1: \documentclass{emulateapj}
2: \usepackage{natbib,epsfig,lscape}
3: \bibliographystyle{apj}
4: \def\lap{\lower.5ex\hbox{$\; \buildrel < \over \sim \;$}}
5: \def\gap{\lower.5ex\hbox{$\; \buildrel > \over \sim \;$}}
6: \def\etal{et~al.}
7: \def\ergcm2s{${\rm erg\ cm^{-2}\ s^{-1}}$}
8: \def\cs{${\rm s^{-1}}$}
9: \def\ergscm2s{${\rm erg\ cm^{-2}\ s^{-1}}$}
10: \def\ergcms{${\rm erg\ cm^{-2}\ s^{-1}}$}
11: \def\cm-2{${\rm cm^{-2}}$}
12: \def\ergs{${\rm erg\ s^{-1}}$}
13:
14: \begin{document}
15:
16: \title{The ACS Nearby Galaxy Survey Treasury I. The Star Formation History of the M81 Outer Disk}
17:
18: \author{Benjamin F. Williams\altaffilmark{1},
19: Julianne J. Dalcanton\altaffilmark{1},
20: Anil C. Seth\altaffilmark{2},
21: Daniel Weisz\altaffilmark{3},
22: Andrew Dolphin\altaffilmark{4},
23: Evan Skillman\altaffilmark{3},
24: Jason Harris\altaffilmark{5},
25: Jon Holtzman\altaffilmark{6},
26: L\'eo Girardi\altaffilmark{7},
27: Roelof S. de Jong\altaffilmark{8},
28: Knut Olsen\altaffilmark{9},
29: Andrew Cole\altaffilmark{10},
30: Carme Gallart\altaffilmark{11},
31: Stephanie M. Gogarten\altaffilmark{1},
32: Sebastian L. Hidalgo\altaffilmark{3},
33: Mario Mateo\altaffilmark{12},
34: Keith Rosema\altaffilmark{1},
35: Peter B. Stetson\altaffilmark{13},
36: Thomas Quinn\altaffilmark{1}
37: }
38:
39: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Astronomy, Box 351580, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195; ben@astro.washington.edu; jd@astro.washington.edu; stephanie@astro.washington.edu; krosema@astro.washington.edu; trq@astro.washington.edu}
40: \altaffiltext{2}{CfA Fellow, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138; aseth@cfa.harvard.edu}
41: \altaffiltext{3}{Department of Astronomy, University of Minnesota, 116 Church St. SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455; dweisz@astro.umn.edu; skillman@astro.umn.edu; slhidalgo@astro.umn.edu}
42: \altaffiltext{4}{Raytheon, 1151 E. Hermans Road, Tucson, AZ 85706; dolphin@raytheon.com}
43: \altaffiltext{5}{Steward Observatory, University of Arizona, 933 North Cherry Avenue, Tucson, AZ 85721; jharris@as.arizona.edu}
44: \altaffiltext{6}{Department of Astronomy, New Mexico State University, Box
45: 30001, 1320 Frenger St., Las Cruces, NM 88003; holtz@nmsu.edu}
46: \altaffiltext{7}{Osservatorio Astronomico di Padova -- INAF, Vicolo
47: dell'Osservatorio 5, I-35122 Padova, Italy; leo.girardi@oapd.inaf.it}
48: \altaffiltext{8}{Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore, MD 21218; dejong@stsci.edu}
49: \altaffiltext{9}{NOAO, CTIO, Casilla 603, La Serena, Chile; kolsen@ctio.noao.edu}
50: \altaffiltext{10}{School of Mathematics and Physics, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia; andrew.cole@utas.edu.au}
51: \altaffiltext{11}{Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias, Vía Láctea, s/n, 38200 La Laguna, Tenerife, SPAIN; carme@iac.es}
52: \altaffiltext{12}{Department of Astronomy, University of Michigan, 830 Denninson Building, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1090; mmateo@umich.edu}
53: \altaffiltext{13}{Dominion Astrophysical Observatory, Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics,National Research Council, 5071 West Saanich Road, Victoria, BC V9E 2E7, Canada; Peter.Stetson@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca}
54:
55: \keywords{ galaxies: individual (M81) --- galaxies: stellar populations
56: --- galaxies: spiral --- galaxies: evolution}
57:
58:
59: \begin{abstract}
60:
61:
62: The ACS Nearby Galaxy Survey Treasury (ANGST) is a large {\it Hubble
63: Space Telescope (HST)} Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS) treasury
64: program to obtain resolved stellar photometry for a volume-limited
65: sample of galaxies out to 4~Mpc. As part of this program, we have
66: obtained deep ACS imaging of a field in the outer disk of the large
67: spiral galaxy M81. The field contains the outskirts of a spiral arm
68: as well as an area containing no current star formation. Our imaging
69: results in a color-magnitude diagram (CMD) reaching to m$_{F814W}$ =
70: 28.8 and m$_{F606W}$ = 29.5, one magnitude fainter than the red clump.
71: Through detailed modeling of the full CMD, we quantify the age and
72: metallicity distribution of the stellar populations contained in the
73: field. The mean metallicity in the field is $-1<[{\rm M/H}]<0$ and
74: only a small fraction of stars have ages $\lap$1 Gyr. The results show
75: that most of the stars in this outer disk field were formed by $z\sim
76: 1$ and that the arm structure at this radius has a lifetime of
77: $\gap$100 Myr. We discuss the measured evolution of the M81 disk in
78: the context of surveys of high-redshift disk galaxies and deep stellar
79: photometry of other nearby galaxies. All of these indicate that
80: massive spiral disks are mostly formed by z$\sim$1 and that they have
81: experienced rapid metal enrichment.
82:
83: \end{abstract}
84:
85: \section{Introduction}
86:
87: Analytic and numerical models indicate that spiral disks should grow
88: and evolve with time due to continued gas accretion, interactions,
89: spiral density waves, and internal viscous evolution
90: \citep{fall1980,dalcanton1997,mo1998,vandenbosch2001,bell2002,shen2006,debattista2006,governato2007}.
91: Current observational constraints on the evolution of disks have come
92: largely through identifying changes in the bulk properties of the
93: galaxy population from in situ measurements at high redshifts (up to
94: $z\sim1-1.5$). However, these observational attempts to confirm disk
95: evolution models give conflicting results
96: \citep{simard1999,ravindranath2004,trujillo2004,barden2005,melbourne2007,cameron2007},
97: likely due to selection effects that are difficult to quantify.
98: Fortunately, the evolution of disks can be independently constrained
99: with photometry of the resolved stellar populations in nearby
100: galaxies. Such photometry provides a fossil record of the formation
101: and evolution of the disk and complements the findings of redshift
102: surveys.
103:
104:
105: Resolved stellar photometry provides the most detailed data with which
106: to determine the star formation history (SFH) of a galaxy. By fitting
107: stellar evolution models to an observed color-magnitude diagram (CMD),
108: we can recover the stellar ages and metallicities that best reproduce
109: the color and magnitude distribution of a galaxy's stars. To fully
110: tap this capability, the ACS Nearby Galaxy Survey Treasury (ANGST) has
111: undertaken a program to measure resolved stellar photometry for a
112: volume-limited sample of galaxies \citep{dalcanton2008}. Within this
113: volume, large galaxies dominate the stellar mass. Of these, the
114: largest and most well-studied at all wavelengths is M81, a massive
115: SA(s)ab spiral disk at a distance of 3.9 Mpc \citep{tikhonov2005} with
116: low foreground extinction \citep[A$_V$=0.27; ][]{schlegel1998}. Its
117: luminosity \citep[M$_K$=-24; ][]{skrutskie2006} places it at $2.5{\rm
118: L_*}$ \citep[assuming M$_{K*}$=-23; ][]{kochanek2001}, making it characteristic
119: of the disk galaxies seen in redshift surveys out to $z\sim 1$
120: \citep[e.g.,][]{oyaizu2008}.
121:
122: M81 provides a key laboratory for using resolved stellar photometry to
123: look for relics of the evolution seen at high-redshift.
124: Several surveys suggest that large disk galaxies like M81 have their
125: disks in place by $z\sim 1$, after which luminosity evolution
126: dominates
127: \citep{lilly1998,ravindranath2004,papovich2005,sargent2007,melbourne2007}.
128: In this context, understanding the SFH of nearby large disk galaxies
129: like M81 provides complementary insight into their evolution that
130: is free of any biases contained in redshift survey samples.
131:
132: Much work has been done to understand the evolution of M81 from its
133: star clusters \citep{ma2005,perelmuter1995}, its X-ray source
134: population \citep{swartz2003}, and its young supergiant stars as seen
135: in the near infrared \citep{davidge2006}. Its structure and evolution
136: have been studied in detail from ultraviolet to radio
137: \citep{perez-gonzalez2006,willner2004,gordon2004,li2004,westpfahl1998},
138: but very little work has been done to integrate these results with the
139: resolved stellar populations.
140:
141: Most work on resolved stellar populations in M81 has relied on the
142: {\it Hubble Space Telescope (HST)} to resolve the individual stars, as
143: only stars brighter than the red giant branch (RGB) tip are resolved
144: from the ground \citep[e.g.,][]{madore1993}. \citet{tikhonov2005}
145: studied the resolved stellar populations of M81 with archival WFPC2
146: and ACS data, and there are several {\it HST} programs that are
147: currently underway with greater depth and spatial coverage
148: \citep{dejong2007,Sarajedini2005,zezas2005,huchra2004}. The results
149: from these programs will allow detailed comparisons with those from
150: integrated light studies.
151:
152: Herein we describe the ANGST measurements of the SFH of the outer disk
153: of M81 using F606W and F814W stellar photometry. The outer disk has
154: low enough crowding that precision photometry can be obtained below
155: the red clump with ACS, and provides leverage with which to
156: potentially constrain size evolution of the galactic disk. \S2
157: details our data acquisition and reduction techniques. \S3 discusses
158: our analysis of specific portions of the color-magnitude diagram
159: (CMD), and \S4 details our analysis of the full CMD to determine the
160: SFH of the field. Finally, \S5 summarizes the conclusions drawn from
161: these results, placing our measurements in the context of disk galaxy
162: surveys and resolved stellar populations of other large galaxies. We
163: adopt a cosmology with $H=73$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$, $\Omega_\Lambda
164: = 0.76$, and $\Omega_M = 0.24$ for all lookback time calculations, and
165: we assume a distance to M81 of 3.9 Mpc for conversions of angular
166: measurements to physical distances.
167:
168: \section{Data Acquisition and Reduction}
169:
170: From 2006-Nov-16 to 2006-Nov-22, we observed a field in the outskirts
171: of the M81 disk located at R.A.~(2000) =148.644625 (09:54:34.7),
172: decl.~(2000) = +69.2804 (+69:16:49.4) with a rotation angle
173: PA\_V3=89.81. Figure~\ref{field_loc} shows an outline of the field
174: location, which is 14$'$ (16 kpc at M81) out along the major axis and
175: corresponds to 5 scale lengths an 18 effective radii of the bulge
176: \citep[$h_r \sim 3$ kpc and bulge $R_e \sim 0.9$ kpc,][]{kendall2008}.
177: The equivalent location in M31, as shown on the inset in
178: Figure~\ref{field_loc}, suggests that the disk population is likely to
179: still dominate at this radius if M81 and M31 are similar. This
180: suggestion is consistent with the ongoing analysis of
181: \citet{dejong2007}, which finds that the halo population does not
182: dominate until galactocentric distances $\gap20$ kpc.
183:
184: %NED: morph type: SA(s)ab
185: %NED; min/maj = 0.524; inc = 58.4 deg
186:
187: We obtained 9 full-orbit exposures with the ACS \citep{ford1998}
188: through the F606W (wide $V$) filter, and 11 full-orbit exposures
189: through the F814W ($I$ equivalent) filter. These data totaled 24132~s
190: and 29853~s of exposure time in F606W and F814W, respectively.
191: Routine image calibration, including bias corrections and
192: flat-fielding, were performed by the {\it HST} pipeline, OPUS version
193: 2006\_5, CALACS version 4.6.1. We processed the images by running the
194: {\tt multidrizzle} task within PyRAF \citep{koekemoer}. This procedure
195: was used only to flag the cosmic rays in the individual images, after
196: which, photometry was measured simultaneously for all of the objects
197: in the uncombined images using the software package DOLPHOT
198: \citep{dolphin2000} including the ACS module. This package is
199: optimized for measuring photometry of stars on ACS images using the
200: well-characterized and stable point spread function (PSF), calculated
201: with TinyTim.\footnote{http://www.stsci.edu/software/tinytim/} The
202: software fits the PSF to all of the stars in each individual frame to
203: find PSF magnitudes. It then determines and applies the aperture
204: correction for each image using the most isolated stars, corrects for
205: the charge transfer efficiency of the ACS detector, combines the
206: results from the individual exposures, and converts the measured count
207: rates to the VEGAmag system.
208:
209: The DOLPHOT output was then filtered to only allow objects classified
210: as stars with signal-to-noise $>$6 in both filters. The list was
211: further culled using sharpness ($|F606W_{sharp} + F814W_{sharp}| <
212: 0.27$) and crowding ($F606W_{crowd} + F814W_{crowd} < 0.1$). The
213: sharpness cut was chosen based on the distribution of values in the
214: original catalog. This distribution is shown in Figure~\ref{sharp}
215: and flattens at a value of $\sim$0.27. The crowding parameter gives
216: the difference between the magnitude of a star measured before and
217: after subtracting the neighboring stars in the image. When this value
218: is large, it suggests that the star's photometry was significantly
219: affected by crowding, and we therefore exclude it from our catalog.
220: Quality cuts based on the $\chi$ values were also considered, but they
221: were rejected when a correlation was found between $\chi$ and the
222: local background. Our final star catalog for the field contained
223: 120912 stars detected in both F606W and F814W, and the resulting CMD
224: is shown in Figure~\ref{cmds}.
225:
226: The same software package was used to perform artificial star tests
227: using identical measurement techniques and quality cuts. We ran
228: 2.5$\times$10$^6$ artificial stars to characterize our photometry
229: errors and completeness as a function of color, magnitude, and
230: position. In each iteration, a single star was added to the images,
231: and the photometry of the images was remeasured in the area where the
232: star was added, including a radius of the PSF size plus the photometry
233: aperture size to include the photometry of all stars whose photometry
234: could be affected by the existence of the artificial star. Half of
235: the artificial stars were sampled randomly in color and magnitude
236: covering the full range present in our observed CMD plus an additional
237: magnitude fainter to account for upscatter of faint stars into our
238: recovered magnitude range. The other half were sampled following the
239: color and magnitude distribution of our observed CMD after
240: extrapolating the distribution to fainter magnitudes to account for
241: upscatter. The artificial stars were distributed randomly over the
242: field of view. The photometric errors measured from our tests are
243: shown in Figure~\ref{ast_errs}, and the completeness measured from our
244: tests is shown in Figure~\ref{ast_comp}. When fitting the
245: color-magnitude distribution of the stars, we included only stars
246: brighter than a 60\% completeness limit as measured from the
247: artificial star tests ($m_{F606W} = 29.1$ and $m_{F814W} = 28.4$). At
248: this depth and this Galactic latitude ($b = 40.9^{\circ}$), the
249: expected number of Galactic foreground stars is $\lap$20
250: arcmin$^{-2}$, suggesting foreground contamination in our field of
251: $\lap$200 objects or $<$0.2\% of the total number of stars.
252:
253:
254: \section{Red Clump and Asymptotic Giant Branch Bump Analysis}\label{rcfit}
255:
256: \subsection{Overview}
257:
258: Before attempting to understand the complexities of the CMD as a
259: whole, we first focus on a few key stellar evolution features in our
260: full-field CMD that help to give a broad sense of the range of ages
261: and metallicities of the stars in the field (Figure~\ref{cmds}). The
262: vertical plume at $m_{F606W}-m_{F814W}=0$ is due to the young
263: population of stars that is still on the main sequence. The handful
264: of stars populating the diagram brightward and slightly redward of
265: this plume are massive core He-burning stars, which are young stars
266: that have recently evolved off of the main sequence. We plot the
267: spatial distribution of the main sequence stars in
268: Figure~\ref{subdivide}; the young stars are clearly concentrated in
269: the inner disk (seen in the bottom of the image) and in the extension
270: of the spiral arm seen in Figure~\ref{field_loc}.
271:
272: Several older populations are seen as well. The dense clump of stars
273: at $m_{F814W}\sim27.8$ is the red clump
274: \citep{cannon1970,sarajedini1999}, which corresponds to the core-He
275: burning phase of all intermediate-age and old populations which are
276: neither too old, nor too metal-poor, to develop the horizontal branch.
277: Brightward of this feature is another, less prominent peak, known as
278: the asymptotic giant branch (AGB) bump \citep{gallart1998}, which
279: corresponds to the so-called early-AGB phase of low-mass stars, during
280: which He shell burning transits from a very extended to a thin shell.
281: Extending vertically through both the red clump and AGB bump is a
282: broad RGB with a well-defined tip, indicating the presence of a range
283: of ages and metallicities in the field. Brightward of this tip is a
284: relatively small number of thermally-pulsating AGB stars, i.e. stars
285: in the stage of double shell burning which undergo recurrent He shell
286: flashes. The most luminous among these thermally-pulsating AGB stars
287: have intense winds that eventually shed their outer layers to become
288: planetary nebulae.
289:
290: \subsection{Red Clump and AGB Bump Fitting Method}
291:
292: To investigate the general characteristics of the stellar populations
293: in our field, we first performed precision measurements of the very
294: well-defined red clump and AGB bump, seen at $m_{F814W}\sim27.8$ and
295: $m_{F814W}\sim26.7$ in the diagrams in Figure~\ref{cmds} respectively.
296: These are areas of the CMD containing a high density of stars,
297: allowing their precise locations to be measured and directly compared
298: to stellar evolution models. The colors and luminosities of these
299: features have been used to constrain the properties of stellar
300: populations \citep{rejkuba2005,tanaka2008}. We include such a
301: measurement here to take advantage of the depth and quality of our
302: photometry and to allow for intercomparisons with other such
303: analyses. However, as we discuss below, uncertainties with the models
304: of these discrete features substantially limit the interpretation of
305: these measurements, making simultaneous fitting of the full CMD
306: preferable; we present such fits in \S~4.
307:
308: We measured the magnitudes of the red clump and AGB bump by creating a
309: magnitude histogram from our photometry and fitting it with a
310: combination of a line and 2 Gaussians, following the methods of
311: \citet{rejkuba2005}. We then fit Gaussians to histograms of slices
312: through color space taken at the measured peak magnitudes
313: (Figure~\ref{fits}). The red clump in this outer region of the M81
314: disk has $m_{F814W}=27.792\pm0.002$ (FWHM=0.450) and $m_{F606W} -
315: m_{F814W}=0.855\pm0.001$ (FWHM=0.363). The AGB bump has
316: $m_{F814W}=26.72\pm0.01$ (FWHM=0.27) and $m_{F606W} -
317: m_{F814W}=0.974\pm0.002$ (FWHM=0.346). These are the raw measurements
318: for these features; no extinction correction has been applied.
319:
320: We then measured the locations of model red clumps and AGB bumps by
321: populating the isochrones of \citet{girardi2002} including updates of
322: AGB models in
323: \citet{marigo2008}.\footnote{http://stev.oapd.inaf.it/cmd}
324: We used the StarFISH \citep{harris2001} task {\tt testpop}, to produce
325: a grid of CMDs for discrete ages and metallicities, assigning
326: extinctions, distances, errors, and completeness measured from our
327: data (see \S~\ref{sfh}). We then ran our red clump and AGB bump
328: fitting technique on this grid of model CMDs to measure the location
329: of these features as a function of age and metallicity.
330:
331: We determined the model red clump and AGB bump with F606W and F814W
332: magnitudes closest to those observed in our field, assuming an adopted
333: distance of $(m-M)_0=27.93$ and extinction of $A_V=0.27$. These
334: distance and extinction values resulted in a grid of model red clump
335: and AGB bump values that did not intersect with our measured values.
336: We therefore show a model grid with a farther assumed distance
337: ($(m-M)_0=28.0$) and higher extinction ($A_V=0.3$) in
338: Figure~\ref{rejkuba}, to produce a grid that does intersect with our
339: observed values. From this analysis, the models suggest that the red
340: clump is dominated by stars with an age of $\sim$2--3 Gyr and
341: [M/H]$\sim$-0.4 and that the AGB bump is dominated by older, more
342: metal-poor stars with an age of $\sim$10 Gyr and [M/H]$\sim$-0.7.
343:
344: Because the precise colors and magnitudes of the red clump and AGB
345: bump do not provide reliable conclusions (see S~\ref{interpretation}),
346: we also investigated the relative numbers of stars contained within
347: the red clump and AGB bump features. This measurement should be
348: insensitive to distance and extinction. We calculated the integral of
349: the functional fit to the magnitude histogram including and excluding
350: the Gaussian terms corresponding to each feature. The difference
351: between these integrals provided the number of stars within each
352: feature. The ratio of the number of stars in the AGB bump to that
353: contained in the red clump ($N_{AGBb}:N_{RC}$) was 0.044$\pm$0.008.
354: Errors are the standard deviation of the same measurement made on 100
355: random samples of our data and are dominated by the small number of
356: stars in the AGB bump. Comparing this range of ratios to the ratios
357: obtained by running the same calculations on the functional fits to
358: models suggests that the dominant stellar population of our sample is
359: metal-rich and older than $3$~Gyr (see Figure~\ref{ratios}). The
360: ratio is therefore consistent with the color and magnitude of the
361: model AGB, but less so with those of the red clump, in that the model
362: red clump is fainter than it should be for a population old enough to
363: have this fraction of AGB bump stars.
364:
365:
366: \subsection{Interpretation of Red Clump and AGB Bump Fitting Results}\label{interpretation}
367:
368: Although analyses similar to those above are becoming common, the red
369: clump and AGB-bump colors, magnitudes, and relative numbers cannot
370: provide conclusive results about the age and metallicity distribution
371: of the population. The reasons for the inconclusive results include
372: the sensitivity of the results to known deficiencies of stellar
373: evolution models as well as to the assumed distance and reddening of
374: the stars in the CMD.
375:
376: We found our fits to the color and magnitude of the red clump and AGB
377: bump difficult to interpret because they are particularly sensitive to
378: weaknesses of the stellar evolution models. The majority of the red
379: clump models are faint compared to our observed red clump. While the
380: trends of the colors and luminosities of the red clump and AGB bump
381: with age and metallicity (older and more metal-rich are fainter and
382: redder) are robust against model updates and different model
383: prescriptions, the absolute colors and luminosities are less stable.
384: For example, red clump model luminosities depend primarily on
385: opacities and neutrino losses during the previous RGB phase, which are
386: still subject to significant variations in the
387: literature. \citet{girardi2002} models of the red clump are known to
388: be some of the faintest because of their treatment of these processes
389: \citep{castellani2000}. This effect can be seen in
390: Figure~\ref{rejkuba}, where nearly all of the model red clumps are
391: fainter than our observed red clump even though most of the model AGB
392: bumps are brighter than our observed AGB bump.
393:
394: The $N_{AGBb}:N_{RC}$ ratio is also difficult to interpret. The ratio
395: predicted by the models is sensitive to the assumed helium content and
396: the treatment of convective cores, including complex processes such as
397: overshooting and semiconvection, rendering any conclusions based on
398: this ratio alone unreliable.
399:
400: Furthermore, fits to the color and magnitude of the red clump and AGB
401: bump depend on the extinction and distance values applied to the
402: models, as changes of only $\sim$0.1 mag in color or luminosity of the
403: features correspond to differences of $\sim$0.3 dex in metallicity and
404: log(age). The effects of distance and reddening uncertainty are shown
405: with the arrows in Figure~\ref{rejkuba}. While the adopted distance
406: affects mainly the measured age, the adopted reddening largely affects
407: the measured metallicity. More specifically, if we assume only
408: foreground extinction value ($A_V=0.27$), our best-fitting ages remain
409: the same, but the metallicities become [M/H]$\sim$-0.4 and
410: [M/H]$\sim$-0.1 for the AGB bump and red clump, respectively. If we
411: assume a distance modulus of $(m-M)_0=27.9$, the best-fitting ages and
412: metallicities are [M/H]$\sim$-0.7, [M/H]$\sim$-0.5 and $\sim$13 Gyr,
413: $\sim$5 Gyr for the AGB bump and red clump respectively.
414:
415: In summary, while studying the red clump and AGB bump properties in
416: detail is helpful for getting some sense of the overall age and
417: metallicity of the population, or perhaps for constraining relative
418: ages and metallicities among different galaxies, the results'
419: sensitivity to uncertainties in stellar models, distance, and
420: extinction, make this analysis less than optimal for obtaining
421: reliable information about the stellar populations. Furthermore, no
422: single age and metallicity will precisely fit the observed values
423: because these features contain populations of a range of ages and
424: metallicities. These difficulties with single component fitting make
425: it necessary to perform more sophisticated statistical fits to the
426: entire CMD to decipher the range of ages and metallicities present in
427: our field. Full CMD fitting helps to reduce the effects of model
428: deficiencies, providing an overall picture of the age and metallicity
429: of the population even if some details of the models are wrong.
430:
431:
432: \section{Full CMD Fitting}\label{sfh}
433:
434: \subsection{Fitting Technique and Models Used}
435:
436: We measured the complete SFH, including the star formation rate and
437: metallicity as functions of age, using the MATCH package
438: \citep{dolphin2002}. This software fits the entire observed CMD by
439: populating the stellar evolution models of \citet[][with updated AGB
440: models from \citealp{marigo2008}]{girardi2002} with a given initial
441: mass function (IMF), finding the distance modulus, extinction, and
442: linear combination of ages and metallicities that best fit the
443: observed color and magnitude distribution \citep[see details
444: in][]{dolphin2002}.
445:
446: As was the case for the simplified AGB bump and red clump analysis,
447: the results of full CMD fitting rely on the stellar evolution models
448: used to fit the CMD. There are known discrepancies between different
449: sets of stellar evolution models in the RGB, red clump, and AGB bump
450: phases of evolution (see Figure 10 of \citealp{gallart2005a}). The
451: reasons for the discrepancies are many, from the adopted input physics
452: to the uncertainty in mass loss during the RGB and AGB phases of
453: evolution. These differences affect the location and morphology of
454: these regions of the observed CMD.
455:
456: On the other hand, the shape of the red clump region does contain
457: information about the SFH. The fitting algorithms are sensitive to
458: this information if they are set to fit the distance and reddening
459: values independently in order to compensate for offsets between model
460: red clump positions. For instance, the RGB colors are sensitive to
461: both age and metallicity, whereas the RGB-red clump color difference
462: is more sensitive to the age \citep{hatzidimitriou1991}. While many
463: age-metallicity models could fit the overall RGB color distribution,
464: when the red clump is present its color difference forces the
465: SFH-recovery towards the best-fitting age distribution, provided that
466: it is allowed to fit also the red clump magnitude (e.g. by adjusting
467: the distance). The final result is that this area of the CMD provides
468: a reliable SFH, even if the models for the red clump contain offsets.
469: To test this point, we ran a different fitting code and stellar
470: evolution library to fit our full-field data. We applied the
471: IAC-STAR/IAC-POP/MINNIAC CMD fitting codes \citep[][Hidalgo, S. L. et
472: al. 2008, AJ, in preparation]{aparicio2004,aparicio2008} to our data
473: using the BaSTI stellar evolution models \citep{pietrinferni2004}.
474: The broad trends on the resulting SFH were totally consistent.
475:
476: This point is strengthened by the tests of \citet{barker2007}, who
477: compared results for SFHs as determined with different sets of stellar
478: evolution models and found differences in the details but agreement
479: for general population characteristics. Furthermore, the results of
480: \citet{tolstoy1998} and \citet{cole2007} show that, while SFHs based
481: on the main-sequence turnoff provide more reliable age information at
482: older ages than those from shallower photometry, the general trends
483: determined in shallower photometry are robust. To avoid drawing
484: conclusions based on the finest details in age and metallicity applied
485: to fit the CMD (see \S~\ref{binning}), we bin our results to an age
486: and metallicity resolution where both the CMD fitting method and
487: stellar evolution models are well-tested and the limitations are
488: known.
489:
490: \subsection{Field Division}
491:
492: Our field contained a portion of a spiral arm running through the
493: north and east portion of the image. The bifurcated arm, which may
494: have been created by an interaction, can be seen in the locations of
495: the main-sequence stars, which are mainly limited to the northeast
496: portion and the southeast corner (Figure~\ref{subdivide}). This
497: distribution shows that the northeast spiral arm is split, with a spur
498: to the north, consistent with H~I maps of \citet{yun1994} and
499: \citet{adler1996}. The recent star formation in this structure is
500: likely to be at least partially due to a tidal stream from one of
501: several recent interactions with other galaxies in the M81 group
502: \citep{yun1994,yun1999}. The southeast region of the image is more
503: crowded as well, where it skims the inner disk.
504:
505: For measuring the SFH, we divided the field into regions inside the
506: arm, outside the arm, and the more crowded inner disk, as shown in
507: Figure~\ref{subdivide}. Since the crowding and extinction are
508: different in each of these subregions, we determined the error and
509: completeness characteristics separately for each subregion. The final
510: CMDs for the arm and interarm subregions are shown along with the full
511: CMD in Figure~\ref{cmds}.
512:
513: \subsection{Fitting Parameters}\label{binning}
514:
515: To model a full CMD, several fitting parameters must be chosen. These
516: choices include the binary fraction, IMF slope, the area of the CMD to
517: include in the fit, the approximate distance and mean extinction to
518: the stars in the field, and the binning of the stellar evolution
519: models in time and metallicity. Below we discuss how we chose these
520: parameters and how the choices impact our results.
521:
522: When populating the model isochrones, we assumed a binary fraction of
523: 0.35 and a \citet{salpeter1955} IMF. As has been shown by other
524: studies using this technique \citep[e.g.,][]{williams2007,barker2007},
525: for photometry that does not include the main sequence of old stars,
526: the IMF assumed does not affect the relative star formation rates in
527: the SFH, but does affect the normalization of the SFH. This
528: normalization effect occurs because the red clump, RGB, and AGB probe
529: a narrow range of initial mass. Therefore changing the slope has
530: little effect on the relative star formation rates, but a large effect
531: on the extrapolation of the mass contained in the underlying
532: unresolved low-mass main-sequence stars. Since we are not attempting
533: to determine the precise star formation rate but rather are interested
534: in the relative SFH within the field, a Salpeter IMF is sufficient for
535: our purposes.
536:
537: When fitting the color-magnitude distribution of the stars, we
538: included all stars brighter than our 60\% completeness limit for the
539: full field to avoid large completeness corrections in our model
540: fitting. This completeness cut corresponds to $m_{F606W} = 29.1$ and
541: $m_{F814W} = 28.4$, and only stars brighter than these magnitudes were
542: included in our model fits. We allowed the distance modulus to range
543: from 27.75 to 28.2 and the extinction to range from $A_V=0.1$ to
544: $A_V=0.7$, which allows MATCH to determine the systematic errors that
545: result from small changes to these parameters and to optimize the
546: overall CMD fit even in the presence of localized deficiencies in the
547: model isochrones. While differential extinction can, in principle, be
548: a problem for fitting a CMD with a single extinction value, our M81
549: field lies in a region with very little visible dust structure in {\it
550: Spitzer} maps \citep{kendall2008}. Furthermore, modest amounts of
551: differential extinction have been shown to have little impact on the
552: results of full CMD fitting \citep{williams2002}.
553:
554: The best-fitting distances (see Table~\ref{table}) were all consistent
555: with $(m-M)_0=27.9$ within the errors, which agree with the Cepheid
556: distance from the {\it HST} key project
557: \citep[$(m-M)_0=27.8\pm0.2$;][]{freedman1994} and the distance
558: determined by measuring the tip of the RGB in archival WFPC2
559: photometry \citep[$(m-M)_0=27.93\pm0.04$;][]{tikhonov2005}.
560:
561: The best-fitting extinction for the interarm region was consistent
562: with the value of A$_V$=0.27 obtained from \citet{schlegel1998} for
563: the Milky Way foreground extinction (see Table~\ref{table}). We note
564: that the arm subregion had a measured extinction value that was
565: significantly higher than the Milky Way foreground, reflecting the
566: higher dust content expected in the arm region.
567:
568: We used a fine logarithmic time and metallicity resolution (0.1 dex)
569: when fitting the CMD to allow the best possible fit to the data. The
570: fit to the full data set is shown in Figures~\ref{residuals} and
571: \ref{lf_residuals}. The full CMD fitting confirms that the models are
572: not able to perfectly reproduce the red clump and AGB bump, as
573: expected from our discussion of uncertainties in \S~\ref{rcfit}.
574: These are the only two features of the CMD that show significant
575: differences between the data and the best-fitting model (bottom-right
576: panel of Figure~\ref{residuals}), confirming that the models of these
577: features still need improvement. After performing the full CMD fit,
578: we binned the age and metallicity results to coarser time resolution
579: to reduce our SFH errors. Therefore while our fit did not force the
580: star formation rate or metallicity to be constant within a given
581: temporal bin, our final SFHs only show the mean rate and metallicity
582: within each temporal bin to avoid drawing conclusions based on details
583: of the fit that may not be robust against changes in models and
584: fitting methods.
585:
586: \subsection{Error Determination}
587:
588: In addition to measuring the most likely SFH for our field, we ran
589: Monte Carlo tests to determine the random uncertainties of the
590: fits. We generated CMDs by randomly drawing stars from our observed
591: CMD, allowing each star to be drawn any number of times. We then
592: measured SFHs for the resulting CMDs and calculated differences from
593: the best-fit to the actual data. We generated 100 samples with the
594: same number of stars as our observed CMD, adopting each of the SFHs
595: measured from our data to determine the random errors for each
596: subfield. These errors were then added in quadrature to the
597: systematic errors, determined by fitting the CMDs with a range of
598: possible distance and reddening values, to provide the our final
599: errors on the rate, metallicity, and cumulative fraction of stars
600: formed as a function of time.
601:
602: We note that our choice of time bin widths was very coarse for ages
603: $>$2~Gyr to reflect our sensitivity to age from the RGB and AGB. From
604: $\sim$2--8~Gyr (9.3$<$log(age)$<$9.9), the age distribution comes
605: mostly from the relatively small number of stars on the AGB, which is
606: a very short-lived and difficult to model stage of evolution. From
607: 8--14~Gyr (9.9$<$log(age)$<$10.15) age has very little effect on the
608: morphology of the AGB and RGB features. In addition, our metallicity
609: measurements at young ages ($<$100 Myr) have large errors. Our only
610: metallicity information for these ages comes from the relatively small
611: number of stars on the short-lived He-burning sequences. Despite
612: these unavoidable sources of uncertainty in age and metallicity,
613: overall we are able to obtain very reliable estimates of the relative
614: contributions of stars of old ($>$8~Gyr), intermediate (2--8~Gyr), and
615: young ($<$2~Gyr) ages. Furthermore, we obtain reliable metallicities
616: covering all but the youngest ages. Finally, the cumulative age
617: distribution is stable against uncertainties at intermediate ages
618: because systematic errors in the star formation rates in adjacent time
619: bins are typically anti-correlated.
620:
621: \subsection{The SFH of the Full Field}
622:
623: The SFH of the entire field and the three independent subfields are
624: shown in Figures~\ref{all_sfh}--\ref{cum}. For the history of star
625: formation in the full field (Figure~\ref{all_sfh} and
626: Table~\ref{table2}), we find that more than 50\% of the stars
627: currently at 5 scale lengths from the galactic center formed by $z\sim
628: 1$, and $\sim$70\% formed by $z\sim 0.5$. The bulk of the stars have
629: $-1\lap {\rm [M/H]} \lap 0$, with no significant metallicity
630: difference between the arm and interarm regions and with no evidence
631: for a significant metal-poor component. Such a metallicity is
632: consistent with the mean metallicities found by \citet[][$<${{\rm
633: [M/H]}}$> \sim -0.65$]{tikhonov2005} from stellar photometry in 5
634: WFPC2 fields spanning a range of galactocentric distances out to
635: $\sim$5 scale lengths. It therefore appears that M81 was chemically
636: enriched very early in its history. Moreover, the metallicity has not
637: changed by more than $\sim$1.0 dex (and possibly as little as 0.5 dex)
638: since its very early history.
639:
640: Although our metallicity results for recent times have large errors,
641: their values (-0.5$<{\rm [M/H]}<$0.0 at ages from 10 Myr to 100~Myr;
642: Figure~\ref{all_sfh}) are consistent with the gas-phase metallicity at
643: this radius (${\rm [O/H]}\sim-0.3$) inferred from the abundance
644: gradients of \citet{zaritsky1994}, suggesting that the gas responsible
645: for this structure is from M81 and not recently accreted gas from a
646: more metal-poor interacting satellite. However, this metallicity does
647: not rule out the possibility that the gas came from a metal-rich
648: satellite, such as NGC 3077 \citep[{{\rm
649: [M/H]}}$\sim$0,][]{martin1997}.
650:
651: \subsection{The SFHs of the Subregions}
652:
653: Figure~\ref{comparesfh} shows the SFHs of the three subregions
654: overplotted with the SFH of the total field. It is clear that the sum
655: of the results of the three subregions measured independently is
656: consistent with the result of the entire field measured at once. The
657: consistency between the 3 independently measured SFHs and the total
658: SFH for the field confirms that our measurement technique provides
659: reliable and consistent results in a field containing regions with
660: moderately different crowding and extinction properties. Furthermore,
661: the more crowded portion of the field, closest to the galaxy center,
662: has a SFH more similar to that of the interarm region than to that of
663: the arm region, showing that this area is not part of an arm and is of
664: higher density only because it is closer to the galaxy center.
665:
666: While these three regions should have obvious differences in their
667: recent SFHs (based on the distribution of main sequence stars;
668: cf. Figure~\ref{subdivide}), the older stellar populations should be
669: well mixed on timescales longer than the dynamical time ($\gap$0.5
670: Gyr). Indeed, we measure similar SFHs at times $\gap$0.5 Gyr. At
671: younger ages, the interarm region shows a clear deficit of stars
672: younger than a few hundred Myr. Fractionally, this difference
673: corresponds to $\sim$2\% of the total star formation (see
674: Figure~\ref{cum} and Table~\ref{table2}). The arm region of our field
675: contains essentially all of the stars with ages $\lap$100 Myr. This
676: shows that the stars have not scattered out of the arm structure on
677: this timescale. In addition, there is a significantly higher fraction
678: of stars with ages $\lap$0.5~Gyr in the arm region than in the other
679: regions. It therefore appears that the arm structure in this region
680: has a lifetime of $\gap$100 Myr and that full dispersion occurs on a
681: timescale of $\sim$0.5 Gyr. The characteristic width of the arm
682: region, divided by the typical lifetime gives an approximate speed for
683: the diffusion of stars. Assuming an arm width of $\sim$1 kpc
684: \citep{westpfahl1998} divided by a lifetime of $\sim$100 Myr yields a
685: diffusion speed of $\sim$10 km s$^{-1}$, which is similar to the
686: velocity dispersion of B stars in the Milky Way disk
687: \citep{dehnen1998}. Therefore the timescales we are measuring for
688: this arm feature are consistent with the stellar kinematics of our own
689: Galactic disk. Since our data contain main-sequence and He-burning
690: sequence information for the populations of these ages, spatially
691: resolved SFHs, with a time resolution of $\sim$ 25 Myr over the last
692: $\sim$ 300 Myr are currently in progress and will be presented in
693: future papers (\citealp{gogarten2008}; B. Williams et al.,
694: in preparation).
695:
696: \section{Conclusions}
697:
698: We have performed deep resolved stellar photometry of an ACS field in
699: the outer disk of M81. The metallicities of the stars in the field
700: appear to have increased by at most $\sim$0.5 dex over the past 10 Gyr
701: from -1.0$\lap$[M/H]$\lap$-0.5 to -0.5$\lap$[M/H]$\lap$0, suggesting
702: early enrichment and a mechanism at work diluting the enrichment
703: products of roughly continuous star formation.
704:
705: Similar behavior has been seen in the thick disk of the Milky Way and
706: several other nearby large galaxies. Figure~\ref{galaxies} shows the
707: metallicities of the dominant stellar population for several nearby
708: galaxies and the Milky Way thick disk as a function of galaxy
709: luminosity, field location, and dominant stellar age. The Milky Way
710: thick disk has characteristic ages of 9--12 Gyr and metallicities of
711: [M/H]$\gap -0.7$ \citep{gilmore1995,prochaska2000,allendeprieto2006}.
712: Thick disks in somewhat smaller galaxies also appear to have
713: metallicities $>$-1.0 \citep{seth2005}. In addition, deep {\it HST}
714: photometry of the M31 disk has revealed populations dominated by stars
715: in this age and metallicity range
716: \citep{williams2002,olsen2006,brown2006}, as has deep photometry of
717: the outer disk of M33 \citep{barker2007}. All of these results
718: suggest that the histories of these large disk galaxies may have been
719: similar.
720:
721: Furthermore, even in the outskirts of large ellipticals, such as
722: NGC~5128 \citep[${\rm [M/H]}\sim$-0.6 and age$\sim$8
723: Gyr,][]{rejkuba2005} and NGC~3377 \citep[${\rm [M/H]}\sim$-0.6 and age
724: $>$3 Gyr,]{harris2007}, the age and metallicity of the dominating
725: population is similar to that seen in the outer regions of M81 and
726: other large disks. Taken together, these data point to a large galaxy
727: formation scenario with rapid early enrichment to [M/H]$\gap$-1.0,
728: before lookback times of $\sim$7 Gyr ($z>0.9$).
729:
730: There is also significant evidence that most of the stars in this
731: field were formed by $z\sim 1$. Such a result is in general agreement
732: with the findings of several recent galaxy surveys, which find that
733: the disk galaxy population appears to have undergone little growth
734: since $z\sim 1$ \citep[e.g.,
735: ][]{melbourne2007,sargent2007,papovich2005,barden2005,ravindranath2004,lilly1998}.
736: While M81 is only one large disk galaxy and our field is only a small
737: portion of it, the similarity to Milky Way, M31, and even lower mass
738: M33's stellar populations supports the same scenario. Measurements of
739: the stellar populations of local disks therefore strengthen the
740: results of some galaxy surveys by attacking the problem with a
741: completely independent technique and finding a similar result.
742:
743: Finally, the spatial distribution of main-sequence stars in the field
744: show that the field partially covers the outskirts of a spiral arm as
745: well as an interarm region. Detailed analysis of the resulting CMDs
746: for the contrasting regions shows that the difference between the
747: populations is due to the fraction of stars with ages younger than
748: $\sim$0.5~Gyr ago and results from only a small percentage ($\sim$2\%)
749: of the stars, similar to the arm and interarm populations seen in M31
750: disk populations \citep{williams2002}. In addition, stars younger
751: than $\sim$100 Myr appear to be confined to the arm region, suggesting
752: the structure survives for at least 100 Myr.
753:
754: Support for this work was provided by NASA through grant GO-10915 from
755: the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by the
756: Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Incorporated,
757: under NASA contract NAS5-26555.
758:
759: \begin{thebibliography}{83}
760:
761: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Adler} \& {Westpfahl}}{{Adler} \&
762: {Westpfahl}}{1996}]{adler1996}
763: {Adler}, D.~S., \& {Westpfahl}, D.~J. 1996, \aj, 111, 735
764:
765: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Allende Prieto} et~al.}{{Allende Prieto}
766: et~al.}{2006}]{allendeprieto2006}
767: {Allende Prieto}, C., {Beers}, T.~C., {Wilhelm}, R., {Newberg}, H.~J.,
768: {Rockosi}, C.~M., {Yanny}, B., \& {Lee}, Y.~S. 2006, \apj, 636, 804
769:
770: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Alves} \& {Sarajedini}}{{Alves} \&
771: {Sarajedini}}{1999}]{sarajedini1999}
772: {Alves}, D.~R., \& {Sarajedini}, A. 1999, \apj, 511, 225
773:
774: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Aparicio} \& {Gallart}}{{Aparicio} \&
775: {Hidalgo}}{2004}]{aparicio2004}
776: {Aparicio}, A., \& {Gallart}, C. 2004, \aj, 128, 1465
777:
778: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Aparicio} \& {Hidalgo}}{{Aparicio} \&
779: {Hidalgo}}{2008}]{aparicio2008}
780: {Aparicio}, A., \& {Hidalgo}, S.~L. 2008, \apj, submitted
781:
782: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Barden} et~al.}{{Barden}
783: et~al.}{2005}]{barden2005}
784: {Barden}, M., et~al. 2005, \apj, 635, 959
785:
786: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Barker} et~al.}{{Barker}
787: et~al.}{2007}]{barker2007}
788: {Barker}, M.~K., {Sarajedini}, A., {Geisler}, D., {Harding}, P., \&
789: {Schommer}, R. 2007, \aj, 133, 1138
790:
791: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Bell}}{{Bell}}{2002}]{bell2002}
792: {Bell}, E.~F. 2002, \apj, 581, 1013
793:
794: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Brown} et~al.}{{Brown}
795: et~al.}{2006}]{brown2006}
796: {Brown}, T.~M., {Smith}, E., {Ferguson}, H.~C., {Rich}, R.~M., {Guhathakurta},
797: P., {Renzini}, A., {Sweigart}, A.~V., \& {Kimble}, R.~A. 2006, \apj, 652,
798: 323
799:
800: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Cameron} \& {Driver}}{{Cameron} \&
801: {Driver}}{2007}]{cameron2007}
802: {Cameron}, E., \& {Driver}, S.~P. 2007, \mnras, 377, 523
803:
804: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Cannon}}{{Cannon}}{1970}]{cannon1970}
805: {Cannon}, R.~D. 1970, \mnras, 150, 111
806:
807: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Castellani} et~al.}{{Castellani}
808: et~al.}{2000}]{castellani2000}
809: {Castellani}, V., {Degl'Innocenti}, S., {Girardi}, L., {Marconi}, M., {Prada
810: Moroni}, P.~G., \& {Weiss}, A. 2000, \aap, 354, 150
811:
812: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Cole} et~al.}{{Cole} et~al.}{2007}]{cole2007}
813: {Cole}, A.~A., et~al. 2007, \apjl, 659, L17
814:
815: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Dalcanton} et~al.}{{Dalcanton} et~al.}{2008}]{dalcanton2008}
816: {Dalcanton}, J.~J., et~al. 2008, \apj, submitted
817:
818: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Dalcanton}, {Spergel}, \&
819: {Summers}}{{Dalcanton} et~al.}{1997}]{dalcanton1997}
820: {Dalcanton}, J.~J., {Spergel}, D.~N., \& {Summers}, F.~J. 1997, \apj, 482, 659
821:
822: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Davidge}}{{Davidge}}{2006}]{davidge2006}
823: {Davidge}, T.~J. 2006, astro-ph/0610646
824:
825: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{de Jong}, {Radburn-Smith}, \& {Sick}}{{de
826: Jong} et~al.}{2007}]{dejong2007}
827: {de Jong}, R.~S., {Radburn-Smith}, D.~J., \& {Sick}, J.~N. 2007, ArXiv
828: e-prints, 0710.5511
829:
830: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Debattista} et~al.}{{Debattista}
831: et~al.}{2006}]{debattista2006}
832: {Debattista}, V.~P., {Mayer}, L., {Carollo}, C.~M., {Moore}, B., {Wadsley}, J.,
833: \& {Quinn}, T. 2006, \apj, 645, 209
834:
835: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Dehnen} \& {Binney}}{{Dehnen} \&
836: {Binney}}{1998}]{dehnen1998}
837: {Dehnen}, W., \& {Binney}, J.~J. 1998, \mnras, 298, 387
838:
839: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Dolphin}}{{Dolphin}}{2000}]{dolphin2000}
840: {Dolphin}, A.~E. 2000, \pasp, 112, 1383
841:
842: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Dolphin}}{{Dolphin}}{2002}]{dolphin2002}
843: {Dolphin}, A.~E. 2002, \mnras, 332, 91
844:
845: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Fall} \& {Efstathiou}}{{Fall} \&
846: {Efstathiou}}{1980}]{fall1980}
847: {Fall}, S.~M., \& {Efstathiou}, G. 1980, \mnras, 193, 189
848:
849: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Ferguson} et~al.}{{Ferguson}
850: et~al.}{2002}]{ferguson2002}
851: {Ferguson}, A.~M.~N., {Irwin}, M.~J., {Ibata}, R.~A., {Lewis}, G.~F., \&
852: {Tanvir}, N.~R. 2002, \aj, 124, 1452
853:
854: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Ford} et~al.}{{Ford} et~al.}{1998}]{ford1998}
855: {Ford}, H.~C., et~al. 1998, in Presented at the Society of Photo-Optical
856: Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference, Vol. 3356, Proc. SPIE Vol. 3356,
857: p. 234-248, Space Telescopes and Instruments V, Pierre Y. Bely; James B.
858: Breckinridge; Eds., ed. P.~Y. {Bely} \& J.~B. {Breckinridge}, 234
859:
860: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Freedman} et~al.}{{Freedman}
861: et~al.}{1994}]{freedman1994}
862: {Freedman}, W.~L., et~al. 1994, \apj, 427, 628
863:
864: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Gallart}}{{Gallart}}{1998}]{gallart1998}
865: {Gallart}, C. 1998, \apjl, 495, L43
866:
867: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Gallart}, {Zoccali}, \& {Aparicio}}{{Gallart}
868: et~al.}{2005}]{gallart2005a}
869: {Gallart}, C., {Zoccali}, M., \& {Aparicio}, A. 2005, \araa, 43, 387
870:
871: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Gilmore}, {Wyse}, \& {Jones}}{{Gilmore}
872: et~al.}{1995}]{gilmore1995}
873: {Gilmore}, G., {Wyse}, R.~F.~G., \& {Jones}, J.~B. 1995, \aj, 109, 1095
874:
875: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Girardi} et~al.}{{Girardi}
876: et~al.}{2002}]{girardi2002}
877: {Girardi}, L., {Bertelli}, G., {Bressan}, A., {Chiosi}, C., {Groenewegen},
878: M.~A.~T., {Marigo}, P., {Salasnich}, B., \& {Weiss}, A. 2002, \aap, 391, 195
879:
880: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Gogarten} et~al.}{{Gogarten} et~al.}{2008}]{gogarten2008}
881: {Gogarten}, S.~M., et al. 2008, \apj, submitted
882:
883: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Gordon} et~al.}{{Gordon}
884: et~al.}{2004}]{gordon2004}
885: {Gordon}, K.~D., et~al. 2004, \apjs, 154, 215
886:
887: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Governato} et~al.}{{Governato}
888: et~al.}{2007}]{governato2007}
889: {Governato}, F., {Willman}, B., {Mayer}, L., {Brooks}, A., {Stinson}, G.,
890: {Valenzuela}, O., {Wadsley}, J., \& {Quinn}, T. 2007, \mnras, 374, 1479
891:
892: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Harris} \& {Zaritsky}}{{Harris} \&
893: {Zaritsky}}{2001}]{harris2001}
894: {Harris}, J., \& {Zaritsky}, D. 2001, \apjs, 136, 25
895:
896: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Harris} et~al.}{{Harris}
897: et~al.}{2007}]{harris2007}
898: {Harris}, W.~E., {Harris}, G.~L.~H., {Layden}, A.~C., \& {Stetson}, P.~B.
899: 2007, \aj, 134, 43
900:
901: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Hatzidimitriou}}{{Hatzidimitriou}}{1991}]{hatzidimitriou1991}
902: {Hatzidimitriou}, D. 1991, \mnras, 251, 545
903:
904: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Huchra}}{{Huchra}}{2004}]{huchra2004}
905: {Huchra}, J. 2004, in HST Proposal, 6568
906:
907: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Kendall} et~al.}{{Kendall}
908: et~al.}{2008}]{kendall2008}
909: {Kendall}, S., {Kennicutt}, R.~C., {Clarke}, C., \& {Thornley}, M.~D. 2008,
910: ArXiv e-prints, 804.2380
911:
912: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Kochanek} et~al.}{{Kochanek}
913: et~al.}{2001}]{kochanek2001}
914: {Kochanek}, C.~S., et~al. 2001, \apj, 560, 566
915:
916: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Koekemoer} et~al.}{{Koekemoer}
917: et~al.}{2002}]{koekemoer}
918: {Koekemoer}, A.~M., {Fruchter}, A.~S., {Hook}, R.~N., \& {Hack}, W. 2002, in
919: The 2002 HST Calibration Workshop : Hubble after the Installation of the ACS
920: and the NICMOS Cooling System, Proceedings of a Workshop held at the Space
921: Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore, Maryland, October 17 and 18, 2002.
922: Edited by Santiago Arribas, Anton Koekemoer, and Brad Whitmore. Baltimore,
923: MD: Space Telescope Science Institute, 2002., p.337, ed. S.~{Arribas},
924: A.~{Koekemoer}, \& B.~{Whitmore}, 337
925:
926: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Li} et~al.}{{Li} et~al.}{2004}]{li2004}
927: {Li}, J.-L., {Zhou}, X., {Ma}, J., \& {Chen}, J.-S. 2004, Chinese Journal of
928: Astronomy and Astrophysics, 4, 143
929:
930: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Lilly} et~al.}{{Lilly}
931: et~al.}{1998}]{lilly1998}
932: {Lilly}, S., et~al. 1998, \apj, 500, 75
933:
934: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Ma} et~al.}{{Ma} et~al.}{2005}]{ma2005}
935: {Ma}, J., {Zhou}, X., {Chen}, J., {Wu}, Z., {Yang}, Y., {Jiang}, Z., \& {Wu},
936: J. 2005, \pasp, 117, 256
937:
938: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Madore}, {Freedman}, \& {Lee}}{{Madore}
939: et~al.}{1993}]{madore1993}
940: {Madore}, B.~F., {Freedman}, W.~L., \& {Lee}, M.~G. 1993, \aj, 106, 2243
941:
942: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Marigo} et~al.}{{Marigo}
943: et~al.}{2008}]{marigo2008}
944: {Marigo}, P., {Girardi}, L., {Bressan}, A., {Groenewegen}, M.~A.~T., {Silva},
945: L., \& {Granato}, G.~L. 2008, \aap, 482, 883
946:
947: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Martin}}{{Martin}}{1997}]{martin1997}
948: {Martin}, C.~L. 1997, \apj, 491, 561
949:
950: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Melbourne} et~al.}{{Melbourne}
951: et~al.}{2007}]{melbourne2007}
952: {Melbourne}, J., {Phillips}, A.~C., {Harker}, J., {Novak}, G., {Koo}, D.~C.,
953: \& {Faber}, S.~M. 2007, \apj, 660, 81
954:
955: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Mo}, {Mao}, \& {White}}{{Mo}
956: et~al.}{1998}]{mo1998}
957: {Mo}, H.~J., {Mao}, S., \& {White}, S.~D.~M. 1998, \mnras, 295, 319
958:
959: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Mouhcine}}{{Mouhcine}}{2006}]{mouhcine2006}
960: {Mouhcine}, M. 2006, \apj, 652, 277
961:
962: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Olsen} et~al.}{{Olsen}
963: et~al.}{2006}]{olsen2006}
964: {Olsen}, K.~A.~G., {Blum}, R.~D., {Stephens}, A.~W., {Davidge}, T.~J.,
965: {Massey}, P., {Strom}, S.~E., \& {Rigaut}, F. 2006, \aj, 132, 271
966:
967: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Oyaizu} et~al.}{{Oyaizu}
968: et~al.}{2008}]{oyaizu2008}
969: {Oyaizu}, H., {Lima}, M., {Cunha}, C.~E., {Lin}, H., {Frieman}, J., \&
970: {Sheldon}, E.~S. 2008, \apj, 674, 768
971:
972: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Papovich} et~al.}{{Papovich}
973: et~al.}{2005}]{papovich2005}
974: {Papovich}, C., {Dickinson}, M., {Giavalisco}, M., {Conselice}, C.~J., \&
975: {Ferguson}, H.~C. 2005, \apj, 631, 101
976:
977: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Perelmuter}, {Brodie}, \&
978: {Huchra}}{{Perelmuter} et~al.}{1995}]{perelmuter1995}
979: {Perelmuter}, J.-M., {Brodie}, J.~P., \& {Huchra}, J.~P. 1995, \aj, 110, 620
980:
981: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{P{\'e}rez-Gonz{\'a}lez}
982: et~al.}{{P{\'e}rez-Gonz{\'a}lez} et~al.}{2006}]{perez-gonzalez2006}
983: {P{\'e}rez-Gonz{\'a}lez}, P.~G., et~al. 2006, \apj, 648, 987
984:
985: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Pietrinferni} et~al.}{{Pietrinferni}
986: et~al.}{2004}]{pietrinferni2004}
987: {Pietrinferni}, A., {Cassisi}, S., {Salaris}, M., \& {Castelli},
988: F. 2004, \apj, 612, 168
989:
990: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Prochaska} et~al.}{{Prochaska}
991: et~al.}{2000}]{prochaska2000}
992: {Prochaska}, J.~X., {Naumov}, S.~O., {Carney}, B.~W., {McWilliam}, A., \&
993: {Wolfe}, A.~M. 2000, \aj, 120, 2513
994:
995: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Ravindranath} et~al.}{{Ravindranath}
996: et~al.}{2004}]{ravindranath2004}
997: {Ravindranath}, S., et~al. 2004, \apjl, 604, L9
998:
999: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Rejkuba} et~al.}{{Rejkuba}
1000: et~al.}{2005}]{rejkuba2005}
1001: {Rejkuba}, M., {Greggio}, L., {Harris}, W.~E., {Harris}, G.~L.~H., \& {Peng},
1002: E.~W. 2005, \apj, 631, 262
1003:
1004: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Sakai} et~al.}{{Sakai}
1005: et~al.}{2000}]{sakai2000}
1006: {Sakai}, S., et~al. 2000, \apj, 529, 698
1007:
1008: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Salpeter}}{{Salpeter}}{1955}]{salpeter1955}
1009: {Salpeter}, E.~E. 1955, \apj, 121, 161
1010:
1011: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Sarajedini}}{{Sarajedini}}{2005}]{Sarajedini2005}
1012: {Sarajedini}, A. 2005, in HST Proposal, 6924
1013:
1014: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Sargent} et~al.}{{Sargent}
1015: et~al.}{2007}]{sargent2007}
1016: {Sargent}, M.~T., et~al. 2007, \apjs, 172, 434
1017:
1018: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Schlegel}, {Finkbeiner}, \&
1019: {Davis}}{{Schlegel} et~al.}{1998}]{schlegel1998}
1020: {Schlegel}, D.~J., {Finkbeiner}, D.~P., \& {Davis}, M. 1998, \apj, 500, 525
1021:
1022: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Seth}, {Dalcanton}, \& {de Jong}}{{Seth}
1023: et~al.}{2005}]{seth2005}
1024: {Seth}, A.~C., {Dalcanton}, J.~J., \& {de Jong}, R.~S. 2005, \aj, 130, 1574
1025:
1026: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Shen} \& {Sellwood}}{{Shen} \&
1027: {Sellwood}}{2006}]{shen2006}
1028: {Shen}, J., \& {Sellwood}, J.~A. 2006, \mnras, 370, 2
1029:
1030: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Simard} et~al.}{{Simard}
1031: et~al.}{1999}]{simard1999}
1032: {Simard}, L., et~al. 1999, \apj, 519, 563
1033:
1034: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Skrutskie} et~al.}{{Skrutskie}
1035: et~al.}{2006}]{skrutskie2006}
1036: {Skrutskie}, M.~F., et~al. 2006, \aj, 131, 1163
1037:
1038: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Swartz} et~al.}{{Swartz}
1039: et~al.}{2003}]{swartz2003}
1040: {Swartz}, D.~A., {Ghosh}, K.~K., {McCollough}, M.~L., {Pannuti}, T.~G.,
1041: {Tennant}, A.~F., \& {Wu}, K. 2003, \apjs, 144, 213
1042:
1043: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Tanaka} et~al.}{{Tanaka}
1044: et~al.}{2008}]{tanaka2008}
1045: {Tanaka}, M., {Chiba}, M., {Komiyama}, Y., {Iye}, M., \& {Guhathakurta}, P.
1046: 2008, in Mapping the Galaxy and Nearby Galaxies, ed. K.~{Wada} \&
1047: F.~{Combes}, 381
1048:
1049: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Tikhonov}, {Galazutdinova}, \&
1050: {Drozdovsky}}{{Tikhonov} et~al.}{2005}]{tikhonov2005}
1051: {Tikhonov}, N.~A., {Galazutdinova}, O.~A., \& {Drozdovsky}, I.~O. 2005, \aap,
1052: 431, 127
1053:
1054: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Tolstoy} et~al.}{{Tolstoy}
1055: et~al.}{1998}]{tolstoy1998}
1056: {Tolstoy}, E., et~al. 1998, \aj, 116, 1244
1057:
1058: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Tremonti} et~al.}{{Tremonti}
1059: et~al.}{2004}]{tremonti2004}
1060: {Tremonti}, C.~A., et~al. 2004, \apj, 613, 898
1061:
1062: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Trujillo} et~al.}{{Trujillo}
1063: et~al.}{2004}]{trujillo2004}
1064: {Trujillo}, I., et~al. 2004, \apj, 604, 521
1065:
1066: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{van den Bosch}}{{van den
1067: Bosch}}{2001}]{vandenbosch2001}
1068: {van den Bosch}, F.~C. 2001, \mnras, 327, 1334
1069:
1070: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Verheijen}}{{Verheijen}}{2001}]{verheijen2001}
1071: {Verheijen}, M.~A.~W. 2001, \apj, 563, 694
1072:
1073: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Westpfahl}}{{Westpfahl}}{1998}]{westpfahl1998}
1074: {Westpfahl}, D.~J. 1998, \apjs, 115, 203
1075:
1076: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Williams}}{{Williams}}{2002}]{williams2002}
1077: {Williams}, B.~F. 2002, \mnras, 331, 293
1078:
1079: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Williams} et~al.}{{Williams}
1080: et~al.}{2007}]{williams2007}
1081: {Williams}, B.~F., et~al. 2007, \apj, 656, 756
1082:
1083: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Willner} et~al.}{{Willner}
1084: et~al.}{2004}]{willner2004}
1085: {Willner}, S.~P., et~al. 2004, \apjs, 154, 222
1086:
1087: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Yun}}{{Yun}}{1999}]{yun1999}
1088: {Yun}, M.~S. 1999, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 186, Galaxy Interactions at Low and
1089: High Redshift, ed. J.~E. {Barnes} \& D.~B. {Sanders}, 81
1090:
1091: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Yun}, {Ho}, \& {Lo}}{{Yun}
1092: et~al.}{1994}]{yun1994}
1093: {Yun}, M.~S., {Ho}, P.~T.~P., \& {Lo}, K.~Y. 1994, \nat, 372, 530
1094:
1095: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Zaritsky}, {Kennicutt}, \&
1096: {Huchra}}{{Zaritsky} et~al.}{1994}]{zaritsky1994}
1097: {Zaritsky}, D., {Kennicutt}, R.~C., Jr., \& {Huchra}, J.~P. 1994, \apj, 420,
1098: 87
1099:
1100: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Zezas}}{{Zezas}}{2005}]{zezas2005}
1101: {Zezas}, A. 2005, in HST Proposal, 6904
1102:
1103: \end{thebibliography}
1104:
1105:
1106: \clearpage
1107:
1108: \begin{deluxetable}{lcc}\tablewidth{7cm}
1109: \tablecaption{Distances and Extinction Values from MATCH}
1110: \tablehead{
1111: \colhead{Subfield} &
1112: \colhead{$(m-M)_0$} &
1113: \colhead{$A_V$}
1114: }
1115:
1116: \startdata
1117: Full & 27.89$\pm$0.05 & 0.38$\pm$0.06\\
1118: Arm & 27.88$\pm$0.08 & 0.45$\pm$0.06\\
1119: Interarm & 27.92$\pm$0.06 & 0.33$\pm$0.06\\
1120: Crowd & 27.88$\pm$0.06 & 0.32$\pm$0.06\\
1121: \enddata
1122: \label{table}
1123: \end{deluxetable}
1124:
1125:
1126: \begin{deluxetable}{lcc}\tablewidth{7cm}
1127: \tablecaption{Cumulative Fraction of Stars Formed at Each Age}
1128: \tablehead{
1129: \colhead{Redshift} &
1130: \colhead{Age (Gyr)} &
1131: \colhead{Fraction of Stars Formed}
1132: }
1133:
1134: \startdata
1135: 0.001 & 0.01&1.000$^{+0.000}_{-0.000}$\\
1136: 0.002 & 0.03&0.999$^{+0.000}_{-0.000}$\\
1137: 0.004 & 0.05&0.999$^{+0.000}_{-0.000}$\\
1138: 0.006 & 0.08&0.999$^{+0.000}_{-0.000}$\\
1139: 0.010 & 0.13&0.999$^{+0.000}_{-0.001}$\\
1140: 0.015 & 0.20&0.997$^{+0.001}_{-0.001}$\\
1141: 0.024 & 0.32&0.994$^{+0.001}_{-0.002}$\\
1142: 0.049 & 0.63&0.979$^{+0.006}_{-0.006}$\\
1143: 0.216 & 2.51&0.848$^{+0.069}_{-0.070}$\\
1144: 1.080 & 7.94&0.622$^{+0.055}_{-0.066}$\\
1145: \nodata & 14.1&0.000$^{+0.000}_{-0.000}$\\
1146: \enddata
1147: \label{table2}
1148: \end{deluxetable}
1149:
1150:
1151: \clearpage
1152:
1153: \begin{figure}
1154: \centerline{\epsfig{file=f1.eps,width=6.0in,angle=0}}
1155: \caption{The locations of our M81-DEEP field and our defined
1156: subregions of the field shown on a DSS image. The arrow marks the
1157: apparent spur of the Northern spiral arm according to the distribution
1158: of main-sequence stars in our field. Inset on the lower-right corner
1159: is the equivalent location of our M81-DEEP field shown with a white
1160: box on a star count map of M31 \citep{ferguson2002}. The inner and
1161: outer edges of the field are located at the same scale lengths as in
1162: M81.}
1163: \label{field_loc}
1164: \end{figure}
1165:
1166: \begin{figure}
1167: \centerline{\epsfig{file=f2.ps,width=6.0in,angle=0}}
1168: \caption{{\it Histogram}: The distribution of the combined sharpness
1169: values for objects in our initial photometry catalog. {\it Vertical
1170: Line}: The sharpness cut we applied to our final photometry catalog.}
1171: \label{sharp}
1172: \end{figure}
1173:
1174: \clearpage
1175:
1176: %\begin{landscape}
1177:
1178: \begin{figure}
1179: \centerline{\epsfig{file=f3.ps,height=7.0in,angle=270}}
1180: \caption{{\it Left:} The F606W, F814W CMD for our entire ACS
1181: field. Lines show a small subset of the isochrones used to fit the
1182: data \citep[][shifted assuming $A_V=0.3$ and $(m-M)_0 =
1183: 27.9$]{marigo2008}. Isochrones shown are (from blue to red):
1184: [M/H]=-0.4, log(age)=7.3; [M/H]=-0.4, log(age)=7.6; [M/H]=-0.4,
1185: log(age)=8.0; [M/H]=-0.4, log(age)=8.3; [M/H]=-0.4, log(age)=8.6;
1186: [M/H]=-1.3, log(age)=10; [M/H]=-0.7, log(age)=10; [M/H]=-0.4,
1187: log(age)=10; [M/H]=-0.2, log(age)=10; [M/H]=0, log(age)=10. {\it
1188: Middle:} The CMD of the arm region shown in Figure~\ref{subdivide}.
1189: {\it Right:} The CMD of the interarm region shown in
1190: Figure~\ref{subdivide}. In areas where the points would saturate the
1191: plot, we provide contours following the density of points in that part
1192: of the CMD.}
1193: \label{cmds}
1194: \end{figure}
1195:
1196: %\end{landscape}
1197:
1198:
1199:
1200:
1201: \begin{figure}
1202: \centerline{\epsfig{file=f4.ps,width=6.0in,angle=0}}
1203: \caption{The borders of the subregions used in our SFH analysis. Blue
1204: crosses mark the locations of main sequence stars in the field. Main
1205: sequence stars were chosen using a hand-drawn polygon that followed
1206: the edges of the blue plume of stars in the CMD. The color and
1207: magnitude limits of the polygon were approximately 24$<$F814W$<$28 and
1208: -0.2$<$F606W-F814W$<$0.3.}
1209: \label{subdivide}
1210: \end{figure}
1211:
1212:
1213:
1214:
1215: \begin{figure}
1216: \centerline{\epsfig{file=f5.ps,width=6.0in,angle=90}}
1217: \caption{{\it Top:} The mean residual magnitude and root-mean-square
1218: error of the artificial star tests in the F606W filter measurements
1219: are shown as a function of input star magnitude. {\it Bottom:} Same
1220: as {\it Top}, but for the F814W filter measurements.}
1221: \label{ast_errs}
1222: \end{figure}
1223:
1224:
1225: \begin{figure}
1226: \centerline{\epsfig{file=f6.ps,width=6.0in,angle=0}}
1227: \caption{The completeness measured from our artificial star tests is
1228: shown in grayscale as a function of color and magnitude. The scale is
1229: linear, with 100\% completeness shown as black and 0\% completeness
1230: shown as white. White diamonds mark the completeness limit used to fit
1231: the SFH of the field.}
1232: \label{ast_comp}
1233: \end{figure}
1234:
1235:
1236: \begin{figure}
1237: \centerline{\epsfig{file=f7.ps,width=6.0in,angle=0}}
1238: \caption{{\it Left:} Gaussian plus line fits to our measured magnitude
1239: histogram to determine the magnitude of the red clump (drawn in red)
1240: and AGB bump (drawn in blue). {\it Right:} Gaussian fits to the
1241: color histograms measured at the best-fit magnitude of the red clump
1242: (red) and AGB bump (blue).}
1243: \label{fits}
1244: \end{figure}
1245:
1246:
1247: \begin{figure}
1248: \centerline{\epsfig{file=f8.ps,width=6.0in,angle=0}}
1249: \caption{{\it Left:} Small portion of our full-field CMD centered on
1250: the red clump region. The black circle marks the best-fitting center
1251: for the feature. The white circle marks the measured height and width
1252: of the feature ($\sigma_{({\rm m}_{F606W}-{\rm m}_{F814W})}$ = 0.154;
1253: $\sigma_{{\rm m}_{F814W}}$ = 0.191). Boxes mark the locations of the
1254: fits to the same feature in model CMDs convolved with our photometric
1255: errors and completeness. Redder colors denote higher metallicities
1256: (the metallicity range is -1.0$<$[M/H]$<$0.2); larger boxes denote
1257: older ages (2 Gyr$<$age$<$13 Gyr). Large error bars in the upper
1258: right show the 1-sigma width of the feature in a single age and
1259: metallicity CMD ($\sigma_{({\rm m}_{F606W}-{\rm m}_{F814W})}$ = 0.129;
1260: $\sigma_{{\rm m}_{F814W}}$ = 0.146). Arrows show our 1-sigma error
1261: ranges for distance and reddening. ({\it Right:} Same as {\it Left},
1262: but for a small portion of our full-field CMD centered on the AGB bump
1263: region. The measured height and width of the feature are
1264: $\sigma_{({\rm m}_{F606W}-{\rm m}_{F814W})}$ = 0.148 and $\sigma_{{\rm
1265: m}_{F814W}}$ = 0.123. Values for the 1-sigma width of the feature in
1266: the a single age and metallicity CMD are $\sigma_{({\rm
1267: m}_{F606W}-{\rm m}_{F814W})}$ = 0.070 and $\sigma_{{\rm m}_{F814W}}$ =
1268: 0.073) Note the fitted AGB bump center is slightly brighter than the
1269: mode value due the the slope of the luminosity function skewing the
1270: mode to fainter magnitudes. Predicted magnitudes assume $A_V=0.3$ and
1271: $(m-M)_0=28.0$.}
1272: \label{rejkuba}
1273: \end{figure}
1274:
1275: \begin{figure}
1276: \centerline{\epsfig{file=f9.eps,width=6.0in,angle=0}}
1277: \caption{The age-metallicity plane. Contours denote different
1278: $N_{AGBb}:N_{RC}$ ratios, increasing from 0.026 to 0.051 from left to
1279: right and labeled. The shaded area denotes where model stellar populations have a
1280: ratio $N_{AGBb}:N_{RC}$ consistent with that measured from our data.}
1281: \label{ratios}
1282: \end{figure}
1283:
1284:
1285: \begin{figure}
1286: \centerline{\epsfig{file=f10.ps,width=6.0in,angle=0}}
1287: \caption{Our best full CMD fit to the data from the entire field.
1288: {\it Upper-left:} The observed CMD. {\it Upper-right:} The
1289: best-fitting model CMD from MATCH. {\it Lower-left:} The residual CMD.
1290: Redder colors denote an overproduction of model stars. Bluer colors
1291: denote an underproduction of model stars. {\it Lower-right:} The
1292: deviations shown in {\it lower-left} normalized by the Poisson error
1293: in each CMD bin. This plot shows the significance of the residuals in
1294: {\it lower-left}. Only the red clump and AGB bump show significant
1295: residuals.}
1296: \label{residuals}
1297: \end{figure}
1298:
1299: \begin{figure}
1300: \centerline{\epsfig{file=f11.ps,width=6.0in,angle=0}}
1301: \caption{Histograms of the luminosity functions of our best full CMD
1302: fit to the data from the entire field. {\it Black:} The observed
1303: luminosity function of the entire field. {\it Gray:} The luminosity
1304: function of the best-fit model CMD.}
1305: \label{lf_residuals}
1306: \end{figure}
1307:
1308:
1309:
1310: \begin{figure}
1311: \centerline{\epsfig{file=f12.ps,height=6.0in,angle=0}}
1312: \caption{The SFH of the entire ACS field as determined by the MATCH
1313: package. {\it Top:} The solid histogram marks the star formation rate
1314: (normalized by sky area) as a function of time for the past 14
1315: Gyr. The dashed line marks the best-fitting constant star formation
1316: rate model. {\it Middle:} The mean metallicity and metallicity range
1317: of the population as a function of time. Heavy error bars mark the
1318: measured metallicity range, and lighter error bars mark how that range
1319: can slide because of errors in the mean metallicity. {\it Bottom:}
1320: Same as {\it top}, but showing only the results for the past 1.3 Gyr.}
1321: \label{all_sfh}
1322: \end{figure}
1323:
1324: \begin{figure}
1325: \centerline{\epsfig{file=f13.ps,height=6.0in,angle=0}}
1326: \caption{The SFH of the arm subregion as determined by the MATCH
1327: package. Lines, error bars, and panels are the same as in
1328: Figure~\ref{all_sfh}.}
1329: \label{arm_sfh}
1330: \end{figure}
1331:
1332:
1333: \begin{figure}
1334: \centerline{\epsfig{file=f14.ps,height=6.0in,angle=0}}
1335: \caption{The SFH of the interarm subregion as determined by the MATCH
1336: package. Lines, error bars, and panels are the same as in
1337: Figure~\ref{all_sfh}.}
1338: \label{noarm_sfh}
1339: \end{figure}
1340:
1341:
1342: \begin{figure}
1343: \centerline{\epsfig{file=f15.ps,height=6.0in,angle=0}}
1344: \caption{The SFH of the crowded southern subregion as determined by
1345: the MATCH package. Lines, error bars, and panels are the same as in
1346: Figure~\ref{all_sfh}.}
1347: \label{crowd_sfh}
1348: \end{figure}
1349:
1350:
1351:
1352: \begin{figure}
1353: \centerline{\epsfig{file=f16.ps,width=6.0in,angle=0}}
1354: \caption{The SFH of all subregions are overplotted. Rates are not
1355: normalized by area in order to show the contribution of each subregion
1356: to the star formation of the total field. {\it Black:} The SFH of the
1357: full field as determined by the MATCH package. {\it Blue:} The SFH of
1358: the arm subregion as determined by the MATCH package. {\it Green:}
1359: The SFH of the crowded, southern subregion as determined by the MATCH
1360: package. {\it Red:} The SFH of the interarm subregion as determined
1361: by the MATCH package.}
1362: \label{comparesfh}
1363: \end{figure}
1364:
1365:
1366: \begin{figure}
1367: \centerline{\epsfig{file=f17.ps,width=6.0in,angle=0}}
1368: \caption{{\it Black:} The normalized cumulative star formation of the
1369: full field as determined by the MATCH package.}
1370: \label{cum}
1371: \end{figure}
1372:
1373:
1374: \clearpage
1375:
1376: \begin{figure}
1377: \centerline{\epsfig{file=f18.ps,height=6.5in,angle=0}}
1378: \caption{\footnotesize Metallicity range of the dominant stellar
1379: populations in deep resolved photometry for M31 \citep{brown2006}, M33
1380: \citep{barker2007}, M81 (this work), NGC 5128 \citep{rejkuba2005}, and
1381: NGC 3377 \citep{harris2007} are plotted along with that of the Milky
1382: Way thick disk \citep{allendeprieto2006} against several other
1383: properties. {\it Top:} The metallicities as a function of the absolute
1384: K-band magnitude of the galaxy \citep{skrutskie2006}. The solid and
1385: dashed lines show the luminosity-metallicity relations determined by
1386: \citet[][gas phase metallicity of galaxy central
1387: regions]{tremonti2004} and \citet[][stellar red peak metallicities of
1388: galaxy ``halos'']{mouhcine2006}, respectively. These relations were
1389: converted from B-band and V-band to K-band using the Tully-Fisher
1390: calibrations of \citet{verheijen2001} and \citet{sakai2000}. The
1391: Milky Way luminosity was calculated by applying $V_{rot}$= 220 km
1392: s$^{-1}$ to the Tully-Fisher calibration of
1393: \citet{verheijen2001}. {\it Middle:} The populations' metallicities as
1394: a function of the radii at which they were sampled (normalized to the
1395: half-light radius of the galaxy). {\it Bottom:} The populations'
1396: metallicities as a function of their ages.}
1397: \label{galaxies}
1398: \end{figure}
1399:
1400: \end{document}
1401:
1402:
1403:
1404:
1405: