1: %%
2: %% GOODS-S
3: %% Masses of Field Galaxies
4: %%
5:
6:
7: %% ApJ emulation including times fonts
8: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
9: \documentclass{aastex}
10: \usepackage{emulateapj5}
11: \usepackage{times,mathptmx}
12:
13: %% You can insert a short comment on the title page using the command below.
14: \slugcomment{Submitted to ApJ}
15:
16: %% If you wish, you may supply running head information, although
17: %% this information may be modified by the editorial offices.
18: %% The left head contains a list of authors,
19: %% usually a maximum of three (otherwise use et al.). The right
20: %% head is a modified title of up to roughly 44 characters. Running heads
21: %% will not print in the manuscript style.
22: \shorttitle{A comparison of stellar mass estimates}
23: \shortauthors{Drory, Bender, \& Hopp}
24:
25: %%
26: %% SOME MACROS
27: %%
28: \newcommand*{\Msun}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{M_\odot}}}%
29: \newcommand*{\MLK}{\ensuremath{M/L_K}}%
30: \newcommand*{\MLB}{\ensuremath{M/L_B}}%
31: \newcommand*{\MLg}{\ensuremath{M/L_g}}%
32: \newcommand*{\ML}{\ensuremath{M/L}}%
33: \newcommand*{\Mdyn}{\ensuremath{M_{\mathrm{dyn}}}}%
34: \newcommand*{\Mpc}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{Mpc}}}%
35: \newcommand*{\dex}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{dex}}}%
36:
37: \newcommand*{\Ha}{H$\alpha$}%
38: \newcommand*{\Hd}{H$\delta_{\mathrm{A}}$}%
39: \newcommand*{\D}{D$_\mathrm{n}$4000}%
40:
41:
42: \begin{document}
43:
44: %% ------------------------------------------------------------------
45: %% TITLE
46: %% ------------------------------------------------------------------
47:
48:
49: \title{Comparing spectroscopic and photometric stellar mass estimates}
50:
51: %% ------------------------------------------------------------------
52: %% AUTHORS
53: %% ------------------------------------------------------------------
54:
55: \author{N.~Drory\altaffilmark{1},
56: R.~Bender\altaffilmark{2,3}, U.~Hopp\altaffilmark{3}}
57:
58: \affil{$^1$ University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712}
59: \email{drory@astro.as.utexas.edu}
60:
61: \affil{$^2$ Max--Planck Institut f\"ur extraterrestrische Physik,
62: Giessenbachstra\ss e, Garching, Germany}
63: \email{bender@mpe.mpg.de}
64:
65: \affil{$^3$ Universit\"ats--Sternwarte M\"unchen, Scheinerstra\ss
66: e 1, D-81679 M\"unchen, Germany}
67: \email{hopp@usm.uni-muenchen.de}
68:
69:
70: %% ------------------------------------------------------------------
71: %% ABSTRACT
72: %% ------------------------------------------------------------------
73:
74: \begin{abstract}
75: The purpose of this letter is to check the quality of different
76: methods for estimating stellar masses of galaxies. We compare the
77: results of (a) fitting stellar population synthesis models to broad
78: band colors from SDSS and 2MASS, (b) the analysis of spectroscopic
79: features of SDSS galaxies \citep{Kauffmannetal03a}, and, (c) a
80: simple dynamical mass estimate based on SDSS velocity dispersions
81: and effective radii. Knowing that all three methods can have
82: significant biases, a comparison can help to establish their
83: (relative) reliability. In this way, one can also probe the quality
84: of the observationally cheap broadband color mass estimators for
85: galaxies at higher redshift. Generally, masses based on broad-band
86: colors and spectroscopic features agree reasonably well, with a rms
87: scatter of only $\sim 0.2$~dex over almost 4 decades in mass.
88: However, as may be expected, systematic differences do exist and
89: have an amplitude of $\sim 0.15$~dex, corrleting with \Ha\ emission
90: strength. Interestingly, masses from broad-band color fitting are
91: in better agreement with dynamical masses than masses based on the
92: analysis of spectroscopic features. In addition, the differences
93: between the latter and the dynamical masses correlate with \Ha\
94: equivalent width, while this much less the case for the broad-band
95: masses. We conclude that broad band color mass estimators, provided
96: they are based on a large enough wavelength coverage and use an
97: appropriate range of ages, metallicities and dust extinctions, can
98: yield fairly reliable stellar masses for galaxies. This is a very
99: encouraging result as such mass estimates are very likely the only
100: ones available at significant redshifts for some time to come.
101: \end{abstract}
102:
103:
104: %% KEYWORDS
105: %%
106: \keywords{galaxies: mass function --- galaxies: fundamental parameters}
107:
108:
109: %% ------------------------------------------------------------------
110: %% INTRODUCTION
111: %% ------------------------------------------------------------------
112:
113: \section{Introduction}\label{sec:introduction}
114:
115: The stellar mass of galaxies at the present epoch and the build-up of
116: stellar mass over cosmic time has become the focus of intense research
117: in the past few years.
118:
119: In the local universe, results on the stellar mass function of
120: galaxies were published using the new generation of wide-angle surveys
121: in the optical (Sloan Digital Sky Survey; SDSS, \citealp{SDSS}; 2dF,
122: e.g.~\citealp{2dF99}) and near-infrared (Two Micron All Sky Survey;
123: 2MASS, \citealp{TwoMASS}). \citet{2dF01} combined data from 2MASS and
124: 2dF to derive the local stellar mass function, \citet{BMKW03} used the
125: SDSS and 2MASS to the same end.
126:
127: At $z > 0$, a number of authors studied the stellar mass density as a
128: function of redshift
129: \citep{BE00,MUNICS3,Cohen02,DPFB03,Fontanaetal03,Rudnicketal03}
130: reaching $z \sim 3$, while others, using wider field surveys,
131: investigated the evolution of the mass function of galaxies
132: \citep{MUNICS6,K20-04} to $z \sim 1.5$.
133:
134: Generally, the high-redshift work relies on fits of multi-color
135: photometry to a grid of composite stellar population (CSP) models to
136: determine a stellar mass-to-light ratio, since large and complete
137: spectroscopic samples of galaxies are not yet available. A similar
138: approach was chosen by \citet{2dF01} and \citet{BMKW03}, too, at $z
139: \sim 0$.
140:
141: Taking advantage of the availability of photometry and spectroscopy
142: for galaxies in the SDSS, \citet[][K03 hereafter]{Kauffmannetal03a}
143: utilized spectroscopic diagnostics (4000\AA~Break, \D, and the \Hd\
144: Balmer absorption line index ) to estimate the mean stellar age and
145: the fraction of stars formed in recent bursts in each galaxy. By
146: comparison of the colors predicted by their best-fit model to the
147: object's broad-band photometry they determine the amount of extinction
148: by dust and hence the stellar mass-to-light ratio.
149:
150: The purpose of this letter is to compare the stellar masses determined
151: by this spectroscopic technique to masses obtained from multi-passband
152: photometry and to compare both methods to a simple dynamical estimate
153: of mass. Knowing that none of these methods yields a fiducial
154: (stellar) mass, a comparison helps to establish the (relative)
155: reliability of each method and makes us aware of potential differences
156: between these estimators. Moreover, it can show us whether one can use
157: observationally cheaper estimators as surrogates for more expensive
158: (or unobtainable) ones, which is particularly important when dealing
159: with high-redshift datasets.
160:
161: Specifically, we want to know how the two estimators compare to each
162: other, if using K-band \ML\ yields better masses than using the g-band
163: \ML\ which is accessible at high $z$, and how these compare to a simple
164: dynamical mass estimator, $M \sim \sigma^2 R_e / G$.
165:
166: \begin{figure*}[t]
167: \centering
168: \epsscale{0.8}
169: %\epsscale{0.45}
170: \plotone{f1a.eps}\hspace*{0.5cm}
171: \plotone{f1b.eps}
172: \caption{\label{fig:loglik}%
173: Illustration of the model-fitting technique used to estimate
174: stellar masses. The lower panels show the comparison of the best
175: fitting model to the photometric data. The red and blue lines
176: represent the main and burst component, respectively. The green
177: line represents the combined SED. The left hand side shows a young
178: object with a burst component, the right side an older object.
179: The upper panels show projections of the likelihood function onto
180: four planes, age vs.\ dust in the main component, burst fraction
181: vs.\ burst extinction, age of the main component vs.\ burst
182: fraction, and star formation timescale, $\tau$, vs.\ burst
183: fraction. The resulting likelihood distributions of \ML\ are shown
184: in the upper right panel on each side ($M/L_g$ blue; $M/L_i$
185: green; $M/L_K$ red). The \ML\ of the best fitting model is
186: indicated by vertical lines.}
187: \end{figure*}
188:
189: This letter is laid out as follows. In Sect.~\ref{sec:galaxy-sample}
190: we describe the sample of galaxies we use in this work. In
191: Sect.~\ref{sec:deriving-masses} we give a brief overview of how we
192: derive stellar masses by fitting CSP models to multi-band photometry.
193: In Sect.~\ref{sec:stellmass} we compare these masses to the values in
194: K03 and in Sect.~\ref{sec:dynmass} to a simple dynamical estimate of
195: mass based on the SDSS velocity dispersions. We also discuss the
196: implications of these comparisons.
197:
198: We assume $\Omega_{\mathrm{M}} = 0.3$, $\Omega_{\Lambda} = 0.7$, and
199: $H_0 = 70~\mathrm{km\ s^{-1}\ Mpc^{-1}}$ throughout this work.
200:
201:
202: %% ------------------------------------------------------------------
203: %% THE GALAXY SAMPLE
204: %% ------------------------------------------------------------------
205:
206: \section{The galaxy sample}\label{sec:galaxy-sample}
207:
208: The sample of galaxies we use in this work is selected from the NYU
209: Value-Added Galaxy Catalog\footnote{see also
210: \texttt{http://wassup.physics.nyu.edu/vagc/}} \citep{VAGC}. This is
211: a merged catalog of objects from the SDSS Data Release Two (DR2) and
212: 2MASS point-source and extended-source catalogs (and other catalogs
213: which are not relevant here, as well).
214:
215: We select all objects classified as galaxies and having a secure
216: redshift measurement in the SDSS and that are detected in the 2MASS
217: catalogs. From this set we randomly sub-select 20\% of the objects
218: leaving us with a sample of sample of $\sim 17000$ objects having
219: redshifts and photometry in ugrizJHK.
220:
221: We cross-correlate this catalog with the data from
222: K03\footnote{available online at
223: \texttt{http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/SDSS/}} to obtain their
224: stellar mass estimates.
225:
226: The galaxies in the sample span the absolute magnitude range $-15.3 <
227: M_g < -23.5$, the restframe $u\!-\!g$ color range $0.5 < u\!-\!g <
228: 2.0$, and the (stellar) mass range $8 < \log M < 12$.
229:
230:
231: %% ------------------------------------------------------------------
232: %% DERIVING STELLAR MASSES
233: %% ------------------------------------------------------------------
234:
235: \section{Deriving stellar masses}\label{sec:deriving-masses}
236:
237: \begin{figure*}[t]
238: \centering
239: \epsscale{0.80}
240: %\epsscale{0.40}
241: \plotone{f2a.eps}\hspace*{1cm}
242: \plotone{f2b.eps}
243: \caption{\label{fig:mass-comp}%
244: Comparison of our photometry-based stellar mass estimates to the
245: stellar masses of K03. The left panel shows the masses of K03
246: plotted against our estimate based on $M/L_g$, the right hand
247: panel against masses based on $M/L_K$. The colors denote \Ha\
248: equivalent width from no emission (red) to strong emission ($>
249: 25$\AA; purple). The small panels show histograms of the residuals
250: again as a function of \Ha\ equivalent width.}
251: \end{figure*}
252:
253: The method we use to infer stellar masses from multi-color photometry
254: is an advancement of the program used in \citet{MUNICS6}. It is based
255: on the comparison of multi-color photometry to a grid of stellar
256: population synthesis models covering a wide range in parameters,
257: especially star formation histories (SFHs).
258:
259: We base our new model grid on the \citet{BC03} stellar population
260: synthesis package. We parameterize the possible SFHs by a
261: two-component model, consisting of a main component with a smooth
262: analytically described SFH and a burst of star formation. The main
263: component is parameterized by a star formation rate of the form
264: $\psi(t) \propto \exp(-t/\tau)$, with $\tau \in [0.1, \infty]$~Gyr and
265: a metallicity of $-0.6 < \mathrm{[Fe/H]} < 0.3$. The age, $t$, is
266: allowed to vary between 0.5~Gyr and the age of the universe (at the
267: object's redshift).
268:
269: The smooth component is linearly combined with a burst of star
270: formation, which is modeled as a 100~Myr old constant star formation
271: rate episode of solar metallicity. We restrict the burst fraction,
272: $\beta$, to the range $0 < \beta < 0.15$ in mass (higher values of
273: $\beta$ are degenerate and unnecessary since this case is covered by
274: models with a young main component). We adopt a Salpeter initial mass
275: function for both components, with lower and upper mass cutoffs of 0.1
276: and 100~\Msun.
277:
278: Additionally, both the main component and the burst are allowed to
279: exhibit a variable amount of extinction by dust. This takes into
280: account the fact that young stars are found in dusty environments and
281: that the starlight from the galaxy as a whole may be reddened by a
282: (geometry dependent) different amount. In fact, \citet{SMSS04} find
283: that the extinction derived from the Balmer decrement in the SDSS
284: sample is independent of inclination, which, on the other hand, is
285: driving global extinction (\citealp[see, e.g.,][]{TPHSVW98}). This is
286: different from the approach taken by K03, where a single extinction
287: value for the whole galaxy is used.
288:
289: We compute the full likelihood distribution on a grid in this
290: 6-dimensional parameter space ($\tau, \mathrm{[Fe/H]}, t, A_V^1,
291: \beta, A_V^2$), the likelihood of each model being $\propto
292: \exp(-\chi^2/2)$. To compute the likelihood distribution of \ML, we
293: weight the \ML\ of each model by its likelihood and marginalize over
294: all parameters. The uncertainty in \ML\ is obtained from the width of
295: this distribution.
296:
297: This procedure is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:loglik}, where we show
298: SEDs and likelihood functions for two objects, a young object with a
299: high burst fraction, and an older and fairly quiescent object. We show
300: projections of the likelihood function onto four planes in parameter
301: space, age vs.\ dust in the main component, burst fraction vs.\ burst
302: extinction, age of the main component vs.\ burst fraction, and star
303: formation timescale, $\tau$, vs.\ burst fraction. The figure also
304: shows the resulting likelihood distributions of \ML\ in the g, i, and
305: K bands. Note that for the quiescent object, the width of the \ML\
306: distribution is very similar in the g and K bands, while it is much
307: wider in g than it is in K for the younger star forming object. On
308: average, the width of the likelihood distribution of \ML\ at 68\%
309: confidence level is between $\pm 0.1$ and $\pm 0.2$~dex (using \MLg).
310: The uncertainty in mass has a weak dependence on mass (increasing with
311: lower $S/N$ photometry) and much of the variation is in spectral type:
312: early-type galaxies have more tightly constrained masses than late
313: types (see also Fig.~\ref{fig:loglik}). Using the U band, the
314: uncertainty in mass grows by $\sim 0.05$~dex.
315:
316: %% ------------------------------------------------------------------
317: %% COMPARISON OF STELLAR MASSES
318: %% ------------------------------------------------------------------
319:
320: \section{Comparison of stellar mass estimators}\label{sec:stellmass}
321:
322: In Fig.~\ref{fig:mass-comp} we compare our photometry-based stellar
323: mass estimates to the stellar masses of K03. We show the \Ha\
324: equivalent width (as measured by the SDSS) by color coding. The
325: overall impression from this figure is that the two different
326: estimators agree remarkably well, within a rms scatter of only $\sim
327: 0.2$ dex over almost 4 decades in mass (and hence they largely agree
328: within their respective uncertainties). This is only a relative
329: statement, though. It does not imply that the masses are accurate to
330: that level in an absolute sense, although it is very reaffirming.
331: However, as may be expected, there are systematic differences as a
332: function of star formation activity on the $\sim 0.15$~dex level.
333:
334: The \D\ and \Hd\ based method of K03 yields masses almost identical to
335: ours for weakly star forming objects (EqW(\Ha) $< 5$\AA) at masses
336: above $10^{10.5}$~\Msun. At lower masses, our estimator tends to give
337: slightly higher masses than K03's. For more strongly star forming
338: objects, the photometrically determined masses are smaller than the
339: ones of K03. For objects with EqW(\Ha) $> 25$\AA, the discrepancy
340: becomes as large as 0.15 dex, independent of mass. Note that at high
341: redshift, such objects will be more common.
342:
343: We suspect that there are a multitude of reasons for these differences
344: based on the different sampling of stellar populations by both methods
345: (if we leave out the JHK bands, our masses become more similar in
346: their trends to K03's, although with increased scatter). Plausibly,
347: though, this is explainable by the fact that the photometrically
348: determined masses sample the light from the whole galaxy, while K03's
349: SDSS-based sampling of \D\ and \Hd\ covers only the inner 3
350: arcseconds. Since most galaxies are redder in their centers than in
351: the outer parts, this might lead to higher masses for star forming
352: disk galaxies. Early-type galaxies without blue star forming disks do
353: not suffer from this effect. This is confirmed by restricting the
354: sample to low redshifts, which maximizes the effect. Also, at the
355: lowest masses, galaxies might have more irregular SFHs, and
356: photometric methods might fail in this case \citep{BD01}. However,
357: Fig.\ref{fig:mass-comp} does not show a dependence of the residuals on
358: mass, only on current star formation rate.
359:
360: Fig.~\ref{fig:mass-comp} also shows that our masses based on the g
361: band are very similar to the ones estimated through the K band. For
362: early type systems and weakly star forming systems, they are
363: statistically indistinguishable. Star forming systems, however, tend
364: to have g-band masses lower by $\sim 0.1$~dex. The good agreement is
365: partly due to the fact that the effect of dust extinction and age on
366: the effective \ML\ are very similar in canonical models, as has been
367: pointed out by \citet{BD01}, although they are not completely
368: degenerate. Typically, the spread of the stellar \ML\ in the galaxy
369: population at any given luminosity is around 0.7~dex in g and 0.35~dex
370: in K. These results is reaffirming since the restframe blue spectral
371: range is accessible to photometry to very high redshift, and thus
372: high-$z$ studies mostly rely on $M/L_B$.
373:
374: %% ------------------------------------------------------------------
375: %% DYNAMICAL MASSES
376: %% ------------------------------------------------------------------
377:
378: \section{Comparison with dynamical masses}\label{sec:dynmass}
379:
380: \begin{figure*}[t]
381: \centering
382: %\epsscale{0.7}
383: \epsscale{1.3}
384: \plotone{f3.eps}
385: \caption{\label{fig:mass-dyn}%
386: Comparison of stellar mass vs.\ dynamical mass, $\Mdyn \propto
387: \sigma^2 R_e / G$. The left hand panel shows \Mdyn\ vs.\
388: photometric mass and the right hand panel shows \Mdyn\ vs.\ the
389: masses of K03. Color encodes \Ha\ equivalent width, as in Fig.~2.}
390: \end{figure*}
391:
392: Since we do not have a fiducial mass estimator (neither for stellar
393: mass nor for total mass, for that matter), it is only natural to ask
394: how the stellar mass measurements presented here compare with
395: estimators of mass based on kinematic data. In fact, it has been
396: suggested that stellar mass (or, more accurately, baryonic mass) and
397: total mass are tightly related and that stellar mass can be used as a
398: surrogate for total mass in the context of high-$z$ galaxy surveys to
399: probe structure formation \citep[see, e.g.,][]{BE00}.
400:
401: We use the measurements of velocity dispersion, $\sigma$, and
402: effective radius in the g band, $R_e$, provided by the SDSS pipeline
403: to plot stellar mass vs.\ dynamical mass, $\Mdyn \propto \sigma^2 R_e
404: / G$, in Fig.~\ref{fig:mass-dyn}. The left hand panel shows \Mdyn\
405: vs.\ photometric stellar mass and the right hand panel shows \Mdyn\
406: vs.\ the stellar masses of K03. Color again encodes \Ha\ equivalent
407: width.
408:
409: Above $10^{10}$~\Msun, the stellar masses from both methods follow the
410: dynamical masses remarkably well. Below $\sim 10^{9}$~\Msun, the
411: velocity dispersion measurements of the SDSS becomes unreliable as we
412: approach the instrumental resolution of the data ($\sim 70$~km
413: s$^{-1}$).
414:
415: At higher masses, although both estimators generally follow \Mdyn,
416: there are again some differences, and both estimators show similar
417: trends in their residuals although with different amplitudes. Stellar
418: masses agree very well with \Mdyn\ at the highest masses (which are
419: mostly populated by old, quiescent objects). At lower masses, stellar
420: masses show a trend to larger values than \Mdyn\ with decreasing mass
421: and with increasing \Ha\ emission line equivalent width. This effect
422: is weak in the photometric estimator, and stronger in K03's method,
423: which gives stellar masses larger than \Mdyn\ by 0.1 to 0.4~dex at
424: almost all masses. This comparison is unchanged by using \MLK\ instead
425: of \MLg.
426:
427: It is important to note that \Mdyn\ is not a good estimator of total
428: mass, and that this comparison is again only to be taken in relative
429: terms. In fact $\sigma^2 R_e / G$ can only provide a lower limit to
430: the mass. However, as long as a bulge is present, the total mass
431: should not be underestimated by more than $\sim 0.3$~dex (see, e.g.\
432: Fig.~4 in \citealp{WK81}; also \citealp{Padmanetal04}, who show that
433: $\sigma^2 R_e / G$ is a reasonable mass estimator, although this paper
434: is concerned with ellipticals only). It is therefore not surprising
435: to find stellar masses in excess of \Mdyn\ and the difference between
436: the two increasing at lower masses.
437:
438: Nevertheless, the point of this work is to assess the general
439: consistency and reliability of stellar mass estimates than to
440: investigate the relationship between stellar and dynamical mass in
441: galaxies. Fig.~\ref{fig:mass-dyn} shows that the estimators of stellar
442: mass, and especially the photometric estimator which is most easily
443: obtainable for large high redshift samples (covering a bluer
444: wavelength range, though), closely follow \Mdyn\ as measured by this
445: simple dynamical measure. We cannot see significant systematic
446: deviations which would bias or invalidate this estimator. This is a
447: very encouraging result, since such an estimator is very likely to be
448: the only one available at $z > 0$ for some time to come.
449:
450: %% ------------------------------------------------------------------
451: %% ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
452: %% ------------------------------------------------------------------
453:
454: \acknowledgments
455:
456: This publication makes use of data products from the Two Micron All
457: Sky Survey, a joint project of the University of Massachusetts and the
458: Infrared Processing and Analysis Center/California Institute of
459: Technology, funded by NASA and NSF. Funding for the creation and
460: distribution of the SDSS Archive has been provided by the Alfred P.
461: Sloan Foundation, the Participating Institutions, NASA, NSF, the U.S.
462: Department of Energy, the Japanese Monbukagakusho, and the Max Planck
463: Society.
464:
465: N.D.\ acknowledges support by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation.
466:
467: %% ------------------------------------------------------------------
468: %% REFERENCES
469: %% ------------------------------------------------------------------
470:
471: %\bibliography{apjmnemonic,literature} \bibliographystyle{apj}
472: \begin{thebibliography}{}
473:
474: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Bell} \& {de Jong}}{{Bell} \& {de
475: Jong}}{2001}]{BD01}
476: {Bell}, E.~F., \& {de Jong}, R.~S. 2001, ApJ, 550, 212
477:
478: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Bell} et~al.}{{Bell} et~al.}{2003}]{BMKW03}
479: {Bell}, E.~F., {McIntosh}, D.~H., {Katz}, N., \& {Weinberg}, M.~D. 2003, ApJ,
480: submitted
481:
482: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Blanton}, {Schlegel}, \& {Hogg}}{{Blanton}
483: et~al.}{2004}]{VAGC}
484: {Blanton}, M.~R., {Schlegel}, D.~J., \& {Hogg}, D.~W., in prep.
485:
486: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Brinchmann} \& {Ellis}}{{Brinchmann} \&
487: {Ellis}}{2000}]{BE00}
488: {Brinchmann}, J., \& {Ellis}, R.~S. 2000, ApJ, 536, L77
489:
490: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Bruzual} \& {Charlot}}{{Bruzual} \&
491: {Charlot}}{2003}]{BC03}
492: {Bruzual}, G., \& {Charlot}, S. 2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000
493:
494: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Cohen}}{{Cohen}}{2002}]{Cohen02}
495: {Cohen}, J.~G. 2002, ApJ, 567, 672
496:
497: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Cole} et~al.}{{Cole} et~al.}{2001}]{2dF01}
498: {Cole}, S., et~al. 2001, MNRAS, 326, 255
499:
500: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Dickinson} et~al.}{{Dickinson}
501: et~al.}{2003}]{DPFB03}
502: {Dickinson}, M., {Papovich}, C., {Ferguson}, H.~C., \& {Budav{\' a}ri}, T.
503: 2003, ApJ, 587, 25
504:
505: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Drory} et~al.}{{Drory}
506: et~al.}{2004}]{MUNICS6}
507: {Drory}, N., {Bender}, R., {Feulner}, G., {Hopp}, U., {Maraston}, C.,
508: {Snigula}, J., \& {Hill}, G.~J. 2004, ApJ, 608, 742
509:
510: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Drory} et~al.}{{Drory}
511: et~al.}{2001}]{MUNICS3}
512: {Drory}, N., {Bender}, R., {Snigula}, J., {Feulner}, G., {Hopp}, U.,
513: {Maraston}, C., {Hill}, G.~J., \& {de Oliveira}, C.~M. 2001, ApJ, 562, L111
514:
515: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Folkes} et~al.}{{Folkes}
516: et~al.}{1999}]{2dF99}
517: {Folkes}, S., et~al. 1999, MNRAS, 308, 459
518:
519: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Fontana} et~al.}{{Fontana}
520: et~al.}{2003}]{Fontanaetal03}
521: {Fontana}, A., et~al. 2003, ApJ, 594, L9
522:
523: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Fontana} et~al.}{{Fontana}
524: et~al.}{2004}]{K20-04}
525: {Fontana}, A., et~al. 2004, A\&A, in press
526:
527: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Kauffmann} et~al.}{{Kauffmann}
528: et~al.}{2003}]{Kauffmannetal03a}
529: {Kauffmann}, G., et~al. 2003, \mnras, 341, 33
530:
531: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Padmanabhan} et~al.}{{Padmanabhan}
532: et~al.}{2004}]{Padmanetal04}
533: {Padmanabhan}, N., et~al. 2004, New Astronomy, 9, 329
534:
535: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Rudnick} et~al.}{{Rudnick}
536: et~al.}{2003}]{Rudnicketal03}
537: {Rudnick}, G., et~al. 2003, ApJ, 599, 847
538:
539: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Skrutskie} et~al.}{{Skrutskie}
540: et~al.}{1997}]{TwoMASS}
541: {Skrutskie}, M.~F., et~al. 1997, in ASSL Vol. 210: The Impact of Large Scale
542: Near-IR Sky Surveys, 25
543:
544: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Stasi{\' n}ska} et~al.}{{Stasi{\' n}ska}
545: et~al.}{2004}]{SMSS04}
546: {Stasi{\' n}ska}, G., {Mateus}, A., {Sodr{\' e}}, L., \& {Szczerba}, R. 2004,
547: A\&A, 420, 475
548:
549: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Tully} et~al.}{{Tully}
550: et~al.}{1998}]{TPHSVW98}
551: {Tully}, R.~B., {Pierce}, M.~J., {Huang}, J., {Saunders}, W., {Verheijen},
552: M.~A.~W., \& {Witchalls}, P.~L. 1998, AJ, 115, 2264
553:
554: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Whitmore} \& {Kirshner}}{{Whitmore} \&
555: {Kirshner}}{1981}]{WK81}
556: {Whitmore}, B.~C., \& {Kirshner}, R.~P. 1981, ApJ, 250, 43
557:
558: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{York} et~al.}{{York} et~al.}{2000}]{SDSS}
559: {York}, D.~G., et~al. 2000, AJ, 120, 1579
560:
561: \end{thebibliography}
562:
563: \onecolumn
564:
565:
566: \end{document}
567:
568:
569: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
570: % EMACS Stuff
571: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
572:
573: % Local Variables:
574: % reftex-cite-format:natbib
575: % ispell-local-dictionary: "english"
576: % LocalWords: MUNICS ERO EROs Calar NIR rms CAFOS YODA yoda UKIRT iraf NASA IR
577: % LocalWords: PSF CCD fwhm FWHM Kron arcsec eps KJIR KJIV KJIRV KJ SED SEDs QSO
578: % LocalWords: SSP SSps CSP CSPs CFRS Gyr Sbc RA NASA's YODA's QSOs
579: % LocalWords: 2MASS 2dF SDSS PLE MF LF arcminute arcsecond
580: %
581: % End:
582: