All Tables

Table 1: Sample of galaxies in the different observing runs. Type: morphological type extracted from the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database; M_B: absolute magnitude in the B-band, obtained from the Lyon-Meudon Extragalactic Database; Env.: when the galaxy is a member of a well-known cluster, the cluster name is indicated; the label Pair indicates that the galaxy is a member of a pair of galaxies; when the galaxies do not belong to a cluster, group, or pair of galaxies, it is labeled as field galaxy; Run: observation run in which each galaxy was observed; $t_{\rm exp}$ : exposure time (seconds); PA: position angle of the major axis of the galaxy measured from north to east (degrees); SA: orientation of the slit (degrees); Flag: environment assigned to each galaxy (L: low-density environment: H: high-density environment); Code: symbols used in Figure; Ref: reference used to assigned the environment Flag to each galaxy (Gc93: García 1993; VCC85: Binggeli et al. 1985; GMP: Godwin et al. 1983; CGCG: Zwicky et al. 1974). 6.
Table 2: Observational configurations employed in the four different observing runs.
Table 3: Comparison of the velocity dispersions derived in this study and in previous works. The table columns are: Offset: mean offset between this study and the one in Col. 1; rms: dispersion among the mean value; Exp. rms: dispersion expected from the errors; z: result of a z-test to contrast the hypothesis of a null offset (a value higher than 1.96 allows us to reject the hypothesis with a significance level lower than 0.05); N: number of galaxies in each comparison. Units are km s^-1.
Table 4: Typical values of the different considered error sources. Phot.: photonic noise; Flux: flux calibration; Wave.: wavelength calibration; Dichr.: typical error in the subtraction of the dichroic pattern (this error is only added in the measurements of Run 2). Res.: residual errors, based on repeated observations of 10 galaxies.
Table 5: Resolution at which Lick indices are measured.
Table 6: Comparison of line strengths measured in this and other studies. Ref.: reference of the comparison work (see description in the text); N: number of galaxies in common; $\Delta I$ : calculated offset between both studies (this work minus other study); $\sigma$ : rms dispersion; $\sigma _{\rm exp}$ : expected rms from the errors; t: t-parameter of the comparison of means; $\alpha$ : probability that $\sigma > \sigma _{\rm exp}$ by chance.
Table 7: a) Parameters of the linear fits $I'=a+b\;\log \sigma$ . First column: y-intersect of the fit and its error; second column: slope, and corresponding error, of the linear fit; $\alpha$ : probability, given by a non-parametric Spearman test, that the slope of the fit is significatively different from zero by chance; N: number of galaxies used to make the fit; t: t parameter to test the hypothesis b=0 (a t value higher than 1.9 indicates that the slope is significant different from zero with a significance level lower than 0.05); $\sigma _{\rm std}$ : standard deviation about the fit; $\sigma_{\exp}$ : standard deviation expected from the errors; $\sigma _{\rm res}$ : standard deviation not explained from the errors.
Table 7: b) Line-strength indices used in this work as a function of the logarithm of age and metallicity using the models by V06. The last two columns express the required variation in metallicity with velocity dispersion to explain the slopes of the index- $\sigma$ relations, assuming that the slope is due to an exclusive variation of this parameter with the velocity dispersion.
Table 8: Difference between the slope of the index- $\sigma$ relation and the expected index variation due to changes in the chemical composition.
Table 9: Statistical analysis of the correlations between the residuals of the index- $\sigma$ relation and the H $\beta$ index. For a significance level lower than $\alpha =0.05$ , a value of t higher than 1.96 confirms the existence of correlation.
Table 10: Mean differences in the Lick indices at a given $\sigma$ between galaxies in different environments. For each index, we list the mean offset d and its error $\Delta d$ and the t-parameter (of the statistical test $d\ne 0$ ).
Table 11: Differences in the abundances of the distinct chemical species used to build the 4 models described in the text. The last column shows the dispersion around the 1:1 relation when comparing the offsets in the indices between galaxies in different environments and the offsets in the indices due to the changes in the chemical species of each model.
Table A.1: Final Lick/IDS offsets (Lick/IDS - This work).
Table B.1: Mean offset, rms ( $\sigma$ ), and rms expected by the errors ( $\sigma$ (exp)) in the comparison between stars observed in Run 4 and in the other runs. The last column shows the z parameter, which indicates the significance of the mean offset. A z-value higher than 1.96 indicates that the offsets are significant with a significance level lower than 0.05.
Table C.1: Average polynomial coefficients for each line index correction function, where $\sigma *=\sigma _{\rm Lick}/\sigma$ . The last column shows the maximum error due to this correction for a galaxy of $\sigma =400$ km s^-1.
Table D.1: Comparison of line strengths measured in this and other studies. Ref.: reference of the comparison work (see description in the text); N: number of galaxies in common; $\Delta I$ : calculated offset between both studies (other studies minus this work); $\sigma$ : rms dispersion; $\sigma _{\rm exp}$ : expected rms from the errors; t: t-parameter of the comparison of means.
Table D.2: t-parameter in the comparison of the offsets between different observing runs and other authors. A t-value higher than 1.96 indicates that the offsets are significant different, which would suggest the existence of systematic differences between observing runs.
Table D.3: Fully corrected line-strength indices in the central 2 $^{\prime\prime}\times \mbox{\it eqap}$ aperture, where eqap represents 4 $^{\prime \prime }$ at redshift z=0.016.