1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2:
3: \newcommand{\CIVdblt}{{C}\kern 0.1em{\sc iv}~$\lambda\lambda 1548, 1550$}
4: \newcommand{\MgIIdblt}{{Mg}\kern 0.1em{\sc ii}~$\lambda\lambda 2796, 2803$}
5: \newcommand{\SiIVdblt}{{Si}\kern 0.1em{\sc iv}~$\lambda\lambda 1393, 1402$}
6: \newcommand{\NVdblt}{\hbox{{N}\kern 0.1em{\sc v}~$\lambda\lambda 1239,1243$}}
7: \newcommand{\OVIdblt}{{O}\kern 0.1em{\sc vi}~$\lambda\lambda 1032, 1038$}
8: \newcommand{\AlIIIdblt}{{Al}\kern 0.1em{\sc iii}~$\lambda\lambda 1855, 1863$}
9: \newcommand{\CII}{\hbox{{C}\kern 0.1em{\sc ii}}}
10: \newcommand{\CIII}{\hbox{{C}\kern 0.1em{\sc iii}}}
11: \newcommand{\CIV}{\hbox{{C}\kern 0.1em{\sc iv}}}
12: \newcommand{\HI}{\hbox{{H}\kern 0.1em{\sc i}}}
13: \newcommand{\NaI}{\hbox{{Na}\kern 0.1em{\sc i}}}
14: \newcommand{\HII}{\hbox{{H}\kern 0.1em{\sc ii}}}
15: \newcommand{\HeI}{\hbox{{He}\kern 0.1em{\sc i}}}
16: \newcommand{\HeII}{\hbox{{He}\kern 0.1em{\sc ii}}}
17: \newcommand{\AlII}{\hbox{{Al}\kern 0.1em{\sc ii}}}
18: \newcommand{\AlIII}{\hbox{{Al}\kern 0.1em{\sc iii}}}
19: \newcommand{\NII}{\hbox{{N}\kern 0.1em{\sc ii}}}
20: \newcommand{\Lya}{\hbox{{Ly}\kern 0.1em$\alpha$}}
21: \newcommand{\Lyb}{\hbox{{Ly}\kern 0.1em$\beta$}}
22: \newcommand{\Lyg}{\hbox{{Ly}\kern 0.1em$\gamma$}}
23: \newcommand{\Lyd}{\hbox{{Ly}\kern 0.1em$\delta$}}
24: \newcommand{\Lye}{\hbox{{Ly}\kern 0.1em$\epsilon$}}
25: \newcommand{\FeII}{\hbox{{Fe}\kern 0.1em{\sc ii}}}
26: \newcommand{\MgI}{\hbox{{Mg}\kern 0.1em{\sc i}}}
27: \newcommand{\MgII}{\hbox{{Mg}\kern 0.1em{\sc ii}}}
28: \newcommand{\OVI}{\hbox{{O}\kern 0.1em{\sc vi}}}
29: \newcommand{\OVII}{\hbox{{O}\kern 0.1em{\sc vii}}}
30: \newcommand{\OVIII}{\hbox{{O}\kern 0.1em{\sc viii}}}
31: \newcommand{\NV}{\hbox{{N}\kern 0.1em{\sc v}}}
32: \newcommand{\SiII}{\hbox{{Si}\kern 0.1em{\sc ii}}}
33: \newcommand{\SiIII}{\hbox{{Si}\kern 0.1em{\sc iii}}}
34: \newcommand{\SiIV}{\hbox{{Si}\kern 0.1em{\sc iv}}}
35: \newcommand{\kms}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{km~s^{-1}}}}
36: \newcommand{\cmsq}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{cm^{-2}}}}
37: \newcommand{\cc}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{cm^{-3}}}}
38: \newcommand{\Ang}{\hbox{\textrm{\AA}}}
39: \newcommand{\Msun}{\ensuremath{M_{\Sun}}}
40: \newcommand{\Rsun}{\ensuremath{R_{\Sun}}}
41: \newcommand{\Zsun}{\ensuremath{Z_{\Sun}}}
42: \newcommand{\Lsun}{\ensuremath{L_{\Sun}}}
43: \newcommand{\Mearth}{\ensuremath{M_{\Earth}}}
44: \newcommand{\Rearth}{\ensuremath{R_{\Earth}}}
45: \usepackage{epsfig,rotating}
46:
47: \begin{document}
48:
49: \title{The Kinematic Evolution of Strong {\MgII} Absorbers\footnotemark[1]}
50:
51: \footnotetext[1]{Based on public data obtained from the ESO archive of observations from the UVES spectrograph at the VLT, Paranal, Chile.}
52:
53: \author{Andrew C. Mshar\altaffilmark{2}, Jane C. Charlton\altaffilmark{2}, Ryan S. Lynch\altaffilmark{2,3},Chris Churchill\altaffilmark{4}, and Tae-Sun Kim\altaffilmark{5,6}}
54:
55: \altaffiltext{2}{Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, \textit{amshar, charlton@astro.psu.edu}}
56: \altaffiltext{3}{Astronomy Department, University of Virginia, P. O. Box 3818, Charlottesville, VA 22903, \textit{rsl4v@mail.astro.virginia.edu}}
57: \altaffiltext{4}{Department of Astronomy, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM 88003, \textit{cwc@nmsu.edu}}
58: \altaffiltext{5}{Institute of Astronomy, Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 0HA, UK}
59: \altaffiltext{6}{Astrophysikalisches Institut Potsdam, An der Sternwarte 16, 14482 Potsdam, Germany, \textit{tkim@aip.de}}
60:
61: \begin{abstract}
62:
63: We consider the evolution of strong ($W_r(2796) > 0.3$~{\AA}) {\MgII}
64: absorbers, most of which are closely related to luminous galaxies.
65: Using 20 high resolution quasar spectra from the VLT/UVES public
66: archive, we examine 33 strong {\MgII} absorbers in the redshift range
67: $0.3 < z < 2.5$. We compare and supplement this sample with 23 strong
68: {\MgII} absorbers at $0.4 < z < 1.4$ observed previously with
69: HIRES/Keck. We find that neither equivalent width nor kinematic
70: spread (the optical depth weighted second moment of velocity) of
71: {\MgII}~$\lambda$2796 evolve. However, the kinematic spread is
72: sensitive to the highest velocity component, and therefore not as
73: sensitive to additional weak components at intermediate velocities
74: relative to the profile center. The fraction of absorbing pixels
75: within the full velocity range of the system does show a trend of
76: decreasing with decreasing redshift. Most high redshift systems
77: (14/20) exhibit absorption over the entire system velocity range,
78: which differs from the result for low redshift systems (18/36) at the
79: 95\% level. This leads to a smaller number of separate subsystems for
80: high redshift systems because weak absorping components tend to
81: connect the stronger regions of absorption. We hypothesize that low
82: redshift {\MgII} profiles are more likely to represent well formed
83: galaxies, many of which have kinematics consistent with a disk/halo
84: structure. High redshift {\MgII} profiles are more likely to show
85: evidence of complex protogalactic structures, with multiple accretion
86: or outflow events. Although these results are derived from
87: measurements of gas kinematics, they are consistent with hierarchical
88: galaxy formation evidenced by deep galaxy surveys.
89:
90: \end{abstract}
91:
92: \keywords{galaxies: evolution --- galaxies: formation --- quasars: absorption lines}
93:
94: \section{Introduction}
95: \label{sec:intro}
96:
97: We study absorption line spectra in order to gain perspective on the
98: dynamics and evolution of astrophysical systems, such as galaxies.
99: The strength, relative abundance, and kinematics of absorption in
100: specific ions can constrain many properties of a given system. For
101: example, metallicity, density, and abundance pattern can be determined
102: for various clouds that represent different parts of a galaxy and its
103: surroundings. It is also possible to suggest, based on kinematics,
104: whether it is statistically likely that a specific absorption system
105: is produced primarily in the disk of a galaxy or in a halo
106: \citep{cc98}. For a line of sight through a spiral galaxy, some
107: of the absorption components are likely to arise from the disk and
108: others from the halo. \citet{cc98} suggest that the
109: dominant region of absorption in a strong {\MgII} absorber is often produced in
110: the disk of the galaxy, and that the outlying components are related to the
111: halo.
112:
113: The {\MgIIdblt} doublet is of particular interest because of its
114: relative strength, ease of detection, and association with star
115: formation. The close proximity of the two members of the doublet
116: (separated by only 7~{\AA} in the rest frame) makes it more convenient
117: to locate than multiplet metals such as iron. Once a {\MgII}
118: absorption system is detected, other metal transitions can be located
119: and analyzed. The ratio of {\FeII} to {\MgII} provides information
120: about the ionization parameter/density of the gas, and about the star
121: formation history of the system. Type II supernovae enrich the ISM
122: with a large magnesium to iron ratio within the first billion years of the
123: formation of a stellar population. Iron is mostly generated in Type
124: Ia supernovae, indicating that a system must have a longer history in
125: order to develop a relatively large {\FeII} to {\MgII} ratio. The
126: {\MgI}~$\lambda$2853 transition is also of interest for understanding
127: the physical conditions of strong {\MgII} absorbers. \citet{vpfits}
128: found that many clouds seem to require two separate phases of gas to
129: produce both the observed {\MgI} and {\MgII} absorption. Comparisons
130: between {\MgII}, {\FeII}, and {\MgI} can give insight into the phase
131: structure and ionization state of the absorber.
132:
133: Strong {\MgII} absorbers are defined by $W_r(2796)~{\ge}~0.3$~{\AA},
134: and have historically been interesting because of a direct
135: correspondence to luminous galaxies \citep{Berg91, Berg92, LeBrun93,
136: Steid94, Steid95}. Although the {\MgII} absorbing gas is patchier
137: than once thought, it is still clear that the majority of strong
138: {\MgII} absorbers arise within $\sim 40 h^{-1}$~kpc of an $L > 0.05
139: L^*$ galaxy \citep{Church05}. For the subset of strong {\MgII}
140: absorbers with $W_r(2796)>0.8$~{\AA}, \citet{zibetti07} find based on
141: stacking of images that half the light surrounding an absorber is
142: found within 50~kpc and the other half between 50 and 100~kpc. The
143: ensemble of {\MgII} profiles for lines of sight through 0.4 $<$ z $<$
144: 1.4 galaxies have kinematics consistent with expectations for a
145: representative mixture of disk and halo kinematics \citep{cc98}.
146: Spiral galaxies are expected to typically give rise to a blend of
147: several strong components spanning 30-100~{\kms}, and one or more
148: ``satellite'' clouds beyond this velocity range. \citet{Steid02}
149: measured rotation curves and found that 4/5 {\MgII} absorbers had
150: kinematics consistent with rotation in the same sense as the disk,
151: though in some cases a thick disk or a halo rotating in the same sense
152: was required. Elliptical galaxies will tend to have components more
153: uniformly spread over a typical velocity range of 100-300~{\kms}. The
154: kinematics and overall {\MgII} absorption strength are also influenced
155: by asymmetries in the gas caused by interactions and mergers
156: \citep{Kacp05}.
157:
158: Our goal is to determine the evolution of the kinematics of strong
159: {\MgII} absorbers over the redshift range 0.3 $<$ z $<$ 2.5. This
160: range covers about 7.7 Gyrs of cosmic history, from 2.7~Gyrs to
161: 10.4~Gyrs after the Big Bang, assuming $H_0=73$~{\kms}{\rm Mpc}$^{-1}$,
162: $\Omega_{matter} = 0.26$, and $\Omega_{\lambda}=0.74$.
163: %from 10.277- 2.632 Gyrs assuming a Hubble constant of 70km/s/Mpc
164: We divide this period into two halves, primarily based on the cutoff
165: in the study by \citet{CV01} (hereafter CV01). 0.3 $<$ z $<$ 1.2 is
166: referred to as our low redshift range, and 1.2 $<$ z $<$ 2.5 as our
167: high redshift range.
168:
169: These redshift ranges are of particular interest for galaxy evolution
170: because several influential factors are known to change over this time
171: period. First, galaxy morphologies tend to be more irregular at high
172: redshift. \citet{Con04} found that large diffuse star-forming
173: objects, suggested to be the predecessors of spiral disks are found
174: primarily at 1 $<$ z $<$ 2, while asymmetric star-forming objects
175: (perhaps mergers that produce ellipticals) peak in abundance at $z \sim
176: 1$. Similarly, \citet{Elm05} found a predominance of ``chain'' and
177: ``clump-cluster'' galaxies among the fainter magnitudes in the Hubble
178: Ultra Deep Field while traditional spirals and ellipticals dominated
179: among the brightest galaxies at low redshift. The second (and
180: related) factor is the evolution in the galaxy merger rate, which
181: dramatically increases with increasing redshift \citep{Lef00,Pat02}.
182:
183: The third factor, evolution in the extragalactic background radiation
184: (EBR), can dramatically influence absorption line systems because it
185: leads to a shift in the ionization balance of the various metal-line
186: transitions. The EBR has been modeled as the cumulative radiation
187: from quasars and star-forming galaxies, modulated by the {\Lya} forest
188: \citep{Haardt96,Haardt01}. The amplitude of the EBR is expected to be
189: relatively constant, with a number density of ionizing photons
190: $\log n_{\gamma} \sim -4.75$~{\cc}, over most
191: of our high redshift range, down to $z\sim1.5$, but then decreases by
192: nearly an order of magnitude to $\log n_{\gamma} \sim -5.64$~{\cc} from
193: $z=1.5$ to $z=0.3$.
194:
195: The last factor is the evolution of the global star formation rate in
196: galaxies. This rate is relatively constant from $z=4$ to $z=1$, then
197: decreases significantly to $z=0$ \citep{Gab04}. The peak epoch of
198: star formation occurs earlier for giant galaxies than for dwarfs
199: \citep{Bauer05}. We expect $\alpha$-enhanced metal build-up for the
200: first billion years past the birth of a stellar population, and an
201: increase in the ratio of iron to magnesium subsequently due to
202: contributions from Type Ia supernovae.
203:
204: CV01 studies the kinematics of 23 strong {\MgII} systems in the
205: redshift range 0.4 $< z <$ 1.2. The spectra were obtained with the
206: HIRES spectrograph with a resolution of $\sim 6.7$~{\kms}. When
207: possible, {\FeII} and {\MgI} for these systems are compared to the
208: {\MgII}. The authors found that strong {\MgII} absorbers are
209: typically not characterized by multiple subsystems of comparable
210: equivalent width or kinematic spread, but instead have a dominant
211: subsystem, often with subsystems of significantly smaller equivalent
212: width. It is important to note, however, that there are a wide
213: variety of kinematic profiles within the CV01 sample. Among systems
214: with the same equivalent width, they found some cases with weak
215: components widely spread in velocity and others with a single,
216: saturated component. They also noted the interesting trend for
217: systems with multiple subsystems to have the intermediate and high
218: ($>$40~{\kms}) velocity subsystems located either all redward or all
219: blueward of the dominant subsystem. They interpreted this to mean
220: that the dominant subsystem is related to a rotating disk that is
221: systematically offset in velocity from the halo material that produces
222: weaker subsystems. Within the redshift range, 0.4 $<z <$ 1.2, there
223: was no significant evolution in system or subsystem properties.
224:
225: CV01 compares the smaller subsystems at intermediate and high
226: velocities to both single cloud, weak {\MgII} absorbers, and Galactic
227: high velocity clouds (HVCs). In order to make a quantitative
228: comparison, a slope was fit to the observed equivalent width
229: distributions of these ``satellite clouds'' and the single cloud, weak
230: {\MgII} absorbers \citep{cwc99b}. Because of the large errors in the
231: fit for the subsystems of the strong absorbers (see Figure~8a from
232: CV01), they cannot distinguish between the slopes for the two samples.
233: However, \citet{cwc99b} does not find a turnoff in the equivalent
234: width distribution of weak {\MgII} absorbers, complete down to
235: $W_r(2796)$ = 0.02~{\AA}. The equivalent width distribution of the
236: weak subsystems in CV01 have a turnoff at $W_r(2796)$ = 0.08~{\AA},
237: well above the drop in completeness, indicating a fundamental
238: difference between the two samples.
239:
240: Galactic HVCs refer to clouds with velocities $v \ge 90$~{\kms}
241: relative to material in the Milky Way disk along the same line of
242: sight \citep{wakker97}. Located in the Galaxy and its surroundings,
243: they are likely to have a variety of origins, ranging from a
244: ``galactic fountain", to accretion of dwarf galaxies and tidal debris,
245: to infalling filaments and sheets from large-scale structure (see
246: \citet{Sem06} and references therein). The satellites of strong
247: {\MgII} absorbers have {\HI} column densities less than the detection
248: threshold of 21-cm surveys for HVCs, which led CV01 to conclude they
249: are not analogous. However, {\OVI} HVCs cover a larger fraction of
250: the sky ($\sim 60$-$85$\%; \citet{Sem03}) than 21-cm {\HI} HVCs ($\sim
251: 37$\%; \citet{Lockman02}). This implies that some of the {\OVI} HVCs
252: have lower {\HI} column densities. Also, low ionization stages are
253: detected in a separate phase at the same velocities with most of the
254: Milky Way {\OVI} HVCs \citep{Col05}. Thus, it now seems plausible that
255: the satellite clouds of some {\MgII} absorbers are analogs to some
256: types of Milky Way HVCs.
257:
258: The strongest {\MgII} absorbers, those with $W_r(2796) > 1$~{\AA} may
259: be produced by different physical processes than the typical strong
260: {\MgII} absorber. Using Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) and high resolution
261: Keck spectra, \citet{prochter06} studied the evolution of this
262: population, considering both its cross section for absorption and the
263: kinematic structure of the {\MgII} profiles. They hypothesize that
264: the decline of the incidence of $W_r(2796) > 1$~{\AA} absorbers at
265: $z < 0.8$ is consistent with the decline in the global star formation
266: rate, and suggest a large contribution of galactic superwinds in shaping
267: the kinematics of the profiles of these systems. \citet{nestor05} came
268: to similar conclusions based on a study of the SDSS data.
269:
270: In this paper, we present 33 strong {\MgII} absorbers in the redshift
271: range $0.3 < z < 2.5$ observed with the Ultraviolet and Visual Echelle
272: Spectrograph (UVES) on the Very Large Telescope (VLT). We will
273: quantify the absorption systems with the same statistics as CV01 in
274: order to make a fair comparison. Our goal is to describe the kinematics
275: of high redshift strong {\MgII} absorbers and to infer any possible
276: evolution.
277:
278: In \S~\ref{sec:data} we present the quasar observations, the reduction
279: of the spectra, and the absorber detection process. We also define
280: the statistics that we used to describe the {\MgII} profiles. We
281: describe each system in detail in \S~\ref{sec:systems}.
282: \S~\ref{sec:results} gives our results, comparing the kinematics of
283: all systems over the range $0.3 < z < 2.5$ in our sample to that
284: of CV01, and \S~\ref{sec:summary} is a summary of our results.
285: \S~\ref{sec:discussion} is our discussion of the nature of strong
286: {\MgII} absorbers and their evolution.
287:
288: \section{Data and Survey Method}
289: \label{sec:data}
290:
291: \subsection{VLT/UVES Data}
292: \label{sec:vlt}
293:
294: We obtained 20 high quality UVES/VLT QSO spectra from the ESO archive.
295: The quasar names are provided in Table~\ref{tab:tab1} along with V
296: magnitude, quasar emission redshift (from Simbad), and the wavelength
297: range of the UVES spectrum. This same set of spectra was used for an
298: analysis of the flux power spectrum of the {\Lya} forest \citep{kim04}.
299: Coverage breaks exist at about 5723 -- 5841~{\AA} and 8520 --
300: 8665~{\AA} in all of these spectra. Also present in all spectra were
301: telluric absorption features. These absorption features can make
302: detection of the weakest subsystems difficult. However, we address
303: this difficulty in our discussion of each absorber
304: (\S~\ref{sec:systems}). The resolution is $R \sim 45,000$, or
305: $\sim 6.7$~{\kms} (the same resolution as in CV01).
306: The signal to noise of the UVES/VLT spectra
307: is high ($\sim 20$--$100$ per pixel). The CV01 signal to noise values
308: tend to fall in the lower half of this range. We take this into
309: account in our analysis, and consider possible biases when relevant.
310: The data
311: reduction procedure can be found in \citet{kim04}, and the procedure
312: for continuum fitting is described in \citet{lynch06}.
313:
314: Our quasar sample was originally selected for a study of the
315: properties of {\Lya} forest clouds \citep{kim04}. The criteria for
316: selection from the archive for that study included high $S/N$ and
317: large wavelength coverage. The result should be a relatively unbiased
318: distribution of strong {\MgII} absorbers. However, the study also
319: avoided quasars that had known $z>1.5$ DLAs, based upon prior low
320: resolution spectra. This will introduce a small bias, but we quantify
321: the effect in \S~\ref{sec:equivalentwidth} by comparing the equivalent
322: width distribution of our sample of strong {\MgII} absorbers to the
323: unbiased distribution obtained from a survey of Sloan quasars
324: \citep{nestor05}.
325:
326:
327: \subsection{Sample Selection}
328: \label{sec:selection}
329:
330: We searched the normalized spectra for {\MgIIdblt} doublets and found
331: strong {\MgII} systems along 14 of the lines of sight (the list of all
332: lines of sight surveyed can be found in Table~\ref{tab:tab1}). We
333: would have excluded associated systems (within $5000$~{\kms} of the
334: quasar redshift) from our sample, but in fact did not find any.
335: Although we used a $5\sigma$ search criterion for the
336: {\MgII}~$\lambda$2796, strong absorbers substantially exceed this
337: threshold in spectra of this quality. Because of the high $S/N$ of
338: the spectra, in the process of the search we also detected the weak
339: systems from \citet{lynch06}. While these systems are not of
340: particular interest in this study, our ability to find weak absorbers
341: is relevant because the equivalent width of some individual components
342: corresponding to strong absorbers is comparable to that of weak
343: systems. After detecting the {\MgIIdblt}, we also searched the
344: expected locations of {\FeII}~$\lambda$2344, $\lambda$2374,
345: $\lambda$2383, $\lambda$2587, $\lambda$2600 and {\MgI}~$\lambda$2853.
346: The {\FeII} transitions can be used to better understand the
347: kinematics of systems with saturation in the {\MgII} profiles, and to
348: constrain ionization conditions and abundance pattern. The
349: {\MgI}~$\lambda$2853 transition was studied for the same reasons, and
350: also to provide insight into properties of the lowest ionization
351: state. Many other transitions were also detected but are not included
352: in this paper. For example, {\SiII}~$\lambda$1260 and
353: {\CII}~$\lambda$1335 were not included because they are generally
354: detected in the {\Lya} forest, making their kinematics more difficult
355: to interpret. Higher ionization transitions and Lyman series lines
356: were also detected for many of these systems, and they will be used to
357: place constraints on the physical properties of the systems in future
358: work.
359:
360: \subsection{Defining Kinematic Subsystems}
361: \label{sec:subsystems}
362:
363: A significant fraction of the strong absorption systems are comprised
364: of more than just a single component. Thus, we define subsystems
365: using the definition from CV01, ``absorption features that are
366: separated by more than 3 pixels (i.e., a resolution element) of
367: continuum flux.'' We define these subsystems in order to examine the
368: kinematics of each system on the smallest scale so that we may extract
369: the most information possible from the systems. The subsystems are
370: defined by their absorption in the {\MgII}~$\lambda$2796 transition,
371: which must be matched in the {\MgII}~$\lambda$2803 transition. The
372: wavelength coverage of each subsystem is determined by the wavelength
373: on either side of the subsystem at which the equivalent width in that
374: pixel returns to within $1\sigma$ of the continuum value. This
375: definition assures that features between subsystems and noise in the
376: spectra do not affect our interpretation of kinematics.
377:
378: CV01 applies a uniform sensitivity cutoff for subsystems with
379: $W_r(2796) < 0.015${\AA}. Although our sample is complete to a better
380: sensitivity, we adhere to this less sensitive cutoff in order to make
381: a fair comparison (see \S~\ref{sec:subsysprop}).
382: Table~\ref{tab:tab2} shows that although two absorbers approach this
383: limit (subsystem 2 in the $z_{abs} = 1.243967$ system toward Q0122-380
384: and subsystem 2 in the $z_{abs} = 1.149861$ system toward Q0453-423),
385: none are below it. Therefore, we have no need to adjust the sample
386: due to this cutoff. CV01 also exclude any high velocity material
387: above $v > 500$~{\kms}. Our sample does not include any subsystems at
388: such high velocity; thus, we do not exclude any subsystems based on
389: this criterion. We mention these cutoffs for completeness.
390:
391: \subsection{Defining Absorption Properties}
392: \label{sec:Absorption}
393:
394: We use several quantities to compare the shapes of the {\MgII}
395: profiles of the systems. We formally define the redshift of a system
396: by the optical depth weighted mean of the {\MgII}~$\lambda$2796 profile.
397: The specific expression used to calculate redshift, as well as formal
398: definitions of equivalent width, subsystem velocity, apparent column
399: density, and velocity width, are given in Appendix A of CV01. All of
400: these quantities are used here, but the velocity width, also known
401: as the kinematic spread, is quite important for this study and thus
402: deserves further comment.
403:
404: The kinematic spread of a system is an optical depth weighted average of the
405: second moment of velocity. The combination of a system's kinematic
406: spread and its equivalent width gives physical insight into the nature
407: of the system. There is a maximum possible equivalent width for any
408: kinematic spread, produced by a fully saturated, ``square'' profile.
409: While there is no distinct opposite to these ``square profile
410: systems'', there are profiles with high kinematic spread and low
411: equivalent widths. These systems generally have very few or no pixels
412: saturated and consist of multiple subsystems with a large kinematic
413: spread.
414:
415: \section{Systems}
416: \label{sec:systems}
417:
418: We divide the systems into two redshift regimes, 0.3 $<$ z $<$
419: 1.2 (low redshift) and 1.2 $<$ z $<$ 2.5 (high redshift). We use the
420: low redshift regime for comparison to the CV01 data, and then combine
421: those samples for comparison to the high redshift sample. Here we
422: present a short description of each strong {\MgII} absorber in the
423: UVES/VLT sample. Descriptions of the CV01 absorbers were given in
424: \S~3.3 of that paper. In Figures~\ref{fig:fig1}--ag
425: we show the {\MgII}~$\lambda$2796, {\MgII}~$\lambda$2803,
426: {\FeII}~$\lambda$2344, {\FeII}~$\lambda$2374, {\FeII}~$\lambda$2383,
427: {\FeII}~$\lambda$2587, {\FeII}~$\lambda$2600, and {\MgI}~$\lambda$2853
428: transitions for each system if they are covered by the spectra.
429: Table~\ref{tab:tab2} lists each system with its kinematic spread, rest
430: frame equivalent width of {\MgII}~$\lambda$2796, and its doublet ratio,
431: $W_r(2796)/W_r(2803)$. It also lists these quantities for the
432: individual subsystems identified for each of the systems.
433: Table~\ref{tab:tab3} gives the velocity ranges for the subsystems, and
434: lists the rest frame equivalent widths of the {\MgII}, {\FeII}, and
435: {\MgI} transitions.
436:
437: \subsubsection{HE0001-2340 $z_{abs}=0.9491$}
438: \label{sec:0.9491}
439:
440: This system, seen in Figure~\ref{fig:fig1}, has only a single
441: subsystem, with one central, dominant, but apparently unsaturated,
442: component, with weaker blended components to the red, and with one
443: blueward, weak component. {\FeII} absorption is detected in the
444: strongest component and several of the weaker redward components.
445: Weak {\MgI}~$\lambda$2853 absorption is detected in the two strongest
446: components of the system.
447:
448: \subsubsection{HE0001-2340 $z_{abs}=1.5862$}
449: \label{sec:1.5862}
450:
451: Figure~\ref{fig:fig1b} shows that there is no true ``dominant
452: subsystem'' in this absorber. The two subsystems have roughly equal
453: equivalent widths (the blueward subsystem has $W_r(2796) = 0.17$~{\AA}
454: and the redder component has $W_r (2796) = 0.18$~{\AA}). There is a small
455: feature between the two subsystems in both the {\MgII}~$\lambda$2796
456: and the {\MgII}~$\lambda$2803. However, the {\MgII}~$\lambda$2803
457: equivalent width is greater, which is unphysical. Consequently, we
458: exclude this region when calculating the kinematics of this system.
459: If there is any real absorption at this velocity, the paucity of the
460: {\MgII} is such that it would have no significant impact on the system
461: kinematics. {\FeII} is detected in both subsystems, but it is
462: stronger in the redward one. Two other features are apparent in the
463: {\MgII}~$\lambda$2796 velocity window redward of the system.
464: Neither is confirmed by {\MgII}~$\lambda$2803 in a
465: clean region of the spectrum, thus they can be cleanly rejected as
466: {\MgII} absorption. A feature blueward of the system in the
467: {\MgII}~$\lambda$2803 velocity window has no corresponding detection in
468: {\MgII}~$\lambda$2796.
469:
470: \subsubsection{HE0001-2340 $z_{abs}=2.1844$}
471: \label{sec:2.1844}
472:
473: This unique system consists of multiple absorption features spread out
474: over a velocity range of $-140~{\kms} < v < 275$~{\kms} with no
475: apparent saturation; its profile is shown in Figure \ref{fig:fig1c}.
476: Generally, systems with such large velocity spreads do exhibit
477: saturation. It is unusual in its large number of relatively weak
478: separated comonents over such a large velocity spread. In most
479: systems, one subsystem can be classified as dominant because it
480: produces a great majority of the equivalent width; in this system,
481: none of the three subsystems is significantly stronger than all of the
482: rest. The bluest subsystem consists of five components, and the
483: central velocity and red subsystems each consist of two components.
484: The {\MgI}~$\lambda$2853 transition is severely contaminated by a
485: blend, particularly to the blue, but useful limits may be obtained
486: toward the red. {\FeII} is detected in several transitions for all
487: three subsystems, though {\FeII}~$\lambda$2587 and $\lambda$2600
488: suffer from blends due to telluric absorption.
489:
490: \citet{richter05} have modeled this sub-DLA system based on these same
491: VLT data, having established that $\log N({\HI}) =19.7$~{\cmsq} based
492: upon a fit to the {\Lya} profiles. They found an oxygen abundance of
493: $1/65$ solar, and a particularly low nitrogen content, suggesting
494: recent star formation. They note that the large kinematic spread is
495: suggestive of an ongoing merger that has triggered recent star
496: formation.
497:
498: \subsubsection{Q0002-422 $z_{abs}=0.8366$}
499: \label{sec:0.8366}
500:
501: This extremely strong {\MgII} absorber is one of the two strongest in
502: our sample and has absorption over more than $500$~{\kms} and is fully
503: saturated in the range $\sim-130$~{\kms} to $160$~{\kms}, except for a small
504: break at $\sim 80$~{\kms}. The absorption profile is shown in Figure
505: \ref{fig:fig1d}. Absorption in {\FeII} is extremely strong as well,
506: and provides useful constraints except for the redward region of the
507: {\FeII}~$\lambda$2374 transition. The {\MgI}~$\lambda$2853 transtion
508: shows close to the same absorption features as the {\MgII} and
509: {\FeII}.
510:
511: It is very unusual to find a system this strong at $z<1$, based
512: upon the rapid evolution of $W_r(2796) > 2$~{\AA} systems as found by
513: \citet{nestor05}. Statistically, based on comparisons of the
514: very strongest {\MgII} absorbers and their {\Lya} profiles, $42$\% of
515: systems with $W_r(2796)/W_r(2600) < 2$ and $W_r(2853) > 0.1$~{\AA} (this
516: system has $W_r(2796)/W_r(2600) = 1.48$~{\AA} and $W_r(2853) = 1.59$) are DLAs
517: \citep{rao06}. However, this system is kinematically similar to the
518: $z=1.5541$ system toward Q$1213-0017$ (though much stronger), which is
519: suggested to be a ``superwind" absorber by \citet{bond01}, and is
520: known not to be a DLA based upon \citet{rao00}.
521:
522: \subsubsection{Q0002-422 $z_{abs}=1.5418$}
523: \label{sec:1.5418}
524:
525: The {\MgII} profile shown in Figure \ref{fig:fig1e} consists of a
526: strong, nearly saturated, component with several weaker components to
527: the blue. However, no absorption is detected redward of the strongest
528: absorption. The feature $200$~{\kms} blueward of the system in the
529: {\MgII}~$\lambda$2803 window does not correspond to a 5-$\sigma$
530: detection in the {\MgII}~$\lambda$2796 and is, therefore, not {\MgII}
531: absorption. The strongest absorption component is detected in five
532: {\FeII} transitions as well as in {\MgI}~$\lambda$2853. The component
533: at $\sim -40$~{\kms} is also detected in two stronger {\FeII}
534: transitions. The feature at $\sim 100$--$200$~{\kms} in the
535: {\MgI}~$\lambda$2853 window is a blend, and it lies outside of the
536: defined {\MgII} absorption region and thus has no effect on our
537: calculations.
538:
539: \subsubsection{Q0002-422 $z_{abs}=2.1678$}
540: \label{sec:2.1678}
541:
542: This system has four distinct minima in the {\MgII} profiles, the
543: strongest of which is nearly saturated in {\MgII}~$\lambda$2796. The
544: profiles can be seen in Figure \ref{fig:fig1f}. All components
545: appear to be detected in {\FeII}, though several transitions are in
546: regions of the spectrum contaminated by atmospheric absorption. The
547: {\MgI} window contains a detection at the expected location of the
548: strongest absorption, but this portion of the spectrum is also
549: significantly contaminated by telluric features, so we cannot measure
550: {\MgI} accurately.
551:
552: \subsubsection{Q0002-422 $z_{abs}=2.3019$}
553: \label{sec:2.3019}
554:
555: This very strong, saturated {\MgII} absorber resembles the
556: ``superwind profiles" given in \citet{bond01}. The profile can be seen
557: in Figure \ref{fig:fig1g}. Kinematically, it has one very broad,
558: mostly saturated, region centered at $0$~{\kms}, and another saturated
559: region centered at $\sim -100$~{\kms}. The absorption between these
560: two regions is very weak but does not fully recover. Thus, this is
561: formally classified as having only one subsystem. The
562: {\FeII}~$\lambda$2587 and $\lambda$2600 transitions were not covered
563: by the spectra. The other three {\FeII} transitions show detections
564: in the expected velocity range. {\MgI}~$\lambda$2853 is also detected
565: over most of the velocity range but is contaminated by atmospheric
566: absorption, particularly at $\sim 10$~{\kms}.
567:
568: \subsubsection{Q0002-422 $z_{abs}=2.4641$}
569: \label{sec:2.4641}
570:
571: This double horned system, shown in Figure \ref{fig:fig1h}, consists
572: of just one subsystem. There are several additional features, in the
573: range of $100$-$400$~{\kms} from the dominant absorption, in the
574: {\MgII}~$\lambda$2796 and in the {\MgII}~$\lambda$2803 windows.
575: However, the identity of each as {\MgII} is refuted by the other
576: transition. Other very weak features are present at higher velocities
577: (more than $400$~{\kms} separated from $z_{abs}$). In principle, they
578: could have contributions from {\MgII} absorption, however, they are
579: strongly blended with atmospheric absorption, and would be at
580: significantly higher velocities than is seen in any other systems.
581: These ``very high velocity" features are, therefore, believed to be
582: atmospheric and not {\MgII} associated with this system. Neither the
583: {\MgI}~$\lambda$2853, nor any of the {\FeII} transitions show clear
584: detections in somewhat contaminated spectral regions, but reasonable
585: limits are provided.
586:
587: \subsubsection{Q0109-3518 $z_{abs}=1.3495$}
588: \label{sec:1.3495}
589:
590: Kinematically, this system, which can be seen in Figure
591: \ref{fig:fig1i} bears a strong resemblence to the $z_{abs}=2.1844$
592: system toward HE$0001-2340$. However, it consists of only one very
593: broad subsystem and it has saturation in some components. Still,
594: there could be widespread, merger-induced star formation (as suggested
595: by \citet{richter05} for the $z_{abs}=2.1844$ system toward HE$0001-2340$)
596: causing the large kinematic spread in this case as well. The
597: {\FeII}~$\lambda$2374 transition is affected by poor sky subtraction, but all
598: {\FeII} transitions show detections over the same velocity range as the
599: {\MgII}. {\MgI}~$\lambda$2853 is also detected over this velocity range.
600:
601: \subsubsection{Q0122-380 $z_{abs}=0.4437$}
602: \label{sec:0.4437}
603:
604: This system has a single subsystem that includes a strong, nearly
605: saturated component at zero velocity, with a blue wing, and a weaker
606: redward component. {\FeII} and {\MgI} are detected in all components.
607: However, most of the {\FeII} transitions exhibit some blending with
608: only the $\lambda$2383 transition not affected in the absorbing region
609: and exhibitng absorption. All of these transitions can be seen in
610: Figure
611: \ref{fig:fig1j}.
612:
613: \subsubsection{Q0122-380 $z_{abs}=0.8597$}
614: \label{sec:0.8597}
615:
616: The central subsystem of this absorber is deep and narrow, and is
617: saturated in {\MgII}~$\lambda$2796, but not in {\MgII}~$\lambda$2803.
618: The system is shown in Figure \ref{fig:fig1k}. The bluest subsystem
619: is shallow and wide with multiple, narrow components. A third,
620: redward subsystem is significantly weaker than the other two. A
621: feature just blueward of the central subsystem in
622: {\MgII}~$\lambda$2796 is not matched in the {\MgII}~$\lambda$2803 and
623: is, therefore, not physical. The central subsystem is detected in
624: {\FeII} and {\MgI}. The {\FeII}~$\lambda$2344 has a blend at
625: $\sim$-30 {\kms} due to {\CIV}~$\lambda$1548 at z = 1.8149. The
626: blueward subsystem is detected in {\FeII}, but not in {\MgI}. The
627: redward subsystem appears to be detected in {\MgI} and in {\FeII}, but
628: only at a $3\sigma$ level. If it is a real detection, {\MgI} would be
629: quite strong relative to {\MgII}. This system could be generated by a
630: similar physical process as gives rise to the $z_{abs}=2.1844$ system
631: toward HE$0001-2340$, but in this case it would have to produce fewer
632: components over the same velocity range.
633:
634: \subsubsection{Q0122-380 $z_{abs}=1.2439$}
635: \label{sec:1.2439}
636:
637: This system, displayed in Figure \ref{fig:fig1l}, has one dominant
638: subsystem and one smaller redward component, which classifies as a
639: separate subsystem. The smaller component (at $\sim 90$~{\kms}) is
640: confirmed in the {\MgII}~$\lambda$2803. The other detections in the
641: {\MgII}~$\lambda$2803 panel are known atmospheric absorption features.
642: The {\FeII}~$\lambda$2587 and $\lambda$2600 transitions are not covered by the
643: spectra. The other three {\FeII} transitions as well as the {\MgI}
644: transition show detections for the dominant subsystem, but not for the
645: redward subsystem.
646:
647: \subsubsection{HE0151-4326 $z_{abs}=0.6630$}
648: \label{sec:0.6630}
649:
650: This {\MgII} profile has a subsystem with several strong components
651: (from $\sim-25$ to $\sim 60$~{\kms}), and a broad, weak component at
652: $\sim$-240~{\kms}. All relevant transitions are shown in Figure
653: \ref{fig:fig1m}. The {\FeII} transitions are in the {\Lya} forest of
654: this quasar, but by combining information from all of them we measure
655: {\FeII} over the full velocity range of this system. While the strong
656: subsystem is detected in {\FeII}, the blueward subsystem is not.
657: {\MgI}~$\lambda$2853 absorption is detected only in the strongest two
658: components, and is considerably stronger in the blueward of those (at
659: $\sim -16$~{\kms}). The broad component at $\sim -240$~{\kms} is of
660: particular interest. Such broad, weak features, which may indicate
661: bulk motion, may be more common than we realize, since they are only
662: detectable in high $S/N$ spectra.
663:
664: \subsubsection{PKS0237-23 $z_{abs}=1.3650$}
665: \label{sec:1.3650}
666:
667: This system consists of one broad subsystem, with numerous components,
668: many of which are saturated. The absorption profiles of {\MgII},
669: {\FeII}, and {\MgI} are shown in Figure \ref{fig:fig1n}. Several very
670: weak components are apparent at $\sim 140$--$160$~{\kms}, the reddest
671: part of the single subsystem. Both {\FeII} and {\MgI} are detected in all
672: but the weakest components of this absorber.
673:
674: \subsubsection{PKS0237-23 $z_{abs}=1.6371$}
675: \label{sec:1.6371}
676:
677: This system, shown in Figure \ref{fig:fig1o}, consists of one central,
678: broad, multicomponent subsystem, a blueward subsystem with one deeper
679: narrow component, and a weak component just redward. Both subsystems
680: are detected in {\FeII} and {\MgI}. The {\FeII}~$\lambda$2374
681: contains a blend outside of the absorbing region. The
682: {\FeII}~$\lambda$2383 is affected by telluric absorption. An
683: interesting note about this system: the zero velocity component is not
684: as close to being saturated as the blueward subsystem, which is
685: relatively strong in comparison. This could signify a double galaxy
686: (perhaps giant/dwarf) configuration along the line of sight.
687:
688: \subsubsection{PKS0237-23 $z_{abs}=1.6574$}
689: \label{sec:1.6574}
690:
691: The one broad, saturated subsystem in this {\MgII} profile consists of
692: multiple components. The profile is displayed in Figure
693: \ref{fig:fig1p}. There are several components both blueward and redward of
694: the dominant one. The two strongest components are detected in {\MgI}
695: and {\FeII}. However, the {\FeII}~$\lambda$2587 transition is heavily
696: affected by telluric absorption. The {\FeII}~$\lambda$2600 contains a
697: feature outside of the absorbing region, which does not affect our
698: analysis but is noted for completeness.
699:
700: \subsubsection{PKS0237-23 $z_{abs}=1.6723$}
701: \label{sec:1.6723}
702:
703: This system is saturated over the range $-10 < v < 35$~{\kms} and
704: consists of one subsystem with multiple components. The system can be
705: seen in Figure \ref{fig:fig1q}. This could be a ``superwind system",
706: with a weak blueward region. While the {\MgI} transition is too
707: severely blended, the {\FeII} provides useful constraints despite
708: telluric absorption in the $\lambda$2587 transition. For example, the
709: absorption in {\FeII} is strongest in the blueward portion of the
710: saturated region.
711:
712: \subsubsection{Q0329-385 $z_{abs}=0.7627$}
713: \label{sec:0.7627}
714:
715: This system, shown in Figure \ref{fig:fig1r}, contains multiple
716: components with only one saturated component in {\MgII}~$\lambda$2796.
717: There is evidence of absorption in {\FeII} for all but the reddest
718: component. The {\FeII}~$\lambda$2344 transition is blended due to
719: lines in the {\Lya} forest. There is {\MgI}~$\lambda$2853 detected
720: for the strongest component. The {\MgI} for other components would be
721: blended with the {\CIV}~$\lambda$1548 absorption from a system at
722: $z_{abs}=2.2513$. The $z_{abs}=0.7267$ system is characterized by a dominant
723: (though narrow) component with nearly all of the weaker components
724: (save one) redward of this component.
725:
726: \subsubsection{Q0329-385 $z_{abs}=1.4380$}
727: \label{sec:1.4380}
728:
729: The central region of this absorber contains two components, both of
730: which are narrow. The absorption profile can be seen in Figure
731: \ref{fig:fig1s}. The bluest component of this system is also narrow
732: and classifies as a separate subsystem. The reddest region of the
733: absorber consists of two narrow components combined with a broader
734: component or set of components. The {\MgII}~$\lambda$2803 transition
735: is affected by poor sky subtraction at $\sim 40$~{\kms} which does not
736: significantly impact our analysis, but is noted for completeness. The
737: $\lambda$~2374 and $\lambda$~2383 transitions of {\FeII} are not
738: covered by the spectra. All of the narrow components are detected in
739: {\FeII}. However, {\MgI}~$\lambda$2853 is detected only in the
740: strongest component. Limits for the weaker component are not strict
741: because this region of the spectrum is contaminated by atmospheric
742: absorption.
743:
744: \subsubsection{Q0453-423 $z_{abs}=0.7261$}
745: \label{sec:0.7261}
746:
747: This nearly ``square profile'' has a velocity range of $\sim
748: -70$~{\kms} to $\sim 60$~{\kms}. The feature in the
749: {\MgII}~$\lambda$2796 at $v\sim140$~{\kms} is due to
750: {\SiIV}~$\lambda$1402 at $z_{abs} = 2.44264$. Similarly, although the very
751: weak feature in the {\MgII}~$\lambda$2803 panel, at $v\sim 162$~{\kms}
752: is a $5\sigma$ detection, the red portion of its profile does not have
753: sufficient corresponding absorption in {\MgII}~$\lambda$2796 to
754: confirm it as {\MgII}. If either of these features were real, they
755: would represent an extra subsystem, but because of the lack of
756: confirmation with both doublet members, they are convincingly ruled
757: out. The dominant subsystem is detected in {\MgI} and {\FeII}. All
758: relevant transitions can be seen in Figure
759: \ref{fig:fig1t}.
760:
761: In a study of metallicity and abundance
762: pattern, \citet{ledoux02} argue that this system is likely to be a
763: sub-DLA or DLA, though it is impossible to measure this directly due
764: to the full Lyman limit break from the $z_{abs}=2.3045$ system.
765:
766: \subsubsection{Q0453-423 $z_{abs}=0.9085$}
767: \label{sec:0.9085}
768:
769: This multiple component system, displayed in Figure \ref{fig:fig1u},
770: consists of one strong broad saturated component, two closely spaced
771: narrow components blueward of the system, and a broad component
772: further blueward. The two features redward of the system are due to a
773: {\CIV}~$\lambda$1550 system at z = 2.4435. All components of the
774: system are detected in {\FeII}. {\MgI} is detected in the saturated
775: region and in the strongest narrow component.
776:
777: \subsubsection{Q0453-423 $z_{abs}=1.1498$}
778: \label{sec:1.1498}
779:
780: This single component system is shown in Figure \ref{fig:fig1v} and
781: has an unusually large equivalent width ($W_r(2796)\sim 4.5$~{\AA}).
782: All components are detected in {\FeII} as well as the {\MgI}
783: transition. The bluer half of this system contains the majority of
784: the metals as evidenced by its saturation in the weaker {\FeII}
785: transitions, in which the redder half of the absorber becomes
786: unsaturated. \citet{ledoux02} have determined metallicities and
787: abundance patterns for this system, finding a super-solar metallicity.
788: It is likely to be a sub-DLA or DLA system, but the Lyman break region
789: cannot be measured due to the full Lyman limit break from the
790: $z_{abs}=2.3045$ system.
791:
792: \subsubsection{Q0453-423 $z_{abs}=1.6299$}
793: \label{sec:1.6299}
794:
795: This single subsystem absorber consists of four narrow components in
796: {\MgII}, and perhaps some blended, weaker broad ones. The absorption
797: profile can be seen in Figure \ref{fig:fig1w}. The region of the
798: spectrum where {\MgII} is detected is contaminated by atmospheric
799: absorption features, leading to a number of detected features around
800: both the {\MgII}~$\lambda$2796 and {\MgII}~$\lambda$2803 profiles.
801: However, all of these features could be eliminated as {\MgII} by
802: examining the corresponding position in the other transition. Also,
803: in the region at 170 $< v <$ 185~{\kms}, the {\MgII}~$\lambda$2803
804: profile is a bit weak relative to {\MgII}~$\lambda$2796, so there
805: could actually be two subsystems here, though it is more
806: likely that there is just one. {\FeII}
807: is detected in only the two strongest components while {\MgI} is not
808: detected in this system.
809:
810: \subsubsection{Q0453-423 $z_{abs}=2.3045$}
811: \label{sec:2.3045}
812:
813: This system consists of one multiple component subsystem and is
814: displayed in Figure \ref{fig:fig1x}. Based on an {\it HST}/FOS
815: spectrum, the system produces a Lyman limit break
816: \citep{ledoux02}, but the {\Lya} profile is not damped, with
817: $\log N({\HI})\sim19.2$~{\cmsq}.
818: Of the features both redward and blueward of the
819: system in the {\MgII}~$\lambda$2796 panel, none are detected in the
820: {\MgII}~$\lambda$2803, indicating that these do not represent
821: additional {\MgII} absorption and, therefore, do not represent
822: additional subsystems; these features are due to atmospheric
823: absorption. The system is detected in {\FeII}, however the
824: {\FeII}~$\lambda$2587 and $\lambda$2600 transitions are not covered by
825: the spectra. The {\MgI} is too severely blended to provide a useful
826: measurement.
827:
828: \subsubsection{HE0940-1050 $z_{abs}=1.7891$}
829: \label{sec:1.7891}
830:
831: This system, seen in Figure \ref{fig:fig1y}, consists of only one
832: subsystem, but it contains numerous components. The kinematics of the
833: components is of particular interest. For example, a narrow component
834: is situated at $v\sim 170$~{\kms}, redward of a multiple component
835: region (which is saturated over a small velocity range). There is
836: just enough weak absorption between these two regions that this system
837: classifies as having only one subsystem. It appears that the
838: component at $v\sim 120$~{\kms} in {\MgII}~$\lambda$2796 may not be
839: matched in the $\lambda$~2803 transition, however there is very weak
840: absorption detected in that velocity range of the
841: {\MgII}~$\lambda$2803 panel. The $v\sim 170$~{\kms} would be a
842: separate subsystem if the connecting absorption is not real. The
843: central region of the system and the $v\sim 170$~{\kms} component are
844: detected in {\FeII} despite telluric features in the $\lambda$2587 and
845: $\lambda$2600 transitions. Only the saturated region is detected
846: in {\MgI}. There is no information about the {\Lya} line
847: for this system because of a Lyman limit break from a system at
848: $z_{abs}=2.9170$.
849:
850: \subsubsection{HE1122-1648 $z_{abs}=0.6822$}
851: \label{sec:0.6822}
852:
853: This system is similar to the $z_{abs} = 1.7891$ system along the
854: HE0940-1050 line of sight in that it contains a broad saturated region
855: with an offset narrow component. The absorption profile is shown in
856: Figure \ref{fig:fig1z}. In this case, the offset component is
857: classified as a separate subsystem because the flux fully recovers
858: between the two regions. All components of the system are detected in
859: both {\FeII} and {\MgI}. The {\FeII}~$\lambda$2587 transition
860: provides the best picture of the true absorption characeristics of the
861: system because it shows the relative strengths of each component with
862: only mild saturation in one component. This system is clearly a
863: damped {\Lya} absorber \citep{varga00}. \citet{varga00} used a
864: Keck/HIRES spectrum to determine that the system has low dust content
865: and an abundance pattern consistent with an old, metal-poor stellar
866: population. \citet{ledoux02} further refined the abundance pattern
867: determinations using the same VLT/UVES spectrum as used here.
868:
869: \subsubsection{HE1341-1020 $z_{abs}=0.8728$}
870: \label{sec:0.8728}
871:
872: In this system, two of the three well separated components are
873: saturated. The system is displayed in Figure \ref{fig:fig1aa}. The
874: {\MgII} profile is simple with all of the absorption (not in the
875: strongest component) located blueward of the strongest component. The
876: two strongest components are detected in {\FeII} and {\MgI}. The
877: blend in the {\FeII}~$\lambda$2600 is due to a {\CIV}~$\lambda$1548
878: system at $z_{abs} = 2.1474$. The feature at $\sim$ -200 {\kms} in the {\MgI}
879: is due to {\FeII}~$\lambda$2344 at $z_{abs} = 1.2788$. The weakest component
880: is detected in {\FeII} but not in {\MgI}.
881:
882: \subsubsection{HE1341-1020 $z_{abs}=1.2767$}
883: \label{sec:1.2767}
884:
885: This four subsystem absorber, shown in Figure \ref{fig:fig1bb},
886: consists of one broad saturated subsystem centered at $\sim 0$~{\kms},
887: a narrow saturated component centered at $\sim140$~{\kms}, and two
888: small weak components at $\sim 245$~{\kms} and $\sim 310$~{\kms}. The
889: two saturated subsystems are detected in both {\FeII} and {\MgI}, but
890: the two weaker components are detected in {\MgII} only. The feature
891: in the {\FeII}~$\lambda$2383 transition redward of two stronger
892: subsystems is due to {\AlIII}~$\lambda$1862 at $z_{abs} = 1.9155$. The
893: feature at $\sim 280$~--~$360$~{\kms} in the {\FeII}~$\lambda$2344
894: panel is actually {\MgI}~$\lambda$2853 from the $z_{abs}=0.8728$
895: absorber.
896:
897: \subsubsection{PKS2126-158 $z_{abs}=2.0225$}
898: \label{sec:2.0225}
899:
900: This system can be seen in Figure \ref{fig:fig1cc} and consists of a
901: narrow component, a multiple component saturated region, and a two
902: (weak) component region. Although the system is classified as being
903: only one subsystem, there are two features redward of the system that
904: could be due to {\MgII} absorption that can neither be confirmed or
905: denied because of atmospheric absorption. One feature is located at
906: $\sim300$~{\kms} and another at $\sim565$~{\kms}. Neither is likely
907: to be due to {\MgII} because of differences in profile shapes at the
908: expected positions of the $\lambda$2796 and $\lambda$2803 transitions.
909: Also, it would be quite unusual to have a subsystem separated by such
910: a large velocity from the subsystem. The {\MgI}~$\lambda$2853
911: transition was not covered by the spectra. {\FeII} is detected in all
912: but the weakest components. The features at $\sim 30$--$80$~{\kms} in
913: the {\FeII}~$\lambda$2383 panel are likely to be atmospheric
914: absorption, since they are not confirmed by {\FeII}~$\lambda$2600.
915:
916: \subsubsection{HE2217-2818 $z_{abs}=0.9424$}
917: \label{sec:0.9424}
918:
919: This system's dominant subsystem is broad and unsaturated, and has
920: many components. The system is displayed in Figure \ref{fig:fig1dd}.
921: It also has two narrower features blueward of this broad dominant
922: subsystem, which together constitute another subsystem. Both
923: subsystems are detected in {\FeII} and {\MgI}. The large velocity
924: separation between the two subsystems makes this system unusual and
925: interesting. Perhaps this could be a case of having very high
926: velocity clouds along this sightline.
927:
928: \subsubsection{HE2217-2818 $z_{abs}=1.6278$}
929: \label{sec:1.6278}
930:
931: This system, which is shown in Figure \ref{fig:fig1ee}, consists of
932: one broad subsystem with multiple components, only one of which may
933: have unresolved saturation. Although the weak feature immediately
934: blueward of the system (at $\sim -90$~{\kms} in the
935: {\MgII}~$\lambda$2796 panel) has corresponding absorption in the
936: {\MgII}~$\lambda$2803 panel, the $\lambda$2803 absorption is
937: relatively too strong, and its minimum is not aligned. We cannot rule
938: out a small $\lambda$2796 absorption feature, but the
939: {\AlII}~$\lambda$1670 and {\CII}~$\lambda$1334 for this system
940: indicate that the feature is due to atmospheric absorption. The
941: features redward of the system, centered at $\sim 100$ and $\sim
942: 130$~{\kms}, are also likely to be atmospheric absorption. This is
943: supported by the appearance of uncertain sky line subtraction (``small
944: emission lines"), particularly in the {\MgII}~$\lambda$2803 panel.
945: Also, the minima in these features do not coincide in the
946: $\lambda$2796 and $\lambda$2803 panels, indicating that there must be
947: at least some contribution from blends. If these features are really
948: {\MgII} absorption, they would be the smallest subsystems in our
949: sample. The system is detected in both {\FeII} and {\MgI}.
950:
951: \subsubsection{HE2217-2818 $z_{abs}=1.6921$}
952: \label{sec:1.6921}
953:
954: This system, like the $z_{abs} = 2.1844$ system toward HE$0001-2340$,
955: consists of multiple components with little saturation. Both systems
956: have the appearance of merging substructures, but this one is more
957: compact, and could be composed of just two merging objects. This
958: suggestion is based partially on the kinematics of the {\FeII}
959: absorption, which is detected in many of the components, but only
960: weakly from $-80$ to $-20$~{\kms}. The absorption profile can be seen
961: in Figure \ref{fig:fig1ff}. The {\MgII} kinematics would also
962: classify this system as resembling a superwind. The {\MgI} has
963: detections in some components of the system, but they are too severaly
964: blended with atmospheric absorption to use as more than just upper
965: limits in our analysis.
966:
967: \subsubsection{B2311-373 $z_{abs}=0.3398$}
968: \label{sec:0.3398}
969:
970: This ``square profile" system is displayed in Figure \ref{fig:fig1gg}
971: and is located in the {\Lya} forest of this quasar. The
972: {\FeII}~$\lambda$2344, $\lambda$2374, and $\lambda$2383 transitions
973: were not covered because they are blueward of the available
974: spectra. The system is detected in {\FeII}. The MgI is too severely
975: blended to provide a useful constraint. This system was observed in
976: the radio by CORALS to study the effect of dust on DLAs
977: \citep{akerman05}
978:
979: \section{Results}
980: \label{sec:results}
981:
982: Here we consider the properties of strong {\MgII} absorbers at high
983: $z$ and compare with those at low $z$ (both from our sample and from
984: CV01). We consider whether our low $z$ sample is consistent with that
985: of CV01 (as we would expect). In order to quantify possible
986: evolutionary trends, we must evaluate the absorption strength and
987: kinematic properties of the {\MgII} profiles. We generally use the
988: same statistics to describe the profiles as defined in CV01.
989:
990: We rely on the Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) test to consider whether
991: differences between samples are significant. This test takes the
992: cumulative distributions of a quantity for the two different samples,
993: finds the maximum difference between them, the ``KS statistic'', and computes the
994: probability that the two samples are drawn from the same distribution,
995: $P(KS)$. This probability should be less than a few percent in order
996: that we can consider that there is a significant difference. We must
997: look further than just this single statistic to consider the nature
998: of the difference.
999:
1000: \subsection{System Properties: Equivalent Width}
1001: \label{sec:equivalentwidth}
1002:
1003: We divide the sample into four subsamples based on equivalent width.
1004: Sample A consists of all of our absorbers. Sample B consists of
1005: absorbers with $0.3~{\le}~W_r(2796) < 0.6$~{\AA}, and Sample C of
1006: those with $0.6~{\le}~W_r(2796) < 1.0$~{\AA}. Sample D absorbers
1007: have $W_r(2796)~{\ge}~0.6$~{\AA}, and Sample E absorbers have
1008: $W_r(2796)~{\ge}~1.0$~{\AA}. The equivalent width ranges are
1009: identical to those used by CV01 in order to directly compare the
1010: subsamples, and to identify any differences between them. CV01 chose
1011: these ranges based on cosmological evolution found by \citet{SS92}, and in
1012: order to consider possible kinematic differences. In
1013: Table~\ref{tab:tab4} we present the statistical information for each
1014: subsample, including number of absorbers in each subsample, average
1015: rest frame equivalent width, average redshift of the absorbers,
1016: average doublet ratio, and which absorbers belong to that subsample.
1017:
1018: Figure \ref{fig:plot2} displays the {\MgII}~$\lambda$2796 profiles for
1019: our absorbers, divided into the subsamples B, C, and E. The
1020: absorbers shown are only those from the VLT sample; we do not include
1021: any absorbers from the CV01 sample (see Fig.~13 of that paper). Also,
1022: we note that each of the subsamples contains absorbers from both the
1023: low and high redshift ranges. The profiles are shown in velocity
1024: space; the vertical axis is the normalized continuum flux, and the number
1025: within each window is the rest frame equivalent width of the absorber.
1026: As expected, the amount of saturation in the system increases as the
1027: equivalent width $W_r(2796)$ increases from sample B to C to E.
1028:
1029: Figure \ref{fig:ewrest} shows the binned equivalent width distribution
1030: of our data and that of the CV01 data. Panel {\it a} shows our high
1031: redshift data, panel {\it b} our low redshift data, and panel {\it c}
1032: the CV01 low redshift data. Qualitatively, our data (both the low and
1033: high redshift regimes) are similar to the CV01 data with two
1034: exceptions: our data include a few systems with 1.5~{\AA} $< W_r(2796)
1035: <$ 2~{\AA}, and our low redshift data have two outliers with
1036: $W_r(2796) \sim $ 4.5~{\AA}. Quantitatively, a
1037: K-S test shows that our low redshift data and the CV01 data are
1038: consistent with being drawn from the same distribution, with a
1039: probability of $P(KS) = 0.77$ and a KS statistic of 0.23. A K-S test
1040: between our low and high redshift samples yields $P(KS)=0.99$ (KS stat
1041: = 0.15). Finally, a KS test between our low redshift sample combined
1042: with the CV01 sample and our high redshift sample yields a
1043: $P(KS)=0.68$ (KS statistic = 0.22). Since the VLT data that we have used
1044: in this study were obtained as part of a study of the {\Lya} forest,
1045: rather than for our purposes, we must consider biases that may have
1046: been introduced by the selection criteria for that study
1047: \citep{kim04}. \citet{kim04} tended to avoided quasars with known DLA's at
1048: $z>1.5$, so there should be no bias for lower redshift systems. The
1049: fact that we see no significant difference between the VLT samples and
1050: the more homogeneous CV01 sample confirms this, so that we can
1051: consider the two low redshift samples as equivalent. There could,
1052: however, be a small bias against large equivalent width systems at
1053: high redshift, introduced by the selection criteria for the {\Lya}
1054: forest study.
1055:
1056: In Figure \ref{fig:ewrestcum}, we compare the cumulative equivalent
1057: width distribution function for our sample to that determined from the
1058: much larger Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) database, which covers a
1059: similar redshift interval \citep{nestor05}. Since the equivalent
1060: width distribution evolves for $W_r(2796) > 2$~{\AA}, we make the
1061: comparison separately for our low redshift and high redshift samples.
1062: We find that both samples are consistent with being drawn from the
1063: same distribution as found for the much larger SDSS sample which
1064: should provide an accurate equivalent width distribution for
1065: $W_r(2796) > 0.3$~{\AA}. The probability is $P(KS)=0.70$ (KS stat =
1066: 0.16) that the low redshift sample equivalent widths were
1067: drawn from the Nestor function with $\left< z \right>$ = 0.84.
1068: Similarly, the probability is $P(KS)=0.51$ (KS stat = 0.18) that the
1069: high redshift sample equivalent widths are consistent with
1070: being drawn from the $\left< z \right>$ = 1.65 Nestor function.
1071:
1072: \subsection{System Properties: Redshift}
1073: \label{sec:redshift}
1074:
1075: Figure \ref{fig:red} shows the binned redshift distributions of our
1076: data and the CV01 data. Our systems have redshifts ranging from
1077: $z=0.33$ to $z=2.47$, with a mean of $\left< z \right>$ = 1.37. Our
1078: data contain a greater number of systems in the high redshift regime
1079: ($1.2 < z < 2.5$) than in the low ($0.3 < z < 1.2$), 20 versus 13.
1080: The number of systems in the high redshift regime is roughly the same
1081: as the number of systems at low redshift studied by CV01. Ideally, we
1082: would have a larger number of systems in the low redshift regime.
1083: However, the systems that we do have are used primarily to verify that
1084: our low redshift sample is similar to CV01.
1085:
1086: Figure \ref{fig:plot1alt} shows all absorbers in our sample, as well
1087: as those from CV01, in redshift order. We divide the plot into the
1088: low and high redshift regimes to highlight the differences between the
1089: two regimes. We include the CV01 profiles (they are noted with a
1090: star) to increase the low redshift sample size and to better
1091: illustrate trends within the low redshift sample; all other systems
1092: are from our VLT/UVES sample.
1093:
1094: We find that the most notable difference between the
1095: two redshift regimes is the smaller number of subsystems at high $z$.
1096: Also, in the low redshift regime, we see a larger fraction of profiles
1097: with a dominant subsystem and one or more weaker subsystems. At high
1098: redshift, the smaller number of subsystems appears to be due to a
1099: larger number of absorbing components that blend together in velocity
1100: space. Thus, the different absorbing components appear ``connected"
1101: at high redshift, but ``separated'' at low redshift. These
1102: impressions, gained from careful inspection of the profiles, will also
1103: be considered quantitatively in \S~\ref{sec:kinematics}.
1104:
1105: Figure \ref{fig:zplots}a shows no evolution in equivalent width with
1106: increasing redshift. CV01 also saw no evolution in the equivalent
1107: width, but over a smaller redshift range. This is consistent with the
1108: much larger SDSS survey of \citet{nestor05}, who find no evolution for
1109: $W_r(2796) < 2$~{\AA}. They do find a smaller number of $W_r(2796) >
1110: 2$~{\AA} systems at $z<1$, compared to the expectations for
1111: cosmological evolution. In our small sample, we do not have enough
1112: very strong {\MgII} absorbers to make a comparison. The agreement of
1113: our equivalent width distribution with an unbiased sample confirms
1114: that our strong {\MgII} sample does not suffer from any significant
1115: biases.
1116:
1117: Figure \ref{fig:zplots}b plots redshift versus the {\MgII} doublet
1118: ratio, ($W_r(2796)$/$W_r(2803)$). We see no evolution in the
1119: distribution of doublet ratio over the full redshift range, combining
1120: our data with that of CV01. The plot does show a trend of decreasing
1121: doublet ratio with increasing rest frame equivalent width, as
1122: evidenced by the medians of the three subsample types seen in
1123: Table~\ref{tab:tab4}. This is as expected due to saturation in the
1124: strongest systems.
1125:
1126: \subsection{System Properties: Kinematics}
1127: \label{sec:kinematics}
1128:
1129: In Figures \ref{fig:kinematics}a and \ref{fig:kinematics}b we consider
1130: the dependence of the kinematic spread, $\omega_v$, on system
1131: equivalent width, and the evolution of $\omega_v$. In Figure
1132: \ref{fig:kinematics}a we see that the systems tend to cluster near two
1133: envelopes. Both the low and high redshift samples show this
1134: dichotomy. One envelope represents the ``saturation line" (solid
1135: line); the other lies nearly vertically at $W_r(2796) = 0.3$~{\AA} due
1136: to the larger number of small $W_r(2796)$ absorbers combined with the
1137: sharp cutoff we applied to select only strong absorbers. Systems
1138: along these two envelopes represent two different absorption profile
1139: types. The envelope at $W_r(2796)=0.3$~{\AA} contains mostly systems
1140: with multiple intermediate and high velocity subsystems, with a high
1141: probability that the dominant subsystem is not heavily saturated. The
1142: saturation envelope contains mostly absorbers with a heavily saturated
1143: dominant subsystem with few, if any, additional subsystems. This
1144: envelope is derived from the minimum kinematic spread at a given
1145: equivalent width, corresponding to a ``square'' profile, saturated
1146: over its full velocity range. The strongest {\MgII} absorbers tend to
1147: lie near this envelope, with small higher velocity components causing
1148: them to rise above it. The fact that few of the strongest absorbers
1149: have much higher $\omega_v$ implies that equal strength subsystems
1150: separated by large velocities are rare.
1151:
1152: Figure \ref{fig:kinematics}b shows no significant evolution in the
1153: kinematic spread. A KS test between the combined low redshift sample
1154: (ours and CV01) and the high redshift sample yields a KS statistic of
1155: 0.17, with a probability 0.84 of being drawn from the same
1156: distribution. The Spearman/Kendell rank order test also shows no
1157: correlation between $\omega_v$ and $z$. We do note that six of the
1158: seven $\omega_v$ values $>100$~{\kms} fall in the low redshift sample.
1159: Because of this, we considered several alternative KS tests,
1160: e.g. dividing at the median $z$ or at the median $\omega_v$ in order
1161: to define the two samples for comparison. However, we still find no
1162: significant differences between these samples. We therefore conclude
1163: that, statistically, the distributions of $\omega_v$ for the low and
1164: high redshift samples are indistinguishable. Thus, the evolution that
1165: we noted in \S~\ref{sec:redshift}, based upon visual inspection of the
1166: absorption profiles in Figure~\ref{fig:plot1alt}, is not seen in the
1167: $\omega_v$ statistic. Consequently, we consider additional
1168: statistics.
1169:
1170: Even though it is the second moment of velocity, since the kinematic
1171: spread is weighted by optical depth, it is not maximally sensitive to
1172: weak intermediate and high velocity components. In order to emphasize
1173: possible evolution of these weak components, we consider another
1174: statistic, $\Delta v$, calculated by identifying the maximum and
1175: minimum velocity of pixels that are included in the detected regions
1176: of a system.
1177:
1178: Figure~\ref{fig:kinematics}c shows the full velocity range for each
1179: absorber (spanning all the subsystems) versus redshift. A K-S test
1180: between the two low redshift samples (VLT/UVES and CV01) yields
1181: $P(KS)=0.36$ (KS stat = 0.33). K-S tests for the $\Delta v$
1182: distributions yield the same general result as for the kinematic
1183: spread: there is no significant difference between the combined low
1184: redshift sample and the high redshift sample $P(KS)=0.94$ (KS stat =
1185: 0.14). The Spearman/Kendell test also shows no significant correlation
1186: between $\Delta v$ and $z$. Therefore, it appears that there is no
1187: deficit of high velocity {\it components} at high redshift. This
1188: confirms that the evolution of kinematics shown in
1189: Fig.~\ref{fig:plot1alt} and discussed in section
1190: \S~\ref{sec:redshift}, is not due to an increase in the overall
1191: velocity range for systems.
1192:
1193: Since we suggested, in \S~\ref{sec:redshift}, that the observed
1194: kinematic evolution of the {\MgII} profiles is due to additional weak
1195: absorbing components at high redshift, we now consider a statistic
1196: that is sensitive to these. We define the ``absorbed pixel fraction''
1197: as the fraction of pixels with any absorption (in detected regions)
1198: over the entire velocity range ($\Delta v$ from
1199: Fig.~\ref{fig:kinematics}c) of an absorbing system.
1200: Figure~\ref{fig:kinematics}d shows the absorbed pixel fraction as a
1201: function of redshift. We see that the majority of high redshift
1202: systems (70\%; $14/20$) have absorption over the full velocity range,
1203: while only half of the low redshift systems (50\%; $18/36$) do. By
1204: bootstrapping, we consider the significance of this result. If 20
1205: absorbed pixel fractions (the size of the high redshift sample) are
1206: drawn at random from the absorbed pixel fractions of the combined low
1207: redshift sample (VLT/UVES and Keck/HIRES) there is only a 5.6\% chance
1208: of finding $14/20$ or more systems that are fully absorbed. This is
1209: an indication of the tendency for high redshift systems to be more
1210: likely to have weak components connecting the stronger absorbing
1211: regions. We note that this result is not significantly affected
1212: by bias due to the higher signal to noise of the VLT/UVES data.
1213: This is because nearly all absorbed pixels in all of the spectra have
1214: strong enough absorption to be detected even in the noisiest spectrum.
1215:
1216: We can also compare the observed distributions of absorbed pixel fraction
1217: for the high and low redshift samples. However, because of the tendency
1218: to have a large number of values of absorbed pixel fraction equal to 1,
1219: the K-S test is not expected to be very sensitive to differences,
1220: and we apply the Anderson-Darling test.
1221: While the K-S test is most sensitive to differences near the center
1222: of the distribution, the Anderson-Darling test gives more weight to
1223: the tails. We first compare the absorbed pixel fractions of the
1224: VLT/UVES low redshift sample and the CV01 low redshift sample.
1225: We find the Anderson-Darling statistic, $A^2$ is equal to 9.9,
1226: and by bootstrapping assess that this value or a lower value
1227: arise 53\% of the time if the absorbed pixel fraction of the
1228: two samples are drawn from the same distribution.
1229: Next, we compare the absorbed pixel fraction distributions for the
1230: high and combined low redshift samples, finding $A^2 = 38.7$.
1231: Here, from bootstrapping, we find a smaller chance of
1232: 16\% that the absorbed pixel fraction for the two samples are
1233: drawn from the same distribution.
1234:
1235: These results are suggestive of a statistical difference between the
1236: high and low redshift samples, with the tendency to have a larger
1237: fraction of absorbed pixels in systems at high redshift than in those
1238: at low redshift. Although there is such a statistical effect, the
1239: difference is not large because there are significant numbers
1240: of individual systems at high and low redshift that are similar
1241: in properties to one another.
1242:
1243: \subsection{Subsystem Properties}
1244: \label{sec:subsysprop}
1245:
1246: Figure \ref{fig:subsysplots}a shows the cumulative distribution of the
1247: $5\sigma$ rest frame equivalent width detection limit at the position
1248: of {\MgII}~$\lambda$2796 for our absorbers. This plot is indicative
1249: of how sensitive our survey is to the weakest subsystems, which are
1250: likely to be single, unresolved components. Our spectra have the same
1251: resolution as those of CV01; however, because our signal to noise is
1252: typically higher and because of the higher redshift of our sample, we
1253: have a significantly better rest-frame detection sensitivity. While
1254: CV01 is 100\% complete down to 0.017~{\AA}, our sample is 100\%
1255: complete down to 0.0087~{\AA}. Our increased sensitivity indicates
1256: that we are able to detect weaker subsystems more easily than CV01.
1257: As mentioned in \S~\ref{sec:subsystems}, none of our subsystems are below
1258: the 90\% cutoff of CV01 at $W_r < 0.015$.
1259:
1260: Figure~\ref{fig:subsysplots}b displays the equivalent width
1261: distribution of intermediate and high ($> 40$ {\kms}) velocity
1262: subsystems. CV01 compare their data to a power law distribution and
1263: identify a turnover at $W_r(2796)$ $\sim$ 0.08~{\AA}. Our data, for
1264: $W_r(2796)>0.08$~{\AA} are consistent with the same power law, $n(W_r)
1265: \propto W_r^{-1.6}$, as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:subsysplots}b, and also with
1266: the turnover, although we are not as sensitive due to our smaller
1267: number of detected subsystems.
1268: CV01 also compare their turnover with that of weak {\MgII} absorbers
1269: ($W_r(2796) < 0.3$~{\AA}) at $0.02$~{\AA}. These turnovers indicate that
1270: these two classes of absorbers are different.
1271:
1272: In \S~\ref{sec:discussion}, we will compare the distribution of
1273: equivalent widths for intermediate and high velocity subsystems to
1274: the distribution of equivalent widths of weak {\MgII} absorbers,
1275: and consider implications.
1276:
1277: In Figure~\ref{fig:subsys}, we plot the number of subsystems per
1278: absorber versus systemic redshift. The mean of the number of low
1279: redshift subsystems (including VLT/UVES and CV01 data) is 1.86; the
1280: mean of the number of high redshift subsystems is 1.43. Because the
1281: data are in the form of only five integer values, neither the K-S or
1282: the Anderson-Darling test gives meaningful results. Instead, we
1283: simply focus on the fraction of the systems that have more than one
1284: subsystem, $6/20$ in the high redshift sample, and $18/36$ in the low
1285: redshift sample (VLT and CV01). If, using bootstrapping techniques,
1286: we repeatedly draw at random $20$ values from the $36$ values in the
1287: low redshift sample, we find only a 5.6\% chance of finding $6/20$ or
1288: fewer systems with $2$ or more subsystems. We thus conclude that the
1289: high redshift sample differs from the low redshift sample in the sense
1290: that systems at high redshift have a smaller number of subsystems.
1291: This is closely related to the result of comparing the fraction of
1292: absorbing pixels in the high and low redshift samples, in
1293: Figure~\ref{fig:kinematics}d, since the two statistics are similarly
1294: defined.
1295:
1296: The number of subsystems per absorber is sensitive to the signal to
1297: noise of the spectrum. Thus we conducted a simulation to consider
1298: whether the higher signal to noise in our high redshift sample leads
1299: to the tendency to have a smaller number of subsystems per absorber at
1300: high redshift. We added noise to each high redshift system, at a
1301: level comparable to the lowest quartile of the noise distribution for
1302: low redshift systems, $S/N =35$ per pixel. Only a few high redshift
1303: systems (the $z_{abs} = 1.7891$ system toward HE0940-1050, the
1304: $z_{abs} = 1.6299$ system toward Q0453-423, and the $z_{abs} = 1.6723$
1305: system toward PKS0237-23) split into more subsystems even at this
1306: relatively high level of noise. Taking into account the noise
1307: distribution for the low redshift sample, we estimate that
1308: statistically 0.5 - 1 more high redshift systems would have two or
1309: more subsystems. Increasing that number by 1 so that $7/20$ of the
1310: high redshift systems have two or more subsystems still leads to an
1311: 11\% chance that the high and low redshift samples are different in
1312: this sense.
1313:
1314: \subsection{Apparent Column Densities of MgII, MgI, and FeII}
1315: \label{sec:acd}
1316:
1317: Figure \ref{fig:naod} consists of four plots showing different
1318: relationships for the apparent column densities of intermediate ($v >
1319: 40$~{\kms}) and high velocity ($v > 165$~{\kms}) subsystems.
1320: The apparent column densities were computed using the apparent optical
1321: depth method \citep{savage91}, as was described in Appendix A of CV01.
1322: The column densities of {\MgII}, {\FeII}, and {\MgI} as well as velocity
1323: ranges for each system are presented in Table~\ref{tab:tab5}. Panel
1324: {\it a} of Figure~\ref{fig:naod} shows the column density of {\MgII} for each of these
1325: subsystems versus the subsystem's centroid velocity. CV01 found that
1326: subsystem {\MgII} column density decreases with increasing subsystem
1327: velocity. This trend is also visible in both of the VLT/UVES samples,
1328: with no apparent difference between the low and high redshift samples.
1329: Finally, CV01 found a paucity of subsystems with $\log N({\MgII}) <
1330: 11.6$~{\cmsq}, despite the fact the they were complete to a lower
1331: limit than that for many of their quasars. Because the sensitivity of
1332: the VLT/UVES sample is better (complete to at least $\log N({\MgII}) =
1333: 11.3$ in all quasars, with much better sensitivities in most), we are
1334: able to test this claim. We also find no subsystems with $\log
1335: N({\MgII}) < 11.6$, supporting the existence of a physical mechanism
1336: that prohibits subsystems weaker than this. This is directly related
1337: to the equivalent width turnover described in \S~\ref{sec:subsysprop}.
1338:
1339: In panels {\it b} and {\it c} of Figure~\ref{fig:naod}, we plot the
1340: logarithmic ratio of $N({\FeII})$ to $N({\MgII})$ as a function of
1341: subsystem velocity and $\log N({\MgII})$. These plots are closely
1342: related, because large velocity subsystems tend to have
1343: small $\log N({\MgII})$, as seen in panel {\it a}. There is a large spread
1344: of $\log N({\FeII})/N({\MgII})$, with values ranging from $-1.2$ to
1345: $0.2$. CV01 noted that many of the smallest $\log
1346: N({\FeII})/N({\MgII})$ values occur for subsystems with small $\log
1347: N({\MgII})$, which include many of the highest velocity subsystems.
1348: The VLT/UVES sample does not have any subsystems with such small $\log
1349: N({\FeII})/N({\MgII})$ values, either for weak or for strong
1350: subsystems. We note, however, that there are not enough medium and
1351: high velocity subsystems to consider in the VLT/UVES data because it
1352: contains a significant fraction of high redshift absorbers, which tend
1353: not to have as many subsystems (see \S~\ref{sec:subsysprop}). Thus,
1354: we can neither refute or confirm the interesting suggestion of CV01
1355: that some of the highest velocity subsystems are preferentially
1356: $\alpha$-enhanced.
1357:
1358: In panel {\it d} of Figure~\ref{fig:naod} we examine possible
1359: evolution in $\log N({\FeII})/N({\MgII})$. This plot again
1360: illustrates the lack of subsystems at high $z$, discussed in
1361: \S~\ref{sec:subsysprop}. While the high $z$ sample is roughly
1362: two-thirds the size of the low $z$ sample, it has only one-third the
1363: number of subsystems with $v > 40$~{\kms}. Furthermore, the three
1364: highest redshift datapoints are not independent; they are all
1365: subsystems of the $z=2.1844$ system toward HE0001-2340. We note that
1366: for $z>1.2$, there are no subsystems with $\log N({\FeII})/N({\MgII})
1367: < -0.7$. Small $\log N({\FeII})/N({\MgII})$ values would signify
1368: either $\alpha$-enhancement or a higher ionization parameter at low
1369: redshift. The latter is unlikely in view of the known evolution of
1370: the EBR (see \S~\ref{sec:intro}). The existence of $\alpha$-enhanced
1371: gas at low redshifts implies recent star formation in some fraction of
1372: the absorber population. The lack of such $\alpha$-enhanced absorbers
1373: in the high redshift sample would be surprising but could be due to
1374: small number statistics. We repeatedly chose 10 subsystems (the
1375: number in the high redshift sample) at random from the full sample of
1376: 40 subsystems with $v > 40$~{\kms}, and found a probability of $0.11$
1377: that there would be none with $\log N({\FeII})/N({\MgII}) < -0.7$.
1378:
1379: Figure \ref{fig:figure9} is a summary plot in which we show the
1380: {\MgII}, {\MgI}, and {\FeII} column densities (from top to bottom)
1381: of the subsystems of each system. The systems are displayed from
1382: left to right by increasing redshift and subsystems with different
1383: velocities are designated by different symbols. The small fraction of
1384: subsystems at $1.65 < z < 2.5$ with {\MgI} data is due to frequent
1385: contamination of that region of the spectrum by atmospheric
1386: absorption. There is no indication of evolution in $N({\MgII})$,
1387: $N({\MgI})$, or $N({\FeII})$.
1388:
1389: \subsection{Summary of Results}
1390: \label{sec:summary}
1391:
1392: Here we summarize the results of our comparisons of the $0.3 < z <
1393: 1.2$ (low redshift) and $1.2 < z < 2.5$ (high redshift) strong {\MgII}
1394: absorber samples:
1395:
1396: \begin{enumerate}
1397:
1398: \item{We find no significant differences between {\MgII} rest-frame
1399: equivalent widths (Figure~\ref{fig:ewrest}) and kinematics
1400: (Figure~\ref{fig:kinematics}) for the VLT/UVES low redshift sample
1401: and the low redshift sample of CV01 from Keck/HIRES. This indicates
1402: that we can legitimately group these two samples together and compare
1403: to the high redshift sample from VLT/UVES without concern about bias
1404: due to the different sample selection and instrumental
1405: configurations.}
1406:
1407:
1408: \item{The cumulative equivalent width distribution function for strong
1409: {\MgII} absorbers is statistically indistinguishable for the high and
1410: low redshift samples, as shown in Figures ~\ref{fig:ewrest} and
1411: \ref{fig:zplots}a. This is consistent with the much larger survey of
1412: \citet{nestor05}, who found no evolution for $W_r(2796)<2$~{\AA}.}
1413:
1414: \item{The kinematic spread of strong {\MgII} absorbers also does not
1415: show significant evolution over the interval $0.3 < z < 2.5$
1416: (Figure~\ref{fig:kinematics}a). At both low and high redshifts we see
1417: the full range of spreads, from saturated, single trough profiles, to
1418: those with many unsaturated components distributed over a large
1419: velocity range.}
1420:
1421: \item{The average number of separate subsystems in strong {\MgII} systems
1422: increases with decreasing redshift, from 1.43 at $1.2 < z < 2.5$ to
1423: 1.86 at $0.3 < z < 1.2$ (see Figure~\ref{fig:subsys}). This
1424: difference is significant. The majority of the high redshift systems
1425: have only one subsystem.}
1426:
1427: \item{The small number of subsystems in strong {\MgII} systems at high
1428: redshift is not due to an absence of high velocity components, as
1429: evidenced by a lack of evolution in total system velocity spread (see
1430: Figure~\ref{fig:kinematics}d). Instead, it is due to weak components
1431: ``filling'' the velocity space between the regions that would be
1432: separate subsystems at lower redshift. This leads to a larger
1433: fraction of absorbing pixels in high redshift systems (shown in
1434: Figure~\ref{fig:kinematics}c).}
1435:
1436: \item{We carefully consider whether the differences in the number of
1437: subsystems and in the fraction of absorbing pixels between high and
1438: low redshift could be due to larger contamination of the high redshift
1439: system profiles by atmospheric absorption. This possibility is ruled
1440: out after inspecting each {\MgII} doublet and finding matching
1441: absorption for weaker components (those that ``fill in'' the velocity
1442: space) in {\MgII}~$\lambda$2803 (see Figure~\ref{fig:fig1}--ag and the
1443: system descriptions in \S~\ref{sec:1.6299} and \S~\ref{sec:1.7891},
1444: where we note the two controversial cases).}
1445:
1446: \item{Another way to understand the differences between the strong
1447: {\MgII} systems at high and low redshift is to visually examine the
1448: profiles in Figure~\ref{fig:plot1alt}. CV01 found that many profiles
1449: at low redshift have strong central components and one or more weaker,
1450: outlying intermediate or high velocity components. We also see some
1451: profiles like this at high redshift, but they are not as common.
1452: Instead we see complex kinematics, with more components spanning
1453: roughly the same velocity range.}
1454:
1455: \item{The distribution of {\MgII}~$\lambda$2796 rest frame equivalent
1456: width for intermediate and high velocity subsystems is generally
1457: consistent with a $n(W_r) \propto W_r^{-1.6}$ power law, however there
1458: is a turnover, with few subsystems with $W_r(2796) < 0.08$~{\AA},
1459: shown in Figure~\ref{fig:subsysplots}a. This is not due to
1460: incompleteness, since our survey is 100\% complete to a limit of
1461: $W_r(2796) = 0.009$~{\AA}. This confirms the results of CV01.}
1462:
1463: \item{CV01 found that high velocity subsystems of $0.3 < z < 1.2$ strong
1464: {\MgII} absorbers tend to have smaller $N({\MgII})$ than low velocity
1465: subsystems. We find the same trend at $1.2 < z < 2.5$ (see
1466: Figure~\ref{fig:naod}a).}
1467:
1468: \item{There is no clear evolution in the ratio of apparent column
1469: densities of {\FeII} and {\MgII} for intermediate ($40 < v <
1470: 165$~{\kms}) and high ($>165$~{\kms}) velocity subsystems
1471: (Figure~\ref{fig:naod}). This is, however, hard to evaluate because
1472: of the smaller number of separate subsystems at high redshift. We see
1473: tentative evidence of $\alpha$-enhanced gas in low redshift
1474: subsystems.}
1475:
1476: \end{enumerate}
1477:
1478: \section{Discussion}
1479: \label{sec:discussion}
1480:
1481: We find that there is significant overlap in the kinematic properties
1482: of strong {\MgII} absorbers in the low ($0.3 < z < 1.2$) and high
1483: ($1.2 < z < 2.5$) redshift regimes. However, there is a systematic
1484: trend for high redshift systems to have weaker absorpting components
1485: connecting stronger regions of absorption. We expect that this
1486: indicates galactic structures at $1.2 < z < 2.5$ tend to have a larger
1487: number of {\it accreting} or {\it outflowing} clouds. In fact, we see
1488: very few high redshift examples of the classic disk/halo structures so
1489: common in the low redshift CV01 sample, evidenced by a dominant
1490: subsystem, with weaker subsystems to one side. The accreting or
1491: outflowing gas clouds are only evident in high resolution {\MgII}
1492: profiles, and because their absorption is so weak, do not produce an
1493: evolution in the equivalent width distribution of the population.
1494:
1495: This evolutionary trend in the kinematics of strong {\MgII} absorbers
1496: may be the first systematic evidence for hierarchical structure
1497: formation seen in the gas. It thus provides a long-sought link to the
1498: volume of work on the evolution of galaxy morphology in deep imaging
1499: surveys. Logically, this sort of evolution should be seen in the gas
1500: at high redshift, where images show that a large fraction of the solid
1501: angle around a luminous galaxy is covered by material. An extreme
1502: example of this is the ``Spiderweb Galaxy'', a central cluster galaxy
1503: at $z=2.2$, with many accreting, star forming companions
1504: \citep{miley06}. However, a large fraction of $z>1.2$ galaxies exhibit
1505: morphological peculiarities, including the ``clump-cluster'' morphologies
1506: \citep{Elm05} that would give rise to the absorption signature that we
1507: find to be evident at those redshifts.
1508:
1509: Having made a connection between strong {\MgII} absorbers and
1510: structures seen in images, it is also important to consider possible
1511: connections with other types of absorbers. Qualitatively, weak
1512: {\MgII} absorbers have absorption profiles similar to the weak
1513: outlying subsystems that are common in strong {\MgII} absorbers at
1514: $0.3 < z < 1.2$. However, we noted in \S~\ref{sec:subsysprop} that
1515: there is a significant difference between the equivalent width
1516: distributions of these two populations of absorbers. The weak {\MgII}
1517: absorbers have an equivalent width distribution that follows a power
1518: law, with $n(W_r) \propto W_r^{-1.6}$ down to $0.02$~{\AA}, while the
1519: outlying subsystems show a turnover in this power law below $W_r =
1520: 0.08$~{\AA}. CV01 also saw this trend, and argued that there might
1521: not be a close connection between weak {\MgII} absorbers and outlying
1522: subsystems of strong {\MgII} absorbers. However, there have been
1523: significant new findings revealing more information about the location
1524: of weak {\MgII} absorbers relative to luminous galaxies.
1525:
1526: Through direct \citep{Church05} and indirect arguments \citep{Milni06} it is
1527: now known that many weak {\MgII} absorbers are $\sim 30$-$100
1528: h^{-1}$~kpc from luminous galaxies, and not usually at larger
1529: distances as previously believed (e.g., \citet{Rigby02}). Since weak
1530: {\MgII} absorbers are clustered around the hosts of strong {\MgII}
1531: absorption and since the two populations cover comparable fractions of
1532: the sky, this would argue that it would be common for a line of sight
1533: to pass through both a strong and a weak {\MgII} absorber. The
1534: difference in equivalent width distributions of the weak {\MgII}
1535: absorbers and the outlying subsystems of strong {\MgII} absorbers
1536: could be explained simply by stronger clustering of the higher
1537: equivalent width, weak {\MgII} absorbers (those with $W_r(2796) >
1538: 0.08$~{\AA}) around galaxies. The $W_r(2796) < 0.08$~{\AA} weak
1539: {\MgII} absorbers would then be at a larger separation from the
1540: galaxy, and it would thus be less probable to pass through such an
1541: absorber {\it and} through a galaxy. Thus, it appears plausible that
1542: outlying subsystems of strong {\MgII} absorbers are produced by the
1543: same structures as weak {\MgII} absorbers.
1544:
1545: Based on photoionization models, \citet{lynch06} found a similar
1546: multi-phase structure for weak {\MgII} absorbers as for Milky Way HVCs
1547: and concluded that they could have common origins. Also,
1548: \citet{Milni06} considered the observed cross-sections of high and low
1549: ionization systems at $z<1$ and concluded that a filametary or
1550: sheet-like geometry is favored for weak {\MgII} absorbers. This is
1551: consistent with the distribution of {\OVI} around the Milky Way
1552: \citep{Sem03}.
1553:
1554: We have suggested that outlying subsystems of strong {\MgII} absorbers
1555: and weak {\MgII} absorbers may be produced by the same structures, and
1556: that weak {\MgII} absorbers and HVCs may be related. Therefore, we
1557: should also directly compare subsystems of strong {\MgII} absorbers
1558: and HVCs. As described in \S~\ref{sec:intro}, the HVCs that are
1559: detected in 21-cm surveys are only a subset of the population, with a
1560: larger fraction detected in {\OVI} absorption \citep{Sem03}. In fact
1561: the kinematics of low ionization absorption detected looking out
1562: through the Milky Way (see, e.g., \citet{Gang05},
1563: \citet{Fox05}, \citet{Col05}, and \citet{Jen03})
1564: would be indistinguishable from those of some strong {\MgII} absorbers at
1565: $0.3 < z < 1.2$. Based upon all of these considerations, there is
1566: a compelling case for a three-way connection between outlying subsystems
1567: of strong {\MgII} absorbers, weak {\MgII} absorbers, and extragalactic
1568: analogs to HVCs.
1569:
1570: Based on this connection, we can extend our interpretation of the
1571: evolution in the kinematics of strong {\MgII} absorbers. In this
1572: context, at high redshifts ($1.2 < z < 2.5$) the structures that
1573: give rise to weak {\MgII} absorption and HVCs are present, but they
1574: appear more connected, by unsettled gas, to the strong {\MgII} absorbing
1575: structures. As we approach the current epoch, this gas settles into
1576: the weak/HVC regions, or more likely, into the strong {\MgII} absorbing
1577: region.
1578:
1579: To test this idea, it will be important to make direct comparisons of
1580: the physical properties (particularly metallicities and densities)
1581: of weak {\MgII} absorbers and of the outlying subsystems of strong
1582: {\MgII} absorbers. This will require access to high resolution coverage
1583: of the Lyman series lines associated with these absorbers, and to other
1584: key constraining transitions, such as {\OVI} and {\CIII}. This can
1585: be achieved with optical spectra for $z>2$ absorbers, but at such high
1586: redshifts high velocity subsystems are not common. To study the
1587: crucial low redshift regime, high resolution ultra-violet spectra will
1588: be essential.
1589:
1590: If the connection is real, we finally have a handle on the relationship
1591: between absorption signatures and familiar structures we see in the
1592: local universe and in deep imaging studies. With the tool of quasar
1593: absorption lines, we then have the ability to learn things about the
1594: gaseous assembly of galaxies that we cannot learn from imaging alone.
1595: More specifically, through observations of the gas, we can study the
1596: relative importance of gas accretion and of major mergers in
1597: determining the evolution of galaxy morphology over the past
1598: $\sim10$~Gyrs.
1599:
1600: This work was funded by the National Science Foundation grant NSF
1601: AST-07138, by NASA through grant NNG04GE73F, and by an NSF REU Supplement.
1602: We are indebted to the ESO Archive for making this work possible.
1603: We also thank an anonymous referee who helped us to clarify the results
1604: and improve the presentation of this paper.
1605:
1606:
1607: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1608:
1609: \bibitem[Akerman et al.(2005)]{akerman05} Akerman, C.~J.,
1610: Ellison, S.~L., Pettini, M., \& Steidel, C.~C.\ 2005, \aap, 440, 499
1611:
1612: \bibitem[Bauer et al.(2005)]{Bauer05} Bauer, A.~E., Drory, N.,
1613: Hill, G.~J., \& Feulner, G.\ 2005, \apjl, 621, L89
1614:
1615: \bibitem[Bergeron \& Boiss\'{e}(1991)]{Berg91} Bergeron, J., \& Boiss\'{e}, P.\ 1991, \aap, 243, 344
1616:
1617: \bibitem[Bergeron et al.(1992)]{Berg92} Bergeron, J., Cristiani, S., \& Shaver, P.~A.\ 1992, \aap, 257, 417
1618:
1619: \bibitem[Bond et al.(2001)]{bond01} Bond, N.~A., Churchill,
1620: C.~W., Charlton, J.~C., \& Vogt, S.~S.\ 2001, \apj, 562, 641
1621:
1622: \bibitem[Charlton \& Churchill(1998)]{cc98} Charlton, J.~C.,
1623: \& Churchill, C.~W.\ 1998, \apj, 499, 181
1624:
1625: \bibitem[Churchill, Kacprzak, \& Steidel(2005)]{Church05} Churchill, C.~W.,
1626: Kacprzak, G.~G., \& Steidel, C.~C.\ 2005, IAU Colloq.~199: Probing Galaxies
1627: through Quasar Absorption Lines, 24
1628:
1629: \bibitem[Churchill et al.(1999)]{cwc99b} Churchill, C.~W.,
1630: Rigby, J.~R., Charlton, J.~C., \& Vogt, S.~S.\ 1999, \apjs, 120, 51
1631:
1632: \bibitem[Churchill \& Vogt(2001)]{CV01} Churchill, C.~W., \&
1633: Vogt, S.~S.\ 2001, \aj, 122, 679
1634:
1635: \bibitem[Churchill et al.(2003)]{vpfits} Churchill, C.~W.,
1636: Vogt, S.~S., \& Charlton, J.~C.\ 2003, \aj, 125, 98
1637:
1638: \bibitem[Collins et al.(2005)]{Col05} Collins, J.~A., Shull,
1639: J.~M., \& Giroux, M.~L.\ 2005, \apj, 623, 196
1640:
1641: \bibitem[Conselice et al.(2004)]{Con04} Conselice, C.~J., et
1642: al.\ 2004, \apjl, 600, L139
1643:
1644: \bibitem[Elmegreen et al.(2005)]{Elm05} Elmegreen, D.~M.,
1645: Elmegreen, B.~G., Rubin, D.~S., \& Schaffer, M.~A.\ 2005, \apj, 631, 85
1646:
1647: \bibitem[Fox et al.(2005)]{Fox05} Fox, A.~J., Wakker, B.~P.,
1648: Savage, B.~D., Tripp, T.~M., Sembach, K.~R., \& Bland-Hawthorn, J.\ 2005,
1649: \apj, 630, 332
1650:
1651: \bibitem[Gabasch et al.(2004)]{Gab04} Gabasch, A., et al.\
1652: 2004, \apjl, 616, L83
1653:
1654: \bibitem[Ganguly et al.(2005)]{Gang05} Ganguly, R., Sembach,
1655: K.~R., Tripp, T.~M., \& Savage, B.~D.\ 2005, \apjs, 157, 251
1656:
1657: \bibitem[Haardt \& Madau(1996)]{Haardt96} Haardt, F., \& Madau, P.\ 1996, \apj, 461, 20
1658:
1659: \bibitem[Haardt \& Madau(2001)]{Haardt01} Haardt, F., \& Madau, P.\ 2001, in Clusters of Galaxies and the High Redshift U
1660: niverse Observed in X-rays, ed. D.~M. Neumann \& J.~T.~T. Van (Paris: Recontres de Moriond XXXVI), in press (astro-ph/010
1661: 6018)
1662:
1663: \bibitem[Jenkins et al.(2003)]{Jen03} Jenkins, E.~B., Bowen,
1664: D.~V., Tripp, T.~M., Sembach, K.~R., Leighly, K.~M., Halpern, J.~P., \&
1665: Lauroesch, J.~T.\ 2003, \aj, 125, 2824
1666:
1667: \bibitem[Kacprzak et al.(2005)]{Kacp05} Kacprzak, G.~G.,
1668: Churchill, C.~W., \& Steidel, C.~C.\ 2005, IAU Colloq.~199: Probing
1669: Galaxies through Quasar Absorption Lines, 80
1670:
1671: \bibitem[Kim et al.(2004)]{kim04} Kim, T.-S., Viel, M.,
1672: Haehnelt, M.~G., Carswell, R.~F., \& Cristiani, S.\ 2004, \mnras, 347, 355
1673:
1674: \bibitem[Le Brun et al.(1993)]{LeBrun93} Le Brun, V., Bergeron, J., Boisse, P., \& Christian, C.\ 1993, \aap, 279, 33
1675:
1676: \bibitem[Ledoux et al.(2002)]{ledoux02} Ledoux, C., Bergeron,
1677: J., \& Petitjean, P.\ 2002, \aap, 385, 802
1678:
1679: \bibitem[Le F{\`e}vre et al.(2000)]{Lef00} Le F{\`e}vre, O., et al.\ 2000, \mnras, 311, 565
1680:
1681: \bibitem[Lockman et al.(2002)]{Lockman02} Lockman, F.~J., Murphy,
1682: E.~M., Petty-Powell, S., \& Urick, V.~J.\ 2002, \apjs, 140, 331
1683:
1684: \bibitem[Lynch et al.(2006)]{lynch06} Lynch, R.~S., Charlton,
1685: J.~C., \& Kim, T.-S.\ 2006, \apj, 640, 81
1686:
1687: \bibitem[Miley et al.(2006)]{miley06} Miley, G.~K., et al.\
1688: 2006, \apjl, 650, L29
1689:
1690: \bibitem[Milutinovi{\'c} et al.(2006)]{Milni06}
1691: Milutinovi{\'c}, N., Rigby, J.~R., Masiero, J.~R., Lynch, R.~S., Palma, C.,
1692: \& Charlton, J.~C.\ 2006, \apj, 641, 190
1693:
1694: \bibitem[Nestor et al.(2005)]{nestor05} Nestor, D.~B., Turnshek,
1695: D.~A., \& Rao, S.~M.\ 2005, \apj, 628, 637
1696:
1697: \bibitem[Patton et al.(2002)]{Pat02} Patton, D.~R., et al.\
1698: 2002, \apj, 565, 208
1699:
1700: \bibitem[Prochter et al.(2006)]{prochter06} Prochter, G.~E.,
1701: Prochaska, J.~X., \& Burles, S.~M.\ 2006, \apj, 639, 766
1702:
1703: \bibitem[Rao \& Turnshek(2000)]{rao00} Rao, S.~M., \&
1704: Turnshek, D.~A.\ 2000, \apjs, 130, 1
1705:
1706: \bibitem[Rao et al.(2006)]{rao06} Rao, S.~M., Turnshek,
1707: D.~A., \& Nestor, D.~B.\ 2006, \apj, 636, 610
1708:
1709: \bibitem[Richter et al.(2005)]{richter05} Richter, P., Ledoux,
1710: C., Petitjean, P., \& Bergeron, J.\ 2005, \aap, 440, 819
1711:
1712: \bibitem[Rigby et al.(2002)]{Rigby02} Rigby, J.~R., Charlton,
1713: J.~C., \& Churchill, C.~W.\ 2002, \apj, 565, 743
1714:
1715: \bibitem[Savage \& Sembach(1991)]{savage91} Savage, B.~D., \&
1716: Sembach, K.~R.\ 1991, \apj, 379, 245
1717:
1718: \bibitem[Sembach et al.(2003)]{Sem03} Sembach, K.~R., Wakker,
1719: B.~P., Savage, B.~D., Richter, P., Meade, M., Shull, J.~M., Jenkins, E.~B., Sonneborn, G., Moos, H.~W.\
1720: 2003, \apjs, 146, 165
1721:
1722: \bibitem[Sembach et al.(2006)]{Sem06} Sembach, K.~R., Wakker,
1723: B.~P., Savage, B.~D., \& Richter, P.\ 2006, Astronomical Society of the
1724: Pacific Conference Series, 348, 375
1725:
1726: \bibitem[Steidel(1995)]{Steid95} Steidel, C.~C.\ 1995, QSO Absorption Lines, Proceedings of the ESO Workshop Held at Garching, Germany, 21 - 24 November 1994, edited by Georges Meylan.~Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg New York.~ Also ESO Astrophysics Symposia, 1995., p.139.
1727:
1728: \bibitem[Steidel et al.(1994)]{Steid94} Steidel, C.~C., Dickinson, M., \& Persson, S.~E.\ 1994, \apjl, 437, L75
1729:
1730: \bibitem[Steidel et al.(2002)]{Steid02} Steidel, C.~C.,
1731: Kollmeier, J.~A., Shapley, A.~E., Churchill, C.~W., Dickinson, M., \&
1732: Pettini, M.\ 2002, \apj, 570, 526
1733:
1734: \bibitem[Steidel \& Sargent(1992)]{SS92} Steidel, C.~C., \&
1735: Sargent, W.~L.~W.\ 1992, \apjs, 80, 1
1736:
1737: \bibitem[de la Varga et al.(2000)]{varga00} de la Varga, A.,
1738: Reimers, D., Tytler, D., Barlow, T., \& Burles, S.\ 2000, \aap, 363, 69
1739:
1740: \bibitem[Wakker \& van Woerden(1997)]{wakker97} Wakker, B.~P.,
1741: \& van Woerden, H.\ 1997, \araa, 35, 217
1742:
1743: \bibitem[Zibetti et al.(2007)]{zibetti07} Zibetti, S., Menard,
1744: B., Nestor, D.~B., Quider, A.~M., Rao, S.~M., \& Turnshek, D.~A.\ 2007,
1745: \apj, in press
1746:
1747: \end{thebibliography}
1748:
1749:
1750: \begin{deluxetable}{lrcc}
1751: \tablewidth{0pc}
1752: \tablenum{1}
1753: \tablecolumns{4}
1754: \tablecaption{List of Observed Quasars}
1755: \tablehead
1756: {
1757: \colhead{QSO} &
1758: \colhead{V} &
1759: \colhead{$z_{emit}$} &
1760: \colhead{Observed Wavelength Range}
1761: }
1762: \startdata
1763: HE0001-2340 & 16.7 & 2.259 & 3056 - 10074\\
1764: Q0002-422 & 17.5 & 2.659 & 3056 - 10073\\
1765: Q0109-3518 & 16.6 & 2.405 & 3056 - 10074\\
1766: Q0122-380 & 17.1 & 2.192 & 3064 - 10198\\
1767: HE0151-4326 & 17.2 & 2.784 & 3056 - 10075\\
1768: PKS0237-23 & 16.8 & 2.223 & 3063 - 10075\\
1769: PKS0329-255* & 17.1 & 2.707 & 3056 - 10074\\
1770: Q0329-385 & 17.2 & 2.435 & 3063 - 8507\\
1771: Q0420-388* & 16.9 & 3.117 & 3401 - 10074\\
1772: Q0453-423 & 17.3 & 2.657 & 3057 - 10074\\
1773: HE0940-1050 & 16.6 & 3.083 & 3101 - 10082\\
1774: B1055-301* & 19.5 & 2.523 & 3293 - 5756\\
1775: HE1122-1648 & 17.7 & 2.405 & 3051 - 10083\\
1776: HE1158-1843* & 16.9 & 2.448 & 3056 - 10074\\
1777: HE1341-1020 & 17.1 & 2.135 & 3052 - 10415\\
1778: PKS1448-232* & 17.0 & 2.218 & 3062 - 10073\\
1779: PKS2126-158 & 17.3 & 3.280 & 3352 - 9609\\
1780: HE2217-2818 & 16.0 & 2.413 & 3052 - 9898.8\\
1781: B2311-373 & 18.5 & 2.476 & 3292 - 6686\\
1782: HE2347-4342* & 16.3 & 2.880 & 3063 - 10095\\
1783: \tablecomments{*No strong {\MgII} absorbers were found in these spectra.}
1784: \enddata
1785: \label{tab:tab1}
1786: \end{deluxetable}
1787:
1788:
1789: \begin{deluxetable}{llrrrcc}
1790: \tablewidth{0pc}
1791: \tablenum{2}
1792: \tablecolumns{7}
1793: \tablecaption{Kinematic Subsystem Properties and System Totals}
1794: \tablehead
1795: {
1796: \colhead{QSO} &
1797: \colhead{$z_{abs}$} &
1798: \colhead{Subsys} &
1799: \colhead{$\left< v \right>$} &
1800: \colhead{$\omega_{v}$} &
1801: \colhead{$W_{\rm r}(2796)$} &
1802: \colhead{DR} \\
1803: &
1804: &
1805: &
1806: \colhead{[{\kms}]} &
1807: \colhead{[{\kms}]} &
1808: \colhead{[{\AA}]} &
1809: }
1810: \startdata
1811: B2311-373 & 0.339862 & 1 & \nodata & $ 29.1\pm 0.4$ & $0.959\pm0.005$ & $1.05\pm0.01$ \\
1812: \hline
1813: Q0122 & 0.443791 & 1 & \nodata & $ 25.9\pm 0.2$ & $0.412\pm0.003$ & $1.45\pm0.02$ \\
1814: \hline
1815: HE0151 & 0.663069 & 1 & $-241.1\pm 0.8$ & $ 17.2\pm 0.7$ & $0.042\pm0.001$ & $1.80\pm0.10$ \\
1816: & & 2 & $ 8.1\pm 0.1$ & $ 23.9\pm 0.1$ & $0.384\pm0.001$ & $1.32\pm0.01$ \\
1817: & & Total & \nodata & $ 62.6\pm 0.7$ & $0.425\pm0.001$ & $1.35\pm0.01$ \\
1818: \hline
1819: HE1122 & 0.682246 & 1 & $-162.7\pm 0.1$ & $ 7.3\pm 0.2$ & $0.126\pm0.001$ & $1.41\pm0.02$ \\
1820: & & 2 & $ 7.4\pm 0.5$ & $ 48.7\pm 0.3$ & $1.702\pm0.001$ & $1.09\pm0.00$ \\
1821: & & Total & \nodata & $ 55.3\pm 0.3$ & $1.828\pm0.002$ & $1.10\pm0.00$ \\
1822: \hline
1823: Q0453 & 0.726110 & 1 & \nodata & $ 39.1\pm 0.1$ & $1.356\pm0.002$ & $1.06\pm0.00$ \\
1824: \hline
1825: Q0329 & 0.762783 & 1 & \nodata & $ 47.6\pm 0.4$ & $0.616\pm0.005$ & $1.42\pm0.02$ \\
1826: \hline
1827: Q0002 & 0.836643 & 1 & \nodata & $122.8\pm 0.3$ & $4.431\pm0.002$ & $1.12\pm0.00$ \\
1828: \hline
1829: Q0122 & 0.859777 & 1 & $-233.5\pm 0.5$ & $ 15.8\pm 0.5$ & $0.177\pm0.003$ & $1.50\pm0.05$ \\
1830: & & 2 & $ 4.1\pm 0.1$ & $ 4.9\pm 0.2$ & $0.162\pm0.002$ & $1.21\pm0.03$ \\
1831: & & 3 & $160.8\pm 1.2$ & $ 4.8\pm 1.8$ & $0.022\pm0.002$ & $1.50\pm0.30$ \\
1832: & & Total & \nodata & $122.4\pm 1.0$ & $0.361\pm0.005$ & $1.36\pm0.03$ \\
1833: \hline
1834: HE1341 & 0.872808 & 1 & \nodata & $ 19.9\pm 0.4$ & $0.530\pm0.007$ & $1.22\pm0.03$ \\
1835: \hline
1836: HE2217 & 0.942415 & 1 & $-266.9\pm 0.1$ & $ 24.9\pm 0.1$ & $0.121\pm0.001$ & $1.60\pm0.01$ \\
1837: & & 2 & $ 3.0\pm 0.1$ & $ 23.7\pm 0.1$ & $0.450\pm0.001$ & $1.57\pm0.00$ \\
1838: & & Total & \nodata & $104.1\pm 0.2$ & $0.571\pm0.001$ & $1.58\pm0.00$ \\
1839: \hline
1840: HE0001 & 0.949148 & 1 & \nodata & $ 34.5\pm 0.2$ & $0.348\pm0.001$ & $1.66\pm0.01$ \\
1841: \hline
1842: Q0122 & 1.243967 & 1 & $ 2.5\pm 0.3$ & $ 13.5\pm 0.3$ & $0.449\pm0.003$ & $1.18\pm0.01$ \\
1843: & & 2 & $ 92.7\pm 1.2$ & $ 5.3\pm 1.4$ & $0.019\pm0.002$ & $0.77\pm0.11$ \\
1844: & & Total & \nodata & $ 17.1\pm 0.5$ & $0.467\pm0.004$ & $1.16\pm0.01$ \\
1845: \hline
1846: HE1341 & 1.276756 & 1 & $-10.9\pm 1.0$ & $ 33.4\pm 0.5$ & $1.177\pm0.007$ & $1.09\pm0.01$ \\
1847: & & 2 & $137.8\pm 0.3$ & $ 6.2\pm 0.2$ & $0.225\pm0.004$ & $1.06\pm0.03$ \\
1848: & & 3 & $245.8\pm 1.5$ & $ 7.7\pm 1.3$ & $0.032\pm0.004$ & $1.85\pm0.54$ \\
1849: & & 4 & $313.0\pm 1.3$ & $ 6.1\pm 1.1$ & $0.027\pm0.004$ & $2.40\pm0.90$ \\
1850: & & Total & \nodata & $ 67.4\pm 1.2$ & $1.461\pm0.010$ & $1.11\pm0.01$ \\
1851: \hline
1852: PKS0237 & 1.365055 & 1 & \nodata & $ 54.8\pm 0.3$ & $1.856\pm0.001$ & $1.13\pm0.00$ \\
1853: \hline
1854: Q0329 & 1.438025 & 1 & $-82.1\pm 0.5$ & $ 6.3\pm 0.6$ & $0.034\pm0.002$ & $2.09\pm0.23$ \\
1855: & & 2 & $ 19.5\pm 0.4$ & $ 36.9\pm 0.2$ & $0.334\pm0.003$ & $1.69\pm0.03$ \\
1856: & & Total & \nodata & $ 44.0\pm 0.3$ & $0.368\pm0.003$ & $1.73\pm0.03$ \\
1857: \hline
1858: Q0002 & 1.541850 & 1 & \nodata & $ 28.4\pm 0.2$ & $0.406\pm0.001$ & $1.47\pm0.01$ \\
1859: \hline
1860: HE0001 & 1.585523 & 1 & $ -2.0\pm 0.1$ & $ 7.9\pm 0.1$ & $0.167\pm0.001$ & $1.39\pm0.01$ \\
1861: & & 2 & $103.6\pm 0.1$ & $ 9.8\pm 0.2$ & $0.175\pm0.001$ & $1.47\pm0.02$ \\
1862: & & Total & \nodata & $ 53.5\pm 0.1$ & $0.342\pm0.001$ & $1.43\pm0.01$ \\
1863: \hline
1864: HE2217 & 1.627857 & 1 & \nodata & $ 24.6\pm 0.0$ & $0.628\pm0.001$ & $1.41\pm0.00$ \\
1865: \hline
1866: PKS0237 & 1.637117 & 1 & $-140.7\pm 0.1$ & $ 9.1\pm 0.1$ & $0.158\pm0.001$ & $1.42\pm0.01$ \\
1867: & & 2 & $ 14.3\pm 0.1$ & $ 24.1\pm 0.2$ & $0.354\pm0.001$ & $1.55\pm0.01$ \\
1868: & & Total & \nodata & $ 75.1\pm 0.1$ & $0.512\pm0.001$ & $1.51\pm0.01$ \\
1869: \hline
1870: PKS0237 & 1.657433 & 1 & \nodata & $ 28.1\pm 0.1$ & $0.683\pm0.001$ & $1.38\pm0.00$ \\
1871: \hline
1872: PKS0237 & 1.672334 & 1 & \nodata & $ 46.5\pm 0.3$ & $1.283\pm0.001$ & $1.20\pm0.00$ \\
1873: \hline
1874: HE2217 & 1.692150 & 1 & \nodata & $ 83.7\pm 0.1$ & $1.693\pm0.001$ & $1.37\pm0.00$ \\
1875: \hline
1876: HE0940 & 1.789119 & 1 & \nodata & $ 54.6\pm 0.1$ & $1.121\pm0.001$ & $1.40\pm0.00$ \\
1877: \hline
1878: PKS2126 & 2.022556 & 1 & \nodata & $ 28.6\pm 0.3$ & $0.702\pm0.002$ & $1.06\pm0.00$ \\
1879: \hline
1880: Q0002 & 2.167886 & 1 & \nodata & $ 22.2\pm 0.1$ & $0.353\pm0.001$ & $1.50\pm0.01$ \\
1881: \hline
1882: HE0001 & 2.184439 & 1 & $-84.5\pm 0.2$ & $ 48.9\pm 0.1$ & $0.540\pm0.002$ & $1.65\pm0.01$ \\
1883: & & 2 & $ 84.8\pm 0.2$ & $ 14.8\pm 0.3$ & $0.148\pm0.001$ & $1.61\pm0.02$ \\
1884: & & 3 & $246.9\pm 0.1$ & $ 16.3\pm 0.1$ & $0.247\pm0.001$ & $1.48\pm0.01$ \\
1885: & & Total & \nodata & $152.7\pm 0.2$ & $0.935\pm0.002$ & $1.60\pm0.01$ \\
1886: \hline
1887: Q0002 & 2.301944 & 1 & \nodata & $ 55.4\pm 0.3$ & $1.635\pm0.001$ & $1.13\pm0.00$ \\
1888: \hline
1889: Q0002 & 2.464123 & 1 & \nodata & $ 15.7\pm 0.1$ & $0.371\pm0.001$ & $1.40\pm0.01$ \\
1890: \hline
1891: Q0109 & 1.349585 & 1 & \nodata & $ 76.2\pm 0.1$ & $1.978\pm0.001$ & $1.26\pm0.00$ \\
1892: \hline
1893: Q0453 & 0.908513 & 1 & \nodata & $ 30.2\pm 0.1$ & $0.855\pm0.001$ & $1.26\pm0.00$ \\
1894: \hline
1895: Q0453 & 1.149861 & 1 & $ 24.7\pm 0.7$ & $136.0\pm 0.5$ & $4.444\pm0.002$ & $1.11\pm0.00$ \\
1896: & & 2 & $405.3\pm 0.7$ & $ 8.4\pm 0.7$ & $0.016\pm0.001$ & $1.34\pm0.12$ \\
1897: & & Total & \nodata & $136.4\pm 0.5$ & $4.460\pm0.002$ & $1.11\pm0.00$ \\
1898: \hline
1899: Q0453 & 1.629994 & 1 & \nodata & $ 40.1\pm 0.1$ & $0.303\pm0.001$ & $1.68\pm0.01$ \\
1900: \hline
1901: Q0453 & 2.304569 & 1 & \nodata & $ 23.9\pm 0.1$ & $0.464\pm0.002$ & $1.55\pm0.01$ \\
1902: \hline
1903: \enddata
1904: \label{tab:tab2}
1905: \end{deluxetable}
1906:
1907: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccccc}
1908: \tablewidth{0pc}
1909: \tablenum{3}
1910: \tabletypesize{\tiny}
1911: \tablecolumns{8}
1912: \tablecaption{Subfeature Equivalent Widths for Target Transitions}
1913: \tablehead
1914: {
1915: &
1916: &
1917: \colhead{Mg I} &
1918: &
1919: &
1920: \colhead{Fe II} &
1921: &
1922: \\
1923: \cline{3-3}\cline{4-8}\colhead{System} &
1924: \colhead{$(v^+, v^-)$} &
1925: \colhead{$W_{\rm r}(2853)$} &
1926: \colhead{$W_{\rm r}(2344)$} &
1927: \colhead{$W_{\rm r}(2374)$} &
1928: \colhead{$W_{\rm r}(2383)$} &
1929: \colhead{$W_{\rm r}(2587)$} &
1930: \colhead{$W_{\rm r}(2600)$}
1931: }
1932: \startdata
1933: \cutinhead{$B2311-373\qquad z_{\rm abs} = 0.339862$}
1934: 1 & (-66.1,69.9) & $0.9548\pm0.0044$ & & & & $0.4715\pm0.0074$ & $0.7306\pm0.0063$\\
1935: \cutinhead{$Q0122\qquad z_{\rm abs} = 0.443791$}
1936: 1 & (-48.1,93.0) & $0.0469\pm0.0041$ & $0.0123\pm0.0039$ & $<0.0069$ & $0.0491\pm0.0045$ & $0.0628\pm0.0026$ & $0.1640\pm0.0038$\\
1937: \cutinhead{$HE0151\qquad z_{\rm abs} = 0.663069$}
1938: 1 & (-288.6,-195.1) & $0.0023\pm0.0006$ & $0.2527\pm0.0013$ & $0.1667\pm0.0015$ & $0.0068\pm0.0012$ & $0.0535\pm0.0013$ & $0.4808\pm0.0009$\\
1939: 2 & (-27.5,69.2) & $0.0196\pm0.0010$ & $0.0789\pm0.0015$ & $0.0287\pm0.0015$ & $0.1298\pm0.0015$ & $0.0984\pm0.0015$ & $0.1249\pm0.0012$\\
1940: \cutinhead{$HE1122\qquad z_{\rm abs} = 0.682246$}
1941: 1 & (-194.5,-118.0) & $0.0038\pm0.0005$ & $0.0124\pm0.0005$ & $0.0357\pm0.0005$ & $0.0392\pm0.0005$ & $0.0140\pm0.0006$ & $0.0298\pm0.0005$\\
1942: 2 & (-95.7,146.5) & $0.1343\pm0.0012$ & $1.1387\pm0.0007$ & $0.4259\pm0.0009$ & $1.2393\pm0.0006$ & $0.8137\pm0.0009$ & $1.2773\pm0.0008$\\
1943: \cutinhead{$Q0453\qquad z_{\rm abs} = 0.726110$}
1944: 1 & (-106.3,98.7) & $0.4586\pm0.0026$ & $0.8266\pm0.0025$ & $0.5212\pm0.0024$ & $1.1622\pm0.0019$ & $0.7110\pm0.0012$ & $1.0525\pm0.0012$\\
1945: \cutinhead{$Q0329\qquad z_{\rm abs} = 0.762783$}
1946: 1 & (-61.5,163.5) & $0.0555\pm0.0035$ & $0.4660\pm0.0031$ & $0.0207\pm0.0017$ & $0.1546\pm0.0029$ & $0.1050\pm0.0053$ & $0.1665\pm0.0048$\\
1947: \cutinhead{$Q0002\qquad z_{\rm abs} = 0.836643$}
1948: 1 & (-326.9,297.7) & $1.5856\pm0.0022$ & $3.2925\pm0.0026$ & $1.4011\pm0.0032$ & $3.0639\pm0.0025$ & $1.8329\pm0.0026$ & $2.9964\pm0.0025$\\
1949: \cutinhead{$Q0122\qquad z_{\rm abs} = 0.859777$}
1950: 1 & (-287.7,-195.5) & $<0.0062$ & $<0.0038$ & $<0.0038$ & $0.0185\pm0.0025$ & $<0.0038$ & $0.0143\pm0.0026$\\
1951: 2 & (-22.5,35.1) & $0.0255\pm0.0022$ & $0.1008\pm0.0017$ & $0.0081\pm0.0013$ & $0.0582\pm0.0019$ & $0.0208\pm0.0016$ & $0.0518\pm0.0015$\\
1952: 3 & (141.7,182.1) & $0.0060\pm0.0025$ & $<0.0037$ & $<0.0043$ & $0.0037\pm0.0013$ & $<0.0037$ & $0.0039\pm0.0015$\\
1953: \cutinhead{$HE1341\qquad z_{\rm abs} = 0.872808$}
1954: 1 & (-81.9,41.2) & $0.0783\pm0.0062$ & $0.1094\pm0.0071$ & $0.0301\pm0.0060$ & $0.2176\pm0.0093$ & $0.1082\pm0.0070$ & $0.2341\pm0.0061$\\
1955: \cutinhead{$HE2217\qquad z_{\rm abs} = 0.942415$}
1956: 1 & (-340.9,-216.7) & $0.0128\pm0.0005$ & $0.0092\pm0.0009$ & $0.0057\pm0.0008$ & $0.0135\pm0.0007$ & $0.0084\pm0.0006$ & $0.0102\pm0.0004$\\
1957: 2 & (-87.0,86.9) & $0.0157\pm0.0006$ & $0.0330\pm0.0011$ & $0.0094\pm0.0009$ & $0.0844\pm0.0008$ & $0.0286\pm0.0007$ & $0.0763\pm0.0005$\\
1958: \cutinhead{$HE0001\qquad z_{\rm abs} = 0.949148$}
1959: 1 & (-96.5,104.3) & $0.0203\pm0.0014$ & $0.0125\pm0.0015$ & $<0.0024$ & $0.0530\pm0.0026$ & $0.0383\pm0.0011$ & $0.0406\pm0.0011$\\
1960: \cutinhead{$Q0122\qquad z_{\rm abs} = 1.243967$}
1961: 1 & (-36.9,70.6) & $0.1021\pm0.0025$ & $0.1771\pm0.0027$ & $0.1124\pm0.0028$ & $0.2268\pm0.0023$ & \nodata & \nodata\\
1962: 2 & (77.8,111.2) & $<0.0054$ & $<0.0049$ & $<0.0049$ & $<0.0052$ & \nodata & \nodata\\
1963: \cutinhead{$HE1341\qquad z_{\rm abs} = 1.276756$}
1964: 1 & (-92.4,70.1) & $0.2389\pm0.0077$ & $0.4092\pm0.0065$ & $0.2289\pm0.0071$ & $0.6554\pm0.0060$ & $0.3725\pm0.0069$ & $0.6575\pm0.0056$\\
1965: 2 & (112.5,166.6) & $0.0657\pm0.0045$ & $0.1209\pm0.0039$ & $0.0639\pm0.0040$ & $0.1535\pm0.0040$ & $0.1497\pm0.0047$ & $0.1614\pm0.0034$\\
1966: 3 & (225.5,265.5) & $<0.0102$ & $<0.0101$ & $<0.0095$ & $<0.0099$ & $<0.0101$ & $<0.0090$\\
1967: 4 & (298.5,329.1) & $<0.0103$ & $0.0310\pm0.0036$ & $<0.0097$ & $0.0153\pm0.0036$ & $<0.0099$ & $<0.0092$\\
1968: \cutinhead{$PKS0237\qquad z_{\rm abs} = 1.365055$}
1969: 1 & (-125.8,184.7) & $0.2690\pm0.0015$ & $0.4994\pm0.0012$ & $0.2063\pm0.0013$ & $0.8855\pm0.0010$ & $0.4105\pm0.0011$ & $0.8702\pm0.0011$\\
1970: \cutinhead{$Q0329\qquad z_{\rm abs} = 1.438025$}
1971: 1 & (-102.3,-60.5) & $0.0069\pm0.0015$ & $<0.0032$ & \nodata & \nodata & $0.0090\pm0.0014$ & $0.0076\pm0.0015$\\
1972: 2 & (-49.5,115.4) & $0.0537\pm0.0026$ & $0.0284\pm0.0025$ & \nodata & \nodata & $0.0315\pm0.0024$ & $0.0500\pm0.0029$\\
1973: \cutinhead{$Q0002\qquad z_{\rm abs} = 1.541850$}
1974: 1 & (-152.2,31.3) & $0.0523\pm0.0011$ & $0.0319\pm0.0011$ & $0.0153\pm0.0011$ & $0.0711\pm0.0010$ & $0.0238\pm0.0008$ & $0.0659\pm0.0011$\\
1975: \cutinhead{$HE0001\qquad z_{\rm abs} = 1.585523$}
1976: 1 & (-25.2,23.5) & $0.0087\pm0.0011$ & $0.0029\pm0.0005$ & $0.0061\pm0.0005$ & $0.0085\pm0.0005$ & $<0.0017$ & $0.0096\pm0.0008$\\
1977: 2 & (56.7,133.4) & $0.0124\pm0.0012$ & $0.0155\pm0.0006$ & $0.0057\pm0.0007$ & $0.0351\pm0.0006$ & $0.0126\pm0.0006$ & $0.0333\pm0.0010$\\
1978: \cutinhead{$HE2217\qquad z_{\rm abs} = 1.627857$}
1979: 1 & (-80.1,62.7) & $0.0372\pm0.0008$ & $0.0208\pm0.0005$ & $0.0048\pm0.0004$ & $0.0571\pm0.0005$ & $0.0236\pm0.0007$ & $0.0444\pm0.0008$\\
1980: \cutinhead{$PKS0237\qquad z_{\rm abs} = 1.637117$}
1981: 1 & (-162.9,-97.9) & $0.0120\pm0.0007$ & $0.0151\pm0.0006$ & $0.0033\pm0.0005$ & $0.0477\pm0.0007$ & $0.0093\pm0.0006$ & $0.0212\pm0.0006$\\
1982: 2 & (-32.8,109.5) & $0.0314\pm0.0010$ & $0.0436\pm0.0008$ & $0.0635\pm0.0009$ & $0.1399\pm0.0009$ & $0.0317\pm0.0009$ & $0.1026\pm0.0010$\\
1983: \cutinhead{$PKS0237\qquad z_{\rm abs} = 1.657433$}
1984: 1 & (-85.4,100.1) & $0.0366\pm0.0015$ & $0.0345\pm0.0008$ & $0.0227\pm0.0009$ & $0.1079\pm0.0011$ & $0.3328\pm0.0012$ & $0.2173\pm0.0013$\\
1985: \cutinhead{$PKS0237\qquad z_{\rm abs} = 1.672334$}
1986: 1 & (-188.0,94.8) & $0.9832\pm0.0015$ & $0.3946\pm0.0011$ & $0.2626\pm0.0013$ & $0.5483\pm0.0013$ & $0.5514\pm0.0016$ & $0.5566\pm0.0012$\\
1987: \cutinhead{$HE2217\qquad z_{\rm abs} = 1.692149$}
1988: 1 & (-204.9,145.5) & $0.2560\pm0.0013$ & $0.1609\pm0.0008$ & $0.0475\pm0.0007$ & $0.3368\pm0.0007$ & $0.1307\pm0.0011$ & $0.3520\pm0.0012$\\
1989: \cutinhead{$HE0940\qquad z_{\rm abs} = 1.789119$}
1990: 1 & (-109.9,211.1) & $0.1695\pm0.0017$ & $0.1239\pm0.0013$ & $0.0439\pm0.0015$ & $0.2875\pm0.0015$ & $0.1701\pm0.0015$ & $0.5414\pm0.0014$\\
1991: \cutinhead{$PKS2126\qquad z_{\rm abs} = 2.022556$}
1992: 1 & (-82.7,77.0) & & $0.1386\pm0.0010$ & $0.0758\pm0.0012$ & $0.3377\pm0.0012$ & $0.1062\pm0.0014$ & $0.2836\pm0.0016$\\
1993: \cutinhead{$Q0002\qquad z_{\rm abs} = 2.167886$}
1994: 1 & (-26.2,77.0) & $0.0284\pm0.0018$ & $0.0345\pm0.0008$ & $0.0135\pm0.0007$ & $0.0764\pm0.0007$ & $0.0611\pm0.0011$ & $0.1102\pm0.0010$\\
1995: \cutinhead{$HE0001\qquad z_{\rm abs} = 2.184439$}
1996: 1 & (-151.9,34.9) & $0.8641\pm0.0012$ & $0.0214\pm0.0015$ & $0.0080\pm0.0011$ & $0.0552\pm0.0015$ & $0.1222\pm0.0019$ & $0.1852\pm0.0019$\\
1997: 2 & (36.6,144.3) & $0.0765\pm0.0010$ & $0.0098\pm0.0007$ & $0.0124\pm0.0011$ & $0.0357\pm0.0011$ & $0.0527\pm0.0015$ & $0.0709\pm0.0016$\\
1998: 3 & (191.5,282.4) & $0.0295\pm0.0009$ & $0.0424\pm0.0011$ & $0.0163\pm0.0010$ & $0.0837\pm0.0013$ & $0.0451\pm0.0013$ & $0.1053\pm0.0016$\\
1999: \cutinhead{$Q0002\qquad z_{\rm abs} = 2.301944$}
2000: 1 & (-139.5,113.7) & $0.3138\pm0.0026$ & $0.4345\pm0.0011$ & $0.1938\pm0.0011$ & $0.6565\pm0.0013$ & \nodata & \nodata\\
2001: \cutinhead{$Q0002\qquad z_{\rm abs} = 2.464123$}
2002: 1 & (-38.9,49.3) & $0.0102\pm0.0021$ & $0.0034\pm0.0005$ & $0.0182\pm0.0007$ & $0.0353\pm0.0007$ & $0.0097\pm0.0011$ & $0.0625\pm0.0012$\\
2003: \cutinhead{$HE1341\qquad z_{\rm abs} = 1.915397$}
2004: 1 & (-37.7,32.1) & $0.1519\pm0.0059$ & $0.0595\pm0.0044$ & $0.0164\pm0.0036$ & $0.1119\pm0.0034$ & $0.0382\pm0.0038$ & $0.1133\pm0.0045$\\
2005: \cutinhead{$Q0109\qquad z_{\rm abs} = 1.349585$}
2006: 1 & (-208.4,200.0) & $0.2977\pm0.0021$ & $0.4220\pm0.0017$ & $0.1423\pm0.0019$ & $0.8387\pm0.0016$ & $0.3486\pm0.0018$ & $0.7907\pm0.0017$\\
2007: \cutinhead{$Q0453\qquad z_{\rm abs} = 0.908513$}
2008: 1 & (-127.7,80.1) & $0.1184\pm0.0015$ & $0.2078\pm0.0016$ & $0.1193\pm0.0017$ & $0.3733\pm0.0017$ & $0.1869\pm0.0025$ & $0.3744\pm0.0018$\\
2009: \cutinhead{$Q0453\qquad z_{\rm abs} = 1.149861$}
2010: 1 & (-250.2,373.1) & $1.5264\pm0.0026$ & $2.7782\pm0.0018$ & $1.7779\pm0.0018$ & $3.5627\pm0.0013$ & $2.6907\pm0.0016$ & $3.6532\pm0.0013$\\
2011: 2 & (383.1,430.4) & $<0.0019$ & $0.0034\pm0.0006$ & $0.0011\pm0.0004$ & $0.0098\pm0.0007$ & $0.0017\pm0.0005$ & $0.0063\pm0.0005$\\
2012: \cutinhead{$Q0453\qquad z_{\rm abs} = 1.629994$}
2013: 1 & (-64.8,114.6) & $0.0114\pm0.0012$ & $0.0165\pm0.0013$ & $0.0083\pm0.0010$ & $0.0155\pm0.0013$ & $0.0121\pm0.0012$ & $0.0072\pm0.0008$\\
2014: \cutinhead{$Q0453\qquad z_{\rm abs} = 2.304569$}
2015: 1 & (-54.8,88.0) & $0.5751\pm0.0017$ & $0.0533\pm0.0009$ & $0.0376\pm0.0010$ & $0.1556\pm0.0011$ & \nodata & \nodata\\
2016: \enddata
2017: \label{tab:tab3}
2018: \end{deluxetable}
2019:
2020:
2021: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccc}
2022: \tablenum{4}
2023: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
2024: \tablewidth{0pc}
2025: \tablecolumns{6}
2026: \tablecaption{Sample Membership}
2027: \tablehead
2028: {
2029: \colhead{ } &
2030: \colhead{Sample A} &
2031: \colhead{Sample B} &
2032: \colhead{Sample C} &
2033: \colhead{Sample D} &
2034: \colhead{Sample E} \\
2035: \colhead{ } &
2036: \colhead{$W_{r} \geq 0.3$~{\AA}} &
2037: \colhead{$0.3 \leq W_{r} < 0.6$~{\AA}} &
2038: \colhead{$0.6 \leq W_{r} < 1.0$~{\AA}} &
2039: \colhead{$W_{r} \geq 0.6$~{\AA}} &
2040: \colhead{$W_{r} \geq 1.0$~{\AA}}
2041: }
2042: \startdata
2043: $N$ & $33$ & $15$ & $7$ & $18$ & $11$ \\
2044: $\left< W_{r}(2796) \right>$, {\AA} & 1.03 & .42 & .77 & 1.58 & 2.10\\
2045: $\left< z \right>$ & 1.38 & 1.42 & 1.36 & 1.35 & 1.35\\
2046: $\left< DR \right>$ & 1.33 & 1.45 & 1.31 & 1.23 & 1.18\\
2047: \cutinhead{Membership Chart}
2048: $B2311-373~~~0.339862$ & X & & X & X & \\
2049: $Q0122-380~~~0.443791$ & X & X & & & \\
2050: $HE0151-4326~0.663069$ & X & X & & & \\
2051: $HE1122-1648~0.682246$ & X & & & X & X \\
2052: $Q0453-423~~~0.726110$ & X & & & X & X \\
2053: $Q0329-385~~~0.762783$ & X & & X & X & \\
2054: $Q0002-422~~~0.836643$ & X & & & X & X \\
2055: $Q0122-380~~~0.859777$ & X & X & & & \\
2056: $HE1341-1020~0.872808$ & X & X & & & \\
2057: $Q0453-423~~~0.908513$ & X & & X & X & \\
2058: $HE2217-2818~0.942415$ & X & X & & & \\
2059: $HE0001-2340~0.949148$ & X & X & & & \\
2060: $Q0453-423~~~1.149861$ & X & & & X & X \\
2061: $Q0122-380~~~1.243967$ & X & X & & & \\
2062: $HE1341-1020~1.276756$ & X & & & X & X \\
2063: $Q0109-3518~~1.349585$ & X & & & X & X \\
2064: $PKS0237-23~~1.365055$ & X & & & X & X \\
2065: $Q0329-385~~~1.438025$ & X & X & & & \\
2066: $Q0002-422~~~1.541850$ & X & X & & & \\
2067: $HE0001-2340~1.586204$ & X & X & & & \\
2068: $HE2217-2818~1.627861$ & X & & X & X & \\
2069: $Q0453-423~~~1.629994$ & X & X & & & \\
2070: $PKS0237-23~~1.637118$ & X & X & & & \\
2071: $PKS0237-23~~1.657433$ & X & & X & X & \\
2072: $PKS0237-23~~1.672334$ & X & & & X & X \\
2073: $HE2217-2818~1.692149$ & X & & & X & X \\
2074: $HE0940-1050~1.789119$ & X & & & X & X \\
2075: $PKS2126-158~2.022556$ & X & & X & X & \\
2076: $Q0002-422~~~2.167886$ & X & X & & & \\
2077: $HE0001-234~~2.184439$ & X & & X & X & \\
2078: $Q0002-422~~~2.301944$ & X & & & X & X \\
2079: $Q0453-423~~~2.304569$ & X & X & & & \\
2080: $Q0002-422~~~2.464123$ & X & X & & & \\
2081: \enddata
2082: \label{tab:tab4}
2083: \end{deluxetable}
2084:
2085: \begin{deluxetable}{lrccc}
2086: \tablewidth{0pc}
2087: \tablenum{5}
2088: \tablecolumns{5}
2089: \tablecaption{Subsystem AOD Column Densities}
2090: \tablehead
2091: {
2092: \colhead{System} &
2093: \colhead{$(v^+, v^-)$} &
2094: \colhead{Mg II} &
2095: \colhead{Mg I} &
2096: \colhead{Fe II}
2097: }
2098: \startdata
2099: \cutinhead{$B2311-373\qquad z_{\rm abs} = 0.339862$}
2100: 1 & (-66,70) & $>14.07$ & \nodata & $>14.41$\\
2101: \cutinhead{$Q0122\qquad z_{\rm abs} = 0.443791$}
2102: 1 & (-48,93) & $ 13.263\pm 0.006$ & $ 11.65\pm 0.04$ & $ 14.42\pm 0.06$\\
2103: \cutinhead{$HE0151\qquad z_{\rm abs} = 0.663069$}
2104: 1 & (-289,-195) & $ 12.04\pm 0.02$ & $ 10.3\pm 0.1$ & $ 11.82\pm 0.08$\\
2105: 2 & (-28,69) & $ 13.282\pm 0.001$ & $ 11.23\pm 0.02$ & $ 13.085\pm 0.006$\\
2106: \cutinhead{$HE1122\qquad z_{\rm abs} = 0.682246$}
2107: 1 & (-195,-118) & $ 12.739\pm 0.004$ & $ 12.81\pm 0.05$ & $ 12.546\pm 0.008$\\
2108: 2 & (-96,147) & $>14.46$ & $ 12.068\pm 0.004$ & $ 14.598\pm 0.001$\\
2109: \cutinhead{$Q0453\qquad z_{\rm abs} = 0.726110$}
2110: 1 & (-106,99) & $>14.30$ & $ 12.696\pm 0.002$ & $ 14.581\pm 0.001$\\
2111: \cutinhead{$Q0329\qquad z_{\rm abs} = 0.762783$}
2112: 1 & (-62,164) & $ 13.534\pm 0.009$ & $ 11.95\pm 0.03$ & $ 13.17\pm 0.01$\\
2113: \cutinhead{$Q0002\qquad z_{\rm abs} = 0.836643$}
2114: 1 & (-327,298) & $>14.82$ & $ 13.229\pm 0.001$ & $ 14.885\pm 0.001$\\
2115: \cutinhead{$Q0122\qquad z_{\rm abs} = 0.859777$}
2116: 1 & (-288,-196) & $ 12.78\pm 0.01$ & $<10.47$ & $ 12.3\pm 0.1$\\
2117: 2 & (-23,35) & $ 13.04\pm 0.01$ & $ 11.63\pm 0.04$ & $ 12.75\pm 0.02$\\
2118: 3 & (142,182) & $ 11.81\pm 0.05$ & $ 10.7\pm 0.2$ & $ 11.6\pm 0.3$\\
2119: \cutinhead{$HE1341\qquad z_{\rm abs} = 0.872808$}
2120: 1 & (-82,41) & $>13.72$ & $ 12.68\pm 0.03$ & $ 13.41\pm 0.03$\\
2121: \cutinhead{$Q0453\qquad z_{\rm abs} = 0.908513$}
2122: 1 & (-128,80) & $ 13.875\pm 0.001$ & $ 12.011\pm 0.005$ & $ 13.639\pm 0.003$\\
2123: \cutinhead{$HE2217\qquad z_{\rm abs} = 0.942415$}
2124: 1 & (-341,-217) & $ 12.560\pm 0.002$ & $ 11.04\pm 0.02$ & $ 12.25\pm 0.03$\\
2125: 2 & (-87,86) & $ 13.241\pm 0.001$ & $ 11.20\pm 0.02$ & $ 12.804\pm 0.005$\\
2126: \cutinhead{$HE0001\qquad z_{\rm abs} = 0.949148$}
2127: 1 & (-97,104) & $ 13.057\pm 0.002$ & $ 11.25\pm 0.03$ & $ 12.88\pm 0.02$\\
2128: \cutinhead{$Q0453\qquad z_{\rm abs} = 1.149861$}
2129: 1 & (-250,373) & $>14.85$ & $ 13.235\pm 0.001$ & $ 15.395\pm 0.001$\\
2130: 2 & (383,430) & $ 11.66\pm 0.03$ & $<9.81$ & $ 11.82\pm 0.05$\\
2131: \cutinhead{$Q0122\qquad z_{\rm abs} = 1.243967$}
2132: 1 & (-37,71) & $>13.71$ & $ 12.07\pm 0.01$ & $ 14.11\pm 0.01$\\
2133: 2 & (78,111) & $ 11.68\pm 0.05$ & $10.1759$ & $11.0974$\\
2134: \cutinhead{$HE1341\qquad z_{\rm abs} = 1.276756$}
2135: 1 & (-92,70) & $>14.19$ & $ 14.85\pm 0.01$ & $ 14.20\pm 0.01$\\
2136: 2 & (113,167) & $>13.47$ & $ 11.79\pm 0.03$ & $ 13.75\pm 0.02$\\
2137: 3 & (226,266) & $ 11.93\pm 0.07$ & $<10.50$ & $<11.41$\\
2138: 4 & (299,329) & $ 11.83\pm 0.08$ & $<10.44$ & $<11.38$\\
2139: \cutinhead{$Q0109\qquad z_{\rm abs} = 1.349585$}
2140: 1 & (-208,200) & $>14.21$ & $ 12.422\pm 0.003$ & $ 13.992\pm 0.001$\\
2141: \cutinhead{$PKS0237\qquad z_{\rm abs} = 1.365055$}
2142: 1 & (-126,185) & $>14.41$ & $ 12.381\pm 0.002$ & $ 14.087\pm 0.001$\\
2143: \cutinhead{$Q0329\qquad z_{\rm abs} = 1.438025$}
2144: 1 & (-102,-61) & $ 11.95\pm 0.02$ & $ 11.64\pm 0.09$ & $ 11.8\pm 0.1$\\
2145: 2 & (-50,115) & $ 13.078\pm 0.005$ & \nodata & $ 12.69\pm 0.03$\\
2146: \cutinhead{$Q0002\qquad z_{\rm abs} = 1.541850$}
2147: 1 & (-152,31) & $ 14.311\pm 0.001$ & $ 11.629\pm 0.009$ & $ 12.800\pm 0.009$\\
2148: \cutinhead{$HE0001\qquad z_{\rm abs} = 1.585523$}
2149: 1 & (-25,24) & $ 15.174\pm 0.003$ & $ 11.16\pm 0.06$ & $ 12.08\pm 0.04$\\
2150: 2 & (57,133) & $ 12.884\pm 0.003$ & $ 11.03\pm 0.04$ & $ 12.48\pm 0.01$\\
2151: \cutinhead{$HE2217\qquad z_{\rm abs} = 1.627857$}
2152: 1 & (-80,63) & $ 14.189\pm 0.001$ & $ 11.491\pm 0.009$ & $ 12.632\pm 0.007$\\
2153: \cutinhead{$Q0453\qquad z_{\rm abs} = 1.629994$}
2154: 1 & (-65,115) & $ 12.962\pm 0.002$ & $ 11.13\pm 0.05$ & $ 12.36\pm 0.04$\\
2155: \cutinhead{$PKS0237\qquad z_{\rm abs} = 1.637117$}
2156: 1 & (-163,-98) & $ 12.839\pm 0.003$ & $ 10.99\pm 0.03$ & $ 12.35\pm 0.02$\\
2157: 2 & (-33,110) & $ 13.114\pm 0.002$ & $ 11.41\pm 0.01$ & $ 12.947\pm 0.006$\\
2158: \cutinhead{$PKS0237\qquad z_{\rm abs} = 1.657433$}
2159: 1 & (-85,100) & $ 13.625\pm 0.001$ & $ 11.49\pm 0.02$ & $ 12.913\pm 0.005$\\
2160: \cutinhead{$PKS0237\qquad z_{\rm abs} = 1.672334$}
2161: 1 & (-188,95) & $>14.21$ & \nodata & $ 14.572\pm 0.002$\\
2162: \cutinhead{$HE2217\qquad z_{\rm abs} = 1.692150$}
2163: 1 & (-205,146) & $ 14.015\pm 0.001$ & \nodata & $ 13.480\pm 0.002$\\
2164: \cutinhead{$HE0940\qquad z_{\rm abs} = 1.789119$}
2165: 1 & (-110,211) & $ 13.844\pm 0.001$ & \nodata & $ 13.423\pm 0.003$\\
2166: \cutinhead{$PKS2126\qquad z_{\rm abs} = 2.022556$}
2167: 1 & (-83,77) & $>13.91$ & \nodata & $ 13.624\pm 0.004$\\
2168: \cutinhead{$Q0002\qquad z_{\rm abs} = 2.167886$}
2169: 1 & (-26,77) & $ 13.169\pm 0.002$ & $ 11.40\pm 0.03$ & $ 12.889\pm 0.005$\\
2170: \cutinhead{$HE0001\qquad z_{\rm abs} = 2.184439$}
2171: 1 & (-152,35) & $ 13.312\pm 0.002$ & \nodata & $ 12.71\pm 0.02$\\
2172: 2 & (37,144) & $ 12.742\pm 0.004$ & \nodata & $ 12.46\pm 0.02$\\
2173: 3 & (192,282) & $ 13.088\pm 0.002$ & \nodata & $ 12.950\pm 0.009$\\
2174: \cutinhead{$Q0002\qquad z_{\rm abs} = 2.301944$}
2175: 1 & (-140,114) & $>14.33$ & \nodata & $ 14.160\pm 0.001$\\
2176: \cutinhead{$Q0453\qquad z_{\rm abs} = 2.304569$}
2177: 1 & (-55,88) & $ 13.277\pm 0.002$ & \nodata & $ 13.119\pm 0.005$\\
2178: \cutinhead{$Q0002\qquad z_{\rm abs} = 2.464123$}
2179: 1 & (-39,49) & $ 13.220\pm 0.002$ & \nodata & \nodata\\
2180:
2181: \enddata
2182: \label{tab:tab5}
2183: \end{deluxetable}
2184:
2185: \begin{figure}
2186: \figurenum{1a}
2187: \centering
2188: \vspace{0.0in}
2189: \epsscale{0.45}
2190: \plotone{f1a.eps}
2191: \caption{VLT/UVES profiles of {\MgII}~$\lambda$2796, {\MgII}~$\lambda$2803,
2192: {\MgI}~$\lambda$2853, {\FeII}~$\lambda$2344, {\FeII}~$\lambda$2374,
2193: {\FeII}~$\lambda$2383, {\FeII}~$\lambda$2587, and
2194: {\FeII}~$\lambda$2600 (if detected) for the various strong {\MgII}
2195: absorption lines systems. The spectra are normalized and the
2196: different transitions aligned in velocity space, with the zero-point
2197: defined as the optical depth mean of the {\MgII}~$\lambda$2796
2198: profile. The velocity range, which differs from system to system, is
2199: indicated by the label on the horizontal axis. The vertical dashed
2200: lines delineate the separate subsystems. The crosses are above
2201: features in the spectra that are not detections of the transition
2202: highlighted in that window. Figures~\ref{fig:fig1b}--ag are available
2203: in the electronic edition of the Journal. The printed edition contains
2204: only one example of this figure.}
2205: \label{fig:fig1}
2206: \end{figure}
2207: \clearpage
2208:
2209: \begin{figure}
2210: \figurenum{1b}
2211: \centering
2212: \vspace{0.0in}
2213: \epsscale{0.45}
2214: \plotone{f1b.eps}
2215: \caption{}
2216: \label{fig:fig1b}
2217: \end{figure}
2218: \clearpage
2219:
2220: \begin{figure}
2221: \figurenum{1c}
2222: \centering
2223: \vspace{0.0in}
2224: \epsscale{0.45}
2225: \plotone{f1c.eps}
2226: \caption{}
2227: \label{fig:fig1c}
2228: \end{figure}
2229: \clearpage
2230:
2231: \begin{figure}
2232: \figurenum{1d}
2233: \centering
2234: \vspace{0.0in}
2235: \epsscale{0.45}
2236: \plotone{f1d.eps}
2237: \caption{}
2238: \label{fig:fig1d}
2239: \end{figure}
2240: \clearpage
2241:
2242: \begin{figure}
2243: \figurenum{1e}
2244: \centering
2245: \vspace{0.0in}
2246: \epsscale{0.45}
2247: \plotone{f1e.eps}
2248: \caption{}
2249: \label{fig:fig1e}
2250: \end{figure}
2251: \clearpage
2252:
2253: \begin{figure}
2254: \figurenum{1f}
2255: \centering
2256: \vspace{0.0in}
2257: \epsscale{0.45}
2258: \plotone{f1f.eps}
2259: \caption{}
2260: \label{fig:fig1f}
2261: \end{figure}
2262: \clearpage
2263:
2264: \begin{figure}
2265: \figurenum{1g}
2266: \centering
2267: \vspace{0.0in}
2268: \epsscale{0.45}
2269: \plotone{f1g.eps}
2270: \caption{}
2271: \label{fig:fig1g}
2272: \end{figure}
2273: \clearpage
2274:
2275: \begin{figure}
2276: \figurenum{1h}
2277: \centering
2278: \vspace{0.0in}
2279: \epsscale{0.45}
2280: \plotone{f1h.eps}
2281: \caption{}
2282: \label{fig:fig1h}
2283: \end{figure}
2284: \clearpage
2285:
2286: \begin{figure}
2287: \figurenum{1i}
2288: \centering
2289: \vspace{0.0in}
2290: \epsscale{0.45}
2291: \plotone{f1i.eps}
2292: \caption{}
2293: \label{fig:fig1i}
2294: \end{figure}
2295: \clearpage
2296:
2297: \begin{figure}
2298: \figurenum{1j}
2299: \centering
2300: \vspace{0.0in}
2301: \epsscale{0.45}
2302: \plotone{f1j.eps}
2303: \caption{}
2304: \label{fig:fig1j}
2305: \end{figure}
2306: \clearpage
2307:
2308: \begin{figure}
2309: \figurenum{1k}
2310: \centering
2311: \vspace{0.0in}
2312: \epsscale{0.45}
2313: \plotone{f1k.eps}
2314: \caption{}
2315: \label{fig:fig1k}
2316: \end{figure}
2317: \clearpage
2318:
2319: \begin{figure}
2320: \figurenum{1l}
2321: \centering
2322: \vspace{0.0in}
2323: \epsscale{0.45}
2324: \plotone{f1l.eps}
2325: \caption{}
2326: \label{fig:fig1l}
2327: \end{figure}
2328: \clearpage
2329:
2330: \begin{figure}
2331: \figurenum{1m}
2332: \centering
2333: \vspace{0.0in}
2334: \epsscale{0.45}
2335: \plotone{f1m.eps}
2336: \caption{}
2337: \label{fig:fig1m}
2338: \end{figure}
2339: \clearpage
2340:
2341: \begin{figure}
2342: \figurenum{1n}
2343: \centering
2344: \vspace{0.0in}
2345: \epsscale{0.45}
2346: \plotone{f1n.eps}
2347: \caption{}
2348: \label{fig:fig1n}
2349: \end{figure}
2350: \clearpage
2351:
2352: \begin{figure}
2353: \figurenum{1o}
2354: \centering
2355: \vspace{0.0in}
2356: \epsscale{0.45}
2357: \plotone{f1o.eps}
2358: \caption{}
2359: \label{fig:fig1o}
2360: \end{figure}
2361: \clearpage
2362:
2363: \begin{figure}
2364: \figurenum{1p}
2365: \centering
2366: \vspace{0.0in}
2367: \epsscale{0.45}
2368: \plotone{f1p.eps}
2369: \caption{}
2370: \label{fig:fig1p}
2371: \end{figure}
2372: \clearpage
2373:
2374: \begin{figure}
2375: \figurenum{1q}
2376: \centering
2377: \vspace{0.0in}
2378: \epsscale{0.45}
2379: \plotone{f1q.eps}
2380: \caption{}
2381: \label{fig:fig1q}
2382: \end{figure}
2383: \clearpage
2384:
2385: \begin{figure}
2386: \figurenum{1r}
2387: \centering
2388: \vspace{0.0in}
2389: \epsscale{0.45}
2390: \plotone{f1r.eps}
2391: \caption{}
2392: \label{fig:fig1r}
2393: \end{figure}
2394: \clearpage
2395:
2396: \begin{figure}
2397: \figurenum{1s}
2398: \centering
2399: \vspace{0.0in}
2400: \epsscale{0.45}
2401: \plotone{f1s.eps}
2402: \caption{}
2403: \label{fig:fig1s}
2404: \end{figure}
2405: \clearpage
2406:
2407: \begin{figure}
2408: \figurenum{1t}
2409: \centering
2410: \vspace{0.0in}
2411: \epsscale{0.45}
2412: \plotone{f1t.eps}
2413: \caption{}
2414: \label{fig:fig1t}
2415: \end{figure}
2416: \clearpage
2417:
2418: \begin{figure}
2419: \figurenum{1u}
2420: \centering
2421: \vspace{0.0in}
2422: \epsscale{0.45}
2423: \plotone{f1u.eps}
2424: \caption{}
2425: \label{fig:fig1u}
2426: \end{figure}
2427: \clearpage
2428:
2429: \begin{figure}
2430: \figurenum{1v}
2431: \centering
2432: \vspace{0.0in}
2433: \epsscale{0.5}
2434: \plotone{f1v.eps}
2435: \caption{}
2436: \label{fig:fig1v}
2437: \end{figure}
2438: \clearpage
2439:
2440: \begin{figure}
2441: \figurenum{1w}
2442: \centering
2443: \vspace{0.0in}
2444: \epsscale{0.45}
2445: \plotone{f1w.eps}
2446: \caption{}
2447: \label{fig:fig1w}
2448: \end{figure}
2449: \clearpage
2450:
2451: \begin{figure}
2452: \figurenum{1x}
2453: \centering
2454: \vspace{0.0in}
2455: \epsscale{0.45}
2456: \plotone{f1x.eps}
2457: \caption{}
2458: \label{fig:fig1x}
2459: \end{figure}
2460: \clearpage
2461:
2462: \begin{figure}
2463: \figurenum{1y}
2464: \centering
2465: \vspace{0.0in}
2466: \epsscale{0.45}
2467: \plotone{f1y.eps}
2468: \caption{}
2469: \label{fig:fig1y}
2470: \end{figure}
2471: \clearpage
2472:
2473: \begin{figure}
2474: \figurenum{1z}
2475: \centering
2476: \vspace{0.0in}
2477: \epsscale{0.45}
2478: \plotone{f1z.eps}
2479: \caption{}
2480: \label{fig:fig1z}
2481: \end{figure}
2482: \clearpage
2483:
2484: \begin{figure}
2485: \figurenum{1aa}
2486: \centering
2487: \vspace{0.0in}
2488: \epsscale{0.45}
2489: \plotone{f1aa.eps}
2490: \caption{}
2491: \label{fig:fig1aa}
2492: \end{figure}
2493: \clearpage
2494:
2495: \begin{figure}
2496: \figurenum{1ab}
2497: \centering
2498: \vspace{0.0in}
2499: \epsscale{0.45}
2500: \plotone{f1ab.eps}
2501: \caption{}
2502: \label{fig:fig1bb}
2503: \end{figure}
2504: \clearpage
2505:
2506: \begin{figure}
2507: \figurenum{1ac}
2508: \centering
2509: \vspace{0.0in}
2510: \epsscale{0.45}
2511: \plotone{f1ac.eps}
2512: \caption{}
2513: \label{fig:fig1cc}
2514: \end{figure}
2515: \clearpage
2516:
2517: \begin{figure}
2518: \figurenum{1ad}
2519: \centering
2520: \vspace{0.0in}
2521: \epsscale{0.45}
2522: \plotone{f1ad.eps}
2523: \caption{}
2524: \label{fig:fig1dd}
2525: \end{figure}
2526: \clearpage
2527:
2528: \begin{figure}
2529: \figurenum{1ae}
2530: \centering
2531: \vspace{0.0in}
2532: \epsscale{0.45}
2533: \plotone{f1ae.eps}
2534: \caption{}
2535: \label{fig:fig1ee}
2536: \end{figure}
2537: \clearpage
2538:
2539: \begin{figure}
2540: \figurenum{1af}
2541: \centering
2542: \vspace{0.0in}
2543: \epsscale{0.45}
2544: \plotone{f1af.eps}
2545: \caption{}
2546: \label{fig:fig1ff}
2547: \end{figure}
2548: \clearpage
2549:
2550: \begin{figure}
2551: \figurenum{1ag}
2552: \centering
2553: \vspace{0.0in}
2554: \epsscale{0.45}
2555: \plotone{f1ag.eps}
2556: \caption{}
2557: \label{fig:fig1gg}
2558: \end{figure}
2559: \clearpage
2560:
2561: \begin{figure}
2562: \figurenum{2}
2563: \centering
2564: \vspace{0.0in}
2565: \epsscale{1.0}
2566: \plotone{f2.eps}
2567: \caption{{\MgII}~$\lambda$2796 profiles (normalized flux) for systems
2568: from the VLT/UVES sample, in velocity space, ordered by increasing
2569: equivalent width. The equivalent width, in {\AA}, is displayed in a lower corner
2570: of each panel (usually the lower right). The profiles are also
2571: separated into subsamples B, C, and E, as discussed in
2572: \S~\ref{sec:equivalentwidth}. The profiles that occupy a single panel
2573: have a velocity spread of 400~{\kms}, and those that are displayed
2574: in a double panel have a velocity spread of 800~{\kms}.}
2575: \label{fig:plot2}
2576: \end{figure}
2577:
2578: \begin{figure}
2579: \figurenum{3}
2580: \centering
2581: \vspace{0.0in}
2582: \epsscale{.8}
2583: \plotone{f3.eps}
2584: \epsscale{1.0}
2585: \caption{The rest-frame {\MgII}~$\lambda$2796 equivalent width
2586: distributions for the different samples. (a) The VLT/UVES systems with redshifts
2587: less than 1.2. (b) The VLT/UVES systems with redshifts greater than
2588: 1.2. (c) All absorbers from the CV01 dataset.}
2589: \label{fig:ewrest}
2590: \end{figure}
2591:
2592: \begin{figure}
2593: \figurenum{4}
2594: \centering
2595: \vspace{0.0in}
2596: \epsscale{1.0}
2597: \plotone{f4.eps}
2598: \caption{(a) The cumulative {\MgII}~$\lambda$2796 equivalent width
2599: distribution for $z<1.2$ systems (from CV01 and VLT/UVES data), given
2600: as a solid line. The dotted line represents an unbiased sample of
2601: strong {\MgII} absorbers as predicted from the larger sample of
2602: \citet{nestor05} using a $\left< z \right>$ = 0.84. (b) The cumulative
2603: {\MgII}~$\lambda$2796 equivalent width distribution for $z>1.2$
2604: systems, given as a solid line. The dotted line represents an
2605: unbiased sample of strong {\MgII} absorbers as predicted from the
2606: larger sample of \citet{nestor05} using a $\left< z \right>$ = 1.65.}
2607: \label{fig:ewrestcum}
2608: \end{figure}
2609:
2610: \begin{figure}
2611: \figurenum{5}
2612: \centering
2613: \vspace{0.0in}
2614: \epsscale{1.2}
2615: \plotone{f5.eps}
2616: \caption{Redshift distribution of strong {\MgII} absorbers. The solid
2617: histogram represents the VLT/UVES data; the dashed histogram represents the
2618: CV01 data.}
2619: \label{fig:red}
2620: \end{figure}
2621:
2622: \begin{sidewaysfigure}
2623: \figurenum{6}
2624: \centering
2625: \hglue -2.0in
2626: \epsscale{0.9}
2627: \plotone{f6.eps}
2628: \caption{{\MgII}~$\lambda$2796 absorption profiles for all
2629: absorbers in our data set. We separated the profiles into high and
2630: low redshift samples to more clearly illustrate differences. We
2631: include both the VLT/UVES profiles and the CV01 profiles in the low
2632: redshift sample. The CV01 profiles are marked with an asterisk in the
2633: lower right corner. The crosses above the normalized flux indicate
2634: features not associated with {\MgII} absorption at the system
2635: redshift. The velocity range of the single panels is -300~{\kms} $< v
2636: <$ 300~{\kms}, and the range of the double panels is -600~{\kms} $< v
2637: <$ 600~{\kms}, with two exceptions. These exceptions are the
2638: $z_{abs}=0.9276$ system toward Q1206+706 (second panel in the sixth
2639: row), which ranges from -450~{\kms} $< v <$ 150~{\kms}, and the
2640: $z_{abs}=0.8519$ toward Q0002+051 (last panel in the fourth row),
2641: which ranges from -150~{\kms} $< v <$ 450~{\kms}. }
2642: \label{fig:plot1alt}
2643: \end{sidewaysfigure}
2644:
2645: \begin{figure}
2646: \figurenum{7}
2647: \centering
2648: \vspace{0.0in}
2649: \epsscale{1.0}
2650: \plotone{f7.eps}
2651: \caption{(a) Rest frame equivalent width of {\MgII}~$\lambda$2796 versus
2652: the redshift of the absorber. The circles represent absorbers from
2653: sample B, squares absorbers from sample C, triangles absorbers from
2654: sample E. The open shapes are from the CV01 data, the filled in are
2655: the VLT/UVES data. (b) The doublet ratio of {\MgII} versus the
2656: redshift of the absorber. Points are as defined in panel (a).}
2657: \label{fig:zplots}
2658: \end{figure}
2659:
2660: \begin{figure}
2661: \figurenum{8}
2662: \centering
2663: \vspace{0.0in}
2664: \epsscale{1.0}
2665: \plotone{f8.eps}
2666: \caption{ (a) Kinematic spread ($\omega_v$) versus rest frame
2667: equivalent width of {\MgII}~$\lambda$2796. The line represents the
2668: minimum kinematic spread for a given equivalent width as explained in
2669: \S~\ref{sec:equivalentwidth}. The two points with corresponding
2670: arrows represent two absorbers with $W_r(2796) > 4$ {\AA}. While we
2671: preserve their kinematic spread values in this plot, we place them at
2672: lower values for rest frame equivalent width in order to better see
2673: trends in the rest of the data. In this panel, and panels c and d,
2674: the triangles represent data from VLT/UVES, the filled triangles for
2675: high redshift systems and the open triangles for low redshift systems.
2676: The squares represent systems from CV01. (b) Kinematic spread
2677: ($\omega_v$) of the {\MgII}~$\lambda$2796 profile versus redshift for
2678: the absorbers. The different data point symbols are defined based
2679: upon the rest frame equivalent width of {\MgII}~$\lambda$2796, as in
2680: Fig.~\ref{fig:zplots}. (c) $\Delta v$ versus system redshift.
2681: $\Delta v$ is the maximum velocity range over which an absorber shows
2682: any detected absorption, i.e. the velocity range from the bluest pixel
2683: of the bluest subsystem to the reddest pixel of the reddest subsystem.
2684: All data points are as defined for panel (b). (d) Percentage of
2685: pixels over the entire velocity range of the {\MgII}~$\lambda$2796
2686: profile in which absorption is detected versus system redshift. Data
2687: points are as defined for panel (b). }
2688: \label{fig:kinematics}
2689: \end{figure}
2690:
2691: \begin{figure}
2692: \figurenum{9}
2693: \centering
2694: \vspace{0.0in}
2695: \epsscale{1.0}
2696: \plotone{f9.eps}
2697: \caption{(a) Cumulative distribution of the
2698: $5\sigma$ rest frame equivalent width detection limits at
2699: the position of {\MgII}~$\lambda$2796 for all strong {\MgII} systems
2700: from VLT/UVES spectra. (b) Equivalent width
2701: distribution of subsystems with velocities $> 40$ {\kms} (intermediate
2702: and high velocity subsystems). We include $1\sigma$ error bars on the vertical
2703: axis. Error bars on the horizontal axis represent the bin size. The dotted line
2704: reproduces a power law, with slope of $-1.6$, as found by CV01 for intermediate
2705: and high velocity subsystems with $W_r > 0.08$~{\AA}.}
2706: \label{fig:subsysplots}
2707: \end{figure}
2708:
2709: \begin{figure}
2710: \figurenum{10}
2711: \centering
2712: \vspace{0.0in}
2713: \epsscale{1.0}
2714: \plotone{f10.eps}
2715: \caption{This plot shows the number of subsystems per strong {\MgII} system
2716: as a function of system redshift. The filled triangles represent high
2717: redshift systems from VLT/UVES, and the open triangles are low redshift
2718: systems from VLT/UVES. The squares represent systems from CV01.}
2719: \label{fig:subsys}
2720: \end{figure}
2721:
2722: \begin{figure}
2723: \figurenum{11}
2724: \centering
2725: \vspace{0.0in}
2726: \epsscale{1.0}
2727: \plotone{f11.eps}
2728: \caption{ Data points in all panels of this figure are as defined for
2729: Fig.~\ref{fig:subsys}. These points all represent subsystems with $v~{\ge}~
2730: 40$~{\kms}. The downward arrows in panels (b), (c), and (d) represent
2731: upper limits resulting from lack of a $3\sigma$ detection. (a)
2732: Logarithmic column density of {\MgII} of a subsystem versus the
2733: subsystem's centroid velocity. The dashed line at the bottom of the
2734: figure indicates where the sample drops below 100\% completeness. (b)
2735: Logarithmic ratio of $N({\FeII})$ to $N({\MgII})$ versus subsystem
2736: velocity. (c) Logarithmic ratio of $N({\FeII})$ to $N({\MgII})$ versus
2737: $\log N({\MgII})$. The vertical line represents the initial drop from
2738: 100\% completeness. (d) The logarithmic ratio of $N({\FeII})$ to
2739: $N({\MgII})$ versus system redshift.}
2740: \label{fig:naod}
2741: \end{figure}
2742:
2743:
2744: \begin{figure}
2745: \figurenum{12}
2746: \centering
2747: \vspace{0.0in}
2748: \epsscale{1.0}
2749: \plotone{f12.eps}
2750: \caption{{\MgII}, {\MgI}, and {\FeII} column densities for
2751: each subsystem of each absorber. The vertical dotted lines separate
2752: different absorbers. The absorbers are labeled first by the quasar
2753: line of sight (without catalog designations which can be found in
2754: Table~\ref{tab:tab1}) then by redshift. The dashed line across the
2755: {\MgII} panel represents the initial drop from 100\% completeness.
2756: The diamonds represent subsystems with velocities v $< 40$~{\kms}, the
2757: open triangles subsystems with $40~{\kms} {\le}$ v ${\le}~165$~{\kms}, and the
2758: filled triangles subsystems with v $> 165$~{\kms}. The arrows facing
2759: upward represent lower limits resulting from saturation; the arrows
2760: facing downward represent $3\sigma$ upper limits.}
2761: \label{fig:figure9}
2762: \end{figure}
2763:
2764: \end{document}
2765: