1 / 30

Photometric and Morphological Properties of LBGs at z~1

Photometric and Morphological Properties of LBGs at z~1. Chenggang Shu Key Lab for Astrophysics, Shanghai Normal University (ShNU) with Zhu Chen (ShNU), Denis Burgarella, V eronique B uat (OAMP), Jiasheng Huang (CfA) & Zhijian Luo (ShNU).

bowie
Télécharger la présentation

Photometric and Morphological Properties of LBGs at z~1

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Photometric and Morphological Properties of LBGs at z~1 Chenggang Shu Key Lab for Astrophysics, Shanghai Normal University (ShNU) with Zhu Chen (ShNU), Denis Burgarella, Veronique Buat (OAMP), Jiasheng Huang (CfA) & Zhijian Luo (ShNU) The 9th Sino-German Workshop on Galaxy Formation and Cosmology , Hangzhou, China

  2. OUTLINE Sample refinement Photometric studies Morphological analyses Conclusions

  3. 1. Sample Refinement • 420 UV selected LBGs candidates (0.9<z<1.3), (Burgarella et al. 07) by FUV-NUV >2, NUV<26.2 • GALEX observation, E-CDF-S FUV: λ=1516AÅ (~765AÅ at z~1) NUV: λ=2267AÅ(~1155AÅ at z~1)

  4. z_p • photo-z from COMBO-17, (Wolf et al. 04); • 394 sources in MUSYC catalog (Cardamone et al. 06) Significant differences in z_p Re-estimating by SED fitting 394 MUSYC sources FUV + NUV + UBVRI + zJHK + IRAC 15 bands + MIPS24 26 COMBO-17 sources FUV+NUV+UBVRI 7 Bands + MIPS24

  5. SED fitting 48 sources with z_sp; Re-estimates of z_p are good

  6. Examples: 2 with/without spectral 2 with/without 24MIPS

  7. LBGs at z~1 379 LBGs are selected with 0.7 < z_p < 1.4; 90% of the preliminary candidates Solid: re-estimates Dashed: C - 17 Dotted: MUSYC

  8. 2. Photometric Properties SpT types • 258 starburst (BC03) • 5 Arp220 • irregular (CWW) • 1 irregular (BC03) • 10 Scd (CWW) • 1 Sbc (CWW) • 1 E (BC03) • 1 E (CWW) Starbusrt Arp200 SB Irr Irregular Scd Sbc E EST

  9. SFRs • 4 -- 220 M⊙ yr -1 • Median • ~ 30 M⊙ yr -1

  10. Stellar masses 2.3 x 10 8 --- 7.7 x 1011 M⊙ median ~ 10 10 M⊙

  11. SFR vs M * SF sequence EST– Irr – SB , more distant to the main sequence Main sequence

  12. Least square sSFR vs M * “downsizing” SB– Irr – EST , more significant NUV =26.2

  13. U-Bvs M * “blue cloud” suggest evolution from SB – Irr – EST along the blue cloud Faber et al. 07

  14. 3、Morphological analyses GEMS two-band imaging. ACS/WFC Resolution: 0.03”/pixel (1” ~ 8kpc for z~1) mAB(F606W) = 28.3 mAB(F850LP) = 27.1 (Rix et al. 2004) z = F850LP V = F606W It covers ~90% area of E-CDF-S field 326 of 379 LBGs (~90%) in this field 275 detected in both bands GOODS imaging

  15. Visual Classifications 10“spiral” LBGs which have two prominent components

  16. Visual Morphologies 8 “string” LBGs

  17. Visual Morphologies 40“interacting”/ 20 “companion” LBGs

  18. Visual Morphologies 191“compact”/ 5“ low surface brightness” LBGs

  19. Structure decomposition • GALFIT, a two-dimensional fitting algorithm of galaxy images written by (Chien Y.Peng et al. 2002). • Originally designed to modeling light profiles of spatially well-resolved, nearby galaxies observed with HST • PSF: Tinytim software • 251 sources can get reasonable fitting results

  20. An Example F606W F850LP observation modelling residual Sérsic reff (kpc) a/b chi2 F606W: 0.52 0.425 0.99 0.873 F850LP: 0.94 0.533 0.99 0.823

  21. Distributions of sersic indexes and sizes Dominated by late type galaxies Meadian sizes: ~ 2.22kpc in v and 2.76kpc in z hatched: v empty: z

  22. Correlations SFR vs sersic indexes and sizes more compact, higher SFR

  23. M *vs sersic indexes and sizes bigger LBGs, more massive in M*; central stellar surface density shows a small dynamic range;

  24. An LBG sample at 0.7 < zp<1.4 is refined based on Burgarella et al. (07) Most of the LBGs are starburst galaxies; LBGs locate in the region of star forming sequence. The “downsizing” effect is clearly found and the effect is more significant for LBGs from the SB, Irr and EST groups; LBGs distribute in the “blue” cloud. We suggest that star forming galaxies, evolve from later to earlier types in the blue “cloud”; LBGs at z~1 are dominated by disklike galaxies; LBGs in our sample display significant size-stellar masses relations, more massive galaxies, larger sizes; More compact LBGs have more active star formation activities. 4、Conclusions

  25. Thanks

  26. Cross-identification is done within the radius of 2’’ centered on the coordinates of indivdual LBG candidates 379 LBG candidates with only one counterparts 40 LBG candidates with two counterparts 1 LBG candidates with 4 counterparts Optical counterparts cross-identification

  27. Sample refinement 1 single counterparts—exactly their corresponding counterparts 2 pair and four counterparts Re-estimate photo-z One 0.9<z<1.3 None 0.9<z<1.3 Two 0.9<z<1.3 Real LBG Small chi square per degree

  28. COMBO-17 (Wolf et al. 04) ECDF-S, more than 30’by 30’, R<26 17 –band filter set covering the range 350-930nm 25000 galaxies with redshift errors of dz/(1+z) ~ 0.049 MUSYC (Gawizer et al. 06) ECDFS, ~30’by 30’, R<25.3 32 band photometric catalog, Covering the range 360nm-8micron with redshift errors of dz/(1+z) ~ 0.02 COMBO-17 and MUSYC catalog

  29. COMBO-17 –MUSYC cross-identification

More Related