1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: \newcommand{\spitzer}{\emph{Spitzer}}
3: \newcommand{\SCUBA}{\emph{SCUBA}}
4: \newcommand{\MIPS}{\emph{MIPS}}
5: \newcommand{\IRAC}{\emph{IRAC}}
6:
7: \shortauthors{}
8:
9: \begin{document}
10: \title{Current Star Formation in the Ophiuchus and Perseus Molecular
11: Clouds: Constraints and Comparisons from Unbiased Submillimeter and Mid-Infrared Surveys. II.}
12:
13: \author{Jes K. J{\o}rgensen\altaffilmark{1,2,*}, Doug Johnstone\altaffilmark{3,4}, Helen Kirk\altaffilmark{4,3}, Philip
14: C. Myers\altaffilmark{1}, Lori E. Allen\altaffilmark{1}, \& Yancy
15: L. Shirley\altaffilmark{5}}
16: \altaffiltext{1}{Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60 Garden Street MS42, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA}
17: \altaffiltext{2}{Argelander-Institut f\"{u}r Astronomie, University of Bonn, Auf
18: dem H{\"u}gel 71, 53121, Bonn, Germany}
19: \altaffiltext{3}{Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics, National Research Council of Canada, 5071 West Saanich Road, Victoria, BC V9E 2E7, Canada}
20: \altaffiltext{4}{Department of Physics \& Astronomy, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, V8P 1A1, Canada}
21: \altaffiltext{5}{Bart J. Bok Fellow, Steward Observatory, University of Arizona, 933 N. Cherry
22: Ave., Tucson, AZ 85721}
23: \altaffiltext{*}{Current address: Argelander-Institut f\"{u}r Astronomie. E-mail: {\tt jes@astro.uni-bonn.de}}
24:
25: \begin{abstract}
26: We present a census of the population of deeply embedded young stellar
27: objects (YSOs) in the Ophiuchus molecular cloud complex based on a
28: combination of Spitzer Space Telescope mid-infrared data from the ``Cores to
29: Disks'' (c2d) legacy team and JCMT/SCUBA submillimeter maps from the
30: COMPLETE team. We have applied a method developed for identifying embedded
31: protostars in Perseus to these datasets and in this way construct a
32: relatively unbiased sample of 27 candidate embedded protostars with
33: envelopes more massive than our sensitivity limit (about 0.1 $M_\odot$). As
34: in Perseus, the mid-infrared sources are located close to the center of the
35: SCUBA cores and the narrowness of the spatial distribution of mid-infrared
36: sources around the peaks of the SCUBA cores suggests that no significant
37: dispersion of the newly formed YSOs has occurred. Embedded YSOs are found in
38: 35\% of the SCUBA cores - less than in Perseus (58\%). On the other hand the
39: mid-infrared sources in Ophiuchus have less red mid-infrared colors,
40: possibly indicating that they are less embedded. We apply a nearest
41: neighbour surface density algorithm to define the substructure in each of
42: the clouds and calculate characteristic numbers for each subregion -
43: including masses, star formation efficiencies, fraction of embedded sources
44: etc. Generally the main clusters in Ophiuchus and Perseus (L1688, NGC1333
45: and IC~348) are found to have higher star formation efficiencies than small
46: groups such as B1, L1455 and L1448, which on the other hand are completely
47: dominated by deeply embedded protostars. We discuss possible explanations
48: for the differences between the regions in Perseus and Ophiuchus, such as
49: different evolutionary timescales for the YSOs or differences, e.g., in the
50: accretion in the two clouds.
51: \end{abstract}
52:
53: \keywords{stars: formation --- ISM: clouds --- ISM: evolution --- stars:
54: pre-main sequence --- ISM: individual (Ophiuchus, Perseus)}
55:
56: \section{Introduction}
57: Although the most detailed theoretical models of star formation continue to
58: concentrate on the formation of an isolated star within a relatively pristine
59: environment, these solutions are far removed from the conditions under which a
60: vast majority of stars begin life. Stars form in environments which have a
61: wide range of physical conditions, including large scale clusters containing
62: high-mass stars, small groups of predominantly low-mass stars, and even the
63: occasional isolated single star or binary. Relating the distribution of the
64: pre- and protostellar cores to their environment on large scales is an
65: important step toward understanding the global properties of stars such as the
66: stellar initial mass function and the evolution process through the different
67: stages of young stellar objects. It is therefore important to perform unbiased
68: censuses of objects throughout their evolutionary stages. To date, the hardest
69: sample to quantify has been the most deeply embedded stages where signatures
70: of the object are observed in the mid- to far-infrared and submillimeter
71: wavelengths.
72:
73: In a previous paper \citep{scubaspitz} we performed a detailed comparison
74: between the \textit{SCUBA} submillimeter dust continuum and \textit{Spitzer
75: Space Telescope} mid-infrared observations of sources in the Perseus molecular
76: cloud in order to identify and examine the properties of starless cores and
77: deeply embedded protostars. In this paper we extend the SCUBA and Spitzer
78: analysis to Ophiuchus. We then use this analysis for a direct comparison
79: between the Ophiuchus and Perseus clouds, paying particular attention to the
80: global star formation and clustering properties of the clouds.
81:
82: Previous studies of the deeply embedded stages have been hampered by low
83: sensitivity single element (sub)millimeter receivers and confusion in low
84: resolution, low sensitivity infrared observations such as those from the IRAS
85: and ISO satellites. In the last few years systematic, detailed surveys of
86: larger regions have been made possible using wide area imaging at high
87: resolution and sensitivity using submillimeter telescopes such as the JCMT
88: with SCUBA and mid-infrared telescopes including Spitzer and its Infrared
89: Array Camera (\IRAC) and Multiband Imaging Photometer (\MIPS). The ``Cores to
90: Disks (c2d)'' Spitzer legacy team \citep{evans03} mapped five of the nearby
91: star forming clouds, including Perseus \citep{perspitz,rebull07} and Ophiuchus
92: \citep{padgett08}, using the Spitzer cameras. At submillimeter wavelengths the
93: ``COMPLETE'' team \citep{goodman04,ridge06} created maps of Perseus
94: \citep{kirk06} and Ophiuchus \citep{johnstone04} at submillimeter
95: wavelengths. Both these surveys compiled systematic samples of sources in an
96: unbiased sense and together they provide excellent constraints on the
97: properties of the starless cores and deeply embedded protostars in these cloud
98: complexes.
99:
100: \cite{scubaspitz} discussed how to associate mid-infrared Spitzer sources with
101: submillimeter SCUBA cores: a characteristic population of mid-infrared sources
102: were found closely associated with the centers of the SCUBA cores. These
103: mid-infrared sources were furthermore found to have particularly red colors
104: while the associated SCUBA cores were found to have high ``concentrations'',
105: i.e., appear centrally peaked. Determining whether this result is a
106: discriminant of the earliest stage of star formation in general, or whether it
107: is region specific, requires exploring additional clouds.
108:
109: The construction of a relatively unbiased samples of embedded protostars,
110: furthermore makes it possible to address some of the important questions
111: concerning low-mass star formation and the relation between protostars and
112: their environment. Based on the analysis of the Perseus data,
113: \citeauthor{perspitz} for example found that the Spitzer sources were strongly
114: centered around the peaks of the submillimeter cores, suggesting that little
115: dispersal of the newly formed YSOs relative to their parental cores occurs
116: during the protostellar stages. \citeauthor{perspitz} also found similar
117: numbers of SCUBA cores with and without associated MIPS sources suggesting
118: that the timescale for the evolution through the dense pre-stellar stages
119: (where the cores are recognized in the SCUBA maps) is similar to the timescale
120: for the evolution through the embedded protostellar stages. It is interesting
121: to utilize a similar method to explore the similarities and differences
122: between clouds and shed light onto the recent star formation history in
123: different cloud environments.
124:
125: The Ophiuchus molecular cloud complex\footnote{Following the other c2d studies
126: of Ophiuchus \citep{young06,padgett08} a distance of 125$\pm$25~pc \citep[][see
127: also discussion in \citealt{ophhandbook}]{degeus89} is adopted throughout this
128: paper.} provides an excellent comparison to Perseus: Ophiuchus is similar to
129: Perseus in the sense that it contains both embedded protostars and a similar
130: number of SCUBA cores. In Perseus the population of young stellar objects can be
131: divided into three main groups: the IC~348 cluster region mainly containing more
132: evolved YSOs, the NGC~1333 region which is a more currently active cluster and
133: the remainder, or extended cloud, which contains a handful of smaller groups,
134: each with $\sim$~10 members and with a relatively high fraction of deeply
135: embedded low-mass protostars compared to more evolved YSOs. The Ophiuchus cloud
136: in contrast is dominated by the L1688 cluster with some, but significantly less,
137: star formation occurring outside this main region. Comparing the embedded
138: populations of YSOs, the distribution of cores and dust extinction between these
139: two clouds, and their subgroups, makes it possible to test scenarios for star
140: formation, and their robustness across differing environments.
141:
142: This paper follows the approach of \cite{scubaspitz} and compares SCUBA
143: submillimeter and Spitzer mid-infrared observations of the Ophiuchus molecular
144: cloud. The paper is laid out as follows: \S\ref{submmandmidir} presents an
145: overview of the submillimeter and mid-infrared data which forms the basis for
146: this analysis. \S\ref{method} applies the method from \cite{scubaspitz} to the
147: Ophiuchus dataset. \S\ref{comparison} presents an analysis of the substructure
148: of Ophiuchus and Perseus using a nearest neighbor surface density algorithm
149: and compares the key numbers for the two clouds and the subregions within
150: them. \S\ref{discuss} discusses the implications for star formation scenarios
151: in the two clouds.
152:
153:
154: \section{Observations: Large-scale maps of Ophiuchus}\label{submmandmidir}
155: As in \cite{scubaspitz} the bases for this analysis are large scale maps of
156: Ophiuchus at mid-infrared wavelengths with the \textit{Spitzer Space
157: Telescope} and at submillimeter wavelengths with the \textit{SCUBA} bolometer
158: array on the \textit{JCMT}. In this section we present a brief discussion of
159: the data, in particular highlighting differences with respect to the data
160: presented in \cite{scubaspitz}.
161:
162:
163: \subsection{Submillimeter observations from JCMT/SCUBA}
164: The \emph{Submillimetre Common-User Bolometer Array (SCUBA)} on the
165: \emph{James Clerk Maxwell Telescope (JCMT)} mapped the cloud in 850~$\mu$m
166: dust continuum emission at 15$''$ resolution as previously presented by
167: \cite{johnstone04}. For the present analysis these data were re-reduced and
168: combined with all other SCUBA archive data for Ophiuchus following the
169: description in \cite{kirk06} (see also \citealt{difrancesco08}). As with the
170: Perseus data presented in \cite{kirk06}, the standard SCUBA pipeline reduction
171: was augmented by a matrix inversion image recreation procedure
172: \citep{johnstone00maps}. The resulting 3$''$ pixel images were smoothed on
173: small scales by a Gaussian with dispersion of 3$''$ to remove pixel-to-pixel
174: noise. Furthermore the maps were flattened by removing a large-scale Gaussian
175: with dispersion of 90$''$. The resulting RMS of the map was about
176: 0.03~Jy~beam$^{-1}$. From these maps, lists of cores were extracted using the
177: 2D version of the Clumpfind algorithm \citep{williams94} as described by
178: \cite{kirk06} using a contouring level with a spacing, $\sigma$ =
179: 0.03~Jy~beam$^{-1}$ (0.04~Jy~beam$^{-1}$ in the Western part of the map around
180: the Oph A core and around L1709). Only peaks above 5$\sigma$ are reported. In
181: this fashion 66 SCUBA cores were identified across the Ophiuchus field. We
182: summarize the properties of cores in the appendix to this paper (see also the
183: comparison to previous studies in Sect.~\ref{submmcomparison}).
184:
185: \subsection{Mid-infrared observations from \spitzer}
186: Together with five other nearby star forming regions, Ophiuchus was mapped at
187: 3.6, 4.5, 5.8, 8.0, 24, 70 and 160~$\mu$m using the \emph{Spitzer Space
188: Telescope}'s \IRAC\ and \MIPS\ cameras by c2d \citep{padgett08,allen08}
189: identifying more than 600,000 sources with a signal-to-noise ratio of 3 or
190: more in at least one of the 3.6--70~$\mu$m bands over an area of
191: 12.2~degree$^2$. In total the SCUBA map covers approximately 5.7~degree$^{2}$
192: whereas the overlapping area between the IRAC and MIPS data covers
193: 6.3~degree$^{2}$. In contrast to Perseus where the full area (3.6~degree$^2$)
194: of the SCUBA map is covered by the Spitzer observations, only about 80\% of
195: the SCUBA map of Ophiuchus (4.6~degree$^2$) was covered by the Spitzer
196: observations. No SCUBA cores were found outside this overlap region,
197: however. Fig.~\ref{overviewfigure} shows the SCUBA dust continuum emission
198: overlaid as contours on Spitzer images of Ophiuchus and
199: Perseus. Fig.~\ref{findingchart} shows finding charts with the distribution of
200: SCUBA cores and Spitzer mid-infrared sources in selected regions of Ophiuchus.
201: \clearpage
202: \begin{figure}
203: \centering
204: \resizebox{0.65\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{f1a.eps}}
205: \resizebox{0.65\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{f1b.eps}}
206: \resizebox{0.33\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{f1c.eps}}\mbox{
207: }\resizebox{0.33\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{f1d.eps}}
208: \caption{Three-color image (blue: IRAC1 3.6~$\mu$m, green: IRAC2 4.5~$\mu$m
209: and red: IRAC4 8.0~$\mu$m) overviews of the Ophiuchus and Perseus clouds
210: with the main regions discussed in the text indicated. The lower panels show
211: blow-ups of the L1688 region in Ophiuchus (left) and NGC~1333 region in
212: Perseus (right). The yellow contours show the SCUBA 850~$\mu$m emission from
213: the maps of \cite{johnstone04} and \cite{kirk06}. The contours are shown at
214: 9 logarithmically spaced levels between 40~mJy and 6~Jy. For a similar
215: blow-up of the IRAS~16293 region see Fig.~\ref{i16293_outflow}. For further
216: details about the IRAC observations see \cite{perspitz} and
217: \cite{allen08}.}\label{overviewfigure}
218: \end{figure}
219: \begin{figure}
220: \resizebox{0.8\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{f2.eps}}
221: \caption{Finding charts for the Ophiuchus cloud. The SCUBA cores (circles) and
222: MIPS 24~$\mu$m detected sources (filled squares) are plotted over SCUBA maps
223: of six of the most prominent star forming regions indicated in
224: Fig.~\ref{overviewfigure}. The sizes of the symbols of the SCUBA cores
225: correspond to radii of 15$''$ (twice the SCUBA Beam). The MIPS 24~$\mu$m
226: detected sources with $[3.6]-[4.5] > 1.0$ and $[8.0]-[24] > 4.5$ are singled
227: out with open squares.}\label{findingchart}
228: \end{figure}
229: \clearpage
230:
231: Slight differences exist in the processing of the current (and final) c2d
232: catalogs compared to the version that was used for analysis of Perseus in
233: \cite{scubaspitz}. Since that paper, all the c2d data were reprocessed using
234: the SSC pipeline version S13. In the earlier catalogs, sources were extracted
235: from the IRAC and MIPS~24~$\mu$m mosaics individually and the lists of sources
236: from these catalogs \emph{band-merged} as described in \cite{delivery4}. In
237: the final catalogs delivered by c2d\footnote{Available at
238: http://ssc.spitzer.caltech.edu/legacy/c2dhistory.html.}, this procedure has
239: been improved by \emph{band-filling} individual sources. That is, for sources
240: without counterparts at one or more wavelengths, those mosaics were reexamined
241: and a best attempt made to extract a source. However, for detection purposes
242: sources are potentially suspect: for example outflow knots close to embedded
243: protostars are easily picked up toward the PSF wings of the MIPS~24~$\mu$m
244: detections of embedded YSOs and we therefore exclude them in the remainder of
245: the analysis.
246:
247: Another addition to the c2d processing, is bandmerging with observations at
248: 70~$\mu$m. In this paper, we include sources that are either detected at
249: 24~$\mu$m (excluding band-filled sources) or 70~$\mu$m as the basis for the
250: analysis (in the following we refer to those sources as ``MIPS
251: sources''). This is in contrast to \cite{scubaspitz} where only the 24~$\mu$m
252: catalogs were utilized. As we return to below, this procedure solves the
253: problem that some well-known YSOs are saturated at 24$\mu$m, an issue which
254: was dealt with in \cite{scubaspitz} by including SCUBA cores with high
255: concentrations.
256:
257:
258: \subsection{Background contamination}
259: Using this first cut of MIPS 24~$\mu$m detected sources we can also address
260: the issue of background contamination: one of the complications in large scale
261: mappings such as those presented in c2d is separating background contamination
262: from the sample of candidate YSOs in an accurate statistical manner. This in
263: particular means separating background galaxies from the sample of YSOs since
264: both show similar red colors at mid-infrared wavelengths \citep[see,
265: e.g.,][for an illustrative example and discussion of this issue]{porras07}.
266: For Perseus, \cite{scubaspitz} found that the density of MIPS 24~$\mu$m
267: detected sources were low enough that the chance alignment between such a
268: source and a SCUBA core was statistically small. This fact holds true as well
269: for Ophiuchus: with 1325~MIPS 24~$\mu$m detected sources over 4.6~degree$^{2}$
270: we only find 0.08 sources within any 1~arcmin$^{2}$. This translates to a
271: 1.5\% chance of having a MIPS~24~$\mu$m source randomly aligned within a
272: 15$''$ radius (one SCUBA half-power beam-width) of the center a given SCUBA
273: core (or put in another way, statistically there will be 1 randomly assigned
274: candidate in total within 15$''$ of the 66 SCUBA cores in Ophiuchus).
275:
276: \section{Mid-infrared sources associated with dense cores}\label{method}
277: \subsection{Constructing a sample of embedded protostars}\label{midirsubmm}
278: Fig.~\ref{clustplot} shows the distribution of MIPS sources with respect to
279: the nearest submillimeter core for both Ophiuchus and Perseus. Sources with
280: red mid-infrared colors ($[3.6]-[4.5]>1.0$ and $[8.0]-[24]>4.5$ are
281: highlighted to reveal their high degree of correlation with the centers of
282: SCUBA cores. Figs.~\ref{inverse_12} and \ref{inverse_45} show the one
283: dimensional distributions of $[3.6]-[4.5]$ and $[8.0]-[24]$ colors as a
284: function of distance to the nearest SCUBA core. Both figures reveal that there
285: is some clustering of the Ophiuchus sources relative to the core center, but
286: with less significance than in Perseus. In Perseus the ratio of sources with
287: $[3.6]-[4.5] > 1.0$ relative to those with with $[3.6]-[4.5] \le 1.0$ is 5.7
288: within 15$''$ compared to 0.40 at distances of 30$''$--60$''$. In Ophiuchus
289: the numbers are 1.5 and 0.53, respectively. That is, the number of red sources
290: in SCUBA cores is about a factor 3.5--4 higher in Perseus than
291: Ophiuchus. Furthermore, in Perseus, sources with significantly redder colors
292: are found: 10 sources are found with $[3.6]-[4.5] > 2.5$ with a maximum of 4.4
293: whereas none this red are found in Ophiuchus. This difference between the
294: redness of the embedded sources in Perseus vs. Ophiuchus may suggest a
295: difference in their physical properties (see \S\ref{physorigin}).
296: \begin{figure}
297: \resizebox{0.5\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{f3a.eps}}
298: \resizebox{0.5\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{f3b.eps}}
299: \resizebox{0.5\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{f3c.eps}}
300: \resizebox{0.5\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{f3d.eps}}
301: \caption{\emph{Upper panels:} Distribution of MIPS sources with red
302: mid-infrared colors ($[3.6]-[4.5] > 1.0$ and $[8.0]-[24] > 4.5$; black plus
303: signs) compared to other MIPS sources (grey circles) around each SCUBA core
304: (shifted to the same center). The size scales in the two plots are stretched
305: to represent the same linear scale. The circle indicates the mean SCUBA core
306: sizes. \emph{Lower panels:} distribution of number of mid-infrared sources
307: as a function of distance to the nearest SCUBA core. Again the filled grey
308: histogram indicates the distribution of sources with $[3.6]-[4.5] > 1.0$ and
309: $[4.5]-[8.0] > 4.5$ and the hatched histogram the distribution of the other
310: sources. The thick black line indicates the prediction from a uniform source
311: distribution with the same surface density as the observed
312: distribution.}\label{clustplot}
313: \end{figure}
314:
315: \clearpage
316: \begin{figure}
317: \resizebox{0.8\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{f4a.eps}}
318: \resizebox{0.8\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{f4b.eps}}
319: \caption{$[3.6]-[4.5]$ color of each MIPS source vs. its distance to the
320: nearest submillimeter core. Upper panel for Perseus and lower panel for
321: Ophiuchus. Sources are shown with filled circles except those with distances larger than 15$''$ to their nearest cores
322: and $[3.6]-[4.5] > 1.0$, which have been indicated by small open circles. Symbols
323: (filled or open circles) with an extra larger circle around indicate
324: mid-infrared sources with $[8.0]-[24]$ colors greater than
325: 4.5.}\label{inverse_12}
326: \end{figure}
327:
328: \begin{figure}
329: \resizebox{0.8\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{f5a.eps}}
330: \resizebox{0.8\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{f5b.eps}}
331: \caption{$[8.0]-[24]$ color of each MIPS source vs. its distance to the
332: nearest submillimeter core. Upper panel for Perseus and lower panel for
333: Ophiuchus. Sources are shown with filled circles except those with distances
334: larger than 15$''$ to their nearest cores and $[8.0]-[24] > 4.5$, which have
335: been indicated by open circles. Symbols (filled or open circles) with an
336: extra larger circle around indicate mid-infrared sources with $[3.6]-[4.5]$
337: colors greater than 1.0.}\label{inverse_45}
338: \end{figure}
339:
340: To establish samples of embedded YSOs we utilize these results to apply the
341: same procedure \cite{scubaspitz} used on the Perseus datasets. In this paper
342: we refer to embedded YSOs as any MIPS source (i.e., a source detected at
343: either 24 or 70~$\mu$m) which is associated with a submillimeter core as
344: traced by emission in the SCUBA maps or which fulfills certain color criteria
345: (see below). Neither the mid-infrared source lists nor the submillimeter core
346: identifications by themselves can be used unambiguously to define a sample of
347: embedded objects, but as demonstrated in \cite{scubaspitz} they can be used in
348: conjunction to form a relatively unbiased list of YSOs complete down to the
349: resolution of the mid-infrared data. The three criteria developed for
350: identifying candidate protostars in Perseus were based on the mid-infrared
351: colors of Spitzer sources, associations between Spitzer sources and
352: submillimeter cores and the concentration\footnote{The concentration of a
353: SCUBA core is defined as $C=1-\frac{1.13\, B^2S_{850}}{(\pi R^2_{\rm
354: obs}f_0)}$, where $B$ is the beam size, $S_{850}$ the total flux from the
355: SCUBA observations at 850~$\mu$m, $R_{\rm obs}$ the measured radius and $f_0$
356: the peak flux \citep{johnstone00cores}.} of SCUBA cores. In summary the list
357: of embedded objects were constructed by selecting:
358: \begin{description}
359: \item[A.] MIPS 24~$\mu$m catalog sources with $[3.6]-[4.5] > 1$ and
360: $[8.0]-[24] > 4.5$, \emph{or}
361: \item[B.] MIPS 24~$\mu$m catalog sources with distances less than 15\arcsec\
362: to their nearest submillimeter core, \emph{or}
363: \item[C.] Submillimeter cores with concentrations higher than 0.6.
364: \end{description}
365: The first criterion selects the most deeply embedded YSOs with steeply
366: increasing SEDs but misses sources that are not detected in IRAC bands 1 or 2
367: - either due to confusion with outflows or simply because they in fact are
368: very deeply embedded. The second criterion selects all MIPS sources that are
369: embedded YSOs in the sense that they are located within two SCUBA beam sizes
370: of a SCUBA core. That list will also include sources which are not necessarily
371: directly associated with an observed submillimeter core due to confusion in
372: the submillimeter map, poorly defined core structure, or the limiting
373: sensitivity of the submillimeter observations. In Perseus it was found that
374: most of the sources selected according to the second criterion also obeyed the
375: first (upper panels of Fig.~\ref{inverse_12} and \ref{inverse_45}).
376:
377: These first two criteria were found to still miss sources saturated at
378: 24~$\mu$m. Such sources were selected by the third criterion, which did not in
379: itself include all the mid-infrared sources under {\bf A} and {\bf B} (see
380: \cite{scubaspitz}). On the other hand it was also shown that a number of low
381: concentration cores in fact had embedded YSOs, so criterion {\bf C} in itself
382: was also not optimal for picking out candidate embedded YSOs. In contrast to
383: Perseus, there are a few cores with high concentrations ($C > 0.6$) in
384: Ophiuchus that in fact are starless. As well, a few sources associated with
385: lower concentration cores are found to be saturated at 24~$\mu$m and therefore
386: would not make it onto the list of protostars.
387:
388: Visual inspection of all SCUBA cores, however, reveals that by adding sources
389: that are detected at 70~$\mu$m, provides a sample of all the MIPS sources in
390: Ophiuchus associated with SCUBA cores, even those clearly saturated or
391: confused at 24~$\mu$m. This method can also be directly applied to Perseus:
392: the four sources that were associated with high concentration cores all only
393: have 70~$\mu$m detections, whereas no new sources are added by utilizing this
394: criterion in Perseus. In this way there is no need to rely on the observed
395: empirical properties of the SCUBA cores\footnote{The selection according to
396: the second criterion ``{\bf B}'' of course still relies on the association
397: between SCUBA cores and MIPS sources.}. Therefore, the two criteria required
398: to identify candidate protostars in this paper in either Perseus or Ophiuchus
399: are:
400: \begin{description}
401: \item[A.] MIPS 24 or 70~$\mu$m catalog sources with $[3.6]-[4.5] > 1$ and
402: $[8.0]-[24] > 4.5$, \emph{or}
403: \item[B.] MIPS 24 or 70~$\mu$m catalog sources with distances less than 15\arcsec\ to
404: their nearest core.
405: \end{description}
406:
407: In this way a sample of 27 embedded YSOs are identified: the majority 24 (89\%)
408: because they are within 15\arcsec\ of a SCUBA core (criterion {\bf
409: B})\footnote{Note, that we use the same angular scale for the comparison between
410: the SCUBA cores and MIPS sources in both Ophiuchus and Perseus despite the
411: factor 2 difference in distance between the two clouds. We return to this
412: discussion in Sect.~\ref{disteffects}.} with the remaining three sources due to
413: their $[3.6]-[4.5]$ and $[8.0]-[24]$ colors (criterion {\bf
414: A}). Table~\ref{embeddedysolist} summarizes the sample of candidate embedded
415: YSOs in Ophiuchus. One core, SMM~J162626-24243, is associated with two YSOs (GDS
416: J162625.6-242429 and VLA~1623) within 15$''$ of its center, although at least
417: one other, SMM~J162622-24225, is associated with mulitple YSOs (the GSS30-IRS1,
418: -IRS2, -IRS3 system) where only one is picked up as a separate MIPS 24~$\mu$m
419: source. This is similar to the analysis from Perseus where only few SCUBA cores
420: were found to be associated with multiple MIPS sources \citep{scubaspitz}. It is
421: here worth emphasizing that the resolution of the MIPS observations is only
422: about 6$''$ (750~AU) and these numbers should therefore not be taken as
423: statements concerning the close binarity of the embedded YSOs.
424:
425: Of the 27 embedded YSOs, 16 were also identified as YSO candidates using the
426: criteria used by c2d to extract YSOs based on their mid-infrared colors
427: \citep[see discussion in][]{harvey07}, but the remaining 11 were not. This
428: illustrates the need for the combination of mid-infrared and submillimeter data
429: when constructing samples of deeply embedded protostars - as it was also
430: concluded based on the analysis of the Perseus data \citep{scubaspitz}.
431:
432: \subsection{Distribution of concentrations}
433: An important finding of \cite{scubaspitz} was that all cores with
434: concentrations higher than 0.6 had MIPS sources within
435: 15$''$. Fig.~\ref{conc_histo} compares the distributions of the concentrations
436: of the SCUBA cores with and without embedded MIPS sources in Perseus and
437: Ophiuchus. The two distributions are quite different: in Perseus the
438: concentrations of the cores show a very broad distribution with a number of
439: high concentration cores whereas the Ophiuchus distribution shows a
440: pronounced peak at concentrations $\approx 0.35$. In \cite{scubaspitz} it was
441: pointed out that protostellar cores should have higher concentrations than
442: pre-stellar, simply because of the heating of the dust from the
443: center. Therefore based on the SCUBA data alone we should expect fewer
444: embedded protostars in Ophiuchus relative to Perseus. This is directly
445: confirmed by comparing the number of SCUBA cores with MIPS sources within
446: 15$''$ in the two clouds. Ophiuchus has embedded YSOs in only 23 out of the
447: 66 SCUBA cores while Perseus has embedded YSOs in 42 out of the 72 SCUBA
448: cores. Further, as discussed in \S\ref{disksources} some of the sources in
449: Ophiuchus are actually disk sources and not deeply embedded.
450:
451: \clearpage
452: \begin{figure}
453: \resizebox{0.8\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{f6a.eps}}
454: \resizebox{0.8\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{f6b.eps}}
455: \caption{Distribution of ``concentrations'' of SCUBA cores. Those with MIPS
456: sources within 15$''$ are hatched (single/double) with the cores with MIPS
457: sources with red mid-infrared colors ($[3.6]-[4.5]>1.0$ and
458: $[8.0]-[24]>4.5$) within 15$''$ double-hatched.}\label{conc_histo}
459: \end{figure}
460: \clearpage
461:
462: \subsubsection{Cores with high concentrations and no embedded YSOs}
463: A noteworthy feature of the Ophiuchus SCUBA cores is the existence of four
464: high concentration cores without embedded YSOs. The four cores in Ophiuchus
465: are in fact starless as shown in Fig.~\ref{corenoyso}. Three of these cores
466: are located in the Oph~A ridge, which has previously been the subject of
467: detailed studies at (sub)millimeter wavelengths
468: \citep[e.g.,][]{andre93,wilson99}. The Spitzer observations confirm that the
469: the ridge itself actually appears to be starless but with protostars (e.g.,
470: VLA~1623 and GSS~30) located in its immediate vicinity. \cite{andre93} (and
471: likewise \cite{difrancesco04}) found that the cores in the Oph~A ridge were
472: within a factor two of being in virial equilibrium. Therefore the high
473: concentrations of the cores in the ridge most likely reflect the extreme local
474: pressure due to the surrounding environment. \cite{andre93} found that the
475: millimeter cores in the northern part of the ridge had a high dust temperature
476: of $27\pm 5$~K, likely due to heating by the nearby B-star [and clearly
477: heating the dust seen at 24~$\mu$m also (lower right panel of
478: Fig.~\ref{corenoyso})].
479:
480: The fourth high concentration starless core, IRAS~16293E, is a well-studied
481: submillimeter companion to the IRAS source IRAS~16293-2422 and also has no
482: counterparts at 24~$\mu$m or 70~$\mu$m (Fig.~\ref{corenoyso}). \cite{castets01}
483: suggested that IRAS~16293E was a deeply embedded, or ``Class 0''
484: \citep{andre93}, protostar based on the detection of an outflow inferred from
485: HCO$^+$. \cite{stark04} presented larger scale maps and showed that this was not
486: the case, rather the outflowing motions suggested for IRAS~16293E by
487: \citeauthor{castets01} were a result of the larger scale outflow driven by
488: IRAS~16293-2422B fanning around IRAS~16293E. The Spitzer images indeed confirm
489: that the IRAS~16293-2422 outflow extends eastwards of IRAS~16293E
490: (Fig.~\ref{i16293_outflow}). The absence of a central heating source in
491: IRAS~16293E is also consistent with the fact that IRAS~16293E shows strong
492: N$_2$H$^+$ emission relative to the protostellar source in IRAS~16293-2422
493: itself as reported by \cite{castets01}. N$_2$H$^+$ is found to be prominent in
494: starless cores with low temperatures where CO has frozen out on dust grains and
495: thus unavailable to destroy N$_2$H$^+$. In contrast, the conditions within
496: protostellar cores heat a significant part of the envelope to temperatures where
497: CO is released into the gas-phase \citep[e.g.,][]{bergin01,paperii}. It is
498: likely that the submillimeter core IRAS~16293E is affected by the coincident
499: outflow, e.g., compression and heating possibly increasing its concentration.
500:
501: \clearpage
502: \begin{figure}
503: \resizebox{0.7\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{f7a.eps}}
504: \resizebox{0.7\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{f7b.eps}}
505: \caption{Cores with concentrations larger than 0.6 and no embedded YSOs shown
506: on top of the SCUBA 850~$\mu$m image (left panels) and the MIPS~24~$\mu$m
507: image (right panels). The upper panels show the Oph.-A ridge and the lower
508: panel the region around IRAS~16293-2422. In all panels the circles indicate
509: cores with high concentrations but no associated MIPS sources (SMM
510: J162627-24233, J162628-24225, J16262628-24235 in the upper panels and SMM
511: J163229-24291 in the lower panels) whereas the plus-signs show the location
512: of the known Class 0 sources, VLA~1623 (SMM J162626-24243; upper panels) and
513: IRAS~16293-2422 (SMM J163223-24284; lower panels).}\label{corenoyso}
514: \end{figure}
515:
516: \begin{figure}
517: \resizebox{0.7\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{f8a.eps}}
518: \resizebox{0.7\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{f8b.eps}}
519: \caption{Three-color image (blue: IRAC1 3.6~$\mu$m, green: IRAC2 4.5~$\mu$m
520: and red: IRAC4 8.0~$\mu$m) of the region around the Class 0 protostar
521: IRAS~16293-2422 and starless core IRAS~16293E. The SCUBA map is overlaid in
522: yellow contours. The outflow interaction is predominantly traced by emission from
523: rotational transitions of molecular hydrogen picked up in the
524: IRAC2 band (i.e., the green color; see, e.g., \citealt{noriegacrespo04}).}\label{i16293_outflow}
525: \end{figure}
526:
527: \clearpage
528:
529:
530: \subsection{Distance effects}\label{disteffects}
531: The most obvious limitation in the direct comparison between Perseus and
532: Ophiuchus is the factor of two difference in distance between the two clouds
533: (Perseus at 250~pc; Ophiuchus at 125~pc)\footnote{We note that these distance
534: estimates in themselves may contain significant uncertainties: a recent
535: analysis of Hipparcos data for Ophiuchus by \cite{mamajek08} for example
536: suggests a concensus distance of 139$\pm 6$~pc to this cloud whereas distance
537: estimates for Perseus range from about 220~pc to 350~pc (see \cite{enoch06}
538: for a discussion).}. Since the SCUBA and Spitzer surveys are observed to the
539: same absolute depth for each cloud, we would expect intrinsically weaker
540: sources to be detected in Ophiuchus. For example, if we assume that each of
541: the SCUBA cores are isothermal at 15~K the typical 5$\sigma$ sensitivity of
542: 0.15~Jy~beam$^{-1}$ in the SCUBA maps corresponds to total masses within the
543: 15$''$ arcsecond beam (dust+gas) of 0.08 and 0.02~$M_\odot$ in Perseus and
544: Ophiuchus, respectively.
545:
546: Since many of the SCUBA cores are barely resolved by only a few beams,
547: resolution might affect the derived physical properties. The factor of two
548: better spatial resolution in Ophiuchus therefore challenges comparisons
549: between the physical properties of the two clouds. Additionally, given the
550: gregarious nature of the submillimeter cores, nearby neighbors will be merged
551: into larger entities in the Perseus cloud. To address both these issues we
552: simulated the case where the SCUBA map of Ophiuchus was observed at the
553: distance of Perseus: the Ophiuchus SCUBA maps were convolved with a beam twice
554: the size of the regular SCUBA beam and the map re-sampled to affect the
555: spatial and pixel resolution of Perseus. Furthermore, the observed brightness
556: was reduced by a factor four, corresponding to the further distance. The
557: Clumpfind algorithm was then applied to this new map to identify
558: substructures. Fig.~\ref{conc_change} compares the peak fluxes and
559: concentrations of the SCUBA cores in the original map with the ones in the map
560: simulated at twice the distance.
561: \begin{figure}
562: \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{f9.eps}}
563: \caption{Change in peak fluxes and concentrations for the Ophiuchus dataset
564: moved from 125 to 250~pc. In each panel open symbols represent SCUBA cores
565: at 125 pc and closed symbols SCUBA cores at 250 pc. The loss in angular
566: resolution makes individual core identifications ambiguous and thus all
567: cores from the $d=125$~pc map which lie within one core radius of a measured
568: core at $d=250$~pc are grouped together. The four panels contain: \emph{a)}
569: single cores in both datasets with peak fluxes smaller than 0.5 Jy,
570: \emph{b)} single cores in both datasets with peak fluxes larger than 0.5 in
571: the original ($d=125$~pc) dataset, \emph{c)} systems were multiple cores are
572: joined into one core in the more distant cloud and \emph{d)} and cores that
573: fall below the detection limit at the larger distance.}\label{conc_change}
574: \end{figure}
575:
576: As expected the number of cores decreases when the cloud is moved to a larger
577: distance: the lower S/N causes the smallest cores to be missed and the larger
578: cores have their sizes reduced, since their boundaries in Clumpfind are
579: defined by the contour at an absolute flux level. Although the total number of
580: cores thereby decreases, the relative distribution of core sizes remains the
581: same as some of the closest cores, e.g., in the Oph~A ridge, are merged into
582: larger cores. For the cores with high fluxes the concentration appears to be
583: largely unchanged. For the fainter cores, the cores with the highest
584: concentrations are more likely disappearing as their peaks drop below the
585: detection threshold. The lower concentration faint cores in contrast have a
586: better chance of survival as their faint emission is more evenly distributed
587: and the convolution just moves emission from larger scales into the central
588: beam. Finally, the concentration of the cores formed by a merger of multiple
589: cores tends to be similar to the highest concentration core merged. Taken
590: together, these effects will bias against low flux, high concentration sources
591: at larger distances, i.e., typically more evolved sources such as embedded
592: objects with lower mass envelopes or disks. The SCUBA maps of Ophiuchus are
593: therefore expected to reveal more sources than Perseus although these will
594: generally be less massive and smaller. This is indeed seen when comparing the
595: list for Perseus \citep{kirk06} with that from Ophiuchus from this paper: the
596: median core radius is 7000~AU (28$''$) in Perseus vs. 3875~AU (31$''$) in
597: Ophiuchus and likewise the median core mass 0.90~$M_\odot$ in Perseus
598: vs. 0.44~$M_\odot$ in Ophiuchus.
599:
600: Since, the criteria for associating a MIPS source with a SCUBA core is based
601: on its distance on angular and not linear scale, a natural question is whether
602: we instead ought to increase the radius from 15$''$ to 30$''$ for associations
603: according to our second criterion, ``{\bf B}''. Table~\ref{distantsources}
604: summarize the sources separated 15$''$--30$''$ from a SCUBA core. The numbers
605: in themselves argue that these are not a significant population of embedded
606: YSOs: only 9 MIPS sources are found in this separation range compared to the
607: 24 within 15$''$ of the center of a SCUBA core (the latter covering a factor 3
608: smaller area). None of these sources have red colors fullfilling our ``{\bf
609: A}'' criterion or are associated with well-studied, embedded protostars. On
610: the other hand, it is also not reasonable to decrease the size scale in which
611: SCUBA cores are associated with MIPS sources in Perseus - given the intrinsic
612: uncertainty in the pointing of the submillimeter data (a few arcseconds) and
613: the size of the JCMT/SCUBA beam (15\arcsec). That most of the red MIPS sources
614: in fact fall within this radius (e.g., Fig.~\ref{inverse_12}-\ref{inverse_45})
615: and \citealt{scubaspitz}) suggests that most of scatter seen in this diagram
616: is due to the instrumental limitations and that the distribution in fact is
617: even tighter (typical separations $<$5-10$''$).
618:
619: An important, and somewhat subtle, effect is that the distance difference also
620: skews the interpretation of the embedded protostellar sources - compared to
621: the pre-stellar cores. The dust continuum maps measure the optically thin
622: emission from dust, weighted by the temperature within the SCUBA beam. For an
623: optically thin envelope the temperature dependence on radius, $r$ is:
624: \begin{equation}
625: T_{\rm d}(r)=60\left(\frac{r}{2\times10^{17}~{\rm cm}}\right)^{-q}\left(\frac{L_{\rm bol}}{10^5~L_\odot}\right)^{q/2}
626: \label{e:chandlertemp1}
627: \end{equation}
628: where $q=2/(4+\beta)$ depends on the slope of the dust opacity law $\kappa
629: \propto \nu^\beta$ \citep[e.g.,][]{chandler00}. In more convenient units at a
630: radius corresponding to the 15$''$ size of the SCUBA beam for ISM dust with
631: $\beta = 2$ Eq.~\ref{e:chandlertemp1} becomes:
632: \begin{equation}
633: T_{\rm d}(r)=21\left(\frac{d}{125~{\rm pc}}\right)^{-1/3}\left(\frac{L_{\rm bol}}{1~L_\odot}\right)^{1/6}
634: \label{e:chandlertemp2}
635: \end{equation}
636: A protostellar envelope will therefore have a dust temperature which increases
637: in the central SCUBA beam as it is brought nearer (25\% higher if the distance
638: to the source is halved) and it will brighten significantly (by about 50\% at
639: half the distance). This, however, is not the case for the starless cores
640: which are close to isothermal (or actually decreasing in temperature toward
641: their centers) as the actual temperature measured in the SCUBA beam is not
642: varying with radius. We should therefore expect to have an easier task
643: detecting protostellar cores in Ophiuchus relative to Perseus - or
644: correspondingly, be sensitive to even lower masses of envelopes in Ophiuchus
645: relative to Perseus. This will bias the results in a relative sense towards a
646: situation with fewer low-mass protostellar sources compared to pre-stellar
647: cores in the more distant cloud, i.e., Perseus.
648:
649: The improved sensitivity in the nearer cloud will also cause circumstellar disks
650: to start ``contaminating'' our sample. \cite{andrews05} surveyed a sample of
651: isolated sources in Taurus with SCUBA, including a number of well-known
652: classical T-Tauri stars, or ``Class II'' \citep{lada87}, YSOs . They found that
653: 35\% of those more evolved sources had fluxes larger than 100~mJy (about the
654: 3$\sigma$ sensitivity limit of our SCUBA maps) whereas less than 10\% had fluxes
655: larger than 500~mJy. The distance to Taurus ($d=140$) and Ophiuchus ($d=125$)
656: are comparable and thus we would expect to pick up some more evolved, ``Class
657: II'' young stellar objects without envelopes in the Ophiuchus SCUBA data. In
658: contrast the 10\% cut-off from Taurus would be moved to a flux of 125~mJy in
659: Perseus which would be very close to the sensitivity limit of our SCUBA maps.
660:
661: \clearpage
662: {\scriptsize \begin{table}
663: \caption{List of candidate embedded YSOs in Ophiuchus. \label{embeddedysolist}}
664: {\tiny\begin{tabular}{lllllllll} \hline\hline
665: RA (J2000)\tablenotemark{a} & DEC (J2000)\tablenotemark{a} & Conc.\tablenotemark{b} & $[3.6]-[4.5]$ & $[8.0]-[24]$ & Sep.\tablenotemark{c} & SCUBA flux\tablenotemark{d} & Code\tablenotemark{e} & Common identifiers\tablenotemark{f} \\
666: hh mm ss.ss & dd mm ss.s & & & & [$''$] & [Jy~beam$^{-1}$] & & \\ \hline
667: 16 26 10.32 & -24 20 54.6 & 0.65 & 0.81 & 2.66 & 3.4 & \phantom{0}0.45 & -BC & $\bullet$ GSS~26 \\
668: 16 26 14.63 & -24 25 07.5 & 0.34 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 7.8 & \phantom{0}0.28 & AB- & $\ldots$ \\
669: 16 26 17.23 & -24 23 45.1 & 0.32 & 1.20 & 3.23 & 3.1 & \phantom{0}0.29 & -B- & $\bullet$ CRBR~12 / ISO-Oph 21 \\
670: 16 26 21.35 & -24 23 04.3 & 0.58 & 1.31 & $\ldots$ & 10.2 & \phantom{0}0.82 & AB- & $\bullet$ Elias~21 / GSS~30-IRS1\tablenotemark{g} \\
671: 16 26 24.07 & -24 16 13.4 & 0.41 & 0.54 & 2.30 & 2.5 & \phantom{0}0.45 & -B- & BKLT J162624-241616 / Elias 24 \\
672: 16 26 25.46 & -24 23 01.3 & 0.66 & 1.06 & 5.33 & 35.2 & \phantom{0}0.34 & A-- & $\bullet$ CRBR~2324.1-1619 / [GY92]~30\\
673: 16 26 25.62 & -24 24 28.9 & 0.80 & 2.12 & 6.77 & 11.5 & \phantom{0}3.23 & ABC & GDS J162625.6-242429 \\
674: 16 26 26.42 & -24 24 30.0 & 0.80 & $\ldots$ &$\ldots$ & 1.0 & \phantom{0}3.23 & ABC & $\bullet$ VLA~1623 \\
675: 16 26 40.46 & -24 27 14.3 & 0.53 & 0.91 & 4.07 & 1.9 & \phantom{0}0.34 & -B- & $\bullet$ BKLT~J162640-242715 / [GY92]~91 \\
676: 16 26 44.19 & -24 34 48.4 & 0.29 & 1.72 & $\ldots$ & 3.2 & \phantom{0}0.24 & AB- & $\bullet$ WL~12 / ISO-Oph 65 \\
677: 16 26 45.02 & -24 23 07.6 & 0.74 & 0.76 & 2.68 & 3.1 & \phantom{0}0.67 & -BC & $\bullet$ BKLT J162645-242309 / Elias~27 \\
678: & & & & & & & & / GSS~39 / VSSG~28 \\
679: 16 26 58.42 & -24 45 31.8 & 0.42 & 0.52 & 2.53 & 6.6 & \phantom{0}0.40 & -B- & SR~24N / Elias~28 \\
680: 16 26 59.10 & -24 35 03.3 & 0.55 & 1.2 & 4.9 & 38.6 & \phantom{0}0.17 & A-- & $\bullet$ WL~22 / ISO-Oph 90 \\
681: 16 27 05.24 & -24 36 29.6 & 0.34 & 1.09 & 5.36 & 1.6 & \phantom{0}0.25 & AB- & $\bullet$ CRBR~2403.7-2948 / [GY92]~197 \\
682: 16 27 06.75 & -24 38 14.8 & 0.22 & 1.08 & 3.89 & 4.6 & \phantom{0}0.20 & -B- & CRBR~2404.8-3133 / WL~17 \\
683: 16 27 09.40 & -24 37 18.6 & 0.48 &$\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 1.4 & \phantom{0}0.36 & AB- & $\bullet$ Elias~29 / WL~15 \\
684: & & & & & & & & / CRBR~2407.8-3033 \\
685: 16 27 26.91 & -24 40 50.7 & 0.57 & 1.22 & $\ldots$ & 3.8 & \phantom{0}0.57 & AB- & $\bullet$ YLW15 / IRS43 / IR16244-2434 \\
686: 16 27 27.99 & -24 39 33.4 & 0.37 & 1.48 & $\ldots$ & 1.0 & \phantom{0}0.27 & AB- & $\bullet$ YLW16 / IRS44 / IR16244-2432 \\
687: 16 27 28.44 & -24 27 21.0 & 0.34 & 0.89 & 2.81 & 12.5 & \phantom{0}0.66 & -B- & [AMD2002]~J162728-242721 \\
688: 16 27 30.17 & -24 27 43.2 & 0.50 & 1.00 & 2.20 & 9.7 & \phantom{0}0.47 & -B- & $\bullet$ Elias~33 / VSSG~17 \\
689: 16 27 39.81 & -24 43 15.0 & 0.27 & 0.70 & 3.40 & 1.9 & \phantom{0}0.20 & -B- & $\bullet$ IRS51 / IR16246-2436 \\
690: 16 28 21.61 & -24 36 23.4 & 0.39 & 2.08 & 6.03 & 2.8 & \phantom{0}0.29 & AB- & ($\bullet$) [SSG2006]~MMS126 / IR16253-2429\\[2.0ex]
691: 16 31 35.65 & -24 01 29.3 & 0.72 & 1.01 & 3.25 & 2.6 & \phantom{0}0.86 & -BC & GWAYL~4 / IR16285-2355 \\
692: 16 31 52.45 & -24 55 36.2 & 0.40 & 1.21 & 4.59 & 30.5 & \phantom{0}0.12 & A-- & ISO-Oph 203 \\
693: 16 32 00.99 & -24 56 42.6 & 0.45 & 1.46 & $\ldots$ & 1.4 & \phantom{0}0.36 & AB- & [B96]~L1689S1~3 / ISO-Oph 209 \\
694: 16 32 22.63 & -24 28 31.8 & 0.94 & $\ldots$ &$\ldots$ & 6.5 & 14.6\phantom{0} & ABC & IR16293-2422 \\
695: 16 33 55.60 & -24 42 05.0 & 0.33 & 0.15 & 4.49 & 1.7 & \phantom{0}0.20 & -B- & RX J1633.9-2442 \\ \hline
696: \end{tabular}}
697: \tablenotetext{a}{Position of Spitzer source from c2d catalog.}
698: \tablenotetext{b}{Concentration of the nearest SCUBA core.}
699: \tablenotetext{c}{Separation between the Spitzer source and SCUBA
700: core.}
701: \tablenotetext{d}{For sources with code ``A--'' the SCUBA flux refers to flux density
702: at the exact position in the maps; for the remaining sources to the peak flux
703: from the Clumpfind algorithm.}
704: \tablenotetext{e}{Identifier indicating whether the given
705: source obeys ({\bf A:} MIPS~24~$\mu$m source with $[3.6]-[4.5]>1$ and
706: $[8.0]-[24] > 4.5$, {\bf B:} separation between Spitzer source and nearest SCUBA
707: core less than 15$''$ and {\bf C:} Associated submillimeter core has
708: concentration higher than 0.6). Note only {\bf A} and {\bf B} are used to
709: construct this sample.}
710: \tablenotetext{f}{List of common identifiers from the SIMBAD database
711: (IR=IRAS). Sources indicated with ``$\bullet$'' are included in the list of embedded
712: YSOs by \cite{ophhandbook}.}
713: \tablenotetext{g}{A complex system of at least three
714: protostellar candidates: in addition to GSS30-IRS1 a nearby source is seen at
715: 16:26:22.38; -24:22:52.9 at a distance of 10.4$''$ from the SCUBA core:
716: [AMD2002] J162622-242254 / VSSG~12 / ISO-Oph 34 / GSS~30-IRS2. A third source,
717: $\bullet$~GSS~30-IRS3 / LFAM~1, is at 16:26:21.72 -24:22:50.5, separated by 4.5$''$ and
718: with $[3.6]-[4.5] = 0.9$ and $[8.0]-[24]=5.3$ (although with low S/N in MIPS1
719: due to confusion with GSS30-IRS1).}
720: \end{table}
721:
722: \begin{table}
723: \caption{As Table~\ref{embeddedysolist} for SCUBA cores in Ophiuchus with high concentrations and no embedded YSOs (see also Table~\ref{submmtab}).}
724: {\scriptsize\begin{tabular}{lllllllll} \hline\hline
725: Name (SMM J)& RA (J2000) & DEC (J2000) & Conc. & Sep. & SCUBA flux & Common identifiers \\ \hline
726: 162627-24233 & 16 26 27.34 & -24 23 33.9 & 0.66 & 19.6 & 3.350 & \\
727: 162628-24235 & 16 26 27.55 & -24 23 54.9 & 0.80 & 25.8 & 4.220 & \\
728: 162628-24225 & 16 26 28.00 & -24 22 54.9 & 0.66 & 35.2 & 1.110 & [MAN98] A-MM6 \\
729: 163229-24291 & 16 32 29.06 & -24 29 07.2 & 0.74 & 94.7 & 1.340 & IRAS~16293E \\ \hline
730: \end{tabular}}
731: \end{table}
732:
733: \begin{table}
734: \caption{As Table~\ref{embeddedysolist} for interesting MIPS sources with very red colors, but no associated SCUBA flux (e.g., candidate edge-on disks).\label{disks}.}
735: {\scriptsize\begin{tabular}{lllllllll} \hline\hline
736: RA (J2000) & DEC (J2000) & Conc. & $[3.6]-[4.5]$ & [8.0]-[24] & Sep. & SCUBA flux & Code & Common identifiers \\ \hline
737: 16 21 45.13 & -23 42 31.6 & 0.34 & 1.03 & 5.25 & 4256.5 & 0.033 & A-- & ... \\
738: 16 21 59.55 & -23 16 02.5 & 0.41 & 1.11 & 4.86 & 5122.8 & 0.007 & A-- & ... \\
739: 16 27 38.93 & -24 40 20.5 & 0.31 & 1.05 & 4.73 & 136.8 & 0.007 & A-- & BKLT J162738-244019 \\
740: 16 27 48.23 & -24 42 25.4 & 0.27 & 1.14 & 5.17 & 123.5 & 0.005 & A-- & ... \\
741: 16 31 52.06 & -24 57 26.0 & 0.46 & 1.22 & 4.69 & 69.3 & -0.026 & A-- & ISO-Oph 202 \\
742: 16 31 56.87 & -24 54 03.2 & 0.40 & 1.36 & 4.50 & 124.2 & -0.026 & A-- & ... \\ \hline
743: \end{tabular}}
744: \end{table}
745:
746:
747: \begin{table}
748: \caption{As Table~\ref{embeddedysolist} for sources with separations of
749: 15$''$-30$''$ of a MIPS source.\label{distantsources}.}
750: {\scriptsize\begin{tabular}{lllllllll} \hline\hline
751: RA (J2000) & DEC (J2000) & Conc. & $[3.6]-[4.5]$ & [8.0]-[24] & Sep. & SCUBA flux & Code & Common identifiers \\ \hline
752: 16 26 25.99 & -24 23 40.5 & 0.66 & 1.86 & 2.47 & 19.6 & 0.57 & $\ldots$ \\
753: 16 27 10.02 & -24 29 13.1 & 0.21 & 0.43 & 4.97 & 24.5 & 0.12 & [GY92]~218 \\
754: 16 27 11.82 & -24 39 47.6 & 0.29 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 26.1 & 0.11 & $\ldots$ \\
755: 16 27 15.50 & -24 30 53.6 & 0.34 & 1.03 & 2.81 & 30.0 & 0.29 & [GY92]~238 \\
756: 16 27 30.91 & -24 27 33.2 & 0.50 & 1.64 & 3.04 & 20.7 & 0.38 & $\bullet$ [AMD2002] J162730-242734 / ISO-Oph 150\\
757: 16 27 37.23 & -24 42 37.9 & 0.31 & 0.96 & 3.62 & 21.0 & 0.12 & [GY92]~301\\
758: 16 27 37.88 & -24 42 10.8 & 0.31 & 1.21 & $\ldots$ & 29.1 & 0.04 & $\ldots$ \\
759: 16 27 41.02 & -24 43 32.4 & 0.27 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 24.7 & 0.02 & $\ldots$ \\
760: 16 31 33.52 & -24 3 34.5 & 0.35 & 0.14 & 1.38 & 23.2 & 0.12 & $\ldots$ \\
761: 16 31 34.29 & -24 3 25.2 & 0.35 & 0.73 & 2.58 & 26.0 & 0.14 & $\ldots$ \\
762: 16 31 52.11 & -24 56 15.8 & 0.40 & 0.90 & 2.95 & 28.1 & 0.20 & L1689-IRS5 \\ \hline
763: \end{tabular}}
764: \end{table}}
765:
766: \clearpage
767:
768:
769: \subsection{Comparison to other mid-infrared and submillimeter surveys}\label{submmcomparison}
770: While the Spitzer observations of Ophiuchus are unprecedented at mid-infrared
771: wavelengths in terms of the area covered and sensitivity, a number of surveys
772: have covered similar areas of the cloud at (sub)millimeter
773: wavelengths. Besides JCMT/SCUBA observations
774: \citep{johnstone00maps,visser02,johnstone04,nutter06}, Ophiuchus has been
775: surveyed at 1.1--1.2~mm using the MAMBO bolometer on the IRAM 30~m telescope
776: \citep{motte98}, the SIMBA bolometer on the SEST telescope \citep{stanke06}
777: and Bolocam on the Caltech Submillimeter Observatory 10.4 meter telescope
778: \citep{young06}.
779:
780: Our number of cores, 66, is somewhat lower than the 100 submillimeter cores
781: originally reported by \cite{johnstone04}: \citeauthor{johnstone04} went down
782: to a much deeper depth (0.02~Jy~beam$^{-1}$) than we have done here mainly to
783: confirm that their main result (the absence of cores at low $A_V$) was
784: not a result of a biased look at only the brightest cores. We do not include
785: these fainter sources here for consistency with the \cite{kirk06} and
786: \cite{scubaspitz} studies of Perseus.
787:
788: \cite{nutter06} surveyed L1689B in the submillimeter, using a subset of the
789: SCUBA 850~$\mu$m data presented here. By going to a lower noise level, they
790: identified about twice as many dust continuum cores compared with the list
791: used in this paper. These ``extra'' cores are predominantly fainter emission
792: stretching over arcminute scales. For the brighter, more concentrated cores,
793: there is a direct one-to-one mapping between our sample and that of
794: \citeauthor{nutter06}. Likewise none of the ``extra'' cores in the list of
795: \citeauthor{nutter06} have associated MIPS sources within 30$''$ - consistent
796: with their starless nature as also found by \citeauthor{nutter06}.
797:
798: \cite{ophhandbook} listed a sample of 35 embedded YSOs in L1688 based on near-
799: and mid-infrared surveys, in particular, the ISO survey of Ophiuchus by
800: \cite{bontemps01}. Of these sources 15 (16 if one includes LFAM~1 which is a
801: faint companion to GSS30-IRS1 in our list; see footnote to
802: Table~\ref{embeddedysolist}) are common with our list (22 of the objects from
803: our list associated with L1688). \citeauthor{ophhandbook} also mentions
804: [SSG2006]~MMS126 as a potential Class 0 source, although it is not included in
805: their list. The list also includes sources that are associated with
806: well-studied YSOs, including IRS~46 \citep{lahuis06} and IRS~48
807: \citep{geers07} that both show little submillimeter emission and have been
808: suggested to be disk sources. Two sources from the list are associated with
809: regions of strong submillimeter emission but are likely also disk candidates:
810: one is CRBR~2422.8-3423 modeled in detail by \cite{pontoppidan05crbr} who
811: suggested that it was a disk seen edge-on. It is not associated with a
812: separate peak in the SCUBA map (the emission being dominated by the nearby
813: protostar, YLW~15 or IRS~43) although with a flux of 0.39~Jy~beam$^{-1}$ at
814: the location of the MIPS source and colors, $[3.6]-[4.5]=1.4$ and
815: $[8.0]-[24]=4.45$, it just misses the criteria in this paper. ISO-Oph 150
816: (IRAC~30 in the list of \cite{ophhandbook}) shows similar red $[3.6]-[4.5]$
817: colors and likewise has a SCUBA flux of 0.37~Jy~beam$^{-1}$, but even bluer
818: $[8.0]-[24]$ colors than CRBR~2422.8-3423. It is possible that similar sources
819: are present in our list, but the only way to systematically filter such
820: sources would be either high angular resolution observations (at mid-infrared
821: or submillimeter wavelengths) - or spectroscopical
822: confirmation. Table~\ref{disks} lists the most prominent candidates edge-on
823: disk sources with no associated SCUBA emission\label{disksources}. The
824: remaining sources in the \cite{ophhandbook} are found to show little if any
825: submillimeter emission and/or $[3.6]-[4.5]$ and $[8.0]-[24]$ colors that do
826: not full-fill our criteria, but are bluer. This would suggest that these
827: sources are either only slightly embedded or perhaps more evolved sources
828: extincted by a large amount of foreground material.
829:
830: Two of the sources in our list, but which are not included in the list of
831: \cite{ophhandbook}, BKLT~J162624-241616/Elias~24 and SR~24N/Elias~28, are
832: optically visible and have optically-determined spectral types
833: \citep[e.g][]{wilking05,struve49}. These sources do not show particularly red
834: mid-IR colors but are located within a few arcseconds of the center of SCUBA
835: cores, SMM~J162624-24162 and SMM~J162659-24454, respectively. Both of these
836: SCUBA cores have effective radii less than 15$''$ and masses less than
837: 0.1~$M_\odot$. This suggests that these sources only have tenuous envelopes
838: and that the dust continuum emission largely has its origin in their
839: circumstellar disks.
840:
841: One source in L1689 selected based on our criteria, SSTc2d J163355.6-244204,
842: is likely also a more evolved object. It is associated with an X-ray source,
843: RX~J1633.9-2422, and although it is located only 1.7$''$ from the center of a
844: faint SCUBA core (0.2~Jy), its colors do not obey the criteria for
845: embeddedness. The SCUBA core also appears unresolved, consistent with it being
846: submillimeter emission from a compact disk. This illustrates that the ``ABC
847: classification scheme'' should be taken as a gradation of the likely
848: embeddedness of a given source: the more criteria passed for a given source,
849: the greater likelihood that source is embedded.
850:
851: \clearpage
852:
853: \subsection{Extended cloud emission and absorption of mid-IR emission}\label{extendedemission}
854: As discussed by \cite{padgett08}, the MIPS 24~$\mu$m images of Ophiuchus show
855: large swatches of variable brightness extended emission across the cloud. In
856: particular, \citeauthor{padgett08} draw attention to significant dark patches
857: where up to 80\% of the extended background emission is absorbed (their
858: Fig.~4). Recently \cite{stutz07} analyzed Spitzer images of a similar shadow
859: of the Bok Globule CB~190.
860:
861: Fig.~\ref{shadows} compare the 24~$\mu$m images to SCUBA continuum maps for
862: four cores seen across the field. The resemblance between the shape of the
863: core absorption shadows at 24~$\mu$m and their emission profiles at 850~$\mu$m
864: illustrate (1) the good correspondence between the resolution at these two
865: wavelengths (6$''$ at 24~$\mu$m and 15$''$ at 850~$\mu$m) and (2) that these
866: cores contain very dense material. A decrease in flux by 80\% corresponds to
867: an optical depth of the 24~$\mu$m shadow of 1.6 or a visual extinction $A_V =
868: 35$ under the same assumptions as \citeauthor{stutz07} and assuming that the
869: cores are in the foreground to the extended emission. In reality both zodiacal
870: light and foreground emission (i.e., emission from cloud material in which the
871: core is embedded) may contribute to the observed profile - and the derived
872: extinction is therefore a lower limit to the actual extinction toward the core
873: profiles. For comparison, for a temperature of 10~K the typical SCUBA peak
874: 850~$\mu$m fluxes of these cores of 0.2--0.8~Jy~beam$^{-1}$ correspond to an
875: extinction of $A_V=30-70$ averaged over the 15$''$ SCUBA beam.
876: \clearpage
877: \begin{figure}
878: \resizebox{0.5\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{f10a.eps}}
879: \resizebox{0.5\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{f10b.eps}}
880: \resizebox{0.5\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{f10c.eps}}
881: \resizebox{0.5\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{f10d.eps}}
882: \caption{24~$\mu$m shadowed cores in the SCUBA 850~$\mu$m maps (left) and MIPS
883: 24~$\mu$m maps (right). In both panels dark is high intensity of the
884: emission and white is low intensity. The contours in the righthand panels
885: indicate the SCUBA 850~$\mu$m emission. The location of the identified SCUBA
886: cores (Table~\ref{submmtab}) are indicated by white plus-signs in the
887: righthand panels: in \emph{a)} SMM J162725-24273, J162728-24271,
888: J162729-24274, J162730-24264, J162733-24262, \emph{b)} SMM J162660-24343,
889: J162705-24363, J162709-24372, \emph{c)} SMM J162759-24334 and \emph{d)} SMM
890: J163448-24381.}
891: \label{shadows}
892: \end{figure}
893: \clearpage
894:
895: \section{Characterizing the current star formation populations}\label{comparison}
896: \subsection{Motions of YSOs and dissipation of cores}
897: As discussed by, e.g., \cite{harvey07}, the Spitzer data provides large
898: samples of YSOs that can be classified in the traditional scheme for the
899: evolution based on their spectral indices at near- and mid-infrared
900: wavelengths, $\alpha$\footnote{The spectral index, $\alpha$, where $\nu F_\nu
901: \propto \nu^\alpha$ is calculated in the c2d catalogs from a least square fit
902: to the observations from 2.2 to 24~$\mu$m. Following \cite{greene94}, Class I
903: sources have $\alpha > 0.3$, ``Flat Spectrum'' sources $-0.3 < \alpha \le 0.3$
904: and Class II sources $-1.6 < \alpha \le -0.3$.}. This scheme does not directly
905: capture differences within the group of embedded sources which are typically
906: classified into ``Class 0'' and ``Class I'' according to their submillimeter
907: signatures (see discussion in \S~\ref{physorigin}), e.g., their submillimeter
908: relative to total luminosities. Such a distinction therefore requires fully
909: sampled SEDs as presented, e.g., by \cite{hatchell07} and
910: \cite{enoch08}. Still, since we expect almost all Class 0 sources to be
911: detected at 24~$\mu$m and these sources per definition are associated with
912: submillimeter cores, our sample of embedded YSOs is expected to be complete
913: with respect to these sources. For the remainder of this section we therefore
914: use the term ``Class~I'' in the sense of the $\alpha$-classification scheme
915: which thereby also encompass the more deeply embedded sources.
916:
917: The distribution of the more evolved YSOs identified by the Spitzer data
918: (e.g., ``Flat spectrum'', Class~II) compared to the SCUBA cores provides
919: insight into the dynamical properties of star
920: formation. Table~\ref{dissipation} lists the number of YSOs in each Class for
921: both Perseus and Ophiuchus from the classification given in the catalogs from
922: the final delivery of c2d data \citep{delivery4} and gives the fraction which
923: are located within 15$''$ and 30$''$ of a SCUBA core relative to the total
924: number of YSOs within the area covered by SCUBA. The fraction of embedded YSOs
925: associated with submillimeter cores are clearly decreasing from more than half
926: to less than a few percent in the Class~II stages. The numbers suggest both
927: that Class~II sources are genuine envelope-less sources and that about
928: 40--50\% of the Class~I sources do not have envelopes more massive than the
929: sensitivity limit of the SCUBA survey, i.e., about 0.1~$M_\odot$. This is
930: further illustrated in Fig.~\ref{classinosubmm}, which shows the $[3.6]-[4.5]$
931: vs. $[8.0]-[24]$ color-color diagrams for Ophiuchus and Perseus. In both
932: diagrams the evolved YSO population based on their $\alpha$ (``Flat
933: spectrum'', Class II and Class III) has been separated from the Class I
934: sources. The latter group has furthermore been divided into Class I sources
935: that are or are not within 15$''$ from the center of a SCUBA
936: core. Fig.~\ref{classinosubmm} shows that the Class I sources in Perseus that
937: are not associated with a SCUBA core are located close to the more evolved
938: population of YSOs in this diagram, i.e., typically have less red colors than
939: those that do lie within 15$''$ of a core. This again suggests that these
940: sources are more evolved and although they may be associated with envelopes
941: providing their increasing SEDs in the mid-infrared, those envelopes have
942: masses smaller than the sensitivity limit of the SCUBA survey. On the other
943: hand, the population of red sources associated with SCUBA cores seen
944: prominently in the Perseus panel is absent in the Ophiuchus panel, arguing in
945: favor of the more evolved/less embedded nature of the Class I sources in
946: Ophiuchus.
947:
948: Naturally per definition most (89\%) of the sources in the sample constructed
949: in this paper (Table~\ref{embeddedysolist}) are associated with SCUBA cores
950: with the few exceptions being red sources in region of crowded submillimeter
951: emission. This sample is expected to contain both Class 0 and I protostellar
952: sources.
953:
954: \clearpage
955: \begin{figure}
956: \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{f11.eps}}
957: \caption{$[3.6]-[4.5]$ vs. $[8.0]-[24]$ color-color diagram for the YSOs
958: identified by the c2d color criteria. The ``evolved'' YSOs (``Flat
959: spectrum'', Class II and Class III) have been shown with
960: grey symbols whereas the Class I YSOs are shown with black
961: symbols. The Class I YSOs have furthermore been divided into those
962: that are (filled symbols) and are not (open symbols) located within 15$''$
963: of a SCUBA core. The dotted lines indicate the color criteria for embedded
964: YSOs ($[3.6]-[4.5] > 1.0$ and $[8.0]-[24] > 4.5$). The Class I
965: sources that are not associated with SCUBA cores are found close to the more
966: evolved YSOs in this diagram, suggesting that these sources are less
967: embedded and have envelopes with masses below the detection limit of the
968: SCUBA survey (0.1~$M_\odot$).}\label{classinosubmm}
969: \end{figure}
970: \clearpage
971:
972: \begin{table}
973: \caption{Number of mid-infrared classified YSOs within 15$''$ or 30$''$ within SCUBA cores and in total.}\label{dissipation}
974: \begin{tabular}{lccc@{\extracolsep{0.5cm}}ccc} \hline \hline
975: & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Ophiuchus (265 total)} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Perseus (353 total)} \\\cline{2-4}\cline{5-7}
976: Class & Within 15$''$ & Within 30$''$ & Total & Within 15$''$ & Within 30$''$ & Total \\ \hline
977: I & 15 (47\%) & 17 (53\%) & 32 & 49 (58\%) & 55 (66\%) & 84 \\
978: Flat spectrum & 4 (9.1\%) & 8 (18\%) & 44 & 4 (9.5\%) & 6 (14\%) & 42 \\
979: II & 5 (3.1\%) & 5 (3.1\%) & 163 & 2 (1.0\%) & 6 (3.0\%) & 199 \\
980: III & 0 (0.0\%) & 0 (0.0\%) & 26 & 0 (0.0\%) & 1 (3.6\%) & 28 \\[2.0ex]
981: \emph{This paper\tablenotemark{a}} & 24 (89\%) & 24 (89\%) & 27 & 50 (94\%) & 51 (96\%) & 53 \\\hline
982: \end{tabular}
983: \tablenotetext{a}{Samples of embedded objects from this analysis.}
984: \end{table}
985: \clearpage
986:
987: The decrease in fraction of sources associated with submillimeter cores in the
988: later YSO classes can be interpreted in two ways: either the envelopes around
989: the embedded sources dissipate over the duration of the Class I stage or the
990: YSOs themselves disperse (i.e., move away from their parental cores through
991: their evolution). However, although the number of red YSOs in Ophiuchus is
992: lower than in Perseus these are still strongly clustered within 15$''$
993: (\S\ref{midirsubmm} and Fig.~\ref{clustplot}). As discussed in \cite{perspitz}
994: this in itself suggests that very little dispersal of the YSOs take place
995: during their evolution through their embedded stages. In fact, this is likely
996: to be expected given the required escape velocity from centers of the SCUBA
997: cores: the median mass of $M_0=$0.44~$M_\odot$ and radius of $r_0=$31$''$
998: (3875~AU) of the cores from Table~\ref{submmtab} corresponds to an escape
999: speed from the center of a constant density core to infinity, $v=\sqrt{3 G M /
1000: r_0}$, of 0.5~km~s$^{-1}$ - about 5 times the sound speed in a molecular cloud
1001: with a temperature of 10--15~K. As the density profile of the SCUBA cores are
1002: centrally condensed (and the escape velocity thus higher) it therefore shows
1003: that highly supersonic motions would be required at the birth of the central
1004: protostar in order for it to escape its parental core during the embedded
1005: protostellar stages.
1006:
1007: \subsection{Nearest neighbor surface and volume density maps}
1008: As discussed in \cite{perspitz} and \cite{padgett08}, on large scales the
1009: Perseus and Ophiuchus clouds are highly non-uniform. Significant star
1010: formation occurs in well-defined regions, e.g., the two main clusters, IC~348
1011: and NGC~1333, of Perseus or L1688 in Ophiuchus. On the other hand significant
1012: star formation was also found to occur outside of these clusters in Perseus,
1013: e.g., in the smaller groups surrounding B1, L1448 and
1014: L1455. Fig.~\ref{regioncompare} compares the distribution of red MIPS sources
1015: around the cores in NGC~1333, IC~348 and the rest of the cloud (using the
1016: distinction between the two clusters and the remainder of Perseus from
1017: \cite{perspitz}). As seen in this figure the ``extended'' region which
1018: predominantly covers SCUBA cores in the smaller groups, B1, L1448 and L1455,
1019: shows the most concentrated distribution of YSOs around the center of the
1020: SCUBA cores whereas IC~348 in the other extreme shows the most loose
1021: distribution of YSOs. This in itself suggests that the smaller groups are
1022: still in the early star forming stages, whereas the region around IC~348
1023: predominantly contains more evolved YSOs that are no longer associated with
1024: SCUBA cores.
1025:
1026: \clearpage
1027: \begin{figure}
1028: \resizebox{0.3\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{f12a.eps}}
1029: \resizebox{0.3\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{f12b.eps}}
1030: \resizebox{0.3\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{f12c.eps}}
1031: \caption{As Fig.~\ref{clustplot} showing the distribution of MIPS sources
1032: around each SCUBA core (shifted to the same center) for subregions in
1033: Perseus: the extended cloud, NGC~1333 and IC~348. The concentration of red
1034: MIPS sources (black plus signs) are seen to be significantly higher in the
1035: two former regions than in IC~348 suggesting differences in their star
1036: formation histories.}\label{regioncompare}
1037: \end{figure}
1038: \clearpage
1039:
1040: Many quantifiable properties about individual star-forming regions depend on
1041: the choice of boundary used to describe the region. For example, the star
1042: formation efficiency depends on the gas mass enclosed within a given region
1043: surrounding YSOs. It is thus important to have objective criteria for defining
1044: the boundaries of subregions within clouds and determining the memberships of
1045: these groups. To apply this in a systematic fashion we utilize a
1046: nearest-neighbor algorithm similar to that discussed by \cite{gutermuth05}
1047: (see also \citealt{casertano85}). Across the cloud we calculate the local
1048: surface density, $\sigma$, at grid position $(i,j)$ from
1049: \begin{eqnarray}
1050: \sigma & = & \frac{n-1}{\pi r_n^2(i,j)} \label{sigmadens}
1051: \end{eqnarray}
1052: where $r_n(i,j)$ is the distance to the $n$'th nearest neighbor (following
1053: \citeauthor{gutermuth05}, $n=5$). Assuming local spherical symmetry the
1054: volume density, $\rho$, can likewise be defined as:
1055: \begin{eqnarray}
1056: \rho & = & \frac{n-1}{\frac{4}{3} \pi r_n^3(i,j)} \label{rhodens}
1057: \end{eqnarray}
1058:
1059: From Eq.~\ref{sigmadens} and \ref{rhodens} it is easily seen that
1060: $\rho = \frac{3}{4}\sqrt{\frac{\pi}{n-1}}\,\sigma^{3/2}$ under these
1061: assumptions. In case the distribution of sources are flattened along
1062: the line of sight, the derived volume density is a lower limit to the
1063: actual volume density.
1064:
1065: As discussed by \citeauthor{gutermuth05} and others this is just one of the
1066: many different ways to quantify the substructure of clouds and we do not
1067: attempt to address fundamental questions such as what fraction of stars form
1068: in isolation and clusters and whether the star formation process is
1069: hierarchical or fractal in nature. We also note that significant substructure
1070: exists within the regions defined in this manner (see, e.g., study of NGC~1333
1071: by \citeauthor{gutermuth08}). A more exhaustive analysis of the clustering
1072: substructure in these clouds is outside the scope of this work.
1073:
1074: As input for this analysis we use the list of YSO candidates from the catalogs
1075: included in the final delivery of c2d data \citep{delivery4}. These lists of
1076: YSOs include sources identified using their mid-infrared colors
1077: \citep[e.g.,][]{harvey07} as well as the deeply embedded protostars from this
1078: work. These lists are therefore restricted to YSOs with a mid-infrared excess,
1079: i.e., predominantly YSOs the Class 0--II evolutionary stages. The results of
1080: this analysis is shown in Fig.~\ref{surfdensfig} for Ophiuchus and Perseus.
1081:
1082: \citeauthor{lada03} (2003; LL03 in the following) compiled a catalog of
1083: clusters, defining those as being groups of stars stable against tidal
1084: disruption by the galaxy or passing interstellar clouds. This criterion
1085: translates to a mass density of 1.0~$M_\odot$~pc$^{-3}$ (or 2
1086: sources~pc$^{-3}$ for an IMF with a mean mass of 0.5~$M_\odot$ or a surface
1087: density of 2.1~sources~pc$^{-2}$ with the assumption of local spherical
1088: symmetry). In addition, LL03 required clusters to have more than 35 members to
1089: ensure that its evaporation time was larger than 10$^8$~years. The volume
1090: density level of LL03 is shown in both panels of Fig.~\ref{surfdensfig} with
1091: the blue contour while the black contours correspond to volume densities
1092: 0.125, 0.25, 0.5, 2, 4 and 8 times this level. It is clear that the volume
1093: density contour suggested by the stability arguments of LL03 does not capture
1094: the substructure of the YSO distributions, but rather that a higher contour
1095: level is required. A similar issue is seen when applying the algorithm to the
1096: samples of in Serpens \citep{harvey07}: there a much higher surface density
1097: encompasses the entire surveyed region. It thus appears that the LL03
1098: criterion is too loose to capture the substructure of the regions. This
1099: becomes even more aggravated by the fact that our YSO catalogs do not include
1100: the most evolved YSOs, those with little mid-infrared excesses. If these were
1101: included in the lists of YSOs, the groups would be found to cover even larger
1102: areas and volumes. Judging by eye, a volume density twenty-five times higher
1103: than the LL03 level (yellow contour in Fig.~\ref{surfdensfig}) appears to
1104: better capture the structure of the YSO distributions seen in these clouds.
1105:
1106: We thus use the following criteria to determine the subgroupings of YSOs
1107: (``associations'') within the c2d clouds: we define associations of YSOs as
1108: loose or tight depending on whether they have a minimum volume density of
1109: 1~$M_\odot$~pc$^{-3}$ (1$\times$LL03) or 25~$M_\odot$~pc$^{-3}$
1110: (25$\times$LL03). The associations are furthermore split into ``clusters''
1111: (greater than 35 members) and ``groups'' (less than 35 members). Due to the
1112: definition of surface/volume density from the fifth nearest neighbor, the lower
1113: limit to the number of members in a given group is 5.
1114: \clearpage
1115: \begin{figure}
1116: \resizebox{0.9\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{f13a.eps}}
1117: \resizebox{0.9\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{f13b.eps}}
1118: \caption{Volume density contours of the YSOs in Ophiuchus (upper panel),
1119: Perseus (lower panel) shown on top of extinction maps (grey-scale) based on
1120: the c2d data \citep{delivery4}. In both panels the black contours indicate
1121: the volume densities corresponding to 0.125, 0.25, 0.50, 2.0 and
1122: 4.0~$M_\odot$~pc$^{-3}$. The blue contours show volume densities of
1123: 1~$M_\odot$~pc$^{-3}$, corresponding to the criterion (1$\times$LL03 in the
1124: text) for identifying clusters suggested by \cite{lada03}, and the yellow
1125: contours to volume densities of 25~$M_\odot$~pc$^{-3}$ (25$\times$LL03 in
1126: the text). The red dots show the locations of the YSOs and the green plus
1127: signs the locations of the SCUBA cores in the two
1128: clouds.}\label{surfdensfig}
1129: \end{figure}
1130: \clearpage
1131:
1132: \subsubsection{Substructure of Ophiuchus}
1133: At the 1$\times$LL03 level most of the YSOs in Ophiuchus are included in one
1134: large region, ``e-Oph'', encompassing the main associations of YSOs around L1688,
1135: L1709 and L1689. The only other loose group is located close to DCld 356.1+13.7
1136: \citep{feitzinger84} in the northwestern part of the Ophiuchus streamer. This
1137: loose group is located slightly to the south of a $^{13}$CO core, [L89]~R76, in
1138: the maps of \cite{loren89a}. This region was not covered by the SCUBA maps
1139: (although inside the c2d coverage - and thus the extinction maps in
1140: Fig.~\ref{surfdensfig}). The same is true for the two extinction cores
1141: associated with L1712 and L1729 [seen in the c2d maps at (16:40;-24:10) and
1142: (16:42;-24:10)] which do not contain any YSOs.
1143:
1144: At the higher 25$\times$LL03 level, the main loose cluster, ``e-Oph'', is
1145: broken into five separate tight regions. The dominating tight concentration is
1146: associated with the L1688 dark cloud which contains 171 members (61\% of those
1147: in the larger loose cluster) and is the only ``cluster'' in Ophiuchus
1148: according to our definition. It also dominates in terms of the number of SCUBA
1149: cores, with 71\% of the SCUBA cores (83\% of those associated with MIPS
1150: sources).
1151:
1152: Four additional tight regions have 5--10 members each and are therefore
1153: classified as ``groups''. Only two of these regions have SCUBA cores within
1154: their boundaries; those associated with the dark clouds L1689 and L1709. L1689
1155: and L1709 show extended dust extinction but only small regions containing
1156: embedded YSOs. In L1709 a small group of starless cores are identified at the
1157: DCO$^+$ peak, L1709A, from the maps of \cite{loren90} (see also
1158: Fig.~\ref{findingchart}). The small group of YSOs at the peak of the L1709
1159: filament is associated with the IRAS point source, IRAS~16285-2355. In L1689
1160: the YSO density peaks at the southern part of the extinction core associated
1161: with L1689S \citep{loren89a}. A few additional isolated starless cores and
1162: YSOs are found in the north, surrounded by the extinction core associated with
1163: L1689N.
1164:
1165: In addition to L1689 and L1709, two tight groups of YSOs are found that do not
1166: have associated SCUBA cores. One, L1688-N, is found just north of the L1688
1167: cluster, but is not connected directly to the main cluster through strong
1168: extinction or $^{13}$CO emission in the maps of \cite{loren89a}. The other
1169: association is located toward the west of the cloud complex where
1170: \cite{loren89a} found a number of smaller CO clouds. The YSO volume density in
1171: this region peaks at the location of the [L89]~R12 core: \citeauthor{loren89a}
1172: found that this particular core together with another, [L89]~R7, showed
1173: spatially compact $^{13}$CO emission and strong $^{13}$CO peaks suggesting that
1174: star formation is ongoing. Whereas [L89]~R7 does not show up as a separate
1175: group in the YSO density maps, it is associated with a high level of extinction
1176: $A_V > 10$ and contains a small number of Spitzer identified YSOs. Both the
1177: [L89]~R12 and L1688-N regions have very low levels of extinction, $\langle A_V
1178: \rangle \approx 4$ compared to L1709, L1689 and L1688 where the average
1179: extinction is $\langle A_V\rangle = 10-15$.
1180:
1181: Of the remaining 9 SCUBA cores located outside the boundaries of the
1182: L1688, L1689 and L1709 tight groups, seven are associated with the
1183: larger loose ``e-Oph'' association and two are located within
1184: the extended cloud where the YSO volume density is lower
1185: than 1~$M_\odot$~pc$^{-3}$.
1186:
1187: \subsubsection{Substructure of Perseus}
1188: Perseus shows a larger variety of structure than Ophiuchus with the regions
1189: around the two main clusters, NGC~1333 and IC~348, containing about 80\% of the
1190: YSOs but only about 55\% of those associated with SCUBA cores. This in itself
1191: suggests that significant current star formation is going on outside the two
1192: main clusters. In contrast to Ophiuchus, the YSO associations in Perseus can be
1193: traced to lower levels of volume densities. At the 1$\times$LL03 level five
1194: loose associations of YSOs are identified, connected to the two main clusters,
1195: NGC~1333 and IC~348, and the three small groups, B1, L1455 and L1448.
1196:
1197: At the 1$\times$LL03 level the B1 group extends south along the main
1198: ridge seen in the extinction and (sub)millimeter emission maps, and
1199: encompasses the regions around the deeply embedded YSOs,
1200: IRAS~03285+3035 and IRAS~03292+3039 as well as the aggregate of YSOs
1201: in the Per~6 region \citep{rebull07}.
1202:
1203: Each of the loose regions can also be traced to the higher 25$\times$LL03
1204: level. At this level only e-IC~348 breaks up into multiple tight associations:
1205: the main cluster, IC~348, and the smaller group to the southwest, IC~348-SW
1206: \citeauthor{cambresy06}). The main IC~348 tight cluster contains all of the
1207: SCUBA cores within the loose boundary. As pointed out by \cite{muench07} these
1208: cores are all located toward the southwest, where the extinction peaks. The
1209: association of YSOs in L1448 only has three members at the 25$\times$LL03 level
1210: and is therefore not counted as a tight group.
1211:
1212: The other regions each contain one tight cluster or group within their
1213: 1$\times$LL03 levels. NGC~1333 contains close to half of the SCUBA
1214: cores in the Perseus cloud, with 85\% of the cores within the loose cluster
1215: also within the boundaries of the tight cluster. The number of YSOs
1216: within the tight groups of IC~348 and NGC~1333 are almost the same
1217: (121 and 102, respectively) as are the masses from the extinction maps
1218: (318 and 319~$M_\odot$). There is, however, more than a factor 3
1219: difference between the number of Class I objects in these regions,
1220: as also noted by \cite{perspitz}.
1221:
1222:
1223: \subsection{Key numbers for Perseus and Ophiuchus}\label{numbers_peroph}
1224: Table~\ref{keynumbers} summarizes the key numbers for each of the regions in
1225: Ophiuchus and Perseus. We are here concerned with properties directly related to
1226: the current/ongoing star formation status of each region and refer to future
1227: papers for further discussion about the more evolved YSOs and overviews of the
1228: full YSO populations. In addition to the number of cores, the total core mass,
1229: and the number of embedded YSOs from this paper within each region, we also
1230: tabulate the number of YSOs from the c2d catalogs \citep{delivery4} together
1231: with the number of Class I sources. We also calculate two estimates of the star
1232: formation efficiency, $SFE=\frac{M_{\rm YSO}}{M_{\rm gas+dust}+M_{\rm YSO}}$,
1233: where $M_{\rm YSO}$ is the total mass of YSOs and $M_{\rm gas+dust}$ is the mass
1234: of gas and dust in the considered region. The ``core SFE'' ($SFE_{\rm core}$) is
1235: calculated on basis of the number of embedded YSOs from this paper and where
1236: $M_{\rm gas+dust}$ is the total mass in SCUBA cores. The other estimate, the
1237: ``cloud SFE'' ($SFE_{\rm cloud}$), is calculated using the total number of YSOs
1238: from the c2d list (i.e., including the more evolved YSOs as well as the embedded
1239: YSOs from this paper) and with $M_{\rm gas+dust}$ being the mass within the
1240: considered region (e.g., within a given volume density contour) based on the c2d
1241: extinction maps \citep{delivery4} and using the conversion between extinction
1242: and hydrogen column density, $N_{{\rm H}_2} =9.4\times 10^{20} {\rm cm}^{-2}
1243: (A_V / {\rm mag})$, from the Copernicus results of \cite{bohlin78}. The ``core
1244: SFE'' is a measure of how efficient stars form from existing cores with central
1245: densities higher than about $5\times 10^4$cm~$^{-3}$ corresponding to the
1246: detection limit of the SCUBA data, but does not take into account the YSOs that
1247: have already been formed and additional cores which may still form within the
1248: cloud. In contrast, the cloud SFE measures how efficient the cloud has been in
1249: turning dust and gas into YSOs up to this point in time. For both measures of
1250: the SFE we assume a mean stellar mass of 0.5~$M_\odot$.
1251:
1252: \clearpage
1253: \thispagestyle{empty}
1254: \setlength{\voffset}{40mm}
1255: {\rotate
1256: \begin{table}[!htb]
1257: \newcommand{\tn}[1]{\tiny{#1}}
1258: \newcommand{\an}[1]{\tiny{#1}}
1259: \newcommand{\nn}[1]{\tiny{#1}}
1260: \newcommand{\Nn}[1]{\scriptsize{\bf #1}}
1261: \newcommand{\An}[1]{\footnotesize{\bf #1}}
1262: \caption{Key numbers for Ophiuchus and Perseus.}\label{keynumbers}
1263: \scriptsize
1264: \begin{tabular}{llccccccccccc}\hline\hline
1265: \multicolumn{2}{l}{} & \#YSOs & \#Class I\tablenotemark{a} & \#Cores & \#Cores w/MIPS & $\langle A_V \rangle$\tablenotemark{b} & Volume & $M_{\rm cloud}$\tablenotemark{c} & $M_{\rm core}$\tablenotemark{d} & $M_{\rm starless}$ & SFE$_{\rm core}$ & SFE$_{\rm cloud}$ \\
1266: \multicolumn{2}{l}{} & & & & & [mag] & [pc$^{3}$] & [$M_\odot$] & [$M_\odot$] & [$M_\odot$] & & \\\hline
1267: \multicolumn{13}{c}{\An{Ophiuchus}}\\[1.5ex]
1268: \multicolumn{2}{l}{\An{Total}} & \An{290} & \An{32 (11\%)} & \An{66} & \An{23 (35\%)} & \an{$\ldots$} & \an{$\ldots$} & \An{3586} & \An{74 } & \An{45 } & \An{13\% } & \An{3.9\% } \\[1.5ex]
1269: \multicolumn{2}{l}{\Nn{e-Oph}} & \Nn{266} & \Nn{30 (11\%)} & \Nn{64} & \Nn{22 (34\%)} & \Nn{5.7 } & \Nn{75 } & \Nn{2570} & \Nn{74 } & \Nn{45 } & \Nn{13\% } & \Nn{4.9\% } \\
1270: & \tn{L1688} & \tn{154} & \tn{20 (13\%)} & \tn{47} & \tn{19 (40\%)} & \tn{18.1 } & \tn{2.1 } & \tn{ 742} & \tn{57 } & \tn{36 } & \tn{14\% } & \tn{9.4\% } \\
1271: & \tn{L1709} & \tn{ 8} & \tn{ 0 (0.0\%)} & \tn{ 3} & \tn{ 1 (33\%)} & \tn{9.6 } & \tn{0.071 } & \tn{ 42} & \tn{0.62} & \tn{0.36 } & \tn{45\% } & \tn{8.7\% } \\
1272: & \tn{L1689} & \tn{ 11} & \tn{ 3 (27\%)} & \tn{ 7} & \tn{ 1 (14\%)} & \tn{14.9 } & \tn{0.091 } & \tn{ 77} & \tn{4.0 } & \tn{3.9 } & \tn{11\% } & \tn{6.7\% } \\
1273: & \tn{[L89] R12} & \tn{ 7} & \tn{ 1 (14\%)} & \tn{ 0} & \tn{$\ldots$ } & \tn{4.5 } & \tn{0.054 } & \tn{ 16} & \tn{0.0 } & \tn{$\ldots$} & \tn{$\ldots$} & \tn{18\% } \\
1274: & \tn{L1688-N} & \tn{ 7} & \tn{ 0 (0.0\%)} & \tn{ 0} & \tn{$\ldots$ } & \tn{4.1 } & \tn{0.067 } & \tn{ 17} & \tn{0.0 } & \tn{$\ldots$} & \tn{$\ldots$} & \tn{17\% } \\
1275: & \tn{other} & \tn{ 79} & \tn{ 6 (6.6\%)} & \tn{ 7} & \tn{ 1 (14\%)} & \tn{$\ldots$} & \tn{$\ldots$} & \tn{1686} & \tn{12 } & \tn{4.6 } & \tn{4.0\% } & \tn{2.2\% } \\
1276: \multicolumn{2}{l}{\Nn{DCld 356.1}} & \Nn{ 5} & \Nn{ 2 (40\%)} & \Nn{ 0} & \nn{$\ldots$ } & \Nn{2.4 } & \Nn{0.36 } & \Nn{ 31} & \Nn{0.0 } & \nn{$\ldots$} & \nn{$\ldots$} & \Nn{7.5\% } \\
1277: \multicolumn{2}{l}{\Nn{Extended}} & \Nn{ 19} & \Nn{ 0 (0.0\%)} & \Nn{ 2} & \Nn{ 1 (50\%)} & \nn{$\ldots$} & \nn{$\ldots$} & \Nn{ 985} & \Nn{0.69} & \Nn{0.66 } & \Nn{7.2\% } & \Nn{0.96\% }\\ \hline
1278: \multicolumn{13}{c}{\An{Perseus}}\\[1.5ex]
1279: \multicolumn{2}{l}{\An{Total}} & \An{385} & \An{89 (23\%)} & \An{72} & \An{42 (58\%)} & \an{$\ldots$} & \an{$\ldots$} & \An{7080} & \An{106 } & \An{24 } & \An{17\% } & \An{2.6\% } \\[1.5ex]
1280: \multicolumn{2}{l}{\Nn{e-NGC1333}} & \Nn{115} & \Nn{41 (36\%)} & \Nn{33} & \Nn{20 (61\%)} & \Nn{6.2 } & \Nn{12 } & \Nn{ 822} & \Nn{ 55 } & \Nn{11 } & \Nn{15\% } & \Nn{6.5\% } \\
1281: & \tn{NGC1333} & \tn{102} & \tn{35 (34\%)} & \tn{28} & \tn{16 (57\%)} & \tn{12.7 } & \tn{0.98 } & \tn{ 319} & \tn{ 53 } & \tn{10 } & \tn{13\% } & \tn{14\% } \\
1282: & \tn{other} & \tn{ 13} & \tn{ 6 (46\%)} & \tn{ 5} & \tn{4 (80\%)} & \tn{$\ldots$} & \tn{$\ldots$} & \tn{ 502} & \tn{1.8 } & \tn{0.54 } & \tn{53\% } & \tn{1.3\% } \\
1283: \multicolumn{2}{l}{\Nn{e-IC348}} & \Nn{189} & \Nn{15 (7.9\%)} & \Nn{12} & \Nn{4 (33\%)} & \Nn{6.2 } & \Nn{33 } & \Nn{1611} & \Nn{ 14 } & \Nn{5.0 } & \Nn{13\% } & \Nn{5.5\% } \\
1284: & \tn{IC348} & \tn{121} & \tn{11 (9.1\%}) & \tn{12} & \tn{4 (33\%)} & \tn{8.1 } & \tn{1.9 } & \tn{ 318} & \tn{ 14 } & \tn{5.0 } & \tn{13\% } & \tn{16\% } \\
1285: & \tn{IC348-SW} & \tn{ 10} & \tn{ 2 (20\%)} & \tn{ 0} & \tn{$\ldots$ } & \tn{11.8 } & \tn{0.086 } & \tn{ 59} & \tn{0.0 } & \tn{$\ldots$} & \tn{$\ldots$} & \tn{7.8\% } \\
1286: & \tn{other} & \tn{ 58} & \tn{ 2 (3.4\%)} & \tn{ 0} & \tn{$\ldots$ } & \tn{$\ldots$} & \tn{$\ldots$} & \tn{1234} & \tn{0.0 } & \tn{$\ldots$} & \tn{$\ldots$} & \tn{2.3\% } \\
1287: \multicolumn{2}{l}{\Nn{e-B1}} & \Nn{ 34} & \Nn{14 (41\%)} & \Nn{10} & \Nn{7 (70\%)} & \Nn{5.9 } & \Nn{15 } & \Nn{ 919} & \Nn{ 15 } & \Nn{2.0 } & \Nn{25\% } & \Nn{1.8\% } \\
1288: & \tn{B1} & \tn{ 9} & \tn{ 8 (89\%)} & \tn{ 7} & \tn{5 (71\%)} & \tn{17.5 } & \tn{0.075 } & \tn{ 79} & \tn{ 13 } & \tn{0.84 } & \tn{16\% } & \tn{5.4\% } \\
1289: & \tn{other} & \tn{ 25} & \tn{ 6 (24\%)} & \tn{ 3} & \tn{2 (67\%)} & \tn{$\ldots$} & \tn{$\ldots$} & \tn{ 840} & \tn{2.4 } & \tn{1.0 } & \tn{30\% } & \tn{1.5\% } \\
1290: \multicolumn{2}{l}{\Nn{e-L1455}} & \Nn{ 8} & \Nn{ 6 (75\%)} & \Nn{ 5} & \Nn{5 (80\%)} & \Nn{5.3 } & \Nn{1.9 } & \Nn{ 211} & \Nn{3.1 } & \Nn{0.55 } & \Nn{39\% } & \Nn{1.8\% } \\
1291: & \tn{L1455} & \tn{ 5} & \tn{ 5 (100\%)} & \tn{ 5} & \tn{5 (80\%)} & \tn{8.1 } & \tn{0.035 } & \tn{ 22} & \tn{3.1 } & \tn{0.55 } & \tn{39\% } & \tn{10\% } \\
1292: & \tn{other} & \tn{ 3} & \tn{ 1 (33\%)} & \tn{ 0} & \tn{$\ldots$ } & \tn{$\ldots$} & \tn{$\ldots$} & \tn{ 189} & \tn{0.0 } & \tn{$\ldots$} & \tn{$\ldots$} & \tn{0.79\%} \\
1293: \multicolumn{2}{l}{\Nn{L1448}} & \Nn{ 5} & \Nn{ 5 (100\%)} & \Nn{ 6} & \Nn{3 (50\%)} & \Nn{4.6 } & \Nn{1.4 } & \Nn{ 147} & \Nn{16 } & \Nn{5.4 } & \Nn{8.5\% } & \Nn{1.7\% } \\
1294: \multicolumn{2}{l}{\Nn{Extended}} & \Nn{ 34} & \Nn{ 8 (24\%)} & \Nn{ 6} & \Nn{4 (67\%)} & \nn{$\ldots$} & \nn{$\ldots$} & \Nn{3371} & \Nn{3.6 } & \Nn{0.55 } & \Nn{36\% } & \Nn{0.52\%} \\ \hline
1295: \end{tabular}
1296: \tablenotetext{a}{Number of Class I YSOs and fraction of the total number of YSOs in the given region.}
1297: \tablenotetext{b}{Average $A_V$ from the extinction maps within the volume density contour used to define the given region.}
1298: \tablenotetext{c}{Total mass within the given volume density contour from the c2d extinction map.}
1299: \tablenotetext{d}{Total mass of the SCUBA cores located within the given volume density contour.}
1300: \end{table}
1301: }
1302: \clearpage
1303: \setlength{\voffset}{0mm}
1304:
1305: \subsection{Perseus vs. Ophiuchus: fraction of embedded sources and SFE}
1306: In contrast to Ophiuchus, the Perseus regions show large variety in the
1307: relative numbers of embedded YSOs - both when defined as being associated with
1308: submillimeter cores or based on their mid-infrared spectral index (i.e., the
1309: classical definition of Class~I YSOs). The difference between IC~348 and the
1310: collection of groups including NGC~1333, L1455, L1448 and B1 was also
1311: discussed by \cite{perspitz}. The smaller groups contain only 20\% of the YSOs
1312: in the entire Perseus complex but about 40\% of both the Class I sources and
1313: the MIPS sources associated with submillimeter cores. In the central tight,
1314: B1, L1455 and L1448, groups, the ratios of Class I sources to total YSOs are
1315: in fact 90--100\% compared to 34\% in NGC~1333 and 10--20\% in the two tight
1316: clusters/groups in IC~348. In the more extended regions around these tight
1317: groups the ratios of Class Is to total YSOs are, in contrast, much lower. For
1318: example, in B1 the loose group further south in the extinction ridge and the
1319: Per~6 aggregate have about 25\% Class I sources. The ratio of Class I YSOs in
1320: the Ophiuchus groups is more similar to that of IC~348 than those of the
1321: smaller groups and NGC~1333.
1322:
1323: Another property which is interesting to compare is the star formation
1324: efficiency, $SFE$ (see \S\ref{numbers_peroph}). As discussed in
1325: \cite{scubaspitz} it is convenient to distinguish between the ``core'' star
1326: formation efficiency, $SFE_{\rm core}$, and ``cloud'' star formation
1327: efficiency, $SFE_{\rm cloud}$: $SFE_{\rm core}$ is based on the masses of the
1328: embedded YSOs in the cloud compared to the mass of the dust and gas already
1329: collected in dense cores. It is therefore a good measure of the star formation
1330: efficiency for the current generation of dense cores but does not take into
1331: account those stars which have evolved away from the embedded stages or those
1332: cores which may still form from gas within the cloud. $SFE_{\rm cloud}$ in
1333: contrast is based on the masses of all (identified) YSOs in the studied region
1334: and the total mass based on extinction maps (i.e., mass in the extended cloud
1335: at lower column densities) and therefore captures the star formation
1336: efficiency over the larger time-span corresponding to the evolution of the
1337: YSOs from the formation of the cores through the YSO Class 0--II stages. The
1338: biggest caveats about these definitions are (1) the completeness of the YSO
1339: samples (large number of diskless YSOs may for example remain undefined by the
1340: photometric surveys because they have too little dust emission to show
1341: significant infrared excesses) and (2) that dust and gas in the cloud might
1342: disperse over the timescale during which the YSOs evolve.
1343:
1344: For the regions in Perseus and Ophiuchus, values of $SFE_{\rm core}$ are
1345: 10--30\% - with no significant differences between the two clouds. For
1346: $SFE_{\rm cloud}$, the average number for Perseus (2.6\%) is only slightly
1347: lower than in Ophiuchus (4.1\%). When individual regions are considered,
1348: however, a more pronounced difference is found: the two clusters and the
1349: Ophiuchus region show $SFE_{\rm cloud}$ values of about 6\% whereas the more
1350: isolated groups show lower efficiencies of about 2\% (at the 1$\times LL03$
1351: level). For the tight groups and clusters, the regions in Ophiuchus - except
1352: L1689 - and NGC~1333 and IC~348, also show higher efficiencies than do the
1353: smaller regions of Perseus. These differences can be interpreted in two ways:
1354: one possibility is that there is a continuous replenishment of material in the
1355: dense cores and the higher $SFE_{\rm cloud}$ of the larger regions simply
1356: reflect that these are more effective in turning dust and gas into new
1357: stars. A different explanation is that the smaller regions in Perseus only
1358: recently have started forming stars and therefore show a lower $SFE_{\rm
1359: cloud}$ than the larger clouds. We will return to this discussion in
1360: \S\ref{discuss}.
1361:
1362: \section{Discussion: Evolution of embedded protostars}\label{discuss}
1363: The differences between Perseus and Ophiuchus in the numbers of embedded
1364: protostars are interesting in the context of the evolution of YSOs through
1365: their earliest stages - and suggests evolutionary differences between the two
1366: clouds related to differences either in the evolution of individual YSOs or
1367: the star formation complex as a whole. To reiterate, compared to Perseus, the
1368: regions in Ophiuchus show:
1369: \begin{enumerate}
1370: \item a lower fraction of Class I sources compared to the total number of YSOs
1371: \item a lower fraction of MIPS sources associated with SCUBA cores
1372: \item fewer ``red'' ($[3.6]-[4.5] > 1$ and $[8.0]-[24] > 4.5$) sources from
1373: the comparison of the SCUBA cores and MIPS sources from this paper and
1374: \cite{scubaspitz}
1375: \end{enumerate}
1376: The differences between the number of sources in these different classes raise
1377: concerns about timescales for the evolution of prestellar cores and protostars
1378: derived on basis of for example the relative numbers of starless and
1379: starforming cores or the number of Class I vs. II sources. In terms of star
1380: formation efficiencies, the central Ophiuchus region(s) and the two clusters
1381: in Perseus, IC~348 and NGC~1333, show higher cloud star formation efficiencies
1382: than L1689 in Ophiuchus and the smaller L1455, L1448 and B1 groups in Perseus.
1383:
1384: \subsection{Difference in evolutionary stages?}
1385: One explanation for the differences between the number of embedded sources in
1386: Ophiuchus and Perseus might be that the clouds have different ``ages''. If
1387: star formation has initiated (e.g., been triggered) at a given time in the
1388: recent past of the cloud history and the embedded YSOs evolve on similar
1389: timescales the lower number of embedded sources in Ophiuchus suggest that this
1390: cloud is more evolved compared to Perseus. A similar effect has been observed
1391: within Perseus with clear differences in the numbers of embedded YSOs in
1392: IC~348 and NGC~1333 \citep{perspitz} in line with the different age estimates
1393: for the two clusters of about 2~Myr \citep{luhman03} and $<$~1~Myr
1394: \citep{lada96,wilking04}, respectively. The difference in $SFE_{\rm cloud}$
1395: between Ophiuchus and Perseus could then simply reflect that a smaller amount
1396: of the dust and gas has turned into stars at this point of the evolution of
1397: Perseus. In principle, there is no reason why star formation in Perseus and
1398: Ophiuchus should have initiated at the same time, so from that perspective
1399: this is definitely a plausible scenario.
1400:
1401: What does complicate the picture of a pure evolutionary effect are the
1402: relative numbers of SCUBA cores with and without associated MIPS sources (or
1403: protostellar and starless cores, respectively). As pointed out above, the
1404: small groups in Perseus show very high numbers of Class I sources
1405: corresponding to 90--100\% of the YSOs in the groups, but these regions do not
1406: have the same high fractions of associated MIPS sources. This is naturally
1407: explained if B1, L1448 and L1455 have all only recently started forming stars
1408: and therefore not all of their cores have yet collapsed. The issue with this
1409: interpretation is that Ophiuchus also shows a low fraction of cores with
1410: embedded protostars relative to the total number of cores. In a scenario where
1411: the time for the initiation star formation differs, the relatively high number
1412: of starless cores in Ophiuchus would therefore mean that these remaining
1413: starless cores either are ``fizzles'' (i.e., did not ``manage'' to collapse) -
1414: or that a second generation of star formation is about to occur in this
1415: cloud. \cite{nutter06} argued that the differences seen between L1689 and
1416: L1688 - the latter having a more active star formation history - could be
1417: attributed to sequential star formation triggered by a small group of young
1418: high mass stars, $\sigma$Sco, in the Sco-Cen association.
1419:
1420: \subsection{Difference in star formation physics?}
1421: Another possible explanation for the differences between the regions in
1422: Perseus and Ophiuchus is that the physics regulating the star formation
1423: between these regions differ, e.g., the time-scale for evolution through the
1424: embedded stages is different in the dense clusters in Perseus and in Ophiuchus
1425: compared to the more isolated groups. If the collapse of an ensemble of cores
1426: occurs stochastically over a time-scale which is long compared to the collapse
1427: time for an individual core, the ratio of sources in different evolutionary
1428: stages can be used as a statistical tool for measuring the relative durations
1429: of star formation phases. Thus, if the collapse of cores occurs slower (or the
1430: rate is lower) or if the timescale for evolution through the embedded stages
1431: is shorter - more Class 0/I sources would have time to evolve away from the
1432: embedded stages skewing the statistics toward more evolved (Class II)
1433: YSOs. Such a solution could explain the undercounting of embedded sources in
1434: Ophiuchus as a whole but does not explain the higher $SFE_{\rm cloud}$ in
1435: Ophiuchus and NGC~1333 and IC~348.
1436:
1437: What could be the physical explanations for such a difference? As pointed out
1438: by \cite{jayawardhana01} pre-stellar cores and protostars formed in more dense
1439: star-forming regions are likely to have high masses on small scales, which in
1440: turn will imply high accretion rates, e.g., compared to objects in less dense
1441: regions such as Taurus. If this is the case, one would therefore expect that
1442: the Ophiuchus protostars were found in regions with higher extinction (and
1443: thus further evolved) than those in Perseus. If one compares the major
1444: clusters in the two clouds, there does seem to be such a trend with L1688 and
1445: L1689 having an average extinction of 15--17 compared to the 8--13 for IC~348
1446: and NGC~1333. This would in turn require that the current population of
1447: embedded protostars in Perseus have lower accretion rates than those few
1448: sources observed in Ophiuchus. Other factors, such as differences in the
1449: global and local magnetic field strengths between Perseus and Ophiuchus, could
1450: of course also be important in this context, although no strong observational
1451: constraints exist.
1452:
1453: \subsection{Difference in definitions?}\label{physorigin}
1454: A final explanation for the differences between Ophiuchus and Perseus could
1455: simply be that the empirical evolutionary classification scheme does not apply
1456: well to comparisons across clouds. For example, it is important to realize the
1457: difference between the mid-infrared and submillimeter observations: where the
1458: latter measures the dust (plus gas) mass, $M$, and core temperature, the
1459: former measures the extinction or line of sight column density, $N$, - and
1460: thus mid-infrared ``redness'' - of the central star+disk system. If one just
1461: takes a spherical symmetric envelope with a density profile, $n\propto r^{-p}$
1462: and inner and outer radii, $R_{\rm in}$ and $R_{\rm out}$, it is easily seen
1463: that:
1464: \begin{eqnarray}
1465: M \propto & \int_{R_{\rm in}}^{R_{\rm out}} n(r) 4\pi r^2\, {\rm d}r \propto \int_{R_{\rm in}}^{R_{\rm out}} r^{2-p}\,{\rm d}r \propto R_{\rm out}^{3-p}-R_{\rm in}^{3-p} & \approx R_{\rm out}^{3-p} \\
1466: N \propto & \int_{R_{\rm in}}^{R_{\rm out}} n(r)\, {\rm d}r \propto \int_{R_{\rm in}}^{R_{\rm out}} r^{-p}\,{\rm d}r \propto R_{\rm out}^{1-p}-R_{\rm in}^{1-p} & \approx R_{\rm in}^{1-p}
1467: \end{eqnarray}
1468: when $R_{\rm out} >> R_{\rm in}$ and $1.0 < p < 3.0$. That is, a larger inner
1469: radius decreases the extinction of a given protostellar source (e.g., making
1470: it visible at shorter wavelengths \citep{iras16293letter} or reducing its
1471: ``redness'') while not affecting the envelope mass and vice versa: a larger
1472: outer radius only increases the envelope mass and thus submillimeter flux, but
1473: does not affect the mid-infrared signature of the source. If the inner radius
1474: or flattening of the protostellar envelopes in Ophiuchus is larger than that
1475: in Perseus the protostars there will appear more evolved if classified based
1476: on their mid-infrared colors or $\alpha$. This could for example be the case
1477: if the angular momenta of the pre-stellar cores had been different, resulting
1478: in larger centrifugal radii for the sources in Ophiuchus. The difference in
1479: the maximum redness in Perseus and Ophiuchus (\S\ref{midirsubmm}) could be
1480: taken as evidence that such an effect is in play.
1481:
1482: The bottom line is that based on the current data it is difficult to say which
1483: scenario is most likely; indeed, a combination very likely applies. Regardless,
1484: challenges are brought to the definition of the most deeply embedded stages of
1485: low-mass protostars, i.e., Class 0 stage. It is here useful to remind of the
1486: three definitions of Class 0 sources \citep[see][]{andre93,andreppiv}: the
1487: conceptional definition of the Class 0 stage is that the protostar has accreted
1488: less than half its final mass, but since it is difficult to determine the masses
1489: of the central protostars, this definition is not useful for practical
1490: purposes. Two main observational definitions are in play: most often that the
1491: object emit most of its luminosity at submillimeter wavelength (either
1492: quantified by a ratio of the submillimeter luminosity to total luminosity,
1493: $L_{\lambda\, \ge\, 350 \mu{\rm m}} / L_{\rm bol} > 0.5$\% or a bolometric
1494: temperature lower than 70--100~K) - or that it has a high mass accretion rate or
1495: equivalently drives a powerful outflow.
1496:
1497: The main issue is that taken separately, the Ophiuchus and Perseus data
1498: provide very different arguments for the life-time of the Class 0
1499: stage. Assuming a constant birthrate, the relatively large number of embedded
1500: YSOs in Perseus compared to more evolved YSOs suggests that the Class 0 stage
1501: is not simply a short-lived, high accretion stage. This is in direct contrast
1502: to the conclusion derived from the Ophiuchus YSO sample, where the deeply
1503: embedded sources are significantly outnumbered, requiring a very short-lived
1504: Class 0 phase. A reasonable solution to this discrepancy may be that
1505: differences between the appearance of the YSOs reflects strongly their
1506: environments (physical conditions). In this case, Class 0 protostars may not
1507: represent a clearly defined early stage in the evolution of protostars but
1508: rather, an environmentally affected, continuum into Class I protostars (as
1509: also discussed by \cite{jayawardhana01}). An alternative explanation, that
1510: star formation occurs in bursts, could explain the differences if the most
1511: recent burst in Perseus has occurred more recently than that in Ophiuchus. In
1512: this case, however, the relative number of embedded versus more evolved YSOs
1513: does not reveal their relative time-scales and thus do not provide the
1514: evidence that the time-scale for the evolution through the most deeply
1515: embedded Class~0 stage is significantly shorter than the evolution through the
1516: Class~I stage.
1517:
1518: \section{Summary}
1519: We have combined SCUBA submillimeter dust continuum and Spitzer mid-IR surveys
1520: of the current star formation in the Ophiuchus cloud complex. The results are
1521: compared to our previous study of Perseus. The main conclusions of this study
1522: are as follows:
1523: \begin{itemize}
1524: \item We have applied a method developed for identifying embedded protostars
1525: in Perseus \citep{scubaspitz} directly to the Ophiuchus datasets.
1526: \item Little dispersal of the protostars with respect to the SCUBA cores are
1527: seen similar to the situation in Perseus. Fewer red sources are found in
1528: Ophiuchus compared to Perseus - but also a higher fraction of starless SCUBA
1529: cores.
1530: \item Although distance does not directly play into the definition of SCUBA
1531: cores, the Ophiuchus surveys are more sensitive to dust emission from disks,
1532: representing a small, but non-negligible fraction of the sources seen in the
1533: SCUBA survey.
1534: \item As was the case in Perseus most of the SCUBA cores in Ophiuchus with high
1535: concentrations also have associated MIPS sources, likely reflecting the
1536: heating of the dust from the central source making them appear more
1537: peaked. Four high concentration SCUBA cores without associated YSOs are
1538: identified and are found to be the likely result of the impact of outflow
1539: and the structure of the ambient environment.
1540: \item Using a nearest-neighbor algorithm we calculate surface and volume
1541: densities of the YSOs in Perseus and Ophiuchus and from those identify
1542: groups and clusters in each of the clouds. For each of these regions we
1543: calculate key numbers such as masses, star formation efficiencies and the
1544: fraction of embedded objects.
1545: \item The star formation efficiency varies across and within clouds. Perseus
1546: has a high efficiency in turning material from the SCUBA cores into embedded
1547: protostars (a high $SFE_{\rm core}$), driven primarily by the efficiency in
1548: its smaller groups (B1, L1455 and L1448). The large clusters in Perseus
1549: (NGC~1333 and IC~348) have lower core SFEs, similar to those found across
1550: Ophiuchus. The cloud SFE measured on basis of the larger scale dust
1551: extinction and the overall population of YSOs, however, is somewhat higher
1552: in Ophiuchus than in Perseus primarily because these same small groups in
1553: Perseus (B1, L1455 and L1448) have a larger fraction of their mass still not
1554: turned into cores or stars. Generally, though the cloud SFE is lower than
1555: the core SFE, suggesting that the star formation mechanism is more
1556: inefficient on larger relative to smaller scales. The fraction of Class I
1557: sources relative to YSOs also vary from about 10\% in Ophiuchus and IC~348
1558: to 35\% in NGC~1333 and more than 90\% in the inner regions of B1, L1455 and
1559: L1448. Finally, the fraction of starless cores in Ophiuchus is found to be
1560: high compared to in Perseus.
1561: \item We discuss possible explanations for the differences between the regions
1562: in Perseus and Ophiuchus, such as (i) that the YSOs have evolved over
1563: different timescales, (ii) that the physics regulating the star formation,
1564: e.g., the accretion in the two clouds, differ, or (iii) that the empirical
1565: evolutionary classification scheme does not apply well when comparing
1566: samples of YSOs from different clouds. Based on the existing samples it is
1567: not possible to rule out any of these scenarios, and likely all three may be
1568: relevant for the full picture of the star formation properties of the two
1569: clouds. In any case, the results do raise questions about the standard
1570: picture of the Class 0 stage being a short-lived precursor to the Class I
1571: stage in the evolution of embedded YSOs.
1572: \end{itemize}
1573:
1574: The results presented here provide a direct comparison of the global star
1575: formation properties of the larger scale clouds and also provides important
1576: constraints on - and raises questions about - the general low-mass star
1577: formation scenario. It demonstrates the importance of the systematic approach
1578: using the large scale maps which are currently appearing from Spitzer and the
1579: new submillimeter cameras, LABOCA on APEX and SCUBA-2 on the JCMT. Together
1580: these surveys can address whether differences between the number of sources in
1581: the embedded stages are generally seen or, e.g., whether Perseus or Ophiuchus
1582: contain YSO populations ``more representative'' for other regions currently
1583: forming stars. Other complementary observations (e.g., large scale
1584: submillimeter line maps) can address whether differences in the initial
1585: conditions (e.g., pressure or turbulence) could be responsible for the
1586: observed differences in the YSO populations. At the same time these
1587: large-scale surveys are providing important unbiased samples of embedded
1588: low-mass protostars that will be obvious targets for detailed observations
1589: with upcoming facilities such as ALMA.
1590:
1591:
1592: \acknowledgments
1593: We are grateful to Rob Gutermuth, Neal Evans, Melissa Enoch, and Jens Kauffmann
1594: for helpful discussions and comments about the paper. We also thank the
1595: referee, Bruce Wilking, for insightful comments that improved the
1596: paper. D.J. is supported by a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research
1597: Council of Canada grant. H.K. is supported by a Natural Sciences and
1598: Engineering Research Council of Canada CGS Award and a National Research
1599: Council of Canada GSSSP Award. This paper has made use of the SIMBAD database,
1600: operated at CDS, Strasbourg, France.
1601:
1602:
1603:
1604: \appendix
1605:
1606: \section{Properties of submillimeter cores.}
1607: We here present the list of submillimeter cores in Ophiuchus. See
1608: \cite{johnstone04} for further details about the observations and
1609: \cite{kirk06} for further discussion about the algorithm for identifying cores
1610: and their properties.
1611:
1612: \clearpage
1613: \pagestyle{empty}
1614: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccccccccc}
1615: \rotate
1616: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
1617: \tablewidth{0pt}
1618: \tablecaption{Properties of submillimeter cores in Ophiuchus\label{submmtab}}
1619: \tablehead{
1620: \colhead{Name\tablenotemark{a}} &
1621: \colhead{R.A.\tablenotemark{b}} &
1622: \colhead{Decl.\tablenotemark{b}} &
1623: \colhead{$f_0^c$} &
1624: \colhead{$S_{850}$\tablenotemark{c}} &
1625: \colhead{$R_{\rm eff}$\tablenotemark{c}} &
1626: \colhead{Mass\tablenotemark{d}} &
1627: \colhead{Concentration} &
1628: \colhead{Temperature\tablenotemark{e}} &
1629: \colhead{$M_{\rm BE}$\tablenotemark{e}} &
1630: \colhead{$\log n_{\rm cent}$\tablenotemark{e}} &
1631: \colhead{$\log P_{\rm ext}/k$\tablenotemark{e}} \\
1632: \colhead{(SMM J)} &
1633: \colhead{(J2000)} &
1634: \colhead{(J2000)} &
1635: \colhead{(Jy beam$^{-1}$)} &
1636: \colhead{(Jy)} &
1637: \colhead{(arcsec)} &
1638: \colhead{($M_\odot$)} &
1639: \colhead{ } &
1640: \colhead{(K)} &
1641: \colhead{($M_\odot$)} &
1642: \colhead{(cm$^{-3}$)} &
1643: \colhead{(cm$^{-3}$~K$^{-1}$)}
1644: }
1645: \startdata
1646: 162608-24202 & 16 26 08.0 & -24 20 24.5 & 0.31 & 3.32 & 38 & 0.76 & 0.34 & 24 & 0.40 & 4.8 & 6.1 \\
1647: 162610-24195 & 16 26 09.6 & -24 19 45.5 & 0.30 & 2.11 & 31 & 0.48 & 0.34 & 21 & 0.29 & 5.0 & 6.2 \\
1648: 162610-24231 & 16 26 10.2 & -24 23 09.5 & 0.29 & 1.94 & 31 & 0.44 & 0.40 & 16 & 0.40 & 5.1 & 6.2 \\
1649: 162610-24206 & 16 26 10.4 & -24 20 57.5 & 0.45 & 3.50 & 44 & 0.80 & 0.65 & 11 & 1.3 & 5.7 & 5.8 \\
1650: 162614-24232 & 16 26 13.9 & -24 23 24.6 & 0.20 & 0.58 & 17 & 0.13 & 0.15 & 16 & 0.13 & 5.3 & 6.5 \\
1651: 162614-24234 & 16 26 13.9 & -24 23 42.6 & 0.20 & 1.10 & 25 & 0.25 & 0.22 & 17 & 0.20 & 5.1 & 6.2 \\
1652: 162614-24250 & 16 26 14.4 & -24 25 00.6 & 0.28 & 5.93 & 53 & 1.4 & 0.34 & 25 & 0.62 & 4.6 & 5.9 \\
1653: 162615-24231 & 16 26 14.6 & -24 23 06.6 & 0.20 & 2.16 & 34 & 0.49 & 0.17 & 20 & 0.31 & 4.9 & 6.1 \\
1654: 162616-24235 & 16 26 15.7 & -24 23 54.7 & 0.20 & 1.03 & 24 & 0.23 & 0.20 & 17 & 0.19 & 5.1 & 6.3 \\
1655: 162617-24235 & 16 26 17.5 & -24 23 45.7 & 0.29 & 3.93 & 42 & 0.89 & 0.32 & 23 & 0.45 & 4.8 & 6.0 \\
1656: 162622-24225 & 16 26 21.6 & -24 22 54.8 & 0.82 & 13.2 & 58 & 3.0 & 0.58 & 17 & 2.4 & 5.4 & 6.0 \\
1657: 162624-24162 & 16 26 24.1 & -24 16 15.9 & 0.45 & 0.27 & 10 & 0.06 & 0.41 & 12 & 0.10 & 6.1 & 7.0 \\
1658: 162626-24243 & 16 26 26.5 & -24 24 30.9 & 3.23 & 32.2 & 66 & 7.3 & 0.80 & 22 & 4.1 & 5.8 & 6.0 \\
1659: 162627-24233 & 16 26 27.3 & -24 23 33.9 & 3.35 & 13.3 & 32 & 3.0 & 0.66 & 21 & 1.8 & 6.2 & 6.7 \\
1660: 162628-24235 & 16 26 27.5 & -24 23 54.9 & 4.22 & 33.3 & 59 & 7.6 & 0.80 & 23 & 3.9 & 6.0 & 6.2 \\
1661: 162628-24225 & 16 26 28.0 & -24 22 54.9 & 1.11 & 21.0 & 70 & 4.8 & 0.66 & 18 & 3.4 & 5.5 & 5.9 \\
1662: 162633-24261 & 16 26 32.8 & -24 26 13.0 & 0.45 & 30.0 & 100 & 6.8 & 0.41 & 29 & 2.6 & 4.4 & 5.7 \\
1663: 162641-24272 & 16 26 40.5 & -24 27 16.1 & 0.34 & 3.72 & 45 & 0.85 & 0.53 & 13 & 1.1 & 5.3 & 5.9 \\
1664: 162644-24173 & 16 26 43.6 & -24 17 28.2 & 0.35 & 0.95 & 20 & 0.22 & 0.40 & 14 & 0.24 & 5.5 & 6.5 \\
1665: 162644-24345 & 16 26 44.4 & -24 34 49.2 & 0.24 & 0.19 & 10 & 0.04 & 0.29 & 13 & 0.06 & 5.8 & 6.8 \\
1666: 162644-24253 & 16 26 44.5 & -24 25 28.2 & 0.21 & 1.81 & 31 & 0.41 & 0.23 & 19 & 0.28 & 4.9 & 6.1 \\
1667: 162645-24231 & 16 26 45.1 & -24 23 10.2 & 0.67 & 3.06 & 39 & 0.70 & 0.74 & 11 & 1.2 & 6.0 & 5.9 \\
1668: 162646-24242 & 16 26 46.0 & -24 24 19.2 & 0.20 & 1.74 & 30 & 0.40 & 0.16 & 19 & 0.27 & 5.0 & 6.1 \\
1669: 162648-24236 & 16 26 47.5 & -24 23 55.2 & 0.23 & 2.25 & 36 & 0.51 & 0.33 & 20 & 0.33 & 4.8 & 6.0 \\
1670: 162659-24454 & 16 26 58.7 & -24 45 37.3 & 0.40 & 0.35 & 12 & 0.08 & 0.42 & 12 & 0.13 & 6.0 & 6.8 \\
1671: 162660-24343 & 16 26 59.6 & -24 34 25.3 & 0.59 & 16.0 & 73 & 3.6 & 0.55 & 18 & 2.8 & 5.1 & 5.8 \\
1672: 162705-24363 & 16 27 05.3 & -24 36 28.4 & 0.25 & 0.37 & 14 & 0.08 & 0.34 & 14 & 0.09 & 5.5 & 6.6 \\
1673: 162705-24391 & 16 27 05.3 & -24 39 13.4 & 0.35 & 2.31 & 32 & 0.53 & 0.44 & 14 & 0.58 & 5.3 & 6.2 \\
1674: 162707-24381 & 16 27 07.1 & -24 38 13.4 & 0.20 & 0.18 & 10 & 0.04 & 0.22 & 12 & 0.06 & 5.7 & 6.7 \\
1675: 162709-24372 & 16 27 09.5 & -24 37 19.4 & 0.36 & 0.83 & 20 & 0.19 & 0.48 & 11 & 0.34 & 5.8 & 6.5 \\
1676: 162711-24393 & 16 27 10.8 & -24 39 25.4 & 0.22 & 0.90 & 23 & 0.21 & 0.29 & 17 & 0.17 & 5.2 & 6.3 \\
1677: 162712-24290 & 16 27 11.7 & -24 29 04.4 & 0.21 & 0.50 & 16 & 0.11 & 0.21 & 15 & 0.11 & 5.4 & 6.5 \\
1678: 162712-24380 & 16 27 12.1 & -24 38 01.4 & 0.22 & 0.53 & 18 & 0.12 & 0.31 & 15 & 0.12 & 5.3 & 6.4 \\
1679: 162713-24295 & 16 27 12.6 & -24 29 49.4 & 0.32 & 1.28 & 24 & 0.29 & 0.38 & 18 & 0.23 & 5.2 & 6.3 \\
1680: 162715-24303 & 16 27 14.8 & -24 30 25.4 & 0.25 & 0.99 & 23 & 0.22 & 0.34 & 17 & 0.18 & 5.2 & 6.3 \\
1681: 162725-24273 & 16 27 25.1 & -24 27 28.4 & 0.46 & 3.09 & 31 & 0.70 & 0.37 & 24 & 0.34 & 5.1 & 6.3 \\
1682: 162727-24405 & 16 27 26.7 & -24 40 52.3 & 0.57 & 16.0 & 76 & 3.6 & 0.57 & 17 & 3.0 & 5.1 & 5.7 \\
1683: 162728-24271 & 16 27 28.0 & -24 27 10.3 & 0.66 & 4.26 & 30 & 0.97 & 0.34 & 28 & 0.38 & 5.2 & 6.5 \\
1684: 162728-24393 & 16 27 28.0 & -24 39 34.3 & 0.27 & 0.74 & 20 & 0.17 & 0.37 & 16 & 0.15 & 5.3 & 6.4 \\
1685: 162729-24274 & 16 27 29.5 & -24 27 40.3 & 0.47 & 2.50 & 31 & 0.57 & 0.50 & 13 & 0.70 & 5.6 & 6.3 \\
1686: 162730-24264 & 16 27 29.7 & -24 26 37.3 & 0.44 & 2.23 & 26 & 0.51 & 0.35 & 22 & 0.27 & 5.2 & 6.4 \\
1687: 162730-24415 & 16 27 30.2 & -24 41 49.3 & 0.22 & 2.69 & 40 & 0.61 & 0.32 & 20 & 0.38 & 4.8 & 6.0 \\
1688: 162733-24262 & 16 27 33.0 & -24 26 22.3 & 0.52 & 4.68 & 38 & 1.1 & 0.45 & 17 & 0.87 & 5.3 & 6.2 \\
1689: 162739-24424 & 16 27 38.8 & -24 42 37.2 & 0.22 & 1.64 & 31 & 0.37 & 0.31 & 19 & 0.26 & 4.9 & 6.1 \\
1690: 162740-24431 & 16 27 39.9 & -24 43 13.2 & 0.20 & 0.56 & 18 & 0.13 & 0.27 & 15 & 0.13 & 5.3 & 6.4 \\
1691: 162759-24334 & 16 27 58.5 & -24 33 43.0 & 0.36 & 2.78 & 35 & 0.63 & 0.46 & 14 & 0.69 & 5.3 & 6.1 \\
1692: 162821-24362 & 16 28 21.4 & -24 36 24.5 & 0.29 & 0.73 & 19 & 0.17 & 0.39 & 14 & 0.18 & 5.4 & 6.4 \\
1693: 163133-24032 & 16 31 32.5 & -24 03 15.9 & 0.23 & 1.63 & 31 & 0.23 & 0.35 & 17 & 0.19 & 5.1 & 6.2 \\
1694: 163136-24013 & 16 31 35.8 & -24 01 28.0 & 0.86 & 1.85 & 26 & 0.26 & 0.72 & 10 & 0.57 & 6.5 & 6.3 \\
1695: 163138-24495 & 16 31 38.2 & -24 49 47.7 & 0.39 & 4.89 & 42 & 1.1 & 0.38 & 24 & 0.56 & 4.9 & 6.1 \\
1696: 163139-24506 & 16 31 38.9 & -24 50 59.7 & 0.22 & 2.11 & 36 & 0.48 & 0.35 & 19 & 0.32 & 4.8 & 6.0 \\
1697: 163140-24485 & 16 31 40.5 & -24 48 53.8 & 0.21 & 1.03 & 25 & 0.24 & 0.29 & 17 & 0.19 & 5.1 & 6.2 \\
1698: 163141-24495 & 16 31 41.3 & -24 49 47.8 & 0.35 & 3.93 & 40 & 0.89 & 0.36 & 24 & 0.44 & 4.8 & 6.1 \\
1699: 163143-24003 & 16 31 43.3 & -24 00 28.2 & 0.24 & 0.94 & 23 & 0.13 & 0.33 & 15 & 0.13 & 5.3 & 6.4 \\
1700: 163154-24560 & 16 31 53.8 & -24 56 00.2 & 0.27 & 1.87 & 32 & 0.43 & 0.40 & 15 & 0.41 & 5.1 & 6.1 \\
1701: 163157-24572 & 16 31 57.1 & -24 57 18.4 & 0.30 & 3.43 & 43 & 0.78 & 0.46 & 14 & 0.87 & 5.2 & 6.0 \\
1702: 163201-24564 & 16 32 00.9 & -24 56 42.5 & 0.36 & 0.33 & 12 & 0.08 & 0.45 & 10 & 0.16 & 6.0 & 6.8 \\
1703: 163223-24284 & 16 32 22.9 & -24 28 37.1 & 14.57 & 33.27 & 56 & 7.6 & 0.94 & 24 & 3.8 & 6.0 & 6.2 \\
1704: 163229-24291 & 16 32 29.1 & -24 29 07.2 & 1.34 & 16.19 & 64 & 3.7 & 0.74 & 17 & 3.1 & 5.7 & 5.8 \\
1705: 163230-23556 & 16 32 29.7 & -23 55 55.6 & 0.26 & 1.46 & 27 & 0.20 & 0.33 & 17 & 0.17 & 5.2 & 6.4 \\
1706: 163247-23524 & 16 32 47.0 & -23 52 43.5 & 0.23 & 2.36 & 35 & 0.33 & 0.26 & 19 & 0.23 & 5.0 & 6.2 \\
1707: 163248-23524 & 16 32 48.0 & -23 52 40.5 & 0.22 & 0.61 & 19 & 0.08 & 0.30 & 14 & 0.09 & 5.5 & 6.5 \\
1708: 163248-23523 & 16 32 48.3 & -23 52 25.5 & 0.21 & 0.53 & 17 & 0.07 & 0.19 & 14 & 0.08 & 5.6 & 6.6 \\
1709: 163249-23521 & 16 32 49.3 & -23 52 13.5 & 0.22 & 0.99 & 24 & 0.14 & 0.28 & 16 & 0.13 & 5.3 & 6.4 \\
1710: 163356-24420 & 16 33 55.7 & -24 42 04.3 & 0.20 & 0.12 & 9 & 0.03 & 0.33 & 11 & 0.05 & 5.8 & 6.8 \\
1711: 163448-24381 & 16 34 48.5 & -24 38 05.8 & 0.24 & 2.91 & 42 & 0.66 & 0.38 & 19 & 0.47 & 4.8 & 6.0
1712: \enddata
1713: \tablecomments{Units of right ascension are hours, minutes, and seconds, and units of declination are degrees, arcminutes, and arcseconds.}
1714: \tablenotetext{a}{Name formed from J2000.0 positions.}
1715: \tablenotetext{b}{Position of peak flux within clump (accurate to 3$''$; the pixel size in the SCUBA maps and the approximate pointing accuracy of the JCMT).}
1716: \tablenotetext{c}{Peak flux, total flux, and outer radius derived from Clumfind \citep{williams94}. The peak and total fluxes have uncertainties of about 20\%, mostly due to uncertainties in the absolute flux calibration. The radius has not been deconvolved from the telescope beam.}
1717: \tablenotetext{d}{Mass derived from the total flux assuming $T_d = 15$~K and 850~cm$^2$~g$^{-1}$, $d=125$~pc.}
1718: \tablenotetext{e}{Concentration, temperature, mass, central number density, and external pressure derived from Bonnor-Ebert modeling (see text).}
1719: \end{deluxetable}
1720:
1721: \clearpage
1722: \pagestyle{plaintop}
1723:
1724: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1725:
1726: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Allen} et~al.}{{Allen}
1727: et~al.}{2008}]{allen08}
1728: {Allen}, L.~E., et~al. {2008}, \apj, {in prep.}
1729:
1730: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Andr\'e}, {Ward-Thompson}, \&
1731: {Barsony}}{{Andr\'e} et~al.}{1993}]{andre93}
1732: {Andr\'e}, P., {Ward-Thompson}, D., \& {Barsony}, M. 1993, \apj, 406, 122
1733:
1734: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Andr\'e}, {Ward-Thompson}, \&
1735: {Barsony}}{{Andr\'e} et~al.}{2000}]{andreppiv}
1736: {Andr\'e}, P., {Ward-Thompson}, D., \& {Barsony}, M. 2000, in Protostars and
1737: Planets IV, ed. V. Mannings, A.\ P. Boss, \& S.\ S. Russell (University of
1738: Arizona Press, Tucson), 59
1739:
1740: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Andrews} \& {Williams}}{{Andrews} \&
1741: {Williams}}{2005}]{andrews05}
1742: {Andrews}, S.~M., \& {Williams}, J.~P. 2005, \apj, 631, 1134
1743:
1744: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Bergin} et~al.}{{Bergin}
1745: et~al.}{2001}]{bergin01}
1746: {Bergin}, E.~A., {Ciardi}, D.~R., {Lada}, C.~J., {Alves}, J., \& {Lada}, E.~A.
1747: 2001, \apj, 557, 209
1748:
1749: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Bohlin}, {Savage}, \& {Drake}}{{Bohlin}
1750: et~al.}{1978}]{bohlin78}
1751: {Bohlin}, R.~C., {Savage}, B.~D., \& {Drake}, J.~F. 1978, \apj, 224, 132
1752:
1753: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Bontemps} et~al.}{{Bontemps}
1754: et~al.}{2001}]{bontemps01}
1755: {Bontemps}, S., et~al. 2001, \aap, 372, 173
1756:
1757: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Cambr\'esy} et~al.}{{Cambr\'esy}
1758: et~al.}{2006}]{cambresy06}
1759: {Cambr\'esy}, L., {Petropoulou}, V., {Kontizas}, M., \& {Kontizas}, E. {2006},
1760: \aap, {445}, 999
1761:
1762: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Casertano} \& {Hut}}{{Casertano} \&
1763: {Hut}}{1985}]{casertano85}
1764: {Casertano}, S., \& {Hut}, P. 1985, \apj, 298, 80
1765:
1766: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Castets} et~al.}{{Castets}
1767: et~al.}{2001}]{castets01}
1768: {Castets}, A., {Ceccarelli}, C., {Loinard}, L., {Caux}, E., \& {Lefloch}, B.
1769: 2001, \aap, 375, 40
1770:
1771: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Chandler} \& {Richer}}{{Chandler} \&
1772: {Richer}}{2000}]{chandler00}
1773: {Chandler}, C.~J., \& {Richer}, J.~S. 2000, \apj, 530, 851
1774:
1775: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{de Geus}, {de Zeeuw}, \& {Lub}}{{de Geus}
1776: et~al.}{1989}]{degeus89}
1777: {de Geus}, E.~J., {de Zeeuw}, P.~T., \& {Lub}, J. 1989, \aap, 216, 44
1778:
1779: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Di Francesco}, {Andr{\'e}}, \& {Myers}}{{Di
1780: Francesco} et~al.}{2004}]{difrancesco04}
1781: {Di Francesco}, J., {Andr{\'e}}, P., \& {Myers}, P.~C. 2004, \apj, 617, 425
1782:
1783: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Di Francesco} et~al.}{{Di Francesco}
1784: et~al.}{2008}]{difrancesco08}
1785: {Di Francesco}, J., {Johnstone}, D., {Kirk}, H., {MacKenzie}, T., \&
1786: {Ledwosinska}, E. 2008, \apjs, {in press. (ArXiv: 0801.2595)}
1787:
1788: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Enoch} et~al.}{{Enoch}
1789: et~al.}{2008}]{enoch08}
1790: {Enoch}, M., et~al. {2008}, \apj, {in prep.}
1791:
1792: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Enoch} et~al.}{{Enoch}
1793: et~al.}{2006}]{enoch06}
1794: {Enoch}, M.~L., et~al. 2006, \apj, 638, 293
1795:
1796: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Evans} et~al.}{{Evans}
1797: et~al.}{2003}]{evans03}
1798: {Evans}, N.~J., et~al. 2003, \pasp, 115, 965
1799:
1800: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Evans} et~al.}{{Evans}
1801: et~al.}{2007}]{delivery4}
1802: {Evans}, N.~J., et~al. {2007}, "Final Delivery of Data from the c2d Legacy
1803: Project: IRAC and MIPS (Pasadena, SSC)"
1804:
1805: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Feitzinger} \& {Stuewe}}{{Feitzinger} \&
1806: {Stuewe}}{1984}]{feitzinger84}
1807: {Feitzinger}, J.~V., \& {Stuewe}, J.~A. 1984, \aaps, 58, 365
1808:
1809: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Geers} et~al.}{{Geers}
1810: et~al.}{2007}]{geers07}
1811: {Geers}, V.~C., {Pontoppidan}, K.~M., {van Dishoeck}, E.~F., {Dullemond},
1812: C.~P., {Augereau}, J.-C., {Mer{\'{\i}}n}, B., {Oliveira}, I., \& {Pel},
1813: J.~W. 2007, \aap, 469, L35
1814:
1815: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Goodman} et~al.}{{Goodman}
1816: et~al.}{2004}]{goodman04}
1817: {Goodman}, A.~A., et~al. 2004, {ASP Conference Series}
1818:
1819: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Greene} et~al.}{{Greene}
1820: et~al.}{1994}]{greene94}
1821: {Greene}, T.~P., {Wilking}, B.~A., {Andre}, P., {Young}, E.~T., \& {Lada},
1822: C.~J. 1994, \apj, 434, 614
1823:
1824: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Gutermuth} et~al.}{{Gutermuth}
1825: et~al.}{2005}]{gutermuth05}
1826: {Gutermuth}, R.~A., {Megeath}, S.~T., {Pipher}, J.~L., {Williams}, J.~P.,
1827: {Allen}, L.~E., {Myers}, P.~C., \& {Raines}, S.~N. 2005, \apj, 632, 397
1828:
1829: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Gutermuth} et~al.}{{Gutermuth}
1830: et~al.}{2008}]{gutermuth08}
1831: {Gutermuth}, R.~A., et~al. 2008, {ApJ in press.}, {ArXiv: 0710.1860}
1832:
1833: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Harvey} et~al.}{{Harvey}
1834: et~al.}{2007}]{harvey07}
1835: {Harvey}, P., {Mer{\'{\i}}n}, B., {Huard}, T.~L., {Rebull}, L.~M., {Chapman},
1836: N., {Evans}, N.~J., II, \& {Myers}, P.~C. 2007, \apj, 663, 1149
1837:
1838: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Hatchell} et~al.}{{Hatchell}
1839: et~al.}{2007}]{hatchell07}
1840: {Hatchell}, J., {Fuller}, G.~A., {Richer}, J.~S., {Harries}, T.~J., \& {Ladd},
1841: E.~F. 2007, \aap, 468, 1009
1842:
1843: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Jayawardhana}, {Hartmann}, \&
1844: {Calvet}}{{Jayawardhana} et~al.}{2001}]{jayawardhana01}
1845: {Jayawardhana}, R., {Hartmann}, L., \& {Calvet}, N. 2001, \apj, 548, 310
1846:
1847: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Johnstone}, {Di Francesco}, \&
1848: {Kirk}}{{Johnstone} et~al.}{2004}]{johnstone04}
1849: {Johnstone}, D., {Di Francesco}, J., \& {Kirk}, H. 2004, \apjl, 611, L45
1850:
1851: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Johnstone} et~al.}{{Johnstone}
1852: et~al.}{2000a}]{johnstone00maps}
1853: {Johnstone}, D., {Wilson}, C.~D., {Moriarty-Schieven}, G.,
1854: {Giannakopoulou-Creighton}, J., \& {Gregersen}, E. 2000a, \apjs, 131, 505
1855:
1856: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Johnstone} et~al.}{{Johnstone}
1857: et~al.}{2000b}]{johnstone00cores}
1858: {Johnstone}, D., {Wilson}, C.~D., {Moriarty-Schieven}, G., {Joncas}, G.,
1859: {Smith}, G., {Gregersen}, E., \& {Fich}, M. 2000b, \apj, 545, 327
1860:
1861: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{J{\o}rgensen} et~al.}{{J{\o}rgensen}
1862: et~al.}{2006}]{perspitz}
1863: {J{\o}rgensen}, J.~K., et~al. 2006, \apj, 645, 1246
1864:
1865: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{J{\o}rgensen} et~al.}{{J{\o}rgensen}
1866: et~al.}{2007}]{scubaspitz}
1867: {J{\o}rgensen}, J.~K., {Johnstone}, D., {Kirk}, H., \& {Myers}, P.~C. 2007,
1868: \apj, 656, 293
1869:
1870: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{J{\o}rgensen} et~al.}{{J{\o}rgensen}
1871: et~al.}{2005}]{iras16293letter}
1872: {J{\o}rgensen}, J.~K., et~al. 2005, \apjl, 631, L77
1873:
1874: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{J{\o}rgensen}, {Sch\"{o}ier}, \& {van
1875: Dishoeck}}{{J{\o}rgensen} et~al.}{2004}]{paperii}
1876: {J{\o}rgensen}, J.~K., {Sch\"{o}ier}, F.~L., \& {van Dishoeck}, E.~F. 2004,
1877: \aap, 416, 603
1878:
1879: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Kirk}, {Johnstone}, \& {Di Francesco}}{{Kirk}
1880: et~al.}{2006}]{kirk06}
1881: {Kirk}, H., {Johnstone}, D., \& {Di Francesco}, J. 2006, \apj, 646, 1009
1882:
1883: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Lada}}{{Lada}}{1987}]{lada87}
1884: {Lada}, C.~J. 1987, in IAU Symp. 115: Star Forming Regions (D. Reidel
1885: Publishing Co., Dordrecht), Vol. 115, 1
1886:
1887: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Lada}, {Alves}, \& {Lada}}{{Lada}
1888: et~al.}{1996}]{lada96}
1889: {Lada}, C.~J., {Alves}, J., \& {Lada}, E.~A. 1996, \aj, 111, 1964
1890:
1891: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Lada} \& {Lada}}{{Lada} \&
1892: {Lada}}{2003}]{lada03}
1893: {Lada}, C.~J., \& {Lada}, E.~A. 2003, \araa, 41, 57
1894:
1895: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Lahuis} et~al.}{{Lahuis}
1896: et~al.}{2006}]{lahuis06}
1897: {Lahuis}, F., et~al. 2006, \apjl, 636, L145
1898:
1899: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Loren}}{{Loren}}{1989}]{loren89a}
1900: {Loren}, R.~B. 1989, \apj, 338, 902
1901:
1902: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Loren}, {Wootten}, \& {Wilking}}{{Loren}
1903: et~al.}{1990}]{loren90}
1904: {Loren}, R.~B., {Wootten}, A., \& {Wilking}, B.~A. 1990, \apj, 365, 269
1905:
1906: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Luhman} et~al.}{{Luhman}
1907: et~al.}{2003}]{luhman03}
1908: {Luhman}, K.~L., {Stauffer}, J.~R., {Muench}, A.~A., {Rieke}, G.~H., {Lada},
1909: E.~A., {Bouvier}, J., \& {Lada}, C.~J. 2003, \apj, 593, 1093
1910:
1911: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Mamajek}}{{Mamajek}}{2008}]{mamajek08}
1912: {Mamajek}, E.~E. 2008, AN, {in press. (arXiv: 0709.0505)}
1913:
1914: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Motte}, {Andr\'e}, \& {Neri}}{{Motte}
1915: et~al.}{1998}]{motte98}
1916: {Motte}, F., {Andr\'e}, P., \& {Neri}, R. 1998, \aap, 336, 150
1917:
1918: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Muench} et~al.}{{Muench}
1919: et~al.}{2007}]{muench07}
1920: {Muench}, A.~A., {Lada}, C.~J., {Luhman}, K.~L., {Muzerolle}, J., \& {Young},
1921: E. 2007, \aj, 134, 411
1922:
1923: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Noriega-Crespo} et~al.}{{Noriega-Crespo}
1924: et~al.}{2004}]{noriegacrespo04}
1925: {Noriega-Crespo}, A., {Morris}, P., {Marleau}, F.~R., {Carey}, S., {Boogert},
1926: A.~C.~A., {van Dishoeck}, E.~F., {Evans}, N.~J., \& {Authors}, O. 2004,
1927: \apjs, in press.
1928:
1929: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Nutter}, {Ward-Thompson}, \&
1930: {Andr{\'e}}}{{Nutter} et~al.}{2006}]{nutter06}
1931: {Nutter}, D., {Ward-Thompson}, D., \& {Andr{\'e}}, P. 2006, \mnras, 368, 1833
1932:
1933: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Padgett} et~al.}{{Padgett}
1934: et~al.}{2008}]{padgett08}
1935: {Padgett}, D.~L., et~al. 2008, \apj, 672, 1013
1936:
1937: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Pontoppidan} et~al.}{{Pontoppidan}
1938: et~al.}{2005}]{pontoppidan05crbr}
1939: {Pontoppidan}, K.~M., {Dullemond}, C.~P., {van Dishoeck}, E.~F., {Blake},
1940: G.~A., {Boogert}, A.~C.~A., {Evans}, N.~J., {Kessler-Silacci}, J.~E., \&
1941: {Lahuis}, F. 2005, \apj, 622, 463
1942:
1943: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Porras} et~al.}{{Porras}
1944: et~al.}{2007}]{porras07}
1945: {Porras}, A., et~al. 2007, \apj, 656, 493
1946:
1947: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Rebull} et~al.}{{Rebull}
1948: et~al.}{2007}]{rebull07}
1949: {Rebull}, L.~M., et~al. 2007, \apjs, 171, 447
1950:
1951: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Ridge} et~al.}{{Ridge}
1952: et~al.}{2006}]{ridge06}
1953: {Ridge}, N.~A., et~al. 2006, \aj, 131, 2921
1954:
1955: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Stanke} et~al.}{{Stanke}
1956: et~al.}{2006}]{stanke06}
1957: {Stanke}, T., {Smith}, M.~D., {Gredel}, R., \& {Khanzadyan}, T. 2006, \aap,
1958: 447, 609
1959:
1960: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Stark} et~al.}{{Stark}
1961: et~al.}{2004}]{stark04}
1962: {Stark}, R., et~al. 2004, \apj, 608, 341
1963:
1964: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Struve} \& {Rudkj{\o}bing}}{{Struve} \&
1965: {Rudkj{\o}bing}}{1949}]{struve49}
1966: {Struve}, O., \& {Rudkj{\o}bing}, M. 1949, \apj, 109, 92
1967:
1968: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Stutz} et~al.}{{Stutz}
1969: et~al.}{2007}]{stutz07}
1970: {Stutz}, A.~M., et~al. 2007, \apj, 665, 466
1971:
1972: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Visser}, {Richer}, \& {Chandler}}{{Visser}
1973: et~al.}{2002}]{visser02}
1974: {Visser}, A.~E., {Richer}, J.~S., \& {Chandler}, C.~J. 2002, \aj, 124, 2756
1975:
1976: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Wilking}, {Gagn\'e}, \& {Allen}}{{Wilking}
1977: et~al.}{2008}]{ophhandbook}
1978: {Wilking}, B.~A., {Gagn\'e}, M., \& {Allen}, L.~E. 2008, in Handbook of Low
1979: Mass Star Forming Regions (ASP Conference Sereies; B.~Reipurth, ed.)
1980:
1981: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Wilking} et~al.}{{Wilking}
1982: et~al.}{2004}]{wilking04}
1983: {Wilking}, B.~A., {Meyer}, M.~R., {Greene}, T.~P., {Mikhail}, A., \&
1984: {Carlson}, G. 2004, \aj, 127, 1131
1985:
1986: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Wilking} et~al.}{{Wilking}
1987: et~al.}{2005}]{wilking05}
1988: {Wilking}, B.~A., {Meyer}, M.~R., {Robinson}, J.~G., \& {Greene}, T.~P. 2005,
1989: \aj, 130, 1733
1990:
1991: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Williams}, {de Geus}, \& {Blitz}}{{Williams}
1992: et~al.}{1994}]{williams94}
1993: {Williams}, J.~P., {de Geus}, E.~J., \& {Blitz}, L. 1994, \apj, 428, 693
1994:
1995: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Wilson} et~al.}{{Wilson}
1996: et~al.}{1999}]{wilson99}
1997: {Wilson}, C.~D., et~al. 1999, \apjl, 513, L139
1998:
1999: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Young} et~al.}{{Young}
2000: et~al.}{2006}]{young06}
2001: {Young}, K.~E., et~al. 2006, \apj, 644, 326
2002:
2003: \end{thebibliography}
2004:
2005: \end{document}
2006: