Age and Age Gradients in Pseudo-bulge Galaxies from CALIFA

Age and Age Gradients in Pseudo-bulge Galaxies from CALIFA Sandra Nogueira dos Reis Astronomia Departamento de Física e Astronomia 2014 Orientador Jean Michel Gomes, Investigador, Centro de Astrofísica da Universidade do Porto Coorientador Polychronis Papaderos, Investigador Coordenador, Centro de Astrofísica da Universidade do Porto Todas as correções determinadas pelo júri, e só essas, foram efetuadas. O Presidente do Júri, Porto, ______/______/_________ To my family, for their love and support. Acknowledgements I want to thank the guidance of both my supervisors, Dr. Jean Michel Gomes and PD Dr. Polychronis Papaderos, for their indispensable contribution, without which it would not be possible to complete this work. I also want to express my acknowledgement to the entire IA-CAUP team, specially to my friend and colleague Iris for all the assistance and support during the entire time framework. I acknowledge funding from the FCT project An exploration of the assembly history of galaxies with the novel concept of self consistent spectral synthesis (FCOMP-01-0124-FEDER-029170 & PTDC/FIS-AST/3214/2012) and SELGIFS (Study of Emission Line Galaxies with Integral Field Spectroscopy) (P7-PEOPLE-2013-IRSES) project. J.M. Gomes acknowledges support from the Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT) through the Fellowship SFRH/BPD/66958/2009 and POPH/FSE (EC) by FEDER funding through the program Programa Operacional de Factores de Competitividade–COMPETE. P. Papaderos acknowledges support from the Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT) through the Investigador FCT Contract No. IF/01220/2013 and POPH/FSE (EC) by FEDER funding through the program Programa Operacional de Factores de Competitividade–COMPETE. 5 Abstract This work is centered on the derivation of the age and radial age gradient in the stellar component of pseudo-bulges, using a new methodology that combines surface photometry and spectral synthesis. Using multi-band imaging data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) for a sample of 66 nearly face on galaxies in the local universe, we have derived their surface brightness profiles and determined photometric and structural parameters of the (pseudo)bulge. Afterwards, Integral Field Spectroscopy (IFS) data from the Calar Alto Legacy Integral Field Area (CALIFA) Survey were modeled spaxel-by-spaxel with an in-house automated spectral synthesis pipeline Porto3D. The photometric and structural analysis of the sample galaxies was performed with an in-house surface photometry code that permits derivation of surface brightness profiles, and their decomposition into the luminosity contribution of the (pseudo)bulge, disk and bar component. This code permits determination of several photometric parameters, such as the Sérsic index η, apparent and absolute magnitude of the structural components considered in the profile decomposition (bulge, disk and bar), the central surface brightness and exponential scale length of the disk, the mean surface brightness µ80 of the bulge within the radius enclosing 80% of its total luminosity and the effective radius reff . The spectroscopic data was modeled spaxel-by-spaxel with the aim of establish constraints on the age and star formation history of pseudo-bulges. The IFS data was processed with the automated spectral synthesis pipeline Porto3D, which enabled us, among other things, a spatially resolved determination of the luminosity- and mass-weighted stellar age (and metallicity) of the bulge and disk. Following the considerations and defining criteria presented in Kormendy & Kennicutt (2004), 7 FCUP 8 Age and Age Gradients in Pseudo-bulge Galaxies from CALIFA we conclude that only 3 out of 66 galaxies (NGC 5614, NGC 5656 and NGC 6004) have Sérsic index η > 2, being classified as classical bulges. It is worth pointing out that the surface brightness profile (SBP) decomposition carried out here explicitly includes the bar component in order to ensure a proper determination of the luminosity and structural properties of the bulge. Our spectroscopic analysis allowed us to determine the luminosity- and mass-weighted stellar ages within the bulge region, being 8.2 Gyr (σ=2.7 Gyr) and 10.1 Gyr (σ=1.7 Gyr), respectively. We further find that, with respect to their luminosity-weighted stellar age, pseudo-bulges are, on average, ∼2.7 Gyr older than the underlying disks. Another important conclusion drawn from this study is that the most massive and compact pseudo-bulges have formed the bulk of their stellar mass early on, whereas the less massive/compact ones are assembling over longer timescales. Interestingly, the mass-weighted age suggests significant growth of the stellar mass at a late cosmic epoch, being consistent with the secular evolution scenario. Our analysis also indicates that the age of pseudo-bulges tightly correlates with their stellar metallicity. Finally, the fact that our sample galaxies show in their majority negative age gradients in their pseudo-bulge component hints at an inside-out formation scenario. Keywords galaxy: spiral, galaxy: pseudo-bulge, galaxy: formation, galaxy: evolution, techniques: photometric and spectroscopic, Integral Field Spectroscopy, CALIFA Sandra Nogueira dos Reis Resumo Este trabalho é centrado na derivação de idades e gradientes radiais de idade na componente de pseudo-bojos, usando uma nova metodologia que combina fotometria de superfície e síntese espectral. Usando dados de imagem multi-banda do Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) para uma amostra de 66 galáxias no universo local, derivamos os seus perfis de brilho de superfície e determinamos parâmetros fotométricos e estruturais do (pseudo)bojo. Posteriormente, os dados de Espetroscopia de Campo Integral (IFS) do Calar Alto Legacy Integral Field Area (CALIFA) Survey foram modelados spaxel-a-spaxel com o código automatizado de síntese espectral, Porto3D, feito pela nossa equipa. A fotometria e análise estrutural das galáxias da amostra foi realizada com um código da nossa equipa que permite a derivação de perfis de brilho de superfície, e a sua decomposição na contribuição de luminosidade dos componentes (pseudo)bojo, disco e barra. Este código permite a determinação de vários parâmetros fotométricos, tais como o índice de Sérsic índice η, magnitude aparente e absoluta das componentes estruturais consideradas na decomposição do perfil (bojo, disco e barra), o brilho da superfície central e o comprimento de escala exponencial do disco, a média da superfície de brilho µ80 dentro do raio que contém 80% da sua luminosidade total e o raio efetivo reff . Os dados espectroscópicos foram modelados spaxel-por-spaxel com o objectivo de estabelecer restrições sobre a idade e história de formação estelar de pseudo-bojos. Os dados IFS foram processados com o código automatizado de síntese espetral Porto3D, o que nos possibilitou, entre outras coisas, determinar espacialmente a idade (e metalicidade) estelar, ponderadas em luminosidade e em massa, do bojo e do disco. Seguindo as considerações e critérios definidos por Kormendy & Kennicutt (2004), conclui-se 9 Chapter 1. Introduction The Universe emerged from a singularity giving rise to what is called today as the Big Bang. Then, the expansion of the Universe had begun, leading to the overall distribution of energy and matter we see today. As it expanded, the Universe progressively cooled, while the gravitational potential started to pull back together clumps of cold gas, until the first baryonic entities, i.e. the stars, appeared. These objects, together with gas, dust and dark matter, are responsible for the formation of the first galactic structures. The study of the formation and evolution of galaxies is a keystone in astronomy and astrophysics to unravel the history of the Universe. In the last few years, with the advent of new astronomical instruments, such as the Integral Field Unit (IFU) spectrographs, much more powerful in terms of spatial and spectral resolution, we have entered a new prolific era in extragalactic astronomy, which aims at better understanding how galaxies form and evolve over cosmic time. Since stars are the fossil records of successive star formation and chemical enrichment events in galaxies, we can use them as a proxy to better understand the evolution and formation of these systems. Unfortunately, the majority of galaxies that we observe cannot be resolved into individual stars, with a few exceptions in the Local Group (e.g., the Large and Small Magellanic Clouds, and a dozen of nearby dwarf spheroidals), where Color-Magnitude diagrams can be directly determined from Hubble Space Telescope (HST) data (see Figure 1.1). Therefore, one must rely on different methods that utilize the integrated (i.e. non-resolved) colors and spectra of the stellar component on spatial scales of typically hundreds pc2, in order to reconstruct the star 17 FCUP 18 Age and Age Gradients in Pseudo-bulge Galaxies from CALIFA formation history (SFH) of galaxies. Figure 1.1: Color-Magnitude Diagrams of stellar clusters in the Large Magellanic Cloud, obtained through deep photometric measurements in the vand ibands with the Wide Field and Planetary Camera 2 on board of HST. The solid lines in each of the clusters (Hodge 14, NGC 1818, NGC 1805 and Hodge 11) represent isochrones referring to different metallicities (in units of F e H) and ages (in units of Gyr) (first and second column on the right-hand side of each diagram). Figure taken from Castro et al. (2001). In this work, we use a combined methodology that takes advantage of surface photometry and spectral synthesis of stellar populations (to be briefly described in chapter 3). Our main motivation comes from studies of bulge formation in spiral galaxies, where classical bulges are thought to be formed in violent processes, such as mergers, whereas pseudo-bulges are built slowly via secular processes, as for example, disk instabilities or bar-driven inflow and collapse of gas. Our main goal is the determination of the age and age gradients in (pseudo)bulges using high-quality IFU data from the CALIFA survey (see http://califa.caha.es for details). This information is expected to offer new discriminators between pseudo-bulges and classical bulges, shedding light into the formation and evolution of these structures in galaxies. Sandra Nogueira dos Reis FCUP 19 Age and Age Gradients in Pseudo-bulge Galaxies from CALIFA 1.1 MORPHOLOGICAL CLASSIFICATION OF GALAXIES In 1936, Edwin Hubble set out a classification scheme for galaxies by means of their visual appearance, i.e. morphology. His new system considered three main group of galaxies: ellipticals (E), spirals (S) and lenticulars (S0) (see Figure 1.2). A fourth class of galaxies that did not fit into this scheme are irregulars (Irr), which do not show any regular, axis-symmetric shape. Figure 1.2: Hubble’s tuning fork diagram. Three main branches of galaxies are depicted: one in the left containing elliptical (E) galaxies and the other two in the right for spiral (S) galaxies unbarred (top) and barred (bottom). Lenticular galaxies (S0) are placed in the node that connects, from left to right, early-type to late-type systems. Figure taken from Realm of the Nebulae (Hubble 1936). Elliptical galaxies have approximately ellipsoidal smooth shapes and are preferentially found in clusters