1: %%

2: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}

3: 

4: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:

5: 

6: %\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}

7: %\documentclass{emulateapj}

8: %\documentclass[preprint]{aastex}

9: 

10: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:

11: 

12: %% \documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}

13: %% Sometimes a paper's abstract is too long to fit on the

14: %% title page in preprint2 mode. When that is the case,

15: %% use the longabstract style option.

16: 

17: %% \documentclass[preprint2,longabstract]{aastex}

18: 

19: %% If you want to create your own macros, you can do so

20: %% using \newcommand. Your macros should appear before

21: %% the \begin{document} command.

22: %%

23: %% If you are submitting to a journal that translateccs manuscripts

24: %% into SGML, you need to follow certain guidelines when preparing

25: %% your macros. See the AASTeX v5.x Author Guide

26: %% for information.

27: 

28: 

29: 

30: \newcommand{\za}{$z_{\rm abs}$}

31: \newcommand{\zc}{$z_{\rm cluster}$}

32: \newcommand{\ze}{$z_{\rm em}$}

33: \newcommand{\zave}{$\langle z \rangle$}

34: \newcommand{\nh}{$N_{\rm hit}$}

35: \newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}

36: \newcommand{\NHI}{$N($\ion{H}{1}$)$}

37: \newcommand{\hi}{\ion{H}{1}}

38: \newcommand{\mgii}{\ion{Mg}{2}}

39: \newcommand{\civ}{\ion{C}{4}}

40: \newcommand{\ovi}{\ion{O}{6}}

41: \newcommand{\feii}{\ion{Fe}{2}}

42: \newcommand{\icm}{cm$^{-2}$}

43: \newcommand{\kms}{km~s$^{-1}$}

44: \newcommand{\lya}{Ly$\alpha$\ }

45: \newcommand{\lyb}{Ly$\beta$\ }

46: \newcommand{\nav}{$N_{\rm a}(v)$}

47: \newcommand{\hkpc}{$h^{-1}_{71}$ kpc}

48: \newcommand{\hmpc}{$h^{-1}_{71}$ Mpc}

49: 

50: \slugcomment{Accepted for publication in ApJ}

51: 

52: %% If you wish, you may supply running head information, although

53: %% this information may be modified by the editorial offices.

54: %% The left head contains a list of authors,

55: %% usually a maximum of three (otherwise use et al.).  The right

56: %% head is a modified title of up to roughly 44 characters.

57: %% Running heads will not print in the manuscript style.

58: 

59: \shorttitle{\mgii\ in Cluster Galaxies}

60: \shortauthors{Lopez et al.}

61: 

62: %% This is the end of the preamble.  Indicate the beginning of the

63: %% paper itself with \begin{document}.

64: 

65: \begin{document}

66: 

67: %% LaTeX will automatically break titles if they run longer than

68: %% one line. However, you may use \\ to force a line break if

69: %% you desire.

70: 

71: \title{Galaxy Clusters in the Line of Sight to Background Quasars: \\ I. Survey

72:   Design and Incidence of \mgii\ Absorbers at

73:   Cluster 

74:   Redshifts\footnote{This paper includes data gathered with the 6.5 meter

75:   Magellan Telescopes located at Las Campanas Observatory, Chile.}  

76: }

77: 

78: 

79: %% Use \author, \affil, and the \and command to format

80: %% author and affiliation information.

81: %% Note that \email has replaced the old \authoremail command

82: %% from AASTeX v4.0. You can use \email to mark an email address

83: %% anywhere in the paper, not just in the front matter.

84: %% As in the title, use \\ to force line breaks.

85: 

86: %\author{S. Lopez \& The QbC collaboration}

87: 

88: \author{S. Lopez\altaffilmark{1}, 

89: L. F. Barrientos\altaffilmark{2},

90: P. Lira\altaffilmark{1}, 

91: N. Padilla\altaffilmark{2},

92: D. G. Gilbank\altaffilmark{3},

93: M. D. Gladders\altaffilmark{4,}\altaffilmark{5},

94: J. Maza\altaffilmark{1},

95: N. Tejos\altaffilmark{1},

96: M. Vidal\altaffilmark{1}, \& 

97: H. K. C. Yee\altaffilmark{3}

98: }

99: 

100: %\affil{Astronomy Department, University of California,

101: %    Berkeley, CA 94720}

102: 

103: %\author{C. D. Biemesderfer\altaffilmark{4,5}}

104: %\affil{National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ 85719}

105: %\email{aastex-help@aas.org}

106: 

107: %\and

108: 

109: %\author{R. J. Hanisch\altaffilmark{5}}

110: %\affil{Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore, MD 21218}

111: 

112: %% Notice that each of these authors has alternate affiliations, which

113: %% are identified by the \altaffilmark after each name.  Specify alternate

114: %% affiliation information with \altaffiltext, with one command per each

115: %% affiliation.

116: 

117: \altaffiltext{1}{Departamento de Astronom\'ia, Universidad de Chile, Casilla

118:      36-D, Santiago, Chile.}

119: \altaffiltext{2}{Departamento de Astronom\'ia y Astrof\'isica, Universidad

120:      Cat\'olica de Chile, Avenida Vicu\~a Mackenna 4860, Casilla 306, Santiago

121:      22, Chile.} 

122: \altaffiltext{3}{Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, University of

123:      Toronto, 50 St. George Street, Toronto, ON M5S 3H4, Canada.}  

124: \altaffiltext{4}{Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, University of

125:      Chicago, 5640 South Ellis Avenue, Chicago, IL 60637, USA.} 

126: \altaffiltext{5}{Visiting Associate, The

127:   Observatories of the Carnegie Institution of Washington, 813 Santa

128:   Barbara St., Pasadena, CA 91101, USA.} 

129: 

130: 

131: 

132:  %\altaffiltext{3}{present address: Center for Astrophysics,

133: %    60 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138}

134: %\altaffiltext{4}{Visiting Programmer, Space Telescope Science Institute}

135: %\altaffiltext{5}{Patron, Alonso's Bar and Grill}

136: 

137: %% Mark off your abstract in the ``abstract'' environment. In the manuscript

138: %% style, abstract will output a Received/Accepted line after the

139: %% title and affiliation information. No date will appear since the author

140: %% does not have this information. The dates will be filled in by the

141: %% editorial office after submission.

142: 

143: \begin{abstract}

144: Quasar absorption line systems are redshift-independent sensitive mass

145: tracers. Here we describe the first optical survey of absorption

146: systems associated with galaxy clusters at $z= 0.3-0.9$. We have

147: cross-correlated quasars from the third data release of the Sloan

148: Digital Sky Survey with high-redshift cluster/group candidates from

149: the Red-Sequence Cluster Survey. In a common field of $\approx 20$

150: square degrees, we have found $442$ quasar-cluster pairs for which the

151: \mgii\ $\lambda\lambda 2796,2803$ \AA\ doublet might be detected at a

152: transverse (physical) distance $< 2$ \hmpc\ from the cluster

153: centers. In addition, we have found 33 other pairs in the literature

154: and we have discovered 7 new quasars with foreground clusters.  To

155: investigate the incidence $(dN/dz)$ and equivalent-width distribution

156: $n(W)$ of \mgii\ systems at cluster redshifts, two

157: statistical samples were drawn out of these pairs: one made of

158: high-resolution spectroscopic quasar observations (46 pairs), and one

159: made of quasars used in \mgii\ searches found in the literature (375

160: pairs).  The total redshift path from an ad-hoc definition of 'cluster

161: redshift path' is $\Delta$\zc\ $=6.3$ and $\Delta$\zc\ $=57.0$ for the

162: two samples, respectively. We estimate the completeness level to be

163: nearly 100 \%\ for $W$ detection thresholds of

164: $W_0^{2796}>0.05$ and $W_0^{2796}>1.0$ \AA\ in the two samples,

165: respectively.

166: 

167: The results are: 

168: (1) 

169: the population of {\it strong}  \mgii\ systems

170: ($W_0^{2796}>2.0$ \AA) near cluster redshifts shows a significant ($>3\sigma$)

171: overabundance (up to a factor of $15$) when compared with the 'field'

172: population;  

173: (2) 

174: the overabundance is more evident at smaller

175: distances ($d<1$ \hmpc) than larger distances ($d<2$ \hmpc) from the cluster

176: center; and, 

177: (3) 

178: the population of {\it weak} \mgii\ systems

179: ($W_0^{2796}<0.3$ \AA) near cluster redshifts conform to the field

180: statistics.

181: Unlike in the field, this dichotomy makes $n(W)$ in clusters appear flat  

182: and well fitted by a power-law in the entire $W$-range.  We assess

183: carefully all possible selection and systematic effects, and conclude that the

184: signal is indeed due to the presence of clusters. In particular, a sub-sample

185: of the most massive clusters yields a stronger and still significant signal.

186: Since either the absorber number density or filling-factor/cross-section

187: affects the absorber statistics, an interesting possibility is that we have

188: detected the signature of truncated halos due to environmental effects. Thus,

189: we argue that the excess of strong systems is due to a population of absorbers

190: in an overdense galaxy environment, and the lack of weak systems to a

191: different population, that got destroyed in the cluster environment. 

192: 

193: Finally, comparison with models of galaxy counts  show that there is

194: proportionally less cold gas in more massive clusters than in low-mass

195: systems, and two orders of magnitude less \mgii\ cross-section due to weak

196: systems than due to stronger systems.

197: \end{abstract}

198: 

199: %% Keywords should appear after the \end{abstract} command. The uncommented

200: %% example has been keyed in ApJ style. See the instructions to authors

201: %% for the journal to which you are submitting your paper to determine

202: %% what keyword punctuation is appropriate.

203: 

204: \keywords{ galaxies: clusters: general --- quasars: absorption lines}

205: 

206: 

207: \section{Introduction}

208: 

209: Galaxy clusters trace the densest environments in the Universe. They thus

210:   constitute the best laboratories to study galaxy evolution since (1) they

211:   contain a large number of galaxies at essentially the same cosmic time, (2)

212:   their environment is extreme compared to the field so galaxy transformations

213:   are constantly present, and (3) they can be traced to large lookback

214:   times. Yet the baryon budget in clusters is not all that well constrained

215:   mainly because it is not clear whether all baryonic constituents have been

216:   identified and quantified (e.g., Ettori 2003; McCarthy, Bower, \& Balogh

217:   2007). According to Ettori (2003) these constituents are: hot baryons

218:   (intracluster medium, 70\%), cold baryons (galaxies, stars and gas, 13\%),

219:   and warm baryons (unknown, 17 \%).

220: 

221: In addition to detecting galaxies and the intracluster medium in emission,

222: clusters have recently been probed through absorption by metals in x-ray

223: spectra of background AGNs (Takei et al. 2007). However, this absorption is

224: rather associated with the hot intracluster gas and not with the cluster

225: galaxies. Since gas associated with {\it field} galaxies is known to produce

226: detectable EUV absorption in background quasar spectra, one could in principle

227: probe the {\it cold-warm} ($T<10^5$ K) gas associated with cluster galaxies

228: using this quasar absorption line (QAL) technique. One great advantage of the

229: QAL technique is that it provides a sensitive measure of the gas that is

230: independent of redshift and host-galaxy brightness.

231: 

232: In this paper we present the first spectroscopic survey of background

233: quasars having foreground clusters in the line of sight. The survey is

234: aimed at probing metal absorbers possibly associated with the cluster

235: galaxies. We concentrate on the incidence of the redshifted \mgii\

236: $\lambda\lambda 2796,2803$ \AA\ doublet, an excellent tracer of

237: high-redshift galaxies (Bergeron \& Stasinska 1986; Petitjean \&

238: Bergeron 1990; Steidel \& Sargent  2002; Churchill et al. 2000; Zibetti

239: et al. 2007) for which extensive field surveys exist. The \mgii\

240: doublet has been used extensively in spectroscopic quasar surveys

241: because it is a strong and an easy-to-find transition, and has a

242: redshift coverage from the ground of \za$\ga 0.2$, matching imaging

243: studies.  Redshifted metal absorption lines in a quasar spectrum

244: appear together with absorption by neutral hydrogen  in what is called

245: 'absorption systems'. The incidence of absorption systems, $dN/dz$,

246: i.e., the probability of line-of-sight (LOS) intersection per unit

247: redshift, and its equivalent width distribution, $\frac{d^2N}{dWdz}$,

248: are important observables as they depend both on the absorbing

249: cross-section and number density of the absorbers. More importantly,

250: these quantities can be measured without previous knowledge of the

251: nature and environment of the absorbers, i.e., galaxies, \lya\ forest,

252: etc.

253: 

254: 

255: Early \mgii\ surveys (e.g., Lanzetta, Turnshek, \& Wolfe 1987, Tytler

256: et al. 1987, Steidel \& Sargent 1992), sensitive to a rest-frame

257: equivalent width (rEW) threshold of $W_0^{2796}>0.3$ \AA, established

258: a population of non-evolving absorbers up to $z=2$ with signs of

259: clustering on scales $< 500$ \kms\ (Petitjean \& Bergeron 1990;

260: Steidel \& Sargent 1992). More recent surveys (Churchill et al. 1999

261: [hereafter CRCV99]; Nestor, Turnshek \& Rao. 2005 [NTR05]; Nestor,

262: Turnshek \& Rao 2006 [NTR06], Narayanan et al. 2007, Lynch, Charlton

263: \& Kim 2006; Prochter, Prochaska, \& Burles 2006 [PPB06]) have shown a

264: clear dichotomy between strong and weak absorbers: the equivalent

265: width distribution is steeper for weak systems than for strong ones,

266: with a transition around $W_0^{2796}\approx0.3$ \AA. This has led some

267: authors to propose different populations/environments for these two

268: classes of systems (NTR06).

269: 

270: On the other hand, surveys of {\it galaxies} selected by \mgii-absorption have

271: shown a population of normal morphology, bright galaxies, with absorption

272: cross sections that range from a few to several tens of \hkpc\ depending on

273: rEW.  \mgii\ was linked to bright galaxies early in the 90's thanks to the

274: work by Steidel \& Sargent (1992), Bergeron \& Boiss\'e (1991), Lanzetta \&

275: Bowen (1990), Le Brun et al. (1993), among others, and more recently to

276: rotating disks (Steidel et al. 2002),

277: neutral gas (Ellison et al. 2004a; Rao, Turnshek \& Nestor 2006), and

278: also to large-scale structure (Williger et al. 2002).  Although it seems clear

279: that \mgii\ absorption arises in galaxies of a wide range of morphologies and

280: luminosities (Kacprzak et al. 2007), the majority of the strong systems could

281: be associated with blue, starburst galaxies (Zibetti et al. 2007) with high

282: metallicties (Ellison, Kewley, \& Mall\'en-Ornelas 2005). However, none of

283: these identifications tells us where and through which processes the

284: absorption occurs in these galaxies.  If the \mgii\ occurs in extended

285:   halos, the covering factor may be less than unity, so the halos must be

286:   patchy (Churchill et al. 2005; Churchill et al. 2007). Indeed, this

287: ``patchiness'' may point out to alternative explanations like \mgii\ systems

288: being the high-redshift analogs of local HVCs; i.e., warm ($10^4$ K), massive

289: ($10^6$ M$_\sun$) and compact, pressure-confined clouds embedded in a hot halo

290: but still virialized (e.g., Maller \& Bullock 2004), or, alternatively, part

291: of cool galactic outflows (Bouche et al. 2006 [BMPCW06]). In any case, and

292: despite a yet unclear origin, there is overall consensus that \mgii\ flags

293: star-forming regions in a variety of galaxies.

294: 

295: Do {\it cluster} galaxies host \mgii\ absorbers? This question

296: motivates the present paper.  Cluster galaxy properties are

297: essentially different from field galaxies due to environmental

298: effects. While the general galaxy population shows a wide range of

299: mass, morphology, gas and stellar content, and halo sizes, some of

300: these properties have been found to depend strongly on their local

301: galaxy density. For instance, in the morphology-density relation

302: (Dressler 1980) early-type galaxies are concentrated toward the cores

303: of the galaxy clusters, while late-type galaxies are found mainly in

304: the lower density environments ('cluster suburbs' or the

305: 'field'). Similarly, the increasing fraction of blue galaxies in

306: clusters with increasing redshift --the Butcher-Oemler effect (Butcher

307: and Oemler 1984)-- was the first indication that the population of

308: galaxies evolved. 

309: 

310: Thus, clearly, detecting and studying \mgii\ absorption in overdense regions

311: like cluster galaxies has a twofold potential. It provides constraints to

312: fundamental field properties of the absorption systems (clustering, halo

313: masses, and the absorber-IGM connection); on the other hand, it also provides

314: independent clues to galaxy accretion and evolution in clusters,  which may

315: become a key complement to radio observations of cold gas in local and

316: low-redshift cluster galaxies (Chung et al. 2007; Vollmer et al. 2007;

317: Verheijen et al. 2007).

318: 

319: %(e.g., BMPCW06; Scannapieco et al. 2006) 

320: %and gravitational lensing (e.g., Menard 2006).

321: %In addition to providing clues to the

322: %fraction of cold gas in clusters, studying absorbers in overdense regions may

323: %also contribute to the 

324: %ongoing debate on the origin of the overall population

325: %of \mgii\ absorbers.

326: %+Galaxy evolution in clusters.

327: 

328: %We have conducted the first  survey of mgii associated with galaxy cluster

329: %... dndz analogue to bias ratio. Mulchaey et

330: %al. tripp et al. 2002, absorbers to Virgo.

331: 

332: %In the following we describe our spectroscopic survey of quasar-cluster

333: %pairs at \zave$\sim 0.6$ and concentrate on the statistical properties of

334: %\mgii\ absorbers associated with cluster galaxies.  Future papers will deal

335: %with: (1) properties of the absorbers (abundance and ionization conditions,

336: %host galaxies); (2) models of galaxy halos: constraing the fraction of

337: %dark-matter in clusters; and (3) the effect of strong lensing on the observed

338: %quasars.

339: 

340: Our  paper is organized as follows: we first describe the quasar-cluster

341: correlations in \S~\ref{sect-pairs}, then we describe the spectroscopic quasar

342: observations in \S~\ref{sect-obs}. In \S~\ref{sect-sample} we define the

343: samples and explain the method to get the \mgii\ statistics in clusters, while

344: in \S~\ref{sect-results} we present the results. An assessment of survey

345: completeness and biases is presented in \S~\ref{sect-stats}. Finally, we

346: summarize the results in \S~\ref{sect-summary} and discuss the implications in

347: \S~\ref{sect-discussion}. Throughout the paper we use a cosmology with

348: $(\Omega_M,\Omega_\Lambda)=(0.27,0.73)$ and $H_0\equiv 71~h_{71}$

349: km~s$^{-1}$/Mpc.

350: 

351: 

352: 

353: \section{Selection of quasar-cluster pairs\label{sect-pairs}}

354: 

355: 

356: 

357: Our primary goal is to study the incidence of \mgii\ absorbers in galaxies

358: associated with cluster galaxies, and this over an as wide as possible

359: range of line strengths. To this aim a sample must be built that includes

360: bright quasars (suitable for high-resolution spectroscopy) close in projection

361: to and at higher redshifts than the clusters.

362: 

363: 

364: We searched for potential quasar-cluster pairs in three ways: (1) search

365: for known Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) quasars in fields of cluster

366: candidates from the Red-Sequence Cluster Survey (RCS); (2) search for known or

367: new quasars in fields of clusters from the Chandra database; (3) search

368: in the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) for quasars 

369: close in projection to objects labeled as clusters or 

370: groups.  

371: 

372: 

373: 

374: In the search we have imposed two broad criteria\footnote{Further, tighter

375:   criteria are applied later when we describe the statistical samples in

376:   \S~\ref{sect-stat}}: (1) for each quasar-cluster pair we require $0.2\le

377:   z_{\rm cluster}\le z_{\rm quasar}$, i.e., the redshifted \mgii\ doublet may

378:   be detected at the cluster redshift, \zc, and is observable from the ground;

379:   and (2) at \zc\ the quasar line of sight (LOS) lies within a transverse

380:   (physical) distance of $d=2$ \hmpc\ of cluster coordinates (this distance

381:   was considered enough to probe well beyond the virial radius).  We will

382:   refer to these criteria as the ``quasar-cluster'' criteria.

383: 

384: 

385: \subsection{Cross-correlation of SDSS quasars and RCS

386:   clusters\label{sect-correlation}} 

387: 

388: We describe the cross-correlation of cluster candidates from the RCS with

389: quasars from the SDSS data release three (SDSS-DR3; Schneider et al. 2005). We

390: do not use a later release because most of the extant \mgii\ statistics were

391: obtained using DR3 data.

392:   

393: The RCS (Gladders \& Yee 2005) is a $\sim 100$ square degree optical

394: survey conducted at CFHT 

395: and CTIO, aimed at finding galaxy clusters up to redshift of one with

396: some sensitivity to massive clusters to $z\sim1.4$. This survey has

397: been carried out with observations in two bands, $R$ and $z'$, to

398: obtain galaxy colors and thus to enhance the contrast between cluster

399: and field galaxies (Gladders \& Yee 2000). The main goal of the survey

400: is to measure cosmological parameters through the evolution of the

401: cluster mass function (Gladders et al. 2007).

402: 

403: The clusters have been selected from an overdensity in position, color and

404: magnitude, and their redshifts have been determined from the loci of the

405: red-sequence in the color-magnitude diagram. The redshifts were estimated from

406: Simple Stellar Population codes and then calibrated through the comparison

407: with spectroscopic redshifts for a sample at a wide range of redshifts

408: (Gilbank et al. 2007). Masses for the different clusters were determined by

409: using the optical richness measured by the $B_{gc}$ parameter (Yee \&

410: Ellingson 2003), and the relationship between $B_{gc}$ and $M_{200}$  (the

411:   mass interior to $r_{200}$, where the average mass density is $200\rho_c$)

412:   in Yee \& Ellingson (2003; see also Gladders et al. 2007).  Spectroscopy

413: shows that the contamination of the RCS cluster sample, even at $z\sim 1$, is

414: less than 10\% (Gilbank et al. 2007; Barrientos et al., in prep.), and as low

415: as 3\% at lower redshifts (Blindert et al., in prep.).

416: 

417: Note that the RCS cluster sample we use is an inclusive sample of all

418: RCS cluster candidates with no redshift restrictions (other than the

419: natural ones imposed by the survey design) and no richness cuts. Thus,

420: it is likely less clean than the restricted best sample used in the

421: analysis of Gladders et al. (2007); however, the inclusion of all

422: candidates maximises possible overlap with the SDSS quasar sample.

423: 

424: 

425: Although covering basically different areas, the cross-correlation of RCS

426: clusters with SDSS quasars from DR3 yielded 442 quasar-cluster pairs that met

427: the quasar-cluster criteria (113 for $d< 1$ \hmpc\ and 36 for $d<0.5$

428: \hmpc). These quasar-cluster pairs are distributed in a common area of

429: $\approx 20$ square degrees. We will refer to this sample as the ``SDSS-RCS

430: sample''. This sample contributes the vast majority of pairs used in the

431: present study. Later in this paper we select quasar-cluster pairs from a

432: sub-sample of rich clusters.   

433: 

434: Fig.~\ref{fig_histo} shows the transverse-distance and

435: cluster-redshift distributions of the SDSS-RCS sample. In the first

436: one we plot the number of pairs found to have a given quasar-cluster

437: distance.  To see that this distribution results from a random

438: distribution of clusters and quasars, we calculate the expected

439: distribution (the stright line in the Figure) defining a mean density

440: as the total number of pairs divided by the area of a circle of radius

441: $2\,000$ \hkpc. This comparison shows that all distances are well

442: represented and that they roughly follow a uniform distribution, which

443: is important for the homogeneity of the survey. The righthand panel of

444: the Figure shows that the redshift distribution of \mgii\ systems

445: found in SDSS quasar spectra (thin line; PPB06) and that of the

446: SDSS-RCS sample have considerable overlap, meaning that our

447: cross-correlation is well suited for searches of \mgii\ in cluster

448: galaxies.

449: 

450: The SDSS-RCS sample of 442 quasar-cluster pairs is composed of 190 quasars and

451: 368 clusters. Therefore, there are on average $\approx 2$ clusters per LOS, and

452: $\approx 20$ \% of the clusters are crossed by more than one LOS.  Regarding

453: observability, roughly $80$ \%\ of the quasars are brighter than $g=20$ mag,

454: and $\approx 50$ \% of them are observable from Southern facilities.

455: 

456: 

457: 

458: 

459: 

460: %\subsection{New quasars}

461: \subsection{New x-ray selected quasars}

462: 

463: 

464: Since both galaxy clusters and quasars are ubiquitous x-ray emitters, 

465: using archival Chandra observations proved to be a successful way of

466: selecting further targets for our study.

467: 

468: From the Chandra database we selected all public observations under

469: the science category `Galaxy Clusters'. We imposed a maximum

470: declination of $+20$ degrees, and a Chandra exposure time $\ga 25$

471: ksec to ensure significant detections of the quasar candidates. The

472: clusters also had to have a determined redshift above $z=0.2$. A

473: final list of 29 observations that met these criteria were retrieved

474: from the archive.

475: 

476: Next, we identified point-like sources in the x-ray data. We looked for

477: candidate quasars located within a radius of $\la 5\arcmin$ from the cluster

478: central position.  Since the observations were aimed at the cluster centers,

479: we did not have to worry about the degradation of the Chandra point spread

480: function with increasing off-axis distances. We then searched for optical

481: point-like counterparts to the x-ray sources in SDSS images and obtained their

482: $R$ and $B$ magnitudes from the APM catalog. Imposing the criteria $R > 16$

483: and $B-R \la 2.0$, a total of 49 candidate quasars were selected in 23 of the

484: Chandra clusters.  We will refer to this sample as the ``x-ray sample''.

485: 

486: 

487: 

488: \subsection{Pairs from the literature}

489: 

490: A search in the NED was performed of quasars near RCS coordinates. Out

491: of 7263 searches, 28 yielded quasars not found by the SDSS, that met

492: the quasar-cluster criteria.  We will refer to this sample as the

493: ``literature sample''. In addition, 5 other quasar-cluster pairs found

494: in the literature were added to this sample. It is important to note

495: that SDSS clusters are not well suited for our study due to their

496: lower redshift ($z<0.3$; Koester et al. 2007).

497: 

498: 

499: 

500: \section{Observations\label{sect-obs}}

501: 

502: 

503: \subsection{Low-resolution spectroscopy\label{low-res}}

504: 

505: Low resolution optical spectroscopic follow-up observations of the

506: quasar candidates from the x-ray sample were carried out with the Wide

507: Field Reimaging CCD Camera in long-slit grism mode on the du Pont

508: telescope at Las Campanas Observatory on March 30 and September 15-16,

509: 2006. We used the blue grism, which gives a resolution of $\sim 3$\AA\

510: and a wavelength range of $\sim 4700$\AA.

511: 

512: Sixteen candidates were observed with enough signal-to-noise ratio to determine

513: emission redshifts, and out of these, 7 quasars were confirmed. Other

514: counterparts corresponded to Seyfert and star-forming galaxies, and a few

515: stars (probably due to chance alignments). Therefore, the technique of using

516: x-ray data to find quasars gave a success rate of $\approx 45$ \%.

517: 

518: 

519: \subsection{High-resolution spectroscopy}

520: 

521: Echelle spectra were obtained using the MIKE spectrograph on the Las Campanas

522: Clay 6.5m telescope. We obtained 18 quasar spectra in three runs on March

523: 18-19 and September 23-24 and 29-30, 2006. Twelve of the quasars are from the

524: SDSS-RCS, 2 from the x-ray, and 4 from the literature samples.   The

525:   target selection was based only on airmass and brightness, i.e., without

526:   consideration of cluster redshifts. The observed sample represents $\approx

527:   15$ \%\ of the total number of available targets in the three samples.

528: 

529: Weather conditions were good but quite variable for two of the runs. Seeing

530: ranged from good ($1\arcsec$) to excellent ($0.6\arcsec$).  We made best

531: efforts to obtain a S/N ratio as homogeneous as possible throughout the

532: sample.

533: 

534: MIKE is mounted on the Nasmyth port and the slit orientation on the

535: plane of the sky is fixed. For long exposures, and despite a low

536: airmass, this requires manual corrections to keep the object centered

537: on the slit, a task that proved feasible in general but difficult to

538: carry out for some mag $\approx 20$ targets. For five of our targets

539: we used integration times in excess of 4 hours. All spectra were taken

540: with a $1\arcsec$ slit and an on-chip binning of $2\times3$ pixels.

541: With this setup the final spectral resolution of our spectra was

542: $\approx12.0$ and $\approx 13.5$ \kms\ (FWHM) for the blue and red arms,

543: respectively.

544: 

545: 

546: To extract the spectra we used our own pipeline running on MIDAS. The

547: two-dimensional echelle spectra were flat-fielded (using star spectra taken

548: with a diffusor) and extracted optimally (fitting the seeing profiles and

549: taking into account the spatial tilts introduced by the cross-dispersing

550: prisms). The orders were then calibrated with spectra of a Thorium-Argon lamp

551: (using typically 15-20 lines per echelle order) and the different exposures

552: co-added using a vacuum-heliocentric scale with $\Delta\lambda=0.067565$ and

553: $0.1447107$ \AA\ for the blue and red orders, respectively.  Finally, the

554: orders were normalized and merged. The spectral coverage of each spectrum is

555: $\lambda=3\,350$ to $7\,480$ \AA. Table~\ref{tbl-obs} summarizes the

556: echelle  observations. 

557: 

558: 

559: %\subsection{Notes on individual lines of sight}

560: %

561: %{\tt Notes on individual spectra were left for paper II on abundances,

562: %  ionization and kinematics}

563: %

564: %\subsubsection{054242.5-405834} CXOMP J054242.5-405834 (Silverman et al. 2005,

565: %ApJ, 618, 123). [BGV2006] 015 and 018 (Barkhouse et al. 2006) are x-ray

566: %clusters. 

567: %

568: %\subsubsection{4974A} This is one of the x-ray discovered QSOs.

569: 

570: 

571: \section{Sample Definitions and Redshift Path

572:   Density\label{sect-stat}\label{sect-sample}} 

573: 

574: 

575: In what follows we describe the various statistical samples drawn from the

576: data. These samples were derived from the data on absorbers (see

577: Table~\ref{tbl-qsos}) and clusters (Table~\ref{tbl-clusters}).  We define the

578: 'cluster redshift-path' of the survey and the sample of 'hits', or absorption

579: systems found in the cluster redshift-path (summarized in

580: Tables~~\ref{tbl-samples} and~\ref{tbl-hits}).

581: %Finally, we assess the

582: %completeness of these samples.

583: 

584: \subsection{Sample of \mgii\ Absorption Systems}

585: 

586: 

587: 

588: \subsubsection{\mgii\ in High-resolution Spectra (Sample 'S1')}

589: 

590: The 18 MIKE spectra along with one UVES spectrum from the Literature Sample

591: define what we shall call the 'high-resolution sample', hereafter '{\it S1}'.

592: As in previous high-resolution surveys (e.g., Narayanan et al. 2007), we searched visually for \mgii\ systems in {\it S1} by carefully scanning

593: redshift chunks all along the range of \mgii\ detectability, each time

594: plotting in velocity both doublet lines. We considered lines detected at the

595: $3\sigma$ level or higher in {\it both} doublet lines.

596: 

597: Table~\ref{tbl-qsos} presents the absorption line data (LOS up to entry 19

598: in  {\it S1}). Absorption redshifts are determined to within $\delta

599: z_{\rm abs} \sim 10^{-4}$.  rEW were calculated using pixel

600: integrations with $1\sigma$ errors from propagated pixel variances.  Lines

601: within a velocity window of $500$ \kms\ were considered one system, to conform

602: to previous QAL surveys. Column '$z_{\rm EW}$' displays the minimum redshift

603: at which a line with $W_0=0.05$ \AA\ can be detected at the $3\sigma$

604: significance level. This value was computed assuming the error in the observed

605: rEW is given by $\sigma_W={\rm FWHM}/\langle S/N \rangle$ (Caulet 1989), which

606: holds when the spectral resolution dominates over the line width, as is our

607: case. Since the spectra have increasing S/N with wavelength, there is no need

608: to define a maximum redshift for the sake of the rEW threshold. 

609: 

610: We found a total of $44$ systems with $0.015<W_0(2796)<2.028$ \AA, $4$ of them

611: with $W_0(2796)>1$ \AA\ (LOS 5, 6, 15, and 18). Out of these 4, two are

612: reported in the \mgii\ survey by PPB06 (see below), and two are new.

613: 

614: 

615: 

616: 

617: 

618: \subsubsection{\mgii\ in Low-resolution Spectra (Sample 'S2')}

619: 

620: Out of the 190 quasars in the SDSS-RCS sample, 144 form 375 pairs where a

621: \mgii\ system with $0.35<$\za$<0.9$ can be found. We shall call these quasars

622: the 'low-resolution sample', hereafter '{\it S2}'. Note that {\it S1} and {\it

623: S2} are {\it not} disjoint, since several quasars in {\it S2} were observed at

624: high resolution.

625: 

626: 

627: To find \mgii\ absorbers in {\it S2} we cross-correlated the sample with two

628: extant SDSS \mgii\ samples: the sample by PPB06, comprising 7421 absorbers

629: with $W_0(2796)>1.0$ \AA, and the sample by BMPCW06, made of 1806 absorbers

630: with $W_0>0.3$ \AA. PPB06 surveys the redshift range \za $\sim0.35-2.3$ and

631: BMPCW06 has \za $\sim0.37-0.8$.  Both samples resulted from searches in DR3

632: spectra. In the cross-correlation we imposed the criteria \za\ $\le

633: 1.42$. This limit is given by the highest cluster redshift in the SDSS-RCS

634: sample (but note that we will later restrict the statistical samples to much

635: lower redshifts).

636: 

637: Out of the 144 quasars in {\it S2}, 22 are reported in PPB06 to show at least

638: one strong ($W_0(2796)>1$ \AA) \mgii\ system in the SDSS spectrum. Out of

639: these, one is in a quasar that is paired with a cluster at too low a redshift

640: and was therefore excluded. Out of the remaining 21 quasars in PPB06, two were

641: observed at high resolution and therefore are also included in {\it S1}.  The

642: remaining 19 quasars show 21 systems that are listed in~Table~\ref{tbl-qsos}

643:  along with absorption redshifts and rEW from PPB06

644: (LOS 20 and beyond). Let us emphasize that the two systems in LOS 15 and 18 of

645: {\it S1} are reported also by PPB06, so there is a total of 23 \mgii\ systems

646: with $W_0>1$ \AA\ in {\it S2} (in the LOS 15, 18, 20 and beyond) that were

647: reported by PPB06. The two other $W_0>1$ \AA\ systems in {\it S1} (LOS 5 and

648: 6) are {\it not} reported in PPB06.

649: 

650: Out of the 144 quasars in {\it S2}, 5 are reported in BMPCW06 to show at least

651: one \mgii\ system with $W_0>0.3$ \AA\ in the SDSS spectrum.  Out of these, 4

652: with $W_0>1$ \AA\ are in the PPB06 sample (though 2 of these, 092746.94+375612

653: and 141635.78+525649, with rEW differing by $\approx 30$ \%) and only one has

654: $0.8<W_0<1.0$ \AA. We decided not to include this latter system into our

655: statistics because the redshift range surveyed by BMPCW06 is shorter than we

656: can probe with our quasar-redshift pairs. Therefore, only the PBB06 results

657: were used in our statistics. However, after calculating rEW values for the two

658: systems with disagreeging rEW in the two surveys, we decided ---for these two

659: particular systemsç--- to use the values reported by BMPCW06, which better

660: match ours (this choice has consequences for the rEW distribution below).

661: 

662: 

663: %{\tt I find next paragraph  is rather too speculative and doesn't add much.}

664: %

665: %We note the intriguing fact that $S2$ would contain only 1 absorber

666: %with $0.3<W_0<1.0$ \AA\ (out of 1806 in the BMPCW06 sample), while it

667: %contains 6 with $W_0>1$ \AA\ (out of 1581 absorbers with \za$<0.8$ in the

668: %PPB06 sample). This is contrary to what is expected from the rEW distribution

669: %of \mgii\ systems (e.g., PBB06).  This discrepancy cannot be due only to

670: %incompleteness effects, since the BMPCW06 sample is complete to $\sim

671: %70$\%\ in that rEW bin. Instead, it may be a gross indication that stronger

672: %and weaker systems may have different probabilities of occurrence in clusters,

673: %with stronger ones being more probable.

674: 

675: 

676: \subsection{Sample of Clusters and Survey Redshift Path}

677: 

678: \subsubsection{Cluster Redshift Intervals\label{intervals}}

679: 

680: Table~\ref{tbl-clusters} displays the cluster data for each LOS that contains

681: absorption systems (same numbering as in Table~\ref{tbl-qsos}). The 19 quasar

682: spectra in {\it S1} define a sample of 46 clusters with redshifts between

683: \zc$=0.173$ and $1.085$.  Out of these, 37 are drawn from the SDSS-RCS sample,

684: 2 from the x-ray sample and 7 from the literature sample. In {\it S2} all

685: clusters come from the RCS.

686: 

687: 

688: RCS cluster redshifts are photometric and estimated to within $\delta z = 0.1$

689: in this redshift range (Gilbank et al. 2007)\footnote{For simplicity we have

690: firstly neglected the fact that the redshift accuracy of the RCS clusters is a

691: function of redshift, but address this later in \S~\ref{sect-redshift}.}. The

692: other 9 clusters have 

693: spectroscopic redshifts and we will assume $\delta z = 0.01$, which

694: corresponds to $\Delta v=2\,000$ \kms\ at \zc$\sim 0.5$. Since we will analyze

695: absorption systems with \za$\sim$\zc, our survey's redshift path will be

696: defined by what we shall call 'redshift intervals' around each quasar-cluster

697: {\it pair}. These are in turn defined as $[z_{\rm min},z_{\rm max}]$, with

698: $z_{\rm min}=$\zc$- \delta z$ and $z_{\rm max}=$\zc$+ \delta z$, unless

699: $z_{\rm min}<z_{\rm EW}$, in which case we set $z_{\rm min}=z_{\rm EW}$. This

700: choice implies that every redshift interval in {\it S1} permits a $>3\sigma$

701: detection of a system with $W_0>0.05$ \AA\ (this choice has also consequences

702: on survey completeness as explained below in \S~\ref{section-complete}). No

703: cluster has $z_{\rm max}<z_{\rm EW}$, so no redshift interval was excluded

704: from {\it S1}.  Recall that, in general, the number of redshift intervals is

705: {\it not} equal to the number of clusters, since some clusters are crossed by

706: more than one LOS.

707: 

708: For redshift intervals associated with {\it S2} we set $z_{\rm EW}=0.35$,

709: which defines a rEW threshold of $W_0^{\rm min}=1.0$ \AA. With this cut, out

710: of the 442 quasar-cluster pairs in the SDSS-RCS sample, 375 remain in {\it

711: S2}. These pairs are associated with 144 LOS. In Table~\ref{tbl-clusters} (LOS

712: 20 and beyond) we show only clusters associated with the 19 quasars in {\it

713: S2}, besides LOS 15 and 18, that show a \mgii\ system with $W_0>1$ \AA.

714: 

715: Fig.~\ref{fig_clusters} shows a diagram of redshift intervals in each of the

716: LOS.  The LOS numbering is the same used in Tables~\ref{tbl-qsos}

717: and~\ref{tbl-clusters}.  Quasar emission redshifts are labeled with asterisks,

718: \mgii\ absorption systems with circles, and clusters with vertical lines. The

719: thick lines depict the cluster redshift intervals. The numbers below the thick

720: lines are the LOS-cluster distance (at $z_{\rm cluster}$) in \hmpc. LOS up to 19

721: belong to sample {\it S1}; LOS 20 to 38 to sample {\it S2}.

722: 

723: 

724: \subsubsection{A New Definition of Redshift Path Density\label{sect-g}}

725: 

726: In order to calculate the incidence of \mgii\ absorbers at cluster redshifts,

727: \zc, a function must be defined that accounts for the probability of detecting

728: the doublet at a given redshift.  In QAL surveys such a function is the

729: Redshift Path Density $g(W_{\rm min},z_i)$, which gives the number of

730: sightlines (quasar spectra) in which an absorption system with rEW

731: $W_0>W_0^{\rm min}$ might have been detected at redshift $z=z_i$ (see, for

732: instance, Eq. [1] in Ellison et al. 2004a).  Thus, in QAL surveys, $g(W_{\rm

733:   min},z_i)$ provides the redshift path sensitivity of the survey and the

734: total redshift path surveyed is given by:

735: 

736: \begin{equation}

737: \Delta z = \int_0^\infty g(W_{\rm min},z_i) dz.

738: \end{equation}

739: 

740: Since in the present analysis we are interested in the incidence of absorbers

741: at cluster redshifts, the following conceptual modification has to be

742: introduced: the redshift intervals defined in \S~\ref{intervals}, $[z_{\rm

743: min},z_{\rm max}]$, will be treated as if they were `quasar spectra', {\it

744: regardless} of how many of them are present in one LOS. The reason for this

745: choice is that having more than one cluster in the same LOS and at similar

746: redshifts (overlapping clusters) increases the {\it a priori} probability of

747: detecting an absorber in that particular LOS. Similarly, two different LOS

748: through the same cluster add twice to the overall redshift path.

749: 

750: 

751: We therefore define a `cluster redshift path density', $g_c(W_0^{\rm min},z_i,

752:   d)$, as the function that gives the number of cluster redshift intervals

753:   within a LOS-cluster distance $d$, in which a $W_0>W_0^{\rm min}$ \mgii\

754:   system at redshift $z_i$ might have been detected\footnote{Clearly, $g_c$ is

755:   also a function of $\delta z$, see \S~\ref{sect-redshift}.}. The cluster

756:   redshift-path $\Delta$\zc\ between any two redshifts $z_1$ and $z_2$ is thus

757: 

758: \begin{equation}

759: \Delta z_{\rm cluster}(W_0^{\rm min},z_1,z_2,d) = \int_{z_1}^{z_2} g_c(W_0^{\rm

760:   min},z,d)dz. 

761: \end{equation}

762: 

763: In Fig.~\ref{fig_g} we show $g_c(z)$ for the two samples.  Note that

764: $g_c(z)$ is not only different for each of the samples (because of

765: different rEW thresholds) but also for each cut in distance. Sample

766: {\it S1} provides a cluster redshift path between $z=0.2$ and $z=0.9$

767: of $\Delta$\zc$=6.3$ for $d<2$ \hmpc.  This is the longest path

768: available for searches of lines as weak as $W_0=0.05$ \AA. In the

769: redshift interval [0.35,0.90] and for $W_0>1$ \AA, sample {\it S2}

770: provides a redshift path of $\Delta$\zc$=57.0$ for $d<2$ \hmpc.  

771:  Overlaps represent $\approx 40$ \% of the total redshift path

772: for clusters at $d<2$ but only $\approx 10$\% for $d<1$ \hmpc. These

773: numbers are summarized in Table~\ref{tbl-samples}.

774: 

775: 

776: \subsection{Sample of \mgii\ absorbers at cluster redshifts: 'hits'}

777:   \label{stats} 

778: 

779: 

780: We shall call an absorber a `hit' when \za\ is in a cluster redshift

781: interval. The function \nh=\nh$(z_1,z_2,W_0,d)$ is defined as the number of hits

782: between redshifts $z_1$ and $z_2$ with a given cut in rEW and distance.  \nh\

783: enters in the definition of $dN/dz$ below. We recall that (1) there may be

784: more than one hit in one redshift interval (two absorbers in the same LOS

785: through the same cluster); (2) there may be more than one hit in one cluster

786: (two absorbers in different LOS through the same cluster); and (3) redshift

787: intervals may overlap (thus increasing the probability of getting a hit).

788: Table~\ref{tbl-hits} summarizes the hits for the two samples and various cuts

789: in rEW and $d$.

790: 

791: 

792: The following caveat must be considered: overlapping redshift intervals have

793: no one-to-one correspondence with hits; in other words, we lack information as

794: of which one of the overlapping clusters is responsible for the

795: absorption.  This degeneracy, however, has a minor effect on the results

796:   by cluster impact parameter, since there are only two cases in the whole

797:   sample (LOS 5 and LOS 14) where a hit occurs in two overlapping intervals,

798:   with one being at $d<1$ and the other one being at $1<d<2$ \hmpc. These

799:   particular hits were assigned to both statistics: $d<1$, and $d<2$ \hmpc.

800: 

801: 

802: 

803: 

804: \subsection{Redshift Number Density of Absorbers in Galaxy Clusters}

805:  

806: 

807: To study the incidence of \mgii\ in cluster galaxies we define --- similarly

808: to an unbiased QAL survey defined by $W_0^{\rm min}$ --- the redshift number

809: density of absorbers in galaxy clusters, $(dN/dz)_c$, as the number of hits

810: per unit cluster redshift:

811: 

812: \begin{equation}

813: (dN/dz)_c (W_0,z_1,z_2) \equiv \frac{N_{\rm hits}(W_0,z_1,z_2)}{\Delta

814:   z_c(W_0,z_1,z_2)} , 

815: \end{equation}

816: 

817: and its rEW distribution, $n_c(W_0)\equiv \frac{d^2N}{dWdz}$, as the number of hits

818: per unit cluster redshift per unit EW, such that:

819: 

820: \begin{equation}

821: \int_{W1}^{W2} n_c (W_0,z_1,z_2)dW = (dN/dz)_c .

822: \end{equation}

823: 

824: %Note that $g_c(z)$ is different for each sample and cut in distance, as shown

825: %in Fig.~\ref{fig_g}.

826: 

827: The errors are calculated assuming Poisson statistics, for which we use the

828: tables in Gehrels (1986).

829: 

830: These two observational quantities, $(dN/dz)_c$ and $n_c(W_0)$ must be

831: proportional 

832: to the average number density of absorbers in a cluster, $n_c(z)$, and their

833: cross-section, $\sigma_c(z)$:

834: 

835: 

836: \begin{equation}

837: (dN/dz)_c  \propto n_c(z)~\sigma_c(z)~.%~\frac{(1+z)^2}{\sqrt{\Omega_M(1+z)^3 +

838: %      \Omega_\Lambda }}. 

839: \label{eq-cosmo}

840: \end{equation}

841: 

842: %{\tt Does this formula make any sense for cluster absorbers, given that

843: %  clusters are supposed not to follow the Hubble flow?}

844: 

845: Although in general $(dN/dz)$ has been used to study how absorbers evolve,

846: our samples are rather small and we just focus on a possible overdensity

847: $\delta$ of

848: absorbers with respect to the field. We define

849: \begin{equation}

850: \delta\equiv (dN/dz)_c/(dN/dz)_f~ ,

851: \end{equation}

852: where $(dN/dz)_f$ is the incidence of systems in the field. 

853: We compare the two distributions

854: measured in clusters with the following field \mgii\ surveys: NTR06 (MMT

855: telescope spectroscopy, spectral resolution FWHM $\approx 2.2$ \AA; rEW

856: threshold $W_0^{min}=0.1$ \AA), NTR05 (SDSS EDR, FWHM $\approx 4$ \AA,

857: $W_0^{min}=0.3$ \AA), CRCV99 (Keck HIRES, FWHM $\approx 0.15$ \AA,

858: $W_0^{min}=0.02$ \AA), and Narayanan et al. (2007; VLT UVES, FWHM $\approx

859: 0.15$ \AA, $W_0^{min}=0.02$ \AA).  Other surveys have redshift intervals that

860: do not match ours (Lynch, Charlton

861: \& Kim 2006).

862: 

863: These surveys have found (1) that weak and strong systems show different rEW

864: redshift distributions: weaker systems are fitted by a power-law while

865: stronger systems are better described by an exponential, with the transition

866: at $W_0\approx 0.3$ \AA. This effect would hint at two distinct populations of

867: absorbers (e.g., NTR05); (2) little evolution of any of the populations

868: between $z\approx1.4$ and $0.4$ (Narayanan et al. 2007; Lynch, Charlton \& Kim

869: 2006). The nature of weak ($W_0<0.3$ \AA) \mgii\ is not clear yet.  It has

870:   been suggested that single-cloud systems may have an origin in dwarf

871:   galaxies due to their abundances (Rigby et al. 2002) or to their statistics

872:   (Lynch, Charlton \& Kim 2006); they might also be the high-redshift analogs

873:   to local HVCs (Narayanan et al. 2007, and references therein).

874:   Unfortunately, there exist only few QAL surveys of weak \mgii\ systems,

875:   mainly due to the more scarce high-resolution data.

876: 

877: 

878: \section{Results: The Incidence of \mgii\ in Galaxy

879:   Clusters\label{sect-results}}  

880: 

881: In this section we present the results on $(dN/dz)_c$ and $n_c(W_0)$ as

882: observed in {\it S1} (for systems having $W_0<1.0$ \AA) and {\it S2}

883: ($W_0>1.0$ \AA). For both samples we analyze pairs with $d<2$ and $<1$

884: \hmpc\ separately, and we restrict the statistics to $z<0.9$, where the

885: cluster sample is more reliable. Finally, we re-analize {\it S2} taking into

886: account two refinements of the method, namely selection by cluster richness

887: and the redshift-dependence of $\delta z$.

888: 

889: 

890: \subsection{$W_0<0.3$ \AA\  systems}

891: 

892: The parameterization by CRCV99 of their Keck HIRES data implies

893: $(dN/dz)_f=1.41$ at $\langle z\rangle=0.65$ for field systems with

894: $0.02<W_0<0.3$ \AA\ at $0.4<z<1.4$. This is consistent with the results by

895: Narayanan et al. (2007) at that redshift and in the same rEW interval using

896: UVES data.

897: 

898: For  our redshift intervals having $d<1$ \hmpc\ we find $(dN/dz)_c=1.20$ ([0.37

899:   2.70] $1\sigma$ c.l.) for $0.05<W_0<0.3$ \AA\ and binning in the range

900: $0.2<z<0.9$.  Given that our data are complete only down to $W_0=0.05$ \AA, we

901: cannot compare directly with the value by CRCV99. Therefore, we apply a

902: downward correction to this value of $23.3$ \%, which is the fraction of

903: systems with $0.02<W_0<0.05$ \AA\ in the CRCV99 sample. After this correction,

904: the field value is $(dN/dz)_f=1.09$, which is in good agreement with

905: $(dN/dz)_c$.  For the $d<2$ \hmpc\ sample we find a somewhat smaller value of

906: $(dN/dz)_c=0.79$ ([0.29 1.64] $1\sigma$ c.l.)  that is however still

907: consistent with the field measurement.

908: 

909: 

910: \subsection{$W_0>0.3$ \AA\  systems}

911: 

912: 

913: Figure~\ref{fig_n_z} shows the cumulative values of $(dN/dz)_c$ (and their

914: $1\sigma$ errors) for systems with $W_0>0.3$ \AA. We bin in the ranges

915: $0.2<z<0.9$ (top panels) and $0.35<z<0.9$ (bottom panels).  The top panels

916: show results from sample {\it S1} only (46 quasar-cluster pairs,

917: \zave$=0.550$), while points in the bottom panels were calculated using sample

918: {\it S2} (375 pairs; \zave$=0.625$). The filled circles are for clusters at

919: distances $d<2$ \hmpc\ from quasar LOS and the open squares represent clusters

920: with $d<1$ \hmpc\ (symbols are slightly shifted in the x-axis for more

921: clarity).  The curves correspond to the fit by NTR05 to their EDR data of

922: field absorbers with $1\sigma$ limits calculated as described in the Appendix

923: of their paper. These fits are in excellent agreement with the SDSS data of

924: field \mgii\ absorbers.

925: 

926: There is an overdensity of hits per unit redshift in clusters compared with

927: the field population for $d<1$ \hmpc\ clusters; the $d<2$ \hmpc\ sub-samples

928: instead, are consistent with the field statistics. In addition, the data show

929: that $\delta$ is larger for stronger systems ($W_0>2.0$ \AA) than for weaker

930: systems.  These two trends are more clearly seen in Table~\ref{tbl-hits},

931: where we compare the measured value of $(dN/dz)_c$ with the field, for various

932: rEW ranges (using cosmic averages from different authors). Note that the

933: confidence limits listed in the Table for $(dN/dz)_c$ are $2\sigma$ only. The

934: overdensity effect for $d<1$ \hmpc\ ($W_0>1$ and $W>2$ \AA\ cuts) is

935: significant at the 99\% level or slightly higher. For $d<0.5$ \hmpc\ we also

936: note the overdensity of stronger systems, though the effect here is only

937: $1\sigma$ due to the small number of hits.

938: 

939: %For instance, in the $d<1$ \hmpc\ sample $0.28$ systems per unit redshift are

940: %found and $0.27$ expected in the [0.3,0.6] EW bin; in the [0.6,1.0] EW bin,

941: %0.55 are measured while only 0.20 were expected. This represents an

942: %overdensity factor of $\delta\equiv (dN/dz)_{\rm measured} / (dN/dz)_{\rm

943: %expected} = 2.5$; in the [1.0,2.0] EW bin, 0.79 are measured but only 0.18

944: %were expected ($\delta = 4.4$); and in the [2.0,3.0] EW bin, 0.60 are measured

945: %while only 0.04 were expected ($\delta=15$). For this latter bin, the

946: %overdensity is still $\delta=5.4$ and $\delta=3.8$ at the 90.0\% and 95\%

947: %confidence levels, so the overabundance is highly significant.

948: 

949: 

950: 

951: \subsection{\mgii\ $\lambda 2796$ equivalent width distribution}

952: 

953: \subsubsection{Stronger (Weaker) Systems in Clusters are (not) Overdense} 

954: 

955: Fig.~\ref{fig_n_W} summarizes our main result. It shows $n_c(W_0)$ and

956: $1\sigma$ errors for \mgii\ systems at $d<1$ and $d<2$ \hmpc\ from a cluster.

957: Data points with $W_0<1.0$ \AA\ result from sample {\it S1} only, while points

958: at $W>1$ \AA\ are calculated using {\it S2} only. The solid curve is the

959: exponential distribution $n(W_0)=N^*/W^*\exp{-W_0/W^*}$ fitted by NTR06 to

960: their MMT data for $W_0>0.3$ \AA\ (114 \mgii\ systems, \zave$=0.589$). The

961: parameters are $W^*=0.511$ and $N^*=1.071$ and the fit is in excellent

962: agreement with their data having $0.5\la W_0\la 3.0 $ \AA\ (see their Fig. 2).

963: The dashed curve is the power-law fit, $n(W_0)=0.55~W_0^{-1.04}$ fitted by

964: CRCV99 to their Keck HIRES data. The power-law is in excellent agreement

965: with their $W_0\la 0.3$ \AA\ data and also with data by Steidel \& Sargent

966: (1992), but clearly overestimates the MMT and SDSS/ERD data for larger $W_0$.

967: 

968: Fig.~\ref{fig_n_W} confirms the excess of {\it strong} ($W_0\ga 1.0$ \AA)

969: \mgii\ systems near cluster redshifts, when compared with the field

970: population.  On the contrary, the weaker systems ($W_0\la 0.3$ \AA) conform to

971: the field statistics. Furthermore, this effect seems more conspicuous for the

972: $d<1$ \hmpc\ sample than for the $d<2$ \hmpc\ sample, which shows a slight

973: overdensity only for stronger systems.  The weak systems are also consistent

974: with other QAL surveys. For instance, the results by Narayan et al. (2006) for

975: the $0.4<z<1.4$ range are in good agreement with ours (their Fig.~7) even for

976: our $d<1$ \hmpc\ sample, considering a $29.3$ \%\ downward correction to their

977: $n(W_0)$ values due to our smaller rEW range of [0.05,0.3] \AA.  On the

978: contrary, for $d<1$ \hmpc, $n_c(W_0)$ is overabundant by a factor of $\approx

979: 3$ in the [1.0,2.0] bin and $\approx 15$ in the [2.0,3.0] bin (note

980: Table~\ref{tbl-hits} shows a comparison with NTR05). The latter result is

981: significant at the $> 3\sigma$ level (assuming no errors in the field

982: average).

983: 

984: Summarizing, stronger systems ($W_0\ga1.0$ \AA) are overdense in clusters;

985: weaker systems ($W_0\la0.3$ \AA) are not.  This makes $n_c(W_0)$ appear flatter

986: than $n(W_0)$ (on a log-log plot) and much better fitted by a power-law, {\it

987: also in the large-rEW end}, than by an exponential.

988: 

989: 

990: 

991: \subsubsection{Is the Effect Real?}

992: 

993: 

994: 

995: The different behaviour of strong and weak systems cannot be due to the

996: different redshift paths $\Delta z_c$ of {\it S1} and {\it S2}.  If this were

997: the case, the offset in $(dN/dz)_c$ should be equal in the entire rEW range;

998: however, we see that the statistics is affected differentially.

999: 

1000: Another possible caveat is that an incomplete survey in the small-rEW end

1001: would as well have an effect on the differential behaviour of $n(W_0)$ between

1002: weak and strong systems (weaker lines are more difficult to find). However,

1003: the [0.05,0.3] bin has 4 absorbers in {\it S1}, meaning that to get a factor

1004: of say $10$ more systems per unit rEW in that bin we should have missed 36

1005: hits, which is quite unlikely ($10^{-12}$ for a Poisson distribution).

1006: 

1007: 

1008: The stronger effect seen for $d<1$ when compared with $d<2$ \hmpc\ is clearly

1009: influenced by the shorter redshift path in the former selection. Indeed, from

1010: Table~\ref{tbl-hits} we see that the transition from $d<2$ to $d<1$ \hmpc, is

1011: more or less governed by the change in $\Delta$\zc\ (i.e., the number of hits

1012: do not change much). We take this as a possible evidence that the data is

1013: sensitive to a typical cluster only at distances below $1$ \hmpc. Further

1014: support for this idea is that the $d<0.5$ \hmpc\ overdensities, though at low

1015: significance, do not scale with $\Delta$\zc. 

1016: 

1017:  Finally, let us note that our definition of $\delta$ and the large radial

1018:   distances implied by the photometric redshift accuracy ($\delta z$) imply

1019:   that $\Delta z_{\rm cluster}$ may (and probably does) include some level of

1020:   contamination by field absorbers. Consequently, what the present cluster

1021:   data allows us to state is that {\it regions} that contain a cluster do show

1022:   more strong absorbers than the cosmic average, while for weak systems those

1023:   regions are indistinguishable from the field.

1024: 

1025: 

1026: %

1027: %In conclusion, the cluster absorbers show a different behaviour of strong and

1028: %weak systems, with stronger ones being overabundant with respect to the field

1029: %and weaker ones being consistent with the field average.  Below we discuss

1030: %further systematics.

1031: 

1032: 

1033: \subsection{Refinements}

1034: 

1035: \subsubsection{Selecting by Cluster Richness\label{section-rich}}

1036: 

1037: In the current analysis we have included all the objects in our RCS catalog,

1038: constraining its significance to be greater than $3\sigma$ (Gladders and Yee

1039: 2000). This threshold is low enough to detect almost all the clusters in the

1040: RCS areas, but presumably it also includes low mass groups and even some

1041: spurious detections. On the other hand, this selection has the great feature

1042: that allows us to cross correlate a large number of objects, but also it has

1043: the drawback that any signal we detect in the absorption systems might be

1044: diluted by low mass objects or spurious clusters.

1045: 

1046: In order to quantify the extent of this 'dilution' we have selected a

1047: subsample of clusters with a more stringent criteria given by a minimum

1048: richness (that translates into a minimum mass). So far we have used sample {\it

1049: S2} that has a median $B_{gc}$ of 263 that translates into a mass of

1050: $\approx2.4 \times 10^{13} M_{\odot}$ (Blindert et al., in prep.). Similar values

1051: are obtained for the subsample having $d<1$ \hmpc. 

1052: 

1053: The more restricted sample, which we call '{\it S2-best}' is required

1054: to have only clusters with $B_{gc} \ge 350$. This selection includes

1055: only 125 quasar-cluster pairs for an impact parameter of at least 2

1056: \hmpc, and a median $B_{gc}$ of 488 that translates into a mass of

1057: $8.8 \times 10^{13} ~M_\odot$. Similarly, we find a median $B_{gc}$ of

1058: 478 for a $d<1$ \hmpc.  As shown in Table~\ref{tbl-hits}, repeating

1059: the analysis of hits using {\it S2-best} yields higher overdensities

1060: ---by $\sim 50$\%--- than for {\it S2} for the same rEW ranges. Most

1061: importantly, despite a much lower redshift path, the {\it

1062: significance} of the result is still high ($>3\sigma$).

1063: 

1064: Sample {\it S1} has fewer quasar-cluster pairs and only a few of the

1065: clusters come from the RCS sample. For these objects we find a median

1066: $B_{gc}$ of 327 for an impact parameter of 2 Mpc and 258 for the

1067: smaller aperture, i.e., consistent with the larger sample.  Therefore,

1068: a similar analysis for {\it S1} was considered not worth performing

1069: due to the few clusters in that sample.  However, we note that the

1070: median $B_{gc}$ is not particularly low, so this sample is

1071: also representative of more massive clusters (i.e., the lack of

1072: overdensity is not due to a chance conjunction of low mass systems).

1073: 

1074: Concluding, finding a significantly stronger signal in clusters

1075: selected by a mass proxy gives strong support to both the method and

1076: the reliability of the systems used in the analysis. In fact, the

1077: richness selection not only provides more galaxies per clusters but

1078: also picks up larger clusters. Both selection effects are expected to

1079: increase the a priori hit probability.

1080: 

1081: 

1082: \subsubsection{Cluster Redshift Accuracy\label{sect-redshift}}

1083: 

1084: 

1085:  Since our comparison between cluster and field \mgii\ statistics depends

1086:   on the definition of redshift intervals, we have to consider what effect the

1087:   cluster redshift accuracy may have on our results. For clusters with

1088:   spectroscopic redshifts we have assumed $\delta z=0.01$. If due to the

1089:   Hubble flow, this translates into a radial distance of $67$ comoving Mpc;

1090:   therefore, one might want to shorten $\delta z$ to overcome the problem of

1091:   contamination by field absorbers. Unfortunately, the redshift path provided

1092:   by the pairs with spectroscopic cluster redshifts represents only $\approx

1093:   2$ \%\ of $\Delta z_{\rm cluster}$.  

1094: %(in {\it S1} and for $d<2$ \hmpc). 

1095: Since

1096:   shortening to $\delta z=0.005$ does not exclude the only hit (LOS 9) at a

1097:   spectroscopic $z_{\rm cluster}$, $(dN/dz)_c$ remains practically unchanged.

1098: 

1099: The vast majority of our clusters have photometric redshifts and  our

1100: analysis assumes $\delta z=0.1$ for those ones.  This is indeed an

1101: over-estimate for the lower-redshift clusters, \zc$\la 0.5$, where the

1102: accuracy can be as good as $\delta z\approx0.04$. In order to see whether a

1103: smaller $\delta z$ would affect the results on $(dN/dz)_c$ we use the

1104: parameterization $\delta z = 0.04 (1+z_{\rm cluster})$ and re-compute $g_c(z)$

1105: and $N_{\rm hits}$. Restricting the analysis to $d<1$ \hmpc\ pairs in {\it S2}

1106: (where the overdensity signal is most evident), we find that out of $7$ hits

1107: with $W_0>1$ \AA\ only one hit (LOS 28, $W_0=1.58$ \AA) is ruled out due to

1108: the shorter redshift intervals. Since the new $\delta z $ makes the total

1109: redshift path between $z=0.35$ and $z=0.9$ decrease to $\Delta z_{\rm

1110:   cluster}=9.18$, we find actually a higher overdensity of $\delta\approx 4$

1111: and $\delta\approx 10$ for $W_0>1.0$ and $1.0<W_0<2.0$ \AA, respectively. We

1112: conclude that our result is indeed affected by a more precise parameterization

1113: of the RCS redshifts but such refinement makes the signal even stronger. In

1114: order to avoid fine-tuning too many variables, we continue the analysis of the

1115: results using a constant $\delta z$.

1116: 

1117: 

1118: 

1119: \section{Statistical Significance, Possible Biases, and

1120:   Caveats\label{sect-stats}} 

1121: 

1122: Despite the strong test provided by the mass selection, our method might still

1123: suffer from possible systematics and biases hidden in the statistical

1124: properties of the various samples. We analyze these in what follows.

1125: 

1126: \subsection{Statistical Significance}

1127: 

1128: We start by asking whether the detected overdensity might be due to chance

1129: alignments.  To assess the statistical significance of the observed number of

1130: hits one might want to run Monte Carlo simulations by creating samples of

1131: random cluster redshifts.  However, this is equivalent to calculating $dN/dz$

1132: from random sub-samples drawn from the parent quasar sample (i.e., creating

1133: random RCS-SDSS samples). Such kind of simulations must, by definition, yield

1134: the cosmic value obtained by QAL surveys, a number against which we have

1135: compared our resuls.

1136: %

1137: %Now, does our RCS-SDSS sample have anything special?  

1138: To see whether we recover the expected number of field absorbers, we calculate

1139: $(dN/dz)_f$ in the {\it complementary} redshift path of our quasar-cluster

1140: sample, that is, the path that does not include clusters. If our sample is

1141: biased toward an overdensity of absorbers for reasons {\it other} than the

1142: presence of clusters we should get an overdensity here too; if it is not, we

1143: should recover the field value. We analyze quasars in sample {\it S2}, the one

1144: that yields the overdensity, and split it into two redshift ranges:

1145: $z=$[0.35,0.9], the one used to get $(dN/dz)_c$, and $z=$[0.9,1.4]. The latter

1146: was not used in the analysis of cluster absorbers but may be a useful check

1147: for unbiased LOS. 

1148: 

1149: There are $85$ quasars in {\it S2} that provide cluster redshift intervals at

1150: $d<1$ \hmpc, where $W_0>1$ \AA\ \mgii\ systems may be detected. Between

1151: $z=0.35$ and $0.9$ the total {\it quasar} redshift path of this sample is

1152: $\Delta z_{\rm quasar} =45.15$, so the complementary redshift path is $\Delta

1153: z_{\rm field} = \Delta z_{\rm quasar} - \Delta z_{\rm cluster} = 45.15 -

1154: 14.13 = 31.02$, where we have subtracted the cluster path $\Delta$\zc$=14.13$

1155: (see Table~\ref{tbl-hits}).

1156: 

1157: The expected number of $W_0>1.0$ \AA\ systems along $\Delta z_{\rm field}$ is

1158: thus $5_{-2.2}^{+3.4}$ and the expected number of systems with $2.0<W_0<3.0$

1159: \AA\ is $0_{-0}^{+1.9}$ ($1\sigma$ errors).  From Tables~\ref{tbl-qsos}

1160: and~\ref{tbl-hits}, the observed number of systems along $\Delta z_{\rm

1161: field}$ in this redshift range is: [\# systems in RCS-SDSS] $-$ $N_{\rm hits}$

1162: = $10-7=3$ for $W_0>1.0$ \AA\ and $3-3=0$ for $2.0<W_0<3.0$ \AA\ systems

1163: (i.e., no system with $2.0<W_0<3.0$ \AA\ was expected in the field and no

1164: system was observed in the field, with the 3 other systems all being

1165: hits). These values are in agreement with the field expectation.

1166: 

1167: Repeating the above analysis for the $z=$[0.9,1.4] range, we get: $\Delta

1168: z_{\rm quasar} =31.38$, $\Delta$\zc$=3.00$, number of expected field

1169: absorbers: $7_{-2.6}^{+3.8}$, number of detected field absorbers: 8 (total) -

1170: 1 (hit) = 7, i.e., again within the field expectation.  We conclude that the

1171: observed overabundance of strong \mgii\ systems is not due to chance

1172: alignments and must reflect real overdensities.  In other words, sample {\it

1173: S2} of {\it quasars} is biased {\it only} by the presence of clusters. The

1174: bias vanishes at redshifts other than \zc, where we recover the cosmic

1175: statistics obtained in QAL surveys (the presence of clusters in these surveys

1176: has negligible influence on such statistics).

1177: 

1178: 

1179: 

1180: \subsection{Yet More Possible Biases and Caveats\label{section-complete}} 

1181: 

1182: 

1183: 

1184: 

1185: \subsubsection{Clusters and Quasars}

1186: 

1187: 

1188: Besides the obvious fact that the completeness of our cluster sample

1189: --- drawn mainly from the RCS --- depends on the RCS algorithm, it is

1190: important to stress that the parent cluster and quasar samples are

1191: totally independent each from the other. The RCS sample is certainly

1192: not complete for {\it S2} (particularly at higher redshifts), which

1193: includes low mass systems, but it is for {\it S2-best} up to $z\la 1$,

1194: which includes moderately massive clusters. On the other hand, the SDSS

1195: quasar sample should be $\sim 90$ \% complete (York et

1196: al. 2000). These and the arguments given in \S~\ref{sect-correlation}

1197: lead us to conclude that the SDSS-RCS sample, and thus also sample

1198: {\it S2-best} of pairs, is complete and homogeneous, at least at the

1199: same level as their parent surveys.

1200: 

1201: Another obvious strength of the quasar-cluster sample is that the search of

1202: absorbers in {\it S2} (PBB06; BMPCW06) was  performed independently of our

1203: selection. This is not completely true for {\it S1} since those quasars were

1204: selected for follow-up spectroscopy {\it after} the quasar-cluster

1205: selection. However, at the telescope, the targets were selected without prior

1206: knowledge of cluster redshifts; moreover, even if this had been the case, the

1207: low-resolution spectra provided by the SDSS do not permit an a priori

1208: selection of {\it weak} systems.  Therefore, there was no way to prefer

1209: quasars with absorbers. We discuss this further below in the context of

1210: absorber statistics.

1211: 

1212: Finally, the following caveat must be mentioned: brighter quasars are

1213: chosen for spectroscopy, which might be amplified by gravitational lensing by

1214: the absorber host galaxies (see discussion in \S~\ref{sect-discussion}).

1215: 

1216: 

1217: \subsubsection{Absorbers}

1218: 

1219: Surveys of quasar absorption-line systems assess the completeness of the

1220: samples via cumulative $\Delta z$ as a function of rEW threshold (Steidel et

1221: al. 1992). Since we have {\it chosen} our redshift path to include only

1222: spectral regions sensitive to $W_0>0.05$ \AA, we consider the sample {\it S1}

1223: of absorbers to be nearly 100\% complete. Similarly, we assume that {\it S2}

1224: is statistical in the sense that all \mgii\ systems with $W_0>1.0$ \AA\ were

1225: listed in PPB06, who argue that their search is $>95$ \% complete.

1226: 

1227: As for the homogeneity of the samples, we have kept {\it S1} and {\it S2}

1228: carefully separated. Again, out of the 4 $W_0>1$ \AA\ systems found in {\it

1229: S1}, we have considered in {\it S2} only those two found by PBB06 (including

1230: the remaining two would increase $\delta$ since one system is a hit).

1231: 

1232: Admittedly, one concern is that detecting an overdensity in one sample and not

1233: in the other may reflect a hidden systematic. We do not have at this time the

1234: means of testing such possible systematics. If we use only {\it S1} in the

1235: $W_0>1$ \AA\ range we also find an overdensity with respect to the field,

1236: although with low significance: $1$ hit is expected while $2$ are found.

1237: However, as pointed out above, these statistics may be influenced by the fact

1238: that quasars in {\it S1} were selected as having a cluster in the LOS, and

1239: strong systems are readily seen in the SDSS spectra. However, weak systems are

1240: not seen in the SDSS and we know they do not cluster around stronger systems

1241: (CRCV99). In addition, if there were in fact such hidden systematics, why is

1242: not the supposedly biased sample ({\it S1}) the one that shows the

1243: overdensity? In other words, despite an obvious selection effect

1244: toward targets with clusters, {\it S1} {\it does} yield the field statistics

1245: for weak absorbers.

1246: 

1247:  Finally, note that the significance of our result for strong absorbers could

1248: increase if a larger cluster redshift path were surveyed.

1249: Tables~\ref{tbl-samples} and ~\ref{tbl-hits} show that only roughly $3-4$\% of

1250: the quasar-cluster pairs results in hits. This explains why an earlier attempt

1251: failed to detect strong \AA\ \mgii\ systems in a sample of 6 Abell

1252: clusters (Miller, Bregman \& Knezek 2002).

1253: 

1254: 

1255: 

1256: \section{Summary of the Results\label{sect-summary}}

1257: 

1258: We have cross-correlated candidate galaxy clusters from the RCS at

1259: \zc$=0.3$--$0.9$ with background quasars from the SDSS DR3 to investigate the

1260: incidence $(dN/dz)_c$ and rEW distribution $n_c(W_0)$ of \mgii\ absorption

1261: systems associated with cluster galaxies. We have found 442 quasar-cluster

1262: pairs at impact parameters $d<2$ \hmpc\ from cluster coordinates, where

1263: \mgii\ might be detected  in redshift regions $\pm 0.1$ from a

1264:   cluster. The cluster sample contains all systems in the RCS, and is

1265: dominated by low-mass clusters and groups with $\langle M \rangle \sim

1266: 2\cdot10^{13}$ M$_\sun$ cluster candidates. We have defined a cluster

1267: redshift-path density in terms of the quasar-cluster pairs. Using extant

1268: surveys of strong \mgii\ systems in DR3 quasar spectra and our own follow-up

1269: high-resolution spectroscopy, we calculated $(dN/dz)_c$ and $n_c(W_0)$ for the

1270: rEW range $0.05<W_0<3.00$ \AA. The results were:

1271: 

1272: \begin{enumerate}

1273: 

1274: \item 

1275: There is an excess of {\it strong} ($W_0^{2796}>1.0$ \AA) \mgii\

1276: absorbers near ---i.e., at similar redshift of and close in projection

1277: to--- galaxy clusters when compared to surveys in the field. The

1278: effect is significant at the $2\sigma$ level. This overdensity,

1279: $\delta\equiv (dN/dz)_c/(dN/dz)_f$, is also more pronounced at smaller

1280: distances ($d<1$ \hmpc) than at larger distances ($d<2$ \hmpc) from

1281: the cluster, which we interprete as a dilution of the effect in the

1282: field.  On the other hand, the excess is also more pronounced for

1283: stronger systems.  For $d<1$ \hmpc\ and $W_0=$ [2.0,3.0] \AA, we

1284: measure $\delta\approx 6$--$15$ (depending on the field survey used

1285: for comparison), and the significance increases to $3\sigma$.

1286: 

1287: \item 

1288: If we select the sample third with most massive (and significant) cluster

1289: candidates, we find the excess of absorbers increases by 50\%

1290: for the sub-sample dominated by $\langle M \rangle \sim 10^{14}$ M$_\sun$

1291: clusters. The effect becomes also more significant, rendering reliability to

1292: our detection.

1293: 

1294: \item

1295: The {\it weak} population of \mgii\ systems ($W_0<0.3$ \AA) in clusters

1296: conform to the field statistics. The absence of an overdensity is not due to

1297: lack of sensitivity. This effect and the excess of strong systems make

1298: $n_c(W_0)$ appear flatter on a log-log scale, so ---contrary to the field---

1299: it can be fitted by a power-law over the whole range of rEW.

1300: 

1301: \end{enumerate}

1302: 

1303: \section{Discussion\label{sect-discussion}}

1304: 

1305: The most obvious interpretation for the observed overdensity of strong

1306: absorbers is that clusters represent a much denser galaxy environment

1307: than the field: an overdensity is expected if field and cluster

1308: galaxies share the same properties responsible for the \mgii\

1309: absorption.  Below we discuss this possibility and then hypothesize on

1310: why this trend is seen only for the strong cluster absorbers (thus

1311: producing a flatter rEW distribution than in the field). Finally, we

1312: assess the implications for the fraction of cold gas in galaxy

1313: clusters.

1314: 

1315: One evident caveat to have in mind in comparing cluster and field properties

1316: of \mgii\ is that possible correlations between rEW and galaxy properties

1317: (colors, absorber halo mass, dust redenning and gravitational lensing) all

1318: have been studied in the framework of the overall population of absorption

1319: systems. Such field properties do not necessarily hold for clusters, and any

1320: departure due to cluster environments may have not been detected in the field

1321: studies.

1322: 

1323: 

1324: 

1325: 

1326: 

1327: \subsection{Galaxy Overdensity}

1328: 

1329: In order to see whether the observed overdensity of  strong absorbers,

1330: $\delta$, is consistent with a model of evolution of structure a detailed

1331: numerical simulation is necessary, which is out of the scope of the present

1332: paper and will be presented elsewhere (Padilla et al., in prep.).  However, a

1333: crude estimate of the expected $(dN/dz)_c$ can be obtained from

1334: semi-analytical models. We start assuming field and cluster absorbers share

1335: the same \mgii\ cross section, $\sigma$. In this case, from

1336: Eq.~\ref{eq-cosmo}, $\delta$ is proportional to the average volume overdensity

1337: of galaxies in a cluster, $\delta_g$.  To calculate $\delta_g$, we assume that

1338: galaxies are spatially distributed in the same way as the dark matter, and

1339: therefore adopt a NFW density profile (Navarro, Frenk \& White, 1997), which

1340: depends on the total mass of the cluster of galaxies.  We then calculate

1341: $\delta_g$ within $1$ and $2$~\hmpc\ from the cluster center, for masses

1342: corresponding to the range present in the RCS sample.  Given that the LOS will

1343: actually cross different density amplitudes as it passes through a cluster, we

1344: simply make an order of magnitude approximation and take half the actual

1345: overdensity at the impact parameter.  The number density of galaxies within a

1346: cluster of galaxies is obtained assuming a Halo Occupation number

1347: corresponding to a magnitude limit of $M_{r(AB)}=-17$, which states that the

1348: number of galaxies populating dark-matter halos of a given mass is (Cooray

1349: 2006)

1350: \begin{equation}

1351: N=\frac{1}{\exp(\beta*(M_{min}-M))+1}+10^{\alpha*(M-M_1)},

1352: \end{equation}

1353: whith $M_{min}=10^{11.77}h^{-1}M_{\sun}$, $M_{1}=10^{12.96}h^{-1}M_{\sun}$,

1354: $\alpha=1.04$, and $\beta=99$.  We then calculate the average density of

1355: galaxies above the same magnitude limit by populating all haloes in the

1356: Millenium simulation (Croton et al. 2006) using this same prescription, and

1357: then counting the total number of galaxies and dividing this by the total

1358: volume of the simulation.  

1359: 

1360:  The results for later-type galaxies are displayed in

1361:   Table~\ref{tbl-galaxy}. Note that this estimate for $\delta_g$ includes only

1362:   the cluster region; thus, it is to be compared with $\delta -1$, i.e., the

1363:   overdensity of absorbers after subtracting the field contribution.

1364: 

1365: \subsection{$W_0\ga1.0$ \AA\ Absorbers}

1366: 

1367: \subsubsection{Absorber Overdensity}

1368: \label{overdensity}

1369: 

1370: If we first concentrate on moderate mass clusters, $M\sim2\cdot10^{13}

1371: M_\sun$, which vastly dominate sample {\it S2}, we see the expected

1372: overdensity of cluster galaxies  is quite in line with $\delta-1$, the

1373:   observed absorber enhancement, for $d<1$ and $d<2$ \hmpc\ (using for {\it

1374:   S2} fiducial values of $\delta = 2$ and $\delta =10$ for the two apertures,

1375: respectively; see Table~\ref{tbl-hits}).  In other words, the probability of

1376: hitting a \mgii\ galaxy in a cluster is the same as in the field. Note that

1377: this does not imply that quasar LOS do not 'see' the foreground clusters but

1378: rather that this probability scales with galaxy overdensity.  The observed

1379: match  between $\delta_g$ and $\delta -1$ supports the hypothesis that

1380: strong absorbers in less masive clusters and in the field share similar

1381: properties.

1382: 

1383: 

1384: The situation seems different for sample {\it S2-best}, which is dominated by

1385: more massive, $M\sim10^{14} M_\sun$, clusters. There we find that the absorber

1386: overdensity is enhanced by a factor of $\la 2$ with respect to that one in

1387: less massive clusters.  On the other hand, from Table~\ref{tbl-galaxy} we see

1388: that the more massive clusters provide a factor of 5 more galaxies than less

1389: massive ones. Therefore, the overdensity of galaxies in massive clusters

1390: overpredicts the overdensity of strong absorbers by a factor of $\approx

1391: 2$-$3$.  We infer that ---on average and neglecting other effects, see next

1392: Section--- the total cross-section of strong absorbers must be smaller in more

1393: massive clusters than in the field by a factor of $\approx 2$-$3$.

1394: 

1395: It is tempting to draw conclusions also for $d<0.5$ \hmpc, despite the less

1396:   significant signal observed in the absorber statistics. For both mass

1397:   ranges, the expected overdensity of galaxies increases by a factor of

1398:   $\approx 4$ comparing the $<1$ \hmpc\ and the $<0.5$ \hmpc\ apertures.

1399:   Again assuming same properties as in the field, the absorbers statistics

1400:   fails to reproduce such increase by that same factor of 4 (since

1401:   roughly the same $\delta$ is observed for $d<1$ and $d<0.5$ \hmpc). This

1402:   could indicate the gas cross section is even smaller at distances closer

1403:   than half Mpc to the cluster center (although the factor $4$ is still within

1404:   $95\%$ confidence limits).

1405: 

1406: 

1407: 

1408: %If the absorbers trace galaxies, the 0.5mpc cuts may represent what is

1409: %observed in the radial profiles of late-type galaxies (Biviano \& Salucci

1410: %2006) 

1411: %In conclusion, by selecting directly dense environments we see that \mgii\

1412: %traces galaxies. Zibetti et al. (2007) find lowluminosity within 100 kpc,

1413: %which is understable giev that they average the whole SDSS.

1414: %

1415: %Cold gas has been detected in nearby clusters (Sparks, Carollo, \& Macchetto

1416: %1997) and more distant clusters (Verheijen et al. 2007)

1417: %%

1418: %

1419: %passive (E, S0) and star-forming (Sp, Irr) give rise to weak and strong

1420: %systems (Zibetti).    

1421: 

1422: \subsubsection{Gravitational Lensing}

1423: 

1424: 

1425: Although we will present elsewhere a study of gravitational lensing by the

1426: cluster galaxies in our sample, this effect

1427: deserves a few words here since it may have direct implications for

1428: $(dN/dz)_c$.  We are particularly interested in lensing magnification by the

1429: RCS galaxies and the possible bias it may have introduced in the SDSS sample

1430: used here.  Inclusion of magnified quasars in magnitude-limited surveys like

1431: the SDSS might increase the number of (lens) absorbers per unit redshift

1432: (1997 Bartelmann \& Loeb 1996; Smette, Claeskens \& Surdej).

1433: 

1434: Lensing magnification has been reported not to induce a significant

1435: effect on the field statistics of strong \mgii\ systems (as observed

1436: in SDSS quasar spectra; Menard et al. 2007). However, in our case the

1437: probability of strong lensing might be greatly enhanced due to not

1438: only the quasar light crossing the densest galaxy environments, but

1439: also to a possible combination of cluster/quasar redshift ratios of

1440: 1:2 that maximizes the probability of strong lensing for $z_{\rm

1441: em}\sim 1$ (indeed, that probability is maximal at $z_{lens} \sim 0.7$

1442: for $z_{\rm em}\ga 2$).  Statistical overdensities of bright

1443: background quasars (or paucity of faint quasars) associated with

1444: foreground clusters or large structure have been already detected

1445: (Myers et al. 2003; Scranton et al. 2005; but see Boyle, Fong \&

1446: Shanks 1988). However, when searching for the lensing galaxies, one

1447: finds that the majority of them are early-type (e.g., Fassnacht et

1448: al. 2006) which are not expected to host strong \mgii\ absorbers

1449: (Zibetti et al. 2007). We conclude that a great impact of lensing on

1450: $\delta$ should not be expected. Nevertheless, if a fraction of these lensing

1451: galaxies indeed does act as strong \mgii\ absorbers, then $(dN/dz)_c$

1452: observed in our sample might be partly due to lensing. In such a case,

1453: the values quoted in \S~\ref{overdensity} for the fractions of \mgii\

1454: cross section that is expected from galaxy counts but not observed in

1455: absorption must be seen as upper limits, since they result from a

1456: sample that is biased toward more lensing absorbers.

1457: 

1458: 

1459: 

1460: %Is our sample biased toward fainter qsos that are not seen in other surveys?

1461: %This is important as lensing galaxies are probable ABSORBERS (but see the

1462: %by-pass effect -Smette et al.). However, Ellison et al. (2004) demonstrate

1463: %that radio selected qsos show the same number density of \mgii\ absorbers as

1464: %magnitude-limited qso samples! 

1465: 

1466: 

1467: %We have seen that S2 provides the

1468: %result on overdensity and S1 a null effect, contrary to what it would be

1469: %expected from samples biased by gravitational lens amplification.

1470: 

1471: 

1472: %The average number quasars per cluster in creases as d decreases. Maybe

1473: %lensing is at work amplifying the sources and increasing the probability for 

1474: %a galaxy to be an absorber.

1475: 

1476: 

1477: \subsection{$W_0\la 0.3$ \AA\ Absorbers} 

1478: 

1479: 

1480: \subsubsection{A flatter rEW Distribution for clusters}

1481: 

1482: %\subsubsection{Truncated \mgii\ Absorbing Halos?}

1483: 

1484: In contrast with strong systems, we do not detect an overdensity of weak

1485: absorbers in clusters, although our survey is sensitive enough in the

1486: $W_0<0.3$ \AA\ range.  As already stated, this dichotomy induces a flatter, more

1487: uniform, rEW distribution than what is observed in the field, where weak

1488: absorbers have a much steeper distribution than strong absorbers.  Does this

1489: mean that neither gravitational lensing nor galaxy overdensity influence the

1490: weak absorber statistics?  Since lensing magnification is a strong function of

1491: \mgii\ rEW (Bartelmann \& Loeb 1996), $(dN/dz)_c$[$W_0<0.3$\AA] is perhaps

1492: insensitive to lensing. However, it would be unlikely that also the galaxy

1493: excess that clusters represent had no influence on the incidence of the weak

1494: absorbers. This would require a physically distinct population of cluster

1495: absorbers, detached from the strong absorbers, that does not scale with

1496: galaxy overdensities.

1497: 

1498: Alternatively, since either the absorber number density or

1499: filling-factor/cross-section affect the $(dN/dz)_c$ statistics, an interesting

1500: possibility is that we have detected the signature of {\it processes} giving

1501: rise to \mgii\ absorption (gas outflows or extended halos, the two current

1502: compelling scenarios) that are at play in clusters in a different way than in

1503: the field. For instance, if we consider the extended halo hypothesis

1504: (Churchill et al. 2005), the low rate of weak \mgii\ absorbers we observe in

1505: clusters might be due to truncated halos due to environmental effects.  Such

1506: an effect is expected if cluster galaxies lose their gas after a few orbits in

1507: processes like galaxy harassment and/or ram pressure stripping (Mayer et

1508: al. 2006), and it has actually been observed in 21cm observations of

1509: low-redshift (Giovanelli \& Haynes 1983; Chung et al. 2007; Verheijen et

1510: al. 2007) and  local (Bravo-Alfaro et al. 2000) clusters.  Interestingly,

1511: ram pressure affects mostly less-massive galaxies; on the other hand,

1512: according to some authors weaker systems seem to arise in under-luminous,

1513: less-massive galaxies (Churchill et al. 2005; Steidel et al. 1992). All this

1514: fits 

1515: well with the lack of absorbing cross-section observed here for cluster

1516: galaxies associated with weak \mgii\ absorption.

1517: 

1518: 

1519: If we instead consider the weak absorbers to be individual, small

1520: 'clouds' that are distributed more densely toward the centers of

1521: galaxies, then weak \mgii\ arises in sightlines through the outer

1522: parts of a galaxy (e.g. Ellison et al. 2004b). This is supported

1523: by the typical sizes of strong/weak \mgii\ which are an order of

1524: magnitude different (Ellison et al. 2004b).

1525: %

1526: %, and b) the

1527: %anti-correlation between impact parameter and \mgii\ rEW (e.g.,

1528: %Kacprzak et al. 2007; Churchill et al. 2000). 

1529: %

1530: If the strong \mgii\

1531: systems arise in the centers of galaxies, then the cluster environment

1532: does not affect them, so that their observed overdensity traces the

1533: overdensity of cluster galaxies (with gas).   However, the weak \mgii\

1534: population get destroyed in the cluster environment, and 

1535: the fact that we do not detect an overdensity for them simply reflects that the

1536: field contamination dominates in our redshift path.

1537: 

1538: %the number density of weak \mgii\ in clusters is the

1539: %same as in the field indicates that maybe the excess of galaxies is well

1540: %compensated by this destruction.

1541: 

1542: 

1543: 

1544: Our observations allow us to put limits on the  shortage of

1545: total cross-section for weak systems.  

1546: %

1547: %Since we cannot quantify what fraction

1548: %corresponds to truncated halos and what fraction to a lower galaxy density, we

1549: %can only state that one possible explanation for the flat rEW distribution (or

1550: %apparent excess of strong systems) is indeed a {\it paucity} of {\it weak}

1551: %absorbers in a population of absorbers that is enhanced by an overdensity

1552: %of galaxies. 

1553: %If it is completely due to truncated halos (and not to a lower

1554: %

1555:  If the flat rEW distribution  is  due to truncated halos, the excess of

1556:   galaxy counts in Table~\ref{tbl-galaxy} 

1557: correspond to the missing fraction in absorbing cross section. We then

1558: conclude that there is between one and two orders of magnitude less total

1559: cross-section of \mgii\ gas having $W_0<0.3$\AA.

1560: 

1561: \subsection{Clustering}

1562: 

1563: 

1564: Several studies have shown that strong ($W_0\ga1.0$) \mgii\ absorbers

1565: trace overdense regions.  For example, Cooke et al. (2006) found that

1566: damped \lya\ (DLA) systems cluster like LBGs, which themselves have a

1567: non-negligible clustering signal. DLA systems also cluster around

1568: quasars (Ellison et al. 2002; Russell, Ellison \& Benn 2006;

1569: Prochaska, Hennawi \& Herbert-Fort 2007), just as galaxies cluster

1570: around QSOs, and also around themselves possibly revealing large-scale

1571: structure (Lopez \& Ellison 2003; Ellison \& Lopez 2002). More

1572: recently, Bouche et al. (2007) have found clustering of strong \mgii\

1573: systems around luminous red galaxies (LRGs).

1574: 

1575: At first glance our interpretation of gas truncation affecting only weak

1576: absorbers seems to go in the opossite direction of the results by Bouche et

1577: al. (2007). These authors find that LRGs correlate more strongly with weak

1578: \mgii\ systems ($W_0\la 1$ \AA) than with strong ($W_0\ga 2$ \AA)

1579: systems. From their bias ratio they derive absorber masses, and find that

1580: stronger systems occur in galaxies associated with less massive dark-matter

1581: halos ($M\sim 10^{11} M_\sun$) than weaker systems ($M\sim 10^{12}

1582: M_\sun$). The Bouche et al. (2007) data, however, reaches only $W_0=0.3$

1583:   \AA, while with our technique we probe much deeper in rEW.  In fact, from

1584:   our results it follows just the opposite, namely that the stronger systems

1585: correlate more strongly with galaxies: strong systems in our sample show more

1586: clustering with clusters than weak systems. This apparent contradiction

1587: becomes even more evident if one considers that LRG should flag clusters. But,

1588: as already stated, $W_0<0.3$ \AA\ systems, might occur in much less massive

1589: (dwarf) galaxies that were not probed in that study. Certainly a natural

1590: follow-up of the present study will be to indentify the absorbing galaxies

1591: from the RCS images and look for $W_0-L$ correlations.

1592: 

1593: Finally, let us note that rEW is basically a measure of the velocity spread

1594: (Ellison 2006). One possible contribution to the overdensity of strong systems

1595: observed in clusters could be that cluster absorbers have larger spreads due

1596: to galaxy interactions, which is much more probable than for the field

1597: absorbers. Indeed this effect has been proposed for 'ultra-strong' absorbers

1598: ($W_0>2.7$ \AA; Nestor et al. 2007). In addition, a mild correlation between

1599: absorber assymetries and rEW has been found in the field (Kacprzak et

1600: al. 2007) that could be strenghtened in our sample due to galaxy interactions.

1601: %High-resolution spectroscopy of the cluster systems will reveal whether this

1602: %is the case in our sample. 

1603: The few cases in our high-resolution sample {\it S1} that show resolved

1604: systems separated by several 100 \kms, all are weak systems. On the other

1605: hand, the few strong systems that are both in {\it S1} and {\it S2} do not

1606: show particular kinematics when observed at high resolution (e.g.,

1607: velocity spans of several 100 

1608: \kms). Clearly, a larger sample of strong cluster absorption systems must be

1609: analyzed at high spectral resolution.

1610:  

1611: 

1612: 

1613: 

1614: 

1615: 

1616: \subsection{Limits on the  fraction of neutral gas in clusters} 

1617: 

1618: Regardless of what produces the observed overdensity of \mgii\ in

1619: clusters, we can  put constraints on the contribution of the

1620: absorbing gas to the budget of cold baryons in clusters.

1621: % Let just call that

1622: %contribution $\Omega_b^{\rm abs}$.

1623: With its low ionization potential of $15$ eV, \mgii\ is a good tracer of

1624: neutral gas. Indeed, several surveys have shown that  $W_0>0.6$

1625: \AA\ \mgii\ systems frequently occur in DLA and sub-DLA

1626: systems, i.e., in gas that is predominantly neutral (Rao \& Turnshek 2000;

1627: Rao, Turnshek \& Nestor 2006).  Since ionization corrections are negligible

1628: and since column densities in excess of $10^{20.3}$ \icm\ (the definition

1629: threshold of a DLA system) can be obtained easily in low-resolution spectra,

1630: measurements of the incidence of DLA systems have led to robust estimates of

1631: the cosmological mass density of neutral gas, $\Omega_{\rm DLA}$.

1632: %Perhaps

1633: %surprisingly, $\Omega_{\rm DLA}$ does not show significant evolution from

1634: %$z=5$ ($\Omega_{\rm DLA}=0.8\times10^{-3}$) to $z=2$ ($\Omega_{\rm

1635: %DLA}=0.7\times 10^{-3}$) with a slight peak at $z\sim 3$ (e.g., Prochaska \&

1636: %Herbert-Fort 2004).  Unless DLA systems are not the only reservoir of neutral

1637: %gas (Hopkins, Rao, \& Turnshek 2005), this non-evolution is surprising if DLA

1638: %gas has contributed significantly to star-formation in the Universe (e.g.,

1639: %Wolfe et al. 2004) well before $z=0.5$, and has been converted into the stars 

1640: %we see today to have $\Omega_b^{\rm stars}=3\times10^{-3}$.

1641: At low redshift ($z_{abs}<1.6$), where confirmation of the DLA troughs at

1642: $\lambda=1215$ \AA\ requires space-based observations, Rao, Turnshek \& Nestor

1643: (2006) have searched for DLA systems using \mgii\ (redshifted to optical

1644: wavelengths) as a signpost.  By measuring \ion{H}{1} column 

1645: densities directly, these authors have found that $\approx 50$\%\ of \mgii\

1646: systems with $2<W_0^{2796}<3$ \AA\ are DLA systems (with average column

1647: densities $\langle N($\ion{H}{1}$)\rangle=3.5\pm 0.7\times 10^{20}$

1648: \icm). According to these surveys (see also Rao \& Turnshek 2000), the mass

1649: density provided by DLA systems at $\langle z \rangle=0.5$ is similar to the

1650: high redshift value, $\Omega_{\rm DLA}=1\times 10^{-3}$. For a universal

1651: baryon density of $\Omega_b=0.044$ (Spergel et al. 2006), $2.3$ \% of the

1652: baryons in the Universe at $z=0.5$ is in DLA systems (at $z=0$ this fraction

1653: falls down to $1$\%; Zwaan et al. 2003).

1654: 

1655: % the fraction of baryons, $f_b\equiv\Omega_b/\Omega_M$ provided by

1656: %DLA systems is $f_b(DLA)=$

1657: %

1658: %On the other hand, $\Omega_{\rm DLA}(z=0.5-3)=10^{-3}$, i.e., $4$\% of all

1659: %baryons in the Universe (prochaska et al., rao et al.). Moreover, there is no

1660: %decline of $\Omega_{\rm DLA}$ with cosmic time (Rao et al., others)

1661: 

1662: %Our result on strong \mgii\ systems leads to following {\it conservative}

1663: %estimate of the fraction of neutral gas in {\it clusters}: suppose strong

1664: %\mgii\ in clusters have the same probability of being a DLA system as in the

1665: %field (a reasonable assumption). Then, an overabundance of \mgii\ systems of,

1666: 

1667: An overabundance of strong \mgii\ systems  of $\approx 10$, as observed in

1668:   our cluster sample, with a 50\% chance of being a DLA system implies  a

1669: factor of $5$ more neutral gas than the cosmic average. However, assuming

1670: overdensities (by mass) of over two orders of magnitude at the typical cluster

1671: radii probed here, $r_{200}$, yields a tiny 0.1\% of the cluster baryons in

1672: form of neutral gas. This small amount of neutral gas seems more consistent

1673: with that in present-day groups according to \ion{H}{1} 21 cm surveys (e.g.,

1674: Pisano et al. 2007; Zwaan et al. 2003; Sparks, Carollo, \& Macchetto 1997).

1675: If, as argued for DLA systems (e.g., Wolfe et al. 2004), the neutral gas has

1676: served as fuel for star formation, then the small fraction of neutral gas in

1677: the RCS clusters probed here may be taken as evidence that star-formation

1678: either occurred at much earlier epochs than probed here $\langle z

1679: \rangle=0.6$ or it was suppressed by the cluster environment early in the

1680: accretion stage.

1681: 

1682:  

1683: %$\Omega_b^{\rm abs}$, or $\approx 10$ \%\ of the baryons in a cluster.  This

1684: %is a large amount of cool baryons on scales (from $\delta z$ of our survey) of

1685: %$< 20$ \hmpc. It is comparable to the baryon fraction currently assigned to

1686: %cluster galaxies (called 'cold' baryons) and not much less than 'other'

1687: %(unknown) baryons in the baryon budget proposed by Ettori (2003). This neutral

1688: %gas has not yet entered in the accountability of cluster baryons. It is not

1689: %intracluster gas, nor luminous galaxies or intracluster stars.

1690: 

1691: %We note that ours is a conservative estimate for the following three reasons:

1692: %(1) the overdensity of \mgii\ systems in clusters may be as high as 15 in this

1693: %rEW bin depending on what is the expected value for $(dN/dz)_f$;

1694: %or/and (2) also lower rEW \mgii\ systems appear to be overdense in clusters; a

1695: %considerable fraction of them may also be associated with neutral gas; or/and

1696: %(3) a fraction of systems below the (arbitrary) \ion{H}{1} threshold may be

1697: %predominantly neutral and thus also contribute to $\Omega_b^{\rm abs}$.  The

1698: %above assumptions seem all reasonable, except perhaps for whether \mgii\ in

1699: %our survey does track the \ion{H}{1} in the same way or not the field \mgii\

1700: %does. Using our upper limit for the overdensity and a $\approx 90$ \%\ chance

1701: %for a strong \mgii\ system of being DLA system, we arrive to $10\la100\times

1702: %\Omega_b^{\rm abs}/\Omega_b\la 30$.

1703: 

1704: %Such large amount of neutral baryons (confined to small cluster volumes) is

1705: %not seen in present-day groups according to \ion{H}{1} 21 cm surveys (e.g.,

1706: %Pisano et al. 2007, see also Zwaan et al. 2003).  If, as argued for DLA

1707: %systems (Howk, Wolfe \& Prochaska 2005), the neutral gas has served as fuel

1708: %for star formation, then the detection of neutral gas in the RCS clusters may

1709: %be taken as evidence that star-formation has kept ongoing also in clusters

1710: %since $z\sim 0.6$.

1711: 

1712: %In conclusion, it seems we have uncovered a large fraction of baryonic

1713: %matter in clusters, previously undetected and in form of neutral gas. Given

1714: %that a correct accountability of baryons in clusters is important for

1715: %independent tests of today's concordance cosmology (e.g., Allen et al. 2004;

1716: %Gonzalez, Zaritsky, \& Zabludoff 2007; McCarthy, Bower, \& Balogh 2007), the

1717: %present results needs confirmation with larger sets of quasar-cluster

1718: %correlations.

1719: 

1720: \subsection{Speculations}

1721: 

1722: The flattening of the rEW distribution we observe in clusters represents a

1723: qualitative difference with the field in terms of absorber populations. This

1724: difference strongly suggests that it is the cluster environment that drives

1725: the morphological evolution of cluster galaxies, and not the field population

1726: accreted by the clusters. If not, clusters would be more efficient in

1727: accreting strong absorbers, which seems unlikely. Instead, it is more likely

1728: that galaxies giving rise to weak absorbers have lost gas due to the cluster

1729: environement.

1730: 

1731: The differing rEW distribution we observe in clusters could be also partly due

1732: to a mix of evolutionary and morphological effects. Studies using imaging

1733: stacking have shown (Zibetti et al. 2007) that strong absorbers arise in

1734: bluer, later-type galaxies and weaker systems in red passive galaxies. If this

1735: holds in our sample, it also fits well with our finding of a flat

1736: rEW-distribution, considering that early-type galaxies in clusters evolve less

1737: rapidly than later-type ones (Dressler et al. 1997).

1738: 

1739:  As already stated, local cluster galaxies show a deficit of \hi\ as a

1740:   function of distance to the cluster centers. Already at $d\sim 1$ Mpc,

1741:   \hi\ disks do not exceed the optical radii (e.g., Bravo-Alfaro et al. 2000).

1742:   If our sample includes the high-redshift counterparts to these galaxies, the

1743:   lack of weak \mgii\ overdensity may indicate that the processes giving rise

1744:   to the stripping of gas were already in place at $z\approx 0.6$.  On the

1745:   other hand, the denser gas (including molecular gas; Vollmer et al. 2005)

1746:   survives the passages through the cluster center.  Using the above argument

1747:   again, this gas, more internal to the galaxies, may host the strong

1748:   absorbers we believe track the galaxy overdensities.

1749: 

1750: 

1751: %An intriguing fact is the 2-1 Mpc cut...

1752: 

1753: 

1754: %In addition, they seem to have evolved in a different way

1755: %than strong absorbers until $z\sim 1.3$, when they appear to peak: before that

1756: %epoch $dN/dz$ is a factor of 4--5 lower than the non-evolution expectation, in

1757: %contrast to strong absorbers, which are much more numerous at higher redshift

1758: %and do not evolve (NTR05, Mshar et al. 2007). All this strongly suggest that a

1759: %different population of absorbers or different processes are responsible for

1760: %the weak \mgii\ systems in the field (NTR06, Narayanan et al. 2006, Lynch,

1761: %Charlton \& Kim 2006).

1762: 

1763: %We recall that large rEW is not due to larger column density (e.g., due to

1764: %higher abundance of magnesium), but due to a larger velocity span of its

1765: %components (REF).

1766: 

1767: 

1768: 

1769: \section{Outlook}

1770: 

1771: We believe the present work opens a couple of important prospects,  both

1772:   from the absorption-line and the host-galaxy perspectives.  First, the

1773: high-resolution data can be used to perform further tests for the cluster

1774: environment.  Are the ionization conditions the same as in field

1775: \mgii\ systems? Does the kinematics of strong absorbers give any hint of

1776: galaxy-galaxy interactions? Indeed, higher-ionization species such as

1777: \civ\ and \ovi\ would perhaps be better suited for such tests (Mulchaey 1996),

1778: but they require space-based observations.   Secondly, the galaxies giving

1779:   rise to the observed \mgii\ in clusters must be identified and their

1780:   properties compared with the field. Such a comparison should give important

1781:   clues about the location of field \mgii\ absorbers.

1782: 

1783: Our experiment can be repeated with RCS-2, which will provide $10\times$ more

1784: clusters, and also better photometric redshifts. With a larger sample one

1785: could study possible evolutionary effects. For instance, is there an

1786: absorption-line equivalent of the Butcher-Oemler effect? And, last but not

1787: least, the 

1788: role of gravitational lensing must be further explored, specially its possible

1789: effect on the quasar luminosity function of cluster-selected samples.

1790: 

1791: 

1792: 

1793: %\subsection{Folowing adds perhaps more noise than anything useful}

1794: %

1795: %\begin{itemize}

1796: %

1797: %\item 

1798: %Can we say anything about the fraction of disk galaxies in clusters? We can

1799: %set 

1800: %a limit on $\Omega_{gas}$ from $dN/dz$ !!

1801: %

1802: %\item 

1803: %$W$ is a measure of velocity spread, and therefore mass and metalicity (see

1804: %  Ledoux et al.). PAPER II

1805: %

1806: %\item 

1807: %Kacprzak et al. (astro-ph/0703377): interactions maybe  important in

1808: %determining the kinematics spread. PAPER II 

1809: %

1810: %\item 

1811: %Bouche et al. (2006) find an anti-correlation halo-mass/W PAPER III

1812: %

1813: %\item 

1814: %Can gravitational lensing affect the stats? perhaps. Look at the

1815: %distribution of magnitudes. Brighter quasars were observed first. 3 of our

1816: %quasars are lensed. PAPER IV

1817: %

1818: %\end{itemize}

1819: 

1820: \acknowledgements

1821: 

1822: We would like to thank Jason X. Prochaska and Sara L. Ellison for important

1823: comments made on an earlier version of this paper. SL, LFB, PL and NP were

1824: partly supported by the Chilean {\sl Centro de Astrof\'\i sica} FONDAP

1825: No. 15010003. SL was also supported by FONDECYT grant N$^{\rm o}1060823$, and

1826: LFB by FONDECYT grant N$^{\rm o}1040423$. The RCS project is supported by

1827: grants to HY from the National Science and Engineering Research Council of

1828: Canada and the Canada Research Chair Program. This research has made use of

1829: the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) which is operated by the Jet

1830: Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with

1831: the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.  Funding for the SDSS and

1832: SDSS-II has been provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the Participating

1833: Institutions, the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy,

1834: the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Japanese

1835: Monbukagakusho, the Max Planck Society, and the Higher Education Funding

1836: Council for England. The SDSS Web Site is http://www.sdss.org/.

1837: 

1838: %Facilities: \facility{Magellan:Baade}

1839: 

1840: 

1841: \begin{thebibliography}{}

1842: %\bibitem[]{} 

1843: %Allen S. W., Schmidt R. W., Ebeling H., Fabian A. C., \& van Speybroeck

1844: %L. 2004, MNRAS, 353, 457

1845: \bibitem[]{} Barkhouse, W. A., Green, P. J., Vikhlinin, A., et al. 2006, ApJ, 645, 955

1846: \bibitem[]{} 

1847: Bartelmann, M., \& Loeb, A. 1996, ApJ, 457, 529

1848: \bibitem[]{} 

1849: Bergeron, J., \& Stasinska, G. 1986, A\&A, 169, 1

1850: \bibitem[]{} 

1851: Bergeron, J., \& Boiss\'e, P. 1991, A\&A, 243, 344

1852: %\bibitem[]{} 

1853: %Biviano, A., \&  Salucci, P. 2006, A\&A, 452, 75

1854: \bibitem[]{} 

1855: Bouche, N.,  Murphy, M. T., Peroux, C.,  Csabai, I., \& Wild, V.  2006, MNRAS,

1856: 371, 495 (BMPCW06)

1857: \bibitem[]{} 

1858: Boyle, B. J., Fong, R., \& Shanks, T. 1988, MNRAS, 231, 897

1859: \bibitem[]{} 

1860: Bravo-Alfaro, H., Cayatte, V., van Gorkom, J. H., \& Balkowski, C. 2000, AJ,

1861: 119, 580 

1862: \bibitem[]{} 

1863: Butcher, H. \& Oemler, G. 1984, ApJ, 285, 426

1864: \bibitem[]{} 

1865: Caulet, A. 1989, ApJ, 340, 90

1866: \bibitem[]{}

1867: Chung, A.,  van Gorkom, J. H., Kenney, J. D. P. \& Vollmer, B. 

1868: 2007, ApJ, 659, 115 

1869: \bibitem[]{}

1870: Churchill, C. W., Rigby, J. R., Charlton, J. C., \& Vogt, S. S. 1999, ApJS,

1871: 120, 51 (CRCV99)

1872: \bibitem[]{} 

1873: Churchill, C.W., Mellon, R.R., Charlton, J.C., Jannuzi, B.T., Kirhakos, S.,

1874: Steidel, C.C., \& Schneider, D.P. 2000, ApJ, 543, 577 

1875: \bibitem[]{} 

1876: Churchill, C. W., Vogt, S. S., \& Charlton, J. C. 2003, ApJ, 125, 98

1877: \bibitem[]{} 

1878: Churchill et al. 2005, IAU Conference 199, Shangai

1879: \bibitem[]{} 

1880: Churchill, C. W., Kacprzak, G. G., Steidel, C. C., \& Evans, J. L. 2007, ApJ,

1881: arXiv:astro-ph/0612560  

1882: \bibitem[]{}

1883: Cooke, J., Wolfe, A. M., Gawiser, E. \& Prochaska, J. X. 2006, ApJ,

1884: 636, 9	

1885: \bibitem[]{} 

1886: Cooray, A, 2006, MNRAS, 365, 842

1887: \bibitem[]{} 

1888: Croton, D., et al., 2006, MNRAS, 365, 11

1889: \bibitem[]{} 

1890: Dressler, A. 1980, ApJ, 236, 351

1891: \bibitem[]{}

1892: Ellison, S. L. \&  Lopez, S., 2001, A\& A, 380, 117

1893: \bibitem[]{}

1894: Ellison, S. L., Yan, L., Hook, I. M., Pettini, M., Wall, J. V. \&

1895: Shaver, P. 2002, A\&A  383, 91

1896: \bibitem[]{} 

1897: Ellison, S. L., Churchill, C. W., Rix, S. A., \& Pettini, M. 2004a, ApJ,

1898: 615, 118

1899: \bibitem[]{}

1900: Ellison, S. L., Ibata, R., Pettini, M., Lewis, G. F., Aracil, B.,

1901: Petitjean, P. \&  Srianand, R. 2004b A\&A, 414, 79

1902: \bibitem[]{} 

1903: Ellison, S. L., Kewley, L. J., \&  Mall\'en-Ornelas, G., 2005, MNRAS,

1904: 357, 354

1905: \bibitem[]{} 

1906: Ellison S. L., 2006, MNRAS, 368, 335

1907: \bibitem[]{} 

1908: Ettori, S. 2003, MNRAS, 344, L13

1909: \bibitem[]{} 

1910: Fassnacht, C. D., et al. 2006, ApJ, 651, 667

1911: \bibitem[]{} 

1912: Faure, C., Alloin, D., Kneib, J. P., \& Courbin, F., 2004, A\&A, 428, 741 

1913: \bibitem[]{} 

1914: Gehrels, N., 1986, ApJ, 303, 336

1915: \bibitem[]{} 

1916: Gilbank, D., Yee, H.~K.~C., Ellingson, E., Gladders, M. D., Barrientos,

1917: L.~F. \&  Blindert, K.\ 2007, \aj, 134, 282 

1918: \bibitem[]{}

1919: Giovanelli, R. \& Haynes, M. P. 1983, AJ, 88, 881

1920: \bibitem[]{} Gladders, M.~D., Yee, 

1921: H.~K.~C., Majumdar, S., Barrientos, L.~F., Hoekstra, H., Hall, P.~B., \& 

1922: Infante, L.\ 2007, \apj, 655, 128 

1923: \bibitem[Gladders \& Yee(2005)]{gladders2005} Gladders, M.~D., \& 

1924: Yee, H.~K.~C.\ 2005, \apjs, 157, 1 

1925: \bibitem[Gladders \& Yee(2000)]{gladders2000} Gladders, M.~D., \& 

1926: Yee, H.~K.~C.\ 2000, \aj, 120, 2148 

1927: %\bibitem[]{} 

1928: %Gonzalez, A. H., Zaritsky, D.,  \& Zabludoff, A. I., 2007, ApJ,

1929: %arXiv:0705.1726 

1930: \bibitem[]{} 

1931: Green, P. J., Infante, L., Lopez, S., Aldcroft, T. L., \& Winn, J. N. 2005,

1932: ApJ, 630, 142

1933: %\bibitem[]{} 

1934: %Hopkins, A. M., Rao, S. M., \& Turnshek, D. A. 2005, ApJ, 630, 108

1935: %\bibitem[]{} 

1936: %Howk, J. C., Wolfe, A. M., \& Prochaska, J. X. 2005, ApJ, 622, L81

1937: \bibitem[]{} 

1938: Kacprzak, G. G., Churchill, C. W., Steidel, C. C., Murphy, M. T., \& Evans,

1939: J. L. 2007, ApJ, 662, 909

1940: \bibitem[]{} 

1941: Kneib, J.-P., Cohen, J. G., \& Hjorth, J. 2000, ApJ, 544, L35

1942: \bibitem[]{} 

1943: Koester, B.~P. et al. 2007, \apj, 660, 239 

1944: \bibitem[]{}

1945: Lanzetta, K.M., Turnshek, D.A., \& Wolfe, A.M. 1987, ApJ, 322, 739

1946: \bibitem[]{} 

1947: Lanzetta, K.M., \& Bowen, D. 1990, ApJ, 357, 321

1948: \bibitem[]{} 

1949: Le Brun, V., Bergeron, J., Boisse, P., \& Deharveng, J. M. 2001, A\&A, 321, 733

1950: \bibitem[]{} 

1951: Lopez, S. \&  Ellison, S. L., 2003, A\& A, 403, 573

1952: \bibitem[]{} 

1953: Lynch, R. S., Charlton, J. C., \& Kim, T. S. 2006, ApJ, 640, 81

1954: \bibitem[]{} 

1955: Maller A. H. \&  Bullock J. S., 2004, MNRAS, 355, 694

1956: %\bibitem[]{} 

1957: %Martin, C. L., 2006, ApJ, 647, 222

1958: %\bibitem[]{} 

1959: McCarthy, I. G., Bower, R. G., \& Balogh, M. L. 2007, MNRAS,

1960: arXiv:astro-ph/0609314 

1961: \bibitem[]{} 

1962: M\'enard, B., Nestor, D., Turnshek, D., Quider, A., Richards, G., Chelouche,

1963: D., \& Rao, S. 2007, ApJ (arXiv:0706.0898) 

1964: \bibitem[]{} 

1965: Miller, E. D., Bregman, J. N., \& Knezek, P. M. 2002, ApJ, 569, 134

1966: %\bibitem[]{} 

1967: %Mshar, A. C., Charlton, J. C., Churchill, C. W., & Kim, T. S. 2007, ApJ,

1968: \bibitem[]{} 

1969: Myers, A. D., Outram, P. J., Shanks, T., Boyle, B. J., Croom, S. M., Loaring,

1970: N. S., Miller, L., \& Smith, R. J. 2003, MNRAS, 342, 467

1971: \bibitem[]{} 

1972: Narayanan, A., Misawa, T., Charlton, J. C. \& Kim, T.-S. 2007, ApJ, 660, 1093 

1973: \bibitem[]{} 

1974: Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., \& White, S. D. M. 1997, ApJ, 490, 493

1975: \bibitem[]{} 

1976: Nestor, D. B., Turnshek, D. A., \& Rao, S. M. 2005, ApJ, 628, 637 (NTR05)

1977: \bibitem[]{} 

1978: Nestor, D. B., Turnshek, D. A., \& Rao, S. M. 2006, ApJ, 643, 75 (NTR06)

1979: \bibitem[]{} 

1980: Nestor, D. B., Turnshek, D. A., Rao, S. M. \&  Quider, A. M.,  2007, ApJ, 658,

1981: 185

1982: \bibitem[]{} 

1983: Perlman, E. S.. Horner, D. J., Jones, L. R., Scharf, C. A., Ebeling, H.,

1984: Wegner, G., \&  Malkan, M. 2002, ApJS, 140, 265

1985: \bibitem[]{} 

1986: Petitjean P., \& Bergeron J., 1990, A\&A, 231, 309

1987: \bibitem[]{} 

1988: Pisano, D. J., Barnes, D. G., Gibson, B. K., Staveley-Smith, L., Freeman, K.,

1989: \& Kilborn, V. A., 2007, ApJ (arXiv:astro-ph/0703279)

1990: \bibitem[]{} 

1991: Prochaska, J. X., \& Herbert-Fort, S. 2004, PASP, 116, 622

1992: \bibitem[]{}

1993: Prochaska, J. X., Hennawi, J. F. \& Herbert-Fort, S. 2007,

1994: arXiv:astro-ph/0703594 

1995: \bibitem[]{} 

1996: Prochter, G. E., Prochaska, J. X., \& Burles, S. M.  2006, ApJ, 639, 766

1997: (PPB06) 

1998: \bibitem[]{} 

1999: Rao, S.M., \& Turnshek, D.A. 2000, ApJS, 130, 1

2000: \bibitem[]{} 

2001: Rao, S. M., Turnshek, D. A., \& Nestor, D. B.  2006, ApJ, 636, 610 

2002: %\bibitem[]{} 

2003: %Scannapieco, E., Pichon, C., Aracil, B., Petitjean, P., Thacker, R. J.,

2004: %Pogosyan, D., Bergeron, J., \& Couchman, H. M. P. 2006, MNRAS, 365, 615 

2005: \bibitem[]{}

2006: Rigby, J. R., Charlton, J. C., \& Churchill, C. W. 2002, ApJ, 565, 743

2007: \bibitem[]{}

2008: Russell, D. M., Ellison, S. L. \&  Benn, C. R. 2006, MNRAS, 367, 412

2009: \bibitem[]{} 

2010: Schneider, D. P. et al. 2005, AJ, 130, 367

2011: \bibitem[]{} 

2012: Scranton, R., et al. 2005, ApJ, 633, 589

2013: \bibitem[]{} 

2014: Smette, A, Claeskens J.-F.\& Surdej, J. 1997, New Astronomy, 2, 53

2015: \bibitem[]{} 

2016: Sparks, W. B., Carollo, C. M., \& Macchetto, F. 1997, ApJ, 486, 253

2017: \bibitem[]{} 

2018: Spergel, D. N., Bean, R., Dore , O.,

2019: Nolta, M. R., Bennett, C. L., Hinshaw, G., Jarosik, N., Komatsu, E., Page, L.,

2020: Peiris, L., Verde, L., Barnes, C., Halpern, M., Hill, R. S., Kogut, A., Limon,

2021: M., Meyer, S. S., Odegard, N., Tucker, G. S., Weiland, J. L., Wollack, E., \&

2022: Wright, E. L. 2007, arXiv:astro-ph/0603449

2023: \bibitem[]{} 

2024: Steidel, C. C., Kollmeier, J. A., Shapley, A. E., Churchill, C. W.,

2025: Dickinson, M., \& Pettini, M., 2002, ApJ, 570, 526

2026: \bibitem[]{} 

2027: Steidel, C. C., \& Sargent, W. L. W. 1992, ApJS, 80, 1 

2028: \bibitem[]{} 

2029: Stocke, J. T., Morris, S. L., Gioia, I. M., Maccacaro, T.,

2030: Schild, R., Wolter, A., Fleming, T. A., \& Henry, J. P. 1991, ApJS, 76, 813

2031: \bibitem[]{} 

2032: Takei, Y., Henry, J. P., Finoguenov, A., Mitsuda, K., Tamura, T.,

2033: Fujimoto, R., \& Briel, U. G., 2007, ApJ, 655, 831    

2034: \bibitem[]{} 

2035: Tytler, D., Boksenberg, A., Sargent, W.L.W., Young, P., \& Kunth, D. 1987,

2036: ApJS, 64, 667 

2037: \bibitem[]{} 

2038: Verheijen, M., van Gorkom, J., Szomoru, A., Dwarakanath, K. S.,

2039: Poggianti, B., \& Schiminovich, D., 2007, NewAR, 51, 90

2040: \bibitem[]{} 

2041: Vollmer, B., Soida, M., Beck, R., Urbanik, M., Chyży, K. T.,

2042: Otmianowska-Mazur, K., Kenney, J. D. P., \& van Gorkom, J. H. 2007, A\&A 464,

2043: 37 

2044: \bibitem[]{} 

2045: Vollmer, B., Braine, J. Combes, F., \& Sofue, Y. 2005, A\&A 441, 473 

2046: \bibitem[]{} 

2047: White S. D. M., Navarro J. F., Evrard A. E., \& Frenk C. S. 1993, Nature, 366,

2048: 429 

2049: \bibitem[]{}

2050: Williger, G. M., Campusano, L. E., Clowes, R. G. \&  Graham, M. J. 2002, ApJ,

2051: 578, 708 

2052: \bibitem[]{}

2053: Wolfe, A. M., Howk, J. C., Gawiser, E., Prochaska, J. X., \& Lopez, S. 2004,

2054: ApJ, 615, 625 

2055: \bibitem[Yee \& Ellingson(2003)]{yee2003} Yee, H.~K.~C., \& 

2056: Ellingson, E.\ 2003, \apj, 585, 215 

2057: \bibitem[]{}

2058: York et al. 2000, AJ, 120, 1579

2059: \bibitem[]{}

2060: Zibetti, S. M\'enard, B., Nestor, D. B., Quider, A. M., Rao, S. M., \&

2061: Turnshek, D. A. 2007, ApJ, 658, 161

2062: \bibitem[]{}

2063: Zwaan M. A., et al. 2003, AJ, 125, 2842

2064: \end{thebibliography}

2065: 

2066: 

2067: 

2068: 

2069: 

2070: 

2071: 

2072: 

2073: 

2074: 

2075: 

2076: 

2077: 

2078: \clearpage

2079: 

2080: 

2081: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccc}

2082: \tablewidth{5.30in}

2083: \tablecaption{High-resolution spectroscopic  quasar

2084:   observations.\label{tbl-obs}}  

2085: \tablehead{

2086: \colhead{Quasar } & 

2087: \colhead{$g$-mag} & 

2088: \colhead{Exposure Time} &  

2089: \colhead{S/N\tablenotemark{a}} &

2090: \colhead{Date} 

2091: }

2092: \startdata

2093: %

2094: CTQ414               &17.0&  4500& 19   & Sept. 29 2006\\

2095: 022157.81+000042.5   &18.7&  7200& 19   & Sept. 24 2006\\

2096: 022239.83+000022.5   &18.5&  7200& 20   & Sept. 23 2006\\

2097: 022300.41+005250.0   &18.7&  4500& 24   & Sept. 24 2006\\

2098: 022441.09+001547.9   &18.9&  7200& 15   & Sept. 29 2006\\

2099: 022553.59+005130.9   &19.1&  3400& 10   & Sept. 30 2006\\

2100: 022839.32+004623.0   &19.0&  9900& 10   & Sept. 30 2006\\

2101: CXOMP J054242.5-40   &18.9& 16200& 13   & March 18,19 2006\\

2102: RXJ0911              &18.8& 43200& 51   & UVES Archive\\

2103: Q1120+0195(UM425)    &15.7& 12900& 107  & March 18,19 2006\\

2104: 4974A\tablenotemark{b}&19.3& 11600&  8   & Sept. 23, 24 2006\\

2105: HE2149-2745A         &16.8&  5400&  35  &   Sept. 29 2006\\

2106: 0918A\tablenotemark{b}&18.2&  7200&  15  &   Sept. 23 2006\\

2107: 231500.81-001831.2   &18.9&  7200&  18  &   Sept. 29 2006\\

2108: 231509.34+001026.2   &17.7&  7200&  33  &   Sept. 24 2006\\

2109: 231658.64+004028.7   &18.7&  7200&  13  &   Sept. 29 2006\\

2110: 231759.63-000733.2   &19.2&  7200&  10  &   Sept. 24 2006\\

2111: 231958.70-002449.3   &18.6&  7200&  15  &   Sept. 23 2006\\

2112: 232030.97-004039.2   &18.9&  9000&   8  &  Sept. 30 2006\\

2113: \enddata

2114: \tablenotetext{a}{Median signal-to-noise per pixel.}

2115: \tablenotetext{b}{Newly discovered quasars. Named after Chandra fields.}

2116: \end{deluxetable}

2117: 

2118: 

2119: 

2120: \clearpage

2121: 

2122: 

2123: 

2124: \begin{deluxetable}{clccccc}

2125: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

2126: \tablewidth{4.5in}

2127: \tablecaption{\mgii\  Systems.\label{tbl-qsos}} 

2128: \tablehead{

2129: \colhead{LOS} & 

2130: \colhead{Quasar} & 

2131: \colhead{$z_{\rm em}$} & 

2132: \colhead{$z_{\rm EW}$} & 

2133: \colhead{$z_{\rm abs}$} & 

2134: \colhead{$W_0^{2796}$ [\AA]} &

2135: \colhead{$\sigma_{W_0^{2796}}$ [\AA]}\\  

2136: \colhead{(1)} &

2137: \colhead{(2)} &

2138: \colhead{(3)} &

2139: \colhead{(4)} &

2140: \colhead{(5)} &

2141: \colhead{(6)} &

2142: \colhead{(7)} 

2143: }

2144: \startdata

2145: % LO QSO                z_QSO z_min z_abs  W_r   errW 

2146: % -- ------------------ ----- ----- ------ ----- -----

2147:   1 &CTQ414             & 1.29 &0.224 &0.3162& 0.484& 0.022\\

2148:   2 &022157.81+000042.5 & 1.04 &0.237 &0.5919& 0.069& 0.008\\

2149:     &                   &    * &    * &0.9812& 0.076& 0.009\\

2150:     &                   &    * &    * &0.4190& 0.030& 0.009\\

2151:   3 &022239.83+000022.5 & 0.99 &0.221 &0.6815& 0.695& 0.010\\

2152:     &                   &    * &    * &0.8207& 0.118& 0.024\\

2153:     &                   &    * &    * &0.7768& 0.122& 0.008\\

2154:     &                   &    * &    * &0.7746& 0.150& 0.008\\

2155:   4 &022300.41+005250.0 & 1.25 &0.212 &0.9493& 0.043& 0.010\\

2156:   5 &022441.09+001547.9 & 1.20 &0.224 &1.0554& 0.881& 0.036\\

2157:     &                   &    * &    * &0.9395& 0.080& 0.020\\

2158:     &                   &    * &    * &0.6146& 0.181& 0.016\\

2159:     &                   &    * &    * &0.3785& 1.181& 0.043\\

2160:     &                   &    * &    * &0.2503& 0.732& 0.037\\

2161:   6 &022553.59+005130.9 & 1.82 &0.383 &1.2253& 0.177& 0.032\\

2162:     &                   &    * &    * &1.0945& 1.685& 0.065\\

2163:     &                   &    * &    * &0.7494& 0.159& 0.015\\

2164:     &                   &    * &    * &0.6816& 0.333& 0.019\\

2165:   7 &022839.32+004623.0 & 1.29 &0.340 &0.6542& 0.597& 0.016\\

2166:   8 &CXOMP J054242.5-40 & 1.44 &0.353 &1.0160& 0.414& 0.055\\

2167:   9 &RXJ0911.4+0551     & 2.80 &0.190 &0.7684& 0.020& 0.002\\

2168:     &                   &    * &    * &0.7747& 0.033& 0.002\\

2169:     &                   &    * &    * &0.9946& 0.052& 0.002\\

2170:     &                   &    * &    * &1.2100& 0.126& 0.002\\

2171:  10 &Q1120+0195(UM425)  & 1.47 &0.203 &0.2476& 0.540& 0.005\\

2172:  11 &4974A              & 1.50 &0.415 &0.7320& 0.388& 0.027\\

2173:     &                   &    * &    * &0.4527& 0.115& 0.023\\

2174:  12 &HE2149-2745A       & 2.03 &0.211 &0.6008& 0.175& 0.006\\

2175:     &                   &    * &    * &0.6028& 0.015& 0.004\\

2176:     &                   &    * &    * &0.4460& 0.016& 0.005\\

2177:     &                   &    * &    * &0.4086& 0.228& 0.008\\

2178:     &                   &    * &    * &0.5139& 0.028& 0.003\\

2179:     &                   &    * &    * &1.0184& 0.219& 0.013\\

2180:  13 &0918A              & 1.94 &0.237 &1.6055& 0.661& 0.021\\

2181:     &                   &    * &    * &1.6105& 0.050& 0.010\\

2182:  14 &231500.81-001831.2 & 1.32 &0.225 &0.5068& 0.063& 0.009\\

2183:     &                   &    * &    * &0.5040& 0.148& 0.009\\

2184:  15 &231509.34+001026.2 & 0.85 &0.209 &0.4470& 1.758& 0.009\\

2185:  16 &231658.64+004028.7 & 1.05 &0.286 &0.4142& 0.137& 0.015\\

2186:  17 &231759.63-000733.2 & 1.15 &0.382 &0.6010& 0.109& 0.016\\

2187:  18 &231958.70-002449.3 & 1.89 &0.228 &0.4154& 0.192& 0.021\\

2188:     &                   &    * &    * &0.4067& 0.151& 0.017\\

2189:     &                   &    * &    * &0.8460& 2.028& 0.024\\

2190:  19 &232030.97-004039.2 & 1.72 &0.355 &0.6980& 0.313& 0.012\\

2191:  20 &022505.06+001733.2 & 2.42 &0.350 &0.9710& 1.610& 0.100\\

2192:  21 &092142.03+384316.1 & 2.34 &0.350 &0.4730& 1.760& 0.100\\

2193:  22 &092216.62+384448.0 & 0.59 &0.350 &0.5880& 1.080& 0.100\\

2194:  23 &092746.94+375612.2 & 1.31 &0.350 &0.7780& 2.370& 0.100\\

2195:  24 &092850.88+373713.0 & 1.45 &0.350 &1.3310& 3.320& 0.100\\

2196:  25 &131623.99-015834.9 & 3.00 &0.350 &1.3140& 1.170& 0.100\\

2197:  26 &141604.55+541039.6 & 1.49 &0.350 &1.0310& 1.790& 0.100\\

2198:  27 &141635.78+525649.4 & 1.38 &0.350 &0.6980& 2.640& 0.100\\

2199:  28 &141738.54+534251.1 & 2.58 &0.350 &0.7280& 1.580& 0.100\\

2200:  29 &141838.36+522359.3 & 1.12 &0.350 &1.0230& 1.470& 0.100\\

2201:  30 &141905.17+522527.7 & 1.61 &0.350 &0.4920& 1.120& 0.100\\

2202:  31 &142043.68+532206.3 & 1.72 &0.350 &0.7650& 1.570& 0.100\\

2203:     &                   &    * &    * &1.6980& 1.900& 0.100\\

2204:  32 &142106.86+533745.1 & 1.86 &0.350 &0.8510& 1.800& 0.100\\

2205:  33 &231710.78+000859.0 & 1.68 &0.350 &1.7970& 2.140& 0.100\\

2206:  34 &231912.83+002046.6 & 1.23 &0.350 &1.1400& 1.560& 0.100\\

2207:  35 &232001.05-005450.5 & 1.69 &0.350 &1.4220& 2.440& 0.100\\

2208:  36 &232007.52+002944.3 & 0.94 &0.350 &0.9090& 1.240& 0.100\\

2209:  37 &232133.76-010645.  & 1.98 &0.350 &1.5200& 1.220& 0.100\\

2210:  38 &232208.09+005948.3 & 1.47 &0.350 &1.1950& 2.480& 0.100\\

2211:     &                   &    * &    * &1.4100& 2.520& 0.100\\

2212: \enddata

2213: \tablecomments{

2214: Table columns: (1) Line-of-sight Numbering [LOS 1--19: Absorbers found in

2215:   sample {\it S1}; LOS 20--31: Absorbers found in sample {\it S2}]; (2) Quasar

2216:   Name; (3) Emission redshift; (4) Minimum redshift for  a $3\sigma$ detection

2217:   of the \mgii\ $\lambda 2796$ line with  $W>W_0^{min}$; 

2218:   (5) \mgii\ absorption redshift; (6) and (7) Rest-frame equivalent width of

2219:   \mgii\ $\lambda 2796$ in

2220:   \AA\  and $1\sigma$ error.

2221: }  

2222: \end{deluxetable}

2223: 

2224: 

2225: \clearpage

2226: 

2227: 

2228: \begin{deluxetable}{clccccr}

2229: \tablewidth{4.8in}

2230: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

2231: \tablecaption{Galaxy Clusters.\label{tbl-clusters}} 

2232: \tablehead{

2233: \colhead{LOS} & 

2234: \colhead{Cluster} & 

2235: \colhead{$z_{\rm cluster}$} &  

2236: \colhead{$z_{\rm min}$} &  

2237: \colhead{$z_{\rm max}$} &  

2238: \colhead{$d$ [arcmin]} & 

2239: \colhead{$d$ [\hkpc]}\\

2240: \colhead{(1)} &

2241: \colhead{(2)} &

2242: \colhead{(3)} &

2243: \colhead{(4)} &

2244: \colhead{(5)} &

2245: \colhead{(6)} &

2246: \colhead{(7)} 

2247: }

2248: \startdata

2249: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2250: %  Table : LOS_v5_2Mpc 

2251: % Sequence LO cluster          z_clu z_min z_max d_min d_kpc 

2252: % -------- -- ---------------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ------

2253:   1& group/cluster    &0.500\tablenotemark{a} &0.400 &0.600  &0.19 &  69.6\\

2254:   2& RCS022200+0000.1 &0.270 &0.237 &0.370  &5.99 &1475.5\\

2255:   3& RCS022239+0001.7 &0.502 &0.402 &0.602  &1.37 & 499.6\\

2256:    & RCS022221+0001.1 &0.270 &0.221 &0.370  &4.59 &1130.9\\

2257:   4& RCS022302+0052.9 &0.509 &0.409 &0.609  &0.56 & 208.1\\

2258:    & RCS022253+0055.1 &0.939 &0.839 &1.039  &2.93 &1390.2\\

2259:   5& RCS022443+0017.6 &0.431 &0.331 &0.531  &1.96 & 656.4\\

2260:    & RCS022436+0014.2 &0.173 &0.224 &0.273  &1.88 & 328.2\\

2261:    & RCS022431+0018.0 &0.480 &0.380 &0.580  &3.33 &1188.6\\

2262:    & RCS022449+0016.2 &0.818 &0.718 &0.918  &2.07 & 941.3\\

2263:    & RCS022454+0013.3 &0.511 &0.411 &0.611  &4.07 &1503.6\\

2264:   6& RCS022546+0050.0 &0.873 &0.773 &0.973  &2.27 &1052.1\\

2265:    & RCS022556+0052.7 &0.928 &0.828 &1.028  &1.48 & 700.6\\

2266:    & RCS022553+0052.5 &0.423 &0.383 &0.523  &1.00 & 332.6\\

2267:    & RCS022602+0055.5 &0.352 &0.383 &0.452  &4.57 &1349.7\\

2268:    & RCS022558+0051.8 &0.701 &0.601 &0.801  &1.30 & 557.7\\

2269:   7& RCS022828+0044.9 &1.032 &0.932 &1.132  &2.98 &1450.7\\

2270:    & RCS022829+0045.8 &0.774 &0.674 &0.874  &2.51 &1118.7\\

2271:    & RCS022832+0046.5 &0.629 &0.529 &0.729  &1.82 & 743.8\\

2272:    & RCS022841+0044.9 &0.271 &0.340 &0.371  &1.50 & 371.7\\

2273:    & RCS022844+0047.7 &0.516 &0.416 &0.616  &1.85 & 685.6\\

2274:   8& 054240.1-405503  &0.634\tablenotemark{b} &0.624 &0.644  &3.70 &1519.8\\

2275:    & [BGV2006] 015    &0.502\tablenotemark{b} &0.492 &0.512  &3.70 &1353.1\\

2276:    & [BGV2006] 018    &0.527\tablenotemark{b} &0.517 &0.537  &2.90 &1088.4\\

2277:   9& RX J0911+05      &0.769\tablenotemark{c} &0.759 &0.779  &0.70 & 311.3\\

2278:  10& UM425            &0.770\tablenotemark{d} &0.760 &0.780  &0.10 &  44.5\\

2279:  11& MS2137.3-2353    &0.313\tablenotemark{e} &0.303 &0.323  &1.95 & 532.6\\

2280:  12& group/cluster    &0.700\tablenotemark{a} &0.600 &0.800  &0.18 &  77.2\\

2281:  13& CLJ2302.8+0844   &0.722\tablenotemark{f} &0.712 &0.732  &1.50 & 651.1\\

2282:  14& RCS231515-0015.6 &0.566 &0.466 &0.666  &4.58 &1782.4\\

2283:    & RCS231506-0018.1 &0.560 &0.460 &0.660  &1.59 & 614.2\\

2284:    & RCS231501-0013.6 &0.557 &0.457 &0.657  &4.92 &1901.2\\

2285:    & RCS231515-0015.8 &0.496 &0.396 &0.596  &4.49 &1631.9\\

2286:    & RCS231459-0018.9 &0.522 &0.422 &0.622  &0.52 & 195.3\\

2287:    & RCS231512-0020.1 &0.517 &0.417 &0.617  &3.43 &1275.2\\

2288:  15& RCS231509+0012.1 &0.420 &0.320 &0.520  &1.77 & 583.3\\

2289:  16& RCS231725+0036.6 &0.266 &0.286 &0.366  &7.70 &1876.6\\

2290:  17& RCS231755-0011.3 &0.573 &0.473 &0.673  &3.92 &1536.7\\

2291:  18& RCS231947-0028.3 &0.651 &0.551 &0.751  &4.52 &1879.1\\

2292:    & RCS231944-0027.0 &0.805 &0.705 &0.905  &4.28 &1934.4\\

2293:    & RCS231944-0026.8 &0.844 &0.744 &0.944  &4.01 &1840.3\\

2294:    & RCS231958-0023.2 &0.796 &0.696 &0.896  &1.59 & 716.9\\

2295:    & RCS231958-0025.1 &0.789 &0.689 &0.889  &0.31 & 141.1\\

2296:  19& RCS232028-0043.0 &1.085 &0.985 &1.185  &2.51 &1234.6\\

2297:    & RCS232029-0038.1 &0.589 &0.489 &0.689  &2.50 & 990.7\\

2298:    & RCS232027-0042.7 &0.853 &0.753 &0.953  &2.30 &1060.0\\

2299:  20& RCS022443+0017.6 &0.431 &0.350 &0.531  &5.43 &1820.9\\

2300:    & RCS022527+0015.2 &0.345 &0.350 &0.445  &6.07 &1770.4\\

2301:    & RCS022454+0013.3 &0.511 &0.411 &0.611  &5.01 &1850.0\\

2302:    & RCS022449+0016.2 &0.818 &0.718 &0.918  &4.18 &1902.4\\

2303:  21& RCS092148+3841.2 &0.961 &0.861 &1.061  &2.35 &1123.3\\

2304:    & RCS092130+3843.8 &0.373 &0.350 &0.473  &2.33 & 714.1\\

2305:    & RCS092123+3836.3 &0.285 &0.350 &0.385  &7.82 &1999.0\\

2306:    & RCS092131+3845.6 &0.519 &0.419 &0.619  &3.13 &1165.5\\

2307:  22& RCS092223+3842.0 &0.501 &0.401 &0.590  &3.05 &1115.5\\

2308:    & RCS092219+3846.1 &0.598 &0.498 &0.590  &1.40 & 559.5\\

2309:    & RCS092222+3841.4 &0.434 &0.350 &0.534  &3.57 &1201.1\\

2310:  23& RCS092809+3754.8 &0.441 &0.350 &0.541  &4.73 &1607.4\\

2311:    & RCS092753+3755.5 &0.844 &0.744 &0.944  &1.41 & 647.6\\

2312:    & RCS092811+3756.3 &0.569 &0.469 &0.669  &4.82 &1881.5\\

2313:    & RCS092743+3800.2 &0.540 &0.440 &0.640  &4.08 &1548.8\\

2314:    & RCS092742+3759.2 &0.875 &0.775 &0.975  &3.22 &1495.2\\

2315:    & RCS092731+3754.3 &0.768 &0.668 &0.868  &3.61 &1605.9\\

2316:    & RCS092740+3756.9 &0.773 &0.673 &0.873  &1.49 & 665.0\\

2317:  24& RCS092901+3738.6 &0.882 &0.782 &0.982  &2.48 &1157.5\\

2318:    & RCS092843+3741.7 &0.368 &0.350 &0.468  &4.74 &1440.7\\

2319:    & RCS092905+3739.5 &0.640 &0.540 &0.740  &3.65 &1507.0\\

2320:    & RCS092843+3734.6 &0.755 &0.655 &0.855  &2.93 &1295.9\\

2321:    & RCS092851+3733.7 &0.769 &0.669 &0.869  &3.43 &1525.7\\

2322:  25& RCS131627-0157.6 &0.897 &0.797 &0.997  &1.18 & 550.8\\

2323:  26& RCS141601+5410.4 &1.387 &1.287 &1.487  &0.48 & 244.6\\

2324:    & RCS141617+5407.3 &0.943 &0.843 &1.043  &3.78 &1795.4\\

2325:    & RCS141546+5407.8 &0.698 &0.598 &0.798  &3.87 &1658.0\\

2326:  27& RCS141627+5256.8 &0.687 &0.587 &0.787  &1.19 & 504.6\\

2327:  28& RCS141749+5341.4 &1.384 &1.284 &1.484  &2.18 &1112.3\\

2328:    & RCS141756+5344.3 &0.378 &0.350 &0.478  &3.06 & 946.6\\

2329:    & RCS141724+5342.7 &0.649 &0.549 &0.749  &2.04 & 844.8\\

2330:  29& RCS141803+5223.1 &0.271 &0.350 &0.371  &5.40 &1333.4\\

2331:    & RCS141838+5225.7 &0.614 &0.514 &0.714  &1.72 & 695.8\\

2332:    & RCS141824+5228.0 &0.328 &0.350 &0.428  &4.52 &1273.7\\

2333:    & RCS141840+5221.8 &0.838 &0.738 &0.938  &2.22 &1018.8\\

2334:  30& RCS141946+5223.3 &0.337 &0.350 &0.437  &6.72 &1930.6\\

2335:    & RCS141923+5228.5 &0.400 &0.350 &0.500  &4.11 &1317.9\\

2336:    & RCS141838+5225.7 &0.614 &0.514 &0.714  &4.09 &1653.9\\

2337:    & RCS141824+5228.0 &0.328 &0.350 &0.428  &6.65 &1873.0\\

2338:  31& RCS142018+5322.3 &1.147 &1.047 &1.247  &3.70 &1841.2\\

2339:  32& RCS142111+5339.8 &0.825 &0.725 &0.925  &2.23 &1014.9\\

2340:  33& RCS231711+0012.5 &0.521 &0.421 &0.621  &3.51 &1309.6\\

2341:  34& RCS231924+0023.1 &0.908 &0.808 &1.008  &3.64 &1713.1\\

2342:    & RCS231923+0020.5 &0.285 &0.350 &0.385  &2.58 & 658.9\\

2343:  35& RCS232013-0053.2 &0.835 &0.735 &0.935  &3.54 &1619.9\\

2344:    & RCS232016-0056.7 &0.695 &0.595 &0.795  &4.23 &1807.4\\

2345:  36& RCS231952+0028.4 &0.569 &0.469 &0.669  &3.94 &1539.8\\

2346:  37& RCS232148-0104.1 &0.732 &0.632 &0.832  &4.57 &1994.4\\

2347:  38& RCS232158+0100.3 &0.684 &0.584 &0.784  &2.58 &1096.0\\

2348:    & RCS232157+0100.2 &0.856 &0.756 &0.956  &2.57 &1187.7\\

2349:    & RCS232206+0101.6 &0.661 &0.561 &0.761  &1.86 & 780.1\\

2350: % -------- -- ---------------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ------

2351: %                                                        

2352:                                                          

2353: \enddata                                                 

2354: \tablecomments{Table displays only lines-of-sights with detected absorption.}

2355: \tablecomments{Table columns: (1) Line-of-sight Numbering (same as in

2356:   Table~\ref{tbl-qsos}); (2) Cluster Name;               

2357:   (3) Cluster Redshift [references other than the RCS are: $^a$Faure et

2358:   al. (2004), $^b$Barkhouse et al. (2006), $^c$Kneib, Cohen \& Hjorth (2000),

2359:   $^d$Green et al. (2005), $^e$Stocke et al. (1991), $^f$Perlman et

2360:   al. (2002)]; (4) and (5) Minimum and Maximum redshift surveyed,

2361:   respectively; (6) and (7) Projected distance in arcminutes 

2362: and  physical distance at \zc, respectively,  from quasar

2363:   line-of-sight to   cluster   coordinates. 

2364: }  

2365: \end{deluxetable}

2366: 

2367: 

2368: 

2369: 

2370: \clearpage

2371: 

2372: \begin{table}

2373: \caption{Statistical Samples.\label{tbl-samples}}

2374: \begin{tabular}{lcccccccccccc}

2375: \tableline\tableline

2376: &&& Quasars&&\multicolumn{2}{c}{Clusters}&&\multicolumn{2}{c}{Pairs}&&\multicolumn{2}{c}{Absorbers}\\

2377: \cline{4-4} \cline{6-7} \cline{9-10}\cline{12-13}\\

2378:     &$z_{\rm min}$ & $z_{\rm max}$    & \# && \#\tablenotemark{a} &$\langle B_{gc}\rangle$ &&\#\tablenotemark{a} &$\Delta$\zc&& $W_0^{\rm min}$[\AA]  &

2379: \#\tablenotemark{b}\\  

2380: \tableline

2381: %                             quasars clusters pairs           absorbers

2382: %            z_min z_max         #      # <Bgc>   #  Deltaz    W_min  #

2383: %	    	    						   

2384: SDSS-RCS     & 0.20 &  ...  &     190&&    368 & ... && 442 &    ...&&     ...  &...\\

2385: {\it S1     }& 0.20 &  0.90 &      19&&     46 & 327 &&  46 &   6.32&&      0.05&  37\\

2386: {\it S2     }& 0.35 &  0.90 &     144&&    255 & 263 && 375 &  57.01&&    1.0   &  23\\

2387: {\it S2-best}& 0.35 &  0.90 &      88&&    104 & 488 && 125 &  18.06&&    1.0   &  14\\

2388: %

2389: %

2390: %SDSS-RCS  &          190&  368 &  442&& & &&\\

2391: %{\it S1}  &           19&   46 &   46&& 0.20&   0.90& 0.05&  37\\

2392: %{\it S2}  &          144&  255 &  291&& 0.35&   0.90& 1.0 &  23\\

2393: \tableline

2394: \end{tabular}

2395: \tablenotetext{}{Note.---These samples are not disjoint.}

2396: \tablenotetext{a}{Number of objects having $z_{\rm min}-\delta z<$ \zc $<

2397:   z_{\rm max}+\delta z$}

2398: \tablenotetext{b}{Total number of systems with $W>W_0^{\rm min}$}

2399: \end{table}

2400: 

2401: 

2402: \clearpage

2403: 

2404: \begin{table}

2405: \caption{Redshift Path Density of \mgii\ in Clusters at $\langle z \rangle=0.6$.\label{tbl-hits}}

2406: \begin{tabular}{lcccccc}

2407: \tableline\tableline

2408: Sample & $\Delta$\zc\tablenotemark{a} &  $W_0^{2796}$ [\AA] & $N_{\rm hits}$\tablenotemark{a} &

2409:  $(dN/dz)_c$\tablenotemark{b}& $(dN/dz)_f$\tablenotemark{c}& Overdensity $\delta$   \\ 

2410: \tableline

2411: \multicolumn{7}{c}{$d<2$ \hmpc}\\

2412: \cline{1-7} \\

2413: {\it S1 }&    6.32 & $[0.05,0.3]$&          5 &       0.79(0.31,1.67)    &     1.09  &   0.7\\

2414: {\it S1 }&    6.32 & $>0.3$      &          6 &       0.95(0.41,1.88)    &     0.68  &   1.4\\

2415: {\it S1 }&    6.32 & $>0.6$      &          4 &       0.63(0.22,1.45)    &     0.42  &   1.5\\

2416: {\it S2 }&   57.01 & $>1.0$      &          9 &       0.16(0.09,0.29)    &     0.16  &   1.0\\

2417: {\it S2 }&   57.01 & $>2.0$      &          3 &       0.05(0.02,0.14)    &     0.040 &   1.3\\

2418: {\it S2 }&   57.01 & $[2.0,3.0]$ &          3 &      0.053(0.015,0.141)  &0.033\tablenotemark{d} &   1.6\tablenotemark{d}\\ 

2419: {\it S2-best}&18.06&  $>1.0$     &          5 &         0.28(0.11,0.58)  &    0.16   &  1.8\\

2420: {\it S2-best}&18.06&  $>2.0$     &          2 &         0.11(0.02,0.35)  &    0.040  &  2.8\\

2421: \tableline

2422: \multicolumn{7}{c}{$d<1$ \hmpc}\\

2423: \cline{1-7} \\

2424: {\it S1} &   3.33  & $[0.05,0.3]$&        4  &       1.20(0.41,2.75)   &    1.09   &  1.1 \\

2425: {\it S1} &   3.33  & $>0.3$      &        6  &       1.80(0.75,3.51)   &    0.68   &  2.6 \\

2426: {\it S1} &   3.33  & $>0.6$      &        4  &       1.20(0.41,2.75)   &    0.42   &  2.9 \\

2427: {\it S2} &  14.13  & $>1.0$      &        7  &       0.50(0.23,0.93)   &    0.16   &  3.1 \\

2428: {\it S2} &  14.13  & $>2.0$      &        3  &       0.21(0.06,0.55)   &    0.040  &  5.3 \\

2429: {\it S2} &  14.13  & $[2.0,3.0]$ &        3  &      0.212(0.058,0.549) &    0.033\tablenotemark{d}  &  6.4\tablenotemark{d} \\

2430: {\it S2-best}& 5.51& $>1.0$      &        4  &        0.73(0.25,1.66)  &    0.16   &  4.5\\

2431: {\it S2-best}& 5.51& $>2.0$      &        2  &        0.36(0.06,1.14)  &    0.040  &  9.1\\

2432: \tableline

2433: \multicolumn{7}{c}{$d<0.5$ \hmpc}\\

2434: \cline{1-7} \\

2435: {\it S1} &  1.45   & $[0.05,0.3]$&       3   &     2.07(0.57,5.35)     &   1.09    & 1.9 \\

2436: {\it S1} &  1.45   & $>0.3$      &       2   &     1.38(0.25,4.35)     &   0.68    & 2.0 \\

2437: {\it S1} &  1.45   & $>0.6$      &       2   &     1.38(0.25,4.35)     &   0.42    & 3.3 \\

2438: {\it S2} &  3.72   & $>1.0$      &       1   &     0.27(0.01,1.28)     &   0.16    & 1.7 \\

2439: {\it S2} &  3.72   & $>2.0$      &       1   &     0.27(0.01,1.28)     &   0.040   & 6.8 \\

2440: {\it S2} &  3.72   & $[2.0,3.0]$ &       1   &    0.269(0.014,1.275)   &   0.033\tablenotemark{d}   & 8.2\tablenotemark{d} \\

2441: {\it S2-best}&  0.79&  $>1.0$    &         0 & &&\\  

2442: \tableline

2443: \end{tabular}

2444: \tablenotetext{a}{Between $z=z_{\rm min}$ and $z=0.9$}

2445: \tablenotetext{b}{Cluster redshift density with  $95$\%  confidence limits}

2446: \tablenotetext{c}{

2447: Field redshift density. $W_0>1$ \AA\ cut  from

2448: PPB06; $W_0>2$ and $W_0>0.6$ \AA\ cuts from NTR05 using

2449: $(dN/dz)_f=1.001(1+z)^{0.226}\exp[{-(W_0/0.443)(1+z)^{-0.634}}]$; and

2450: $W_0<0.3$ \AA\ cuts  from Churchill et al. (1999) with

2451: $(dN/dz)_f=0.8(1+z)^{1.3}$ and a 76.7\%\ downward correction due to their

2452: smaller $W_0^{\rm min}=0.02$ \AA.}

2453: \tablenotetext{d}{NTR06 find $(dN/dz)_f \approx 0.015$, implying a factor of $\sim

2454:   2.2$ 

2455:   higher overdensity in this bin at the $>3\sigma$ level.}

2456: \end{table}

2457: 

2458: 

2459: 

2460: \begin{deluxetable}{cccc}

2461: \tablewidth{5in}

2462: \tablecaption{Expected Galaxy Overdensity.\label{tbl-galaxy}} 

2463: \tablehead{

2464: \colhead{$\log_{10}(M/M_{\sun})$} & 

2465: \colhead{$d<2$ \hmpc} & 

2466: \colhead{$d<1$ \hmpc} &

2467: \colhead{$d<0.5$ \hmpc} \\

2468: }

2469: \startdata

2470: 

2471: 13 & 1.7   &  8.2 &34.0\\

2472: 14 & 10.0  & 40.0 &132.0\\

2473: %15 & 40.0  & 128.0&354.0 \\

2474: \enddata

2475: \end{deluxetable}

2476: 

2477: 

2478: 

2479: \clearpage

2480: 

2481: 

2482: \begin{figure}

2483: \epsscale{.80}

2484: \includegraphics[angle=-90,scale=.8]{f1.eps}

2485: \caption{ {\it Left:} Number of quasar-cluster pairs in the SDSS-RCS

2486:   sample as a function of the projected physical distance between

2487:   cluster and quasar line-of-sight at cluster redshift. The line is

2488:   the expectation for constant projected number density of pairs. {\it

2489:   Right:} Redshift distribution (normalized to maximum frequency) of

2490:   clusters in the SDSS-RCS sample and of \mgii\ absorbers in Prochter,

2491:   Prochaska \& Burles (2006).\label{fig_histo}}

2492: \end{figure}

2493: 

2494: \clearpage

2495: 

2496: \begin{figure}

2497: \epsscale{.80}

2498: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=.8]{f2.eps}

2499: \caption{ Diagram of the subset of lines of sight (LOS) toward which \mgii\

2500:   absorption systems were found.  The LOS numbering is the same one used in

2501:   Tables~\ref{tbl-qsos} and~\ref{tbl-clusters}. LOS up to 19 belong to sample

2502:   {\it S1}; LOS 20 to 38 to sample {\it S2}. Quasar emission redshifts are

2503:   labeled with asterisks, \mgii\ absorption systems with circles, and clusters

2504:   with vertical lines. The thick lines despict the redshift intervals [$z_{\rm

2505:   min},z_{\rm max}$] around cluster redshifts.  These intervals permit a $3

2506:   \sigma$ detection of \mgii\ $\lambda 2796$ lines with $W_0>W_0^{\min}=0.05$

2507:   \AA\ in {\it S1} and with $W_0>W_0^{\min}=1.0$ \AA\ in {\it S2}. The numbers

2508:   below the thick lines are the projected LOS-cluster distance in 

2509:   \hmpc\ at cluster redshift.

2510: \label{fig_clusters}}

2511: \end{figure}

2512: 

2513: 

2514: \clearpage

2515: 

2516: \begin{figure}

2517: \epsscale{.80}

2518: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.8]{f3.eps}

2519: \caption{ Selected \mgii\ absorption line systems in each of the 19 spectra

2520:   comprising the high-resolution sample, {\it S1}.  Each panel (normalized

2521:   flux vs. rest-frame velocity in \kms) shows the strongest \mgii\ doublet in

2522:   the spectrum, unless an absorption redshift is within [$z_{\rm min},z_{\rm

2523:   max}$] of a cluster in the same LOS, in which case that latter system is

2524:   plotted.  Associated systems ($z_{\rm abs}\sim z_{\rm em}$) were not

2525:   considered\label{fig_spec}}

2526: \end{figure}

2527: 

2528: \clearpage

2529: 

2530: 

2531: \begin{figure}

2532: \epsscale{.80}

2533: \includegraphics[angle=-90,scale=0.8]{f4.eps}

2534: \caption{ Cluster redshift-path density, $g_c(W_0^{\rm min},z_i)$ of the

2535: high-resolution sample ({\it S1}, $W_0^{\rm min}=0.05$ \AA, lefthand panel)

2536: and low-resolution sample ({\it S2}, $W_0^{\rm min}=1.0$ \AA). The thick line

2537: is for LOS-cluster distances $d<2$, the thin line for $d<1$, and the dotted

2538: line for $d<0.5$ \hmpc. The vertical dashed lines depict the redshift defined

2539: by the rEW detection thresholds.  See \S~\ref{sect-g} for more

2540: details.\label{fig_g}}

2541: \end{figure}

2542: 

2543: \clearpage

2544: 

2545: \begin{figure}

2546: \epsscale{.80}

2547: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=1]{f5.eps}

2548: \caption{ \mgii\ redshift number density binned in the entire range of

2549:   cluster redshifts for various $W_0^{2796}$ lower limits. The filled

2550:   circles are from clusters with LOS-cluster distances $d<2$ \hmpc\

2551:   and the open squares from clusters with $d<1$ \hmpc\ (symbols

2552:   slightly shifted in the x-axis for more clarity).  The errors bars

2553:   correspond to $1\sigma$. The curves correspond to the fit by NTR05

2554:   to their SDSS EDR data of field absorbers along with $1\sigma$

2555:   limits.  The top panels show results from sample {\it S1} only

2556:   (high-resolution spectra; 46 pairs, \zave$=0.550$), while points in

2557:   the bottom panels were calculated using only the {\it S2} sample

2558:   (375 pairs; \zave$=0.625$).\label{fig_n_z}}

2559: 

2560: \end{figure}

2561: 

2562: %\clearpage

2563: 

2564: %\begin{figure}

2565: %\epsscale{.80}

2566: %\includegraphics[angle=0,scale=1]{fig_n_z_interval.ps}

2567: %\caption{ Same as Fig.~\ref{fig_n_z} but for EW

2568: %intervals.\label{fig_n_z_interval}}

2569: %

2570: %\end{figure}

2571: %

2572: \clearpage

2573: 

2574: 

2575: \begin{figure}

2576: \epsscale{.80}

2577: \includegraphics[angle=-90,scale=0.7]{f6.eps}

2578: \caption{ Equivalent width distribution of \mgii\ absorbers in clusters

2579:   (corrected by the cluster redshift path) vs. \mgii\ $\lambda 2796$

2580:   rest-frame equivalent width for LOS-cluster distances $d<2$ \hmpc\ (lefthand

2581:   panel) and $d<1$ \hmpc.  The errors bars correspond to $1\sigma$. Data

2582:   points with $W_0<1.0$ \AA\ resulted from sample {\it S1} only

2583:   (high-resolution spectra), while points at $W_0>1.0$ \AA\ resulted from

2584:   sample {\it S2}.  The lines are the field expectations. The solid line is

2585:   the exponential distribution fitted by NTR06 to their MMT data having

2586:   $W_0>0.3$ \AA, and the dashed curve is the power-law fited by CRCV99

2587:  to their HIRES data having $W_0<0.3$ \AA. The vertical line at

2588:   $W_0=0.3$ \AA\ marks the transition in $n(W)$ pointed out by

2589:   NTR06. \label{fig_n_W}}

2590: \end{figure}

2591: 

2592: 

2593: 

2594: %\clearpage

2595: %

2596: %\begin{figure}

2597: %\epsscale{.80}

2598: %\includegraphics[angle=0,scale=1]{fig_n_z_evolution.ps}

2599: %\caption{ Redshift number density $dN/dz$ of \mgii\ absorbers in clusters for

2600: %  2 redshift bins. The lines are the 

2601: %  no-evolution curves normalized according to Churchill et al. (1999) in the

2602: %  small rEW panel, and to Nestor et al. (2005) for $W_0>1$ \AA\ in the large EW

2603: %  panel.\label{fig_n_z_evolution}}

2604: %

2605: %\end{figure}

2606: 

2607: 

2608: \end{document}

2609: 

2610: 

2611: