4.7 Article

The luminosity function and star formation rate between redshifts of 0.07 and 1.47 for narrowband emitters in the subaru deep field

Journal

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
Volume 657, Issue 2, Pages 738-759

Publisher

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1086/510828

Keywords

galaxies : distances and redshifts; galaxies : evolution; galaxies : luminosity function, mass function; galaxies : photometry

Ask authors/readers for more resources

SDF line-emitting galaxies in four narrowband filters at low and intermediate redshifts are presented. Broadband colors, follow-up optical spectroscopy, and multiple NB filters are used to distinguish H alpha, [O II], and [O III] emitters at z = 0.07-1.47 to construct their LFs. These LFs are derived down to faint magnitudes, allowing for an accurate determination of the faint-end slope. With a large (N similar to 200-900) sample for each redshift interval, a Schechter profile is fitted to each LF. Prior to dust extinction corrections, the [O III] and [O II] LFs agree reasonably well with those of Hippelein et al. The z = 0.08 H alpha LF, which reaches 2 orders of magnitude fainter than Gallego et al., is steeper by 25%. This indicates that there are more low-luminosity star-forming galaxies for z < 0.1. The faint-end slope alpha and phi(star) show a strong redshift evolution, while L-star shows little evolution. The evolution in alpha indicates that low-luminosity galaxies have a stronger evolution compared to brighter ones. Integrated SFR densities are derived via H alpha, [O III], and [O II] for 0.07 < z < 1.47. A steep increase in the SFR density, as a function of redshift, is seen for 0.4 < z < 0.9. For z > 1, the SFR densities are similar. The latter is consistent with previous UV and [O II] measurements. Below z < 0.4, the SFR densities are consistent with several H alpha, [O II], and UV measurements, but others are a factor of 2 higher. For example, the z = 0.066-0.092 LF agrees with Jones & Bland-Hawthorn, but at z = 0.24 and 0.40, their number densities are twice as high. This discrepancy can be explained by cosmic variance.

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