4.7 Article

THE MASS-METALLICITY RELATION OF A z ∼ 2 PROTOCLUSTER WITH MOSFIRE

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 774, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

IOP Publishing Ltd
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/774/2/130

关键词

galaxies: abundances; galaxies: clusters: general; galaxies: evolution; galaxies: formation; galaxies: high-redshift

资金

  1. National Science Foundation's Telescope System Instrumentation Program
  2. David and Lucile Packard Foundation
  3. NSF [1106171]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present Keck/MOSFIRE observations of the role of environment in the formation of galaxies at z similar to 2. Using K-band spectroscopy of H alpha and [N II] emission lines, we have analyzed the metallicities of galaxies within and around a z = 2.3 protocluster discovered in the HS1700+643 field. Our main sample consists of 23 protocluster and 20 field galaxies with estimates of stellar masses and gas-phase metallicities based on the N2 strong-line metallicity indicator. With these data we have examined the mass-metallicity relation with respect to environment at z similar to 2. We find that field galaxies follow the well-established trend between stellar mass and metallicity, such that more massive galaxies have larger metallicities. The protocluster galaxies, however, do not exhibit a dependence of metallicity on mass, with the low-mass protocluster galaxies showing an enhancement in metallicity compared to field galaxies spanning the same mass range. A comparison with galaxy formation models suggests that the mass-dependent environmental trend we observed can be qualitatively explained in the context of the recycling of momentum-driven galaxy wind material. Accordingly, winds are recycled on a shorter timescale in denser environments, leading to an enhancement in metallicity at fixed mass for all but the most massive galaxies. Future hydrodynamical simulations of z similar to 2 overdensities matching the one in the HS1700 field will be crucial for understanding the origin of the observed environmental trend in detail.

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