1: \documentclass[useAMS,usenatbib]{mn2e}
2: \usepackage{epsfig}
3: \bibliographystyle{mn2e}
4: \citestyle{mn2e}
5: \input{macro1}
6:
7: \topmargin -2.0cm
8:
9: %%%%%%%%%%%
10: \title[Clustering of star-forming galaxies]
11: {Interaction-induced star formation in a complete sample of
12: $10^5$ nearby star-forming galaxies}
13: \author[Li et al.]
14: {Cheng Li$^{1,2}$\thanks{E-mail: leech@mpa-garching.mpg.de},
15: Guinevere Kauffmann$^{2}$,
16: Timothy M. Heckman$^{3}$,
17: Y. P. Jing$^{1}$,
18: \newauthor Simon D. M. White$^{2}$
19: \\
20: ${^1}$ MPA/SHAO Joint Center for Astrophysical Cosmology
21: at Shanghai Astronomical Observatory,
22: Nandan Road 80, Shanghai 200030, China \\
23: ${^2}$ Max Planck Institut f\"ur Astrophysik,
24: Karl-Schwarzschild-Strasse 1, 85748 Garching, Germany \\
25: ${^3}$ Department of Physics and Astronomy,
26: Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21218
27: }
28:
29:
30:
31: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
32: \begin{document}
33:
34: \graphicspath{{figs/}}
35:
36: \date{Accepted ........ Received ........; in original form ........}
37:
38: \pagerange{\pageref{firstpage}--\pageref{lastpage}} \pubyear{2007}
39:
40: \maketitle
41:
42: \label{firstpage}
43:
44:
45: \begin {abstract} We investigate the clustering properties of a
46: complete sample of $10^5$ star-forming galaxies drawn from the data
47: release 4 (DR4) of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. On scales less than
48: 100 kpc , the amplitude of the correlation function exhibits a strong
49: dependence on the specific star formation rate of the galaxy. We
50: interpret this as the signature of enhanced star formation induced by
51: tidal interactions. We then explore how the average star formation
52: rate in a galaxy is enhanced as the projected separation $r_p$ between
53: the galaxy and its companions decreases. We find that the enhancement
54: depends strongly on $r_p$, but very weakly on the relative luminosity
55: of the companions. The enhancement is also stronger in low mass
56: galaxies than in high mass galaxies. In order to explore whether a
57: tidal interaction is not only sufficient, but also necessary to
58: trigger enhanced star formation in a galaxy, we compute background
59: subtracted neighbour counts for the galaxies in our sample. The
60: average number of close neighbours around galaxies with low to average
61: values of SFR/$M_*$ is close to zero. At the highest specific star
62: formation rates, however, more than 40\% of the galaxies in our sample
63: have a companion within a projected radius of 100 kpc. Visual
64: inspection of the highest SFR/$M_*$ galaxies without companions
65: reveals that more than 50\% of these are clear interacting or merging
66: systems. We conclude that tidal interactions are the dominant trigger
67: of enhanced star formation in the most strongly star-forming systems.
68: Finally, we find clear evidence that tidal interactions not only lead
69: to enhanced star formation in galaxies, but also cause structural
70: changes such as an increase in concentration.
71:
72:
73: \end {abstract}
74:
75: \begin{keywords} galaxies: clustering - galaxies: distances and
76: redshifts - large-scale structure of Universe - cosmology: theory -
77: dark matter
78: \end{keywords}
79:
80: \section {Introduction}
81:
82: It has been known for more than thirty years that galaxy interactions
83: lead to enhanced star formation. \cite{Toomre-Toomre-72} pioneered
84: the use of numerical simulations to study the interactions of galaxies
85: and suggested that gas may be funnelled to the central regions of the
86: systems as a result of the strong tidal forces that operate during the
87: encounter. This gas is then able to fuel a burst of star formation.
88: Since then, there have been many studies, both observational and
89: theoretical, that have examined the relationship between star
90: formation and galaxy interactions.
91:
92: Most early observational studies adopted broad band colours
93: \citep[e.g.][]{Larson-Tinsley-78}, H$\alpha$ equivalent widths,
94: \citep[e.g.][]{Keel-85,Bushouse-86,Kennicutt-87}, far-infrared
95: luminosities \citep[e.g.][]{Bushouse-Werner-Lamb-88}, or molecular
96: (CO) emission \citep{Young-86, Sanders-86, Solomon-Sage-88, Tinney-90,
97: Young-96} as indicators of star formation. These studies all
98: demonstrated that galaxy interactions are statistically linked to
99: enhanced rates of star formation \citep[see the review
100: of][]{Keel-91,Struck-99}.
101:
102: Recent studies of star formation in interacting galaxies have been
103: based on redshift surveys such as the Center for Astrophysics redshift
104: survey
105: \citep[CfA2;][]{Barton-Geller-Kenyon-00,Woods-Geller-Barton-06}, the
106: Two Degree Field Redshift Survey \citep[2dFGRS;][]{Lambas-03}, and the
107: Sloan Digital Sky Survey
108: \citep[SDSS;][]{Nikolic-Cullen-Alexander-04,Woods-Geller-07,Ellison-08}.
109: These studies have also provided observational evidence that star
110: formation is enhanced as a consequence of tidal interactions. Most of
111: these studies have also demonstrated that the degree of enhancement is
112: a strong function of the projected separation between the two galaxies
113: as well as their difference in redshift. In addition, some studies
114: investigated how galaxy properties such as concentration
115: \citep{Nikolic-Cullen-Alexander-04}, luminosity ratio
116: \citep{Woods-Geller-Barton-06,Woods-Geller-07}, stellar mass ratio
117: \citep{Ellison-08}, colour, and AGN activity \citep{Woods-Geller-07}
118: depend on separation.
119:
120: Although most studies have supported the picture that interactions
121: induce star formation, there have been number of dissenting papers.
122: For example, \citet{Bergvall-Laurikainen-Aalto-03} analyzed
123: optical/near-IR observations of a sample of 59 interacting/merging
124: systems and concluded that they do not differ very much from isolated
125: galaxies in terms of their global star formation rates.
126: \citet{Brosch-Almoznino-Heller-04} found that interaction-induced star
127: formation is not significant for dwarf galaxies. A more recent study
128: by \citet{Smith-07} analyzed Spitzer mid-infrared (MIR) imaging of a
129: sample of 35 interacting galaxy pairs selected from the Arp Atlas
130: \citep{Arp-66}. They compared the global MIR properties of these
131: systems with those of normal spiral galaxies. The MIR colors of
132: interacting galaxies were found to be redder than normal spirals,
133: implying enhancements to the specific SFRs of a factor of $\sim$2.
134: However, in contrast to results from previous investigations, they did
135: not find any evidence that the enhancement depended on
136: separation. This may be due to the small size of their sample and fact
137: that the galaxies were selected to be tidally disturbed
138: \citep{Smith-07}.
139:
140: On the theoretical side, $N$-body simulations that treat the
141: hydrodynamics of the gas \citep{Negroponte-White-83,
142: Barnes-Hernquist-92, Mihos-Hernquist-96, Springel-00, Tissera-02,
143: Meza-03, Kapferer-05, Cox-06} have demonstrated that interactions
144: between galaxies can bring gas from the disc to the central regions of
145: the galaxy, leading to enhanced star formation in the bulge.
146: Recently, \citet{DiMatteo-07} investigated star formation in a suite
147: of several hundred numerical simulations of interacting galaxies with
148: different gas fractions, bulge-to-disk ratios and orbital parameters.
149: Their work confirmed that galaxy interactions and mergers can trigger
150: strong nuclear starbursts. However, the authors pointed out that this
151: is not always the case, because strong tidal interactions at the first
152: pericenter passage can remove a large amount of gas from the galaxy
153: disks, and this gas is only partially re-acquired by the galaxies in
154: the last phase of the merging event.
155:
156: In summary, although it is now well established that
157: interactions/mergers between galaxies {\em can} enhance star
158: formation, a number of important questions remain to be answered:
159: \begin{itemize}
160: \item Are interactions not only sufficient but also necessary to
161: enhance star formation?
162: \item Do interactions {\em always} trigger enhanced star formation?
163: \item How does the enhancement in star formation depend on parameters
164: such as the separation between the two galaxies and their mass ratio?
165: Does the enhancement also depend on properties such as stellar mass or
166: galaxy morphology?
167: \end{itemize}
168:
169: To answer these questions, we adopt three different methods to analyse
170: a sample of $\sim10^5$ star-forming galaxies selected from the Data
171: Release 4 (DR4) of the SDSS. First, we compute the cross-correlation
172: between star-forming galaxies and a reference sample of galaxies drawn
173: from the DR4. In the standard model of structure formation, the
174: amplitude of the correlation function on scales larger than a few Mpc
175: provides a direct measure of the mass of the dark matter haloes that
176: host the galaxies. As we will show, the amplitude of the correlation
177: function on scales less than $\sim 100$ kpc can serve as a probe of
178: physical processes such as mergers and interactions. We then compute
179: the average enhancement in star formation as a function of the
180: projected separation between two galaxies and we explore how the
181: enhancement depends on galaxy properties such as stellar mass and
182: concentration index. Finally, we compute counts around our galaxies
183: as a function of separation and explore how this changes as a function
184: of the specific star formation rate SFR/$M_*$. This allows us to
185: investigate whether the majority of galaxies with specific star
186: formation rates above some critical threshold are experiencing
187: merger-induced starbursts. In a separate paper, we explore whether
188: AGN activity is also triggered by tidal interactions using the same
189: set of analysis techniques.
190:
191: Throughout this paper, We assume a cosmological model with the density
192: parameter $\Omega_0=0.3$ and a cosmological constant $\Lambda_0=0.7$.
193: To avoid the $-5\log_{10}h$ factor, a Hubble constant $h=1$, in units
194: of $100\kms{\rm Mpc}^{-1}$, is assumed throughout this paper when
195: computing absolute magnitudes.
196:
197: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
198: \section{Samples}
199:
200: \subsection {The SDSS Spectroscopic Sample}
201:
202: The data analyzed in this study are drawn from the Sloan Digital Sky
203: Survey (SDSS). The survey goals are to obtain photometry of a quarter
204: of the sky and spectra of nearly one million objects. Imaging is
205: obtained in the {\em u, g, r, i, z} bands
206: \citep{Fukugita-96,Smith-02,Ivezic-04} with a special purpose drift
207: scan camera \citep{Gunn-98} mounted on the SDSS 2.5~meter telescope
208: \citep{Gunn-06} at Apache Point Observatory. The imaging data are
209: photometrically \citep{Hogg-01,Tucker-06} and astrometrically
210: \citep{Pier-03} calibrated, and used to select stars, galaxies, and
211: quasars for follow-up fibre spectroscopy. Spectroscopic fibres are
212: assigned to objects on the sky using an efficient tiling algorithm
213: designed to optimize completeness \citep{Blanton-03}. The details of
214: the survey strategy can be found in \citet{York-00} and an overview of
215: the data pipelines and products is provided in the Early Data Release
216: paper \citep{Stoughton-02}. More details on the photometric pipeline
217: can be found in \citet{Lupton-01}.
218:
219: Our parent sample for this study is composed of 397,344 objects which
220: have been spectroscopically confirmed as galaxies and have data
221: publicly available in the SDSS Data Release~4
222: \citep{Adelman-McCarthy-06}. These galaxies are part of the SDSS
223: `main' galaxy sample used for large scale structure studies
224: \citep{Strauss-02} and have Petrosian $r$ magnitudes in the range
225: $14.5 < r < 17.77$ after correction for foreground galactic extinction
226: using the reddening maps of \citet{Schlegel-Finkbeiner-Davis-98}.
227: Their redshift distribution extends from $\sim0.005$ to 0.30, with a
228: median $z$ of 0.10.
229:
230: The SDSS spectra are obtained with two 320-fibre spectrographs mounted
231: on the SDSS 2.5-meter telescope. Fibers 3 arcsec in diameter are
232: manually plugged into custom-drilled aluminum plates mounted at the
233: focal plane of the telescope. The spectra are exposed for 45 minutes
234: or until a fiducial signal-to-noise (S/N) is reached. The median S/N
235: per pixel for galaxies in the main sample is $\sim14$. The spectra
236: are processed by an automated pipeline, which flux and wavelength
237: calibrates the data from 3800 to 9200~\AA. The instrumental
238: resolution is R~$\equiv \lambda/\delta\lambda$ = 1850 -- 2200
239: (FWHM$\sim2.4$~\AA\ at 5000~\AA).
240:
241: \subsection{Star-forming galaxies}
242:
243: Our sample of star-forming galaxies is drawn from the DR4
244: spectroscopic sample using the criteria described in
245: \citet{Brinchmann-04}. In order for a galaxy to be securely classified
246: as star-forming, we require that the four emission lines [OIII],
247: H$\beta$, H$\alpha$ and [NII] all be detected with signal-to-noise
248: greater than 3 and that the ratios [OIII]/H$\beta$ and [NII]/H$\alpha$
249: have values that place them within the region of the
250: \citet[][BPT]{Baldwin-Phillips-Terlevich-81} diagram occupied by
251: galaxies in which the primary source of ionizing photons is from HII
252: regions rather than an AGN. We refer to this sample as the high S/N
253: star-forming class. In certain cases, we supplement the sample with
254: the low S/N star-forming class defined by Brinchmann et al. These are
255: the galaxies that are left over after all the AGN and high S/N
256: star-forming galaxies have been removed, and they have S/N $>2$ in
257: H$\alpha$. Star formation rates can still be estimated from their
258: emission line strengths, but the errors on these estimates will be
259: significantly larger than for the high S/N sample.
260:
261: The reader is referred to \citet{Brinchmann-04} for a detailed
262: description of how star formation rates are derived for the various
263: samples. We will be making use of the specific star formation rate
264: $SFR/M_*$ estimated within the 3 arsecond SDSS fibre aperture. These
265: star formation rates are more accurate than the total star formation
266: rates derived by Brinchmann et al, because they depend only on the
267: emission line fluxes measured from the spectra and they do not involve
268: any uncertain colour corrections. The disadvantage of the fibre-based
269: specific star formation rates is that they are only sensitive to the
270: emission from the inner region of the galaxy, which includes one third
271: of the total light on average.
272:
273: \subsection{Reference Samples}
274:
275: We work with two different reference samples: (i) a {\em
276: spectroscopic} reference sample, which is used to compute the
277: projected cross-correlation function $w_p(r_p)$ between star-forming
278: galaxies and reference galaxies, and (ii) a {\em photometric}
279: reference sample, which is used to calculate counts of close
280: neighbours around star-forming galaxies. We use the New York
281: University Value Added Galaxy Catalogue (NYU-VAGC) to construct the
282: reference samples. The original NYU-VAGC is a catalogue of local
283: galaxies (mostly below $z\approx 0.3$) constructed by
284: \cite{Blanton-05} based on the SDSS DR2. Here, we use a new version of
285: the NYU-VAGC ({\tt Sample dr4}), which is based on SDSS DR4. The
286: NYU-VAGC is described in detail in \cite{Blanton-05}.
287:
288: The reference samples are exactly the same as used in \cite{Li-06b}.
289: In short, the spectroscopic reference sample is constructed by
290: selecting from {\tt Sample dr4} all galaxies with $14.5 < r < 17.6 $
291: that are identified as galaxies from the Main sample, in the redshift
292: range $0.01\leq z\leq0.3$, and with absolute magnitudes
293: $-23<M_{^{0.1}r}<-17$. The spectroscopic reference sample contains
294: 292,782 galaxies. The photometric reference sample is also
295: constructed from {\tt Sample dr4} by selecting all galaxies with
296: $14.5<r<19$. The resulting sample includes 1,065,183 galaxies. In
297: certain cases, we will work with photometric reference samples with a
298: range of differing limiting magnitudes.
299:
300:
301: \section{Cross-correlation functions}
302:
303: \begin{figure}
304: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f1.ps,clip=true,width=0.5\textwidth}}
305: \caption{Projected redshift-space 2-point cross-correlation function
306: $w_p(r_p)$ between star-forming galaxies and the reference galaxy
307: sample. Different lines correspond to star-forming galaxies with
308: different specific star formation rates. See the text for a detailed
309: description.}
310: \label{fig:wrp}
311: \end{figure}
312:
313: \begin{figure*}
314: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f2.ps,clip=true,width=\textwidth}}
315: \caption{Similar to Figure~1, but in different intervals of stellar
316: mass as indicated at the top of the figure. The symbols are the same
317: as in Figure~\ref{fig:wrp}, except that a power law corresponding to
318: $\xi(r)=(r/5h^{-1}Mpc)^{-1.8}$ is additionally plotted in each panel
319: as a long-dashed line.}
320: \label{fig:wrp_smass}
321: \end{figure*}
322:
323: \begin{figure*}
324: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f3.ps,clip=true,width=\textwidth}}
325: \caption{Same as Figure~\ref{fig:wrp_smass}, except that the three
326: $SFR/M_\ast$ samples in each panel are matched in concentration.}
327: \label{fig:wrp_smass_c}
328: \end{figure*}
329:
330: \begin{figure*}
331: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f4.ps,clip=true,width=\textwidth}}
332: \caption{The projected 2PCCF $w_p(r_p)$ normalized by the power law
333: corresponding to a real-space 2PCF of $\xi(r)=(r/5h^{-1}Mpc)^{-1.8}$,
334: as measured at different physical scales and as a function of
335: $SFR/M_\ast$. Dashed lines are for high S/N star-forming galaxies
336: only, while solid lines show results for the sample including both
337: high and low S/N star-forming galaxies.}
338: \label{fig:wrp_sfr}
339: \end{figure*}
340:
341: Our methodology for computing correlation functions has been described
342: in detail in our previous papers \citep{Li-06a,Li-06b}. We present
343: here a brief description and the reader is referred to the earlier
344: papers for details. Random samples are constructed that have the same
345: selection function as the reference sample. The redshift-space
346: two-point cross-correlation function (2PCCF) $\xi(r_p,\pi)$ between
347: star-forming galaxies and the reference sample is then calculated
348: using the estimator presented in \citet{Li-06b}. Finally, the
349: redshift-space projected 2PCCF $w_p(r_p)$ is estimated by integrating
350: $\xi(r_p,\pi)$ along the line-of-sight direction $\pi$ with $|\pi|$
351: ranging from 0 to 40 $h^{-1}Mpc$. We have also corrected carefully
352: for the effect of fibre collisions and a description and tests of the
353: method are given in \citet{Li-06b}. The errors on the clustering
354: measurements are estimated using the bootstrap resampling technique
355: \citep{Barrow-Bhavsar-Sonoda-84}.
356:
357: We first compute $w_p(r_p)$ for our sample of high S/N star-forming
358: galaxies from the SDSS DR4. In order to study how this depends on star
359: formation rate (SFR), we rank all the high S/N star-forming galaxies
360: according to the values of their specific star formation rates (SSFR),
361: $SFR/M_\ast$, and define subsamples of 'high SSFR' and 'low SSFR'
362: galaxies as those contained within the upper and lower 25th
363: percentiles of the distribution of this quantity. The results are
364: shown in Figure~\ref{fig:wrp}. The dashed (dotted) line corresponds
365: to the high (low) SSFR subsample, while the solid line shows the
366: result for the sample as a whole.
367:
368: Figure~\ref{fig:wrp} shows that galaxies with higher $SFR/M_\ast$ have
369: stronger clustering on scales smaller than 0.1 Mpc and the effect
370: becomes stronger at smaller projected separations. As pointed out by
371: \citet{Li-06b}, the clustering amplitude of galaxies depends on a
372: variety of galaxy properties, including stellar mass and galaxy
373: structure. If we wish to isolate the effect of the specific star
374: formation rate, it is important that we make sure that the galaxy
375: samples that we study are closely matched in terms of other
376: properties, so that the effect on the star formation rate can be
377: isolated. We have thus divided all the high S/N star-forming galaxies
378: into four subsamples according to $\log_{10}(M_\ast/M_\odot)$. For
379: each subsample we repeat the clustering analysis as above. The
380: results are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:wrp_smass}. The four panels
381: correspond to different intervals of $\log_{10}(M_\ast/M_\odot)$. To
382: guide the eye, a power law corresponding to a real-space 2PCF of
383: $\xi(r)=(r/5h^{-1}Mpc)^{-1.8}$ is plotted as a long-dashed line in
384: each panel. We see that the amplitude of $w_p(r_p)$ increases for
385: galaxies with larger stellar masses. This is consistent with our
386: previous findings about the mass dependence of galaxy clustering. We
387: also see that the difference in clustering between galaxies with high
388: and low SFR/$M_*$ on scales smaller than 0.1 Mpc is most pronounced in
389: the lowest stellar mass interval. Next, in each of the four $M_\ast$
390: intervals, we match the three $SFR/M_\ast$ samples in concentration
391: parameter $C$ by requiring that the distribution of $C$ is exactly the
392: same as in each of these samples. The $w_p(r_p)$ measurements for such
393: matched samples are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:wrp_smass_c}. The
394: results are very similar to those shown in the previous figure.
395:
396: We conclude that the small scale clustering dependences shown in
397: Figure~\ref{fig:wrp} are genuinely related to the differing specific
398: star formation rates of the galaxies in the different
399: samples. Galaxies with the highest specific star formation rates
400: apparently have an excess of companions on scales less than 100 kpc
401: when compared to the average star-forming galaxy. The fact that the
402: increase in clustering occurs only on very small scales suggests that
403: the excess star formation is being triggered by {\em tidal
404: interactions} with these companions. Another intriguing result shown
405: in these figures is that galaxies with low $SFR/M_\ast$ are {\em less
406: clustered} on small scales. This suggests that there might be a {\em
407: continuous} trend linking average number of close neighbours and
408: $SFR/M_\ast$.
409:
410: To investigate this in more detail, we calculate how the clustering
411: amplitude depends on $SFR/M_\ast$ at a variety of different physical
412: scales. The results are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:wrp_sfr} (red dashed
413: lines). One problem with the high S/N star-forming sample is that it
414: does not extend to $SFR/M_\ast$ values much below $\sim -10.5$. To
415: extend our analysis to lower values, we include the sample of {\em low
416: S/N} star-forming galaxies defined by \citet{Brinchmann-04}. As
417: discussed in section 2.2, the star formation rates in these galaxies
418: are estimated from the H$\alpha$ line luminosity, but the dust
419: correction is quite uncertain because H$\beta$ is not usually detected
420: with high S/N. Results where the low S/N star-forming galaxies have
421: been included are plotted as black solid lines in
422: Figure~\ref{fig:wrp_sfr}. As can be seen, $\log SFR/M_*$ extends down
423: to values around $\sim -11$ for this sample.
424:
425: On scales larger than 100 kpc, there is very little dependence of
426: clustering amplitude on specific star formation rate for $\log SFR/M_*
427: > -10$. At lower values of $SFR/M_*$, the clustering amplitude
428: increases. This is a manifestation of the strong relation between
429: star formation and local density or environment. It is well-known
430: that galaxies located in dense, massive structures such as clusters
431: have lower specific star formation rates than ``field'' galaxies
432: \citep[e.g.][]{Kauffmann-04}. It is currently accepted that after a
433: galaxy is accreted onto a larger structure, such as a group or
434: cluster, its star formation rate will decline, either because its gas
435: is removed by processes such as ram-pressure stripping, or simply
436: because no further gas accretion takes place and the galaxy runs out
437: of the fuel to make new stars.
438:
439: On scales less than 100 kpc, the dependence of clustering amplitude on
440: specific star formation rate is more complicated. At values of $\log
441: SFR/M_*$ less than -10, we see the same increase in clustering
442: amplitude that we saw on larger scales. This may appear somewhat
443: surprising at first. In a recent paper, however, \citet{Barton-07} use
444: cosmological simulations to show that a substantial fraction of
445: galaxies selected as ``close pairs'' from surveys such as SDSS or 2DF,
446: do in fact reside in very massive dark matter halos. Based on this
447: work, we conjecture that the rise in clustering amplitude seen at all
448: separations at low values of SFR/$M_*$ rate is the result of star
449: formation shutting down in galaxy groups and clusters. At values of
450: $\log SFR/M_*$ greater than -10 and at separations less than $\sim 50$
451: kpc, the clustering amplitude shows a strong and continuous {\em
452: increase} towards larger values of $SFR/M_*$. This is a clear signal
453: that mergers or interactions play an important role in triggering {\em
454: enhanced} star formation in galaxies.
455:
456: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
457: \section{Star formation enhancement functions}
458: \label{sec:enhancement}
459:
460: \begin{figure*}
461: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f5.ps,clip=true,width=\textwidth}}
462: \caption{Star formation enhancement as a function of the projected
463: separation $r_p$ (top panels) and as a function of the scaled
464: separation $r_p/R_{90}$ (bottom panels), for all the high S/N star
465: forming galaxies (left panels) and for galaxies in different stellar
466: mass ranges (right panels). All the errors are estimated using the
467: Bootstrap resampling technique. The dashed lines in each panel
468: indicate the variance between 10 realizations in which the sky
469: positions of the star-forming galaxies are randomized. See the text
470: for details.}
471: \label{fig:sfef}
472: \end{figure*}
473:
474: \begin{figure*}
475: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f6.ps,clip=true,width=\textwidth}}
476: \caption{Star formation enhancement as a function of projected
477: separation $r_p$ (top panels) and as a function of the scaled
478: separation $r_p/R_{90}$ (bottom panels). In the left-hand panels,
479: different symbols connected by solid lines correspond to reference
480: samples with different limiting magnitudes (as indicated), while the
481: magnitude of star-forming samples is kept constant at
482: $r_{SFG}=17.6$. In the right-hand panels, the reference sample is
483: always limited at $r_{pho}=19.5$ but the magnitude limit of the
484: star-forming sample is changed (as indicated). All the errors are
485: estimated using the Bootstrap resampling technique. The dashed lines
486: in each panel indicate the variance between 10 realizations in which
487: the sky positions of the star-forming galaxies are randomized. See
488: the text for details. }
489: \label{fig:sfef_fainter}
490: \end{figure*}
491:
492: In this section, we probe the relationship between star formation and
493: galaxy interactions by quantifying the enhancement in star formation as
494: a function of the projected separation between two galaxies. We also
495: study how the enhancement depends on the physical properties of the
496: main galaxy. We compute how the average value of $SFR/M_\ast$ changes
497: as a function of the projected distance to the neighbours. From now
498: on, we restrict our attention to the sample of high $S/N$ star-forming
499: galaxies. These lie in low density environments where processes such
500: as ram-pressure stripping, gas starvation etc should play a much less
501: important role (see Figure 4).
502:
503: The neighbours of a galaxy are identified using the photometric
504: reference sample. The advantage of using the photometric sample is
505: that the result is not affected by incompleteness (e.g. the effect of
506: fibre collisions). However, the disadvantage is that some fraction of
507: the close neighbours will not be true nearby systems, but rather
508: chance projections of foreground and background galaxies that lie
509: along the line-of-sight. We correct for this as follows: We count the
510: number of companions in the photometric reference sample at a
511: projected physical distance $r_p$ for each galaxy with a high S/N
512: measure of the specific star formation rate $\log(SFR/M_\ast)$. We
513: also generate 10 random samples that have the same geometry as the
514: photometric reference sample by randomizing the sky position of the
515: photometric objects and keeping all the other quantities (e.g. the
516: magnitudes) fixed. We use these random catalogues to estimate the mean
517: number of projected companions expected at random around each galaxy.
518: The true number of companions at separation $r_p$ is given by the
519: difference between the observed and the projected random companion
520: count. We then calculate a weighted average specific star formation
521: rate at projected distance $r_p$ by weighting each galaxy by its true
522: companion number. The enhancement in $\log(SFR/M_\ast$), $E_X(r_p)$,
523: is defined as the difference between the weighted average and the
524: unweighted one. This can be written as
525: \begin{equation}
526: E_X(r_p) = \frac{\sum_i^NX_i[n_{o,i}(r_p)-n_{p,i}(r_p)]}
527: {\sum_i^N[n_{o,i}(r_p)-n_{p,i}(r_p)]}-\frac{\sum_i^NX_i}{N},
528: \end{equation} where $X_i=\log(SFR_i/M_{\ast,i})$ is the specific star
529: formation rate of the i'th galaxy, and $n_{o,i}$ and $n_{p,i}$ are the
530: observed and projected random companion counts as described above.
531:
532: We first consider all high S/N star-forming galaxies with $r$-band
533: apparent magnitude in the range $14.5<r<17.6$. To begin, we restrict
534: the photometric reference sample to galaxies with $r$-band magnitudes
535: $r<19.0$. In order to ensure that we are finding similar neighbours at
536: all redshifts, we only consider neighbouring galaxies that are
537: brighter than $r_{SFG}+1.4$ mag. The result is shown in
538: Figure~\ref{fig:sfef}. The errors are estimated using Bootstrap
539: resampling techniques. The dashed lines indicate the variance between
540: 10 samples in which we randomize the sky positions of the star-forming
541: galaxies.
542:
543: \begin{figure*}
544: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f7.ps,clip=true,width=\textwidth}}
545: \caption{The same as the bottom-left panel of
546: Figure~\ref{fig:sfef_fainter}, but for the low mass (the left-hand
547: panel) and the high mass (the right-hand panel) subsamples separately.
548: To guide the eye, the result for the whole sample in case of
549: $r_{SFG}<17.6$ and $r_{pho}<19.0$ is plotted as solid black circles in
550: every panel. }
551: \label{fig:sfef_smass_fainter}
552: \end{figure*}
553:
554: \begin{figure*}
555: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f8.ps,clip=true,width=\textwidth}}
556: \caption{Similar to the previous plot but for star-forming galaxies
557: with different concentration indices, as indicated above each panel,
558: and for the case of $r_{SFG}<17.6$ and $r_{pho}<19.5$ only. The blue
559: triangles are for the concentration subsamples and the black solid
560: circles are for the whole sample.}
561: \label{fig:sfef_c}
562: \end{figure*}
563:
564:
565: The top left panel of Figure~\ref{fig:sfef} gives the result for the
566: sample as a whole. On scales larger than a Mpc or so $E_X$ is constant
567: at a slightly but significantly negative value. This is because the
568: average in equation 1 is pair-weighted, and galaxies in massive halos
569: have lower specific star formation rates than average, but more
570: "companions" at large $r_p$ than average as a result of large-scale
571: bias effects. On scales below about 100 kpc, $E_X$ increases sharply
572: and reaches values corresponding to a factor of about two at projected
573: separations less than 20 kpc. In the top right panel of
574: Figure~\ref{fig:sfef}, we plot results for galaxies divided into two
575: different ranges in stellar mass. These results show that there is a
576: strong dependence of star formation enhancement on galaxy mass, in
577: that star formation in small galaxies is more strongly enhanced at a
578: given projected separation.
579:
580: In the bottom panels, we scale the projected separation $r_p$ by the
581: physical size of the galaxy. We use $R_{90}$, the radius containing
582: 90\% of the total $r$-band light, to calculate a {\em scaled}
583: projected separation and recompute the enhancement function as a
584: function of this scaled quantity. One can see that the results are
585: quite similar. Star formation is enhanced at separations less than
586: $\sim 10$ times the optical radius of the galaxy and the effect is
587: stronger for lower mass systems.
588:
589: We now investigate the importance of the relative mass of the
590: companion galaxy in determining the degree to which star formation is
591: enhanced in the primary galaxy by analyzing galaxy samples with
592: different limiting magnitudes. We first keep the magnitude limit of
593: star-forming sample constant at $r_{SFG}=17.6$, and explore what
594: happens if we change the limiting magnitude of the reference sample.
595: The results are plotted as circles for $r_{pho}<18.5$ and as triangles
596: for $r_{pho}<19.5$ in the left-hand panels of
597: Figure~\ref{fig:sfef_fainter}. The result shown in the previous
598: figure is plotted as squares. Next, we fix the limiting magnitude of
599: the reference sample at $r_{pho}=19.5$, but decrease the magnitude
600: limit of the star-forming sample. The maximum allowed difference in
601: magnitude between the star-forming galaxy and its companion is also
602: increased accordingly. Results are shown for $r_{SFG}<16.5, 17.0$ and
603: $17.6$. in the right-hand panels of Figure~\ref{fig:sfef_fainter}.
604:
605: \begin{figure}
606: \centerline{
607: \psfig{figure=f9.ps,clip=true,width=0.5\textwidth}}
608: \caption{Distribution of both high and low S/N star-forming galaxies
609: in the plane of stellar mass versus specific star formation rate,
610: coloured by concentration index $R90/R50$ measured in the $z$-band.
611: The color coding of $R90/R50$ is shown in the bar at the right-hand.}
612: \label{fig:con_contour}
613: \end{figure}
614:
615: We see from Figure~\ref{fig:sfef_fainter} that the star formation
616: enhancement depends very little on the mass ratio between the
617: star-forming galaxy and its companion. There are small changes in the
618: expected direction (i.e. there is slightly less enhancement for
619: companions with lower relative mass), but to first order the
620: enhancement function remains remarkably constant for different mass
621: ratios. In Figure~\ref{fig:sfef_smass_fainter}, we divide the
622: star-forming sample into two different stellar mass intervals and
623: explore if our results change. We find that the enhancement function
624: has very little dependence on the mass ratio of the companion for both
625: low mass and high mass star-forming galaxies.
626:
627: Finally, we investigate the enhancement function for galaxies with
628: different structural properties. We divide all the high S/N
629: star-forming galaxies into different intervals of concentration
630: parameter $C$ and repeat the analysis described above for each of
631: these subsamples. In Figure~\ref{fig:sfef_c}, we plot the results for
632: star-forming galaxies with $r_{SFG}<17.6$ and for reference galaxies
633: with $r_{pho}<19.5$. We see that the star formation
634: enhancement does depend on $C$, in that the galaxies with larger $C$
635: values are more strongly enhanced. One possible explanation for this
636: effect is that interaction-induced starbursts occur when gas flows
637: into the core of a galaxy, causing it to become more centrally
638: concentrated \citep{Sanders-Mirabel-96}.
639:
640: In Figure~\ref{fig:con_contour}, we investigate how the concentration
641: index of a star-forming galaxy depends on its location in the plane of
642: specific star formation rate versus stellar mass. We see that at
643: fixed stellar mass, the average concentration index is highest for
644: galaxies that are currently experiencing both higher-than-average and
645: lower-than-average rates of star formation. One interpretation of
646: this plot is that tidal interactions cause gas to flow from the disk
647: to the nucleus and this triggers a starburst at the centre of the
648: galaxy. The formation of new stars in the central regions causes the
649: concentration index to increase. The starburst is then followed by a
650: period of relative quiescence, which lasts until the galaxy is able to
651: accrete more gas into its disk. Formation of stars in the disk brings
652: the galaxy back into the "central plane" occupied by galaxies with
653: $\log SFR/M_* \sim -9.5$ in Figure~\ref{fig:con_contour}. In the
654: bottom-right corner of the plot, both stellar mass and concentration
655: are high, but the specific star formation rate is low. This is the
656: regime of early-type galaxies.
657:
658: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
659: \section{Close neighbour counts}
660:
661: \begin{figure*}
662: \centerline{
663: \psfig{figure=f10a.ps,clip=true,width=0.33\textwidth}
664: \psfig{figure=f10b.ps,clip=true,width=0.33\textwidth}
665: \psfig{figure=f10c.ps,clip=true,width=0.33\textwidth} }
666: \caption{Average counts of galaxies in the photometric sample (panels
667: from left to right: $r_{lim} < 18$, $19$, and $20$) within a given
668: projected radius $R_p$ from the star-forming galaxies. Different
669: symbols are for star-forming galaxies in different intervals of
670: specific star formation rate, as indicated.}
671: \label{fig:counts}
672: \end{figure*}
673:
674: In this section, we investigate whether tidal interactions are not
675: only a sufficient, but also a necessary condition for a galaxy to
676: experience enhanced star formation. We count the number of galaxies
677: in the photometric sample in the vicinity of the star-forming galaxies
678: and make a statistical correction for the effect of chance projections
679: by subtracting the average count around randomly placed galaxies.
680:
681: In Figure~\ref{fig:counts} we plot the average correlated neighbour
682: count (i.e. after statistical correction for uncorrelated projected
683: neighbours) within a given value of the projected radius
684: $R_p$. Results are shown for high S/N star-forming galaxies in
685: different intervals of specific star formation rate. We have trimmed
686: each subsample so that they each have the same distribution in
687: redshift and in stellar mass $M_*$. Panels from left to right
688: correspond to photometric reference samples that are limited at
689: $r=18.0, 19.0$ and $20.0$. The star-forming sample always has a
690: limiting magnitude of 17.6.
691:
692: \begin{figure}
693: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f11.ps,clip=true,width=0.5\textwidth}}
694: \caption{Same as the right-hand panel of Figure~\ref{fig:counts}, but
695: for 289 galaxies that have the highest specific star formation rates
696: ($\log_{10}(SFR/M_\ast)>-8.8$). Results are shown only for scales
697: below 100kpc.}
698: \label{fig:counts_highest_bin}
699: \end{figure}
700:
701: \begin{figure*}
702: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f12a.ps,clip=true,width=\textwidth}}
703: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f12b.ps,clip=true,width=\textwidth}}
704: \caption{SDSS optical image for 20 star-forming galaxies that are
705: included in the subsample of highest specific star formation
706: rate($\log_{10}(SFR/M_\ast)>-8.8$). Images are shown for 10 galaxies
707: that are classified as "mergers" (top panels) and for 10 galaxies that
708: are classified as "no mergers" (bottom panels).}
709: \label{fig:images}
710: \end{figure*}
711:
712: Figure~\ref{fig:counts} shows that the counts around the star-forming
713: galaxies with different specific star formation rates match well on
714: large scales. On scales smaller than $\sim 100$ kpc, there are strong
715: trends in the number of neighbours as a function of SFR/$M_*$;
716: galaxies with higher star formation rates are more likely to have a
717: near neighbour.
718:
719: It is interesting that the average number of close neighbours around
720: galaxies with low-to-average values of $SFR/M_\ast$ is close to zero
721: on scales less than 20-30 kpc. On scales less than 100 kpc, only
722: around 3\% of the galaxies in the lowest SFR/$M_*$ bin have a
723: companion. This implies that tidal interactions that do not result in
724: enhanced star formation are a rare occurrence. This is consistent
725: with the findings of \citet{DiMatteo-07} who find that about 85\% of
726: their simulated sample of interacting galaxies show an enhancement in
727: star formation by a factor $>$ 2. As the specific star formation rate
728: increases, the average number of close neighbours also rises. Fifteen
729: percent of galaxies in our highest SFR/$M_*$ bin have a companion
730: within 20-30 kpc and this rises to a value close to 30\% if we
731: consider companions within 100 kpc from the primary galaxy. In
732: Figure~\ref{fig:counts_highest_bin}, we show the result for 289
733: galaxies with the very highest specific star formation rates in our
734: sample. The fraction of galaxies that have a companion within 100 kpc
735: increases to values close to 40\%. However, it is still true that not
736: {\em every} star-bursting galaxy in our sample has a close companion.
737:
738: How can we explain those galaxies with very high $SFR/M_\ast$ but no
739: close neighbours? We have visually examined the SDSS $r$-band images
740: of 160 star-forming galaxies that are included in the highest
741: $SFR/M_\ast$ subsample but have no companions within 50 kpc. We
742: classified the systems according to whether or not they show clear
743: signs of mergers or interactions, including double nuclei and tidal
744: tails. Three of us (CL, GK and Roderik Overzier) did this
745: independently to make sure that we obtained the same answer. We find
746: that more than half of such galaxies show clear evidence of recent
747: mergers. In Figure~\ref{fig:images}, we show some examples of our
748: classifications. We thus conclude that, at least for galaxies with
749: very high $SFR/M_\ast$, interactions or mergers are the dominant
750: mechanism for triggering and enhancing their star formation.
751:
752: \section{Effect of rich environments}
753:
754: \begin{figure*}
755: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f13.ps,clip=true,width=\textwidth}}
756: \caption{Left: Ope circles show the fraction of star-forming galaxies
757: that have at least one companion in the photometric sample within a
758: given projected radius $R_p$. The solid line shows the result after
759: the number of companions is corrected using random samples. Right: the
760: fraction of "isolated" (red) and "non-isolated" (blue) paired
761: galaxies, classified according to whether they have companions in the
762: spectroscopic reference sample with the projected separation $r_p$ in
763: the range 100 $h^{-1}$kpc $< r_p < $ $R_p$ and velocity difference
764: smaller than 500 km s$^{-1}$. The parent sample of paired galaxies is
765: selected from all the high S/N star-forming galaxies by requring that
766: a paired galaxy has at least one companion within a projected radius
767: of 50 $h^{-1}$kpc in the photometric reference sample limited at
768: $r_{pho}=19.0$. Solid/dashed lines (open circles/squares) show results
769: obtained with the corrected (observed) companion numbers.}
770: \label{fig:pfraction}
771: \end{figure*}
772:
773: \begin{figure*}
774: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f14.ps,clip=true,width=\textwidth}}
775: \caption{Distribution of specific star formation rate for the "isolated"
776: (solid) and "non-isolated" (dashed) paired galaxies. In the right-hand panel,
777: the two samples are matched closly in stellar mass.}
778: \label{fig:sfr_hist}
779: \end{figure*}
780:
781:
782: Fig.~\ref{fig:sfef} (\S~\ref{sec:enhancement}) shows that the
783: enhancement in $\log(SFR/M_\ast)$ on large scales is not zero.
784: Rather, it is constant at a small but significantly negative value.
785: We have attributed this large-scale bias to the well-known
786: anti-correlation of the star formation rates in galaxies with the
787: richness of their local environment. The question then arises whether
788: the star formation enhancements that we compute may not be a true
789: reflection of the effect of galaxy-galaxy interactions, but may be
790: biased because some close pairs are not real interacting systems, but
791: are associated with group/cluster environments.
792:
793: In order to address this problem, we have selected a sample of 9052
794: paired galaxies from all the high S/N star-forming galaxies. A galaxy
795: is defined to be paired if it has at least one companion within a
796: projected radius of 50 $h^{-1}$kpc in the photometric reference sample
797: limited at $r_{pho}=19.0$. We use the the photometric sample rather
798: than the sepectroscopic one to select pairs, so that the resulting
799: sample is not biased to pairs with approximately equal masses. The
800: maximum pair separation is chosen to yield a sample in which the
801: contamination by chance projections is negligible. This is
802: demonstrated in the left-hand panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:pfraction}. The
803: fraction of star-forming galaxies that have at least one companion in
804: the photometric sample within a given projected radius $R_p$ is
805: plotted as a function of $R_p$ as open circles, and is compared to the
806: result (the solid line) after the number of companions is corrected
807: with the help of random samples (see \S~\ref{sec:enhancement} for
808: details). As can be seen, at separations smaller than 50 $h^{-1}$kpc,
809: the correction is negligible.
810:
811: Next, We classify the paired galaxies as either ``isolated'' or
812: ``non-isolated'' according to whether they have companions in the
813: spectroscopic reference sample with projected separation $r_p$ in the
814: range 100 $h^{-1}$kpc $< r_p < $ $R_p$ and velocity difference smaller
815: than 500 km s$^{-1}$. A galaxy is isolated if this ring-like region is
816: completely empty. In contrast, a non-isolated galaxy is required to
817: have at least one companion in the annulus that is brighter than that
818: galaxy in the $r$-band. The right-hand panel of
819: Fig.~\ref{fig:pfraction} shows how the fraction of these two types of
820: paired galaxies changes as the maximum separation $R_p$ increases. We
821: see that the sample is always dominated by isolated pairs. However,
822: even a small fraction of non-isolated galaxies may still change the
823: enhancement function significantly, because the quantities defined in
824: equation 1 are pair-weighted and galaxies in richer environment have
825: more companions. In the left-hand panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:sfr_hist} we
826: compare the distribution of specific star formation rates for the
827: isolated and the non-isolated samples. The right-hand panel shows the
828: results after the two samples are matched in stellar mass with each
829: other (This is important because massive galaxies are more clustered
830: than less massive galaxies \citep{Li-06a}). As can be seen, the
831: effect of a rich environment is quite small. The average specific
832: star formation rate of the isolated sample differs from that of the
833: non-isolated sample by $\la$ 0.03 dex only. This is consistent with
834: the findings of \citet{Balogh-04} who showed that the main effect of a
835: dense environment on large scales is that the {\em fraction} of
836: emission-line galaxies decreases, but that the distribution of
837: equivalent widths of H$\alpha$ among the star-forming population
838: remains virtually constant. Here we show that the same thing holds
839: for galaxies with close pairs. We thus conclude that the large-scale
840: environment does not affect the measured star formation enhancements
841: in our sample of high S/N star-forming galaxies on scales below 100
842: $h^{-1}$kpc.
843:
844: \section{Summary and Discussion}
845:
846: We find that the clustering amplitude of high S/N star-forming
847: galaxies depends strongly on the specific star formation rate on
848: scales less than 100 kpc. The clustering amplitude increases smoothly
849: as a function of SFR/$M_*$ and the increase in amplitude is largest at
850: the smallest projected separations. We interpret this behaviour as
851: the signature of tidal interactions, which lead to inflow of gas and
852: an enhancement in star formation in the two interacting galaxies. At
853: low values of SFR/$M_*$, the clustering amplitude again increases.
854: The increase occurs on {\em all scales} and probably reflects the fact
855: that star formation in galaxies switches off after they are accreted
856: onto larger structures such as groups and clusters.
857:
858: We have explored how the average star formation rates of galaxies are
859: enhanced as a function of the projected separation of their
860: companions. The enhancement is a strong function of separation,
861: increasing from zero at $r_p > 100 kpc$ to factors of 1.5-4 at
862: $r_p=20$ kpc. We find that the enhancement at given separation is
863: stronger for lower mass galaxies. Remarkably, we find that the
864: enhancement has almost no dependence on the relative luminosity of the
865: companions.
866:
867: The tidal force between two objects is expected to scale as $d^{-3}$
868: and $m/M$, where $d$ is the separation and $m/M$ is the mass ratio
869: between the two objects, so it is perhaps not surprising that we see
870: stronger star formation enhancement as a function of separation than
871: as a function of mass ratio. Nevertheless, in this study, we find
872: that the effect of a companion that is 3 magnitudes fainter than the
873: primary galaxy is very similar to that of a companion that is only a
874: factor of 3 less luminous than the primary. This is quite startling
875: and is worthy of further investigation.
876:
877: In order to explore whether tidal interactions are not only
878: sufficient, but also a necessary condition for enhanced star formation
879: in a galaxy, we have computed background subtracted neighbour counts
880: around the galaxies in our sample. We find that the average number of
881: galaxies around galaxies with low values of SFR/$M_*$ is very small.
882: At the very highest specific star formation rates, more than 40\% of
883: the galaxies in our sample have a companion within a projected radius
884: of 100 kpc. Visual inspection of the high SFR/$M_*$ galaxies without
885: companions reveals that more than 50\% of these are clear interacting
886: or merging systems. We thus conclude that tidal interactions are the
887: primary mechanism for inducing the highest rates of star formation in
888: galaxies in the local Universe.
889:
890: Finally, we find clear evidence that tidal interactions not only lead
891: to enhanced star formation, but also cause structural changes in
892: galaxies. Many of the most strongly star-forming galaxies in our
893: sample have concentration indices similar to those of normal
894: early-type galaxies. We note that the concentration index is measured
895: for the $r$-band light and not for the stellar mass, so more careful
896: analysis is needed before one can definitely conclude that the
897: interactions will result in the formation of a galaxy with a high
898: bulge mass fraction. Nevertheless, we conclude that our results are in
899: general accord with the theoretical picture first laid out by
900: \citet{Toomre-Toomre-72}, which showed that galaxy interactions can
901: lead to the growth of bulges and spheroids in galaxies.
902:
903: \section*{Acknowledgements}
904:
905: CL is supported by the Joint Postdoctoral Programme in Astrophysical
906: Cosmology of Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics and Shanghai
907: Astronomical Observatory. CL and YPJ are supported by NSFC (10533030,
908: 10643005, 10633020), by the Knowledge Innovation Program of CAS (No.
909: KJCX2-YW-T05), and by 973 Program (No.2007CB815402). We are grateful
910: to the referee for his/her comments which have helped to improve the paper,
911: and Roderik Overzier for visually examining and classifying the images
912: of our galaxies. CL, GK and SW would like to thank the hospitality
913: and stimulating atmosphere of the Aspen Center for Physics while this
914: work was being completed.
915:
916: Funding for the SDSS and SDSS-II has been provided by the Alfred P.
917: Sloan Foundation, the Participating Institutions, the National Science
918: Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy, the National Aeronautics
919: and Space Administration, the Japanese Monbukagakusho, the Max Planck
920: Society, and the Higher Education Funding Council for England. The
921: SDSS Web Site is http://www.sdss.org/. The SDSS is managed by the
922: Astrophysical Research Consortium for the Participating
923: Institutions. The Participating Institutions are the American Museum
924: of Natural History, Astrophysical Institute Potsdam, University of
925: Basel, Cambridge University, Case Western Reserve University,
926: University of Chicago, Drexel University, Fermilab, the Institute for
927: Advanced Study, the Japan Participation Group, Johns Hopkins
928: University, the Joint Institute for Nuclear Astrophysics, the Kavli
929: Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology, the Korean
930: Scientist Group, the Chinese Academy of Sciences (LAMOST), Los Alamos
931: National Laboratory, the Max-Planck-Institute for Astronomy (MPIA),
932: the Max-Planck-Institute for Astrophysics (MPA), New Mexico State
933: University, Ohio State University, University of Pittsburgh,
934: University of Portsmouth, Princeton University, the United States
935: Naval Observatory, and the University of Washington.
936:
937: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
938: \begin{thebibliography}{}
939:
940: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Adelman-McCarthy}, {Ag{\"u}eros},
941: {Allam}, {Anderson}, {Anderson}, {Annis}, {Bahcall}, {Baldry} \& {et
942: al.,}}{{Adelman-McCarthy} et~al.}{2006}]{Adelman-McCarthy-06}
943: {Adelman-McCarthy} J.~K., {Ag{\"u}eros} M.~A., {Allam} S.~S.,
944: {Anderson} K.~S.~J., {Anderson} S.~F., {Annis} J., {Bahcall} N.~A.,
945: {Baldry} I.~K., {et al.,} 2006, \apjs, 162, 38
946:
947: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Arp}}{{Arp}}{1966}]{Arp-66} {Arp}
948: H., 1966, {Atlas of peculiar galaxies}. Pasadena: California
949: Inst.~Technology, 1966
950:
951: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Baldwin}, {Phillips} \&
952: {Terlevich}}{{Baldwin} et~al.}{1981}]{Baldwin-Phillips-Terlevich-81}
953: {Baldwin} J.~A., {Phillips} M.~M., {Terlevich} R., 1981, \pasp, 93, 5
954:
955: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Balogh et al.}{2004}]{Balogh-04}
956: Balogh M., et al., 2004, MNRAS, 348, 1355
957:
958: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Barnes} \& {Hernquist}}{{Barnes} \&
959: {Hernquist}}{1992}]{Barnes-Hernquist-92} {Barnes} J.~E., {Hernquist}
960: L., 1992, \araa, 30, 705
961:
962: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Barrow}, {Bhavsar} \&
963: {Sonoda}}{{Barrow} et~al.}{1984}]{Barrow-Bhavsar-Sonoda-84} {Barrow}
964: J.~D., {Bhavsar} S.~P., {Sonoda} D.~H., 1984, \mnras, 210, 19P
965:
966: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Barton}, {Arnold}, {Zentner},
967: {Bullock} \& {Wechsler}}{{Barton} et~al.}{2007}]{Barton-07} {Barton}
968: E.~J., {Arnold} J.~A., {Zentner} A.~R., {Bullock} J.~S., {Wechsler}
969: R.~H., 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 708
970:
971: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Barton}, {Geller} \&
972: {Kenyon}}{{Barton} et~al.}{2000}]{Barton-Geller-Kenyon-00} {Barton}
973: E.~J., {Geller} M.~J., {Kenyon} S.~J., 2000, \apj, 530, 660
974:
975: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Bergvall}, {Laurikainen} \&
976: {Aalto}}{{Bergvall} et~al.}{2003}]{Bergvall-Laurikainen-Aalto-03}
977: {Bergvall} N., {Laurikainen} E., {Aalto} S., 2003, \aap, 405, 31
978:
979: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Blanton}, {Lin}, {Lupton}, {Maley},
980: {Young}, {Zehavi} \& {Loveday}}{{Blanton} et~al.}{2003}]{Blanton-03}
981: {Blanton} M.~R., {Lin} H., {Lupton} R.~H., {Maley} F.~M., {Young} N.,
982: {Zehavi} I., {Loveday} J., 2003, \aj, 125, 2276
983:
984: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Blanton}, {Schlegel}, {Strauss},
985: {Brinkmann}, {Finkbeiner}, {Fukugita}, {Gunn}, {Hogg} \& {et
986: al.,}}{{Blanton} et~al.}{2005}]{Blanton-05} {Blanton} M.~R.,
987: {Schlegel} D.~J., {Strauss} M.~A., {Brinkmann} J., {Finkbeiner} D.,
988: {Fukugita} M., {Gunn} J.~E., {Hogg} D.~W., {et al.,} 2005, \aj, 129,
989: 2562
990:
991: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Brinchmann}, {Charlot}, {White},
992: {Tremonti}, {Kauffmann}, {Heckman} \& {Brinkmann}}{{Brinchmann}
993: et~al.}{2004}]{Brinchmann-04} {Brinchmann} J., {Charlot} S., {White}
994: S.~D.~M., {Tremonti} C., {Kauffmann} G., {Heckman} T., {Brinkmann} J.,
995: 2004, \mnras, 351, 1151
996:
997: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Brosch}, {Almoznino} \&
998: {Heller}}{{Brosch} et~al.}{2004}]{Brosch-Almoznino-Heller-04} {Brosch}
999: N., {Almoznino} E., {Heller} A.~B., 2004, \mnras, 349, 357
1000:
1001: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Bushouse}}{{Bushouse}}{1986}]{Bushouse-86}
1002: {Bushouse} H.~A., 1986, \aj, 91, 255
1003:
1004: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Bushouse}, {Werner} \&
1005: {Lamb}}{{Bushouse} et~al.}{1988}]{Bushouse-Werner-Lamb-88} {Bushouse}
1006: H.~A., {Werner} M.~W., {Lamb} S.~A., 1988, \apj, 335, 74
1007:
1008: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Cox}, {Jonsson}, {Primack} \&
1009: {Somerville}}{{Cox} et~al.}{2006}]{Cox-06} {Cox} T.~J., {Jonsson} P.,
1010: {Primack} J.~R., {Somerville} R.~S., 2006, \mnras, 373, 1013
1011:
1012: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Di Matteo}, {Combes}, {Melchior} \&
1013: {Semelin}}{{Di Matteo} et~al.}{2007}]{DiMatteo-07} {Di Matteo} P.,
1014: {Combes} F., {Melchior} A.~., {Semelin} B., 2007, ArXiv Astrophysics
1015: e-prints
1016:
1017: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Ellison}, {Patton}, {Simard} \&
1018: {McConnachie}} {{Ellison} et~al.}{2008}]{Ellison-08} {Ellison} S.~L.,
1019: {Patton} D.~R., {Simard} L., {McConnachie} A.~W., 2008, submitted
1020:
1021: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Fukugita}, {Ichikawa}, {Gunn},
1022: {Doi}, {Shimasaku} \& {Schneider}}{{Fukugita}
1023: et~al.}{1996}]{Fukugita-96} {Fukugita} M., {Ichikawa} T., {Gunn}
1024: J.~E., {Doi} M., {Shimasaku} K., {Schneider} D.~P., 1996, \aj, 111,
1025: 1748
1026:
1027: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Gunn}, {Carr}, {Rockosi},
1028: {Sekiguchi}, {Berry}, {Elms}, {de Haas}, {Ivezi{\'c}} \& {et
1029: al.,}}{{Gunn} et~al.}{1998}]{Gunn-98} {Gunn} J.~E., {Carr} M.,
1030: {Rockosi} C., {Sekiguchi} M., {Berry} K., {Elms} B., {de Haas} E.,
1031: {Ivezi{\'c}} {\v Z}., {et al.,} 1998, \aj, 116, 3040
1032:
1033: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Gunn}, {Siegmund}, {Mannery},
1034: {Owen}, {Hull}, {Leger}, {Carey}, {Knapp} \& {et al.,}}{{Gunn}
1035: et~al.}{2006}]{Gunn-06} {Gunn} J.~E., {Siegmund} W.~A., {Mannery}
1036: E.~J., {Owen} R.~E., {Hull} C.~L., {Leger} R.~F., {Carey} L.~N.,
1037: {Knapp} G.~R., {et al.,} 2006, \aj, 131, 2332
1038:
1039: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Hogg}, {Finkbeiner}, {Schlegel} \&
1040: {Gunn}}{{Hogg} et~al.}{2001}]{Hogg-01} {Hogg} D.~W., {Finkbeiner}
1041: D.~P., {Schlegel} D.~J., {Gunn} J.~E., 2001, \aj, 122, 2129
1042:
1043: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Ivezi{\'c}}, {Lupton}, {Schlegel},
1044: {Boroski}, {Adelman-McCarthy}, {Yanny}, {Kent}, {Stoughton} \& {et
1045: al.,}}{{Ivezi{\'c}} et~al.}{2004}]{Ivezic-04} {Ivezi{\'c}} {\v Z}.,
1046: {Lupton} R.~H., {Schlegel} D., {Boroski} B., {Adelman-McCarthy} J.,
1047: {Yanny} B., {Kent} S., {Stoughton} C., {et al.,} 2004, Astronomische
1048: Nachrichten, 325, 583
1049:
1050: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Kapferer}, {Knapp}, {Schindler},
1051: {Kimeswenger} \& {van Kampen}}{{Kapferer} et~al.}{2005}]{Kapferer-05}
1052: {Kapferer} W., {Knapp} A., {Schindler} S., {Kimeswenger} S., {van
1053: Kampen} E., 2005, \aap, 438, 87
1054:
1055: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Kauffmann}, {White}, {Heckman},
1056: {M{\'e}nard}, {Brinchmann}, {Charlot}, {Tremonti} \&
1057: {Brinkmann}}{{Kauffmann} et~al.}{2004}]{Kauffmann-04} {Kauffmann} G.,
1058: {White} S.~D.~M., {Heckman} T.~M., {M{\'e}nard} B., {Brinchmann} J.,
1059: {Charlot} S., {Tremonti} C., {Brinkmann} J., 2004, \mnras, 353, 713
1060:
1061: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Keel}}{{Keel}}{1991}]{Keel-91}
1062: {Keel} W.~C., 1991, in {Combes} F., {Casoli} F., eds, Dynamics of
1063: Galaxies and Their Molecular Cloud Distributions Vol.~146, {Star
1064: Formation and Galaxy Interactions}. pp 243--+
1065:
1066: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Keel}, {Kennicutt} Jr., {Hummel} \&
1067: {van der Hulst}}{{Keel} et~al.}{1985}]{Keel-85} {Keel} W.~C.,
1068: {Kennicutt} Jr. R.~C., {Hummel} E., {van der Hulst} J.~M., 1985, \aj,
1069: 90, 708
1070:
1071: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Kennicutt} Jr., {Roettiger}, {Keel},
1072: {van der Hulst} \& {Hummel}}{{Kennicutt} et~al.}{1987}]{Kennicutt-87}
1073: {Kennicutt} Jr. R.~C., {Roettiger} K.~A., {Keel} W.~C., {van der
1074: Hulst} J.~M., {Hummel} E., 1987, \aj, 93, 1011
1075:
1076: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Lambas}, {Tissera}, {Alonso} \&
1077: {Coldwell}}{{Lambas} et~al.}{2003}]{Lambas-03} {Lambas} D.~G.,
1078: {Tissera} P.~B., {Alonso} M.~S., {Coldwell} G., 2003, \mnras, 346,
1079: 1189
1080:
1081: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Larson} \& {Tinsley}}{{Larson} \&
1082: {Tinsley}}{1978}]{Larson-Tinsley-78} {Larson} R.~B., {Tinsley} B.~M.,
1083: 1978, \apj, 219, 46
1084:
1085: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Li}, {Kauffmann}, {Jing}, {White},
1086: {B{\"o}rner} \& {Cheng}}{{Li} et~al.}{2006a}]{Li-06a} {Li} C.,
1087: {Kauffmann} G., {Jing} Y.~P., {White} S.~D.~M., {B{\"o}rner} G.,
1088: {Cheng} F.~Z., 2006a, \mnras, 368, 21
1089:
1090: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Li}, {Kauffmann}, {Wang}, {White},
1091: {Heckman} \& {Jing}}{{Li} et~al.}{2006b}]{Li-06b} {Li} C., {Kauffmann}
1092: G., {Wang} L., {White} S.~D.~M., {Heckman} T.~M., {Jing} Y.~P., 2006b,
1093: \mnras, 373, 457
1094:
1095: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Lupton}, {Gunn}, {Ivezi{\'c}},
1096: {Knapp} \& {Kent}}{{Lupton} et~al.}{2001}]{Lupton-01} {Lupton} R.,
1097: {Gunn} J.~E., {Ivezi{\'c}} Z., {Knapp} G.~R., {Kent} S., 2001, in
1098: {Harnden} Jr. F.~R., {Primini} F.~A., {Payne} H., eds, Astronomical
1099: Data Analysis Software and Systems X Vol.~238, {The SDSS Imaging
1100: Pipelines}. pp 269--+
1101:
1102: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Meza}, {Navarro}, {Steinmetz} \&
1103: {Eke}}{{Meza} et~al.}{2003}]{Meza-03} {Meza} A., {Navarro} J.~F.,
1104: {Steinmetz} M., {Eke} V.~R., 2003, \apj, 590, 619
1105:
1106: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Mihos} \& {Hernquist}}{{Mihos} \&
1107: {Hernquist}}{1996}]{Mihos-Hernquist-96} {Mihos} J.~C., {Hernquist} L.,
1108: 1996, \apj, 464, 641
1109:
1110: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Negroponte} \& {White}}{{Negroponte}
1111: \& {White}}{1983}]{Negroponte-White-83} {Negroponte} J., {White}
1112: S.~D.~M., 1983, \mnras, 205, 1009
1113:
1114: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Nikolic}, {Cullen} \&
1115: {Alexander}}{{Nikolic} et~al.}{2004}]{Nikolic-Cullen-Alexander-04}
1116: {Nikolic} B., {Cullen} H., {Alexander} P., 2004, \mnras, 355, 874
1117:
1118: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Pier}, {Munn}, {Hindsley},
1119: {Hennessy}, {Kent}, {Lupton} \& {Ivezi{\'c}}}{{Pier}
1120: et~al.}{2003}]{Pier-03} {Pier} J.~R., {Munn} J.~A., {Hindsley} R.~B.,
1121: {Hennessy} G.~S., {Kent} S.~M., {Lupton} R.~H., {Ivezi{\'c}} {\v Z}.,
1122: 2003, \aj, 125, 1559
1123:
1124: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Sanders} \& {Mirabel}}{{Sanders} \&
1125: {Mirabel}}{1996}]{Sanders-Mirabel-96} {Sanders} D.~B., {Mirabel}
1126: I.~F., 1996, \araa, 34, 749
1127:
1128: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Sanders}, {Scoville}, {Young},
1129: {Soifer}, {Schloerb}, {Rice} \& {Danielson}}{{Sanders}
1130: et~al.}{1986}]{Sanders-86} {Sanders} D.~B., {Scoville} N.~Z., {Young}
1131: J.~S., {Soifer} B.~T., {Schloerb} F.~P., {Rice} W.~L., {Danielson}
1132: G.~E., 1986, \apjl, 305, L45
1133:
1134: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Schlegel}, {Finkbeiner} \&
1135: {Davis}}{{Schlegel} et~al.}{1998}]{Schlegel-Finkbeiner-Davis-98}
1136: {Schlegel} D.~J., {Finkbeiner} D.~P., {Davis} M., 1998, \apj, 500, 525
1137:
1138: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Smith}, {Struck}, {Hancock},
1139: {Appleton}, {Charmandaris} \& {Reach}}{{Smith}
1140: et~al.}{2007}]{Smith-07} {Smith} B.~J., {Struck} C., {Hancock} M.,
1141: {Appleton} P.~N., {Charmandaris} V., {Reach} W.~T., 2007, \aj, 133,
1142: 791
1143:
1144: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Smith}, {Tucker}, {Kent},
1145: {Richmond}, {Fukugita}, {Ichikawa}, {Ichikawa}, {Jorgensen} \& {et
1146: al.,}}{{Smith} et~al.}{2002}]{Smith-02} {Smith} J.~A., {Tucker} D.~L.,
1147: {Kent} S., {Richmond} M.~W., {Fukugita} M., {Ichikawa} T., {Ichikawa}
1148: S.-i., {Jorgensen} A.~M., {et al.,} 2002, \aj, 123, 2121
1149:
1150: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Solomon} \& {Sage}}{{Solomon} \&
1151: {Sage}}{1988}]{Solomon-Sage-88} {Solomon} P.~M., {Sage} L.~J., 1988,
1152: \apj, 334, 613
1153:
1154: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Springel}}{{Springel}}{2000}]{Springel-00}
1155: {Springel} V., 2000, \mnras, 312, 859
1156:
1157: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Stoughton}, {Lupton}, {Bernardi},
1158: {Blanton}, {Burles}, {Castander}, {Connolly}, {Eisenstein} \& {et
1159: al.,}}{{Stoughton} et~al.}{2002}]{Stoughton-02} {Stoughton} C.,
1160: {Lupton} R.~H., {Bernardi} M., {Blanton} M.~R., {Burles} S.,
1161: {Castander} F.~J., {Connolly} A.~J., {Eisenstein} D.~J., {et al.,}
1162: 2002, \aj, 123, 485
1163:
1164: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Strauss}, {Weinberg}, {Lupton},
1165: {Narayanan}, {Annis}, {Bernardi}, {Blanton}, {Burles} \& {et
1166: al.,}}{{Strauss} et~al.}{2002}]{Strauss-02} {Strauss} M.~A.,
1167: {Weinberg} D.~H., {Lupton} R.~H., {Narayanan} V.~K., {Annis} J.,
1168: {Bernardi} M., {Blanton} M., {Burles} S., {et al.,} 2002, \aj, 124,
1169: 1810
1170:
1171: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Struck}}{{Struck}}{1999}]{Struck-99}
1172: {Struck} C., 1999, \physrep, 321, 1
1173:
1174: %\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Struck}}{{Struck}}{2006}]{Struck-06}
1175: %{Struck} C., 2006, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints
1176:
1177: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Tinney}, {Scoville}, {Sanders} \&
1178: {Soifer}}{{Tinney} et~al.}{1990}]{Tinney-90} {Tinney} C.~G.,
1179: {Scoville} N.~Z., {Sanders} D.~B., {Soifer} B.~T., 1990, \apj, 362,
1180: 473
1181:
1182: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Tissera},
1183: {Dom{\'{\i}}nguez-Tenreiro}, {Scannapieco} \& {S{\'a}iz}}{{Tissera}
1184: et~al.}{2002}]{Tissera-02} {Tissera} P.~B.,
1185: {Dom{\'{\i}}nguez-Tenreiro} R., {Scannapieco} C., {S{\'a}iz} A., 2002,
1186: \mnras, 333, 327
1187:
1188: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Toomre} \& {Toomre}}{{Toomre} \&
1189: {Toomre}}{1972}]{Toomre-Toomre-72} {Toomre} A., {Toomre} J., 1972,
1190: \apj, 178, 623
1191:
1192: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Tucker}, {Kent}, {Richmond},
1193: {Annis}, {Smith}, {Allam}, {Rodgers}, {Stute} \& {et al.,}}{{Tucker}
1194: et~al.}{2006}]{Tucker-06} {Tucker} D.~L., {Kent} S., {Richmond} M.~W.,
1195: {Annis} J., {Smith} J.~A., {Allam} S.~S., {Rodgers} C.~T., {Stute}
1196: J.~L., {et al.,} 2006, Astronomische Nachrichten, 327, 821
1197:
1198: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Woods} \& {Geller}}{{Woods} \&
1199: {Geller}}{2007}]{Woods-Geller-07} {Woods} D.~F., {Geller} M.~J., 2007,
1200: \aj, 134, 527
1201:
1202: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Woods}, {Geller} \&
1203: {Barton}}{{Woods} et~al.}{2006}]{Woods-Geller-Barton-06} {Woods}
1204: D.~F., {Geller} M.~J., {Barton} E.~J., 2006, \aj, 132, 197
1205:
1206: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{York}, {Adelman}, {Anderson} Jr.,
1207: {Anderson}, {Annis}, {Bahcall}, {Bakken}, {Barkhouser} \& {et
1208: al.,}}{{York} et~al.}{2000}]{York-00} {York} D.~G., {Adelman} J.,
1209: {Anderson} Jr. J.~E., {Anderson} S.~F., {Annis} J., {Bahcall} N.~A.,
1210: {Bakken} J.~A., {Barkhouser} R., {et al.,} 2000, \aj, 120, 1579
1211:
1212: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Young}, {Allen}, {Kenney}, {Lesser}
1213: \& {Rownd}}{{Young} et~al.}{1996}]{Young-96} {Young} J.~S., {Allen}
1214: L., {Kenney} J.~D.~P., {Lesser} A., {Rownd} B., 1996, \aj, 112, 1903
1215:
1216: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Young}, {Kenney}, {Tacconi},
1217: {Claussen}, {Huang}, {Tacconi-Garman}, {Xie} \& {Schloerb}}{{Young}
1218: et~al.}{1986}]{Young-86} {Young} J.~S., {Kenney} J.~D., {Tacconi} L.,
1219: {Claussen} M.~J., {Huang} Y.-L., {Tacconi-Garman} L., {Xie} S.,
1220: {Schloerb} F.~P., 1986, \apjl, 311, L17
1221:
1222: \end{thebibliography}
1223:
1224:
1225: \bsp
1226: \label{lastpage}
1227:
1228: \end{document}
1229:
1230: