4.7 Article

A MULTI-WAVELENGTH STUDY OF LOW-REDSHIFT CLUSTERS OF GALAXIES. II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ON GALAXY GROWTH

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 761, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/114

关键词

galaxies: clusters: general; galaxies: evolution; galaxies: star formation; infrared: galaxies

资金

  1. Ohio State University
  2. NSF [AST-0705170]
  3. NASA
  4. NASA by JPL/Caltech
  5. National Aeronautics and Space Administration

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Galaxy clusters provide powerful laboratories for the study of galaxy evolution, particularly the origin of correlations of morphology and star formation rate (SFR) with density. We construct visible to MIR spectral energy distributions of galaxies in eight low-redshift (z < 0.3) clusters and use them to measure stellar masses and SFRs as a function of environment. A partial correlation analysis indicates that the SFRs of star-forming galaxies (SFGs) depend strongly on M* (>99% confidence) with no dependence on R/R-200 or projected local density at fixed mass. A merged sample of galaxies from the five best measured clusters shows < SFR > alpha (R/R-200)(1.1 +/- 0.3) for galaxies with R/R-200 <= 0.4. A decline in the fraction of SFGs toward the cluster center contributes most of this effect, but it is accompanied by a reduction in < SFR > for SFGs with R <= 0.1 R-200. The increase in the fraction of SFGs toward larger R/R-200 and the isolation of SFGs with reduced SFRs near the cluster center are consistent with the truncation of star formation by ram-pressure stripping, as is the tendency for more massive SFGs to have higher SFRs. We conclude that stripping is more likely than slower processes to drive the properties of SFGs with R < 0.4 R-200 in clusters. We also find that galaxies near the cluster center are more massive than galaxies farther out in the cluster at similar to 3.5 sigma, which suggests that dynamical relaxation significantly impacts the distribution of cluster galaxies as the clusters evolve.

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