4.7 Article

A MULTI-WAVELENGTH STUDY OF LOW-REDSHIFT CLUSTERS OF GALAXIES. I. COMPARISON OF X-RAY AND MID-INFRARED SELECTED ACTIVE GALACTIC NUCLEI

Journal

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
Volume 729, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/729/1/22

Keywords

galaxies: active; galaxies: clusters: general; infrared: galaxies; X-rays: galaxies

Funding

  1. NSF [AST-0705170]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Clusters of galaxies have long been used as laboratories for the study of galaxy evolution, but despite intense, recent interest in feedback between active galactic nuclei (AGNs) and their hosts, the impact of environment on these relationships remains poorly constrained. We present results from a study of AGNs and their host galaxies found in low-redshift galaxy clusters. We fit model spectral energy distributions (SEDs) to the combined visible and mid-infrared (MIR) photometry of cluster members and use these model SEDs to determine stellar masses and star formation rates (SFRs). We identify two populations of AGNs, the first based on their X-ray luminosities (X-ray AGNs) and the second based on the presence of a significant AGN component in their model SEDs (IR AGNs). We find that the two AGN populations are nearly disjoint; only 8 out of 44 AGNs are identified with both techniques. We further find that IR AGNs are hosted by galaxies with similar masses and SFRs but higher specific SFRs (sSFRs) than X-ray AGN hosts. The relationship between AGN accretion and host star formation in cluster AGN hosts shows no significant difference compared to the relationship between field AGNs and their hosts. The projected radial distributions of both AGN populations are consistent with the distribution of other cluster members. We argue that the apparent dichotomy between X-ray and IR AGNs can be understood as a combination of differing extinction due to cold gas in the host galaxies of the two classes of AGNs and the presence of weak star formation in X-ray AGN hosts.

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