1: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: \documentclass[10pt,emulateapj,apj]{emulateapj}
3: \newcommand{\fe}{$f_E $}
4: \newcommand{\kms}{km s$^{-1}$}
5:
6: %\slugcomment{Not to appear in Nonlearned J., 45.}
7: \shorttitle{Galaxy Interactions and Large-Scale Environment}
8: \shortauthors{Park \& Choi}
9: \begin{document}
10: \title{Combined Effects of Galaxy Interactions and \\
11: Large-Scale Environment on Galaxy Properties}
12: %\twocolumn[
13: \author{ Changbom Park\altaffilmark{1},
14: \& Yun-Young Choi\altaffilmark{2}}
15: \altaffiltext{1}{Korea Institute for Advanced Study, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul 130-722, Korea; cbp@kias.re.kr}
16: \altaffiltext{2}{Astrophysical Research Center for the Structure and
17: Evolution of the Cosmos, Sejong University,
18: Seoul 143-747, Korea; yychoi@kias.re.kr}
19:
20: \begin{abstract}
21: We inspect the coupled dependence of physical parameters of the Sloan
22: Digital Sky Survey galaxies
23: on the small-scale (distance to and morphology of the nearest
24: neighbor galaxy) and the large-scale (background density smoothed over
25: 20 nearby galaxies) environments.
26: The impacts of interaction on galaxy properties are detected at least
27: out to the neighbor separation corresponding to the virial radius of galaxies,
28: which is typically between 200 and 400 $h^{-1}$ kpc for the galaxies in our sample.
29: To detect these long-range interaction effects
30: it is crucial to divide galaxy interactions into four cases dividing the
31: morphology of target and neighbor galaxies into early and late types.
32: We show that there are two characteristic neighbor-separation scales where
33: the galaxy interactions cause abrupt changes in the properties of galaxies.
34: The first scale is the virial radius of the nearest neighbor galaxy $r_{\rm vir,nei}$.
35: Many physical parameters
36: start to deviate from those of extremely isolated galaxies
37: at the projected neighbor separation $r_p$ of about $r_{\rm vir,nei}$.
38: The second scale is at $r_p \approx 0.05 r_{\rm vir,nei} = 10 -20 h^{-1}$ kpc,
39: and is the scale at which the galaxies in pairs start to merge.
40: We find that late-type neighbors enhance the star formation activity of galaxies
41: while early-type neighbors reduce it, and
42: that these effects occur within $r_{\rm vir,nei}$.
43: The hot halo gas and cold disk gas must be participating in the interactions
44: at separations less than the virial radius of the galaxy plus dark halo system.
45: Our results also show that the role of the large-scale density in determining
46: galaxy properties is minimal once luminosity and morphology are fixed.
47: We propose that the weak residual dependence
48: of galaxy properties on the large-scale density is due to
49: the dependence of the halo gas property on the large-scale density.
50:
51:
52: \end{abstract}
53:
54: \keywords{galaxies:general -- galaxies:formation
55: -- galaxies:evolution -- galaxies:morphology -- galaxies:properties}
56:
57: \section{Introduction}
58: According to the currently popular $\Lambda$CDM model of structure formation,
59: galaxies should form hierarchically.
60: Numerical simulations demonstrate that galaxy-sized
61: objects form through numerous interactions and mergers (e.g. Toomre \&
62: Toomre 1972; Hernquist 1992, 1993; Naab \& Burkert 2003; Robertson et al. 2006; Maller et al. 2006).
63: Therefore, the outcomes of galaxy-galaxy interactions
64: and mergers are of key importance in understanding the hierarchical picture
65: of galaxy formation.
66: However, the impact of interactions and
67: mergers on galaxy properties is still not known well even though
68: there have been many studies.
69:
70: One of the earliest works on this problem is
71: Larson \& Tinsley (1978) who showed that galaxies selected from the Atlas of
72: Peculiar Galaxies (Arp 1966) have enhanced star formation (SF) rate
73: compared to typical galaxies.
74: Since that time, many studies have shown
75: observational evidence of significant changes in galaxy properties
76: due to interactions and/or mergers, for instance,
77: in SF activity (Kennicutt \& Keel 1984;
78: Kennicutt et al. 1987; Bushouse, Werner \& Lamb 1988;
79: Barton et al. 2000, 2003, 2007; Lambas et al. 2003;
80: Sanchez \& Gonzalez-Serrano 2003;
81: Nikolic, Cullen \& Alexander 2004; Hernandez-Toledo et al. 2005;
82: Geller et al. 2006; Li et al. 2008),
83: %Kennicutt et al. (1987) reported a general trend for enhanced star formation
84: %and nuclear activity of interacting galaxies although with a wide dispersion.
85: %Bushouse, Werner \& Lamb (1988) reported enhanced emission of the FIR in some,
86: %but not all, interacting pairs.
87: galaxy structure parameters (Nikolic et al. 2004;
88: Patton et al. 2005; Hernandez-Toledo et al. 2005;
89: Coziol \& Plauchu-Frayn 2007; Kacprzak et al. 2007),
90: luminosity ratio (Woods et al. 2006; Woods \& Geller 2007),
91: and stellar mass ratio (Ellison et al. 2008).
92: Recent $N$-body simulations have also shown that
93: the general features of the observations can be modeled
94: (e.g. Barnes \& Hernquist 1996; Mihos \& Hernquist 1996; Tissera et al. 2002;
95: Perez et al. 2006a,b; Di Matteo et al. 2007).
96:
97: However, previous studies have not always been in agreement with one
98: another.
99: Yee \& Ellingson (1995) and Patton et al. (1997) found no significant
100: difference between the mean properties of isolated and paired galaxies.
101: Bergvall et al. (2003) found no clear difference between isolated
102: galaxies and interacting/merging systems in their global SF rate in
103: Optical/near-IR bands.
104: Allam et al. (2004) identified a set of merging galaxies in the SDSS data
105: and found only a weak positive correlation in color for the merging pairs.
106: Hernandez-Toledo et al. (2005) analyzed the $BVRI$ images of 42
107: elliptical/lenticular galaxies,
108: and claimed that the structural effects of interactions on E/S0s
109: are minor, in contrast to disk galaxies involved in interactions.
110: de Propris et al. (2005) analyzed galaxies in the Millennium Galaxy
111: Catalog and found merging galaxies are only marginally bluer
112: than noninteracting galaxies, showing an excess of both early
113: and late types but a deficiency of intermediate type spirals.
114: Smith et al. (2007) did not find any
115: enhancement in Spitzer mid-infrared color depending on pair separation
116: by using pre-merger interacting galaxy pairs selected from the Arp Atlas.
117:
118: In addition,
119: in terms of the degree and scale of the effects of interactions on
120: galaxy properties,
121: the results also have not always agreed.
122: Lambas et al. (2003) studied the galaxy pairs in the Two Degree Field
123: Galaxy Redshift Survey (2dFGRS) data and reported that SF
124: in galaxy pairs is significantly enhanced over that of isolated galaxies
125: only when the projected
126: separation $r_p<25 h^{-1}$ kpc and radial velocity difference
127: $\Delta v<100$ km s$^{-1}$.
128: Nikolic et al. (2004) reported using the SDSS data that
129: the mean SF rate is significantly enhanced for
130: galaxy pairs with $r_p < 30$ kpc.
131: But for late types, the enhancement extended out to 300 kpc.
132: They also noted that the SF rate slightly decreased with increasing $\Delta v$, and
133: the light concentration was lowest at $r_p=75$kpc and then increased rapidly inward.
134: Alonso et al. (2006) measured SF rate of the galaxies in the 2dFGRS and SDSS data
135: and found that the SF rate was strongly enhanced when $r_p <100 h^{-1}$ kpc and
136: $\Delta V<350$ km s$^{-1}$, which was more effective in low and intermediate
137: density environments.
138: These discrepancies as listed above are expected mainly because the effects of
139: interactions/mergers between different types of galaxies on their
140: final products are different.
141: Woods \& Geller (2007) found that for blue-blue major pair sample
142: in the SDSS, there exists clear correlation between specific SFR and pair
143: separation, and for red-red pair, there is none (cf. Tran et al. 2005;
144: van Dokkum 2005; Bell et al. 2006).
145: Li et al. (2008) found that for the most strongly star-forming systems,
146: tidal interactions are the dominant trigger of enhanced
147: star formation and the enhancement is a strong function of separation
148: less than 100 kpc.
149:
150: In addition to such small-scale environment, the large-scale environment
151: has been known to be one of the determining factors of galaxy properties.
152: It is now well-known that galaxy properties
153: correlate with the large-scale background density at low redshift
154: (Hogg et al. 2003; Goto et al. 2003; Balogh et al. 2004a,b;
155: Tanaka et al. 2004; Kauffmann et al. 2004;
156: Blanton et al. 2005a; Croton et al. 2005;
157: Weinmann et al. 2006; Park et al. 2007). Deep redshift surveys
158: have extended these studies to high redshift (Cucciati et al. 2006;
159: Elbaz et al. 2007; Cooper et al. 2007, 2008; Poggianti et al. 2008).
160: %
161: %Hogg et al. (2004) found that the color-magnitude relation of bulge-dominated
162: %galaxies is independent of the large-scale density.
163: %
164: A number of papers (Kauffmann et al. 2004; Blanton et al. 2005a;
165: Quintero et al. 2006; Ball, Loveday, \& Brunner 2008)
166: claimed from an analysis of the SDSS
167: data that structural properties of galaxies are less closely
168: related to the (large-scale) environment than are their masses and SF
169: related parameters such as color and SF rate.
170: However, the structural parameters such as concentration and Sersic index
171: are not true measure of morphology (Bamford et al. 2008) and
172: indeed, van der Wel (2008) pointed
173: that morphology and structure are intrinsically different galaxy properties
174: and structure mainly depends on galaxy mass whereas morphology mainly
175: depends on environment.
176:
177: Several papers tried to use sophisticated
178: automated morphology classifications for the study of the relationship between
179: morphology and environment
180: (Goto et al. 2003; Park \& Choi 2005; Allen et al. 2006; Ball et al. 2008).
181: % and that color is a more
182: %fundamental predictor of environment than morphology.
183: %Baldry et al. (2006) found that the fraction of red galaxies
184: %increases as the projected neighbor density and the stellar mass increase,
185: %and that the loci of red and blue sequences in color-mass and
186: %color-concentration index are insensitive to environment,
187: %which has also been found by Balogh et al. (2004a).
188: Many studies reported that the SF rate of galaxies is
189: a strongly decreasing function of the large-scale density and that there is
190: a critical density for SF activity (Gomez et al. 2003; Tanaka
191: et al. 2004).
192:
193: Park et al. (2007), however, found that this trend was mostly because morphology
194: and luminosity are strong functions of the large-scale density.
195: They made an extensive study of the environmental dependence
196: of various physical properties of galaxies on large- and small-scale
197: densities, and concluded
198: that morphology and luminosity are major fundamental parameters.
199: Once morphology and luminosity are fixed,
200: other galaxy properties are almost independent of the large-scale density.
201: The large-scale density dependence of these properties reported
202: by many previous and current studies merely reflects the correlations
203: of the properties with morphology and luminosity rather than independent
204: correlations with environment.
205: Park et al. (2007) also found that galaxy morphology changes sensitively
206: across the nearest neighbor distance of a few hundred kpc.
207: This work has been extended by Park, Gott, \& Choi (2008) who studied
208: galaxy morphology as a function of the nearest neighbor separation
209: at fixed large-scale background density and found
210: that this characteristic scale corresponds to the virial radius of
211: the neighbor galaxy.
212: Park et al. (2008)'s findings and claims can be summarized as follows.
213: %\begin{description}
214: %\item
215:
216: 1. The effects of galaxy interactions reach farther than the
217: distance previously thought.
218: They reach at least out to the galaxy virial radius, namely
219: a few hundred kpc for bright galaxies.
220:
221: %\item
222: 2. The result of galaxy interactions can be very different depending on
223: the morphological type of the nearest neighbor galaxy when the pair separation is
224: less than the virial radius.
225: Without separating the neighbor galaxies into different morphological types,
226: one will find the effects of galaxy interactions are diverse but negligible
227: on average. The dependence on neighbor's morphology disappears
228: at separations farther than the virial radius.
229:
230: %\item
231: 3. The fact that, at fixed large-scale density,
232: the morphology of a galaxy is more likely to be a late type
233: as it approaches a late-type neighbor, suggests that galaxies can transform
234: their morphology from early types to late types through close encounters
235: with cold gas-rich neighbors.
236:
237: %\item
238: 4.
239: In most places of the universe, except for the regions within massive
240: clusters of galaxies, the well-known morphology-density relation
241: originated largely due to the effects of galaxy-galaxy interactions.
242: Galaxy morphology appears to depend on the large-scale density mainly
243: because the mean separation between galaxies is statistically correlated
244: with the large-scale density.
245: %The large-scale density seems to affect
246: %the hot halo gas of interacting galaxies and change galaxy morphology
247: %only indirectly. Hydrodynamic processes like ram pressure stripping,
248: %viscous stripping, and thermal evaporation, may be the physical mechanisms
249: %that are responsible for the evolution of galaxies interacting within
250: %each other's virial radius.
251:
252: %\item
253: 5. A series of close interactions and mergers transform galaxy
254: morphology and luminosity classes in such a way that galaxies on average
255: evolve to become bright early types. The transformation speed depends
256: on the large-scale density.
257: %\end{description}
258:
259: The fourth result is supplemented by the recent work of Park \& Hwang (2008)
260: who found, in the special case of galaxies located within the virial radius of massive
261: clusters, galaxy properties depend on both the distance to the nearest neighbor
262: and clustercentric radius.
263:
264: The purpose of this paper is
265: to extend Park et al. (2008)'s work by looking at the dependence
266: of various other properties of galaxies, as well as morphology and luminosity,
267: on small and large scale environmental factors.
268: We use a volume-limited sample of the SDSS galaxies whose morphology is
269: accurately classified.
270: The environment is specified by the small-scale (distance to the nearest
271: neighbor galaxy and morphology of the nearest
272: neighbor galaxy) and large-scale (the background density) factors.
273: It is hoped that the effects of galaxy interactions can be understood in fuller
274: detail in this three-dimensional environmental parameter space.
275:
276:
277: \section{Observational Data Set}
278: \subsection{Sloan Digital Sky Survey Sample}
279:
280: \begin{figure}
281: \center
282: %\plotone{fig1.eps}
283: \includegraphics[scale=0.45]{fig1.eps}
284: \caption{The upper panel show all 49,571 galaxies in our volume-limited
285: sample, D3.
286: The rectangular box encloses the target galaxies on which our analysis
287: is focused. The faint limit of these target galaxies is 0.5 magnitude
288: brighter than the full sample to achieve complete neighbor
289: selection. The bottom panel shows the galaxies in the color-magnitude diagram.
290: Red points are early morphological type galaxies, and blue points are
291: late types.}
292: \end{figure}
293:
294: Our observational sample is one of the subsamples, D3, used by Choi et al.
295: (2007) and Park et al. (2007). It is a volume-limited sample of
296: galaxies extracted from a large-scale structure sample, DR4plus (LSS-DR4plus),
297: of the SDSS data (York et al. 2000)
298: from the New York University Value-Added Galaxy Catalog
299: (NYU-VAGC; Blanton et al. 2005b).
300: This sample is a subset of the spectroscopic Main Galaxy sample of
301: the SDSS Data Release 5
302: (Adelman-McCarthy et al. 2007).
303:
304: The sample D3, together with other volume-limited samples, has been
305: described in great detail by Choi et al. To summarize it is a sample of
306: galaxies with the $r$-band absolute magnitude $M_r<-19.0+5{\rm log} h$
307: (hereafter we drop the
308: $+5{\rm log} h$ term in the absolute magnitude) and redshifts $0.025<
309: z<0.06869$ or comoving distance of $74.6 h^{-1}$Mpc $<d< 203.0 h^{-1}$Mpc.
310: The SDSS spectroscopic sample has a bright apparent magnitude limit
311: of $r=14.5$, but our sample is supplemented by brighter galaxies whose redshifts are
312: obtained from various literature. D3
313: includes 49,571 galaxies. The rest-frame absolute magnitudes of
314: individual galaxies are computed in fixed bandpasses, shifted to $z=0.1$,
315: using Galactic reddening correction (Schlegel et al. 1998) and $K$-corrections
316: as described by Blanton et al. (2003). The mean evolution correction given by
317: Tegmark et al. (2004), $E(z) = 1.6(z-0.1)$, is also applied.
318: We adopt a flat $\Lambda$CDM cosmology with
319: $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.73$ and $\Omega_m=0.27$. The useful survey area of
320: this sample, having nonzero angular selection function, is 1.362 sr.
321: All galaxies in D3 are plotted in Figure 1.
322:
323:
324:
325: \subsection{Morphology Classification}
326:
327: Accurate morphology classification is critical in this work since the effects
328: of interaction depend strongly on morphology of the target and neighbor
329: galaxies.
330: We first classify morphological types of galaxies using the prescription of
331: Park \& Choi (2005). Galaxies are divided into early (ellipticals and
332: lenticulars) and late (spirals and irregulars) morphological types
333: based on their locations
334: in the $u-r$ color versus $g-i$ color gradient space and also in the
335: $i$-band concentration index space.
336: The resulting morphological classification has completeness and
337: reliability reaching 90\%.
338:
339: Our automatic classification scheme does not perform well
340: when an early-type galaxy starts to overlap with other galaxy.
341: This is because the scheme excludes galaxies with very low concentration
342: from the early-type class and blended images often erroneously give low
343: concentration.
344: Since we are investigating the effects of close interaction on galaxy
345: properties, this problem in the automatic classification
346: has to be remedied.
347: We perform an additional visual
348: check of the color images of galaxies to correct misclassifications
349: by the automated scheme for about $10,000$ galaxies
350: having close neighbors.
351: In this procedure we changed the types of the
352: blended or merging galaxies, blue but elliptical-shaped galaxies,
353: and dusty edge-on spirals.
354: Some non-sense objects like blank fields and substructures of large galaxies,
355: are removed from the samples, and some wrong
356: central positions of merging galaxies are corrected.
357:
358: After all these procedures
359: our final sample is composed of 19,248 early-type galaxies, and 30,283
360: late-type galaxies with $M_r <-19.0$. Our main target galaxies for which we
361: study the dependence of various physical parameters on environment,
362: are those with $-19.5>M_r>-20.5$. There are 9,434 early types and
363: 14,270 late types satisfying this condition within the sample volume.
364: This subset is marked by a rectangular box in Figure 1.
365: In our analysis we often limit the late-type galaxy sample to those with
366: isophotal axis ratio $b/a$ greater than 0.6. This is to reduce the effects
367: of internal extinction on our results. The absolute magnitude and color of
368: late-type galaxies with $b/a < 0.6$ are very inaccurate (see Fig. 5 and 12 of
369: Choi et al. 2007), and including them in the analysis introduces
370: a large dispersion in luminosity of the volume-limited sample. Since it is
371: essential to fix luminosity in many of our analyses, it is very important to
372: reduce the internal extinction effects by using nearly face-on late-type
373: galaxies. When we calculate the median values of galaxy parameters
374: in section 3, we will take into account the fact that only a subset of
375: late-type galaxies are being used.
376: There are 8,344 late types with $b/a \ge 0.6$ and $-19.5>M_r>-20.5$
377: in our sample. We also often divide our sample into four subsamples:
378: early types having early-type nearest neighbor (the E-e galaxies),
379: early types having late-type nearest neighbor (E-l),
380: late types having early-type nearest neighbor (L-e), and
381: late types having late-type nearest neighbor (L-l).
382: There are 4675, 4759, 3423, and 4921 galaxies in these subsets,
383: respectively, when only those with $b/a>0.6$ are counted in the case
384: of late-type target galaxies.
385:
386: \subsection{Local environment}
387:
388: We consider three kinds of environmental factors. One is
389: the mass density described by many neighboring galaxies over a few Mpc scale.
390: This is called the large-scale background density.
391: Another is the small-scale mass density attributed to the closest neighbor
392: galaxy.
393: The third is the morphology of the closest neighbor galaxy.
394:
395: The background density at a given location of a galaxy
396: is measured by
397: \begin{equation}
398: \rho_{20}({\bf x})/{\bar\rho} = \sum_{i=1}^{20} \gamma_i L_i W_i(|{\bf x}_i -
399: {\bf x}|)/{\bar\rho},
400: \end{equation}
401: using the $r$-band luminosity $L$ of the closest twenty galaxies
402: in the sample. Here ${\bar\rho}$ is the mean density of the
403: universe, $\gamma$ is the mass-to-light ratio of a galaxy, and
404: $W(x)$ is a smoothing filter function.
405: Here the mass associated with a galaxy plus dark halo system is assumed
406: to be proportional to the $r$-band luminosity of the galaxy.
407: The mean mass density within a sample of the total volume $V$
408: is obtained by
409: \begin{equation}
410: {\bar\rho} = \sum_{\rm all} \gamma_i L_i /V,
411: \end{equation}
412: where the summation is over all galaxies brighter than $M_r = -19.0$
413: in the sample.
414: Only the relative mass--to--light ratios $\gamma$ for early and
415: late types are needed in equation (1) since $\gamma$'s appear
416: both in the numerator and denominator.
417: We assume $\gamma({\rm early}) = 2\gamma({\rm late})$
418: at the same $r$-band luminosity. This is our choice of the connection
419: of luminosity and morphology with the halo mass.
420: It is based on the results given in section 2.5.
421: We assume $\gamma$ is constant with galaxy luminosity for a given
422: morphological type. The mass-to-light ratio of galaxies is actually
423: expected to be a monotonically increasing function
424: of galaxy halo mass over the luminosity range of our sample ($M_r < -19.0$;
425: see Figures 3 and 4 of Kim, Park, \& Choi 2008).
426: Then the overdensity of the high density regions will be underestimated.
427: However, the relation between our mass density estimate and the true one
428: is still monotonic, and only the labels of $\rho_{20}$ and $r_p$ will change.
429: We find the mean mass density
430: \begin{equation}
431: {\bar \rho} = (0.0223 \pm 0.0005) (\gamma L)_{-20},
432: \end{equation}
433: where $(\gamma L)_{-20}$
434: is the mass of a late-type galaxy with $M_r = -20$.
435:
436: We use the spline-kernel weight $W(r)$ for the background density
437: estimation.
438: We vary the size of the spline kernel to include
439: twenty galaxies with $M_r<-19.0$ within the kernel weighting.
440: The spline kernel is adopted because it is centrally
441: weighted, unlike the tophat or cylindrical kernel, and
442: has a finite tail, unlike the Gaussian. Our kernel is also adaptive.
443: An adaptive kernel constrained to include a fixed number of objects,
444: allows more uniform smoothing in the
445: `initial' conditions compared to the method adopting a fixed-scale
446: at the present epoch since the high density regions collapse while the
447: under-dense regions expand as the universe evolves.
448: The methods of calculating $\rho_{20}$ and the examination
449: of the results are described in full detail by Park et al. (2008).
450: Interested readers should refer to section 2.3 of the paper.
451:
452: Our background density estimate $\rho_{20}$ spans the large-scale
453: environment from voids to clusters. But the smoothing scale determined by
454: 20 galaxies with $M_r<-19.0$ is larger than the typical cluster virial radius,
455: which is 1--2 $h^{-1}$Mpcs. Therefore, in our calculation $\rho_{20}$
456: never exceeds the virialization density $200\rho_c \approx 740{\bar\rho}$,
457: where $\rho_c$ is the critical density of the universe. Our sample
458: includes massive clusters, and $\rho_{20}/{\bar\rho}$ at the locations of cluster
459: member galaxies ranges roughly from 50 to 400.
460: At these densities cluster member galaxies are mixed with those outside
461: clusters.
462: In our forthcoming paper Park \& Hwang (2008)
463: we will resolve the virialized regions of Abell clusters, and study
464: the dependence of galaxies within 10 times the cluster virial radius
465: on the clustercentric radius and the nearest neighbor distance.
466:
467: Our background density estimation is made using a spherically symmetric
468: smoothing kernel and using the redshift space distribution of galaxies.
469: In redshift space
470: some of cluster member galaxies are stretched along the line
471: of sight, appearing as fingers-of-god. This causes smearing of cluster galaxies
472: into low density regions. Even though the fraction of galaxies dislocated by
473: the redshift-space distortion more than our smoothing scale is small, a caution
474: must be given to cases showing a very weak dependence on $\rho_{20}$
475: in our results.
476:
477: The small-scale density experienced by a target galaxy
478: attributed to its neighbor is estimated by
479: \begin{equation}
480: \rho_{n}/{\bar\rho} = 3\gamma_n L_n /4\pi r_p^3 {\bar\rho},
481: \end{equation}
482: where $r_p$ is the projected separation of the nearest neighbor galaxy
483: from the target galaxy. The density due to the nearest neighbor used
484: in our work does not represent the galaxy number density at small-scales,
485: but rather the local mass density given by the nearest neighbor itself.
486: The method to find the nearest neighbor is described
487: in the next section.
488:
489: We will study the dependence of galaxy properties on the nearest neighbor
490: distance normalized
491: by the virial radius of the nearest neighbor. We define the virial radius of a
492: galaxy as the projected radius where the mean mass density $\rho_n$
493: within the sphere with radius of $r_p$ is 200 times the critical density
494: or 740 times the mean density of the universe, namely,
495: \begin{equation}
496: r_{\rm vir} = (3 \gamma L /4\pi {\rho_c}/200)^{1/3}.
497: \end{equation}
498: Since we adopt $\Omega_m = 0.27$,
499: $200\rho_c = 200 {\bar\rho}/\Omega_m = 740{\bar\rho}$.
500: This is almost equal to the virialized density
501: $\rho_{\rm virial}=18 \pi^2 / \Omega_m (H_0 t_0)^2 {\bar\rho}
502: = 766{\bar\rho}$ in the case of our $\Lambda$CDM universe (Gott \& Rees 1975).
503: This is what Park et al. (2008) used to define the virial radius.
504: According to our formulae the virial radii of galaxies with $M_r=-19.5,
505: -20.0,$ and $-20.5$ are 260, 300, and 350 $h^{-1}$ kpc for early types,
506: and 210, 240, and 280 $h^{-1}$ kpc for late types, respectively.
507:
508: These sizes are much larger than the visible part of galaxies. Therefore,
509: when we mention a galaxy, we actually mean the galaxy plus dark halo system.
510: In the next section we will see the importance of the galaxy-component
511: of the galaxy-halo systems during interactions.
512: Besides the gravitational effects,
513: the halo determines the size of the virial radius of a system and the domain
514: of hydrodynamic influence. The galaxy determines which kind of hydrodynamic
515: effects to occur.
516:
517:
518: \subsection{The nearest neighbor}
519: We define the nearest neighbor galaxy of a target galaxy as the one
520: which is located closest to the galaxy on the sky and
521: satisfies magnitude and radial velocity conditions.
522: Suppose we are looking for the neighbors of a target galaxy with $M_r$
523: and with a certain morphological type.
524: Its neighbors are defined as those with the absolute magnitudes
525: brighter than $M_r+\Delta M_r$ and the radial velocity difference less than
526: $\Delta v$. We adopt $\Delta M_r =0.5$ and $\Delta v =$600 km s$^{-1}$
527: (early-type target) or 400 km s$^{-1}$ (late-type target).
528:
529: Our results below are insensitive to the choice of $\Delta M_r$. But if
530: $\Delta M_r$ is too large, the size of target galaxy sample becomes too small
531: because the absolute magnitude limit of the full sample has the limit of
532: $M_r <-19.0$ and the target sample must have the limit of $M_r <-19.0-\Delta M_r$
533: to be complete in neighbor sampling. We choose $\Delta M_r=0.5$ as the optimum case
534: making the influential neighbors included and yet
535: yielding good statistics.
536: The galaxies within the rectangular box of Figure 1 is our major
537: target galaxy sample.
538: The reason that we use different limits to $\Delta v$ for early and late-type
539: targets is explained in the next section.
540:
541: Instead of the nearest one we have also tried to use the most-influential neighbor
542: that produces the highest local density $\rho_n$
543: at the location of the target galaxy.
544: Our results in the following sections are qualitatively the same when we use
545: the most-influential neighbor instead of the nearest neighbor because the majority of
546: the most-influential neighbors are actually the nearest ones.
547:
548: \subsection{Velocity difference between neighboring galaxies}
549:
550: \begin{figure}
551: \center
552: \plotone{fig2.eps}
553: \caption{Distributions of radial
554: velocity difference between the target galaxies with $-19.5>M_r>-20.5$
555: and their neighbors brighter than $M_r +0.5$ and with separations
556: $10 h^{-1}{\rm kpc} <r_p < 100 h^{-1}$kpc.
557: Cases are distinguished among those of early-type target versus early-type
558: neighbor ($\circ$) or versus late-type neighbor ($\Box$), and of
559: late-type target versus early-type neighbor ($\times$) or versus
560: late-type neighbor ($\ast$). Curves are best-fit Gaussian (early-type target cases)
561: and exponential (late-type target cases) functions.}
562: \end{figure}
563:
564: The choice of $\Delta v$ is based on the pairwise
565: velocity difference between target galaxies and their neighbors
566: (see also section 2.4 of Park et al. 2008).
567: For a given target galaxy with a given morphological type and with $-19.5>M_r>-20.5$
568: we searched for all neighbors with the projected separation of
569: $10 h^{-1}{\rm kpc} <r_p < 100 h^{-1}$kpc.
570: Figure 2 shows the distributions of the
571: radial velocity difference between the target and neighbor for four cases;
572: early-type target and early-type neighbor (circles),
573: early-type target and late-type neighbor (squares),
574: late-type target and early-type neighbor (crosses),
575: and late-type target and late-type neighbor (stars).
576: It is important to note that the velocity difference distributions
577: for late-type target galaxies are quite different from those for
578: early-type target galaxies. At fixed luminosity late types have smaller
579: velocity difference with their neighbors than early types.
580: A sample of galaxy pairs with small $\Delta v$ (say, $<50$ km s$^{-1}$)
581: will be dominated by late-type galaxies, and that with large $\Delta v$
582: (say, $>200$ km s$^{-1}$) by early-type galaxies (see the discussion section
583: for its systematic effects).
584:
585: As can be seen in Figure 2, the velocity dispersion of neighboring galaxies
586: around a dark halo is not simply defined since it depends on the morphology
587: of the neighbors.
588: The distributions can be fit well by the Gaussian function
589: (solid and long-dashed curves) for early-type target galaxies, but by the
590: exponential function (short dashed and dotted curves) for late-type targets.
591: To fit the distributions we
592: used the Gaussian plus constant model for early-type targets, and
593: the exponential plus constant model for late-type targets, namely,
594: \begin{equation}
595: f_E(\Delta v) = f_{E1} {\rm exp}(-\Delta v^2/2\sigma_{\Delta v}^2)+f_{E2},
596: \end{equation}
597: and
598: \begin{equation}
599: f_L(\Delta v) = f_{L1} {\rm exp}(-\Delta v/\sigma_{\Delta v})+f_{L2},
600: \end{equation}
601: respectively. We obtained the best-fit values $\sigma_{\Delta v} =
602: 269\pm10$ (E-e), $229\pm27$ (E-l), $185\pm 18$ (L-e), and $125\pm 15$ km s$^{-1}$
603: (L-l).
604: Our choices of the velocity limits $\Delta v_{\rm max}=600$ km s$^{-1}$ for early-type
605: targets and 400 km s$^{-1}$ for late types, take into account this dependence
606: of pairwise velocity on morphology.
607:
608: $\Delta v_{\rm max}$ should also depend on
609: luminosity, but our choice is a conservative one for galaxies brighter than
610: $M_r = -19.5$ and it is expected that the dependence is not strong.
611: For example,
612: if we extend the Faber-Jackson (Faber \& Jackson 1976) or
613: Tully-Fisher relations (Tully \& Fisher 1977) to the kinematics
614: of galaxy pairs and adopt a constant mass-to-light ratio,
615: we obtain $\Delta v \propto 10^{-0.1 M_r}$.
616: So there will be 26\% difference in $\sigma_{\Delta v}$ on average for
617: galaxies with one magnitude difference.
618: For target galaxies brighter than $M_r=-20.5$ the Gaussian fit gives
619: $\sigma_{\Delta v}=$ 326 (E-e), 219 (E-l), 224 (L-e), and 152 (L-l)
620: km s$^{-1}$, for the four cases,
621: and the ratios of $\sigma_{\Delta v}$ between early and late-type target galaxies
622: are 326/224 and 219/152, both close to 1.4.
623:
624: %When the velocity distributions for late-type targets are also
625: %fit by Gaussian, we obtain
626: %$\sigma_{\Delta v}=177$ (L-e) and 123 (L-l), so the velocity dispersion of galaxies
627: %around early-type targets is 1.5 and 1.9 times larger than that around late-type
628: %targets for early- and late-type neighbors, respectively.
629: Besides the morphology and luminosity
630: dependence the velocity difference is also a function of $r_p$.
631: For the target galaxies with $-19.5>M_r>-20.5$ the neighbor galaxies
632: located at $r_p = 100-300 h^{-1}$ kpc have velocity dispersions of
633: 257, 153, 205, and 147 km s$^{-1}$ for the four cases, respectively.
634: The velocity dispersion becomes lower for early-type targets, but higher for
635: late-type targets, and correspondingly, the ratio becomes smaller (1.0--1.2).
636:
637: The relation between the velocity dispersion and the virial mass,
638: $M_{\rm vir} \propto \sigma_{\Delta v}^{\beta}$, is needed to convert
639: the measured velocity difference dispersion to the halo mass.
640: Dark matter halo virial relation estimated from simulated $\Lambda$CDM
641: models yields $\beta\approx 3.0$ (Evrard et al. 2008).
642: An NFW halo with no or slightly anisotropic velocities have
643: $\beta\approx 2.5$ when the dispersion is measured at $r_p=100 h^{-1}$kpc
644: (Conroy et al. 2007), and $\beta = 2.0$ when the dispersion is measured
645: at $r_p = 250 h^{-1}$kpc (Prada et al. 2003).
646: Figure 2 tells that the ratio of $\sigma_{\Delta v}$ for early and late-type
647: targets is about 1.4 for $r_p <100 h^{-1}$kpc.
648: If we adopt $\beta=2.5$, the ratio of dark halo virial mass for early and
649: late-type targets will be about 2.
650: This is why we adopted $\gamma({\rm early}) = 2 \gamma({\rm late})$.
651: Our main conclusions are essentially independent of this approximation.
652:
653: %A measurement of the slope in the relation
654: %between the velocity dispersion and the virial mass, $M_{\rm vir}
655: %\propto \sigma_{\Delta v}^{\beta}$ using SDSS bright galaxies,
656: %gives $\beta\approx 2$ at 350 $h^{-1}$kpc from the central halo
657: %where is near the virial radius (Prada et al. 2003) even though
658: %$\beta \approx 3$ at smaller scales (REFF).
659: %It implies that the early-type galaxies are typically twice more massive
660: %than the late types at the same luminosity when $\sigma_{\Delta v}$
661: %is about 1.4 times larger for early types.
662: %This is why we adopted $\gamma({\rm early}) = 2 \gamma({\rm late})$.
663:
664:
665: \section{Results}
666: In this section we study the dependence of
667: galaxy properties on three environmental factors; the nearest neighbor distance
668: $r_p$, nearest neighbor's morphology and the large-scale background density
669: $\rho_{20}$. We are going to consider
670: the physical parameters like morphology, $r$-band luminosity,
671: $u-r$ color, $g-i$ color gradient, equivalent width of the $H\alpha$ line,
672: $i$-band concentration index, central velocity dispersion, and $i$-band
673: Petrosian radius. These parameters reflect most of major physical properties
674: of galaxies from morphology and mass to internal kinematics and
675: SF activity.
676:
677: In most cases we fix the absolute magnitude of target galaxies in a narrow
678: range between $-19.5$ and $-20.5$ to examine the pure environmental
679: effects with the effects due to the coupling of a parameter
680: with luminosity taken out.
681: We have also studied a set of brighter target galaxies with $-20.5>M_r>-21.5$, and
682: obtained qualitatively the same results but with much worse statistics.
683: All late-type target galaxies with the $i$-band isophotal axis ratio less than
684: 0.6 are discarded in the following analysis whenever necessary in order to
685: reduce the wrong trends that can be produced by the internal extinction
686: and by the corresponding dispersion in luminosity
687: (Choi et al. 2007).
688:
689: \subsection{Morphology}
690:
691: \begin{figure}
692: \center
693: %\plotone{fig3.eps}
694: \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{fig3.eps}
695: \caption{(upper) Morphology-environment relation when the nearest neighbor
696: galaxy is an early-type galaxy. Red points are early-type target
697: galaxies, and blue points are late-type target galaxies.
698: Absolute magnitude of galaxies is fixed to a narrow range of $-19.5>M_r>-20.0$.
699: Contours show constant early-type galaxy fraction $f_E$. Contours are
700: limited to regions with statistical significance above $1 \sigma$.
701: (lower) Same, but for the late-type neighbor case.
702: Arrows at $r_p/r_{\rm vir,nei} = 1$ are drawn to guide the eye.
703: }
704: \end{figure}
705:
706: Park et al. (2008) made an extensive study of the dependence of galaxy
707: morphology on the density $\rho_n$ attributed
708: to the nearest neighbor and also on neighbor's morphology.
709: Dependence on the large-scale background density $\rho_{20}$ was also studied
710: by analyzing subsets of galaxies located in three different bins of $\rho_{20}$.
711: It was found that, when luminosity is fixed, the probability for a randomly
712: chosen target galaxy to have an early-type, $f_E$, depends mostly on
713: the projected separation $r_p$
714: when $r_p > r_{\rm vir,nei}$, the virial radius of the nearest neighbor galaxy.
715: But when $r_p< r_{\rm vir,nei}$, $f_E$ depends on all three environmental factors
716: in the sense that $f_E$ is an increasing function of both $\rho_n$ and $\rho_{20}$
717: when the neighbor is an early-type galaxy, but that $f_E$ first increases and then
718: decreases as the galaxy approaches a late-type neighbor while it is still
719: an increasing function of $\rho_{20}$
720: (see Figure 3 of Park et al. 2008).
721:
722: To clarify the morphology dependence on those environmental factors we inspect
723: the behaviour of $f_E$ in the $r_p$-$\rho_{20}$ parameter space in Figure 3.
724: The absolute magnitude of target galaxies is limited to a narrower bin,
725: $-19.5>M_r>-20.0$, in order to reduce the effects of the correlation
726: of morphology and density with luminosity.
727: Figure 20 of Park et al. (2007) showed the same kind of plot, but
728: neighbor's morphology was not differentiated there.
729:
730: The upper panel of Figure 3 shows the dependence of $f_E$ on $r_p$ and $\rho_{20}$
731: when the nearest neighbor is an early-type galaxy. The lower panel is
732: the case when the neighbor is a late-type galaxy.
733: Since the mean separation between galaxies decreases as the background density
734: increases, there is a correlation between $r_p$ and $\rho_{20}$.
735: Because of this statistical correlation galaxies are distributed along
736: the diagonal in the figure. But there is a large dispersion in $r_p$
737: at a given $\rho_{20}$, particularly when $\rho_{20}\ga\bar{\rho}$
738: or $r_p \la r_{\rm vir,nei}$.
739: For example, at a fixed large-scale background density of $\rho_{20}=
740: 10{\bar\rho}$ the separation to the nearest neighbor of an early-type galaxy
741: with $M_r=-20$ can be as small as 0.003 $h^{-1}$Mpc or as large as 2 $h^{-1}$Mpc.
742: We will see a large variation in galaxy properties as $r_p$
743: changes while $\rho_{20}$ is fixed.
744: When $\rho_{20}$ is very small, however, the correlation is tight and
745: the information in $\rho_{20}$ and $r_p$ is rather redundant.
746: When $\rho_{20}$ is higher than $10\bar{\rho}$, most tight pairs with
747: $r_p \la 0.1 r_{\rm vir,nei}$ are early-type galaxies.
748:
749: Smooth distributions of $f_{E}$ are obtained from the ratio of the sum
750: of weighted number of early types to the sum of weighted number of all galaxies
751: within the smoothing kernel at each point of the parameter space.
752: A fixed-size spline-kernel is used to give the weights.
753: Contours denote the constant levels of $f_E$ and are
754: limited to regions with statistical significance above $1 \sigma$.
755:
756: A striking difference between two contour plots is seen where
757: $r_p < r_{\rm vir,nei}$, namely when the target galaxy is located inside
758: the virial radius of its neighbor. If the neighbor is an early-type galaxy,
759: the contours have positive slopes there, meaning that $f_E$ is increasing for
760: decreasing $r_p$ and increasing $\rho_{20}$. But if the neighbor is a late-type
761: galaxy, the contours have negative slopes, telling that $f_E$ decreases for
762: decreasing $r_p$ even though it is still an increasing function of $\rho_{20}$.
763: At a fixed $\rho_{20}$, $f_E$ has a maximum at $r_p \sim r_{\rm vir,nei}/3$
764: for the late-type neighbor case.
765: This scale corresponds to $70 - 80 h^{-1}$kpc for the late types
766: in our sample. Galaxies having their late-type neighbors within this
767: critical distance, start to have significant hydrodynamic effects
768: from neighbor. Sensitivity of $f_E$ to $\rho_{20}$ exists mainly
769: within the virialized region
770: with $r_p < r_{\rm vir,nei}$.
771:
772: When $r_p > r_{\rm vir,nei}$ both panels show that galaxy morphology
773: depends mostly on $r_p$ and is nearly independent of background density
774: $\rho_{20}$ as can be noticed from nearly horizontal contours.
775: Contours at $r_p >r_{\rm vir,nei}$ are slightly contaminated by the trend
776: that the galaxies at the upper edge of the distribution, having the
777: largest $r_p$
778: at a given $\rho_{20}$, are relatively brighter and tend to be earlier in type
779: (see Fig. 5 below).
780: As we decrease the absolute magnitude bin size, the contours become flatter,
781: and show weaker dependences on $\rho_{20}$ in this pair separation range.
782: But a slight dependence of $f_{E}$ on $\rho_{20}$ seems persisting at
783: $r_p > r_{\rm vir,nei}$ for the early-type neighbor case.
784:
785: Figure 3 confirms Park et al.(2008)'s findings that the effects of the nearest
786: neighbors are critically important to galaxy morphology and
787: that the large-scale density matters
788: only when pairs are closer than the virial radius.
789:
790: The early-type fraction can be very high in very high large-scale density
791: regions even when the neighbor is a late type. On the other hand,
792: for the isolated galaxies with $r_p \gg r_{\rm vir,nei}$ located in very low
793: density regions ($\rho_{20}\ll \bar{\rho}$), the early-type fraction \fe\
794: asymptotically approaches about 0.2, which might be the inborn morphology
795: fraction because the galaxy interaction and merger rates are low there.
796: Gott \& Thuan (1976) proposed that galaxy morphology is
797: determined by the amount of gas left over at maximum collapse
798: of the protogalaxy. Primordial elliptical galaxies are expected to form
799: if star formation is finished by the time of maximum collapse.
800: This can happen if the star formation time scale is shorter than the
801: collapse time, which is more likely in high density regions.
802: In reality, according to simulations galaxies continously accrete gas and other objects
803: till the present time, and it is difficult for SF to end in the course of formation.
804:
805: It is also conceivable that an isolated system of late-type galaxies is formed
806: in low density regions and transforms to an isolate early-type galaxy
807: by consuming all cold gas in the system
808: through a series of close interactions and mergers (Park et al. 2008).
809: These isolated early types cannot be formed by the mechanisms like
810: strangulation because they have no nearby larger halo.
811: This kind of early types is analogous to the central dominant
812: elliptical galaxies in the `fossil groups' which is the end-result
813: of galaxy mergers (Jones et al. 2003; Ulmer et al. 2005; Mendes de Oliveira
814: et al. 2006; D'Onghia et al. 2005; Adami, Susseil, \& Durret 2007;
815: von Benda-Beckmann et al. 2008 and references therein).
816: %This may be because of neighbors other than the nearest one, which are
817: %also likely to be early types.
818: On the other hand, a merged object can become an early-type galaxy due to the
819: AGN heating (Croton \& Farrar 2008) and remain isolated.
820:
821:
822:
823: \subsection{Luminosity}
824:
825: \begin{figure}
826: \center
827: %\plotone{fig4.eps}
828: \includegraphics[scale=0.45]{fig4.eps}
829: \caption{Dependence of absolute magnitude of galaxies on morphology and
830: neighbor separation. The upper panel is for the early-type target galaxies,
831: and the lower panel is for late types. All galaxies brighter than $M_r = -19.5$
832: are plotted. The median $M_r$ relations are drawn for early-type neighbor
833: (red dots, magenta line) and late-type neighbor (blue dots, green line) cases.
834: }
835: \end{figure}
836:
837: \begin{figure*}
838: \center
839: %\plotone{fig5.eps}
840: \includegraphics[scale=0.6]{fig5.eps}
841: \caption{The median absolute magnitude contours in the projected pair separation
842: $r_{p}$ versus the large-scale background density $\rho_{20}$
843: space. Points are all target galaxies brighter than $M_r = -19.5$.
844: Four cases are given, the early-type target galaxies having an early-type neighbor
845: (E-e), early-type targets having a late-type neighbor (E-l), late-type targets
846: having an early-type neighbor (L-e), late-type targets having a late-type
847: neighbor (L-l).}
848: \end{figure*}
849: Figure 4 shows the $r$-band absolute magnitude of galaxies
850: as a function of $r_p$.
851: The lines are the median relations.
852: We use all target galaxies with $M_r < -19.5$ in this section.
853: Late types with the axis ratio $b/a<0.6$ are still discarded because
854: their absolute magnitudes are not reliable.
855: As Figure 6 of Park et al. (2008) showed,
856: more isolated galaxies are brighter on average and such trend is greater for
857: early-type galaxies. Figure 4 also shows that galaxies with an early-type
858: neighbor are much brighter than those with a late-type neighbor when they have
859: relatively large separations from neighbor ($r_p > r_{\rm vir,nei}$).
860:
861: Figure 5 shows that the dependence of $M_r$ on $r_p$ and $\rho_{20}$.
862: Smooth distributions of $M_r$ are found by the following method
863: (it is applied to all panels in Figs. 5, 7, and 9).
864: At each location of the $r{_p}/r_{\rm vir,nei}$-$\rho_{20}/\bar{\rho}$ space,
865: where a smoothed median value is to be estimated, we first sort
866: the parameter values of the galaxies contained within a certain radius
867: from the location. In the case of the tophat smoothing, these galaxies get a
868: uniform weight and the median would be the value of the $N/2$-th galaxy
869: when the total number of galaxies within the smoothing radius is $N$.
870: We adopt a spline kernel smoothing for more accurate results.
871: We assign a spline kernel weight
872: $w_i$ to each galaxy within the smoothing radius.
873: The median is given by the parameter value of the $\Sigma w_i /2$-th
874: galaxy in the sorted list,
875: where $\Sigma w_i$ is the sum of all weights given to the galaxies
876: within the smoothing kernel.
877: The median represents the typical value of a physical parameter more reliably
878: than the mean, when the distribution is very skewed as in the case of
879: $W(H\alpha)$ in particular.
880:
881: Figure 5 shows that there is strong environmental dependence of $M_r$
882: at separations $r_p \ga r_{\rm vir,nei}$ while such
883: dependence fades away at smaller separations.
884: At $r_p \la r_{\rm vir,nei}$ the absolute magnitude fluctuates within 0.1
885: magnitude in all panels without showing significant dependence on $r_p$
886: or $\rho_{20}$. One should note that a single horizontal or vertical contour
887: does not show any environmental dependence. There should be a significant
888: gradient in $M_r$ revealed by a series of parallel contours with different levels
889: in order to claim a dependence.
890: At a given large-scale density $\rho_{20}$
891: the brightest galaxies are those having the largest $r_p/r_{\rm vir,nei}$,
892: namely the most isolated ones.
893: The $r_p$-dependence of luminosity persists from very high
894: density regions to well-inside the voids.
895: The void galaxies are also participating in luminosity evolution,
896: but the speed of the evolution is slow because of fewer neighbors.
897: %Correspondingly, the maximum luminosity that galaxies can reach is relatively lower
898: %in under-dense regions than that of galaxies in high density regions.
899: %The upper left part of each panel of Figure 5 shows the trend.
900:
901: A fact noted from Figure 5
902: is that such a trend exists in all density environments,
903: all the way from voids to very high density regions with $\rho_{20}/{\bar\rho}
904: \sim 100$ (but note that we cannot resolve the cluster regions where
905: $\rho_{20}$ itself is higher than the virialized density). Figure 5 also shows that the
906: luminosity-density relation (the horizontal direction in Fig. 5) is a very
907: strong function of neighbor distance.
908: For example, in the case of the E-e galaxies,
909: luminosity of very isolated galaxies
910: with $r_p\approx 20 r_{\rm vir,nei}$ rises quickly as $\rho_{20}$ increases
911: and reaches $M_r=-21.0$ at the density
912: as low as $\rho_{20}\approx{\bar\rho}$.
913: But for galaxies with $r_p\approx 2 r_{\rm vir,nei}$ it rises much slowly
914: for increasing $\rho_{20}$ and reaches $M_r=-21.0$ only at
915: $\rho_{20}\approx 100 {\bar\rho}$. The typical luminosity of the galaxies
916: with neighbors at much closer distances never reaches this magnitude.
917:
918: It can be also noted from Figure 5 that the early-type galaxies tend not to
919: have late-type neighbors at very small distances. There is almost
920: no E-l galaxy at $r_p<0.02 r_{\rm vir,nei}$
921: while many E-e galaxies have close neighbors at these separations
922: (compare the scatter plots in the left column of Fig. 5).
923: This may be because the early-type galaxies having their late-type neighbors
924: at $r_p<0.02 r_{\rm vir,nei}$ can acquire enough cold gas and transform
925: their own morphology to late type. In fact, there are more such tight L-l
926: galaxies than E-l galaxies as can be seen in the two bottom panels of Figure 5.
927: Evidence for the morphology transformation from an early to a late type has been
928: presented by Park et al. (2008).
929:
930:
931: \subsection{$u-r$ color}
932:
933: \begin{figure*}
934: \center
935: %\plotone{fig6.eps}
936: \includegraphics[scale=0.65]{fig6.eps}
937: \caption{Dependence of physical parameters of our target galaxies with
938: $-19.5>M_r >-20.5$ on the distance to the nearest neighbor normalized to the
939: virial radius of the neighbor.
940: Left panels are for early-type target galaxies and right panels are for late types.
941: The physical parameters considered here are the $u-r$ color, equivalent
942: width of $H\alpha$ line, and $g-i$ color gradient.
943: Median curves are drawn for the cases of early-type neighbor (magenta line, red dots)
944: and of late-type neighbor (green line, blue dots).
945: The $r_p$-space is uniformly binned in the logarithmic scale, and in each
946: bin the median $r_p$ of the galaxies belonging to the bin is used
947: for the median curve.
948: }
949: \end{figure*}
950:
951: Figure 6 shows variations of three physical parameters of our target galaxies
952: with $-19.5>M_r>-20.5$
953: as a function of pair separation normalized to the virial radius of their
954: nearest neighbor. Left panels are for the early-type target galaxies,
955: and right panels for the late types. In each panel
956: red points are galaxies with early-type neighbors, and blue points are
957: those with late-type neighbors. Their median values are shown by magenta
958: and green lines, respectively.
959:
960: Top left panel shows that the $u-r$ color of early-type galaxies hardly
961: changes as they approach neighbors. Even when the neighbor is
962: a late-type galaxy, the change is very small, which is surprising
963: because morphology of target galaxies
964: is strongly affected by the neighbor distance and tends to become a late type
965: when the neighbor is a late type.
966: The main reason for this is, of course, because the subsample is
967: already restricted to early types whose color shows a small dispersion.
968: But our subsamples are not simply divided by color,
969: but divided according to morphology as much as possible (Park \& Choi 2005)
970: and correspondingly the early-type subsample contains many blue galaxies.
971: For example, among the early types plotted in Figure 6
972: more than 7\% have $u-r$ color bluer than 2.4. One could expect to
973: see some blueing trend for early types interacting with a late type.
974: Even though the total color does not change much,
975: we will see below that the SF activity of early-type galaxies
976: having late-type neighbors is actually enhanced when the separation
977: is much smaller than the virial radius, suggesting cold gas transfer from
978: their neighbors.
979:
980: % It may be also because late-type morphology
981: %is assigned to an originally early-type galaxy when its color is significantly
982: %changed during the interactions.
983:
984: The upper right panel of Figure 6 shows that,
985: when the target galaxy is a late type,
986: its $u-r$ color clearly becomes redder as it approaches an early-type
987: neighbor, but does not change much if the neighbor is
988: a late type. The bifurcation occurs at $r_p\sim r_{\rm vir,nei}$.
989: From Figure 6 one can understand why it has been so difficult to detect
990: the change in color for interacting pairs (de Propris et al. 2005).
991: Early types do not show any significant
992: changes, and the changes in late types depend on neighbor's morphology.
993: Without dividing the sample according to target's and neighbor's morphology
994: one would find little change in color.
995:
996: In the left column of
997: Figure 7 the behaviour of the median $u-r$ color in the $r_p$-$\rho_{20}$
998: space is inspected.
999: We again find that the color of early types
1000: is very insensitive to both $r_p$ abd $\rho_{20}$. The median
1001: color of the early-type galaxies having an early-type neighbor (the E-e galaxies)
1002: or a late-type neighbor (the E-l galaxies) varies only about 0.02 in
1003: the $r_p$-$\rho_{20}$ space.
1004:
1005: The bottom two panels of the left column of Figure 7 show the median $u-r$
1006: color contours for late-type target galaxies.
1007: It can be seen that the $u-r$ color of the L-e galaxies depends on $r_p$
1008: weakly when $r_p \ga 0.1 r_{\rm vir,nei}$ but strongly for
1009: $r_p \la 0.05 r_{\rm vir,nei}$.
1010: The dependence is negligible at $r_p > r_{\rm vir,nei}$.
1011: The L-l galaxies tend to be slightly bluer as $r_p$ decreases.
1012: This is why the L-e and L-l cases start to separate from each
1013: other at $r_p \sim r_{\rm vir,nei}$ and then diverge at
1014: $r_p \la 0.05 r_{\rm vir,nei}$.
1015:
1016: Figure 7 also shows that, when $r_p \ga 0.05 r_{\rm vir,nei}$, late-type galaxies
1017: become redder as their background density becomes higher.
1018: This weak residual dependence of color of late-type galaxies on $\rho_{20}$
1019: after fixing luminosity has been also reported by Park et al. (2007).
1020: The residual dependence is weak; the total variation in $u-r$ of late types
1021: is about 0.2 magnitude as $\rho_{20}/{\bar\rho}$ varies from
1022: 0.1 to 100.
1023: If luminosity or morphology are not fixed, the color variation is much larger
1024: (see Fig. 11 of Park et al. 2007).
1025: The large-scale density dependence of $u-r$ is probably a result of
1026: the accumulated effects of galaxy-galaxy interactions and mergers whose frequency is
1027: higher in higher density regions.
1028:
1029: An interesting fact from these plots is that the
1030: dependence of color on $\rho_{20}$ becomes negligible when
1031: $\rho_{20}<{\bar\rho}$, which can be noticed from widening of contour
1032: separation and serpentine contours at small $\rho_{20}$.
1033: We will also see in the next section that the SF activity as measured by
1034: $W(H\alpha)$ does not depend on the background density $\rho_{20}$ either
1035: when $\rho_{20} <{\bar \rho}$ and $r_p \ga r_{\rm vir,nei}$.
1036: %These seem to indicate that the dependence of color and SFA on $\rho_{20}$
1037: %is not caused by a direct influence of background environment, but
1038: %is caused by indirect effects through some properties of neighboring galaxies
1039: %like halo gas pressure.
1040:
1041:
1042: %The left column of Figure 7 shows that early-type galaxies are nearly independent
1043: %of the large-scale background density in color once luminosity is fixed.
1044: %But the bottom two panels show a residual effect of $\rho_{20}$
1045: %on late-type galaxies. At $r_p \ga 0.05 r_{\rm vir,nei}$, i.e. when galaxies
1046: %are not merging, late-type galaxies become redder by $0.2\sim 0.3$
1047: %magnitude in typical $u-r$ color as $\rho_{20}$ changes from 0.1 to 100 times
1048: %${\bar\rho}$ (see also Fig. 11a of Park et al. 2007).
1049: On the other hand, when
1050: the background density is very high ($\rho_{20}\ga 50{\bar\rho}$),
1051: the color of late-type galaxies appears to depend only on $\rho_{20}$.
1052: The density range corresponds to the cluster environment, and a cluster
1053: acts like a giant early-type galaxy transforming member galaxies
1054: into redder ones.
1055: Recently, Park \& Hwang (2008) have studied properties of galaxies
1056: near and within Abell clusters, and found a characteristic scale of $2 - 3$
1057: times the cluster virial radius across which various galaxy properties
1058: suddenly start to show dependence on the clustercentric radius.
1059: %Dependence of galaxy color on the clustercentric radius also appears suddenly
1060: %at the characteristic scale.
1061: Since the cluster galaxies are smeared along the
1062: line of sight due to the finger-of-god effect in our analysis, reddening of late types
1063: due to clusters is expected to appear rather smoothly as a function of $\rho_{20}$.
1064:
1065: %One should note that the overall value and $\rho_{20}$-dependence of color are
1066: %quite different in two panels with different neighbor morphology. It
1067: %demonstrates importance of neighbor morphology in determining galaxy color.
1068: %The $\rho_{20}$ dependence of late-type galaxies' color is probably caused by
1069: %the hot halos of the galaxies and their neighbors whose properties
1070: %depend on $\rho_{20}$, rather than by an innate relation between
1071: %galaxy properties and environment.
1072:
1073: Kauffmann et al. (2004) claimed that the SF history-density correlation
1074: is sensitive to small-scale density, but that there is no evidence for the SF
1075: history to depend on large-scale ($>1$ Mpc) density.
1076: We find in Figure 7 that the $u-r$ color as a measure of SF history
1077: is nearly independent of small and large-scale environments for early-type
1078: galaxies, but depends on both for late-type galaxies even at fixed luminosity.
1079:
1080:
1081:
1082: \begin{figure*}
1083: \center
1084: \plotone{fig7.eps}
1085: \caption{Dependence of the $u-r$ color, equivalent width of the $H{\alpha}$ line,
1086: $g-i$ color gradient of galaxies with $-19.5>M_r>-20.5$ on the pair separation
1087: $r{_p}$ and the large-scale background density $\rho_{20}$.
1088: In each column, galaxies are divided into
1089: four cases, the E-e, E-l, L-e, and L-l galaxies.
1090: Dots are galaxies belonging to each subset.
1091: At each location of the $r_p$-$\rho_{20}$ space the median value of the
1092: physical parameter is found from those of galaxies within a certain
1093: distance from the location (see section 3.2 for more details).
1094: Curves are the constant-parameter contours.
1095: A short line at $r_p/r_{\rm vir,nei} = 1$ is drawn to guide the eye.
1096: }
1097: \end{figure*}
1098:
1099: \subsection{Equivalent width of the $H{\alpha}$ line}
1100:
1101: Figure 6b (middle panels) shows variations of the equivalent width of the
1102: $H\alpha$ line, a measure of the SF activity, as a function of $r_p$
1103: for the early-type (left) and late-type (right) target galaxies with $-19.5>M_r>-20.5$.
1104: Galaxies are again distinguished
1105: between those having an early-type neighbor (red dots, magenta line) and
1106: those having a late-type neighbor (blue dots, green line).
1107: Even though the total color of early-type galaxies is not much affected by
1108: interactions, the SF activity measured by $W(H\alpha)$ clearly shows
1109: dependence on $r_p$ and neighbor's morphology.
1110: This tells us that the color is simply not a very
1111: sensitive SF indicator, especially for massive galaxies.
1112:
1113: Early-type galaxies show slightly reduced SF activity when they approach an early-type
1114: neighbor. But the E-l galaxies show relatively stronger
1115: $H\alpha$ line emission at $r_p < r_{\rm vir,nei}$,
1116: and the gap between two cases becomes wider at $r_p < 0.1 r_{\rm vir,nei}$.
1117:
1118: $W(H\alpha)$ of late-type galaxies shows more dramatic variations
1119: as $r_p$ changes. In the right panel $W(H\alpha)$ of the L-e galaxies
1120: is nearly constant down to $r_p\approx 0.05 r_{\rm vir,nei}$ and
1121: then starts to drop below the separation. But $W(H\alpha)$ of the
1122: L-l galaxies starts to rise at $r_p\approx r_{\rm vir,nei}$ and
1123: increases rapidly below $r_p \approx 0.05 r_{\rm vir,nei}$.
1124: The two cases start to bifurcate at $r_p\approx r_{\rm vir,nei}$ and
1125: to diverge at $r_p\approx 0.05 r_{\rm vir,nei}$ as in the $u-r$ case.
1126:
1127: We note there are two characteristic scales in the effects of galaxy-galaxy
1128: interactions on the SF activity.
1129: The first scale is
1130: the virial radius of the nearest neighbor galaxy where difference
1131: in morphology of the nearest neighbor starts to make the SF activity bifurcate.
1132: The second one is the merger scale, about 0.05 times the virial radius, where
1133: the effects diverge depending on the neighbor morphology.
1134: Since the virial radius of an early or late-type galaxy
1135: with $M_r = -20$ is 300 or 240 $h^{-1}$ kpc,
1136: at the separation $r_p = 0.05 r_{\rm vir}\approx 12 - 15h^{-1}$ kpc,
1137: a pair of such galaxies should start to physically contact to each other.
1138: %The behaviour of $W(H{\alpha})$ in the $r_p$-$\rho_{20}$ space (middle
1139: %column of Figure 7) indicates that both $r_p$ and $\rho_{20}$ are determining
1140: %factors of SF activity, with the major effects coming from $r_p$.
1141:
1142: The middle column of Figure 7 shows dependence of $W(H\alpha)$ on $r_p$ and
1143: $\rho_{20}$ for four cases.
1144: %The contours represent the smooth field given by the median (not the mean)
1145: %value of $W(H\alpha)+1$.
1146: The two top panels indicate that the SF activity of early types
1147: depends on neighbor's morphology.
1148: The E-l galaxies shows overall higher $W(H\alpha)$ compared to the
1149: E-e galaxies, and the direction of dependence of $W(H\alpha)$ on
1150: $r_p$ is opposite for the two cases. We also find that $W(H\alpha)$ of
1151: early-type galaxies decreases slightly as $\rho_{20}$ increases.
1152: The $\rho_{20}$ dependence of $W(H\alpha)$, however, does not always exist,
1153: but exists only over a certain $r_p$ range that depends on the neighbor
1154: morphology.
1155:
1156: For late-type galaxies (two bottom panels)
1157: the effects of early- and late-type neighbors are clearly distinguished.
1158: The SF activity of late types is enhanced
1159: significantly as they approach late-type neighbors, but quenched slightly
1160: as they approach early-type neighbors.
1161: In the L-l case the dependence on $\rho_{20}$ at small
1162: $r_p$ is qualitatively similar to the E-l case.
1163: The scale of occurrence of the $r_p$ dependence depends on $\rho_{20}$.
1164: Enhancement of SF activity by late-type neighbors occurs at smaller neighbor
1165: separation in higher $\rho_{20}$ regions.
1166: This can happen if late-type neighbor galaxies tend to be less gas-rich, and
1167: the cold gas flow from late-type neighbors is less efficient in higher density regions.
1168: In all four cases the SF activity does not depend on both $r_p$ and $\rho_{20}$
1169: when galaxies are isolated ($r_p \ga r_{\rm vir,nei}$) and when the
1170: background density is small $\rho_{20} \la {\bar\rho}$.
1171:
1172: Balogh et al. (2004b) analyzed the galaxies and groups in the 2dF Galaxy Redshift
1173: Survey data and the SDSS data, and reported that the fraction of star forming
1174: galaxies varied strongly with the background density (see also Balogh et al. 2004a).
1175: The signal they found must be mostly due to the correlation of the
1176: background density with luminosity and morphology.
1177: They looked at faint late-type galaxies in low
1178: density regions, but bright early types at high densities.
1179: Once luminosity and morphology are fixed,
1180: the SF activity in galaxies depends very weakly on the background density as
1181: shown in Figure 13c of Park et al. (2007) and in Figure 7 of this work.
1182: Balogh et al. (2004b) also presented evidence that the fraction of $H{\alpha}$
1183: emitting galaxies
1184: is mostly dependent on the small-scale environment at high densities,
1185: but on the large-scale environment at low densities.
1186: We found different results. The second column
1187: of Figure 7 shows that the SF activity of late-type galaxies having a late-type
1188: neighbor depends differently on $r_p$ at different $\rho_{20}$
1189: in such a way that in higher density regions the SF activity rises at smaller $r_p$.
1190: But there is only a weak trend that is opposite to this for the L-e galaxies.
1191:
1192: Nikolic et al. (2004) claimed that the mean SF activity is
1193: significantly enhanced for $r_p < 30$ kpc. For late-type targets
1194: the enhancement is found out to 300 kpc
1195: regardless of neighbor's morphology.
1196: We find their results are true only when the neighbor (or target) galaxy
1197: is a late type. For the `L-l' galaxies
1198: we find the enhancement of SF activity extends out
1199: to $r_p \la r_{\rm vir,nei}\sim 300$ kpc.
1200: But when the neighbor is an early type,
1201: the SF activity drops at $r_p \la 30$kpc or
1202: at $r_p \la 0.1 r_{\rm vir,nei}$.
1203: This shows us again that the effects of interaction become manifest
1204: when the sample is split according to the morphology of target and
1205: neighbor galaxies.
1206: They also reported that there is no dependence of the SF activity on
1207: neighbor morphology nor mass.
1208: This is certainly not supported by our results.
1209:
1210: Alonso et al. (2006) reported that there is a threshold for the SF
1211: activity induced by interactions at $r_p=100h^{-1}$kpc. We do not find evidence
1212: for a threshold at that scale. Our results suggest thresholds only at
1213: the virial radius and merger scale, which are roughly $\sim300$ and $15 h^{-1}$kpc
1214: for galaxies in our sample, respectively.
1215: They also found that interactions are more effective at triggering SF
1216: activity in low and moderate density environments. This is consistent with
1217: our results only when the neighbor galaxy is a late type. In the second and bottom
1218: panels (the E-l and L-l cases) of Figure 7 one can see $W(H{\alpha})$ starts
1219: to increase at $r_p\la 0.2 r_{\rm vir,nei}$ in very low density regions but
1220: at $r_p\la 0.05 r_{\rm vir,nei}$ in high density regions.
1221: The influence of early-type neighbors is weaker in low density regions,
1222: and the SF activity is less suppressed.
1223:
1224:
1225: %At a given pair separation the SFR is always
1226: %lower at higher $\rho_{20}$.
1227: %This trend is weak, but exists not only in high density regions, but also
1228: %in intermediate and low density regions (see Figure 13c of Park et al. 2007
1229: %for a comparison), and
1230:
1231:
1232: \subsection{$g-i$ color gradient}
1233:
1234: We use the $g-i$ color difference between the central region with $R<0.5R_{\rm Pet}$
1235: and the annulus with $0.5R_{\rm Pet} < R < R_{\rm Pet}$ as a measure of color
1236: gradient. Here $R_{\rm Pet}$ is the Petrosian radius (Petrosian 1976;
1237: Blanton et al. 2001) in the $i$-band.
1238: The difference is made in
1239: such a way that positive $\Delta(g-i)$ means a bluer central region relative
1240: to the outer region.
1241: We corrected $\Delta(g-i)$ for the inclination and seeing effects as described
1242: by Park \& Choi (2005) and Choi et al. (2007).
1243: We use the gradient in $g-i$ color rather than $u-i$ color because the $u$-band
1244: surface photometry is noisy for some galaxies.
1245: But the surface photometry of SDSS galaxies in the $g$, and $i$-bands
1246: can be done relatively accurately for those in the spectroscopic sample
1247: (apparent $r$-band magnitude $m_r < 17.6$).
1248:
1249: The bottom panels of Figure 6 clearly show that the central region of galaxies
1250: undergoing interactions and mergers becomes bluer relative to the outside.
1251: For early-type target galaxies
1252: the effects are manifest only well within the virial radius.
1253: But for late types the effects start to appear at separations
1254: larger than $r_{\rm vir,nei}$.
1255: Difference due to different neighbor morphology is small, which might seem
1256: inconsistent with the trends seen for $u-r$ and $W(H{\alpha})$.
1257:
1258: If the dependence of color and SF activity on neighbor's morphology
1259: is because of difference in the influence of cold and hot gases of the neighbor galaxy,
1260: one might think the color gradient depends on $r_p$ also differently for different
1261: neighbor morphology.
1262: But Figure 6 shows the color gradient always increases for decreasing $r_p$
1263: independently of the morphology of target and neighbor galaxies.
1264: It means that, as early-type galaxies approach their neighbors,
1265: the central part becomes bluer but the outer part becomes redder,
1266: making the color gradient increase but their total color remain almost the same.
1267: For late-type galaxies the center becomes bluer for both early
1268: and late-type neighbor cases, but the outer part becomes much redder
1269: for the early-type neighbor case, making the total color redder.
1270:
1271: Early-type galaxies must be significantly reducing the SF activity
1272: in the outer part of their neighboring late-type galaxies.
1273: It is known that the SF activity of late-type galaxies in clusters is severely
1274: reduced in the outer disk, with normal or enhanced activity
1275: in the inner disk (Boselli \& Gavazzi 2006). In other words, the color gradient
1276: of late types becomes more positive (redder outside) in the cluster environment.
1277: Quenched SF activity in cluster spirals
1278: is often explained by the gas depletion through hydrodynamic interactions
1279: with the hot intracluster medium such as the ram pressure stripping, viscous
1280: stripping, thermal evaporation, and strangulation (cf. Boselli \& Gavazzi 2006
1281: and references therein).
1282: We now find in Figure 6 that late-type galaxies in general environment
1283: experience very similar changes in the SF activity. In particular,
1284: when they approach an early-type galaxy (instead of a cluster), they show
1285: redder total color, reduced SF activity, and more positive color gradient.
1286:
1287: %Figure 7 (the panels in the third row) shows that,
1288: %in the very high density environment with
1289: %$\rho_{20} \ga 30 {\bar\rho}$, the L-e galaxies have redder color and more
1290: %positive color gradient compared to those in lower density regions.
1291: %One might think it is the hot intracluster medium that is responsible for this.
1292: %However, there is evidence against this idea.
1293: %The bottom right panel of Figure 7 shows that the L-l galaxies located
1294: %in high density regions do not show increased color gradient.
1295: %The color gradient of late-type galaxies may be modified if
1296: %there is a significant mass transfer from its neighbor.
1297: %But Figure 7 says the color gradient does not increase in high density regions
1298: %even when the late types are not very close to their late-type neighbor
1299: %(i.e. no increase of $\Delta(g-i)$ at $r_p > 0.1 r_{\rm vir,nei}$
1300: %in high density regions).
1301: %This means that the intergalactic medium in the relatively high density regions with
1302: %$30 \la \rho_{20}/{\bar\rho} \la 200$ cannot directly quench the SF activity in
1303: %late-type galaxies. These regions correspond to galaxy groups or
1304: %the outer part (near the cluster virial radius) of galaxy clusters.
1305:
1306: It is important to note that the SF quenching phenomenon is now found for late-type
1307: galaxies outside the cluster environment (see the discussion section below
1308: for possible mechanisms).
1309: Figure 7 shows that an approach to an early-type neighbor
1310: makes a late-type galaxy redder in color, weaker in $W(H\alpha)$ and
1311: more positive in color gradient in any background density environment
1312: (see the panels in the third row of Fig. 7).
1313:
1314:
1315: \subsection{Concentration}
1316:
1317: \begin{figure*}
1318: \center
1319: %\plotone{fig8.eps}
1320: \includegraphics[scale=0.65]{fig8.eps}
1321: \caption{Dependence of the physical parameters of our target galaxies
1322: with $-19.5>M_r >-20.5$ on the separation between the target galaxies and
1323: their nearest neighbor galaxy. The physical parameters considered here are
1324: the inverse concentration index $c_{\rm in}$, central velocity dispersion $\sigma$,
1325: and Petrosian radius $R_{\rm Pet}$. Left panels are for early types, and right panels
1326: for late types. Cases are further divided into early-type neighbor (magenta median
1327: curves, red dots) and late-type neighbor (green curves, blue dots) cases.
1328: }
1329: \end{figure*}
1330:
1331: \begin{figure*}
1332: \center
1333: \plotone{fig9.eps}
1334: \caption{The median contours of the inverse concentration index $c_{\rm in}$,
1335: central velocity dispersion $\sigma$, and Petrosian radius $R_{\rm pet}$ in
1336: the neighbor separation $r_p / r_{\rm vir,nei}$ versus the large-scale density
1337: $\rho_{20}/\bar{\rho}$ plane.
1338: Cases are divided into four cases; the E-e (top panels), E-l (second panels),
1339: L-e (third panels), and L-l (bottom panels) galaxies. Galaxy size as measured
1340: by the Petrosian radius has a potential systematic effect at small $r_p$.
1341: Most contours look noisy except when $r_p \la 0.1 r_{\rm vir,nei}$ in some
1342: panels. This is mainly because galaxy properties are
1343: almost independent of both $r_p$ and $\rho_{20}$ when galaxy luminosity
1344: and morphology are fixed, and not because statistical uncertainties are large.
1345: }
1346: \end{figure*}
1347:
1348: We adopt the inverse concentration index $c_{\rm in}$ to quantify the radial
1349: surface brightness profile of galaxies. It is defined by $R_{50}/R_{90}$ where
1350: $R_{50}$ and $R_{90}$ are the semi-major axis lengths of ellipses
1351: containing 50\% and 90\% of the Petrosian flux in the $i$-band, respectively,
1352: and is corrected for the seeing effects (Park \& Choi 2005).
1353:
1354: Top panels of Figure 8 show the dependence of $c_{\rm in}$ on the pair separation.
1355: Early-type galaxies show smaller change in concentration as they
1356: approach neighbors probably because they are tidally more stable due to smaller size
1357: and compactness, and also because the tidal energy deposit is relatively
1358: smaller as the relative velocity with the neighbor is higher for early types
1359: than for late types (see Fig. 2). Figure 8 tells that galaxies become
1360: more concentrated as they approach their neighbors.
1361: But we note a very slight tendency that
1362: $c_{\rm in}$ of the E-e galaxies first increases
1363: and then decreases as $r_p$ decreases. When the galaxy undergoes a merger at
1364: $r_p \approx 0.05 r_{\rm vir,nei}$, the dispersion in $c_{\rm in}$ becomes
1365: large. When galaxies are merging,
1366: some fraction of mass escapes from them and form tidal
1367: tails and bridges. This makes the Petrosian radius usually larger
1368: and uncertain. Likewise, $c_{in}$ becomes uncertain too.
1369:
1370: The tendency that galaxies become more concentrated as they
1371: approach their neighbors inside the virial radius is much stronger for late types.
1372: This may be because late types are tidally more
1373: vulnerable due to their larger size and lower concentration than early types
1374: and because the velocity difference of late-type target galaxies with their
1375: neighbors is relatively smaller and correspondingly the tidal energy deposit
1376: is larger.
1377: The effects are even stronger for the late-type neighbor case because the velocity
1378: difference between the target and neighbor is even lower in this case
1379: as shown in Figure 2. More discussion is given in section 4.
1380:
1381: A closer look at the variation of $c_{\rm in}$ reveals that $c_{\rm in}$
1382: of late types actually first increases and then decreases
1383: as $r_p$ decreases, but the increase is
1384: very small and the scale of the maximum $c_{\rm in}$
1385: (least concentration) differs for different neighbor
1386: morphology ($r_p \approx 0.5$ and $2 r_{\rm vir,nei}$ or $\sim150$ and
1387: $\sim500 h^{-1}$Mpc for early and late-type neighbor cases, respectively).
1388: This compares with Nikolic et al. (2004)'s result that
1389: $c_{\rm in}$ peaks at $r_p \approx 50 h^{-1}$kpc when morphological types of
1390: interacting galaxies are ignored. The typical value of $c_{\rm in}$
1391: is quite different for early and late-type galaxies, and the mean morphology
1392: of interacting galaxies varies depending on the pair separation. Therefore, if
1393: the morphological type of the target galaxies is not distinguished,
1394: in addition to the genuine trend caused by interaction,
1395: one will also see an apparent trend in $c_{\rm in}$ caused by the change in
1396: the average morphology of the target galaxy as we change $r_p$.
1397:
1398: The distribution of $c_{\rm in}$ in the $r_p$-$\rho_{20}$ space
1399: shown in the left column of Figure 9,
1400: confirms the very weak decline of $c_{\rm in}$ for decreasing $r_p$ in the case of
1401: early-type galaxies (with a weak maximum for the E-e case),
1402: and a strong decrease for decreasing $r_p$ in the case of late-type galaxies.
1403: Most contours in Figure 7 and 9 below look noisy particularly when
1404: $r_p \ga 0.1 r_{\rm vir,nei}$. This is mainly because galaxy properties are
1405: almost independent of both $r_p$ and $\rho_{20}$ when galaxy luminosity
1406: and morphology are fixed, and not because statistical uncertainties are large.
1407:
1408: %The general tidal-force background, which should be a monotonic function of
1409: %$\rho_{20}$, does not seem to directly affect the concentration of galaxies.
1410: When $r_p > 0.5 r_{\rm vir,nei}$, $c_{\rm in}$ varies within 0.005
1411: in all cases. When $r_p < 0.2 r_{\rm vir,nei}$, $c_{\rm in}$ increases
1412: weakly with $\rho_{20}$ for the E-e galaxies, but does not show a dependence
1413: on $\rho_{20}$ for the E-l galaxies.
1414: The fact that $\rho_{20}$ dependence of early-type galaxies depends on neighbor
1415: morphology and the fact that the $\rho_{20}$ dependence of the E-e galaxies depends
1416: on the neighbor distance $r_p$, together imply that $\rho_{20}$ is not directly
1417: affecting $c_{\rm in}$.
1418: The bottom two panels of Figure 9 shows a strong increases of concentration
1419: for late-type galaxies as $r_p$ decreases. But the dependence of $c_{\rm in}$
1420: on $\rho_{20}$ is not clear.
1421: According to Park \& Hwang (2008), $c_{\rm in}$ of late types decreases
1422: as the clustercentric radius becomes less than the cluster virial radius.
1423:
1424: Figure 11c of Park et al.
1425: (2007) showed that $c_{\rm in}$ is nearly constant of $\rho_{20}$ for bright
1426: early-type galaxies but increases very slightly with $\rho_{20}$
1427: for the galaxies much fainter than $M_*$. Note that our target galaxies are basically
1428: $M_\ast$ galaxies for which the background density dependence of
1429: $c_{\rm in}$ is expected to be small.
1430:
1431: Our result is consistent with that of Blanton et al. (2005a) who claimed that
1432: structural properties of galaxies are less closely related to galaxy `environment'
1433: than are their masses and SF histories. However, this is true only
1434: for the large-scale background density environment. We found a significant
1435: dependence of galaxy structural parameters ($c_{\rm in}$ in this section
1436: and the central velocity dispersion $\sigma$ in the next section) on
1437: the environmental factors like neighbor distance and morphology.
1438: van der Wel (2008) has studied the dependence of galaxy morphology and structure
1439: on environment and stellar mass, and concluded that galaxy structure mainly
1440: depends on galaxy mass but morphology mainly depends on environment.
1441: Even when both galaxy luminosity and morphology are fixed, we still find galaxy
1442: structure depends sensitively on the neighbor environment.
1443:
1444: \subsection{Central velocity dispersion}
1445:
1446: We use the velocity dispersion measured by an automated spectroscopic pipeline
1447: called {\tt IDLSPEC2D} version 5 (D. J. Schlegel et al. 2008, in
1448: preparation). Galaxy spectra of SDSS galaxies are obtained by optical
1449: fibers with angular radius of $1.5''$.
1450: The central velocity dispersion measurement has been corrected for the
1451: smoothing effects due to the finite size of the optical fiber
1452: (see section 3.1 of Choi et al. 2007).
1453: Taking into account the finite resolution of the spectrographs, we discarded
1454: galaxies with $\sigma< 40$ km s$^{-1}$.
1455:
1456: The middle panels of Figure 8 show variations of $\sigma$ as a function of
1457: $r_p$ for the four cases. Early types hardly change their central velocity
1458: dispersion, which may be again because early types are fast, compact, tightly
1459: bound, and correspondingly are tidally more stable.
1460: The central velocity dispersion of late-type galaxies monotonically increases
1461: as they approach their neighbors within $r_{\rm vir,nei}$.
1462: The increase is stronger when the neighbor is a late type. It is very likely
1463: that this is because the late-type neighbor on average has a smaller
1464: relative velocity (see Fig. 2), and therefore produce more tidal energy
1465: deposit than an early-type neighbor.
1466: Coziol \& Plauchu-Frayn (2007) have recently inspected asymmetries in galaxies pairs,
1467: and concluded that the features are consistent with tidal
1468: effects produced by companions.
1469:
1470: %Let us check if the variation of $\sigma_v$ is consistent with the tidal
1471: %interaction picture. According to the tidal approximation the velocity
1472: %increment of matter within a galaxy due to its perturber is proportional to
1473: %$b^{-2}V^{-1}$ where $b$ is the impact factor and $V$ is the velocity
1474: %difference at infinite separation (Binney \& Tremaine 1987). Assume $b$
1475: %is statistically proportional to the current separation $r$, and $V$ is
1476: %proportional to the current radial velocity difference $\Delta v$.
1477: %Suppose the number density of neighbors around a galaxy follows
1478: %$n(r) = n_0 (r_0/r)^2$ as suggested by the galaxy-galaxy two-point correlation
1479: %function (Davis \& Peebles ***).
1480: %If a neighbor has the projected separation $r_p$ from a galaxy,
1481: %the true separation $r$ between them is on average expected to
1482: %be $r_p$ is $<r^2> = 2r_p z_m/\pi$ when
1483: %a projection along the line of sight from $-z_m$ to $+z_m$
1484: %is allowed (for example, neighbors are often searched among galaxies having
1485: %velocity difference less than 1000 km s$^{-1}$ corresponding to 10$ h^{-1}$Mpc).
1486: % Then the increment in the square of the velocity dispersion
1487: %will be $\Delta \sigma^2 \propto r^{-4} \Delta v^{-2}
1488: %\propto <r^2>_{r_p}^{-2} \Delta v^{-2} \propto
1489: %r_p^{-2}\Delta v^{-2}$.
1490: %$\Delta \sigma^2 \equiv \sigma{^2}({r_p}) - \sigma^{2}({\infty})
1491:
1492: %This result predicts that the increment $\Delta \sigma^2$ in a L-l galaxy
1493: %is $(125/185)^{-2} \approx 2.2$ times larger than that of a L-e galaxy
1494: %(see section 2.5 for the velocity differences). The average
1495: %value from the two inner-most measurements shown in the middle right panel
1496: %of Figure 8b gives about 2.3, which is very close to the tidal theory.
1497:
1498: %On the other hand, the inner-most three points of the L-l case
1499: %gives $\Delta \sigma^2\propto r_p^{-1.3}$, whose slope is somewhat different from
1500: %the tidal theory. This may be because the conditions of the tidal
1501: %approximation are not satisfied well at these short separations where the pair
1502: %start to merge.
1503:
1504: The middle column of Figure 9 shows the dependence of $\sigma$ on both $r_p$
1505: and $\rho_{20}$ for the four cases. In all cases we notice that
1506: $\sigma$ slightly increases as $\rho_{20}$ increases which was also shown
1507: in Figure 13b of Park et al. (2007) for galaxies with $M_r \approx -19.8$
1508: or $-20.4$. Interestingly, the increase mainly occurs in low and
1509: intermediate density regions.
1510: The top two panels show that $\sigma$ increases at the smallest
1511: $r_p$ at fixed $\rho_{20}$ for the E-e galaxies, but is nearly a constant as $r_p$
1512: decreases for the E-l galaxies.
1513: In the case of the L-e galaxies, the $r_p$-dependence of $\sigma$ starts to appear
1514: within $r_p \sim r_{\rm vir,nei}$.
1515: The neighbor dependence is strong for the L-l galaxies, in particular.
1516:
1517: \subsection{Size}
1518:
1519: We use the Petrosian radius (Graham et al. 2005) as a measure of galaxy size.
1520: It is measured from the $i$-band images taking into account inclination and seeing
1521: (Choi et al. 2007). In the case of late-type target galaxies, we are using only those
1522: with the $i$-band isophotal $b/a$ ratio greater than 0.6.
1523: The bottom panels of Figure 8 show variations of
1524: $R_{\rm Pet}$ as a function of the pair separation. A prominent feature in this plot
1525: is that the early-type galaxies appear much larger at
1526: $r_p \le 0.05 r_{\rm vir,nei}$ while such increase in size is not noticeable
1527: for late-type galaxies.
1528:
1529: The size of early-type galaxies in very close pairs may have been systematically
1530: overestimated because of blending. When undergoing mergers, early types are
1531: expected to survive longer than late types because they are relatively more compact
1532: and faster. Furthermore, the neighbor undergoing a merger with an early-type galaxy
1533: is very likely to be an early type too (Park et al. 2008). It would be difficult to define
1534: a boundary for a tight pair of early-type galaxies with smooth distribution of stars.
1535: Some of early types can be still identified as separate objects even at
1536: $r_p < 0.01 r_{\rm vir,nei}\sim 3 h^{-1}$kpc when their outer extended envelopes are already
1537: merged with those of their neighbors, and the size of such galaxies can be
1538: easily overestimated.
1539: On the other hand, since the pairwise velocity
1540: is smaller for late types, it is expected that their cores merge relatively quickly
1541: and that there are relatively fewer late-type pairs with very small separations.
1542: Size of late-type galaxies is determined by the light from disk which has the boundary
1543: relatively abrupt compared to those of early-type galaxies.
1544: This may be why there is no very tight late-type pair and why an increase
1545: in $R_{\rm Pet}$ at small $r_p$ is not observed for late types.
1546:
1547: The top two panels of the right column of Figure 9 show $R_{\rm Pet}$ in the
1548: $r_p$-$\rho_{20}$ plane for the early-type galaxies. They show that $R_{\rm Pet}$
1549: first slightly decrease between $0.1 \la r_p/r_{\rm vir,nei}<1$ and then increase
1550: at shorter separations.
1551: The size of the E-e galaxies increases rapidly at $r_p < 0.05 r_{\rm vir,nei}$,
1552: and the actual scale the galaxy size starts to rise depends on $\rho_{20}$.
1553: The E-e galaxies
1554: in high density regions appear larger than those in low density regions
1555: when they merge. Except for this merger scales the size of early types
1556: hardly depends on $r_p$ or $\rho_{20}$.
1557: The size of late-type target galaxies, shown in the bottom two panels,
1558: is nearly independent of both $r_p$ and $\rho_{20}$.
1559: %But it slightly increases for increasing $\rho_{20}$ at $r_p > r_{\rm vir,nei}$.
1560:
1561: Galaxy size depends strongly on luminosity and morphology
1562: as shown by Figure 4 of Choi et al. (2007). For example, the typical value
1563: of $R_{\rm Pet}$ of early types varies from 3 to $10 h^{-1}$kpc, and that of
1564: late types varies from 4.5 to $13 h^{-1}$kpc as $M_r$ changes from $-18.5$ to $-21.5$.
1565: Correspondingly, $R_{\rm Pet}$ of a random galaxy varies significantly as $r_p$
1566: or $\rho_{20}$ varies because the average morphology and luminosity change too.
1567: But once we fix morphology and luminosity within one magnitude,
1568: $R_{\rm Pet}$ is effectively fixed showing variation less than 0.5 $h^{-1}$kpc
1569: except for early types undergoing mergers.
1570: %Galaxy size seems a relatively
1571: %stable quantity against galaxy interactions and environment.
1572:
1573: \section{Discussion}
1574:
1575: In the previous section various physical parameters of galaxies
1576: are studied as a function of three environmental factors;
1577: the nearest neighbor distance, the nearest neighbor's morphology,
1578: and the large-scale background density.
1579: An important finding was that
1580: the virial radius of the galaxy plus dark halo systems acts as a landmark
1581: where most of the galaxy properties start to be sensitive to both
1582: nearest neighbor's distance and morphology.
1583: If the SF activity of galaxies in pairs, for example, is enhanced due
1584: to the internal mass perturbed by the tidal force of the neighbor, it
1585: will be always enhanced by the galaxy-galaxy interactions.
1586: Contrary to this expectation, the middle panels of Figure 6 and the second
1587: column of Figure 7 show that it can be enhanced or suppressed
1588: depending on neighbor galaxy's morphology unless the background density
1589: is very high. The fact suggests that
1590: it is neighbor galaxy's cold or hot gas that
1591: enhances or suppresses the SF activity, respectively,
1592: %The observation informs us that
1593: %galaxy morphology and SF activity evolve through hydrodynamic interactions
1594: when their separation is less than the virial radius.
1595: On the other hand, the structural parameters changes with $r_p$ in the same
1596: direction independently of neighbor's morphology.
1597: This tells that galaxies also evolve through gravitational effects
1598: as they approach each other.
1599:
1600: Which physical mechanism is responsible for the correlation in
1601: morphology and SF activity between neighboring galaxies?
1602: Why do they suddenly care about neighbor's morphology when
1603: they are closer than the virial radius?
1604: One possible explanation is the primordial origin.
1605: Galaxies close from each other form to have similar morphology and
1606: SF activity since they are located in nearly the same large-scale
1607: environment.
1608: But this scenario can not explain why galaxy properties suddenly start
1609: to change according to the neighbor morphology at the virial radius.
1610: The crossing time of galaxies across the virial radius is of order of
1611: $\sim10^9$yrs, much shorter than the age of the universe.
1612: Even if there existed a primordial correlation among galaxies
1613: in physical properties over the scale of the dark halo virial
1614: radius, such a sharp transition in correlation will be wiped out
1615: due to the infall of new neighbors in the course of time.
1616:
1617: A physical process that can explain such an onset of conformity in morphology
1618: and SF activity at a characteristic separation, is the direct
1619: hydrodynamic interactions between approaching galaxies.
1620: A galaxy plus dark halo system contains hot halo gas and/or cold disk
1621: gas which are confined within the virial radius of the system.
1622: When a late-type galaxy enters within the virial radius of its early-type
1623: neighbor, it will start to experience the hot gas pressure in the
1624: neighbor system's halo.
1625: The physical processes acting in this situation can be ram pressure effects
1626: due to the collision with the hot gas ball of the neighbor.
1627:
1628: The thermal evaporation and viscous stripping of the late type's disk gas during
1629: the passage through the hot halo gas, are less able to account for the
1630: sharp transition because
1631: there is a time-delay for these processes to change galaxy properties
1632: significantly.
1633: Likewise the quenching of SF after a shutoff of cold gas supply
1634: from the halo gas (strangulation) is less likely too because,
1635: even if the galaxy really loses its halo gas,
1636: there will be a significant time delay for the disk gas to be consumed.
1637: %after the galaxy crosses the neighbor's virial radius.
1638: If two galaxies are gravitationally bound, however, they will orbit each
1639: other within the virial radius.
1640: Then intense hydrodynamic interactions can occur repeatly many times or continuously
1641: before they merge, and all above processes can contribute to change
1642: the properties of the orbiting galaxies.
1643: Since they will remain within the virial radius as they orbit,
1644: the onset of correlation in galaxy properties at the virial radius can be
1645: observed.
1646:
1647: According to numerical simulations, interacting galaxies can start to transfer
1648: their mass after they pass the closest approach point even though the actual
1649: results depend critically on the interaction parameters
1650: (Toomre \& Toomre 1972; Mihos \& Hernquist 1994; Wallin \& Stuart 1992).
1651: Then, it is conceivable that an early-type galaxy enters a late-type galaxy's
1652: virial radius, acquires some cold gas with angular momentum enough to form
1653: a disk, and transforms itself to a late type (Park et al. 2008).
1654: This mass transfer may be the reason why a galaxy becomes more likely to
1655: be a late type as it approaches a late-type neighbor galaxy within
1656: the virial radius
1657: even though it tends to be an early type as it approaches the late-type
1658: neighbor outside the virial radius
1659: (see Fig. 3 in section 3 and Fig. 3 of Park et al. 2008).
1660:
1661: In addition to the dependence on the nearest neighbor separation,
1662: galaxy properties also show dependence on the large-scale background density.
1663: The dependence is strong only for morphology and luminosity.
1664: %We have checked by limiting the absolute magnitude of neighbor galaxies
1665: %into a narrow bin that the background density dependence of morphology
1666: %does not rise because of the systematic effect that
1667: %neighbors are brighter in higher density regions.
1668: Very interestingly, the background density dependence of morphology
1669: appears clearly only when a galaxy is located inside the virial radius
1670: of its neighbor. The reverse is true for luminosity;
1671: the background density dependence of luminosity can be seen only when a
1672: galaxy is outside the neighbor's virial radius.
1673: If the background density gives direct impacts on galaxy morphology,
1674: both isolated galaxies and galaxies in pairs should also respect
1675: the background density. But they do not.
1676: %Therefore, the impacts are indirect through the nearest neighbor.
1677:
1678: Let us consider the reason for the relation between the large-scale
1679: density and morphology.
1680: Figure 3 shows that the early-type fraction $f_E$
1681: monotonically increases as $\rho_{20}$ increases
1682: for both early and late-type neighbor cases when $r_p \la r_{\rm vir,nei}$.
1683: The fact that the background density dependence is manifest only when
1684: a galaxy is sitting inside its neighbor's virial radius, rules out
1685: the simple primordial origin scenario like that
1686: the relation is caused by the elliptical galaxies that preferentially
1687: formed in higher density regions.
1688: This is because Figure 3 shows isolated galaxies with $r_p > r_{\rm vir,nei}$
1689: are almost ignorant of the background density.
1690:
1691: One might also consider the effects of other neighbor galaxies,
1692: like the second and third nearest ones, which are monotonically increasing
1693: as the background density increases.
1694: But it again cannot explain why the virial radius of the nearest neighbor
1695: should be the critical boundary for the onset of the background density
1696: dependence.
1697: Then, one would naturally suspect that some of the internal properties of
1698: the nearest neighbor galaxies depend on the background density
1699: in such a way that the strength of the neighbor influence is
1700: different at different background densities.
1701:
1702: Park et al. (2008) proposed that the background density dependence
1703: occurs due to the variation of hot halo gas property of galaxies.
1704: In higher density regions, the halo gas of both early and late-type galaxies
1705: seems on average hotter and denser.
1706: Galaxies with the same morphology, luminosity, and pair separation but,
1707: located in higher density regions are redder and less active than those
1708: in lower density regions (Fig. 7). This may be
1709: because the halo gas is maintained hotter and denser for the galaxies
1710: in higher density regions due to some internal heating mechanisms (like supernovae
1711: and active galactic nuclei)
1712: and external confining material.
1713: %A late-type galaxy with an early-type neighbor
1714: %is redder and less active than a late-type galaxy
1715: %having the same luminosity, $r_p$, and even $\rho_{20}$
1716: %but with a late-type neighbor. This may be because the halo gas
1717: %is relatively hotter and denser for an early-type neighbor
1718: %at given luminosity.
1719:
1720: This suggestion is yet to confirm observationally.
1721: It is well-known that the X-ray luminosities $L_X$ of early types
1722: correlate with optical luminosity $L_B$ (see review by
1723: Mathews \& Brighenti 2003). More luminous
1724: early-type galaxies have larger $L{_X}/L{_B}$,
1725: but with large scatter, than those of low luminosity.
1726: The large scatter in the $L{_X}-L{_B}$ correlation has been
1727: explained in terms of some specific environmental effect
1728: on X-ray emission from galaxies
1729: (Brighenti \& Mathew 1998; Brown \& Bregman 1998;
1730: Brown \& Bregman 2000; Helsdon et al. 2001; O'Sullivan et al. 2001;
1731: Ellis \& O'Sullivan 2006; Jeltema et al. 2008).
1732: Brown \& Bregman (2000) found that
1733: early types in denser environments have larger $L{_X}-L{_B}$
1734: and suggested that the X-ray luminosity is enhanced
1735: through accretion of the intergalactic gas or supression of galactic
1736: winds by the ambient medium, whereas other authors found that
1737: galaxies in regions of high local galaxy density have
1738: lower $L{_X}/L_B$ (White \& Sarazin 1991; Henriksen \& Cousineau 1999).
1739: Helsdon et al. (2001) and Matsushita (2001) suggested
1740: that the result of Brown \& Bregman is thought to be due to the large
1741: fraction of luminous central-dominant group galaxies in the sample
1742: that are enhanced in $L_X$ due to an additional contribution from the
1743: intragroup or circumgalactic hot gas (e.g. group cooling flows)
1744: and isolated and non-central group galaxies show no significant
1745: correlation between $L{_X}/L_B$ and environment.
1746: %This means that there is the correlation between the hot gas of galaxy
1747: %and the background density in a manner.
1748: %the halo gas
1749: %of galaxies is hotter and denser in higher density environment.
1750: %This might have happened because of the higher pressure of the ambient medium
1751: %or slower expansion of space in higher density regions, which can result in
1752: %slower escapes of energetic particles generated within galaxies.
1753: %and can affect the morphology and SF activity of the host and neighbor galaxies
1754: %more strongly.
1755: %Having found the correlation between the hot gas property and the background
1756: %density,
1757: %One can now explain the dependence of $f_E$ on $\rho_{20}$ when
1758: %$r_p \la r_{\rm vir,nei}$.
1759:
1760: Let us now consider the second major finding that more isolated galaxies
1761: are relatively brighter at fixed background density.
1762: It has been interpreted by Park et al. (2008) as evidence for transformation
1763: of galaxy luminosity class through the merger process.
1764: The transformation rate through mergers should be higher in higher background
1765: density regions and the dependence of luminosity on the pair separation
1766: be stronger in high density regions
1767: (but note that we are not resolving massive clusters where
1768: mergers between ordinary galaxies are expected to be difficult to happen).
1769: At a given background density morphology and
1770: luminosity transformations can occur through galaxy interactions and mergers.
1771: And the background density will statistically control the speed of the coupled
1772: evolution of morphology and luminosity.
1773: Considering the definite dependence of morphology and luminosity on
1774: the neighbor distance at the present epoch and high redshifts (Hwang \& Park 2008),
1775: one can draw a conclusion that
1776: these processes are the key galaxy evolution mechanisms in addition to
1777: those like cold gas accretion and internal passive evolution which
1778: happen without resorting to neighboring galaxies.
1779: % (but see Noeske et al. 2007a and 2007b).
1780:
1781: Why is the correlation between luminosity and pair separation strong
1782: only when the pair separation is larger than the virial radius of the neighbor?
1783: It can be explained if recently merged galaxies have $r_p$ larger
1784: than $r_{\rm vir,nei}$ from the new nearest neighbor (i.e. a pair of galaxies
1785: having vanishing $r_p$ merge each other and
1786: jump to large $r_p > r_{\rm vir,nei}$ after merger).
1787: This is possible because a pair of galaxies would merge more easily
1788: if they are located outside the virial radius of another larger galaxy.
1789: Park et al. (2008) found, in a search for evidence for this interpretation,
1790: that at fixed background density the isolated
1791: galaxies with $r_p > r_{\rm vir,nei}$ show the post-merger features
1792: more frequently than those with $r_p < r_{\rm vir,nei}$,
1793: particularly in high density regions. Therefore, among the galaxies
1794: located at the same background density, more-isolated ones are
1795: more likely to be recent merger products than less-isolated ones
1796: and are likely to be brighter.
1797: This does not mean isolated galaxies in general have experienced
1798: recent merger events. Isolated galaxies are preferentially located
1799: in low density regions where the merger rate is low, are on average
1800: expected to be passively evolving with less environmental influence.
1801: Those who want to analyze passively evolving galaxies must sample
1802: isolated galaxies located in low density regions only.
1803:
1804: Our third major finding is that, once morphology and luminosity are fixed,
1805: the remaining properties of galaxies are quite insensitive to the background
1806: density, particularly when $r_p > r_{\rm vir,nei}$.
1807: One noticeable exception is color. The color of late-type galaxies
1808: shows a weak residual dependence on the background density above the mean
1809: density even if both morphology and luminosity are fixed and even when
1810: they are isolated.
1811: If galaxies maintain hotter and denser halo gas in higher density regions
1812: as we propose, it is possible for the SF activity of galaxies to drop
1813: for a sufficiently long time and for galaxy color to become redder
1814: relative to those in lower density regions. Enhancement of SF activity
1815: by late-type neighbor galaxies occurs at smaller neighbor separations
1816: as the background density increases (see the E-l and L-l cases of the
1817: $W(H\alpha)$ parameter in Fig. 7).
1818: This observation can be also understood by the background
1819: density-dependent halo gas properties or
1820: mass transfer efficiency.
1821:
1822: An interesting question regarding galaxy color is which is more
1823: fundamental physical property of galaxies between morphology and color.
1824: One way to address this question is whether or not galaxy morphology
1825: shows any dependence on environment beyond its correlation to color
1826: (Ball, Loveday \& Brunner 2008; van den Bergh 2007).
1827: To answer this question we selected two local density subsets
1828: containing galaxies with $-19.5>M_r>-20.0$ and $2.6<u-r<3.0$
1829: located at the background densities $\rho_{20}<{\bar\rho}$
1830: (low-density subset) or $\rho_{20}>20{\bar\rho}$ (high-density
1831: subset). Since we fixed both luminosity and color, the stellar
1832: mass of galaxies is effectively fixed (Yang et al. 2007).
1833: The fraction of early types in the low-density subset is found
1834: to be $0.76\pm 0.04$, but that in the high-density subset is
1835: $0.90\pm 0.04$. Therefore, the morphology-density relation
1836: becomes much weaker when we severely limit both luminosity and
1837: color. But there is still some residual dependence of
1838: galaxy morphology on the background density.
1839: This demonstrates morphology contains independent information on the
1840: environmental dependence of galaxies that color does not have.
1841:
1842: According to the tidal interaction theory the energy deposit in a galaxy
1843: is inversely proportional to the square of the
1844: velocity difference between the interacting pairs (Binney \& Tremaine 1987).
1845: Several previous works have reported a detection of such inverse
1846: correlation between the strength of interaction effects and the velocity
1847: difference between pairs (Barton et al. 2000; Lambas et al. 2003;
1848: Nikolic et al. 2004; Alonso et al. 2006; Woods et al. 2006).
1849: We also find results consistent with the tidal picture from our accurate
1850: morphology subsamples as shown in Figure 8;
1851: the L-l galaxies, having smaller velocity difference than the L-e galaxies
1852: (see Fig. 2),
1853: show more variation in $c_{\rm in}$ and $\sigma$
1854: with the neighbor separation than the L-e galaxies.
1855:
1856: To address this issue directly we divided the sample of the L-l galaxies
1857: into three subsets according to the velocity difference with neighbors
1858: $\Delta v$, and
1859: measured the equivalent width of the $H\alpha$ line as a
1860: measure of the SF activity, and the central velocity dispersion as a
1861: measure of galaxy structure, as a function of the neighbor separation
1862: for each subset. Figure 10 shows the median relations and 68\% ranges
1863: for these parameters.
1864: The solid line is for the subset with $\Delta v <70$ km s$^{-1}$,
1865: the dashed line for 70 km s$^{-1} \le \Delta v < 120$ km s$^{-1}$,
1866: and the dotted line for 120 km s$^{-1} \le \Delta v < 400$ km s$^{-1}$.
1867: Due to the small size of each subset the errors are large, but one can
1868: still clearly see the relation is more sensitive to the neighbor separation
1869: for pairs with smaller velocity difference.
1870:
1871: Our result can be compared with those of Lambas et al. (2003) and
1872: Alonso et al. (2006) who reported that the onset of interaction-induced
1873: SF is seen for $\Delta v \la 350$ km s$^{-1}$. Nikolic et al. (2004)
1874: reported the onset even when $\Delta v <900$ km s$^{-1}$.
1875: We find no significant enhancement for pairs with $\Delta v \ge 120$ km s$^{-1}$,
1876: only a small enhancement for those with $70\le \Delta v <120$
1877: km s$^{-1}$, and a significant enhancement for $\Delta v <70$ km s$^{-1}$.
1878: Figure 2 implies that the average morphology of galaxies
1879: with small $\Delta v$ is more likely to be late type
1880: and the fraction of early types will increase as $\Delta v$ increases
1881: until it reaches the field fraction.
1882: So the average SF activity can appear to be higher for pairs with
1883: smaller $\Delta v$ not because of the interaction effects but because of
1884: higher fraction of late-type galaxies.
1885: Most of the previous works did not carefully distinguish among different
1886: morphological types of galaxies in pairs.
1887: Therefore, it is likely that the results of the previous works are
1888: contaminated by the average morphology variation with $\Delta v$
1889: in addition to the genuine effects of interaction.
1890: %Once we fix the morphology of the target and neighbor galaxies,
1891: %we can inspect the pure effects of interaction on the SF activity
1892: %for samples of pairs with different $\Delta v$'s.
1893:
1894: The dependence on $\Delta v$
1895: is less strong for $\sigma$, but still shows up at the smallest
1896: separation bin. However, it is not clear whether or not the increase of
1897: $\sigma$ is entirely due to the matter perturbation within galaxies or
1898: due to the additional contribution by the mass flow from the neighbor.
1899:
1900: To check if our findings are robust against our choice of neighbor selection
1901: parameters, we redid our analyses using a sample of galaxies that are constrained to
1902: have neighbors brighter than themselves (i.e. the limiting magnitude difference
1903: $\Delta M_r=0$ instead of 0.5). It was found that our findings remain true for these
1904: galaxy pairs.
1905: %In addition, we also found
1906: %that the fainter companion in a pair of galaxies is more affected
1907: %by interactions. All SF and structure parameters show more variations
1908: %with $r_p$ for the fainter ones. However, in the case of luminosity
1909: %more variation with $r_p$ is found for the brighter ones.
1910: %This can be just a statistical effect.
1911: %Suppose a pair of galaxies is drawn from a set of galaxies with a magnitude
1912: %range of $\Delta M$. If another pair are drawn from the same set but with
1913: %the magnitude range stretched to $2\Delta M$,
1914: %there will be on average more magnitude difference between
1915: %the brighter galaxies than between the fainter ones.
1916:
1917: \begin{figure}
1918: \epsscale{1.}
1919: \plotone{fig10.eps}
1920: \caption{The equivalent width of the $H\alpha$ line (top) and the central
1921: velocity dispersion (bottom) of the L-l galaxies as a function of the neighbor
1922: separation. The L-l galaxy subset is divided into three pairwise radial velocity
1923: difference subsets; (solid) $\Delta v < 70$km s$^{-1}$,
1924: (dashed) 70 km s$^{-1} \le \Delta v < 120$ km s$^{-1}$,
1925: (dotted) 120 km s$^{-1} \le \Delta v < 400$ km s$^{-1}$.}
1926: \end{figure}
1927:
1928:
1929: %
1930: %(color)
1931: %The early-type galaxies having a late-type neighbor in the left panels of Figure 6
1932: %are those who have not suffered from such strong influence through cold gas transfer
1933: %from their neighbors.
1934: %On the other hand, some of the late types with late-type neighbors in the right
1935: %panel of Figure 6 may be galaxies whose morphology was originally early type
1936: %but transformed to late type.
1937: %
1938: %(W(Ha))
1939: %Therefore, the large-scale density dependence of the SF activity in the early-type
1940: %target galaxies seems to be directly related with neighbor's morphological properties.
1941: %This is considered due to the effects of early-type neighbors
1942: %whose halo gas properties depend on $\rho_{20}$.
1943: %
1944:
1945: %
1946: %The $r_p$ dependence of this color property variation in the L-e galaxies
1947: %seems to be due to the hot halo gas of early-type neighbor galaxies.
1948: %From this observation one can predict that the quenching of SF activity
1949: %in the cluster spirals may not be all due to the intracluster medium and that
1950: %some of the late types have been quenched by the halo gas of massive early-type
1951: %neighbors. Which one between the intergalactic medium and the hot halo gas
1952: %of neighboring early-type galaxies is more important in quenching
1953: %the SF in late types should be a function of the background density and
1954: %the neighbor separation.
1955: %The first must be more important near the center of clusters while the second
1956: %can be the cause in most places in the universe outside clusters.
1957: %
1958: %
1959: %We argue that this is a result of galaxy mergers whose frequency
1960: %depends statistically on the background density.
1961: %
1962:
1963: %
1964: %The direct cause of change in galaxy color and SF activity
1965: %during interaction seems to be due to the hydrodynamic interaction with their neighbor
1966: %rather than due to the tidally perturbed material inside the galaxy itself.
1967: %Our study of $u-r$ color and $W(H\alpha)$ parameters strongly supports
1968: %this scenario.
1969: %If the perturbed material inside a galaxy is driving the change, the galaxies
1970: %with the same morphology
1971: %must show the same kind of change in SF activity for the interactions with
1972: % neighboring galaxies having different morphological types.
1973: %
1974: %[D]
1975: %In many cases such residual dependence on $\rho_{20}$ seems to
1976: %suppressing the star formation in the galaxy.
1977: %
1978: %[D]
1979: %Galaxy luminosity was found to depend on $\rho_{20}$
1980: %strongly only when $r_{p} \ga r_{\rm vir,nei}$.
1981: %At fixed large-scale background density $\rho_{20}$ galaxies are brighter as they
1982: % are more isolated, and at fixed neighbor separation $r_{p} \ga r_{\rm vir,nei}$
1983: %one finds brighter galaxies in higher density regions.
1984: %But at $r_{p} < r_{\rm vir,nei}$, galaxy luminosity is relatively
1985: %independent of $\rho_{20}$.
1986: %Park et al. (2008) interpreted this as a result of galaxy mergers.
1987: %The separation of a recent merger product to its nearest neighbor will be
1988: %statistically larger than that of average galaxies under the same
1989: %large-scale environment because its nearest one is now the formerly second
1990: %nearest neighbor.
1991: %
1992: %The large-scale density dependence of morphology is strong at
1993: %pair separations less than the virial radius of the nearest neighbor galaxy,
1994: %which can be again attributed to
1995: %the difference in confinement of hot halo gas in galaxies by the ambient medium.
1996:
1997:
1998: \section{Conclusions}
1999:
2000: We have inspected the dependence of eight physical parameters of galaxies
2001: on the small-scale (the nearest neighbor distance, the nearest neighbor's
2002: morphology) and the large-scale (background density smoothed over
2003: 20 nearest galaxies with $M_r < -19.0$) environments.
2004: We have also studied the kinematic properties of the galaxies in pairs.
2005: We found the impact of interaction on galaxy properties are detectable at least
2006: out to the pair separation corresponding to the virial radius
2007: of (the neighbor) galaxies in our sample, which is mostly between
2008: 200 and 400 $h^{-1}$ kpc.
2009: It was crucial to divide galaxy interactions into four cases depending on
2010: morphology of target and neighbor galaxies in order to detect these long-range
2011: interaction effects.
2012:
2013: Our major results are as follows.
2014:
2015: 1. There are two characteristic pair-separation scales where the
2016: breaks in the dependence of galaxy properties on $r_p$ are observed.
2017: The first scale is the virial radius of the nearest neighbor galaxy $r_{\rm vir,nei}$.
2018: All parameters studied, except for $R_{\rm Pet}$,
2019: start to deviate from those of extremely isolated galaxies at
2020: $r_{p} \sim r_{\rm vir,nei}$ in the case of late-type galaxies, in particular.
2021: The second scale is the merger scale which is about $0.05 r_{\rm vir,nei}$.
2022: This corresponds to $10 - 20h^{-1}$ kpc for the galaxies in our sample.
2023:
2024: 2. The SF activity of galaxies is enhanced when the nearest neighbor is
2025: a late type, but reduced when the neighbor is an early type.
2026: These effects occur within the virial radius of the neighbor galaxy.
2027: These are strong evidence for hydrodynamic interactions
2028: within the virial radius of the galaxy plus dark halo system during encounters.
2029: %The HI gas is weakly bound by the galaxy's gravitational potential well, and
2030: %can be easily removed (Boselli, \& Gavazzi 2006).
2031:
2032: 3. The dependence of galaxy properties on $\rho_{20}$ is strong
2033: only for luminosity (Fig. 5) and morphology (Fig. 3).
2034: All other parameters show weak or negligible dependence on $\rho_{20}$
2035: once luminosity and morphology are fixed.
2036: We have inspected the small subtle dependence on $\rho_{20}$ whenever detectable.
2037: For example, the $u-r$ color of late-type galaxies has a weak residual dependence
2038: on $\rho_{20}$ at fixed $r_p$.
2039: We suggest that galaxies in higher density environment maintain
2040: hotter and denser halo gas due to some internal heating mechanisms
2041: and external confining material, which can be the reason for the large-scale
2042: density dependence of morphology and SF activity parameters.
2043:
2044: 4. At fixed large-scale background density, galaxies with larger pair
2045: separations have higher luminosity.
2046: Such dependence exists mainly at
2047: the nearest neighbor distance larger than the virial radius of the neighbor.
2048: This is interpreted as evidence for the on-going process of luminosity
2049: transformation through mergers.
2050:
2051:
2052: %As $r_{p}$ decreases below $r_{\rm vir,nei}$, the $u-r$ color and SF activity
2053: %slowly change in the direction determined by the morphology of the nearest neighbor
2054: %and the difference between the early- and late-type neighbor cases becomes larger.
2055: %When $r_{p} \la 0.05 r_{\rm vir,nei}$, they start to diverge.
2056: %The concentration and size of early-type galaxies have large dispersions,
2057: %and the concentration and central velocity dispersion of late-type galaxies
2058: %rise steeply at this merger scale.
2059:
2060: %For the parameters, $u-r$, $W(H\alpha)$, $\Delta(g-i)$, $c_{\rm in}$ and $\sigma$,
2061: %we found that the impacts of interaction are larger for late-type galaxies.
2062: %In particular,
2063: %5. The structural parameters $c_{\rm in}$, and $\sigma$, in particular,
2064: %showed the highest sensitivity to the neighbor separation when a late-type
2065: %galaxy encounters a late-type neighbor.
2066: %Since the velocity difference between a galaxy and its neighbor is lowest for
2067: %late-late pairs, according to the tidal theory,
2068: %they are expected to show the highest response to the interaction.
2069: %Therefore, our finding that the impacts of a galaxy-galaxy interaction depends
2070: %on the morphology of the target and neighbor galaxy,
2071: %This finding supports that the driving force of galaxy evolution
2072: %during galactic encounter is the tidal force.
2073:
2074: In a forthcoming paper (Park \& Hwang 2008)
2075: we will examine the dependence of the SDSS galaxies associated with the
2076: Abell clusters on the nearest neighbor separation and the clustercentric radius.
2077: The latter is the large-scale environmental parameter replacing $\rho_{20}$ here.
2078: This work will extend the present work to the extreme situation where
2079: the large-scale background density itself exceeds the virialized density.
2080: We are also studying the effects of the nearest neighbor on galaxy properties
2081: using higher redshift samples like the GOODS and DEEP2 samples (Hwang \&
2082: Park 2008) to understand galaxy evolution due to galaxy-galaxy interactions
2083: in the high redshift universe.
2084:
2085: \acknowledgments
2086: The authors acknowledge the support of the Korea Science and Engineering
2087: Foundation (KOSEF) through the Astrophysical Research Center for the
2088: Structure and Evolution of the Cosmos (ARCSEC).
2089: % and through the grant R01-2004-000-10520-0.
2090: %JRG is supported by NSF GRANT AST 04-06713.
2091:
2092: Funding for the SDSS and SDSS-II has been provided by the Alfred P. Sloan
2093: Foundation, the Participating Institutions, the National Science
2094: Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy, the National Aeronautics and
2095: Space Administration, the Japanese Monbukagakusho, the Max Planck
2096: Society, and the Higher Education Funding Council for England.
2097: The SDSS Web Site is http://www.sdss.org/.
2098:
2099: The SDSS is managed by the Astrophysical Research Consortium for the
2100: Participating Institutions. The Participating Institutions are the
2101: American Museum of Natural History, Astrophysical Institute Potsdam,
2102: University of Basel, Cambridge University, Case Western Reserve University,
2103: University of Chicago, Drexel University, Fermilab, the Institute for
2104: Advanced Study, the Japan Participation Group, Johns Hopkins University,
2105: the Joint Institute for Nuclear Astrophysics, the Kavli Institute for
2106: Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology, the Korean Scientist Group, the
2107: Chinese Academy of Sciences (LAMOST), Los Alamos National Laboratory,
2108: the Max-Planck-Institute for Astronomy (MPIA), the Max-Planck-Institute
2109: for Astrophysics (MPA), New Mexico State University, Ohio State University,
2110: University of Pittsburgh, University of Portsmouth, Princeton University,
2111: the United States Naval Observatory, and the University of Washington.
2112:
2113: \begin{thebibliography}{}
2114: \bibitem[],{} Adelman-McCarthy, J.~K., et~al. 2007, \apjs, 172, 634
2115: \bibitem[],{} Adami, C., Durret, F., Mazure, A., et al. 2007, A\&A, 462, 411
2116: \bibitem[],{} Allam, S.~S. et~al. 2004, \aj, 127, 1883
2117: \bibitem[],{} Allen P. D., Driver S. P., Graham A.W., Cameron E., Liske,
2118: J., de Propris R., 2006, \mnras, 371, 2
2119: \bibitem[],{} Alonso, M.~S., Lambas, D.~G., Patricia, T. \& Coldwell, G. 2006,
2120: \mnras, 367, 1029
2121: \bibitem[],{} Anderson, S.~F., et al. 2003, \aj, 126, 2209
2122: %\bibitem[],{} Baldry, I.~K., Balogh, M.~L., Bower, R.~G., Glazebrook, K.,
2123: % Nichol, R.~C., Bamford, S. P., \& Budavari, T. 2006 \mnras, 373, 469
2124: \bibitem[],{} Ball, N.~M., Loveday, J, \& Brunner, R.~J. 2008, \mnras, 383, 907
2125: \bibitem[],{} Balogh, M.~L., Baldry, I.~K., Nichol, R., Miller, C.,
2126: Bower, R., Glazebrook, K. 2004a, ApJ, 615L, 101
2127: \bibitem[],{} Balogh, M.~L., et~al. 2004b, MNRAS, 348, 1355
2128: \bibitem[],{} Bamford, S.~P. et~al. 2008, \mnras, submitted (arXiv:0805.2612)
2129: \bibitem[],{} Barnes, J.~E., \& Hernquist, L. 1996, \apj, 471, 115
2130: \bibitem[],{} Barton, E,~J., Geller, M.~J., \& Kenyon, S.~J. 2000, \apj, 530,
2131: 660
2132: \bibitem[],{} Barton, E,~J., Geller, M.~J., \& Kenyon, S.~J. 2003, \apj, 582,
2133: 668
2134: \bibitem[],{} Barton, E.~J., Arnold, J.~A., Zentner, A.~R., Bullock, J.~S., \&
2135: Wechsler, R.~H. 2007, \apj, 671, 1538
2136: \bibitem[],{} Bell, E.~F., et al. 2006, \apj, 640, 241
2137: \bibitem[],{} Bergvall, N., Laurikainen, E., \& Aalto, S. 2003, A\&A, 405, 31
2138: \bibitem[],{} Binney, J., \& Tremaine, S. 1987, Galactic Dynamics (Princeton:
2139: Princeton University Press), 438
2140: \bibitem[],{} Blanton, M.~R., et al., 2001, \apj, 121, 2358
2141: \bibitem[],{} Blanton, M.~R., Eisenstein, D., Hogg, D.~W., Schlegel, D.~J.,
2142: \& Brinkmann, J. 2005a, \aj, 629, 143
2143: \bibitem[],{} Blanton, M. R., et al. 2003, \aj, 125, 2348 % K-correction
2144: \bibitem[],{} Blanton, M.~R., et~al. 2005b, \apj, 129, 2562 % vagc
2145: %\bibitem[],{} Blanton, M.~R., \& Andreas, A.~B. 2007, \apj, 664, 791
2146: \bibitem[],{} Boselli, A., \& Gavazzi, G. 2006, \pasp, 118, 517
2147: \bibitem[],{} Brighenti, F., \& Mathews, W. G. 1998, \apj, 495, 239
2148: \bibitem[],{} Brown B. A., Bregman J. N., 2000, \apj, 539, 592
2149: \bibitem[],{} Brown B. A., Bregman J. N., 1998, \apj, 495, L752
2150: \bibitem[],{} Bushouse, H.~A., Werner, M.~W., \& Lamb, S.~A. 1988, \apj, 335, 74
2151: \bibitem[],{} Choi, Y.-Y., Park, C., \& Vogeley, M.~S. 2007, \apj, 658, 884
2152: \bibitem[],{} Conroy, C., et al. 2007, \apj, 654, 153
2153: \bibitem[],{} Cooper, M.~C., Newman, J.~A.,Weiner, B.~J., et~al. 2007,
2154: \mnras, 376, 1445
2155: \bibitem[],{} Cooper, M.~C., et al. 2008, \mnras, 383, 1058
2156: \bibitem[],{} Croton, D. J., et~al. 2005, \mnras, 356, 1155 % 2dFGRS
2157: \bibitem[],{} Croton, D. J., \& Farrar, G. R., 2008, \mnras.386, 2285
2158: \bibitem[],{} Coziol, R., \& Plauchu-Frayn, I. 2007, \aj, 133, 2630
2159: \bibitem[],{} Cucciati, O., Iovino, A., Marinoni, C., et al. 2006,
2160: A\&A, 458, 39
2161: \bibitem[],{} de Propris, R, Liske, J., Driver, S.~P., Allen, P.~D., \&
2162: Cross, N.~J.~G. 2005, \aj, 130, 1516
2163: \bibitem[],{} Di Matteo, Combes, F, Melchior, A.-L., \& Semelin, B. 2007, A\&A,
2164: 468, 61
2165: \bibitem[],{} D'Onghia, E., Sommer-Larsen, J., Romeo, A. D., et al. 2005, \apj, 630, L109
2166: \bibitem[],{} Elbaz, D., et al. 2007, A\&A, 468, 33
2167: \bibitem[],{} Ellis, S.~C., \& O'Sullivan, E. 2006, \mnras, 367, 627
2168: \bibitem[],{} Ellison, S.~L., Patton, D.~R., Simard, L., \& McConnachie, A.~W.
2169: 2008, \aj, 135, 1877
2170: \bibitem[],{} Evrard, A.~E., et al. 2008, \apj, 672, 122
2171: \bibitem[],{} Faber, S.~M., \& Jackson, R.~E. 1976, \apj, 204, 668
2172: \bibitem[],{} Geller, M.~J., Kenyon, S.~ J., Barton, E.~J., Jarrett, T.~H.
2173: \& Kewley, L.~J. 2006, \aj, 132, 2243
2174: \bibitem[],{} Gomez, P.~L., et~al. 2003, \apj, 584, 210
2175: \bibitem[],{} Goto, T., et~al. 2003, \mnras, 346, 601
2176: \bibitem[],{} Gott, J.~R., \& Thuan, T.~X. 1976, \apj, 204, 649
2177: \bibitem[],{} Graham, A.~W. 2005, \aj, 130, 1535
2178: \bibitem[],{} Helsdon S. F., Ponman T. J., O'Sullivan E., Forbes D. A. 2001,
2179: \mnras, 325, 693
2180: \bibitem[],{} Henriksen, M., \& Cousineau, S. 1999, \apj, 511, 595
2181: \bibitem[],{} Hernandez-Toledo, H~.M., Avila-Reese, V., Conselice, C.~J. \&
2182: Puerari, I. 2005, \aj, 129, 682
2183: \bibitem[],{} Hernquist L., 1992, \apj, 400, 460
2184: \bibitem[],{} Hernquist L., 1993, \apj, 409, 548
2185: \bibitem[],{} Hogg, D.~W., et al. 2003, \apj, 585, L5
2186: \bibitem[],{} Hwang, H.~S., \& Park, C. 2008, in preparation
2187: \bibitem[],{} Jeltema, T.~E., Binder, B., \& Mulchaey, J.~S. 2008, \apj, 679, 1162
2188: \bibitem[],{} Jones, L. R., Ponman, T. J., Horton, A., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 343, 627
2189: \bibitem[],{} Kacprzak, G.~G., Churchill, C.~W., Steidel, C.~C., Murphy,
2190: M.~T., \& Evans, J.~L. 2007, \apj, 662, 909
2191: \bibitem[],{} Kauffmann, G., White, S.~D.~M., Heckman, T.~M., Menard, B.,
2192: Brinchmann, J., Charlot, S., Tremonti, C., \& Brinkmann, J. 2004, \mnras, 353, 713
2193: \bibitem[],{} Kennicutt, R.~C., \& Keel, W.~C. 1984, \apj, 279, 5
2194: \bibitem[],{} Kennicutt, R.~C., Roettiger, K.~A., Keel, W.~C.,
2195: van der Hulst, J.~M., \& Hummel, E. 1987 \aj, 93, 1011
2196: \bibitem[],{} Lambas, D.~G., Patricia, T., Alonso, M.~S.,
2197: \& Coldwell, G. 2003, \mnras, 346, 1189
2198: \bibitem[],{} Larson, R.~B., \& Tinsley, B.~M. 1978, \apj, 219, 46L
2199: \bibitem[],{} Li, G., Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T.~M., Jing, Y.~P.,
2200: \& White, S.~D.~M. 2008, \mnras, 385, 190
2201: %\bibitem[],{} Lin, L., et~al. 2008, \apj, accepted (arXiv:0802.3004)
2202: \bibitem[],{} Maller, A.~H., Katz, N., Keres, D., Dave, R, \&
2203: Weinberg, D.~H. 2006, \apj, 647, 763
2204: \bibitem[],{} Mathews, W. G., \& Brighenti, F. 2003, \araa, 41, 191
2205: \bibitem[],{} Matsushita K., 2001, ApJ, 547, 693
2206: \bibitem[],{} Mendes de Oliveira, C., Cypriano, E. S., \& Sodr Jr., L. 2006, \aj, 131, 158
2207: \bibitem[].{} Mihos, J.~C., \& Hernquist, L. 1996, \apj, 464, 641
2208: \bibitem[],{} Naab, T., \& Burkert, A. 2003, \apj, 597, 893
2209: %\bibitem[],{} Noeske, K. G. et al. 2007a, \apj, 660, 43
2210: %\bibitem[],{} Noeske, K. G. et al. 2007b, \apj, 660, 47
2211: \bibitem[],{} Nikolic, B., Cullen, H., \& Alexander, P. 2004, \mnras, 355, 874
2212: \bibitem[],{} O'Sullivan, E., Forbes, D. A., \& Ponman T, J. 2001, \mnras, 328, 461
2213: \bibitem[],{} Park, C., \& Choi, Y.-Y. 2005, \apj, 635, L29
2214: \bibitem[],{} Park, C., Choi, Y.-Y., Vogeley, M.~S., Gott, J.~R., \& Blanton, M.~R. 2007, \apj, 658, 898
2215: \bibitem[],{} Park, C., Gott, J.~R. \& Choi, Y.-Y. 2008, \apj, 674, 784
2216: \bibitem[],{} Park, C., \& Hwang, H.~S. 2008, in preparation
2217: \bibitem[],{} Patton, D.~R., Pritchet, C.~J., Yee, H.~K.~C.,
2218: Ellingson, E., \& Carlberg, R.~G. 1997, \apj, 475, 29
2219: \bibitem[],{} Patton, D.~R. et al. 2005, \aj, 130, 2043
2220: \bibitem[],{} Perez, M.~J., Tissera, P.~B., Scannapieco, C., Lambas, D.~G., \&
2221: de Rossi, M.~E. 2006, A\&A, 459, 361
2222: \bibitem[],{} Perez, M.~J., Tissera, P.~B., Lambas, D~.G.,
2223: \& Scannapieco, C. 2006, A\&A, 449, 23.
2224: \bibitem[],{} Petrosian, V. 1976, \apj, 209, L1
2225: \bibitem[],{} Poggianti, B.~M., et~al. 2008, \apj, accepted (arXiv:0805.1145)
2226: \bibitem[],{} Quintero, A.~D., Berlind, A.~A., Blanton, M.~R., \&
2227: Hogg, D.~W. 2006, \apj, submitted (arXiv:astro-ph/0611361)
2228: \bibitem[],{} Robertson, B. et al. 2006, \apj, 645, 896
2229: \bibitem[],{} Sanchez, S. F., \& Gonzalez-Serrano, J. I. 2003, A\&A, 406, 435
2230: \bibitem[],{} Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P., \& Davis, M. 1998, \apj, 500, 525
2231: \bibitem[],{} Smith, B.~J. et al. 2007, \aj, 133, 791
2232: \bibitem[],{} Stoughton, C., et al. 2002, \aj, 123, 485
2233: \bibitem[],{} Tanaka, M., et al. 2004, \aj, 128, 2677
2234: \bibitem[],{} Tegmark, M., et al. 2004, \apj, 606,702
2235: \bibitem[],{} Tissera, P.~B., Dominguez-Tenreiro, R., Scannapieco, C.,
2236: \& Saiz, A. 2002, \mnras, 333, 327
2237: \bibitem[],{} Toomre, A., \& Toomre, J. 1972, \apj, 178, 623
2238: \bibitem[],{} Tran, K-v. H., et~al. 2005, \apj, 627, L25
2239: \bibitem[],{} Tully, R.~B., \& Fisher, J.~R. 1977, A\&A, 54, 661
2240: \bibitem[],{} Ulmer, M. P., Adami, C., Covone, G., et al. 2005, ApJ, 624, 124
2241: \bibitem[],{} van den Bergh, S. 2007, \aj, 134, 1508
2242: \bibitem[],{} van der Wel, A., 2008, \apj, 675, 13
2243: \bibitem[],{} van Dokkum, P.~G., 2005, \aj, 130, 2647
2244: \bibitem[],{} Voges, W., et al. 1999, \aap, 349, 389
2245: \bibitem[],{} von Benda-Beckmann, A.~M. et al. 2008, \mnras, 386, 2345
2246: \bibitem[],{} Weinmann, S.~M., van den Bosch, F.~C., Yang, X., \& Mo, H.~J.
2247: 2006, \mnras, 366, 2
2248: \bibitem[],{} White, R. E., III, \& Sarazin, C. L. 1991, \apj, 367, 476
2249: \bibitem[],{} Woods, D.~F., \& Geller, M.~J. 2007, \aj, 134, 527
2250: \bibitem[],{} Woods, D.~F., Geller, M.~J., \& Barton, E.~J. 2006, \aj, 132, 197
2251: \bibitem[],{} Yang, X., Mo, H.~J., van den Bosch, F.~C., Pasquali, A., Li, C., \&
2252: Bardeen, M. 2007, \apj, 671, 153
2253: \bibitem[],{} Yee, H.~K.~C., \& Ellingson, E. 1995, \apj, 445, 37
2254: \bibitem[],{} York, D., et~al. 2000, \aj, 120, 1579
2255: \end{thebibliography}{}
2256: \end{document}
2257:
2258: