1: \documentclass[12pt]{emulateapj}
2: \citestyle{aa}
3:
4: \def\logh{5\,\mbox{log}\,h}
5: \newcommand{\petroratio}{{{\mathcal{R}}_P}}
6: \newcommand{\petroradius}{{{\theta}_P}}
7: \newcommand{\petronumber}{{{N}_P}}
8: \newcommand{\petroratiolim}{ {{\mathcal{R}}_{P,\mathrm{lim}}} }
9: \newcommand{\todo}[1]{{\tt #1}}
10: \def\zbootes{$z$Bo\"otes\,}
11:
12: \slugcomment{To Appear in ApJS}
13: \shorttitle{zBo\"otes : z-band Observations of the NDWFS Bo\"otes Field}
14: \shortauthors{Cool}
15:
16: \begin{document}
17: \title{zBo\"otes : z-band Photometry in the NOAO Deep Wide-Field Survey
18: Bo\"otes Field}
19: \author{Richard J. Cool\altaffilmark{1} }
20:
21: \keywords{catalogs, surveys, astronomical data bases:miscellaneous,
22: galaxies:photometry}
23: \altaffiltext{1}{Steward Observatory, 933 N Cherry Avenue, Tucson
24: AZ 85721;
25: rcool@as.arizona.edu}
26:
27: \begin{abstract}
28: We present \zbootes, a new $z$-band photometric imaging campaign of
29: 7.62 square degrees in the NOAO Deep Wide-Field Survey (NDWFS)
30: Bo\"otes field.
31: In this paper, all of the images for this survey are released as
32: well as the associated
33: catalogs. The final \zbootes catalogs are complete (at the 50\%
34: level)
35: to 22.7 mag over 50\% of the field. With these depths,
36: the \zbootes images should be sensitive to
37: $L^*$ galaxies to $z\sim1$ over much of the survey area.
38: These data have several possible applications
39: including searching for and characterizing high-redshift quasars and
40: brown dwarfs and providing added constraints to photometric redshift
41: determinations of galaxies and active galaxies to moderate redshift.
42: The \zbootes imaging adds photometric data at a new wavelength to
43: the existing wealth of multi-wavelength observations of the NDWFS
44: Bo\"otes field.
45:
46: \end{abstract}
47:
48:
49: \section{Introduction}
50:
51: In recent years, a number of multi-wavelength surveys have been
52: completed
53: in order to understand the evolution of the multi-wavelength
54: properties
55: of galaxies and active galactic nuclei (AGNs)
56: throughout cosmic history. Deep observations spanning
57: from the ultraviolet to the radio are time consuming and obtaining
58: spectroscopic follow-up observations of cataloged galaxies and AGNs
59: requires many nights on the largest telescopes available. Thus,
60: the area
61: covered by many of the deepest multi-wavelength surveys is fairly
62: small.
63: With the advent of new wide-field optical and near-infrared
64: imagers and
65: multi-object spectrographs, as well as superb new space facilities
66: such
67: as {\it GALEX} and {\it Spitzer}, the amount of the sky observed
68: at all possible wavelengths is growing steadily.
69:
70: One of the early deep, wide area, optical surveys, the NOAO Deep
71: Wide-Field
72: Survey \footnote[1]{http://www.archive.noao.edu/ndwfs \\ http://www.noao.edu/noao/noaodeep}
73: (NDWFS; Jannuzi et al. {\it in prep.}, Dey et al., {\it in prep.})
74: consists of two $\sim9$ square degree fields (the Bo\"otes and Cetus
75: fields) with excellent optical ($B_W$, $R$, and $I$)
76: and near-infrared ($K_s$) photometry. The NDWFS Bo\"otes field
77: has become
78: a popular target for many investigators and now has been observed
79: across the full electromagnetic spectrum. Deep GALEX pointings
80: provide near and
81: far-ultraviolet photometry for the field; the NDWFS images consist of
82: optical and near-infrared coverage, and the FLAMINGOS Extragalactic
83: Survey
84: \citep[FLAMEX;][]{elston2005}
85: observed the field to deep limits in $J$ and $K_{\mbox{s}}$.
86: {\it Spitzer} has imaged
87: the Bo\"otes field with both IRAC \citep[Spitzer Shallow
88: Survey;]{eisenhardt}
89: and MIPS. Radio observations include deep Westerbork
90: observations at 1.4 GHz \citep[]{devries2002} and imaging by
91: the Faint Images of the Radio Sky at Twenty-Centimeters survey
92: \citep[FIRST;][]{becker1995}. {\it Chandra} has observed the
93: Bo\"otes field for 5
94: ksec \citep[XBo\"otes;][]{murray2005,kenter2005}. Optical
95: spectroscopy for
96: several highly complete samples of galaxies and AGN has been
97: completed
98: with the Hectospec multi-object spectrograph on the MMT as part
99: of the
100: AGN and Galaxy Evolution Survey (AGES; Kochanek in prep). A small
101: region in the Bo\"otes field was observed as part of the LALA survey
102: to search for galaxies at very high redshifts \citep{rhoads2000}.
103: These data sets have allowed searches for high-redshift quasars and
104: low mass stars using mid-infrared selection techniques
105: \citep{stern2006},
106: studies of the quasar luminosity
107: function \citep{brown2006,cool2006}, the clustering of high-redshift
108: galaxies \citep{brown2005,stanford2005, rhoads2004,brown2003},
109: Lyman alpha emitting galaxies \citep{wang2004, dey2005, dawson2004,
110: rhoads2003}, the broad band properties of
111: AGNs \citep{brand2006ii,brand2005,stern2006,stern2005}, the X-ray
112: properties of AGNs \citep{brand2006,kollmeier2005},
113: the spectral properties of infrared sources
114: \citep{weedman2006,desai2006,khan2005,higdon2005} and many other
115: topics.
116:
117: In this paper, we present new $z$-band observations of 7.6 square
118: degrees
119: in the NDWFS Bo\"otes region. These catalogs reach several magnitudes
120: deeper than the public imaging released by the Sloan Digital
121: Sky Survey
122: (SDSS) and will provide a useful intermediate photometric measurement
123: between the I band data from NDWFS and near-infrared photometry from
124: FLAMEX. We release the catalogs and reduced images for public use.
125: Throughout this paper, all magnitudes are AB magnitudes
126: \citep{oke1974}.
127:
128:
129: %R%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
130: \begin{figure}[!t]
131: \centering{\includegraphics[angle=0, width=3.5in]{f1.ps}}
132: \caption{ \scriptsize Map of the NDWFS survey area with the
133: coverage of the \zbootes catalog overlayed. The grey points
134: illustrate
135: the distribution of 25\% of the $I<21.5$ galaxies in the NDWFS
136: catalogs. Each of the subfields of
137: the \zbootes imaging is labeled with the field number. The \zbootes
138: imaging covers 7.6 square
139: degrees centered on the NDWFS Bo\"otes Field, providing another set of
140: data to the current suite of multi-wavelength observations
141: completed in
142: this region.}
143: \label{fig:fullcoverage}
144: \end{figure}
145: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
146:
147:
148: \section{Observations}
149:
150: The \zbootes imaging survey was completed with the 90Prime
151: wide-field imager \citep{williams2004}
152: at prime focus on the Bok 2.3m Telescope located on Kitt Peak.
153: This instrument
154: consists of four 4096x4096 thinned CCDs, providing excellent quantum
155: efficiency
156: in the blue, read out using eight amplifiers. The chips are
157: arranged
158: in a windowpane
159: pattern with 10' gaps between each of the CCDs. Each CCD images
160: a 30'x30'
161: field on the
162: sky with 0.45" pixels. The south-east CCD has a large electron trap,
163: making 13\% of the area
164: on that chip unusable for photometric measurements. These pixels are
165: masked throughout
166: the reduction process and are excluded when images are stacked.
167:
168:
169:
170:
171: The data were obtained between 28 Feb 2005 and 31 Mar 2005.
172: Sky conditions
173: varied from photometric to
174: moderate levels of cirrus throughout the observations. The typical
175: seeing during these observations was 1.6 arcsec. In total,
176: we completed
177: observations
178: for eight 90Prime pointings within the NDWFS Bo\"otes region. At each
179: location, we obtained
180: several dithered 300s exposures (typically 12 exposures per field).
181: The telescope was moved
182: $\sim1'$ for each dither. The total number of exposures for
183: each field
184: was determined by the conditions at the time of the observations.
185: All of the exposures for a single field were
186: obtained on the same night. As the
187: gaps between CCDs on 90Prime are rather large, we did not attempt
188: to make
189: our dither pattern large enough the fill the regions between
190: each CCD.
191: This strategy avoids having non-uniform depth across a single
192: field but
193: results in gaps in our photometric coverage
194: of the NDWFS survey field. Figure \ref{fig:fullcoverage} shows the
195: region covered in the zBo\"otes survey compared to the NDWFS Bo\"otes
196: Survey
197: area. Throughout the rest of this paper, each of the fields imaged by
198: a single 90Prime CCD is treated independently.
199:
200: %R%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
201: \begin{figure*}[!t]
202: \centering{\includegraphics[angle=270, width=6in]{f2.ps}}
203: \caption{ \scriptsize Example of the reduction steps performed on the
204: \zbootes imaging data. Frame (a) shows a portion of a raw data
205: frame taken
206: with 90Prime. Frame (b) illustrates the same frame after
207: flat-fielding
208: and fringe correction. The final coadded frame, including all
209: of the
210: observations for this field, is shown in frame (c). Each of
211: the images
212: is 800 pixels on a side corresponding to $\sim6$ arcminutes. The
213: total exposure time for this field was one hour.}
214: \label{fig:reduction}
215: \end{figure*}
216: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
217:
218: \section{Reductions}
219:
220: All of the raw \zbootes images were processed using a combination
221: of home-grown IDL
222: routines and various
223: tasks available within the Image Reduction and Analysis Facility
224: (IRAF).
225: Each image was bias and overscan corrected and known bad columns
226: are removed by interpolating neighboring columns. On each night
227: of clear
228: skies, observations of the twilight
229: sky were taken to generate a flat field image that was divided
230: into each
231: object frame to correct for pixel-to-pixel variations in the CCD
232: sensitivity.
233:
234: While the thinned-chip nature of the CCDs on 90Prime allows for high
235: efficiency in the blue, it also results in strong
236: fringing in the reddest bands where the night sky spectrum is
237: dominated
238: by a forest of emission lines. On each night of observation,
239: between 12
240: and 42 individual dithered images were obtained for this project
241: in the
242: $z$-band. To generate a master fringe frame, we first removed
243: any large
244: scale gradient in the background of each input image. The strength
245: of
246: the fringe pattern was then measured on each image and a
247: multiplicative
248: scale factor was applied to correct for any differences from
249: the mean.
250: We generated a master fringe frame by taking the median of all of the
251: individual images taken on a single night of observations.
252: This fringe frame was scaled to
253: match the average strength of the fringes in each individual exposure
254: and subtracted. This process was iterated (typically twice) until
255: the fringe pattern was no longer present in each individual exposure.
256: Figure \ref{fig:reduction} (a) and (b) shows a region of a
257: single exposure before
258: any processing and after the fringe pattern was been removed.
259:
260:
261: The astrometry of each image was calibrated by locating stars
262: with $17<z<19$ from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) DR4
263: \citep{am2006}.
264: We fit the astrometric
265: solution with a 5th order TNX world-coordinate system (WCS) using the
266: IRAF task CCMAP. The images were then de-projected onto a
267: rectilinear
268: pixel system using the task MSCIMAGE in the MSCRED package in IRAF.
269: Finally, aperture photometry of several stars in the magnitude
270: range $17<z<19$
271: was performed on each of the input frames in order to determine
272: offsets in the background level and photometric zeropoint between
273: each of
274: the frames. Any variations in the mean background or transparency
275: were corrected
276: before the individual images were stacked to create the final
277: coadded frame for
278: each field. Pixels with values more than $3\sigma$ from
279: the mean were
280: clipped when creating the final mosaic; this clipping rejected
281: any cosmic
282: rays present in the individual frames.
283: Figure \ref{fig:reduction} shows a portion of a final stacked image.
284:
285: %R%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
286: \begin{figure}[b]
287: \centering{\includegraphics[angle=0, width=3.5in]{f3.ps}
288: }
289: \caption{ \scriptsize Map of the NDWFS survey area with the
290: coverage of the coadded \zbootes fields overlayed. As in Figure
291: \ref{fig:fullcoverage},
292: the grey points show the distribution of 25\% of the
293: $I<21.5$ extended sources from the NDWFS catalogs.
294: The number marking
295: each of the coadded subfields denotes the field number assigned to
296: that subfield. The coadded imaging covers 1.24 square degrees of the
297: 7.62 square degree \zbootes region.}
298: \label{fig:coaddmap}
299: \end{figure}
300: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
301:
302: The photometric zeropoint for each stacked image was determined by
303: comparison with photometry publicly available from the SDSS
304: \citep{am2006}.
305: Aperture photometry for stars with $18<z<19$ was compared to SDSS
306: PSF magnitudes.
307: The mean magnitude offset between the two photometric measurements
308: was
309: adopted as the magnitude zeropoint of the field. In general,
310: the dispersion
311: around this median was on the order of $\sigma_z \sim\! 0.03$ mag,
312: comparable to the
313: photometric scatter expected due to errors in the SDSS photometry
314: \citep{cal}. As the effective response of the $z$-band filter used
315: in our
316: work (including the effects of mirror reflectance and sky absorption)
317: is
318: likely different from that of the SDSS system, we examined the
319: residuals
320: between the \zbootes photometry and the SDSS photometry as a function
321: of the
322: SDSS $i-z$ color of each object. The photometric residuals showed
323: no correlation with the object color, and thus no color term has been
324: applied to the \zbootes photometry.
325:
326: Several of the \zbootes fields overlapped significantly.
327: These regions of
328: significant overlap were coadded, weighted by seeing and
329: signal-to-noise
330: in each input frame, to create mosaiced images of the overlap
331: regions.
332: Before coadding the individual images in the overlap regions, each of
333: the input images were background subtracted and the measured counts
334: per pixel were converted to a true flux density per pixel measurement
335: using the photometric zeropoint determined from comparison with
336: public
337: SDSS photometry discussed above. Figure \ref{fig:coaddmap}
338: illustrates
339: the area of the
340: \zbootes field included in these coadded observations compared to the
341: object distribution in the NDWFS optical catalogs.
342:
343:
344:
345: \section{Source Catalogs}
346: \subsection{Catalog Generation}
347: We constructed catalogs for each \zbootes field using Source
348: Extractor
349: (SExtractor) version 2.3 \citep{ab1996}. We detected objects using
350: a 0.9" FWHM Gaussian convolution kernel and enforced a $3\sigma$
351: detection threshold. Pixels were weighted according to the number of
352: input exposures that contributed to each in order
353: to prevent the detections of a large number of spurious
354: sources around the edges of each field which have fewer average
355: observations
356: and thus higher background noise than the centers.
357: For each object detected in
358: the catalog, we measured the flux in $\sim\!100$ apertures (with
359: diameter
360: 3", 5", and 7") in a 6 arcminute radius around the object.
361: We used the
362: interval containing 68.7\% of the measurements as a measurement
363: of the
364: photometric error for each object. The simulated photometric errors
365: we calculate from this
366: method are about a factor of 2 larger than those measured by
367: SExtractor.
368:
369:
370: Catalogs were also constructed for each of the stacked images
371: created for
372: the overlapping \zbootes fields using the same process as used
373: for individual
374: subfields. The final \zbootes catalog was constructed by checking
375: each
376: object for duplicate observations. For any object that was observed
377: multiply, we define the best observation to be the measurement with
378: the smallest simulated photometric errors. The final \zbootes
379: catalogs
380: consists of over 200,000 objects.
381:
382: Objects in the final \zbootes catalogs were matched to detections
383: in the
384: NDWFS catalogs (DR3). For each NDWFS subfield, we checked for
385: systematic
386: offsets in both right ascension and declination between the \zbootes
387: astrometric system and the NDWFS reference frame. After removing any
388: net offset between the NDWFS catalogs and our \zbootes catalogs
389: (which are
390: discussed in more detail in \S4.3), the two object lists
391: were matched with a 1" match tolerance and the name and coordinates
392: of
393: the closest match NDWFS detection were recorded in the final
394: \zbootes catalog.
395:
396: %R%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
397: \begin{figure}[t]
398: \centering{\includegraphics[angle=0, width=3in]{f4.eps}
399: }
400: \caption{ \scriptsize Histogram of astrometric offsets (in
401: arcseconds) between sources reported by \zbootes
402: and SDSS (unfilled) and \zbootes and NDWFS (filled). Only
403: well-detected stars
404: are used in this plot, so photon noise is not the dominant source of
405: uncertainty in the astrometry. In general, SDSS and \zbootes
406: agree quite
407: well (50 mas rms). There are offsets between the \zbootes and
408: NDWFS for
409: each of the subfields, resulting in a overall mean offset and
410: larger dispersion
411: seen in the comparison between the \zbootes and NDWFS coordinates. }
412: \label{fig:astrometry}
413: \end{figure}
414: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
415: \subsection{Photometric Accuracy}
416:
417: The final residuals between \zbootes and SDSS photometric
418: measurements for
419: well detected stars whose photometry is not affected by non-linearity
420: in
421: the 90Prime CCDS are centered around zero with a $1\sigma$
422: dispersion of
423: 0.035 mag. The average quoted photometric error for the SDSS
424: stars is
425: 0.03 mag and thus the majority of the final calibration error in the
426: \zbootes catalog can be attributed to photometric scatter in the SDSS
427: photometry. The remainder of the scatter in the photometric
428: calibration
429: is likely due to errors in the large-scale flatfield corrections
430: to each
431: frame and imperfect subtraction of the strong fringing the 90Prime
432: CCDs.
433:
434: Since 1.25 square degrees were observed more than once in the
435: $z$Bo\"otes
436: imaging, we can quantitatively estimate the error in our photometric
437: measurements, both from calibration errors and reduction
438: imperfections.
439: The distribution of fluxes for the $\sim 7200$ stars with $17<z<20$
440: observed two or more times within \zbootes itself has zero mean
441: and a $1\sigma$ dispersion of
442: 0.03 mag, in good agreement with the scatter in photometric
443: calibration
444: estimated above.
445:
446:
447:
448: \subsection{Astrometric Precision}
449:
450: As the \zbootes astrometry was calibrated to the SDSS reference
451: system,
452: the agreement between SDSS and \zbootes astrometry is quite good.
453: Figure \ref{fig:astrometry} shows the differences between SDSS,
454: \zbootes, and NDWFS astrometry. The dispersion between the
455: \zbootes and
456: SDSS coordinates is $\sim$ 50 milliarcsec (mas) per coordinate while
457: the agreement with NDWFS is poorer with a dispersion of nearly
458: 130 mas
459: per coordinate. SDSS astrometry has a 45 mas dispersion
460: per coordinate \citep{pier},
461: so
462: the \zbootes astrometric error is dominated by astrometric errors
463: in the SDSS
464: catalogs. Also, notice that the NDWFS and \zbootes astrometric
465: have systematic offsets in both directions, likely due to the
466: different astrometric reference systems used by NDWFS and SDSS imaging.
467: Robust comparisons
468: between
469: NDWFS and \zbootes (or SDSS) thus require the removal of these
470: offsets
471: to properly match objects in each catalog. Table 1
472: lists the average shifts between the astrometry of each \zbootes
473: field
474: and the NDWFS catalog.
475:
476: %R%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
477: \begin{figure}[b]
478: \centering{\includegraphics[angle=0, width=3.5in]{f5_new.ps}
479: }
480: \caption{ \scriptsize Map of the 50\% completeness limit of the b4-1
481: field in pixel coordinates. The depth of the catalogs are a strong
482: function of position in the final mosaiced image. This is
483: primarily due
484: to the decreased number of exposures that were coadded near the
485: edge of
486: the mosaiced field. The completeness can vary as much as 0.5
487: mag from
488: the center of the field to the edge. }
489: \label{fig:completeness}
490: \end{figure}
491: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
492:
493: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
494: \begin{deluxetable}{ccc|ccc}[b]
495: \tablecolumns{6}
496: \label{tab:astrom}
497: \tablenum{1}
498: \tablewidth{0pt}
499: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
500: \tablecaption{Astrometric Offsets Between \zbootes and NDWFS}
501: \tablehead{
502: \colhead{Field Name} &
503: \colhead{$\Delta \alpha$ } &
504: \colhead{$\Delta \delta$} &
505: \colhead{Field Name} &
506: \colhead{$\Delta \alpha$} &
507: \colhead{$\Delta \delta$} \\
508: \colhead{} &
509: \colhead{''} &
510: \colhead{''} &
511: \colhead{} &
512: \colhead{''} &
513: \colhead{''}}
514: \startdata
515: b1-1 & -0.37 & -0.31 & b6-2 & -0.25 & -0.17 \\
516: b1-2 & -0.30 & -0.37 & b6-3 & -0.31 & -0.12 \\
517: b1-3 & -0.22 & -0.18 & b6-4 & -0.24 & -0.09 \\
518: b1-4 & -0.29 & -0.15 & b7-1 & -0.22 & -0.12 \\
519: b2-1 & -0.30 & -0.05 & b7-2 & -0.26 & -0.10 \\
520: b2-2 & -0.22 & -0.04 & b7-3 & -0.28 & -0.11 \\
521: b2-3 & -0.24 & -0.08 & b7-4 & -0.30 & -0.13 \\
522: b2-4 & -0.21 & -0.09 & b8-1 & -0.35 & -0.10 \\
523: b3-1 & -0.20 & -0.13 & b8-2 & -0.37 & -0.17 \\
524: b3-2 & -0.23 & -0.10 & b8-3 & -0.26 & -0.04 \\
525: b3-3 & -0.25 & -0.15 & b8-4 & -0.33 & -0.12 \\
526: b3-4 & -0.27 & -0.13 & mos-01 & -0.17 & -0.10 \\
527: b4-1 & -0.03 & -0.05 & mos-02 & -0.25 & -0.22 \\
528: b4-2 & -0.01 & 0.01 & mos-03 & -0.21 & -0.10 \\
529: b4-3 & -0.11 & -0.10 & mos-04 & -0.20 & -0.17 \\
530: b4-4 & -0.11 & -0.11 & mos-05 & -0.33 & -0.11 \\
531: b5-1 & -0.17 & 0.02 & mos-06 & -0.21 & 0.07 \\
532: b5-2 & -0.30 & -0.12 & mos-07 & -0.30 & -0.12 \\
533: b5-3 & -0.20 & 0.08 & mos-08 & -0.32 & -0.00 \\
534: b5-4 & -0.28 & -0.18 & mos-09 & -0.13 & 0.04 \\
535: b6-1 & -0.32 & -0.13 & mos-10 & -0.21 & -0.07 \\
536: \enddata
537:
538: \end{deluxetable}
539: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
540:
541: \subsection{Survey Depth}
542:
543: The depth of the \zbootes images varies between each field and
544: as a function of position in each field itself due to the variable
545: number of exposures taken for each field and variable conditions
546: during the
547: observations. In order to
548: quantify the depth of our catalogs near each detected object,
549: we added
550: fake point sources with the same point spread function as measured
551: from nearby unsaturated stars in the \zbootes images. For each
552: field, we perform ten
553: simulations with each simulation consisting of 3000 fake stars
554: added to
555: the coadded frame of each field. We then record the average 50\%
556: completeness in a 10
557: arcminute diameter region around each object detected in our
558: catalogs.
559: Figure \ref{fig:completeness} illustrates the variations in the
560: survey
561: depth within a single \zbootes field. As illustrated in the figure,
562: the variations in survey depth can be as large as 0.5 mags across
563: the field.
564:
565: Figure \ref{fig:compfrac} shows the fraction of the \zbootes coverage
566: area as a function of the 50\% completeness depth and as a function
567: of the $3\sigma$
568: detection limits of the catalogs. The final \zbootes catalog is
569: 50\% complete to
570: 22.4 mag over 90\% of the survey area and 50\% of the survey area is
571: complete to 22.7 mag. Thus, the \zbootes catalogs reach more than 2
572: mag fainter than SDSS over the entire survey region. The mosaiced
573: images
574: of the overlapping \zbootes fields reach fainter limits than the
575: single frames. Of the 1.24 square degrees covered
576: in the overlapping fields, 50\%
577: of the area is complete to 23.3 mag and 90\% is complete to 23.1 mag.
578: Table 2 lists the average 50\% completeness limit of each of the \zbootes
579: subfields. The \zbootes data are thus sensitive to $L^*$ galaxies
580: to $z\sim1$
581: and should provide extra constraint on photometric redshifts
582: measurements
583: for galaxies at $0<z<1$.
584: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
585: \begin{deluxetable}{cc|cc}
586: \tablecolumns{6}
587: \label{tab:depth}
588: \tablenum{2}
589: \tablewidth{0pt}
590: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
591: \tablecaption{Average Completeness Limits (50\%) of \zbootes Fields}
592: \tablehead{
593: \colhead{Field Name} &
594: \colhead{Depth} &
595: \colhead{Field Name} &
596: \colhead{Depth} \\
597: \colhead{} &
598: \colhead{mag} &
599: \colhead{} &
600: \colhead{mag}}
601: \startdata
602: b1-1 & 22.35 & b6-2 & 22.93 \\
603: b1-2 & 22.50 & b6-3 & 22.95 \\
604: b1-3 & 22.54 & b6-4 & 22.88 \\
605: b1-4 & 22.52 & b7-1 & 22.81 \\
606: b2-1 & 22.59 & b7-2 & 22.91 \\
607: b2-2 & 22.68 & b7-3 & 22.95 \\
608: b2-3 & 22.79 & b7-4 & 22.80 \\
609: b2-4 & 22.72 & b8-1 & 22.63 \\
610: b3-1 & 22.56 & b8-2 & 22.68 \\
611: b3-2 & 22.69 & b8-3 & 22.73 \\
612: b3-3 & 22.67 & b8-4 & 22.69 \\
613: b3-4 & 22.63 & mos-01 & 22.87 \\
614: b4-1 & 22.58 & mos-02 & 23.13 \\
615: b4-2 & 22.50 & mos-03 & 23.05 \\
616: b4-3 & 22.76 & mos-04 & 23.25 \\
617: b4-4 & 22.63 & mos-05 & 23.17 \\
618: b5-1 & 22.39 & mos-06 & 23.35 \\
619: b5-2 & 22.48 & mos-07 & 23.33 \\
620: b5-3 & 22.46 & mos-08 & 23.38 \\
621: b5-4 & 22.41 & mos-09 & 22.84 \\
622: b6-1 & 22.85 & mos-10 & 23.33 \\
623: \enddata
624: \tablecomments{\scriptsize Depth is estimated by the 50\%
625: completeness
626: limit of the catalogs.}
627: \end{deluxetable}
628: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
629: %R%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
630: \begin{figure}[b]
631: \centering{\includegraphics[angle=0, width=3.0in, height=3.0in]{f6.eps}
632: }
633: \caption{ \scriptsize Fraction of the \zbootes survey area as
634: function of the 50\% completeness limit and $3\sigma$ detection
635: limit of the \zbootes catalogs. The solid line shows the fraction
636: of the
637: \zbootes 7.6 square degree area as a function of the 50\%
638: completeness
639: while the dot-dashed line shows the fraction of the survey area
640: versus the
641: $3\sigma$ detection limit in a 3 arcsecond aperture. The
642: \zbootes catalog is complete to 22.4 mag over 90\% of the survey
643: area and 50\%
644: of the area is complete to 22.7 mag or deeper. The knee in the
645: distribution
646: of 50\% completeness limit near $z=23.0$ is due the deeper limits
647: present in the
648: coadded \zbootes fields as discussed in the text.}
649: \label{fig:compfrac}
650: \end{figure}
651: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
652: \section{Data Products}
653:
654: \subsection{Images}
655: \begin{itemize}
656:
657: \item Images and weight maps: {\tt [fieldname.fits,
658: fieldname-weight.fits]} We release the final coadded
659: images and the associated weight map for each.
660: The images are in ADU counts per pixel and the magnitude zeropoint
661: of the
662: photometry of each image is stored in the {\tt MAGZERO} header
663: keyword. The weight maps are normalized such that each
664: pixel reflects the number of exposures that contributed to the image.
665: All of these
666: images have world-coordinate system information in the headers.
667: Note that the orientation of these
668: images corresponds to the orientation of the 90Prime images
669: on the sky (north is to the right
670: and east is upward) and not the standard image orientation.
671:
672: Regions of the sky that were observed in multiple \zbootes fields
673: were coadded
674: as described in \S 3. The resulting images are flux
675: calibrated and have units of nano-maggies per pixel. A nanomaggie is
676: a flux-density unit
677: equal to $10^{-9}$ of a magnitude zero source. Since we calibrated
678: the
679: \zbootes photometry to SDSS, and SDSS is
680: nearly an AB system, 1 nanomaggie corresponds to $3.631 \,
681: \mu \mbox{Jy}$ or $3.631 \times 10^{-29}$ erg s$^{-1}$
682: cm$^{-2}$ Hz$^{-1}$. As above, the weight maps associated with each
683: of the mosaic images reports the total number of 300s exposures that
684: contributed to each pixel.
685:
686: \item Photometric Catalogs: [{\tt fieldname-cat.fits}] We also
687: release binary FITS files
688: of the
689: SExtractor catalog for each \zbootes field as well as overlapping
690: regions. In
691: each file, we report
692: the measured properties of each of the objects detected in the
693: \zbootes imaging.
694: A majority of the parameters listed in the catalogs are standard
695: SExtractor outputs, so we will not repeat the definitions. The
696: aperture fluxes
697: and magnitudes reported in the \zbootes catalogs are measured at
698: 12 diameters. The diameters run from 1" to 10" in steps of 1";
699: the final two
700: apertures have diameters of 15" and 20".
701: The non-standard
702: parameters included in each of the catalogs are :
703: \begin{itemize}
704: \item {\tt NOBS} -- [integer] Mean number of observations (300s
705: exposures) that contribute to the pixels each object falls on.
706: Objects
707: with less than ${\tt NOBS} \lesssim 5$ should be used with caution.
708: \item {\tt ERR\_[1,3,5,7]} -- [float] Photometric error in a
709: [1,3,5,7] arcsecond diameter aperture
710: determined from the dispersion in the local sky background within a 6
711: arcminute radius around each object.
712: \item {\tt COMP50} -- [float] The 50\% completeness limit determined
713: by inserting
714: $\sim\!30,000$ fake point sources into the images and measuring the
715: fraction recovered using the same analysis procedure as that
716: used when
717: constructing the catalogs. The local completeness is calculated
718: within
719: a 10 arcminute region around each object.
720: \item {\tt DETECT\_3SIG\_3ARC} -- [float] The local $3\sigma$
721: detection limit
722: determined in a 3 arcsecond diameter aperture around each object
723: based
724: on measurements of the local variation in the sky background.
725: \item {\tt PHOTFLAG} -- [integer] For each object, this flag is
726: set if any of
727: the pixels contributing to the object detection were in the
728: non-linear or saturated
729: regime on the 90Prime CCDs. Photometry for objects with this
730: flag set
731: should be used with caution.
732: \end{itemize}
733:
734:
735:
736: \item Final Merged Catalog : [{\tt zbootes-cat.fits}] The final
737: catalog
738: represents the merged catalog for the \zbootes imaging. For objects
739: included in multiple individual catalogs, the observation with the
740: smallest photometric error is declared the primary observation and
741: included in the final catalog. Objects in the final catalog were
742: cross-matched to the NDWFS optical catalogs using a 1 arcsecond
743: search
744: radius. Before the cross-matching was performed, the locally
745: determined
746: astrometric offsets between the \zbootes and NDWFS astrometric
747: systems
748: (reported in Table 1) were removed. The following
749: parameters are included in the final catalog which are not in
750: the individual
751: catalogs:
752: \begin{itemize}
753: \item {\tt FIELDNAME} -- [string] Name of the \zbootes field in which
754: the photometric quantities for each object were measured.
755: \item {\tt DUPLICATE} -- [integer] Flag which is set if a given
756: object
757: was detected in multiple catalogs. If an object was detected in
758: multiple frames,
759: then the observation with the lowest photometric error was
760: declared to
761: be the best and included in the final merged catalog; each object
762: is listed
763: in the final catalog only once.
764: \item {\tt NDWFS\_NAME} -- [string] Name of the nearest NDWFS object
765: to each
766: \zbootes detection. The catalogs were compared with a 1 arcsecond
767: search
768: radius; if there were no NDWFS objects within the search radius
769: of the
770: \zbootes object, this entry is empty.
771: \item {\tt NDWFS\_RA} -- [double] Right ascension of the nearest
772: NDWFS object
773: to the \zbootes detection in decimal degrees.
774: \item {\tt NDWFS\_DEC} -- [double] Declination of the nearest
775: NDWFS object
776: to the \zbootes detection in decimal degrees.
777: \end{itemize}
778: \end{itemize}
779:
780: \section{Catalog availability}
781: The \zbootes catalogs described in this paper are
782: available for download online\footnote[2]{\tt
783: http://archive.noao.edu/nsa/zbootes.html}.
784: Any use of these data should include
785: references to this paper. If any of the cross-identifications to
786: the NDWFS catalogs are used,
787: the appropriate citations should be made to the papers describing
788: those data.
789:
790: \section{Acknowledgments}
791: RJC was funded through a National Science Foundation Graduate
792: Research
793: Fellowship. We are grateful to Ed Olszewski, Grant Williams,
794: and Mike
795: Lessar for providing the 90Prime instrument and technical information
796: critical to the reduction and calibration of this data set. We thank
797: Buell Jannuzi and Arjun Dey and the NOAO technical staff for hosting
798: the data provided by this release. Daniel Eisenstein, Michael Brown,
799: and Jane Rigby provided many useful comments and suggestions
800: during the
801: reduction and calibration of this dataset.
802:
803:
804:
805:
806: \begin{thebibliography}{}
807: \bibitem[Adelman-McCarthy et al.(2006)]{am2006}Adelman-McCarthy,
808: J.~K., et al.\ 2006, \apjs, 162, 38
809: \bibitem[Becker et al.(1995)]{becker1995} Becker, R.~H., White,
810: R.~L., \& Helfand, D.~J.\ 1995, \apj, 450, 559
811: \bibitem[Bertin \& Arnouts(1996)]{ab1996} Bertin, E., \&Arnouts,
812: S.\ 1996, \aaps, 117, 393
813: \bibitem[Brand et al.(2005)]{brand2005} Brand, K., et al.\ 2005,
814: \apj, 626, 723
815: \bibitem[Brand et al.(2006)]{brand2006ii} Brand, K., et al.\ 2006,
816: \apj, 644, 143
817: \bibitem[Brand et al.(2006)]{brand2006} Brand, K., et al.\ 2006,
818: \apj, 641, 140
819: \bibitem[Brown et al.(2003)]{brown2003} Brown, M.~J.~I., Dey, A.,
820: Jannuzi, B.~T., Lauer, T.~R., Tiede, G.~P., \& Mikles, V.~J.\ 2003,
821: \apj, 597, 225
822: \bibitem[Brown et al.(2005)]{brown2005} Brown, M.~J.~I.,
823: Jannuzi,B.~T., Dey, A., \& Tiede, G.~P.\ 2005, \apj, 621, 41
824: \bibitem[Brown et al.(2006)]{brown2006} Brown, M.~J.~I., et al.\
825: 2006, \apj, 638, 88
826: \bibitem[Cool et al.(2006)]{cool2006} Cool, R.~J., et al.\ 2006,
827: \aj, 132, 823
828: \bibitem[Dawson et al.(2004)]{dawson2004} Dawson, S., et al.\ 2004,
829: \apj, 617, 707
830: \bibitem[Desai et al.(2006)]{desai2006} Desai, V., et al.\ 2006,
831: \apj, 641, 133
832: \bibitem[Dey et al.(2005)]{dey2005} Dey, A., et al.\ 2005, \apj,
833: 629, 654
834: \bibitem[Eisenhardt et al.(2004)]{eisenhardt} Eisenhardt, P.~R.,
835: et al.\ 2004, \apjs, 154, 48
836: \bibitem[Elston et al.(2005)]{elston2005} Elston, R.~J., et al. 2005,
837: in press, arXiv:astro-ph/0511249
838: \bibitem[Higdon et al.(2005)]{higdon2005} Higdon, J.~L., et al.2005,
839: \apj, 626, 58
840: \bibitem[Ivezi{\'c} et al.(2004)]{cal} Ivezi{\'c}, {\v Z}., et al.\
841: 2004, Astronomische Nachrichten, 325, 583
842: \bibitem[Jannuzi \& Dey(1999)]{jannuzidey1999} Jannuzi, B.~T., \&
843: Dey, A.\ 1999, ASP Conf.~Ser.~191: Photometric Redshifts and the
844: Detection of High Redshift Galaxies, 191, 111
845: \bibitem[Kenter et al.(2005)]{kenter2005} Kenter, A., et al.\ 2005,
846: \apjs, 161, 9
847: \bibitem[Khan et al.(2005)]{khan2005} Khan, S.~A., et al.\
848: 2005,\apjl, 631, L9
849: \bibitem[Kollmeier et al.(2005)]{kollmeier2005} Kollmeier, J.~A.,
850: et al.\ 2005, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints, arXiv:astro-ph/0508657
851: \bibitem[Murray et al.(2005)]{murray2005} Murray, S.~S., et al.\
852: 2005, \apjs, 161, 1
853: \bibitem[Oke (1974)]{oke1974} Oke, J.~B. 1974, \apjs, 27, 21
854: \bibitem[Pier et al.(2003)]{pier} Pier, J.~R., Munn, J.~A., Hindsley,
855: R.~B., Hennessy, G.~S., Kent, S.~M., Lupton, R.~H., \& Ivezi{\'c},
856: {\v Z}.\ 2003, \aj, 125, 1559
857: \bibitem[Rhoads et al.(2000)]{rhoads2000} Rhoads, J.~E., Malhotra,
858: S., Dey, A., Stern, D., Spinrad, H., \& Jannuzi, B.~T.\ 2000, \apjl, 545,
859: L85
860: \bibitem[Rhoads et al.(2003)]{rhoads2003} Rhoads, J.~E., et al.\
861: 2003, \aj, 125, 1006
862: \bibitem[Rhoads et al.(2004)]{rhoads2004} Rhoads, J.~E., et al.\
863: 2004, \apj, 611, 59
864: \bibitem[Stanford et al.(2005)]{stanford2005} Stanford, S.~A.,
865: et al.\ 2005, \apjl, 634, L129
866: \bibitem[Stern et al.(2005)]{stern2005} Stern, D., et al.\ 2005,
867: \apj, 631, 163
868: \bibitem[Stern et al.(2006)]{stern2006} Stern, D., et al.\ 2006,
869: ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints, arXiv:astro-ph/0608603
870: \bibitem[Wang et al.(2004)]{wang2004} Wang, J.~X., et al.\ 2004,
871: \apjl, 608, L21
872: \bibitem[Weedman et al.(2006)]{weedman2006} Weedman, D.~W., et al.\
873: 2006, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints, arXiv:astro-ph/0606740
874: \bibitem[Williams et al.(2004)]{williams2004} Williams,
875: G.~G.,Olszewski, E., Lesser, M.~P., \& Burge, J.~H.\ 2004,
876: \procspie,5492, 787
877: \bibitem[de Vries et al.(2002)]{devries2002} de Vries, W.~H.,
878: Morganti, R., R{\"o}ttgering, H.~J.~A., Vermeulen, R., van Breugel,
879: W., Rengelink, R., \& Jarvis, M.~J.\ 2002, \aj, 123, 1784
880: \end{thebibliography}
881:
882:
883:
884: \end{document}
885: