A Dissertation entitled
Star Cluster Populations in the Spiral Galaxy M101
by Lesley A. Simanton
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy Degree in Physics
Dr. Rupali Chandar, Committee Chair
Dr. John-David Smith, Committee Member
Dr. Steven Federman, Committee Member
Dr. Bo Gao, Committee Member
Dr. Bradley Whitmore, Committee Member
Dr. Patricia R. Komuniecki, Dean College of Graduate Studies
The University of Toledo August 2015 Copyright 2015, Lesley A. Simanton
This document is copyrighted material. Under copyright law, no parts of this document may be reproduced without the expressed permission of the author. An Abstract of Star Cluster Populations in the Spiral Galaxy M101 by Lesley A. Simanton
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy Degree in Physics The University of Toledo August 2015
Most stars form in groups and clusters. Stars clusters range in age from very young
(< 3 Myr, embedded in gas clouds) to some of the most ancient objects in the universe
(> 13 Gyr), providing clues to the formation and evolution of their host galaxies. Our knowledge of the diversity of star cluster populations has expanded over the last few decades, especially by being able to examine star clusters outside of the Milky Way
(MW). In this dissertation, we continue this expansion of extragalactic star cluster studies by examining the star cluster system of the nearby spiral galaxy M101. We utilize photometry from Hubble Space T elescope images to assess luminosity, color, size, and spatial distributions of old star clusters, and spectroscopy from the Gemini-
North telescope to determine ages, metallicities, and velocities of a subset of both young and old clusters in M101. We find that the range of cluster luminosities, ages, and metallicities in M101 is nearly continuous. We discover a population of fairly massive, old disk clusters, and conclude that the disk of M101 may have had a higher rate of cluster formation in the past than in the MW, and that it may be better suited to cluster survival. We find evidence that some clusters in M101 have intermediate ages of several Gyr, whereas the MW has few such clusters. Our analysis of the velocities of young clusters suggests that they rotate with the HI gas disk, while the old globular clusters appear to be in the halo.
iii This work is dedicated to my all of family and friends, especially to my parents,
Robert and Joyce Simanton, and my great aunt, Donna Simanton, who made my education possible; to my sister and lifelong friend, Wendy Holland; and to my very supportive and motivating fianc´e,Jim Coogan. Acknowledgments
I would like to thank my advisor, Rupali Chandar, for all of her support, encourage- ment, and contributions to this work. She inspired my interest and excitement in star clusters and led me through many challenges and difficulties throughout my research.
I would also like to thank collaborators Brad Whitmore and Bryan Miller for their contributions to this work and for answering my questions promptly and with genuine interest in my education and discoveries. I would like to thank my other committee members, Steve Federman, J. D. Smith, and Bo Gao for taking the time to give crucial input and criticisms to help shape the results and interpretation presented here.
Finally, I would like to thank the graduate students at the University of Toledo De- partment of Physics and Astronomy who have furthered my understanding of physics and astronomy by helping me find the answers to questions, engaging in discussions, sharing papers, and empathizing in the sometimes frustrating day-to-day necessities of conducting scientific research.
v Contents
Abstract iii
Acknowledgments v
Contents vi
List of Tables ix
List of Figures x
List of Abbreviations xii
List of Symbols xiii
1 Introduction 1
1.1 What are Star Clusters, and What Can They Tell Us about Galaxies? 1
1.2 The Current Picture of Galaxy Formation and Evolution: How do
spiral galaxies fit in? ...... 3
1.3 Models for Studying Extragalactic Star Clusters ...... 5
2 Two Populations of Old Star Clusters in the Spiral Galaxy M101
Based on HST/ACS Observations 8
2.1 Background ...... 8
2.2 Observations, Cluster Selection, and Completeness ...... 11
2.2.1 Observations ...... 11
vi 2.2.2 Cluster Selection ...... 14
2.2.3 Completeness ...... 29
2.3 Results and Analysis ...... 34
2.3.1 Cluster Luminosity Distribution ...... 34
2.3.2 Cluster Colors and Luminosities ...... 38
2.3.3 Sizes ...... 44
2.3.4 Spatial Distribution ...... 49
2.4 Discussion ...... 54
2.4.1 Are There Two Populations of Old Clusters in M101? . . . . . 54
2.4.2 What Are the Faint, Red Clusters in M101? ...... 55
2.5 Conclusions ...... 59
3 Gemini/GMOS Spectra of Old and Young Star Clusters in M101:
Ages and Metallicities 62
3.1 Background ...... 62
3.2 Observations ...... 63
3.2.1 Cluster Candidate Selection with HST ...... 63
3.2.2 Gemini/GMOS Observations ...... 66
3.3 Results and Analysis ...... 74
3.3.1 Initial Age Categorization ...... 74
3.3.2 Measuring Ages and Metallicities Using BaSTI Models . . . . 81
3.3.3 Ages and Metallicities ...... 88
3.3.4 Spatial-Metallicity Distribution ...... 91
3.4 Discussion ...... 92
3.4.1 Are There Young to Intermediate Age GCs in M101? . . . . . 92
3.4.2 Metallicities of the YMCs and GCs ...... 93
3.5 Conclusions ...... 94
vii 4 Gemini/GMOS Spectra of Old and Young Star Clusters in M101:
Kinematics 96
4.1 Background ...... 96
4.2 Results and Analysis ...... 98
4.2.1 Velocity Measurements ...... 98
4.2.2 Velocity Distance Comparison ...... 101
4.2.3 Age Velocity Comparison ...... 106
4.2.4 Rotational Velocity Calculation and Comparison ...... 107
4.3 Discussion ...... 110
4.3.1 The Structure of M101 ...... 110
4.4 Conclusions ...... 111
5 Conclusions and Future Work 112
5.1 Searching for Faint, Old Star Clusters in Other Spiral Galaxies . . . . 113
viii List of Tables
2.1 M101 Old Star Cluster Catalog ...... 15
2.2 Coefficients for Surface Density Fits ...... 53
3.1 Spatial and Photometric Properties of M101 Clusters with Spectra . . . 64
3.2 Spectroscopic Properties of M101 Cluster Spectra ...... 72
4.1 Kinematics of M101 Clusters with Spectra ...... 99
4.2 Coefficients for vcluster vs. Rsemi-minor Fits ...... 105 4.3 Rotational Velocity and Velocity Dispersion Comparisons ...... 109
ix List of Figures
1-1 Examples of MW Star Clusters ...... 6
1-2 Examples of LMC and M101 Star Clusters ...... 7
2-1 HST ACS/WFC Fields Covering M101 ...... 13
2-2 Radial Profiles of Stars vs. Clusters ...... 30
2-3 HSTBVI Color Images of Typical Red M101 Star Clusters ...... 31
2-4 Fraction of Selected Artificial Clusters vs. mv ...... 32
2-5 Fraction of Selected Artificial Clusters vs. rgc ...... 33 2-6 Magnitude and Luminosity Distributions for Red M101 Clusters and MW
GCs ...... 37
2-7 B − V vs. V − I for Red Clusters and YMCs in M101 ...... 41
2-8 B − I Color Histograms of Red M101 Clusters ...... 42
2-9 B − V Color Magnitude Diagram for Red M101 Clusters, MW GCs, LMC
Intermediate Age Clusters, and MW Old Open Clusters ...... 43
2-10 reff Distribution for Red M101 Clusters and MW GCs ...... 46
2-11 MV vs. reff for Red M101 Clusters and MW GCs ...... 47
2-12 MV vs. reff for Red M101 Clusters and Artificial Clusters ...... 48 2-13 Positions of Red M101 Clusters ...... 50
2-14 rgc Distribution for Red M101 Clusters ...... 51 2-15 Surface Density Distributions of Red M101 Clusters and MW GCs . . . . 52
3-1 Gemini-North Images of GMOS Mask 1 ...... 67
x 3-2 Gemini-North Images of GMOS Mask 2 ...... 68
3-3 HSTBVI Color Images of M101 YMCs with Spectra ...... 69
3-4 HSTBVI Color Images of M101 GCs with Spectra ...... 70
3-5 GMOS Spectra of Mask 1 YMCs ...... 75
3-6 GMOS Spectra of Mask 1 YMCs Continued ...... 76
3-7 GMOS Spectra of Mask 2 YMCs ...... 77
3-8 GMOS Spectra of Mask 1 GCs ...... 78
3-9 GMOS Spectra of Mask 1 GCs Continued ...... 79
3-10 GMOS Spectra of Mask 2 GCs ...... 80
3-11 Lick/IDS Index Defined Regions ...... 84
3-12 Lick/IDS Index Defined Regions Continued ...... 85
3-13 Index-index Model Grids From BaSTI Synthetic Spectra for Old Ages . . 86
3-14 Index-index Model Grids From BaSTI Synthetic Spectra for Young Ages 87
3-15 Example of Rejected vs. Accepted Lick/IDS Indices for Fitting Ages and
Metallicities ...... 89
3-16 [Fe/H] vs. log Age for M101 YMCs and GCs with Spectra ...... 90
3-17 [Fe/H] vs. rgc for M101 YMCs and GCs with Spectra ...... 91
4-1 Example Correlation Functions for an M101 YMC and GC ...... 102
4-2 Positions of the M101 YMCs and GCs with Spectra ...... 103
4-3 HI Gas Map with Line-of-Sight Velocity Contours ...... 104
4-4 vcluster vs. Rsemi-minor for the M101 YMCs and GCs with Spectra . . . . . 105
4-5 vcluster − vdisk vs. log Age for M101 YMCs and GCs with Spectra . . . . . 106
4-6 vrot vs. rgc for the M101 YMCs and HI Gas ...... 108
5-1 HST /WFC3 Field in NGC 6946 ...... 115
xi List of Abbreviations
MW ...... Milky Way GC ...... globular cluster YMC ...... young massive cluster LMC ...... Large Magellanic Cloud SSP ...... simple stellar population LF ...... luminosity function HST ...... Hubble Space T elescope WFPC2 ...... Wide Field Planetary Camera 2 ACS ...... Advanced Camera for Surveys CMD ...... color magnitude diagram WFC ...... Wide Field Channel PSF ...... point spread function S/N ...... signal-to-noise ratio FWHM ...... full width at half maximum BCG ...... brightest cluster galaxy GMOS ...... Gemini Multi-Object Spectrograph BaSTI ...... Bag of Stellar Tracks and Isochrones IDS ...... image dissector scanner
xii List of Symbols
M ...... solar mass
α2000 ...... right ascension δ2000 ...... declination mV ...... apparent V band magnitude MV ...... absolute V band magnitude α ...... exponent for the power law luminosity distribution a ...... slope of a straight line on a log space luminosity distribution plot, related to α by α = −(2a + 1) reff ...... effective radius of a cluster rgc ...... galactocentric radius which is the distance from an object to the center of the host galaxy projected onto the plane of the sky
Re ...... effective radius of a galaxy component from fitting a de Vaucouleurs profile
R0 ...... scale radius of a galaxy component from fitting an exponential profile
µev ...... stellar mass loss rate from a cluster τ ...... age of a cluster population
ρh ...... half light density of a cluster
Wλ ...... equivalent width of a spectral line Fλ ...... flux of a spectral line FC ...... flux of a spectral continuum vcluster ...... line-of-sight velocity of a cluster vdisk ...... line-of-sight velocity from HI gas in the disk σ ...... velocity dispersion of a cluster population vrot ...... rotational velocity of a cluster or cluster population
xiii Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 What are Star Clusters, and What Can They
Tell Us about Galaxies?
Stars typically form in groups and clusters rather than in isolation. Clusters of stars are found to span ages from young (< 3 Myr, embedded in gas clouds) to ancient
(> 13 Gyr), making them excellent tracers of the formation and evolution of stars as well as the galaxies in which they reside. We can therefore utilize properties of systems of star clusters to learn about the history of their host galaxies, adding to the body of knowledge on galactic formation and evolution.
Star clusters observed within our own Milky Way (MW) galaxy have been studied in great detail due to their proximity and form the rubric for our current understand- ing of star clusters. There are two main types of star clusters seen in the MW: globular clusters (GCs) and open clusters. MW GCs are massive (105 or more stars,
4 6 10 − 10 M ) and ancient (> 10 Gyr), among the oldest detected objects in the uni-
3 4 3 verse, while open clusters are less massive (10 − 10 stars, < 10 M ) and younger (typically < 100 Myr). GCs are located in the spheroidal components of the MW, i.e. the bulge and halo, while open clusters lie in either the thin or thick disks (Portegies
Zwart et al., 2010).
1 Studying the properties of the MW GC system has led to insights on the history
of the MW and galaxy formation. For example, Searle & Zinn (1978) used the
abundances and spatial distribution of GCs to first propose the idea that the outer
regions of the MW could have been formed from clumpy gas accreted later than the
initial formation of the galaxy, thus paving the way for the idea of mergers/accretion
forming and evolving galaxies over time (discussed further in § 1.2).
The MW, however, may not be a typical example of a galaxy star cluster sys- tem. Observations from the last two decades have shown that young massive clusters
5 7 (YMCs, ages < 1 Gyr, masses up to 10 − 10 M ) exist, perhaps in large num- bers behind the gas and dust within the disk of the MW, and commonly in nearby
star forming galaxies, including irregulars (e.g., the Magellanic Clouds), spirals (e.g.,
M83 and M51), and mergers (e.g., the Antennae and NGC 3256) (Larsen et al., 2011;
Chandar et al., 2010; Trancho et al., 2007; Larsen, 2000; Whitmore & Schweizer, 1995;
Fischer et al., 1992). Intermediate age GCs have been found in many galaxies such as
the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC, e.g., Palma et al. (2013); Goudfrooij et al. (2011);
Piatti et al. (2009); Mucciarelli et al. (2007); Kerber et al. (2007)), M33 (Chandar
et al., 1999), and M31 (Puzia et al., 2005b), among other galaxies. Essentially, star
clusters appear to have formed fairly continuously in nearby star forming galaxies.
The ages, masses, and other properties of the clusters have helped further shape our
understanding of typical galaxy histories, structure, and formation.
Clusters lose mass throughout their lifetimes. One of the best studied processes
is via two-body interactions where stars are flung out at speeds exceeding the escape
speed of the cluster (e.g., Spitzer & Harm (1958)). This is, at least in part, how
galaxies become populated with field stars. Clusters that lose enough mass to become
unbound are considered to be disrupted. Such cluster disruption affects the lowest
mass clusters first as their escape speeds are lower, and stars become unbound more
readily. For the MW, this explains the apparent lack of low mass clusters with very
2 old ages (Fall & Zhang, 2001); however, we are still determining just how universal the
process of cluster disruption is. A detailed understanding of the processes that disrupt
clusters is an active area of research as there are other possible disruption mechanisms
that may be influential, such as disruption from tidal forces or interactions with
passing gas clouds (e.g., Fall & Chandar (2012) and references therein).
1.2 The Current Picture of Galaxy Formation and
Evolution: How do spiral galaxies fit in?
Currently, the most widely accepted scenario of galaxy formation is the hierar-
chical model, which generally states that galaxies are built up through mergers with
some differences in the details of formation scenarios based on the mass ratios of
typical mergers and the amount of gas present. The “two-phase” scenario is well sup-
ported (e.g., Dekel et al. (2009); Naab et al. (2009); Zolotov et al. (2009); Oser et al.
(2010); Font et al. (2011); Lackner et al. (2012); Navarro-Gonz´alezet al. (2013)). The
first phase of the two-phase scenario is early (z > 2) dissipative collapse of the gas
that forms the galaxy. The star formation during this phase is considered “in-situ”
and is gas-rich. The second phase is composed of largely gas-poor minor mergers
that transfer “ex-situ” stars to the new host galaxy, and mostly occurs later (z < 2).
We expect in-situ components to be located in the inner regions of galaxies and be more metal-rich with steeper metallicity gradients. Conversely, the ex-situ compo- nents should lie in the outer regions of galaxies and be metal-poor with a shallower metallicity gradient.
This scenario is an oversimplification, as apparent from the diversity of galaxy structure observed in our universe. Galaxy morphological types are commonly cat- egorized on the Hubble sequence (expanded by de Vaucouleurs (1963)), in which
“early-type” galaxies are elliptical galaxies (Es, spheroidal and gas-poor) and lentic-
3 ular galaxies (S0s, smooth disk structure with dominant spheroidal components) and
“late-type” galaxies are spiral galaxies (Sa-Sd, disk structure with gas-rich spiral arms and varying degrees of spheroidal components).
Spiral galaxies themselves are often described as either early or late type depending on how pronounced the spiral structure is and how prominent the inner spheroidal component, known as the bulge, is. Spiral galaxies also undergo “secular” evolution which is a slow evolution driven by internal structures such as spiral arms and bars rather than being driven solely by mergers. Secular evolution is thought to build up so-called “pseudobulges” which are smaller bulge-like features in galaxies that are otherwise bulgeless. The extent of the influence of secular evolution in current epochs is somewhat unknown as we see evidence of both mergers and secular evolution with the plausible picture being a transition from a merger dominated universe at early times to a secularly dominated universe far into the future (Kormendy & Kennicutt,
2004).
Spiral galaxies with significant bulge components contain metal-rich GC popu- lations associated with their bulges (such as in the MW (Minniti, 1995) and M31
(Brown, 2009)). The presence of a metal-rich GC population in the inner regions of a galaxy can indicate a bulge component of the galaxy as well as provide evidence for whether the bulge is a classical bulge built up through merger events or a pseu- dobulge driven by secular processes. Pseudobulges will not contain as many bulge
GCs as well as have less variations/gradient in the bulge GC metallicities (Minniti et al., 1995). It is important to note that hierarchical and secular evolution can take place simultaneously as well. For example, there is some debate about whether the
MW bulge should be defined as classical or pseudo from dynamical studies as there is evidence of both hierarchical and secular evolution (Di Matteo et al., 2015; Shen et al., 2010). Similarly, the kinematics and ages of halo populations of star clusters can reveal the extent of the influence of mergers/accretion on a galaxy’s history, such
4 as the possible merger of M31 with a massive satellite ∼ 6 Gyr ago based on the presence of intermediate age, metal-rich GCs (Brown et al., 2003).
In this dissertation, we examine the star clusters of the nearby spiral galaxy M101 in order to better understand the history of this galaxy, compare it to other spiral galaxies, and put it into the context of our picture of galaxy formation and evolution.
The specific morphological type of M101 is SABcd (de Vaucouleurs et al., 1991), which means it is between having and not having a bar and has little to no bulge. Disk galaxies which are either bulgeless or have pseudobulges are particularly interesting tests of our current picture of galaxy formation and evolution because they are not well studied despite comprising most of the population of galaxies in the local universe
(within 11 Mpc) by number (Fisher & Drory, 2011). M101 is also nearby at 6.4 Mpc
(Shappee & Stanek, 2011) and nearly face-on (inclination angle i ≈ 18◦) (Bosma et al., 1981) which makes it possible to distinguish star clusters from point sources with the Hubble Space T elescope (HST ) and to examine clusters in both the disk and halo of the galaxy, both crucial elements of this work.
1.3 Models for Studying Extragalactic Star Clus-
ters
The rest of this dissertation is organized as follows: In Chapter 2, we examine the photometric and spatial properties as well as sizes of old star clusters in M101.
In Chapter 3, we examine the ages and metallicities of a subset of both the old and young star cluster populations of M101 from optical spectroscopy obtained with the
8-m Gemini-North telescope. In Chapter 4, we examine the kinematic properties of the same clusters as examined in Ch. 3. Finally, in Chapter 5, we discuss our conclusions and future work.
Our approach in determining the basic parameters for star clusters (e.g., ages,
5 metallicities, and extinctions) examined throughout this work will be to compare observations with predictions from simple stellar population (SSP) models. An SSP model simulates the photometric and/or spectroscopic properties of an aggregate stel- lar population from individual stellar properties by assuming a distribution of masses, metallicities, etc. There is a vast literature on the production of these models, which is well beyond the scope of this work. We use our past experience and comparisons made between observations and models available in the literature to select appropriate models.
Integrated light models such as SSPs are necessary analogs in studying extragalac- tic star clusters because many, including those in M101, cannot be fully resolved.
Figure 1-1 shows a GC (left) and an open cluster (right) in the MW, with individual stars distinguishable. Figure 1-2 shows examples of two intermediate age clusters in the LMC (∼ 50 kpc (Stanek et al., 1998), left) and two M101 clusters examined in this work (6.4 Mpc (Shappee & Stanek, 2011), right), which demonstrate that individual stars become blended together at distances beyond the Local Group.
Figure 1-1: Left: Example of a MW GC, M13 (image credit and copyright: Martin Pugh, http://www.martinpughastrophotography.id.au). Right: Example of MW open cluster, NGC 4755 (image credit and copyright: Dieter Willasch, http://astro-cabinet.com).
6 Figure 1-2: Left: Examples of two intermediate age LMC clusters from Palma et al. (2013) and observed with the V ictor Blanco tele- scope at the Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory. Right: Example of two M101 star clusters with red (ID 13) and blue (ID 47) colors. These clusters are discussed in Ch. 2, 3, and 4.
7 Chapter 2
Two Populations of Old Star
Clusters in the Spiral Galaxy M101
Based on HST/ACS Observations
The material in this chapter is adapted from Simanton et al. (2015) published in
the Astrophysical Journal, volume 805 on page 160.
2.1 Background
Ancient (& 10 Gyr) star clusters formed during the early assembly of most galax- ies, and therefore give insight into the broad formation history of their hosts. Elliptical and lenticular galaxies host red, metal-rich GCs believed to be associated with their bulges, and blue, metal-poor GCs believed to be associated with their halos. It is not yet clear whether these different populations have different ages in all early-type galaxies, but an age difference has been observed in several (Park et al., 2012). Spiral galaxies also form metal-poor halo and metal-rich bulge/thick disk clusters, although the fraction of red-to-blue GCs is typically lower than found in similar mass early- type galaxies. Minniti (1995) and Cˆot´e(1999) showed that metal-rich MW GCs in
8 the inner regions of the Galaxy are associated with the bulge.
In addition to ancient GCs, spiral galaxies form younger clusters with a large range
of ages in their disks. In the MW, young (< 100 Myr) open clusters are confined to the
thin disk and old (> 3 Gyr) open clusters are found in the thick disk (Portegies Zwart et al., 2010). In fact, Kharchenko et al. (2013) find a smoothly increasing dispersion in the distance of MW star clusters from the Galactic plane with increasing cluster age (see their Figure 5).
The GC luminosity functions (LFs) of both elliptical and spiral galaxies, including the MW, are observed to have a peaked shape with a “turnover” caused by the earlier disruption of lower mass clusters due to “evaporation” of stars by two-body relaxation in a tidal field (Fall & Zhang, 2001). Small variations in the peak luminosity and width of GCLFs are believed to come from possible differences in cluster ages, cluster densities, or the strength of the tidal field (Villegas et al., 2010). Despite the known small variations, the turnover of GCLFs is nearly universal, which has led to its use as a standard candle for distance determinations (Harris, 2001, p. 223).
It is therefore important to study cases where the GCLF does not follow the “uni- versal” pattern. An interesting example is the so-called “faint fuzzies” that have been found in the lenticular galaxies NGC 1023 and NGC 3384 (Brodie & Larsen, 2002;
Larsen & Brodie, 2000), lenticular and elliptical galaxies in the Virgo cluster (Peng et al., 2006b), and M51 and its companion (Scheepmaker et al., 2007; Hwang & Lee,
2006). These clusters are quite extended with effective radii (reff) of 7-15 pc and ages upwards of 7-8 Gyr. Despite their intermediate/old ages, their LF is observed
to continue to rise beyond the expected turnover luminosity. Intermediate age clus-
ters found in a few early-type galaxies may be responsible for discrepancies between
the distances measured from GCLFs and those measured from surface brightness
fluctuations (Richtler, 2003, p. 281).
Faint fuzzies also have reff more than twice that of typical GCs in most ellipicals
9 and spirals. Brodie & Larsen (2002) proposed that perhaps faint fuzzies only form in the environment found in lenticular galaxies, or that perhaps they were accreted along with a host dwarf galaxy. However, Chies-Santos et al. (2013) used kinematics and spatial comparisons with planetary nebulae and HI to conclude that faint fuzzies may simply be akin to old open disk clusters. They suggest that the reason faint fuzzies are observed in lenticulars but not in spirals is that these faint clusters are quite difficult to pick out against the strong structure and variable luminosity caused by star formation in spiral disks.
Thus far, most detailed studies of GCs have focused on early type galaxies (e.g.,
Peng et al. (2006a); Villegas et al. (2010)), the MW, M31, and a handful of other, mostly bulge dominated systems (e.g., Goudfrooij et al. (2003)). Late-type spirals, such as M101, have not been as thoroughly studied. Previously, Chandar et al.
(2004) studied the GC systems in five spiral galaxies using HST Wide-Field Planetary
Camera 2 (WFPC2) observations and compared them with the known distribution of
GCs in the MW. They found for M101 and NGC 6946 that the LF continues to rise beyond the expected GCLF turnover; however, this conclusion was based on a small number of clusters resulting from the partial coverage of each galaxy. Barmby et al.
(2006) studied a larger sample of M101 clusters (1715 clusters with mV < 23), but they focused on analyzing “blue” clusters ((B − V )0 < 0.45) rather than the older, redder clusters we seek to study here. Here, we use the same BVIHST Advanced
Camera for Surveys (ACS) observations as Barmby et al. (2006) to examine the LF, colors, sizes, and spatial distributions of the red clusters.
The rest of the chapter is organized as follows: We describe the observations, selection criteria and methods, and completeness in §2.2. In §2.3, we show the lu- minosity distribution, color-color plot, color histograms, color magnitude diagram
(CMD), sizes, and spatial distribution of our cluster candidates, and we discuss the results in §2.4. Finally in §2.5, we list our conclusions.
10 2.2 Observations, Cluster Selection, and Complete-
ness
2.2.1 Observations
Ten pointings within M101 were taken with the HST /ACS Wide Field Channel
(WFC) in November of 2002 (Program ID: 9490, PI: K. Kuntz) using the F 435W
(B), F 555W (V ), and F 814W (I) filters1. Each field covers 3.30 × 3.40 (see Fig. 2-1).
Assuming a distance to M101 of 6.4 ± 0.2 (random) ±0.5 (systematic) Mpc (Shappee
& Stanek, 2011), each field covers a 6.1 × 6.3 kpc2 region (each 0.0500 pixel covers
∼ 1.6 pc at this distance). Images were processed through the HLA MultiDrizzle
Pipeline Version 1.0 (Koekemoer et al., 2002), which includes bias subtraction, cos- mic ray rejection by combining two sub-exposures from CR-Split observing, dark subtraction, flat fielding, and drizzling.
We detect sources, which include star clusters, bright individual stars, and back- ground galaxies, in the V band image using the IRAF task DAOFIND. We detect
∼383,000 total sources and measure their brightnesses within circular apertures vary- ing from 0.5 to 5 pixels with the background estimated within annuli of 7 to 13 pixels using the PHOT task within IRAF. We determine empirical aperture corrections out to 10 pixels from the curves of growth measured for 25 isolated clusters, and also apply an additional −0.107 mag, −0.092 mag, and −0.087 mag correction from 10 pixels to infinity for B, V , and I respectively (Sirianni et al., 2005). These aperture corrections are added to the measured photometry to obtain instrumental magni- tudes. The apparent magnitude (mV ) for each source in the VEGAMAG system is
1Based on observations made with the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope, and obtained from the Hubble Legacy Archive, which is a collaboration between the Space Telescope Science Insti- tute (STScI/NASA), the Space Telescope European Coordinating Facility (ST-ECF/ESA) and the Canadian Astronomy Data Centre (CADC/NRC/CSA).
11 found by applying the following zero points: F 435W = 25.791, F 555W = 25.738, and F 814W = 25.533 (Bohlin, 2007; Mack et al., 2007)2.
2http://www.stsci.edu/hst/acs/analysis/zeropoints 12 Figure 2-1: Ground-based optical image of M101 showing the location of all 10 HST ACS/WFC fields used in this work. The 50 scale bar is equivalent to ∼9.3 kpc.
13 2.2.2 Cluster Selection
In order to separate ancient star cluster candidates from our full catalog, we made
a series of automated selective cuts followed by visual inspection of each object. We
use the following automated selection criteria:
• Clusters brighter than mV < 24.75 where mV was measured within 3 pixel apertures (i.e. no aperture correction yet applied) to ensure a high signal-to-
noise ratio (S/N).
• Concentration index (CI) > 1.15 where CI is the difference between mV mea- sured within 1 pixel and 3 pixel apertures to eliminate point sources; point
sources have CI values that peak around 1.00 with a standard deviation of 0.06.
• Colors, i.e. 0.55 < B − V < 2.0 and 0.75 < V − I < 2.0, similar to those of
Galactic GCs.
Because CI is a crude measure of object size, we also use the BAOlab/ISHAPE software (Larsen, 1999) to measure the full width at half maximum (FWHM) of each object. ISHAPE fits profiles to each candidate source to determine its FWHM (along with other parameters such as ellipticity). The light profile is a convolution of the point spread function (psf) with a user determined function representing the spread in light from a cluster’s non-point-like size. We determined the psf of each of our
fields by visually selecting ∼40-50 isolated stars in each field. We choose a King
profile (King, 1962) with a concentration parameter (ratio of the tidal radius to the
core radius) of 30 to represent the cluster-like light profile convolved with the psf for
the ISHAPE fitting.
All objects with a measured FWHM < 0.2 pixels (reff ≈ 0.46 pc) from ISHAPE were removed from the catalog to further eliminate stars. We then plotted FWHM
vs CI and determined a three piece-wise linear fit to the relationship between CI and
14 FWHM. Upon visual inspection, objects falling outside of a perpendicular distance of
∼ 0.1 from the piece-wise fit only consisted of contaminants (usually faint, distorted
“patches” that cannot be classified, noise, crowded point sources, etc.). Therefore, only objects within a perpendicular distance of 0.1 from the CI-FWHM fits were kept.
Finally, obvious background galaxies, chance superpositions, and other contam- inants were eliminated via visual inspection. Figure 2-2 shows a few typical radial profiles examined during the visual inspection of six selected candidate clusters and
five stars (not included in the catalog). Note the clear difference between stars and the relatively well-resolved clusters.
The final catalog consists of 326 candidate clusters (see Fig. 2-3 and Table 2.1) with magnitude, color, and size measurements (six of these do not have FWHM measurements due to ISHAPE fit errors). For simplicity, we refer to the cluster candidates as “clusters” throughout the rest of the chapter.
Table 2.1: M101 Old Star Cluster Catalog
◦ 0 00 ID α2000 (hms) δ2000 ( ) VB − VV − IB − I reff (pc) 945 14 3 16.68 54 19 38.04 -5.89 0.68 1.08 1.77 5.3
3072 14 3 22.28 54 19 50.40 -5.76 0.64 0.97 1.61 3.8
4335 14 3 17.58 54 19 55.68 -7.35 0.72 0.98 1.70 3.6
6166 14 3 18.09 54 20 3.09 -7.05 1.28 1.75 3.02 2.4
9429 14 3 15.44 54 20 16.08 -6.77 0.93 1.34 2.27 2.0
9936 14 3 16.31 54 20 18.48 -5.96 0.79 1.16 1.95 7.3
10101 14 3 18.62 54 20 19.33 -6.30 0.68 1.04 1.72 7.6
10379 14 3 23.53 54 20 20.59 -6.49 0.76 1.21 1.97 4.7
10633 14 3 25.18 54 20 21.79 -8.83 0.80 1.19 1.99 2.3
10654 14 3 20.35 54 20 21.89 -5.89 0.84 1.19 2.03 7.7
Continued on next page
15 Table 2.1 – Continued from previous page
◦ 0 00 ID α2000 (hms) δ2000 ( ) VB − VV − IB − I reff (pc) 11567 14 3 22.85 54 20 25.80 -6.36 0.79 1.20 1.99 2.9
12223 14 3 20.39 54 20 27.79 -7.03 0.68 0.98 1.65 5.3
13100 14 3 17.87 54 20 30.94 -8.27 0.72 1.06 1.78 2.5
13730 14 3 15.39 54 20 32.83 -6.69 0.73 1.07 1.81 5.7
15772 14 3 14.19 54 20 39.27 -7.79 0.78 1.16 1.94 1.2
16614 14 3 32.66 54 20 41.77 -5.35 0.72 1.17 1.90 3.6
17893 14 3 15.97 54 20 45.53 -8.03 0.78 1.11 1.90 1.8
18864 14 3 24.30 54 20 48.49 -8.97 0.66 1.01 1.67 3.1
18919 14 3 21.05 54 20 48.64 -5.46 1.08 1.40 2.48 1.9
19226 14 3 14.56 54 20 49.42 -5.62 0.56 1.20 1.76 3.8
20475 14 3 13.89 54 20 52.37 -7.93 1.35 1.56 2.91 0.80
21360 14 3 15.04 54 20 54.62 -5.77 0.53 1.06 1.59 1.6
21630 14 3 14.22 54 20 55.27 -7.15 0.87 1.30 2.18 2.0
23014 14 3 13.62 54 20 58.53 -7.16 0.67 0.96 1.63 2.3
24523 14 3 33.60 54 21 2.07 -5.57 0.63 0.92 1.55
25163 14 3 14.80 54 21 3.87 -7.30 0.86 1.17 2.03 1.7
26903 14 3 17.14 54 21 9.09 -6.07 0.74 0.93 1.67 2.2
27296 14 3 14.38 54 21 10.23 -7.79 0.61 1.03 1.64 2.9
27328 14 3 14.88 54 21 10.32 -8.52 0.82 1.19 2.01 1.9
27340 14 3 16.15 54 21 10.38 -5.26 0.68 1.29 1.97 1.7
27355 14 3 22.82 54 21 10.45 -5.63 0.52 1.43 1.95 3.0
30027 14 3 17.23 54 21 18.23 -7.48 0.82 1.23 2.06 2.0
30387 14 3 15.78 54 21 19.54 -6.90 0.87 1.16 2.02 3.2
30578 14 3 13.30 54 21 20.22 -8.62 0.61 0.97 1.58 3.8
Continued on next page 16 Table 2.1 – Continued from previous page
◦ 0 00 ID α2000 (hms) δ2000 ( ) VB − VV − IB − I reff (pc) 31598 14 3 19.79 54 21 23.74 -5.65 0.65 1.15 1.8 6.5
32056 14 3 18.35 54 21 25.33 -6.75 0.55 0.82 1.37 6.8
33763 14 3 21.25 54 21 31.29 -6.51 0.72 0.97 1.69 5.6
33918 14 3 17.82 54 21 31.79 -6.27 0.60 1.14 1.74 6.8
34959 14 3 11.84 54 21 35.56 -6.27 0.54 0.90 1.44 4.8
35324 14 3 12.06 54 21 36.91 -8.61 0.94 1.32 2.26 2.0
35593 14 3 14.90 54 21 37.92 -8.09 0.94 1.30 2.23 1.6
35878 14 3 11.72 54 21 38.91 -8.77 0.77 1.14 1.91 3.3
35967 14 3 16.49 54 21 39.38 -5.33 0.74 1.10 1.84 2.1
36438 14 3 19.49 54 21 41.04 -8.93 0.87 1.20 2.07 3.4
37185 14 3 9.44 54 21 43.35 -6.47 0.54 0.89 1.43 3.6
38232 14 3 24.13 54 21 46.65 -6.93 0.85 1.12 1.97 3.4
39047 14 3 29.62 54 21 49.38 -6.94 0.81 1.24 2.04 10.9
39884 14 3 15.24 54 21 52.52 -6.64 0.81 1.34 2.15 4.6
41346 14 3 28.72 54 21 57.58 -6.16 0.66 1.11 1.76 3.1
41416 14 3 20.28 54 21 57.80 -7.00 0.55 1.00 1.55 5.5
42925 14 3 18.71 54 22 2.89 -5.89 0.64 1.08 1.71 5.0
43035 14 3 16.37 54 22 3.18 -5.51 0.72 1.04 1.76 1.7
43375 14 3 17.26 54 22 4.24 -5.83 0.52 0.97 1.49 4.6
43614 14 3 19.15 54 22 4.99 -6.72 0.91 1.33 2.24 2.3
44951 14 3 15.54 54 22 8.88 -6.30 0.99 1.46 2.46 6.1
45803 14 3 26.03 54 22 11.49 -6.12 0.86 1.29 2.16 3.6
48265 14 3 21.61 54 22 20.39 -6.24 0.59 1.13 1.71 9.3
48588 14 3 15.07 54 22 22.23 -6.39 0.68 1.04 1.72 4.8
Continued on next page 17 Table 2.1 – Continued from previous page
◦ 0 00 ID α2000 (hms) δ2000 ( ) VB − VV − IB − I reff (pc) 50207 14 3 28.63 54 22 33.43 -5.54 0.92 1.60 2.52 10.9
50847 14 3 21.91 54 22 37.50 -6.73 0.56 0.93 1.49 8.3
52054 14 3 23.39 54 22 45.59 -5.69 0.52 1.04 1.56 5.5
55760 14 2 53.96 54 18 47.98 -5.2 0.81 1.04 1.85
56803 14 3 4.27 54 18 57.39 -6.26 0.98 1.19 2.16 2.6
57250 14 3 0.34 54 19 0.74 -5.92 0.63 1.13 1.77 2.8
57367 14 3 5.09 54 19 1.78 -5.59 0.54 1.06 1.60 3.1
58477 14 2 54.47 54 19 10.08 -6.01 0.59 1.10 1.69 5.7
61668 14 3 12.4 54 19 25.26 -5.73 0.59 0.90 1.49 5.0
63641 14 3 3.24 54 19 33.94 -8.11 0.79 1.19 1.98 1.8
64711 14 3 13.9 54 19 38.65 -6.34 0.56 0.97 1.53 9.0
64998 14 2 58.3 54 19 40.04 -6.24 0.56 0.87 1.44 2.2
65200 14 3 7.19 54 19 40.88 -7.48 1.37 2.04 3.40 1.8
65354 14 2 55.76 54 19 41.68 -5.51 0.70 1.04 1.74
66475 14 3 11.41 54 19 46.67 -8.03 0.66 1.05 1.71 2.3
67331 14 3 9.66 54 19 49.97 -6.09 0.64 1.09 1.73 5.4
67420 14 3 3.20 54 19 50.29 -5.51 0.57 1.16 1.73 2.5
67794 14 3 1.61 54 19 51.84 -8.83 0.72 1.09 1.81 1.9
67815 14 2 58.99 54 19 51.89 -5.81 0.81 1.17 1.98 3.3
67870 14 3 4.11 54 19 52.20 -7.47 0.59 0.97 1.55 1.9
68987 14 3 6.43 54 19 56.84 -6.86 0.52 1.23 1.75 5.2
70141 14 3 15.17 54 20 1.05 -7.13 0.66 1.12 1.78 1.5
71240 14 3 13.92 54 20 4.86 -5.89 0.60 1.30 1.91 2.4
72575 14 3 12.64 54 20 10.21 -8.20 0.61 0.99 1.60 1.8
Continued on next page 18 Table 2.1 – Continued from previous page
◦ 0 00 ID α2000 (hms) δ2000 ( ) VB − VV − IB − I reff (pc) 73313 14 3 1.06 54 20 13.19 -8.28 0.63 0.99 1.62 2.2
75211 14 3 7.25 54 20 22.83 -8.43 0.74 1.07 1.81 2.2
75256 14 2 56.69 54 20 23.08 -5.66 0.61 1.05 1.66 3.4
75415 14 3 11.21 54 20 23.77 -7.30 0.78 1.13 1.91 2.8
75983 14 3 4.19 54 20 26.29 -5.60 0.67 1.12 1.79 2.6
77908 14 3 10.87 54 20 34.57 -6.59 0.75 1.11 1.85 1.2
78552 14 3 13.60 54 20 37.06 -6.20 0.54 0.95 1.49 2.4
79185 14 2 53.48 54 20 39.57 -6.97 0.55 0.93 1.49 5.5
79604 14 3 12.45 54 20 41.32 -7.95 0.65 1.00 1.66 1.5
79894 14 3 4.01 54 20 42.39 -6.28 0.52 1.28 1.80 5.4
80297 14 3 4.36 54 20 43.89 -5.66 0.77 1.75 2.52 1.6
80682 14 3 7.61 54 20 45.29 -7.32 0.81 1.29 2.10 2.1
80836 14 3 9.94 54 20 45.88 -6.13 0.72 1.00 1.72 7.8
80953 14 3 5.27 54 20 46.19 -7.63 0.58 0.97 1.55 2.2
83276 14 3 12.85 54 20 53.46 -6.29 0.62 1.08 1.69 3.2
84174 14 2 52.46 54 20 55.86 -5.55 0.74 1.20 1.94
84180 14 3 9.48 54 20 55.93 -6.00 0.88 1.28 2.16 3.2
84917 14 3 8.88 54 20 57.82 -6.59 0.78 1.20 1.98 1.6
85983 14 2 52.58 54 21 0.76 -5.61 0.64 1.19 1.83 7.2
86034 14 3 9.33 54 21 0.97 -6.47 0.76 1.08 1.84 1.8
86048 14 3 10.39 54 21 1.02 -9.18 0.99 1.30 2.29 1.8
86821 14 3 7.16 54 21 3.78 -5.37 0.89 1.49 2.38 2.2
87137 14 3 9.12 54 21 4.88 -6.51 1.34 1.89 3.23 2.3
88273 14 3 11.24 54 21 8.71 -7.61 0.72 1.17 1.89 2.1
Continued on next page 19 Table 2.1 – Continued from previous page
◦ 0 00 ID α2000 (hms) δ2000 ( ) VB − VV − IB − I reff (pc) 88476 14 3 8.52 54 21 9.48 -6.51 0.70 1.10 1.80 3.0
89146 14 2 59.33 54 21 11.89 -5.36 0.59 1.34 1.94 5.2
89264 14 3 11.36 54 21 12.31 -7.37 0.88 1.29 2.18 3.9
89603 14 3 2.49 54 21 13.59 -7.76 0.75 1.15 1.90 3.2
89847 14 2 56.34 54 21 14.48 -6.15 0.58 1.16 1.74
89943 14 3 9.76 54 21 14.88 -8.48 0.79 1.08 1.87 1.3
90071 14 3 9.47 54 21 15.58 -7.55 0.79 1.18 1.97 2.0
90264 14 3 5.71 54 21 16.24 -5.57 0.82 1.35 2.17 4.9
91187 14 3 4.59 54 21 20.94 -6.08 0.87 1.39 2.26 3.6
91978 14 2 53.28 54 21 24.77 -5.66 0.64 0.86 1.50 5.3
92660 14 3 4.67 54 21 28.00 -5.58 0.65 1.03 1.68 4.2
94200 14 3 3.95 54 21 37.73 -5.88 0.56 0.82 1.39 2.1
94533 14 2 56.77 54 21 39.63 -5.12 0.73 1.34 2.07
94569 14 3 3.93 54 21 39.79 -6.94 0.77 1.12 1.89 3.0
95822 14 3 4.45 54 21 47.79 -6.68 0.78 1.17 1.95 6.3
98641 14 3 15.21 54 22 41.05 -5.63 0.69 1.07 1.76 5.9
98847 14 3 16.77 54 22 44.86 -5.98 0.56 1.33 1.89 3.5
98949 14 3 18.07 54 22 46.77 -7.20 0.54 0.87 1.41 5.4
99581 14 3 20.16 54 22 58.32 -5.52 0.91 1.07 1.98 3.9
99594 14 3 16.98 54 22 58.62 -9.06 0.65 0.96 1.61 1.7
99850 14 3 19.28 54 23 3.37 -6.53 0.57 0.99 1.56 9.6
100194 14 3 16.78 54 23 9.91 -5.55 0.60 0.91 1.5 5.3
100273 14 3 18.71 54 23 11.27 -7.51 0.90 1.32 2.22 4.2
100429 14 3 22.40 54 23 13.67 -6.32 0.75 1.13 1.88 7.4
Continued on next page 20 Table 2.1 – Continued from previous page
◦ 0 00 ID α2000 (hms) δ2000 ( ) VB − VV − IB − I reff (pc) 100760 14 3 26.84 54 23 19.01 -5.89 0.71 1.08 1.78 4.7
101085 14 3 22.09 54 23 23.02 -8.01 0.67 1.03 1.70 2.5
103079 14 3 26.06 54 23 34.82 -5.81 0.82 1.26 2.07 3.6
103166 14 3 25.00 54 23 35.26 -6.10 0.53 1.13 1.66 2.9
104279 14 3 16.03 54 23 41.47 -6.01 0.58 1.07 1.65 1.9
104420 14 3 13.95 54 23 42.25 -6.07 0.57 1.04 1.61 15.2
109622 14 3 11.35 54 24 10.14 -5.40 0.58 0.96 1.54 2.1
110139 14 3 29.83 54 24 12.54 -5.61 0.64 0.82 1.46 3.3
110462 14 3 19.94 54 24 14.16 -7.03 0.52 0.98 1.50 5.9
114260 14 3 22.77 54 24 38.81 -5.81 0.75 0.97 1.72 3.7
114744 14 3 24.19 54 24 41.52 -6.41 0.67 1.12 1.79 4.5
116646 14 3 20.36 54 24 54.57 -6.24 0.80 1.20 2.00 10.8
118253 14 3 13.60 54 25 10.46 -5.54 0.55 1.15 1.70 4.6
118647 14 3 28.14 54 25 14.16 -5.72 0.62 0.93 1.55 3.1
118883 14 3 22.14 54 25 16.11 -5.45 0.80 1.09 1.89 1.7
119456 14 3 17.66 54 25 20.96 -5.93 0.76 1.12 1.88 9.4
120637 14 3 13.02 54 25 28.56 -6.63 0.60 0.81 1.42 3.4
121383 14 3 11.89 54 25 33.65 -5.43 0.67 0.88 1.55 3.2
122615 14 3 12.32 54 25 51.70 -5.54 0.63 1.00 1.62 6.9
124462 14 3 24.21 54 16 49.96 -5.61 0.56 1.14 1.70 1.7
125939 14 3 26.97 54 17 7.51 -5.63 0.78 1.24 2.02 9.1
127886 14 3 34.28 54 17 18.21 -6.32 0.54 1.01 1.55 4.2
133647 14 3 20.13 54 17 46.35 -5.65 0.56 1.16 1.72 4.5
134170 14 3 26.94 54 17 48.97 -5.54 0.66 0.88 1.55 2.5
Continued on next page 21 Table 2.1 – Continued from previous page
◦ 0 00 ID α2000 (hms) δ2000 ( ) VB − VV − IB − I reff (pc) 136020 14 3 20.08 54 17 59.09 -6.01 0.60 0.89 1.49 5.6
136807 14 3 25.30 54 18 4.41 -5.10 0.56 1.09 1.64 2.7
138711 14 3 19.66 54 18 19.14 -5.76 0.65 0.86 1.51 2.8
139172 14 3 40.60 54 18 22.89 -6.08 0.55 1.26 1.80 4.2
139224 14 3 19.14 54 18 23.14 -5.77 0.76 1.42 2.18 9.0
139391 14 3 20.00 54 18 24.24 -7.60 0.74 1.12 1.86 2.2
141559 14 3 26.78 54 18 37.06 -7.71 0.65 1.04 1.69 2.0
141905 14 3 30.03 54 18 38.77 -5.32 0.56 1.05 1.61 1.7
142293 14 3 30.08 54 18 40.56 -6.48 0.58 1.20 1.78 5.4
143853 14 3 19.86 54 18 46.79 -6.66 0.65 1.06 1.71 4.1
147105 14 3 30.78 54 18 56.92 -6.22 0.53 0.89 1.43 3.9
147386 14 3 24.11 54 18 57.7 -5.70 0.54 1.05 1.59 9.2
150970 14 3 24.43 54 19 8.91 -5.20 0.99 1.42 2.42 4.0
151492 14 3 22.60 54 19 11.15 -5.65 0.56 1.04 1.60 6.5
152188 14 3 25.99 54 19 14.61 -5.91 0.61 1.02 1.63 4.9
153188 14 3 28.62 54 19 21.72 -9.45 0.76 1.1 1.86 1.9
155489 14 3 27.82 54 19 43.87 -5.70 0.53 1.13 1.65 5.4
157332 14 3 33.37 54 20 1.71 -5.84 0.75 1.25 2.00 2.2
158067 14 3 35.34 54 20 20.46 -6.65 0.61 0.93 1.54 7.7
161328 14 2 59.88 54 16 16.71 -5.4 0.64 1.02 1.65 4.2
162748 14 3 1.72 54 16 28.01 -5.65 0.57 0.84 1.41 6.3
163971 14 3 2.26 54 16 36.31 -6.35 0.57 1.04 1.61 7.7
165399 14 3 5.40 54 16 46.83 -6.30 0.61 1.04 1.65 9.5
166585 14 3 7.21 54 16 53.53 -5.87 0.58 0.87 1.45 8.1
Continued on next page 22 Table 2.1 – Continued from previous page
◦ 0 00 ID α2000 (hms) δ2000 ( ) VB − VV − IB − I reff (pc) 167341 14 2 59.19 54 16 57.70 -5.56 0.62 1.06 1.68 5.3
168039 14 3 21.11 54 17 1.80 -7.39 0.76 1.24 2.00 3.2
169476 14 3 3.02 54 17 9.36 -5.78 0.72 1.09 1.81 9.2
171357 14 3 5.93 54 17 19.68 -6.10 0.67 1.15 1.82 6.1
172435 14 3 15.56 54 17 25.82 -6.69 0.60 1.09 1.68 9.6
173052 14 3 19.32 54 17 28.80 -5.72 0.85 1.41 2.26 5.4
174122 14 3 5.46 54 17 33.67 -5.94 0.56 1.25 1.81 4.3
174715 14 3 14.11 54 17 36.47 -8.51 0.63 1.09 1.72 5.0
178996 14 3 9.62 54 17 53.78 -5.79 0.65 1.08 1.73 5.9
179937 14 3 7.19 54 17 57.28 -5.90 0.77 1.08 1.84 3.3
181772 14 3 17.41 54 18 5.86 -5.72 0.58 1.11 1.69 3.5
183762 14 3 13.15 54 18 15.78 -7.82 0.57 0.97 1.55 2.0
183851 14 2 57.05 54 18 16.19 -5.91 0.74 1.32 2.06 1.1
183998 14 3 12.88 54 18 16.88 -5.82 0.86 1.13 1.99 3.2
184251 14 3 17.04 54 18 18.32 -5.70 0.58 1.18 1.76 3.0
185378 14 3 14.81 54 18 23.82 -5.65 0.55 1.24 1.79 1.4
186744 14 3 11.14 54 18 29.77 -7.96 0.66 1.10 1.76 5.8
186831 14 3 9.51 54 18 30.18 -5.17 0.61 1.07 1.68 0.80
187473 14 3 4.38 54 18 34.62 -6.52 0.59 1.30 1.89 4.6
187680 14 3 0.13 54 18 36.21 -5.72 0.85 1.14 1.99 4.2
188241 14 3 12.89 54 18 39.82 -5.94 0.60 1.22 1.82 1.5
188706 14 3 13.33 54 18 42.42 -6.43 0.54 1.04 1.58 2.6
189508 14 3 8.25 54 18 46.77 -5.83 0.54 1.09 1.63 4.1
190575 14 3 8.66 54 18 54.83 -8.41 0.60 1.00 1.61 3.6
Continued on next page 23 Table 2.1 – Continued from previous page
◦ 0 00 ID α2000 (hms) δ2000 ( ) VB − VV − IB − I reff (pc) 190689 14 3 8.44 54 18 56.18 -6.20 0.58 1.11 1.69 3.2
191858 14 2 57.22 54 21 30.80 -6.12 0.74 0.98 1.71 8.8
192313 14 2 54.17 54 21 55.98 -5.96 0.78 1.31 2.09 3.3
193185 14 2 58.73 54 22 9.08 -7.87 0.70 1.03 1.74 2.7
193656 14 3 3.43 54 22 13.95 -7.86 0.70 1.00 1.70 2.3
194413 14 3 10.98 54 22 19.56 -5.88 0.87 1.42 2.29 4.0
194434 14 2 53.31 54 22 19.63 -6.10 0.66 1.16 1.82 7.3
195284 14 3 11.67 54 22 25.00 -6.68 0.72 0.94 1.66 2.1
195938 14 3 12.28 54 22 29.96 -7.74 0.82 1.12 1.93 1.8
196010 14 2 55.22 54 22 30.63 -6.19 0.73 1.09 1.81 9.6
196120 14 2 57.65 54 22 31.50 -5.20 0.84 1.27 2.11 5.4
196385 14 2 57.62 54 22 33.30 -5.40 0.73 0.97 1.70 3.7
196395 14 2 57.86 54 22 33.39 -5.65 0.72 1.03 1.75 7.6
196819 14 2 55.72 54 22 36.94 -5.34 0.53 0.88 1.41 3.7
196849 14 3 11.09 54 22 37.51 -5.53 0.79 1.39 2.18 2.9
197331 14 3 8.76 54 22 41.67 -5.55 0.63 1.18 1.81 6.3
197671 14 3 1.31 54 22 44.04 -5.71 0.57 0.92 1.48 5.9
197845 14 2 52.29 54 22 45.08 -6.50 0.71 1.16 1.86 7.9
198370 14 3 2.34 54 22 48.35 -5.46 0.84 1.19 2.04 6.1
198654 14 3 7.71 54 22 50.17 -5.53 0.86 1.19 2.05 1.7
199125 14 2 54.41 54 22 52.48 -5.75 0.65 0.98 1.63 4.0
200563 14 2 52.33 54 23 0.53 -5.65 0.67 0.83 1.50 3.4
200983 14 3 3.13 54 23 3.04 -7.79 0.66 1.07 1.72 7.1
201025 14 2 56.10 54 23 3.19 -5.79 0.73 1.07 1.80 6.5
Continued on next page 24 Table 2.1 – Continued from previous page
◦ 0 00 ID α2000 (hms) δ2000 ( ) VB − VV − IB − I reff (pc) 202418 14 3 2.89 54 23 12.15 -8.00 0.75 1.09 1.83 1.7
202532 14 3 3.36 54 23 13.04 -5.57 0.58 1.18 1.76 6.0
202646 14 2 58.92 54 23 13.95 -6.46 0.61 1.06 1.67 8.3
202647 14 2 57.94 54 23 13.95 -6.43 0.60 1.16 1.76 1.8
202657 14 2 58.47 54 23 13.99 -6.54 0.60 1.08 1.68 7.9
202743 14 2 53.66 54 23 14.73 -5.84 0.65 1.32 1.98 1.5
202871 14 3 3.90 54 23 15.79 -7.20 0.98 1.47 2.45 3.6
203013 14 3 3.63 54 23 16.84 -5.80 0.72 1.26 1.97 9.9
203367 14 2 58.30 54 23 19.34 -6.26 0.63 1.11 1.74 13.2
203386 14 2 58.30 54 23 19.34 -6.26 0.59 1.13 1.72 13.2
203740 14 3 3.80 54 23 21.84 -5.36 0.65 1.31 1.95 3.6
205799 14 3 5.62 54 23 29.74 -5.94 0.87 0.84 1.71 2.4
208283 14 2 54.83 54 23 41.53 -5.74 0.64 1.02 1.66 4.8
208701 14 2 57.82 54 23 43.73 -5.84 0.62 0.82 1.43 7.5
209327 14 2 53.16 54 23 47.93 -5.83 0.66 0.97 1.63 6.8
210045 14 3 2.64 54 23 51.85 -5.72 0.86 1.26 2.12 5.4
212275 14 3 4.62 54 24 8.63 -5.83 0.63 0.90 1.52 10.7
212795 14 3 0.99 54 24 17.84 -6.29 0.68 1.14 1.81 8.7
212980 14 2 53.06 54 24 21.73 -5.35 0.79 1.54 2.33 3.3
213002 14 2 53.54 54 24 22.18 -5.63 0.74 1.03 1.77 6.0
213663 14 3 2.65 54 24 33.73 -5.86 0.96 1.44 2.40 6.7
213736 14 3 5.86 54 24 36.03 -6.60 0.59 0.90 1.49 13.2
214194 14 2 59.64 54 24 55.20 -5.66 0.52 0.99 1.51 6.5
214765 14 3 46.38 54 18 16.98 -6.24 0.76 1.09 1.85 11.4
Continued on next page 25 Table 2.1 – Continued from previous page
◦ 0 00 ID α2000 (hms) δ2000 ( ) VB − VV − IB − I reff (pc) 214767 14 3 46.38 54 18 17.04 -6.23 0.76 1.12 1.88 11.4
215424 14 3 45.07 54 18 44.53 -6.19 0.54 1.21 1.75 6.4
218961 14 3 53.10 54 19 16.70 -5.65 0.60 1.03 1.63 2.3
219898 14 3 43.19 54 19 27.68 -6.86 0.53 1.43 1.96 2.3
221757 14 3 41.27 54 20 2.77 -5.17 0.54 1.19 1.72 1.9
222074 14 3 53.35 54 20 9.94 -6.77 0.56 1.11 1.67 6.6
222406 14 3 44.61 54 20 19.88 -6.08 0.69 1.17 1.87 6.0
222583 14 3 38.00 54 20 24.41 -6.21 0.55 0.94 1.5 5.3
222599 14 3 38.89 54 20 25.02 -6.05 0.53 0.88 1.42 4.5
224949 14 3 51.07 54 21 17.04 -7.84 0.69 1.06 1.75 1.4
228383 14 3 40.71 54 14 7.86 -5.85 1.28 0.99 2.27 1.4
228461 14 3 35.53 54 14 16.51 -7.55 0.67 1.18 1.85 0.70
228646 14 3 45.64 54 14 32.99 -5.39 1.46 1.44 2.89 5.6
229094 14 3 41.26 54 15 26.15 -5.21 1.01 1.27 2.28 0.90
229610 14 3 33.75 54 16 14.35 -5.93 0.63 1.14 1.77 4.4
230481 14 3 37.83 54 20 39.22 -5.68 0.64 1.12 1.76 5.8
231735 14 3 34.2 54 21 29.66 -5.53 0.58 0.97 1.54 5.8
232393 14 3 47.26 54 21 35.92 -5.52 0.62 1.00 1.62 6.5
233985 14 3 41.05 54 21 45.63 -5.24 0.52 1.51 2.04 3.5
234055 14 3 36.21 54 21 46.07 -5.90 0.65 1.13 1.79 6.3
235277 14 3 50.56 54 21 52.17 -5.10 0.83 1.08 1.92 5.4
239183 14 3 43.16 54 22 10.98 -5.61 0.72 1.08 1.80 3.8
242803 14 3 30.40 54 22 39.49 -5.48 0.56 1.14 1.71 1.9
242883 14 3 50.84 54 22 40.46 -5.61 0.53 1.15 1.69 1.8
Continued on next page 26 Table 2.1 – Continued from previous page
◦ 0 00 ID α2000 (hms) δ2000 ( ) VB − VV − IB − I reff (pc) 243283 14 3 36.46 54 22 44.76 -7.43 0.57 0.94 1.52 14.3
243492 14 3 32.70 54 22 47.25 -5.82 0.65 1.12 1.77 5.5
243853 14 3 39.78 54 22 51.63 -6.47 0.59 0.85 1.45 8.9
244659 14 3 39.64 54 22 59.32 -7.50 0.63 1.02 1.66 1.6
245323 14 3 30.05 54 23 10.03 -5.60 0.67 1.20 1.87 5.0
246006 14 3 29.27 54 23 19.93 -5.61 0.65 0.96 1.60 6.7
246606 14 3 30.16 54 23 27.24 -5.20 0.61 1.07 1.69 4.3
246652 14 3 32.81 54 23 27.80 -5.58 0.67 1.16 1.83 3.4
247460 14 3 49.13 54 23 38.82 -6.00 1.06 1.34 2.39 2.8
247463 14 3 34.58 54 23 38.82 -5.52 0.67 1.13 1.81 3.2
249201 14 3 45.10 54 24 7.08 -5.19 0.94 1.01 1.95 2.6
249800 14 2 37.51 54 17 4.52 -6.85 0.62 1.03 1.65 12.9
251397 14 2 43.67 54 17 33.22 -8.72 0.55 0.95 1.51 4.0
251508 14 2 48.87 54 17 34.21 -5.29 0.57 0.83 1.41 2.0
251961 14 2 41.03 54 17 38.27 -6.26 0.56 0.99 1.55 12.2
253260 14 2 55.15 54 17 48.57 -5.37 0.62 1.44 2.05 7.7
254097 14 2 51.33 54 17 53.95 -5.36 0.58 0.99 1.56 5.0
259085 14 2 51.87 54 18 23.25 -5.57 0.67 1.24 1.91 3.4
260574 14 2 50.68 54 18 35.15 -6.36 0.60 0.88 1.49 2.5
260694 14 2 49.32 54 18 36.36 -6.04 0.60 1.65 2.25 1.4
261840 14 2 49.47 54 18 48.56 -5.75 0.94 1.07 2.01 2.9
261997 14 2 46.95 54 18 50.52 -5.23 0.89 0.95 1.84 2.1
262063 14 2 45.95 54 18 51.51 -5.11 0.82 1.30 2.12 1.9
262370 14 2 50.15 54 18 55.41 -5.47 0.64 0.97 1.61 1.6
Continued on next page 27 Table 2.1 – Continued from previous page
◦ 0 00 ID α2000 (hms) δ2000 ( ) VB − VV − IB − I reff (pc) 262579 14 2 45.07 54 18 58.22 -5.24 0.58 0.81 1.39 3.0
263030 14 2 44.92 54 19 4.17 -5.35 0.68 1.16 1.83 6.5
263268 14 2 51.39 54 19 8.19 -5.90 0.72 1.21 1.94 5.5
263766 14 2 32.85 54 19 14.65 -6.07 0.70 1.02 1.73 10.9
263938 14 2 52.16 54 19 16.79 -5.57 0.73 1.18 1.91 3.5
264876 14 2 34.71 54 19 29.36 -5.89 0.66 1.29 1.95 8.3
264895 14 2 41.05 54 19 29.58 -5.51 0.81 1.25 2.06 3.7
265060 14 2 43.21 54 19 31.47 -5.27 0.62 0.89 1.51 2.3
265519 14 2 41.41 54 19 36.87 -6.32 0.63 1.05 1.68 3.5
265592 14 2 40.37 54 19 38.12 -5.68 0.63 0.83 1.47 5.5
265684 14 2 51.08 54 19 39.75 -6.25 0.68 1.17 1.85 6.3
265716 14 2 32.29 54 19 40.34 -5.12 0.86 1.56 2.41 2.0
266305 14 2 44.84 54 19 48.82 -5.18 0.82 1.14 1.96 1.8
266775 14 2 39.08 54 19 52.96 -5.73 0.55 0.93 1.48 2.6
266903 14 2 50.39 54 19 54.16 -5.59 0.89 1.53 2.43 7.2
267396 14 2 42.09 54 19 59.32 -6.17 0.63 1.06 1.68 6.8
267587 14 2 50.42 54 20 1.20 -5.11 0.53 0.86 1.39 2.0
267720 14 2 36.98 54 20 2.56 -7.61 0.82 1.26 2.08 4.9
267763 14 2 50.75 54 20 2.95 -5.20 0.54 1.07 1.61 2.5
268015 14 2 48.49 54 20 5.27 -5.36 0.67 0.97 1.64 2.3
268210 14 2 49.80 54 20 6.75 -5.99 0.75 1.32 2.07 6.3
268705 14 2 40.85 54 20 11.22 -5.30 0.79 1.41 2.20 1.8
268972 14 2 35.85 54 20 13.45 -5.36 0.62 0.84 1.46 2.6
269127 14 2 40.19 54 20 15.02 -7.34 0.65 1.01 1.66 2.2
Continued on next page 28 Table 2.1 – Continued from previous page
◦ 0 00 ID α2000 (hms) δ2000 ( ) VB − VV − IB − I reff (pc) 270117 14 2 45.26 54 20 27.32 -6.50 0.65 0.92 1.57 5.2
270169 14 2 43.78 54 20 28.12 -6.41 0.67 1.13 1.80 10.2
271453 14 2 46.22 54 20 54.61 -5.31 0.70 1.18 1.87 2.1
2.2.3 Completeness
To evaluate the completeness of our catalog of clusters, we generate artificial
clusters, add them to the M101 images, and re-run the detection and cluster selection
methods described in §2.2.1 and §2.2.2. We generate 4000 artificial clusters using the
BAOLAB task MKCMPPSF, which convolves a psf with a user defined function, in
this case KING30 profiles with two different input FWHM: 1.0 and 2.0 pixels (the
motivation for these sizes is given in §2.3.3). We then use MKSYNTH to randomly
place the artificial clusters in one of the images, where the magnitude range matches
that of the real clusters. We detect sources with DAOFIND using the same parameters
as for the real clusters, measure photometry with PHOT, size measurements with
ISHAPE, and run the automated cluster selection criteria and CI-FWHM relation
cut (see §2.2.2).
Figure 2-4 shows the completeness fraction as a function of apparent magnitude.
Both sizes of artificial clusters show a decline in completeness as brightness decreases
with the more diffuse clusters declining at slightly brighter magnitudes. Approxi-
mately 80% of the artificial clusters brighter than mV = 23.0 make it through our
selection pipeline, and approximately 50% of those brighter than mV ≈ 23.6. Although the clusters are randomly placed in the M101 images, we ensured that
2000 are located within galactocentric distance rgc ≈ 2 kpc and 500 within rgc ≈ 500 pc to ensure that the completeness of the inner regions of M101 are thoroughly
29 Figure 2-2: Radial profile showing the enclosed percentage of flux within a given radius (in pixels) for three faint clusters (dashed lines), three bright clusters (solid lines), and five stars (dotted lines). The point sources have significantly steeper profiles.
30 Figure 2-3: BVI color images of typical clusters from faint (top panel) and bright (bottom panel) cluster groups. Each panel is ∼ 3.700, or ∼110 pc on a side. 31 tested. Figure 2-5 shows the completeness fraction as a function of rgc. While the completeness is slightly better for more compact clusters, there is no significant change in the completeness fraction with rgc except within the innermost ∼ 300 pc (dotted line in Fig. 2-5).
Figure 2-4: Fraction of selected artificial clusters versus mv for FWHM= 1.0 (solid line) and 2.0 (dashed line) pixels.
32 Figure 2-5: Fraction of selected artificial clusters versus rgc for FWHM= 1.0 (solid line) and 2.0 (dashed line) pixels. The dotted line repre- sents the innermost region excluded from the fits in Figure 2-15 (see §2.3.4), which is the only significant drop in completeness as a function of distance.
33 2.3 Results and Analysis
2.3.1 Cluster Luminosity Distribution
Figure 2-6 shows the magnitude and luminosity distributions for the M101 cluster
sample (without corrections for completeness) alongside those for MW GCs (taken
from the Harris (1996) catalog). The top panel shows a histogram with equal size
magnitude bins, while the lower panel shows the luminosity distribution with an equal
number of clusters (seven) in each bin. In the magnitude distribution, the M101
clusters have a similar shape to those in the MW (see §2.4 for further discussion) at
the bright end, but a drastically different one at the faint end.
In the rest of this section, we compare the results of fitting different portions of the
cluster luminosity distributions. These fits are performed with a simple least squares
regression in logN-mV space. The slope, a, from these fits can be converted into the
α true power law index α for the LF dN(LV )/dLV ∝ LV by α = −(2.5a + 1). We first compare the results of fitting the bright end of the M101 and MW GC distributions
(see the bottom panel of Fig. 2-6). The fit range is MV ≤ −7.5, approximately 0.2 mag brighter than the peak in the MW GCLF (Ashman et al., 1995). The best
fits shown in Figure 2-6 are αM101,bright = −1.97 ± 0.14 and αMW,bright = −1.91 ± 0.11. The standard deviation for 16 different binnings and ranges are ∼ 0.16 for both the
M101 and MW data, comparable to the uncertainties.
For the faint clusters, we use a magnitude range of −5.4 & MV & −6.5. Here, completeness is a factor, and fainter than MV ≈ −5.4, the luminosity function declines steeply, indicating the probable completeness limit, which matches well with the magnitude at which the completeness fraction of the artificial clusters drops below
50% (see Fig. 2-4). We fit the MW GCs in the full faint range MV > −6.54 (mV > 22.5) since the completeness limit is not a concern for the Harris (1996) catalog. The
34 3 slopes for these fits are αM101,faint = −2.03 ± 0.05 and αMW,faint = −0.46 ± 0.17 . The standard deviation for 16 different binnings and ranges (including more conservative
completeness limits brighter than MV ≈ −5.4) are ∼ 0.25 and ∼ 0.22 respectively. The shapes of the faint ends of the M101 and MW GC distributions are very different.
Note that any faint clusters not identified in our M101 sample due to incompleteness
will only steepen αM101,faint and increase the discrepancy between the M101 and MW GC distributions.
Statistical tests confirm the fit results for the luminosity distribution of M101,
that the bright end is similar to that in the MW, but the faint end is quite different.
We compare the shapes of the M101 and MW luminosity distributions using the two-
sided Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) test and the two-sided Cramer-von Mises (CvM)
test. Both tests accept the null hypothesis (p-values > 0.1) that the M101 luminosity
distribution and the MW luminosity distribution are drawn from the same distri-
bution at the bright end MV < −6.54, and very strongly reject the null hypothesis
(p-values < 0.01) at the faint end MV > −6.54. In fact, the fits do not produce p-values < 0.05 (strong rejection) until the samples include clusters fainter than MV > −6.54. Therefore, we divide our sample into two
groups throughout the rest of the chapter, where “bright” clusters have MV < −6.54
(mV < 22.5) and “faint” clusters have MV > −6.54 (mV > 22.5). There are 90 clusters in the bright group and 236 clusters in the faint group.
We perform a final fit to the faint clusters after subtracting the MW GC histogram from the M101 cluster histogram (see the dashed line in the top panel of Figure 2-
6). No normalization of the MW GC histogram is performed prior to subtraction because the bright ends of the distributions are well matched (see Fig. 2-6). We √ find α = −2.60 ± 0.26 (uncertainties from Poisson errors, i.e. 1/ N) in the range
3Note that the value for α for the faint MW GCs is negative, while a, which is shown in the lower panel of Fig. 2-6, is positive.
35 mV = 23.58 to mV = 22.03. Nine different combinations of bin sizes and data ranges
(always brighter than the completeness limit, mV ≈ 23.65) give a median α = −2.57 and a standard deviation of ∼ 0.18.
36 Figure 2-6: Top: Magnitude distribution (top) for our M101 cluster sample (solid line), MW GCs (dotted line), and the difference between the M101 clusters and the MW GCs (dashed line). A power law fit (dashed line) to the dashed line histogram for the bins brighter than the completeness limit gives α = −2.60 ± 0.26. The solid vertical line represents mV = 22.5 (MV = −6.54), which is where we choose to divide our sample into “faint” and “bright” clusters (see text). The dotted vertical line represents the peak of the MW GC distribution. Bottom: Luminosity distribution for our bright clusters (crosses), faint clusters (solid circles), and MW GCs (asterisks) with constant number binning. Fits to subranges of each group are shown with the same line styles as the top panel. 37 2.3.2 Cluster Colors and Luminosities
In this section, we compare the colors and luminosities of old star clusters in
M101 with those of cluster populations in other galaxies. The ages and metallicities
of clusters older than ∼ 1 Gyr become degenerate, making it difficult to establish
differences in age based only on integrated broad-band colors; the colors are a stronger
indicator of metallicity than of age in this regime.
For bright clusters, the median B − V , V − I, and B − I colors are 0.72, 1.10,
and 1.81, respectively, and for the faint clusters they are 0.65, 1.10, and 1.76. Fig-
ure 2-7 shows B − V versus V − I colors with two metallicity SSP tracks (solar and
Z = 0.008) from Bruzual & Charlot (2003) updated 2006 data (from private com-
munication). The cluster colors are approximately centered on the SSP tracks with
some spread in the colors. This spread is almost certainly due to photometric errors,
based on a comparison between input and measured magnitudes for artificial clusters.
Furthermore, the spread in cluster colors around the SSP tracks increases for fainter
clusters, as expected when photometric errors are the dominant source of uncertainty.
Therefore, the small differences between the median values for the faint vs. bright
cluster colors in B − V and B − I are unlikely to be strongly significant.
The B − I color has the largest wavelength baseline and is therefore best suited
to revealing multiple peaks in the colors, if they exist. Figure 2-8 shows B − I
histograms. The top plot shows the bright and faint M101 cluster groups, and the
bottom plot divides the clusters by distance, either inside or outside of 3 kpc from the
center of M101 (Evans et al., 2010). The faint clusters drive this peaked distribution;
the bright clusters appear to have a more even color distribution with no obvious
peak. Overlaid (dotted lines) are the mean blue and red peak B − I colors of eight
brightest cluster galaxy4 (BCG) GC populations determined by Harris et al. (2006).
4 BCGs are the brightest galaxies in a cluster of galaxies. They are typically elliptical galaxies as galaxy clusters are dominated by ellipticals which form through many merger events in such a
38 Note that we have not converted from the VEGAMAG system (using HST filters) to the Johnson-Cousins system. We estimate from Figure 21 in Sirianni et al. (2005) that with a conversion to the Johnson-Cousins system, the M101 B − I colors would shift blueward by at most ∼ −0.03. It is then clear that the total cluster histogram strongly peaks close to the blue BCG peak, with a weak tail of clusters extending to the red BCG peak. This red tail may be caused by reddening within the host galaxy itself for which we have not accounted. In the bottom panel of Figure 2-8, the clusters within 3 kpc of the center of M101 are slightly redder than those outside of 3 kpc, although they do not have a peak centered on the red peak of the BCGs. The redder color could result from higher extinction or possibly higher metallicity of these more centrally located clusters, but we cannot distinguish between these two possibilities with the currently available data.
Figure 2-9 shows the CMD for our cluster sample with MW GCs, Large Magellanic
Cloud (LMC) intermediate age clusters (1-3 Gyr, magnitudes and colors from Bica et al. (1996) and ages from Palma et al. (2013), Goudfrooij et al. (2011), Piatti et al. (2009), Mucciarelli et al. (2007), and Kerber et al. (2007)), and old open MW clusters (1-8 Gyr, magnitudes, colors, and ages from Lata et al. (2002)) included for comparison. Again, note that a conversion to the Johnson-Cousins filters has not been applied to the M101 clusters; we estimate B − V colors would shift redward by at most ∼ +0.04 (Sirianni et al., 2005). The M101 cluster sample, as a whole, has colors similar to the MW GCs, but with significantly more clusters fainter than
MV = −6.54. It is of note that the MW GC sample plotted here is missing B − V for 40 clusters, 34 of which are in the faint cluster region. Even taking this into account, however, there are still many more M101 faint clusters (236) than MW GCs (53) in this region.
The LMC intermediate age clusters also lie largely in the region of the CMD galaxy dense environment.
39 dimmer than MV = −6.54, but within the B − V color range of the M101 clusters. Old open clusters in the MW occupy a similar color space as the LMC clusters,
but with even fainter magnitudes. The median colors for the faint M101 clusters,
intermediate age LMC clusters, the old open clusters, and MW GCs fainter than
MV = −6.54 are B − V = 0.65, 0.67, 0.71, and 0.74 respectively, with the M101 clusters shifting up to +0.04 with conversion to the Johnson-Cousins system. All
of these groups may have consistent B − V colors as the MW GC median value is
affected by the 34 missing values.
Also shown in Figure 2-7 are the colors for 25 YMCs (∼100s Myr) that are dis-
cussed further in §2.4.1; they are part of the spectroscopic sample of clusters in M101 analyzed further in chapters 3 and 4. Their categorization as YMCs is derived from the strength of the Balmer lines seen in Gemini/GMOS spectra. The YMC colors shown in Figure 2-7, however, are measured from the HSTBVI images studied
here with the same treatment as the rest of the cluster catalog. It is clear that the
YMCs overall are much bluer than the faint and bright populations with a median
B − V = 0.17 and V − I = 0.52.
40 Figure 2-7: Color index plot showing B − V vs. V − I colors for our full M101 cluster sample faint (solid circles) and bright (crosses) groups and the M101 YMCs with spectra (pluses). The lines show the evolution of Bruzual & Charlot (2003) (updated 2006 data) SSP models with solar (solid line) and Z = 0.008 (dashed line) metallicities. The 1 Gyr age on each SSP track is indi- cated by an open diamond. The M101 clusters follow both SSP tracks well with some spread most likely due to photometric un- certainties. The arrow represents typical Galactic reddening for AV = 0.5. Galactic reddening in the direction of M101 is very low (E(B − V ) < 0.01, Chandar et al. (2004)), and we do not correct for it.
41 Figure 2-8: Top: B − I color histogram with M101 clusters divided into bright (dashed-dotted line) and faint (dashed line) groups. Ver- tical dotted lines are the mean blue and red peak B − I colors for eight BCG GC populations (Harris et al., 2006). Bottom: Same as above, except the clusters are now divided by distance with the dashed line representing clusters outside of 3 kpc from the center of the galaxy and the dashed-dotted line representing inside of 3 kpc. 42 Figure 2-9: B −V color magnitude diagram showing our M101 sample (solid circles), MW GCs (asterisks), LMC intermediate age clusters (1-3 Gyr, open squares), and old open clusters (1-8 Gyr, open triangles). The dotted line corresponds to the luminosity division at MV = −6.54 imposed on our M101 sample (see §2.3.1).
43 2.3.3 Sizes
Figure 2-10 shows the histogram of cluster sizes (reff) for the bright and faint cluster subsamples. The FWHM of each cluster was measured using the ISHAPE software, as described in §2.2, then converted to reff assuming a distance to M101 of
6.4 Mpc (Shappee & Stanek, 2011). The figure shows that the median reff values for the bright (2.41 pc) versus faint (4.27 pc) clusters are different, with fainter clusters tending to have larger sizes. MW GCs have a median reff of 2.98 pc, similar to that found for the bright clusters in M101.
Figure 2-11 plots cluster luminosity versus reff for the bright and faint M101 sam- ples, and for MW GCs. The MW GCs cover a similar parameter space as those in
M101, with the bright clusters in M101 being more compact with less scatter to larger radii than the faint clusters.
In order to investigate whether or not there are systematic biases in the sizes mea- sured by ISHAPE for bright versus faint clusters, we compare ISHAPE measurements of artificial clusters of varying input sizes added to the M101 images (see §2.2.3 for details). We use 2000 of the artificial clusters from the completeness testing with
FWHM = 1.0 and 2.0 pixels in addition to 2000 artificial clusters with FWHM = 0.5 and 4.0 pixels.
Figure 2-12 plots the cluster luminosity versus measured reff for the M101 clusters and the FWHM= 1.0 and 2.0 pixel (reff = 2.3 pc and 4.6 pc) artificial clusters. While it is apparent from the artificial clusters that there is a spread in the measured reff which increases at fainter magnitudes, it is also apparent that this spread cannot fully describe the number of real, faint clusters with large sizes.
We compare the results from artificial clusters with the observations using the
Hodges-Lehmann (HL) estimator, which determines the shifts between the location parameters of two data sets, in order to quantitatively establish whether the observed
44 difference in cluster sizes between the bright and faint subsamples is real or the result of systematic and random errors. The results from the statistical tests and artificial cluster experiments described below suggest that there is a physical difference in the sizes of bright and faint clusters in M101.
The HL shift estimates the difference between the median values of two data sets if the data sets are symmetric about the median, or the difference between the pseudo-medians if the data sets are not symmetric about the median. It does this by computing the median of the differences between each pair of the values in the two data sets. It also gives confidence intervals and p-values for the significance of the separation as part of the Wilcoxon rank sum test. The HL estimator indicates
+0.53 a shift between the median sizes of bright vs. faint clusters in M101 of 1.26−0.51 (errors are 95% confidence intervals). For the same magnitude ranges, there is a
+0.07 +0.18 smaller shift of 0.30−0.09 (0.55−0.21) for bright vs. faint artificial clusters with input
FWHM values of 1.0 pixels or reff = 2.3 pc (FWHM= 2.0, reff = 4.6 pc). We also tested the HL estimators for bright versus faint clusters for two faint binnings that excluded the faintest clusters and therefore highest uncertainty FWHM measurements
(faint bins from −5.6 > MV > −6.54 and −6.1 > MV > −6.54; bright bins still
MV ≤ −6.54). This only increased the difference between the real and artificial cluster shift estimators.
P-values for the real and artificial clusters for all binnings show that the shifts are significant with values ranging from 6.2 × 10−14 to 0.03 (strongly accepting the alternative hypothesis that the true location shift is not equal to 0). We conclude that there is a physical difference between the sizes of bright and faint clusters in
M101, with the latter tending to be larger (by ∼ 0.71 − 0.96 pc).
45 Figure 2-10: reff or half-light radius histogram for our M101 sample divided into bright (solid line) and faint (dashed line) clusters with the MW GCs (dotted line) also plotted. The median values of the distributions are shown by the vertical lines at the top of the plot with their respective line styles for each group. The median reff of the bright M101 clusters (2.41 pc) is similar to that of the MW GCs (2.98 pc) while the faint M101 clusters have a much larger median size (4.27 pc).
46 Figure 2-11: Absolute magnitude verses reff for our M101 catalog (solid cir- cles) and MW GCs (asterisks). The horizontal dotted line rep- resents the luminosity division at MV = −6.54 imposed on our sample (see §2.3.1). The density of the faint M101 clusters is much greater than that of the faint MW clusters. (Although the MW clusters are a more complete sample down to fainter magnitudes.) The brighter clusters have less spread in sizes and skew towards being more compact for both the MW and M101.
47 Figure 2-12: The same as Fig. 2-11 for the M101 clusters (large solid circles) and artificially generated clusters (small solid circles). The ver- tical solid lines are the input sizes of the artificial clusters (top FWHM= 1.0 and bottom FWHM= 2.0). In the top plot, the real data are reasonably well matched by artificial clusters at bright magnitudes, but at faint magnitudes, it becomes appar- ent that too many real clusters have large sizes that cannot be explained by the spread due to measurement errors alone. In the bottom plot, we see that the faint clusters are better described by larger input size artificial clusters. 48 2.3.4 Spatial Distribution
The locations of our clusters within M101 in RA and Dec are shown in Figure 2-
13. Figure 2-14 shows the rgc distribution for the faint versus bright clusters. The bright clusters are largely found within 9 kpc of the center, and are quite centrally
concentrated, while the faint clusters are more evenly distributed.
1/4 Figure 2-15 shows the surface density plots in logN-rgc and lnN-rgc space. N for the surface density plots is derived by counting the number of clusters within the annulus inner and outer radii covered by the rgc bin. N is then divided by the area of the annulus to determine the cluster surface density. Here, rgc and N do not include the innermost 1000 (∼ 310 pc at the distance of M101) of the galaxy since this region is too bright to detect clusters down to the same magnitude limit as the rest of the galaxy. Beyond this region, the background level drops sharply and incompleteness does not vary strongly with rgc. This can be seen in Figure 2-5 which shows the completeness fraction as a function of rgc.
1/4 We fit a de Vaucouleurs law of the form logN = bVauc + cVaucrgc and an exponen- tial of the form lnN = bexp + cexprgc to each of the three data sets which are reported in Table 2.2 (errors are Poisson errors based on the count in N). The de Vaucouleurs surface brightness profile is typically used to model spheroidal components and el- liptical galaxies (de Vaucouleurs, 1948), while exponential profiles provide a good description of disk components of galaxies (Patterson, 1940). We also convert the slopes of the de Vaucouleurs fits into effective radii (Re), the radius within which half
4 of the total cluster population lies in projection, with the formula Re = (−3.33/cVauc) (de Vaucouleurs & Buta, 1978). The slopes of the exponential fits are converted into scale radii (R0) by R0 = −1/cexp.
Both the Re and R0 are almost identical for the bright M101 clusters and MW GCs whereas the values for the faint M101 clusters differ significantly from those
49 of the MW GCs. Furthermore, the faint M101 clusters do not appear to follow a
1/4 straight line in logN-rgc space (see the left panels of Fig. 2-15), and so may not be well represented by the de Vaucouleurs law. However, they follow a straighter line
path on the lnN-rgc space surface density plot, indicating an exponential law better describes the distribution of the faint clusters. The bright clusters appear to follow
1/4 a slightly straighter line in the logN-rgc space than lnN-rgc space, as expected from the high degree of steepness in linear space, and hence, the de Vaucouleurs law gives a better fit.
Figure 2-13: Positions in RA and Dec for our cluster sample. The bright clusters (crosses) are more centrally concentrated than the faint clusters (solid circles).
50 Figure 2-14: Histogram of rgc for each cluster in our sample. The bright clusters (solid line) are concentrated towards the center while the faint clusters (dashed line) have a broader distribution.
51 Figure 2-15: Surface density plots showing the area normalized number of clusters at different binned radii from the center of the host 1/4 galaxy in log N-rgc (left) and lnN-rgc space (right). The sym- bols show the mid point of the radii bin they represent with ei- ther connecting lines to guide the eye (top) or best fit lines over laid (bottom). In all plots, the bright M101 clusters (crosses with solid line) follow a centrally concentrated distribution, sim- ilar to the MW GCs (asterisks with dotted line), while the faint M101 clusters (solid circles with dashed line) are much less cen- trally concentrated. Slopes of the best fits to the data are shown in Table 2.2.
52 Table 2.2: Coefficients for Surface Density Fits
a b Data Set bVauc cVauc Re (kpc) bexp cexp R0 (kpc) Bright M101 2.91 ±0.21 -2.47 ±0.15 3.28 ±0.80 0.68 ±0.16 -0.39 ±0.02 2.57 ±0.13 53 Faint M101 2.17 ±0.19 -1.70 ±0.11 14.78 ±3.81 0.64 ±0.14 -0.25 ±0.02 3.97 ±0.32 MW GCs 3.07 ±0.17 -2.46 ±0.12 3.35 ±0.66 1.05 ±0.13 -0.38 ±0.02 2.61 ±0.14 a 4 Effective radii calculated with the formula Re = (−3.33/cV auc) (de Vaucouleurs & Buta, 1978). b Scale radii calculated with the formula R0 = −1/cexp. 2.4 Discussion
In this section, we first examine the properties (luminosity, color, size, and spatial
distributions) of the bright versus faint clusters to determine if our sample consists
of two distinct populations of old star clusters. Then we more closely examine the
properties of the faint clusters and compare to those in other galaxies.
2.4.1 Are There Two Populations of Old Clusters in M101?
The shape of the LF gives the first indication that there may be two populations of
red clusters in M101. As seen in Figure 2-6, the LF rises nearly continuously from the
bright end down to the completeness limit, but shows a dip near MV ∼ −7.5 to −6.54. This dip can be explained if the LF is a combination of a peaked distribution (as seen for old GCs) at the bright end and a rising, power law-like distribution (as seen for younger clusters) at the faint end. For old GC systems in the MW and other galaxies, both luminosity and mass distributions have similar, peaked shapes, believed to result from mass-loss over ∼ 12 Gyr, mostly driven by the effects of two-body relaxation.
When we compare the MW GCLF to that of our M101 cluster sample (see Fig. 2-6 and §2.3.1), we find the shapes quantitatively match well at the bright end, at least down to MV = −7.5, 0.2 mag brighter than the peak in the MW GCLF (Ashman et al., 1995). The CMD (see Fig. 2-9) shows that the colors of the majority of the
bright clusters are similar to those of MW GCs. The median reff of the bright clusters is similar to the median size of the MW GCs (but smaller than that of the faint clusters; see §2.3.3). The bright M101 clusters are centrally concentrated towards the center of the galaxy, as are the MW GCs (see §2.3.4), which is expected for a spherically distributed population.
The similarity between the luminosity, magnitude, color, size, and spatial distri- butions of the bright M101 clusters and the MW GCs strongly suggests that the
54 former are most likely a typical old (∼ 12 Gyr) population of GCs in M101. Further-
more, our results suggest the M101 bright clusters are largely metal-poor, consistent
with the galaxy’s nearly bulge-less morphology. Figure 2-8 shows that the bright
cluster colors skew towards the blue peak of BCGs (Harris et al., 2006). Correc-
tions to the photometry that put our clusters on the same photometric system as
the BCG data would push the colors further blueward as would any unaccounted for
reddening corrections. Thus, the few clusters near the red peak of the BCGs most
likely do not account for a separate metal-rich population of clusters as seen in more
bulge-dominated/spheriodal galaxies.
Turning to the faint clusters, their LF can be described by a rising power law with
an average slope of α = −2.6 ± 0.3 (see §2.3.1 and Fig. 2-6). This is similar to what
is found for young cluster populations in other galaxies. Larsen (2002) found that
α young star cluster LFs in 6 spirals follow a power law of dN(LV )/dLV ∝ LV where α ranges from ∼ −2.0 to −2.6. Whitmore et al. (2014) examined the LFs of clusters in
20 nearby (4 − 30 Mpc) star-forming galaxies, and found an average α = −2.37 with rms scatter of 0.18.
In checking for similarities between the faint clusters and the MW GCs, we find the median reff of the MW GCs is smaller than that of the faint clusters, and their spatial distributions are very different. While the MW GCs and bright red M101 clusters are concentrated toward the center of their host galaxies, the faint clusters in M101 are more uniformly distributed as expected if they reside in the disk. We
conclude that the faint, red clusters form a population distinct from the
typical old GCs, one which is associated with the disk of M101.
2.4.2 What Are the Faint, Red Clusters in M101?
Discovering the true nature of the faint clusters depends on determining their ages,
metallicities, and masses. It is clear from Figure 2-7 that exact ages and metallicities
55 cannot be determined accurately for each cluster from optical colors alone since the
SSP tracks lie on top of each other in this color space. Nonetheless, we can compare the colors, luminosities, and sizes of these clusters with those in other galaxies where the cluster properties are better known.
The faint clusters may be a population similar to the LMC intermediate age clusters or the brightest old open clusters since they share a similar color-magnitude space (see Fig. 2-9), although the faint M101 clusters do extend to brighter magnitudes than the old open clusters. The faint fuzzies discovered by Brodie & Larsen (2002) and Larsen & Brodie (2000) in lenticular galaxies have V − I ∼ 1.0 − 1.5 which is similar to that of the faint clusters, ∼ 1.1. Despite the similar colors and magnitudes between faint fuzzies and our faint clusters, only 48 of the 230 faint clusters with
FWHM measurements have reff > 7 pc, but the faint clusters do still have a large median size, greater than the bright clusters or MW GCs.
We can use the observed power law shape of the LF to constrain the ages of the faint clusters. As mentioned previously, the peaked shape found for old GCs is driven by stellar mass loss due to internal relaxation. Figure 3 in Fall & Zhang (2001) shows how a peak develops at the low end of the mass function and then moves to higher masses as the population ages, while the high mass end continues to have a power law shape. Since we do not observe a peak in the LF of the faint, red clusters, it must occur below our completeness limit. When luminosities are converted to masses, the age at which the peak of the mass function is just below the completeness limit is the maximum age of the faint clusters.
We make the following assumptions for our calculations: a stellar-mass loss rate
−5 −1 for each cluster of µev = 10 M yr , a typical value for MW GCs (e.g., Fall & Zhang (2001)), and a single age τ for the cluster population. This gives a predicted peak mass, Mp = µevτ, at different ages. We then use the SSP model predicted, age- dependent M/LV to convert our observed cluster luminosities to masses at different
56 assumed ages, and determine the mass equivalent of our completeness limit, Mlim. Based on this methodology, the maximum age for our clusters is constrained by the
value where Mp = Mlim. We find the maximum age to be ∼ 700 Myr (∼ 1 Gyr) for Z = 0.008 (Z = 0.02).
Since the faint clusters are found in the disk, we might expect the maximum age based on the more metal-rich model to give a better estimate, but MW old open clusters span metallicities from just above solar down to [Fe/H]∼ −1 (Friel, 1995).
Likewise, faint fuzzies have typical [Fe/H]∼ −0.6 (Brodie & Larsen, 2002), and LMC intermediate age clusters have [Fe/H]∼ −0.4 to −0.7 (Palma et al., 2013).
The faint M101 clusters do have a lower density than typical MW GCs, and the mass-loss rate due to relaxation-driven evaporation depends on the internal density
1/2 of the clusters, µev ∝ ρh , where ρh is the half-light density (Chandar et al., 2007; McLaughlin & Fall, 2008). Therefore, a better estimate of the maximum age of the faint M101 clusters might be determined by scaling the mass loss rate to the median
1/2 size of the faint clusters (µev,M101 = µev,MW(ρh,M101/ρh,MW) ). Now, we find the maximum age to be ∼ 9 − 10 Gyr for Z = 0.008 and ∼ 12 − 13 Gyr for Z = 0.02.
Thus it is possible that the faint clusters might be quite old.
We can also put constraints on the minimum age of the faint clusters. Barmby
et al. (2006) suggested that the faint, red cluster population in M101 may be reddened,
young disk clusters; however, they do not provide any estimated ages. We examine
B − I color images which highlight the locations of dust lanes in M101 and find no
preference for the faint clusters to be embedded in dust. Likewise, we examine archival
HST/W F P C2 Hα (F656N) images and find no preference for the faint clusters to
be in or near HII regions. This strongly indicates that they are older than 10 Myr,
as clusters younger than this are expected to have not yet fully dispersed, leaving the
gas and dust clouds from which they formed.
Also, we have Gemini/GMOS spectra for 25 YMC clusters which exhibit strong
57 Balmer lines with no Hα emission lines, indicating ages of a few hundred Myr. We
find that their median colors from our HST data are B − V ∼ 0.2 and V − I ∼ 0.5
(see Fig. 2-7), significantly bluer than the faint red clusters, which have B − V ∼ 0.7 and V − I ∼ 1.1. Barmby et al. (2006) selected 1260 “blue” clusters in M101 with
(B − V )0 < 0.45 and V < 23, similar to our spectroscopically confirmed YMCs, and they found these clusters appear to coincide with the spiral structure of the M101 disk. The faint red clusters likely do not follow the spiral structure (despite being in the disk), because they have had sufficient time to disperse throughout the disk and away from their birth sites. We therefore believe that the faint red clusters are older than a few hundred Myr.
The faint red clusters are associated with the disk of M101, just as old open clusters are in the MW disk (Portegies Zwart et al., 2010). Note that the scale radius from the exponential fit to the faint M101 clusters (∼ 4 kpc) is similar to the scale radius of the disk of M101 according to optical photometry (R0 =4.6-4.8 kpc, Okamura et al. (1976)). It is possible that the population of old open clusters observed in the MW disk suffers a selection bias. Limiting the sample size of a cluster population limits the maximum brightness of the clusters in the sample (Whitmore et al., 2007), and
MW disk clusters are a more limited sample as they are observed edge-on through the obscuring dust of the disk, rather than face-on, like M101. Thus, it is possible that we are missing old open MW clusters with brighter magnitudes and higher masses similar to our M101 old disk clusters. However, Chandar et al. (2004) do not find an excess of faint, red clusters in the spiral galaxies M81, M83, or M51 which brings into question how common old disk clusters in spiral galaxies are and what factors into their formation and/or survival.
Interestingly, faint fuzzies have also been found to be associated with the disks of their lenticular host galaxies (Brodie & Larsen, 2002; Chies-Santos et al., 2013; Forbes et al., 2014) despite their ages ≥ 7 − 8 Gyr. Chies-Santos et al. (2013) find that the
58 strong association of the NGC 1023 faint fuzzies with their galaxy’s disk–rather than
its bulge–to be evidence that the faint fuzzies are simply very old open clusters. They
further predict that such clusters should be found in spiral galaxy disks as well, and
that the only reason they have thus far only been identified in lenticular galaxies is
because of their smooth disks, which make them easier to observe. The excellent
resolution of HST /ACS allows us to identify such clusters in M101 for the first time.
Scheepmaker et al. (2007) also found six clusters in the spiral galaxy M51 that match
the definition of faint fuzzies. We conclude that the faint clusters studied here are old (τ & 700 Myr) and part of the disk of M101, similar to but more massive than old open clusters observed in the Milky Way.
2.5 Conclusions
M101 appears to have two populations of old star clusters: a typical population of old GCs and a fainter population of intermediate-age to old disk clusters. For the population of old GCs, we find:
• Their luminosity distribution, colors, sizes, and spatial distribution are similar
to those of the MW GCs.
• Their spatial distribution shows a central concentration which is consistent with
a spherically distributed halo population.
• Their colors are skewed toward the typical blue peak of BCG GC populations
which indicates they are most likely a metal-poor dominated population, fitting
with the nearly bulge-less morphology of M101.
For the fainter population, we find:
• Their luminosity distribution is similar to the power law shape of young cluster
α populations in other spiral galaxies, dN(LV )/dLV ∝ LV where typically α ≈ −2 59 to −2.6. We find the average power law fit to our faint clusters in M101 has a
slope of α = −2.6 ± 0.3.
• Age constraints determined from the shape of the LF indicate that they could
be quite old, up to ∼ 12−13 Gyr, although this constraint depends on a number
of assumptions.
• They are older than a few hundred Myr because their colors are much redder
than a sample of M101 YMCs with spectroscopic ages of a few hundred Myr.
These clusters also do not follow the spiral arm structure that the blue M101
clusters identified by Barmby et al. (2006) do.
• They have a fairly extended spatial distribution, quite different from the cen-
trally concentrated, bright GCs. They are most likely associated with the disk.
• They occupy the same luminosity-color space as LMC intermediate age clusters,
the brightest old open MW clusters, and faint fuzzies. Old open clusters and
faint fuzzies are also located in the disks of their galaxies. Chies-Santos et al.
(2013) concluded that faint fuzzies are analogous to old open clusters and should
be found in spiral galaxies. We conclude the M101 faint clusters are most likely
these old disk clusters.
The evidence for a large population of old disk clusters in M101 shows that the peak of the GCLF may not be an accurate distance indicator for all galaxy types, especially not spiral and lenticular galaxies. We would caution against using it as a stand alone measure of distance. Other spiral galaxies need to be examined for faint, disk cluster populations (see Ch.5).
In the next two chapters, we discuss the ages, metallicities and kinematics derived from Gemini GMOS spectra of bright, old GCs in M101. Unfortunately, we do not have spectra for any clusters in the faint population to examine in this work.
60 Discussion of the feasibility of obtaining spectra of such faint objects can be found in
Ch. 5.
61 Chapter 3
Gemini/GMOS Spectra of Old and
Young Star Clusters in M101:
Ages and Metallicities
3.1 Background
The integrated colors of star clusters are degenerate with respect to age and metal- licity. Spectra however, contain absorption lines of specific elements whose strength is dominantly dependent upon either age or metallicity, but not both, allowing the age-metallicity degeneracy to be broken. Here, we use spectra obtained with the
Gemini/GMOS instrument of bright star clusters in the spiral galaxy M101 to de- termine their ages and metallicities.
The ages and metallicities of this sample of star clusters can shed light on the cluster populations of M101 and its history. For example in the MW, the metallicities of GCs along with their spatial distribution are used to determine their proposed formation mechanisms and whether they are associated with the halo or the bulge of the Galaxy with the high metallicity peak ([Fe/H] ≈ −1.5) being associated with the bulge and the low metallicity peak associated with the halo ([Fe/H] ≈ −0.5).
62 More specifically, the range of metallicities observed for bulge clusters in the MW
(−1.0 ≤ [Fe/H] ≤ +0.5, Minniti et al. (1995)) indicates that its bulge has been built at least partially by mergers (Minniti, 1995). The metal-poor outer halo GCs in the MW have a spread in ages (∼ 10.5 − 13 Gyr, Leaman et al. (2013)) without a metallicity gradient which also support accretion scenarios (Searle & Zinn, 1978).
Intermediate age clusters (∼ 6 − 8 Gyr) in the halos of M31 and M33 (a bulgeless spiral similar to M101) also demonstrate mergers/accretion in their histories (Brown,
2009).
This rest of the chapter is arranged as follows: We describe the cluster candidate selection criteria, observations, and spectra reduction in §3.2. In §3.3, we measure the Lick indices and determine ages and metallicities of the clusters, and we discuss the results in §3.4. Finally in §3.5, we list our conclusions.
3.2 Observations
3.2.1 Cluster Candidate Selection with HST
Candidate star clusters, regardless of age, were first identified from HST /ACS/WFC
BVI images, similar to the method described in §2.2 but without a cut in color. The result was a catalog containing several thousand young clusters (with ages estimated to be less than 1 Gyr) and the ancient cluster candidates presented in Ch. 2, 86 of which are brighter than mV = 21.5 mag. From this catalog, both young and ancient cluster candidates were selected for spectroscopy. The selection criteria for GCs, which were our highest priority targets, were as follows:
• Brightness cut-off of mV < 21.5 to ensure high S/N.
• Objects broader than the point spread function in order to distinguish them
from point sources.
63 • Colors similar to those of Galactic GCs, i.e. 0.55 < B − V < 2.0 and 0.75 <
V − I < 2.5 to help exclude background galaxies.
Cluster candidates are then selected based on positions to fill masks with multiple slits for obtaining spectra of many objects at once. Candidate positions were selected from pre-imaging taken by Gemini in the 2007A semester and designed to sample the target clusters described above. Targets had to have different y-coordinates along the
CCD so that the spectra do not overlap on the detector.
Our final slit masks for spectroscopy (see Fig. 3-1 and 3-2) contained 55 candidates,
23 of which have red colors typical of Galactic GCs. Color postage stamp images taken with HST in the BVI filters showing all GCs and YMCs for which spectra were obtained are shown in Figures 3-3 and 3-4 and spatial and photometric properties are listed in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1: Spatial and Photometric Properties of M101
Clusters with Spectra
◦ ◦ ID α2000 ( ) δ2000 ( ) MV B − VV − IB − I reff (pc) Mask 1
3a 210.84201 54.389728 -8.01 0.67 1.03 1.70 2.50
4 210.76202 54.386706 -8.00 0.75 1.09 1.83 1.70
5 210.82074 54.382949 -9.06 0.65 0.96 1.61 1.68
6 210.7643 54.370539 -7.86 0.70 1.00 1.70 2.34
8 210.8054 54.355616 -8.62 0.61 0.97 1.58 3.81
9 210.79063 54.354132 -8.48 0.79 1.08 1.87 1.26
10 210.81198 54.352868 -8.52 0.82 1.19 2.01 1.91
11 210.79328 54.350284 -9.18 0.99 1.30 2.29 1.77
13 210.85125 54.346803 -8.97 0.66 1.01 1.67 3.12
Continued on next page 64 Table 3.1 – Continued from previous page
◦ ◦ ID α2000 ( ) δ2000 ( ) MV B − VV − IB − I reff (pc) 14 210.80188 54.344796 -7.95 0.65 1.00 1.66 1.54
15a 210.82447 54.341927 -8.27 0.72 1.06 1.78 2.50
17 210.75441 54.336997 -8.28 0.63 0.99 1.62 2.16
18 210.79755 54.32963 -8.03 0.66 1.05 1.71 2.25
23a 210.83231 54.390797 -8.24 0.12 0.61 0.73 1.17
25 210.74635 54.385317 -7.47 0.30 0.63 0.93 1.70
26 210.78873 54.381867 -7.67 0.26 0.54 0.79 3.74
27 210.73273 54.380441 -7.11 0.21 0.53 0.74 5.12
29a 210.87193 54.373509 -7.57 0.35 0.70 1.05 8.70
30a 210.87045 54.37212 -7.28 0.43 0.82 1.25 7.99
31a 210.8081 54.367936 -8.32 0.12 0.40 0.51 3.24
33 210.77429 54.364441 -8.74 0.14 0.50 0.64 2.82
36a 210.86721 54.333968 -9.40 0.12 0.46 0.58 2.96
37 210.77995 54.328023 -7.48 1.37 2.04 3.40 1.77
38 210.81567 54.324818 -7.34 0.03 0.36 0.39 3.28
39 210.76413 54.322178 -7.88 0.20 0.68 0.87 4.66
40 210.73386 54.320689 -7.38 0.17 0.68 0.85 2.04
42 210.74206 54.312663 -7.40 0.03 0.39 0.42 1.81
43 210.75392 54.310567 -8.29 -0.07 0.23 0.16 3.88
44 210.81595 54.306699 -7.56 0.24 0.55 0.79 5.37
46 210.7571 54.375803 -7.84 0.25 0.57 0.82 5.95
47 210.8741 54.334731 -8.82 0.15 0.62 0.77 3.17
Mask 2
5 210.8757 54.418624 -7.26 0.14 0.39 0.54 5.01
Continued on next page 65 Table 3.1 – Continued from previous page
◦ ◦ ID α2000 ( ) δ2000 ( ) MV B − VV − IB − I reff (pc) 10 210.86115 54.39335 -6.82 0.17 0.61 0.78 3.77
14 210.82794 54.386463 -7.51 0.90 1.32 2.22 4.18
17 210.82026 54.382129 -7.65 0.09 0.49 0.58 3.33
18 210.87932 54.375701 -7.76 0.17 0.50 0.67 6.70
26 210.8912 54.356934 -7.67 0.14 0.39 0.54 3.17
28 210.80991 54.35284 -7.79 0.61 1.03 1.64 2.92
29 210.88342 54.351325 -8.53 0.53 1.02 1.55 0.05
34 210.89428 54.341141 -7.93 0.17 0.58 0.76 4.04
36 210.86981 54.336551 -8.02 0.15 0.63 0.78 4.43
a Also on Mask 2.
3.2.2 Gemini/GMOS Observations
The spectroscopic observations were taken with the GMOS-North instrument
(GMOS-N) over several nights in the 2008A semester with seeing that varied between
0.6100 and 1.2200. The slow read mode was utilized with the B600-G5303 grating and
4 × 2 binning (dispersion × spatial). The slit widths were fixed at 1.000, and the slit lengths were variable to accommodate many objects on each mask. Observing condi- tions allowed for spectroscopic observations for two of the four masks requested in the program to be taken. Figures 3-1 and 3-2 show the pre-imaging for the two observed masks overlaid with the positions of the objects. Labels show the ID numbers used to refer to each object throughout the rest of this chapter and the next. There were
10 exposures of mask 1 and four exposures of mask 2 taken, each with an exposure time of 3600 s.
66 Figure 3-1: Gemini-North preimaging of M101 mask 1 with objects labeled by ID number.
67 Figure 3-2: Gemini-North preimaging of M101 mask 2 with objects labeled by ID number.
68 Figure 3-3: HST combined BVI images of YMCs. Dimensions are approxi- mately 7.3500 × 7.3500. The top image shows clusters located on mask 1 of the GMOS data, and the bottom image shows clusters located on mask 2. 69 Figure 3-4: HST combined BVI images of GCs. Dimensions are approxi- mately 7.3500 × 7.3500. The top image shows clusters located on mask 1 of the GMOS data, and the bottom image shows clusters located on mask 2.
70 Reduction of the spectra is done with PyRaf1 routines supplied by Gemini and
Bryan Miller as well as IDL2 routines written by Bryan Miller. A brief outline of these steps is listed below, but for a more detailed description of reduction steps, see appendix A2 of Trancho et al. (2007).
Bias frames are combined for each night of observations using GBIAS and sub- tracted from the corresponding science frames using GSREDUCE. A custom pipeline called MOSPROC3 is used to output one-dimensional spectra with bad pixel masks and a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) plane. The spectra also receive flat-fielding, wave- length calibration, cosmic ray cleaning, quantum efficiency correction, and back- ground subtraction in MOSPROC. It is of note that MOSPROC is run several times in order to improve the wavelength calibration, background subtraction, and to extract one dimensional spectra for each object. We find the best wavelength calibrations are obtained by fitting a sixth order spline3 function along the dispersion axis and a third order spline3 function along the spatial axis.
Some light is lost for each object during observing due to a combination of atmo- spheric dispersion and seeing conditions with the largest losses being for wavelengths less than 4500 A˚ at high parallactic angles. The position angle of the slit for each ob- ject is designed to minimize the parallactic angle; however, for the multiple exposures taken at different times, small differences persist due to changes in the targets’ posi- tion on the sky. We correct for atmospheric dispersion and image quality differences between exposures by the following procedure: SLITCORR4 is used to calculate the slit angle for each exposure of an object. Then, the exposure with the smallest slit angle is used as a reference to compare to the other exposures of the same object using
PCOMPARE5. Finally, the SLITCORR parameter “xoffset,” which corresponds to
1http://www.stsci.edu/institute/software_hardware/pyraf/ 2http://www.exelisvis.com/ProductsServices/IDL.aspx 3Custom PyRaf script written by Bryan Miller. 5Custom IDL script written by Bryan Miller.
71 the centering of the object in the slit, is altered by no more than ±0.2” until differ- ences between the tilt of the spectra in different exposures is minimized. Changes to each spectrum are multiplicative to correct for light losses, not shifts along the dispersion axis, and should have no impact on either the wavelength regions used in measuring Lick indices (see §3.3.2) or the measurement of velocities (see §4.2.1).
The resulting exposures of the same source on each mask are combined by a weighted average using GSHIFTCOMB. CLEANSPEC6 is used to mask any remain- ing bad pixels as well as spurious lines from incomplete background subtraction, typically of sky lines, and to apply a relative flux calibration based on the sensitivity function of the detector.. Figures 3-5 through 3-10 show the final spectra with contin- uum subtraction also applied, divided by the initial age categorization as described in §3.3.1. Table 3.2 lists properties of the spectra such as their full wavelength range,
S/N ratio, and equivalent width of the H beta line (WHβ, used in categorizing spectra into YMCs and GCs in §3.3.1).
Table 3.2: Spectroscopic Properties of M101 Cluster
Spectra
a b ID λmin-λmax Count S/N WHβ (A)˚ Type Mask 1
3c 3190-6090 1056 33 8.1 GC
4 4050-7070 818 29 4.2 GC
5 3440-6340 4345 66 3.1 GC
6 4065-6960 991 32 3.8 GC
8 3605-6550 2252 48 3.6 GC
9 3605-6550 1968 44 3.4 GC
Continued on next page
6Custom PyRaf script written by Bryan Miller. 72 Table 3.2 – Continued from previous page
a b ID λmin-λmax Count S/N WHβ (A)˚ Type 10 3540-6440 3073 55 4.0 GC
11 3750-6645 5154 72 3.5 GC
13 3105-5990 3141 56 3.3 GC
14 3650-6570 1136 34 5.4 GC
15c 3400-6330 2367 49 0.4 GC
17 4185-7075 1399 37 5.1 GC
18 3660-6620 1127 33 4.0 GC
23c 3300-6200 1616 40 5.9 YMC
25 4250-7155 773 28 10.0 YMC
26 3770-6725 1156 34 13.7 YMC
27 4410-7320 456 21 11.5 YMC
29c 3000-5730 2333 48 10.9 YMC
30c 3000-5760 740 27 14.3 YMC
31c 3570-6590 2162 47 10.2 YMC
33 3910-6865 3192 57 9.3 YMC
36c 2970-5780 6304 79 8.5 YMC
37 3880-6820 890 30 1.1 GC
38 3500-6390 666 26 8.7 YMC
39 4060-6980 1632 40 12.1 YMC
40 4365-7305 808 29 11.4 YMC
42 4310-7210 497 22 5.3 YMC
43 4190-7070 2411 49 8.1 YMC
44 3490-6375 1739 42 9.6 YMC
46 4140-7075 1584 40 9.6 YMC
Continued on next page 73 Table 3.2 – Continued from previous page
a b ID λmin-λmax Count S/N WHβ (A)˚ Type 47 3000-5680 6464 80 6.9 YMC
Mask 2
5 3730-6615 972 31 9.9 YMC
10 3900-6780 538 23 8.9 YMC
14 4260-7150 921 30 3.6 GC
17 4340-7230 1840 43 8.7 YMC
18 3690-6585 2256 48 9.7 YMC
26 3555-6450 1208 35 14.3 YMC
28 4435-7350 1396 37 5.2 GC
29 3620-6540 1384 37 7.4 YMC
34 3510-6460 1832 43 11.9 YMC
36 3790-6690 2043 45 8.5 YMC
a Non-calibrated flux count at 5000 A.˚
b S/N estimated by √N where N is the flux of the continuum at 5000 A.˚ N c Also on mask 2.
3.3 Results and Analysis
3.3.1 Initial Age Categorization
We first visually categorize each cluster as either “young” or “old.” Clusters roughly less than ∼ 1 Gyr old are considered young and are called young massive clusters (YMCs). Clusters older than ∼ 1 Gyr are considered old and are called globular clusters (GCs).
The criteria used to determine whether an object is a GC or YMC are primarily
74 Figure 3-5: GMOS spectra of the YMCs on mask 1. All spectra shown here through Fig. 3-10 are continuum subtracted. 75 Figure 3-6: Continued GMOS spectra of the YMCs on mask 1.
76 Figure 3-7: GMOS spectra of the YMCs on mask 2.
77 Figure 3-8: GMOS spectra of the GCs on mask 1.
78 Figure 3-9: Continued GMOS spectra of the GCs on mask 1.
79 Figure 3-10: GMOS spectra of the GCs on mask 2.
visual with some constraints from the equivalent width of the Hβ Balmer line (WHβ), roughly measured with the SPLOT task of IRAF (see Table 3.2). The visual cues for identifying a spectrum as a YMC include a strong series of Balmer lines. Figures 3-5 through 3-7 clearly show a strong Balmer line series in the spectra of YMCs, and ˚ Table 3.2 lists the WHβ & 5.34 A for YMCs. The cues for GCs include weaker Balmer lines and the presence of Ca H and K (∼3900 A),˚ G band (∼4300 A),˚ and Fe5170 lines. Figures 3-8 through 3-10 show the weaker Balmer lines, G band, and other metal lines.
14 objects on the masks are not included in our final sample. They include five background galaxies we identify based on redshifted Ca H and K lines. These galaxies also have very reddened photometry. Two objects appear to be red supergiant stars in the MW. One object is rejected because its S/N is so low no lines can be discerned.
Also, six clusters show emission lines that indicate either embedding within or close proximity to H II regions. This leaves 25 YMCs and 16 GCs for our spectroscopic sample.
80 3.3.2 Measuring Ages and Metallicities Using BaSTI Models
We measure the ages and metallicities of the clusters by comparing spectral indices
of absorption lines in the cluster spectra to those of synthetic spectra of SSPs from
the Bag of Stellar Tracks and Isochrones (BaSTI) library7 (Percival et al., 2009).
Spectral indices are equivalent widths of (in this case absorption) lines, given by
R λ2 Fλ Wλ = (1− )dλ where λ1 and λ2 define the region where the line is measured (the λ1 FC
passband), Fλ is the flux of the absorption line and FC is the flux of the continuum. Here, the indices are measured with respect to a pseudo continuum drawn between
regions redward and blueward of the passband. We use the index system defined
from several decades of study of stellar, cluster, and galaxy spectra taken on the Lick
Observatory/image dissector scanner (Lick/IDS indices) (Faber et al., 1985; Burstein
et al., 1986; Worthey et al., 1994; Worthey & Ottaviani, 1997).
We first shift the cluster spectra according to the centers of several strong ab-
sorption lines found with the SPLOT task of IRAF to account for doppler shifts
that would otherwise offset the passband regions of the indices. We then measure
Lick/IDS indices of both the cluster spectra and BaSTI library of synthetic spectra
using the LICK EW IDL function written by Genevieve Graves8, which smooths the
input spectrum to the ∼ 8 − 11 A˚/pixel resolution of the Lick/IDS index system and
determines the Wλ of each index in the smoothed spectrum. Figure 3-11 and 3-12 show the twelve out of 25 indices used here. These indices are chosen because they
are strong enough to be observable above the noise in most of the cluster spectra and
are dependent on either age (Hβ,HγA, HγF, HδA, and HδF) or metallicity (Fe4531,
Fe5015, Mg2, Mgb, Fe5270, Fe5335, and Fe5406). Note that the Hγ, Hδ, and Mg in-
dices have different definitions with different widths of the passbands and/or pseudo
7Available at http://basti.oa-teramo.inaf.it. 8Part of the EZ AGES IDL code package described in Graves & Schiavon (2008) and available at http://astro.berkeley.edu/~graves/ez_ages.html.
81 continua. Mg2 is considered a measurement of a molecular band, rather than an
atomic band, with a magnitude index measurement, rather than Wλ index in A,˚ λ given by Mg2 = −2.5 log[( 1 ) R 2 Fλ dλ]. Also, three of the metal indices are com- λ2−λ1 λ1 FC bined to form a single index, [MgFe]0 = pMgb (0.72 Fe5270 + 0.28 Fe5335), known
for being particularly α-element insensitive (Puzia et al., 2005a).
By measuring the Lick/IDS indices for BaSTI model spectra, we can create grids of index values associated with known ages and metallicities. We choose BaSTI models with solar α-element abundance9 and Reimers (1975) red giant mass loss parameter
η = 0.4. The BaSTI spectra are generated by combining individual stellar spectra
−αi according to a Kroupa (2001) initial mass function, ξ(m) ∝ m where α0 = 0.3±0.7
(0.01 ≤ m/M < 0.08), α1 = 1.3 ± 0.5 (0.08 ≤ m/M < 0.5), α2 = 2.3 ± 0.3
(0.5 ≤ m/M < 1.00), and α3 = 2.3 ± 0.7 (1.00 ≤ m/M ), to form an integrated spectrum of a single age and metallicity population (an SSP). The BaSTI library contains both low and high resolution spectra, but we only use the high resolution spectra here (1.0 A˚/pixel). We utilize SSPs with ten different metallicities (Z = 0.04,
0.03, 0.0198 (solar), 0.01, 0.008, 0.004, 0.002, 0.001, 0.0006, and 0.0003 with [Fe/H]
= 0.40, 0.26, 0.06, -0.25, -0.35, -0.66, -0.96, -1.27, -1.49, and -1.79) and 33 − 46 ages per metallicity spanning from 50 Myr to 13.5 Gyr.
Figure 3-13 shows some example index-index grids of constant ages and metallic- ities using two age sensitive Balmer indices and two metallicity sensitive indices for old ages and less than solar metallicities. The overlap of the 13 Gyr age line is caused by the effect of the mass loss parameter η = 0.4 which mimics clusters with a blue horizontal branch (HB), rather than setting η = 0.2 for clusters whose evolved red
giant branch (RGB) stars form a red clump. Bluer HBs generally correlate with lower
metallicities; however, there is a “second parameter” effect which causes some higher
9α-elements (C, O, Ne, Mg, Si, S, Ar, and Ca) are created during the alpha process from He burning during nuclear fusion.
82 metallicity clusters to also have blue HBs (Rich et al., 1997; Sweigart & Catelan,
1998). Thus, despite the inconvenience of the overlapping 13 Gyr model, we choose
to use the η = 0.4 models for all measurements. Note that overlap of the 13 Gyr model the blue HB is less pronounced at the lowest metallicities because blue HBs at these metallicities form extended tails down to faint magnitudes which contribute less total flux to the Balmer lines, despite hot temperatures.
For determining the ages and metallicities of younger clusters we use Lick/IDS indices of SSPs with younger ages and include higher metallicity tracks. Figure 3-
14 shows an index-index plot and illustrates that at younger ages, the uniform grid configuration of the constant age and metallicity modeled indices breaks down. It is still possible to fit age and metallicities to the YMC spectra, however, by doing a least χ2 fit to multiple indices at once (Trancho et al., 2007). This is a more robust method than plotting clusters on the index-index grids alone, and we employ it for both the YMCs and GCs (see §3.3.3).
83 Figure 3-11: Six of the 12 Lick/IDS index regions highlighted on a BaSTI synthetic spectrum (black line, Z = 0.01 and age = 1 Gyr SSP) utilized in fitting the age and metallicities of the cluster spectra. The smoothed spectrum is overplotted in red. The passband regions are within the solid blue lines (yellow lines filling the area used to measure Wλ), and the bounds of the pseudo continua are shown in green.
84 Figure 3-12: The other six of the 12 Lick/IDS index regions highlighted on the same BaSTI synthetic spectrum with the same color coding as Fig. 3-11.
85 Figure 3-13: Example index-index grids showing lines of constant ages (solid lines, from top to bottom: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, and 13 Gyr) and constant Z (dotted lines, from left to right: 0.0003, 0.0006, 0.001, 0.002, 0.004, 0.008, 0.01, 0.0198 (solar, not available for the bottom plots) or [Fe/H]: -1.79, -1.49, -1.27, -0.96, -0.66, -0.35, -0.25, 0.06).
86 Figure 3-14: Example index-index grid showing lines of constant ages (solid lines, labeled: 50, 100, 400, 800 Myr) and constant Z (crossing dotted lines: 0.002, 0.008, 0.0198 (solar), 0.04 or [Fe/H]: -0.96, -0.35, 0.06, 0.40).
87 3.3.3 Ages and Metallicities
In order to fit the ages and metallicities of the clusters, we run a least χ2 mini-
mization fit of each set of twelve cluster indices with a sufficiently high quality (based
on individual visual inspection to remove lines with too low S/N for the line to be
clearly distinguished from the noise of the spectrum) to the model BaSTI indices.
The χ2 is divided by the sum of the squares of the errors for each index output by
the LICK EW code which are based on the S/N plane of each spectrum.
To add robustness to the fits, we run the χ2 minimization 5000 times for each
cluster with artificial errors to each index that follow a normal distribution with a
width, σ, equal to the LICK EW error of the index. We then take the final age and metallicities of the clusters as the mean of the 5000 minimized χ2 best fitting models with errors as the standard deviation of the best fitting models.
For the YMCs, we only fit to models with ages up to 2 Gyr, and for the GCs, we only fit models with ages down to 600 Myr and metallicities up to solar. Also note, that Fe5015 was of poor or questionable quality in all of the GCs, so only up to eleven indices were fit for each GC. We compare the age and metallicity results of the
χ2 fits to the closest age and metallicity tracks on index-index plots, and find similar results which give us added confidence in the accuracy of the χ2 fits. Figure 3-16
shows the [Fe/H] versus the log of the ages for both GCs and YMCs with error bars
over plotted.
88 Figure 3-15: HδA (top) and HδF (bottom) indices for GC ID 10 illustrating an index rejected from the χ2 minimization fitting (top) and an index kept in the fitting (bottom).
89 Figure 3-16: [Fe/H] vs. log Age for all clusters. Open squares with blue error bars represent YMCs, and solid circles with red error bars rep- resent GCs. The two dotted lines at [Fe/H] = −0.55 and −1.56, which correspond to the metal rich and poor peaks respectively of the MW GC system.
90 3.3.4 Spatial-Metallicity Distribution
Figure 3-17 shows the [Fe/H] versus the distance of each cluster as projected
onto the plane of the sky (rgc). Note that the sample of GCs follows the centrally concentrated distribution of bright, red clusters seen in §2.3.4 while the YMCs are spread to further distances, limited by the extent of the two GMOS masks for the observations.
Figure 3-17: [Fe/H] vs. rgc for all clusters. Open squares with blue error bars represent YMCs, and solid circles with red error bars represent GCs.
91 3.4 Discussion
3.4.1 Are There Young to Intermediate Age GCs in M101?
From Figure 3-16, we see that the ages for the sample of M101 star clusters is
almost continuous, most surprisingly even for ages greater than 1 Gyr. Specifically,
there are six clusters with ages ≈ 4 − 5 Gyr (IDs 4, 11, 13, 15, 17, and 37) and four clusters with ages ≈ 1 − 2 Gyr (IDs 3, 14, 18, and 28 on mask 2). Before definitively determining if M101 has young to intermediate age GCs, we must consider possible sources of error on the ages. From the model fit errors alone, we see that the ages of ID 28 and ID 15 are not well constrained (note that these clusters both have very poor Balmer lines with little to no age lines possible to fit), and we cannot definitively conclude that they are young to intermediate age.
Percival & Salaris (2009) analyze the level of error in measured ages and abun- dances of clusters caused by differences in the model indices from Teff (∼ 100 K offsets), log g (∼ 0.25 dex offsets), and [Fe/H] (∼ 0.15 dex offsets). They find these differences inherent in chosen models affect the ages (for Hβ up to 20%). However, the affects of the model differences on the other Balmer lines as well as between the different metal lines are often in opposition (one index strength may increase while another decreases). Thus, fitting many indices at once, as we have done here, can reduce systematic shifts due to the choice of models. Percival & Salaris (2009) also caution against over interpreting mismatching results from fitting only a single age and metal index at a time as the result of multiple stellar populations or α-element enhancement10. We do not assume α-element enhancement here.
Only ID 37 of the remaining young and intermediate age candidate GCs has an error much greater than the up to ∼ 20% deviation between model choices, so we
10α-element enhancement is the enhancement of α-element (C, O, Ne, Mg, Si, S, Ar, and Ca) abundance ratios over solar values which is seen in the spectra of some stars and clusters.
92 exclude this cluster from being definitely categorized as intermediate age. We also hesitate to report a definitive age for ID 3 as it contains more starkly mismatched equivalent widths for the Balmer series of lines with Hβ indicating a much younger age (< 700 Myr) than Hγ or Hδ as well as very strong, sharp absorption lines at
Fe5015 and λ ≈ 4964 A(see˚ Fig. 3-8). We excluded Hβ from the age determination of ID 3, rather than the other three available Balmer Lick indices, in §3.3.3 since the cluster shows some observable G4300 absorption, which typically indicates an age of at least ∼ 3 Gyr.
Therefore, there are at least four GCs (IDs 4, 11, 13, and 17) with ages most likely within the intermediate age range of ∼ 3 − 8 Gyr and two GCs
(IDs 14 and 18) with even younger ages of 1 − 2 Gyr.
3.4.2 Metallicities of the YMCs and GCs
Figure 3-16 shows that the metallicities of the YMCs and GCs roughly separate into metal-rich and metal-poor populations as expected if the YMCs formed more recently out of metal enriched gas in the disk of M101 and the GCs in the spheroidal components formed earlier out of gas that had fewer metals.
Interestingly, the transition between the young to old clusters follows an almost continuous trend of decreasing metallicity. This hints at more or less continuous cluster formation, possibly aided by mergers/interactions, in M101’s past. Half of the GC sample here have metallicities above the lower limit of the radial abundance gradient observed for MW bulge ([Fe/H] = −1.0, Minniti et al. (1995)). While the mean of all of the GC metallicities is [Fe/H] = −1.0 ± 0.4, dividing our sample in half along [Fe/H] = −1.0 gives a metal-poor GC mean [Fe/H] = −1.3±0.1 and metal-rich mean [Fe/H] = −0.7 ± 0.3. While this division is artificially imposed, it suggests that these GCs may be sampling both a bulge/thick disk population of GCs as well as an older more metal poor halo population.
93 From Figure 3-17 we see that the GCs studied here are entirely within the inner
portions of M101 with rgc < 8 kpc. Three of the eight GCs with [Fe/H] > −1.0 (IDs 10, 14 on mask 1, and 28 on mask 2) and two of the eight GCs with [Fe/H] < −1.0
(IDs 8 and 11) are at rgc < 1.2 kpc, which is the upper limit of the effective radius
+800 of the bulge of M101, re = 400−300 pc (Fisher & Drory, 2010). While the presence of clusters with a spread in metallicities (including metal-rich clusters) could support a bulge formed through mergers rather than by secular processes, our sample size is not sufficiently large enough to rule out a secularly formed pseudo-bulge, which is the type of bulge expected for M101 given its morphology.
The metal-poor half of the GCs have a mean [Fe/H] greater than observed for the
MW GCs ([Fe/H] ≈ −1.5). These GCs are also overall younger (mean age ∼ 7±3 Gyr)
than the very ancient MW GCs (∼ 13 Gyr). This combination of elevated metallicities and an age spread encompassing younger ages most likely indicates a rich history of mergers and accretion in the halo of M101, possibly blurring between a thick disk population of GCs and inner halo GCs.
3.5 Conclusions
We find that the massive star clusters in the spiral galaxy M101 have a fairly continuous spread of ages and metallicities. The YMC and GC populations do sepa- rate into younger and more metal-rich versus older and more metal-poor populations as expected for a typical spiral galaxy structure of disk and spheroidal components.
However, the transition between the two categories of GCs is not stark, and there are at least four GCs with intermediate ages ∼ 3 − 8 Gyr and two GCs with young ages 1 − 2 Gyr, unlike clusters in the MW. Our overall conclusion is that M101 has a rich, possibly continuous history of cluster and star formation. The metallicities and spatial distribution of the GCs indicate that the cluster formation is most likely
94 driven by mergers/accretion.
95 Chapter 4
Gemini/GMOS Spectra of Old and
Young Star Clusters in M101:
Kinematics
4.1 Background
The kinematics of a population of star clusters allow us to disentangle the compo-
nents and structure of their host galaxies. In the MW, old GCs are found in the bulge
and halo components while younger open clusters are found in the thin or thick disks
(Portegies Zwart et al., 2010). In M33, another bulgeless spiral galaxy (of much lower
mass than M101), Chandar et al. (2002) find a population of old GCs associated with
the disk/pseudobulge and old GCs in the halo as well as a population of intermediate
age clusters with evidence of disk motions.
In this chapter we use velocities measured from Gemini/GMOS spectra of a sam-
ple of M101 YMCs and GCs to disentangle the structure of the galaxy, and add insight
into the formation history. Both the line-of-sight velocities as well as the rotational
velocity, vrot, can reveal the structure of a cluster population. For nearly face-on galaxies such as M101, high dispersion in the line-of-sight velocities (σ) are indicative
96 of a spheroidal component such as a bulge or halo, while low σ correspond to disk populations. In the MW, old open clusters have σold, open = 28 km/s, disk/bulge GCs have σbulge,GCs = 67 km/s and halo GCs have σhalo,GCs = 114 km/s (Chandar et al.,
2002). The ratio vrot/σ is another useful measurement as values > 1 are rotationally supported systems while vrot/σ < 1 indicate a pressure supported system (such as a halo).
Kormendy et al. (2010) use HST photometry and high resolution (R ≡ λ/FWHM '
15, 000) spectra from the Hobby-Eberly Telescope to decompose and determine ve- locity dispersions of the nuclear regions of several late-type spiral galaxies, including
M101. They find the inner velocity dispersion (most likely corresponding to the pseu- dobulge) to be low, σpseudobulge = 27±4 km/s, which may mean it is more of an “inner disk” than a bulge in structure. van Dokkum et al. (2014) examined the surface bright- ness profile of M101 out to rgc = 70 kpc in order to fit the bulge, disk, and halo compo-
+0.006 nents. They find a surprisingly low halo mass fraction fhalo = Mhalo/Mtot = 0.003−0.003 compared to that of the MW fhalo ≈ 0.02. In this chapter, we see how the cluster kinematics in M101 fit into this apparently highly disk dominated galaxy.
The rest of this chapter is arranged as follows: In §4.2, we describe measuring the cluster velocities and compare the velocities to the cluster spatial distribution and ages. We discuss the results in §4.3. Finally in §4.4, we list our conclusions.
Note that we do not discuss the observations here as we are using the same spectra examined in the previous chapter with reduction as discussed in § 3.2 and general age categorization as described in § 3.3.1.
97 4.2 Results and Analysis
4.2.1 Velocity Measurements
Velocity measurements were obtained using the PyRaf task FXCOR to perform a Fourier cross-correlation of each cluster spectrum with a template spectrum. The template spectra are good S/N clusters from within our own sample so that the ve- locities measured for each object are robust on a relative scale. We choose one YMC
(ID 36 on mask 1, see Fig. 3-5) and one GC (ID 11, see Fig. 3-9) as templates for mea- suring the relative velocities for the YMCs and GCs respectively. By using templates within our own sample, we ensure that the template spectra are a decent match to the object spectra, and remove any complications from mismatches in resolution and other effects that can occur if the template spectra come from models or are taken on a different instrument or in a separate program.
Both the object and template spectra for each FXCOR run were first continuum subtracted and various wavelength ranges were tested. The wavelength ranges chosen for each object were those with the largest range that contained good S/N, clear lines, and lacked masked regions.
The three important parameters of the cross-correlation of the object and template spectra are the position, height, and width of the strongest peak of the correlation function (see Fig. 4-1). The position gives the shift between the spectra, and thus the relative velocity. The height indicates the goodness of the fit (the best possible value being for a spectrum cross-correlated with itself, which has a peak height of
1). Velocity errors are computed in FXCOR from the ratio of the height of the strongest peak to the height of the average peak in the correlation (i.e. the anti- symmetric noise of the correlation function) according to the methods of Tonry &
Davis (1979). The width of the peak combined with the width of the template reveal the velocity dispersion of the object, which is mainly relevant for galaxy spectra as
98 velocity dispersions within star clusters are quite low (∼ 2 − 10 km/s).
For each template spectrum, we calculate velocities using Doppler Shift, v =
c( λcluster−λrest ), from the Hβ,Hγ, and Hδ absorption lines and take the mean as the λrest velocity of the template. The appropriate template velocity is added to the relative velocity of each cluster to estimate an “absolute” velocity, vcluster, for each cluster. These velocities are reported in Table 4.1 along with the FXCOR errors.
Also included in Table 4.1 are velocity errors estimated from the results of running
FXCOR on the individual exposures of the combined cluster spectra with the same
parameters, wavelength regions, and template spectra as the combined cluster spectra.
We take the standard deviation of the velocities of the individual exposures as the
error on the vcluster. We find these errors are more comprehensive and realistic than the FXCOR calculated errors as they reflect potential variations in exposures with
different random noise patterns and exposures taken on different nights. For example,
we expect the YMCs to have higher errors than the GCs since their Balmer series lines
are broader and have less sharply defined positions with which to determine shifts in
the spectra, and we find that the median FXCOR errors for the GCs ≈ 19 km/s and
YMCs ≈ 11 km/s, while the medians for the velocity errors are ∼ 32 and ∼ 40 km/s,
respectively.
Table 4.1: Kinematics of M101 Clusters with Spectra
ID vcluster (km/s) FXCOR Error (km/s) vcluster Error (km/s) vdisk (km/s) Mask 1
3a 262 14 46 300
4 233 25 28 260
5 130 13 30 295
6 317 20 24 250
Continued on next page
99 Table 4.1 – Continued from previous page
ID vcluster (km/s) FXCOR Error (km/s) vcluster Error (km/s) vdisk (km/s) 8 233 17 38 260
9 167 15 35 240
10 225 19 19 260
11 164 0 18 245
13 258 16 29 275
14 108 22 32 245
15a 155 26 44 250
17 231 25 38 200
18 187 18 25 205
23a 309 9 55 300
25 232 8 40 250
26 281 11 22 270
27 182 9 58 250
29a 289 10 27 300
30a 289 12 57 300
31a 280 11 46 275
33 250 7 31 240
36a 286 0 25 270
37 220 17 21 195
38 236 14 69 230
39 224 12 26 190
40 155 10 63 185
42 172 15 158 180
43 144 5 37 180
Continued on next page 100 Table 4.1 – Continued from previous page
ID vcluster (km/s) FXCOR Error (km/s) vcluster Error (km/s) vdisk (km/s) 44 204 9 40 215
46 233 7 36 250
47 301 6 37 275
Mask 2
5 327 17 35 305
10 227 21 108 305
14 163 26 54 295
17 408 14 119 295
18 334 12 24 305
26 263 22 293 295
28 225 20 119 265
29 296 18 30 290
34 290 27 79 285
36 295 13 18 275
a Also on mask 2.
4.2.2 Velocity Distance Comparison
Figure 4-2 shows the positions for each cluster with the semi-major and minor axes plotted (major axis position angle ∼ 39◦, Bosma et al. (1981)). From this plot
we can obtain the perpendicular distance from each cluster to the semi-minor axis,
Rsemi-minor. We then obtained estimates of the disk velocities, vdisk, for the RA and Dec of each cluster from a study of M101’s HI gas by Bosma et al. (1981) (see Fig. 4-3
and Table 4.1). Figure 4-4 shows vcluster (or vdisk) versus Rsemi-minor. Also shown are the linear best fits to the YMCs, GCs, and the HI gas disk velocities. The slopes
101 Figure 4-1: Example correlation functions for a YMC (top two plots, ID 23) and a GC (bottom two plots, ID13). The smaller top plots in each panel show the entire correlation function with multiple peaks, and the larger plots are a closer view of the strongest peak of each function showing the best fits to the peak (dashed lines). 102 and errors of the best fits are found in Table 4.2. Note that we exclude all clusters
with vcluster errors > 100 km/s (ID 42 on mask 1 and IDs 10, 17, 26, and 28 on mask 2) from Fig 4-4 as well as the fits to the GCs and YMCs as these clusters have large uncertainties from noisy spectra and sometimes poor coverage, limiting the wavelength coverage available for the cross-correlation.
Figure 4-2: Positions of the YMCs (open squares) and GCs (solid circles) with respect to the semi-major and minor axes of M101 (labeled).
103 Figure 4-3: HI gas map with velocity contours overlaid from Bosma et al. ◦ (1981). Note the axes are B1950 coordinates (δB1950 = 54 from bottom to top 25’, 35’, 45’, and 55’ and αB1950 = 14h from right to left 0m, 1m, 2m, and 3m).
104 Figure 4-4: Velocities versus distance to the semi-minor axis of the YMCs (open squares) and GCs (solid circles). The best fit lines to the GCs (solid line), YMCs (dotted line), and HI gas disk (dashed line, individual points not shown) are overplotted. The YMCs have a similar although slightly shallower slope than the HI gas disk, while the GCs do not match the disk rotation (see Ta- ble 4.2).
Table 4.2: Coefficients for vcluster vs. Rsemi-minor Fits
Data Set Intercept Slope GCs 207 ±7 -5 ±5 YMCs 249 ±8 16 ±3 HI gas 243 ±3 18 ±1
105 4.2.3 Age Velocity Comparison
The difference between vdisk and vcluster roughly corresponds to the distance of each cluster above or below the gas disk. Thus, we show in Figure 4-5 this velocity
difference versus the age of the clusters. The spread in velocity differences is greater
for the GCs than the YMCs, and even shows the same broadening with increasing
age within the YMC population.
The standard deviation of the velocity differences of the two populations are the
best estimate of the velocity dispersions, σ, of the YMC and GC populations. We
find that σYMC ≈ 25 km/s and σGC ≈ 66 km/s.
Figure 4-5: The difference between the cluster and disk velocities versus ages of the YMCs (open squares) and GCs (solid circles).
106 4.2.4 Rotational Velocity Calculation and Comparison
Because the inclination of M101 is not quite zero, i.e. not perfectly face-on, the rotational velocity can be calculated from the line-of-sight velocities for each star cluster associated with the disk and for the HI gas along the semi-major axis. We determine the rotational velocities by vrot = (vlos − vsys)/cos θ sin i where vlos is the line-of-sight velocity (either vcluster or vdisk here), vsys is the systemic velocity of the galaxy (∼ 241 km/s for M101), θ is the PA of each object with respect to the semi-major axis, and i is the inclination of the galaxy (∼ 18◦ for M101 (Bosma et al.,
1981)). In § 4.2.2 and 4.2.3, we find that the GCs do not show evidence of association with the disk of M101, and therefore, the formula for vrot (dependent on sin i) is not valid. Thus, we do not include the GCs in our rotational velocity analysis. Table 4.3 shows the mean rotational velocities for the HI gas in the disk and the YMCs along with standard deviations as the errors. We list the values for M101 populations in their entirety (excluding clusters with vcluster error > 100 km/s) as well as only for rgc > 5 kpc as the outer regions of the rotation curve more accurately reflect the peak of the rotation curves. We also list the values for the MW and M33 for comparison.
Figure 4-6 shows vrot as a function of distance, i.e. the rotation curves, for the YMCs and HI gas in the disk. The HI gas disk shows an extremely high rotational velocity for the innermost datapoint because of the extreme proximity of this point to the semi-minor axis, which results in a spurious velocity. None of the YMCs are as close as this point to the semi-minor axis.
107 Figure 4-6: The rotational velocities versus rgc for the YMCs (open squares) and HI gas (dashed line).
108 Table 4.3: Rotational Velocity and Velocity Dispersion Comparisons
a Data Set vrot (km/s) vrot Error (km/s) σ (km/s) vrot/σ MWb Young Clusters 215 10 22 Old Open Clusters 211 7 28 7.5 Disk/bulge GCs 156-193 67 2.3 Halo GCs 50 23 114 0.4 ± 0.2
M33b +1.4 Young Clusters 87 11 17 5.1−1.1 Disk/bulge GCs -2 51 54 0.04+1.02 Halo GCs 7 82 82 0.09+1.2
All M101 c +5 HI gas 208 61 17 12−6 +5 YMCs 228 116 25 9−4 GCs 66
M101, rgc > 5 kpc +2 HI gas 204 17 12 18−1 +4 YMCs 229 99 25 9−4 a For M101 data, the error is the standard deviation of the individual cluster or gas vrot. b From Chander et al. (2002). For M33, disk/bulge GCs are within 2.25 kpc while halo GCs are outside 2.25 kpc. c Excludes only the innermost disk data point due to close proximity to the semi-minor axis skewing the calculation of vrot.
109 4.3 Discussion
4.3.1 The Structure of M101
Figure 4-4 and Table 4.2 show that the YMC line-of-sight velocities as a function
of the distance follow the HI gas in the disk. Likewise, we find that the M101 YMC
vrot/σ ratio is well above a value of one (see Table 4.3), and therefore, shows definite signs of disk-like rotation. However, the YMCs have some scatter about the HI
disk fitted vcluster-Rsemi-minor relation, a lower vrot/σ ratio than the HI gas, and their
vrot/σ is more comparable to that of the old open clusters in the MW. Thus, the
YMCs lag the HI disk and have a larger velocity dispersion. Interestingly, σYMC is
similar to σpseudobulge determined by Kormendy et al. (2010) (∼ 25 km/s compared to 27 ± 4 km/s), which supports the possibility of the M101 pseudobulge having more of an inner disk-like structure.
The GCs do not show line-of-sight velocities as function of distance that follow the HI gas in the disk, despite having lower vcluster errors than the YMCs. While this is more indicative of a halo than a disk population, the σ of the GCs is more similar
to the disk/bulge GCs of the MW. We cannot rule out the possibility of the GCs
sampled here forming a pseudobulge or thick disk population; however, the effective
+800 radius determined from light profile fitting of the pseudobulge (re = 400−300 pc, Fisher & Drory (2010)) is small enough to call into question these GCs (some at distances
out to more than 6 kpc) being associated with the bulge alone. There are most
likely some halo GCs (also supported by the more complete photometric GC catalog
discussed in Ch. 2), and their existence conflicts with the results of van Dokkum et al.
(2014) showing M101 as containing little to no halo component.
Figure 4-5 shows that M101 has a continuous increase in its dispersion of the
velocity residuals (with respect to the disk velocities) with age. This is similar to the
trend seen for M33 clusters (Chandar et al., 2002), and indicates that systems of older
110 clusters have undergone a source of “heating” whether by perturbations from passing giant molecular clouds (a secular process) or mergers/accretion. The lag between the
YMCs and the HI disk and the larger velocity dispersion of the YMCs compared to the HI disk also supports this conclusion.
4.4 Conclusions
We find the kinematics of the YMC and GC populations differ with the YMCs following the characteristics of the HI gas in the disk and the GCs exhibiting line-of- sight and rotational velocities and velocity dispersion similar to either a bulge/thick disk or halo. The smooth increase in the difference between the cluster velocities and their local disk velocities with age indicates that M101 may have undergone heating of its disk over time or a fairly continuous merger/accretion history.
111 Chapter 5
Conclusions and Future Work
We find that M101 contains a rich population of star clusters from which clues
about the galaxy’s formation and history can be obtained, adding to our picture of
the formation and evolution of spiral galaxies with little to no bulge. M101 appears
to contain an almost continuous range of star cluster luminosities (and most likely
masses) and ages, along with a range of metallicities. We specifically find:
• A population of bright, old halo clusters typical of spiral galaxies and dominated
by metal-poor clusters as expected for a nearly bulgeless galaxy such as M101.
• A large population of faint, old disk clusters, which are not seen in other spiral
galaxies like M81, M83, M51, and the MW.
• A sample of young (< 1 Gyr), massive clusters similar to those seen in other
spiral galaxies like M51 and M83 (though discovered in lower numbers within
the MW thus far).
• A sample of young, intermediate, and old age GCs with a wide spread in metal-
licities, and kinematics/spatial distribution placing them in the bulge/thick disk
or halo. Similar populations are seen in spiral galaxies such as M31 and M33.
We conclude that the disk of M101 is a more hospitable place for cluster formation and survival than that of MW, possibly more similar to that of M33, another late- 112 type spiral. The possibility of bulge clusters in M101 raises the question of whether they formed via secular or hierarchical processes. The morphology of M101 strongly suggests that secular processes are more likely as pseudobulges are thought to form internally. However, the metallicity spread of the old clusters is more ambiguous, and does not definitively rule out a merger/accretion scenario.
5.1 Searching for Faint, Old Star Clusters in Other
Spiral Galaxies
One of the most important questions that remains from this work is: how long lived are star clusters, especially low mass clusters? This question is crucial to understanding how star clusters evolve and how galaxies become populated by field stars. This question can be answered by determining just how common the newly discovered faint, old M101 clusters discussed in Ch. 2 are in other galaxies, especially spiral galaxies. Thus, the methods employed throughout this work need to be applied to other spiral galaxies in the future.
Good candidate spirals include NGC 6946, M94, M106, NGC 300, NGC 1313,
NGC 4395, NGC 5055, and NGC 7793 as they are roughly face-on and at distances from ∼ 2−8 Mpc away with available archived HST /ACS/WFC or WFC3 B, V , and
I images. Imaging with HST is crucial to identify extragalactic star clusters beyond the Local Group, and at the distances of the proposed galaxies, clusters imaged with
HST are broader than the point spread function and can be separated from bright
field stars.
NGC 6946 is a particularly good candidate galaxy for such a search as it has already shown a possible excess of faint, red clusters as identified from HST /WFPC2 images (Chandar et al., 2004). Unfortunately, the WFPC2 observations are not deep enough to definitively identify a population of old disk clusters, so HST imaging from
113 deeper, higher resolution instruments is necessary. Recently, observations of one field
covering part of the disk of NGC 6946 in B, V , and I filters on HST /WFC3 have become available (see Fig 5-1). More fields are needed to throughly investigate the old star cluster populations of NGC 6946, but searching for faint, old clusters within the available field combined with the previous findings of Chandar et al. (2004) could provide a substantial start to answering the question of how common potentially long lived, low mass star clusters are.
In order to determine the ages or metallicities of any faint, red clusters in other spiral galaxies, spectra of the faint objects are needed. This presents a challenge as high S/N spectra are needed for Lick index measurements. However, it is possible to get the required S/N by stacking spectra of different clusters with similar photometric properties (such as color and luminosity). Also, because lower S/N is required for measuring velocities, it would still be possible to measure the velocities of the low
S/N individual spectra, and thus insights on the cluster population kinematics are also achievable.
114 Figure 5-1: Ground-based optical image of NGC 6946 showing the location of the HST /WFC3 field available.
115 References
Ashman, K. M., Conti, A., & Zepf, S. E. 1995, AJ, 110, 1164
Barmby, P., Kuntz, K. D., Huchra, J. P., & Brodie, J. P. 2006, AJ, 132, 883
Bica, E., Claria, J. J., Dottori, H., Santos, Jr., J. F. C., & Piatti, A. E. 1996, APJS,
102, 57
Bohlin, R. C. 2007, Photometric Calibration of the ACS CCD Cameras, Tech. rep.
Bosma, A., Goss, W. M., & Allen, R. J. 1981, A&A, 93, 106
Brodie, J. P., & Larsen, S. S. 2002, AJ, 124, 1410
Brown, T. M. 2009, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol.
419, Galaxy Evolution: Emerging Insights and Future Challenges, ed. S. Jogee,
I. Marinova, L. Hao, & G. A. Blanc, 110
Brown, T. M., Ferguson, H. C., Smith, E., et al. 2003, ApJL, 592, L17
Bruzual, G., & Charlot, S. 2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000
Burstein, D., Faber, S. M., & Gonzalez, J. J. 1986, AJ, 91, 1130
Chandar, R., Bianchi, L., & Ford, H. C. 1999, ApJ, 517, 668
Chandar, R., Bianchi, L., Ford, H. C., & Sarajedini, A. 2002, ApJ, 564, 712
Chandar, R., Fall, S. M., & McLaughlin, D. E. 2007, ApJL, 668, L119
Chandar, R., Whitmore, B., & Lee, M. G. 2004, ApJ, 611, 220
116 Chandar, R., Whitmore, B. C., Kim, H., et al. 2010, ApJ, 719, 966
Chies-Santos, A. L., Cortesi, A., Fantin, D. S. M., et al. 2013, A&A, 559, A67
Cˆot´e,P. 1999, AJ, 118, 406 de Vaucouleurs, G. 1948, Annales d’Astrophysique, 11, 247
—. 1963, ApJS, 8, 31 de Vaucouleurs, G., & Buta, R. 1978, AJ, 83, 1383 de Vaucouleurs, G., de Vaucouleurs, A., Corwin, Jr., H. G., et al. 1991, S&T, 82, 621
Dekel, A., Sari, R., & Ceverino, D. 2009, ApJ, 703, 785
Di Matteo, P., G´omez,A., Haywood, M., et al. 2015, A&A, 577, A1
Evans, I. N., Primini, F. A., Glotfelty, K. J., et al. 2010, ApJS, 189, 37
Faber, S. M., Friel, E. D., Burstein, D., & Gaskell, C. M. 1985, ApJS, 57, 711
Fall, S. M., & Chandar, R. 2012, ApJ, 752, 96
Fall, S. M., & Zhang, Q. 2001, ApJ, 561, 751
Fischer, P., Welch, D. L., Cote, P., Mateo, M., & Madore, B. F. 1992, AJ, 103, 857
Fisher, D. B., & Drory, N. 2010, ApJ, 716, 942
—. 2011, ApJL, 733, L47
Font, A. S., McCarthy, I. G., Crain, R. A., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 416, 2802
Forbes, D. A., Almeida, A., Spitler, L. R., & Pota, V. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 1049
Friel, E. D. 1995, ARA&A, 33, 381
117 Goudfrooij, P., Puzia, T. H., Chandar, R., & Kozhurina-Platais, V. 2011, ApJ, 737,
4
Goudfrooij, P., Strader, J., Brenneman, L., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 343, 665
Graves, G. J., & Schiavon, R. P. 2008, ApJS, 177, 446
Harris, W. E. 1996, AJ, 112, 1487
—. 2001, Globular Cluster Systems, 223
Harris, W. E., Whitmore, B. C., Karakla, D., et al. 2006, ApJ, 636, 90
Hwang, N., & Lee, M. G. 2006, ApJL, 638, L79
Kerber, L. O., Santiago, B. X., & Brocato, E. 2007, A&A, 462, 139
Kharchenko, N. V., Piskunov, A. E., Schilbach, E., R¨oser,S., & Scholz, R.-D. 2013,
A&A, 558, A53
King, I. 1962, AJ, 67, 471
Koekemoer, A. M., Fruchter, A. S., Hook, R. N., & Hack, W. 2002, in The 2002 HST
Calibration Workshop, ed. S. Arribas, A. Koekemoer, & B. Whitmore (Baltimore:
STSci), 337
Kormendy, J., Drory, N., Bender, R., & Cornell, M. E. 2010, ApJ, 723, 54
Kormendy, J., & Kennicutt, Jr., R. C. 2004, ARA&A, 42, 603
Kroupa, P. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 231
Lackner, C. N., Cen, R., Ostriker, J. P., & Joung, M. R. 2012, MNRAS, 425, 641
Larsen, S. S. 1999, A&AS, 139, 393
—. 2000, MNRAS, 319, 893 118 —. 2002, AJ, 124, 1393
Larsen, S. S., & Brodie, J. P. 2000, AJ, 120, 2938
Larsen, S. S., de Mink, S. E., Eldridge, J. J., et al. 2011, A&A, 532, A147
Lata, S., Pandey, A. K., Sagar, R., & Mohan, V. 2002, A&A, 388, 158
Leaman, R., VandenBerg, D. A., & Mendel, J. T. 2013, MNRAS, 436, 122
Mack, J., Gilliland, R. L., Anderson, J., & Sirianni, M. 2007, WFC Zeropoints at
-80C, Tech. rep.
McLaughlin, D. E., & Fall, S. M. 2008, ApJ, 679, 1272
Minniti, D. 1995, AJ, 109, 1663
Minniti, D., Olszewski, E. W., Liebert, J., et al. 1995, MNRAS, 277, 1293
Mucciarelli, A., Ferraro, F. R., Origlia, L., & Fusi Pecci, F. 2007, AJ, 133, 2053
Naab, T., Johansson, P. H., & Ostriker, J. P. 2009, ApJL, 699, L178
Navarro-Gonz´alez,J., Ricciardelli, E., Quilis, V., & Vazdekis, A. 2013, MNRAS, 436,
3507
Okamura, S., Kanazawa, T., & Kodaira, K. 1976, PASJ, 28, 329
Oser, L., Ostriker, J. P., Naab, T., Johansson, P. H., & Burkert, A. 2010, ApJ, 725,
2312
Palma, T., Clari´a,J. J., Geisler, D., Piatti, A. E., & Ahumada, A. V. 2013, A&A,
555, A131
Park, H. S., Lee, M. G., Hwang, H. S., et al. 2012, ApJ, 759, 116
Patterson, F. S. 1940, Harvard College Observatory Bulletin, 914, 9 119 Peng, E. W., Jord´an,A., Cˆot´e,P., et al. 2006a, ApJ, 639, 95
Peng, E. W., Cˆot´e,P., Jord´an,A., et al. 2006b, ApJ, 639, 838
Percival, S. M., & Salaris, M. 2009, ApJ, 703, 1123
Percival, S. M., Salaris, M., Cassisi, S., & Pietrinferni, A. 2009, ApJ, 690, 427
Piatti, A. E., Geisler, D., Sarajedini, A., & Gallart, C. 2009, A&A, 501, 585
Portegies Zwart, S. F., McMillan, S. L. W., & Gieles, M. 2010, ARA&A, 48, 431
Puzia, T. H., Kissler-Patig, M., Thomas, D., et al. 2005a, A&A, 439, 997
Puzia, T. H., Perrett, K. M., & Bridges, T. J. 2005b, A&A, 434, 909
Reimers, D. 1975, Memoires of the Societe Royale des Sciences de Liege, 8, 369
Rich, R. M., Sosin, C., Djorgovski, S. G., et al. 1997, ApJL, 484, L25
Richtler, T. 2003, in Lecture Notes in Physics, Berlin Springer Verlag, Vol. 635, Stellar
Candles for the Extragalactic Distance Scale, ed. D. Alloin & W. Gieren, 281–305
Scheepmaker, R. A., Haas, M. R., Gieles, M., et al. 2007, A&A, 469, 925
Searle, L., & Zinn, R. 1978, ApJ, 225, 357
Shappee, B. J., & Stanek, K. Z. 2011, ApJ, 733, 124
Shen, J., Rich, R. M., Kormendy, J., et al. 2010, ApJL, 720, L72
Simanton, L. A., Chandar, R., & Whitmore, B. C. 2015, ApJ, 805, 160
Sirianni, M., Jee, M. J., Ben´ıtez,N., et al. 2005, PASP, 117, 1049
Spitzer, Jr., L., & Harm, R. 1958, ApJ, 127, 544
Stanek, K. Z., Zaritsky, D., & Harris, J. 1998, ApJL, 500, L141 120 Sweigart, A. V., & Catelan, M. 1998, ApJL, 501, L63
Tonry, J., & Davis, M. 1979, AJ, 84, 1511
Trancho, G., Bastian, N., Miller, B. W., & Schweizer, F. 2007, ApJ, 664, 284 van Dokkum, P. G., Abraham, R., & Merritt, A. 2014, ApJL, 782, L24
Villegas, D., Jord´an,A., Peng, E. W., et al. 2010, ApJ, 717, 603
Whitmore, B. C., Chandar, R., Bowers, A. S., et al. 2014, AJ, 147, 78
Whitmore, B. C., Chandar, R., & Fall, S. M. 2007, AJ, 133, 1067
Whitmore, B. C., & Schweizer, F. 1995, AJ, 109, 960
Worthey, G., Faber, S. M., Gonzalez, J. J., & Burstein, D. 1994, ApJS, 94, 687
Worthey, G., & Ottaviani, D. L. 1997, ApJS, 111, 377
Zolotov, A., Willman, B., Brooks, A. M., et al. 2009, ApJ, 702, 1058
121