1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2:
3: \def\ha{H$_{\alpha}$}
4: \def\hb{H$_{\beta}$}
5: \def\OII{[OII]}
6: \def\24m{24 $\mu$m}
7: \def\lir{$L_{IR}$ }
8: \def\comlir{$L_{IR}^{com}$}
9: \def\speirsym{$l_{IR}$}
10: \def\comsm{$M_{*}^{com}$}
11: \def\sm{$M_{*}$ }
12: \def\kpc{$h^{-1}$kpc }
13: \def\kms{${\rm km~s^{-1}}$}
14: \def\speir{$L_{IR}/M_{*}$ }
15: \def\dis{$\vartriangle$$r_{p}$ }
16: \def\vel{$\vartriangle$$v$ }
17: \def\solar{$L_{\odot}$}
18:
19:
20: \slugcomment{Accepted for publication in the ApJL AEGIS Special Issue}
21:
22: \shorttitle{Star Formation in Close Galaxy Pairs and Merging Galaxies}
23: \shortauthors{Lin et al.}
24:
25:
26:
27: \begin{document}
28:
29: \title{AEGIS: Enhancement of Dust-enshrouded Star Formation in Close Galaxy Pairs and Merging Galaxies up to $z \sim 1$ \altaffilmark{1}}
30:
31:
32: \author{Lihwai Lin \altaffilmark{2,3}, David C. Koo \altaffilmark{3}, Benjamin J. Weiner \altaffilmark{4}, Tzihong
33: Chiueh\altaffilmark{2}, Alison L. Coil \altaffilmark{5,6},
34: Jennifer Lotz \altaffilmark{7,8}, Christopher J. Conselice
35: \altaffilmark{9}, S. P. Willner \altaffilmark{10}, H. A. Smith
36: \altaffilmark{10}, Puragra Guhathakurta \altaffilmark{3}, J.-S.
37: Huang \altaffilmark{10}, Emeric Le Floc'h \altaffilmark{5}, Kai G.
38: Noeske \altaffilmark{3}, Christopher N. A. Willmer
39: \altaffilmark{5}, Michael C. Cooper \altaffilmark{11}, and Andrew
40: C. Phillips \altaffilmark{3}}
41:
42:
43: \altaffiltext{1}{ Some of the data presented herein were obtained at the W. M. Keck Observatory, which is operated
44: as a scientific partnership among the California Institute of Technology, the University of California and the
45: National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The Observatory was made possible by the generous financial support
46: of the W.M. Keck Foundation.} \altaffiltext{2}{Department of Physics, National Taiwan University, Taipei 106,
47: Taiwan; Email: d90222005@ntu.edu.tw} \altaffiltext{3}{UCO/Lick Observatory, Department of Astronomy and
48: Astrophysics, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95064} \altaffiltext{4}{Department of Astronomy, University
49: of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742} \altaffiltext{5}{Steward Observatory, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721}
50: \altaffiltext{6}{Hubble Fellow} \altaffiltext{7}{National Optical Astronomy Observatory, Tucson, AZ 85719}
51: \altaffiltext{8}{Leo Goldberg Fellow} \altaffiltext{9}{School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Nottingham,
52: Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK} \altaffiltext{10}{Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, MA 02138}
53: \altaffiltext{11}{Department of Astronomy, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720}
54:
55:
56:
57:
58:
59:
60:
61: \begin{abstract}
62: \hspace{3mm} Using data from the DEEP2 Galaxy Redshift Survey and \textit{HST}/ACS imaging in the Extended Groth
63: Strip, we select nearly 100 interacting galaxy systems including kinematic close pairs and morphologically
64: identified merging galaxies. $Spitzer$ MIPS \24m fluxes of these systems reflect the current dusty star formation
65: activity, and at a fixed stellar mass (\sm) the median infrared luminosity (\lir) among merging galaxies and close
66: pairs of blue galaxies is twice (1.9$\pm$0.4) that of control pairs drawn from isolated blue galaxies. Enhancement
67: declines with galaxy separation, being strongest in close pairs and mergers and weaker in wide pairs compared to the
68: control sample. At $\overline{z} \sim 0.9$, $7.1\%\pm4.3\%$ of massive interacting galaxies (\sm $>$ $2\times10^{10}
69: M_{\odot}$) are found to be ULIRGs, compared to $2.6\%\pm0.7\%$ in the control sample. The large spread of \speir
70: among interacting galaxies suggests that this enhancement may depend on the merger stage as well as other as yet
71: unidentified factors (e.g., galaxy structure, mass ratio, orbital characteristics, presence of AGN or bar). The
72: contribution of interacting systems to the total IR luminosity density is moderate ($\la 36\%$).
73:
74:
75: \end{abstract}
76:
77: \keywords{galaxies:interactions - galaxies:evolution - large-scale
78: structure of universe - infrared:galaxies}
79:
80: \section{INTRODUCTION}
81:
82: Galaxy-galaxy interaction has long been regarded as a key process in galaxy evolution, especially as a mechanism for
83: enhancing star formation during mergers \citep{lar78, bar00}. Hydrodynamic $N$-body simulations show that active
84: star formation can be triggered by gaseous inflows resulting from mergers of gas-rich galaxies \citep{mih96,
85: bar04,cox04}. Interaction-triggered star formation is also thought to be responsible for luminous infrared sources.
86: In the local universe, luminous infrared galaxies (LIRGs) and ultra luminous infrared galaxies (ULIRGs) are
87: primarily merging systems \citep{san88,bor99}. Nevertheless, by studying various star formation indicators of
88: interacting galaxies and normal galaxies, \citet{ber03} concluded that galaxy interactions in general are
89: inefficient triggers of starbursts; interactions are a necessary but not sufficient condition to trigger violent
90: starbursts.
91:
92: The importance of galaxy interactions in the volume-averaged
93: galaxy star formation rate (SFR) remains an open question. Recent
94: studies of mid-IR (MIR) sources at a median redshift of $z\sim$0.7
95: suggest that the IR density at that epoch is dominated by
96: morphologically normal galaxies instead of strongly interacting
97: galaxies \citep{bel05,mel05}. Two main factors may contribute to
98: this result. First, only a small fraction of the galaxy population
99: may be undergoing a major merger at any given time
100: \citep{car00,bun04,lin04}. Second, the overall SFR in normal
101: galaxies at $z\sim$0.7 may be enhanced relative to the local
102: population \citep{bel05}, perhaps as the result of internal
103: processes such as a higher gas fraction leading to a higher SFR,
104: such that galaxy interactions may have less dramatic effects on
105: triggering star formation at that epoch and/or may be harder to
106: identify. It is the aim of this Letter to examine this second
107: hypothesis.
108:
109:
110: This Letter presents an analysis of the IR properties of close kinematic galaxy pairs, morphologically selected
111: merging galaxies, and a control sample of randomly selected pairs of isolated galaxies, in the range $0.1<z<1.1$. In
112: $\S$3 we show our analysis of the IR luminosity (\lir) versus stellar mass (\sm) for the interacting galaxies and
113: control samples, and the relation between the IR luminosity-to-mass ratio (\speir) and the projected separation of
114: the galaxy pairs. Discussion and conclusions are given in $\S$4. Throughout this Letter we adopt the following
115: cosmology: H$_0$ = 100$h$~\kms Mpc$^{-1}$, $\Omega_m = 0.3$, and $\Omega_{\Lambda} = 0.7$; $h$ = 0.7 is adopted when
116: calculating the rest-frame magnitude. Magnitudes are given in the Vega system.
117:
118: \section{DATA, SAMPLE SELECTIONS, AND METHODS}
119: \subsection{Data}
120: The sample used in this Letter consists of $\sim$ 4000 optical selected galaxies with secure redshifts from the
121: DEEP2 Galaxy Redshift Survey and MIPS imaging in the Extended Groth Strip (EGS) region. The EGS has extensive
122: multi-wavelength observations from both the ground and space, coordinated by the All-Wavelength Extended Groth
123: International Survey (AEGIS) team \citep{dav06}. The spectral resolution of the DEEP2 survey is R $\sim$ 5000,
124: corresponding to redshift errors of $\sim$30 \kms, allowing us to define kinematic pairs (see $\S$ 2.2). The average
125: sampling rate of the slit placed on galaxies is $\sim 60\%$, and the average redshift success is $\sim 73\%$
126: \citep{wil06}. Details of the survey and $K$-correction procedure are described in a series of DEEP2 papers
127: \citep{dav03, coi04,wil06}. The MIPS (Multiband Imaging Photometer for Spitzer; Rieke et al. 2004) \24m observations
128: used here were carried out on 2004 June 19 and 20; \citet{dav06} provide further details.
129:
130:
131: \subsection{Selection of Kinematic Pairs, Merging Galaxies, and Control Samples}
132: Three classes of galaxy samples are investigated in this study: kinematic pairs, merging galaxies, and a control
133: sample of randomly selected pairs of isolated galaxies, in three redshift bins in the range $0.1<z<1.1$. To select
134: \textbf{kinematic galaxy pairs}, we use the following criteria: (1) For each galaxy in the spectroscopic redshift
135: sample, we first search for any kinematic companions with a relative line-of-sight velocity \vel $\leq$ 500 \kms and
136: a projected physical separation (onto the plane of the sky) \dis $<$300 \kpc. (2) Among these companions, close
137: pairs are identified such that they satisfy \dis $\leq$ 50 \kpc \citep{pat02,lin04}. We find a total of 56 close
138: pairs. (3) For comparison, wide pairs are identified as kinematic companions with 50 \kpc $\leq$ \dis $\leq$ 300
139: \kpc, and we retain only wide pairs that are closest companions to each other (such that there is only one wide pair
140: companion per galaxy). The spectroscopic redshift sample is not entirely complete, however; it is possible that for
141: a given galaxy, there exists a closer companion that is missing in the redshift sample. Therefore, \dis for each
142: paired system is an upper limit on the actual distance to the closest companion. To minimize this effect we also
143: search for photometric companions of each galaxy, and we keep only those wide pairs that do not have a photometric
144: companion (with observed $\vartriangle$$m_{R} <$ 1 mag) within \dis $\leq$ 30 \kpc, for a sample of 126 wide pairs.
145: (4) Absolute magnitude limits were applied to all pair samples within a given redshift bin (see Table 1). (5) To
146: study the effect of interactions between two gas-rich galaxies, we further applied a color cut using rest-frame $U -
147: B$ = 0.25 as the division between blue and red galaxies and only include blue galaxies in our samples. It is
148: possible that we have missed some red, dusty, late-type galaxies due to our color selection. However, the number
149: density of that population is $\sim$8\% compared to the blue galaxy population \citep{wei05} and is therefore
150: negligible for our analysis.
151:
152: We also define a set of morphologically identified \textbf{merging galaxies} using a subsample of blue galaxies in
153: the EGS that have deep $HST$ images taken with Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS) as part of GO program 10134 (PI: M.
154: Davis). These morphologically identified merging galaxies are preferentially in strongly interacting systems and are
155: in a different merger stage than the kinematic close pairs. We identify merging galaxies using three non-parametric
156: parameters: the Gini coefficient ($G$), the second-order moment of the brightest 20\% of a galaxy's pixels
157: ($M_{20}$), and the asymmetry measurement ($A$), all of which have been shown to identify merger candidates
158: \citep{con03a,con03b,lot04}. We first select galaxies with morphological parameters of $G
159: > -0.115*M_{20} + 0.384$ or $A>0.25$ (see Lotz et al. 2007 for
160: discussion on $G$ and $M_{20}$ in detail), and then we perform
161: by-eye examinations of each object to keep only those candidates
162: that show apparent interaction signatures (eg., tidal tails,
163: distorted morphology, and double nuclei). This results in a sample
164: of 56 merging systems.
165:
166:
167: For a fair comparison with isolated galaxies we also construct a sample of 1800 \textbf{control pairs}, each of
168: which consists of two galaxies randomly selected from galaxies that are isolated, with no spectroscopic companion
169: within 100 \kpc or photometric companion (with observed $\vartriangle$$m_{R}$ $<$ 1 mag) within 30 \kpc. Isolated
170: galaxies have the same magnitude and color cut as adopted for interacting galaxies.
171:
172:
173: \subsection{Stellar Mass and Total IR Luminosity}
174: Stellar masses are derived from rest-frame $(B-V)$ colors and absolute $M_B$ magnitude as described by the models of
175: \citet{bel01} and \citet{bel05}, who find a scatter of $\sim$0.3 dex in the resulting stellar mass estimates. These
176: measurements were further refined by comparison with the stellar masses derived by \citet{bun05} using detailed fits
177: to the spectral energy distribution (SED). Empirically we find that the difference between the masses estimated
178: using the rest-frame colors and the SED fits is improved by making small corrections for the redshift, rest-frame
179: $(U-B)$ and $(B-V)$ colors:
180: \begin{eqnarray}
181: log_{10}\frac{M_{*}}{M_{\odot}}&=&-0.4(M_{B}-5.48)+1.737(B-V)+0.098(U-B)\nonumber\\&&-0.130(U-B)^{2}-0.268z-1.003.
182: \end{eqnarray}
183: These terms have the effect of correcting the $z=0$ measurements of \citet{bel01} to the galaxy redshift as well as
184: accounting for evolution in color. Masses estimated from Equation 1 agree with those from full SED fits (when
185: available; Bundy et al. 2006) to an rms accuracy of 0.25 dex.
186:
187: %\subsection{Total IR luminosity}
188: Local studies have shown that the rest-frame MIR luminosity is tightly correlated with the total IR luminosity over
189: a wide range of galaxy types \citep{rou01, pap02}. This relation appears to hold up reasonably well to $z \sim 1$
190: \citep{elb02, app04} and hence allows us to estimate the IR luminosity from the observed flux of \24m corresponding
191: to the rest-frame 11-21 $\mu$m flux over the redshift range $0.1<z<1.1$. Following the same procedure adopted by
192: \citet{lef05}, we convert the observed \24m flux into the total IR luminosity by fitting for each source using SEDs
193: from \citet{cha01}. \footnote{Various template libraries lead to a scatter in this conversion of a factor of 2-3
194: \citep{lef05}.} Because of the large PSF (FWHM 6") of the \24m data, we work on the total IR luminosity in pairs
195: rather than the IR luminosity of each individual galaxy. This also allows us to make comparisons to local ULIRGs,
196: which are found to be highly distorted merging systems \citep{san88,bor99}, and to merger simulations in the
197: literature \citep{bar04,jon06}, which yield the total star formation rate of the merger system. For each pair, we
198: then calculate the mean IR luminosity-to-mass ratio, \speir, by summing the IR luminosity of both galaxies and
199: dividing by the total stellar mass of both components.
200:
201:
202: \section{RESULTS}
203:
204: Figure 1 shows the relation between \lir and \sm for three of the galaxy samples. A relatively tight correlation is
205: seen for the control pairs, and the close pairs and mergers are within the bounds of this relation but tend to
206: occupy the upper region of \lir for a given \sm. In the highest redshift bin, the fraction of merging galaxies and
207: close pairs more massive than $2\times10^{10} M_{\odot}$ that are ULIRGs is $7.1\%\pm4.3$\%, compared to
208: $2.6\%\pm0.7$\% for the control sample. To address quantitatively the difference of \lir among those samples, we
209: compute the median \speir for each sample. Using the median value of \speir rather than performing the K-S test
210: avoids the problem of handling the upper limits. When calculating the median \speir, stellar mass cuts are further
211: applied in each redshift bin (see Table 1). Over the entire redshift range, the median \speir of pairs and mergers
212: is twice ($1.9\pm0.4$) that of the control sample. To assess if our results are sensitive to the method we have
213: adopted to estimate stellar masses, we also apply the same analysis on a subsample of the data with stellar mass
214: measurements derived from the SED-fitting procedure of \cite{bun05}. The enhancement in \speir increases to 3.1
215: $\pm$1.3 in this case, consistent with our initial result within the $1 \sigma$ uncertainties.
216:
217:
218:
219: An alternative way to investigate the effect of galaxy interactions on the star formation rate is to study the
220: dependence of \speir on the pair separation, as shown in Figure 2. For comparison, distributions of \speir in
221: control pairs are also shown along the right-hand axes. The merging galaxies and close pairs possess higher median
222: \speir than wide pairs and control pairs, as shown in Table 1, but also have a wider spread in \speir. The declining
223: envelope of \speir as a function of \dis is similar to the behavior of the local pair results reported by
224: \citet{bar00}, who use various sets of emission lines as the star formation tracer. The median \speir of wide pairs,
225: on the other hand, becomes close to that of the control pairs, indicating that the effect of galaxy interaction on
226: star formation activity is limited to several tens of \kpc.
227:
228:
229:
230:
231: \section{DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION }
232: Using data from the DEEP2 Galaxy Redshift Survey with MIPS \24m imaging in the EGS, we find that the combined IR
233: luminosity at a given stellar mass of blue merging galaxies and kinematic close pairs is greater by a factor of $1.9
234: \pm 0.4$ than that of control pairs randomly drawn from blue isolated galaxies. This enhancement is consistent with
235: low-redshift studies of the SFR in galaxy pairs \citep{lam03,nik04}. In addition, we also observe a declining
236: envelope of the \speir with increased projected separation of kinematic galaxy pairs.
237: %as seen at lower redshift by \citet{bar00}.
238: Based on the assumption that the IR emission is tightly associated with the SFR, our results qualitatively support
239: the picture of tidally triggered starbursts as predicted in hydrodynamic simulations, although the effect is
240: apparently not large. The frequency of ULIRGs in massive interacting systems is only $7.1\%\pm4.3\%$ in the highest
241: redshift bin ($0.75 < z < 1.1$), and no ULIRGs are found below a combined stellar mass for the pair of
242: $4\times10^{10} M_{\odot}$. The mass ratio between two gas-rich galaxies may be a key element in generating ULIRG
243: luminosities \citep{das06}, along with the dependence on the combined stellar mass of the interacting system. The
244: wide spread of specific star formation rates in interacting galaxies found here (as inferred from the broad
245: distribution of \speir), and also seen in \citet{bar00}, indicates that some other mechanism(s) may determine the
246: strength of the induced star formation as well -- e.g., the galaxy structure, the mass/luminosity ratio, the orbital
247: configuration, and the existence of AGN and/or bar. For example, studies by \citet{lam03} and \citet{woo06} suggest
248: that pairs with comparable luminosity do show stronger star formation activity than pairs with a larger luminosity
249: contrast. The scatter in \speir that we find could also be due to the fact that these systems are in different
250: stages of merging: some kinematic pairs are likely on their first approach while others are being seen after their
251: first passage. Another possibility is that some of the close pairs selected by our \dis and \vel criteria are not
252: physical close pairs in real space (as opposed to redshift space; Perez et al. 2006). Our results nevertheless
253: provide a constraint on the amount of induced star formation activity due to galaxy interactions at $z \sim
254: 0.1-1.1$.
255:
256:
257: Finally, we note that tidally triggered star formation contributes moderately to the high IR luminosity density at
258: intermediate redshifts of $0.4<z<1.1$. \citet{lin04} estimated that the pair fraction (\dis$\leq$50 \kpc and
259: \vel$\leq$500 \kms) of $L^{*}$ galaxies over this redshift range is less than 15\% and that the redshift evolution
260: in the pair fraction is also much lower than the rapid decline of IR luminosity density seen with decreasing
261: redshift. Additionally, the fraction of morphologically identified merging galaxies remains roughly constant at 7\%
262: up to $z \sim 1$ \citep{lot06}. These results, when combined with the moderate increase of star formation activity
263: seen in interacting systems shown here, indicate that the contribution of galaxy interactions to the total IR
264: density at intermediate redshift is $\la 36\%$. This is consistent with the conclusions from the studies of IR
265: populations of various morphology types by \citet{bel05} and \citet{mel05}.
266:
267:
268: \acknowledgments This Letter was prepared as part of the All-Wavelength Extended Groth International Survey (AEGIS)
269: collaboration. We thank S. M. Faber and P. Jonsson for useful discussions and the anonymous referee for valuable
270: comments; L. Lin acknowledges support from Taiwan COSPA project, and from Taiwan NSC grant NSC94-2112-M-002-026 and
271: NSC93-2917-I-002-008. C. J. Conselice acknowledge an NSF Astronomy and Astrophysics Fellowship and PPARC for
272: support. A. L. Coil is supported by NASA through Hubble Fellowship grant HF-01182.01-A. The DEEP2 project was
273: supported by NSF grants AST00-71198, AST05-07428 and AST05-07483. This work is based in part on observations made
274: with the \textit{Spitzer Space Telescope}, which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute
275: of Technology, under a contract with NASA. Support for this work was provided by NASA through contract 1255094
276: issued by JPL/Caltech. We close with thanks to the Hawaiian people for use of their sacred mountain.
277:
278:
279: \begin{thebibliography}{}
280: \bibitem[Appleton et al.(2004)]{app04} Appleton, P. N. et al. 2004, ApJS, 154, 147
281: \bibitem[Barnes(2004)]{bar04}Barnes, J. E. 2004, MNRAS, 350, 798
282: \bibitem[Barton et al.(2000)]{bar00} Barton, E. J., Geller M. J., \& Kenyon S. J. 2000, \apj, 530, 660
283: \bibitem[Bell \& de Jong(2001)]{bel01} Bell, E. F. \& de Jong, R. S. 2001, \apj, 550, 212
284: \bibitem[Bell et al.(2005)]{bel05} Bell, E. F. et al. 2005, \apj, 625, 23
285: \bibitem[Bergvall, Laurikainen, \& Aalto(2003)]{ber03}Bergvall, N., Laurikainen, E., \& Aalto, S. 2003, A\&A, 405, 31
286: \bibitem[Borne et al.(1999)]{bor99} Borne, K. D., et al. 1999, Ap\&SS, 266, 137
287: \bibitem[Bundy et al.(2004)]{bun04} Bundy, K., Fukugita, M., Ellis, R. S., Kodama, T., \& Conselice, C. J. 2004, \apj, 601, L123
288: \bibitem[Bundy et al.(2006)]{bun05} Bundy, K., et al. 2006, ApJ, 651, 120
289: \bibitem[Carlberg et al.(2000)]{car00} Carlberg, R. G., et al. 2000, \apj, 532, L1
290: \bibitem[Chary \& Elbaz(2001)]{cha01} Chary, R. \& Elbaz, D. 2001, \apj, 556, 562
291: \bibitem[Coil et al.(2004)]{coi04} Coil, A. L., et al. 2004, \apj, 609, 525
292: \bibitem[Conselice (2003)]{con03a} Conselice, C. J. 2003, ApJS, 147, 1
293: \bibitem[Conselice et al.(2003)]{con03b} Conselice, C. J., Bershady, M. A., Dickinson, M., \& Papovich, C. 2003, \aj, 126, 1183
294: \bibitem[Cox(2004)]{cox04} Cox, T. J. 2004, PhD thesis, UC Santa Cruz
295: \bibitem[Dasyra et al.(2006)]{das06} Dasyra et al. 2006, \apj, 638, 745
296: \bibitem[Davis et al.(2003)]{dav03} Davis, M., et al. 2003, SPIE, 4834, 161 (astro-ph/0209419)
297: \bibitem[Davis et al.(2007)]{dav06} Davis, M., et al. 2007, this volume
298: \bibitem[Elbaz et al.(2002)]{elb02} Elbaz, D., Cesarsky, C. J., Chanial, P., Aussel, H., Franceschini, A., Fadda, D., \& Chary, R. R. 2002, A\&A, 384, 848
299: \bibitem[Jonsson et al.(2006)]{jon06}Jonsson, P., Cox, T. J., Primack, J. R., \& Somerville, R. S. 2006, \apj, 637, 255
300: \bibitem[Lambas et al.(2003)]{lam03} Lambas, D. G., Tissera, P. B., Alonso, M. S., \& Coldwell, G. 2003, \mnras, 346, 1189
301: \bibitem[Larson \& Tinsley(1978)]{lar78} Larson, R. B., \& Tinsley, B. M. 1978, \apj, 219, 46
302: \bibitem[Le Floc'h et al.(2005)]{lef05} Le Floc'h, E., et al. 2005, \apj, 632, 169
303: \bibitem[Lin et al.(2004)]{lin04} Lin, L. et al. 2004, \apj, 617, L9
304: \bibitem[Lotz, Primack, \& Madau(2004)]{lot04}Lotz, J. M., Primack, J., \& Madau, P. 2004, AJ, 128, 163
305: \bibitem[Lotz et al.(2006)]{lot06}Lotz, J. M., et al. 2007, ApJ submitted (astro-ph/0602088)
306: \bibitem[Melbourne, Koo, \& Le Floc'h(2005)]{mel05} Melbourne, J., Koo, D. C., \& Le Floc'h, E. 2005, \apj, 632, L65
307: \bibitem[Mihos \& Hernquist(1996)]{mih96} Mihos, J. C., \& Hernquist, L. 1996, \apj, 464, 641
308: \bibitem[Nikolic, Cullen, \& Alexander(2004)]{nik04} Nikolic, B., Cullen, H., \& Alexander, P. 2004, \mnras, 355, 874
309: \bibitem[Papovich \& Bell(2002)]{pap02} Papovich, C., \& Bell, E. F. 2002, \apj, 579, L1
310: \bibitem[Patton et al.(2002)]{pat02} Patton, D. R., et al. 2002, \apj, 565, 208
311: \bibitem[Perez et al.(2006)]{per06} Perez, M. J., Tissera, P. B., Lambas, D. G., \& Scannapieco, C. 2006, A\&A, 449, 23
312: \bibitem[Rieke et al.(2004)]{rie04} Rieke, G. H., et al. 2004, ApJS, 154, 25
313: \bibitem[Roussel et al.(2001)]{rou01} Roussel, H., Sauvage, M.,Vigroux, L., \& Bosma, A. 2001, A\&A, 372, 427
314: \bibitem[Sanders(1988)]{san88} Sanders, D. B., et al. 1988, ApJ, 325, 74
315: \bibitem[Weiner et al.(2005)]{wei05} Weiner, B. J., et al. 2005, ApJ, 620, 595
316: \bibitem[Willmer et al.(2006)]{wil06} Willmer, C. N. A., et al. 2006, \apj, 647, 853
317: \bibitem[Woods, Geller, \& Barton(2006)]{woo06} Woods, D. F., Gellar, M. J., \& Barton, E. J. 2006, \aj, 132, 197
318: \end{thebibliography}
319:
320: \clearpage
321:
322: \begin{deluxetable}{ccrrrrrrr}
323: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize} \tablecaption{Properties of the pair sample \label{tbl-1}} \tablewidth{0pt} \tablehead{
324: \colhead{$z$} & \colhead{Sample} & \colhead{$M_{B}$(individual)} &\colhead{$M_{*}$(combined)} & \colhead{$No.$} &
325: \colhead{$d_{24}$} & \colhead{median \speir}} \startdata
326: 0.1 $< z <$0.4 &MG &-21.7 $\leq$ $M_{B}$ $\leq$ -18.7 &9.7$\leq$log$_{10}M_{*}$$\leq$10.7 &3(9) &\nodata &\nodata\\
327: \nodata &close pair &-21 $\leq$ $M_{B}$ $\leq$ -18 &9.7$\leq$log$_{10}M_{*}$$\leq$10.7 &10(10) &68$\pm$10(\%) &2.2$\pm$0.7\\
328: \nodata &wide pair &-21 $\leq$ $M_{B}$ $\leq$ -18 &9.7$\leq$log$_{10}M_{*}$$\leq$10.7 &17(20) &89$\pm$6(\%) &1.3$\pm$0.1\\
329: \nodata &control pair &-21 $\leq$ $M_{B}$ $\leq$ -18 &9.7$\leq$log$_{10}M_{*}$$\leq$10.7 &480(600) &74$\pm$11(\%) &1.0$\pm$0.3\\
330: \tableline
331: 0.4 $< z <$0.75 &MG &-22.7 $\leq$ $M_{B}$ $\leq$ -19.7 &10$\leq$log$_{10}M_{*}$$\leq$11 &13(18)&62$\pm$13(\%) &3.1$\pm$0.8\\
332: \nodata &close pair &-22 $\leq$ $M_{B}$ $\leq$ -19 &10$\leq$log$_{10}M_{*}$$\leq$11 &21(24) &71$\pm$7(\%) &2.7$\pm$0.4\\
333: \nodata &wide pair &-22 $\leq$ $M_{B}$ $\leq$ -19 &10$\leq$log$_{10}M_{*}$$\leq$11 &44(54) &64$\pm$5(\%) &1.7$\pm$0.3\\
334: \nodata &control pair &-22 $\leq$ $M_{B}$ $\leq$ -19 &10$\leq$log$_{10}M_{*}$$\leq$11 &502(600) &60$\pm$7(\%) &1.5$\pm$0.4\\
335: \tableline
336: 0.75 $< z <$1.1 &MG &-23.7 $\leq$ $M_{B}$ $\leq$ -20.7 &10.3$\leq$log$_{10}M_{*}$$\leq$11.3 &20(29) &73$\pm$10(\%) &3.3$\pm$2.7\\
337: \nodata &close pair &-23 $\leq$ $M_{B}$ $\leq$ -20 &10.3$\leq$log$_{10}M_{*}$$\leq$11.3 &22(22) &76$\pm$7(\%) &3.8$\pm$0.8\\
338: \nodata &wide pair &-23 $\leq$ $M_{B}$ $\leq$ -20 &10.3$\leq$log$_{10}M_{*}$$\leq$11.3 &45(52) &62$\pm$5(\%) &1.5$\pm$0.2\\
339: \nodata &control pair &-23 $\leq$ $M_{B}$ $\leq$ -20 &10.3$\leq$log$_{10}M_{*}$$\leq$11.3 &547(600) &64$\pm$7(\%) &1.9$\pm$0.5\\
340: \enddata
341: \tablecomments{ $M_{B}$ is the rest-frame $B$-band magnitude of each galaxy in pairs. The luminosity range of
342: merging galaxies (MGs) is chosen to be twice as bright as that of individual galaxy in pairs because merging
343: galaxies are assumed to be comprised of two galaxies.
344: %The two components of these merging galaxies are too close to be resolved from
345: %ground-based imaging and therefore the rest-frame magnitude and color refers to the total magnitude of each merging
346: %system.
347: \sm is the stellar mass cut when computing the median \speir and \24m detection rate $d_{24}$. In the fifth column,
348: the values outside (inside) the parentheses are the numbers of paired systems with (without) a stellar mass cut.
349: Error bars quoted here are computed by bootstrapping.}
350: \end{deluxetable}
351:
352: \clearpage
353:
354: \begin{figure}
355: \epsscale{.7} \plotone{f1.eps} \caption{Total IR luminosity (\lir) vs. stellar mass (\sm) for kinematic close pairs
356: (blue circles), control pairs (green crosses), and morphologically identified merging galaxies (magenta triangles).
357: Systems without a \24m detection are assigned low \lir values $<3\times10^{9}$ \solar. Horizontal red solid lines
358: represent the IR thresholds for ULIRGs ($L_{IR}$ $\geq$ $10^{12}$ \solar) and LIRGs ($L_{IR}$ $\geq$ $10^{11}$
359: \solar). Black dotted lines correspond to 70 $\mu$Jy (5$\sigma$) in \24m at lower and upper redshift limits. Arrows
360: in the lower right corner of each panel show the scatter (0.3 dex) in the conversion of \24m flux into total \lir
361: between different template libraries. It can been seen that the close pairs and merging galaxies possess higher
362: $L_{IR}$ than control pairs for a given \sm. \label{fig1}}
363: \end{figure}
364:
365: \clearpage
366:
367: \begin{figure}
368: \epsscale{.7} \plotone{f2.eps} \caption{\speir as a function of projected separation for kinematic galaxy pairs
369: (blue circles) and merging galaxies (magenta triangles) in three redshift bins. Merging galaxies are assigned to
370: \dis $\sim5$ \kpc, which is the minimum separation of kinematic close pairs. Galaxies with $L_{IR}$ $>$ $10^{12}$
371: $L_{\odot}$ (ULIRGs) are shown as larger symbols. Distributions of \speir in control pairs are also shown along the
372: right-hand axes for comparison. Data points at \speir = 0 refer to those sources with no \24m detection. The number
373: within the parentheses in the bottom panel denotes the \speir of the closest data point. Close pairs (\dis $<$ 50
374: \kpc) and merging galaxies are found to have a higher median \speir and a wider spread of \speir than those of wide
375: pairs (\dis $>$ 50 \kpc) or control pairs (see Table 1). \label{fig2}}
376: \end{figure}
377:
378: \end{document}
379: