4.7 Article

The connection between star formation and stellar mass: specific star formation rates to redshift one

Journal

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2005.00012.x

Keywords

surveys; galaxies : evolution; galaxies : fundamental parameters; galaxies : luminosity function, mass function; galaxies : photometry; galaxies : stellar content

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We investigate the contribution of star formation to the growth of stellar mass in galaxies over the redshift range 0.5 < 1.1 by studying the redshift evolution of the specific star formation rate (SSFR), defined as the star formation rate per unit stellar mass. We use an I-band-selected sample of 6180 field galaxies from the Munich Near-Infrared Cluster Survey (MUNICS) with spectroscopically calibrated photometric redshifts. The SSFR decreases with stellar mass at all redshifts. The low SSFRs of massive galaxies indicate that star formation does not significantly change their stellar mass over this redshift range: the majority of massive galaxies have assembled the bulk of their mass before redshift unity. Furthermore, these highest mass galaxies contain the oldest stellar populations at all redshifts. The line of maximum SSFR runs parallel to lines of constant star formation rate. With increasing redshift, the maximum SFR is generally increasing for all stellar masses, from SFR similar or equal to 5 M circle dot yr(-1) at z similar or equal to 0.5 to SFR similar or equal to 10 M yr(-1) at z similar or equal to 1.1. We also show that the large SSFRs of low-mass galaxies cannot be sustained over extended periods of time. Finally, our results do not require a substantial contribution of merging to the growth of stellar mass in massive galaxies over the redshift range probed. We note that highly obscured galaxies which remain undetected in our sample do not affect these findings for the bulk of the field galaxy population.

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