of galaxies. They don’t have much substructure and are generally lacking cool gas, which means that they have very low, if any at all, ongoing star-forming activity. Several recent studies, using IFU data (see, e.g., Sarzi et al. (2010) and references therein) confirm in a very quantitative and precise way that stellar kinematics in ellipticals are dominated by random motions, with little rotational support in most cases. Spiral galaxies are characterized by a thin, rotationally-supported disk, and a central concentration of stars known as the bulge. Their bright spiral arms are outlined by young and hot O and B stars, as well as ionized gas and dust. Many spiral and lenticular galaxies show a bar component (SB and SB0, respectively). Lenticular galaxies are disk galaxies with a high Bulge/Disk ratio and little ongoing star formation, as compared to normal spiral galaxies (Johnston et al. 2012). These galaxies are generally regarded as a transition class between ellipticals and spirals. Sandra Nogueira dos Reis FCUP 20 Age and Age Gradients in Pseudo-bulge Galaxies from CALIFA The Hubble classification was later on extended by de Vaucouleurs (1959), who realized that features, such as rings are also important morphological indicators of galaxies. The classification scheme devised by de Vaucouleurs for late-type galaxies therefore complements Hubble sequence, taking into account not only the presence and prominence of spiral arms and bars, but also rings. Often in extragalactic studies the term Early- and Late-Type galaxies is used to reflect the left and right part of the diagram in Figure 1.2, respectively. This is because, erroneously, there was a widespread belief that these two classes represent different stages of a galaxy evolutionary sequence. This study – ages and age gradients in (pseudo)bulges – is obviously closely linked to our understanding of galaxy formation and evolution. 1.2 SURFACE PHOTOMETRY The understanding of the formation and evolution of galaxies requires quantitative information on the photometric properties of their structural parameters (i.e., disk, bar and bulge components). The technique of measuring the electromagnetic radiation emitted by point-like and extended celestial sources is called photometry. In 1948, de Vaucouleurs stated the necessity to go beyond a visual representation of galaxies and obtain quantitative measurements of their light distribution. He obtained a law describing how the surface brightness profile Iof an elliptical galaxy varies as a function of the galactocentric radius r: ln I(r) = ln I0−kr1/4(1.1) with kbeing a constant. However, measuring the size of a galaxy is not an easy task because it is not clear where the galaxy ends. Therefore, by convention, galaxy sizes are specified by a scale length that describes how sharply the light of a galaxy decreases with r. Another widely used measure of galaxy sizes is based on the effective radius reff , i.e. the radius enclosing half of the Sandra Nogueira dos Reis FCUP 21 Age and Age Gradients in Pseudo-bulge Galaxies from CALIFA total luminosity of a galaxy. With this new parameter it is possible to rewrite de Vacouleurs’ law as ln I(r) = ln Ieff + 7.669 "1−r reff 1/4#(1.2) where Ieff is the intensity at reff . Figure 1.3 shows an example of a profile with de Vaucouleurs’ law (also referred to as the r1/4law). Figure 1.3: Example of the surface brightness profile of an elliptical galaxy (NGC 5831). The solid line represents the fit using an empirical model, with inner and outer extrapolations indicated by the dotted extensions. The profile is approximated by the de Vaucouleurs’ law. Figure taken from Graham et al. (2003). In 1963, José Luis Sérsic published a generalization of the de Vaucouleurs’ law. His r1/η model has the form I(r) = Ieff exp (−bη"r reff 1/η −1#) (1.3) with bηbeing a parameter coupled to the Sérsic index or shape parameter η(Sérsic 1963). Figure 1.4 presents the variation of galaxy intensity profiles for different indices η. Setting the Sérsic index to η= 1 gives an exponential profile, which is commonly assumed to describe spiral galaxy disks (Figure 4.8), whereas a η= 4 yields the de Vaucouleurs’s law. Sandra Nogueira dos Reis FCUP 22 Age and Age Gradients in Pseudo-bulge Galaxies from CALIFA Figure 1.4: Sérsic intensity distributions for different Sérsic exponents η(from 0.25 to 8). Figure taken from Peng et al. (2010). Figure 1.5: Example of a disk profile - exponential (η=1). The solid line represents the surface brightness in the Iband, the dashed line shows the exponential fit to the diskdominated outer part of the galaxy and the dotted line shows a Sérsic fit to the emission in excess to the disk. The exponential scale length hRof the disk is depicted by the horizontal bar. Figure taken from Galaxies in the Universe (Sparke & Gallagher 2007) (Credits: R. Peletier). Sandra Nogueira dos Reis FCUP 23 Age and Age Gradients in Pseudo-bulge Galaxies from CALIFA Another useful quantity is the bulge-to-total light ratio B/T, which can be determined from the total (Sérsic-model dependent) luminosity of the bulge and the disk. This ratio shows a clear trend with the Hubble type, increasing from late-type towards early-type galaxies. 1.3 SPIRAL GALAXIES: BULGES Figure 1.6: Basic structure of a late-type galaxy, as viewed edge-on. The main components are the disk (containing gas, dust and stars), the central concentration of stars known as the bulge, and the halo of stars and clusters. Note that the galactic halo extends beyond the disk, however, for representation purposes, it is shown in the figure smaller than the spiral arms. (Credits: Jones and Lambourne, 2003). Bulges are often referred as a densely packed stellar system found in the center of spirals and lenticulars. When seen edge-on they can appear as round ellipsoids, as flattened (like bright central disks), or as bar-like. Historically bulges were thought to have a common sense of rotation about the center and weren’t expect to rotate very fast. However, high-resolution data have shown that many bulges rotate rapidly and are of comparable thickness to disks. Thus, today is thought that there are at least two kinds of bulges: classical elliptical-like bulges, and pseudo or disk-like bulges. Classical Bulges According to our current understanding, classical bulges have similar properties to elliptical galaxies (Renzini 1999) and are formed through violent and rapid processes, such as mergers (Eggen et al. 1962). Since these bulges have almost no ongoing star formation, they are mainly composed by a population of old stars, which is reflected on red broadband colors. The stars Sandra Nogueira dos Reis FCUP 24 Age and Age Gradients in Pseudo-bulge Galaxies from CALIFA are densely packed and have dispersed orbits probably due to violent relaxation associated with mergers, which are thought to be responsible for the formation of the bulge (Bender et al. 1992). In this scenario, classical bulges are expect to show little or no rotation. These bulges have typically more concentrated surface brightness profiles, with a Sérsic index η≥4(Drory & Fisher 2007). As one can see from the equation 1.3, the surface brightness is supposed to increase to the center, and thus the volume density of the stars would grow, packing them into a high-surface brightness nucleus. There is also a correlation between the bulge Sérsic index and the bulge-to-total ratio (Fisher & Drory 2008). The majority of bulges are also consistent with the Faber-Jackson relation (Faber & Jackson 1976), which correlates the total luminosity Lwith stellar velocity dispersion σ?as L∝σ4 ?. Although this power-law was first described for elliptical galaxies, one can use it also for classical bulges of disk galaxies. Another discriminator proposed by Kormendy & Kennicutt (2004) is the bulge-to-total luminosity ratio of a galaxy. Whenever we have 1/3.B/T ⩽1/2, it can be concluded that it contains a classical bulge. Pseudo-bulges The development of technology has allowed astronomers to obtain high-resolution data, revealing that many bulges have properties similar to disk galaxies (Kormendy & Illingworth 1982). These bulges tend to be rotationally supported, and some show recent star formation (Kormendy & Kennicutt 2004). Sometimes they can be overimposed on bars and/or contain star-forming rings and/or spiral features (see, e.g., Kehrig et al. (2012)). Theories for the formation of pseudo-bulges are more uncertain than those for classical bulges. Pseudo-bulges may be formed by a combination of different phenomena, such as for example, gravitational instabilities (Genzel et al. 2008, Bournaud et al. 2014), or gas inflow to galaxy centers and ensuing star formation in the course of galaxy secular evolution (Kormendy & Kennicutt 2004). The scenario that is investigated in this work is related with the one proposed by Kormendy & Kennicutt (2004), where secular processes are responsible for the formation of pseudo-bulges. This scenario involves disk instabilities and bar-driven gas inflows towards the center of the galaxy. Sandra Nogueira dos Reis FCUP 25 Age and Age Gradients in Pseudo-bulge Galaxies from CALIFA Based on integral optical colors (i.e. an estimate of the age of stellar populations in galaxies), Strateva et al. (2001) found a separation into a red and blue sequence for early and late-type galaxies, respectively. From this, one can expect that pseudo-bulges have younger and bluer stars than classical bulges. Kormendy & Kennicutt (2004) emphasizes that, although it is expected that stellar population ages of pseudo-bulges have a range between ∼0−5Gyr (Bouwens, Cayón & Silk 1999), one should not disregard the presence of an underlying older stellar population. Kormendy & Kennicutt (2004) suggest that a pseudo-bulge has to show at least one feature among the following ones: •Have disk morphology, like, e.g., embedded spiral arms. •Contain a nuclear bar (in nearly face-on galaxies). •Be box-shaped (in edge-on galaxies). •Have a Sérsic index η.2. •Show on-going star formation, with no signs of recent mergers. •Have stellar kinematics dominated by rotation with a large ratio Vmax/σ of circular to random motion and a comparatively low velocity dispersion. •Fall below the Faber-Jackson relation (Faber & Jackson 1976). In photometric studies of large galaxy samples the simplified notion that the Sérsic index is in itself enough to clearly distinguish between classical and pseudo-bulges has received significant popularity. On the other hand, there is an ongoing debate among astronomers regarding the key criteria for distinguishing pseudo-bulges from classical bulges. As Kormendy & Kennicutt (2004) warn, it is important to verify that at least one, preferably several, of the above characteristics are evident for a safe identification of pseudo-bulges. 1.4 INTEGRAL FIELD SPECTROSCOPY Traditional long-slit spectroscopy allows studies of galaxies only within the narrow strip that is mapped by the slit aperture. However, this technique is not efficient for all applications because it Sandra Nogueira dos Reis FCUP 32 Age and Age Gradients in Pseudo-bulge Galaxies from CALIFA where εis the median ellipticity, defined as: ε2= 1 −b a2 (2.2) being aand bthe observed semi-major and semi-minor axes of the ellipse, respectively. Figure 2.2 shows the histograms of the median ellipticity and the b/a ratio, with the solid red line corresponding to the mean values. As expected, there is an inverse quadratic dependence between both values. 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 5 10 15 66 late-type galaxies 38 Barred 28 Unbarred01: Sa 02: Sb 03: Sc 04: Sd 05: S0 06: SBa 07: SBb 08: SBc 09: SBd 10: SB0 Hubble types Figure 2.3: Histogram showing the different simplified Hubble-types of our sample. Blue color refers to galaxies classified with a bar, whereas red color correspond to unbarred galaxies. On the left side of the histogram is detailed the simplified morphological classifications, both for barred and unbarred galaxies. To better visualize the morphological distribution of our sample, and since NED has a complex classification, we plot, in Figure 2.3, the histograms related to the different and simplified Hubbletypes present in our sample. Furthermore, we have divided our sample in two main types: barred and unbarred galaxies. This subdivision was made according to the family classifications of Buta (2011), without concerning the stages. On one side we have the spiral unbarred galaxies (SA); on Sandra Nogueira dos Reis FCUP 33 Age and Age Gradients in Pseudo-bulge Galaxies from CALIFA the other side we have the spiral barred galaxies (SB), which include not only the barred galaxies, but also the intermediate cases (SAB). Figure 2.4 displays five different random galaxies of our sample, with the remaining images of our sample included in Appendix A. For each galaxy there are four images: a) true-color image; b) logarithmic mean of the three SDSS filters gri; c) color map r−i; d) color map g−r. The blue/black bottom line in the figures represents 10 kpc. On the top of each figure one can find the name of the galaxy, NED’s morphology, distance (Mpc), apparent magnitude (mag) and absolute magnitude in the SDSS r-band (mag). The true-color images were generated with the Lupton et al. (2004) algorithm, that combines Red-Green-Blue (RGB) figures. To compute these true-color images we consider that R=f(r), G=f(g)and B=f(b), where f(x) =            0x<m log10(xm)/log10(Mm)m≤x≤M 1M < x being mand Mthe minimum and maximum values to display, respectively. In order to avoid white pixels for values greater or equal to Mit is imposed that R=r∗f(I)/I,G=g∗f(I)/I and B=b∗f(I)/I, where I≡(r+g+b)/3. Sandra Nogueira dos Reis Figure 2.4: Five different random galaxies of our sample, showing: a) true-color RGB image; b) logarithmic mean of the SDSS filters gri; c) color map r−i; d) color map g−r. From the top to the bottom: IC0776, NGC0180, NGC4185, NGC7819 and UGC08733. Table 2.1: Specifications of the galaxies in our sample, obtained in the NED Database: galaxy name, relevant surveys, right ascension, declination, redshift, distance (Mpc), morphological classification, activity type, inclination (degrees), median ellipticity, foreground galactic extinction in the V-band (mag), and total absolute magnitude in the r-band (mag). Galaxy Surveys RA DEC zDistance Morph. Class. Activity Inclination ε2Gal. Ext. V-band r-band Abs. mag IC0776 HIPASS J121ALFA 3-21 12h19m02.90s +08d51m22.0s 0.008232 40.20 Sdm HII 62.76 0.6265432099 0.06 -18.96 IC1256 KIG; UZC 17h23m47.31s +26d29m11.5s 0.015778 72.10 Sb - 59.78 0.52734375 0.13 -21.15 IC4566 USGC 15h36m42.16s +43d32m21.6s 0.01926 86.30 Sab - 59.23 0.51 0.07 -21.71 NGC0001 ALFALFA; KPG 00h07m15.84s +27d42m29.1s 0.015177 61.60 SA(s)b: - 56.79 0.4375 0.17 -21.43 NGC0023 ALFALFA; KUG 00h09m53.41s +25d55m25.6s 0.015231 61.70 SB(s)a Sbrst 62.48 0.6167800454 0.11 -22.28 NGC0160 UZC 00h36m04.06s +23d57m28.4s 0.017525 70.50 (R)SA0+pec - 64.22 0.6788888889 0.09 -21.96 NGC0165 NVSS 00h36m28.92s -10d06m22.2s 0.019617 78.90 SB(rs)bc - 56.41 0.4267346939 0.10 -21.35 NGC0171 HIPASS; VV 00h37m21.53s -19d56m03.3s 0.013043 52.80 SB(r)ab - 45.01 0.1814058957 0.06 -21.67 NGC0180 HIPASS 00h37m57.70s +08d38m06.7s 0.017616 70.60 SB(rs)bc - 54.41 0.3732638889 0.15 -22.11 NGC0214 ALFALFA; CXO 00h41m28.03s +25d29m58.0s 0.015134 61.00 SAB(r)c - 57.47 0.4570637119 0.10 -22.04 NGC0237 HIPASS; GALEXASC ; [VCV2006] 00h43m27.84s -00d07m29.7s 0.013926 55.90 SAB(rs)cd Sy?; LINER 64.35 0.68359375 0.05 -20.88 NGC0257 NVSS; GALEXASC 00h48m01.51s +08d17m49.5s 0.017592 70.40 Scd: - 59.93 0.5318559557 0.16 -22.00 NGC0477 NVSS 01h21m20.37s +40d29m17.5s 0.0196 79.10 SAB(s)c - 64.86 0.7024793388 0.15 -21.47 NGC0776 NVSS J015954+233839; UZC 01h59m54.49s +23d38m39.8s 0.016415 65.50 SAB(rs)b - 54.89 0.3856829803 0.27 -21.81 NGC1093 NVSS; UZC 02h48m16.15s +34d25m11.2s 0.017646 70.80 SABab? - 62.76 0.6265432099 0.24 -21.40 NGC1645 GALEXASC 04h44m06.38s -05d27m56.2s 0.016345 65.90 (R’)SB0+(rs) pec - 67.67 0.8109640832 0.15 -21.67 NGC2253 NVSS; [RC2] 06h43m41.84s +65d12m22.6s 0.011885 51.30 Scd: - 57.65 0.4622222222 0.19 -21.44 NGC2347 MRK; NVSS; KPG 07h16m03.69s +64d42m32.1s 0.014747 63.00 (R’)SA(r)b: - 58.20 0.4783950617 0.22 -21.89 NGC2639 [VCV2001]; CXO; NVSS 08h43m38.08s +50d12m20.0s 0.011128 49.60 (R)SA(r)a:? LINER; Sy1.9 61.65 0.5884656461 0.07 -22.09 NGC2730 NVSS 09h02m15.83s +16d50m17.9s 0.012782 56.70 SBdm: - 55.99 0.4152249135 0.08 -20.66 NGC2906 NVSS; UZC 09h32m06.22s +08d26m30.4s 0.007138 33.50 Scd: - 61.60 0.5867346939 0.13 -20.71 NGC2916 HIPASS; UZC 09h34m57.60s +21d42m19.0s 0.012442 56.00 SA(rs)b? - 64.23 0.6794882562 0.07 -21.91 NGC3057 DDO; UZC 10h05m39.36s +80d17m08.5s 0.005084 25.90 SB(s)dm - 63.44 0.6508264463 0.07 -18.81 NGC3300 GALEXASC; UZC 10h36m38.44s +14d10m16.0s 0.01027 48.00 SAB(r)00:? - 66.04 0.7470674738 0.10 -21.27 NGC3381 [BKD2008]; NVSS 10h48m24.82s +34d42m41.1s 0.005434 28.80 SB pec WR; HII 36.58 0.0805029086 0.06 -19.83 Table 2.1 Continued. NGC3614 GALEXASC; UZC 11h18m21.32s +45d44m53.6s 0.007782 38.40 SAB(r)c - 64.60 0.6929592774 0.04 -20.79 NGC3687 MRK; GALEXASC 11h28m00.61s +29d30m39.8s 0.008362 41.10 (R’)SAB(r)bc? - 53.39 0.3480189807 0.06 -20.66 NGC4003 NVSS; GALEXASC; KPG 11h57m59.04s +23d07m29.6s 0.021712 96.60 SB0 - 63.14 0.64 0.07 -21.77 NGC4047 NVSS; GALEXASC 12h02m50.68s +48d38m10.3s 0.011375 53.30 (R)SA(rs)b: - 57.65 0.4622222222 0.06 -21.67 NGC4185 HIJASS; UZC 12h13m22.20s +28d30m39.5s 0.013022 61.00 Sbc - 57.78 0.4659763314 0.06 -21.67 NGC4210 NVSS; UZC 12h15m15.83s +65d59m07.2s 0.009113 43.20 SB(r)b - 60.66 0.5555555556 0.05 -20.83 NGC4961 FAUST; [MO2001]; NFGS 13h05m47.57s +27d44m02.9s 0.008456 42.50 SB(s)cd - 59.78 0.52734375 0.03 -19.99 NGC5000 GALEXASC; FIRST; VV; ABELL 13h09m47.49s +28d54m25.0s 0.018706 84.90 SB(rs)bc Sbrst 59.35 0.5136772853 0.02 -21.45 NGC5016 HIPASS; KIG 13h12m06.68s +24d05m42.0s 0.008713 43.50 SAB(rs)c SBNG 55.99 0.4152249135 0.04 -20.86 NGC5205 UZC 13h30m03.58s +62d30m41.7s 0.005891 30.90 Sbc - 65.28 0.7183296401 0.06 -19.89 NGC5320 UZC 13h50m20.38s +41d21m58.4s 0.008736 43.60 SAB(rs)c: - 66.11 0.75 0.02 -20.85 NGC5378 UZC-CG 13h56m51.02s +37d47m50.1s 0.010147 49.60 (R’)SB(r)a - 53.80 0.358127287 0.04 -21.10 NGC5406 GALEXASC; NVSS 14h00m20.12s +38d54m55.5s 0.017352 79.00 SAB(rs)bc - 65.04 0.7092464437 0.03 -22.32 NGC5480 NVSS; KPG 14h06m21.58s +50d43m30.4s 0.006191 32.90 SA(s)c: - 56.87 0.4397982611 0.05 -20.54 NGC5614 FIRST; VV; ARP 14h24m07.59s +34d51m31.9s 0.012982 61.40 SA(r)ab pec - 57.60 0.4606933594 0.04 -22.41 NGC5656 GALEXASC ; NVSS 14h30m25.51s +35d19m15.7s 0.010551 51.40 Saab LINER 60.33 0.5447815358 0.04 -21.45 NGC5735 UZC 14h42m33.24s +28d43m35.2s 0.012482 59.60 SB(rs)bc - 54.41 0.3732638889 0.05 -21.18 NGC5772 GALEXASC; FIRST; KIG 14h51m38.88s +40d35m57.0s 0.016345 74.80 SA(r)b: - 66.31 0.7577917272 0.05 -22.00 NGC5829 HIPASS; ARP; HCG 15h02m42.01s +23d20m01.0s 0.018797 85.80 SA(s)c HII 58.62 0.4912220646 0.12 -21.35 NGC6004 UZC 15h50m22.72s +18d56m21.4s 0.012762 60.80 SAB(rs)bc - 46.13 0.1994459834 0.11 -21.68 NGC6032 [WB92]; UZC 16h03m01.12s +20d57m21.4s 0.014283 67.00 SB(rs)b: - 66.80 0.7768451955 0.25 -21.13 NGC6154 UZC 16h25m30.48s +49d50m24.9s 0.020064 88.70 SB(r)a - 55.77 0.4091668523 0.06 -21.79 NGC6186 GALEXASC; ADBS 16h34m25.48s +21d32m27.2s 0.009797 48.10 (R’)SB(s)a - 66.48 0.7644061421 0.13 -21.11 NGC6278 CXO; GALEXASC 17h00m50.33s +23d00m39.7s 0.009447 45.80 S0 - 67.19 0.7921018014 0.17 -21.45 NGC6941 HIPASS; NVSS 20h36m23.47s -04d37m07.5s 0.020761 88.60 SAB(rs)b - 62.51 0.6181037748 0.17 -22.22 NGC7321 NVSS 22h36m28.02s +21d37m18.5s 0.023833 97.90 SB(r)b - 59.78 0.52734375 0.13 -22.32 NGC7489 NVSS; UZC 23h07m32.71s +22d59m52.8s 0.020811 85.10 Sd - 65.47 0.7256235828 0.63 -22.27 Table 2.1 Continued. NGC7625 1WGA; NVSS; VV; ARP; CGPG 23h20m30.13s +17d13m32.0s 0.005447 23.70 SA(rs)a pec HII 48.11 0.234375 0.07 -20.14 NGC7653 TXS; GALEXASC 23h24m49.36s +15d16m32.1s 0.014227 58.30 Sb - 56.87 0.4398560184 0.18 -21.50 NGC7691 UZC 23h32m24.42s +15d50m52.2s 0.013479 55.20 SAB(rs)bc - 56.87 0.439743268 0.17 -21.01 NGC7716 HIPASS; KIG 23h36m31.45s +00d17m50.2s 0.008604 35.60 SAB(r)b: - 49.69 0.2653061224 0.09 -20.79 NGC7738 2XMM; NVSS; KIG 23h44m02.06s +00d30m59.9s 0.022556 91.40 SB(rs)b - 69.79 0.897729908 0.07 -21.86 NGC7819 NVSS; KUG 00h04m24.54s +31d28m19.4s 0.016538 67.20 SB(s)b HII 53.88 0.36 0.16 -20.83 UGC07012 KUG; UZC 12h02m03.15s +29d50m52.8s 0.010277 49.40 Scd: - 65.32 0.7197231834 0.06 -19.62 UGC08234 UZC; [RC2] 13h08m46.49s +62d16m18.2s 0.027025 116.10 S0/a - 69.07 0.867768595 0.04 -22.60 UGC08733 UZC 13h48m38.90s +43d24m44.6s 0.007799 39.70 Sbcd: Sbrst 61.24 0.5746691871 0.05 -19.33 UGC09067 NVSS; GALEXASC 14h10m45.46s +15d12m33.9s 0.026151 116.30 Sab - 66.11 0.75 0.05 -21.69 UGC09291 LCSB; UZC 14h28m36.89s +38d59m56.9s 0.009657 47.60 Sd - 67.48 0.8034409959 0.04 -20.29 UGC09476 UZC; KPG 14h41m32.02s +44d30m45.9s 0.010881 52.30 SAB(rs)c - 63.42 0.6501710291 0.05 -20.75 UGC10796 KUG; UZC 17h16m47.73s +61d55m12.5s 0.010271 48.00 SB(s)b - 68.62 0.8493334488 0.05 -19.28 UGC12224 HIPASS; GALEXASC; KIG 22h52m38.30s +06d05m37.2s 0.011695 48.70 Scd: - 45.01 0.1814058957 0.24 -20.63 Chapter 3. Methodology This chapter provides a description of the analysis methodology used in this work in order to investigate the stellar age and SFH of pseudo-bulges. The methodology employed here combines surface photometry with spectral synthesis of stellar populations, as described in the next sections. 3.1 PHOTOMETRY The word photometry means measure of light. In the case of SDSS, the flux of galaxies can be measured by means of some photometric filters: u, g, r, i and z (see Figure 3.1). Surface photometry is applicable to extended sources (e.g., galaxies) and measures the flux received per solid angle, i.e. the (distance-independent) intensity of an object. The following subsections give a description of the photometric methods that were used in this work in order to derive surface brightness profiles (SBPs) for our sample galaxies and to decompose them into the luminosity contributions of their disk, bulge and bar component. Post-processing of SDSS imaging data Imaging data from the SDSS are provided in reduced form, after several pre-reduction steps: 1. Removal of instrumental/detector effects (bias, dark and flat-field, saturation, bad pixels); 39 FCUP 40 Age and Age Gradients in Pseudo-bulge Galaxies from CALIFA Figure 3.1: SDSS camera filter throughput curves. The central wavelengths for each band are: 3543 Å (ultraviolet u), 4770 Å (green g), 6231 Å (red r), 7625 Å (near infrared i) and 9134 Å (infrared z), with colors blue, green, red, dark red, and dark brown, respectively. 2. Correction for cosmic ray hits; 3. Computation of calibration constants; 4. Approximate subtraction of the sky background through a low-degree polynomial; 5. Co-registration of images in the five (u, g, r, i and z) SDSS bands. However, the quality of reduction steps [4] & [5] is generally not sufficient for a precise surface photometry analysis and the determination of color maps. For example, a minor error of typically less than 20% of the sky photon noise in the removal of the local sky background can result in a down-bending or flattening of SBPs in their outer parts, leading then to significant errors in the determination of, e.g., the structural parameters of the disk component. Likewise, minor errors in the co-registration of images in two different bands can propagate into strong artifacts in color maps computed by division of these images. Finally, photometric bands are corrected for Galactic foreground extinction. Sandra Nogueira dos Reis FCUP 41 Age and Age Gradients in Pseudo-bulge Galaxies from CALIFA Due to these reasons a post-processing of the photometric SDSS data was made for all sample galaxies. For the task below a series of in-house codes written by P. Papaderos in the ESO-MIDAS script language was used in order to: 1. Perform a more accurate image co-registration using several Galactic foreground stars in each SDSS band. This alignment procedure has involved, e.g., translation and rotation of individual images, and their transformation to astronomical orientation (north to the top, and east to the left); 2. Accurately determine and subtract the sky background. For this the emission in up to 1600 sky positions of blank sky was automatically measured in each image, to which a higherpolynomial order (second or third degree) 2D model was fitted and finally subtracted; 3. Correct for the Galactic extinction: The extinction values for each galaxy were retrieved from the NED (Schlafly & Finkbeiner 2011); 4. Extract the useful portion of each SDSS image. Following the above image post-processing steps, an iterative Gaussian convolution method was used in order to smooth the images of a given galaxy to the resolution of the image with the worse seeing (as defined by the mean value for the full width at half maximum (FWHM) of several non-saturated stars). Additionally, in cases of overlapping foreground/background sources, the latter were replaced by the mean value of the local galaxy surface brightness level. Surface Photometry and Profile Decomposition The derivation of SBPs, and their decomposition into the luminosity contribution of the bulge, disk and bar, was carried out with a code developed by our team. Technical details on this code can be found in Breda (2014). In the following, only a brief summary of the fitting formulae (based in Bender & Moellenhoff (1987)) used for the disk, bulge and bar is given. The surface brightness µ(r)(in units of mag/arcsec2) of a galaxy at the photometric radius ris defined as µ(r) = −2.5 log10 F(r) S2(3.1) Sandra Nogueira dos Reis Chapter 4. Results from our Analysis Methodology This chapter discusses our main results obtained by applying our methodology (see Chapter 3) to our sample of 66 late-type galaxies selected from the CALIFA-IFU survey (Chapter 2). First, we discuss the structural properties of these galaxies, which were derived using an in-house surface photometry code developed by our team. This code was applied to SDSS images in order to decompose the SBPs of galaxies into a bulge plus disk component, when necessary, also including a bar contribution. The photometric parameters are then combined with the output from our Porto3D pipeline, which computes and stores several physical quantities of galaxies into spatially resolved 2D maps (e.g., stellar mass, stellar ages and metallicities). These 2D maps were then used in order to determine with the irregular isophotal annuli technique the distribution of several quantities of interest (e.g., light- and mass-weighted stellar age) as a function of galactocentric radius. Moreover, these profiles permitted determination of the mean stellar age and age gradient within the bulge and disk component. 4.1 SURFACE PHOTOMETRY: STRUCTURAL PARAMETERS Our sample galaxies show a significant diversity with respect to their structural characteristics, as inferred from SBP fitting and decomposition (see Breda (2014) for an extended discussion on this subject). Figure 4.1 illustrates the true-color composites of SDSS broadband imaging data (left panels) 49 FCUP 50 Age and Age Gradients in Pseudo-bulge Galaxies from CALIFA and the correspondent profile decomposition (right panels) for three representative cases (UGC 9291, NGC 0477 and NGC 5000) out of our sample of 66 late-type galaxies. In the profile decomposition panels, the black dots with the corresponding error-bars show the measured SBPs in the SDSS r-band. A non-weighted exponential fit to the disk (see Eq. 3.2) over the radius range delimited visual and manually by the two vertical lines can be seen as a solid black line and green open circles, and the emission in excess to the disk (i.e. the observed profile minus the exponential model to the disk) is shown with red open symbols. The blue solid curve shows the best-fitting Sérsic model (Eq. 3.4) to the bulge and/or the bar, with the latter depicted with green filed circles. In all cases, the dashed horizontal line shows the adopted isophotal limit of 24 rmag/arcsec2 down to which apparent and absolute magnitudes were determined. The values in the upper right corner of the plots are, from top to bottom, the observed and modeled surface brightness at the effective radius reff , the reff in arcsec, and the derived Sérsic index of the bulge. The bottom panel shows the radial SDSS r−icolor profile. Regarding the SDSS r-band SBP (Figure 4.1), each one shows distinct features that are detailed below: •Compact bulge emission + no bar: UGC 9291. From a quick inspection of the RGB image one can see that a prominent bulge is absent, which is also confirmed from the profile and corresponding decomposition into a bulge + disk. This galaxy presents a central surface brightness of the bulge of ∼22 mag/arcsec2. •Bulge + no bar: NGC 0477. This galaxy presents a central surface brightness of the bulge of ∼20 mag/arcsec2. There is an excess in the emission of the disk, probably due to regions of star formation, which can be seen in the true-color RGB image. •Bulge + bar: NGC 5000. From the true-color image one can easily identify a strong bar, which is also evident in the profile decomposition, after the subtraction of the disk component. If the contribution of the bar was ignored, the contribution of the bulge would be overestimated, leading to a higher Sérsic index of the bulge. Kormendy & Kennicutt (2004) not only proposed the widely used cutoffs of η > 2for classical Sandra Nogueira dos Reis FCUP 51 Age and Age Gradients in Pseudo-bulge Galaxies from CALIFA Figure 4.1: Three different galaxies of our sample: UGC 9291 (top panel), NGC 0477 (middle panel), NGC 5000 (bottom panel). Left panels: true-color RGB images. Right panels: surface photometry and corresponding radial SDSS r−icolor profile (in the bottom plots). Sandra Nogueira dos Reis FCUP 52 Age and Age Gradients in Pseudo-bulge Galaxies from CALIFA bulges and η.2for pseudo-bulges, they as well suggested that bulge-to-total light ratios between 1/3and 1/2could be considered as characteristic indicators of classical bulges. Figure 4.2 shows histograms for the Sérsic index ηand the bulge-to-total B/T ratio, respectively on the left and right panels. We find that only three galaxies of our sample (NGC 5614, NGC 5656 and NGC 6004) have a Sérsic index of η > 2, an indicative of a classical bulge. Furthermore, the galaxies NGC 0001, NGC 0023 and NGC 6278 have bulge-to-total light ratios 1/3< B/T < 1/2, and could also be classified as having classical bulges. However, we did not further investigate the B/T as a discriminator, since we opted for a more conservative approach using the Sérsic index ηonly. Figure 4.2: Left panel: histogram representation of the derived Sérsic index η. The shaded area in blue is where the criterion for pseudo-bulge galaxies can be applied (η.2). From here we can easily detect three galaxies with η > 2(NGC 5614, NGC 5656 and NGC 6004), being classified as classical bulges. Right panel: histogram for the bulge-to-total light ratio. The shaded area in green corresponds to where we could use B/T for classifying a classical bulge. This criterion leads to four galaxies that could be classified as having classical bulges (NGC 0001, NGC 0023, NGC 5614 and NGC 6278). 4.2 MEAN STELLAR AGE AND AGE GRADIENTS Following our discussion in section 3.2.2, we are able to derive 2D maps for a variety of physical properties using the Porto3D pipeline. Our main motivation in this section is to derive the mean luminosity- and mass-weighted stellar age (see equation 3.6) profiles and age gradients of the bulge and disk for our sample of late-type galaxies. These two quantities seem to better characterize the stellar population mixtures as a function of galactocentric radius, invoking simple definitions and few parameters to describe our sample galaxies. Sandra Nogueira dos Reis FCUP 53 Age and Age Gradients in Pseudo-bulge Galaxies from CALIFA Figures 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5 show examples of 2D stellar age maps, both luminosity- and massweighted, and their corresponding mean stellar age radial profiles obtained using the irregular isophotal annuli technique from Papaderos et al. (2002). The remaining sample galaxies can be found in the Appendix B of this work. We also estimate the mean stellar age gradients of the bulge and disk components using the surface photometry in section 4.1. These values were calculated using the slope of the non-weighted linear regression fit to the data as a function of galactocentric radius. If the gradient is positive (for the bulge or disk component), then the stellar age tends to increase as a function of radius and vice versa. The radial profiles have been normalized to the effective radius reff of each galaxy. From top to bottom, we see the underlying stellar continuum level between 6390–6490 Å, the luminosity and mass fraction of stellar populations younger than 100 Myr, and the mean luminosity- and massweighted stellar age as a function of galactocentric radius. The light-shaded area in red depicts the bulge radius rbulge in units of reff . The black empty squares and colored circles (bulge - red and disk - blue) are, respectively, the measured quantities for each irregular isophotal annulus and the result of a spline interpolation in steps of 1 arcsec. Sandra Nogueira dos Reis FCUP 54 Age and Age Gradients in Pseudo-bulge Galaxies from CALIFA Figure 4.3: Galaxy IC 776. Top panels: 2D maps are from left to right luminosity- and mass-weighted stellar ages, respectively. From top to bottom, radial profiles of: logarithm of the emission-line free continuum between 6390–6490 Å; luminosity fraction of stellar populations younger than 100 Myr; mass fraction of stellar populations younger than 100 Myr; luminosity-weighted stellar age and mass-weighted stellar age. Inspection of the two lowest panels shows that this galaxy has both light- and mass-weighted stellar age gradients with positive values in the bulge region, which correspond to 7.459 ±2.248 and 14.178 ±3.305 Gyr / reff , respectively. The bulge region is shown in red (light-shaded area). The black empty squares and colored circles (bulge - red and disk - blue) are, respectively, the measured quantities for each irregular isophotal annulus and the result of a spline interpolation in steps of 1 arcsec. Sandra Nogueira dos Reis FCUP 55 Age and Age Gradients in Pseudo-bulge Galaxies from CALIFA Figure 4.4: The same plots as in Figure 4.3, but for galaxy NGC 4185. This galaxy has both light- and mass-weighted stellar age gradients with negative values in the bulge area, which correspond to -8.050 ±0.455 and -5.625 ±0.755 Gyr / reff , respectively. Sandra Nogueira dos Reis FCUP 56 Age and Age Gradients in Pseudo-bulge Galaxies from CALIFA Figure 4.5: The same plots as in Figure 4.3, but for galaxy NGC 776. This galaxy has, in the bulge region, positive value of light-weighted stellar age gradient (2.099 ±0.646 Gyr / reff ) and negative value of mass-weighted stellar age gradient (-2.074 ±0.425 Gyr / reff ). Sandra Nogueira dos Reis FCUP 57 Age and Age Gradients in Pseudo-bulge Galaxies from CALIFA The selected galaxies can be summarized as follows: 1. IC 776 – The stellar population age gradients in Figure 4.3, both luminosity- and massweighted (last two panels), have positive values for the bulge region, meaning that the stellar age is increasing from the galactic center to the periphery of the bulge. The values found correspond to 7.459 ±2.248 and 14.178 ±3.305 Gyr / reff , respectively. 2. NGC 4185 – The galaxy of Figure 4.4 shows negative gradients in the bulge region for light- and mass-weighted stellar age gradients, implying that the stellar age is decreasing from the center of the galaxy to the periphery of the bulge. The values for the bulge region correspond to -8.050 ±0.455 for the light-weighted and -5.625 ±0.755 Gyr / reff for the mass-weighted stellar age gradient. 3. NGC 776 – The stellar population age gradients in Figure 4.5, for the bulge area, have opposite signs for the luminosity- and mass-weighted values. The positive value of lightweighted stellar age gradient corresponds to 2.099 ±0.646 Gyr / reff , whereas the negative value of mass-weighted stellar age gradient corresponds to -2.074 ±0.425 Gyr / reff . We list in tables C.2 and C.3 (see Appendix C) parameters related to luminosity and mass fractions of stellar populations younger than 100 Myr in the galaxy, luminosity- and mass-weighted stellar age for both regions, i.e. bulge and disk. Figure 4.6 shows two histograms directly related to table C.2. The histogram on the top panel refers to the luminosity fraction of stellar populations younger than 100 Myr, whereas the histogram on the bottom refers to the mass fraction of these populations. The shaded area in red corresponds to values of the bulge and the solid blue line to values of the disk. The units are given in percentage, being 100% all the stellar populations for each component. Sandra Nogueira dos Reis FCUP 64 Age and Age Gradients in Pseudo-bulge Galaxies from CALIFA ht?iM,bulge = 3.1450 ×log M?−23.69 (4.8) ht?iL,bulge = 12.699 × hZ?iL,bulge + 0.22 (4.9) ht?iM,bulge = 8.5480 × hZ?iM,bulge + 4.21 (4.10) where ht?ibulge is again given in Gyr, M?in solar masses Mand hZ?ibulge in solar metallicities Z. Sandra Nogueira dos Reis FCUP 65 Age and Age Gradients in Pseudo-bulge Galaxies from CALIFA 9.5 10 10.5 11 11.5 2 4 6 8 10 12 Light-weighted 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 2 4 6 8 10 12 9.5 10 10.5 11 11.5 Mass-weighted 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 Figure 4.9: The average of the mean stellar age in the bulge region as a function of the total stellar mass of the galaxy (top) and the average of the mean stellar metallicity of the bulge (bottom). Luminosity- and mass-weighted quantities are in the left and right panels, respectively. These quantities show a strong correlation. In all plots, the violet solid line corresponds to the bisector linear regression method. The blue and red dashed lines are the usual linear regression fits y(x)and x(y), respectively. Sandra Nogueira dos Reis FCUP 66 Age and Age Gradients in Pseudo-bulge Galaxies from CALIFA Another relation to be investigated concerns the connection between the stellar age and the Hαequivalent width EW(Hα) of the bulge and the disk. EW(Hα) is a measure of the amplitude of ongoing star-forming activity, which in turn requires a gas supply of sufficient mass and surface density. Going from integral to spatially resolved properties, we next inspect the EW(Hα) distribution, and its connection to the stellar age, separately in the bulge and in the disk. With regard to both, Figure 4.10 reveals a clear inverse trend, with old (∼12 Gyr), massive and metal-rich (see Figure 4.9 and accompanying discussion) bulges showing an EW(Hα).3 Å. This value is consistent with complete absence of ongoing star-forming activity and photoionization of gas purely by hot evolved (post-AGB) stars (e.g., Binette et al. (1994), Kehrig et al. (2012), Papaderos et al. (2013), Gomes et al. (2014)). On the opposite side of this sequence, one finds in Figure 4.10 bulges with an EW(Hα) exceeding 10 Åand a light- and mass-weighted stellar age being as low as ∼2 Gyr and ∼6 Gyr, respectively. Consideration of this extreme class of star-forming bulges together with the evidence from Figure 4.9 reveals that these entities are of low-luminosity and comparatively metalpoor. Summarizing, our analysis reveals a local downsizing trend, with more massive bulges evolving structurally and chemically faster than less massive ones, with the latter building up on much longer timescales and still sustaining significant star formation, in qualitative agreement with the secular formation scenario for pseudo-bulges. Interestingly, a similar trend is apparent from the lower panel of Figure 4.10 for the disk component, suggesting that old disks have efficiently converted most of their gas supply early on. Bisector fits to our data yield the following relations: ht?iL,bulge =−4.4139 ×log EW(Hα)bulge + 11.88 (4.11) ht?iM,bulge =−2.4999 ×log EW(Hα)bulge + 12.19 (4.12) ht?iL,bulge =−6.7340 ×log EW(Hα)disk + 15.73 (4.13) Sandra Nogueira dos Reis FCUP 67 Age and Age Gradients in Pseudo-bulge Galaxies from CALIFA ht?iM,bulge =−4.1098 ×log EW(Hα)disk + 14.70 (4.14) where the mean stellar age is given in Gyr and the Hαequivalent width in Å. -0.8 -0.4 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 4 6 8 10 12 Light-weighted 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 4 6 8 10 12 -0.8 -0.4 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 Mass-weighted 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 Figure 4.10: Equivalent width of Hαin emission versus average of the mean stellar age. Light- and mass-weighted quantities are respectively shown in the left and right panels, with the upper panel referring to the bulge and the lower panel to the disk. A clear correlation is apparent, indicating that the older is the bulge the lower is its bulge and disk Hαequivalent widths. The bisector linear regression method is shown through the violet solid lines. The dashed lines correspond the usual linear regression fits for y(x)in blue and x(y)in red. The main results from this study may be summarized as follows: there is a strong trend for Sandra Nogueira dos Reis FCUP 68 Age and Age Gradients in Pseudo-bulge Galaxies from CALIFA increasing mean stellar age and metallicity in the bulge (both luminosity- and mass-weighted) with increasing galaxy stellar mass, bulge absolute magnitude and mean surface brightness (as expressed by µ80) and mean stellar age in the disk. Additionally, the age of the bulge and the B/T are inversely related to the Hαequivalent width in the bulge. Following our analysis to the age gradients, we show two histograms in Figure 4.11 for the mean stellar age gradient of the bulge weighted by light (solid line in blue) and mass (shaded area in red). We can see that they span a wide range of values from ∼-16 to ∼12 in units of Gyr/reff . The gradients were obtained by a linear fit to the data points corresponding to the bulge region. Therefore, a simple interpretation of the gradients is that whenever these values are positive we have an increase of the mean stellar age from the galactic center towards the periphery of the bulge and vice versa. -16 -12 -8 -4 0 4 8 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 Figure 4.11: Histograms for the mean stellar age gradient of the bulge light-weighted (solid line in blue) and mass-weighted (shaded area in red). They span a huge set of values from ∼-16 to ∼12 in units of Gyr/reff . The gradients were obtained by a linear fit to the data points corresponding to the bulge region. While investigating the age gradients pattern, we obtained weak trends with respect to the photometric/structural parameters and spectroscopic quantities. These trends can be considered and further analyzed in the framework of the four-class subdivision of our sample by Breda (2014) that primarily relies on the combined inspection of stellar metallicity and age gradients in bulges. The four classes envisaged in Breda (2014) are as follows: Class 1 hZ?iL(mean stellar metallicity) and ht?iL(mean stellar age) gradients are positive: bar Sandra Nogueira dos Reis FCUP 69 Age and Age Gradients in Pseudo-bulge Galaxies from CALIFA Figure 4.12: Distribution of the nature of the mean luminosity-weighted stellar gradients, both age and metallicity, in our entire sample of 66 late-type galaxies (units in Gyr/reff and dex/reff , respectively). Red points correspond to Class 1 (both gradients are positive), blue points are for Class 2 (both gradients are negative), cyan points refer to Class 3 (negative age gradient and positive metallicity gradient) and green points correspond to Class 4 (positive age gradient and negative metallicity gradient). Image taken from Breda (2014). dominated, with intermediate-to-low luminosity values (Magbulge =−20.680). The EW(Hα) of the bulge points to active star-formation bulges. Class 2 hZ?iLand ht?iLgradients negative: faint to strong bars, with high luminosity values (Magbulge =−21.449). The three classical bulges (classified through the Sérsic index >2) found in our sample belong to this class. Class 3 hZ?iLwith positive gradient and ht?iLwith negative gradient: faint bars, with intermediate to high luminosity values (Magbulge =−20.987). Class 4 hZ?iLwith negative gradient and positive gradient for ht?iL: strong or no bar, with low-to- intermediate luminosity values (Magbulge =−20.602), being actively forming stars. However, the large dispersion found in all correlations involving radial age gradients, in most cases with a practically null RSSpearman’s rank coefficient (see Figure 4.13 for an example), suggests that an in-depth follow-up analysis is necessary for better understanding their origin and physical link to the evolutionary history of the bulge and the underlying disk. Important in this context is the fact that the large range of the determined age gradients suggests that they are extremely sensitive to the assembly history of bulges, making them potentially powerful diagnostics Sandra Nogueira dos Reis FCUP 70 Age and Age Gradients in Pseudo-bulge Galaxies from CALIFA of bulge formation and evolution. It should be noted, on the other hand, that wiggles seen in radial age profiles of many galaxies are suggestive of an underlying substructure in terms of multiple stellar populations with differing formation process. This substructure bears a resemblance to the embedded spiral or bar-like features found in bulges of early-type galaxies (e.g., Kehrig et al. (2012)), reaching, in many cases, only 1% of the total line-of-sight emission. Note that these features would be entirely missed if only (luminosity-weighted) colors (see Figure 4.14) were taken into account, the homogeneity of which could give the impression that a single coeval process has been responsible for the formation of the bulge component. The same applies to our results for the radial age profiles, where wiggles could reflect the presence of distinct stellar populations with differing SFHs. These considerations also suggest that simple linear fits to age profiles yield a merely first-order estimate of radial trends, and a multidimensional analysis is necessary for a full understanding of the origin of stellar age gradients in bulges. Whereas this is clearly beyond the scope of the present MSc thesis, it opens up a promising field of future investigation motivated and justified by the results of this study and those in Breda (2014). Sandra Nogueira dos Reis FCUP 71 Age and Age Gradients in Pseudo-bulge Galaxies from CALIFA -12 -8 -4 0 4 8 12 2 4 6 8 10 12 -16 -12 -8 -4 0 4 8 12 6 8 10 12 Figure 4.13: Mean stellar age as a function of the age gradient, both light- (top) and massweighted (bottom). A very weak correlation for the light-weighted and no correlation RS∼ 0for the mass-weighted quantities. The large spread indicates that a multidimensional analysis of the data is required to further investigate the relations with the age gradients. Figure 4.14: Three-color (g, r, and i) composite SDSS image of NGC 6762 and NGC 5966 from the CALIFA-IFU study on the warm interstellar medium in early-type galaxies (Kehrig et al. 2012). The contours delineate an extremely faint spiral- or bar-like feature disclosed by the unsharp-masking technique developed by Papaderos et al. (1998) in the bulge of the galaxies. To note that this features are not seen by only looking at the color images. Sandra Nogueira dos Reis Chapter 5. Summary and conclusions This study employs a new methodology, which combines surface photometry with spectral synthesis, with the goal of gaining insight into the nature and formation history of pseudo-bulges in late-type galaxies. The sample studied here consists of 66 nearly face on galaxies from the CALIFA integral field spectroscopy (IFS) survey, for which low-spectral resolution (R∼850) IFS data were modeled spaxel-by-spaxel with the automated spectral synthesis pipeline Porto3D (Section 3.2.2). Additionally, a structural analysis (Section 4.1) of this sample was performed using multiband imaging data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS). Porto3D enabled us to study stellar age patterns in pseudo-bulges in a spatially resolved manner, based on a wealth of information that was extracted through spectral synthesis, such as the luminosity- and mass-weighted stellar age and metallicity, the mass fraction of stellar populations younger than 100 Myr, among others. The photometric and structural analysis of the sample galaxies was performed with our in-house surface photometry code that permits derivation of surface brightness profiles (SBPs), and their decomposition into the luminosity contribution of the (pseudo)bulge, disk and bar component. A key feature of this code (see Breda (2014) for details) is the implementation of prescriptions allowing to mitigate the degeneracy between the Sérsic exponent ηand the pseudo-scale length of Sérsic models. Besides η, this code permits determination of a multitude of photometric parameters, such as the apparent and absolute magnitude of the structural components considered in the 73 FCUP 80 Age and Age Gradients in Pseudo-bulge Galaxies from CALIFA Sarzi M., et al., 2010, MNRAS, 402, 2187 Schlafly, E. & Finkbeiner, D. 2011, ApJ, 737, 103 Sérsic, J. L. 1963, In Boletin de la Asociacion Argentina de Astronomia La Plata Argentina, 6, 41 Sérsic, J. L. 1968, in Atlas de Galaxias Australes (Cordoba, Argentina: Observatorio Astronomico) L.S. Sparke, J.S. Gallagher, III, 2007, in Galaxies in the Universe: An Introduction (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) Spearman C., 1904 The proof and measurement of association between two things. Am J Psychol 1904; 15:72–101. Strateva, I., Ivezi´ c, Ž., Knapp, G. R., et al. 2001, AJ, 122, 1861 Tremonti, C. A. et al. 2004, ApJ, 613, 898 Walcher, C. J., Wisotzki, L., Bekeraité, S., et al. 2014, A&A, 569, A1 Westmoquette, M. S., Exter, K. M., Christensen, L., Maier, M., Lemoine-Busserolle, M., Turner, J., Marquart, T., 2009. The integral field spectroscopy (ifs) wiki. arXiv 0905, 3054 York, D. G., Adelman, J., Anderson, Jr., J. E., et al. 2000, AJ, 120, 1579 Sandra Nogueira dos Reis Appendix A. Color Maps Figure A.1 shows a) the true-color image, b) the logarithmic mean of the three SDSS filters gri, c) the color map r−i, d) the color map g−r. 81 FCUP 82 Age and Age Gradients in Pseudo-bulge Galaxies from CALIFA Sandra Nogueira dos Reis FCUP 83 Age and Age Gradients in Pseudo-bulge Galaxies from CALIFA Sandra Nogueira dos Reis FCUP 84 Age and Age Gradients in Pseudo-bulge Galaxies from CALIFA Sandra Nogueira dos Reis FCUP 85 Age and Age Gradients in Pseudo-bulge Galaxies from CALIFA Sandra Nogueira dos Reis FCUP 86 Age and Age Gradients in Pseudo-bulge Galaxies from CALIFA Sandra Nogueira dos Reis FCUP 87 Age and Age Gradients in Pseudo-bulge Galaxies from CALIFA Sandra Nogueira dos Reis FCUP 88 Age and Age Gradients in Pseudo-bulge Galaxies from CALIFA Sandra Nogueira dos Reis FCUP 89 Age and Age Gradients in Pseudo-bulge Galaxies from CALIFA Sandra Nogueira dos Reis FCUP 96 Age and Age Gradients in Pseudo-bulge Galaxies from CALIFA Sandra Nogueira dos Reis FCUP 97 Age and Age Gradients in Pseudo-bulge Galaxies from CALIFA Sandra Nogueira dos Reis FCUP 98 Age and Age Gradients in Pseudo-bulge Galaxies from CALIFA Sandra Nogueira dos Reis FCUP 99 Age and Age Gradients in Pseudo-bulge Galaxies from CALIFA Sandra Nogueira dos Reis FCUP 100 Age and Age Gradients in Pseudo-bulge Galaxies from CALIFA Sandra Nogueira dos Reis FCUP 101 Age and Age Gradients in Pseudo-bulge Galaxies from CALIFA Sandra Nogueira dos Reis FCUP 102 Age and Age Gradients in Pseudo-bulge Galaxies from CALIFA Sandra Nogueira dos Reis FCUP 103 Age and Age Gradients in Pseudo-bulge Galaxies from CALIFA Sandra Nogueira dos Reis FCUP 104 Age and Age Gradients in Pseudo-bulge Galaxies from CALIFA Sandra Nogueira dos Reis FCUP 105 Age and Age Gradients in Pseudo-bulge Galaxies from CALIFA Sandra Nogueira dos Reis FCUP 112 Age and Age Gradients in Pseudo-bulge Galaxies from CALIFA Sandra Nogueira dos Reis FCUP 113 Age and Age Gradients in Pseudo-bulge Galaxies from CALIFA Sandra Nogueira dos Reis FCUP 114 Age and Age Gradients in Pseudo-bulge Galaxies from CALIFA Sandra Nogueira dos Reis FCUP 115 Age and Age Gradients in Pseudo-bulge Galaxies from CALIFA Sandra Nogueira dos Reis FCUP 116 Age and Age Gradients in Pseudo-bulge Galaxies from CALIFA Sandra Nogueira dos Reis FCUP 117 Age and Age Gradients in Pseudo-bulge Galaxies from CALIFA Sandra Nogueira dos Reis FCUP 118 Age and Age Gradients in Pseudo-bulge Galaxies from CALIFA Sandra Nogueira dos Reis FCUP 119 Age and Age Gradients in Pseudo-bulge Galaxies from CALIFA Sandra Nogueira dos Reis FCUP 120 Age and Age Gradients in Pseudo-bulge Galaxies from CALIFA Sandra Nogueira dos Reis FCUP 121 Age and Age Gradients in Pseudo-bulge Galaxies from CALIFA Sandra Nogueira dos Reis Appendix C. Tables Table C.1 shows the photometric parameters obtained from the surface photometry and profile decomposition for our entire sample. Tables C.2 and C.3 presents the spectroscopic quantities obtained from the spectral synthesis. 129 Table C.1: Parameters obtained from the photometric decomposition. From left to right: name of the galaxy, total absolute magnitude, effective radius, disk absolute magnitude, disk effective radius, disk central surface brightness, disk scale-length, bar absolute magnitude, bar central surface brightness, bar scale-length, bar Sérsic index, bar-to-total, bulge absolute magnitude, bulge radius, bulge effective radius, bulge R80, surface brightness at bulge effective radius, bulge sérsic index, bulge CI8020 concentration index (R80/R20), distance-independent concentration index (CIP96; see Papaderos et al. (1996)), bulge-to-total, bulge-to-disk and bulge-to-bar (in light). Galaxy Total Disk Bar BA/T Bulge CIP96 B/T B/D B/BA M reff M reff µ0α M µ0α η M rbulge reff R80 µreff ηCI8020 IC0776 -18.96 3181.28 -18.88 3739.68 21.79 17.47 -16.49 22.54 9.17 0.45 0.10 -15.06 610.12 524.41 812.31 22.53 0.50 2.10 0.98 0.03 0.03 0.27 IC1256 -21.15 4390.99 -21.03 4677.71 19.87 8.86 - - - - - -17.21 932.50 424.86 680.44 19.98 0.60 4.20 0.82 0.03 0.03 - IC4566 -21.71 5086.38 -21.56 6283.86 19.99 10.12 -18.88 20.77 5.90 0.25 0.07 -19.09 1557.73 616.57 987.47 18.91 0.60 2.42 0.98 0.09 0.10 1.21 NGC0001 -21.43 2562.86 -20.81 4560.57 20.04 10.26 - - - - - -20.37 10004.10 1131.12 2299.78 19.36 1.50 3.77 0.80 0.36 0.67 - NGC0023 -22.28 3093.08 -21.33 6680.20 20.39 15.58 -20.75 20.52 17.44 0.25 0.24 -21.22 3826.51 751.42 1313.59 17.37 0.90 2.49 0.96 0.38 0.91 1.54 NGC0160 -21.96 4993.91 -21.49 6517.47 20.15 12.93 - - - - - -20.42 5717.68 1078.02 1988.45 19.05 1.10 3.12 0.93 0.24 0.38 - NGC0165 -21.35 5683.04 -21.28 6638.37 20.43 12.16 - - - - - -19.23 3783.00 825.21 1522.64 19.67 1.10 2.59 0.96 0.14 0.15 - NGC0171 -21.67 5267.07 -21.56 5755.48 19.79 14.82 - - - - - -19.34 5085.25 847.84 1644.37 19.69 1.30 2.90 0.96 0.12 0.13 - NGC0180 -22.11 7728.63 -22.11 8937.68 20.23 17.85 -18.81 20.89 7.39 0.25 0.05 -18.86 1480.79 596.84 955.85 19.06 0.60 2.36 0.99 0.05 0.05 1.05 NGC0214 -22.04 4446.22 -21.89 5229.43 19.21 11.26 -19.51 20.31 8.96 0.35 0.10 -18.64 1339.58 540.12 864.87 19.07 0.60 2.38 0.99 0.04 0.05 0.45 NGC0237 -20.88 2779.95 -20.61 3173.54 19.42 7.53 -18.84 21.37 11.65 0.35 0.15 -17.84 1543.27 545.64 926.61 20.02 0.80 2.59 0.97 0.06 0.08 0.40 NGC0257 -22.00 5543.45 -21.94 6184.80 19.54 11.74 - - - - - -19.40 2431.29 724.70 1231.57 19.07 0.80 2.87 0.97 0.09 0.10 - NGC0477 -21.47 6179.46 -21.46 6436.62 20.15 11.37 - - - - - -18.16 1434.31 651.40 1043.27 19.95 0.60 2.34 0.99 0.05 0.05 - NGC0776 -21.81 4869.67 -21.67 5909.97 19.73 12.18 -18.48 21.42 8.76 0.25 0.05 -19.44 1490.20 552.17 884.35 18.32 0.60 2.39 0.98 0.11 0.13 2.41 NGC1093 -21.40 3336.75 -21.09 4719.73 19.83 9.09 -19.37 20.56 8.18 0.25 0.15 -18.96 2543.34 709.03 1239.54 19.51 0.90 2.61 0.97 0.11 0.14 0.69 NGC1645 -21.67 3103.11 -21.11 5730.31 20.26 12.28 -19.37 21.32 12.50 0.25 0.12 -20.25 3093.04 853.19 1449.97 18.57 0.80 2.76 0.95 0.27 0.45 2.26 NGC2253 -21.44 3443.9 -21.28 3511.12 18.94 8.87 - - - - - -18.76 1922.55 368.53 662.09 18.34 1.00 2.78 0.98 0.09 0.10 - NGC2347 -21.89 3408.62 -21.60 4374.31 19.11 9.06 -19.80 19.38 6.52 0.25 0.15 -18.99 2176.68 422.12 758.43 18.40 1.00 2.54 0.99 0.07 0.09 0.48 NGC2639 -22.09 2787.07 -21.65 4018.03 18.86 10.45 - - - - - -20.77 7560.03 1204.88 2279.69 18.98 1.20 3.41 0.85 0.30 0.45 - NGC2730 -20.66 5083.17 -20.71 5456.32 20.59 14.15 - - - - - -16.96 1411.40 575.98 1006.88 21.06 0.90 2.69 0.98 0.03 0.03 - NGC2906 -20.71 2370.51 -20.69 2497.88 18.79 9.60 - - - - - -17.75 1263.56 249.95 449.07 18.51 1.00 2.53 0.99 0.07 0.07 - NGC2916 -21.91 5291.42 -21.91 5984.35 19.50 14.23 - - - - - -19.01 2457.39 515.13 925.49 18.82 1.00 2.84 0.98 0.07 0.07 - NGC3057 -18.81 2496.99 -18.77 2627.55 20.99 15.81 - - - - - -15.39 684.35 576.28 867.89 22.33 0.40 2.20 0.96 0.04 0.04 - Table C.1 Continued. NGC3300 -21.27 2554.09 -21.02 3146.21 18.97 8.51 -18.91 19.30 5.14 0.50 0.11 -18.51 1082.99 336.39 555.20 18.23 0.70 2.48 0.99 0.08 0.10 0.70 NGC3381 -19.83 2621.68 -19.75 2823.14 20.06 13.60 -16.17 22.61 11.83 0.25 0.03 -16.41 593.85 338.53 513.70 20.21 0.45 1.91 0.99 0.04 0.05 1.25 NGC3614 -20.79 5347.43 -20.75 5584.70 20.60 21.42 -16.83 22.44 11.14 0.25 0.03 -16.60 957.18 443.77 732.42 20.74 0.70 2.49 0.99 0.02 0.02 0.81 NGC3687 -20.66 3057.6 -20.41 3620.38 19.94 12.17 -17.77 23.17 22.51 0.25 0.07 -18.56 2732.45 436.43 825.79 18.99 1.20 2.85 0.97 0.14 0.18 2.07 NGC4003 -21.77 4027.07 -21.47 5313.96 19.70 7.42 -18.78 22.07 9.16 0.25 0.06 -19.88 3166.84 965.52 1640.89 19.21 0.80 2.58 0.96 0.18 0.23 2.76 NGC4047 -21.67 3547.38 -21.52 4020.07 19.00 9.80 -19.05 19.93 6.99 0.30 0.09 -17.37 815.28 340.58 544.53 19.35 0.60 2.45 0.99 0.02 0.02 0.21 NGC4185 -21.67 6972.93 -21.68 7362.57 20.25 17.18 - - - - - -18.29 3155.48 777.86 1472.15 20.51 1.20 2.91 0.97 0.04 0.04 - NGC4210 -20.83 3955.17 -20.49 3541.67 19.80 11.13 - - - - - -17.38 932.37 410.25 656.98 19.73 0.60 2.47 0.98 0.04 0.06 - NGC4961 -19.99 2168.43 -19.66 2840.08 20.17 9.37 -18.34 20.69 8.97 0.30 0.22 -16.23 853.28 417.74 689.11 20.99 0.70 2.52 0.98 0.03 0.04 0.14 NGC5000 -21.45 5226.24 -21.29 6116.45 20.23 10.17 -19.08 20.15 4.18 0.70 0.11 -17.84 958.38 392.94 625.77 19.20 0.60 2.32 0.99 0.04 0.04 0.32 NGC5016 -20.86 3122.76 -20.82 3237.40 19.24 9.76 -17.00 21.98 8.62 0.25 0.03 -15.85 448.33 252.58 386.04 20.11 0.45 2.24 1.00 0.01 0.01 0.34 NGC5205 -19.89 2163.82 -19.76 2391.61 19.67 10.46 - - - - - -17.47 1871.86 349.15 660.75 19.60 1.20 3.25 0.94 0.11 0.12 - NGC5320 -20.85 3957.71 -20.81 4013.68 19.75 12.51 - - - - - -16.96 1283.40 451.23 788.83 20.53 0.90 2.51 0.99 0.03 0.03 - NGC5378 -21.10 4483.67 -20.82 6217.12 20.79 18.91 -18.59 21.43 12.16 0.25 0.10 -18.89 2876.28 551.99 1018.17 19.13 1.10 3.16 0.98 0.13 0.17 1.32 NGC5406 -22.32 6200.58 -22.18 7368.36 19.70 12.57 -19.06 20.81 7.14 0.25 0.05 -19.82 2242.06 585.95 995.82 18.19 0.80 2.58 0.99 0.10 0.11 2.01 NGC5480 -20.54 2957.36 -20.42 3041.87 19.51 12.31 - - - - - -17.58 1322.61 285.19 512.38 18.96 1.00 2.50 0.99 0.07 0.07 - NGC5614 -22.41 3933.19 -22.02 5737.80 19.29 12.28 - - - - - -21.41 455513.00 1077.94 3193.74 18.67 3.80 3.67 0.92 0.40 0.57 - NGC5656 -21.45 3001.68 -21.30 3305.74 18.78 8.28 - - - - - -19.05 39924.70 422.02 1194.02 18.79 2.90 5.02 0.86 0.11 0.13 - NGC5735 -21.18 5405.07 -21.19 6187.29 20.37 15.10 -17.82 21.65 7.87 0.30 0.05 -17.33 1148.41 474.81 783.66 20.17 0.70 2.49 0.99 0.03 0.03 0.63 NGC5772 -22.00 4847.15 -21.78 5839.69 19.58 10.44 - - - - - -20.27 10704.30 628.48 1336.14 18.25 1.70 2.93 0.98 0.20 0.25 - NGC5829 -21.35 6594.55 -21.26 7216.70 20.65 12.48 -18.71 20.26 3.80 0.65 0.09 -16.35 664.64 368.67 570.80 20.47 0.50 2.20 1.00 0.01 0.01 0.11 NGC6004 -21.68 6234.81 -21.77 7753.36 20.27 18.34 - - - - - -19.09 42171.90 791.96 2214.30 20.24 3.20 3.86 0.95 0.09 0.08 - NGC6032 -21.13 4563.58 -20.99 4750.89 19.95 9.81 - - - - - -18.08 1527.50 395.20 690.89 19.12 0.90 2.80 0.98 0.06 0.07 - NGC6154 -21.79 5371.14 -21.57 6564.72 20.09 10.41 - - - - - -19.88 5463.98 964.85 1825.64 19.39 1.20 3.14 0.94 0.17 0.21 - NGC6186 -21.11 2774.27 -20.94 3185.70 19.08 8.62 -18.67 18.91 4.02 0.35 0.11 -17.00 444.85 237.46 358.49 18.78 0.40 2.15 1.00 0.02 0.03 0.22 NGC6278 -21.45 1977.84 -21.02 3635.48 19.29 10.45 - - - - - -20.31 7501.88 563.29 1145.04 17.90 1.50 3.31 0.93 0.35 0.52 - NGC6941 -22.22 7075.28 -22.09 8486.28 20.12 13.37 -19.15 20.62 6.07 0.25 0.06 -19.55 2335.38 657.61 1117.60 18.71 0.80 2.60 0.99 0.09 0.10 1.45 Table C.1 Continued. NGC7321 -22.32 5736.73 -22.24 6250.92 19.25 8.38 -18.24 21.34 5.04 0.25 0.02 -19.03 1823.62 633.70 1045.90 19.09 0.70 2.47 0.99 0.05 0.05 2.08 NGC7489 -22.27 6061.76 -22.26 6270.38 19.24 9.71 - - - - - -17.66 658.27 428.73 618.30 19.47 0.30 2.61 1.00 0.01 0.01 - NGC7625 -20.14 1438.86 -19.92 1820.51 18.88 9.92 -17.97 19.43 7.57 0.35 0.14 -16.88 429.35 274.25 405.90 19.16 0.30 2.32 0.99 0.05 0.06 0.36 NGC7653 -21.50 3442.53 -21.21 4851.69 19.76 11.29 -19.09 20.79 9.71 0.25 0.11 -19.33 1910.14 513.63 872.91 18.39 0.80 2.70 0.98 0.13 0.18 1.25 NGC7691 -21.01 5597.32 -21.01 6039.67 20.51 16.00 -17.37 21.48 6.37 0.30 0.03 -16.09 761.06 419.55 671.88 21.07 0.60 2.39 0.99 0.01 0.01 0.31 NGC7716 -20.79 2316.6 -20.51 3419.92 19.69 12.94 - - - - - -19.29 3081.78 403.76 763.96 18.09 1.20 3.26 0.91 0.25 0.33 - NGC7738 -21.86 4387.85 -21.59 5526.47 19.66 8.13 -19.65 19.43 3.85 0.60 0.13 -19.09 1367.06 519.38 827.32 18.55 0.60 2.29 0.99 0.08 0.10 0.59 NGC7819 -20.83 4613.28 -20.70 5680.95 20.70 12.61 - - - - - -18.90 2503.62 704.30 1231.16 19.56 0.90 2.60 0.96 0.17 0.19 - UGC07012 -19.62 2195.65 -19.18 2906.27 20.78 8.87 -18.20 21.20 8.97 0.40 0.27 -16.87 1212.67 521.87 886.66 20.89 0.80 2.38 0.96 0.08 0.12 0.30 UGC08234 -22.60 3157.66 -21.96 7381.51 19.93 8.73 -20.89 19.67 6.66 0.25 0.21 -21.24 2337.14 782.95 1253.90 17.28 0.60 2.27 0.98 0.29 0.51 1.38 UGC08733 -19.33 3438.75 -19.29 3523.07 21.14 14.39 - - - - - -15.63 779.48 524.59 864.39 22.09 0.70 2.37 0.98 0.03 0.03 - UGC09067 -21.69 4791.29 -21.61 5101.22 19.44 5.83 -18.06 21.30 3.73 0.40 0.04 -17.48 1141.84 542.01 867.98 20.24 0.60 2.11 0.99 0.02 0.02 0.59 UGC09291 -20.29 4301.86 -20.31 4491.49 20.57 13.92 - - - - - -15.74 763.62 501.54 803.24 21.81 0.60 2.30 0.99 0.02 0.01 - UGC09476 -20.75 4475.16 -20.92 5519.55 20.41 15.69 -16.96 22.22 7.84 0.25 0.03 -16.78 851.52 410.60 657.52 20.34 0.60 2.33 0.99 0.03 0.02 0.85 UGC10796 -19.28 2554.25 -19.13 2923.37 20.84 9.26 -16.83 20.60 3.42 0.60 0.10 -15.60 576.92 308.04 489.59 20.91 0.60 2.15 0.99 0.03 0.04 0.32 UGC12224 -20.63 5236.71 -20.72 5866.67 20.77 18.37 -16.28 23.24 9.87 0.25 0.02 -16.43 881.47 407.68 672.85 20.73 0.70 2.51 0.99 0.02 0.02 1.14 Table C.2: Mean values (¯x), standard deviation (σ), and standard error of the mean (¯σ) of some physical quantities obtained from the spectroscopy. From left to right: luminosity and mass fractions of stellar populations younger than 100 Myr for bulge and disk regions. Galaxy L100 Bulge L100 Disk M100 Bulge M100 Disk ¯x σ ¯σ¯x σ ¯σ¯x σ ¯σ¯x σ ¯σ IC0776 23.50 1.65 0.74 37.43 8.22 1.75 0.48 0.13 0.06 6.37 8.58 1.83 IC1256 9.00 2.03 1.01 18.51 7.92 1.55 0.10 0.07 0.04 0.80 1.09 0.21 IC4566 4.22 1.11 0.50 12.15 5.35 1.09 0.04 0.05 0.02 0.46 0.51 0.10 NGC0001 15.94 5.58 1.35 32.23 12.51 3.23 0.22 0.11 0.03 4.13 4.66 1.20 NGC0023 23.10 3.86 1.12 18.93 1.71 0.42 0.38 0.14 0.04 0.38 0.19 0.05 NGC0160 8.86 6.46 1.79 52.86 8.44 1.99 0.12 0.12 0.03 3.33 2.30 0.54 NGC0165 17.62 7.95 2.81 11.16 4.02 0.95 0.26 0.20 0.07 0.32 0.30 0.07 NGC0171 7.18 3.14 0.87 16.71 4.98 1.17 0.09 0.11 0.03 1.03 1.06 0.25 NGC0180 24.88 4.42 1.81 11.31 3.81 0.79 0.33 0.13 0.05 0.29 0.36 0.07 NGC0214 9.37 2.29 0.93 41.40 14.01 2.80 0.11 0.07 0.03 2.63 3.04 0.61 NGC0237 13.26 5.95 2.43 28.88 3.88 0.83 0.23 0.13 0.05 2.83 2.36 0.50 NGC0257 17.43 6.19 2.19 43.26 9.56 1.99 0.25 0.15 0.05 2.24 1.70 0.35 NGC0477 10.07 2.59 1.16 19.74 9.50 1.94 0.14 0.11 0.05 1.09 1.58 0.32 NGC0776 11.62 3.24 1.32 13.91 2.57 0.51 0.13 0.09 0.04 0.23 0.09 0.02 NGC1093 4.07 2.33 0.88 16.78 7.32 1.56 0.04 0.06 0.02 0.82 1.41 0.30 NGC1645 4.53 1.07 0.34 28.87 10.80 2.48 0.05 0.02 0.01 7.21 5.97 1.37 NGC2253 12.35 4.59 1.74 25.91 4.78 0.96 0.15 0.10 0.04 0.83 0.77 0.15 NGC2347 10.96 6.08 2.48 34.22 11.53 2.35 0.13 0.10 0.04 4.23 5.91 1.21 NGC2639 6.17 3.53 0.77 11.96 4.54 1.31 0.08 0.05 0.01 0.57 0.71 0.20 NGC2730 18.45 4.49 1.83 37.46 4.29 0.86 0.28 0.18 0.07 4.81 1.70 0.34 NGC2906 3.30 1.35 0.51 13.12 5.05 0.99 0.03 0.05 0.02 0.22 0.14 0.03 NGC2916 9.36 4.73 1.67 20.32 8.91 1.86 0.15 0.14 0.05 0.95 1.05 0.22 NGC3057 17.13 4.79 1.60 38.92 6.65 1.57 0.73 0.13 0.04 5.30 4.09 0.96 NGC3300 3.92 1.79 0.73 8.76 9.37 1.84 0.04 0.11 0.04 1.04 2.19 0.43 NGC3381 32.06 8.00 3.02 22.27 2.43 0.48 0.61 0.22 0.08 0.79 0.34 0.07 NGC3614 5.24 2.33 0.88 13.56 3.21 0.63 0.06 0.05 0.02 0.34 0.22 0.04 NGC3687 2.23 2.08 0.66 13.02 1.55 0.32 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.28 0.15 0.03 NGC4003 5.94 2.93 1.04 9.18 5.44 1.25 0.06 0.05 0.02 0.21 0.33 0.08 NGC4047 12.97 3.33 1.49 23.91 4.19 0.78 0.18 0.09 0.04 0.65 0.54 0.10 NGC4185 3.69 1.83 0.61 9.15 2.04 0.42 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.13 0.06 0.01 NGC4210 2.38 1.14 0.46 14.33 4.08 0.85 0.03 0.06 0.02 0.26 0.12 0.02 NGC4961 21.20 5.84 2.38 43.27 5.18 1.08 0.47 0.33 0.13 11.55 7.28 1.52 NGC5000 16.38 1.84 1.06 20.03 11.48 2.25 0.22 0.12 0.07 1.33 1.83 0.36 NGC5016 14.24 0.93 0.47 29.98 12.22 2.27 0.14 0.08 0.04 6.47 9.55 1.77 NGC5205 2.13 1.45 0.48 23.74 14.77 3.08 0.03 0.04 0.01 4.21 5.02 1.05 Table C.2 Continued. NGC5320 5.90 2.14 0.81 16.92 4.88 0.98 0.06 0.05 0.02 0.50 0.51 0.10 NGC5378 1.44 1.67 0.56 7.59 3.68 0.79 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.15 0.11 0.02 NGC5406 1.96 2.06 0.84 9.91 3.16 0.66 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.15 0.07 0.01 NGC5480 31.18 6.47 2.44 31.94 3.54 0.69 0.75 0.38 0.14 2.49 1.43 0.28 NGC5614 3.99 0.47 0.09 4.63 0.56 0.28 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.07 0.09 0.04 NGC5656 11.46 8.39 2.53 22.36 3.64 0.78 0.17 0.14 0.04 0.86 0.65 0.14 NGC5735 4.54 0.80 0.36 11.71 3.96 0.79 0.07 0.06 0.03 0.38 0.26 0.05 NGC5772 4.16 2.67 0.81 12.08 1.78 0.41 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.21 0.13 0.03 NGC5829 16.16 5.48 3.16 41.30 8.23 1.61 0.17 0.11 0.07 6.72 4.51 0.88 NGC6004 9.35 3.52 1.02 13.04 2.33 0.50 0.13 0.08 0.02 0.29 0.21 0.04 NGC6032 11.34 7.26 3.25 32.87 20.83 4.25 0.12 0.13 0.06 5.65 6.08 1.24 NGC6154 3.44 1.18 0.39 8.06 4.03 0.90 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.14 0.10 0.02 NGC6186 16.69 2.55 1.47 9.97 2.64 0.52 0.20 0.13 0.08 0.23 0.22 0.04 NGC6278 1.53 1.01 0.26 4.62 4.84 1.14 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.10 0.17 0.04 NGC6941 5.25 2.51 1.03 12.44 10.32 1.92 0.06 0.06 0.03 0.58 1.09 0.20 NGC7321 3.98 0.88 0.39 15.08 5.49 1.14 0.05 0.06 0.03 0.42 0.46 0.10 NGC7489 30.37 4.61 2.66 50.70 15.92 2.86 0.54 0.23 0.13 13.71 10.51 1.89 NGC7625 22.81 5.37 2.19 20.80 9.85 1.83 0.44 0.17 0.07 0.53 0.48 0.09 NGC7653 8.87 4.25 1.61 25.56 5.23 1.03 0.13 0.09 0.03 1.43 0.88 0.17 NGC7691 15.68 3.65 1.83 53.93 13.64 2.67 0.24 0.11 0.06 6.60 4.62 0.91 NGC7716 6.26 4.96 1.43 17.66 4.88 1.04 0.08 0.09 0.03 0.67 0.50 0.11 NGC7738 25.48 11.17 5.59 11.72 6.79 1.33 0.37 0.26 0.13 0.42 0.73 0.14 NGC7819 30.97 8.09 2.86 24.36 7.33 1.73 0.49 0.26 0.09 2.58 1.68 0.40 UGC07012 18.46 6.16 2.51 39.98 5.11 1.20 0.33 0.14 0.06 5.42 4.52 1.07 UGC08234 2.54 1.58 0.71 11.11 11.05 2.30 0.02 0.05 0.02 1.61 1.91 0.40 UGC08733 17.40 0.98 0.40 23.36 4.57 1.00 0.37 0.14 0.06 2.32 2.23 0.49 UGC09067 12.31 3.50 2.02 30.68 9.41 2.05 0.18 0.14 0.08 6.29 6.95 1.52 UGC09291 10.49 1.31 0.58 18.67 6.78 1.33 0.17 0.10 0.05 0.95 1.01 0.20 UGC09476 13.54 0.75 0.33 19.09 2.65 0.51 0.22 0.08 0.04 0.52 0.22 0.04 UGC10796 36.53 4.20 2.10 26.90 7.05 1.66 2.98 1.67 0.83 3.05 3.42 0.81 UGC12224 10.39 1.81 0.81 30.26 18.19 3.27 0.15 0.09 0.04 4.53 6.14 1.10 Table C.3: Mean values (¯x), standard deviation (σ), standard error of the mean (¯σ), zero point (z0), error of the zero point, gradient (γ) and error of the gradient for the following physical quantities, from left to right: luminosity-weighted stellar age of the bulge and disk, and mass-weighted stellar age of the bulge and disk, respectively. Galaxy Bulge <t>LDisk <t>LBulge <t>MDisk <t>M ¯x σ ¯σ z0z0err γ γ err ¯x σ ¯σ z0z0err γ γ err ¯x σ ¯σ z0z0err γ γ err ¯x σ ¯σ z0z0err γ γ err IC0776 3.84 1.01 0.45 2.927 0.337 7.459 2.248 3.32 1.00 0.21 5.465 0.221 -2.261 0.216 6.12 1.56 0.70 4.379 0.496 14.178 3.305 6.67 1.26 0.27 9.230 0.354 -2.693 0.345 IC1256 8.73 0.77 0.39 9.105 0.007 -3.143 0.045 5.60 1.29 0.25 8.281 0.140 -2.040 0.097 11.23 0.65 0.33 11.712 0.007 -4.007 0.044 8.17 1.12 0.22 10.487 0.137 -1.762 0.095 IC4566 12.50 0.64 0.29 13.084 0.144 -3.526 0.715 7.79 1.72 0.35 11.714 0.182 -2.890 0.123 12.38 0.46 0.21 12.826 0.116 -2.716 0.576 9.31 1.29 0.26 12.214 0.175 -2.136 0.119 NGC0001 5.88 1.04 0.25 7.331 0.178 -1.551 0.163 4.56 0.67 0.17 7.309 0.491 -0.984 0.173 8.84 1.41 0.34 10.799 0.299 -2.099 0.273 7.92 0.49 0.13 7.971 0.573 -0.018 0.202 NGC0023 6.19 1.44 0.42 4.367 0.415 3.429 0.660 6.58 0.46 0.11 7.422 0.299 -0.435 0.150 10.42 1.20 0.35 10.424 0.667 -0.016 1.061 9.15 0.43 0.10 10.373 0.117 -0.632 0.059 NGC0160 10.56 2.19 0.61 13.822 0.245 -7.954 0.506 5.43 0.73 0.17 7.941 0.136 -1.707 0.090 10.87 1.56 0.43 13.172 0.216 -5.612 0.447 9.85 0.64 0.15 8.202 0.393 1.123 0.260 NGC0165 7.48 1.31 0.46 6.172 0.533 5.574 1.892 6.27 1.27 0.30 10.070 0.115 -3.421 0.099 10.11 0.55 0.19 10.358 0.284 -1.050 1.010 8.40 0.57 0.13 9.986 0.133 -1.431 0.114 NGC0171 10.16 1.76 0.49 12.661 0.336 -8.594 0.979 5.82 1.04 0.25 9.588 0.333 -3.605 0.310 10.81 1.34 0.37 12.615 0.327 -6.178 0.952 8.30 0.65 0.15 9.822 0.467 -1.456 0.434 NGC0180 8.91 2.37 0.97 10.266 1.643 -12.230 12.254 7.84 1.72 0.36 11.958 0.211 -5.475 0.262 11.84 2.04 0.83 13.543 1.206 -15.374 8.996 9.49 1.01 0.21 11.772 0.180 -3.03 0.222 NGC0214 10.10 1.39 0.57 11.754 0.289 -9.956 1.436 5.08 1.20 0.24 7.849 0.167 -2.312 0.129 11.80 0.73 0.30 12.663 0.159 -5.212 0.788 9.11 0.42 0.08 9.549 0.185 -0.37 0.144 NGC0237 6.07 0.74 0.30 6.548 0.185 -1.973 0.626 4.01 0.56 0.12 5.108 0.185 -0.684 0.108 9.67 0.48 0.19 9.670 0.111 -0.006 0.378 7.65 0.84 0.18 9.388 0.286 -1.077 0.166 NGC0257 7.22 1.17 0.41 8.657 0.104 -6.675 0.403 4.37 0.57 0.12 5.566 0.195 -1.026 0.157 10.42 0.76 0.27 11.177 0.295 -3.502 1.144 8.59 0.73 0.15 7.203 0.322 1.183 0.260 NGC0477 8.38 0.95 0.42 8.702 0.606 -2.613 3.989 5.22 1.46 0.30 8.529 0.145 -3.231 0.130 10.76 1.12 0.50 11.876 0.460 -8.988 3.028 7.88 0.89 0.18 9.667 0.206 -1.749 0.186 NGC0776 10.28 0.63 0.26 9.934 0.128 2.099 0.646 6.49 1.59 0.32 9.798 0.448 -2.820 0.354 11.84 0.42 0.17 12.176 0.084 -2.074 0.425 8.82 1.17 0.23 11.222 0.342 -2.046 0.271 NGC1093 9.88 1.55 0.59 11.930 0.107 -6.635 0.288 5.99 1.17 0.25 8.969 0.173 -1.653 0.090 10.93 1.09 0.41 12.348 0.131 -4.580 0.354 8.63 0.86 0.18 10.753 0.169 -1.179 0.088 NGC1645 10.45 1.49 0.47 12.485 0.296 -4.385 0.539 6.14 1.81 0.42 12.100 0.244 -3.045 0.120 10.67 1.37 0.43 12.563 0.248 -4.084 0.452 8.23 1.44 0.33 12.818 0.330 -2.345 0.162 NGC2253 8.34 0.74 0.28 8.879 0.284 -2.502 1.090 5.19 1.05 0.21 7.755 0.179 -1.867 0.122 10.63 1.10 0.41 12.063 0.148 -6.630 0.570 8.94 0.87 0.17 10.726 0.281 -1.299 0.192 NGC2347 10.64 1.68 0.68 12.776 0.078 -9.522 0.289 5.50 1.89 0.39 10.094 0.120 -2.931 0.071 11.69 0.69 0.28 12.505 0.050 -3.630 0.186 8.92 1.58 0.32 12.719 0.187 -2.423 0.111 NGC2639 10.63 1.62 0.35 13.059 0.237 -2.818 0.235 5.22 1.55 0.45 15.965 0.834 -4.701 0.362 11.23 0.94 0.21 12.587 0.169 -1.569 0.167 6.38 1.47 0.42 16.352 1.118 -4.363 0.485 NGC2730 4.85 0.54 0.22 4.665 0.121 1.367 0.738 3.14 0.45 0.09 3.739 0.190 -0.620 0.181 8.21 0.45 0.18 8.271 0.074 -0.423 0.452 6.65 0.63 0.13 7.343 0.301 -0.716 0.287 NGC2906 11.57 0.65 0.24 12.263 0.146 -3.370 0.593 7.49 0.83 0.16 8.194 0.425 -0.526 0.297 11.88 0.45 0.17 12.347 0.053 -2.286 0.216 9.40 0.65 0.13 10.835 0.166 -1.074 0.116 NGC2916 8.77 1.25 0.44 9.662 0.707 -4.970 3.293 5.68 1.10 0.23 8.367 0.317 -2.761 0.307 9.55 1.12 0.39 10.136 0.704 -3.273 3.281 8.71 0.73 0.15 8.795 0.447 -0.088 0.443 NGC3057 3.00 0.49 0.16 2.478 0.108 2.580 0.451 2.66 0.56 0.13 4.305 0.154 -1.874 0.167 5.87 0.49 0.16 5.433 0.121 2.169 0.507 6.17 0.60 0.14 7.781 0.258 -1.83 0.281 NGC3300 11.64 1.81 0.74 13.605 0.762 -8.643 2.763 7.98 1.13 0.22 10.412 0.235 -1.445 0.129 11.93 1.28 0.52 13.227 0.593 -5.710 2.150 9.03 0.74 0.15 10.588 0.150 -0.926 0.082 NGC3381 4.64 0.61 0.23 5.068 0.114 -2.674 0.596 3.29 0.47 0.09 4.408 0.045 -1.073 0.040 8.49 0.91 0.34 9.509 0.267 -6.375 1.391 6.39 0.61 0.12 7.819 0.090 -1.373 0.081 NGC3614 7.75 1.00 0.38 9.000 0.079 -11.975 0.626 5.44 0.81 0.16 7.421 0.073 -2.911 0.100 9.07 1.33 0.50 10.809 0.143 -16.690 1.138 7.83 0.46 0.09 8.656 0.129 -1.221 0.178 NGC3687 9.22 0.93 0.29 10.337 0.239 -3.813 0.688 5.45 1.29 0.27 9.364 0.120 -2.862 0.084 9.97 0.73 0.23 10.814 0.201 -2.869 0.579 7.77 1.25 0.26 11.483 0.213 -2.714 0.149 NGC4003 8.44 0.70 0.25 8.965 0.177 -1.287 0.365 6.33 0.80 0.18 8.543 0.181 -1.121 0.087 10.45 0.54 0.19 10.870 0.208 -1.021 0.427 8.15 0.85 0.19 10.568 0.172 -1.221 0.083 NGC4047 8.18 1.08 0.48 9.297 0.022 -7.669 0.125 5.68 0.65 0.12 6.843 0.153 -0.842 0.101 10.71 0.80 0.36 11.513 0.074 -5.537 0.417 8.97 0.93 0.17 10.789 0.195 -1.311 0.129 NGC4185 11.09 0.98 0.33 12.454 0.092 -8.050 0.455 8.42 0.99 0.21 11.234 0.112 -3.317 0.125 11.16 0.73 0.24 12.114 0.152 -5.625 0.755 9.93 0.48 0.10 11.190 0.081 -1.487 0.091 NGC4210 9.89 0.87 0.35 10.539 0.471 -4.871 2.937 6.35 1.12 0.23 8.979 0.201 -2.919 0.208 9.96 0.77 0.32 10.602 0.385 -4.830 2.399 8.72 0.36 0.07 9.360 0.097 -0.711 0.101 NGC4961 4.40 0.84 0.34 5.226 0.219 -3.455 0.761 2.64 0.62 0.13 3.968 0.157 -0.820 0.090 8.91 0.83 0.34 9.759 0.199 -3.554 0.693 6.03 1.29 0.27 8.597 0.442 -1.588 0.255 NGC5000 9.08 1.39 0.80 7.974 0.113 14.027 1.113 7.18 2.30 0.45 11.706 0.229 -3.704 0.169 11.34 0.69 0.40 10.876 0.016 5.852 0.161 9.46 1.21 0.24 11.830 0.130 -1.94 0.096 NGC5016 8.97 0.85 0.42 9.567 0.023 -5.860 0.179 5.30 1.87 0.35 9.185 0.138 -3.197 0.103 10.56 0.62 0.31 10.922 0.017 -3.595 0.138 7.85 2.00 0.37 11.874 0.264 -3.314 0.197 NGC5205 7.77 1.31 0.44 9.409 0.353 -5.911 1.070 4.53 1.26 0.26 8.075 0.188 -2.561 0.129 8.84 1.37 0.46 10.487 0.441 -5.964 1.339 7.21 0.61 0.13 8.303 0.284 -0.786 0.195 NGC5320 9.35 1.32 0.50 11.040 0.176 -10.559 0.915 5.60 1.60 0.32 9.664 0.097 -4.006 0.090 10.70 0.99 0.37 11.949 0.142 -7.810 0.739 8.36 1.09 0.22 11.076 0.119 -2.672 0.110 NGC5378 11.98 0.90 0.30 13.164 0.157 -5.541 0.614 8.52 1.79 0.38 13.841 0.073 -5.090 0.066 11.68 0.69 0.23 12.596 0.115 -4.250 0.451 9.21 1.15 0.24 12.597 0.077 -3.237 0.070 NGC5406 12.90 0.53 0.22 13.378 0.087 -3.100 0.468 8.54 1.53 0.32 11.952 0.398 -3.252 0.353 12.59 0.38 0.16 13.007 0.107 -2.686 0.570 10.13 0.62 0.13 11.239 0.246 -1.054 0.219 NGC5480 3.90 0.92 0.35 2.918 0.240 6.081 1.234 3.81 0.30 0.06 4.239 0.083 -0.406 0.074 7.95 1.58 0.60 6.423 0.792 9.421 4.075 7.93 0.35 0.07 7.802 0.132 0.127 0.117 NGC5614 9.69 1.78 0.35 12.278 0.309 -2.737 0.280 7.14 0.82 0.41 12.883 0.394 -2.760 0.189 10.61 1.24 0.24 12.558 0.133 -2.057 0.121 8.50 0.71 0.36 14.924 0.476 -3.086 0.228 NGC5656 7.22 1.11 0.34 8.766 0.123 -3.732 0.251 4.87 0.34 0.07 5.517 0.124 -0.361 0.067 9.80 0.66 0.20 10.658 0.085 -2.056 0.172 8.18 0.28 0.06 8.695 0.114 -0.286 0.061 Table C.3 Continued. NGC5735 9.67 1.04 0.47 10.779 0.167 -10.366 1.278 5.45 1.22 0.24 8.024 0.239 -2.832 0.242 10.84 0.95 0.42 11.911 0.164 -10.033 1.253 7.84 0.79 0.16 8.908 0.321 -1.171 0.325 NGC5772 12.27 1.55 0.47 14.377 0.328 -5.624 0.742 7.82 0.99 0.23 11.116 0.144 -2.202 0.093 12.20 0.80 0.24 13.283 0.156 -2.892 0.353 9.75 0.56 0.13 11.595 0.054 -1.231 0.035 NGC5829 6.55 1.16 0.67 7.184 0.018 -10.005 0.218 3.27 0.95 0.19 5.021 0.150 -1.791 0.138 9.77 0.87 0.50 10.251 0.003 -7.600 0.041 7.07 1.27 0.25 9.319 0.272 -2.304 0.251 NGC6004 8.21 1.07 0.31 9.524 0.284 -5.044 0.924 6.27 0.27 0.06 6.174 0.120 0.091 0.109 10.45 1.15 0.33 12.160 0.075 -6.560 0.243 8.98 0.48 0.10 7.594 0.089 1.307 0.080 NGC6032 9.52 0.94 0.42 8.876 0.432 4.542 2.478 6.25 1.74 0.35 10.069 0.296 -3.251 0.232 10.81 0.50 0.22 10.950 0.310 -0.968 1.777 8.76 0.64 0.13 9.260 0.317 -0.425 0.249 NGC6154 12.17 1.15 0.38 13.598 0.326 -4.455 0.856 7.25 1.82 0.41 12.645 0.416 -3.642 0.268 11.87 0.86 0.29 12.947 0.267 -3.363 0.701 8.69 1.04 0.23 11.643 0.294 -1.993 0.189 NGC6186 9.03 0.99 0.57 9.393 0.033 -4.294 0.302 7.00 0.76 0.15 8.326 0.147 -1.022 0.102 11.46 0.56 0.33 11.422 0.040 0.423 0.369 8.77 0.94 0.18 10.495 0.170 -1.323 0.118 NGC6278 12.87 0.99 0.26 14.305 0.127 -1.828 0.137 10.86 0.97 0.23 14.226 0.610 -1.275 0.226 12.13 0.77 0.20 13.276 0.123 -1.454 0.133 10.83 0.42 0.10 11.974 0.283 -0.432 0.105 NGC6941 12.10 0.73 0.30 12.827 0.174 -4.777 0.947 7.91 2.22 0.41 12.992 0.226 -4.186 0.172 12.23 0.64 0.26 12.947 0.205 -4.711 1.113 9.66 1.08 0.20 11.993 0.191 -1.925 0.145 NGC7321 11.13 0.65 0.29 11.292 0.364 -1.000 1.798 6.15 1.47 0.31 9.372 0.284 -2.432 0.198 11.89 0.44 0.20 12.065 0.241 -1.067 1.188 8.72 1.17 0.24 11.280 0.234 -1.934 0.163 NGC7489 6.84 0.97 0.56 7.171 0.005 -4.847 0.054 3.27 1.50 0.27 6.083 0.184 -2.300 0.134 11.47 0.94 0.54 12.139 0.025 -9.821 0.280 7.20 1.71 0.31 10.141 0.345 -2.399 0.252 NGC7625 4.75 0.82 0.33 5.534 0.108 -3.910 0.448 5.19 0.64 0.12 4.179 0.217 0.631 0.125 9.53 1.01 0.41 10.617 0.329 -5.422 1.360 8.48 0.62 0.11 9.065 0.261 -0.368 0.151 NGC7653 7.34 1.24 0.47 8.664 0.466 -5.369 1.575 4.01 0.86 0.17 6.054 0.118 -1.276 0.069 9.30 1.15 0.43 10.130 0.661 -3.364 2.233 7.29 0.58 0.11 8.181 0.229 -0.557 0.133 NGC7691 5.34 0.79 0.39 5.932 0.108 -8.214 1.213 3.57 0.35 0.07 4.048 0.097 -0.601 0.112 7.62 0.86 0.43 8.360 0.156 -10.283 1.743 7.95 0.87 0.17 6.296 0.181 2.096 0.209 NGC7716 9.17 0.93 0.27 10.307 0.228 -2.777 0.471 5.63 1.41 0.30 10.421 0.147 -2.858 0.084 10.21 0.77 0.22 11.068 0.233 -2.085 0.483 7.92 0.88 0.19 10.861 0.114 -1.755 0.065 NGC7738 8.23 1.56 0.78 6.689 0.061 10.187 0.324 7.88 1.58 0.31 11.050 0.255 -1.905 0.139 11.82 0.41 0.21 11.726 0.156 0.620 0.824 9.28 1.12 0.22 11.394 0.256 -1.269 0.140 NGC7819 5.10 0.69 0.24 4.746 0.291 1.440 0.985 3.92 0.61 0.14 5.638 0.125 -1.474 0.102 8.76 1.01 0.36 9.345 0.584 -2.371 1.978 6.61 0.38 0.09 6.841 0.230 -0.197 0.188 UGC07012 3.53 0.51 0.21 3.600 0.110 -0.246 0.334 2.44 0.57 0.13 3.856 0.097 -0.895 0.058 6.66 0.61 0.25 6.487 0.284 0.638 0.858 5.74 0.76 0.18 7.698 0.118 -1.237 0.070 UGC08234 7.16 1.15 0.51 8.163 0.469 -2.812 1.073 5.82 0.42 0.09 5.824 0.199 -0.001 0.064 10.16 1.77 0.79 12.039 0.725 -5.285 1.660 7.53 0.59 0.12 7.035 0.264 0.175 0.086 UGC08733 3.30 0.55 0.22 2.961 0.084 2.382 0.495 2.69 0.53 0.12 3.887 0.125 -1.334 0.130 5.84 0.49 0.20 5.851 0.161 -0.095 0.948 4.78 0.59 0.13 6.020 0.289 -1.387 0.197 UGC09067 8.95 0.92 0.53 9.192 0.005 -2.035 0.030 4.97 1.81 0.39 8.640 0.212 -2.397 0.126 11.36 0.54 0.31 11.529 0.012 -1.466 0.078 8.02 2.12 0.46 12.259 0.335 -2.77 0.198 UGC09291 5.80 1.19 0.53 7.045 0.387 -11.645 2.945 4.28 0.66 0.13 5.658 0.080 -1.468 0.078 8.13 1.13 0.50 9.321 0.352 -11.112 2.680 6.88 0.39 0.08 7.363 0.129 -0.515 0.126 UGC09476 6.23 0.69 0.31 6.760 0.092 -4.650 0.660 4.32 0.67 0.13 5.645 0.138 -1.296 0.124 8.74 0.71 0.32 9.381 0.123 -5.693 0.889 7.40 0.80 0.15 8.960 0.187 -1.533 0.168 UGC10796 1.71 0.91 0.46 0.849 0.235 6.307 1.379 2.39 0.34 0.08 2.255 0.154 0.120 0.125 4.95 1.15 0.57 3.861 0.182 7.968 1.069 4.58 0.55 0.13 4.494 0.308 0.075 0.250 UGC12224 6.09 0.62 0.28 6.538 0.072 -5.005 0.655 4.14 1.46 0.26 7.269 0.130 -3.465 0.131 7.75 0.62 0.28 8.181 0.073 -4.819 0.665 7.13 0.55 0.10 7.971 0.167 -0.93 0.169