1: \documentclass[preprint,12pt]{aastex}
2: %\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
3: %\documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
4:
5: \def \Halpha{{H$\alpha$\ }}
6: \def \eg{{e.g.,}}
7: \def \etc{{etc.}}
8: \def \etal{{et~al.\null}}
9: \def \ie{{i.e.,}}
10: \def \vs{{vs.\null}}
11: \def\kms{{km~s$^{-1}$}}
12: \def \h7{{h_{70}}}
13:
14: \title{Ly$\alpha$ Emission-Line Galaxies
15: at $z = 3.1$ in the Extended Chandra Deep Field South}
16:
17: \begin{document}
18:
19: \shorttitle{Ly$\alpha$ Emission-Line Galaxies}
20:
21: \author{Caryl Gronwall, Robin Ciardullo, Thomas Hickey}
22: \affil{Department of Astronomy \& Astrophysics, The Pennsylvania State
23: University \\ 525 Davey Lab, University Park, PA 16802}
24: \email{caryl@astro.psu.edu, rbc@astro.psu.edu, tomhickey@astro.psu.edu}
25:
26: \author{Eric Gawiser\altaffilmark{1}}
27: \affil{Yale Astronomy Department and Yale Center for Astronomy and
28: Astrophysics \\ Yale University, P.O. Box 208121, New Haven, CT 06520}
29: \email{gawiser@astro.yale.edu}
30:
31: \author{John J. Feldmeier\altaffilmark{1}}
32: \affil{Department of Physics \& Astronomy, Youngstown State University,
33: Youngstown, OH 44555-2001}
34: \email{jjfeldmeier@ysu.edu}
35:
36: \author{Pieter G. van Dokkum, C. Megan Urry, David Herrera}
37: \affil{Yale Astronomy Department and Yale Center for Astronomy and
38: Astrophysics and Yale Physics Department \\ Yale University, P.O. Box 208121,
39: New Haven, CT 06520}
40: \email{pieter.vandokkum@yale.edu, meg.urry@yale.edu, david.herrera@yale.edu}
41:
42: \author{Bret D. Lehmer}
43: \affil{Department of Astronomy \& Astrophysics, The Pennsylvania State
44: University \\ 525 Davey Lab, University Park, PA 16802}
45: \email{blehmer@astro.psu.edu}
46:
47: \author{Leopoldo Infante, Alvaro Orsi}
48: \affil{Departmento de Astronom\'ia y Astrof\'isica, Pontificia Universidad
49: Cat\'olica de Chile, Casilla 306, Santiago 22, Chile}
50: \email{linfante@astro.puc.cl, aaorsi@astro.puc.cl}
51:
52: \author{Danilo Marchesini}
53: \affil{Yale Astronomy Department and Yale Center for Astronomy and
54: Astrophysics \\ Yale University, P.O. Box 208121, New Haven, CT 06520}
55: \email{danilom@astro.yale.edu}
56:
57: \author{Guillermo A. Blanc}
58: \affil{Astronomy Department, University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712}
59: \email{gblancm@astro.as.utexas.edu}
60:
61: \author{Harold Francke, Paulina Lira}
62: \affil{Departamento de Astronom\'ia, Universidad de Chile,
63: Casilla 36-D, Santiago, Chile}
64: \email{hfrancke@das.uchile.cl, plira@das.uchile.cl}
65:
66: \and
67: \author{Ezequiel Treister}
68: \affil{European Southern Observatory, Casilla 19001, Santiago, Chile}
69: \email{etreiste@eso.org}
70:
71: \altaffiltext{1} {NSF Astronomy and Astrophysics Postdoctoral Fellow}
72:
73: \begin{abstract}
74: We describe the results of an extremely deep, 0.28~deg$^2$ survey for
75: $z = 3.1$ Ly$\alpha$ emission-line galaxies in the Extended Chandra
76: Deep Field South. By using a narrow-band 5000~\AA\ filter and complementary
77: broadband photometry from the MUSYC survey, we identify a statistically
78: complete sample of 162 galaxies with monochromatic fluxes brighter than
79: $1.5 \times 10^{-17}$~ergs~cm$^{-2}$~s$^{-1}$ and observers frame equivalent
80: widths greater than 80~\AA\null. We show that the equivalent width
81: distribution of these objects follows an exponential with a rest-frame scale
82: length of $w_0 = 76^{+11}_{-8}$~\AA. In addition, we show that in the emission
83: line, the luminosity function of Ly$\alpha$ galaxies has a faint-end power-law
84: slope of $\alpha = -1.49^{+0.45}_{-0.34}$, a bright-end cutoff of
85: $\log L^* = 42.64^{+0.26}_{-0.15}$, and a space density above our detection
86: thresholds of $1.46 \pm 0.12 \times 10^{-3} \, \h7^{3}$~galaxies~Mpc$^{-3}$.
87: Finally, by comparing the emission-line and continuum properties of the
88: LAEs, we show that the star-formation rates derived from Ly$\alpha$
89: are $\sim 3$ times lower than those inferred from the rest-frame UV continuum.
90: We use this offset to deduce the existence of a small amount of internal
91: extinction within the host galaxies. This extinction, coupled with the lack
92: of extremely-high equivalent width emitters, argues that these galaxies are not
93: primordial Pop~III objects, though they are young and relatively chemically
94: unevolved.
95:
96: %By examining the continuum properties of our Ly$\alpha$ emitters, we show that
97: %to $R \sim 25.5$, these objects are $\sim 1/3$ as common as Lyman-break
98: %galaxies; by translating their emission-line fluxes into star-formation rates,
99: %we show that these galaxies typically form stars at rates between 1 and
100: %$10 \, \h7^{-2} \, M_{\odot}$~yr$^{-1}$. We find that the integrated
101: %star-formation rate density for Ly$\alpha$ emitters, in the absence of dust, is
102: %$6.5^{+5.5}_{-1.0}\times 10^{-3} \, \h7 \, M_{\odot}$~yr$^{-1}$~Mpc$^{-3}$.
103: %However, we also show that the star-formation rates derived from the
104: %Ly$\alpha$ emission-line fluxes are $\sim 3$ times less than those implied
105: %from the galaxies' rest-frame UV continua. We use this offset to infer the
106: %existence of a very small amount of internal extinction within the host
107: %galaxies, which roughly triples the inferred star formation rate density.
108: %This extinction, coupled with the lack of extremely-high equivalent width
109: %Ly$\alpha$ emitters, argues that these galaxies are not primordial Pop~III
110: %objects, though they are young and relatively chemically unevolved.
111:
112: \end{abstract}
113:
114: \keywords{cosmology: observations -- galaxies: formation -- galaxies:
115: high-redshift -- galaxies: luminosity function}
116:
117: \section{Introduction}
118: The past decade has seen an explosion in our ability to detect and study
119: $z > 3$ galaxies and probe the history of star formation in the universe
120: \citep[\eg][]{madau}. This has been mostly due to the development of the
121: Lyman-break technique, whereby high redshift galaxies are identified via a
122: flux discontinuity caused by Lyman-limit absorption \citep[see][]{steidel96a,
123: steidel96b}. By taking deep broadband images, and searching for $U$,
124: $B$, and $V$-band dropouts, astronomers have been able to explore large-scale
125: structure and determine the properties of bright ($L > 0.3 L^*$) galaxies
126: between $z \sim 3$ and $z \sim 5$ \citep{giavalisco}.
127:
128: The stunning success of the Lyman-break technique stands in contrast
129: to the initial results of Ly$\alpha$ emission-line observations. The failure
130: of the first generation of these surveys \citep[\eg][]{depropis, thompson}
131: was attributed to internal extinction in the target galaxies \citep{mt81}.
132: Since Ly$\alpha$ photons are resonantly scattered by interstellar hydrogen,
133: even a small amount of dust can reduce the emergent emission-line flux
134: by several orders of magnitude.
135:
136: Fortunately, Ly$\alpha$ surveys
137: have recently undergone a resurgence. Starting with the Keck observations of
138: \citet{ch98} and \citet{hcm98}, narrow-band searches for Ly$\alpha$ emission
139: have been successfully conducted at a number of redshifts, including
140: $z \sim 2.4$ \citep{stiavelli}, $z \sim 3.1$ \citep{c02, hayashino, venemans,
141: gawiser}, $z \sim 3.7$ \citep{fujita}, $z \sim 4.5$ \citep{rhoads00},
142: $z \sim 4.9$ \citep{ouchi}, $z \sim 5.7$ \citep{rhoads03, ajiki, tapken},
143: and $z \sim 6.5$ \citep{kodaira, taniguchi}. The discovery of these
144: high-redshift Ly$\alpha$ emitters (LAEs) has opened up a new frontier
145: in astronomy. At $z > 4$, LAEs are as easy to detect than Lyman-break
146: galaxies (LBG), and, by $z > 6$, they are the only galaxies observable from
147: the ground. By selecting galaxies via their Ly$\alpha$ emission, it is
148: therefore possible to probe much further down the galaxy continuum
149: luminosity function than with the Lyman-break technique, and perhaps
150: identify the most dust-free objects in the universe. In addition, by
151: using Ly$\alpha$ emitters as tracers of large-scale structure
152: \citep{steidel00, shimasaku04}, it is possible to efficiently probe
153: the expansion history of the universe with a minimum of cosmological
154: assumptions \citep[\eg][]{blake, seo, koehler}.
155:
156: Here, we describe the results of a deep survey for Ly$\alpha$ emission-line
157: galaxies in a 0.28~deg$^2$ region centered on the Extended Chandra Deep
158: Field South (ECDF-S). This region has an extraordinary amount of
159: complementary data, including high-resolution optical images from the
160: {\sl Hubble Space Telescope\/} via the Great Observatories Origins Deep
161: Survey \citep[GOODS;][]{GOODS} and the Galaxy Evolution from Morphology
162: and SEDs program \citep[GEMS;][]{GEMS}, deep groundbased $UBVRIzJHK$
163: photometry from the Multiwavelength Survey by Yale-Chile
164: \citep[MUSYC;][]{musyc}, mid- and far-IR observations from {\sl Spitzer,}
165: GOODS and MUSYC, and deep X-ray data from {\sl Chandra} \citep{giacconi,
166: alexander, lehmer05}. In Section~2, we describe our observations, which
167: include over 28~hours worth of exposures through a narrow-band filter on
168: the CTIO 4-m telescope. We also review the techniques used to detect the
169: emission-line galaxies, and discuss the difficulties associated with
170: analyzing samples of LAEs discovered via fast-beam instruments. In
171: Section~3, we describe the continuum properties of our Ly$\alpha$ emitters,
172: including their rest-frame $m_{1050} - m_{1570}$ colors, and compare their
173: space density to that of Lyman-break galaxies. In Section~4, we examine the
174: LAE's equivalent width distribution and show that our sample contains very
175: few of the extremely-high equivalent width objects found by
176: \citet{dawson} at $z = 4.5$. In Section~5, we present the Ly$\alpha$
177: emission-line luminosity function, and give values for its best-fit
178: \citet{schechter} parameters and normalization. In Section~6, we translate
179: these Ly$\alpha$ fluxes into star-formation rates, and consider the properties
180: of LAEs in the context of the star-formation rate (SFR) history of
181: the universe. We conclude by discussing the implications our
182: observations have for surveys aimed at determining cosmic evolution.
183:
184: For our analysis, we adopt a $\Lambda$CDM cosmology with
185: $H_0 = 70$~km~s$^{-1}$~Mpc$^{-1}$ ($\h7 = 1$), $\Omega_M = 0.3$, and
186: $\Omega_{\Lambda} = 0.7$. At $z = 3.1$, this implies a physical scale
187: of 7.6~kpc per arcsecond.
188:
189: \section{Observations and Reductions}
190: Narrow-band observations of the ECDF-S were performed with the MOSAIC~II
191: CCD camera on the CTIO Blanco 4-m telescope. These data consisted of a
192: series of 111 exposures taken over 16 nights through a
193: 50~\AA\ wide full-width-half-maximum (FWHM) $\lambda 5000$ filter (see
194: Figure~\ref{bandpasses}). The total exposure time for these images was
195: 28.17~hr; when the effects of dithering to cover for a dead CCD during
196: some of the observations are included, the net exposure time becomes
197: $\sim 24$~hr. The total area covered in our survey is 998~arcmin$^{2}$;
198: after the regions around bright stars are excluded, this area shrinks
199: 993~arcmin$^{2}$. The overall seeing on the images is $1\farcs 0$.
200: A log of our narrow-band exposures appears in Table~\ref{log}.
201:
202: The procedures used to reduce the data, identify line emitters, and measure
203: their brightnesses were identical to those detailed in \citet{c02} and
204: \citet{ipn2}. After de-biasing, flat-fielding, and aligning the data, our
205: narrow-band frames were co-added to create a master image that was clipped
206: of cosmic rays. This frame was then compared to a deep $B$+$V$ continuum
207: image provided by the MUSYC survey \citep{musyc} in two different ways.
208: First, the DAOFIND task within IRAF was run on the summed narrow-band and
209: continuum image using a series of three convolution kernels, ranging from
210: one matching the image point-spread-function (PSF), to one $\sim 3$ times
211: larger. This created a source catalog of all objects in our field. These
212: targets were then photometrically measured with DAOPHOT's PHOT routine, and
213: sources with on-band minus continuum colors less than $-1.03$ in the AB system
214: were flagged as possible emission-line sources (see Figure~\ref{cmd}). At
215: the same time, candidate LAEs were also identified by searching for positive
216: residuals on a ``difference'' image made by subtracting a scaled version of
217: the $B$+$V$ continuum image from the narrow-band frame. In this case, the
218: DAOFIND algorithm was set to flag all objects brighter than four times the
219: local standard deviation of the background sky (see Figure~\ref{dimages}).
220: As pointed out by \citet{ipn2}, these two techniques complement each other,
221: since each detects objects that the other does not. Specifically,
222: $\lesssim 10\%$ of galaxies were missed by the color-magnitude method
223: due to image blending and confusion, but found with the difference method.
224: Conversely, objects at the frame limit that were lost amidst the increased
225: noise of the difference frame, could still be identified via their on-band
226: minus off-band colors.
227:
228: Finally, because we intentionally biased our DAOFIND parameters to identify
229: faint sources at the expense of false detections, each emission-line candidate
230: was visually inspected on the narrow-band, $B+V$ continuum, and difference
231: frames, as well as two frames made from subsamples of half the on-band
232: exposures. This last step excluded many false detections at the frame
233: limit, and left us with a sample of 259 candidate LAEs for analysis.
234:
235: Once found, the equatorial positions of the candidate emission-line galaxies
236: were derived with respect to the reference stars of the USNO-A 2.0 astrometric
237: catalog \citep{monet}. The measured residuals of the plate solution
238: were $\sim 0\farcs 2$, a number slightly less than the $0\farcs 25$ external
239: error associated with the catalog. Relative narrow-band magnitudes for
240: the objects were derived by first measuring the sources with respect to
241: field stars using an aperture slightly greater than the frame PSF\null.
242: Since most of the galaxies detected in this survey are, at best, marginally
243: resolved on our $1\arcsec$ images, this procedure was sufficiently
244: accurate for our purposes. We then obtained standard AB magnitudes by
245: comparing large aperture photometry of the field stars to similar measurements
246: of the spectrophotometric standards Feige~56 and Hiltner~600 \citep{stone}
247: taken on three separate nights. The dispersion in the photometric zero point
248: computed from our standard star measurements was 0.03~mag.
249:
250: \subsection{Derivation of Monochromatic Fluxes}
251: The fast optics of wide-field instruments, such as the MOSAIC camera
252: at the CTIO 4-m telescope, present an especially difficult challenge
253: for narrow-band imaging. The transmission of an interference filter depends
254: critically on the angle at which it is illuminated: light entering at the
255: normal will constructively/destructively interfere at a different
256: wavelength than light coming in at an angle \citep{eather}. As a result, when
257: placed in a fast converging beam, an interference filter will have its bandpass
258: broadened and its peak transmission decreased by a substantial amount.
259: This effect is important, for without precise knowledge of the filter
260: bandpass, it is impossible to derive accurate monochromatic fluxes or
261: estimate equivalent widths.
262:
263: To derive the filter transmission, we began with the throughput information
264: provided by the CTIO
265: observatory\footnote{http://www.ctio.noao.edu/instruments/FILTERS/index.html}.
266: This curve, which represents the expected transmission of the
267: [O~III] interference filter in the f/3.2 beam of the Blanco telescope, was
268: computed by combining laboratory measurements of the filter tipped at several
269: different angles from the incoming beam \citep[for a discussion of this
270: procedure, see][]{m81}. We then shifted this curve 2~\AA\ to the blue, to
271: compensate for the thermal contraction of the glass at the telescope, and
272: compared this model bandpass to the measured emission-line wavelengths obtained
273: from follow-up spectroscopy \citep{lira07}. Interestingly, redshift
274: measurements of 72~galaxies detected in three independent MUSYC fields confirm
275: the shape of the filter's transmission curve, but not its central wavelength:
276: according to the spectroscopy, the mean wavelength of the filter is 10~\AA\
277: bluer than given by CTIO \citep{gawiser07}. Examining the source of this
278: discrepancy is beyond the scope of this paper. However, the data do confirm
279: that, when placed in the beam of the CTIO 4-m prime focus MOSAIC camera, the
280: bandpass of the CTIO [O~III] interference filter is nearly Gaussian in shape.
281: This bandpass is reproduced in the left-hand panel of Figure~\ref{filtresp}.
282:
283: This non-square bandpass has important consequences for the analysis of
284: large samples of emission-line galaxies. The first of these involves
285: the definition of survey volume. Because the transmission of the filter
286: declines away from the bandpass center, the volume of space sampled by
287: our observations is a strong function of line strength. This is illustrated
288: in the center panel of Figure~\ref{filtresp}. Objects with bright line
289: emission can be detected even if their redshifts place Ly$\alpha$
290: in the wings of the filter, hence the volume covered for these objects is
291: realtively large. Conversely, weak Ly$\alpha$ sources must have their line
292: emission near the center of the bandpass to be observable. As a result, the
293: ``effective'' volume for our integrated sample of galaxies is a function of
294: the galaxy emission-line luminosity function.
295:
296: A second concern deals with the sample's flux calibration.
297: In order to compare the flux of an emission-line
298: object to that of a spectrophotometric standard star (\ie\ a continuum
299: source) one needs to know both the filter's integral transmission and its
300: monochromatic transmission at the wavelength of interest \citep{jqa, m81}.
301: When observing objects at known redshift, the latter requirement is not an
302: issue. However, when measuring a set of galaxies which can fall anywhere
303: within a Gaussian-shaped transmission curve, the transformation between an
304: objects' (bandpass-dependent) AB magnitude and its monochromatic flux is not
305: unique. In fact, if we assume that galaxies are (on average) distributed
306: uniformly in redshift space, then the number of emission-line objects present
307: at a given transmission, $T$, is simply proportional to the amount of
308: wavelength associated with that transmission value. Consequently, the observed
309: distribution of emission-line fluxes will be related to the true
310: distribution via a convolution, whose (unity normalized) kernel, $G(T)$, is
311: \begin{equation}
312: G(T) dT = \left\{ \Bigg|{d \lambda \over dT} \Bigg| dT \right\}_{\rm
313: blue} +
314: \left\{ \Bigg|{d \lambda \over dT} \Bigg| dT \right\}_{\rm red}
315: \end{equation}
316: where the first term describes the filter's response blueward of the
317: transmission peak and the second term gives the response redward of
318: the peak. The center panel of Figure~\ref{filtresp} displays this kernel
319: for the filter used in our survey. The curve shows that for roughly half of
320: the detectable galaxies in our field, the effect of our filter's non-square
321: bandpass is minimal. However, for the other $\sim 50\%$ of galaxies, the
322: shape of the bandpass is extremely important, and the inferred fluxes for some
323: objects can be off by over a magnitude.
324:
325: Any analysis of the ensemble properties of our LAEs must consider the full
326: effect that the non-square bandpass and the odd-shaped convolution kernal
327: has on the sample. We do this in Sections 4 and 5. However, one often wants
328: to quote the monochromatic flux and equivalent width for an {\it individual\/}
329: Ly$\alpha$ emitter. To do this, we need to adopt an appropriate ``mean'' value
330: for the transmission of our filter. The most straightforward way
331: to define this number is via the filter's peak transmission. This is
332: where the survey depth is greatest, and choosing $T_{\rm max}$ is
333: equivalent to assigning each galaxy its ``most probable'' monochromatic
334: flux. Unfortunately, by defining the transmission in this way,
335: we underestimate the flux from all galaxies whose line emission does not
336: fall exactly on this peak. Alternatively, we can attempt to choose a
337: transmission which globally minimizes the flux errors of all the
338: galaxies detected in the survey. This can be done by weighting each
339: transmission by the number of galaxies one expects to observe at that
340: wavelength: the greater the transmission, the deeper the survey, and the more
341: galaxies present in the sample. The difficulty with this ``expectation
342: value'' approach is that it requires prior knowledge of the distribution of
343: emission-line fluxes, which is one of the quantities we are attempting
344: to measure. That leads us to a third possibility: to approximate the
345: filter's expectation value using some ``characteristic'' transmission, $T_C$,
346: which is independent of the galaxy luminosity function, but still takes
347: the filter's changing transmission into account. The arrow in
348: Figure~\ref{filtresp} identifies the transmission we selected as being
349: characteristic of the filter; the justification for this value is presented
350: in Section~5. We emphasize that $T_C$ is only a convenient mean that
351: enables us to quote the likely emission-line strengths of {\it individual\/}
352: galaxies. When analyzing the global properties of an ensemble of LAEs, the
353: full non-Gaussian nature of the filter's convolution kernel must be
354: taken into account.
355:
356: Using this transmission and our knowledge of the filter curve, we
357: converted the galaxies' AB magnitudes to monochromatic fluxes at
358: $\lambda = 5000$~\AA\ via
359: \begin{equation}
360: F_{5000} = 3.63 \times 10^{-20} \, 10^{-m_{\rm AB} / 2.5} \, \cdot \,
361: {c \over \lambda^2} \, \cdot \, {\int T_{\lambda} d\lambda \over T_C}
362: \end{equation}
363: where $F_{5000}$ is given in ergs~cm$^{-2}$~s$^{-1}$ \citep{jqa}.
364: Equivalent widths then followed via
365: \begin{equation}
366: {\rm EW} = {F_{5000} \over f_{B+V}} - \Delta \lambda
367: \end{equation}
368: where $f_{B+V}$ is the objects' AB flux density in the $B+V$ continuum image,
369: and $\Delta\lambda$, the FWHM of the narrow-band filter, represents the
370: contribution of the galaxy's underlying continuum within the bandpass. Both
371: these equations are only applicable to objects whose line emission dominates
372: the continuum within the narrow-band filter's bandpass. Since we are limiting
373: our discussion to galaxies with narrow-band minus broad-band AB magnitudes
374: more negative than $-1.03$, this approximation is certainly valid. However,
375: we do note that by using $T_C$ instead of $T_{\rm max}$, we are intentionally
376: overestimating the flux and equivalent width of some galaxies, in order to
377: minimize the errors in others. So, while the application of $T_C$ formally
378: translates our $\Delta m = -1.03$ criterion into a minimum emission-line
379: equivalent width of 90~\AA, galaxies with emission-lines that fall near the
380: peak of the filter transmission function can have equivalent widths that are
381: $\sim 12\%$ smaller. This implies that the absolute minimum equivalent
382: width limit for our sample of LAEs is 80~\AA.
383:
384: \subsection{Sample of LAE Candidates}
385:
386: Tables~\ref{brightLAEs} and \ref{faintLAEs}
387: give the coordinates of each candidate emission-line
388: galaxy, along with its inferred monochromatic flux and equivalent width.
389: In total, 259 objects are listed, though many are beyond the limit of
390: our completeness. To determine this limit, we followed the procedures of
391: \citet{ipn2} and added 1,000,000 artificial stars (2000 at a time) to our
392: narrow-band frame. By re-running our detection algorithms on these modified
393: frames, we were able to compute the flux level below which the object recovery
394: fraction dropped below the 90\% threshold. This value, which corresponds
395: to a monochromatic flux of $1.5 \times 10^{-17}$~ergs~cm$^{-2}$~s$^{-1}$
396: ($\log F_{5000} = -16.82$) is our limiting magnitude for statistical
397: completeness; 162 galaxies satisfy this criterion.
398:
399: Before proceeding further with our analysis, we performed one additional check
400: on our data. To eliminate obvious AGN from our sample, we cross-correlated
401: our catalog of emission-line objects with the lists of X-ray sources found
402: in the 1~Msec exposure of the Chandra Deep Field South \citep{alexander},
403: and the four 250~ksec exposure of the Extended Chandra Deep Field South
404: \citep{lehmer05, virani}. Two of our LAE candidates were detected in the X-ray
405: band. The first, which is our brightest Ly$\alpha$ emitter, has a 0.5 -- 8 keV
406: flux of $3.4 \times 10^{-15}$ ergs~cm$^{-2}$~s$^{-1}$ (\ie\ $L_{\rm X} \sim
407: 2.8 \times 10^{44} \, \h7^{-2}$~ergs~s$^{-1}$ at $z = 3.1$) and exhibits
408: C~IV emission at 1550~\AA\ \citep{lira07}. The other is an interloper:
409: a $z = 1.6$~AGN detected via its strong C~III] line at 1909~\AA\null.
410: For the remaining 160 objects that were not detected individually in the X-ray
411: band, we used stacking analyses to constrain their mean X-ray power output
412: \citep[see][for details]{lehmer07}. We find that the stacked X-ray
413: signal, which corresponds to a $\sim 40$~ksec effective exposure on an
414: average LAE, does not yield a $3 \sigma$ detection in any of three
415: X-ray bandpasses (\hbox{0.5--8.0~keV}, \hbox{0.5--2.0~keV}, and
416: \hbox{2--8~keV}). These results imply a $3 \sigma$ upper-limit of
417: $\sim 3.8 \times 10^{41}$~$h_{70}^{-2}$~ergs~s$^{-1}$ on the mean
418: \hbox{0.5--2.0~keV} luminosity for our LAEs, which demonstrates that few
419: of our Ly$\alpha$ sources harbor low-luminosity AGN\null. Similarly,
420: if we use the conversion of \citet{ranalli}, we can translate this
421: X-ray non-detection into an upper-limit for a typical LAE's
422: star-formation rate. This limit, $85 \, \h7^{-2} \, M_{\odot}$~yr$^{-1}$,
423: is roughly an order of magnitude greater than the rates inferred from the
424: objects' Ly$\alpha$ emission or UV continua (see Section~6).
425:
426: For the remainder of this paper, we will treat our $z = 3.1$ X-ray source
427: as AGN and exclude it from the analysis. This leaves us with a sample of
428: 160 objects, which we assume are all star-forming galaxies. We note that,
429: because all of our objects have equivalent widths greater than
430: 80~\AA, they are unlikely to be [O~II] emitters. At $z \sim 0.34$,
431: our survey volume is only $\sim 7300 \, \h7^{-3}$~Mpc$^{3}$,
432: which, through the luminosity functions of \citet{hogg98}, \citet
433: {gallego02}, and \citet{teplitz03}, implies a total population of
434: between $\sim 20$ and $\sim 200$ [O~II] emission-line galaxies above
435: our completeness limit. Since less than 2\% of these objects will have
436: rest frame equivalent widths greater than $\sim 60$~\AA\ \citep{hogg98},
437: the number of [O~II] interlopers in our sample should be negligible.
438: This estimate is confirmed by follow-up spectroscopy: of the 52 LAE
439: candidates observed with sufficient signal-to-noise for a redshift
440: determination, {\it all\/} are confirmed Ly$\alpha$ emitters
441: \citep{gawiser, lira07}.
442:
443: Figure~\ref{map} shows the spatial distribution of the LAEs
444: above our completeness limit. The sources are obviously clustered,
445: falling along what appear to be ``walls'' or ``filaments''. The
446: GOODS region has a below-average number of $z = 3.1$ Ly$\alpha$ emitters,
447: and there are almost no objects in the northwestern part of the field.
448: Conversely, the density of LAEs east and northeast of the field center is
449: quite high. This type of data can be an extremely powerful probe of
450: cosmological history, but we will defer a discussion of this topic
451: to a future paper \citep{gawiser07}.
452:
453: \section{The Continuum Properties of the Emitters}
454:
455: To investigate the continuum properties of our Ly$\alpha$ emitters, we
456: measured the brightness of each LAE on the broadband UBVR images of the
457: MUSYC survey \citep{musyc}. Since the catalog associated with this dataset
458: has a $5\,\sigma$ detection threshold of $U = 26.0$, $B = 26.9$, $V = 26.4$,
459: and $R = 26.4$, our knowledge of the LAEs' positions (obtained from
460: the narrow-band frames) allows us to perform photometry well past this limit.
461: Figure~\ref{bmr} displays the $B-R$ color-magnitude diagram for 88 of the LAEs
462: brighter than $R_{AB} = 27.25$. The diagram, which shows the
463: galaxies' rest-frame continua at 1060 and 1570~\AA, has several features
464: of note.
465:
466: The first involves the color distribution of our objects. According to
467: the figure, LAEs with $R$-band magnitudes brighter than $R = 25$ have a
468: median color of $B-R = 0.53$. This value agrees with the blue colors found
469: by \citet{venemans} for a sample of Ly$\alpha$ emitters at $z = 3.13$, and
470: is the value expected for a $\sim 10^8$~yr old stellar system evolving with
471: a constant star-formation rate \citep{fujita, bc03}. This median color
472: is also consistent with the results of \citet{gawiser}, who stacked the
473: broad-band fluxes of 18 spectroscopically confirmed $z = 3.1$ LAEs and
474: showed that the typical age of these systems is between $0.01 < t < 2$~Gyr.
475: It does, however, stand in marked contrast to the results of
476: \citet{stiavelli}, who claimed that Ly$\alpha$ emitters at $z = 2.4$ are
477: very red ($B-I \sim 1.8$). The blue colors of our galaxies confirm their
478: nature as young, star-forming systems. There is no evidence for excessive
479: reddening in these objects, and if the galaxies do possess an underlying
480: population of older stars, the component must be quite small.
481:
482: On the other hand, as the LAE color distribution indicates, Ly$\alpha$
483: emitters are not, as a class, homogeneous. At $R = 25$, the MUSYC $B-R$
484: colors have a typical photometric uncertainty of $\sigma_{B-R} = 0.25$~mag.
485: This contrasts with the observed color dispersion for our galaxies, which is
486: $\sim 0.4$~mag for objects with $R < 25$. Thus, there is at least a
487: $\sim 0.3$~mag scatter in the intrinsic colors of these objects. Either there
488: is some variation in the star-formation history of Ly$\alpha$ emitters, or
489: dust is having an effect on the emergent colors.
490:
491: Finally, it is worth emphasizing that our Ly$\alpha$ emitters are substantially
492: fainter in the continuum than objects found by the Lyman-break technique.
493: At $z \sim 3$, $L^*$ galaxies have an apparent magnitude of
494: $R \sim 24.5$ \citep{steidel99} and ground-based Lyman-break surveys
495: typically extend only $\sim 1$~mag beyond this value
496: \citep[see][for a review]{giavalisco}. Furthermore, spectroscopic surveys of
497: LBG candidates rarely target galaxies fainter than $R = 24$. In our
498: emission-line sample, the median continuum magnitude is $R \sim 26.7$, and
499: many of the galaxies have aperture magnitudes significantly fainter than
500: $R \sim 28$. In general, LAEs do inhabit the same location as LBGs in the
501: $U$-$V$ vs.~$V$-$R$ color-color space (see Figure~\ref{lbgcomp}), but
502: their extremely faint continuum sets them apart.
503:
504: This is also illustrated in Figure~\ref{continuum}, which compares the
505: rest frame 1570~\AA\ luminosity function of our complete sample of
506: Ly$\alpha$ emitters (those with monochromatic fluxes greater than
507: $1.5 \times 10^{-17}$~ergs~cm$^{-2}$~s$^{-1}$) with the rest-frame
508: 1700~\AA\ luminosity function of $z = 3.1$ Lyman-break galaxies
509: \citep{steidel99}. When plotted in this way, our sample of LAEs appears
510: incomplete, since for $R \gtrsim 26.5$, only the brightest emission-line
511: sources will make it into our catalog. The plot also implies that at
512: $z = 3.1$, $R < 25.5$, Ly$\alpha$ emitters are $\sim 3$ times rarer than
513: comparably bright Lyman-break galaxies. Since this ratio is virtually
514: identical to that measured by \citet{steidel00} within an extremely rich
515: $z = 3.09$ protocluster, this suggests that the number is not a strong
516: function of galactic environment. But, most strikingly, our observations
517: demonstrate the Ly$\alpha$ emitters sample the entire range of the
518: (UV-continuum) luminosity function. The median UV luminosity of LAEs in our
519: sample is $\lesssim 0.2 L^*$, and the faintest galaxy in the group is no
520: brighter than $\sim 0.02 L^*$. Just as broadband observations
521: detect all objects at the bright-end of the continuum luminosity function, but
522: sample the entire range of emission-line strengths, our narrow-band
523: survey finds all the brightest emission-line objects, but draws from the
524: entire range of continuum brightness.
525:
526: \section{The Ly$\alpha$ Equivalent Width Distribution}
527:
528: Before examining the emission-line properties of our dataset,
529: we need to correct for the observational biases and selection
530: effects that are present in the sample. Since the data were taken
531: in a fast-beam through a filter with a non-square bandpass, these effects are
532: substantial. Continuum measurements, of course, are unaffected by the
533: peculiarities of a narrow-band filter, but the distribution of monochromatic
534: fluxes can be significantly distorted. Specifically, the observed flux
535: distribution will be the convolution of the true distribution with the
536: following two kernels:
537:
538: {\it The Photometric Error Function: } The random errors associated with
539: our narrow-band photometry vary considerably, ranging from
540: $\sim 0.02$~mag at the bright end, to $\sim 0.2$~mag near the completeness
541: limit (see Table~\ref{errors}).
542: These errors will scatter objects from heavily
543: populated magnitude bins into bins with fewer objects, and flatten the
544: slope of the luminosity function. Because the change in slope goes as the
545: square of the measurement uncertainty \citep{eddington13, eddington40}, the
546: effect of this convolution is most important for objects near the survey
547: limit.
548:
549: {\it The Filter Transmission Function.} As described in Section 2.1, the
550: narrow-band filter used for this survey has a transmission function that is
551: nearly Gaussian in shape. This creates an odd-shaped convolution kernel (the
552: right panel of Figure~\ref{filtresp}), which systematically decreases the
553: measured line-emission of objects falling away from the peak of the
554: transmission curve. Moreover, because the objects' equivalent widths are
555: also reduced by this bandpass effect, some fraction of the LAE population will
556: be lost from our EW $> 80$~\AA\ sample. The result is that the
557: normalization of this filter transmission kernel is not unity. Instead, it
558: depends on the intrinsic equivalent width distribution of the galaxies, since
559: that is the function that defines the fraction of galaxies (at each redshift)
560: which can still make it into our sample.
561:
562: These effects are illustrated in the top panel of Figure~\ref{ewhist}, which
563: displays a histogram of the rest-frame equivalent widths for our candidate
564: Ly$\alpha$ galaxies. As the dotted line shows, the data appear to be well
565: fit by an exponential that has an e-folding length of
566: $w_{\rm obs} = 214^{+19}_{-15}$~\AA\null. However, because
567: the bandpass of our narrow-band filter is more Gaussian-shaped than
568: square, the line-strengths of many of the galaxies have been
569: systematically underestimated. In fact, the true distribution of equivalent
570: widths is broader than that measured: when we perform a
571: maximum-likelihood analysis using a series of exponential laws, convolved
572: with the filter bandpass and photometric error kernels, we obtain a
573: most-likely scale length of $w_{\rm obs} = 311^{+47}_{-33}$~\AA, or
574: $w_0 = 76^{+11}_{-8}$~\AA\ in the rest frame of the sample.
575:
576: Such a distribution is quite different from that reported by
577: \citet{mr02}. In their survey of 150 $z = 4.5$ Ly$\alpha$ emitters,
578: $\sim 60\%$ of the objects had extremely high rest-frame equivalent widths,
579: \ie\ EW$_0 > 240$~\AA\null. Since stellar population models, such as those
580: by \citet{cf93} cannot produce such strong line-emission, \citet{mr02}
581: postulated the presence of a top-heavy initial mass function and perhaps
582: the existence of Population~III stars. However in our sample, only 3
583: out of 160 LAEs ($\sim 2\%$) have observed rest-frame equivalent widths
584: greater than this 240~\AA\ limit. Even when we correct for the effects
585: of our filter's non-square bandpass, the fraction of strong line-emitters does
586: not exceed $\sim 12\%$. This is less than the $\sim 20\%$
587: value estimated by \citet{dawson} via Keck spectroscopy of a subset
588: of \citet{mr02} objects. Thus, at least at $z \sim 3.1$, there is no
589: need to invoke a skewed initial mass function to explain the majority of our
590: LAEs.
591:
592: The equivalent width distribution of Figure~\ref{ewhist} also differs
593: dramatically from that found by \citet{shapley} for a sample of
594: $z \sim 3$ Lyman-break galaxies. In their dataset, rest-frame equivalent
595: widths e-fold with a scale-length of $\sim 25$~\AA, rather than the
596: $\sim 75$~\AA\ value derived from our LAE survey. This difference is
597: not surprising given that the former dataset is selected to be bright
598: in the continuum, while the latter is chosen to be strong in the
599: emission-line. Moreover, when \citet{shapley} analyzed the $\sim 25\%$
600: of Lyman-break galaxies with rest-frame equivalent widths greater than
601: 20~\AA, they found a correlation between line strength and continuum
602: ($R$-band) magnitude, in the sense that fainter galaxies had higher
603: equivalent widths. We see that same trend in our data, but it is
604: largely the result of a selection effect. (Faint galaxies with low
605: equivalent widths fall below our monochromatic flux limit.) A comparison
606: of emission-line flux with equivalent width for our statistically complete
607: sample shows no such correlation.
608:
609: The lower two panels of Figure~\ref{ewhist} demonstrate this another way.
610: In the diagram, our sample of LAEs is divided in half, with the middle panel
611: showing the equivalent width distribution for objects with monochromatic
612: Ly$\alpha$ luminosities greater $2 \times 10^{42} \, \h7^{-2}$~ergs~s$^{-1}$,
613: and the bottom panel displaying the same distribution for less luminous
614: objects. As the figure illustrates, the distribution of equivalent widths
615: is relatively insensitive to the absolute brightness of the galaxy. To
616: first order this is expected, since both the UV continuum and the Ly$\alpha$
617: emission-line flux are driven by star formation. However, one could imagine
618: a scenario wherein the amount, composition, and/or distribution of dust within
619: the brighter (presumably more-metal rich) Ly$\alpha$ emitters differs from
620: that within their lower-luminosity counterparts. Since the effect of this
621: dust on resonantly-scattered Ly$\alpha$ photons is likely to be different
622: from that on continuum photons, this change in extinction can theoretically
623: produce a systematic shift in the distribution of Ly$\alpha$ equivalent
624: widths. There is no evidence for such a shift in our data; this constancy
625: argues against the importance of dust in these objects.
626:
627: \section{The Ly$\alpha$ Emission-Line Luminosity Function}
628:
629: Figure~\ref{lumfun} shows the distribution of monochromatic fluxes for our
630: sample of emission-line galaxies. The function looks much like a power
631: law, with a faint-end slope of $\alpha \sim -1.5$ that steepens as one moves
632: to brighter luminosities. However, to quantify this behavior, we once again
633: have to correct the observed flux distribution for the distortions caused by
634: photometric errors and the non-square bandpass of the filter. In addition, we
635: must also consider the censoring effect our equivalent width cutoff has on the
636: data: some line emitters whose redshifts are not at the peak of the filter
637: transmission function will fall out of our sample completely.
638:
639: To deal with these effects, we fit the observed distribution of Ly$\alpha$
640: emission-line fluxes to a \citet{schechter} function via the method
641: of maximum likelihood \citep[\eg][]{hw87, p2}. We applied our two
642: convolution kernels (including the equivalent width censorship) to a series
643: of functions of the form
644: \begin{equation}
645: \phi(L) d(L/L^*) \propto \left(L/L^*\right)^\alpha e^{-L/L^*} d(L/L^*)
646: \end{equation}
647: treated each curve as a probability distribution (\ie\ with a unity
648: normalization), and computed the likelihood that the observed sample of
649: Ly$\alpha$ fluxes is drawn from the resultant distribution. The results for
650: the three parameters of this fit, $\alpha$, $\log L^*$, and $N$, the integral
651: of the Schechter function down to our limiting flux (in units of
652: galaxies~Mpc$^{-3}$), are shown in Figure~\ref{contours};
653: Table~\ref{parameters} lists the best-fitting parameters, along with their
654: marginalized most-likely values and uncertainties. For completeness,
655: Table~\ref{parameters} also gives the value of $\phi^*$ which is inferred
656: from our most likely solution. As expected, the plots
657: illustrate the familiar degeneracy between $L^*$ and $\alpha$: our best-fit
658: solution has $\alpha \sim -1.5$, but if $L^*$ is forced to brighter
659: luminosities, $\alpha$ decreases. The contours also demonstrate an asymmetry
660: in the solutions, whereby extremely bright values of $L^*$ are included within
661: the $3 \, \sigma$ contours of probability, but faint values of the same
662: quantity are not.
663:
664: But perhaps the most interesting feature of the analysis concerns the effective
665: volume of our survey. As in Section 2.1, the amount of space sampled by the
666: observations depends critically on each galaxy's Ly$\alpha$ luminosity and
667: equivalent width. Bright line-emitters with large equivalent widths
668: can be identified well onto the wings of the filter, hence the survey
669: volume associated with these objects is relatively large. Conversely,
670: weak line-emitters, and objects with small equivalent widths can only
671: be detected if they lie at the peak of the filter transmission curve.
672: Thus, the survey volume for these objects is quite small. The effective
673: volume for our observations is therefore a weighted average, which
674: depends on the intrinsic properties of entire LAE sample.
675:
676: This average can be computed from the data displayed in Figure~\ref{contours}.
677: According to the figure, the space density of galaxies with emission-line
678: brighter than $1.5 \times 10^{-17}$~ergs~cm$^{-2}$~s$^{-1}$ (\ie\ $1.3
679: \times 10^{42} \, \h7^{-2}$~ergs~s$^{-1}$) is extremely well-defined,
680: $1.46 \pm 0.12 \times 10^{-3} \, \h7^{3}$~galaxies~Mpc$^{-3}$. Since this
681: measurement comes from the detection of 160 galaxies brighter than the
682: completeness limit, the data imply an effective survey volume of
683: $\sim 1.1 \times 10^{5}~\h7^{-3}$~Mpc$^{3}$. This is {\it not\/}
684: the volume one would infer from the interference filter's full-width
685: at half-maximum: it is 25\% smaller, or roughly the full-width of
686: the filter at two-thirds maximum.
687:
688: This difference is illustrated in Figure~\ref{lumfun}. The points
689: show the space density of Ly$\alpha$ galaxies one would derive simply
690: by using the filter's FWHM to define the survey volume; the solid line
691: gives the \citet{schechter} function which best fits the data. The
692: offset between the solid line and the dashed line, which represents the
693: function after the application of the two convolution kernels, confirms the
694: need for careful analysis when working with narrow-band data taken through a
695: non-square bandpass.
696:
697: The results of our maximum-likelihood calculation also suggest a simple
698: definition for the effective transmission for our filter. As described in
699: Section~2.1, a ``characteristic'' transmission is needed to convert the
700: (bandpass-dependent) AB magnitude of an individual galaxy to monochromatic
701: Ly$\alpha$ flux. Rather than use the maximum transmission (which would
702: underestimate the flux of all galaxies not at the filter peak), or adopt some
703: complicated scheme which involves iterating on the luminosity function, one
704: can simply choose the filter's mean transmission within some limited
705: wavelength range. Based on the results above, the filter's full-width at
706: two-thirds maximum seems an appropriate limit. This transmission, which is
707: indicated by the arrow in Figure~\ref{filtresp}, is the value used to derive
708: the fluxes and equivalent widths of Tables~\ref{brightLAEs} and
709: \ref{faintLAEs}. If were to use to filter's peak transmission instead of
710: this characteristic value, the tabulated emission-line fluxes and equivalent
711: widths would all be $\sim 12\%$ smaller.
712:
713: The error bars quoted above for the space density of Ly$\alpha$ emitters
714: represent only the statistical uncertainty of the fits. They do not
715: include the possible effects of large-scale structure within our survey
716: volume. Specifically, if the linear bias factor for LAEs is two
717: \citep[see][for an analysis of the objects' clustering]{gawiser07} then
718: the expected fluctuation in the density of Ly$\alpha$ emitters measured within
719: a $\sim 10^5 \, \h7^{-3}$~Mpc$^{3}$ volume of space is $\sim 30\%$. This
720: value should be combined in quadrature with our formal statistical
721: uncertainty.
722:
723: Since Ly$\alpha$ galaxies have been observed at a number of redshifts,
724: it is tempting to use our data to examine the evolution of the LAE
725: luminosity function. Unfortunately, the samples obtained to date are not
726: yet robust enough for this purpose. An example of the problem is shown in
727: Figure~\ref{cumfun}, which compares our cumulative luminosity function
728: (and our Schechter fit for $\alpha = -1.5$) to two measures of Ly$\alpha$
729: galaxies at $z = 5.7$. As the figure illustrates, there are large differences
730: between the measurements. If the \citet{mr04} luminosity function is
731: correct, then LAEs at $z = 3.1$ are a factor of $\sim 2.5$ brighter and/or
732: more numerous than their $z = 5.7$ counterparts. However, if the $z=5.7$
733: LAE luminosity function of \citet{shimasaku06} is correct, then evolution
734: is occurring in the opposite direction, \ie\ the star-formation rate density
735: is declining with time. Without better data, it is difficult to derive any
736: conclusions about the evolution of these objects.
737:
738: Figure~\ref{cumfun} also plots our data against the predictions of a
739: hierarchical model of galaxy formation \citep{ledelliou05, ledelliou06}.
740: As this comparison demonstrates, our luminosity function for $z=3.1$ LAEs
741: lies slightly below that generated by theory. This is not surprising:
742: one of the key parameters of the model, the escape fraction of
743: Ly$\alpha$ photons, was set using previous estimates of the density of
744: $z \sim 3$~LAEs. Unfortunately, these measurements were based on extremely
745: small samples of objects, specifically, nine $z=3.1$ emitters from
746: \citet{kud00} and ten $z=3.4$ LAEs from \citet{ch98}. Since these surveys
747: inferred a larger space density of Ly$\alpha$ emitters than measured in this
748: paper, a mismatch between our data and the \citet{ledelliou06} models is
749: neither unexpected nor significant.
750:
751: \section{Star Formation Rate Density at $z \sim 3.1$}
752: Perhaps the most interesting result of our survey comes from a comparison
753: of the galaxies' Ly$\alpha$ emission with their $R$-band magnitudes.
754: Both quantities measure star formation rate: Ly$\alpha$ via the combination of
755: Case~B recombination theory and the H$\alpha$ vs.~star formation relation
756: \begin{equation}
757: {\rm SFR(Ly}\alpha) = 9.1 \times 10^{-43} \, L({\rm Ly}\alpha) \
758: M_{\odot}~{\rm yr}^{-1}
759: \end{equation}
760: \citep{kennicutt, hcm98}, and $R$, via population synthesis models of
761: the rest-frame UV ($\lambda 1570$)
762: \begin{equation}
763: {\rm SFR(UV)} = 1.4 \times 10^{-28} \, L_{\nu} \ M_{\odot}~{\rm yr}^{-1}
764: \end{equation}
765: \citep{kennicutt}. If both of these calibrations hold for our sample of
766: Ly$\alpha$ emitters, then a plot of the two SFR indicators should scatter
767: about a one-to-one relation.
768:
769: Figure~\ref{sfr} displays this plot. In the figure, galaxies with
770: Ly$\alpha$ star-formation rates less than $\sim 1.15 M_{\odot}$~yr$^{-1}$ are
771: excluded by our $1.5 \times 10^{-17}$~ergs~cm$^{-2}$~s$^{-1}$ monochromatic
772: flux limit, while objects with large UV star-formation rates, but weak
773: Ly$\alpha$ are eliminated by our equivalent width criterion. The latter
774: is not a hard limit, since LAE colors range from $0 \lesssim (B+V) - R
775: \lesssim 2.5$, and it is the $B+V$ continuum that is used to define
776: equivalent width. Nevertheless, if we adopt 1.4 as the upper limit on
777: the median color of an Ly$\alpha$ emitting galaxy (\ie\ $1 \, \sigma$ above
778: the median $(B+V) - R \sim 0.65$ color of the population), we obtain the
779: dotted line shown in the figure.
780:
781: Despite these selection effects, the Ly$\alpha$ and UV continuum star-formation
782: rates do seem to be correlated. However, there is an offset: the rates
783: inferred from the UV are, on average, about three times higher than
784: those derived from Ly$\alpha$. While the Ly$\alpha$ SFR measurements are
785: generally less than $10 \, \h7^{-2} \, M_{\odot}$~yr$^{-1}$, the rest-frame
786: UV values extend up to $\sim 50 \, \h7^{-2} \, M_{\odot}$~yr$^{-1}$.
787: This discrepancy has previously been seen in a sample of 20 LAEs at
788: $z = 5.7$ \citep{ajiki}, and has two possible explanations.
789:
790: The most likely cause of the offset is the galaxies' internal
791: extinction. By studying local starburst galaxies, \citet{calzetti} has shown
792: that a system's ionized gas is typically attenuated more than its stars.
793: In other words, while optical and IR emission-line ratios can usually be
794: reproduced with a simple screen model, the shape of the UV continuum
795: requires that the dust and stars be intermingled. For a self-consistent
796: solution, \citet{calzetti} suggests
797: \begin{equation}
798: E(B-V)_{\rm stars} = 0.44 E(B-V)_{\rm gas}
799: \end{equation}
800: If we apply the \citet{calzetti} law to our sample of $z = 3.1$ Ly$\alpha$
801: emitters, then for the UV and Ly$\alpha$ star-formation rates to be equal,
802: the extinction within our LAEs must be as shown in Figure~\ref{extinction}.
803: According to the figure, in most cases it only requires a small amount of dust
804: ($E(B-V)_{\rm stars} < 0.05$) to bring the two indicators into
805: agreement. Figure~\ref{extinction} also suggests that internal
806: extinction becomes more important in the brighter galaxies. This is
807: consistent with observations of local starburst systems \citep[\eg][]{meurer},
808: and is expected if the mass-metallicity relation seen in the local universe
809: carries over to dust content.
810:
811: Alternatively, the discrepancy between the Ly$\alpha$ and UV continuum
812: star-formation rates may simply be due to uncertainties in their
813: estimators. Models which translate UV luminosity into star formation
814: rate have almost a factor of two scatter and rely on a number of
815: parameters, including the initial mass function and the timescale for
816: star formation. The latter is particularly problematic. Ly$\alpha$
817: photons are produced almost exclusively by extremely young ($< 30$~Myr),
818: massive ($> 10 M_{\odot}$) stars which ionize their surroundings.
819: It therefore registers the instantaneous star-formation
820: occurring in the galaxy. Conversely, continuum UV emission (at 1570~\AA)
821: can be produced by populations as old as $\sim 1$~Gyr; thus, it is a
822: time-averaged quantity. If the star-formation rate in our Ly$\alpha$ emitters
823: has declined over time, then it is possible for UV measurements to
824: systematically overestimate the present day star formation
825: \citep{glazebrook99}.
826:
827: If we assume that Ly$\alpha$ emission is an accurate measure of
828: star-formation, then it is possible to integrate the Schechter function
829: to estimate the total contribution of LAEs to the star-formation rate
830: density of the $z = 3.1$ universe. We note that this procedure does
831: carry some uncertainty. If we just consider galaxies brighter than
832: our completeness limit ($1.5 \times 10^{-17}$~ergs~cm$^{-2}$~s$^{-1}$
833: or $L_{{\rm Ly}\alpha} > 1.3 \times 10^{42} \, \h7^{-2}$~ergs~s$^{-1}$)
834: then the star-formation rate density associated with LAEs is
835: $\sim 3.6 \times 10^{-3} \, \h7 \, M_{\odot}$~yr$^{-1}$~Mpc$^{-3}$, or
836: $1.2 \times 10^{-2} \, \h7 \, M_{\odot}$~yr$^{-1}$~Mpc$^{-3}$ if the internal
837: extinction in these objects is $E(B-V)_{\rm stars} \sim 0.05$. However,
838: to compute the total star-formation rate density, we need to extrapolate
839: the LAE luminosity function to fainter magnitudes, and even 160 objects
840: is not sufficient to define $\alpha$ to better than $\sim 25\%$.
841: Consequently, our data admit a range of solutions.
842:
843: This is illustrated in Figure~\ref{sfr_prob}, which displays SFR
844: likelihoods derived from the probabilities illustrated in
845: Figure~\ref{contours}. As the figure shows, the {\it most likely\/} value
846: for the LAE star-formation rate density of the $z = 3.1$ universe
847: (uncorrected for internal extinction) is
848: $6.5 \times 10^{-3} \, \h7 \, M_{\odot}$~yr$^{-1}$~Mpc$^{-3}$, while
849: the {\it median\/} value of this quantity (defined as the point
850: with equal amounts of probability above and below) is $8.6 \times 10^{-3} \,
851: \h7~M_{\odot}$~yr$^{-1}$~Mpc$^{-3}$. Moreover, these numbers are
852: likely to be lower limits: if the discrepancy seen in Figure~\ref{sfr} is
853: due to internal extinction, then the true SFR density is probably $\sim 3.5$
854: times higher.
855:
856: The numbers above indicate that at $z = 3.1$, the star-formation rate
857: density associated with Ly$\alpha$ emitters is comparable to that found
858: for Lyman-break galaxies. Before correcting for extinction, our number for
859: the LAE star-formation rate density is $8.6 \times 10^{-3} \,
860: \h7~M_{\odot}$~yr$^{-1}$~Mpc$^{-3}$. For comparison, the LBG star-formation
861: rate density at $z = 3.1$ (before extinction) is
862: $\sim 0.01 \, \h7 \, M_{\odot}$~yr$^{-1}$~Mpc$^{-3}$ \citep{madau98,
863: steidel99}. It is true that internal extinction within Lyman-break
864: galaxies is typically larger than it is in our LAEs,
865: $E(B-V) \sim 0.15$ \citep{steidel99}. However, according to the
866: \citet{calzetti} extinction law, the effect of dust on the emission line
867: flux of a galaxy is much greater than that on the stellar
868: continuum. Consequently, our dust corrected SFR density for LAEs,
869: $\sim 0.03 \h7~M_{\odot}$~yr$^{-1}$~Mpc$^{-3}$, is $\sim 75\%$ of the
870: LBG value. Of course, given the extrapolations and corrections required
871: to make this comparison, this number is highly uncertain.
872:
873: \section{Discussion}
874: The space density of $z=3.1$ Ly$\alpha$ emitters shown in Figure~\ref{contours}
875: translates into a surface density of $4.6 \pm 0.4$~arcmin$^{-2}$ per unit
876: redshift interval above our completeness limit. This number is similar to
877: that derived by \citet{thommes}, under the assumption that the LAE phenomenon
878: is associated with the creation of elliptical galaxies and spiral bulges.
879: It is also consistent with the semi-analytical hierarchical structure
880: calculations of \citet{ledelliou05}, though the latter predict a slightly
881: larger number of $z \sim 3$ LAEs than found in this paper. This difference is
882: not significant, since the \citet{ledelliou05} models have been adjusted to
883: match the previous small-volume Ly$\alpha$ surveys of \citet{kud00} and
884: \citet{ch98}. A $\sim 30\%$ re-scaling of the escape fraction of Ly$\alpha$
885: photons solves the discrepancy, and maintains the match between the
886: predictions and the faint-end slope of the galaxy luminosity function.
887:
888: More notable is the excellent agreement between the \citet{ledelliou06}
889: simulations and the observed distribution of Ly$\alpha$ equivalent widths
890: (Figure~\ref{ewhist}). Both are very well-fit via an exponential with a
891: large ($\sim 75$~\AA) scale length. Moreover, the models also predict that the
892: scale length observed for a magnitude-limited sample of galaxies (such as
893: that produced by the Lyman-break technique) will be much smaller than that
894: found via an emission-line survey. This is consistent with the LBG results
895: found by \citet{shapley}.
896:
897: Nevertheless, we should emphasize that the LAEs detected in this survey are
898: probably not primordial galaxies in their initial stages of star-formation.
899: Very few of the objects have the extremely high equivalent widths calculated
900: for stellar populations with top-heavy initial mass functions. More
901: importantly, the scatter in the galaxies' $m_{1060} - m_{1570}$ colors,
902: along with the offset between the Ly$\alpha$ and UV continuum star-formation
903: rates, suggests that these objects possess a non-negligible amount of dust.
904: The existence of this dust argues against the Pop~III interpretation of
905: $z \sim 3$ Ly$\alpha$ emitters \citep{jimenz}.
906:
907: The extremely strong line emission associated with LAEs makes
908: these objects especially suitable for probing the evolution of galaxies and
909: structure in the distant universe. The space density of $z=3.1$ emitters
910: shown in Figure~\ref{contours} translates into a surface density of
911: $4.6 \pm 0.4$~arcmin$^{-2}$ per unit redshift interval above our
912: completeness limit. This, coupled with our measured luminosity function,
913: implies that in the absence of evolution, there are $\sim 12$~LAEs
914: arcmin$^{-2}$ brighter than $1.5 \times 10^{-17}$~ergs~cm$^{-2}$~s$^{-1}$
915: in the redshift range $2 < z < 4$. Wide field integral field units,
916: such as those being designed for ESO \citep{henault} and the Hobby-Eberly
917: Telescope \citep{virus} will therefore be able to find large numbers of
918: Ly$\alpha$ emitters in a single pointing. Moreover, because the faint-end of
919: the luminosity function is steep ($\alpha \sim -1.5$), the density of LAEs
920: goes linearly with survey depth. Dropping the flux limit by a factor of
921: two (to $7.5 \times 10^{-18}$~ergs~cm$^{-2}$~s$^{-1}$)
922: will roughly double the number of LAEs in the sample.
923:
924: With an integral-field spectrograph, it is also possible to increase the
925: sample of high-redshift galaxies by identifying objects with equivalent
926: widths lower than our detection threshold of 80~\AA\ ($\sim 20$~\AA\ in the
927: LAE rest frame). However, the gain in doing so is likely to be
928: small: according to Figure~\ref{ewhist}, Ly$\alpha$ rest-frame equivalent
929: widths e-fold with a scale length of $\sim 75$~\AA. If this law
930: extrapolates to weaker-lined systems, as suggested by the models of
931: \citet{ledelliou06}, then most Ly$\alpha$ emitters are already
932: being detected, and pushing the observations to lower equivalent widths
933: will only increase the number counts by $\sim 20\%$. Furthermore, as the data
934: of \citet{hogg98} demonstrate, contamination by foreground [O~II] objects
935: increases rapidly once the equivalent width cutoff drops below $\sim 50$~\AA\
936: in the observers frame (or $\sim 12$~\AA\ in the rest frame of Ly$\alpha$).
937: Unless one can accept a large increase in the fraction of contaminants,
938: surveys for high-redshift galaxies need to either stay above this
939: threshold, or extend to the near-IR (to detect H$\beta$ and [O~III]
940: $\lambda 5007$ in the interlopers).
941:
942: \acknowledgments
943: We would like to thank Kathy Durrell for her assistance in reducing the
944: data, Sean Points and Tim Abbott for their work deriving
945: the transmission curve of the CTIO [O~III] interference filter, and
946: Cedric Lacey for providing the \citet{ledelliou06} models.
947: This work was supported by NSF grants 00-71238 and 01-37927 and
948: HST AR10324.01A. EG and JF acknowledge the support of NSF Astronomy \&
949: Astrophysics Postdoctoral Fellowships, NSF grants 02-01667 and 03-02030.
950:
951: {\it Facilities:} \facility{Blanco (Mosaic)}
952: \clearpage
953: \begin{thebibliography}{}
954:
955: \bibitem[Ajiki \etal(2003)]{ajiki} Ajiki, M., Taniguchi, Y., Fujita, S.S.,
956: Shioya, Y., Nagao, T., Murayama, T., Yamada, S., Umeda, K., \& Komiyama, Y.
957: 2003, \aj, 126, 2091
958:
959: \bibitem[Alexander \etal(2003)]{alexander} Alexander, D.M., Bauer, F.E.,
960: Brandt, W.N., Schneider, D.P., Hornschemeier, A.E., Vignali, C., Barger, A.J.,
961: Broos, P.S., Cowie, L.L., Garmire, G.P., Townsley, L.K., Bautz, M.W.,
962: Chartas, G., \& Sargent, W.L.W. 2003, \aj, 126, 539
963:
964: \bibitem[Blake \& Glazebrook(2003)]{blake} Blake, C., \& Glazebrook, K.
965: 2003, \apj, 594, 665
966:
967: %\bibitem[Bouwens \& Illingworth(2006)]{bouwens} Bouwens, R.J., \&
968: %Illingworth, G. 2006, \nat, in press
969:
970: \bibitem[Bruzual \& Charlot(2003)]{bc03} Bruzual, G., \&
971: Charlot, S. 2003, \mnras, 344, 1000
972:
973: \bibitem[Calzetti(2001)]{calzetti} Calzetti, D. 2001, \pasp, 113, 1449
974:
975: \bibitem[Charlot \& Fall(1993)]{cf93} Charlot, S., \& Fall, S.M. 1993,
976: \apj, 415, 580
977:
978: \bibitem[Ciardullo \etal(2002)]{c02} Ciardullo, R., Feldmeier, J.J.,
979: Krelove, K., Bartlett, R., Jacoby, G.H., \& Gronwall, C. 2002, \apj, 566, 784
980:
981: \bibitem[Ciardullo \etal(1989)]{p2} Ciardullo, R., Jacoby, G.H., Ford, H.C.,
982: \& Neill, J.D. 1989, \apj, 339, 53
983:
984: \bibitem[Cowie \& Hu(1998)]{ch98} Cowie, L.L., \& Hu, E.M. 1998, \aj, 115, 1319
985:
986: \bibitem[Dawson \etal(2004)]{dawson} Dawson, S., Rhoads, J.E., Malhotra, S.,
987: Stern, D., Dey, A., Spinrad, H., Jannuzi, B.T., Wang, J.X., \& Landes, E.
988: 2004, \apj, 617, 707
989:
990: %\bibitem[Deharveng\etal(1994)]{deharveng} Deharveng, J.-M., Sasseen, T.P.,
991: %Buat, V., Bowyer, S., Lampton, M., \& Wu, X. 1994, \aap, 289, 715
992:
993: \bibitem[Jimenez \& Haiman(2006)]{jimenz} Jimenez, R., \&
994: Haiman, Z. 2006, \nat, 440, 501
995:
996: \bibitem[De Propis \etal(1993)]{depropis} De Propris, R., Pritchet, C.J.,
997: Hartwick, F.D.A., \& Hickson, P. 1993, \aj, 105, 1243
998:
999: \bibitem[Eather \& Reasoner(1969)]{eather} Eather, R.H., \& Reasoner, D.L.
1000: 1969, Appl.~Optics, 8, 227
1001:
1002: \bibitem[Eddington(1913)]{eddington13} Eddington, A.S. 1913, \mnras, 73, 359
1003:
1004: \bibitem[Eddington(1940)]{eddington40} Eddington, A.S. 1940, \mnras, 100, 354
1005:
1006: \bibitem[Feldmeier \etal(2003)]{ipn2} Feldmeier, J.J., Ciardullo, R.,
1007: Jacoby, G.H., \& Durrell, P.R. 2003, \apjs, 145, 65
1008:
1009: \bibitem[Fujita \etal(2003)]{fujita} Fujita, S.S., Ajiki, M., Shioya, Y.,
1010: Nagao, T., Murayama, T., Taniguchi, Y., Okamura, S., Ouchi, M.,
1011: Shimasaku, K., Doi, M., Furusawa, H., Hamabe, M., Kimura, M., Komiyama, Y.,
1012: Miyazaki, M., Miyazaki, S., Nakata, F., Sekiguchi, M., Yagi, M., Yasuda, N.,
1013: Matsuda, Y., Tamura, H., Hayashino, T., Kodaira, K., Karoji, H., Yamada, T.,
1014: Ohta, K., \& Umemura, M. 2003, \aj, 125, 13
1015:
1016: \bibitem[Gallego \etal(2002)]{gallego02} Gallego, J., Garc\'ia-Dab\'o, C.E.,
1017: Zamorano, J., Arag\'on-Salamanca, A., \& Rego, M. 2002, \apjl, 570, L1
1018:
1019: \bibitem[Gawiser \etal(2006a)]{gawiser} Gawiser, E., van Dokkum, P.G.,
1020: Gronwall, C., Ciardullo, R., Blanc, G., Castander, F.J., Feldmeier, J.,
1021: Francke, H., Franx, M., Haberzettl, L., Herrera, D., Hickey, T.,
1022: Infante, L., Lira, P., Maza, J., Quadri, R., Richardson, A., Schawinski, K.,
1023: Schirmer, M., Taylor, E.N., Treister, E., Urry, C.M., \& Virani, S.N. 2006a,
1024: \apjl, 642, L13
1025:
1026: \bibitem[Gawiser \etal(2006b)]{musyc} Gawiser, E., \etal\ 2006b, \apjs, 162, 1
1027:
1028: \bibitem[Gawiser \etal(2007)]{gawiser07} Gawiser, E., \etal\ 2007, in
1029: preparation
1030:
1031: \bibitem[Giacconi \etal(2002)]{giacconi} Giacconi, R., Zirm, A., Wang, J.X.,
1032: Rosati, P., Nonino, M., Tozzi, P., Gilli, R., Mainieri, V., Hasinger, G.,
1033: Kewley, L., Bergeron, J., Borgani, S., Gilmozzi, R., Grogin, N.,
1034: Koekemoer, A., Schreier, E., Zheng, W., \& Norman, C. 2002, \apjs, 139, 369
1035:
1036: \bibitem[Giavalisco(2002)]{giavalisco} Giavalisco, M. 2002, \araa, 40, 579
1037:
1038: \bibitem[Giavalisco \etal(2004)]{GOODS} Giavalisco, M., \etal\ 2004, \apjl,
1039: 600, L93
1040:
1041: \bibitem[Glazebrook \etal(1999)]{glazebrook99} Glazebrook, K.,
1042: Blake, C., Economou, F., Lilly, S., \& Colless, M. 1999, \mnras, 306, 843
1043:
1044: \bibitem[Hanes \& Whittaker(1987)]{hw87} Hanes, D.A., \&
1045: Whittaker, D.G. 1987, \aj, 94, 906
1046:
1047: \bibitem[Hayashino \etal(2004)]{hayashino} Hayashino, T., Matsuda, Y., Tamura,
1048: H., Yamauchi, R., Yamada, T., Ajiki, M., Fujita, S.S., Murayama, T., Nagao, T.,
1049: Ohta, K., Okamura, S., Ouchi, M., Shimasaku, K., Shioya, Y., \& Taniguchi, Y.
1050: 2004, \aj, 128, 2073
1051:
1052: \bibitem[Henault \etal(2004)]{henault} Henault, F., Bacon, R., Content, R.,
1053: Lantz, B., Laurent, F., Lemonnier, J.-P., \& Morris, S.L. 2004, in
1054: Proc. SPIE Vol.~5249, Optical Design and Engineering, ed.~L. Mazuray,
1055: P.J. Rogers, \& R. Wartmann (Bellingham: SPIE), 134
1056:
1057: \bibitem[Hill \etal(2006)]{virus} Hill, G.J., MacQueen, P.J.,
1058: Palunas, P., Kelz, A., Roth, M.M., Gebhardt, K., \& Grupp, F.
1059: 2006, New Astronomy Review, 50, 378
1060:
1061: %\bibitem[Hill \etal(2005)]{virus} Hill, G.J., Gebhardt, K., Komatsu, E.,
1062: %\& MacQueen, P.J. 2004, AIP Conf.~Proc.~743: The New
1063: %Cosmology: Conference on Strings and Cosmology, ed.~R.E. Allen,
1064: %D.V. Nanopoulos, \& C.N. Pope (Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag), 224
1065:
1066: \bibitem[Hogg \etal(1998)]{hogg98} Hogg, D.W., Cohen, J.G.,
1067: Blandford, R., \& Pahre, M.A. 1998, \apj, 504, 622
1068:
1069: \bibitem[Hu, Cowie, \& McMahon(1998)]{hcm98} Hu, E.M., Cowie, L.L., \&
1070: McMahon, R.G. 1998, \apj, 502, L99
1071:
1072: \bibitem[Jacoby \etal(1989)]{m81} Jacoby, G.H., Ciardullo, R., Booth, J.,
1073: \& Ford, H.C. 1989, \apj, 344, 704
1074:
1075: \bibitem[Jacoby \etal(1987)]{jqa} Jacoby, G.H., Quigley, R.J., \& Africano,
1076: J.L. 1987, \pasp, 99, 672
1077:
1078: \bibitem[Kennicutt(1998)]{kennicutt} Kennicutt, R.C. 1998, \araa, 36, 189
1079:
1080: \bibitem[Kodaira \etal(2003)]{kodaira} Kodaira, K., \etal\ 2003,
1081: \pasj, 55, L17
1082:
1083: \bibitem[Koehler \etal(2007)]{koehler} Koehler, R.S., Schuecker, P.,
1084: \& Gebhardt, K. 2007, \aap, 462, 7
1085:
1086: \bibitem[Kudritzki \etal(2000)]{kud00} Kudritzki, R.-P., M\'endez, R.H.,
1087: Feldmeier, J.J., Ciardullo, R., Jacoby, G.H., Freeman, K.C., Arnaboldi, M.,
1088: Capaccioli, M., Gerhard, O., \& Ford, H.C. 2000, \apj, 536, 19
1089:
1090: \bibitem[Le Delliou \etal(2005)]{ledelliou05} Le Delliou, M.,
1091: Lacey, C., Baugh, C.M., Guiderdoni, B., Bacon, R., Courtois, H., Sousbie,
1092: T., \& Morris, S.L. 2005, \mnras, 357, L11
1093:
1094: \bibitem[Le Delliou \etal(2006)]{ledelliou06} Le Delliou, M.,
1095: Lacey, C.G., Baugh, C.M., \& Morris, S.L. 2006, \mnras, 365, 712
1096:
1097: \bibitem[Lehmer \etal(2005)]{lehmer05} Lehmer, B.D., Brandt, W.N.,
1098: Alexander, D.M., Bauer, F.E., Schneider, D.P., Tozzi, P., Bergeron, J.,
1099: Garmire, G.P., Giacconi, R., Gilli, R., Hasinger, G., Hornschemeier, A.E.,
1100: Koekemoer, A.M., Mainieri, V., Miyaji, T., Nonino, M., Rosati, P.,
1101: Silverman, J.D., Szokoly, G., \& Vignali, C. 2005, \apjs, 161, 21
1102:
1103: \bibitem[Lehmer \etal(2007)]{lehmer07} Lehmer, B.D., Brandt, W.N.,
1104: Alexander, D.M., Bell, E.F., McIntosh, D.H., Bauer, F.E., Hasinger, G.,
1105: Mainieri, V., Miyaji, T., Schneider, D.P., \& Steffen, A.T.
1106: \apj, 657, 681
1107:
1108: \bibitem[Lira \etal(2007)]{lira07} Lira, P., \etal\ 2007, in preparation
1109:
1110: \bibitem[Madau \etal(1996)]{madau} Madau, P., Ferguson, H.C., Dickinson, M.E.,
1111: Giavalisco, M., Steidel, C.C., \& Fruchter, A. 1996, \mnras, 283, 1388
1112:
1113: \bibitem[Madau \etal(1998)]{madau98} Madau, P., Pozzetti, L.,
1114: \& Dickinson, M. 1998, \apj, 498, 106
1115:
1116: \bibitem[Malhotra \& Rhoads(2002)]{mr02} Malhotra, S., \&
1117: Rhoads, J.E. 2002, \apjl, 565, L71
1118:
1119: \bibitem[Malhotra \& Rhoads(2004)]{mr04} Malhotra, S., \&
1120: Rhoads, J.E. 2004, \apjl, 617, L5
1121:
1122: \bibitem[Meier \& Terlevich(1981)]{mt81} Meier, D.L., \& Terlevich, R. 1981,
1123: \apj, 246, L109
1124:
1125: \bibitem[Meurer \etal(1995)]{meurer} Meurer, G.R., Heckman, T.M.,
1126: Leitherer, C., Kinney, A., Robert, C., \& Garnett, D.R. 1995, \aj,
1127: 110, 2665
1128:
1129: \bibitem[Monet \etal(1998)]{monet} Monet, D., Bird, A., Canzian, B.,
1130: Dahn, C., Guetter, H., Harris, H., Henden, A., Levine, S., Luginbuhl, C.,
1131: Monet, A.K.B., Rhodes, A., Riepe, B., Sell, S., Stone, R., Vrba, F.,
1132: \& Walker, R. 1998, PMM USNO-A2.0: A Catalogue of Astrometric Standards
1133: (Washington, DC: US Naval Obs.)
1134:
1135: \bibitem[Ouchi \etal(2003)]{ouchi} Ouchi, M., Shimasaku, K., Furusawa, H.,
1136: Miyazaki, M., Doi, M., Hamabe, M., Hayashino, T., Kimura, M., Kodaira, K.,
1137: Komiyama, Y., Matsuda, Y., Miyazaki, S., Nakata, F., Okamura, S.,
1138: Sekiguchi, M., Shioya, Y., Tamura, H., Taniguchi, Y., Yagi, M., \& Yasuda, N.
1139: 2003, \apj, 582, 60
1140:
1141: \bibitem[Ranalli \etal(2003)]{ranalli} Ranalli, P., Comastri,
1142: A., \& Setti, G. 2003, \aap, 399, 39
1143:
1144: \bibitem[Rhoads \etal(2003)]{rhoads03} Rhoads, J.E., Dey, A., Malhotra, S.,
1145: Stern, D., Spinrad, H., Jannuzi, B.T., Dawson, S., Brown, M., \& Landes, E.
1146: 2003, \aj, 125, 1006
1147:
1148: \bibitem[Rhoads \etal(2000)]{rhoads00} Rhoads, J.E., Malhotra, S., Dey, A.,
1149: Stern, D., Spinrad, H., \& Jannuzi, B.T. 2000, \apj, 545, L85
1150:
1151: \bibitem[Rix \etal(2004)]{GEMS} Rix, H.-W., Barden, M., Beckwith, S.V.W.,
1152: Bell, E.F., Borch, A., Caldwell, J.A.R., H\"aussler, B., Jahnke, K.,
1153: Jogee, S., McIntosh, D.H., Meisenheimer, K., Peng, C.Y.,
1154: Sanchez, S.F., Somerville, R.S., Wisotzki, L., \& Wolf, C. 2004,
1155: \apjs, 152, 163
1156:
1157: \bibitem[Schechter(1976)]{schechter} Schechter, P. 1976, \apj, 203, 297
1158:
1159: \bibitem[Seo \& Eisenstein(2003)]{seo} Seo, H.-J., \& Eisenstein, D.J.
1160: 2003, \apj, 598, 720
1161:
1162: \bibitem[Shapley \etal(2003)]{shapley} Shapley, A.E.,
1163: Steidel, C.C., Pettini, M., \& Adelberger, K.L. 2003, \apj, 588, 65
1164:
1165: \bibitem[Shimasaku \etal(2004)]{shimasaku04} Shimasaku, K., Hayashino, T.,
1166: Matsuda, Y., Ouchi, M., Ohta, K., Okamura, S., Tamura, H., Yamada, T., \&
1167: Yamauchi, R. 2004, \apjl, 605, L93
1168:
1169: \bibitem[Shimasaku \etal(2006)]{shimasaku06} Shimasaku, K., Kashikawa, N.,
1170: Doi, M., Ly, C., Malkan, M.A., Matsuda, Y., Ouchi, M., Hayashino, T.,
1171: Iye, M., Motohara, K., Murayama, T., Nagao, T., Ohta, K., Okamura, S.,
1172: Sasaki, T., Shioya, Y., \& Taniguchi, Y. 2006, \pasj, 58, 313
1173:
1174: \bibitem[Steidel \etal(1999)]{steidel99} Steidel, C.C., Adelberger, K.L.,
1175: Giavalisco, M., Dickinson, M., \& Pettini, M. 1999, \apj, 519, 1
1176:
1177: \bibitem[Steidel \etal(2000)]{steidel00} Steidel, C.C.,
1178: Adelberger, K.L., Shapley, A.E., Pettini, M., Dickinson, M., \&
1179: Giavalisco, M. 2000, \apj, 532, 170
1180:
1181: \bibitem[Steidel \etal(2003)]{steidel03} Steidel, C.C.,
1182: Adelberger, K.L., Shapley, A.E., Pettini, M., Dickinson, M., \&
1183: Giavalisco, M. 2003, \apj, 592, 728
1184:
1185: \bibitem[Steidel \etal(1996a)]{steidel96a} Steidel C.C., Giavalisco, M.,
1186: Dickinson, M., \& Adelberger, K.L. 1996a, \aj, 112, 352
1187:
1188: \bibitem[Steidel \etal(1996b)]{steidel96b} Steidel, C.C., Giavalisco, M.,
1189: Pettini, M., Dickinson, M., \& Adelberger, K.L. 1996b, \apj, 462, L17
1190:
1191: \bibitem[Stiavelli \etal(2001)]{stiavelli} Stiavelli, M., Scarlata, C.,
1192: Panagia, N., Treu, T., Bertin, G., \& Bertola, F. 2001, \apj, 561, L37
1193:
1194: \bibitem[Stone(1977)]{stone} Stone, R.P.S. 1977, \apj, 218, 767
1195:
1196: \bibitem[Taniguchi \etal(2005)]{taniguchi} Taniguchi, Y., \etal\ 2005,
1197: \pasj, 57, 165
1198:
1199: \bibitem[Tapken \etal(2006)]{tapken} Tapken, C., Appenzeller, I.,
1200: Gabasch, A., Heidt, J., Hopp, U., Bender, R., Mehlert, D., Noll, S.,
1201: Seitz, S., \& Seifert, W. 2006, \aap, 455, 145
1202:
1203: \bibitem[Teplitz \etal(2003)]{teplitz03} Teplitz, H.I., Collins, N.R.,
1204: Gardner, J.P., Hill, R.S., \& Rhodes, J. 2003, \apj, 589, 704
1205:
1206: \bibitem[Thommes \& Meisenheimer(2005)]{thommes} Thommes, E.,
1207: \& Meisenheimer, K. 2005, \aap, 430, 877
1208:
1209: \bibitem[Thompson, Djorgovski, \& Trauger(1995)]{thompson} Thompson, D.,
1210: Djorgovski, S., \& Trauger, J. 1995, \aj, 110, 963
1211:
1212: %\bibitem[Tran \etal(2004)]{tran} Tran, K.-V.H., Lilly, S.J., Crampton, D.,
1213: %\& Brodwin, M. 2004, \apjl, 612, L89
1214:
1215: \bibitem[Venemans \etal(2005)]{venemans} Venemans, B.P., R\"ottgering, H.J.A.,
1216: Miley, G.K., Kurk, J.D., de Breuck, C., Overzier, R.A., van Breugel, W.J.M.,
1217: Carilli, C.L., Ford, H., Heckman, T., Pentericci, L., \& McCarthy, P. 2005,
1218: \aap, 431, 793
1219:
1220: \bibitem[Virani \etal(2006)]{virani} Virani, S.N., Treister,
1221: E., Urry, C.M., \& Gawiser, E. 2006, \aj, 131, 2373
1222:
1223: \end{thebibliography}
1224: \clearpage
1225: \begin{deluxetable}{lccc}
1226: \tablewidth{0pt}
1227: \tablecaption{Log of Narrow-band Observations}
1228: \tablehead{&\colhead{Exposure} &\colhead{Seeing}
1229: &\colhead{Active} \\
1230: \colhead{UT Date} &\colhead{(hr)} &\colhead{($\arcsec$)} &\colhead{CCDs} }
1231: \startdata
1232: 6 Oct 2002 &2.0 &$1.4$ &8 \\
1233: 12 Oct 2002 &1.7 &$0.9$ &8 \\
1234: 4 Jan 2003 &2.0 &$1.0$ &8 \\
1235: 5 Jan 2003 &3.0 &$1.0$ &8 \\
1236: 6 Jan 2003 &3.0 &$1.1$ &8 \\
1237: 29 Nov 2003 &2.5 &$1.0$ &7 \\
1238: 1 Dec 2003 &1.7 &$0.9$ &7 \\
1239: 23 Jan 2004 &2.3 &$1.3$ &7 \\
1240: 24 Jan 2004 &2.0 &$0.9$ &7 \\
1241: 25 Jan 2004 &2.5 &$1.1$ &7 \\
1242: 16 Feb 2004 &1.1 &$1.0$ &7 \\
1243: 17 Feb 2004 &0.8 &$1.1$ &7 \\
1244: 18 Feb 2004 &1.3 &$1.0$ &7 \\
1245: 19 Feb 2004 &1.2 &$0.9$ &7 \\
1246: 20 Feb 2004 &0.9 &$1.0$ &7 \\
1247: \enddata
1248: \label{log}
1249: \end{deluxetable}
1250: \clearpage
1251:
1252: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccc}
1253: \tablewidth{0pt}
1254: \tablecaption{Candidate Ly$\alpha$ Emitters: The Statistically Complete Sample}
1255: \tablehead{
1256: \colhead{ID}
1257: &\colhead{$\alpha$(2000)}
1258: &\colhead{$\delta$(2000)}
1259: &\colhead{Log $F_{5000}$}
1260: &\colhead{Equivalent Width} }
1261: \startdata
1262: 1\tablenotemark{a} &03:33:16.86 &$-$28:01:05.2 &$-15.596$ & 449 \\
1263: 2 &03:33:12.72 &$-$27:42:47.1 &$-15.832$ & 392 \\
1264: 3\tablenotemark{b} &03:33:07.61 &$-$27:51:27.0 &$-15.860$ & 92 \\
1265: 4 &03:32:18.79 &$-$27:42:48.3 &$-15.888$ & 251 \\
1266: 5 &03:32:47.51 &$-$27:58:07.6 &$-15.956$ & 235 \\
1267: 6 &03:32:52.68 &$-$27:48:09.4 &$-15.960$ & 272 \\
1268: 7 &03:31:44.99 &$-$27:35:32.9 &$-15.972$ & 248 \\
1269: 8 &03:31:54.89 &$-$27:51:21.0 &$-15.988$ & 310 \\
1270: 9 &03:31:40.16 &$-$28:03:07.5 &$-16.040$ & 116 \\
1271: 10 &03:33:22.45 &$-$27:46:36.9 &$-16.080$ & 143 \\
1272: \enddata
1273: \tablenotetext{a}{Candidate AGN}
1274: \tablenotetext{b}{Foreground AGN}
1275: \label{brightLAEs}
1276: \end{deluxetable}
1277: \clearpage
1278:
1279: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccc}
1280: \tablewidth{0pt}
1281: \tablecaption{Candidate Ly$\alpha$ Emitters: Objects Beyond the
1282: Completeness Limit}
1283: \tablehead{
1284: \colhead{ID}
1285: &\colhead{$\alpha$(2000)}
1286: &\colhead{$\delta$(2000)}
1287: &\colhead{Log $F_{5000}$}
1288: &\colhead{Equivalent Width} }
1289: \startdata
1290: 163 &03:33:14.82 &$-$27:44:09.1 &$-16.824$ & 380 \\
1291: 164 &03:32:08.46 &$-$27:48:43.5 &$-16.824$ & 445 \\
1292: 165 &03:33:26.22 &$-$27:46:09.0 &$-16.824$ & 468 \\
1293: 166 &03:33:11.73 &$-$27:46:51.7 &$-16.828$ & 312 \\
1294: 167 &03:31:26.49 &$-$27:50:34.3 &$-16.828$ & 209 \\
1295: 168 &03:33:05.64 &$-$27:52:47.2 &$-16.828$ & 284 \\
1296: 169 &03:31:50.46 &$-$27:41:15.2 &$-16.828$ & 364 \\
1297: 170 &03:33:17.68 &$-$27:45:44.5 &$-16.832$ & 109 \\
1298: 171 &03:31:48.98 &$-$27:53:38.7 &$-16.832$ & 322 \\
1299: 172 &03:33:10.77 &$-$27:52:41.4 &$-16.836$ & 356 \\
1300:
1301: \enddata
1302: \label{faintLAEs}
1303: \end{deluxetable}
1304: \clearpage
1305:
1306: \clearpage
1307: \begin{deluxetable}{cc|cc}
1308: \tablewidth{0pt}
1309: \tablecaption{Photometric Uncertainties}
1310: \tablehead{
1311: \colhead{Log $F_{5000}$} &\colhead{$\sigma$ (mag)}
1312: &\colhead{Log $F_{5000}$} &\colhead{$\sigma$ (mag)} }
1313: \startdata
1314: $-15.30$ &0.022 &$-16.20$ &0.065 \\
1315: $-15.40$ &0.024 &$-16.30$ &0.073 \\
1316: $-15.50$ &0.026 &$-16.40$ &0.082 \\
1317: $-15.60$ &0.031 &$-16.50$ &0.104 \\
1318: $-15.70$ &0.033 &$-16.60$ &0.125 \\
1319: $-15.80$ &0.038 &$-16.70$ &0.158 \\
1320: $-15.90$ &0.042 &$-16.80$ &0.204 \\
1321: $-16.00$ &0.050 &$-16.90$ &0.264 \\
1322: $-16.10$ &0.058 &$-17.00$ &0.329 \\
1323: \enddata
1324: \label{errors}
1325: \end{deluxetable}
1326:
1327: \clearpage
1328: \begin{deluxetable}{lcc}
1329: \tablewidth{0pt}
1330: \tablecaption{Schechter Function Parameters}
1331: \tablehead{
1332: \colhead{Parameter} &\colhead{Best Solution} &\colhead{Marginalized Values} }
1333: \startdata
1334: Log $L/L^*$ (ergs~s$^{-1}$) &42.66 &$42.64^{+0.26}_{-0.15}$ \\
1335: $\alpha$ &$-1.36$ &$-1.49^{+0.45}_{-0.34}$ \\
1336: %$\phi^*$ (Mpc$^{-3}$) &$6.02 \times 10^{-4}$ &$3.55^{+6.35}_{-1.55}
1337: %\times 10^{-4}$ \\
1338: $N (> 1.3 \times 10^{42} \, \h7^{-2}$~ergs~s$^{-1}$) Mpc$^{-3}$
1339: &$1.46 \times 10^{-3}$ &$1.46^{+0.14}_{-0.11} \times 10^{-3}$ \\
1340: $\phi^*$ (Mpc$^{-3}$) &$1.28 \times 10^{-3}$ &\dots \\
1341: \enddata
1342: \label{parameters}
1343: \end{deluxetable}
1344:
1345: \clearpage
1346: \figurenum{1}
1347: \begin{figure}
1348: \plotone{f1.eps}
1349: \figcaption[bandpasses]
1350: {The bandpass of our narrow-band $\lambda 5000$ filter, along with
1351: those of the $B$ and $V$ filters, which are used to define the
1352: continuum. A spectrum of a typical $z = 3.1$ Ly$\alpha$ galaxy is
1353: overlaid for comparison. Our narrow-band filter isolates the emission
1354: line of Ly$\alpha$ sources with $3.09 \lesssim z \lesssim 3.13$.
1355: \label{bandpasses}
1356: }
1357: \end{figure}
1358: \clearpage
1359:
1360: \begin{figure}
1361: \figurenum{2}
1362: \plotone{f2small.eps}
1363: \figcaption[cmd]
1364: {Excess emission in the narrow-band $\lambda 5000$ filter over the continuum
1365: for objects in our survey field. The abscissa gives the instrumental $\lambda
1366: 5000$ magnitude, while the ordinate shows the difference between the sources'
1367: narrow-band and $B+V$ continuum AB magnitudes. Our narrow-band completeness
1368: limit of $1.5 \times 10^{-17}$~ergs~cm$^{-2}$~s$^{-1}$ is represented by a
1369: vertical line; our equivalent width limit of 90~\AA\ is shown via the
1370: horizontal line. The curve shows the expected $1 \, \sigma$ errors in the
1371: photometry. Candidate emission line galaxies are denoted as blue circles;
1372: the green dots indicate LAE candidates found by our detection algorithms, but
1373: rejected upon visual inspection.
1374: \label{cmd}
1375: }
1376: \end{figure}
1377: \pagebreak
1378: \clearpage
1379:
1380: \begin{figure}
1381: \figurenum{3}
1382: \plotone{f3small.eps}
1383: \figcaption[dimages]
1384: {Narrow-band $\lambda 5000$, $B+V$, and difference images for three
1385: candidate emission-line galaxies. Each frame is $10\arcsec$ on a side,
1386: with north up and east to the left. The objects span a range of
1387: brightness from $\log F_{5000} = -15.60$ at the top to $\log F_{5000} =
1388: -16.74$ at the bottom.
1389: \label{dimages}
1390: }
1391: \end{figure}
1392: \pagebreak
1393: \clearpage
1394:
1395: \begin{figure}
1396: \figurenum{4}
1397: \plotone{f4small.eps}
1398: \figcaption[filtresp]
1399: {The left-hand panel shows the transmission curve for our
1400: narrow-band $\lambda 5000$ filter at the outside ambient temperature
1401: and in the converging f/3.2 beam of the 4-m telescope. Note that the
1402: bandpass is nearly Gaussian in shape. The arrow shows the transmission
1403: value used to translate AB magnitude into monochromatic flux
1404: (see text). The center panel uses the transmission function to illustrate
1405: how our survey volume changes with emission-line sensitivity. The
1406: right-hand panel translates the transmission function into the photometric
1407: convolution kernel that is described in the text.
1408: \label{filtresp}
1409: }
1410: \end{figure}
1411: \pagebreak
1412: \clearpage
1413:
1414: \begin{figure}
1415: \figurenum{5}
1416: \plotone{f5small.eps}
1417: \figcaption[map]
1418: {The sky coordinates of the 160~candidate $z = 3.1$ LAEs
1419: brighter than our completeness limit plotted over our narrow-band
1420: 5000~\AA\ image. The size of each circle is proportional
1421: to Ly$\alpha$ luminosity, with the largest circle representing
1422: $1.25 \times 10^{43} \, \h7^{-2}$~ergs~s$^{-1}$. The green regions show
1423: areas of the chip near bright stars that were excluded from the analysis;
1424: the large rectangle is the GOODS field.
1425: \label{map}}
1426: \end{figure}
1427: \pagebreak
1428: \clearpage
1429:
1430: \begin{figure}
1431: \figurenum{6}
1432: \plotone{f6.eps}
1433: \figcaption[bmr]
1434: {The $B-R$ (rest frame $m_{1060} - m_{1570}$) color-magnitude diagram for
1435: LAEs. The solid circles represent galaxies which have been spectroscopically
1436: confirmed as Ly$\alpha$ emitters \citep{lira07}; the cross indicates the lone
1437: AGN\null. The long-dashed line at $R = 24$ represents the typical magnitude
1438: limit of LBG spectroscopic surveys; the short-dashed line at $R = 25.5$ gives
1439: the photometric limit of most LBG observations. Note that the median
1440: color of our LAEs is quite blue; this is consistent with models
1441: for galaxies with recent star formation. Note also
1442: the large range of colors displayed in the figure. This scatter is
1443: greater than that expected from the photometric errors, and suggests that
1444: the LAE population is not homogeneous.
1445: \label{bmr}}
1446: \end{figure}
1447: \pagebreak
1448: \clearpage
1449:
1450: \begin{figure}
1451: \figurenum{7}
1452: \plotone{f7small.eps}
1453: \figcaption[lbgcomp]
1454: {The $U-V$ versus $V-R$ colors of our $z = 3.1$ LAEs. The solid circles
1455: show spectroscopically confirmed LAEs, the open circles represent
1456: sources observed with insufficient signal-to-noise for classification,
1457: and the crosses are objects with no spectroscopy. The dots are the
1458: entire 84,410 object catalog. The polygon is the LBG
1459: selection region; the sold curve is the track of an LBG template
1460: spectrum. This track falls inside the selection region in the redshift
1461: range $2.8 < z <3.4$ \citep{shapley}. Although most LAEs have LBG-like
1462: colors, their $R > 25.5$ magnitudes exclude them from the ``spectroscopic''
1463: samples studied by \citet{steidel96a, steidel96b, steidel03}.
1464: The contribution of each LAE's emission line to its
1465: $V$-band flux has been subtracted to yield $V_{corr}$.
1466: \label{lbgcomp}}
1467: \end{figure}
1468: \pagebreak
1469: \clearpage
1470:
1471: \begin{figure}
1472: \figurenum{8}
1473: \plotone{f8.eps}
1474: \figcaption[continuum]
1475: {The $R_{AB}$ (rest frame 1570~\AA) luminosity function of our $z = 3.1$
1476: Ly$\alpha$ emitters (solid circles), compared to the rest-frame 1700~\AA\
1477: luminosity function of $z = 3.04$ Lyman-break galaxies (open circles) from
1478: \citep{steidel99}.
1479: The flattening of our luminosity function at $R > 26.5$ is due to selection:
1480: at these magnitudes, only the strongest line emitters make it into
1481: our sample. In the magnitude range $R < 25.5$, $z = 3.1$ Ly$\alpha$
1482: emitters are $\sim 3$ times rarer than Lyman-break galaxies.
1483: \label{continuum}}
1484: \end{figure}
1485: \pagebreak
1486: \clearpage
1487:
1488: \begin{figure}
1489: \figurenum{9}
1490: \epsscale{0.8}
1491: \plotone{f9small.eps}
1492: \figcaption[ewhist]
1493: {The top panel shows the observed distribution of equivalent widths for all the
1494: Ly$\alpha$ emission-line galaxies in our sample. The dotted line shows the
1495: apparent best-fit exponential for the distribution; the solid curve shows the
1496: exponential after correcting for the effects of photometric error and our
1497: filter's non-square transmission curve. The lower two panels divide the
1498: sample in half, and demonstrate that the exponential law does not change
1499: much with galaxy luminosity. The vertical dashed line shows the maximum
1500: equivalent width expected for populations with normal initial mass functions.
1501: \label{ewhist}}
1502: \end{figure}
1503: \pagebreak
1504: \clearpage
1505:
1506: \begin{figure}
1507: \figurenum{10}
1508: \plotone{f10.eps}
1509: \figcaption[lumfun]
1510: {The number density of $z=3.1$ Ly$\alpha$ galaxies with observers' frame
1511: equivalent widths greater than 90~\AA\ binned into 0.2~mag intervals. The
1512: points give the density of objects under the assumption that our filter's
1513: FWHM defines the survey volume; the open circles represent data beyond
1514: our completeness limit. The solid curve shows our input best-fit
1515: \citet{schechter} luminosity function, while the dashed line illustrates
1516: the shape and normalization of this function after correcting for the effects
1517: of photometric error and our filter's non-square transmission curve.
1518: \label{lumfun}}
1519: \end{figure}
1520: \pagebreak
1521: \clearpage
1522:
1523: \begin{figure}
1524: \figurenum{11}
1525: \plotone{f11small.eps}
1526: \figcaption[contours]
1527: {Maximum likelihood confidence contours for our \citet{schechter} function
1528: fit to the observed distribution of Ly$\alpha$ fluxes. The three parameters
1529: in the analysis are the faint-end slope ($\alpha$), the bright-end cutoff
1530: ($\log L^*$) and the space density of galaxies with observed monochromatic
1531: fluxes greater than $1.5 \times 10^{-17}$~ergs~cm$^{-2}$~s$^{-1}$,
1532: \ie\ $L_{{\rm Ly}\alpha} > 1.3 \times 10^{42} \, \h7^{-2}$~ergs~s$^{-1}$.
1533: The contours of probability are drawn at $1 \, \sigma$ intervals.
1534: \label{contours}}
1535: \end{figure}
1536: \pagebreak
1537:
1538: \clearpage
1539: \begin{figure}
1540: \figurenum{12}
1541: \plotone{f12small.eps}
1542: \figcaption[cumfun]
1543: {The cumulative Ly$\alpha$ luminosity function inferred from our
1544: survey of Ly$\alpha$ emitters with rest-frame equivalent widths
1545: greater than 22~\AA. The solid blue line shows our best fit
1546: \citet{schechter} function ($\alpha = -1.49$), the green line is the
1547: $\alpha = -1.5$ luminosity function found by \citet{mr04} for LAEs
1548: at $z = 5.7$, and the red line is the Schechter fit for $z = 5.7$
1549: emitters found by \citet{shimasaku06}. The dashed line is Model~A
1550: by \citet{ledelliou06}. For purposes of this figure, our data have been
1551: artificially normalized to match our best-fit function. The large
1552: difference between the \citet{mr04} and \citet{shimasaku06} fits makes it
1553: impossible to study the evolution of the LAE population at this time.
1554: \label{cumfun}}
1555: \end{figure}
1556: \pagebreak
1557: \clearpage
1558:
1559: \begin{figure}
1560: \figurenum{13}
1561: \plotone{f13.eps}
1562: \figcaption[sfr]
1563: {A comparison of the star formation rates derived from Ly$\alpha$ emission
1564: (under Case B recombination) and the UV continuum at 1570~\AA. The solid
1565: dots represent spectroscopically confirmed objects \citep{lira07}. The
1566: diagonal dashed line shows where the two measurements are equal, while the
1567: solid line illustrates where the UV continuum star-formation rate is three
1568: times the Ly$\alpha$ rate. Our flux limit is shown via the vertical dashed
1569: line; the approximate location of our equivalent width threshold is
1570: shown via the dotted line (see text). Note that, although the two
1571: indicators are correlated, the Ly$\alpha$-inferred rates are $\sim 3$
1572: times less than those derived from the UV continuum.
1573: \label{sfr}}
1574: \end{figure}
1575: \pagebreak
1576: \clearpage
1577:
1578: \begin{figure}
1579: \figurenum{14}
1580: \plotone{f14.eps}
1581: \figcaption[extinction]
1582: {Estimates of the internal extinction within our Ly$\alpha$ emitters,
1583: formed using the assumption that the galaxies' ionized gas is attenuated
1584: more than its stars \citep{calzetti}. The solid dots represent
1585: spectroscopically confirmed Ly$\alpha$ emitters; the dashed line shows
1586: the monochromatic flux limit of our survey. Note that very little
1587: internal extinction is needed to bring the UV and Ly$\alpha$ star-formation
1588: rates into agreement: even in the bright ($R > 24.5$) galaxies, the internal
1589: extinction is never more than $E(B-V)_{\rm stars} \sim 0.1$.
1590: \label{extinction}}
1591: \end{figure}
1592: \pagebreak
1593: \clearpage
1594:
1595: \begin{figure}
1596: \figurenum{15}
1597: \plotone{f15.eps}
1598: \figcaption[sfr_prob]
1599: {The results of our maximum likelihood analysis for the contribution
1600: of Ly$\alpha$ emitters to the star formation rate density of the universe.
1601: The abscissa is the star formation rate density derived from the observed
1602: luminosity of the Ly$\alpha$ emission line; the ordinate is the relative
1603: probability of a solution. The dashed line shows the {\it observed\/}
1604: star formation rate density associated with galaxies above our completeness
1605: limit, \ie\ without any extrapolation of the galaxy luminosity function.
1606: No correction for internal extinction has been applied. The figure implies
1607: that the amount of star formation taking place in galaxies with
1608: strong Ly$\alpha$ emission is comparable to that in Lyman-break galaxies.
1609: \label{sfr_prob}}
1610: \end{figure}
1611:
1612: \end{document}
1613:
1614: \bye
1615: