4.7 Article

The history of star formation and mass assembly in early-type galaxies

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2008.00579.x

关键词

galaxies: abundances; galaxies: elliptical and lenticular, cD; galaxies: formation

资金

  1. Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
  2. National Science Foundation
  3. US Department of Energy
  4. National Aeronautics and Space Administration
  5. Japanese Monbukagakusho
  6. Max Planck Society
  7. Higher Education Funding Council for England
  8. [ASI-INAF I/016/07/0]
  9. STFC [ST/G002916/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  10. Science and Technology Facilities Council [ST/G002916/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We define a volume-limited sample of over 14 000 early-type galaxies (ETGs) selected from Data Release 6 of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. The density of environment of each galaxy is robustly measured. By comparing narrow-band spectral line indices with recent models of simple stellar populations (SSPs), we investigate trends in the star formation history as a function of galaxy mass (velocity dispersion), density of environment and galactic radius. We find that age, metallicity and alpha-enhancement all increase with galaxy mass and that field ETGs are younger than their cluster counterparts by similar to 2 Gyr. We find negative radial metallicity gradients for all masses and environments, and positive radial age gradients for ETGs with velocity dispersion over 180 km s(-1). Our results are qualitatively consistent with a relatively simple picture for ETG evolution in which the low-mass haloes accreted by a protoETG contained not only gas but also a stellar population. This fossil population is preferentially found at large radii in massive ETGs because the stellar accretions were dissipationless. We estimate that the typical, massive ETG should have been assembled at z less than or similar to 3.5. The process is similar in the cluster and field but occurred earlier in dense environments.

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