4.7 Article

Evidence for a correlation between the sizes of quiescent galaxies and local environment to z ∼ 2

Journal

MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY
Volume 435, Issue 1, Pages 207-221

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stt1275

Keywords

galaxies: clusters: general; galaxies: evolution; galaxies: groups: general; galaxies: haloes; galaxies: structure; infrared: galaxies

Funding

  1. STFC [ST/I505856/1, ST/F007043/1, ST/J001465/1, ST/I001212/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We present evidence for a strong relationship between galaxy size and environment for the quiescent population in the redshift range 1 < z < 2. Environments were measured using projected galaxy overdensities on a scale of 400 kpc, as determined from similar to 96 000 K-band-selected galaxies from the UKIDSS Ultra Deep Survey (UDS). Sizes were determined from ground-based K-band imaging, calibrated using space-based CANDELS HST observations in the centre of the UDS field, with photometric redshifts and stellar masses derived from 11-band photometric fitting. From the resulting size-mass relation, we confirm that quiescent galaxies at a given stellar mass were typically similar to 50 per cent smaller at z similar to 1.4 compared to the present day. At a given epoch, however, we find that passive galaxies in denser environments are on average significantly larger at a given stellar mass. The most massive quiescent galaxies (M-* > 2 x 10(11) M-circle dot) at z > 1 are typically 50 per cent larger in the highest density environments compared to those in the lowest density environments. Using Monte Carlo simulations, we reject the null hypothesis that the size-mass relation is independent of environment at a significance >4.8 sigma for the redshift range 1 < z < 2. In contrast, the evidence for a relationship between size and environment is much weaker for star-forming 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