4.7 Article

Local and large-scale environment of Seyfert galaxies

Journal

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
Volume 639, Issue 1, Pages 37-45

Publisher

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1086/498421

Keywords

galaxies : active; galaxies : Seyfert; large-scale structure of universe

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We present a three-dimensional study of the local (<= 100 h(-1) kpc) and the large-scale (<= 1 h(-1) Mpc) environment of the two main types of Seyfert AGN galaxies. For this purpose we use 48 Seyfert 1 galaxies (with redshifts in the range 0.007 <= z <= 0.036) and 56 Seyfert 2 galaxies (with 0.004 <= z <= 0.020), located at high galactic latitudes, as well as two control samples of nonactive galaxies having the same morphological, redshift, and diameter size distributions as the corresponding Seyfert samples. Using the Center for Astrophysics (CfA2) and Southern Sky Redshift Survey (SSRS) galaxy catalogs (m(B) similar to 15.5) and our own spectroscopic observations (mB similar to 18.5), we find that within a projected distance of 100 h(-1) kpc and a radial velocity separation of delta nu <= 600 km s(-1) around each of our AGNs, the fraction of Seyfert 2 galaxies with a close neighbor is significantly higher than that of their control (especially within 75 h(-1) kpc) and Seyfert 1 galaxy samples, confirming a previous two-dimensional analysis of Dultzin-Hacyan et al. We also find that the large-scale environment around the two types of Seyfert galaxies does not vary with respect to their control sample galaxies. However, the Seyfert 2 and control galaxy samples do differ significantly when compared to the corresponding Seyfert 1 samples. Since the main difference between these samples is their morphological type distribution, we argue that the large-scale environmental difference cannot be attributed to differences in nuclear activity but rather to their different type of host galaxies.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available