4.7 Article

STAR FORMATION IN LINER HOST GALAXIES AT z ∼ 0.3

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 753, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/753/2/155

关键词

galaxies: active; galaxies: star formation; infrared: galaxies; methods: observational; surveys

资金

  1. DFG via German-Israeli Project Cooperation grant [STE1869/1-1/GE625/15-1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present the results of a Herschel-PACS study of a sample of 97 low-ionization nuclear emission-line regions (LINERs) at redshift z similar to 0.3 selected from the zCOSMOS survey. Of these sources, 34 are detected in at least one PACS band, enabling reliable estimates of the far-infrared L-FIR luminosities, and a comparison to the FIR luminosities of local LINERs. Many of our PACS-detected LINERs are also UV sources detected by GALEX. Assuming that the FIR is produced in young dusty star-forming regions, the typical star formation rates (SFRs) for the host galaxies in our sample are similar to 10 M-circle dot yr(-1), 1-2 orders of magnitude larger than in many local LINERs. Given stellar masses inferred from optical/NIR photometry of the (unobscured) evolved stellar populations, we find that the entire sample lies close to the star-forming main sequence for galaxies at redshift 0.3. For young star-forming regions, the H alpha- and UV-based estimates of the SFRs are much smaller than the FIR-based estimates, by factors similar to 30, even assuming that all of the H alpha emission is produced by O-star ionization rather than by the active galactic nuclei (AGNs). These discrepancies may be due to large (and uncertain) extinctions toward the young stellar systems. Alternatively, the H alpha and UV emissions could be tracing residual star formation in an older, less obscured population with decaying star formation. We also compare L-SF and L(AGN) in local LINERs and in our sample. Finally, we comment on the problematic use of several line diagnostic diagrams in cases with an estimated obscuration similar to that in the sample under study.

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