1: % Article on NACO 2 observations of high z QSO
2: %
3: %
4: % rev 27 August 2007 - Padova
5: %
6: % MODIFIED BY R.SCARPA ON AUGUST 28
7: %
8: % final revision RF 17 Sept 2007
9: %
10: % second final revision after 2nd report 15 Oct 07
11: %
12:
13: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
14: %\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
15: %\documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
16: %\documentclass[preprint2,longabstract]{aastex}
17:
18: \usepackage{graphicx}
19: %\usepackage{txfonts}
20: \usepackage{psfig}
21: \usepackage{epsfig}
22: \usepackage{natbib}
23:
24: \hyphenation{high-er}
25: \def\ltsima{$\; \buildrel < \over \sim \;$}
26: \def\simlt{\lower.5ex\hbox{\ltsima}} % < over ~
27: \def\gtsima{$\; \buildrel > \over \sim \;$}
28: \def\simgt{\lower.5ex\hbox{\gtsima}} % > over ~
29:
30: %\def\ref{\par\noindent\hangindent 20 pt}
31: \font\aut=cmbx10
32: \font\sevenrm=cmr7
33: \def\mincir{\ \raise -2.truept\hbox{\rlap{\hbox{$\sim$}}\raise5.truept %MC
34: \hbox{$<$}\ }} %
35: \def\magcir{\ \raise -2.truept\hbox{\rlap{\hbox{$\sim$}}\raise5.truept %
36: \hbox{$>$}\ }}
37: \def\ea {et al. }
38: \def\cosmo{H$_0$ = 50~km~s$^{-1}$~kpc$^{-1}$ and q$_0 = 0$}
39: \def\asec{$^{\prime\prime}$ } % arcsec
40: \def\magsec{mag/$\Box^{\prime\prime}$ } % mag/square_arcsec
41:
42:
43: \begin{document}
44:
45: \title{Near infrared adaptive optics imaging of high redshift quasars. }
46:
47: %\thanks{Based on observations collected at the European Southern Observatory,
48: %Chile (ESO Programme 74.B-0256) }
49:
50: \author{Renato Falomo}
51: \affil{INAF -- Osservatorio Astronomico di Padova, Vicolo dell'Osservatorio 5,
52: 35122 Padova, Italy}
53: \email{renato.falomo@oapd.inaf.it}
54:
55: \author{Aldo Treves}
56: \affil{Universit\`a dell'Insubria, via Valleggio 11, 22100 Como, Italy}
57: \email{treves@mib.infn.it}
58:
59: \author{Jari K. Kotilainen}
60: \affil{Tuorla Observatory, University of Turku, V\"ais\"al\"antie 20,
61: FIN--21500 Piikki\"o, Finland}
62: \email{jarkot@utu.fi}
63:
64: \author{Riccardo Scarpa }
65: \affil{Instituto de astrofisica de Canarias, Spain }
66: \email{riccardo.scarpa@gtc.iac.es}
67:
68: \and
69:
70: \author{Michela Uslenghi}
71: \affil{IASF-CNR Milano, Via E. Bassini 15, Milano I-20133, Italy}
72: \email{uslenghi@mi.iasf.cnr.it}
73:
74:
75: %\offprints{Renato Falomo}
76:
77:
78: \date{Received ... ; accepted ...}
79:
80: \begin{abstract}
81: The properties of high redshift quasar host galaxies are studied, in
82: order to investigate the connection between galaxy evolution, nuclear
83: activity, and the formation of supermassive black holes. We combine
84: new near-IR observations of three high redshift quasars ( 2 $<$ z $<$ 3),
85: obtained at the ESO-Very Large Telescope equipped with adaptive optics, with
86: selected data from the literature.
87: For the three new objects we were able to detect and characterize the
88: properties of the host galaxy, found to be consistent with those of
89: massive elliptical galaxies of M$_R$ $\sim$ --24.7 for the one radio loud
90: quasar, and M$_R$ $\sim$ --23.8 for the two radio quiet quasars. When
91: combined with existing data at lower redshift, these new observations
92: depict a scenario where the host galaxies of radio loud quasars are seen
93: to follow the expected trend of luminous ($\sim$5L*) elliptical galaxies
94: undergoing passive evolution. This trend is remarkably similar to that followed by
95: radio-galaxies at z $>$ 1.5. Radio quiet quasars hosts also follow a
96: similar trend but at a lower average luminosity ($\sim 0.5$ mag
97: dimmer). The data indicate that quasar host galaxies are already fully
98: formed at epochs as early as $\sim$2 Gyr after the Big Bang
99: and then passively fade in luminosity to the present epoch.
100: \end{abstract}
101:
102: \keywords{Galaxies:active -- Infrared:galaxies -- Quasars:general --
103: galaxies: evolution }
104:
105: \section{Introduction}
106:
107: At low redshift quasars are hosted in otherwise normal luminous and
108: massive galaxies \cite{bahcall97, hamilton02, dunlop03, pagani03}
109: characterized by a conspicuous spheroidal component that becomes
110: dominant in radio loud objects. These galaxies appear to follow the
111: same relationship between bulge luminosity and mass of the central
112: black hole (BH) observed in nearby inactive elliptical galaxies
113: \cite[for a recent review ]{ferrarese06}. If this link holds also at
114: higher redshift the observed population of high z quasars traces the
115: existence of $ \sim 10^9$ M$_\odot$ super massive BHs and massive
116: spheroids at very early ($<$ 1 Gyr) cosmic epochs
117: \citep{fan01,fan03,willott03}. This picture seems also supported by
118: the discovery of molecular gas and metals in high z quasars
119: \cite{bertoldi03,freudling03}, that are suggestive of galaxies with
120: strong star formation. In this context it is therefore important to
121: push as far as possible in redshift the direct detection and
122: characterization of QSO host galaxies. In particular, a key point is
123: to probe the QSO host properties at epochs close to (and possibly
124: beyond) the peak of quasar activity (z $\sim$ 2.5).
125:
126: Until few years ago, due to the severe observational difficulties, the
127: properties of quasar host galaxies at high redshift were very poorly
128: known (e.g. see the pioneering papers by
129: \cite{hutchings95,lehnert92,lowenthal}, and uncertain or ambiguous
130: results were produced because of inadequate quality of the images
131: (modest resolution; low signal-to-noise data; non optimal analysis).
132:
133: %To characterize the properties of high z quasar hosts
134:
135: Deep images with adequate spatial resolution are essential. This goal
136: is not easy to attain with HST because of its modest aperture that
137: translates into a limited capability to detect faint extended
138: nebulosity unless gravitationally lensed host galaxies are used
139: \cite{peng06}. One has thus to resort to 10 meter class telescopes
140: equipped with adaptive optics (AO) systems. This keeps the advantage
141: of both high spatial resolution and high sensitivity although some
142: complications are introduced: the need for a reference point source
143: close to the target, and a time and position dependent point spread
144: function (PSF). Moreover, unless artificial (laser) guide stars are
145: available (not yet fully implemented in current AO systems) only
146: targets which are sufficiently angularly close to relatively bright
147: stars can actually be observed.
148:
149: Though the first generation of AO systems at 4m class telescopes
150: improved the detection of structures of the host at low $z$ they did
151: not allow much improvements for distant quasars
152: \cite{hutchings98,hutch99,marquez01,lacy02,kuhlbrodt05}. Only very recently have
153: AO imaging systems become available in large telescopes and could be
154: used to image distant QSO with the full capability of spatial
155: resolution and adequate deepness. Croom et al (2004) presented a study
156: of 9 high z quasars imaged with the AO Gemini North telescope, but
157: they were able to resolve only one radio quiet source at z= 1.93.
158:
159: %(quasar host: K' = 18.5 Re = 0.55 arcsec).
160:
161: In order to investigate the properties of quasar hosts at z $>$ 2 and
162: explore the region near the peak of QSO activity we are carrying out a
163: program to secure Ks band images of quasars in the redshift range 2
164: $<$ z $<$ 3 using the AO system at ESO VLT. In a previous pilot work
165: we presented the results for one radio-loud QSO (RLQ) \cite{
166: falomo05}. Here we present new observations for three high z quasars,
167: one RLQ and two radio quiet quasars (RQQ). Throughout this work we use
168: H$_0$ = 70 km s$^{-1}$ Mpc $^{-1}$, $\Omega_m$ = 0.3, and
169: $\Omega_\Lambda$ = 0.7.
170:
171: \section{Object selection}
172:
173: Only targets sufficiently close to bright stars can be observed with
174: adaptive optics systems employing natural guide stars as
175: reference. Because of that, we searched the latest \citep{veron06} AGN
176: catalog (including data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and 2dF
177: surveys \cite{schneider03,croom01}), for quasars in the redshift range
178: 2$<$ z $<$ 3 and $\delta <$ 0, having a star brighter than V=14 within
179: 30 arcsec. Beside this bright source needed to close the AO loop,
180: other stars in the field of view (FoV) are necessary in order to
181: characterize the PSF, both in time and position on the field of view.
182: Thus we required targets to have one or more stars in the FoV for PSF
183: characterization. Under these conditions the AO system at the VLT is
184: expected to deliver images of Strehl ratio better than $\sim$ 0.2 when
185: the external seeing is $<$0.6 arcsec.
186:
187: The twenty candidates fulfilling these requirements were then
188: inspected individually looking at the Digitized Sky Surveys red
189: plates. A priority was assigned according to the magnitude
190: of the guide star and its distance from the target. Based on the
191: allocated observing time we then chose one radio loud and 2 radio
192: quiet objects (see Table 1).
193:
194:
195: % TABLE 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
196: % Journal of the observations
197: %
198: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccccccc}
199: \tablecaption{ Journal of the observations }
200: \tablehead{
201: \colhead{Quasar} &\colhead{Type} & \colhead{z} & \colhead{Date} &\colhead{V}
202: &\colhead{Seeing} &\colhead{FWHM} &\colhead{Ks} & \colhead{GS(V,d)} \\
203: \colhead{} & \colhead{} &\colhead{} &\colhead{dd/mm/yy} &\colhead{mag}&
204: \colhead{$\prime\prime$} & \colhead{$\prime\prime$} &\colhead{mag} &\colhead{mag, $\prime\prime$}
205: }
206: \startdata
207: ~QSO 0020--304 & RQQ &2.059 & 9/12/04 & 21.9 & 0.5 & 0.17 & 17.7 & 14.0, 18.5 \\
208: ~WGA 0633.1--233 & RLQ &2.928 & 4/02/05 & 21.5 & 0.6 & 0.14 & 18.6 & 14.0, 22.3 \\
209: ~PKS 1041--0034 & RQQ &2.494 & 30/01/05 & 20.7 & 0.6 & 0.15 & 18.4 & 14.5, 19.4 \\
210: \enddata
211: %\hline
212: %\\
213: %\tablenotetext{a}{ V magnitude from the \cite{veron06} catalogue.}
214: %\tablenotetext{b}{Total exposure time in minutes. }
215: %\tablenotetext{c} {External seeing in the optical band (arcsec).}
216: %\tablenotetext{d}{ Image quality measured as the full-width at half
217: %1 maximum in the K-band (arcsec).}
218: %\tablenotetext{e}{ Observed K magnitude of the target.}
219: %\tablenotetext{f}{ Guide star V magnitude and distance in arcsec
220: %from the target. }
221: \end{deluxetable}
222: % ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
223:
224: \section{Observations and data analysis}
225:
226: We acquired Ks-band images using NAOS--CONICA
227: \cite{rousset03,lenzen03}, the AO system on the VLT at the European
228: Southern Observatory (ESO) in Paranal (Chile). The CONICA used detector
229: was Aladdin InSb (1024x1024 pixels) that provides a field of
230: view of 56x56 arcsec with a sampling of 54 mas/pixel.
231:
232: Each object was observed at random dithered positions, with small
233: shifts applied between successive frames, within a jitter
234: box of $\sim$20 arcsec around the central position of the object,
235: using individual exposures of 2 minutes per frame, for a total
236: integration time of 38 min per observing block, each object had two
237: observing blocks. The images (detailed in Table 1) were secured in
238: service mode by ESO staff under photometric conditions. The accuracy
239: of the photometric calibration, using standard stars
240: observed during the same night, is of $\pm$0.1 mag.
241:
242: Data reduction was performed by our own improved version of
243: the ESO pipeline for jitter imaging data \cite{devillard01}. It
244: first corrects for bad pixels by interpolation from neighboring
245: "good" pixels, and then applies flat fielding to each image, using a
246: normalized flat field obtained by subtracting and averaging a number
247: of ON and OFF images of the illuminated dome. The sky background
248: level was evaluated and sky subtraction was obtained for each image
249: using an appropriate scaling and median averaging of the temporally
250: closest frames. The large number of raw frames and the size of the
251: jitter width proved to be a robust procedure for generating reliable
252: sky images from the science frames themselves. All sky-subtracted
253: images were then aligned to sub-pixel accuracy using 2-d
254: cross-correlation of individual images using as reference all the
255: point-like objects in the frames.
256:
257: Data for each observing block were treated separately, thus we ended up
258: with two combined images for each target. These were carefully
259: compared and found to be very similar, thus we further co-added them
260: to form a single image used for all the subsequent analysis.
261:
262: Final modeling of the images was done with AIDA (Astronomical Image
263: Decomposition and Analysis \cite{uslenghi07,uslenghi07b}), a software package
264: specifically designed to perform two dimensional model fitting of QSO
265: images, providing simultaneous decomposition into the nuclear and host
266: galaxy components.
267:
268: The most critical part of the analysis is the determination of the PSF
269: model and the choice of the background level that affects the faintest
270: external signal from the object.
271:
272: \subsection{PSF modeling}
273:
274: To model the PSF shape as a function of position in the FoV we used
275: the image of the QSO 0633-23, that contains the largest number of
276: stars. We first select those sources usable for PSF analysis on the
277: basis of their full width at half maximum (FWHM), sharpness, roundness
278: and signal-to-noise ratio, also including bright, slightly saturated
279: stars useful to model the PSF faint wings. In total 14 stars were
280: selected.
281:
282: Each star was then modeled with a gaussian for the core and an
283: exponential function for the wings. Regions contaminated by
284: close companions, saturated pixels and other evident defects were
285: masked out.
286:
287: We found that both the FWHM and the ellipticity of the core component
288: depend on the distance of the source from the guide star (see Figure
289: \ref{psfvar}). The FWHM ranges from 0.15 arcsec to $\sim$ 0.3 arcsec
290: while the ellipticity goes from 0.05 to 0.30 for objects close to the
291: AO star and sources at $\sim$40 arcsec, respectively. This analysis
292: shows that the star most suited for PSF characterization should be at
293: the same distance from the AO guide star as is the target. At
294: distances from AO star $<$30 arcsec the size of the PSF core is
295: stable within 10 percent.
296:
297: We found the major axis of the PSF core is oriented along the
298: direction connecting the object with the star used for the AO
299: correction (Fig. \ref{psfvar}). On the contrary the shape of the
300: wings is almost independent of the position in the field. This is
301: expected in images obtained with AO corrections (\cite{tristram05,
302: cresci05}).
303:
304:
305: % FIG. PSF variation of properites
306:
307: \begin{center}
308: \begin{figure*}[htbp]
309: \includegraphics[scale=0.7, angle=90]{f1.ps}
310: \caption{ The first two panels show the variation of the PSF core
311: properties with respect to the distance from the guide star. One pixel
312: corresponds to 0.054 arcsec. The third (rightmost) panel shows the
313: relation between direction of the elongation of the PSF core and the
314: position angle of the line connecting the star with the guide star. In
315: all panels the position of the target is indicated with QSO.
316: \label{psfvar}}
317: \end{figure*}
318: \end{center}
319:
320:
321: A map of the PSF differences with respect to the sharpest PSF was then
322: created by fitting low order polynomial curves to the PSF parameters
323: (Figure \ref{psfvar}). This allowed us to evaluate the additional
324: correction to be applied to the PSF model at the position of the
325: target. The adopted PSF for the quasar was thus constructed using all
326: the available stars in each frame and giving higher weight to those at
327: similar distance from the AO star as the target.
328:
329:
330: The corrections map derived using the data for QSO 0633-23 was also
331: used for the other two QSOs because of the limited number of stars
332: available in these fields.
333: Although some second order variations of the PSF cannot be excluded we
334: are confident that the general trends are similar. Moreover the
335: angular separation between AO guide star and PSF star is similar to
336: the one between AO star and target (difference $<$ 5 arcsec) thus
337: the additional correction is very small and cannot affect the global
338: result of our analysis.
339:
340: \subsection{QSO image decomposition} % ------------------------
341:
342: For each source, a mask was built to exclude contamination from other
343: sources close to the target, bad pixels and other possible defects. In
344: order to take into account possible small variations of the local
345: background with respect to the overall zero level of the sky
346: subtracted images we computed the average signal in a circular annulus
347: centered on the source and with radii of about 3-4 and 5-6 arcsec. We
348: checked that in such annular regions the average radial brightness
349: profile of the object remains flat and that the level of the signal
350: inside the annular region was consistent in all cases with the level of
351: the background measured outside this annular region. This ensures
352: that in this region there is no extra extended emission due to the
353: host galaxy or associated gas. The applied correction for the level of
354: the local background allows us to properly evaluate the signal of the
355: host galaxy in the very faint external regions. The amount of this
356: correction is such that only the signal below surface brightness $\mu$
357: $\sim$ 22.5 (mag/arcsec$^2$) is affected thus in all cases the objects would be
358: resolved even without the correction.
359:
360: The QSO images were first fitted using only the point source model in
361: order to provide a first check of the deviation of the target from the
362: PSF shape. If the residuals revealed a significant and systematic
363: excess over the PSF shape, the object was fitted using a two component
364: model (host galaxy plus a point source). Otherwise, the object was
365: considered unresolved. In all three cases presented here it was found
366: the object was resolved thus the final fit of the image of the target
367: was obtained assuming it is composed of a point source and an
368: elliptical or disc galaxy convolved with the proper PSF.
369:
370: An estimate of the errors associated with the model parameters
371: (magnitude of the nucleus, and magnitude and effective radius of the host)
372: is shown in Figure \ref{chi2map}. These uncertainties are
373: consistent with those obtained using simulated quasars images
374: \cite{uslenghi07b}.
375:
376: \begin{figure}[htbp]
377: \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{f2.eps}
378: \caption{ The $\chi^2$ contour maps of the fit of the image of
379: the objects as a function of the magnitude of the nucleus, host
380: galaxy and the scale-length of the galaxy assuming an
381: elliptical model. The three levels represent the confidence
382: level probability of 68\%, 95\% and 99\% from the inner to the
383: outer region. The dashed lines show the best fit.
384: \label{chi2map}
385: }
386: \end{figure}
387:
388: \section{Results for individual objects}
389:
390: % --- QSO 0020 --------------------------------------------
391:
392: {\bf J002031-3041}
393: \bigskip
394:
395: This is a radio quiet quasar (z = 2.059) discovered in the 2dF survey
396: \cite{ croom01}. Our Ks-band image (see Figure \ref{q0020ima} ) shows
397: the QSO close (6 arcsec) to a Ks = 13.3 star. The characterization of
398: the PSF for this field is based on a bright (slightly saturated)
399: star at about 6 arcsec from the target and by a couple of
400: faint stars in the field. The core of the PSF was thus defined by the
401: two faint stars while the external wing was constrained by the bright
402: one (labeled PSF in Fig. \ref{q0020ima} ). The PSF was then adjusted
403: according to the distortion map computed using the data of WGA J0633.1-2333.
404:
405: The comparison of the QSO and the PSF data shows a significant
406: residual emission up to $\sim$ 1.5 arcsec from the center (see Fig.
407: \ref{aidares} ) indicating that the object is resolved. The best
408: 2-d modeling of this object yields a host galaxy with M$_R$ = -- 23.3 and Re
409: $\sim$ 11 kpc.
410:
411:
412: % --- Figure Q0020 field -------
413:
414: \begin{figure}[htbp]
415: \centering
416: {\includegraphics[scale=.6]{f3.eps} }
417: \caption{Ks-band image of the field of the QSO 0020-3041 obtained
418: with VLT+NACO. The FoV shown is 40 arcsec; North is up and East to the
419: left. The target (QSO), the guide star (GS) and the stars used for
420: the characterization of the PSF are marked.
421: \label{q0020ima}
422: }
423: \end{figure}
424: %\clearpage
425:
426: % --- QSO 0633 -----------------------------------------
427:
428: \bigskip
429: {\bf WGA J0633.1-2333}
430: \bigskip
431:
432: This radio loud quasar (B = 21.5) was discovered
433: correlating the ROSAT WGACAT database with several radio catalogs
434: (\cite{perlmann98}). Its redshift z = 2.928 was derived
435: from prominent emission lines of Ly$_\beta$+OIV, Ly $\alpha$, and CIV
436: 1540 \AA (Perlmann et al 1998). The luminosity of the quasar is
437: M${_B}$ = --24.6.
438: The 2-d decomposition (see Figure \ref{aidares} ) shows the host
439: galaxy has a disturbed morphology with an extended emission structure
440: at $\sim$ 0.5 arcsec East. Assuming an elliptical model the host
441: galaxy properties are: M$_R$ = -24.65
442: and Re $\sim$ 6 kpc.
443:
444:
445: \begin{figure}[htbp]
446: \includegraphics[scale=.6]{f4.eps}
447: \caption[field0633]{NACO Ks-band image of the radio loud
448: quasar WGA J0633.1-2333.
449: North is up and east to the left. The FoV is 40 arcsec.
450: The target (QSO), the guide star (GS) as well as some stars used for
451: characterization of the PSF are marked.
452: \label{field0633}
453: }
454: \end{figure}
455:
456: %\clearpage
457:
458: % --- QSO 1041 --------------------------------------------
459:
460: \null
461: \bigskip
462: {\bf J104117-0034}
463: \bigskip
464:
465: This radio quiet quasar (V = 20.7) was discovered in the 2dF survey
466: \citep{croom01}. The optical spectrum shows prominent Ly$_\alpha$ and
467: CIV emission lines at z = 2.494. No radio emission at 20 cm is
468: detected in the FIRST survey at the position of the quasar.
469:
470: The PSF was characterized using a star at a distance from the AO guide
471: star similar to the distance between the AO guide star and the target
472: (Fig. \ref{field1041}), also adjusted using the map derived from the
473: WGA J0633.1-2333 data. Our analysis shows the object is resolved
474: although we are not able to asses its morphology. Either an
475: elliptical or a disk model for the host galaxy can equally well fit the data. Under
476: the assumption of an elliptical model the absolute magnitude of the
477: host galaxy is M$_R$ = --24.1 and the effective radius Re $\sim$ 2.6
478: kpc. If a disk model were assumed the host magnitude would be practically unchanged
479: while the effective radius would be somewhat smaller.
480:
481: \begin{figure}[htbp]
482: \includegraphics[scale=.5]{f5.eps}
483: \caption{NACO Ks-band image of the radio quiet QSO J104117-
484: 0034. North is up and east to the left. The FoV is 40 arcsec. The
485: target (QSO), the guide star (GS) and stars used for
486: characterization of the PSF are marked.
