4.7 Article

Rejuvenation in z ∼ 0.8 Quiescent Galaxies in LEGA-C

Journal

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
Volume 877, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab164d

Keywords

galaxies: evolution; galaxies: high-redshift; galaxies: star formation

Funding

  1. ESO Telescopes at the La Silla Paranal Observatory [194-A.2005]
  2. DAAD-Stipendium
  3. European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme [683184]
  4. Deutsche Forschungsemeinschaft [GZ: WE 4755/4-1]
  5. NWO Spinoza grant
  6. STFC [ST/P00038X/1, ST/R000514/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We use reconstructed star formation (SF) histories of quiescent galaxies at z = 0.6-1 in the Large Early Galaxy Astrophysics Census survey to identify secondary SF episodes that, after an initial period of quiescence, moved the galaxies back to the star-forming main sequence (blue cloud). 16 +/- 3% of the z similar to 0.8 quiescent population has experienced such rejuvenation events in the redshift range of 0.7 < z < 1.5 after reaching quiescence at some earlier time. On average, these galaxies first became quiescent at z = 1.2, and those that rejuvenated, remained quiescent for similar to 1 Gyr before their secondary SF episode, which lasted similar to 0.7 Gyr. The stellar mass attributed to rejuvenation is on average 10% of the galaxy stellar mass, with rare instances of an increase of more than a factor of 2. Overall, rejuvenation events only contribute similar to 2% of the total stellar mass in z similar to 0.8 quiescent galaxies and we conclude that rejuvenation is not an important evolutionary channel when considering the growth of the red sequence. However, our results complicate the interpretation of galaxy demographics in color space: the galaxies with rejuvenation events tend to lie in the so-called green valley, yet their progenitors were quiescent at 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