4.7 Review

Galaxy ecology: groups and low-density environments in the SDSS and 2dFGRS

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07453.x

关键词

galaxies : clusters : general; galaxies : evolution; galaxies : interactions

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We analyse the observed correlation between galaxy environment and Halpha emission-line strength, using volume-limited samples and group catalogues of 24 968 galaxies at 0.05 < z < 0.095, drawn from the 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey (M-bJ < -19.5) and the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (M-r < -20.6). We characterize the environment by: (1) Sigma(5), the surface number density of galaxies determined by the projected distance to the fifth nearest neighbour; and (2) rho(1.1) and rho(5.5), three-dimensional density estimates obtained by convolving the galaxy distribution with Gaussian kernels of dispersion 1.1 and 5.5 Mpc, respectively. We find that star-forming and quiescent galaxies form two distinct populations, as characterized by their H equivalent width, W-0(Halpha). The relative numbers of star-forming and quiescent galaxies vary strongly and continuously with local density. However, the distribution of W-0(Halpha) amongst the star-forming population is independent of environment. The fraction of star-forming galaxies shows strong sensitivity to the density on large scales, rho(5.5), which is likely independent of the trend with local density, rho(1.1). We use two differently selected group catalogues to demonstrate that the correlation with galaxy density is approximately independent of group velocity dispersion, for sigma = 200-1000 km s(-1). Even in the lowest-density environments, no more than similar to70 per cent of galaxies show significant Halpha emission. Based on these results, we conclude that the present-day correlation between star formation rate and environment is a result of short-time-scale mechanisms that take place preferentially at high redshift, such as starbursts induced by galaxy-galaxy interactions.

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