1: \documentclass{emulateapj}
2: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
3: %\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
4: \usepackage{natbib}
5: \usepackage{epsfig}
6: \begin{document}
7:
8:
9: %\slugcomment{Submitted for publication in the Special GALEX ApJ. Suppl. Issue}
10: %\slugcomment{Accepted for publication in ApJ}
11:
12: \title{Nitrogen Production in Starburst Galaxies Detected by {\sl GALEX}}
13:
14: \author{ Ryan P. Mallery\altaffilmark{1},
15: Lisa Kewley\altaffilmark{2},
16: R. Michael Rich\altaffilmark{1},
17: Samir Salim\altaffilmark{1},
18: Stephane Charlot\altaffilmark{3,4},
19: Christy Tremonti\altaffilmark{5},
20: Mark Seibert\altaffilmark{6},
21: Todd Small\altaffilmark{6},
22: Ted Wyder\altaffilmark{6},
23: Tom A. Barlow\altaffilmark{6},
24: Karl Forster\altaffilmark{6},
25: Peter G. Friedman\altaffilmark{6},
26: D. Christopher Martin\altaffilmark{6},
27: Patrick Morrissey\altaffilmark{6},
28: Susan G. Neff\altaffilmark{7},
29: David Schiminovich\altaffilmark{8},
30: Luciana Bianchi\altaffilmark{9},
31: Jose Donas\altaffilmark{11},
32: Timothy M. Heckman\altaffilmark{12},
33: Young-Wook Lee\altaffilmark{10},
34: Barry F. Madore\altaffilmark{14},
35: Bruno Milliard\altaffilmark{11},
36: Alex S. Szalay\altaffilmark{12},
37: Barry Y. Welsh\altaffilmark{13},
38: Suk Young Yi\altaffilmark{10}}
39:
40: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1562}
41: \altaffiltext{2}{Institute for Astronomy, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI, 4234092309239805}
42: \altaffiltext{3}{Max-Planck Institut f\"ur Astrophysik, D-85748 Garching, Germany}
43: \altaffiltext{4}{Institut d'Astrophysique de Paris, CNRS, 98 bis boulevard Arago, F-75014 Paris, France}
44: \altaffiltext{5}{Steward Observatory, 933 North Cherry Avenue, Tucson, AZ 85721}
45: \altaffiltext{6}{California Institute of Technology,MC 405-47, 1200 East California Boulevard, Pasadena, CA 91125}
46:
47: \altaffiltext{7}{Laboratory for Astronomy and Solar Physics, NASA Goddard
48: Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771}
49:
50: \altaffiltext{8}{Department of Astronomy, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027}
51:
52: \altaffiltext{9}{Center for Astrophysical Sciences, The Johns Hopkins
53: University, 3400 N. Charles St., Baltimore, MD 21218}
54:
55: \altaffiltext{10}{Center for Space Astrophysics, Yonsei University, Seoul
56: 120-749, Korea}
57:
58: \altaffiltext{11}{Laboratoire d'Astrophysique de Marseille, BP 8, Traverse
59: du Siphon, 13376 Marseille Cedex 12, France}
60:
61: \altaffiltext{12}{Department of Physics and Astronomy, The Johns Hopkins
62: University, Homewood Campus, Baltimore, MD 21218}
63:
64: \altaffiltext{13}{Space Sciences Laboratory, University of California at
65: Berkeley, 601 Campbell Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720}
66:
67: \altaffiltext{14}{Observatories of the Carnegie Institution of Washington,
68: 813 Santa Barbara St., Pasadena, CA 91101}
69:
70:
71:
72:
73: \begin{abstract}
74: We investigate the production of nitrogen in star forming galaxies with ultraviolet
75: (UV) radiation detected by the Galaxy Evolution Explorer Satellite ({\sl GALEX}). We use a
76: sample of 8,745 {\sl GALEX} emission line galaxies matched to the Sloan Digital Sky
77: Survey (SDSS) spectroscopic sample. We derive both gas-phase
78: oxygen and nitrogen abundances for the sample, and apply stellar population synthesis models
79: to derive stellar masses and star formation histories of the galaxies.
80: We compare oxygen abundances derived using three different diagnostics.
81: We derive the specific star formation rates
82: of the galaxies by modeling the $7-$band {\sl GALEX}$+$SDSS photometry.
83: We find that galaxies that have log SFR/M$_*\gtrsim-10.0$ typically have values of log N/O $\sim0.05$ dex less than
84: galaxies with log SFR/M$_* \lesssim-10.0$ and similar oxygen abundances.
85: \end{abstract}
86: \keywords{galaxies: abundances - galaxies: fundamental
87: parameters - galaxies: starburst - ultraviolet: galaxies}
88:
89:
90:
91:
92: \section{Introduction}
93: The abundance of nitrogen in
94: galaxies and the site of its creation is critical
95: for our understanding of galaxy chemical evolution.
96: The ratio of N/O is especially useful because both of these elements are
97: created by different mechanisms in different ranges of stellar mass.
98: %While the abundance of metals depends on the initial mass function (IMF), and the star formation history,
99: % the abundance of nitrogen in particular has a dependence on the metallicity \citep{garnetbook}. The main questions are whether
100: %it is completely dependent on the initial metallicity of the star and which populations are responsible for its production.
101: Nitrogen is produced during hydrogen burning via the CNO
102: and CN cycles, and is created as both a primary and secondary element.
103: In primary nucleosynthesis the production of nitrogen is
104: independent of the initial metallicity of the
105: star. Primary
106: production of nitrogen occurs predominantly only
107: in intermediate mass stars
108: (4$\leq$M$/$M$_{\odot}$ $\leq$8)
109: \citep{mat85, mat86}
110: where the nitrogen is produced during hydrogen
111: shell burning while carbon and oxygen, which are
112: assumed to be primary nucleosynthesis elements, are moved from
113: the core to the outer stellar layers during
114: dredge-up episodes. Recent stellar models that include
115: rotational effects indicate that massive
116: stars between 9 and 20 M$_{\odot}$ may produce primary nitrogen \citep{maeder}. These massive star models
117: incorporate a convective helium burning shell that penetrates into the hydrogen
118: burning shell, creating primary
119: nitrogen. The discovery of metal-poor halo stars with high N/O ratios by \citet{spite} and \citet{israelian}
120: seems to confirm the primary production of nitrogen in massive stars with a yield that depends on stellar mass and metallicity \citep{chia05, chia06}.
121: In secondary production, nitrogen is synthesized
122: from the carbon and oxygen initially present in the
123: star and its abundance is therefore proportional to
124: the initial heavy element abundance. Secondary production is common to
125: stars of all masses \citep{mat85,mat86}. Though the synthesis of nitrogen in stars is becoming better understood,
126: our understanding of the abundance of
127: nitrogen in galaxies is lacking. One way to investigate the primary versus secondary origin
128: of nitrogen is to examine the ratio of N/O as a function of O/H. These abundance ratios are commonly computed from
129: optical nebular emission lines of HII regions (see \S 5). In the case of primary nucleosynthesis N/O will be constant; secondary enrichment
130: produces a linear correlation between log N/O and log O/H. The combination of primary and secondary nucleosynthesis produces a
131: non-linear relation (see Fig. 3). The abundance ratios of many other elements such as neon, sulfur, and iron with respect to oxygen have been found to
132: tightly correlate with O/H \citep{iz05}, yet at fixed O/H galaxies have been found to have a scatter in N/O of a factor of 2 \citep{villa93}.
133: Until recently, this problem could not be
134: adequately addressed due to small sample sizes, and uncertain abundances.
135:
136: Chemical evolution scenarios proposed to explain this scatter include (1) a primary plus
137: secondary origin of nitrogen but with variable
138: initial mass functions (IMFs) \citep{alloin},
139: (2) a primary plus secondary origin but with a time delay
140: between the release of nitrogen and the release of oxygen back into
141: the interstellar medium (ISM) \citep{villa93, garnet90, thurston}. With
142: regards to the former scenario,
143: \citet{chia} have found that an IMF constant in
144: space and time better reproduces the observational
145: constraints of the solar neighborhood (i.e.
146: the ratio of metal-poor to metal-rich stars, the ratio of SN II to SN I,
147: and the ratio of He to metal abundance.). \citet{chia} find that such an IMF also helps reproduce the observed abundance
148: gradient of the Galactic disk more reliably than models with IMFs that depend on metallicity or SFR.
149: In the time delay chemical evolution model,
150: oxygen is released in the supernovae
151: of short lived massive stars. As the metallicity of successive generations of massive stars increases,
152: secondary nitrogen is also released, and then the bulk of nitrogen is
153: released much later in intermediate mass stars. The chemical evolution models of \citet{field}
154: for blue compact galaxies and \citet{chia03} for dwarf galaxies,
155: incorporating the variation of stellar yields with stellar mass and stellar evolution timescales,
156: have shown that the scatter in N/O could be reproduced by varying star formation histories.
157:
158:
159: Work by \citet{considere} on
160: abundances in barred spiral
161: galaxies indicates that the nitrogen abundance
162: is the result of both primary and secondary
163: nucleosynthesis. However, nitrogen abundances taken from a small UV selected
164: galaxy sample detected by FOCA\footnote{FOCA was a
165: balloon-borne 40 cm telescope that imaged at
166: 2015\AA, FWHM 188\AA~\citep{mil}.} \citep{contini} show mostly a secondary component,
167: but still with considerable scatter. They proposed that the difference between the two results arises because there is a time delay
168: between the release of oxygen and nitrogen. The UV galaxies were starbursts;
169: consequently, the high mass stars formed during the starburst had released newly synthesized oxygen into the ISM.
170: This increased the oxygen abundance
171: and lowered the N/O ratio of these galaxies such that their new nitrogen and oxygen
172: abundances were consistent with only a secondary nitrogen component. Then later,
173: once the intermediate mass stars formed during the burst have had time to
174: evolve, nitrogen will be released into the ISM. This would increase the nitrogen in these UV galaxies to a similar amount of N/O
175: as the sample of \citet{considere}.
176:
177: The time delay scenario, as stated by \citet{contini}, may be oversimplified. It does not account for
178: galaxies that have star formation histories differing from cycles of bursting phases followed by
179: quiescent phases, and was made prior to any evidence for the production of primary
180: nitrogen in massive stars \citep{maeder, spite, chia05,chia06}. A more accurate statement is: the release of material by
181: a star of mass, M into the ISM will cause the N/O ratio of the ISM to increase if its relative yield of p$_N$/p$_O$ is greater than 1 and decrease
182: if its relative yield is less than 1. The new nitrogen and oxygen stellar yields of \citet{chia06}
183: still indicate that while massive stars (M$_* >9$M$_{\odot}$) produce primary nitrogen, the ratio of nitrogen to oxygen yields for massive stars
184: is $\lesssim 1$ and still decreases with increasing mass. Thus, a burst of star formation will
185: still initially cause a decrease in N/O,
186: the effect of the new yields only diminishes the extent to which a starburst can conceivably lower N/O.
187: All that is required for the N/O of a galaxy to increase
188: is that its current SFR is less than its past average SFR such that comparatively fewer high mass stars are being formed, allowing
189: for intermediate mass stars of previous generations to
190: dominate the chemical enrichment of the galaxy.
191:
192:
193: %add something about the large number of SDSS galaxies and its advantages
194: The large amount of uniformly calibrated data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) has recently enabled
195: robust statistical studies of chemical enrichment \citep{trem05}.
196: Recently, \citet{iz05} examined the ratio of N/O in metal-poor galaxies,
197: $12+\log O/H <8.5$, in SDSS DR3 and
198: concluded that the N/O ratio increases with increasing starburst age (decreasing EW$_{H\beta}$)
199: for metal-poor galaxies, due to the ejection of
200: nitrogen by Wolf-Rayet stars. \citet{liang}
201: consider a $\sim 30,000$ galaxy SDSS DR2 sample, and show that objects with higher N/O tend to have lower $EW_{H\alpha}$.
202: This result is consistent with those galaxies
203: with current star formation rates that are high with respect to their past average star formation rate, exhibiting a higher
204: oxygen abundance. The oxygen is presumably contributed by the recently formed massive stars.
205: Here we examine the N/O ratio as a function of
206: O/H in a sample of UV selected galaxies
207: detected by the Galaxy Evolution Explorer (GALEX),
208: exploiting the overlap between the {\sl GALEX} Medium Imaging Survey and the SDSS
209: spectroscopic footprint in the local
210: universe ($z<0.3$). The large volume of data available from {\sl GALEX}+SDSS
211: makes it possible to go beyond equivalent widths and calculate physical quantities like stellar masses, M$_*$, and specific
212: star formation rates, SFR/M$_*$, which can be more easily compared with models when investigating chemical enrichment.
213: We use the SFR/M$_*$ and $M_*$, of these galaxies
214: derived from their 7-band UV-optical photometry \citep{ss07} to test whether the star formation history
215: of a galaxy can explain the
216: observed relationship between the nitrogen and oxygen abundances in our sample and
217: investigate the accuracy of determined abundances.
218: We note that O/H is not equivalent to a time axis, and the values of N/O and O/H
219: represent the current chemical evolutionary stages for galaxies that
220: have most likely had different histories of star formation and other dynamical processes such as galactic winds
221: and gas accretion timescales \citep{chia03, diaz86, mat85}. We expect, nevertheless, that if the time delay scenario
222: is correct, that galaxies currently exhibiting a
223: strong burst of star formation will on average have lower values of N/O than non-bursting galaxies at similar metallicities.
224:
225:
226: The outline of the paper is as follows. In
227: \S 2 we describe the data and sources used in this
228: analysis. We present our galaxy
229: sample containing matched GALEX and SDSS sources in
230: \S 3. An explanation of the derivation of galaxy
231: parameters by matching the models of \citet{bc03} to
232: the 7 color UV-optical SED of each source is
233: given in \S 4. We describe and contrast the various
234: methods used in determining oxygen
235: abundances in \S 5 and nitrogen in \S 6. In
236: \S 7 we examine the relationship of nitrogen to oxygen for our sample and
237: in \S 8 we give our conclusions. We assume {\it H$_o$}=70
238: km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$, $\Omega_{m}$=0.3, and $\Omega_{\Lambda}$=0.7.
239:
240:
241: \section{Data}
242: We consider galaxies with GALEX photometry from the Medium
243: Imaging Survey (MIS) Internal Release 1.1 (IR1.1), m$_{lim}$(AB)$\approx$ 23, and SDSS
244: photometry and spectra. {\sl GALEX} is a NASA Small
245: Explorer Mission that aims to survey the UV emission from Galactic and extragalactic sources
246: from a 700km circular orbit
247: \citep{martin,pm}. {\sl GALEX} images the sky simultaneously in two bands,
248: the far-UV (FUV 1344-1786\AA) and the near-UV (NUV 1771-2831
249: \AA). Each {\sl GALEX} circular field is 1.25 deg. in diameter. We use
250: FUV and NUV magnitudes and magnitude errors
251: derived in elliptical apertures\footnote{{\sl GALEX} source
252: detection and measurement is obtained from SExtractor
253: \citep{bar}}.
254:
255: We use optical photometry for our objects obtained from
256: SDSS Data Release 4 (DR4) spectroscopic sample. Most of our objects were taken from
257: the main galaxy spectroscopic survey ({\it r}$_{lim}<$17.8), but many of our objects were originally
258: targeted as quasars and taken from the quasar spectroscopic survey ({\it r}$_{lim}<$19.5 \citet{york}). %%%%%%%%%check thiss
259: The SDSS photometric data are taken with
260: the 2.5m telescope at Apache Point Observatory. Imaging is
261: obtained in {\it ugriz} bands
262: \citep{fuk96,smith02}. The imaging data are photometrically
263: \citep{hogg} and astrometrically \citep{pier} calibrated. An
264: overview of the SDSS data pipelines and products can be
265: found in \citet{stoughton}.
266:
267: The SDSS spectra are acquired using 3\arcsec~diameter fibers
268: positioned on the centers of the target galaxies. The spectra are flux and wavelength calibrated for
269: wavelengths between 3800-9200\AA~at resolving power \citep{york}
270: R$\equiv$$\lambda$$/$$\Delta$$\lambda$ =1850-2200.
271: We use continuum subtracted emission-line fluxes and flux errors from the
272: SDSS spectra measured by \citet{trem05}, to divide and classify the
273: sample in terms of emission-line ratios, and to derive
274: nebular abundances.
275:
276: \section{The Sample}
277: We use a sample constructed by matching objects with {\sl GALEX} MIS IR1.1
278: detections to galaxies in the SDSS DR4 spectroscopic sample. The objects are matched
279: within a 4\arcsec~radius \citep{sbrt05,ss07}. We accept only
280: unique matches and discard objects that contain multiple matches.
281: We restrict the sample to galaxies with z$<0.3$
282: that are detected by {\sl GALEX} in the NUV at a 3$\sigma$ level.
283: We further restrict the sample to galaxies with spectral {\it r}-band fluxes greater
284: than 20\% of their total {\it r}-band fluxes. \citet{kjg} found that in samples where
285: the spectroscopic fiber collects greater than 20\% of the
286: galaxy light, the fiber metallicities approximate global values. This criterion gives a sample of 36225 objects.
287:
288: In order to constrain the errors on the derived abundances for objects, we impose detection
289: criteria for several emission lines. We remove galaxies
290: with $<5\sigma$ detections of the Balmer lines H$\alpha$ and H$\beta$
291: and [NII]$\lambda$6584.
292: For other oxygen forbidden
293: lines that are used in the analysis, [OII]$\lambda$3726,3729 [OIII]$\lambda$5007,
294: we remove galaxies with $<3\sigma$ detections. We note that
295: demanding a [OII]
296: detection restricts the galaxy's redshift
297: to $z>0.03$ due to the wavelength cutoff of
298: the SDSS spectrograph at 3800\AA. These constraints
299: trim the sample to 12213 galaxies.
300:
301: We identify Active Galactic Nuclei (AGN) in our sample
302: by using the line diagnostic diagram
303: [NII]$/$H$\alpha$ versus [OIII]$/$H$\beta$ \citep{bpt}.
304: We use the formula of
305: \citet{kauf03b} to remove galaxies with contributions to their emission line spectrum from AGN.
306: The fraction of galaxies removed
307: because of possible contamination due to AGN is $\sim$21\%.
308:
309: Other sources of emission-line flux besides star forming regions include
310: planetary nebulae (PN), and supernova remnants (SNR). Studies by \citet{oey} of the Large
311: Magellanic Cloud (LMC) show that SNRs affect the
312: emission-line spectra at a fairly low level. As
313: discussed in \citet{cl01} the radiation from planetary
314: nebulae can be neglected since the ionizing radiation is
315: typically less than 0.1 percent of that produced by
316: massive stars at an earlier age.
317:
318: We finally remove 831 galaxies with failed fits to the photometric 7-band SED that give reduced $\chi^2 >10$.
319: This gives a sample of 8,745 galaxies, from which 72\% are from the SDSS main galaxy sample.
320: Galaxies in the final star forming sample with 3$\sigma$ FUV
321: detections comprise $\sim$84\% of the sample. The emission-line criteria
322: we use selects galaxies that are blue in NUV$-{\it
323: r}$, with $NUV-r < 4$. {\sl GALEX} is remarkably sensitive to star-forming galaxies. In all of the {\sl GALEX} MIS
324: IR1.1 fields only 155 galaxies that are detected in SDSS DR4 and that satisfy our emission line criteria do not have
325: 3$\sigma$ NUV or FUV detections. The percent {\sl GALEX} detection is $99.4$\% for ${\it r}<17.8$ and $97.9$\%
326: for ${\it r}>17.8$.
327:
328:
329:
330: \section{Derived Galaxy Parameters} %DRSFT DONE
331: We use the following galaxy parameters derived by
332: \citet{ss07}: the NUV and FUV dust attenuations, A$_{NUV}$
333: and A$_{FUV}$ in magnitudes, the current star formation
334: rate, SFR, averaged over the past 100 Myr in M$_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$, the
335: present-day stellar mass, M$_*$, of the galaxy in
336: M$_{\odot}$, the specific star formation rate, SFR/M$_*$, and the fraction of stellar mass
337: formed in starbursts over the last 100Myr, F$_{Burst}$.
338: Galaxy parameters are derived from model libraries of
339: galaxies at redshifts of .05, .10, .15, .20, and .25. Each
340: library consists of $\sim$10$^5$ models. Each model is
341: defined by several parameters: galaxy age, optical depth, star formation history, and metallicity.
342: The star formation history of each model follows the prescription of \citet{kauf03a} and consists of an underlying, continuous, exponentially
343: declining SFR upon which bursts of star formation, random in time and amplitude, are superimposed.
344: Dust attenuation in each model is parametrized using the
345: prescription of \citet{cf00}. A description of the prior distributions of
346: the model parameters is discussed in \citet{ss05} and \citet{ss07}.
347:
348: Model spectral energy distributions (SEDs) are created for each set of model parameters
349: using the population synthesis code of \citet{bc03} and
350: assuming a \citet{kroupa} IMF.
351: The model SEDs are convolved with the GALEX and SDSS filter
352: response curves. Statistical estimates of physical galaxy parameters are derived by
353: comparing the observed 7 band GALEX$/$SDSS fluxes of each
354: galaxy to all the convolved model SEDs in the nearest redshift
355: library. Probability density functions (PDFs) for each
356: physical parameter are created by assigning weights to
357: the parameters of a model. The $\chi^{2}$ goodness of fit of each
358: model determines the weight ($\propto \exp[-\chi^{2}/2]$)
359: that is assigned to the parameters of that model. The median
360: of the PDF is taken as the estimate of the galaxy parameter.
361: An estimate of the error for the parameters is taken as
362: $1/4$ of the 2.5-97.5 percentile range. Table 1 lists the
363: parameters and their mean errors.
364:
365:
366:
367: %TREM metallicity and continuum subtraction
368: \section{Oxygen Abundance}
369: In order to estimate the abundance of oxygen
370: we employ three methods using relations of various
371: emission-line fluxes: the R$_{23}$ strong-line abundance
372: calibration of \citet{mcgaugh},
373: the O3N2 strong-line calibration of
374: \citet{pp04} and the Bayesian metallicity estimates of \citet{trem05}.
375:
376: We use the following flux ratios in our calculations dereddened using the extinction curve of Seaton (1979), assuming R$_v=3.1$ and
377: Case B recombination \citep{oster}:
378: \begin{equation}
379: \frac{[OIII]}{[OII]}\equiv\frac{[OIII]\lambda5007}{[OII]\lambda3727}
380: \end{equation}
381: \begin{equation}
382: O_{32}\equiv\frac{[OIII]\lambda5007
383: +[OIII]\lambda4959}{[OII]\lambda3727}
384: \end{equation}
385: \begin{equation}
386: \frac{[OIII]}{H\beta}\equiv\frac{[OIII]\lambda5007}{H\beta}
387: \end{equation}
388: \begin{equation}
389: \frac{[NII]}{H\alpha}\equiv\frac{[NII]\lambda6584}{H\alpha}
390: \end{equation}
391: \begin{equation}
392: \frac{[NII]}{[OII]}\equiv\frac{[NII]\lambda6584}{[OII]\lambda3727}
393: \end{equation}
394: \begin{equation}
395: R_{23}\equiv\frac{[OII]\lambda3727+[OIII]\lambda5007+[OIII]\lambda4959}{H\beta}
396: \end{equation}
397: \begin{equation}
398: O3N2\equiv\log( \frac{[OIII]\lambda5007/H\beta)}{[NII]\lambda6583/H\alpha})
399: \end{equation}
400:
401: The strong line abundance calibration was first
402: developed by \citet{pag79} and \citet{alloin}.
403: The various line ratios that have been used to
404: calculate abundances are [NII]$/$H$\alpha$,
405: [OIII]$/$[NII],
406: [NII]$/$[OII], ([SII]
407: $\lambda\lambda$66717,6731+ [SIII]
408: $\lambda\lambda$9069,9532])$/$H$\beta$, and R$_{23}$,
409: which was first introduced by \citet{pag79}. Oxygen strong line
410: abundance calibrations are either (1) based on
411: photo-ionization models \citep{diaz,kd03} or (2) on abundances
412: measured in nearby HII regions where the electron
413: temperatures of the ionized regions can be measured. The latter method
414: requires detection of faint auroral
415: emission lines (e.g.,[OIII]$\lambda$4363, [NII]$\lambda$5755) to determine the electron
416: temperature, {\it T$_e$}. The empirical strong-line analytical
417: expressions are created from these measurements to
418: estimate the abundance in galaxies and HII regions
419: that lack significant detections of the auroral lines
420: but have similar abundances.
421:
422: Recently the studies of
423: \citet{kbg,bgk,gkb} using electron temperatures for
424: high metallicity HII regions in M101 and M51,
425: indicate that various strong-line methods calibrated to photo-ionization models (e.g,
426: \citet{mcgaugh}) estimate a higher abundance at high
427: metallicities by 0.2-0.5 dex than the {\it $T_e$} method abundances.
428: It is currently not clear which method is correct. There is some evidence that the abundances calculated by the {\it $T_e$} method
429: may be underestimated due to temperature fluctuations in the ionized regions causing the electron temperatures to be overestimated,
430: and that the strong line abundances may be more correct since their line ratios are not as temperature sensitive as
431: [OIII]4363 \citep{peimbert, bres, bgk,kbg}.
432:
433: In our analysis we use two strong-line calibrations to estimate the oxygen abundance: the R$_{23}$ diagnostic of \citet{mcgaugh} calibrated
434: from photo-ionization models,
435: and the strong-line ([OIII]/H$\beta$)/([NII]/H$\alpha$) diagnostic of \citet{pp04} calibrated from {\it $T_e$} abundances.
436: The derived abundances for each method are respectively labeled M91, and O3N2 throughout the
437: remainder of this work. We add to these strong line abundances the strong line oxygen abundance estimates of
438: \citet{trem05} (hereafter labeled T04), obtained from
439: likelihood distributions of oxygen abundances derived by
440: matching emission line fluxes from integrated galaxy spectra
441: models of \citet{cl01} to the measured fluxes.
442:
443:
444: The R$_{23}$ analytical
445: expressions calibrated by \citet{mcgaugh} and given in
446: \citet{kobul} that we use to calculate M91 are cited below. Many
447: other authors have developed techniques for estimating
448: abundances from R$_{23}$. Examples include \citet{cl01},
449: \citet{alloin}, and \citet{EnP}. R$_{23}$ is useful
450: because it provides an estimate of the total cooling due
451: to oxygen. The major caveat with $R_{23}$ is that it is
452: double valued with respect to metallicity. At low oxygen abundances, $12+\log O/H\lesssim8.4$, R$_{23}$
453: increases with rising abundance until $12+\log O/H\gtrsim8.4$, after which it begins to
454: decrease as metals begin to cause efficient cooling,
455: lowering the electron temperature and thus decreasing
456: the amount of collisional excitation of the oxygen ions. The metal-poor branch expression is:
457:
458: \begin{equation}
459: 12 + \log(O/H) =7.065+.767x+.602x^2- y(.29
460: +.332x-.3318x^2)
461: \end{equation}
462: and the metal-rich branch expression is:
463: \begin{equation}
464: 12+\log(O/H) = 9.061-.2x-.237x^{2}-.305x^{3}-.0283x^{4}-
465: y(.0047-.0221x -.102x^{2} -.0817x^{3}-.00717x^{4})
466: \end{equation}
467:
468: where x$\equiv\log(R_{23}$) and
469: y$\equiv\log(O_{32}$). O$_{32}$ is used to correct
470: the effect of the ionization parameter on R$_{23}$. \citet{kd03}
471: have found that the O$_{32}$ ratio depends on
472: metallicity and as a result is not a good indicator of ionization
473: unless an initial estimate of metallicity can be
474: given and an iterative process is applied.
475:
476: To determine on which branch the correct solution
477: lies, we use the metallicity sensitive ratios [NII]$/$H$\alpha$ and
478: [NII]$/$[OII]. For
479: $\log([NII]/H\alpha$) $<$-1 and $log([NII]/$[OII]) $<$ -1.5
480: we use the metal-poor expression. For $\log[NII]/H\alpha$ $>$-1 and $\log[NII]/$[OII] $>$ -0.8
481: we use the metal-rich expression. If -0.8$>\log(
482: [NII]/$[OII]) $>$ -1.5, then we use the $\log([NII]/H\alpha)$ ratio as stated above to determine the correct branch.
483: Where the two ratios give conflicting
484: estimates, the average of the two expressions is used to
485: derive the abundance. This is because the solutions for the two branches converge at intermediate metallicities,
486: $12+\log O/H\sim8.4$, and
487: it is near this metallicity where the
488: metallicity sensitive ratios are likely to give a conflicting answer. The average of the two branch solutions in this
489: case should minimize any bias
490: in the calculations.
491: A caveat with this procedure is that galaxies with intermediate oxygen abundances
492: but with high SFRs will have lower ratios of [NII]/H$\alpha$ and as a result
493: can have their abundances calculated with the lower branch and therefore underestimated.
494:
495:
496: The strong line calibration O3N2 developed by
497: \citet{pp04} is shown below. The calibration based on
498: this flux ratio also has several problems. First, it is not corrected for ionization parameter. Second, it is
499: based on the flux from a forbidden nitrogen line whose
500: abundance many authors claim depends star-formation history of
501: the galaxy. As a result the calibration is accurate to
502: $\log (O/H) =\pm0.25$, and is only valid for
503: O3N2$< 1.9$ (e.g. $12 + \log(O/H) \gtrsim 8.1$).
504: \begin{equation}
505: 12 +\log(O/H) = 8.73-0.32 \times O3N2
506: \end{equation}
507: There is also evidence that at metallicities $\gtrsim
508: \log(O/H)_{\odot}$ (O3N2 $\lesssim 0.4)$ the O3N2
509: calibration overestimates the
510: oxygen abundance \citep{bgk}.
511:
512: %%%%%%%%%%%REEEEEDDDDOOO PARAGRAPH
513: Figure 1 shows the difference between all
514: the abundance calibrations as a function of stellar mass.
515: In the figure we have transformed each panel into a 75 by 75 pixel image. The mean SFR/M$_*$ of the points in each pixel
516: is shown in true color representation. The mean difference between M91 and O3N2 shows some dependence on stellar mass, with the lower
517: branch of M91 giving lower abundances than O3N2, typically
518: about $0.1$ dex with a dispersion of $0.18$ dex. The upper branch of M91 calculates larger abundances than O3N2 typically by $\sim0.2$ dex with a
519: dispersion of $0.14$ dex.
520: While the offset between O3N2 and M91 shows little dependence on stellar mass,
521: the offset between T04, and the M91, O3N2 diagnostics show a dependence on stellar mass. As galaxy mass increases,
522: T04 estimates an increasingly larger metallicity than the other two calibrations.
523:
524: \section{Nitrogen Abundance}
525: We calculate nitrogen abundance estimates by first using the calibration of \citet{thurston} to estimate the temperature in the
526: [NII] emission region using their calibrated empirical relation created from photo-ionization models:
527: \begin{equation}
528: t_{[NII]}=0.6065+0.1600x
529: +0.1878x^2+0.2803x^3
530: \end{equation}
531:
532: where $x\equiv\log R_{23}$.
533: We then use this
534: temperature to determine the the ratio of N$^+$/O$^+$ based
535: on the empirical calibration of \citet{pag92} based off of {\it T$_e$} abundances:
536:
537: \begin{equation}
538: Log\frac{N^+}{O^+} = Log
539: \frac{[NII]}{[OII]} + .307 - .02Log t_{[NII]} - \frac{0.726}{t_{[NII]}}
540: \end{equation}
541:
542: We finally assume that N$/$O=N$^+/$O$^+$. \citet{thurston} found
543: through modeling that this assumption is reliable, with only small uncertainties,
544: $\sim$.05 dex. \citet{garnet90} concurs that the N$^+/$O$^+$
545: is an accurate N$/$O indicator for low abundances or
546: where the ionizing stars are hotter than
547: 40,000K. Results of modeling by \citet{stasinka} show that even at high abundance, equating the ion
548: ratio to the element ratio is good to within 5\%.
549:
550:
551: We also calculate the nitrogen and oxygen abundance via the {\it T$_e$} method
552: for the 33 objects in our {\sl GALEX} emission line sample having at least a
553: 3$\sigma$ detection of [OIII]43643 to ensure reliable estimates of the electron temperature in the [OIII] ionization regions. Table 2
554: shows the derived ${\it T_e}$ abundances and derived galaxy parameters from SED fitting for these objects. We use the TEMDEN
555: procedure in the IRAF package Nebular \citep{fivel} to derive the electron temperature from the ratio of ([OIII]5007+[OIII]4959)/[OIII]4363.
556: The electron temperature in the [OII] and [NII] regions were then estimated using the linear relation from Garnett (1992) to convert the mean
557: [OIII] electron temperatures into mean electron temperatures in the [OII] ionization regions. We then assume that since [NII] and [OII] have relatively
558: similar ionization energies that the [NII] electron temperature equals the [OII] electron temperature. The abundance of each ion O$^{2+}$, O${^+}$,
559: and N$^+$ were then calculated using the IONIC procedure in Nebular.
560:
561: All four oxygen calculations show a small abundance range for this sub-sample of objects, thus limiting our ability to determine
562: if the difference between the two methods has any dependence on abundance or on N/O.
563: The N/O ratio calculated with the strong line calibration
564: shows that it is typically $\sim0.1$ dex greater than the ratio determined by the {\it $T_e$} method with a dispersion of $0.07$ dex.
565: How accurate the strong line N/O ratio is for higher oxygen abundances is unknown, and its precision is
566: lacking. The mean error on log N/O for the entire sample is 0.17 dex, due mostly to the error on the R$_{23}$ temperature.
567: For the the purposes of the rest of our analysis, the accuracy of the strong line nitrogen diagnostic does not matter,
568: only the relative difference between each galaxy is of importance.
569:
570:
571: \section{The N/O versus O/H Relationship}
572: The time delay scenario for the production of nitrogen predicts that starbursting galaxies exhibit a rise in oxygen abundance
573: along with a drop in N/O \citep{contini, vzee06, henry99}. The addition of UV data from {\sl GALEX}
574: to the 5 band SDSS photometry makes it possible to distinguish between galaxies recently hosting
575: starbursts and those with declining star formation, because the FUV passband is responsive to star formation
576: on timescales of 10 Myr and the NUV passband on timescales of 100 Myr \citep{martin, bc03}. We use our O/H and N/O estimates along with the
577: results from the Bayesian broad band SED analysis
578: to examine if the relative abundance of nitrogen to oxygen in a galaxy can be explained by the galaxy's star formation history.
579:
580: The relationship between N/O and O/H for our sample is shown
581: in Figure 2. The points have been pixelated and then scaled by color
582: to show the mean value of specific star formation rate
583: of the points in each pixel. The specific star formation rate indicates the relative number of recently formed ($\sim100Myr$) high mass stars
584: to the cumulative number of stars formed over a galaxy's star formation history.
585: Galaxies with large specific star formation rates have recently undergone a burst of star formation
586: or have a slowly declining SFR. The mean standard deviation in SFR/$M_*$ for each pixel is $\sim0.07$ dex.
587: In Figure 3 we plot our nitrogen-oxygen relationship again
588: with the data points plotted as a shaded 2D histogram to aid the interpretation of the previous figure.
589:
590: In the figures we have included the simple closed box
591: model of \citet{villa93} for the primary (solid
592: line), secondary (dashed line), and primary +
593: secondary (dashed-dotted line) production of
594: nitrogen. This model assumes that nitrogen has both a
595: primary and secondary component, and that oxygen has
596: only a primary component. The time rate of
597: change of each element is taken to be proportional
598: to the star formation rate which is assumed to equal a constant times the fraction
599: of galaxy's mass in gas ($=1$ at t$=0$).
600: Assuming that there are
601: no time delays in the release of the material, a solution for the model can be
602: found, $\log [N/O] = \log[a+b \times [O/H]]$,
603: where a is the primary yield of nitrogen divided by
604: the yield of oxygen and b is the secondary yield of
605: nitrogen divided by the yield of oxygen. \citet{villa93} quote
606: values of a=.034 and b=120 using a by-eye fit
607: to line strengths taken from literature for HII
608: regions in nearby galaxies.
609:
610: The three oxygen abundance methods, allowing for the relative offsets between each method,
611: are all consistent with galaxies containing primary nitrogen
612: at low metallicities and a secondary component at higher metallicities. The mean scatter of N/O as a
613: function of oxygen abundance is 0.08 dex for O3N2, 0.11 dex for M91 and 0.13 dex for T04.
614: We note that these three derivations for oxygen abundance are not completely independent of the nitrogen abundance.
615: The O3N2 value depends on a flux ratio containing [NII]6584, while $R_{23}$ is used to calculate
616: the [NII] temperature required to determine the N/O ratio. Furthermore,
617: the models used to derive T04 have prior distributions of metallicities where nitrogen abundance is selected to have a only a primary dependence on
618: the oxygen abundance below $12+\log$ O/H$<8.25$, and a completely secondary dependence for metallicities greater than this.
619: T04 and O3N2 diagnostics are therefore predetermined to exhibit secondary nitrogen production,
620: and are not useful in determining
621: the relative amount of secondary or primary nitrogen in each galaxy. Furthermore, the abundances determined by T04 may
622: slightly overestimate abundances for galaxies that have an increased N/O ratio from primary+secondary nitrogen. The likelihood estimates of T04
623: depend on the flux from nitrogen emission lines, but only consider that nitrogen is secondary in origin, and do not accurately account for
624: nitrogen fluxes from galaxies containing secondary plus primary nitrogen. Of the three diagnostics, the M91 calculation
625: has the least dependence
626: on the N/O diagnostic. This is because the N/O calculation depends slightly on the temperature estimate obtained by $R_{23}$, which introduces
627: a scatter in N/O that increases from $\sim0.04$ dex at the lowest values of N/O to $\sim0.1$ dex at highest N/O values. The
628: fact that O3N2 and T04 show a similar secondary dependence on N/O as M91 is an indication that the interdependence between the N/O
629: calculation and T04 or O3N2 is only a small effect.
630:
631:
632: %%SUB HEADING BREAK
633: \subsection{N/O and SFR/M$_*$}
634:
635: The main results emerge when we consider the relationship between N/O and O/H as a function of specific star formation rate.
636: Figure 2 gives several interesting results. First, for galaxies with high abundances ($12+\log$ O/H$\gtrsim8.6$),
637: the M91 and T04 diagnostics both indicate that for galaxies with similar O/H, the most extreme starbursts (highest values of SFR/$M_*$) tend to have
638: lower N/O. This is shown more clearly in Figures 3 and 4. In these figures we divide our emission sample into sub-samples of
639: specific star formation rate:
640: log SFR/M$_* < -10.1$ (red points), $-10.1<$log SFR/M$_* <-9.1$ (green points), and log SFR/M$_* > -9.1$ (blue points). We then calculate the mean
641: N/O value and error on the mean for each of the sub-samples in increments of $0.1$ dex in $\log$ O/H.
642: Figure 3 plots the mean N/O values for each sub-sample
643: as a function of metallicity, and figure 4 plots the difference between the mean N/O value in each sub-sample
644: and the mean N/O value for the entire sample. Tables 3, 4 and 5
645: list the mean values of N/O, the errors on the mean,
646: and the number of galaxies for each bin of O/H with more than 30 galaxies in each sub-sample. All three diagnostics show that the galaxies
647: with log SFR/M$_* > -10.1$ have lower N/O values than galaxies in the lowest specific star formation rate sub-sample (log SFR/M$_* < -10.1$)
648: in each decrement of metallicity between $8.5$ and $9.0$ dex. As metallicity
649: increases, and nitrogen becomes largely secondary in origin, and
650: the difference between the N/O ratios of the sub-sample with the lowest specific star formation rates and the other two sub-samples decreases.
651:
652: The M91 and T04 diagnostics also show that the most extreme starbursts (log SFR/M$_* > -9.1$)
653: at intermediate metallicities on average have N/O ratios $0.02$ dex lower than galaxies with average specific
654: star formation rates, $-10.1<$log SFR/M$_* <-9.1$, a decrease in N/O of $\sim3\%$.
655: The O3N2 diagnostic shows the opposite trend of the other two diagnostics since O3N2
656: is not corrected for ionization parameter.
657: At the lowest and highest metallicities
658: no difference is found between the N/O ratios of the two sub-samples in all three diagnostics.
659:
660: %%%%%%
661: %with high log SFR/M$_*$ have lower N/O ratios because the chemical enrichment of the galaxies ISM is dominated
662: % by high mass stars that release more oxygen than nitrogen. The chemical enrichment of galaxies with low log SFR/M$_*$, which are not currently forming as many
663: % high mass stars, are dominated by the products of intermediate mass stars, which create more nitrogen than oxygen.
664:
665: Our findings are consistent with similar conclusions reached by \citet{contini}.
666: The galaxies with the lower specific star formation rates
667: have the highest N/O ratios because they are currently forming comparatively fewer
668: high mass stars. This allows the chemical enrichment of the galaxy to be dominated by the products of intermediate mass stars,
669: which generate more nitrogen than oxygen, causing N/O in these galaxies to rise.
670: At low metallicities no difference is found between
671: the N/O ratios of the the most extreme starbursts and the average star-forming sub-samples. This is because
672: there are only a small number of galaxies in our sample with low metallicities
673: and most of these are in the sub-sample with the highest specific star formation rates. At high metallicities, no difference is found between the
674: the most extreme starbursts and the average star-forming sub-sample. This is presumably because the oxygen generated by
675: the high mass stars formed during the latest starburst constitutes only a small fraction of the total oxygen abundance of the galaxy
676: and has little effect on lowering the N/O ratio. At intermediate metallicities the oxygen abundance is relatively small,
677: such that the oxygen created in a starburst
678: constitutes a large fraction of the oxygen abundance of a galaxy and causes a larger decrease in the N/O ratio.
679:
680: Other possible explanations for the N/O ratios are variable IMFs and galactic winds.
681: An IMF that produces more massive stars for galaxies with higher specific star formation rates, could possibly cause the low N/O ratios
682: of the strongest starbursts seen in Figures 2,3, and 4.
683: Such a variable IMF could plausibly have a slope parametrized by either metallicity, SFR, or both.
684: \citet{silk} conjectures that the IMFs of starbursts may be weighted to
685: form more massive stars, and several authors have previously parametrized IMFs with a dependence on metallicity \citep{matt_t, scully}.
686: At this time, the validity of a variable IMF and its effect on the abundances cannot be assessed.
687: We find no need to invoke a variable IMF to model the UV and optical SEDs of these galaxies. Furthermore,
688: \citet{chia} have found that that chemical
689: evolution models for the Galaxy that use a metallicity dependent IMF
690: do not adequately reproduce the observational constraints of the solar neighborhood.
691:
692:
693: Galaxies with high specific star formation rates could also have galactic winds that differentially remove one element with respect to the other.
694: With regards to differential flow of oxygen,
695: \citet{vzee06} examined the ratio of N/O for a sample of dwarf galaxies, and argues that their data suggests that either differential outflow
696: of oxygen occurs in every galaxy in their sample
697: with the same efficiency or that differential outflow of oxygen has a negligible effect on N/O ratios.
698: They found that the correlation of oxygen abundance with optical luminosity for their sample had a lower
699: scatter than the correlation of nitrogen abundance with optical luminosity. They argue that if differential outflow was the cause of the scatter
700: in N/O, then the oxygen-luminosity correlation should have a larger scatter than the nitrogen-luminosity correlation, since the
701: the outflow of oxygen would depend on other galaxy parameters such as galaxy mass, and ISM structure. Nitrogen may be differentially removed in
702: galaxies that have high specific star formation rates, but there is no reasonable explanation as to why this might occur.
703: In fact, one would expect the opposite, that
704: oxygen and not nitrogen would be differentially removed in starbursts since the kinetic energy responsible for ejecting the material likely comes from
705: the supernovae of high mass stars that produce very little nitrogen with respect to oxygen.
706:
707: \subsection{N/O vs M$_*$ and {\it g-r} optical color}
708: In order to further test the above explanation, we plot the nitrogen to oxygen relationship again,
709: with the pixels scaled by color with mean values of stellar mass, and {\it g-r} color in Figures 5 and 6 respectively. \citet{trem05}
710: found a tight correlation of $0.1$ dex between increasing stellar mass and oxygen abundance, so we expect that mass will increase
711: with O/H. Figure 5 shows that the stellar mass increases with O/H with little dependence on N/O for all three methods.
712: Along the same lines, \citet{vzee06} analyze a dwarf galaxy sample and conclude that a trend of increasing N/O
713: correlates with redder B-V color and hence, lower star formation rate.
714: Based on this result, we expect that increasing values of N/O should correlate with redder g-r color.
715: In figure 6 we see that as N/O increases
716: the average {\it g-r} color increases for T04, M91, and O3N2 at high metallicities. At metallicities below $12+\log$ O/H$\sim8.4$ both
717: M91, and T04 show this
718: trend. O3N2 does not because it is not corrected for ionization effects. All methods of determining the oxygen abundance show a dependence
719: on mass irrespective of their nitrogen abundance. The T04 and M91 diagnostics
720: show that galaxies of similar metallicity but with higher N/O values
721: have redder {\it g-r} color. These results suggest that the trend between higher specific star formation rates and lower N/O values is a real trend,
722: but more reliable and consistent metallicity diagnostics are required to test this result.
723:
724:
725: \subsection{{ \it T$_e$} sample N/O vs O/H}
726: As a further check, we use the ${\it T_e}$ method abundances to determine whether the trend
727: for galaxies with higher SFR/M$_*$ to have lower N/O ratios is genuine, and not
728: produced by the strong line abundance calculations themselves due to a dependence on an unknown galaxy parameter.
729: The abundances derived from the {\it $T_e$} method are dependent only on electron
730: temperature and density, and the N/O ratio calculated by this method is not predetermined to show secondary dependence.
731: In Figure 7 we show the N/O ratio versus O/H for the 33 galaxies with abundances measured
732: by the {\it $T_e$} method. In the upper left the points are colored by their {\it g-r} optical colors.
733: Even though there is a good deal of scatter in the figure, the galaxies that
734: have the lowest N/O ratios tend to be the bluest in {\it g-r}, with the mean value of ${\it g-r} = 0.12$ and
735: a standard error on the mean of $.04$ for galaxies with
736: $\log N/O < -1.5$ and {\it g-r} $= 0.2$ with a standard error on the mean of $0.04$ for galaxies with $\log N/O >-1.5$. These galaxies also tend to have
737: slightly higher specific star formation rates with a mean difference of $0.12$ dex between galaxies with
738: $\log N/O < -1.5$ and galaxies with
739: $\log N/O > -1.5$. The galaxies with lower N/O ratios also have slightly higher H$\alpha$ equivalent widths, which is an indicator of the current
740: star formation relative to past star formation, on timescales of 10 Myr.
741: The SED fitting indicates that to a 95\% reliability at least half
742: of these galaxies formed 1\% (and as much as $\sim50\%$) of their stellar mass in bursts within the last 100Myr.
743: If there is indeed a time delay between the release of oxygen from the massive stars
744: and nitrogen from the intermediate mass stars, then these starburst galaxies should have an influx of newly synthesized oxygen that
745: will raise the oxygen abundance and reduce the N/O ratio. The results from the {\it $T_e$} abundances
746: slightly favor this scenario, but due to the small
747: sample of galaxies with 3$\sigma$ detections of [OIII]4363, the small range of specific star formation rates,
748: and the uncertainties on the abundances, we are unable to discern if the star formation history is really the cause
749: of the scatter of N/O values for the {\it $T_e$} sample.
750: We would expect that since all of the 33 galaxies are large starbursts, that the N/O ratios would lie close to the secondary
751: nitrogen curve. The explanation posited by \citet{iz05} for the scatter in N/O for galaxies with similar metallicities
752: is that the Wolf Rayet stars in these galaxies have released a significant amount of nitrogen from winds, which
753: being an order of magnitude more dense than the surrounding ISM can cause the N/O ratio to appear high, increasing by as much as $0.23$ dex.
754: The N/O ratio will decrease as the nitrogen from the WR winds has time to diffuse
755: into density equilibrium with the ISM, raising the overall ISM log N/O ratio by $0.03$ dex. However, the chemical evolution models of \citet{chia03} show
756: that the scatter in N/O ratios of dwarf galaxies at metallicities similar to those in our
757: our {\it $T_e$} sample can be explained by different star formation histories,
758: different burst strengths, and burst durations; they show that there is no need to invoke nitrogen from winds of massive stars to show this effect.
759: The galaxies with $\log N/O >-1.5$ have on average
760: only slightly bluer optical colors than the rest of the {\it $T_e$} galaxies. This indicates that intermediate mass
761: stars from the last major star formation event may be responsible for the high N/O ratios, but does not rule out that winds could cause
762: a portion of the observed scatter, (though the errors on the measured abundances
763: are able to account for a large portion of the observed scatter in N/O). To resolve this issue, and effect of variable IMFs or
764: other dynamical processes on N/O such as
765: mixing timescales of the newly synthesized material,
766: more reliable and consistent metallicity measurements
767: are needed, with errors in the derived abundance less than
768: $0.1$ dex. New nitrogen diagnostics
769: for metal rich galaxies are particularly needed to compare our results obtained using the \citet{pag92} strong line diagnostic.
770: These results should also be compared to chemical evolution models to substantiate their validity.
771:
772:
773: \section{Conclusion}
774: We consider galaxies detected by
775: {\sl GALEX} in the Medium Imaging Survey to a limiting magnitude of $NUV=23 (AB)$. We match our UV star-forming galaxies
776: to ${\it z}=0.3$ with the SDSS DR4 spectroscopic sample. \\ \\
777:
778: 1. {\sl GALEX} at MIS depth ($NUV_{limit}\sim23.0 AB$)
779: detects 98.4\% of star forming SDSS galaxies in the DR4 spectroscopic sample matching our emission line criteria of
780: 5$\sigma$ detections of H$\alpha$,
781: H$\beta$, [NII]6584, and 3$\sigma$ detections of [OIII]5007 and [OII]3727. \\ \\
782:
783: 2. For our emission line sample of $\sim8,000$ {\sl GALEX}/SDSS star forming galaxies,
784: we have examined each galaxy's oxygen abundance for three strong line abundance measurements. These are calibrated off photo-ionization models, M91,
785: {\it $T_e$} determined abundances, O3N2,
786: and the Bayesian likelihood estimates, T04. We compare each abundance method as a function of both M$_*$ and SFR/M$_*$.
787: Compared to the other two methods O3N2 is found to increasingly estimate lower oxygen abundances
788: for galaxies with higher SFR/M$_*$ since it is not corrected for ionization parameter.\\ \\
789:
790: 3. We investigate the relationship between N/O and O/H
791: using the three different O/H diagnostics and the strong line calculation of N/O from \citet{pag92}. We use the specific SFR
792: derived from SED fits to the $7-$band {\sl GALEX}$+$SDSS photometry to indicate of the strength of the starbursts in each galaxy
793: over the last 100Myr.\\ \\
794:
795: 4. Star forming galaxies that are currently forming a
796: large percentage of their stellar mass, as parametrized by SFR/M$_*$, have smaller values of N/O at a given metallicity for
797: for all three metallicity diagnostics, supporting the results of \citet{contini}.
798: This trend spans the metallicity range of $\sim0.6$ dex from $12+log O/H\sim8.4$ to $12+log O/H \sim9.0$~dex and suggests the scenario
799: that the scatter in N/O ratio for galaxies of similar metallicities is due to the ratio of current to past averaged SFR.
800: The observed effect is modest, since the change in N/O is of the order of the abundance uncertainties. However the abundance dispersion could also arise
801: due to varying mixing times of the newly synthesized oxygen into the ISM. More realistic and consistent metallicity
802: diagnostics are required to further test this result. \\
803:
804:
805: \acknowledgments
806:
807: GALEX is a NASA Small Explorer, launched in April 2003. We
808: gratefully acknowledge NASA's support for construction,
809: operation, and science analysis for the GALEX mission,
810: developed in cooperation with the CNES of France and the
811: Korean Ministry of Science and Technology. Funding for the
812: creation and distribution of the SDSS Archive has been
813: provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the Participating
814: Institutions, NASA, NSF, DoE, Monbukagakusho, and the Max
815: Planck Society.
816:
817:
818: {\it Facilities:} \facility{GALEX}
819:
820:
821: \begin{thebibliography}{}
822: %\bibitem[Abazajian et al.~(2004)]{abaz} Abazajian, K. et
823: % al. 2004, \aj, 128, 502
824: \bibitem[Alloin et al.~(1979)]{alloin} Alloin, D.,
825: Collin-Souffrin, S., Joly, M., \& Vigroux, L. 1979, A\&A,
826: 78, 200
827: %\bibitem[Alongi et al. (1993)]{alongi} Alongi M., Bertelli F.,
828: % Bresssan A., Chiosi C., Fagotto F., Greggio L., Nasi E.,
829: % 1003, A\&ASS, 97, 851
830: \bibitem[Baldwin, Phillips, \& Terlevich
831: (1981)]{bpt} Baldwin, J. A., Phillips, M. M., \&
832: Terlevich, R. 1981, PASP, 93, 5
833: %\bibitem[Bell, E. F. et al. (2004)]{bell04} Bell, E. F. et
834: % al. 2004, ApJ, 608, 752
835: \bibitem[Bertin, \& Arnouts (1996)]{bar} Bertin, E.,
836: \& Arnouts, S. 1996, A\&AS, 117, 393
837: %\bibitem[Blanton et al (2003)]{blanton} Blanton, M. et al
838: % 2003, \aj, 125, 2276
839: %\bibitem[Bressan et al. (1993)]{bressan} Bressan A., Fagotto
840: % F., Bertelli G., Chiosi C., 1993, A\&AS, 100, 647
841:
842: \bibitem[Bresolin (2006)]{bres} Bresolin, F. 2006, astro-ph/0608410
843: \bibitem[Bresolin, Garnett, \& Kennicutt (2004)]{bgk} Bresolin,
844: F., Garnett, D. R. \& Kennicutt, R. C. 2004, ApJ, 615, 228
845: %\bibitem[Brinchmann et al. (2004)]{jarle} Brinchmann, J.,
846: % Charlot, S., White, S. D. M., Tremonti, C., Kauffmann, G.,
847: % Heckman, T., \& Brinkmann, J., MNRAS, 351, 1151
848: %\bibitem[Bower, Lucey, \& Ellis,
849: % (1992)]{Bower} Bower, R. G., Lucey, J. R., \& Ellis,
850: % R. S. 1992, MNRAS, 254, 601
851: \bibitem[Bruzual \& Charlot (2003)]{bc03} Bruzual,
852: G., \& Charlot, S. 2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000
853: \bibitem[Chiappini, Matteucci \& Padoan
854: (2000)]{chia}Chiappini, C., Matteucci, F., \& Padoan,
855: P. 2000, ApJ, 528, 711
856: \bibitem[Chiappini, Romano, \& Matteucci (2003)]{chia03} Chiappini, C., Romano, D., \& Matteucci, F. 2003, MNRAS, 339, 63
857: \bibitem[Chaippini, Matteuci, \& Ballero (2005)]{chia05}Chiappini, C., Matteucci, F., Ballero, S. K. 2005, A\&A, 437, 429
858: \bibitem[Chaippini et al. (2005)]{chia06}Chiappini, C., Hirschi, R., Meynet, G., Maeder, A., \& Matteucci, F. 2006, A\&A, 449, 27
859: \bibitem[Charlot \& Longhetti (2000)]{cl01} Charlot,
860: S., \& Longhetti 2000, MNRAS, 323 887
861: \bibitem[Charlot \& Fall (2000)]{cf00} Charlot,
862: S., \& Fall, S. M. 2000, ApJ 539, 718
863: \bibitem[Consid$\tilde{e}$re et al.~(2000)]{considere} Considere, S., Coziol, R., Contini, T., \& Davoust,
864: E. 2000, A\&A, 356, 89
865: \bibitem[Contini et al.~(2002)]{contini} Contini, T.,
866: Treyer, M. A., Sullivan, M., \& Ellis, R. S. 2002, MNRAS,
867: 330, 75
868: %\bibitem[Dekel \& Woo (2003)]{dek} Dekel, A. \& Woo, J. 2003,
869: % MNRAS, 344, 1131
870: %\bibitem[De Robertis et al. (1987)]{derobertis} De Robertis,
871: % M. M., Dufour, R. J., \& Hunt, R. W. 1987, JRASC, 81, 195
872: \bibitem[Diaz et al.~(2000)]{diaz} Diaz, A. I., Castellanos,
873: M., Terlevich, E., \& Garcia-Vargas, M. L. 2000, MNRAS, 318, 462
874: \bibitem[Diaz \& Tosi (1986)]{diaz86} Diaz, A. I., \& Tosi, M. 1996, A\&A, 158, 60
875: \bibitem[Edmunds \& Pagel (1984)]{EnP}
876: Edmunds, M. G., \& Pagel, B. E. J. 1984, MNRAS, 211, 507
877: %\bibitem[Fagotto et al. (1994a)]{faga} Fagotto F., Bressan
878: % A., Bertelli G., Chiosi C., 1994a, A\&AS, 104, 365
879: %\bibitem[Fagotto et al. (1994b)]{fagb} Fagotto F., Bressan
880: % A., Bertelli G., Chiosi C., 1994a, A\&AS, 105, 29
881: \bibitem[Fields \& Olive (1998)]{field} Feilds, B. D., \& Olive, K. A. 1998, ApJ, 516, 797
882: \bibitem[Fukugita et al.~(1996)]{fuk96} Fukugita, M.,
883: Ichikawa, T., Gunn, J. E., Doi, M., Shimasaku, K.,
884: \& Schneider, D. P. 1996, \aj, 111, 1748
885: %\bibitem[Garnett (2004)]{garnetbook} Garnet, D. R. 2004,
886: % in Evolution and Origin of the Elements, Ed. McWilliam, A. ,
887: % \& Rauch, M. (Cambridge University Press), 405
888: %\bibitem[Garnett et al (2004)]{garnet04} Garnet, D. R.,
889: % Edmunds, M. G., Henry, R. B.C., Pagel, B. E., Skillman,
890: % E. D. 2004, ApJ, 128, 2772
891: \bibitem[Garnett, Kennicutt \& Bresolin (2004)]{gkb} Garnett,
892: D. R., Kennicutt, R. C., \& Bresolin, F. 2004, ApJ, 607, 21
893: %\bibitem[Garnett (2002)]{garnet02} Garnett, D. R. 2002,
894: % Apj, 581, 1019
895: %\bibitem[Garnett (1992)]{garnet92} Garnett, D. R. 1992, AJ,
896: % 103, 1330
897: \bibitem[Garnett (1990)]{garnet90} Garnett, D. R. 1990,
898: \aj, 363, 142
899: %\bibitem[Girardi et al. (1996)]{girardi} Girardi L., Bressan
900: % A., Chiosi C., Bertelli G., Nasi E., 1996, A\&AS, 117, 113
901: %\bibitem[Heckman et al. (2000)]{heck} Heckman,
902: % T. M., Lehnert, M. D., Strickland, D. K., \& Armus,
903: % L. 2000, ApJS, 129, 493
904: \bibitem[Henry \& Worthey (1999)]{henry99} Henry, R. B. C., \&
905: Worthey, G. 1999, PASP, 111, 919
906: \bibitem[Hogg et al.~(2001)]{hogg} Hogg, D. W.,
907: Finkbeiner, D. P., Schlegel, D. J., \& Gunn, J. E. 2001,
908: \aj, 122, 2129
909: \bibitem[Israelian et al. (2004)]{israelian} Israelian, F., Ecuvillon, A., Rebolo, R., et al. 2004, A\&A, 421, 649
910: \bibitem[Izotov et al. (2006)]{iz05} Izotov, Y.I., Stasinsda, G., Meyenet, G., Guseva, N. G., \& Thuan, T. X. 2006, A\&A, 448, 955
911: \bibitem[Kauffmann et al.~(2003a)]{kauf03a} Kauffmann,
912: F. et al. 2003, MNRAS, 341,33
913: \bibitem[Kauffmann et al.~(2003b)]{kauf03b} Kauffmann, G. et
914: al. 2003, MNRAS, 346, 1055
915: \bibitem[Kennicutt, Bresolin \& Garnett (2003)]{kbg} Kennicut,
916: R. C., Bresolin, F., \& Garnett, D. R. 2003, ApJ, 591, 801
917: %\bibitem[Kennicutt (1998)]{ken98} Kennicutt,
918: % R. C. 1998, ARA\&A, 36, 189
919: \bibitem[Kewley, Jansen \& Geller (2005)]{kjg} Kewley, L. J., Jansen
920: R. A., \& Geller, M. J. 2005, PASP 117, 227
921: \bibitem[Kewley \& Dopita (2002)]{kd03}
922: Kewley, L. J., \& Dopita, M. A. 2002, ApJS, 142, 35
923: \bibitem[Kewley et al.~(2001)]{kew01} Kewley, L. J., Dopita, M. A., Sutherland, R. S.,
924: Heisler, C. A., \& Trevena, J. 2001, ApJ, 556,121
925: %\bibitem[Kobulnicky \& Skillman (1996)]{kobul96} Kobulnicky,
926: % H. A. \& Skillman, E. D. 1996, ApJ, 471, 211
927: \bibitem[Kobulnicky, Kennicutt, \& Pizagno
928: (1999)]{kobul} Kobulnicky, H. A., Kennicutt, \& R. C, Pizagno, J. L.
929: 1999, ApJ, 514, 544
930: \bibitem[Kroupa (2001)]{kroupa} Kroupa P., 2001, MNRAS, 322,231
931: %\bibitem[Lehnert \& Heckman (1996)]{leh}
932: % Lehnert, M. D. \& Heckman, T. M. 1996, ApJ, 472, 546
933: %\bibitem[Lee et al (2006)]{Lee}, H., Skillman, E. D., Cannon,
934: % J. M., Jackson, D. C., Gehrz, R. D., Polomski, E. F., \&
935: % Woodward, C. E. 2006, ApJ, %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
936:
937: \bibitem[Liang et al (2006)]{liang} Linag, Y. C., Yin, S. Y., Hammer, F., Deng, L., C., Flores, H., \& Zhang, B. 2006,
938: ApJ, 652, 257
939:
940: \bibitem[Maeder (2000)]{maeder} Maeder, A. 2000, New
941: Astronomy Review, 44, 291
942: \bibitem[Martin et al. (2008)]{martin} Martin, C. D. et
943: al. 2008 this volume
944: \bibitem[Matteucci (1986)]{mat86} Matteucci, F. 1986,
945: MNRAS, 221 911
946: \bibitem[Matteucci \& Tornambe (1985)]{matt_t} Matteucci, F., Tornambe, A. 1985, A\&A, 142, 13
947: \bibitem[Matteucci \& Tosi (1985)]{mat85}Matteucci,
948: F., \& Tosi, M. 1985, MNRAS 217 391
949: \bibitem[McGaugh (1991)]{mcgaugh} McGaugh, S. S. 1991,
950: ApJ, 380, 140
951: %\bibitem[Miller \& Matthews (1972)]{mm} Miller,
952: % J. S. \& Matthews, W. G. 1972, ApJ, 172, 591
953: \bibitem[Milliard et l.(1992)]{mil} Milliard B., Donas J.,
954: Laget M., Armand C., Vuillemin A. 1992, A\&A, 257, 24
955: \bibitem[Morrissey et al.~(2008)]{pm} Morrissey, P. et
956: al. 2008, this volume
957: \bibitem[Oey et al.~(2000)]{oey} Oey, M. S., Dopita,
958: M. A., Shields, J. C., Smith, R. C. 2000, ApJS, 128, 511
959: \bibitem[Osterbrock (1989)]{oster} Osterbrock,
960: D. E. 1989, Astrophysics of Gaseous Nebulae and Active
961: Galactic Nuclei (Mill Valley:University Science Books)
962: \bibitem[Pagel et al.~(1979)]{pag79} Pagel, B. E. J.,
963: Edmonds, M. G., Blackwell, D. E., Chun, M. S., \& Smith,
964: G. 1979, MNRAS, 189, 95
965: \bibitem[Pagel et al.~(1992)]{pag92} Pagel,
966: B. E. J., Simonson, E. A., Terlevich, R. J., \& Edmunds,
967: M. G. 1992, MNRAS 255 325
968: %\bibitem[Pagel (1997)]{pagel97} Pagel, B. E. J. 1997 in Nucleosynthesis and Chemical Evolution of Galaxies. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge
969: \bibitem[Peimbert et al (2006)]{peimbert} Peimbert, M., Peimbert, A., Esteban, C.,
970: Garcia-Rojas, J., Bresolin, F., Carigi, L., Ruiz, M.T., \& Lopez-Sanchez, A.R. 2006, RevMexAA, in press
971:
972: \bibitem[Pettini et al.~(2000)]{petini} Pettini, M.,
973: Steidel, C. C., Adelberger, D. L., \& Giavalisco, M. 2001,
974: ApJ, 528, 96
975: \bibitem[Pettini \& Pagel (2004)]{pp04} Pettini, M., \& Pagel,
976: B. E. J. 2004, MNRAS, 348, 59
977: \bibitem[Pier et al.~(2003)]{pier} Pier, J. R., Munn,
978: J. A., Hindsley, R. B., Hennessy, G. S., Kent, S. M.,
979: Lupton, R. H., \& Ivezic, Z. 2003, 125, 1559
980: %\bibitem[Rauch (2002)]{rauch} Rauch, T. 2002,
981: % Rev. Mex. Astron. Astrofis. Conf. Ser. 12, 150
982: %\bibitem[Rich, M. R. et al. (2005)]{rich05} Rich, R. M. 2005,
983: % ApJ, 619 107
984: \bibitem[Salim et al.~(2005)]{ss05} Salim, S. et al. 2005, ApJ, 619, 39
985: \bibitem[Salim et al.~(2008)]{ss07} Salim, S. et al. 2008, this volume
986: %\bibitem[Scalo (1986)]{scalo} Scalo, J. M. 1986. {\it
987: % Fundam. Cosm. Phys.} 11:1-278
988: %\bibitem[Schlegel Finkbeiner \& Davis (1998)]{schlegel} Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P., \&
989: % Davis, M. 1998, ApJ, 500, 525
990: \bibitem[Scully et al. (1996)]{scully} Scully, S., Casse, M., Olive, K. A., \& Vangioni-Flam, E. 1996, ApJ, 462, 960
991: \bibitem[Seaton (1978)]{seaton} Seaton, M. J. 1979,
992: MNRAS 187, 785
993: \bibitem[Seibert et al.~(2005)]{sbrt05} Seibert, M. et
994: al. 2005, ApJ, 619, 23
995: \bibitem[Shaw \& Dufour (1995)]{fivel} Shaw, R. A., \& Dufour, R. J. 1995, PASP, 107, 896
996: \bibitem[Silk (1995)]{silk} Silk, J. 1995, ApJ, 438, L41
997: \bibitem[Smith et al.~(2002)]{smith02} Smith, J. A. et
998: al. 2002, \aj, 123, 2121
999: \bibitem[Spite et al. (2005)]{spite} Spite, M., Cayrel, R., Plez, B., et al. 2005, A\&A, 430, 655 (S05)
1000: \bibitem[Stasinka (1990)]{stasinka} Stasinka, G. 1990,
1001: A\&AS, 83, 501
1002: \bibitem[Stoughton et al. (2002)]{stoughton} Stoughton,
1003: C. et al. 2002, \aj, 123, 485
1004: %\bibitem[Terlevich, Caldwell, \& Bower,
1005: % (2001)]{terlevich} Terlevich, A. I., Caldwell, N., \&
1006: Bower, R. G. 2001, MNRAS, 326, 1547
1007: \bibitem[Thurston, Edmunds \& Henry
1008: (1996)]{thurston}Thurston, T. R., Edmunds, M. G.,
1009: Henry, R. B. C. 1996, MNRAS, 283, 990
1010: \bibitem[Tremonti et al.(2004)~]{trem05} Tremonti,
1011: C. A. et al. 2004, ApJ, 613, 898
1012: %\bibitem[van Zee, Haynes, \& Salzer (1997)]{vzee97} van Zee, L., Haynes,
1013: % M. P. \& Salzer, J.J. 1997, AJ, 114, 2479
1014: %\bibitem[van Zee, Salzer, \& Haynes (1998)]{vzee98} van Zee, L., Salzer, J.J., \& Haynes,
1015: % M. P. 1998, ApJ, 497, 1
1016:
1017: \bibitem[van Zee \& Haynes (2006)]{vzee06} van Zee, L., \&
1018: Haynes, M. P. 2006, ApJ, 636, 214
1019:
1020: \bibitem[Vila-Costas \& Edmunds (1993)]{villa93}
1021: Vila-Costas, M. V. \& Edmunds M. G. 1992, MNRAS, 265, 199
1022: \bibitem[Woosley \& Weaver (1995)]{woos} Woosley, S. E., \& Weaver, T. A. 1995, ApJS, 101, 181
1023: \bibitem[York et al. (2000)]{york} York, D. G., Adelman, J., Anderson, J. E., Jr., et al. 2000, AJ, 120, 1579
1024: \end{thebibliography}
1025: \clearpage
1026:
1027:
1028:
1029: \begin{figure}
1030: \plotone{f1.eps}
1031: %\plotone{/Users/rmallery/Desktop/Work/papers/Nitro_GLX_SDSS_MS/f1.ps}
1032: \caption{Comparison of abundances from three different diagnostics: O3N2, M91, and T04 as a function of stellar mass.
1033: The data points are converted into a 75 by 75 pixel image. The mean specific SFR value of the points in each pixel is
1034: calculated and byte-scaled into true color. The difference between T04 and the other two diagnostics shows a dependence on mass
1035: since T04 estimates an increasingly larger metallicity at higher stellar masses.
1036: }
1037: \end{figure}
1038:
1039:
1040:
1041: %\begin{figure}
1042: %\plotone{f2.eps}
1043: %\plotone{/Users/rmallery/Desktop/Work/papers/Nitro_GLX_SDSS_MS/f5.ps}
1044: %\caption{Comparison of N/O ratios calculated with the strong-line method versus the {\it T$_e$} method for the 33 galaxies with 3$\sigma$ detections
1045: % of the temperature sensitive emission line [OIII]4363. The strong line calculation is calculated
1046: % by estimating the average NII region electron temperature with $R_{23}$ using the relation of \citet{thurston}. The temperatures are then used
1047: % to derive the ratio of N/O from the strong line calibration of \citet{pag92}. The mean difference between the strong line and the {\it T$_e$} method
1048: % is $0.1$ dex with a scatter of $0.07$ dex.}
1049: %\end{figure}
1050: %\clearpage
1051:
1052:
1053: \begin{figure}
1054: \plotone{f2.eps}
1055: %\plotone{/Users/rmallery/Desktop/Work/papers/Nitro_GLX_SDSS_MS/f2.ps}
1056: \caption{N/O versus O/H for three different methods of abundance determination. The points are binned into a 75 by 75 pixel image, with the
1057: mean value of specific star formation rate (SFR/M$_*$) calculated from the points in each pixel and byte scaled into a true color representation.
1058: The specific star formation rate is an indicator of the star formation history of the galaxy.
1059: The plot shows the general trend that galaxies with similar metallicities have lower N/O ratios for larger values of SFR/M$_*$.
1060: This trend supports the time delay scenario where the the bulk of the oxygen is released from short lived massive stars,
1061: and the release of the bulk of the nitrogen from longer lived intermediate mass stars.}
1062: \end{figure}
1063: \clearpage
1064:
1065: \begin{figure}
1066: \plotone{f3.eps}
1067: %\plotone{/Users/rmallery/Desktop/Work/papers/Nitro_GLX_SDSS_MS/f3.ps}
1068: \caption{2D Histogram of N/O versus O/H. The red points represent the mean N/O values for objects with SFR/M$_*< -10.1$ taken for metallicity increments of
1069: $0.1$ dex. The green points
1070: represent objects with $ -10.1<$SFR/M$_*< -9.1$, and the blue data points represent galaxies with SFR/M$_*> -.9.1$. The abundance methods of O3N2, M91 and
1071: T04 all show that the starbursts (having values of SFR/M$_*> -10.1$) have lower values of N/O than galaxies of similar metallicity
1072: that are currently not forming as large a fraction of their stellar mass.}
1073: \end{figure}
1074: \clearpage
1075:
1076: \begin{figure}
1077: \plotone{f4.eps}
1078: %\plotone{/Users/rmallery/Desktop/Work/papers/Nitro_GLX_SDSS_MS/f4.ps}
1079: \caption{Difference of mean N/O ratios between three sub-samples of specific star formation rate and the mean N/O of the entire sub-sample taken
1080: for metallicity increments of $0.1$dex.
1081: The red points represent the mean N/O values for objects with SFR/M$_*< -10.1$, the green points
1082: represent objects with $-10.1<$SFR/M$_*< -9.1$, and the blue data points represent galaxies with SFR/M$_*> -9.1$. The abundance methods of O3N2, M91 and
1083: T04 all show that galaxies with the lowest specific star formation rates (having values of SFR/M$_* < -10.1$) have higher values of N/O than galaxies of
1084: similar metallicity with log SFR/M$_* > -10.1$. At intermediate metallicities the most extreme starbursts (log SFR/M$_* > -9.1$) on average have slightly
1085: lower N/O ratios than
1086: galaxies with average specific star formation rates ($-10.1<$log SFR/M$_*<-9.1$ by $0.02$ dex presumably due to oxygen released by the high mass stars formed
1087: in the starburst}.
1088: \end{figure}
1089: \clearpage
1090:
1091:
1092: \begin{figure}
1093: \plotone{f5.eps}
1094: %\plotone{/Users/rmallery/Desktop/Work/papers/Nitro_GLX_SDSS_MS/f5.ps}
1095: \caption{N/O versus O/H scaled with Log M$_{*}$. This shows that M$_{*}$ increases with increasing metallicity, and tends to have little dependence on N/O at a given
1096: metallicity.}
1097: \end{figure}
1098: \clearpage
1099:
1100: \begin{figure}
1101: \plotone{f6.eps}
1102: %\plotone{/Users/rmallery/Desktop/Work/papers/Nitro_GLX_SDSS_MS/f6.ps}
1103: \caption{N/O versus O/H, scaled with {\it g-r}. This plot shows that the {\it g-r} color of galaxies is redder for galaxies with higher metallicities.
1104: Also for galaxies with similar metallicities, those galaxies with larger values of N/O have a redder color. This is because redder galaxies have increasingly
1105: declining SFRs, where the intermediate mass stars from previous star formation events have released nitrogen into the ISM. This confirms the result of
1106: \citet{vzee06} who found a similar trend for dwarf galaxies. }
1107: \end{figure}
1108: \clearpage
1109:
1110: \begin{figure}
1111: \plotone{f7.eps}
1112: %\plotone{/Users/rmallery/Desktop/Work/papers/Nitro_GLX_SDSS_MS/f7.ps}
1113: \caption{N/O versus O/H for abundances calculated using the {\it $T_e$} method. Overall the galaxies with $\log$ N/O$<-1.5$ on average tend to be slightly bluer, with
1114: higher equivalent widths, and with specific star formation rates $0.12$ dex higher
1115: than galaxies with $\log$ N/O$>-1.5$. The {\it $T_e$} oxygen abundances show little correlation with
1116: stellar mass, but this is probably due to small sample size and errors in the derived abundances. A larger sample size of galaxies with abundances
1117: derived from the {\it $T_e$} method with a greater range of equivalent widths, stellar masses, and specific star formation rates, are needed to confirm
1118: the results from O3N2, M91, and T04.}
1119: \end{figure}
1120: \clearpage
1121:
1122:
1123:
1124:
1125: \begin{deluxetable}{lll}
1126: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1127: \tablecaption{Average Galaxy Parameter Errors}
1128: \tablewidth{0pc}
1129: \tablecolumns{3}
1130: \tablehead{
1131: \colhead{Parameter} &\colhead{$<value>$} &\colhead{$< \sigma>$}
1132: }
1133: \startdata
1134: log M$_*$ &10.10 &0.075 \\
1135: $<log SFR>_{100 Myr}$ &0.48 &0.20\\
1136: $<\log$ SFR/M$_*>_{100 Myr}$ &-9.6 &0.19\\
1137: log b &-0.24 &0.22\\
1138: A$_{FUV}$ &2.40 &0.56\\
1139: A$_{NUV}$ &1.78 &0.43\\
1140: \enddata
1141: %\tablenotetext{a}{ ~ref{table-1}}
1142:
1143: \end{deluxetable}
1144:
1145:
1146:
1147:
1148:
1149: \begin{deluxetable}{lrllrrlrl}
1150: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1151: \tablecaption{${\it T_e}$ Abundances}
1152: \tablewidth{0pc}
1153: \tablecolumns{9}
1154: \tablehead{ \colhead{$\alpha$J2000} &\colhead{dJ2000} &\colhead{$12+\log O/H$} &\colhead{log N/O}
1155: &\colhead{log $SFR/M_*$} &\colhead{$M_*$} &\colhead{$F_{BURST}~ ^{1}$} &\colhead{{\it g-r}} &\colhead{$\log EW_{H\alpha}$}
1156: }
1157: \startdata
1158: 20$^{h}$40$^{m}$18.047$^s$ & 01$^o$03$^{\prime}$24$^{\prime\prime}$.59 &8.31 $\pm$0.023 &-1.43 $\pm$0.047 &-8.19 $\pm$0.087 & 8.28 $\pm$0.057 &0.00$^{0.65}_{0.00}$ &-0.13 &2.355\\
1159: 20$^{h}$52$^{m}$51.797$^s$ & 00$^o$16$^{\prime}$26$^{\prime\prime}$.00 &8.16 $\pm$0.028 &-1.38 $\pm$0.057 &-8.89 $\pm$0.170 & 9.54 $\pm$0.115 &0.10$^{0.15}_{0.00}$ & 0.31 &2.091\\
1160: 21$^{h}$18$^{m}$29.846$^s$ & 00$^o$30$^{\prime}$59$^{\prime\prime}$.55 &8.18 $\pm$0.017 &-1.56 $\pm$0.049 &-9.16 $\pm$0.178 & 9.26 $\pm$0.115 &0.00$^{0.15}_{0.00}$ & 0.39 &2.506\\
1161: 22$^{h}$07$^{m}$07.888$^s$ & 00$^o$46$^{\prime}$58$^{\prime\prime}$.78 &8.10 $\pm$0.030 &-1.62 $\pm$0.086 &-8.39 $\pm$0.150 & 8.11 $\pm$0.082 &0.00$^{0.51}_{0.00}$ & 0.00 &2.216\\
1162: 22$^{h}$12$^{m}$23.328$^s$ & 00$^o$03$^{\prime}$39$^{\prime\prime}$.86 &8.24 $\pm$0.031 &-1.40 $\pm$0.062 &-9.06 $\pm$0.247 & 9.41 $\pm$0.128 &0.05$^{0.32}_{0.00}$ & 0.26 &2.354\\
1163: 21$^{h}$50$^{m}$29.868$^s$ & 00$^o$32$^{\prime}$01$^{\prime\prime}$.26 &8.24 $\pm$0.032 &-1.53 $\pm$0.070 &-8.24 $\pm$0.173 & 8.19 $\pm$0.105 &0.00$^{0.56}_{0.00}$ &-0.09 &2.349\\
1164: 20$^{h}$46$^{m}$56.140$^s$ & 00$^o$50$^{\prime}$37$^{\prime\prime}$.63 &8.27 $\pm$0.032 &-1.66 $\pm$0.070 &-8.34 $\pm$0.192 & 8.90 $\pm$0.140 &0.38$^{0.73}_{0.00}$ & 0.10 &2.279\\
1165: 10$^{h}$53$^{m}$42.546$^s$ & 00$^o$09$^{\prime}$45$^{\prime\prime}$.13 &8.19 $\pm$0.024 &-1.55 $\pm$0.053 &-8.66 $\pm$0.188 & 9.41 $\pm$0.113 &0.18$^{0.47}_{0.07}$ & 0.14 &2.258\\
1166: 17$^{h}$09$^{m}$22.632$^s$ & 61$^o$48$^{\prime}$51$^{\prime\prime}$.25 &8.36 $\pm$0.026 &-1.45 $\pm$0.048 &-8.47 $\pm$0.155 & 9.52 $\pm$0.118 &0.25$^{0.63}_{0.15}$ & 0.22 &2.440\\
1167: 00$^{h}$53$^{m}$00.523$^s$ & 15$^o$01$^{\prime}$29$^{\prime\prime}$.73 &8.19 $\pm$0.021 &-1.58 $\pm$0.047 &-8.28 $\pm$0.153 & 8.36 $\pm$0.062 &0.00$^{0.77}_{0.00}$ & 0.00 &2.183\\
1168: 08$^{h}$01$^{m}$43.632$^s$ & 44$^o$54$^{\prime}$58$^{\prime\prime}$.41 &8.37 $\pm$0.025 &-1.46 $\pm$0.052 &-8.73 $\pm$0.092 & 9.16 $\pm$0.085 &0.10$^{0.24}_{0.00}$ & 0.04 &1.985\\
1169: 08$^{h}$20$^{m}$01.714$^s$ & 50$^o$50$^{\prime}$39$^{\prime\prime}$.20 &8.35 $\pm$0.020 &-1.59 $\pm$0.045 &-8.94 $\pm$0.120 & 9.82 $\pm$0.053 &0.00$^{0.14}_{0.00}$ & 0.43 &2.537\\
1170: 08$^{h}$47$^{m}$03.007$^s$ & 54$^o$50$^{\prime}$39$^{\prime\prime}$.45 &8.22 $\pm$0.019 &-1.53 $\pm$0.060 &-8.30 $\pm$0.162 & 9.28 $\pm$0.125 &0.41$^{0.43}_{0.09}$ & 0.15 &2.356\\
1171: 03$^{h}$05$^{m}$39.705$^s$ &-08$^o$39$^{\prime}$05$^{\prime\prime}$.24 &8.20 $\pm$0.027 &-1.55 $\pm$0.083 &-8.36 $\pm$0.163 & 8.65 $\pm$0.092 &0.10$^{0.51}_{0.00}$ &-0.06 &2.279\\
1172: 12$^{h}$05$^{m}$14.725$^s$ & 66$^o$16$^{\prime}$57$^{\prime\prime}$.80 &8.32 $\pm$0.030 &-1.50 $\pm$0.058 &-9.34 $\pm$0.072 & 9.61 $\pm$0.047 &0.00$^{0.03}_{0.00}$ & 0.44 &2.346\\
1173: 10$^{h}$23$^{m}$19.567$^s$ & 02$^o$49$^{\prime}$41$^{\prime\prime}$.53 &8.08 $\pm$0.031 &-1.35 $\pm$0.059 &-8.39 $\pm$0.243 & 9.05 $\pm$0.140 &0.05$^{0.31}_{0.00}$ & 0.16 &2.218\\
1174: 11$^{h}$36$^{m}$55.796$^s$ & 03$^o$33$^{\prime}$33$^{\prime\prime}$.40 &8.34 $\pm$0.024 &-1.54 $\pm$0.047 &-9.00 $\pm$0.158 & 9.73 $\pm$0.117 &0.06$^{0.19}_{0.00}$ & 0.26 &2.422\\
1175: 08$^{h}$39$^{m}$14.949$^s$ & 48$^o$15$^{\prime}$18$^{\prime\prime}$.24 &8.17 $\pm$0.027 &-1.47 $\pm$0.053 &-8.51 $\pm$0.217 & 8.49 $\pm$0.112 &0.00$^{0.37}_{0.00}$ & 0.13 &2.136\\
1176: 09$^{h}$46$^{m}$30.590$^s$ & 55$^o$35$^{\prime}$41$^{\prime\prime}$.81 &8.23 $\pm$0.031 &-1.53 $\pm$0.062 &-8.58 $\pm$0.140 & 8.76 $\pm$0.075 &0.00$^{0.21}_{0.00}$ & 0.08 &2.084\\
1177: 14$^{h}$05$^{m}$01.154$^s$ & 04$^o$31$^{\prime}$26$^{\prime\prime}$.13 &8.46 $\pm$0.027 &-1.74 $\pm$0.054 &-8.23 $\pm$0.105 & 8.00 $\pm$0.035 &0.00$^{0.65}_{0.00}$ &-0.06 &2.297\\
1178: 14$^{h}$36$^{m}$48.204$^s$ & 04$^o$02$^{\prime}$59$^{\prime\prime}$.92 &8.17 $\pm$0.031 &-1.34 $\pm$0.060 &-9.44 $\pm$0.070 & 9.06 $\pm$0.082 &0.00$^{0.02}_{0.00}$ & 0.23 &2.077\\
1179: 14$^{h}$46$^{m}$10.316$^s$ & 03$^o$39$^{\prime}$21$^{\prime\prime}$.55 &8.31 $\pm$0.016 &-1.46 $\pm$0.032 &-8.71 $\pm$0.162 & 9.75 $\pm$0.100 &0.16$^{0.26}_{0.06}$ & 0.28 &2.437\\
1180: 14$^{h}$54$^{m}$24.609$^s$ & 03$^o$59$^{\prime}$25$^{\prime\prime}$.20 &8.29 $\pm$0.020 &-1.49 $\pm$0.041 &-8.81 $\pm$0.185 & 9.71 $\pm$0.075 &0.00$^{0.47}_{0.00}$ & 0.36 &2.543\\
1181: 00$^{h}$52$^{m}$49.794$^s$ &-08$^o$41$^{\prime}$33$^{\prime\prime}$.93 &8.10 $\pm$0.034 &-1.49 $\pm$0.070 &-8.51 $\pm$0.202 & 8.48 $\pm$0.145 &0.00$^{0.46}_{0.00}$ & 0.02 &2.163\\
1182: 01$^{h}$38$^{m}$44.917$^s$ &-08$^o$35$^{\prime}$40$^{\prime\prime}$.69 &8.18 $\pm$0.017 &-1.62 $\pm$0.045 &-8.24 $\pm$0.235 & 8.60 $\pm$0.033 &0.42$^{0.68}_{0.00}$ &-0.09 &2.303\\
1183: 01$^{h}$47$^{m}$21.680$^s$ &-09$^o$16$^{\prime}$46$^{\prime\prime}$.23 &8.31 $\pm$0.018 &-1.70 $\pm$0.050 &-9.37 $\pm$0.145 & 9.68 $\pm$0.115 &0.03$^{0.12}_{0.02}$ & 0.30 &2.642\\
1184: 02$^{h}$03$^{m}$56.913$^s$ &-08$^o$07$^{\prime}$58$^{\prime\prime}$.48 &8.37 $\pm$0.018 &-1.43 $\pm$0.036 &-8.43 $\pm$0.162 & 9.48 $\pm$0.090 &0.25$^{0.52}_{0.00}$ & 0.21 &2.414\\
1185: 22$^{h}$58$^{m}$33.743$^s$ & 00$^o$56$^{\prime}$30$^{\prime\prime}$.53 &8.13 $\pm$0.032 &-1.39 $\pm$0.081 &-8.65 $\pm$0.270 & 9.17 $\pm$0.193 &0.17$^{0.55}_{0.00}$ & 0.08 &2.377\\
1186: 23$^{h}$29$^{m}$32.117$^s$ & 00$^o$34$^{\prime}$26$^{\prime\prime}$.91 &8.32 $\pm$0.029 &-1.63 $\pm$0.079 &-9.15 $\pm$0.065 & 9.23 $\pm$0.100 &0.00$^{0.06}_{0.00}$ & 0.39 &2.382\\
1187: 22$^{h}$53$^{m}$56.829$^s$ & 10$^o$13$^{\prime}$00$^{\prime\prime}$.29 &8.31 $\pm$0.031 &-1.46 $\pm$0.060 &-8.88 $\pm$0.092 &10.04 $\pm$0.108 &0.10$^{0.10}_{0.01}$ & 0.41 &2.252\\
1188: 10$^{h}$21$^{m}$32.505$^s$ & 61$^o$44$^{\prime}$04$^{\prime\prime}$.52 &8.16 $\pm$0.023 &-1.48 $\pm$0.056 &-9.08 $\pm$0.207 & 9.36 $\pm$0.123 &0.06$^{0.22}_{0.00}$ & 0.16 &2.294\\
1189: 08$^{h}$20$^{m}$10.558$^s$ & 37$^o$43$^{\prime}$54$^{\prime\prime}$.34 &8.11 $\pm$0.026 &-1.66 $\pm$0.060 &-8.60 $\pm$0.162 & 9.09 $\pm$0.077 &0.00$^{0.38}_{0.00}$ & 0.13 &2.022\\
1190: 21$^{h}$19$^{m}$58.308$^s$ & 00$^o$52$^{\prime}$33$^{\prime\prime}$.52 &8.26 $\pm$0.016 &-1.55 $\pm$0.046 &-9.00 $\pm$0.435 & 8.52 $\pm$0.015 &0.07$^{0.07}_{0.00}$ &-0.06 &2.375
1191: \enddata
1192: \tablenotetext{1}{The superscripts for $F_{BURST}$ (Fraction of stellar mass formed in starbursts over the last 100Myr) list the 97.5 percentile values, and
1193: the suscripts list the 2.5 percentile values.}
1194: \end{deluxetable}
1195:
1196: \begin{deluxetable}{llrlrrr}
1197: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1198: \tablecaption{O3N2 mean N/O}
1199: \tablewidth{0pc}
1200: \tablecolumns{7}
1201: \tablehead{ \colhead{$12+\log O/H$} &\colhead{Sub-sample$^1$} &\colhead{\#of galaxies}
1202: &\colhead{$\log N/O_{mean}$} &\colhead{$\log SFR/M_{_*mean}$} &\colhead{$\log M_{_*mean}$}
1203: &\colhead{${\it g-r}_{mean}$}
1204: }
1205: \startdata
1206: & a& 47 & -1.06 $\pm$0.013 &-10.49 $\pm$0.055 &10.14 $\pm$0.081 &0.69 $\pm$0.023\\
1207: 8.55& b& 873 & -1.13 $\pm$0.003 & -9.49 $\pm$0.008 & 9.74 $\pm$0.011 &0.43 $\pm$0.003\\
1208: & c& 149 & -1.10 $\pm$0.005 & -8.88 $\pm$0.018 & 9.88 $\pm$0.029 &0.36 $\pm$0.007\\ \\
1209:
1210: & a& 295 & -0.99 $\pm$0.006 &-10.34 $\pm$0.014 &10.27 $\pm$0.025 &0.71 $\pm$0.006\\
1211: 8.65& b& 1638 & -1.04 $\pm$0.002 & -9.62 $\pm$0.006 &10.05 $\pm$0.009 &0.52 $\pm$0.002\\
1212: & c& 132 & -1.04 $\pm$0.006 & -8.89 $\pm$0.020 &10.06 $\pm$0.028 &0.43 $\pm$0.008\\\\
1213:
1214: & a& 809 & -0.89 $\pm$0.004 &-10.33 $\pm$0.008 &10.53 $\pm$0.013 &0.74 $\pm$0.004\\
1215: 8.75& b& 2459 & -0.94 $\pm$0.002 & -9.71 $\pm$0.005 &10.38 $\pm$0.007 &0.60 $\pm$0.002\\
1216: & c& 109 & -0.93 $\pm$0.008 & -8.88 $\pm$0.024 &10.48 $\pm$0.034 &0.55 $\pm$0.011\\\\
1217:
1218: & a& 197 & -0.81 $\pm$0.008 &-10.34 $\pm$0.021 &10.58 $\pm$0.023 &0.74 $\pm$0.007\\
1219: 8.85& b& 637 & -0.85 $\pm$0.003 & -9.68 $\pm$0.009 &10.50 $\pm$0.014 &0.63 $\pm$0.004\\
1220: & c& 36 & -0.85 $\pm$0.015 & -8.92 $\pm$0.030 &10.48 $\pm$0.050 &0.59 $\pm$0.015\\
1221: \enddata
1222: \tablenotetext{1}{Sub-sample a: galaxies with SFR/M$_* <-10.1$, Sub-sample b: galaxies with $-10.1<$SFR/M$_* < -9.1$, Sub-sample c galaxies with SFR/M$_*>$-9.1}
1223: \end{deluxetable}
1224:
1225:
1226: \begin{deluxetable}{llccccc}
1227: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1228: \tablecaption{M91 mean N/O}
1229: \tablewidth{0pc}
1230: \tablecolumns{7}
1231: \tablehead{ \colhead{12$+$log O/H} &\colhead{Sub-sample$^1$} &\colhead{\#of galaxies}
1232: &\colhead{log N/O$_{mean}$} &\colhead{log SFR/M$_{*mean}$} &\colhead{log M$_{*mean}$}
1233: &\colhead{{\it g-r}$_{mean}$}
1234: }
1235: \startdata
1236: & a & 64&-1.10 $\pm$0.009 &-10.48 $\pm$0.044 &10.12 $\pm$0.085 &0.69 $\pm$0.024 \\
1237: 8.65& b & 733&-1.18 $\pm$0.003 & -9.47 $\pm$0.009 & 9.62 $\pm$0.017 &0.42 $\pm$0.004\\
1238: & c & 229&-1.21 $\pm$0.005 & -8.85 $\pm$0.016 & 9.58 $\pm$0.030 &0.31 $\pm$0.007\\\\
1239:
1240: & a & 169&-1.02 $\pm$0.006 &-10.40 $\pm$0.024 &10.27 $\pm$0.036 &0.71 $\pm$0.009\\
1241: 8.75& b & 1228&-1.09 $\pm$0.002 & -9.55 $\pm$0.007 & 9.92 $\pm$0.012 &0.48 $\pm$0.004\\
1242: & c & 191&-1.10 $\pm$0.004 & -8.88 $\pm$0.016 & 9.92 $\pm$0.027 &0.37 $\pm$0.008\\\\
1243:
1244: & a & 360&-0.96 $\pm$0.004 &-10.33 $\pm$0.011 &10.37 $\pm$0.023 &0.72 $\pm$0.005\\
1245: 8.85& b & 1733&-1.01 $\pm$0.001 & -9.64 $\pm$0.006 &10.17 $\pm$0.010 &0.55 $\pm$0.003\\
1246: & c & 126&-1.00 $\pm$0.009 & -8.84 $\pm$0.024 &10.13 $\pm$0.041 &0.46 $\pm$0.010\\\\
1247:
1248: & a & 597&-0.86 $\pm$0.003 &-10.33 $\pm$0.009 &10.55 $\pm$0.015 &0.74 $\pm$0.004\\
1249: 8.95& b & 1839&-0.91 $\pm$0.002 & -9.70 $\pm$0.006 &10.39 $\pm$0.009 &0.60 $\pm$0.002\\
1250: & c & 89&-0.91 $\pm$0.007 & -8.89 $\pm$0.024 &10.38 $\pm$0.041 &0.53 $\pm$0.012\\
1251: \enddata
1252: \end{deluxetable}
1253: \tablenotetext{1}{Sub-sample a: galaxies with SFR/M$_* <-10.1$, Sub-sample b: galaxies with $-10.1<$SFR/M$_* < -9.1$, Sub-sample c galaxies with SFR/M$_*>$-9.1}
1254:
1255:
1256:
1257: \begin{deluxetable}{llccccc}
1258: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1259: \tablecaption{T04 mean N/O}
1260: \tablewidth{0pc}
1261: \tablecolumns{7}
1262: \tablehead{ \colhead{$12+\log O/H$} &\colhead{Sub-sample$^1$} &\colhead{\#of galaxies}
1263: &\colhead{$\log N/O_{mean}$} &\colhead{$\log M_{*mean}$} &\colhead{$log L_{FUV}/M_{*mean}$}
1264: &\colhead{${\it g-r}_{mean}$}
1265: }
1266: \startdata
1267: & a& 35 &-1.10 $\pm$0.018 &-10.38 $\pm$0.045 & 9.96 $\pm$0.102 &0.64 $\pm$0.028\\
1268: 8.75& b& 506 &-1.17 $\pm$0.003 & -9.47 $\pm$0.010 & 9.63 $\pm$0.014 &0.42 $\pm$0.004\\
1269: & c& 128 &-1.18 $\pm$0.006 & -8.85 $\pm$0.021 & 9.67 $\pm$0.029 &0.32 $\pm$0.008\\\\
1270:
1271: & a& 110 &-1.03 $\pm$0.008 &-10.41 $\pm$0.032 &10.03 $\pm$0.042 &0.67 $\pm$0.011 \\
1272: 8.85& b& 1060 &-1.09 $\pm$0.002 & -9.55 $\pm$0.007 & 9.84 $\pm$0.010 &0.47 $\pm$0.003\\
1273: & c& 154 &-1.11 $\pm$0.005 & -8.86 $\pm$0.019 & 9.90 $\pm$0.027 &0.37 $\pm$0.008\\\\
1274:
1275: & a& 297 &-0.95 $\pm$0.006 &-10.34 $\pm$0.013 &10.31 $\pm$0.022 &0.71 $\pm$0.006\\
1276: 8.95& b& 1313 &-1.01 $\pm$0.002 & -9.63 $\pm$0.007 &10.10 $\pm$0.009 &0.53 $\pm$0.003\\
1277: & c& 133 &-1.04 $\pm$0.005 & -8.86 $\pm$0.022 &10.06 $\pm$0.033 &0.42 $\pm$0.009\\\\
1278:
1279: & a& 551 &-0.89 $\pm$0.005 &-10.32 $\pm$0.009 &10.51 $\pm$0.015 &0.74 $\pm$0.004\\
1280: 9.05& b& 1874 &-0.94 $\pm$0.002 & -9.70 $\pm$0.006 &10.37 $\pm$0.008 &0.59 $\pm$0.002\\
1281: & c& 95 &-0.95 $\pm$0.006 & -8.87 $\pm$0.027 &10.36 $\pm$0.036 &0.51 $\pm$0.011\\\\
1282:
1283: & a& 338 &-0.83 $\pm$0.005 &-10.35 $\pm$0.015 &10.68 $\pm$0.017 &0.76 $\pm$0.005\\
1284: 9.15& b& 935 &-0.86 $\pm$0.003 & -9.71 $\pm$0.008 &10.60 $\pm$0.011 &0.65 $\pm$0.003\\
1285: & c& 56 &-0.86 $\pm$0.011 & -8.93 $\pm$0.024 &10.59 $\pm$0.043 &0.60 $\pm$0.015\\
1286: \enddata
1287: \tablenotetext{1}{Sub-sample a: galaxies with SFR/M$_* <-10.1$, Sub-sample b: galaxies with $-10.1<$SFR/M$_* < -9.1$, Sub-sample c galaxies with SFR/M$_*>$-9.1}
1288: \end{deluxetable}
1289: \end{document}
1290:
1291:
1292:
1293:
1294:
1295:
1296:
1297: