Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T20:42:08.206Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Techniques for quantifying the Star Formation Morphology of Galaxies at increasing redshift

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 December 2006

J. Ruyman Azzollini
Affiliation:
Instituto de Astrofisica de Canarias, C/Via Lactea s/n, La Laguna, 38200, S/C de Tenerife, Spain email: ruyman@iac.es
J. E. Beckman
Affiliation:
Instituto de Astrofisica de Canarias, C/Via Lactea s/n, La Laguna, 38200, S/C de Tenerife, Spain email: jeb@iac.esCentro Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, Spain
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.

We present a brief, comparative, study of the morphology of a sample of 9 late type, star forming, local galaxies, as seen in different bands. The objects are present in the “The Hα Galaxy Survey” by James et al., 2004 (J04 hereafter), in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (“SDSSS”, York et al., 2000), and also in data from GALEX (Martin et al. 2005). We tested the pixel to pixel proportionality v. Hα of images in broad bands from FUV to NIR. We also analyzed the differences in the radial profiles of light in different bands. Finally, we also measured several parameters of the morphology of the distributions of light, as detected in bands of SDSS (u,g,r,i,z), GALEX (NUV, FUV) and in R and Hα from J04, aiming to test which bands better mimic the spatial distribution of the SF as traced by Hα. Our goal is to acquire as accurate a determination as possible of the spatial distribution of the massive star formation in local galaxies, to compare with the analogous distribution in galaxies at increasing redshift.

Type
Contributed Papers
Copyright
Copyright © International Astronomical Union 2007

References

Abraham, R. G. et al. 1996, MNRAS 279, L47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abraham, R., van den Bergh, S. & Nair, P. 2003, ApJ 588, 218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bershady, M., Jangren, A. & Conselice, C. 2000, AJ 119, 2645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conselice, C. 2003, ApJS 147, 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, P. A. et al. 2004, A&A 414, 23Google Scholar
Lotz, J. M., Primack, J. & Madau, P. 2004, AJ 128, 163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, D. et al. 2005, ApJ 619, 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
York, D. G. et al. 2000, AJ 120, 1579CrossRefGoogle Scholar