4.7 Article

The MOSDEF Survey: calibrating the relationship between H α star formation rate and radio continuum luminosity at 1.4 < z < 2.6

Journal

MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY
Volume 498, Issue 3, Pages 3648-3657

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/staa2561

Keywords

galaxies: evolution; galaxies: star formation; radio continuum: galaxies

Funding

  1. ERC Advanced Investigator programme New-Clusters [321271]
  2. NASA through the NASA Hubble Fellowship - Space Telescope Science Institute [HST-HF2-51420]
  3. NASA [NAS5-26555]
  4. NSF AAG grant [AST-1312780, 1312547, 1312764, 1313171]
  5. NASA from the Space Telescope Science Institute [AR-13907]
  6. W. M. Keck Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The observed empirical relation between the star formation rates (SFR) of low-redshift galaxies and their radio continuum luminosity offers a potential means of measuring SFR in high-redshift galaxies that is unaffected by dust obscuration. In this study, we make the first test for redshift evolution in the SFR-radio continuum relation at high redshift using dust-corrected H alpha SFR. Our sample consists of 178 galaxies from the MOSFIRE Deep Evolution Field (MOSDEF) Survey at 1.4 < z < 2.6 with rest-frame optical spectroscopy and deep 1.5 GHz radio continuum observations from the Karl G. Jansky Very Large Array (VLA) GOODS North field. Using a stacking analysis, we compare the observed radio continuum luminosities with those predicted from the dust-corrected H alpha SFR assuming a range of z similar to 0 relations. We find no evidence for a systematic evolution with redshift, when stacking the radio continuum as a function of dust-corrected H alpha SFR and when stacking both optical spectroscopy and radio continuum as a function of stellar mass. We conclude that locally calibrated relations between SFR and radio continuum luminosity remain valid out to z similar to 2.

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