1: \documentclass[useAMS,usenatbib]{mn2e}
2: \usepackage{epsfig}
3: \usepackage{color}
4:
5: \title[{The Colours of Satellite Galaxies}]{The Colours of Satellite Galaxies in Groups and Clusters}
6:
7: \author[A.~S.~Font et~al.]{A. S. Font$^{1}$\thanks{E-mail:
8: andreea.font@durham.ac.uk}, R.~G.~Bower$^{1}$, I.~G.~McCarthy$^{1}$,
9: A.~J.~Benson$^{2}$, C.~S.~Frenk$^{1}$,
10: \newauthor J.~C.~Helly$^{1}$, C.~G.~Lacey$^{1}$, C.~M.~Baugh$^{1}$, S.~Cole$^{1}$\\
11: $^{1}$Department of Physics, University of Durham, South Road, Durham DH1 3LE\\
12: $^{2}$Theoretical Astrophysics, Caltech, MC130-33, 1200 E. California Blvd., Pasadena CA 91125, USA}
13: \begin{document}
14:
15: \date{Accepted 2008, July 8. Received 2008, June 7; in original form 2008 March 19}
16:
17: \pagerange{\pageref{firstpage}--\pageref{lastpage}} \pubyear{2008}
18:
19: \maketitle
20:
21: \label{firstpage}
22:
23: \begin{abstract}
24: Current models of galaxy formation predict satellite galaxies in groups and
25: clusters that are redder than observed. We investigate the effect on the colours
26: of satellite galaxies produced by the ram pressure stripping of their hot
27: gaseous atmospheres as the satellites orbit within their parent halo. We
28: incorporate a model of the stripping process based on detailed hydrodynamic
29: simulations within the Durham semi-analytic model of galaxy formation. The
30: simulations show that the environment in groups and clusters is less
31: aggressive than previously assumed. The main uncertainty in the model is
32: the treatment of gas expelled by supernovae. With reasonable
33: assumptions for the stripping of this material, we find that satellite
34: galaxies are able to retain a significant fraction of their hot gas for several
35: Gigayears, thereby replenishing their reservoirs of cold, star forming gas and
36: remaining blue for a relatively long period of time. A bimodal distribution of
37: galaxy colours, similar to that observed in SDSS data, is established and the
38: colours of the satellite galaxies are in good agreement with the data. In
39: addition, our model naturally accounts for the observed dependence of
40: satellite colours on environment, from small groups to high mass clusters.
41: \end{abstract}
42:
43: \begin{keywords}
44: galaxies: clusters: general; galaxies: evolution -- galaxies:
45: fundamental parameters: colours -- galaxies: luminosity function
46: \end{keywords}
47:
48: \section{Introduction}
49:
50: Recent multiwavelength imaging with the Sloan Digital Sky
51: survey (SDSS; \citealt{york00}) has convincingly demonstrated
52: that the colour-magnitude distribution of galaxies is bimodal
53: \citep{strateva01,hogg02,blanton03,baldry06}. Other galaxy
54: properties, such as the star formation rates, disk-to-bulge
55: ratios, concentrations, stellar surface mass densities and gas
56: mass fractions also show bimodal distributions
57: \citep{kauffmann03,brinchmann04,balogh04,hogg04,kannappan04}.
58: Elucidating the origin of these distributions requires
59: understanding whether they arise in situ or whether they
60: are environmentally driven (i.e., the ``nature'' or ``nurture''
61: dichotomy).
62:
63: While they are not the only means by which theorists attempt to
64: tackle the problem of galaxy formation, at present semi-analytic
65: models offer the best hope for understanding the origin
66: of the bimodality. The level of sophistication of these models
67: has grown rapidly in recent years and so too has their ability
68: to match a wide variety of observational data
69: \citep{kauffmann93,lacey93,cole94,kauffmann99,somerville99,cole00,benson02,benson03,baugh05,croton06,bower06}. The recent addition of feedback from active galactic
70: nuclei (AGN) in the semi-analytic models (e.g.,
71: \citealt{granato04,bower06,cattaneo06,croton06,menci06,kang06})
72: has provided an explanation for three well-known, yet
73: puzzling observational results: (1) the steep cut-off at
74: the bright end of the galaxy luminosity function; (2) the fact that
75: most massive galaxies today tend to be dominated by old, red stellar
76: populations; and (3) the absence of classical cooling flows in
77: the centres of massive X-ray clusters. In addition, some of
78: these models (e.g., that of \citealt{bower06}, hereafter
79: B06, which we adopt as the baseline model in this paper) are
80: also able to reproduce the evolution of the K-band luminosity
81: and the galaxy stellar mass functions out to high redshift (see
82: \citealt{baugh06} and references therein for a more in-depth
83: discussion of the successes and limitations of semi-analytic models).
84:
85: In terms of galaxy colours, semi-analytic models with AGN
86: feedback are able to produce a clear bimodal separation of
87: colours at high luminosities, match the slope of the
88: red and blue sequences and explain the absence of massive
89: blue galaxies. However, it has recently become clear that these
90: models are unable to match the relative numbers of
91: faint satellite galaxies on the red and blue sequences.
92: Specifically, \citet{weinmann06b} and \citet{baldry06} have
93: shown that the faint satellite galaxies in groups and clusters
94: modelled semi-analytically are on average too red in comparison to
95: satellite galaxies of similar luminosity in the SDSS sample.
96: Using DEEP2 data, \citet{coil08} have shown that a similar
97: problem may exist at higher redshifts ($z \sim 0.7-0.9$), where
98: the semi-analytic models predict a stronger clustering of red
99: galaxies than is observed. These results indicate that
100: one or more physical processes (either internal or
101: environmentally-driven) that affect the ability of the galaxies
102: to form stars are not yet accurately accounted for in the
103: models.
104:
105: In the present study, we concentrate on the effect of
106: environmental processes on the colours of galaxies, particularly
107: on the role that the ram pressure stripping of the hot gas from
108: galaxy haloes plays. At present, the semi-analytic models
109: outlined above treat the stripping of the hot gas from the
110: haloes of galaxies in a crude fashion, by assuming that the
111: gaseous halo is completely and instantaneously stripped as the
112: system crosses the virial radius of the (more massive) parent
113: system and becomes a satellite.
114: A direct consequence of this stripping is that the only fuel that
115: is available for star formation once the galaxy becomes a
116: satellite is that which resided in a cold disk when the galaxy
117: first fell into the halo. As a result, the satellite galaxy experiences a
118: sharp decline in its star formation rate and its stellar
119: population becomes red over time. This process of cutting off
120: the supply of hot gas that would otherwise cool and replenish
121: the reservoir of cold, star-forming gas, is sometimes referred
122: to as ``strangulation'' or ``starvation''
123: (\citealt{larson80,balogh00}). It is clear, however, that the
124: maximally-efficient stripping assumed by most current semi-analytic
125: models is not realistic, especially in cases where the mass of
126: the satellite is comparable to that of the parent system \citep{wang07}.
127:
128: In a very recent study, \citet{kang08} investigate the effect of modelling the
129: stripping of satellites by an exponential decay. They adopt a stripping
130: factor that is independent of the properties and orbit of the parent and
131: satellite haloes and vary this to achieve the best match to the
132: observations. However, although this empirical approach is a step
133: forward, one expects the efficiency of the stripping to depend on the
134: orbit of the satellite and on the structural properties of both the
135: satellite and parent systems. In contrast, the model we present here aims
136: to implement a physically motivated description for the stripping
137: effect, taking into account the relevant properties of the system.
138:
139: Recently, \citet{mccarthy08} carried out a large suite of high
140: resolution hydrodynamic simulations of the stripping of the
141: hot gaseous haloes of galaxies and presented a simple,
142: physically-motivated model that describes the
143: simulation results remarkably well. These authors concluded
144: that, typically, galaxies are able to retain a significant
145: fraction of their hot haloes for long periods of time
146: following virial crossing. The results of these
147: simulations are in qualitative agreement with a recent
148: {\it Chandra} X-ray survey of massive
149: satellite galaxies in hot clusters by Sun et al.\ (2007), who
150: found that most massive satellites do indeed have detectable
151: hot haloes (see also \citealt{jeltema08}). The implication of
152: these results is that the stripping of the hot gaseous haloes is
153: much less efficient than previously assumed. Consequently, some
154: replenishment of the cold star-forming reservoir (via cooling of
155: the hot halo) in the satellite galaxies is expected to take place,
156: this prolonging star formation and resulting in bluer satellite galaxies.
157:
158: In the present study, we incorporate the prescription for ram
159: pressure stripping of hot haloes of \citet{mccarthy08} in the
160: Durham semi-analytic code for galaxy formation, {\small GALFORM},
161: and show that this improvement in environmental physics brings
162: the colours of satellite galaxies into much better agreement with the
163: observational data.
164:
165: The layout of the paper is as follows: In Section
166: \ref{sec:model} we present the details of the implementation of
167: the new ram pressure model in {\small GALFORM}. In Section
168: \ref{sec:results} we present results for the fraction of blue
169: galaxies in the new model (\S \ref{sec:bluefrac}), discuss
170: the environmental signatures in the colours of galaxies
171: (\S \ref{sec:environ}) and present predictions for the red and blue
172: luminosity functions at redshift $z=0.1$ for galaxies of different type
173: (\S \ref{sec:lumfunc}). In Section \S \ref{sec:discuss} we summarize
174: and discuss our findings.
175:
176: \section[]{A Semi-analytic Model of Galaxy Formation with Ram
177: Pressure Stripping of Hot Gaseous Haloes}
178: \label{sec:model}
179:
180: \subsection{The B06 version of {\small GALFORM}}
181: \label{sec:B06}
182:
183: Apart from the minor changes described below, we use the
184: version of the {\small GALFORM} semi-analytic code described in
185: B06. This version of {\small GALFORM} makes use of halo
186: merger histories extracted from the {\it Millennium Simulation}
187: with the techniques of \citet{helly03} (see also
188: \citealt{harker06}). The {\it Millennium Simulation}
189: \citep{springel_etal05} was carried out by the Virgo Consortium
190: and it is one of the largest simulations of the growth of
191: structure in the $\Lambda$CDM cosmology to date, containing
192: approximately 10 billion dark matter particles in a cubic
193: volume of $(500 h^{-1}$ Mpc)$^3$ with a particle mass of $8.6
194: \times 10^{8} \, M_{\odot}/h$. Throughout the paper we adopt the
195: same cosmological model assumed in the Millennium simulation (and
196: in the B06 model) and quote our results in terms of the Hubble variable
197: $h = H_0/100$~km$^{_1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$.
198:
199: In terms of baryonic physics,
200: the version of {\small GALFORM} developed by B06 has the same basic
201: structure as in \citet{cole00}, but with the addition of an
202: improved treatment of gas cooling and a new scheme for AGN feedback.
203: In the present study, most of the basic parameters of the code
204: (including, e.g., the efficiencies of supernovae and AGN feedback
205: and the timescales for star formation and dynamical friction) are the
206: same as those adopted in B06. However, in order to achieve better
207: agreement with the zero-point colours of the observed red and blue
208: sequences, we increase the value of the yield to $p=0.04$, which is
209: a factor of two higher than the ``standard'' solar value adopted by
210: B06. With this change, the $^{0.1}(g-r)$ colours are redder by
211: $0.1$~mag compared with those in the B06 model (for galaxies on the
212: red sequence). It also improves the metallicity of the intracluster
213: medium (ICM): whereas in the standard B06 model the metallicity of the
214: ICM was too low, $Z_{ICM} \simeq 0.15 Z_{\odot}$, in the model with
215: double the yields $Z_{ICM} \simeq 0.3 Z_{\odot}$ (Bower et al. 2008),
216: a value which is in better agreement with the X-ray measurements
217: (e.g., \citealt{baum05}). We note that large
218: yields such as these have been used in semi-analytical models in the
219: past in order to get better agreement between the model predictions
220: for galaxy colours and the observations
221: (see \citealt{kauffmann98,delucia04}; but see also the discussion of
222: \citealt{cole00} about increasing yields and consistency with
223: stellar evolution models).
224:
225: One further minor change from the version of B06 concerns the
226: division between haloes in the rapid cooling and hydrostatic regimes.
227: B06 adopted a sharp transition between these two regimes. In particular,
228: the BO6 model assumes that radio-mode feedback is only effective in
229: hydrostatic haloes with
230:
231: \begin{equation}
232: t_{\rm cool}(r_{\rm cool}) > \alpha_{\rm cool}^{-1} t_{\rm
233: ff}(r_{\rm cool}),
234: \label{eq:acool}
235: \end{equation}
236:
237: \noindent where $t_{\rm cool}$ and $r_{\rm cool}$ are the cooling time
238: and radius, $t_{\rm ff}$ is the free-fall time (as defined by
239: \citealt{cole00}) and $\alpha_{\rm cool}$ is an adjustable parameter
240: (set in this model to $0.7$) that rescales the freefall time of the
241: halo and has the effect of controlling the position of the break in the
242: luminosity function\footnote{Equation (2) of B06 is incorrect;
243: $\alpha_{\rm cool}$ should be replaced by $\alpha_{\rm
244: cool}^{-1}$.}. If the above condition is satisfied, it is then
245: determined whether or not the central AGN is able to inject
246: sufficient power to offset the energy being radiated away in
247: the cooling flow and, if the available AGN power is greater
248: than the cooling luminosity, the cooling flow is assumed to
249: be completely quenched.
250:
251: This strict dichotomy in halo properties has the undesirable
252: effect that small changes in, for example, the gas mass
253: fraction of haloes near the transition can greatly
254: affect the star formation rate in their central galaxy. This
255: leads to a small population of rapidly forming galaxies at
256: the bright end of the blue sequence. In the present paper,
257: we have refined the criterion to make the transition more gradual.
258: To do this, we reduce the cooling rate in haloes for which
259: the cooling radius and effective freefall radius [$r_{\rm cool}(t)$
260: and $r_{\rm ff,eff}(t) \equiv r_{\rm ff}(\alpha_{\rm cool} t)$] are close
261: to each other. Specifically, if
262:
263: \begin{equation}
264: |r_{\rm cool}-r_{\rm ff,eff}| \le 0.5 \epsilon_{\rm cool}^{-1}r_{\rm
265: cool},
266: \end{equation}
267:
268: \noindent the net cooling rate is reduced:
269:
270: \begin{equation}
271: \dot{m}_{\rm cool,eff} = \dot{m}_{\rm cool} \left( 0.5 +
272: \epsilon_{\rm cool} [1-r_{\rm ff}/r_{\rm cool}] \right),
273: \end{equation}
274:
275: \noindent where $\dot{m}_{cool}$ is the cooling rate in the absence of AGN
276: feedback. This function leaves the cooling rate unchanged if the
277: inequality above is not satisfied. For large values of $\epsilon_{\rm cool}$
278: the inequality applies for only a narrow range of
279: $(r_{\rm cool}-r_{\rm ff,eff})$, and the behaviour of the B06 model is
280: maintained. Here we adopt $\epsilon_{\rm cool}=10$, so that the
281: transition is still quite sharp, and the luminosity function is little
282: affected. The effect on the colours of galaxies at the bright tip of the blue
283: sequence is, however, noticeable: by suppressing gas cooling in
284: these objects, the tip of the blue sequence becomes redder,
285: tending to curl up towards the red sequence. This provides a
286: slightly better match to observational data in this part of the
287: colour-magnitude diagram (see \S \ref{sec:bluefrac}).
288:
289: With these basic parameters, we run a model with a complete and
290: instantaneous ram pressure stripping of the hot gaseous haloes
291: of satellites (the ``default'' model) and a model where the ram
292: pressure stripping of the hot haloes of satellites is calculated
293: using the prescription of \citet{mccarthy08} (henceforth
294: called the ``hot ram pressure model'').
295:
296: \subsection{Implementation of Ram Pressure Stripping}
297: \label{sec:ram}
298:
299: Below we give a brief description of the \citet{mccarthy08}
300: ram pressure stripping model and how it is incorporated into
301: {\small GALFORM}. The McCarthy et al.\ model is analogous to the
302: original formulation of \citet{gunn72} for the stripping of a
303: face-on cold disk, except that it applies to a
304: spherical distribution of hot gas. Specifically, the hot
305: gaseous halo of the satellite will be stripped if the ram
306: pressure ($P_{\rm ram}$) exceeds the satellite's gravitational
307: restoring force per unit area ($P_{\rm grav}$):
308:
309: \begin{equation}
310: \label{eq:ram}
311: P_{\rm ram} \equiv \rho_{\rm gas,p} v_{\rm sat}^2 > P_{\rm grav}
312: \equiv \alpha_{\rm rp} \frac{G M_{\rm tot,sat}(r) \rho_{\rm
313: gas,sat}(r)}{r} \, ,
314: \end{equation}
315:
316: \noindent where $\rho_{\rm gas,p}$ is the gas density of the
317: parent halo, $v_{\rm sat}$ is the velocity of the satellite with
318: respect to this medium, $M_{\rm tot,sat}(r)$ is the total mass of
319: the satellite within radius $r$ and $\rho_{\rm gas,sat}(r)$ is
320: the density of the satellite's hot halo at this radius. The
321: coefficient $\alpha_{\rm rp}$ is a geometric constant of order
322: unity; McCarthy et al.\ find that $\alpha_{\rm rp}
323: \approx 2$ gives the best fit to their hydrodynamic simulations.
324: Note that equation (\ref{eq:ram}) has not introduced any new free
325: parameters into the {\small GALFORM} semi-analytical model, as
326: $\alpha_{\rm rp}$ has been tuned to match the results of hydrodynamic
327: simulations.
328:
329: The satellite-centric radius where $P_{\rm ram} = P_{\rm grav}$
330: is referred to as the stripping radius and McCarthy et al.\
331: assume that within this radius the satellite's gaseous halo
332: remains intact while all gas exterior to this radius is
333: stripped on approximately a sound crossing time. This
334: physically simple model has been shown to match the results of
335: their high resolution hydrodynamic simulations\footnote{This
336: includes both Lagrangian smooth particle hydrodynamic
337: simulations with the GADGET-2 code \citep{springel05} and
338: Eulerian adaptive mesh refinement simulations with the FLASH code
339: \citep{fryxell00}.} remarkably well for a wide range of orbits,
340: mass ratios, and structural properties.
341:
342: In our implementation of the hot ram pressure model we fix the
343: stripping radius by setting the ram pressure to its maximum
344: value, which occurs at the pericentre of the satellite's orbit,
345: and the gas is stripped at the instant it crosses the virial radius.
346: We adopt this simplification as, by default, {\small GALFORM} does
347: not track the full orbital evolution of the satellite galaxies
348: (but see \citealt{benson03})\footnote{The Millennium simulation
349: provides full dynamical information for subhaloes until they are
350: tidally disrupted. In view of the limited resolution of the simulation,
351: however, we choose to calculate the merging timescale of subhaloes
352: using the standard \citet{chandrasekhar43} formula rather than
353: following the subhalo orbits explicitly, as explained in BO6.
354: Since we are interested mainly in the broad statistical distribution of galaxy
355: colours, our results should not be affected by
356: the loss of information about individual orbits.}. In reality, the physical size of
357: the stripping radius is a function of time, as the magnitude of
358: the ram pressure varies along a non-circular orbit. By setting
359: the ram pressure to its maximum value, we overestimate the amount
360: of stripping that occurs between the time when the satellite
361: crosses the virial radius of the parent halo and when it reaches
362: pericentre for the first time. However, for typical orbits this is not
363: unreasonable, since this timescale is generally a small
364: fraction of the total amount of time that the satellite spends
365: in orbit about the parent halo. In addition, since the full
366: orbital evolution of the satellites is not followed, we neglect
367: the effects of tidal heating and tidal stripping of the satellite
368: system. In terms of the removal of hot halo gas, however,
369: ram pressure stripping is a more efficient mechanism than tidal
370: stripping for the vast majority of satellites (i.e., the
371: stripping radius is typically smaller than the satellite's tidal
372: radius; see \citealt{mccarthy08}).
373:
374: The pericentres and the velocities at pericentre (both of which
375: are required to compute the maximum ram pressure along the
376: orbit) of the satellites are calculated by assuming the
377: satellites have the same 2-D joint radial ($v_r$) and
378: tangential ($v_\theta$) velocity distribution of infalling
379: substructure as measured by \citet{benson05} from a large suite
380: of Virgo Consortium cosmological simulations. \citet{benson05} finds that the following functional form describes the 2-D
381: distribution well:
382:
383: \begin{equation}
384: f(v_{r},v_{\theta})=a_{1} v_{\theta}
385: \exp{[-a_{2}(v_{\theta}-a_{9})^{2}-b_{1}(v_{\theta})(v_{r}-b_{2}(v_{\theta}))^{2}]}
386: \, ,
387: \end{equation}
388:
389: \noindent where $a_{1}$, $a_{2}$, $a_{9}$, $b_{1}(v_{\theta})$ and
390: $b_{2}(v_{\theta})$ are coefficients and functions tabulated in
391: \citet{benson05}. We assume that this distribution is independent
392: of halo mass and redshift. For each satellite we randomly sample this
393: distribution, extracting a radial and tangential velocity
394: pair which, in turn, allows us to calculate the energy and
395: angular momentum (per unit mass) of the orbit. We compute
396: the pericentre radius and velocity of the satellite at
397: pericentre by assuming that the orbital energy and angular
398: momentum are conserved and by treating the satellite as a
399: point mass orbiting within a Navarro-Frenk-White (NFW)
400: \citep{navarro96,navarro97} potential with the same total
401: mass and concentration as the parent halo (see, e.g.,
402: \citealt{binney87}). By assuming that the orbital energy and angular
403: momentum are conserved, we are ignoring the dynamical
404: friction force acting on the satellites. However, in cases
405: where the dynamical friction force is strong, the satellite will
406: quickly sink to the centre of the parent halo and, in any case,
407: this process is important for the most massive satellites which are
408: less affected by ram pressure stripping.
409:
410: By default, the version of {\small GALFORM} presented in B06
411: assumes that the gas density profiles of the hot haloes of all systems
412: (including satellite systems) follow a $\beta$-model
413: \citep{cavaliere76,cavaliere78}, with $\beta = 2/3$ (which
414: provides a reasonable match to the X-ray surface brightness
415: profiles of massive groups and clusters; Jones \& Forman 1984), a
416: fixed core radius $r_c = 0.1 R_{\rm vir}$, and a normalization
417: $\rho_0$ that is set to yield the correct mass of hot gas
418: within the virial radius. We adopt the same distribution in
419: the present study. We note, however, that we have also
420: experimented with NFW density profiles for the hot gas
421: (for both the satellite and parent systems), and find that
422: the resulting fraction of satellite galaxies that are blue is
423: quite similar to the case of the $\beta$-model. This is likely
424: to stem from the fact that, typically, the hot gas is only stripped down
425: to intermediate radii, where the $\beta$-model and the NFW profile
426: are similar.
427:
428: In addition to a hot tenuous atmosphere, each halo has a
429: reservoir of cold gas that developed from the cooling of
430: the hot atmosphere and which can potentially form stars.
431: As stars are formed, some of this cold gas is re-heated by feedback from,
432: for example, supernovae winds. Prior to stripping, the re-heated gas
433: is assumed to follow the same spatial and thermodynamic distribution as the hot
434: gas in the halo (as in B06). We therefore treat the initial stripping
435: of re-heated gas in the same fashion as the hot gas, and transfer the
436: same fraction (as computed with the ram pressure stripping algorithm
437: described above) from the re-heated gas of the satellite to the
438: re-heated gas reservoir of the parent halo. We record the total mass
439: stripped from the halo as $M_{\rm strip}$ and the fraction of the hot halo
440: that is stripped as $f_{\rm strip}$. Although this procedure is simple,
441: it is worth noting that in reality the spatial and thermodynamic
442: properties of the re-heated gas could be quite complicated (e.g.,
443: multiphase) and that it need not be distributed in the same way as the
444: hot gas phase. It would be worth revisiting this issue once a better
445: treatment of the re-heated gas is incorporated into the semi-analytic
446: model (Benson et al., in prep.).
447:
448: The cooling rate of the remaining, unstripped gas
449: is calculated by cooling only the gas within the stripping radius and
450: assuming that stripping does not alter the mean density of gas within this
451: radius. We implement this by giving the satellite a nominal hot gas
452: mass $M_{\rm hot}' = M_{\rm hot} + M_{strip}$ (where $M_{\rm hot}$ is the
453: true hot gas content of the halo) and applying the same cooling algorithm
454: as that used for central galaxies (except limiting the maximum cooling radius to
455: $r_{\rm strip}$ rather than $R_{\rm vir}$). This step ensures self-consistency in
456: the treatment of the gas cooling between stripped and unstripped
457: galaxies, and therefore that the colours of satellites are predicted correctly.
458:
459: So far, we have only been considering the stripping of gas which
460: was in the hot or re-heated phases at the time the satellite halo
461: reached pericentre in the parent halo for the first
462: time. However, as long as star formation continues in the
463: satellite galaxy, supernova feedback will continue to re-heat gas
464: and eject it from the satellite galaxy. The colours of satellite
465: galaxies turn out to be sensitive to how much of this ``secondary''
466: re-heated gas is stripped. The numerical simulations of
467: \citep{mccarthy08} do not provide any direct information about
468: the stripping of this re-heated gas, since they only treat the
469: stripping of the initial hot halo. One can imagine
470: several possible scenarios for the fate of the re-heated gas:
471: we adopt a picture
472: in which the the re-heated gas is ballistically ejected as relatively
473: cold material that subsequently mixes or evaporates to become part
474: of the hot halo. In isolated galaxies, the re-heated gas is put
475: back with the same radial distribution as for the original
476: hot gas halo. In satellite galaxies, we can consider
477: two extreme cases for the treatment of the secondary re-heated gas.
478: Continuing to apply the initial stripping criterion to the satellite
479: galaxy as it orbits suggests that the re-heated gas should be
480: stripped by the same factor $f_{\rm strip}$ as it is ejected from the
481: galaxy. However, applying this at every
482: timestep is too extreme: most of the re-heating occurs during the
483: outer part of the galaxy's orbit where the ram-pressure force
484: is small. It might therefore be more appropriate to consider a
485: second case
486: where little of this re-heated gas is stripped by ram-pressure
487: effects. Further numerical simulations are required to elucidate
488: which of these scenarios is physically more realistic and to
489: determine a suitable parameterization of the time averaged stripping
490: rate. At this point, the second (minimal stripping) case seems
491: more appropriate since the
492: typical orbital timescale exceeds several Gyr, and is comparable
493: to the timescale for the mass-growth of the parent halo
494: (see below).
495:
496: To allow for these uncertainties, we adopt a partially
497: empirical approach, and model the time-dependence of the hot gas
498: mass in the satellite halo after its first pericentre passage as:
499:
500: \begin{equation}
501: \dot{M}_{\rm hot} = (1 - \epsilon_{\rm strip}f_{\rm strip})
502: \frac{M_{\rm reheat}}{\tau_{\rm reheat}} - \dot{M}_{\rm cool}
503: \end{equation}
504:
505: Here ${M}_{\rm hot}$ is the mass of hot gas
506: available for cooling and $\dot{M}_{\rm cool}$ is the rate at
507: which it cools. $M_{\rm reheat}$ is the mass of gas which has
508: been re-heated by supernovae but not yet returned to the hot
509: phase. In the absence of ram-pressure stripping, this re-heated
510: gas is assumed to return to the hot phase on a timescale
511: $\tau_{\rm reheat} = t_{\rm dyn}/\alpha_{\rm reheat}$, as in B06,
512: where the value $\alpha_{\rm reheat}=1.26$ was chosen to match
513: the observed galaxy luminosity function. The effect of
514: ram-pressure stripping is described by the the term
515: $\epsilon_{\rm strip}f_{\rm strip}$, where $f_{\rm strip}$ is the
516: stripping factor already calculated for the initial pericentre
517: using equation~(4), and
518: $\epsilon_{\rm strip}$ is a new parameter (representing the time
519: averaged stripping rate after the initial pericentre) which we
520: adjust to fit
521: the observations. The first (maximal) stripping case corresponds to
522: $\epsilon_{\rm strip}=1$ if the orbital timescale is much
523: shorter than the re-heating timescale, and the
524: second case (minimal stripping) to $\epsilon_{\rm strip}=0$. The
525: gas which is stripped from each satellite is added to the hot gas
526: component of the parent halo.
527:
528: We find that if we take $\epsilon_{\rm strip}=1$, then the
529: colour distribution of satellite galaxies looks very similar to
530: the default model in which there is complete stripping of the
531: initial hot gas and of the re-heated gas, with all satellites lying
532: on the red
533: sequence. For $0.2 \la \epsilon_{\rm strip}<1$, the satellite
534: colour distribution looks similar to the case $\epsilon_{\rm
535: strip}=1$. For $\epsilon_{\rm strip} \la 0.2$, a blue sequence
536: appears for the satellites, which results in better agreement
537: with the observed colour-magnitude distribution. Values in the
538: range $0 \leq \epsilon_{\rm strip} \la 0.2$ result in similar
539: colour-magnitude distributions. For this paper, we adopt the
540: value $\epsilon_{\rm strip} =0.1$.
541:
542: The stripping of satellites is also affected by the growth of the halo in
543: which the satellite is orbiting. If we did not allow for the effect of
544: halo growth, a small satellite accreted at high redshift would not feel
545: the increasing ram-pressure effect as the parent halo grows in mass,
546: perhaps becoming a galaxy cluster by the present-day. In order to take
547: this effect into account, we assign the satellite galaxy new orbital
548: parameters and derive a new stripping factor every time the halo doubles
549: in mass compared to the initial stripping event. If this factor exceeds
550: that applied previously, additional hot and re-heated material is
551: removed from the galaxy. This process tends additionally to
552: suppress on-going star formation in the satellites of massive haloes.
553:
554: An additional physical effect that may be relevant but that is not
555: accounted for in our model is that the (ram + thermal) pressure force
556: exerted on the hot halo of the satellite could, in turn, raise the
557: pressure force exerted on the cold gas and potentially stimulate
558: additional star formation \citep{bekki03}. This would tend to result in bluer
559: colours for the satellite galaxies. The magnitude of this effect is
560: presently unclear, however, and needs to be quantified
561: either observationally or with the aid of hydrodynamic
562: simulations that accurately include the effects of cooling, star
563: formation, and feedback.
564:
565:
566: \section{Results}
567: \label{sec:results}
568:
569: \begin{figure}
570: \includegraphics[width=9.cm]{fig1.ps}
571: \caption{\label{fig:lf}{Comparison of the predicted galaxy
572: luminosity functions of the default model with the hot ram
573: pressure stripping model at redshift $z=0$. The data points represent
574: observations from the 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey \citep{norberg02}.
575: Magnitudes are $b_J$ (Vega) in both the models and the
576: observations. Models use volume limited samples and the smallest
577: resolved haloes have luminosities $\simeq 0.03 L_*$ (equivalent to
578: $M_{b_J}-5\log h = -15.7$). Thick lines correspond to all galaxies and
579: thin lines to satellite galaxies only.}}
580: \end{figure}
581:
582: Since it is plausible that including a better treatment of the
583: ram pressure stripping may have a fairly significant impact on
584: the observable properties of the galaxies, we first check if the
585: predicted galaxy luminosity function is significantly altered.
586:
587: In Fig.\ \ref{fig:lf} we compare the predicted galaxy luminosity
588: function for the default\footnote{Our default model luminosity function is
589: essentially the same as that of B06, even after the minor changes
590: outlined in \S \ref{sec:ram}} and hot ram pressure stripping models at
591: redshift $z=0$. The figure shows that our improved treatment of the
592: ram pressure does not significantly alter the luminosity
593: function. This is primarily because ram pressure stripping
594: preferentially affects satellite galaxies, whereas the total
595: luminosity function (satellites + centrals) is dominated by
596: central galaxies (see \S \ref{sec:lumfunc}). In fact, even the
597: luminosity function of satellite galaxies alone is only affected by
598: a small amount (see thin lines in Fig. \ \ref{fig:lf}), however, as we show
599: below, the distribution of satellite colours at fixed luminosity
600: is significantly altered.
601:
602: \subsection{The blue fraction of galaxies}
603: \label{sec:bluefrac}
604:
605: \begin{figure*}
606: \includegraphics[width=15.cm]{fig2.ps}
607: \caption{\label{fig:cmd}{Colour-magnitude diagram (CMD) of
608: $z =0.1$ galaxies in the default model (upper panels) and
609: in the hot ram pressure stripping model (lower panels). The
610: three panels in each row, from left to right, represent
611: the CMDs of all galaxies, satellites and
612: central galaxies, respectively. Magnitudes are SDSS (AB
613: system) $^{0.1}g$ and $^{0.1}r$ at redshift $z=0.1$. The
614: contours are spaced linearly in galaxy number density, starting
615: from 500 per ($500 \ h^{-1}$ Mpc)$^3$ and increasing in levels
616: of 500 per ($500 \ h^{-1}$ Mpc)$^3$. The solid line represents
617: the colour cut adopted by \citet{weinmann06a} in order to separate blue and
618: red galaxies in the SDSS. The dashed line represents an
619: alternative colour cut (see text).}}
620: \end{figure*}
621:
622: Fig.\ \ref{fig:cmd} shows the predicted colour-magnitude
623: diagram (CMD) of present-day galaxies for the default model
624: (upper panels) and for the hot ram pressure stripping model
625: (lower panels). The three panels in each row, from left to
626: right, represent the CMDs of all galaxies,
627: satellites only, and central galaxies only. For a more
628: convenient comparison with the SDSS data, the model predictions
629: are output at redshift $z=0.1$ (which corresponds approximately
630: to the median redshift of the SDSS sample) and the filters chosen
631: for analysis are $^{0.1}g$ and $^{0.1}r$ in the AB system.
632:
633: Fig.\ \ref{fig:cmd} shows, as expected, that changing the
634: treatment of ram pressure stripping primarily affects the
635: colours of satellite galaxies. In particular, the
636: distribution of $^{0.1}(g-r)$ colours at a fixed magnitude is
637: broader for the hot ram pressure stripping model and a larger
638: fraction of the satellites now have bluer colours. The physical
639: reason for this behaviour is simply that the retention of some
640: of the hot gas in the halo of the satellite allows for the
641: replenishment of the cold gas reservoir which, in turn,
642: prolongs star formation in the satellite after its accretion
643: onto the parent halo.
644: Although the satellite galaxies eventually stop forming new
645: stars as they consume their gas reservoir, this process is much more
646: protracted in the hot ram pressure model.
647: As a result, the satellites cover a wider range of colours, filling
648: in the region between the two main colour sequences. The red sequence
649: is also much less pronounced in the new model.
650:
651: To quantify this change in the colours, we classify galaxies as
652: being either `blue' or `red' by adopting the colour cut proposed
653: by \citet{weinmann06a} for galaxies in the SDSS i.e.,
654:
655: \begin{equation}
656: ^{0.1}(g - r) = 0.7 - 0.032 \ (^{0.1}M_r - 5 \log h + 16.5) \, ,
657: \label{eq:colorcut}
658: \end{equation}
659:
660: This cut, which is represented in the panels of Fig.\
661: \ref{fig:cmd} by solid lines, isolates reasonably well the red
662: and the blue sequences in both the default and hot ram pressure
663: models (see the top left and bottom left panels).
664: This is similar to what is observed in the colour-magnitude
665: diagram of SDSS galaxies (see Figure 1 of \citealt{weinmann06a}; also Figure 1
666: of \citealt{weinmann06b}). For the SDSS data, the cut adopted by
667: Weinmann et al. tends to isolate the red sequence at its base defined
668: at the high luminosity end (as opposed to following the minimum between the red
669: and blue sequences). This effect is well reproduced by the solid line
670: in Fig.\ \ref{fig:cmd}.
671:
672: We note, however, that adopting exactly the same colour cut in our
673: models as in the observations is not necessarily the best choice.
674: A drawback of using the Weinmann et al. colour cut to define blue and
675: red fractions is that the results are quite sensitive to the precise position
676: of the red sequence. For this reason, we also employ a second cut
677: (indicated by the dashed line in Fig.\ \ref{fig:cmd}), which intersects
678: the model's bimodal contours roughly at their minimum. In the
679: following, we will use by default the \citet{weinmann06a} cut and,
680: for illustrative purposes, show also results with the alternative cut.
681:
682: The left hand and middle panels of Fig.\ \ref{fig:fblue} show,
683: for the default and hot ram pressure models respectively, the
684: fraction of blue galaxies per $^{0.1}M_r$ magnitude for
685: satellites (filled red circles), centrals (filled blue
686: squares) and all types (filled green triangles) using
687: the \citet{weinmann06a} cut. Also shown is the fraction
688: of blue satellites (open red circles) using the alternative
689: colour cut.
690:
691: Fig.\ \ref{fig:fblue} shows that the fraction of satellites that
692: are blue in the hot ram pressure model is about twice as high as
693: in the default model. As discussed above, the actual fraction of blue
694: galaxies depends on the colour cut adopted; however the relative
695: difference in the blue fractions between the two models is largely
696: independent of the cut. In particular, we find that using
697: either the \citet{weinmann06a} or the alternative cut (or any
698: in between these two), the fraction of satellite galaxies that are
699: blue in the hot ram pressure model is approximately $2-2.5$ times
700: larger than in the default model.
701:
702: \begin{figure*}
703: \centering
704: \includegraphics[width=18.cm]{fig3.ps}
705: \caption{\label{fig:fblue}{The fraction of blue galaxies per
706: $^{0.1}M_r$ magnitude. The left panel shows the
707: default model, the middle panel shows the hot ram pressure
708: stripping model. For comparison, we plot in the right panel
709: the fraction of blue galaxies in the SDSS data as derived by
710: \citet{weinmann06b}. The blue fractions are shown separately
711: for satellites (red circles), central galaxies (blue squares)
712: and all types (green triangles). The empty symbols
713: represent the fraction of blue satellites with the
714: alternative colour cut (see the dashed line in Fig.\ \ref{fig:cmd}).
715: For better comparison, the black dotted line in the middle panel
716: reproduces the blue fraction of SDSS satellites from the right panel.
717: All magnitudes are k-corrected to redshift $0.1$.}}
718: \end{figure*}
719:
720: \begin{figure*}
721: \centering
722: \includegraphics[width=15.cm]{fig4.ps}
723: \caption{\label{fig:fblue_lim}{The fraction of blue
724: satellites per $^{0.1}M_r$ magnitude calculated using the Weinmann et al
725: colour cut (eq. \ref{eq:colorcut}), in parent haloes of different mass.
726: The hot ram pressure stripping model is shown in the
727: left panel. Data from the SDSS group catalogue of \citet{weinmann06b}
728: are shown in the right panel. In both panels magnitudes have been
729: k-corrected out to redshift $0.1$.}}
730: \end{figure*}
731:
732: How do the models fare in comparison to the observational data?
733: In the right hand panel, we show the blue fraction of galaxies
734: measured by \citet{weinmann06b} using an SDSS group catalogue
735: (kindly provided by S. Weinmann). The fraction of satellite galaxies
736: that are blue in the observations increases up to approximately $60\%$
737: at the faint magnitude end. Encouragingly, the newly implemented
738: ram pressure model yields a fraction of blue satellites that is in
739: strikingly good agreement with the SDSS results. The satellite
740: blue fraction rises also to about $60$\% at the faint end and the
741: overall trend in the blue fraction with luminosity is also
742: close to that observed. In contrast, the default model yields a
743: fraction of blue satellite galaxies at most $\approx 30$\%
744: (at faint magnitudes). This is similar to the fraction of blue
745: satellites ($\sim 20$\%) reported for the \citet{croton06}
746: semi-analytic model by \citet{weinmann06b} (see the bottom right
747: hand panel of their figure 4).
748:
749: We also note that the fraction of bright central galaxies
750: that are blue is in broad agreement with the observations. This
751: is largely a consequence of including a prescription for
752: AGN feedback into {\small GALFORM} which tends to halt star
753: formation in the most massive galaxies. Finally, we note that
754: the semi-analytic model predicts many more faint central
755: galaxies than observed in the SDSS group catalogue (independently of how the
756: stripping of the hot gaseous haloes is treated). However, the lack of faint
757: central galaxies is a selection effect of the group sample in the
758: SDSS: the source catalogue excludes groups for which no member is
759: brighter than $^{0.1}M_r= -19.5 +5\log h$, where $h=0.73$
760: \citep{weinmann06a}. Although we do not attempt to reproduce the
761: mock groups catalogue in detail here, including this selection criterion
762: tends to makes the satellite blue fraction shown in Fig. \ref{fig:fblue}
763: greater by 0.1, further improving the match to the observations.
764:
765:
766: \subsection{Environmental dependence of colours}
767: \label{sec:environ}
768:
769: Ram pressure stripping is an environmentally-driven process,
770: hence one should expect variations in the fraction of blue
771: satellites as a function of parent halo mass. The left hand
772: panel of Fig.\ \ref{fig:fblue_lim} shows the fraction of
773: blue satellites in the hot ram pressure model per $^{0.1}M_r$
774: bin, calculated using the Weinmann et al. colour cut
775: (eq. \ref{eq:colorcut}), for different parent haloes mass
776: ranges. The lower masses, $10^{12} < M_{\rm tot,parent} < 10^{14} \, M_{\odot}$,
777: correspond to group- type environments, whereas the larger
778: masses, $M_{\rm tot,parent}>10^{14} \, M_{\odot}$ correspond
779: to massive clusters. For comparison, in the right
780: hand panel we plot the blue fractions of satellites in the SDSS
781: group catalogue of \citet{weinmann06b} split into the same
782: parent halo mass bins.
783:
784: Reasonably good agreement with the data is obtained. The new model
785: reproduces the overall trend that satellites of a given magnitude are
786: bluer if they reside in less massive systems. The physical explanation
787: for this behaviour is due to the slighthy higher density of the hot gas in
788: more massive systems (because lower mass systems, on average, have
789: converted a larger fraction of their baryons into stars) and to the higher
790: orbital velocities of satellites in more massive host haloes. The
791: latter effect is the dominant one, especially since the ram pressure
792: scales with the square of the satellite's velocity. In particular,
793: if we ignore the weak dependence of hot gas density on halo mass, the
794: ram pressure scales simply as $P_{\rm ram} \propto v_{\rm sat}^2$.
795: Typically, $v_{\rm sat}$ is of order the virial circular velocity of the
796: parent halo, implying the ram pressure will scale roughly as $P_{\rm ram}
797: \propto M_{tot,p}^{2/3}$. As a result, stripping is more extensive in
798: more massive parent systems, reducing the fuel supply for star formation
799: in satellites.
800:
801:
802: The model shows a slight increase in the fraction of
803: blue satellite galaxies towards the bright magnitude end, i.e. the ``bump''
804: at $ -19 >^{0.1}M_{r}> -21$. As Fig. \ \ref{fig:fblue_lim} shows, this
805: effect is more pronounced for bright galaxies residing in low mass groups,
806: $10^{12} < M_{\rm tot,parent} < 10^{13} \, M_{\odot}$, and likely reflects
807: a limitation of the way in which the transition between rapid cooling and
808: hydrostatic regimes is currently treated in the code (see \S \ref{sec:B06}).
809:
810: The direct comparison between the halo masses in the
811: models and those inferred from the observations should be treated
812: with some caution. In the case of a theoretical model, the true mass
813: of the parent halo is known precisely, however in the case of the
814: observational data one must make use of a mass proxy (e.g.,
815: \citealt{eke04}). In the particular case of the SDSS data, \citet{weinmann06b}
816: use an empirical relationship between the total optical luminosity
817: of a system and its mass. The semi-analytic models, however, show
818: considerable scatter in the relationship between these quantities.
819: Ultimately, one would like to construct a mock survey from the theoretical
820: models with similar characteristics to the SDSS catalogue, and
821: analyze the mock data the same way as the real data. This is beyond
822: the scope of the present paper and will be addressed in a future
823: study.
824:
825: We also note that similar results have been obtained from studies
826: that attempt to distinguish low mass from high mass environments
827: using other mass proxies. For example, \citet{hogg04} find that
828: bluer galaxies in the local Universe typically reside in low galaxy
829: density environments, whereas redder galaxies tend to live in high
830: galaxy density environments. This is fully consistent with the results of
831: \citet{weinmann06b} and our own model predictions if one makes the
832: reasonable assumption that the projected surface density of
833: galaxies increases with increasing parent halo mass (e.g.,
834: \citealt{gladders07}).
835:
836: Lastly, the colours are expected to depend not only on the mass
837: of the parent halo but also on the intrinsic properties of the
838: satellite. To help disentangle these two factors, we plot in
839: Fig.\ \ref{fig:hist} colour histograms (in $^{0.1}(g-r)$) for
840: satellite galaxies in both the default (dashed lines) and
841: the hot ram pressure (solid lines) models, divided into
842: different $^{0.1}M_r$ magnitude and parent halo mass bins.
843: In the new ram pressure model, satellites brighter than
844: $^{0.1}M_r \sim -20$ tend to be red, independent of the parent halo
845: mass (i.e., environment). This is because internal processes,
846: specifically AGN feedback, are the dominant mechanism for quenching the
847: star formation in these systems. Meanwhile, as expected,
848: low mass satellites in the same model (corresponding to magnitudes
849: fainter than $^{0.1}M_r \sim -20$) tend to be bluer in low mass parent
850: haloes and redder in massive clusters. The shapes of the histograms and
851: the overall trends are qualitatively similar to observational results
852: \citep{balogh04,weinmann06a} $-$ but note that the observations include
853: both satellites and centrals. For example, the highest luminosity galaxies
854: are always dominated by the narrow red peak, regardless of environment,
855: a weak tail of blue galaxies only becoming visible in the lowest density
856: regions. Since we plot only the satellite galaxies here, a distinct blue
857: sequence is not seen; rather, the satellite galaxies increasingly occupy
858: transition colours at low halo masses where star formation
859: has been partially suppressed but not completely extinguished.
860: The results of our model suggest that, at the low halo mass end,
861: environmental processes are as important as the intrinsic physical
862: processes in determining the colour of satellite galaxies.
863:
864: \begin{figure*}
865: \includegraphics[width=12.cm]{fig5.ps}
866: \caption{\label{fig:hist}{Fraction of satellite galaxies
867: ($f[^{0.1}(g-r),M_{tot}]$) per $^{0.1}(g-r)$ colour bin, divided into
868: different $^{0.1}M_r$ magnitude ranges and residing in parent haloes of
869: different total mass. Results for the hot ram pressure
870: model are plotted with solid lines and for the default model with
871: dot-dashed lines. Magnitudes increase from left to right and parent halo
872: mass increase from top towards bottom. Vertical lines correspond to the
873: \citet{weinmann06a} colour cut (solid lines) and to the alternative
874: colour cut described in \S \ref{sec:bluefrac}(dotted lines).}}
875: \end{figure*}
876:
877: \subsection{Luminosity functions of red and blue galaxies at $z=0.1$}
878: \label{sec:lumfunc}
879:
880:
881: \begin{figure*}
882: \centering
883: \includegraphics[width=18.cm]{fig6.ps}
884: \caption{\label{fig:lumfunc}{Luminosity functions in the $^{0.1}M_r$ band
885: at redshift $z=0.1$. Panels include all galaxies (left), satellites
886: (middle) and central galaxies (right). Solid lines correspond to the hot
887: ram pressure model and dashed lines to the default model.
888: Black lines denote all galaxies in the (sub)sample, while red and
889: blue lines denote galaxies that are above and below the
890: $^{0.1}(g-r)$ colour cut in equation \ref{eq:colorcut},
891: respectively. The green dotted lines in the middle and right hand
892: panels reproduce the total luminosity function of all galaxies for
893: the hot ram pressure model (solid black line in left panel).
894: }}
895: \label{fig:lumfunc}
896:
897: \end{figure*}
898:
899: As a starting point for future comparisons with SDSS and other data, we
900: plot colour luminosity functions (LF) for the hot ram pressure model.
901: Fig.~\ref{fig:lumfunc} shows the red and blue LFs in the $^{0.1}M_r$
902: band at redshift $z=0.1$, where colours are separated using the Weinmann et
903: al. cut. Panels include all galaxies (left), satellites (middle) and
904: central galaxies (right). Dashed lines represent the default model.
905: Current observational results for the luminosity functions are not
906: able to separate contributions of satellite and central galaxies
907: accurately over this range of luminosity due to the
908: difficulty of robustly identifying faint central galaxies (However, see the
909: recent HOD analysis of \citealt{brown08}). The comparison in
910: Fig.~\ref{fig:lumfunc} highlights the origin of the variations of the
911: blue fraction seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:fblue_lim}.
912:
913: With the exception of the blue/red LF of satellites, the differences
914: between the default and the hot ram pressure model are minor. Since the
915: centrals dominate in total number density, total LFs are similar for
916: both models (cf., discussion of Fig. \ref{fig:lf}).
917: When all galaxies are combined, the blue galaxy LF has a steeper
918: faint end slope than the red counterpart, in agreement with observational
919: data (e.g., \citealt{baldry06}) \footnote{
920: However, a study that appeared after our paper was submitted indicates that
921: the faint end slopes of the red and blue luminosity functions in
922: the SDSS DR6 data are shallower than predicted by our model
923: \citep{montero08}. If confirmed, this may suggest that other
924: physical processes unaccounted for in our model,
925: e.g. tidal stripping of stars \citep{henriques08}, may be
926: responsible for the further flattening of the faint end slopes.}. By splitting the luminosity
927: function into central and satellite galaxies, we see that this is
928: driven by the rapidly increasing preponderance of blue central
929: galaxies at faint magnitudes. In contrast, the luminosity function of
930: central red galaxies drops by about three orders of magnitude between
931: $^{0.1}M_r$ of $-20$ and $-17$. This effect is driven by the AGN
932: feedback in the model, and is independent of the stripping model.
933:
934: The properties of satellites in the new model are much more dependent
935: on the environmental physics included in the model. In the new model,
936: the blue and red LFs reach similar values at the faint end
937: (consistent with the results in Figure \ref{fig:fblue}
938: showing that at the faint end there are roughly similar numbers of red
939: and blue satellites). The dramatic increase in the fraction of faint
940: blue satellites can be seen by comparing the solid and dashed blue lines.
941: This is an alternative way of presenting the information in Fig.~\ref{fig:fblue_lim},
942: and underscores the importance of studying the environmental dependence of
943: galaxy properties in order to obtain a complete picture of galaxy formation
944: and evolution.
945:
946: \section{Summary \& Discussion}
947: \label{sec:discuss}
948:
949: Until now, most current semi-analytic models of galaxy
950: formation have adopted a crude modelling of the ram pressure
951: stripping of the hot gaseous halos of satellite galaxies. In
952: particular, they typically assume complete and instantaneous
953: stripping of the hot gas halo when the galaxy first falls in,
954: without regard for the galaxy's mass, orbit, or structural properties.
955: This is at odds with results of hydrodynamic simulations, and also
956: with recent X-ray observations of galaxies in massive clusters. In
957: the present study, we have improved the treatment of
958: stripping by implementing the model of \citet{mccarthy08}
959: (which has been shown to match simulations of ram pressure
960: stripping to high accuracy) into the {\small GALFORM}
961: semi-analytic model for galaxy formation. Although the initial
962: stripping event does not require us to add additional parameters
963: to the model, subsequent stripping of the gas re-heated from the disk
964: requires additional parameterization. We parameterize this process
965: by assuming that most of the ejecta are retained in
966: the galaxy after the first pericentre passage.
967:
968: We find that the newly implemented treatment of stripping leads to
969: a significant improvement in the ability of the model to match
970: the colours of satellite galaxies in the SDSS. The new model
971: is also able to account for the environmental dependence of the
972: colours of satellite galaxies. Our results suggest that for the
973: majority of satellite galaxies, this environmental
974: process can be as important in modifying the galaxy colours as
975: intrinsic processes, such as AGN or supernovae feedback, which
976: operate within the satellites themselves. This finding is
977: in broad agreement with previous studies that found that
978: internal processes that quench star formation do not seem
979: capable of explaining the full range of colour and morphology
980: data (e.g., \citealt{weinmann06a,baldry06}).
981:
982: Although we have only focused on the stripping of hot gaseous
983: halos in the present study, other environmental processes may be
984: relevant as well. We now briefly review some of these and
985: conclude that none of them appear to be as important as the ram pressure
986: stripping of the hot haloes and the feedback already
987: incorporated into our present model.
988:
989: In cases where the ram pressure stripping of the hot halo is
990: complete, some stripping of the cold gaseous disks may also
991: occur \citep{gunn72,abadi99,quilis00}.
992: However, \citet{okamoto03} and \citet{lanzoni05} have
993: explored ram pressure stripping of disks in semi-analytic
994: models and have concluded that the effect on the colours and star
995: formation rates of satellite galaxies are minimal. This most
996: likely stems from the fact that disk stripping is only expected
997: to be relevant for a minority of satellite galaxies whose
998: orbits take them into the very centres of massive systems
999: (e.g., \citealt{bruggen08}).
1000:
1001: Thermal evaporation of the hot gaseous haloes (and/or disks)
1002: could also be relevant \citep{cowie77}, but observational studies of
1003: bubbles and cold fronts in X-ray groups and clusters have placed strong
1004: constraints on the efficiency of conduction, concluding that it
1005: is strongly suppressed \citep{markevitch07,mcnamara07}.
1006: Turbulent stripping via the generation of Kelvin-Helmholtz and
1007: Rayleigh-Taylor instabilities at the interface between the hot
1008: gaseous halo of the satellite and the parent system is possible,
1009: but the timescale for this type of stripping is generally quite
1010: long (see \citealt{mccarthy08}).
1011:
1012: Other possibly relevant processes include viscous stripping
1013: (unfortunately at present the viscosity of the hot gas in groups
1014: and clusters is poorly constrained; \citealt{mcnamara07}), tidal
1015: effects on the gas as the result of the interaction with the gravitational
1016: potential of the parent halo \citep{byrd90,merritt83} or with
1017: the other satellites (i.e., mergers \citep{mihos95}
1018: or harassment \citep{moore96}), and shock heating of the
1019: satellite's hot gas as it falls in at transonic velocities.
1020: However, \citet{mccarthy08} have argued that ram pressure
1021: stripping of the hot gaseous haloes is always more efficient
1022: than tidal stripping by the parent halo's potential or
1023: shock heating in cases where the satellite mass is less than
1024: about 10\% of the parent halo's mass.
1025:
1026: In this paper we have concentrated only on comparisons with data
1027: at low redshifts ($z<0.1$). In a future study, we intend to
1028: test the model at other redshifts and compare the redshift evolution of galaxy
1029: colours with data from current deep surveys. Another important application of
1030: the model is the study of the clustering of galaxies as a function of different
1031: physical quantities, such as colour. In addition to the large scale
1032: dependence driven by the relative importance of AGN feedback and
1033: ram pressure stripping as a function of halo mass, our model also predicts a
1034: radial dependence within a halo driven by the variation in the strength
1035: of stripping with the galaxy orbit. The colour dependence of
1036: small-scale clustering will constrain the model and perhaps suggest a
1037: way to improve our treatment of the interaction between galaxies and their
1038: environment.
1039:
1040: \vskip 6pt
1041: {\sf Galaxy catalogues for this model are available for download from this http URL: http://galaxy-catalogue.dur.ac.uk:8080/Millennium/}
1042:
1043: \section*{Acknowledgments}
1044:
1045: We thank Simone Weinmann for providing us the SDSS blue
1046: fraction data in electronic format. We are grateful to
1047: Simon White for
1048: a careful reading of the manuscript and for useful suggestions. We also
1049: acknowledge Michael Balogh, Michael Brown and David Wake for useful
1050: discussions. ASF is supported by a STFC Fellowship at the Institute for
1051: Computational Cosmology in Durham.
1052: RGB acknowledges the support of a STFC senior fellowship.
1053: IGM acknowledges support from a postdoctoral
1054: fellowship from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council
1055: (NSERC) of Canada. AJB acknowledges the support of the Gordon and Betty Moore
1056: Foundation. This work was supported in part by a STFC rolling
1057: grant to Durham University.
1058:
1059:
1060: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
1061:
1062: \bibitem[Abadi et al.(1999)]{abadi99} Abadi, M.~G., Moore, B., \& Bower, R.~G. \ 1999, MNRAS, 308, 947
1063:
1064: \bibitem[Baldry et al.(2004)]{baldry04} Baldry, I.~K.,
1065: Glazebrook, K., Brinkmann, J., Ivezi{\'c}, {\v Z}., Lupton, R.~H., Nichol,
1066: R.~C., Szalay, A.~S.\ 2004, ApJ, 600, 681
1067:
1068: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Baldry et al.}{2006}]{baldry06}
1069: Baldry,~I.~K., Balogh,~M.~L., Bower,~R.~G., Glazebrook,~K.,
1070: Nichol,~R.~C., Bamford,~S.~P., Budavari,~T. 2006, MNRAS, 373, 469
1071:
1072: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Balogh, Navarro \&
1073: Morris}{2000}]{balogh00} Balogh,~M.~L., Navarro,~J.~F. \&
1074: Morris,~S. 2000, ApJ, 540, 113
1075:
1076: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Balogh et al.}{2004}]{balogh04}
1077: Balogh,~M.~L., Baldry, I.~K., Nichol,~R., Miller,~C., Bower, R.,
1078: Glazebrook, K. 2004, ApJ, 615, 101
1079:
1080: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Baugh et al.}{2005}]{baugh05}
1081: Baugh,~C.~M., Lacey,~C.~G., Frenk,~C.~S., Granato,~G.~L., Silva,~L.,
1082: Bressan,~A., Benson,~A.~J., Cole,~S., 2005, MNRAS, 356, 1191
1083:
1084: \bibitem[Baugh(2006)]{baugh06} Baugh, C.~M.\ 2006, Reports of
1085: Progress in Physics, 69, 3101
1086:
1087: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Baumgartner et al.}{2005}]{baum05}
1088: Baumgartner, W.~H., Loewenstein, M., Horner, D.~J., Mushotzky,
1089: R.~F. \ 2005, ApJ, 620, 680
1090:
1091: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bekki \& Couch}{2003}]{bekki03}
1092: Bekki, K. \& Couch, W.~J. \ 2003, ApJL, 596, L13
1093:
1094: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Benson et al.}{2002}]{benson02}
1095: Benson,~A.~J., Lacey,~C.~G., Baugh,~C.~M., Cole,~S., Frenk,~C.~S. 2002, MNRAS, 333, 156
1096:
1097: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Benson et al.}{2003}]{benson03}
1098: Benson,~A.~J., Bower,~R.~G., Frenk,~C.~S., Lacey,~C.~G., Baugh,~C.~M., Cole,~S. 2003, MNRAS, 599, 38
1099:
1100: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Benson}{2005}]{benson05}
1101: Benson,~A.~J. 2005, MNRAS, 358, 551
1102:
1103: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Binney \& Tremaine}{1987}]{binney87}
1104: Binney, J. \& Tremaine, S. 1987, ``Galactic Dynamics'', Princeton
1105: University Press
1106:
1107: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Blanton et al.}{2003}]{blanton03}
1108: Blanton,~M.~R., et al., 2003, ApJ, 592, 819
1109:
1110: \bibitem[Blanton et al.(2005)]{blanton05} Blanton, M.~R., Lupton,
1111: R.~H., Schlegel, D.~J., Strauss, M.~A., Brinkmann, J., Fukugita, M., Loveday, J.\ 2005, ApJ, 631, 208
1112:
1113: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bower et al.}{2006}]{bower06}
1114: Bower,~R.~G., Benson,~A.~J., Malbon,~R., Helly,~J.~C., Frenk,~C.~S.,
1115: Baugh,~C.~M., Cole,~S., Lacey,~C.~G., 2006, MNRAS, 370, 645
1116:
1117: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bower et al.}{2008}]{bower08}
1118: Bower,~R.~G., McCarthy, I.~G. \& Benson,~A.~J., 2008, MNRAS, submitted
1119:
1120: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Brinchmann et
1121: al.}{2004}]{brinchmann04} Brinchmann,~J., Charlot, S., White, S. D. M., Tremonti, C., Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T., Brinkmann, J. 2004, MNRAS, 351, 1151
1122:
1123:
1124: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Brown et al.}{2008}]{brown08}
1125: Brown,~M.~J.~I. et al., ApJ, in press, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:0804.2293v1
1126:
1127:
1128: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Br{\"u}ggen \& De Lucia}{2008}]{bruggen08}
1129: Br{\"u}ggen, M., \& De Lucia, G.\ 2008, MNRAS, 383, 1336
1130:
1131: \bibitem[Byrd \& Valtonen(1990)]{byrd90} Byrd, G., \&
1132: Valtonen, M.\ 1990, ApJ, 350, 89
1133:
1134: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Cattaneo et al.}{2006}]{cattaneo06}
1135: Cattaneo,~A., Dekel,~A., Devriendt,~J., Guiderdoni,~B., Blaizot,~J.,
1136: 2006, MNRAS, 370, 1651
1137:
1138: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Chandrasekhar}{1943}]{chandrasekhar43}
1139: Chandrasekhar S., 1943, ApJ, 97, 255
1140:
1141: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Coil et al.}{2008}]{coil08}
1142: Coil,~A.~L., et al. 2008, ApJ, 672, 153
1143:
1144: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Cole et al.}{1994}]{cole94} Cole,~S.,
1145: Aragon-Salamanca, A., Frenk, C.~S., Navarro, J.~F. \& Zepf, S.~E. \ 1994, MNRAS, 271, 781
1146:
1147: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Cole et al.}{2000}]{cole00} Cole,~S.,
1148: Lacey,~C.~G., Baugh,~C.~M., Frenk,~C.~S., 2000, MNRAS, 319, 168
1149:
1150: \bibitem[Cowie \& Songaila(1977)]{cowie77} Cowie, L.~L., \&
1151: Songaila, A.\ 1977, Nature, 266, 501
1152:
1153: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Croton et al.}{2006}]{croton06}
1154: Croton,~D.~J., Springel,~V., White,~S.~D.~M., De Lucia,~G.,
1155: Frenk,~C.~S., Gao,~L., Jenkins,~A., Kauffmann,~G., Navarro,~J.~F.,
1156: Yoshida,~N., 2006, MNRAS, 365, 11
1157:
1158: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Cavaliere \& Fusco-Femiano}{1976}]{cavaliere76}Cavaliere, A., \& Fusco-Femiano, R.\ 1976, Astronomy \& Astrophysics, 49, 137
1159:
1160: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Cavaliere \& Fusco-Femiano}{1978}]{cavaliere78} Cavaliere, A., \& Fusco-Femiano, R.\ 1978, Astronomy \& Astrophysics, 70, 677
1161:
1162: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{de Lucia et al.}{2004}]{delucia04} de
1163: Lucia,~G., Kauffmann, G. \& White, S.~D.~M. \ 2004, MNRAS, 349, 1101
1164:
1165: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Eke et al.}{2004}]{eke04} Eke,
1166: V.~R. et al., 2004, MNRAS, 348, 866
1167:
1168: \bibitem[Frei \& Gunn(1994)]{frei94} Frei, Z., \& Gunn, J.~E.\
1169: 1994, AJ, 108, 1476
1170:
1171: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Fryxell et al.}{2000}]{fryxell00} Fryxell, B., et al.\
1172: 2000, ApJS, 131, 273
1173:
1174: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Gladders et al.}{2007}]{gladders07}
1175: Gladders, M.~D., Yee, H.~K.~C., Majumdar, S., Barrientos,
1176: L.~F., Hoekstra, H., Hall, P.~B., Infante, L.\ 2007, ApJ,
1177: 655, 128
1178:
1179: \bibitem[Granato et al.(2004)]{granato04} Granato, G.~L., De
1180: Zotti, G., Silva, L., Bressan, A., \& Danese, L.\ 2004, ApJ, 600, 580
1181:
1182: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Gunn \& Gott}{1972}]{gunn72}
1183: Gunn,~J.~E. \& Gott,~J.~R.~III, 1972, ApJ, 176, 1
1184:
1185: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Harker et al.}{2006}]{harker06}
1186: Harker, G., Cole, S., Helly, J., Frenk, C., Jenkins, A.\
1187: 2006, MNRAS, 367, 1039
1188:
1189: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Helly et al.}{2003}]{helly03}
1190: Helly,~J.~C., Cole,~S., Frenk,~C.~S., Baugh,~C.~M., Benson,~A.~J.,
1191: Lacey,~C. 2003, MNRAS, 338, 903
1192:
1193: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Henriques et al.}{2008}]{henriques08}
1194: Henriques, B.~M., Bertone, S., \& Thomas, P. 2008, MNRAS, 383, 1649
1195:
1196: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Hogg et al.}{2002}]{hogg02}
1197: Hogg,~D.~W. et al., 2002, AJ, 124, 646
1198:
1199: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Hogg et al.}{2004}]{hogg04}
1200: Hogg,~D.~W. et al., 2004, ApJ, 601, 29
1201:
1202: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Jeltema et al.}{2008}]{jeltema08}
1203: Jeltema, T.~E, Binder, B., Mulchaey, J.~S. 2008, ApJ, 679, 1162
1204:
1205: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Jones \& Forman}{1984}]{jones84} Jones,~C. \& Forman,~W. 1984, ApJ, 276, 38
1206:
1207: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Kang et al.}{2006}]{kang06}
1208: Kang, X., Jing, Y.~P., \& Silk, J.\ 2006, ApJ, 648, 820
1209:
1210: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Kang \& van den Bosch}{2008}]{kang08}
1211: Kang, X. \& van den Bosch, F. ~C., \ 2008, ApJL, 676, L101
1212:
1213: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Kannappan}{2004}]{kannappan04}
1214: Kannappan,~S.~J. 2004, ApJL, 611, L89
1215:
1216: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Kauffmann et al.}{1993}]{kauffmann93}
1217: Kauffmann, G., White, S.~D.~M. \& Guiderdoni, B.\ 1993, MNRAS, 264, 201
1218:
1219: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Kauffmann \&
1220: Charlot}{1998}]{kauffmann98}
1221: Kauffmann, G. \& {Charlot}, S. \ 1998, MNRAS, 294, 705
1222:
1223: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Kauffmann et al.}{1999}]{kauffmann99}
1224: Kauffmann, G., Colberg, J.~M., Diaferio, A., \& White, S.~D.~M.\ 1999, MNRAS, 303, 188
1225:
1226: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Kauffmann et al.}{2003}]{kauffmann03}
1227: Kauffmann,~G. et al. 2003, MNRAS, 341, 54
1228:
1229: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Kauffmann et al.}{2004}]{kauffmann04}
1230: Kauffmann,~G., White,~S.~D.~M, Heckman,~T.~M., Menard,~B., Brinchmann,~J., Charlot,~S., Tremonti,~C., Brinkman,~J. 2004, MNRAS, 353, 713
1231:
1232: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Lacey et al.}{1993}]{lacey93}
1233: Lacey, C., Guiderdoni, B., Rocca-Volmerange, B. \& Silk, J. \ 1993,
1234: ApJ, 402, 15
1235:
1236: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Lanzoni et al.}{2005}]{lanzoni05}
1237: Lanzoni, B., Guiderdoni, B., Mamon, G.~A., Devriendt, J., \& Hatton, S.\ 2005, MNRAS, 361, 369
1238:
1239: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Larson, Tinsley \& Caldwell}{1980}]{larson80}
1240: Larson,~R.~B., Tinsley,~B.~M., Caldwell,~C.~N. 1980, ApJ, 237, 692
1241:
1242: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Markevitch \& Vikhlinin}{2007}]{markevitch07}
1243: Markevitch, M., \& Vikhlinin, A.\ 2007, Physics Reports, 443, 1
1244:
1245: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{McCarthy et al.}{2008}]{mccarthy08}
1246: McCarthy I.~G., Frenk,~C.~S., Font,~A.~S., Lacey,~C., Bower,~R.~G.,
1247: Mitchell,~N.~L., Balogh,~M.~L., Theuns,~T. MNRAS, 2008, 383, 593
1248:
1249: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{McNamara \& Nulsen}{2007}]{mcnamara07}
1250: McNamara, B.~R., \& Nulsen, P.~E.~J.\ 2007, ARA\&A, 45, 117
1251:
1252: \bibitem[Menci et al.(2006)]{menci06} Menci, N., Fontana, A., Giallongo, E., Grazian, A., Salimbeni, S.\ 2006, ApJ, 647, 753
1253:
1254: \bibitem[Merritt(1983)]{merritt83} Merritt, D.\ 1983, ApJ, 264,
1255: 24
1256:
1257: \bibitem[Mihos(1995)]{mihos95} Mihos, J.~C.\ 1995, ApJL, 438,
1258: L75
1259:
1260: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Moore et al.}{1996}]{moore96}
1261: Moore,~B., Katz, N., Lake, G., Dressler, A., Oemler, A. 1996, Nature, 379, 613
1262:
1263: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Montero-Dorta \&
1264: Prada}{2008}]{montero08} Montero-Dorta, A.~D., \& Prada, F. 2008, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:0806.4930v1
1265:
1266: \bibitem[Navarro et al.(1996)]{navarro96} Navarro, J.~F., Frenk, C.~S., \& White, S.~D.~M.\ 1996, ApJ, 462, 563
1267:
1268: \bibitem[Navarro et al.(1997)]{navarro97} Navarro, J.~F., Frenk,
1269: C.~S., \& White, S.~D.~M.\ 1997, ApJ, 490, 493
1270:
1271: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Norberg et al.}{2002}]{norberg02}
1272: Norberg,~P. et~al., 2002, MNRAS, 336, 907
1273:
1274: \bibitem[Nulsen(1982)]{nulsen82} Nulsen, P.~E.~J.\ 1982, MNRAS,
1275: 198, 1007
1276:
1277: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Okamoto \& Nagashima}{2003}]{okamoto03}
1278: Okamoto, T., \& Nagashima, M.\ 2003, ApJ, 587, 500
1279:
1280: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Quilis et al.}{2000}]{quilis00}
1281: Quilis, V., Moore, B., \& Bower, R.\ 2000, Science, 288, 1617
1282:
1283: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Somerville \& Primack}{1999}]{somerville99}
1284: Somerville, R.~S., \& Primack, J.~R.\ 1999, MNRAS, 310, 1087
1285:
1286: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Springel}{2005}]{springel05}
1287: Springel,~V. 2005, MNRAS, 364, 1105
1288:
1289: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Springel et al.}{2005}]{springel_etal05}
1290: Springel,~V. et~al., 2005, Nature, 435, 629
1291:
1292: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Strateva et al.}{2001}]{strateva01}
1293: Strateva,~I. et al., 2001, AJ, 122, 1861
1294:
1295: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Sun et al}{2007}]{sun07} Sun,~M.,
1296: Jones,~C., Forman,~W, Vikhlinin,~A., Donahue,~M., Voit,~M. 2007, ApJ,
1297: 657, 197
1298:
1299: \bibitem[Treu et al.(2003)]{treu03} Treu, T., Ellis, R.~S.,
1300: Kneib, J.-P., Dressler, A., Smail, I., Czoske, O., Oemler, A., Natarajan, P.\ 2003, ApJ, 591, 53
1301:
1302: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Wang et al.}{2007}]{wang07} Wang, L., Li, C., Kauffmann, G.,
1303: \& De Lucia, G., 2007, MNRAS, 377, 1419
1304:
1305: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Weinmann et al.}{2006a}]{weinmann06a}
1306: Weinmann~S.~M., van den Bosch,~F.~C., Yang,~X., Mo,~H.~J., 2006a,
1307: MNRAS, 366, 2
1308:
1309: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Weinmann et al.}{2006b}]{weinmann06b}
1310: Weinmann~S.~M., van den Bosch,~F.~C., Yang,~X., Mo,~H.~J.,
1311: Croton,~D.~J., Moore,~B., 2006b, 372, 1161
1312:
1313: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{York et al.}{2000}]{york00} York, D.~G. et al. \ 2000, AJ, 120, 1579
1314:
1315: \end{thebibliography}
1316:
1317: \end{document}
1318: