1: %
2: %% FDF
3: %% Mass Function and Star Formation Rate Transport Equation
4: %%
5:
6: %% ApJ emulation including times fonts
7: \documentclass[apj]{emulateapj}
8: \usepackage{apjfonts}
9:
10: %% Referee style aastex
11: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
12:
13: %%
14: %% SOME MACROS
15: %%
16: \newcommand*{\Msun}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{M_\odot}}}%
17: \newcommand*{\Mstar}{\ensuremath{M_\ast}}
18: \newcommand*{\pmt}{\ensuremath{\phi(\Mstar,t)}}
19: \newcommand*{\Mdot}{\ensuremath{\dot{M}_\ast}}
20: \newcommand*{\Mdotmt}{\ensuremath{\Mdot(\Mstar,t)}}
21:
22: \newcommand*{\p}{\ensuremath{\pm}}%
23: \newcommand*{\dd}{\mathrm{d}}
24: \newcommand*{\dpt}{\partial}
25:
26: \newcommand*{\sigsfr}{\Sigma_{\mathrm{SFR}}}
27: \newcommand*{\siggas}{\Sigma_{\mathrm{gas}}}
28:
29: \begin{document}
30:
31: %% ------------------------------------------------------------------
32: %% TITLE
33: %% ------------------------------------------------------------------
34:
35: \title{The contribution of star formation and merging to stellar mass
36: buildup in galaxies.}
37:
38: \shorttitle{Stellar mass buildup in galaxies}
39: \shortauthors{Drory \& Alvarez}
40:
41: %% ------------------------------------------------------------------
42: %% AUTHORS
43: %% ------------------------------------------------------------------
44:
45: \author{Niv Drory} \affil{Max-Planck Institut f\"ur extraterrestrische
46: Physik (MPE), Giessenbachstrasse, Garching, Germany \\
47: {\tt drory@mpe.mpg.de}}
48: \and
49: \author{Marcelo Alvarez} \affil{Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics
50: and Cosmology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94309\\
51: {\tt malvarez@slac.stanford.edu}}
52:
53: %% You can insert a short comment on the title page using the command below.
54: \slugcomment{ApJ, in press}
55:
56: %% ------------------------------------------------------------------
57: %% ABSTRACT
58: %% ------------------------------------------------------------------
59:
60: \begin{abstract}
61: We present a formalism to infer the presence of merging activity by
62: comparing the observed time derivative of the galaxy stellar mass
63: function (MF) to the change of the MF expected from the star
64: formation rate (SFR) in galaxies as a function of galaxy mass and
65: time. We present the SFR in the Fors Deep Field as a function of
66: stellar mass and time spanning $9 < \log\Mstar < 12$ and $0<z<5$. We
67: show that at $z \gtrsim 3$ the average SFR, $\Mdot$, is a power law
68: of stellar mass ($\Mdot \propto \Mstar^{0.6}$). The average SFR in
69: the most massive objects at this redshift are 100 -- 500~$\Msun
70: \mathrm{yr}^{-1}$. At $z \sim 3$, the SFR starts to drop at the high
71: mass end. As redshift decreases further, the SFR drop at
72: progressively lower masses (downsizing), dropping most rapidly for
73: high mass ($\log\Mstar \gtrsim 11$) galaxies. The mass at which the
74: SFR starts to deviate from the power-law form (break mass)
75: progresses smoothly from $\log \Mstar^1 \gtrsim 13$ at $z\sim 5$ to
76: $\log \Mstar^1 \sim 10.9$ at $z\sim 0.5$. The break mass is evolving
77: with redshift according to $\Mstar^1(z) = 2.7\times
78: 10^{10}\,(1+z)^{2.1}$. We directly observe a relationship between
79: star formation history (SFH) and galaxy mass. More massive galaxies
80: have steeper and earlier onsets of star formation, their peak SFR
81: occurs earlier and is higher, and the following exponential decay
82: has a shorter $e$-folding time. The SFR observed in high mass
83: galaxies at $z \sim 4$ is sufficient to explain their rapid increase
84: in number density. Within large uncertainties, we find that at most
85: 0.8 effective major mergers per Gyr are consistent with the data at
86: high $z$, yet enough to transform most high mass objects into
87: ellipticals contemporaneously with their major star formation
88: episode. In contrast, at $z < 1.5$ and at $\Mstar \gtrsim 11$,
89: mergers contribute 0.1 -- 0.2~Gyr$^{-1}$ to the relative increase in
90: number density. This corresponds to $\sim 1$ major merger per
91: massive object at $1.5 > z > 0$. At $10 < \log\Mstar < 11$, we find
92: that these galaxies are being preferably destroyed in mergers at
93: early times, while at later times the change in their numbers turns
94: positive. This is an indication of the top-down buildup of the red
95: sequence suggested by other recent observations.
96: \end{abstract}
97:
98:
99: %% KEYWORDS
100: %%
101: \keywords{surveys --- cosmology: observations --- galaxies: mass
102: function --- galaxies: evolution --- galaxies: star formation}
103:
104:
105:
106: %% ------------------------------------------------------------------
107: %% INTRODUCTION
108: %% ------------------------------------------------------------------
109:
110: \section{Introduction}\label{sec:introduction}
111:
112: Galaxy formation and evolution in a cold dark matter (CDM) dominated
113: universe can be described in the most general terms as being driven by
114: the gravitationally induced hierarchical growth of structure in the
115: dark matter component coupled to the baryonic matter within the
116: merging and accreting dark matter halos. While the dark matter is
117: collisionless, baryonic matter dissipates energy by radiative cooling
118: and thereby is able to form stars. Feedback effects are thought to
119: self-regulate the latter process.
120:
121: Directly observing the fundamentally important hierarchical growth of
122: dark matter halos is not possible at the present time. Information
123: about the growth of the halos has to be deduced from observations of
124: galaxies or clusters. Large gravitational lensing surveys detecting
125: cosmic shear will allow the study of dark matter structure formation
126: directly in the future. In the meantime, it has proven difficult to
127: deduce halo growth from observations of galaxy growth.
128:
129: Galaxies themselves grow in stellar mass firstly by star formation,
130: and secondly by accreting smaller galaxies and by merging with
131: similarly sized galaxies. Both of these processes need to be mapped
132: out if we wish to fully understand the assembly history of galaxies
133: and their host dark matter halos.
134:
135: Progress has been made in recent years in measuring the build-up of
136: stellar mass density from redshift $z \sim 6$ to the present epoch
137: \citep{BE00,MUNICS3,Cohen02,DPFB03,Fontanaetal03,Rudnicketal03,%
138: GDDS2,CBSI05,Rudnicketal06,EBELSSC07,Grazianetal07,SBEEL07}. Also,
139: the stellar mass function has been mapped locally
140: \citep{2dF01,BMKW03,PerezGonzalez03a} and in some detail to $z \sim
141: 1.5$
142: \citep{MUNICS6,K20-04,Bundyetal05,Borchetal06,Panellaetal06,Bundyetal06,Pozzettietal07}
143: with generally good agreement between different datasets. To some
144: lesser detail and accuracy deep surveys have provided data spanning $0
145: < z \lesssim 5$
146: \citep{FDFGOODS05,CBP05,Fontanaetal06,Yanetal06,Grazianetal07} and
147: even some estimates at $z \sim 7$ \citep{Bouwensetal06}. These mass
148: functions tend to agree fairly well at $z \lesssim 2$, while the
149: integrated mass densities may differ by a factor of $\sim 2$ at higher
150: $z$ (see, e.g., comparisons in \citealp{FDFGOODS05} and
151: \citealp{Fontanaetal06}). In summary, data are now available that
152: describe the mass in stars from an early epoch where only $\sim 1\%$
153: of the current mass density was in place until the present time.
154:
155: Deep optical and near-infrared surveys, as well as mid-infrared data
156: from the Spitzer Space Telescope and sub-mm surveys have greatly
157: expanded our understanding of the cosmic star formation (SF)
158: history. The integrated star formation rate \citep{Madauetal96} is now
159: quite well constrained to $z \sim 4$ (with some estimates at even
160: higher $z$) from a multitude of studies employing different methods at
161: wavelengths from the UV to the far-IR
162: \citep{CFRS96,MPD98,Floresetal99,PFH99,Kauffmannetal03a,HPJD04,%
163: Gabasch04a,CBSI05,Belletal05,WCB06,Thompsonetal06,HB06,NOFC06,%
164: Yanetal06,Bouwensetal06}.
165:
166: In the recent literature, more attention is being devoted to the star
167: formation rate (SFR) as a function of stellar mass, usually in the
168: form of the specific star formation rate (SSFR) as a function of
169: stellar mass
170: \citep{CSHC96,BE00,Fontanaetal03,PerezGonzalez03b,Brinchmannetal04,%
171: BDHF04,Juneauetal05,Salimetal05,Feulneretal05,Feulneretal05b,%
172: PerezGonzalez05,FHB06,Belletal07,Zhengetal07}.
173:
174: Progress on the merger rate and its evolution with redshift has been
175: somewhat slower. Observational results obtained from galaxy pair
176: statistics vary considerably, finding merger rates $\propto (1+z)^m$
177: with $0 < m \lesssim 4$ in the redshift range $0<z \lesssim 1$
178: \citep{ZK89,BKWF94,YE95,NIRGC97,LeFevreetal00,Carlbergetal00b,%
179: Pattonetal01,Linetal04,Bundyetal04,DePetal05,Conselice06,%
180: Belletal06b,Kartaltepeetal07}. Early studies tend to give somewhat
181: higher numbers than the more recent work. The diversity of these
182: observational merger rates is likely to be due to differing
183: observational techniques, differing criteria for defining a merging
184: pair, and survey selection effects. To this date, no results have been
185: published for significantly higher redshifts. Note that Cold Dark
186: Matter (CDM) N-body simulations predict halo merger rates $\propto
187: (1+z)^m$ with $2.5\lesssim m \lesssim 3.5$
188: \citep{Governatoetal99,Gottloberetal01,Gottloberetal02}.
189:
190: Little is known about the dependence of the merger rate on galaxy
191: luminosity or mass. Recently, \cite{XSH04} find evidence from the
192: $K_\mathrm{s}$-band luminosity function of galaxies in major-merger
193: pairs that the local merger rate decreases with galaxy mass.
194:
195: In this paper, we present a method to infer the presence of merging
196: activity and as such the underlying hierarchical growth of structure
197: from a comparison of observations of galaxy mass functions with
198: observations of star formation rates in the galaxies. Essentially, we
199: compare a measurement of the time derivative of the mass function (the
200: number density of galaxies per unit stellar mass; $\pmt$) with an
201: expectation derived from time-integrating the (average) star formation
202: rate of galaxies as a function of mass, $\Mdotmt$. The difference
203: between the two can then be attributed to mass function evolution due
204: to ``external causes'', which we identify with accretion and merging
205: (after taking the survey selection effects into account). We present
206: our results with caution, given the limitations of the current
207: dataset.
208:
209: This paper is organized as follows: In \S~\ref{sec:desc-mass} we
210: establish a formalism that compares the change in the stellar mass
211: function expected from the observed star formation rate as a function
212: of mass and time to the observed time derivative of the mass
213: function. The aim is to deduce a merger rate (or, more precisely, the
214: change in number density due to merging) as a function of galaxy mass
215: and time from the difference of the two. We will call this quantity
216: the {\em assembly rate}. \S~\ref{sec:mass-function} and
217: \S~\ref{sec:sfr} present the mass function data and the star formation
218: rate data, respectively. Also, suitable parametrizations of the data
219: and its evolution with time are presented and
220: discussed. \S~\ref{sec:dphidt} discusses the total time derivative of
221: the mass function. \S~\ref{sec:dphisfr} discusses the change of the
222: mass function that is expected due to the star formation rate
223: only. \S~\ref{sec:mergerrate} finally combines the former two results
224: to discuss the change in number density due to merging we infer from
225: our data. All these are summarized and discussed in context in
226: \S~\ref{sec:summary}.
227:
228: Throughout this work we assume $\Omega_M = 0.3$, $\Omega_{\Lambda} =
229: 0.7, H_0 = 70\ \mathrm{km\ s^{-1}\ Mpc^{-1}}$.
230:
231: %% ------------------------------------------------------------------
232: %% EVOLUTION OF GALAXY MASS
233: %% ------------------------------------------------------------------
234:
235: \section{Describing the Evolution of Galaxy Mass}\label{sec:desc-mass}
236:
237: A general description of the evolution of galaxy stellar mass with
238: time can be given in terms of (1) internal evolution due to star
239: formation in the galaxy, and (2) externally-driven evolution due to
240: the infall of other smaller galaxies (accretion) or the merging with
241: another galaxy of comparable size. The former can be measured by
242: finding the average star formation rate as a function of stellar mass
243: and time, $\Mdotmt$. The latter cannot be measured reliably at this
244: point. However, if one knew the time derivative of the galaxy stellar
245: mass function (GSMF), $\dpt \phi(\Mstar,t) / \dpt t$, then it could in
246: principle be derived by comparing the internal evolution due to star
247: formation to the total observed evolution, and thereby inferred from
248: the difference between the two.
