4.7 Article

UV to IR SEDs of UV-selected galaxies in the ELAIS fields:: Evolution of dust attenuation and star formation activity from z=0.7 to 0.2

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 670, 期 1, 页码 279-294

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1086/521867

关键词

galaxies : evolution; surveys; ultraviolet : galaxies

资金

  1. STFC [ST/F001967/1, ST/F005245/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  2. Science and Technology Facilities Council [ST/F005245/1, ST/F001967/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  3. National Research Foundation of Korea [R17-2006-081-01001-0] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We study the ultraviolet to far-infrared (hereafter UV-to-IR) SEDs of a sample of intermediate-redshift (0.2 <= z <= 0.7) UV-selected galaxies from the ELAIS N1 and ELAIS N2 fields by fitting a multi-wavelength data set to a library of GRASIL templates. Star formation related properties of the galaxies are derived from the library of models by using Bayesian statistics. We find a decreasing presence of galaxies with low attenuation and low total luminosity as redshift decreases, which does not hold for high total luminosity galaxies. In addition, the dust attenuation of low-mass galaxies increases as redshift decreases, and this trend seems to disappear for galaxies with M* >= 10(11) M-circle dot. This result is consistent with amass-dependent evolution of the dust-to-gas ratio, which could be driven by amass-dependent efficiency of star formation in star-forming galaxies. The specific star formation rates (SSFR) decrease with increasing stellar mass at all redshifts, and for a given stellar mass the SSFR decreases with decreasing redshift. The differences in the slope of the M*-SSFR relation found between this work and others at similar redshift could be explained by the adopted selection criteria of the samples, which for a UV-selected sample, favors blue, star-forming 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