4.7 Article

STELLAR POPULATIONS FROM SPECTROSCOPY OF A LARGE SAMPLE OF QUIESCENT GALAXIES AT Z > 1: MEASURING THE CONTRIBUTION OF PROGENITOR BIAS TO EARLY SIZE GROWTH

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 799, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

IOP Publishing Ltd
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/799/2/206

关键词

galaxies: evolution; galaxies: fundamental parameters; galaxies: high-redshift; galaxies: stellar content; galaxies: structure

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We analyze the stellar populations of a sample of 62 massive (log M-*/M-circle dot > 10.7) galaxies in the redshift range 1 < z < 1.6, with the main goal of investigating the role of recent quenching in the size growth of quiescent galaxies. We demonstrate that our sample is not biased toward bright, compact, or young galaxies, and thus is representative of the overall quiescent population. Our high signal-to-noise ratio Keck/LRIS spectra probe the rest-frame Balmer break region that contains important absorption line diagnostics of recent star formation activity. We obtain improved measures of the various stellar population parameters, including the star formation timescale tau, age, and dust extinction, by fitting templates jointly to both our spectroscopic and broadband photometric data. We identify which quiescent galaxies were recently quenched and backtrack their individual evolving trajectories on the UVJ color-color plane finding evidence for two distinct quenching routes. By using sizes measured in the previous paper of this series, we confirm that the largest galaxies are indeed among the youngest at a given redshift. This is consistent with some contribution to the apparent growth from recent arrivals, an effect often called progenitor bias. However, we calculate that recently quenched objects can only be responsible for about half the increase in average size of quiescent galaxies over a 1.5 Gyr period, corresponding to the redshift interval 1.25 < z < 2. The remainder of the observed size evolution arises from a genuine growth of long-standing quiescent galaxies.

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