249:
250: First, we note that the evolution of the GSMF due to star formation in
251: the galaxies by definition preserves the number of galaxies. Hence the
252: change of the GSMF due to star formation is described by a continuity
253: equation in $\pmt$:
254:
255: \begin{equation}
256: \label{eq:cont}
257: \frac{\dpt \pmt}{\dpt t} \Big\vert_{\mathrm{SF}} \; = \;
258: - \frac{\dpt}{\dpt \Mstar} \left[ \pmt \, \Mdotmt \right]\, .
259: \end{equation}
260:
261: Here, somewhat unconventionally, we have taken $\vert_{\mathrm{SF}}$
262: to mean ``due to star formation''.
263:
264: This equation becomes intuitively clear if one considers that the
265: continuity equation above means that the change in numbers in a given
266: stellar mass bin $[M,M+dM)$ is given by the difference across this bin
267: of the number of objects entering the bin from below and the number of
268: galaxies leaving the bin to higher masses, both owing to their star
269: formation rate. Hence the derivative with respect to mass of the
270: number density times the star formation rate (which gives the
271: difference of mass flux across the bin) on the right hand side.
272:
273: The change with time of the GSMF, $\dpt \phi(\Mstar,t) / \dpt t$, and
274: the average SFR as a function of galaxy mass and time, $\Mdotmt$, are
275: in principle directly observable. We can therefore infer the change in
276: the GSMF due to all processes other than star formation (which we will
277: identify with merging) from these two functions. We will call the
278: resulting quantity the {\em assembly rate}:
279:
280: \begin{equation}
281: \label{eq:merge}
282: \frac{\dpt \pmt}{\dpt t} \Big\vert_{\mathrm{Merge}} \; = \;
283: \frac{\dpt \pmt}{\dpt t} \, - \,
284: \frac{\dpt \pmt}{\dpt t} \Big\vert_{\mathrm{SF}}\, .
285: \end{equation}
286:
287: Hence,
288:
289: \begin{equation}
290: \label{eq:merge2}
291: \frac{1}{\phi}\frac{\dpt \phi}{\dpt t} \Big\vert_{\mathrm{Merge}} \; = \;
292: \frac{1}{\phi}\frac{\dpt \phi}{\dpt t} \, + \,
293: \frac{1}{\phi}\frac{\dpt}{\dpt \Mstar} \left[ \phi \, \Mdot \right]\,
294: \end{equation}
295:
296: \begin{figure*}[t]
297: \centering
298: %\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{merge_mf.eps}
299: \includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{fig1.eps}
300: \caption{The stellar mass function (MF) as a function of
301: redshift. Data are from the Fors Deep Field
302: \protect\citep{FDFGOODS05}. Schechter-fits to the data are over plotted as
303: solid lines. Confidence regions are indicated by shading (random
304: uncertainties only). The low-$z$ MF is repeated in the higher-$z$
305: panels for comparison.\label{fig:mf}}
306: \end{figure*}
307:
308: where we have left out the arguments for brevity and divided by $\phi$
309: to obtain an equation for the relative change.
310:
311: Note that (tidal) stripping of stars from a galaxy (e.g.\ in clusters
312: or in interactions) contributes to eq.~\ref{eq:merge2} as
313: well. Assuming that this loss of stellar mass is small compared to the
314: overall growth rate of a galaxy, it can be neglected.
315:
316: The {\em assembly rate} is given in terms of the change in number
317: density per unit time rather than in number of discrete merging events
318: per object per unit time (and per unit merger mass ratio). Therefore,
319: we can only speak of an effective merger rate, equivalent in its
320: effect on the number density to an equal number of same-mass mergers
321: per unit time interval. An alternative is to think about this quantity
322: as simply representing the average effective mass accretion rate. We
323: cannot discern the mass spectrum of accretion and merging events that
324: actually cause the observed change in the mass function. It is also
325: important to point out that a value of zero does not imply that no
326: accretion and merging are happening, but only that the mass flux
327: entering a mass bin through merging and the mass flux leaving that
328: same mass bin through merging are equal, and hence the number density
329: at this mass does not change. Values below zero imply that the number
330: density decreases due to merging activity, and hence objects are
331: preferably being accreted onto more massive objects and thus
332: destroyed. To emphasize the difference between what we measure and the
333: merger rate expressed as the number of merger events per unit time and
334: object, we will avoid using the term merger rate and prefer the name
335: {\em assembly rate}.
336:
337: In the following sections we shall compile the necessary terms from
338: GSMF and star formation data available in the literature. We will
339: concentrate on the methodology and defer discussing selection effects
340: and other deficiencies in the data to a later section where we proceed
341: to plot eq.~(\ref{eq:merge2}) and present our overall results.
342:
343: %% ------------------------------------------------------------------
344: %% GSMF
345: %% ------------------------------------------------------------------
346:
347: \section{The Galaxy Stellar Mass Function}
348: \label{sec:mass-function}
349:
350: The time derivative of the galaxy stellar mass function can be
351: obtained in a fairly straight-forward way from observational studies
352: of the GSMF. Here, we use the stellar mass function data spanning $0 <
353: z < 5$ by \citet{FDFGOODS05} from the Fors Deep Field (FDF).
354:
355: The FDF photometric catalog is published in \citet{FDF1} and we use
356: the I-band selected subsample covering the deepest central region of
357: the field as described in \citet{Gabasch04}. This catalog lists 5557
358: galaxies down to $I \sim 26.8$. The latter paper also shows that this
359: catalog misses at most 10\% of the objects found in ultra-deep K-band
360: observations found by \citet{FIRES03}. Distances are estimated by
361: photometric redshifts calibrated against spectroscopy up to $z \sim 5$
362: \citep{FDF2} providing an accuracy of \mbox{$\Delta z / (z_{spec}+1)
363: \le 0.03$} with only $\sim 1$\% outliers \citep{Gabasch04}. The
364: spectroscopy samples objects statistically down to $I = 25$.
365:
366: The stellar masses are computed by fitting models of composite stellar
367: populations of varying star formation history, age, metallicity, burst
368: fractions, and dust content to UBgRIZJK multicolor photometry. We
369: assume a Salpeter stellar initial mass function. At faint magnitudes,
370: the uncertainties in the photometric distances are dominated by the
371: large uncertainties in the colors. These are taken into account in the
372: fitting procedure and hence reflected in the uncertainties in the
373: individual masses entering the mass function. We refer the reader to
374: the original publications for full details.
375:
376: To lessen the impact of noise in the data on the time derivatives we
377: are interested in, we choose to parameterize the evolution of the mass
378: function, which we assume to be of Schechter form, by the following
379: relations:
380: \begin{equation}
381: \label{eq:schechter}
382: \nonumber
383: \phi(M)\,\dd M \; = \;
384: \phi^* \, \left(\frac{M}{M^*}\right)^\alpha \,
385: \exp\left(-\frac{M}{M^*}\right)\frac{\dd M}{M^*}\, ,
386: \end{equation}
387: and
388: \begin{eqnarray}
389: \label{eq:mf-parametrization}
390: \phi^*(z) & \; = \; & p_1\, (1+z)^{p_2}\, , \\
391: \log M^*(z) & \; = \; & q_1 + q_2\,\ln(1+z)\, , \\
392: \alpha(z) & \; = \; & \alpha_0 \, .
393: \end{eqnarray}
394:
395: \begin{figure}[t]
396: %\includegraphics[]{merge_mpz.eps}
397: \includegraphics[]{fig2.eps}
398: \caption{Evolution with redshift of the parameters $\phi^*$ and
399: $M^*$ of the Schechter functions fit to the data shown in
400: Fig.~\ref{fig:mf}. The shaded areas show the 1-$\sigma$ confidence
401: region of the fit as determined from Monte Carlo simulations (see
402: text). Note that the derivatives w.r.t.\ $z$ have much smaller
403: uncertainties than the values of $\phi^*(z)$ and $M^*(z)$
404: themselves.\label{fig:schechter}}
405: \end{figure}
406:
407: First, we fit individual Schechter functions to the data from
408: \citet{FDFGOODS05} in each redshift bin (Fig.~\ref{fig:mf}). Then we
409: fit eqs.~(5)--(7) to the Schechter parameters as a function of
410: redshift, $\phi^*(z)$ and $\log M^*(z)$, to obtain a smooth
411: description of the redshift evolution of the stellar mass function
412: (Fig.~\ref{fig:schechter}). The error bars of each data point are used
413: to weight the data during fitting. We determine confidence intervals
414: for $\phi^*(z)$ and $\log M^*(z)$ by Monte Carlo simulations. These
415: confidence regions are indicated by shaded regions in
416: Fig.~\ref{fig:schechter}. A consequence of parameterizing $\phi^*(z)$
417: and $\log M^*(z)$ in this way is that in spite of the large
418: uncertainties of these quantities, the constraints on their
419: derivatives with respect to time are a lot tighter.
420:
421: In the redshift range $0<z\lesssim 2$, where the mass function data
422: are deep enough to constrain the faint-end slope of the mass function,
423: $\alpha$, it turns out to be consistent with being constant at $\alpha
424: = -1.3$. At higher redshift, the data do not allow to constrain the
425: faint-end slope any more. This is consistent with the results by
426: \citealp{Fontanaetal06}.
427:
428: We therefore fix alpha at its low-$z$ value
429: for all redshifts. The consequences of this will be discussed below.
430:
431: The mass function and the Schechter-fits to the data are shown in
432: Fig.~\ref{fig:mf}, and the best-fitting Schechter parameters are
433: listed in Table~\ref{tab:mffit}. The fit to the evolution of the mass
434: function with redshift as parameterized by eqs.~(5)--(7) is shown in
435: Fig.~\ref{fig:schechter}. The best fitting parametrization is
436: \begin{eqnarray*}
437: \label{eq:mf-params}
438: \phi^*(z) & \; = \; & (0.0031\pm 0.0002)\, (1+z)^{-1.07\pm 0.13}\, , \\
439: \log M^*(z) & \; = \; & (11.35\pm 0.04) - (0.22\pm 0.03)\,\ln(1+z) \, , \\
440: \alpha(z) & \; = \; & -1.3 \, ,
441: \end{eqnarray*}
442: and we will use this form in the following.
443:
444: \begin{deluxetable}{llll}
445: \tablecolumns{4}
446: \tablecaption{\label{tab:mffit}Schechter fit parameters to the mass function}
447: \tablehead{
448: \colhead{$z$} & \colhead{$\phi^*$} & \colhead{$\log M^*$} & \colhead{$\alpha$}\\
449: \colhead{} & \colhead{$h_{70}^3\,\mathrm{Mpc}^{-3}\,\mathrm{dex}^{-1}$}
450: & \colhead{$h_{70}^{-2}\,\mathrm{M_\sun}$} & \colhead{}}
451: \startdata
452: 0.50 & $(2.01\pm 0.10)\times 10^{-3}$ & $11.25\pm 0.02$ & -1.3\\
453: 1.00 & $(1.60\pm 0.12)\times 10^{-3}$ & $11.22\pm 0.03$ & -1.3\\
454: 1.50 & $(1.45\pm 0.14)\times 10^{-3}$ & $11.16\pm 0.03$ & -1.3\\
455: 2.00 & $(9.85\pm 1.12)\times 10^{-4}$ & $11.00\pm 0.04$ & -1.3\\
456: 2.75 & $(9.70\pm 1.32)\times 10^{-4}$ & $11.05\pm 0.04$ & -1.3\\
457: 3.50 & $(6.50\pm 1.50)\times 10^{-4}$ & $10.99\pm 0.05$ & -1.3\\
458: 4.50 & $(2.61\pm 1.71)\times 10^{-4}$ & $10.97\pm 0.07$ & -1.3\\
459: \enddata
460: \end{deluxetable}
461:
462: Using this best-fitting parametrization of the evolution of the mass
463: function, we can extrapolate the values of the parameters to $z=0$. We
464: obtain $\phi^*(0) =
465: 0.0031~h_{70}^3\,\mathrm{Mpc}^{-3}\,\mathrm{dex}^{-1}$, which is
466: consistent with the values obtained by \citet{2dF01} (0.003) and
467: \citet{BMKW03} (0.0034) when these are rescaled to the same initial
468: mass function and cosmology. The value we obtain for the
469: characteristic mass, $\log M^*(0) = 11.35$, is higher than the values
470: obtained in the mentioned literature (11.16 and 11.01, respectively);
471: however, our value of the faint-end slope, $\alpha$, is different
472: ($-1.3$ in this work as opposed to $-1.1$ in \citealp{2dF01} and
473: $-1.18$ in \citealp{BMKW03}). If one takes the coupling between $M^*$
474: and $\alpha$ into account, a smaller value of $\alpha$ is degenerate
475: with a higher value of $M^*$, and therefore our values agree very well
476: with the literature at zero redshift, once ``corrected'' to the same
477: $\alpha$ along the lines of the degeneracy.
478:
479: In any case, the focus of this paper is to establish a method of
480: disentangling star formation and merging contributions to galaxy
481: stellar mass assembly. We shall therefore not be concerned too much
482: about peculiarities of the mass function, instead we refer the
483: interested reader to the relevant literature \citep[e.g.][and
484: references therein]{BMKW03,FDFGOODS05,CBP05,Fontanaetal06}.
485:
486: %% ------------------------------------------------------------------
487: %% SFR
488: %% ------------------------------------------------------------------
489:
490: \section{The Average Star Formation Rate}
491: \label{sec:sfr}
492:
493: \begin{figure*}
494: \centering
495: \includegraphics[width=0.933\textwidth]{fig3a.eps}\vspace*{1cm}
496: \includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{fig3b.eps}
497: \caption{The {\em upper plot} shows the average star formation rate
498: as a function of stellar mass in seven redshift bins ranging $0.5
499: < z < 4.5$. Each panel shows the data of one redshift bin (filled
500: circles). The confidence regions are indicated by shading.
501: Fitting functions to the data (power laws with exponential cutoff
502: at high mass; see text) are plotted as dashed lines. Each panel
503: also shows the fitting functions in all other redshift bins as
504: dotted lines for comparison. The {\em lower plot} shows the same
505: data plotted against redshift. Each panel shows the star formation
506: rate for a different stellar mass as a thick solid line. The
507: dotted lines indicate the data for the other masses for comparison.
508: Confidence regions are shaded.
509: \label{fig:sfr}}
510: \end{figure*}
511:
512: To find the (average) star formation rate at each stellar mass and
513: time, we take advantage of the data published by \cite{Feulneretal05}
514: in the Fors Deep Field.
515:
516: We use dust-corrected UV-continuum emission around 2800\AA\ to
517: estimate star formation rates. The reason for doing so is
518: twofold. First, there are no other homogeneous datasets that provide
519: more robust star formation rates over the whole redshift range of
520: interest. Second, the UV continuum luminosity can be measured for
521: every galaxy that has a stellar mass assigned to it. Therefore we have
522: star formation rates for the exact same sample that is used to measure
523: the stellar mass function. This at least provides some assurance of
524: internal consistency.
525:
526: \begin{deluxetable}{llll}
527: \tablecolumns{4}
528: \tablecaption{\label{tab:sfrfit}Fit parameters to the star formation rate (Eq.~\ref{eq:sf-parametrization})}
529: \tablehead{
530: \colhead{$z$} & \colhead{$\Mdot^0$} & \colhead{$\log \Mstar^1$} & \colhead{$\beta$}\\
531: \colhead{} & \colhead{$\Msun \, \mathrm{yr}^{-1}$}
532: & \colhead{$\Msun$} & \colhead{}}
533: \startdata
534: 0.50 & $13.1 \pm 1.6$ & $10.77\pm 0.08$ & $0.69\pm 0.11$ \\
535: 1.00 & $20.1 \pm 1.0$ & $11.04\pm 0.04$ & $0.56\pm 0.08$ \\
536: 1.50 & $43.6 \pm 2.8$ & $11.35\pm 0.09$ & $0.52\pm 0.07$ \\
537: 2.00 & $88.2 \pm 3.1$ & $11.41\pm 0.11$ & $0.61\pm 0.07$ \\
538: 2.75 & $132 \pm 3.9$ & $11.67\pm 0.13$ & $0.59\pm 0.05$ \\
539: 3.50 & $336 \pm 12.7$ & $11.78 (-0.25 +\infty)$\tablenotemark{1} & $0.63\pm 0.02$ \\
540: 4.50 & $576 \pm 26.7$ & $12.95 (-0.31 +\infty)$\tablenotemark{1} & $0.66\pm 0.01$
541: \enddata
542: \tablenotetext{1}{Values are unconstrained on the high
543: side. They are consistent with a single power law with no break at
544: all.}
545: \end{deluxetable}
546:
547: The dust corrections are estimated from the stellar population model
548: fits to the multicolor photometry (see details and discussion in
549: \citealp{Feulneretal05}).
550:
551: How reliable are the UV-based star formation rates?
552: \citet{Daddietal07} analyze multi-wavelength data (optical-NIR, {\em
553: Spitzer} mid-IR, and radio) at $1.4 < z < 2.5$ in the GOODS region
554: (see also \citealp{Daddietal05b}). They conclude that the SFR can be
555: estimated consistently from the UV light using SED or color-based dust
556: corrections, with the UV-based estimates being within a factor of
557: $\sim 2$ of the $24~\mu \mathrm{m}$-based estimate for most galaxies (Sub-mm
558: galaxies are an exception, as for those, the UV underestimates the SFR
559: by at least an order of magnitude, but these are likely missed by the
560: I-band selected sample used here). At high IR luminosities the
561: difference is higher, but it is often unclear whether it is due to an
562: IR excess due to an AGN, which is likely because the UV estimate is in
563: agreement with the radio-based estimate of the SFR. These conclusions
564: are also supported by a similar analysis by \citet{Reddyetal05}. These
565: data only probe relatively massive galaxies, though.
566:
567: To estimate errors (or rather the range of possible values) of the
568: average star formation rate as a function of mass, we proceed as
569: following: instead of applying a further upward correction to all our
570: star formation rates, we set the likely upper envelope of the average
571: star formation rate as the average value plus the width of the
572: distribution above the average (using the 68-percentile). The
573: reasoning behind this is that the brightest UV sources at each mass
574: are likely the least extinct ones, and therefore they mark the upper
575: limit. The likely lower confidence limit on the average star formation
576: rate is calculated by estimating the maximum amount by which the
577: average might be lowered due to low-SFR galaxies missing in the
578: sample. To do this we need to assume a distribution of star formation
579: rates in objects below our detection limit. We assume a star formation
580: rate function power-law slope of $-1.45$ following the only
581: measurement by \citet{Belletal07}. Note, though, that this measurement
582: is at $z \lesssim 1$. We normalize to our mean densities and assume
583: that the undetected population follows a power-law distribution of
584: star formation rate of that slope at any given constant stellar mass
585: and redshift. We then integrate the star formation rate function up to
586: the point at which the objects would reach the detection limit of the
587: FDF. The amount by which this missed star formation lowers the average
588: value at each mass and redshift then defines the lower confidence
589: limit. The region of confidence is shaded in Fig.~\ref{fig:sfr}.
590:
591: To reduce the influence of noise in the data on the derivatives we are
592: interested in, we will parameterize the average star formation rate as
593: a function of mass by an analytic expression, just as we have done
594: with the mass function. We choose a power law of the stellar mass
595: with an exponential cutoff at high mass:
596: \begin{equation}
597: \label{eq:sf-parametrization}
598: \Mdot(\Mstar) \; = \;
599: \Mdot^0 \, \left(\frac{\Mstar}{\Mstar^1}\right)^\beta \,
600: \exp\left(-\frac{\Mstar}{\Mstar^1}\right)\, .
601: \end{equation}
602:
603: The data along with this fit are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:sfr}. The
604: best-fitting parameters are listed in Table~\ref{tab:sfrfit}. Since
605: such data on the star formation rate as a function of stellar mass and
606: time have not been shown before in this form in the literature, we
607: will take the time to digress from our goal of determining the assembly
608: rate and discuss the star formation rate as it provides valuable
609: insights.
610:
611: A few regularities in the data are apparent. At $z \gtrsim 3$ the star
612: formation rate monotonically rises with stellar mass to the highest
613: masses we probe ($\log \Mstar \sim 11.5$). It is consistent with a
614: single power law with exponent $\beta \sim 0.6$. The star formation
615: rates in the most massive objects at this high redshift are of the
616: order of 100 -- 500~$\Msun \mathrm{yr}^{-1}$, suggesting that these
617: are the progenitors of modern day massive ellipticals seen during
618: their major epoch of star formation. The average star formation rate
619: drops most rapidly with redshift for high mass ($\log\Mstar \gtrsim
620: 11$) galaxies. Their period of active growth by star formation seems
621: to be over by $z \sim 1.5$, and the star formation rate as a function
622: of stellar mass turns over from increasing with mass to rapidly
623: decreasing with both mass and time in objects with $\log\Mstar \gtrsim
624: 11$.
625:
626: At redshift $z \sim 3$, the star formation rates begin to drop at the
627: high mass end while still being an increasing function of mass at
628: lower masses. As redshift decreases further, the star formation rates
629: drop at progressively lower masses. This behavior, usually termed
630: downsizing \citep{CSHC96}, has been observed in numerous recent
631: high-redshift studies
632: \citep[e.g.][]{BDHF04,VdWetal05,Bundyetal06,Noeskeetal07b} and is also
633: seen in studies of the fossil record of the stellar populations in the
634: local universe \citep[e.g.][]{HPJD04,TMBM05}. The mass at which the
635: star formation rate starts to deviate from the power law form
636: progresses smoothly from $\log \Mstar^1 \sim 13$ at $z\sim 5$ to $\log
637: \Mstar^1 \sim 10.5$ at $z\sim 0.5$. For comparison, in the local
638: universe \citet{Kauffmannetal03b} find a characteristic mass of $\log
639: \Mstar \sim 10.4$ at which the galaxy population changes from actively
640: star forming at lower stellar mass to typically quiescent at higher
641: masses. This transition mass shows a smooth evolution to higher masses
642: at earlier times up to very high redshift (at $ \gtrsim 3$ the data
643: are consistent with a single power law and no break mass at all).
644:
645: \begin{figure}[t]
646: \centering
647: %\includegraphics[width=8cm]{merge_mq.eps}
648: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{fig4.eps}
649: \caption{Evolution of the characteristic mass, $\Mstar^1$, above
650: which the star formation rate as a function of mass begins to
651: drop.\label{fig:mq}}
652: \end{figure}
653: How does this ``break mass'' -- the mass above which the average star
654: formation rate begins to decline -- evolve with redshift?
655: Fig.~\ref{fig:mq} shows the evolution of the parameter $\Mstar^1$ from
656: eq.~(\ref{eq:sf-parametrization}) against redshift, as well as a
657: power-law fit to it:
658: \begin{equation}
659: \Mstar^1(z) = 2.7\times 10^{10} (1+z)^{2.1}\, .
660: \end{equation}
661:
662: This can be compared directly to the result obtained from the SDSS
663: sample in the local universe by \cite{Kauffmannetal03b} (compare also
664: \citealp{Brinchmannetal04}). They find that above a stellar mass of
665: $3\times 10^{10}~\Msun$, the fraction of galaxies with old stellar
666: populations and low star formation rapidly increases. Our estimate of
667: the zero redshift break mass in the star formation rate is
668: $\Mstar^1(0) = 2.7\times 10^{10}~\Msun$. \citet{Bundyetal06} find
669: evidence for an evolving mass limit for star forming galaxies in the
670: DEEP2 redshift survey at $0.4 < z < 1.4$. Their best-fitting
671: parametrization of the ``quenching mass'', $M_Q(z) \propto
672: (1+z)^{3.5}$, is probably comparable to ours given the difference in
673: methodology and redshift range, although the exponent we find is
674: somewhat smaller.
675:
676: In the lower panels of Fig.~\ref{fig:sfr}, we plot the star formation
677: rate against redshift for different fixed stellar masses. From this
678: plot it is apparent that while massive galaxies have the highest
679: (absolute) star formation rates, their star formation rates drop
680: earlier and quicker than for lower stellar mass objects. The star
681: formation rate in $\log\Mstar \sim 11$ objects drops by a factor $\sim
682: 200$ between $z\sim 4.5$ and $z\sim 1$, while objects of $\log\Mstar
683: \sim 9.5$ decrease their average star formation rate only by a factor
684: $\sim 5$. Most of the latter decrease happens at $z \lesssim 1$. At
685: higher redshifts, low mass galaxies have almost constant (average)
686: star formation rates. The more rapid decline we find in the star
687: formation rate of massive galaxies is in contrast with the analysis by
688: \citet{Zhengetal07} who combine $24~\mu\mathrm{m}$\ data with UV data
689: in the COMBO-17 survey and conclude that the star formation rate
690: declines independently of galaxy mass at $z<1$ (using stacked
691: detections to account for the average star formation rate in sources
692: individually undetected at $24~\mu\mathrm{m}$). This difference could
693: be due to the (SED-based dust corrected) UV light underestimating the
694: true star formation rate in $\log \Mstar \gtrsim 11$ galaxies at $z<1$
695: more so than at lower masses. Another possibility is some uncertainty
696: in the infrared SEDs of these galaxies and the calibration of the
697: observed-frame $24~\mu\mathrm{m}$-based star formation rate at
698: intermediate redshifts.
699:
700: Another fact to note is that the exponent of the star formation rate
701: as a function of stellar mass at masses below the break mass is
702: remarkably stable. In all redshift bins, the exponent is close to
703: $\beta \sim 0.6$, possibly steepening slightly to $\beta \sim 0.7$ at
704: $z \lesssim 0.5$. This also means -- since the exponent is always
705: smaller than one -- that the specific star formation (star formation
706: rate per unit stellar mass) rate is a monotonically decreasing
707: function of stellar mass at all masses and redshifts.
708:
709: How does this compare to other studies of star formation rates? In the
710: local universe, \citet{Brinchmannetal04} find a very similar slope of
711: the star formation rate with stellar mass as well ($\log \Mdot \propto
712: 0.6\, \log \Mstar$).
713:
714: At intermediate redshift, in fact, \citet{Noeskeetal07a} argue for the
715: existence of a ``main sequence'' of star forming galaxies that obeys
716: the relation $\log \Mdot = (0.67\pm 0.08)\, \log \Mstar - (6.19\pm
717: 0.78)$ at $0.2 < z < 0.7$ and $10 < \log \Mstar/\Msun < 11$ using
718: DEEP2 survey data combining $24~\mu \mathrm{m}$\ and optical emission
719: line fluxes. This is in very good agreement with our results. They
720: also see indications of slight flattening towards higher redshift,
721: although this cannot be said with confidence from their sample.
722:
723: \citet{Papovichetal06} studied massive galaxies at $1 \lesssim z
724: \lesssim 3.5$ detected by the Spitzer Space Telescope at
725: $3-24~\mu\mathrm{m}$, by HST, and in ground based observations in the
726: GOODS field. They also find a relation between stellar mass and star
727: formation rate, and although they do not attempt to quantify this
728: relation, their data is consistent with the relation proposed
729: here. They also compare their high-$z$ results to similarly measured
730: star formation rates in $z \lesssim 1$ galaxies selected from COMBO-17
731: and find similar results to the evolution presented here.
732:
733: Also, our star formation rates (and stellar masses) in the Lyman break
734: galaxy regime agree very well with detailed studies of this class of
735: objects. As in \citet{PDF01}, we find stellar masses of $9.5 \lesssim
736: \log\Mstar \lesssim 10.5$ and star formation rates (at $z \sim 3$)
737: between 10 and 100~$\Msun \mathrm{yr}^{-1}$.
738:
739: We are therefore confident that our relationship between stellar mass
740: and star formation rate is robust and likely to be valid in spite of
741: its rather simplistic footing. It is understood that there is an
742: underlying broad distribution of star formation rates and much
743: intrinsic scatter around this relation, especially at higher redshift
744: where one is likely to encounter massive starbursts. Also, the
745: relation as shown here is only strictly valid for ``star forming
746: galaxies'', as quiescent objects (most notably at lower masses) are
747: most likely to be undetected (however, they will be missing from both
748: $\phi(\Mstar)$ and $\Mdot(\Mstar)$ in the present study).
749:
750: \begin{figure}[t]
751: \centering
752: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{fig5.eps}
753: %\includegraphics[width=8cm]{merge_sfh.eps}
754: \caption{Star formation histories of galaxies with mass between
755: $10^8$ and $10^{11.5}$~\Msun, calculated by integrating the star
756: formation rate as a function of mass and time
757: (Fig.~\ref{fig:sfr}). \label{fig:avgsfh}.}
758: \end{figure}
759:
760: Finally, given the average star formation rate field
761: $\Mdot(\Mstar,t)$, we can ask what the star formation histories look
762: like on average as a function of mass, i.e.\ we can ask for tracks
763: along $\Mdot$ and $t$ that solve the equations
764: \begin{eqnarray}
765: \nonumber
766: \dd \Mstar/\dd t & \; = \; & \Mdotmt\\
767: \nonumber
768: \Mstar(t_0) & \; = \; & M_0\, .
769: \end{eqnarray}
770: Figure~\ref{fig:avgsfh} shows these solutions for masses $M_0$ at
771: $t_0$ of $8 \leq \log\Mstar \leq 11.5$. Note that $M_0$ and $t_0$ are
772: defined as the mass and time at $z=4.5$. In interpreting these as
773: star formation histories of galaxies, we assume that the dominant
774: contribution to the growth of stellar mass is from star formation,
775: i.e.\ we neglect growth by accretion and merging, which we will see is
776: a reasonable approximation in the following sections.
777:
778: \begin{figure*}[t]
779: \centering
780: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig6a.eps}\hspace*{0.3cm}
781: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig6b.eps}
782: %\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{merge2.eps}\hspace*{0.3cm}
783: %\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{mergez2.eps}
784: \caption{The partial derivative with respect to time of the stellar
785: mass function as measured from the parametrization of its redshift
786: evolution (see text). The left hand panel shows the derivative as
787: a function of stellar mass at different redshifts; thicker lines
788: indicate higher $z$ with values between $z=0.5$ and $z=4.5$ as in
789: Fig.~\ref{fig:sfr}. The right hand panel shows the same functions
790: but plotted against redshift, with higher stellar mass indicated
791: by thicker lines; the mass values are indicated and the same as in
792: Fig.~\ref{fig:sfr}. At masses below $M^*$, where the mass function
793: is a power law, the evolution becomes independent of
794: mass. Therefore curves for masses below $\log\Mstar \sim 10$ in
795: the right panel lie on top of each other.\label{fig:dphidt}}
796: \end{figure*}
797:
798: It has long been thought that star formation histories of galaxies are
799: roughly exponentials on average, with later type and lower mass
800: galaxies having longer $e$-folding times
801: \citep[e.g.][]{Sandage89}. From investigations of the present day
802: stellar population in elliptical galaxies, this was confirmed by
803: \citet{TMBM05}, at least for spheroidals. \citet{HPJD04} use spectra
804: of galaxies from the SDSS to infer star formation histories of
805: galaxies as a function of mass and find similar trends. Here,
806: Fig.~\ref{fig:avgsfh} -- from measurements of star formation rates as
807: a function of stellar mass and redshift -- directly shows that a
808: relationship between star formation history and galaxy mass
809: holds. Rise time, peak star formation rate, peak time, and
810: post-maximum (exponential) decay timescale are all correlated with
811: mass. More massive galaxies have steeper and earlier onsets of star
812: formation, higher peak star formation rate, and the following
813: exponential decay has a shorter $e$-folding time. Less massive
814: galaxies have a more gradual onset of star formation, a broader peak
815: of star formation activity, and their maximum star formation rate is
816: lower and occurs later. Their subsequent exponential decline has a
817: longer $e$-folding time.
818:
819: Since the star formation rate as a function of mass is well represented
820: by a power law in mass with constant slope, we can write the early
821: star formation rate (at masses below the break mass) as $\dd M/\dd t =
822: A(t)\, M^{\beta}$, with $A(t) \propto \Mdot^0$ from
823: eq.~(\ref{eq:sf-parametrization}), and monotonically decreasing with
824: time. Hence, galaxies which begin forming stars later in time, have
825: longer rise times, reach lower peak star formation rate, and also
826: lower final mass. The latter statement can be derived from the fact
827: that the break mass decreases with time, and so galaxies that start
828: forming stars later have their star formation quenched at lower mass
829: than galaxies that start forming stars early, when the break mass is
830: still high.
831:
832: As a side note, the existence of the curious universal power-law
833: relation between star formation rate and stellar mass can be explained
834: using disk galaxy scaling relations and the Schmidt-Kennicutt star
835: formation law \citep{KennicuttARAA98}. If one takes the
836: Schmidt-Kennicutt law to read $\sigsfr \propto \Sigma /
837: \tau_\mathrm{dyn}$ (with $\Sigma$ denoting surface density and $\tau$
838: being the dynamical timescale, see \citealp{Silk97,Kennicutt98}), then
839: $\Mdot \propto R^2\,\sigsfr \propto R^2\,\Sigma\,V/R \propto
840: \Sigma\,V\,R$ (with $V$ denoting the characteristic velocity of the
841: system and $R$ its radius). Using the virial relation we have $\Mdot
842: \propto \Mstar^{0.5}\,R^{0.5}$, which, with $M \propto R^3$, becomes
843: $\Mdot \propto \Mstar^{0.62}$. Using the disk scaling relations given
844: in \citet{MMW98} instead of the (halo) virial relation ($M \propto
845: V_c^3$; $R_d \propto V_c$), one obtains $\Mdot \propto \Mstar$ for
846: average halo spin parameter and fraction of disk angular
847: momentum. Both of these arguments assume a fixed scaling of cold gas
848: surface density with total mass surface density.
849:
850:
851: %% ------------------------------------------------------------------
852: %% DPhi/Dt TOTAL
853: %% ------------------------------------------------------------------
854:
855: \section{The Time Derivative of the Mass Function}
856: \label{sec:dphidt}
857:
858: Now that we have assembled all the necessary data, we turn back to
859: eq.~(\ref{eq:merge}). The right hand side of eq.~(\ref{eq:merge}) has
860: two terms. The first is the observed time derivative of the mass
861: function, the second one is the change with time induced in the mass
862: function due to star formation. Here we will deal with the first term.
863:
864: We use the parametrization of the evolution of the stellar mass
865: function as established in \S~\ref{sec:mass-function}. From this
866: parametrization, it is a straight forward procedure to calculate the
867: time derivative $\dpt \phi/\dpt t$. For convenience, we will
868: henceforth always measure time derivatives in terms of relative
869: changes, $(1/\phi)\,(\dpt \phi/\dpt t)$. These are plotted against
870: mass in the left hand panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:dphidt}; we use thicker
871: lines to indicate higher redshift. The right hand panel shows the same
872: quantity, this time plotted against redshift, with line thickness
873: indicating increasing stellar mass. We plot data for the same
874: redshifts and masses as in Fig.~\ref{fig:sfr}.
875:
876: The shaded regions indicate the 1-$\sigma$ confidence limits
877: calculated using Monte Carlo simulations of the fit of the evolution
878: of the mass function, eqs.~(5) -- (7) and Fig.~\ref{fig:schechter} in
879: \S~\ref{sec:mass-function}. It is important to note that while the
880: uncertainties on the mass function itself are rather large, the
881: parameterization of its evolution provides much smaller formal
882: uncertainties on the derivative with respect to time that is of
883: interest here.
884:
885: \begin{figure*}[t]
886: \centering
887: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig7a.eps}\hspace*{0.3cm}
888: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig7b.eps}
889: %\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{merge3.eps}\hspace*{0.3cm}
890: %\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{mergez3.eps}
891: \caption{The relative change per Gyr in the galaxy stellar mass
892: function due to star formation only, plotted against mass (left
893: panel) and redshift (right panel). These curves are the result of
894: evaluating eq.~\ref{eq:cont}. Confidence limits are derived by
895: directly propagating the confidence limits on the average star
896: formation rate through eq.~\ref{eq:cont}. \label{fig:dphisfr}}
897: \end{figure*}
898:
899: Note that our parametrization of the mass function assumes a fixed
900: faint-end slope of $\alpha = -1.3$ (the data do not allow us to
901: measure the slope at higher redshift; up to $z \sim 2$, the slope is
902: consistent with being constant). Hence the time derivative of the mass
903: function becomes independent of mass at masses below the
904: characteristic mass, $M^*(z)$, where the mass function is a power
905: law. In the right hand panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:dphidt} this means that
906: the low mass curves (below $\log\Mstar \sim 10$) all lie on top of
907: each other.
908:
909: The most rapid buildup of the mass function happens (not unexpectedly)
910: at high redshift and at the high-mass end. At $z \sim 4$ and
911: $\log\Mstar \sim 11$, the number density approximately doubles every
912: Gyr, while the density of $\log\Mstar \sim 10$ objects (typical Lyman
913: break galaxies) increases by 50\% per Gyr. At $z \lesssim 1$, the
914: change in number densities is much more modest, of the order of
915: 10-20\% per Gyr (and likely decreasing further rapidly), so that the
916: mass density roughly doubles between $z \sim 1$ and $z = 0$, a
917: behavior observed and confirmed by many studies mentioned in the
918: introduction.
919:
920: There is rather little differential evolution in the Fors Deep Field
921: stellar mass function in the sense that the ratio of the change at
922: high mass and at low mass evolves from a factor of $\sim 4$ at high
923: $z$ to a factor $\sim 2$ at $z \sim 0.5$. This has been noted in
924: \cite{FDFGOODS05}; see their Fig.~4. \citet{Fontanaetal06}, analyzing
925: data similarly in the GOODS-MUSIC survey, find that this ratio tends
926: to zero at late times, such that the buildup of the $\log\Mstar > 11$
927: galaxy population is complete by $z \sim 1$ while it still continues
928: slowly in our sample (compare also studies of elliptical galaxies,
929: e.g.~\citealp{VdWetal05}). This discrepancy, apparent in a number of
930: datasets -- whether it is due to the small volume of the FDF at low
931: $z$, the photometric redshifts, the stellar population modeling
932: technique, or other effects -- has yet to be resolved.
933:
934: Since the main focus of this paper is to discuss the method presented
935: here to analyze mass function and star formation rate data, we will
936: not spend too much time discussing peculiarities of the present
937: dataset. We are fully aware that the current data have significant
938: deficiencies (both in mass and star formation rate), yet they still
939: offer the possibility to discover and learn about fundamental trends
940: in the formation and evolution of galaxies.
