4.7 Article

Deep luminosity functions and colour-magnitude relations for cluster galaxies at 0.2 < z < 0.6

Journal

MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY
Volume 434, Issue 4, Pages 3469-3486

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stt1262

Keywords

galaxies: dwarf; galaxies: formation; galaxies: luminosity function, mass function

Funding

  1. STFC [ST/J001414/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  2. Science and Technology Facilities Council [ST/J001414/1] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We derive deep I-band luminosity functions and colour-magnitude diagrams from Hubble Space Telescope imaging for eleven 0.2 < z < 0.6 clusters observed at various stages of merging, and a comparison sample of five more relaxed clusters at similar redshifts. The characteristic magnitude M* evolves passively out to z = 0.6, while the faint-end slope of the luminosity function is alpha similar to -1 at all redshifts. Cluster galaxies must have been completely assembled down to M-I similar to -18 out to z = 0.6. We observe tight colour-magnitude relations over a luminosity range of up to 8 mag., consistent with the passive evolution of ancient stellar populations. This is found in all clusters, irrespective of their dynamical status (involved in a collision or not, or even within subclusters for the same object), and suggests that environment does not have a strong influence on galaxy properties. A red sequence luminosity function can be followed to the limits of our photometry: we see no evidence of a weakening of the red sequence to z = 0.6. The blue galaxy fraction rises with redshift, especially at fainter absolute magnitudes. We observe bright blue galaxies in clusters at z > 0.4 that are not encountered locally. Surface brightness selection effects preferentially influence the detectability of faint red galaxies, accounting for claims of evolution at the faint end.

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