1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: %\documentclass[11pt,preprint]{aastex}
3: %
4: \def\obc {$\rm [OBC97] $}
5: \def\plm {\hbox{$\pm$}}
6: \def\degree {\hbox{$^\circ$}}
7: \def\etal {\hbox{et al.}}
8: \def\Msol {\hbox{M$_{\odot}$}}
9: \def\HHI {\hbox{M$_{H_2}$/M$_{HI}$}}
10: \def\Lsol {\hbox{L$_{\odot}$}}
11: \def\Zsol {\hbox{Z$_{\odot}$}}
12: \def\mss {\hbox{mag arcsec$^{-2}$}}
13: \def\kms {\hbox{${\rm km\, s}^{-1}$}}
14: \def\acs {\hbox{$^{\prime\prime}$}}
15: \def\acm {\hbox{$^{\prime}$}}
16: \def\Ha {\hbox{H{$\alpha$}}}
17: %
18: %\input{epsf}
19: %
20: \slugcomment{Submitted to The Astrophysical Journal}
21:
22: \shortauthors{O'Neil et al.}
23: \shorttitle{Star Formation in LSB Galaxies }
24: %\usepackage{graphics,lscape}
25:
26: \begin{document}
27: \title{Star Formation in Galaxies with Large Lower Surface Brightness Disks}
28: \author{K. O'Neil}
29: \affil{NRAO, PO Box 2, Green Bank, WV 24944}
30: \email{koneil@nrao.edu}
31:
32: \author{M. S. Oey}
33: \affil{University of Michigan, Astronomy Department, 830 Dennison Building Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1042}
34: \email{msoey@umich.edu}
35:
36: \and
37:
38: \author{G. Bothun}
39: \affil{University of Oregon, Physics Department, 1371 E 13th Avenue, Eugene, OR 97403}
40: \email{nuts@bigmoo.uoregon.edu}
41:
42: \begin{abstract}
43: We present B, R, and \Ha\ imaging data of 19 large disk galaxies
44: whose properties are intermediate between classical low surface
45: brightness galaxies and ordinary high surface brightness galaxies.
46: We use data taken from the Lowell 1.8m Perkins telescope to determine the
47: galaxies' overall morphology, color, and star formation properties.
48: Morphologically, the galaxies range
49: from Sb through Irr and include galaxies with and without nuclear bars.
50: The colors of the galaxies vary from B$-$R = 0.3 -- 1.9, and most show at least
51: a slight bluing of the colors with increasing radius.
52: The \Ha\ images of these galaxies show an average star formation rate lower
53: than is found for similar samples with higher surface brightness disks. Additionally,
54: the galaxies studied have both higher gas mass-to-luminosity and
55: diffuse \Ha\ emission than is found in higher surface brightness
56: samples.
57: \end{abstract}
58: \keywords{galaxies: evolution; galaxies: colors; galaxies: luminosities; galaxies: ISM; galaxies: photometry; galaxies: spiral}
59:
60: \section{Introduction}
61:
62: Large low surface brightness galaxies are galaxies
63: with disk central surface brightnesses statistically far from the
64: \citet{freeman70} value of $\mu_B(0)$ = 21.65 $\pm$ 0.3 \mss, and
65: whose properties are significantly removed from the dwarf galaxy category
66: (e.g. $M_B < -18$, $M_{\rm HI} > 10^9$\Msol). Studies of large LSB
67: galaxies have discovered a number of intriguing facts:
68: large LSB galaxies, in contrast to dwarf LSB galaxies, can exhibit
69: molecular gas \citep{das06, oneil04b, oneil03, oneil00b};
70: the gas mass-to-luminosity ratios of large LSB galaxies are typically
71: higher than for similar high surface brightness counterparts by a factor of
72: 2 or more \citep{oneil04}; and, like dwarf LSB galaxies, large LSB systems
73: are typically dark-matter dominated \citep{pickering97, mcgaugh01}.
74: These properties, added to their typically low
75: metallicities \citep{denaray04, gerritsen99}, lead to the inference that
76: even large LSB galaxies are under-evolved
77: compared to their high surface brightness (HSB) counterparts. Once their
78: typically low gas surface densities (M$_{HI} \le 10^{21}\;\rm cm^{-2}$) \citep{pickering97}
79: and low baryonic-to-dark matter ratios \citep{gurovich04, mcgaugh00}
80: are taken into account, the question becomes less
81: why LSB galaxies are under-evolved than how they can form stars at all
82: \citep[and references therein]{oneil00}. Yet large LSB galaxies have the same
83: total luminosity within them as ordinary Hubble
84: sequence spirals
85: %, and they follow the same Tully-Fisher relation \citep{tully77} as their
86: %high surface brightness counterparts
87: \citep{oneil04, impey97, pickering97, sprayberry95}.
88: On average then, star formation cannot be too inefficient in these large LSB galaxies
89: in spite of their unevolved characteristics,
90: else their integrated light would be significantly less then in their HSB counterparts.
91:
92: In an effort to better understand this enigmatic group of galaxies and
93: their evolutionary status, we recently conducted a 21-cm survey to discover a
94: larger nearby sample of such objects \citep{oneil06, oneil04}. We succeeded in
95: identifying about 25 candidates within the redshift range $0.04 < z <
96: 0.08$, whose combined HI and optical properties suggest them to be large
97: LSB galaxies. We obtained B, R, and \Ha\ imaging of 19 of these
98: galaxies at Lowell Observatory to confirm whether these candidates are
99: indeed LSB galaxies, and to obtain a dataset of their fundamental parameters.
100: These observations are presented here, and interestingly, none of the
101: galaxies ultimately turned out to be LSB galaxies by the strict conventional
102: definition; we discuss this result below in \S ~\ref{sec:sb}. However, these galaxies
103: still represent a sample whose surface brightnesses are
104: below average, and whose properties are intermediate between those of
105: the {\it bona fide} massive LSB galaxies, and ordinary HSB galaxies.
106: In this work, we quantify and parameterize the fundamental properties
107: of this sample of large, ``lower surface brightness'' galaxies.
108:
109: %Galaxies' integrated broad band colors represent a convolution of the galaxies'
110: %mean age of the stellar population, metallicity, and recent star formation rate.
111: %Measurements of \Ha\ luminosity provide a direct measure of the
112: %current star formation rate (SFR). With that additional measurement, it is
113: %possibly to probe both the overall star formation history of a
114: %galaxy and the current SFR.
115: %%Determining the color and \Ha\ properties of a wide variety of galaxies provides crucial
116: %%information on the star formation history of galaxies and allows us to explore the question
117: %%of how stars form and evolve.
118: %Over the years there have been a large number of studies undertaken
119: %to explore this question, from targeted \Ha\ surveys such as SINGG \citep{meurer06} and 11HUGS \citep{kennicutt04},
120: %surveys of representative galaxy types \citep[e.g.][and references therein]{kennicutt98} to studies of galaxies chosen
121: %due to certain properties \citep[e.g.][]{gavazzi06, koopman06, helmboldt05}. Each of these studies, and the many more like them,
122: %have contributed significantly to our overall view of star formation in the Universe.
123: %
124: %One type of galaxy which has been often overlooked in past star formation surveys is the
125: %subset of low surface brightness galaxy which are not classified as `dwarf'. Low surface brightness (LSB) galaxies are typically defined
126: %as galaxies with central surface brightnesses at least one magnitude fainter than the night sky.
127: %The global properties of LSB galaxies -- blue colors, high gas mass-to-luminosity ratios, and
128: %low metallicities -- lead to the conclusion that LSB systems are under-evolved
129: %compared to their high surface brightness (HSB) counterparts. Once their
130: %typically low gas surface densities (M$_{HI} \le 10^{21}\; cm^{-2}$) and low
131: %baryonic-to-dark matter ratios are taken into account, the question becomes less
132: %why LSB galaxies are under-evolved than how they can form stars at all
133: %\citep[and references therein]{oneil00}. Yet large LSB galaxies have the same
134: %(integrated) number of stars within them as ordinary Hubble sequence spirals, and
135: %they follow the same Tully-Fisher relation \citep{zwaan95, tully85, tully77} as their
136: %Hubble sequence counterparts. On average then, star formation cannot
137: %be too inefficient in the large LSB galaxies. The B, R, and \Ha\ measurements
138: %presented here are a partial response to unraveling this mystery.
139:
140: \section{Galaxy Sample}
141: \label{sec:sample}
142:
143: There are three ways that disk galaxy surface brightness can be measured or
144: quantified -- using a surface brightness profile and fitting an
145: exponential disk to derive the central surface brightness;
146: measuring an average surface brightness within a given isophotal diameter;
147: and measuring the surface brightness of the isophote at
148: the 1/2 light radius point (the effective surface brightness).
149: The latter two definitions suffer from the fact that the bulge light
150: is included in the surface brightness estimates, resulting in their
151: prediction of the {\it disk} surface brightness to be less accurate.
152: As a result, the typical operational definition of an LSB galaxy uses the first definition,
153: and defines an LSB galaxy as one whose whose observed disk central surface brightness
154: is $\mu_B(0) \ge$23.0 \mss. For reference, the Freeman value of
155: $\mu_B(0)$=21.65 +/- 0.30 \mss\ defines the distribution of central
156: surface brightness, in the blue band, for Hubble sequence spirals.
157:
158: Regardless of the definition, without pre-existing high quality
159: optical imaging of galaxies, it is difficult to unambiguously identify a sample of disk
160: galaxies that will turn out to be LSB. With only catalog data available, one is driven to
161: use the average surface brightness and identify potential LSB galaxies as those whose average
162: surface brightness is below some threshold level.
163:
164: All of the galaxies in this sample were identified as LSB by \citet{bothun85}
165: using the magnitude and diameter values found in the {\it Uppsala General Catalog} \citep{nilson},
166: and employing the general equation $\langle \mu_B \rangle = m_{pg}+5log(D) + 8.63$.
167: Here, $m_{pg}$ is the photographic magnitude of the galaxies, D is the diameter in
168: arcminutes, and the constant, 8.63, is derived from the conversion from arcminutes to arcseconds
169: (8.89) and the conversion from m$_{pg}$ to m$_B$ (-0.26, as used by Bothun, \etal)
170: \citet{bothun85} then made a cut-off to the galaxies in
171: their sample, requiring $\langle \mu_B \rangle >$24.0 mag arcsec$^{-2}$ to look for galaxies
172: with lower surface brightness disks, with the majority of the galaxies chosen having
173: $\langle \mu_B \rangle >$25.0 mag arcsec$^{-2}$ . (The inclusion of a number of galaxies with
174: $\langle \mu_B \rangle$=24-25 mag arcsec$^{-2}$ was due to the 0.5mag errors given in the
175: UGC.)
176:
177: The \citet{bothun85} sample was further pared down by our desire to image large
178: LSB galaxies. That is, we wished to avoid the dwarf galaxy category entirely.
179: To do this, we required the galaxies to have
180: M$_{HI}>10^{9}$ \Msol, W$_{20} >$ 200 km s$^{-1}$, and/or M$_B < -19$.
181: These criteria are sufficiently removed from the dwarf galaxy category to guarantee
182: no overlap between our sample and that category exists.
183:
184: \section{Observations \& Data Reduction}
185: \label{sec:reduce}
186: Galaxies' integrated broad-band colors represent a convolution of the
187: mean age of the stellar population, metallicity, and recent star formation rate;
188: while measurements of \Ha\ luminosity provide a direct measure of the
189: current star formation rate (SFR). With these combined observations,
190: is is possible to parameterize the current SFR relative to the
191: overall star formation history. As a result, these observations are
192: widely used in many surveys that target fundamental galaxy parameters,
193: for example, SINGG \citep{meurer06} and 11HUGS \citep{kennicutt04},
194: and others \citep[e.g.][]{gavazzi06, koopman06, helmboldt05}.
195:
196: 19 galaxies were observed on 7-10 June, 2002 and 5-8 October, 2003 using the Lowell
197: 1.8m Perkins telescope. The filter set used included Johnson B and R as well as
198: three \Ha\ filters from a private set (R. Walterbos) with center frequency/bandwidths
199: of 6650/75, 6720/35, 6760/75 \AA. A 1065x1024 pixel Loral SN1259
200: CCD camera was used, giving a 3.3$^\prime$ field of view and resolution of 0.196\acs/pixel.
201: Seeing in June, 2002, ranged from 1.8\acs\ - 2.4\acs\ and from 1.4\acs\ - 2.2\acs\ for
202: the October, 2003, observations. At least 3 frames, each shifted slightly in position,
203: were obtained for each object through each filter and were median filtered to reduce
204: the effect from cosmic rays, bad pixels, etc. All initial data reduction (bias
205: and flat field removal, image alignment, etc) was done within IRAF. The R band
206: images were scaled and used as the continuum images for data reduction purposes.
207:
208: Corrections to the measured fluxes were made in the following way.
209: Atmospheric extinction was obtained using the observational airmass and
210: the atmospheric extinction coefficients for Kitt Peak which are distributed with IRAF.
211: Galactic extinction was corrected using the values for E(B$-$V) obtained
212: from NED, the reddening law of \citet{seaton79} as parameterized by \citet{howarth83}
213: ($A(\lambda)=X(\lambda) E(B-V)$) and assuming the case B recombination of \citet{osterbock89} with
214: R$_V$=3.1 \citep{odonnell94} (X(6563\AA)=2.468).
215: Contamination from $\left[{NII}\right]$ emission in the \Ha\ images was corrected using the relationship derived by
216: \citet{jansen00} and re-confirmed by \citet{helmboldt04}:
217: \[ log{{\left[NII\right]}\over{H\alpha}}=\left[-0.13\pm 0.035\right]M_R + \left[-3.2\pm 0.90\right], \]
218: where $M_R$ is the absolute magnitude in the R band. \Ha\ extinction was determined using the
219: equation found in \citet{helmboldt04}:
220: \[log\left( H\alpha \right)_{int} = \left[ -0.12 \pm 0.048\right] M_R + \left[ -2.5 \pm 0.96\right] \]
221: which was found through a linear least squares fitting to the $A(H\alpha)_{int}$ determined
222: using all galaxies in his sample with a measured H$\beta$ flux. For this calculation, \citet{helmboldt04}
223: used the \Ha\ to H$\beta$ ratio measured by \citet{jansen00}, an assumed intrinsic ratio of
224: ${{H\alpha}\over{H\beta}}$=2.85 (Case B recombination and T=10$^4$ K \citep{osterbock89}), the extinction curve
225: of \citet{odonnell94}, and R$_V$=3.1
226: No correction for internal extinction due to inclination was made for the B and R bands.
227: It should be noted, though, that in a number of plots
228: inclination corrections were made to the B and R colors and central surface brightnesses, as noted in the
229: Figure captions. The corrections used in
230: these cases are:
231: \begin{equation} \mu(0)^\lambda _{corr} = \mu(0)^\lambda - 2.5C^\lambda log(b/a) \label{eqn:mu_inc}\end{equation}
232: and
233: \begin{equation} m^\lambda _{corr} = m^\lambda - A^\lambda \label{eqn:mag_inc_1}\end{equation}
234: \begin{equation} A^\lambda = -2.5log\left[f\left(1 + e^{-\tau^\lambda sec(i)}\right)
235: \:+\;\left(1 - 2f\right) \left({{1 - e^{-\tau^\lambda sec(i)}}\over{\tau^\lambda sec(i)}}\right) \right]
236: \label{eqn:mag_inc_2}\end{equation}
237: Here, C$^{R,B}$=1 \citep{verheijen97}; $\left(b/a\right)$ is the ratio of the minor to major axis;
238: f = 0.1 and $\tau_{R,B}$=0.40, 0.81 \citep{tully98,verheijen97}. Finally, a correction was applied
239: to account for the effect of stellar absorption in the Balmer line of
240: \begin{equation} F_{cor} = F_{obs}\left({1 + {{W_a}\over{W_e}}}\right),\end{equation}
241: where $F_{cor}$ is the corrected and $F_{obs}$ is the observed \Ha\ flux, W$_e$ is the measured
242: equivalent width and W$_a$ is the equivalent width of the Balmer absorption lines. As we do not
243: have measurements for W$_a$, we estimated W$_a$ to be 3$\pm$1 \AA, based off the values found in
244: \citet{oey93, ronnback95, mccall85}. Note that this effect is potentially stronger in the diffuse
245: gas than in the \ion{H}{2} regions due to the older stellar population likely lying in the diffuse gas.
246: As a result we may still be underestimating the total \Ha\ flux in the diffuse gas within the galaxies.
247: However, as the diffuse gas fractions for these galaxies are extremely high
248: (see Section~\ref{sec:StarFormation}, below), it is unlikely that this effect is high.
249:
250: Global parameters and radial profiles for the galaxies were determined primarily using the routines
251: available in IRAF (notably {\it ellipse}) and the results are given in Tables~\ref{tab:global} and \ref{tab:global2}.
252: Galaxy images, surface brightness profiles, and color profiles are given in
253: Figures~\ref{fig:morph} -- \ref{fig:colors}. In all cases the inclination and
254: position angle for the galaxies were determined from the best fit values from the
255: B \& R frames. These best fit values were then used for the ellipse fitting in
256: all four images (B, R, \Ha\, and continuum with \Ha\ subtracted), a practice which insures the
257: color profiles are obtained accurately and are not affected
258: by, e.g. misaligned ellipses. The same apertures were also used for all four images,
259: with the apertures found through allowing {\it ellipse} to range from 1 pixel (0.196$^{\prime\prime}$)
260: until the mean value in the ellipse reaches the sky value, increasing geometrically by a factor
261: of 1.2. Sky values were found through determining the mean value in more than 100 5$\times$5 sq. pixel boxes
262: in each frame.
263: The error found for the sky was incorporated into all magnitude and surface brightness errors,
264: which also include errors from the determination of the zeropoint and the errors from the
265: \ion{N}{2} contribution to the \Ha\ (in the case of the \Ha\ magnitudes).
266:
267: The B and R surface brightness profiles of all galaxies were fit using two methods.
268: First, the inner regions of the galaxies' surface brightness profiles was fit
269: using the de Vaucouleurs r$^{1/4}$ profile
270: \begin{equation} \Sigma(r) = \Sigma_{eff} exp^{-7.669\left[{(r/r_{eff})^{1/4} - 1}\right]} \rightarrow
271: \mu(r) = \mu_{eff} + 8.327\left[{\left({{r}\over{r_{eff}}}\right)}^{1/4} - 1\right], \label{eqn:bulge}\end{equation}
272: and the outer regions were fit by the exponential disk profiles
273: \begin{equation} \Sigma(r) = \Sigma_0 exp^{\left({{r}\over{\alpha}}\right)} \rightarrow
274: \mu(r) = \mu_0 + 1.086 \left({{r}\over{\alpha}}\right).\label{eqn:disk} \end{equation}
275: Additionally, we attempted to fit a disk profile (\ref{eqn:disk}) to both the inner and outer regions
276: of the galaxies', to determine if a two-disk fit would better match the data
277: \citep{broeils97,dejong96}.
278: Roughly one-fourth of the galaxies (5/19) were best fit (in the $\chi^2$-sense) by the
279: standard bulge+disk model. Another 47\% of the galaxies were best fit by the two-disk
280: model. Of the remaining galaxies, 21\% (4 galaxies) were best fit by a single disk, and
281: one galaxy (UGC~11840) could not be fit by any profile. The results from the fits are
282: shown in Table~\ref{tab:fitted} and Figure~\ref{fig:fits}, and an asterisk (*) is placed
283: next to the best fit model.
284: Note that in a few cases (e.g. UGC~00189) only one model is listed in the
285: Table. This is due to the fact that in these cases the fitting using the other model proved to be
286: completely unrealistic.
287: Finally, it should be noted that in all cases the same best-fit model was used for both
288: the B and R data.
289:
290: The color profiles were similarly fit (using an an inverse error weighting)
291: with a line to both the inner and outer galaxy regions
292: (Figure~\ref{fig:colors}). Here, though, the ``boundary radius" was simply taken from the
293: surface brightness profile fits, with the ``boundary radius" being defined as the radius where the inner
294: and outer surface brightness fits crossed. If only one (or no) fit was made to the surface
295: brightness profile, then only one color profile was fit. In a number of cases the difference
296: in slope between the inner and outer galaxy regions was less than the least-squares error for the fit.
297: In these cases again only one line was fit for the color profiles.
298:
299: The HIIphot program \citep{thilker00} was used both to determine the shape and
300: number of \ion{H}{2} regions for each galaxy and also to determine the \Ha\ flux
301: for each of these regions.
302: The fluxes from the \Ha, \Ha-subtracted continuum, B, and R images were measured in identical corresponding apertures,
303: which are
304: the \ion{H}{2} region boundaries defined by HIIphot. While HIIphot applies an interpolation
305: algorithm across these apertures to estimate the diffuse background in the H$\alpha$
306: frames, we determined the background in other bands from the median flux in
307: an annulus around each \ion{H}{2} region aperture.
308: %The flux from the \Ha-subtracted continuum, B, and R images were
309: %found from these regions through selecting the identical region of the galaxies
310: %as chosen by HIIphot and summing the intensities. Determining the background
311: %for these regions is, however, difficult. HIIphot applies a sophisticated
312: %algorithm to estimate the flux contributed to each region from the underlying
313: %diffuse ionized gas for the \Ha\ flux. To mimic this calculation for the
314: %other images, we determined the median flux for an annular region surrounding
315: %each \ion{H}{2} region (as defined by HIIphot) and used this value as the value for the
316: %background emission. As our method is less sophisticated than that used by HIIphot,
317: %the error from our method is considerably higher.
318: Results from the analysis of
319: the \ion{H}{2} regions are given in Table~\ref{tab:regions}, and sample \ion{H}{2} regions
320: are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:regions}. Errors for the \Ha, SFR, and EW measurements are
321: derived from the error values reported with HIIphot. Errors for the B and R magnitudes, and colors,
322: are derived from the total sky and zeropoint errors, as well as the error in positioning of the
323: HII regions. The diffuse fraction errors are derived both from the total \Ha\ flux errors and
324: also include errors in determining the total flux within the HII regions and for the entire galaxy.
325: Finally, it should be mentioned that the equivalent width (EW) was calculated simply as the
326: ratio of the \Ha\ flux to \Ha-subtracted continuum flux for
327: a given region (or the whole galaxy).
328:
329: The large distances to the observed galaxies (40 - 100 Mpc) results in many of the
330: \ion{H}{2} region being blended together. As a result, any luminosity function
331: derived for these objects would be necessarily skewed towards larger HII regions \citep[see][]{oey06}.
332: This can be seen in the analysis done by \citet{thilker00} wherein the dependence of the
333: luminosity function found for M51 was examined. There one can clearly see the increase
334: in the number of high luminosity regions and subsequent reduction in the number of low luminosity
335: regions as the galaxy is 'moved' to increasing distances. Examining their results also
336: shows that while the {\it distribution} of \ion{H}{2} region luminosities changes with distance,
337: the {\it total} luminosity of the \ion{H}{2} regions, as found by HIIphot, does not change
338: significantly as the galaxy moves from 10 Mpc to 45 Mpc. As a result, while determining
339: luminosity functions for the galaxies in this paper is not feasible due to the distances involved,
340: derivations such as the diffuse fraction are unaffected by distance. This fact is also
341: supported by the SINGG survey results \citep{oey06}.
342:
343: \section{Surface Brightness}
344: \label{sec:sb}
345:
346: The distribution of central surface brightnesses found for the galaxies observed is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:mu_hist}.
347: As is plain from that Figure, the mean measured central surface brightness for this sample, falls
348: short of the definitions discussed in Section~\ref{sec:sample}. Indeed only 4 galaxies in our
349: sample meet the operational definition of LSB galaxies as having $\mu_B(0)\ge$ 23 \mss.
350: If we return to the Freeman value, however, we see that the operational definition of LSB galaxies
351: is 4.5$\sigma$ from the value for Hubble sequence spirals,
352: making it statistically extreme. For the sample defined here, half have central surface brightnesses
353: at least two sigma above the Freeman value, a definition only 2.5\% of the Freeman sample meets.
354: As a result, while the sample does not meet the operation criteria for LSB galaxies, we clearly do have a sample
355: with lower central surface brightnesses that would be found in the average Hubble sequence galaxies.
356:
357: It should be pointed out here that the main scientific focus of \citet{bothun85} was not oriented toward producing
358: a representative sample of LSB galaxies as detected on photographic surveys
359: \citep[that focus did not occur until ][]{schombert88}, but rather toward identifying cataloged galaxies for 21-cm based
360: redshift determinations. The galaxies were chosen to have surface brightnesses that were too low
361: for reliable optical spectroscopy (assuming emission lines were not present). This was done as a test of
362: the potentially large problem of bias in on going optical redshift
363: surveys in the time \citep[see][]{bothun86}. In fact, the operational criteria for
364: selecting the galaxies that were observed at Arecibo 20 years ago, lay in the knowledge that these
365: cataloged galaxies were never going to be even attempted in the
366: optical redshift surveys of the time and this raised the very real possibility of biased redshift
367: distributions and an erroneous mapping of large scale structure.
368:
369: In the original redshift measurements of \citet{bothun85} a significant number of candidate LSB
370: galaxies were not detected at 21-cm within the observational redshift window (approximately 0-12,000 km/s).
371: Many of those non-detections would later turn out to be intrinsically large galaxies located at redshifts
372: beyond 12,000 km/s \citep[see][]{oneil04}. As we are interested here in the \Ha\ properties of galaxies
373: with large, relatively LSB disks, these initial non-detections comprise the bulk of our sample.
374:
375: Surface photometry of this sample not only provides detailed information regarding
376: the galaxies' surface brightness and color distributions, but it also probes the
377: efficacy of the \citet{bothun85} average surface brightness criteria for selecting LSB disks.
378: Here, we used the magnitudes and diameters obtained in this study (Table~\ref{tab:global})
379: with two different equations for
380: determining a galaxy's average surface brightness within the D$_{25}$ radius.
381: The first equation used is that of \citet{bothun85}
382: \begin{equation} \langle \mu_{25} \rangle=m_{25}+5log(D_{25})+3.63 \label{eqn:bothun}\end{equation}
383: and the second is a modified version of the above equation from \citet{bottinelli95}
384: which takes the galaxies' inclination into account:
385: \begin{equation}\langle \mu_{25} \rangle
386: =m_{25}+5log(D_{25})+3.63-2.5log\left[kR^{-2C}+\left(1-k\right)R^{(0.4C/K)-1}\right].\label{eqn:bottinelli}\end{equation}
387: In both equations, m$_{25}$ and D$_{25}$ are the magnitude and diameter (in units of 0.1$^\prime$) at
388: the $\mu$=25.0 \mss\ isophote, R is the axis ratio (a/b), and C is defined as (logD/logR) and is fixed at 0.04
389: \citep{bottinelli95}. Finally, k (the ratio of the bulge-to-disk luminosity) and
390: K (a measure of how the apparent diameter changes with surface brightness at a given axis ratio)
391: are dependent on the revised de Vaucouleurs morphological type (T) as follows \citep{simien86,fouque85}:\\
392: T=1 $\rightarrow$ k=0.41;
393: T=2 $\rightarrow$ k=0.32;
394: T=3 $\rightarrow$ k=0.24;
395: T=4 $\rightarrow$ k=0.16;
396: T=5 $\rightarrow$ k=0.09;
397: T=6 $\rightarrow$ k=0.05;
398: T=7 $\rightarrow$ k=0.02;
399: T$\ge$8 $\rightarrow$ k=0.0; \\
400: %\[k=0.75410^{-0.2T};\;\; if\;\; k >1\; then\; k=1\]
401: \[K=0.12-0.007T\:\; if\:\; T<0;\: K=0.094\:\; if\:\; T \ge 0. \]
402: The values for k at T$\ge$8 are extrapolated from fitting the \citet{simien86} values.
403:
404: The results of equations \ref{eqn:bothun} and \ref{eqn:bottinelli}, plotted against the galaxies' central
405: surface brightness both uncorrected and corrected for inclination, are shown in
406: Figures~\ref{fig:mu_mu} and \ref{fig:mu_mu_inc}, respectively. The difference between the two plots
407: is small, with neither equation doing an excellent job in predicting when a disk's central surface brightness
408: will be low. The two equations (\citet{bothun85} and \citet{bottinelli95}) have roughly the same fit (in the
409: $\chi^2$ sense), which at first appears surprising.
410: It is likely that uncertainties in the inclination measurements
411: and morphological classification of the galaxies have increased the scatter in the \citet{bottinelli95}
412: equation, increasing the scatter in an otherwise more accurate equation.
413: As a result, while the \citet{bottinelli95} may indeed be the most accurate,
414: the simpler equation is equally as good to use in most circumstances as it involves fewer assumptions.
415:
416: The second fact that is readily apparent in looking at Figures~\ref{fig:mu_mu} and \ref{fig:mu_mu_inc}
417: is that with the new measurements of magnitude and diameter, {\it none} of the galaxies in our sample
418: meet the criterion laid out by \citet{bothun85} for an LSB galaxy. That is that none of the galaxies
419: in this sample have $\langle \mu_{25} \rangle >$25 \mss. As \citet{bothun85} listed all of these objects
420: as having $\langle \mu_{25} \rangle\;>$25 \mss\ using the magnitudes and diameters provided by the original
421: UGC measurements, this shows that the UGC measurements indeed predicted fainter magnitudes/larger values for
422: D$_{25}$ than is found with more sophisticated measurement techniques. Additionally, it is good to note
423: that the trends shown in Figures~\ref{fig:mu_mu} and \ref{fig:mu_mu_inc} indicate that any galaxy which
424: met the $\langle \mu_{25} \rangle >$25 \mss\ criteria would be highly likely to also have $\mu(0) >$23 \mss.
425:
426: In these days of digital sky surveys it is difficult to appreciate the
427: immense undertaking that defines the UGC catalog. Anyone who has
428: looked at the Nilson selected galaxies on the Palomar Observatory Sky Survey (POSS) plates
429: with a magnifying eyepiece really has to marvel that Nilson's eye saw objects at least one
430: arcminute in diameter. It is thus not surprising that, at the ragged
431: end of that catalog, many of the listed UGC diameters are systematically high.
432: \citet{cornell87} made a detailed diameter comparison between diameters as obtained
433: from high quality CCD surface photometry and the estimates made by \citet{nilson}.
434: They compared the diameter at the 25.0 mag arcsec$^{-2}$ isophote in CCD B images
435: to the tabulated diameter in the UGC. The study, based on approximately 250 galaxies, identified two
436: sources of systematic error (neither of which are surprising). First, galaxies with reported diameters
437: less than 2$^\prime$ typically had D$_{25,B}$ as measured by the CCD images that were 15-25\% smaller.
438: Second, \citet{cornell87} found a systematic bias as a function of surface brightness in the sense that
439: lower surface brightness galaxies had a higher number of overestimated diameters in the UGC
440: than higher surface brightness galaxies.
441: It should also be noted that the majority of the galaxies in this study lie at low Galactic latitude. This seems to be a perverse
442: consequence that there is a large collection of galaxies between 7,000 -- 10,000 \kms\ (where the diameter criterion
443: in the UGC yields a relatively large physical size) located at relatively low galactic latitude.
444: Nominal corrections
445: for galactic extinction made by \citet{bothun85} turned out to underestimate the extinction as shown
446: by later published extinction maps. In some cases, the differences were as large as one magnitude.
447: The combination of these facts with the very uncertain
448: magnitudes of many of these galaxies \citep[see][]{bothun90}, it is not surprising that the measured
449: average surface brightness could easily be 1-1.5 magnitudes higher than the average surface brightness
450: that has been estimated from the UGC catalog parameters (roughly 40\% of this comes from systematic
451: magnitude errors and 60\% from the diameter errors discovered by \citet{cornell87}).
452:
453:
454:
455:
456:
457: \section{Morphology \& Color}
458:
459: All of the galaxies observed have large sizes ($3\alpha_B$ = 10 -- 54 kpc),
460: bright central bulges, and well defined spiral structure
461: (Figure~\ref{fig:morph}). In most cases the galaxies can be described as late-type systems
462: (Sbc and later). There are, though, a number of exceptions to this rule.
463: Three of the galaxies, UGC~00023, UGC~07598, and UGC~11355 (Sb, Sc, and Sb galaxies, respectively) have clear nuclear bars.
464: UGC~08311, classified as an Sbc galaxy, is clearly in the late stages of merging with another system. In this
465: case the LSB classification of the galaxy is likely bogus, as the apparently LSB disk is
466: likely just the remnant the merging process and will disappear as the galaxy compacts after
467: the merging process. UGC~8904 is given a morphological type of S? with both NED and HYPERLEDA,
468: yet the faint spiral arms surrounding it indicate its should be properly classified as an Sbc system.
469: UGC~12021 is, like UGC~00023, listed as an Sb galaxy. Finally, UGC~11068 has a faint nuclear ring
470: which is most readily visible in the B image.
471:
472: The differences between the galaxies becomes more apparent when the \Ha\ images are examined.
473: \citet{hodge83} classify the radial distribution of \ion{H}{2} regions in spiral galaxies into three
474: broad categories -- galaxies with \ion{H}{2} region surface densities which
475: decrease with increasing radius, galaxies with oscillating \ion{H}{2} region surface densities,
476: and galaxies with ring-like \ion{H}{2} density distributions. To these categories
477: we would add a fourth, to include those galaxies with no detectable \ion{H}{2} regions.
478:
479: The first category of \citet{hodge83} is also the most common, as it includes all galaxies with
480: generally decreasing radial densities of \Ha. In the \citet{hodge83} sample this category is dominated
481: by Sc -- Sm galaxies but contains all Hubble types. In our sample, this category includes both
482: galaxies with and without significant \Ha\ emission in the spiral arm regions. This group includes
483: UGC~00023, UGC~00189, UGC~02588, UGC~02796, UGC~03119, UGC~03308, UGC~07598,
484: and UGC~12021. Interestingly, of the galaxies listed above, 4/8 are Sb/Sbc galaxies and 3/8 are Sc-Sm
485: galaxies. (The last galaxy, UGC~02588, is an irregular galaxy.)
486:
487: The second category of \citet{hodge83}, galaxies with oscillating densities, is dominated in their
488: sample of Sb galaxies. Only a few of the galaxies in this sample fall into this category, 80\% of
489: which are also Sb/Sc galaxies. These are
490: UGC~02299, UGC~08311, UGC~08904, UGC~11355, and UGC~11396. These galaxies all have a concentration
491: of star formation seen in the nuclear regions and then clumps of star formation spread through the spiral
492: arms, typically accompanied by diffuse \Ha\ also spread throughout the arms.
493:
494: The third category of \citet{hodge83} is dominated by early-type galaxies, of which we have none in our sample.
495: Nonetheless we have three galaxies which fall into this category -- UGC~08644, UGC~10894, and UGC~11617.
496: All three have \ion{H}{2} regions spread throughout their
497: disks, with no central concentration near the galaxies' nuclei. In fact, the three brightest star forming
498: regions within UGC~08644 all lie with the spiral arms, and are visible in all three filters. In contrast,
499: both UGC~11617 and UGC~10894 have no bright \ion{H}{2} regions, but instead have a large number of diffuse
500: \ion{H}{2} regions, with the brightest (as listed in Table~\ref{tab:global2}) receiving that designation simply due to its size.
501:
502: The fourth category of galaxies contains UGC~01362, UGC~11068, and UGC~11840, none of which have detectable \Ha.
503: In the case of UGC~01362 and UGC~11840 this is not too surprising as the galaxies are dominated by a bright nucleus,
504: and their surrounding spiral arms are extremely faint in both R and B. As a result,
505: any \Ha\ which may exist in the galaxies' disks is too diffuse to be detected.
506: UGC~11068, though, has both a well defined nucleus and a clear spiral structure extending out to a radius of
507: $\sim$13 kpc (3$\alpha$). Yet no \Ha\ can be detected in this galaxy. This may mean that
508: UGC~11068 is in a transition state for its star formation, with no ongoing star formation yet with enough
509: recent activity that the spiral arms remain well defined.
510:
511: Perhaps the most intriguing galaxy of our sample is UGC~11355. This galaxy was placed in Category 2, above, as it has a
512: bright nucleus and clumpy disk in the \Ha\ image. The B and R band images of UGC~11355 show a galaxy with a simple Sbc morphology.
513: The \Ha\ image, though, shows a distinct star forming ring. The ring is
514: at a very different inclination from the rest of the galaxy ({\it i}=49$^\circ$ for the ring and 73$^\circ$
515: for the galaxy as a whole), and lies approximately 2.6 kpc in radius from the center of the galaxy,
516: measured along the major axis. As the B and R images
517: show no indication of a ring morphology
518: this indicates unusually strong star formation in the ring. It is also useful to note the presence of a bar
519: in UGC~11355 -- shown more clearly in Figure~\ref{fig:U11355}.
520: The fact that the inclination of the ring is
521: significantly different from that of the rest of the galaxy suggests the ring a tidal effect due to an interaction,
522: such as a small satellite galaxy being cannibalized by UGC~11355, or the influence of
523: CGCG 143-026, 14.9$^\prime$ and 68 \kms\ away.
524:
525: It is interesting to note that the \Ha\ morphology of the galaxies does not appear to correlate with
526: the galaxies' color profile (Figure~\ref{fig:colors}). The galaxy with the steepest slope in the color profile
527: is UGC~08644 which has only a few \ion{H}{2} regions in its outer arms. The other galaxies with steep color
528: profiles are UGC~00023 and UGC~8904, which have a bright knot of star formation in the nucleus
529: and faint \Ha\ spread throughout their arms, and UGC~11840 and UGC~11068 both of which have no detectable \Ha.
530: The galaxies with the shallowest slopes similarly show no correlation between their color profiles and
531: morphology. This suggests that the current star formation
532: in these galaxies is largely independent of the past star-formation history,
533: although this result should be confirmed with better, extinction-corrected, data.
534:
535: \section{Star Formation}
536: \label{sec:StarFormation}
537:
538: Figures~\ref{fig:MB_L3} -- \ref{fig:BR_SFR_region} compare the properties of the \ion{H}{2} regions and emission
539: of our galaxy sample. Where possible, measurements from other samples of late-type galaxies
540: are also shown \citep{kennicutt83, jansen00, helmboldt05, oey06}. Examining
541: the figures it is clear that the overall properties of our sample are similar
542: to those of other late-type (Sbc-Sc) galaxies. That is, the values for the
543: individual \ion{H}{2} region luminosities are similar to those
544: reported by \citet{helmboldt05} and \citet{kennicutt83} (Figure~\ref{fig:MB_L3})
545: while the global \Ha\ equivalent width (EW) and global star formation
546: rates match those seen by all three
547: comparison samples (Figures~\ref{fig:BR_EW}, \ref{fig:MB_EW}).
548:
549: We should note that as discussed in \S~\ref{sec:reduce} our sample suffers from having many of the \ion{H}{2} regions
550: blended together as a result of the distance to our galaxy samples. As a result, it is highly likely
551: that in the comparisons of the luminosities for the galaxies' individual \ion{H}{2} regions
552: the luminosities (Figure~\ref{fig:MB_L3}) from our sample are artificially higher then those
553: in the other sample, potentially by a factor of 3 or more. This fact does not alter the
554: results of this section, but it is the likely explanation for the slightly higher than average
555: values found for L$_3$ in Figure~\ref{fig:MB_L3}.
556:
557: To examine the total amount of gas found within the \ion{H}{2} regions compared with that found in the
558: diffuse \Ha\ gas, we need to determine the galaxies' \Ha\ diffuse fraction, defined
559: here as the ratio of \Ha\ flux not found within the defined \ion{H}{2} regions to the total \Ha\
560: flux found for the entire galaxy. Examining Figures~\ref{fig:Larea_Diffuse} and \ref{fig:SFR_SFR}, as well
561: as Tables~\ref{tab:global2} and \ref{tab:regions},
562: reveals an interesting fact -- while the global
563: SFR for these galaxies is fairly typical (0.3 -- 5 \Msol/yr), the combined SFR from the
564: galaxies' \ion{H}{2} regions is a factor of 2 -- 10 smaller. That is, on average the majority of the
565: \Ha\ emission and thus the majority of the star formation in the observed galaxies
566: comes not from the bright knots of star formation but instead from the galaxies' diffuse \Ha\
567: gas. This is in contrast to the behavior seen from typical HSB galaxies, as evidenced by the
568: data of \citet{oey06} in Figure~\ref{fig:Larea_Diffuse}.
569: We note that blending and angular resolution effects appear to be
570: relatively unimportant in estimating the fraction of diffuse \Ha\
571: emission. \citet{oey06} demonstrate this by showing no systematic
572: changes in measured diffuse fractions as a function of distance up to
573: almost 80 Mpc, and inclination angle, for their sample of 100+ SINGG survey
574: galaxies.
575:
576:
577: While at first glance the higher diffuse \Ha\ fractions found for these galaxies seems surprising,
578: recent GALEX results of the outer edges of M83, a region whose environment closely resembles that of the disks of
579: massive LSB galaxies, also show considerable star formation outside the \ion{H}{2}
580: regions in that part of the galaxy \citep{thilker05}. Similarly, \citet{helmboldt05} found a slight trend with lower
581: surface brightness galaxies having higher diffuse fractions than their higher surface brightness counterparts.
582:
583: The fact that these galaxies have higher \Ha\ diffuse gas fractions raises an interesting question. Typically
584: diffuse gas is believed to be ionized by OB stars lying within density-bounded \ion{H}{2} regions. The problem
585: of transporting the ionizing photons from these regions to the diffuse gas is extreme in these cases, as
586: there would need to be a very large number of density-bound \ion{H}{2} regions leaking ionizing photons
587: to ionize the quantity of diffuse gas seen here. \citep[See the more detailed discussion in ][ which also discusses
588: shock heating from stellar winds and SNe as ionization sources.]{hoope01}
589: An alternative suggestion is that field OB stars are also ionizing the diffuse gas, as was suggested by
590: \citet{hoope01}. This would imply a different stellar population within and without the \ion{H}{2} regions, as it
591: would likely be the later OB types (B0--O9) which either escape the \ion{H}{2} regions or survive the regions'
592: destruction. We note \citet{oey04} predict a modest increase in the fraction of field
593: massive stars in galaxies with the lowest absolute star-formation rates. Scheduled GALEX observations of a subset of our observed galaxies may shed light on the underlying
594: stellar population in the galaxies' diffuse stellar disks.
595:
596: Finally, it is elucidating to look for any trends between the global and regional properties of the
597: galaxies and their SFR and \Ha\ content. Figure~\ref{fig:mu_SFR} plots the galaxies' central surface brightness
598: (in both B and R) against the galaxies' total star formation rate. While the error bars make defining any trend
599: difficult, there certainly appears to be a decrease in the global SFR with decreasing central surface brightness,
600: similar to the trends seen in other studies \citep[e.g.][]{vandenhock00,gerritsen99}.
601: Figure~\ref{fig:MHILB_EW} shows the galaxies' gas-to-luminosity
602: ratios plotted against both their global equivalent width and diffuse \Ha\ fraction. In both cases, no trend
603: can be seen with our data, although the small number of points available make any diagnosis difficult.
604: Combined with the other datasets, though, we can see a general trend toward higher equivalent widths with
605: increasing M$_{HI}$/L$_B$, but surprisingly no trend between gas fraction and the galaxies' diffuse \Ha\ fraction is
606: visible. This lack of correlation is also seen by \citet{oey06}.
607: The last trend which can be seen is a rough correlation between the galaxies' global color and
608: star formation rate (Figure~\ref{fig:BR_EW}), with redder galaxies having higher SFR, a fact
609: which may be a reddening effect.
610: The individual \Ha\ regions, however, show no such trend (Figure~\ref{fig:BR_SFR_region}).
611:
612: \section{Conclusion}
613:
614: The sample of 19 galaxies observed for this project were chosen to be large galaxies with low surface
615: brightness disks. The surface brightness measurements for this sample were obtained originally through the
616: UGC measurements through determining the galaxies' average surface brightness within the $\mu$=25 \mss\ isophote.
617: The relation employed to determine the galaxies' average surface brightness (Equation~\ref{eqn:bothun}) has
618: shown itself it be a good predictor of a galaxy's central surface brightness. But for a wide variety of reasons
619: the UGC measurements were not sufficient to insure the galaxies contained within this catalog have true
620: LSB disks, underscoring the difficulty in designing targeted searches for large LSB galaxies.
621:
622: Nonetheless, the sample of galaxies observed for this project have lower surface brightnesses than is found for a
623: typical sample of large high surface brightness galaxies. In most other aspects the galaxies appear fairly
624: `normal', with colors typically B$-$R=0.3$-$0.9, morphological types ranging from Sb -- Irr, and color gradients which
625: typically grow bluer toward the outer radius. However, the galaxies have both higher gas mass-to-luminosity
626: fractions and diffuse \Ha\ fractions than is found in higher surface brightness samples.
627: This raises two questions. First, if the SFR for these galaxies has been similar to their
628: higher surface brightness counterparts through the galaxies' life, why do the lower surface brightness
629: galaxies have higher gas mass-to-luminosity ratios? Second, why do these galaxies have a higher
630: fraction of ionizing photons outside the density-bounded \ion{H}{2} regions then their higher surface brightness
631: counterparts?
632:
633: The answer to the first question posed above likely comes from the difference between the studied galaxies'
634: current and historical SFR. As these galaxies have on average and lower metallicities
635: \citep{denaray04, gerritsen99} than their higher surface brightness counterparts, it is likely that
636: the galaxies' SFR has not remained constant throughout the their lifetimes. Indeed the simplest explanation for the
637: current similar SFRs and higher gas mass-to-luminosity ratios for the studied galaxies than for their higher
638: surface brightness counterparts is that the galaxies' past SFR was significantly different than is currently seen.
639: In fact, the measured properties would be expected if the galaxies in this study have episodic
640: star formation histories, with significant time (1-3 Gyr) lapsing between
641: SF bursts, as has been conjectured for LSB galaxies in the past \citep[e.g.][]{gerritsen99}.
642: Such a star formation history would help promote significant changes in the galaxies' mean surface
643: brightness and allow an individual large disk galaxy to appear as either (a) a relatively
644: normal Hubble sequence spiral, (b) a large, lower surface brightness disk, or (c) perhaps
645: even a lower surface brightness disk if the time between episodes is sufficiently large,
646: depending on the elapsed time since the last SF burst.
647: The final answer to this may
648: be found when an answer to the second question, determining why the diffuse fractions for
649: the studied galaxies is higher than for similar HSB galaxies, is also found. Irregardless,
650: what is clear is that the studied sample shows a clear bridge between the known properties
651: of high surface brightness galaxies and the more poorly understood properties of their very low surface
652: brightness counterparts, such as Malin 1.
653:
654: \acknowledgements
655: Thanks to Joe Helmboldt for his help in getting the HIIphot program running with
656: LSB galaxies and to Rene Walterbos for his loan of the \Ha\ filters.
657: MSO acknowledges support from the National Science Foundation, grant AST-0448893.
658:
659: \begin{thebibliography}{}
660: \bibitem[Bothun \& Cornell(1990)]{bothun90}
661: Bothun, G. D. \& Cornell, M. 1990 AJ 99, 1004
662: \bibitem[Bothun, \etal(1986)]{bothun86}
663: Bothun, G. D., Beers, T. C., Mould, J. R., \& Huchra, J. P. 1986 ApJ 308, 510
664: \bibitem[Bothun, \etal(1985)]{bothun85}
665: Bothun, G. D., Beers, T. C., Mould, J. R., \& Huchra, J. P. 1985 AJ 90 2487
666: \bibitem[Bottinelli, \etal(1995)]{bottinelli95}
667: Bottinelli, L., Gouguenheim, L., Paturel, G., Teerikorpi, P. 1995 A\&A 296, 64
668: \bibitem[Broeils \& Courteau(1997)]{broeils97}
669: Broeils, A. H. \& Courteau, S. 1997 ASPC 117, 74
670: \bibitem[Cornell, \etal(1987)]{cornell87}
671: Cornell, M., Aaronson, M., Bothun, G., \& Mould, J. 1987 ApJS 64, 507
672: \bibitem[Das, \etal(2006)]{das06}
673: Das, M., O'Neil, K., Vogel, S., \& McGaugh, S. 2006 ApJ preprint
674: \bibitem[de Jong(1996)]{dejong96}
675: de Jong, R. S. 1996 A\&AS 118, 557
676: \bibitem[de Naray, McGaugh, \& de Blok(2004)]{denaray04}
677: de Naray, Rachel Kuzio, McGaugh, Stacy S., \& de Blok, W. J. G. 2004 MNRAS 355, 887
678: \bibitem[de Vaucouleurs, \etal(1991)]{rc3}
679: de Vaucouleurs, G, de Vaucouleurs, Antoinette, Corwin, Herold G., Jr., Buta, Ronald J., Paturel, Georges, \& Fouque, Pascal
680: {\it Third Reference Catalogue of Bright Galaxies} 1991 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg New York
681: \bibitem[Fouqu\'{e} \& Paturel(1985)]{fouque85}
682: Fouqu\'{e}, P. \& Paturel, G.(1985) A\&A 150, 192
683: \bibitem[Freeman(1970)]{freeman70}
684: Freeman, K. 1970 ApJ 160, 811
685: \bibitem[Gavazzi, \etal(2006)]{gavazzi06}
686: Gavazzi, G., Boselli, A., Cortese, L., Arosio, I., Gallazzi, A., Pedotti, P., \& Carrasco, L. 2006 A\&A 446, 839
687: \bibitem[Gerritsen \& de Blok(1999)]{gerritsen99}
688: Gerritsen, Jeroen P. E. \& de Blok, W. J. G. 1999 A\&A 342, 655
689: \bibitem[Gurovich, \etal(2004)]{gurovich04}
690: Gurovich, Sebastián, McGaugh, Stacy S., Freeman, Ken C., Jerjen, Helmut, Staveley-Smith, Lister, \& de Blok, W. J. G.
691: 2004 PASA 21, 412
692: \bibitem[Helmboldt, \etal(2005)]{helmboldt05}
693: Helmboldt, J.F., Walterbos, R.A.M., Bothun, G.D., O'Neil, K. 2005, ApJ, 630, 824
694: \bibitem[Helmboldt, \etal(2004)]{helmboldt04}
695: Helmboldt, J.F., Walterbos, R.A.M., Bothun, G.D., O'Neil, K., de Blok, W.J.G. 2004 ApJ, 613, 914
696: \bibitem[Hodge \& Kennicutt(1983)]{hodge83}
697: Hodge, P. W. \& Kennicutt, R. C. Jr. 1983 ApJ 267, 563
698: \bibitem[Hoopes, Walterbos, \& Bothun(2001)]{hoope01}
699: Hoopes, Charles G., Walterbos, René A. M., \& Bothun, Gregory D. 2001 ApJ 559, 878
700: \bibitem[Howarth(1983)]{howarth83}
701: Howarth, I 1983 MNRAS 203, 301
702: \bibitem[Impey \& Bothun(1997)]{impey97}
703: Impey, C. \& Bothun, G.D. 1997 ARA\&A 35, 267
704: \bibitem[Jansen, \etal(2000)]{jansen00}
705: Jansen, R., Fabricant, D., Franx, M., Caldwell, N. 2000 ApJS 126, 331
706: \bibitem[Kennicutt, \etal(2004)]{kennicutt04}
707: Kennicutt, W.C. Jr, Lee, J. C., Akiyama, S., Funes, J. G., \& Sakai, S. 2004 AAS 205, 6005
708: \bibitem[Kennicutt(1998)]{kennicutt98}
709: Kennicutt, W.C. Jr 1998 ARA\&A 36, 189
710: \bibitem[Kennicutt, Tamblyn, \& Congdon(1994)]{kennicutt94}
711: Kennicutt, W.C. Jr, Tamblyn, P., \& Congdon, C. 1994 ApJ 435, 22
712: \bibitem[Kennicutt \& Kent(1983)]{kennicutt83}
713: Kennicutt, R. C. Jr \& Kent 1983 AJ 88 1094
714: \bibitem[Kennicutt(1983)]{kennicutt83b}
715: Kennicutt, R. C. Jr 1983 ApJ 272, 54
716: \bibitem[Koopman \& Kenney(2006)]{koopman06}
717: Koopman, E. \& Kenney, J. 2006 ApJS 162, 97
718: \bibitem[McCall, Rybski, \& Shields(1985)]{mccall85}
719: McCall, M. L., Rybski, P. M., \& Shields, G. A. 1985 ApJS 57, 1
720: \bibitem[McGaugh, Rubin, \& de Blok(2001)]{mcgaugh01}
721: McGaugh, Stacy S., Rubin, Vera C., \& de Blok, W. J. G 2001 AJ 122, 2381
722: \bibitem[McGaugh, \etal(2000)]{mcgaugh00}
723: McGaugh, S. S., Schombert, J. M., Bothun, G. D., \& de Blok, W. J. G. 2000, ApJ 533, L99
724: \bibitem[Meurer, \etal(2006)]{meurer06}
725: Meurer, G., Hanish, D.J., Ferguson, H.C., Knezek, P., \etal 2006 ApJS 165, 307
726: \bibitem[Nilson(1973)]{nilson}
727: Nilson, P. {\it Uppsala General Catalogue of Galaxies (UGC)} Acta Universitatis Upsalienis,
728: Nova Regiae Societatis Upsaliensis, Series
729: \bibitem[O'Donnell(1994)]{odonnell94}
730: O'Donnell, J 1994 ApJ 437, 262
731: \bibitem[Oey, \etal(2006)]{oey06}
732: Oey, \etal 2006 - preprint
733: \bibitem[Oey, King, \& Parker(2004)]{oey04}
734: Oey, M. S., King, N. L., \& Parker, J. W. 2004, AJ 127, 1632
735: \bibitem[Oey \& Kennicutt(1993)]{oey93}
736: Oey, S. \& Kennicutt, R. 1993 ApJ 411, 137O
737: \bibitem[O'Neil, van Driel, \& Schneider(2006)]{oneil06}
738: O'Neil, K. van Driel, W. \& Schneider, S. 2006 in preparation
739: \bibitem[O'Neil, \etal(2004)]{oneil04}
740: O'Neil, K., Bothun, G., van Driel, W., \& Monnier-Ragaigne, D. 2004 A\&A 428, 823
741: \bibitem[O'Neil \& Schinnerer(2004)]{oneil04b}
742: O'Neil, K. \& Schinnerer, E. 2004 ApJ 615, L109
743: \bibitem[O'Neil, Schinnerer, \& Hofner(2003)]{oneil03}
744: O'Neil, K., Schinnerer, E., \& Hofner, P. 2003 ApJ 588, 230
745: \bibitem[O'Neil, Bothun, \& Schombert(2000)]{oneil00}
746: O'Neil, K., Bothun, G., Schombert, J. 2000 AJ 119. 136
747: \bibitem[O'Neil, Hofner, \& Schinnerer(2000)]{oneil00b}
748: O'Neil, K., Hofner, P., \& Schinnerer, E. 2000 ApJ 545, L99
749: \bibitem[Osterbrock(1989)]{osterbock89}
750: Osterbrock, D. 1989 {\it Astrophysics of Gaseous Nebulae and Active Galactic Nuclei} University Science Books
751: \bibitem[Pickering, \etal(1997)]{pickering97}
752: Pickering, T. E., Impey, C. D., van Gorkom, J. H., \& Bothun, G. D. 1997 AJ 114, 1858
753: \bibitem[Roennback \& Bergvall(1995)]{ronnback95}
754: Roennback, J., \& Bergvall, N. 1995 A\&A 302, 353
755: \bibitem[Schombert \& Bothun(1988)]{schombert88}
756: Schombert, J. \& Bothun, G. 1988 AJ 91, 1389
757: \bibitem[Seaton(1979)]{seaton79}
758: Seaton, M. 1979 MNRAS 187, 73
759: \bibitem[Simien \& de Vaucouleurs(1986)]{simien86}
760: Simien, F. \& de Vaucouleurs, G. 1986 ApJ 302, 564
761: \bibitem[Sprayberry, \etal(1995)]{sprayberry95}
762: Sprayberry, D., Impey, C. D., Bothun, G. D. \& Irwin, M. J. 1995 AJ 109, 558
763: \bibitem[Thilker, \etal(2005)]{thilker05}
764: Thilker, D., \etal 2005 ApJ 619L, 79
765: \bibitem[Thilker, Braun, \& Walterbos(2000)]{thilker00}
766: Thilker, David A., Braun, Robert, \& Walterbos, René A. M. 2000 AJ 120 3070
767: \bibitem[Tully, \etal(1998)]{tully98}
768: Tully, R. Brent, Pierce, Michael J., Huang, Jia-Sheng, Saunders, Will, Verheijen, Marc A. W., \& Witchalls, Peter L.
769: 1998 AJ 115, 2264
770: \bibitem[Tully \& Fouqu\'{e}(1985)]{tully85}
771: Tully, B. \& Fouqu\'{e} 1985 ApJS 58, 67
772: \bibitem[Tully \& Fisher(1977)]{tully77}
773: Tully, B. \& Fisher, R. 1977 A\&A 54, 661
774: \bibitem[van den Hock, \etal(2000)]{vandenhock00}
775: van den Hoek, L. B., de Blok, W. J. G., van der Hulst, J. M., \& de Jong, T. 2000 A\&A 357, 397
776: \bibitem[Verheijen(1997)]{verheijen97}
777: Verheijen, M. 1997 Ph.D. Dissertation Kapteyn Institute, Groningen
778: \bibitem[Zwaan, \etal(1995)]{zwaan95}
779: Zwaan, M.A., van der Hulst, J.M., de Blok, W.J.G., \& McGaugh, S.S. 1995 MNRAS 273, L35
780: \end{thebibliography}
781:
782: \clearpage
783: \thispagestyle{empty}
784: \include{tab1}
785: \clearpage
786: \include{tab2}
787: \include{tab3}
788: \include{tab4}
789:
790: \clearpage
791:
792: \begin{figure}
793: \centerline{
794: \includegraphics[width=2.5in]
795: {hold.eps}}
796: %{f1a.eps}
797: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
798: %{f1b.eps}
799: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
800: %{f1c.eps}}
801: %\centerline{
802: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
803: %{f1d.eps}
804: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
805: %{f1e.eps}
806: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
807: %{f1f.eps}}
808: %\centerline{
809: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
810: %{f1g.eps}
811: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
812: %{f1h.eps}
813: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
814: %{f1i.eps}}
815: \caption{Grey scale images of the observed galaxies. Figure available through the published AJ paper or online at http://www.gb.nrao.edu/$\sim$koneil. \label{fig:morph}}
816: \end{figure}
817: %\addtocounter{figure}{-1}
818: %\begin{figure}
819: %\centerline{
820: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
821: %{f1j.eps}
822: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
823: %{f1k.eps}
824: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
825: %{f1l.eps}}
826: %\centerline{
827: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
828: %{f1m.eps}
829: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
830: %{f1n.eps}
831: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
832: %{f1o.eps}}
833: %\centerline{
834: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
835: %{f1p.eps}
836: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
837: %{f1q.eps}
838: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
839: %{f1r.eps}}
840: %\caption{Cont}
841: %\end{figure}
842: %\addtocounter{figure}{-1}
843: %\begin{figure}
844: %\centerline{
845: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
846: %{f1s.eps}
847: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
848: %{f1t.eps}
849: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
850: %{f1u.eps}}
851: %\centerline{
852: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
853: %{f1v.eps}
854: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
855: %{f1w.eps}
856: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
857: %{f1x.eps}}
858: %\centerline{
859: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
860: %{f1y.eps}
861: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
862: %{f1z.eps}
863: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
864: %{f1aa.eps}}
865: %\caption{Cont}
866: %\end{figure}
867: %\addtocounter{figure}{-1}
868: %\begin{figure}
869: %\centerline{
870: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
871: %{f1ab.eps}
872: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
873: %{f1ac.eps}
874: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
875: %{f1ad.eps}}
876: %\centerline{
877: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
878: %{f1ae.eps}
879: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
880: %{f1af.eps}
881: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
882: %{f1ag.eps}}
883: %\centerline{
884: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
885: %{f1ah.eps}
886: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
887: %{f1ai.eps}
888: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
889: %{f1aj.eps}}
890: %\caption{Cont}
891: %\end{figure}
892: %\addtocounter{figure}{-1}
893: %\begin{figure}
894: %\centerline{
895: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
896: %{f1ak.eps}
897: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
898: %{f1al.eps}
899: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
900: %{f1am.eps}}
901: %\centerline{
902: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
903: %{f1an.eps}
904: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
905: %{f1ao.eps}\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
906: %{f1ap.eps}}
907: %\centerline{
908: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
909: %{f1aq.eps}
910: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
911: %{f1ar.eps}
912: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
913: %{f1as.eps}}
914: %\caption{Cont}
915: %\end{figure}
916: %\addtocounter{figure}{-1}
917: %\begin{figure}
918: %\centerline{
919: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
920: %{f1at.eps}
921: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
922: %{f1au.eps}
923: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
924: %{f1av.eps}}
925: %\centerline{
926: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
927: %{f1aw.eps}
928: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
929: %{f1ax.eps}
930: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
931: %{f1ay.eps}}
932: %\centerline{
933: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
934: %{f1az.eps}
935: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
936: %{f1ba.eps}
937: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
938: %{f1bb.eps}}
939: %\caption{Cont}
940: %\end{figure}
941: %\addtocounter{figure}{-1}
942: %\begin{figure}
943: %\centerline{
944: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
945: %{f1bc.eps}
946: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
947: %{f1bd.eps}
948: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
949: %{f1be.eps}}
950: %\caption{Cont}
951: %\end{figure}
952: %
953: \begin{figure}
954: \centerline{
955: \includegraphics[width=2.5in]
956: {hold.eps}}
957: %{f2a.eps}
958: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
959: %{f2b.eps}
960: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
961: %{f2c.eps}
962: %}
963: %\centerline{
964: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
965: %{f2d.eps}
966: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
967: %{f2e.eps}
968: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
969: %{f2f.eps}
970: %}
971: %\centerline{
972: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
973: %{f2g.eps}
974: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
975: %{f2h.eps}
976: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
977: %{f2i.eps}
978: %}
979: \caption{Surface brightness profiles for all galaxies observed. The dash-dotted lines show the inner fit, the dashed lines show
980: the outer fit, and the solid lines show the combined fits. Both the B (blue - bottom) and R (red - top) profiles are shown. Figure available through the published AJ paper or online at http://www.gb.nrao.edu/$\sim$koneil.\label{fig:fits}}
981: \end{figure}
982: %
983: %\addtocounter{figure}{-1}
984: %\begin{figure}
985: %\centerline{
986: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
987: %{f2j.eps}
988: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
989: %{f2k.eps}
990: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
991: %{f2l.eps}
992: %}
993: %\centerline{
994: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
995: %{f2m.eps}
996: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
997: %{f2n.eps}
998: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
999: %{f2o.eps}
1000: %}
1001: %\centerline{
1002: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
1003: %{f2p.eps}
1004: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
1005: %{f2q.eps}
1006: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
1007: %{f2r.eps}
1008: %}
1009: %\caption{}
1010: %\end{figure}
1011: %
1012: %\addtocounter{figure}{-1}
1013: %\begin{figure}
1014: %\centerline{
1015: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
1016: %{f2s.eps}
1017: %}
1018: %\caption{}
1019: %\end{figure}
1020: %
1021: \begin{figure}
1022: \centerline{
1023: \includegraphics[width=2.5in]
1024: {hold.eps}}
1025: %{f3a.eps}
1026: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
1027: %{f3b.eps}
1028: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
1029: %{f3c.eps}
1030: %}
1031: %\centerline{
1032: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
1033: %{f3d.eps}
1034: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
1035: %{f3e.eps}
1036: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
1037: %{f3f.eps}
1038: %}
1039: %\centerline{
1040: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
1041: %{f3g.eps}
1042: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
1043: %{f3h.eps}
1044: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
1045: %{f3i.eps}
1046: %}
1047: \caption{Color profiles for all the galaxies observed. Here the inner fits (when made) are shown by a dashed line and the outer fits are
1048: shown by a solid line. Figure available through the published AJ paper or online at http://www.gb.nrao.edu/$\sim$koneil.\label{fig:colors}}
1049: \end{figure}
1050: %
1051: %\addtocounter{figure}{-1}
1052: %\begin{figure}
1053: %\centerline{
1054: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
1055: %{f3j.eps}
1056: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
1057: %{f3k.eps}
1058: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
1059: %{f3l.eps}
1060: %}
1061: %\centerline{
1062: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
1063: %{f3m.eps}
1064: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
1065: %{f3n.eps}
1066: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
1067: %{f3o.eps}
1068: %}
1069: %\centerline{
1070: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
1071: %{f3p.eps}
1072: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
1073: %{f3q.eps}
1074: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
1075: %{f3r.eps}
1076: %}
1077: %\caption{}
1078: %\end{figure}
1079: %
1080: %\clearpage
1081: %
1082: %\addtocounter{figure}{-1}
1083: %\begin{figure}
1084: %\centerline{
1085: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]
1086: %{f3s.eps}
1087: %}
1088: %\caption{}
1089: %\end{figure}
1090:
1091: \begin{figure}
1092: \centerline{
1093: \includegraphics[width=2.0in]
1094: {f4a.eps}
1095: \includegraphics[width=2.0in]
1096: {f4b.eps}
1097: }\centerline{
1098: \includegraphics[width=2.0in]
1099: {f4c.eps}
1100: \includegraphics[width=2.0in]
1101: {f4d.eps}
1102: }
1103: \caption{Example images showing the \ion{H}{2} regions found by HIIphot
1104: for the galaxies UGC~00189, UGC~10894, UGC~07598, and UGC~08904. The \ion{H}{2}
1105: regions are outlines in white. In the case of UGC~10894 two regions which were masked due to the presence of stars can also be seen, outlined by the square white boxes. \label{fig:regions}}
1106: \end{figure}
1107:
1108: \begin{figure}
1109: \centerline{
1110: %\plottwo{mu_hist.ps}{mu_alpha.ps}
1111: \plottwo{f5a.eps}{f5b.eps}
1112: }
1113: \caption{(Left) Histogram showing the distribution of central surface brightnesses for the observed galaxies.
1114: The (red) dashed line shows the R-band data and the (blue) solid line shows the B-band data.
1115: (Right) Plot of the observed central surface brightness against scale length of the outer disk.
1116: Here, the R-band data is demarcated by (red) open circles while the B-band data uses (blue) filled circles.
1117: \label{fig:mu_hist}}
1118: \end{figure}
1119:
1120: \begin{figure}
1121: \centerline{
1122: %\plottwo{mu_mub.ps}{mu_mua.ps}
1123: \plottwo{f6a.eps}{f6b.eps}
1124: }
1125: \caption{Plots comparing the measured central surface brightnesses with the average surface brightness for the galaxies, as
1126: defined by Equation~\ref{eqn:bothun} (left) and Equation~\ref{eqn:bottinelli} (right)
1127: and using the magnitude and diameter values
1128: found herein. The R-band data is demarcated by (red) open circles while the B-band data uses (blue) filled circles.
1129: \label{fig:mu_mu}}
1130: \end{figure}
1131:
1132: \begin{figure}
1133: \centerline{
1134: %\plottwo{mu_mub_inc.ps}{mu_mua_inc.ps}
1135: \plottwo{f7a.eps}{f7b.eps}
1136: }
1137: \caption{Plots comparing the measured central surface brightnesses, corrected for inclination,
1138: with the average surface brightness for the galaxies, as
1139: defined by Equation~\ref{eqn:bothun} (left) and Equation~\ref{eqn:bottinelli} (right)
1140: and using the magnitude and diameter values
1141: found herein. The R-band data is demarcated by (red) open circles while the B-band data uses (blue) filled circles.
1142: \label{fig:mu_mu_inc}}
1143: \end{figure}
1144:
1145: \begin{figure}
1146: %\plottwo{U11355_R_bar.eps}{U11355_Halp_ring.eps}
1147: \plottwo{f8a.eps}{f8b.eps}
1148: \caption{Images of UGC~11355 with the stretch altered to show the galaxy's nuclear bar (left - R-band image)
1149: and star forming ring (right - \Ha\ image). In both images the ellipse shows the shape and size of the
1150: star forming ring. The images are 1.0$^\prime$ across. \label{fig:U11355}}
1151: \end{figure}
1152:
1153: \begin{figure}
1154: %\plotone{MHIL_SFR.ps}
1155: \plotone{f9.eps}
1156: \caption{Gas mass to B and R-band luminosity ratios plotted against the global star formation rate for the galaxies.
1157: The (blue) filled circles are for the B-band data and the (red) open circles are for the R-band data. \label{fig:MHIL_SFR} }
1158: \end{figure}
1159:
1160: \begin{figure}
1161: %\plotone{MB_L3.ps}
1162: \plotone{f10.eps}
1163: \caption{Total B magnitude plotted against the average luminosity of the brightest three
1164: \Ha\ regions. (If less than three regions were found, the average of all \ion{H}{2} regions was
1165: used.) The filled (red) symbols are the data from our observations; the filled (blue) symbols
1166: are from \citet{helmboldt05}; and the open (black) symbols are from \citet{kennicutt83}.
1167: \label{fig:MB_L3}}
1168: \end{figure}
1169:
1170: \begin{figure}
1171: %\plottwo{BR_EW_corr.ps}{BR_SFR_corr.ps}
1172: \plottwo{f11a.eps}{f11b.eps}
1173: \caption{Global color versus equivalent width (left) and star formation rate (right).
1174: To insure any trends (or lack) remain the same, the data from this paper is shown both without
1175: inclination correction (black) and with (gray). Note that inclination corrections are described in
1176: Section~\ref{sec:reduce}.
1177: As the global SFR was not available for the \citet{helmboldt05} data, it is not
1178: shown on the right. \label{fig:BR_EW}}
1179: \end{figure}
1180:
1181: \begin{figure}
1182: %\plottwo{MB_EW.ps}{MB_SFR.ps}
1183: \plottwo{f12a.eps}{f12b.eps}
1184: \caption{Total B magnitude plotted against the global equivalent width (left) and star formation rate (right).
1185: As the global SFR was not available for the \citet{helmboldt05} data, it is not
1186: shown on the right. \label{fig:MB_EW}}
1187: \end{figure}
1188:
1189: \begin{figure}
1190: %\plotone{Larea_Diffuse.ps}%{I_Diffuse.ps}
1191: \plotone{f13.eps}
1192: \caption{Luminosity surface brightness (Luminosity/area) plotted against the diffuse \Ha\ fraction for our
1193: sample and that of \cite{oey06}. \label{fig:Larea_Diffuse} }
1194: \end{figure}
1195:
1196: \begin{figure}
1197: %\plottwo{SFR_SFR.ps}{EW_EW.ps}
1198: \plottwo{f14a.eps}{f14b.eps}
1199: \caption{A comparison of regional and global star formation rate and
1200: equivalent width for the studied galaxies. On the
1201: left is a plot of the global SFR against the total SFR found for the individual \ion{H}{2} regions,
1202: with a line demarcating the point where the global and regional SFR are equal.
1203: On the right is a plot of the global EW against the average EW for the individual \ion{H}{2} regions.
1204: \label{fig:SFR_SFR}}
1205: \end{figure}
1206:
1207: \begin{figure}
1208: %\plotone{mu_SFR.ps}
1209: \plotone{f15.eps}
1210: \caption{Central surface brightness versus global star formation rate for the observed galaxies.
1211: The (red) open circles are from the R band data, while the (blue) filled circles are for the B data.
1212: \label{fig:mu_SFR}}
1213: \end{figure}
1214:
1215: \begin{figure}
1216: %\plottwo{MHILB_EW.ps}{MHILR_Diffuse.ps}
1217: \plottwo{f16a.eps}{f16b.eps}
1218: \caption{Gas mass to luminosity ratios plotted against global equivalent widths (left) and diffuse \Ha\ fractions (right).
1219: On the left, the (black) circles are our data, the (blue) triangles are from \citet{kennicutt83} and the
1220: (red) diamonds are from \citet{helmboldt04}. On the right, the (black) circles are again our data, while the
1221: (blue) asterisks are from \citet{oey06}.
1222: \label{fig:MHILB_EW}}
1223: \end{figure}
1224:
1225: \begin{figure}
1226: %\plotone{BR_SFR_region.ps}
1227: \plotone{f17.eps}
1228: \caption{This plot shows the regional colors versus star formation rates for the observed galaxies.
1229: \label{fig:BR_SFR_region}}
1230: \end{figure}
1231:
1232: %\begin{figure}
1233: %\plottwo{BR_MHI.ps}{MHI_EW.ps}
1234: %\end{figure}
1235:
1236: %\begin{figure}
1237: %\plotone{mu_MHIL.ps}
1238: %\caption{Plot of the central surface brightness against gas-to-luminosity fraction for the galaxies observed.
1239: % The R-band data is demarcated by (red) open circles while the B-band data uses (blue) filled circles.\label{fig:mu_MHIL}}
1240: %\end{figure}
1241:
1242: \end{document}
1243: