1: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: \documentclass{emulateapj}
3: \usepackage{lscape}
4:
5: \newcommand{\lya}{Ly$\alpha$}
6: \newcommand{\unitcgssb} {ergs\,s$^{-1}$\,cm$^{-2}$\,arcsec$^{-2}$}
7: \newcommand{\unitcgsflux}{ergs\,s$^{-1}$\,cm$^{-2}$}
8: \newcommand{\unitcgslum} {ergs\,s$^{-1}$}
9: \newcommand{\hh} {$h_{70}$}
10: \newcommand{\hhc} {$h_{70}^3$}
11: \newcommand{\hv} {$h_{70}^{-1}$}
12: \newcommand{\hvc} {$h_{70}^{-3}$}
13: \newcommand{\nb} {{\sl NB}}
14: \newcommand{\bw} {{\sl B}$_{\rm W}$}
15: \newcommand{\CIV} {\hbox{{\rm C}\kern 0.1em{\sc iv}}}
16: \newcommand{\hard} {2$-$7\,keV}
17: \newcommand{\soft} {0.5$-$2\,keV}
18:
19: \newcommand\fion[2]{#1$\;${\scshape{#2}}}
20:
21:
22:
23: %\slugcomment{Submitted to ApJ.}
24: \slugcomment{Accepted in ApJ.}
25:
26: \shorttitle{Environment of Ly$\alpha$ Blobs}
27: \shortauthors{Yang et al.}
28:
29: \begin{document}
30:
31: \title{Extended L\lowercase{y$\alpha$} Nebulae at \lowercase{$z \simeq 2.3$}: \\
32: An Extremely Rare and Strongly Clustered Population?\,\altaffilmark{1}}
33:
34: \author{Yujin Yang, Ann Zabludoff, Christy Tremonti\altaffilmark{2},
35: Daniel Eisenstein, Romeel Dav\'e}
36:
37: %\author{Yujin Yang, Ann Zabludoff, Romeel Dav\'e, Daniel Eisenstein,
38: %Christy Tremonti\altaffilmark{1} (needs order sorting)}
39:
40: \affil{Steward Observatory, University of Arizona, 933 North Cherry
41: Avenue, Tucson AZ 85721}
42: %\email{yyang, azabludoff, tremonti, eisenste, rad @as.arizona.edu}
43: \email{yyang@as.arizona.edu}
44:
45: \altaffiltext{1}{Observations reported here were obtained at the MMT
46: Observatory, a joint facility of the University of Arizona and the
47: Smithsonian Institution.}
48:
49: \altaffiltext{2}{Hubble Fellow, current address: Max-Planck-Institut
50: f\"ur Astronomie, Heidelberg, Germany}
51:
52: \begin{abstract}
53:
54: %The number density, environment, and multi-wavelength properties of
55: %extended \lya\ nebulae, the so-called ``\lya\ blobs'', are poorly
56: %understood because most blobs were discovered by targeting a known
57: %over-dense region.
58:
59: To obtain an unbiased sample of bright \lya\ blobs ($L_{\rm{Ly\alpha}}$
60: $\gtrsim$ $10^{43\,}$\unitcgslum), we have undertaken a blind, wide-field,
61: narrow-band imaging survey in the NOAO Deep Wide Field Survey Bo\"otes
62: field with the Steward Bok-2.3m telescope. After searching over 4.82
63: deg$^2$ at $z=2.3$, we discover four \lya\ blobs with $L_{\rm{Ly\alpha}}$
64: = 1.6 -- 5.3 $\times10^{43}$ \unitcgslum, isophotal areas of 28 --
65: 57\,\sq\arcsec, and broad \lya\ line profiles ($\Delta v$ = 900 --
66: 1250 km s$^{-1}$).
67: %
68: In contrast with the extended \lya\ halos associated with high-$z$ radio
69: galaxies, none of our four blobs are radio-loud. The X-ray luminosities
70: and optical spectra of these blobs are diverse. Two blobs (3 and 4) are
71: X-ray-detected with $L_X$(2$-$7 keV) = 2--4 $\times10^{44\,}$ \unitcgslum\
72: and have broad optical emission lines (\ion{C}{4}) characteristic of AGN,
73: implying that 50\% of our sample blobs are associated with strong AGN.
74: The other 50\% of blobs (1 and 2) are not X-ray or optically-detected
75: as AGN down to similar limits.
76: %
77: The number density of the four blobs is $\sim$ 3 $\times$ 10$^{-6}$
78: \hhc\, Mpc$^{-3}$, comparable to that of galaxy clusters at similar
79: redshifts and $3\times$ lower than that found in the SSA22 proto-cluster
80: at $z=3.1$, even after accounting for the over-density of that region.
81: The two X-ray undetected blobs are separated by only 70\arcsec\ (550
82: kpc) and have almost identical redshifts ($\lesssim 360$ kpc along
83: the line-of-sight), suggesting that they are part of the same system.
84: Given the rarity of the blobs and our discovery of a close pair, we
85: speculate that blobs occupy the highest density regions and thus may be
86: precursors of today's rich cluster galaxies.
87:
88:
89: %%% The number density, environment, and multi-wavelength properties of
90: %%% extended \lya\ nebulae, the so-called ``\lya\ blobs'', are poorly
91: %%% understood because most blobs were discovered by targeting a known
92: %%% over-dense region. To obtain an unbiased sample of bright \lya\ blobs
93: %%% ($L_{\rm{Ly\alpha}}$ $\gtrsim$ $10^{43\,}$\unitcgslum), we have undertaken
94: %%% a blind, wide-field, narrow-band imaging survey in the NOAO Deep Wide
95: %%% Field Survey Bo\"otes field with the Steward Bok-2.3m telescope. After
96: %%% searching over 4.82 deg$^2$ at $z=2.3$, we discover four \lya\ blobs with
97: %%% $L_{\rm{Ly\alpha}}$ = 1.6 -- 5.3 $\times10^{43}$ \unitcgslum, isophotal
98: %%% areas of 28 -- 57\,\sq\arcsec, and broad \lya\ line profiles ($\Delta v$
99: %%% = 900 -- 1250 km s$^{-1}$). We confirm the redshifts of all four blobs
100: %%% spectroscopically. In contrast with the extended \lya\ halos associated
101: %%% with high-$z$ radio galaxies, none of our four blobs are radio-loud.
102: %%% The X-ray luminosities and optical spectra of these blobs are diverse.
103: %%% Two blobs (3 and 4) are X-ray-detected with $L_X$(2$-$7 keV) = 2--4
104: %%% $\times10^{44\,}$ \unitcgslum\ and have broad optical emission lines
105: %%% (\ion{C}{4}) characteristic of AGN, implying that 50\% of our sample
106: %%% blobs are associated with strong AGN. The other 50\% of blobs (1 and
107: %%% 2) are not X-ray or optically-detected as AGN down to similar limits.
108: %%% The number density of the four blobs is $\sim$ 3 $\times$ 10$^{-6}$ \hhc\,
109: %%% Mpc$^{-3}$, comparable to that of galaxy clusters at similar redshifts
110: %%% and $3\times$ lower than that found in the SSA22 proto-cluster at $z=3.1$,
111: %%% even after accounting for the over-density of that region. The two X-ray
112: %%% undetected blobs (1 and 2) are separated by only 70\arcsec\ (550 physical
113: %%% kpc) and have almost identical redshifts (corresponding to $\lesssim 360$
114: %%% physical kpc along the line-of-sight), suggesting that they are part of
115: %%% the same system. Given the rarity of the blobs and our discovery of a
116: %%% close pair, we speculate that blobs occupy the highest density regions
117: %%% and thus may be precursors of today's rich cluster galaxies.
118:
119: \end{abstract}
120: \keywords{
121: galaxies: formation ---
122: galaxies: high-redshift ---
123: intergalactic medium
124: }
125:
126: %----------------------------------------------------------------------
127:
128:
129:
130: \section{Introduction}
131: %\setcounter{footnote}{0}
132:
133: The recent discovery of extended \lya\ nebulae, the so-called \lya\
134: blobs, may ultimately provide clues to how galaxies formed in early
135: Universe ($z$ $\sim$ 2 -- 5). The most luminous \lya\ blobs have been
136: discovered mostly by deep narrow-band imaging surveys and have typical
137: sizes of $\sim$ 10\arcsec\ ($\sim$ 100 kpc) and \lya\ luminosities of
138: $\sim10^{44}$ \unitcgslum\, \cite[e.g.,][]{Keel99, Steidel00, Francis01,
139: Palunas04, Dey05, Smith&Jarvis07}. However, what powers the blobs and
140: what they will evolve into remains a mystery. To begin to answer these
141: questions, we need first to constrain their basic properties, including
142: how common they are, how they are spatially distributed, and how diverse
143: their possible power sources may be.
144:
145: Despite intense interest, these characteristics, for even the brightest
146: \lya\ blobs, are poorly constrained due to the absence of an appropriate
147: sample. Giant, luminous blobs \citep{Steidel00} appear to be rare
148: \citep{Saito06} at $z=3-5$, so an efficient, large-volume survey is
149: required to detect any. Furthermore, the survey must be blind to be
150: representative of blob statistics and must include ancillary data (in the
151: X-ray, other optical bands, etc.) to better constrain possible sources of
152: blob emission. To date most \lya\ blobs have been discovered by targeting
153: two previously known over-dense regions \citep{Steidel00, Francis01,
154: Palunas04, Matsuda04}. \citet{Matsuda04} discovered 33 additional
155: \lya\ blobs in the proto-cluster region at $z=3.1$ where the two giant
156: Steidel et al. blobs reside, and spectroscopic follow-up confirms that
157: the blobs are located in three filamentary structures traced by compact
158: \lya-emitting galaxies \citep{Matsuda05}. \citet{Palunas04} report
159: that four \lya\ blobs are associated with an over-dense region of \lya\
160: emitters around the galaxy cluster J2142-4420 at $z =2.38$. The first
161: and only study of the environment of a \lya\ blob found without any prior
162: knowledge of its surroundings \citep{Dey05} shows it to lie in a $3\times$
163: over-dense region traced by \lya-emitting galaxies \citep{Prescott08}.
164: Although these results suggest that bright \lya\ blobs occupy higher
165: density regions, we still lack an unbiased, statistical measurement of
166: how frequent and clustered they truly are.
167:
168: % The only systematic survey for \lya\ blobs in a blank field has been
169: % carried out by \citet{Saito06} with intermediate-band imaging at the
170: % redshift range of $z=3-5$. They find that low-luminosity \lya\ blobs
171: % ($L_{\rm{Ly\alpha}}$ = $10^{42}-10^{43}$ \unitcgslum) are common
172: % in the early universe, but the largest and the most luminous blobs
173: % like those found by \citet{Steidel00} are very rare. We note that
174:
175: %%% Our survey will provide the lowest-$z$ base line for possible number
176: %%% density evolution combined with the previous studies.
177:
178: The origin of the blobs' \lya\ emission is similarly murky. Proposed
179: mechanisms include gravitational cooling radiation from accreting gas
180: \citep{Haiman00,Fardal01}, galactic superwinds driven by a starburst
181: \citep{Taniguchi&Shioya00}, photo-ionization by extended star
182: formation \citep{Matsuda07}, and a hidden AGN \citep{Haiman&Rees01}.
183: \citet{Smith&Jarvis07} report the discovery of a giant \lya\ blob that
184: appears to have cooling origin, while others suggest that blobs are
185: experiencing outflows \citep{Wilman05} or are static \citep{Verhamme06}.
186: It is also not clear what central sources the blobs harbor, e.g.,
187: what fraction of those central sources contain AGN?
188: %%%%
189: %%%% YY: I am not really sure what the last sentence adds to the paper?
190: %%%%
191: %%%% There is also debate about the fraction of blobs hosting \lya\
192: %%%% emitting galaxies, and the fraction of those galaxies with AGN (REFS).
193: %%%%
194: %%%% YY: There is no debate at all about the AGN fraction, simply there is
195: %%%% no data to address this question yet. And all \lya\ blobs are,
196: %%%% by definition, \lya\ emitters. I remove this sentence.
197: %%%%
198: These ambiguities arise from the optically-thick nature of the \lya\
199: line \cite[cf.][]{Yang06}, which clouds the interpretation of the blob
200: kinematics, and from the lack of multi-wavelength data, which, were it
201: available for a representative blob sample, could reveal the nature of
202: any central sources.
203:
204: To obtain a unbiased sample of bright \lya\ blobs ideal for determining
205: their properties and, ultimately, for resolving the origin of their
206: extended emission, we are conducting a blind, wide-field, narrow-band
207: imaging survey for the brightest ($L_{\rm Ly\alpha}$ $\gtrsim$ $10^{44}$
208: \unitcgslum) and most extended ($A_{iso} \gtrsim 50$\,\sq\arcsec)
209: objects, similar to those originally found by \citet{Steidel00}.
210: To date, only five such blobs have been discovered among several
211: surveys \citep{Steidel00, Francis01, Dey05, Smith&Jarvis07}. We select
212: the NOAO Deep Wide Field Survey (NDWFS) Bo\"otes and Cetus fields
213: \citep{Jannuzi&Dey99}, as well as the Cosmic Evolution Survey (COSMOS)
214: field \citep{Scoville07} as our targets, given the complementary,
215: multi-wavelength data available for these fields. We choose $z=2.3$ as
216: our survey redshift so that the optically thin H$\alpha$ $\lambda6563$
217: emission line from the surrounding gas falls in a relatively clean
218: region of the {\sl NIR} sky spectrum. The comparison between H$\alpha$
219: and \lya, as well as analysis of other lines including [\ion{O}{2}]
220: $\lambda3727$, [\ion{O}{3}] $\lambda5007$, and \CIV, will enable us in
221: future papers to study the kinematics of the surrounding gas in more
222: detail \citep{Dijkstra06} and to better constrain the nature of any
223: central sources.
224:
225: %%% In order to acquire a sample which is best suited for resolving the
226: %%% origin(s) of the \lya\ emission and to understand the environment
227: %%% and abundance of \lya\ blobs, we have undertaken a large volume \lya\
228: %%% blobs survey targeting brightest blobs ($L_{\rm{Ly\alpha}}$ $\gtrsim$
229: %%% 10$^{44}$ \unitcgslum) at redshift of 2.3.
230:
231: In this paper, we present the initial results from our \lya\ blob
232: survey in the NOAO Deep Wide Field Survey (NDWFS) Bo\"otes field.
233: In \S\ref{sec:observation}, we describe our narrow-band imaging
234: survey design, observations, and selection of \lya\ blob candidates.
235: In \S\ref{sec:result}, we present the first results from the survey
236: and its spectroscopic follow-up. We also discuss the number density and
237: environment of the \lya\ blobs in comparison with previous studies. In
238: \S\ref{sec:conclusion}, we summarize the results. Throughout this paper,
239: we adopt cosmological parameters: $H_0$ = 70\,\hh\,${\rm km\,s^{-1}\
240: Mpc^{-1}}$, $\Omega_{\rm M}=0.3$, and $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.7$. All
241: magnitudes are in the AB system \citep{Oke74}.
242:
243:
244:
245: %\clearpage
246: %----------------------------------------------------------------------
247: %\section {Narrow-Band Imaging Survey for \lya\ Blobs}
248:
249: \section {Observations}
250: \label{sec:observation}
251:
252: %----------------------------------------------------------------------
253: \begin{figure}
254: \epsscale{0.9}
255: \epsscale{1.1}
256: \plotone{f1_color.ps} % bootes.fov.part.ps
257: \caption{
258: Sky coverage of our narrow-band imaging survey for \lya\ blobs within the
259: NOAO Deep Wide Field Survey (NDWFS) Bo\"otes field. The shaded region
260: represents the area covered in our Bok 2.3m + \nb403 filter survey, and
261: the dot-dashed lines represent the sub-fields of the NDWFS. The gaps in
262: the sky coverage are due to the large gaps between the 90Prime CCDs and
263: a large trap in one of the CCDs. The total sky coverage is 4.82 deg$^2$,
264: excluding bright stars and artifacts, making our survey one of the widest
265: FOV, narrow-band imaging surveys to date. The four circles represent
266: the \lya\ blobs that we have discovered (see \S\ref{sec:result_multi}
267: for details). None are radio-loud. The easternmost and westernmost blobs
268: are detected in X-rays, while the the pair of blobs in the upper middle
269: region is not.
270: }
271: \label{fig:survey_layout}
272: \end{figure}
273: %----------------------------------------------------------------------
274:
275:
276: \subsection{Survey Design}
277: \label{sec:survey_design}
278:
279: %%% In order to acquire a representative sample of \lya\ blobs, which
280: %%% will serve as an ideal sample for resolving the origin of their
281: %%% extended emission, we have undertaken a wide-field narrow-band
282: %%% imaging survey specifically targeting for the brightest ($L_{\rm
283: %%% Ly\alpha}$ $\gtrsim$ $10^{44}$ \unitcgslum), most extended
284: %%% ($A_{iso} \gtrsim 50$ \sq\arcsec), and presumably rarest \lya\
285: %%% blobs like those originally found by \citet{Steidel00}. To date,
286: %%% only five such giant blobs have been discovered by several authors
287: %%% \citep{Steidel00,Francis01,Dey05,Smith&Jarvis07}. Therefore, a
288: %%% systematic search is required to put a constraint on the environments
289: %%% and abundances on such extreme \lya\ blobs.
290:
291: Using the 90Prime one-degree field imager \citep{Williams04} mounted on
292: the Steward Observatory Bok 2.3m telescope on Kitt Peak, we carry out our
293: narrow-band imaging survey with a custom narrow-band filter (hereafter
294: \nb403 or \nb). This narrow-band filter has a central wavelength
295: of $\lambda_c \approx 4030$\AA, designed for selecting \lya-emitting
296: sources at $z\approx2.3$, and a band-width of $\Delta\lambda_{\rm FWHM}
297: \approx 45$\AA\ that provides a line of sight depth of $\Delta z \simeq
298: 0.037$ corresponding to 46.8 \hv\ Mpc at $z=2.3$ in the comoving frame.
299: The 90Prime camera consists of a mosaic of four 4k $\times$ 4k blue
300: sensitive CCDs with a plate scale of 0\farcs45 per pixel. The detector
301: field-of-view is $\sim$ 0.8 deg$^2$ after accounting for cosmetic defects
302: in two of the CCDs. This wide field-of-view is ideal for our survey as
303: the large area coverage compensates for the narrowness of the filter,
304: producing a survey comparable in volume to the largest intermediate band
305: filter survey \citep{Saito06}.
306:
307:
308:
309: To date, we have finished narrow-band imaging observations with a
310: total sky coverage of $\sim$ 12 deg$^2$ in three fields where extensive
311: ancillary data sets are publicly available: the NOAO Deep Wide Field
312: Survey Bo\"otes and Cetus fields \cite[NDWFS;][]{Jannuzi&Dey99}
313: and the Cosmic Evolution Survey field \cite[COSMOS;][]{Scoville07}.
314: In this paper, we present the initial results from the survey within the
315: NDWFS Bo\"otes region centered at $\alpha$ = 14$^{\rm h}$ 32$^{\rm m}$
316: 05\fs7, $\delta$ = +34\degr\ 16\arcmin\ 47\farcs5 (J2000). We carried
317: out these observations from April to June 2007 over 16 dark nights.
318: Figure \ref{fig:survey_layout} shows our sky coverage overlayed with the
319: NDWFS field layout. After excluding regions with artifacts and bright
320: stars, we achieve a total sky coverage of 4.82 deg$^2$. Although the
321: exposure times range from 6 to 20 hours, all the \lya\ blobs in our
322: final sample would have been detected even in the shallowest sub-fields
323: (\S\ref{sec:sample_selection}), suggesting that trading solid angle
324: for depth will improve constraints on the demographics of \lya\ blobs
325: in future surveys. The sky coverage corresponds to a comoving survey
326: volume of 2.1 $\times$ $10^6$\,\hvc\,Mpc$^3$, which is $\sim$ 16$\times$
327: larger than the area covered by the deepest narrow-band \lya\ blob survey
328: to date \citep{Matsuda04}.
329:
330: %%% which is comparable to the volume covered by the existing largest
331: %%% \lya\ blob search with intermediate-band imaging \citep{Saito06} and
332:
333:
334: We reduce the data with the IRAF {\sl mscred} mosaic data reduction
335: package \citep{Valdes98}. The data are corrected for cross-talk between
336: amplifiers, bias-subtracted, and dark-subtracted. For flat-fielding,
337: we use twilight flats together with night-sky flats, which are
338: median-combined from object frames without the bright stars each
339: night. Satellite trails, CCD edges, bad pixels, and saturated pixels
340: are masked. The astrometry is calibrated with the USNO-B1.0 catalog
341: \citep{Monet03} using the IRAF {\sl ccmap} task. The images are scaled
342: using common stars in each frame and stacked to remove cosmic rays.
343: Finally, the images are transformed into the same world coordinate
344: systems as the NDWFS B$_W$ band images, which are resampled with a
345: coarse 90Prime pixel scale (0\farcs45 pixel$^{-1}$). We observed 3--5
346: spectro-photometric standard stars in each night to derive extinction
347: coefficients and zero points for the \nb403 magnitudes. The major drawback
348: is the poor seeing, which, in the final combined images, ranges from
349: 1\farcs5 to 2\arcsec\ with a median of 1\farcs7. However, as we discuss
350: in \S\ref{sec:sample_selection}, the seeing does not impact our ability
351: to identify the blobs with sizes greater than 25\,\sq\arcsec.
352:
353:
354: To identify blob candidates requires that we subtract the continuum
355: emission within the \nb403 bandpass. We estimate the continuum using
356: archival, deep, broad-band \bw\ images from the NOAO Deep Wide Field
357: Survey data set \cite[\bw{\sl RIJK};][]{Jannuzi&Dey99}. The wide \bw\
358: filter ($\lambda_c$ $\approx$ 4135\AA\ and $\Delta \lambda$ $\approx$
359: 1278\AA) encompasses our \nb403 filter near the central wavelength. The
360: 5-$\sigma$ limiting magnitude of the \bw\ images is $\sim$ 26.6 mag
361: for a 2\arcsec\ diameter aperture. The seeing of the NDWFS \bw\ images
362: ranges from 0\farcs8 to 1\farcs47 with a median of 1\farcs2. A total
363: of 20 NDWFS tiles cover our narrow-band imaging fields as shown Figure
364: \ref{fig:survey_layout}.
365:
366:
367: %
368: % {\sf[ survey depth NDWFS and NB403 : limiting magnitude]}
369: % Bw limiting magnitude in DR3 catalog: 26.13 -- 27.18 med = 26.59
370: % {\sf[ seeing statistics ]}
371: % {\sf[ observing condition ]}
372: % {\sf[ Description of the NOAO Deep wide field survey ]}
373: %
374:
375:
376: %----------------------------------------------------------------------
377: \begin{figure}
378: \epsscale{1.0}
379: \epsscale{1.17}
380: \plotone{f2_color_low.ps} % select_lae_n.ps
381: \caption{
382: The ({\sl B}$^{cont}_{\rm W}$ $-$ \nb403) color-magnitude diagram for all
383: sources detected in either the \bw\ and \nb\ images within the Bo\"otes
384: survey field. Right and top axes show the corresponding equivalent
385: widths in the observed frame and \nb\ fluxes, respectively. The sharp
386: boundary at \nb403 $\gtrsim$ 24.0 is due to sources detected
387: only in the \bw\ band. We select line-emission objects with the criteria
388: \nb\, $<$ 23.5 (dot-dashed line) and {\sl B}$^{cont}_{\rm W}$ $-$ \nb\
389: $>$ 1.5 (dashed line; $EW_{\rm obs}$ $>$ 140\AA). Squares represent the
390: final \lya\ blob candidates (see Fig.\ref{fig:size_luminosity}).
391: }
392:
393: \label{fig:color_mag}
394: \end{figure}
395: %----------------------------------------------------------------------
396:
397: \subsection{Selection of \lya\ Blob Candidates}
398:
399: \label{sec:sample_selection}
400:
401: To find \lya\ blob candidates, we construct photometric catalogs in
402: the \nb403 and \bw\ bands using SExtractor \citep{Bertin&Arnouts96}.
403: Because our narrow-band images are much shallower and typically have worse
404: seeing than the broad-band images, we make ``detection'' images (\nb+\bw)
405: by adding the \nb403 and \bw\ images after scaling them according to
406: their signal-to-noise ratios (S/N). After identifying sources in the
407: ``detection'' images that have least 5 pixels that are 1.5$\sigma$ above
408: the local sky, we run SExtractor in double-image mode on the \nb403 and
409: \bw\ images with these detection images. In other words, we first find
410: the sources in the detection images and then obtain photometry at their
411: position in the \nb403\ and \bw\ images to make two separate (narrow- and
412: broad-band) catalogs. We adopt Kron-like elliptical aperture magnitudes
413: (i.e., {\sf MAG\_AUTO} in SExtractor) to derive photometric properties.
414: %%%% FOR WHAT?
415: %%%% YY: for all the sources, there is only one choice here.
416: Our use of the ``detection'' images ensures that 1) all the sources
417: detected in either the \nb\ or \bw\ band are included in our catalog and
418: 2) the elliptical apertures determined by the more extended sources in
419: (\nb+\bw) are large enough to include all the light from both the \nb\
420: and \bw\ images. This last point is critical because we do not attempt
421: to match the seeing between the two bands at this stage.
422:
423: %%% {\sf[Aperture were determined by the larger sources in either {\sl
424: %%% B}$_{\rm W}$ and \nb\ images. Why we are doing this way? Blob
425: %%% is more extended in one bands than in the other!]}
426:
427: The selection of \lya\ blob candidates from the \nb\ and \bw\ photometry
428: catalogs consists of two steps: 1) selection for line (hopefully, \lya)
429: emitting objects with large line equivalent widths and 2) selection for
430: spatially extended objects with a larger angular extent in line emission
431: than in the broad-band.
432:
433: %%% we select candidates for \lya-emitting galaxies, either compact or
434: %%% extended, by requiring that the sources have large equivalent widths
435: %%% in the observed frame, $EW_{\rm obs}$ $>$ 140\AA.
436:
437: First, we choose candidates by requiring that they are detected
438: above the completeness limits of the \nb403 images (\nb403 $< 23.5$
439: mag).\footnotemark\ We also require that candidates have observed-frame
440: equivalent widths larger than 140\AA\ ($EW_{\rm rest} > 42$\AA)
441: corresponding to ${\sl B}^{cont}_{\rm W} - \nb\ > 1.5$ (vertical and
442: horizontal lines in Fig. \ref{fig:color_mag}). Candidates must be extended
443: (SExtractor CLASS\_STAR $>$ 0.95 in {\it both} the \nb\ and \bw\ bands).
444: There are a total of $\sim$ 450 objects over 4.82 deg$^2$ satisfying these
445: criteria. Because most of the \lya\ blobs ($\sim$30/35) discovered by
446: \citet{Matsuda04} have $EW_{\rm obs}$ $\gtrsim$ 200\AA\ ($EW_{\rm rest}$
447: $>$ 50\AA), our selection criteria would include them if blob properties
448: remain the same between $z=2.3$ and $3.1$.
449:
450:
451: \footnotetext{The completeness limit varies by $\pm 0.5$ mag depending
452: on the sub-field due to seeing variations and different exposure
453: times. However, our final blob sample does not depend on the choice of
454: completeness limit because all the blobs are at least $\sim$ 1.5 mag brighter
455: than this cut (\S\ref{sec:result}).}
456:
457:
458: We estimate the continuum flux density, $f^{\lambda}_{cont}$, and
459: continuum-subtracted line flux, $F_{line}$, of these objects using the
460: following relations:
461: %
462: \begin{eqnarray}
463: f^{\lambda}_{cont} &=& \frac{F_B - F_{N\!B}}{\Delta\lambda_B - \Delta\lambda_{N\!B}} \\
464: \nonumber
465: F_{line} &=& F_{N\!B} - f^{\lambda}_{cont} \Delta\lambda_{N\!B},
466: \label{eq:continnum-subtraction}
467: \end{eqnarray}
468: %
469: where $F_B$ and $F_{N\!B}$ are the total flux in each filter derived
470: from the \bw\ and \nb403 magnitudes, respectively. $\Delta\lambda_B$
471: and $\Delta\lambda_{N\!B}$ represent the band-widths of the \bw\
472: and \nb\ filters, respectively. Figure \ref{fig:color_mag} shows the
473: ({\sl B}$^{cont}_{\rm W}$ $-$ \nb) color excess as a function of \nb\
474: magnitude for all objects detected in either the \nb\ and \bw\ bands
475: within our survey area. Here, {\sl B}$^{cont}_{\rm W}$ represents the
476: broad-band continuum magnitude corrected for the emission line: {\sl
477: B}$_{\rm W}^{cont}$ = $-2.5 \log f^{\nu}_{cont} - 48.6$.
478:
479: %\citet{Hogg98} show that $\sim$ 2\% of [\ion{O}{2}] emitters have
480: % $EW_{\rm rest}$ $>$ 60\AA.
481:
482:
483: At our survey redshift, the only possible interlopers are nearby
484: [\ion{O}{2}] $\lambda$3727 emitters at $z\approx0.08$. However, such
485: objects rarely have equivalent widths larger than 100\AA\ in the rest
486: frame \citep{Hogg98}. Therefore, the contamination of our $z=2.3$
487: \lya\ source catalog by nearby star forming galaxies is expected to
488: be minimal. Even if we reduce our selection limit to $EW_{\rm obs}$
489: $\gtrsim$ 65\AA, we end up with the same final \lya\ blob sample and
490: none of our conclusions in this paper change.
491:
492:
493:
494:
495: %%% Follow-up spectroscopy confirms the redshifts of the four??? blobs
496: %%% in our final catalog (\S ???).
497: %%% YY: blob sample is not introdeced yet ---> section 3
498:
499: %----------------------------------------------------------------------
500: \begin{figure}
501: \epsscale{0.9}
502: \epsscale{1.1}
503: \vspace{-0.5cm}
504: \plotone{f3_color.ps} % select_lab_n.ps
505: \caption{
506: Distribution of isophotal areas and \lya\ luminosities of
507: \lya-emitting sources (circles) selected with the first criteria
508: (Fig. \ref{fig:color_mag}). The horizontal and vertical dashed
509: lines represent the selection criteria for the final \lya\ blob
510: candidate sample: $A_{iso} > 25\,\sq\arcsec$ and $L(\rm Ly\alpha) >
511: 1.5\times10^{43\ }$\unitcgslum, respectively. Gray dots represent the
512: $A_{iso}$--$L_{\rm Ly\alpha}$ relation for simulated point sources.
513: Note that our four final blob candidates (filled circles) are located
514: well above this relation (the solid line represents the upper $2\sigma$
515: limit), indicating that they are extended sources despite the poor seeing.
516: Simulated point sources mix with extended \lya-emitting sources below our
517: selection limits on $A_{iso}$ and $L_{\rm Ly\alpha}$, making it difficult
518: to distinguish blobs from point sources there. The squares represent
519: the predicted sizes and \lya\ luminosities of the 35 \citet{Matsuda04}
520: blobs were they observed with our observational set-up at $z=2.3$.
521: Our final blob candidate selection criteria (dashed lines) would find
522: 6 -- 8 (filled squares) of the brightest and largest \citet{Matsuda04}
523: \lya\ blobs (see \S \ref{sec:result_abundance}).
524: }
525: \label{fig:size_luminosity}
526: \end{figure}
527: %----------------------------------------------------------------------
528:
529:
530:
531: Second, we identify those line-emission selected objects that are
532: more spatially extended in \lya\ than their continuum counterparts
533: (Fig.\,\ref{fig:size_luminosity}).\footnotemark\ We measure the spatial
534: extents of the \lya\ emission in the continuum-subtracted images.
535: After registering the \nb403 and \bw\ images at the sub-pixel level and
536: matching their seeing, we construct continuum-subtracted \nb403 images
537: by applying the relations in Eq.\,(\ref{eq:continnum-subtraction})
538: in 2--D. We measure the isophotal area of the emission region by
539: running SExtractor with a threshold of $5 \times 10^{-18}$ \unitcgssb.
540: This measurement threshold is $\sim$ 2.3$\times$ higher than that
541: adopted by \citet{Matsuda04}, but because our survey redshift ($z=2.3$)
542: is lower than theirs ($z=3.1$), we gain a factor of $\sim$ 2.4 in surface
543: brightness. Although this measurement threshold is comparable to the rms
544: noise of the continuum-subtracted \nb403 images ($\sim$ 0.5 -- 1 $\times
545: 10^{-17}$ \unitcgssb\ depending on the field), we are still
546: able to measure the sizes over this measurement limit because the bright
547: central parts of the objects were already detected with high S/Ns.
548:
549:
550:
551: %%% DO THEY ALL HAVE BRIGHT CORES??? ARE WE BIASED TO SELECTING THOSE
552: %%% WITH BRIGHT CORES BECAUSE OF THIS PROCEDURE??? WHAT ABOUT BLOBS
553: %%% THAT ARE LARGE AND BRIGHT WITHOUT CORES???
554:
555: \footnotetext{\citet{Saito06} selected spatially extended objects by
556: requiring the FWHM in their intermediate-band to be larger than that in
557: the broad-band image, but the large seeing difference between our \nb403
558: images ($\sim$1\farcs7) and the NDWFS \bw\ images ($\sim$ 1\farcs2)
559: prevents us from adopting this approach.}
560:
561:
562: One of the potential problems in detecting a blob is the contamination of
563: our extended \lya\ candidate sample by point sources, especially given
564: the poor seeing of the narrow-band images. To quantify this effect,
565: we first place artificial point-sources with a range of luminosities
566: ($L_{\rm Ly\alpha}$ = 10$^{42}$ -- 10$^{45}$ \unitcgslum) into the sky
567: regions over the whole NDWFS field and measure their sizes and fluxes in
568: the same manner as for the extended sources. We then determine isophotal
569: area and line luminosity limits above which extended and point sources
570: can be differentiated.
571:
572:
573: Figure \ref{fig:size_luminosity} shows the distribution of the angular
574: sizes and line luminosities of the 185 \lya-emitting candidates assuming
575: that they are all located at $z=2.3$. The open and filled circles
576: represent the line-emitting objects selected using the line-emission
577: criteria (Fig. \ref{fig:color_mag}), and the gray dots show the relation
578: between the sizes and brightnesses for the artificial point sources. As
579: final blob candidates, we select objects with isophotal areas larger than
580: 25\,\sq\arcsec\ and line luminosities brighter than $1.5\times10^{43}$
581: \unitcgslum. Below these limits, extended and point sources mix, and
582: the sizes of blobs cannot be measured reliably as explained below.
583:
584: %recovery fraction of blob candidates drops below $\sim$ 50\%.
585:
586: %----------------------------------------------------------------------
587: \begin{figure}[!t]
588: \epsscale{0.8}
589: \epsscale{1.15}
590: \plotone{f4_color.ps} % recovery_sim_blob2.fil.ps
591: \caption[An example of recovery test]{
592: An example of recovery test for the faintest blob (blob 2) in our final
593: sample. We show the distribution of the recovered isophotal area for
594: two NDWFS sub-fields for illustrative purposes. This blob is actually
595: located in the NDWFSJ1431+3531 sub-field ({\it right}) and has the worst
596: recovery fraction ($f_{\rm recv}$) in the NDWFSJ1428+3531 sub-field
597: ({\it left}). The bins with zero size indicate non-detections. The
598: vertical dashed line represents our selection criteria for blob size
599: (25\,\sq\arcsec).
600: }
601: \label{fig:recovery_test}
602: \end{figure}
603: %----------------------------------------------------------------------
604:
605:
606:
607:
608: Because the chosen isophotal threshold is comparable to the rms
609: sky noise, we test how reliably we can measure the spatial extent of
610: the blob candidates. We cut out a small (51$\times$51 pixels) section
611: around each blob candidate from the (\nb\ $-$ \bw) image, filter it with
612: a smoothing kernel,\footnotemark\ place each postage stamp into 300 --
613: 1000 empty sky regions in each of the 20 NDWFS sub-fields in Figure
614: \ref{fig:survey_layout}, and extract the sources with SExtractor in the
615: same way as for the real data. Then we check how often and accurately
616: their sizes are recovered from these simulated images. This procedure
617: tests how the detectability of a given blob candidate changes across
618: the fields due to the seeing and exposure time variations.
619:
620: \footnotetext{We use a 3$\times$3 pixel convolution mask with a FWHM =
621: 2 pixel, which is a default kernel in SExtractor.}
622:
623:
624: Figure \ref{fig:recovery_test} shows an example of this recovery test for
625: the faintest blob in our final sample (blob 2, see \S\ref{sec:result}).
626: We show the distribution of the recovered isophotal sizes of the
627: artificial blob for two sub-fields. While most ($\gtrsim$95\%) of time,
628: the artificial blob is detected, its size is measured with a large spread
629: because of non-uniform sky background noise. We adopt this spread of the
630: recovered size distributions as the error in the blob size, $A_{\rm iso}$.
631:
632: %----------------------------------------------------------------------
633: \begin{figure*}
634: \epsscale{0.83}
635: \plotone{f5_color.ps} % blob.image.ps
636: \caption{
637: Images of the four \lya\ blob candidates. From left to right are
638: the \nb403, NDWFS \bw, and continuum-subtracted (\nb$-$\bw) images.
639: The ticks are spaced every 10\arcsec, which corresponds to $\sim$ 82
640: physical kpc at $z=2.3$. The elliptical apertures used for photometry
641: and blob identification are shown in the left panels. The \bw\
642: images are smoothed to match the seeing of the \nb\ images. In the
643: right panels, the contours represent the surface brightness limit of
644: $5\times10^{-18\,}$ \unitcgssb, within which we determine the blob sizes.
645: The location of the 1.5\arcsec-wide slit used for spectroscopic follow-up
646: with the 6.5m MMT is shown for blobs 1, 2, and 3 in the \bw\ image.
647: We spectroscopically confirm that all four blobs lie at $z=2.3$
648: (Fig. \ref{fig:blob_spec1d}). Blobs 3 and 4 are broad-line QSOs that
649: are both detected in X-rays [$L_{X}$(2--7\,keV) = 1.6 -- 4.1 $\times$
650: 10$^{44\,}$\unitcgslum]. None of the blobs are radio-loud.
651: }
652: \label{fig:blob_image}
653: \end{figure*}
654: %----------------------------------------------------------------------
655:
656:
657:
658: A recovery fraction of a blob ($f_{\rm recv}$) in a sub-field is defined
659: as the fraction of time that the artificial blob is recovered with a
660: size larger than 25\,\sq \arcsec. These recovery fractions are averaged
661: over the whole field to obtain the final recovery fraction of the blob
662: for this survey. The size error becomes comparable to the measured size
663: below our sample selection criteria and the recovery fraction drops
664: from $\gtrsim$90\% to $\sim$50\% at the selection boundary for the
665: brightest blob candidates. The recovery fractions are used to correct
666: the incompleteness of our survey in calculating the blob number density
667: in \S\ref{sec:result_abundance}.
668:
669: %%% {\sf[Note that actually I didn't do this test for ALL blob candidates,
670: %%% but did only for the four final blobs and another fainter blob. If
671: %%% necessary, I can repeat the test again.]}
672:
673: %%% (NDWFSJ1431+3531 and NDWFSJ1428+3531).
674:
675:
676:
677:
678: \vspace{0.1cm}
679: \section{Results and Discussion}
680: \label{sec:result}
681:
682:
683: The selection criteria, $EW_{\rm obs}$ $>$ 140\AA, $A_{iso}$
684: $>$ 25\,\sq\arcsec, and $L(\rm Ly\alpha)$ $>$ 1.5$\times$ $10^{43\,}
685: $\unitcgslum, yield four extended \lya\ candidates at $z=2.3$ with sizes
686: of 28 -- 57\,\sq\arcsec, \lya\ luminosities of 1.6 -- 5.3 $\times$
687: 10$^{43}$ \unitcgslum, and $EW_{\rm obs}$ of $\sim$ 170 -- 420\AA\
688: (Table \ref{tab:properties}). Figure \ref{fig:blob_image} shows the
689: \nb403, \bw, and continuum-subtracted (\nb$-$\bw) images for these
690: candidates. Except for Blob 4, which appears to have more than two
691: continuum counterparts, we are able to identify single host galaxies
692: in the \bw\ bands for the other three blob candidates. Although these
693: continuum sources are barely resolved in \bw, the line-emission regions
694: are extended over $\sim$ 5--10\arcsec\ in the (\nb\ $-$ \bw) images.
695: %%%
696: It is noteworthy that all four blob candidates have obvious continuum
697: counterparts in the deep broadband images. To date, all \lya\ blobs at
698: $z = 2-6$, except the blob discovered by \citet{Nilsson06}, have continuum
699: counterparts within the extended emission or nearby.
700: %%%
701: We also show the locations of the blob candidates on the sky in Figure
702: \ref{fig:survey_layout}. Because blobs 1 and 2 are separated by only
703: 70\arcsec\ ($\sim$ 550 physical kpc at $z=2.3$), they are shown in the
704: same panel in Figure \ref{fig:blob_image}.
705:
706:
707: %%% Visual inspection make us divide these four blobs into two categories:
708: %%% two diffuse blobs (1 and 2) and blobs with compact cores and diffuse
709: %%% emission halos (3 and 4).
710:
711:
712: %----------------------------------------------------------------------
713: \begin{figure*}
714: \epsscale{0.89}
715: %\includegraphics[height=0.25\textwidth]{lab_spec1d_color.ps}
716: \plotone{f6_color.ps} % spec1d.ps
717: \caption{
718: Extracted 1D spectra for four blobs from 6.5m MMT long-slit spectroscopy
719: (blobs 1, 2, and 4) and the AGN and Galaxy Evolution Survey (blob 3;
720: Kochanek et al. in prep.).
721: %
722: For blobs 1 and 2, there is no other emission line visible up to 6500\AA.
723: The broad \lya\ profiles and the absence of other emission lines indicate
724: that blob 1 and 2 are true \lya\ blobs. These two blobs have almost the
725: same redshifts ($z=2.318$) within $\delta z \simeq 0.001$.
726: Their spectra do not show any AGN signatures (e.g., \CIV\,$\lambda1549$).
727: Neither of these blobs is X-ray-detected (\S \ref{sec:result_multi}).
728: %
729: Blobs 3 and 4 show other broad emission lines (e.g., \fion{C}{iv}
730: $\lambda1549$ and/or \fion{C}{iii}] $\lambda1909$), indicating that
731: these blobs host QSOs. Unlike blobs 1 and 2, these blobs are X-ray detected
732: [$L_X$(\hard) = 1.6 -- 4.1 $\times$ 10$^{44}$ \unitcgslum].
733: %
734: Because of the blending in the \bw\ images, the blob 4 spectrum contains an
735: interloper, an [\fion{O}{ii}] emitter at $z\simeq0.266$ (H$\gamma$, H$\beta$,
736: and [\fion{O}{iii}] lines).
737: %
738: The shaded regions indicate where strong sky lines are present.
739: }
740: \label{fig:blob_spec1d}
741: \end{figure*}
742: %----------------------------------------------------------------------
743:
744:
745: %----------------------------------------------------------------------
746: \subsection{Spectroscopic Confirmation}
747: \label{sec:result_spectroscopy}
748:
749: We spectroscopically confirm the redshifts of all four blob candidates
750: using spectra taken with the 6.5m ``Multiple Mirror'' Telescope (MMT) Blue
751: Channel Spectrograph and an existing optical spectrum from the AGN and
752: Galaxy Evolution Survey \cite[AGES; Kochanek et al. in prep.,][]{Cool06}.
753: For blobs 1, 2 and 4, we obtained low-resolution long-slit spectra on
754: UT 2008 February 13, April 29, and June 7. We used the 500 gpm grating
755: with a 1\farcs5 $\times$ 180\arcsec\ slit, which provides a dispersion
756: of 1.2\AA\ per pixel and a spectral resolution of 5.4\AA\ over the
757: wavelength range 3400 -- 6400\AA\ (1000 -- 1900\AA\ in the rest frame).
758: Because blobs 1 and 2 are separated by only $\sim$ 70\arcsec, we observed
759: them simultaneously for a total of 6 hours with the slit position (P.A. =
760: $-$12.1\degr) shown in Figure \ref{fig:blob_image}. Blob 4 is the most
761: ambiguous object in our sample as its continuum counterpart is not clear
762: due to the blending in the \bw\ image. Therefore, we put a slit at P.A. =
763: 90.0\degr\ to include all the continuum components seen in the \bw\
764: band images. The spectra were reduced, extracted, and flux-calibrated
765: in the standard manner with {\tt IRAF}.
766:
767: %%% with the {\tt ISPEC2D IDL} reduction package
768: %%% \citep{Moustakas&Kennicutt06}.
769:
770:
771: The MMT spectra confirm that blobs 1, 2 and 4 are indeed $z=2.3$
772: \lya\ blobs. We show the extracted spectra of these three blobs in
773: Figure \ref{fig:blob_spec1d}. In each case, there is an emission line
774: at $\simeq$\,4030\AA, which agrees well with the central wavelength of
775: the \nb403 filter. For blobs 1 and 2, there are no other emission lines over
776: the entire wavelength range, which covers the redshifted [\ion{O}{2}]
777: $\lambda$3727, H$\beta$ $\lambda$4868, and [\ion{O}{3}] $\lambda$5007
778: lines from any $z=0.08$ star-forming galaxies. The \lya\ lines have large
779: velocity widths of $\sim$ 900 and 1250 km s$^{-1}$, and observed-frame
780: equivalent widths of $\sim$ 150\AA\ and 190\AA, respectively. The broad
781: line profile and the absence of other emission features in blobs 1 and
782: 2 indicate that the emission line is \lya. The stellar continuum of
783: blobs 1 and 2 bears a strong resemblance to the UV spectra of Lyman break
784: galaxies \cite[e.g.,][]{Shapley03}. Notably, there is no evidence of
785: broad emission at the wavelengths of \ion{Si}{4} and \ion{C}{4},
786: so the presence of an unobscured AGN is ruled out with confidence.
787: A detailed analysis of the continuum and spectral features of these
788: blobs will be presented in a future paper.
789: %
790: For blob 4, we identify two continuum sources, an [\ion{O}{2}] emitter
791: at $z\simeq0.266$ and a QSO that produces broad \lya\ and \ion{C}{4}
792: lines at $z\simeq2.32$. The \lya\ line has a velocity width of $\sim$
793: 950 km s$^{-1}$ and an observed-frame equivalent width of $\sim$ 85\AA.
794: Note that the EWs measured from the long-slit spectra are lower than
795: those estimated from the narrow-band imaging due to slit-loss.
796:
797: For blob 3, we obtain a spectrum from AGES, which has extensive optical
798: spectroscopy for all the X-ray detected galaxies with {\sl I}$_{\rm
799: AB}$ $\lesssim$ 22.0 mag in the Bo\"otes field. This spectrum
800: shows that blob 3 is at $z=2.32$ and contains a QSO with strong,
801: broad \lya\ emission (Figure \ref{fig:blob_spec1d}). Blob 3 is
802: perhaps similar to the diffuse \lya\ halos associated with some QSOs
803: \cite[e.g.,][]{Bunker03,Weidinger05}.
804:
805:
806: \subsection{Multi-Wavelength Properties of Confirmed \lya\ Blobs}
807: \label{sec:result_multi}
808:
809: Are any of the four blobs associated with strong radio or X-ray sources?
810: None is detected in the VLA FIRST survey \citep{White97} at 1.4 GHz
811: at the detection limit of 1 mJy. Assuming a power-law spectral energy
812: distribution of $S(\nu)$ $\propto$ $\nu^{-0.8}$, this limit corresponds
813: to a rest-frame 1.4 GHz luminosity density of 3.2$\times$$10^{32}$
814: \unitcgslum Hz$^{-1}$, which is $\sim$ two orders of magnitude
815: fainter than the powerful radio galaxies associated with \lya\ halos
816: \cite[e.g.,][]{Reuland03}. However, in X-rays, the properties of
817: these blobs vary wildly. Blobs 3 and 4, whose optical spectra have
818: broad QSO lines, are detected in the {\sl Chandra} XBo\"otes survey
819: \citep{Kenter05,Brand06} with $L$(2--7\,keV) = 1.6 -- 4.1 $\times$
820: 10$^{44\,}$\unitcgslum. Blobs 1 and 2 are not detected at a similar
821: depth and have upper limits of $L$(2--7\,keV) $<$ 0.63 and 0.18 $\times$
822: 10$^{44\,}$\unitcgslum, respectively. Therefore, at least two of the
823: blobs (50\%) are associated with AGN. Table \ref{tab:properties} lists
824: the optical and X-ray properties of the four blobs.
825:
826: %%% The proposed mechanisms include gravitational cooling radiation
827: %%% from the accreting gas \citep{Fardal01,Haiman00}, galactic superwind
828: %%% driven by starburst \citep{Taniguchi&Shioya00}, and photo-ionization
829: %%% by the extended star formation \citep{Matsuda07} or the hidden AGN
830: %%% \citep{Haiman&Rees01}.
831:
832: It is unknown what powers the copious \lya\ emission of blobs. Previous
833: observational studies suggest diverse mechanisms, e.g., a central
834: AGN \citep{Dey05}, galactic superwind \cite[e.g.,][]{Wilman05},
835: extended star formation \citep{Matsuda07}, and cooling radiation
836: \citep{Nilsson06,Smith&Jarvis07,Smith08}, yet there is no smoking gun.
837: Due to its blind strategy, large volume, follow-up optical spectroscopy,
838: and overlap with wide {\sl Chandra} X-ray imaging coverage, our work
839: here is the first to place unbiased limits on the fraction of blobs with
840: luminous AGN (50\%). The {\it diversity} of the blob optical and X-ray
841: properties is also interesting, suggesting that AGN like those detected
842: in half the blobs are not necessary to power the others.
843:
844:
845: %%% One of the most unambiguous way of finding AGN is using the
846: %%% X-ray. But the X-ray properties of the most of the blobs were not
847: %%% fully investigated. Due to the proximity of our survey redshifts
848: %%% or blobs and the extermely wide area coverage of X-ray surveys by
849: %%% XBootes, we are able to put rough constraint on the AGN content of
850: %%% \lya\ blobs. though the constraint is quite crude
851:
852:
853:
854:
855: %\subsection{Abundance and Environment of \lya\ Blobs}
856: \subsection{Rarity of \lya\ Blobs}
857: \label{sec:result_abundance}
858:
859: Our survey indicates that extended \lya\ nebulae are extremely rare
860: at a redshift of $2.3$. Based on the completeness (recovery) test in
861: \S\ref{sec:sample_selection}, we estimate the number of \lya\ blobs
862: within the survey volume as $N = \sum_{i} 1/f^{i}_{\rm recv}$, where
863: $f^{i}_{\rm recv}$ is the recovery fraction (Table \ref{tab:properties}).
864: The discovery of only four \lya\ blobs over 4.82 deg$^2$ yields a number
865: density of $2.5 \pm 1.1$ $\times$ 10$^{-6}$ \hhc\,Mpc$^{-3}$ for blobs
866: with $A_{iso} > 25\,\sq\arcsec$ and $L(\rm Ly\alpha) > 1.5\times10^{43\
867: }$\unitcgslum. Note that this number density is comparable to those of
868: galaxy clusters in the nearby and high-$z$ Universe, $n \sim 10^{-5} -
869: 10^{-6}$ \hhc\,Mpc$^{-3} $\cite[e.g.,][]{Bahcall03,Papovich08}. Because
870: our survey fails to find blobs as bright ($L_{\rm Ly\alpha}$ $\gtrsim$
871: $10^{44}$ \unitcgslum) and large ($A_{iso} \gtrsim 150$ \sq\arcsec) as
872: the brightest and largest in the \citet{Steidel00} sample (their Blobs
873: 1 and 2), we conclude that the \citet{Steidel00} blobs are even rarer
874: objects with a number density of $n$ $\lesssim$ 0.5 $\times$ 10$^{-6}$
875: \hhc\,Mpc$^{-3}$.
876:
877: To compare our blob number density with those from previous surveys
878: \citep{Matsuda04,Saito06}, we determine how many of the \citet{Matsuda04}
879: blobs would be detected in our survey if they were located at $z=2.3$.
880: Using the continuum subtracted \nb$_{\rm corr}$ images of the 35 blobs
881: from \citet{Matsuda04}, we scale the blob surface brightnesses and sizes
882: to $z=2.3$ according to the adopted cosmology and assuming that their
883: physical sizes and \lya\ luminosities do not change from $z=3.1$ to $2.3$.
884: These images are convolved with Gaussian kernels to match our poor seeing,
885: rebinned to the 90Prime pixel scale, and given Poisson noise. We do
886: not account for the difference between the filter (\nb403 vs. \nb497)
887: band-widths, because the resolving power of two filters is similar.
888: We place the simulated images into our continuum-subtracted \nb403 images
889: and measure their sizes and luminosities in the same way as described
890: in \S \ref{sec:sample_selection}. We repeat this process 500--1000 times
891: to derive the range of recovered luminosities and sizes.
892:
893: We show the distribution of sizes and \lya\ luminosities ($A_{iso}$
894: -- $L_{\rm Ly\alpha}$) in Figure \ref{fig:size_luminosity}.
895: Based on this test, we expect that 6 -- 8 of the 35 \citet{Matsuda04}
896: blobs\footnotemark\ are detectable given our luminosity-size criteria,
897: yielding an effective blob number density of 4.6--6.2 $\times$10$^{-5}$
898: \hhc\,Mpc$^{-3}$. Considering the recovery rate of each Matsuda blob,
899: which is $\sim$100\% for $L$(\lya) $>$ 5$\times$ 10$^{43}$ and drops to
900: $\sim$ 50\% at our selection boundary, we expect to detect on average
901: $\sim$ 6.0 of their blobs with our survey criteria. Once we factor in
902: the difference between our survey volume and Matsuda et al.'s, we should
903: have detected $\sim$98 blobs --- not four --- provided that the blob
904: number density at $z=3.1$ and $2.3$, and between the two survey fields,
905: is the same.
906:
907:
908: \footnotetext{In the detectability simulation, the average values of
909: extracted $A_{iso}$ and $L_{\rm Ly\alpha}$ for six \citet{Matsuda04}
910: blobs (their LAB 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 10) satisfy our selection criteria.
911: Two other blobs (their LAB 6 and 15) are located on our selection
912: boundary, but satisfy the selection criteria more than 50\% of the time
913: in the simulation.}
914:
915: The comparison of our results with those of \citet{Saito06} is more
916: difficult because we do not have high S/N measurements of their blob
917: surface brightness profiles. Therefore, we estimate the blob number
918: density for $L$(\lya) $\gtrsim$ 1.5 $\times$ $10^{43\,}$\unitcgslum\
919: from the brightest bin in their Figure 13. We consider the resulting
920: number density of $\sim$ 6.7 $\times$ 10$^{-6}$ \hhc\,Mpc$^{-3}$ an upper
921: limit at $z = 3$--5, given that some fraction of their blobs might not
922: have been detected with our survey criteria.
923:
924: %%% {\sf[This is the upper limit because Saito's lobs will not be detected
925: %%% in our survey. Here, we are comparing all the numbers under our
926: %%% sample selection criteria.]}
927:
928: %----------------------------------------------------------------------
929: \begin{figure}
930: \epsscale{1.00}
931: \epsscale{1.15}
932: \plotone{f7_color.ps} % number_density.ps
933: \caption{
934: Number density of \lya\ blobs at different redshifts. Open and filled
935: squares represent the number density from our narrow-band imaging
936: survey at $z=2.3$ for the blobs with and without X-ray detections,
937: respectively. We also show two number density estimates for the blobs
938: in \citet{Matsuda04}, with or without correction for the over-density of
939: the SSA22 proto-cluster region. We incorporate the same luminosity-size
940: limits on Matsuda et al.'s result as obtained in this paper for a
941: proper comparison. For blobs at higher redshifts, we show only upper
942: \cite[$3<z<5$;][]{Saito06} and lower limits \cite[$z=6.595$;][]{Ouchi08}
943: from the \lya\ blob searches in the Subaru/XMM-Newton Deep Survey field
944: (SXDF).
945: %%%
946: %%% The dot-dashed line represents inverse of the survey volume that
947: %%% can be covered by a $R = 100$ narrow-band imaging survey with
948: %%% a 30\arcmin$\times$30\arcmin\ FOV. Our blob number density is much
949: %%% lower than this line, implying that a large survey volume is critical
950: %%% in searching for \lya\ blobs.
951: %%%
952: }
953: \label{fig:number_density}
954: \end{figure}
955: %----------------------------------------------------------------------
956:
957:
958: We show the number density of \lya\ blobs from the different samples and
959: at different redshifts in Figure \ref{fig:number_density} after applying
960: the same luminosity--size limits as our survey. Open and filled squares
961: represent the number density estimates from our survey with and without
962: the two X-ray detected blobs. For the Matsuda et al. sample, we show
963: both the measured number density and that scaled down to compensate
964: for the known over-density of the SSA22 field \cite[$\delta$ $\sim$
965: 6;][]{Steidel00}. For Saito et al.'s survey, we show the upper-limit
966: discussed above and the redshift range (horizontal error bar). We also
967: show a lower limit on the number density at $z=6.595$ derived from the
968: recent discovery of a \lya\ blob in the Subaru/XMM-Newton Deep Survey
969: field \citep{Ouchi08}.
970:
971: %%% Our number density is roughly consistent with Saito et al.'s at higher
972: %%% redshift ($3<z<5$). THIS IS AN UPPER-LIMIT ONLY, SO MISLEADING TO
973: %%% SAY CONSISTENT.
974:
975: At face value, \lya\ blobs within the $z=3.1$ proto-cluster from the
976: \citet{Matsuda04} survey are $\sim$ 20 -- 30 times more numerous than
977: blobs in our blind field survey. Even if we account for the galaxy
978: over-density in the proto-cluster, the blob number density in our survey
979: is still by a factor of 3 lower, suggesting that extended \lya\ emission
980: is closely related to (or enhanced by) a clustered environment. However,
981: we cannot rule out that this discrepancy might reflect real evolution
982: between $z=2.3$ and $3.1$.
983:
984:
985: \subsection{A Close Pair of \lya\ Blobs}
986:
987: \label{sec:clustering}
988:
989: One of our most interesting results is the discovery of the pair of blobs
990: (1 and 2) separated by only 70\arcsec, which corresponds to $\sim$550
991: physical kpc at $z=2.3$.
992: %
993: To estimate how unlikely it is to find two blobs within 70\arcsec\ of
994: each other, we calculate the expected number of galaxy pairs assuming
995: that the spatial distribution of \lya\ blobs can be represented by a
996: two-point correlation function, $\xi (r,z) = [r/r_0(z)]^{-\gamma}$, where
997: $r_0(z)$ is the scale length of galaxy clustering at the redshift $z$.
998: By projecting this correlation function onto the sky \citep{Limber53},
999: we derive the angular correlation function $\omega(\theta)$, which
1000: measures the excess probability above random of finding a galaxy at an
1001: angle $\theta$ from another galaxy.
1002: %
1003: For a given power-law correlation function, one can derive $\omega(\theta)
1004: = A_{\omega} \theta^{1-\gamma}$ \citep{Peebles80,Efstathiou91} such that
1005: %%%
1006: %%%
1007: \begin{equation}
1008: A_\omega = H_\gamma \int r^\gamma_0(z)\, d^{1-\gamma}_C(z) \left[\frac{dN}{dz}\right]^2 \frac{H(z)}{c} dz
1009: \left[\int\frac{dN}{dz} dz\right]^{-2},
1010: \end{equation}
1011: %%%
1012: %%%
1013: where $d_C(z)$ is comoving distance at $z$, $dN/dz$ is the number of
1014: galaxies per unit redshift interval, $H(z)$ is the Hubble parameter at
1015: $z$, and $H_\gamma = \sqrt{\pi}\Gamma[(\gamma-1)/2]/\Gamma(\gamma/2)$.
1016: We adopt $dN/dz$ as a top-hat function for our survey redshift interval
1017: and assume a fiducial value of $\gamma = 1.8$.
1018:
1019: From this angular correlation function, we estimate the number of galaxy
1020: pairs within $\theta_p$ using:
1021: %%%
1022: %%%
1023: \begin{equation}
1024: N_p (<\theta_p) = \int_0^{\theta_p} \frac{1}{2}N(N-1)[1+\omega(\theta)]
1025: \frac{2\pi\theta d\theta}{\Omega},
1026: \end{equation}
1027: %%%
1028: %%%
1029: where $\Omega$ is the survey area, and $N$ is the number of blobs found
1030: in our survey.
1031: %
1032: For the typical galaxy correlation length, $r_0$ $\sim$ 7 Mpc in the
1033: comoving frame \cite[e.g.,][]{Maddox90}, we predict a negligible pair
1034: count, $N_p$ $\simeq$ 0.005. The expected number of close pairs does not
1035: increase dramatically as the correlation length increases. Even for the
1036: correlation length of the richest galaxy clusters, $r_0$ $\sim$ 30 Mpc
1037: \cite[e.g.,][]{Bahcall03,Papovich08} for redshifts out to $z \sim 1.5$,
1038: only $N_p$ $\simeq$ 0.05 pairs are expected. Therefore, we conclude
1039: that the observed close pair of \lya\ blobs is unlikely to occur for a
1040: reasonable range of clustering strengths if we assume that the two \lya\
1041: blobs belong to individual dark matter halos.
1042:
1043: %%% {\sf[ There is no need to say that we cannot constrain the scale
1044: %%% length of the clustering. Too small statistics. ]}
1045:
1046: %%% it is unlikely that two \lya\ blobs were located within such small
1047: %%% distance by chance. If the spatial distribution of the four blobs
1048: %%% were random, the probability of finding a pair separated smaller
1049: %%% than 70\arcsec\ (i.e., expected number of pairs) would be 0.15\%.
1050:
1051: %%% \begin{equation}
1052: %%% A_\omega = H_\gamma \frac{\int r^\gamma_0(z) d^{1-\gamma}_C(z) ({dN}/{dz})^2 {H(z)/c}\, dz}
1053: %%% {\left[\int({dN}/{dz}) dz\right]^{2}}
1054: %%% \end{equation}
1055:
1056: Increasing the size of our blob sample (Yang et al. 2008, in prep.) will
1057: better constrain the clustering of \lya\ blobs. For the time being, it is
1058: intriguing that we do discover a close pair. Our MMT
1059: spectra confirm that the two blobs have almost the same redshifts within
1060: $\delta z$ $\simeq$ 0.001 and a corresponding line-of-sight separation
1061: of $\delta r$ $\simeq$ 360 physical kpc assuming no peculiar velocity.
1062: The similarity of their redshifts, as well as their small separation on
1063: the sky (corresponding to 550 physical kpc), leads us to speculate that
1064: these two blobs might lie within a single dark matter halo, i.e., within
1065: a massive proto-group or cluster of galaxies.
1066: %
1067: Note that the analytic $\Lambda$CDM model predicts a virial radius
1068: ($r_{200}$) of 430 kpc at $z=2.3$ for a dark matter halo with a mass
1069: of $10^{14}$\,$M_{\odot}$ \citep{Mo&White02}.
1070: %
1071: Previous studies also suggest that \lya\ blobs are phenomena that favor
1072: dense environments \citep{Matsuda05,Prescott08}. This hypothesis could be
1073: tested by using a deeper narrow-band imaging survey to characterize the
1074: environment of this blob pair with the spatial distribution of fainter,
1075: smaller blobs and/or faint, compact \lya\ emitters.
1076:
1077:
1078: %%% \footnotetext{Note that they could be separated by more than this
1079: %%% distance and infalling toward one another at high velocity.}
1080:
1081: %%% within the spectral resolution ($\delta\lambda$ $\simeq$ 5.4/4\AA)
1082:
1083: \section{Conclusion}
1084: \label{sec:conclusion}
1085:
1086: In this paper, we present initial results from our blind, wide-field,
1087: narrow-band imaging survey in the NOAO Deep Wide Field Survey Bo\"otes
1088: field to constrain the number density, environment, and multi-wavelength
1089: properties of extended \lya\ nebulae (``\lya\ blobs") at $z=2.3$.
1090: After searching over 4.82 deg$^2$, we discover four \lya\ blobs with
1091: $L_{\rm{Ly\alpha}}$ = 1.6 -- 5.3 $\times10^{43}$ \unitcgslum, isophotal
1092: areas of 28 -- 57\,\sq\arcsec, and broad \lya\ line profiles ($\Delta v$
1093: = 900 -- 1250 km s$^{-1}$). We confirm the redshifts of all four blobs
1094: spectroscopically.
1095: %
1096: In contrast with the extended \lya\ halos associated with high-$z$ radio
1097: galaxies, none of our four blobs are radio-loud. The X-ray luminosities
1098: and optical spectra of these blobs are diverse. Two blobs (3 and 4)
1099: are X-ray-detected with $L_X$(2$-$7 keV) = 2--4 $\times10^{44\,}$
1100: \unitcgslum\ and have broad optical emission lines (\ion{C}{4} and
1101: \ion{C}{3}]) characteristic of AGN, implying that 50\% of our sample
1102: blobs are associated with strong AGN.
1103: %
1104: The other 50\% of blobs (1 and 2) are not X-ray or optically-detected
1105: as AGN down to similar limits, suggesting that AGN like those in blobs
1106: 3 and 4 are not necessary to power them. The number density of the four
1107: blobs is $\sim$ 3 $\times$ 10$^{-6}$ \hhc\,Mpc$^{-3}$, comparable to that
1108: of galaxy clusters at similar redshifts and $3\times$ lower than that
1109: found in the SSA22 proto-cluster at $z=3.1$, even after accounting for
1110: the over-density of that region. The two X-ray undetected blobs (1 and
1111: 2) are separated by only 70\arcsec\ (550 physical kpc) and have almost
1112: identical redshifts (corresponding to $\lesssim$ 360 physical kpc along
1113: the line-of-sight), suggesting that they are part of the same system.
1114: Given the rarity of the blobs and our discovery of a close pair, we
1115: speculate that blobs occupy the highest density regions and thus may be
1116: precursors of today's rich cluster galaxies.
1117:
1118:
1119: \acknowledgments
1120:
1121: We thank the referee, William Keel, for the thorough reading of the
1122: manuscript and helpful comments.
1123: %
1124: We thank Ed Olszewski and mountain staffs in Steward Bok 2.3m telescope
1125: for their helps with 90Prime observing runs.
1126: %
1127: We thank Yuichi Matsuda for providing us the narrow-band images of their
1128: \lya\ blobs.
1129: %
1130: We also thank Masami Ouchi for the helpful discussions and allowing us
1131: to use their blob number density before the publication.
1132: %
1133: Y.\,Y. thanks Hee-Jong Seo, Suresh Sivanandam, Richard Cool, and Wiphu
1134: Rujopakarn for their helps in clustering analysis, Chandra data, and
1135: obtaining AGES data, respectively.
1136: %
1137: Y.\,Y. thanks Toshihiko Kimura in Asahi Spectra for his thorough work in
1138: manufacturing NB403 filter.
1139: %
1140: % Y. Y. and A. I. Z. acknowledge support from grant ???.
1141: %
1142: Support for C. A. T. was provided by NASA through Hubble Fellowship grants
1143: HST-HF-01192.01 awarded by the Space Telescope Science Institute, which
1144: is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy,
1145: Inc., for NASA, under contract NAS5-26555.
1146: %
1147: This work made use of images and/or data products provided by the NOAO
1148: Deep Wide-Field Survey, which is supported by the National Optical
1149: Astronomy Observatory (NOAO). NOAO is operated by AURA, Inc., under a
1150: cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation.
1151:
1152: Facilities: \facility{MMT (Blue Channel), Steward Bok2.3m (90Prime)}
1153:
1154: %\clearpage
1155: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1156:
1157: \bibitem[Bahcall et al.(2003)]{Bahcall03} Bahcall, N.~A., Dong, F., Hao, L., Bode, P., Annis, J., Gunn, J.~E., \& Schneider, D.~P.\ 2003, \apj, 599, 814
1158: \bibitem[Bertin \& Arnouts(1996)]{Bertin&Arnouts96} Bertin, E., \& Arnouts, S.\ 1996, \aaps, 117, 393
1159: \bibitem[Brand et al.(2006)]{Brand06} Brand, K., et al.\ 2006, \apj, 641, 140
1160: \bibitem[Bunker et al.(2003)]{Bunker03} Bunker, A., Smith, J., Spinrad, H., Stern, D., \& Warren, S.\ 2003, \apss, 284, 357
1161: \bibitem[Cool et al.(2006)]{Cool06} Cool, R.~J., et al.\ 2006, \aj, 132, 823
1162: \bibitem[Dey et al.(2005)]{Dey05} Dey, A., et al.\ 2005, \apj, 629, 654
1163: \bibitem[Dijkstra et al.(2006)]{Dijkstra06} Dijkstra, M., Haiman, Z., \& Spaans, M.\ 2006, \apj, 649, 37
1164: \bibitem[Efstathiou et al.(1991)]{Efstathiou91} Efstathiou, G., Bernstein, G., Tyson, J.~A., Katz, N., \& Guhathakurta, P.\ 1991, \apjl, 380, L47
1165: \bibitem[Fardal et al.(2001)]{Fardal01} Fardal, M.~A., Katz, N., Gardner, J.~P., Hernquist, L., Weinberg, D.~H., \& Dav{\' e}, R.\ 2001, \apj, 562, 605
1166: \bibitem[Francis et al.(2001)]{Francis01} Francis, P.~J., et al.\ 2001, \apj, 554, 1001
1167: \bibitem[Haiman \& Rees(2001)]{Haiman&Rees01} Haiman, Z., \& Rees, M.~J.\ 2001, \apj, 556, 87
1168: \bibitem[Haiman, Spaans, \& Quataert(2000)]{Haiman00} Haiman, Z., Spaans, M., \& Quataert, E.\ 2000, \apjl, 537, L5
1169: \bibitem[Hogg et al.(1998)]{Hogg98} Hogg, D.~W., Cohen, J.~G., Blandford, R., \& Pahre, M.~A.\ 1998, \apj, 504, 622
1170: \bibitem[Jannuzi \& Dey(1999)]{Jannuzi&Dey99} Jannuzi, B.~T., \& Dey, A.\ 1999, Photometric Redshifts and the Detection of High Redshift Galaxies, 191, 111
1171: \bibitem[Keel et al.(1999)]{Keel99} Keel, W.~C., Cohen, S.~H., Windhorst, R.~A., \& Waddington, I.\ 1999, \aj, 118, 2547
1172: \bibitem[Kenter et al.(2005)]{Kenter05} Kenter, A., et al.\ 2005, \apjs, 161, 9
1173: \bibitem[Limber(1953)]{Limber53} Limber, D.~N.\ 1953, \apj, 117, 134
1174: \bibitem[Maddox et al.(1990)]{Maddox90} Maddox, S.~J., Efstathiou, G., Sutherland, W.~J., \& Loveday, J.\ 1990, \mnras, 242, 43P
1175: \bibitem[Matsuda et al.(2004)]{Matsuda04} Matsuda, Y., et al.\ 2004, \aj, 128, 569
1176: \bibitem[Matsuda et al.(2005)]{Matsuda05} Matsuda, Y., et al.\ 2005, \apjl, 634, L125
1177: \bibitem[Matsuda et al.(2007)]{Matsuda07} Matsuda, Y., Iono, D., Ohta, K., Yamada, T., Kawabe, R., Hayashino, T., Peck, A.~B., \& Petitpas, G.~R.\ 2007, \apj, 667, 667
1178: \bibitem[Mo \& White(2002)]{Mo&White02} Mo, H.~J., \& White, S.~D.~M.\ 2002, \mnras, 336, 112
1179: \bibitem[Monet et al.(2003)]{Monet03} Monet, D.~G., et al.\ 2003, \aj, 125, 984
1180: \bibitem[Nilsson et al.(2006)]{Nilsson06} Nilsson, K.~K., Fynbo, J.~P.~U., M{\o}ller, P., Sommer-Larsen, J., \& Ledoux, C.\ 2006, \aap, 452, L23
1181: \bibitem[Oke(1974)]{Oke74} Oke, J.~B.\ 1974, \apjs, 27, 21
1182: \bibitem[Ouchi et al.(2008)]{Ouchi08} Ouchi, M., et al.\ 2008, ArXiv e-prints, 807, arXiv:0807.4174
1183: \bibitem[Palunas et al.(2004)]{Palunas04} Palunas, P., Teplitz, H.~I., Francis, P.~J., Williger, G.~M., \& Woodgate, B.~E.\ 2004, \apj, 602, 545
1184: \bibitem[Papovich(2008)]{Papovich08} Papovich, C.\ 2008, \apj, 676, 206
1185: \bibitem[Peebles(1980)]{Peebles80} Peebles, P.~J.~E.\ 1980, The Large-Scale Structure of the Universe, (Princeton: Princeton University Press)
1186: \bibitem[Prescott et al.(2008)]{Prescott08} Prescott, M.~K.~M., Kashikawa, N., Dey, A., \& Matsuda, Y.\ 2008, ArXiv e-prints, 803, arXiv:0803.4230
1187: \bibitem[Reuland et al.(2003)]{Reuland03} Reuland, M., et al.\ 2003, \apj, 592, 755
1188: \bibitem[Saito et al.(2006)]{Saito06} Saito, T., Shimasaku, K., Okamura, S., Ouchi, M., Akiyama, M., \& Yoshida, M.\ 2006, \apj, 648, 54
1189: \bibitem[Scoville et al.(2007)]{Scoville07} Scoville, N., et al.\ 2007, \apjs, 172, 1
1190: \bibitem[Shapley et al.(2003)]{Shapley03} Shapley, A.~E., Steidel, C.~C., Pettini, M., \& Adelberger, K.~L.\ 2003, \apj, 588, 65
1191: \bibitem[Smith et al.(2008)]{Smith08} Smith, D.~J.~B., Jarvis, M.~J., Lacy, M., \& Mart{\'{\i}}nez-Sansigre, A.\ 2008, ArXiv e-prints, 806, arXiv:0806.4384
1192: \bibitem[Smith \& Jarvis(2007)]{Smith&Jarvis07} Smith, D.~J.~B., \& Jarvis, M.~J.\ 2007, \mnras, 378, L49
1193: \bibitem[Steidel et al.(2000)]{Steidel00} Steidel, C.~C., Adelberger, K.~L., Shapley, A.~E., Pettini, M., Dickinson, M., \& Giavalisco, M.\ 2000, \apj, 532, 170
1194: \bibitem[Taniguchi \& Shioya(2000)]{Taniguchi&Shioya00} Taniguchi, Y.~\& Shioya, Y.\ 2000, \apjl, 532, L13
1195: \bibitem[Valdes(1998)]{Valdes98} Valdes, F.~G.\ 1998, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems VII, 145, 53
1196: \bibitem[Verhamme et al.(2006)]{Verhamme06} Verhamme, A., Schaerer, D., \& Maselli, A.\ 2006, \aap, 460, 397
1197: \bibitem[Weidinger et al.(2005)]{Weidinger05} Weidinger, M., M{\o}ller, P., Fynbo, J.~P.~U., \& Thomsen, B.\ 2005, \aap, 436, 825
1198: \bibitem[White et al.(1997)]{White97} White, R.~L., Becker, R.~H., Helfand, D.~J., \& Gregg, M.~D.\ 1997, \apj, 475, 479
1199: \bibitem[Williams et al.(2004)]{Williams04} Williams, G.~G., Olszewski, E., Lesser, M.~P., \& Burge, J.~H.\ 2004, \procspie, 5492, 787
1200: \bibitem[Wilman et al.(2005)]{Wilman05} Wilman, R.~J., Gerssen, J., Bower, R.~G., Morris, S.~L., Bacon, R., de Zeeuw, P.~T., \& Davies, R.~L.\ 2005, \nat, 436, 227
1201: \bibitem[Yang et al.(2006)]{Yang06} Yang, Y., Zabludoff, A.~I., Dav{\'e}, R., Eisenstein, D.~J., Pinto, P.~A., Katz, N., Weinberg, D.~H., \& Barton, E.~J.\ 2006, \apj, 640, 539
1202:
1203: \end{thebibliography}
1204:
1205: \clearpage
1206:
1207: %\thispagestyle{empty}
1208:
1209: \begin{landscape}
1210: \input{tab1.tex}
1211: \clearpage
1212: \end{landscape}
1213:
1214: \clearpage
1215:
1216:
1217:
1218: %\begin{landscape}
1219:
1220: %\clearpage
1221: %\end{landscape}
1222:
1223:
1224:
1225: \end{document}
1226:
1227:
1228: