1: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: \documentclass{emulateapj}
3:
4: %\usepackage{natbib}
5:
6: \citestyle{aa}
7:
8: \newcommand{\kms}{km~s$^{-1}$}
9: \newcommand{\msun}{M$_{\odot}$}
10: \newcommand{\myr}{M$_{\odot}$~yr$^{-1}$}
11: \newcommand{\ngal}{1315}
12:
13: \shorttitle{Mid-Infrared Butcher-Oemler Effect}
14: \shortauthors{Saintonge, Tran \& Holden}
15:
16: \begin{document}
17:
18: \title{{\it Spitzer}/MIPS 24 $\mu$\MakeLowercase{m} Observations of Galaxy Clusters: \\
19: An Increasing Fraction of Obscured Star-forming Members from \MakeLowercase{z}=0.02 to \MakeLowercase{z}=0.83 }
20:
21: \author{Am\'{e}lie Saintonge\altaffilmark{1}, Kim-Vy H. Tran\altaffilmark{1} and Bradford P. Holden\altaffilmark{2}}
22: \altaffiltext{1}{Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of Zurich, CH-8057 Zurich, Switzerland}
23: \email{amelie@physik.uzh.ch}
24: \altaffiltext{2}{UCO/Lick Observatories, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95064}
25:
26:
27: \begin{abstract}
28:
29: We study the mid-infrared properties of \ngal~ spectroscopically
30: confirmed members in eight massive ($M_{vir}\gtrsim5\times10^{14}$\msun) galaxy clusters covering the redshift range from 0.02 to 0.83.
31: The selected clusters all have deep {\it Spitzer} MIPS $24\mu$m
32: observations, {\it Hubble} and ground-based photometry, and extensive
33: redshift catalogs. We observe for the first time an increase in the fraction of cluster
34: galaxies with mid-infrared star formation rates higher than 5 \myr~
35: from 3\% at $z=0.02$ to 13\% at $z=0.83$ ($R_P\leqslant 1$Mpc). This increase is reproduced even
36: when considering only the most massive members ($M_{\ast} \geqslant 4 \times 10^{10}$\msun).
37: The $24\mu$m observations reveal stronger evolution in the fraction of blue/star-forming
38: cluster galaxies than color-selected samples:
39: the number of dusty, strongly star-forming cluster galaxies increases
40: with redshift, and combining these with the optically-defined
41: Butcher-Oemler members [$\Delta(B-V)<-0.2$] doubles the total
42: fraction of blue/star-forming galaxies in the inner Mpc of the clusters to $\sim23$\% at
43: $z=0.83$. These results, the first of our {\it Spitzer}/MIPS Infra-Red Cluster Survey (SMIRCS), support earlier studies indicating the
44: increase in star-forming members is driven by cluster assembly and galaxy infall,
45: as is expected in the framework of hierarchical formation.
46:
47: \end{abstract}
48:
49:
50: \keywords{galaxies: clusters: general -- galaxies: evolution --
51: galaxies: fundamental parameters}
52:
53:
54: \section{Introduction}
55:
56: \citet{bo78,bo84} observed that galaxy clusters at intermediate
57: redshift have a higher fraction of members with blue optical colors
58: than clusters in the local universe, thus providing a key piece of
59: evidence supporting galaxy evolution. This increase in blue members
60: with redshift, named the Butcher-Oemler (BO) effect, was intensely
61: debated for two decades \citep[e.g.][]{mathieu81,dressler82}. However, multiple optical
62: studies based on spectroscopic observations have since confirmed the
63: increase in blue, star-forming galaxies in higher redshift clusters
64: \citep[e.g.][]{couch87,caldwell97,fisher98,ellingson01}, and
65: found that BO galaxies reveal signs of recent and
66: ongoing star formation. The paramount question now is have we seen
67: only the tip of the iceberg?
68:
69: Most studies of star-forming galaxies in clusters rely on rest-frame
70: ultraviolet or optical tracers \citep[e.g.][]{balogh98,poggianti06},
71: but UV/optical tracers can suffer severely from dust obscuration,
72: especially when star formation is concentrated in the nuclear regions
73: \citep{kennicutt98}. For example, ultraluminous infrared galaxies
74: have SF rates of $\gtrsim1000$\msun, yet many ULIRGs fail to even be
75: detected at UV and optical wavelengths \citep[e.g.][]{houck05}. Although
76: corrections for dust attenuation are possible, reliable estimates of
77: SF rates cannot be achieved solely using rest-frame UV/optical
78: observations \citep{bell02,cardiel03}.
79:
80: A substantially more robust method of determining total SF rates is
81: with mid-infrared (MIR) imaging. The first MIR imaging of galaxy
82: clusters at intermediate redshifts was taken with ISO's ISOCAM camera,
83: and \citet{duc02} found that at least 90\% of the
84: star formation was hidden at optical wavelengths. The first handful
85: of galaxy clusters observed with the MIPS camera on the {\it Spitzer
86: Space Telescope} (SST) have also revealed strong dust-obscured star
87: formation \citep{geach06,marcillac07,bai07}.
88:
89: It remains unclear as to what causes the increase in star-forming
90: galaxy cluster members. Detailed
91: morphological studies of blue galaxies [defined as having
92: $\Delta(B-V)<-0.2$]\footnote{$\Delta(B-V)$ is the color offset from the red
93: sequence fit to the cluster ellipticals.}
94: with the {\it Hubble Space Telescope} (HST) find
95: that most are disk systems similar to those in local clusters
96: \citep[e.g.][]{dressler94,couch94}; past studies also find that many
97: show signs of interactions or mergers
98: \citep{lavery88,lavery92,couch94,oemler97}. More recently, studies
99: indicate that galaxy infall is a viable explanation for the
100: significant numbers of blue galaxies and their disturbed morphologies
101: in intermediate redshift clusters
102: \citep[e.g.][]{vandokkum98,ellingson01,tran05}, a scenario supported
103: by hierarchical clustering models \citep{kauffmann95}. In this case,
104: galaxy clusters that are accreting a significant number of new members
105: should have a higher fraction of star-forming galaxies, especially at
106: higher redshifts when the amount of activity was enhanced
107: also in the field.
108:
109: Here we present the first comprehensive study of SST/MIPS $24\mu$m
110: imaging of galaxies that are spectroscopically confirmed members of
111: eight massive ($M_{vir}\gtrsim5\times10^{14}$\msun) X-ray luminous
112: clusters spanning a wide redshift range ($0.02<z<0.83$). After
113: presenting the data in \S2, we focus
114: our analysis in \S3 and \S4 on the evolution of star-forming members
115: with redshift. A
116: cosmology with $(H_0,\Omega_{M},\Omega_{\Lambda})=(70$ \kms$,
117: 0.3,0.7)$ is assumed throughout the paper; at $z=0.83$, the look-back
118: time is $\sim7$ Gyr.\\
119:
120:
121: \section{Data}
122:
123: \begin{deluxetable*}{lccccccccc}
124: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
125: \tablecaption{Properties of selected clusters \label{clusters}}
126: %\tablewidth{0pt}
127: \tablehead{
128: \colhead{Name} & \colhead{Coords [J2000]} & \colhead{$z$ range\tablenotemark{a}} & \colhead{$L_X$\tablenotemark{b}} &
129: \colhead{$N_{z}$\tablenotemark{c}} & \colhead{$N_s$\tablenotemark{d}} &
130: \colhead{$N_{24}$\tablenotemark{e}} & \colhead{$t_{int}$} &
131: \colhead{$F_{bg}$} & \colhead{$F_{50\%}$}\\
132: & & & ($10^{44}$ erg s$^{-1}$) & & & & \colhead{(s pix$^{-1}$)} & \colhead{(MJy sr$^{-1}$)} & \colhead{(\myr)}
133: }
134: \startdata
135: Coma & 125935.7+275734 & 0.013-0.033 & $9.0\pm0.2$ &244 &63 &134 (2) &73 &32.8 &0.02 \\
136: Abell 1689 & 131129.5-012017 & 0.17-0.22 & $21.4\pm1.0$ & 81 &52 &12 (2) &\nodata\tablenotemark{f} &\nodata &1.4\tablenotemark{f} \\
137: MS 1358+62 & 135950.4+623103 & 0.315-0.342 & $10.2\pm0.7$ &171 &73 &21 (3) &2700\tablenotemark{g} &20.6 &0.75\\
138: CL 0024+17 & 002635.7+170943 & 0.373-0.402 & $2.9\pm0.1$ &205 &51 &11 (6) &2700\tablenotemark{g} &48.5 &1.48\\
139: MS 0451--03 & 045410.9-030107 & 0.52-0.56 & $21.0\pm0.4$ &242 &38 &8 (5) &2700\tablenotemark{g} &35.0 &3.34\\
140: MS 2053--04 & 205621.3-043751 & 0.57-0.60 & $6.5\pm0.4$ &85 &43 &15 (8) &1950 &35.2 &5.04\\
141: MS 1054--03 & 105700.0-033736 & 0.80-0.86 & $16.4\pm0.8$ &142 &75 &13 (8) &3600\tablenotemark{g} &47.4 &4.54\\
142: RX J0152--13 & 015243.9-135719 & 0.81-0.87 & $18.6\pm1.9$ &147 &61 &19 (8) & 3600\tablenotemark{g} &31.9 &3.05\\
143: \enddata
144: \tablenotetext{a}{Cluster members selected within this redshift range, as in H07 (Coma, MS1358, MS2053, MS1054, RXJ0152), \citet{duc02} (A1689) and \citet{moran07} (CL0024 and MS0451).}
145: \tablenotetext{b}{Bolometric X-ray luminosities from H07 (Coma, MS1358, MS2053, MS1054, RXJ0152), \citet{bardeau07} (Abell1689), \citet{donahue99} (MS0451), \citet{zhang05} (CL0024).}
146: \tablenotetext{c}{Total number of spectroscopically confirmed members
147: (magnitude-limited selection). Redshifts are taken from \citet{beijersbergen03},\citet{duc02},\citet{fisher98},\citet{moran05},
148: \citet{moran07},\citet{tran05},\citet{tran07},\citet{demarco05}, respectively.}
149: \tablenotetext{d}{Number of confirmed members within 1 Mpc of the
150: cluster center and brighter than $M_B=-19.5+5\log h$.}
151: \tablenotetext{e}{Number of MIPS detections in the cluster; () is the
152: number of galaxies within $N_s$ with SF rates $\geqslant5$ \myr.}
153: \tablenotetext{f}{We are using ISOCAM mid-IR data from \citet{duc02} for A1689.}
154: \tablenotetext{g}{Over the central 5\arcmin$\times$5\arcmin of the MIPS image.}
155: \end{deluxetable*}
156:
157:
158: We have assembled a data set of eight galaxy clusters at $0.02\leq
159: z\leq0.83$ that have a total of \ngal~ spectroscopically confirmed
160: members. The core of our sample is composed of five
161: clusters spanning the entire redshift range with large spectroscopic
162: membership, uniform multi-filter optical photometry and deep
163: SST/MIPS imaging\footnote{This work is based on observations made with the
164: Spitzer Space Telescope, which is operated by the Jet Propulsion
165: Laboratory, California Institute of Technology under a contract with
166: NASA.}. For the part
167: of the analysis that does not depend on rest-frame $(B-V)$ color, we
168: fold into the sample three additional clusters: Abell 1689 for which
169: MIR data from ISOCAM is available \citep{duc02}, and CL0024 and
170: MS0451, both of which have extensive redshift catalogs \citep{moran05}
171: and MIPS observations. Observational details for all
172: clusters are in Table~\ref{clusters}.
173:
174:
175: \subsection{Optical Photometry and Spectroscopy \label{optical}}
176:
177: The optical photometry for the five main clusters is from
178: \citet[][hereafter H07]{holden07} where magnitudes and
179: colors were derived from Sersic models fitted to HST/WFPC2 images
180: (MS1358, MS2053, and RXJ0152), HST/ACS images (MS1054), and SDSS
181: mosaics for Coma. The conversion to rest-frame values is done by
182: interpolating between the passbands \citep{blakeslee06} and has errors of $\sim0.02$ mag.
183: The mass-to-light ratios ($M/L_{B}$) and
184: stellar masses were calculated using the relation between rest-frame
185: $(B-V)$ color and $M/L_{B}$; see H07 for details and a discussion on
186: the associated errors.
187:
188: \subsection{MIPS $24\mu$m Imaging \label{mips}}
189:
190: All MIPS data sets were retrieved from the $Spitzer$ public archive.
191: Individual frames were corrected with scan mirror
192: position-dependent flats and then mosaiced with the MOPEX software \citep{mopex05}
193: to a pixel size of 1.2\arcsec \footnote{The instrumental pixels are 2.55\arcsec in size, but the
194: finer sampling helps in
195: improving the characterization of the PSF.}. Integration times ($t_{int}$) and background levels ($F_{bg}$) in
196: these mosaics are given in Table \ref{clusters}. Photometry was
197: performed with APEX \citep{apex05} using a 3\arcsec -diameter aperture, and
198: an aperture correction of 9.49 as given in the MIPS data handbook.
199: A small aperture is necessary to avoid contamination in the deep and crowded
200: cluster fields. The fluxes are consistent with results from PSF-fitting photometry
201: with scatter from a 1:1 relation in the range of 15-25 $\mu$Jy.
202:
203: To estimate the completeness of each MIPS catalog, we
204: added to the mosaics artificial sources modeled on the PSF. To
205: avoid overcrowding, we simulated 30 signals at once, and repeated the
206: process 30 times for each cluster (the $50\%$ completeness limits, $F_{50\%}$, are
207: presented in Table \ref{clusters}). Finally, the MIPS sources were matched
208: with the optical catalogs using a 2\arcsec~search radius \citep{bai07}. From randomization of
209: the MIPS coordinates, we estimate the rate of false identification to be $7\pm4\%$,
210: and little dependency of this error rate on redshift or color is observed.
211:
212: \subsubsection{Star formation rates}
213:
214: Star formation rates are based on the $24\mu$m fluxes. First, the
215: total infrared luminosity ($F_{8-1000\mu {\rm m}}$) of each galaxy was
216: determined using a family of infrared spectral energy distributions
217: (SEDs) from \citet{dale02}. We choose the range of SEDs that are
218: representative of the galaxies in the Spitzer Infrared Nearby Galaxies
219: Survey \citep{dale07}, and at each redshift adopt the median
220: conversion factor from $F_{24\mu{\rm m}}$ to $F_{8-1000\mu{\rm m}}$
221: given by these models. At $0.4\lesssim z\lesssim 0.6$, the error due
222: to the adopted conversion factor is $\sim20$\%, but the error
223: increases to a factor of 1.5-2.0 at lower and higher redshifts. For
224: the parts of our analysis that are sensitive to the SF rates, we take
225: these errors into account. As a check, we note that our total
226: infrared luminosities in MS1054 agree well with the values in
227: \citet{bai07}. The conversion from total infrared luminosities to
228: star formation rates is done following \citet{kennicutt98}.
229:
230: We assume that the emission at $24\mu{\rm m}$ is due to star formation
231: but it could also be due to dust-enshrouded active galactic nuclei
232: (AGN). However, in comparing the X-ray and $24\mu{\rm m}$ detections,
233: only one cluster galaxy (in RXJ0152) is detected in both and rejected. While the
234: AGN fraction in clusters seems to increase with redshift
235: \citep{eastman07}, the estimated AGN fraction is only 2\% at
236: $z\sim0.6$. \citet{johnson03} also find evidence that at $z\sim0.8$,
237: any excess X-ray AGN are located at $R>1$~Mpc whereas we focus on the
238: central Mpc of each cluster. Although we cannot completely rule out
239: possible contamination by weak obscured AGN, we have excluded X-ray
240: AGN and thus assume that the galaxies detected by MIPS are powered by
241: dusty star formation; see \citet{marcillac07} for a more detailed
242: argument on why this is a reasonable assumption.
243:
244:
245:
246: \section{Results}
247:
248: \subsection{Color-Magnitude diagrams}
249:
250: \begin{figure}
251: \epsscale{1.0}
252: \plotone{f1_color.eps}
253: \caption{Rest-frame color-magnitude diagrams for
254: spectroscopically confirmed members in the main cluster sample. Filled
255: red circles are MIPS detections with SF rates $\geqslant5$ \myr (where all clusters
256: are better than 50\% complete). The larger symbols represent galaxies with
257: $\log_{10}({\rm M}_{\ast}) \geqslant 10.6$.
258: The rest-frame B-band magnitude has been corrected for passive luminosity evolution, as
259: determined from the fundamental plane \citep{vandokkum98L}. The vertical
260: dashed line is the rest-frame B-band magnitude selection limit of
261: -19.5. The solid diagonal line is the best fit to the red sequence
262: galaxies, adopting the slope of \citet{vandokkum98}, and the dotted
263: line denotes $\Delta(B-V)=-0.2$ mag; only galaxies below the dotted
264: line would be part of standard BO sample. \label{fig1}}
265: \end{figure}
266:
267: Figure~\ref{fig1} presents the color-magnitude diagrams of the
268: five main clusters with photometry from H07. Because the MIPS
269: sensitivity varies from cluster to cluster, we apply a SF
270: rate limit of 5 \myr. The first immediate observation is that
271: the number of strongly star-forming galaxies increases significantly
272: with redshift. Using a field galaxy sample drawn from the same
273: photometric and spectroscopic catalogs, we estimate a possible field
274: contamination at $z=0.83$ to be $\sim8$\% (i.e. no more than one galaxy per cluster).
275: In Figure~\ref{fig1}, the dotted
276: lines represent the original color criterion for BO galaxies. The
277: ratio of the number of cluster galaxies with MIR SF rate $\geqslant5$\myr~ above
278: this color cut to the number of blue galaxies ($\Delta(B-V)<-0.2$)
279: increases with redshift.
280:
281: \subsection{The Mid-Infrared Butcher-Oemler effect}
282:
283:
284: \begin{figure}
285: \epsscale{1.0}
286: \plotone{f2.eps}
287: \caption{Fraction of confirmed cluster galaxies that are star-forming
288: as revealed by the MIPS $24\mu$m observations. Are considered
289: only members with MIR SF rates
290: $\geqslant5$ \myr~ that are brighter than $M_B=-19.5$ and located
291: within 1 Mpc of the cluster centers (filled circles) and 500 kpc (open squares).
292: The points for the two $z\sim0.83$ clusters
293: are offset slightly in $z$ for clarity.\label{fig2}}
294: \end{figure}
295:
296: \begin{figure}
297: \epsscale{1.0}
298: \plotone{f3.eps}
299: \caption{As in Fig.~\ref{fig2}, the fraction of confirmed star-forming
300: cluster galaxies (MIR SF rate$\geqslant5$\myr, $M_B\leq-19.5$, $R<1$
301: Mpc), but now with the additional stellar mass cut-off of $\log_{10}({\rm
302: M}_{\ast}) \geqslant 10.6$ for the five main clusters (filled
303: circles). Stellar masses are not available for the remaining three
304: clusters; they are shown as upper limits (open circles).\label{fig3}}
305: \end{figure}
306:
307: For each cluster, we compute and plot in Figure \ref{fig2} the
308: fraction of confirmed star-forming cluster members after selecting by
309: rest-frame B-band magnitude ($M_B\leq-19.5$), cluster-centric
310: distance\footnote{While the optical
311: observations generally extend to $R>1.5$ Mpc, the MIPS imaging for MS1358 only extends to $\sim1$
312: Mpc ($\sim50-60$\% of $r200$ for these clusters).}, and MIR star formation rate ($\geqslant5$\myr).
313: The errors on $f_{SF,MIPS}$ represent the range that can
314: be produced by taking the minimum and maximum conversion
315: factors from $F_{24\mu{\rm m}}$ to $F_{8-1000\mu{\rm
316: m}}$ instead of a single average value for each cluster, and by
317: varying the different selection thresholds by amounts comparable
318: to the errors on each of these parameters.
319:
320:
321: Figure \ref{fig2} shows that the fraction of galaxies in clusters with
322: MIR SF rates $\geqslant5$\myr~ steadily climbs from $\sim3$\% locally
323: to $\sim13$\% at $z=0.83$. Because H07 showed that a cluster's
324: morphological composition can vary depending on whether members are
325: selected by mass or by luminosity, we apply an additional stellar mass
326: cut of $\log_{10}({\rm M}_{\ast}) \geqslant 10.6$ (Fig.~\ref{fig3}).
327: The mass cut is only applied to the five main clusters for which
328: uniform photometry and thus stellar masses are available;
329: the remaining three clusters are shown only as upper limits. While the mass cut
330: attenuates the increase in fraction of star-forming members, it does
331: not completely suppress the trend. Thus the MIR BO effect
332: is not due to an increase in the fraction of
333: faint, low-mass members temporarily brightened by strong star
334: formation.
335:
336:
337:
338:
339:
340: \section{Discussion}
341:
342: Having established an increase in the fraction of MIR-detected galaxies from $z\sim0$ to
343: $z\sim0.8$, we stress that optical studies are likely underestimating
344: the increase in star-forming cluster galaxies with redshift. As seen
345: in Fig.~\ref{fig1}, an increasing number of strong dust-obscured
346: star-forming members appear on or near the red sequence at higher redshifts;
347: these are not included in traditional color-selected BO studies. The late-type
348: morphologies of these members supports our intepretation of dusty star
349: formation and red colors due to extinction \citep[see also
350: A901/902;][]{wolf05}.
351:
352: Using the standard BO definition of
353: $\Delta(B-V)<-0.2$, the fraction of blue galaxies with $M_B\leq-19.5$
354: and $R_P<1$~Mpc at $z\sim0.8$ is
355: $\sim11$\%; however, including the red, massive, star-forming members raises
356: the total fraction of blue/star-forming members to $\sim23$\%. We
357: note that for the five main clusters, the increase in the
358: blue/star-forming fraction due to these red, star-forming members is
359: \{1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.7\} at $z=$\{0.02, 0.33, 0.59, 0.83\}, $i.e.$ the
360: relative importance of including red, dusty star-forming members
361: increases with redshift.
362:
363: Is this increase linked to galaxy infall? In Figure~\ref{fig2}, both
364: CL0024 ($z\sim0.4$) and MS2053 ($z\sim0.6$) are above the general
365: trend established by the other six clusters. Both CL0024 and MS2053
366: have enhanced star formation compared to other clusters at similar
367: redshift, and both have bimodal redshift distributions. CL0024 is made of two colliding
368: subclusters \citep{czoske02}, and has an unusually large number of
369: luminous infrared galaxies \citep{coia05}. Similarly, \citet{tran05}
370: conclude from that MS2053 has a
371: significant number ($>25$\%) of infalling galaxies; these members tend
372: to be blue and star-forming. Both CL0024 and MS2053 are accreting a
373: large number of new members and have high fractions of dusty
374: star-forming galaxies. We speculate that the increase in star-forming
375: members reflects the recent accretion of new members, $i.e.$ galaxy
376: infall, and that such events are more frequent at higher redshift due
377: to the process of cluster assembly \citep{ellingson01,tran05,loh08}.
378: As further evidence of this, 80\% of the MIPS-detected galaxies in the
379: $z\sim0.8$ clusters are more than 700 kpc from the cluster cores
380: in projected distance and thus the MIR Butcher-Oemler effect
381: is significantly altered by only considering the inner 500 kpc of the clusters
382: (open symbols in Fig.\ref{fig2}).
383:
384:
385: \section{Summary}
386:
387: We present the first comprehensive study of SST/MIPS 24$\mu$m
388: observations for seven massive, X-ray luminous galaxy clusters
389: spanning a wide redshift range ($0.02<z<0.83$). Uniform photometry,
390: high resolution HST imaging, and extensive redshift catalogs enable us
391: to measure the fraction of members with strong, dust-obscured star
392: formation. The fraction of cluster galaxies with MIR
393: star formation rates $\geqslant5$\myr~ increases from 3\% in Coma to
394: $\sim13$\% in clusters at $z=0.83$, and this trend is evident in
395: both luminosity ($M_B\leq-19.5$) and mass-selected samples ($M_{\ast} \geqslant 4 \times 10^{10}$\msun).
396:
397: Optically-based studies increasingly underestimate the total amount of
398: star formation in cluster galaxies with redshift because many of these
399: dusty red star-forming members are missed in color-selected samples.
400: These tend to be late-type galaxies that are red because of dust extinction which
401: disguises their high levels of obscured star formation ($>5$\myr).
402: Defining the SF fraction to include both optically blue and red,
403: but MIPS-detected members doubles the fraction at $z=0.83$ from $\sim11$\% to
404: $\sim23$\% ($R_P<1$Mpc).
405:
406: Lastly, our study indicates that the BO effect and the increase in
407: obscured star-forming members are linked to galaxy
408: infall: 80\% of the MIR-detected members at $z\sim0.8$ are outside
409: the cluster cores ($R_P>0.7$Mpc), and the two clusters at $z<0.8$ that are accreting a substantial number of
410: new members also have an enhanced fraction of galaxies with MIR SF
411: rates $\geqslant5$\myr.
412:
413:
414: \acknowledgments
415:
416: We are grateful to C. Papovich and L. Bai for advice on MIPS data
417: reduction and to G. Rudnick for useful discussions.
418: AS and KT acknowledge support from
419: the Swiss National Science Foundation (grant PP002-110576).
420:
421: {\it Facilities:} \facility{HST (WFPC2, ACS)}, \facility{Spitzer (MIPS)}.
422:
423: %\bibliographystyle{apj}
424: %\bibliography{../refs_amelie}
425:
426: \begin{thebibliography}{48}
427: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi
428:
429: \bibitem[{Bai} {et~al.}(2007)]{bai07}
430: {Bai}, L., et al. 2007, \apj, 664, 181
431:
432: \bibitem[{{Balogh} {et~al.}(1998){Balogh}, {Schade}, {Morris}, {Yee},
433: {Carlberg}, \& {Ellingson}}]{balogh98}
434: {Balogh}, M.~L., {Schade}, D., {Morris}, S.~L., {Yee}, H.~K.~C., {Carlberg},
435: R.~G., \& {Ellingson}, E. 1998, \apjl, 504, L75+
436:
437: \bibitem[{Bardeau} {et~al.}(2007)]{bardeau07}
438: {Bardeau}, S., et al. 2007, \aap, 470, 449
439:
440: \bibitem[{{Beijersbergen}(2003)}]{beijersbergen03}
441: {Beijersbergen}, M. 2003, Ph.D. Thesis, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen
442:
443: \bibitem[{{Bell}(2002)}]{bell02}
444: {Bell}, E.~F. 2002, \apj, 577, 150
445:
446: \bibitem[{Blakeslee} {et~al.}(2006)]{blakeslee06}
447: {Blakeslee}, J.~P., et al. 2006, \apj, 644, 30
448:
449: \bibitem[{{Butcher} \& {Oemler}(1978)}]{bo78}
450: {Butcher}, H., \& {Oemler}, Jr., A. 1978, \apj, 219, 18
451:
452: \bibitem[{{Butcher} \& {Oemler}(1984)}]{bo84}
453: ---. 1984, \apj, 285, 426
454:
455: \bibitem[{{Caldwell} \& {Rose}(1997)}]{caldwell97}
456: {Caldwell}, N., \& {Rose}, J.~A. 1997, \aj, 113, 492
457:
458: \bibitem[{{Cardiel} {et~al.}(2003){Cardiel}, {Elbaz}, {Schiavon}, {Willmer},
459: {Koo}, {Phillips}, \& {Gallego}}]{cardiel03}
460: {Cardiel}, N., {Elbaz}, D., {Schiavon}, R.~P., {Willmer}, C.~N.~A., {Koo},
461: D.~C., {Phillips}, A.~C., \& {Gallego}, J. 2003, \apj, 584, 76
462:
463: \bibitem[{{Coia} {et~al.}(2005){Coia}, {McBreen}, {Metcalfe}, {Biviano}, \&
464: et~al.}]{coia05}
465: {Coia}, D., et~al. 2005, \aap, 431, 433
466:
467: \bibitem[{{Couch} {et~al.}(1994){Couch}, {Ellis}, {Sharples}, \&
468: {Smail}}]{couch94}
469: {Couch}, W.~J., {Ellis}, R.~S., {Sharples}, R.~M., \& {Smail}, I. 1994, \apj,
470: 430, 121
471:
472: \bibitem[{{Couch} \& {Sharples}(1987)}]{couch87}
473: {Couch}, W.~J., \& {Sharples}, R.~M. 1987, \mnras, 229, 423
474:
475: \bibitem[{{Czoske} {et~al.}(2002){Czoske}, {Moore}, {Kneib}, \&
476: {Soucail}}]{czoske02}
477: {Czoske}, O., {Moore}, B., {Kneib}, J.-P., \& {Soucail}, G. 2002, \aap, 386, 31
478:
479: \bibitem[{Dale} {et~al.}(2007)]{dale07}
480: {Dale}, D.~A., et~al. 2007, \apj, 655, 863
481:
482: \bibitem[{{Dale} \& {Helou}(2002)}]{dale02}
483: {Dale}, D.~A., \& {Helou}, G. 2002, \apj, 576, 159
484:
485: \bibitem[{Demarco} {et~al.}(2005)]{demarco05}
486: {Demarco}, R., et~al. 2005, \aap, 432, 381
487:
488: \bibitem[{{Donahue} {et~al.}(1999){Donahue}, {Voit}, {Scharf}, {Gioia},
489: {Mullis}, {Hughes}, \& {Stocke}}]{donahue99}
490: {Donahue}, M., {Voit}, G.~M., {Scharf}, C.~A., {Gioia}, I.~M., {Mullis}, C.~R.,
491: {Hughes}, J.~P., \& {Stocke}, J.~T. 1999, \apj, 527, 525
492:
493: \bibitem[{{Dressler} \& {Gunn}(1982)}]{dressler82}
494: {Dressler}, A., \& {Gunn}, J.~E. 1982, \apj, 263, 533
495:
496: \bibitem[{{Dressler} {et~al.}(1994){Dressler}, {Oemler}, {Butcher}, \&
497: {Gunn}}]{dressler94}
498: {Dressler}, A., {Oemler}, A.~J., {Butcher}, H.~R., \& {Gunn}, J.~E. 1994, \apj,
499: 430, 107
500:
501: \bibitem[{Duc} {et~al.}(2002)]{duc02}
502: {Duc}, P.-A., et al. 2002, \aap, 382, 60
503:
504: \bibitem[{{Eastman} {et~al.}(2007){Eastman}, {Martini}, {Sivakoff}, {Kelson},
505: {Mulchaey}, \& {Tran}}]{eastman07}
506: {Eastman}, J., {Martini}, P., {Sivakoff}, G., {Kelson}, D.~D., {Mulchaey},
507: J.~S., \& {Tran}, K.-V. 2007, \apjl, 664, L9
508:
509: \bibitem[{{Ellingson} {et~al.}(2001){Ellingson}, {Lin}, {Yee}, \&
510: {Carlberg}}]{ellingson01}
511: {Ellingson}, E., {Lin}, H., {Yee}, H.~K.~C., \& {Carlberg}, R.~G. 2001, \apj,
512: 547, 609
513:
514: \bibitem[{{Fisher} {et~al.}(1998){Fisher}, {Fabricant}, {Franx}, \& {van
515: Dokkum}}]{fisher98}
516: {Fisher}, D., {Fabricant}, D., {Franx}, M., \& {van Dokkum}, P. 1998, \apj,
517: 498, 195
518:
519: \bibitem[{Geach} {et~al.}(2006)]{geach06}
520: {Geach}, J.~E., et al. 2006, \apj, 649, 661
521:
522: \bibitem[{Holden} {et~al.}(2007)]{holden07}{Holden}, B.~P., et~al. 2007, \apj, 670, 190
523:
524: \bibitem[{{Houck} {et~al.}(2005){Houck}, {Soifer}, {Weedman}, {Higdon},
525: {Higdon}, \& et~al.}]{houck05}
526: {Houck}, J.~R., et~al. 2005, \apjl, 622, L105
527:
528: \bibitem[{{Johnson} {et~al.}(2003){Johnson}, {Best}, \& {Almaini}}]{johnson03}
529: {Johnson}, O., {Best}, P.~N., \& {Almaini}, O. 2003, \mnras, 343, 924
530:
531: \bibitem[{{Kauffmann}(1995)}]{kauffmann95}
532: {Kauffmann}, G. 1995, \mnras, 274, 153
533:
534: \bibitem[{{Kennicutt}(1998)}]{kennicutt98}
535: {Kennicutt}, Jr., R.~C. 1998, \araa, 36, 189
536:
537: \bibitem[{{Lavery} \& {Henry}(1988)}]{lavery88}
538: ---. 1988, \apj, 330, 596
539:
540: \bibitem[{{Lavery} {et~al.}(1992){Lavery}, {Pierce}, \& {McClure}}]{lavery92}
541: {Lavery}, R.~J., {Pierce}, M.~J., \& {McClure}, R.~D. 1992, \aj, 104, 2067
542:
543: \bibitem[{{Loh} {et~al.}(2008){Loh}, {Ellingson}, {Yee}, {Gilbank}, {Gladders},
544: \& {Barrientos}}]{loh08}
545: {Loh}, Y., {Ellingson}, E., {Yee}, H.~K.~C., {Gilbank}, D.~G., {Gladders},
546: M.~D., \& {Barrientos}, L.~F. 2008, \apj, 680, 214
547:
548: \bibitem[{{Makovoz} \& {Khan}(2005)}]{mopex05}
549: {Makovoz}, D., \& {Khan}, I. 2005, in ASP Conference Series, Vol. 347, ADASS XIV,
550: ed. P.~{Shopbell}, M.~{Britton}, \& R.~{Ebert}, 81
551:
552: \bibitem[{{Makovoz} \& {Marleau}(2005)}]{apex05}
553: {Makovoz}, D., \& {Marleau}, F.~R. 2005, \pasp, 117, 1113
554:
555: \bibitem[{{Marcillac} {et~al.}(2007){Marcillac}, {Rigby}, {Rieke}, \&
556: {Kelly}}]{marcillac07}
557: {Marcillac}, D., {Rigby}, J.~R., {Rieke}, G.~H., \& {Kelly}, D.~M. 2007, \apj,
558: 654, 825
559:
560: \bibitem[{{Mathieu} \& {Spinrad}(1981)}]{mathieu81}
561: {Mathieu}, R.~D., \& {Spinrad}, H. 1981, \apj, 251, 485
562:
563: \bibitem[{{Moran} {et~al.}(2005){Moran}, {Ellis}, {Treu}, {Smail}, {Dressler},
564: {Coil}, \& {Smith}}]{moran05}
565: {Moran}, S.~M., {Ellis}, R.~S., {Treu}, T., {Smail}, I., {Dressler}, A.,
566: {Coil}, A.~L., \& {Smith}, G.~P. 2005, \apj, 634, 977
567:
568: \bibitem[{{Moran} {et~al.}(2007){Moran}, {Ellis}, {Treu}, {Smith}, {Rich}, \&
569: {Smail}}]{moran07}
570: {Moran}, S.~M., {Ellis}, R.~S., {Treu}, T., {Smith}, G.~P., {Rich}, R.~M., \&
571: {Smail}, I. 2007, \apj, 671, 1503
572:
573: \bibitem[{{Oemler} {et~al.}(1997){Oemler}, {Dressler}, \& {Butcher}}]{oemler97}
574: {Oemler}, A.~J., {Dressler}, A., \& {Butcher}, H.~R. 1997, \apj, 474, 561
575:
576: \bibitem[{Poggianti} {et~al.}(2006)]{poggianti06}
577: {Poggianti}, B.~M., et~al. 2006, \apj, 642, 188
578:
579: \bibitem[{Tran} {et~al.}(2007)]{tran07}
580: {Tran}, K.-V.~H., et al. 2007, \apj, 661, 750
581:
582: \bibitem[{{Tran} {et~al.}(2005){Tran}, {van Dokkum}, {Illingworth}, {Kelson},
583: {Gonzalez}, \& {Franx}}]{tran05}
584: {Tran}, K.-V.~H., {van Dokkum}, P., {Illingworth}, G.~D., {Kelson}, D.,
585: {Gonzalez}, A., \& {Franx}, M. 2005, \apj, 619, 134
586:
587: \bibitem[{{van Dokkum} {et~al.}(1998{\natexlab{a}}){van Dokkum}, {Franx},
588: {Kelson}, \& {Illingworth}}]{vandokkum98L}
589: {van Dokkum}, P.~G., {Franx}, M., {Kelson}, D.~D., \& {Illingworth}, G.~D.
590: 1998{\natexlab{a}}, \apjl, 504, L17+
591:
592: \bibitem[{{van Dokkum} {et~al.}(1998{\natexlab{b}}){van Dokkum}, {Franx},
593: {Kelson}, {Illingworth}, {Fisher}, \& {Fabricant}}]{vandokkum98}
594: {van Dokkum}, P.~G., {Franx}, M., {Kelson}, D.~D., {Illingworth}, G.~D.,
595: {Fisher}, D., \& {Fabricant}, D. 1998{\natexlab{b}}, \apj, 500, 714
596:
597: \bibitem[{{Wolf} {et~al.}(2005){Wolf}, {Gray}, \& {Meisenheimer}}]{wolf05}
598: {Wolf}, C., {Gray}, M.~E., \& {Meisenheimer}, K. 2005, \aap, 443, 435
599:
600: \bibitem[{{Zhang} {et~al.}(2005){Zhang}, {B{\"o}hringer}, {Mellier}, {Soucail},
601: \& {Forman}}]{zhang05}
602: {Zhang}, Y.-Y., {B{\"o}hringer}, H., {Mellier}, Y., {Soucail}, G., \& {Forman},
603: W. 2005, \aap, 429, 85
604:
605: \end{thebibliography}
606:
607: \end{document}
608:
609: