4.7 Article

ALFALFA H i data stacking - I. Does the bulge quench ongoing star formation in early-type galaxies?

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17742.x

关键词

galaxies: evolution; galaxies: fundamental parameters; radio lines: galaxies

资金

  1. NSF [AST-0607007]
  2. Brinson Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We have carried out an HI stacking analysis of a volume-limited sample of similar to 5000 galaxies with imaging and spectroscopic data from GALEX and the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, which lie within the current footprint of the Arecibo Legacy Fast ALFA (ALFALFA) survey. Our galaxies are selected to have stellar masses greater than 10(10) M-circle dot and redshifts in the range 0.025 < z < 0.05. We extract a subsample of 1833 'early-type' galaxies with inclinations less than 70 degrees, with concentration indices C > 2.6 and with light profiles that are well fit by a De Vaucouleurs model. We then stack HI line spectra extracted from the ALFALFA data cubes at the 3D positions of the galaxies from these two samples in bins of stellar mass, stellar mass surface density, central velocity dispersion and NUV-r colour. We use the stacked spectra to estimate the average HI gas fractions M-HI/M-* of the galaxies in each bin. Our main result is that the HI content of a galaxy is not influenced by its bulge. The average HI gas fractions of galaxies in both our samples correlate most strongly with NUV-r colour and with stellar surface density. The relation between average HI fraction and these two parameters is independent of concentration index C. We have tested whether the average HI gas content of bulge-dominated galaxies on the red sequence differs from that of late-type galaxies on the red sequence. We find no evidence that galaxies with a significant bulge component are less efficient at turning their available gas reservoirs into stars. This result is in contradiction with the 'morphological quenching' scenario proposed by Martig et al.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据