4.7 Article

The rest-frame far-ultraviolet morphologies of star-forming galaxies at z ∼ 1.5 and 4

Journal

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
Volume 636, Issue 2, Pages 592-609

Publisher

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1086/497950

Keywords

galaxies : evolution; galaxies : high-redshift; galaxies : interactions; galaxies : structure; ultraviolet : galaxies

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We apply a new approach to quantifying galaxy morphology and identifying galaxy mergers to the rest-frame farultraviolet images of 82 z similar to 4 Lyman break galaxies (LBGs) and 55 1.2 < z < 1.8 emission-line galaxies in the GOODS and Ultra Deep Field survey. We compare the distributions of the Gini coefficient (G), the second-order moment of the brightest 20% of galaxy light (M-20), and concentration (C) for high- and low-redshift galaxies with average signal-to-noise ratios per pixel > 2.5 and Petrosian radii > 0.3. Ten of the 82 LBGs have M-20 >= -1.1 and possess bright double or multiple nuclei, implying a major-merger fraction of star-forming galaxies similar to 10%-25% at M-FUV < -20, depending on our incompleteness corrections. Galaxies with bulge-like morphologies (G >= 0.55, M-20 < -1.6) make up similar to 30% of the z similar to 4 LBG sample, while the remaining similar to 50% have G- and M-20-values higher than expected for smooth bulges and disks and may be star-forming disks, minor mergers, or postmergers. The star-forming z similar to 1.5 galaxy sample has a morphological distribution that is similar to the UDF z similar to 4 LBGs, with an identical fraction of major-merger candidates but fewer spheroids. The observed morphological distributions are roughly consistent with current hierarchical model predictions for the major-merger rates and minor-merger-induced starbursts at z similar to 1.5 and similar to 4. We also examine the rest-frame FUV-NUV and FUV-B colors as a function of morphology and find no strong correlations at either epoch.

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