4.7 Article

The stellar mass function of the most-massive galaxies at 3<z < 5 in the UKIDSS Ultra Deep Survey

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.18118.x

关键词

galaxies: luminosity function; mass function; galaxies: statistics; infrared: galaxies

资金

  1. Leverhulme Trust
  2. Science AMP
  3. Technology Facilities Council
  4. European Research Council
  5. Royal Society
  6. STFC [ST/I001212/1, ST/G001979/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  7. Science and Technology Facilities Council [ST/G001979/1, ST/I001212/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We have analysed a sample of 1292 4.5-mu m-selected galaxies at z >= 3, over 0.6 deg2 of the UKIRT Infrared Deep Survey (UKIDSS) Ultra Deep Survey (UDS). Using photometry from the U band through 4.5 mu m, we have obtained photometric redshifts and derived stellar masses for our sources. Only two of our galaxies potentially lie at z > 5. We have studied the galaxy stellar mass function at 3 < z < 5, based on the 1213 galaxies in our catalogue with 4.5-mu m magnitudes < 24.0. We find that (i) the number density of galaxies increased by a factor of > 10 between z = 5 and 3, indicating that the assembly rate of these galaxies proceeded > 20 times faster at these redshifts than at 0 < z < 2; (ii) the Schechter function slope alpha is significantly steeper than that displayed by the local stellar mass function, which is a consequence of both the steeper faint end and the absence of a pure exponential decline at the high-mass end; and (iii) the evolution of the comoving stellar mass density from z = 0 to 5 can be modelled as log(10M) = -(0.05 +/- 0.09)z2 -(0.22 -/+ 0.32)z + 8.69. At 3 < z < 4, more than 30 per cent of the galaxies would be missed by optical surveys with R < 27 or z < 26. Thus, our study demonstrates the importance of deep mid-infrared surveys over large areas to perform a complete census of massive galaxies at high z and trace the early stages of massive galaxy assembly.

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