1: %\documentclass[12pt,manuscript]
2: %\documentclass[12pt,manuscript]{emulateapj}
3: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
4: \newcommand{\filter}[1]{\mbox{\it #1\/}} % filter in italics
5: % insertplot parameters:
6: % #1: PostScript file name (PGPLOT /VPS file)
7: % #2: figure height (in)
8: % #3: figure width (in)
9: % #4: lower left corner x (inches from llc of paper)
10: % #5: lower left corner y (inches from llc of paper)
11: % #6 : desired magnification
12: % #7: 1 => original in landscape mode, 0 => portrait
13: % Parameters 2-5 refer to the dimensions of the original figure
14: % when printed directly.
15: %
16: \def\insertplot#1#2#3#4#5#6#7{
17: \vskip 10pt\nobreak\hbox to \hsize{\hss\dimen0=#3in\hbox to #6\dimen0{%
18: \dimen0=#2in\vbox to #6\dimen0{\vss
19: \special{ps::[begin]
20: /PGPLOT save def /showpage {} def
21: initmatrix
22: currentpoint translate
23: #6 dup scale
24: #7 1 eq {-90 rotate -8.15 72 mul -0.25 72 mul translate} if
25: #4 72 mul neg #5 72 mul neg translate
26: }
27: \special{ps: plotfile #1}
28: \special{ps::[end]
29: PGPLOT restore
30: }
31: }\hss}\hss}\vskip 10pt}
32: %
33: % Resubmit version 1.0, Morten Andersen, June 17 2008.
34: \begin{document}
35: \title{Evidence for a Turnover in the Initial Mass Function of Low--Mass Stars and \\ Substellar Objects: Analysis from an Ensemble of Young Clusters}
36: \author{M. Andersen}
37: \affil{ mortena@ipac.caltech.edu}
38:
39: \and
40:
41: \author{ M. R. Meyer, J. Greissl. \& A. Aversa}
42: \affil{Steward Observatory, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721}
43: \begin{abstract}
44: We present a combined analysis of the low-mass initial mass function (IMF) for seven star-forming regions.
45: We first demonstrate that the ratios of stars to brown dwarfs are consistent with a single underlying IMF.
46: By assuming that the underlying IMF is the same for all seven clusters and by combining the ratio of stars to brown dwarfs from each cluster we constrain the shape of the brown dwarf IMF and find it to be consistent with a lognormal IMF .
47: This provides the strongest constraint yet that the substellar IMF turns over ($\frac{dN}{dM}\propto M^{-\alpha}$, $\alpha < 0$).
48:
49: \end{abstract}
50:
51: \keywords{ stars: initial mass function --- pre--main sequence --- formation;
52: brown dwarfs}
53:
54: \section {Introduction}
55:
56: Speculations concerning the existence and frequency of brown dwarfs
57: can be traced to before the introduction of the term \citep{kumar,hayashi}.
58: Since then,
59: wide-field surveys have uncovered hundreds of candidates in the field and
60: revealed two new spectral types, the L and T dwarfs \citep{kirkpatrick}.
61: Yet the frequency of brown dwarfs compared to stars has remained a topic
62: of confusion and debate. In a pioneering work, \citet{reid}
63: attempted the first census of the substellar initial mass function (IMF) based on
64: results from the Two Micron All Sky Survey \citep{skrutskie}.
65: They presented evidence for a low-mass IMF that was more shallow than a Salpeter \citep{salpeter} slope,
66: suggesting that brown dwarfs were not a significant contributor to dark matter.
67: \citet{allen} used a Bayesian approach to constrain the power-law
68: slope below 0.08 $M_\odot$ to be in the
69: range $-0.6 < \alpha < 0.6$ with a confidence level of 60\%, where a Salpeter slope is $\alpha=2.35$.
70: These results indicate that, although brown dwarfs
71: do not contribute significantly
72: to the mass of typical stellar populations,
73: they might still be as abundant as stars \citep{chabrier02}.
74:
75: The classical approach to deriving
76: the mass function for stars and substellar objects is
77: to take an observed luminosity function and apply a mass-luminosity
78: relationship in order to derive the present-day mass function. Then,
79: corrections, based on the theory of stellar evolution, permit one
80: to estimate an {\it initial} mass function from the present-day mass function (see e.g. \citet{scalo,kroupa,chabrier} for
81: complete descriptions of this process). The confounding variable in
82: these analyses is the star formation history of the Galactic disk,
83: which is vital for substellar objects whose mass--luminosity
84: relationship evolves with time.
85:
86:
87: A different approach is to use star clusters of known age
88: as laboratories to measure the IMF\@.
89: Open clusters
90: are in principle good candidates because of their richness.
91: Yet they suffer from the effects of dynamical evolution,
92: mass segregation, and evaporation \citep[e.g.][]{ladalada}.
93: Young ($<$ 10 Myr) embedded clusters
94: are attractive alternatives
95: as they are compact and rich (from hundreds to thousands of stars within
96: 0.3--1 pc), and yet to emerge as unbound OB/T
97: associations,
98: and the low mass objects are 10--1000 times more luminous
99: than their older open cluster counterparts (0.1--16 Gyr) because they shrink and cool as they age.
100:
101: Indeed, embedded clusters have been
102: the targets of aggressive photometric and spectroscopic
103: surveys in an attempt to search for variations in the IMF as
104: a function of initial conditions. \citet{meyer00} found
105: that the ratio of high-mass (1--10 $M_{\odot}$)
106: to low-mass (0.1--1 $M_{\odot}$) stars for an ensemble of
107: young clusters within 1 kpc was consistent with (1) each
108: other and (2) having been drawn from the
109: field star IMF\@. More recent studies have pushed well into
110: the substellar mass regime (see \citet{luhman07a} for a recent
111: review).
112: There have been some claims for variations in the brown dwarf IMF between nearby star-forming regions.
113: \citet{briceno} argued that the low-density
114: Taurus dark cloud had a dearth of brown dwarfs compared to the
115: rich Orion Nebula Cluster (ONC).
116: However, this preliminary result has been updated as
117: additional data have become available and as the statistics improved for both clusters \citep{guieu,slesnick}.
118:
119:
120: Here we use observations of seven nearby star clusters to constrain the combined brown dwarf IMF.
121: In section 2, we describe the data, illustrate that there is no strong evidence for variation in the substellar IMF between the star-forming regions, and outline our approach to constrain the low-mass IMF.
122: In section 3 we present our results, and in
123: section 4 we discuss our results in the context of previous
124: work as well as theories of star (and substellar object)
125: formation.
126:
127: \section{The Approach}
128:
129: We have compiled the ratio of stars to brown dwarfs in nearby, well-studied young embedded clusters and the Pleiades.
130: The regions included in this study are described briefly below, where the ratio of stars (0.08--1.0 $M_\odot$) to brown dwarfs (0.03--0.08 $M_\odot$) is calculated.
131: For all the regions, we consider the {\it system} IMF, uncorrected for multiplicity within 200 AU.
132: The sample is focused on embedded clusters, in which spectroscopy has been used to determine the age of the cluster, field star contamination has been taken into account, and an extinction-limited sample has been defined.
133: Furthermore, we have included the Pleiades, because it is one of the best-studied open clusters and bacause its substellar IMF has been estimated.
134: The break point at 0.08 $M_\odot$ has been adopted in accordance with the break point for the \citet{kroupa} IMF, similar to the characteristic mass in the \citet{chabrier} single object IMF\@.
135: Only a few of the clusters adopted here have the IMF derived in an extinction-limited sample reaching 0.02 $M_\odot$ and we have opted for 0.03 $M_\odot$ as a lower mass limit to obtain a larger sample of clusters.
136:
137: { \it Taurus.}
138: \citet{luhman04} imaged a 4 deg$^2$ region of Taurus that focused on the denser filaments, to identify cluster candidates.
139: Candidates were confirmed as cluster members,by use of follow-up intermediate-resolutionoptical spectroscopy, on the basis of their effective temperature, luminosity, and spectral features.
140: In total, 112 objects were confirmed members with derived masses between 0.03 and 1.0 $M_\odot$ and extinctions A$_\mathrm{V} \le 4$ mag.
141: Some 96 objects were stars and 16 were brown dwarfs.
142: Thus, the ratio of stars to brown dwarfs in Taurus was found to be $R=96/16=6.0^{+2.6}_{-2.0}$ where the errors are estimated using the method of \citet{gehrels86}.
143:
144: {\it IC 348.}
145: \citet{luhman03b} imaged a 42\arcmin$\times$28\arcmin\ region of the IC 348 cluster to identify cluster candidates.
146: By the use of intermediate-resolution spectroscopy, most of the candidates were confirmed as cluster members, on the basis of their effective temperature, luminosity, and spectral features, which indicated that the objects were young.
147: In total, \citet{luhman03b} found 168 cluster members with masses between 0.03 and 1.0 $M_\odot$ and extinctions A$_\mathrm{V} \le 4$ mag.
148: The ratio of stars to brown dwarfs was found to be $R=8.3^{+3.3}_{-2.6}$.
149:
150: {\it Mon R2.}
151: \citet{andersen} imaged the central 1\arcmin$\times$1\arcmin\ of the embedded cluster associated with Mon R2 by utilizing the Near-Infrared Camera andd Multi-Object Spectrometer on board the {\it Hubble Space Telescope} ({\it HST}).
152: An extinction-limited sample A$_\mathrm{V}\le 10$ mag was defined and
153: a total of 19 objects were detected with masses between 0.03 and 1 $M_\odot$.
154: The ratio of stars to brown dwarfs was found to be $R=8.5^{+13.6}_{-5.8}$.
155:
156: {\it Chameleon 1.}
157: \citet{luhman07b} obtained an extinction-limited sample in Chameleon 1 that was complete down to 0.01 $M_\odot$ for A$_\mathrm{V}\le 5$ mag, by use of observations of a 0.22\arcdeg $\times$0.28\arcdeg\ region with the Advanced Camera for Surveyes on board {\it HST} and a subsequent spectroscopic follow-up of cluster member candidates.
158: The sub-sample from 0.03 to $1$ $M_\odot$ includes 24 objects and the ratio $R$ was found to be $R=4.0^{+3.7}_{-2.1}$.
159:
160: {\it Pleiades. }
161: The Pleiades is one of the best-studied open clusters, and numerous derivations of the IMF have been published.
162: Here we focus on the survey by \citet{moraux} who covered a 6.4 deg$^2$ region of the Pleiades.
163: The survey had a saturation limit of 0.48 $M_\odot$.
164: For higher masses, the survey was combined with a mass function built using the \citet{prosser98} database.
165: The Pleiades suffer relatively low ($A_\mathrm{V} < 1$ mag), mostly uniform, extinction, with negligible impact on
166: the completeness of this sample, so we did not apply a reddening criterion.
167: The ratio of stars to brown dwarfs was found to be $R=4.9^{+1.5}_{-1.2}$.
168:
169: {\it The Orion Nebular Cluster.}
170: The ONC
171: has been the subject of extensive
172: studies \citep{hillenbrand,hillenbrandcarpenter,luhman00,muench}.
173: We take the adopted
174: ratio of stars to substellar objects from the
175: study of \citet{slesnick}.
176: The total sample, covering the central 5.1\arcmin$\times$5.1\arcmin,
177: contains approximately 200 objects with masses
178: between 0.02 and 0.6 $M_{\odot}$ and A$_\mathrm{V} \le 15$ mag.
179: Using their Figure 14,
180: and extrapolating the slope from 0.08--0.6
181: to 1.0 $M_{\odot}$ (one additional bin in their
182: plot), we arrive at a ratio of stars to substellar objects
183: of $R=3.3^{+0.8}_{-0.7}$.
184:
185:
186:
187: {\it NGC 2024.}
188: The ratio of stars to brown dwarfs in NGC 2024 was found by \citet{levine} from their photometric and spectroscopic study, covering the central 10\arcmin$\times$10\arcmin\@.
189: They assigned masses to the photometric objects
190: on the basis of the mass distribution in each
191: magnitude bin, determined from the spectroscopic sample
192: as in \citet{slesnick}. The result was that a total of 148 objects in their survey area has masses
193: between 0.02 and 1 $M_{\odot}$ and extinctions A$_\mathrm{V}\le$ 15 mag.
194: Based on their Figure 9, we find that
195: there are 27 objects between 0.03 and 0.08 $M_{\odot}$
196: resulting in a ratio of stars to substellar objects
197: of $R= 3.8^{+2.1}_{-1.5}$.
198:
199: Table~\ref{results} shows the ratio of stars to brown dwarfs for nearby embedded clusters and the Pleiades, as
200: described above, and the distribution of ratios is shown in Fig,~\ref{figure1}.
201: %The distribution of ratios presented in Table~\ref{results} is shown in Fig.~\ref{figure1}.
202: The weighted mean of the ratios is found to be 4.3, and the standard deviation of the weighted mean is 1.6.
203: All of the measurements presented are consistent with the weighted mean within 2$\sigma$.
204: There is thus little evidence for variation in the low-mass IMF between the different regions and we have adopted the hypothesis that the IMF is universal.
205: Under this assumption, the complete set of IMF determinations can be combined to place constraints that are stronger than for each of the individual measurements.
206:
207:
208: %The data are treated in the following way.
209: %The ensemble of ratios is then compared with the probability distributions expected from the field star IMFs prescribed by \citet{kroupa,chabrier05}, and \citet{allen}.
210:
211:
212:
213:
214:
215:
216:
217:
218: \section{The Results}
219:
220:
221: For each cluster, we have calculated the probability of obtaining the observed ratio of stars to brown dwarfs for a given IMF
222: or greater.
223: The ratio of stars to brown dwarfs drawn from a given sample size with an assumed IMF is determined by the binomial theorem.
224: The predicted distribution of ratios from both segmented power-laws and a \citet[][$\frac{dN}{d\log m}\propto \exp{\frac{(\log m-\log m_0)^2}{2\sigma^2}}$, $m_0=0.25$, $\sigma=0.55$]{chabrier05} lognormal IMF for a cluster of 100 objects
225: with unresolved binaries is shown in the lower panel in Fig.~\ref{figure1}.
226: The peak mass in the lognormal is slightly higher, and the width is slightly more narrow than is presented in \citet{chabrier}.
227: The change in the best-fit parameters in \citet{chabrier05} is due to an updated luminosity function \citep{reid02}.
228: A similar increase in the peak mass has been suggested by \citep{covey}. %Covey et al. (submitted).
229:
230: The slope of the segmented power-law between 0.08 and 1.0 $M_\odot$ was chosen to be $\alpha=1.3$, and the slope has been varied below 0.08 $M_\odot$ in the range $-0.6 < \alpha < 0.6$, which is the 60\% confidence interval presented by \citet{allen}.
231: It is clear that the rising and flat IMFs ($\alpha=0.6$, and $0.0$, respectively) are difficult to reconcile with the observed distribution of ratios.
232: We have quantitatively assessed the likelihood of obtaining the observed ratios from an assumed IMF as follows.
233: For each of the seven measurements, the probability of obtaining that ratio or higher, assuming an underlying IMF, is calculated by adopting the binomial theorem.
234: The product of the seven probabilities is then calculated.
235: We find these values, which we refer to as the binomial tail product, or BTP, to be $0.0012$, $2.2\times10^{-8}$, $1.8\times10^{-14}$, and $1.0\times10^{-24}$, for a Chabrier, falling, flat, and rising IMF, respectively.
236: If each cluster sample was drawn from the assumed underlying IMF, and if each cluster had an infinite number of objects, we would expect the combined product of this statistic for a sample of seven clusters to be $0.5^7=7.8\times10^{-3}$.
237: The lognormal IMF appears to reproduce the observed ratios best, followed by the falling power-law IMF\@.
238:
239: How consistent are the measured ratios with a Chabrier IMF and with what confidence can other IMFs be ruled out?
240: We have investigated that question by performing Monte Carlo simulations.
241: We created an artificial set of seven clusters, each containing 100 objects (the median number of objects in our sample).
242: The 100 objects are then assigned masses according to the assumed underlying IMF, and the ratio of stars to brown dwarfs for each cluster is determined.
243: For each of the ratios, the probability of observing that value or higher is calculated and the seven probabilities are multiplied, as was done for the observed set of clusters.
244: The BTP for the observed clusters is then compared with the distribution of BTPs just derived.
245: Because each factor in the BTP is drawn from a binomial distribution (of varying shapes), each
246: IMF gives the same expected distribution of BTPs.
247: Figure~\ref{figure2} shows the cumulative distribution of BTPs for a set of 10,000 simulations.
248:
249: Overplotted are the probabilities obtained above for the observed set of clusters assuming the four different underlying IMFs.
250: We find that 37\% of the simulations have a probability equal to or lower than what was found assuming a Chabrier IMF, and in only $\sim$0.05\%-0.1\% of the simulations is the probability equal to or lower than found assuming a falling power-law IMF\@.
251: In none of the simulations did the low probabilities for the flat or rising power-law IMFs occur
252: (P $<$ 0.01 \%).
253: The results indicate that the IMF is falling in the brown dwarf regime and that the Chabrier IMF is consistent with the observations.
254: \section{Discussion}
255:
256: The results on the IMF presented here are based on the system IMF, including binaries unresolved within 200 AU.
257: As such, they may be difficult to compare directly with the locally derived (within 20 pc) field IMF
258: discussed in \citet{allen} that suffers from a much smaller fraction of unresolved binaries.
259: Yet the overall binary frequency for ultra-cool dwarfs (M6 and later) appears to be low \citep[$\sim$20\%,][]{burgasser},
260: and furthermore the {\it relative} number of companions with separations $>$15 AU and mass ratios
261: q $>$ 0.4 may be extremely low around very cool stars $\sim$ 1\%; \citet{allen_new}.
262:
263: Indeed, if the companion mass ratio distribution follows the Chabrier IMF at wide separations, then one
264: could expect fewer very low mass companions as one surveys progressively lower mass primaries \citep[e.g.][]{siegler},
265: consistent with the observations by \citet{mccarthy}.
266: If the IMF follows a Chabrier IMF in the brown dwarf regime below 0.03 $M_\odot$
267: (say, down to the opacity limit for fragmentation of $\sim$ 0.001-0.004 $M_\odot$; \citet{whitworth},
268: then the number of stars below 1 $M_\odot$ will outnumber brown dwarfs 4.7 to 1.
269:
270: The sense of our results, that the mass function is falling in the BD regime, is consistent with various ideas put forward to
271: explain the shape of the IMF (\citet{bonnell07} and references therein). Building on the ideas of \citet{larson05},
272: \citet{bonnellbate} produced an IMF that is only weakly dependent on the Jeans mass through dynamical interactions in the cluster.
273: However, \citet{allen_new} show that the turbulent fragmentation models by \citet{batebonnell} predict too few low-mass binary systems.
274: %However, their models create large numbers of brown dwarfs through dynamical interactions leading to
275: %ejections predicting the ratio of brown dwarfs to stars to vary with environments,
276: %which we do not observe.
277: %Further, \citet{allen} finds a much higher binary fraction than is predicted by the \citet{bonnellbate} models.
278: \citet{goodwin}, on the other hand, suggest that the IMF should peak at higher masses in regions with low turbulence
279: (e.g. Taurus) which would result in a higher ratio of stars to brown dwarfs.
280: The lack of a strong variations in the ratio of stars to brown dwarfs is a problem for the turbulence models in general;
281: for example, magnetic turbulence models predict strong variations in the low-mass IMF as a function of Mach number and
282: density \citep{padoan}.
283: If the preliminary results indicated here are borne out through further
284: observations, then models that depend only weakly on initial conditions would be required (e.g. \citet{adams96}; \citet{hennebelle}).
285:
286: Possible IMF variations at least within 1 kpc are smaller than
287: can be detected by comparing the currently observed clusters.
288: Thus, there are two challenges in detecting IMF variations: (1)
289: One needs clusters with a well-sampled population to minimize the inherently stochastic nature of populating an IMF, and (2) a larger set of clusters is needed to detect even small IMF variations with initial conditions.
290: Although it appears that the variations in the IMF down to 30 $M_\mathrm{Jup}$ are modest, we still expect that variations will be seen at the lowest masses where the opacity limit for fragmentation can be reached \citep{lowlynden-bell} and the metallicity of the star forming region could be imprinted in the lower mass limit.
291:
292: \acknowledgements{We thank Joanna Levine, Kevin Luhman, and Cathy Slesnick for helpful discussions,
293: as well as Neill Reid, Charles Lada, and Pavel Kroupa for comments on a draft of this Letter.
294: The referee is acknowledged for a very fast response and for suggestions that improved the manuscript.
295: Finally, we thank the organizers of the Cool Stars 14 Splinter Session entitled
296: {The Formation of Low-Mass Protostars and Proto-Brown Dwarfs}
297: for the opportunity to present a preliminary version of this work.
298: MRM gratefully acknowledge the support of a Cottrell Scholar
299: award from the Research Corporation, NASA grant
300: GO-9846 from the Space Telescope Science Institute,
301: and the Arizona Space Grant Consortium. }
302:
303: \begin{thebibliography}{}
304:
305: \bibitem[Adams
306: \& Fatuzzo(1996)]{adams96} Adams, F.~C., \& Fatuzzo, M.\ 1996, \apj, 464, 256
307:
308: \bibitem[Allen et al.(2005)]{allen} Allen, P.~R., Koerner,
309: D.~W., Reid, I.~N., \& Trilling, D.~E.\ 2005, \apj, 625, 385
310: \bibitem[Allen(2007)]{allen_new} Allen, P.~R.\ 2007, \apj, 668,
311: 492
312:
313: \bibitem[Andersen et al.(2006)]{andersen} Andersen, M., Meyer,
314: M.~R., Oppenheimer, B., Dougados, C., \& Carpenter, J.\ 2006, \aj, 132,
315: 2296
316:
317: \bibitem[Bate
318: \& Bonnell(2005)]{batebonnell} Bate, M.~R., \& Bonnell, I.~A.\ 2005, \mnras, 356, 1201
319:
320:
321:
322: \bibitem[Bonnell et al.(2006)]{bonnellbate} Bonnell, I.~A., Clarke,
323: C.~J., \& Bate, M.~R.\ 2006, \mnras, 368, 1296
324:
325: \bibitem[Bonnell et al.(2007)]{bonnell07} Bonnell, I.~A., Larson,
326: R.~B., \& Zinnecker, H.\ 2007, Protostars and Planets V, 149
327:
328: \bibitem[Brice{\~ n}o et al.(2002)]{briceno} Brice{\~ n}o, C.,
329: Luhman, K.~L., Hartmann, L., Stauffer, J.~R., \& Kirkpatrick, J.~D.\ 2002,
330: \apj, 580, 317
331:
332:
333: \bibitem[Burgasser et al.(2007)]{burgasser} Burgasser, A.~J.,
334: Reid, I.~N., Siegler, N., Close, L., Allen, P., Lowrance, P.,
335: \& Gizis, J.\ 2007, Protostars and Planets V, 427
336:
337:
338: \bibitem[Chabrier(2002)]{chabrier02} Chabrier, G.\ 2002, \apj,
339: 567, 304
340:
341:
342:
343:
344: \bibitem[Chabrier(2003)]{chabrier} Chabrier, G.\ 2003, \pasp,
345: 115, 763
346:
347:
348:
349: \bibitem[Chabrier(2005)]{chabrier05} Chabrier, G.\ 2005, The
350: Initial Mass Function 50 Years Later, 327, 41
351:
352: \bibitem[Covey et al.(2008)]{covey} Covey, K.~R., et al.\
353: 2008, ArXiv e-prints, 807, arXiv:0807.2452
354:
355:
356:
357: %\bibitem[Cruz et al.(2007)]{cruz07} Cruz, K.~L., et al.\ 2007,
358: %\aj, 133, 439
359:
360: \bibitem[Gehrels (1986)]{gehrels86} Gehrels, N. \ 1986, \apj, 303, 336
361:
362:
363:
364: \bibitem[Goodwin et
365: al.(2004)]{goodwin} Goodwin, S.~P., Whitworth, A.~P., \& Ward-Thompson, D.\ 2004, \aap, 419, 543
366:
367:
368: \bibitem[Guieu et al.(2006)]{guieu} Guieu, S., Dougados, C.,
369: Monin, J.-L., Magnier, E., \& Mart{\'{\i}}n, E.~L.\ 2006, \aap, 446, 485
370:
371:
372: \bibitem[Hayashi \& Nakano(1963)]{hayashi} Hayashi, C., \& Nakano, T.\ 1963, Progress of Theoretical Physics, 30, 460
373:
374: \bibitem[Hennebelle
375: \& Chabrier(2008)]{hennebelle} Hennebelle, P., \& Chabrier, G.\ 2008, ArXiv e-prints, 805, arXiv:0805.0691
376:
377:
378:
379:
380: \bibitem[Hillenbrand(1997)]{hillenbrand} Hillenbrand, L.~A.\ 1997,
381: \aj, 113, 1733
382:
383:
384:
385: \bibitem[Hillenbrand \& Carpenter(2000)]{hillenbrandcarpenter} Hillenbrand,
386: L.~A., \& Carpenter, J.~M.\ 2000, \apj, 540, 236
387:
388:
389:
390:
391:
392: \bibitem[Kirkpatrick(2005)]{kirkpatrick} Kirkpatrick, J.~D.\ 2005,
393: \araa, 43, 195
394:
395:
396: \bibitem[Kroupa(2001)]{kroupa} Kroupa, P.\ 2001, \mnras, 322,
397: 231
398: \bibitem[Kumar(1963)]{kumar} Kumar, S.~S.\ 1963, \apj, 137,
399: 1121
400:
401:
402:
403: \bibitem[Lada \& Lada(2003)]{ladalada} Lada, C.~J., \& Lada,
404: E.~A.\ 2003, \araa, 41, 57
405:
406:
407:
408: \bibitem[Larson(2005)]{larson05} Larson, R.~B.\ 2005, \mnras,
409: 359, 211
410:
411:
412:
413: \bibitem[Levine et al.(2006)]{levine} Levine, J.~L.,
414: Steinhauer, A., Elston, R.~J., \& Lada, E.~A.\ 2006, \apj, 646, 1215
415:
416:
417:
418:
419: \bibitem[Low \& Lynden-Bell(1976)]{lowlynden-bell} Low, C., \&
420: Lynden-Bell, D.\ 1976, \mnras, 176, 367
421:
422: \bibitem[Luhman et al.(2000)]{luhman00} Luhman, K.~L., Rieke,
423: G.~H., Young, E.~T., Cotera, A.~S., Chen, H., Rieke, M.~J., Schneider, G.,
424: \& Thompson, R.~I.\ 2000, \apj, 540, 1016
425:
426:
427:
428:
429:
430: \bibitem[Luhman et al.(2003)]{luhman03b} Luhman, K.~L., Stauffer,
431: J.~R., Muench, A.~A., Rieke, G.~H., Lada, E.~A., Bouvier, J., \& Lada,
432: C.~J.\ 2003, \apj, 593, 1093
433:
434: \bibitem[Luhman(2004)]{luhman04} Luhman, K.~L.\ 2004, \apj, 617,
435: 1216
436:
437:
438: \bibitem[Luhman et al.(2007)]{luhman07a} Luhman, K.~L., Joergens,
439: V., Lada, C., Muzerolle, J., Pascucci, I., \& White, R.\ 2007, Protostars
440: and Planets V, 443
441:
442: \bibitem[Luhman(2007)]{luhman07b} Luhman, K.~L.\ 2007, \apjs,
443: 173, 104
444:
445:
446:
447: \bibitem[McCarthy
448: \& Zuckerman(2004)]{mccarthy} McCarthy, C., \& Zuckerman, B.\ 2004, \aj, 127, 2871
449:
450:
451:
452:
453: \bibitem[Meyer et al.(2000)]{meyer00} Meyer, M.~R., Adams,
454: F.~C., Hillenbrand, L.~A., Carpenter, J.~M., \& Larson, R.~B.\ 2000,
455: Protostars and Planets IV, 121
456:
457:
458: \bibitem[Moraux et al.(2003)]{moraux} Moraux, E., Bouvier, J.,
459: Stauffer, J.~R., \& Cuillandre, J.-C.\ 2003, \aap, 400, 891
460:
461: \bibitem[Muench et al.(2002)]{muench} Muench, A.~A., Lada,
462: E.~A., Lada, C.~J., \& Alves, J.\ 2002, \apj, 573, 366
463:
464: \bibitem[Padoan
465: \& Nordlund(2002)]{padoan} Padoan, P., \& Nordlund, {\AA}.\ 2002, \apj, 576, 870
466:
467: \bibitem[Prosser \& Stauffer (1998)]{prosser98} Prosser, C. F., \& Stauffer, J. R. 1998, ftp://cfa0.harvard.edu/pub/stauffer
468:
469: \bibitem[Reid et al.(1999)]{reid} Reid, I.~N., et al.\ 1999,
470: \apj, 521, 613
471:
472:
473: \bibitem[Reid et al.(2002)]{reid02} Reid, I.~N., Gizis, J.~E.,
474: \& Hawley, S.~L.\ 2002, \aj, 124, 2721
475:
476:
477: \bibitem[Salpeter(1955)]{salpeter} Salpeter, E.~E.\ 1955, \apj,
478: 121, 161
479: \bibitem[Scalo(1986)]{scalo} Scalo, J.~M.\ 1986, Fundamentals
480: of Cosmic Physics, 11, 1
481: \bibitem[Siegler et al.(2005)]{siegler} Siegler, N., Close,
482: L.~M., Cruz, K.~L., Mart{\'{\i}}n, E.~L.,
483: \& Reid, I.~N.\ 2005, \apj, 621, 1023
484:
485:
486:
487: \bibitem[Skrutskie et al.(2006)]{skrutskie} Skrutskie, M.~F., et
488: al.\ 2006, \aj, 131, 1163
489: \bibitem[Slesnick et al.(2004)]{slesnick} Slesnick, C.~L.,
490: Hillenbrand, L.~A., \& Carpenter, J.~M.\ 2004, \apj, 610, 1045
491:
492:
493: \bibitem[Whitworth
494: \& Stamatellos(2006)]{whitworth} Whitworth, A.~P., \& Stamatellos, D.\ 2006, \aap, 458, 817
495:
496:
497:
498:
499: \end{thebibliography}
500:
501: \clearpage
502:
503: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccccllll}
504: \rotate
505: \tablecolumns{10}
506: \tablewidth{0pc}
507: \tablecaption{Ratio of Stars to substellar Objects in Young Clusters.
508: The distance, age, number of objects in the sample, and the extinction limit used for the embedded clusters are given.
509: The four last columns gives the probability of the observed ratio having been drawn from the assumed IMFs.}
510:
511:
512: \centering
513: \tablehead{
514: \multicolumn{1}{c}{Cluster} &
515: \multicolumn{1}{c}{Dist.} &
516: \multicolumn{1}{c}{ Age } &
517: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$N_{obj}$}&
518: \multicolumn{1}{c}{Max $A_{V}$}&
519: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$R=\frac{N(0.08-1.0)}{N(0.03-0.08)}$} &
520: \multicolumn{1}{l}{P($R\ge R_{obs}$) } &
521: \multicolumn{1}{l}{P($R\ge R_{obs}$) } &
522: \multicolumn{1}{l}{P($R\ge R_{obs}$) } &
523: \multicolumn{1}{l}{P($R\ge R_{obs}$) }\\
524: \multicolumn{1}{c}{} &
525: \multicolumn{1}{c}{(pc) } &
526: \multicolumn{1}{c}{ (Myr) } &
527: \multicolumn{1}{c}{}&
528: \multicolumn{1}{c}{Mag}&
529: \multicolumn{1}{}{} &
530: \multicolumn{1}{l}{Chabrier} &
531: \multicolumn{1}{l}{$\alpha=-0.6$} &
532: \multicolumn{1}{l}{$\alpha=0$} &
533: \multicolumn{1}{l}{$\alpha=0.6$}}
534: \startdata
535:
536: %
537:
538: Taurus & 140 & 1--3 & 112 & 4.0 & $6.0^{+2.6}_{-2.0}$ & 0.286 & 0.030 & 0.002 & 2.47$\cdot10^{-5}$ \\
539: ONC & 480 & 1 & 185& 2.0 & $3.3^{+0.8}_{-0.7}$ & 0.907 & 0.744 & 0.365 & 0.066 \\
540: Mon R2 & 830 & 1 & 19 & 10 & $8.5^{+13.6}_{-5.8}$ & 0.359 & 0.182 & 0.093 & 0.035 \\
541: Chamaeleon & 160 & 2 & 24 & 5.0 & $4.0^{+3.7}_{-2.1}$ & 0.795 & 0.569 & 0.375 & 0.187 \\
542: Pleiades & 125 & 120 & 200 & 1.0 & $4.9^{+1.5}_{-1.2}$ & 0.560 & 0.056 & 0.002 & 7.39$\cdot10^{-6}$ \\
543: NGC 2024 & 460 & 1 & 50 & 11.0 & $3.8^{+2.1}_{-1.5}$ & 0.877 & 0.591 & 0.317 & 0.097 \\
544: IC 348 & 315 & 2 & 168 & 4.0 & $8.3^{+3.3}_{-2.6}$ & 0.031 & 3.00$\cdot10^{-4}$ & 1.88$\cdot10^{-6}$ & 8.21$\cdot10^{-10}$ \\
545:
546: \enddata
547: \label{results}
548:
549: \end{deluxetable}
550:
551: \clearpage
552:
553: \begin{figure}
554: \epsscale{1.}
555: \plotone{f1.ps}
556: \caption{{\it Top panel}: Histogram of the observed ratios of stars to brown dwarfs described in the text and summarized in Table~\ref{results}.
557: {\it Bottom panel}: Binomial distribution for a cluster with 100 objects drawn from either the Chabrier ({\it solid line}), the falling ($\alpha=-0.6$, {\it dotted line}), the flat ($\alpha=0$; {\it long-dashed}), or the rising ($\alpha=0.6$; {\it long-dash-dotted line}) IMF.
558: Distributions that
559: continue to rise in linear mass units below the hydrogen
560: burning limit are least consistent with the observations.}
561:
562: \label{figure1}
563: \end{figure}
564:
565: \begin{figure}
566: \epsscale{1.}
567: \plotone{f2.ps}
568: \caption{Test of the distribution of the product of probabilities if seven clusters are randomly drawn or higher from a Chabrier IMF\@. For each the probability of obtaining the observed ratio of stars to brown dwarfs is calculated and the product of the seven probabilities is determined for each of the 10\ 000 simulations.
569: The vertical lines indicate the combined probability of obtaining the observed ratios of stars to brown dwarfs for the Chabrier IMF ({\it right vertical dotted} line) and the power-law IMF that is falling in linear units in the brown dwarf regime ($\alpha=0.6$; {\it left vertical dotted} line).
570: The probabilities for the flat and rising IMF are both outside the plotted range and did not happen in any of the Monte Carlo simulations.}
571: \label{figure2}
572: \end{figure}
573:
574:
575:
576:
577:
578: \end{document}
579: \end
580: