right)_{\rm cluster} -
877: \left( \frac{\rm NS}{\rm CF} \right)_{\rm field} \times {\rm Area Factor}$
878:
879: \noindent
880: We present the derived LFs for all the clusters in Table \ref{tab:lumf}.
881: Column 1 provides the magnitude bin and the columns 3 to 10 provides
882: CF and NS values for the inner, outer, entire and field regions
883: respectively. The LFs corrected for the data incompleteness and the
884: field star contamination (corrected for area difference between cluster and
885: field region) are given in the last three columns while the masses
886: corresponding to the center of mag bin derived
887: from the best fitting isochrones (see Sec. \ref{sec:cmd}) are
888: given in the 2nd column of Table \ref{tab:lumf}. For the outer region of
889: NGC 2098, the MF could not be derived due to poor statistics.
890:
891:
892: %tab:age
893: %_________________________________________________________________
894: \input{./age.tab}
895:
896: % fig:massf
897: %____________________________________________________________________
898: \begin{figure}
899: \centering
900: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{./massf.eps}
901: \caption{Mass function derived using \citet{girardi02} isochrones
902: for 'Ring 1', 'Ring 2' and 'Total' cluster region are shown with open
903: circles. Solid lines denote best fit straight line along with
904: the value of slopes displayed in respective panels. Due to low
905: statistics, MF could not be derived for the outer region of
906: NGC 2098.}
907: \label{fig:massf}
908: \end{figure}
909:
910:
911:
912:
913: %_____________________________________________________________________
914: % RESULTS
915:
916: \section {Results and discussions} \label{sec:results}
917:
918: To convert the LFs into mass functions (MFs), we divide the number given
919: in Table \ref{tab:lumf} by the mass interval, $\Delta M$, of the magnitude
920: bin under consideration. The value of $\Delta M$ is obtained from the
921: mass luminosity relation derived from the appropriate isochrones. The
922: resulting cluster MFs are plotted in Fig. \ref{fig:massf} and the slopes
923: are given in Table \ref{tab:age}. The quoted uncertainties result from the
924: linear regression solution. The slope is derived from the
925: mass distribution function $\xi(M)$ which is assumed to be a
926: power law with index $\gamma$. If dN denotes the number of stars in a
927: bin with central mass $M$, then the value of $\gamma$ is determined
928: from the linear relation :
929:
930: $log(dN) = \gamma \times log(M) + constant$
931:
932: \noindent
933: $\gamma$ is also denoted as $-(1+x)$ in the literature with
934: $\gamma = -2.35$, or $x=1.35$ being \citet{salpeter55} value.
935:
936:
937: For NGC 2002, NGC 2006, NGC 2011 and NGC 2136, the MF slopes for inner
938: (Ring 1) and outer (Ring 2) cluster regions differ by about one dex and
939: is shallower for the inner cluster region.
940: In case of NGC 2098 too, the MF slope for the entire region is steeper than
941: the inner region. However, due to poor statistics the MF slope for the outer
942: region could not be derived. \citet{kontizas98} found similar trend for SL
943: 566 and NGC 2098, i.e. shallower LF slopes in the inner regions of the
944: clusters. This could be interpreted as mass segregation (high concentration
945: of heavier stars in the central region) and it may arise due to star
946: formation or dynamical evolution processes. As the ages of the clusters under
947: discussion are less than the dynamical relaxation time, the observed
948: variation may be an imprint of star formation. However, we note that the
949: combined effect of scatter in MF slope may be as large as one dex and
950: hence, we suggest HST observations
951: to resolve the stars of the cluster core region and to confirm the radial
952: variation of MF slope. For further discussion, we consider only the MF slope
953: derived for the total cluster region.
954:
955: The mass range for the sample clusters are similar and vary from $\sim$
956: $2$ to $12$ $M_{\odot}$ except for NGC 2136 where it is only $2$ to $6$
957: $M_{\odot}$. As the ages of all the clusters are less than the dynamical
958: evolution times ($\sim 100$ Myrs), the slope of the present day MFs can be
959: considered as slope of IMFs. Furthermore, we also assume that all the stars
960: in the cluster are formed in a single star-forming bursts and hence barring
961: most evolved stars, the derived MFs could be least affected by the star
962: formation history of the clusters. Excluding NGC 1767, we get a mean MF slope
963: of $-2.13\pm0.14$ for 8 target clusters. This value is not too different
964: from the Salpeter value derived for solar neighbourhood stars and for other
965: young galactic and M33 star clusters in the intermediate mass range (cf.
966: \citealt{sagar00, sagar02, chen07}). The mass function slope for NGC 1767
967: was found to be significantly flatter ($\gamma \sim -1.23$) than the
968: Salpeter value.
969:
970: Our MF slopes $-1.90\pm0.16$ for NGC 2006 and $-2.03\pm0.41$ for SL 538 are
971: consistent with the corresponding values of $2.27\pm0.32$ and $-2.22\pm0.31$
972: derived by \citet{dieball98}. Fig. \ref{fig:mfslopes}, shows the variation of
973: MF slopes with galactocentric distance for 26 young ($< 100$ Myr) star
974: clusters and associations in the LMC. This includes 9 clusters from the
975: present work, while the data for other objects are taken from the
976: Table 1 of \citet{sagar00}. For four clusters, we have two
977: estimates for the MF slope and these points are also shown in
978: Fig.\ref{fig:mfslopes}.
979: Regarding NGC 1767 as an outlier, remaining sample of 25 has a mean MF
980: slope $\gamma = -2.22\pm0.16$ indicating that the MF slope in LMC clusters
981: are not significantly different from the \citet{salpeter55} value.
982: The scatter seen in Fig. \ref{fig:mfslopes} in MF slope is introduced by many
983: factors, for example, data incompleteness and field star contamination,
984: dynamical and stellar evolutionary state of star clusters, limited range in
985: mass and assumed model to derive mass-luminosity relation and Poisson noise
986: etc. \citep{kroupa01, sagar91a, sagar02}. The detailed analysis indicate that
987: the cumulative effect of the various uncertainties could be as large as 0.4
988: dex for young rich LMC star clusters \citep{sagar02}. We therefore conclude
989: that the scatter seen in Fig. \ref{fig:mfslopes} is real and it does indicate
990: the limitations of MF slope determinations from the ground based observations.
991: Despite being situated in different locations of LMC the studied sample of
992: young clusters and associations supports the idea of some universal IMF as a
993: consequence of star formation processes in star clusters and associations.
994: % fig:mfslopes
995: %____________________________________________________________________
996: \begin{figure}
997: \centering
998: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{./mfslopes.eps}
999: \caption{Plot of MF slopes against the
1000: galactocentric distance ($r_{\rm G}$) in LMC. Including estimates
1001: from the literature (see text), the MF slopes for 26 young ($< 100$ Myr)
1002: star clusters and associations are shown. The horizontal dashed line
1003: represent the \citet{salpeter55} value of IMF slope for the field stars
1004: in solar neighbourhood while dotted line indicate the mean slope for a
1005: sample of 25 (excluding one outlier) LMC star clusters and associations.}
1006: \label{fig:mfslopes}
1007: \end{figure}
1008:
1009:
1010:
1011: % sec:SUMMARY
1012: %_____________________________________________________________________
1013:
1014: \section {Summary} \label{sec:summary}
1015:
1016: We present \ubvri CCD data obtained from 3.5-meter ESO NTT/EFOSC2
1017: observations for 9 young Large Magellanic Cloud star clusters
1018: namely \CLN\ and their nearby field regions reaching down to $V \sim 20$ mag
1019: for $\sim$ 6400 stars altogether. They are the first accurate broad band
1020: CCD photometric data for all the clusters except for the binary cluster
1021: NGC 2006 and SL 538. The observations are made in a region
1022: of $\sim 2\arcmin \times 2\arcmin$ around the cluster center. The data
1023: were collected during Jan 10 to Jan 13, 1990 in good seeing conditions
1024: ranging from 0\farcs7 to 1\farcs0 and reduced using DAOPHOT and MIDAS
1025: softwares. Photometric calibrations are done using Landolt (1992) stars
1026: and the zero point accuracy is better than $0.02$ mag. Photometric errors
1027: become large (\ga 0.1 mag) for stars fainter than $V = 20$ mag.
1028:
1029: We examine radial density profiles, general features of the main
1030: sequence and estimate age and reddening for individual clusters
1031: using Padova isochrones. The various CMDs of the clusters under study were
1032: used to estimate their MF, age and reddening. In order to study radial
1033: variation in MF, the LFs are derived for inner, outer, and entire cluster
1034: regions. Due to compactness of the clusters, such study could not be
1035: carried out for the core regions of the clusters. The LFs are corrected
1036: for both data incompleteness and field contamination. The main conclusions
1037: of the present study are as follows.
1038:
1039: \begin{enumerate}
1040:
1041: \item
1042: Seven of the nine clusters have ages $\le 25$ Myr, while the
1043: remaining two clusters have ages of $32\pm4$ Myr (NGC 2098)
1044: and $90\pm10$ Myr (NGC 2136). Our age estimates for NGC 2006 and SL 538
1045: were found to be consistent with the previous $BVR$ photometric estimate
1046: by \citet{dieball98}. For NGC 2098, our estimates are lower by about 30 Myr
1047: than \citet{kontizas98}. Thus, the ages of all the clusters in our sample
1048: are significantly lower than their typical dynamical ages of a few 100 Myrs.
1049:
1050: \item
1051: For younger ($\le$ 25 Myr) clusters, the age estimates based on
1052: a recent population synthesis models by \citet{wolf07} and integrated
1053: spectra are systematically lower by about 10 Myr than the present age
1054: estimates based on CMDs.
1055:
1056: \item Assuming an LMC distance modulus of 18.5 mag, the derived
1057: reddening for the clusters in our sample was found to be consistent
1058: with that derived from HI emission and 100 $\mu m$ all sky dust maps.
1059:
1060: \item
1061: In the mass range of $2 - 12\ M_{\odot}$, the MF slopes for 8 out of 9
1062: sample clusters were found to be similar with values of $\gamma$ ranging
1063: from $-1.90\pm0.16$ to $-2.28\pm0.21$. For NGC 1767 the slope was
1064: found to be significantly shallower with $\gamma = -1.23\pm0.25$. The
1065: present MF values are consistent with those derived by \citet{dieball98}
1066: for NGC 2006 and SL 538. \citet{selman05} studied the star formation
1067: history and IMF of the field population of 30 Doradus super association
1068: and found that it has a Salpeter slope in the mass range of 7
1069: to 40 $M_{\odot}$.
1070:
1071:
1072: \item
1073: Mass function slopes of the inner and outer cluster regions indicates the
1074: presence of mass segregations in NGC 2002, NGC 2006, NGC 2136 and NGC 2098.
1075: For NGC 2098, \citet{kontizas98} derive the dynamical relaxation time,
1076: $T_{\rm e}$
1077: between 640 to 1050 Myr. This may indicate that the value of $T_{\rm e}$ for
1078: LMC star clusters could be few hundreds of Myr. The ages of LMC star
1079: clusters under study are therefore significantly smaller than their
1080: dynamical relaxation time. Consequently, observed mass segregation
1081: in these clusters is probably primordial in nature. A compilation of both
1082: ground and space based observations of extremely young galactic and MC star
1083: clusters (cf. \citealt{hunter95}; \citealt{sagar88};
1084: \citealt{hillenbrand98}; \citealt{chen07} and references therein)
1085: indicates presence of mass
1086: segregation in most of them, although to varying degrees. All these indicate
1087: that in most of the young star clusters located in different galaxies, mass
1088: segregation effects are observed and most likely they are imprint of star
1089: formation processes.
1090:
1091: \item
1092: A mean MF slope of $\gamma = -2.22\pm0.16$ derived for a sample of 25
1093: young ($< 100$ Myr) stellar systems in LMC provide support for the
1094: universality of IMF in the intermediate mass range $\sim 2-10\ M_{\odot}$.
1095: An IMF study of the 30 Doradus star forming region of LMC by
1096: \citet{selman05} also support this conclusion.
1097:
1098: \end{enumerate}
1099:
1100: % sec:ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
1101: %_____________________________________________________________________
1102:
1103: \section*{acknowledgments}
1104: Authors are thankful to the anonymous referee for constructive comments.
1105: Useful discussions with Drs. K.S. de Boer, P. Kroupa and T. Richtler
1106: are gratefully acknowledged. We thank Dr. Vijay Mohan for help in data
1107: reduction. One of us (RS) would like to thank the Alexander von
1108: Humboldt Foundation, Bonn for providing financial support to work at
1109: the Sterwarte/Argelander Institute of Astronomy in Bonn. BK
1110: acknowledge support from the Chilean center for Astrophysics
1111: FONDAP No. 15010003.
1112:
1113: % REFERENCES
1114: %______________________________________________________________________
1115:
1116: \begin{thebibliography}{9}
1117:
1118: \bibitem[Alves (2004)]{alves04}
1119: Alves, D. R., 2004, \nar, 48, 659
1120:
1121: \bibitem[Burstein \& Heiles (1982)]{burstein82}
1122: Burstein, D., Heiles, C., 1982, \aj, 87, 1165
1123:
1124: \bibitem[Bessell (1991)]{bessell91}
1125: Bessell, M. S., 1991, \aap, 242, L17
1126:
1127: \bibitem[Bhatia (1992)]{bhatia92}
1128: Bhatia, R. K., 1992, Mem. Soc. Astron. Ital., 63, 141
1129:
1130: \bibitem[Bica \& Schmitt (1995)]{bica95}
1131: Bica, E., \& Schmitt, H. R., 1995, \apjs, 101, 41
1132:
1133: \bibitem[Bica et al. (1996)]{bica96}
1134: Bica, E., Clari\'{a} J. J., Dottori H., et al. 1996, \apjs, 102, 57
1135:
1136: \bibitem[Bica et al. (1999)]{bica99}
1137: Bica E., Schmitt H. R., Dutra C. M., et al. 1999, \apj, 117, 238
1138:
1139: \bibitem[B\"ohm-Vitense \& Canterna (1974)]{bohm74}
1140: B\"ohm-Vitense, E., \& Canterna, R., 1974, \apj, 194, 629
1141:
1142: \bibitem[Brocato et al. (2001)]{brocato01}
1143: Brocato E., Di Carlo E., \& Menna G., 2001, \aap, 374, 523
1144:
1145: \bibitem[Chen et al. (2007)]{chen07}
1146: Chen L., De Grijs R., \& Zhao J.L., 2007, \aj, 134, 1368
1147:
1148: \bibitem[Dieball \& Grebel (1998)]{dieball98}
1149: Dieball A., \& Grebel E. K., 1998, \aap, 339, 773
1150:
1151: \bibitem[Dieball et al. (2002)]{dieball02}
1152: Dieball A., Mueller H., \& Grebel E. K., 2002, \aap, 391, 547
1153:
1154: \bibitem[Dirsch et al. (2000)]{dirsch00}
1155: Dirsch B., Richtler T., Gieren W. P., et al. 2000, \aap, 360, 133
1156:
1157: \bibitem[Elmegreen (2000)]{elmegreen00}
1158: Elmegreen B. G., 2000, \apj, 539, 342
1159:
1160: \bibitem[Elson \& Fall (1985)]{elson95}
1161: Elson R. A. W., \& Fall S. M., 1985, \apj, 299, 211
1162:
1163: \bibitem[Girardi et al. (2002)]{girardi02}
1164: Girardi, L., Bertelli, G., Bressan, A., et al. 2002, \aap, 391, 195
1165:
1166: \bibitem[Gouliermis et al. (2006)]{gouliermis06}
1167: Gouliermis, D. A., Lianou, S., Kontizas, M., et al. 2006, \apj, 652, L93
1168:
1169: \bibitem[Hilker et al. (1995)]{hilker95}
1170: Hilker M., Richtler T., Stein D., 1995, \aap, 299, L37
1171:
1172: \bibitem[Hillenbrand \& Hartmann (1998)]{hillenbrand98}
1173: Hillenbrand, L.A., \& Hartmann, L.E., 1998, \apj, 492, 540
1174:
1175: \bibitem[Hunter et al. (1995)]{hunter95}
1176: Hunter, D. A., Shaya, E. J., Holtzmann, J. A., et al., 1995, \apj,
1177: 448, 179
1178: \bibitem[Kjeldsen \& Frandsen (1991)]{kjeldsen91}
1179: Kjeldsen, K., \& Frandsen S., 1991, \aaps, 87, 119
1180:
1181: \bibitem[Kerber et al. (2007)]{kerber07}
1182: Kerber, L. O., Santiago, B. X., \& Brocato, E., 2007, \aap, 462, 139
1183:
1184: \bibitem[Kontizas et al. (1998)]{kontizas98}
1185: Kontizas M., Hatzidimitriou D., Bellas-Velidis I., et al. 1998, \aap,
1186: 336, 503
1187:
1188: \bibitem[Kroupa (2001)]{kroupa01}
1189: Kroupa P., 2001, \mnras, 322, 221
1190:
1191: \bibitem[Kumar et al. (2004)]{kumar04}
1192: Kumar, B., Sagar, R., Sanwal, B. B. \& Bessell, M., 2004, \mnras, 353, 991
1193:
1194: \bibitem[Landolt (1992)]{landolt92}
1195: Landolt A. U., 1992, \aj, 104, 340.
1196:
1197: \bibitem[Larson (1998)]{larson98}
1198: Larson R. B., 1998, \mnras, 301, 569
1199:
1200: \bibitem[Mackey \& Gilmore (2003)]{mackey03}
1201: Mackey, A. D., Gilmore, G. F., 2003, \mnras, 338, 85
1202:
1203: \bibitem[Matteucci et al. (2002)]{matteucci02}
1204: Matteucci A., Ripepi V., Brocato E., et al. 2002, \aap, 387, 861
1205:
1206: \bibitem[Rolleston et al. (2002)]{rolleston02}
1207: Rolleston, W. R. J., Trundle, C., \& Dufton, P. L., 2002, \aap, 396, 53
1208:
1209: \bibitem[Sagar (1987)]{sagar87}
1210: Sagar R., 1987, \mnras, 228, 483
1211:
1212: \bibitem[Sagar (1993)]{sagar93}
1213: Sagar R., 1993, Current Science, 64, 293
1214:
1215: \bibitem[Sagar (1995)]{sagar95}
1216: Sagar R., 1995, Bull. Astron. Soc. India, 23, 433
1217:
1218: \bibitem[Sagar (2000)]{sagar00}
1219: Sagar R., 2000, Bull. Astron. Soc. India, 28, 55
1220:
1221: \bibitem[Sagar (2002)]{sagar02}
1222: Sagar R., 2002, IAU Symp. 207, 515
1223:
1224: \bibitem[Sagar \& Joshi (1978)]{sagar78}
1225: Sagar R., \& Joshi U.C., 1978, Bull. Astron. Soc. India, 6, 37
1226:
1227: \bibitem[Sagar et al. (1988)]{sagar88}
1228: Sagar R., Myakutin, V.I., Piskunov, A.E., Dluzhnevskaya, O. B., 1988,
1229: \mnras, 234, 831
1230:
1231: \bibitem[Sagar \& Richtler (1991)]{sagar91a}
1232: Sagar R., Richtler T., 1991, \aap, 250, 324
1233:
1234: \bibitem[Sagar et al. (1991)]{sagar91b}
1235: Sagar R., Richtler T., de Boer K. S., 1991, \aaps, 90, 387
1236:
1237: \bibitem[Salpeter (1955)]{salpeter55}
1238: Salpeter E. E., 1955, \apj, 121, 161
1239:
1240: \bibitem[Schaefer (2008)]{schaefer08}
1241: Schaefer, B. E., 2008, \aj, 135, 112
1242:
1243: \bibitem[Schlegel et al. (1998)]{schlegel98}
1244: Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P., \& Davis, M., 1998, \apj, 500, 525
1245:
1246: \bibitem[Searle et al. (1980)]{searle80}
1247: Searle, L., Wilkinson, A., \& Bagnuolo, W. G., 1980, \apj, 239, 803
1248:
1249: \bibitem[Selman \& Melnick (2005)]{selman05}
1250: Selman, F.J. \& Melnick, J., 2005, \aap, 443, 851
1251:
1252: \bibitem[Shapley \& Lindsay (1963)]{shapley63}
1253: Shapley H., \& Lindsay E. M., Ir. Astron. J., 1963, 6, 74
1254:
1255: \bibitem[Stetson (1987)]{stetson87}
1256: Stetson B., 1987, \pasp, 99, 191.
1257:
1258: \bibitem[Stetson (1992)]{stetson92}
1259: Stetson, P. B., 1992, \jrasc, 86, 71
1260:
1261: \bibitem[Subramaniam \& Sagar (1999)]{subramaniam99}
1262: Subramaniam, A. \& Sagar, R., 1999, \aj, 117, 937
1263:
1264: \bibitem[Sulentic et al. (1973)]{sulentic73}
1265: Sulentic J. W., \& Tifft W. G., 1973, Revised New General Catalogue of
1266: Nonstellar Astronomical Objects, Univ. of Arizona Press, USA
1267:
1268: \bibitem[Wolf et al. (2007)]{wolf07}
1269: Wolf, M. J., Drory, N., Gebhardt, K., et al. 2007, \apj, 655, 179
1270:
1271: \bibitem[Yadav \& Sagar (2001)]{yadav01}
1272: Yadav R. K. S., Sagar R., 2001, \mnras, 328, 370
1273:
1274: \end{thebibliography}
1275:
1276: \clearpage
1277:
1278: %tab:lumf
1279: %_________________________________________________________________
1280: \onecolumn
1281: \input{./lumf.tab}
1282: \twocolumn
1283:
1284: \bsp
1285:
1286: \label{lastpage}
1287:
1288: \end{document}
1289: