4.7 Article

Luminous compact blue galaxies in the local universe

Journal

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
Volume 617, Issue 2, Pages 1004-1016

Publisher

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1086/425414

Keywords

galaxies : abundances; galaxies : active; galaxies : evolution; galaxies : starburst; galaxies : structure

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We use the KPNO International Spectroscopic Survey (KISS) for emission-line galaxies to identify and describe a sample of local analogs to the luminous compact blue galaxies (LCBGs) that are observed to be abundant at intermediate and high redshift. The sample is selected using criteria believed effective at isolating true examples of LCBGs: SBe(B band) < 21.0 mag arcsec(-2), M-B < -18.5 ( for H-0 = 75 km s(-1) Mpc(-1)), and B - V < 0.6. In addition, all LCBG candidates presented are selected to have star formation as their dominant form of activity. We examine the properties of our LCBGs and compare them with those of other KISS star-forming galaxies of the same absolute magnitude range. We find that the KISS LCBGs lie on the extreme end of a fairly continuous distribution of normal'' star-forming galaxies in the plane of surface brightness versus color. This result differs from the results of previous studies that show LCBGs at higher z to be more separate from the normal'' ( usually nonactive) galaxies with which they are compared. On average, LCBGs have a higher tendency to emit detectable flux in the radio continuum; have higher H alpha luminosities by a factor of 1.6, indicating strong star formation activity; and have slightly lower than expected metal abundances based on the luminosity-metallicity relation for KISS galaxies. We calculate the volume density of our low-z ( z < 0.045) sample to be 5.4 x 10(-4) h(75)(3) Mpc(-3), approximately 4 times lower than the volume density of the LCBGs at 0.4 < z < 0.7 and similar to10 times lower than the volume density of the population at 0: 7 < z < 1.0.

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