Local and Large-Scale Environment of Seyfert Galaxies E
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Astrophysical Journal, 639:37–45, 2006 March 1 A # 2006. The American Astronomical Society. All rights reserved. Printed in U.S.A. LOCAL AND LARGE-SCALE ENVIRONMENT OF SEYFERT GALAXIES E. Koulouridis,1,2 M. Plionis,1,3 V. Chavushyan,3,4 D. Dultzin-Hacyan,4 Y. Krongold,4 and C. Goudis1,2 Received 2005 May 11; accepted 2005 September 28 ABSTRACT We present a three-dimensional study of the local (100 hÀ1 kpc) and the large-scale (1 hÀ1 Mpc) environment of the two main types of Seyfert AGN galaxies. For this purpose we use 48 Seyfert 1 galaxies (with redshifts in the range 0:007 z 0:036) and 56 Seyfert 2 galaxies (with 0:004 z 0:020), located at high galactic latitudes, as well as two control samples of nonactive galaxies having the same morphological, redshift, and diameter size distributions as the corresponding Seyfert samples. Using the Center for Astrophysics (CfA2) and Southern Sky Redshift Survey (SSRS) galaxy catalogs (mB 15:5) and our own spectroscopic observations (mB 18:5), we find that within a projected distance of 100 hÀ1 kpc and a radial velocity separation of v P 600 km sÀ1 around each of our AGNs, the fraction of Seyfert 2 galaxies with a close neighbor is significantly higher than that of their control (especially within 75 hÀ1 kpc) and Seyfert 1 galaxy samples, confirming a previous two-dimensional analysis of Dultzin-Hacyan et al. We also find that the large-scale environment around the two types of Seyfert galaxies does not vary with respect to their control sample galaxies. However, the Seyfert 2 and control galaxy samples do differ sig- nificantly when compared to the corresponding Seyfert 1 samples. Since the main difference between these samples is their morphological type distribution, we argue that the large-scale environmental difference cannot be attributed to differences in nuclear activity but rather to their different type of host galaxies. Subject headings: galaxies: active — galaxies: Seyfert — large-scale structure of universe Online material: color figures 1. INTRODUCTION clarifying whether there is any difference (1) between the envi- Despite the fact that active galactic nuclei (AGNs) have been ronment of active and nonactive galaxies and (2) between dif- studied for several decades now, there are still many unanswered ferent types of AGNs. Some studies suggest no relation between questions, among which are the AGN triggering mechanism, the environmental effects and nuclear activity (Virani et al. 2000; duration of the AGN activity, their accretion history, and spectral Schmitt 2001 and references therein). Also, there seems to be evolution (if any) following this history. An important issue no differences in their detailed morphology or any other phys- stems from the fact that AGNs appear in a great variety of forms ical property between the AGN hosts and nonactive galaxies ´ (e.g., Seyfert types 1 and 2 [Sy1 and Sy2], LINERS, etc.), which (Virani et al. 2000; Marquez et al. 1999, 2000, 2003). These re- raises the question of whether all these objects are intrinsically sults point against a scenario in which nearby galaxies trigger different or are just different phases of the same phenomenon. nuclear activity. Are these phases related to the accretion rate? Are these the same Other studies, however, claim the opposite (e.g., Dultzin- kind of objects in a different evolutionary stage, determined by Hacyan et al. 1999, hereafter DH99; Storchi-Bergmann et al. ´ ´ the amount of material falling into the nucleus? An additional 2001; Chatzichristou 2002; Sanchez & Gonzalez-Serrano 2003; question is the relation of AGNs and circumnuclear bursts of star Marquez et al. 2003). Moreover, there are indications that the en- formation (the so-called starburst galaxies). Currently, the dom- vironment of different types of AGNs differ with type 2 objects, inant paradigm for AGNs is that the different spectral properties showing a larger fraction of companions (e.g., Laurikainen & Salo that define the different types, especially the different types of 1995; DH99; Krongold et al. 2001, 2003; Chatzichristou 2002; Seyfert galaxies, correspond to different orientations between Hunt & Malkan 2004; Kelm et al. 2004), thus posing problems to the circumnuclear dust torus around the accretion disk, which the simplest version of the unification model. feeds the black hole, and the line of sight (e.g., Antonucci 1993; In this work we use the exact same samples of DH99 to study Urry & Padovani 1995). the three-dimensional environment of Sy1 and Sy2 galaxies. The If, however, there are intrinsic physical differences, then an first part of our analysis is based on computing the fraction of our important task would be to identify the cause of such differences. active or nonactive galaxies that have a neighbor within some Could they be due to differences of the host galaxies or possibly given conditions. To this end we use the Center for Astrophysics 5 Huchra et al. 1995, 1999) and the Southern Sky Red- due to different environmental effects? During the last decade, (CfA2; shift Survey (SSRS; da Costa et al. 1998) galaxy catalogs, which many studies have dealt with the environment of AGNs, from a have a magnitude limit, in the B(0)-Zwicky system (Huchra 1976) few kiloparsecs around the galactic nucleus to some hundreds of of m 15:5. The second part is based on our own spectroscopic kiloparsecs around the host galaxy. These studies were aimed at B observations of all projected neighbors within a 100 hÀ1 kpc radius around a subsample of our AGNs and down to m 18:5. 1 Institute of Astronomy and Astrophysics, National Observatory of Athens, B I. Metaxa and B. Pavlou, P. Penteli 152 36, Athens, Greece. The final part of our study is an analysis of the large-scale envi- 2 Physics Department, University of Patras, Panepistimioupolis Patron, 26500 ronment of the different types of Seyfert galaxies. Patras, Greece. We discuss our galaxy samples in x 2. Our data analysis and 3 Instituto Nacional de Astrofisica, Optica y Electronica (INAOE) Apartado results are presented in x 3, while in x 4 we discuss our results Postal 51 y 216, 72000 Puebla, Mexico. 4 Instituto de Astronomı´a, Universidad Nacional Auto´noma de Me´xico, Apartado Postal 70-264, Me´xico, D. F. 04510, Mexico. 5 See http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/~huchra. 37 38 KOULOURIDIS ET AL. Vol. 639 and present our conclusions. Due to the fact that all our samples TABLE 1 are local, cosmological corrections to the galaxy distances are Our AGN Sample Galaxies That Reside in the Sky Region À1 Covered by the SSRS and CFA2 Catalogs negligible. Throughout our paper we use H0 ¼ 100 h Mpc. 2. OBSERVATIONS AND SAMPLES R.A. Decl. Name (J2000.0) (J2000.0) m z Type 2.1. Seyfert Galaxy and Control Samples B The samples of the two types of Seyfert galaxies were com- Mrk 335 ...................... 00 06 19.3 20 12 10 14.00 0.02578 Sy1 NGC 424..................... 01 11 27.8 À38 04 59 13.90 0.01166 Sy1 piled from the catalog of Lipovetsky et al. (1988). They consist ESO 354-G04 ............. 01 51 42.0 À36 11 16 15.08 0.03351 Sy1 of 72 Sy1 galaxies with redshifts between 0.007 and 0.036 and NGC 863..................... 02 14 34.7 01 13 57 13.81 0.02700 Sy1 69 Sy2 galaxies with redshifts between 0.004 and 0.020. The Mrk 1400 .................... 02 20 13.7 08 12 20 15.60 0.02929 Sy1 samples are volume-limited as indicated from the V /Vmax test Mrk 1044 .................... 02 30 05.4 À08 59 49 15.25 0.01621 Sy1 and complete to a level of 92%. They include only high galactic NGC 1019................... 02 38 27.2 01 54 31 14.60 0.02419 Sy1 latitude objects in order to avoid extinction and confusion with ESO 548-G81 ............. 03 42 03.0 À21 14 25 12.92 0.01448 Sy1 galactic stars. The sample selection details are described in NGC 1194................... 03 03 48.4 À01 06 09 14.70 0.01339 Sy1 DH99. Note, however, that we have reexamined and reassigned NGC 2782................... 09 14 05.6 40 06 54 12.66 0.00854 Sy1 the Seyfert classification of each AGN in these samples in order NGC 3080................... 09 59 55.9 13 02 43 14.50 0.03546 Sy1 to take into account relevant recent studies, and indeed we have MCG 10.16.111 .......... 11 18 57.7 58 03 24 15.70 0.02710 Sy1 Mrk 739A ................... 11 36 29.4 21 35 46 14.84 0.02965 Sy1 changed the classification for about 10% of the original ones. 1H1142-178 ................ 11 45 40.4 À18 27 16 14.70 0.03295 Sy1 We also use the two control samples, compiled by DH99 in Mrk 42 ........................ 11 53 42.1 46 12 42 15.20 0.02467 Sy1 such a way as to reproduce the main characteristics, other than the NGC 4235................... 12 17 09.8 07 11 28 13.20 0.00804 Sy1 nuclear activity, of the AGN samples. Specifically, the control Mrk 50 ........................ 12 23 24.1 02 40 44 15.17 0.02300 Sy1 samples were compiled from the original CfA catalog to closely NGC 4593................... 12 39 39.2 À05 20 39 12.21 0.00899 Sy1 reproduce the redshift, morphological type, and diameter size dis- NGC 4748................... 12 52 12.2 À13 24 54 14.27 0.01369 Sy1 tributions of the corresponding AGN samples. The latter was im- IC 4218 ....................... 13 17 04.4 À02 15 49 14.90 0.01937 Sy1 posed due to the fact that Seyfert galaxies often reside in giant hosts Mrk 1494 ...................