4.7 Article

The space density and colors of massive galaxies at 2 < z < 3:: The predominance of distant red galaxies

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 638, 期 2, 页码 L59-L62

出版社

UNIV CHICAGO PRESS
DOI: 10.1086/501045

关键词

cosmology : observations; galaxies : evolution; galaxies : formation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Using the deep multiwavelength MUSYC, GOODS, and FIRES surveys we construct a stellar mass-limited sample of galaxies at 2 < z < 3. The sample comprises 294 galaxies with M > 10(11) M-circle dot distributed over four independent fields with a total area of almost 400 arcmin(2). The mean number density of massive galaxies in this redshift range rho(M > 10(11) M-circle dot) = (2.2 +/- 0.6) x 10(-4) h(70)(3) Mpc(-3).We present median values and 25th and 75th percentiles for the distributions of observed R-AB magnitudes, observed colors, and rest-frame ultraviolet continuum slopes, ratios, and colors. The galaxies show a large range in all these properties. The median galaxy is faint in the observer's optical (R-AB = 25.9), red in the observed near-IR (J - K-s = 2.48), has a rest-frame UV spectrum that is relatively flat in F-lambda (beta = -0.4), and rest-frame optical colors resembling those of nearby spiral galaxies (). We determine which galaxies would be selected as Lyman break galaxies (LBGs) or distant red galaxies (DRGs, having) in this mass-limited sample. By number DRGs make up 69% of the sample, and LBGs 20%, with a small amount of overlap. By mass DRGs make up 77%, and LBGs 17%. Neither technique provides a representative sample of massive galaxies at as 2 < z < 3 they only sample the extremes of the population. As we show here, multiwavelength surveys with high-quality photometry are essential for an unbiased census of massive galaxies in the early universe. The main uncertainty in this analysis is our reliance on photometric redshifts; confirmation of the results presented here requires extensive near-infrared spectroscopy of optically faint samples.

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