487: \label{field1041}
488: }
489: \end{figure}
490:
491: % Table 2 - Results -----------------------------------------------
492:
493: \begin{deluxetable}{lllccccccc}
494: \tablecaption{Results of image analysis}
495: \tablehead{
496: \colhead{Quasar} & \colhead{z} & \colhead{$\chi^2$} & \colhead{Ks(nuc) }&
497: \colhead{Ks(host) }& \colhead{r$_e$} & \colhead{K-cor } & \colhead{R$_e$ } &
498: \colhead{ M$_R$(nuc)} & \colhead{ M$_R$(host) } \\
499: %
500: \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{ mag } & \colhead{mag}&
501: \colhead{$\prime\prime$} & \colhead{Ks$\rightarrow$R } &\colhead{kpc}&
502: \colhead{mag}& \colhead{mag} \\
503: }
504: \startdata \hline
505: QSO 0020--304 & 2.059& 0.33 & 17.9 & 19.8 & 1.4 & 3.05 &11.3 & -25.2 & -23.2\\
506: QSO 0633--233 & 2.928& 0.47 & 19.0 & 20.0 & 0.7 & 2.75 & 5.7 & -25.0 & -24.3\\
507: QSO 1041--003 & 2.494& 0.90 & 18.6 & 19.6 & 0.3 & 2.93 & 2.6 & -25.0 & -24.0\\
508: \enddata
509: \\
510: %\tablenotetext{a}{Best fit model for the host galaxy.
511: % Ell = de Vaucouleurs ; Disk = exponential disc. }
512: %\tablenotetext{a}{ observed K magnitude of the nucleus }
513: %\tablenotetext{b}{ observed K magnitude of the host galaxy }
514: %\tablenotetext{c}{ Absolute magnitude in R of the nucleus}
515: %\tablenotetext{d}{ Absolute magnitude in R of the host galaxy }
516: \end{deluxetable}
517:
518:
519: \begin{figure*}[htbp]
520: \includegraphics[scale=0.70]{f6.eps}
521: \caption[aidares]{ Contour plot of the object (top panel), object
522: after subtraction of the PSF model (second from top), and residuals of
523: the best fit (third from top). Scale of contour plots is in
524: arcsec. Bottom panel: The radial surface brightness profile of the
525: object (filled points) and the fitted model (solid line) with
526: components (point source: dotted line; host galaxy: dashed line). The
527: uncertainty in the radial surface brightness profile of the point
528: source (PSF model) is about 0.1 mag at 0.5$^{\prime\prime}$ and 0.3
529: mag at 1.2$^{\prime\prime}$.
530: \label{aidares}
531: }
532: \end{figure*}
533:
534: % --- DISCUSSION -------------------------------------------------
535:
536: \section{Discussion}
537:
538: To investigate the properties of the QSO hosts at different redhsifts
539: it is preferable to compare data probing the same rest frame
540: wavelengths. The Ks band at $2<z<3$ closely matches the rest frame R band,
541: thus in the following discussion our own data as well as data from
542: the literature were trasformed to the R band. This was done using the
543: cross-band k-correction given in Tab. 2 with details given in the Appendix.
544: This transformation is virtually independent of the assumed spectral
545: energy distribution of the host galaxy over the whole redshift range
546: of interest ($\Delta m <$ 0.2 mag), allowing a reliable
547: measurement of the rest frame luminosity.
548:
549: In order to compare our results with those published in the literature
550: at high redshift we considered only observations obtained in the NIR at large (8-10m class)
551: telescopes or HST data.
552: This allow us to perform a comparison of similar stellar populations
553: detected in QSO host at lower z observed in the optical.
554:
555:
556: \subsection{RLQs host galaxy evolution}
557:
558: In Figure \ref{rlqev} we report our new measurement for the host galaxy of one RLQ
559: at z$\sim$3, together with our previously reported RLQ hosts at z=2.55 observed
560: with VLT+ NACO \cite{falomo05}, and selected literature data. These include all
561: results from HST WFPC2 images at z $<$0.6, our previous survey of RLQ at z$<$2
562: \cite{falomo04, kotilainen07}, and measurements of 4 objects by HST + NICMOS \cite
563: {kukula01}. Two additional individual points at z$>$2 were derived from the H mag
564: of the host galaxy of lensed QSO reported by \cite{peng06} trasformed into R band
565: following the method described above. All together these observations depict a
566: general trend where the host luminosity increases by $\sim$ 1.5 mag from present
567: epoch up to z$\sim$3. This is fully consistent with the expected luminosity
568: evolution of a massive elliptical galaxy undergoing passive evolution. On average
569: this trend corresponds to that of a galaxy of luminosity $\sim$5L* (assuming
570: M*(Ks)=--23.9; \cite{gardner97}, corresponding to M*(R)=--21.1) that is undergoing
571: passive stellar evolution. The dominance of an old, evolved stellar population is
572: also supported by spectroscopic studies of low redshift quasar \cite{nolan01}.
573:
574: As mentioned above it is worth to note that this result is relatively
575: robust with respect to the uncertainty for the filter transformation
576: due to the choice of SED template for the galaxy since the comparison
577: is done nearly at the same rest frame band. The only point that could
578: move substantially is that at z = 3.27 \cite{ peng06} since it was
579: observed in H band (see Appendix). In this case if instead of an
580: elliptical model a Sb (or Sc) SED is assumed the host galaxy would be
581: 0.4 (or 0.6) magnitudes fainter suggesting a possible drop of the host
582: luminosity. With the caveat of the small statistics for RLQ hosts at
583: high redshift we think that the present data do not show evidence for
584: a drop in luminosity of RLQ hosts.
585:
586: Several studies carried out at low redshift \cite{sh89,bettoni01,ledlow95}
587: and high redshift \cite{willott03,inskip05,pentericci01,zirm07} have shown that powerful radio
588: emission is almost ubiquitously linked with massive and luminous ellipticals.
589: Indeed the global photometric and structural properties of radiogalaxies are
590: identical to those of non radio early type galaxies of similar mass (or
591: luminosity). This is clearly apparent at low redshift since
592: radiogalaxies follow the same fundamental plane of inactive normal ellipticals
593: \cite{bettoni01}.
594:
595: Given the above premises it is therefore of interest to compare the
596: cosmic evolution of RLQ host luminosity with that of radiogalaxies
597: (RG). \cite{willott03} present a compilation of K band magnitudes of
598: various samples of radiogalaxies. The observed K band magnitudes were
599: converted to absolute M$_R$ using the same transformations adopted for our
600: objects. Then we have binned the data into redshift
601: intervals of $\Delta z$=0.3 from z=0 to z=2 and of $\Delta z$=0.5 at z
602: $>$ 2. The trend in luminosity of this dataset of radiogalaxies is
603: very similar to that exhibited by the host of RLQ (see Figure
604: \ref{rlqev}). At z $<$ 1 there is a small systematic difference (by
605: $\sim$ 0.5 mag) in the luminosity evolution between RLQ hosts and
606: RG. This is difficult to interpret because of the non homogeneous
607: definition of the RG dataset (compilation from various different
608: surveys, \cite{willott03} ) can introduce selection effects in the RG samples.
609:
610: Nevertheless it is remarkable that both RG and RLQ hosts follow a
611: similar trend of the luminosity up to redshift z$\sim$3. In our
612: opinion this is suggestive of a common origin of the parent galaxies
613: and also emphasizes that both types of radio loud galaxies follow the
614: same evolutionary trend of inactive massive spheroids. This result can
615: be seen also in the conventional K-z plot comparing radio galaxies and
616: QSO hosts at z$>$ 1 (see Figure \ref{kzplot}). A similar scenario was
617: found by \cite{hutchings06} for a small sample of higher z quasars.
618:
619:
620: % --- Figure --- the evolution of RL quasar host
621:
622: \begin{center}
623: \begin{figure*}[htbp]
624: {\includegraphics[bb= 10 250 530 590, scale=.9]{f7.eps} }
625: \caption{The evolution of radio loud quasar host luminosity compared
626: with that expected for massive ellipticals (at M$^*$, M$^*$-1 and
627: M$^*$-2; {\it solid, dotted and dashed} line ) undergoing passive
628: stellar evolution \cite{bressan98}. The host galaxy of the RLQ at z
629: $\sim$ 2.9 presented in this work, and another RLQ at $z\sim2.5$ from
630: \cite{falomo05} are shown as filled pentagons. Other symbols
631: represent: HST observations by \cite{dunlop03} and \cite{pagani03}
632: (triangles), \cite{hooper97} (inverted triangles); \cite{kukula01}
633: (squares); ESO NTT observations \cite{kotifal00} (diamond). VLT
634: observations \cite{falomo04} and \cite{kotilainen07} (circle); HST data
635: for lensed hosts by \cite{peng06} (open stars).
636: Each point is plotted at the mean redshift of the
637: sample with error bars representing the $1\sigma$ dispersion of the
638: sample. In the case of individual objects the uncertainty of the
639: measurement is given. A binned version of the data for radio
640: galaxies shown in Fig. \ref{kzplot} is also given (asterisks).}
641: \label{rlqev}
642: \end{figure*}
643: \end{center}
644:
645: % --- Figure --- K-z plot for radio galaxies
646:
647:
648: \begin{center}
649: \begin{figure*}[htbp]
650: {\includegraphics[bb= 40 270 530 590, scale=.85]{f8.eps} }
651: \caption{Apparent K band magnitude versus redshift (the K-z plot) for
652: luminous radiogalaxies (asterisks) (\cite{willott03} compared with
653: host of RLQ at $z > $ 1. Symbols represent VLT data by \cite{falomo04}
654: and \cite{kotilainen07} (circles); HST data by
655: \citep{kukula01}(squares); HST data of gravitational lensed QSO
656: by \cite{peng06} (open stars). The two radio loud QSO presented in
657: this work are also shown (pentagons).}
658: \label{kzplot}
659: \end{figure*}
660: \end{center}
661:
662: \subsection{RQQs host galaxy evolution}
663:
664: Since the hosts of RQQ are on average less luminous than those of RLQ their study at high
665: redshift is more difficult. Indeed very little is known at z$>$2. In Figure \ref{rqqev} we
666: report our new detections for two radio quiet quasar hosts at z$>$2 compared with data
667: from the literature at lower redshift \cite{dunlop03, kukula01, hyvonen07, falomo04,
668: kotilainen07, croom04}.
669:
670: With the possible exception of the RQQ at z$\sim$1.9 detected by
671: \citep{croom04} the host galaxy luminosity of RQQs appears to increase
672: by about 1 mag from z=0 to z$\sim$ 2.5. This is consistent with the
673: trend for non-active massive elliptical galaxy of M= M*-1 undergoing
674: simple passive evolution. This is also similar to the behavior
675: observed for RLQs hosts but occur on average at a lower level of
676: luminosity (about 0.5 mag fainter). Moreover it is worth to note that
677: the same level of luminosity corresponds to that of non-active early
678: type galaxies at z $\sim$ 1.4 \cite{longhetti07} and at z $\sim$ 1.8
679: \cite{daddi05}.
680:
681: \cite{peng06} report the detection of the host galaxy of a number of
682: gravitational lensed
683: quasars without radio classification, 8 in the redshift range
684: $2<$z$<3$ and 1 at z$>$3. Considering that the vast majority of QSO are
685: radio quiet, one might assume that most of them are
686: RQQ. Under this assumption and after converting their H band host
687: luminosity to R band rest frame according to our SED galaxy template,
688: we found their luminosity ($<$M$_R>$ = - 24.8 at $<z>$ $\sim$ 2.5;
689: M$_R$ = -25.4 at z $\sim$ 3.4) is well above the overall trend drawn
690: by the objects at lower redshift.
691: The only point that could be significantly affected
692: by the choice of the SED is the individual source at z $\sim$ 3.4
693: that, in the case of an Sb template, would be fainter by 0.7 mag. In
694: any case the \cite{peng06} data for these high z QSO hosts appear well
695: separated from the objects at lower redshift.
696:
697: Note that the average value of Peng et al. data in the range 1 $<$ z
698: $<$ 2 are fully consistent (see Figure \ref{rqqev}) with our extensive
699: previous study performed at VLT \cite{falomo04,kotilainen07} thus no
700: systematic effects due to different analysis are expected. One
701: possibility to explain this difference of host average luminosity at z
702: $>2$ is that some (or most) of these objects are radio loud and thus
703: their host would be naturally brighter. However, this may be difficult
704: to asses because they are lensed objects. Another possibility is that
705: since the objects at z $>2$, studied by Peng et al., have quite
706: luminous nuclei (average $<M_B>$ = -26) also their host galaxies could
707: be systematically more luminous than those in the rest of QSO samples
708: (M$_B \sim $ -24.3 for our RQQ at z $>$ 2).
709:
710: % add new comments
711:
712: Detection of extended emission in the near-IR has been also found
713: for QSO at very high redshift by \cite{hutchings03}.
714: This paper reports Gemini North direct images secured
715: under average conditions (seeing 0.7 arcsec) for 5 QSO at z $\sim$ 4.7
716: The observed K band host magnitude for these objects (as estimated from PSF
717: removal and extrapolated flux profile) are in the range Ks = 19.3 to 20.5.
718: This corresponds to R band absolute magnitudes in the range M(R) = -26.6 to
719: -27.8 assuming an elliptical galaxy SED or $\sim$ 0.5 mag fainter in the case of
720: disk galaxy SED. In both cases these data
721: compared with those presented in
722: our paper show these host galaxies are substantially more luminous (by a
723: factor at least 5 ) than the trend derived from the whole dataset up to
724: z $\sim$ 3. However it is worth to note that at this redshift the
725: K band is mapping the host galaxy at $\sim$ 3700 \AA. \ Therefore
726: the stellar population responsible for the observed emission is very different
727: from that considered in the rest of the dataset (rest frame R or I).
728: If such high luminosity will be confirmed at high z it may indicates
729: a substantial amount of star formation at these epochs.
730:
731: % Comment about Schramm findings
732:
733: Finally we comment on the very recent and intriguing result by \cite{schramm07} of
734: 3 RQQ at z= 2.6--2.9, that appear to have host galaxies of extremely high
735: luminosity ( M$_R$(host) = --25.8 to --26.8). They are at least 3 magnitudes above
736: M* after including passive evolution. These results are very difficult to reconcile
737: with the rest of quasar host detection at similar or lower redshift and would imply
738: exceedingly high ongoing star formation. Given the scanty information on these
739: luminous high z QSO it is not clear if these are exceptional cases possibly
740: associated with very high luminous quasars.
741:
742:
743: As a whole, with the caveat that at z $>$ 2 there are only few
744: measurements and large differences among objects, the present
745: observations do not exhibit any signature of a drop in luminosity (or
746: mass) of the RQQ hosts up z$\sim$2.5.
747:
748:
749:
750: % --- Figure --- the evolution of RQQ host
751:
752: \begin{center}
753: \begin{figure*}[htbp]
754: {\includegraphics[bb= 10 250 530 590, scale=.9]{f9.eps} }
755: \caption{ The evolution of radio quiet quasar host luminosity compared
756: with that expected for massive ellipticals (at M$^*$, M$^*$-1 and
757: M$^*$-2; {\it solid, dotted and dashed} line, respectively ) undergoing passive
758: stellar evolution \cite{bressan98}. The two new RQQ at
759: z $\sim$ 2.05 and 2.5 presented here are marked with filled
760: circles. The data for samples at lower redshift are: \cite{dunlop03}
761: and \cite[ triangles]{pagani03}; \cite{hooper97} ( inverted triangle) ;
762: \cite[ squares]{kukula01}; \cite[ pentagons]{hyvonen07}; \cite{
763: falomo04} and \cite{kotilainen07}(circle); \cite{croom04} (open
764: triangle) ; \cite{peng06} (open stars) ; see also \cite{falomo04} for
765: details on previous samples. Crosses represent the luminosity of
766: massive early type galaxies at z $\sim$ 1.4 and z $\sim$ 1.8 studied
767: by \cite{longhetti07} and \cite{daddi05}, respectively. Each point is
768: plotted at the mean redshift of the sample with error bars representing
769: the $1\sigma$ dispersion of the sample. In the case of individual
770: objects the uncertainty of the measurement is given.
771: \label{rqqev} }
772: \end{figure*}
773: \end{center}
774:
775:
776: \section{Conclusions}
777:
778: The main motivation of this paper is to contribute to the measurement of the stellar
779: luminosity of the host galaxy of high z quasars, which is a probe of the host galaxy
780: mass. As a whole, while not excluding the possibility in some cases of ongoing episodes of
781: star formation, the available data are consistent with no evolution in mass, indicating
782: therefore that QSO host galaxies are already well formed at z $\sim$ 3. Since then they
783: passively fade to the present epoch. This is at odds with one of the main conclusion by
784: \cite{peng06}.
785:
786: This has important implications for theories of the structure formation in the Universe.
787: In particular hierarchical merging scenarios predicting a substantial mass reduction at
788: early epochs \cite{kauffmann00}, as well as those models predicting a late merging and
789: assembly period for local massive spheroids, have difficulties in explaining the
790: existence of a substantial population of massive, passive (red and dead) early-type
791: galaxies at high redshift (e.g. McCarthy et al. 2004, Cimatti et al
792: 2004, \cite{daddi05,papovich06,longhetti07}). Only the most recent hierarchical
793: models (e.g. \cite{granato04,delucia05,croton06,bower06} which take into account the
794: influence of the central supermassive black hole ( AGN feedback, e.g. through heating of
795: gas in massive halos by AGN energetic), do in fact agree reasonably well with the
796: observed stellar mass function and allow for the existence of massive early-type
797: galaxies out to z $\sim$4.
798:
799: Our results have important implications also for the study of the parameter $\Gamma$ = ( M$_{BH}$/M
800: $_{sph}$), linking black hole and host galaxy masses (e.g. \cite{merloni06}). For a sample of
801: $\sim$ 30 quasars at z $\sim$ 0.3 \cite{labita06} found $\Gamma$ is consistent with the value for
802: quiescent galaxies in the local Universe, confirming an earlier result reported by \cite{mclure01}
803: for a different sample of low z quasars. On the other hand, a decreasing $\Gamma$ was derived from
804: a study of a sample of Seyfert galaxies at z $\sim$ 0.36 \cite{treu07}. At high $z$ the situation
805: is even less clear. In their study of gravitationally lensed quasar from the CASTELS-HST project
806: \cite{peng06} claim $\Gamma$ is consistent with the local value up to z$=1.7$. After that,
807: $\Gamma$ sharply increases by a factor 4. Our results strongly suggest the mass of the host galaxy
808: does not significantly change with the cosmic time (at least up to z $\sim$ 3). At face value the
809: claim by Peng et al. would then imply the untenable scenario where M$_{BH}$ is decreasing with
810: the cosmic time. See however \cite{lauer07} for the possible presence of selection bias affecting
811: the samples considered by \cite{peng06} and \cite{ treu07}. It is also worth to note the very high
812: luminosities reported by \cite{peng06} for a number of alleged RQQ host galaxies at z $>$ 2 implies
813: an higher luminosity with respect to the passive evolution. If confirmed this would exacerbate
814: the problem of the M$_{BH}$ dependence on z implied by $\Gamma$.
815:
816: Because of the potential cosmological importance of the result in the context of the
817: models of galaxy and SBH formation it is mandatory to resolve a sizeable number of
818: objects at z $\sim$ 3 and beyond. These observations should be done in the K band in
819: order to minimize the uncertainty on the k-correction due to the assumed SED of the
820: objects.
821:
822: \section{Appendix - Cross filter k-correction }
823:
824: We have trasformed Ks magnitudes into rest frame R
825: along the lines described in \cite{hogg02}. To perform this
826: transformation we assumed the SED for an elliptical galaxy
827: \cite{mannucci01} and compared the integrated flux through the
828: standard R (Cousins) filter to that in Ks band taking into account both the
829: different zero point calibration and the wavelength stretching effect
830: by (1+z).
831:
832: % REMOVED FIG ************************************************************************************
833:
834: % An example is illustrated in Figure \ref{magconv}.
835:
836: % \begin{center}
837: % \begin{figure*}[htbp]
838: % {\includegraphics[bb= 50 180 517 510,scale=.8]{f8.eps} }
839: % \caption{The comparison of the observed spectral region
840: % in the R filter at rest frame with that in Ks band for an
841: % elliptical galaxy at z=2.4 (thick line at rest frame and thin line at z=2.4)
842: % with a SED defined by an elliptical galaxy model (\cite{mannucci01}).
843: % The dashed line represents the response of the R filter at z = 2.4.
844: % \label{magconv}}
845: % \end{figure*}
846: % \end{center}
847:
848:
849: In Figure \ref{magconv2} we report the conversion from the observed H
850: and Ks magnitudes to rest frame R band for three different galaxy SED
851: models (Elliptical, Sa and Sc) taken from \cite{mannucci01}. In the
852: conversion between Ks to R the uncertainty associated to the choice of
853: the SED of the galaxy is less than 0.2 mag for the whole redshift
854: range considered here (from z = 0 to z = 4). A similar uncertainty is
855: found for the correction between H and R up to z = 2.5, while beyond
856: this limit the different choice of SED lead to substantial different
857: corrections up to 1 mag at z = 3.5.
858:
859: % Figure
860:
861: \begin{center}
862: \begin{figure}[htbp]
863: \includegraphics[bb=50 170 520 520,scale=.4]{f10.eps}
864: \caption{ The cross filter correction between H (bottom curves) and Ks (top curves) observed magnitudes
865: at various redshift to the magnitude in R band at rest frame.
866: Three different SED galaxy models are considered : Elliptical (solid line);
867: Sb (dashed line); Sc (dotted line ). Spectral templates are drawn from \cite{mannucci01}
868: \label{magconv2}}
869: \end{figure}
870: \end{center}
871:
872: \section*{Acknowledgments}
873: This work was partially supported by PRIN 2005/32. This research has made use of the NASA/IPAC
874: Extragalactic Database {\em(NED)} which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California
875: Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
876: This work was supported by the Academy of Finland (project 8107775)
877:
878:
879: \begin{thebibliography}{}
880:
881: \bibitem[Bahcall et al. 1997]{bahcall97} Bahcall, J.N., Kirhakos S., Saxe D.H., Schneider D.P. 1997, ApJ 479, 642
882: %\bibitem [Barkhouse et al 2001] {barkhouse01}Barkhouse W.A. and Hall P.B., 2001, AJ, 121, 2842
883: \bibitem[Bettoni et al. 2001]{bettoni01} Bettoni, D., Falomo, R., Fasano, G.,
884: Govoni, F., Salvo, M. \& Scarpa, R. 2001, A\&A, 380, 471
885: \bibitem[Bertoldi et al. 2003]{bertoldi03} Bertoldi F., Carilli C.L., Cox P., et al. 2003b A\&A 406, L55
886: \bibitem[Bower et al 2006]{bower06} Bower G.C. et al 2006 MNRAS 370 645
887: %\bibitem[Bertoldi et al.(2003b]{bertoldi03b} Bertoldi F. et al. 2003a A\&A 409, L47
888: %\bibitem[Boyle et al. 2000]{boyle00} Boyle, B.J., Shanks, T., Croom, S.M., Smith, R.J., Miller, L.,
889: %Loaring, N., Heymans, C. 2000,
890: % MNRAS, 317, 1014
891: %\bibitem[Bevington 1991] {Bev91} Bevington, P., \emph{Data Reduction and Error Analysis for the
892: %Physical Sciences}, McGraw-Hill 1991)
893: \bibitem[Bressan Granato \& Silva 1998]{bressan98} Bressan, A., Granato G.L. \& Silva L. 1998, A\&A 332, 135.
894: \bibitem[Cimatti et al 2004]{cimatti04} Cimatti A. et al 2004 Nature 430 184
895: \bibitem[Cresci et al. 2005] {cresci05} Cresci, G. Davies, R. I. Baker, A. J. Lehnert, M. D. 2005 A\&A 438 757
896: \bibitem[Croom et al 2001] {croom01} Croom S.M., Smith R.J., Boyle B.J., Shanks T., Loaring N.S., Miller L., Lewis I.J. 2001 MNRAS 322, L29
897: %\bibitem[Croom et al. 2004b]{croom04b} Croom, S. M.; Smith, R. J.; Boyle, B. J.;
898: % Shanks, T.; Miller, L.; Outram, P. J.; Loaring, N. S. 2004 MNRAS 349 1397
899: \bibitem[Croom et al. 2004]{croom04} Croom S.M., Schade D., Boyle B.J.,
900: Shanks T., Miller L., Smith R.J. 2004 ApJ 606 126
901: \bibitem[Croton et al 2006]{croton06} Croton D.J. et al 2006 MNRAS 367, 864
902: \bibitem[De Lucia et al 2005]{delucia05} De Lucia G. et al 2005 MNRAS 366,499.
903: \bibitem[Daddi et al 2005]{daddi05} Daddi E. et al 2005 ApJ 626 680
904: %ASP Conference Series, Vol. 172 (ed. D.M. Mehringer, R.L. Plante, D.A. Roberts), p. 333
905: \bibitem[Devillard 2001]{devillard01} Devillard, N. 2001
906: in Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems X, ASP Conf. Ser., 238, 10, 525
907: \bibitem[Dunlop et al. 2003]{dunlop03} Dunlop, J.S., McLure, R.J., Kukula, M.J., Baum, S.A., O'Dea C.P., Hughes, D.H. 2003, MNRAS, 340, 1095
908: %\bibitem[Dunlop \& Peacock 1990]{dunlop90} Dunlop, J. S., Peacock, J. A. 1990 MNRAS, 247,19
909: %\bibitem[Falomo et al 2001]{falomo01} Falomo R., Kotilainen J.K., Treves A2001, ApJ 547, 124
910: \bibitem[Falomo et al. 2004]{falomo04} Falomo, R. Kotilainen, J.K., Pagani, C. Scarpa R. \& Treves A. 2004, ApJ 604 495
911: \bibitem[Falomo et al. 2005]{falomo05} Falomo, R. Kotilainen, J.K., Scarpa R. \& Treves A. 2005, AA 434 469
912: \bibitem[Fan et al. 2001]{fan01} Fan X. et al. 2001, AJ, 121, 54
913: \bibitem[Fan et al. 2003]{fan03} Fan X. et al. 2003, AJ, 125, 1649
914: \bibitem[Ferrarese 2006]{ferrarese06} Ferrarese, L., 2006, in "Joint evolution of
915: black holes and galaxies" Eds. M. Colpi et al. Taylor and Francis, NY, London.
916: \bibitem[Freudling Corbin \& Korista 2003]{freudling03} Freudling W., Corbin M.R., \& Korista K.T. 2003 ApJ 587, 67
917: \bibitem[Granato et al 2004]{granato04} Granato G.L. De Zotti G. Silva L.,
918: Bressan A., Danese L., 2004 Apj 600 580
919: \bibitem[Gardner et al. 1997] {gardner97} Gardner, J. P. Sharples, R. M.
920: Frenk, C. S. Carrasco, B. E. 1997 ApJ 480 L99
921: \bibitem[Hamilton et al 2002]{hamilton02} Hamilton T.S., Casertano S., Turnshek D.A., 2002, ApJ, 576, 61
922: \bibitem[Hogg et al 2002]{hogg02} Hogg, D.W. Baldry, I.K. Blanton, M.R. Eisenstein, D.J. 2002 (arXiv:astro-ph/0210394)
923: %\bibitem[Haehnelt 2004]{haehnelt04} Haehnelt, M., 2004,
924: %Carnegie Observatories Astrophysics Series, Vol. 1: Coevolution of Black Holes and Galaxies,
925: %ed. L. C. Ho (Pasadena: Carnegie Observatories,
926: %%%A\&A 399 469
927: \bibitem[Hooper et al. 1997]{hooper97} Hooper, E.J., Impey C.D. \& Foltz C.B., 1997, ApJ, 480, L95
928: \bibitem[Hutchings 1995]{hutchings95} Hutchings, J. B. 1995 AJ, 110, 994
929: %\bibitem[Hutchings 1998]{hutch98} Hutchings, J. B. 1998 AJ, 116, 20
930: \bibitem[Hutchings et al. 1998]{hutchings98} Hutchings J.B. Crampton D., Morris S.L., Steinbring E. 1998 PASP 110 374
931: \bibitem[Hutchings et al. 1999]{hutch99} Hutchings J.B., Crampton D., Morris S.L.,Durand D., Steinbring E., 1999
932: AJ 117, 1109
933: \bibitem[Hutchings 2003]{hutchings03} Hutchings, J.B. AJ 125 1053
934: \bibitem[Hutchings 2006]{hutchings06} Hutchings, J.B. 2006 NewAR 50 685
935: \bibitem[Hyvonen et al 2007]{hyvonen07} Hyvonen T.,
936: Kotilainen, J.K., Orndhal, E. , Falomo, R. 2007 AA 462 525
937: \bibitem[Inskip et al. 2005]{inskip05} Inskip, K.J., Best P.N., Longair M.S. Rottgering H.J.A. 2005 MNRAS 359 1393
938: \bibitem[Juneau et al 2005]{juneau05} Juneau S. et al 2005 ApJ 619, 135
939: %\bibitem[Iovino Clowes \& Shaver 1996]{iovino96} Iovino A.,Clowes R.,Shaver P. 1996,A\&AS 119,265
940: %\bibitem[Jetzer 2002]{jetzer02} Jetzer P. 2002 in Modern Cosmology, eds. Bonometto S. Gorini V. \& Moschella U.,
941: %IOP, Bristol \& Philadelfia p.378.
942: \bibitem[Kauffmann \& Haehnelt 2000]{kauffmann00} Kauffmann, G., Haehnelt, M., 2000, MNRAS, 311, 576
943: %bibitem [Kauffmann et al. 2003]{kauffmann03} Kauffmann, G., et al. 2003, MNRAS 341, 54
944: %\bibitem [Kormendy \& Gebhardt 2001]{kor01} Kormendy, J. \& Gebhardt, K. 2001, AIP conference proceedings, 586, 363
945: \bibitem[Kotilainen \& Falomo 2000]{kotifal00} Kotilainen, J.K., Falomo, R. 2000, A\&A, 364, 70
946: \bibitem[Kotilainen et al. 2007 ]{kotilainen07} Kotilainen, J.K., Falomo, R., Labita,
947: M., Treves, A. \& Uslenghi, M. 2007, ApJ 660 1039
948: \bibitem[Kuhlbdrodt et al 2005 ]{kuhlbrodt05}
949: Kuhlbdrodt B., Oerndahl E., Wisotzki L., \& Jahnke K. 2005 AA 439 497
950: \bibitem[Kukula et al. 2001]{kukula01} Kukula M.J., Dunlop J.S.,McLure R.J., Miller L., Percival W.J., Baum S.A
951: % O'Dea, 2001, MNRAS, 326, 1533
952: \bibitem[Labita et al. 2006]{labita06} Labita M. Treves A. Falomo R Uslenghi M.
953: 2006 MNRAS 373 551
954: \bibitem[Lacy et al. 2002]{lacy02} Lacy M., Gates, E.L. Ridgway, S.E., de Vries W. Canalizo G., Lloyd, J.P., Graham, J. R. 2002 AJ 124 3023
955: \bibitem[Lauer et al. 2007]{lauer07} Lauer T.R. Tremaine S. Richstone D. Faber S.M. 2007 arXiv/0705.4103
956: \bibitem[Lehnert et al. 1992]{lehnert92} Lehnert, M.D., Heckman, T.M., Chambers, K.C., Miley, G.K. 1992 ApJ, 393, 68
957: %\bibitem[Lenzen et al. 1998]{lenzen98}Lenzen R., Hofmann R., Bizenberger P., Tusche, A., 1998, Proc. SPIE, 3354, 606
958: \bibitem[Lenzen et al. 2003]{lenzen03}Lenzen R., Hofmann R., Bizenberger P., Tusche, A., 2003, Proc. SPIE, 4841, 944
959: \bibitem[Ledlow \& Owen 1995]{ledlow95} Ledlow, M.J., \& Owen, F.N. 1995 AJ, 110, 1959
960: \bibitem[Longhetti et al 2007]{longhetti07} Longhetti, M. et al
961: %, Saracco, P. Severgnini, P. Della Ceca, R. Mannucci, F. Bender, R. N. Drory G., Feulner and U. Hopp
962: MNRAS 374 614
963: \bibitem[Lowenthal et al. 1995]{lowenthal} Lowenthal, J.D., Heckman, T.M., Lehnert, M.D., Elias, J.H. 1995 ApJ, 439, 588
964: \bibitem[Mannucci et al. 2001]{mannucci01} Mannucci F. et al. 2001 MNRAS 326, 745
965: \bibitem[Marquez et al. 2001]{marquez01} Marquez I., Petitjean P., Théodore B., Bremer M., Monnet G., Beuzit J.-L. 2001 AA 371 97
966: \bibitem[McLure \& Dunlop 2001]{mclure01} McLure R.J., Dunlop J.S., 2001, MNRAS, 327, 199
967: \bibitem[McCarthy et al. 2004]{mccarthy04} Mc Carthy T.J. et al. 2004 ApJ 614 L9
968: %\bibitem[McLeod \& Rieke 1994]{mcleod94} McLeod, K.K., Rieke, G.H., 1994, ApJ, 431, 137
969: %\bibitem [Pahre et al. 1998]{pahre98} Pahre, M. A. Djorgovski, S. G. de Carvalho, R. R. 1998 ApJ 116 1591
970: \bibitem[Merloni et al 2006]{merloni06} Merloni, A. Rudnick G., Di Matteo T.
971: 2006 astro-ph/0602530.
972: \bibitem[Nolan et al. 2001]{nolan01} Nolan et al. 2001 MNRAS 323, 308
973: \bibitem[Pagani et al. 2003]{pagani03} Pagani, C., Falomo, R., Treves, A., 2003, ApJ 596, 830
974: \bibitem[Papovich et al 2006]{papovich06} Papovich C. et al 2006 ApJ 640, 92.
975: \bibitem[Peng et al. 2006]{peng06} Peng C.Y. et al 2006 ApJ 649 616
976: \bibitem[Pentericci et al 2001]{pentericci01} Pentericci L.,
977: McCarthy P.J., Roettgering H.J.A, Miley G.K., van Breugel W.J.M., Fosbury R.
978: 2001 ApJS 135 63
979: \bibitem[Perlmann et al. 1998]{perlmann98} Perlmann E., Padovani, P. Giommi P. et al. 1998AJ 115 125.
980: \bibitem[Poggianti 1997]{poggianti97}Poggianti, B.M., 1997, A\&AS, 122, 399
981: %\bibitem[Rousset et al. 2002]{rousset02} Rousset, G., Lacombe, F., Puget, P., Gendron, E., Arsenault, R., et al., 2000,
982: Proc. SPIE, 4007, 72
983: \bibitem[Rousset et al. 2003]{rousset03} Rousset, G., Lacombe, F., Puget, P., Gendron, E., Arsenault, R., et al., 2003,
984: Proc. SPIE, 4839, 140
985: %\bibitem[Saracco et al. 2005]{saracco05} Saracco P. et al. 2005 MNRAS 357 L40
986: %\bibitem[Savage et al 1984] {savage84} Savage A., Trew A.S., Chen J., Weston T. 1984 MNRAS. 207 393
987: %\bibitem[Scarpa et al. 2005]{scarpa05} Scarpa, R. Falomo, R., Treves, A. The Messenger
988: \bibitem[Schneider et al. 2003]{schneider03} Schneider D.P. Fan X., Hall P.B., Jester S.,
989: Richards G.T., Stoughton C., Strauss M.A., Subbarao M., Vanden Berk D.E., Anderson S.F., et al. 2003, AJ, 126, 2579
990: %\bibitem [Taylor et al.( 996]{taylor96} Taylor, G.L., Dunlop, J.S., Hughes, D.H., Robson, E.I. 1996, MNRAS, 283, 930
991: \bibitem[Schramm et al 2007]{schramm07} Schramm M. Wisotzki L. Jahnke K. 2007 astroph/0709.2568
992: \bibitem[Smith \& Heckman 1989]{sh89} Smith, E.P.\& Heckman, T.M., 1989,
993: ApJ, 341, 658
994: \bibitem[Tristram and Prieto 2005]{tristram05} Tristram, Konrad R. W.; Prieto, M. Almudena 2005: Science with Adaptive Optics
995: Proceedings of the ESO Workshop Held at Garching, Germany, 16-19, Springer-Verlag Berlin/Heidelberg
996: \bibitem[Treu et al 2007]{treu07} Treu, T., Woo, J-H, Malkan, M. A.,
997: Blandford, R. D. astro-ph/0706.0519
998: \bibitem[Uslenghi \& Falomo 2007]{uslenghi07} Uslenghi M. \& Falomo, R. 2007, Proc. Erice Apr 2007 in press.
999: \bibitem[Uslenghi \& Falomo 2007]{uslenghi07b} Uslenghi M. \& Falomo, R. 2007, in preparation
1000: %\bibitem[Veron-Cetty \& Veron 2003]{veron03} Veron-Cetty M.P., Veron P. 2003, A\&A, 412, 399
1001: \bibitem[Veron-Cetty \& Veron 2006]{veron06} Veron-Cetty M.P., Veron P. 2006, A\&A, 455, 773
1002: \bibitem[Willott McLure \& Jarvis 2003]{willott03}
1003: Willott C.J., Rawlings, S., Jarvis M.J. \& Blundell, K. M. 2003 MNRAS 339 173
1004:
1005:
1006:
1007:
1008: %\bibitem[Winn et al 2003]{winn03} Winn, J.N., et al. 2003, ApJ 697, 672.
1009: %\bibitem[Willott]{willott03} WWWW
1010: %\bibitem[Zirm et al 2003]{zirm03} Zirm et al 2003 ApJ 585, 90
1011: \bibitem[Zirm et al 2007]{zirm07}Zirm et al 2007 ApJ 656 6
1012: \end{thebibliography}{}
1013:
1014: \end{document}
1015:
1016:
1017: %------------------------------------------------COPY and MORE -----------------
1018:
1019: