4.7 Article

THE SIMPLE SURVEY: OBSERVATIONS, REDUCTION, AND CATALOG

Journal

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
Volume 727, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/727/1/1

Keywords

catalogs; galaxies: evolution; galaxies: photometry; infrared: galaxies

Funding

  1. Netherlands Foundation for Research (NWO)
  2. Leids Kerkhoven-Bosscha Fonds
  3. National Science Foundation [NSF CAREER AST-0449678]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We present the Spitzer IRAC/MUSYC Public Legacy Survey in the Extended CDF-South (SIMPLE), which consists of deep IRAC observations covering the similar to 1600 arcmin(2) area surrounding GOODS-S. The limiting magnitudes of the SIMPLE IRAC mosaics typically are 23.8, 23.6, 21.9, and 21.7, at 3.6 mu m, 4.5 mu m, 5.8 mu m, and 8.0 mu m, respectively (5 sigma total point source magnitudes in AB). The SIMPLE IRAC images are combined with the 10' x 15' GOODS IRAC mosaics in the center. We give detailed descriptions of the observations, data reduction, and properties of the final images, as well as the detection and photometry methods used to build a catalog. Using published optical and near-infrared data from the Multiwavelength Survey by Yale-Chile (MUSYC), we construct an IRAC-selected catalog, containing photometry in UBVRIz' JHK, [3.6 mu m], [4.5 mu m], [5.8 mu m], and [8.0 mu m]. The catalog contains 43,782 sources with S/N > 5 at 3.6 mu m, 19,993 of which have 13-band photometry. We compare this catalog to the publicly available MUSYC and FIREWORKS catalogs and discuss the differences. Using a high signal-to-noise sub-sample of 3391 sources with ([3.6] + [4.5])/2 < 21.2, we investigate the star formation rate history of massive galaxies out to z similar to 1.8. We find that at z similar to 1.8 at least 30% +/- 7% of the most massive galaxies (M-* > 10(11) M-circle dot) are passively evolving, in agreement with earlier results from surveys covering less area.

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