4.7 Article

Effects of galaxy interactions in different environments

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10020.x

关键词

galaxies : abundances; galaxies : evolution; galaxies : formation; cosmology : theory

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We analyse star formation rates (SFRs) derived from photometric and spectroscopic data of galaxies in pairs in different environments using the 2-degree field galaxy redshift survey (2dFGRS) and the Sloan digital sky survey (SDSS). The two samples comprise several thousand pairs, suitable to explore into detail the dependence of star formation activity in pairs on orbital parameters and global environment. We use the projected galaxy density derived from the fifth brightest neighbour of each galaxy, with a convenient luminosity threshold to characterize environment in both surveys in a consistent way. Star formation activity is derived through the. parameter in 2dFGRS and through the SFR normalized to the total mass in stars, SFR/M*, given by Brinchmann et al. in the SDSS-second data release (SDSS-DR2). For both galaxy pair catalogs, the star formation birth rate parameter is a strong function of the global environment and orbital parameters. Our analysis on SDSS pairs confirms previous results found with the 2dFGRS where suitable thresholds for the star formation activity induced by interactions are estimated at a projected distance r(p) = 100 h(-1) kpc and a relative velocity Delta V = 350 km s(-1). We observe that galaxy interactions are more effective at triggering important star formation activity in low- and moderate-density environments with respect to the control sample of galaxies without a close companion. Although close pairs have a larger fraction of actively star-forming galaxies, they also exhibit a greater fraction of red galaxies with respect to those systems without a close companion, an effect that may indicate that dust stirred up during encounters could affect colours and, partially, obscure tidally induced star formation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据