1: %\documentstyle[12pt,aasms4]{article}
2: \documentstyle[12pt,aaspp4]{article}
3: %\tighten
4: \eqsecnum
5: %\received{}
6: %\revised{}
7: %\accepted{}
8: %\journalid{}{}
9: %\articleid{}{}
10: \slugcomment{Submitted to {\it The Astrophysical Journal}}
11:
12: \begin{document}
13:
14: \lefthead{Najita, Tiede, and Carr }
15: \righthead{Low-Mass IMF in IC348}
16:
17: \title{From Stars to Super-planets: the Low-Mass IMF in the
18: Young Cluster IC348
19: \footnote{Based on observations with the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope,
20: obtained at the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated
21: by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc.,
22: under NASA contract No. NAS5-26555.}}
23:
24: \author{Joan R. Najita, Glenn P. Tiede}
25: \affil{National Optical Astronomy Observatories, 950 N. Cherry Ave., Tucson, AZ 85719}
26: \authoremail{\{tiede, najita\}@noao.edu}
27: \author{and}
28: \author{John S. Carr}
29: \affil{Naval Research Laboratory, 4555 Overlook Ave., Washington, D.C.
30: 20375-5320}
31: \authoremail{carr@mriga.nrl.navy.mil}
32:
33:
34: \begin{abstract}
35:
36: We investigate the low-mass population of the young cluster IC348
37: down to the deuterium--burning limit, a fiducial boundary between
38: brown dwarf and planetary mass objects, using a new and innovative method for the
39: spectral classification of late-type objects.
40: Using photometric indices, constructed from HST/NICMOS
41: narrow-band imaging, that measure the strength of the $1.9\micron$
42: water band, we determine the spectral type and reddening
43: for every M-type star in the field, thereby separating cluster members
44: from the interloper population.
45: Due to the efficiency of our spectral classification technique,
46: our study is complete from $\sim 0.7 M_\odot$ to $0.015~M_\odot$.
47: The mass function derived for the cluster in this interval,
48: $dN/d\log M \propto M^{0.5}$, is similar to that obtained for the Pleiades,
49: but appears significantly more abundant in brown dwarfs than the mass
50: function for companions to nearby sun-like stars.
51: This provides compelling observational evidence for different formation and
52: evolutionary histories for substellar objects formed in isolation
53: vs. as companions. Because our determination of the IMF is complete
54: to very low masses, we can place interesting constraints on the role of
55: physical processes such as fragmentation in the star and planet formation
56: process and the fraction of dark matter in the Galactic halo that
57: resides in substellar objects.
58:
59:
60: \end{abstract}
61:
62: \keywords{stars: late-type --- stars: low-mass, brown dwarfs --- stars: mass function --- stars: pre-main sequence}
63:
64: \section{Introduction}
65:
66:
67:
68: The low-mass end of the stellar initial mass function (IMF)
69: is of interest for our understanding of both
70: baryonic dark matter in the Galaxy and, perhaps more importantly,
71: the formation processes governing stars, brown dwarfs, and planets.
72: In the stellar mass regime, the complex interplay between a wide
73: array of physical processes is believed to determine the eventual
74: outcome of the star formation process, the masses of stars.
75: These diverse processes include those that govern molecular cloud
76: structure and evolution, subsequent gravitational collapse,
77: disk accretion, stellar winds, multiplicity, and stellar mergers.
78: What is the distribution of object masses that results from
79: the interaction between these processes?
80: Do the same processes that form stars also produce less massive
81: objects extending into the brown dwarf and planetary regimes?
82: While such questions can be answered directly by constructing
83: inventories of stellar and substellar objects,
84: there is also the hope that the same set of data can
85: shed light on the nature of the interaction between the physical processes
86: and, thereby, bring us closer to a predictive theory of star
87: and brown dwarf formation.
88:
89: While the stellar IMF has long been studied (e.g., \cite{sal55}),
90: the very low-mass and substellar IMF is much less well known
91: since the very existence
92: of substellar objects has only recently been demonstrated, and reliable
93: inventories of substellar objects are only now becoming available.
94: The Pleiades has proven to be one of the most popular sites for
95: low-mass IMF studies both due to its proximity ($d\sim 125$ pc)
96: and because it is at an age ($\sim 100$ Myr) at which our understanding
97: of stellar evolution is fairly robust. The large area subtended by
98: the Pleiades poses several challenges: studies of the low mass IMF
99: must survey large areas and distinguish low mass cluster
100: members from the growing Galactic interloper population at faint
101: magnitudes. For example, recent deep imaging surveys of the Pleiades
102: carried out over several square degrees have used broad band color
103: selection criteria to probe the cluster IMF to masses below the
104: hydrogen burning limit (e.g., to $\sim 0.04 M_\odot$; Bouvier et al.\ 1999),
105: where the fraction of objects that are cluster members is much less
106: than 1\%.
107:
108: In a complementary development, new large area surveys
109: (e.g., 2MASS, DENIS, and SDSS) are now probing the low mass IMF of the field
110: population in the solar neighborhood, extending into the substellar regime.
111: In an account of the progress to date, Reid et al.\ (1999) model
112: the spectral type distribution of the low mass population drawn
113: from 2MASS and DENIS samples obtained over several hundred square degrees
114: in order to constrain the low mass IMF.
115: Since substellar objects cool as they age, the observed spectral type
116: distribution depends on both the mass and age distributions of the local
117: field population. As a result, the
118: lack of strong constraints on the age distribution poses a challenge
119: for the determination of the field IMF at low masses.
120: For example, assuming a flat age distribution over $0-10$ Gyr,
121: Reid et al. find an IMF that is fairly flat,
122: $dN/d\log M \propto M^{\alpha}$ where $\alpha \sim$ -1 to 0,
123: where the uncertainty in the slope does not include the uncertainty
124: in the age distribution of the population.
125:
126: In comparison with the solar neighborhood and
127: older open clusters such as the Pleiades,
128: young stellar clusters ($\lesssim 10$ Myr) are a
129: complementary and advantageous environment in
130: which to carry out low-mass IMF studies.
131: As in the situation for the Pleiades, stars in young clusters
132: share a common distance and metallicity and, at low masses,
133: are much brighter due to their youth. As a well recognized
134: consequence, it is possible to readily detect and study even
135: objects much below the hydrogen-burning limit.
136: In addition, young clusters also offer some significant advantages
137: over the older open clusters.
138: For example, since young clusters are less dynamically evolved
139: than older open clusters, the effects of mass segregation and the
140: evaporation of low mass cluster members are less severe.
141: Since young clusters are less dynamically evolved, they
142: also subtend a more compact region on the sky. As a result,
143: the fractional foreground and background contamination is much
144: reduced and reasonable stellar population statistics can be
145: obtained by surveying small regions of the sky.
146: These advantages are (of course) accompanied by challenges
147: associated with the study of young environments. These include
148: the need to correct for both differential reddening toward individual
149: stars and infrared excess, the excess continuum emission that is
150: believed to arise from circumstellar disks.
151: Pre-main sequence evolutionary tracks pose the greatest challenge to
152: the interpretation of the observations because the tracks have little
153: observational verification, especially at low masses and young ages.
154: The temperature calibration for low-mass pre-main-sequence stars is
155: an additional uncertainty.
156:
157: While thus far the luminosity advantage of young clusters has
158: been used with
159: great success to detect some very low mass cluster members
160: (e.g., $\lesssim 0.02 M_\odot$ objects in IC348 [Luhman 1999]
161: and the $\sigma$~Ori cluster [Zapatero Osorio et al.\ 2000]),
162: attempts to study the low mass IMF in young clusters have stalled
163: at much higher masses,
164: in the vicinity of the hydrogen burning limit (e.g., the Orion
165: Nebula Cluster---Hillenbrand 1997), due to the need for complete
166: sampling to low masses and potentially large extinctions.
167: Since reddening and IR excesses can greatly complicate the determination
168: of stellar masses from broad band photometry alone (e.g., Meyer et al.\ 1997),
169: stellar spectral classification to faint magnitudes, an often
170: time-consuming task, is typically required.
171:
172: Stellar spectral classification in young clusters has
173: been carried out using a variety of spectroscopic methods.
174: These include the use of narrow atomic and molecular features
175: in the $K$-band (e.g., \cite{ali95}; \cite{gre95}; Luhman et al.\ 1998,
176: hereinafter LRLL), the $H$-band (e.g., \cite{mey96}),
177: and the $I$-band (e.g., \cite{hil97}), each of which have their advantages.
178: While spectral classification at the longer wavelengths is better
179: able to penetrate higher extinctions,
180: spectral classification at the shorter wavelengths
181: is less affected by infrared excess.
182: With the use of high spectral resolution and the availability of
183: multiple stellar spectral features, it is possible to diagnose and
184: correct for infrared excess. This technique has been used with great
185: success at optical wavelengths in the study of T Tauri star
186: photospheres (e.g., \cite{har89}).
187: Alternatively, the difficulty of correcting for infrared excess
188: can be avoided to a large extent by studying
189: somewhat older (5-20 Myr old) clusters,
190: in which infrared excesses are largely absent but significant dynamical
191: evolution has not yet occurred.
192:
193: In this paper, we develop an alternative, efficient method of spectral
194: classification: filter photometric measures of water absorption
195: band strength as an indicator of stellar spectral type.
196: Water bands dominate the infrared spectra of M stars and are highly
197: temperature sensitive, increasing in strength with decreasing
198: effective temperature down to the coolest M dwarfs known
199: ($\sim 2000$K; e.g., \cite{jon94}).
200: The strength of the water bands and their rapid variation
201: with effective temperature, in principle, allows the precise
202: measurement of spectral type from moderate signal-to-noise photometry.
203: At the same time, water bands are relatively insensitive to gravity
204: (e.g., \cite{jon95}),
205: particularly above 3000K, becoming more sensitive at lower
206: temperatures where dust formation is an added complication
207: (e.g., the Ames-Dusty models; \cite{all00}; \cite{all98b}).
208: Synthetic atmospheres (e.g., NextGen: \cite{hau99}; \cite{all97}) also indicate
209: a modest dependence of water band strength on metallicity
210: (e.g., \cite{jon95}).
211:
212: Because strong absorption by water in the Earth's atmosphere
213: can complicate the ground-based measurement of the depth of
214: water bands, we used HST NICMOS filter photometry to
215: carry out the measurements.
216: The breadth of the water absorption bands requires that any measure of
217: band strength adequately account for the effects of reddening.
218: Consequently, we used a 3 filter system to construct a reddening
219: independent index that measures the band strength.
220: Of the filters available with NICMOS, only the narrow band
221: F166N, F190N, and F215N filters which sample the depth of
222: the 1.9~$\mu$m water band proved suitable.
223: On the one hand, the narrow filter widths had the advantages of
224: excluding possible stellar or nebular line emission and
225: limiting the differential reddening across the bandpass.
226: On the other hand,
227: similar filters with broader band passes would have made it
228: feasible to study much fainter sources, e.g., in richer clusters
229: at much larger distances.
230: Despite the latter difficulty, there were suitable nearby clusters
231: such as IC348 to which this technique could be profitably applied.
232:
233:
234: IC348 is a compact, young cluster located near an edge of the Perseus
235: molecular cloud. It has a significant history of optical study (see,
236: e.g., \cite{her98} for a review), and because of its proximity ($d\sim
237: 300$pc), youth ($< 10$ Myr), and rich, compact nature, both the star formation
238: history and the mass function that characterizes the cluster have been
239: the subject of several recent studies.
240:
241: Ground-based $J$, $H$, $K$ imaging of the cluster complete to $K$=14
242: (\cite{lad95}) revealed signficant spatial structure,
243: in which the richest stellar grouping
244: is the ``a'' subcluster ($r=3.5'$; hereinafter IC348a) with
245: approximately half of the cluster members.
246: The near-IR colors indicate that IC348 is an advantageous environment
247: in which to study the stellar properties of a young cluster since
248: only a moderate fraction of cluster members possess near-IR
249: excesses ($\sim$20\% for the cluster overall;
250: $\sim$ 12\% for IC348a)
251: and most cluster members suffer moderate extinction
252: ($A_V \sim 5$ with a spread to $A_V$ $>$ 20).
253: Lada \& Lada (1995) showed that the
254: $K$-band luminosity function of IC348 is consistent with
255: a history of continuous star formation over the last $5-7$ Myr
256: and a time-independent Miller-Scalo IMF in the mass range $0.1-20 M_\odot$.
257: The inferred mean age of a few Myr is generally consistent with the lack of a
258: significant population of excess sources since disks are believed
259: to disperse on a comparable timescale (\cite{mey00}).
260:
261: Herbig (1998) subsequently confirmed a significant age spread to
262: the cluster ($0.7-12$ Myr) based on BVRI imaging of a
263: $\sim 7\arcmin \times 12\arcmin$ region, which included much of
264: IC348a, and $R$-band spectroscopy of a subset of sources in the field.
265: In the mass range in which the study is complete ($M_* > 0.3 M_\odot$),
266: the mass function slope was found to be consistent with that of
267: \cite{sca86}.
268: A more detailed study of a $5\arcmin \times 5\arcmin $ region centered
269: on IC348a was carried out by \cite{luh98} using
270: IR and optical spectroscopy complete to $K=12.5$.
271: They also found an age spread to the subcluster ($5-10$ Myr),
272: a mean age of $\sim 3$ Myr,
273: and evidence for a substellar population.
274: The mass function of the subcluster was found to
275: be consistent with \cite{mil79} in the mass range $0.25-3 M_\odot$
276: (i.e., flatter in slope than deduced by Herbig)
277: and flatter than Miller-Scalo at masses below $0.25 M_\odot$;
278: however, completeness corrections were significant
279: below $\sim 0.1 M_\odot$.
280: \cite{luh99} has further probed the substellar population of IC348
281: using optical spectral classification of additional sources
282: ($I\lesssim 19.5$) both in and beyond the $5^\prime \times 5^\prime$ core.
283:
284: In this paper, we extend previous studies of IC348 by probing
285: 4 magnitudes below the $K$ spectral completeness limit of \cite{luh98},
286: enabling a more detailed look at the population in the low-mass stellar and
287: substellar regimes. We find that, with our spectral classification
288: technique, our measurement of the IMF in IC348 is complete to the
289: deuterium burning limit ($\sim 0.015 M_\odot$), a fiducial boundary
290: between brown dwarf and planetary mass objects (e.g., Saumon et al.\ 2000;
291: Zapatero Osorio et al.\ 2000). To avoid potential misunderstanding,
292: we note that this boundary is only very approximate.
293: A precise division between the brown dwarf
294: and planetary regimes is unavailable and perhaps unattainable
295: in the near future given the current disagreement over fundamental issues
296: regarding the definition of the term ``planet''. These include
297: whether the distinction between brown dwarfs and planets should be
298: made in terms of mass or formation history (e.g., gravitational
299: collapse vs.\ accumulation) and
300: whether planetary mass objects that are not companions can even be
301: considered to be ``planets''.
302: Here, we hope to side-step such a discussion at the outset
303: and, instead, explore how the IMF of isolated objects over the range
304: from $\sim 1 M_\odot$ to $\sim 0.015 M_\odot$,
305: once measured, can advance the discussion, i.e., provide clues to
306: the formation and evolutionary histories of stellar and substellar objects.
307: The HST observations are presented in section 2.
308: The resulting astrometry and near-infrared luminosity functions
309: are discussed in sections 3 and 4.
310: In section 5, we discuss the calibration of the water index and
311: the determination of stellar spectral types.
312: The reddening corrections are discussed in section 6, and the
313: resulting observational HR diagram in section 7.
314: In section 8, we identify the interloper population and compare
315: the cluster population with the predictions of pre-main sequence
316: evolutionary tracks.
317: Given these results, in section 9, we
318: identify possible cluster binaries and
319: derive a mass function for the cluster.
320: Finally, in section 10, we present our conclusions.
321:
322:
323:
324: \section{Observations, Data Reduction, and Calibration}
325:
326: \subsection{Photometry}
327:
328: We obtained HST NIC3 narrow band photometry for 50 $(51'' \times 51'')$
329: fields in the IC348a subcluster, nominally centered at
330: $\alpha=3^{\rm h}44^{\rm m}31\fs9$,
331: $\delta=32^\circ 09\arcmin 54\farcs2$ (J2000).
332: The NICMOS instrument and its on-orbit performance have been
333: described by \cite{tho98} and \cite{cal98}.
334: Figure~\ref{finder}
335: shows the relative positions of the fields with respect
336: to the $5\arcmin \times 5\arcmin$ core of the subcluster.
337: The NIC3 field positions were
338: chosen to avoid bright stars much above the saturation limit ($K\lesssim 9$)
339: and to maximize area coverage. As a result, the fields
340: are largely non-overlapping, covering most of the
341: $5\arcmin \times 5\arcmin$ core and
342: a total area of $34.76$ sq.\ arcmin.
343: Each field was imaged in the narrow band F166N, F190N, and F215N
344: filters, centered at 1.66 $\mu$m, 1.90 $\mu$m, 2.15 $\mu$m
345: respectively, at two dither positions separated by $5.1\arcsec$.
346: The exposure time at each dither position was 128 seconds, obtained through
347: four reads of the NIC3 array in the SPARS64 MULTIACCUM sequence, for
348: a total exposure time in each field of 256 seconds.
349:
350: To calibrate the non-standard NIC3 colors, we observed a set of
351: 23 standard stars chosen to cover spectral types K2 through M9
352: that have the kinematics and/or colors typical of solar neighborhood disk
353: stars (e.g., \cite{leg92}; see Table~\ref{standards}) and, therefore,
354: are likely to have metallicities similar to that of the cluster stars.
355: Although most of the standard stars were main-sequence dwarfs, we also
356: observed a few pre-main sequence stars in order to explore the effect
357: of lower gravity.
358: We chose for this purpose pre-main sequence stars known to have low
359: infrared excesses (weak lined T Tauri stars; WTTS) so that the observed
360: flux would be dominated by the stellar photosphere.
361: The standard stars were observed in each of the F166N, F190N, and F215N
362: filters and with the G141 and G206 grisms.
363: The stars were observed with each spectral element at two or three
364: dither positions separated by $5.1\arcsec$ in MULTIACCUM mode.
365:
366: Since NICMOS does not have a shutter,
367: the bright standard stars could potentially saturate the array
368: as the NIC3 filter wheel rotates through the broad or intermediate band
369: filters located between the narrow band filters and grisms
370: used in the program. To avoid the
371: resulting persistence image that would compromise the photometric accuracy,
372: dummy exposures, taken at a position offset from where the science
373: exposure would be made, were inserted between the science exposures in
374: order to position the filter wheel at the desired spectral element before
375: actually taking the science exposure.
376:
377: Much of the data for IC348 (45 of the 50 fields) and all of the
378: data for the standard stars were obtained during the first
379: (January 12 -- February 1, 1998) and second (June 4 -- 28, 1998) NIC3
380: campaigns in which the HST secondary was moved to bring NIC3 into focus.
381: A log of our observations is provided in Table~\ref{log}.
382: The data were processed through the usual NICMOS {\it calnic} pipeline
383: (version 3.2) with the addition of one step.
384: After the cosmic ray identification, column bias offsets were removed
385: from the final readout in order to eliminate the ``banding''
386: (constant, incremental offsets of
387: $\sim 30$ counts about 40 columns wide)
388: present in the raw data.
389:
390: No residual reflection nebulosity is noticeable in the reduced
391: (dither-subtracted) images.
392: Consequently, removal of nebular emission was not a
393: concern for the stellar photometry.
394: To perform the stellar photometry, we first identified sources in each
395: of the images using the IRAF routine {\it daofind}. Due to the strongly
396: varying noise characteristics of the NIC3 array, {\it daofind} erroneously
397: identified numerous noise peaks as point sources, and so the detections
398: were inspected frame by frame to eliminate spurious detections.
399: A detection was considered to be real if the source was detected in both the
400: F215N and F190N frames. With these identification criteria, we were
401: likely to obtain robust detections of heavily extincted objects
402: (in F215N) as well as spectral types for all identified sources,
403: F190N typically having the lowest flux level at late spectral types.
404:
405: Since the frames are sparsely populated, we used the aperture photometry
406: routine {\it phot} to measure the flux of each identified source.
407: To optimize the signal-to-noise of the photometry on faint
408: objects ($K\gtrsim 16$), we adopted a 4-pixel radius photometric
409: aperture that included the core of the PSF and $\sim 91\%$ of the
410: total point source flux (the exact value varied by about $1\%$ from
411: filter to filter) with an uncertainty in the aperture correction of
412: $<1\%$ in all filters. The aperture correction was derived from
413: observations of calibration standards and/or bright, unsaturated objects
414: in the IC348 fields.
415: Despite the difference in focus conditions between the data taken
416: in and out of the NIC3 campaigns, the aperture corrections were
417: statistically identical. As a result, the same aperture and
418: procedures were used for both data sets.
419: The conversion from ADU/s to both Janskys and magnitudes
420: was made using the photometric constants kindly provided
421: by M. Rieke (1999, personal communication). These constants
422: are tabulated in Table~\ref{photcal}.
423:
424: \subsection{Spectroscopy}
425:
426: In order to confirm the calibration of the filter photometric
427: water index against stellar spectral type, we also obtained
428: NIC3 G141 and G206 grism spectra for 17 of our 23 standard stars.
429: The spectral images were processed identically to the photometric
430: images, including the removal of the bias jumps.
431: The spectra were extracted using NICMOSlook (version 2.6.5; \cite{pir98a}),
432: the interactive version of the standard pipeline tool
433: (CalnicC; \cite{pir98b})
434: for the extraction of NIC3 grism spectra.
435: The details of the extraction process and subsequent analysis are presented
436: in Tiede et al.\ (2000).
437: The 1.9 $\mu$m H$_2$O band strengths obtained from a preliminary
438: analysis of the spectra were found to be consistent with the
439: filter photometric results reported in section 5.
440:
441:
442: \subsection{Intrapixel Sensitivity and Photometric Accuracy}
443:
444: Because infrared arrays may have sensitivity variations at the sub-pixel
445: scale, the detected flux from an object,
446: when measured with an undersampled PSF,
447: may depend sensitively on the precise position of the object within in a
448: pixel.
449: As shown by \cite{lau99}, such intrapixel sensitivity effects can be significant
450: when working with undersampled NIC3 data ($0.2\arcsec$ pixels).
451: To help us quantify the impact of this effect on our data set,
452: Lauer kindly calculated for us the expected intrapixel
453: dependence of the detected flux from a point source as a function of
454: intrapixel position,
455: using TinyTim PSFs appropriate for the filters in our study
456: and the NIC3 intrapixel response function deduced in \cite{lau99}.
457: As expected, the intrapixel sensitivity effect is more severe at
458: shorter wavelengths where the undersampling is more extreme.
459: In the F215N filter, the effect is negligible: the variation in the
460: detected flux as a function of intrapixel position is within
461: $\pm 0.3$\% of the flux that would be detected with a well sampled PSF.
462: For the F190N and F166N filters, the same quantity varies within $\pm 3.5$\%
463: and $\pm 8.5$\%, respectively.
464:
465: Although intrapixel sensitivity can be severe at the shorter
466: wavelengths, the effect on photometric colors is mitigated
467: if the intrapixel response is similar for the three filters
468: (the assumption made here) and the sub-pixel positional offsets
469: between the observations in each filter are small.
470: For example, with no positional offset between the 3 filters, the
471: error in the
472: reddening independent water index, $Q_{\rm H2O}$, discussed in section 5,
473: is $<$1\% which impacts negligibly on our conclusions.
474: Since pointing with HST is expected to be accurate to better than
475: a few milliarcseconds for the $\sim 17$ minute duration of the
476: observations on a given cluster field (M. Lallo 1999, personal communication),
477: pointing drifts are unlikely to introduce significant positional
478: offsets. The HST jitter data for our observations confirm the
479: expected pointing accuracy. Over the $\sim 5$ minute duration of the
480: exposure in a single filter, the RMS pointing error is on average
481: $\sim 4$ milliarcseconds (0.02 NIC3 pixels).
482:
483: Systematic positional offsets between filters could also arise from
484: differing geometric transformations between the filters. To test this,
485: we examined the centroid position of the bright cluster sources and
486: standard stars for individual dither positions in each filter.
487: No systematic differences in centroid positions between filters
488: were found.
489: The 1--$\sigma$ scatter about the mean was 0.05 pixels which represents
490: the combination of our centroiding accuracy and any true positional
491: variations. To quantify the impact of the latter possibility on our results,
492: random positional variations of 0.05 pixels in each filter translate
493: into a maximal error in $Q_{\rm H2O}$ of less than $\pm$4\%.
494:
495:
496: \section{Astrometry}
497:
498: Because three of the recent studies of IC348
499: (\cite{her98}, \cite{luh98}, and Luhman 1999)
500: have examined regions surrounding and including IC348a,
501: we can directly compare the previous results with ours via the
502: overlaps in the stellar samples.
503: Figure~\ref{areas} shows the spatial distribution of the samples
504: from the previous and present studies.
505: The present study covers a more compact region than the previous studies,
506: but is complete to much greater depth.
507:
508: Table~\ref{astrometry} presents the source designations for all of the stars
509: in our sample, the corresponding designations from previous studies,
510: and the J2000 celestial coordinates of each
511: star. Our designations are comprised of the 3-digit field number
512: followed by the 2-digit number of the star in that field. For example,
513: 021-05 is from field 021 and is star number 5 in that field.
514: The celestial coordinates in Table~\ref{astrometry} are based on the
515: NICMOS header values associated with the central pixel in each field.
516: The total error in the relative accuracy of the coordinates
517: due to photometric centroiding, geometric field distortion, and repeat pointing errors,
518: are estimated to be $\lesssim 0 \farcs 2$ per star.
519: This error is a function of the stellar position in the NIC3 field of view:
520: stars located toward the corners of a frame have larger errors primarily due to
521: field distortion which we have not attempted to correct.
522: While absolute astrometry is not required for the present study,
523: we can obtain an estimate of the absolute astrometric error by comparing
524: our coordinates to those obtained in previous investigations.
525: Comparison with the celestial coordinates reported in \cite{luh98} typically
526: resulted in disagreements of less than $1\arcsec$.
527:
528: \section{Completeness and Luminosity Functions}
529:
530: \subsection{Completeness and Photometric Accuracy}
531:
532: At the bright end, our sample is limited by saturation.
533: Inspection of the error flags output by CALNICA implied that
534: our saturation limits are
535: $10.96 \pm 0.49$ magnitudes in F166N,
536: $10.89 \pm 0.44$ in F190N; and
537: $10.62 \pm 0.35$ in F215N.
538: The flux range over which saturation occured reflects
539: the sensitivity variation across the array and
540: the variation in the intrapixel position of individual stars.
541:
542: Given the noise characteristics of,
543: and significant quantum efficiency variations across, the NIC3 array,
544: we used simulated data to evaluate
545: the efficiency of our detection algorithm at the faint end and the
546: accuracy of our photometric measurements.
547: We first added to a representative frame for each filter
548: a known number of point sources, positioned randomly within the frame,
549: with known magnitudes and zero color,
550: then performed detection and stellar photometry on the frames in a method
551: identical to those used for the real data. Since crowding was
552: not an issue in the real frames, care was taken to ensure that none
553: of the artificial stars where lost to superposition.
554: While we did not explore the full color
555: range of the actual data set, the adopted simulation was sufficient to
556: obtain a robust estimate of our detection efficiency in the individual
557: filters.
558:
559: Artificial PSFs were generated using the program
560: TinyTim version 4.4 (\cite{kri97}).
561: Each artificial PSF was
562: created with a factor of 10 oversampling, i.e, in a 240 $\times$ 240 grid
563: with each element of the grid representing $0.02\arcsec$ on the sky, to
564: facilitate sub-pixel interpolation in positioning the artificial stars.
565: The extent of the artificial PSF ($2.4\arcsec$) was chosen to equal the
566: radius at which the flux level for even the brightest stars in the
567: data set is less than the noise fluctuations in the background.
568:
569: Inspection of the empirical luminosity functions, the theoretical
570: photometric errors, and signal-to-noise values indicated that our
571: sample was likely complete to $\sim 17.5$ mag (0.1 mJy in F215N). To
572: derive the completeness limit quantitatively for each band, we
573: created two sets of artificial stars to be added and recovered from a
574: representative frame in each band. The first set of 50 stars was linearly
575: distributed over the magnitude range in which photometric errors
576: become significant (15.0 to 19.5). The second set of 50 stars was
577: linearly distributed between 17.0 and 18.5 magnitude in order to
578: ``zero-in'' on the $100\%$ completeness limit. After the addition of
579: the artificial stars with the appropriate noise, each of the images
580: was photometrically processed in a manner identical to the real data frames.
581:
582: The completeness as a function of F215N magnitude is displayed in
583: Fig.~\ref{com1}.
584: The results are essentially identical for F190N.
585: The Figure shows the number of stars input into (solid line) and
586: the number detected in (dotted line) each 0.5 magnitude bin.
587: Our photometry is $100\%$ complete
588: through the bin centered at 17.25 magnitudes, beyond which
589: the detection efficiency drops rapidly. It is 80\% at 17.75,
590: 11\% at 18.25, and finally no detections beyond 18.5.
591: When the results are tabulated in 0.1 magnitude bins,
592: we find that we are $100\%$ complete to 17.6 magnitudes.
593: Since the last $100\%$ complete bin only contains 5 stars and because
594: the rest of analysis is done in 0.5 magnitude increments, we adopt
595: 17.5 magnitudes as a conservative estimate of our $100\%$ completeness limit.
596:
597: In addition to calculating the completeness limit, the artificial stars
598: also allowed us to gauge the accuracy of our photometry and photometric
599: error estimates. Since we knew the magnitudes of the
600: artificial stars that we added to the frame, we could calculate the ``True
601: Error'' of each photometric measurement (True Error $\equiv$ measured
602: magnitude $-$ input magnitude). The top panels of Fig.~\ref{err1} show
603: the absolute value of the resulting true errors as a function of
604: input magnitude.
605: For each photometric measurement, we calculated the photometric uncertainty
606: due to photon statistics.
607: The bottom panels of Fig.~\ref{err1} show this estimated error versus
608: input magnitude. Although the
609: scatter in the absolute value of the true errors is much larger than the
610: scatter in the estimated errors, the estimated errors provide a good
611: approximation to the true errors in an average sense.
612: This remains true down to the completeness limit.
613: In all three bands, the estimated errors fall along the curves fit to the
614: true errors with significant deviation only below $\sim 17.5$ magnitudes.
615:
616: \subsection{Empirical and Combined Luminosity Functions}
617:
618: The luminosity functions (LFs) for each of the narrow band filters are shown
619: in Fig.~\ref{lfs}. No corrections for reddening or completeness have
620: been made. The range in magnitude over which saturation occurs
621: is indicated by the grey band in each panel. The vertical dotted lines
622: indicate the mean saturation limit and the completeness limit of
623: $17.5$ magnitudes. The F215N luminosity function is
624: relatively flat between the saturation and completeness limits,
625: with a dip between 14 and 15.5 magnitudes. The structure in the
626: F166N and F190N luminosity functions is similar.
627:
628: In order to compare our LF with previously determined LFs for IC348, we
629: converted our measured F215N magnitudes to standard $K$ magnitudes.
630: The F215N filter measures a relatively feature-free
631: region of the standard CTIO/CIT $K$ filter. Therefore,
632: the F215N magnitude should correlate well with $K$, requiring a
633: zero-point offset and possibly, due to increasing water band
634: strengths in the coolest M stars, a color term.
635: To determine the offset, we compared our F215N magnitudes with
636: published $K$ magnitudes for the 61 stars in our sample that are in
637: common with Lada \& Lada (1995; see tabulation in \cite{luh98})
638: and/or \cite{luh99} and are below the
639: saturation limit ($K>11$). The fit
640: had a slope statistically identical to unity ($1.003 \pm 0.012$), so
641: we derived the mean offset between the two magnitude systems,
642: $\langle(K-F215N)\rangle = -0.115 \pm 0.011$, where the error is the
643: error in the mean. The 1--$\sigma$ residual to the fit was $0.085$.
644: This residual is comparable to the typical combined photometric accuracy of
645: the Luhman and our data.
646: We investigated a possible color term in
647: the transformation, but found that if any is present it is smaller than
648: this scatter about the mean.
649:
650: The accuracy and completeness of the bright end of our
651: luminosity function ($K\lesssim 11$) is compromised by both saturation
652: and our deliberate avoidance of bright cluster stars. To correct for this
653: deficiency, we combined our derived $K$ photometry at $K\ge 11$
654: with $K$ photometry of the $5\arcmin\times 5\arcmin$ core from \cite{luh98}
655: for $K< 11$.
656: This combination is reasonable since, as shown in Fig.~\ref{finder},
657: the region of our survey largely overlaps the
658: $5\arcmin\times 5\arcmin$ core.
659: To correct for the different areas covered by two surveys,
660: we multiplied the counts in each bin of
661: the LRLL luminosity function by the ratio of the survey areas,
662: $34.76/25.00 = 1.39$.
663:
664: The combined $K$ luminosity function for our 34.76 sq. arcmin region,
665: complete to $K \simeq 17.5$, is shown in Fig.~\ref{klf}
666: as the solid line histogram.
667: To estimate the background contribution to the $K$ luminosity function,
668: we used the prediction of the star count model of \cite{coh94}.
669: The predicted background $K$ counts,
670: reddened by the mean reddening of the background population
671: ($A_K=0.71$; see section 6), is shown as the dotted line
672: histogram in Fig.~\ref{klf}.
673: In section 8, we compare in greater detail the results for our data set
674: with the predictions of the model.
675: Here we simply note a few points. The contamination of the
676: cluster by background stars is insignificant to $K \approx 13$ and the
677: number of cluster stars is larger than the number of background stars until
678: the $K = 14.25$ bin. While the background rises steadily, we appear to
679: have detected a few cluster stars to our completeness limit.
680:
681: \section{Spectral Classification}
682:
683: To derive spectral types for the stars in the sample,
684: we combined the measured narrow band fluxes into a reddening
685: independent index,
686: \[
687: Q_{\rm H2O} \equiv -2.5\log{\left(\frac{\rm F166}{\rm F190}\right)} + 1.37 \times
688: 2.5\log{\left(\frac{\rm F190}{\rm F215}\right)},
689: \]
690: that measures the strength of the $1.9~\mu$m H$_2$O absorption band.
691: In this expression, F166, F190, and F215 are the fluxes in the
692: F166N, F190N, and F215N filters, respectively.
693: The value 1.37 is the ratio of the reddening color excesses:
694: \[
695: \frac{E({\rm F166/F190})}{E({\rm F190/F215})} = 1.37,
696: \]
697: which is derived from the infrared extinction law
698: $A_\lambda/A_V = 0.412(\lambda/\mu {\rm m})^{-1.75}$
699: (\cite{tok99}).
700:
701: To explore the utility of the water index as an indicator of spectral
702: type, we examined the relation between $Q_{\rm H2O}$ and spectral type for both
703: the standard stars and a subset of IC348 stars that have optically determined
704: spectral types from \cite{luh98} and \cite{luh99}. For the standard stars,
705: we adopted spectral types from the literature that are derived consistently
706: from the classification scheme of \cite{kir95}. As shown in the top panel
707: of Figure~\ref{qfit}, $Q_{\rm H2O}$ is strongly correlated and varies
708: rapidly with spectral type among the standard stars, confirming the
709: expected sensitivity of the water band strength to stellar effective
710: temperature. As is evident, there is real scatter
711: among the standard stars that cannot be explained by errors in $Q_{\rm H2O}$
712: and spectral type. The scatter may reflect the inherent diversity
713: in the standard star sample, a property that is evident from their $JHK$
714: colors.
715: The spread in broad band color for a given spectral type is
716: usually interpreted as the result of varying metallicity
717: (e.g., Fig.~1 from \cite{leg96}).
718:
719: To compare these results with those for a population that has a more
720: homogeneous metallicity distribution and the same mean metallicity and gravity
721: to the IC348 sample, we also examined the $Q_{\rm H2O}$ vs. spectral type
722: relation for the subset of IC348 stars that have optical spectral types
723: determined by \cite{luh98} and \cite{luh99} (middle panel of Fig.~\ref{qfit}).
724: Although \cite{luh98} found no systematic difference between their IR and
725: optical spectral types, there is significant dispersion between the two
726: systems (their IR spectral types differ from the optical spectral types
727: by as much as 3 subclasses).
728: We find that the water band strengths are better correlated with the optical
729: spectral types, with a smaller dispersion, than the IR spectral types,
730: suggesting that their optical spectral types are more precise.
731:
732: With the use of optical spectral types, we were also able to compare
733: directly the results for the dwarf standards and the IC348 population,
734: since both sets of objects are classified on the same system.
735: The two samples exhibit a similar relation between spectral type and $Q_{\rm H2O}$
736: despite the difference in gravity between the two samples, with some evidence
737: for a shallower slope for the pre-main sequence stars compared to the dwarfs.
738: However, with the present data alone, we cannot claim such a difference
739: with much certainty because the sample sizes are not large enough, the
740: IC348 stars are not distributed evenly enough in spectral type, and there
741: could be small systematic differences in the spectral typing of the IC348
742: and standard stars.
743: The possibility of a difference between the two relations could be explored
744: with more extensive optical spectral typing of the IC348 population.
745:
746: The horizontal and vertical error bars in the lower left corner of the
747: middle panel of Fig.~\ref{qfit}
748: represent the typical errors in $Q_{\rm H2O}$ and spectral type for
749: the cluster stars. Some of the scatter may arise from infrared excesses
750: (which would uniquely affect the young star sample, compared to the
751: standard star sample), although this effect is expected to be limited
752: given the relatively small fraction of cluster sources that have IR excesses.
753: For example, based on their $JHK$ photometry, Lada \& Lada (1995)
754: determined that $<$12\% of sources brighter than $K=14$ in IC348a
755: have substantial IR excesses. The \cite{luh98} study
756: spectroscopically inferred $K$ continuum excesses in a similar fraction
757: (15\%) of sources in the subcluster.
758:
759: To examine the possible impact of IR excess on our derived $Q_{\rm H2O}$ values,
760: we considered
761: excesses of the form $\Delta F_\nu(\lambda) \propto \lambda^{-\beta}$
762: and explored
763: the effect of the excess on the $Q_{\rm H2O}$ values for two of our standards,
764: the M3 dwarf Gl388, and the M6 dwarf Gl406.
765: Since classical T Tauri stars have excesses at $K$ of $r_K\sim 0.6$
766: (\cite{mey97}; where $r_K$ is the ratio of the excess emission to
767: the stellar flux),
768: the IC348 sources, being more evolved, are likely to
769: have much weaker excesses, typically $r_K < 0.2$.
770: With a spectral index of $\beta = 1/3,$ appropriate for both disks
771: undergoing active accretion and those experiencing passive reprocessing
772: of stellar radiation, an IR excess produces an increase in $Q_{\rm H2O}$.
773: Since the spectral slope is shallow and the maximum excess is small,
774: only modest excursions are possible. For example,
775: the $Q_{\rm H2O}$ index for Gl388 varies from its observed value, -0.28, at 0\%
776: excess to -0.24 at 20\% excess in F215N. Over the same range of
777: 0 to 20\% excess in F215N,
778: the $Q_{\rm H2O}$ index for Gl406 ranges from -0.52 to -0.43.
779: This range of variation is sufficiently large that IR excess could
780: account for most of the scatter of IC348 stars away from the mean
781: trend to larger values of $Q_{\rm H2O}$.
782: Explaining the scatter to smaller values of $Q_{\rm H2O}$ as the
783: result of IR excesses requires more extreme values of $\beta$.
784: For Gl388, values of $\beta < -3$
785: are needed to decrease $Q_{\rm H2O}$ from its value at 0\% excess.
786: Such extreme spectral indices are unlikely as they would produce
787: unusual broad band colors.
788: For these reasons, it appears unlikely that IR excess is responsible
789: for the majority of scatter about the mean relation between $Q_{\rm H2O}$
790: and spectral type.
791: Other processes are implied, possibly including those that produce
792: true differences in stellar water band strengths among stars with
793: equivalent $I$-band spectral types.
794:
795: Since we were not able to distinguish a systematic difference
796: between the mean trends for the standard star sample and the IC348
797: sample, we used the combined samples to calibrate the relation between
798: $Q_{\rm H2O}$ and spectral type (lower panel of Fig.~\ref{qfit}).
799: In order to use the error information in both $Q_{\rm H2O}$ and spectral type,
800: we performed a linear fit in both senses
801: (i.e., spectral type vs. $Q_{\rm H2O}$ and
802: $Q_{\rm H2O}$ vs. spectral type; dotted lines in Fig.~\ref{qfit}) and
803: used the bisector of the two fits as the calibration relation
804: (solid line in Fig.~\ref{qfit}).
805: Due to the non-uniform distribution of stars
806: along the fit, the slope of the fit is sensitive to the
807: inclusion or exclusion of stars near the sigma-clipping limit and
808: at the extremes of either $Q_{\rm H2O}$ or spectral type.
809: Doing a fit in both senses, and including the error information in
810: both quantities, allowed us to better identify and exclude outliers.
811: In the lower panel of Fig.~\ref{qfit},
812: solid symbols indicate the stars that were included in the fit while
813: open symbols indicate excluded stars.
814:
815: The equation of the bisector, the relation
816: we subsequently used to estimate spectral class for the entire cluster
817: sample, is:
818: \begin{equation}
819: {\rm M~subtype}=-1.09(\pm 0.39) - 13.01(\pm 0.50)\times Q_{\rm H2O}.
820: \label{eq:SpTQ}
821: \end{equation}
822: For a typical value of $Q_{\rm H2O}$, the formal
823: spectral type uncertainty in the fit is $\pm 0.46$, while the scatter
824: about the fit is $0.81$, just a little
825: under one subtype. It is noteworthy that the discrete nature of spectral
826: type versus the continuous nature of $Q_{\rm H2O}$ is responsible for a
827: mean scatter of $0.77$ in $Q_{\rm H2O}$ in each subtype bin,
828: which is a significant contribution to the total scatter.
829:
830: Finally, we note that stars earlier than M2 have less certain spectral
831: types due to the combination of the inherent scatter in the
832: $Q_{\rm H2O}$ vs. spectral type relation and
833: the decreasing sensitivity of the $1.9~\mu$m H$_2$O absorption band
834: to spectral type as the K spectral types are approached.
835: As a result, stars with spectral types of K and earlier
836: can be misclassified by our method as later-type objects.
837: For example,
838: a comparison of the spectral types obtained by LRLL and \cite{luh99}
839: with those obtained by our method shows that
840: stars earlier than $\sim$K5 are classified by us as late K or M0 stars
841: and late-K stars are classified as late-K and M0-M1 stars.
842:
843:
844: \section{Extinction}
845:
846: Although the stellar spectral typing could be carried out
847: without determining the reddening to each object,
848: extinction corrections are required in order to investigate the
849: masses and ages of cluster objects.
850: We estimated the extinction toward each star by
851: dereddening the observed F166/F190 and F190/F215 colors to
852: a fiducial zero-reddening line in the color-color plane.
853: Since extinction estimates for the dwarf standard stars were not
854: available in the literature, we adopted the usual assumption that
855: they suffer zero extinction.
856: Figure~\ref{red} diagrams the process. First, we fit a line to the
857: positions of the standard stars in the color-color plane (top panel),
858: which is defined to be a locus of zero reddening.
859: The WTTS were excluded from the fit. Gl569A was regarded as an outlier
860: and also excluded from the fit.
861: The resulting linear relation is:
862: \[
863: -2.5\log{\left(\frac{\rm F166}{\rm F190}\right)}=-0.277(\pm0.009)
864: -0.358(\pm0.083)\times- 2.5\log{\left(\frac{\rm F190}{\rm F215}\right)}
865: \]
866: with a mean deviation about the fit of 1--$\sigma = 0.036$.
867: The extinction toward each star in the cluster fields was determined
868: from the shift in each color required to deredden the star to the
869: zero-reddening line.
870: The resulting extinction estimates and errors are given
871: in column 11 of Table~\ref{astrometry}. Note that the reddening vector
872: (shown for $A_V = 10$ in the bottom panel of Fig.~\ref{red}),
873: is nearly perpendicular to the standard star locus
874: in the color-color plane.
875: Consequently,
876: reddening and spectral type are readily separable
877: with moderate signal-to-noise photometry even given modest uncertainties
878: in the slope of the reddening vector.
879:
880: The subset of our standards used for the reddening calibration span
881: the spectral class range K2V to M9V. This range is indicated
882: by the dotted lines in the lower panel of Fig.~\ref{red}.
883: The few stars in the field with spectral types outside this range
884: have
885: extinction estimates based on the extrapolation of the fiducial line.
886: As we show in Section 8, most of the early type stars are likely
887: background objects.
888: Finally, while the formal uncertainty in the fit of the fiducial line
889: to the standards is small, 0.04 magnitudes, the scatter about the line
890: for the latest standards is significantly larger than the scatter for
891: the earlier standards (top panel of Fig.~\ref{red}). Part of this
892: scatter is due to the larger photometric errors; the late
893: type standards are also the dimmest. However, four of the five late type
894: standards fall above the fiducial line. In order from upper left to
895: lower right these standards are LHS3003(M7V), Gl569B(M8.5V), VB10(M8V),
896: LHS2924(M9V), and VB8(M7V). With the exception of VB8, these stars
897: are aligned in the expected order in both colors but seem to be systematically
898: shifted about 0.1 magnitudes to the red in $-2.5\log{({\rm F166/F190})}$.
899: While we cannot exclude the possibility that the relationship is non-linear
900: for dwarfs later than M6, some of the scatter about the fit may be due to
901: inherent variation in the photometric properties of the standard stars.
902:
903: We can compare our extinction estimates to those of \cite{luh98} for the
904: M dwarfs common to both samples. In Figure~\ref{redcomp}, the horizontal
905: error bars indicate the formal (1--$\sigma$) uncertainty in our
906: $A_K$ estimate (typically $<0.1$ mag).
907: \cite{luh98} used various extinction estimators, citing their internal
908: errors rather than values for individual stars. Their errors in $A_K$
909: range from 0.07 to 0.19 mag for the stars shown with a nearly equal
910: systematic uncertainty in the zero point.
911: For the M-dwarfs common to both samples, the mean difference in
912: $A_K$, in the sense $\langle{\rm Ours - LRLL}\rangle = -0.01 \pm 0.03$
913: with a scatter about the mean of 0.24 magnitudes. Considering the
914: uncertainties, the agreement is good.
915:
916: The resulting $A_K$ distribution
917: (Fig.~\ref{redhisto}; solid-line histogram),
918: has a pronounced tail to large values of $A_K$ and a peak at $A_K = 0.1$.
919: The extinction distribution for the subset of objects
920: identified as the background population
921: (as determined in section 8; dashed-line histogram) is also shown.
922: Note that our extinction estimates include a few negative values
923: (Figs.~\ref{red} and~\ref{redcomp}).
924: While these values might suggest that our fiducial line needs to be lowered
925: to bluer colors, that would imply a bias toward larger extinctions given the
926: distribution of standard stars in the color-color plane. Therefore, we
927: retain our original fit and, for all subsequent analysis, stars with negative
928: extinction estimates are assigned an extinction of 0.0 with an error equal
929: to the greater of the absolute value of the original extinction estimate or
930: the formal uncertainty in the estimate.
931:
932: With this revision, the mean extinction is $\langle A_K \rangle = 0.44$ with an
933: error in the mean of 0.04 and a median of $(A_K)_{\frac{1}{2}} = 0.31$.
934: Our adjustment of the negative values impacts negligibly on the statistics.
935: (If the negative extinction values were retained, the mean would be
936: $\langle A_K \rangle = 0.43$ with the error and median unchanged.) When our
937: sample is restricted to those stars in common with \cite{luh98}, we
938: find approximately the same mean reddening ($\langle A_K \rangle = 0.30$)
939: that they quote for their sample ($\langle A_K \rangle = 0.34$).
940: The larger mean reddening in the present study
941: indicates that, on average, we have sampled
942: a more extincted population of the cluster than
943: has been investigated previously.
944: Using the position of the main sequence at the distance of the cluster
945: (see section 8)
946: to divide the sample into cluster and background objects, we find that
947: the cluster objects have
948: $\langle A_K \rangle = 0.31 \pm 0.04$ with a scatter about the mean of
949: 0.36. The background stars, which include most of the stars in the
950: extended high extinction tail, have $\langle A_K \rangle = 0.71 \pm 0.07$,
951: with a scatter about the mean of 0.49.
952:
953: The more heavily reddened stars in our sample are spatially intermixed with
954: stars experiencing lower extinction.
955: Figure~\ref{redmap} shows the same area plotted in Fig.~\ref{finder}.
956: The gray symbols denote stars in our sample that were
957: observed by other investigators (\cite{luh98}; \cite{her98}; Luhman 1999),
958: whereas the black symbols denote stars that were not
959: observed by these investigators.
960: The point size is scaled to our estimate of the extinction
961: to the object (larger points corresponding to larger reddening),
962: which ranges from $A_K = 0.0$ to $A_K = 2.33$.
963: The higher average extinction among the black points is apparent.
964: The extinction distribution is characterized by an overall gradient
965: from NE (larger values) to SW (smaller) with significant small scale
966: variation.
967: Given the broad extinction distributions for both cluster and
968: background objects,
969: and the patchy distribution of extinction on the sky,
970: it is evident that cluster membership cannot be
971: determined on the basis of extinction alone. Membership based on
972: extinction would erroneously assign low extinction background members
973: to the cluster and highly extincted cluster members to the background.
974:
975: \section{Observational HR Diagram }
976:
977: With the spectral types determined in section 5 and the extinction
978: extimates from section 6, we can construct an observational HR diagram
979: of the cluster fields. In Figure~\ref{hrd}, the vertical
980: axes are apparent $K$ magnitude (left panel) and
981: dereddened $K$ magnitude, $K_0$ (right panel).
982: For comparison, the solid curve in the right panel is the
983: fiducial main sequence at the distance of the cluster (see section 8.2).
984: Examination of both panels reveals a well defined
985: cluster sequence at $K\leq 14$. This locus is marginally tighter after
986: being dereddened which supports the accuracy of our reddening estimates.
987:
988: Spectral type errors are not shown, both to limit confusion
989: and because some stars have systematic as well as random error.
990: For example, although the typical random error is $\pm 1$
991: spectral subtype, stars earlier than M2 have systematically
992: later $Q_{\rm H2O}$ spectral types than optical spectral types (section 5).
993: Given the possible inaccuracy of our spectral typing scheme at
994: spectral types earlier than M2, we adopted the optical
995: spectral types of \cite{luh99} or \cite{luh98} for these objects where
996: available. The original $Q_{\rm H2O}$ spectral types of these stars
997: are shown as open circles in Figure~\ref{hrd}.
998: When optical spectral types of these stars are adopted instead (see
999: subsequent figures), the photometric width of the distribution at M2
1000: and earlier is reduced.
1001: In general, the random error in spectral type increases with increasing
1002: magnitude (see column~13 of Table~\ref{astrometry}). All stars with
1003: $K < 15.5$ have spectral type errors $\leq 1$ subtype.
1004: Since our spectral type errors grow rapidly below $K=16$, with
1005: stars fainter than $K=16.5$ having spectral type errors
1006: $\gtrsim 2.5$ subtypes, we identify $K=16.5$ as our
1007: effective magnitude limit for accurate spectral typing.
1008:
1009: While some objects have spectral types as late as ``M13'', this should
1010: be interpreted simply as an indication of strong water absorption rather
1011: than an advocacy of M spectral types beyond M9.
1012: The existence of objects with stronger water absorption than that of
1013: M9 dwarfs is in general agreement with the predictions of atmospheric models
1014: (e.g., the Ames-Dusty and Ames-MT-Dusty models of \cite{all00}).
1015: These suggest that even in the presence of dust,
1016: the $1.9~\mu$m H$_2$O absorption band continues to increase in strength
1017: down to $\sim 2000$ K at pre-main sequence gravities.
1018: In the Ames-Dusty models, $Q_{\rm H2O}$ increases in strength by 45\%
1019: between 2450K (equivalent to M8 in the dwarf temperature scale;
1020: see section 8.2) and 2000K.
1021: The $Q_{\rm H2O}$ vs.\ spectral type relation in
1022: eq.~\ref{eq:SpTQ} implies that $Q_{\rm H2O}$ is 54\% stronger at M13 than
1023: at M8, in general agreement with the predictions.
1024:
1025: The dearth of stars at $K\approx 15.5$ in the $K$ luminosity function
1026: is also evident in the left panel of Fig.~\ref{hrd}.
1027: Part of the deficit is due to the higher average reddening of the
1028: background stars.
1029: Stars with $K > 15.5$ have an average extinction greater
1030: than stars with $K < 15.5$ and when they are dereddened, they fill in
1031: the deficit somewhat.
1032: Our photometric completeness limit of $K=17.5$
1033: is shown in the left panel as a horizontal dotted line.
1034: To quantify our detection limit as a function of extinction,
1035: we also show the completeness limit dereddened by $A_K=0.31$, the mean
1036: extinction among the cluster stars
1037: (lower horizontal dotted line in the right panel of Fig.~\ref{hrd})
1038: and by $A_K=2.33$, the greatest
1039: extinction detected in the cluster fields
1040: (upper horizontal dotted line).
1041: Both limits, $K=17.19$ and $K=15.17$,
1042: are considerably dimmer than the typical cluster M star.
1043:
1044: These results imply that we have fully sampled the cluster population
1045: over a significant range in extinction. The extinction range that we
1046: probe is, of course, a function of spectral type. As examples,
1047: of the two cluster stars in the tail of the reddening distribution
1048: shown in Fig.~\ref{redhisto}, one is an M2 star with $K = 12.16$
1049: ($A_K=1.97$) and the other is an M9 star with $K = 16.73$ ($A_K=1.52$).
1050: We would have been able to detect and spectral type the first
1051: star through another $\sim 4.4$ mag of extinction (to $A_K \approx 6.4$).
1052: The second star, observed through almost 5 times the average cluster
1053: extinction, is close to our spectral typing limit.
1054:
1055: \section{Comparison with Evolutionary Tracks}
1056:
1057: \subsection{Evolutionary Models}
1058:
1059: Evolutionary models for low mass objects
1060: have developed greatly in recent years, with several
1061: different models now available over a large range in mass.
1062: \cite{dm97}
1063: have recently updated their pre-main sequence calculations,
1064: retaining the use of the Full Spectrum Turbulence model of
1065: \cite{can91}
1066: and making improvements in opacities and the equation of state.
1067: For the purpose of this paper, we use their 1998 models
1068: \footnote{These models are available at:
1069: http://www.mporzio.astro.it/~dantona}
1070: (hereinafter DM98)
1071: which cover the mass range $0.017-0.3 M_\odot$
1072: and include further improvements,
1073: e.g., in the treatment of deuterium burning,
1074: that affect the very low mass tracks.
1075:
1076: Other groups (e.g., \cite{bar98}; Burrows et al.\ 1997)
1077: have also presented new evolutionary models that include improvements
1078: in the treatment of the stellar interior
1079: and use non-gray atmospheres as an outer boundary condition.
1080: The corrections associated with the latter are particularly
1081: significant at low masses since the presence of molecules in low
1082: temperature atmospheres results in spectra that are significantly
1083: non-blackbody. Models by Baraffe et al.\ (1998; hereinafter B98)
1084: explore the mass range $\sim 0.025-1.0 M_\odot$
1085: using the Allard et al.\ (1997) NextGen synthetic atmospheres.
1086: Although there are known inconsistencies in the NextGen models
1087: (e.g., they overpredict the strength of the IR water bands;
1088: TiO opacities are suspected to be incomplete;
1089: grain formation is not included), the B98 models nevertheless
1090: reproduce well the main sequence
1091: properties of low metallicity populations, e.g., the
1092: optical color-magnitude diagram of globular clusters and
1093: halo field subdwarfs. There is also good agreement with the
1094: optical and IR properties of nearby disk populations, although
1095: some discrepancies remain at low masses ($< 0.15 M_\odot$).
1096:
1097: Non-gray models have been developed independently by
1098: \cite{bur97} who focus on the properties of
1099: objects at lower mass ($0.3-70 M_J$, where $M_J$ is the mass of Jupiter).
1100: The Burrows et al. evolutionary tracks differ qualitatively
1101: from those of B98 in the upper mass range,
1102: but are more qualititatively similar at masses $\lesssim 60 M_J.$
1103: The qualitative difference between these models, which appear to have
1104: similar input physics, may indicate the current level of uncertainty
1105: in the evolutionary tracks at low masses.
1106: Quantitatively, an effective temperature of 3340 K and
1107: luminosity of $0.076 L_\odot$
1108: corresponds to a mass and age of $0.090 M_\odot$ and 1.8 Myr
1109: with the Burrows et al. tracks
1110: and $0.3 M_\odot$ and 8 Myr with the B98 tracks.
1111: The tracks agree better in mass
1112: in the lower mass range: at 2890 K and $0.022 L_\odot$,
1113: Burrows et al. predict $0.05 M_\odot$ at 1.2 Myr,
1114: and the B98 tracks predict $0.06 M_\odot$ at 3.2 Myr.
1115:
1116:
1117: \subsection{Interloper Population}
1118: As reviewed by Herbig (1998),
1119: the distance to IC348 has been previously estimated on the basis of
1120: both nearby stars in the Per OB2 association
1121: and stars in the IC348 cluster itself.
1122: For the purpose of comparing our results with evolutionary tracks,
1123: we adopt a distance to IC348 of $d = 300$ pc, $(m-M)_0 = 7.4$.
1124: This value is in good agreement with current estimates of the
1125: distances to the Per OB2 cluster
1126: (318$\pm 27$ pc; de Zeeuw et al.\ 1999)
1127: and to IC348 itself (261$\pm 25$ pc; Scholz et al.\ 1999)
1128: inferred from Hipparcos data.
1129: The adopted distance is also in agreement with the value adopted by both
1130: Herbig (1998) and \cite{luh98} and thereby allows ready
1131: comparison of our results with those obtained in previous studies.
1132:
1133: To delineate the background population,
1134: the position of the main sequence at the cluster distance is
1135: indicated by the solid curve in the right panel of Fig.~\ref{hrd},
1136: where we have used the 12 Gyr isochrone from the B98 evolutionary tracks
1137: and a temperature scale that places the isochrone in good
1138: agreement with the main sequence locus
1139: of nearby field stars (e.g., \cite{kir94}).
1140: The temperature scale used,
1141: \[
1142: {\rm M~subtype} = (4000 - T_{\rm eff})/180,
1143: \]
1144: is generally consistent with the Leggett et al.\ (1996)
1145: dwarf temperature scale.
1146:
1147: The magnitude and spectral type distributions of the background
1148: population, located to the lower left of the main sequence,
1149: are in very good agreement with the total interloper population predicted by
1150: models of the point source infrared sky (\cite{wai92}; Cohen 1994)
1151: at the Galactic latitude and longitude of IC348.
1152: Table~\ref{cohenbck} compares the observed and model counts as a function
1153: of $K$ magnitude and spectral type.
1154: To $K_0=17$, significant departures between the model and observed counts
1155: are apparent only for spectral types earlier than M3 at $K_0>16$.
1156: Given the large spread in the reddening distribution of the background
1157: population (to $A_K>2$; Fig.~\ref{redhisto}),
1158: this discrepancy in the counts probably arises from photometric
1159: incompleteness below $K=17.5$.
1160: This result (the good agreement between the model prediction for the
1161: total interloper population and the observed background population),
1162: implies a negligible foreground contamination (at most $1-2$ stars)
1163: of the cluster population at late spectral types.
1164: The large reddening of many of the faint late-type stars also statistically
1165: argues against a foreground origin for these objects.
1166: Note, however, that the errors on some of the fainter objects identified
1167: as older cluster members (e.g., objects in the range $K_0=15.5-16.5$,
1168: M6$-$M8) allow for the possibility that they are
1169: background objects even if they are not predicted to be so by the
1170: Galactic structure model.
1171:
1172:
1173: \subsection{Temperature Scale and Bolometric Correction}
1174:
1175: A generic difficulty in comparing measured stellar fluxes and
1176: spectral types with evolutionary tracks is the need to adopt
1177: relations between spectral type, effective temperature, and
1178: bolometric correction.
1179: In principle, such relations could be avoided by using synthetic
1180: spectra from model atmospheres to go directly from observed spectra
1181: and colors to temperature and gravity, and hence to mass and age
1182: using the theoretical evolutionary tracks.
1183: For example, we might hope to compare directly the water band
1184: strengths of the Allard \& Hauschildt atmospheres used in the B98
1185: models with the water band strengths that we measured.
1186: However, since there remain significant quantitative differences
1187: between the predicted and observed water band strengths of M stars
1188: (e.g., the models consistently overpredict water band strengths;
1189: see also \cite{tie00}),
1190: this approach cannot be used in the present case.
1191: In other words, although current synthetic atmospheres may be
1192: sufficiently accurate for the purpose of evolutionary calculations and
1193: the prediction of broad band colors, they are insufficiently
1194: accurate as templates for spectral typing.
1195: Hence, we adopted the less direct method of first calibrating our
1196: water index versus spectra type (section 5), and then selecting
1197: an appropriate spectral type to temperature conversion.
1198:
1199: Ideally, we would want to use a relation between spectral type and
1200: effective temperature that is
1201: appropriate to the gravity and metallicity of the IC348 population.
1202: Unfortunately, an empirical calibration of spectral type and effective temperature
1203: appropriate for pre-main-sequence conditions has yet to be made.
1204: In the meantime, since pre-main-sequence gravities are similar to dwarf
1205: gravities, temperature scales close to the dwarf scale
1206: (e.g., \cite{leg96}) are often used in the
1207: study of young populations (e.g., LRLL; \cite{wil99}).
1208: Because the temperature scale may differ from that of dwarfs
1209: at PMS gravities, other choices have also been investigated,
1210: including temperature scales intermediate between those of dwarfs
1211: and giants (e.g., \cite{whi99}; Luhman 1999).
1212:
1213: The validity of the various evolutionary tracks
1214: can be evaluated by a number of criteria including
1215: whether stellar masses predicted by evolutionary tracks
1216: agree with dynamical estimates,
1217: and whether populations believed to be coeval appear so when
1218: compared with evolutionary tracks (e.g., Stauffer et al.\ 1995).
1219: Dynamical mass constraints are becoming available in the
1220: $1 M_\odot$ range (see, e.g., \cite{mat00}) but are thus
1221: far unavailable at the masses of interest in the present study.
1222: In contrast, coeval population constraints are more readily
1223: available at these lower masses.
1224: For example, in the GG Tau hierarchical quadruple system
1225: (\cite{whi99}),
1226: the four components of the system, arguably coeval, span a wide range
1227: in spectral type (K7 to M7; open squares in Fig.~\ref{ObsHRD}, upper left),
1228: thereby
1229: outlining, in rough form, an isochrone spanning a large mass range.
1230: When plotted at a common distance, the IC348 cluster locus identified
1231: in the present study overlaps the locus defined by
1232: the GG Tau components over the same range of spectral types (Fig.~\ref{ObsHRD}).
1233: This both reinforces the validity of the GG Tau system as a coeval
1234: population constraint and argues that the mean age of the IC348 cluster
1235: is approximately independent of mass.
1236: Similar results have been found previously at spectral types earlier
1237: than M6 (Luhman 1999).
1238:
1239: The uncertainty in the pre-main-sequence temperature scale complicates
1240: our understanding of the validity of the tracks.
1241: As discussed by Luhman (1999),
1242: combinations of evolutionary tracks and temperature scales
1243: that are consistent with a coeval nature for the GG Tau system
1244: and the IC348 cluster locus include
1245: (1) DM98 tracks and a dwarf temperature scale
1246: (2) B98 tracks and an otherwise arbitrary temperature scale intermediate
1247: between that of dwarfs and giants.
1248: Our results are compared in Figure \ref{ObsHRD}
1249: with these combinations of
1250: temperature scales and tracks.
1251: For comparison, the two alternative combinations of temperature scales
1252: and tracks are shown.
1253: In comparing the B98 models with the observations, we have used
1254: the model $K$ magnitudes and a linear fit to either the
1255: dwarf temperature scale
1256: \begin{equation}
1257: {\rm M\ subtype} = (3914 - T_{\rm eff})/183.3
1258: \label{eq:teLeg}
1259: \end{equation}
1260: or the Luhman (1999) intermediate temperature scale
1261: \begin{equation}
1262: {\rm M\ subtype} = (3850 - T_{\rm eff})/141.0
1263: \label{eq:teL99}
1264: \end{equation}
1265: In approximating the dwarf temperature scale, particular weight was given
1266: to the dwarf temperature determinations by \cite{tsu96}
1267: who used the IR flux measurement technique. As they show, this technique
1268: is relatively insensitive to the details of synthetic atmospheres (e.g.,
1269: dust formation). The fit thus obtained is in good agreement with the
1270: temperature determinations of Leggett et al.\ (1996) which are based on
1271: a comparison
1272: of synthetic atmospheres with measured IR colors and spectra.
1273: In comparing the DM98 models with the observations, we have used,
1274: in addition to these temperature scales, a bolometric correction
1275: $$ {\rm BC_K} = M_{\rm bol} - M_K = 4.19 - T_{\rm eff}/2240$$
1276: that extrapolates the values obtained by Leggett et al. (1996)
1277: and \cite{tin93} to low temperatures.
1278:
1279: The combination of the B98 models and the Luhman intermediate
1280: temperature scale (eq.~\ref{eq:teL99}; Fig.~\ref{ObsHRD} upper left)
1281: implies that the mean age of the cluster is approximately independent of
1282: mass over the range $0.7-0.04 M_\odot$.
1283: The comparison implies a mean age $\sim$3 Myr with a
1284: age spread from $< 1$ to $\sim 20$ Myr.
1285: The faint cluster population between spectral types M5 and M8
1286: appears to constitute an old cluster population ($\sim 5$ to $>20$ Myr)
1287: with masses $0.13-0.05 M_\odot$.
1288: If the dwarf temperature scale
1289: (eq.~\ref{eq:teLeg}; Fig.~\ref{ObsHRD} upper right) is used
1290: instead, the cluster is,
1291: on average, significantly younger at late spectral types.
1292:
1293: The combination of the DM98 models and the dwarf
1294: temperature scale (eq.~\ref{eq:teLeg}; Fig.~\ref{ObsHRD} lower right)
1295: implies that the mean cluster age is approximately independent of
1296: mass at spectral types earlier than M7
1297: but younger at late types.
1298: The comparison implies a mean age $\sim 1$ Myr with a
1299: age spread from $< 1$ to $\sim 10$ Myr.
1300: With these models, the faint cluster population between
1301: spectral types M5 and M8 is spread over a larger range in mass
1302: $0.16-0.025 M_\odot$.
1303: If the Luhman intermediate temperature scale
1304: (eq.~\ref{eq:teL99}; Fig.~\ref{ObsHRD} lower left)
1305: is used instead, the cluster is older at late types with a
1306: larger spread in age.
1307: With all combinations of models and temperature scales,
1308: the brighter cluster population beyond M8 is systematically younger,
1309: $< 1$ Myr old.
1310: If this is an artifact, it may indicate the likely inadequacy
1311: of the assumed linear relation between effective temperature
1312: and spectral type over the entire range of spectral types in the sample.
1313: Deficiencies in the evolutionary tracks are another possibility.
1314:
1315: It is interesting to examine the motivation for the intermediate
1316: temperature scale adopted by White et al. (1999) and Luhman (1999).
1317: These authors have argued that since the M giant temperature scale is
1318: warmer than the dwarf scale, PMS stars, which are
1319: intermediate in gravity, may be characterized by a
1320: temperature scale intermediate between that of giants and dwarfs.
1321: \cite{luh99} has further shown that the spectra of pre-main sequence
1322: stars in IC348 are better fit by an average of dwarf and giant
1323: spectra of the same spectral type.
1324:
1325: There are several caveats to this argument.
1326: Firstly, the giant temperature scale considered by Luhman (1999)
1327: is derived from the direct measurement of stellar angular diameters
1328: (e.g., \cite{per98}; \cite{ric98}; \cite{van99}),
1329: whereas the dwarf temperature scale is typically determined with the
1330: use of model spectra (e.g., \cite{leg96}; \cite{jon94}; \cite{jon96}).
1331: The different methods by which the two temperature scales are derived
1332: may introduce systematic differences that do not reflect a true
1333: temperature difference.
1334:
1335: Secondly, we can turn to synthetic atmospheres for insight into
1336: the gravity-dependent behavior of the temperature scale.
1337: In the current generation of the Allard \& Hauschildt atmospheres
1338: (e.g., Ames-Dusty, Ames-MT-Dusty),
1339: the 1.9$\mu$m water band strength is relatively insensitive to gravity
1340: above 3000K ($\sim$M5 in the dwarf scale).
1341: At effective temperatures below 3000K, dust formation is significant,
1342: introducing added complexity to the gravity dependence of the
1343: atmosphere in the 1.9$\mu$m region.
1344: In this temperature range, the water index first increases in strength
1345: ($Q_{\rm H2O}$ decreases) at fixed temperature
1346: from $\log g \sim 3.5$ to $\log g \sim 5.0-5.5$
1347: (due to increased water abundance)
1348: then decreases in strength with higher gravity
1349: (due to increased dust formation and consequent backwarming and
1350: dissociation of water).
1351: The net result is a {\it cooler} temperature scale
1352: for pre-main-sequence gravities below 3000K.
1353: For example, at $\sim 2700$ K pre-main-sequence objects ($\log g = 3.5-4.0$) are
1354: $\sim 200$K cooler than dwarfs ($\log g = 5.0-5.5$) with an equivalent
1355: water strength.
1356:
1357: On the basis of these models, there is little physical motivation
1358: for an intermediate temperature scale beyond M4 for the interpretation
1359: of water band strengths.
1360: Of course, these considerations apply to the interpretation of
1361: 1.9$\mu$m water band strengths rather than the 6500-9000\AA\ region
1362: studied by \cite{luh99}.
1363: A detailed examination of current synthetic atmospheres for the latter
1364: spectral region may provide better motivation for a hotter temperature
1365: scale at lower gravities.
1366:
1367: Note that the gravity dependence of $Q_{\rm H2O}$ in
1368: the synthetic atmospheres is modest over the range of gravities
1369: relevant to low mass pre-main sequence
1370: stars in the age range of the cluster (1--10 Myr).
1371: For example, in the B98 model, an $0.06 M_\odot$ object follows
1372: a vertical evolutionary track at $T_{\rm eff} \sim 2860$K with
1373: $\log g=3.6-4.2$
1374: in the age interval 1--10 Myr which corresponds to a fractional change
1375: in $Q_{\rm H2O}$ of $\lesssim 15$\% or $\lesssim 1$ subtype, given the
1376: relation between $Q_{\rm H2O}$ and spectral type discussed in section 5.
1377:
1378: In summary, while we can find little physical motivation for an
1379: intermediate
1380: temperature scale with which to interpret our results, we interpret
1381: the better fit to the IC348 cluster locus that we obtain with
1382: the combination of this temperature scale and the B98 models as an
1383: indication of the direction in which the evolutionary model
1384: calculations might themselves evolve in order to
1385: better reproduce observations of young clusters.
1386: With these caveats in mind, we discuss, in the next section,
1387: the cluster mass function
1388: implied by 2 combinations of tracks and temperature scales.
1389: However, it is already clear that there will be
1390: reasonable uncertainty associated with such results.
1391:
1392:
1393:
1394:
1395: \section{Discussion}
1396:
1397: \subsection{Binarity}
1398:
1399: The area and depth that we have covered at relatively high angular
1400: resolution, combined with our ability to discriminate cluster members
1401: from background objects, allows us to place some useful constraints
1402: on the binary star population of the cluster.
1403: At the pixel scale of NIC3,
1404: pairs of stars with separations $\gtrsim 0.8\arcsec$ are easily
1405: identified over the entire magnitude range of our sample;
1406: for fainter primaries, companions could be similarly detected at smaller
1407: separations.
1408: A significant obstacle to the detection of faint companions
1409: at separations $\lesssim 0.8\arcsec$
1410: is the complex, extended structure in the NICMOS PSF
1411: which also makes it difficult to quantify our detection completeness.
1412: More refined techniques, such as PSF subtraction or deconvolution,
1413: when applied to the data, are likely to reveal close binary systems that
1414: we have missed.
1415:
1416: Table~\ref{binaries} tabulates all of the stars in our sample that
1417: were found to have a nearest neighbor within $8\arcsec$. The stars
1418: have been designated
1419: primary and secondary based on their $K_0$ magnitudes. The spectral types
1420: for the G dwarfs are from \cite{luh98} and the other spectral types
1421: are our spectral types as determined in Section 5.
1422: Figure~\ref{binary} shows the positions of the close pairs
1423: in the observational HR diagram. To
1424: identify the pairs, the components are connected by lines.
1425: Although we were sensitive to separations $\gtrsim 0.8\arcsec$,
1426: only pairs with separations $> 1.5\arcsec$ were detected.
1427: Based on their locations in the observational HR diagram,
1428: seven of the close pairs are chance projections of a background star
1429: close to a cluster member (Fig.~\ref{binary}; dotted lines).
1430: Both components of one pair are background objects.
1431: Of the 8 candidate cluster binaries
1432: 3 (093-04/093-05; 043-02/043-03; 024-05/024-06)
1433: were previously detected by \cite{duc99}
1434: in their study of binarity among a sample of 67 IC348 objects.
1435: We also confirm their speculation
1436: that 083-03 and 023-03 are background
1437: objects with small projected separations to cluster members.
1438:
1439: As shown in Fig.~\ref{binary} (solid lines), several of the
1440: candidate binary pairs
1441: have spectral types and $K_0$ magnitudes consistent with a common
1442: age for the two components. For the candidate binaries E, F, C, D,
1443: and H, the lines connecting the two components
1444: have slopes consistent with the isochrones.
1445: The candidate binary B has a nearly vertical slope.
1446: However, given our estimate of the uncertainty in the spectral types
1447: of the binary components, the slope is also highly uncertain, and
1448: a common age for the binary components cannot be ruled out.
1449: While the component spectral types for the binary candidate G have similar
1450: uncertainties, the large separation in magnitude between the two
1451: components, if each are single stars, makes it unlikely that
1452: they share a common age. If, on the other hand, the brighter
1453: component is an approximate equal mass binary,
1454: the reduced brightness of each of the two
1455: stars is more consistent with the evolutionary models,
1456: and the triple system may be coeval.
1457: If more definitive studies reveal that the binary candidates B and G
1458: are not coeval, this may indicate that they are not physically related.
1459: Alternatively, a large age difference between the components may
1460: indicate that the binaries formed through capture.
1461:
1462:
1463: If we define the binary fraction as the ratio of the number of companions
1464: detected to the number of targets observed (193 stars), the cluster
1465: binary fraction in the separation range $0.8\arcsec - 8\arcsec$
1466: (240 $-$ 2400 AU) is 8\%.
1467: This is comparable to the result of \cite{duc99} who,
1468: based on a smaller sample of stars, found a 19\% binary fraction for
1469: their entire sample;
1470: half of their binaries fall in the separation range of our study.
1471: However, there are several important differences between the two studies.
1472: We sample a lower range of primary masses ($\sim 0.015-0.8 M_\odot$)
1473: than \cite{duc99} ($\sim 0.2 - 2 M_\odot$). In addition,
1474: the mass ratios to which we are sensitive are set
1475: by the magnitude limit of the sample rather than by
1476: the magnitude difference between the binary components.
1477: In contrast to \cite{duc99}, who commented on the lack of
1478: substellar companions, we find candidate substellar companions
1479: (e.g., 022-05) and one candidate substellar binary (H).
1480:
1481:
1482: \subsection{Low-Mass Cluster Members}
1483:
1484: The very low-mass cluster population is highlighted in
1485: Figure~\ref{lowmass}. The 6 objects indicated
1486: have the largest water absorption strengths in the sample,
1487: corresponding to spectral types later than M9, and presumably the lowest masses.
1488: The errors on the derived properties for 3 of the objects
1489: (012-02, 102-01, 022-09) are modest, and imply masses
1490: $\lesssim 0.025 M_\odot$ in the context of both the B98 and DM98 models.
1491: The other 3 objects (024-02, 075-01, and 021-05) are in fact fainter than
1492: our effective limit for accurate spectral typing
1493: ($K = 16.5$) and so have spectral type errors $>2.5$ subtypes
1494: (cf. section 7).
1495: Two of these objects, 024-02 ($A_K=1.52$) and 075-01 ($A_K=2.3$),
1496: are faint due to their large extinctions and are $\sim 5$ and $\sim 7$
1497: times more extincted, respectively, than the cluster mean.
1498: Even with the larger errors for these objects, it appears very likely
1499: that all 3 are substellar cluster objects.
1500: However, because of its proximity to the main sequence,
1501: there is a small probability that 021-05 is a background M star.
1502:
1503: \subsection{Mass Function}
1504:
1505:
1506: To estimate a mass function for our sample, we used
1507: two combinations of evolutionary models and temperature scales:
1508: the B98 models in combination with the Luhman (1999) intermediate
1509: temperature scale and the DM98 models in combination with the
1510: dwarf temperature scale.
1511: The lower mass limit to which we are complete is determined by
1512: our spectral typing limit.
1513: As discussed in section 7, we have fairly accurate spectral types
1514: for all sources to $K=16.5$.
1515: For a mean cluster reddening of $A_K \simeq 0.3,$
1516: this corresponds to $K_0 \simeq 16.2$ or
1517: $M_K \simeq 8.8$ at the assumed distance of IC348.
1518: Thus, with the DM98 models, we are, for example, complete to
1519: $0.017 M_\odot$ at the mean extinction of the cluster and
1520: ages $< 3$ Myr.
1521:
1522: For the B98 models, some extrapolation was needed to both
1523: younger ages ($< 2$ Myr), in order to account for the brighter
1524: cluster population, and to lower masses ($< 0.025 M_\odot$)
1525: in order to estimate our mass completeness limit.
1526: In extrapolating below 2 Myr, we used the 1 Myr isochrone from the
1527: \cite{bar97} models as a guide.
1528: For the lower masses,
1529: we used the planetary/brown dwarf evolutionary theory of
1530: \cite{bur97} to extrapolate the isochrone
1531: appropriate to the mean age of the subcluster (3 Myr).
1532: Several similarities between the Burrows et al. and B98 models suggest
1533: the utility of such an approach.
1534: Like B98, the Burrows et al. theory is non-gray,
1535: and the evolutionary tracks in the luminosity vs. $T_{\rm eff}$ plane
1536: at masses $< 0.04 M_\odot$ are qualitatively similar.
1537: Two possible extrapolations are given to illustrate the uncertainty
1538: in the result.
1539:
1540: In the B98 models, a $0.025 M_\odot$ object at 3 Myr has
1541: $T_{\rm eff}=2628$K, and $M_K=7.56$.
1542: In comparison, in the Burrows et al. theory, a $0.025 M_\odot$ object
1543: at 3 Myr is slightly hotter ($T_{\rm eff}$=2735K) but has a comparable
1544: absolute $K$ magnitude ($M_K=7.6$ assuming BC$_K = 3.0$);
1545: a 3 Myr old object that is 1.2 magnitudes
1546: fainter ($M_K=8.8$) has an effective temperature $\simeq 300$K cooler
1547: and is $0.011 M_\odot$ lower in mass.
1548: Applying the same mass and temperature differentials to
1549: the 3 Myr old, $0.025 M_\odot$ object from B98
1550: implies that a 3 Myr old, $M_K=8.8$ object
1551: in the B98 theory has $T_{\rm eff}=2330$K and a mass of $0.014 M_\odot$.
1552:
1553: As an alternate estimate, we can extrapolate the 3 Myr isochrone
1554: based on a match in $T_{\rm eff}$ rather than mass. As described above,
1555: the effective temperature of a $0.025 M_\odot$, 3 Myr old object
1556: in B98 theory is 2628K.
1557: From the $T_{\rm eff}=2628$K point in the 3 Myr isochrone of the
1558: Burrows et al. models, $\Delta M_K=1.2$ corresponds
1559: to a change in temperature and mass of $\Delta T_{\rm eff}=-425$K
1560: and $\Delta m=-0.010 M_\odot$.
1561: Applying these mass and temperature differentials to
1562: the 3 Myr old, $0.025 M_\odot$ object from B98
1563: implies an effective temperature of $2200$K and mass $0.015 M_\odot$
1564: for a 3 Myr old, $M_K=8.8$ object.
1565: Thus, with either estimate, our spectral typing limit of
1566: $M_K=8.8$ corresponds to a mass completeness limit of $\sim 0.015 M_\odot$
1567: at the average age and reddening of the cluster members.
1568: The effective temperature appropriate to this mass limit is less
1569: certain.
1570:
1571: Formally, the appropriate effective temperature affects our estimate
1572: of the lower limit to the final mass bin of our sample.
1573: Note, however, that our spectral typing limit
1574: of $0.015 M_\odot$ is close to the deuterium burning limit (Burrows et al. 1993,
1575: Saumon et al. 1996) and in the age range in which objects
1576: fade fairly rapidly with age.
1577: For example, in the Burrows et al. models, a 3 Myr old, $0.010 M_\odot$
1578: object is half as luminous as a $0.015 M_\odot$ object at the same age.
1579: Given the rapid fading, it is unlikely that we have detected objects
1580: much less massive than $0.015 M_\odot$,
1581: which we adopt as the lower limit
1582: of the final mass bin of the sample.
1583: Note that our spectral typing limit of $K=16.5$ implies that
1584: we have somewhat underestimated the population of the final mass bin if
1585: that bin is characterized by the same spread in age and reddening that
1586: is measured at higher masses.
1587:
1588: The mass functions for the age range $0-10$ Myr
1589: that result from the assumptions and extrapolations
1590: discussed above are shown in Fig.~\ref{massfunc}.
1591: The result for both the B98 models (solid symbols) and DM98 models
1592: (dotted symbols) are shown.
1593: Note that the objects indicated previously as potential background
1594: objects ($K_0=15.5-16.5$, M6$-$M8) are not included in the
1595: mass function for the B98 models, whereas some are included in the
1596: mass function for the DM models. Since these objects represent only
1597: a small fraction of the objects in each bin, whether or not these are
1598: included as members makes little difference to the slope of the
1599: mass function.
1600:
1601: The DM98 models indicate a flattening at $\sim 0.25 M_\odot,$ whereas
1602: the B98 models imply an approximately constant slope over the entire
1603: mass range $0.7-0.015 M_\odot.$ In either case,
1604: the mass function appears to decrease from $\sim 0.25 M_\odot$,
1605: through the hydrogen burning limit ($\sim 0.08 M_\odot$),
1606: down to the deuterium burning limit ($\sim 0.015 M_\odot$).
1607: The slope of the mass function in this range is consistent with
1608: $dN/d\log M \propto M^{0.5}$ for B98 and
1609: $dN/d\log M \propto M^{0.6}$ for DM98.
1610: The slow, approximately continuous decrease in the mass function in this
1611: interval differs from the result obtained by Hillenbrand (1997) for the
1612: Orion Nebula Cluster. The sharp fall off in the Orion Nebula Cluster
1613: mass function below
1614: $\sim 0.2 M_\odot$ ($dN/d\log M \propto M^{2.5}$) is not reproduced here.
1615: Instead, we find that the slope of the IC348 mass function is more
1616: similar to that derived for the Pleiades in the mass range $0.3-0.04 M_\odot,$
1617: $dN/d\log M \propto M^{0.4}$ (\cite{bou98}).
1618: The slope is similar to that inferred for the
1619: substellar population of the solar neighborhood from 2MASS and DENIS data.
1620: As determined by Reid et al.\ (1999), the observed properties of the
1621: local L dwarf population are consistent with a mass function
1622: $dN/d\log M \propto M^{\alpha},$ with $\alpha\sim$ -1 to 0, although a
1623: mass function similar to that for IC348 is not strongly precluded
1624: especially given the uncertainty in the age distribution of objects
1625: in the solar neighborhood.
1626:
1627: Given the low masses to which we are sensitive, it is also interesting
1628: to compare our result to the mass function that is emerging for
1629: companions to nearby solar-type (G$-$KV) stars at separations $<5$ AU
1630: (e.g., \cite{mar00}).
1631: While initial results indicated that the substellar companion mass
1632: function might be a smooth continuation of the stellar companion mass
1633: function (e.g., $dN/d\log M \propto M^{0.6}$; \cite{may98}),
1634: proper motion data from Hipparcos have revealed that
1635: a significant fraction of companions in the $0.015-0.08 M_\odot$ range
1636: are low inclination systems, and hence have larger (stellar or near-stellar)
1637: masses (\cite{mar00}; Halbwachs et al.\ 2000).
1638: When corrected for these low inclination systems, the
1639: companion mass function appears to be characterized by a marked deficit
1640: in the $0.015-0.08 M_\odot$ mass range (the ``brown dwarf desert'';
1641: \cite{mar00}; Halbwachs et al.\ 2000).
1642: In contrast, the mass function for IC348 appears to decrease
1643: continuously through the stellar/substellar boundary and
1644: the mass range $0.08 - 0.015 M_\odot$.
1645: %More quantitatively,
1646: %the analysis by Halbwachs et al.\ (2000) finds that companion mass functions
1647: %similar to, or even less abundant in brown dwarfs than the
1648: %IC348 mass function (e.g., $dN/d\log M \propto M$), are rejected at
1649: %a fairly high confidence level ($\sim$ 99\%).
1650:
1651: The low mass end of the IC348 sample extends into the mass range ($10-20 M_J$)
1652: in which objects transition from higher mass objects that burn deuterium
1653: early in their evolution to lower mass objects that are incapable of
1654: deuterium burning due to the onset of electron degeneracy pressure
1655: during the contraction phase
1656: (e.g., \cite{gro74}; \cite{bur93}).
1657: According to the calculations of Saumon et al.\ (1996),
1658: $\sim 15 M_J$ objects deplete their deuterium abundances by a factor
1659: of 2 after 30 Myr of evolution, while objects $\le 12 M_J$ retain all of
1660: their initial deuterium and derive no luminosity from thermonuclear
1661: fusion at any point in their evolution.
1662: They suggest the deuterium burning limit as a possible interpretive
1663: boundary between objects that are regarded as brown dwarfs and
1664: those regarded as planets.
1665:
1666: If we assume that the hydrogen and deuterium burning mass limits
1667: delimit the brown dwarf population,
1668: with either the DM98 or B98 models,
1669: we have fully sampled the brown dwarf population, at ages up to the
1670: mean age of the subcluster and extinctions up to the cluster average.
1671: Thus, we can conclude with near certainty that the fraction of
1672: the subcluster mass contributed by brown dwarfs is low, only a few
1673: percent of the cluster mass.
1674: With the B98 tracks, we find a total of $\sim 22$ cluster substellar
1675: candidates which represents a significant fraction, $\sim 20$\%, of all
1676: cluster M dwarfs by number, but only a small fraction, $\sim 4$\%, by
1677: mass. For comparison, with the DM98 tracks, we find $\sim 30$ cluster
1678: substellar candidates which represents $\sim 30$\% of all cluster
1679: M dwarfs by number and $\sim 6$\% by mass.
1680:
1681: These limits on the substellar contribution to the total cluster mass
1682: have interesting implications when compared with current limits
1683: placed by microlensing studies on the substellar content of the
1684: Galactic halo. Based on the search for microlensing toward the LMC
1685: the current EROS limits on the fraction of the halo mass that resides
1686: in brown dwarf mass objects is $\lesssim$ 10\% (Lasserre et al.\ 2000).
1687: Scaling our results for IC348 by the stellar fraction of the halo
1688: mass ($\sim 1$ \%), we find that if the halo has the same IMF as
1689: IC348, then substellar objects contribute negligibly to the halo mass
1690: ($< 0.1$\%). The several orders of magnitude difference between these
1691: limits leaves room for some interesting possibilities. If future
1692: microlensing results find confirmation for a halo mass fraction of even
1693: $\sim 1$ \% in substellar objects, that would indicate that low mass
1694: star formation in the halo proceeded significantly differently from
1695: that currently occuring in Galactic clusters.
1696:
1697: What do the IC348 results tell us about the star formation process?
1698: The absence of structure in the mass function at the hydrogen burning
1699: limit (e.g., a turnover) is perhaps expected. It is difficult to
1700: imagine how hydrogen burning, which demarcates the end of the
1701: pre-main sequence phase, could influence the determination of
1702: stellar masses, an outcome which is probably determined at much
1703: earlier times.
1704:
1705: We also find no obvious feature in the IMF at the deuterium burning
1706: limit (e.g., a strong increase or decrease),
1707: a potentially more relevant mass scale for star formation since
1708: deuterium burning occurs at pre-main-sequence ages.
1709: This result may appear puzzling in the context of some current
1710: theories for the origin of stellar masses.
1711: For example, in a canonical theory of the formation of solar-type
1712: stars, it is the onset of deuterium burning that is believed to
1713: set in motion the sequence of events by which a star comes to have
1714: a role in determining its own mass. The onset of deuterium burning
1715: first induces a fully convective stellar interior. The convective
1716: interior, combined with the rapid stellar rotation that is likely to
1717: result from the accretion of angular momentum along with mass, is
1718: believed to generate a strong stellar magnetic field. The strong field
1719: is, in turn, believed to drive a magnetocentrifugal wind that ultimately
1720: sweeps away the cloud from which the star formed and possibly reverses
1721: the infall itself, thereby helping to limit the mass of the star. The
1722: self-deterministic aspect of such a mass-limiting wind is a
1723: critical element in explanations for the generic origin of
1724: stellar masses (e.g., \cite{shu95}) and some theories of the IMF
1725: (e.g., \cite{ada96}).
1726:
1727: In this picture, as masses close to the deuterium burning limit are
1728: approached, one might expect that, the deuterium burning trigger being
1729: absent, low mass objects might not be able to reverse the infall and,
1730: consequently, it would be difficult to produce any objects of such
1731: low mass. This appears to be inaccurate both theoretically and
1732: observationally. Not only are young objects in this mass range fully
1733: convective without the aid of deuterium burning (Burrows, personal
1734: communication) and may thereby generate magnetic fields in advance
1735: of or in the absence of deuterium burning, but we also find no deficit
1736: of objects near the deuterium burning limit. This nevertheless raises
1737: the important question of what physical processes determine the masses
1738: of objects much below a solar mass.
1739:
1740: Fragmentation is one possibly significant process at this mass scale.
1741: Coindentally, our survey mass limit is close to the characteristic mass
1742: for opacity-limited fragmentation under the low temperature, chemically
1743: enriched conditions current prevailing in molecular clouds
1744: ($\sim 0.01 M_\odot$; e.g., Silk 1977). In this picture, if cooling is
1745: efficient as collapse proceeds, the inverse dependence of the Jeans
1746: mass on density leads to fragmentation on increasingly small scales as
1747: collapse continues, halting only when objects become optically thick
1748: to their own radiation and the cooling efficiency is thereby impaired.
1749: If the characteristically low mass objects that form as the result of this
1750: process represent the ``seeds'' of star formation from which more massive
1751: objects must grow, we might expect to find a large number of objects
1752: with this mass. Perhaps significantly, we find no such large excess,
1753: but rather a smooth continuation from the stellar mass regime down to
1754: this mass scale. This implies that if fragmentation plays an important
1755: role in the formation of stars and brown dwarfs, that the subsequent
1756: events (e.g., merging, accretion) are efficient at erasing the
1757: characteristic mass scale for fragmentation.
1758: Future IMF studies that probe masses below the characteristic fragmentation
1759: mass can provide more stringent constraints on the role of fragmentation
1760: in the star formation process.
1761:
1762:
1763: \section{Summary and Conclusions}
1764:
1765:
1766: Using HST NICMOS narrow band imaging, we have measured the
1767: 1.9 $\mu$m water band strengths of low-mass objects in the IC348a
1768: subcluster. With the magnitudes and spectral types
1769: thereby obtained, we are able to separate
1770: cluster members from background objects.
1771: Comparisons with recent evolutionary tracks (B98, DM98) imply
1772: that our study probes a mass range extending from low-mass stars
1773: ($\lesssim 0.7 M_\odot$)
1774: down to the bottom of the deuterium burning main sequence
1775: ($\gtrsim 0.015 M_\odot$).
1776: The mean age of the subcluster is 3 Myr with the B98 tracks
1777: and 1 Myr with the DM98 tracks.
1778: These results are subject to uncertainties in the evolutionary tracks
1779: and the appropriate conversions between theoretical
1780: ($L_*$, $T_{\rm eff}$) and observed
1781: (e.g., spectral types, magnitudes)
1782: quantities which remain somewhat uncertain.
1783: We also confirm an age spread to the cluster, as found previously
1784: (\cite{lad95}; \cite{her98}; \cite{luh98}),
1785: from $<1$ to $10-20$ Myr.
1786:
1787: Assuming that the hydrogen- and deuterium-burning mass limits
1788: delimit the brown dwarf population, we have fully sampled the brown
1789: dwarf population at ages up to 3 Myr
1790: and extinctions up to the cluster average ($A_K=0.3$).
1791: We find $\sim 20-30$ cluster substellar candidates (depending on
1792: the choice of evolutionary tracks) which represents a significant
1793: fraction, $\sim 25$\%, of all cluster M dwarfs by number,
1794: but only a small fraction, $\sim 5$\%, by mass.
1795: The mass function derived for the subcluster,
1796: $dN/d\log M \propto M^{0.5},$ is similar to that recently obtained
1797: for the Pleiades over a more limited mass range (\cite{bou98}),
1798: and apparently less abundant in low mass objects than the
1799: local field population (\cite{rei99}).
1800: In contrast, the derived mass function appears significantly more abundant
1801: in brown dwarfs than the mass function of companions
1802: to nearby solar-type stars at separations $<5$ AU (\cite{mar00}).
1803:
1804: The apparent difference may indicate
1805: that substellar objects form more readily in isolation than as
1806: companions. Alternatively, the difference may represent the result
1807: of evolutionary effects such as
1808: accretion (by the star) or dynamical ejection, which will
1809: tend to deplete the companion population and, in the latter case,
1810: contribute low mass objects to the local field population.
1811: Given the population statistics from precision radial velocity studies,
1812: if these evolutionary mechanisms are the underlying physical cause for
1813: the different IMFs, they must preferentially deplete the brown dwarf
1814: population compared to the lower mass planetary companion population,
1815: which appears to be present in significant numbers.
1816:
1817: More generally, we find that the imaging photometric
1818: technique used in this study is a potentially powerful approach to
1819: the study of low mass populations in young clusters.
1820: As demonstrated here, it is possible to study a large range in mass
1821: ($\sim 0.5 - 0.015 M_\odot,$ a factor of $> 30$ in mass) with a
1822: single technique.
1823: To summarize, the utility of this approach derives from
1824: the multi-object approach inherent in a filter photometric method;
1825: the sensitivity of the index due to the
1826: rapid variation of the water band strength with late-M spectral type;
1827: the approximate orthogonality of the reddening vector
1828: to the variation with spectral type so that
1829: reddening errors do not introduce significant spectral type errors;
1830: and the long wavelength of the index
1831: which improves the sampling of embedded populations.
1832:
1833: To stress this latter point, we can consider the depth to which
1834: one would have to carry out spectroscopy in the $I$-band
1835: to recover similar information for IC348.
1836: Our completeness limit for spectral typing is $K \simeq 16.5$.
1837: With this level of completeness, we have sampled a significant
1838: fraction of the low-mass cluster population. For example, to
1839: $A_K=0.5$, the B98 and \cite{bur97} tracks imply that at ages
1840: of 20, 3, and 1 Myr, we are
1841: complete to 35, 16, and 9 $M_J$. For a more extreme extinction of
1842: $A_K=2$, the B98 model suggests that at ages of 20, 3, and 1 Myr, we
1843: are complete to 100, 32, and 25 $M_J$. In contrast, for a spectroscopic
1844: study in the $I$-band, $A_I/A_K\simeq 5$ and for the late spectral
1845: types probed in the present study, $I-K \sim 4.5$.
1846: Consequently, for extinctions of $A_K=$0.5 and 2,
1847: the corresponding limiting magnitude is $I=23$ and 29.
1848: In contrast, optical spectral typing with existing 10-m telescopes
1849: is currently limited to sources brighter than $I\simeq 19.5.$
1850:
1851: Although the present study made use of narrow band filters and
1852: the ability to work above the Earth's atmosphere with HST,
1853: the technique used here might find useful extrapolation to both broader
1854: filters and to ground-based observations.
1855: With broader filters, it would be possible to study objects
1856: at lower, planetary masses, as well as more distant, richer
1857: clusters where the spatial multiplexing advantage of a filter photometric
1858: technique could be used to better advantage.
1859: We will explore these possibilities in a future paper (\cite{tie00}).
1860:
1861:
1862:
1863: \acknowledgements
1864:
1865: We are grateful to
1866: Nick Bernstein and Alex Storrs for their extensive help in getting
1867: our program scheduled and executed;
1868: to Matt Lallo and Russ Makidon for their explanation of HST pointing errors;
1869: to Marcia Rieke and Paul Martini for their help with the photometric
1870: calibration;
1871: to Wolfram Freudling for advice on NICMOSlook;
1872: to Tod Lauer who helped us investigate the impact of intra-pixel sensitivity
1873: on our photometry;
1874: to France Allard and Peter Hauschildt for sharing their atmosphere models;
1875: to Adam Burrows who shared his brown dwarf evolutionary models;
1876: to Martin Cohen who helped us estimate the background population;
1877: and to Kevin Luhman for useful advice and sharing his IC348 results with
1878: us in advance of publication.
1879: We are also grateful to Charles Lada and Tom Greene for useful discussions
1880: regarding this project, and to Arjun Dey and the anonymous referee
1881: whose comments significantly improved the manuscript.
1882: Support for this work was provided by NASA through grant number
1883: GO-07322.02-96A
1884: from the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by AURA, Inc.,
1885: under NASA contract NAS5-26555.
1886:
1887:
1888: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1889:
1890: \bibitem[Adams \& Fatuzzo 1996]{ada96} Adams, F.C., \& Fatuzzo, M. 1996,
1891: ApJ, 464, 256
1892:
1893: \bibitem[Ali et al.\ 1995]{ali95} Ali, B., Carr, J. S., Depoy, D. L.,
1894: Frogel, J. A., \& Sellgren, K. 1995, AJ, 110, 2415
1895:
1896: \bibitem[Allard et al.\ 1997]{all97} Allard, F., Hauschildt, P.H.,
1897: Alexander, D.R., \& Starrfield, S. 1997, ARA\&A 35, 137
1898:
1899: \bibitem[Allard 1998a]{all98a}
1900: Allard, F. 1998a, in ``Brown Dwarfs and Extra-solar Planets'',
1901: ASP Conf. Ser. 134, eds. R. Rebolo, E. Mart\'{\i}n, \& M. R. Zapatero Osorio, p. 370
1902:
1903: \bibitem[Allard 1998b]{all98b} Allard, F. 1998b,
1904: ``Modelling M-dwarfs Atmospheres'',
1905: in Proceedings of the Euroconference on ``Very Low-Mass Stars and Brown
1906: Dwarfs in Stellar Clusters and Associations'', Los Cancajos, La Palma,
1907: Spain, May 11-15, 1998.
1908:
1909: \bibitem[Allard et al.\ 2000]{all00} Allard et al.\ 2000, in preparation
1910:
1911: \bibitem[Baraffe et al.\ (1997)]{bar97}
1912: Baraffe, I., Chabrier, G., Allard, F., \& Hauschildt P.H. 1997, A\&A, 327, 1054
1913:
1914: \bibitem[Baraffe et al.\ 1998]{bar98}
1915: Baraffe, I., Chabrier, G., Allard, F., \& Hauschildt, P.H. 1998, A\&A, 337, 403 (B98)
1916:
1917: \bibitem[Bessel (1990)]{bes90} Bessell, M. S. 1990, A\&AS, 83, 357
1918:
1919: \bibitem[Bouvier et al.\ 1998]{bou98} Bouvier, J., Stauffer, J.R.,
1920: Mart\'{\i}n, E.L., Barrado y Navascu\'es, D., Wallace, B., \&
1921: B\'ejar, V.J.S. 1998, A\&A, 336, 490
1922:
1923: \bibitem[Burrows et al.\ 1993]{bur93} Burrows, A., Hubbard, W.B.,
1924: Saumon, D., \& Lunine, J.I. 1993, ApJ, 406, 158
1925:
1926: \bibitem[Burrows et al.\ (1997)]{bur97} Burrows, A., Marley, M.,
1927: Hubbard, W.B., Lunine, J.I., Guillot, T., Saumon, D.,
1928: Freedman, R., Sudarsky, D., \& Sharp, C. 1997,
1929: ApJ, 491, 856
1930:
1931: \bibitem[Calzetti \& Noll (1998)]{cal98} Calzetti, D., \& Noll, K. 1998,
1932: NICMOS Instrument Science Report, NICMOS-98-014
1933:
1934: \bibitem[Canuto \& Mazzitelli (1991)]{can91}
1935: Canuto, V.M., \& Mazzitelli, I. 1991, ApJ, 370, 295
1936:
1937: \bibitem[Cohen (1994)]{coh94}
1938: Cohen M. 1994, AJ, 107, 582
1939:
1940: \bibitem[D'Antona \& Mazzitelli (1997)]{dm97}
1941: D'Antona, F. \& Mazzitelli, I. 1997, Mem.S.A.It., 68, 807 (DM98)
1942:
1943: \bibitem[de Zeeuw et al.\ 1999]{dez99}
1944: de Zeeuw, P. T., Hoogerwerf, R., de Bruijne, J. H. J.,
1945: Brown, A. G. A., \& Blaauw, A. 1999. 117, 354
1946:
1947: \bibitem[Duchene et al.\ (1999)]{duc99} Duchene, G.,
1948: Bouvier, J., \& Simon, T. 1999, A\&A, 343, 831
1949:
1950: \bibitem[Forrest et al.\ (1988)]{for88} Forrest, W. J., Shure, M., \&
1951: Skrutskie, M. F. 1988, ApJ, 330, 119
1952:
1953: \bibitem[Gliese (1969)]{gli69} Gliese, W. 1969, Catalogue of Nearby Stars,
1954: Veroff. Heidelberg, No. 22
1955:
1956: \bibitem[Greene \& Meyer 1995]{gre95} Greene, T. P. \& Meyer, M. R. 1995,
1957: ApJ, 450, 233
1958:
1959: \bibitem[Grossman et al.\ 1974]{gro74} Grossman, A.S., Hays, D., \&
1960: Graboske, H.C. 1974, A\&A, 30, 95
1961:
1962: \bibitem[Halbwachs et al.\ 2000]{hal00} Halbwachs, J.L., Arenou, F.,
1963: Mayor, M., Udry, S., \& Queloz, D. 2000, A\&A, in press
1964:
1965: \bibitem[Hartigan et al.\ 1989]{har89} Hartigan, P., Hartmann, L.,
1966: Kenyon, S.J., Strom, S.E., Skrutskie, M.F. 1989, ApJS, 70, 899
1967:
1968: \bibitem[Hartmann et al.\ (1991)]{har91} Hartmann, L., Stauffer, J. R.,
1969: Kenyon, S. J., \& Jones, B. F. 1991, AJ, 101, 1050
1970:
1971: \bibitem[Hauschildt et al.\ 1999]{hau99} Hauschildt, P. H., Peter, H.,
1972: Allard, F., Fergusun, J., Baron, E., \& Alexander, D. R. 1999, ApJ, 525, 871
1973:
1974: \bibitem[Henry \& Kirkpatrick (1990)]{hen90} Henry, T. J., \& Kirkpatrick,
1975: J. D. 1990, ApJ, 354, 29
1976:
1977: \bibitem[Henry et al.\ (1994)]{hen94} Henry, T. J., Kirkpatrick, J. D.,
1978: \& Simons, D. A. 1994, AJ, 108, 1437
1979:
1980: \bibitem[Herbig 1998]{her98} Herbig, G. H. 1998, ApJ, 497, 736
1981:
1982: \bibitem[Hillenbrand 1997]{hil97} Hillenbrand, L.A. 1997, AJ, 113, 1733
1983:
1984: \bibitem[Jones et al.\ 1994]{jon94} Jones, H. R. A., Longmore, A. J.,
1985: Jameson, R. F., \& Mountain, C. M. 1994, MNRAS, 267, 413
1986:
1987: \bibitem[Jones et al.\ 1995]{jon95} Jones, H. R. A., Longmore, A. J.,
1988: Allard, F., Hauschildt, P. H., Miller, S., \& Tennyson, J. 1995,
1989: MNRAS, 277, 767
1990:
1991: \bibitem[Jones et al.\ 1996]{jon96} Jones, H.R.A., Longmore, A.J.,
1992: Allard, F., \& Hauschildt, P.H. 1996, MNRAS, 280, 77
1993:
1994: \bibitem[Keenan \& McNeil (1989)]{kee89} Keenan, P. C. \& McNeil, R. C.
1995: 1989, ApJS, 71, 245
1996:
1997: \bibitem[Kenyon \& Hartmann (1995)]{ken95} Kenyon, S. J. \& Hartmann, L.
1998: 1995, ApJS, 101, 117
1999:
2000: \bibitem[Kirkpatrick \& McCarthy 1994]{kir94} Kirkpatrick, J. D.,
2001: \& McCarthy, D. W. Jr. 1994, AJ, 107, 333
2002:
2003: \bibitem[Kirkpatrick et al.\ (1991)]{kir91} Kirkpatrick, J. D.,
2004: Henry, T. J., \& McCarthy, D. W. Jr. 1991, ApJS, 77, 417
2005:
2006: \bibitem[Kirkpatrick et al.\ (1995)]{kir95} Kirkpatrick, J. D.,
2007: Henry, T. J., \& Simons, D. A. 1995, AJ, 109, 797
2008:
2009: \bibitem[Krist \& Hook 1997]{kri97}Krist, J. \& Hook, R. 1997,
2010: http://scivax.stsci.edu/$\sim$krist.tinytim.html
2011:
2012: \bibitem[Lada \& Lada 1995]{lad95} Lada, E. A., \& Lada, C. J. 1995,
2013: AJ, 109, 1682
2014:
2015: \bibitem[Lasserre et al.\ (2000)]{las00} Lasserre, T., et al.\ 2000,
2016: A\&A, in press
2017:
2018: \bibitem[Lauer (1999)]{lau99} Lauer, T. 1999, PASP, 111, 1434
2019:
2020: \bibitem[Leggett 1992]{leg92} Leggett, S. K., 1992, ApJS, 82, 351
2021:
2022: \bibitem[Leggett et al.\ 1996]{leg96} Leggett, S. K., Allard, F.,
2023: Berriman, G., Dahn, C. C., \& Hauschildt, P. H. 1996, ApJS, 104, 117
2024:
2025: \bibitem[LRLL]{luh98} Luhman, K. L., Rieke, G. H.,
2026: Lada, C. J., \& Lada, E. A. 1998, ApJ, 508, 347 (LRLL)
2027:
2028: \bibitem[Luhman (1999)]{luh99} Luhman, K.L. 1999, ApJ, 525, 466
2029:
2030: \bibitem[Lynden-Bell \& Pringle (1974)]{lyn74}Lynden-Bell, D. \&
2031: Pringle, J. E. 1974, MNRAS, 168, 603
2032:
2033: \bibitem[Marcy et al.\ 2000]{mar00}
2034: Marcy, G.W., Cochran, W.D., \& Mayor, M. 2000, in
2035: ``Protostars and Planets IV'',
2036: ed. V. Mannings, A. P. Boss, \& S. S. Russell
2037: (Tucson: University of Arizona Press), in press
2038:
2039: \bibitem[Mathieu et al.\ 2000]{mat00}
2040: Mathieu, R.D., Ghez, A.M., Jensen, E.L.N., \& Simon, M. 2000,
2041: in ``Protostars and Planets IV'',
2042: ed. V. Mannings, A. P. Boss, \& S. S. Russell
2043: (Tucson: University of Arizona Press), in press
2044:
2045: \bibitem[Mayor et al.\ 1998]{may98}
2046: Mayor, et al.\ 1998, in ``Brown Dwarfs and Extra-solar Planets'',
2047: ASP Conf. Ser. 134,
2048: eds. R. Rebolo, E. Mart\'{\i}n, \& M. R. Zapatero Osorio, p. 140
2049:
2050: \bibitem[Meyer 1996]{mey96} Meyer, M. R. 1996, Ph.D. thesis,
2051: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
2052:
2053: \bibitem[Meyer et al.\ 1997]{mey97} Meyer, M.R., Calvet, N.,
2054: Hillenbrand, L.A. 1997, AJ, 114, 288
2055:
2056: \bibitem[Meyer et al.\ (1998)]{mey98} Meyer, M.R., Edwards, S., Hinkle, K.H.,
2057: \& Strom, S.E. 1998, ApJ, 508, 397
2058:
2059: \bibitem[Meyer et al.\ 2000]{mey00}
2060: Meyer, M.R., Beckwith, S.V.W., Stauffer, J.R., \& Schultz, B. 2000,
2061: in preparation.
2062:
2063: \bibitem[Miller \& Scalo (1979)]{mil79} Miller, G. E. \& Scalo, J. M. 1979,
2064: ApJS, 41, 513
2065:
2066: \bibitem[Perrin et al.\ 1998]{per98} Perrin, G., Coud\'e du Foresto, V.,
2067: Ridgway, S.T., Mariotti, J.-M., Traub, W., Carleton, N.P., \&
2068: Lacasse, M.G. 1998, A\&A, 331, 619
2069:
2070: \bibitem[Pirzkal \& Freudling 1998a]{pir98a} Pirzkal, N. \& Freudling, W.
2071: 1998a, ESA NICMOSlook User's Manual, revision 2.1
2072:
2073: \bibitem[Pirzkal \& Freudling 1998b]{pir98b} Pirzkal, N. \& Freudling, W.
2074: 1998b, ESA CalnicC User's Manual, revision 2.1
2075:
2076: \bibitem[Reid et al.\ 1999]{rei99} Reid, I.N., Kirkpatrick, J.D.,
2077: Liebert, J., Burrows, A., Gizis, J.E., Burgasser, A., Dahn, C.C.,
2078: Monet, D., Cutri, R., Beighman, C.A., \& Skrutskie, M. 1999,
2079: ApJ, 521, 613
2080:
2081: \bibitem[Richichi et al.\ 1998]{ric98} Richichi, A., Fabbroni, L,
2082: Ragland, S., \& Scholz, M. 1999, A\&A, 344, 511
2083:
2084: \bibitem[Rieke \& Lebofsky (1985)]{rie85} Rieke, G. H., \&
2085: Lebofsky, M. J. 1985, ApJ, 288, 618
2086:
2087: \bibitem[Salpeter 1955]{sal55}Salpeter, E. E. 1955, ApJ, 121, 161
2088:
2089: \bibitem[Saumon et al.\ 1996]{sau96} Saumon, D., Hubbard, W.B.,
2090: Burrows, A., Guillot, T., Lunine, J.I., \& Chabrier, G. 1996,
2091: ApJ, 460, 993
2092:
2093: \bibitem[Scalo (1986)]{sca86} Scalo, J. M. 1986, Fundam. Cosmic Phys., 11, 1
2094:
2095: \bibitem[Scholz et al. (1999)]{sco99} Scholz, R.-D.,
2096: Brunzendorf, J., Ivanov, G., Kharchenko, N.,
2097: Lasker, B., Meusinger, H., Preibisch, T.,
2098: Schilbach, E., \& Zinnecker, H. 1999,
2099: A\&A Supp., 137, 305
2100:
2101: \bibitem[Shu 1995]{shu95} Shu, F.H. 1995, in
2102: ``Molecular Clouds and Star Formation'', ed. C. Yuan
2103: \& J. H. You (Singapore: World Scientific), 97-148
2104:
2105: \bibitem[Silk 1977]{sil77} Silk, J. 1977, ApJ, 214, 152
2106:
2107: \bibitem[Stauffer et al.\ 1995]{sta95} Stauffer, J. S., Hartmann, L. W.,
2108: \& Barrado y Navascues, D. 1995, ApJ, 454, 910
2109:
2110: \bibitem[Strom et al.\ (1989)]{str89} Strom, K. M., Strom, S. E.,
2111: Edwards, S., Cabrit, S., \& Skrutskie, M. F. 1989, AJ, 97, 1451
2112:
2113: \bibitem[Thompson et al.\ (1998)]{tho98} Thompson, R.I., Rieke, M.,
2114: Schnieder, G., Hines, D.C., \& Corbin, M.R. 1998, ApJ, 492, L95
2115:
2116: \bibitem[Tiede et al.\ 2000]{tie00}Tiede, G. P., Najita, J. R., \&
2117: Carr, J. S. 2000, AJ, in preparation
2118:
2119: \bibitem[Tinney et al.\ (1993)]{tin93} Tinney, C.G., Mould, J.R., \&
2120: Reid, I.N. 1993, AJ, 105, 1045
2121:
2122: \bibitem[Tokunaga 1999]{tok99}Tokunaga, A. T. 1999, in Astrophysical
2123: Quantities, edited by A. N. Cox (Berlin: Springer-Verlag)
2124:
2125: \bibitem[Tsuji et al.\ (1996)]{tsu96}Tsuji, T., Ohnaka, K., \& Aoki, W. 1996,
2126: A\&A, 305, L1
2127:
2128: \bibitem[van Belle et al.\ 1999 ]{van99} van Belle, G.T. et al.\ 1999,
2129: AJ, 117, 521
2130:
2131: \bibitem[Wainscoat et al.\ 1992]{wai92} Wainscoat, R.J., Martin, C.,
2132: Volk, K., Walker, H.J., \& Schwartz, D.E. 1992, ApJS, 83, 111
2133:
2134: \bibitem[Walter et al.\ (1988)]{wal88} Walter, F. M., Brown, A.,
2135: Mathiew, R. D., Myers, P. C., \& Vrba, F. J. 1988, AJ, 96, 297
2136:
2137: \bibitem[White et al.\ 1999]{whi99} White, R.J., Ghez, A.M.,
2138: Reid, I.N., \& Schultz, G. 1999, ApJ, 520, 811
2139:
2140: \bibitem[Wilking et al.\ 1999]{wil99} Wilking, B.A., Greene, T.P.,
2141: \& Meyer, M.R. 1999, AJ, 117, 469
2142:
2143: \bibitem[Zapatero Osorio et al.\ 2000]{zap00} Zapatero Osorio, M. R.,
2144: B\'ejar, V. J. S., Rebolo, R., Mart\'{\i}n, E. L., \& Basri, G. 2000,
2145: ApJ Letters, in press
2146:
2147: \end{thebibliography}
2148:
2149: \clearpage
2150:
2151:
2152: %\def\plotfiddle#1#2#3#4#5#6#7{\centering \leavevmode
2153: %\vbox to#2{\rule{0pt}{#2}}
2154: %\special{psfile=#1 voffset=#7 hoffset=#6 vscale=#5 hscale=#4 angle=#3}}
2155:
2156: \begin{figure}
2157: \figurenum{1}
2158: \label{finder}
2159: \plotfiddle{fig01.eps}
2160: {6.0in}{0}{75}{75}{-300}{10}
2161: \caption{Finder chart showing the relative positions of the HST/NIC3
2162: fields and the detected objects.
2163: The axes indicate offsets in arcminutes from the nominal
2164: center of IC348a, $\alpha=3^{\rm h}44^{\rm m}31\fs9$,
2165: $\delta=32^\circ 09\arcmin 54\farcs2$ (J2000). The large square
2166: (heavy line) is the $5\arcmin \times 5\arcmin$ cluster core defined by
2167: \cite{luh98}. Our 3-digit field designations (large numbers) and the
2168: stellar designations in each field (small numbers) are also shown. The
2169: bright stars ($K\lesssim 9$) that were intentionally excluded in
2170: positioning the fields are not shown.
2171: }
2172: \end{figure}
2173:
2174:
2175: \begin{figure}
2176: \figurenum{2}
2177: \label{areas}
2178: \plotfiddle{fig02.eps}
2179: {6.0in}{0}{75}{75}{-300}{30}
2180: \caption{Spatial distribution of the stellar samples from recent
2181: studies of IC348 including the present study. The relative positions
2182: of each sample with respect to the $5\arcmin \times 5\arcmin$
2183: core of IC348a (heavy-lined square) are shown.
2184: The axes indicate offsets in arcminutes from the nominal center of
2185: the subcluster.}
2186: \end{figure}
2187:
2188: \begin{figure}
2189: \figurenum{3}
2190: \label{com1}
2191: \plotfiddle{fig03.eps}
2192: {5.0in}{0}{65}{65}{-250}{0}
2193: \caption{Comparison of the number of artificial stars input (solid line)
2194: and detected (dotted line) in F215N. The artificial stars are recovered
2195: with 100\% efficiency to 17.5 magnitude. The completeness fractions at
2196: fainter magnitudes are as noted.}
2197: \end{figure}
2198:
2199: \begin{figure}
2200: \figurenum{4}
2201: \label{err1}
2202: \plotfiddle{fig04.eps}
2203: {5.0in}{0}{60}{60}{-250}{0}
2204: \caption{Photometric accuracy as a function of magnitude. The top panels
2205: show the absolute value of the ``True Errors'' (measured magnitude - input
2206: magnitude) measured from simulated data. The curves in the top panels are
2207: exponential fits to the values for the individual bands. The bottom panels
2208: show the estimated errors (see text) for the same data. The curves
2209: are the same as in the top panels.
2210: }
2211: \end{figure}
2212:
2213: \begin{figure}
2214: \figurenum{5}
2215: \label{lfs}
2216: \plotfiddle{fig05.eps}
2217: {6.5in}{0}{65}{65}{-210}{0}
2218: \caption{Luminosity functions for each of the narrow band filters.
2219: No correction for reddening or completeness has been made.
2220: The vertical dotted lines indicate the mean saturation and
2221: photometric completeness limits in each filter. Saturation occurs over
2222: a range in magnitude (grey bar) due to pixelization and variations in
2223: flat field reponse across the detector.
2224: }
2225: \end{figure}
2226:
2227: \clearpage
2228:
2229: \begin{figure}
2230: \figurenum{6}
2231: \label{klf}
2232: \plotfiddle{fig06.eps}
2233: {6.0in}{0}{65}{65}{-245}{0}
2234: \caption{The combined $K$ luminosity function for the IC348a fields
2235: (solid line histogram). The luminosity function,
2236: complete to $K \simeq 17.5$, combines photometry from
2237: \cite{luh98} at magnitudes above our saturation limit ($K = 11.0$) with
2238: our derived $K$ photometry at fainter magnitudes.
2239: The dotted histogram shows an estimate, based on
2240: the star count model of \cite{coh94},
2241: of the background contamination to the IC348a fields.
2242: }
2243: \end{figure}
2244:
2245: \begin{figure}
2246: \figurenum{7}
2247: \label{qfit}
2248: \plotfiddle{fig07.eps}
2249: {6.3in}{0}{65}{65}{-210}{-30}
2250: \caption{The relationship between spectral type and $Q_{\rm H2O}$ for
2251: M dwarf standard stars and weak T Tauri stars (top panel) and for
2252: the IC348a stars in our sample with known optical spectral types
2253: (middle panel). The standard and weak T Tauri stars have 1--$\sigma$
2254: errors on $Q_{\rm H2O}$ as indicated; the spectral type errors shown
2255: are values from the literature. In the middle panel, the typical
2256: spectral type errors (from the literature) and
2257: 1--$\sigma$ errors on $Q_{\rm H2O}$
2258: are indicated in the lower left corner.
2259: The bottom panel shows linear fits to the combined standard star and
2260: IC348a samples. Open symbols indicate outliers. Fits were performed
2261: in both senses (dotted lines) and the bisector (solid line)
2262: adopted as the calibrated relation.
2263: }
2264: \end{figure}
2265:
2266: \begin{figure}
2267: \figurenum{8}
2268: \label{red}
2269: \plotfiddle{fig08.eps}
2270: {6.5in}{0}{65}{65}{-210}{40}
2271: \caption{Determination of extinction from the narrow-band colors.
2272: The top panel shows the zero-reddening line determined from a
2273: least-squares fit to the dwarf standards. Objects without apparent
2274: error bars have photometric errors smaller than
2275: the point size. The extinction for the subcluster stars
2276: is determined by dereddening the stars to the zero-reddening line
2277: (bottom panel). Typical errors in the colors of the subcluster stars,
2278: representative of all but the faintest cluster stars, are shown in the
2279: lower left corner.
2280: }
2281: \end{figure}
2282:
2283: \begin{figure}
2284: \figurenum{9}
2285: \label{redcomp}
2286: \plotfiddle{fig09.eps}
2287: {6.0in}{0}{75}{75}{-235}{-40}
2288: %{6.0in}{0}{75}{75}{-295}{0}
2289: \caption{Comparison of our extinction values with those of \cite{luh98}
2290: for the M dwarfs common to both samples. The error bars indicate the
2291: formal uncertainty in our $A_K$ estimates. The $A_J$ values from
2292: \cite{luh98} were converted assuming standard interstellar reddening
2293: $A_K=0.37 A_J$.
2294: The diagonal line is unity.}
2295: \end{figure}
2296:
2297: \begin{figure}
2298: \figurenum{10}
2299: \label{redhisto}
2300: \plotfiddle{fig10.eps}
2301: {5.5in}{0}{65}{65}{-260}{20}
2302: \caption{The distribution of $A_K$ values for the IC348a stars
2303: that fall between the dotted lines in Fig.~\ref{red} (solid line histogram)
2304: and for the subset of objects identified as the background population
2305: (dashed-line histogram).
2306: }
2307: \end{figure}
2308:
2309: \begin{figure}
2310: \figurenum{11}
2311: \label{redmap}
2312: \plotfiddle{fig11.eps}
2313: {4.5in}{0}{80}{80}{-325}{-30}
2314: \caption{The spatial distribution of extinction and sample membership
2315: for all of the stars in our sample.
2316: The point size is scaled to the estimated extinction to each object
2317: (larger points corresponding to larger reddening),
2318: which ranges from $A_K = 0.00$ to 2.33.
2319: The gray points represent objects in common with previous studies
2320: (\cite{luh98}; \cite{her98}; \cite{luh99}; see Table~\ref{astrometry}).
2321: The black points represent objects without previous reddening estimates.
2322: }
2323: \end{figure}
2324:
2325: \begin{figure}
2326: \figurenum{12}
2327: \label{hrd}
2328: \plotfiddle{fig12.eps}
2329: {5.0in}{0}{70}{70}{-285}{-10}
2330: \caption{Observational HR diagrams of stars in the IC348a region with
2331: spectral types M0 and later. The left panel plots observed $K$ magnitude
2332: against $Q_{\rm H2O}$ spectral type. The symbol size indicates the
2333: estimated reddening toward each star (see key). The vertical
2334: error bars indicate the photometric uncertainty.
2335: Stars without apparent vertical
2336: error bars have photometric uncertainty smaller than the point size.
2337: The vertical dotted lines indicate the range over which the $Q_{\rm H2O}$
2338: spectral types are well calibrated.
2339: The right panel plots dereddened $K$ magnitude against $Q_{\rm H2O}$
2340: spectral type. The vertical error bars include both photometric
2341: and extinction uncertainties.
2342: The solid curve represents the main sequence at the
2343: distance of the cluster, $(m-M)_0 = 7.4$.
2344: In both panels, horizontal dotted lines indicate our photometric
2345: completeness limit (see text), and
2346: stars plotted as open symbols indicate stars whose
2347: $Q_{\rm H2O}$ spectral types were subsequently replaced
2348: with optical spectral types from \cite{luh98} or \cite{luh99} (see text).}
2349:
2350: \end{figure}
2351:
2352:
2353:
2354: \begin{figure}
2355: \figurenum{13}
2356: \label{ObsHRD}
2357: \plotfiddle{fig13.eps}
2358: {5.0in}{0}{75}{75}{-225}{-100}
2359: \caption{Observational HR diagrams of stars in the IC348a fields (triangles)
2360: compared with 4 combinations of evolutionary models and temperature
2361: scales.
2362: {\it Upper left}: the B98 models and the
2363: \cite{luh99} intermediate temperature scale.
2364: Isochrones (light solid curves) are shown for 2, 3, 5, 10 and 20 Myr.
2365: Mass tracks (dotted curves) are shown for
2366: 0.025, 0.040, 0.055, 0.075,
2367: 0.1, 0.15, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4,
2368: 0.5, 0.6, and 0.7~$M_\odot$;
2369: the $\alpha$=1.9 track is used for $0.7 M_\odot$.
2370: Three of the components of GG Tau are also shown (open squares).
2371: {\it Upper right}: the B98 models and the dwarf temperature scale.
2372: {\it Lower left}: the DM98 models and the \cite{luh99} intermediate
2373: temperature scale.
2374: Isochrones (light solid curves) are shown for 0.3, 1, 3, 5, and 10 Myr.
2375: Mass tracks (dotted curves) are shown for
2376: 0.017, 0.025, 0.04, 0.055,
2377: 0.075, 0.1, 0.14, 0.2, 0.3,
2378: 0.4, 0.5, and 0.6~$M_\odot$;
2379: the DM97 tracks are used for $M\ge 0.4 M_\odot$.
2380: {\it Lower right:} the DM98 models and the dwarf temperature scale.
2381: In each panel, the main sequence is represented by the heavy solid line.
2382: }
2383: \end{figure}
2384:
2385: \begin{figure}
2386: \figurenum{14}
2387: \label{binary}
2388: \plotfiddle{fig14.eps}
2389: {6.0in}{0}{75}{75}{-230}{-100}
2390: \caption{Observational HR diagram of pairs of stars separated by
2391: $< 8\arcsec$. The pairs are connected by lines.
2392: Solid (dashed) lines indicate possible (unlikely) physical
2393: association based on common cluster membership.
2394: For reference the mass tracks (dotted curves) and
2395: isochrones (light solid curves)
2396: for the B98 models and \cite{luh99} intermediate temperature scales
2397: are shown. The heavy solid line represents the main sequence.
2398: }
2399: \end{figure}
2400:
2401: \begin{figure}
2402: \figurenum{15}
2403: \label{lowmass}
2404: \plotfiddle{fig15.eps}
2405: {6.0in}{0}{75}{75}{-230}{-100}
2406: \caption{ Observational HR diagram highlighting the lowest mass stars
2407: in the subcluster.
2408: For reference the mass tracks (dotted curves) and
2409: isochrones (light solid curves)
2410: for the B98 models and \cite{luh99} intermediate temperature scales
2411: are shown. The heavy solid line represents the main sequence.
2412: The vertical error bars indicate the formal (1--$\sigma$) uncertainty
2413: in $K_0$ including photometric and extinction uncertainty. The horizontal
2414: error bars represent the formal (1--$\sigma$) uncertainty in spectral type.
2415: Typical error bars for the cluster stars are shown in the upper right
2416: corner.
2417: Note that although the formal uncertainty is assumed to be gaussian,
2418: it is statistically more likely that
2419: the stars scatter to earlier rather than later type.}
2420: \end{figure}
2421:
2422: \begin{figure}
2423: \figurenum{16}
2424: \label{massfunc}
2425: \plotfiddle{fig16.eps}
2426: {6.0in}{0}{75}{75}{-230}{-100}
2427: \caption{The mass function of the IC348a subcluster as derived from
2428: two combinations of evolutionary tracks and temperature scales:
2429: the B98 models in combination with the \cite{luh99} intermediate
2430: temperature scale (solid) and the DM98 models in combination
2431: with the dwarf temperature scale (dotted). The horizontal
2432: lines indicate the width of the mass bins. The vertical error bars
2433: include only the $\sqrt N$ errors associated with the counting
2434: statistics. Fits to the 3 lowest mass bins indicate
2435: $dN/d\log M \propto M^{0.5}$ (B98) and
2436: $dN/d\log M \propto M^{0.6}$ (DM98).
2437: }
2438: \end{figure}
2439:
2440: \clearpage
2441:
2442: \begin{deluxetable}{llrrrrrrrrl}
2443: \tablecaption{Standard Stars\label{standards}}
2444: \tablewidth{0pt}
2445: \footnotesize
2446: \tablenum{1}
2447: \tablehead{
2448: \colhead{ID}
2449: & {Spectral}
2450: & {$K$\tablenotemark{b}}
2451: & {$A_V$}
2452: & \colhead{F166}
2453: & \colhead{err(F166)}
2454: & \colhead{F190}
2455: & \colhead{err(F190)}
2456: & \colhead{F215}
2457: & \colhead{err(F215)}
2458: & \colhead{Notes} \\[.3ex]
2459: \colhead{}
2460: & \colhead{Type\tablenotemark{a}}
2461: & \colhead{}
2462: & \colhead{}
2463: & \colhead{(Jy)}
2464: & \colhead{(Jy)}
2465: & \colhead{(Jy)}
2466: & \colhead{(Jy)}
2467: & \colhead{(Jy)}
2468: & \colhead{(Jy)}
2469: & \colhead{}
2470: }
2471: \tablenotetext{a}{Unless otherwise noted, spectral types are from Kirkpatrick et al. (1991)}
2472: \tablenotetext{b}{Unless otherwise noted, $K$ photometry are from Leggett (1992)}
2473: \tablenotetext{c}{Spectral type from Keenan \& McNeil (1989)}
2474: \tablenotetext{d}{Spectral type from Henry et al. (1994)}
2475: \tablenotetext{e}{Spectral type from Walter et al. (1988)}
2476: \tablenotetext{f}{WTTS; $K$ photometry and extinction from Kenyon \& Hartmann (1995)}
2477: \tablenotetext{g}{Spectral type from Gliese (1969)}
2478: \tablenotetext{h}{Counts were above the saturation limit in the last read. Photometric values are based on counts corrected for saturation by the {\it calnica} pipeline.}
2479: \tablenotetext{i}{Spectral type from Hartmann et al. (1991)}
2480: \tablenotetext{j}{Spectral type from Kirkpatrick et al. (1995)}
2481: \tablenotetext{k}{$K$ photometry from Forrest et al. (1988) and Henry \& Kirkpatrick (1990)}
2482: \startdata
2483: Gl764.1A & K2V & \nodata & \nodata & 2.60E+0 & 5.90E-3 & 2.17E+0 & 4.66E-3 & 1.85E+0 & 4.38E-3 & c \nl
2484: Gl795 & K5V & \nodata & \nodata & 1.16E+1 & 2.21E-2 & 9.23E+0 & 1.45E-2 & 8.34E+0 & 1.52E-2 & \nl
2485: Gl764.1B & K7V & \nodata & \nodata & 1.51E+0 & 6.60E-3 & 1.24E+0 & 5.84E-3 & 1.11E+0 & 5.58E-3 & \nl
2486: Gl328 & M0V & 6.42 & \nodata & 2.57E+0 & 9.54E-3 & 2.02E+0 & 7.36E-3 & 1.83E+0 & 7.89E-3 & \nl
2487: Gl908 & M1V & 5.05 & \nodata & 8.14E+0 & 1.92E-2 & 6.10E+0 & 1.54E-2 & 5.95E+0 & 1.52E-2 & d \nl
2488: HBC362 & M2V & 10.06 & 0.28 & 9.35E-2 & 1.79E-3 & 6.58E-2 & 1.43E-3 & 6.24E-2 & 1.41E-3 & e,f \nl
2489: Gl195A & M2V & 6.01 & \nodata & 3.18E+0 & 9.82E-3 & 2.48E+0 & 8.15E-3 & 2.32E+0 & 8.14E-3 & g \nl
2490: Gl569A & M3V & \nodata & \nodata & 3.70E+0 & 6.16E-3 & 3.10E+0 & 4.18E-3 & 3.06E+0 & 4.36E-3 & h \nl
2491: HBC360 & M3V & 9.98 & 0.28 & 9.69E-2 & 1.91E-3 & 7.25E-2 & 1.43E-3 & 6.82E-2 & 1.47E-3 & e,f \nl
2492: HBC361 & M3V & 10.11 & 0.28 & 8.12E-2 & 2.24E-3 & 5.90E-2 & 1.68E-3 & 6.22E-2 & 1.72E-3 & e,f \nl
2493: Gl388 & M3V & 4.61 & \nodata & 1.07E+1 & 2.13E-2 & 8.61E+0 & 1.45E-2 & 8.93E+0 & 1.56E-2 & d \nl
2494: Gl896A & M3.5V & 5.58 & \nodata & 6.11E+0 & 1.73E-2 & 4.57E+0 & 1.36E-2 & 4.57E+0 & 1.45E-2 & d \nl
2495: Gl213 & M4V & 6.37 & \nodata & 2.24E+0 & 9.29E-3 & 1.68E+0 & 7.03E-3 & 1.78E+0 & 7.34E-3 & \nl
2496: Gl83.1 & M4.5V & 6.67 & \nodata & 1.68E+0 & 5.63E-3 & 1.28E+0 & 4.69E-3 & 1.38E+0 & 5.01E-3 & \nl
2497: Gl896B & M4.5V & \nodata & \nodata & 1.56E+0 & 1.90E-2 & 1.15E+0 & 1.79E-2 & 1.21E+0 & 1.68E-2 & d \nl
2498: J1-4423 & M5V & 10.43 & 0.97 & 5.87E-2 & 1.37E-3 & 4.04E-2 & 1.09E-3 & 4.48E-2 & 1.14E-3 & i,f \nl
2499: Gl406 & M6V & 6.08 & \nodata & 2.94E+0 & 9.76E-3 & 2.13E+0 & 7.45E-3 & 2.39E+0 & 7.92E-3 & \nl
2500: GJ1111 & M6.5V & 7.26 & \nodata & 9.37E-1 & 6.08E-3 & 6.68E-1 & 4.50E-3 & 7.94E-1 & 4.75E-3 & d \nl
2501: LHS3003 & M7V & 8.93 & \nodata & 1.74E-1 & 5.01E-3 & 1.41E-1 & 4.13E-3 & 1.72E-1 & 4.34E-3 & j \nl
2502: VB8 & M7V & 8.81 & \nodata & 2.25E-1 & 4.48E-3 & 1.51E-1 & 3.47E-3 & 2.05E-1 & 3.78E-3 & \nl
2503: VB10 & M8V & 8.80 & \nodata & 2.00E-1 & 5.78E-3 & 1.50E-1 & 4.64E-3 & 1.97E-1 & 4.75E-3 & \nl
2504: Gl569B & M8.5V & 9.56 & \nodata & 9.53E-2 & 4.30E-3 & 7.66E-2 & 3.38E-3 & 9.49E-2 & 3.43E-3 & k \nl
2505: LHS2924 & M9V & 10.69 & \nodata & 3.53E-2 & 7.22E-4 & 2.53E-2 & 5.77E-4 & 3.47E-2 & 5.95E-4 & \nl
2506: \enddata
2507: \end{deluxetable}
2508:
2509: \clearpage
2510:
2511: \begin{deluxetable}{llc}
2512: \tablecaption{Log of Observations\label{log}}
2513: \tablewidth{0pt}
2514: \tablenum{2}
2515: \tablehead{
2516: \colhead{}
2517: & \colhead{Date}
2518: & \colhead{Exposure} \\[.3ex]
2519: \colhead{Object\tablenotemark{a}}
2520: & \colhead{(yymmdd)}
2521: & \colhead{(num. $\times$ sec.)}
2522: }
2523: \tablenotetext{a}{Each object was observed in all three narrow bands filters, F166N, F190N, and F215N. Standard
2524: stars were also observed in the G141 and G206 grisms.}
2525: \startdata
2526: \multicolumn{3}{c}{Standards} \nl
2527: \hline
2528: Gl896AB & 980112 & $ 2 \times 0.60 $ \nl
2529: Gl569AB & 980113 & $ 2 \times 1.99 $ \nl
2530: LHS3003 & 980113 & $ 2 \times 1.21 $ \nl
2531: GJ1111 & 980117 & $ 2 \times 1.21 $ \nl
2532: Gl213 & 980117 & $ 2 \times 0.91 $ \nl
2533: Gl195A & 980118 & $ 2 \times 0.91 $ \nl
2534: Gl328 & 980118 & $ 2 \times 0.91 $ \nl
2535: Gl83.1 & 980119 & $ 2 \times 1.21 $ \nl
2536: Gl388 & 980123 & $ 2 \times 0.30 $ \nl
2537: Gl406 & 980124 & $ 2 \times 0.91 $ \nl
2538: HBC362 & 980125 & $ 2 \times 2.99 $ \nl
2539: VB8 & 980125 & $ 3 \times 1.21 $ \nl
2540: HBC360/361 & 980127 & $ 2 \times 2.99 $ \nl
2541: LHS2924 & 980127 & $ 1 \times 0.20 $ \nl
2542: J14423 & 980130 & $ 2 \times 3.98 $ \nl
2543: Gl795 & 980616 & $ 2 \times 0.60 $ \nl
2544: Gl764.1AB & 980616 & $ 2 \times 1.21 $ \nl
2545: ~~~~" & ~~~" & $ 1 \times 0.20 $ \nl
2546: Gl908 & 980619 & $ 2 \times 0.30 $ \nl
2547: Gl699 & 980619 & $ 2 \times 0.30 $ \nl
2548: VB10 & 980621 & $ 3 \times 1.21 $ \nl
2549: \hline
2550: \vspace{-1.3ex} \nl
2551: \multicolumn{3}{c}{IC348 Fields} \nl
2552: \hline
2553: 011 -- 035 & 980114 & $ 2 \times 128.00 $ \nl
2554: 041 -- 065 & 980115 & $ 2 \times 128.00 $ \nl
2555: 071 -- 095 & 980116 & $ 2 \times 128.00 $ \nl
2556: 101 -- 105 & 981022 & $ 2 \times 128.00 $ \nl
2557: \enddata
2558: \end{deluxetable}
2559:
2560: \clearpage
2561:
2562: \begin{deluxetable}{lrrr}
2563: \tablecaption{Photometric Calibration Constants\label{photcal}}
2564: \tablewidth{0pt}
2565: \tablenum{3}
2566: \tablehead{
2567: \colhead{}
2568: & \colhead{$\lambda_{eff}$}
2569: & \colhead{Jy}
2570: & \colhead{0 mag\tablenotemark{a}} \\[.2ex]
2571: \cline{3-3}\\[-2.5ex]
2572: \colhead{Filter}
2573: & \colhead{($\mu$m)}
2574: & \colhead{ADU/s}
2575: & \colhead{(Jy)}
2576: }
2577: \tablenotetext{a}{Flux based on Vega zero point}
2578: \startdata
2579: F166N & 1.658 & 5.911E-05 & 1010 \nl
2580: F190N & 1.900 & 4.920E-05 & 808 \nl
2581: F215N & 2.149 & 4.896E-05 & 689 \nl
2582: \enddata
2583: \end{deluxetable}
2584:
2585: \clearpage
2586:
2587: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccc}
2588: \tablecaption{Observed/Model Background\label{cohenbck}}
2589: \tablewidth{0pt}
2590: \tablenum{5}
2591: \tablehead{
2592: \colhead{SpT}
2593: & \multicolumn{5}{c}{$K_0$ bins} \\[0.5ex] \cline{2-6}\\[-2.0ex]
2594: & \colhead{0-13}
2595: & \colhead{13-14}
2596: & \colhead{14-15}
2597: & \colhead{15-16}
2598: & \colhead{16-17}
2599: }
2600: \startdata
2601: $<$M3 & 7/2.1 & 4/6.4 & 13/12.4 & 21/19.3 & 7/24.0 \nl
2602: M4--5 & 0/0.0 & 0/0.2 & 0/0.5 & 2/1.4 & 4/4.1 \nl
2603: $>$M5 & 0/0.0 & 0/0.0 & 0/0.1 & 0/0.4 & 1/1.0 \\[0.5ex]
2604: \hline\\[-2.0ex]
2605: Total & 7/2.1 & 4/6.6 & 13/13.0 & 23/21.1 & 12/29.1 \nl
2606: \enddata
2607: \end{deluxetable}
2608:
2609: \clearpage
2610:
2611: \begin{deluxetable}{rrrrrllrrl}
2612: \tablecaption{Objects with Separations $<8\arcsec$\label{binaries}}
2613: \tablewidth{0pt}
2614: \tablenum{6}
2615: \tablehead{
2616: \colhead{Primary}
2617: & \colhead{Secondary}
2618: & \colhead{Sep.}
2619: & \colhead{$K_0$}
2620: & \colhead{$K_0$}
2621: & \colhead{Sp.T.}
2622: & \colhead{Sp.T.}
2623: & \colhead{$A_K$}
2624: & \colhead{$A_K$}
2625: & \colhead{ID in} \\[.3ex]
2626: \colhead{(p)}
2627: & \colhead{(s)}
2628: & \colhead{$(\arcsec)$}
2629: & \colhead{(p)}
2630: & \colhead{(s)}
2631: & \colhead{(p)}
2632: & \colhead{(s)}
2633: & \colhead{(p)}
2634: & \colhead{(s)}
2635: & \colhead{Fig.~14}
2636: }
2637: \startdata
2638: $084$-01 & 084-02 & 1.51 & 9.13 & 9.08 & G0.0 & G0.0 & 0.56 & 0.42 & \nl
2639: $093$-04 & 093-05 & 1.53 & 10.01 & 11.06 & M2.3 & M2.4 & 0.98 & 0.26 & B \nl
2640: $022$-04 & 022-05 & 1.98 & 9.68 & 12.93 & M2.0 & M6.8 & 1.12 & 0.53 & C \nl
2641: $062$-04 & 062-05 & 2.86 & 10.21 & 10.36 & M3.3 & M3.8 & 0.54 & 0.43 & D \nl
2642: $043$-03 & 043-02 & 5.02 & 9.71 & 10.33 & K6.0 & M2.2 & 0.10 & 0.30 & E \nl
2643: $024$-06 & 024-05 & 5.56 & 9.26 & 9.82 & K9.2 & M2.0 & 0.19 & 0.00 & F \nl
2644: $014$-04 & 014-05 & 6.67 & 11.61 & 13.63 & M6.8 & M6.3 & 0.22 & 0.04 & G \nl
2645: $013$-06 & 013-04 & 7.80 & 13.42 & 14.98 & M7.7 & M8.2 & 0.26 & 0.00 & H \nl
2646: & & & & & & & & & \nl
2647: $083$-03 & 083-02 & 2.92 & 9.34 & 14.78 & K9.0 & K9.9 & 0.82 & 1.23 & \nl
2648: $014$-05 & 014-06 & 3.30 & 13.63 & 17.14 & M6.3 & M6.8 & 0.04 & 0.62 & \nl
2649: $055$-02 & 055-03 & 5.16 & 12.82 & 17.79 & M6.3 & M2.0 & 0.24 & 0.00 & \nl
2650: $052$-02 & 052-03 & 6.21 & 16.26 & 16.92 & M3.3 & M3.2 & 0.38 & 0.00 & \nl
2651: $021$-07 & 022-06 & 6.35 & 11.28 & 12.49 & G8.0 & M4.2 & 0.81 & 0.00 & \nl
2652: $052$-04 & 052-03 & 6.64 & 10.61 & 16.92 & M2.0 & M3.2 & 0.71 & 0.00 & \nl
2653: $022$-01 & 022-02 & 6.81 & 14.82 & 15.58 & M0.1 & K8.1 & 0.83 & 1.23 & \nl
2654: $082$-04 & 094-04 & 6.87 & 12.48 & 13.77 & K9.4 & M5.5 & 1.04 & 0.84 & \nl
2655: $023$-03 & 023-02 & 7.44 & 9.69 & 12.93 & K0.0 & K9.2 & 0.04 & 1.16 & \nl
2656: \enddata
2657: \end{deluxetable}
2658:
2659: \begin{table}
2660: \tablenum{4}
2661: \label{astrometry}
2662: \end{table}
2663:
2664: \end{document}
2665: