The 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey: the luminosity function of cluster galaxies

By R. Propris, M. Colless, S. Driver, W. Couch, J. Peacock, I. Baldry, C. Baugh, Joss Bland-Hawthorn, T. Bridges, R. Cannon and 20 more. 2002

156 citations recorded by the source corpus.

We have determined the composite luminosity function (LF) for galaxies in 60 clusters from the 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey. The LF spans the marge -22.5 < M b 1 < -15, and is well fitted by a Schechter function with M * b j = -20.07 ′ 0.07 and a = -1.28 ′ 0.03 (H 0 = 100 km s - 1 Mpc - 1 , Ω M = 0.3, Ω Λ = 0.7). It differs significantly from the field LF, having a characteristic magnitude that is approximately 0.3 mag brighter and a faint-end slope that is approximately 0.1 steeper. There is no evidence for variations in the LF across a wide range of cluster properties: the LF is similar for clusters with high and low velocity dispersions, for rich and poor clusters, for clusters with different Bautz-Morgan types, and for clusters with and without substructure. The core regions of clusters differ from the outer parts, however, in having an excess of very bright galaxies. We also construct the LFs for early (quiescent), intermediate and late (star-forming) spectral types. We find that, as in the field, the LFs of earlier-type galaxies have brighter characteristic magnitudes and shallower faint-end slopes. However, the LF of early-type galaxies in clusters is both brighter and steeper than its field counterpart, although the LF of late-type galaxies is very similar. The trend of faint-end slope with spectral type is therefore much less pronounced in clusters than in the field, explaining why variations in the mixture of types do not lead to significant differences in the cluster LFs. The differences between the field and cluster LFs for the various spectral types can be qualitatively explained by the suppression of star formation in the dense cluster environment, together with mergers to produce the brightest early-type galaxies.

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics, Instrumentation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1a8d5f6e1483969c8c2e81db96f2e28cbec7b6ad

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Astronomy and Astrophysics

1. Simon D. M. White
2. F. V. D. Bosch
3. L. Hernquist
4. Volker Springel
5. P. Hopkins
6. H. Mo
7. C. Conroy
8. C. Baugh

In Instrumentation

1. Simon D. M. White
2. F. V. D. Bosch
3. Volker Springel
4. H. Mo
5. L. Hernquist
6. P. Hopkins
7. A. Benson
8. C. Conroy

Citations in the corpus

• Semianalytical Model of Galaxy Formation with High-Resolution N-Body Simulations (2004, methodology): “In Figure 6, we compare the predicted cluster luminosity functionwith the composite luminosity function of rich clusters in the 2dFGRS by De Propris et al. (2003).”
• Red Galaxy Growth and the Halo Occupation Distribution (2008, background): “The value of in high-mass halos is very similar to the measured luminosity function of red cluster galaxies (e.g., De Propris et al. 2003).”
• WINGS: a WIde-field Nearby Galaxy-cluster Survey. I. Optical imaging (2005, unknown): “Samples of low-redshift clusters have been also identified based on the redshifts obtained by two recent large spectroscopic surveys, 2dF and SDSS (De Propris et al. 2003; Nichol 2004; Vogeley et al. 2004), the former having no corresponding CCD imaging database.”
• The Buildup of the Red Sequence in Galaxy Clusters since z ∼ 0.8 (2004, background): “The populations of blue galaxies observed in distant clusters are the logical progenitors for a significant fraction of the faint red galaxies at z = 0 (Smail et al. 1998; Kodama & Bower 2001; De Propris et al. 2003).”
• Galaxy bimodality versus stellar mass and environment (2006, background): “There are many other analyses looking at luminosity functions versus group masses, cluster properties, etc. (e.g. Binggeli et al. 1988; Balogh et al. 2001; De Propris et al. 2003; Zandivarez et al. 2006).”
• Linking halo mass to galaxy luminosity (2004, methodology): “We also include the luminosity function for galaxies in clusters in the 2dF survey, as derived by De Propris et al. (2003), as the short-dashed line.”
• K-Band Properties of Galaxy Clusters and Groups: Luminosity Function, Radial Distribution, and Halo Occupation Number (2004, methodology): “Using the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) commissioning data, Goto et al. (2002) study a large sample of clusters and find that the slope becomes less steep in redder bands (see De Propris et al. 2003; Goto et al. 2002 for comparisons between various studies).”
• The 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey: Luminosity functions by density environment and galaxy type (2004, methodology): “5 D I S C U S S I O N As clusters are comparatively well-studied objects, and have already been addressed using the 2dFGRS by De Propris et al. (2003), we focus here primarily on a discussion of the voids.”
• Star formation in close pairs selected from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (2004, background): “…prope - ties are also known to correlate with environment: galaxiesare, for example, on average more luminous in rich clusters (M∗bJ = −20.07± 0.07, De Propris et al. 2003) and marginally more luminous in groups (M∗bJ = −19.90± 0.03, Martı́nez et al. 2002) as compared to the field (M∗bJ = −19.79±…”
• The environmental dependence of the relations between stellar mass, structure, star formation and nuclear activity in galaxies (2004, background): “It appears to be somewhat brighter in clusters than in the general field (Balogh et al 2001; De Propris et al 2003) and to be fainter in voids (Hoyle et al 2003).”
• Chemical enrichment of the intracluster and intergalactic medium in a hierarchical galaxy formation model (2003, background): “The points represent the composite luminosity function by De Propris et al. (2003).”
• Environmental Dependence of Properties of Galaxies in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (2006, background): “(e.g., Lumsden et al. 1997; Driver et al. 1998; Marinoni et al. 2002; De Propris et al. 2003; Balogh et al. 2004b; Hoyle et al. 2005; Popesso et al. 2005; Zandivarez et al. 2006).”
• The Optical and Near-Infrared Properties of Galaxies. I. Luminosity and Stellar Mass Functions (2003, methodology): “Nevertheless, both the SWML and parametric method make the assumption that the shape of the LF is independent of environment, yet there is impressive evidence against this assumption, at least in the optical (De Propris et al. 2003; Hütsi et al. 2003).”
• THE GALAXY CONTENT OF SDSS CLUSTERS AND GROUPS (2007, methodology): “Using the 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey, De Propris et al. (2003) and Robotham et al. (2006) compared the LF in high- and low-mass systems; a similar study was performed with a sample of 93 X-ray selected clusters (Lin et al. 2004).”
• The Build-up of the Colour-Magnitude Relation (2005, methodology): “A similar conclusion was reached by De Propris et al. (2003) based on the 2dF data.”
• Environmental Effects on Late‐Type Galaxies in Nearby Clusters (2006, methodology): “De Propris et al. (2003) also showed that the cluster LF has a characteristic magnitude that is 0.3 mag brighter than the field one, which they∗MbJ tentatively attribute to an excess of very bright galaxies in the cluster cores.”