Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T06:51:00.128Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Evolution of Resolved Kinematics and Metallicity from Redshift 2.7 to 0.7 with LUCI, SINS/zC-SINF and KMOS3D

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 February 2015

Eva Wuyts
Affiliation:
Max-Planck-Institut für extraterrestrische Physik, Giessenbachstr. 1, D-85741 Garching, Germany email: evawuyts@mpe.mpg.de
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The KMOS3D survey will provide near-IR IFU observations of a mass-selected sample of ∼600 star-forming galaxies at 0.7<z<2.7 with the K-band Multi Object Spectrograph (KMOS) at the VLT. We present kinematic results for a first sample of ∼200 galaxies, focusing on the evolution of the gas velocity dispersion with redshift. Combined with existing measurements, we find an approximate (1+z) evolution from z∼4 to the present day, which can be understood from the co-evolution of the gas fraction and specific star formation rate (sSFR) in the the equilibrium picture of galaxy evolution.

We combine the KMOS3D sample with data from the LUCI and SINFONI spectrographs, as well as multi-wavelength HST imaging from CANDELS, to address the relations between stellar mass, SFR, and the [N II]/Hα flux ratio as an indicator of gas-phase metallicity for a sample of 222 star-forming galaxies. We find a constant slope at the low-mass end of the mass-metallicity relation and can fully describe its redshift evolution through the evolution of the characteristic turnover mass where the relation begins to flatten at the asymptotic metallicity. At a fixed mass and redshift, our data do not show a correlation between the [N II]/Hα ratio and SFR.

Type
Contributed Papers
Copyright
Copyright © International Astronomical Union 2015 

References

Brammer, G. B., et al. 2012, ApJS, 200, 13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erb, D. K., et al. 2006, ApJ, 644, 813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Förster Schreiber, N. M., et al. 2009, ApJ, 706, 1364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Förster Schreiber, N. M., et al. 2014, ApJ, 787, 38Google Scholar
Genzel, R., et al. 2008, ApJ, 687, 59Google Scholar
Genzel, R., et al. 2014a, arXiv:1406.0183Google Scholar
Genzel, R., et al. 2014b, arXiv:1409.1171Google Scholar
Kewley, L. J. & Ellison, S. L. 2008, ApJ, 681, 1183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mancini, C., et al. 2011, ApJ, 743, 86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pettini, M. & Pagel, B. E. J. 2004, MNRAS, 348, L59Google Scholar
Steidel, C. C., et al. 2014, arXiv:1405.5473Google Scholar
Tacconi, L. J., et al. 2013, ApJ, 768, 74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitaker, K. E., et al. 2014, arXiv:1407.1843Google Scholar
Wuyts, E., et al. 2014, ApJ, 789, L40Google Scholar
Zahid, H. J., et al. 2014a, ApJ, 791, 130Google Scholar
Zahid, H. J., et al. 2014b, ApJ, 792, 75Google Scholar