941:
942:
943:
944: %% ------------------------------------------------------------------
945: %% CHANGE DUE TO SFR
946: %% ------------------------------------------------------------------
947:
948: \section{The Evolution of the Mass Function due to Star Formation}
949: \label{sec:dphisfr}
950:
951: After the derivative of the mass function, we turn to the second term
952: on the right hand side of eq.~\ref{eq:merge}. We proceed to analyze
953: the relative change in the stellar mass function that is due to star
954: formation only, $\psi \equiv \frac{1}{\phi}\,\frac{\dpt \pmt}{\dpt t}
955: \Big\vert_{\mathrm{SF}}$, which is $\phi^{-1}$ times
956: eq.~\ref{eq:cont}. We will use the symbol $\psi$ to refer to this
957: quantity in what follows.
958:
959: To compute the function $\psi = \phi^{-1}\,(-\dpt/\dpt\,\Mstar)\,\,
960: (\phi \, \Mdot)$, in each time (redshift) bin, we use the
961: parameterized fits to $\phi(\Mstar,t)$ and $\Mdot(\Mstar,t)$ listed in
962: Tables~\ref{tab:mffit} and \ref{tab:sfrfit}, respectively. We plot the
963: resulting curves in Fig.~\ref{fig:dphisfr}. The left hand panel shows
964: the relative change of the stellar mass function plotted against
965: stellar mass in seven redshift bins spanning $0.5 < z < 4.5$; as in
966: the previous plots, thicker lines indicate higher redshift. The right
967: hand panel shows the same data but now plotted against redshift with
968: stellar mass coded as line thickness. Masses and redshifts are the
969: same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:dphidt}. Confidence regions are derived
970: directly from the confidence limits on the average star formation
971: rates propagated through eq.~\ref{eq:cont}.
972:
973: $\psi(\Mstar,t)$ is positive at all times. This means that the number
974: density of galaxies is predicted to increase with time due to the star
975: formation activity of the galaxies. Note that this is not a trivial
976: statement: If the number of objects leaving a mass bin $[\Mstar,
977: \Mstar+\dd\Mstar)$ in the time interval $\dd t$ due to their star
978: formation rate $\Mdot(\Mstar,t)$ is larger than the number of objects
979: entering the same bin from lower mass due to their own star formation
980: (see eq.~(\ref{eq:cont})), the number density at this mass would
981: decrease. It is a matter of comparing the derivatives w.r.t.\ mass
982: of the mass function and the star formation rate.
983:
984: In the low-mass range, the stellar mass function is well represented
985: by a power law with slope $\alpha \sim -1.3$ (locally), and we have
986: assumed that this slope does not evolve with time (which is backed by
987: the data up to $z \sim 2$; see \S~\ref{sec:mass-function} and also
988: \citealp{Fontanaetal06}). The star formation rate is also well
989: described by a power law (see \S~\ref{sec:sfr}), $\Mdot \propto
990: \Mstar^\beta$, with $\beta \sim 0.6$. Eq.~(\ref{eq:cont}) times
991: $\phi^{-1}$ hence reduces to
992: \begin{equation}
993: \psi \propto - \frac{1}{\Mstar^{\alpha}}\, \frac{\dpt}{\dpt \Mstar}\,
994: \left[ \Mstar^{\alpha}\, \Mstar^\beta \right]
995: \; \propto \; -(\alpha+\beta)\,\Mstar^{\beta-1}\, .
996: \end{equation}
997: This term is positive if $\alpha + \beta < 0$. With $\alpha \sim
998: -1.3$ and $\beta \sim 0.6$, this condition is satisfied at all times
999: at the faint end. At the bright end, the mass function steepens
1000: quicker than the star formation rate does, and the condition remains
1001: satisfied.
1002:
1003: We wish to note here that we are very likely to miss low-mass low star
1004: formation part of the galaxy population, hence we very likely
1005: underestimate the slope of the stellar mass function, especially at
1006: higher redshift.
1007:
1008: At high redshift and high mass, we see that star formation leads to a
1009: strong increase in number density. The number of objects with $\log
1010: \Mstar \gtrsim 11$ roughly doubles every Gyr at $z\sim 4$. This rate
1011: of buildup quickly decreases with time, slowing down to an increase by
1012: 50\% per Gyr by $z \sim 2.5$. At $z \lesssim 1.5$, star formation has
1013: dropped to contribute a relative increase in number density of $\sim
1014: 0.1$~Gyr$^{-1}$, and to 0.05~Gyr$^{-1}$ at $z \sim 0.5$.
1015:
1016: At low masses, $\log\Mstar \lesssim 10$, the number density very
1017: rapidly increases (due to star formation) at a rate comparable to that
1018: of high-mass objects. Unlike the high mass objects, however, the
1019: growth due to star formation persists in low mass objects for much
1020: longer, dropping to a rate of 0.5~Gyr$^{-1}$ at $z \sim 1$ and
1021: 0.2~Gyr$^{-1}$ at $z \sim 0.5$. While the number density of massive
1022: galaxies is not changing significantly anymore due to star formation
1023: at low $z$, that of low-mass galaxies does.
1024:
1025: %% ------------------------------------------------------------------
1026: %% THE MERGER RATE
1027: %% ------------------------------------------------------------------
1028:
1029: \section{The Assembly Rate}
1030: \label{sec:mergerrate}
1031:
1032: \begin{figure*}[t]
1033: \centering
1034: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig8a.eps}\hspace*{0.3cm}
1035: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig8b.eps}
1036: %\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{merge4.eps}\hspace*{0.3cm}
1037: %\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{mergez4.eps}
1038: \caption{The {\em assembly rate}: the relative change in the galaxy
1039: stellar mass function that is caused by anything other than star
1040: formation. We interpret this quantity as being due to accretion
1041: and merging of galaxies. The left hand panel is plotted against
1042: mass, the right hand panel against
1043: redshift.\label{fig:mergerrate}}
1044: \end{figure*}
1045:
1046: Finally, we have all the ingredients necessary to fully evaluate
1047: eq.~(\ref{eq:merge2}), which we do in Fig.~\ref{fig:mergerrate},
1048: showing our results again versus mass in the left panel and against
1049: redshift in the right panel. We will use the less cumbersome term
1050: {\em assembly rate} for ``change in number density due to merging'' in
1051: what follows. We remind the reader to be mindful of the difference
1052: between this quantity and the merger rate (see
1053: \S~\ref{sec:desc-mass}).
1054:
1055: Confidence regions in Fig.~\ref{fig:mergerrate} are calculated by
1056: means of Monte Carlo realizations of data within the uncertainties in
1057: the mass function evolution and the star formation rates, and
1058: propagating those through eq.~(\ref{eq:merge2}). It is worth noting
1059: that since the constraints on the derivatives of $\phi^*$ and $\log
1060: M^*$ with respect to time are much tighter than the constraints on
1061: these quantities themselves, the error budget in
1062: Fig.~\ref{fig:mergerrate} is dominated by the uncertainty in the
1063: average star formation rate. This leads to formally small errors at
1064: masses and redshifts with low star formation rates.
1065:
1066: The curves in Fig.~\ref{fig:mergerrate} are negative at low mass and
1067: positive at high mass, with the zero-crossing mass evolving from
1068: higher masses at high redshift to lower masses at lower redshift. This
1069: means that once star formation is accounted for, a source of high mass
1070: objects and a sink of low mass objects is necessary to explain the
1071: mass function data. In the most general terms, this is consistent with
1072: merging activity building up higher mass objects from (many) lower
1073: mass ones. In this picture, the merger rate decreases with time (the
1074: absolute value of the curves decreases with time). Also, the mass at
1075: which the merger rate tends to increase the number density instead of
1076: decreasing it (the mass above which objects are accreted onto and
1077: below which objects are destroyed) decreases with time. However, an
1078: important caveat is that a loss of objects could also be due to
1079: (faint) objects dropping out of the survey as soon as their star
1080: formation activity ceases. This can partly explain the negative values
1081: observed at low masses and the trend mentioned above.
1082:
1083: In the following we shall look into the merger rates as a function of
1084: mass and time in more detail.
1085:
1086: \subsection{High redshift and high mass}
1087:
1088: At high redshift and high masses, the time-evolution in the mass
1089: function shows a rapid increase in number density of high mass objects
1090: (see \S~\ref{sec:dphidt}). Star formation accounts for most of this
1091: increase, leaving a difference consistent with zero at $\log\Mstar
1092: \sim 11$ and a small positive difference of $0.2-0.8$~Gyr$^{-1}$ at
1093: $\log\Mstar \sim 11.5$ and $z \gtrsim 3$. However, our
1094: parametrization of $\phi^*(z)$ flattens at high redshifts and
1095: over-predicts the normalization of the mass function in the bin at high
1096: $z$ (compare the high-$z$ data point in the upper panel of
1097: Fig.~\ref{fig:schechter}). As a result, the total change in the mass
1098: function is smaller in the parameterized fit to $\phi^*(z)$ compared
1099: to the raw data by about 30\%. Therefore, if we use the Schechter
1100: functions shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:mf} directly, which show a steeper
1101: increase in $\phi^*$ at $z \gtrsim 3$, instead of the smooth
1102: parametrization $\phi^* \propto (1+z)^{-1.07}$, the curves in
1103: Fig.~\ref{fig:mergerrate} move up, and the inferred assembly rate
1104: becomes larger by the same amount.
1105:
1106: Given this uncertainty, we feel that the star formation rate we
1107: observe is roughly sufficient to explain the increase in number
1108: density at high mass and high redshift. As an upper limit, at most
1109: 0.5--0.8 effective major mergers per Gyr are consistent with the
1110: data. This number, though, would be enough to transform most of these
1111: early high mass objects into ellipticals contemporaneously with their
1112: major star formation episode. This is consistent with the picture
1113: emerging from various observations in the local universe and at high
1114: redshift which show that most massive ellipticals form quickly and
1115: early, with more massive galaxies being older, and their stars having
1116: formed more rapidly (e.g.\
1117: \citealp{BZB96,Treuetal01c,VDF03,TMBM05,VdWetal05,Renzini06}).
1118:
1119: \subsection{High redshift and low mass}
1120:
1121: As we have seen, the data point towards small galaxies being destroyed
1122: and large galaxies being built by mergers, with the caveat of
1123: selection effects being responsible for parts of this trend.
1124:
1125: A plausible interpretation instead of invoking a high destruction rate
1126: due to mergers, is based on the fact that low mass objects with low
1127: star formation rates (and therefore redder colors) are very likely
1128: missing from the survey. If the slope of the mass function were
1129: steeper due to the existence of a class of low-mass objects missing
1130: from the survey, we'd need an even higher destruction rate at low
1131: masses, due to the increase in numbers and decrease in the average
1132: star formation rate. However, if the star formation rate as a function
1133: of mass were steeper, $\Mdot \propto \Mstar^{0.8}$ instead of $\Mdot
1134: \propto \Mstar^{0.6}$ either due to lower star formation at low masses
1135: or higher star formation at high masses, the difference would be close
1136: to zero below $\log\Mstar \sim 11$ at all times, and little change
1137: ($\sim 0.2$~Gyr$^{-1}$) in number density due to merging would be
1138: necessary. This would imply that at low masses, merging is creating
1139: objects of any particular mass at the same rate as these objects are
1140: incorporated into larger structures.
1141:
1142: \subsection{Low redshift and high mass}
1143:
1144: Our current dataset is most reliable (both in terms of mass
1145: completeness and robustness of the star formation rate estimate) at
1146: redshifts $z \lesssim 2$ and at masses $\log \Mstar \gtrsim
1147: 10.5$. Here, the photometric data are deep enough to detect objects
1148: over a large dynamic range in $\Mstar/L$, and, also, intergalactic
1149: absorption (the Lyman break) does not affect the optical bands yet,
1150: such that the object's spectral energy distributions are well-sampled
1151: from the rest-frame UV into the optical and near-IR.
1152:
1153: At $z \lesssim 2.5$ the assembly rate is increasing towards higher
1154: stellar masses and towards lower redshift, mostly due to the rapid
1155: decline of the star formation rate in this regime, but it is always
1156: very low. Most of the increase in number density of massive galaxies
1157: is fully explained by the star formation rates observed.
1158:
1159: It is very difficult to measure the high mass end of the mass function
1160: accurately. These objects are rare, and on the steep exponential tail
1161: of the mass function any small error in distance (due to the use of
1162: photometric redshifts) or error in $\Mstar/L$ will lead to a large
1163: error in the number density. Also, the effects of cosmic variance are
1164: largest in this mass range and may heavily bias results especially in
1165: relatively small-area surveys as the FDF. Some assurance is provided
1166: by the fact that the $z\sim 1$ mass functions of a number of surveys
1167: agree reasonably well. If our measurement of the high mass end of the
1168: mass function at $z < 1.5$ is correct, mergers only contribute to the
1169: growth of the mass function at $\log \Mstar \gtrsim 11$ and only on a
1170: low level. A growth of only 0.1 -- 0.2~Gyr$^{-1}$ is consistent with
1171: our data. This is equivalent to about 1 effective major merger per
1172: object in the redshift range $1.5 > z > 0$. If, on the other hand,
1173: there is less evolution at the high mass end of the mass function,
1174: e.g.\ as found by \citet{Fontanaetal06}, then no merging at all would
1175: be required at high mass (compare also the mass functions in
1176: \citealp{K20-04} and \citealp{MUNICS6}). However, there is strong
1177: observational evidence that recent merging does play a role at least
1178: in field elliptical galaxies (e.g.\
1179: \citealp{Schweizer82,WMSF97,GMKMM01,Genzeletal01}).
1180:
1181: Other studies of the merger rate do not help to answer this
1182: question. On one side, \citet{vD05} studied signatures of interaction
1183: and tidal debris in a sample of nearby red galaxies. With some
1184: assumptions on the timescale of the merger events, they conclude that
1185: the present day accretion rate in E/S0 galaxies is $\Delta M/M =
1186: 0.09\pm 0.04$~Gyr$^{-1}$, a value that is fully consistent with our
1187: measurement, assuming that red sequence galaxies comprise the majority
1188: of the $\log \Mstar > 11$ local galaxy population. Also,
1189: \citet{Belletal06b} find that 50-70\% of galaxies with $\log \Mstar >
1190: 10.7$ have undergone a major merger since $z \sim 1$ (see also
1191: \citealp{Belletal06a}). On the other side, \cite{Linetal04} and
1192: \citet{Lotzetal06} find a much lower merger rate. They argue that in
1193: the DEEP2 survey, only $\sim 10\%$ of massive galaxies have undergone
1194: a major merger since $z \sim 1.2$. \citet{Bundyetal06} also argue for
1195: a low contribution of mergers at the high mass end. An overview of a
1196: number of studies is given in \citet{Kartaltepeetal07}.
1197:
1198: \subsection{Evolution with time}
1199:
1200: As we have mentioned, the general trend in the data is for the
1201: assembly rate to become more positive with time. The zero-crossing
1202: mass decreases with time. In high mass objects, the assembly rate
1203: starts out at zero or slightly below, with star formation rates
1204: dominating the initial increase in number density. The assembly rate
1205: then increases, such that at low $z$, merging becomes the dominant
1206: process that increases the number density at masses $\log\Mstar
1207: \gtrsim 11$. The growth rate in this mass and redshift range is 0.1 --
1208: 0.2~Gyr$^{-1}$. Lower-mass galaxies are consumed in these mergers. The
1209: mass at which the assembly rate transitions from objects being consumed
1210: to objects being formed decreases with time, roughly tracing the break
1211: mass in the star formation rate. The zero-crossing of the assembly rate
1212: occurs at $\log \Mstar = 10.8$ at $z = 0.5$, $\log \Mstar = 11.0$ at
1213: $z = 1.5$, $\log \Mstar = 11.3$ at $z = 2$, and $\log \Mstar = 11.5$
1214: at $z = 3.5$. While merging is still happening below this transition
1215: mass, the net number of objects decreases there. Hence, at lower
1216: redshift, the number density of progressively lower-mass galaxies
1217: starts to increase due to merging. This is a direct observation of the
1218: top-down buildup of the red sequence, where major merger remnants are
1219: found \citep[e.g.][]{Belletal2004,Faberetal05,Bundyetal06,Belletal07}.
1220:
1221: It is interesting to note that in CDM, e.g.\ in the \citet{PS74}
1222: formalism, we expect the opposite behavior: the characteristic mass
1223: increases with time, and hence progressively more massive halos
1224: preferably get incorporated into even larger structures, and their
1225: number density begins to decline. However, this formalism assumes that
1226: merged halos do not survive as substructure within their parent
1227: halos. Accounting for the survival of substructure, e.g.\ the
1228: existence of satellite galaxies or galaxies within clusters, might
1229: account for this apparent discrepancy. This will be explored in a
1230: follow-up paper.
1231:
1232: %% ------------------------------------------------------------------
1233: %% SUMMARY
1234: %% ------------------------------------------------------------------
1235:
1236: \section{Summary, Discussion, and Conclusions}
1237: \label{sec:summary}
1238:
1239: Summarizing our results, we present average star formation rates as a
1240: function of stellar mass and redshift, $\Mdotmt$, for galaxies in the
1241: Fors Deep Field spanning $0 < z < 5$. We directly measure their star
1242: formation histories as a function of stellar mass by integrating the
1243: former quantity.
1244:
1245: At $z \gtrsim 3$ the average star formation rate is monotonically
1246: rising with stellar mass and is well-fitted by a power law of stellar
1247: mass with exponent $\beta \sim 0.6$. The average star formation rates
1248: in the most massive objects at this redshift are 100 -- 500~$\Msun
1249: \mathrm{yr}^{-1}$, suggesting that these are the progenitors of modern
1250: day massive ellipticals seen during their major epoch of star
1251: formation. At redshift $z \sim 3$, the star formation rates starts to
1252: drop at the high mass end while still being an increasing function of
1253: mass at lower masses. The power-law exponent is consistent with
1254: staying constant. As redshift decreases further, the star formation
1255: rates drop at progressively lower masses (downsizing), dropping most
1256: rapidly with redshift for high mass ($\log\Mstar \gtrsim 11$)
1257: galaxies. The mass at which the star formation rate starts to deviate
1258: from the power law form (break mass) progresses smoothly from $\log
1259: \Mstar^1 \gtrsim 13$ at $z\sim 5$ to $\log \Mstar^1 \sim 10.9$ at
1260: $z\sim 0.5$. For comparison, in the local universe
1261: \citet{Kauffmannetal03b} find a characteristic mass of $\log \Mstar
1262: \sim 10.4$ at which the galaxy population changes from actively star
1263: forming at lower stellar mass to typically quiescent at higher masses.
1264: The break mass is evolving with redshift according to $\Mstar^1(z) =
1265: 2.7\times 10^{10} (1+z)^{2.1}$.
1266:
1267: We directly show that a relationship between star formation history
1268: and galaxy mass holds. Rise time, peak star formation rate, peak time,
1269: and post-maximum (exponential) decay timescale are all correlated with
1270: mass. More massive galaxies have steeper early onsets of star
1271: formation, their peak star formation occurs earlier and is higher, and
1272: the following exponential decay has a shorter $e$-folding time.
1273:
1274: We then present a method to infer effective merger rates (or mass
1275: accretion rates) from observations of the galaxy stellar mass function
1276: and the star formation rate as a function of mass and time. We
1277: quantify the evolution of the mass function due to the star formation
1278: activity of galaxies. We compare this evolution to the observed time
1279: derivative of the mass function and interpret any difference between
1280: the two as due to changes in galaxy mass due to external causes;
1281: accretion and merging are dominant among such processes. We introduce
1282: and analyze a quantity that we call the {\em assembly rate}, which is
1283: defined as the change in number density of galaxies due to accretion
1284: and merging.
1285:
1286: We observe sufficient star formation to explain the increase in number
1287: density at high mass and high redshift. As an upper limit, at most 0.8
1288: effective major mergers per Gyr are consistent with the data. This
1289: number, though, would be enough to transform most of these high mass
1290: objects into ellipticals contemporaneously to their major star
1291: formation episode.
1292:
1293: The data point towards small galaxies being destroyed and large
1294: galaxies being built by mergers, with the caveat of selection effects
1295: being responsible for parts of this trend. A plausible
1296: interpretation, instead of invoking a high destruction rate due to
1297: mergers, is based on the fact that low mass objects with low star
1298: formation rates (and therefore redder colors) are very likely missing
1299: from the survey. The general trend in the data is for the assembly
1300: rate to become more positive with time. The zero-crossing mass
1301: decreases with time. In high mass objects, the assembly rate starts
1302: out at zero or slightly below, with star formation rates dominating
1303: the initial increase in number density. The assembly rate then
1304: increases, such that at low $z$, merging becomes the dominant process
1305: that increases the number density at masses $\log\Mstar \gtrsim 11$. A
1306: growth of 0.1 -- 0.2~Gyr$^{-1}$ is consistent with our data at $z
1307: \lesssim 1.5$. This is equivalent to about 1 effective major merger
1308: per object in the redshift range $1.5 > z > 0$.
1309:
1310: Synthesizing the above into a picture of the formation of massive
1311: ellipticals, a picture can be drawn in which elliptical galaxies would
1312: have formed their stars quickly and early ($z \gtrsim 2.5$) and
1313: subsequently quenched their star formation, with the highest mass
1314: galaxies forming first, and on the shortest timescale. Their
1315: elliptical morphology may be a consequence of early merging activity
1316: given the merger rate that is consistent with our data at high
1317: redshift ($\sim 0.8$~Gyr$^{-1}$; see above). Later, these galaxies may
1318: continue to evolve along the red sequence, however during this phase
1319: at $z \lesssim 1.5$, not much growth by merging is happening any more
1320: (at most a factor of two in stellar mass).
1321:
1322: At more moderate masses of $10 < \log\Mstar < 11$, we find that the
1323: evolution of the number density due to mergers points towards these
1324: galaxies being preferably destroyed at early times, while at later
1325: times the change in their numbers turns positive. At lower redshift,
1326: the number density of progressively lower mass galaxies starts to
1327: increase due to merging. This is a direct confirmation of the top-down
1328: buildup of the red sequence suggested by recent observations (e.g.\
1329: \citealp{Belletal2004,Faberetal05,Bundyetal06,Belletal07}) and the
1330: simultaneous shutdown of star formation in these objects.
1331:
1332: The results presented here do depend on some assumptions that we had
1333: to make, mainly due to general deficiencies of current observations
1334: and more specifically of the dataset we have at hand. Assuming that
1335: the faint-end slope of the MF does not evolve is consistent with the
1336: observations only up to $z \lesssim 2$
1337: \citep{FDFGOODS05,Fontanaetal06}. A steeper faint-end slope is
1338: possible due to faint objects (with lower star formation rates than
1339: the detected ones) being missed due to the survey flux
1340: limit. Therefore, a steeper faint-end slope of the MF also means a
1341: flatter average star formation rate, and hence a larger assembly rate
1342: at low masses.
1343:
1344: The fitting function one chooses to use to describe the evolution of
1345: the mass function also affects the results. For example, a power-law
1346: fit to the evolution of $\phi^*$ constrains the derivative of the MF
1347: w.r.t.\ time, and thus limits the possible range of assembly
1348: rates. Ideally, one would like to have MF data robust enough to be
1349: used to measured derivatives directly and avoid the use of fitting
1350: formulae entirely.
1351:
1352: The choice of a single average value for the SFR at each mass and
1353: redshift also affects the results. In reality, galaxies show a range
1354: of activity at fixed mass. Allowing for such a range of possible
1355: values instead of a single number would lend the method more
1356: flexibility, but also demands much higher quality star formation data
1357: with better-understood selection effects.
1358:
1359: The current generation of ongoing large-area surveys offer the
1360: possibility to further explore the build up of the red sequence. With
1361: a much larger number of red and massive objects, one could improve on
1362: the analysis presented above in various ways. Studying merger
1363: processes as a function of the environment is one such
1364: possibility. Another promising approach is to separate galaxies into
1365: passive objects and objects that are actively forming stars. One can
1366: then apply our method to these two classes of objects individually,
1367: adding another term to eq.~(\ref{eq:merge2}) that describes the rate
1368: of migration between the two sequences. This will allow to investigate
1369: the relation between merging activity and quenching of star formation
1370: in a very direct way.
1371:
1372: %% ------------------------------------------------------------------
1373: %% ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
1374: %% ------------------------------------------------------------------
1375:
1376: \acknowledgments
1377:
1378: We wish to thank Peter Schuecker, Roberto Saglia, and Ralf Bender for
1379: stimulating and encouraging discussions. We thank Ulrich Hopp for
1380: commenting on an early version of the manuscript. We thank the
1381: anonymous referee for providing valuable feedback.
1382:
1383: %% ------------------------------------------------------------------
1384: %% REFERENCES
1385: %% ------------------------------------------------------------------
1386:
1387: %\bibliography{literature} \bibliographystyle{apj}
1388: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1389:
1390: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Bauer} et~al.}{{Bauer} et~al.}{2005}]{BDHF04}
1391: {Bauer}, A.~E., {Drory}, N., {Hill}, G.~J., \& {Feulner}, G. 2005, \apjl, 621,
1392: L89
1393:
1394: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Bell} et~al.}{{Bell} et~al.}{2003}]{BMKW03}
1395: {Bell}, E.~F., {McIntosh}, D.~H., {Katz}, N., \& {Weinberg}, M.~D. 2003,
1396: \apjs, 149, 289
1397:
1398: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Bell} et~al.}{{Bell}
1399: et~al.}{2006a}]{Belletal06a}
1400: {Bell}, E.~F., et~al. 2006a, \apj, 640, 241
1401:
1402: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Bell} et~al.}{{Bell}
1403: et~al.}{2005}]{Belletal05}
1404: {Bell}, E.~F., et~al. 2005, \apj, 625, 23
1405:
1406: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Bell} et~al.}{{Bell}
1407: et~al.}{2006b}]{Belletal06b}
1408: {Bell}, E.~F., {Phleps}, S., {Somerville}, R.~S., {Wolf}, C., {Borch}, A., \&
1409: {Meisenheimer}, K. 2006b, \apj, 652, 270
1410:
1411: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Bell} et~al.}{{Bell}
1412: et~al.}{2004}]{Belletal2004}
1413: {Bell}, E.~F., et~al. 2004, \apj, 608, 752
1414:
1415: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Bell} et~al.}{{Bell}
1416: et~al.}{2007}]{Belletal07}
1417: {Bell}, E.~F., {Zheng}, X.~Z., {Papovich}, C., {Borch}, A., {Wolf}, C., \&
1418: {Meisenheimer}, K. 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 704
1419:
1420: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Bender}, {Ziegler}, \& {Bruzual}}{{Bender}
1421: et~al.}{1996}]{BZB96}
1422: {Bender}, R., {Ziegler}, B., \& {Bruzual}, G. 1996, \apjl, 463, L51
1423:
1424: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Borch} et~al.}{{Borch}
1425: et~al.}{2006}]{Borchetal06}
1426: {Borch}, A., et~al. 2006, \aap, 453, 869
1427:
1428: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Bouwens} et~al.}{{Bouwens}
1429: et~al.}{2006}]{Bouwensetal06}
1430: {Bouwens}, R.~J., {Illingworth}, G.~D., {Blakeslee}, J.~P., \& {Franx}, M.
1431: 2006, \apj, 653, 53
1432:
1433: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Brinchmann} et~al.}{{Brinchmann}
1434: et~al.}{2004}]{Brinchmannetal04}
1435: {Brinchmann}, J., {Charlot}, S., {White}, S.~D.~M., {Tremonti}, C.,
1436: {Kauffmann}, G., {Heckman}, T., \& {Brinkmann}, J. 2004, \mnras, 351, 1151
1437:
1438: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Brinchmann} \& {Ellis}}{{Brinchmann} \&
1439: {Ellis}}{2000}]{BE00}
1440: {Brinchmann}, J., \& {Ellis}, R.~S. 2000, \apjl, 536, L77
1441:
1442: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Bundy}, {Ellis}, \& {Conselice}}{{Bundy}
1443: et~al.}{2005}]{Bundyetal05}
1444: {Bundy}, K., {Ellis}, R.~S., \& {Conselice}, C.~J. 2005, \apj, 625, 621
1445:
1446: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Bundy} et~al.}{{Bundy}
1447: et~al.}{2006}]{Bundyetal06}
1448: {Bundy}, K., et~al. 2006, \apj, 651, 120
1449:
1450: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Bundy} et~al.}{{Bundy}
1451: et~al.}{2004}]{Bundyetal04}
1452: {Bundy}, K., {Fukugita}, M., {Ellis}, R.~S., {Kodama}, T., \& {Conselice},
1453: C.~J. 2004, \apjl, 601, L123
1454:
1455: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Burkey} et~al.}{{Burkey}
1456: et~al.}{1994}]{BKWF94}
1457: {Burkey}, J.~M., {Keel}, W.~C., {Windhorst}, R.~A., \& {Franklin}, B.~E. 1994,
1458: \apjl, 429, L13
1459:
1460: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Carlberg} et~al.}{{Carlberg}
1461: et~al.}{2000}]{Carlbergetal00b}
1462: {Carlberg}, R.~G., et~al. 2000, \apjl, 532, L1
1463:
1464: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Chapman} et~al.}{{Chapman}
1465: et~al.}{2005}]{CBSI05}
1466: {Chapman}, S.~C., {Blain}, A.~W., {Smail}, I., \& {Ivison}, R.~J. 2005, \apj,
1467: 622, 772
1468:
1469: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Cohen}}{{Cohen}}{2002}]{Cohen02}
1470: {Cohen}, J.~G. 2002, \apj, 567, 672
1471:
1472: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Cole} et~al.}{{Cole} et~al.}{2001}]{2dF01}
1473: {Cole}, S., et~al. 2001, \mnras, 326, 255
1474:
1475: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Conselice}}{{Conselice}}{2006}]{Conselice06}
1476: {Conselice}, C.~J. 2006, \apj, 638, 686
1477:
1478: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Conselice}, {Blackburne}, \&
1479: {Papovich}}{{Conselice} et~al.}{2005}]{CBP05}
1480: {Conselice}, C.~J., {Blackburne}, J.~A., \& {Papovich}, C. 2005, \apj, 620,
1481: 564
1482:
1483: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Cowie} et~al.}{{Cowie} et~al.}{1996}]{CSHC96}
1484: {Cowie}, L.~L., {Songaila}, A., {Hu}, E.~M., \& {Cohen}, J.~G. 1996, \aj, 112,
1485: 839
1486:
1487: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Daddi} et~al.}{{Daddi}
1488: et~al.}{2005}]{Daddietal05b}
1489: {Daddi}, E., et~al. 2005, \apjl, 631, L13
1490:
1491: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Daddi} et~al.}{{Daddi}
1492: et~al.}{2007}]{Daddietal07}
1493: {Daddi}, E., et~al. 2007, \apj, 670, 156
1494:
1495: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{De Propris} et~al.}{{De Propris}
1496: et~al.}{2005}]{DePetal05}
1497: {De Propris}, R., {Liske}, J., {Driver}, S.~P., {Allen}, P.~D., \& {Cross},
1498: N.~J.~G. 2005, \aj, 130, 1516
1499:
1500: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Dickinson} et~al.}{{Dickinson}
1501: et~al.}{2003}]{DPFB03}
1502: {Dickinson}, M., {Papovich}, C., {Ferguson}, H.~C., \& {Budav{\' a}ri}, T.
1503: 2003, \apj, 587, 25
1504:
1505: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Drory} et~al.}{{Drory}
1506: et~al.}{2004}]{MUNICS6}
1507: {Drory}, N., {Bender}, R., {Feulner}, G., {Hopp}, U., {Maraston}, C.,
1508: {Snigula}, J., \& {Hill}, G.~J. 2004, \apj, 608, 742
1509:
1510: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Drory} et~al.}{{Drory}
1511: et~al.}{2001}]{MUNICS3}
1512: {Drory}, N., {Bender}, R., {Snigula}, J., {Feulner}, G., {Hopp}, U.,
1513: {Maraston}, C., {Hill}, G.~J., \& {de Oliveira}, C.~M. 2001, \apjl, 562,
1514: L111
1515:
1516: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Drory} et~al.}{{Drory}
1517: et~al.}{2005}]{FDFGOODS05}
1518: {Drory}, N., {Salvato}, M., {Gabasch}, A., {Bender}, R., {Hopp}, U., {Feulner},
1519: G., \& {Pannella}, M. 2005, \apjl, 619, L131
1520:
1521: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Eyles} et~al.}{{Eyles}
1522: et~al.}{2007}]{EBELSSC07}
1523: {Eyles}, L.~P., {Bunker}, A.~J., {Ellis}, R.~S., {Lacy}, M., {Stanway}, E.~R.,
1524: {Stark}, D.~P., \& {Chiu}, K. 2007, \mnras, 374, 910
1525:
1526: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Faber} et~al.}{{Faber}
1527: et~al.}{2005}]{Faberetal05}
1528: {Faber}, S.~M., et~al. 2005, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints
1529:
1530: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Feulner} et~al.}{{Feulner}
1531: et~al.}{2005a}]{Feulneretal05}
1532: {Feulner}, G., {Gabasch}, A., {Salvato}, M., {Drory}, N., {Hopp}, U., \&
1533: {Bender}, R. 2005a, \apjl, 633, L9
1534:
1535: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Feulner} et~al.}{{Feulner}
1536: et~al.}{2005b}]{Feulneretal05b}
1537: {Feulner}, G., {Goranova}, Y., {Drory}, N., {Hopp}, U., \& {Bender}, R. 2005b,
1538: \mnras, 358, L1
1539:
1540: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Feulner}, {Hopp}, \& {Botzler}}{{Feulner}
1541: et~al.}{2006}]{FHB06}
1542: {Feulner}, G., {Hopp}, U., \& {Botzler}, C.~S. 2006, \aap, 451, L13
1543:
1544: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Flores} et~al.}{{Flores}
1545: et~al.}{1999}]{Floresetal99}
1546: {Flores}, H., et~al. 1999, \apj, 517, 148
1547:
1548: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Fontana} et~al.}{{Fontana}
1549: et~al.}{2003}]{Fontanaetal03}
1550: {Fontana}, A., et~al. 2003, \apjl, 594, L9
1551:
1552: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Fontana} et~al.}{{Fontana}
1553: et~al.}{2004}]{K20-04}
1554: {Fontana}, A., et~al. 2004, \aap, 424, 23
1555:
1556: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Fontana} et~al.}{{Fontana}
1557: et~al.}{2006}]{Fontanaetal06}
1558: {Fontana}, A., et~al. 2006, \aap, 459, 745
1559:
1560: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Gabasch} et~al.}{{Gabasch}
1561: et~al.}{2004a}]{Gabasch04}
1562: {Gabasch}, A., et~al. 2004a, \aap, 421, 41
1563:
1564: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Gabasch} et~al.}{{Gabasch}
1565: et~al.}{2004b}]{Gabasch04a}
1566: {Gabasch}, A., et~al. 2004b, \apjl, 616, L83
1567:
1568: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Genzel} et~al.}{{Genzel}
1569: et~al.}{2001}]{Genzeletal01}
1570: {Genzel}, R., {Tacconi}, L.~J., {Rigopoulou}, D., {Lutz}, D., \& {Tecza}, M.
1571: 2001, \apj, 563, 527
1572:
1573: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Glazebrook} et~al.}{{Glazebrook}
1574: et~al.}{2004}]{GDDS2}
1575: {Glazebrook}, K., et~al. 2004, \nat, 430, 181
1576:
1577: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Gottl{\"o}ber} et~al.}{{Gottl{\"o}ber}
1578: et~al.}{2002}]{Gottloberetal02}
1579: {Gottl{\"o}ber}, S., {Kerscher}, M., {Kravtsov}, A.~V., {Faltenbacher}, A.,
1580: {Klypin}, A., \& {M{\"u}ller}, V. 2002, \aap, 387, 778
1581:
1582: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Gottl{\"o}ber}, {Klypin}, \&
1583: {Kravtsov}}{{Gottl{\"o}ber} et~al.}{2001}]{Gottloberetal01}
1584: {Gottl{\"o}ber}, S., {Klypin}, A., \& {Kravtsov}, A.~V. 2001, \apj, 546, 223
1585:
1586: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Goudfrooij} et~al.}{{Goudfrooij}
1587: et~al.}{2001}]{GMKMM01}
1588: {Goudfrooij}, P., {Mack}, J., {Kissler-Patig}, M., {Meylan}, G., \& {Minniti},
1589: D. 2001, \mnras, 322, 643
1590:
1591: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Governato} et~al.}{{Governato}
1592: et~al.}{1999}]{Governatoetal99}
1593: {Governato}, F., {Gardner}, J.~P., {Stadel}, J., {Quinn}, T., \& {Lake}, G.
1594: 1999, \aj, 117, 1651
1595:
1596: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Grazian} et~al.}{{Grazian}
1597: et~al.}{2007}]{Grazianetal07}
1598: {Grazian}, A., et~al. 2007, \aap, 465, 393
1599:
1600: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Heavens} et~al.}{{Heavens}
1601: et~al.}{2004}]{HPJD04}
1602: {Heavens}, A., {Panter}, B., {Jimenez}, R., \& {Dunlop}, J. 2004, \nat, 428,
1603: 625
1604:
1605: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Heidt} et~al.}{{Heidt} et~al.}{2003}]{FDF1}
1606: {Heidt}, J., et~al. 2003, \aap, 398, 49
1607:
1608: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Hopkins} \& {Beacom}}{{Hopkins} \&
1609: {Beacom}}{2006}]{HB06}
1610: {Hopkins}, A.~M., \& {Beacom}, J.~F. 2006, \apj, 651, 142
1611:
1612: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Juneau} et~al.}{{Juneau}
1613: et~al.}{2005}]{Juneauetal05}
1614: {Juneau}, S., et~al. 2005, \apjl, 619, L135
1615:
1616: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Kartaltepe} et~al.}{{Kartaltepe}
1617: et~al.}{2007}]{Kartaltepeetal07}
1618: {Kartaltepe}, J.~S., et~al. 2007, \apjs, 172, 320
1619:
1620: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Kauffmann} et~al.}{{Kauffmann}
1621: et~al.}{2003a}]{Kauffmannetal03a}
1622: {Kauffmann}, G., et~al. 2003a, \mnras, 341, 33
1623:
1624: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Kauffmann} et~al.}{{Kauffmann}
1625: et~al.}{2003b}]{Kauffmannetal03b}
1626: {Kauffmann}, G., et~al. 2003b, \mnras, 341, 54
1627:
1628: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Kennicutt}}{{Kennicutt}}{1998a}]{KennicuttAR%
1629: AA98}
1630: {Kennicutt}, R.~C., Jr. 1998a, \araa, 36, 189
1631:
1632: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Kennicutt}}{{Kennicutt}}{1998b}]{Kennicutt98}
1633: {Kennicutt}, R.~C., Jr. 1998b, \apj, 498, 541
1634:
1635: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Labb{\' e}} et~al.}{{Labb{\' e}}
1636: et~al.}{2003}]{FIRES03}
1637: {Labb{\' e}}, I., et~al. 2003, \aj, 125, 1107
1638:
1639: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Le F{\`e}vre} et~al.}{{Le F{\`e}vre}
1640: et~al.}{2000}]{LeFevreetal00}
1641: {Le F{\`e}vre}, O., et~al. 2000, \mnras, 311, 565
1642:
1643: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Lilly} et~al.}{{Lilly} et~al.}{1996}]{CFRS96}
1644: {Lilly}, S.~J., {Le F{\`e}vre}, O., {Hammer}, F., \& {Crampton}, D. 1996,
1645: \apjl, 460, L1
1646:
1647: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Lin} et~al.}{{Lin} et~al.}{2004}]{Linetal04}
1648: {Lin}, L., et~al. 2004, \apjl, 617, L9
1649:
1650: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Lotz} et~al.}{{Lotz}
1651: et~al.}{2006}]{Lotzetal06}
1652: {Lotz}, J.~M., et~al. 2006, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints
1653:
1654: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Madau} et~al.}{{Madau}
1655: et~al.}{1996}]{Madauetal96}
1656: {Madau}, P., {Ferguson}, H.~C., {Dickinson}, M.~E., {Giavalisco}, M.,
1657: {Steidel}, C.~C., \& {Fruchter}, A. 1996, \mnras, 283, 1388
1658:
1659: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Madau}, {Pozzetti}, \& {Dickinson}}{{Madau}
1660: et~al.}{1998}]{MPD98}
1661: {Madau}, P., {Pozzetti}, L., \& {Dickinson}, M. 1998, \apj, 498, 106
1662:
1663: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Mo}, {Mao}, \& {White}}{{Mo}
1664: et~al.}{1998}]{MMW98}
1665: {Mo}, H.~J., {Mao}, S., \& {White}, S.~D.~M. 1998, \mnras, 295, 319
1666:
1667: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Nagamine} et~al.}{{Nagamine}
1668: et~al.}{2006}]{NOFC06}
1669: {Nagamine}, K., {Ostriker}, J.~P., {Fukugita}, M., \& {Cen}, R. 2006, \apj,
1670: 653, 881
1671:
1672: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Neuschaefer} et~al.}{{Neuschaefer}
1673: et~al.}{1997}]{NIRGC97}
1674: {Neuschaefer}, L.~W., {Im}, M., {Ratnatunga}, K.~U., {Griffiths}, R.~E., \&
1675: {Casertano}, S. 1997, \apj, 480, 59
1676:
1677: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Noeske} et~al.}{{Noeske}
1678: et~al.}{2007a}]{Noeskeetal07b}
1679: {Noeske}, K.~G., et~al. 2007a, \apjl, 660, L47
1680:
1681: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Noeske} et~al.}{{Noeske}
1682: et~al.}{2007b}]{Noeskeetal07a}
1683: {Noeske}, K.~G., et~al. 2007b, \apjl, 660, L43
1684:
1685: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Noll} et~al.}{{Noll} et~al.}{2004}]{FDF2}
1686: {Noll}, S., et~al. 2004, \aap, 418, 885
1687:
1688: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Pannella} et~al.}{{Pannella}
1689: et~al.}{2006}]{Panellaetal06}
1690: {Pannella}, M., {Hopp}, U., {Saglia}, R.~P., {Bender}, R., {Drory}, N.,
1691: {Salvato}, M., {Gabasch}, A., \& {Feulner}, G. 2006, \apjl, 639, L1
1692:
1693: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Papovich}, {Dickinson}, \&
1694: {Ferguson}}{{Papovich} et~al.}{2001}]{PDF01}
1695: {Papovich}, C., {Dickinson}, M., \& {Ferguson}, H.~C. 2001, \apj, {in press}
1696:
1697: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Papovich} et~al.}{{Papovich}
1698: et~al.}{2006}]{Papovichetal06}
1699: {Papovich}, C., et~al. 2006, \apj, 640, 92
1700:
1701: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Patton} et~al.}{{Patton}
1702: et~al.}{2002}]{Pattonetal01}
1703: {Patton}, D.~R., et~al. 2002, \apj, 565, 208
1704:
1705: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Pei}, {Fall}, \& {Hauser}}{{Pei}
1706: et~al.}{1999}]{PFH99}
1707: {Pei}, Y.~C., {Fall}, S.~M., \& {Hauser}, M.~G. 1999, \apj, 522, 604
1708:
1709: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{P{\'e}rez-Gonz{\'a}lez}
1710: et~al.}{{P{\'e}rez-Gonz{\'a}lez} et~al.}{2003a}]{PerezGonzalez03a}
1711: {P{\'e}rez-Gonz{\'a}lez}, P.~G., {Gallego}, J., {Zamorano}, J.,
1712: {Alonso-Herrero}, A., {Gil de Paz}, A., \& {Arag{\'o}n-Salamanca}, A. 2003a,
1713: \apjl, 587, L27
1714:
1715: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{P{\'e}rez-Gonz{\'a}lez}
1716: et~al.}{{P{\'e}rez-Gonz{\'a}lez} et~al.}{2003b}]{PerezGonzalez03b}
1717: {P{\'e}rez-Gonz{\'a}lez}, P.~G., {Gil de Paz}, A., {Zamorano}, J., {Gallego},
1718: J., {Alonso-Herrero}, A., \& {Arag{\'o}n-Salamanca}, A. 2003b, \mnras, 338,
1719: 525
1720:
1721: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{P{\'e}rez-Gonz{\'a}lez}
1722: et~al.}{{P{\'e}rez-Gonz{\'a}lez} et~al.}{2005}]{PerezGonzalez05}
1723: {P{\'e}rez-Gonz{\'a}lez}, P.~G., et~al. 2005, \apj, 630, 82
1724:
1725: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Pozzetti} et~al.}{{Pozzetti}
1726: et~al.}{2007}]{Pozzettietal07}
1727: {Pozzetti}, L., et~al. 2007, \aap, 474, 443
1728:
1729: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Press} \& {Schechter}}{{Press} \&
1730: {Schechter}}{1974}]{PS74}
1731: {Press}, W.~H., \& {Schechter}, P. 1974, \apj, 187, 425
1732:
1733: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Reddy} et~al.}{{Reddy}
1734: et~al.}{2005}]{Reddyetal05}
1735: {Reddy}, N.~A., {Erb}, D.~K., {Steidel}, C.~C., {Shapley}, A.~E., {Adelberger},
1736: K.~L., \& {Pettini}, M. 2005, \apj, 633, 748
1737:
1738: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Renzini}}{{Renzini}}{2006}]{Renzini06}
1739: {Renzini}, A. 2006, \araa, 44, 141
1740:
1741: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Rudnick} et~al.}{{Rudnick}
1742: et~al.}{2006}]{Rudnicketal06}
1743: {Rudnick}, G., et~al. 2006, \apj, 650, 624
1744:
1745: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Rudnick} et~al.}{{Rudnick}
1746: et~al.}{2003}]{Rudnicketal03}
1747: {Rudnick}, G., et~al. 2003, \apj, 599, 847
1748:
1749: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Salim} et~al.}{{Salim}
1750: et~al.}{2005}]{Salimetal05}
1751: {Salim}, S., et~al. 2005, \apjl, 619, L39
1752:
1753: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Sandage}}{{Sandage}}{1986}]{Sandage89}
1754: {Sandage}, A. 1986, \aap, 161, 89
1755:
1756: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Schweizer}}{{Schweizer}}{1982}]{Schweizer82}
1757: {Schweizer}, F. 1982, \apj, 252, 455
1758:
1759: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Silk}}{{Silk}}{1997}]{Silk97}
1760: {Silk}, J. 1997, \apj, 481, 703
1761:
1762: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Stark} et~al.}{{Stark}
1763: et~al.}{2007}]{SBEEL07}
1764: {Stark}, D.~P., {Bunker}, A.~J., {Ellis}, R.~S., {Eyles}, L.~P., \& {Lacy}, M.
1765: 2007, \apj, 659, 84
1766:
1767: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Thomas} et~al.}{{Thomas}
1768: et~al.}{2005}]{TMBM05}
1769: {Thomas}, D., {Maraston}, C., {Bender}, R., \& {Mendes de Oliveira}, C. 2005,
1770: \apj, 621, 673
1771:
1772: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Thompson} et~al.}{{Thompson}
1773: et~al.}{2006}]{Thompsonetal06}
1774: {Thompson}, R.~I., {Eisenstein}, D., {Fan}, X., {Dickinson}, M., {Illingworth},
1775: G., \& {Kennicutt}, R.~C., Jr. 2006, \apj, 647, 787
1776:
1777: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Treu} et~al.}{{Treu}
1778: et~al.}{2001}]{Treuetal01c}
1779: {Treu}, T., {Stiavelli}, M., {Bertin}, G., {Casertano}, S., \& {M{\o}ller}, P.
1780: 2001, \mnras, 326, 237
1781:
1782: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{van de Ven}, {van Dokkum}, \& {Franx}}{{van
1783: de Ven} et~al.}{2003}]{VDF03}
1784: {van de Ven}, G., {van Dokkum}, P.~G., \& {Franx}, M. 2003, \mnras, 344, 924
1785:
1786: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{van der Wel} et~al.}{{van der Wel}
1787: et~al.}{2005}]{VdWetal05}
1788: {van der Wel}, A., {Franx}, M., {van Dokkum}, P.~G., {Rix}, H.-W.,
1789: {Illingworth}, G.~D., \& {Rosati}, P. 2005, \apj, 631, 145
1790:
1791: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{van Dokkum}}{{van Dokkum}}{2005}]{vD05}
1792: {van Dokkum}, P.~G. 2005, \aj, 130, 2647
1793:
1794: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Wang}, {Cowie}, \& {Barger}}{{Wang}
1795: et~al.}{2006}]{WCB06}
1796: {Wang}, W.-H., {Cowie}, L.~L., \& {Barger}, A.~J. 2006, \apj, 647, 74
1797:
1798: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Whitmore} et~al.}{{Whitmore}
1799: et~al.}{1997}]{WMSF97}
1800: {Whitmore}, B.~C., {Miller}, B.~W., {Schweizer}, F., \& {Fall}, S.~M. 1997,
1801: \aj, 114, 1797
1802:
1803: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Xu}, {Sun}, \& {He}}{{Xu}
1804: et~al.}{2004}]{XSH04}
1805: {Xu}, C.~K., {Sun}, Y.~C., \& {He}, X.~T. 2004, \apjl, 603, L73
1806:
1807: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Yan} et~al.}{{Yan} et~al.}{2006}]{Yanetal06}
1808: {Yan}, H., {Dickinson}, M., {Giavalisco}, M., {Stern}, D., {Eisenhardt},
1809: P.~R.~M., \& {Ferguson}, H.~C. 2006, \apj, 651, 24
1810:
1811: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Yee} \& {Ellingson}}{{Yee} \&
1812: {Ellingson}}{1995}]{YE95}
1813: {Yee}, H.~K.~C., \& {Ellingson}, E. 1995, \apj, 445, 37
1814:
1815: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Zepf} \& {Koo}}{{Zepf} \& {Koo}}{1989}]{ZK89}
1816: {Zepf}, S.~E., \& {Koo}, D.~C. 1989, \apj, 337, 34
1817:
1818: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Zheng} et~al.}{{Zheng}
1819: et~al.}{2007}]{Zhengetal07}
1820: {Zheng}, X.~Z., {Bell}, E.~F., {Papovich}, C., {Wolf}, C., {Meisenheimer}, K.,
1821: {Rix}, H.-W., {Rieke}, G.~H., \& {Somerville}, R. 2007, ArXiv Astrophysics
1822: e-prints
1823:
1824: \end{thebibliography}
1825:
1826:
1827: \end{document}
1828:
1829:
1830: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1831: % EMACS Stuff
1832: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1833:
1834: % Local Variables:
1835: % TeX-command-default: "latexmk-pdfdvi"
1836: % reftex-cite-format: natbib
1837: % ispell-local-dictionary: "english"
1838: % LocalWords: NIR IR SED SEDs QSO SSP SSps CSP CSPs Gyr yr RA QSOs
1839: % LocalWords: 2MASS 2dF SDSS PLE MF LF SF SFR GSMF
1840: % End:
1841: