4.6 Article

SHELS: COMPLETE REDSHIFT SURVEYS OF TWO WIDELY SEPARATED FIELDS

期刊

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.3847/0067-0049/224/1/11

关键词

cosmology: observations; galaxies: abundances; galaxies: distances and redshifts; galaxies: evolution; large-scale structure of universe; surveys

资金

  1. Changbom Park of KIAS
  2. Smithsonian Institution
  3. KIAS

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Smithsonian Hectospec Lensing Survey (SHELS) is a complete redshift survey covering two well-separated fields (F1 and F2) of the Deep Lens Survey (DLS). Both fields are more than 94% complete to a Galactic extinction corrected R-0 = 20.2. Here, we describe the redshift survey of the F1 field centered at R.A.(2000) = 00(h)53(m)25(8).3 and decl.(2000) = 12 degrees 33'55; like F2, the F1 field covers similar to 4 deg(2). The redshift survey of the F1 field includes 9426 new galaxy redshifts measured with Hectospec on the MMT (published here). As a guide to future uses of the combined survey, we compare the mass metallicity relation and the distributions of D(n)4000 as a function of stellar mass and redshift for the two fields. The mass-metallicity relations differ by an insignificant 1.6 sigma. For galaxies in the stellar mass range 10(10)-10(11) M-circle dot, the increase in the star-forming fraction with redshift is remarkably similar in the two fields. The seemingly surprising 31%-38% difference in the overall galaxy counts in F1 and F2 is probably consistent with the expected cosmic variance given the subtleties of the relative systematics in the two surveys. We also review the DLS cluster detections in the two fields: poorer photometric data for F1 precluded secure detection of the single massive cluster at z = 0.35 that we find in SHELS. Taken together, the two fields include 16,055 redshifts for galaxies with R-0 <= 20.2 and 20,754 redshifts for galaxies with R <= 20.6. These dense surveys in two well-separated fields provide a basis for future investigations of galaxy properties and large-scale structure.

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

4.6
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