4.7 Review

How is star formation quenched in massive galaxies?

Journal

MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY
Volume 407, Issue 2, Pages 749-771

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16961.x

Keywords

galaxies: evolution; galaxies: haloes; galaxies: interactions; galaxies: luminosity function; mass function

Funding

  1. NASA [HF-51254.01]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The bimodality in observed present-day galaxy colours has long been a challenge for hierarchical galaxy formation models, as it requires some physical process to quench (and keep quenched) star formation in massive galaxies. Here, we examine phenomenological models of quenching by post-processing the star formation histories of galaxies from cosmological hydrodynamic simulations that reproduce observations of star-forming galaxies reasonably well. We consider recipes for quenching based on major mergers, halo mass thresholds, gas temperature thresholds and variants thereof. We compare the resulting simulated star formation histories to observed g - r colour-magnitude diagrams and red and blue luminosity functions from SDSS. The merger and halo mass quenching scenarios each yield a distinct red sequence and blue cloud of galaxies that are in broad agreement with data, albeit only under rather extreme assumptions. In detail, however, the simulated red sequence slope and amplitude in both scenarios are somewhat discrepant, perhaps traceable to low metallicities in simulated galaxies. Merger quenching produces more massive blue galaxies, earlier quenching and more frosting of young stars; comparing to relevant data tends to favour merger over halo mass quenching. Although physically motivated quenching models can produce a red sequence, interesting generic discrepancies remain that indicate that additional physics is required to reproduce the star formation and enrichment histories of red and dead galaxies.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available