4.7 Article

The 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey: galaxy luminosity functions per spectral type

Journal

MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY
Volume 333, Issue 1, Pages 133-144

Publisher

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05393.x

Keywords

galaxies : distances and redshifts; galaxies : elliptical and lenticular, cD; galaxies : evolution; galaxies : formation; galaxies : stellar content

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We calculate the optical b (J) luminosity function (LF) of the 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey (2dFGRS) for different subsets defined by their spectral properties. These spectrally selected subsets are defined using a new parameter, eta , which is a linear combination of the first two projections derived from a Principal Component Analysis. This parameter eta identifies the average emission- and absorption-line strength in the galaxy rest frame spectrum, and hence is a useful indicator of the present star formation. We use a total of 75 000 galaxies in our calculations, chosen from a sample of high signal-to-noise ratio, low-redshift galaxies observed before 2001 January. We find that there is a systematic steepening of the faint-end slope (alpha ) as one moves from passive (alpha =-0.54) to active (alpha =-1.50) star-forming galaxies, and that there is also a corresponding faintening of the rest frame characteristic magnitude M *-5 log(10) (h ) (from -19.6 to -19.2). We also show that the Schechter function provides a poor fit to the quiescent (Type 1) LF for very faint galaxies [M (b J) -5 log(10) (h ) fainter than -16.0], perhaps suggesting the presence of a significant dwarf population. The LFs presented here give a precise confirmation of the trends seen previously in a much smaller preliminary 2dFGRS sample, and in other surveys. We also present a new procedure for determining self-consistent k -corrections, and investigate possible fibre-aperture biases.

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