1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint,color]{aastex}
2: %\linespread{1.6}
3:
4: \shorttitle{SMC chemical enrichment history}
5: \shortauthors{Carrera et al.}
6:
7: %% This is the end of the preamble. Indicate the beginning of the
8: %% paper itself with \begin{document}.
9: \usepackage{color}
10: \usepackage[normalem]{ulem}
11:
12: \begin{document}
13:
14:
15: \title{The Chemical Enrichment History of the Small Magellanic Cloud and Its Gradients\footnote{Based on observations collected at the European Southern Observatory, Chile, within the observing programs 074.B-0446}}
16:
17: %% Use \author, \affil, and the \and command to format
18: %% author and affiliation information.
19: %% Note that \email has replaced the old \authoremail command
20: %% from AASTeX v4.0. You can use \email to mark an email address
21: %% anywhere in the paper, not just in the front matter.
22: %% As in the title, you can use \\ to force line breaks.
23:
24: \author{Ricardo Carrera\altaffilmark{1}, Carme Gallart and Antonio Aparicio\altaffilmark{2}}
25: \affil{Instituto de Astrof\'{\i}sica de Canarias, Spain}
26: \email{rcarrera@iac.es}
27: \email{carme@iac.es}
28:
29: \author{Edgardo Costa and Rene A. M\'endez}
30: \affil{Departamento de Astronom\'{\i}a, Universidad de Chile, Casilla 36--D, Santiago, Chile}
31:
32: %\email{antapaj@iac.es}
33:
34: \and
35:
36: \author{Noelia E. D. No\"el}
37: \affil{Instituto de Astrof\'{\i}sica de Canarias, Spain}
38: \altaffiltext{1}{Currently at Osservatorio Astronomico di Bologna, Via Ranzani 1, I-40127 Bologna, Italy; ricardo.carrera@bo.astro.it}
39: \altaffiltext{2}{Departamento de Astrof\'{\i}sica, Universidad de La Laguna, Spain}
40: %% Notice that each of these authors has alternate affiliations, which
41: %% are identified by the \altaffilmark after each name. Specify alternate
42: %% affiliation information with \altaffiltext, with one command per each
43: %% affiliation.
44:
45: \begin{abstract}
46:
47: We present stellar metallicities derived from Ca II triplet spectroscopy
48: in over 350 red giant branch stars in 13 fields distributed in different
49: positions in the SMC, ranging from $\sim$1\arcdeg\@ to $\sim$4\arcdeg\@
50: from its center. In the innermost fields the average metallicity is [Fe/H]
51: $\sim -1$. This value decreases when we move away towards outermost
52: regions. This is the first detection of a metallicity gradient in this
53: galaxy. We show that the metallicity gradient is related to an age
54: gradient, in the sense that more metal-rich stars, which are also younger,
55: are concentrated in the central regions of the galaxy.
56:
57: %Chemical evolution models have been used to reproduce the observed
58: %age--metallicity relationships with the purpose of investigating the
59: %main mechanisms that have influenced the chemical evolution of
60: %the SMC.
61: \end{abstract}
62:
63: %% Keywords should appear after the \end{abstract} command. The uncommented
64: %% example has been keyed in ApJ style. See the instructions to authors
65: %% for the journal to which you are submitting your paper to determine
66: %% what keyword punctuation is appropriate.
67:
68: \keywords{local group galaxies: evolution ---
69: galaxies: individual (SMC) --- galaxies: stellar content --- Magellanic clouds}
70:
71: %% From the front matter, we move on to the body of the paper.
72: %% In the first two sections, notice the use of the natbib \citep
73: %% and \citet commands to identify citations. The citations are
74: %% tied to the reference list via symbolic KEYs. The KEY corresponds
75: %% to the KEY in the \bibitem in the reference list below. We have
76: %% chosen the first three characters of the first author's name plus
77: %% the last two numeral of the year of publication as our KEY for
78: %% each reference.
79:
80: \section{Introduction}
81:
82: The chemical enrichment history of a galaxy is related to the origin and
83: distribution of nuclear species in its stars and gas. The chemical
84: elements are mainly produced by stars which drive the enrichment of the
85: interstellar medium by ejecting material containing the product of the
86: stellar nucleosynthesis from which the new generations of stars are
87: formed. In addition, gas flows also play an important role in chemical
88: enrichment, diluting the products of the stellar nucleosynthesis with
89: unenriched material from outside the galaxy, and mixing metals from one
90: part of the system to another (e.g. bringing metal-rich gas into
91: metal-poor regions). Thus, the study of chemical evolution of galaxies
92: involves understanding the spatial distribution and temporal evolution of
93: various elements by taking into account the processes of star formation,
94: the distribution of stars according to their masses and chemical
95: compositions, and the final yields of various elements and detectable
96: remnants of parent stars. Until recently, only the chemical enrichment
97: history of the solar vicinity could be studied in detail. However, the
98: modern multiobject spectrographers attached to the 8-10 m class telescopes
99: allow us to study the chemical enrichment history of the nearest Local
100: Group galaxies.
101:
102: Because of their proximity, and the fact that they present a wide range of
103: ages and metallicities, the Magellanic Clouds are attractive objects to
104: study chemical enrichment histories. In a previous paper
105: \citep[][hereafter paper III]{carrera07b}, we investigated the chemical
106: enrichment history of the LMC. In this paper, we will focus in the study
107: of the SMC. There are considerable less studies of the SMC as compared
108: with the LMC, probably due to: (i) its irregular appearance, with complex
109: kinematics; (ii) its distance, located further away than the LMC; and
110: (iii) its depth in the line of sight, which remains a subject of
111: controversy.
112:
113: Most of the information about the stellar populations of the SMC has been
114: obtained from its cluster system
115: \citep[e.g.][]{costahatz98,piatti01,piatti05a}. The cluster age
116: distribution does not show the age-gap observed in the LMC
117: \citep{costahatz98,mighell98}. From a sample of seven clusters older than
118: 1 Gyr, \citet{rich00} suggest that star formation was stronger in two main
119: episodes, one $\sim$8$\pm$2 Gyr ago and another $\sim$2$\pm$0.5 Gyr ago.
120: However, there does not seem to be any age interval completely lacking of
121: objects \citep{rafelski05}. There is only one old cluster, NGC 121, that
122: is younger than most of the LMC globular clusters \citep{piatti05a}.
123: However, the SMC shows a significant old field population
124: \citep[hereafter Paper I]{noel07}.
125:
126: To our knowledge, there are only three studies in which the star formation
127: history (SFH) of the SMC field population was derived
128: \citep{dolphin01,harriszaritsky04}. From a deep color--magnitude diagram
129: (CMD) \citet{dolphin01} found than the star formation in a small field in
130: the periphery of this galaxy was relatively constant until about 2 Gyr
131: ago, with no star formation occurring since then. However, this could be
132: biased by the fact that their field was specifically chosen because it did
133: not have young stars. \citet{harriszaritsky04} studied a
134: 4\arcdeg$\times$4$\fdg$5 field in the central region of the galaxy. From
135: shallower CMDs they found that the star formation in the SMC has had two
136: main episodes: one which formed the oldest populations and lasted until
137: 8.5 Gyr ago, and a recent one that started around 3 Gyr ago. No\"el et al
138: (2008, in preparation) have also obtained accurate SFHs for the fields
139: presented in this paper, using CMDs reaching the oldest main sequence
140: turnoffs with good photometric accuracy. They find that two main episodes
141: of star formation in all fields, one at old ages ($\simeq 10$ Gyr ago) and
142: another one at intermediate ages ($\simeq 5$ Gyr ago), in addition to
143: young star formation in the wing fields.
144:
145: Detailed determinations of chemical abundances exist only for the
146: youngest population of the SMC \citep[i.e.][]{hill97,venn99,hunter07}, and
147: its chemical enrichment history has been mainly determined from studies
148: from its cluster system. The cluster age--metallicity relationship (AMR)
149: has been obtained by \citet{piatti05a} and \citet{mighell98}, mainly from
150: photometric indicators. An initial chemical enrichment has been found,
151: followed by a period of relatively slow increase in the metal abundance.
152: Clusters more metal-rich than [Fe/H]$\geq$-1 are younger than 5 Gyr. Since
153: then, the metallicity has again increased until now. On average, the SMC
154: is more metal-poor than the LMC. The very recent work by \cite{idiart07},
155: which have obtained chemical abundances in a sample of SMC planetary
156: nebulae, has found a similar result, with the exception that the chemical
157: enrichment episode at a very early epoch is not observed.
158:
159: In the present work we focus on obtaining stellar metallicities of
160: individual red giant branch (RGB) stars in the field population of the SMC
161: from Ca II triplet (hereafter CaT) spectroscopy. These stars have been
162: selected in 13 fields distributed at different positions in the SMC
163: ranging from $\sim$1\arcdeg\@ to $\sim$4\arcdeg\@ from its center. Deep
164: photometry of these fields has been presented in Paper I . The procedure
165: followed to select the targets is explained in Section
166: \ref{targetselection}. The data reduction is discussed in Section
167: \ref{datareduction}. The radial velocities of the stars in our sample are
168: obtained in Section \ref{radialvelocities}. In Section \ref{cat} we
169: discuss the calculation of the CaT equivalent widths and the determination
170: of metallicities. Section \ref{agedetermination} presents the method used
171: to derive ages for each star by combining the information on their
172: metallicity and position on the CMD. The analysis of the data is presented
173: in Section \ref{analysis}. The metallicity distribution of each field and
174: the possible presence of a metallicity gradient is discussed in Section
175: \ref{analisismetallicitydistribution}. The derived AMRs for each field are
176: presented in Section \ref{agemetallicity}. The main results of this paper are discussed in Section
177: \ref{discursion}.
178:
179: \section{Target Selection\label{targetselection}}
180:
181: In the framework of a large program to obtain proper motions, deep CMDs
182: and stellar metallicities in the SMC, we secured spectroscopy of stars in
183: 13 fields spread about the galaxy body. The photometry of
184: these fields, presented in Paper I and listed in Table \ref{obsfields},
185: were obtained with a Tektronic 2048$\times$2048 CCD detector attached to
186: the LCO 100\arcsec\@ telescope, which covers a field size of
187: 8\farcm85$\times$ 8\farcm85. Following the notation described by
188: \citet{tinney97}, fields denoted by ``qj'' (followed by right ascension)
189: are centered on quasars and were observed photometrically with the main
190: objective of determining the absolute proper motion of the SMC (Costa et
191: al., in preparation). Fields labeled ``smc'' were selected specifically to
192: study their stellar populations by sampling a range of galactocentric
193: radius at similar azimuth. The $BR$ photometry of these fields is
194: described in detail in Paper I, where the distribution of stellar
195: populations of the SMC is discussed on the basis of CMDs. These
196: observations have been complemented with observations in the $I$ band in
197: order to allow using the reduced equivalent width-metallicity
198: (W'$_I$-[Fe/H]) relationship derived in \citet[hereafter Paper
199: II]{carrera07a} to obtain metallicities for individual RGB stars.
200: $I$--band observations of ``qj'' fields were obtained with the same
201: instrument and telescope as the BR photometry. The $I$ images of ``smc''
202: fields were obtained with FORS2 at the VLT in image mode and were also
203: used for spectroscopic mask configuration of MXU@FORS2. Field qj0111 was
204: observed with both telescopes in order to compare the photometric
205: calibrations. The magnitudes obtained with each calibration differ by
206: about $\sim$0.1 magnitudes. This relatively large difference is mainly
207: explained by the poor photometric calibration of the FORS2 images, which
208: were not taken for photometric purposes. In any case, this error means a
209: metallicity uncertainty of only $\sim$0.02 dex, a value smaller than the
210: metallicity uncertainty itself ($\sim$0.1 dex).
211:
212: In each field we selected stars in two windows of the CMD, which are
213: plotted in Figure \ref{dcmbox}. In each region the stars were ordered from
214: the brightest to the faintest ones, regardless of their color. The
215: resulting star list was used as input for the mask configuration task of
216: the instrument. Stars in the box below the RGB tip were given higher
217: priority, and only objects above the tip were observed when it was
218: impossible to put the slit on a star of the lower region.
219:
220: \section{Observations and Data Reduction\label{datareduction}}
221:
222: The spectroscopic observations were carried on in service mode with the
223: VLT ANTU telescope, at Paranal Observatory (Chile), through program
224: 074.B-0446. We used FORS2 in MXU multiobject mode with grism 1028z+29 and
225: filter OG590+32 in order to eliminate residual orders. Slits with a length
226: of 8\arcsec\@ and a width of 1\arcsec\@ were selected. With this setup, we
227: were able to observe about 40 objects in each field (the final number
228: depends on the spatial distribution of the selected stars). The slit
229: length was selected with the purpose of shifting the stars along it in
230: order to acquire two exposures of each field without superposition of the
231: stellar spectra in each. This particular procedure allowed to extract the
232: spectra in the same way as Paper II.
233:
234: After bias subtraction, each image was flat-field corrected. Then, as
235: each star is in a different position in the two images of the same field,
236: we subtracted one from the other, obtaining a positive and a negative
237: spectrum of the same star. With this procedure the sky is subtracted in
238: the same pixel in which the star has been observed, thus, minimizing the
239: effects of pixel-to-pixel sensitivity variations. Sky residuals due to
240: temporal variation of the sky brightness were eliminated in the following
241: step, in which the spectrum is extracted in the usual way and the
242: remaining sky background is subtracted using the information on both sides
243: of the stellar spectrum. In the next step, the spectra were wavelength
244: calibrated and added to obtain the final spectrum. Finally, each spectrum
245: was normalized by fitting a polynomial, excluding the strongest lines
246: (such as the CaT lines). There is an uncertainty in the wavelength
247: calibration because the arcs used for this purpose were not taken at the
248: same time and with the same telescope pointing as the object. The effects
249: of this on the wavelength calibration have been discussed by
250: \citet{gallart01}. Since we are not interested in obtaining precise radial
251: velocities, this problem will not significantly affect our results.
252:
253: In total, we observed 386 stars in the 13 SMC fields. Their magnitudes and
254: CaT equivalent widths are listed in Table \ref{starobs}
255:
256: \section{Radial Velocities\label{radialvelocities}}
257:
258: The radial velocity of each star was calculated in order to reject SMC
259: non-members. We used the IRAF \textsl{fxcor} task, which performs the
260: cross-correlation between the target and template spectra of stars of
261: known radial velocity \citep{td79}. As templates we selected nine stars in
262: the clusters NGC 104, NGC 2682, NGC 288 and NGC 7078 which were observed
263: within the same program as the SMC fields and presented in Paper II. The
264: velocities were corrected to the heliocentric reference frame within
265: \textsl{fxcor}. The final radial velocity for each SMC star is the average
266: of the velocities obtained from each template, weighted by the width of
267: the corresponding correlation peaks. The resulting velocities can be
268: affected by the fact that the stars might have not been positioned exactly
269: in the center of the slit. The importance of this is described in detail
270: in Paper II. However, in the case of the SMC, the stars were observed at a
271: relatively large air mass ($\geq$1.6) and with a seeing near to or larger
272: than 1\arcsec. Since the slit width was 1\arcsec, the effect of the
273: incorrect centering of the star on the slit was of little importance. In
274: fact, when we tried to characterize this effect in the way described in
275: Paper II, we found that its contribution to the resulting velocity is
276: smaller than the uncertainty due to the wavelength calibration. For this
277: reason, we did not take this effect into account in the final radial
278: velocity. We considered as SMC members those stars with radial velocities
279: in the range 50$\leq$V$_r\leq$250 km s$^{-1}$ \citep{harriszaritsky06}.
280:
281: \section{CaT Equivalent Widths and Metallicity determination\label{cat}}
282:
283: The metallicity of the RGB stars is obtained following the procedure
284: described in Paper II. The equivalent width is the area of the line
285: normalized to the local continuum within a line bandpass. The continuum is
286: calculated from a linear fit to the mean value of the corresponding
287: bandpasses. The line and continuum bandpasses used in this work are listed
288: in Table \ref{bandastable}. The line flux is calculated from the fit of
289: its profile using a Gaussian plus a Lorentzian function. As discussed in
290: Paper II, this function provides a better fit to the core and the wings of
291: the strongest lines than other functions previously used. The CaT index,
292: denoted as $\Sigma Ca$, is defined as the sum of the equivalent widths of
293: the three CaT lines. The $\Sigma Ca$ and their uncertainties for each star
294: observed are given in Table \ref{starobs}, together with their magnitudes
295: and radial velocities. Two calibrations of the CaT as metallicity
296: indicator were obtained in Paper II based on $I$ and $V$ magnitudes. In
297: this case, only $I$ magnitudes are available for the SMC stars. The
298: reduced equivalent width, W'$_I$, for each star has been calculated using
299: the slope obtained in Paper II for the calibration clusters in the
300: M$_I$-$\Sigma Ca$ plane ($\beta_I$=-0.611 \AA mag$^{-1}$). To obtain the
301: absolute magnitudes we assumed a distance modulus of (m-M)$_0$=18.9
302: \cite[see][]{vandenbergh99} and reddenings listed in the last column of Table
303: \ref{obsfields} (see Paper I for details). Also, in Paper II three
304: different metallicity scales were used as reference. In this case, we only
305: used the relationships obtained on the \citet[hereafter CG97]{cg97}
306: metallicity scale, because it is the only one that uses homogeneous
307: high-resolution metallicities of open and globular clusters, and because
308: the metallicities of the LMC stars in Paper III were also obtained in this
309: way.
310:
311: In brief, the metallicity for each star is given by:
312:
313: \begin{equation}\label{metaleq}
314: [Fe/H]_{CG97}=-2.95+0.38\Sigma Ca+0.23M_I
315: \end{equation}
316:
317: In Figures \ref{misigmacaeste}, \ref{misigmacaoeste} and
318: \ref{misigmacasur} the position of SMC stars (radial velocity members) in
319: the M$_I$-$\Sigma$Ca plane for our eastern, western, and southern fields,
320: are respectively shown. Solid lines indicate the magnitude range of the
321: observed cluster stars used in Paper II to obtain the above relationship.
322: Dashed lines show the region where the relationship is extrapolated.
323:
324: The metallicity distribution of each field is shown in Figures
325: \ref{metaldisteste}, \ref{metaldistoeste} and \ref{metaldistsur} and will
326: be discussed in Section \ref{analisismetallicitydistribution}.
327:
328: \section{Determination of stellar ages\label{agedetermination}}
329:
330: The position of the RGB on the CMD suffers from age--metallicity
331: degeneracy. However, when the metallicity is obtained in an alternative
332: way, as in this case from spectroscopy, this age--metallicity degeneracy
333: can be broken, and ages can be derived from the position of the stars in
334: the CMD. In paper III, a polynomial relationship was computed to derive
335: stellar ages from their metallicities and positions in the CMD. For that
336: purpose, synthetic CMDs computed with IAC-star \citep{aparicio04} with the
337: overshooting BaSTI \citep{pie04} and Padova
338: \citep{girardi02} stellar stellar evolution models as input were used.
339: As it is explained in Paper III, differences between both
340: models in the resulting ages are negligible for our purpose, since we are
341: not interested in an accurate determination of ages. For simplicity, as in
342: Paper III, we used only the relationship obtained from the BaSTI stellar
343: models. The aforementioned relation was obtained for $(V-I)$ and $M_V$.
344: Since $V$ magnitudes are unavailable for our sample of SMC stars, we
345: computed a new relationship for $B$, $R$, and $I$ magnitudes. In this
346: case, we selected $(B-I)$ instead of $(B-R)$ because the former is much
347: more sensitive to small changes in the stellar metallicity and age.
348:
349: We followed the same procedure as in Paper III. First, we used the same
350: synthetic CMD used in Paper III \footnote{During the referreing process
351: of this paper, the authors of the BaSTI models discovered a problem in the
352: calculation of models in the mass range 1.1--2.5 M$_\odot$ ($\simeq$1--4
353: Gyr), (see http://albione.oa-teramo.inaf.it/). Even though the differences
354: between the new and old models were unlikely to affect in any substantial
355: way our results, we recalculated equation \ref{rela} using a synthetic CMD
356: computed with the updated model set. All the results shown are derive from
357: this new relationship. We have verified that the differences are indeed
358: minor, and that, therefore, the results on the LMC on paper III, obtained
359: using the faulty models, can be trusted nevertheless.}, which was computed
360: with a constant star formation rate (SFR) between 0 and 13 Gyr and with a
361: chemical law such that any star can have any metallicity between $-2.3$ to
362: +0.5 dex. In this CMD we only selected stars in the same region below the
363: tip of the RGB in which the observed ones were mainly chosen. We did not
364: consider the brightest AGB stars due to the uncertainty of their
365: parameters as predicted by stellar evolution models. Following the same
366: statistical procedure described in Paper III, we checked which
367: polynomial combinations of magnitude $M_I$, color $(B-I)$ and metallicity
368: $[Fe/H]$ best represent the age of the stars in this synthetic CMD. In
369: order to minimize the $\sigma$ and to improve the correlation coefficient,
370: different linear, quadratic and cubic terms of each observed magnitude
371: have been added. We have checked whether $M_I$ or $M_B$ magnitudes improve
372: the relationship. Similar results are obtained for both magnitudes, so we
373: choose the first because metallicities were calculated from it. The final
374: polynomial form adopted is:
375:
376: \begin{equation}\label{rela}
377: log(age)=a+b(B-I)+cM_I+d[Fe/H]+f(B-I)^2+g[Fe/H]^2
378: \end{equation}
379:
380: The best fit coefficients are listed in Table \ref{coefedad}.
381:
382: In order to estimate the age uncertainty when this relationship is used to
383: compute stellar ages, we performed a Monte Carlo test as in paper III. The
384: goal is to check how the obtained ages change when the input parameters
385: are modified. The test consists
386: in computing, for each synthetic star, several age values for stochastically varying $[Fe/H]$, $(B-I)$ and $M_{I}$ according to a gaussian probability
387: distribution of the corresponding $\sigma$ ($\sigma_{[Fe/H]}\sim$0.15 dex; $\sigma_{(B-I)}\sim$0.001 and
388: $\sigma_{M_I}\sim$ 0.001). The $\sigma$ value of the obtained ages provide an estimation of the age error when
389: Equation \ref{rela} is used. The obtained values for the considered age intervals are shown in
390: Figure \ref{caledad}. The age uncertainty increases for older ages.
391:
392: \placefigure{caledad}
393:
394: It is also necessary to check how well equation \ref{rela} reproduces the
395: age of a real stellar system. Following the same steps as in Paper III, we
396: choose the cluster stars used in Paper II for the calibration of the CaT
397: as metallicity indicator. For those stars we knew their $(B-I)$ color and
398: $M_I$ magnitudes, so we can compute their metallicity in the same way as
399: was done for the SMC stars (see Section \ref{cat}). We then used these
400: observational magnitudes as input for equation \ref{rela}, obtaining an
401: age for each cluster star. The cluster age was computed as the mean of the
402: ages of its member stars. In Figure \ref{cluster}, the age computed for
403: each cluster has been plotted versus its reference value. As in Paper
404: III, ages younger than 10 Gyr are well recovered. However, the
405: relationship saturates for ages larger than 10 Gyr.
406:
407: \placefigure{cluster}
408:
409: \section{Analysis\label{analysis}}
410:
411: \subsection{Metallicity distribution\label{analisismetallicitydistribution}}
412:
413: Metallicity distributions are shown in Figures \ref{metaldisteste},
414: \ref{metaldistoeste} and \ref{metaldistsur} for eastern, western and
415: southern SMC regions respectively. We have fitted a Gaussian to obtain the
416: mean metallicity and metallicity dispersion of each of them. These values
417: are listed in columns 3 and 4 of Table \ref{smcmetalicidades}. The fields
418: are ordered by its distance to the center, which is shown in column 2.
419: Fields in different regions are indicated by different font types: eastern
420: fields in normal, western fields in boldface and southern fields in
421: italics. Mean metallicities are very close to [Fe/H]$\sim$-1 in all fields
422: within r$\lesssim$2$\fdg$5 from the SMC center. A similar value is
423: observed for the southern fields up to r$\lesssim$3\arcdeg\@ (qj0047 and
424: smc0049). Note that the SMC isopleths of intermediate--age and old stars
425: are elongated in the NE-SW direction \citep[PA=45\arcdeg;][]{cioni00} and
426: that a radius of 3\arcdeg\@ in the southern direction correspond to
427: approximately the same isopleth at radius 2$\fdg$5 in the eastern and
428: western directions. For the outermost fields, qj0033 in the West, and
429: qj0102 and qj0053 in the South, the mean value is clearly more metal-poor
430: than in the others.
431:
432: The fact that the mean metallicity decreases when we move away from the
433: center implies that there is a metallicity gradient in the SMC. This
434: gradient is more clear when we compute the percentage of stars in
435: different metallicity bins, values also listed in Table
436: \ref{smcmetalicidades} (columns 5 and 6). For the western and southern
437: fields, the percentage of stars more metal-poor than [Fe/H] $=-1$
438: increases when we move away from the center. This is not observed in the
439: eastern fields because they are almost at the same distance. This is the
440: first time that a metallicity gradient has been reported in SMC stellar
441: populations. The detection of this gradient has been possible because we
442: have covered a large radius range, up to 4\arcdeg\@ from the SMC center.
443:
444: \subsection{Age--metallicity relationships\label{agemetallicity}}
445:
446: From a purely phenomenological point of
447: view, there are two main ways to account for the mean metallicity gradient
448: found in the previous section. One possibility is that chemical enrichment
449: has proceeded more slowly towards the SMC periphery, in such a way that
450: coeval stars would be more metal-poor when we move away from the center.
451: This seems to be the case of spiral galaxies, like the Milky Way, where the
452: observed abundance gradients may be explained by radial variations of the
453: relation between the SFR and the amount of infalling gas
454: \citep[e.g.][]{prantzos00,chiappini01}. The situation would be complicated
455: in dwarf galaxies by the probable existence of galactic winds originated
456: in supernova explosions \citep[e.g.][]{romano06} which are able to remove
457: large amount of metals from the interstellar medium. An alternative
458: scenario is that the stellar AMR (i.e. the law of chemical enrichment as a
459: function of time) has been the same everywhere in the SMC. As a result,
460: the average metallicity of coeval stars would be the same in all fields
461: and the metallicity gradient would be related to an age gradient.
462: A mixture of both scenarios is also possible.
463:
464: To investigate the nature of the gradient, we have therefore calculated
465: the AMR for each field. They are plotted in Figures \ref{amreste},
466: \ref{amroeste}, and \ref{amrsur} for fields situated to the East, West and
467: South respectively. Note that the uncertainty in age is much larger than
468: in metallicity. However, as we are interested in the global behavior and
469: not in obtaining individual stellar ages, the age determinations are still
470: valid. Since the procedure to obtain the age saturates for values older
471: than 10 Gyr, we can only be confident that the oldest stars have an age
472: $\geq$ 10 Gyr. For these we assume an age of 12.9 Gyr, which is the age of
473: the oldest cluster in the Milky Way \citep[NGC 6426,][]{sw02}. Regarding
474: the youngest stars, in the region of the CMD where we selected the
475: observed stars, and according to the stellar evolution models, we do not
476: expect to find stars younger than $\sim$0.8 Gyr. However, equation
477: \ref{rela} can formally compute ages younger than this value. As the age
478: determination uncertainty for these young stars is $\sim$1 Gyr, in order
479: to avoid this contradiction we assign them an age of 0.8 Gyr. Inset panels
480: show the age distribution of the observed stars, with and without taking
481: into account the age uncertainty (\textsl{solid line and histogram},
482: respectively). To obtain the first one, we assumed that the age of each
483: star is represented by a Gaussian probability distribution on the age
484: axis, with a mean value equal to the age calculated for this given star,
485: and $\sigma$ equal to the age uncertainty. The area of each of these
486: distributions is unity. In the case of stars near the edges, the wings of
487: the distribution may extend further than the limits. We have proceeded in
488: the same way as described in Paper III, cutting off the wings outside the
489: assumed limits (0.8 and 12.9 Gyr) and rescaling the rest of the
490: distribution so that the area remains unity.
491:
492: All the AMR plotted in Figures \ref{amreste}, \ref{amroeste} and
493: \ref{amrsur} show a rapid chemical enrichment at a very early epoch. Even
494: though in some fields we have not observed enough old stars to sample this
495: part of the AMR, note that 12 Gyr ago all fields have reached
496: [Fe/H]$\simeq -1.4\sbond -1.0$. This initial chemical enrichment was followed
497: by a period of very slow metallicity evolution until around 3 Gyr ago.
498: Then, the galaxy started another period of chemical enrichment, which is
499: observed in the innermost fields, which are, however,the only ones where
500: we observed enough young stars to sample this part of the AMR. For a given
501: age, the mean metallicity of the stars in fields qj0111, qj0112 and
502: smc0057 seems to be slightly more metal-poor than those of other fields.
503: The uncertainties in the age determination could account for the observed
504: differences. In all cases, however, the mean metallicity is similar to
505: that of the other fields at similar galactocentric radii. The field AMRs
506: obtained in this work are similar to those for clusters (the reader should
507: take into account that differences in the metallicity scales exist among
508: different works), although there is only one cluster older than 10 Gyr
509: (see Figure \ref{cumulos}), and for planetary nebulae, with the exception
510: that in these objects it is not observed the chemical enrichment episode
511: at a very early epoch \citep[see Figure 6 of][]{idiart07}.
512:
513: It does not seem that there was a period in which the galaxy has not
514: formed stars, in agreement with the result found in Paper I. (Figures
515: \ref{amreste}, \ref{amroeste} and \ref{amrsur}, inset panels). For eastern
516: fields, located in the wing, most of the observed stars have ages younger
517: than 8 Gyr, but there is also a significant number of objects older than
518: 10 Gyr. At a given galactocentric distance, eastern fields show a large
519: number of young stars ($\leq$3 Gyr) in comparison to the western ones,
520: as discussed in Paper I. For the western and southern fields, the
521: fraction of intermediate-age stars, which are also more metal-rich,
522: decreases as we move away from the center, although the average
523: metallicity in each age bin is similar. This indicates the presence of an
524: age gradient in the galaxy, which may be the origin of the metallicity
525: one. It is noticeable that for the most external fields, qj0033 and
526: qj0053, we find a predominantly old and metal-poor stellar population.
527:
528: %\subsection{Chemical Evolution Models for the SMC\label{modelsec}}
529:
530: %As in Paper III, we will try to reproduce the observed AMRs with basic chemical
531: %evolution models in order to investigate which physical mechanisms may have participated in %the evolution of the SMC.
532:
533: We can check statistically the hypothesis that the AMR is independent of
534: the position in the SMC. To do so, we have combined the measurements on
535: the 13 fields to obtain a global AMR and compared it with that of each
536: field. To do so, we have divided the age range into six intervals
537: (age$<$1.5 Gyr, 1.5--3.5 Gyr, 3.5--5.5 Gyr, 5.5--8.5 Gyr, 8.5--11 Gyr,
538: $>$11 Gyr). We have computed the dispersion and mean metallicity in each
539: age bin, and listed the results in Table \ref{testchi2}. With these data,
540: we have performed a $\chi^2$ test as follows:
541:
542: \begin{equation}
543: \chi^2=\sum_{i=1}^6\frac{(Z_i^{field}-Z_i^{global})^2}{\sigma_i^2}
544: \end{equation}
545:
546: where $\sigma_i^2$ is the squared sum of the uncertainties in the age bin
547: $i$ of each field and the global AMR. The result is shown in
548: Column 8 of Table \ref{testchi2}. All fields, except qj0047 and smc0033,
549: have values of $\chi^2_\nu$ smaller than 1. The discrepancy in fields
550: qj0047 and smc0033 may be due to small number statistics: there are only
551: two stars younger than 11 Gyr in field qj0047 and three in smc0033. Values
552: of $\chi^2_\nu<$1 mean that the observed AMR for each field is the same as
553: the global one with a confidence of 90\% (95\% in most cases). From these
554: results, we may conclude that the hypothesis that the AMR is independent
555: of position is correct within the uncertainty.
556:
557: \section{Summary and Discussion} \label{discursion}
558:
559: Using CaT spectroscopy, we have derived stellar metallicities for a large
560: sample of RGB field stars in 13 regions of the SMC situated at different
561: galactocentric distances and positions angles. We have found a radial
562: metallicity gradient, which is most evident for those fields situated
563: toward the South, where we covered a large galactocentric radius. For a
564: given galactocentric distance, the mean metallicities for fields situated
565: at different position angles are very similar. The inner fields have a
566: mean metallicity of [Fe/H] $\sim-1$, which is similar to that of the
567: cluster metallicity distribution.
568:
569:
570: We have obtained the AMR of
571: each field from the combination of metallicities, derived from CaT
572: spectroscopy, and the position of stars in the CMD. All fields have
573: similar AMRs, which are also similar to the cluster�s one
574: \citep{piatti05a}. All show a rapid initial increase of metallicity,
575: followed by a very slow chemical enrichment period. A new relatively fast
576: chemical enrichment episode is observed in the last few Gyrs in the fields
577: within $\sim$2\arcdeg\@ of the center with enough young stars to sample
578: it. From the information on the AMRs, we conclude that coeval stars have
579: the same metallicity everywhere in the SMC. The observed metallicity
580: gradient is therefore related to an age gradient, because the youngest
581: stars, which are also the most metal-rich, are concentrated in the central
582: regions of the galaxy.
583:
584: In a forthcoming paper we will try to reproduce the observed AMR with
585: chemical evolution models using accurate SFRs, as a function of time,
586: which are being derived by our group in each field (No\"el et al. 2008, in
587: preparation).
588:
589: \acknowledgments
590:
591: AA, CG, NEDN and RC acknowledge the support from the Spanish Ministry of
592: Science and Technology (Plan Nacional de Investigaci\'on Cient\'{\i}fica,
593: Desarrollo, e Investigaci\'on Tecnol\'ogica, AYA2004-06343). RC also
594: acknowledges the funds by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Technology
595: under the MEC/Fullbright postdoctoral fellowship program. EC and REM
596: acknowledge support from the Fondo Nacional de Investigaci\'on
597: Cient\'{\i}fica y Tecnol\'oliga (proyecto No. 1050718, Fondecyt) and from
598: the Chilean Centro de Astrof\'{\i}sica FONDAP No. 15010003. This work has
599: made use of the IAC-STAR Synthetic CMD computation code. IAC-STAR is
600: supported and maintained by the computer division of the Instituto de
601: Astrof\'{\i}sica de Canarias.
602:
603: Facilities: \facility{VLT(FORS2)}.
604:
605: \begin{thebibliography}{}
606: \bibitem[Aparicio \& Gallart(2004)]{aparicio04} Aparicio, A., \& Gallart, C. 2004, \aap, 128, 1465
607: \bibitem[Carrera et al.(2007)]{carrera07a}Carrera, R., Gallart, C., Pancino, E. \& Zinn, R. 2007, \aj,
608: 134, 1298. Paper II
609: \bibitem[Carrera et al.(2008)]{carrera07b}Carrera, R., Gallart, C., Hardy, E., Aparicio, A. \& Zinn, R. 2008,
610: \aj, 135, 836. Paper III
611: \bibitem[Carretta \& Gratton(1997)]{cg97} Carretta, E., \& Gratton, R. G. 1997, \aaps, 121, 95. CG97
612: \bibitem[Chiappini, Matteucci \& Romano(2001)]{chiappini01}Chiappini, C., Matteucci, F., \& Romano, D. 2001, \apj, 554, 1044
613: \bibitem[Cioni, Habing \& Israel(2000)]{cioni00}Cioni, M. R. L., Habing, H. J., \& Israel, F. P. 2000, \aap, 358, L9
614: \bibitem[Da Costa \& Hatzidimitriou(1998)]{costahatz98}Da Costa, G. S. \& Hatzidimitriou, D. 1998, \aj, 115, 1934
615: %\bibitem[Demers \& Battinelli(1998)]{demersbattinelli98}Demers, S. \& Battinelli, P. 1998, \aj, 115, 154
616: \bibitem[Dolphin et al.(2001)]{dolphin01} Dolphin, A. E., Walker, A. R., Hodge, P. W., Mateo, M., Olszewski, E. W., Schommer, R. A. \& Suntzeff, N. B. 2001, \apj, 562, 303
617: \bibitem[Gallart et al.(2001)]{gallart01} Gallart, C., Mart\'{\i}nez-Delgado, D., G\'omez-Flechoso, M. A., \& Mateo, M. 2001, \aj, 121,
618: 2572
619: \bibitem[Girardi et al.(2002)]{girardi02}Girardi, L., Bertelli, G., Bressan. A., Chiosi, C., Groenewegen, M: A. T., Marigo, P., Salasnich, B.,
620: \& Weiss, A. 2002, \aap, 391, 195
621: \bibitem[Harris \& Zaritsky(2004)]{harriszaritsky04}Harris, J.\ \& Zaritsky, D. 2004, \aj, 127, 1531
622: \bibitem[Harris \& Zaritsky(2006)]{harriszaritsky06}Harris, J.\ \& Zaritsky, D. 2006, \aj, 131, 2514
623: \bibitem[Hill, Barbuy, \& Spite(1997)]{hill97}Hill, V., Barbuy, B. \& Spite, M. 1997, \aap, 323, 461
624: \bibitem[Hill(1999)]{hill99}Hill, V. 1999, \aap, 345, 430
625: \bibitem[Hunter et al.(2007)]{hunter07}Hunter, I., Dufton, P. L., Smartt. S. J., Ryans, R. S. I., Evans, C. J., Lennon, D. J., Trundle, C., Hubeny, I. \& Lanz, T. 2007, \aap, 466, 277
626: \bibitem[Idiart, Maciel \& Costa(2007)]{idiart07}Idiart, T. P., Maciel, W. J. \& Costa, R. D. D. 2007, \aap, 472, 101
627: %\bibitem[Maeder(1993)]{maeder93} Maeder, A. 1993, \aap, 268, 833
628: \bibitem[Mighell, Sarajedini, \& French(1998)]{mighell98}Mighell, K. J., Sarajedini, A. \& French, R. S. 1998, \aj, 116, 2395
629: \bibitem[No\"el et al.(2007)]{noel07}No\"el, N. E. D., Gallart, C., Costa, E. \& M\'endez, R.A. 2007, \aj, 133, 2037
630: Paper I
631: %\bibitem[No\"el et al.(2008)]{noel07b}No\"el, N. E. D., Aparicio, A., Gallart, C., Hidalgo, S., Costa, E. \& M\'endez, R.A. 2008, in preparation
632: %\bibitem[Pagel \& Tautvaisiene(1995)]{pagel95} Pagel, B.~E.~J., \& Tautvaisiene, G.\ 1995, \mnras, 276, 505
633: %\bibitem[Pagel \& Tautvaisiene(1998)]{pagel98} Pagel, B.~E.~J., \& Tautvaisiene, G.\ 1998, \mnras, 299, 535
634: \bibitem[Piatti et al.(2001)]{piatti01}Piatti,\ A.\ E.,\ Santos,\ J.\ F.\ C.,\ Clari\'a,\ J.\ J.,\ Bica,\ E.,\ Sarajedini,\ A.\ \& Geisler,\ D.\ 2001, \mnras, 325, 792
635: \bibitem[Piatti et al.(2005)]{piatti05a}Piatti,\ A.\ E.,\ Sarajedini,\ A.,\ Geisler,\ D.,\ Seguel,\ J.,\ \&\ Clark,\ D.\ 2005, \mnras, 358, 1215
636: \bibitem[Piatti et al.(2007)]{piatti07}Piatti,\ A.\ E.,\ Sarajedini,\ A.,\ Geisler,\ D.,\ Gallart,\ C.,\ \&\ Wischnjewsky,\ M.\ 2007, \mnras, 382, 1202
637: \bibitem[Pietrinferni et al.(2004)]{pie04}Pietrinferni, A., Cassisi, S., Salaris, M., \& Castelli, F. 2004, \apj, 612, 168
638: \bibitem[Prantzos \& Boissier(2000)]{prantzos00}Prantzos, N., \& Boissier, S. 2000, \mnras, 313, 338
639: \bibitem[Rafelski \& Zaritsky(2005)]{rafelski05}Rafelski,\ M.\ \& Zaritsky,\ D.\ 2005, \aj, 129, 2701
640: \bibitem[Rich et al.(2000)]{rich00}Rich, R.\ M.,\ Shara,\ M.,\ Fall,\ S.\ M.\ \&\ Zurek,\ D.\ 2000, \aj, 119, 197
641: \bibitem[Romano, Tosi \& Matteucci(2006)]{romano06}Romano, D.,\ Tosi,\ M., \&\ Matteucci,\ F.\ 2006, \mnras, 365, 759
642: \bibitem[Salaris \& Weiss(2002)]{sw02}Salaris, M., \& Weiss, A. 2002, \aap, 388, 492
643: %\bibitem[Smith et al.(1992)]{smith92}Smith, H. A.., Silbermann, N. A., Baird, S. R. \& Graham, J. A. 1992 \aj, 104, 1430
644: %\bibitem[Stanimirovi\'c et al.(1999)]{stanimirovic99}Stanimirovi\'c, S., Staveley-Smith, L., Dickey, J. M., Sault, R. J., \& Snowden, S. L. 1999, \mnras, 302, 417
645: %\bibitem[Suntzeff et al.(1986)]{suntzeff86}Suntzeff, N. B., Friel,\ E.,\ Klemola,\ A.,\ Kraft,\ R.\ P.,\ \& Graham,\J.\ A.\ 1986, \aj, 91, 275
646: \bibitem[Tinney, Da Costa \& Zinnecker(1997)]{tinney97} Tinney,\ C.\ G.,\ Da Costa,\ G.\ S.\ \& Zinnecker,\ H.\ 1997, \mnras, 285, 111
647: %\bibitem[Tinsley(1980)]{tinsley80}Tinsley, B. M., 1980, fun cosmic physics, 5, 287
648: \bibitem[Tonry \& Davis(1979)]{td79}Tonry, J., \& Davis, M. 1979, \aj, 84, 1511
649: \bibitem[van den Bergh(1999)]{vandenbergh99}van den Bergh,\ S. 1999, \aapr, 9, 273
650: \bibitem[Venn(1999)]{venn99}Venn, K. A. 1999, \apj, 518, 405
651: %\bibitem[Zaritsky et al.(2000)]{zhgt00}Zaritsky,\ D.,\ Harris,\ J.,\ Grebel,\ E.\ K.,\ \& Thompson,\ I.\ B.\ %2000, \apj, 534, L53
652: %\bibitem[Zaritsky(2004)]{zaritsky04}Zaritsky, D. 2004 \aj, 614, L37
653: %\bibitem[Zaritsky \& Harris(2004)]{zaritskyharris04}Zaritsky,\ D.\ \& Harris,\ J.\ 2004, \apj, 604, 167
654: %\bibitem[Zaritsky \& Harris(2006)]{zaritskyharris06}Zaritsky,\ D.\ \& Harris,\ J.\ 2006, \aj, 131, 2514
655: \end{thebibliography}
656:
657:
658: \clearpage
659:
660: %% Use the figure environment and \plotone or \plottwo to include
661: %% figures and captions in your electronic submission.
662:
663:
664: \begin{figure}
665: \plotone{./f01.eps}
666: \caption{Color--magnitude diagram of the field qj0035 showing the RGB windows used to select the candidates to be observed spectroscopically.\label{dcmbox}}
667: \end{figure}
668:
669: \clearpage
670:
671: \begin{figure}
672: \plotone{./f02.eps}
673: \caption{Position in the M$_I$--$\Sigma$Ca plane of observed SMC stars in the eastern fields. Only stars with confirmed membership from their radial velocity are represented. The typical $\Sigma Ca$ error is shown in the bottom right corner of each panel.
674: Isometallicity lines, obtained from the relationship based on M$_I$ presented in Paper II, have been plotted
675: for reference. The
676: solid part of the line is the magnitude interval covered by the cluster stars used for the calibration
677: (see Paper II). The dashed part is the region in which the calibration is
678: extrapolated. Distances from the SMC optical center are given in the bottom right corner. The innermost field is on the left and the outermost one is on the right.\label{misigmacaeste}}
679: \end{figure}
680:
681: \begin{figure}
682: \plotone{./f03.eps}
683: \caption{The same as Figure \ref{misigmacaeste}, for the Western fields. They are ordered from the innermost field (\textsl{top
684: left}), to the outermost one (\textsl{bottom right}).\label{misigmacaoeste}}
685: \end{figure}
686:
687: \clearpage
688:
689: \begin{figure}
690: \plotone{./f04.eps}
691: \caption{The same as Figure \ref{misigmacaeste}, for the Southern fields. They are ordered from the innermost field (\textsl{top
692: left}), to the outermost one (\textsl{bottom right}).\label{misigmacasur}}
693: \end{figure}
694:
695: \clearpage
696:
697: \begin{figure}
698: \plotone{./f05.eps}
699: \caption{Metallicity distributions for the eastern fields in our sample. A
700: Gaussian has been fitted to each distribution in order to obtain its
701: mean and dispersion. The values obtained are shown in each panel.\label{metaldisteste}}
702: \end{figure}
703:
704: \begin{figure}
705: \plotone{./f06.eps}
706: \caption{The same as Figure \ref{metaldisteste} for the western fields.\label{metaldistoeste}}
707: \end{figure}
708:
709: \clearpage
710:
711: \begin{figure}
712: \plotone{./f07.eps}
713: \caption{The same as Figure \ref{metaldisteste} for the southern fields.\label{metaldistsur}}
714: \end{figure}
715:
716: \clearpage
717:
718: \begin{figure}
719: \plotone{./f08.eps}
720: \caption{Age uncertainty as a function of age as calculated through a Monte Carlo test and using equation \ref{rela}.
721: See text for details.\label{caledad}}
722: \end{figure}
723:
724: \clearpage
725:
726: \begin{figure}
727: \plotone{./f09.eps}
728: \caption{Ages derived from equation \ref{rela} for the cluster sample presented in Paper II, plotted against the reference values. The solid line corresponds to the one-to-one relation.
729: \label{cluster}}
730: \end{figure}
731:
732: \clearpage
733:
734: \begin{figure}
735: \plotone{./f10.eps}
736: \caption{Age--metallicity relationships for the eastern SMC fields in our
737: sample. Inset panels show the age distribution computed taking
738: (\textsl{solid line}) and not taking (\textsl{histogram}) into account
739: the age determination uncertainties. Top panels show the age error in each
740: age interval (see Figure \ref{caledad}). Right panel shows the metallicity
741: uncertainty in each metallicity bin.
742: \label{amreste}}
743: \end{figure}
744:
745: \begin{figure}
746: \plotone{./f11.eps}
747: \caption{The same as Figure \ref{amreste}, for the western fields.
748: \label{amroeste}}
749: \end{figure}
750:
751: \clearpage
752:
753: \begin{figure}
754: \plotone{./f12.eps}
755: \caption{The same as Figure \ref{amreste}, for the southern fields.
756: \label{amrsur}}
757: \end{figure}
758:
759: \clearpage
760:
761: \begin{figure}
762: \epsscale{1}
763: \plotone{./f13.eps}
764: \caption{AMR for SMC clusters. Squares represent photometric determinations:
765: M98: \citet[\textsl{green}]{mighell98}; \cite[DH98,
766: \textsl{black}]{costahatz98}; \citet[P01, \textsl{red}]{piatti01};
767: \citet[P05, \textsl{pink}]{piatti05a} and
768: \citet[P07, \textsl{dark green}]{piatti07}. Triangles are spectroscopic
769: determinations: NGC 121: \citet[S86, \textsl{brown}]{suntzeff86};
770: \citet[DH98, \textsl{yellow}]{costahatz98} and NGC 330: \citet[H99,
771: \textsl{cyan}]{hill99}. Blue squares represent the AMR obtained from
772: UBVI photometry by \citet[HZ04]{harriszaritsky04} in the central region of
773: the galaxy. The mean metallicity in six age bins of our global SMC AMR has
774: also been plotted (\textsl{open circles}). Note that the metallicity scales
775: of each work may not be exactly the same.\label{cumulos}}
776: \end{figure}
777:
778: \clearpage
779:
780:
781: %% If you are not including electonic art with your submission, you may
782: %% mark up your captions using the \figcaption command. See the
783: %% User Guide for details.
784: %%
785: %% No more than seven \figcaption commands are allowed per page,
786: %% so if you have more than seven captions, insert a \clearpage
787: %% after every seventh one.
788:
789:
790: %% Tables should be submitted one per page, so put a \clearpage before
791: %% each one.
792:
793: %% Two options are available to the author for producing tables: the
794: %% deluxetable environment provided by the AASTeX package or the LaTeX
795: %% table environment. Use of deluxetable is preferred.
796: %%
797:
798: %% Three table samples follow, two marked up in the deluxetable environment,
799: %% one marked up as a LaTeX table.
800:
801:
802: %% In this first example, note that the \tabletypesize{}
803: %% command has been used to reduce the font size of the table.
804: %% Note also that the \label command needs to be placed
805: %% inside the \tablecaption.
806:
807: \clearpage
808: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccccc}
809: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
810: \tablecaption{SMC observed fields \label{obsfields}}
811: \tablewidth{0pt}
812: \tablehead{
813: \colhead{Field} & \colhead{$\alpha_{2000}$} & \colhead{$\delta_{2000}$} & \colhead{r(')}
814: & \colhead{PA (\arcdeg)} & \colhead{Zone} &
815: \colhead{E(B-V)}
816: }
817: \startdata
818: {\sl smc0057} & {\sl 00:57} & {\sl -73:53} & {\sl 65.7} & {\sl 164.4} & {\sl South} & {\sl 0.09}\\
819: {\bf qj0037} & {\bf 00:37} & {\bf -72:18} & {\bf 78.5} & {\bf 294.0} & {\bf West} & {\bf 0.07}\\
820: {\bf qj0036} & {\bf 00:36} & {\bf -72:25} & {\bf 79.8} & {\bf 288.0} & {\bf West} & {\bf 0.07}\\
821: {\emph qj0111} & {\emph 01:11} & {\emph -72:49} & {\emph 80.9} & {\emph 89.5} & {\emph East} & {\emph 0.09}\\
822: {\emph qj0112} & {\emph 01:12} & {\emph -72:36} & {\emph 87.4} & {\emph 81.0 }& {\emph East} & {\emph 0.09}\\
823: {\bf qj0035} & {\bf 00:35} & {\bf -72:01} & {\bf 95.5} & {\bf 300.6} &{\bf West} & {\bf 0.05}\\
824: {\emph qj0116} & {\emph 01:16} & {\emph -72:59} & {\emph 102.5} & {\emph 95.2} & {\emph East} & {\emph 0.08}\\
825: {\sl smc0100} & {\sl 01:00} & {\sl -74:57} & {\sl 130.4} & {\sl 167.5} & {\sl South} & {\sl 0.05}\\
826: {\sl qj0047} & {\sl 00:47} & {\sl -75:30} & {\sl 161.7} & {\sl 187.7} & {\sl South} & {\sl 0.05}\\
827: {\bf qj0033} & {\bf 00:33} & {\bf -70:28} & {\bf 172.9} & {\bf 325.0} & {\bf West} & {\bf 0.03}\\
828: {\sl smc0049} & {\sl 00:49} & {\sl -75:44} & {\sl 174.8} & {\sl 184.6} & {\sl South} & {\sl 0.06} \\
829: {\sl qj0102} & {\sl 01:02} & {\sl -74:46} & {\sl 179.5} & {\sl 169.4} & {\sl South} & {\sl 0.05}\\
830: {\sl smc0053} & {\sl 00:53} & {\sl -76:46} & {\sl 236.3} & {\sl 179.4} & {\sl South} & {\sl 0.06}\\
831: \enddata
832: \end{deluxetable}
833:
834: \clearpage
835: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccccccc}
836: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
837: %%\rotate
838: \tablecaption{Red giants stars observed\label{starobs}}
839: \tablewidth{0pt}
840: \tablehead{
841: \colhead{$\alpha_{2000}$} & \colhead{$\delta_{2000}$}& \colhead{$\Sigma$ Ca} &\colhead{$\sigma_{\Sigma Ca}$}&\colhead{B}
842: & \colhead{I} & \colhead{$V_r (km s^{-1}$)} & \colhead{Comments}
843: }
844: \startdata
845: 00:33:53.8 & -70:24:31.3 & 2.75 & 0.23 & 20.26 & 18.45 & -307.1 &68.5 & No member\\
846: 00:34:00.0 & -70:28:22.9 & 2.56 & 0.42 & 20.31 & 18.57 & 79.0 & 4.2 & \\
847: 00:34:03.1 & -70:27:07.7 & 1.89 & 0.71 & 20.82 & 18.97 & 78.9 & 3.3 & \\
848: 00:34:25.9 & -70:27:47.1 & 5.64 & 0.19 & 19.66 & 17.61 & 133.5 & 3.7 & \\
849: 00:34:06.4 & -70:27:39.3 & 1.95 & 0.12 & 18.67 & 17.81 & 162.2 & 2.9 & \\
850: 00:33:37.1 & -70:27:31.8 & 5.10 & 0.08 & 18.82 & 15.82 & 69.9 & 3.1 & \\
851: 00:33:41.8 & -70:27:14.3 & 5.17 & 0.20 & 19.72 & 17.46 & 31.7 & 2.9 & No member \\
852: \enddata
853: \tablecomments{Table \ref{starobs} is published in its entirety in the electronic edition of Astronomical
854: Journal. A portion is shown here for
855: guidance regarding its form and content}
856: \end{deluxetable}
857:
858: \begin{deluxetable}{cc}
859: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
860: \tablecaption{Line and continuum bandpasses
861: \label{bandastable}}
862: \tablewidth{0pt}
863: \tablehead{
864: \colhead{Line Bandpasses (\AA)} & \colhead{Continuum bandpasses (\AA)}}
865: \startdata
866: 8484-8513 & 8474-8484\\
867: 8522-8562 & 8563-8577\\
868: 8642-8682 & 8619-8642\\
869: \nodata & 8799-8725\\
870: \nodata & 8776-8792\\
871: \enddata
872: \end{deluxetable}
873:
874: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccccc}
875: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
876: \tablecaption{Coefficients of the fit of equation \ref{rela} for BaSTI stellar evolution models \citep{pie04}.
877: The fit standard deviation of the fit ($\sigma$) is
878: shown in the last column.\label{coefedad}}
879: \tablehead{
880: \colhead{a} & \colhead{b} & \colhead{c} & \colhead{d} & \colhead{e} & \colhead{f} & \colhead{$\sigma$}
881: }
882: \startdata
883: {\footnotesize 4.06$\pm$0.03} & {\footnotesize 3.58$\pm$0.02} & {\footnotesize
884: 0.663$\pm$0.003} & {\footnotesize -1.314$\pm$0.006} & {\footnotesize -0.402$\pm$0.002} & {\footnotesize
885: -0.077$\pm$0.005} & {\footnotesize 0.40} \\
886: \enddata
887: \end{deluxetable}
888:
889: \clearpage
890: \begin{deluxetable}{cccccc}
891: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
892: \tablecaption{Metallicity distribution in each field.\label{smcmetalicidades}}
893: \tablehead{
894: \colhead{Field} & \colhead{r(')} & \colhead{$\langle[Fe/H]\rangle$} & \colhead{$\sigma_{[Fe/H]}$} & \colhead{{\footnotesize
895: [Fe/H]$<$-1}} &
896: \colhead{{\footnotesize [Fe/H]$>$-1.0}}}
897: \startdata
898: {\sl smc0057} & {\sl 1.1} & {\sl -1.01} & {\sl 0.33} & {\sl 53} & {\sl 47}\\
899: {\bf qj0037} & {\bf 1.3} & {\bf -0.95} & {\bf 0.17} & {\bf 35} & {\bf 65} \\
900: {\bf qj0036} & {\bf 1.3} & {\bf -0.98} & {\bf 0.25} & {\bf 49} &
901: {\bf 51}\\
902: {\emph qj0111} & {\emph 1.3} & {\emph -1.08} & {\emph 0.21} & {\emph 64} & {\emph 36} \\
903: {\emph qj0112} & {\emph 1.4} & {\emph -1.16} & {\emph 0.32} & {\emph 69} &
904: {\emph 31} \\
905: {\bf qj0035} & {\bf 1.6} & {\bf -1.09} & {\bf 0.24} & {\bf 66} & {\bf 34} \\
906: {\emph qj0116} & {\emph 1.7} & {\emph -0.96} & {\emph 0.26} & {\emph 43} & {\emph 57} \\
907: {\sl smc0100} & {\sl 2.2} & {\sl -1.07} & {\sl 0.28} & {\sl 61} & {\sl 39} \\
908: {\sl qj0047} & {\sl 2.7} & {\sl -1.15} & {\sl 0.27} & {\sl 68} & {\sl 32} \\
909: {\bf qj0033} & {\bf 2.9} & {\bf -1.58} & {\bf 0.57} & {\bf 85} & {\bf 15} \\
910: {\sl smc0049} & {\sl 2.9} & {\sl -1.00} & {\sl 0.28} & {\sl 53} & {\sl 47} \\
911: {\sl qj0102} & {\sl 3.0} & {\sl -1.29} & {\sl 0.42} & {\sl 74} & {\sl 26} \\
912: {\sl smc0053} & {\sl 3.9} & {\sl -1.64} & {\sl 0.50} & {\sl 92} & {\sl 8} \\
913: \enddata
914: \end{deluxetable}
915:
916:
917: \begin{deluxetable}{cccccccc}
918: \tabletypesize{\tiny}
919: \tablecaption{Average metallicity in six age bins. Also listed are the values obtained from the combination of
920: the 13 fields. The last column shows the value $\chi^2_\nu$ obtained from the comparison of each field with the
921: global one.\label{testchi2}}
922: \tablehead{
923: \colhead{Field} & \colhead{$\langle[Fe/H]_{\leq1.5}\rangle$} & \colhead{$\langle[Fe/H]_{1.5-3.5}\rangle$}
924: & \colhead{$\langle[Fe/H]_{3.5-5.5}\rangle$} & \colhead{$\langle[Fe/H]_{5.5-8.5}\rangle$} & \colhead{$\langle[Fe/H]_{8.5-11}\rangle$} &
925: \colhead{$\langle[Fe/H]_{\geq11}\rangle$} & \colhead{$\chi^2$}
926: }
927: \startdata
928: {\sl smc0057} & -0.68$\pm$0.11 & -0.98$\pm$0.20 & -1.09$\pm$0.14 & -1.34$\pm$0.04 & -1.24$\pm$0.05 & -1.52$\pm$0.24 & 0.39\\
929: {\bf qj0037} & -0.15$\pm$0.22 & -0.83$\pm$0.10 & -0.89$\pm$0.17 & -1.06$\pm$0.11 & -0.89$\pm$0.02 & -1.53$\pm$0.55 & 0.44\\
930: {\bf qj0036} & \nodata & -0.76$\pm$0.07 & -0.82$\pm$0.17 & -1.01$\pm$0.12 & -0.96$\pm$0.16 & -1.32$\pm$0.23 & 0.17\\
931: {\emph qj0111} & -0.55$\pm$0.29 & -0.96$\pm$0.19 & -1.07$\pm$0.07 & -1.17$\pm$0.13 & -1.56$\pm$0.04 & -1.98$\pm$0.22 & 0.62\\
932: {\emph qj0112} & -0.85$\pm$0.34 & -1.03$\pm$0.28 & -1.23$\pm$0.06 & -1.38$\pm$0.20 & \nodata & -1.77$\pm$0.27 & 0.76\\
933: {\bf qj0035} & \nodata & -0.66$\pm$0.24 & -0.73$\pm$0.26 & -0.98$\pm$0.19 & -0.94$\pm$0.14 & -1.27$\pm$0.26 & 0.47\\
934: {\emph qj0116} & -0.71$\pm$0.68 & -0.56$\pm$0.12 & -0.90$\pm$0.15 & -1.06$\pm$0.20 & -1.03$\pm$0.07 & -1.22$\pm$0.26 & 0.30\\
935: {\sl smc0100} & \nodata & -0.80$\pm$0.20 & -0.91$\pm$0.16 & -0.89$\pm$0.02 & -1.16$\pm$0.06 & -1.30$\pm$0.26 & 0.24\\
936: {\sl qj0047} & \nodata & -0.63$\pm$0.01 & -0.67$\pm$0.01 & \nodata & \nodata & -1.20$\pm$0.38 & 1.07\\
937: {\bf qj0033} & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & -0.74$\pm$0.01 & -1.05$\pm$0.18 & -1.75$\pm$0.40 & 1.07\\
938: {\sl smc0049} & \nodata & -0.74$\pm$0.14 & -0.87$\pm$0.06 & -0.92$\pm$0.02 & -1.13$\pm$0.04 & -1.28$\pm$0.17 & 0.24\\
939: {\sl qj0102} & \nodata & -1.00$\pm$0.28 & -0.99$\pm$0.18 & -1.06$\pm$0.38 & -1.31$\pm$0.15 & -1.49$\pm$0.31 & 0.17\\
940: {\sl smc0053} & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & -1.27$\pm$0.05 & -1.67$\pm$0.43 & 0.36\\
941: Global & -0.68$\pm$0.37 & -0.86$\pm$0.22 & -0.94$\pm$0.20 & -1.10$\pm$0.21 & -1.11$\pm$0.21 & -1.42$\pm$0.37 &\nodata \\
942: \enddata
943: \end{deluxetable}
944:
945: \end{document}